Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SEPA E05-012 - CITY OF TUKWILA / PUBLIC WORKS - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
SEPA UPDATE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT E05 -012 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development / 6300 Southcenter BI, Suite 100 / Tukwila, WA 98188 / (206)431 -3670 DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) File Number: E05-012 Applied: 08/30/2005 Issue Date: 10/17/2005 Status: ISSUED Applicant: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Lead Agency: City of Tukwila Description of Proposal: UPDATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT POLICIES AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION (TRANSPORTATION PLAN, TRANSIT PLAN) TO ADDRESS CHANGED CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS. POLICIES PROVIDE BASIS FOR IMPACT FEES, CONCURRENCY ORDINANCE. Location of Proposal: Address: Parcel Number: Section/Township/Range: CITY -WIDE The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2) (c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued under WAC 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431 -3670 l013o/ oS J0' ii /o$ Date Any appeal shall be linked to a specific governmental action. The State Environmental Policy Act is not intended to create a cause of action unrelated to a specific governmental action. Appeals of environmental determinations shall be commenced within the tir'ne period to appeal the governmental action that is subject to environmental review. (RCW 43.21 C.075) doc: DNS E05 -012 Printed: 10-17-2005 Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION . . I•( HEREBY DECLARE THAT: . Notice of Public Hearing N( 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 Offi.cial.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 11? day of0Cf7 in the year 20 .. _ . ''',.--.. '---i'-'-:44"•4'!,- . , . ; Project Name: TliCk-' Wi (a. e Ix Project Number: la 69---t) -1:i Mailer's Signature: Pei..soiisequesting mailing: P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS/AFFIDAVIT-MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM CMt.d'L1.7I: =ray Raa ramu. I nL. .�a....�...... .....�r...�. �....... .... .. ..___ • FEDERAL AGENCIES ( ) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ( ) DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE • () 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 DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE Pif DEV. O DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. () DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELAND DIV 14DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION* 'U OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL END CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS'') • SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION 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 SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES ( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) TUKWILA LIBRARY () RENTON LIBRARY • () KENT LIBRARY ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY () OWEST ( ) SEATTLE CITY LIGHT ( ) PUGET SOUND ENERGY ( ) HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) AT &T CABLE SERVICES () KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: () PUBLIC WORKS () FIRE ( ) POLICE ( ) FINANCE () PLANNING () BUILDING () PARKS & REC. () MAYOR ( ) CITY CLERK UTILITIES CITY AGENCIES () HEALTH DEPT ( ) PORT OF SEATTLE () KC. DEV & ENV!R SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR ( ) K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL () K.C. LAND & WATER RESOURCES () FOSTER LIBRARY () K C PUBLIC LIBRARY ()HIGHLINE 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 SEWERANATER 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 PING PROJ. OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES () PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( ) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE () MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE ( ) CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM () FISHERIES PROGRAM ( ) WILDLIFE PROGRAM MEDIA ( ) SEATTLE TIMES ( ) SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL P: WDMINISTRATIV E \FORMS \CHKLIST.DOC () DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE () P.S. AIR POLLUTION CLEAN AGENCY () SOUND TRANSIT () DUWAMISH RIVER CLEAN -UP COALITION 'SEND NOTICE OF AU. APPUCATIONS ON OUWAMISH RIVER ( ) HIGHLINE TIMES ( ) CI.TUKWILA.WA.US.WWW PL110,IC NOTICE MAILINGS FOR PIPITS 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 Attomey 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:\ADMINISTRATIVE\FORMS \CHKLIST. DOC MEMORANDUM October 17, 2005 To: Steve Lancaster From: Rebecca Fox, Senior Planner 4 Re: Project File #E04 -012: Update Transportation Element (Comprehensive Plan) Project Description: This is a non - project action to update the Comprehensive Plan's Transportation Element. The policies apply to all areas within the City limits. Proponent: Tukwila Department of Public Works Location: City-wide Date Checklist Prepared: August 30, 2005 • Lead Agency: City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development Recommendation: Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) Existing Environmental Information: Final Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Statement (November, 1995) Background: The Transportation Element is being updated to bring it into compliance with state laws, to update information on existing conditions, and clarify future projections. In 1995, Tukwila adopted a Comprehensive Plan in keeping with the Growth Management Act (GMA). The Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element established- level of service standards, identified needed improvements, and presented a funding strategy. In 2004, the Transportation Element had minor updates to bring it into line with changes to the GMA. The Public Works Department has prepared several studies to update information on transportation conditions in Tukwila, including the Tukwila Transit Plan (4/05), and the RF Page 1 of 2 10 /17/05 1 1:24 AM Q: \2005 Comp Plan amendments \SEPA 2005 Transp Element Update - -E05 -012 staff rept..doc Comprehensive Transportation Plan (10/05). These studies provide the background for the current full -scale update to Transportation Element policies, including planning for 2020 growth impacts. This background material, as well as the updated six -year Transportation Improvement Plan, six -year Capital Improvement Plan and the budget are all adopted by reference in the Tukwila Transportation Plan. The policies provide the framework, basic assumptions, and methodologies for a revised Concurrency Ordinance, as well as a new Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance. Summary of Policy Changes: Background information for the Transportation Element emphasizes the need to balance growth, along with traffic congestion (measured with the level of service standards) and the resources needed to fund new capital facilities. The Transportation Plan identifies specific capital improvements needed to maintain desired LOS levels throughout Tukwila. It considers Transportation Improvement Fees (TIF) as a possible means to pay for them., and discusses methods to develop and implement such a funding source. New Transportation Element policies include the following: 1) focus on highest possible transportation efficiency while balancing the needs to provide streets that maximize traffic movement with streets that are designed to be consistent with existing and desired land uses ; 2) Support of programs that promote water and regional air quality; 3) Use of adopted LOS standards that vary by differing levels of development patterns. to guide City improvement and development approval decisions; 4) Use of a regularly updated impact fee system with specific parameters; 5) Pursuit of LIDS and other funding sources that are not fully funded by grants, impact fees and other local sources. Summary of Major Impacts: The major impact is expected to be a more direct linkage of funding to project development and implementation through use of impact fees. Level of Service Standards will be more precisely applied and will vary according to the development patterns, character of streets, and growth management objectives for individual areas in Tukwila. The policies provide the framework for revising the Concurrency Ordinance, and developing a Transportation/Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance. Recommendation Determination of Nonsignificance RF Page 2 of 2 Q: \2005 Comp Plan amendments \SEPA 2005 Transp Element Update - -E05 -012 staff rept..doc 10/17/05 11:24 AM Rebecca Fox - Transp. Element SEPA. . From: Rebecca Fox To: Cyndy Knighton Date: 9/21/05 12:12 PM Subject: Ttansp. Element SEPA • Page 1 Cyndy, The additional wording completes the SEPA application /checklist. Thanks. Rebecca Rebecca Fox - Re: SEPA application iimplete From: Cyndy Knighton To: Rebecca Fox Date: 9/20/05 1:08PM Subject: Re: SEPA application incomplete • Page 1 I have expanded language which I hope you will find satisfactory. We are not doing a SEPA on the concurrency ordinance at this time and there is some speculation that it will not be required. We are not implementing anything new, just restructuring how the existing tool we have will be applied. If we do a SEPA checklist for the ordinance, it will be exactly the same as this one only we will be substituting the words "Concurrency Ordinance" for "Transportation Element" as it is solely an ordinance to enact the policies set in the transportation element/comp plan. Bottom line is, concurrency and impact fees do not mitigate impacts of this plan. The plan itself has no impacts but plans for future growth and how THOSE impacts can be addressed /mitigated. Concurrency is actually a setting of a minimum level of service standard acceptable to the community and requiring that necessary facilities to maintain that minimum standard be provided concurrent with development. Thus concurrency. The impact fees are part of the funding package available to the City to construct projects necessary to maintain LOS Concurrency. We already have an impact fee, just as we already have a concurrency standard. We are not changing the level of service standard substantially with this update. We are not changing the fact that development must pay for their impacts to projects we deem necessary to maintain concurrency. We are simply changing how that is calculated and updating the projects and project costs - which is already allowed under our existing transportation element and concurrency ordinance. That does nothing to trip generation or reduction of impacts. \ Cyndy »> Rebecca Fox 09/20/05 12:33PM »> Cyndy, Staff has reviewed your SEPA checklist "Transportation Element Update" (File # E05 -012), and has determined that the application is incomplete, Please provide the following additional information to complete the application, and enable us to issue a determination of significance or non - significance: 1) Please address concurrency and impact mitigation fees more specifically in Section 14 D & G (pp. 11 & 12) and Supplemental Section D.6.(p 13). Very briefly (i.e.in two or three sentences) describe the basic ideas behind changes to concurrency and impact fees and their likely effects on reducing or controlling transportation impacts. 2) Do you intend to cover the concurrency and impact fee ordinances in this SEPA review (File #E05 -012)? If so, you must provide the ordinances in order to complete the file. We cannot make determination of significance or non - significance until the application materials are complete. There is a two -week appeal period after the determination is made; generally, this period needs to be over before the Planning Commission can hold its hearing. Please let me know if you have any questions about what's needed to complete the SEPA file, and move forward. Rebecca. CC: Bob Giberson; Jack Pace June 9, 2005 City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Public Works James E Morrow, P.E., Director Mr. Kevin Desmond, General Manager DOT - Metro Transit Division 201 South Jackson Street MS- KSC -TR -0415 Seattle, WA 98104 Subject: Tukwila Transit Center Dear Mr. Desmond: The City requests a partnership with King County to improve the bus facilities at Andover Park West and Baker Boulevard. The current bus stop at Andover Park West and Baker Boulevard, shown on the enclosure, has close to 3,000 average weekday passengers, which is a huge number given that the stop is served by four bus routes and has no ancillary parking. Lack of sufficient facilities causes a substandard wait for these passengers as well as damage to adjacent property. Timing seems propitious for a transit center because of the surrounding area's redevelopment, particularly the mall's expansion plans and the City's land use, transit, and transportation planning. Westfield, the owner of Southcenter mall, is planning a major renovation and expansion that will enhance the transition to the bus stop on Andover Park West as well as to a stop on Strander Boulevard. They will also be contributing additional land and $500,000 toward the improvement of the APW bus stop. A location for a transit center for Tukwila has been identified and is based upon analysis that is summarized in the City's Transit Study. Within the study is the conclusion that the preferred location for a transit center is at the intersection of Baker Boulevard and Andover Park West. Tukwila has taken the following steps to ensure the transit center's future: • Identified the Urban Center Transit Center in the City's 2005 Capital Improvement Program with engineering expected in 2006 and construction in 2008 and a total budget of $3.55 million. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 433 -0179 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665 Mr. Kevin Desmond Page 2 June 9, 2005 • Approved a parking variance for the expansion of the adjacent Mall conditioned upon a $500,000 contribution to the transit center improvement, dedication of additional easement area for the transit center and other transit facilities, construction of covered pedestrian connections and paths between the future transit center and adjacent buildings. • Contracted with David Evans and Associates to determine preliminary costs for a transit center at the preferred location. Staff from King County Metro and the City of Tukwila met to discuss the design program, cost, schedule, and funding of the transit center as well as a suggested procedure for advancing this project. It was agreed at the staff level that each agency would investigate finding $200,000 each in additional funding. Tukwila is ready to commit to $200,000. We request the following three things from the County. First, we request that the County list this project in the County's 2006 Capital Improvement Program. Secondly, we request a financial commitment that will be sufficient to make the project competitive for federal and state funds to supplement the overall funding for the project. Third, we request the County's assistance in requesting grants to complete the project. I look forward to a continuing collaboration on this project. I think that timing is auspicious for a facility investment that supports and increases ridership and transit related development in Tukwila and specifically the Southcenter urban center. Sincerely, clArrnha,_ James F. Morrow, P.E. Public Works Director enclosure QAHOMeu+oIRuu nosaestoom y m.em.aoo City of Tukwila, Washington April 2005 Tukwila Urban Center: Poised for Smart Growth 1) Link Light Rail Station (Open 2009) 2) Westfield Southcenter Mall Expansion (Open 2007) 3) Planned Urban Center "Core" 4) Sounder and Amtrak Station 5) Tukwila Transit Center : 0,;' : 1- 11 '. 1908 = " "- Joint Meeting Tukwila City Council & Planning Commission ....-� Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Councilmembers: • Joe Duffie • Joan Hernandez Rhonda Berry, City Administrator • Pam Carter • Jim Haggerton Pamela Linder, Council President • Dennis Robertson • Dave Fenton Margaret Bratcher, Chair Allan Ekberg, Vice Chair Commissioners: George Malina • Vern. Meryhew• Bill Arthur • Henry Marvin • Lynn Peterson Thursday, June 9, 2005; 7 PM +AV EN ®A+ 1. CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. PRESENTATION Transportation Element Update — Comprehensive Plan -Items distributed with this agenda include: a. Memorandum to Mayor Mullet dated June 1, 2005 b. Notebook Tukwila Transit Plan — Final Report — April, 2005 c. Copy of Notice advertising meeting Staftwill begin briefing the City Council and the Planning.: Commission on information and conclusions from studies.- Supporting the future 'update to the Transportation; Element of the Comprehensive Plan.. 9. ADJOURNMENT Reasonable City Clerk's Office and Tukwila City Hall is wheelchair accessible. accommodations are available at public hearings with advance notice to the 433- 1800/TDD 206 - 248 -2933. This notice is available at www.ci.tukwila.wa.us 206 - in alternate formats with advance notice for those with disabilities. Tukwila Council meetings are audio taped. CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF JOINT MEETING TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL - TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila City Council and the Tukwila Planning Commission will hold a Joint Meeting on Thursday, June 9, 2005 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, WA 98188, hear an update on the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. No official action will be taken. /s/ Jane. E. Cantu, CMC, City Clerk * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Published - the Seattle Times: Friday, June 3, 2005 INFORMATION MEMO To: Mayor Mullet From: Public Works Director Date: June 1, 2005 Subject: Transportation Element Update Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting ISSUE Begin briefing the City Council and the Planning Commission on information and conclusions from studies supporting the future update to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. BACKGROUND In 1990, the Growth Management Act (GMA, RCW 36.70A) became effective, requiring the City of Tukwila to develop a comprehensive land use plan (Comp Plan) that would encourage urban growth within the City limits at densities that would accommodate twenty-year growth projections. In December 1995, the Tukwila Tomorrow plan was adopted. In 2004, a state - mandated update to the Comp Plan was adopted, where specific sections were updated to reflect changed conditions, policies or goals, or modifications to the plan to maintain compliance with the state law. The Transportation Element of the plan was modified only in a minor way, as much of the studies necessary to update the plan were still underway. At this time, much of the work is complete or nearing completion, and a full update to the Transportation Element is planned to be presented for adoption by the end of 2005. ANALYSIS At this time, only the background study, and its associated report, are complete: the Transit Plan, which is being distributed with this memorandum. As important as quality transit service is to Tukwila, it is only a small portion of the entire transportation network under study. It is the intention of the Public Works Department to share the future reports as they are completed. Meanwhile, because of the large amount of necessary information to be shared, an overview of the key points and information will be presented during the joint City Council /Planning Commission meeting on June 9, 2005. Topics to be discussed include: • GMA Requirements • Level of Service Options • Existing Conditions • Future Conditions • Policy Issues • Concurrency, Impact Fee and Funding c: \docume-1 \jack \locals- 1 \temp \inform1.doc RECOMMENDATION No action will be requested at the joint meeting. Discussion of issues and questions only in preparation for future work sessions and public hearings. c: \docume -1 \jack \locals 1 \temp \inform -1. doc City of Tukwila Comprehensive Transportation Plan Steve M. Mullet, Mayor City Cou Pam Linder, Pam Ca Joe Duffie Dave Fenton Jim Haggerton Joan Hernandez Dennis Robertson October 6, 2005 ommission Bratcher, Chair Ge•rge Malina Alan Ekberg Bill Arthur Lynn Peterson Vern Meryhew Henry Marvin TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 II. BACKGROUND 4 TRANSPORTATION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT 4 Roadway Level of Service Methodology 5 Transit Level of Service Methodology 6 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 6 Street Functional Classifications 7 III. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS 9 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE (2002) 9 Outside the Tukwila Urban Center 9 Tukwila Urban Center 9 PUBLIC EtAntORTATION .......r t �, ".14 FREIGHVA D RAIL SPORTATIO Trainolumes ..... r a 14 Truokrransportation 14 NON-MOTORIZED TRA S'ORT TION� 16 IV. 2020 F TURE CO DITIO 4 2020 LAID USELFORECASTS .. "� "1� 19 BASELINE NETWORK 20 Outside the Urban Center Analysis 20 Urban Center Baseline Growth Analysis 21 Urban Center Maximum Growth Analysis with Baseline Network 21 RECOMMENDED NETWORK IN 2020 26 Outside the Urban Center Recommended Network 26 Urban Center Recommended Network 28 19 V. LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS 33 ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE 33 TRANSIT LEVEL OF SERVICE 35 VI. FISCAL ANALYSIS 36 TYPICAL LOCAL STRATEGY FOR TRANSPORTATION FUNDING 37 Application of the principle to selecting funding sources 37 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES 37 Federal funding sources 37 FEDERAL FUNDING IN TUKWILA 38 STATE FUNDING SOURCES 39 STATE FUNDING IN TUKWILA 40 LOCAL FUNDING SOURCES 41 Local funding in Tukwila 41 IMPLICATIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION FUNDING IN TUKWILA 42 Available funding 42 Unmet needs 43 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE 43 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND CONSTRAINTS OF TIFs 44 How A TIF WOULD WORK IN TUKWILA 45 Zone system 45 CONCLUSIONS 45 Page 2 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TBW Page 3 II. BACKGROUND TRANSPORTATION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT The state's 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA) requires each local jurisdiction to identify facility and service needs based on level of service standards for all arterials and transit routes. Level of service standards establish the desired performance of the transportation system and are the measures against which the system's performance is judged. The GMA (specifically in RCW 36.70A.070) further requires that a city's transportation element include specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance any facilities or services that are below an established level of service standard. It also requires that system expansion needs be identified for at least ten years, based on traffic forecasts for the adopted land use plan and level of service standards. ,F,Ma 4rt. ? 3t In 1995, Tukwila adopted itsmst ComprrhensiveLL 'ndJse Pla #aid accordance wit e GMA. Within t document w s the rranspo` Cation EIe , en which es blished level of s ti A standards identified eVe pr,ov,ments, ands rese ted a funding trategy. In ®�4, a minor update a, made to h? Tra ort t�i .e n Eleme o ncl d new equirements on re. enally significa ostate hig i"iv° ys. h s docuu`m nt re o =sen s a 1 upd t- to the Transpo ion Element iratcludin planning to 2020 grph•acts. Under the GMA, if probable funding falls short of meeting identified needs, the jurisdiction is given two options: to raise additional funding, and /or to reassess the land use assumptions that drive the transportation forecasts. It is also possible to lower the LOS standard to accept more traffic congestion. " Concurrency" is the term used to describe the relationship between the LOS standards; the funding needed to accommodate increased travel, and the land use assumptions. The concept of concurrency is illustrated in Figure 11-1 as a three - legged stool. The three legs are: growth; traffic congestion (measured with the level of service standards); and resources needed to fund new capital facilities. Concurrency is achieved when growth is matched with needed facilities. If one or more of the legs is uneven, the stool is unbalanced and one of the following three actions must be taken: Figure II -1: Three - Legged Concurrency Stool • Reduce growth by denying or delaying land use permit applications • Increase funding for new facilities • Change the level of service standard Page 4 Roadway Level of Service Methodology The state GMA does not select a LOS methodology to be used statewide, but it does require each local jurisdiction to choose a level of service (LOS) methodology and establish standards. Level of service is a qualitative measure used to denote intersection - operating conditions. It generally describes levels of traffic congestion at signalized and unsignalized intersections in an urban area. In the City of Tukwila's 1995 Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the volume -to- capacity ratio methodology was used to calculate levels of service. This technique is based on the "Critical Movement Summation" concept developed by traffic engineers in the 1970s to calculate intersection capacity. In essence, LOS with this method compares a calculated critical intersection volume against a benchmark intersection capacity that is stratified by level of service. During the past 20 years, transportation researchers have found that the critical volume -to, capacjty ratio is o f several fact • ghat affect the -le ,ILof s.'ceT { qu- lity of signal or.gressio the cy e�leiigth;;t� e green rase the road �• crossings, vailability of on -s -et par in• and th =ne width wil so influence the level of service. At this ti pie, it is com: gnly •eveo� gong th =tra:spo :on a ©erts that the Hig :.y Capaci Manual ( C ) 20 sQ etho s apr. du the most efu rr sformation by whit to effective .`. u de is d level - =,o. traffic co - ` ion in an urb st = t network. The HCM 2000 methodology can calculate level of service for each approach leg of an intersection, whereas the V/C method cannot. For these reasons, this study used the HCM 2000 delay method to calculate intersection levels of service for signalized intersections within the City of Tukwila. As shown in Table 11 -1, level of service is based on the average delay time per vehicle entering the intersection as defined in the HCM 2000. Level of service is represented on a scale ranging from "A" at the highest level, to "F" at the lowest level. The HCM also provides qualitative descriptions of each level of service rating. Intersection delay is the travel time in seconds experienced by a driver traveling through the intersection, compared with a free flow condition. Table 11 -1: Level of Service Definition A C D E F >10 >10 and >20 >20 and >35 >35 and >55 >55 and >80 >80 >10 >10 and >15 >15 and >25 >25 and >35 >35 and >50 >50 Highest driver comfort. Little delay. Free flow. High degree of driver comfort. Little delay. Some delays. Acceptable level of driver comfort. Efficient traffic operation. Long cycle length. Some driver frustration. Efficient traffic operation. Approaching capacity. Notable delays. High level of driver frustration. Flow breaks down. Excessive delays. Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual LOS A and B represent minimal delays, and LOS C represents a generally acceptable delay. LOS D represents an increasing amount of delay and an increasing number of vehicles stopped Page 5 at the intersection. An intersection with LOS E is approaching capacity and is processing the maximum number of vehicles possible through the intersection. LOS F means that the intersection is operating with excessive delays, meaning that it has a high level of traffic congestion. Vehicles approaching an intersection with LOS F may have to wait for more than one signal cycle to get through the intersection. Transit Level of Service Methodology Transit service, both frequency and time -span of service, is an important aspect of a healthy transportation network. The Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board, establishes level of service standards for transit. Table I -2 - Service Fre • uenc LOS: Urban Scheduled Transit Service B 10 -14 5 -6 Frpq ent servicep. ss , ers consu ` hedules C 0115-20 3 -4 _„ ( xmum desi .b`le tim ait if bu it =in issedl DF: 121-30 2 ' ?" : Service unatt:actE eat, riders E y 131 -60 = 1 _aF, *ce ava [ e du F -....: ' <1 • Ser'�i ,un ctive to all ride, Source: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Ed., 2003 Table 11-3 - Hours of Service LOS YxS �$ �,; �cti ,a-�' Ss %.0 aa.�i Y - � ,hours p ort . .,3, `�+tisi+k°1rG3 7 l F .-o gL� A 19 -24 Night or owl service provided B 17 -18 Late evening service provided C 14 -16 Early evening service provided D 12 -13 Daytime service provided E 4 -11 Peak hour service/limited midday service F 0 -3 Very limited or no service Source: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Ed., 2003 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM The purpose of a transportation system is to provide safe and efficient movement of people and goods. Tukwila's transporation system includes limited access freeways, state highways, arterial streets, access streets, transit service, trails, neighborhood foot paths, and sidewalks. Additionally, King County International Airport (formerly Boeing Field) provides air transportation, the Duwamish /Green River provides water access, and significant freight movement is provided by trucking and the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroads. Freeways serve regional travel. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is responsible for freeways and state highways. Responsibilities include funding, design, maintenance and operation of Interstate 5, Interstate 405, State Route 599, State Route 518, State Route 181 (West Valley Highway) and State Route 900 (Martin Luther King Jr. Way S). Boeing Access Road and E Marginal Way north of Boeing Access Road are designated on the Page 6 National Highway System. Tukwila is responsible for all publicly -owned arterials and access streets that are not state highways. Most of Tukwila's arterial travel occurs in the Urban Center and on principal arterials. The Urban Center and principal arterials are where most of the congestion occurs today and is forecasted to increase. Level of Service is not projected to decrease on access streets or most arterials in residential areas. Demand for bicycle and walking facilities is increasing for commuting, shopping, recreation and exercise purposes. Transit services have increased since 1995 but demand is still increasing for bus service and park- and -ride lot parking. Ridership on Sounder, the commuter rail service, is increasing and the Sounder Station will become a significant factor in the future transportation system. Truck traffic is significant on many of Tukwila's street, especially along Interurban Avenue S, E Margina �-y„ West Valley 'g � and many of �,; streets in The Urb A Center are %cont mix of r to I, offices, e lice include m ignificant ieas evening weekday cor� utet and week-nd pea re hig v g from ware b sing and fight i ntial use :,`Peak n Cent using, as strial. urs are pea mbly and manu nges ar tthTetiaditiona quivalent to the turing to a ely to orning and ning peak Func tonal Classifica ions Table 11-4: Functional Street System Standards There are four classes of streets: principal arterials, minor arterials, collector arterials, and access streets. These four classes of street were developed in recognition of a transition in street use from strictly access to properties to pure mobility and are hierarchical in nature. Freeways serve through traffic with no adjacent land access while access streets provide access to adjoining residential and commercial properties. The differences result in different street widths, access control, speed limit, traffic controls, and other similar design and operation features. Table 11 -5: Typical Functional Classification Distribution t Classification Percent of Netiivork Principal 5 -10% Minor 10-20% Collector 5 -10% Local Access 60 -80% Local Access Collector Arterials Minor Arterials Principal Arterials 50 to 60 ft. 60 ft. 60- 80 ft. 80 to 100 ft. 28- 36 ft. 36 -40 ft. 36 -48ft 60- 84 ft. 25 mph 30 mph 30 to 35 mph 35 to 50 mph (typical — see codes for actual standard) Street functional classifications are used to recognize the differences in street uses. Classifications are assigned based on differences in street purpose, street width, traffic volumes, access control, speed limit, traffic control, linkage and other design and operational characteristics. The functional classifications used in this plan defines three arterial classifications: collectors, minors and principals. Freeways and local access streets are also classified. A typical street classification distribution is shown on Table 11 -5. Tukwila streets have been assigned functional classifications in accordance with standard practice. The classifications are shown on Figure 11 -2 Page 7 Figure 11 -2: Functional Classification Map (larger version pending) City of Tukwila Functional Classification Map Figure 1 Motto Scale Map Legend Freeway - - - Principal ...... -.. Minor Collector City Limits Date: August 7, 2002 Page 8 III. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS Conditions of the transportation network were studied to benchmark how the transportation system functioned in 2002. Roadway Level of Service (LOS) was calculated, an inventory of public transportation options showed options available, pedestrian and other non - motorized uses were studied, and freight movement documented. EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE (2002) Roadway level of service was calculated at key intersections throughout the city. In total, 41 intersections were analyzed. In most cases, the weekday afternoon peak, generally one hour between 4 and 6 p.m. was the peak of the day. In the Urban Center, a few locations peaked in the noon period but were generally comparable to the afternoon peak. The Urban Center also has a weekend peak due to the dominate nature of the retail core. The peak for the weekend traffic fell betwe- 2 to 4 p.rn,,or Sardays. Outside t e Tukwila. rba Figure 111.,i- th= ftern . The corre ponding in ormatio for- Under 200 conditio one Lrliersect intersect eat LO IUD. The i e e - o n of 51St intersectrocur ently operatin at LOS E' owever, it shout under Cty of Seattle jurisdiction. ys for th;= = o : e n sectio f Tukwila. Tukwi9 is shown in Fig 11I -2 . era a at LOS E, and nu '` and Ryan Way he only be oted that this rote ection is Tukwila Urban Center The LOS for the afternoon peak hour is shown for the weekday and for the midday peak hour on Saturday in Figures III -3 through III-4. During the p.m. peak hour, nearly 80 percent of the signalized intersections operate at LOS C or better. Two intersections on the border of the Urban Center operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour - Southcenter Boulevard at 61st Avenue South and Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue South. Two intersections with South 180th Street, at Southcenter Parkway and the West Valley Highway, operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour. The intersections at Tukwila Parkway and 61st Avenue South and at Strander Boulevard and Andover Park East also operate at LOS D. Nearly 80 percent of the intersections within the Tukwila Urban Center operate at LOS C or better during the midday Saturday peak hour (the busiest hour on Saturday between 2 and 4 PM). Page 9 Figure III -1: 2002 Weekday PM Peak Hour Level of Service — North Page 10 Figure III -2: 2002 Weekday PM Peak Hour Level of Service — South Signalized n 106 Delay/Sec Unsignalized 22 LOS Delay/Sec Page 11 Figure III -3: 2002 Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Level of Service — Urban Center Legend: Study Area 12101 .,,.,1,,,,,,,,,,,,„ Trail, Walkway Railroad wignansigni River Freeway Ramp Park Note: not to scale Signalized Intersection L _; LOS Delay (Seconds) Page 12 Figure III-4: 2002 Saturday Peak Hour Level of Service — Urban Center Legend: Study Area Trail, Walkway — - - — - - — Railroad River Freeway Ramp Park Note: not to scale CORP sloth ST 'CORPORATE DR S Signalized Intersection LOS 1 Delay (Seconds) Page 13 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION King County Metro provides bus service throughout the City of Tukwila. Fourteen different routes provide intra - Tukwila service and direct service to Burien, Kent, Auburn, Seattle, Renton, and West Seattle. At this time, Sound Transit does not serve any destinations in Tukwila with Regional Express Bus service. Sounder, the regional commuter rail service, has a stop in Tukwila at Tukwila Station. Sounder commuter rail service currently consists of three trains to Seattle in the morning peak and three trains to Tacoma in the afternoon peak. Figure 111-5 shows the existing routes within Tukwila. The Southcenter Mall is the focal point of transit service within Tukwila. Five routes connect at this location. Of those, Routes 128 and 155 terminate at the Mall and Route 126 terminates at Tukwila Station. The remaining two routes, Route 140 and Route 150, represent the major east -we t and n Ct -south ro"u e i : rou : h Tukwila More de ails on exist' °; o pub is transport. tion ca ; `e u d in th = _. ransit Plan. FREIG ' Y : AND RA R Train Volumes, Mainline tracks for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific Railroad(UPRR) railroads border the west side of the Urban Center. International and local cargo travels over these two rail networks to inland U.S. markets, including the Midwest, South, and East. BNSF operates approximately 30 trains per day through Tukwila, and UPRR operates approximately 20. In addition, Amtrak operates 8 passenger trains per day through the city, and Sound Transit's Sounder Commuter Rail runs 4 passenger trains per day. Increased Sounder frequency is planned in the near future. Overall, rail traffic is expected to increase significantly in the future. Industrial spurs that are operated and controlled by the railroad companies and private property owners are scattered throughout the Urban Center. Many lines have been closed down, or abandoned, but others are still in use. Some lines still being used are very infrequent, but the decision to deactivate them is made by either the railroads or the property owners. Truck Transportation The City of Tukwila's commercial and warehouse businesses generate a substantial amount of truck traffic throughout the city and particularly in the Urban Center. Heavy vehicles (trucks, buses and recreational vehicles) commonly comprise about two percent of general traffic, but at intersections within the Urban Center, AM peak period heavy traffic volumes average eight percent of general traffic. This figure drops to three percent during the noon and PM peak periods. Additional findings are noted below: • The West Valley Highway carries significant heavy vehicle volumes and high percentages of heavy vehicle traffic during AM, noon and PM peak periods • S 180th Street between Andover Park West and the West Valley Highway also shows sustained high volumes of heavy vehicle traffic throughout the day Page 14 Figure III -5: Existing Tukwila Routes 110111101\1• Legend e>_ Route 110 eaaa� Route 110 Partial - 4126 le ors Route 128 eme Route 140 - Route 140 Partial mew Route 150 •_ Route 154 /aIMIDRoute 155 1aa =Route 150 - Route 153 Route 170 =MI Route 174 N VIR lir II LT EL.Iwialvi; a gut 111111et X1111 L �I dm 11_. 4 ANN NM 1r� i 1 d a s N 1 Page 15 • The roadways bordering Southcenter Mall (Tukwila Parkway, Southcenter Parkway, Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West) experience moderately high heavy vehicle traffic and moderately high percentages of heavy vehicle traffic during the AM peak period • Strander Boulevard from Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park East carries moderately high heavy vehicle traffic and moderately high percentages of heavy vehicle traffic during the AM peak period • Minkler Boulevard between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West and Andover Park West between Tukwila Parkway and S 180th Street carry a high percentage of heavy vehicle traffic relative to volumes of traffic. NON - MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION Similar at er-rolTI:kb functo,,al c a s fcation sy is ciassifY d into two a : F'iieF`. h •. Category ) Bicycled of to, fromfuk I or co s pping, purposes. Category II: the non - ©toned transpo .tem ional i h sense of tray g through, in T ila. These trips n be for onnecti ith transit, recreation, a exercise. Local walking and short bike trips within neighborhoods such as walking to schools, church, libraries, or neighborhood parks. They also include making short trips to the store or to visit, walking between transit stops and work, business or shopping destination, or for recreation or exercise purposes. Figures 111 -6 andlll -7 show the Category 1 and 11 facilities in Tukwila. A more detailed non - motorized plan is scheduled to be developed in 2006. Page 16 Figure III -6: Category I Non - Motorized Facilities Page 17 Figure III -7: Category II Non - Motorized Facilities Page 18 IV. 2020 FUTURE CONDITIONS In order to understand the impacts of projected land use, different scenarios were studied. All alternatives are consistent with the adopted land use plan or with the pending Urban Center Subarea Plan. 2020 LAND USE FORECASTS To forecast the 2020 traffic volumes and understand their implication to traffic flow within the City, a 2020 Tukwila travel demand forecast model was developed. The model covered the entire region, but focused on the Tukwila. This model is based upon Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) four - county regional transportation model, and it is refined and customized to represent the City. A Basel! assump Tukwila. use rega. This is not`:to be conf occur along historical growth be %ag,plantd for as Center Su area Plan will ch later section. toe Gro h�-alternativexf0. �y S foundatio sedan the - RC reg onal mode 0 an t essence, ,:° 20.0 .: aselirtetGrowth IS, d s ions will continue to 21 • cad the pas oc¢ mar d w t n growth curri get tterms! Wit - exceptio oft he model! etailed scena trend Tuk rban and use qh -nge s alte e part of this.. nge land us effo pa erns from thi lime. la. wth potential ex assumes that th 1175 a continue but rather that enter area, this i associated with ative and are di it to urrent land he future. h will e level of Urban cussed in a The Urban Center area was analyzed for multiple growth alternatives as part of the Urban Center Subarea Plan, to be updated in 2006. Initially, two "catalyst" project alternatives were analyzed: Mall to Pond and Mall to Station. The Mall to Station alternative was selected as the preferred growth alternative. In 2004, a potential large -scale mixed use development,. known as Tukwila South, came forward. This potential development of just under 500 acres and up to 14 million square feet, immediately south of the Urban Center, would be highly influential on travel patterns and overall growth in the area. Because of the potential impact to the street system it was subsequently added to the Tukwila Transportation Model. An aggressive development schedule (80 percent of the maximum build -out) was assumed in order to fully understand the magnitude of the impacts possible with the combined growth associated with the Mall to Station alternative and Tukwila South. Demographic data sets, including household and employment forecasts associated with a system of Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs), form the basis for travel demand forecasting. The Tukwila travel forecasting model used the 2002 households and employment data and the 2020 forecasts for the Baseline Growth, Mall -to -Pond, Mall -to- Station, and Maximum Growth land use scenarios shown in Table IV -1. Page 19 Table IV -1: 2002 and 2020 Household and Employment Forecasts !House 4 :11Ifi r17 Citywide 2002 Existing 6,866 49,800 2020 Baseline Growth 10,066 65,950 Urban Center Growth Alternatives 2020 Mall -to -Pond 1,730 29,540 2020 Mall -to- Station 1,573 35,022 2020 Tukwila South 1,510 14,613 Details on the multiple growth alternatives are included in the appendix to this plan and are also included, excluding the Tukwila South development, in the Urban Center Subarea Plan. BASELINE NETWORK To determine roadway capacity improvements necessary to accommodate growth, an analysis of growth options on the baseline street network is required. Some projects will be constructed before 2020, based on the current Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Additionally, some additional improvements were assumed to be in place by 2020. The 2020 baseline network assumes the following improvements would occur by 2020: • 1 -405 will be widened by 1 lane in each direction through Tukwila • The 61st Avenue S /66th Avenue S bridges will be recons widening of 1-405 • Tukwila Parkway will West Valley Highway • Strander Boulevard will be extended to Oakesdale Avenue • Northbound 1-405 slip -ramp on Tukwila Parkway relocated • New 168th Street between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park E • Southcenter Parkway south of S 180th Street will be widened to 5 lanes • Andover Park West will be widened to 5 lanes between Strander Blvd. and Tukwila Parkway Outside the Urban Center Analysis Minkler Blvd. will ockets on all legs st Valley ighway at S 156th Street have an V northbound left turn lane • Minkler Boulevard will be widened to 3 lanes • Andover Park E at Industry Drive will be signalized • S 180th Street at Andover Park W will have left turn pockets on all legs • West Valley Highway will be 7 lanes wide between 1 -405 and Strander Blvd The 2020 LOS show that 28 percent of the signalized and unsignalized intersections analyzed (11 out of 39) will degrade to LOS F on the baseline network. The intersections with LOS F under the 2020 conditions are listed below. Unsignalized Intersections The following unsignalized intersections would operate at LOS F for one or more approaches under the 2020 Baseline Growth conditions: • 42nd Avenue S and S 160th Street • 51st Avenue S and Ryan Way (Seattle) • E Marginal Way and S 112th Street • 42nd Avenue S and S 124th Street • E Marginal Way and S 130th Street • 53rd Avenue S and S 144th Street • Macadam Road S and S 144th Street • 42nd Avenue S and S 144th Street • Military Road S and S 144th Street (SeaTac) • Military Road S and S 133rd Street (SeaTac) Signalized Intersections The following signalized intersections would operate at LOS F under 2020 Baseline Growth conditions: • International Blvd and S 160th Street • International Blvd and S 154th Street (SeaTac) (SeaTac) Figures IV -1 and IV -2 show the LOS and delays for the areas outside of the Urban Center. Urban Center Baseline Growth Analysis The 2020 PM peak hour levels of service for the Baseline Growth alternative are shown in Figure IV -3. The levels of service at the following intersections would be LOS F on the baseline network: • Sout n er "Bl' d #and 61 • Southcenter Blv Highway • Tukva Parkwayd And • Nortl bound I -5, o ramp Southgerne a way S Strander trande rande 80th • =00th lvd and Andove I rdeanda est V eet and Southce eet and West V Urban Center Maximum Growth Analysis with Baseline Network rk E Highway r Parkway Highway The 2020 PM peak hour levels of service for the Maximum Growth scenario on the baseline network are shown in Figure IV-4. The levels of service at the following intersections would be LOS F with the maximum growth scenario in addition to those listed above: • Southcenter Parkway and Strander Blvd • Southcenter Parkway and Nordstrom Entrance (1 -5 NB Off Ramp) • Southcenter Parkway and Klickitat Drive • Minkler Blvd and Andover Park W • S 180th Street and Andover Park W • Tukwila Parkway and Andover Park W • Klickitat Drive and 1 -5 Southbound on- ramp There are 35 intersections in the TUC where levels of service were calculated. Of those, 16 intersections, or about one -half of them would operate at LOS F in 2020 under the Baseline network conditions. Page 21 Figure IV -1: 2020 Baseline Growth Weekday PM Peak Hour Level of Service — North Figure IV -2: 2020 Baseline Growth Weekday PM Peak Hour Level of Service — South Legend: City Limit Park River : Freeway Railroad Signaized 1 LOS DelaWSec. 41 Unsjgnal¢ed , e LOS 22 Delay /Sec f. North 0 Figure IV -3: 2020 Baseline Growth Weekday PM Peak Hour Level of Service — Urban Center Baseline Network North J \ riwn�� 17 sill Legend: Freeway Ramp scessossural River .,.n,.� ............. - Trail _._ Railroad Note: not to scale J Unsignalized � Intersection 1 Level of Service 1 Delay 1 Page 24 Figure IV-4: 2020 Maximum Growth PM Peak Hour Level of Service - Urban Center Baseline Network North Legend: moms.- Freeway Ramp SESEEMZESI River ..,,....,,.,. ..,..,. Trail _.._ Railroad Note: not to scale 1 Unsignalhzed Intersection Level of Service 1 Delay Page 25 RECOMMENDED NETWORK IN 2020 Several options were analyzed to develop the recommended transportation network. The goal was to balance the needs of growth with the funding available to construct necessary capacity improvements to maintain an acceptable level of service. The details of the multiple analyses are included in the Appendix to this plan. At the same time, a level of service standard was established which sets the maximum amount of congestion acceptable to Tukwila, and a detailed financial analysis was made to best project future funding availability. This process is required under the GMA and is generally referred to as "Concurrency." More details on the processes taken are discussed in future sections of the plan. Outside the Urban Center Recommended Network Upon careful evaluation of the 2020 No Action network conditions for the areas outside the Urban Cente ist of need mpvement projec meet L wa dev. op, 5e and del ys=for ho terser i ns ere an improy�ement is played a shown i Several ersection ale ou a of T R ila's jur. regardless of jurisdic al bo darie �lith th LOS E oro m etter. Reco • me i ded i : o rovement • Retini the exist ng signal t Inters to . a ©nevard and S 160 Street. (SeaTac) • E Marginal Way and S 112th Street: prohibit eastbound left turn movement onto East Marginal Way. • Add turn lanes at the following intersections: • 42nd Avenue S and S 160th Street: provide eastbound and westbound left turn lanes. • Macadam Road S and S 144th Street: provide a northbound left turn lane. Result: LOS F with less delay but th sults are prese ects, all I ersectio, would o rate at Planning level costs estimates for the recommended • ali he following inte -ctions: 51 enue S and Ry.� Way (Seattle) • E Marginal Way and S 130th Street • 42nd Avenue S and S 124th Street • Macadam Road 5151st Avenue S and S 144th Street • Military Road and S 144th Street (SeaTac) • Military Road and S 133rd Street (SeaTac) • Southcenter Boulevard: widen to a 3 lane arterial between 1 -5 and International Boulevard. improvements are shown in Table IV -2. Table IV -2: Cost Estimates for Recommended Improvements Improvements \4.Z • :^ s '¢ �I �i`"�g11.�'0�,3k TALI Macadam Rd/51st & S 144th Street $361,698 $115,220 $105,495 $483,000 Macadam Rd & S 144th St $252,300 $77,340 $73,588 $404,000 S 124th St & 42nd Ave S $343,824 $22,480 $100,282 $467,000 S 160th St & 42nd Ave S $423,246 $19,600 $123,447 $567,000 East Marginal Way & S 130th St $390,054 $25,960 $113,766 $530,000 Total Costs $2,451,000 Page 26 Figure IV -5: 2020 Weekday PM Peak Hour Level of Service Recommended Network Page 27 Urban Center Recommended Network All intersections projected to operate at LOS F in 2020 were evaluated and potential improvements were identified. An initial list of projects was developed that would maintain an LOS E at all intersections with the Mall to Station growth alternative but not including the Tukwila South development. The Tukwila South proposal came after the initial list of potential projects was developed. Additional options were explored in conjunction with the Urban Center Subarea Plan including pursuing a finer network of streets as property redeveloped and narrowing Andover Park E between Tukwila Parkway and Strander Boulevard to enhance the subarea's goal of a pedestrian friendly, urban development. The desired finer network of streets to be built as development occurs is shown on Figure IV -6. Resultant levels of service were analyzed with each potential street network and weighed against probable funding availability. The recommended network is the result of that process. Additional rode s worthy of consido ation are ide ti i d but pro*ctions-o, undin• ��' �• ant they ha• to •e re o d from e ecQ vended n © k. Shou&Sth-pattern ding opportu it s change ese otects s guld be r;.on iaered fo .t 'elusion, along wt any other projects f t' t would m i_ tarn the mini � ufn level o e "- stand = d The re Southce mmended ne ork o the roan Cen erum t r Wrban`Access 1 • roveme es he f•[ wing projects: • Construct a grade- separated structure at the Klickitat Drive /Southcenter Parkway intersection and associated improvements • This project began design in 2005. Southcenter Parkway Extension • Widen Southcenter Parkway to 5 lanes from S 180th Street to south City limits. • This project began design in 2004. Southcenter Boulevard • Widen Southcenter Boulevard between the 1 -5 ramps and 61St Avenue by one lane in each direction. The eastbound lane is a higher priority improvement than the westbound lane. Southcenter Boulevard /61St Avenue Overpass Improvements • Re- construct the 61st Avenue South overpass with seven lanes, when WSDOT increases the number of lanes on 1 -405 below the 61st Avenue overpass. • Add a southbound one -way inbound entrance to Westfield Southcenter Mall at the 61st Avenue South/Tukwila Parkway intersection. Tukwila Parkway /Andover Park West/Andover Park East Improvements • Add one eastbound lane on Tukwila Parkway from a point 200 to 250 feet west of Andover Park West to Andover Park East. • Re- construct the 66th Avenue South overpass with 6 lanes when WSDOT widens 1-405. • Add a northbound right turn lane on Andover Park East south of Tukwila Parkway. Page 28 Expanded Grid Network 1 "161-16148- 77rd keS sdw 000 s 0 z 1 Ili J S 168th Street • Construct a new 3 -lane arterial from Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park East. • Signal Operational Improvements • Adjust signal operations for the following intersections: South 180th Street/Southcenter Parkway, and South 180th Street/West Valley Highway. Southcenter Boulevard/West Valley Highway • Widen the eastbound and westbound approaches to the intersection of Southcenter Boulevard /West Valley Highway • Extend the existing northbound left turn lane on West Valley Highway when 1-405 is widened. (Additionalrlmprovecxtents identifiedtomitigation T,ila South stil beilisted) • Table IV-3 Table IV- ng Level Co t)N stimates" Re mended Ne s rk Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project at Klickitat $15,620,000 $1,760,000 $4,620,000 $22,000,000 Southcenter Boulevard: Eastbound lane west of 61st Avenue S $5,282,340 0 $1,586,000 $6,868,340 Tukwila Parkway /Andover Park West/Andover Park East Improvements $1,741,680 $885,000 $524,000 $3,150,680 Southcenter Boulevard/West Valley Highway $3,209,880 $540,000 $963,000 $4,712,880 S 168th Street $6,440,280 $5,300,000 $1,934,000 $13,674,280 (Additional improvement for Tukwila South) $ Total $32,294,180 $8,485,000 $9,624,000 $50,406,180 The PM peak hour 2020 levels of service within the Tukwila Urban Center were calculated with the recommended network. Figure IV -7 shows the 2020 PM peak hour levels of service and delays with the recommended improvement projects within the Urban Center. Page 30 The following intersections would operate at LOS F under the recommended network and the Maximum Growth land use scenario: • West Valley Corridor — at Southcenter Boulevard, at Strander Boulevard, and at S 180th Street • Andover Park East — at Tukwila Parkway, and at Strander Boulevard • Andover Park West — at Tukwila Parkway and at Strander Boulevard • Southcenter Parkway — at Nordstrom Entrance Strander Boulevard — at 61st Place S, Andover Park W, Andover Park E, and Strander Boulevard. Certain projects identified through this process were eliminated from the recommended network due to funding constraints. The following projects are still recommended for future considera a -sh{ Id growth >o undirni• opportuniti ange from.theaassu ptians d: }� this plan. Southce ter Boulevard is VV en Southce eK: tbound • ter • ir= ction. Strande Bo I'e ° rd Improve nts s and • 1S Avenue by o : lane the • Add one eastbound lane on Strander Boulevard from a point 250 feet west of Andover Park East to West Valley Highway. • Add one southbound through lane at the West Valley Highway /Strander Boulevard intersection Minkler Boulevard Extension Improvements • Extend Minkler Boulevard from Industry Drive to West Valley Highway. • Improve the intersection of Minkler Boulevard and Andover Park East. Table IV-4 shows planning level cost estimates for the additional network projects Table IV -4: Planning Level Cost Estimates of Additional Network Projects (2005 Dollars) 1 Otstk. 3 ww 7'" t a � x aria t rcje .. b= Y� N y j �. , f d�>Contingency4 .re ..ec�t�yy:�."�Y r1� '�.• �Constructlon rrsn:44:-Rlgh �W�`z,�(µ y, V �ofWay� gi.leering r. Southcenter Blvd: add one westbound lane west of 61st Avenue S $2,502,360 0 $752,000 $3,254,360 Strander Boulevard Improvements $5,992,320 $1,140,000 $1,799,000 $8,931,320 Minkler Boulevard Extension $15,000,000 $1,500,000 $3,750,000 $20,250,000 Total $23,494,680 $2,640,000 $6,301,000 $32,435,680 Page 31 Figure IV -7: 2020 Weekday PM Peak hour Levels of Service for the Urban Center Recommended Network Legend: ..�� Freeway Ramp manoweam River ,..,,..,..--.. - Trail - - - -- Railroad Note: not to scale Page 32 V. LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS According to the Growth Management Act (GMA), Tukwila must establish Level of Service (LOS) standards for all locally owned arterials and transit routes to serve as a gauge to judge the performance of the transportation network. State owned facilities, particularly the limited access freeways and highways of state -wide or regional significance, a level of service standard is adopted by the state and reflected in local agency plans. The GMA does not establish a minimum LOS standard but does require that each jurisdiction set a standard and coordinate their standard with adjacent agencies. ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE Projected growth in Tukwila, and surrounding areas, was to project traffic volumes and levels of service in 2020. In order to develop an LOS standard and determine the improvements needed to maint in capacity, consideratioo was given to pr a ted dema d andp jected .in e U. ;The City mus'have atf�is�i y cor s l ameedz .►r ncing plant at is balar d iith ` 1 dined • ro `' -�' 'd existing ame�nnd future needs. Silg ificant w capacIt w 1 •e requ rr to accommoda uture growth ttifoughout th -.c ty. ; e ma'o: ty of the eds are i . xthe'IF - C area. Previously Tukwila' d S s it ndard s set a ® E - II arten I intersections some specificall identif ea rrido� the LOS tan a d was LOS � foet e corridor averas This plan does notre4commerndd cohanging the stands �d�nificantly ijflcrea- s new corridors`specific to the Urban Center. In general terms, the City's LOS standard for arterials is LOS E in commercial areas and LOS D in residential areas. Within the Urban Center, level of service is calculated by averaging defined key intersections to obtain a corridor standard. Figure V -1 shows the level of service corridors for the Urban Center. Elsewhere in Tukwila, the level of service is calculated by individual arterial intersections. Specific level of service standards are: • The Tukwila Urban Center corridor average is not to exceed LOS E, except for the Strander Boulevard and a portion of the Andover Park W corridor. • The Strander Boulevard corridor average is not to exceed LOS F with an average delay of Tess than 120 seconds. The Andover Park W, between Tukwila Parkway and Strander Boulevard, is not to exceed LOS F with an average delay of less than 120 seconds • All other non - residential arterial intersections are not to exceed LOS E. • The LOS of minor and collector arterials in predominantly residential areas is not to exceed LOS D for each specific arterial. • West Valley Highway (SR 181), as a state highway of regional significance, is not to exceed LOS E /Mitigated, as defined by PSRC • SR 599, as a state highway of regional significance, is not to exceed LOS E /Mitigated, as defined by PSRC Page 33 et M m tn a The Urban Center area and key arterial corridors throughout Tukwila will continue to be monitored to assure that the LOS standard is maintained. This Plan identifies improvements that would maintain adopted level of service standards around the City. Projects necessary to maintain the minimum level of service standard will be built, as needed, to accommodate projected growth. In the event of a funding shortfall or unexpected growth, the City must re- evaluate planned land uses and explore alternate funding sources to assure continuing concurrency with transportation system improvements. TRANSIT LEVEL OF SERVICE At this time, Tukwila is not the owner /operator of a transit service, therefore a minimum level of service standard cannot be enforced. However, Tukwila encourages all transit providers to achieve and maintain a minimum LOS C and work within Tukwila's Transit Street Classification System. Further details are provided in the Tukwila Transit Plan. Page 35 VI. FISCAL ANALYSIS A thorough fiscal analysis was conducted as part of this Plan. The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires an analysis of funding capabilities be done to balance the needs against probably funding resources. The GMA further requires that a multi -year financing plan to accommodate the growth and maintain a minimum level of service standard. Tukwila's annually update Financial Planning Model and Capital Improvement Program provides the specifics for the multi -year finance plan. (remainder of section under further editing and review) Page 36 TYPICAL LOCAL STRATEGY FOR TRANSPORTATION FUNDING Local government administrators and elected officials have a practical principle regarding funding: current residents pay last. That principle leads them to seek funding, in order, from the following sources: • Federal agencies. • State agencies. • Regional agencies. • Local sources that include others besides existing voters, including: • People passing through (e.g., room taxes, gas taxes), and • Future voters (e.g., by charging developers fees that future households and businesses will pay in upon purchasing property). • Current households and businesses. Application of the principle to selecting funding sources Based oche principeof fundi pursue f ding sour fort a • Use othe proj ederal or sta = 'funds se be locale oje lic infrast improve to get rrloe proj ewaik �a e describe using t c fundf`orn' ` S ths) ederal or state ove, Tu following gener • Whece possibl=`and appra charge them directly. gic: hat might way riate, t a identify project t at oe efit-specific users and • Choose funding sources with sufficient magnitude, stability, and predictability. • All else being equal, choose sources that allow flexibility to meet changing needs but that do not allow the funds to be diverted too easily to projects unrelated to the original purpose of the funding source. • All else being equal, pay for projects by expanding existing revenue sources rather than developing new sources (which are less politically acceptable and increase the costs for administration). • When considering new sources, use the following criteria to evaluate the appropriateness of the funding source: • Legal authority • Fairness (equity) • Financial capacity • Administrative ease • Flexibility of use • Political acceptability • If raising additional revenue is not politically acceptable, scale back or eliminate the proposed improvements. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES Federal funding sources Federal funding for transportation systems comes via legislation passed every six years, the most recent being the Transportation Equity Act for the 21m Century (TEA -21). The primary funding source for federal transportation funding is federal fuel taxes. Surface Transportation Program (STP). STP funds can be used on any Federal -aid highway, public road larger than a local or rural minor collector, bridge projects on any public road, or transit capital projects. STP funds are allocated to the State on a formula basis and Page 37 suballocated to cities and counties on a competitive basis. There are several set asides under STP funding, including for safety and enhancement programming, as discussed below. Safety (STPS). 10% of STP funds are set aside for safety improvements. The objective of this program is to identify, implement and evaluate cost- effective safety construction projects. This program is further broken down into the Hazard Elimination Safety Program (STPH) and the Railway /Highway Crossing Program (STPX). These funds are made available to all state and local agencies and tribal nations within Washington and can be applied to all public roadways. The state prioritizes and selects projects for funding. Environmentally neutral and non - Regionally Significant safety projects are located in a statewide safety grouping in the STIP. Transportation Enhancement Program (STPE). 10% of STP funds are set aside for transportation enhancement projects. Eligible transportation enhancement projects must be directly related to the surface transportation system. This program funds a wide range of e - aber1d • . e enhanc corridor scenic o mortali eluding ped and otter centc of ndsca istoric site and mitigat a nd bicycle fa ilities; prese beautifica ion' cquisiti highwa oe r. ms; re n due t• rah runo ing vehicle -caus Region • TP (STP ' ST _ S, S" - ). The ,� • _: - Ilo d by formula to t aft MPO regional nsportatio planrt• organtionR PO), or' o-o ntyfe -d agency are bfis- d on population = -n•" a mileag he PSRCj�s .�- MPO /RTPO or wile and select d prioritizes projects for funding. Tukwila was selected to receive $349,559 in STP funds in 2004, $615,692 in 2003, and $220,296 in 2002. STP Competitive (STPC). This portion of STP funds can be used in any area of the State. The purpose of the program is to offer multimodal choices to the public. Projects, once selected by the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB), are programmed in the STIP, either in a grouping or listed individually. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ). The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funds are distributed to non - attainment areas based on their population and the severity of air quality non - attainment. Some funds for congestion mitigation and air quality improvement are also available to maintenance areas of the State. The MPO selects and prioritizes projects for funding. Tukwila received $180,000 from CMAQ for its signal interconnect project, which was combined under a larger King County grant. Bridge (BR). The Bridge Replacement/Bridge Rehabilitation Program provides assistance for eligible bridges on public roads. High Priority Projects. The High Priority Projects program provides designated funding for specific projects ('demonstration' or 'Demo' projects) identified by Congress. Nationwide, TEA - 21 includes 1,850 of these projects, each with a specified amount of funding over the 6 years of TEA -21. The designated funding can only be used for the project as described in the law. Currently, there are about forty High Priority or 'Demo' projects in Washington State. There are two High Priority Project in Tukwila, with a total of $2 million in funding. FEDERAL FUNDING IN TUKWILA Table 1 shows actual federal funding for Tukwila transportation improvement projects for 2000 through 2004 and budgeted federal funding for 2005. Page 38 Table 1. Federal funding sources for Tukwila transportation improvement projects, 2000 through 2005. 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Federal Sources $2,096,000 $766,000 $9,198,000 $9,443,000 $1,200,000 $2,046,000 Source: City of Tukwila 2005 Budget and revenue reports. The budgeted amount for federal funding for transportation in Tukwila is $2.0 million for 2005, but has varied from a low of $766,000 to a high of $9.4 million. Because federal funding is typically project - specific, it can fluctuate significantly from one year to the next. To plan for future transportation funding and set fee levels, it is necessary to make forecasts for funding availability from federal, state, and local sources. Forecasting how much and which funding sour s be availabl a ome later date not cert le �,Rro v s�p�pre values a m' aking dictio s beha iors of fu d g, agencie k �-'d'erai ndin competitio: is intens # •r gr Despite ;'- uncertain future fu : ding availa approxi serves a ing futtar ndin• MQ foreeast of futu er to r the p funding ump s ` -'n be made ; o arding Bev hile ere are several oo ons for f this an l:'. is t = average fundin• the past The City has received federal funding averaging $4 million annually, but in 2004 and 2005, federal funding dropped to about $1.6 million annually. The consequence of this scarcity and fluctuation is that the City cannot rely on federal funds for the bulk of transportation improvement projects and must secure local funding sources while pursuing federal (and state) grants. STATE FUNDING SOURCES The State of Washington depends on federal funding for much of its transportation system. The largest source of state funds is the motor - vehicle fuel tax, which provides state and local governments with $700 to $800 million per year. Arterial Improvement Program (AIP). This TIB- administered program provides funding for arterial street improvements for cities and portions of counties within urban areas. The most recent awards to Tukwila under AIP were for $150,000 in 2000 and $1.0 million in 2003. Motor - Vehicle Fuel Tax. Fuel tax revenues are collected by State of Washington authority. Counties have an option to add an additional 2.3 cents per gallon tax which is collected by the State but then shared with the county who then distributes to local cities based on population. These revenues are often exhausted by maintenance and preservation budgets alone. In Tukwila, fuel tax revenues total about $350,000 per year. A portion of fuel tax revenues goes to maintenance projects, with about $110,000 going to improvement projects. Vehicle License Fees. In the past the state collected a fee in King County of $15 per vehicle license, which was shared with local cities in the same manner as the fuel tax. The vehicle license fee was repealed and Tukwila has not received any revenue from this source since 2003. Page 39 Pedestrian Safety & Mobility Program (PSMP). This program provides funds to projects that promote pedestrian mobility and safety as a viable transportation choice; e.g. provide access and address system continuity and connectivity of pedestrian facilities. (TIB administered program.) Transportation Partnerships Program (TPP). This TIB- administered program provides funding for transportation projects in urban counties /cities with populations over 5,000 or in Transportation Benefit Districts that encourage economic development and public/private partnerships. Tukwila was awarded $869,000 in 2000, $660,000 in 2001, and $4.2 million in 2004 under TPP. Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF). This is a loan program developed by the State Department of Community Development to provide low interest loans to local governments to complete needed infrastructure improvements. Freight M� obil ty$ tr tegic Ini estrfe Board (F ). Provides state funds o be `gym£{ "-'-d with par ership fu g fro r freight m ility and f% i h mitigate g projects along s tegic freight condors. Tuk lib re ved $5 �5. illion fro the MSIB for . project comp) • in 2003. STATE F NDING U Like fedfu,,, nig much tate fundmfartransportat is eject- specifican •[ ctuates significantly from one year tot a next. Ta le 2 shows actua state funding for Tukwi a transportation improvement projects for 2000 through 2004 and budgeted state funding for 2005. Table 2. State funding sources for Tukwila transportation improvement projects, 2000 through 2005. 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget State Grants $590,000 $1,449,000 $3,027,000 $2,047,000 $490,000 $5,916,000 Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax 105,000 115,000 116,000 115,000 113,000 110,000 Local Vehicle License Fee* 136,000 151,000 156,000 4,000 0 0 Total State Sources $695,000 $1,564,000 $3,143,000 $2,162,000 $603,000 $6,026,000 *Note: The local vehicle license fee was discontinued in 2003. Source: City of Tukwila 2005 Budget and revenue reports. The budgeted amount for state funding for transportation in Tukwila is $5.9 million for 2005. This is significantly more than for any other year shown here. State funding, however, has not fluctuated as significantly as federal funding. The State's contribution to transportation improvements revenues has averaged $2.4 million annually. The average includes the fuel tax, which has been steady at around $110,000 per year. Page 40 LOCAL FUNDING SOURCES Local transportation funding sources are primarily from the property tax for highway projects and the sales tax for transit projects. Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). The State of Washington levies a 1.28% tax on the full selling price of real estate, including transfers of controlling interests of property. Cities and counties may levy up to 2 %, but statutory limitations dictate that most charge between 0.25 and 0.5 %. Statutes also limit uses for some of the revenues from real estate excise taxes. If a city with population of 5,000 or more that is planning under the GMA imposes the first 0.25 %, often called REET 1, it must use the revenues exclusively for capital projects specified in its capital facilities plan. The second 0.25 %, or REET 2, can only be used for transportation and utility projects. Tukwila had actual revenues from REET 2 of $0.6 million in 2003 and $0.8 million in 2004 and has budgeted $0.4 million for 2005. Parking source f Tukwila and has x. Gitie ukwila, d actual re dgeted $1 ay chile ea iv ost 0 rking is ues'f om th i5 000.f • O:O ercial pa ovided fo rking t I +f $ tax. This 0- n street or on -site by buss - ses. ,000 i s 3 -fae $184,0i n 2004 s rC r!a:2 of been: 'ma e Local I p oveme ® istri (ALID). are o med for Vii_ pure of assessing 10 0 -1 property owners ja fficient :t pay for ° e • jgt deemed e o cal benefit. LI D +r1 e a specific type of special assessment district, which more broadly includes any district that is formed within an existing taxing district to assess specific property owners for some service that is not available throughout the larger district. Impact Fees. If new development within a community triggers public costs, impact fees can allocate those costs to the development rather than to the existing residents of the city. In simplest terms, this is sometimes described as "growth pays for growth." The City of Tukwila's current TIF is structured on project basis and requires that a trip generation and distribution study be conducted for new development. The City is collecting about $277,000 annually in TIF revenue. Local funding in Tukwila Table 3 shows actual local funding for Tukwila transportation improvement projects for 2000 through 2004 and budgeted local funding for 2005. ' Municipal Research & Services Center of Washington, "A Revenue Guide for Washington Cities and Towns," August 1999, pp.16 -18. Page 41 7 Table 3. Local funding sources for Tukwila transportation improvement projects, 2000 through 2005. 2000 2001 2002 2003 Actual Actual Actual Actual Local Sales Tax Parking Tax REET 2 Tax G.O. Bond Proceeds Impact Fees Miscellaneous Total Local Sources $2,946,000 89,000 464,000 0 747,000 328,000 $4,574,000 $2,570,000 86,000 319,000 0 669,000 397,000 $4,041,000 $2,635,000 82,000 339,000 0 (28,000) 535,000 $3,563,000 $0 138,000 597,000 6,343,000 0 399,000 $7,477,000 2004 2005 Actual Budget $0 $3,000,000 192,000 175,000 813,000 350,000 0 0 0 525,000 147,000 75,000 $1,152,000 $4,125,000 Source: City of Tukwila 2005 Budget and revenue reports. Tukwila us projects. addition rather o financin new rev ry, ng local sou �� ..sf.om year to ye n because tra • • ation im ouretables • • not sho venue . Citie ° . rry ov din • pi• 'idi • for ava' n re ved) ` d if a pro ct o fund tra parent ne rover in f nspet fund le fund g at t bee sue• a do a p. e p rol c s from previous arl s:=t om year beginning of th ompleted. ars, but year for ar (before During th.fix..ea period fan, hich actuals a shown, t = i ceived an averag: of $277,000 in impact fees annually, but the City did not receive any revenue from the TIF for two years and had negative revenue in another. When revenues from the current TIF and general obligation bond proceeds are not included, Tukwila generates an average of $2.5 million in revenue from local sources annually. IMPLICATIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION FUNDING IN TUKWILA Table 4 shows federal, state and local funding sources for Tukwila transportation improvement projects for 2000 through 2005. Table 4. Federal, State and local funding sources for Tukwila transportation improvement projects, 2000 through 2005. 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual 2005 Budget Federal Sources State Sources Other Intergovernmental Revenue Local Sources Total $2,096,000 $766,000 $9,198,000 $9,443,000 $1,200,000 $2,046,000 695,000 1,564,000 3,143,000 2,162,000 603,000 6,026,000 360,000 1,445,000 0 664,000 0 4,041,000 3,563,000 7,477,000 1,152,000 4,125,000 $6,731,000 $17,349,000 $19,082,000 $3,619,000 $12,197,000 28,000 4,574,000 $7,393,000 Source: City of Tukwila 2005 Budget and City of Tukwila 2004 Budget. Available funding Available funding from outside sources is found mostly at the state level, which administers both state programs through the TIB, and federally funded TEA -21 programs. Many of the programs Page 42 at the state and federal level are oriented towards providing below- market interest rates on loan or partial grants with the remainder left to the City. While these low -cost loans reduce the total funded cost to the City, they still require the City to provide an ultimate source of payment. Therefore local sources are critical as they are usually the ultimate source of repayment. In addition to impact fee revenues, the City can use property tax, sales tax, fuel tax, and other existing or potential City taxes or fees to pay for the improvements. The City can consider the use of a LID structure to repay any loans required to support the improvements. There are many variables to consider in making projections for future funding availability, including issues as diverse as federal and state transportation legislation, state and local policy changes, population growth in Tukwila and Washington State, inflation, and the price for gasoline. The City average revenues the com Unmet revenues annual Tuk ate an f the City() ed federalA To the e n grg ;Q A create :- burden 'o he` ity, an imp grants are received, then the ity is not bur eked and there repayment from new development. $2.5 million ap, ally. Stat „� •rt4 •!' -.,_yy is n of $6.4 Ii to tran O ationhimprov continues to recev . state and f ral funding at si r levels, local .0 ding wou d b - =a estimated.' 8 9 illion a ally. fe ”' - n be collected.- utside ore ere is no basis for seeking It is necessary to subtract available sources of funds to calculate an equitable level for the revenue requirements from the TIF. It is not necessary (or equitable) to subtract 100% of all sources of funds because some funds would be required for purposes other than TIF- eligible projects. The City of Tukwila has identified $102.5 million in project costs (2005 dollars). Over a 15 -year period, this project list would result in about $9.9 million in costs annually at an annual interest rate of 5 %. Of those project costs $95.8 million are eligible for the TIF. The other $6.7 million are safety- related and cannot be paid for with the TIF. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE A Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) is assessed on new development to pay for improvements to the transportation systems that the traffic from such development is estimated to require if some standard for level of service (LOS) is to be maintained. The fee is paid by new development at the time of an application for a building permit. The amount of the fee is based on the impact of the proposed development on transportation systems. The steps for estimating a transportation impact fee can vary by jurisdiction, but in broad terms they are: • Forecast the demand for transportation capacity (future trips) on a collection of arterials and collectors (primarily existing, but potential yet- to -be- built) defined by policy to be that part of a jurisdiction's to which transportation concurrency policy and TIF calculations will apply. • Prepare a plan showing what improvements will be built to meet that demand, their cost, and which are eligible for TIF funding Page 43 0 Y • Determine what percentage of the improvements are required to accommodate new development in the jurisdiction (as opposed to solving problems of existing development, or accommodating future through traffic). Use that percentage to estimate the total amount of revenue that TIF must generate from new development over some forecast period. • Divide the total revenue requirement by some measure of the trips the new development will generate. The result is the cost per estimated trip generated. • Apply that cost per trip to each new development project using an estimate of trips to be generated based on the nature of the development. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND CONSTRAINTS OF TIFS2 The bas system, Develop A jurisdi payers, should oppose • rte a TIF is t - ew developme Rt ay for ex t there are nstr ; is on much a u it`d. i tion ca nts can b- c arge for expa►sions i e 5 : em, bu n must de nstra raphic ate o • I nex payment end th elate •`a estm ' ; t o " ple astruc impro E p. a :hat bene e other areas in T ila. charge developer of for existing de, aiencies. between the im es collected in t erty owners of fee TUC t area as In the State of Washington, the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that infrastructure be in place within six years from "the time of development" to accommodate the impacts of new development. In accordance with the GMA, a TIF may only be imposed on transportation improvements that are identified within the capital facilities element of the comprehensive plan or related reports and updates to the comprehensive plan and the six -year transportation capital improvement plan (CIP). In addition impact fees collected must be used within six years of collection. The City of Tukwila's comprehensive plan calls for updating the impact fee list at least every two years or in conjunction with the annual update to the CIP. Cities must show " concurrency" in their application of a TIF.. In broad terms, concurrency in the . context of transportation means that transportation improvements to maintain a specified level of service must be available at (or close to) the same time ( "concurrent" with) new development occurs (e.g., if a lane on an arterial must be widened to maintained a jurisdiction's adopted level of service, development may need to be curtailed until the widening occurs3). The GMA also requires that reasonable financial assumptions be made when establishing impact fees. A city cannot rely solely on impact fees to finance public facilities and must instead balance the costs between impact fees and other sources of public funds. Cities are required to 2 This section is based on a review of the Revised Code of Washington: RCW 82.02.050 Impact fees -- Intent -- Limitations, RCW 82.02.060 Impact fees -- Local ordinances -- Required provisions, RCW 82.02.070 Impact fees -- Retained m special accounts -- Limitations on use -- Administrative appeals, RCW 82.02.080 Impact fees -- Refunds, RCW 82.02.090 Impact fees -- Definitions, RCW 82.02.100 Impact fees -- Exception, mitigation fees paid under chapter 43.21C RCW. 3 Some jurisdictions have reduced their level -of- service standards to avoid this problem. Page 44 n show what sources of funding will be used to pay for the portion of improvement project costs that are not covered by the impact fee. HOW A TIF WOULD WORK IN TUKWILA While Washington state law outlines the intent and requirements for setting impact fees, cities do have choices to make in how to implement the TIF. Zone system The service area used for the TIF is the legal boundaries of the City of Tukwila. The City has chosen to establish a zone system within the City boundaries. Under such a zone system, the location of the development would determine the level of the TIF imposed. Developments would be charged a TIF calculated using the costs for traffic projects in specific zones, rather than total costs for TIF -eIi • ible projects. The fou • one 1: Sout othcenter o ' exatio • one 2 ast/Interuiban. From =5' o`north of Southcen er Boulevard to the ast City limits to the Duwamish River to the West boundary. • Zone 3: West/TIB. From the west City limits to the south City limits to I -5 to SR 599 to the Duwamish River to the east City limits to the north boundary. • Zone 4: North/MIC. The MIC area plus Ryan Hill. UC ev the ty limit north of South project u There is also one project (a Signal Interconnect system) that is to be spread across the four zones. The City must ensure that fees collected for a certain zone are spent on the improvement projects in those zones. To accomplish this requirement, the City may consider separate accounts or funds for the TIF revenues for the four zones. CONCLUSIONS Federal funds are politically popular from a local perspective, but difficult to expand where based on strict allocation formulas. Some of these sources are also difficult to secure and can come with significant strings attached. Because federal and state funding are typically project - specific, they can fluctuate significantly from one year to the next. Other sources that are received annually by Tukwila can fluctuate or disappear for reasons out of the City's control. The City should continue to pursue federal and state grants on a project basis. The City should also pursue other methods of funding transportation improvements, including the TIF. Fundamental to a defensible TIF is some clear and reasonable method by which to estimate (1) the amount of new trips generated by new development, and (2) the share of costs of the new improvements in the CIP that new growth is responsible for. Page 45 Figure VI -1: Impact Fee Zones Page 46 �I; Appendix A to the Comprehensive Transportation Plan The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations September 2005 Submitted for City of Tukwila DRAFT Prepared by: Mirai Associates 11410 NE 122nd Way Suite 320 Kirkland, WA 98034 M' i.. r. a i Trer,e ortetion Planning Engineering 1 Transportation Planning 6 Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Reconrrnendations CHAPTER 1. THE INTRODUCTION 1 TUKWILA URBAN CENTER TUKWILA AREA OUTSIDE THE URBAN CENTER CHAPTER 2. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS IN THE TUKWILA URBAN CENTER STUDY AREA STREET CLASSIFICATION NORM/SOUTH ROADWAYS EAST/WEST ROADWAYS I -5 ACCESS I- 405 /SR 518 ACCESS HOV LANES TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES TRAFFIC VOLUMES TRIPS TO THE TUKWILA URBAN CENTER HIGHWAY ACCESS TO THE TUKWILA I.TRBAN CENTER WEEKDAY AND SATURDAY VOLUMES CORRIDOR LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SAFETY INTERSECTION ACCIDENTS MID -BLOCK ACCIDENTS_ PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCIDENTS FREIGHT AND RAIL TRANSPORTATION TRAIN VOLUMES EXISTING RAILROAD RIGHTS OF WAY TRUCK TRANSPORTATION NON - MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES BICYCLE TRAVEL 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 13 14 24 27 33 33 33 35 36 36 36 37 42 42 42 44 1 M: Transportation Planning Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations CHAPTER 1. THE INTRODUCTION In March 2002, the City of Tukwila undertook a study to define a set of facility improvements needed by 2020 to accommodate the traffic growth associated with future developments. The recommendations are built upon land use and traffic forecasts for the year 2020, and include several developments that are currently in the City's permit approval process. The study analyzed traffic within the Tukwila City limits and then took a deeper look at traffic in the urban center. A set of recommendations were developed for the greater Tukwila area and for the sub -area referred to as the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC). Several interim reports were prepared during this three -year project. The key points of those reports are included in this document. The reports include: • Draft Tukwila Urban Center Existing Conditions-Report (September 2002) • Draft Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project - Final Summary Report (June 2003) • Memorandum- Arterial Improvement Recommendations in the I -405 /Southcenter Blvd /Tukwila Parkway Area (June 2003) • Tukwila Urban Center 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations • Recommended Roadway and Intersection Improvements in 2020 for the City of Tukwila (December, 2004) • Existing and 2020 LOS Analysis Outside of the Tukwila Urban Center (February 2005) • Traffic Analysis for 2020 with TUC Mall -to- Station Alternative with Added Internal Streets and Combine Tukwila South Valley Development (April 2005) • City Actions to Improve the Roadway Network (memo May 2005) This document presents the findings and recommendations for the City of Tukwila in two separate, but parallel, sections: one for the Tukwila Urban Center and another for the area outside the Tukwila Urban Center area. TUKWILA URBAN CENTER The findings and recommendations for the Tukwila Urban Center are presented in Chapters 2 and 3. This planning study brought together the City of Tukwila, Tukwila business groups planning to redevelop properties in the area, WSDOT, and other transportation stakeholders. These stakeholders provided a broader perspective on Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -1 Transportation Planning 6 Enginaaring The City of Tukwila Transportations Analysis and Reconufte,idations appropriate transportation solutions for the intersections with Southcenter Parkway, Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard and vicinities. Chapter 2 describes the existing traffic conditions in the Tukwila Urban Center in 2002. This includes street classifications and functions, traffic signals, traffic volumes and patterns, intersection level of service, and-traffic safety. The existing conditions for all other modes, including non- .motorized and transit, were included in the Draft Existing Conditions Report (2002). Chapter 3 presents the 2020 traffic conditions under several land use options for the Tukwila Urban Center. This chapter describes the improvements that the City can take to improve the roadway network over the next 15 years. The major arterials north, south and west of Westfield Southcenter were the focus of two more detailed analyses conducted by the consultant team. The existing and future conditions, along with the options evaluated, and the improvements recommended for the Southcenter Parkway/Klickitat /Strander Blvd area are included in Appendix A. Similarly, Appendix B describes the conditions, the options evaluated, and the recommendations made for the arterial corridors along 1 -405 including Tukwila Parkway and Southcenter Boulevard based on the assumptions that WSDOT would undertake the I -405 improvements according to the Implementation Plan. TUKWILA AREA OUTSIDE THE URBAN CENTER Chapter 4 presents the existing conditions, future conditions, and the facility improvements initially proposed for the rest of the City. The 2020.No Action conditions and the improvements recommended to meet LOS requirements for the area outside the urban center needed are included. Chapter 1 September 2005 Existing Conditions Page 1 -2 Tranaportatlon Planning 6 Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and .Recommendations CHAPTER 2. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS IN THE TUKWILA URBAN CENTER Chapter 2 documents what is happening in the Tukwila Urban Center today. It describes the existing transportation system in the study area, along with information about traffic volumes, accidents, travel demand, and traffic operating conditions. STUDY AREA Figure 2 -1 shows the freeway and arterial network in the vicinity and within the Tukwila Urban Center. STREET CLASSIFICATION Tukwila's urban center is served by a network of arterial, collector and access streets that provide local access and circulation within the City. These include ten entry and exit points to the Tukwila Urban Center: 61st Avenue South at I -405 I -405 on -ramp @ Tukwila Parkway 68th Avenue South at I -405 Strander Boulevard at Green River South 180th Street at Green River Andover Park West at South 180th Street Southcenter Parkway at S 180th Street South 178th Street at Southcenter Parkway I -5 off -ramp at Southcenter Parkway Klickitat Drive at I -5 North /South Roadways In Figure 1, the street classification for the roadway network is shown. The following streets are classified as north /south arterials: West Valley Highway (SR 181): South 180th to I -405 (principal arterial) • Southcenter Parkway: South 180th to Tukwila Parkway4minor arterial) • Andover Park East: South 180th to Tukwila Parkway (minor arterial) • Andover Park West: South 180th to Tukwila Parkway (minor arterial) • 61st Avenue S (bridge): Southcenter Boulevard to Tukwila Parkway Local access (non - arterial) north /south streets include Christensen Road (west of the Green River), Industry Drive (a continuation of Treck), and Jackson Street (east of the Green River). Chapter 2 September 2005 Existing Conditions Page 2 -1 Transportation Planning 6 Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -2 M i` r a i Transportation Planning & Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Figure 2 -1: Tukwila Urban Center Street Classification North 0 Not to Scale Legend: Study Area t: ;;x`_.; Park Freeway Ramp Principal Arterial) ■•■••■■• Minor Arterial Collector Arteria Non Arterial Trail, Walkway - - - - - -• Railroad ® River Source: Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, 1995. Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -3 lM 1 Tranaportatlon Planning Si. Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations East/West Roadways The Tukwila Urban Center includes the following east /west classified arterials (starting at the south boundary of Tukwila Urban Center): • South 180th Street: Southcenter Parkway to Tukwila/Renton city limits (minor arterial) • Minkler Boulevard: Andover Park West to. Andover Park East (collector arterial) • Strander Boulevard: Southcenter Parkway to West Valley Highway (minor arterial) • Baker Boulevard: Andover Park West to Andover Park East (collector arterial) • Tukwila Parkway: Southcenter Parkway to 68th Avenue South (minor arterial) • Klickitat Drive: Interstate 5 to Southcenter Parkway (minor arterial) Local access (non- arterial) east /west streets include Treck Drive (becomes Industry Drive), and a series of dead -end streets running west from Andover Park West that include Triland Drive, Midland Drive and Upland Drive. In addition, Costco Drive links Andover Park East and 70th Avenue South. I-5 Access I -5 access to the Tukwila Urban Center is provided at South 154th Street /Southcenter Boulevard for trips destined to or from north I -5, and at Klickitat Drive /Southcenter Parkway for trips destined to or from south I -5. Additional access from south of the Tukwila Urban Center is provided at the South 188th Street Interchange, following Military Road and South 178th Street. I- 405 /SR 518 Access From the west, SR 518 becomes I -405, just east of the I -5 interchange, connecting Burien and SeaTac Airport with Tukwila. Eastbound drivers on I- 405 /SR 518 can enter the Tukwila Urban Center at the Interurban Avenue/West Valley Highway interchange. Drivers leaving the Tukwila Urban Center to travel eastbound on I -405 can use an on- ramp from the Tukwila Parkway. Westbound drivers on I -405 can access the Tukwila Urban Center from the Interurban Avenue/West Valley Highway interchange, as well as from an off -ramp at Southcenter Boulevard. HOV Lanes - I -405 HOV lanes extend from I -5 in Tukwila, north to the I -5 interchange in Lynnwood. I -5 HOV lanes extend north from Tukwila to the express lanes in downtown Seattle and south from Tukwila to the Federal Way area. Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -4 M` i ra i The City of Tukwila Tranaporeation Transportation Analysis and Recommendations. Planning 6 .Engineering TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES Traffic signals control the majority of intersections within the Tukwila Urban Center. Those intersections not signalized are controlled with stop signs. Figure 2 -2 shows the location of the stop signs and signalized intersections. TRAFFIC VOLUMES Trips to the Tukwila Urban Center At present (2002), approximately 113,000 persons arrive daily in the Tukwila Urban Center for various activities during a 24 -hour period. Nearly all of those coming to the Tukwila Urban Center use private vehicles (99.3 percent). Transit in the Tukwila Urban Center by contrast is a very minor share (0.7 percent). While commuters comprise about 18 percent of the total person trips to the'Tukwila Urban Center, more than 80 percent of the trips to the Tukwila Urban Center are shopping, recreational, commercial and business trips. Figure 2 -3 shows-an imaginary cordon around the Tukwila Urban Center and the access points used as the threshold for measuring trips in and out of the Tukwila Urban Center. Figure 2 -4 shows the growth trend of inbound Tukwila Urban Center traffic from 1990 through 2000. Inbound traffic to Tukwila's Urban Center increased by 16.8 percent during this period, from 72,806 in 1990 to 85,033 in 2000. Additional findings are noted below: The total traffic volume approaching the Tukwila Urban Center stayed at a constant level (about 70,000 vehicles per day) between 1988 and 1993. • Since 1994, the total Tukwila Urban Center bound traffic volume increased by 15,000 vehicles per day, an increase of 21 percent over the 7- year period. • The average rate of the traffic growth for the last 7 -year period is 3 percent per year. Table 2 -1 shows traffic counts for 1990 and 2000 at each of the nine inbound access points into the Tukwila Urban Center, and Figure 2 -5 displays this information on the map. The Tukwila Urban Center entry /access points are: • 61st Avenue South at 1 -405- • 68th Avenue South at I -405 • Strander Boulevard at Green River • -South 180th Street at Green River • Andover Park West at South 180th Street • Southcenter Parkway at South 180th Street • South 178th Street at Southcenter Parkway • I -5 off -ramp at Southcenter Parkway Chapter 1 September 2005 Existing Conditions Page 1 -5 Transportation Planning 6 Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and .Recommendations • Klickitat Drive at I -5 Figure 2 -2: Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections r North 0 Not to scale Legend: Study Area Trail, Walkway - - - - - -- Railroad BEESEMMaa River ® Freeway Ramp 1y ; Park ElSignalized Intersections Intersections with Stop Signs INTERURBAN TRAIL Source: Mirai Associates, 2002 R l i r a i 1 Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -6 Mirai Transportation Planning 6 Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Figure 2-3: Cordon Lines at the Edge of the Tukwila Urban Center Source: Mirai Associates, 2002. Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1-7 M. 'i.kr Transportation Planning 6. Enginaaring The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Figure 2-4: Growth Trend of Inbound Tukwila Urban Center Traffic Volume 90,000 85,000 r 80,000 75,000 a j 70,000 65,000 60,000 Legend: Freeway Ramp _. tmsletam River Trail — •• —••- Railroad Note: nal to scale - Growth Tend of COO Tr.me velum. (Inbound) 1988 1989 .1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1998 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year — f-rues M, WORE THANKSGIVING Source: City of Tukwila Public Works Department Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -8 K ���K V - K, K u�" a�iU U Tranapicirtation Planning EnginaieirIng ^ � T�ye��i ~ ��T^kmila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Table 2-1: Daily Inbound Traffic Volumes at the Tukwila Urban Center Cordon Line for 1990 and 2000 Source: City of Tukwila Public Works Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1-9 �� G1m Avenue 3at1-4O5 16.117 22.1% 10.302 22.7% 3,185 19.8% 68th Avenue S at 1-405 4,951 6.8% 8,155 9.6% 3.204 64.7Y6 Stronder Blvd cdGreen River 9,081 12.5% 8.219 10.896 138 1.5% G1n»mS8otGreen River 15.108 20.8% 18,352 21.6% 3,244 21.5% Andover Park VV south of 180th Street 2,279 3.1% .1,964 2.3% -315 -13.8% Southcenter Pkwy south of 180th Street 2.547 3.5% 1,536 1.896 4.011 '39JY6 S 178th Street west of SouMhoan�rP$rkvvay 5,955 _ 8.2% 6.506 7.7% 551 9.3% 1-5 Off-Ramp `^ Parkway 8.5Q5 11.8% 10,304 12.1% ' 1.709 19.9% Klickitat Driv `' eot | 5 Overpass 8,173 ' 11.2% 8.695 11.4% 1,522 18.696 Totals 72.806 100.0Y6 - 85.033 100.096 12,227 16B96 Source: City of Tukwila Public Works Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1-9 1 1 Treneporeaelon Planning & Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Figure 2 -5: Tukwila Urban Center Daily Volume and Percent Changes from 1990 to 2000 North 0 Not to scale \� a +1,500 (19 %) Changes in Traffic Volume (1990 -2000) 10 Increase Decrease +550 (9 %) +1,700 (20 %) S 180th ST o0 +3,200; !' (22%) Source: Mirai Associates, 2002. Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -10 1M.1rai1 Transportation Planning Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and .Recommendations Figure 2 -6 illustrates the changes in volumes from 1990 to 2000 as a series of trend lines for each approach or access point. In 2000, two approaches, South 180th Street at Green River and the 61St Avenue South Bridge, carried the most daily traffic, 19,302 and 18,352 vehicles, respectively. Additional findings are noted below: Since 1992, approach volumes on South 180th Street grew at a rapid steady pace reaching 18,352 in 2000. The traffic volumes on the northbound I -5 off -ramp at Southcenter Parkway declined substantially in 1995 (due to construction), but by 1997 exceeded 1993 levels. Similar numbers of vehicles approach the Tukwila Urban Center from the west and east (approximately 3,300); twice as many approach from the north (6,400). In 2000, traffic volumes approaching from south of 180th Street declined on Andover Park West and Southcenter Parkway to 1,964 ( -13.8 percent) and 1,536 ( -39.7 percent), respectively. _ The. 68th Avenue South Bridge to Andover Park East carried fewer than 6,000 inbound vehicles per day until 1994. Since that time, traffic volumes have increased to over 8,000 per day, a 65 percent increase since 1990. This may reflect higher levels of traffic congestion on the 61st Avenue South Bridge. Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -11 Transportation Planning Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Figure 2 -6: Inbound Traffic Volume Trends on the Major Approaches to the Urban Center 24,000 22,000 20,000 18,000 16,000 0 14,000 d a - 12,000 ai > 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 1988 ▪ 1989 _• 1990 1991 1992 ▪ 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Year - - 1998 1999 2000 —*--61st AVENUE SOUTH BRIDGE —4— STRANDER BLVD @ GREEN RIVER — )KANDOVER PARK WEST s/o 180th ST. —1—SOUTH 178TH ST. (HILL) I--KLICKITAT DRIVE @ 1 -5 OVERPASS —II-68th AVENUE SOUTH BRIDGE —S. 180TH ST. @ GREEN RIVER – 6—SOUTHCENTER PKWY /57TH s/o 180TH ST. - -*—I -5 OFF -RAMP TO SOUTHCTR PKWY Source: City of Tukwila Public Works Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -12 1.Mira 11 Transportation Planning 6 Engineering The City of .Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Highway Access to the Tukwila Urban Center Two interstate freeways, I -5 and I- 405, directly serve the Tukwila Urban Center. There are three entry points from the interstates and only one exit, one to I -405 eastbound. Both 200,003 freeways are heavily congested throughout most of the day in the Tukwila Urban Center area, and this congestion is expected to only worsen as traffic volumes continue to increase. Highlights from the daily traffic growth trends shown in Figure 2 -7 include: Figure 2 -7: 1 -5 and 1-405 Daily Traffic Growth Trend. 220,000 • The section of I -5 south of I -405 carries about 195,000 vehicles per day. • Traffic volumes on I -5 have 4Q000 grown steadily. Since 1984, the I -5 traffic volume has increased by 75,000 daily vehicles, art increase of more than 60 percent. • I -5 is heavily congested Source: City of Tukwila Public Works Department throughout most of day in the Tukwila Urban Center area. The congested period will be extended as volumes increase in the future. • Daily traffic volumes on I -405, west of I -5, (SR 518) have consistently increased with some variations, probably caused by construction in the area. 180,000 163,0W 140,000 120,003 ,00,000 83,003 60= 20,000 1-4C5 wast(r ath) d 15 —U-5 sotAh d 1-405 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2333 . • I -405 in the Tukwila Urban Center area carries about 120,000 vehicles per day, compared to 85,000 vehicles per day in 1982. • In the past 18 years, daily traffic on I -405 has grown by 35,000 daily vehicles, an increase of 41 percent. Chapter 1 September 2005 Existing Conditions Page 1 -13 ;M, i; r .a.,.u_ Tranaportatlon Planning & Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation !analysis and Recommendations Traffic Volumes within the Tukwila Urban Center Figure 2 -8 arrays the busiest roadways within the Tukwila Urban Center. More detailed information for the area is shown on the map in Figure 2 -9. Four roadways carry average weekday traffic volumes of approximately 30,000 or more per day: • 61st Avenue South at I -405, • Southcenter Parkway, between Minkler and Strander Boulevards, • South 180th Street, west of Andover Park East, and, • West Valley Highway between South 180th Street and South Longacres Way In Figures 2 -10, 2 -11 and 2 -12, the AM, noon and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown for the major intersections in the Tukwila Urban Center. Traffic volume comparison during the peak periods are shown for the major roadways in Appendix A. In general, the afternoon peak hour volumes are higher than or equal to the noontime hour or morning peak hour volumes throughout the Tukwila Urban Center. However, at several locations in the vicinity of Southcenter Mall, the noon peak hour volumes are slightly higher than the PM peak hour volumes. Noon peak hour volumes exceed PM peak hour volumes at the following locations: Northbound on Southcenter Parkway, and, Both northbound and southbound at the intersections of Southceriter Parkway /Strander Boulevard and Southcenter Parkway/Minkler Boulevard. Noon and PM peak hour volumes are very close, and both exceed the AM peak hour volumes at the following intersections: Southbound Southcenter Parkway, North- and southbound Andover Park West, North- and southbound Andover Park East, and East- and westbound S 180th Street. PM peak hour traffic volumes exceed AM and noon peak hour volumes on the West Valley Highway and Tukwila Parkway. Weekday and Saturday Volumes Figures 2 -13 through 2 -20 compare the hourly traffic volumes for an average weekday with those for a Saturday for those locations bordering the Tukwila Urban Center. With the exception of the West Valley Highway, the Saturday peak volumes significantly exceed average weekday peak volumes. Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -14 1 M i ra it Tranaportetion Planning & Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Figure 2 -8: 2002 Average Weekday Traffic Volumes on Major Roadways West Valley Highway: S. 180th to S. Longacres Way South 180th Street at Sperry Drive Southcenter Parkway: Minkler Blvd to Strander Blvd 61st Avenue South at 1-405 Tukwila Parkway at Andover Park West Klickitat Drive at Southcenter Parkway Strander Blvd: 5800 Block Andover Park West: Strander Blvd - Baker Blvd 68th Avenue South at 1-405 Andover Park East: Minkler Blvd - Treck Drive :,,�,� .. j�x,'�r'.'s- s,...� ✓., :i++�.b -n �r...,S�= r.E r<a...zts -'" .i"" ^,,.:..r"3'�",.,"`„�°�`: 31,480 34,640 30,000 9,750 23,400 21,860 20,400 16,400' 15,980 15,200 0 5,000 10,000 Source: City of Tukwila Public Works 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -15 40,000 Treneportetlon Planning S. Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Figure 2 -9: 2002 Average Weekday Daily Traffic Volumes North 0 Not to scale Legend: Study Area I Trail, Walkway - - - - -- Railroad River Freeway Ramp Park XXXX Vehicles per Day WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN SOUTHCENTER MINKLER BLVD 2001 counts Estimated based on peak hour counts Source: Tukwila Public Works Department -April 2002 Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -16 .N4 L_r Transportation Planning C. Enginaaring The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Figure 2 -10: 2002 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes North 0 Not to scale Legend: Study Area. ....................... Trail, Walkway - - -- Railroad River Freeway Ramp 6:0W, Park I Intersection —i. Approach Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) L CORPORATE DR S 1180 80th ST 460i Source: Tukwila Public Works Department Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -17 Trenaportatlon Planning S. Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Figure 2 -11: 2002 Noon Peak Hour Traffic Volumes North 0 Not to scale L 1 550JVI ,P 1 690.950 _- i 660 /(6001 EVANS BLACK D Legend: Study Area Trail, Walkway - - - -• Railroad River Freeway Ramp Park WESTFIELO HOPPINGTOWN 800 SOUTHCENTER Intersection —r Approach Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) Source: Tukwila Public Works Department Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -18 IM i r.a i •I Transportation Planning Engineer -Inc) The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Figure 2 -12: 2002 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes North 0 Not to scale G C 16th ST 1 Legend: Study Area Trail, Walkway — - - - -• Railroad — monzag. River �Freeway Ramp .= k ?fir* Park No(I Intersection —� Approach Volumes (Vehicles per Hour) L U WESTFIELD ,. • HOPPINGTOWN SOUTHCENTER 2O I 'IQ " 900 nNDER eLJ 680'I II Source: Tukwila Public Works Department r15 Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -19 M. i7' Transportation - Planninp 6 Engineering) The City of Tukwila - Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Figure 2 -13: Northbound Hourly Volumes on 615t Avenue South Bridge (Weekday and Saturday) 2.000 1.800 1.600 1,400 c 1.200 1 000 800 400 200 0 am 1:00- 200- 300- 400- 500- 8.00- 700- 8:00- 9:00- 10:04 11:00- pm 1:00- 2:00- 3:00- 4.00- 5:00- 000- 7:00- 800- 9'00. 10:04 11:00- 12:00. 2:00 3'00 400 500 600 700 8.00 9.00 10.00 11:00 120012:00- 2'00 3'00 4'00 500 600 7:00 8 -.00 9:00 10.00 11-00 12:00 1:00 1:00 Hours I_.WeekdayAverage ........4/6102 (Sat) Figure 2 -14: Southbound Hourly Volumes on 61st Avenue South Bridge (Weekday and Saturday) 2.000 1:000 1.600 1.400 500 40°-- 200 am 1:06 2:00- 3:00. 4:00- 5:00- 0:00- 7:00. 12:00- 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 8:00 7:00 5:00 1:00 5:00. 9:00 9:00- 10:00•' 11:00- Pm 1:00- 2:00- 3:00- 10.00 11:00 12:00 12:00. 2:00 3:00 4:00 1:00 Harts ....1■Mieekday Average .....418/02 (Sat) 4:00- 5:00 5:00- 5:00. 8:00 7:00 7:00- 8:00 - 0.00- 10:00- 11:00- 8:00 8:00 1000 11:00 12:00 Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -20 ;_Mira- i Transportation Planning & Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Figure 2 -15: Eastbound Hourly Volumes on S 180th Street west of West Valley Highway (Weekday and Saturday) Aids, pot Hour 2,000 1,800 1,800 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 800 400 200 0 AM 1:06 200 100 4:00 500 8:00 7:00 8:06 906 1000 11:06 PM 1:06 206 3:06 4:06 3:03• 906 7.06 1200. 200 3:00 4:00 500 900 7 :00 8:00 4.00 1000 11:00 1200 1206 900 3:00 4:00 5.00 100 7:03 8:00 900 10.00 11:00 1203 1:00 1: CO 'Hours 906 400 10.06 moo- —a`- Weekday Average , 4 /8/02 (Sat) - Figure 2 -16: Westbound Hourly Volumes on S 180th Street west of West Valley Highway (Weekday and Saturday) Valdes per hour AM 1:06 200 106 406 906 900 2:00 800 400 1000 11:06 PM 1:00 200 100 4:00 500 8:00 706 1206 200 103 400 500 903 700 503 803 1000 11:03 1203 1206 200 100 4:00 500 900 2:00 900 403 1000 11:00 1200 &00. 506 1000 11:06 1:00 1:00 H0185 - -•■N@ekdayAverage -- t-- 416102(Sat) Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -21 Transportation f1 Planning S Enginaaring The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Figure 2 -17: Northbound Hourly Volumes on West Valley Highway south of 1-405 (Weekday and Saturday) 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 $ 1200 0 -1,000 V 800 600 400 200 0 AM 12004:00 2003,00 406503 0:067.00 x03-a03 1110611:00 PM 1200.1:03 200 -100 Hours • • 4:03503 —s-- Weekday Average —s- 4/6102 (Sat) 6007:00 800800 10.0011:03 Figure 2 -18: Southbound Hourly Volumes on West Valley Highway south of 1 -405 (Weekday and Saturday) 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 2 1,200 • d 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 AM 1:06 206 706 4:06 0-06 006 7:06 806 0-06 10.06 11:06 PM 1:06 200- 106 4:06 0-06 606 7:06 806 606 10.06- 1206 200 100 CO 4: 5:00 0:00 7:00 600 0-00 1003 11:00 1203 1200- 203 3:00 4:00 5:00 600 7:00 800 803 10.00 11:00 1:00 1:00 Hours —r– Weekday Average —N-4/6/02 (Sat) Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -22 M % ra i Transportation Planning 6. Enginaaring The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Reconintendations Figure 2 -19: Eastbound Hourly Volumes on Klickitat Drive west of Southcenter Parkway - (Weekday and Saturday) 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 C 1,200 1,000 V j 800 600 400 200 0 AM 12:00- 2.00.300 4.00.5 -00 6 -00 -7.00 8 00 -9.00 10 00 -1100 PM 12 00- 2.00.3.00 4 00-5 00 6 00-7 00 8.00 -9 00 10:00 -11:00 1:00 1:00 Hours --s— Weekday Average — X4/6/02 (Sat) Figure 2 -20: Westbound Hourly Volumes on Klickitat Drive west of Southcenter Parkway (Weekday and Saturday) 2. 11. > 000 800 600 400 200 000 800 � — — �� v 600 . 400 200 o AM 1200. 2003:00 4:005:00 1:00 • 8007:00 8109:00 10330-11:00 PM 12:00 1:00 Hours 200-300 •■•■■Weekdey Average ' 4/6/02 (Sat) 4:005:00 6:007:00 8:00900 10:0041:00 Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -23 The City of Tukwila Trenacortation .Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Planning 6 ` Engineering Figure 2 -21 arrays four years of monthly traffic volumes crossing the imaginary cordon around the Tukwila Urban Center, normalized with a factor of 1.0 as the annual average for the years 1998 -2001. The four trend lines generally follow a similar pattern. • Summer months (June, July and August) are higher than the average. • December is five to ten percent higher than the average. • Winter (after December) months are five to ten percent lower than the average. • April and May are average months. • September and October do not show a consistent pattern. Figure 2 -21: Monthly Distributions of Tukwila Urban Center Average Cordon Volumes 1.15 1.10 1.05 C 1.00 L.L. 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 +2001 AVG - 4)-2000 AVG - A-1999 AVG - *-1998 AVG JAN FEB MAR APR MAY Source: City of Tukwila Public Works Department CORRIDOR LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) JUN JUL AUG Month SEP OCT NOV Levels of service for urban streets are based on average through- vehicle travel speed -for the length of the street under consideration. Each street is assigned an "Urban Street Class ", based upon free -flow traffic speeds during off -peak hours. Each street classification then carries with it a particular rating system, which links a "level of service grade" (A through F) with incremental ranges of travel speeds (see Table 2 -2). DEC Chapter 1 September 2005 Existing Conditions Page 1 -24 1 M i r. a i Transportation Planning 6 Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Table 2 -2: Corridor Levels of Service for Urban Street Classifications .Corrido (Free Fiow•Speed'�sr35 `LOS;for�Cla[{ s III i "to 30 mphy mph . iii (FreesFlow LOS idor LOS f -lb ass IV S.eed.is !3 to 25 mph LOS mph A >30 A >25 B 24 >30 B >19 -25 C 18 >24 C >13 -19 D 14 >18 D >9 -13 E 10>14 E >7 -9 F <10 F <7 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. The average speed for a corridor is calculated from the actual travel time and the "control delay" encountered at signalized intersections. The "control delay" is defined as the portion of the total travel time during which a vehicle approaches and proceeds through a signalized intersection. Control delay includes the delays of initial deceleration, move -up time in the queue, stops, and re- acceleration. The first step taken to calculate corridor levels of service (LOS) for the Tukwila Urban Center was to assign an Urban Street Class (III or IV) for each major roadway in the study area. This assignment was based on the free -flow speed measured during light traffic conditions; in this instance, a Sunday evening between 10 and 11 PM. All arterials were classified as Class III, except Minkler Boulevard which was classified as Class IV. The second step in the calculation determined travel times at specific time periods. This study measured travel times during weekday traffic between the hours of 12 and 1 PM, and between the hours of 4 and 6 PM. Multiple travel times were collected and an average travel time was calculated for each street during each desired . time interval. The final step in the calculation determined the level of service at the different peak periods based upon the average peak period travel times. These are shown in Table 2 -2. Table 2 -3 arrays the results of this analysis, with the highlights noted below. Details by corridor are included in Appendix A. - Both directions of Tukwila Parkway, from I -405 to Southcenter Parkway, and eastbound Strander Boulevard, from Southcenter Parkway to the West Valley Highway sustained the lowest levels of service at the noon and PM peak periods, LOS D and E, respectively. Westbound Strander Boulevard moves at LOS E during the noon peak period, but traffic sustains a much better LOS C during the PM peak period. Similarly, southbound Southcenter Parkway and southbound Andover Park West, between Tukwila Parkway and South 180th Street, are congested at LOS D during the noon peak period, but maintain LOS C during the PM peak period. Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -25 Trenaportation Planning 6 Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recomtnendations Westbound South 180th Street from Southcenter Parkway to the West Valley Highway shows the best LOS , with a noon peak period LOS B and a PM peak period LOS A. For all corridors, the noon peak period LOS matches or is worse than the PM peak period LOS, with one exception. Westbound Minkler Boulevard, from Southcenter Parkway to Industry Drive, moves at LOS B in the noon peak period and LOS C during the PM peak period. All other corridors are rated at LOS B or C during the noon and PM peak periods. Table 2 -3: Noon and PM Peak Period Average Travel Speed and LOS by Corridor OLti1 y` t ; ,7t, x . �,,ect ey Stree P It . D n oof va* i rel��t " : a.. - Free:" * Flowing Spe cl • - t r {` "U b v vera g e ‘ T r e ma �S», - pee . � o ` ` r's Q,-s • rrdoL S 4 ' u YClass 12- 1.PM 4 "6 P 2 � _ Southcenter Parkway: S. 180th Street to Tukwila Boulevard SB 31.17 III 17.75 18.49 D C NB 35.00 III 19.56 25.85 C B Andover Park West: S. 180th Street to Tukwila Boulevard SB 26.20 III 16.59 19.32 D C . NB 34.62 - III 19.77 18.56 C C Andover Park East: S. 180th Street to Tukwila Boulevard SB ., 30.40 III 20.72 19.16 C - C NB 34.15 III 18.91 20.28 C - • C West Valley Highway: S. 180th Street to 1-405 SB 34.86 III 19.34 20.39 C C NB 36.18 - III 24.51 30.50 C - B Tukwila Parkway: -405 to Southcenter • Parkway EB 27.30 III 11.40 13.06 E E WB 23.55 III 12.89 14.59 E D- Strander Boulevard: Southcenter Parkway to West Valley Hwy EB 29.32 III 12.11 17.32 E D WB. 31.96 . III 12.59 19.80 E C Minkler Boulevard: Southcenter Pkwy to Industry Drive EB 27.06 IV 24.41 19.49 B B WB 28.49 IV - 19.37 14.14 B C South 180th Street: Southcenter Pkwy to West Valley Hwy EB 28.55 III 21.8.3 23.12 C C WB 31.27 III 27.41 30.09 B A * SB - southbound; NB - northbound; WB - westbound; EB - eastbound Source: Mirai Associates, 2002 Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -26 I. M` i r a i. I Transportation Planning 6 Engineering The City of Tukwila ' Transportation Analysis and Recommendations INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE LOS at an intersection is measured in terms of average delay per vehicle in seconds and is rated with letters A through F, where "F" indicates the most congestion. The length of delay describes the traffic conditions at a given intersection. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000) defines intersection LOS for signalized and unsignalized intersections and is shown in Table 2 -4. Note that the rating definition is more stringent for unsignalized intersections. The LOS rating for a signalized intersection carries a lengthier delay than its equivalent for an unsignalized intersection. Table 2-4: Definition of Level of Service =.A ~Z'`4 ? 4 4.;. .,V. �r Delaji per`, Vetilcle e. ,SlgnaIrzedilntersectio ik-j +, Y Delay9p Velii leT ,- ,�; . nsignalizedAritersections;t A Less than or equal to 10 seconds Less than or equal to 10 seconds B Greater than 10 and Tess than.or equal to 20 seconds Greater than 10 and less than or equal to 15 seconds C Greater than 20 and less than or equal to 35 seconds Greater than 15 and less than or equal to 25 seconds D Greater than 35 and less than or equal to 55 secorids . Greater than 25 and Tess than or equal to 35, seconds E Greater than 55 and Tess than or equal to 80 seconds Greater than 35 and less than or equal to 50 seconds F Greater. than 80 seconds Greater than 50 seconds Source: Highway Capacity Manual,-2000. In Figures 2 -22 through 2 -25 the LOS for the morning, midday and afternoon peak hours:is shown for the weekday.and for the midday.peak hour on Saturday. For this study, the peak hour is defined by the highest traffic volumes for one hour during a given peak period as follows: For weekdays — 7 to 9 AM for the morning; 11 AM to 1 PM-for midday; 4 to 6 PM for the afternoon peak period and for the weekend - 2 to 4 PM on Saturday. Highlights are noted below: - In the AM peak period, 90 percent of the signalized intersections operate at LOS A or LOS B. - One intersection just outside the Tukwila Urban Center proper, at Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue, operates at LOS F in the AM peak period. The intersection at West Valley Highway and South 180th Street currently operates at LOS D during the weekday AM, midday and PM periods, which may be due to ongoing construction. Chapter 1 . Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -27 The City of Tukwila Transportation Transportation Analysis and .Recommendations Planning 6 Enginaaring During the midday peak hour, over 85 percent of the signalized intersections operate at LOS C or better. The intersections operating at LOS D within the Tukwila Urban Center at the midday peak hour are Minkler Boulevard and Andover Park West; Strander Boulevard and Andover Park East; and West Valley Highway and S 180th Street. Just outside the Center, the intersection of Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue South operates at LOS E at the midday peak hour. During the PM peak hour, nearly 80 percent of the signalized intersections operate at LOS C or better. The unsignalized intersection at 65th Avenue South and Southcenter Boulevard operates at LOS F during the PM peak hour (and at LOS C during the AM peak hour).. Two intersections on the border of the Urban Center operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour - Southcenter Boulevard at 61st Avenue South and Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue South. - Two intersections with South 180th Street, at Southcenter Parkway and the West Valley Highway, operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour. The intersections at Tukwila Parkway and 61st Avenue South and at Strander Boulevard and Andover Park East also operate at LOS D. Nearly 80 percent of the intersections within the Tukwila Urban Center operate at LOS C or better during the midday Saturday peak hour (the busiest hour on Saturday between 2 and 4PM). - The weekend midday peak hour LOS is worse during the week at the Tukwila Parkway /61st Avenue South intersection and along Southcenter Parkway and north of Strander Boulevard. Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -28 Transportation Planning G. Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations - Figure 2 -22: AM Peak Hour LOS and Average Delay (Seconds) North Legend: Study Area Trail, Walkway Railroad River Freeway Ramp Park Note: not to scale J.\ 7 ; W' L,,4 05 � MNRA PAR 0 WAY ST cc 0 0 CORP S 108TH ST } Signalized Intersection LOS — Delay (Seconds) Unsignalized, 2 Way Stop Controlled ® LOS - Delay (Seconds) for the Worst Minor Approach A Source: Mirai Associates Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -29 Transportation Plannino & Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Figure 2 -23: Midday Peak Hour LOS and Average Delay (Seconds) North 0 Legend: Study Area Trail, Walkway Railroad River Freeway Ramp. Park Note: not to scale t • Signalized Intersection. LOS Delay (Seconds) Source: Mirai Associates Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -30 IN4 .1 r iI Tranaportetian Planning S. Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Figure 2 -24: PM Peak Hour LOS and Average Delay (Seconds) 1 Ramp I casexamaa River Trail I — —• - Railroad 1 Note: not to scale Source: Mirai Associates Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -31 Trantaportescion Piartrono Ernoineleiring ' The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Figure 2-25: Saturday Peak Hour LOS and Average Delay (Seconds) North 0 vim 181h WA( _ Legend: Study Area Trail, Walkway — — - - — Railroad nizimeneze River Freeway Ramp Park Note: not to scale 111 ABAKER. ; Signalized Intersection LOS Delay (Seconds) . Source: Mira i Associates - Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1-32 1 M:i r.a=i:. Treneportetion Planning Engineering 1 The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations SAFETY For the period 1997 through 2001, the Tukwila Urban Center had 1,013 accidents reported to the Tukwila police department. There were 2,149 vehicles involved in these accidents, resulting in four fatalities, 291 injuries, and 505 property- damage only accidents. Tables 2 -5 and 2 -6 show the number of accidents occurring at each intersection and mid -block by location and year. Of these, 86 percent of the total accidents and 87 percent of the total injuries occurred at intersections. The most common type of accident was a rear -end accident; the rarest involved a pedestrian or a bicyclist. According to the 1996 Washington State-Accident report, the average accident rate for a principal arterial, a minor arterial, and a collector in an urban area was 2.97, 3.44, and 4.27 accidents per million miles of travel. The Tukwila Urban Center has 5 -year average accident rates that are less than the state average for every corridor and intersection. Two fatalities occurred at the intersection of the West Valley Highway and Strander Boulevard over the past five years. One fatality occurred. when a vehicle was backing up; the other involved a car entering the roadway from a commercial driveway and colliding with a vehicle in the left lane. ' Intersection Accidents One out of every three intersection accidents in the Tukwila Urban Center was a rear -end accident, followed by either a right -angle or a sideswipe accident, each of which occurred at the rate of one out of every five accidents. Infrequent accidents included backing incidents, accidents with a parked vehicle or fixed structure, head -on accidents, and accidents involving a pedestrian or a cyclist. Table 2 -5 shows the number of intersection accidents during the last five years and the 5 -year average accident rate. Mid -block Accidents Nearly half of the accidents occurring at mid -block locations were either an approach turn accident or a right -angle accident— bothlypes`of turning accidents. In addition, 25 percent of the accidents were rear -end accidents. Finally, 21 percent of the accidents at mid -block were sideswipes. The three highest accident mid -block locations were all on Southcenter Parkway, with 5 -year accident rates ranging from 0.46 to 0.56. Table 2 -6 shows the number of mid -block accidents during the last five years and 5 -year average accident rate. — Chapter 1 September 2005 Existing Conditions Page 1 -33 M r: Trenaportation Planning Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and .Recommendations Table 2 -5: Intersection Accidents by Year. and 5 -Year Accident Rates, 1997 -2001 �w> rnq *' „x _ a z k Y t �.t'rAccidents '"�. 7, n...'OV s. S � r _ P_cidents pet .Poi . Rate • ' s 3�4ri 5i ' ;1 , t�r� } d +i. � : Location`,, k _ z ',' '_ _„c,.,,..,„: � .1,. x.t.p; . _.;,:, - a.. v - . a - Intersection 97 98 99 00 01 5 -Yr Avg. Minkler Boulevard at Southcenter Parkway 15 18 19 17 26 2.28 Southcenter Parkway at Strander Boulevard 21 25 46 28 37 1.91 Tukwila Parkway at Andover Park East 7 9 17 13 10 1.42 South 180th St at Southcenter Parkway 15 15 6 14 10 1.33 Southcenter Parkway at Klickitat Drive 18 9 13 18 13 1:20 West Valley Highway at Strander Boulevard ** 23 10 23 16 15 1.06 West Valley Highway at South 180th Street 12 25 22 19 27 0.99 Tukwila Parkway at 61st Ave South 8 13 12 11 10 0.80 Tukwila Parkway at Andover Park West - 12 3 3 7 8 0.74 South 180th St at Andover Park West 8 10 7 5 11 0.72 Andover Park East at South 180th St 6 9 4 8 5 0.45 Southcenter Parkway at Tukwila Parkway 0 2 10 2 2 0.34 South 180th Street at Sperry Drive 2 7 5 4 5 0.32 Tukwila Parkway at 66th Ave South 0 0 0 2 0 0.05 Table 2 -6: Mid -Block Accidents per Year and 5 -Year Accident Rates, 1997 -2001 � uK {�,' x yµ� MK= ;Location T� .,�.fLL� ,;., 4 - ,;,3 ,Accidents perYear '-'z''' Wald dent; • Rate*;. Mid -Block 97 98 99 00 01 5-Yr Avg. Southcenter Parkway: 17500 Block to Minkler Boulevard 3 4 . 5 2 1 0.56 Southcenter Parkway: South 168th to Strander Boulevard 3 13: 9 3 3 0.52 Southcenter Parkway: South 168th to Minkler Boulevard 3 . 3 2 6 10 0.46 Southcenter Parkway: 17500 Block to South 180t Street 1 1 2 4 2 0.37 West Valley Highway south of Strander Boulevard ** 5 3 5 3 1 0.27 West Valley Highway north of South 180th Street 1 4 5 3 2 0.24 Southcenter Parkway: Klickitat Nye to Strander Boulevard 4 0 0 1 2 0.10 South 180th-72nd to Southcenter Parkway 0 1 1 1 2 0.09 Southcenter Parkway: Nordstrom to Klickitat Drive 0 0 2 2 0 0.09 W Valley Hwy: S Longacres Way to Strander Boulevard 0. 1 2 0 1 0.06 Tukwila Pkwy: Andover Park West to Andover Park East* 0 0 1 0 0 0.04 Tukwila Pkwy: Southcenter Boulevard to Andover Park E 0 0 0 0 1 0.04 Tukwila Pkwy: Southcenter Mall Entrance to Andover Park W 0 0 1 0 0 0.03 Tukwila Parkway: 615t Ave South to Southcenter Mall Entrance 0 0 1 0 0 0.02 West Valley Hwy: 1 -405 NB Ramp to Southcenter Boulevard 0 1 0 0 0 0.02 South 180th Street: Andover Park East to Andover Park W 1 0 0 0 0 0.02 South 180th Street: Sperry to West Valley Hwy 0 1 0 0 0 0.02 * Accident Rate = (i#; Accidents x 1 Million Vehicles)1(AADT x 365 Days), ** Fatality Locations Source: City of Tukwila Police Department and Mirai Associates Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -34 1M is r- a is I Transportation Planning 6 Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and .Recommendations Pedestrian and Bicycle Accidents Figure 2 -26 shows the relative frequency of each type of accident. Only 0.5 percent of the reported accidents include pedestrian or cyclists. Of the four pedestrian or bicycle accidents reported between 1997 and 2001 and shown in Table 2 -7, two occurred in the evening. A bicyclist was only involved in one accident —a night accident involving a bicycle with no lights. No fatalities or major injuries resulted from any of these accidents. Figure 2 -26: _Accidents by Type 1997 to.2001 Sideswipe Approach Turn 19.4% 19.7% Backing 1.0% • Fixed Object/Parked Vehicle 4.5% Head-on 1.4% Right Angle ^a Other 20.1% 1.8% Ped/Cyclist Involved 0.5% Source. Tukwila Police Department -Rear End 31.5% Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -35 Transportation Planning 6 Englnaaring The City of .Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Table 2 -7: Accident Locations Involving Pedestrians and /or Bicycles (1997 -2001) s. i Intersections �� �' = �Y a .; Accidents (1997.0,1) 4 A demenType _.. 4.. ..... - Minkler Boulevard at Southcenter Parkway 1997 1 Pedestrian Southcenter Parkway at Strander Boulevard 1997 1 Bicycle West Valley Highway at Strander Boulevard 1997 1 Pedestrian S. 180th Street at Southcenter Parkway 2000. 1 Pedestrian Source: City of Tukwila Police Department - FREIGHT AND RAIL TRANSPORTATION Train Volumes Tracks for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific Southern Pacific (UPSP) railroads border the west side of the Tukwila Urban Center. International and local cargo travels over these two rail networks to inland U.S. markets, including the Midwest, South, and East. PNSF operates approximately 30 trains per day through Tukwila, and Union Pacific operates approximately 20. In addition, Amtrak operates 8 passenger trains per day through the city, and Sound Transit's Sounder Commuter Rail runs 4 passenger trains per _day. - In 1995, the WSDOT Office of Urban Mobility and the Puget Sound Regional Council, with active participation by affected cities and counties, the ports, and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific /Southern Pacific railroads initiated the FAST Corridor Project (Freight Action Strategy for Seattle - Tacoma - Everett). Fast Phase I specified 15 projects designed to improve the movement of goods throughout greater Puget Sound, including a $15.5 million railroad bridge overpass at S 180th Street in Tukwila, scheduled for completion in Fall 20021. The project includes a four -lane arterial which crosses the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe and Union Pacific /Southern Pacific rail lines (at grade) in Tukwila. Current rail traffic is expected to increase significantly. Existing Railroad Rights of Way Railroad ownership generally falls into one of two categories: 1. Mainlines that are operated and controlled by the railroad company, the State Department of Transportation and the Interstate Commerce Commission. Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -36 1 M r a , :I 1 Transportation Planning Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation analysis and Recommendations 2. Industrial Spurs that are operated and controlled by the railroad company and private property owners Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific Railroad both operate on mainline tracks on the eastern periphery of the Tukwila Urban Center. A number of industrial spur lines traverse the Tukwila Urban Center, including two north /south lines east of Andover Park East and Andover Park West and three shorter north /south lines in the blocks between Minkler Boulevard and Triland Drive and Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West. The east /west spurs connect the mainline to the vicinity of the Tukwila Pond Park, south of Strander Boulevard, and also parallel Minkler Boulevard and South 180th Streets between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West. The railroad or the private property owner can approach each other to remove tracks and equipment from an inactive or unprofitable industrial spur route, but the railroad company has exclusive authority to assess the route's continued viability. If the railroad company wants to close down ( "abandon ") part of the mainline system, it must provide a year's notice and obtain permission from the Interstate Commerce Commission. The question as to whom the property reverts in the event of the closure of an industrial spur depends upon easement conditions and who owns the land and is best determined through a title search. In December 1993, the City of Tukwila commissioned a report on the feasibility of converting certain railroad corridors within the Tukwila Urban Center to a multi- purpose pedestrian/bicycle trail system. That study (prepared by MacLeod Reckford) reported that ownership of rights of way along the railroad spur lines must be determined through a title search in order to be fully accurate. Additional information is available through the King County Assessor's Office, which sometimes includes references to rights of way or easements on specific tax parcels. Truck Transportation Tables 2 -8, 2 -9, and 2 -10 show heavy vehicle volumes at intersections within the Tukwila Urban Center for AM, noon and PM peak periods. Intersections with heavy vehicles as higher percentages of traffic volumes are listed first on each table. The City of Tukwila's commercial and warehouse businesses generate a substantial amount of truck traffic through the Tukwila Urban Center. Heavy vehicles (trucks, _buses and recreational vehicles) commonly comprise about two percent of general traffic, but at intersections within the Tukwila Urban Center, AM peak period heavy traffic volumes average eight percent of general-traffic. This figure drops to three percent during the noon and PM peak periods. Additional findings are noted below: • The West Valley Highway carries significant heavy vehicle volumes and high percentages of heavy vehicle traffic during AM, noon and PM peak periods Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -37 Transportation Planning 6. Enoinaaring The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations • S 180th Street between Andover Park West and the West Valley Highway also shows sustained high volumes of heavy vehicle traffic throughout the day • The roadways bordering Southcenter Mall (Tukwila Parkway, Southcenter Parkway, Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West) experience moderately high heavy vehicle traffic and moderately high percentages of heavy vehicle traffic during the AM peak period • Strander Boulevard from Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park East carries moderately high heavy vehicle traffic and moderately high percentages of heavy vehicle traffic during the AM peak period • Minkler Boulevard between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West and Andover Park West between Tukwila Parkway and S 180th Street carry a high percentage of heavy vehicle traffic relative to volumes of traffic. Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -38 1 Mirai. Transportation Planning 6 EngineerIng The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Table 2 -7: Existing AM Peak Period Heavy Vehicle Volumes in the Tukwila Urban Center i r : .-i sox P' q ,, ;_ 4 r �, • ' 4: 1n�,t,ersection .i, • ¢; , k '4.,:'9.--.7A-. :,�.t 4' 4,Wi ,4 :� ,: r .,v.+ ii aw z 'o , xy.nxt AM PeakPenod.t eavy '$, nVehicl eVolume . r _. _;(7 to 9. AM) : iln-,,Y J-1r1 . .. =e"= Heavy Vehicles.asx 4percania iiiti fiic : .Volume L 74., Andover Park West and Baker Boulevard 94 17% Andover Park West and Minkler Boulevard 95 14% Southcenter Parkway and Minkler Boulevard 80 13% Southcenter Parkway and South 168th Street 65 12% S 180th Street and Sperry Drive 167 11% West Valley Highway and Strander Boulevard 281 11% Andover Park West and Strander Boulevard 111 10% S 180th Street and Andover Park West 120 10% S 180th Street and West Valley Highway 297 10% S 180th Street and Andover Park East 117 9% Andover Park East and Minkler Boulevard 52 8% Southcenter Parkway and Klickitat Drive 80 8% Tukwila Parkway and 61st Avenue 105 8% Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard 116 8% Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue 356 8% Andover Park East and Saxon Boulevard • 41 7% Andover Park East and Strander Boulevard 85 7% Southcenter Parkway and 17500 Block 35 6% Andover Park East and Baker Boulevard 42 - 6% Strander Boulevard and Target Access Road 46 6% Andover Park East and Tukwila Parkway 57 6% Southcenter Boulevard and 61st Avenue 110 6% Southcenter Parkway and Nordstrom Entrance 36 5% S 180th Street and Southcenter Parkway 34 4% Southcenter Boulevard and 68th Avenue 22 2% Tukwila Parkway and 1 -405 NB Access Ramp 22 2% Tukwila Parkway and Andover Park West 9 1% Source: City of Tukwila Public Works Department Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -39 I M�''r "a,is Transportation Planning 6 Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and .Recommendations Table 2 -9: Existing Noon Peak Period Heavy Vehicle Volumes in. the Tukwila Urban Center .,:$:',4•74, .Kjjj "1' .r C - 4 r .p .J '7".. j S '•j,s; ,t !� t F`. '�je._ r-.. t � s ^ =!4 §;`a 9 dr ; alacc .., s s ` " ,�- r 4.4i iii::. 4 rte;" Intersection , ,„ r:. , . , ": _ '�.",'fe 4' jo+"u�;r r',.d fez l h' +'�1 'Gii•i�.� F XI Noon Peak Period HHeavy Vehicle�Voiurre�� • ,�:�„ .. °(1 1 AM�to1,1r,PM) K tPj +S.• .� ,: X•t 1. ; wS " ..(.N.. ,,,.ten � Heavy Vehicles as Percent cif:Traffic:. :: West Valley Highway and Strander Boulevard 336 10% South 180th Street and West Valley Highway 265 7% South 180th Street and Andover Park East 121 6% Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue 268 5% Andover Park West and Minkler Boulevard 74 5% South 180th Street and Sperry Drive -134 - - 5 %. South 180th Street and Andover Park West 102 5% Andover Park West and Baker Boulevard 67 4% Andover Park East and Saxon Boulevard 46 4% Andover Park East and Baker Boulevard 56 4% Andover Park East and Tukwila Parkway 69 4% Southcenter Boulevard and 61st Avenue 123 4% Andover Park West and Strander Boulevard 87 3% Andover Park East and Minkler Boulevard 57 3% Southcenter Parkway and Klickitat Drive 78 3% Tukwila Parkway and 61st Avenue 87 3% Andover Park East and Strander Boulevard 88 3% South 180th Street and Southcenter Parkway 56 3% Southcenter Parkway and Minkler Boulevard 68 _ 0% Southcenter Parkway and South 168th Street 44 2% Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard 81 2% Southcenter Parkway and 17500 Block 40 2% Strander Boulevard and Target Access Road 51 2% Southcenter Parkway and Nordstrom Entrance 32 1% Southcenter Boulevard and 68th Avenue 21 1% Tukwila Parkway. and 1 -405 NB Access Ramp 19 ` 1% Tukwila Parkway and Andover Park West 21 1% Source: City of Tukwila Public Works Department Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -40 r x����U ~- 'U Tranaportation Planning 6 Enginelaning The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Table 2^10: Existing PM Peak Period Heavy Vehicle Volumes in the Tukwila Urban Center Source: City of Tukwila Public Works Department Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1-41 Andover Park West and Minkler Boulevard 118 8% West Valley Hi hway and Strander Boulevard 177 5% South 1 8Oth Street and Andover Park West 103 5% South 1BOth Street and West Valley Highway 229 5% Andover Park West and Baker Boulevard 59 4% South 180th Street and Sperry Drive 89 4% South 180th Street and Andover Park East 85 4% Southcenter Boulevard and lnterurban Avenue 176 4% Tukwila Parkway and Andover Park West 83 4% Andover Park West and Strander Boulevard 71 3% Andover Park East and Minkler Boulevard 44 3% Andover Park East and Baker Boulevard 36 3% 8outhoenter Boulevard and G8th Avenue 99 3% Tukwila Parkway and 1-405 NB Access Ramp 93 3% Tukwila Parkway and 61 st Avenue 69 2% Southcenter Parkway and Strand6? Boulevard 52 ` 2% Andover Park East and Saxon Boulevard 22 2% Andover Park East and Strander Boulevard 60 . 2% Andover ParkEastand Tukwila Parkway 29 2% Southcenter Boulevard and 61 st Avenue 90 2% South 1 8Oth Street and Southcenter Parkway 39 2% Southcenter Parkway and K8ink|mrBou|ovard 29 1q/0 Southcenter Parkway and S�uth 1 68th Street 35 1% Southcenter Parkway and Klickitat Drive 40 1% Southcenter Parkway and 17500 Biock 36 ' 1% Strander Boulevard and Target Access Road 26 1% Southcenter Parkway and Nordstrom Entrance 25 1% Source: City of Tukwila Public Works Department Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1-41 Transportation Planning Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and .Recommendations NON - MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION Pedestrian Facilities Two regional multi-use trails /paths pass through the Tukwila Urban Center. The Christensen Greenbelt Trail, better known as the Green River Trail, follows the west bank of the Green River. This trail passes through a very pleasant park -like environment and is oriented toward recreational use, with a meandering alignment. Further east is the Interurban Trail, which follows the west side of the Union Pacific railroad tracks. The Interurban Trail is generally 12 feet wide and allows for higher user speeds with its straight alignment and a greater width than the Green River Trail. Most of the major Tukwila Urban Center streets have sidewalks on both sides of the street. However, most of these sidewalks are constructed as an extension of the curb, with no traffic buffer. There are only three significant spans of sidewalks that are buffered from traffic: • Andover Park West from Baker Boulevard to Tukwila Parkway (both sides) • Andover Park East from Baker Boulevard to Tukwila Parkway (east side only) • Strander Boulevard from the west mall entrance to Andover Park West (on both sides). Other than the West Valley Highway, the streets without any sidewalks are currently all low- volume access streets that extend into the superblocks (often dead -end. streets). These could be key areas for pedestrian activity when redeveloped. Most of the sidewalks appear to have been recently constructed and are in good condition. Pedestrian Volumes The overall level of non - motorized transportation activity in the Tukwila Urban Center is relatively low at present. The existing pedestrian activity in the area follows two primary patterns: 1) walking to employment and shopping destinations after alighting from transit, and 2) mid-shift_ trips (break times and lunch times) from work places in the Tukwila Urban Center. Much of the employment in the area is in retail, and break times vary. Local and express bus routes connecting to areas across the region serve bus stops along Andover Park West. Sounder commuter rail service has recently been initiated with a station on Longacres Boulevard east of the Tukwila Urban Center. There has not been a great deal of pedestrian access to the station but this could be increased through improved connections to the Tukwila Urban Center resulting from redevelopment in the area. The pattern of mid -shift trips probably exists between Tukwila Urban Center work places and shopping and restaurants uniformly across the area. Parks are also a destination for mid -shift trips, and park expansions and enhancements could increase these pedestrian trips. Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -42 M1rai. Transportation Planning Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and .Recommendations Pedestrian volumes at each intersection in the Tukwila Urban Center for a single day were assembled. Table 2-11 shows pedestrian volumes during the PM peak periods. Note that the peak hour for pedestrian traffic may be different from the peak hour -for vehicular traffic. The majority of the Tukwila Urban Center corridors provide sidewalks for pedestrian travel as well as crosswalks at the signalized intersections and several unsignalized intersections. The following five intersections experience sizeable pedestrian crossings: • Andover Park West at Baker Boulevard • Andover Park West at Strander Boulevard • Andover Park East at Strander Boulevard • Strander Boulevard at Mall/Target Access Road • Andover Park West at Minkler Boulevard - Residential uses are typically a key to the pedestrian activity in an area, and the present lack of residential uses is probably a factor in the low pedestrian levels. Also, people living in the residential areas adjacent to the Tukwila Urban Center face significant traffic and topographic barriers to accessing the Tukwila Urban Center. Again, development proposals to increase residential uses within the Tukwila Urban Center could also result in greater pedestrian activity levels. Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -43 M 1` Tranaportatlon Planning 6 - Enginearing The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Table 2 -11. Existing Peak Period Pedestrian Traffic Volumes (2002) a t s. J t- "a�,i.3'°o[� .. . e, t -,*` -s` TOTAL P,EEAK AM MIDDAY INTERSECTION? . " PED.VOL'UME :. t(7xt09) M1.14041,) .gee --mil- -`^ PM 444t0). r. Andover Park West at Baker Boulevard 213 - 69 69 75 Andover Park West at Strander Boulevard 200 6 83 111 Andover Park East at Strander Boulevard 92 18 35 39 Strander Boulevard at Mall/Target Access Road 81 7 45 29 Andover Park West at Minkler Boulevard 42 19 14 9 South 180th Street at Sperry Drive 35 17 12 6 Andover Park East at Minkler Boulevard 33 6 25 2 Southcenter Boulevard at 61st Avenue 32 8 8 16 Tukwila Parkway at 61st Avenue 29 3 13 _ 13 Andover Park East at Baker. Boulevard 22 5 -6 11 Southcenter Parkway at Minkler Boulevard 22 3 10 9 Southcenter Parkway at Strander Boulevard 17 0 8 _ 9 South 180th Street at 72nd.Avenue South 16 4 4 8 Tukwila Parkway at Andover Park West 16 0 9 7 Andover Park East at Saxon Drive 16 0 16 0 Strander Boulevard at West. Valley Highway 13 -3 . 2 8 South 180th Street at Andover Park West • 13 6 2 . 5 Southcenter Parkway at South 168th Street 12 4 5 3 Andover Park East at Tukwila Parkway 11 0 1 10 Southcenter Parkway at 17500 Block 11 4 4 3 Tukwila Parkway at 1 -405 NB On -Ramp 7. 1 3 3 Southcenter Boulevard at 66th Avenue - 6 2 4 0 Southcenter Parkway. at Klickitat Drive 3 . 1 1 1 South 180th Street at Andover Park East 3 2 ' 1 0 South 180th Street at Southcenter Parkway 1 0 0 1 - West Valley Highway at South 180th Street 0 0 0 0 Southcenter Parkway at Nordstrom Entrance 0 0 0 0 Source. City of Tukwila Bicycle Travel - There have not been significant bicycling levels observed in the area, but the recent expansion of the Green River (Christiansen Greenbelt) and Interurban Trails have the potential to increase; the number of bicyclists. These trails can bring cyclists and walkers to the Tukwila Urban Center from a considerable distance. The Green River Trail extends north to Seattle and south to Auburn. The Interurban Trail extends from the Tukwila Urban Center south to Auburn. While there has not been any collection of demographic data for Tukwila Urban Center -area trail users, it is likely that such data would resemble that from the surveys of Burke - Gilman trail users. Chapter 1 Existing Conditions September 2005 Page 1 -44 I M i r a i l 1 Transportation' Planning & Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation CHAPTER 3. 2020 TRAFFIC FORECASTS AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR TUKWILA URBAN CENTER This chapter describes the set of facility improvements recommended to accommodate the traffic growth associated with future developments in the Tukwila Urban Center. The recommendations are built upon land use and traffic forecasts for the year 2020, and include several developments that are currently in the City's permit approval process. Additionally, a sensitivity test was conducted to assess the traffic impacts of the Tukwila South development in 2020. 2020 BASELINE ARTERIAL NETWORK WITH NO ACTION LAND USE The 2020 baseline network used for the Tukwila Urban Center traffic forecast analysis (shown in Figure 3 -1) assumed the following improvements would occur by 2020: • I-405 will be widened by 1 lane in each direction through Tukwila • The 61st Avenue S /66th Avenue S overpasses over I-405 will be reconstructed due to the widening of I-405 • Tukwila Parkway will be extended to the West Valley Highway • Northbound I-405 on -ramp near the intersection of Tukwila Parkway and Andover Park West will be moved to the area near West Valley Highway • Strander Boulevard will be extended to Oaksdale Avenue • New 168th Street between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park East will be constructed with 3 lanes. • Southcenter Parkway south of South 180th Street will be widened. Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3 -1 I I ra i 1 Transportation Planning & Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 3 -1: Network Improvements assumed in the 2020 Baseline Network Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3- 2 I I r a i Tranaporoatlon Planning ■ Englnaaring The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation 2020 FORECAST TRAFFIC VOLUMES (PM PEAK HOUR) WITH BASE LINE NETWORK AND NO ACTION LAND USE Tukwila Urban Center In order to calculate intersection levels of service for the future planning year, the forecast volumes from the Tukwila model were "post- processed." This means that the model volumes were adjusted with the existing traffic counts and checked for consistency through the traffic corridors within the study area. Post - processing is done manually using electronic spreadsheets. After completing the post - processing work, the 2020 PM peak hour traffic volumes were input to Synchro software used to calculate the levels of service. The 2020 volumes were post - processed for three different scenarios: the No Action, the Mall -to- Station, and the Mall -to -Pond. The traffic network was essentially the same for all the three scenarios. They only differed from each other in the land use. Figure 3 -2 shows the 2002 PM peak hour traffic approach volumes and 2020 No Action land use volumes with the baseline network for the major arterials in the Tukwila Urban Center. Figure 3 -3 shows the 2020 PM peak hour traffic approach volumes for the No Action, Mall -to -Pond, and Mall-to- Station land use scenarios. There are no significant traffic volume differences between the Mall -to -Pond and Mall -to- Station 2020 land use scenarios. Note the forecast volumes were obtained with the baseline network assumptions. Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3- 3 i Mirai Treneportation Planning 6 Engineering 1 The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 3 -1: 2002 Existing and 2020 No Action Land Use Intersection Approach Volumes North Volumes 2002 2020 No Action 1 r -- Legend: .r....... Freeway Ramp River ••• ...,, • Trail • —•- - Railroad Note: not to scale Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3- 4 M i r a i I I 1 Transportation • Planning 6 Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 3 -2: 2020 Intersection Approach Volumes for the No Action, Mall -to -Pond and Mall -to- Station Land Use Scenarios North 2020 No Action 2020 Mali to Pond 2020Maf to Sta6an i Legend: 1 Freeway I Ramp • ...:*xRiver — - - - • - Railroad Note: not to scale Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3- 5 (M i r a i 1 Transportation Planning 6 Enginearing The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation 2020 LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR NO ACTION LAND USE WITH BASELINE NETWORK The 2020 traffic volume for each intersection approach was read by Synchro software to calculate future levels of service. Figure 3 -3 shows the result for each intersection in terms of LOS and average intersection delay for the 2020 No Action land use scenario with the Baseline transportation network. Figures 3-4 and 3 -5 show the results from the LOS calculations, with delay at each intersection for the Mall -to -Pond and Mall-to- Station land use scenarios with the Baseline network, respectively. A total of nine intersections for the Mall -to -Pond scenario, and seven intersections for the Mall-to- Station scenario would operate at LOS F, a highly congestion condition. Figure 3 -6 shows the congested intersections along with the projected delay per vehicle. The LOS F intersections are identified as follows: • Tukwila Boulevard/ West Valley Highway ■ Tukwila Boulevard/61st Avenue South ■ Southcenter Parkway /Nordstrom Entrance (I -5 NB off -ramp) • Andover Park West /Tukwila Parkway ■ Northbound I -5 off -ramp at Southcenter Parkway (unsignalized intersection) • Klickitat Drive at I -5 Southbound on -ramp (unsignalized intersection) • Strander Boulevard /Andover Park West • Strander Boulevard /Andover Park East • Strander Boulevard/ West Valley Highway • South 180th Street /Southcenter Parkway • South 180th Street/ West Valley Highway Note that the unsignalized intersection at the Northbound I -5 off -ramp at Southcenter Parkway would have a large delay. While figures show the delay to be more than 600 seconds at this intersection that may not be reliable. However, any delay of more than 300 seconds should not be viewed as a reasonable delay. Regardless of the actual delay at this intersection, the section of Southcenter Parkway between Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard would have serious traffic congestion problems under the existing street conditions in 2020. Mirai Associates analyzed the level of service for each movement and conducted a sensitivity analyses to bring the intersection to a level of service LOS E. These analyses and evaluations were repeated for all LOS intersections. Traffic improvements to meet the LOS E standard are recommended in the next section of this chapter. Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3- 6 1 1 Mirai Treneportation Planning • Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 3 -3: 2020 Levels of Service for the No Action Land Use Scenario (Baseline network) North Legend: ...,.�,.�, Freeway I Ramp 1 r- tz:;� v ::7.3 River I 1 „--.. ,, Trail I I Railroad I 1 Note: not to stele Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service! Delay Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3- 7 IM i ra i1 1 Transportation Planning 6 Enginaaring The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 3-4: 2020 Levels of Service for the Mall -to -Pond Land Use Scenario (Baseline Network) North Legend: Freeway Ramp _.... °..tea River ... Trail Railroad Note: not to scale r- 1 Unsignalized Intersection I Level of Service 1 Delay Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3- 8 1 Mirai 7 Transportation. Planning S. Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 3 -5: 2020 Levels of Service for the Mall -to- Station Land Use Scenario (Baseline Network) North \ MabiY ey r F IMF vv�TtR100 P7ttaYj‘17 c � eveas erg Ot � � Q skosafts 11 Legend: ......rte Freeway Ramp i� -,w. River I ... Trail Railroad Note: not to scale r I +► Unsignal¢ed l Intersection Level of Service Delay J Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3- 9 Mirai Transportation Planning & Enelnearing The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 3 -6: 2020 Delays at the Congested Intersections (LOS F) under the Mall -to -Pond and Mall-to-Station Land Use Scenarios (Baseline Network) North 0 >154 sec 122`sec Legend: I �..r.. Freeway I Ramp I 1 rte, w ...• River I i ..... ,...... Trail I 1 - -•• -- -•-•• Railroad I I Note: not to scale i • 118 sec Delay in Seconds for Mall to Pond 103 see 1 Delay in Seconds for Mall to Station Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3 -10 IMirail 1 Treneportetion Planning Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Mirai Associates evaluated potential improvements for all intersections projected to have LOS F in 2020. The goal was to find an improvement that would have the intersection meet LOS E as a starting point of the analysis within the Tukwila Urban Center. The arterial improvements proposed in this study are shown in Figure 3-7. The improvements are needed in part because of the I -405 corridor projects assumed in the baseline network. But also, the traffic volumes will grow and the levels of service will be degraded, in large part, because of the projected land use growth under No Action land use, including the pending Westfield Southcenter Mall expansion. Klickitat Drive /Southcenter Parkway /Strander Boulevard Improvements • Construct a grade- separated structure at the Klickitat Drive /Southcenter Parkway intersection. • Restrict the traffic movements for vehicles exiting the northbound I -5 off -ramp south of Klickitat Drive. All exiting vehicles should be restricted to the movement that puts them onto southbound Southcenter Parkway and through the intersection with Strander Boulevard. Those vehicles should not be allowed to make southbound left turns at the Southcenter Parkway /Strander Boulevard intersection. • Convert the existing northbound right turn lane on Southcenter Parkway, south of Strander Boulevard, to a through -lane and add a short northbound right turn lane. • Install a signal at the intersection of Klickitat Drive at I -5 southbound on -ramp. Southcenter Boulevard /61St Avenue Overpass Improvements • Widen Southcenter Boulevard between the I -5 ramps and 61st Avenue by one lane in each direction. (The eastbound lane is a higher priority improvement than the westbound lane.) • Re- construct the 61st Avenue South overpass with seven lanes, when WSDOT increases the number of lanes on I-405 below the 61st Avenue overpass. • Add a southbound one -way inbound entrance to Westfield Southcenter Mall at the 61st Avenue South /Tukwila Parkway intersection. Tukwila Parkway /Andover Park West/Andover Park East Improvements • Add one eastbound lane on Tukwila Parkway from a point 200 to 250 feet west of Andover Park West to Andover Park East. • Re- construct the 66th Avenue South overpass with 6 lanes when WSDOT widens I-405. Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3 -11 IM i ra i I 1 Transportation. Planning S. Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation • Add a northbound right turn lane on Andover Park East south of Tukwila Parkway. Southcenter Boulevard/West Valley Highway Improvements • Widen the eastbound and westbound approaches to the intersection of Southcenter Boulevard /West Valley Highway • Extend the existing northbound left turn lane on West Valley Highway when I- 405 is widened. Strander Boulevard Improvements • • Add one eastbound lane on Strander Boulevard from a point 250 feet west of Andover Park East to West Valley Highway. • Add one southbound through lane at the West Valley Highway /Strander Boulevard intersection South 168th Street Improvements • Construct a new 3 -lane arterial on South 168th Street from Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park East. Minkler Boulevard Extension Improvements • Extend Minkler Boulevard from Industry Drive to West Valley Highway. • Improve the intersection of Minkler Boulevard and Andover Park East. Signal Operational Improvements • Adjust signal operations for the following intersections: South 180th Street /Southcenter Parkway, and South 180th Street /West Valley Highway. Additional Improvements for the "Mall -to- Pond" scenario The following two improvements are also needed in addition to the recommended projects listed above. • Add a westbound right turn lane at the Strander Boulevard /Andover Park West intersection. • Add an additional northbound left turn lane at the Strander Boulevard/ West Valley Highway intersection. Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3 -12 I I ra i 1 Transportation . Planning & Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 3 -7: Proposed Improvements for 2020 in the Tukwila Urban Center North 0 Widen Oe. Lane inEac3 Diieciion.. Widen EB/WB Approaches and Extend NB Left Thin Laoe Add a,Sie¢ai Restrict Movements Allowed : °Constructtaiade -.. Separated;NB Left Turn Overpass Add One EB Lane Improve Intersection Construct New 4-Lane I. Road I Legend: I+w�.. t` ... Freeway ` Ramp ! " " '"'R-'*" River I Adjust Signal 1 — .: Trail I Operation I-- ----• Railroad l Note: not to scale k Adjust Signal Operation Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3 -13 iMirai 1 Transportation Planning 6. Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation 2020 LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The 2020 levels of service with the proposed improvements are shown in Figures 3-8 and 3 -9. Figure 3 -10 highlights the improvements to the delays at the congested intersections. The proposed improvements will bring all congested intersections to operate at LOS E or better in 2020 under the No Action and Mall -to- Station land use growth scenario. Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3- 14 IM i ra i) Transportation Planning 6 Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 3 -8: 2020 Levels of Service with Proposed Network Improvements for the Mall -to -Pond Land Use Scenario North 0 111,\VINer, r, o s Legend: .�.,.,� Freeway Ramp River I Trail I Railroad I Level of Service Note: not to scale 2* Delay Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3 -15 1Mirai Transportation. Planning 6 Enginaaring The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 3 -9: 2020 Levels of Service with Proposed Network Improvements for the Mall -to- Station Land Use Scenario Legend: ` Freeway Ramp ter' River Trail I ----- Railroad Note: not to scale Level of Service Delay Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3 -16 M i r a i 7 Tranaportetion Planning 6 Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 3 -10: 2020 Intersection Delays with Proposed Improvements at Congested Intersections North 0 52sec 44- sec sec`. 72 sec I A 42 sec 1 lithe Delay_-. tittle' Dela eves eau or WE8W LD 15N6. DWCTOWN 5WTl4CENT!R 79 sec 84 sec 76 sec 1 Legend: s.wromi Freeway Ramp =xy` : ;°a River • — --- Railroad Note: not to stele 79'sec. 72 sec' 89 sec 84sec Delay in Seconds for Mall to Pond Delay in Seconds for Mall to Station ; Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3- 17 iMirai 1 Transportation Planning 6 Enginaaring The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation COST OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Table 3 -1 is a summary of the project worksheets in 2005 dollars. The cost estimates in Table 3 -3 are for the proposed improvements for the Mall -to- Station land use scenario and No Action land use. Table 3- 1: Planning Level Cost Estimates of Proposed Improvements (2005 Dollars) Cost Estimate Summary for the Potential Tukwila Urban Center Improvements Construction with Contingency Right -of -Way Engineering and Construction Management Total New Klickitat flyover, signal at SB'I 5 on ramp /Klickitat:NB lane south of;;Stranderon Southcenter Pkwy. $15,620,000. • $22,000,000 Addition of one EB lane west of 61st S on Southcenter Blvd $5,282,340 0 $1,586,000 $6,868,340 Addition of one WB lane west of 61st S on Southcenter Blvd $2,502,360 $752,000' $3,254,360 Addition of one EB lane from west of Andover Park W to Andover Park E on Tukwila Pkwy and NB right turn lane on Andover Park E south of Tukwila Pkwy $1,741,680 $885,000 $524,000 $3,150,680 Widening of E -W approaches at_Southcenter:Blvd - and West Valley Hwy and extend NB left pocket on West Valley:Hwy $4,712,880.:. Addition of one EB lane from west of Andover Park E to West Valley Hwy on Strander Blvd and one SB lane on West Valley north of Strander Blvd $5,992,320 $1,140,000 $1,799,000 $8,931,320 168th. Street: from:SouthcenterPkwy to Andover Park:E. • ';$5,300,000:' • $13,674,280 Minkler Boulevard Extension $15,000,000 $1,500,000 $3,750,000 $20,250,000 Total $55,788,860 $11,125,000 $15,928,000 $82,831,860 osts are based on estimated 4UU5 dollars. Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3 -18 1Mirai) 7 Transportation Planning & Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation HIGH PRIORITY IMPROVEMENTS Mirai Associates identified a set of the improvements that should be implemented as high priority items in the next 10 years. The recommendations are based on the existing levels of traffic congestion, the anticipated near -term developments in the Urban Center area, and the current understanding of the I -405 Corridor Program implementation schedule. The recommended high priority improvements are shown in Figure 3-11. Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3 -19 1 Mirai Transportation Planning 6 Engineering, The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 3 -11: High Priority Improvements North Add 4ndEBLane ..... ........... and Moditj sigdl. Pharos aat6lst Intenectioa Legend: 1 Freeway ti^ River I «.Tra1 l 1- — - Railroad Note: not to Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3- 20 Mirai Transportation Planning & Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation ADDITIONAL 2020 LEVEL OF SERVIEC ANALYSIS A 2020 traffic city -wide forecast model was developed that included the land use growth forecasts for the No -Action and Mall -to- Station land use growth scenarios, along with a proposed development called Tukwila Valley South (called the "combined land use scenario "). The 2020 traffic conditions for the streets and intersections within the TUC area are described in the following section. The model volumes were post - processed to attain the turning movement volumes for the TUC intersections, which were then processed through the Synchro model to calculate intersection level of service. After completing this task, the City asked Mirai to carry out additional modeling and traffic forecasting work. Several changes to the 2020 network within the TUC were modeled and the traffic conditions were analyzed for the combined scenario. This memo summarizes the results of these traffic analyses. Land Use Assumptions related to Tukwila Valley South As a part of the TUC traffic analysis, Mirai developed forecasts for the year 2020 with the Mall -to- Station scenario land use. The model volumes were post - processed to calculate the levels of service at the TUC intersections. Table 3 -2 shows the Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) with the Mall -to- Station land use scenario for the year 2020 in the Tukwila Valley South area (TAZ 26, 27,103 and 104). This table also shows the TUC model land use assumptions for Renton s South Lake Washington area (TAZ 426) and Kent Freight Center (TAZ 107). The Tukwila Valley South DEIS provided the land use growth assumptions for the year 2030. Table 3 -3 shows the 2030 land use used in the Tukwila Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Figure 3 -12 shows the Traffic Analysis Zones. Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3- 21 M i r a i 1 I i l 1 Transportation Planning Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Table 3 -2: 2020 Tukwila Model Land Use Assumptions for the Mall-To-Station Scenario in thd Tukwila Valley South, Renton and Kent Boeing Areas 2020 Land Use (Mall -to- Station Scenario) TAZ Household Retail Office Government Warehouse Transportation Utilities Manufacturing Total Employment 26 1 0 101 0 445 523 1,069 27 4 0 0 0 1,000 63 1,063 103 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub - Total 17 0 101 0 1,445 586 2,132 107 0 5 91 0 3 5,030 5,129 426 2,155 98 1,221 217 285 11,274 13,095 Table 3-4: 2030 Buildout Land Use Assumptions in the Tukwila Valley South DEIS 2030 Land Use (Tukwila South DEIS) TAZ Household Retail Office Govemment Warehouse Transportation. ' Utilities Manufacturing , • Total Employment 26 775 3,078 2,977 0 0 0 0 27 25 578 670 0 0 0 0 103 450 417 11,831 781 2,343 0 0 104 650 0 3,636 1,389 4,167 0 0 Sub - Total 1,900 4,073 19,115 2,170 6,509 0 31,867 107 0 5 91 0 3 10,222 10,321 426 3538 1,297 14,322 217 285 0 16,121 To develop a new Tukwila model, with the Mall -to- Station scenario and Tukwila. Valley South for 2020, a land use table was prepared for the year 2020 as shown in Table 3-5. Using the full build -out land use for 2030 (the full build -out DEIS) 80 percent of the Tukwila Valley South build -out development was assumed to be completed by 2020. This translates into a yearly commercial /residential growth of approximately 928,000 sq. ft. (assuming construction starts by 2008). To be consistent with the DEIS, the zone with Kent Space Center (TAZ 107) was assumed to add an additional 5,192 manufacturing jobs and 2,596 office jobs. For the Renton South Lake Washington area re- development (TAZ 426), the Mall -to- Station scenario assumes that this area will continue to be manufacturing, while the Tukwila Valley South DEIS assumes a service oriented land use scenario. For this modeling, Mirai assumed that this area would have a mix of manufacturing and service jobs. Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3- 22 1 1 Mirai Transportation Planning 6. Engineering 1 The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 3-12: Tukwila Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3- 23 M i r a i l 1 Transportation Planning G. Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Table 3 -5: 2020 Combined Mall-To-Station and Tukwila Valley South Land Use Assumptions 2020 Combined Mall-to- Station and Tukwila South Land Use TAZ Household Retail::: Office • Government Warehouse Transp. Utilities Manufacturing. Total Employment 26 620 2,463 2,382 0 0 0 4,844 27 20 463 526 0 0 0 999 103 360 333 9,464 625 1,874 0 12,296 104 520 0 2,909 1,111 3,333 0 7,354 Sub - Total 1,520 3,259 15,292 1,736 5,207 0 25,494 107 0 5 91 0 3 7,626 7,725 426 2,847 625 6,967 195 255 5,653 13,095 Baseline Network (2020) In order to understand the growth of traffic with the combined Mall -to- Station land use scenario and the Tukwila Valley South development, 2020 traffic forecasts with the baseline network were made with the model. The baseline network assumes that some committed improvements would occur by 2020. Table 3 -6 list the improvements assumed under the No Action network. Other regional facilities have been assumed to be consistent with regional plans, but they would have a minimal effect on the Tukwila urban area and are therefore not listed in the table. Table 3-6: Improvements to the Model Network Under the Baseline Network Facility ::.... Description Strander Boulevard Extend from SR -181 to Oaksdale Ave SW in Renton 1-405 Assumes "1-405 Implementation Scenario" with modifications at SR -181 ramps and Tukwila Parkway extension to SR -181 Southcenter Parkway Widen to 4/5 lanes from S 180th to S. 200th Klickitat Flyover NB to WB flyover from Southcenter Parkway S.168th Street East -west arterial between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park East SR -509 Extend from S. 188th Way to 1 -5 Sound Transit Light Rail Transit: Northgate to SeaTac Airport 2020 Traffic Forecasts with the Baseline Network With the baseline network assumptions incorporated into the Tukwila travel demand forecasting model, the 2020 PM Peak hour model volumes for the combined Mall -to- Station and Tukwila Valley South growth scenarios were developed. The resulting volumes were post - processed based on the existing intersection turning movement volumes and existing demand model volumes to arrive at the 2020 PM Peak hour turning movement volumes. Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3- 24 (Mirail 1 Transportation Planning 6 Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 3 -13 shows the intersection approach volumes for the 2020 Mall-to- Station only and the 2020 combined Mall -to- Station and Tukwila South conditions. The combined land use scenario adds significant volumes on the TUC arterials including Southcenter Parkway, Tukwila Parkway, Andover Park West, and West Valley Highway. In some links, the traffic volume increases are 40 to 50 percent over the Mall -to- Station scenario. Synchro (Version 5) traffic software was used to analyze the traffic operational performance of selected intersections in the TUC area. The performance results are presented in the form of intersection levels of service (LOS) and average intersection delay in seconds per vehicle. Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3- 25 IMirail Transportation Planning & Englnaaring The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 3 -13: Intersection Approach Volumes (2020) For Mall -To- Station And Combined Mall -To- Station And Tukwila Valley South Scenarios North Volumes 140 , 2020 Man to Station 1 ..340 2020 Man to Station ! _ South Valley Ramp .zi River Trail -- . - Railroad Note: not to scale Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3- 26 M i r a i l 1 Transportation Planning & Enginaaring The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation 2020 Levels of Service with the Combined Land Use and Baseline Network The 2020 PM peak hour levels of service for the combined Mall-to- Station and Tukwila South scenario are shown in Figure 3 -14. The levels of service at the following intersections would be lowered to LOS F with the combined scenario. These intersections would drop from LOS E or better with the Mall -to- Station scenario under the Baseline network condition, to LOS F: 1. Southcenter Parkway/ Strander Blvd (avg. delay: 91 second per vehicle) 2. Southcenter Parkway/ Nordstrom Entrance (I -5 NB Off Ramp) (avg. delay: 142 second per vehicle) 3. Southcenter Parkway / Klickitat Drive (avg. delay: 91 second per vehicle) 4. Minkler Blvd/ Andover Park West (avg. delay: 93 second per vehicle) 5. South 180th Street / Andover Park West (avg. delay: 134 second per vehicle) 6. South 180th Street/ West Valley Highway (avg. delay: 118 second per vehicle) There are 35 intersections in the TUC where levels of service were calculated. Of those, 16 intersections, or about one -half of them would operate at LOS F in 2020 under the Baseline network conditions. Figure 3-15 shows the levels of service with the proposed improvements. Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3- 27 IMirail 1 Transportation Planning S. Englnaoring The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 3 -14: 2020 PM Peak Hour LOS and Delay for Combined Mall -To- Station and Tukwila Valley South Scenario with Baseline Network North lommo me Freeway Ramp .L.;:17_1::=.4: River _..., Trail Railroad Nate: not to scale J * Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service i Delay Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3- 28 �I1 M i ra i I I Transportation Planning 6 Englnaaring The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 3 -15. 2020 PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS and Delay for Combined Mall - To- Station and Tukwila Valley South Scenario with Proposed Improvements North 11\‘111 �E Partca4,v� s++ Legend: ..�.� Freeway Ramp River J .�• -• ..•. Trail — ° °— • - Railroad I Note: not to scale * Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service I Delay Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3- 29 M i r a i 1 Tranaportetion Planning 6 • Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Sensitivity Analyses The City asked Mirai to model a revised network in the TUC and ran it with the combined Mall -to- Station and Tukwila Valley South land use scenario. The network changes that were applied to this model run are described below. The network changes in the TUC, modeled for this sensitivity analysis, are shown in Figure 3 -16. The network changes include: 1. Conversion of Andover Park West to a 3 -lane road (two through lanes with a two -way center left turn lane) from a 4/5 -lane road from Tukwila Parkway to S 168th Street. 2. Conversion of Andover Park East to a 3 -lane road (two through lanes with a two - way center left turn lane) from a 4 -lane road from Tukwila Parkway to Strander Blvd. 3. Extension of 2 -lane Evans Black Drive to Andover Park West and Christensen Road. 4. Extension of Treck Drive as a two -lane road to Andover Park West. 5. Extension of Saxon Drive as a two -lane road to S 180th Street. 6. Addition of a new 2 -lane road from Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West at a mid point between S 168th Street and Minkler Boulevard. 7. Addition of a new 2 -lane road from S 168th Street to Minkler Boulevard (between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West). 8. Addition of a new 2 -lane road between Andover Park West and Andover Park East as an extension of Midland Drive. Figure 3-17 shows the changes to PM peak hour traffic volume changes due to the network changes. When the Mall -to- Station land use scenario is combined with the Tukwila Valley South, with the network changes and proposed improvements, many intersections in the TUC would operate at LOS F. The reduction of capacity on Andover Park West and Andover Park East would result in lower levels of service near the Southcenter Mall area. As can be seen in Figure 3 -18, the following intersections would operate at LOS F under this network and land use scenario: • West Valley Corridor - at Southcenter Boulevard, at Strander Boulevard, and at S 180th Street • Andover Park East - at Tukwila Parkway, and at Strander Boulevard • Andover Park West - at Tukwila Parkway, at Strander Boulevard, Minkler Boulevard, and at S 180th Street • Southcenter Parkway - at Nordstrom Entrance, at Strander Boulevard, and S 180th Street Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3- 30 I I ra i 7 Transportation Punning 6 Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 3 -16: A Test Network for a Sensitivity Analysis Legend: ,sommin Freeway Ramp River Trali -- -- Railroad New Street Street Extension Conversion to 2 lane road with PIVLTt.• • WAIL= Two Way Lett Turn Lane Note: not to scale Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3- 31 1 1 Mirai Tranaportatlon Planning & Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 3 -17: 2020 PM Peak Hour Link Volume Changes Due to the Revised Network Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3- 32 1 M 1 Transportation PI/ant-ling 6 Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 3-18: 2020 PM Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service for Combined Development with the Revised Network North I Legend: Freeway Ramp I River Railroad Note: not to scale r- 1 * Jt Unsignaltzed Intersection Level of Service I Delay Chapter 3 2020 Traffic Forecasts and Recommendations for TUC September 2005 Page 3- 33 Transportation Planning E. Engineering __ The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recornrnendatlons Chapter 4. Traffic Analysis for the Areas Outside the Tukwila Urban Center Chapter 4 documents the traffic conditions for the areas of the City outside the Urban Center for the 2002 existing and the future 2020 conditions and presents improvements recommended for the area. INTRODUCTION This chapter identifies a set of facility improvements that will be needed to accommodate the traffic growth associated with future developments outside of the Tukwila Urban Center. Based upon the land use and traffic forecasts for the year 2020, a preferred set of improvements are recommended. The land use forecasts include several developments that are currently in the City's permit approval process. This chapter includes a description of the PM peak hour conditions for the 2002 existing roadway network, the 2020 No Action network, and the 2020 roadway conditions with the recommended improvements. The existing conditions show the volumes (counts) at selected intersections for the year 2002: The term "2020 No Action Network" applies to the traffic volumes under the 2020 and use conditions with the existing roadway facility assumptions. The term "2020 conditions with the recommended improvements" refers to the traffic volumes under the 2020 land use and includes the recommended improvements needed to achieve LOS E, which was use as an initial level of service standard. This Chapter has been used to identify the transportation improvements the City for the Transportation Element Update of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. Study Area Figures 4 -1(A and B) show the entire.Tukwila study area. For illustrative purposes only, the study area has been divided into two sections, a north and south section. The northern section covers the area between the City limits on the north and South 154th Street. The southern section extends from South 154th Street to the City limits on the south. South 154th Street is included as part of the southern section. In total, forty -one intersections were analyzed. Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center September 2005 Page 4- 1 Transportation Pier-wiling 6 Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Figure 4 -1A: Tukwila Study Area — North LAN Legend: SA1211 ;t PAINER,GOL! L'_La...: SEATTLE TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Chapter4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside ofTuktoila Urban Center September 2005 Page 4- 2 Transportation Planning 6 Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Figure 4-1B: Tukwila Study Area — South ! s 5164. -Z \ 1E0:11 IPAFY' i s rxa st 3.173152 Legend: Cay Lima Park Ftiver t J Freeway Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center September 2005 Page 4- 3 Transportation Planning 6 Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGIES The study evaluated the 2020 conditions using the Tukwila Model developed by Mirai Associates with EMME/2 software. Synchro 5.0 was used to determine the level of service (LOS) for the study area under the existing (2002) and 2020 conditions. However, the intersection of 65th Avenue South and Southcenter Boulevard was analyzed using Synchro 6.0. This was done because Synchro 5.0 cannot model two -way left -turn lanes and, consequently, does not accurately portray performance of the intersection. The following sections of this chapter use the same LOS methodologies applied to the 2020 analysis for the Tukwila Urban Center EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE (2002) Mirai calculated the existing PM peak hour LOS for all arterial intersections, including selected state facilities (those intersections with freeway ramps) and unsignalized intersections. Figure 4-2 shows the LOS and delays for the northern section of the study area. The corresponding PM peak hour intersection volumes are shown in Figure 4-3. The corresponding information for the southern section of the study area is shown in Figure 4-4 and Figure 4-5. Under 2002 conditions, one intersection in the study area operates at LOS E, and six intersections operate at LOS D. The following unsignalized intersection operates at LOS E for at least one approach: • 51th Ave. South and Ryan Way - eastbound approach It should be noted that this intersection is part of the City of Seattle. Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center September 2005 Page 4- 4 Transportation Planning & Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Figure 4 -2: Tukwila North Half 2002 PM Peak Hour (Weekday) LOS and Delays 3 9'.t1 sa Legend: City Limit River ^112421i ,1 1 t HILLTi K * KORTH SEATTLE T ,COW4 INTERMTICC4AL AIRPORT Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center Septeniber 2005 Page 4- 5 A S S O C I A T E S The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 4 -3: Tukwila North Half 2002 PM Peak Hour (Weekday) Intersection Volumes a4ma 0 14.31 t SI 10 26 7, A sr 25 u 4)1L. 66 47 22 X4 147 71 44 t r* 1] Al 166 101 73 42 1 Y 5 Ma a ]7 -i t u 4— re su In u to ti Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Centgr September 2005 Page 4- 6 6,1lna O] 14 ASSOCIATES The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 4-4: Tukwila South Half 2002 PM Peak Hour (Weekday) LOS and Delays 1 . .,1 Tu.-Nvi..i 1 i -----. 1.1 POMO ' -=', . i 1 i : Illi I CAILA . /• ,/ z'i ,,, ,, 00,41: ...1 • (/ —§-1112112— , I :-....j i ‘1 ! '. ...---- i li ! 'I% '14‘• - Mird1112t Eltird . . M 1 \ ".., 3 173712 SI Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center September 2005 Page 4- 7 Transportation Planning 6 E nginsaring The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 4- 5:•Tukwila South Half 2002 PM Peak Hour (Weekday) Intersection Volumes __1 • \ / S.. \\ a • 9Y f ° i.�. i;w a .11—. a1" 9,1)1°, _ t.rtn s t Legend: Cryt Part Raw �+ Freasuy r +NLa3M10 1 w ^1 _eua ya; I pp� 14,1 --•- $! I. "•ailem'a — I i � 181 I au es • is —► Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center September 2005 Page 4- 8 Transportation Planning 6 Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation 2020 NO ACTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Traffic volumes in the City are projected to increase due to the employment and housing growth projected within the City and in the areas surrounding the City. The No Action includes all projects planned for completion by the year 2020. It should be noted that the improvements at the intersection of South 154th Street and International Boulevard, included as part of the Link Light Rail Project, are accounted for in the proposed projects. The 2020 LOS were calculated using the Tukwila Model. The results show that by 2020, 28 percent of the signalized and unsignalized intersections analyzed (11 out of 39) will degrade to LOS F. The intersections with LOS F under the 2020 conditions are listed below. Unsignalized Intersections The following unsignalized intersections would operate at LOS F for one or more approaches under the 2020 No Action conditions: • 42nd Avenue South and South 160th Street - westbound approach • 51St Avenue South and Ryan Way - northbound approach (City of Seattle Intersection) • East Marginal Way and South 112th Street - eastbound approach • 42nd Avenue Soi.:th and South 124th Street - westbound approach • East Marginal Way and South 130th Street - southbound approach • 53rd Avenue South and South 144th Street - northbound approach • Macadam Road South and South 144th Street - westbound approach • 42nd Avenue South and South 144th Street - westbound approach • Military Road South and South 144th Street - westbound approach (City of SeaTac Intersection, but approaches are in Tukwila) • Military Road South and South 133rd Street --eastbound approach (City of SeaTac Intersection) Signalized Intersections The signalized intersections with LOS F and LOS E under the 2020 No Action conditions were identified. Approaches with significantly worse LOS have been noted in parenthesizes. _ The following signalized intersections would operate at LOS F under 2020 No Action conditions: • International Boulevard and South 160th Street (northbound and - southbound) (City of SeaTac Intersection) • International Boulevard and South 154th Street (southbound and westbound) (City of SeaTac Intersection) Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tulavila Urban Center September 2005 Page 4- 9 Treneportation Planning 6 Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation The following signalized intersections would operate at LOS E under the 2020 No Action conditions: • Martin Luther King Jr Way and South Ryan Way (northbound) • East Marginal Way and Boeing Access Road (northbound and westbound) • Tukwila International Boulevard and South 112th Street (southbound and westbound) Figures 4 -6 through 4-9 show the specific delays and turning volumes at intersections within the study area. Figure 4 -6 shows the LOS and delays for the northern half of the study area. The corresponding PM peak hour intersection volumes are shown in Figure 4-7. This information for the southern half of the study area is shown in Figure 4-8 and Figure 4 -9. Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center September 2005 Page 4- 10 Transportation Planning Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 4 -6: 2020 PM Peak Hour (Weekday) No Action Network LOS and Delays (Tukwila North Half) Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center September 2005 Page 4- 11 Miral. T rene poreati on Pions-10-1g 6 E ng*nee ring The City of Tukwila "Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 4 -7: 2020 PM Peak Hour (Weekday) Intersection Volumes (Tukwila North Half) 4 Y 11 p 104•131 12 •d -411, 04 4 a *8234 St t_. 4 — 344 • Win al t 10 414 r'x 394 1 310 438 r3 F 350 r 1' . 64093* St F .4— 30 T‘''4 4 1 t9 --► 00 t4 10 10 —at 1409 U t r" w 123 0 13 tae 18 110 - 130.9 tl 0,83016* 1 I ® t:. TO 2137 93 1 33 64489 OD W tl 3053 m 50 k .4— 110 1.340 *0 :9033 SC 4� A_ m (— 140 rK to .3 43130 111 F 1 4-- 110 r" f01 tw -4- M 3 13 013 t 33 0r8 11 15 z046 t 0 1309 St u-� 1 2000 163 *3e 19 24 14 H3138 0 J 10 10 '- ua f-- r4 6t33h3 *44330 s 00 2,179 *8 10 .4.-20 r'tl 34� 110 —4 418 31129 40 430u Clutpter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center September 2005 Page 4- 12 T nefoortation Planning S. Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 4-8: 2020 PM Peak Hour (Weekday) No Action Network LOS and Delays (Tukwila South Half) itiluttst s ' \I-• • ' i !.....:.7,1-"--- 1- • a le:A .-.1.: .;.■ i 1 i slu I 1 : • ... 1 S iltl. S: • i• 1-7.:Th '31 1.1 -.71)•".vin.A. 3 1:133: I 1 317,:a St ' --11,31:t Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center September 2005 Page 4- 13 Transportation Planning 6. E ng inearing The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 4 -9: 2020 PM Peak Hour (Weekday) Intersection Volumes (Tukwila South Half) a P.^.x ■■:v31 .. _ 5 17 MR7 Legend: Cry 4M1 Park Rim freeway Ra 4oad • I t. x Jr- a0 m --Y :u a73 b A... 1:0 4) 4, r 6,03319 u-y 1 1 9 :90 la is ra a T t3 SOY � 30 1 413 450 j1* I A J su —► +w r30 �l f 1. 4— rw r 'A a 15431-34 t 30 170 Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center September 2005 Page 4- 74 Transportation Planning 6 Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation 2020 LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH INITIALLY PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Upon careful evaluation of the 2020 No Action conditions, Mirai developed a list of improvement projects needed to meet LOS E as the initial standard. The LOS and delays for those intersections where an improvement is proposed are shown in Figures 4-10. Initially Proposed Improvements • Retime the existing signal at the intersection of International Boulevard and South 160th Street. Result: LOS E (City of SeaTac Intersection) • East Marginal Way and South 112th Street: prohibit eastbound left turn movement onto East Marginal Way. Result: LOS E. Vehicles will be rerouted along Tukwila International Boulevard. • Add turn lanes, as specified, for the following intersections in order to improve LOS: • 42nd Avenue South and South 160th Street: provide eastbound and westbound left turn lanes. Result: LOS E. • Macadam Road South/53rd Avenue South and South 144th Street: provide a northbound left turn lane. Result: LOS F with less delay In order to reduce significant delays in 2020, the following intersections were analyzed with traffic signals: • 51st Avenue South and Ryan Way - Result: LOS B (City of Seattle) • East Marginal Way and South 130th Street - Result: LOS B • 42nd Avenue South and South 124th Street - Result: -LOS B • Macadam Road South/51st Avenue South and South 144th Street - Result: B • Military Road and South 144th Street - Result: LOS ,C (City of SeaTac) • Military Road and South 133rd Street - Result: LOS C (City of SeaTac) Jurisdictional- issues may impede installation of signals at the intersections of 51st Avenue South and Ryan Way as well as Military Road and South 144th Street. The intersection of 51st Avenue South and Ryan Way is in the City of Seattle. Military Road at South 144th Street is owned by the City of SeaTac. Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center September 2005 Page 4- 15 Transportation Planning 6 Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendation Figure 4 -10: 2020 PM Peak Hour (Weekday) LOS and Delays with Initially Proposed Improvements Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center September 2005 Page 4- 16 TrenaportoLion Planning 6 Engineering The City of Tukwila Transportation Analysis and Recommendations PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES FOR INITIALLY PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Planning level costs estimates developed by the consultant KPG for the proposed improvements are shown in Table 4-1. Project costs range from $404,000 to $567,000 with a total cost for all improvements of $2,451,000. -1: Cost Estimates for Initially Proposed Improvements INTERSECTIONS TO BE MONITORED One intersection of concern is Military Road and South 144th Street. Military Road and this intersection are under the jurisdiction of the City of SeaTac. Count volumes were comparable to the field observations; however the intersection operates better than the models indicate. Platoons of five to eight vehicles arrive at the westbound approach and the resulting_ queue clears well, within 30 seconds. Additional turn lanes would improve the level of service at this intersection but would eliminate shoulder and pedestrian facilities.. Signalization of the intersection would improve the level of service to LOS C. The disadvantage to signalization is that it may attract additional traffic to this mainly residential area. Installation of a signal at this intersection may be difficult as noted before Military Road as the intersection is part of the City of SeaTac. The intersection should be periodically reviewed in the future. Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center September 2005 Page 4- 17 Construction .. Right -of -way Engineering Management Total Costs Macadam Rd /51st & S 144th Street (Signalization Improvement) $361,698 $15,220 $105,495 $483,000 Macadam Rd /53rd Ave S & S .144th St - (Widening • Improvement) $252,300 $77,340 $73,588 $404,000 S 124th St & 42nd Ave S (Signalization Improvement) :; $343,824 $22,480 $100,282 $467,000 S 160th St & 42nd Ave S (Widening Improvement) $423,246 $19,600 $123,447 $567,000 East Marginal Wy & S 130th.$t (Signalization Improvement), $390,054 $25,960 $113,766 $530,000 Total Costs $2,451,000 INTERSECTIONS TO BE MONITORED One intersection of concern is Military Road and South 144th Street. Military Road and this intersection are under the jurisdiction of the City of SeaTac. Count volumes were comparable to the field observations; however the intersection operates better than the models indicate. Platoons of five to eight vehicles arrive at the westbound approach and the resulting_ queue clears well, within 30 seconds. Additional turn lanes would improve the level of service at this intersection but would eliminate shoulder and pedestrian facilities.. Signalization of the intersection would improve the level of service to LOS C. The disadvantage to signalization is that it may attract additional traffic to this mainly residential area. Installation of a signal at this intersection may be difficult as noted before Military Road as the intersection is part of the City of SeaTac. The intersection should be periodically reviewed in the future. Chapter 4 2002 and 2020 LOS Outside of Tukwila Urban Center September 2005 Page 4- 17 Appendix A Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Final Summary Report Evaluation of Options Prepared for the City of Tukwila Prepared by Mirai Associates, with KPG 1 Mirai yTransportation Planning Engineering June 13, 2003 Mirai A S S O C I A T E S Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Draft Summary Report: Evaluation of Options Prepared by Mirai Associates with KPG This report summarizes the evaluation of potential options that would improve traffic conditions at the intersections of Southcenter Parkway with Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard and their vicinities. This is an interim report focusing on this specific area. The conclusions of this report will be integrated into the Tukwila Urban Center Study. First Workshop The City invited community stakeholders, including city staff and consultant team members working on the Urban Center Study, and business representatives who are planning to redevelop properties in the area, to a workshop on March 10, 2003. Mirai Associates presented the existing and 2020 traffic conditions followed by a discussion about the existing and potential traffic problems. The workshop participants brainstormed possible solutions. The meeting notes of the March 10th workshop are included with this report in Attachment A. 2020 Traffic Forecast Mirai Associates developed a traffic- forecasting model for the City of Tukwila. The basis of the citywide model is the zone system and network, based on the Puget Sound Regional Council model, tailored for the use by the City of Tukwila. Using the forecasted 2020 traffic volumes, Mirai Associates used the traffic simulation models, Synchro and SimTraffic to understand the future conditions. To develop 2020 traffic forecasts, Mirai Associates used the City's land use growth projections for areas within the City of Tukwila. The land use growth forecast includes the proposed expansion of the Southcenter Mall and the redevelopment of the J.C. Penny warehouse site for retail. The forecasts are viewed as the best projections at this time, but there will be some changes in the growth forecasts as the Urban Center Study progresses. For areas outside the City, the Puget Sound Regional Council's most recent land use projections for 2020 were used. To develop the 2020 traffic forecasts, the following regional facility improvements were included as the baseline network: Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 2 June 13, 2003 M i ra i AS S O C I A T E S • I-405: the addition of one GP lane in each direction from 1 -5 to West Valley Highway, two GP lanes in each direction from West Valley Highway to SR 522 and one GP lane in each direction from SR 522 to I -5 in Lynnwood. • Tukwila Parkway: the extension to West Valley Highway with new ramps. • Southcenter Parkway south of S 180th Street: the extension to 200th Street and widen to 5 lanes. • Addition of a new east -west street between Strander Boulevard and Minkler Boulevard (on the south side of Tukwila Pond): the construction of a three lane road from Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park East. Figure 1 shows the existing (2002) and 2020 PM peak hour volumes at the intersections in the focus area. Please note that the existing volumes shown in Figure 1 are not taken directly from the 2002 counts. For existing volumes, Mirai Associates adjusted the volume counts taken in April 2002 (by 25 percent) to reflect the seasonal fluctuations of the traffic volumes in the vicinity of the Southcenter Mall and to produce levels of traffic congestion that are occurring throughout the year (but excluding December conditions). The same 2020 traffic volumes shown in Figure 1 are used to evaluate all the options except for one, the Klickitat Extension Option - Option 5. For Option 5 the model was re -run to estimate the traffic demand on the new Klickitat extension roadway. It is possible that the future traffic volumes could change with additional improvements, which may be recommended in the Tukwila Urban Center study. Southoenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 3 June 13, 2003 M i r a i AEI B 0 0 1 AT E H Figure 1 Existing and 2020 PM Peak Hour Volumes* 2002 2020 i 743 1030 L. 201 210 North 0 12002 2020 2002 2020 2002 205 2020 220 965 34 980 40 176 200 814 900 WESTFIELD SHOPPJNGTOWN SOUTHCENTER LEGEND Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter Shopping Building Freeway Ramp 2002 143: 538 2020 155 610 Str`ander Blvd t 1065 1250 * 2002 Volumes are increased by 25 percent from the actual counts of April 2002 to accommodate seasonal fluctuations. Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 4 June 13, 2003 M i ra i A S S O C I A T E S Screening Criteria The participants at the March 10th workshop reviewed the screening criteria presented by Mirai Associates. After adding a few more criteria to the list, the following criteria, grouped into four categories, were used to screen the options. Category Criteria Engineering Feasibility Acceptable roadway grade Acceptable horizontal curves Traffic Management Intersection level of service Intersection queue storage Accident potential Driver expectancy Capacity Environmental Impact Impact on businesses Permits approvals (Department of Ecology, Corps of Engineers, etc.) Land use compatibility Multi modal impacts Implementation Feasibility Cost WSDOT approval Phasing opportunities Business community approval Improvement Options Considered At the March 10th workshop many potential options to improve traffic flows on Southcenter Parkway, Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard were identified. The participants assisted the city and consultant team in screening the options down to a manageable number.. The set of final options to be carried forward for further evaluation were not selected at the workshop, but the group instructed City staff and the consultant to apply the criteria and decide on a final set of options. Following the workshop, the consultant team and city staff refined the potential improvement options. Through this process, a total of 17 improvement options for the area were identified. The March 10th workshop summary notes describe the 17 improvement options and present comments made by the workshop participants. (Attachment A) Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 5 June 13, 2003 Mirai A B S O C I A T E B The following list includes all the improvement options identified at the workshop, and throughout the evaluation process, along with comments about the results of the screenings for each option. Option 1: Addition of one lane on Southcenter Parkway between Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard. • Screening result: this option would not be added to the list for further evaluation because it would not provide enough capacity. Option 2: Addition of two lanes on Southcenter Parkway between Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard. • Screening result: this option would be added to the list for further evaluation. Two sub - options regarding the side of the widening were identified and evaluated. • Option 2A: Widening to the east side of Southcenter Parkway. • Option 2B: Widening to the west side of Southcenter Parkway. Option 3: Widening of Southcenter Parkway to the east side and bringing the northbound left turn traffic from the right side of Southcenter Parkway to form a four - legged intersection at Southcenter Parkway and Klickitat Drive. • Screening result: this option would not be added to the list for further evaluation because of cost concerns and few benefits. After reviewing this option, a variation of this option emerged, which is labeled as Option 3B. Option 3B: Northbound to westbound fly over, elevated road connecting Southcenter Parkway with Klickitat Drive. This option eliminates the northbound to westbound left turn lanes at the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Klickitat Drive. • Screening result: this option would be added to the list for further evaluation. Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 6 June 13, 2003 M i ra i A B S 0 C 1'A T E B Option 4: Grade - separated intersection at Southcenter Parkway and Klickitat Drive. • Screening result: this option was dropped for further evaluation, as it would be too costly with few benefits. Option 5: Extension of Klickitat Drive to the east of Southcenter Parkway. Two sub - options were identified as follows: • Option 5A: The connection of a new road, Klickitat Extension, to Strander Boulevard through the parking area of the Mall. The road would have access to the Mall parking area. • Screening result: this option would be evaluated for traffic benefit. If a large traffic benefit were found, the engineering feasibility assessment would be carried out. • Option 5B: Extension of Klickitat Drive to a parking structure of the Southcenter Mall. • Screening result: this option should be evaluated as one of the Southcenter Mall expansion EIS alternatives. No further evaluation on this effort would be carried out Option 6: Collector - distributor lanes on I -5 with new northbound ramps from Southcenter Parkway. • Screening result: this option would be dropped from the list as it is a long - range option and has significant impacts. Option 7: New S 168th Street from Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park West. • Screening result: this option was added to the baseline, no action condition. Option 8: New connector roadway from the I -5 /S 188th Street interchange to S 180th Street. • Screening results: as this option would not be feasible, it would be substituted with the expansion of Southcenter Parkway between S 180th Street and S 200th Street. This improvement will be included in the baseline, no action condition. Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 7 June 13, 2003 M i r a i A S S O C I A T E S Option 9: Extension of 61st Avenue into the Southcenter Mall north parking area. • Screening result: this options should be evaluated as one of the alternatives in the Mall expansion EIS. Option 10: Roundabouts at Southcenter Parkway and Klickitat Drive, and Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard. • Screening result: this option would not be included as the traffic volumes in the problem area are too high for roundabouts. (The feasibility of roundabouts was briefly evaluated after the workshop. The results of the evaluation are described in the following section.) Option 11: Re- alignment of Klickitat Drive with Strander Boulevard, with a direct connection between them. • Screening result: this option would be dropped from the list, as there would not be enough space along I -5 and Southcenter Parkway. (The meeting summary describes the concept of this option and why this option would be difficult to be implemented.) Option 12: Re- configuration of the Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard intersection to make the traffic movement of Strander Boulevard to Southcenter Parkway the dominant traffic movement. • Screening result: this option would be included in the list for further evaluation. Option 13: Extension of Andover Park West to Southcenter Boulevard over I405. • Screening result: this option should be evaluated as a part of the overall Tukwila Urban Center study. Option 14: Restriction of traffic movement for vehicles on NB I -5 off ramp at north of Strander Boulevard. • Screening Result: this option should be evaluated for its effectiveness but should not be included in the evaluation list. (This option was evaluated with other options combined.) Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 8 June 13, 2003 M i ra i A 9 9 00 1 AT E 9 Option 15: Reconstruction of NB I -5 off ramp with a direct connection to the Klickitat Overpass. • Screening result: this option would be dropped from the list for further evaluation, as it would be difficult to be implemented. Option 16: Connection of the NB I -5 off ramp directly to the Southcenter Parkway/ Strander Boulevard intersection. • Screening result: this option would not be included in the evaluation list, as it would not be easily accomplished due to the steep grade of the off ramp. Option 17: Extension of the NB I -5 off ramp to the Southcenter Mall parking area through a tunnel under Southcenter Parkway. • Screening result: if this option were to have large traffic benefit, it would be included. Otherwise, it would not be included for further evaluation. (The evaluation showed that construction cost of this option is high and the benefit is low. It was determined that this option should not be further evaluated.) 2020 No Action Condition The no action condition makes no improvements whatsoever to the existing corridor — not even proposed improvements within the region. The same traffic volumes for this scenario will be used under the other conditions. 2020 Baseline Condition The baseline condition is basically the no action alternative that assumes no improvements in the problem area will be done. The performances of the improvement options identified above were compared to the baseline. Note that the baseline condition includes a small number of low cost transportation improvements in the vicinity of the study area that should be implemented . regardless of the improvement option selected in this study. The following street improvements are assumed in the 2020 baseline condition. • Widen Southcenter Parkway to 5 lanes between S 180th Street and S 200th Street. • Construct a new east -west street on the south edge of Tukwila Pond between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park East. Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 9 June 13, 2003 Mirai A• B 9 0 C 'I A T E B • Install a new signal at the intersection of Klickitat Drive and southbound 1 -5 on -ramp to improve level of service for left turn vehicles on eastbound Klickitat Drive. • Widen the internal access road on the Southcenter Mall at the Nordstrom entrance between Southcenter Parkway and Nordstrom to add a westbound left turn lane at the signal. (An additional eastbound lane may be needed. This study did not analyze the issue related to internal vehicle circulation inside the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter.) • Modify the signal phasing of the westbound approach to the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard: Allow left and right turn from the center lane of the westbound approach. • Restrict vehicles exiting at the northbound I -5 off -ramp located between Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard from making left turns at the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard. The exiting vehicles at this off -ramp will be allowed to travel southbound Southcenter Parkway only through the intersection. This results in approximately 200 vehicle choosing to used the off ramp to the north and then travel south on Southcenter Parkway and turn left onto Strander Boulevard. The 2020 traffic volumes from the Tukwila model were manually "post - processed" and fed to a traffic simulation model called SimTraffic. Northbound 1 -5 Off -Ramp During the March 10th workshop, a question was raised about the percentage of vehicles exiting the northbound I -5 off -ramp located between Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard, and making a left turn at the Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard intersection. Mirai Associates conducted a field survey in April 2003, and found the following: During the weekday PM peak hour (from 4 to 5 PM) • Total number of vehicles: 360 vehicles • Percent of the vehicles on the NB off ramp existing at the ramp south of Klickitat Drive making a southbound left turn at the Southcenter Parkway /Strander Boulevard intersection: 50 percent • Percent of the vehicles on the NB off ramp existing at the ramp south of Klickitat Drive moving southbound straight through the Southcenter Parkway /Strander Boulevard intersection: 50 percent Mirai adjusted the computer simulation models to reflect these findings. Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 10 June 13, 2003 Mirai A S S O C I A T E S Evaluation of Roundabouts During the evaluation phase, a question was raised by the City staff as to whether roundabouts at the intersections of Southcenter Parkway at Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard should be included for further evaluation in this study. To respond to this question, the capacity of two lane roundabouts on Southcenter Parkway at Strander Boulevard and Klickitat Drive was calculated using the projected 2020 volumes. The option to construct one single roundabout for these two intersections is not feasible since the diameter required to accommodate the projected traffic volumes would be much larger than the available right -of -way. The U.S. Department of Transportation's Roundabout Guide was used to calculate the capacity and queues Shown in Tables 1 and 2, The analysis clearly indicates that the entering volumes are too large for a standard double -lane roundabout to accommodate them. The volume -to- capacity ratios will exceed 1.0 at the approaches on Southcenter Parkway. (When the traffic flow on an approach exceeds 85% of capacity, delays and queue lengths vary significantly about their mean.) Based on the capacity analysis, a more detailed feasibility analysis of the roundabouts on Southcenter Parkway was not recommended for this study. Table 1 Capacity Analysis of a Roundabout at the Klickitat Drive /Southcenter Parkway Intersection Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 11 June 13, 2003 Intersection Approach SB Southcenter EB Klickitat NB Southcenter V/C Ratio 1.13 0.61 0.93 Delay (Second) 60+ 5 18 Avg. Queue Length (Vehicles) 28+ 1.43 10.25 95th Percentile Queue (Vehicles) 100+ 5 100+ Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 11 June 13, 2003 M i r a i A S S O C I A T E S Table 2 Capacity Analysis of a Roundabout at the Strander Boulevard /Southcenter Parkway Intersection Note: The above two tables describe the level of service in the year 2020 for double -lane roundabouts The V/C ratios were calculated using the approach volume of each leg of the intersection divided by the capacity as calculated from Exhibit 4-4 of Roundabouts: An Information Guide, published by the US Department of Transportation. The delays were calculated from Exhibit 4 -9 of the Information Guide, and the queue lengths were calculated from equation 4 -8 and Exhibit 4 -10 of the Information Guide. Initial Improvement Options For each improvement option selected for further evaluation, the concept was drawn on an aerial photograph using a scale that would provide enough detail to assess the engineering feasibility and the magnitude of impacts to the adjacent properties. The following section describes the "initial" set of the options developed based on comments made at the March 10th workshop and refinements made by City staff and the study consultants. Table 3 summarizes the options that will be further evaluated, the options that have become part of the baseline option, and options that have been rejected or assumed to be a part of another study. Attachment B provides illustrations for each option as noted. Southcenter/Tukwita Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 12 June 13, 2003 Intersection Approach SB Southcenter WB Strander NB Southcenter V/C Ratio 1.08 0.92 1.07 Delay (Second) 50 20 50 Avg. Queue Length (Vehicles) 30 7.78 29.72 95th Percentile Queue (Vehicles) 100+ 25 100+ Note: The above two tables describe the level of service in the year 2020 for double -lane roundabouts The V/C ratios were calculated using the approach volume of each leg of the intersection divided by the capacity as calculated from Exhibit 4-4 of Roundabouts: An Information Guide, published by the US Department of Transportation. The delays were calculated from Exhibit 4 -9 of the Information Guide, and the queue lengths were calculated from equation 4 -8 and Exhibit 4 -10 of the Information Guide. Initial Improvement Options For each improvement option selected for further evaluation, the concept was drawn on an aerial photograph using a scale that would provide enough detail to assess the engineering feasibility and the magnitude of impacts to the adjacent properties. The following section describes the "initial" set of the options developed based on comments made at the March 10th workshop and refinements made by City staff and the study consultants. Table 3 summarizes the options that will be further evaluated, the options that have become part of the baseline option, and options that have been rejected or assumed to be a part of another study. Attachment B provides illustrations for each option as noted. Southcenter/Tukwita Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 12 June 13, 2003 M i ra i A S S O C I A T E S Table 3 Summary of Option Evaluation Option Eliminated Baseline Initiative Further Review Other 1 x 2A x 2B x 3A x 3B x 4 x 5A x 5B Mall EIS 6 x 7 x 8 x 9 Mall EEIS 10 x 11 x 12 x 13 TUC Study 14 x 15 x 16 x 17 x Option 2A: Option 2A is a two -lane widening on the east side of Southcenter Parkway. This option assumes that the widening will occur on the east side of Southcenter Parkway, which requires a retaining wall on the slope at the western edge of the Southcenter parking area. The northbound and southbound two -lane left turn lanes on Southcenter Parkway approaching Strander Boulevard and Klickitat Drive will be extended to the full length of the roadway between those two intersections. Option 2B: Option 2B is a two -lane widening on the west side of Southcenter Parkway. This option is basically the same as Option 2A except that the widening will occur on the west side of Southcenter Parkway. The northbound I- 5 off -ramp located between Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard would have to be closed. Option 3B: Option 3B is a northbound flyover roadway. This concept is to move the northbound vehicles making left turns to a new flyover roadway located on Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options -FINAL DRAFT Page 13 June 13, 2003 M i ra i A S S O C I A T E S the east side of Southcenter Parkway connecting with Klickitat Drive at the southbound I -5 mainline bridge area. The structure is designed to have an 8 percent grade with 25 mph curve. Option 5: Option 5 assumes that Klickitat Drive would be extended to the east of Southcenter Parkway on a structure toward the surface with a steep grade. The roadway would bend and connect with Strander Boulevard. It appears that the proposed parking structure would be located on the Klickitat Drive extension alignment. No drawing of Option 5 was included in this report. Option 12: Option 12 is a re- configuration of the Southcenter Parkway/ Strander Boulevard intersection. This option attempts to ease the movements on Southcenter Parkway. The northbound traffic on Southcenter Parkway will have to make left turns to go north while the westbound vehicles on Strander Boulevard would appear to go straight through to northbound Southcenter Parkway. Option 3B - 12: Option 3B -12 is a combination of Option 3B and Option 12. This combination option was drawn to illustrate a concept that would maximize easing the east -west traffic movements between Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard. Evaluation of the Options All the options described above were evaluated using the same evaluation criteria identified in the earlier screening process. Each criterion was rated using a rating scheme of 1 through 5. A rating of 3 was assigned when an improvement option is expected to make no noticeable improvement in addressing the problems (i.e. will be the same as the no action or neutral). A slight worsening of the conditions was rated with a 2 and a rating of 1 was given when the condition would get much worse than the no action. A rating of 5 was given where significant improvement would be achieved, and, for a slight improvement in conditions, a rating of 4 was given. Table 4 shows the evaluation ratings for each preliminary option. A summary of the evaluation for each preliminary option follows. Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 14 June 13, 2003 Mirai A S S O C I A T E S Table 4 Evaluation Rating Summary Category Cn rya 2A: Two -Lane Widening : ' on East Side 2B: Two -Lane . Widening on West Side 3B: NB Flyover to Klickitat 5A: Klickitat . Extension' to Strander with access to SC Parking Garage 12: Conversion of East - West Streets for Major Movements 3B -12: Combination.. of Option 3B and 12 Engineering Feasibility Acceptable Roadway Grade 3 3 2 (8 %) 1 3 2 (8 %) Acceptable Horizontal Curves 3 2 (NB Off ramp eliminated) 2 3 3 2 (less than ideal curve) Traffic Management Intersection Level of Service 3 3 4 2 3 4 Intersection Queue Storage 4 4 4 2 2 (NB on Pkwy not good) 3 (NB on Pkwy not good) Accident Potential 4 2 (More traffic to Nordstrom I /S) 2 (merging before SB on ramp is problem) 2 3 2 (merging before SB on ramp is problem) Driver Expectancy 3 3 3 3 3 3 Capacity (2020 and beyond) 3 3 4 1 2 4 Environmental Impact Impact on Businesses 3 1 (Two businesses taken) 3 1 2 2 Permits Approvals 3 1 (WSDOT will not approve) 3 3 3 3 Land Use Compatibility 3 3 3 3 3 3 Multi -modal Impacts 2 2 3 3 3 3 Implementation Feasibility Cost Medium ($8.8 M) Medium ($8.5 M) Medium ($13 M) (Not Estimated) Medium ($10.8 M) High ($15.4 M) Phasing Opportunities low low low low low high Business Community Approval 3 2 3 1 2 2 5= Significantly improved, 4= Moderately improved, 3= Neutral, acceptable or no change from No Action, 2= Slightly worse than existing, 1= not acceptable Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 15 June 13, 2003 M i ra i ' A B B O C I A T E B Option 2A - Two -lane widening on the east side of Southcenter Parkway The overall performance of this option is good. The most notable improvements are reduced chances for the north -south through vehicles to be blocked by left turn vehicles spilling from the turn lanes between Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard. For this option, the level of service improvements are relatively minor. The impacts to businesses are minimum. There will be significant traffic queue and level of service problems at the three intersections: Strander Boulevard and Southcenter Parkway, Southcenter Parkway and Nordstrom Entrance (I -5 Northbound Off -ramp) and Klickitat Drive and I -5 Southbound On- ramp. Option 2B - Two -lane widening on the west side of Southcenter Parkway The traffic performance of this option is basically identical to Option 2A. However, this option will have two major negative impacts: two businesses located on the west side of Southcenter Parkway will have to be purchased, and the northbound I -5 off -ramp south of Klickitat Drive will have to be closed. The closure of the off -ramp will result in more northbound exiting traffic from I -5 at the Nordstrom Entrance intersection, which may increase traffic accidents and lower the level of service at this intersection. The most serious impact will be that WSDOT is unlikely to approve this option. Option 3B - Northbound flyover from Southcenter Parkway near Strander Boulevard to Klickitat Drive While this option will be designed to have a slightly steeper climbing grade, the level of service at the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Klickitat Drive will significantly improve. This option will eliminate the vehicle queue storage problem on Southcenter Parkway between Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard. This option does not address the traffic problems for the southbound vehicles on Southcenter Parkway north of the Nordstrom Entrance and the northbound vehicles on Southcenter Parkway south of Strander Boulevard. The overall performance of this option is good but additional improvements will be needed. Option 5A - Klickitat Drive extension to Strander Boulevard through the Southcenter Mall parking lot This option assumes that the new street (Klickitat Drive Extension) will be constructed with a structure from the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 16 June 13, 2003 Mirai A S S O C I A T E S Klickitat Drive to the ground level of the Southcenter Mall parking lot. The new street extension will be connected with Strander Boulevard. The 2020 model was used to estimate the traffic volume on this new road. It showed that the demand for this road is relatively small. (The westbound lane during the PM peak hour will carry about 310 vehicles.) Because the intersection of Klickitat Drive and Southcenter Parkway will operate with the four legs, the level of service will be slightly lowered. The lack of the adequate queuing spaces at the several intersections will not be solved by this option. The new road appears to interfere with the proposed parking structure in the Southcenter Mall. The overall performance of this option is relatively poor while it is estimated that it will be very expensive. (The cost estimate for this option was not made due to the poor performance and the low rating of the implementation feasibility.) Option 12 - Conversion of east -west streets for major movements This option will provide much improved levels of service for the vehicles from Strander Boulevard heading to Klickitat Drive. However the overall intersection levels of service improvements in the study area will be modest while this option requires a significant amount of additional land for street right -of -way. The traffic simulation model runs show that there will be significant level of service problems with long vehicle queue for northbound traffic on Southcenter Parkway. Option 3B -12 - Combination of Options 3B and 12 This option was developed with the understanding that Option 3B (a flyover concept) would significantly improve level of service at the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Klickitat Drive and the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard with Option 12 (the conversion to the east -west dominant move). This option may be implemented with two phases: Option 12 as the first phase and Option 3B as the second phase. While this combination option will improve average levels of service and vehicle queues at all intersections in the study area, there will be a problem on the northbound vehicles on Southcenter Parkway approaching Strander Boulevard. During the peak period, many vehicles will need two or three signal cycles to clear the intersection and the average queue length will be more than 500 feet from the intersection. The vehicle queue will extend to 800 -900 feet occasionally. Cost Estimates Table 5 shows a summary of cost estimates for each option. Detail for each option is shown in Appendix C. The cost estimate for Option 5A - Klickitat Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options -FINAL DRAFT Page 17 June 13, 2003 Mirai A S S O C I A T E S Extension was not prepared because it will not provide adequate traffic benefits and significantly interfere with the redevelopment proposal of the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter. Option 3B -12 is the most expansive among the six options with cost over 15 million dollars. The 2 -lane widening options (Option 2A and Option 2B) are about the same with about $8.5 - $8.8 million. The flyover option (Option 3B) is estimated to cost about $12.7 million while the Southcenter /Strander conversion to east /west movements (Option 12) will be about 10.8 million dollars. Table 5 Preliminary Summary of Costs Category Option 2A Two -Lane Widening on East Side Option 2B Two -Lane Widening on West Side Option 3B NB Flyover to Klickitat Option 12 Conversion of East -West Streets for Major Movements Option 3B -12 Combination of Option 3Band 12 Construction $6.0 M $4.0 M $9.1 M $7.3 M $ 10.6 M Right of Way $1.0 M $3.4 M $0.9 M $1.3 M $1.5 M Engineering and Management $1.8 M $1.2 M $2.7 M $2.2 M $3.2 M Total $8.8 M $8.5 M $12. 7 M $10.8 M $15.3 M Screening Through the evaluation of the six Options described above, a clear "winner" did not emerge. The consultants could not find an option that they could strongly recommend. However, it became clearer that the following three options should be dropped from further evaluation, because two of them would not perform well in terms of providing traffic benefits, and the other would have a significant implementation problem. • Option 2B - Two -lane widening on west side (WSDOT would not approve this option.) • Option 5A - Klickitat Extension (This option has a high cost, an impact on the future expansion plans of the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter and low traffic benefit.) Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 18 June 13, 2003 Mirai A S S O C I A T E S • Option 12 - Conversion of east -west streets (Strander and Klickitat) for major movements (This option will not provide enough level of service improvements at the intersections.) The consultant recommends that these three options be dropped from the further evaluation due to the estimated inferior levels of service and extended queuing, and that the remaining three options (Option 2A, Option 3B and Option 3B -12) be further refined and evaluated. Improving the Remaining Options In order to solve a majority of the anticipated 2020 traffic problems found in the study area, the remaining three options needed to be refined more in order to improve all intersections levels of service and to reduce vehicle queues. The consultant ran the SimTraffic traffic simulation model for each option many times with various ideas to improve the 2020 traffic conditions. Based on the extensive traffic simulation analyses, the following additional improvements are needed for each preliminary option. Modified Option 2A- Two Lane Widening on East Side: In addition to the improvements listed under the baseline condition and widening Southcenter Parkway between Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard by two lanes, Option 2A should include the following improvements: • Widen southbound Southcenter Parkway between the intersection at the Nordstrom Entrance and the intersection at Klickitat Drive by one lane and assign the lane as the additional southbound right turn lane to Klickitat Drive. (Without providing additional capacity for the southbound right turn vehicles, there will be significant LOS and vehicle queue problems on the southbound Southcenter Parkway approaching the Nordstrom Entrance intersection.) • Widen Southcenter Parkway south of Strander Boulevard to add a northbound through lane between the intersection at Strander Boulevard and a point approximately 1,000 feet south of Strander Boulevard. Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 19 June 13, 2003 Mirai AS 9 D C I A T E 9 Modified Option 3B- Northbound Flyover to Klickitat: In addition to the flyover structure to eliminate the northbound left turn lanes, reconfigure the eastbound approach on Klickitat Drive to Southcenter Parkway with an additional lane, and add the improvements in the baseline conditions. Option 3B should include the following improvements: • Allow the southbound Southcenter Parkway right turn lane north of Klickitat Drive to run as "free" turns with the exception of yielding to pedestrians at the Klickitat Drive intersection. • Widen Southcenter Parkway south of Strander Boulevard to add a northbound through lane for about 500 feet south of the intersection with Strander Boulevard intersection. (This improvement may be accomplished by converting the existing center two -way left turn lane to a through lane.) Option 3B-12 - Combination of Option 3B and 12 As this option was refined several times at the initial option definition stage, no additional improvement to this option appear to be feasible. Level of Service, Delay and Vehicle Queuing Analysis The refined two options and Option 3B -12 were evaluated for level of service, delay and vehicle queue length in detail using the SimTraffic simulation model. These three options were also compared with the baseline (no action) condition. Table 6 shows the 2020 average level of service conditions and delays. It was necessary to run the simulation model at least five times for each option to obtain the average conditions. The bottom of Table 6 shows total values of the network delay for each option. The total network delay under the baseline condition is 351 seconds per vehicle. Modified Option 2A will reduce the delay to 107 seconds, a 70 percent improvement over the baseline condition. The total network delays for Modified Option 3B and Option 3B -12 are about the same: 62 and 68 seconds, respectively, which is a reduction of approximately 80 percent from the baseline condition. Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 20 June 13, 2003 M i ra i A B 6 0 C I A T ES Table 6 2020 Average Level of Service and Delays (Seconds) • Intersection Options No Action Baseline Modified Option 2A Modified Option 3B Option 3B -12B No Build Two -Lane Widening Percent Improvement over Baseline NB Flyover Percent Improvement over Baseline Combination of Options 3B and 12 Percent Improvement over Baseline Strander Blvd./ Southcenter Pkwy 172 (LOS F) 267 (LOS F) 53 (LOS D) 80.3% 31 (LOS C) 88'3% 47 (LOS D) 82.5% Southcenter Pkwy/ 1-5 NB Off Ramp South of Klickitat 14 (LOS B) 24 (LOS C) 15 (LOS B) 36.7% 6 (LOS A) 75.0% 5 (LOS A) 80.8% Southcenter Pkwy /Nordstrom Entrance /I -5 Off Ramp 146 (LOS F) 144 (LOS F) 35 (LOS C) 75.7% 32 (LOS C) 77'8% 30 (LOS C) 79'4% Klickitat Dr. /Southcenter Pkwy 36 (LOS D) 41 (LOS D) 36 (LOS D) 11.4% 12 (LOS B) 70.7% 13 (LOS B) 68.5% 1 -5 SB On -Ramp/ Klickitat Dr. 10 (LOS B) 33 (LOS C) 11 (LOS B) 66.9% 12 (LOS B) 63.6% 11 (LOS B) 67.5% Total Network Performance 380 351 105 70.1% 62 82.3% 68 80.7% The average vehicle queue length for each of the five intersection approaches was obtained from SimTraffic with several simulation runs. Table 7 shows the results of the queuing analysis. Modified Option 3B and Option 3B -12 perform very similarly in terms of intersection approach queue lengths. The queue lengths are much shorter than the baseline -no action conditions except for the westbound approach on Klickitat Drive at the intersection with the southbound on -ramp. This is because these two options will send significantly more traffic towards that direction efficiently without delay at the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Klickitat Drive. Modified Option 2A performs better than the baseline condition. However, there will be longer queues at the intersection of Klickitat Drive and Southcenter Parkway than Modified Option 3B or Option 3B -12. Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 21 June 13, 2003 Mirai A S S O C I A T E S Table 7 Average Vehicle Queue Lengths (Feet) Intersection Approach Options No Action Baseline Modified Option 2A (Two -Lane Widening) Modified Option 3B (NB Flyover) Option 3B -12 (Combination of Options 3B and 12) Strander Blvd./ Southcenter Pkwy Northbound 1300 430 364 500 572 Southbound 200 362 226 200 162 Westbound 600 598 456 210 106 Southcenter Pkwy/ 1 -5 NB Off Ramp South of Klickitat Eastbound 450 160 168 80 100 Southcenter Pkwy /Nordstrom Entrance /I -5 Off Ramp Northbound 160 98 172 130 150 Southbound 170 576 288 340 224 Eastbound 240 216 156 156 152 Westbound 260 258 250 240 234 o Klickitat Dr. /Southcenter Pkwy Northbound 480 530 302 102 110 Southbound 370 462 350 140 186 Eastbound 320 528 284 110 150 1 -5 SB On -Ramp/ Klickitat Dr. Westbound 60 74 120 310 274 Eastbound 170 300 146 170 134 Modified Option 2A performs better for the northbound approach on Southcenter Parkway at Strander Boulevard than the other options. Modified Option 3B -the flyover concept will result in longer queues for the approach than the other options because the northbound lane feeding to the flyover has a strong demand causing unbalanced distribution of traffic among the northbound lanes on Southcenter Parkway. Conclusions Based on the extensive analysis of the options in terms of environmental impacts, traffic benefits and cost, described in this report, the following'conclusions can be made: • The improvements, which are defined as the 2020 baseline condition, are needed to improve the projected traffic problems, but they will not be enough to solve them in the study area. The levels of service at the two intersection: Southcenter Parkway at Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard will operate LOS F with more than 140 seconds of delay under the baseline condition. This situation will significantly impact operation of the near -by intersections. • Option 2B -two lane widening on the west side of Southcenter Parkway, Option 5A- Klickitat extension to Strander Boulevard, and Option 12- Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 22 June 13, 2003 M i ra i A S S O C I A T E S conversion of east -west streets for major movements, did not perform well enough to be considered for a recommendation. • Three options (Option 2A, Option 3B and Option 3B -12) evaluated as the "remaining options ", are modified options from the initial options, performed well in terms of providing traffic benefits to solve the 2020 problems. The amounts of the traffic performance improvement among the three options are found to be about same. All three options will reduce the delay by 70 to 80 percent in 2020, compared with the baseline condition. • Among these three options, two options (Modified Option 3B and Option 3B -12) will perform slightly better than Modified Option 2A. • All of the "remaining options" will be expensive: o Modified Option 2A: $10 -11 million o Modified Option 3B: $13 -14 million o Option 3B -12: $15 -16 million (These costs are higher than those shown in Table 5 because the cost of the baseline improvements and additional improvements are added to them.) • While the overall traffic benefits of Modified Option 3B and Option 3B- 12 are the same, the level of service at the intersection of Strander Boulevard and Southcenter Parkway will be better under Modified Option. 3B than Option 3B -12 (36 second of delay vs. 47 second of delay). • While all of the three options will need additional right -of -way, Option 3B -12 will require slightly more right -of -way than the other options. • WSDOT may not approve the widening required in Modified Option 2A. Under this option, the west side of Southcenter Parkway between the intersection at northbound I -5 off ramp/ Nordstrom Entrance and Klickitat Drive is needed to be widened so that the two southbound lanes on Southcenter Parkway will be assigned to right turns at Klickitat Drive. WSDOT may have a problem of approving this improvement because the off -ramp turning radius at the approach to the Southcenter Parkway /Nordstrom Entrance intersection would be shortened. • The City of Tukwila can choose one the three options. Any one of them will provide significant improvement to traffic circulation over the baseline condition. • Modified Option 3B - widening of Southcenter Parkway with a northbound flyover - appears to be slightly better than the others because it provides better intersection level of service and the cost is less than Option 3B -12 - a combined option with Option 3B and Option Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 23 June 13, 2003 Mirai A H ' 9 O C I A T C H 12. This option will better accommodate the long -term traffic growth beyond 2020 than the other options. Recommendations Based on these conclusions, the consultant recommends that the City choose Modified Option 3B - "Widening of Southcenter Parkway with a northbound flyover ". Specifically, the City should implement the . following improvements to improve access in the area of Southcenter Parkway in the vicinity of Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard: • Construct a northbound -to- westbound flyover ramp allowing vehicles to exit on the right side of Southcenter Parkway north of Strander Boulevard in the northbound direction to access westbound Klickitat Drive. This ramp will bypass the signal control at the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Klickitat Drive for the vehicles making northbound left turns at this intersection. • Widen Southcenter Parkway north of the Nordstrom Entrance intersection to add an additional southbound through lane between the "north Mall driveway" and the Nordstrom Entrance intersection. • Allow the southbound Southcenter Parkway right turn lane north of Klickitat Drive to run as "free" turns with the exception of yielding to pedestrians at the Klickitat Drive intersection. (This free "right" turn movement is possible because no conflict will exist for that movement.) • Widen Southcenter Parkway south of Strander Boulevard to add a northbound through lane for about 500 feet south of the intersection with Strander Boulevard intersection. • Widen Southcenter Parkway to 5 lanes between S 180th Street and S 200th Street. • Construct a new east -west street on the south edge of Tukwila Pond between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park East. • Install a new signal at the intersection of Klickitat Drive and southbound 1 -5 on -ramp to improve level of service for left turn vehicles eastbound on Klickitat Drive. • Widen the internal access road at the Nordstrom entrance between Southcenter Parkway and Nordstrom on the Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter site to add a westbound left turn lane at the signal. • Modify the signal phasing of the westbound approach to the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard by allowing left and right turn from the center lane of the westbound approach. (The westbound approach should operate with a right turn lane, a right and left turn lane and a left turn lane.) Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 24 June 13, 2003 Mirai A S S O C I A T E S • Restrict vehicle movements for those exiting at the I -5 northbound off - ramp located between Klickitat Drive and Strander Boulevard from making left turns at the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and Strander Boulevard. The exiting vehicles at this off -ramp will be allowed turns only for southbound Southcenter Parkway through the intersection with Strander Boulevard. Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 25 June 13, 2003 Mirai A 9 9 0 C 1 A T E 9 Attachment A March 10th Charette Meeting Notes Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 26 June 13, 2003 A S S O C I A T E S Tukwila. Charette March 10th, 2003 Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Meeting Summary (updated 5/02/03) The meeting convened with a rooftop viewing of two Southcenter Pkwy intersections; one with Klickitat Drive, the other with Strander Blvd. Tukwila Traffic Engineer Cyndy Knighton made the introductions and explained that the study was being done at this point in time to provide detailed input for the on -going Tukwila Urban Center Study. Existing Traffic Conditions Tom Noguchi from Mirai Associates presented background information about traffic growth trends in the study area including Tukwila Urban Center approach volumes and percentage changes over the past decade; hourly volumes on the 61st Street Bridge, Klickitat Drive, Southcenter Pkwy, Strander Blvd; 2002 weekday PM peak hour volumes for the study area and intersection LOS; and accident counts (1997 — 2001) -for intersections in the area. The background information follows as Attachment 1. Highlights of existing traffic conditions are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Existing Traffic Conditions Highlights Traffic volumes on the adjacent 1 -5 and 1 -405 have been steadily increasing; the 2000 daily volumes are about 50 percent higher than those in 1982. The CBD traffic volumes (inbound) have increased; some access points experienced traffic volumes increases of 20 to 65 percent in.the last 10 years. - Saturday peak hour traffic volumes in the Urban Center are generally higher than weekdays PM peak hour and the peak times occur 1 -2 hours later. In some areas of the Urban Center, the weekday noon peak volumes are greater than the AM or PM peak hours. The traffic volumes spike in December; volumes are higher in the summer months than during the winter months; and April is the most "average" month. • . The intersectionsexamined on- SoiithcenterPkwy (with-Strander Blvd and Klickitat Dr) currently operate at LOS D. The four legs of the intersection may operate at LOS D; but one approach could be considerably Tess than LOS F; as is the case at the intersections examined on Southcenter Pkwy. . One of the major_ problems is that traffic in the right lane of Strander gets onto Southcenter Pkwy; and then queues on Southcenter Pkwy to turn left to Klickitat Drive (to 1 -5 SB). Left turn storage spaces are not adequate. The traffic from the NB 1 -5 off ramp onto Strander Blvd causes another problem because the distance between the off ramp and Strander Blvd is too short. The left turn lanes on Southcenter Pkwy between Klickitat and Strander are also short, creating an intense weaving pattern for traffic, mixed with SB and NB through traffic. The majority of accidents during the past five years have occurred at the Southcenter Pkwy intersections with Strander Blvd and Klickitat Drive. Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 27 June 13, 2003 A S S O C I A T E S 2020 Growth Projections Tukwila planner, Lynn Miranda noted that very preliminary scenarios -are showing more multi - family housing in the CBD in 2020, up to 450 units (there are none in 2002). Employment is expected to increase by 9000 jobs; with the proportion of retail to warehouse /distribution shifting to a scenario of more predominantly retail employment. These estimates include the redevelopment of the Mall and Penny's property. 2020 Traffic Conditions Tom Noguchi presented the forecasted 2020 weekday PM peak hour volumes along with intersection LOS in the study area. Conditions on arterials in the area become very congested and intersection performance degrades to LOS F. The delays increase 300 percent at the Klickitat/Southcenter and I- 5NB/Nordstroms /Southcenter intersections. The Strander /Southcenter intersection was modeled with two right turn lanes from Strander, but the intersection delay continues. Traffic Problems The participants identified fourteen problems in the study area, shown in Table 2. Evaluation Criteria The group established evaluation criteria for potential solutions to the traffic problems in the study area. The criteria shown in Table 3 are grouped in four major categories: o Engineering Feasibility • Traffic Management • Environmental Impact • Implementation Feasibility Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 28 June 13, 2003 Mirar A S S O C I A T E S Table 2. Traffic Problems It is very difficult to make left turns from the two -way left turn lanes of Southcenter Parkway. The distance from Klickitat Bridge to Strander Blvd is very short, thus drivers from Klickitat have to make quick weaving movements to make left turns to Strander Blvd. Traffic on Strander Blvd right lanes often cannot move because of the congestion on Southcenter Parkway between Klickitat and Strander. The northbound left turn pocket is often full, so that it is difficult to make left turns from Southcenter Pkwy to Klickitat. The same problem can be applied to the southbound direction. The 61st Bridge has no direct access to the Mall. From the north, there are no reasonable alternative ways to get onto Andover Park West, Andover Park East and the area south of Strander Blvd, except to travel on Southcenter Parkway and Strander. Klickitat and Strander Blvd are too closely spaced. Too many T- intersections are in the Urban Center area. The existing street network (with the mega blocks) within the Urban Center can't handle the high volumes of traffic. Drivers are confused on ways to access the Southcenter Mall; better signage is needed. Drivers are confused on where on /off ramps to 1 -5 and 1 -405 are located because on -ramps and off -ramps are not located at the same places. NB 1 -5 off ramp queues back, as drivers queue on-Southcenter Blvd making left turns to Strander Blvd. The area Tacks facilities that will support alternative modes of transportation such as bicycles and pedestrians. - - Traffic circulation within the Mall parking lot is not clearly signed or marked. Traffic exiting from and entering to the Southcenter Mall is not well distributed. Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 29 June 13, 2003 IVL F -r a: 4 5 5 ❑ C_ 1 A T E 5 Table 3: Phase I Evaluation Criteria Category Criteria Phase I Evaluation (Yes, Maybe Yes, Maybe No or No) Engineering Feasibility Acceptable Roadway Grade Will the grades of new or modified roadways be less than 10 percent? Acceptable Horizontal Curves Will the new or modified roadways meet or be better than the horizontal curve standard? Traffic Management Intersection Level of Service Will intersection levels of service be significantly improved? Intersection Queue Storage Will new or modified roadways provide adequate intersection queue storage spaces? Accident Potential Will the potential for accidents decrease? - Driver Expectancy Will the access and circulation patterns be understood by the drivers? _ Capacity - Will the option support the through traffic generated from land use changes adjacent to the study area? Environmental Impact Impact on Businesses Can the existing businesses affected by the roadway changes continue to do business? Permits Approvals Can the environmental permits be easily obtained from State and . Federal agencies? Land Use Compatibility Does the option support the existing and future land use? Multi -modal Impacts Does the option provide multi -modal access to /from the area? Implementation Feasibility Cost Is the option likely to be fundable with the available Federal, State and local sources? WSDOT Approval Is WSDOT likely to support the option? - Phasing. Opportunities Is the option able to be phased in? Business Community Approval Is the business community likely to support the option? - Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement.Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 30 June 13, 2003 Mirar A S S O C I A T E S Ideas to Solve Traffic Problems The workshop participants spent several hours discussing ideas that might address the traffic problems on Southcenter Pkwy, Klickitat Drive, and Strander Blvd. Sixteen ideas were presented and pros /cons were discussed with vigor. The ideas were centered on five main concepts: • Increasing capacity • Managing demand • Improving high accident locations (HALs) • Providing alternate access points • Connecting Strander Blvd to I -5 • Alternative modes of transport A discussion of the sixteen ideas generated that day and one additional option from the workshop follow. Each option has a brief summary of their pros and cons discussed at. the Charette on March 10` and the comments from the staff/consultant meeting on March 21st to refine and clarify the options. At the Charette, the participants had agreed for the staff and consultant team to meet and decide on the final options to be carried forward for further analysis. At that consultants /staff meeting they agreed that Options 2a, 2b, 3b, 5a, 5b, 12 and a combination of 3b and 12 would be the focus of further investigation as viable options to improve the traffic flow in the area. Several options are assumed to occur no matter what option is chosen and should be incorporated into each option considered. The original options presented at the charette are included in Attachment 2; there are no diagrams for the options added at the charette. Option 1. Add capacity by adding one lane on Southcenter Pkwy between Klickitat Drive and Strander Blvd; extend one of the left turn lanes in each direction to the entire length of segment. Change one of the two left turn lanes to a right turn lane on Strander Blvd. • Adds some left turn storage capacity. • Reduces blocking of the through traffic by left turn vehicles. • May have to widen approaches to Southcenter Pkwy above and below this segment. Workshop Participants' Recommendation: This option is not aggressive enough, and does not- add enough capacity; do not consider. Consultant/Staff see this option as a short -term solution that would not have _an impact on the traffic situation in twenty years — removed from consideration. - Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 31 June 13, 2003 m 't =..r a. A S S O C I A T E S Option 2. Add capacity by adding two lanes on Southcenter Pkwy between Klickitat Drive and Strander Blvd; create side -by -side left turn lanes. Change one of the two left turn lanes to a right turn lane on Strander Blvd. • All widening may need to occur on the east side of Southcenter Parkway or the northbound I -5 off ramp may have to be closed. • Widening this segment may lead to increased weaving at locations on Southcenter Pkwy. • Updated Design Standards Impacts o If widening occurred on both sides of the street, the NB I -5 off -ramp would have too tight of a turning radius and would need to be closed. o The NB I -5 off ramp is a couplet of off - ramps; if a ramp is closed, the other off ramp and intersection may need to be enlarged to meet the increased traffic needs that would be shifted to that exit — the off ramp improvement needs to meet current WSDOT design codes. • If the second NB off -ramp at Nordstrom's was closed, Nordstrom could get out of their lease. Westfield would not pursue Mall addition. Workshop Participants' Recommendation: This option may work - all widening may need to occur on the east side of the roadway or updated design standards for the 1 -5 off ramps may not be met. Consultant/Staff will evaluate this option as two options: Option 2a: Possibly widen Southcenter Pkwy only on the east side to avoid any alterations to the 1 -5 ramp SB to Southcenter Pkwy. Option 2b: It could be a viable option to eliminate the 1 -5 ramp to SB Southcenter Pkzvy because it would eliminate all accidents associated with that ramp. Exiting traffic would be forced to the Nordstrom exit. Option 3. Widen Southcenter Pkwy by moving the northbound lanes to the right side of the roadway. It will create a signalized four - legged intersection at Klickitat Dr and Strander Blvd intersection. Assign the center SB lane on Southcenter Pkwy: before Klickitat to a left turn lane onto Strander Blvd. Assign the curb lane on WB Strander Blvd to Klickitat only. • Counterintuitive to drivers to move right to make a left turn • Would require fill for the expansion. • Appears to be very expensive for the gains in movement Workshop Participants' Recommendation: Do not consider, as this option appears very expensive for the gains in capacity. Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 32 June 13, 2003 im.i r. a, i:I A S S O C I A T E S Staff /Consultant will evaluate option 3b. Option 3b: In lieu of a four- legged intersection, evaluate traffic performance of an elevated one -way, flyover road on the east side of Southcenter Pkwy from Strander Blvd to WB Klickitat Dr. It will merge with Klickitat at the SB 1-5 Bridge overpass; would enable storage lanes from SB Southcenter Pkwy to EB Strander to be extended; structure would enable NB Southcenter Pkwy to EB Klickitat to bypass the signal (two -lane structure). Option 4. Grade - separate the NB and.SB through lanes on Southcenter Parkway from the turning lanes. Tunnels would be constructed for the NB and SB through lanes under the intersection of Klickitat Dr and Southcenter Pkwy and connecting ramps would be provided for turning vehicles. Change one of the two left turn lanes to a right turn lane on. Strander Blvd. Bring I -5 NB ramp to . exit onto Klickitat Drive. • Takes advantage of grade differences by using tunnels. • Multiple problems. • Too expensive for gains. • . Counterintuitive /confusing for drivers. Workshop Participants' Recommendation: This option should not be considered further. • Staff /Consultant: Evaluate this option for traffic benefits before discarding it. Mirai will perform a Synchro analysis of option. Option 5. Extend Klickitat Drive to the east and connect it with Strander Blvd east of the current intersection; signalize the intersection. Provide access to Southcenter Mall parking /or parking garage from this segment of roadway. The I -5 NB off ramp would tunnel under Southcenter Parkway.and connect to the Klickitat extension. • Moves Klickitat traffic directly to Strander Blvd. • Other versions of this option would consider taking NB I -5 off. ramp (a) directly to Klickitat Drive (no tunnel); or (b) directly to Strander Blvd from I -5. , • Urban planners like the idea of creating a parking garage directly from the Klickitat extension. However, the Mall owner did not want this option with the adjacent parking garage; they want to locate a parking garage next to the Mall entrances: • Mall owners may oppose a through road on the property. Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 33 June 13, 2003 . i° r a 'i; A 9- 9 0 C I A T E 9 Workshop Participants' Recommendation: Evaluate this option fisrther although the Southcenter Mall owner may not support this option as described. Staff /consultant agree to pursue the follow options: Option 5a: A direct connection from Klickitat to Strander would be constructed. Explore creative ides and solutions to make this option workable. Option 5b: A connection from Klickitat to a proposed Mall parking garage. Under this option, the new road would not connect with Strander Blvd. Option 6. Create direct on/ off access to northbound I -5 with collector - distributor lanes on I -5. Construct a tunnel for I -5 NB exit and on ramps under Southcenter Pkwy to connect directly to Strander Blvd. Close the I -5 northbound off ramp at the Nordstrom entrance. • Drivers expect the exit and entrance to a major freeway to be located at the same location. This does not do that. • Variation would bring NB I. -5 exit directly into Strander; Southcenter Parkway would not continue to have a T- intersection with Strander, if we do this. • May not be acceptable because of closed exit to the Nordstrom entrance; Mall - owner would oppose. Workshop Participants' Recommendation: This option is a possibility, but Mall owners would not supportt if the Nordstrom exit were. closed. Consultant Recommendation : This is a long -range option tied to 1 -5 improvements, thus it should not be advanced to Phase II. Staff /Consultant agree with recommendation. Option 7. Construct a new road: S. 168th Street from Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park West. • Internal circulation option, should be considered as part of Tukwila Urban Center Study. • How much traffic would shift from Strander Blvd to the new road? Workshop Participants' Recommendation: This option may not be a part of the Klickitat issues but it should be evaluated as one of the overall Urban Center options. This may -not solve the Klickitat /Strander problem; we don't know why people do that weave. The Consultant Team: the effectiveness of this option should be tested. Staff /Consultant agree that this is a baseline option. Assume an east -west connector road from Andover Park East to Southcenter Pkwy between Minkler and Strander will occur in all options. - - - Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 34 June 13, 2003 ra A S S O C I A T E S Option 8. Construct a new connector road from the I -5 /S 188th Street interchange to South 180th Street along I -5. • Consider as a Phase 3 improvement. • Provides good access for the southern part of Tukwila. • Provides access from future SR 167 cross - valley extensions. • Should be considered as part of the Tukwila Urban Center Study. Workshop Participants' Recommendation: This option should not be considered but it should be included with Tukwila Urban Center Study. Staff /Consultant: The City of Tukwila has alternate plans for this corridor. Southcenter Parkway will be widened between S 180th and S 200th. It will connect to Orilla Rd and then to S 188th St,_ which connects to 1 -5. Consider being a baseline and including in all options. Option 9. Construct a direct connection into the Mall from 61st Avenue Bridge over. I-405. • Would . provide direct access to the Mall reducing traffic on Southcenter Pkwy. • Should be considered as part of the Tukwila Urban Center Study. Workshop Participants' Recommendation: This option should not be considered, and it should be evaluated with the_Tukwila Urban Center Study. Staff /Consultant agree that the extension of 61St Avenue S to the Mall does not have a direct benefit to the area in question. This . option should be considered when the Mall conducts its EIS. Option 10. Construct roundabouts on Southcenter Pkwy at Klickitat Drive and Strander Blvd. • Speed limited to 20 mph: • Diameter of roundabout may exceed space available. - • Large number of trucks (warehouses) and buses through these intersections. Workshop Participants' Recommendation: This option should not be considered because the spaces required for roundabouts are too large. Staff /Consultant agreed. Option 11. Align Klickitat Dr with Strander Blvd. Replace the Klickitat Bridge with a new bridge over NB I -5 that would directly connect to the Strander Blvd Southcenterfrukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 35 June 13, 2003 A S S O C I A T E S intersection with Southcenter Pkwy. May have to close the I -5 NB exit between Klickitat and Strander; redirect all exiting traffic to the Nordstrom exit. Eliminate the Klickitat Dr and Southcenter Pkwy intersection. • Would probably require the reconfiguration of the intersection with Strander /Southcenter Pkwy. • Would change the movement on Strander Blvd. Workshop Participants' Recommendation: This option should not be considered because it would not have adequate space for the new roadway connection. Staff /Consultant agree realignment is not an option. Option 12. Reconfigure the Southcenter Pkwy /Strander Intersection to make the Southcenter Pkwy to Strander Blvd the through traffic route. The SB lanes on Southcenter Pkwy south of the intersection would move without signalization. The NB lanes on Southcenter Pkwy would stop at the intersection. A left turn would be allowed from Strander Blvd to Southcenter Pkwy. • Would redirect traffic more directly to areas south of the Mall. • Would create a more direct connection to the West Valley Highway and other points east. Workshop Participants' Recommendationz. Evaluate this option .in Phase 1.. Staff /Consultant will evaluate this option as follows. Mirai will model this option in Synchro to evaluate the impact traffic realignment would have on the traffic flows. Some concern was raised given that if traffic flow preference is given to the movement from Klickitat Dr to Strander Blvd, will the queues on Southcenter Pkwy be worse off. Option 13. Extend Andover Park W. northward to Southcenter Blvd by constructing a new bridge over I405. • Would direct traffic directly onto Andover Park W to travel, east of the Mall to the south. • Should be considered as part of the Tukwila Urban Center Study. • Operational questions. - Workshop Participants' Recommendation: This option should be evaluated as a part of Tukwila Urban Center Study. Staff /Consultant agreed to evaluate this option as a part of the TUC study. Have asked WSDOT to evaluate the overpass and HOV access as a part of the 1-405 Corridor Program. Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 36 June 13, 2003 Mirai A S S O C I A T E S Option 14. Restrict I -5 NB off -ramp vehicles to right turn only on Southcenter Pkwy without allowing them to access to Strander Blvd. • Operational - where would cars turn? Workshop Participants' Recommendation: This option can be a part of other options but should not be considered independently. Staff /Consultant agreed that Mirai would obtain the proportion of vehicles attempting to turn left onto Strander from the 1 -5 ramp to SB Southcenter Pkwy, and then model the option scenario. Not considered part of baseline as of yet. If enacted, would be a short - term solution. Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 37 June 13, 2003 M i:r :a- i A99 O C I A T E 9 Option 15. Reconstruct I -5 NB ramp to Southcenter Pkwy to exit at the Klickitat Bridge. • Adds too much traffic to already high volume intersection. Workshop Participants' Recommendation: Do not consider. Staff /Consultant agreed and removed it as a viable option. Option 16. Connect NB I -5 off ramp directly to the Strander Blvd/ Southcenter Pkwy Intersection. Keep the Nordstrom exit from NB I -5. • The I -5 exit ramp to Nordstrom must be maintained; and meet design standards. - • Can the Strander exit ramp meet design standards for curves? Workshop Participants' Recommendation: Consider only if the Nordstrom exit can be continued. • Staff /Consultant: This is not feasible given the elevation changes between 1 -5 NB and the intersection of Strander and Southcenter Pkwy. Option 17. This option was presented as a part of Option 5. This option would change the configuration of the NB I -5 ramp by connecting it directly to the Mall parking lot via a tunnel beneath Southcenter Pkwy. Exiting traffic would be allowed to turn off at the Mall or continue directly to Strander Blvd. It is undecided whether the connection should be made at 61St Ave S or at a location between 61st Ave S and Southcenter Pkwy. The consultant will evaluate this option using modeling tools. Southcenter/Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project Summary of the Evaluation of Options —FINAL DRAFT Page 38 June 13, 2003 Mirai. A S S O C I A T E S Attachment 1. Background Transportation Information presented -at the Charette - The Klickitat Drive /Southcenter Parkway /Strander Blvd Area Existing and 2020 Conditions Workshop #1 March 10, 2003 Prepared by Mirai Associates Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 page 39 I iv :i ria° 220000 200000 180000 160000 140000 T t0 0 120000 a) d t 100000 a) 80000 60000 40000 20000 A 9 9 0 C I AT E 9 1 -511 -405 Daily Traffic Growth Trends 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 Year —0-1 -405 west(north) of 1 -5 -- I111—I -5 south of 1 -405 Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 page 40 Vehicles per Day 90,000 85,000 80,000 75,000 70,000 65,000 60,000 55,000 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 �Mtrai.� A S S O C I A T E S Growth Trend of CBD Traffic Volume (Inbound) 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year — TUESDAY BEFORETHANKSGNING Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 page 41 Klickitat Dr A, 9 9 O C I A T E 9 2000 TUC Approach Volume and Percent Changes Over 1990 N0 cr +550 (9 %) 0. 0 s 0 i r-4. Southcenter Blvd Strander Blvd S lsol" St 0 0 0 0 c 1 i d r 0 :C A' G 0 0 a West Valley Hwy +140 +3,200 (22%) Changes in Traffic Volume (2000 -1990) 011 Increase 4111 Decrease Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 page 42 Vehicles per hour 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, Mirai A S S O C I A T E S Northbound Hourly Volumes an 61st Bridge uuu 800 600 400 200 OCO B00 600 400 200 6 O6 O� O� O� O� O6 O� 6 6 . O� O O� O� 6 O� O� O� .6 6 O� .O O O' . Ocl,. O 'b. OD. o . o 0. A. o . 0' 0. tea. 4 ^. <V. Off. O,L. 0,�. OA. Oy. o . Off. o . 00. \Q,. \N. �,L. `LO '•� r0 ^A t>;S) 59 69 19 09 00 ' OO 1> '' �� "SO �� h� 6� A • 0� ' ' 00 00 ate. 0 ,gyp N Qom. O N ,j' N Vehicles per Hour 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Hours — 4— VVcekday Average —111-416102 (Sat) . Southbound Hourly Volumes on 61st Bridge pC pp pp pp pp pp pp pp pp .Op OC OC pC Op .Op Op Op Op Op .Op Op 0 0 Opp .Opp Opp .Opp .O0' Opp .O 1 opt .pp9 O p O �^ �� pp1 Opp pp� ppa O O 6 .o o ppc O �p p �^ p' NI,. r�. rl,. ry. p,. ,0. co A•. , 0. �Op ^ ^p �rV. N. . rl,. nj. p;. b.. �. A. 0. 9p No9 4 ^O Q0 aF• Hours —0—Weekday Average — 8-4/6/02 (Sat) Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 page 43 Vehicles per Day Vehicles per Hour 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 M :ira`i A S S O C I A T E S • - Westbound Hourly Volumes on Klickitat Dr west of Southcenter Pkwy 200 0 00 00 .00 .00 00 00'� 00ry .00x0 O� OCP O 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 p0 00 .00 00 .00 .00 00 ^ p�� p0^ p0;1. .o °� � .00;� Qtj Hours —.—Weekday Average —a-4/6/02 (Sat) Eastbound Hourly Volumes on Klickitat Dr west of Southcenter Pkwy O O O O Off• ^�.. ^ ^. 00 00 00 00 p0^ .0CY 000 AP.' 0 N. ti / a Q� Hours .00 00 00 00 00 00 .p0 00 00 .00 00 00 00 00 00 00 °O o� o 09 ^° ^^ ^� 01 0� o op o� 06 �1 �0 �9 0' ^ ;O O O 900' ^ °00 ^0� ^ A K§ o ,�O a0 ,O — 4—Weekday Average —M-4 /6102 (Sat) Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 page 44 ti 00 00 00 00 p0^ .0CY 000 AP.' 0 N. ti / a Q� Hours .00 00 00 00 00 00 .p0 00 00 .00 00 00 00 00 00 00 °O o� o 09 ^° ^^ ^� 01 0� o op o� 06 �1 �0 �9 0' ^ ;O O O 900' ^ °00 ^0� ^ A K§ o ,�O a0 ,O — 4—Weekday Average —M-4 /6102 (Sat) Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 page 44 Mirai A S S O C I A T E S Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 page 45 Southbound Southcenter-Parkway (2002 Approach Vehicles) 1600 1600 1400 ',•. 1400 - a.._ 1200 1200 �. 1000 800 1000 600 8.00 .. 400 600 — 200 400 200 0 Nordstrom Entrance Klickitat Drive Strander Blvd , S 168th Street Minkler Blvd - I 17500 S Block 180th St Peak Hour - =Noon Peak Hour —* -PM Peak Hour -t -AM Strander Blvd Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 page 45 Northbound Southcenter Parkway (2002 Approach Vehicles) 1600 1400 ',•. - 1200 1000 8.00 .. 600 400 200 - Nordstrom Entrance Klickitat Drive Strander Blvd S 168th Street Minkler . Blvd 17500 Block . S 180th St Hour -f -Noon Peak Hour -fr-PM Peak Hour -4--AM Peak . Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 page 45 M ,i r_ a i. A S S O C I A T E S Eastbound Strander Boulevard (2002 Approach Volumes) Westbound Strander Boulevard (2002 Approach Volumes) - -- 1600 1600 1400 1400 1200 1000 1200 800 At.,--,......-13. 1000 800 _...,_._ 600 400 — 200 - 0 Access Target to Andover Park W /Mall I Andover Park E West Valley Highway • Peak Hour --- -Noon Peak Hour —*—PM Peak Hour --p —AM Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 page 46 Westbound Strander Boulevard (2002 Approach Volumes) - -- 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 _...,_._ _____ 600 - 400 200 0 • ` 0 Southcenter Pkwy / Access to Target/Mall I Andover Park W 1 Andover Park E West Highway Valley —0—AM Peak Hour —0—Noon Peak Hour Peak Hour — —PM Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 page 46 Percentage different from Average 1 Southcenter Parkway @ Bon Whs Store (24 HR ADT) 140% 130% 120% 110% 100% 90% 80% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Month -1991 -. --1992 1993 --x- 1995 -. -1996 + 1997 1998 1999 ATE 9 140% CD a) co a) 130% 2 120% L110% • 100% • 90% a 80% Southcenter Parkway @ Bon Whs Store (PM Peak) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Month -1991 -1992 1993 -x- -1994 -* -1995 -. -1996 -+ -1997 1998 1999 Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 page 47 A S S O C I A T E S • Majority of accidents occurred at the Southcenter Parkway /Strander Boulevard/Klickitat Interchange • 0 Fatalities, 32 Injuries, and 1 Pedestrian/Cyclists Accident (Recorded by City of Tukwila Police Department) • 28 % Rear -end Accidents, 24% Approach Turn Accidents, 21 % Right Angle Accidents, and.20% Sideswipe Accidents Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 page 48 Reported Accidents per Year Location Mid -block or Intersection 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Southcenter Pkwy @ Strander Blvd Intersection 21 25 46 28 37 Southcenter Pkwy @ Klickitat Dr Intersection 18 9 13 18 13 Southcenter Pkwy south of Strander Mid -block 3 13 9 3 3 Southcenter Pkwy north of Strander Mid -block 4 1 2 Southcenter Pkwy north of, Klickitat Mid -block 2 2 Southcenter Pkwy @ Tukwila Pkwy Intersection 2 10 2 2 Klickitat Dr. ''@ 53rd Ave Intersection 5 5 1 1 6 -5 NB Ramp to SB Southcenter Pkwy (P1) Intersection 5 4 5 7. 8 -5 NB. Ramp to Nordstrom (P2) . Intersection 6 6 7 3 5. 1 -5 SB Ramp from Klickitat Dr. Intersection 1 0 3 1 1 • Majority of accidents occurred at the Southcenter Parkway /Strander Boulevard/Klickitat Interchange • 0 Fatalities, 32 Injuries, and 1 Pedestrian/Cyclists Accident (Recorded by City of Tukwila Police Department) • 28 % Rear -end Accidents, 24% Approach Turn Accidents, 21 % Right Angle Accidents, and.20% Sideswipe Accidents Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 page 48 Mirai. A S 9 0 C I A T E 9 Bus Transit Riders At Selected Locations (Fall 2001) North 0 Not to Scale r Legend: Study Area Trail, Walkway - - - - - -- Railroad 1 Int2E0=71 River Freeway 4 _ Ramp Park 1 —J Number of Riders •r Fn . FAN r, • Mr 0 TUKWILA PARKW -'• WESTREW ::S,- PPNGTO SOuTNCENTE 1I ANS BLA 11 VAY Q STRANDER.BLVD TUKWILA POND TUKWILAPOND• d PARK C.?n°01 NUE ;12 S D DR MIDLA D TR LAND 1.1 98 470 65 TRECK 38 \`1A. G 19 181: e i 1 Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 page 49 M' i. r a i`- A S S O C I A T E S Attachment 2. Diagrams of Existing and Proposed Options as presented at the Charette. Workshop #1 March 10, 2003 Prepared by Mirai Associates Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project - Meeting Notes_of Workshop #1 page -so A 9 9 O C I A T E 9 Klickitat Drive 1 -5 NB Off Ramp 3/612003 T 10 co a 0) m U L 0 /3 11: y Nordstrom Problem: the left turn lanes are too short, and the intersections are located too close to each other Strander Boulevard Existing,Lane Configuration. A Southcenter Parkway Corridor Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 page 51 ,N4 '. i r. a,;i.:: A S S O C I A T E S Klickitat Drive 11: 1 Widen this section by one lane 3/6/2003 1 -5 NB Off Ramp Southcenter Parkway 1 Nordstrom Extend the /southbound left tum lane Extend the northbound left tum - lane Strander Boulevard • Option 1 Southcenter Parkway Corridor Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop # 1 page 52 Mirai A S S O C I A T E S Klickitat Drive Widen this section by two lanes 31612003 1 -5 NB Off Ramp 11 : Nordstrom Widen the north approach Extend the southbound left turn lanes Extend the northbound left turn lanes Strander Boulevard Widen the south approach Option 2 Southcenter Parkway Corridor Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 page 53 A S S O C I A T E S 1 -5 NB Off Ramp Klickitat Drive Extend left tum lanes 316/2003 E cc 0 m z Southcenter Parkway • Nordstrom Assign this lane to left turn to Strander Blvd only Assign this lane to Klickitat Drive only Klickitat Drive Only Strander Boulevard Option 3 Southcenter Parkway Corridor Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 page 54 M i:.r. a"i.. A S S O C I A T E S ll: l • Nordstrom Construct a tunnel for through lanes Klickitat Drive Construct a tunnel for through lanes Bring 1= 5'ramp to Klickitat Drive 1 -5 NB Off Ramp 3/6/2003 Strander Boulevard Option 4 Southcenter Parkway Corridor Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 page 55 NE 'r' A 9 9 0 0 1 4 T E 9 L I I E m a: O m Z U Klickitat Drive 11H\ 0 Extend 1 -5 Off Ramp to the Mall Under Southcenter Parkway 3/6/2003 fI • Southcenter Parkway Nordstrom Extend Klickitat Dr. to the East and Connect it with Strander Blvd. Provide Access to Southcenter Mall Parking Area --.), .....) Strander Boulevard • Signalize This New Intersection Option 5:: Southcenter Parkway Corridor Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 page 56 M1rai A 9 9 O C I A T E S 1 -5 Northbound Collector - Distributor Road Provide Access to 1 -405 and SR 518 Klickitat Drive 1 -5 NB CD Road 316/2003 • • Nordstrom Construct a Tunnel and Add I- 5 NB On Ramp Strander Boulevard Signalize This New Intersection Option 6 Southcenter Parkway Corridor Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 page 57 IVI`i r a i A S S O C I A T E S Klickitat Drive a E m 0 - z U 3/6/2003 y Strander Boulevard • Tukwila Pond Option 7 Southcenter Parkway Corridor Southcenter /Tukwila Urban Center Access Improvement Project — Meeting Notes of Workshop #1 page 58 A S S O C I A T E S Appendix B Arterial Improvement Recommendations in the I- 405/Southcenter Boulevard /Tukwila Parkway Area Based on the 1 -405 Implementation Plan Improvement Assumptions Draft Memo Related to Traffic Improvement Needs Over 1 -405 Page 1 A S S O C I A T E S Memorandum To: City of Tukwila From: Tom Noguchi and Brian Dearing, Mirai Associates Subject: Arterial Improvement Recommendations in the I- 405 /Southcenter Boulevard /Tukwila Parkway Area Date: June 27, 2003 The purpose of this memo is to outline the transportation facility needs to accommodate the.2020 traffic demand focusing on the area along I -405. The study area is generally bounded by I -5 ramps on the west and West Valley Highway /Interurban Avenue on the east, Southcenter Boulevard in the north and Tukwila Parkway in the south. The same forecast model used for the Strander Boulevard, Klickitat Drive and Southcenter Parkway area was used to develop the 2020 traffic forecasts in this study area. After the 2020 traffic volumes were post - processed, the 2020 traffic conditions• were simulated with SimTraffic and levels of service were obtained with Synchro. The I -405 Program is proposed to make changes to the network in the study area but the specific roadway configurations with lane assignments have not been decided. Where no roadway exists today, a baseline network with specific assumptions on the number of lanes were established as a starting point of our analysis. To operate the roadways and intersections in the study area at a reasonable level of service (LOS E or better), a set of improvements over the baseline assumption were identified. The memo lists those - recommended improvements in the study area. 2020 Baseline Network Assumptions The following lists a set of the network assumptions we used as a starting point of the traffic analysis on the roadways where they do not exist today are shown in the set of figures, Figures 1 to 10, and summarized below: • Tukwila Parkway will be a 5 -lane road between Andover Park East and West Valley Highway. • The intersection of the northbound I -405 _on ramp and Tukwila Parkway will be a signalized intersection with one left -turn and two through -lanes in the eastbound . direction and one right lane and two through -lanes in the westbound direction. • The new Strander Boulevard connection to East Valley Highway will be a 5 -lane road. At the intersection of Strander Boulevard and the West Valley Highway, one eastbound left turning lane will be provided with storage equal to that of today. Westbound Strander Boulevard will be constructed with turning bays for both left and right turns and two through lanes. No changes will be made to the intersection lane configuration in the northbound and southbound approaches. Draft Memo Related to Traffic Improvement Needs Over 1 -405 Page 2 M irai- A '9 9 0 C I A T E 9 • The intersection of Tukwila Parkway /Andover Park East/66th Avenue South will be designed to become a four - legged intersection. The signal phasing at this intersection will be configured in a split mode, which only allows traffic movements on a single approach at any given time. Each approach will have identical designs, with one left-turn lane, one through -lane, and one shared through -right turn lane. Recommended 2020 Roadway /Intersection Improvements Based on the currently available 2020 land use forecasts for the Tukwila Urban Center, the following section outlines the traffic improvements recommended by Mirai Associates. Table 1 compares the level of service, average intersection delay, and the average queue length in feet of the longest movement at a specific intersection between' the baseline condition and the recommended improvements. In every situation, the intersection with the recommended improvements shows a substantial increase in operation efficiency. Table 2 displays the current year volumes, as they would operate on the new network as well as the forecasted 2030 traffic volumes. On average, traffic volumes will increase by over 36 percent, which relates to a yearly growth of 1.75 percent. Generally,_the,recommended roadway improvements for the study area are summarized into the following five roadway segments. All of the intersections in these segments are displayed in Figures 11 to 20 and they will accommodate the future traffic flows as shown in Figure 21: ROADWAY SEGMENT • Southcenter Boulevard west of 61St Avenue South - widen to seven lanes. o Add an additional lane in the eastbound direction to accommodate three right turn lanes and add one additional lane in the westbound direction to accommodate a triple left at the intersection with 61St Avenue South. o Widen the east leg of the intersection to accommodate one additional left turn lane in the-westbound direction: The.additional lane allows a greater amount of left turns to occur during a single cycle than would a single left turn lane. In addition, a greater percentage of the green time can be allotted to the movements with larger volumes. This also helps to reduce the formation of traffic queues in the westbound direction: • Tukwila Parkway from Westfield Southcenter entrance to the new I -405 northbound on -ramp - widen to six to eight lanes (six lanes between the Westfield Shopping Mall entrance and the west leg of the Tukwila Parkway /Andover Park East intersection, and eight lanes at the east leg of the Tukwila Parkway /Andover Park East - intersection) o Add a one through lane and one right turn lane in the eastbound direction at Andover Park West to accommodate the increased through movements Draft Memo Related to Traffic Improvement Needs Over 1 -405 Page 3 A S S O C I A T E S - a n d to allow right turns to be removed from the through lanes (currently the configuration allows for only a shared right- through lahe). o Add one through lanes in the eastbound direction between Andover Park . West and Andover Park East to accommodate the increased through movements. Reconfigure the westbound lanes at Andover Park East to change one through lane to a shared left- through lane. This will help reduce the queue length in the left turn lane. o Extend the storage areas of the two left turn lanes to the upstream intersection in the eastbound direction at the northbound I -405 on -ramp. This will increase the storage capacity of the left turn lanes and help prevent blockage of traffic at the upstream intersection. o The northbound traffic on Andover Park East should be accommodated by providing a right turn lane with storage that extends to Baker Street. The right turning traffic will be removed from the through lanes once the *traffic passes through the Baker intersection allowing for more efficient through and turning movements. In addition, -a single left turn lane should be provided as well as two through lanes to accommodate the increase in traffic volumes. o One right turn lane should be added for the westbound traffic east of Andover Park East that nearly extends to the I -405 northbound on -ramp. This addition will remove the right turning traffic from the through lanes allowing for more efficient movements. • 6lSt Avenue Bridge —widen to seven lanes o Add one northbound left turn lane and one right turn lane at the intersection of Southcenter Boulevard that extends across the bridge. The right turning traffic will be removed from the heavy left turning_movement and allow for more efficient turning movements. o One additional lane is required in the southbound direction to accommodate the eastbound triple right turn at the intersection with Southcenter Boulevard. • 66th Avenue Bridge —widen to six lanes o The southbound direction will not alter from its current form across the bridge (two through lanes), but will widen into four lanes south of the _ bridge to accommodate a larger mix of turning movements (through, left and right). o The northbound direction will have two through lanes and two left turn lanes across the bridge. The additional lanes are needed across the bridge due to the short distance between Southcenter Boulevard and I -405, which does not allow for sufficient storage. • West Valley Highway from Grady Way to Strander Boulevard —widen to six to seven lanes Draft Memo Related to Traffic Improvement Needs Over 1-405 Page 4 A S S O C I A T E S o Add one additional lane in the northbound direction north of the I -405 northbound off -ramp to accommodate the increase in traffic through and right turn movements at the intersection of Grady Way /Southcenter Boulevard. o Add one through lane in the northbound direction north of the Tukwila Parkway extension and one right turn lane in the southbound direction at the Tukwila Parkway extension. o Add one additional through lane in the northbound direction from Strander Boulevard to the Tukwila Parkway extension. This movement will increase in demand due to the increase in growth over time as well as the diverted traffic from Andover Park East. Recommended Intersection Configuration The following lists improvements needed to accommodate the 2020 traffic volumes for each intersection. The attached graphics from SimTraffic show the lane configurations recommended below: SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD /GRADY WAY AND INTERURBAN/WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY INTERSECTION o Eastbound —two left turn lanes (two storage bays), two through lanes, and one right turn lane (one storage bay) o .Westbound — two left turn lanes (two storage bays), two through lanes, and two right turn lanes (two storage bays) - o - Northbound —one left turn lane (one storage bay), two through lanes, and one right turn lanes (one storage bay) o Southbound —one left turn lane (one storage bay), two through lanes, and one right turn lane WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY AND 1 -405 EXIT RAMP o Eastbound —one left turn lane, one shared left- through lane (one storage bay), and two right turn lanes (two storage bays) _ - o Westbound —no changes except for the elimination of the through movement o Northbound —two through lanes and one shared through -right turn lane o Southbound —two through lanes and one left turn lane (one storage bay) LONGACRES WAY/TUKWILA PARKWAY AND WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY o Eastbound —two left turn lanes (one storage bay), one through lane, and one right turn lane (one storage bay) Draft Memo Related to Traffic Improvement Needs Over 1-405 Page 5 A S S O C I A T E S o Westbound —no. changes -- o Northbound —two left turn lanes (two storage bays), one through lane, and one shared through -right turn lane o Southbound —one left turn lane (one storage bay), two through lanes, and two right turn lanes (one storage bay) STRANDER BOULEVARD AND WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY INTERSECTION o Eastbound —one left turn lane (one storage bay), two through lanes, and one right turn lane (one storage bay) o Westbound —one left turn lane (one storage bay), two through lanes, and one right turn lane (one storage bay) o Northbound —no changes o .Southbound —two left turn lanes (two storage bays), one through lane, and one shared -right turn lane TUKWILA PARKWAY AND NORTHBOUND I -405 ON RAMP o Eastbound —two left turn lanes and two through lanes o Westbound —two through lanes and two right turn lanes (two storage. bays) TUKWILA PARKWAY /ANDOVER PARK EAST /66TH AVENUE INTERSECTION o Eastbound —one left turn lanes (one storage bay), two through lanes, and one through -right turn lane - o Westbound —one left turn lane (one storage bay), two through lanes, and one right turn lane (one storage bay) o Northbound —one left turn lane (one storage bay), two through lanes, and one right turn lanes (one storage bay) o Southbound —one left turn lane (one storage bay), two through lanes, and one right turn lane (one storage bay) SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD AND 66TH AVENUE o Eastbound —two through lanes and one right turn lane (one storage bay) o Westbound —no changes o Northbound —two left turn lanes (two storage bays) and two right turn lanes TUKWILA PARKWAY AND ANDOVER PARK WEST INTERSECTION o Eastbound —three through lanes and one right turn lane one storage bay) Draft Memo Related to Traffic Improvement Needs Over 1-405 Page 6 ,M i r. a i-. A S S O C H A T E S o Westbound —two left turn lanes (one storage bay) and one through lane o Northbound —two left turn lanes and one right turn lane (one storage bay) TUKWILA PARKWAY AND SOUTHCENTER SHOPPING ENTRANCE INTERSECTION o Eastbound —no changes o Westbound —no changes o Northbound —no changes TUKWILA PARKWAY AND 61ST AVENUE o Eastbound —two left turn lanes (one storage bays) and one through lane o Westbound —no changes o Southbound —one left turn lane, one shared left - through lane, one through lane and one right turn lane (one storage bay) SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD AND 61ST AVENUE o Eastbound —one through lane, one shared right - through lane, and two right turn lanes (two storage lanes) o Westbound —one left turn lanes (one storage bays) and two through lanes o Northbound —three left turn lanes and one right turn lane Remaining Issues The recommended improvements will substantially improve the levels of service of the intersections located along the I -405 corridor. There is a need to further investigate the operating conditions at the intersection of Strander Boulevard and West Valley Highway. It is possible that an additional bridge over the Green River, connecting the Tukwila Urban Center with the West Valley Highway, between'Strander Boulevard and South 180th Street will be needed. In addition, the intersection operation of West Valley Highway /Interurban Avenue and Grady Way /Southcenter Boulevard needs to be investigated further. The bridge over the Green River to the north and the bridge on Grady Way to the east restrict the expansion of the intersection - approaches, which may be required to accommodate the future traffic demands. Draft Memo Related to Traffic Improvement Needs Over 1-405 Page 7 A S S O C I A T E S Table 1. Comparison: 2020 Baseline vs. 2020 with Recommended Improvements Intersection Baseline With Improvements LOS Delay Avg. Queue' LOS Delay Avg. Queue' Southcenter Boulevard 61st Street E 67.0 1269 C 27.8 521 Tukwila Parkway 61st Street D 53.2 797 C 31.4 436 Tukwila Parkway Shopping Center Entrace A 8.0 109 A 6.9 101 Tukwila Parkway Andover Park West F 104.4 896 C 20.1 .389 Tukwila Parkway Andover Park East F 147.3 650 E 70.9 559 Tukwila Parkway NB 1 -405 On -Ramp . F 190.9 1583 E 71.7 615 Southcenter Boulevard 66th Street B 16.7 270 B 17.5 304 Southcenter Boulevard West Valley Highway F 148.8 1132 F 90.6 733 NB 1-405 Off-Ramp West Valley Highway F 140.1 ' 1392 B 18.9 356 Tukwila Parkway West Valley Highway E 61.7 909 E 61.7 1193 Strander Boulevard West Valley Highway F 211.6 1647 F 130.7 739 'Average Queue Length (feet) represents the 50% percentile queue length of the longest movement of any one intersection. Draft Memo Related to Traffic Improvement Needs Over 1 -405 Page 8 Table 2. Volumes for New Network (2000 Actual and 2000 Model) 2000 Actual Volumes ( +15 %) (adjusted for new network) Interurban /Southcenter Blvd W. Valley Hwy /I -405 Off -Ramp W. Valley Hwy /Longacres Tukwila Pkwy /I -405 On -Ramp Tukwila Pkwy /Andover Park W. Tukwila Pkwy /Andover Park E. 66th /Southcenter Blvd 61sUSouthcenterBlvd 61st/Tukwila Pkwy Strander Blvd /W. Valley Hwy Tukwila Pkwy /Mall Entrance 2020 PP Volumes (Balanced) Interurban /Southcenter Blvd W. Valley Hwy /I -405 Off -Ramp W. Valley Hwy /Longacres Tukwila Pkwy /I -405 On -Ramp Tukwila Pkwy /Andover Park W. Tukwila Pkwy /Andover Park E. 66th / Southcenter Blvd 61sUSouthcenter Blvd 61st/Tukwila Pkwy Strander Blvd /W. Valley Hwy Tukwila Pkwy /Mall Entrance M ra is A S S O C I A T E S Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Northoubnd Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Through Right Left Through Right Left Through Right Left Through Right In Out In Out In Out In Out 210 770 660 290 930 150 190 840 220 490 890 700 1640 1660 1370 1640 1250 1790 2080 1250 0 1260 10 60 1580 0 360 10 440 10 10 20 1270 1640 1640 2030 810 80 40 10 750 1050 40 70 1450 510 160 20 120 40 0 60 1840 1270 2030 1610 300 130 100 1260 0 0 0 0 0 0 1040 300 0 0 250 920 0 1960 0 0 1340 300 1170 250 430 0 460 0 0 0 0 1030 420 290 430 0 890 0 0 710 1450 1490 720 860 210 340 310 120 250 300 400 910 170 60 190 120 860 860 670 480 1480 1340 370 700 290 0 570 0 0 0 0 680 220 450 800 0 860 0 0 670 900 1250 1250 1090 1130 0 90 0 0 0 0 880 1540 280 850 0 1220 0 0 1820 2420 970 1130 1980 0 0 0 1040 0 780 530 500 0 0 220 690 0 1220 1820 0 1030 1540 910 1000 310 1400 10 40 1260 310 420 40 500 20 20 10 1720 1830 1610 1780 960 90 50 640 120 0 240 0 0 0 0 1200 340 60 800 0 360 0 0 400 1540 1440 860 920 Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Northoubnd Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Through Right Left Through Right Left Through Right Left Through Right In Out In Out In Out In Out 120 1300 1010 170 1310 • 220 520 630 260 500 920 1470 2430 3290 1700 2070 1410 1810 2890 1260 0 1790 10 60 2010 0 620 10 1360 30 0 10 1800 2420 2070 3400 1990 80 40 0 590 1250 40 70 1890 1440 590 20 110 40 10 60 1880 1900 3400 2040 720 130 110 2040 0 0 0 0 0 0 1430 620 0 0 450 1590 0 3020 0 0 2050 620 2040 450 260 0 800 0 0 0 0 . 1130 400 610 340 0 1060 0 0 1010 1530 1930 950 600 370 780 720 220 230 440 690 1100 140 130 140 180 1870 1650 890 500 1930 2040 450 950 510 0 1140 0 0 0 0 270 420 470 590 0 1650 0 0 890 690 1410 1060 1100 1480 0 160 0 ,0 0 0 530 2160 330 770 0 1640 0 0 2490 2690 690 1100 2250 I 0 0 0 1540 0 950 1130 370 0 0 230 510 0 1640 2490 0 1500 1910 740 1180 330 850 20 1320 410 310 '370 '. '1570 -.•526 - -30 1130 •. 