Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E98-0032 - SOUND TRANSIT - TUKWILA COMMUTER RAIL STATIONTACOMA TO SEATTLE COMMUTER LIGHT RAIL SOUND TRANSIT TUKWILA COMMUTER RAIL STATION E98-0032 November 16, 2001 Paul Price, Director C/o Sound Transit Union Station 401 Jackson St. Seattle, WA 98104 Subject: Sound Transit Permits Dear Mr. Price: Thank you for clarifying the program to improve the railroad track and communication systems through the City of Tukwila. Because of the proposed project's proximity to the City of Renton and the acquisition of additional right of way within the City of Renton, you may wish to inform and consult with them on the proposed retaining wall along the east side of the tracks. Our understanding is that all the work will be occurring in BNSF right of way and BNSF acquired right of way; therefore, permits will not be required. Because the work is taking place immediately adjacent to sensitive sites, including the Green River, we would like a copy of the proposed construction schedule and to review the revegetation plans for the disturbed shorelines before the work is begun. Thank you again for consulting with the City on the proposed improvements. Sincerely, Moira Carr Bradshaw Associate Planner C: Jennifer Henning C:\mcb\ST\sounder\991tr1026.doc City of Tukwila CAPITAL FINANCIAL PLAN for 2000 2005 OTHER PROJECT TITLE (Fund 104/02 Comm. Streets) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 TOTAL SOURCES Pacific Hwy (S 116 Wy - S 152 St) 7542 2730 4400 4400 0 0 19072 11233 Annual Overlay and Repair 2165 1050 1050 1050 1100 1200 7615 100 Green River Valley Signal Coordination I 772 150 150 0 0 0 1072 952 Interurban (S 139 St - Fort Dent Way) 458 0 0 0 0 0 458 7436 Southcenter Parkway Signals 205 97 0 0 0 0 302 0 Southcenter Pkwy (S 180 St - So City Limits) 381 0 0 0 0 0 381 5722 -S 180 St (U.P. & BNRR X-ing Improvements) 1 159 0 0 0 0 0 159 143 West Valley Hwy & Strander Blvd. 496 0 0 0 0 0 496 430 Rockery Replacement Program 100 300 0 0 0 0 400 0 Annual Traffic Signal Program 70 70 70 70 70 70 420 0 Strander Ext. to SW 27 St (Oaksdale) 50 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 Traffic Signal Interconnect 25 70 780 0 0 0 875 680 Airport Way/BNSF Signal 230 0 0 0 0 0 230 0 West Valley (1-405 - Strander Blvd) r 0 580 0 0 0 0 580 530 Pacific Hwy/S 116th Wy/SR599 on-ramp 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 3250 Andover Park West (Tukwila Pkwy to Strander Blvd) 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 400 E Marginal Way (BAR - S 112 St) 0 0 35 0 0 0 35 1360 S 133 St/SR599 SB off Intersection 0 0 30 320 0 0 350 300 Minkler Blvd (Andover Pk W - Southcntr Pkwy) 0 0 0 0 0 425 425 425 Andover Park East/Industry Dr. Intersection 0 0 0 0 0 220 220 190 West Valley Hwy/S. 156 Street ; 0 0 0 725 0 0 725 600 S 143 St (Interurban - Duwamish) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 134 St (S 133 St - 48 Ave S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Strander Blvd/58 Ave S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 130 PI (56 Ave S - 50 PIS) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. S 180 St/57 Ave S. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 180 St and Andover Park West 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pac Hwy (BAR - S 116 Way) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nelsen Place (S 158 St - S 156 St) i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total 12653 5047 6715 6565 1170 1915 34065 33751 33 Cip104_2 printed 12/20/99 CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2000 to 2005 PROJECT: Green River Valley Signal Coordination LINE ITEM: 104 / 02. 595 . xxx . xx . 92 , PROJECT NO. 92-RW01 DESCRIPTION: Coordinate W Valley and S 180 St/SW 43 signals, provide coordination with freeway ramp metering expand to other arterials crossing boundaries. JUSTIFICATION: Kent, Renton, Tukwila, King County and WSDOT signals have been controlled by each agency; coordination will improve safety and reduce congestion. STATUS: Evaluation and initial coordination means have been completed; purchasing equipment and installing interconnect cable is next. MAINT. IMPACT: Reduce maintenance by having coordination COMMENT: Starting Phase III PS&E for initial coordination. ISTEA grant = $492,000. FINANCIAL Thru Est',mted in $000's 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 BEYOND TOTAL EXPENSES Engineering 70 25 476 150 150 871 Land (RMI) 0 Construction 296 296 TOTAL EXPENSES 70 25 772 150 150 0 0 0 0 1167 FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant 70 672 742 Proposed Grant 140 140 280 Mitigat. Actual 0 Mitigat. Expected 0 City Oper. Rev. 0 25 100 10 10 0 0 0 0 145 TOTAL SOURCES 70 25 772 150 150 0 0 0 0 1167 36 PROJECT LOCATIONS CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2000 to 2005 PROJECT: S 180 St (U.P. & BNRR X-ing Improvements) LINE ITEM: 104 / 02 . 595 . xxx . xx . 02. , PROJECT NO. 87-RWO9 DESCRIPTION: Design RR pre-empt signal to alleviate vehicle queuing problems on S. 180 St. and to improve traffic flow. Pre-empt signal connection to nearby roadway signals. JUSTIFICATION: Long lines of traffic along S. 180 St. from RR tracks to signals. STATUS: MAINT. IMPACT: Awarded grant. Design & construct in 2000. COMMENT: Hazard Elimination & Safety (HES) Grant $142,560. FINANCIAL Thru Est',mted (in $000's) 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 BEYOND TOTAL EXPENSES Engineering 39 39 Land (RMI) 0 Construction 120 120 TOTAL EXPENSES 0 0 159 0 0 0 0 0 0 159 FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant 143 143 Proposed Grant 0 Mitigat. Actual 0 Mitigat. Expected 0 City Oper. Rev. 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 TOTAL SOURCES 0 0 159 0 0 0 0 0 0 159 PROJECT LOCATION 40 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2000 to 2005 PROJECT: West Valley Hwy & Strander Blvd. LINE ITEM: 104 / 02 . 595 . xxx . xx . 12 , PROJECT NO. DESCRIPTION: Design and construct safety and capacity improvements for trail pedestrian left turn lanes. JUSTIFICATION: Pedestrians cross between Interurban and Green River Trails. Northbound affecting safety and capacity. STATUS: Design underway, completion scheduled for December 1999. Construction of Yr 2000. MAINT. IMPACT: Minimal COMMENT: 93 -RW 11 traffic and northbound dual lefts queue through curves scheduled to start 1st quarter FINANCIAL Thru Est',mted (in $000's) 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 BEYOND TOTAL EXPENSES Engineering 85 96 181 Land (RMI) 0 Construction 297 400 697 TOTAL EXPENSES 0 382 496 0 0 0 0 0 0 878 FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant 430 430 Proposed Grant 0 Mitigat. Actual 0 Mitigat. Expected 0 City Oper. Rev. 0 382 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 448 TOTAL SOURCES 0 382 496 0 0 0 0 0 0 878 41 PROJECT LOCATION CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2000 to 2005 PROJECT: Strander Ext. to SW 27 St (Oaksdale) LINE ITEM: 104 / 02 . 595. xxx . xx . 57 , PROJECT NO. 86-RWO3 DESCRIPTION: Design and construct arterial improvements; design report to select alternatives and identify costs. Proposed project will be a grade separation. JUSTIFICATION: East/west capacity between 1-405 and S 180 Street is needed to serve Tukwila and Renton access. STATUS: This is a City of Renton project. Funding reflects Tukwila's contribution. MAINT. IMPACT: New street COMMENT: FINANCIAL Thru Est',mted O's 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 BEYOND TOTAL EXPENSES Engineering 50 50 Land (RMI) 0 Construction 0 TOTAL EXPENSES 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant 0 Proposed Grant 0 Mitigat Actual 0 Mitigat Expected 0 City Oper. Rev. 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 TOTAL SOURCES 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 44 PROJECT LOCATION CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2000 to 2005 PROJECT: Traffic Signal Interconnect LINE ITEM: 104 / 02 . 595. xxx . xx . 01 , PROJECT NO. 88-RWO2 Design hard wire interconnect to coordinate and operate traffic signals using a signal master. DESCRIPTION: JUSTIFICATION: The CBD signals are not interconnected to provide coordination and traffic progression. STATUS: Substantial amounts of conduit have been replaced with City and developer construction. MAINT. IMPACT: Reduced signal timing maintenance and operation (m&o). COMMENT: Start with design report evaluation to identify costs. FINANCIAL Thru Est',mted (in $000's) 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 BEYOND TOTAL EXPENSES Engineering 25 70 100 195 Land (R/W) 0 Construction 680 680 TOTAL EXPENSES 0 0 25 70 780 0 0 0 0 875 FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant 0 Proposed Grant 56 624 680 Mitigat. Actual 0 Mitigat. Expected 0 City Oper. Rev. 0 0 25 14 156 0 0 0 0 195 TOTAL SOURCES 0 0 25 70 780 0 0 0 0 875 45 PROJECT LOCATION • CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2000 to 2005 PROJECT: West Valley (1-405 - Strander Blvd) LINE ITEM: 104 / 02 . 595. xxx . xx . , PROJECT NO. 84-RW31 DESCRIPTION: Design and construct completing pieces with c/g/sw drainage, lighting and traffic control. JUSTIFICATION: Portions have been completed by development. Safety and capacity items need completion. STATUS: Continuing work with development. MAINT. IMPACT: Reduction of maintenance. COMMENT: FINANCIAL Thru Est',mted (in $000's) 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 BEYOND TOTAL EXPENSES Engineering 120 120 Land (RMI) 0 Construction 460 460 TOTAL EXPENSES 0 0 0 580 0 0 0 0 0 580 FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant 0 Proposed Grant 0 Mitigat. Actual 0 Mitigat. Expected 530 530 City Oper. Rev. 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 50 TOTAL SOURCES 0 0 0 580 0 0 0 0 0 580 46 CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2000 to 2005 PROJECT: West Valley Hwy/S. 156 Street LINE ITEM: 104 / 02 . 595. xxx . xx . 43 , PROJECT NO. 93-RW10 DESCRIPTION: Design and construct safety and capacity improvements. JUSTIFICATION: Vehicle and pedestrian safety and capacity improvement needed. STATUS: Resubmit grant application. MAINT. IMPACT: Primarily state; minimal change. COMMENT: Has developer contributions. FINANCIAL Thru Est,mted 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 BEYOND TOTAL EXPENSES Engineering 125 125 Land (RAN) 0 Construction 600 600 TOTAL EXPENSES 0 0 0 0 0 725 0 0 0 725 FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant 0 Proposed Grant 300 300 Mitigat Actual 0 Mitigat Expected 300 300 City Oper. Rev. 0 0 0 0 0 125 0 0 0 125 TOTAL SOURCES 0 0 0 0 0 725 0 0 0 725 S i44 St S146St i-;: 1 HN T sr. OT N 6 a 1< 9 ^ SI48Stj,-1" S147S:1 I`m S iCa St I S IS 158 St !. S 149 Si ISII51 St T, S ISe St 11 PROJECT LOCATION 53 CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2000 to 2005 PROJECT: Nelsen Place (S 158 St - S 156 St) LINE ITEM: 104 / 02. 595. xxx . xx . 80 , PROJECT NO. 84-RW13 Design and construct to eliminate flooding, provide sidewalks, trail access, lighting, pavement restoration and access. JUSTIFICATION: Flooding reduces to one lane, no sidewalks, pavement is failing due to drainage. DESCRIPTION: STATUS: Preliminary survey made; design report needed. MAINT. IMPACT: Reduce pavement and drainage work. COMMENT: Project provides safety not a capacity mitigation. FINANCIAL Thru Est',mted (in $000's) 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 BE '-- EXPENSES Engineering 50 50 Land (RMI) Construction 0 Awarded Grant 0 Proposed Grant 0 Mitigat. Actual 0 Mitigat Expected 0 City Oper. Rev. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 200 TOTAL SOURCES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 200 PROJECT LOCATION st_ i 3 150 \�' par :oans,77l a''i��Oml —I 6i1ck D N' i2tv 61 SOUNDTRANSIT July 29, 1999 • 7999 Steve Lancaster, Director Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Sound Transit — Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Unclassified Use Permit Application #L99-0042 Design Review #L99-0043 - Short Plat #L99-0041 Dear Steve: 798 - oo� S Z9 -4/z. 4-99- 0.0_3 -6-9g -005 2_ Contract #: P.O. #: Subject File Code #: ST7200 Ref: Control # (If Known) Sound Transit recently received notice of completeness from your staff on the above referenced -applications. With this letter we would like to request that the following enclosed documents are included in the record of decision by the City of Tukwila. / • Sound Move (the Ten -Year Regional transit System Plan) including appendices G2 • Sound Transit Resolutions Nos. 72 (adopting financial policies) and 73 (adopting Sound Move) 3 • Sound Transit 1999 Budget / • Sound Transit Board Resolutions and Motions relating to the Tukwila commuter rail station 5 • SEPA Notices of the Adoption for the Environmental Assessment (June 1998) ' (P •The NEPA EA (Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Project) 7 • 1993 Regional Ttansit System Plan SEPA Environmental Impact Statement MI5 t9• Sound Transit Real Property Acquisition and Relocation Policy Our purpose for submitting these documents is merely to bolster the administrative record should it need to be reviewed subsequently in any legislative or judicial action. These documents contain factual information about the project, its context and its effects, but should be considered background information. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority 1100 Second Ave., Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101-3423 Reception 206.684.6776 Facsimile 206.684.1234 www. s o u n d t ra n s i t. o rg i Chair is Paid ;Miller lltennrrt Co„nte,hne,n/,e,. Vice Chairs Dave l:':rt•Iing Edmond,. Coa'veihne„l/'Cl ,1 Greg, Nkkels Bing Comity Cn,ineilntember Ann D:ivis Lakewood C ooneiitrte,nbe,• Bob Dre,vel.- Snnbnnn.'/, C,,riily /•rreeatire David l;nslo‘‘` Snnnte,• Canm•ilnu•m/,e,-.,_ • . \l:u;v Gates /•edera/ 11'"nil Cuaneihn4ntbe,• , .fano Hague '. 4 King County CnuneilntenVnw Ed I l:nsen /irereu aht yu,• I�{ Richard ,McIver Srnl!le C onneihnember Koh McKenna , 1 King County Cnnneihnentbi•i" Sid ;Morrison' II`a.,hi,tgln,t .Sink. Deparintenf , n/ Tran.,pnrlalion .Seerelmy Dave Russell Kirk/and Cntn e hnemhr•r Paul Schell Seattle dingo,. Ron Sims Bing Cnmthl F.reealire Cynthia Sullivan Bing County Cnluteihnember Doug. Sutherland Pierce County Executive Jim White Kent ,l/a/or Executive Director Bob White • • Steve Lancaster/City of Tukwila August 3, 1999 Page —2— We believe that the record compiled by City staff will be adequate for the purposes of the City Council's decision on the above referenced applications. We are not requesting that the Council review these additional documents nor make any findings or conclusions with respect to these documents. We appreciate the opportunity to submit these documents into the record. Sincerely, Val Batey Project Development Manager c: Perry Weinberg, Sound Transit VB:cjC File:SL080399-Tukwila.comilename H TRANSPORTATION SIPOR" "ATION E q`b -CkI32_ 1-1:-1,i1FFRON MEMORANDUM Date: May 17, 1999 To: Val Batey, Sound Transit CC: Lloyd Skinner, Adolfson Associates, Inc. Dan Nelson, MBT Architecture From: Tod S. McBryan, P.E Subject: Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Transportation Analysis This memorandum presents transportation impacts analysis to support the Unclassified Use Permit application for the Tukwila Commuter Rail Station proposed by Sound Transit. This memorandum responds to comments and requests made by the City of Tukwila Public Works Department after the Pre -Application meeting of February 11, 1999. Subsequently, a list of comments and Traffic Analysis Requirements were provided to Sound Transit on March 17, 1999. Sound Transit is proposing to construct the Tukwila Commuter Rail Station in two phases. These phases are primarily distinguished by the total number of parking spaces. Phase 1 would provide 413 parking spaces. Phase 2 would expand the parking lot to provide approximately 640 parking spaces and Amtrak service would commence. This memorandum presents traffic analysis for both phases of development. The analyses are based on the most current commuter -rail -ridership forecasts, mode -split estimates, and train schedule data. Station Vehicular Traffic Commuter rail is expected to decrease regional traffic volumes by providing rail service from Lakewood through Tacoma to Seattle with a connection to Everett. It is expected that the commuter rail service would reduce the amount of through traffic on regional highways such as Interstate -5 and Interstate -405 and would also increase the mass -transit capacity. An increase in traffic, however, is expected at and around commuter rail station sites such as Tukwila. The Phase- 1 traffic analysis for the Tukwila Station considers the commuter rail ridership and traffic impacts that would occur near the station with the proposed 413 park-and-ride spaces. This Phase -1 park-and-ride lot would support a ridership level of approximately 590 boardings per day; approximately 65% of the year 2010 ridership which is forecast to be 900 boardings per day. Phase 2 would add 227 spaces (for a total of 640spaces) and would serve the forecast year 2010 ridership. Off-site, site -access, and parking impacts would be directly related to the ridership activity and mode of travel for riders at the station. All passenger -vehicle traffic would access the site from the west (SR 181/West Valley Highway) at either S Strander Boulevard or S 158th Street (Longacres Way). Access to the east through the Boeing Longacres site would be limited to bus transit. The following summarizes analysis of Phase -1 and Phase -2 conditions. 4133 Interlake Avenue N • Seattle, WA 98103 • Phone: (206) 547-7170 Fax: (206) 547-7744 i Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Transportation Analysis May 17, 1999 Page 2 of 7 Trip Generation HTRANSPORTATION HEFFRON The number of trips generated by the proposed station for Phase 1 was derived based on ridership that could occur with the number of proposed parking spaces. Trip generation for Phase 2 was simply based on forecast 2010 ridership estimates. Ridership estimates were combined with anticipated train schedules and mode -split estimates provided by Sound Transit. The Phase 1 commuter rail station would provide 413 parking spaces and would serve approximately 590 daily boardings. Phase 2 would add 227 parking spaces (for a total of 640 spaces) and would serve 900 daily boardings in year 2010. This traffic impact analysis evaluates conditions during the PM peak hour. Based on a recent 24-hour traffic count performed by the City of Tukwila (September, 10, 1998) on West Valley Highway north of Strander Boulevard, the PM peak hour traffic volumes are more than 23% higher than the AM peak hour volumes. Furthermore, the difference between existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at this location is greater than the volume that would be added by the commuter rail station. Therefore, the PM peak hour is the worst- case condition for determining the off-site and site -access transportation improvements needed to accommodate the commuter rail station. Afternoon commuter rail service would operate from 4:00 to 8:00 P.M. The estimated mode -split percentages and number of vehicle trips for the afternoon period are summarized in Table I. It is recognized that the proximity of the Interurban Trail, the Boeing Longacres site, and some hotels would likely result in some walk and bicycle trips to and from the station site. However, since there are few residences within walking or bicycling distance, Sound Transit has not forecast regular walk or bicycle commuter trips to the station. In order to represent a worst-case condition for vehicular traffic impacts and offsite traffic mitigation, no walk or bicycle trips to the station were assumed for this analysis. Since all of the transit and some of the reverse commute patrons would board buses after arriving at the station in the afternoon, it was assumed that two vehicle trips (one bus in, and one bus out) would be generated for every 12 reverse commute and transit/bus patrons. As shown, in Table 1, the Phase 1 station is forecast to generate approximately 525 vehicle trips during the afternoon service period (4:00 to 8:00 P.M.). The total number of daily vehicle trips would be roughly double this afternoon amount or approximately 1,050 trips per day. The Phase 2 station is forecast to generate approximately 802 vehicle trips during the afternoon service period (4:00 to 8:00 P.M.). The total number of daily vehicle trips would be roughly double this afternoon amount or approximately 1,604 trips per day. Table 1. Mode Split and Afternoon (4:00 to 8:00 P.M.) Vehicle Trips — Tukwila Station Vehicle Trips During Four -Hour PM Peak Period Percentage Phase 1 (65% of 2010 Boardings) Phase 2 (Year 2010 - 900 Boardings) # of Riders In Out Total # of Riders In Out Total Afternoon Ridership Modes By Mode Auto/Park Auto/Kiss & Ride Walk/Bike Reverse Commute (Transit) Transit/Bus 413 0 413 413 46 46 46 92 630 0 ' 630 630 70 70 70 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 5 5 10 100 8 8 16 66 5 5 10 100 8 8 16 Total Commuter Rail 100% 591 56 469 525 900 86 716 802 Source: Mode split information from Sound Transit; ridership and trip estimates derived by Heffron Transportation, 1999. The afternoon peak direction (southbound) commuter rail ridership would be distributed on six trains; the off- peak direction (northbound) ridership would be distributed on three trains. Sound Transit has estimated the fraction of passengers it expects on each peak direction train. Table 2 summarizes the afternoon peak direction commuter rail schedule and the estimated passenger loading percentages. • Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Transportation Analysis May 17, 1999 Page 3 of 7 HEIPFRON TRA1SPORTAT1Oil Table 2. Afternoon Train Schedule and Passenger Loading Percentages — Tukwila Station Approximate Train Arrival Time 3:49 P.M. 4:21 P.M. 4:24 P.M. 5:04 P.M. 5:21 P.M. 5:34 P.M. 5:56 P.M. 6:04 P.M. 6:34 P.M. Estimated Southbound Estimated Northbound Passenger Load Percentages Passenger Load Percentages 12.8% 17.9% 23.1% 23.1% 12.8% 10.3% 30.0% 35.0% 35.0% Source: Southbound— Sound Transit, 1998; Northbound — Heffron Transportation estimate, 1999. The PM peak hour of the adjacent roadways occurs from approximately 4:15 to 5:15 P.M. During this time, two southbound commuter rail trains would arrive with approximately 41% of the peak direction afternoon ridership at the Tukwila Station (17.9% on the 4:24 P.M. train plus 23.1% on the 5:04 P.M. train). In addition, one train would depart the station northbound for Seattle with approximately 30% of the off-peak direction afternoon ridership. Although the commuter rail station would generate the most traffic between 5:00 and 6:00 P.M. (when two southbound trains would arrive with approximately 46% of the peak direction afternoon riders), the traffic volumes on adjacent roadways decrease by more than 20% after 5:15 P.M. Therefore, the 4:15 to 5:15 P.M. hour is the most appropriate for traffic impact analysis, and all analyses were performed for the street's peak hour. The percentage of commuter rail passengers arriving and departing between 4:15 and 5:15 P.M. was applied to the total afternoon vehicle trips (presented in Table 1) to determine the PM peak hour trip generation at the Tukwila Station. As summarized in Table 3, the Phase 1 station proposal would result in approximately 215 PM peak hour vehicle trips. For Phase 2, additional traffic anticipated to be generated by the Amtrak component was added. Phase 2 would result in approximately 360 PM peak hour vehicle trips. These trip generation estimates are consistent with those determined in previous traffic studies of the Tukwila Station in the Tacoma - to -Seattle Commuter Rail Draft Environmental Assessment and Environmental Checklist (Adolfson Associates, Inc., December 1997). Table 3. PM Peak Hour trip Generation — Action Alternative Travel Modes Phase 1— PM Peak Hour Vehicle Tripsa Phase 2 — PM Peak Hour Vehicle Tripsa In Out Total In Out Total Auto/Park 0 169 169 0 246 246 Auto/Kiss & Ride 19 19 38 29 29 58 Reverse Commute 2 2 4 3 3 6 Transit/Bus 2 2 4 3 3 6 Amtrak Passengers N/Ab 14 28 42 Total 23 192 215 49 309 358 Source: Heffron Transportation, 1999. a. PM peak hour of street network in the Tukwila Station vicinity occurs from 4:15 to 5:15 P.M. b. Amtrak service would not occur with Phase 1. Tukwila. Commuter Rail Station Transportation Analysis May 17, 1999 Page4of7 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment EF]FRON TRANSPOR'TATION A project trip distribution pattern (routes that patrons would use to arrive at or depart from the station) was developed from Sound Transit model results of commuter rail alightings at the Tukwila Station. As would be expected, the majority of passengers would come from areas east of the station. Figure 1 (attached) shows the station trip distribution pattern for Phase 1 and Phase 2 conditions. As shown, approximately 8% of project trips would be destined to residential areas in north Tukwila. Over 88% would be destined to residential areas east of SR 167 such as Fairwood, Maplewood and Kent East Hill neighborhoods served by SR 515 (Benson Road) and Petrovitsky Road. The primary roadway corridors that would serve this traffic include: S 180th Street/Carr Road/SE 176th Street, Grady Way/SR 515, and S 212th Street/S 208th Street. Station trips were assigned to the roadway network according to the distribution pattern described previously. Specific site access conditions, such as the anticipated secondary access point at Strander Boulevard were considered as trips were assigned to roadways and intersections very near the station site. Figure 2 (attached) shows the total PM peak hour Phase 1 trip assignment; Figure 3 (attached) shows the total PM peak hour Phase 2 trip assignment. To evaluate the impact of the station proposal, project trips were added to the year -2010 -without project traffic forecasts which were developed for the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Draft Environmental Assessment and Environmental Checklist (Adolfson Associates, Inc., December 1997). These 2010 traffic forecasts represent overall background traffic growth of more than 20% and between 1.5% and 1.8% annually from 1998. Both Phase 1 and Phase 2 project traffic impacts were evaluated with year -2010 background traffic conditions to represent a worst-case analysis. Traffic Operations Project impacts to most off-site intersections have already been evaluated as part of the SEPA process in the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Draft Environmental Assessment and Environmental Checklist (Adolfson Associates, Inc., December 1997). However, the exact location of the project site and its access configuration was not known. Therefore, this analysis evaluates the local impacts to intersections that would be affected by the site location and access plan. Three intersections would be affected: SR 181/S 156th Street, SR 181/S 158th Street, and SR 181/S Strander Boulevard. Level of service analysis was performed for these three intersections. Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure used to characterize traffic operating conditions. Six letter designations, "A" through "F," are used to define the level of service. LOS A is the best and represents good traffic operations with little or no delay to motorists. LOS F is the worst and indicates poor traffic operations with long delays. Level of service is defined in terms of delay. For signalized intersections, delay is dependent on a number of variables, including traffic volumes, lane configuration, signal cycle length, and green -time ratio for the lane group or approach in question. For unsignalized intersections, delay is based on the number of gaps in the major street traffic in which a vehicle can enter or pass through the major street. A complete description of level of service criteria for signalized and unsignalized intersections is attached. Level of service for the three signalized study area intersections was determined using procedures in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 1997 Update). LOS analysis was performed for existing, 2010 -without -project, and 2010 -with -project (Phase 1 and Phase 2) conditions. Since the City of Tukwila is currently completing a channelization improvement plan for the SR 181/S Strander Boulevard intersection, all future -year analyses assume that improvement (the addition of a second northbound left -turn lane). All other analyses assume existing channelization, signal sequence, and cycle lengths (determined from recent field observation). However, phase splits were optimized. Table 4 summarizes the PM peak hour levels of service at the three study area intersections. As shown, growth in background traffic is expected to degrade operations at S 156th Street and S Strander Boulevard to LOS E. • Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Transportation Analysis May 17, 1999 Page 5 of 7 Th4[HE1VIPRON TRANSPORTATION However, project traffic would not degrade operations further. The SR 181/S 158th Street intersection, would be degraded by project traffic from LOS C to LOS D. This degradation would not require mitigation. LOS calculation worksheets are attached. Table 4. Tukwila Station Intersection Level of Service — 2010 Without- and With -Project Conditions Signalized Intersection 1998 Existing LOS1 Delay2 V/C3 2010 W/O Project LOS Delay V/C 2010 W/ Phase 1 LOS Delay V/C 2010 W/ Phase 2 LOS Delay V/C SR 181 (W Valley Hwy)/S 156th Street SR 181 (W Valley Hwy)/S 158th Street SR 181 (W Valley Hwy)/S Strander Blvd D 40.7 0.78 C 21.1 0.66 D 43.3 0.80 E 76.9 0.94 C 34.9 0.80 E 57.4 0.92 E 77.3 0.96 D 47.7 0.85 E 62.3 0.93 E 78.2 0.97 D 47.8 0.85 E 69.4 0.95 Source: 1. 2. 3. Heffron Transportation, 1999. Level of service. Average seconds of delay per vehicle. Volume -to -capacity ratio. Site Access As described previously, site access would occur from S 158th Street at the north end of the site, and S Strander Boulevard at thesouth end of the site. Access to the south would be controlled at the SR 181/S Strander Boulevard intersection and was analyzed in the previous section. Access to S 158th Street would be controlled by a stop sign at the station driveway. Analysis of the driveway indicates that all movements to S 158th Street would operate at LOS B or better. Pedestrian access to the proposed Tukwila Station would use new sidewalks along S 158th Street. Continuous sidewalks would allow improved access between the station and the Interurban Trail to the west of the site. Pedestrian underpasses would be constructed or enhanced under both the Union Pacific and BNSF Burlington Northern/Santa Fe mainline tracks. In addition, a new pedestrian underpass of the BNSF mainline would be constructed south of the transit loading area to provide access to station platforms on the east side of the tracks. Pedestrian ramps and stairways would be provided to both rail platforms and an inter -track fence would prevent pedestrians from crossing tracks at -grade. Bicycle lockers would also be provided on site. Pedestrian walkways would also be provided within the parking areas to facilitate access from parked vehicles to boarding platforms. Crosswalks of site driveways and of S 158th Street would be marked and signed. Transit The development of the Tukwila commuter rail station and subsequent regional rail service will necessitate some local feeder bus transit service. King County Metro is planning to serve the Tukwila station with approximately four routes including: 128, 154, 160/163, and 340. The following describes each route and its likely operation and impact at the Tukwila Station. Route 128 is an all -day local route operating between West Seattle and Tukwila. This route would be extended from its current terminus at Andover Park W/Baker Boulevard east to the Tukwila Station. It currently operates on 30 -minute headways and is expected to generate four trips during the PM peak hour (2 in, and 2 out between 4:15 and 5:15 P.M.). Access would occur from SR 181 at either Strander Boulevard or S 158th Street. This local route would serve commuter rail riders and is not expected to generate park-and-ride demand. Route 154 is a peak -period, peak -direction route (operating northbound from 5:00 to 8:00 A.M. and southbound from 2:30 to 5:45 P.M.) that provides service between Auburn and the Boeing Industrial area on East Marginal Way. This route could be diverted to the Tukwila station. It currently operates with 30 -minute headways and Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Transportation Analysis May 17, 1999 Page 6 of 7 HTRANSPORTATION HEFFRON could generate four trips during the PM peak hour (2 in, and 2 out between 4:15 and 5:15 P.M.). Access would occur from SR 181 at either Strander Boulevard or S 158th Street. This local route would serve commuter rail riders and is not expected to generate park-and-ride demand. Routes 160/163 are peak -period, peak -direction routes (operating northbound from 5:45 to 8:30 A.M. and southbound from 4:00 to 7:00 P.M.) that provide service between Kent East Hill and Downtown Seattle. These routes may be combined and diverted to the Tukwila station. Each route currently operates with 30 -minute headways. However, with the combination of routes service is expected to generate two trips during the PM peak hour (1 in, and 1 out between 4:15 and 5:15 P.M.). Access would occur from SR 181 at S 158th Street. These local routes would serve commuter rail riders and are not expected to generate park-and-ride demand. Route 340 is an all -day route that provides service between Burien, SeaTac, Tukwila, Renton, and Bellevue. It would be re-routed through the Boeing Longacres Facility to the Tukwila station. This route operates with 20 - minute headways during peak periods and generates four trips during the PM peak hour (2 in, and 2 out between 4:15 and 5:15 P.M.). Access would occur from S 158th Street in both directions and would likely stop along S 158th Street. This route could generate some park-and-ride demand; however, due to relatively slow service on local roads, park-and-ride demand is anticipated to be very small. None of the proposed routes detailed in the Draft Sound Transit Express Bus System Implementation Plan indicate any service for Regional Express to the Tukwila Commuter Rail Station. As mitigation for new demand on local transit services, the station has been designed with a bus load/unload zone, and circulation drives to minimize conflicts with pedestrians and park-and-ride traffic. Bus stops are also anticipated on S 158th Street (on -street stop for westbound buses, a pullout for eastbound buses). Transit providers would have three access/egress options including: SR 181/S Strander Boulevard, SR 181/S 158th Street, and Boeing-Longacres/S 158th Street. Parking As described previously, Phase 1 would construct 413 parking spaces. This level of parking supply would serve approximately 65% of the forecast year 2010 ridership. Therefore, the parking supply is expected to be adequate for the first few years of commuter rail operation. Phase 2 would add 227 parking spaces. Based on the anticipated ridership, the demand generated by Amtrak customers, and some limited car-pool or bus -transit park-and-ride demand, the parking demand may exceed the supply. Year 2010 parking demand is estimated to be between 700 and 730 vehicles. This relates to a demand that may be as much as 90 vehicles higher than the proposed supply. However, there are very few options for parking overflow. The adjacent properties located east (Boeing Longacres) and west (hotel property) of the site, include parking facilities. Overflow to these properties can be prevented through lot monitoring and enforcement. The only other option for potential parking overflow would be on -street parking. On -street parking could occur along S 158th Street (Longacres Way) and along the southern portion of Nelson Place. Overflow to these locations would likely impact existing businesses along Nelson Place that rely on right-of-way for employee and customer parking as well as truck loading. Overflow of commuter rail parking demand to on -street parking facilities could be discouraged and/or prevented through several on -street parking -demand management measures. For example, on -street parking could be restricted to four-hour parking (between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M.) using street signs. This would prevent commuters from using these spaces and would require local employees to rotate vehicles during lunch hours. This measure would necessitate parking enforcement by the City of Tukwila. The limited supply of overflow parking options, together with the management of on -street parking supplies, may constrain ridership or effect mode shifts for commuter rail passengers arriving at the site (i.e. passengers could choose to carpool or ride local -feeder buses to the station). Sound Transit will continue to work to meet the ridership demands of the station. Future increases could be met through a combination of demand management measures and increased parking supply. A parking structure Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Transportation Analysis May 17, 1999. Page 7 of 7 HHEFFRON TRANSPORTATION may be considered if funding becomes available. Sound Transit will work with Tukwila and other local agencies and jurisdictions to encourage carpool, bus, and non -motorized access to commuter rail stations; thereby reducing the station's parking demand. Concurrency Impact Fees City of Tukwila Ordinance No. 1769 implements concurrency requirements of RCW Ch. 36.70A. This ordinance requires all proposals needing a Type 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 decision and that will generate more than 5 peak hour trips to submit a trip generation and distribution analysis. Based on that analysis (presented above), the City requests mitigation, in the form of impact fees, for specified intersections or corridors. Concurrency impact fees were estimated based on the project trip distribution and assignments presented previously. The City of Tukwila provided trip fees for nine intersections and links. Table 5 presents the trip fee calculation. This table shows that the total fee for Phase I would be $84,168. The additional fee for Phase 2 would be $54,881 for a total of $139,049. Table 5. Concurrency Impact Fee Estimates Intersection/Link Phase 1 Total Phase 1 and Phase 2 Estimated PM Estimated PM Fee Peak Hour Trips Cost Peak Hour Trips Cost 1. Southcenter Parkway/Strander Blvd $140.00 1 $ 140.00 2 $ 280.00 2. Andover Park E/Strander Blvd $135.00 2 $ 270.00 3 $ 405.00 3. Andover Park W/Strander Blvd $317.00 2 $ 634.00 3 $ 951.00 4. S 180th St/SR 181 (W Valley Hwy) $475.00 95 $ 45,125.00 159 $ 75,525.00 5. Andover Park E/Baker $377.00 0 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00 6. Andover Park W/Minkler $392.00 0 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00 7. Southcenter Parkway/168th Signal $167.00 1 $ 167.00 2 $ 334.00 8. Strander Blvd/SR 181 (W Valley Hwy) $283.00 98 $ 27,734.00 162 $ 45,846.00 9. Interurban Bridge $1,122.00 9 $ 10,098.00 14 $ 15,708.00 Total $84,168.00 $139,049.00 As mentioned previously, Sound Transit would include a number of improvements as part of the site development including: • Enhanced pedestrian and bicycle underpasses of the UP and BNSF railroad tracks crossing over S 158th Street (Longacres Way); • Fully improved roadway along S 158th Street (Longacres Way) including sidewalks; • A new pedestrian underpass of the BNSF railroad tracks; • An extension of S Strander Boulevard into the site from the south to provide a second means of access and egress for automobile traffic; • Transit loading areas on-site as well as along S 158th Street (Longacres Way). TSM/tsm Attachments: Figures 1, 2, and 3 Level of Service Definitions Level of Service Calculations Tech memo - Tukwila Station.doc SOUTHCENTER STRANDER BLVD ANDOVER PARK E TUKWILA COMMUTER RAIL Station Impact Analysis Figure 1 COMMUTER RAIL STATION TRAFFIC PM PEAK DISTRIBUTION PATTERN 4 N 156 ST 1 f ; O -N-6 ,5 1585T1 w J 5 t! 30%) HEFFRON TRANSPORTATION 5/5/99 is/ 0 TE S SOUTHCENTER 1 STRANDER BLVD F2 4 10 �� 85 A .°21i8 Oy �8 GpP 2 13 28 133 :PHASE I. STATION: SITE 9 SOUTHCENTER ■ PHASE I TRIP GENERATION 23 IN 192 OUT 215 TOTAL ANDOVER PARK W S 180 ST ANDOVER PARK E 28 .. 2 r 0 4._7 F7 N TUKWILA COMMUTER RAIL Station Impact Analysis Figure 2 COMMUTER RAIL STATION TRAFFIC PHASE 1 PM PEAK ASSIGNMENT HEFFRON TRANSPORTATION 5/5/99 ��©22 4,8t161lkr\ y GP OSIP W S T Nc�NTFRe<�� � sw 3 /'S156ST i'd, ' 3 66 P7 169 nnO6NGACRE ��34� 7 cc 0 ccH z w U SOUTHCENTER 2 STRANDER BLVD FULL BUILD TRIP GENERATION 49 IN 309 OUT 358 TOTAL ANDOVER PARK W S 180 ST ANDOVER PARK E 45 192: Ivy 3 46 215 46 7 15 15 0 4_15 E- 15 r s 8 4 N TION E �• r :FULL Bt1ILD 45 7 92 t TUKWILA COMMUTER RAIL Station Impact Analysis Figure 3 COMMUTER RAIL STATION TRAFFIC I:-i>V±v1RJIN PHASE 1 & 2 PM PEAK ASSIGNMENT TRANSPORTATION 5/5/99 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Levels of service (LOS) are qualitative descriptions of traffic operating conditions. These levels of service are designated with .letters ranging from LOS A, which is indicative of good operating conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, which is indicative of stop -and -go conditions with frequent and lengthy delays. Levels of service for this analysis were devel- oped using procedures presented in the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual. Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay. Delay can be a cause of driver discomfort, frustration, inefficient fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Specifi- cally, level of service criteria are stated in terms of the average delay per vehicle in seconds. Delay is a complex measure and is dependent on a number of variables including: the quality of progression, cycle length, green ratio, and a volume -to -capacity ratio for the lane group or approach in question. Table 1 shows the level of service criteria for signalized intersections from the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual. Table 1. Level of Service for Signalized Intersections Level of Service Average Delay Per Vehicle General Description A B C D E F Less than 10.0 Seconds 10.1 to 20.0 seconds 20.1 to 35.0 seconds 45.1 to 55.0 seconds 55.1 to 80.0 seconds Free flow Stable flow (slight delays) Stable flow (acceptable delays) Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delay— occassionally wait through more than one signal cycle befor proceeding. Unstable flow (approaching intolerable delay) Greater than 80.0 seconds Forced flow (jammed) Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 1997. For unsignalized intersections, level of service is based on the average delay per vehicle for each turning movement. Delay is related to the availability of gaps in the main street's traffic flow, and the ability of a driver to enter or pass through those gaps. Table 2 shows the level of service criteria for unsignalized intersections from the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual. Table 2. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Average Delay Level of Service (seconds per vehicle) A B C D E F Less than 10.0 10.1 to 15.0 15.1 to 25.0 25.1 to 35.0 35.1 to 50.0 Greater than 50.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 1997. HEFF'RON TRANSPORTATION May 10, 1999 Sound Transit - Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Existing Conditions Analysis 04/16/99 17:32:50 SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.00] - Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages for Int # 2 - W Valley Hwy/158th Street (Lon Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.66 Vehicle Delay 21.1 Level of Service C+ Sq 47 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 I Phase 3 1 Phase 4 **/** /I\ 1 North 1 * * *> <+ G/C=0.113 1 G/C=0.566 1 G/C=0.120 1 G/C=0.056 G= 12.5" 1 G= 62.3" 1 G= 13.2" 1 G= 6.1" Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 4.0" l Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 4.0" OFF= 0.0% 1 OFF=15.0% 1 OFF=75.2% 1 OFF=90.8% C=110 sec G= 94.0 sec = 85.5% Y=16.0 sec = 14.5% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% I Lane (Width/1 g/C 1 Service Rate' Adj I I HCM I L 190% Maxi 1 Group 1 Lanes' Reqd Used I @C (vph) @E 'Volume' v/c I Delay I S 1 Queue I N Approach 17.3 B I TH+RTI 33/3 10.373 10.566 1 2708 12776 1 1531 10.552 I 15.3 I B 1342 ftl I LT 1 12/1 10.229 10.113 I 1 1 175 I 101 10.505 1 47.9 I*D 1138 ftl S Approach 22.3 C+ RT 1 12/1 10.214 10.566 1 819 1 896 I 38 10.042 I 10.6 I B+I 25 ftl TH 122/2 10.503 10.566 11859 11937 11598 10.825 I 22.5 I*C+I 536 ftl LT 112/1 10.203 10.113 I 1 I 175 I 4 10.020 I 43.4 I D+I 25 ftl E Approach 46.7 D I RT 112/1+10.217 10.120 I 1 I 165 I 50 10.265 I 44.8 I D+l 68 ftl 1 I 181 I 105 10.512 I 47.6 1*D 1143 ftl ILT+TH 1 11/1-10.231 10.120 I W Approach 45.9 D ILT+TH+RTI 15/1 10.206 10.092 I 1 I 134 1 13 10.082 1 45.9 I D 1 25 ftl Sound Transit - Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Existing Conditions Analysis 04/27/99 15:43:47 SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.00] - Summary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters for Int # 2 - W Valley Hwy/158th Street (Lon METROAREA NONCBD SIMULATION PERIOD 15 LEVELOFSERVICE C S NODELOCATION 0 0 Approach Parameters APPLABELS N E S W GRADES 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PEDLEVELS 0 0 0 0 PARRINGSIDES NONE NONE NONE NONE PARKVOLUMES 20 20 20 20 BUSVOLUMES 0 0 0 0 RIGHTTURNONREDS 0 0 0 0 Movement Parameters MOVLABELS RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT VOLUMES 21 1357 91 45 2 93 34 1438 4 2 0 10 WIDTHS 0.0 33.0 12.0 12.0 11.0 0.0 12.0 22.0 12.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 LANES 0 3 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 UTILIZATIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRUCKPERCENTS 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 PEAKHOURFACTORS 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 ARRIVALTYPES 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ACTUATIONS YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES REQCLEARANCES 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 MINIMUMS 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 IDEALSATFLOWS 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 DELAYFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NSTOPFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 GROUPTYPES NORM NORM NORM DOPT NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM SATURATIONFLOWS 0 4905 1770 1583 1716 0 1583 3421 1770 0 1728 0 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES 47 PERMISSIVES NO NO NO NO LEADLAGS NONE NONE OVERLAPS NO NO NO NO OFFSET 0.00 1 CYCLES 110 110 30 PEDTIME 0.0 0 GREENTIMES 12.45 62.27 13.15 6.13 YELLOWTIMES 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 CRITICALS 3 8 5 12 EXCESS 0 Sound Transit - Tukwila Commuter Rail Station 2010 Without Project Conditions Analysis 04/16/99 17:37:32 SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.00] - Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages for Int # 2 - W Valley Hwy/158th Street (Lon Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.80 Vehicle Delay 34.9 Level of Service C Sq 47 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 1 **/** /I\ North 1 * * *> <+ v G%C=0.081 1 G/C=0.597 I G/C=0.090 I G/C=0.087 G= 8.9" I G= 65.7" 1 G= 9.9" 1 G= 9.5" Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 4.0" OFF= 0.0% 1 OFF=11.7% I OFF=75.1% I OFF=87.7% C=110 sec G= 94.0 sec = 85.5% Y=16.0 sec = 14.5% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% I Lane 1Width/1 g/C 1 Service Rate1 Adj 1 I HCM I L 190% Maxi I Group 1 Lanes' Reqd Used I @C (vph) @E 'Volume' v/c 1 Delay 1 S 1 Queue I N Approach 17.1 B TH+RTI 33/3 10.400 10.597 1 2887 1 2930 1 1711 10.584 1 14.0 1 B+I 355 ftl LT 1 12/1 10.230 10.081 I 1 I 118 1 106 10.741 1 68.0 I*E 1151 ftl S Approach 45.8 ID I RT 112/1 10.214 10.597 I 879 1 946 I 39 10.041 I 9.2 I A I 25 ftl I TH 1 22/2 10.621 10.597 1 1986 1 2044 12079 11.017 1 46.4 I*D 1647 ftl I LT 1 12/1 10.215 10.081 1 1 1 118 1 50 10.350 1 49.3 I D I 71 ftl E Approach 61.5 E+ I RT 1 12/1+10.220 10.090 I 1 1 117 I 61 10.430 1 49.5 I D I 86 ftl ILT+TH 111/1-10.234 10.090 I 1 I 130 1 117 10.755 1 67.7 I*E 1165 ftl W Approach 68.1 E ILT+TH+RTI 15/1 10.233 10.087 I 1 I 123 1 111 10.750 1 68.1 I*E 1157 ftl Sound Transit - Tukwila Commuter Rail Station 2010 Without Project Conditions Analysis 04/27/99 15:49:57 SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.00] - Summary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters for Int # 2 - W Valley Hwy/158th Street (Lon METROAREA NONCBD SIMULATION PERIOD 15 LEVELOFSERVICE C S NODELOCATION 0 0 Approach Parameters APPLABELS N E S W GRADES 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PEDLEVELS 0 0 0 0 PARKINGSIDES NONE NONE NONE NONE PARKVOLUMES 20 20 20 20 BUSVOLUMES 0 0 0 0 RIGHTTURNONREDS 0 0 0 0 Movement Parameters MOVLABELS RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT VOLUMES 25 1515 95 55 10 95 35 1871 45 30 10 60 WIDTHS 0.0 33.0 12.0 12.0 11.0 0.0 12.0 22.0 12.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 LANES 0 3 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 UTILIZATIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRUCKPERCENTS 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 PEAKHOURFACTORS 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 ARRIVALTYPES 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ACTUATIONS YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES REQCLEARANCES 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 MINIMUMS 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 IDEALSATFLOWS 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 DELAYFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NSTOPFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 GROUPTYPES NORM NORM NORM DOPT NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM SATURATIONFLOWS 0 4904 1770 1583 1723 0 1583 3421 1770 0 1710 0 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES 47 PERMISSIVES NO NO NO NO LEADLAGS NONE NONE OVERLAPS NO NO NO NO OFFSET 0.00 1 CYCLES 110 110 30 PEDTIME 0.0 0 GREENTIMES 8.87 65.72 9.88 9.53 YELLOWTIMES 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 CRITICALS 3 8 5 11 EXCESS 0 Sound Transit - Tukwila Commuter Rail Station 2010 With Phase 1 Project Conditions Analysis 04/27/99 15:52:12 SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.00] - Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages for Int # 2 - W Valley Hwy/158th Street (Lon Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.85 Vehicle Delay 47.7 Level of Service D Sq 47 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 **/** G/C=0.084 G/C=0.565 G/C=0.123 G/C=0.082 G= 9.3" G= 62.2" G= 13.5" G= 9.0" Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF=12.1% OFF=72.3% OFF=88.2% C=110 sec G= 94.0 sec = 85.5% Y=16.0 sec = 14.5% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% 1 Lane (Width/1 g/C 1 Service Rate' Adj 1 1 HCM 1 L 190% Maxi 1 Group I Lanes' Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) @E 'Volume' v/c I Delay I S I Queue 1 N Approach 20.3 C+ 1 TH+RT1 33/3 10.400 10.565 12704 12773 11711 10.617 1 16.4 1 B 1383 ftl I LT 1 12/1 10.234 10.084 1 1 1 124 I 120 10.805 I 76.1 I*E 1170 ftl S Approach 66.1 E+ I RT 1 12/1 10.215 10.565 I 818 I 895 1 42 10.047 I 10.7 I B+I 28 ftl 1 TH 122/2 10.621 10.565 11857 1 1935 12079 11.074 1 67.7 l*E 1 698 ftl I LT 112/1 10.215 10.084 I 1 I 124 I 50 10.336 I 48.8 I D I 71 ftl E Approach 70.1 E 1 RT 112/1+'0.248 10.123 I 1 1 170 1 150 10.773 I 64.2 13+1 203 ftl 1LT+TH 1 11/1-10.252 10.123 1 1 1 182 1 176 10.854 1 75.1 I*E 1 239 ftl W Approach 75.6 E ILT+TH+RTI 15/1 10.233 10.082 I 1 1 115 1 111 10.793 1 75.6 1*E 1 158 ftl Sound Transit - Tukwila Commuter Rail Station 2010 With Phase 1 Project Conditions Analysis SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.00] - Summary of Parameter Values 04/27/99 15:53:05 Intersection Parameters for Int # 2 - W Valley Hwy/158th Street (Lon METROAREA NONCBD SIMULATION PERIOD 15 LEVELOFSERVICE C S NODELOCATION 0 0 Approach Parameters APPLABELS N E S W GRADES 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PEDLEVELS 0 0 0 0 PARKINGSIDES NONE NONE NONE NONE PARKVOLUMES 20 20 20 20 BUSVOLUMES 0 0 0 0 RIGHTTURNONREDS 0 0 0 0 Movement Parameters MOVLABELS RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT VOLUMES 25 1515 108 160 10 123 38 1871 45 30 10 60 WIDTHS 0.0 33.0 12.0 12.0 11.0 0.0 12.0 22.0 12.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 LANES 0 3 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 UTILIZATIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRUCKPERCENTS 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 PEAKHOURFACTORS 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 ARRIVALTYPES 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ACTUATIONS YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES REQCLEARANCES 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 MINIMUMS 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 IDEALSATFLOWS 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 DELAYFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NSTOPFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 GROUPTYPES NORM NORM NORM DOPT NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM SATURATIONFLOWS 0 4904 1770 1583 1680 0 1583 3421 1770 0 1710 0 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES 47 PERMISSIVES NO NO NO NO LEADLAGS NONE NONE OVERLAPS NO NO NO NO OFFSET 0.00 1 CYCLES 110 110 30 PEDTIME 0.0 0 GREENTIMES 9.29 62.20 13.49 9.02 YELLOWTIMES 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 CRITICALS 3 8 5 11 EXCESS 0 Sound Transit - Tukwila Commuter Rail Station 2010 With Full Project Conditions Analysis 04/27/99 15:56:12 SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.00] - Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages for Int # 2 - W Valley Hwy/158th Street (Lon Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.85 Vehicle Delay 47.8 Level of Service D Sq 47 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 **/** I G/C=0.074 1 G/C=0.587 1 G/C=0.131 1 G/C=0.063 1 G= 8.2" 1 G= 64.5" 1 G= 14.4" 1 G= 6.9" I Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 OFF= 0.0% 1 OFF=11.1% 1 OFF=73.3% 1 OFF=90.1% C=110 sec G= 94.0 sec = 85.5% Y=16.0 sec = 14.5% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% 1 Lane IWidth/1 g/C 1 Service Rate) Adj 1 1 HCM I L 190% Maxi 1 Group I Lanes) Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) @E 'Volume) v/c I Delay 1 S 1 Queue 1 N Approach 24.0 C+ 1 TH+RTI 33/3 10.400 10.587 1 2825 12876 1 1711 10.595 1 14.8 I B+1 365 ftl I LT 112/1 10.238 10.074 I 1 I 106 1 136 11.038 1140.1 I*F 1195 ftI S Approach 51.8 D RT 112/1 10.216 10.587 1 858 1 929 I 47 10.051 I 9.7 I A 1 30 ftI TH 1 22/2 10.621 10.587 11942 12007 1 2079 11.036 1 52.8 I*D 1 665 ftl LT 1 12/1 10.215 10.074 1 1 1 106 1 50 10.382 1 50.4 I D 1 72 ftl E Approach 105.0 F 1 RT 1 12/1+10.261 10.131 I 1 1 184 1 192 10.923 1 88.8 1 F 1258 ftl ILT+TH 1 11/1-10.269 10.131 1 1 1 193 1 225 11.037 1118.8 l*F 1 302 ftl W Approach 149.0 F ILT+TH+RTI 15/1 10.233 10.063 1 1 1 83 I 111 11.037 1149.0 I*F 1 161 ft' Sound Transit - Tukwila Commuter Rail Station 2010 With Full Project Conditions Analysis SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.00] - Summary of Parameter Values 04/27/99 15:56:39 Intersection Parameters for Int # 2 - W Valley Hwy/158th Street (Lon METROAREA NONCBD SIMULATION PERIOD 15 LEVELOFSERVICE C S NODELOCATION 0 0 Approach Parameters APPLABELS N E S W GRADES 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PEDLEVELS 0 0 0 0 PARKINGSIDES NONE NONE NONE NONE PARKVOLUMES 20 20 20 20 BUSVOLUMES 0 0 0 0 RIGHTTURNONREDS 0 0 0 0 Movement Parameters MOVLABELS RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT VOLUMES 25 1515 122 224 10 141 42 1871 45 30 10 60 WIDTHS 0.0 33.0 12.0 12.0 11.0 0.0 12.0 22.0 12.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 LANES 0 3 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 UTILIZATIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRUCKPERCENTS 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 PEAKHOURFACTORS 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 ARRIVALTYPES 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ACTUATIONS YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES REQCLEARANCES 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 MINIMUMS 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 IDEALSATFLOWS 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 DELAYFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NSTOPFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 GROUPTYPES NORM NORM NORM DOPT NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM SATURATIONFLOWS 0 4904 1770 1583 1655 0 1583 3421 1770 0 1710 0 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES 47 PERMISSIVES NO NO NO NO LEADLAGS NONE NONE OVERLAPS NO NO NO NO OFFSET 0.00 1 CYCLES 110 110 30 PEDTIME 0.0 0 GREENTIMES 8.16 64.52 14.43 6.89 YELLOWTIMES 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 CRITICALS 3 8 5 11 EXCESS 0 Sound Transit - Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Existing Conditions Analysis SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.00] - Capacity Analysis Summary 04/27/99 15:10:27 Intersection Averages for Int # 3 - W Valley Hwy/156th Street Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.78 Vehicle Delay 40.7 Level of Service D+ Sq 61 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 **/** /1\ 1 1 North 1 * * *> <+ G/C=0.050 1 G/C=0.261 1 G/C=0.275 1 G/C=0.269 1 G= 5.5" 1 G= 28.7" 1 G= 30.3" 1 G= 29.6" 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 OFF= 0.0% 1 OFF= 8.6% 1 OFF=38.3% 1 OFF=69.4% 1 C=110 sec G= 94.0 sec = 85.5% Y=16.0 sec = 14.5% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% 1 Lane (Width/1 g/C 1 Service Rate1 Adj 1 1 HCM 1 L 190% Max1 1 Group 1 Lanes' Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) @E 'Volume' v/c 1 Delay 1 S 1 Queue 1 N Approach 52.8 D 1 RT 1 12/1 10.243 10.275 1 230 1 431 1 136 10.313 1 32.0 1 C 1 152 ftl 1 TH 1 22/2 10.343 10.275 1 531 1 941 1 889 10.945 1 56.6 I*E+I 498 ftl 1 LT 1 12/1 10.000 10.050 1 138 1 197 1 19 10.092 1 25.6 I*C+I 25 ftl S Approach 31.0 C 1 RT 1 12/1 10.208 I TH 1 22/2 10.412 1 LT 1 12/1 10.396 10.572 1 831 1 906 1 18 10.020 1 10.2 1 8+1 25 ftl 10.572 1 1883 1 1957 1 1212 10.619 1 16.2 1 B 1 401 ftl 10.347 1 570 1 681 1 666 10.978 1 58.4 1*E+1 568 ftl E Approach 29.9 C 1 RT 1LT+TH 1 12/1 10.208 10.269 1 216 1 421 1 20 10.047 1 29.8 1 C 1 25 ftl 1 11/1 10.212 10.269 1 201 1 391 1 30 10.075 1 30.1 1 C 1 34 ftl W Approach 60.4 E+ ILT+TH 1 12/1 10.346 10.269 1 178 1 348 1 315 10.882 1 60.4 1*E+I 356 ftl Sound Transit - Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Existing Conditions Analysis SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.00] - Summary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters for Int # 3 - W Valley Hwy/156th Street METROAREA NONCBD SIMULATION PERIOD 15 LEVELOFSERVICE C S NODELOCATION 0 0 Approach Parameters 04/27/99 15:11:12 APPLABELS N E S W GRADES 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PEDLEVELS 0 0 0 0 PARKINGSIDES NONE NONE NONE NONE PARRVOLUMES 20 20 20 20 BUSVOLUMES 0 0 0 0 RIGHTTURNONREDS 0 0 0 0 Movement Parameters MOVLABELS RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT VOLUMES 122 800 17 18 9 18 16 1091 599 549 11 273 WIDTHS 12.0 22.0 12.0 12.0 11.0 0.0 12.0 22.0 12.0 16.0 12.0 0.0 LANES 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 UTILIZATIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRUCKPERCENTS 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 PEAKHOURFACTORS 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 ARRIVALTYPES 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ACTUATIONS YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES REQCLEARANCES 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 MINIMUMS 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 IDEALSATFLOWS 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 DELAYFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NSTOPFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 GROUPTYPES NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM FFLW NORM NORM SATURATIONFLOWS 1583 3421 1770 1583 1480 0 1583 3421 1770 0 1327 0 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES 61 PERMISSIVES YES YES YES YES LEADLAGS NONE NONE OVERLAPS NO NO NO NO OFFSET 0.00 1 CYCLES 110 110 30 PEDTIME 0.0 0 GREENTIMES 5.45 28.67 30.25 29.63 YELLOWTIMES 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 CRITICALS 3 9 2 11 EXCESS 0 Sound Transit - Tukwila Commuter Rail Station 2010 Without Project Conditions Analysis 04/27/99 15:02:10 SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.00] - Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages for Int # 3 - W Valley Hwy/156th Street Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.94 Vehicle Delay 76.9 Level of Service E Sq 61 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 **/** /I\ North * * *> <+ G/C=0.038 G/C=0.291 G/C=0.264 G/C=0.262 G= 4.2" G= 32.0" G= 29.0" G= 28.8" Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF= 7.4% OFF=40.2% OFF=70.2% C=110 sec G= 94.0 sec = 85.5% Y=16.0 sec = 14.5% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% 1 Lane 1Width/I g/C 1 Service Rate! Adj 1 1 HCM 1 L 190% Maxi 1 Group 1 Lanes'. Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) @E [Volume) v/c 1 Delay 1 S 1 Queue 1 N Approach 121.9 F RT 1 12/1 10.258 10.264 I TH 1 22/2 10.383 10.264 I LT 1 12/1 10.000 10.038 1 200 1 411 1 183 10.439 1 34.5 I C 1 208 ft' 464 1 902 11078 11.195 1139.2 I*F 1614 ftl 92 1 140 1 28 10.184 I 27.8 l*C 1 30 ftl S Approach 39.0 D+ RT 1 12/1 10.207 10.591 1 867 1 936 I 17 10.018 1 9.3 1 A I 25 ftl TH 1 22/2 10.479 10.591 1 1961 1 2023 11500 10.741 I 17.9 1 B 1 474 ftl LT 112/1 10.444 10.366 1 607 1 715 1 761 11.064 I 81.4 I*F 1 596 ftl E Approach 30.7 C 1 RT 112/1 10.212 10.262 1 194 1 407 1 1LT+TH 1 11/1 10.212 10.262 1 198 1 416 1 33 10.080 I 30.7 1 C 1 38 ftl 34 10.081 I 30.7 1 C 1 39 ftl W Approach 153.0 F 1LT+TH 112/1 10.406 10.262 1 158 1 334 1 412 11.194 1 153.0 l*F 1 470 ftl Sound Transit - Tukwila Commuter Rail Station 2010 Without Project Conditions Analysis SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.00] - Summary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters for Int # 3 - W Valley Hwy/156th Street METROAREA NONCBD SIMULATION PERIOD 15 LEVELOFSERVICE C S NODELOCATION 0 0 Approach Parameters 04/27/99 15:02:35 APPLABELS N ES W GRADES 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PEDLEVELS 0 0 0 0 PARKINGSIDES NONE NONE NONE NONE PARKVOLUMES 20 20 20 20 BUSVOLUMES 0 0 0 0 RIGHTTURNONREDS 0 0 0 0 Movement Parameters MOVLABELS RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT VOLUMES 165 970 25 30 15 15 15 1350 685 575 11 360 WIDTHS 12.0 22.0 12.0 12.0 11.0 0.0 12.0 22.0 12.0 16.0 12.0 0.0 LANES 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 UTILIZATIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRUCKPERCENTS 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 PEAKHOURFACTORS 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 ARRIVALTYPES 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ACTUATIONS YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES REQCLEARANCES 4.0. 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 MINIMUMS 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 IDEALSATFLOWS 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 DELAYFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NSTOPFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 GROUPTYPES NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM FFLW NORM NORM SATURATIONFLOWS 1583 3421 1770 1583 1613 0 1583 3421 1770 0 1318 0 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES 61 PERMISSIVES YES YES YES YES LEADLAGS NONE NONE OVERLAPS YES NO YES YES OFFSET 0.00 1 CYCLES 110 110 30 PEDTIME 0.0 0 GREENTIMES 4.18 32.04 29.00 28.78 YELLOWTIMES 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 CRITICALS 3 9 2 11 EXCESS 0 Sound Transit - Tukwila Commuter Rail Station 2010 With Phase 1 Project Conditions Analysis 04/27/99 15:07:58 SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.00] - Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages for Int # 3 - W Valley Hwy/156th Street Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.96 Vehicle Delay 77.3 Level of Service E Sq 61 1 Phase 1 **/** <+ Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 G/C=0.038 1 G/C=0.291 1 G/C=0.265 1 G/C=0.260 G= 4.2" 1 G= 32.0" 1 G= 29:2" 1 G= 28.6" Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" OFF= 0.0% 1 OFF= 7.4% 1 OFF=40.1% 1 OFF=70.3% C=110 sec G= 94.0 sec = 85.5% Y=16.0 sec = 14.5% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% 1 Lane (Width/1 g/C 1 Service Rate' Adj 1 1 HCM 1 L 190% Maxl 1 Group 1 Lanes' Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) @E 'Volume) v/c 1 Delay 1 S 1 Queue 1 N Approach 124.1 F RT 1 12/1 10.258 10.265 1 206 1 414 1 183 10.436 1 34.3 1 C 1 208 ftl TH 1 22/2 10.385 10.265 1 475 1 908 1 1091 11.202 1 141.7 l*F 1 619 ftl LT 1 12/1 10.001 10.038 1 87 1 131 1 28 10.196 1 27.8 I*C 1 30 ftl S Approach 39.7 D+ 1 RT 1 12/1 10.207 10.593 1 869 1 938 1 17 10.018 1 9.2 1 A 1 25 ftl 1 TH 1 22/2 10.506 10.593 1 1967 1 2028 1 1614 10.796 1 19.6 1 B 1 508 ftl 1 LT 1 12/1 10.445 10.365 1 605 1 714 1 763 11.069 1 82.9 I*F 1 596 ftl E Approach 30.8 C 1 RT 1 12/1 10.212 10.260 1 190 1 405 1 33 10.080 1 30.8 1 C 1 38 ftl 1LT+TH 1 11/1 10.212 10.260 1 195 1 415 1 34 10.081 1 30.8 1 C 1 39 ftl W Approach 155.8 F ILT+TH 1 12/1 10.406 10.260 1 154 1 332 1 412 11.201 1 155.8 I*F 1 471 ftl Sound Transit - Tukwila Commuter Rail Station 2010 With Phase 1 Project Conditions Analysis SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.00] - Summary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters for Int # 3 - W Valley Hwy/156th Street METROAREA NONCBD SIMULATION PERIOD 15 LEVELOFSERVICE C S NODELOCATION 0 0 Approach Parameters 04/27/99 15:08:45 APPLABELS N E S W GRADES 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PEDLEVELS 0 0 0 0 PARKINGSIDES NONE NONE NONE NONE PARKVOLUMES 20 20 20 20 BUSVOLUMES 0 0 0 0 RIGHTTURNONREDS 0 0 0 0 Movement Parameters MOVLABELS RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT VOLUMES 165 982 25 30 15 15 15 1453 687 576 11 360 WIDTHS 12.0 22.0 12.0 12.0 11.0 0.0 12.0 22.0 12.0 16.0 12.0 0.0 LANES 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 UTILIZATIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRUCKPERCENTS 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 PEAKHOURFACTORS 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 ARRIVALTYPES 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ACTUATIONS YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES REQCLEARANCES 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 MINIMUMS 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 IDEALSATFLOWS 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 DELAYFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NSTOPFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 GROUPTYPES NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM FFLW NORM NORM SATURATIONFLOWS 1583 3421 1770 1583 1616 0 1583 3421 1770 0 1318 0 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES 61 PERMISSIVES YES YES YES YES LEADLAGS NONE NONE OVERLAPS NO NO NO NO OFFSET 0.00 1 CYCLES 110 110 30 PEDTIME 0.0 0 GREENTIMES 4.16 31.99 29.20 28.64 YELLOWTIMES 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 CRITICALS 3 9 2 11 EXCESS 0 Sound Transit - Tukwila Commuter Rail Station 2010 With Full Project Conditions Analysis SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.00] - Capacity Analysis Summary 04/27/99 15:48:01 Intersection Averages for Int # 3 - W Valley Hwy/156th Street Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.97 Vehicle Delay 78.2 Level of Service E Sq 61 I Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 **/** /I\ 1 North * * *> <+ G/C=0.038 1 G/C=0.290 G= 4.1" 1 G= 31.9" Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" OFF= 0.0% 1 OFF= 7.4% G/C=0.268 G= 29.5" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=40.0% G/C=0.259 G= 28.5" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=70.5% C=110 sec G= 94.0 sec = 85.5% Y=16.0 sec = 14.5% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% 1 Lane (Width/1 g/C 1 Service Rate! Adj 1 1 HCM 1 L 190% Maxi I Group I Lanes' Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) @E !Volume) v/c 1 Delay I S 1 Queue I N Approach 126.1 F RT TH LT 1 12/1 10.258 10.268 1 213 1 419 1 183 10.432 1 34.0 1 C 1 207 ftl 1 22/2 10.389 10.268 1 490 1 917 11107 11.207 1143.8 I*F 1 626 ftl 1 12/1 10.005 10.038 1 81 1 122 I 28 10.207 I 27.8 I*C 1 30 ftl S Approach 40.5 D+ 1 RT I TH I LT 1 12/1 10.207 10.594 1 873 1 941 I 17 10.018 1 1 22/2 10.523 10.594 1 1973 1 2033 1 1684 10.828 1 1 12/1 10.446 10.364 1 603 I 712 1 764 11.073 1 9.2 1 A 1 25 ftl 20.8 I C+I 528 ftl 84.5 I*F 1 596 ftl E Approach 30.9 C 1 RT 1LT+TH 1 12/1 10.212 10.259 I 186 I 403 I 1 11/1 10.212 10.259 I 191 1 413 1 33 10.080 1 30.9 1 C 1 38 ftl 34 10.081 1 30:9 1 C 1 39 ftl W Approach 158.8 F 1LT+TH 1 12/1 10.406 10.259 I• 151 1 330 I 412 11.208 1158.8 I*F 1 472 ftl Sound Transit - Tukwila Commuter Rail Station 2010 With Full Project Conditions Analysis SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.00] - Summary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters for Int # 3 - W Valley Hwy/156th Street METROAREA NONCBD SIMULATION PERIOD 15 LEVELOFSERVICE C S NODELOCATION 0 0 Approach Parameters 04/27/99 15:47:33 APPLABELS N E S W GRADES 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PEDLEVELS 0 0 0 0 PARKINGSIDES NONE NONE NONE NONE PARKVOLUMES 20 20 20 20 BUSVOLUMES 0 0 0 0 RIGHTTURNONREDS 0 0 0 0 Movement Parameters MOVLABELS RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT VOLUMES 165 996 25 30 15 15 15 1516 688 576 11 360 WIDTHS 12.0 22.0 12.0 12.0 11.0 0.0 12.0 22.0 12.0 16.0 12.0 0.0 LANES 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 UTILIZATIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRUCKPERCENTS 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 PEAKHOURFACTORS 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 ARRIVALTYPES 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ACTUATIONS YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES REQCLEARANCES 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 MINIMUMS 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 IDEALSATFLOWS 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 DELAYFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NSTOPFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 GROUPTYPES NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM FFLW NORM NORM SATURATIONFLOWS 1583 3421 1770 1583 1619 0 1583 3421 1770 0 1318 0 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES 61 PERMISSIVES YES YES YES YES LEADLAGS NONE NONE OVERLAPS NO NO NO NO OFFSET 0.00 1 CYCLES 110 110 30 PEDTIME 0.0 0 GREENTIMES 4.14 31.88 29.48 28.49 YELLOWTIMES 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 CRITICALS 3 9 2 11 EXCESS 0 Sound Transit - Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Existing Conditions Analysis 04/15/99 16:30:04 SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.00] - Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages for Int # 1 - W Valley Hwy/Strander Blvd Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.80 Vehicle Delay 43.3 Level of Service D+ Sq 67 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 Phase 4 1 Phase.5 **/** /I\ North * * *> <+ G/C=0.049 G/C=0.107 G/C=0.366 G/C=0.049 G= 5.3" G= 11.7" G= 40.3" G= 5.3" Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0" OFF= 0.0% OFF= 8.5% OFF=22.8% OFF=63.0% G/C=0.248 G= 27.3" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=71.5% C=110 sec G= 90.0 sec = 81.8% Y=20.0 sec = 18. 2% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% I Lane IWidth/1 g/C 1 Service Rate! Adj 1 I HCM 1 L 190% Maxl I Group 1 Lanes) Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) @E !Volume) v/c I Delay 1 S I Queue I N Approach 52.5 D RT 1 12/1 10.329 10.366 1 426 I 580 1 348 10.600 1 TH 1 22/2 10.420 10.366 11002 11253 11246 10.994 I LT 112/1 10.208 10.049 I 1 1 64 1 21 10.244 1 30.0 1 C 1 341 ftl 58.8 I*E+I 610 ftl 51.9 l*D I 31 ftl S Approach 31.7 C TH+RTI 24/2 10.439 10.509 1 1684 1 1800 1 1379 10.766 I 23.8 1 C+I 523 ftl I LT 1 12/1 10.292 10.191 1 1 1 323 1 303 10.894 1 68.0 I*E 1 379 ftl E Approach 52.3 D TH+RTI 15/1 10.210 10.049 1 1 1 68 I 30 10.333 1 52.8 1*D I 44 ftl LT 1 12/1 10.207 10.049 I 1 I 64 I 18 10.209 I 51.5 1 D 1 26 ftl W Approach 48.9 D 1 RT I TH I LT 112/1 10.333 10.248 1 152 1 384 1 356 10.906 I 64.1 I*E+I 414 ftl 112/1-10.260 10.248 1 174 1 437 1 214 10.483 1 36.1 I D+I 249 ftl 112/1+10.257 10.248 1 172 1 433 1 204 10.465 I 35.9 1 D+I 237 ftl Sound Transit - Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Existing Conditions Analysis SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.00] - Summary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters for Int # 1 - W Valley Hwy/Strander Blvd METROAREA NONCBD SIMULATION PERIOD 15 LEVELOFSERVICE C S NODELOCATION 0 0 Approach Parameters 04/27/99 15:42:22 APPLABELS N E S W GRADES 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PEDLEVELS 0 0 .0 0 PARKINGSIDES NONE NONE NONE NONE PARKVOLUMES 20 20 20 20 BUSVOLUMES 0 0 0 0 RIGHTTURNONREDS 100 0 0 75 Movement Parameters MOVLABELS RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT VOLUMES 413 1121 19 16 11 16 8 1233 273 395 18 358 WIDTHS 12.0 22.0 12.0 0.0 15.0 12.0 0.0 24.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 LANES 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 UTILIZATIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRUCKPERCENTS 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 PEAKHOURFACTORS 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 ARRIVALTYPES 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ACTUATIONS YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES REQCLEARANCES 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 MINIMUMS 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 IDEALSATFLOWS 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 DELAYFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NSTOPFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 GROUPTYPES NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM DOPT SATURATIONFLOWS 1583 3421 1770 0 1865 1770 0 3536 1770 1583 1782 1770 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES 67 PERMISSIVES NO NO NO NO LEADLAGS NONE NONE OVERLAPS NO NO NO NO OFFSET 0.00 1 CYCLES 110 110 30 PEDTIME 0.0 0 GREENTIMES 5.34 11.72 40.29 5.34 27.32 YELLOWTIMES 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 CRITICALS 3 9 2 5 10 EXCESS 0 Sound Transit - Tukwila Commuter Rail Station 2010 Without Project Conditions Analysis 04/15/99 16:20:23 SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.00] - Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages for Int # 1 - W Valley Hwy/Strander Blvd Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.92 Vehicle Delay 57.4 Level of Service E+ Sq 67 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 1 Phase 5 **/** /I\ 1 1 North 1 * * *> <+ G/C=0.047 1 G/C=0.032 1 G/C=0.409 1 G/C=0.047 G= 5.1" 1 G= 3.5" 1 G= 45.0" 1 G= 5.1" Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0"•1 Y+R= 4.0" OFF= 0.0% 1 OFF= 8.3% 1 OFF=15.1% 1 OFF=59.7% G/C=0.284 G= 31.2" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=68.0% C=110 sec G= 90.0 sec = 81.8% Y=20.0 sec = 18.2% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% 1 Lane (Width/1 g/C . 1 Service Rate' Adj 1 1 HCM 1 L 190% Maxi 1 Group 1 Lanes' Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) @E 'Volume' v/c 1 Delay 1 S 1 Queue 1 N Approach 60.9 E+ RT TH LT 1 12/1 10.368 10.409 1 512 1 647 1 428 10.662 1 28.9 1 C 1 391 ftl 1 22/2 10.471 10.409 1 1197 1 1399 1 1467 11.049 1 70.4 1*E 1 670 ftl 1 12/1 10.208 10.047 1 1 1 61 1 22 10.268 1 52.4 I*D 1 32 ftl S Approach 56.9 E+ 1 TH+RTI 23/2 10.514 10.477 1 1520 1 1660 1 1672 11.007 1 52.6 1 D 1 675 ftl 1 LT 1 24/2 10.250 10.115 1 1.1 374 1 367 10.929 1 76.4 I*E 1 251 ftl E Approach 53.9 D TH+RT1 15/1 10.212 10.047 1 1 1 65 1 39 10.448 1 54.7 I*D 1 57 ftl LT 1 12/1 10.208 10.047 1 1 1 61 1 22 10.268 1 52.4 1 D 1 32 ftl W Approach 51.7 D RT TH LT 1 13/1 10.370 10.284 1 260 1 464 1 450 10.968 1 72.3 I*E 1 498 ftl 1 13/1-10.271 10.284 1 296 1 523 1 259 10.495 1 33.6 1 C 1 287 ftl 1 13/1+10.267 10.284 1 293 1 519 1 246 10.474 1 33.3 1 C 1 272 ftl Sound Transit - Tukwila Commuter Rail Station 2010 Without Project Conditions Analysis SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.00] - Summary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters for Int # 1 - W Valley Hwy/Strander Blvd METROAREA NONCBD SIMULATION PERIOD 15 LEVELOFSERVICE C S NODELOCATION 0 0 Approach Parameters 04/27/99 15:15:55 APPLABELS N E S W GRADES 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PEDLEVELS 0 0 0 0 PARXINGSIDES NONE NONE NONE NONE PARXVOLUMES 20 20 20 20 BUSVOLUMES 0 0 0 0 RIGHTTURNONREDS 100 0 0 75 Movement Parameters MOVLABELS RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT VOLUMES 485 1320 20 20 15 20 10 1495 330 480 20 435 WIDTHS 12.0 22.0 12.0 0.0 15.0 12.0 0.0 23.0 24.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 LANES 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 2 2 1 1 1 UTILIZATIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRUCKPERCENTS 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 PEAKHOURFACTORS 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 ARRIVALTYPES 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ACTUATIONS YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES REQCLEARANCES 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 MINIMUMS 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 IDEALSATFLOWS 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 DELAYFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NSTOPFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 GROUPTYPES NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM DOPT SATURATIONFLOWS 1583 3421 1770 0 1876 1770 0 3477 3433 1636 1841 1829 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES 67 PERMISSIVES NO NO NO NO LEADLAGS NONE NONE OVERLAPS NO NO NO NO OFFSET 0.00 1 CYCLES 110 110 30 PEDTIME 0.0 0 GREENTIMES 5.12 3.53 44.98 5.12 31.24 YELLOWTIMES 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 CRITICALS 3 9 2 5 10 EXCESS 0 Sound Transit - Tukwila Commuter Rail Station 2010 With Phase 1 Project Conditions Analysis SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.00] - Capacity Analysis Summary 04/27/99 15:40:13 Intersection Averages for Int # 1 - W Valley Hwy/Strander Blvd Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.93 Vehicle Delay 62.3 Level of Service E+ Sq 67 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4 1 Phase 5 **/** /I\ North 1 * * *> <+ <+ * v G/C=0.046 1 G/C=0.032 1 G/C=0.409 1 G/C=0.046 G= 5.1" 1 G= 3.5" 1 G= 45.0" 1 G= 5.1" Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" OFF=99.9% 1 OFF= 8.3% 1 OFF=15.1% 1 OFF=59.6% G/C=0.284 G= 31.2" Y+R= 4.0" OFF=67.9% C=110 sec G= 89.9 sec = 81.7% Y=20.0 sec = 18.2% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% 1 Lane 1Width/1 g/C 1 Service Rate1 Adj 1 1 HCM 1 L 190% Max1 1 Group 1 Lanes' Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) @E 'Volume' v/c 1 Delay 1 S 1 Queue 1 N Approach 66.7 E+ RT TH LT 1 12/1 10.368 10.409 1 513 1 648 1 428 10.660 1 28.8 1 C 1 391 ftl 1 22/2 10.479 10.409 1 1199 1 1400 1 1498 11.070 If 77.7 1*E 1 684 ftl 1.12/ 1 10.208 10.046 1 1 1 61 1 22 10.268 1 52.4 1*D 1 32 ftl S Approach 58.8 E+ TH+RT1 23/2 10.517 10.477 11518 1 1658 1 1683 11.015 1 LT 1 24/2 10.250 10.115 1 1 1 372 1 367 10.934 1 54.7 1 D 1 680 ftl 77.5 1*E 1 251 ftl E Approach 130.1 F TH+RTI 15/1 10.212 10.046 1 LT 1 12/1 10.225 10.046 1 65 1 41 10.471 1 55.1 1 E+1 60 ftl 61 1 86 11.049 1 165.8 I*F 1 127 ftl W Approach 52.0 D RT TH LT 1 13/1 10.370 10.284 1 259 1 463 1 450 10.970 1 72.9 I*E 1 498 ft1 1 13/1-10.271 10.284 I 295 1 522 1 259 10.496 1 33.6 1 C 1 287 ftl 1 13/1+10.267 10.284 1 293 1 519 1 246 10.474 1 33.3 1 C 1272 ftl Sound Transit - Tukwila Commuter Rail Station 2010 With Phase 1 Project Conditions Analysis SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.00] - Summary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters for Int # 1 - W Valley Hwy/Strander Blvd METROARPA SIMULATION PERIOD LEVELOFSERVICE NODELOCATION NONCBD 15 C S O 0 Approach Parameters APPLABELS GRADES PEDLEVELS PARKINGSIDES PARKVOLUMES BUSVOLUMES RIGHTTURNONREDS Movement Parameters MOVLABELS VOLUMES WIDTHS LANES UTILIZATIONS TRUCKPERCENTS PEAKHOURFACTORS ARRIVALTYPES ACTUATIONS REQCLEARANCES MINIMUMS IDEALSATFLOWS FACTORS DELAYFACTORS NSTOPFACTORS GROUPTYPES SATURATIONFLOWS N 0.0 0 NONE 20 0 ,100 RT TH LT 485 1348 20 12.0 22.0 12.0 1 2 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.90 0.90 0.90 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM NORM 1583 3421 1770 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES PERMISSIVES OVERLAPS CYCLES GREENTIMES YELLOWTIMES CRITICALS EXCESS E 0.0 0 NONE 20 0 0 RT TH 20 17 0.0 15.0 0 1 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 0.90 0.90 3 3 YES YES 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM 0 1884 LT 77 12.0 1 0.00 2.0 0.90 3 YES 4.0 5.0 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM 1770 67 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 110 110 30 5.10 3.50 45.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3 9 2 0 S 0.0 0 NONE 20 0 0 RT TH LT 17 1498 330 0.0 23.0 24.0 O 2 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.90 0.90 0.90 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM NORM O 3474 3433 5.10 31.20 4.00 4.00 6 10 LEADLAGS OFFSET PEDTIME 04/27/99 15:40:50 W 0.0 0 NONE 20 0 75 RT TH LT 480 20 435 13.0 13.0 13.0 1 1 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.90 0.90 0.90 3 3 3 YES YES YES 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 1900 1900 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NORM NORM DOPT 1636 1841 1829 NONE 0.00 0.0 NONE 1 0 Sound Transit - Tukwila Commuter Rail Station 2010 With Full Project Conditions Analysis 04/27/99 15:37:22 SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.00] - Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages for Int # 1 - W Valley Hwy/Strander Blvd Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.95 Vehicle Delay 69.4 Level of Service E Sq 67 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 **/** /I\ 1 North * * *> <+ Phase 3 Phase 4 1 Phase 5 I G/C=0.046 1 G/C=0.032 1 G/C=0.409 1 G/C=0.046 1 G/C=0.284 ' G= 5.1" 1 G= 3.5" 1 G= 45.0" 1 G= 5.1" 1 G= 31.2" l Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1 OFF=99.9% 1 OFF= 8.3% 1 OFF=15.1% 1 OFF=59.6% 1 OFF=67.9% C=110 sec G= 89.9 sec = 81.7% Y=20.0 sec = 18.2% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% 1 Lane 1Width/1 g/C 1 Service Rate' Adj 1 1 HCM 1 L 190% Maxl 1 Group 1 Lanes' Reqd Used ( @C (vph) @E 'Volume' v/c 1 Delay I S 1 Queue 1 N Approach 70.8 E 1 RT 1 12/1 10.368 10.409 1 513 1 648 I 428 10.660 I 28.8 I C 1391 ftl 1 TH 1 22/2 10.483 10.409 1 1199 1 1400 1 1518 11.084 1 82.9 I*F 1 693 ftl 1 LT 1 12/1 10.208 10.046 1 1 1 61 1 22 10.268 1 52.4 I*D 1 32 ftl S Approach 60.8 E+ 1 TH+RT1 23/2 10.520 10.477 1 1517 1 1657 1 1697 11.024 1 1 LT 124/2 10.250 10.115 1 1 1 372 1 367 10.934 1 77.5 I*E 1 251 ftl 57.2 1 E+1 686 ftl E Approach 260.6 F 1 TH+RT1 15/1 10.213 10.046 I 1 1 66 1 42 10.477 1 55.2 1 E+1 62 ft) 1 LT 1 12/1 10.235 10.046 1 1 1 61 I 123 11.500 1 330.7 I*F 1 181 ftl W Approach 52.0 D 1 RT 1 13/1 10.370 10.284 I 259 1 463 1 450 '0.970 1 72.9 1*E 1 498 ftl 1 TH 1 13/1-10.271 10.284 1 295 1 522 1 259 10.496 1 33.6 1 C 1 287 ftl 1 LT 1 13/1+10.267 10.284 1 293 I 519 1 246 10.474 1 33.3 1 C 1 272 ftl Sound Transit - Tukwila Commuter Rail Station 2010 With Full Project Conditions Analysis SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.00] - Summary of Parameter Values Intersection Parameters for Int # 1 - W Valley Hwy/Strander Blvd METROAREA NONCBD SIMULATION PERIOD 15 .LEVELOFSERVICE C S NODELOCATION 0 0 Approach Parameters 04/27/99 15:38:00 APPLABELS N E S W GRADES 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PEDLEVELS 0 0 0 0 PARKINGSIDES NONE NONE NONE NONE PARKVOLUMES 20 20 20 20 BUSVOLUMES 0 0 0 0 RIGHTTURNONREDS 100 0 0 75 Movement Parameters MOVLABELS RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT VOLUMES 485 1366 20 20 18 111 25 1502 330 480 20 435 WIDTHS 12.0 22.0 12.0 0.0 15.0 12.0 0.0 23.0 24.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 LANES 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 2 2 1 1 1 UTILIZATIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRUCKPERCENTS 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 PEAKHOURFACTORS 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 ARRIVALTYPES 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ACTUATIONS YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES REQCLEARANCES 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 MINIMUMS 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 IDEALSATFLOWS 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 FACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 DELAYFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NSTOPFACTORS 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 GROUPTYPES NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM NORM DOPT SATURATIONFLOWS 1583 3421 1770 0 1888 1770 0 3472 3433 1636 1841 1829 Phasing Parameters SEQUENCES 67 PERMISSIVES NO NO NO NO LEADLAGS NONE NONE OVERLAPS NO NO NO NO OFFSET 0.00 1 CYCLES 110 110 30 PEDTIME 0.0 0 GREENTIMES 5.10 3.50 45.00 5.10 31.20 YELLOWTIMES 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 CRITICALS 3 9 2 6 10 EXCESS 0 ' HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.1a TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS Analyst: Heffron Transportation Intersection: S 158th Street/Site Access Count Date: Future With Project Time Period: PM Peak Intersection Orientation: East-West Major St. Vehicle Volume Data: Movements: 2 3 4 5 7 9 Volume: 130 34 2 2 215 2 HFR: 144 38 2 2 239 2 PHF: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PHV: 0.02 0.08 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 Pedestrian Volume Data: Movements: 13 14 15 16 Flow: 50 50 50 50 Lane width: 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Walk speed: 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 • Blockage: 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 Median Type: None # of vehicles: 0 Flared approach Movements: S of vehicles: Northbound 0 # of vehicles: Southbound 0 Lane usage for movements 1,2&3 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N Y Y N N N N N N Channelized: Grade: N 0.00 Lane usage for movements 4,5&6 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y Y N N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 7,8&9 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 . Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R Y N N N N Y N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Lane usage for movements 10,11&12 approach: Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 L T R L T R L T R N N N N N N N N N Channelized: N Grade: 0.00 Upstream Signal Data: Approach:Eastbound L prat T Distance: 0 Progression Speed: 0 Cycle Length: 0 Green Time: , 0 0 4Arrival Type: 3 3 Saturation Flow Rate: 1700 1700 Progressed Flow: 0 0 Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles: Eastbound Westbound Shared In volume, major th vehicles: 0 2 Shared In volume, major rt vehicles: 0 0 Sat floe rate, major th vehicles: 1700 1700 Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles: 1700 1700 Number of major street through lanes: 1 1 Length of study period, hrs: 0.25 Worksheet 4 Critical Gap and Follow-up time calculation. Critical Gap Calculations: Movement 4 7 9 t c.base 4.1 7.1 6.2 t c,hv 1.0 1.0 1.0 P hv 1.00 0.01 1.00 t c,g 0.2 0.1 G 0.00 0.00 0.00 t 3,1t 0.0 0.7 0.0 t c,T: 1 stage 0-.00 0.00 0.00 t c 1 stage 5.1 6.4 7.2 Follow Up Time Calculations: Movement 4 7 9 t f,base 2.2 3.5 3.3 t f,HV 0.9 0.9 0.9 P hv 1.00 0.01 1.00 t f 3.1 3.5 4.2 Worksheet 5a. Effect of Upstream Signals (Computation 1) Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal: Movement 5 ✓ prog Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph) Arrival Type Effective Green g eff (sec) Cycle Length, C (sec) Rp (from table 9-2) Proportion of vehicles arriving on green P g ql g q2 G q Worksheet 5b. Effect of upstream signals (computation 2) Proprtion of time blocked Movement 5 alpha 0.550 beta 0.645 t a 22.857 F 0.110 ✓ c,max ✓ c,min t p P 0.000 Worksheet 5c. Effect of upstream signals (computation 3) Platoon Event Periods Result p2 0.000 p5 0.000 p dom 0.000 p subdom 0.000 Constrained or unconstrained? U Proportion unblocked for minor movements, px (1) 1 stage pl 1.000 p4 1.000 p7 1.000 p8 1.000 p9 1.000 p10 1.000 pil 1.000 p12 1.000 Worksheet 5d. Effect of upstream signals (computation 4) Movement 1 stage 4 7 9 V c,x 232 270 263 s 1700 1700 1700 Px 1.000 1.000 1.000 V c,u,x 232 270 263 Worksheet Se. Effect of upstream signals (computation 5) Movement 1 stage 4 7 9 Px 1.000 1.000 1.000 C r,x 922 721 588 C plat,x 922 721 588 Worksheet 6 Impedance and capacity equations Step 1: RT from Minor St. 9 12 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Step 2: LT from Major St. 263 588 0.92 540 1.00 4 1 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Movement Capacity Probability of Queue free St. Maj. L Shared In. Prob. Queue Free St. 232 922 0.96 884 1.00 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor St. 7 10 Conflicting Flows Potential Capacity Pedestrian Impedance Factor Maj. L. Min T Impedance factor Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor. Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt Movement Capacity 270 721 0.92 0.92 0.94 0.86 620 Worksheet 10 delay,queue length, and LOS Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 I II I I II I v(vph) 2 239 2 C m(vph) 884 620 540 v/c 0.00 0.39 0.00 95% queue length Control Delay 9.1 14.4 11.7 LOS A B B Approach Delay 14.4 Approach LOS B Worksheet 11 Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay Rank 1 Delay Calculations Movement 2 5 P of 1.00 1.00 ✓ it 0 2 ✓ i2 0 0 S it 1700 1700 S i2 1700 1700 P* Oj 1.00 1.00 D maj left 0.0 9.1 N number major st lanes 1 1 Delay, rank 1 mvmts 0.0 0.0 Tukwila Commuter Rail Station EA APPENDIX A Alternatives Considered January 2009 Appendix A DRAFT Appendix A- Alternatives Considered In the last design phase of the Tukwila Commuter rail Station, "Preferred Alternatives Analysis and Project Sequencing for the Tukwila Station", the design team created six potential site configurations with input from the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and a design charrette. From these six potential layouts Sound Transit and the design team narrowed the group to three alternatives based on satisfying all of the goals, such as providing uninterrupted service during construction, accommodating a third BNSF mainline, and blending into the surrounding community. The preferred alternative was then selected from these three alternatives. The alternatives evaluated are described below. These alternatives considered a phased construction scenario. The site plan presented in this environmental documentation is based on the Final Buildout scenario. Further detail and TAC comments regarding these alternatives can be found follwing this brief overview. Alternative 1 The Alternative 1 site layout includes two surface parking areas centered on a pedestrian plaza just north of the existing SPU pipeline. A pedestrian corridor would align with the plaza and provide a connection point for the future Baker Boulevard connection. The bus transit circulation loop would run the entire periphery of the parking lots, thereby creating large bus loading zones and holding bays. The PSE substation would remain at its current location. The station site could connect to the future Stander Boulevard via an easement through the PSE transmission line right-of-way. A new parcel for development would be created on the north end of the site adjacent to Longacres Way. Alternative 4 Under Alternative 4, the Tukwila Station and its components would be developed between the current and future UPRR right-of-way parcels, which would make the station independent of the UPRR relocation but create a narrow (200 -foot -wide) site. Surface parking for patrons would be centered on a pedestrian plaza just south of the SPU pipeline. The south parking lot would hold the short-term parking (kiss -and -ride) area, and the north lot would be surrounded by a transit -only loop. A stormwater detention pond would separate the station from a small future development parcel on the north side of the site. The PSE substation would be relocated to the south to improve the functionality of the site and to increase its potential future redevelopment value. Alternative 6 Alternative 6 would subdivide the entire station site into city -type block proportions. This layout would allow nearby future developments to connect into a city block -style road grid. The future Baker Boulevard is envisioned as a tree -lined street that would terminate at the pedestrian plaza and would provide access to the station similar to other options. Surface parking for the station would be provided in two lots centered on the pedestrian plaza. Long-term parking would be added in a smaller lot at the south end of the site. Tukwila Station Preferred Alternatives Analysis and Project Sequencing Summary of Findings Appendix A - Three Site Development Alternatives A-1 DRAFT The detention pond would separate the station from a future development parcel on the northern portion of the site. Preferred Alternative and Recommended Concept Alternative 6 was rated as the preferred alternative, Alternative 4 was rated second, and Alternative 1 was rated third. Alternative 6 was preferred based on its relative strengths in traffic circulation, creating city blocks that facilitate surrounding development, and long-term functionality. A "hybrid" site layout was developed based on the preferred alternative (Alternative 6) and incorporated the best features from the other alternatives. This "hybrid" solution became the recommended concept for the Tukwila Station site master plan. Tukwila Station Preferred Alternatives Analysis and Project Sequencing Summary of Findings Appendix A - Three Site Development Alternatives A-2 APPENDIX A - THREE SITE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES DRAFT The information contained in this appendix describes the three different alternatives that were presented to the TAC. The evaluation criteria and TAC comments are shown in tabular form for each alternative. There are three graphic images for each alternative. These images depict the alternative at Phase I, Phase II (Final Buildout), and within an urban context. The urban context image shows how the Tukwila Station development could complement increased development in the adjoining properties. Alternative 1 - The Charrette Layout Phase I Notes Alternative 1 is the layout created by the charrette group. In Phase I the entire site development is contained between the existing UPRR right-of-way and the future UPRR right-of-way. This limits the developable site width to about 200 feet but frees the site development from the UPRR relocation schedule. In Phase I, 600 -foot long platforms are constructed on both the • northbound and southbound tracks. Pedestrian access across the tracks via a tunnel or a skybridge is constructed. Parking lots are constructed to match the amount of parking currently available in the temporary lot. The short -tem parking (kiss -and -ride) is built out fully and it is located in its final position. The detention pond and the transit loop are sized to meet current need and therefore are not constructed to final buildout size. See Figure A-1 for the Alternative I Phase I concept drawing. Phase II (Final Buildout) and Urban Context Notes At Phase II (Final Buildout) the site is oriented around an east -west axis formed by the pedestrian plaza. Parking is split into two lots flanking the plaza. A loop road encloses the parking area and forms a transit zone along the east side of the site. Stormwater detention and treatment occurs in a surface pond at the north end of the developed site. A parcel for future development is reserved on the Longacres Way frontage. The pedestrian plaza is shown to meet up with a future Baker Boulevard extension. See Figure A-2 for the Phase II (Final Buildout) concept drawing and Figure A-3 for the urban context concept drawing. Table A-1 Alternative CRITERIA 1 1 Evaluation Criteria and Comments CRITERIA DESCRIPTION J Phase I functions well as a commuter rail station. Bus loading, patron parking, and short-term parking (kiss -and -ride) are near the entrance to the platform; design promotes safety and security for users; bike routes provided on site. TAC COMMENTS ON ALTERNATIVE I Provide N -S connection across pedestrian corridor between parking lots. 2 Phase II (Final Buildout) functions well as a commuter rail station. Bus loading, patron parking, and short-term parking (kiss -and -ride) are near the entrance to the platform; design promotes safety and security for users; bike routes provided on site. There were no comments provided on this alternative for this criterion. 3 Phase II (Final Buildout) functions with and without UPRR relocation; operates well with minimal improvements if the UPRR track is not relocated and the Strander Boulevard overcrossing is never built. The Strander Boulevard connection would not work if the UPRR does not relocate because there likely would not be a Strander Boulevard overpass. It was acknowledged that the City of Renton expects to work with UPRR to accomplish the move. 4 Vehicle circulation and connection to road network in the Phase II (Final Buildout) functions well. Efficient bus and car routes, minimal crossings of vehicles and pedestrians, provides second emergency vehicle access point to the west, provides connection to Strander Boulevard. Connection as shown to Strander Boulevard is not preferred because buses and cars would need to make a left turn and the intersection is too close to West Valley Highway. 5 Phase II (Final Buildout) allows incremental phasing and expansion to match service level increases for bus service, patron parking, VanPool connections, short-term parking (kiss -and -ride), and stormwater detention. This alternative is not preferred for this criterion since there is a significant incremental cost due to the new west road. 6 Phase II (Final Buildout) and surrounding context relates to and works with the surrounding city comprehensive plan: promotes a pedestrian connection to the City of Tukwila to the west, ties into Baker Boulevard, creates a visual linkage to the surrounding community, creates linkage to the regional bike trail, provides public open space, and promotes a pedestrian connection to the east at the Boeing/Renton property. This alternative is not preferred for this criterion because it does not break the scale of the site down to a pedestrian scale; there are no other east/west connections. The pedestrian does not get the sense they are in a neighborhood. j 7 Phase II (Final Buildout) enables future development on and near the site for a private, public, or joint private/public development. This alternative is preferred for this criterion because of the large parcel on Sound Transit property available for future development. A larger parcel is more likely to attract a developer. 8 Phase I site layout provides least first cost. Major costs to the project are the tunnel and platforms, which are common to all alternatives. Differences in minor costs are associated with the amount of pavement and drainage. Initial review shows this alternative may have more pavement than some of the other alternatives in Phase I. 9 Phase II (Final Buildout) is size/cost appropriate for level of service provided at station (18 trains). This alternative did best at keeping the scale of the final facility, including parking in line with ridership estimates. f 10 Phase II (Final Buildout) is efficient and minimizes stormwater system complexity. This alternative is not preferred for this criterion due to' multiple draining complexity. 