660 1200 1880 2040 -960 2460 2910 1820 1770 140 0 220 0 0 0 0 1310 600 70 600 0 360 0 0 670 1910 1530 670 740 Draft Memo Related to Traffic Improvement Needs Over 1 -405 Page 9 Appendix B to the Comprehensive Transportation Plan The City of Tukwila Fiscal Analysis and Recommendations October 2005 Submitted for City of Tukwila DRAFT Prepared by: ECONorthwest 99 W 10th Avenue Suite 400 Eugene, OR 97401 ECONorthwest ECONOMICS • FINANCE • PLANNING r• Phone • (541) 687 -0051 FAX • (541) 344 -0562 info@eugene.econw.com 4 October 2005 ECONorthwest ECONOMICS • FINANCE • PLANNING Suite 400 99 W. 10th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 -3001 TO: Cyndy Knighton FROM: Sarah Graham, Terry Moore, and Bryan Kean SUBJECT: DRAFT FUNDING AND FEES MEMORANDUM Other Offices Portland • (503) 222 -6060 Seattle • (206) 622 -2403 This memorandum summarizes ECONorthwest's analysis for Tukwila's Transportation Impact Fee (TIF). It describes: • Typical methods of funding for local transportation projects • How a city would typically evaluate such funding sources • State and federal funding sources that may be available to pay for the projects • A TIF program to cover the - funding shortfall. The analysis presented in this memorandum contributes to both (1) the comprehensive transportation plan for the City of Tukwila,,and (2) a recommended fee schedule for Tukwila.' The fee schedule will not be included in the comprehensive transportation plan, but rather in the implementing ordinance for the fee. The rest of this memorandum is organized as follows: • Section 1: Overview provides background on the TIF and this project. • Section 2: Evaluation Framework describes a framework for how to think about transportation funding, the criteria used to evaluate existing, and potential new funding sources. • Section 3: Transportation Improvement Project Funding Sources summarizes funding sources, including how the sources generally work, revenue generated in recent Years, and potential for revenue expansion. • Section 4:- Tukwila Transportation Impact Fee describes the legal requirements and constraints of TIFs and how a TIF would work in Tukwila. • Section 5: Conclusions. • Appendix A: `Preliminary TIF Model provides a spreadsheet for calculating the TIF. • Appendix B: Transportation Improvements to be Funded in Part by the TIF presents the recommended transportation improvements subject to a TIF as developed by Mirai Associates and the City of Tukwila. This memo does not cover operating, maintenance, and preservation funding sources. DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 2 1. OVERVIEW BACKGROUND The City of Tukwila is revising its TIF in conjunction with revising its Concurrency Ordinance and implementing a new Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Through the revision the City intends to develop an ordinance that is clear, simple to apply, and able to withstand legal challenges. A TIF is used commonly by local governments around the country to finance part of their road improvements. A TIF is supposed to assess a fee on new development that is proportional to that development's contribution to the need for major highway improvements. "Major highway improvements" usually mean arterials and (sometimes) collectors. They do not include on -site street improvements, which are typically built and paid for directly by the developer of a property (and the standards for those streets are typically specified by municipalities in zoning or subdivision ordinances, or transportation plans). The list of projects to be included in the City's TIF is being updated to reflect current project costs, the elimination of completed projects no longer requiring development contribution, and new project costs required to maintain the City's established Level of Service standards. Mirai Associates is the prime consultant to the City on the TIF revision, and was hired to define the likely transportation network to accommodate growth, estimate the costs of the additions to that network, and estimate the percentage of costs that are attributable to new development. The City hired ECONorthwest for additional aFsistance with the economic, financial, and policy aspects of the TIF. The TIF analysis in this memorandum is based on the recommended transportation improvements prepared by Mirai Associates and provided to ECO at the end of September 2005 (see Appendix B). METHODS ECO based its analysis on the following sources of information: • City data. City staff provided us with copies of the revenue and expenditure reports for 2000 -2004 (including TIF revenue), relevant sheets from the 2005 budget, and applicable sections of the Tukwila Municipal Code. • Mirai Associates data. Mirai provided us with estimates for the amount and type of future development, including projects, costs, and number of PM peak -hour trips. — • Literature_review. We reviewed literature from the Internet on forecasts of state -based revenue sources and the use of various funding sources in other jurisdictions. • Interviews. We interviewed City staff and spoke to staff from the State of Washington to gain an understanding of availability of funding sources. • Our previous work on transportation funding. We have worked recently on transportation funding for counties and cities in Oregon and. Washington and have gained familiarity with the County MSTIP and TIF programs as well as transportation funding issues in general. In addition, ECO has been doing work on state and local transportation economics and financing for the last 10 years. DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 3 2. EVALUATION FRAMEWORK This section describes the typical.local strategy for funding transportation projects and the criteria we use to evaluate existing and.potential new funding sources. TYPICAL LOCAL STRATEGY FOR TRANSPORTATION FUNDING Most textbooks on public finance contain some variation of the following basic principle of fairness and efficiency: people should pay in proportion to benefits received or costs imposed (unless they are members of classes deemed to merit special treatment: e.g., low income, elderly). But local government administrators and elected officials have a more practical principle regarding funding: current residents pay last. That principle leads them to seek funding, in order, from the following sources: • Federal agencies: • . State agencies. • Regional agencies. • Local sources that include others besides existing voters, including: • People passing through (e.g., room taxes, gas taxes), and • Future voters (e.g., by charging developers fees that future households and businesses will pay in upon purchasing property). • Current households and businesses. Figure 1 shows this typical funding :strategy - graphically. We will use this funding strategy as the basis for our recommendations on funding sources. DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 4 Figure 1. Transportation funding strategy. Get federal and state funds where you can. Most federal funds for transportation projects get to counties via the state STIP process. Little way to influence State Highway Fund allocation, which is used primarily for maintenance. CONCLUSION: local funds will be necessary to fund improvements. FEDERAL FUNDS LOCAL[ FUNDS TEA -21 EXISTING STATE FUNDS STATE HWY FUNDS TEA -21 Transportation Users❑ (Direct beneficiaries) Tolls • Car owners or drivers J LOCALS ONLY❑ - Registration fee❑ Transportation utility district❑ 0 NONLOCAL ALSO( Gas tax❑ Parking fees Property users and owners Property tax❑ Special assessment/LIDI SDC/TIF❑ More Payment tied to benefits received Other classes Sales tax❑ Business license fee❑ Franchise fee❑ Payroll tax❑ Real estate transfer tax❑ Less A fundamental principle of public finance: ❑ 0 People should pay based either on the costs they impose or the benefits they receive, unless they belong to some group that deserves special treatment. ❑ 0 Thus, other things equal, revenue sources to the left of the diagram are preferable to those on the right. Boxes show the real source of funds, not the financing. Sources that are collected by a general property tax could be financed with GO bonds. Sources that raise new, predictable revenues could be financed with revenue bonds. Source: ECONorthwest Things to consider in evaluating the financing options:❑' ❑ when the facility will be built❑ ❑ distribution of costs and benefits . DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 5 APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE TO SELECTING FUNDING SOURCES Based on the principle of funding for public infrastructure described above, we expect Tukwila to pursue funding sources for transportation improvements using the following general logic: • Use federal or state -funds first.2 Try to get more project funds from WSDOT or tie what might otherwise be local projects (e.g., sidewalks and bike paths) to federal or state highway projects. • Where possible and appropriate, try to identify projects that benefit specific users, and charge them directly. Benefiting property owners can be charged through local improvement districts or special assessments; new development can be charged through land use requirements and impact fees (a TIE is a charge for developing the transportation system); and benefiting vehicle owners and users can be charged through gas taxes, vehicle registration fees, and tolls. Estimating the share of cost that should be paid through these funding mechanisms is not an exact science; and it is sometimes appropriate to allocate some costs to general.public. Consider the funding of transit, which benefits not only transit riders, but auto users (by reducing congestion), and also benefits groups that society has decided merit public assistance (e.g., lower- income households, people with disabilities). The funding is consistent with this mix of _ beneficiaries: it comes partially from direct users (fares),-partially from auto users (gas taxes), and partially from other general sources (e.g., employer taxes). • Choose funding sources with sufficient magnitude, stability, and predictability. • All else being equal, choose sources that allow flexibility to meet changing needs but that do notallow she funds to be diverted too easily to projects unrelated to the original purpose of the funding source: • All else being equal, pay for projects by expanding existing revenue sources rather than developing new sources (which are lesspolitically acceptable and increase the costs for , administration). • When considering new sources, use the following criteria to evaluate the appropriateness of the funding. source: . • Legal authority. Most of the local funding sources we consider are currently used in Washington and are therefore legal; we note any exceptions. • Financial capacity. Can the source pay for the improvements? Is the funding source adequate, stable, and predictable? • Flexibility of use. Can the source be used for all transportation projects, or just, for example, capital projects, bicycle /pedestrian projects, or projects on arterial roads? • Fairness (equity). Who pays for the improvements? A basic principle of public finance is that the people should pay based on either the costs they impose or the benefits they receive, unless they belong to some group that deserves special 2 Federal and state sources flow through WSDOT and are often allocated at the regional level before passing through to the counties and cities. Because these funds have the appearance of coming from outside of the region, they are very attractive politically and require little evaluation: get them if you can. We instead focus our evaluation on potential local funding sources, which are undoubtedly needed to supplement available federal and state funds. DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 6 treatment. Actually implementing that principle, however, requires attention to at least two critical points. • The ability of technicians and policymakers to know and measure these benefits and assign them to specific users may be limited. Charging people who benefit from a transportation improvement may be not feasible because of the difficulty in identifying the exact distribution of benefits across potential users. An example of this might be sidewalks: do they only benefit the property owners who abut them, the pedestrians from some other part of town who use them to get somewhere else, or the auto drivers who have less potential liability for accidents with pedestrians? In these cases, funding sources that spread the cost out among a larger number of people may be acceptable because of the low . cost to individual users compared to the cost and difficulty of assigning benefits to each user. • A point related the "user- pays" principle is a normative one: that people should pay in proportion to the benefits they receive or the costs they impose. In some cases, however, improvements could be considered public goods that should be paid for by all residents of the area, even if they are not used in equal shares by all residents. • Administrative ease. Collection and distribution of funds has a cost of its own. In _ addition to being more politically acceptable, the use of existing funding sources can cut down on administrative costs. - • Political acceptability. Is the source politically acceptable to the citizens of the local jurisdiction? In theory, if a source is legal, raises required revenues, is fair, and is administratively efficient, one would hope that it would be politically acceptable; in practice, it does not always work that way. Who pays is a critical issue for political acceptability. Also, new -taxes or fees are sometimes met with more resistance than the expansion of current funding mechanisms, regardless of other issues. It is important to point out that we are evaluating this factor from the perspective of local decisionmakers; while state and federal sources are politically attractive to local decision makers, allocation of funds from these sources to local projects may not make sense from a state or federal perspective. • If raising additional revenue is not politically acceptable, scale back or eliminate the proposed improvements. While these points are correct as a framework for choosing among funding options, the issues for this evaluation are simpler because the City has already made the decision to use TIF as a method to cover some transportation project costs. 3. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES There is an important difference between funding (who, ultimately, will pay for the transportation project— someone has to) and financing (how the payments might get spread out over time). A bond issuance, for example, is a financing mechanism. But the bond requires payments to be made —the payments are made from a funding source. Some financing sources include a funding element. For example, Public Works Trust Fund Loans from the State of Washington are made at below - market rates of interest. The result is an DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 7 implicit grant in the form of an interest rate reduction. Where such a benefit exists in the financing source, the program will.be noted in this summary. The bulk of funding for maintenance and improvement of the transportation system is from federal and state gas -tax revenues that are passed on by the State to regions and local jurisdictions through established programs and funding formulas. Federal and State grants and loans vary from year -to -year and tend to be project - specific. Tukwila is part of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), which conducts a biennial project selection process for the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP is a list of current transportation projects within King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties that are funded with federal, state, or local funds, including federal grants awarded through the PSRC. The regional plan is required under federal and state legislation and must be updated at least every two years. Some federal grants are administered through WSDOT as an arm of Federal Highway Administration. FEDERAL FUNDING Federal funding for transportation systems comes via legislation passed every six years, the most recent being the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA -21). The 2005 federal budget has provided for $34.4 billion in highway funding including $5.9 billion for surface street programs as well as $7.6 billion in transit funding programs.3 Washington State Department of Transportation expects to receive about $500 million annually under TEA -21.4 TEA -21 required each designated municipal planning organization (MPO) to develop a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and the state to develop a Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STEP) as a condition to securing federal funds for transportation projects. TEA -21 is implemented via transfer to State level decision making authorities. The primary funding source for federal transportation funding is federal fuel taxes. Federal sources Surface Transportation Program (STP). STP funds can be used on any Federal -aid highway, public road larger than a local or rural minor collector, bridge projects on any public road, or transit capital projects. STP funds are allocated to the State on a formula basis and suballocated to cities and counties on a competitive basis. There are several set asides under STP funding, including for safety and enhancement programming, as discussed below. Safety (STPS). 10% of STP funds are set aside for safety improvements. The objective of this program is to identify, implement and evaluate cost - effective safety construction projects. This program is further broken down into the Hazard Elimination Safety Program (STPH) and the Railway/Highway Crossing Program (STPX). These funds are made available to all state and local agencies and tribal nations within Washington and can be applied to all public roadways. The state prioritizes and selects projects for funding. Environmentally neutral and non- Regionally Significant safety projects are located in a statewide safety grouping in the STEP. 3 Based on appropriations for 2003. 4 http:// www. wsdot. wa .gov /TA/ProgMGt/STIP /STIPHP.htm. Downloaded May 30, 2005. DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 8 Transportation Enhancement Program (STPE). 10% of STP funds are set aside for transportation enhancement projects. Eligible-transportation enhancement projects must be directly related to the surface transportation system. This program funds a wide range of enhancements including pedestrian and bicycle facilities; preservation of abandoned railway corridors; landscaping and other scenic beautification; acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites; scenic or historic highway programs; reducing vehicle- caused wildlife mortality; and mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff. Regional STP (STPUL, STPUS, STPR). These funds are allocated by formula to the MPO regional transportation planning organization (RTPO), or county lead agency are based on population and road mileage. The PSRC is the MPO/RTPO for Tukwila and selects and prioritizes projects for funding. Tukwila was selected to receive $349,559 in STP funds in 2004, $615,692 in 2003, and $220,296 in 2002. STP Competitive (STPC). This portion of STP funds can be used in any area of the State. The purpose of the program is to offer multimodal choices to the public. Projects, once selected by the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB), are programmed in the STIP, either in a grouping or listed individually. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ). The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funds are distributed to non - attainment areas based on their population and the severity of air quality non - attainment. Some funds for congestion mitigation and air quality improvement are also available to maintenance areas of the State. The MPO selects and prioritizes projects for funding. Tukwila has not been selected for CMAQ funds in the last five years. Not true. We have $180k from CMAQ for our signal interconnect project, which was combined under a larger King County grant Bridge (BR). The Bridge Replacement/Bridge Rehabilitation Program provides assistance for eligible bridges on public roads. High Priority Projects. The High Priority Projects program provides designated funding for specific projects ('demonstration' or `Demo' projects) identified by Congress. Nationwide, TEA - 21 includes 1,850 of these projects, each with a specified amount of funding over the 6 years of TEA -21. The designated funding can only be used for the project as described in the law. Currently, there are about forty High Priority or `Demo' projects in Washington State. There are two High Priority Project in Tukwila, with a total of $2 million in funding. Federal funding in Tukwila Table 4 -1 shows actual federal funding for Tukwila transportation improvement-projects for 2000 through 2004 and budgeted federal funding for 2005. Table 4 -1. Federal- funding sources for Tukwila transportation improvement projects, 2000 through 2005. 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Federal Sources $2,096,000 $766,000 $9,198,000 $9,443,000 $1,200,000 $2,046,000 Source: City of Tukwila 2005 Budget and revenue reports. DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 9 The budgeted amount for federal funding for transportation in Tukwila is $2.0 million for 2005. This is significantly less than the $9.4 million in federal support in 2003, but more than in 2004. Because federal funding is typically project - specific, it can-fluctuate significantly from one year to the next. To plan for future transportation funding and set fee levels, it is necessary to make forecasts for funding availability from federal, state, and local sources. But federal funding is scarce and competition is intense for grants. Forecasting how much and which funding sources may be available at some later date is not certain. It involves approximating values and making predictions on behaviors of funding agencies. There are several options for approximating future funding: • Average the amount of funding received in the past. This method is uncertain because past funding has been inconsistent ranging from a low of about $766,000 to a high of $9.4 million over the last five years. • Apply probability to recommended projects. A, more detailed and potentially more accurate analysis would be to add information to the project list. The analysis would - include calculating the probability of receiving outside funding for each of the recommended projects based on past grants. But we don't have that type of detail and obtaining it would require analysis by Tukwila staff on each project. Also, many of the recommended projects will not be completed for 10 or more years and it would be difficult to predict what funding would be available that far in the future. • , Ignore outside funding that is not certain. Collect the TIF as though no state or federal dollars are collected and pay rebates to developers should federal/state funds be used for the project(s). This method assumes that the amount of TIF revenues' collected will most likely be less than the actual amount eligible to be funded by a TIF. If the TIF is _ undercollected then it would not be necessary to subtract out other sources of funding or refund developers. The risk with this method is if the amount of TIF revenue collected is too high, the City would be required to refund developers for the excess collected. Such a risk would necessitate very careful fiscal standards to ensure that the revenue collected is not used incorrectly. • Assume a percentage of projects will receive some outside funding. This method would assume that some percentage of the recommended projects would receive at least some funding from other sources. But what percentage of projects would receive funding and at what level? As with other methods, it would be very difficult to predict funding behaviors 10 or more years into the future. Despite the uncertainties involved in forecasting, cities must make some assumptions regarding available funding in order to calculate a TIF level. So, for the purposes of this discussion we calculated the average of previous years funding because that is the data available. The City has received federal funding averaging $4 million annually, but in 2004 and 2005, federal funding dropped to about $1.6 million annually. The consequence of the unpredictability, scarcity, and fluctuation is that the City cannot rely on federal funds for all transportation improvement projects and must secure local funding sources while pursuing federal (and state) grants. If more information on future funding is available at DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 10 the time of preparing the TIF, some estimate of available funding should be subtracted from the recommended project costs in order to account for such funding from other sources. STATE FUNDING The State of Washington depends on federal funding for much of its transportation system. The largest source of state funds is the motor - vehicle fuel tax, which provides state and local governments with $700 to $800 million per year. The State receives a share of the motor - vehicle fuel tax money, and distributes the rest to local jurisdictions by formula. The Washington State _ Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) distributes grant funding from the revenue generated by three cents of the fuel tax to cities and counties for funding transportation projects. State sources Arterial Improvement Program (AIP). This T1B- administered program provides funding for arterial street improvements for cities and portions of counties within urban areas. The most recent awards to Tukwila under Al? were for $150,000 in 2000 and $1.0 million in 2003. Motor - Vehicle Fuel Tax. Fuel tax revenues are collected by State of Washington authority. Counties have an option to add an additional 2.3 cents per gallon tax which is collected by the State but then shared with the county who then distributes to local cities based on population. These revenues are often exhausted by maintenance and preservation budgets alone. In Tukwila, fuel tax revenues total about $350,000 per year. A portion of fuel tax revenues goes to maintenance projects, with about $110,000 going to improvement projects. Vehicle License Fees. In the past the state collected a fee in King County of $15 per vehicle license, which was shared with local cities in the same manner as the fuel tax. The vehicle license fee was repealed and Tukwila has not received any revenue from this source since 2003. Pedestrian Safety & Mobility Program (PSMP). This program provides funds to projects that promote pedestrian mobility and safety as a viable transportation choice; e.g. provide access and address system continuity and connectivity of pedestrian facilities. (TIB administered program.) Transportation Partnerships Program (TPP). This TIB- administered program provides funding for transportation projects in urban counties /cities with populations over 5,000 or in Transportation Benefit Districts that encourage economic development and public /private partnerships. Tukwila was awarded $869,000 in 2000, $660,000 in 2001, and $4.2 million in 2004 under TPP. Public. Works Trust Fund (PWTF). This is a loan program developed by the State Department of Community Development to provide low interest loans to local governments to complete needed infrastructure improvements. Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB). Provides state funds to be combined with partnership funding from freight mobility and freight mitigation projects along strategic freight corridors. Tukwila received $5.5 million from the FMSIB for a project completed in 2003. DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 11 State funding in Tukwila Like federal funding, much of state funding for transportation is project - specific and fluctuates significantly from one year to the next. Table 4 -2 shows actual state funding for Tukwila transportation improvement projects for 2000 through 2004 and budgeted state funding for 2005.. Table 4 -2. State funding sources for Tukwila transportation improvement projects, 2000 through 2005. 2000 . 2001 2002 2003 :2004 2005 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget State Grants $590,000 $1,449,000 $3,027,000 $2,047,000 $490,000 $5,916,000 Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax 105,000 115,000 116,000 115,000 113,000 110,000 Local Vehicle License Fee* 136,000 151,000 156,000 4,000 0 0 Total State Sources $695,000 $1,564,000 $3,143,000 $2,162,000 $603,000 $6,026,000 *Note: The local vehicle license fee was discontinued in 2003. Source: City of Tukwila 2005 Budget and revenue reports. The budgeted amount for state funding for transportation in Tukwila is $5.9 million for 2005. This is significantly more than for any other year shown here. State funding, however, has not fluctuated as significantly as federal funding. For the same reasons described in the previous section on federal funding, we calculated the average of previous years funding to use as a forecast of state funding to be available in the future. The State's contribution to transportation improvements revenues has averaged $2.4 million annually. The average includes the fuel tax, which has been steady at around $110,000 per year. Some amount between zero and that average of $2.4 million should then be subtracted from the project amounts in order to account for potential future funding. LOCAL FUNDING Local transportation funding sources are primarily from the property tax for highway projects and the sales tax for transit projects. Property taxes, as part of a City's General Fund, can allocated to pay for capital projects of the transportation system as well but because property tax increases are capped, the additional capital cost requirements, in. the form of annual or semi- annual loan repayments, require that the City forego other uses of property taxes. Other sources of revenue for transportation improvement projects include moneys from street use.permits, impact fees,- and Local Improvement Districts. Local sources Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). The State of Washington levies a 1.28% tax on the full selling price of real estate, including transfers of controlling interests of property. Cities and counties may levy up to 2 %, but statutory limitations dictate that most charge between 0.25 and 0.5 %. Statutes also limit uses for some of the revenues from real estate excise taxes. If a city with population of 5,000 or more that is planning under the GMA imposes the first 0.25 %, often called REET 1, it must use the revenues exclusively for capital projects specified in its capital facilities plan. The second 0.25 %, or REET 2, can only be used for transportation and utility. DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 12. projects.5 Tukwila had actual revenues from BEET 2 of $0.6 million in 2003 and_$0.8 million in 2004 and has budgeted $0.4 million for 2005. Parking Tax. Cities may charge a commercial parking tax. This has not been a major revenue source for Tukwila, as most parking is provided for free on street or on -site by businesses. Tukwila had actual revenues from the parking tax of $138,000 in 2003 and $184,000 in 2004 and - has budgeted $175,000 for 2005. Local Improvement District (LID). LIDs are formed for the purpose of assessing local property owners an amount sufficient to pay for a project deemed to be of local benefit. LIDs are a specific type of special assessment district, which more broadly includes any district that is formed within an existing taxing district to assess specific property owners for some service that is not available throughout the larger district. LIDs are typically not used for transportation facilities that serve a large region, because the benefits from these facilities are spread across a large area. However, some improvements can have positive benefits for specific areas. Under a LID the improvements must increase the value of the taxed properties by -more than the properties are taxed. For some transportation improvement projects, this may be difficult to show. This approach can be challenged by property owners. The City does not have an applicable LID at this time. Impact Fees. If new development within a community triggers public costs, impact fees can allocate those costs to the development rather than to the existing residents of the city. In simplest terms, this is sometimes described as "growth.pays for growth." The City of Tukwila''s' current TIE is structured on project basis and requires that a trip generation and distribution study be conducted for new development. The City is collecting about $277,000 annually in TIE revenue. - Local funding in Tukwila Table 4 -3 shows actual local funding for Tukwila transportation improvement projects for 2000 through 2004, and budgeted local funding for 2005. 5 Municipal Research & Services Center of Washington, "A Revenue Guide for Washington Cities and Towns," August 1999, pp.16 -18. DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 13 Table 4 -3. Local funding sources for Tukwila transportation improvement projects, 2000 through 2005. 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 - 2005 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Local Sales Tax Parking Tax REET 2 Tax G.O. Bond Proceeds Impact Fees Miscellaneous Total Local Sources $2,946,000 89,000 464,000 0 747,000 328,000 $4,574,000 $2,570,000 86,000 319,000 0 669,000 397,000 $4,041,000 $2,635,000 82,000 339,000 0 (28,000) 535,000 $3,563,000 $0 138,000 597,000 6,343,000 0 399,000 $7,477,000 $0 $3,000,000 192,000 175,000 813,000 350,000 0 0 0 525,000 147,000 75,000 $1,152,000 $4,125,000 Source: City of Tukwila 2005 Budget and revenue reports. Tukwila uses varying local sources from year to year to fund transportation improvement projects. This is in part because transportation improvement needs are project based. In addition, these funding source tables do not show carryover in funds from previous years, but rather only show new revenues. Cities carry over unspent fund balances from year to year for financing purposes, including providing for available funding at the beginning of the year (before new revenues have been received) and if a project has not been completed. During the five -year period for which actuals are shown, the City received an average of $277,000 in impact fees annually, but the City did not receive any revenue from the TIF for two years and had negative revenue in another. (The negative revenue likely results from the City refunding a developer for previously paid impact fees.) Because impact fees result from growth that is dependent on private developers' decisions; impact fee revenues are unpredictable. When revenues from the current TIF and general obligation bond proceeds are not included, Tukwila generates an average of $2.5 million in revenue from local sources annually. IMPLICATIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION FUNDING IN TUKWILA Table 4 -4 shows federal, state and local funding sources for Tukwila transportation improvement projects for 2000 through 2005. Table 4=4. Federal,--State and local funding - sources for. Tukwila transportation improvement projects, 2000 through 2005. 2000 2001 2002 Actual Actual Actual Federal Sources State Sources Other Intergovernmental Revenue Local Sources Total $2,096,000 695,000 28,000 4,574,000 $7,393,000 $766,000 1,564,000 $9,198,000 3,143,000 360,000 1 4,041,000 3 $6,731,000 $17 2003 2004 2005 Actual Actual Budget $9,443,000 $1,200,000_ $2,046,000 - 2,162,000 603,000 6,026,000 ,445,000 0 ,563,000 7,477,000 ,349,000 $19,082,000 664,000 0 1,152,000 4,125,000 $3;619,000 $12,197,000 Source: City of Tukwila 2005 Budget and City of Tukwila 2004 Budget. DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 14 Available funding The revenue available from many existing sources depends on growth that occurs in Tukwila. Some sources are tied to population growth and miles driven (e.g., the fuel tax); some sources are tied to property value growth (e.g., local improvement districts and special assessment districts); and some sources are tied to the amount of new development (e.g., the TIF). Available funding from outside sources is found mostly at the state level, which administers both state programs through the TIB, and federally funded TEA -21 programs. Many of the programs at the state and federal level are oriented towards providing below- market interest rates on loan or partial grants with the remainder left to the City. While these low -cost loans reduce the total funded cost to the City, they still require the City to provide an ultimate source of payment. Therefore local sources are critical as they are usually the ultimate source of repayment. In addition to impact fee revenues, the City can use property tax, sales tax, fuel tax, and other existing or potential City taxes or fees to pay for the improvements. The City can consider the use of a LID structure to repay any loans required to support the improvements. There are many variables to consider in making projections for future funding availability, including issues as diverse as federal and state transportation legislation, state and local policy changes, population growth in Tukwila and Washington State, inflation, and the price for gasoline. The City has local revenues of about $2.5 million annually. State and federal funding have averaged a combined annual contribution of $6.4 million to transportation improvements revenues. If the City of Tukwila continues to receive state and federal funding at similar levels, the combined federal, state and local funding would be an estimated $8.9 million annually. Unmet needs Since new development almost always accounts for less than 100% of the new traffic volume that is creating demand for a new transportation facility, impact fees cannot cover the total costs of the new transportation improvements. The City needs to fund the remaining portion of the development costs that are not paid for by impact fees. To the extent growth creates a burden on the City, an impact fee'can be collected. If outside grants are received, then the City is not burdened and therefore there is no basis for seeking repayment from new development. It is necessary to subtract available sources of funds to calculate an equitable level for the revenue requirements from the TIF. It is not necessary (or equitable) to subtract 100% of all sources of funds because some funds would be required for purposes other than TIF- eligible projects. The City of Tukwila has identified $102.5 million in project costs (2005 dollars). Over a 15 -year period, this project list would result in about $9.9 million in costs annually at an annual interest rate of 5 %. Of those project costs $95.8 million are eligible for the TIF. The other $6.7 million are safety - related and cannot be paid for with the TIF. The City's local funding for transportation improvements of $2.5 million can be subtracted from that amount. This leaves an estimated $7.4 million annually to be funded by other sources, including federal and state grants and the TIF. As DRAFT - Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October. 2005 Page 15 discussed above, the uncertainties in predicting future funding make it difficult to forecast how much funding would be available from federal and state sources through 2020. But as the City prepares its shorter term plans it should have a more clear idea of how much funding could be available. 4. TUKWILA TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE A Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) is assessed on new development to pay for improvements to the transportation systems that the traffic from such development is .estimated to require if some standard for level of service (LOS) is to be maintained. The fee is paid by new development at the time of an application for a building permit. The amount of the fee is based on the impact of the proposed development on transportation systems. The steps for estimating a transportation impact fee can vary by jurisdiction, but in broad terms they are: • Forecast the demand for transportation capacity (future trips) on a collection of arterials and -collectors (primarily existing, but potential yet- to -be- built) defined by policy to be that part of a jurisdiction's to which transportation concurrency policy and TIF calculations will apply. • Prepare a plan showing what improvements will be built to meet that demand, their cost, and which are eligible for TIF funding • Determine what percentage of the improvements is required to accommodate new development in the jurisdiction (as opposed to solving problems of existing development, or accommodating future through traffic). Use that percentage to estimate the total amount of revenue that TIF must generate from new development over some forecast period. • Divide the total revenue requirement by some measure of the trips the new development will generate. The result is the cost per estimated trip generated. • Apply that cost per trip to each new development project using an estimate of trips to be generated based on the nature of the development. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND CONSTRAINTS OF TIFS6 The basic premise of a TIF is that new developments pay for expansion of the transportation system, but there are constraints on how much a jurisdiction can charge developers. Developments can be charged for expansions in the system, but not for existing deficiencies. In the State of Washington, the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that infrastructure be in place within six years from "the time of development" to accommodate the impacts of new development. There must be a temporal connection between when one pays and when one receives the benefit. 6 This section is based on a review of the Revised Code of Washington: RCW 82.02.050 Impact fees -- Intent -- Limitations, RCW 82.02.060 Impact fees -- Local ordinances -- Required provisions, RCW 82.02.070 Impact fees -- Retained in special accounts -- Limitations on use -- Administrative appeals, RCW 82.02.080 Impact fees -- Refunds, RCW 82.02.090 Impact fees -- Definitions, RCW 82.02.100 Impact fees -- Exception, mitigation fees paid under chapter 43.21 C RCW. DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 16 Cities must show "concurrency" in their application of a TT. In broad terms, concurrency in the context of transportation means that transportation improvements to maintain a specified level of service must be available at (or close to) the same time ( "concurrent" with) new development occurs (e.g., if a lane on an arterial must be widened to maintained a jurisdiction's adopted level of service, development may need to be curtailed until the widening occurs). Impact fees collected must be used within six years of collection and be based on the six -year capital improvement plan (CIP). If a jurisdiction collects TIF funds but does not complete the planned transportation improvements within the six year limit, the jurisdiction must refund the developer who paid the fee for that portion of the fee that was not used. A jurisdiction must therefore demonstrate a geographic and temporal nexus between the impact fee payers, the payment, and the related investments. For example, fees collected in the TUC should underwrite infrastructure improvements that benefit the property owners of that area as opposed to other areas in Tukwila. Level of service standards The GMA further requires that comprehensive plans include a transportation element that includes LOS standards.8 Local governments planning under the GMA must establish such LOS standards for their transportation system, primarily roadways, in their comprehensive plans. They may permit new development within their jurisdictions as long as the transportation infrastructure will sustain the required LOS or the developer mitigates circumstances to achieve the LOS. LOS is measured on a range from A to F, as defined by the most current version of the Highway Capacity Manual published by the Transportation Research Board. Intersections are evaluated for average delays, or average travel speeds on corridors. The City of Tukwila has a minimum LOS standard of E for most intersections and corridor segments. For some arterial segments, the LOS is calculated based on the average for the intersections within the segments. Under the City of Tukwila's existing LOS standards, there are no existing deficiencies within the proposed system of improvements. This means that all capacity - related traffic improvement projects in Tukwila's CIP are eligible for the TIF without need of adjustment to account for existing deficiencies. Planning _ In accordance with the GMA, a TIF may only be imposed on transportation improvements that are identified Within the capital facilities element of the comprehensive plan or related reports and updates to the comprehensive plan and transportation CIP. _ The improvement projects recommended in Tukwila's plan have been developed within the City's standards for concurrency and LOS. A major portion of the new capital costs associated with the proposed improvements in this plan result from projected growth in the area and the need to provide adequate infrastructure to accommodate that growth. 7 Some jurisdictions have reduced their level -of- service standards to avoid this problem. 8 RCW 36.70A.070 Comprehensive plans -- Mandatory elements. DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 17 The City's comprehensive plan calls for updating the impact fee list at least every two years or in conjunction with the annual update to the CIP. Financing constraints The GMA also requires that reasonable financial assumptions be made when establishing impact fees. A city cannot rely solely on impact fees to finance public facilities and must instead balance the costs between impact fees and other sources of public funds. Cities are required to show what sources of funding will be used to pay for the portion of improvement project costs that are not covered by the impact fee. TIF revenues follow the pace of development and are less stable than revenues tied to utility rates or property taxes. Bonding agencies are less willing to underwrite revenue bonds if impact fees represent a large percentage of the funding package. Ultimately, policymakers must determine the appropriate funding mechanisms and the appropriate rates for impact fees based on the recommendations of staff. Policymakers may choose to set impact fees below the level necessary to fully cover transportation system improvements for new development. A city may choose to charge less than the full costs for policy reasons, including to facilitate affordable housing, for example. A city must still show what other source of public funds will be used to cover the gap between the amount funded by impact fees and the total amount needed. Developers traditionally have been very sensitive to increases to impact fee rates. Put simply, if the impact fees increase the cost of developing Tukwila property higher than the market's willingness to pay, then development will be delayed. If structured appropriately, economists generally view impact fees a fair taxing mechanism. When the City develops infrastructure, the capital investment increases the value of the land that receives the services. The establishment of an impact fee, by increasing the cost-of development, lowers the price developers are willing to pay to existing property owners. If the infrastructure is developed efficiently, the increase in land values associated with infrastructure improvements should approximately offset the decrease in land value associated with the implementation of the impact fee. Adjusting the TIF There are several methods to maximize the revenue available under a TIF: • Increase TIF. Some states require an adjustment to TIF levels to net out existing transportation debt or other costs that the new development would help pay for. Washington Law is not explicit on this point. Cities,may choose to charge for some of these costs'and thereby increase the TIF amount. State law does require that cities spread the costs between impact fees and other sources of public funds. • Revise /reduce credits for on -site improvements. The TIF pays for off -site costs imposed by new development. Some cities offer credits based on the cost of on -site improvements. Eliminating or reducing such credits would increase TIF revenue. DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees • ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 18 • Adjust the proportion of costs attributable to growth. HOW A TIF WOULD WORK IN TUKWILA While Washington state law outlines the intent and requirements for setting impact fees, cities do have choices to make in how to implement the TIF. Zone system The service area used for the TIF is the legal boundaries of the City of Tukwila. The City has chosen to establish a zone system within the City boundaries. Under such a zone system, the location of the development would determine the level of the TIF imposed. Developments would be charged a TIF calculated using the costs for traffic projects in specific zones, rather than total costs for TIF- eligible projects. The four zones are: • Zone 1: South /TUC. From I -5 to the south City limits to the east City limits to north of Southcenter Boulevard. (Zone 1 would include the Tukwila South project upon annexation into the City of Tukwila.) • Zone 2: East/Interurban. From I -5 to north of Southcenter Boulevard to the east City limits to the Duwamish River to the West boundary. • Zone 3: West/TIB. From the west City limits to the south City limits to I -5 to SR 599 to the Duwamish River to the east City limits to the north boundary. • Zone 4: North/MIC. The MIC area plus Ryan Hill. There is also one project (a Signal Interconnect system) that is to be spread across the four zones. The City must ensure that fees collected for a certain zone are spent on the improvement projects in those zones. To accomplish this requirement, the City may consider separate accounts or funds for the TIF revenues for the four zones. Methods for calculating the TIF ECO developed the following methodology for calculating the TIF based on the City's new zone system and the availability of data. Mirai Associates provided forecasts for total future trips for each zone, total through -trips that begin and finish outside of Tukwila, and zone -to -zone trips. The trips were forecasted_as one- way, PM peak -hour trips. Trips from zone to zone are included in the total future trips. The City then selected transportation improvement projects to meet future demand and maintain a minimum level of service of E. Mirai estimated the cost of the recommended projects. Fundamental to a defensible TIF is some clear and reasonable method by which to estimate (1) the amount of new trips generated by new development, and (2) the share of costs of the new improvements in the OP that new growth is responsible for. If, for example, one could demonstrate that an intersection improvement (which would cost $1 million) could maintain DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 19 existing LOS even if 1,000 new PM peak -hour trips occurred, then one would have a way of estimating a fee for new development: • Estimate (using standard ITE factors) the number of new PM peak -hour trips that a new development would generate. Assume the estimate is 5. • Divide that estimate (5) by the total new capacity (1,000). The result (0.5 %) is the percent of the total improvement cost ($1 million), which implies that the new development should pay a fee of $5,000 (= 0.5 * $1M): Reality is more complicated. The fee is typically not based on the specifics of an individual project, but on an aggregation of projects. In the case of the City of Tukwila, the total new projects for the City are divided out into four zones. So, typically, the percentage of a certain improvement that is required to accommodate new development would be calculated by determining the percentage of the total capacity of the facility that would be used by the new trips generated by new development. Because the TIF is being calculated on a zone basis, Mirai provided an estimate of the new trips generated per zone, but not an estimate of the total new capacity provided by the selected improvements. Without the latter, we could not calculate a percentage, because we lacked a denominator for the calculation. We had to use some other method to make an approximation for this zonal system. According to City staff, the proposed improvements to 2020 were developed to allow the system to meet the LOS E standard that the City has adopted. If one makes the assumption (certainly not exactly right, but potentially approx'mately right) that the improvements in the CIP will have just enough capacity to meet LOS E standards given the forecasted new trips —and no more —then one has some basis for assuming that the forecast of new trips is simultaneously a forecast of new capacity. In other words, if the system improvements will be able to handle x more trips without exceeding LOS E, then they must have added a capacity ofx trips. Thus, for our calculations we assumed that Mirai's forecasts for total future trips would approximate the total capacity. Mirai provided two different measures of future trips. One set of data forecasted the total number of new PM peak -hour trips that would travel within or through the zone, whether or not the trips use the improved transportation facilities. The second set of data forecasted the number of new PM peak -hour trips between and within zones that would actually use the transportation facilities included in the project list for improvements. The two totals vary, in some cases significantly. This difference in the data sets presents a policy choice for setting the TIF rate. Policymakers must decide if they will apply the TIF to the proportion of total new trips resulting from growth or only those trips that will actually use the specific facilities included on the transportation improvements list. It can be assumed that improvements within a zone will benefit all users of the zone and not just those who use the specific facilities that are improved. For example, if a major thoroughfare is improved and can accommodate more trips, other streets in the zone may experience less delays as traffic moves from those local side streets onto the main thoroughfare. DRAFT Tukwila: Transportation Funding and Fees ECONorthwest October 2005 Page 20 In the model, we used the total number of new PM peak -hour trips in the zone. ECO subtracted the estimate of iiew pass - through trips and the proportion of other new trips assumed to result from existing development from the total PM peak -hour volume for each zone. The result is an estimate of trips from new development that is used to determine the percentage of the improvements that is required to accommodate new development for each zone. The percentage of trips from new development to total trips is then applied to the eligible costs. To calculate eligible costs ECO netted out the costs for safety projects because those costs are not eligible TIF funding. 5. CONCLUSIONS Federal funds are politically popular from a local perspective, but difficult to expand where based on strict allocation formulas. Some of these sources are also difficult to secure and can come with significant strings attached. Because federal and state funding are typically project - specific, they can fluctuate significantly from one year to the next. Other sources that are received annually by Tukwila can fluctuate or disappear for reasons out of the City's control. The City should continue to pursue federal and state grants on a project basis. The City can also pursue other methods of funding transportation improvements, including the TIF. ECO has prepared a TIF model to calculate an appropriate TIF level to cover unfunded transportation improvement costs. Appendix A to this memorandum contains the model in an excel spreadsheet. However, there are several uncertainties in the recommended project list and methodology that must be cleared up before it is possible to calculate a recommended TIF level. • First, the City does not yet la-low the schedule for the improvement projects. The project list includes projects to be completed from the current year through 2020. Because Washington law requires cities to use impact fees within six years of collection, the City of Tukwila may not begin collecting now for projects that will not be completed by 2011. The City must determine which projects to include in its six -year CIP before calculating the TIF levels. • • The second uncertainty is the status of the Tukwila South project. There are no project costs included on the recommended project list that are associated with Tukwila South. The annexation of Tukwila South, however, would increase the number of PM peak -hour trips and therefore impact the fee level for Zone 1. • A third uncertainty is the amount of funding to be available from federal and state sources. To clarify this, the City could analyze each project's probability of receiving future funding from outside sources. When the City calculates its TIF, it should have more up -to -date funding . availability data. Known sources of funds should be subtracted out of the total revenue requirements before calculating the TIF. • Fourth, policymakers must decide if they will apply the TIF to the proportion of total new trips resulting from growth or only those trips that will actually use the specific facilities included on the transportation improvements list. Once the City has determined which projects are to be included in its six -year CIP, the TIF levels should be calculated for only those shorter term projects. The model in Appendix A can be updated when the project schedule and other uncertainties are clarified. TRANSPORTATION PURPOSE DRAFT.. The Transportation Element establishes Tukwila's transportation goals and policies for the 20 -year planning period. It provides direction for transportation decisions regarding annual plan updates including the Comprehensive Transportation Plan, the six -year Transportation Improvement Plan, the six -year Capital Improvement Plan, and the annual budget. It also provides guidance for development review and approval, land use and zoning decisions, and continuing transportation programs. The Transportation Element also establishes a basis for decision - making that is consistent with \Na`i"hington's Growth Management Act requirements and assures concurrence with other agencies. These specific requirements are fulfilled by the City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Transportation Plan, and summarized herein. The Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Tukwila Transit Plan, and the annually updated six -year Transportation Improvement Plan, six -year Capital Improvement Plan, and the budget are all adopted by reference in the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. ISSUES Tukwila's diverse transportation system includes freeways, highways, arterial streets, access streets, bus and commuter rail transit service, Amtrak passenger rail service, sidewalks, trails, and neighborhood footpaths. In addition, Boeing Field provides air transportation for a combination of primarily general and business aviation. The Duwamish River provides water access to Elliott Bay and beyond. Significant commercial freight transportation is provided by trucking and railroads throughout the City. Future Tukwila transportation system additions include Tight rail (slated to open in 2009) and possibly Bus Rapid Transit. LEVEL OF SERVICE The capacity of a transportation facility reflects its ability to accommodate a moving stream of people or vehicles. It is a measure of the supply side of transportation facilities. Level of service (LOS) is a measure of the quality of flow. Capacity and LOS calculations are needed for most traffic engineering and transportation planning decisions and actions. Traffic Level of Service In this instance, Level of service is used to describe and define capacity of a corridor or intersection. A grading system, defined in the Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board, ranges from A (best) to F (worst). TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation . —. i L03 i .. -.... .Delay per 1/eticle f .''';. � k.SignaIized;Intersections. r* < Less than or equal to 10 seconds t ` < �- to r •z �. .ws�.,�:•ar �'.'u+t r; Ems; ,:x; Delay er�V,ehicle�* • . - Y 'rte' �:_ „Unsigrialiied?IntersectiOns F � '' Less than or equal to 10 seconds A B Greater than 10 and less than or equal to 20 seconds Greater than 10 and less than or equal to 15 seconds C Greater than 20 and less than or equal to 35 seconds Greater than 15 and less than or equal to 25 seconds D Greater than 35 and less than or equal to 55 seconds . Greater than 25 and Tess than or equal to 35 seconds E Greater than 55 and less than or equal to 80 seconds Greater than 35 and less than or equal to 50 seconds F Greater than 80 seconds Greater than 50 seconds Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. Transit Level of Service DBAFT Transit service, both frequency and time -span of service, is an important aspect of a healthy transportation network. The Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, also published by the Transportation Research Board, establishes level of service standards for transit. led Transit Service LOS Headway (min) Vehicle/ hour Comments 19 -24 <10 >6 Passengers don't need schedules B 10 -14 5 -6 Frequent service, passengers consult schedules C 15 -20 3 -4 Maximum desirable time to wait if bus /train missed D 21 -30. 2 Service unattractive to choice riders E 31 -60 1 Service available during hour F >60 <1 Service unattractive to all riders Source: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, LOS Hours per Day Comments A 19 -24 Night or owl service provided B 17 -18 Late evening service provided C 14 -16 Early evening service provided D 12 -13 Daytime service provided E 4 11 Peak hour service /limited midday service F . 0 -3 Very limited or no service Source: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, Non - motorized Level of Service A level of service for pedestrian and other modes of non - motorized transportation is much more difficult to establish. Various methodologies exist but none are yet considered industry standards. Draft Staff Recommendations - August 31, 2005 2 Streets and Highways TUKWIA► COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT.Tukwila is divided into three areas of distinct tic patterns and roadway eds. The largest volume of traffic, as well as the area with the largest needs for infrastructure, is in the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC). To the north, the Manufacturing and Industrial Center (MIC) has a large amount of existing infrastructure, but has unused capacity due to a change in land uses and building tenants since 1995. The central and southwestern areas of Tukwila are predominately residential in nature, criss- crossed with residential streets funneling traffic onto large north -south arterials such as Interurban Avenue S and Tukwila International Boulevard. Transportation The TUC has a very unique traffic pattern due to its predominately commercial nature. Unlike the rest of the city, the traditional commuter p.m. peak hour is not always the peak of congestion. Oftentimes, the peak weekday volumes of traffic occur around the lunch hour, and the true peak of weekly volumes occurs on Saturday. Holiday shopping increases the daily volumes as much as 25 -50% above the rest of the year. Since 1990, daily traffic volumes in the TUC have risen nearly 17 %. For the most part, existing travel speeds of motorists in the TUC average around 20 m.p.h., which is a Level of Service C (LOS C). Although there are some intersections that operate poorly during peak hours, for the most part, the TUC area intersections also average at LOS C. Safety in the TUC is generally good from a motorist point of view. Major Southcenter Parkway intersections have the largest number of accident occurrences, though none are above the King County average for accidents on similar streets. Throughout the remainder of Tukwila, the traditional p.m. peak hour is the peak traffic volume. The average level of service is LOS B at key intersections but there are some specific locations where the capacity of the intersection is being approached. Accident occurrences are generally at lesser rates than the TUC area. There are four classes of streets: principal arterials, minor arterials, collector arterials, and access streets (Table 3 and Figure 1) These four classes of street were developed in recognition of a transition in street use from strictly access to properties to pure mobility. The differences result in different street widths, access control, speed limit, traffic controls, and other similar design and operation features. While the street sections and speed limits shown are generic for the each functional classification, current City codes and specific sub -area plans will govern. — Functional Street System Standards Functional Classification Right of Way Curb -to -Curb Speed Limit Local Access Streets 50 to 60 ft. 28 to 36 ft. 25 mph Collector Arterials 60 ft. 36 to 40 ft. 30 mph Minor Arterials 60 - 80 ft. 36 to 48 ft 30 to 35 mph Principal Arterials • ' 80 to 100 ft. 60 to 84 ft. 35 to 50 mph *Standards above are typical; see current City codes for actual standards The TUC area is projected to see the most growth in traffic by 2020. Without needed capacity improvements, LOS problems will develop, with an average of LOS E/F for the area and many locations projected to operate extremely poorly. The rest of the city fares better with an average of LOS D. However, many intersections will operate at severe LOS F conditions without improvements. Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 3 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Access streets in residential areas are not projected to experience LOS problems by the year 2020. However, the occasional problem of "too much traffic, too fast" can occur and measures to address safety and access would be determined based on studies and measures to reduce the volumes and speed. The City maintains an annually updated Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identifying projects that will address current and future system deficiencies. A full reporting and discussion of the data on traffic forecasts and present and future levels of service is included in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Transit King County Metro provides bus service throughout the City of Tukwila. Fourteen different rotates provide intra - Tukwila service and direct service to Burien, Kent, Auburn,'Seattle, Renton, and West 'Seattle. At this time, Sound Transit does not serve any destinations in Tukwila with Regional Express Bus service. Sounder, the regional commuter rail service, has a stop in Tukwila at Tukwila Station, as does Amtrak regional and national passenger rail service. The City of Tukwila strives to collaborate and cooperate with the region's transit providers in order to improve and support these systems. The goal of increasing overall transit ridership within the City of Tukwila drives the need for both service and capital improvements. Transit speed and reliability, improved passenger amenities, and access to transit service are all crucial for attracting and maintaining transit riders. Tukwila desires quality transit service to support and complement adjacent land uses. To achieve this, a multi -hub system and Transit Priority Corridor Classifications were developed. This classification system was created with the goal of establishing several different focal points for service in Tukwila. These include the S. 154th Street Link Light Rail Station, the Tukwila Commuter Rail /Amtrak Station, an improved Tukwila Urban Center Transit Center, and a new link connecting the Tukwila Commuter Rail /Amtrak Station to areas near Southcenter Mall. Improved routes and frequency feed into this multi -hub concept. Some changes in route alignments or schedules are recommended to meet a system -wide need. Transit Priority Corridor Classifications (Table 4 and Figure 2) were developed which identify transit corridor types by function, ideal transit operational characteristics, optimal adjacent land uses, and supporting physical design features of the public infrastructure. This tool is designed to be flexible and assist quality decision - making. An inventory of present transit routes are contained in the Tukwila Transit Plan. Full details on the recommendations for service changes and infrastructure needs are also included in that document. King County-Metro and Sound Transit control changes to routes. • 1 au Classification la vv, 1 ,YV, v.YV Functional Purpose tcal Ad scent Land Use , .: Typical 1 TRANSIT WAY Provides frequent, high speed, high capacity service and interregional transit trips. Provides frequent, moderate speed, high capacity service, connections between major activity centers, and some interregional trips Major private and public developments of regional significance. Should not be adjacent to residential areas. Major private and public developments of regional or local significance; adjacent to commercial, industrial, and high- . density residential land uses. —TRANSIT PRINCIPAL CORRIDOR TRANSIT MINOR CORRIDOR Provides connections between local transit destinations, concentrated to connect and reinforce major activity centers and residential areas. Provides connections between neighborhoods and area attractions.. Major private and public developments. Generally are located adjacent to high and medium - density residential areas as well as commercial areas. Neighborhood activity centers such as schools, businesses, recreational facilities, and single - family neighborhoods Depends on location. _ TRANSIT LOCAL ACCESS STREET POTENTIAL TRANSIT ROADWAY Roadways without existing transit service or service but are potential future transit roadway. Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 4 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation City of Tukwila Functional Classification Map Figure 1 Fr' DRJF0 (lotto Scale Map Legend •—•— Freeway - - - Principal •••••••••• Minor Collector City Limits •1 Date: August 7, 2002 Figure 1 — Functional Classification Map 1 J Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 5 A TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN itansit Priority Corridor Classification - Transit Way - Transit Principal ConlCOr - Transit Minor Corridor - Transit Local Access - Potential Transit Roatlway Figure 2: Transit Priority Corridor Classifications Transportation FT y Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 6 TUKWILA COMPRHENSIVE PLAN Transportation Non - motorized Transportation D R41F A non - motorized transportation plan is included in this Com?rehensive Transportationqlan and has been coordinated with the King County Non - motorized Plan. It differentiates two categories of non - motorized trips: Category I trips are "through" trips for bicycle commuters using trails, bikeways, and bicycle- friendly streets. Category II trips are "within neighborhood" trips, for example between homes and schools or between home and play - field, park, or market. Category I improvements include completing the Interurban and King County Green River trails; which will provide access to the Green /Duwamish high- employment corridor for bicycle, combined bicycle and bus, and combined bus and walking trips, as well as for recreation and exercise. The Category I improvements include incorporating bicycle; pedestrian, and other non - motorized transportation elements in other transportation improvement designs. Category II improvements include neighborhood footpaths, sidewalks, and the.pedestrian path program of paving shoulders and paths for non - motorized travel. Both Category I and II improvements involve the cooperation of King County Metro, the Tukwila Parks Department, and other agencies including King County, neighboring jurisdictions, and the Washington State Department of Transportation. A non - motorized transportation plan specific to the TUC inventories existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the urban center. Recommendations improvements to link and support pedestrian and bicycle activity in the TUC are included in the TUC Subarea Plan. LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS Level of service standards for all local arterials and transit routes are necessary in order to ensure mobility, vitality, and quality of life for the city. The standard, coordinated with surrounding jurisdictions, is to judge the performance of the system against what the community is willing to accept and what can be financed. Traffic Projected growth in Tukwila, and surrounding areas, was used in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan to project traffic volumes and levels of service in 2020. In order to develop an LOS standard and determine the improvements needed to maintain capacity, consideration was given to projected demands and projected income. The City must have a fiscally constrained financing plan that is balanced with planned growth and existing and future needs. Significant new capacity will be required to accommodate future growth throughout the city. The majority of the project needs are in the TUC area. In general terms, the City's LOS standard for arterials is LOS E in commercial areas and LOS D in residential areas. Within /the TUC area, level of service is calculated by averaging defined key intersections to obtain a corridor standard; elsewhere in the city, the level of service is calculated on individual key intersections. The TUC area and key arterial corridors throughout Tukwila will continue to be monitored to assure that the LOS standard is maintained. The Tukwila Comprehensive Transportation Plan identifies improvements that would maintain adopted level of service standards around the City. Projects necessary to maintain the minimum level of service standard will be built, as needed, to accommodate projected growth. In the Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 7 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation event of a funding shortfall or unexpected growth, the City must re- evaluate planned land uses and explore alternate funding sources to assure continuing concurrency with transportation system improvements. Transit At this time, Tukwila is not the owner /operator of a transit service, therefore a minimum level of service standard cannot be enforced. However, Tukwila encourages all transit providers to achieve and maintain a minimum LOS C and work within Tukwila's Transit Street Classification System: GOALS AND POLICIES Goal 13.1 Overall r•� Safe and efficient movement of people and goods to, from, within, and through Tukwila. Policies 13.1.1 Focus on safety as the first priority of an ongoing and continuous monitoring program. 13.1.2 Focus on highest possible transportation efficiency, while balancing the needs to provide streets that maximize traffic movement with streets that are designed to be consistent with existing and desired land uses. 13.1.3 Support, encourage, and implement transportation programs and improvements that promote water quality and regional air quality. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES A. Ongoing monitoring of accidents and level of service Goal 13.2 Transportation System Expansion of the existing public street network into a hierarchy of street designs that serve pedestrian and vehicle safety, traffic movement, and adjacent and use.. Policies 13.2.1 Develop a street network plan that augments the existing system of streets, breaks up super- blocks in non - residential areas, and provides functional separation of traffic through new streets on new alignments and minimization of cul -de -sacs. Whenever feasible, improve property and emergency access by ensuring that residential streets connect through to the grid system at both ends 13.2.2 Require street improvement projects and development improvements to be in accordance with the general Functional Street System Standards or subarea plan and require an engineering . . study of specific conditions. Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation 13.2.3 Require all new streets, street improvements, property developments and property improvements to provide sidewalks consistentwith adopted standards and subarea plans. Property developments and improvements in commercial areas will provide direct pedestrian access from sidewalks to buildings 13.2.4 Continue to improve residential streets and coordinate with utility improvements. 13.2.5 Regional or non -local traffic will be discouraged on residential access streets. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES A. Sidewalk ordinance B. Subdivision ordinance C. Street Network Plan DRAFT Goal 13.3 Level -of- Service Traffic levels -of- service that provide safe and efficient movement of people, bikes, cars and buses and incorporate evolving land use and traffic patterns. Policies 13.3.1 Use the following LOS standards to guide City improvement and development approval decisions: The Tukwila Urban Center corridor average is not to exceed LOS E, except for the Strander Boulevard corridor. Methodology for computing the average LOS is described in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan and is updated annually in the Concurrency Ordinance. All other non - residential arterial intersections are not to exceed LOS E. The LOS of minor and collector arterials in predominantly residential areas is not to exceed LOS D for each specific arterial. West Valley Highway (SR 181), as a state highway of regional significance, is not to exceed LOS E/Mitigated, as defined by PSRC — SR 599, as a state highway of regional significance, is not to exceed LOS E/Mitigated, as defined by PSRC 13.3.2 Use adopted LOS standards to guide City improvement and development approval decisions: In general, Level of Service Standards shall vary by differing levels of development patterns, desired character of streets, and growth management objectives. 13.3.2 Maintain adopted LOS standards in planning, development, and improvement decisions. 13.3.3 Provide capacity improvements or trip reduction measures so that the LOS standard is not exceeded. Draft Staff Recommendations – August 31, 2005 9 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation 13.3.4 When reviewing private development proposals, apply the Concurrency Ordinance to determine mitigation, if required, that will provide capacity or traffic generation control. 13.3.5 Include as a priority increased transportation choices such as transit use; rideshare measures such as carpooling as capacity mitigation measures; and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. After consideration of these priority improvements, consider signal improvements, other street capacity improvements, and street widening as a last resort. 13.3.6 Establish a program to monitor congestion and evaluate the effectiveness of the LOS standards. 13.3.7 Highways of Statewide significance (HSS), including Interstate 5 (1 -5), Interstate 405 (1- 405), and State Route 518 (SR-518), are exempt from concurrency requirements. 13.3.8 Regionally Significant State Highways, including SR 181 (West Valley Highway) and SR 599 are subject to a Regional Level of Service Standard established by the Puget Sound Regional Council and WSDOT. — LOS standard for Regionally Significant State Highways within Tukwila's boundaries is LOS E/Mitigated. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES A. Concurrency Ordinance B. Ongoing monitoring of traffic volumes and levels of service Goal 13.4 Public Transportation, Transit, Rideshare Efficient transit capacity that will reduce single- occupancy - vehicle trips to, from, and through Tukwila and provide public transportation for Tukwila residents who depend on it. Policies 13.4.1 Recommend and pursue a bus route along Interstate 405 connecting a Tukwila multi -modal center, located at Interstate 405 and Interurban, with Everett (Boeing) and serving the freeway stations, such as the Bellevue Transit Center. 13.4.2 Recommend and pursue a regional multi -modal center in conjunction with the Tukwila Commuter Rail /Amtrak Station and secondary pedestrian /bicycle/transit hubs elsewhere in the City. 13.4.3 Pursue amenities and funding in support of a pedestrian /bicycle route linking Southcenter Mall.' to the Tukwila; Commuter Rail /Amtrak Station. . 13.4.4 Continue to provide Commute Trip Reduction Program service to Tukwila employers and to provide assistance to Metro, Washington State Department of Transportation, King County, and adjacent agencies in increasing people- carrying capacity of vehicles and reducing trips. 13.4.5 Continue to encourage the use of rideshare, transit, bicycle, and evolving technological transportation improvements. Draft Staff Recommendations – August 31, 2005 10 FIThKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Transportation 13.4.6 Continue to support, participle in, and encourage the delopment and implementation of regional /rapid rail with service to the Tukwila Urban Center, and other emerging efficient- capacity technologies that will serve people traveling to, from, and within Tukwila. 13.4.7 Support transportation system management programs and measures developed by Washington State Department of Transportation, Puget Sound Regional Council, Metropolitan King County and others, including the private sect r, to reduce congestion and serve travel needs. [e fa a K i 13.4.8 Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Southcenter Mall, and ce); surrounding businesses to locate afpedestrianrnierittly transit center on Andover Park West, between Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard. 13.4.9 Research and pursue a TUC circulator service that would connect the Tukwila Station, the Transit Center, businesses, and attractions in the TUC with frequent service to encourage reduction of single- occupant vehicle trips, enhance the Southcenter area's image as a lifestyle center, and bring more customers to all businesses. Encourage and support public transportation services including expanded dial -a -ride and fixed - route van service, to areas that do not produce transit ridership warranting a bus route, transportation system management (TSM) program, the continued development of commuter and light rail particularly with service to the Tukwila Urban Center area, and continue to provide and support Commute Trip Reduction service. 13.4.11 Establish mode -split goals for all significant employment centers which will vary according to development densities, access to transportation service and levels of congestion. 13.4.12 The development of any light rail or commuter rail system shall meet the following objectives: — Any commuter or light rail system serving Tukwila, Seattle, South King County and /or Sea - Tac Airport should be located in a manner which promotes the coordinated short -term and long -term use of alternative transportation systems, such as carpools, buses, commuter rail, and light rail. — Such systems shall be located so as to allow for future extensions to commuter and /or light rail service to East King County and Southeast King County. — Such systems shall be located in a manner that serves the Tukwila Urban Center and the Tukwila Multi -modal Center, so as to encourage the development of these Centers in the manner contemplated by this Plan and the Countywide Planning Policies. 13.4.13 Encourage transit- oriented uses, development patterns and pedestrian amenities in the vicinity of high- capacity transit stations. 13.4.10 13.4.14 Require that.parking facilities developed in conjunction with transit facilities be adequately sized and managed to prevent spillover parking onto private property. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY A. Commute Trip Reduction Program B. Encourage transit providers to meet minimum level of service standards Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 11 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN C. Tukwila lead on construction of Transit Center in TUC area Goal 13.5 Non- motorized Transportation Bicycle and walking capacity for regional Category I and local Category II trips. Policies 13.5.1 Implement specific improvements that provide safe bicycle and walking capacity for regional (Category I) and local (Category 11) trips. 13.5.2 Continue the access street improvement program that provides sidewalks . on access streets. 13.5.3 Include bicycle improvements in street improvement projects on designated bicycle- friendly streets. 13.5.4 Continue to pursue grants to construct pedestrian and non - motorized improvements. 13.5.5 Continue to coordinate with adjacent agencies on the development of regional non- motorized transportation improvements. 13.5.6 Provide additional sidewalks and foot trails as opportunities and development occur. 13.5.7 Pursue converting railroad and other easements to pedestrian and bicycle trails., 13.5.8 Require secure bicycle racks in appropriate locations. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY A. Adopt a non- motorized transportation plan for the City B. Pursue connections between existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities C. Pursue additional pedestrian and bicycle amenities: ,rr Transportation DRAFT Goal 13.6 Freight, Rail, Water, and Air. Transportation Geometric capacity for commercial freight transportation located in and serving Tukwila. Policies 13.6.1 Include trucking design parameters in principal and minor arterial improvements as well as in commercial areas. 13.6.2 Include bus design considerations in, street improvements on streets with existing or potential bus service. Draft Staff Recommendations — August 31, 2005 12 TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE, PLAN Transportation 13.6.3 Allow truck traffic on all principal and minor arterials as well as oncommercial area local access streets. Consider using load limit restrictions an residential collector arterials and residential local access streets, following a traffic study and meetings with residents and businesses. 13.6.4 Participate with King County and the Port of Seattle in updating airport master plans for all airports affecting Tukwila, to ensure that airport operations and development: — Enhances Tukwila goals and - policies - Incorporates Tukwila land use plans and regulations — Minimizes adverse impacts to Tukwila residents. :D f RAF T Goal 13.7 Funding Sources and Mitigation Payment System Funding through grants, mitigations, general funds, and other sources for safety and capacity measures to maintain adopted LOS standards. Policies 13.7.1 Continue to pursue grants. 13.7.2 Use an impact fee system that identifies: — Capacity improvements based upon the long -term 2020 LOS needs but also accommodates a realistic financing plan. — Costs of improvements needed to mitigate growth is reflected in the annual. Capital Improvement Plan update and annual update to the Concurrency Ordinance and Impact Fee Schedule. — Costs to be shared between new development and existing users. — Impact Fee assessments, determined by the number of new development trips in the p.m. peak hour. — Additional mitigation, in accordance with the Concurrency Ordinance when development affects locations not meeting Concurrency standards. 13.7.3 Study and pursue funding sources such as Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) to pay for improvements not fully funded by grants, impact fees, and general funds. 13.7.4 Update the Capital Improvement Plan annually, adding new projects and deleting completed projects. 13.7.5 Update the frnpact Fee Schedule annually, adding new projects, deleting projects as necessary, and keeping project costs at current dollar value. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY A Adopt and annually update a Concurrency Ordinance and Impact Fee Schedule. B Aggressively pursue grant opportunities. Draft Staff Recommendations – August 31, 2005 13 TUKWILA TRANSIT PLAN FINAL REPORT PERTEET = -'1- 800 - 615.9906 425 - 252 -77002_ FINAL TUKWILA TRANSIT NETWORK PLAN For: City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Prepared by: 2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900, Everett, WA 98201 425 - 252 - 77001- 800 - 615 -9900 April 2005 • • TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND 1 1.2 AREA DESCRIPTION 1 1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES 3 1.4 PROJECT REPORT OVERVIEW 3 CHAPTER 2: MARKET RESEARCH 5 2.1 2001RIDER / NONRIDER SURVEY FINDINGS 5 2.2 PUBLIC FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS 5 2.3 INTERCEPT SURVEY SUMMARY 7 CHAPTER 3: SERVICE ANALYSIS DATA 20 3.1 OVERVIEW 20 3.2 SYSTEM ANALYSIS 20 3.3 KEY SERVICE FINDINGS 37 3.4 ROUTE ANALYSIS 38 CHAPTER 4: SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS 57 4.1 SERVICE MODIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 57 4.2 ROUTE RECOMMENDATIONS 59 CHAPTER 5: TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 68 5.1 INTRODUCTION 68 5.2 NEED FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 68 5.3 EXISTING FACILITIES 69 5.4 LONG RANGE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 71 5.5 KEY CAPITAL NEEDS RECOMMENDATIONS 75 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2 -1: TRAVEL MODE DISTRIBUTION 8 TABLE 2 -2: DESTINATION Bus ROUTES 10 TABLE 2 -3: TRIP PURPOSE 11 TABLE 2 -4: DESTINATION CITY FOR CURRENT TRIP 11 TABLE 2 -5: DESTINATIONS DIFFICULT TO REACH FROM SOUTHCENTER 14 TABLE 2 -6: SERVICE AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DESIRED BY EXISTING PASSENGERS 16 TABLE 3 -1: WEEKDAY HEADWAYS ON KING COUNTY ROUTES SERVING THE TUC 21 TABLE 3 -2: SATURDAY HEADWAYS ON KING COUNTY ROUTES SERVING TUKWILA 22 TABLE 3 -3: SUNDAY HEADWAYS ON KING COUNTY ROUTES SERVING TUKWILA 22 TABLE 4 -1: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES 59 TABLE 5 -1: BRT LAYERED SERVICE CONCEPT PROJECTED RIDERSHIP 75 TABLE 5 -2: PROJECTED NUMBER OF BUSES SERVING TUKWILA TRANSIT CENTER 76 TABLE 5 -3: EVALUATION OF TUKWILA TRANSIT CENTER EXPANSION OPTIONS 77 i • LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 -1: EXISTING TUKWILA ROUTES 2 FIGURE 2 -1: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION SUMMARY 6 FIGURE 2 -2: ROUTES PASSENGERS WERE WAITING TO TRANSFER To 9 FIGURE 2 -3: ORIGINS OF PEOPLE WALKING TO BUS STOP 9 FIGURE 2 -4: BUS RIDERSHIP FREQUENCY 12 FIGURE 2 -5: NUMBER OF VEHICLES IN HOUSEHOLD 13 FIGURE 2 -6: RESPONDENT AGE DISTRIBUTION 13 FIGURE 2 -7: TIMES OF POOR TRANSIT SERVICE TO SOUTHCENTER 15 FIGURE 2 -8: TUKWILA STATION MODE SPLIT FOR DISEMBARKING PASSENGERS 17 FIGURE 2 -9: ORIGINS OF TUKWILA SOUNDER PATRONS 17 FIGURE 2 -10: DESTINATIONS FOR SOUNDER PASSENGERS COMING TO TUKWILA STATION 18 FIGURE 2 -11: RESPONDENT SOUNDER USAGE 19 FIGURE 3 -1: AREAS IN TUKWILA LACKING 30 MINUTE SERVICE 24 FIGURE 3 -1: AREAS IN TUKWILA LACKING 30 MINUTE SERVICE 25 FIGURE 3 -2: TUKWILA MEDICAL FACILITIES 28 FIGURE 3 -3: TUKWILA COMMUNITY AGENCIES 29 FIGURE 3 -4: TUKWILA ScHooLs 30 FIGURE 3 -5: TUKWILA MAJOR EMPLOYERS 31 FIGURE 3 -6: TUKWILA WEEKDAY DAILY RIDERSHIP MAP 33 FIGURE 3 -7: TUC WEEKDAY DAILY RIDERSHIP MAP 34 FIGURE 3 -8: WEEKDAY DAILY PASSENGER LOADS ON TUC STREETS 35 FIGURE 3 -9: WEEKDAY BOARDING ACTIVITY WITH THE CITY OF TUKWILA 36 FIGURE 3 -10: ROUTE LEVEL RIDERSHIP BY DAY OF WEEK FOR ROUTES SERVING TUKWILA 36 FIGURE 3 -11: ROUTE LEVEL PRODUCTIVITY BY DAY OF WEEK FOR TUKWILA ROUTES 37 FIGURE 4 -1: TUKWILA ROUTE RECOMMENDATIONS 58 FIGURE 4 -2: TEMPORARY TUKWILA COMMUTER RAIL STATION MAP 66 FIGURE 5 -1: BUS STOPS NECESSITATING A BUS SHELTER 70 FIGURE 5 -2: CENTRAL LINK ROUTE 72 FIGURE 5 -3: CENTRAL LINK ROUTE IN TUKWILA 72 FIGURE 5 -4: POTENTIAL I -405 BRT ROUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 2004 PRESENTATION 74 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Focus GROUP REPORT ll • • Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND The City of Tukwila requested technical assistance to conduct a Transit Plan of existing Sound Transit and King County Metro routes within Tukwila in order to better meet the needs of the communities, residents, employers, and employees. The goal was to improve and maximize usage of all transit service in the area, make service faster, more effective, and help Tukwila meet its development potential. In April 2003, The City of Tukwila initiated the Tukwila Transit Plan, which will be a component of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Three different efforts are being addressed by the Tukwila Transit Plan; supporting the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) effort, and developing a short- and long -range transit vision for the City of Tukwila. 1.2 AREA DESCRIPTION The City of Tukwila is located approximately 11 miles south of downtown Seattle. According to the 2000 census, the City has a population of approximately 17,000 residents. In 2002, Tukwila had over 34,000 jobs. The Tukwila Transit Plan study area is bounded by the city limits. Land uses in Tukwila are a mixture of several different distinct land uses, ranging from residential, warehouse /distribution, office, to retail development. Northern Tukwila is characterized by industrial and manufacturing land uses. Western and eastern Tukwila have residential neighborhoods. In South Tukwila, the Tukwila Urban Center, is one of the regional retail powerhouses and is characterized by a regional mall, Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter (Southcenter) as well as the supporting retail development surrounding it. The southern portions of the TUC are primarily characterized by warehouse /warehouse - retail types of land uses. There are virtually no current residents in the TUC study area. King County Metro provides bus service throughout the City of Tukwila. Fourteen different routes provide intra - Tukwila service and direct service to Burien, Kent, Auburn, Seattle, Renton, and West Seattle. At this time, Sound Transit does not serve any destinations in Tukwila with Regional Express Bus service. Sounder, the regional commuter rail service, has a stop in Tukwila at Tukwila Station. Sounder commuter rail service currently consists of three trains to Seattle in the morning peak and three trains to Tacoma in the afternoon peak. Figure 1 -1 shows the existing routes within Tukwila. The Southcenter Mall is the focal point of transit service within Tukwila. Five routes connect at this location. Of those, Routes 128 and 155 terminate at the Mall and Route 126 terminates at Tukwila Station. The remaining two routes, Route 140 and Route 150, represent the major east - west and north -south routes through Tukwila. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 1 April 2005 • • Figure 1 -1 Existing Tukwila Routes 1 IPIA rte, IN ' IN s lei 1111111110111 MENU mudialfr latimjiggimplal 10 DrumNiavill " al Are ' Legend o Route 110 e mus Route 110 Partial o rt•125 ■�� Route 128 o Route 140 o Route 140 Partial - Route 150 ▪ •• Route 154 o Route 155 - Route 160 o Route 163 ea® Route 170 __Route 174 4 1111 H -� ICI ►r. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 2 April 2005 • Routes in the Tukwila include: 110 Tukwila Station — North Renton 126 Rainier Beach — Tukwila Station 128 Southcenter — Admiral District 140 Burien — Renton 150 Auburn — Seattle 154 Auburn — Boeing Industrial 155 Fairwood — Southcenter 160 Kent East Hill — Tukwila — Seattle 163 Kent East Hill — Tukwila — Seattle 170 McMicken Heights — Seattle 174 Federal Way — SeaTac — Tukwila — Seattle 941 Star Lake — First Hill Sounder Commuter Rail 1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES Several objectives guided the Tukwila transit planning effort. Those objectives include: • To ensure the compatibility of system planning with other local and regional long -range planning efforts. • To determine the feasibility of implementing expanded transit services and facilities in Tukwila. • To identify approaches to improving system ridership productivity, service cost effectiveness, and cost efficiency. • To determine a future route network which will best meet anticipated demand for services. • To improve system connections, transfer options and facilities. • To identify optimal locations for additional system facilities. 1.4 PROJECT REPORT OVERVIEW This section summarizes the information gained and developed during the development of the Tukwila Transit Plan. That effort has resulted in a determination of the existing conditions under which King County Metro currently operates and a documentation of expectations for future service. The remainder of this report is divided into chapters summarizing the results of a task or group of tasks within the project. A number of differing information sources have been employed in compiling this summary of project findings. Among these sources are: • A review of previously- adopted plans, goals and objectives of Tukwila, King County Metro, and Sound Transit, • Three focus groups, • Intercept surveys of Sounder and King County Metro riders, • Boarding and alighting counts of all King County Metro Weekday, Saturday, and Sunday services, • Observations of King County Metro operations, • Community data and observations, and • Public outreach and participation, including five Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) workshops. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 3 April 2005 • The remainder of this document is organized into a number of individual chapters, documenting the findings of the tasks comprising the Tukwila Transit Plan. In general, the organization of this report is as follows: • Chapter 1 gives a short overview of the Tukwila Transit Plan, including a short history and background of the area, and describes the organization of the remainder of the Project Report. • Chapter 2 describes the findings and conclusions developed from the market research, including focus groups and intercept surveys. • Chapter 3 summarizes data analysis utilized to support the project recommendations, including the boarding and alighting counts and on -site observations. • Chapter 4 describes the project recommendations based upon the data analyzed as described in Chapter 3, including individual route alignment and schedule changes, additional services required to help meet system service goals and objectives, regional service expansion and system governance. • Chapter 5 summarizes capital analysis used to support project recommendations for capital facilities and infrastructure within Tukwila, including passenger amenities, shelters, bus stop locations, and transit signal priority. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 4 April 2005 • Chapter 2: Market Research The Transit Plan included an assessment of the attitudes and awareness of transit operations of its riders and non - riders. Four different efforts were undertaken to understand the existing market and market potential. The King County Metro 2001 Rider/Nonrider Survey was reviewed. In addition, the results of three focus groups, a Southcenter intercept survey, and a Tukwila Station intercept survey are described in this section. Full documentation of the focus group survey may be found in Appendix A. 2.1 2001 RIDER/NONRIDER SURVEY FINDINGS The King County Metro 2001 Rider/Nonrider Survey provides valuable insight into the potential transit market for Tukwila. In particular, the origin and destination of travel to /from Tukwila is indicative of how well today's transit service is meeting the needs of commuters. The 2001 Rider/Nonrider Survey shows that the number of King County workers commuting to South King County jobs has increased from 17 to 19 percent between 2000 and 2001. The largest destinations are: • Renton (32 %) • Kent (22 %) • Auburn (10 %) • Sea -Tac (12 %) • Federal Way (7 %) • TukwilalSouthcenter (7 %) According to the survey, nearly half of South King County residents work in a South King County destination. Destinations for South King County residents include: • South King County (45 %) • Downtown Seattle (17 %) • North King County (19 %) Some of the key findings of the 2001 Rider/Nonrider survey are that: 1. South King County residents tend to work in South King County. 2. Tukwila/Southcenter is one of the largest destinations for commuters in South King County. 3. Intra -South King County connections are crucial in serving the South King County travel market. 2.2 PUBLIC FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS Public focus group discussions provided a valuable assessment of local transit needs and opportunities in Tukwila. Three focus group discussions were conducted with transit users and with business owners and managers to learn more about attitudes toward current services and desired improvements to services and facilities. Two rider groups were divided as follows: (1) riders living in Tukwila or Renton, and (2) riders traveling in or through Tukwila from other locations. A third discussion was conducted with Tukwila business owners and managers. The brief focus groups helped to identify commuting patterns, satisfaction with current transit operations, suggestions for service improvements in the study area, and perception of transit's image in Tukwila. All of the groups were consistent in their suggestions for improving transit service and facilities in Tukwila. Figure 2 -1 represents the major themes from those discussions. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 5 April 2005 • • Figure 2 -1 Focus Group Discussion Summary Route Improvements Desired: • Provide some type of shuttle, or other frequent bus service between the Southcenter Mall and the businesses along or near Southcenter Parkway. People who work and shop in the Tukwila Urban Area and want to use transit are currently limited in their access to all of the businesses in the area. • Provide additional express options. Tukwila is a transit hub. Each day, thousands of people pass through the area traveling to other destinations. Despite this fact, transit does not yet provide express options for many of these destinations. There is an especially high demand for more express options from Tukwila to Downtown Seattle. • Provide service from Tukwila west to Highway 99 and east to the Kent Valley. Scheduling Improvements Desired: • Increase frequency of service on major routes. Many of the major routes need more frequent service (Routes 101, 150 and 174 were mentioned); and express bus hours should be extended to provide service for those who work beyond the traditional 8 AM to 5 PM workday (Routes 140, 160, 163, 240 and 941 were mentioned). • Modify service to reflect current transit needs. Tukwila is a major destination. Although the population of Tukwila is small, each day some 50,000 people (according to an estimate from one of the participants in the business discussion) come to Tukwila to work. Additionally, thousands come to Tukwila to shop, especially on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. The current transit routes and schedules do not appear to respond to these needs. • Improve Sounder service and improve bus connections with Sounder. Varied work and shopping schedules now mandate that Sounder service be provided beyond traditional commuter times. Furthermore, additional bus connections are needed between Sounder and other travel destinations, as well as to businesses located within Tukwila. Other Improvements Desired: • Improve bus stop maintenance. Bus stop locations in Tukwila need to be better maintained and more bus shelters are needed (many riders are under the impression that the bus stops on the Eastside are nicer because they are in high income' areas). • Increase safety. Many people are concerned about safety on the buses, especially on buses that travel Highway 99 (Route 174). They want to see uniformed security people on routes that have a history of safety incidents. • Provide additional bus stops around the Southcenter Mall. • Increase marketing efforts. Transit is a concept that needs more marketing, in general. The major benefits — no parking costs, no traffic hassles, and in some instances, shorter travel times — should be known to more commuters. Many employers will be willing to help with marketing efforts if they are given the information to provide to their employees and if bus stops are conveniently located in relation to their workplaces. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 6 April 2005 • • 2.3 INTERCEPT SURVEY SUMMARY Perteet conducted an intercept survey of bus riders waiting for bus connections in Tukwila on May 14th and 15th, 2003 between the hours of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. The surveys were handed out and collected at the Metro bus stop located at Andover Park West and Baker Boulevard (Southcenter stop). An additional survey was conducted at the Tukwila Station on May 14, 2003. Both boarding and deboarding passengers were handed a survey. Intercept surveys are not random sample surveys. Care must be exercised in inferring attitudes and travel patterns of the entire ridership, based on responses to this survey. Overall, we estimate that 15.5 percent of all riders at the Southcenter stop were surveyed and 41 percent of riders at the Tukwila Station were surveyed. Therefore, the intercept surveys should provide a valuable overview of rider opinions. Key Findings from Existing Passengers • The most common trip purposes are other' (24 %), work (21 %), personal errands (18 %), and shopping (17 %). • Approximately 43 percent of those waiting at the Southcenter bus stop are waiting to transfer. Transfers to Routes 140 and 150 were the most common. Many of those waiting for a transfer went to Southcenter Mall to shop while waiting for a bus. • Forty-three percent walked to the Southcenter bus stop from an area destination. Southcenter Mall was the origin of 70 percent of those walking to the Southcenter stop. • Most riders walk, on average, three minutes or less to and from a bus stop. • Most riders believe King County Metro is providing the right overall level of service to , the Southcenter bus stop. Only 18 percent of respondents indicated there were times when bus service was lacking. Evening span, frequency, and weekend service were identified most often by those unhappy about the level of service. • Eighty -nine percent of respondents indicated that Southcenter had bus service to the right destinations. Kirkland, Tacoma, Des Moines, and Seattle were the most frequently identified destinations without service from Southcenter. • The top improvement priorities for Southcenter riders are improved shelters, benches, and associated capital amenities. • The King County Metro VanShare program is crucial in serving the diverse travel patterns of passengers arriving at the Tukwila Sounder Station each morning. 2.3.1 Southcenter Bus Stop Passenger Survey Analysis Perteet conducted an intercept survey of transit riders waiting for bus connections in Tukwila on May 14th and 15th, 2003, between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. The surveys were handed out and collected at the Metro bus stop located at Andover Park West and Baker Boulevard (Southcenter stop). Based on King County Metro ridership data, a total of 1,244 passengers boarded buses at this location during the survey. Surveys were given to 341 riders, and 193 were returned, yielding an ' "Other" is defined as all trip purposes except for work, personal errands, shopping, school K -12, college /university, recreation/social, or medical. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 7 April 2005 • • overall return rate of 56.6 percent. Overall, we estimate that 15.5 percent of all riders at the Southcenter stop were surveyed. The results, while self - selected, are statistically valid. Transit Accessibility The survey asked waiting passengers how they arrived at the Southcenter bus stop. Passenger transfers (43 %) and walking (43 %) were the two most common responses (Table 2 -1). After transfers and walking, motor vehicle (12.7 %) was the next most frequent mode choice. Bicycle arrivals account for the remainder of survey respondents. It should be noted that some survey respondents selected more than one travel mode, so the total percentages reported total more than 100 percent. Table 2 -1 Travel Mode Distribution Mode Responses Counted Percent of Responses of Total Transfer 115 42.8% 59.6% Walk 115 42.8% 59.6% Drove 4 1.5% 2.1% Dropped Off 18 6.7% 9.3% Motor Vehicle -Other 12 4.5% 6.2% Bicycle 5 1.9% 2.6% Total 269 100.0% 139.4% Of the passengers who were transferring, approximately half were to Routes 140 and 150 (Figure 2 -2). Metro Routes 39 and 128 also received a significant portion of the transfers, each with more than 10 percent of the transfer activity observed. Riders reported transferring to a total of six different routes (several passengers indicated transferring to routes that do not serve Tukwila; these routes were not counted in the Transfer Analysis). The average transfer passenger waited more than 17 minutes for a connection, with a maximum transfer time of 45 minutes reported. Thirty percent of the transferring survey respondents indicated that they shopped while waiting for a connection. Approximately three - quarters of transferring riders indicated they engaged in retail activity (75.7 %) while waiting. A large number of respondents also indicated that they walked to the Southcenter bus stop. The average trip time for a pedestrian is three minutes. Responses indicate that the majority (70.3 %) of pedestrians were coming from Southcenter Mall while 2.5 percent identified Target as the origin of their trip (Figure 2 -3). The destinations of the remaining 27 percent were unspecified. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 8 April 2005 • • 150 32% Figure 2 -2 Routes Passengers Were Waiting to Transfer To No Route Specified 7% Target 3% 140 32% Figure 2 -3 Origins of People Walking to Bus Stop 128 13% Southcenter Mall 70% Final Tukwila Transit Plan 9 April 2005 • • Destination Information The survey counted more persons waiting at the Southcenter stop for Route 140 than any other bus route (Table 2 -2). It should be noted that Route 150 actually has the highest ridership of any route at the Southcenter stop. According to the survey responses, Routes 150 and 128 both had significant ridership activity. Two other routes (39 and 155) were also identified, although none received more than 10 percent of the boarding activity. Table 2 -2 Destination Bus Routes Bus Route Responses Counted Percent of Responses of Total 39 15 8.1% 7.8% 128 28 15.1% 14.5% 140 86 46.2% 44.6% 150 45 24.2% 23.3% 155 11 5.9% 5.7% Total 185 100.0% 96.4% The survey asked each person to identify his or her trip destination (Table 2 -3). More respondents indicated "Other" for their destination (24.3 %) than any other destination. Work was the most frequently identified specific destination (21.0 %) with personal errands (18.2 %) and shopping (16.6 %) the only other destination types that received more than 10% of riders, although Kindergarten through High School (6.6 %) and College/University (5.0 %) trips collectively account for 11.6 percent of respondent total trips. Renton was the most frequent destination city for survey respondents (Table 2-4). Seattle and Kent were also frequent destinations at 18.2 percent and 14.7 percent, respectively. Less popular destinations included Burien (7.6 %) and SeaTac (7.1 %), while fewer trips were made to smaller or more remote destinations, such as Enumclaw, Boulevard Park, and White Center. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 10 April 2005 • Table 2 -3 Trip Purpose Activity Responses Counted Percent of Responses of Total Work 38 21.0% 19.7% Personal Errands 33 18.2% 17.1% Shopping 30 16.6% 15.5% School K -12 12 6.6% 6.2% College/University 9 5.0% 4.7% Recreation or Social 8 4.4% 4.1% Medical 7 3.9% 3.6% Other 44 24.3% 22.8% Total 181 100.0% 93.8% Table 2 -4 Destination City for Current Tri Destination City Responses Counted Percent of Responses of Total Renton 38 22.4% 19.7% Seattle 31 18.2% 16.0% Kent 25 14.7% 13.0% Tukwila 17 10.0% 8.8% Burien 13 7.6% 6.7% SeaTac 12 7.1% 6.2% Auburn 9 5.3% 4.7% Federal Way ' 6 3.5% 3.1% Southcenter 4 2.4% 2.1% West Seattle 3 1.8% 1.6% Airport 3 1.8% 1.6% Skyway 3 1.8% 1.6% Tacoma 1 0.6% 0.5% Des Moines 1 0.6% 0.5% White Center 1 0.6% 0.5% Boulevard Park 1 0.6% 0.5% Enumclaw 1 0.6% 0.5% Fairwood 1 0.6% 0.5% Total 170 100.0% 88.1 % Rider Information More than half of survey respondents ride the bus five or more days per week (Figure 2 -4). An additional 18.2 percent of respondents indicated that they ride the bus three to four times per week. Overall, the overwhelming majority of respondents were regular bus riders. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 11 April 2005 • • Less than Weekly Once a Week Two Days a Week Three Days a Week Four Days a Week Fve Days a Week Six Days a Week Seven Days a Week Figure 2 -4 Bus Ridership Frequency d :�`aiti i 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% The average trip length reported by survey respondents was 33.2 minutes. The longest trip time reported was 99 minutes, while the shortest trip was anticipated to take only 2 minutes. Just more than half (50.2 %) of the trips were anticipated to take between 10 and 30 minutes, while 29.5 percent were anticipated to take longer than 30 minutes. Over half (57 %) of respondents indicated that they did not have a current drivers license and more than two thirds (73.3 %) did not have a vehicle available for to make their trips. Based on the responses, the majority of transit users at the Southcenter Mall stop are captive riders. Only about a quarter of riders are choice riders. Slightly more than a third of those responding to the survey had one vehicle available in their households (Figure 2 -5). About 26 percent of respondents indicated they had no vehicle available. This, along with the fact that over half of respondents do not have a driver's license, confirms that few riders at the Southcenter stop are choice riders. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 12 April 2005 • • 6 5 N 4 M O x2 0 Figure 2 -5 Number of Vehicles in Household y1 -•, "'2° '.; wFc4. 4 4 4 qq .,i $r1 s _lt r t 3,PS��' 1 S j &1r tlkw. y A 3 �ti`. rote x .�yy 'Y. �1�.•, .' i 9p7 .$ I -'9s- a' ✓r _s i 4 is ;'8f , 'pia i_ ,°L p$}.0 vin xss -' �� -) t' s '`�s ., sr s 'T p1 8 V§ � _ ,. } ,,..:� u° r ,fit l g .�` ) >d .ri tt4Y t dri s s ..! ' i. i'y �i rs, .� .. Y si..•.r A i�: Y}^ tr. Fit } 1�,,r 7 &: x. , J y . °, s tx3 v . �,•# - . .... a "� *•�t �.. i - A :L. `. * �; i tYga,. °. . �-.:"*x. f?,v c =ca, <. zg .e•i.,.. '. .. Xe _ ..,a .i.tS.ti"S.. d.a., !, FZF' b 1 tdd -t tt '''.:A."-'. ••1 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Percent of Respondents 30% 35% 40% There was a fairly even distribution of ages found in the survey (Figure 2 -6). One third of respondents were under the age of 18. Most age brackets had 10 percent representation. Only 9.3 percent of the respondents were 55 or older. Survey respondents tended to be male (56 %). This is an interesting result, as the prototypical rider in King County is a female. Figure 2 -6 Respondent Age Distribution 25 -34 13% 16 -17 13% Final Tukwila Transit Plan 13 April 2005 • • • Areas for Improvement The survey asked in an open -ended question if there were any destinations that were difficult to reach within and from Tukwila. Multiple survey respondents identified Tukwila destinations at Southcenter Parkway, the other side of Southcenter Mall, Allentown, and the existing transit focal point of Andover Park West and Baker Boulevard (where this survey was conducted) as difficult to reach. Eleven percent of respondents indicated that cities outside of Tukwila were difficult to access. According to them, Kirkland, Tacoma, Des Moines, and Seattle were the most difficult cities to reach by bus (Table 2 -5). Neither Tacoma, Des Moines, nor Kirkland has direct bus service from Southcenter. Table 2 -5 Destinations Difficult to Reach from Southcenter Destination City Responses Counted Percent Of Responses of Total Kirkland 5 21.7% 2.6% Tacoma 3 13.0% 1.6% Des Moines 3 13.0% 1.6% Seattle 3 13.0% 1.6% Renton 2 8.7% 1.0% Burien 2 8.7% 1.0% Auburn 1 4.3% 0.5% Federal Way 1 4.3% 0.5% SeaTac 1 4.3% 0.5% Bothell 1 4.3% 0.5% Lakewood 1 4.3% 0.5% Total 23 100.0% 11.9% The survey asked if there were times of the day that bus service was less poor (Figure 2 -7). Only 18 percent of riders indicated that there is a time when bus service is lacking. Among respondents, riders who indicated that there are times that need improved service, late night service after 11 p.m. and evening service after 6 p.m. were the most frequent responses. Weekend and all -day service improvements were identified as potential improvements as well. From the results of the survey, it appears that existing patrons are satisfied with the level of peak hour service. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 14 April 2005 • • Late Night Evening u n , Weekends t— O o. All Day `o m Mid Day Afternoon Figure 2 -7 Times of Poor Transit Service to Southcenter .J° t <f rL 3t : $L.ti}:. ''. .,..ter ;,#,w ^Le ,g$° 9 J. ;. sp^ f.�.'�Yt°.i 9., & "w�°ia '?r:... g:j) 1 I? ;Vrt; Z �. �" An..epc. 'i"Yk` z .':r ✓ e.. ; 4 yi^A'1@'ar ttt ,y i 9. ,� $ .X2Pti e J -- k• °Y w 1°t5 •� 4c Y r`�.. Y `s,T 9 r'. :a, , ?+�4µ. 't y 'd: 8#'° Y .,![..Aihf 1 Z•' YYa� ��.; A � � � b< f. tea. Vii." i Ali T k" 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Percent of Respondents 25% 30% 35% The most common improvement requested by riders was the provision of benches or other seating space at transit stops, with 25 percent of all riders identifying it as an improvement (Table 2 -6). In addition, bus shelters were also identified by an additional 16 percent of respondents for a total of slightly over 40 percent of respondents indicating that capital improvements are desired improvements. Frequency, span of service, and weekend service were much less frequently indicated as an improvement. Usually, in rider surveys, frequency tends to be the most requested improvement desired. The results of the survey confirm that the Southcenter stop capital facilities are less than optimal. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 15 April 2005 • • Table 2 -6 Service and Capital Improvements Desired by Existing Passengers Improvement Responses Counted Percent of Responses of Total Seating Space/Benches 12 24.5% 6.2% Shelter 8 16.3% 4.1% More Frequency 4 8.2% 2.1% Sundays 3 6.1% 1.6% Later Hours 3 6.1% 1.6% Transfer Center 3 6.1% 1.6% Trash Control 3 6.1% 1.6% Pay Phones 2 4.1% 1.0% On Time 2 4.1% 1.0% Post Schedule 2 4.1% 1.0% Everything New 2 4.1% 1.0% New Paint 1 2.0% 0.5% Smoking Area 1 2.0% 0.5% Park and Ride Lots 1 2.0% 0.5% Pedestrian Crossing Light 1 2.0% 0.5% Other 1 2.0% 0:5% Total 49 100.0% 25.4% 2.3.2 Longacres Passenger Survey Analysis An additional survey was conducted at the Tukwila Sounder Station on May 14, 2003. Both boarding and deboarding passengers were handed a survey. Of the 108 passengers who accessed Sounder at Tukwila Station on May 14, 44 responded to the survey; an effective response rate of 41 percent. It should be noted that care should be given in drawing conclusions from this survey, as the sample size is only 44 respondents. Transit Accessibility Ninety percent of all respondents were traveling from points south of Tukwila to Tukwila Station. Upon arriving at Tukwila Station, the majority of respondents traveled to their destination via vehicles parked at the park- and -ride (Figure 2 -8), i.e., VanShare vehicles. King County Metro operates a VanShare program, which allows 3 or more commuters to share a vanpool vehicle from a park- and -ride to their destination. There were 20 VanShare vehicles parked at the Tukwila Station prior to the arrival of the first train. Only 8 percent of respondents walked to Tukwila Station. The low number of pedestrians accessing the station is no surprise given the location and the distances and walking environment to the closest places of employment. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 16 April 2005 • • Figure 2 -8 Tukwila Station Mode Split for Disembarking Passengers (how passengers get to their destinations from Tukwila Station) Walk 8% Origin Information The majority of people accessing the Tukwila Station are headed to /from points south, such as Auburn, Tacoma, and Puyallup (Figure 2 -9). Only a small percentage of riders are heading north on Sounder. According to May 2003 Sound Transit passenger counts, approximately 100 passengers arrive in Tukwila on Sounder and 20 depart on Sounder in the morning peak. Tukwila Station is the only Sounder station other than downtown Seattle that is primarily a destination. Figure 2 -9 Origins of Tukwila Sounder Patrons Commuters between Tukwila /Renton to /from North 10% Commuters between Tukwila/Renton to /from South 90% Final Tukwila Transit Plan 17 April 2005 • • Destination Information Upon arriving in Tukwila, passengers fairly evenly distribute themselves with destinations in Renton, Tukwila, and SeaTac (Figure 2 -10). SeaTac (and the Airport) and Tukwila were the most frequently identified destinations from the Sounder Station. The destination pattern shows the importance of the VanShare program, as regular transit service would be hard pressed to serve this variety of destinations well. Figure 2 -10 Destinations for Sounder Passengers Coming to Tukwila Station Rider Information Work was identified as the primary trip purpose for 95 percent of all respondents, which is to be expected given the limited train schedule. The majority of passengers surveyed indicated that they rode Sounder five days a week (Figure 2 -11). The number of occasional riders was low. This is not surprising, due to the large dependence on VanShare to get to destinations; the use of VanShare requires an on -going commitment. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 18 April 2005 • • • Five times a week Four times a week Three times a week Twice a week Once a week Figure 2 -11 Respondent Sounder Usage 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Nearly all of surveyed riders (98 %) indicated that they have a current drivers license. Also, nearly all surveyed riders (95 %) had a vehicle available to make this trip. Clearly, the passengers using Sounder to Tukwila Station are overwhelmingly choice riders. The age range of riders was concentrated among the usual employee profile. There were virtually no elderly, pre -teen, or late teen riders. Almost all riders were aged 25 -34 (11 %) and 35 -55 (84 %). Just over half of riders were men (52 %). Areas for Improvement The sample size is too small to statistically validate the areas for potential improvement. However, the responses do give a clue as to potential connections and potential improvements. Survey respondents identified Southcenter, Interurban Avenue, the King County Metro South Base, and Group Health on East Marginal Way as difficult to reach. There were no instances of multiple areas being identified, although South Base and Group Health are immediately adjacent to each other. The most common improvement requested by riders was the provision of shelters at transit stops. Three people (8 %) identified those as an improvement. Specific locations were at the Sounder Station and Route 124 bus stop. Other requests included connection to the southbound Route 154 and better connections with Route 124. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 19 April 2005 S. Jm + � 1 t . «+II. • ' a✓ t ie • .!' i'+4:k s. • i 333 aXS c.. 'S , Txt4 Y .. c. Y i .. 'i�'Y 2 2` 1✓' i „ 8.d•C t '�i�'W 4 �yyp::N �+3k` t ... N F � / Aga-.. P r C r, r t4 F4 � � � ,� � dt° .{t=J ( ?i !� -1 t r g".tea } R11 ao - gyp# t F�'� .i t'. #} e i Ii.. py t i k {C ts( a Yi P {�� KA'l°igY .titt.. _ st t}S.aee,: f � 4 y N _ "Fb � _..e�'a.�i4Y ",r � ?a° S ..rd 2:f.1 r:?..: m € i1 jj�F w£` 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Nearly all of surveyed riders (98 %) indicated that they have a current drivers license. Also, nearly all surveyed riders (95 %) had a vehicle available to make this trip. Clearly, the passengers using Sounder to Tukwila Station are overwhelmingly choice riders. The age range of riders was concentrated among the usual employee profile. There were virtually no elderly, pre -teen, or late teen riders. Almost all riders were aged 25 -34 (11 %) and 35 -55 (84 %). Just over half of riders were men (52 %). Areas for Improvement The sample size is too small to statistically validate the areas for potential improvement. However, the responses do give a clue as to potential connections and potential improvements. Survey respondents identified Southcenter, Interurban Avenue, the King County Metro South Base, and Group Health on East Marginal Way as difficult to reach. There were no instances of multiple areas being identified, although South Base and Group Health are immediately adjacent to each other. The most common improvement requested by riders was the provision of shelters at transit stops. Three people (8 %) identified those as an improvement. Specific locations were at the Sounder Station and Route 124 bus stop. Other requests included connection to the southbound Route 154 and better connections with Route 124. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 19 April 2005 • • • Chapter 3: Service Analysis Data 3.1 OVERVIEW This chapter summarizes the analysis of existing operations of transit routes in preparation for the development of route and schedule modification options to be described in Chapter 4. Among the subjects covered in this document are: • Ridership by system and individual route; • Service levels by system and individual route; • Ridership productivity analysis; • Service efficiency calculations; and • Existing Service Providers Summary. 3.2 SYSTEM ANALYSIS The analysis of Tukwila routes is based upon information provided by King County Metro staff. Data concerning the service span, service frequency, hours and miles of service provided, the hourly cost of services and ridership has been collected from a number of sources and consolidated into a number of tables and graphics which are displayed in this section. 3.2.1 Service Provided King County Metro provides bus service throughout Tukwila with fourteen different routes. The characteristics of each route are discussed in this section. Span of Service in Tukwila For good availability of service, users must have both an adequate span and frequency of service options. Tables 3 -1, 3 -2, and 3 -3 provide an overview of King County Metro's service by time period for weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays. In these tables, peak hour service is defined as 6 a.m. to 9 a.m., midday service is from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., early evening service is from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. and late evening service is from 9 p.m. to midnight. It is clear that significant amounts of service are concentrated on peak hours and on the regional routes. Because of the strong peak orientation, transit is not regarded as a viable option for many types of trips; for example, major destinations such as the Southcenter Mall have high trip propensities on weekends and evenings, precisely when most local service no longer operates. In the interest of encouraging transit usage among both employees and customers of this facility, public transit services would need to operate late enough to serve these later hours of operation. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 20 April 2005 • • Table 3-1 Weekday Headways on King County Routes Serving Tukwila Route Destination Peak (min.) Midday (min) Early Evening (min) Late Evening (min) 110 Tukwila Station; Renton Boeing plant, PACCAR 30 126 Tukwila Station, Southcenter, Gateway Corporate Center, Rainier Beach 30 128 Admiral District, West Seattle Junction, South Seattle Community College, White Center, Highline Specialty Medical Center, Riverton Heights, Southcenter 30 30 30 140 Burien, Sea -Tac Airport, McMicken Heights, Southcenter, South Renton P &R, Renton Transit Center 15 30 30 155 Fairwood, Cascade Vista, Valley Medical Center, Southcenter 60 60 60 150 Downtown Seattle, Tukwila P &R, Southcenter, Kent Boeing, Kent Transit Center, Regional Justice Center, Kent, Auburn 15 30 30 60 154 Federal Center South, Duwamish Boeing, Tukwila P &R, Kent Boeing, Kent P &R, Auburn 60 160 Downtown Seattle, Tukwila P &R, Kent Boeing, Glencarin, Kent East Hill 30 163 Downtown Seattle, Tukwila P &R, Valley Medical Center, Kent East Hill 30 170 McMicken Heights — Boeing — Seattle 30 174 Downtown Seattle, Duwamish/Boeing, Sea -Tac Airport, Midway, Federal Way 10 -30 30 30 30 280 S. Renton P &R, Tukwila (Interurban Ave S. only), I -5, Downtown Seattle, SR -520, Bellevue, Renton 90 941 Providence Medical Center, Harborview, Swedish, Virginia Mason, Tukwila P &R, Star Lake P &R, Kent -Des Moines P &R 30 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 21 April 2005 • Table 3-2 Saturday Headways on King County Routes Serving Tukwila Route Destination Peak (min.) Midday (min) Early Evening (min) Late Evening (min) 60 128 Admiral District, West Seattle Junction, South Seattle Community College, White Center, Highline Specialty Medical Center, Riverton Heights, Southcenter 30 30 30 140 Burien, Sea -Tac Airport, McMicken Heights, Southcenter, South Renton P &R, Renton Transit Center 60 60 60 60 155 Fairwood, Cascade Vista, Valley Medical Center, Southcenter 60 60 30 60 150 Downtown Seattle, Tukwila P &R, Southcenter, Kent Boeing, Kent Transit Center, Regional Justice Center, Kent, Auburn 30 30 30 60 174 Downtown Seattle, Duwamish/Boeing, Sea -Tac Airport, Midway, Federal Way 30 30 30 30 280 S. Renton P &R, Tukwila (Interurban Ave S. only), I -5, Downtown Seattle, SR -520, Bellevue, Renton 90 Table 3 -3 Sunday Headways on King County Routes Serving Tukwila Route Destination Peak (min.) Midday (min) Early Evening (min) Late Evening (min) 128 Admiral District, West Seattle Junction, South Seattle Community College, White Center, Highline Specialty Medical Center, Riverton Heights, Southcenter 60 60 60 140 Burien, Sea -Tac Airport, McMicken Heights, Southcenter, South Renton P &R, Renton Transit Center 60 60 60 150 Downtown Seattle, Tukwila P &R, Southcenter, Kent Boeing, Kent Transit Center, Regional Justice Center, Kent, Auburn 30 30 60 60 174 Downtown Seattle, Duwamish/Boeing, Sea -Tac Airport, Midway, Federal Way 30 30 30 30 280 S. Renton P &R, Tukwila (Interurban Ave S. only), I -5, Downtown Seattle, SR -520, Bellevue, Renton 90 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 22 April 2005 • • • Service Frequency Access to the transit network must also take account of the frequency of service being provided. As reflected in Figure 3 -1, much of the service in Tukwila, particularly during evenings, operates at average headways in excess of 30 minutes. Based on national transit experience, choice riders can reasonably be expected to use service that operates every 30 minutes or better. Service operating at frequencies longer than every 30 minutes tends to attract only those riders with few other transportation choices. In Figure 3 -1, Peak hour service is defined as 6 a.m. to 9 a.m., midday service is from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., and evening service is from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. In general, service is most frequent during peak commuter times. However, there is one area in particular without adequate service levels; Southcenter Parkway. On Saturday, route coverage deteriorates as large areas within Tukwila have substandard service. On Sunday evenings, only transit service on International Boulevard operates at frequencies that typically attract choice riders. Route Coverage Overall route coverage, i.e., having a bus route within a quarter mile of any location within Tukwila, is quite good during peak hours. Most major streets and destinations have a bus route traveling past it on weekdays; the big exceptions are shown in Figure 3 -2, Tukwila Hill and Duwamish/Allentown (both of which lost bus service September 2004). However, as demonstrated in the "Service Frequency" section, when only routes with adequate service frequencies are accounted for, the actual route coverage within Tukwila diminishes, particularly during weekends and evenings. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 23 April 2005 • • Weekday Saturday Sunday Figure 3 -1 Areas in Tukwila Lacking 30- Minute Service Peak Midday Evening Peak Midday Evening Peak Midday Evening n30 Minute Service within City of Tukwila City of Tukwila Areas Not Covered by 30 Minute Service Outside City of Tukwila City Limits Final Tukwila Transit Plan 24 April 2005 F• Mr'�i`'' )> i �t P .r, s t r=. r/`'v' .nr X 19 tosnumrope ,1___ � Nosy wf' !'• �.±M .. .. .. senD `� *AMIN `. n30 Minute Service within City of Tukwila City of Tukwila Areas Not Covered by 30 Minute Service Outside City of Tukwila City Limits Final Tukwila Transit Plan 24 April 2005 • Figure 3 -2 Neighborhoods Lacking Bus Service Final Tukwila Transit Plan 25 April 2005 • Interconnectivity to Tukwila Destinations When examined at a route level, interconnectivity between major Tukwila destinations is not well coordinated. The following examples illustrate the lack of a coordinated intra - Tukwila route network. Tukwila Station Tukwila Station is served by both Sounder and AMTRAK services. Connecting bus service to Tukwila Station is provided during peak hours only by three routes. Currently, there is no midday service to Tukwila Station even though AMTRAK trains stop there during those times. During peak hours, there is no direct service from Tukwila Station to the employment areas in North Tukwila. Route 126 provides service between Tukwila Station and the large employment areas along E. Marginal Way; however, the route is so indirect that few Sounder patrons are likely to utilize the route to get between Tukwila Station and North Tukwila. Tukwila Urban Center /Southcenter The Tukwila Urban Center /Southcenter area is one of the commercial powerhouses in King County. Its entertainment and retail activity is expanding further to the south along Southcenter Parkway. Despite the large amount of retail activity, bus service tends to focus on the traditional commuting times, which is more suited for office workers than those working in the service /retail sector. Frequent evening service is restricted to Andover Park West and the area immediately surrounding Southcenter Mall. With such limited access, the TUC is not effectively served by transit from most areas of the City. Weekend service is concentrated along Andover Park West and the area immediately surrounding the Southcenter Mall. Service exists on Strander Boulevard, but the span and frequency are such that few choice riders would choose the service. The TUC is one of the highest ridership areas in South King County for existing transit services. The ridership in the TUC is all -day, not necessarily focused on peaks, as the retail and service activities are all -day destinations. In order to tap into focused land use areas that will generate ridership throughout the day, and not just during peaks like park - and -ride lots, High Capacity Transit along the I-405 corridor should serve the TUC. Service exists on Southcenter Parkway, but its span (no evening or Sunday service) and frequency (hourly) are such that few choice riders would use the service. The TUC has direct service to all major South King County destinations except for Federal Way. According to the King County 2001 Metro Rider/Nonrider Survey, Federal Way is identified as being the destination for 7 percent of all commuters heading to South King County; no service between Tukwila and Federal Way is a gap. S. 154`h Street LINK Station Site The S. 154th Street LINK Station site is one of the future transit hubs within the city. The existing bus route structure does not effectively provide service to this site, although it should be noted that the route structure will likely change to address some of the connectivity issues. For example, there is no direct bus connection between the TUC and the S. 154th Street LINK Station. There is also no connection to the Burien Urban Center. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 26 April 2005 • • Also, adjacent Tukwila neighborhoods are not provided with feeder service to the LINK Station, forcing potential patrons to use scarce park- and -ride stalls. Service to Tukwila Destinations Tukwila has a unique geographic configuration and zoning. The northern part of the city is characterized by industrial areas. The major commercial center surrounding the Southcenter Mall is separated from all residential development by either I -5, I-405, or the BNSF railroad. Residential development occurs predominantly in the areas west of I -5 and on Tukwila Hill, which is bounded by I-405, I -5, and Interurban Boulevard. Transit service to major destinations such as medical facilities, human service agencies, schools, and major employers are discussed below. Medical Facilities Tukwila has only one major medical facility within city limits, Highline Community Hospital (Figure 3 -3). It should be noted that Group Health, a major employer, has administrative offices in Tukwila, not a healthcare facility. Highline Community Hospital is located on the western edge of the City, and there are several ancillary medical businesses surrounding it. Route 128 provides all -day weekday, Saturday, and Sunday service to Highline Community Hospital. Community Agencies Several community resources are located throughout Tukwila (Figure 3 -4). Several serve markets greater than just Tukwila. For instance, the King County Housing Authority has one of its offices just north of I -5 on 65th Avenue S. For the most part, community agencies are well served by frequent service. There are several exceptions, however. Neither the Tukwila Library nor the Tukwila Community Center are currently served by transit. Schools Tukwila has three elementary schools, one middle school and one high school (Figure 3- 5). In general, elementary schools are not considered a good transit market. Middle and high schools, however, traditionally have been very good transit markets. Foster High School and Showalter Middle School are both served by Route 128, which operates at 30- minute frequencies throughout the day. Route 128, while serving the schools directly, only serves a limited number of residences in Tukwila. Students, particularly those in East Tukwila on Tukwila Hill, have long walks in order to access Route 128. Major Employers There are 22 major employers (100 plus employees) in Tukwila. In addition, the Tukwila Urban Center has several buildings and developments that house more than 100 employees in separate companies. Figure 3 -6 shows the location of major employers in Tukwila. Virtually all major employers are adjacent to an existing bus route. However, some of these routes do not operate throughout the day, and therefore provide only limited mobility to employers. In particular, Group Health on E. Marginal Way and the Boeing Employee Credit Union (Gateway Center) are underserved considering the number of employees. It should be noted that King County Metro has marked buses heading from downtown Seattle to South Base as serving Group Health. During non - peak hours, Gateway Center employees must walk 3/4 of a mile in a pedestrian hostile environment to the Interurban Park - and -Ride, which is served by all -day service. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 27 April 2005 • Figure 3 -3 Tukwila Medical Facilities Final Tukwila Transit Plan 28 April 2005 • Figure 3-4 Tukwila Community Agencies Final Tukwila Transit Plan 29 April 2005 • • Figure 3 -5 Tukwila Schools Final Tukwila Transit Plan 30 April 2005 • • • Figure 3-6 Tukwila Major Employers Na NW Navigent Int eh Group, Inc. : - Machlnery ' g Apatite Claea C sh Group, Inc. stems Final Tukwila Transit Plan 31 April 2005 • • • 3.2.2 Existing Tukwila Ridership Patterns2 The Fall 2002 count of transit riders within Tukwila shows an average daily ridership of approximately 9,100 boardings and alightings. The most activity (boardings /alightings) occurs at Southcenter Mall, where 2,200 daily weekday riders use the transit stop at the intersection of Andover Park West and Baker Boulevard. The Interurban Park - and -Ride has an average of 1,850 daily boarding and alighting passengers. Other high ridership stops are located at the intersection of Andover Park West and Strander Boulevard, which has 525 daily riders and at International Boulevard and S. 144th Street. Figure 3 -7 shows the highest ridership stops throughout Tukwila. A large proportion of ridership activity takes place within the Tukwila Urban Center. Figure 3 -8 shows actual bus stop level ridership within the Urban Center. The focus of service is reflected in the ridership patterns. Southcenter Parkway ridership is virtually insignificant. Bus routes traversing the TUC carry significant passenger loads. Figure 3 -9 shows the passenger loads on routes heading through the TUC. The heaviest ridership corridors correspond to the alignment of Route 150 and Route 140. The passenger load data confirms that transit passengers are attracted to the TUC from all directions, i.e., loads are consistent, and ridership activity at individual stops is high. As shown in Figure 3 -10, Routes 128, 140, 150, and 174 are some of the routes with the highest ridership activity within the City of Tukwila. It should be noted that only Route 150 serves a park- and -ride within Tukwila; this high level of ridership is accessing bus service by walking to bus stops, not driving. Figure 3 -11 shows the total ridership levels by day for bus routes traveling through Tukwila. Ridership is highest on weekdays, and progressively less for Saturdays and Sundays. One interesting element from Figure 3 -11 is that Saturday ridership on Route 140 is only 45 percent less than weekday ridership even though there is approximately two thirds less service; there is latent demand for Saturday service that is unmet on Route 140. One of the methods to measure the productivity and efficiency of bus routes is to calculate the number of passengers that are carried by platform hour3. Figure 3 -12 details the productivity of each route that operates through Tukwila. Route 174 is the most productive route in Tukwila. For these routes serving the TUC, Routes 128, 140, and 150 are the most productive: Route 150 is the most productive weekday and Sunday route and Route 140 is most productive Saturday route. 2 Ridership numbers in this section are based on King County Metro Fall 2002 data. They also include two routes that no longer serve Tukwila. In September 2004, as part of a South King County service change, the resources for Routes 39 and 124 were reallocated to create Route 126. Due to the recent nature of this change, no ridership information is available for the new Route 126. 3 A platform hour is defined as an hour of bus service; it includes time spent in revenue service carrying passengers, time spent traveling to /from the bus base, and recovery time at the end of routes. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 32 April 2005 • • • Figure 3 -7 Tukwila Weekday Daily Ridership Map ®;t.1: ■Ci:� ■ ■ll ;ice 111;.:_4 ®va. l____ Legend: ® Total Daily Activity sUrban Center Subarea [ p1 Park and Ride Tukwila City Limits NEIL Final Tukwila Transit Plan 33 April 2005 • • Figure 3 -8 TUC Weekday Daily Ridership Map Legend: • Total Daily Activity 'Urban Center Subarea p� Park and Ride Q Tukwila City Limits Final Tukwila Transit Plan 34 April 2005 • • • Figure 3 -9 Weekda Dail Passen er Loads on TUC Streets Final Tukwila Transit Plan 35 April 2005 • • Figure 3 -10 Weekday Boarding Activity within the City of Tukwila 1,400 1,200 1,000 tlf 01 800 co 600 Y d 400 200 0 39 124 128 140 150 154 155 160 163 170 173 174 280 941 Route Figure 3 -11 Route Level Ridership by Day of Week for Routes Serving Tukwila 7,000 6,000 o. 5,000 13 4,000 o • 3,000 I- 2,000 1,000 0 n n H 39 124 128 140 150 154 155 160 163 170 173 174 280 941 Route o Weekday • Saturday o Sunday Final Tukwila Transit Plan 36 April 2005 1,258 743 876 605 1.2.. 129 137 2∎ 124 , 52 ∎ ■ 5 39 124 128 140 150 154 155 160 163 170 173 174 280 941 Route Figure 3 -11 Route Level Ridership by Day of Week for Routes Serving Tukwila 7,000 6,000 o. 5,000 13 4,000 o • 3,000 I- 2,000 1,000 0 n n H 39 124 128 140 150 154 155 160 163 170 173 174 280 941 Route o Weekday • Saturday o Sunday Final Tukwila Transit Plan 36 April 2005 • • Figure 3 -12 Route Level Productivity by Day of Week for Tukwila Routes 35.0 30.0 • 25.0 co • 20.0 a a) a 15.0 a) m 10.0 co a 5.0 0.0 JI 0o ti°` k a° �° ha h`' �o° goo �° ." �a ,yo° N if P Route o Weekday • Saturday o Sunday 3.3 KEY SERVICE FINDINGS Several service themes become apparent when examining each route on a system level and at an individual level. The key findings are described below. • Weekend Service is Inadequate in the TUC Weekend car traffic to the TUC is as high, and in some cases/locations is higher than weekday traffic. However, several bus routes serving the TUC do not operate during weekends (e.g., Route 155 does not operate on Sundays), or they operate much less frequently (e.g., Route 140 only operates hourly on weekends). The Saturday ridership levels on Route 140, in particular, clearly show demand for more service. Significant markets are being ignored as a result of not having sufficient weekend service. • Span of Service in the TUC is Inadequate The span of service along International Boulevard is excellent. However, the retail and entertainment opportunities in the TUC are not well served late at night by transit service. Most routes operate infrequently, if at all during evenings and Sundays. • Transit Connections to Tukwila Station are Poor Routes serving Tukwila Station operate only during the peaks. There is no connecting service for midday AMTRAK service. In addition, the peak -only orientation and poor signage results in confusion whether there actually is connecting bus service. There is no direct connecting service to the North Tukwila employment areas. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 37 April 2005 • • • Trips Within the TUC are not Well Served by Transit Based on ridership data and the on -board surveys, it appears that few people are using transit to travel within the TUC. Low frequency, a lack of identity and fear of getting on the wrong bus are probable roots of this behavior. An examination of car traffic patterns within the TUC, however, reveals that many cars are making trips internal to the TUC, as people travel from one business to the next. These trips are rarely made on transit. • Bus Connections to S. 154th Street LINK Station are Limited According to Sound Transit, the Tukwila LINK light rail station at 154th Street will open in 2009. There is currently no bus route that directly connects the proposed LINK station to the TUC or to Burien. Neighborhood feeder service has not been planned, either. Direct connecting service is crucial to make LINK an integral part of providing access to the TUC. Neighborhood feeder routes are necessary to reduce demand for scarce parking stalls at the S. 154th Street Station. • 1-405 Bus Rapid Transit Stop in TUC is Necessary The I-405 Plan recommended that all -day, high -speed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), with buses coming every 10 minutes, be provided in the I-405 corridor. The current planning efforts show an option for service to Tukwila Station and the TUC. Initial ridership projections for the I-405 BRT are approximately 4,500 daily passengers by 2014. Given that there are close to 2,000 daily boardings at the stops immediately surrounding the Southcenter Mall today, it is apparent that a major, existing all -day transit destination was being bypassed by the proposed I-405 BRT. Currently, the ridership potential for I-405 BRT service to the TUC is being examined as a part of the I-405 Bus Rapid Transit Study. • No Direct Connections from the TUC to Federal Way The TUC has direct bus service from Renton, Kent, Auburn, Seattle, SeaTac, and Burien, all of which have large concentrations of transit service. The one major South King County location that does not have direct service to the TUC is Federal Way, even though large amounts of service between Seattle and Federal Way pass by the TUC on I -5, and Federal Way and Tukwila are both major South King County destinations. The new Federal Way Transit Center and the revitalized Federal Way downtown area are both catalysts for potential new service connecting Tukwila and Federal Way. 3.4 ROUTE ANALYSIS King County Metro operates thirteen different bus routes and Sound Transit operates one commuter rail line within the TUC. In addition, a private provider, Seattle Southside Express, runs regularly scheduled service between Tukwila hotels, Southcenter Mall, and downtown Seattle. Hotel shuttles offer non - scheduled service between hotels and Sea -Tac Airport, but due to the proprietary nature of this service, it is not summarized in this section. Each route has unique operating characteristics, strengths and weaknesses. The operating characteristics of each route operating within Tukwila were examined. Each route includes a description and a problem statement which outlines any issues with the route. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 38 April 2005 • • Route 39 Tukwila — Rainier — Seward Park — Downtown Seattle Route Description Route 39 connects downtown Seattle with Beacon Hill, Rainier, Seward Park, Rainier Beach, and the Southcenter Mall. The only stop within Tukwila was at the Southcenter Mall. Despite only having one stop, it was the sixth highest ridership route in Tukwila. In September 2004, as a part of a South King County service change, the resources used by Route 39 to serve Tukwila were reallocated to create Route 126, which is also discussed in this section. Route 39 continues to operate in Seattle, but no longer serves Tukwila. Problem Statement The productivity of the segment to Tukwila was low. Thirty-eight trips traveled to Southcenter, and carried 243 passengers, for an average of 6.4 passengers per trip. Likewise, because the route operates on the freeway, it did not have opportunities to increase access by increasing the number of stops. The majority of ridership to Tukwila accessed the route in Rainier Beach. Route 39 did not extend to the Southcenter Mall during the a.m. peak or evenings. This severely limited its potential to serve non - retail oriented job sites within Tukwila. Service ending prior to 7:00 p.m. also limits the amount of retail employment that can be attracted to this route. Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour4 2003 per Trip 1,117 13.0 16.4 Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak 30 — pm only Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday 30 N/A 30 60 Service Span (to Tukwila) Weekday 9:30A to 6:00P Saturday 10:30A to 6:00P Sunday 11:OOA to 6:00P Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 85.7 2003 Trips 68 4 A platform hour is defined as an hour of bus service; it includes time spent in revenue service carrying passengers, time spent traveling to /from the bus base, and recovery time at the end of routes. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 39 April 2005 • • • Route 110 North Renton — Renton Transit Center — Boeing — Sounder Route Description Route 110 provides peak hour service that connects the high density employment sites through Renton. Specific destinations include Renton Boeing Plant, Paccar, the Renton Transit Center, employment areas along N. 70, and during peak times only, the Tukwila Sounder Station. It operates weekday peaks only. Only three morning and three afternoon trips serve the Tukwila Sounder Station. Problem Statement Route 110 has low productivity, which is not surprising given its duplicate routing (with Route 140) and the fact that it only operates during peak hours. Route 110 has extensive duplication with Route 140, which operates more frequently and all day. In addition, Route 110 does not fully maximize its connectivity opportunities with the Sounder trains, particularly during the a.m. peak. The schedule is designed only to take people from the train to Renton sites in the morning, and not vice versa. All layover for the route is at the north end of the route, with none occurring at the Sounder Station. Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday 79 5.1 2.8 30 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Service Span Weekday 6:10A to 9:00A 2:30P to 6:00P N/A N/A Saturday Sunday Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Weekday Trips 15.3 28 MAP LEGEND Makes ee ropu0, steps. Mon etlwoJG4 to Tukwila CornrmAer Rail Stalin • THE PORwT: Steel Morale bn used for tbw saw** rerelerce mol lMed M the by of tone columns to e4Meb bw arrival end tAOdmee F110 TIME POINT/TRANSFER POINT ranelrwd ❑ LANDMARK: A simittert peipmhiasl retraerce point. RENTON RNJwe Cenwr s 't \\ 24 IRST .y SW 7th St❑❑ NORTH RENTON mee o ❑ N 8th St KDAVORT14 Z K a .1 tSW 16th st 2 SOUTHWEST TUKWItA 3 RENTON RAIL irkSTATOR 8 Lonpaetes Wy A 01110 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 40 April 2005 • Route 124 Southcenter — North Tukwila — Gateway — E. Marginal Way Route Description Route 124 connected the Southcenter Mall with City Hall, the Gateway office complex, several Tukwila neighborhoods, and the E. Marginal Way employment areas. This was the only route that was wholly within the City of Tukwila. It operated only during peaks and consisted of a huge loop on its northern end. It was one of the weakest routes in Tukwila, with only 41 boardings. In September 2004, as a part of a South King County service change, the resources used by Route 124 were reallocated to create Route 126, which is also discussed in this section; Route 124 has been deleted — it no longer serves Tukwila. Problem Statement Route 124's productivity was low. It was one of the worst performing routes in Tukwila. The route operated on several neighborhood streets that have little ridership, yet slowed the route down. The majority of ridership on the route was oriented toward the Southcenter Mall. Route 124 was the only route to provide direct service to the office complex on Gateway Drive. Route 124 had several severe deficiencies. First, the terminal loop at the end of the route provided coverage, yet anyone along the route had to endure out -of- direction travel. The routing on Tukwila Hill between Southcenter and the Interurban Park- and -Ride traveled through a low- medium density neighborhood. Ridership was poor and the routing was time- consuming. Finally, the peak - only and hourly nature of the route combined to prevent all but captive riders from using this route. Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday 41 6.0 5.1 60 N/A N/A N/A N/A Service Span Weekday 6:30A to 9:OOA 3:30P — 6:45P Saturday N/A Sunday N/A Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Trips 6.8 No Route Map is available for this route 7 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 41 April 2005 • Route 126 Tukwila Station — Southcenter — Gateway — E. Route Description Route 126 is a new route that began service in September 2004. It replaces service and connections formerly provided by Routes 39 and 124. The route connects Tukwila Station with Southcenter Mall and the residential areas in West Tukwila, as well as providing service to employment centers along E. Marginal Way and the Gateway Center. Route 126 also connects the Tukwila employment centers with the population centers around Rainier Beach. Route 126 operates during peak hours only. Problem Statement Route 126 is a new route, so no ridership or productivity data are available. Route 126 schedules are designed to provide feeder service for Sounder patrons from South King County wishing to access Tukwila job centers. Route 126 does not provide service to the proposed urban center along International Boulevard or the future S. 154`h LINK Station. In one year, after ridership data are available, the impacts of bypassing these ridership generators will be known. Marginal Way — Rainier Beach Route Statistics Riders 2004 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip No Data No Data No Data Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday 30 N/A N/A N/A N/A Service Span Weekday 6:00A to 8:50A 3:40P to 6:45P N/A N/A Saturday Sunday Weekday Service Provided 2004 Plat. Hours 2004 Trips RAINIER BEACH 22.3 22 RAINIER BEACH CORPORATH 01 at CENTER SOUTHCEN R EATAC Ib ID Final Tukwila Transit Plan 42 April 2005 • Route 128 Southcenter — White Center —West Seattle Route Description Route 128 connects the Southcenter Mall with West Seattle. Within Tukwila, it provides service to Highline Community Hospital, International Boulevard, Foster High School, and the neighborhoods adjacent to Macadam Road. It operates throughout the day and on Saturday and Sunday as well. It has the fourth highest ridership activity of all routes in Tukwila Problem Statement Route 128 has high productivity and the ridership has been growing. The route's ridership is encouraging especially considering that it does not serve downtown Seattle. The route traverses several areas that have excellent transit demographics. The highest ridership stops are at the Southcenter Mall, S. 144th Street/Tukwila International Boulevard, White Center transfer point, South Seattle Community College, and along California Avenue SW in West Seattle. This is a good route. Route 128 ends at the Southcenter Mall and does not connect to the Tukwila Sounder Station. This is a lost opportunity to provide service from the Kent Valley via Sounder to the Highline Community Hospital and to West Seattle. In addition, Route 128 has large amounts of layover scheduled for weekdays and Sundays. On weekdays, 30 percent of route resources are spent in non - revenue service. Likewise, on Sundays 44 percent of route resources are spent in non - revenue service. This compares poorly with the national industry standard of 15 percent or less. Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday Service Span Weekday Saturday Sunday 2,611 26.1 39.0 30 30 30 30 60 5:OOA to 10:00P 6:OOA to 10:00P 6:10A to 8:20P Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Weekday Trips ADMIRAL waYp 100.2 67 vat van • Mt Mgt :M ® Nanta ❑w�.. .,.....«....1 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 43 April 2005 • Route 140 Renton — Tukwila— SeaTac— Burien Route Description Route 140 provides all -day service connecting Renton, Tukwila, Southcenter, Sea -Tac Airport, and Burien. Within Tukwila, Route 140 serves the Sounder Station, Southcenter Mall, and McMicken Heights. It operates throughout the day and on Saturday and Sunday as well. It has the fifth highest ridership activity of all routes in Tukwila Problem Statement Route 140 has high productivity. The highest ridership stops are at the Renton Transit Center, South Renton Park - and -Ride, Southcenter Mall, Sea -Tac Airport, and the Burien Transit Center. This is one of the few east -west routes that connects with several higher frequency north -west routes. Route 140 does not serve Sounder Station on all trips. This leads to the perception that King County Metro does not serve the commuter rail station. Route 140 travels through several high- congestion areas, including the airport, Strander Boulevard, and the area around West Valley Highway /Grady Way, all of which impact on -time performance. Despite traveling through congested areas, Route 140 has large amounts of layover, particularly during the midday and evening. During both the a.m. and p.m. peak, Route 140 has approximately 20 minutes of layover at each end. During the midday and evening, the average layover at each route end is approximately 35 minutes. It is highly unusual and unlikely that on -time performance issues demand longer layover times during the midday than during the peak; the midday layover times are high. In addition, on Saturdays and Sundays between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m., Route 140 spends more than half of its resources in layover. In other words, drivers drive the route one -way for 55 minutes and then sit for 60 minutes prior to their next trip. King County Metro should examine its layover requirements to determine if changes in operating practices can fund 30- minute Saturday service between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Route 140. It appears that this is possible. Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday Service Span Weekday Saturday Sunday 2,437 19.9 28.0 15 30 60 60 60 5:30A to 10:00P 8:OOA to 10:00P 8:OOA to 10:OOP Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Weekday Trips 122.5 87 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 44 April 2005 • • Route 150 Seattle — Tukwila — Southcenter — Kent — Auburn Route Description Route 150 provides all -day service connecting downtown Seattle, Tukwila, Kent, and Auburn. Within Tukwila, Route 150 serves the Interurban Park - and -Ride, City Hall, and the Southcenter Mall. It operates throughout the day and on Saturday and Sunday as well. It has the highest ridership activity of all routes in Tukwila, with almost double the boardings of any other route within Tukwila. Problem Statement Route 150 has excellent productivity, and within Tukwila, an almost even distribution of passengers heading north- and southbound. The highest ridership stops are in downtown Seattle, the Interurban Park -and- Ride, Southcenter Mall, Kent Transit Center, and Auburn Sounder Station. Route 150 is an excellent route. According to King County Metro, Route 150 has severe on -time performance issues which are partly caused by traveling on congested streets and by indirect routing. Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday Service Span Weekday Saturday Sunday 5,493 28.1 51.3 15 30 30 30 30 5:OOA to 2:26A 5:45A to 2:26A 6:45A to 2:26A Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 195.3 2003 Weekday Trips 107 DOWNTOWN aEATTLE (w s an l rasp) yg . Ray. Brougham way 2 aM.V.a ... w a� 1: w • TUKWILA SOUTNCENTER F Mao as -I .apl MCC.1$` IMDY.Tm TMO soap ❑ w,.aasM Basal } 131 a:.. am aBlw Or. ruromai - n...M. Mr amt ramm am, N Dakar DMa Maana.r Blvd • l.dn a lfwM avbam IMwMa 1 I COMMUTER 4- RAIL ETAT,. a 212th .w KENT 1sT at Ma AUBURN OM AM Ma .w Ma Final Tukwila Transit Plan 45 April 2005 • • • Route 154 Federal Center South — Boeing — Tukwila Route Description Route 154 provides peak directional service from Auburn, Kent, and Tukwila to industrial employment sites south of downtown Seattle. There are only two trips in the morning to Seattle and two afternoon trips back to Auburn. This is one of the lowest ridership routes within Tukwila. Problem Statement Route 154 has poor productivity considering it is a direct, peak only route. It carries only 12.2 passengers per platform hour. In addition, a quarter of the ridership on this route travel on the segment between Auburn and Tukwila, where all destinations are duplicated by Route 150. The highest ridership stops are at the Kent Transit Center, Tukwila Sounder Station, and the Boeing stops on Marginal Way. Route 154 duplicates the Route 150 alignment over 50 percent of its route length. In the southbound trips, the route does not deviate into Tukwila Station, which reduces the ability to connect with trains and potential passengers from Pierce County. — Kent — Auburn Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 99 2003 per Plat. Hour 12.2 2003 per Trip 24.8 Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday 2 morning NB trips Peak 2 afternoon SB trips Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday N/A N/A N/A N/A Service Span Weekday 5:OOA to 8:OOA 2:30P to 6:50P N/A N/A Saturday Sunday Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Weekday Trips 8.1 4 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 46 April 2005 • • Route 155 Southcenter — 180th— Petrovitsky — Fairwood Route Description Route 155 provides all -day weekday and Saturday service between the East Kent area and the commercial and employment areas in Tukwila. It is the only route that operates on Southcenter Parkway within Tukwila. Service is hourly throughout weekdays and Saturdays. This is the sixth highest ridership route within Tukwila. Problem Statement Route 155 productivity is below average. The ridership is oriented to Southcenter. Ridership along Southcenter Parkway is relatively low. The highest ridership stops are at the Southcenter Mall and Valley Medical Center. Route 155 frequencies are inadequate to provide more than basic coverage along the route. Choice riders tend not to use routes that operate at 60- minute frequencies. Route 155 also has a large terminal loop combined with a long layover in the middle, which is detrimental to ridership development. On -time performance has been problematic for Route 155 due to heavy and unpredictable congestion. Route 155 does not connect with Tukwila Station, so it is unable to act as a potential Sounder Feeder Route from the Kent East hill. Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday Service Span Weekday Saturday Sunday 388 13.7 14.4 60 60 N/A 60 N/A 5:10A to 7:00P 8:10A to 7:00P N/A Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 28.4 2003 Weekday Trips 27 SOUTHCENTER MALL 0 Tukwila Pkwy Baker alvd N MAP LEGEND Makes all regular stops. • TIME POINT: Street intersection used for time schedule reference point listed at the top of time columns to estimate bus arrival and trip times. V TRANSFER POINT: Route intersection for transferring to the connecting route or routes in cated. 4 © TIME POINT /TRANSFER POINT combined. LANDMARK: A significant geographical reference point. 168 q W SE 16811 ': a a FAIRW00D +ray. 6E 17ah FAIRWOOD CENTER ❑ SE 176th itY a tttttttr -" 6E 17189 t y oattry Rd S 'Math St se co' 133 tag 4 96177th Final Tukwila Transit Plan 47 April 2005 • • Route 160 Seattle — Interurban Park - and -Ride — Kent Route Description Route 160 provides peak directional weekday service between the East Kent area, the Interurban Park - and -Ride in Tukwila and downtown Seattle. Route 160 supplements Route 150 trips between the Interurban Park -and- Ride and downtown Seattle. Problem Statement Route 160 productivity is average in terms of passengers per trip but below average in terms of passengers per platform hour. Loads average 17 passengers per bus prior to the Interurban Park - and -Ride and 33 passengers between the Park - and -Ride and downtown Seattle. The highest ridership stops along the route are in downtown Seattle and the Interurban Park- and -Ride. Route 160 splits the commuter market with Routes 150 and 163 between the Interurban Park - and -Ride and downtown Seattle. In the morning peak, passengers can take the first bus; however, in the evenings, passengers must chose whether to take a tunnel bus (Route 150) or a surface route (Routes 160 and 163), which leads to load imbalances. For instance, on Route 160, there are 120 passengers on 4 trips in the morning and 70 passengers on 3 trips in the afternoon. Route 160 does not tie into the Sounder Station even though it travels within a half mile of the station. Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip 192 15.7 27.4 Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday 4 morning NB trips Peak 3 afternoon SB trips Weekday Base N/A Evening N/A Saturday N/A Sunday N/A Service Span Weekday 5:45A to 8:15A 4:00P to 6:00P N/A N/A Saturday Sunday Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Weekday Trips DOWNTOWN SEATTLE MINI Ir. wt. .wl IMEEI 12.2 7 IMP ME= w-•pY4 %reit i•1 • OWAPIP. le DP PwadOO././ .POORTRVOire■ POOR ▪ oPPOPYI NYIwINwM�. mOE0.8.rs l■ opyw *mad w^' A N • EAST SgS HILL .E eu. Q GLENCARIN 1 .e zeal R VII MEI CM .em+O .Aorta PI MOW II NORTH MERIDIAN OK Final Tukwila Transit Plan 48 April 2005 • Route 163 Seattle — Interurban Park - and -Ride — Kent Route Description Route 163 provides peak directional weekday service between the East Kent area, the Interurban Park - and -Ride in Tukwila and downtown Seattle. Route 163 supplements Route 150 trips between the Interurban Park -and- Ride and downtown Seattle. Problem Statement When compared to other Tukwila routes, Route 163 productivity is average in terms of passengers per trip but below average in terms of passengers per platform hour. Route 163 is a stronger route than Route 160. The highest ridership stops along the route are in downtown Seattle and the Interurban Park - and -Ride. Route 163 splits the commuter market with Routes 150 and 160 between the Interurban Park - and -Ride and downtown Seattle. In the morning peak, passengers can take the first bus; however, in the evenings, passengers must chose whether to take a tunnel bus (Route 150) or a surface route (Routes 160 and 163), which leads to load imbalances. There are 142 passengers on 4 trips in the morning and 113 passengers on 4 trips in the afternoon. Route 163 does not tie into the Sounder Station even though it travels within a half mile of the station. Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat Hour 2003 per Trip Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday Service Span Weekday Saturday Sunday 256 15.6 32 4 morning NB trips 4 afternoon SB trips N/A N/A N/A N/A 5:45A to 8:15A 4:00P to 6:30P N/A N/A Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Weekday Trips 16.4 8 MIMED DOWNTOWN SEATTLE Ow PM awe) ®£ saws as TUKWILA IMO a.VI.DEND a•�r rA *wove. Ma immolen Low Ow no. am moarm POOR sow .2.41.`' • cr 'S GLENCARIN xman a pin xna.a N 0' HILL SE 2•1101 St Final Tukwila Transit Plan 49 April 2005 • • Route 170 Seattle — International Blvd — McMicken Heights Route Description Route 170 provides peak directional weekday service between McMicken Heights, north Tukwila, Airport Way, and downtown Seattle. This route does not take I -5 to downtown, and is a relatively slow ride to downtown Seattle. Problem Statement Route 170 productivity is fair in terms of passengers per trip but below average in terms of passengers per platform hour. Military Road at S. 152nd Street is the highest ridership stop within Tukwila. Other high ridership stops are at the King County Airport and downtown Seattle. The routing through Tukwila is relatively circuitous. Route 170 ridership is unbalanced, with 57 passengers in the p.m. peak and 112 in the a.m. peak. 'rilite1YrI SEATTLE S Royal Brougham 8 Spokane St 8 118 hWaY Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip 169 14.4 21.2 Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday 5 morning NB trips Peak 3 afternoon SB trips Weekday Base N/A Evening N/A Saturday N/A Sunday N/A Service Span Weekday 6:OOA to 8:30A 4:OOP to 6:00P Saturday N/A Sunday N/A Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Weekday Trips 11.7 8 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 50 April 2005 • • Route 173 Federal Way — Des Moines — I -5 — Marginal Way — Boeing Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip Route Description Route 173 provides peak directional weekday service between Federal Way and Des Moines and the Boeing and industrial employment sites along Marginal Way. There are only 2 trips per day in each direction and times are geared to meeting shift times. Problem Statement Route 173 productivity is below average in terms of passengers per trip and passengers per platform hour. The highest ridership stops along the route are at the Federal Way Transit Center and at the Federal Center South along Marginal Way. There were few other stops with more than a couple of riders. Peak hour routes should have higher productivity than Route 173. It appears that this market is insufficient to support the level of bus service that it has. 67 10.3 16.8 Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday 2 morning NB trips Peak 2 afternoon SB trips Weekday Base N/A Evening N/A Saturday N/A Sunday N/A Service Span Weekday 5:30A to 8:OOA 3:00P to 6:00P N/A N/A Saturday Sunday Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Weekday Trips 6.5 4 No Route Map is available for Route 173. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 51 April 2005 • • Route 174 Seattle — Interurban Park -and -Ri Route Description Route 174 provides all -day service between Federal Way, Des Moines, SeaTac, Tukwila, and downtown Seattle via old Highway 99 (known as Tukwila International Boulevard in Tukwila). It operates seven days a week and throughout the night as well. Problem Statement Route 174 is an excellent route. Its productivity is the best of any route operating in Tukwila. Within Tukwila, the highest ridership stops are along Tukwila International Boulevard at S. 144th Street, S. 148th Street, and S. 152nd Street. Route 174 has heavy ridership especially considering the frequency throughout the day. Given the high ridership, shorter frequencies would be expected. The span of service is excellent. DOWNTOWN SEATTLEP Mee DAME Main' t': LA7A MisOb(OrA1 i guwEco 'ger El WEST., 8 m SEATTL 1 r fi $ 0001110 C7Zel: , FIELD WHITE 0 © , ❑MM0009 Of CENTER e1 01.AM? ti \.1.,, AE1 spew DC 00.1 p A00AAO R0AG ' `�9nurrr02 61120 •�':" ) LOK -123- l 144th Sf ?re_CT u. -. �BURIEN MERCER - ' ISLAND 16011161 lm SEA-TAC ii5 0�- -- A1RP011T U 31000131 up DES MOINES uMe common r ❑ -° eoueae ."01 _ "yAQ1 MIDWAY N I 11 Enna L3TAR LAKE 6620111 FEDERAL p �6723.1 WAY .Ana aq, 177 114 101 1111 113 107 101 IN »; 174 now limit 402 B00 101 de — Kent Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 6,270 2003 per Plat. Hour 32.4 2003 per Trip 64.0 Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday Service Span Weekday Saturday Sunday 20 30 30 30 30 5:30A to 3:30A 5:30A to 3:30A 5:30A to 3:30A Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 193.7 2003 Weekday Trips 98 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 52 April 2005 • • Route 941 Federal Way — Tukwila — Seattle Route Description Route 941 provides peak directional weekday service between the park- and -ride lots along I -5 between Federal Way and the medical facilities on First Hill in Seattle. The only stop within Tukwila for this route is at the Interurban Park - and -Ride. Problem Statement Route 941's productivity is among the best of any route in Tukwila. Heavy ridership occurs on all trips. The Interurban Park - and -Ride in Tukwila is one of the highest ridership stops on this route. This is an excellent route that meets a specific niche market very well. FIRST HILL (see detail map) MAP LEGEND eeowe.: Makes limited or no stops. TIME POINT. Street Intersection used fa time schedule reference point listed at the top of time columns to estimate busamvai and alp times. tar. i 43 O TIME POINT /TRANSFER POINT combined. FARE zoNE Additional tare required. FARE ZONE _ pti`R PARK& RIDE: Designated free � PTY. r pendng area with Area bus service 4410 to major commercial centers. PM Timm. Rd� Kert.Oeo Malnei Freeway Station 158 168 197 159 192 574 1622 194 STAR LAKE 11 koala PA R 150 154 189 AM TERMINAL 1 1182 f © ' S/272nd St Star Lab* n . aeR Ream/ 9*K%1 194 152 194 574 150 197 152 197 411.4 N First Hill Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday Service Span Weekday Saturday Sunday 570 28.4 47.5 7 a.m. trips 5 p.m. trips N/A N/A N/A N/A 5:50A to 8:50A 3:30P to 6:30P N/A N/A Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Weekday Trips 20.1 12 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 53 April 2005 • • Sounder Tacoma — Puyallup — Sumner — Auburn — Route Description Sounder provides peak directional weekday commuter rail service between Tacoma, the Kent Valley, and downtown Seattle. The only stop within Tukwila for this route is at the Tukwila Sounder Station Problem Statement Sounder ridership has been increasing steadily since service inception. In Tukwila, the ridership patterns have been such that approximately 100 passengers deboard in the morning in Tukwila and 20 persons board. In the afternoon, this pattern is reversed. Tukwila is the second most popular destination along the Sounder route, after downtown Seattle. Based on existing marketing conditions, it appears that Tukwila Station is more of a destination than a trip origin. The addition of three more peak oriented trains and off - peak direction trains will further increase the market potential. It appears that the travel time savings of the train between Tukwila Station and King Street Station do not appear enough to attract riders from the much more frequent bus service at either the S. Renton Park -and- Ride or the Interurban Park - and -Ride. Kent — Tukwila - Seattle Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip 2737 456 456 Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday 3 morning NB trips Peak 3 afternoon SB trips Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday N/A N/A N/A N/A Service Span Weekday 6:15A to 7:45A 4:55P to 6:35P N/A N/A Saturday Sunday Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Weekday Trips 6.0 6 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 54 April 2005 • • • AMTRAK — Cascade Service Seattle — Tukwila — Tacoma — Olympia — Chehalis — Vancouver — Portland Route Description Route Statistics Six daily AMTRAK trains currently serve Tukwila Riders at Tukwila Station Station. Southbound trains to Portland depart Tukwila 2003 Daily 25 Station at 7:44 a.m., 1:59 p.m., and 5:39 p.m., while 2003 per Plat. Hour N/A northbound trains to Seattle depart at 11:48 a.m., 3:32 2003 per Trip 4.2 p.m., and 9:17 p.m. Problem Statement Service Headway (Minutes) Service was initiated at Tukwila Station in 2001. Since service inception, ridership has increased more than 300 percent. 0 3 3 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 8,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Tukwila, Washington 2001 2002 2003 Weekday 3 morning NB trips Peak 3 afternoon SB trips Weekday Base N/A Evening N/A Saturday N/A Sunday N/A Service Span Weekday N/A Saturday N/A Sunday N/A Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours N/A 2003 Weekday Trips 6 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 55 April 2005 • Seattle Southside Express SeaTac Hotels — Tukwila Hotels — Southcenter — Seattle Route Description Route Statistics The Seattle Southside Express provides scheduled shuttle service between SeaTac and Tukwila hotels to the Southcenter Mall and downtown Seattle. The shuttle provides door -to -door service to the hotels; passengers must call ahead for the service. The fare to Seattle from Tukwila locations is $12 roundtrip or $7 one -way. There is no fare to travel from SeaTac and Tukwila hotels to Southcenter Mall. The service is provided with 15 and 24 passenger vans. This service has been operating to Southcenter Mall since Fall 2003. The Southcenter Mall provides operating assistance to the private service provider to ensure that hotel guests have an easy way to access shopping opportunities. Additional funding for this route is provided by the Hotel Tax, and the contract is administered by the Tourism and Marketing Department. Thus far, ridership has been growing on the route, although actual ridership numbers are unavailable. Problem Statement The Seattle Southside Express is a fine example of a private provider filling a transportation niche within Tukwila and caters directly to those unwilling or unaware of the public transportation offered by King County Metro. Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip Service Headway (Minutes) Winter Weekday Service Span Weekday Saturday Sunday N/A N/A N/a 6 round trips daily 9:45A to 7:15P 9:45A to 7:15P 9:45A to 7:15P Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours N/A 2003 Trips 10 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 56 April 2005 • Chapter 4: Service Recommendations • Chapter 4 summarizes the project recommendations based upon the data described in Chapters 2 and 3 and the public process. 4.1 SERVICE MODIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS The ridership data has been used to prepare individual activity profiles of each of the routes operated by King County Metro. The data have been aggregated to depict ridership patterns along each route alignment. Often, the gathered and analyzed bus stop -level data does not, in itself, suggest modifications to the route's alignment or schedule, but merely serves to validate the existing operation. In a few instances, this information has directly suggested modifications to meet specific operational needs of that route. Some changes in route alignments or schedules have been proposed to meet a system -wide need, unrelated to a specific route's ridership, productivity, patterns of activity or schedule adherence. In those cases, the ridership data has been used to identify any negative rider impacts expected to result from any proposed modifications. The overall themes guiding the recommendations were the creation of several different focal points for service in Tukwila, including the S. 154th Street Station, Tukwila Station, a Southcenter Transit Center, and a new link connecting Tukwila Station and Southcenter. Improved routes and frequency feed into this multi -hub concept. The service recommendations are not cost - neutral — they will require additional funding. Overall, the immediate service recommendations reflect the desire to improve frequency along the productive routes, serve new destinations, and to improve route directness. Figure 4 -1 shows the overall long -term route restructure recommendations. The corresponding description of the routes shown in Figure 4 -1 is in the following section. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 57 April 2005 • • Figure 4-1 Tukwila Long -Term Route Recommendations Projected Routes • rt -110 rt -126 ammo !t- 1j8 rt-140: rt-150 rt-154 • #rtv170 ▪ it -174 - BRT. Federal Way Bus �` Link LRT Route. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 58 April 2005 • • 4.2 TUKWILA ROUTE RECOMMENDATIONS The following section describes the recommendations for both existing and proposed routes within the TUC. Table 4 -1 summarizes the changes and a full description of each one of the recommendations follows. Table 4 -1 Summary of Recommended Changes Route Recommended Changes Short Term Recommendations (2005 -2009 Implementation) 128 Span: Extend Sunday Evening service for one hour. Frequency: Improve Sunday service to 30- minute service. Routing: None. 140 Frequency: Improve Saturday service to 30- minute service. 150 Span: None. Frequency: Improve weekday frequency to all -day 15- minute service. Routing: None. 154 Span: None. Frequency: None. Routing: Restructure route to serve Tukwila Station and employment sites north. Mid -Term Recommendations (2009 & Changes to Feed LINK & Tukwila Station) 126 Routing: Adjust routing to serve S. 154th Street Station and Tukwila International Boulevard/S. 144th Street. Span: Add midday, evening, and weekend service. Frequency: Midday, evening, and weekend service should be 30- minute service. 128 Span: None Frequency: None. Routing: Extend Route 128 to Tukwila Station. 140 Span: Add earlier trips on weekends. Frequency: Improve Sunday service to 30- minute service. Routing: Restructure route so that it provides a direct route between S. 154th LINK station and the TUC (it would no longer serve Sea -Tac Airport), and serve Tukwila Station on every trip. Long -Term Recommendations (2010 -2015 Implementation) 155 Span: Implement Sunday service. Frequency: Improve weekday frequencies to every 30 minutes. Routing: None. BRT5 Span: Implement weekday, Saturday, and Sunday route. Frequency: Ten to 20 minute service weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays. Routing: From TUC to Sea -Tac Airport and Renton, and points beyond. Fed. Way Rte.4 Span: Implement weekday, Saturday, and Sunday route. Frequency: Every 30 minutes weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays. Routing: From TUC south on Southcenter Parkway to serve new development. TUC Trolley Span: 11:00 a.m. — 8 p.m., weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays. Frequency: 10 minutes. Routing: Tukwila Station, Baker, Andover Park W., Strander, Southcenter Parkway, Segale Park Dr. C, Andover Park W., S. 180th and return. 5 The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route or the Federal Way route could be operated by either ST or KCM. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 59 April 2005 • • Short Term Recommendations (2005 -2009 Implementation) These recommendations represent the highest priority for improving transit mobility within Tukwila. They do not assume that any additional capital facilities have been constructed. Route 128 Short -Term Recommendations The current span and frequency of Sunday service does not meet the needs of the TUC. While most stores at Southcenter close at 7:00 p.m. on Sundays, some are open past 8:00 p.m. Route 128 should operate to accommodate these employees and shoppers. In addition, Sunday service on Route 128 operates every 60 minutes, which is inadequate to attract choice riders to the TUC. Route 128 should operate every 30 minutes on Sundays and also operate one hour later. This recommendation will require approximately'2,000 additional service hours. 128 Short -Term Existing Recommended Span — Weekday Saturday Sunday 5:OOA to 10:OOP 6:OOA to 10:00P 6:10A to 8:20P 5:OOA to 10:00P 6:OOA to 10:00P 6:10A to 9:20P Frequency (minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Weekday Evening Saturday Sunday 30 30 30 30 60 30 30 30 30 30 Additional Cost 2,000 hours Route 140 Short -Term Recommendations Weekend service on Route 140 operates hourly, which is inadequate given the TUC destinations and connections. Route 140 should operate every 30- minutes on weekends. Based on an examination of weekday and weekend layover practices on Route 140, some Saturday 30- minute service can be implemented at no net new cost by reducing weekday /Saturday layover and reallocating those resources to Saturday service. 140 Short -Term Existing Recommended Span — Weekday Saturday Sunday 5:30A to 10:00P 8:OOA to 10:00P 8:OOA to 10:00P 5:30A to 10:00P 8:OOA to 10:00P 8:OOA to 10:00P Frequency (minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Weekday Evening Saturday Sunday 15 30 60 60 60 15 30 60 30 60 Additional Cost No Cost Route 150 Short-Tenn Recommendations Route 150 is a great route that has tremendous additional ridership potential. Route 150 should operate every 15 minutes during the weekday midday. Improved weekday midday frequency would create a new market, not only for service between the TUC, Seattle, and Kent, but also for making trips requiring a midday transfer. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 60 April 2005 • • Funding for improved midday service has not been identified. This improvement, however, has such great ridership potential that it should be considered for short-term implementation. 150 Short -Term Existing Recommended Span — Weekday Saturday Sunday 5:OOA to 2:27A 5:45A to 2:26A 6:45A to 2:26A 5:OOA to 2:27A 5:45A to 2:26A 6:45A to 2:26A Frequency (minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Weekday Evening Saturday Sunday 15 30 30 30 30 15 15 30 30 30 Additional Cost 10,500 hours Route 154 Recommendations In order to address the duplication issues with Route 150 and to provide a direct route from Tukwila Station to north Tukwila employment sites, restructure Route 154 to begin at Tukwila Station and end at Federal Center in South Seattle. The route would operate peak directionally, like today, and provide direct service to Gateway, Group Health, and Boeing. The portion of the existing route between Auburn and Kent would continue to be served by Route 150. By deleting the portion between Auburn and Tukwila, three trips in the morning and three trips in the afternoon can be operated, increasing service by 50 percent. This recommendation should be implemented upon initiation of the full Sounder schedule. This recommendation is cost - neutral — existing route resources would be reallocated to the new alignment. 154 Short-Term Existing Recommended Span — Weekday 5:OOA to 8:OOA 2:30P to 6:50P 5:OOA to '8:OOA 2:30P to 6:50P Frequency (minutes) Weekday Peak 2 morning trips 2 afternoon trips 3 morning trips 3 afternoon trips Additional Cost No Cost Mid -Term Recommendations (LINK Implementation & Tukwila Station) These recommendations should be implemented upon completion of the LINK S. 154th Street Station and the construction of Tukwila Station. Full implementation of 18 Sounder trains is assumed. Route 126 Mid -Term Recommendations The current span of service is three hours in the morning and three hours in the afternoon peaks. The existing span is inadequate to accommodate travel patterns to /from the TUC. All -day service and weekend service are necessary to provide full access from west Tukwila neighborhoods to the TUC. • Route 126 bypasses both Tukwila International Boulevard and the S. 154th Street Station, missing the two potential all -day ridership markets on this route. Route 126 should be realigned to serve Final Tukwila Transit Plan 61 April 2005 • • the S. 154th Street Station, so that local residents can access LINK without using the park -and- ride. It is only by realigning this route to serve the S. 154t Street Station that enough ridership demand exists for all -day service on Route 126. This recommendation should be implemented upon the initiation of LINK service at the S. 154th Street Station. This recommendation will require approximately 17,500 additional service hours. 126 Mid -Term Existing Recommended Span — Weekday Saturday Sunday 6:OOA to 8:50A 3:40P to 6:45P 6:OOA to 10:00P 7:OOA to 10:00P 8:OOA to 10:00P Frequency (minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Weekday Evening Saturday Sunday 30 30 30 30 30 30 Additional Cost 17,500 hours Route 128 Mid -Term Recommendations Upon completion of the Tukwila Station bus facilities, Route 128 should be extended to Tukwila Station. The extension addresses a lost opportunity to provide service from the Kent Valley via Sounder to the Highline Community Hospital and to West Seattle. The cost for the extension should be negligible, as it would be paid for with the existing layover hours scheduled for weekdays and Sundays. 128 Mid -Term Existing Recommended Span — Weekday Saturday Sunday 5:OOA to 10:00P 6:OOA to 10:00P 6:10A to 8:20P 5:OOA to 10:00P 6:OOA to 10:00P 6:10A to 9:20P Frequency (minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Weekday Evening Saturday Sunday 30 30 30 30 60 30 30 30 30 30 Additional Cost No Cost Route 140 Mid -Term Recommendations Sunday service on Route 140 operates hourly, which is inadequate given the TUC destinations and connections. Route 140 should operate every 30- minutes on Sundays. Weekend span should also be expanded, particularly for early morning trips. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 62 April 2005 • • The routing between Sea -Tac and the TUC is circuitous. In an effort to reduce out -of- direction travel, we recommend realigning Route 140 to use Southcenter Boulevard/S. 154t between the TUC and Burien. Connections between the TUC could be served by either a BRT route between the TUC and Sea -Tac Airport or with a transfer from Route 140 to LINK at Southcenter Boulevard/S. 154th Street. This improvement should be made upon initiation of LINK service to the S. 154th Street Station. This recommendation can be accomplished with existing resources. Existing resources may also be used to improve midday service frequencies to every 15 minutes. Route 140 should be permanently routed to Tukwila Station via Longacres Way and SW 16th Street . This would address three issues. First, it could improve on -time performance as Route 140 would no longer travel through the heavily congested Grady Way/West Valley Highway /I- 405 interchange. Second, it addresses the perception that King County Metro does not serve Tukwila Station; the confusing practice of "some trips stop at Tukwila Station and some do not" would cease. Lastly, it would provide AMTRAK customers the opportunity to transfer to transit service. Currently, three Cascades trains stop at Tukwila Station and there is no connecting transit service. King County Metro intended on implementing this change in 2003, but they were unable to negotiate access with Boeing, which owns a portion of the roadway which this alignment would traverse. Negotiations with Boeing to allow buses to travel from SW 16th Street to Longacres Way should be restarted to better serve Tukwila Station. These recommendations are all possible using existing resources — no net new hours are necessary to implement this recommendation. 140 Mid -Term Existing Recommended Span — Weekday Saturday Sunday 5:30A to 10:00P 8:OOA to 10:00P 8:OOA to 10:00P 5:30A to 10:00P 6:OOA to 10:00P 6:OOA to 10:00P Frequency (minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Weekday Evening Saturday Sunday 15 30 60 60 60 15 15 30 30 30 Additional Cost No Cost Long -Term Recommendations (2010 -2015) These recommendations should be implemented after service has been restructured to account for LINK service and the upgraded Sounder Service. These recommendations assume several new developments. For instance, • Development in Tukwila Valley South will be underway — creating new markets south of the TUC. • The TUC Subarea Plan Long -Term redevelopment samples show a new east -west connection between the TUC and Tukwila Station - this new connection includes a new bridge across the Green River, potentially along Baker Boulevard. The new bridge would allow direct connections between the TUC and Sounder service without using the heavily congested Strander Boulevard corridor. Upon completion of this East -West Corridor, it is expected that it becomes the prime link for buses traveling between the TUC and Sounder Station (as shown in Figure 4 -1). Final Tukwila Transit Plan 63 April 2005 • • • Route 155 Long -Term Recommendations Poor frequency severely reduces the effectiveness of Route 155's service on Southcenter Parkway. Route frequency must be improved to every 30 minutes on weekdays and weekends in order for this route to be a realistic option for persons wishing to travel to Southcenter Parkway. In addition, increased frequency could better serve the north side of Tukwila Valley South, tie residential development in Kent to Tukwila Station, and provide a Sounder to Valley Hospital connection. Span should be increased so that the last trips in the evening accommodate the hours of operation of Southcenter Mall. This recommendation should be implemented in the mid -term, between 2010 and 2015 — it is a lower priority improvement than improving access to the TUC with Routes 126, 140, and 150. The cost for increasing span and improving service to 30- minutes during weekdays and Saturdays, as well as adding Sunday service is approximately 12,200 hours. 155 Long -Term Existing Recommended Span — Weekday Saturday . Sunday 5:10A to 7:00P 8:10A to 7:00P 5:10A to 9:00P 8:10A to 9:00P 8:10A to 9:00P Frequency (minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Weekday Evening Saturday Sunday 60 60 60 30 30 60 30 30 Additional Cost 12,200 hours Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Long -Term Recommendations Two different BRT processes have been proposed for Tukwila. The King County Metro BRT line outlined in the existing Six -Year Plan would connect Federal Way with Sea -Tac Airport and Tukwila Station. One of the options for the I-405 BRT Study connects Renton and Bellevue with Tukwila Station and the TUC. For the purposes of long -range transportation needs, both alignments are necessary to provide high capacity transit to the TUC and to provide an all -day destination for the BRT. Park -and- rides will not generate all -day ridership for transit lines — active land uses such as the TUC will. Routing for the BRT through the TUC should follow either Strander Boulevard or a new Baker Boulevard between Tukwila Station and Southcenter Mall, and continue north to the Airport via Strander Boulevard, Klickitat, and SR 518. For the purposes of this plan, either Sound Transit or King County Metro can operate either BRT line. Costs for the BRT are wholly dependent on which alignment is chosen by the I-405 BRT Study, therefore, no predictions for costs are made as a part of this plan. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 64 April 2005 • Federal Way Route Long -Term Recommendations A new route is proposed that connects the TUC to the proposed development in the Tukwila Valley South annexation (TVS). At this time, plans show up to 14 million square feet of new development in this location, although it should be cautioned that this is exploratory at this point. Bus service is necessary to connect the TVS property to both the TUC as well as points to the south. Given the projected densities, the service should operate, at a minimum, every thirty minutes on weekdays and weekends. This route should begin at Tukwila Station and use Southcenter Parkway to connect to the TVS property. This route could be operated by either Sound Transit or King County Metro. Operating this route at 30- minute headways on weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays would require approximately 26,800 hours. Federal Way — Tukwila Long -Term Existing Recommended Span — Weekday Saturday Sunday None 6:OOA to 11:00P 8:OOA to 10:00P 8:OOA to 10:00P Frequency (minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Weekday Evening Saturday Sunday None 30 30 60 30 30 Additional Cost 26,800 hours TUC Trolley Long -Term Recommendations A rubber tired trolley route connecting Tukwila Station, the TUC core, Southcenter Mall, the Southcenter Parkway commercial area, and the north end of the TVS properties is recommended. The proposed routing would begin at Tukwila Station and follow the following alignment: Baker Boulevard, Andover Park W., Strander Boulevard, Southcenter Parkway, Segale Park Dr. C, Andover Park W., S. 180th and return. A trolley that is frequent (every 10 minutes or better) plus fun (either a modern futuristic design or a classic wooden trolley replica) will attract people to park once in the TUC and use the trolley to visit other destinations. This approach has been used successfully to carry passengers and enhance the image of lifestyle centers, downtowns, and suburban shopping centers. It is unlikely that a TUC Trolley will rank highly as part of King County Metro's overall South King County transit priorities. Therefore, it is imperative that local businesses within the TUC join in funding the Trolley. The estimated cost for adding a TUC Trolley route is 20,000 hours. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 65 April 2005 • • TUC Trolley Long -Term Existing Recommended Span — Weekday Saturday Sunday None 7:00A to 11:00P 10:OOA to 9:30P 10:OOA to 9:30P Frequency (minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Weekday Evening Saturday Sunday None 10 10 15 15 15 Additional Cost 20,000 hours Sounder Service Long -Term Recommendations Sound Transit's "Sounder" commuter rail service serves the eastern edge of Tukwila's Urban Center area with three northbound trains in the morning and three southbound trains in the afternoon. The service runs between Tacoma and Downtown Seattle. The ridership pattern is currently such that approximately 100 persons deboard the northbound trains to head to destinations and only 20 people board the northbound trains in the morning. The reverse pattern is observed in the afternoon. The current Tukwila Station is a temporary structure, with very limited facilities (Figure 4 -2). A permanent station is slated for completion in the next four to seven years. The permanent station plan features station platforms with a pedestrian tunnel connecting both sides of the track. Walkways and roadways will also be improved to enhance pedestrian access. Figure 4-2 Temporary Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Map SW 16th St • g- `(Road open.; peak hours only) Accessible . boarding. 1 Parking 0* aatking entrance N Accessible parking Sounder akyde lockers Final Tukwila Transit Plan 66 April 2005 • • • LINK Long -Term Recommendations Construction of the Link Station at S. 154th Street is slated to commence in 2005 and the station is expected to be operational in 2009. The Station will be elevated with side platforms. Projected ridership for the station is 5,000 daily boardings. Connections between the S. 154th Street Station and the TUC are described in the recommendations for Route 140 and the BRT. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 67 April 2005 • • • Chapter 5: Transit Capital Improvements 5.1 INTRODUCTION Implementing transit service enhancements in Tukwila and creating a service network that supports existing and emerging travel patterns is a key stratagem for attracting and maintaining transit riders. However, other factors beside service availability influence "the decision to ride ". These factors include the speed and reliability of transit service, the convenience of facility and service access, and the overall attractiveness of transit services and facilities. Collaborating with the region's transit providers in investments in infrastructure that can improve transit travel time, reliability, and productivity as well as developing support facilities and amenities for passenger safety, comfort, and convenience is an objective of the City of Tukwila. At this time, millions of dollars worth of LINK and Sounder commuter rail projects are underway in the Tukwila area to support transit operations. However, other investments in the "transit environment" are still needed to optimize the transit service in the City of Tukwila. The level of resources available for capital improvements required by the transit service network in Tukwila is limited and comes from a variety of sources. Further, transit providers —Sound Transit in particular through LINK and Sounder —will spearhead many of the transit rail improvements undertaken in the City, but be much less involved in the crucial bus connections to /from the rail stations. 5.2 NEED FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS The goal of increasing overall transit ridership within the City of Tukwila drives the need for both service and capital improvements. Transit speed and reliability, improved passenger amenities, and access to transit service are all crucial for attracting and maintaining transit riders. In order to maximize the effectiveness and utilization of the service improvements, operating costs must be contained. Increasing traffic congestion and the associated reductions in transit travel time and unreliability have detrimental effects on transit ridership. Also, additional congestion has an effect on operating costs. The more buses are delayed, the greater the cost to the operating agency, King County Metro. King County Metro spends tens of thousands of annual service hours (equating to millions of dollars) on maintaining existing service levels on routes that operate on highly congested roadways. For example, a route may need four buses to operate in the morning, midday, and evening, but congestion- related delays require the addition of a fifth bus in order to maintain the same level of service in the afternoon peak. The capital cost of the fifth bus and the operating hours necessary to operate it are directly caused by congestion and travel time delays that can potentially be addressed by capital projects. Speed and reliability enhancing capital projects could allow more hours to be used for service expansion and allow areas with transit needs to be served. In addition to saving scarce operating dollars, capital speed and reliability projects will assist in attracting additional ridership. Transit travel times are generally longer than auto travel times. Capital speed and reliability projects can help close this travel time gap, particularly on routes that operate through congested areas. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 68 April 2005 • • • In addition to bus travel time, the ease of accessing transit service is a prime determinant of ridership. Throughout Tukwila, there are streets with high levels of bus service, yet the supporting infrastructure of sidewalks, curb cuts, or shelters make it impossible to easily access the buses. Moreover, if you can access the bus stops, the waiting environment is unfriendly, and not conducive to extended waiting. For example, portions of Interurban Avenue S. have limited commuter bus service operating on adjacent to the Gateway Center. Interurban Avenue S. in this area has limited sidewalks; bus patrons must walk on a grassy shoulder. In addition, there are no shelters, leaving passengers exposed to the elements. Finally, traffic levels on Interurban.Avenue S. are high. The overall experience of a person accessing transit is poor on this segment of Interurban Boulevard. Correspondingly, no matter how much service levels are improved on Interurban Boulevard, ridership response will likely be muted. Capital investments are necessary to improve ridership in this corridor. The Interurban Avenue S. example is repeated throughout Tukwila and shows the need for a comprehensive look at both service and capital improvements to help Tukwila achieve its transit ridership goals. The following sections will outline the recommended capital improvements that both supplement and support the necessary service frequency improvements. The goal of the resulting mix of both service and capital improvements is to maximize the overall return on transit investment and improve system -wide transit ridership. 5.3 EXISTING FACILITIES King County Metro and Sound Transit maintain capital facilities within Tukwila. King County Metro maintains bus shelters, bus stops, and layover facilities throughout Tukwila. The City of Tukwila assists with maintenance tasks such as garbage pickup and on -going costs such as power for lighting. Currently, there is only one major bus facility located within Tukwila; the Interurban Park - and -Ride. Sound Transit operates Tukwila Station in east Tukwila. Southcenter Bus Stop The focal point of bus service within the TUC is located on southbound Andover Avenue W. just south of Baker Boulevard. Due to historical reasons, there is no corresponding northbound stop. Given the passenger loads of over 1,000 boardings daily at this location, the amenities and weather protection are woefully inadequate. There is not enough shelter space or seating area. In addition, from an operating standpoint, the one -way stop forces buses to travel out -of- direction to serve the one bus stop. This adds to passenger travel time and operating costs. Tukwila Station Sound Transit has constructed a temporary structure at Tukwila Station to accommodate AMTRAK and Sounder trains. There are 234 parking stalls at the temporary station. Utilization of the parking is less than 20 percent. Tukwila Station ridership has been such that this is a destination station instead of an origination station; ergo the lower parking utilization. A contributing factor to the low parking utilization is the poor signage to Tukwila Station. The permanent station's projected completion date is within the next ten years. Interurban Park - and -Ride This 255 stall park- and -ride is located in Interurban Avenue just south of I -5. There is a smaller 39 stall lot immediately adjacent to the Interurban Park- and -Ride. These lots are the closest to Seattle of all park- and -rides in the South I -5 corridor. The facilities are chronically above capacity. Due to the proximity to Seattle and the good service levels between these facilities and downtown Seattle, it is very popular with non - Tukwila residents. Hide - and -ride parking on neighborhood streets up the hill from the Park- and -Ride is commonly used for overflow purposes. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 69 April 2005 • • • Bus Shelters In suburban environments, as a rule, shelters should be provided if there are 25 or more boardings per day. Within Tukwila, based on Fall 2002 data, there are seven bus stops that have 25 boardings or more, yet no existing or planned shelter. One of these stops is at the Interurban Park - and -Ride, two are on Macadam Road, one is on S. 144th Street, and the remaining three are immediately adjacent to the intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park W. (Figure 5- 1). Figure 5 -1 Bus Stops Necessitating a Bus Shelter Final Tukwila Transit Plan 70 April 2005 • • • 5.4 LONG RANGE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Several projects are in the planning stage that will have immediate effect on transit in Tukwila. Central LINK Central LINK (LINK) is the initial 14 -mile light rail line that will serve downtown Seattle, the industrial area south of downtown, and residential and commercial neighborhoods in Beacon Hill, the Rainier Valley, Tukwila, and SeaTac (Figure 5 -2). Within Tukwila (Figure 5 -3), only one station is planned at S. 154th Street (a second station at Boeing Access Road has been deferred). While not directly in the TUC, connections to /from LINK will play a significant role in improving transit access within the TUC. S. 154th Station The S. 154th Street Station will provide access to residents of Tukwila, SeaTac, and Burien. Major destinations within the vicinity of this stop include the future Tukwila Village, the TUC, and significant amounts of multi - family housing. The station will be elevated and will include approximately 600 parking stalls at opening. It will also include connections to bus services. A shuttle bus will connect passengers from the S. 154th Station to Sea -Tac International Airport until the light rail station is constructed in 2011. A ride on LINK from downtown Seattle to S. 154th Street will take 33 minutes. LINK trains will start service from downtown Seattle to South 154th Street by 2009 and by 2020 are projected to carry at least 42,500 riders a day. Local transit links to the S. 154th Station will be provided by King County Metro, including the connection to the TUC. Some changes in routing are expected upon the opening of the S. 154th Station, but more changes could be expected in 2011 upon extension to the Airport. Tukwila Station A draft design for the permanent Tukwila Station has been completed. However, based on a cursory review of the final design, there are several issues. Over 400 parking stalls have been designed, even though existing utilization of the 250 car lot is less than 20 percent. Due to budget constraints, the actual Station design is functional, yet it is not a placemaking place, such as Auburn, Kent, or Sumner. Any hope for Tukwila Station acting as an anchor for a Transit Oriented Development depends on changing the station design from its current auto - oriented incarnation into more of a pedestrian destination. Also, a clearly defined bus /train transfer area could address the public perceptions that such a connection does not exist. Sound Transit and the City of Tukwila are planning to reexamine the station design in order to accommodate the potential relocation of the Union Pacific railroad tracks and to determine the best access from Strander Boulevard to the station site. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 71 April 2005 • • Figure 5-2 Central LINK Route /1' Figure 5-3 Central LINK Route in Tukwila Nsi ‘4 I \17— 1 ea ttle Vii1414:1•9 , i I SEATAC 3154Th Sr. alarm sr Pg4110P.....!..!„1".1 : !cML[ Final Tukwila Transit Plan 72 , April 2005 • • • Transit Signal Priority TSP is a technology that allows specially equipped buses to communicate with an approaching traffic signal and ask it to provide additional green light time for the bus. A transponder installed on the bus sends a signal to a controller at the street intersection. King County's TSP system is not the pre - emption system used to serve emergency vehicles. Pre- emption may skip side street signal phases. When TSP is activated, the traffic controller provides the additional green time to the bus by reducing the green time available to the side streets and pedestrian crossing to safety and service minimums. The goals of this project are to improve transit travel time and schedule reliability. Transit riders who experience a smoother and more comfortable ride with fewer stops are more likely to continue riding. Improved service means people who have not taken the bus before may be more likely to try it. Fewer stops also mean reductions in the driver's workload, fuel consumption, vehicle emissions, and maintenance costs. Currently, King County Metro has installed TSP on Aurora Avenue N. in Shoreline and Seattle, Rainier Avenue in Seattle, and at the intersections of NE 8th Street/148th Avenue & 156th Avenue NE. The results of these projects will be used to improve strategies on other active, funded projects on which King County is collaborating with local cities. These projects include the following corridors: • Lake City Way in Seattle • 15th Avenue W. and 1st Avenue South in Seattle • State Route 99/Pacific Highway South in Federal Way, Kent, Des Moines, SeaTac and Tukwila • NE 124th Street in Kirkland • 148th and 156th Avenue NE in Redmond • Downtown Renton There are no existing plans for TSP on Tukwila streets, although the ability to implement TSP will be enhanced throughout Tukwila by the City's Signal Interconnect project, which is scheduled for construction in the TUC in 2006. High Capacity Transit Currently, there are no regional plans to serve the TUC by existing or future high capacity transit systems. However, Sound Transit is currently conducting a study regarding the feasibility of a high capacity transit line that could directly serve the TUC. It should be cautioned, however, that the Sound Transit work is only a feasibility study and is not a commitment on the part of Sound Transit to fund or operate any of the alternatives from the study. I -405 Bus Rapid Transit The I-405 Bus Rapid Transit Concept is currently being studied as part of the overall project to improve mobility along the I-405 corridor. The initial concept recommended that all -day, high- speed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), with buses coming every 10 minutes, be provided in the I-405 corridor. Dedicated HOV lanes and direct access ramps would allow BRT buses to travel at high speeds with a high degree of reliability. Attractively designed buses and stations would make the passengers feel comfortable in riding the BRT buses. BRT fares would be collected off - vehicle, similar to other high capacity transit. The BRT stations would be located along I-405 at key communities in South Snohomish County and East and South King County. According to the Final Tukwila Transit Plan 73 April 2005 • • August 2003 Concept White Paper, a stop is projected for Tukwila in a future expansion. The August 2003 Concept White Paper 2010 ridership projection for the entire Bus Rapid Transit line was 4,500 daily boardings. Existing routes are projected to carry 3,500 daily boardings; the I-405 corridor BRT line carries only 1,000 more daily passengers at a cost of $0.5 to $1.5 billion. Since the 2003 Concept White Paper was completed, more detailed routing and ridership analyses have been completed as part of the I-405 BRT Pre - Design Study. Figure 5 -4 shows an example network of the layered service concept that is being discussed as part of this effort. The layered service concept is preliminary only and the configuration of the proposed BRT system is still under development. Figure 5-4 Potential I-405 BRT Routes from September 2004 Presentation 1 AQ5 BRT Pre = Design. Study Example Network Modeling Purposes Onl}r Lynnwood Transit Center Kenmore Park- and -Ride • SeaTac Airport Station to Everett Station I- 51112th Park - and - Ride:' Ashwa Park- and -Ride nyon Park station IPWoodinville 4" ; • Town Center Woodinville — 1. i' �. Park-and-Ride Brickyard Station Hi Totem Lake Staten :' lit Houghton Parkand Rlde Bellevue Downtown 1® Station • Newport Hills Station Renton Downtown `;Port Quendall Staten • Station Renton Bo rng Tukwila Urban Center South Renton: .Park- and' -Ride: • Kent Station Legend::: : • i' :1405 EKX A (Kenmore. ;Tukwila) • ■ 1-405 E1O( -8: (Lynnwood ,SeaTac). :1,405.60( (Everett, Bellevue) • �`::1 -405 E/O( -0:•. (Woodinville - Kern): :, Tukwila Station and the TUC are two of the route termini for one of the "route layers ". Table 5- 1 shows the predicted a.m. peak ridership for the Tukwila BRT stops. No commitments on which routing alternative should be pursued have been made at this time. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 74 April 2005 • • • Table 5 -1 BRT Layered Service Concept Projected Ridership6 5.5 KEY CAPITAL NEEDS RECOMMENDATIONS Tukwila Transit Center (Southcenter Mall) The existing focal point of bus service within the TUC is located on southbound Andover Park W. just south of Baker Boulevard. Due to historical reasons, there is no corresponding northbound stop. Given the passenger loads of over 1,000 boardings daily at this location, the amenities and weather protection are woefully inadequate. There is not enough shelter space or seating area. In addition, from an operating standpoint, the one -way stop forces buses to travel out -of- direction to serve the one bus stop. This adds to passenger travel time and operating costs. King County Metro, Westfield, and the City of Tukwila have held discussions regarding the location of improved facilities for Mall patrons. Four different options were examined on Andover Park West between Tukwila Boulevard and Strander Boulevard. The locations on Andover Park West included: 1. Existing southbound bays plus new northbound bays by the Acura property. 2. Existing southbound bays plus new northbound bays by the Fatigue property. 3. New southbound bays north of Baker Boulevard plus new northbound bays by the Fatigue property. 4. Increase existing southbound bay capacity to 3 bays with independent arrival/departure capabilities. At this time, a decision has been made to proceed with increasing southbound bay capacity to 3 bays with independent arrival /departure. Increasing the southbound bay size will address some of today's capacity needs — it is inadequate for future service needs, particularly if BRT service is initiated. A further explanation of future capacity needs is discussed below. Future Operational Needs of the Tukwila Transit Center The Tukwila Transit Center, even with the expansion of the southbound bay, cannot accommodate the number of buses that would be operating through the Tukwila Transit Center if all the Long -Range Recommendations are implemented. Today, approximately 300 buses travel through the Tukwila Transit Center area. In the future, this could almost triple to 850 buses — depending on funding availability. 6 Source for routes and ridership projections is 1-405 Bus Rapid Transit South Corridor Pre - Design, City of Tukwila Update, September 20, 2004 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 75 April 2005 2014 2030 Station Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings 7 Tukwila Station 90 6 103 TUC Station 11 . 53 15 81 5.5 KEY CAPITAL NEEDS RECOMMENDATIONS Tukwila Transit Center (Southcenter Mall) The existing focal point of bus service within the TUC is located on southbound Andover Park W. just south of Baker Boulevard. Due to historical reasons, there is no corresponding northbound stop. Given the passenger loads of over 1,000 boardings daily at this location, the amenities and weather protection are woefully inadequate. There is not enough shelter space or seating area. In addition, from an operating standpoint, the one -way stop forces buses to travel out -of- direction to serve the one bus stop. This adds to passenger travel time and operating costs. King County Metro, Westfield, and the City of Tukwila have held discussions regarding the location of improved facilities for Mall patrons. Four different options were examined on Andover Park West between Tukwila Boulevard and Strander Boulevard. The locations on Andover Park West included: 1. Existing southbound bays plus new northbound bays by the Acura property. 2. Existing southbound bays plus new northbound bays by the Fatigue property. 3. New southbound bays north of Baker Boulevard plus new northbound bays by the Fatigue property. 4. Increase existing southbound bay capacity to 3 bays with independent arrival/departure capabilities. At this time, a decision has been made to proceed with increasing southbound bay capacity to 3 bays with independent arrival /departure. Increasing the southbound bay size will address some of today's capacity needs — it is inadequate for future service needs, particularly if BRT service is initiated. A further explanation of future capacity needs is discussed below. Future Operational Needs of the Tukwila Transit Center The Tukwila Transit Center, even with the expansion of the southbound bay, cannot accommodate the number of buses that would be operating through the Tukwila Transit Center if all the Long -Range Recommendations are implemented. Today, approximately 300 buses travel through the Tukwila Transit Center area. In the future, this could almost triple to 850 buses — depending on funding availability. 6 Source for routes and ridership projections is 1-405 Bus Rapid Transit South Corridor Pre - Design, City of Tukwila Update, September 20, 2004 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 75 April 2005 • • Table 5 -2 umber of Buses serving Tukwila Transit Center Future Travel Patterns at the Tukwila Transit Center Upon redevelopment of the TUC, Baker Boulevard (or a close -by parallel street) will likely assume the role of a transit corridor between Andover Park W. and Andover Park E. Figure 4 -1 shows the potential route alignments upon completion of the Baker Boulevard corridor. As shown in Figure 4-1, there would be three different route patterns: 1. Routes traveling north -south through the Tukwila Transit Center, 2. Routes traveling east -west through the Tukwila Transit Center, and 3. Routes ending at the Tukwila Transit Center. The location and configuration of an expanded Tukwila Transit Center must take into account these three travel patterns, and serve them with a minimum of out -of- direction travel. Future Layover Needs at the Tukwila Transit Center With the construction of Tukwila Station and the redevelopment of the TUC, the number of routes ending at the Southcenter Transit Center is expected to decrease from the existing two routes (Routes 155 and 128) to zero. Staging space and the associated layover space in the TUC will become less necessary. Location of Transit Center The transit center location must meet several potentially competing needs. Some considerations include: • Capacity: Can the Transit Center meet the space demands for additional service in the future? • Passenger Demand: Transit Centers should be located as close to actual destinations as possible. Placing transit centers adjacent to non - developed, non - passenger generating land use areas such as freeways or parking lots should be avoided. • Bus Operations — Safety and Reliability: Transit Centers should not introduce bus operating issues that compromise either safety or schedule reliability. • Cost: Transit Centers should not introduce out -of- direction travel that increases transit operating costs. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 76 April 2005 Existing Buses per Weekday Long -Term Buses per Weekday Route Southbound Northbound Southbound Northbound 126 11* 11* 34 34 128 34 33 34 33 140 43 44 56 56 150 54 53 66 65 155 14 13 28 29 Fed. Way Rt. 0 0 30 30 TUC Trolley 0 0 90 90 BRT 0 0 90 90 Total 156 154 428 427 Service levels in this table assume additional funding sources — it does not represent a commitment by any transit agency to provide this level of service. r * Route currently does not serve Andover Park W., but instead stays on Strander Boulevard. This analysis assumes that Route 126 will be rerouted upon redevelopment of Baker Boulevard. Future Travel Patterns at the Tukwila Transit Center Upon redevelopment of the TUC, Baker Boulevard (or a close -by parallel street) will likely assume the role of a transit corridor between Andover Park W. and Andover Park E. Figure 4 -1 shows the potential route alignments upon completion of the Baker Boulevard corridor. As shown in Figure 4-1, there would be three different route patterns: 1. Routes traveling north -south through the Tukwila Transit Center, 2. Routes traveling east -west through the Tukwila Transit Center, and 3. Routes ending at the Tukwila Transit Center. The location and configuration of an expanded Tukwila Transit Center must take into account these three travel patterns, and serve them with a minimum of out -of- direction travel. Future Layover Needs at the Tukwila Transit Center With the construction of Tukwila Station and the redevelopment of the TUC, the number of routes ending at the Southcenter Transit Center is expected to decrease from the existing two routes (Routes 155 and 128) to zero. Staging space and the associated layover space in the TUC will become less necessary. Location of Transit Center The transit center location must meet several potentially competing needs. Some considerations include: • Capacity: Can the Transit Center meet the space demands for additional service in the future? • Passenger Demand: Transit Centers should be located as close to actual destinations as possible. Placing transit centers adjacent to non - developed, non - passenger generating land use areas such as freeways or parking lots should be avoided. • Bus Operations — Safety and Reliability: Transit Centers should not introduce bus operating issues that compromise either safety or schedule reliability. • Cost: Transit Centers should not introduce out -of- direction travel that increases transit operating costs. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 76 April 2005 • • • Passenger Safety: Transit Centers should not compromise passenger safety and therefore the need to cross streets for transfers should be minimized. • Fit within TUC Vision: The TUC plan calls for a long -term increase in density and activities to the east and south of the Mall. The proposed Transit Center improvements should be compatible with the proposed density increases. Each of the four locations has been evaluated based on these six different criteria. The results of this evaluation is shown in Table 5 -3 and is discussed below. Table 5 -3 luation of Tukwila Transit Center Expansion Options Southbound Location Northbound Location Capacity Passenger Demand Safety for Buses Cost Passenger Safety Within TUC Vision Total Existing Acura property • c v • C • C Existing Fatigue property • C; • O .) G C North of Baker Fatigue property • ) 6 0 C 1 !J Expanded Existing Zone None U C • 0 1: e:.) e) Legend Much Worse than Average 0 Average C Much Better than Average L • 1. Existing southbound bays plus new northbound bays adjacent to the Acura property. — This Transit Center configuration would have the capacity for future service increases, including the BRT. This Transit Center would best meet the needs of the Mall, the redeveloped TUC, and is within '/ mile walking distance of a significant portion of the TUC. The near side stop in the northbound direction is a minor safety and reliability issue that may be addressed with a separate signal phase — it is addressable. From a passenger safety perspective, only one street would need to be crossed to transfer. Virtually no out -of- direction travel is introduced for buses, which reduces operating costs and increases ridership potential. Buses traveling on east -west routes can use Baker Boulevard and stop at the Tukwila Transit Center in both directions. This is an improvement over today's operation. This location is well situated to accommodate the redevelopment in the TUC. 2. Existing southbound bays plus new northbound bays adjacent to the Fatigue property. — This Transit Center configuration would have the capacity for future service increases, including the BRT. The northbound stop is located further away from the active land uses than all of the other alternatives, which will reduce ridership potential. From a bus operator standpoint, the far side configuration of the Transit Center for both stops improves the ability to access and egress the stops. It is less optimal for passenger safety, as passengers would need to cross two wide streets to transfer between routes. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 77 April 2005 • • • Significant out -of- direction travel is introduced for buses, particularly east -west routes (Routes 126, 140, and 155) that are traveling through the TUC. In order to access the northbound stops, east -west buses would need to travel all the way to Tukwila Parkway, which would add several minutes of running time. This location is an improvement over today's operation, and is reasonably well situated to accommodate the redevelopment in the TUC. 3. New southbound bays north of Baker Boulevard plus new northbound bays adjacent to the Fatigue property. — A Transit Center located entirely to the north of Baker Boulevard on Andover Park W. has the capacity for future service increases, including BRT. It is not located well to accommodate future passenger growth because the center is further removed from active land uses — the passenger draw area shrinks as one approaches I-405. The near side stop in the southbound direction is a minor safety and reliability issue that may be addressed with a separate signal phase — it is addressable. From a passenger safety perspective, only one street would need to be crossed to transfer. This location introduces out -of- direction travel for any bus routes traveling east -west through the TUC, including Routes 126, 140, 155, and any other future east -west route such as BRT or Federal Way route. Out -of- direction travel adds travel time, which reduces ridership potential and adds operating costs. While an improvement over today's operation, this location is not ideally situated to accommodate the redevelopment in the TUC. 4. Increase existing southbound bay capacity to 3 bays with independent arrival/departure capabilities. — A Transit Center located entirely to the north of Baker Boulevard on Andover Park W. does not have the long -term capacity for future service increases, including BRT. Expanding the southbound capacity by one bay is an excellent interim solution for the next five or six years. However, it is insufficient, by itself, to accommodate a more than doubling of bus service to the Transit Center, which given the growth in the TUC is projected in the long -term. This location has few safety and reliability issues. It is the easiest of options for most passenger transfers — although anyone transferring to Route 150 in the northbound direction must cross Andover Park W. and walk a long block. This transit center configuration often introduces passenger confusion. Several routes stop in the same area, but they go different directions. For instance, Route 140 heads to both Renton and Burien from the same bus stop. Many passengers do not see the headboard showing the destination and then ask drivers their destinations, which slows down operations and adds costs. The routing to serve this location creates out -of- direction loops. Route 140, in particular, has confusing figure 8 alignment around Southcenter Mall as a result of having only southbound bays in the Tukwila Transit Center. Confusing routing patterns inhibit potential ridership. King County Metro currently incurs additional operating costs as a result of out -of- direction travel. The existing site, without a corresponding northbound stop, does not tie into the TUC core development occurring on the east side of Andover Park West. Expansion of the existing Transit Center to three bays is a welcome addition that will address short-term capacity concerns. Additional space will be necessary for higher frequency services desired in the long -term. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 78 April 2005 • • • Joint Development Potential The current bus boarding area is perceived negatively by many of the surrounding business owners. According to them, the bus stop brings vandalism, other crimes, and vagrants into a prime retail area. This perception, whether right or wrong, can only be changed using some of the elements that addressed this issue in other areas. Eyes on the street are essential to reduce this perception. A standalone transit center at the edge of a parking lot, no matter how architecturally appealing, will not entirely remove the perception that transit attracts undesirable elements. Throughout the country, it is becoming apparent that the key to success for transit centers is joint development. Whenever possible, a transit center should be integrated with an active land use such as a coffee shop, restaurant, or something else that could cater to the needs of both people at the transit center and to patrons coming to the Mall. These types of businesses provide the "eyes on the street" security. Businesses adjacent to the transit center can generate revenues from this facility and make this into an asset instead of a perceived liability. A successful transit center will have a supporting business adjacent to it. Relocated transit center plans, no matter the location, should integrate the transit center into active land uses. Tukwila Transit Center Amenities In addition to the recommended joint development features, the existing waiting area should be improved to incorporate the following features: o Widened Sidewalks — During large parts of the day, the existing sidewalk is choked with waiting passengers. Passengers spill into the Mall parking lot to avoid the crowded sidewalk conditions. Sidewalk width should be widened by at least 4 feet to 14 feet wide. o Sitting Areas — Currently, there are few opportunities for waiting passengers to be seated. Visual inspection has showed that waiting passengers often sit on the curb separating the sidewalk and the Mall parking lot. o Shelters — There are two standard sized shelters at the existing Southcenter Mall stop. Given over 1,000 daily patrons at this stop, two shelters provide inadequate shelter. A larger canopy type shelter should be considered in lieu of adding additional standard transit shelters. Given the traffic levels on Andover Park West, pullouts are essential for this transit center. Two bays in each direction should accommodate both existing and future demand. Tukwila Station In 1999, Sound Transit completed a draft design for the Tukwila Sounder Station. The draft design assumes primary access to /from the facility from Longacres Way, with provisions for a roadway extension to the proposed Strander Boulevard. The station design includes parking for over 400 parking stalls, a pedestrian tunnel under the tracks, artwork, two retention ponds, a kiss - and -ride, bus loop, bus driver facilities, and bus shelters. One of the goals of the Tukwila Station design was to be functional, yet not place as much emphasis on place - making as stations in Kent, Auburn, Sumner, and Puyallup. Budget, or lack thereof, has been a prime reason for the reduced place - making emphasis. The draft design of Tukwila Station no longer meets the conditions of the site. The railroad track relocation of the UP railroad, the connection to the Strander overpass, and the sizing of the park - and -ride are all issues that must be incorporated into the final design. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 79 April 2005 • • • Railroad Track Relocation At this time, the Union Pacific (UP) and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroads have come to verbal agreements regarding consolidating the rail corridors that are located just east of West Valley Highway. A written agreement is being developed to finalize the details. According to our understanding of the agreement, the BNSF line will remain in its existing configuration and retain its existing right -of -way. Between I-405 and south of Strander Boulevard, the UP line will be relocated to operate immediately adjacent to the BNSF right -of- way. The UP will retain its 100 foot right -of -way. Thus, at the end of the relocation process, there will be a combined 200 foot right -of -way that includes both the BNSF and UP tracks. The City of Tukwila, Sound Transit, and Renton are currently working on a plan to phase the relocation of the UP tracks, construction of the permanent station, and construction of the Strander Boulevard overpass. Parking The draft station design shows approximately 400 parking stalls. Current utilization of the 250 car temporary park- and -ride is less than 20 percent, even though the existing Sounder schedules of three northbound trains in the morning and three southbound trains in the afternoon serves the peak of the peak market to /from Seattle. Based on visual inspection, a large amount of parking at Tukwila Station is for VanShare vehicles, not for people driving to Tukwila Station to park. Based on the 20 Sounder boardings at Tukwila Station in the northbound direction in the morning peak, about 20 parking spaces are being used by commuters heading to Seattle. Parking utilization is not growing, even as originating ridership at all other stations has grown dramatically. Ridership, and park- and -ride utilization, may increase as Sounder frequencies improve. According to Sound Transit, full operation of Sounder past Tukwila Station will include 18 trains (nine in the morning and nine in the evening). According to Sound Transit, by 2008, there will be six northbound trains and three southbound trains in the morning and six southbound and three northbound trains in the afternoon. Headways will be approximately 30 minutes. An examination of the ridership patterns at Tukwila Station show that the demand for park -and- ride space is very limited. Currently, Tukwila Station is the second largest destination (after downtown Seattle) along the south Sounder Line. There are approximately 25 northbound boardings and 150 alightings in the morning peak. Even if frequencies, span of service, and direction of service were improved, it is unlikely that originating ridership would dramatically increase. One of the best methods to measure ridership potential is to examine the existing ridership patterns and growth. With rail service, a doubling of service could double, triple, or even quadruple existing ridership. Even if ridership to Seattle quadrupled from 25 to 100 passengers, park- and -ride demand would reach around 100 stalls. Based on our experience, it is unlikely that ridership at Tukwila Station would quadruple. Ridership at Tukwila Station has been limited even though parking is available, the peak arrival times for commuters to the Seattle market are being made now, and there are seats available on the existing trains. The ridership pattern at Tukwila Station is a clear example where the market has spoken and the demand for Sounder from Tukwila Station to downtown Seattle is limited. Several factors may contribute to this. Signage to the existing station is poor and the temporary facilities at the station Final Tukwila Transit Plan 80 April 2005 • • (both parking and platforms) are not inviting. Access to /from residential areas is poor — there is no easy way for potential passengers from South Renton to get to Tukwila Station without significant out -of- direction travel. In addition, there are several competing facilities such as the South Renton and Interurban Park - and - Rides, where bus service is more frequent and has better travel times to downtown Seattle, particularly north downtown, than Sounder service from Tukwila Station. These competing facilities also have a way for passengers to get back to their cars during midday, which Tukwila Station does not. The market for parking demand as a result of AMTRAK service at Tukwila Station is harder to quantify. The Tacoma AMTRAK station has approximately 66 stalls and the Lacey station has approximately 90 stalls. Assuming that the marketplace is similar, the AMTRAK parking demand and the commuter market into Seattle parking demand may be met with 200 stalls. The lack of park- and -ride demand at Tukwila Station is a unique case as it is contrary to both local and national trends regarding the insatiable demand for commuter rail parking. It is also unique in that the two closest bus park- and -rides (Interurban and South Renton) are both over capacity, yet Tukwila Station has not been able to siphon off that demand. Based on the market conditions at Tukwila Station, two- hundred park- and -ride stalls should be sufficient to meet future parking demand. In the unlikely case that additional parking will be needed in the long -term future, the existing station parking access should be configured so that it can be structured in the future. Bus Facilities The draft station design includes a 150 foot long area for buses and passengers, or between two and three bays, depending on bus size. This is enough to handle the large volume of buses that travel through the facility, i.e., routes that do not begin or end at Tukwila Station. It is, however, inadequate for future bus service needs. Long -range plans show potential for up to five routes terminating at Tukwila Station. At a minimum, layover space for an additional three buses is necessary; four spaces are desirable. Pedestrian Amenities Rail station walking draw areas typically extend at least 1/2 mile. The draft station design incorporates a new walking path from the rail platforms to the existing sidewalk on Longacres Way just west of the UP railroad. No provisions for sidewalks or walking paths have been made from the rail platforms to Strander Boulevard. It is also unclear how the new platforms tie into the Boeing Longacres pedestrian paths, even though this is a walking pattern seen today even with the limited train frequency. Other than Boeing Longacres, there are very few destinations within easy walking distance of Tukwila Station. However, today's conditions should not form the basis for the pedestrian network within Tukwila Station. At a minimum, the station design should include a pedestrian connection to Strander Boulevard, Boeing Longacres, and a direct connection crossing West Valley Highway, preferably tying into a new river crossing and access into the Tukwila Urban Center. Placemaking Due to budget constraints, the draft Station design is functional, yet it is not a pacemaking location, such as Auburn, Kent, or Sumner. The station locations in these other communities are well marked by both signage and a pacemaking distinct station. The current Tukwila Station location is not signed well and is virtually invisible. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 81 April 2005 • • • Any hope for the Tukwila Station becoming more visible in the community and acting as an anchor for a Transit Oriented Development depends on changing the station design from its current auto - oriented incarnation into more of a pedestrian destination. A more placemaking, visible station should lead to increased ridership. In addition, a visual connection between Tukwila Station and the Tukwila Urban Center are vital to address the public perceptions that no connections between the two locations exist. Access to Tukwila Station As described in Chapters 3 and 4, the I-405 BRT must stop in ridership generating areas such as the TUC in order to increase its ridership potential. Without additional ridership, the I-405 BRT will likely fail due to insufficient rider potential. One of the critical elements in ensuring that the I -405 BRT serves the TUC and Tukwila Station is determining how to reduce travel times to these locations. One of the ways previously discussed that would improve access to Tukwila Station has been the Tukwila Station I-405 Direct Access Ramps (DAR). While this option would improve transit access to /from Tukwila Station, technical challenges and the associated costs have removed this option from further consideration in the immediate future. A second way to improve access to Tukwila Station is to provide an access from Strander Boulevard to the Tukwila Station area. Such an access will provide travel time advantages if the I-405 BRT directly serves the Station (a different service scenario calls for the BRT line to stop directly on Strander Boulevard and not go directly into the Station). The new access from Strander Boulevard into the Tukwila Station area is desirable, but not absolutely necessary from a transit standpoint. The access is much more important to help with vehicular circulation, as shown in the Tukwila Urban Center Subarea Plan. Tukwila Station Recommendation The draft station design does not meet the needs of Tukwila as a transportation anchor. It calls for parking that is unnecessary, has inadequate pedestrian facilities, and has no bus facilities. A complete redesign of Tukwila Station is necessary in order to create a community and transportation focal point, resize the parking lot to be in line with actual demand, expand bus facilities to facilitate the transfer to /from trains, and link it to the TUC core. Tukwila Station represents a unique opportunity to create a community focal point. S. 154th Street Station The planned S. 154th Street Station includes provisions for parking expansion if demand warrants. It also includes bus zones on S. 154th Street and within the station itself, which will ease transfers between buses and LINK. A bus zone on northbound International Boulevard immediately adjacent to the West Pedestrian Access Stair should be considered to prevent out -of- direction travel for existing bus patrons. Bus Shelters Bus shelters should be installed in high ridership locations. There are seven high ridership locations within Tukwila that warrant new shelters (Figure 5 -1). The shelters, if part of a transit corridor, should architecturally fit in with the rest of the corridor. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 82 April 2005 • • • Transit Signal Priority (TSP) Bus travel times are extraordinarily dependent on existing traffic conditions, as they share a common street with automobiles. Bus travel times have been increasing as overall congestion has increased, leading to increased operating costs for King County Metro. TSP represents one low - cost way to improve bus speed and reliability. International Boulevard, Andover Park West and Strander Boulevard have the frequency and ridership loads that would warrant TSP implementation. The City of Tukwila is currently in the process of interconnecting signals. As part of this project, in cooperation with King County Metro, the City should incorporate the hardware necessary to upgrade these signals to "TSP - ready". Final Tukwila Transit Plan 83 April 2005 Appendix A Focus Group Report • • • • Focus Group Discussions Concerning Public Transportation Services for the Tukwila Urban Area SUMMARY REPORT BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY Perteet Engineering, Inc., of Everett, Washington, is working with the City of Tukwila to develop the Tukwila Transit Network Plan. The study reviews all elements of the public transportation system serving the Tukwila Urban Area. As part of this study, focus group discussions were conducted with transit users and with business owners and managers to learn more about attitudes toward current services and desired improvements to services and facilities. Carolyn Browne Tamler, principal of Carolyn Browne Associates, a Bellevue marketing research and community involvement consulting firm, facilitated the discussions. Two discussions with riders were held during the evening of Tuesday, September 16, 2003, in the Community Resource Center of the Tukwila Police Department located in the Westfield Southcenter Shopping Mall. Cards were distributed at several bus stop locations and at the Sounder train station to recruit people interested in discussing issues about public transit. Most of the participants were recruited through contacts made at the Interurban Park- and -Ride and at the Sounder train station. Riders were approached at the Southcenter bus stop and at bus stops at the intersection of Highway 99 and S. 144th Street, but many of these riders are non - English speaking and/or low- income, and were not comfortable completing the recruitment card. Recruiters used the information on the completed cards to select people to invite to the discussions. The groups were divided as follows: (1) riders living in Tukwila or Renton, and (2) riders traveling in or through Tukwila from other locations. A third discussion was conducted with Tukwila business owners and managers at the Conference Room of the Southwest King County Chamber of Commerce, 16400 Southcenter Boulevard, in Tukwila. This group met from Noon to 1:30 p.m. The business participants were recruited with the help of the Southwest King County Chamber of Commerce. This report includes summaries of the major themes from the discussions and the participants' comments. Participants who are current users of the transit system are referred to as "riders," while owners and managers of businesses in the Tukwila area are referred to as "business people." The opinions expressed throughout this report are those of the discussion participants. It should also be noted that the comments reflect individuals' perceptions of facts. Although information obtained from focus group discussions is not statistically projectable, the responses and ideas from the participants do provide a representative portrait of the opinions of the population from which they were drawn, in this case, people who are currently using public transit in or out of Tukwila, and members of the business community in Tukwila. • • • SIGNIFICANT THEMES FROM THE THREE DISCUSSIONS All of the groups were consistent in their suggestions for improving transit service and facilities for the Tukwila Urban Area. The most frequently repeated concerns, included: • Provide some type of shuttle, or other frequent bus service between the Southcenter Mall and the businesses along or near Southcenter Parkway. People who work and shop in the Tukwila Urban Area and want to use transit are currently limited in their access to all of the businesses in the area. • Provide additional express options. Tukwila is a transit hub. Each day, thousands of people pass through the area traveling to other destinations. Despite this fact, transit does not yet provide express options for many of these destinations. There is an especially high demand for more express options from Tukwila to Downtown Seattle. • Modify service to reflect current transit needs. Tukwila is a major destination. Although the population of Tukwila is small, each day some 50,000 people (according to an estimate from one of the participants in the business discussion) come to Tukwila to work. Additionally, thousands come to Tukwila to shop, especially on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. The current transit routes and schedules do not appear to respond to these needs. • Improve Sounder service and improve bus connections with Sounder. Varied work and shopping schedules now mandate that Sounder service be provided beyond traditional commuter times. Further, additional bus connections are needed between Sounder and other travel destinations, as well as to businesses located within Tukwila. • Improve bus stop maintenance. Bus stop locations in Tukwila need to be better maintained, and more bus shelters are needed (many riders are under the impression that the bus stops on the Eastside are nicer because they are in high income areas). • Increase frequency of service on major routes. Many of the major routes need more frequent service (Routes 101, 150 and 174 were mentioned); and express bus hours should be extended to provide service for those who work beyond the traditional 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. workday (Routes 140, 160, 163, 240 and 941 were mentioned). • Increase safety. Many people are concerned about safety on the buses, especially on buses that travel Highway 99 (Route 174). They want to see uniformed security people on routes that have a history of safety incidents. • Provide additional bus stops around the Southcenter Mall. • Provide service from Tukwila west to Highway 99 and east to the Kent Valley. • Increase marketing efforts. Transit is a concept that needs more marketing, in general. The major benefits — no parking costs, no traffic hassles, and in some instances, shorter travel times — should be lcnown to more commuters. Many employers will be willing to help with marketing efforts if they are given the information to provide to their employees, and if bus stops are conveniently located to their workplaces. II • • RESPONSE SUMMARY FROM RIDERS LIVING OUTSIDE THE TUKWILA - RENTON AREA SUMMARY Eleven people confirmed their intention to participate in the discussion when they were contacted on the morning of September 16. However, only four people were present for the discussion at 5:30 p.m. These four participants engaged in a lively discussion with the moderator. In an effort to learn more about the attitudes of those who did not attend, the recruiters at Consumer Opinion Services were asked to call back those who did not show, as well as others who qualified, but had previously said they could not attend the discussion. The tabulations of those who were contacted for this brief telephone survey are included at the end of this section of the report. Based upon the recruiting cards returned, primarily from the Interurban Park- and -Ride and the Sounder Train Station, a high proportion of transit riders traveling to or through Tukwila commute from the south to the north, coming from areas as far away as Tacoma, Puyallup, Bonney Lake and other areas in South King County and Pierce County. Many have access to a car but choose to use transit to avoid the cost and hassle of parking, as well as the inconvenience of driving long distances through heavy traffic. The most important transit improvements desired by the four discussion members and by those who were contacted later by telephone include: • More frequent bus service is needed for the major routes serving Tukwila; many major routes only provide hourly service; • Additional service is needed along Southcenter Parkway; • Bus stops need better maintenance and more bus shelters should be provided; • More East -West routes are needed; and • More express buses are needed in and out of Tukwila, especially to Seattle. There was strong agreement among the participants that Tukwila should market itself as a shopping destination, and provide better bus access to the stores and buses. PARTICIPANTS Only four of the eleven confirmed participants attended the discussion. Three are riding Metro buses only, while one person is riding Sounder. Only one in the group has access to a car; the others use buses for all of their transportation needs, except when friends can provide a lift. Name Years Riding Local Transit Occupation Residence Age Kelly 5 Restaurant employee Auburn 22 Sean 3 Manufacturing Auburn 25 Evans 4 Student at BCTI Kent 26 Jeremy 12 Computer Administrator Tacoma 34 III • • • WHAT'S WORKING WELL WITH CURRENT TRANSIT SYSTEM? The four riders started the discussion by sharing their positive views of the transit system. These comments included: "The drivers are polite;" "The buses are usually on time;" "There are many routes;" There seem to be enough bus stops and they are generally clean." All agreed they feel safe when riding a bus and that purchasing tickets is easy. They have experienced no difficulties obtaining and using transfers. ARE THERE LOCATIONS NOT CURRENTLY SERVED WHERE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE BUS SERVICE ADDED? The Business Computer Training Institute (BCTI) student said there is no direct service to the school at present, which is located at 15445 — 53`d Avenue S. He says several students there have commented on the need to provide bus service to the school. Two people who commute from Pacific each day commented that Route 917 runs in a loop on the hour, but not on Sundays, which makes it difficult at times to get to Route 150 that they take into Tukwila. WHAT ARE THE CURRENT MAJOR ISSUES RELATING TO PUBLIC TRANSIT IN TUKWILA? There was agreement among all the participants that the buses that go to Bellevue "are newer and nicer quality than the ones that come to Tukwila." They also noted that the Sounder buses are generally nicer than the Metro ones. The major issues identified by the members of the group included: • Lack of bus service on and near Southcenter Parkway, which makes it difficult for people who work in the area to take a bus to the business. The buses that do go there only run hourly. The participants suggested adding local shuttle service that would circulate between the Mall and the other major retail businesses in the Tukwila Urban Area. • Lack of bus shelters. There are few covered bus shelters in the Tukwila area, and many compared this to the abundance and quality of bus shelters they have noticed in Bellevue. • Travel between Tukwila and areas to the West (Highway 99) and East (Kent) is difficult. • Buses need to operate more frequently. As an example, they pointed out that Route 150 runs only once an hour in the early morning and late evening. Many other routes provide only hourly service. Since many people now work hours beyond the normal 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., the bus service is not matching the needs of employees, many of whom currently have to choose to arrive early or late to work. It is also not serving the needs of those who might want to take the bus to shop in Tukwila. • • • MARKETING IDEAS Although one person suggested that most people use public transportation out of necessity, there was agreement that using transit for special purposes is a good way to familiarize people with what it is like to use transit. Their ideas included: • Buses for special events, such as Mariners and Seahawks games; • Special buses during the Christmas holiday season from park- and -rides to Southcenter — all agreed this would be a great idea since "holiday traffic is horrible" at Southcenter; and • Sounder service is great from Tacoma and draws people who might otherwise never use public transportation. Someone added that stress and miles driven are great incentives to try using transit. There was also strong agreement that Tukwila needs to market itself as a shopping destination and provide better bus access to the stores and buses. CONCLUSION: WHAT ARE THE THREE MOST IMPORTANT CHANGES, IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRANSIT SERVICE IN TUKWILA? Jeremy: More frequent buses Covered, better bus stops; improve technology at bus stops (sensors to announce bus is coming/light the stop) Reward riders through incentives with retail stores (shop at a store and get a bus pass) Evans: More frequent buses Cleaner bus stops and shelters Increase frequency of bus service Sean: Provide covered shelters /seating at bus stops More east -west routes; it is difficult to get service from Tukwila to Kent or to the residential areas to the west Increase frequency of service Kelly: Better bus accessibility to stores and businesses on Southcenter Parkway More express buses in and out of Tukwila to major transit centers Special event and seasonal bus service Promotions with retailers to provide free bus use with purchase • • RESPONSE SUMMARY FROM RIDERS LIVING WITHIN THE TUKWILA - RENTON AREA SUMMARY Most of the participants are commuting from their homes in Tukwila or Renton to their jobs, most of which are in Seattle. Largely, they are choosing to use transit to avoid parking costs and traffic hassles at their commute destinations. The service and facilities improvements deemed most important by the riders include: • More frequent bus service around Southcenter and to the businesses on and near Southcenter Parkway (such as a shopper's shuttle); • Improving maintenance at bus stop locations in Tukwila; • Extending bus routes serving the Fairwood Area (Routes 155, 148 and 101) past 140th to provide service to the new residential neighborhoods off Petrovitsky Road; • More frequent service on the major routes (Routes 150, 174, 101); • Establishing Tukwila as a major transportation hub with links to other areas throughout King County and Pierce County; • Providing facilities (restrooms and drinking fountains) at the major transit centers; and • Extending the hours for express bus service (Routes 140, 160, 163, 240, and 941). Participants noted that there seems to be little marketing of transit. They believe more advertising will promote the key benefits of transit — no parking or traffic hassles — and, hence, will build usage. PARTICIPANTS Nine of the 12 people who confirmed their attendance participated in the discussion. The participants included five women and four men, ranging in age from 31 to 60. Six of the nine have access to a car and are choosing to use transit. All are using the bus to commute to work. Three are using Sounder or Sound Transit in addition to Metro. Name Years Riding Local Transit Occupation Residence Age Dean 20 Engraver Tukwila 52 Toni 5 Legal Secretary Tukwila 60 Dona 5 Pharmacist Tukwila 48 Cynthia 5 Administrative Assistant Renton 45 Donna 29 Accountant Tukwila 48 Inez 22 Business Owner Tukwila 47 Kim 4 Engineering Manager Renton 43 Aotham 3 Internet Engineer Tukwila 30 Jason 7 Telecommunications Tukwila 31 VI • • • WHY ARE YOU CHOOSING TO USE TRANSIT IF YOU HAVE A CAR? Most of the participants are traveling from Tukwila and Renton to Downtown Seattle, and most are choosing to use transit. The greatest motivators for using transit are to avoid the cost of parking in Downtown Seattle and avoiding the traffic hassles of driving into the city. They say that taking a bus or train into Seattle is easy and convenient. One person has an employer providing a free bus pass. Another drives to the train station in Tukwila and takes Sounder into Downtown Seattle. One person simply avoids driving because it is "dangerous and expensive." WHAT'S WORKING WELL WITH CURRENT TRANSIT SYSTEM? The most positive responses concerning transit relate to the variety of good connections between Seattle and Tukwila. Those who can use the Sounder or Express buses say these are good services and save travel time. One person in the group had special praise for the number of bus stops on Route 128 between Southcenter Boulevard and International Boulevard, claiming it was easy to find a place to catch a bus. WHAT ARE THE CURRENT MAJOR ISSUES RELATING TO PUBLIC TRANSIT IN TUKWILA? Those who live in the Fairwood Area of Renton are feeling frustrated in trying to use transit. One of the discussion participants explained, "From Petrovitsky Road, I can't get to the bus without having to drive; but, there's no place to park at 140th and Petrovitsky where the bus stop is located; if I continue into Downtown Renton, I can't find parking in Downtown Renton." She added bus routes are needed in the neighborhoods to connect with buses going to other locations and to take residents to the Sounder train station. It appears that many people don't know the exact location of the Sounder train station; only four of the nine participants were knowledgeable about where to catch the train. One of the four found the location by accident. Those who knew the location pointed out that the only guide directing people to the Sounder Station is a tiny sign with a logo. Bus connections from the Sounder station are not adequate ( "I get off the train and see the bus leaving and going around the corner; then I have to wait 30 minutes for the next "); at present, there are only a few connections from the Sounder station to buses traveling to other locations. Route 124 only runs three times in the morning and three times in the evening, and only once an hour. A participant commented, "If I miss one of these buses, I am late for work." The buses also do not run on the weekends. Southcenter is a hub, but buses do not go around the Center and there are few bus options that go to businesses on Southcenter Parkway. It was suggested, and all agreed, that it would be nice to have a shopper's shuttle in the Southcenter area similar to one operated in the shopping district of Kent. Bus stops for the Southcenter Mall should be located in the mall to make it safer to go from the bus into the Mall. SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS AND PRIORITY RATINGS Participants were asked to make a laundry list of the improvements they would like to see. After the list was completed, they were asked to choose seven items (from the 29 listed) that they believe to be most important. The suggestions are organized below with those receiving the highest priority ratings listed first: VII • • Suggestion Number Giving Priority • Provide a shopper's shuttle around Southcenter. 5 • Maintain Tukwila bus stops at the same level as those in Bellevue (all agree that bus stops in Bellevue are much nicer than in Tukwila — "they have more money "). 5 • Extend Routes 155, 148 and 101 past 140th to provide service to the new neighborhoods off Petrovitsky Road. 5 • Provide more frequent service for the main line routes (Routes 150, 174, 101). 4 • Make Tukwila a regional transit hub so it is easier to get from Southcenter to other locations. 3 • Provide maintained restrooms (even if restrooms were coin - operated) and drinking fountains at the major transit centers. 3 • Extend hours for express bus service (Routes 160, 163, 941,140, 240). 3 • Make improvements to bus stops - more seating, more shelters. 3 • Provide air - conditioned buses ( "Why are Sound Transit buses air conditioned ? "). 3 • Improve safety on Route 174 ( "I've heard it's the most dangerous route in Seattle "); especially at night. 2 • Post schedules at the bus stops. 2 • Provide better transfer connections and coordination. 2 • Provide an express bus from Downtown Seattle to the Sounder train station to make up for missed bus service connecting to the train station ( "It takes forever to get from Tukwila to Seattle on the 150 "). 2 • Provide express bus service from Fairwood Area to Downtown Seattle. 2 • Provide direct bus service from Tukwila to the Eastside (currently, it is impossible to get there without going to Downtown Seattle and transferring). . 2 • Provide express service on Route 155; it currently takes too long to get to Tukwila from the neighborhoods. 2 • Create more bus stops/bus routes around Southcenter. 2 • Add uniformed security people on the buses; provide a hotline number to report regular problem riders; have bus drivers enforce rules on the bus (radios, cell phones, sleeping across the seats, etc.). 2 • Promote buses going to special events (such as buses to Mariners and Seahawks games). 2 VIII • • Suggestion Number Giving Priority 2 • Ensure that bus stops are near crosswalks at the transfer points and in busy areas. • Review usage of local shuttles to determine why they are not being more fully used (Route 124); are they being marketed? Are they convenient routes? Are they not running often enough? ( "It doesn't go anywhere I need to go "). 1 • Expand Interurban Park - and -Ride ( "It's full before 7 a.m.; it's always full "); South Renton and K -Mart parking lots are full (people are using these locations as a park- and —ride lots). 1 • Provide services for the blind at major bus stops. 1 • Provide more kneeling buses for easier access. 1 • Increase promotions using media other than the Web; use space on the bus. 1 • Provide more sidewalks around the transfer points. 1 • Create a Metro route map that is less confusing; Provide route maps on the buses. - IDEAS FOR MARKETING TRANSIT USE There appears to be very little marketing of transit at the present time. Participants had several suggestions to marketing the system: • Increase marketing efforts on the buses themselves; • Market special event service better ( "but don't cram people into the buses. "); • Develop television commercials ( "I have never seen a 1'V commercial for Metro. "); • Develop radio commercials which would be good for people who are stuck in traffic; • Promote how easy it is to get into Seattle using the bus. All agreed that parking costs and traffic are two major incentives for using transit; • Work to improve Metro's image by providing higher quality buses and making them more comfortable. CONCLUSION: WHAT ARE THE THREE MOST IMPORTANT CHANGES, IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRANSIT SERVICE IN TUKWILA? Jason More comfortable, luxurious buses Improve safety so people are not afraid of riding Make bus service more reliable Aothan: More frequent mainline service Better service around Southcenter Better infrastructure around the transfer points IX • • • Kim: Frequent service around Southcenter and to and from the major park and rides Regional transit facility targeted to Seattle commuters Express routes to Seattle from outlying neighborhoods Inez: Need shopper's shuttles in the Southcenter area More frequent service Buses need to be on time Dona: Improve safety on the buses Air - conditioned buses & kneeling buses More evening service on the mainlines Cynthia: Better coordination of buses to improve transfer service More express service directly from neighborhoods to Downtown and to the train station Extend peak hour service Donna:. Better connections between Sounder and other bus service to the Local areas (Mall, Downtown Renton, etc.) Improve parking at park and rides Expand service from Fairwood Area to Seattle and the train station Toni: Shopper's shuttle; better connections for shoppers in the area Better coordination of bus and train schedules Expand spaces in the park and rides Dean: Make Tukwila a regional hub More buses in Southcenter More bus shelters • • • RESPONSE SUMMARY FROM BUSINESS OWNERS AND MANAGERS DOING BUSINESS IN THE TUKWILA URBAN AREA SUMMARY The business people who came to the meeting are interested in providing any assistance they can to help improve the public transit services in and out of Tukwila. They pointed out the immense traffic problems around the Southcenter Mall on the weekends (Friday through Sunday) and during the winter holidays. Many of these business professionals currently provide some type of subsidy to employees who commute using transit; others are willing to consider the possibility of doing so. They are also willing to consider promoting other types of transit use to their employees. Bus stop locations at the Southcenter Mall do not provide convenient drop offs for many of the Mall customers; the BECU Gateway employees who use transit must walk a mile from the bus stop to their work location. As a demonstration of their desire to help, all of the participants said they are willing (and eager) to come to another meeting to review suggested alternatives for public transportation. Here are the priorities for improvements that were suggested by the business group: • Provide bus equipment to match the needs of the community; i.e., smaller buses for the neighborhoods and larger, articulated buses for the express routes; • Improve connecting bus service with the Sounder train; more frequent buses, buses going to more destinations from the Sounder station and buses going directly to the local businesses in Tukwila; • Provide more convenient bus service between the Southcenter Mall and other businesses in the Tukwila Area, especially the businesses on Southcenter Parkway; • Provide more frequent service on the major routes; and • Provide more bus information to employers to pass on to their employees. PARTICIPANTS Nine participants were recruited with the help of the Southwest Chamber of Commerce. They included four women and five men, most of whom are owners or managers where they are employed. The participants represented a broad range of types and sizes of businesses, plus the Tukwila School District. All expressed a strong commitment to identifying ways to improve public transportation within the Tukwila Urban Area. • • • Name Business/Position Number of Employees Rick Graff Office Depot, Store Manager 30 Michael Silver Tukwila School Dist., Superintendent 350 employees 2,600 students Nancy Damon S.W. King Co. C of C, Executive Director 5 employees 500 business Mike West South Town Auto Rebuild, Owner 7 Jean Christofferson Bon —Macy' s, Manager 460 620 in fall Bill Arthur Segale Business Park, Manager On Tukwila Planning Commission. Segale owns retail center in town 24 Teresa Kiekenapp Costco, Human Resources Manager 375 450 for holidays Todd Pietzsch BECU, Manager of Bus. Development 500 Diane Jensen Highline Com. Hospital, Emp. Benefits 300 EMPLOYEES TAKING PUBLIC TRANSIT Most participants claimed they know of only a few employees who take the bus. Sounder has increased the ability of some employees to get to work (one of the companies provides a vanpool service to and from Sounder), although some employees who might use Sounder cannot get transportation from the train station to work. WHAT IS WORKING WELL FOR TRANSIT NOW? Most notably, those who use transit avoid the parking cost and hassles in Downtown Seattle. Tukwila is a major pass - through area; many people transfer in and out of Southcenter to other places. Public transit provides transportation services for many low- income people who use the buses along Highway 99. The Tukwila Schools Superintendent noted that about 24 students use Metro when they miss regular bus service. Most BECU employees are using vanpools because there is no bus service provided to the Gateway facility. SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS & PRIORITY RATINGS Participants were asked to make a laundry list of the improvements they would like to see. They provided 17 suggestions, from which they were asked to select five they believed to be the most important priorities. XII • • • Suggestion Number Giving Priority • Provide bus equipment that matches the needs of the community; smaller buses are needed for the neighborhoods, and large, articulated buses are needed for express routes. 7 • Provide more frequent service between Sounder and bus service to other areas. "Sounder is attractive because it saves a lot of time, but the poor links to other transportation make it not attractive." (The Bon - Macy's manager says that many in administration would like to take Sounder, but can't get connections to Southcenter); "I would hop the train in a minute, but I can't get to work after I get up here." 6 • Provide a shuttle service between Sounder and local businesses; Businesses or individuals may be willing to subsidize shuttle service between Sounder and other businesses in Tukwila. 5 • Make bus service convenient between the Mall and businesses on Southcenter Parkway and other areas. 4 • Provide more frequent service on the major bus lines. 4 • Provide more bus information to local businesses to pass on to their employees. 4 • Improve safety, especially on buses and at bus stops on Highway 99 (Route 174) and on other routes; there are drug sales going on at bus stops; people need to feel safe riding on the buses. "174 is the poster child for bus safety problems." 3 • Locate bus stops more conveniently. 3 • Acknowledge Tukwila as a destination (Boeing, Costco, Bon — Macy's, School District are all major employers); City says 50,000 commute to Tukwila everyday. 3 • Provide east -west service between S. 144th Street and Pacific Highway to the Tukwila Urban Center/Hwy. as well as Highway 99 to Interurban Ave. 2 • Coordinate bus schedules with the needs of retail sales people; Bon- Macy's employees begin work at 6 a.m., 9:30 a.m., 1:30 p.m. 1 • Maintain bus stops ( "Some look like trash pits. "). 1 • Provide more direct bus service in and out of Tukwila. 1 • Increase transit use promotions. 1 • Provide bus service for families who need to travel to social and health service providers. - • Make Southcenter Mall and Southcenter Parkway a more transit - friendly environment — better service, frequency, transit lanes, pullouts. - • Provide more access from residential areas to Tukwila businesses. - During the Christmas shopping time, the area is not a traffic - friendly place. It can take 40 minutes to exit the parking lot in December. A friendlier bus system could help to improve sales by allowing better access to the businesses from transit. In doing so, people could avoid the XIII • • • traffic and parking problems at Southcenter. Locally, it can take an hour to go two miles on the buses. Southcenter is especially busy on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. "Traffic is all about the weekends here." Local people don't come down to the Mall to shop on the weekends. There is no bus service to local neighborhoods, which means local people cannot take a bus to the Mall or the other Southcenter businesses. IDEAS FOR MARKETING TRANSIT USE First, there was consensus that if transit service can be improved, there will be more benefits to promote. Some of the marketing ideas suggested included: • Provide more bus information to local businesses to give to their employees; • Provide maps and information showing the system displayed in major transit centers; • Increase promotions and provide incentives for riding transit; • Six of the nine business participants are either already subsidizing bus travel, or would be willing to provide some kind of subsidized bus pass. They believe this is an excellent incentive to use transit; and • Some businesses might be willing to encourage bus use, but the concept would need to be tested first. CONCLUSION: WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT CHANGES / IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRANSIT SERVICE IN TUKWILA? Diane Mini van to provide service from Sounder to work More direct routes from Tukwila to other areas Todd: Make quick, easy connections from Sounder and Sound Transit coming into Tukwila Match transportation needs of those coming in to and out from Tukwila Teresa: A light rail system in place Shuttle system that runs in the Southcenter area Bill: Plan transportation services based upon the needs of the people Copy what has worked well elsewhere Look at some forms of alternative transportation (Sounder, light rail, people mover, etc.) Jean: Recognize that Tukwila is a destination and not just a pass - through area, and identify the needs of the people coming into this hub Mike: I have no confidence in the Metro bus system; it's more of a nuisance on Highway 99 Nancy: Make it quick, convenient and easy intra and inter; people need to know it's there and it's going to move them XIV • • Michael: People need to think of Tukwila as a hub and identify where the spokes go to increase ridership: South King County, Eastside, etc. Rick: Study the travel patterns of people coming in and out of Tukwila and travel times; suit transportation to travel needs INTEREST IN COMING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO LOOK AT ALTERNATIVES All were willing to come again and help to evaluate proposed improvements. A. BACKGROUND \-1 • 0 City • of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Control No. Epic File No. 05-011- Fee: Receipt No. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Update to Transportation Element 2. Name of applicant: Public Works Department, City of Tukwila • 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Cyndy Knighton, Senior Engineer, 206 - 433 -0179 4. Date checklist prepared: August 30, 2005 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): September 2005 - Planning Commission Public Hearing October 2005 - City Council Public Hearing November/December 2005 - Adoption 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None May 24, 2001 1 • • City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist 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. Private development permits throughout the City that generate new trips. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. Adoption by City Council. Certification by PSRC. 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. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternates of your proposal and should not be summarized here. Update to Transportation Element to bring into compliance with state laws and update existing and future conditions. 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 project is for the entire City of Tukwila transportation network. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? Includes sensitive areas. New roads will be subject to separate environmental review. May 24, 2001 2 • • City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: City -wide b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? N/A 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. N/A d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. N/A e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. N/A f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. No construction is directly authorized by this plan. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? N/A h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Standard BMP's for any widening or new construction. 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. May 24, 2001 3 • • City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist N/A b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Reducing congestion would reduce trip duration and, therefore, air pollution impacts. 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. Tukwila contains a portion of the Green/Duwamish River as well as tributary watercourses. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Unknown. Projects would be subject to independent environmental review. 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. N/A 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. N/A 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. N/A 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. N/A b. Ground: May 24, 2001 4 • • City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. N/A 2) Describe waste materials that will 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. N/A 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 will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. N/A Runoff from roadway and sidewalk surface. New impervious areas would collect and treat runoff per KCSWDM. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. N/A d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: N/A 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: N/A b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? None May 24, 2001 5 deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other Shrubs Grass Pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? None May 24, 2001 5 • • City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. N/A d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: N/A 5. Animals a. Circle any birds or animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: N/A Birds:. Mammals: Fish: Other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. N/A c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. N/A d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: N/A 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. N/A b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. N/A 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: N/A May 24, 2001 6 • • City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist 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. N/A 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: N/A b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? N/A 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short -term or long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. N/A Plan identifies needs to accommodate growth in traffic volumes through 2020. Plan does not generate new trips. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: N/A 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? N/A b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. N/A c. Describe any structures on the site. N/A d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? N/A May 24, 2001 7 ill City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? N/A f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? N/A 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. N/A i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? N/A j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? N/A None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A L Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: N/A May 24, 2001 8 • • City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing? None 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: N/A 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? N/A b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Street trees and other CSS where appropriate. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Street lighting associated with specific projects would be analyzed in independent environmental review. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? N/A c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? N/A d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: N/A May 24, 2001 9 • City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? N/A 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: Bike lanes. 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. N/A b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: N/A 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. N/A b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes — N/A c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? N/A d. Will 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). May 24, 2001 10 • • City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist This planning document doesn't require new street specifically, but it does establish a policy to maintain a minimum level of service. Certain recommendations of roadway improvements are developed which will maintain the level of service standards but other improvements could be made if they accomplish the same goal. Specific recommendations discussed in the plan include already programmed CIP projects, additional widening at several intersections and corridors, construction of the Southcenter Urban Access Improvement Project (separate environmental process required), a new street connecting Southcenter Parkway to Andover Park E, approximately on the S 168th Street alignment, and signal modifications at select intersections. Projects identified are to maintain the city's concurrency standard of LOS E at all key intersections and an average LOS E in the urban center. While the plan is modifying how the average is calculated with the existing transportation element, the minimum level of service standard does not change except in two locations. Strander Boulevard's average LOS will be allowed to reach LOS F with a maximum average delay for the corridor of 120 seconds. In order to accommodate the future Tukwila Urban Center Subarea Plan and Planned Action, the level of service standard along Andover Park E from Tukwila Parkway to Strander Boulevard is also set at LOS F. Impact fees, which are already in existence today, will continue to be a part of the financing plan. All net new trips generated by future growth will be subject to an impact fee, as they are already today. Impact fees neither encourage or discourage trip generation nor do they control or mitigate congestion directly. They are simply a tool used as part of the overall financing package that allows developers to pay their portion of projects costs while the City takes lead on design and construction. While the details of assessing new development's impact fee is changing, as is the fee structure to accommodate new projects and updated project costs, development still is only paying for their portion of the project cost e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Sounder, light rail, and Boeing Field are within Tukwila jurisdiction. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. N/A g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Plan identifies future needs and suggests capacity improvement to accommodate the growth. The Transportation Element does not generate any transportation impacts directly, it is simply a planning document to allow the needs of future growth to be accommodated in a logical manner. It will not reduce congestion but requires that congestion be maintained at or above an acceptable standard as established in the comprehensive plan, and subsequently adopted by ordinance. The City, as well as May 24, 2001 11 • • City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist new development, is required to maintain the minimum level of service standard. This requirement is not changing from the existing Transportation Element or concurrency ordinance, which implements the policies of the Transportation Element. As new development occurs, the developer is required to maintain the LOS standard. If adequate capacity already exists, the new development will not be required to provide any additional mitigation other than impact fee payment. If new development cannot be accommodated by the existing capacity (or future capacity if provided within 6 years), the developer can wait until capacity is available, provide trip reduction strategies to reduce the impact, or construct additional capacity. The City may also institute a moratorium to control growth should facilities not be available. This requirement already exists in today's concurrency ordinance, is outlined in TMC 9.48, RCW 36.70A, WAC 365 -195 -835, WAC 365- 195 -510, WAC 365 -195 -070 and is not proposed to change with this update. 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. N/A - No b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. N/A 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. N/A 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. N/A May 24, 2001 12 • o City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist 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: n_ a- tet3t1..) suet. el 1 05 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON PROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result form the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than in the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The plan will not directly increase or decrease water discharge, emissions, hazardous substances or noise. It is establishes policies on minimum levels of service that must be maintained and suggests specific projects to ensure compliance with concurrency standards at 2020. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Policies supporting increased use of non - motorized transportation and HOV. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish or marine life? N/A Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? N/A Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: May 24, 2001 13 • • City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for government protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? N/A Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incomplatible with existing plans? N/A Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? None — Proposal will address demands from land use plans and new development. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. None May 24, 2001 14 • • City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist F. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the foregoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objectives of the proposal? Update the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? - Revise individual policies on as- needed basis. - Update functional plans exclusively. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: Overall update of Transportation Element preferred and required by state law to achieve "comprehensive" results with major new growth on the horizon. 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? N/A 5. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: N/A Continue to next page. May 24, 2001 15 • • City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist City of Tukwila Endangered Species Act Screening Checklist Date: August 30, 2005 Applicant Name: City of Tukwila Public Works Street Address: 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 City, State, Zip: Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: 206 - 433 -0179 DIRECTIONS This Screening Checklist 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. May 24, 2001 16 City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part A: Please review and answer each question carefully. 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 YES - Continue to Question 1 -1 (Page 3) 2 -0 Will the project require any form of clearing? 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. NO - 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 respect to vegetation (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Page 18 -15). Please circle appropriate response. NO - 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, Tukwila Zoning Code, Page 18 -11). This includes fuel or other chemicals stored on -site during construction. Please circle appropriate response. NO - 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 YES - Continue to Question 6 -0 May 24, 2001 17 City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist 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 land (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. NO — 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 Rivers between the ordinary high water mark and top of bank? This includes any projects that will require grading on any slope leading to a river 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. NO - 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/Duwamish 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. NO - 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 the natural infiltration or runoff patterns existing prior to development. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 1 -4 Part B (continued) May 24, 2001 18 III • City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist 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. NO - 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. NO - 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. NO - Continue to Question 2 -4 YES - Continue to Question 2 -3 2 -3 Will the project involve clearing of any evergreen trees from within 200 feet of the ordinary high 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. NO - 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 Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 1) YES - Continue to Question 2 -5 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. NO - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) May 24, 2001 19 City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part D: Please review each question below for projects that include work below the ordinary high water mark of watercourses or the Duwamish /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 to 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 temporary 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 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 limited 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 May 24, 2001 20 City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part D (continued 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) May 24, 2001 21 • • Evaluation Form (City Use) The following questions and evaluation matrix are intended to provide threshold information for your project or action that is specific to the location of the project or action relative to salmonid- bearing watercourses or rivers in the City of Tukwila. If you answered Yes to any questions on the screening checklist, please answer the following questions. N/A ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Will the project or action occur in the drainage basin for Gilliam Creek, Southgate Creek, Pal Creek, or Riverton Creek? (circle answer) Yes Continue to Al. No Continue to A2. Al. Is your project or action in that portion of the drainage basins upstream of the general salmonid range of these watercourses as shown on the City's outfall map? (circle answer) Yes Check Path A Below. No Check Path B Above. A2. Will the project or action drain or outfall directly to the Duwamish/ Green River or Black River without first draining to a separate watercourse? (circle answer) Yes Check Path C Below. No Continue to A -3. A3. You have indicated that the project or action is located in a drainage basin containing a watercourse that does not support salmonid fish use. Do you have specific knowledge that indicates that salmonid fish -use occurs in this watercourse? (circle answer) Yes Check Path B Below. No Check Path A Below. ❑ Path A ❑ Path B ❑ Path C Once you have checked the appropriate box, proceed to the evaluation matrix on the following page. Page 1 • • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST EVALUATION MATRIX The following matrix evaluates the project or action's potential for take based on all of your answers to the questions in the screening checklist. The matrix is organized using the same question levels as the screening checklist. Based on the box you checked at the end of the preceding page, follow the appropriate path across the matrix (Path A, B, or C), circling or shading the appropriate box for each question. Numbers provided in parentheses () refer to the rationale for the determination of "no- take" or "take ". Refer to the Rationale section, below, for an explanation. Section 1 is question on the screening checklist addresses the discharge of stormwater to another basin. Fish presence at the site in the receiving basin should be evaluated. Section 2 Evaluation Matrix Questions and Answers From Screening Checklist Path 1 -1 Yes 1 -2 Yes Path A No take indicated (1) Take of coho, cutthroat, and chinook is indicated (3) Path B Take of coho and cutthroat is indicated (2) Take of coho, cutthroat, and chinook is indicated (2)(3) Path C Take of coho, cutthroat, and chinook is indicated (2) Take of coho, cutthroat, and chinook is indicated (2)(3) is question on the screening checklist addresses the discharge of stormwater to another basin. Fish presence at the site in the receiving basin should be evaluated. Section 2 Evaluation Matrix Page 2 Questions and Answers from Screening Checklist Path 2 -3 Yes 2 -4 Yes 2 -5 Yes Path A No Take indicated (1)(4) No Take indicated (1)(4) Take of coho, cutthroat, and chinook is indicated (2)(3) Path B Take of coho and cutthroat is indicated (2)(3) Take of coho and cutthroat is indicated (2)(3) Take of coho, cutthroat, and chinook is indicated (2)(3) Path C Take of coho, cutthroat, and chinook is indicated (2) Take of coho, cutthroat, and chinook is indicated (2) Take of coho, cutthroat, and chinook is indicated (2)(3) Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Section 3 Evaluation Matrix Section 3 Evaluation Matrix Cont. Questions and Answers from Screening Checklist Path 3 -1 Yes 3 -2 Yes 3 -3 Yes 3 -4 Yes Path A No take indicated (1) N/A No take indicated (1) No take indicated (1) Path B Take of coho and cutthroat is indicated (2)(3) N/A Take of coho and cutthroat is indicated (2) Take of coho and cutthroat is indicated (2)(3) Path C Take of coho, cutthroat, and chinook is indicated (2)(3) Take of coho, cutthroat, and chinook is indicated (2)(3) Take of coho, cutthroat, and chinook is indicated (2) Take of coho, cutthroat, and chinook is indicated (2)(3) Section 3 Evaluation Matrix Cont. Section 4 Evaluation Matrix Question and Answer from Screening Checklist Path 4 -0 Yes Page 3 Questions and Answers from Screening Checklist Path 3 -5 Yes 3 -6 Yes 3 -7 Yes 3 -8 Yes Path A No take indicated (1)(4) Take of coho and cutthroat is indicated (3) No take indicated (1)(4) No take indicated (1)(4) Path B Take of coho and cutthroat is indicated (2)(3) Take of coho and cutthroat is indicated (2)(3) Take of coho and cutthroat is indicated (2)(3) Take of coho and cutthroat is indicated (2)(3) Path C Take of coho, cutthroat, and chinook is indicated (2)(3) No take indicated (1)(4) Take of coho, cutthroat, and chinook is indicated (2)(3) Take of coho, cutthroat, and chinook is indicated (2)(3) Section 4 Evaluation Matrix Question and Answer from Screening Checklist Path 4 -0 Yes Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Paths A, B or C Take of coho, cutthroat, and chinook is indicated (3) Section 5 Evaluation Matrix Question and Answer from Screening Checklist Path 5 -0 Yes Paths A, B or C Take of coho and cutthroat is indicated (3) Section 6 Evaluation Matrix Question and Answer from Screening Checklist Path 6 -0 Yes Paths A, B or C Take of coho, cutthroat, and chinook is indicated (3) Rationale 1 - No salmonid use occurs within areas directly affected by the project. This action is not anticipated to have a direct effect on salmonids and is not anticipated to result in take as a result of direct affects. (Note: Indirect impacts are evaluated separately.) 2 Habitats in these watercourses or rivers are either directly used by salmonids or support pathway- indicator relationships that are critical for salmonids. Actions effecting these habitats may result in the take of a salmonid. 3 All projects in the City ultimately drain to salmonid- bearing waters. The results of these actions may result in significant secondary alteration to receiving waters that may support salmonid use. Significant secondary effect to these areas may result in the take of salmonids using habitats in these areas. 4 All projects in the City ultimately drain to salmonid- bearing waters. The results of these actions are not anticipated to result in a significant change in the receiving bodies or they may result in a change but are not anticipated to result in an affect to salmonids or a critical habitat element. Page 4