11 Phase II (Final Buildout) allows other stakeholders to fund enhancements. This alternative provides sufficient area for enhancements by others. Tukwila Station Preferred Alternatives Analysis and Project Sequencing Summary of Findings A-3 Appendix A — Three Site Development Alternatives DRAFT ra , ccess Road Kiss -a 'd -Ride Future Union Pacific RR c:saimia,:teksill moat -F,:493,35 Platforms • Figure A-1 Alternative 1 Phase I Concept Drawing Tukwila Station Preferred Alternatives Analysis and Project Sequencing Summary of Findings A-4 Appendix A - Three Site Development Alternatives DRAFT 6'' ,I sally 'ril Sub Station Kiss -and -Ride Only/Boarding .�t111►�,►r L Figure A-2 Alternative 1 Phase 11(Final Buildout) Concept Drawing 4 Tukwila Station Preferred Alternatives Analysis and Project Sequencing Summary of Findings A-5 Appendix A - Three Site Development Alternatives DRAFT Kiss -and -Ride Only/Boarding Figure A-3 Alternative 1 Urban Context Concept Drawing Tukwila Station Preferred Alternatives Analysis and Project Sequencing Summary of Findings A-6 Appendix A - Three Site Development Alternatives DRAFT Alternative 4 - All Sound Transit Program Between New and Existing UPRR Right -of -Way Phase I Notes In order to free the Sound Transit Tukwila Station from the UPRR relocation completely, Alternative 4 concentrates the entire station program between the current and future UPRR rights-of-way. Only the north parking lot is built in Phase I. The PSE substation remains in its current location. The transit loop and bus layover space are reduced from their final buildout size. The driveways are segregated so that only cars enter and exit on the west entrance off of Longacres Way and only transit enters and exits on the east entrance. The Phase I short-term parking (kiss -and -ride) is located just north of the pedestrian corridor, over the CRPL No. 4 easement and will be relocated in Phase II (Final Buildout). The platforms are built out to 600 feet. See Figure A-4 for the Alternative 4 Phase I concept drawing. Phase II (Final Buildout) and Urban Context Notes This option effectively spreads the development farther north and south and requires a relocation of the PSE substation to function effectively. The surface parking is centered on a pedestrian corridor just south of the SPU utility easement. The southern parking lot holds the short-term parking (kiss -and -ride) and the northern lot is surrounded by a transit -only loop. A detention pond separates the station from a small future development parcel on the north side of the site. See Figure A-5 for the Phase II (Final Buildout) concept drawing and Figure A-6 for the urban context concept drawing. Table A-2 - Alternative CRITERIA 1 4 Evaluation Criteria and Comments CRITERIA DESCRIPTION Phase I functions well as a commuter rail station. Bus loading, patron parking, and short-term parking (kiss -and -ride) are near the entrance to the platform; design promotes safety and security for users; bike routes provided on site. , TAC COMMENTS ON ALTERNATIVE 4 This alternative is preferred for this criterion for vehicle circulation with a revision to the west roadway - cars exit on a two-way west roadway and Transit exit on a one-way east roadway. 2 Phase II (Final Buildout) functions well as a commuter rail station. Bus loading, patron parking, and short-term parking (kiss -and -ride) are near the entrance to the platform; design promotes safety and security for users; bike routes provided on site. There is not enough bus layout/layover space in this alternative. 1 ) 3 Phase II (Final Buildout) functions with and without UPRR relocation; operates well with minimal improvements if the UPRR track is not relocated and the Strander Boulevard overcrossing is never built. There are no functional requirements that occur in the current or proposed UPRR right-of-way for this alternative. It was acknowledged that the City of Renton expects to work with UPRR to accomplish the move. i 4 Vehicle circulation and connection to road network in the Phase II (Final Buildout) functions well. Efficient bus and car routes, minimal crossings of vehicles and pedestrians, provides second emergency vehicle access point to the west, provides connection to Strander Boulevard. Not having access to Strander Blvd is not preferred. 5 Phase II (Final Buildout) allows incremental phasing and expansion to match service level increases for bus service, patron parking, VanPool connections, short-term parking (kiss -and -ride), and stormwater detention. The substation moving in this alternative is a substantial cost and is likely not at the increment talked about in this criterion. , 6 Phase II (Final Buildout) and surrounding context relates to and works with the surrounding city comprehensive plan: promotes a pedestrian connection to the City of Tukwila to the west, ties into Baker Boulevard, creates a visual linkage to the surrounding community, creates linkage to the regional bike trail, provides public open space, and promotes a pedestrian connection to the east at the Boeing/Renton property. This alternative is not preferred for this criterion because it doesn't break the scale of the site down to a pedestrian scale; there are no other east/west connections. Pedestrians do not get the sense they are in a neighborhood. 7 Phase II (Final Buildout) enables future development on and near the site for a private, public, or joint private/public development. There were no comments provided on this alternative for this criterion. 8 Phase I site layout provides least first cost. Major costs to the project are the tunnel and platforms, which are common to all alternatives. Differences in minor costs are associated with the amount of pavement and drainage. Initial review shows that this alternative probably has less pavement in Phase I than the other alternatives. 9 Phase 11 (Final Buildout) is size/cost appropriate for level of service provided at station (18 trains). Parking is limited in this alternative due to site restrictions. 10 Phase II (Final Buildout) is efficient and minimizes stormwater system complexity. • This alternative is preferred for this criterion since single', system drainage to the north is simplest. 11 Phase II (Final Buildout) allows other stakeholders to fund enhancements. This alternative provides the least sufficient area among the alternatives for enhancements by others. Tukwila Station Preferred Alternatives Analysis and Project Sequencing Summary of Findings A-7 Appendix A - Three Site Development Alternatives DRAFT q • ,o jir ,T,14 r' .165451 1 .,i'i, 44_.3 . 2, ; yfAiij11043 341 Access Road Only/Boarding Transit Only et Future Union Pacific _r=_..rn— - -c-cam- c._..=aa - .i.�,• P atforrns BNSF .RR Figure A-4 Alternative 4 Phase 1 Concept Drawing Tukwila Station Preferred Alternatives Analysis and Project Sequencing Summary of Findings A-8 Appendix A — Three Site Development Alternatives DRAFT sA d411,36014j i r ti _ , iii',v. Access Road kiss -and -Ride Ura nsi�t /Boarding Transit Only Future Union Pacific R -ate • oC� Figure A-5 Alternative 4 Phase 11 (Final Buildout) Concept Drawing Tukwila Station Preferred Alternatives Analysis and Project Sequencing Summary of Findings A-9 Appendix A — Three Site Development Alternatives DRAFT _ -••••1 tf , • I A (1) ba. ..Tra t.-: .: -4_-,, . - - ,,,- - _ , „ , v.. " Caitz 411) cirp)53( - I) > 0 PUCE:.4.4.4.e.40 I Parking Transit Ong Future Union Pacific R r .11,1 k• 4.0fft, - ....IOW*, 11 4-4 Aspitsimt - - - - BNELRR • - — - -47 47 a - r Figure A-6 Alternative 4 Urban Context Concept Drawing " f _ !• • 11116" VIA Tukwila Station Preferred Alternatives Analysis and Project Sequencing Summary of Findings A-10 Appendix A — Three Site Development Alternatives DRAFT Alternative 6 - City Block Concept - Revised Phase I Notes Alternative 6 utilizes a city block concept in which the entire site (including the existing PSE power lines and PSE owned triangular parcels) is divided by roadways into city type blocks throughout the site. In Phase I cars and transit both enter and exit on a roadway off. of Longacres Way at the east end of the site. A temporary emergency access road connects the site to Strander Boulevard. Parking provides a limited amount of stalls at Phase I in both lots, but remains centered on the pedestrian plaza to align with the , connection point to the platforms. Short-term parking (kiss -and -ride) in the north lot is in its final position. Phase I bus layover space is reduced and the transit loop is smaller than in their final buildout configuration. See Figure A-7 for the Alternative 6 Phase I concept drawing. Phase 1I (Final Buildout) and Urban Context Notes In Phase II (Final Buildout) the area under the existing power lines shows potential park blocks with future potential development parcels to the east of the PSE right-of-way. In accordance with the Tukwila Urban Center Plan the future Baker Boulevard becomes a tree -lined street that aligns with the pedestrian plaza. It is assumed that Baker Boulevard terminates at the western access road. Sound Transit surface parking is in two lots, centered on the pedestrian plaza. The detention pond separates the commuter rail station from a future development parcel on the northern portion of the site. Long-term dedicated Amtrak parking is located in a smaller lot at the south end of the site. See Figure A-8 for the Phase II (Final Buildout) concept drawing and Figure A-9 for the urban context drawing. Table A-3 - Alternative CRITERIA 1 6 Evaluation Criteria and Comments CRITERIA DESCRIPTION Phase I functions well as a commuter rail station. Bus loading, patron parking, and short-term parking (kiss -and -ride) are near the entrance to the platform; design promotes safety and security for users; bike routes provided on site. TAC COMMENTS ON ALTERNATIVE 6 This alternative is preferred for this criterion because of the centralized focal point. It is recommended to keep emergency access to Strander Blvd and reviselto also include transit, which would require obtaining an UPRR crossing permit. It is also recommendedto. provide N -S connection across pedestrian corridor between parking lots. I 2 Phase II (Final Buildout) functions well as a commuter rail station. Bus loading, patron parking, and short-term parking (kiss -and -ride) are near the entrance to the platform; design promotes safety and security for users; bike routes provided on site. This alternative is preferred for this criterion because of the centralized focal point. It is recommended to provide N -S connection across pedestrian corridor between parking lots. 3 Phase II (Final Buildout) functions with and without UPRR relocation; operates well with minimal improvements if the UPRR track is not relocated and the Strander Boulevard overcrossing is never built. The Strander Boulevard connection would not work if the UPRR does not relocate because there would likely not be a Strander Boulevard overpass. It was acknowledged that the City of Renton expects to work with the UPRR to accomplish the move. 4 Vehicle circulation and connection to road network in the Phase II (Final Buildout) functions well. Efficient bus and car routes, minimal crossings of vehicles and pedestrians, provides second emergency vehicle access point to the west, provides connection to Strander Boulevard. This alternative is preferred for this criterion because of the connection to Strander Blvd. The small south lot could be dedicated to long-term parking for Amtrak or other uses. 1 5 Phase II (Final Buildout) allows incremental phasing and expansion to match service level increases for bus service, patron parking, VanPool connections, short-term parking (kiss -and -ride), and stormwater detention. This alternative is preferred for this criterion because of the easier expansion from the center and because it is probably the most cost effective for incremental phasing. Partial parking lots could be shut down while others are kept in operation. Bus routing phasing is similar. This alternative has the best` , capacity for a structured parking garage in the future because of the larger parking lot/block area. , 6 Phase 11 (Final Buildout) and surrounding context relates to and works with the surrounding city comprehensive plan: promotes a pedestrian connection to the City of Tukwila to the west, ties into Baker Boulevard, creates a visual linkage to the surrounding community, creates linkage to the regional bike trail, provides public open space, and promotes a pedestrian connection to the east at the Boeing/Renton property. This alternative is preferred for this criterion because it creates the look and feel of a park block amenity. This alternative also appeals to the scale of the pedestrian, has good circulation for transit and mirrors the City of Tukwila's Urban Plan to the west. 7 Phase II (Final Buildout) enables future development on and near the site for a private, public, or joint private/public development. This alternative is not preferred for this criterion because the small wedge shape blocks are not very realistic for potential future development. The blocks could be divided and used for drainage to minimize the ponds on Sound Transit property and preserve a larger future development block on Sound Transit property. 8 Phase I site layout provides least first cost. Major costs to the project are the tunnel and platforms, which are common to all alternatives. Differences in minor costs are associated with the amount of pavement and drainage. Initial review shows that this alternative probably has more pavement than some of the other alternatives in Phase I. 9 Phase 11 (Final Buildout) is size/cost appropriate for level of service provided at station (18 trains). Location of the access road reduces amount of parking from that in Alternative 1. 10 Phase II (Final Buildout) is efficient and minimizes stormwater system complexity. This alternative is preferred for this criterion since single system drainage to the north is simplest. 11 Phase II (Final Buildout) allows other stakeholders to fund enhancements. This alternative provides a separate small parking lot, which could be used for long-term parking by others. Sufficient area for enhancements by others is also'provided. Tukwila Station Preferred Alternatives Analysis and Project Sequencing Summary of Findings A-11 Appendix A — Three Site Development Alternatives DRAFT • Access R Kiss -and -Ride Layover Only/Boarding Layover Figure A-7 Alternative 6 Phase 1 Concept Drawing • Tukwila Station Preferred Alternatives Analysis and Project Sequencing Summary of Findings Al -12 Appendix A — Three Site Development Alternatives DRAFT 1.. S ;3 dt Access Road/FutuEe City Street Parking (40,Stalls) Parking 1.35 Stalls) tare .r Past F'3n=oL�,ax� , Kis'�'�"s rffitifi ide Layover ransit Only/Boarding Layover Figure A-8 Alternative 6 Phase Il (Final Buildout) Concept Drawing Tukwila Station Preferred Alternatives Analysis and Project Sequencing Summary of Findings A-13 Appendix A - Three Site Development Alternatives DRAFT Access Road/Future City Street, Only/Boarding Figure A-9 Alternative 6 Urban Context Drawing Tukwila Station Preferred Alternatives Analysis and Project Sequencing Summary of Findings A-14 Appendix A - Three Site Development Alternatives Tukwila Commuter Rail Station EA APPENDIX B Updated USFWS and NOAA Fisheries Service Fish and Wildlife Species Documentation January 2009 Appendix B LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND URI... Page 1 oto LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT; CANDIDATE SPECIES; AND SPECIES OF CONCERN IN KING COUNTY AS PREPARED BY THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WESTERN WASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE (Revised November 1, 2007) LISTED Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) Gray wolf (Canis lupus) Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos = U. a. horribilis) Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) Major concerns that should.be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project impacts to listed species include: 1. Level of use of the project area by listed species. 2. Effect of the project on listed species' primary food stocks, prey species, and foraging areas in all areas influenced by the project. 3. Impacts from project activities and implementation (e.g., increased noise levels, increased human activity and/or access, loss or degradation of habitat) that may result in disturbance to listed species and/or their avoidance of the project area. Castilleja levisecta (golden paintbrush) [historic] Major concerns that should be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project impacts to listed plant species include: 1. Distribution of taxon in project vicinity. 2. Disturbance (trampling, uprooting, collecting, etc.) of individual plants and loss of habitat. 3. Changes in hydrology where taxon is found. http://www.fws.gov/westwafwo/se/SE_List/ICING.htm 12/17/2007 L16,1Ell ANL) YKUYUSEJJ ENL)ANUEKEL) ANL) 1llIEALtN1 L) SI EUIEN AND UM... ?age l of 2 DESIGNATED Critical habitat for bull trout Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl PROPOSED None CANDIDATE Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) Yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) SPECIES OF CONCERN Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Beller's ground beetle (Agonum belleri) California wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus) Cascades frog (Rana cascadae) Hatch's click beetle (Eanus hatchi) Larch Mountain salamander (Plethodon larselli) Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans) Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Northern sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) Northwestern pond turtle (Emys (= Clemmys) marmorata marmorata) Olive -sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) Pacific Townsend=s big -eared bat (Coiynorhinus townsendii townsendii) Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) River lamprey (Lampetra ayresi) Tailed frog (Ascaphus truei) Valley silverspot (Speyeria serene bremeri) Western toad (Bufo boreas) Aster curtus (white -top aster) Botrychium pedunculosur (stalked moonwort) Cimicifirga elata (tall bugbane) http://www.fws.gov/westwafwo/se/SE List/KING.htm 12/17/2007 Endangered Species Act Status of West Coast Salmon & Steelhead jfrp:iapvt.h::u• 7S.2007) - .--- '-'�- • __,.......„..7--_____"7". r9pec�e9 =,et gCt�rr_ertf IV..? �S'7H%I.."."- -IJLSf rei(FlOAY" rte- Ad lTnderBevfe 9 Sockeye Salmon (O/Icor/owe/m1 narks) 1 a T,4_..Qr�'ne 7 4 Snake River ' Lake.- ggOggeEEPgal Mn IVarrmued— �' Not Warranted — — -- BakerRIver Okanogan River —��—~ 5 Lake Wenatchee Not Warranted Nat Warranted Nat iVarranted 6 Quint,. Lake _ 7 Lake Pleasant —I Chinook Salmon (0. tshaw mrita) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Sacmmemo River Winter -run_ _ _ Upper Columbia River Spring -run Snake [liver Spring/Summer-nut SnakeR(verFel(-nm _ _________ Puget Sound - — ic.tM`"•Y - w-i.:u.,f7 .. --1; _Lower Calumb(nRiver _ _ Upper Willamette River __._.. _.__.... ._ = ^ .. v=-` -...:.-±;;; _Central Valley Spring -run California Caaatal __..__-. Central Vali Fall. and Lata Fall -run _. _ Upper KlamathTdnity_Rlvere Oregan Coast —.. - `-'"' ::'== f._ _ _;'- „ Nat Warranted i Nat Warrmucd Washington Coast Nat Warranted _I Ml-ddle Columbia River spring -run--- Nnt R'arratrrnJ lFarrynteJ _ I If Nat lFarKented .-__ Nat Warranted , UpperColumbinlUversummer/fall-mo.. ____ ___[__..Ver _Southern Oregon and Northern California Coast_ - Deschutes River summer/fall-ran Collo Salmon (0. hunch) 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Central California Coast INNINIIIIINI Southern OreganMonhem California• Lower Columbia River = ".1,-.2,17::7.7 _'= _ Nat Warranted • Critical habitat M Oregon Coast Southwest Washington Undetermined Puget Sound/Streit ofOewgia Cn eeiici ---7q,5p��-__ri� Olympic Peninsula 1 Nat Irarranted Chum Salmon (0. keta) 32 33 34 35 L Hoa( Canal Summer-ran�ef= Columbia River _ _ _ lPuget Sound/SttalroFdeorgla• ___ Pacific Coast I_ ;:s�r._::rr?2:'=_ NatWarrvnted_ NatWurranted Stedhmd (O. tuyklsa) 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 44 45 46 47 48 49 tat 50 Southern California _—ev. ,� w Upper Columbia River Central California Coast _....... __. South Central Colifamla Coast L.:-:.=.:-1-..:.-......,. - .,-=------,=:=-, __ .71.: ti.tYI'. _ 7x`+J'`" . T'=' Snake River Basin T^� j-`=?t;?;i"•?' _ ":- LuwcrCalumblaRiver='= +;%=-'s California Central Volley -. � - 12,!....,:7,-,Z:' a,Z:' Upper WlllameucUver __i�.4 =' [r=43 Middle Columbia River_ _____ _NonhernWanda -_T —_._._. '.sr Oregon Coast t °af.Caramjr Southwest Washington �_ Not IVarraured OlympicPeninaulo__-......-_._ __.._.. Puget Sound &I Warranted - __`' i ;� '/'�` :.Pmldeefvebiegrtlndans Not IVarrrnued — itat Klamath Mountains Province 1 Pink Salman (0. gorburc/m) 51 52 Even nar j Not IVamuaed ! Odd- ear . Mn IVerran:ea t The ESA definesa "species" to include any dlsdnct papulation segment of any spedes of vestebmte fish or wildlife. ForPocific salmon. NOAA Fisheries Service considers an evolutionarily significant unit, or "FSU;' a "species" under the ESA. For Pacific steelhead. NOAA Fisheries Service has delineated distinct population segments (DPS5) for consideration as "species" under the ESA. Tuk'.v la Commuter- `k Station EA, APPENDIX C Endangered Species Act Section 7 Analysis and No -Effect..: Determination January 2009 Appendix C iir17-11 SOUNDTRANSIT November 6, 2008 Linda Gehrke Deputy Regional Administrator Federal Transit Administration 915 Second Avenue, Room 3142 Seattle, WA 98174 Subject: No -effect letter; Tukwila Commuter Station Dear Ms. Gehrke: As part of the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Project, the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) proposes to construct a permanent commuter rail station in Tukwila, Washington, south of Interstate -405 and east of State Route 181 (West Valley Highway) (Figure 1). The purpose of the project is to replace an existing temporary commuter rail station with a permanent facility in approximately the same location. The new facility is being designed to accommodate expected growth in commuter rail ridership through 2030. The new permanent station will be built immediately south of the existing temporary station, which will be removed. The project will include funding by the Federal Transit Administration, and therefore has a nexus to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The purpose of this letter is to address the potential effects of the proposed project on species listed under the ESA. Project Location The proposed project is located in Township 23 N, Range 4 E, Sections 24 and 25, in the City of Tukwila, Washington (Figure 1). The property is located immediately south of Interstate -405, east of the Green River and west of Boeing's Longacres facility. The project site is located within the greater Green River watershed, which is part of Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9. Specifically, the site is part of the Springbrook Creek sub -basin, a tributary to the Black River, which enters the lower -Green River at River Mile (RM) 11.0. The Springbrook Creek sub -basin drains nearly 17,000 acres of land within South King County and provides approximately 17.2 miles of aquatic habitat for anadromous salmonids (King County, 2008). Its major tributaries include Panther, Mill and Mill -Hill Creeks. The site of the proposed project is approximately 0.50 miles from Springbrook Creek. Project Description Construction of the permanent Tukwila Commuter Rail Station would include 700 -foot - long platforms beside each of the two BNSF tracks, with several canopies throughout the platforms (Figure 2). A parking lot, accommodating approximately 390 cars, would be located to the west of the relocated UPRR track. The proposed parking lot would be approximately 700 feet long by 200 feet wide, and would connect to Longacres Way via an access road on the northwest side of the lot. Bus transit service would be Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority • Union Station 401 S. Jackson St., Seattle, WA 98104-2826 • Reception: 206-398-5000 • FAX: 206-398-5499 • www.soundtransitorg CIWR Greg Nickels Seattle Mayor wcE cwRS ` Aaron Reardon Snohomish County Executive Claudia Thomas • Laker/o& Councilmember some MEMuERS lulhrAnderson" Tacoma Councilme,nber f ` Mary -Alyce BudeEgh Kirkland"Councilmember Fred Butler Isiaquah°Deputy-Council President Richard Conlin Sedttle'Coiincil President Dow Constantine' King County Council Vice Chair Deana Dawson Edmonds Councilmember Dave EnsloW Sumner Mayor Pada j. Hammond; ' Washington State Secretary of Transportation • John W..ladenburg `' 1'ierce'County Executive :lohn Marchione , , Redmond Mayor 'Jutta Patterson King .CoantyCouncil ,Chair (' tarry Phillips King County Councihnember Paul Roberts Everett Councilmember :,Ron Sino 'King County Executive • Peter. von Reichbauer King County Councilmember CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Joni Earl. November 6, 2008 Linda Gehrke Page 2 of 6 accommodated by transit -only lanes, and a boarding and layover zone that would include a waiting shelter. Pedestrian amenities would include sidewalks leading to all parts of the station and parking lot, wheelchair -accessible ramps connecting between the platforms and ground -level facilities, a pedestrian underpass between the parking lot and the easternmost platform and a broad plaza crossing the parking lot east to west at its midpoint. Other features and amenities would include ticket vending machines, bicycle lockers and racks, seating, informational and wayfinding signage, a guard station, and public art. The platforms of the existing station would be removed after the permanent station is completed. This station platform is being designed to accommodate future addition of a third track in the BNSF ROW by including an apron on the west platform that can be removed when the third track is added. The planned third BSNF track, to be located west of the two existing tracks, would supplement rail service in the BNSF corridor. Addition of this track would entail using the new track for commuter rail purposes, with the center track being used exclusively for through rail traffic. Construction of the third track expansion is not part of this project. Additionally, a stormwater treatment and detention facility is proposed to be located at the north end of the parking lot. Construction Schedule Construction is scheduled to begin in 2010 and be completed by 2011. Land Use in the Project Vicinity Land use in the project vicinity includes light industrial, commercial, and single/multi-family residential areas of the City of Tukwila. Listed Species Present Both the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) provided listings of threatened and endangered species under their jurisdiction (see enclosed lists). The current listings from NMFS indicate the potential presence of the Puget Sound Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment (DPS) steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) within the project area. Additionally, the USFWS lists Coastal/Puget Sound DPS bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), gray wolf (Canis lupus), grizzly bear (Ursus horribilis), Canada lynx (Lynx canadensi), marsh sandwort (Arenaria paludicola) and golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta) as having the potential to occur within King County, Washington. Critical habitat has been designated for Puget Sound ESU Chinook salmon and Coastal/Puget Sound DPS bull trout within the mainstem of the Green River, which is located within the general project vicinity. The potential presence of listed species within the project area was further evaluated by reviewing Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) data, November 6, 2008 Linda Gehrke Page 3 of 6 WDFW Wildlife Heritage data set, WDFW Stock Inventory Data, and the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Natural Heritage Program rare plant species database. Habitat Description and Impacts Assessment Adolfson scientist Laura Brock visited the project area on November 29, 2007 to verify the presence of critical areas, assess habitat conditions and to evaluate potential effects of the proposed project. The property for the proposed project is a relatively flat, undeveloped parcel (Photo 1). Vegetation on the site is primarily grasses, native and invasive shrubs, and thickets of deciduous trees (Photos 1 & 2). Several small wetland areas have been identified on-siteand are generally characterized as ditch features along the railroad corridor (Photo 3). Hydrology of these wetlands is driven by precipitation and surface water runoff from the railroad and surrounding areas. Overall, these wetlands provide very limited habitat value and little capacity for flood storage or water quality improvement. Aquatic habitat within the sub -basin is generally poor. Previous habitat surveys suggest fairly uniform channel morphology that is devoid of deep pools, complexity and large woody debris (King County, 2000). Additionally, water quality in Springbrook Creek has been chronically poor in several parameters including dissolved oxygen, temperature, turbidity, fecal coliform, phosphorus and ammonia (King County, 2008). According to WDFW PHS data, salmonid species documented in Springbrook Creek are winter steelhead, coho salmon and coastal cutthroat trout. Chinook salmon and native char (bull trout) are not known to occur in Springbrook Creek (WDFW 2008, Salmonscape 2008). Chinook salmon and steelhead have been documented downstream of Springbrook Creek, in the Black River and are well documented in the Green River (WDFW 2008, Salmonscape 2008). The proposed project will result in approximately 7.6 acres of new impervious surface within the Springbrook Creek sub -basin. Approximately 6.9 acres of this can be classified as pollution - generating impervious surface. Stormwater facilities are planned to facilitate treatment and detention of stormwater runoff resulting from the new impervious surfaces. The stormwater facilities will be constructed per standards set by the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual and the 2005 King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual and will be designed to treat runoff from 100% of the new pollution generating impervious surface. In addition, stormwater leaving the site will travel over 'A a mile before emptying into Springbrook Creek, with part of the route running through well -vegetated ditches where infiltration and pollutant removal are expected. BMP's will also be implemented during construction to help minimize temporary increases in turbidity and sediments as a result of grading and vegetation clearing on-site. Therefore, no negative impacts to Springbrook Creek's existing water quality or hydrological regime are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Impacts to wetlands within the project area include filling (6,428 square feet) of a ditch feature along the west side of the BNSF tracks (Figure 2). This wetland is relatively low quality and is not directly connected to Springbrook Creek. November 6, 2008 Linda Gehrke Page 4 of 6 The proposed project does notinvolve any in -water work. The nearest fish bearing streams are the Green River, approximately 'A mile from the project site and Springbrook Creek, approximately Y2 mile from the project site. Given that • The wetland that will be impacted by this project is of low quality and is not directly connected to any fish bearing streams, • BMPs will be in place during construction to prevent water quality impacts, • Permanent stormwater treatment facilities will provide treatment for 100% of the new pollution generating impervious surface, • No in -water work will occur and the nearest fish bearing stream is approximately '''/ mile from the project area, it is concluded that the proposed project will have no effect on Puget Sound ESU Chinook salmon, Puget Sound DPS steelhead or Coastal/Puget Sound DPS bull trout. Additionally, the proposed project will not destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for Puget Sound ESU Chinook salmon or Coastal/Puget Sound DPS bull trout. Marsh sandwort occurs exclusively in high-quality wetland habitats, which do not occur within the project area. Marsh sandwort was not observed on-site and no impacts to wetland areas capable of supporting this species will occur as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the project will have no effect on marsh sandwort. There are no mature forested areas within the project area that contain habitat elements suitable for either northern spotted owl or marbled murrelet. The project area does not contain any prairie habitat that would be suitable for golden paintbrush. Grizzly bear, Canada lynx and gray wolf habitat may occur in parts of eastern King County; however, it is non-existent within urban areas of King County. Therefore, the proposed project will have no effect on northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, golden paintbrush, grizzly bear, Canada lynx or gray wolf. In compliance with the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) was assessed for the proposed project. It was determined that the project will not have an adverse effect on EFH for Coastal Pelagics, Pacific Salmon, or Pacific coast groundfish. It is our understanding that this letter satisfies the requirements and responsibilities under Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act. Please respond in writing at your earliest convenience to state concurrence with this conclusion. Sound Transit will be prepared to reevaluate potential project impacts if new species are listed, critical habitats designated, or if the project description changes resulting in project -related effects that were not previously described in this document. November 6, 2008 Linda Gehrke Page 5 of 6 If you have questions about the analysis contained in this letter please contact me at (206) 398-5135. Sincerely, Ellie Ziegler Senior Environmental Planner Sound Transit cc: Paul Cornish, Sound Transit Enclosures: Figures 1 & 2: Photo Sheets: NOAA/USFWS species listings November 6, 2008 Linda Gehrke Page 6 of 6 References King County. 2000. Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report: Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds. King County. 2008. Stream and River Water Quality Monitoring: Springbrook Creek Watershed. http: //green.kingcounty.gov/WLR/Waterres/StreamsData/WaterShedlnfo.aspx?Locator=0317 Washington Natural Heritage Database (WNHP). 2008. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2008. Priority Habitats and Species Database. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Salmonscape 2008. http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/ S 149TH S S 150TH P1 152ND ST CLl tititls�. SA'NIER 6 AMTRAK CASCADES STA PROJECT SITE TRECK DR PARANAY SWfRCENTER t0,etu PM' 181ST sr 182ND ST aggefiriT 182ND ST 184711 ST 0 500 1000 2000 N Scale in Feet GLACIER 1 S 1841H ST 5 188TH ST S 188TH ST 5 187TH ST SOURCE: Rand McNally & Company, 2006. Tukwila Commuter Station . 207577 Figure 1-1 Vicinity Map Tukwila, Washington 4 11-'I\\f1�- FUTURE STRANDER BOULEVARD OVERPASS (CITY OF RENTON PROJECT) INTERURBAN TRAIL A t _ ..i.�i' I na yt T:1 Ls • / •1 I I1 IIzI•LN I, , r' 1 �I;i I;It fI i IV/ (�f << I • V �^ =�I I I fl�i l 11 I f Ia1tI I I I I.=a:(al`II: PROPOSED STORMWATER DETENTION FACILITY ��.I _ ! __ - I REALIGNED UPRR TRACKS _w (CITY OF RENON PROJECT) 439+00 440+00 L 441+00+/- L -',"__.---;„_:--L- ,--,-=.,.....,----_-\ E7 _._.! 7._„____.:_. , .,.__ _ ,z.„.,,...: „,, •......„ .. :.,:j4„.,...„,,.:,,,...„....- ______ ,--..,- ,,,,._,:,__„,___*______4.„...., ,.,.._ __..... ,, :,., , _ .1.- -‘4,, ---- _,....____„_,.________,_________:_ REALIGNED BNSF TRACKS.) (SOUND TRANSIT PROJECT) WETLAND S t j ti SOUND TRANSIT WETLAND IMPACTS - EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY (1 -FOOT CONTOUR LINES) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AREA SQUARE WETLAND S 6,428 — PROPOSED STATION PLATFO_ RMS (SOUND TRANSIT PROJECT) n1 ] ,\ 1/; Photo 1. A panoramic view of the proposed project site in Tukwila, Washington. Photo 2. A representation of shrub community found on the proposed project site. Photo 3. Ditch features at the toe of the railroad corridor, adjacent to the project site. D U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration November 24, 2008 Ellie Ziegler Senior Environmental Planner Sound Transit 401 S. Jackson St. Seattle, WA 98104-2826 RE: Endangered Species Act Compliance Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Dear Ms. Ziegler: REGION X 915 Second Avenue Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Federal Bldg. Suite 3142 Washington Seattle, WA 98174-1002 206-220-7954 206-220-7959 (fax) The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has reviewed your letter dated November 6, 2008 describing the Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Project and potential impacts to listed threatened or endangered species. FTA fmds that construction of this rail station and parking lot will have no effect on listed species or designated critical habitat. In addition, this project will have no adverse effect on essential fish habitat. This letter applies only to the project described in your November 6, 2008 letter. Any modification to the project must receive FTA's expressed approval. If you need further assistance, please contact John Witmer at 206-220-7964. Sincerely, Rebecca Reyes-Alicea Director of Planning and Program Development Cc: Steve Kennedy, ST U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration November 24, 2008 Ellie Ziegler Senior Environmental Planner Sound Transit 401 S. Jackson St. Seattle, WA 98104-2826 RE: Endangered Species Act Compliance Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Dear Ms. Ziegler: REGION X 915 Second Avenue Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Federal Bldg. Suite 3142 Washington Seattle, WA 98174-1002 206-220-7954 206-220-7959 (fax) The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has reviewed your letter dated November 6, 2008 describing the Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Project and potential impacts to listed threatened or endangered species. FTA fords that construction of this rail station and parking lot will have no effect on listed species or designated critical habitat. In addition, this project will have no adverse effect on essential fish habitat. This letter applies only to the project described in your November 6, 2008 letter. Any modification to the project must receive FTA's expressed approval. If you need further assistance, please contact John Witmer at 206-220-7964. Sincerely, Rebecca Reyes-Alicea Director of Planning and Program Development Cc: Steve Kennedy, ST Tukwila Commuter Rail Station EA APPENDIX D Section 106 Consultation January 2009 Appendix D Q U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration September 3, 2008 REGION X Alaska, Idaho. Oregon, Washington 915 Second Avenue Federai Bldg. Suite 3142 Seattle, WA 981741002 206-220-7954 206.220-7959 (fax) Dr. Allyson Brooks State Historic Preservation Officer Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation P.O. Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Re: Notification on Undertaking and Identification of Area of Potential Effect Sound Transit Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Dear Dr. Brooks, This letter is to notify you of the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) determination that the Tukwila commuter Rail Station Project will be a federal undertaking and to initiate consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and associated implementing regulations 36 CFR 800. Per Subpart A Section 800.2(a)(3) and 800.2(c)(4) of these regulations, FTA is authorizing Sound Transit as an applicant for federal assistance, to prepare information, analyses, and recommendations regarding Section 106 consultation for this project. The delegated authority to initiate consultation does not extend to making determinations, such as the Area of Potential Effects (APE) or consulting parties. FTA and Sound Transit are seeking the Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation's concurrence for the proposed APE as described below. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project will replace an existing temporary station for the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail with a permanent station immediately to the south. The permanent Tukwila Station project elements includes a paved 350 vehicle parking area, 20 foot wide by 700 -foot long platforms with canopies, a pedestrian tunnel to the platforms, a bus transfer facility, storm water treatment and detention facilities, ticket vending machines, bicycle lockers, and street improvements along the station's front. The temporary station currently has track platforms and a 222 space paved vehicle parking area. The temporary station will have the platforms and pilings removed, but the currently paved parking area will remain unchanged. Prior to construction the City of Renton, in a separate project, will have completed the realignment of the Union Pacific Railroad currently located west of the temporary station and the proposed Tukwila Station. After the tracks are realigned the proposed Tukwila Station will be located to the east of the tracks extending from the east margin of the Burlington Northern Sante Fe right of way to the west margin of the Union Pacific Railroad right of way (see figure 1.2). The temporary station is located just north of the proposed station and east of the current Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railway (see figure 4-14). AREA OF POTENTIAL .EFFECT The proposed APE is located South of 1-405, East of the Green River, and west of the Boeing Longacres facility in Tukwila, Washington. The proposed APE includes the entire area of the temporary station and the area of the proposed permanent Tukwila Station with a 50 foot buffer around both. Please contact Linda Gehrke at 206-220-4463 if you have any questions or comments regarding this project. R. F. Krochalis Regional Administrator Enclosures: Vicinity Map (Figure 1-1) Proposed Site Plan (Figure 1-2) Wetlands/Temporary Station Map (Figure 4-14) Wetlands/Proposed Tukwila Station Map (Figure 4-15) cc: Steve Kennedy, Sound Transit Lavina Washines, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Mike Marchland, Confederated Tribe of the Colville Reservation Cecile A. Hansen, Duwamish Tribe Charlotte Williams, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe of the Muckleshoot Herman Dillon, Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation Bill Sweet, Snoqualmie Tribe f3 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration September 3, 2008 Mike Marchand Chairman Confederated Tribe of the Colville Reservation P.O. Box 150 Nespelem, WA 99155-0150 Re: Sound Transit, Tukwila Station Notification of Undertaking Dear Mr. Marchand: REGION X 915 Second Avenue . Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Federal Bldg. Suite 3142 Washington Seattle, WA 98174-1002 206-220-7954 206-220-7959 (fax) Sound Transit, in cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), proposes to construct a station in Tukwila, Washington for the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail (see attached maps). FTA is currently reviewing the draft Environmental Assessment for this project, which is subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and its associated regulations at 36 CRF Part 800. We are initiating this consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act to help us identify places that may have traditional religious and cultural importance to your tribal organization. The proposed project is summarized below. We would be pleased to discuss with you project details as well as any confidential concerns you may identify. The proposed project will replace an existing temporary station for the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail with a permanent station immediately to the south. The permanent Tukwila Station project elements include a paved 350 vehicle parking area, 20 foot wide by 700 -foot long platforms with canopies, a pedestrian tunnel to the platforms, a bus transfer facility, storm water treatment and detention facilities, ticket vending machines, bicycle lockers, and street improvements along the station's front. The temporary station currently has track platforms and a 222 space paved vehicle parking area. The temporary station will have the platforms and pilings removed, but the paved parking area will remain unchanged. Prior to construction the City of Renton, in a separate project, will have completed the realignment of the Union Pacific Railroad currently located west of the temporary station and the proposed permanent station. After the tracks are realigned the proposed station will be located to the east of the tracks extending from the east margin of the Burlington. Northern Sante Fe right of way to the west margin of the Union Pacific Railroad right of way (see figure 1.2). The temporary station is located just north of the proposed station and east of the current Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railway (see figure 4-14). If you have questions or comments related to the proposed project, please contact Linda Gehrke at the address above, by telephone at 206-220-4463 or by e-mail at Linda.Gehrke@dot.gov. We would be pleased to discuss with you project details as well as any confidential concerns you may identify. Your timely response will greatly help us incorporate your concerns into project development. For that purpose, we respectfully request that you complete the enclosed Project Consultation Options form and forward it to FTA within 30 days. Sincerely, *-411(10 R. F. Krochalis Regional Administrator Enclosures: Project Consultation Options Form Vicinity Map (Figure 1-1) Proposed Site Plan (Figure 1-2) Wetlands)Temporary Station Map (Figure 4-14) Wetlands/Proposed Tukwila Station Map (Figure 4-15) cc (w/o encls): Dr. Allyson Brooks, State Historic Preservation Officer Steve Kennedy, Sound Transit U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration September 3, 2008 Ms. Cecile A. Hansen Chairperson Duwamish Tribe 4117 West Marginal Way SW Seattle, WA 98106 Re: Sound Transit, Tukwila Station Notification of Undertaking Dear Ms. Hansen: REGION X 915 Second Avenue Alaska. Idaho, Oregon, Federal Bldg. Suite 3142 Washington Seattle; WA 98174-1002 206-220-7954 206220-7959 (fax) Sound Transit, in cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), proposes to construct a station in Tukwila, Washington for the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail (see attached maps). FTA is currently reviewing the draft Environmental Assessment for this project, which is subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and its associated regulations at 36 CRF Part 800. We are initiating this consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act to help us identify places that may have traditional religious and cultural importance to your tribal organization. The proposed project is summarized below. We would be pleased to discuss with you project details as well as any confidential concerns you may identify. The proposed project will replace an existing temporary station for the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail with a permanent station immediately to the south. The permanent Tukwila Station project elements include a paved 350 vehicle parking area, 20 foot wide by 700 -foot long platforms with canopies, a pedestrian tunnel to the platforms, a bus transfer facility, storm water treatment and detention facilities, ticket vending machines, bicycle lockers, and street improvements along the station's front. The temporary station currently has track platforms and a 222 space paved vehicle parking area. The temporary station will have the platforms and pilings removed, but the paved parking area will remain unchanged. Prior to construction the City of Renton, in a separate project, will have completed the realignment of the Union Pacific Railroad currently located west of the temporary station and the proposed permanent station. After the tracks are realigned the proposed station will be located to the east of the tracks extending from the east margin of the Burlington Northern Sante Fe right of way to the west margin of the Union Pacific Railroad right of way (see figure 1.2). The temporary station is located just north of the proposed station and east of the current Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railway (see figure 4-14). If you have questions or comments related to the proposed project, please contact Linda Gehrke at the address above, by telephone at 206-220-4463 or by e-mail at Linda.Gehrke@dot.gov. dot.gov. We would be pleased to discuss with you project details as well as any confidential concerns you may identify. Your timely response will greatly help us incorporate your concerns into project development. For that purpose, we respectfully request that you complete the enclosed Project Consultation Options form and forward it to FTA within 30 days. Sincerely, 1444 R. F. Krochalis Regional Administrator Enclosures: Project Consultation Options Form Vicinity Map (Figure 1-1) Proposed Site Plan (Figure 1-2) Wetlands/Temporary Station Map (Figure 4-14) Wetlands/Proposed Tukwila Station Map (Figure 4-15) cc (w/o encls): Dr. Allyson Brooks, State Historic Preservation Officer Steve Kennedy, Sound Transit Q U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration September 3, 2008 Charlotte Williams Chairperson Muckleshoot Indian Tribe of the Muckleshoot 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 Re: Sound Transit, Tukwila Station Notification of Undertaking Dear Ms. Williams: REGION X 815 Second Avenue Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Federal Bldg. Suite 3142 Washington Seattle, WA 98174-1002 206-220-7954 206-220-7959 (fax) Sound. Transit, in cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), proposes to construct a station in Tukwila, Washington for the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail (see attached maps). FTA is currently reviewing the draft Environmental Assessment for this project, which is subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and its associated regulations at 36 CRF Part 800. We are initiating this consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act to help us identify places that may have traditional religious and cultural importance to your tribal organization. The proposed project is summarized below. We would be pleased to discuss with you project details as well as any confidential concerns you may identify. The proposed project will replace an existing temporary station for the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail with a permanent station imrnediately to the south. The permanent Tukwila Station project elements include a paved 350 vehicle parking area, 20 foot wide by 700 -foot long platforms with canopies, a pedestrian tunnel to the platforms, a bus transfer facility, storm water treatment and detention facilities, ticket vending machines, bicycle lockers, and street improvements along the station's front. The temporary station currently has track platforms and a 222 space paved vehicle parking area. The temporary station will have the platforms and pilings removed, but the paved parking area will remain unchanged. Prior to construction the City of Renton, in a separate project, will have completed the realignment of the Union Pacific Railroad currently located west of the temporary station and the proposed permanent station. After the tracks are realigned the proposed station will be located to the east of the tracks extending from the east margin of the Burlington Northern Sante Fe right of way to the west margin of the Union Pacific Railroad right of way (see figure 1.2). The temporary station is located just north of the proposed station and east of the current Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railway (see figure 4-14). If you have questions or comments related to the proposed project, please contact Linda Gehrke at the address above, by telephone at 206-220-4463 or by e-mail at Linda.Gehrke@dot.gov. We would be pleased to discuss with you project details as well as any confidential concerns you may identify. Your timely response will greatly help us incorporate your concerns into project development. For that purpose, we respectfully request that you complete the enclosed Project Consultation Options form and forward it to FTA within 30 days. Sincerely, R. F. Krochalis Regional Administrator Enclosures: Project Consultation Options Form Vicinity Map (Figure 1-1) Proposed Site Plan (Figure 1-2) Wetlands/Temporary Station Map (Figure 4-14) Wetlands/Proposed Tukwila Station. Map (Figure 4-15) cc (w/o encls): Dr. Allyson Brooks, State .Historic Preservation Officer Steve Kennedy, Sound Transit U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration September 3, 2008 Mr. Herman Dillon Chairman Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation 3009 East Portland Avenue Tacoma, WA 98421 Re: Sound Transit, Tukwila Station Notification of Undertaking Dear Mr. Dillon: REGION X 915 Second Avenue Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Federal Btdg. Suite 3142 Washington Seattle, WA 98174-1002 206-220-7954 206-220-7959 (fax) Sound Transit, in cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), proposes to construct a station in Tukwila, Washington for the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail (see attached maps). FTA is currently reviewing the draft. Environmental Assessment for this project, which is subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and its associated regulations at 36 CRF Part 800. We are initiating this consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act to help us identify places that may have traditional religious and cultural importance to your tribal organization. The proposed project is summarized below. We would bepleased to discuss with you project details as well as any confidential concerns you may identify. The proposed project will replace an existing temporary station for the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail with a permanent station immediately to the south. The permanent Tukwila Station project elements include a paved 350 vehicle parking area, 20 foot wide by 700 -foot long platforms with canopies, a pedestrian tunnel to the platforms, a bus transfer facility, storm water treatment and detention facilities, ticket vending machines, bicycle lockers, and street improvements along the station's front. The temporary station currently has track platforms and a 222 space paved vehicle parking area. The temporary station will have the platforms and pilings removed, but the paved parking area will remain unchanged. Prior to construction the City of Renton, in a separate project, will have completed the realignment of the Union Pacific Railroad currently located west of the temporary station and the proposed permanent station. After the tracks are realigned the proposed station will be located to the east of the tracks extending from the east margin of the Burlington Northem Sante Fe right of way to the west margin of the Union Pacific Railroad right of way (see figure 1.2). The temporary station is located just north of the proposed station and east of the current Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railway (see figure 4-14). If you have questions or comments related to the proposed project, please contact Linda Gehrke at the address above, by telephone at 206-220-4463 or by e-mail at Linda.Gehrke@dot.gov. dot.gov. We would be pleased to discuss with you project details as well as any confidential concerns you may identify. Your timely response will greatly help us incorporate your concerns into project development. For that purpose, we respectfully request that you complete the enclosed Project Consultation Options form and forward it to FTA within 30 days. R. F. Krochalis Regional Administrator Enclosures: Project Consultation Options Form Vicinity Map (Figure 1-1) Proposed Site Plan (Figure 1-2) Wetlands/Temporary Station.Map (Figure 4-14) Wetlands/Proposed Tukwila Station Map (Figure 4-15) cc (w/o encls): Dr. Allyson Brooks, State Historic Preservation Officer Steve Kennedy, Sound Transit D U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration September 3, 2008 Mr. Bill Sweet Chairman Snoqualmnie Tribe P.O. Box 969 Snoqualmi, WA 98065 REGION X 915 Second Avenue Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Federal Bldg, Suite 3142 Washington Seattle, WA 98174-1002 206-220-7954 206-220-7959 (fax) Re: Sound Transit, Tukwila Station Notification of Undertaking Dear Mr. Sweet: Sound Transit, in cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), proposes to construct a station in Tukwila, Washington for the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail (see attached maps). FTA is currently reviewing the draft Environmental Assessment for this project, which is subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and its associated regulations at 36 CRF Part 800: We are initiating this consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act to help us identify places that may have traditional religious and cultural importance to your tribal organization. The proposed project is summarized below. We would be pleased to discuss with you project details as well as any confidential concerns you may identify. The proposed project will replace an existing temporary station for the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail with a permanent station immediately to the south. The permanent Tukwila Station project elements include a paved 350 vehicle parking area, 20 foot wide by 700 -foot long platforms with canopies, a pedestrian tunnel to the platforms, a bus transfer facility, storm water treatment and detention facilities, ticket vending machines, bicycle lockers, and street improvements along the station's front. The temporary station currently has track platforms and a 222 space paved vehicle parking area. The temporary station will have the platforms and pilings removed, but the paved parking area will remain unchanged. Prior to construction the City of Renton, in a separate project, will have completed the realignment of the Union Pacific Railroad currently located west of the temporary station and the proposed permanent station. After the tracks are realigned the proposed station will be located to the east of the tracks extending from the east margin of the Burlington Northern Sante Fe right of way to the west margin of the Union Pacific Railroad right of way (see figure 1.2). The temporary station is located just north of the proposed station and east of the current Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railway (see figure 4-14). If you have questions or comments related to the proposed project, please contact Linda Gehrke at the address above, by telephone at 206-220-4463 or by e-mail at Linda.Gehrke@dot.gov. We would be pleased to discuss with you project details as well as any confidential concerns you may identify. Your timely response will. greatly help us incorporate your concerns into project development. For that purpose, we respectfully request that you complete the enclosed Project Consultation Options form and forward it to FTA within 30 days. R. F. Krochalis Regional Administrator Enclosures: Project Consultation Options Form Vicinity Map (Figure 1-1) Proposed Site Plan (Figure 1-2) Wetlands/Temporary Station Map (Figure 4-14) Wetlands/Proposed Tukwila Station Map (Figure 4-15) cc (w/o encls): Dr. Allyson Brooks, State Historic Preservation Officer Steve Kennedy, Sound Transit U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration September 3, 2008 Ms. Lavina Washines Chairwoman Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948-0151 Re: Sound Transit, Tukwila Station Notification of Undertaking Dear Ms. Washines: REGION X 915 Second Avenue Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Federal Bldg. Suite 3142 Washington Seattle. WA 98174-1002 205-220-7954 206-220-7959 (fax) Sound Transit, in cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), proposes to construct a station in Tukwila, Washington for the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail (see attached maps). FTA is currently reviewing the draft Environmental Assessment for this project, which is subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and its associated regulations at 36 CRF Part 800. We are initiating this consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act to help us identify places that may have traditional religious and cultural importance to your tribal organization. The proposed project is summarized below. We would be pleased to discuss with you project details as well as any confidential concerns you may identify. The proposed project will replace an existing temporary station for the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail with a permanent station immediately to the south. The permanent Tukwila Station project elements include a paved 350 vehicle parking area, 20 foot wide by 700 -foot long platforms with canopies, a pedestrian tunnel to the platforms, a bus transfer facility, storm water treatment and detention facilities, ticket vending machines, bicycle lockers, and street improvements along the station's front. The temporary station currently has track platforms and a 222 space paved vehicle parking area. The temporary station will have the platforms and pilings removed, but the paved parking area will remain unchanged. Prior to construction the City of Renton, in a separate project, will have completed the realignment of the Union Pacific Railroad currently located west of the temporary station and the proposed permanent station. After the tracks are realigned the proposed station will be located to the east of the tracks extending from the east margin of the Burlington Northern Sante Fe right of way to the west margin of the Union Pacific Railroad right of way (see figure 1.2). The temporary station is located just north of the proposed station and east of the current Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railway (see figure 4-14). If you have questions or comments related to the proposed project, please contact Linda Gehrke at the address above, by telephone at 206-220-4463 or by e-mail at Linda.Gehrke@dot.gov. We would be pleased to discuss with you project details as well as any confidential concerns you may identify. Your timely response will greatly help us incorporate your concerns into project development. For that purpose, we respectfully request that you complete the enclosed Project Consultation Options form and forward it to FTA within 30 days. Sincerely, 4ftuta R. F. Krochalis Regional Administrator Enclosures: Project Consultation Options Form Vicinity Map (Figure 1-1) Proposed Site Plan (Figure 1-2) WetlandslTemporary Station Map (Figure 4-14) Wetlands/Proposed Tukwila Station Map (Figure 4-15) cc (w/o encls): Dr. Allyson Brooks, State Historic Preservation Officer Steve Kennedy, Sound Transit Project Consultation Options Duwamish Tribe Project Name: Tukwila Station For each project, please check the appropriate response. Use the back of this form or additional sheets if you wish to make comments: If you have chosen to continue consultation, please indicate the manner in which you wish to do so: Mail: Phone: Fax: e-mail: Other: (please describe) Duwamish Tribe designated contact for this proposed project: NAME, TITLE (Please print) Phone: Signed: Date: Please mail to: Linda Gehrke, Federal Transit Administration, Jackson Federal Building, 915 Second Avenue #3142, Seattle, WA 98174-1002 Or, fax to: Linda Gehrke, 206-220-7959 There are no known There are or may be Our organization has places of traditional places of traditional no interest associated religious or cultural religious or cultural with this proposed importance present or importance present or project and further within the vicinity of within the vicinity of consultation is not the proposed project and further the proposed project and further required Project consultation is not requested. consultation is requested. Tukwila Station 1 ■ ■ ■ If you have chosen to continue consultation, please indicate the manner in which you wish to do so: Mail: Phone: Fax: e-mail: Other: (please describe) Duwamish Tribe designated contact for this proposed project: NAME, TITLE (Please print) Phone: Signed: Date: Please mail to: Linda Gehrke, Federal Transit Administration, Jackson Federal Building, 915 Second Avenue #3142, Seattle, WA 98174-1002 Or, fax to: Linda Gehrke, 206-220-7959 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 • Olympia, Washington 98501 Mailing address: PO Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 (360) 586-3065 • Fax Number (360) 586-3067 • Website: www.dahp.wa.gov September 16, 2008 Ms. Linda Gehrke Deputy Regional Administrator Federal Transit Administration 915 Second Avenue Suite 3142 Seattle, WA 98174-1002 In future correspondence please refer to: Log: 091608 -20 -FTA Property: Sound Transit, Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Re: Archaeology - APE Concur Dear Ms. Gehrke: We have reviewed the materials forwarded to our office for the Sound Transit, Tukwila Commuter Rail Station project. Thank you for your description of the area of potential effect (APE) for the project. We concur with the definition of the APE. We look forward to the results of your cultural resources survey efforts, your consultation with the concerned tribes, and receiving the survey report. We would appreciate receiving any correspondence or comments from concerned tribes or other parties that you receive as you consult under the requirements of 36CFR800.4(a)(4) and the survey report when it is available. These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer in conformance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations 36CFR800. Should additional information become available, our assessment may be revised. Please note that DA HP has developed a set of cultural resource reporting guidelines. You can obtain a copy of these guidelines from our Web site. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Matthew Sterner, M.A., RPA Transportation Archaeologist (360) 586-3082 matthew.sterner@dahp.wa.gov tollitEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Protect the Post Shape the Future SEP 18 2OO8 am 9:44 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 • Olympia, Washington 98501 Mailing address: PO Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504.8343 (360) 586-3065 • Fax Number (360) 586-3067 • Website: www.dahp.wa.gov December 10, 2008 Ms. Linda Gehrke Deputy Regional Administrator Federal,Transit Administration 915 Second Avenue, Suite 3142 Seattle, WA 98174-1002 In future correspondence please refer to: Log: 091608 -20 -FTA Property: Sound Transit Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Re: Archaeology -.No Historic Properties Dear Ms. Gehrke: DEC 12 2008 M11:.5 Thank you for contacting our office and providing a copy of the LAAS cultural resources survey report completed in 2004 for this project area. We concur with their professional recommendations and reiterate our concurrence with a finding of No Historic Properties Affected for your project. We do, however, agree that your proposed mitigation measures (monitoring during construction by a professional archaeologist and the preparation of an inadvertent discovery) are prudent for this project. We look forward to receiving a copy of the monitoring report following the completion of the project. We would appreciate receiving any correspondence or comments from concerned tribes or other parties that you receive as you consult under the requirements of 36CFR800.4(a)(4). These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on the behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer in conformance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations 36CFR800. Should additional information become available, our assessment may be revised. In the event that archaeological or historic materials are discovered during project activities, work in the immediate vicinity must stop, the area secured, and this office and the concerned tribes notified. Sincerely, Matthew Sterner, M.A., RPA Transportation Archaeologist (360) 586-3082 matthew.sterner@dahp.wa.gov W I PARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Prated the Past, Shape the Mute Tukwila Commuter Rail Station EA APPENDIX E Evaluation of Alternatives for ADA Access January 2009 Appendix E Evaluation of Alternatives for ADA Access Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Creating a new station that balances the needs of providing safe, efficient access for mobility -impaired customers with the requirements of the host railroad (BNSF) is a difficult exercise for a transit agency with limited resources. Options explored for providing access at the Tukwila Station fall into three general categories explained below: track based solutions, vehicle based solutions, and platform based solutions. Track Based Solutions Potential track based solutions allow the passenger trains to be moved away from the mainline traffic to board and alight passengers, eliminating conflicts with the oversized freight traffic. If these solutions were implemented, a higher platform could be constructed that would permit uniform, level boarding along the length of the platform. Gauntlet Tracks consist of two pairs of running rails that overlap and permit either a freight train to shift away from a platform or a passenger train to shift towards a platform. While gauntlet tracks have been used in the past in other locations around the country, BNSF has gone to great expense to eliminate them. BNSF will not permit their use, based on complex track and signal maintenance. BNSF also considers the use of gauntlet tracks unacceptable because they allow for the possibility that two trains, although on separate tracks, will occupy the same track space, creating potential safety concerns. Passing Tracks consist of the necessary switches, signals and track parallel to the mainline that allow a freight train to pass the main line away from the station. At Tukwila this would introduce 4 new control points, associated turn -outs, and signals, all increasing the physical and operational complexity of the station. BNSF strongly discourages the adoption of passing tracks as a solution. The installation and maintenance of a passing track may compromise BNSF's ability to add a third mainline through the area. The installation of a third mainline is an operational option being actively considered, that would require additional right of way to provide sufficient space. Vehicle Based Solutions Vehicle based solutions center around making modifications to the existing Sounder Fleet in order to provide more uniform access to all cars. In discussions and correspondence with the equipment manufacturer, Bombardier, there have not been any known modifications to the bi-level cars that Sounder uses to include a manual or mechanically deployed lift. A prototype lift tested by Go Transit of Toronto, Canada in approximately 2002 proved infeasible. In this test, the lift when deployed had a sweeping motion that could potentially cause harm to passengers standing on the platform when the device was activated. Several other vehicle based ideas have been conceptually explored, but lack of sufficient time and money investment, along with insufficient engineering testing renders and the adoption of these ideas infeasible and unreliable at this time. Tukwila Commuter Rail Station EA Page I January 2009 Appendix E Platform Based Solutions Platform based solutions cover the widest range of options, including non -vehicular mechanically and manually deployed devices Moveable edge platform is a hinged ramp that is released, allowing for the platform to cover the distance to the train. These movable edges are approximately two feet wide and are operated by either a train engineer who exits the car or a station agent. These devices have the potential to become stuck in the deployed or partially deployed position, presenting a hazard to train crews or equipment that may follow the commuter train. Given this safety hazard, BNSF is unsupportive of the usage of moveable edge platforms on the rail line between Everett and Tacoma. Portable lifts are wheeled lifts that provide a platform that can be raised and lowered using a hand crank or electric motor. Amtrak uses devices of this type in certain location around the country to accommodate mobility -impaired passengers. The disadvantages associated with the use of portable lifts include the need to find inside storage for the devices when not being used, and the need for a station agent to operate them, as the deployment time is too long for a train based engineer to deboard, locate and operate the lift. Currently Sounder is using a portable lift at Everett for the last train of the day due to a temporary situation that blocks access to the mini -high. Both patrons and staff have indicated some concern with the portable lift as it does not provide as stable a surface as the mini -highs with the bridge plate. Additionally in certain situations where a user may be in an electric `scooter', the weight of the scooter plus the individual can exceed 500 pounds, taxing the limit of the platform and creating a potential safety hazard. Mini -highs are a smaller and higher platform set back from the edge of the full platform. A short bridge plate is deployed by the train based crew to provide a ramp from the mini - high to the train. This is the design used at all currently constructed Sounder stations, including the temporary station at Tukwila. They have proven effective over the last 8 years since Sounder service began. While this approach does not provide for equal access to all cars in the fleet through level entry boarding, it best balances the need of the mobility impaired with the operational realties of a shared commuter and heavy freight rail line. The conceptual plans for Tukwila Station have been shared and coordinated with Amtrak, whose staff expressed no concern with the eight inch above top of rail platform combined with the use of mini -high platforms. This configuration was recently built for an Amtrak station in Hanford California and is the design for the future Stanwood Washington station and possible Leavenworth Washington station that will both serve Amtrak exclusively. Tukwila Commuter Rail Station EA Page 2 January 2009 Appendix E TABLE OF CONTENTS Commuter Rail Station Design A. Letter of Interest B. Project Approach Methodology/ Project Approach Project Schedule & Staffing Key Personnel Resumes Key Personnel Project Experience C. Project Management Project Management Plan Rate Schedules Project Team Organizational Chart Key Personnel (refer to section B & Appendix) D. Community Involvement & Decision Making Communication Issues Methodology Key Personnel (refer to section B & Appendix) E. DBE & EEO Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Approach Equal Employment Opportunity Approach F. Contract Terms & Conditions G. Appendix Full Length MBT Resumes Individual Consultant Billing Rates BTA ldaecnr TO: CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY TUKWILA COMMUTER RAIL STATION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE RE: Letter of Interest on behalf of MBT Architecture / Duarte Bryant With the enclosed we respond to the request for site specific proposals for the Sound Transit Commuter Rail Project, for the Tukwila Commuter Rail Station. We are enthusiastic about the design potential for the Tukwila Station, and would be honored to be selected for this design commission. With its potential for exciting associated development and heavy commuter use related to the strong employment base in the Duwamish Valley and Green River Valley, this Commuter Rail Station will be one of the most visible and well used stations in the' system. Major Issues in the Planning of the Tukwila Commuter Rail Station 1. Passenger Convenience and Public Safety Planning for this project must include grade separations for passengers and auto traffic crossings at the rail lines, where needed to accommodate large surges of passenger use. Public safety will need special consideration, as the station will be in heavy use day and night. 2. Auto and Bus Transit Access to the Station This station will need to be integrated into one of the most congested traffic systems in the Seattle Region, where I 5 and I 405 miraculously intersect, along with major feeder routes such as 181 and 167. Traffic planning will need to integrate with planning for the region, including the new Boeing Headquarters project nearby. Transit connections to the station will be essential to its success, so that commuters are linked to their employment centers, by public bus and private vans. 3. Parking Structure Phasing / Accommodation of Joint Use Development The history of potential joint use development at the Tukwila Station is promising, and the Station needs to be designed for this, whether the development becomes the proposed exposition center or some other use. Parking will need to be designed for phasing, so that surface parking can be converted to structured parking in the future. Also, certain public uses can create large volumes of passenger traffic and pedestrian use of platforms and bridge crossings. 4. Potential Light Rail Interchange Future planning for Light Rail suggests an Airport link at the Tukwila Station, which is positioned near the SeaTac Airport. If built, this link would serve regional passengers tecture MBT Architecture 1000 Second Avenue Suite 1770 Seattle Washington 98104 Tel 206.389.7099 Fax 206.389.7608 mbt@mbtarch.com Peter S. Hockaday, FAIA Senior Vice President and Project Principal tecbure MBT Architecture 1000 Second Avenue Suite 1770 Seattle Washington 98104 Tel 206.389.7099 Fax 206.389.7608 mbt@mbtarch.com B. PROJECT APPROACH 1.1 Description of Consultant's Perception of Project Considerations This proposal element, the 24 x 36 drawing has been deleted by addendum from this proposal, by RTA. It will be created for the specific project interview. 1.2 Proposed Methodology / Project Approach Our Project Approach is essentially a road map, by which our MBT + Duarte Bryant team will reach the goals of the community of Tukwila, in designing and achieving a commuter rail station that works for this city. The citizens of the Puget Sound region have voted for improved transit, and RTA is only an agency whose mission is to carry out the will of the voters. Through the Technical Advisory Committees (TAC's) the citizens of Tukwila will take charge of the process by selecting architects and directing the designs, for their station! Our methodology is very clear. We plan to analyze the problems and opportunities for the Tukwila Commuter Rail project, and present creative options for the solution to this Commuter Rail station for the citizens of the community to choose from. This is how we always work, and it is as simple as that. Our process is based on the phases of the work as requested by RTA. We will complete the tasks requested by phase in the RTA request for proposal. In layman's terms, this means we will do the following: Phase 1: Project Administration and Management Services The purpose of this phase is to establish a schedule and procedures for carrying out the job, including coordination and reporting to RTA. The level of public involvement will be set in this phase, and we will rely on the participation of the TAC members to help us create a plan for interacting with the Tukwila community. RTA has created an optimistic schedule which calls for completing the Schematic design in six weeks. In order to meet this schedule, it will be important to create a reliable timetable for the meetings with the TAC, as well as a plan for the intermediate decisions which must be met at each meeting. For the most part, we will need weekly meetings in order to accomplish the RTA schedule. Phase 2: Predesign: In general, this is a phase in which the scope of the project and budget are developed. It is not a design phase, but it lays out the framework for design. The code and legal conditions are set for the project, as are the interfaces...with other transit systems and with associated projects such as parking structures and Local joint development opportunities near the Station. Programming is an important component of this phase, in which the basic RTA needs for the station are researched. In developing the budget, one or two generic design approaches are defined so there will be a basis for the cost estimate that the budget is developed from. The product of this phase can be described as a feasibility report, which balances the project scope against the budget. For a complete picture, it would be combined with the results of the site analysis, which we are showing as a concurrent phase. There will also be a phasing plan as part of this study. Given the tight time frame for the project as a whole, it may be necessary to create a minimal operating phase I station concept which can open on December 31, 1999! Phase 3: Site Analysis This activity, concurrent with phase 2 above, will develop a complete picture of the site conditions, access conditions, utilities availability, ,soils conditions, etc., all of which will allow us to create a site-specific budget for the project. Phase 4: Construction Implementation Strategy Working with RTA, the TAC and potential developers of associated projects, we will explore several methods for project delivery, such as conventional design -bid -build, design -build, GCCM (General Contractor / Construction Manager). This could become an important and valuable exercise, in that certain contracting systems can allow a faster construction completion...whereas other practices are more suited to a high level of quality control or other goals. Our approach to this study will be to create three or four scenarios for alternate methods for construction, and run out the timelines and cost implications for each method of delivery. It is very possible that design -build or another system of phased fast track construction will be the only methods by which the finished stations can be delivered in the RTA time frame. Phase 5: Schematic Design Schematic Design will be the essential design component of these services, at 30% of the total design package. Plans, elevations, perspectives and outline specifications will describe a, mature design concept, sufficient for local and agency design approval. Landscape design and transportation planning will be carried to a comparable level of completion, and engineering will be taken to a schematic cost estimating level. We plan to develop the design and construction documents on Autocad release 14, and will use many of the rendering and visualization techniques available in this medium to develop presentation drawings. For this site and project, we visualize that there will be several planning approaches, perhaps dependant on the integration of adjacent development and parking structures. We will plan on developing these concepts early in the design phase, and we will work with the TAC and the RTA in creating an analysis of the concepts...leading to the selection of a scheme in our third weekly meeting of the schematic phase. Construction cost estimating and value engineering will be an important element of the concept selection process. Phase 6: Zoning / Permitting Process Assistance RTA has requested the assistance of the design team in obtaining local zoning and / or construction permits. This is expected to include preparation of the required permit drawings or specs, statistics, and information about the design, plus attendance at appropriate hearings or meetings with code officials. We take an active interest in obtaining these permits, and expect to assist wherever needed. 1.3 Project Schedule and Staffing We attach our organization chart (section C of this proposal) to show our staffing assignments. Our commitment to our consultants, as far as the split of the man hours, is as follows: MBT Architecture, Project Management & Design 42% 850 Duarte Bryant, Architecture & Programming 18% 364 Berger Partnership, Landscape & Urban Design 7% 142 Heffron_ Transportation 4% 81 KPFF, Civil & Structural Engineering 18% 365 Adamson Associates, Cost Estimating 4% 81 Abacus, Mechanical & Electrical Engineering 7% 142 Totals, Tukwila 100 2025 man hours Project Schedule August \ September October 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 4 11 18 25 Notice to Proceed August 20, 1998 20 • Phase 1, Administration & Management Services, Kick-off meeting, TAC Meetings 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 Phase 2, Pre -Design Phase 3, Site Analysis Phase 4, Construction Implimentation Stratagy Phase 5, Schematics be determined Phase 6, Zoning & Permitting Assistance �� To o ma imi im PETER HOCKADAY, FAIA Senior Vice President, MBT Project Role Project Principal Peter Hockaday's 36 years of experience include important architectural commissions for a variety of corporate, transportation, institutional and municipal clients. Years of Experience 36 Years; 31 Years with MBT Specifically Related Experience o Design Principal: San Francisco International Airport Parking BART/ALRS Stations. This three - track, 264,000 gsf station is in construction and will be complete in 2000. Client Contact: See Below • Design Principal: San Francisco International Airport Parking Structure. This 3,500 -car garage is in construction with completion scheduled for 1999. Cost is $113 million. Client Contact: Jason Yuen SFO P.O. Box 8097 San Francisco, CA 94128-8097 415.737.7700 • Project Principal: Bay Area Rapid Transit Daly City Station Expansion. In the mid -80's MBT was a joint venture architect in this $7.2 million expansion. The project was completed in 1991. Client Contact: No longer available Registration Architecture: California 1968 (C5591), NCARB 1981 (26879), Washington 1997 (7224) Education B. Architecture, Yale University, 1958 M. Architecture, Yale University, 1961 D. TOM AYERS Senior Vice President, MBT Project Role Managing Principal Tom is MBT's most senior project manager for Targe, complex buildings and structures. For the BART station and parking structures at the San Francisco International Airport he was involved in numerous public meetings as well as implementing public art into the design. He has more than three decades of experience in all phases of architecture. Years of Experience 37 Years; 17 Years with MBT Specifically Related Experience • Project Manager: San Francisco International Airport Parking BART/ALRS Stations. This three -track system will serve 3,500 passengers a day when it is complete in 2000. Client Contact: Ivar Satero SFO P.O. Box 8097 San Francisco, CA 94128-8097 415.737.7719 o Project Manager: San Francisco International Airport Parking Structure. This 3,500 -car garage is in construction with completion scheduled for 1999. Cost is $113 million. Client Contact: Ron Castillo, (Retired) SFO P.O. Box 8097 San Francisco, CA 94128 415.327.8432 • Project Manager: San Francisco City Hall Seismic Retrofit. In conjunction with the SF Bureau of Architecture, MBT is prime architect for this 400,000 gsf retrofit. Completion is scheduled for 1998. Client Contact: Mr. Tony Irons, Project Director City & County of San Francisco Bureau of Architecture 100 Grove Street San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 863-2639 Registration Architecture: California 1973 (C7593), NCARB 1975 (018597), Washington (3160) Education B. Architecture, Kansas State University, 1961 RON JEWETT Associate. Architectural Designer/Illustrator, MBT Project Role Architectural Designer Ron joined MBT Architecture in 1964, and since that time has contributed his significant artistic talents towards his architectural design and renderings for MBT's projects. Years of Experience 37 Years; 35 Years with MBT Specifically Related Experience • Designer. San Francisco International Airport Parking BART/ALRS Stations. This three -track system will serve 3,500 passengers a day when it is complete in 2000. Client Contact: Tom Kardos SFO P.O. Box 8097 San Francisco, CA 94128- 415.737.7829 • Designer: San Francisco International Airport Parking Structure. This 3,500 -car garage is in construction with completion scheduled for 1999. Cost is $113 million. Client Contact: Ron Castillo, (Retired) SFO P.O. Box 8097 San Francisco, CA 94128 415.327.8432 • Designer: BART Subway Stations at 12th and 19th Streets. Oakland. CA. When the BART system was first built in the 60s. MBT was architect for seven BART sites. including these two passenger stations. Client Contact: No longer available Education University of California. Berkeley, School of Architecture and Urban Design GLENN R. DUARTE Managing Partner, Duarte Bryant Architecture Project Role Associate Architect/Principal in Charge Upon the dissolution of Anderson Koch & Duarte, Mr. Duarte restructured the architectural firm of Duarte Bryant in 1988. Prior to this, Mr. Duarte had been asso- ciated with Ralph Anderson for 11 years, 8 of those as a principal of Anderson Koch & Duarte. In addition to his project design responsibilities, he was also the man- aging partner of that medium sized firm. Years of Experience 23 Years, 10 Years with Duarte Bryant Specifically Related Experience Principal -in -Charge: Campus Master Plan. North Se- attle Community College. The original master plan en- visioned future phases which would contain over one million square feet of space. These phases were never realized and the need to provide a well -reasoned, long- range facility plan got underway. Amajor component of the process involved public participation with surround- ing neighbors and local community councils. Client Contact: Bob Hester North Seattle Community College 9600 College Way NE Seattle. WA 98103 (206) 587-6306 Principal -in -Charge: Campus Master Plan, Everett Com- munity College. An intensive site selection process for a new Instructional Technology Center resulted in the need to purchase additional land. We developed a long range facility plan which would retain the neighbor- hood environment, reinforce the adjacent communities. mitigate traffic and parking impacts. and provide a com- prehensive approach for site development and future Capital Projects. Client Contact: Bob Bleakley Everett Community College 801 Wetmore Avenue Everett WA 98201 (206) 388-9253 Registration Architect Washington, 1979 Education B. Science in Architectural Studies._ 1973 B. Architecture. 1974 Washington State University ALVIN E. BRYANT Partner. Duarte Bryant Architecture Project Role Associate Architect/Project Manager Prior to his decision to join Glenn Duarte as a partner in Duarte Bryant, Mr. Bryant had been with Duane's pre- vious firm, Anderson Koch & Duarte, for 8 years as the firm's senior associate. His 23 years of professional experience have covered a wide range of project types and sizes for a variety of governmental, institutional, corporate, and private clients. Years of Experience 23 Years, 10 Years with Duarte Bryant Specifically Related Experience Project Manager. University Center, Seattle University. This new student center will provide, for the first time in the school's history, a common home base for the entire University community. Give its position in the Master Plan. this building will serve as a symbolic and pro- grammatic gateway creating an inviting sense of place. Client Contact: Joe Conner Seattle University Broadway & Madison Seattle. WA 98122 (206)292-6166 Project Manager: Seattle Center House. This massive armory building constructed in 1930's is located at the Seattle Center, site of the 1962 World's Fair. A ten-year Master Plan program was developed for complete reno- vation. This significant 120,000 SF remodel of shops, restaurants. children's museum, and theaters has be- come a major retail center and public space used by the local community and tourists visiting Seattle. Client Contact: Michael McNamara City of Seattle Parks & Recreation 5500 Phinney Avenue North Seattle. WA 98103 (206)684=1800 Registration Architect, Washington, 1978 Education B. Science inArchitectural Studies, 1973 B. Architecture, 1974 Washington State University JEFF GIRVIN Principal, The Berger Partnership, P.S. Project Role Landscape Design Principal Through a diversity of sites and a variety of programs, Jeff has become well versed in the special considerations unique to public projects, from safety and accessibility requirements to low maintenance criteria, from permitting requirements to budget constraints, and he respects these factors as project design proceeds. Years of Experience: 26 years: 22 Years with The Berger Partnership Specifically Related Experience • Master planning and design services for the Jennie Reed Mini Park in Tacoma. The design team worked with the community to determine preferred uses for the half -acre site. The design provides a multi -use park on an intimate scale, with resources for a variety of users. Client Contact: Ray Spadafore, project manager City of Tacoma 747 Market Street Tacoma, WA 98402 (253) 591-5200 • Jeff's responsiveness and ability to balance issues within the Bobby Morris Park project recently earned him the respect of the diverse interest groups of the Capitol Hill community. These same groups greatly influenced the firms selection as the landscape architects for the adjacent Lincoln Park Reservoir project. Bobby Morris Park addresses safety issues, park entry improvements, active and passive recreation and general site improvements as expressed by the various community groups and the City of Seattle Parks Department. Client Contact: Debi Wong, project manager City of Seattle Parks Department 2911 Second Avenue, 4th Floor Seattle, WA 98121-1012 (206) 684-7054 Registration Landscape Architect, Washington, 1976, #227 Education University of Washington. Bachelor of Landscape Architecture, 1973 University of Washington, Master of Science Degree Candidate, Architecture, 1985 MARNI C. HEFFRON, PE President, Heffron Transportation Project Role Principal Transportation Engineer Ms. Heffron has over ten years of experience in transportation planning and traffic engineering. Her project experience includes port facilities, freight and internodal planning, area -wide transportation plans, corridor analyses, and development projects. Ms. Heffron recently managed all transportation planning for the Port of Seattle's Terminal 18 project which proposes to completely reconstruct the street and rail system serving Harbor Island. Ms. Heffron has also performed studies of major multi -modal facilities, and has conducted traffic studies of six major commuter rail stations for the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority. Specifically Related Experience • Principal: WSDOT Park -and Ride Project, King County, WA. Heffron Transportation managed the traffic impact analyses for 20 park-and-ride sites in King County considered for expansion. Heffron Transportation worked with Berger/ABAM to determine the cost and feasibility of each expansion. This work included coordination with local agencies, oversight of traffic impact analyses, and determination of mitigating measures. Contract amount was $50,000 and it was completed in summer 1997. Client Contact: Mike Lanier, Vice President Berger/ABAM Engineers, Inc. 33301 Ninth Avenue S Federal Way, WA 98003-6395 (206) 241-2040 • Principal: Ballard Interbay Northend Manufacturing and Industrial Center (BINMIC) Plan, Seattle, WA. Prepared the BINMIC Transportation and Freight Mobility Report and the transportation element of the BINMIC EIS. These items evaluated existing and future freight mobility to, from, and through BINMIC, and recommended over 40 transportation improvements. This $60,000 contract was completed summer 1997. Client Contact: Jill Novik City of Seattle Department of Neighborhoods 600 Fourth Avenue, Room 200 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 684-8583 RONALD J. LEIMKUHLER, PE Associate, KPFF Consulting Engineers Project Role Civil Project Manager Ron has been the lead civil engineer on many large multi disciplinary teams for important community projects. He has also been KPFF's project manager for large transportation projects. Ron has the knowledge and experience to take on a proactive role as a key team player in all phases of the project, from planning through construction. He has worked closely with the railroads on such issues as pedestrian access to platforms, grade separation and track layout to serve private developments. Ron has managed pedestrian flow analysis studies, and the design of transit facilities for King County Transit, Metro, and he has worked with many local communities on roadway widening and non -motorized transportation projects. He has experience designing bus facilities, parking lots, roads, and pedestrian and bike facilities and the utilities to serve them. He has taken key roles in working with the communities as a participant in design workshops and facilitator at open house type meetings. He understands how these types of facilities impact a community and has the experience to develop creative solutions which meet the goals of the project and minimize impacts to the community. Ron is the ideal lead civil engineer for this project. He offers you:. Understanding of the issues and the ability to ensure that the civil design elements are fully integrated with the other elements of the project . Proven ability to work with the Railroad, City staff and the community Years of Experience 16 Years; 9 Years with KPFF Specifically Related Experience • SuperMall Transit Center, Auburn, WA. 250 linear feet of bus pullout, bus shelters, a heavy-duty drive aisle on-site for bus turnaround, a covered walkway, and 500 parking stalls to provide for park-and-ride bus users. Client Contact: Jeff Kaiser The Hapsmith Company (310) 271-5176 NICK FETT, PE Associate/Structural Engineer, KPFF Consulting Engineers Project Role Structural Project Manager Nick Fett is uniquely qualified for this project due to his 23 years of experience in structural engineering. His direct experience with the design of transit shelters for bus transportation has provided him with an understanding of many of the elements associated with transit facility design including passenger waiting areas, driver break buildings, pedestrian access, and integration with other neighboring facilities. In addition, he has extensive experience with the design of civic and public use facilities. . Experience with design of transit shelters for bus transportation.. Experience with structural design using steel, reinforced concrete, masonry and wood construction. Familiarity with all applicable design codes and standards using the Uniform Building Code. Project management experience with public use facilities. Years of Experience 24 Years; 17 Years with KPFF Specifically Related Experience o Washington Square, Tigard, OR. Design of four transit station structures, three 15 -ft x 9 -ft transit shelters and one 11 -ft diameter warming hut for passengers waiting for Tri -Met buses. Client Contact: Randy Kyte, Vice President Winmar Development Corp. (206) 223-6294 o Pierce Transit Commerce Street Facilities Structural engineering services for the design of transit facility improvements. The pedestrian waiting structures are freestanding with windscreen and signage kiosks. The canopy waiting structures include leaning benches, signage and windscreens Client Contact: Dan Monroe, Project Manager Pierce Transit (253) 581-8000 MBT ARCHITECTURE Project: San Francisco International Airport Bay Area Rapid Transit Station MBT, in a joint venture with ED2 International, designed the new BART station at SFO...the newest sta- tion in the BART system. It is a massive four -layer elevated station serving up to 3,500 passengers per hour. Above BART is the light rail station which integrates into the BART platform to pro- vide easy access for BART passengers to all airport ter- minals and facilities. Programmed as an "essential facili- ty", the BART complex is designed to remain fully oper- ational following the maximum credible earthquake. Cost is $72 million with completion in 2000. MBT Team: Tom Ayers - Managing Principal San Francisco Office (415) 896-0800 Peter Hockaday - Design Principal Ron Jewett - Designer Sub Consultants - 20 firms: architects, landscape architects and engineers of which 14 were DBE flims. Client Contact: Ivar Satero Project Manager SFO P.O. Box 8097 San Francisco, CA 94128-8097 415.737.7719 Project: San Francisco International Airport Parking Structures and Rental Car Facility MBT, in a joint venture with ED2 International, is improving transportation to the San Francisco International Airport from the Bay and South Bay areas by providing complete architectural design services for a new Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station, two airport light rail system stations, a 3,500 -car garage, and a rental car facility. Total cost for the three contracts is approxi- mately $240 million with completion between 1998 and 2000. MBT Team: Tom Ayers - Managing Principal San Francisco Office (415) 896-0800 Peter Hockaday - Design Principal Ron Jewett - Designer Sub Consultants - 20 firms: architects, landscape architects and engineers of which 14 were DBE firms. Client Contact: Jason Yuen SFO P.O. Box 8097 San Francisco, CA 94128-8097 415.737.7700 Project: Daly City Bay Area Rapid Transit Station Expansion Daly City, CA MBT was retained by the joint -venture firm of Foster - Jordan Associates to provide schematic design and a portion of the design development phase, as well as design consultation throughout the contract document phase of this project. There were five distinct parts to this project: redesign of the existing parking facilities; develop a new bus termi- nal; design a new passenger drop-off/pick-up (kiss -ride facility); design a new elevated concourse; and design three new bridges to connect these new elements togeth- er. Project cost was $7.2 million and it was completed in 1991. MBT Team: Peter Hockaday - Design Principal Ron Jewett - Project Manager San Francisco Office (415) 896-0800 Sub Consultants - none; MBT was sub to Foster Client Contact: BART PM Retired Project: 12th and 19th Street Bay Area Rapid Transit Stations Oakland, CA When the BART system was first built, MBT was a major consultant to the Bay Area Rapid Transit District and to the prime engineers. MBT was architect for seven BART sites, including three passenger stations: 12th Street Oakland and 19th Street Oakland, both of which are multi-level underground stations with a stacked train configuration. Because the Oakland stations were the first to be designed, MBT created many of the standards for station interior components, materials, stairs, escala- tors and elevators. MBT Team: Alan Williams - Project Manager San Francisco Office (415) 896-0800 Sub Consultants - none; MBT was sub to Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade + Douglas Client Contact: BART PM Retired �1�%, -r - Project: Bus Transit Facilities Santa Clara County, CA In 1976, the Santa Clara County resolved to expand its bus transit facilities and increase its bus fleet from 216 to 516 vehicles by 1979 with the development of four satellite transit sites. As the lead design firm in a joint venture team, MBT Architecture performed site planning, programming, and design of these 95,000 gsf transit facilities, located on a 90 -acre site in the City of San Jose. This facility, com- pleted in 1980, serves as a satellite terminal, fueling and maintenance facility and includes an administrative, and central overhaul and repair building. Project cost was $14 million. MBT Team: Peter Hockaday - Project Manager Seattle, WA Office (206) 389-7099 Sub Consultants - Tudor Engineers Client Contact: Santa Clara County Transportation Agency Project: Main Library Feasibility Study San Francisco, CA MBT Architecture was contracted to develop a special feasibility study including conceptual design and cost estimate for voter bond issue approval for the San Francisco Main Library. MBT worked closely with the head librarian, staff of the San Francisco Public Library, and a planning committee, which included members of the city administration and the Friends of the Public Library, to prepare a space program to accommodate the 20 -year growth. This became the basis for the budget and the successful bond issue passed in 1988. MBT Team: David Lindemulder - Project Manager San Francisco Office 415.896.0800 Client Contact: Norman Karasick City Architect City and County of San Francisco 30 Van Ness, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94102 415.557.4640 Project: Fialkow Biomedical Research Pavilion University of Washington, Seattle, WA MBT served as prime architect for this new 224,000 gsf facility for basic scientific research. The biomedical sci- ences research building conforms to the University's general development plan and becomes the visual cen- terpiece for the west end of the Health Science Center. Project cost was $47 million and it was completed in 1995. MBT Team: Tully Shelley - Project Manager Ron Jewett - Project Designer San Francisco Office (415)896-0800 Sub Consultants - ABRJ, Structural; Sparling, Electrical; Gayner, Mechanical; Adamson - Cost Estimator Client Contact: William Dooris Facility & Construction Coordinator University of Washington School of Medicine Capital Projects Office, Box 352205 Seattle, WA 98195-2205 206.543.3559 Project: Harborview Research & Training Facility Seattle, WA The Harborview Research and Training Facility is being developed to meet the critical needs for modern research and training facilities at Harborview Medical Center (HMC). Project cost is $49 million, completion in 1999. The Research and Training Facility will be located on an existing warehouse site. It will house a variety of inten- sive research programs to support and sustain the efforts of the medical community at HMC. MBT Team: Tully Shelley - Project Manager Ron Jewett - Project Designer San Francisco Office (415)896-0800 Sub Consultants - ABRJ, Structural; Sparling, Electrical; Gayner, Mechanical; Adamson - Cost Estimator Client Contact: Robert Gust Associate VP, Medical Affairs University of Washington School of Medicine Capital Projects Office, Box 352205 Seattle, WA 98195-2205 DUARTE BRYANT ARCHITECTURE Home Office: 108 First Avenue South Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104 206.340.1552 Branch Office: N/A Legal Status: Partnership Professional Services Fees for Three Years: $ 5,159,694.00 Description: Duarte Bryant Architecture, a 15 -person architecture firm was established in 1988. Much of the firm's work has included planning and designing for government agency and institutional clients in the pub- lic realm and the coordination of a myriad of speciality consultants and complex programs on sensitive site in a highly interactive public process. Our full range of ser- vices include site selection, site evaluation, planning, master planning, programming, architecture, technical specification writing, construction administration, and project management. Project: Major Institution Master Plan For the past Live years, we have been working with North Seattle Community College (NSCC) developing an overall Campus Master Plan which will meet the Major Institution requirements of the City of Seattle and guide future development for the next 10-15 years. The final approved plan is intended to occur in four phases and includes the planning of five new buildings, integration of a new bus route to come onto campus, 291 new parking spaces, and the careful planning with special interest groups to protect the site's three wet- lands. As a part of the process, we also recently com- pleted the construction of NSCC's new Physical Education Facility and are currently in the construction document phase for a major classroom facility which is Phase 11 of this multi -use complex. The Vocational Education Building is an integral part of the C011ege's overall Master Plan and this highly visible complex is intended to upgrade in the collective identity of the campus. Also integral in the Master Plan are site miti- gation improvements required by the City of Seattle and neighboring community Groups, which include new parking, landscaping and stormwater systems. Project Principal: Dutch Duarte, Seattle Office Client Contact: Mr. Bob Hester, NSCC 9600 College Way North Seattle, WA 98103 206.587.6305 ADDENDUM TO RFP NO. RTA/CR 30-97 Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority 1100 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101-3423 Date Prepared: June 23, 1998 RFP Number: #30-97 ADDENDUM NUMBER 1 General Description: "Commuter Rail Station Design" ATTENTION TO ALL PROPOSERS: THE ATTACHED INFORMATION CONTAINS CHANGES AND/OR CLARIFICATIONS TO "RFP #30-97, COMMUTER RAIL STATION DESIGN". PRIOR TO CONTRACT AWARD, A SET OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS WILL BE PREPARED WHICH CONFORMS FINAL CONTRACT DOCUMENTS TO ALL THE ADDENDA. PLEASE MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES TO SOLICITATION DOCUMENT SECTION V.A. — GENERAL FORMAT REVISE THE FIRST SENTENCE TO READ: One original (unbound) and the following copies of the Proposal shall be submitted for each Commuter Rail Station site: Tukwila — sixteen (16) copies; Kent — nineteen (19) copies; Auburn — fifteen (15) copies; Sumner — ten (10) copies; Puyallup — ten (10) copies; Tacoma — ten (10) copies. Addendum No. 1 1 RFP No. RTA/CR 30-97 Written Questions Submitted June 22, 1998, 2:00 p.m. Commuter Rail Station Design RFP No. RTA/CR 30-97 1. Q. Regarding the drawing to illustrate the proposed approach, is there a particular type of drawing Sound Transit wants to see? For example, a sketch, a CAD drawing, a full rendering? A. The consultant should provide a drawing in whatever medium that best reflects their approach. 2. Q. Will the contract for the station design in Kent include federal financial assistance from the Department of Transportation or its agencies? A. N/A. 3. Q. Draft Agreement, Section 5, A. — This item requires the Consultant to indemnify and reimburse Sound Transit for corrective remedial work. This clause is not standard for an architectural agreement, and is not acceptable to our Professional Liability carrier — is it negotiable? A. This clause is not negotiable. The intent of the clause is that if the bridge falls down because of the consultants negligence we expect the consultant to correct the design and specification where the negligence was discovered as well as have the bridge restored. 4. Q. Draft Agreement, Section 9, D. — What is the anticipated value of the required Letter of Credit? A. A Letter of Credit is not required for this contract. 5. Q. Draft Agreement, Section 10, E. and Section 15 — These sections require the Consultant to relinquish Ownership of the Documents to Sound Transit, in the event of termination and at the end of the project. Upon delivery of the documents, will Sound Transit provide a Release of Liability to the Consultant, to protect them from future changes to them from future changes to the documents, or use on other projects? A. Any documents provided to third parties as a result of this contract will only receive such documents with the stipulation and understanding that they are being provided as is and soley at the their risk. 6. Q. Draft Agreement, Section 19, C. and Section 20, B.,3 — The indemnification requested in these items is very broad, and not insurable by our Professional Liability carrier. Will Sound Transit work with us to achieve mutually acceptable clauses? A. Section 19,C -please see attached. Section 20,B.,3- The indemnification mentioned in this section refers to General & Auto Liability not to Professional Liability. 7. Q. Draft Agreement, Section 20, B., 5 — This item requires the Consultant to carry Professional Liability Insurance with a $2 million annual aggregate. Our coverage is currently $1 million. Will the $2 million be standard in all Agreements? If the $2 million is required, will the cost of the extended coverage be an•allowable expense to the project? Written Questions Submitted I RFP No. RTA/CR 30-97 A. Section 20,B.,5 — This depends on the situation. If the only contract your going to have for the rest of the year is this Sound Transit contract, than the requirement may be negotiable. 8. Q. If we are pursuing more than one station, should we submit a separate proposal for each station, or one book with multiple proposal (20 -page) sections? A. We request a separate proposal for each station. 9. Q. Could you explain why the Tacoma Dome Station budget is so much higher than the other stations, for what seems similar project elements? A. Tacoma Dome Station is a more complex proposal requiring coordination with the Tacoma Link Light Rail project, Pierce Transit, Sound Transit's Regional Express Bus service and Amtrak. In addition the project needs to provide a strong physical and visual link between the existing Tacoma Dome facility and the Commuter Rail platforms, which will be on the south side of the existing Freighthouse Square building. The physical connection may need to be below grade or above grade. Grade separated pedestrian connections are not included in any of the other station budgets included in this RFP. 10. Q. Please discuss the plans for optional joint use with Amtrak at the Tacoma Dome Station? A. Amtrak may use the same station facility as the Commuter Rail train at the Tacoma Dome station. Amtrak's needs will need to be assessed and included in the design of the station. 11. Q. We are assuming that since this contract is through 30% design, our Work Plan (staff assignments and estimated hours) should be prepared only through Phase 6 — Zoning/Permitting Processing Assistance. Is this a correct assumption? A. Yes. 12. Q. If our team intends to pursue more than one station design, do we prepare one or multiple proposals? The RFP does not address this matter. A. See question 8. 13. Q. Who will review the proposals? Page 8 of the RFP indicates that the Sound Transit Consultant Selection Committee will evaluate proposals, while the station scopes of work indicate that the TACs or subcommittees of the TACs will evaluate and interview. A. Proposals will be evaluated by the Selection Committee which is comprised of Sound Transit staff as well as TAC's from each site location. 14. Q. Item 1 under the "Proposal Requirements on page 11 of the RFP calls for "a description of the Consultant's perception of the project requirements," and asks for a 24" X 36" drawing. What is this drawing to portray? Are they looking for a flow chart, a sketch of the proposed solution, or what? A. We are looking for your concepts/ideas and approaches to a particular site location that you feel are appropriate and wish to recommend. 15. Q. Evaluation criteria 6, which is 10% of the total maximum points, is based on the Consultant's list of exception to the draft contract. How will this rating be done? Is the score inversely related to the number and significance of the exceptions taken (i.e., maximum points will be given for no exceptions taken)? Written Questions Submitted 2 RFP No. RTA/CR 30-97 A. Yes. 16. Q. The scope of work for the Kent Station indicates that excerpts from the April 1998 City of Kent Downtown Action Plan is attached to the RFP. However, no excerpts were included in my copy of the RFP. Were they unintentionally omitted, and will Sound Transit distribute them separately? A. The City of Kent Downtown Action Plan is now available. 17. Q. In the draft contract, Article 19, paragraph C, the language appears to fall outside that which any insurance company will accept. Will Sound Transit entertain suggestions regarding revisions to this wording? A. See question 6. 18. Q. The RFP states that a $500 per day penalty will be levied whenever a key milestone is missed. Are such penalties necessary? If they cannot be deleted, is it possible to reduce the frequency of such penalties to simply delay in meeting of the overall project completion deadline? A. What does the consultant community suggest? 19. Q. Project implementation policy: Does RTA expect the consultant to make recommendations or participate in the implementation policy? A. Question needs more clarification. 20. Q. Will the aerial survey and topographic information be provided by the RTA? A. No. 21. Q. Is there a set budget for the art work? A. One percent (1%) of the construction budget is to be spent on artwork. 22. Q. Who select the artist? A. Sound Transit will work with its staff, consultants and each individual site location or city in selecting the artist. 23. Q. Who is responsible for zoning variance? A. Sound Transit is responsible for zoning variance. However, your (the selected Consultant's) • assistance is required. 24. Q. Evaluation Criteria 1. Proposal Requirement A. Should the drawing reflect project features and amenities, and/or project challenges? What should be used as a basemap? A. Yes. In reference to the question of what base map to use, we suggest that you use any available public information. 25. Q. Liquidated damages of $500 per day and requests for rates and estimated hours are in direct violation of the Mini -Brooks Act. Is this proposal exempt from complying with the Brooks Act? Written Questions Submitted 3 RFP No. RTA/CR 30-97 A. We will review the dollar figure in stated in our proposal. The FTA, however does support the use of Liquidated Damages. In regard to the Mini -Brooks Act we need you to be more specific and site the case law. 26. Q. We would like to see the breakdown and source of the dollar amounts listed for the estimated construction budgets for the six stations. A. This information is not available. 27. Q. Is the consultant responsible for the Interim station design for the Tacoma Dome Station? A. Not at this time. 28. Q. Who will be the Sound Transit/TAC project managers for the six stations? A. Val Batey and John Hubbard. 29. Q. As listed in the Scope of Work — Phase 3, what is the status of items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, where the information is being prepared "by others?" A. Items 1-8 are complete. The rest are underway. 30. Q. As listed in the Scope of Work — Phase 3, what is the difference between item 14. Real estate acquisition, and item 15. ROW acquisition? A. The difference is one is the purchase of real property and the other is the purchase of right -a- way. 31. Q. Is schedule the most important element to the RTA and should the consultant's approach reflect an aggressive, "this is what it's going to take approach"? A. The schedule is only part of the overall process. 32. Q. Weren't we already pre -qualified on DBE participation? A. Yes. However, that was over six months ago, and things may have changed. 33. Q. Please clarify (page 3, paragraph 3), "...proposers are advised to pay particular attention to meaningful, significant, and qualitative aspects of how its proposal has been designed to accomplish the scope of work with the personnel and firm(s) that will be involved." A. We want some serious thought given to the proposal and to the team. 34. Q. Please clarify (page 4, F. Proposal Submittal), "Sound Transit reserves the right to extend the proposal due time on the same date without prior notice." A. We want to be flexible in receiving proposals. 35. Q. How will Sound Transit establish an overall Project Budget for the cost of any real property interests that need to be acquired including: right of way, easements, etc. without preliminary engineering? A. N/A 36. Q. Please explain (page 8, paragraph 6), "If Sound Transit chooses to proceed under option (d), the Consultant, without additional compensation, shall modify the construction contract Written Questions Submitted 4 RFP No. RTA/CR 30-97 documents that the Consultant is responsible for preparing under this Agreement as necessary to comply with the fixed limit. A. Depends on actual cost of construction project. 37. Q. When will the Commuter Rail Design Manual be available for review? A. We do not know at this time. 38. Q. When will the Configuration Control Plan and the Project Management Plan be completed by Sound Transit? A. We do not know at this time. 39. Q. Should the proposal be double- or single -sided? Para. III.A. and V.A. appear in conflict. A. We want no more than twenty pages of paper, whether single sided or double sided. 40. Q. Will interviews be held? Para. I and Para. III.G. appear in conflict. A. We will have interviews. 41. Q. Define level of effort expected of the Consultant by Sound Transit to "Support Sound Transit's community involvement effort." A. The design team will support Sound Transit with products (visuals, aids, etc.). 42. Q. Who will evaluate proposals and conduct interviews? RFP appears to conflict with processes described in the various scopes of works for commuter rail stations. A. Sound Transit staff and TACs Written Questions Submitted 5 RFP No. RTA/CR 30-97 SECTION 19. LEGAL RELATIONS A. To the best of its ability, the Consultant shall comply, and shall ensure its subconsultants comply, with all Sound Transit resolutions and federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances applicable to the work and services to be performed under this Agreement. B. In performing work and services hereunder, the Consultant and its subconsultants, employees, agents, and representatives shall be acting as independent contractors and shall not be deemed or construed to be employees or agents of Sound Transit in any manner whatsoever. The Consultant shall not hold itself out as, nor claim to be an officer or employee of Sound Transit by reason hereof and will not make any claim, demand, or application to or for any right or privilege applicable to an officer or employee of Sound Transit. The Consultant shall be solely responsible for any claims for wages or compensation by Consultant employees, agents, and representatives, including subconsultants, and save and hold Sound Transit harmless therefrom. C. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Consultant agrees to indemnify and save harmless the RTA, its officers, officials, and employees, from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, losses, costs, penalties, and damages of whatsoever kind or nature to the extent arising out of, in connection with, or incident to work or services under this Agreement provided by or on behalf of the Consultant, to the extent of the Consultant's professional negligence, or such other standard of care as may be required by this Agreement, and for any failure to satisfy the Consultant's contractual obligations under this Agreement, except to the extent caused by the negligence of the RTA. The Consultant further agrees to assume the defense of the RTA and its officers, officials, and employees, with legal counsel acceptable to the RTA, which acceptance shall not be unreasonably withheld, in all legal or claim proceedings arising out of, in connection with, or incident to such work or services, and the Consultant shall pay all defense expenses, including attorneys' fees, expert fees, and expenses and costs (collectively "defense costs") incurred directly or indirectly on account of such litigation or claims, and the Consultant shall satisfy any judgment rendered in connection therewith. The Consultant may settle any suit, claim, action, loss, cost, penalty, or damages, subject to the approval of the RTA, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, if such settlement completely and forever extinguishes any and all liability of the RTA. In the event of litigation between the parties to enforce the rights under this Section, reasonable attorney fees shall be allowed to the prevailing party. THIS INDEMNIFICATION OBLIGATION SHALL INCLUDE, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, ALL CLAIMS AGAINST SOUND TRANSIT BY AN EMPLOYEE OR FORMER EMPLOYEE OF THE CONSULTANT OR ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, AND, AFTER MUTUAL NEGOTIATION, THE CONSULTANT EXPRESSLY WAIVES ALL IMMUNITY AND LIMITATION ON LIABILITY UNDER ANY INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE ACT, INCLUDING TITLE 51 RCW, OTHER WORKER'S COMPENSATION ACT, DISABILITY BENEFIT ACT, OR OTHER EMPLOYEE BENEFIT ACT OF ANY JURISDICTION THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF SUCH CLAIM. D. The Consultant shall not assign any interest, obligation, or benefit in this Agreement or transfer any interest in the same, whether by assignment or novation, without prior written consent by Sound Transit; provided, however, that claims for money due or to become due to the Consultant from Sound Transit under this Agreement may be assigned to a bank, trust company, or other financial institution without such approval. Notice of any such claim assignment shall be furnished promptly to Sound Transit. E. Sound Transit's rights and remedies in this Agreement are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law. F. This Agreement and all provisions hereof shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington in effect on the date of execution of this Agreement. Subject to the provisions herein regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies, the Superior Court of King County, Washington, shall have exclusive jurisdiction and venue over any legal action arising under this Agreement. G. The Consultant covenants that neither the Consultant, nor any officer or controlling interest holder of the Consultant, is currently, or has been previously, on any debarred bidders list maintained by the United States Government. ADDENDUM TO RFP NO. RTA/CR 30-97 Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority 1100 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101-3423 Date Prepared: June 24, 1998 RFP Number: #30-97 ADDENDUM NUMBER 2 General Description: "Commuter Rail Station Design" ATTENTION TO ALL PROPOSERS: THE ATTACHED INFORMATION CONTAINS CHANGES AND/OR CLARIFICATIONS TO "RFP #30- 97, COMMUTER RAIL STATION DESIGN". PRIOR TO CONTRACT AWARD, A SET OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS WILL BE PREPARED WHICH CONFORMS FINAL CONTRACT DOCUMENTS TO ALL THE ADDENDA. NOTE: THE RFP SCHEDULE DUE DATES HAVE NOT CHANGED. /Jai Jeter Contracts Specialist Addendum No. 2 1 RFP No. RTA/CR 30-97 PLEASE MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES TO SOLICITATION DOCUMENT Page 3, Section III, Paragraph C, first paragraph, first sentence. Modify the first sentence to read as follows: Any proposer, showing a substantial economic interest in the award of a contract under this RFP who claims to be aggrieved in connection with the solicitation or proposed award of a contract under this RFP may protest to Sound Transit in accordance with the procedures set forth herein. Page 7, Section IV, Paragraph B. Insert Item 7. 7. Design to Budget Limitations (See Attachment 6) Note: Attachment 6 is enclosed in this packet. Page 8, Section IV, Paragraph C. Delete: Sound Transit proposes to assess liquidated damages of $500 for each day that completion of key milestones, for which the Consultant bears responsibility, is delayed. Insert in lieu thereof: Actual Damages — Sound Transit will assess actual damages for delay. Said damages will be assessed in the following manner: As part of the contract negotiations, a schedule of deliverables will be developed. Failure to provide a deliverable in accordance with this schedule will cause Sound Transit to suffer damages. Said damages to be assessed to the Consultant, will be computed on the basis of Sound Transit's costs to provide additional resources necessary to make-up for schedule delays. Page 9, Section IV, Paragraph D.6. Please delete this paragraph in its entirety. Page 11, Section V, Paragraph B, Evaluation Criterion 1, Proposal Requirements, Item 1. Modify the paragraph to read as follows: A description of the Consultant's perception of project considerations. (This is to be a drawing not to exceed 24" X 36" inserted in a sleeve or pocket.) (Note: this drawing is not to be submitted until the interview process). Page 11, Section V, Paragraph B, Evaluation Criterion 1, Proposal Requirements, Item 3. Modify the paragraph to read as follows: A detailed schedule of work that identifies the level of effort in terms of staff assignments and estimated hours of effort for performing the Scope of Work. (Note: Consultants do not have to include Geotechnical staff assignments and hours at this time. However, Geotechnical staff assignments will need to be provided at time of contract negotiations.) Page 13, Section V, Paragraph B, Evaluation Criterion 4, Proposal Requirements, Item 1. Modify the paragraph to read as follows: The estimated percentage of DBE (or MBE/WBE) participation related to the scope of work, including the estimated percentage of participation per firm Addendum No. 2 2 RFP No. RTA/CR 30-97 Attachment One, General Scope of Work, Phase 1, Item 6. Modify the item to read as follows: 6. Budget and cost control including ongoing interactive cost estimating throughout the design process. Attachment. One, General Scope of Work, Phase 3. Please revise item numbers 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, and 12 to indicate that these tasks will be performed by the Consultant. Scope of Work, Kent Station. Please add the Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan (see attached) to the Scope. END OF ADDENDUM NUMBER 2 Addendum No. 2 3 RFP No. RTA/CR 30-97 ATTACHMENT SIX Design to Budget Limitations Consultant performing design services under this Contract: a) Shall accomplish the design services required under the Contract so as to permit the award of a construction contract, using standard Sound Transit procedures, for the construction of the facilities designed at a price that does not exceed the estimated construction contract price as set forth in paragraph "c)" below. When lowest qualified bids or proposals for the construction contract are received that exceed the estimated price, Consultant shall perform such redesign and other services as are necessary to permit contract award within the funding limitation. These additional services shall be performed within ninety (90) calendar days and at no increase in the price of this Contract. The Consultant shall not be required to perform such additional services at no cost to Sound Transit if the unfavorable bids or proposals are the result of conditions beyond the Consultant's reasonable control or reasonable scope of knowledge. b) During the initial design effort, the Consultant shall promptly advise Sound Transit if it concludes that the project being designed, as defined, will exceed or is likely to exceed the funding limitations and the Consultant is unable to design a usable facility within these limitations. Upon receipt of such information, Sound Transit will review the Consultant's revised estimate of construction cost. Sound Transit may, if it determines that the estimated construction contract price set forth in this Contract is so low that award of a construction contract within the estimated construction contract price is improbable: 1) authorize a change in scope or materials as required to reduce the Consultant's estimate of construction cost to an amount within the estimated construction contract price set forth in paragraph "c)" below, and/or 2) increase the estimated construction contract price. If during the course of design Sound Transit: 1) changes or adds project elements or scope, or 2) require levels of quality materials or finishes, such that it becomes impossible, after acceptance of this Contract, for the Consultant to accomplish a design within the budget shown in paragraph "c)" below, the Consultant will immediately notify Sound Transit in writing. A conference will be held between Sound Transit and the Consultant within five (5) regular working days to resolve the issue, either through: 1) the exclusion of the elements causing the budget to be exceeded, 2) increasing the design budget reflected in paragraph "c)" below, or 3) another means mutually acceptable to both parties. Resolution will be committed to writing by the Consultant and submitted to the Sound Transit Project Manager within three (3) regular working days for approval. Sound Transit will have two (2) regular working days to accept the resolution or notify the Consultant in writing of the Sound Transit rejection. c) The estimated construction contract price for the Project described in this Contract is $ [to be filled in during negotiations]. COMMUTER RAIL STATION DESIGN Attachment Six RFP No. RTA/CR 30-97 Kent Downtown Action Plan Kent Downtown Districts F. North Core District With the Regional Justice Center, the Kent Public Market, and the proposed civic and performing arts center, the North Core District includes some of the most important new urban development in south King County. These facilities and the future redevelopment potential of the property located between Smith and James Streets east of S. Fourth Avenue make the North Core District unique within the region. Because of these dynamic opportunities, the plan designates the entire district as a redevelopment area. Some vacant and underdeveloped properties will not redevelop immediately. The North Core District links the Historic Core District and the commuter rail station with the Regional Justice Center, Kent Commons, and residences north of James Street. It is especially important that new public and private investment be coordinated to provide improved connections between these activity areas. The recommendations below call for the City to take assertive action to realize the opportunities within the North Core District. Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan 9633RPT5DOC - 4/7198 V-29 Rezone To Allow Office With Mixed Use Overlay Master Plan and Upgrade Commons Park • Parking & access • Drainage • Layout / use Existing Park & Ride May be available for development 7/1 Iry Kent Downtown Districts Plan For Future Of Borden Site •Create high quality development nearby • Retain street access • Institute design guidelines Focus High Quality Development North of Smith •Streetscape improvements • Guidelines to make compatible with Borden site Pi Possible Raiff Grade Separationi MEN d!d loot .ff.lfff 3I. Interurban Trail " Pedestrian All Cross " Intersection Some Street Connections When Development Occurs Legend: Civic /Square Improve Parks To Provide Key North/South Connection 171 Public Facilities T—'1 Special Districts L __J with Design Guideline - Parks/Open Space `/ 11 Cul-de-sac 11111 Redevelopment ■ II II III Street Opportunities Improvements ()Gateways Bike/ Ped. L(nks IlTransit Station Downtown Kent SubArea Action Plan r North Core District Figure V-21: Proposed elements of the North Core District are illustrated above. Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan 9633RPT5DOC - 4/7/98 V-30 Kent Downtown Districts Public Improvements — Construct Traffic and Pedestrian Improvements to Downtown Streets as Necessary to Provide Safe, Convenient Connections. Connecting the North Core district with the commuter rail station south of Gowe Street will place new demands on Smith Street. Construct Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Improvements on Smith Street between First Avenue and Central Avenue. New street improvements may include a traffic signal at Railroad Avenue and Smith Street, straightening, a new center through lane on Smith Street, new crosswalks, pedestrian improvements, and directional signs. Improve or install new sidewalks, streetlights, and tree grates along connecting pedestrian corridors. Use the design elements previously selected by the community and installed on First Avenue and Meeker Street to establish a consistent pedestrian character throughout the core. — Enhance Parks Along the Railroad to Provide Linkages Between the Station and the Core Upgrade Burlington Green, Yanghzou and Kaibara parks as connecting open space and as a kind of gateway. A canopy along the east side of the parks would provide pedestrian protection, serve as outdoor stalls for the market, and visually tie the Sister Cities Parks together. Not only will the parks be an important pedestrian link and open space resource, they will be highly visible to thousands of commuters taking the train from Tacoma to Seattle and be an important part of Kent's image. Locate a Town Square Park near the Smith Street/Meeker Street spine of the Core A Town Square Park would provide a downtown open space for large public gatherings and performances. It might consist of a small plaza constructed as part of or near the civic and performing arts center that could expand to accommodate concerts or celebrations by closing Second Avenue and the east portion of Harrison Street. Coordinate closely with the Performing Arts Center Committee and other interested parties to ensure that the park and civic and performing arts center complement and enhance one another. — Support the Public Market as a connecting activity between the core and the area north of Smith Street. Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan 8633RPT5DOC - 4/7/98 V-31 Kent Downtown Districts • Figure V-22: The above illustration shows existing conditions along Railroad Avenue. Figure V-23: A canopy along Railroad Avenue wlll provide -pedestrian protection and market space Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan V-32 9633RPT5Doc - 4/7/98 Kent Downtown Districts — Construct Pedestrian "All Cross" or Scramble System at the Corner of Fourth Avenue and Smith Street The King County Regional Justice Center (RJC) brings many new employers and visitors to downtown. The RJC can be a boon to the downtown if it is linked to the core area shops, restaurants, and services. An "all cross" pedestrian connection, which provides for pedestrians to move diagonally through the intersection in the signal sequence while all automobiles wait, would facilitate pedestrian linkage. It is recommended that the Public Works Department explore the feasibility of such a design and the intersection be upgraded with gateway landscaping and signs. If an "all cross" or scramble system is not feasible, then, at a minimum, signals can be sequenced to encourage pedestrian crossing, especially during non -peak traffic periods. .r Figure V-24: "All cross" or "scramble" intersection at Fourth and Smith Streets to allow 4 -way crossing at a signal sequence. Decorative pavement, canopy or trellis,and enhanced private landscaping are possibilities. Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan 9633RPT5DOC - 47/98 V-33 Kent Downtown Districts Design Guidelines Refinement of the existing design guidelines is recommended to: Ensure quality development in the North Core District, especially along Fourth Avenue and Smith Street. Classify Smith Street between Central and Fourth Avenues and Fourth Avenue between Titus and James Streets as Class A, pedestrian -oriented streets. Ensure that development along these streets addresses the Borden site issues outlined below. Redevelopment Opportunities The plan supports and integrates other development activities, including those described below. — Establish Design Parameters and Review Process for Redevelopment of the Borden Site Because of its large size, central location, and transportation access, the Borden site is one of the premier downtown redevelopment opportunities in south King County. Although the Borden Company has indicated no immediate plans to move, the City should take steps to ensure that when redevelopment occurs, it is carefully • coordinated, Therefore, it is recommended that the City establish a master plan process for this site, with standards to guide any future redevelopment proposal. The standards should include: • Guidelines for streets and sidewalks. • Provision for extension of Second Avenue into the site. • A mix of uses. • Convenient access to transit facilities. • Orientation to adjacent sites. • Provision of open space and pedestrian amenities. • Design guidelines for architectural and site design character. • — Support residential development in the North Core District. The North Core District is assuming a more central location and role in downtown activities. Vehicle and pedestrian circulation between activities in the North Core District and the Commuter Rail station will become increasingly important. For these reasons, the North Core District recommendations merit high priority. Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan 9633RPT5DOC - 4/7/98 V-34 Kent Downtown Districts KENT PERFORMING ARTS CENTER `a.e.r.e... aurae w. ...~wa..u.sn Figure V-25: Shown above is the proposed Civic and Performing Arts Center design by the Bumgardner Partner. — Support a Civic and Performing Arts Center Downtown. A Civic and Performing Arts Center with facilities for conferences and other events, would be an important attraction to the downtown, extending hours of activity into the night. It would provide a much-needed location for events, performances, meetings, and educational programs. The center would also be a lively element if pedestrian -oriented uses, such as small shops, newsstands, flower stalls, coffee bars, pedestrian spaces, and/or public artwork, are included along Fourth Avenue and Smith Street. The entry to the site could include a plaza that for outdoor performances and celebrations. Figure V-26 Architect's drawing of the proposed Kent Public Market building - courtesy of the Kent Downtown Partnership. — Support the Public Market The Public Market on Railroad Avenue between Meeker and Smith Streets will add an important activity. It will anchor businesses on Railroad Avenue, enhance the Sister Cities Parks complex, and serve as a connecting element between the commuter raid station and the North Core. To support the market the plan recommends additional parking on Railroad Avenue and a sidewalk with a canopy east of,Sister Cities Parks to provide;a:shelter for outdoor stalls in the summer and pedestrian weather protection in the winter. Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan 9833RPT5DOc - 4/7/98 V-35 Kent Downtown. Districts Signature street improvements along Fourth Ave. • • •• Gateway feature • • • itr • • sMilous•/ Potential for masterplanned mixed-use development- • Office development • • • James St. Mixed-use development along Smith Street • •: LI1L - ��. .• 111111 I , 1 ' 8it111118.S $1 118 g ,ll ,ll aty 211/111881 111118 6 Ili 11111 ..10140 17,1 &i..- Sm th St efi r/% vitmegar 1. •• .• -Meeker St. Pedestrian ¢' all-cross/gateway L intersection '5 Improved • • • Sister Cities Parks • • *Outdoor performance/ celebration area 1 aitir nQ :1r a) < • • Public 3 Market m 6 U • • • Smith Street street improvements Downtown Kent Strategic Action Plan North Core District Please Note: This visualization is a conceptual interpretation of growth management policies and Downtown Kent Strategic Action Plan recommendations. It does not represent a specific recommendation for any one parcel. Its purpose is to provide an example of possible building infill, including height, location, use, density, and site amenities. Figure V-27 North Core District 20 Year:: li'Isjoya•- • Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan 8833RPT5DOC -4/7/98 V-36 Written Questions Submitted June 22, 1998, 2:00 p.m. Commuter Rail Station Design RFP No. RTA/CR 30-97 PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING CLARIFICATIONS TO THE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED AT THE PREPROPOSAL MEETING 19. Q. Project implementation policy: Does RTA expect the consultant to make recommendations or participate in the implementation policy? Please change the answer to read: A. The phrase "Project Implementation Policy" relates to the analysis and decision regarding project delivery methodology (design -bid -build, design -build, etc.). The Consultant will participate in this analysis and decision as part of Phase 4. If design -build is selected as an option, the Scope of Service will be converted from preparation of design -bid -build contract documents to preparation of a design -build RFP package. Sound Transit will coach the preparation of any such packages. 25. Q. Liquidated damages of $500 per day and requests for rates and estimated hours are in direct violation of the Mini -Brooks Act. Is this proposal exempt from complying with the Brooks Act? Please change the answer to read: A. The Mini -Brooks Act requires that selection of Professional Services must be made on the basis of qualifications before price. This step was already accomplished with the RFQ process. Sound transit is seeking a level of effort and rate information now in order to assess and compare the Consultant's understanding of the project scopes and the effort involved. 32. Q. Weren't we already pre -qualified on DBE participation? Please change the answers to read: A. Yes and No. During the qualification process, proposers were reviewed with their respective teams. However, Consultants now need to address the participation of DBE firms in the context of their specific proposal. 35. Q. How will Sound Transit establish an overall Project Budget for the cost of any real property interests that need to be acquired including: right of way, easements, etc. without preliminary engineering? Please change the answer to read: A. The project budget was established in 1997 and was intended to include all costs associated with the project development, that were known at the time. Designing and building to this budget will be a challenge, particularly considering that some issues are still unknown, new or have changed. 37. & 38. Q. ' When will the Commuter Rail Design Manual be available for review? Q. When will the Configuration Control Plan and the Project Management Plan be completed by Sound Transit? Please change the answers to read: A. These documents are not yet finalized. The important issues regarding the Commuter Rail Design Manual, the Configuration Control Plan and the Project Management Plan are consistency among the Consultant teams. If the final Configuration Control Plan and Project Management Plan are not available at the time the Notice to Proceed is issued, Sound Transit will convene a workshop to develop consistent configuration and management standards that all teams will use. The Commuter Rail Station Design Manual is under preparation and will be provided to the Consultants in draft form with a Notice to Proceed. Any modifications to the draft Commuter Rail Station Design Manual will be provided to the consultants when the Sound Transit Board adopts the document. Written Questions Submitted 1 RFP No. RTA/CR 30-97 Clarifications THE BERGER PARTNERSHIP, P.S. Home Offices: 2021 Minor East Seattle, WA 98115 Legal Status: Partnership Professional Services Fees for Three Years: $ 4, 400,000.00 Description: Established in 1971, the firm has grown to a staff of 27 landscape architects, technicians and administrative staff. Past projects have involved master planning and site landscape design for parks and recreational facilities, libraries, public assembly and community centers, and municipal office/service buildings. We are experienced in the process of public consensus believing that it is often the back bone to successful public projects. Project: Tukwila Central Business District Street Tree Plan Street tree planting plans, landscape replacement, and major sidewalk improvements developed for the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development and Public Works. The design integrates nature with the concrete city core, improving the appearance of the business district and engendering pride in the community. Client Contact: Leslie Tauzer, project manager City of Tukwila Public Works Department 3600 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 433-0179 Project: Puyallup River Trail Master Plan Phase I proposes 1.5 miles of improvements along the river and includes trail head development, picnicking areas, interpretive signage, meadows and special view areas which will align with City streets, then reconnect back to the river trail system. Project: Puyallup Parks Planning Study The study evaluated eleven park sites ranging from one half acre to 80 acres in size, all in need of rehabilitation to respond to changing community needs, years of neglect, and updating required to meet current code standards. Client Contact: Rob Andreotti, operations manager City of Puyallup Public Works Department 1100 39th Avenue SE Puyallup, WA 98374 (253) 841-5513 HEFFRON TRANSPORTATION Home Office: 4133 Interlake Avenue N. Seattle, WA 98103 206.547.7170 Legal Status: Sole Proprietorship Professional Service Fees for Three Years: 1997-$400,00; 1996-$286,000 Description: Heffron Transportation specializes in transportation planning and engineering. The firm was established in 1995 as a sole -proprietorship, and is certified as a Women -owned Business Enterprise (WBE) and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE). The firm is managed by its founder Marni Heffron, P.E. (Principal) and two senior transportation engineers, Tod McBryan and Laura Van Dyke, P.E. It also employs one urban planner and a technician. Heffron Transportation's projects include regional and corridor planning, port and intermodal facility planning, site master planning, parking analysis, transit hub and high -occupancy -vehicle facility planning, and traffic impact analyses for private and public development projects. Some of the firm's public clients include: the Port of Seattle, City of Seattle, Washington State Department of Transportation, King County/Metro, Pierce County, Public Facilities District, and the Public Stadium Authority. Project: Terminal 18 Redevelopment Project Master Plan and EIS, Seattle, WA Heffron Transportation managed all transportation planning and traffic engineering for the Terminal 18 Master Plan. This project proposes to add about 90 - acres to the existing 128 -acre terminal, vacate several city streets, construct an on -dock intermodal terminal, and reroute rail access to the terminal. Heffron Transportation's work included planning street, rail, and parking improvements to serve the terminal and other businesses which will remain on Harbor Island. Heffron Transportation also prepared the transportation element for the Terminal 18 Improvement Project Environmental Impact Statement. This element evalu- ated the project's rail, traffic, parking, and construction impacts. Heffron PM: Client Contact: Marni C. Heffron, P.E. Seattle Office 206.547.7170 Warren Ingersoll Project Manager, Master Plan George Blomberg Project Manager, EIS Pier 69, Seattle 206.728.3000 Project: WSDOT Park -and Ride Project King County, WA Heffron Transportation managed the traffic impact analyses for 20 park-and-ride sites in King County that could be expanded as part of this project. Heffron Transportation worked with Berger/ABAM to deter- mine the cost and feasibility of each expansion. This work included coordination with local agencies, over- sight of traffic impact analyses, and determination of mitigating measures. The initial feasibility analysis is currently being reviewed by WSDOT and King County/Metro. Heffron PM: Marni C. Heffron, P.E. / Tod McBryan Seattle Office 206.547.7170 Client Contact: Mike Lanier, Vice President Berger/ABAM Engineers, Inc. 33301 Ninth Avenue S Federal Way, WA 98003-6395 206.241.2040 i., .,. •• Y _ ..-'• a,.11 • g ys .ar . t,aM51'1-=sem mg t i • is • KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Home Office: 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101 Legal Status: Corporation Professional Service Fees for Three Years: 1994-$7,230,000; 1995-$6,940,000; 1996-$7,370,000 Description: KPFF Consulting Engineers provides structural and civil engineering services to architects, government agencies, developers, and contractors for a variety of project types. Established in 1960, KPFF is headquartered in Seattle with offices in Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego and Phoenix. Former company names have included Albert Kelly and Associates (1960); Kelly and Pittelko (1962); Kelly, Pittelko, Fritz and Forssen (1964); and KPFF, Inc (1976). The firm is comprised of over 350 professionals, with 125 employees in Seattle. Project: Tri -Met - Westside LRT System - Passenger Stations, Portland, OR Structural engineering for 12 passenger stations and an above -grade parking garage to be located near the interchange of Highway 217 and US 26 The stations include concrete platforms and passenger shelters. KPFF PM: M. Bradley Moyes, PE Portland Office 503.227.3251 Client Contact: Mr. Robert Chow Tri -Met 4012 SE 17th Avenue Portland, OR 97202 503.239.2145 Project: Park & Ride Lot No. 2, Federal Way, WA Engineering services to WSDOT to locate and design a new 629 -stall park and ride facility. A siting study was performed to identify and evaluate sites within this highly developed area. This study and the results of a public involvement program identified a site preferred by Metro, the City of Federal Way, and local citizens. KPFF PM: Mark Veldee, PE, Seattle Office Client Contact: Ms. Susan Everett, PE WSDOT 206.440.4582 C, PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN The MBT / Duarte Bryant team is structured as a "principal -in -charge" team. Our commitment to this project is symbolized by the continuous involvement of our principals from beginning to end. For this project, Peter Hockaday, FAIA will serve as Principal-in-Charge/Project Manager. He will have overall responsibility for this project, including leading the planning and design team, development of project schedules, budgets, programming, and the production of all drawings and specifications, and will be the person with whom you will work directly. The following are techniques we have used successfully on past projects and will plan to utilize on this project to assure meeting your goals. MEETING SCHEDULES Prior to beginning work on this project, the MBT / Duarte Bryant team would propose to work with all of the appropriate Regional Transit Authority (RTA) entities to develop and articulate a work plan which completely outlines the design process. Each committee we work with is unique and it will be especially important for us to completely understand the review and decision making process within each committee to ensure all needs are met. This work plan will include dates of key meetings with RTA representatives and members of the consultant team through all phases of design and construction. Based upon that work plan, MBT / Duarte Bryant will assign in-house staff and resources to ensure that the work is accomplished on time. Included in this proposal are the total hours allocated by phase for each firm in our team. MBT / Duarte Bryant utilizes a computer project management program to control personnel resource allocations and project schedules. Schedules are "built" based on past firm and individual employee performance and are updated throughout the project. Schedules for all firm projects are combined to provide an efficient method of managing resources. Proper time management allows for adequate time for the design and construction document process. Our management methods implemented on all phases of all projects include weekly project status reports to review the progress of our scheduled and weekly project team meetings, including consultants, to review the team's progress with respect to all disciplines. These schedules are monitored by the Project Manager and the Quality Control Principal. Of all project phases, the preparation of construction documents typically takes the most time and resources. Project management, design and construction documents are fully supported by our in-house computer system. All major consultants will provide documents on CAD. The use of AutoCAD offers phenomenal benefits to our clients with a level of drawing accuracy impossible to achieve manually and an ability to respond quickly to client changes. COST CONTROL AND ESTIMATING A continuing process of cost control and accurate estimates is essential to successful projects. Cost control for the planned stations will begin during the program review and early design phase. Together with RTA representatives, MBT / Duarte Bryant's project team will analyze the proposed program elements, the desired level of quality and the unique building constraints which may impact project costs. The project team will suggest alternatives to achieve a workable program which can be accomplished within the project budget. Together with the RTA's Steering Committee, a final program and budget will be established. Throughout the design process, the MBT / Duarte Bryant team and our construction cost estimator, Adamson Associates, will continue to update assumptions related to project costs. During conceptual design, a cost model describing areas, materials and systems will be established as a basis to compare project component costs. This tool is invaluable as a method to make ongoing value engineering decisions throughout the development of the project. Especially important during the design phase of the project is the monitoring of project scope. Most problems with budget arise because the project design exceeds the programmed scope. The tendency for a project to grow incrementally in size is the result of both the owner and the architect trying to squeeze that little extra into the project. It is important that the RTA and the project team work together to achieve a project within the program area. Project Management Plan, continued During the course of the project, the design team will develop alternatives to ensure compliance with the budget and program. Keeping the project on budget will require ongoing teamwork with the RTA and the design team. The final element of cost control is effective cost estimating. Generally, if the project program and budget are realistic, if the project scope and size is not exceeded, and if the quality level of the project reflects the program assumptions, the project cost estimates will be very close to the budget. To verify cost compliance at each phase, MBT / Duarte Bryant's cost consultant will complete a detailed cost estimate. As required, the project team will identify alternatives for the RTA's review to ensure budget compliance. Our long term relationship with Adamson Associates allows us to achieve excellent responsiveness to client needs for cost information. Adamson's excellent cost estimating for our recent transit projects at the San Francisco Airport has allowed us to bid and award three major projects in excess of $60 million, on budget, in the past eight months. COMMUNICATION Another feature of our Management Plan will be to create a special Web Site for this project. We are practicing this new form of communication on complex project today, and it is proving to be very effective. In this system, a central web site is managed as the hub of an information base, where a variety of communications, data and reports can be stored for the use of the client / consultant / contractor / design team. It is password protected to meet the needs of the team and is resulting in noticeable time savings for communication. Commuter Rail Project Management `r'hmfad &abflo0ftly eamaligiam Specific Station Project Core Design Team MET Q1N6th¢gon Project Management / Architectural Design Peter Hockaday, FAIA - Project Principal D. Tom Ayers, AIA - Managing Principal Ron Jewett - Architectural Designer ®agog@ I3crymmg Associate Architect Novo noQgm Rt? IJ Dutch Duarte, AIA Principal -in -Charge Al Bryant, AIA Project Manager 1;4 Landscape Architect Tom Berger Design Principal IEPIFI I ngi NCR GM Traffic & Transportation Planning Marni Heffron, PE Principal Civil & Structural Engineers Nick Fett, PE Structural Project Manager Ronald Leimkuhler, PE Civil Project Manager &Imam Cost Estimating Martin Conner Estimator Mechanical / Electrical Engineering Mark Robinson Principal Mb a egogatilkolkat To Be Deternined D. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT & DECISION MAKING INTRODUCTION MBT Architecture / Duarte Bryant is committed to creating buildings and spaces that function well for the people who use them, as well as buildings that are aesthetically pleasing. A key component in the design process is the involvement of the people who use the space, plus the involvement of the community in which the project is located. In this project, the commuter rail station will become an important and integral piece of the local and regional community and the message it conveys will need to be one that the community can rally around and support. The goal in our projects is that at the end of the project the users and community will refer to the building not as an MBT or Duarte Bryant building but as their own building — with pride in their involvement in its design. MBT Architecture has extensive experience working on large complex public projects in which community involvement in the decision making process is required. We understand the importance of developing and maintaining a working group of community leaders and users throughout the design process. Under construction now is the Bay Area Rapid Transit Station at San Francisco International Airport, a $72 million project, which brought together many advisory groups including the Civic Facilities Committee of the San Francisco Art Commission, the Airport Commission and the Airlines Liaison Office. Another example of a successful public project that included strategic public and community involvement in its planning was the feasibility study prepared by MBT for the new San Francisco Main Library. MBT worked closely with the staff of the San Francisco Public Library and a planning committee comprised of members of the City administration and community groups on the study that became the basis for the budget and the successful bond issue passed in 1988. METHODOLOGY Based on the experience of MBT Architecture and Duarte Bryant, our approach to community involvement in the planning and design of the station would include the following: Kick -Off Meeting The process for quality public involvement begins with the kick-off meeting with Sound Transit and the TAC to identify key issues. All appropriate interest groups would be invited to this meeting. Working with the TAC, we would then develop an approach to public attendance at theplanned weekly meetings Public Forums and Workshops If deemed appropriate we would organize a series of regular and timely public forums or workshops to explore the various topics and issues involved. We would direct these meetings and provide the graphics and multi -media production that would be required to accurately illustrate the issues at hand. In the San Francisco airport project mentioned above MBT led over 30 public meetings that included workshops and design charettes. Duarte Bryant also has extensive experience leading community planning meetings for projects and clients such as Everett Community College, North Seattle Community College, Lincoln School in Olympia and Seward school in Seattle. Public Information and Education An important component of community involvement in the decision making process in addition to the workshops is the timely dissemination of information. We propose to do this through regular press releases, and, if needed, publishing a regular newsletter to be distributed in the community. If deemed necessary we would utilize the services of a public relations consultant to aid in this process. Project Web Site In addition to the press releases and newsletters we propose to set up a project web site in which meeting minutes, workshop drawings, contact names and numbers, and meeting dates are made available 24 hours a day to whoever has access to the intemet. The advantage of the web site is immediate and up- to-date access to the project status. MBT has utilized web sites during the planning and construction stages of a number of projects including the Stower's Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City, Missouri. EEO COMMITMENT MBT has maintained a commitment to equal employment opportunity over the full history of the firm with ownership ranging from 10 to 30% women owned and a similar range for minority ownership. One of the earliest MBT principals was a minority woman who retired as the firm's executive vice president. Today, MBT is 12 percent minority owned and 15 percent women owned with a current 58 -person staff breakdown of 23 percent minority and 26 percent women. Currently, MBT does not have disabled staff members. Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action at MBT Architecture has several facets. Foremost, the firm's program encompasses equal opportunity in hiring and advancement without regard to race, color, disability, religion, sex, national origin or political beliefs. Further, as a condition of employment, employees are required to adhere to the firm's policy regarding equal opportunity for all people with whom they come in contact both within and outside the office when representing MBT. Also, the firm promotes training and internship opportunities to increase the number of minorities, women and/or disadvantaged people in architecture. Finally, the firm seeks out Minority Business Enterprises (MBE), Women Business Enterprises (WBE), and Small Business Enterprises (SBE) to procure professional consulting design services, as well as for the procurement of other services and supplies supporting project and firm operation. Assistance elements of the MBT Affirmative Action Program are in place to encourage members of disadvantaged groups into the design profession. Primarily, MBT attempts to assist disadvantaged students in their pursuit of university training in architecture. MBT has frequently provided educational subsidy, travel/study grants, scholarships and internships for minority students at a number of major universities during the past 20 years. Internships in our office are also granted for the academic year and summers to disadvantaged architecture students. Each of our proposed associated firms and subconsultants has an in-house EEO/AA program and each is committed to hiring women, minorities and disabled personnel. Our associated architect, Duarte Bryant Architecture is a certified MBE firm represented by Dutch Duarte, the managing principal. Of the firm's fourteen person staff, four are minorities and five are women. Four of the five professionals at Heffron Transportation are women. At KPFF approximately 20 percent of the total personnel are minority and 20 percent are women. DBE PARTICIPATION DBE Participation / interaction with RTA MBT's team will exceed the Federal DBE goal of 18 %, which RTA must achieve. Our associated architect, Duarte Bryant will accomplish 30% of the architectural work. This highly capable minority owned firm has served in a similar role for one of our projects on the university of Washington campus. All of the traffic planning will be assigned to Heffron Transportation, a certified women business enterprise. Although traffic and transportation work will vary for each project, we're confident this plan will achieve anywhere between 20 to 25 % DBE participation. This percentage fluctuates depending on the • type of project that is required. The variable element is the extent of traffic and transportation planning which can run from 2 to 7% 'of the fee as the projects vary in scope and location. We envision clear and meaningful roles for all consultants, DBE or not, so that within each firm's area of expertise that firm becomes the spokesperson, interacting with the client and the community. We see Duarte Bryant (MBE) as a major player on our team with 30% of the architectural effort. They will be a day to day participant in the design and management of the project. Also, they will help lead all of the community planning meetings, just as they have done in the past for Everett Community College, North Seattle Community College, Lincoln School in Olympia and Seward School in Eastlake, Seattle. Heffron (WBE) is the traffic expert on our team. They have excellent prior experience with King County / Metro Transit, Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority, WSDOT and others. The firm will guide us in locating roads and entrances and lane widths, etc. Marni Heffron will be our public spokesperson on these and associated public issues. These policies will help establish the reputations of the Duarte Bryant and Heffron firms, with RTA and the community, assisting the business careers of these firms. Both firms are in business in the RTA region. F, CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS Comments on Sound Transit Draft Agreement: 29 June 1998 The draft agreement needs a number of revisions to be insurable: Section 5.A: Insurance is based on the extent of negligence. In the fourth line, the word "negligent" needs to precede the word "errors", and the phrase or other deficiencies" needs to be deleted because it is ambiguous. Section 5.C: Architects cannot practice law by "ensuring that legally adequate and defensible environmental documents are prepared...". The phrase needs to be replaced with: "providing environmental documents that are prepared...". Section 7.B: For the reason stated in 5.A, the phrase "negligence of' needs to precede the word "Consultant" in the fifth line. Section 15.G.1: For the reason stated in 5.A, after the first sentence, please insert: "Such indemnification shall be limited to the extent of Consultant's negligent errors or omissions." Section 19.A: Nothing "ensured" by the Consultant is insurable. To be insurable, the phrase needs to be changed to "contract its subconsultants to comply". Section 19.C: In the fourth & fifth lines, for the reason stated in 5.A, the phrase "or such...Agreement," is uninsurable, and needs to be deleted. Section 19.C: The sentence starting in the eleventh line is uninsurable because it could prohibit settlement of a third party claim where the Consultant is not liable. Section 19.C, at the end of the capitalized paragraph: Please add: "except to the extent arising out of Sound Transit's negligence". Section 20.B.5: For the reason stated in 5.A, in the fourth line, the phrase "whether...Agreement" needs to be deleted and replaced with "arising from". Section 20.B.6, final paragraph: The text is acceptable if all broker comments are accepted. Otherwise, the second line is inaccurate, and needs be deleted. We believe that these items can be readily resolved. G, APPENDIX ecture PETER HOCKADAY, FAIA Senior Vice President, MBT Architecture Peter Hockaday's 36 years of experience include important architectural commissions for a variety of corporate, transportation, institutional and municipal clients. Peter is Director of MBT's Seattle office. Project Role Principal -in -Charge Years of Experience 36 Years; 31 Years with MBT Project Experience • Design Principal: San Francisco International Airport Parking Structure and BART/ALRS Stations, San Francisco, CA • Project Principal: County of Santa Clara Transit Facilities, 95,000 gsf, San Jose and San Martin, CA (8 buildings, 3 sites) • Project Principal: BART Daly City Expansion, Daly City, CA • Designer: BART Daly City Station, Daly City, CA • Project Principal: University of Washington Life Sciences IA, IB, II and III Pre -Design, 350,000 gsf, Seattle, WA • Design Principal: University of British Columbia Earth Sciences Center, 204,000 gsf/twophases, Vancouver, BC • Project Principal: LifeScan Administration and Food Service Buildings, and Parking Structure Programming, 120,000 gsf, Milpitas, CA • Project Principal: Baxter Healthcare AHF -M Nanofiltration Reconstruction, 1,200 gsf, Los Angeles, CA • Project Principal: Chabot College Chemistry and Computer Science Building, 31,400 gsf, Hayward, CA • Project Principal: Tandem Computers Manufacturing & R&D Center and Master Plan, 2,200,000 gsf/190 acres, San Jose, CA • Design Principal: Syntex/SYVA Evergreen Headquarters & Master Plan, 319,000 gsf/165 acres, San Jose, CA • Project Principal: Federal Express Corporate Headquarters and Data Center and Master Plan, 430,000 gsf/230 acres, Memphis, TN • Project Principal: GTE Government Systems Telecommunications Research Building 7 and Master Plan, 230,000 gsf/51.6 acres, Mountain View, CA • Project Principal: McKesson Corporate Data Center, 75,000 gsf, Sacramento, CA • Design Principal: US WEST/Advanced Technologies Corporate Research Center and Mater Plan, 270,000 gsf/40 acres, Boulder, CO • Project Principal: Hewlett Packard Building 4 and Master Plan, 235,000 gsf/190 acres, Santa Rosa, CA • Project Principal: Hewlett Packard Master Plan, 314 acres, Rohnert Park, CA • Project Principal: First Nationwide Bank New Headquarters Site Selection and Analysis, 600-1000 acres, Northern California • PETER S. HOCKADAY, FAIA, continued • Project Principal: Taisei Technology Research Park, 8.1 acres, Yokohama, Japan • Project Principal: Lockheed Martin Building 152, Design/Build, Sunnyvale, CA • Project Principal: Peninsula Laboratories GMP Manufacturing Expansion, 2,162gsf, Belmont, CA • Project Principal: Union Carbide Technical Center, 206,000 gsf, Research Triangle Park, Raleigh, NC • Project Principal: Genencor California Technology Center, 179,000 gsf, Palo Alto, CA • Project Principal: GSA Federal Archives and Record Center, 205,000 gsf, San Bruno, CA • Project Principal: Syntex Center Laboratory and Administration Expansion, 182,500 gsf, Palo Alto, CA • Project Principal: California Assoc. for Research in Astronomy (CARA) Keck Observatory, • 24,000 gsf, Mauna Kea, HI • Project Principal: Science Based Industrial Research Park Master Plan, 2200 hectares, Hsinchu, Taiwan • Project Urban Designer: Yerba Buena Center Master Plan and Convention Center, San Francisco, CA • Project Manager/Designer: Oakland Convention Center Feasibility Study and Master Plan, Oakland, CA • Project Urban Designer: Eureka Conference Center, Eureka, CA • Project Principal: PG&E Company Learning Center and Master Plan, 149,000 gsf/10.7 acres, San Ramon, CA • Project Principal: West Valley Mission College Master Plan, 97 acres, Santa Clara, CA • Project Principal: University of California, Santa Barbara, Engineering Unit II and East Campus Plan, 135,000 gsf/10 acres, Santa Barbara, CA • Project Principal: UC Santa Cruz, Oakes, College & Master Plan, 116,300 gsf/50 acres, Santa Cruz, CA • Project Principal: University of California, San Francisco, Koret Vision Care Research Institute and Westside Overview Plan, 43,000 gsf/l0 acres, San Francisco, CA • Project Principal: University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Alta Ham Center for Fine Arts, 60,000 gsf, Las Vegas, NV Registration Architecture: California 1968 (C5591), NCARB 1981 (26879), Colorado 1989 (C3491), Hawaii 1987 (5902), Tennessee 1983 (016341) Professional Affiliations Former Member, Golden Gate Bridge and Transportation District Architectural Advisory Board Fellow, American Institute of Architects Past Director, AIA San Francisco Chapter Director, California Council of the AIA (CCAIA), 1981 Chairman, CCAIA Task Force on Indoor Pollution, 1984 PETER S. HOCKADAY, FAIA, continued Chairman, National Symposium on Indoor Pollution, 1984 President, Foundation for San Francisco's Architectural Heritage, 1988 Former Member, City of Belvedere Planning Commission Education B. Architecture, Yale University, 1958 M. Architecture, Yale University, 1961 lure BTAnhilbratam D. TOM AYERS, AIA, CSI Senior Vice President, MBT Architecture Tom joined MBT Architecture in 1981 bringing expertise in both project management and construction administration. His more than three decades of experience in all phases of architecture serve as background for his responsibilities in leading project teams from design through bidding and construction. Years of Experience 37 Years; 17 Years with MBT Relevant Project Experience • Project Manager: San Francisco International Airport Parking Structure and BART/ALRS Stations, San Francisco, CA • Project Manager: San Francisco City Hall Seismic Retrofit, 400,000 gsf, San Francisco, CA • Project Manager: PG&E Redwood Regional Headquarters renovation, 47,000 gsf, Santa Rosa, CA • Project Principal: Levi Strauss & CO. Saddleman Relocation Project, Multiple Projects, 22,000 gsf, San Francisco, CA • Project Manager: Syntex Syva Division Headquarters, 319,000 gsf, San Jose, CA • Project Director: Digital Equipment Corporation Continuing Services Agreement, nine states in the U.S., including Alaska and Hawaii • Construction Administrator: Chevron Office Park and Data Center, 1,000,000 gsf, San Ramon, CA • Construction Administrator: Syntex Center Expansion Program, 300,000 gsf, Palo Alto, CA • Project Manager: UCLA Medical Office Building, Parking Garages (including one 3000 -car underground garage) and Ambulatory Care Complex, 1,000,000 gsf, Los Angeles, CA • Project Principal: Consulting architect to PCF and Partners for construction services and client liaison for Stanford University Science and Engineering Quad, 220,000 gsf, Stanford, CA • Managing Principal: General Services Administration U.S. Geological Survey Laboratory/Office, 157,500 gsf, Menlo Park, CA • Project Manager: China Basin Landing Window Replacement, San Francisco, CA • Construction Administrator: General Services Administration National Archives and Record Center, 205,000 gsf, San Bruno, CA • Project Manager: UC Irvine Project Management Services, Irvine, CA • Project Manager: Cetus Process Development Unit Remodel, 4,980 gsf, Emeryville, CA • Project Manager:. Chiron CMF Building Large Scale Purification Suite and Lyophilizer Suite Phase I, 8,200 gsf, Emeryville, CA • Project Manager: Chiron GMP Warehouse Remodel, 21,000 gsf, Emeryville, CA • Project Manager, Seattle: The Boeing Company Materials Technology Complex, Seattle, WA D. TOM AYERS, AIA, CSI, continued We tore Project Experience with Other Firms ■ Managing Architect and Corporate Design Director: Bank Building Corporation, St. Louis, MO ■ Project Principal: 50 financial institution projects throughout California, Arizona, Oregon and Washington Registration Architecture: California 1973 (C7593), NCARB 1975 (018597), and 9 other states Professional Affiliations Member, American Institute of Architects Member, Construction Specification Institute Education B. Architecture, Kansas State University, 1961 RON JEWETT Associate, Architectural Designer/Illustrator, MBT Architecture Ron joined MBT Architecture in 1964, and since that time has contributed his significant artistic talents towards his architectural design and his architectural renderings for MBT's projects. Project Role Architectural Designer Years of Experience 37 Years; 35 Years with MBT Project Experience • Designer: San Francisco International Airport Parking Structure and BART/ALRS Stations, San Francisco, CA • Designer: BART Subway Stations at 12th and 19th Streets, Oakland, CA • Designer: U.C. Berkeley Auxiliary Facilities Masterplanning and Programming, Berkeley, CA • Designer: West Valley Mission Community College District, Mission College Master Plan, 97 acres, Santa Clara, CA • Designer: Harborview Research & Training Facility, 179,000 gsf, Seattle, WA • Designer: California Polytechnic University, Pomona, Science Building 3, 86,000 gsf • Designer: Stanford University Beckman Center for Molecular & Genetic Medicine, 191,000 gsf, Stanford, CA • Designer: North Carolina State University School of Veterinary Medicine, 347,000 gsf, Raleigh, NC • Designer: University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Alta Ham School of Fine Arts, 60,000 gsf • Designer: Digitial Equipment Corporation, Continuing Services Architect for three facilities, Palo Alto, CA • Designer: Chevron Office Park Cafeteria, 60,000 gsf, San Ramon, CA • Designer: US WEST/Advanced Technologies Corporate Center, 270,000 gsf, Boulder, CO • Designer/Planner: Levi Strauss & CO. Sever Farm/Global IR Relocation Project, 7,500 gsf, San Francisco, CA • Project Manager/Designer/Planner: Levi Strauss & CO. Printer Room Relocation Project, 2,000 gsf, San Francisco, CA • Designer: Apple Computer, Inc. Corporate Data Center, 70,000 gsf, Napa, CA • Designer: McKesson Corporation Corporate Data Center, 70,000 gsf, Sacramento, CA • Designer: GTE Government Systems Telecommunications Building Seven, 230,000 gsf, Mountain View, CA • Designer: IBM Santa Teresa Programming Center, 600,000 gsf, San Jose, CA • Designer: Chevron Accounting Center, 385,000 gsf, Concord, CA • Designer: City of San Francisco Main Public Library Preliminary Design Feasibility Study for Bond Vote, 346,000 gsf, San Francisco, CA • Designer: The Boeing Company Materials Technology Complex, Seattle, WA • Designer: Tandem Computers Coyote Valley Manufacturing Facility Master Plan and Design, 190 acres, 2.2 million gsf, San Jose, CA •tur to .pure RON JEWETT, Continued Additional Project Experience • Designer: Kaiser Permanente Medical Office Building III, 50,000 gsf, Pleasanton, CA • Designer: Kaiser Permanente Ambulatory Care Center and Medical Office Building II, 78,000 gsf, Pleasanton, CA • Designer: Kaiser Permanente Medical Office Building I Renovation, 48,000 gsf, Pleasanton, CA • Designer: 1st Nationwide Bank Sacramento Site Selection, 600-1000 acres, Sacramento, CA • Designer: Chevron Land and Development Torrey Pines Science Complex Master Plan and Design Guidelines, 303 acres, San Diego, CA • Designer: Miles Cutter Pilot Plant Design Competition, Emeryville, CA Education University of California, Berkeley, College of Environmental Design BTAmE'kwaugin. Billing Rates MBT Architecture 1998 Hourly Rates by Classification PROJECT PRINCIPAL SENIOR PROJECT MANAGERS & DESIGNERS $115-140/hour $90-110/hour MANAGERS & DESIGNERS III $80-95/hour MANAGERS & DESIGNERS II $70-80/hour MANAGERS & DESIGNERS I $60-70/hour JUNIOR DESIGNERS $40-60/hour CONSULTANTS Cost x 1.10 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Cost x 1.10 *BILLING RATES ARE SUBJECT TO ANNUAL REVISION 27 -Jun -98 DUARTE BRYANT ARCHITECTURE June 1998 Rate Schedule The following billing rates for Duarte Bryant personnel include all salary, fringe benefits and overhead. These rates are for general information only and may vary depending on the actual project and duration. Glenn R. Duarte, Partner $ 125/hr. Alvin E. Bryant, Partner 120/hr. Project Architect 90-95/hr. Architect 80-90/hr. Intern Architect 65-75/hr. Clerical / Administration 45/hr. 108 First South Seattle, Washington 98104 [206] 340-1552 Fax [206] 340-0412 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING 2021 Minor East Seattle, WA 98102 (206) 325-6877 Fax (206) 323-6867 Principals Thomas Berger Steven P. Shea Jeff Girvin Scott Woodcock Linnea Ferrell Associates Misty Philbin Greg Brower THE BERGER PARTNERSHIP, P.S. • Hourly Rates as of 11/1/97 Senior Principal $130.00 per hour Principal $100.00 per hour Associate $65.00 per hour Senior Project Manager $60.00 per hour Project Manager / CAD Manager $55.00 per hour Professional Staff $50.00 per hour Technical Staff $45.00 per hour Administrative Staff $30.00 per hour MEMORANDUM • Date: June 29, 1998 To: File From: Merril C. Heffron, P.E. Subject: 1998 Employee Pay Rates HEFFRON TRANSPORTATION ' ANSIPORTATION The following table presents Heffron Transportation's 1998 Pay and Billing Rates. The Billing Rates assume an 125% overhead multiplier on direct labor plus 30% profit on direct labor. These multipliers are based on a WSDOT Audit which was performed in January 1996 and revised in July 1997. Title 1998 Pay Rate • 1998 Billing Rate Principal $35.30 - 538.00 $90.00 - $95.00 Transportation Engineer $30.00 - $34.00 $76.50 • $66.70 Analyst/Technician $17.65 - $25.00 $45.00 - $53.75 MC.H/mch 4133 Interlake Avenue N • Seattle, WA 98103 • Phone: (206) 547-7170 Fax: (206) 547-7744 El• Consulting Engineers FEE SCHEDULE FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PERSONNEL CHARGES: Charges for employees are determined by the hourly rate included in the rate ranges listed below: Principal $109.00 - 150.00/Hour Associate $ 83.00 - 109.00/Hour Senior Engineer $ 76.00 - 122.00/Hour Project Engineer $ 63.00 - 76.00/Hour Design Engineer $ 51.00 - 63.00/Hour Drafter $ 41.00 - 72.00/Hour Administration $ 30.00 - 60.00/Hour Effective January 1, 1998 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 6_22 5822 Fax (206) 622-8130 Seattle Portland San Francisco Los Angeles Phoenix . San Diego HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE January 1 - December 31, 1996 Rate per Hour Principals $110.00 - 120.00 Senior Estimators 80.00 - 95.00 Assistant Estimators 45.00 - 70.00 The above rates include: 1. Clerical typing and word processing. 2. Reproduction of reports up to 6 copies. 3. Cost of travel, parking and telephone within the Puget Sound area. 4. Messenger services within the Puget Sound area and postage. The above rates exclude: 1. Long distance telephone charges and cost of travel and subsistence outside the Puget Sound area. 2. Reproduction of drawings or reports, etc. in excess of 6 copies. 3. External computer charges. These rates will increase, during the course of the construction period, in accordance with the cost of living, as reflected by construction cost indices. ADAMS@N 1000 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 206.343.8119 Fax 206.343.8541 ABACUS ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, INC. 401 Second Avenue South Suite 201 Seattle, Washington 98104 206-583-0200 Fax 206-583-8826 RATE SCHEDULE STAFF HOURLY RATE Principal $130.00 Senior Engineer/Associate $95.00 Engineer Level 2 $85.00 Engineer Level 1 $75.00 Senior Construction Manager $95.00 Automation Specialist $85.00 Commissioning Supervisor $85.00 Balancing Supervisor $70.00 Balancing Technician $45.00 Senior Designer $85.00 Designer Level 2 $75.00 Designer Level 1 $70.00 CAD Technician/Drafter $60.00 Engineering Assistant $60.00 Administrative Assistant $45.00 Reimbursable expenses are separate and are invoiced at 1.1 times cost to Abacus. Refer to Agreement for services and staffing. Rates apply to completion of project or twelve months (whichever occurs first). For projects beginning 1 January 1998 through 30 June 1998. C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\jan%20%2D%20jun%2097%20rate%20schedule.doc ABACUSAIL dis SOUNDTRANSIT December 10, 1998 TO: Sound Transit Board of D're ors FROM: Bob White, Executive Director SUBJECT: Adopted 1999 Budget I am pleased to present the Sound Transit Adopted 1999 Budget for your consideration. This budget will continue the significant momentum established in 1998 towards implementation of Sound Move. The Adopted 1999 Budget totals $478.2 million, representing $449.7 million for capital expenditures and $28.5 million for operating expenditures. This coming year voter expectations in 1996 begin to be realized: the inauguration of Sounder commuter rail service, new and expanded service for the Regional Express bus program, and selection of routes and station locations for Link light rail. This budget contains new initiatives designed to ensure that Sound Transit stays relevant to our community, and raises policy issues for board consideration. It also includes updated subarea revenue forecasts and capital plans. Your Sound Transit staff looks forward to.making this budget process a meaningful review of the Sound Transit program. 1998 MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS In 1998, Sound Transit — the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority — forged ahead with implementing Sound Move, the regional transit plan approved by voters in November 1996. Earlier this year, Sound Transit received a favorable report from. the Citizen Oversight Panel (COP) — a 15 -member group of appointed, independent volunteers, which monitors the agency's progress. The COP determined that, in 1997, Sound Transit built a strong foundation in its first year. In addition, the independent auditing firm of Deloitte & Touche reported a "clean" 1997 fmancial audit. On September 17, in its review of the first six months of 1998, the COP reported, "While it is still early going and many significant decisions remain to be made, Sound Transit appears in all major respects to be on budget and on schedule." In short, the agency is on track and will build on a growing list of achievements. The following are Sound Transit's highlights of 1998: Sound Transit will move to Union Station in 2000. Seattle's Union Station, unoccupied since 1971, is currently undergoing renovations to become Sound Transit's new permanent home. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority 1100 Second Ave., Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101-3423 Reception 206.684.6776 Facsimile 206.684.1234 www. sou ndtran sit.org Chair Paul ,Miller Tacoma Counci member Vice Chairs Dave Earling' Lsdna,m).t Couneilmen,/,er Greg Nickels King County Couueihnember Ann Davis Lakewood Counei/nenrfer 1301) Drewel .Silo/ramtal, County Executive David Endow Sunuuv Cou,,eiGaenrGr, Mary Gates L•i•dera/ 11%it y Cottri( ember Jane Hague King County Counei/tavn/er Ed Hansen L{rere(t rlla yor Richard t\Iclver Smith. Cnmteilmeut/er Rob McKenna Kiva/ County Cou,a•ihna•mber Sid 'Morrison Il'ad/✓ing(oa State Depar(men o/' Tra n.iportn(iort ,Seere(ru ,y Dave Russell Kirkland Coum•ilmeuthrr Paul Schell Seattle Mayor Ron Sims King County Executive C'nthla Sullivan King Count/ Couneilnremb • Doug Sutherland Pierce County L:xeeu(iv .lin, \\shite /teat d/ot/o,• Executive Dire 1 0h \N Connecting with citizens. Two Sound Transit community offices opened earlier this year. The Southeast Seattle Community Link Office opened in April and the Sound Transit Tacoma Community Office opened in July. Both offices are open to anyone who wishes to_share ideas and concerns, or ask questions about Sound Transit and its projects. Our work with communities goes beyond information sharing to actually involving citizens in the design of our new regional transportation system. STart — lead artists selected. STart, the agency's public art program has already chosen lead artists to help incorporate art into the design and construction of Sound Transit facilities. Sounder commuter rail Vehicles purchased. Sounder commuter rail ordered 38 passenger cars from Bombardier of New York for $76 million (including contingency), and is finalizing the contract for six locomotives from General Motors Corp for about $16.1 million (including contingency). This represents a savings of approximately $9.5 million (YOE$) to the adopted budget for vehicles. Vehicles will be delivered beginning in 1999.. Station design underway. Sounder completed environmental analysis of the Tacoma -to -Seattle line. In June, Sounder and each affected community selected design teams for the route's stations and citizens in each community are engaged in helping design Sounder stations. Community-based Technical Advisory Committees have been formed to help create stations that are efficient and appealing, reflect community values and are designed to support transit -oriented development (TOD). Procurement for Sounder's fare vending equipment was also completed. This smart card equipment will be compatible with the larger regional system scheduled for implementation in 2000. Partnerships formed. Sounder established financial partnerships with the state Department of Transportation, cities of Auburn and Kent, and the ports of Seattle and Tacoma. Sounder continues to work closely with the railroads and ports to enhance freight mobility and support "FAST" corridor investments. A preliminary review indicates that Sounder's investments have attracted over $100 million in investments by others, demonstrating that local governments and others can work together to provide an effective integrated transportation system. Link Tight rail Routes chosen for further environmental study. The board selected the "most promising" route options for both the central and Tacoma Link lines for further environmental study. Link will publish draft environmental impact statements for both lines late this fall. It is worth noting that the region will have completed the scoping to preparation of draft environmental impact statements for each line stage more quickly than any region in the country. DSTT and tunnel soil samples. Consistent with the philosophy of dealing with the tough issues early, technical evaluation of the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) for light rail conversion, joint bus/rail operation, and related surface improvements have been completed. Link engineers took 24 soil samples and extensively reviewed existing geotechnical data, finding no "fatal flaws" that could impede the project. Preliminary engineering. During the year, Link began work on preliminary engineering designs for light rail routes and stations. By mid-1998, the board adopted several design criteria for Link stations and vehicles. These criteria call for addressing lighting and security issues, space for advertising, and where practical, the capacity for concessions, restrooms and drinking fountains in the earliest stages of the design process. Budget Message, Page ii Partnerships formed. The agency has created effective and collaborative relationships with the four cities through which Link routes will pass: Seattle, Tukwila, SeaTac, and Tacoma. Station area plans designed to support local comprehensive plans and attract TOD are proceeding aggressively. Regional Express Bus Vehicles purchased. In partnership with King County Metro, Regional Express has ordered 70 buses from the Gillig Corporation in Hayward, California. By exercising an option in King County Metro's contract, Sound Transit was able to purchase these buses at 1995 prices resulting in substantial cost savings. Regional Express has also ordered 25 buses from the New Flyer Corporation in Winnipeg, Canada. The new buses will begin arriving early next year, and following inspection and testing, they will begin service on the new Regional Express routes in September 1999. Tacoma -to -Seattle Express route successes. In 1998, Regional Express bus continued adding bus trips to the Pierce Transit -operated Seattle -to -Tacoma express route. Since mid-1997, Sound Transit has added 26 trips to the route and there has been a 30 percent increase in ridership. King County Metro route 226 gets a boost. In mid-September — one year ahead of schedule — Sound Transit funded 16 morning and evening trips between Issaquah, Bellevue and Seattle on King County Metro Route 226. Sound Transit has assumed financial responsibility for 13 existing trips and has added three new evening peak hour trips on this highly popular route. As a result of Sound Transit's investment, King County Metro is redirecting the resources that have been freed up to add more local bus service on routes connecting Issaquah and Seattle, and Bellevue and the University of Washington.. This demonstrates the concept of how redeployed service hours can benefit transit riders and communities not directly served by Sound Transit routes. Regional Express bus routes options. Regional Express identified a number of options for each of its 20 new express bus routes and public input is being sought prior to a decision on the final system plan by the Sound Transit Board this fall. With board approval, the transit agencies of the region will move ahead to involve the public in the process of integrating Sound Transit's services with the existing public transit network so service can begin on schedule in 1999. Building partnerships. During the year, many partnerships critical to integrated transit service were formed with local jurisdictions, the state Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and the region's transit agencies. Working with these partners, we have initiated work on over half of the Regional Express projects included in Sound Move. One regional fare system. Transit agencies in the region reached a critical agreement that provides the basis for creating an integrated, easy-to-use fare system for transit riders in the region. KEY THEMES Before discussing specific budgetary goals and objectives for the coming fiscal year, I would like to touch on several important themes that have driven the development of this budget. Moving from expectations to reality Sound Transit has completed the transition from a planning agency to one that is constructing and implementing regional transportation services. In 1999, the public will see an agency aggressively implementing the improvements described in Sound Move. Regional Express will begin bus service and Budget Message, Page iii work will be underway on more than half of the 50 Regional Express bus capital projects. Sounder stations will be under construction in mid -1999. Initial operation of Sounder Commuter rail service will begin between Tacoma and Seattle by year end with full service by mid -2000, and environmental clearances for the Everett -to -Seattle and the Lakewood extensions will be secured. Design work will be well underway on the stations for both extensions. While not yet under construction, Link Light Rail will have selected final route and station locations for both the central and Tacoma Link lines. Communities will be engaged in identifying specific design issues to ensure the system "fits" into the community. Perhaps most importantly, station area planning can be completed and specific actions taken to encourage TOD. Sound Transit will have demonstrated its ability to fulfill its promise to deliver high capacity transit to the citizens of the region. Implementing a regional transit system of the size and complexity of Sound Move will inevitably generate controversy. Sound Transit recognizes this reality and will continue to make every effort to involve affected communities fully and openly. It will be a significant challenge to deal with community issues honestly. Another challenge we face is that of explaining why certain decisions of the board are based on Sound Transit's need to balance transportation solutions that best meet the region's needs with the specific desires of each community. Managing agency growth In the 1999 Budget, I am recommending that Sound Transit add the staff needed to manage the complex Sound Move program effectively while remaining on schedule and within budget. Sound Transit staff would grow from about 145 in the 1998 Adopted Budget to 180 under the 1999 Adopted Budget. Immediately after the 1996 election, I recommended, and the board approved, a philosophy of keeping staff to a minimum — relying instead on outside consultants and the expertise of other agencies to provide the resources to initiate Sound Move. With 20 months of experience using this approach we have been able remain on schedule through our startup phase while undertaking a careful assessment of the agency's long term staffing requirements. We have been subject to the scrutiny of the COP and the Federal Transit Administration's Project Management Oversight consultant. Deloitte & Touche reviewed our contracting process. Each of these external reviews has found that existing staffing levels may be insufficient to maintain our aggressive schedules, reach sound decisions, produce quality, and provide adequate management control. Based on a careful internal staff review, I am recommending that we move immediately to a staffing level of 180. This will ensure that the agency has the staff necessary to ensure public accountability and responsiveness, provide needed management controls, and to lower costs where it makes sense to use in- house resources. In the longer term, total agency staffing in the range of 200-240 or more may be required. Future policy decisions of the board as to how we approach our construction contracts and construction management responsibilities and how to carry out Link operations will drive future decisions regarding long-term staffing levels. The agency's 1998 staffing plan called for 71 support positions out of the total of 145 positions. The support functions include the areas of legal, real estate, contracts, information systems, accounting, communications and marketing, diversity programs, human resources, and finance. We now know that this figure will be short of the necessary resources to support the implementation of a $3.9 billion capital program. The initial staffing estimate did not address the following activities adequately: legal services, contracting, information services, and real estate. While the agency could contract these activities, this work cannot be left undone. Contracting for these or other services currently provided by staff would result in higher costs and result in reduced management control and public accountability. Budget Message, Page iv Sound Move Appendix A, the detailed description of facilities and costs, provided a 10 -year, $55 million estimate for Agency Administration within the Regional Fund. This amount was based on an estimate of support functions that could not be charged directly to the agency's capital or transit operating programs. If the board were to approve the additional support department positions, it would then need to finalize the agency's cost allocation system and determine to what extent the costs of the additional positions would be charged as overhead to the capital projects. If the board were to decide to assign the additional costs of new support staff to the Regional Fund, it is estimated that the 10 -year costs of Agency Administration would exceed original $55 million Sound Move estimate. However, it may be more appropriate to assign such costs to the capital projects and transit operations, as the vast majority of the administrative staff work is directly in support of those programs. The agency will have to work with its auditors to insure that any cost allocation system is fair, consistent, and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Measuring "on-time and on -budget" The 1999 Budget for the first time begins to reflect a mature organization and the complexities of the Sound Move program, which comprises hundreds of individual projects. As the budget detail for capital program refinements accumulates over the next few years, it will be increasingly difficult to assess in simple terms whether the agency is "on-time and on -budget." The agency must maintain transparent reporting mechanisms and closely track changes to the program to allow the board, the COP and the public to continue to hold the agency responsible for the promises made to the voters in 1996. The following paragraphs reflect the kinds of changes we can reasonably expect over the coming years. The 1999 Budget introduces the use of multiple indices for calculating comparisons between the original estimates, expressed in 1995 dollars (1995$) and year -of -expenditure dollars (YOE$). While staff believes this is a more accurate method, its complexity could cause confusion for the casual reader. We would ask the board to review the budget format and supporting information carefully to assess whether it provides the basis for board and our stakeholders to assess our financial performance accurately. Changing conditions will require that the board take actions that will alter the original financial plan, while staying consistent with the.agency's commitment to the voters of the region. Year by year, we will experience variations from our original estimates of tax revenues, interest rates and federal funding. We do not anticipate major revisions to our adopted financial plan in 1999. Full review of the plan will be required at the end of 1999, when we prepare to award major Link construction contracts and negotiate a grant agreement with the Federal Transit Administration, Within each mode, the costs of various project elements will change. For example, the 1999 Budget increases the amount for the Kent Sounder Station to reflect the previously discussed error in estimated parking requirements. This increase is more than offset by savings at other stations or from the vehicle procurement contract. Within the Regional Express capital program, there are over 50 individual projects, some of which inevitably will experience changes to their schedules and costs to complete. For example, the recent "Risk Assessment" of the 50 Regional Express community connections and HOV access projects indicated that seven community connections projects and two HOV access projects would be completed later than shown in the Implementation Guide, while two community connections and one HOV access project would be completed earlier. Over time, we shall add or delete projects to accommodate changes in local transportation needs or funding sources. In addition, local communities may advocate, and the board may choose to implement, higher cost alternatives than were proposed under Sound Move. _ Budget Message, Page v Staying relevant Another challenge the agency faces in 1999, and the years ahead, is staying relevant. The essential structure of the Sound Move plan was developed in late 1995 and approved by the board in May 1996. By the end of 1999, the plan will be four years old, and the board will have made most of the major policy decisions related to its implementation. While not under estimating the challenges involved in implementing those decisions, the work of the board will increasingly shift to oversight. Two areas will require board attention in 1999 and 2000. The first is ensuring that the Sound Transit program stays closely aligned with local and regional plans related to growth management and TOD. The second is in staying fully engaged in the regional and state discussions regarding transportation needs. The Trans -Lake Washington Study, the Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel, the Washington Transportation Alliance's efforts, and the Puget Sound Regional Council's update to the Metropolitan Transportation Plan all look well beyond time frame of the Sound Move plan. Our project implementation must support the long-range vision of this region. While no discrete budgets are broken out for these activities, we have included the required consultation, support and the time to listen to others' ideas and proposalsin our 1999 -work program. Because almost every activity in which we are engaged is influenced by growth management and the long-range transportation future, we must be prepared to be actively engaged as new policies and programs in these areas are debated and enacted. The agency's attention will need to stay focused on implementing Sound Move. However, we will not have the luxury of becoming static. We will need to evolve and grow so that the agency provides leadership in helping to solve the transportation problems of the region. We must stay aware of what is going on around us — stay in touch with the changing nature of the region and its transportation issues. We must evolve with our transit partners and continue to work together for a transportation -funding source for the entire region. Implementing management systems In 1999, the agency will begin to put into place the long-term management systems necessary to implement Sound Move. The interim information systems that the agencyhas been using have been adequate to date, but are not sufficiently robust to meet the demands ahead. These systems include document control, project management, contract management, and financial management. In 1998, the agency selected a Management Systems Consultant (MSC) and Financial Systems Consultant (FSC) to help select and implement these systems. During 1998, the consultants have worked with staff to evaluate current practices and systems, identify future system requirements and identify possible software and hardware solutions that will meet those requirements. In 1999, the agency will have to select, and begin to implement, new systems. While the agency has the advantage of not having the limitations of existing "legacy systems," the implementation of comprehensive management systems nevertheless represents a substantial challenge — one the agency must meet to achieve its mission. The 1999 Budget provides an opportunity for us to "pretest" our systems, to ensure that we meet our goal of full accountability. Budget Message, Page vi GAINING MOMENTUM What will the agency accomplish in 1999? Activity at Sound Transit will continue to accelerate in 1999. Total budgeted expenses and capital outlays increase from $271.4 million in 1998 to $443.0 million in 1999. Expenses and outlay of these funds will result in important progress towards implementing Sound Move. Highlights of programs and services funded under the Adopted 1999 Budget are described below. Sounder commuter rail Approximately 65 percent of the adopted capital outlays for 1999 will be for Sounder Commuter rail. These capital outlays total $261.9 million. To begin service by the end of 1999, as scheduled, from Tacoma to Seattle, Sounder must complete final design and construction of track and capacity improvements and station design. Sounder will take delivery of passenger cars and locomotives ordered in 1998, and complete training and testing of the system before operation. In addition, the program will complete environmental review for the Seattle -to -Everett and Tacoma -to- Lakewood segments. Sounder will also issue requests for proposals for station design contracts for Seattle -to -Everett and Tacoma -to - Lakewood in 1999. Link light rail Link is proposing to make $43.8 million of capital outlays in 1999, which is 11 percent of the agency's total capital outlays. The program will complete preliminary engineering (30 percent of design) on the locally preferred route alternative (LPA) identified by the board and prepare the final environmental impact statement. After the identification of an LPA, station area planning, which the cities will lead, will take on increased importance. The important work of integrating Link with each community's vision and supporting TOD will become very real. In addition, the department will complete a strategy for design, construction, and procurement of equipment. Link will also complete agreements to obtain permits for system construction. The program will continue to include extensive public outreach efforts to encourage an open, public and participatory design process. Regional Express In 1999, Regional Express will be working on 12 of 14 HOV access projects and 22 of 33 community connection projects. Regional Express will account for 18 percent or $72.6 million in adopted capital outlays in 1999. These outlays include funds to continue the purchase of 40 and 60 foot buses for the Sound Transit fleet. Regional Express will enter agreements with the transit agencies of the region to operate the regional bus routes using a single ticket policy. The Community Connections and HOV Access Programs will proceed into preliminary design and environmental work on a large number of projects. Staff will develop project -specific agreements with the state Department of Transportation for professional services covering preliminary engineering, design and construction administration for projects within state Department of Transportation rights-of-way. The Systems Integration Program will implement a regional pass program and fare integration policies in conjunction with the inauguration of Regional Express bus and Sounder commuter rail services. Systems Integration staff will work with transit and others in 1999 to begin to implement the research and technology policies that the board is _ Budget Message, Page vii expected to adopt in the fourth quarter of 1998. This department is leading our efforts as part of the Trans - Lake Study and the Seattle Transit initiative. Agency support to the service departments The agency's support departments will also make important progress in 1999 in delivering services to the modal departments necessary to manage and implement the Sound Move program. The Finance and Administration Department will coordinate evaluation and selection, and begin implementation of, agency -wide financial management and project management systems. This multi-million dollar project will allow the agency to effectively manage its contracts, human resources, document control, financial systems, and project control systems. The Legal Department will develop and implement the board - adopted economic development strategy, as well as provide real estate acquisition and legal services to the modal departments. The Public and Government Affairs Department will continue to develop marketing, public information, signage, graphics, and other materials to maximize public outreach and communicate the agency's new services to the public. The Public and Government Affairs Department will also lead the effort to support our long-term federal funding strategy currently under development. 1999 Budget The Adopted 1999 Budget is a planning tool for the board to allocate resources most effectively during the 1997-2006 period in order to implement Sound Move. It represents the agency's second full -year budget and six-year capital plan. While the board authorizes individual contracts and policy issues on a case-by-case basis, the budget provides the only time during which the board can view the entire course of the program in its entirety. In addition, the annual budget provides the only comprehensive data demonstrating the agency's commitment to subarea equity. Last year's budget was well received — the COP called the capital plan "a remarkable new look in public budgeting that should be emulated by other public agencies." Because of this and other comments, the format remains largely unchanged from last year, although we have added additional information to certain sections. The 1999 Budget presents the Regional Express Bus program on a subarea basis, rather than a route -specific basis, which will allow the agency to manage its bus program while still meeting the requirements of subarea equity. We continue to report all projects in 1995 base -year dollars, as contained in Sound Move, and in year -of - expenditure dollars to take into account the impacts of inflation over time. In the Adopted 1998 Budget, this conversion used a single inflation index — the consumer price index (CPI). In the Adopted 1999 Budget, we now use three indices (CPI, the building cost index, and a right-of-way index) to inflate 1995 base year dollars to year -of -expenditure dollars. The use of these additional inflation indices will allow the agency to forecast more accurately the true costs of the program. The Adopted 1999 Budget reflects the aggressive schedule necessary to deliver the transportation services promised in Sound Move. With your help and direction, we will be able to take a sizable step toward realizing the promise of Sound Move in helping to meet the transportation challenges of the Central Puget Sound region. I look forward to working with you to enact Sound Transit's 1999 Budget. Budget Message, Page viii Table of Contents BUDGET MESSAGE i AGENCY OVERVIEW 1 SOUND TRANSIT — THE CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY 1 IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE 2 ADOPTED 1998 BUDGET 2 CHANGES TO SOUND MOVE 3 SOUND TRANSIT'S MISSION, GOALS AND MEASURES OF SUCCESS 3 1998 ACCOMPLISHMENTS 5 THE SOUND TRANSIT DISTRICT BOUNDARY 7 SOUND TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 9 MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION 11 CITIZEN OVERSIGHT PANEL 1 1 SOUND TRANSIT'S RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER AGENCIES 13 ADOPTED 1999 BUDGET SUMMARY 17 INTRODUCTION 17 OPERATING BUDGET SUMMARY 20 CAPITAL SPENDING PLAN SUMMARY 28 FINANCIAL SUMMARY 35 BASIS OF ACCOUNTING 35 FINANCIAL POLICIES 35 BASE YEAR VS. YEAR -OF -EXPENDITURE DOLLARS 36 FINANCIAL PLAN 36 CASH FLOW SUMMARY 37 REVENUES AND FINANCING SOURCES 39 THE REGIONAL ECONOMY 41 1999 REVENUE FORECAST 43 SOUNDER COMMUTER RAIL 45 PROGRAM SUMMARY 45 OBJECTIVES, ACTION PLANS AND BUDGET DETAILS 46 ACTION PLAN GRAPHIC 48 OPERATING BUDGET SUMMARY 49 OPERATING BUDGET DETAIL 50 OPERATING BUDGET NOTES 51 CAPITAL PROJECT MAP 52 CAPITAL SPENDING PLAN SUMMARY 53 CAPITAL PROJECTS 56 LINK LIGHT RAIL 75 PROGRAM SUMMARY 75 OBJECTIVES, ACTION PLANS AND BUDGET DETAILS 77 ACTION PLAN GRAPHIC 80 OPERATING BUDGET SUMMARY 81 OPERATING BUDGET DETAIL 82 OPERATING BUDGET NOTES 83 CAPITAL PROJECT MAP 84 CAPITAL SPENDING PLAN SUMMARY 85 CAPITAL PROJECT 86 Table of Contents REGIONAL EXPRESS 87 PROGRAM SUMMARY 87 OBJECTIVES, ACTION PLANS AND BUDGET DETAILS 90 ACTION PLAN GRAPHIC 92 OPERATING BUDGET SUMMARY 100 OPERATING BUDGET DETAIL 101 OPERATING BUDGET NOTES 102 CAPITAL PROJECT MAP 103 CAPITAL SPENDING PLAN SUMMARY. 106 CAPITAL PROJECTS 114 BOARD ADMINISTRATION 167 OBJECTIVES, ACTION PLANS, AND BUDGET DETAILS 169 ACTION PLAN GRAPHIC 171 OPERATING BUDGET SUMMARY 172 OPERATING BUDGET DETAIL 173 OPERATING BUDGET NOTES 174 EXECUTIVE'S OFFICE 175 OBJECTIVES AND BUDGET DETAILS 177 OPERATING BUDGET SUMMARY 178 OPERATING BUDGET DETAIL 179 OPERATING BUDGET NOTES 180 LEGAL 181 OBJECTIVES, ACTION PLANS AND BUDGET DETAILS 183 ACTION PLAN GRAPHIC 185 OPERATING BUDGET SUMMARY 187 OPERATING BUDGET DETAIL 188 OPERATING BUDGET NOTES 189 PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS 191 OBJECTIVES, ACTION PLANS AND BUDGET DETAILS 193 ACTION PLAN GRAPHIC 198 OPERATING BUDGET SUMMARY 200 OPERATING BUDGET DETAIL 201 OPERATING BUDGET NOTES 202 FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION 205 OBJECTIVES, ACTION PLANS AND BUDGET DETAILS 207 ACTION PLAN GRAPHIC 211 OPERATING BUDGET SUMMARY 213 OPERATING BUDGET DETAIL 214 OPERATING BUDGET NOTES 215 REGIONAL FUND PROJECT SUMMARY 217 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF TERMS APPENDIX B: SOUND TRANSIT 1999 STAFFING PLAN APPENDIX C: SOUND TRANSIT HISTORY Table of Contents AGENCY OVERVIEW SOUND TRANSIT — THE CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY How the agency was established In the early 1990s, the Washington Legislature authorized King, Pierce and Snohomish counties to create a single agency — the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) — to plan, build and operate a high-capacity transit system within the region's most heavily -used travel corridors. In Sep- tember 1993, Sound Transit held its first formal meeting. The Sound Transit District includes the most urban parts of the three -county area and close to half of the state's population. Sound Move — The Ten -Year Regional Transit System Plan In May 1996, the Sound Transit Board adopted Sound Move — The Ten -Year Regional Transit System Plan. The plan includes a mix of transportation improvements: high -occupancy -vehicle (HOV) lane ac- cess improvements, Regional Express bus routes, Sounder commuter rail and Link light rail. The plan includes new community "gateways" — connections in urban and suburban areas for communities to con- nect to the rest of the region. Sound Move is a comprehensive regional transit plan made up of almost 100 separate but interrelated capital and service projects. The plan also contains commitments to: • Equitable revenue distribution. Local tax revenues will be used to benefit the five subareas of the Sound Transit District (Snohomish County, North King County, South King County, East King County and Pierce County) based on the share of revenues each subarea generates. This distribution formula will apply to all future phases. • Simultaneous work on projects in all subareas. Work will begin on projects in each of the subareas so benefits will be realized throughout the region as soon as possible. Projects likely to be imple- mented in the latter part of the 10 -year period are those requiring extensive engineering and commu- nity planning. • Coordinated services and integrated fares. Regional and local transit services will be coordinated and an integrated fare structure will be developed. • System completion within 10 years. Different parts of the plan will be implemented in stages and be operational as soon as possible; the entire system will be completed and operational within 10 years. • System expansion or tax rollback. Any second phase capital program that continues using local taxes for financing will require voter approval within the Sound Transit District. If voters decide not to extend the system, Sound Transit will roll back the tax rate to a level sufficient to pay off outstanding bonds and operate and maintain the investments made as part of Sound Move. • Annexations and extensions of service outside the Sound Transit District. Sound Transit may provide services outside the taxing district by contracting with local agencies. Areas that would benefit from Sound Transit services may be annexed into the Sound Transit District if citizens within those areas vote for annexation. Page 1 • Public accountability. Sound Transit will hire independent auditors and appoint a citizen committee to monitor Sound Transit's performance in carrying out its public commitments. Citizens will be di- rectly involved in the placement, design and implementation of facilities in their communities. Voter approval On Nov. 5, 1996, voters in the three -county Sound Transit District approved the local taxes necessary to fund the regional bus and rail transit systems described in Sound Move by a 56.5 percent to 43.5 percent margin. The measure received a majority of votes in each of the three counties in the Sound Transit Dis- trict (58.8 percent in King County, 54.4 percent in Snohomish County and 50.1 percent in Pierce County). Ballot Title Proposition No. 1 Regional Transit Authority To implement a regional rail and express bus system linking Tacoma, Seattle, Bellevue, Everett, other cities, and SeaTac airport, shall the Regional Transit Authority impose a sales and use tax of up to four -tenths of one percent and a motor vehicle excise tax of three -tenths of one percent to provide the local share of funding towards the $3.9 billion estimated cost of the system, as provided in Resolution 75 and the "Ten-year Regional Transit System Plan?" IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE On May 22, 1997, the Sound Transit Board took a major step towards putting Sound Move in place by adopting an Implementation Guide. The guide incorporates commitments made in Sound Move about the timing for implementing transportation system components. The guide also establishes a general system development sequence that will serve as the basis for more detailed scheduling decisions. The Imple- mentation Guide is a general blueprint to guide the agency in initially scheduling the design, construction and operation of the many projects that comprise Sound Move over the next 10 years. It is subject to an- nual review and periodic adjustment and updating by the Sound Transit Board to respond to changing circumstances, public directives and potential opportunities. ADOPTED 1998 BUDGET On Dec. 11, 1997, the board adopted the Sound Transit 1998 Budget, which represented the agency's first full -year budget and contained, for the first time, a six-year capital spending plan detailing proposed proj- ect spending. The sequences of project outlays contained in the 1998 Capital Plan were derived from the Implementation Guide. The 1998 Adopted Budget also began to report total project costs and revenues on a year -of -expenditure (YOE) basis, which takes into account the effects of inflation over the 10 -year life of the project. However, in keeping with the agency's commitments to provide accountability to the Sound Transit Board and the public, the Capital Plan continued to report project costs in constant 1995 dollars — as approved by the voters. In the 1998 Capital Plan, the scope of Sound Move remained un- changed with total program costs remaining constant at $3.9 billion (in 1995 dollars). Page 2 The 1998 Adopted Budget also began to fulfill the commitment to the voters to maintain subarea equity — that local tax revenue and related debt for projects and services will be utilized to benefit the subareas generally in proportion to the level of revenues each subarea generates. The 1998 Adopted Budget con- tained, for the first time, a 10 -year revenue forecast based on subarea revenue estimates and also reported outlays for each subarea in the Capital Plan. By matching subarea revenue forecasts against board - approved subarea capital spending plans, the agency will be able to closely monitor subarea equity. CHANGES TO SOUND MOVE In 1998, the Sound Transit Board adopted Resolution 98-22 which established criteria and a process to be used in making revisions to Sound Move. Amendments to Sound Move require a favorable vote of two- thirds of the board. The board will evaluate the support of the following criteria when changes are re- quested. • Consistent with Sound Transit's enabling legislation. • Consistent with the agency's funding requirements -and priorities. • Consistent with the proposition approved by voters in the November 1996 election. • Consistent with and supportive of transportation goals, commitments, projects and corridors served in Sound Move. • Adequateenvironmental review completed under State Environmental Policy Act and/or Na- tional Environmental Policy Act. • Extent to which the proposed revisions have been reviewed and are supported by subarea(s), local jurisdictions and community. The City of Lynnwood was the beneficiary of the first change to Sound Move when the board reallocated $2.5 million from the Lynnwood Transit Center connector project to improve high -occupancy -vehicle lanes on State Route 99 in the Lynwood area. Lynnwood's success in obtaining other funds for the transit center/park-and-ride freed up Sound Transit's contribution to the project, creating the opportunity to shift funds to the SR -99 improvements. SOUND TRANSIT'S MISSION, GOALS AND MEASURES OF SUCCESS Sound Transit's mission Sound Transit's mission is to build, and provide for, the operation of the commuter rail, light rail and re- gional express bus services and facilities described ii Sound Move in order to create an integrated re- gional high-capacity transportation system serving the three -county Sound Transit District. Sound Transit will implement Sound Move in partnership with public agencies, jurisdictions, private sector and other interests, and the citizens of the Sound Transit District. Sound Move calls for a mix of transportation im- provements throughout the region. Highlights of these improvements are listed below. Sounder commuter rail • An 82 -mile Sounder commuter rail system with 14 stations using existing railroad tracks between Everett, Seattle, Tacoma and Lakewood, starting with rush-hour service. Page 3 Link Tight rail • Approximately 24 miles of new Link light rail transit connecting the University of Washington, Capi- tol Hill, First Hill, downtown Seattle, Southeast Seattle, Tukwila and SeaTac; and, if additional fund- ing is secured, Roosevelt and Northgate. • A 1.6 -mile Link light rail line in Tacoma connecting the downtown, business, theater and university districts with local and Regional Express bus and Sounder commuter rail services at the new Tacoma Dome intermodal station which opened Oct. 25, 1997. _ Regional Express bus and HOV access • Sound Transit -funded direct access ramps to freeway bus and carpool lanes, creating 100 miles of High -Occupancy -Vehicle (HOV) expressway to ensure fast and reliable local and regional bus service, encourage carpool and vanpool use, and eliminate buses and carpools weaving through general traffic at freeway entrances and exits. • Twenty new Regional Express bus routes with service beginning within three years to better connect cities and suburbs throughout the region and linking with other local and regional transit services. • Community connections such as rail stations, transit centers, park-and-ride lots, and pedestrian and bicycle improvements to provide local access to the regional transit network. • An integrated fare system designed to provide a seamless system of public transportation services within the central Puget Sound region. Sound Transit goals • Put Sound Move services and facilities in place in ways that are consistent with the adopted fmancial policies and commitments made to the public. • Maintain a sense of community -ownership while planning, designing, building and operating the sys- tem. • Maintain a high standard of excellence, innovation, quality, and a progressive, "can do" attitude while being timely and responsive to the needs of the communities we serve. Sound Transit measures of success • High-quality projects are completed on time and within budget. • Services are well used and customer satisfaction is high. • Checks and balances ensure accountability to the community. • Staff, consultants and contractors are accountable to the Sound Transit Board. • Projects are developed with the help of meaningful community involvement and participation. • Technical expertise is appropriate to implement the system and a lean organization reflects the Sound Transit District's values and diversity. Page 4 • Maximum local participation, including Minority/Women/Disadvantaged Business Enterprise firms, has been achieved in Sound Transit contracting. • Projects include innovative design and operating features that benefit Sound Transit's customers and attract new riders. • Partnerships are created which leverage Sound Transit's investments and/or reduce project costs. 1998 ACCOMPLISHMENTS Sound Transit made excellent progress in 1998 on a variety of major areas. These included: Link light rail • Citizen involvement: Hundreds of meetings involving local communities, businesses and other stake holders were held to provide information on Link and to learn about issues people are concerned about. • Route selection: The board selected the 18 most promising potential routes for the central Link light rail system to be studied as a part of the draft environmental impact statement. Nearly 40 possible routes were considered initially. The board also approved the alternative routes (two north -south routes and three east -west routes) to be analyzed in the draft environmental impact statement for the Tacoma light rail line. • Environmental Impact Statements: the Link light rail department prepared and published two draft environmental impact statements — one for the central Link line and one for the Tacoma Link line. • Soil samples: Link engineers took 24 soil samples from potential route sites and reviewed existing data extensively. Initial analysis by the Link civil engineering team has not uncovered any "fatal flaws" that could impede the project. • Station and urban design criteria: The board adopted several urban design criteria that Link pro- posed for stations and track ways. • Vehicle criteria: The board adopted vehicle performance and passenger criteria for Link light rail ve- hicles. • Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel: The Link light rail department, King County Metro and the City of Seattle studied joint bus—light rail operations in the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel. • Preliminary engineering: Link made extensive progress on preliminary engineering designs for light rail routes and stations. • Schedule and budget: All of these activities were completed within the Adopted Budget and on schedule. Sounder commuter rail • Station design: Six consultant teams were selected to design, with the help of citizens, six Sounder stations. Citizen -based Technical Advisory Committees were formed to assist Sound Transit in creat- ing stations that are efficient and appealing. Specifications and designs for Sounder's fare vending equipment were also completed. Page 5 • Tacoma -Seattle environmental clearance: The Federal Transit Administration issued a Finding of No Significant Impact, or FONSI, approving Sound Transit's environmental assessment for the Ta- coma/Seattle segment of the Sounder commuter rail line. The FONSI was a major milestone for the Sounder system, essentially giving the agency a green light to proceed with procuring equipment, de- veloping station sites and making other improvements necessary to begin passenger service by the end of 1999. • Fast corridor: Sound Transit's planned investment in track and facilities continues to provide a basis for further work on fast corridor investments. • Vehicle purchase: Passenger rail cars ordered for delivery in 1999. • Schedule and budget: All of these activities were completed on time and within budget. A prelimi- nary analysis indicates that Sound Transit investment has already attracted over $100 million in addi- tional investments by other agencies. Regional Express • Fare integration: A framework and general concept for regional fare integration, developed in con- junction with regional transit partners, was approved by the boards of all four transit agencies in the region. The framework establishes a series of regional passes that will be valid on all transit agencies' services within King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties for the face value of the pass. This is a major accomplishment in creating the seamless system promised to the voters. • Bus purchase: The board authorized the purchase of regional express buses in partnership with exist- ing public transit agencies under existing contract agreements. This partnering saved Sound Transit time and money. • Bus route expansion: The highly successful Seattle -to -Tacoma express bus service was expanded a second time. Services provided by Sound Transit have contributed to the 30 percent increase in rider- ship over a year ago. This represents the initial step toward Sound Transit assuming full funding re- sponsibility for the entire Tacoma/Lakewood-to-Seattle Express route. In addition, the agency will fund in 1998 (a year ahead of schedule) an augmentation of King County Metro's 226 express bus service from Bellevue to Seattle. Sixteen King County Metro Route 226 trips from Bellevue to Seattle in the morning and evening will be funded. • Ash Way park-and-ride lot: A 1,000 -stall facility that is being developed by' Community Transit and the state Department of Transportation (WSDOT) north of Lynnwood near interstate 5 at 164t Street. Groundbreaking took place in September 1997 and construction is expected to be completed in late 1998. Both Community Transit and Regional Express buses will serve this facility. Sound Transit is one of four funding partners. • Overlake Transit center and park-and-ride lot: A new transit center for King County Metro and Sound Transit bus connections and an accompanying park-and-ride lot in Redmond at northeast 40th and 156th Street are being developed in partnership with Microsoft Corporation, the City of Redmond and King County Metro. This project will coincide with completion of WSDOT's new interchange and bus flyer stops at State Route 520 and northeast 40th Street. • Building partnerships: During the year, many partnerships critical to integrated transit were formed with local jurisdictions, WSDOT, Federal Highway Administration and other transit agencies. Page 6 Agencywide • First COP report: The Citizen Oversight Panel (COP), which was established to help ensure ac- countability to the public, produced its first annual report. It gave Sound Transit generally high marks, but also identified a number of potential areas of improvement which the agency is now addressing. • Public outreach: Sound Transit conducted numerous public meetings, hearings and forums during the year. agency staff continually met with interested citizens, community groups, organizations, transit agencies and businesses to ensure local involvement in building the regional transit system. Particular attention is being given to outreach to groups sometimes under represented due to cultural or language differences. • STart: A public arts program (STart) was adopted to integrate and showcase local art within the Sound Transit system. Lead artists have been chosen to incorporate art into the design and construc- tion of Sound Transit facilities • New headquarters: Sound Transit has agreed to purchase a renovated Union Station as its new long- term headquarters. Placed at the intersection of all three modal services, Union Station will provide a central location for Sound Transit headquarters and also return a historic structure to its original use. • Community offices: The agency opened regional offices in Tacoma and on Rainier Avenue South to serve as a convenient location where residents and workers can share ideas on the design and imple- mentation of Sound Transit projects. • Sound Transit vehicle design: Northwest colors of deep blue, teal and green were chosen to represent "the new wave of transportation" on Sound Transit Sounder commuter rail passenger cars and loco- motives, Link light rail vehicles and Regional Express buses. THE SOUND TRANSIT DISTRICT BOUNDARY The Sound Transit District, shown on the following page, includes the most congested urban areas of King, Pierce and Snohomish counties. The Sound Transit District boundary lines generally follow the urban growth boundaries created by each county in accordance with the state Growth Management Act. The urban growth boundaries guide how and where growth will take place in each county. The. Sound Transit District boundary was adjusted in some places in consideration of voter -precinct boundaries, city - limit lines and geography. The Sound Transit boundary: • shows the area where high-capacity transit services will be added to our transportation system; • establishes representation on the Sound Transit Board as prescribed by state law; • shows the area in which local taxes authorized by voters to help finance Sound Move will be collected; and • demonstrates how regional services and facilities can support growth management goals and adopted land -use plans. Effective Jan 1, 1999, the Sound Transit Board approved the withdrawal of the City of Covington from the Sound Transit District. The City of Covington was incorporated in the same election in November 1996 that voters approved tax levies to implement Sound Move. As a result, a portion of Covington was Page 7 SOUND TRANSIT DISTRICT : 94•.,N ' • Krtserp County Pierce Courtly tlf . ••. •• -I : EVEREtT /,..,..;-,,,=•-e'' Mukilieo... Snohomish .. \ . / i• v County subarea .... ... . \\ I '-• ..• .4-• -4•1,...iil , 4 /." Mill Creek t • , . . 1/ .I 6..:,_ynnwood L Edmonds Mtlk. .., Terrace 1 -- 4. - Snohomish County 1 • Bothell Woodinville King County I Shoreline NorMgate :. Totem Lake 1,.. ,..*: m%nd ..., . •,-,.. ,. ::, 0.18allard ' Kirkland Red..:J '. . ^: • U-Distrid 'i ' • • _______East King .. • North King ...,.,,.01.- • . . - .... , • . ---'•;•--% County subarea County subrea, ,`, .Cod ,N •. . a.' ...: . ' t''''',.•?- k... " - - - 1 • -'-- • • MI BELLEVUE 11 SEATTLE • • •'. .. Mercer .....,;.: . Island' .. . , •., .-1 WestSeattle , '- , ' • .... . re R,,i, •,.. .......,...„.g 22 . .i • • ••••,- - s ii .••• ' Newcastle lifjii , - : • IF , n..:.: ,r, ti'l '1-.•-•-•is-s-aquah :.51. •': . P Bu‘den Tukwila:•;' Renton ,''' . . .7.....,,,,i.„,.....,,,, ...g. SeaTac -, r• .7.-.:-... .:: .... if -':.: Federal • \ " • e ',.. Way " ' - R to ' •4`-''. ' . , . . . ' Algona ,...,,,,,, , . ,..:..P':.-.ierc; e. . Cou' ntCy--''i \/ ••., subarea TACOMA mi. Pacific lton • \ '.. ' . ''''.: .2.:-'• ' • , ...•.1 Fircrest Fife Edgewood , ,.. 'v. • , : ...-7 ',',.:-...,.. . ...,.,;.,., Kent • • • South King e County subarea Auburn Sumner...: University Place Bonney ;'tz Puyallup • - • Pierce County '''N • •rel Parkland Orting Legend • Steilacoom Lakewood . . ' • ' ,' if . McChord .I DUPOTIt t.. -.:,. Fort Lewis 4 Pierce County Thurston County N A 0 1 2 3 ESIM1 Miles Sound Transit District Subareas for planning and budgeting purposes Page 8 within the district and a portion outside of the district. The city petitioned the board to withdraw com- pletely from the district and the board approved the city's request. Sound Transit District subareas The Sound Transit District has been divided into five geographic subareas for planning and budgeting purposes. The system components in Sound Move address unique needs in each of these subareas. The local tax revenues and related debt for projects and services will be utilized to benefit the subareas gener- ally in proportion to the level of revenues each subarea generates. Snohomish County. The Snohomish County subarea of the Sound Transit District includes the cities of Brier, Edmonds, Everett, Lynnwood, Mill Creek, Mountlake Terrace, Mukilteo and Woodway. In 1996, the Snohomish County subarea had an estimated population of 365,000 residents, accounting for 68 per- cent of the Snohomish County population. North King County. The North King County subarea includes the cities of Seattle, Shoreline and Lake Forest Park. In 1996, the North King subarea had an estimated population of 595,000, accounting for 37 percent of King County's entire population. South King County. The South King County subarea includes the cities of Algona, Auburn, Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way, Kent, Normandy Park, Pacific, SeaTac and Tukwila. Since 1990, this has been the fastest growing area of King County. In 1996, the South King subarea had an estimated population of 446,000 residents, 27 percent of King County's population. East King County. The East King County subarea includes the cities of Beaux Arts, Bellevue, Bothell, Clyde Hill, Hunts Point, Issaquah, Kirkland, Medina, Mercer Island, Newcastle, Redmond, Renton, Woodinville and Yarrow Point. In 1996, the East King subarea had an estimated population of 417,000 residents, accounting for 26 percent of King County's population. The combined three King County subareas account for 90 percent of the total King County population. Pierce County. The Pierce County subarea of the Sound Transit District includes the cities of Bonney Lake, DuPont, Edgewood, Fife, Fircrest, Lakewood, Milton, Orting, Puyallup, Ruston, Steilacoom, Sum- ner, Tacoma and University Place. In 1996, the Pierce County subarea had an estimated population of 548,000 residents, accounting for 82 percent of the Pierce County population. SOUND TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS Sound Transit is governed by an 18 -member board made up of 17 local, elected officials and the state Department of Transportation Secretary. The local, elected officials include mayors, city councilmem- bers, county executives and county councilmembers from within the Sound Transit District. Each county is represented by one boardmember per 145,000 people living within that county. Currently, the Sound Transit Board includes three members from Snohomish County, 10 from King County, four from Pierce County and the WSDOT Secretary. Boardmembers from each county are appointed by the respective county executive and confirmed by their county council. The appointment process includes consultation with local cities and towns. Page 9 Sound Transit Board of Directors Chair Paul Miller, Councilmember, City of Tacoma Vice chairs Dave Earling, Councilmember, City of Edmonds Greg Nickels, Councilmember, King County Boardmembers Ann Kirk Davis, Councilmember, City of Lakewood David Enslow, Councilmember, City of Sumner Bob Drewel, County Executive, Snohomish County Mary Gates, Councilmember, City of Federal Way Jane Hague, Councilmember, King County Ed Hansen, Mayor, City of Everett Richard McIver, Councilmember, City of Seattle Rob McKenna, Councilmember, King County Sid Morrison, Secretary, Washington State Dept. of Transportation Dave Russell, Councilmember, City of Kirkland Paul Schell, Mayor, City of Seattle Ron Sims, County Executive, King County Cynthia Sullivan, Councilmember, King County Doug Sutherland, County Executive, Pierce County Jim White, Mayor, City of Kent By state law, appointments must include an elected city official representing the largest city in the partici- pating county and proportional representation from other cities and unincorporated areas. To help assure coordination between local and regional transit plans, half the appointments in each county must be offi- cials who serve on the local transit agency board. Sound Transit boardmembers elect the board officers including a chair and two vice chairs. The chair pre- sides over all board meetings and is also a voting member. The board has three standing committees —Ex- ecutive, Finance, and Public and Government Affairs. Each committee advises the full Sound Transit Board on activities related to their areas of responsibility. Committeestructurefor the Sound Transit Board of Directors SOUND TRANSIT BOARD Finance Committee Page 10 Executive Committee i Real Estate/Transit- Oriented Development Subcommittee Public and Government Affairs Committee The Sound Transit Board holds regular meetings on the second and fourth Thursdays of each month from 2 to 5 p.m. Additional meetings are held as needed. Two-thirds of the meetings are held in King County and the remaining meetings are held in Pierce and Snohomish counties. All sessions are open to the pub- lic and public comment is invited and strongly encouraged. All legislative acts of the Sound Transit Board are made in the form of resolutions with other board actions conducted by motion. MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION Sound Transit's management organization is designed to ensure achievement of the Sound Transit Board's mission, goals and measures of success, and to reflect the agency's partnerships with its citizens, customers and communities. Sound Transit's management organization is shown on the following page. CITIZEN OVERSIGHT PANEL The Sound Transit Board's commitment to public accountability is a significant theme in the policies that frame Sound Move. During the first quarter of 1997, the Sound Transit Board appointed members to the first Citizen Oversight Panel (COP). The provision for and commitment to a COP is contained in the agency's adopted Financial Policies [ "Public Accountability" (Sound Move financial policies, May 31, 1996, p. B7)]: "To insure that the 10 -year construction program development and implementation occurs within the framework and intent of these policies, Sound Transit will: a) conduct an annual comprehensive performance audit through independent audit services b) appoint and maintain for the 10 -year construction period a citizen oversight committee, charged with an annual review of Sound Transit's performance audit and financial plan, for reporting and recommendations to the Sound Transit Board." Mission As an independent body, the COP reviews Sound Transit's performance toward achieving its adopted commitments to the public and provides recommendations concerning its performance. The COP's charge is to provide the board and public with a regular report card. Steven Goldblatt, Chair Reid Shockey, Vice Chair Bruce Agnew Diane Carlson Arlington Carter Jr. Citizen Oversight Panel members Allan Darr Virginia Gunby Frederick Hart Michael Hudson Terry Lukens Thomas Luthy Kristi Mandt David Osaki Al Stipe Page II b A oo co SOUND TRANSIT MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION Deputy Executive Director Public & Government Affairs Paul Matsuoka 398-5070 Sound Transit Board of Directors Executive Director Bob White 398-5014 — Govemment Relations — Sheila Dezam 398-5071 — Public Affairs — Patrick Soricone 689-3372 Board Administration Marcia Walker 398-5015 Communications. Marketing and Human Resources Betty Laurs 398-5120 — Communications & Marketing — Barbara Dougherty 398-5054 — Human Resources — Lilly Aguilar 398-5075 Legal Department Desmond Brown 398-5017 — Diversity Programs — Alec Stephens 398-5019 — Real Estate — Jeri Cranney 689-4934 — Environmental Compliance — Perry Weinberg 689-4931 Finance & Administration Director Jan Hendrickson 398-5097 — Finance & Budget — Brian McCartan 398-5100 — Accounting, Grants & Treasury — Hugh Simpson 398-5082 — Contracts & Risk — Willette Rasmussen 689-3329 (acting) — Information Systems —Ayele Dagne 689-3390 — Facilities — Bob Hill 689-3378 Link Light Rail Director Paul Bay 398-5134 — Project Control — Clint Chapin 398-5203 — Project Development — Mary Jo Porter 689-2182 (acting) — Civil Engineering — William Houppermans 398-5125 Systems Engineering — Les Durrant 689-4901 Sounder Commuter Rail Director Paul Price 398-5111 — Project Development — David Beal 398-5124 — Rail Operations — Noel Peck 398-5115 — Construction — Bob Sundin 398-5118 Regional Express Director Agnes Govem 398-5037 — Systems Integration — Barbara Gilliland 398-5051 — Regional Bus — Veronica Parker 398-5042 — Community Connections — Mike Normand 398-5031 — HOV Access — Bill Guenzler 398-5041 — Implementation — Gloria Overgaard 689-4909 SOUNDTRANS/r = Areas of responsibility Specifically, the COP monitors and provides recommendations concerning Sound Transit's performance in meeting its public commitments in the following policy areas: • public participation in plan implementation • evaluation of project altematives and recommendations • annual capital and operating budget and finance plan • regional fund management • equity, subarea budgets and financial reporting • schedule and budget adherence • annual performance review audits. SOUND TRANSIT'S RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER AGENCIES Introduction Successful implementation of Sound Move depends on creating effective partnerships with other govern- mental agencies. The following section identifies some of the policy areas which need to be addressed within each partnership. Puget Sound Regional Council Sound Transit will work with the Puget Sound Regional Council on several items including those listed below. • Work together under the principles of the existing Memorandum of Understanding, dated March 6, 1998. • Coordinate and maintain consistency with the region's Metropolitan Transportation Plan and coordi- nate with local plans. • Coordinate on appropriate major investment studies. • Use regional databases. • Coordinate with the regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) process and work to include relevant elements of Sound Move into the regional TIP. • Develop a right-of-way preservation process. • Develop, along with WSDOT, regional HOV policies. Page 13 Cities/counties/ports Sound Transit has developed, and must continue to develop, agreements with cities, counties and port districts to plan, design, and build light rail and commuter rail segments and stations and regional bus fa- cilities and services. These agreements will address several elements including those listed below. • communications and team development • alignment and station location decision-making • station -area planning and transit -oriented development • design review and approval • prioritized permitting and zoning approvals • public participation • cost sharing • right-of-way/property acquisition These agreements will be reviewed periodically to permit modifications reflecting the appropriate stage of project implementation. Transit agencies Sound Transit has developed and will continue to develop a variety of agreements and contracts with other transit agencies, as listed below: • Regional Express bus services including planning, operation, and maintenance • integration of regional and local service including reallocated bus hours • planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of transit stations, park-and-ride lots and terminals • fare integration • bus procurement and maintenance • joint application for federal and state transit grants • participation in commuter rail and light rail planning design and construction Washington State Department of Transportation The six major areas of agreement, listed below, will need to be negotiated with WSDOT. Some areas have been addressed in existing memoranda of understanding; others will be the subject of future amendments. • HOV expressway O access ramp design and cost reimbursement ❑ scheduling Page 14 ❑ HOV policies • Sounder commuter rail ❑ cost sharing for common track and signal improvement ❑ project management responsibilities • potential WSDOT roles supporting light rail and community connections • fare and service integration • right-of-way/property acquisition • joint development opportunities Page 15 ADOPTED 1999 BUDGET SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The Adopted 1999 Budget represents the third year of Sound Transit's 1997-2006 Sound Move — The Ten -Year Regional Transit System Plan. It contains the agency's operating budget and a six-year capital spending plan. The total adopted budget and capital plan is $478.2 million — $28.5 million for net operat- ing and $449.7 million for capital (see below). The Adopted 1999 Budget also contains revenue forecasts for the 1999 fiscal year. Sound Transit uses the January -to -December calendar year for its budget and fis- cal year. Total operating expenses and capital plan Net Operating Budget $28,499,722 (6%) Capital Spending Plan $449,728,522 (94%) How to read the budget The budget is organized according to the eight agency departments. Each departmental section includes objectives and action plans, an operating and capital budget summary, an operating budget summary, a detailed operating budget and notes describing certain expenses. In addition to this information, the Sounder commuter rail, Link light rail, and Regional Express sections also include their respective capital spending plans, with a capital spending plan summary and project descriptions. These components of the operating and capital budgets are described below. Page 17 Objectives and action plans Each departmental section includes a listing of the objectives and action plans for 1999 that describe overall long-term strategic goals and specific 1999 actions. Departmental operating and capital budget summaries The departmental operating and capital budget summary is organized into four columns: 1997Actuals, Adopted 1998 Budget, 1998 Estimated, and Adopted 1999 Budget. As.the agency has grown quickly dur- ing the last two years, there have been a number of changes in accounting and organizational structure. As a result, these four budget columns are not always directly comparable. The 1997 Actuals column contains figures from actual expenses and outlays recorded in 1997. Capital outlays are recorded on an accrual basis, consistent with the 1998 Estimated and Adopted 1999 Budget columns. The 1997 Budget was Sound Transit's first budget and it did not distinguish between operating and capital expenses and did not budget expenses at the divisional level. As a result, the 1997Actuals column do not correspond exactly to the 1998 and 1999 figures. The 1997Actuals column has been ad- justed to allocate expenses from the support departments to the modal departments, and to allocate oper- ating costs to capital consistent with the methodology adopted for the audited 1997 Financial Statement (see Allocation and capitalization methodology section in the Operating Budget summary). The Adopted 1998 Budget column contains the board adopted Budget from last year, adjusted to reflect some changes in the categorization of expenses to reflect the finalization of the agency's accounting sys- tem structure. For example, in 1998 rent was categorized as "Office Expenses" while in 1999 it is con- tained in "Leases and Rentals". In addition, the 1998 Capital Plan was largely budgeted on an obligation basis, which budgeted dollars in years in which contracts for purchases were signed. In the Adopted 1999 Budget, capital outlays are recorded on an accrual basis, which budgets dollars in years in which work on capital purchases will actually be performed. For example, the Adopted 1998 Budget included outlays for all bus purchases, as the contracts for buses were signed in 1998. The Adopted 1999 Budget includes . . outlays for bus purchases in 1999 and beyond, to reflect when work will actually be performed on con- structing the buses. As a result, the Adopted 1998 Capital Plan is substantially larger than the 1998 esti- mate, which merely reflects this change in accounting methodology. On an obligation basis, actual 1998 capital outlays are on schedule with the Adopted 1998 Budget, which reflects that the agency is on sched- ule for its capital plan. The 1998 Estimated column represents estimated expenses and outlays through Dec 31, 1998. It is on an accrual basis, consistent with the Adopted 1999 Budget columns. At the time the Proposed 1999 Budget was produced only actual expenditures through July 1998 were available. The Adopted 1999 Budget column contains the agency's adopted operating expenses and capital plan. All four budget columns reflect the agency's organizational structure as of September 1998. All divisions and departments are recorded for all three years in their current organizational structure to facilitate year - over -year comparisons. For example, the Real Estate division was moved from the Finance and Admini- stration department in 1998 to the Legal department. The Adopted 1999 Budget has adjusted the two de- partments' budgets in 1997 and 1998 so that Real Estate expenses are recorded in the Legal department budget for all three years. However, certain capital outlays have not been reallocated, but are still re- corded within their original department. Page 18 Departmental operating budgets Each of Sound Transit's eight departments has a detailed operating budget, which consists of expenses for salaries and benefits, lease and rentals, services, materials and supplies, miscellaneous expenses, other expenses and depreciation. The operating budgets are presented under each department's summary sec- tion. Notes explaining certain expense line -items in greater detail follow each departmental operating budget. Departmental capital spending plans Each of the modal departments (Sounder commuter rail, Link light rail, and Regional Express) also has a capital spending plan, including a project -by -project listing of capital outlays. A map illustrating these capital plans is included in each modal. department budget summary. Administrative. departments (Board, Executive, Legal, Public and Government Affairs, and Finance and Administration) havea single com- bined capital spending plan. Agency administrative capital costs are charged to the Regional. Fund. The Regional Fund capital spending plan also includes capital outlays related to system integration, research and technology, and fare integration. The capital spending plans are summarized by a series of tables showing project outlays by year and subarea. Following these summary tables are the individual capital project pages. The top portion of each capital project page contains general information about the project including the project name, descrip- tion, and cost summary. The cost summary presents each project's total cost estimate — capital and oper- ating and maintenance (O&M) in three formats: (1) as originally reported in Sound Move in constant 1995 dollars (1995$); (2) the Adopted 1999 Budget cost estimate in constant 1995 dollars; and (3) the Adopted 1999 Budget cost estimate in year -of -expenditure dollars. This cost summary allows for a quick compari- son between current and original cost estimates and will help to meet Sound Transit's commitment to an open and clear reporting system and ensure accountability to the Sound Transit Board and citizens. The remainder of the individual capital project page shows year -by -year capital outlays by phase (design, construction, etc.). Expenses for O&M, projected year -by -year, are also displayed to provide a compre- hensive picture of the total project expenses. A 1999 Capital and Operating Budget Summary is also provided. This table reflects total agency gross operating budgets, transit operations and operational expenses related to fare integration, departmental allocations of costs, allocations to capital. It also shows total capital outlays. The table does not include contributions to reserves. It also includes two "non -departmental" components—.debt service and capital outlays related to acquisition of Union Station. If the board approves the issuance of debt in 1998, the agency would incur debt service payments in 1999. However, those debt service payments would be cov- ered by interest earnings on bond proceeds, so would have no net costs to the agency. The acquisition of Union Station was not a part of the Sound Move capital plan, and therefore the outlay is not included as part of the Sound Move total outlays. However, the depreciation of Union Station will be recorded as a departmental expense in the agency's operating budget during each year of occupancy, and this cost will be reflected in the total Sound Move costs. The depreciation of Union Station can be thought of in lieu of the headquarter rent expense that was included in the original Sound Move budget. Page 19 Revenue summary Sound Transit will collect an estimated $500.1 million in revenues and other financing sources in 1999, up approximately $245.6 million from the $254.5 million estimated to be collected in 1998. Total 1999 tax revenues include $180.7 million in Retail Sales and Use Tax revenue and $45.8 million in Motor Ve- hicle Excise Tax revenue. Revenues are slightly higher than originally forecast in Sound Move, due to a more refined estimate of Sound Transit's tax base and a more vigorous forecast of near-term economic growth throughout the Sound Transit District. However, revenues are slightly lower than forecast in 1997 due to expectations of slower growth in the U.S. economy, triggered in part by a substantial decrease in economic activity in Asia, Russia and parts of Latin America. Sound Transit anticipates receiving $54.0 million in federal grants in 1999 and $17.7 million in interest earnings on cash and investments. Retail Sales and Use Tax $180,718,000 (36%) 1999 Estimated Revenues Farebox Revenue $1,825,795 (0.4%) Federal Grants $54,000,000 (11%) Interest Eamings $17,704,000 (4%) OPERATING BUDGET SUMMARY Motor Vehicle Excise Tax $45,823,000 (9%) Bond Proceeds $200,000,000 (40%) Agency operating budget Sound Transit's gross operating budget rises from an estimated $20.3 million in 1998 to $45.2 million in 1999. The $24.9 million increase in 1999 is in part due to the completion of Sound Transit's 1998 staffing plan, the addition of new staff in the 1999 staffing plan, and the increased use of consulting resources by the support departments, primarily Public and Governmental Affairs and Finance and Administration. A Page 20 $9.3 million budget for debt service payments in 1999, the first for the agency, also helps account for the increase. Agency staff will rise from approximately 145 FTEs by the end of 1998 to 180 FTEs at the end of 1999. (See Appendix B: Sound Transit 1999 staffing plan and allocation assumptions.) Expenses for salaries and benefits will rise $5.1 million from $9.2 million in 1998 to $14.3 million in 1999. Expenses for serv- ices will increase by $1.8 million over 1998 actuals as Sound Transit procures services to assist in the im- plementation of information systems for human resources, information management, financial manage- ment, contracts and grants, and risk management and for the purchase of services related to legal affairs (primarily related to property acquisition), communications, and marketing (primarily marketing of newly implemented Regional Express bus and Sounder commuter rail services). Many activities related to the planning and implementation of transit services are contained in the operating budget, such as marketing, advertising, signage, customer service, risk management, public information, property acquisition, and legal services. In addition, other operating budget expenditures are integral to implementing the capital projects, such as contracting, purchasing, information systems, and other accounting and financial man- agement services. Transit operational expenses rise by $8.1 million in 1999 over 1998 actuals, reflecting increased bus op- erations and the start of Sounder commuter rail service. Of the $45.2 million gross operating budget, $16.7 million will be assigned to capital according to the methodology described below in the Allocation and Capitalization Methodology section. This provides a net operating budget of $28.5 million. 1999 Gross Operating Budget Other O&M (Fare Integration) $1,628,704 (4%) Transit Operations $8,713,037 (19%) Debt Service $9,316,667 (21%) Services $7,343,305 (16%) Leases and Rentals $1,192,316 (3%) Materials and Supplies $891,096 (2%) Miscellaneous Expenses $1,622,693 (4%) Other Expenses $247,857 (1%) Salaries and Benefits $14,276,023 (32%) Page 21 Transit system operations and fare integration Transit operation expenses in 1999 include $7.6 million for expanded Regional Express bus service. This amount reflects continued service in 1999 for the Seattle -Tacoma express, operated by Pierce Transit on behalf of Sound Transit. It also reflects a full year of augmented King County Metro Route 226 between Bellevue and Seattle. Finally, the bus budget reflects implementation of full service on most Sound Tran- sit Regional Express bus routes no later than the fourth quarter of 1999. A more precise estimate of these costs will be available once the board adopts the Service Implementation Plan in the fall of 1998, which will detail the level of service on each Sound Move route. The 1999 transit operation expenses also include $1.1 million for initial passenger service for Sounder commuter rail before the end of 1999. These costs primarily reflect advertising and marketing costs prior to service. The Net Operating Budget also reflects expenses for fare integration, which are allocated in Sound Move as operating and maintenance costs. The expenses for fare integration in 1999 are $1.7 mil- lion. Allocation and capitalization methodology The 1998 Adopted Budget was based on a cost allocation model that distributed the majority (about 60 percent) of the support department costs to the capital projects in the three modal departments. This allo- cation was viewed as appropriate because the majority of agency activity was related to implementing the agency's capital plan. The remainder (about 40 percent) of the costs of the support departments was allo- cated to the Regional Fund. After discussions with the agency's auditor, this cost allocation model was reevaluated and the 1997 financial statements reflect a smaller percentage of costs allocated from the sup- port departments to the capital projects. For 1999, approximately 53 percent of the costs of the agency's support departments are allocated to the modal departments. Approximately 35 percent of the total operating expenses for the Executive's Office, 63 percent of Legal, 46 percent of the Public and Government Affairs and 57 percent of the Finance and Administration department are allocated to the modal departments: Sounder commuter rail, Link light rail, and Regional Express. The costs of these modal departments are allocated to the department's respective capital and operating budgets relative to their share of the total budget. For example, Link light rail has only capital, no transit operating, expenses in 1999. Accordingly, all departmental operating expenses are allocated to its capital projects. In contrast, both Sounder and Regional Express do have transit operating budgets, and therefore not all of those departments' operating budgets are assigned to capital projects — some is retained as oper- ating expenses. It is the policy of Sound Transit to capitalize expenses for itemsthat cost $5,000 or more and have useful lives that are greater than one year. Such expenses will be capitalized into fixed asset accounts within the balance sheet. Sound Transit's balance sheet will contain separate accounts for fixed assets as described by the Washington State Budget and Accounting Reporting System. A separate system will track fixed assets and a reconciliation will be performed by asset account. Expenses for capital projects under con- struction will be reported on the balance sheet in a construction in progress account. When construction is completed and the asset placed in service, the asset will then be recorded as a fixed asset and associated depreciation will begin. Page 22 The Adopted 1999 Budget includes depreciation of capital assets as an expense for 1997, 1998, and 1999. For 1999 this figure includes the depreciation of capital assets (on schedule list below) already purchased in 1997 and 1998, and estimated depreciation for assets yet to be purchased in 1998 and 1999. The budget recognizes depreciation as a part of the total capital budget, then subtracts depreciation out (as "adjust- ments for non-cash items") to arrive at the net operating budget. Items classified as capital will be depre- ciated on a monthly basis according to the following schedule: • three-year equipment: computers, printers, peripherals • five-year equipment: copiers, cellular phones, automobiles • seven-year furniture and fixtures: desks, panel systems, chairs Other capital assets will be assigned depreciation schedules in 1999. The Adopted 1999 Budget includes $9.3 million for debt service in 1999. Per. Sound Transit's financial plan, the agency will issue bonds with principal due no earlier than five years after issues, so the first five years of debt service with be interest only and include no payment of principal. Interest costs and a por- tion of bond issuance costs will be recorded each year as an expense. These costs will initially be attrib- uted to subareas consistent with each subarea's share of total 10 -year borrowing under Sound Move. It is anticipated that the updated September 1999 Financial Plan will include a new allocation of debt service, consistent with the latest estimates of total borrowing by each subarea. Interest payments will be capitalized to the extent that bond proceeds have been spent on capital projects. In addition, only net interest costs (interest payments less interest earnings on bond proceeds) will be capitalized. Interest is not capitalized for outlays financed by capital grants. The agency does not expect to incur arbitrage liabilities on the bonds as it expects to qualify for an exemption period. Regional Fund and reserves The Regional Fund is funded proportionately by contributions from the five subareas. Sound Move Finan- cial Policies allow for annual board review of the amount of local taxes to be contributed to. the Regional Fund. The policies permit up to 10 percent of local revenues to be distributed to the Regional Fund. Inter- est earnings on all Sound Transit funds are also assigned to the Regional Fund for uses specified within the financial policies. In 1999, about 3 percent of local revenues plus all interest net earnings will be allo- cated to pay for Regional Fund expenses. Sound Move identified agency administration, fare integration, research and technology, and Phase II planning as funded elements within the Regional Fund. The total costs of these elements are still esti- mated to be $170 million, unchanged from Sound Move. However, this figure could be higher depending on decisions the board makes regarding staffing levels and the agency's cost allocation system. Sound Move allocated approximately $55 million (1995$) to the Regional Fund over 10 years for agency administration'—'a combination of both operating and capital funds. Sound Move estimated that adminis- trative costs funded by the Regional Fund would only include non -capital, non -transit operating costs. These costs were estimate to be $55 million (1995$): $40.5 million for administrative salaries and bene- fits (50 FTEs) and $14.5 million for costs related to agency start up (human resource and information systems, insurance, furniture and equipment). The agency is now projecting a total support department staffing level of 94 by year end 1999. The hiring of Sound Transit staff to fill critical administrative positions allows the agency to most effectively main- tain control and accountability over the projects. In addition, the hiring of Sound Transit staff is more cost effective than hiring outside consultants for those functions and duties to be provided on a long-term ba - Page 23 sis. In areas where services are not critical for public accountability or project control, or where the work is not of a permanent nature, the agency will use consultant personnel. If the full costs of the support department staff were assigned to the Regional Fund, the costs would ex- ceed the original $55 million Sound Move estimate. However, consistent with the Sound Move assump- tions, the majority of these costs will be assigned as overhead to the capital projects and to transit opera- tions. Budget for agency administration is included in the capital plan -- $10.3 million in 1999 and $5.9 million to $6.9 million per year 2000 through 2006. Within the original $3.9 billion (1995$) program cost, Sound Move identified $110 million (1995$) for bond and operating reserves over the 10 -year program, allocated by subarea. Contributions to reserves are not an expense or outlay in proprietary fund accounting, and therefore are not included in the Adopted 1999 Budget. However, reserves will be identified in the Sound Transit year-end financial statements, according to generally accepted accounting principles. As part of its commitment to maintaining subarea equity, Sound Transit will track contributions to reserves by subarea. Sound Move identified $10 million for systemwide contingency. In the Adopted 1998 Budget, the board authorized the expenditure of $400,000 for an economic development program. About $100,000 of this amount is estimated to be spent in 1998. The Adopted 1999 Capital Plan includes $400,000 for an eco- nomic development program as will each capital plan through the year 2006. This expense is allocated to systemwide contingency (although the figures are initially budgeted in the Legal Department). The re- mainder of the systemwide contingency budget is included in the capital plan in year 2006 until such time as the Board allocates the remaining reserve. The next three pages include the following agency summary tables: Sound Transit Revenues and Ex- penses, 1999 Operating Budget and Capital Plan Summary by Department, and Sound Transit Net Oper- ating Budget. Page 24 SOUND TRANSIT REVENUES AND EXPENSES AGENCY SUMMARY REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 'Includes revenues from the Rental Car Tax. 21n the Adopted 1998 Budget, $521,000 was included as O&M in the Capital Plan. 'The Proposed 1999 Budget includes a $21 million non -departmental capital outlay to purchase Union Station. `The Adopted 1998 Capital Plan reflected anticipated obligations. The 1998 Estimates and the Proposed 1999 Budget Capital Plans are presented on an accrual basis. On an obligation basis, the agency is on budget with respect to the Adopted 1998 Capital Plan. Page 25 1997 ACTUALS ADOPTED 1998 BUDGET 1998 ACTUALS ADOPTED 1999 BUDGET Retail Sales and Use Tax' $ 115,000,000 $ 168,600,000 $ 182,679,003 $ 180,718,000 Motor Vehicle Excise Tax 25,000,000 44,500,000 44,278,839 45,823,000 Federal Grants 0 22,059,069 29,855,572 54,000,000 Farebox Revenue 0 94,000 426,968 1,825,795 Interest Eamings (Expenses) 537,000 9,200,000 11,419,586 17,704,000 Bond Proceeds 0 0 0 200,000,000 Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources 140,537,000 244,453,069 268,659,968 500,070,795 EXPENSES OPERATING BUDGET Salaries and Benefits 3,178,320 11,451,018 9,228,492 14,276,023 Leases and Rentals 448,067 1,245,574 1,288,428 1,192,316 Services 3,070,509 8,164,537 5,494,345 7,343,305 Materials and Supplies 162,714 463,672 831,256 891,096 Miscellaneous Expenses 480,894 1,666,160 845,679 1,622,693 Other Expenses 256,709 1,209,041 141,786 247,857 Depreciation 181,640 0 774,178 2,031,011 Subtotal Operating Budget 7,778,855 24,200,002 18,604,164 27,604,301 Transit Operations 45,045 594,000 859,898 8,713,037 Other O&M (Fare Integration)2 21,615 0 113,989 1,628,704 Adjustment for Non-cash Item (181,640) 0 (774,178) (2,031,011) Debt Service (non -departmental) 0 0 0 9,316,667 Allocation to Capital (3,753,207) (16,477,627) (12,247,916) (16,731,975) Net Operating Budget 3,910,667 8,316,375 6,555,957 28,499,722 CAPITAL PLAN Allocation to Capital 3,753,207 16,477,627 12,247,916 16,731,975 CapitalOutlays3,4 1,789,115 246,564,388 66,156,557 432,996,547 Total Capital Plan 5,542,322 263,042,015 78,404,473 449,728,522 TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL PLAN $ 9,452,989 $ 271,358,390 $ 84,960,430 S 478,228,244 'Includes revenues from the Rental Car Tax. 21n the Adopted 1998 Budget, $521,000 was included as O&M in the Capital Plan. 'The Proposed 1999 Budget includes a $21 million non -departmental capital outlay to purchase Union Station. `The Adopted 1998 Capital Plan reflected anticipated obligations. The 1998 Estimates and the Proposed 1999 Budget Capital Plans are presented on an accrual basis. On an obligation basis, the agency is on budget with respect to the Adopted 1998 Capital Plan. Page 25 00a SOUND TRANSIT OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL PLAN SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT* Sounder Public and Commuter Link Light Regional Board Govemment Finance end Non Rail Rail Express Administration Executive Legal Affairs Administration Departmental TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET Salaries and Benefits Leases and Rentals Services Materials and Supplies Miscellaneous Expenses Other Expenses Depreciation $ 1,165,857 $ 3,867,624 $ 2,063,689 $ 322,554 $ 345,195 $ 1,656,605 $ 1,816,539 $ 3,037,960 $ 0 $ 14,276,023 161,669 255,890 139,325 21,497 20,033 152,816 176,562 264,525 0 1,192,316 172,949 64,446 171,508 24,853 8,653 1,399,139 2,625,720 2,876,036 0 7,343,305 24,729 84,155 53,438 1,573 1,573 61,624 252,372 411,633 0 891,096 93,918 154,700 100,550 64,175 176,400 141,045 706,303 185,602 0 1,622,693 17,691 59,262 ' 34,843 6,517 5,317 28,957 35,275 59,994 0 247,857 197,155 547,574 334,218 25,867 23,088 88,371 149,515 665224 0 2,031,011 Subtotal Operating Budget 1,833,967 5,033,651 2,897,570 467,037 580,260 3,528,557 5,762,285 7,500,974 0 27,604,301 Transit Operations 1,105,557 0 7,607,480 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,713,037 Other O&M (Fare Integration) 0 0 1,628,704 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,628,704 Adjustment for Non-cash Items (197,155) (547,574) (334,218) (25,867) (23,088) (88,371) (149,515) (665,224) 0 (2,031,011) Debt Service (non -departmental) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,316,667 9,316,667 Allocated From (To) Other Departments 5,572,441 1,351,350 1,947,511 0 (195,010) (2,178,884) (2,580,068) (3,917,341) 0 Total Gross Operating Budget 8,314,810 5,837,427 13,747,047 441,170 362,162 1,261,302 3,032,703 2,918,409 Allocation to Capital (7,102,808) (5,837,427) (3,791,739) 0 0 0 0 9,316,667 0 0 0 45,231,697 (16,731,975) Net Operating Budget 1,212,002 0 9,955,308 441,170 362,162 1,261,302 3,032,703 2,918,409 9,316,667 28,499,722 CAPITAL PLAN Allocation to Capital Capital Outlays 7,102,808 5,837,427 3,791,739 0 0 0 0 0 0 261,880,743 60,370,856 87,035,449 115,298 115,298 576,489 691,787 1,210,627 21,000,000 16,731,975 432,996,547 Total Capital Plan 268,983,551 66,208,283 90,827,188 115,298 115,298 576,489 691,787 1,210,627 21,000,000 449,728,522 TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL PLAN $ 270,195,553 $ 66,208,283 $ 100,782,496 $ 556,468 $ 477,460 $ 1,837,791 $ 3,724,490 $ 4,129,037 $ 30,316,667 $ 478,228,244 'Does not include allocations for reserves. - SOUND TRANSIT NET OPERATING BUDGET SALARIES AND BENEFITS Salaries Benefits Subtotal Salaries and Benefits LEASES AND RENTALS Admin. Facilities Rental Leased Vehicles/Parking Facilities Meeting Space Leased Fumiture/Equipment Subtotal Leases and Rentals SERVICES Consultant Management Legal Accounting/Auditing Maintenance Courier Printing/Binding Advertising/Marketing Interlocal Agreements Other Services Subtotal Services MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES Office Supplies Postage Small Equipment/Fumiture (45,000) Other Materials and Supplies Subtotal Materials and Supplies MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES Dues and Memberships Travel and Meetings Books and Subscriptions Training. Contingency Other Misc. Expenses Subtotal Miscellaneous Expenses OTHER EXPENSES Telephone Insurance Interest Expenses Subtotal Other Expenses DEPRECIATION EXPENSE Depreciation Expense Subtotal Depreciation Expense 1997 ACTUALS $ 2,160,413 1,017,908 3,178,320 336,710 3,015 13,418 94,924 448,067 1,829,585 228,921 351,661 47,864 15,311 3,339 15,760 111,329 65,377 401,363 3,070,509 37,268 114,063 4,704 43,947 0 162,714 163,956 109,960 20,871 3,751 0 182,356 480,894 20,790 55,316 180,603 256,709 181,640 Subtotal Transit Operations Other O&M (Fare Integration) Adjustment for non-cash items Debt Service (non -departmental) ADOPTED 1998 BUDGET 1998 ACTUALS ADOPTED 1999 BUDGET $ 8,284,712 $ 6,483,183 $ 11,314,401 3,166,306 2,745,309 2,961,622 11,451,018 9,228,492 1,050,565 0 34,200 160,809 1,245,574 1,259,750 633,500 2,165,000 85,500 0 0 403,960 113,900 1,130,000 2,372,927 8,164,537 360,100 103,572 0 0 463,672 162,375 , 349,535 39,000 114,200 550,000 451,050 1,666,160 144,041 1,065,000 0 1,209,041 0 1,043,535 194,737 12,782 37,373 1,288,428 1,825,907 302,423 1,030,364 143,284 52,579 26,406 153,114 42,990 619,540 1,297,738 5,494,345 314,793 93,675 326,691 96,096 831,256 29,102 285,519 63,239 42,849 7,294 417,677 845,679 66,447 62,324 13,015 141,786 774,178 181,640 0 774,178 $ 7,778,855 $ 24,200,002 $ 18,604,164 45,045 594,000 859,898 21,615 0 113,989 (181,640) 0 (774,178) 0 0 0 14,276,023 916,882 203,734 14,350 57,350 1,192,316 1,949,300 293,000 438,750 345,340 84,748 53,200 371,050 646,000 429,993 2,731,924 7,343,305 336,750 118,546 241,780 194,020 891,096 96,455 424,146 54,712 102,530 450,000 494,850 1,622,693 88,990 151,667 7200 247,857 2,031,011 2,031,011 $ 27,604,301 8,713,037 1,628,704 (2,031,011) 9,316,667 Total Gross Operating Budget $ 7,663,874 $ 24,794,002 $ 18,803,873 $ 45,231,697 Allocation to Capital $ (3,753,207) $ (16,477,627) $ (12,247,916) $ (16,731,975) (Net Operating Budget $3,910,667 $8,316,375 $6,555,957 528,499,722 Page 27 CAPITAL SPENDING PLAN SUMMARY The Adopted 1999 Budget contains Sound Transit's six-year capital spending plan (1999-2004), which presents detailed expenses on capital assets for each project in Sound Move. Sound Transit is expected to spend approximately $449.7 million in capital outlays in 1999. The major elements of this capital spend- ing are discussed below. Sounder commuter rail will account for approximately 60 percent ($269.0 million) of the total Sound Transit adopted 1999 capital outlays. To begin service as scheduled by the end of 1999 from Tacoma -to - Seattle, Sounder must complete final design and construction of track and capacity improvements, station design, engineering and construction. The 1998 Capital Plan includes funds to pay for passenger cars and locomotives ordered in 1998. In addition, funds will be spent on environmental review for the Seattle -to - Everett and Tacoma -to -Lakewood segment. Sounder will also spend $1.2 million in 1999 on operations and maintenance (O&M) as it begins service before. year end on the Seattle -to -Tacoma segment. Link light rail will make $66.2 million of capital outlays in 1999. About $55.0 million (83 percent) of the funds will be for completing preliminary engineering and environmental review on the locally pre- ferred alternative as selected by the board. About $8.7 million will be spend for property acquisitions and permitting. The remainder will be spent on final design and vehicle procurement for the Tacoma Link line. Regional Express will have $90.8 million in capital outlays in 1999. About $47.6 million (52 percent) of these funds will be allocated to the Regional Express Bus program to complete their acquisition of 40 - foot and 60 -foot diesel buses. An additional $22.6 million is allocated to the Community Connections program, which will be conducting preliminary engineering, environmental review, final design, and property acquisition on a variety of park-and-ride lots and transit centers throughout the district. The high - occupancy -vehicle (HOV) Access program will be allocated $16.8 million primarily for preliminary en- gineering and environmental review for HOV projects. The Systems Integration program has $3.9 million in outlays for its system integration, research and development, and Phase II planning. Regional Fund. In addition to the capital costs associated with Systems Integration, the Regional Fund will also fund $2.7 million in capital outlays for the purchase of equipment, computers, and software re- lated to agency administration. The Regional Fund outlays also include $21 million for the purchase of Union Station as the new long-term headquarters for Sound Transit. The renovation and otherexpenses are included as a new line item in the Regional Fund. It isanticipated that the purchase of Union Station will be depreciated over a 40 -year period, and the depreciation will be allocated (as rent) to each depart- ment during occupancy. Adopted 1999 Capital Plan Department Summaries (in YOE $000s) 1999 Sounder commuter rail $268,984 Link Tight rail 66,208 Regional Express 89,220 Regional Fund - Admin. 2,710 TOTAL $427,122 Page 28 Six-year capital spending plan The following tables detail the annual total capital outlays and operating and maintenance expenses for Sound Transit's six-year capital plan as well as showing 10 -year capital spending totals. The figures in these tables correspond to the original 10 -year costs outlined in Sound Move, and are presented in a num- ber of formats to allow the reader to compare the current cost estimates to the original Sound Move esti- mates. In addition, the tables include figures for operating and maintenance expenses to reflect the full costs of the projects, as outlined in Sound Move. The tables also include updated figures for estimated debt service, reserves and systemwide contingency. These figures have not been altered to reflect any ad- ditional revenues that may be forecasted by way of Sound Move (see section on Financial Plan). Debt service is recorded on a net basis — total debt service payments less interest on unspent bond proceeds — for purposes of accounting against original Sound Move budgets. Sound Move financial policies commit Sound Transit to maintaining spending plans and budgets on a subarea basis. Tracking capital and operating and maintenance spending at a subarea level is necessary to ensure that equity is preserved (local tax revenues are utilized to benefit subareas generally in proportion to the level of revenues that each subarea generates). The following tables compare current total capital outlays and operating and maintenance expenses by subarea to the original Sound Move estimates. Page 29 Capital and Operating/Maintenance Expenses and Outlays 1997 - 2006 Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) 1997-98 (est.) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005-06 Total Capital $120,133 $427,121 $450,880 $459,013 $552,381. $664,298 $496,292 $725,289 $3,895,406 0/M $25,368 $29,088 $68,263 $98,535 $111,714 $128,604 $152,901 $460,503 $1,074,977 Total $145,500 $456,209 $519,143 $557,548 $664,095 $792,903 $649,193 $1,185,792 $4,970,383 Capital Outlays not Included in Sound Move** $0 $21,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,000 Total $145,500 $477,209 $519,143 $557,548 $664,095 $792,903 $649,193 $1,185,792 $4,991,383 Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) 1997-98 (est.) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005-06 Total Capital $108,290 $373,380 $381,163 $377,095 $439,173 $510,723 $369,302 $519,630 $3,078,756 0/M' $23,259 $25,817 $58,883 $82,657 $91,002 $101,986 $117,952 $340,462 $842,018 Total $131,549 $399,197 $440,046 $459,752 $530,175 $612,709 $487,254 $860,092 $3,920,774 Capital Outlays not included in Sound Move** $0 $19,075 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,075 Total $131,549 $418,272 $440,046 $459,752 $530,175 $612,709 $649,193 $860,092 $3,939,849 Operating/Maintenance includes contributions to Debt Service, Reserves, and System -wide Contingency. The acquisition of Union Station, Sound Transit's Tong -term headquarters, was not included in the original Sound Move budget although rent expense was included. The depreciation of Union Station that occurs during Phase I occupancy of the building will be included in departmental operating budgets (essentially as rent), and included as part of Sound Move total costs. This table records only net debt service: total debt service less interest on bond proceeds. Department Summaries May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Adopted Budget Department Division May 96 Sound Move Adopted Budget Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) (in 1995 $000s) (in YOE $000s) Sounder Commuter Rail Sounder Commuter Rail $669,000 $669,000 $789,077 $669,000 $669,000 $789,077 Link Light Rail Link Light Rail $1,801,000 $1,801,000 $2,351,115 $1,801,000 $1,801,000 $2,351,115 Regional Express HOV Access $375,000 $375,000 $476,493 Regional Bus $361,000 $367,774 • $458,931 Community Connections $257,000 $257,000 $322,179 System Integration $105,000 $105,000 $132,876 $1,098,000 $1,104,774 $1,390,479 Other Agency Admin & Systemwide Contingency . $65,000 $65,000 $79,744 Contribution to CR & RE O&M $26,000 $26,000 $32,823 Reserves $84,000 $84,000 $102,547 Debt Service $171,000 $171,000 $224,598 $346,000 $346,000 $439,712 Grand Total' $3,914,000 $3,920,774 $4,970,383 ' Debt Service and Reserves levels equal to May 1996 Sound Move assumptions. Figures do not include the impact of any increase in revenues over original Sound Move assumptions. Page 31 Subarea Expenses and Outlays May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Adopted Budget Subarea May 96 Sound Move Adopted Budget Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) (in 1995 $000s)* (in YOE $000s) Snohomish County $343,000 $342,700 $422,100 North King County $1,516,000 $1,516,005 $1,985,482 South King County $802,000 $808,395 $1,009,346 East King County $536,000 $535,550 $678,507 Pierce County $547,000 $548,124 $662,329 Regional Fund $170;000 $170,000 $212,620 Total $3,914,000 $3,920,774 $4,970,383 " The differences between the Sound Move figures and the adopted budget (in 1995$) for subareas are due to changes in rounding methodologies and the Board -approved System Implementation Plan for Regional Express bus service. Page 32 Subarea Project Summaries May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Adopted Budget Subarea Proiect May 96 Sound Move Adopted Budget Adopted Budget (in 1995 $millions) (in 1995 $millions) (in YOE $millions) Snohomish County Commuter Rail $132 $132 $159 HOV Access $47 $47 $59 Regional Bus' $56 $56 $70 Community Connections $98 $98 $122 Reserves $3 $3 $4 Debt Service $7 $7 $9 Total Snohomish County $343 $343 $422 North King County Light Rail $1,411 $1,411 $1,850 Contribution to CR & Bus O&M $26 $26 $33 Reserves $32 $32 $39 Debt Service $47 $47 $63 Total North King County $1,516-- $1,516 $1,985 South King County Commuter Rail $269 $269 $315 Light Rail $325 $325 $421 HOV Access $70 $70 $90 Regional Bus' $39 $45 $57 Community Connections $25 $25 $31 Reserves $18 $18 $22 Debt Service $56 $56 $73 Total South King County $802 $808 $1,009 East King County HOV Access $258 $258 $328 Regional Bus' $145 $145 $181 Community Connections $109 $109 $139 Reserves $10 $10 $12 Debt Service $14 $14 $18 Total East King County $536 $536 $679 Pierce County Commuter Rail $268 $268 $316 Light Rail $65 $65 $80 Regional Bus' $121 $122 $151 Community Connections $25 $25 $30 Reserves $21 $21 $26 Debt Service $47 $47 $61 Total Pierce County $547 $548 $662 Regional Fund Agency Admin & Systemwide Contingency $65 $65 $80 System Integration $105 $105 $133 Total Regional Fund $170 $170 $213 Grand Total** $3,914 $3,921 $4,970 The difference between the Sound Move figures and the adopted budget (in 1995$) for Pierce County's Regional Bus is due to changes in rounding methodologies. The difference for South King County's Regional Bus program is due to the Board -approved System Implementation Plan for Regional Express bus service. ** Debt Service and Reserves equal Sound Move assumptions and do not include the impact of revenue increases. Page 33 Subarea Expenses (Capital and Operating/Maintenance) * All figures in YOE $000s Subarea 1997-98 (est.) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005-06 Subtotal Snohomish County $12,006 $48,828 $91,512 $67,082 $59,373 $48,428 $29,343 $65,528 $422,100 North King County $26,486 $44,660 $66,531 $186,259 $313,744 $400,968 $307,906 $638,929 $1,985,482 South King County $48,313 $163,817 $111,717 $90,625 $119,034 $146,249 $128,374 $201,217 $1,009,346 East King County $11,720 $36,732 $71,371 $103,281 $97,825 $129,802 $112,697 $115,079 $678,507 Pierce County $33,696 $147,524 $158,141 $90,216 $50,074 $42,844 $45,819 $94,015 $662,329 Regional Fund $13,280 $14,649 $19,872 $20,085 $24,045 $24,611 $25,055 $71,024 $212,620 Grand Total $145,500 $456,209 $519,143 $557,548 $664,095 $792,903 $649,193. $1,185,792 $4,970,383 ' Operating/maintenance includes contributions to Debt Service, Reserves, and System -wide Contingency FINANCIAL SUMMARY BASIS OF ACCOUNTING Sound Transit budgets and reports actual financial results on a full accrual basis. The budget records revenues when earned and expenses when incurred. Capital outlays are not recorded as expenses but are instead reflected in Sound Transit's balance sheet as assets, which are depreciated over the estimated use- ful life of the asset (once the asset has been placed into service). Capital grants are recorded as additions to contributed capital in the agency's balance sheet while operating grants are recorded as revenues. Grant revenues are recorded on an accrual basis. Tax revenues are recorded on a modified accrual basis, con- sistent with procedures of the Office of the State Treasurer. FINANCIAL POLICIES The framework for implementing Sound Move includes the adopted financial policies which specify a number of policies that shape Sound Transit's budgetary process. The financial policies are important tools to Sound Transit to ensure that Sound Move is implemented on time and within budget and that agency principles and commitments to the public are met. These policies, adopted under Resolution No. 72, provide that: • The 10 -year system plan is finished on time and within the financial framework set forth within the policies and financing plan. • Regional equity. Local taxes are to be invested where they are raised. Budgets for each of the five subareas, including the subarea's projected share of local taxes, borrowed funds, federal grants, fare - box revenues and related expenses, will be monitored and adjusted on an annual basis to ensure that an equitable distribution of revenues is maintained (see Budget Summary section for current subarea spending plans). • Regional Fund. A Regional Fund has been established and funded through local taxes to pay for systemwide elements of Sound Move. These elements include the integrated fare policy that creates a seamless system, innovative technologies and planning for any future capital investments that will be placed before the region's voters. The Regional Fund will also pay for Sound Transit administration. This funding is drawn from an equal percentage of local tax revenues contributed by each of the five subareas plus interest earnings. • Conservative use of debt. Sound Transit is committed to placing limits on its use of long-term debt. These policies establish the conservative approach Sound Transit will use to calculate the cash flow available to service debt, set a debt service coverage ratio policy, and reserve a portion of Sound Tran- sit's debt financing capacity to provide a future potential funding source for unforeseen circumstances. • Public accountability. Sound Transit has hired independent auditors and has appointed a citizen oversight committee to monitor Sound Transit performance in carrying out its public commitments. • System expansion or tax rollback. Any second -phase capital program which continues local taxes for financing will require voter approval within the Sound Transit District. If voters decide not to ex - Page 35 tend the system, Sound Transit will roll back the tax rate to a level sufficient to pay off the outstanding bonds and operate and maintain Sound Move investments. BASE YEAR VS. YEAR -OF -EXPENDITURE DOLLARS In Sound Move, all cost and revenue figures were presented in 1995 base -year dollars (1995$). The use of base year dollars ignores the impact of inflation — that is, the use of base -year dollars assumes there will. be no inflation from 1995 until the completion of the program. While the use of base -year dollars is appropriate when a project is in the early planning stage, it is not appropriate when the project begins to incur actual expenses. There will, of course, be some inflation between 1995 and 2007, and it is necessary to anticipate the effects of that inflation so that sufficient monies are available to complete the program in future years. Thus, Sound Transit budgets in year -of - expenditure (YOE) or nominal dollars. YOE dollars are the dollars that will actually be spent in future years and will take into account the effects of inflation in the years ahead. Most people are aware in their own lives of the impacts of inflation over time. Housing prices, movie tickets, and a gallon of milk cost more now than they did 20 years ago, and will cost more 20 years in the future than they do today. Similarly, a good salary in the 1970s would be insufficient to meet costs today. These same principles apply to large capital projects. To translate the initial estimates for the total 10 -year cost of Sound Move into the amount that will actually be required in the future to build the projects in the plan, it is necessary to increase the costs to account for inflation. Similarly, it is also necessary to increase the original estimates of Sound Transit revenues to account for effects of inflation. The impact of converting Sound Move revenue and costs estimates from 1995 base -year dollars into YOE dollars is to increase both revenues and costs of the program. However, this conversion is merely the re- sult of taking into account the effects of inflation and is not the result of higher cost estimates or cost "overruns." While it will be necessary for Sound Transit to budget and maintain its accounting and financial manage- ment system on a year -of -expenditure basis, Sound Transit will continue to report total project costs on a 1995 dollar basis to ensure agency accountability to original project cost estimates. Accordingly, the adopted 1999 operating budget is stated only in year -of -expenditure terms, while the capital spending plan is stated in both year -of -expenditure terms and 1995 base -year dollars for comparison to the original estimates in Sound Move. The capital spending plan summary tables are also stated in both year -of - expenditure terms and 1995 base -year dollars. The "Inflation Forecast" section later in the budget de- scribes the methodology for converting between 1995 base -year dollars and YOE dollars. FINANCIAL PLAN Sound Transit maintains a 25 -year financial model which projects the total revenues and costs of Sound Move. The model is used to verify the long-term financial viability of the program and confirm the main- tenance of subarea equity. The financial model forecasts operating costs, capital outlays, revenues, bonding, debt service, reserves and revenues (by subarea) from 1997 through 2021. The model is continually refined and improved as Sound Transit's capital costs and schedules are refined and as the size of Sound Transit's revenue base is Page 36 confirmed through actual tax collections. A 1999 financial plan will update the original Sound Move fi- nancial plan and will be presented to the board concurrent with their consideration of the Proposed 1999 Budget. The "1999 Revenue Forecast" section, appearing later in this document, describes the methodology used in the model to forecast Sound Transit tax revenues over 25 years. The model's forecast results for 1999 are incorporated into the revenue estimates in this budget. The capital spending plan and operating budg- ets in this document are in turn incorporated into the model to account for the program costs. The financial model is currently projecting an increase of $141.6 million (year -of -expenditure dollars) in the 10 -year program revenues compared to the original Sound Move financial plan. This increase is due primarily to a slightly larger estimated tax base than in the original Sound Move financial plan. The reve- nue increases are concentrated in the East King County, South King County and Snohomish County subareas. North King County and Pierce County subareas mirror decreases in 10 -year revenues against the original plan. The Adopted 1999 Budget does not incorporate the increase of $141.6 million in the 10 -year revenues projected under the current financial model. Instead, the adopted budget maintains the financial structure of Sound Move, thus recognizing two factors. First, a $141.6 million increase in revenue over a 10 -year forecast will need close monitoring during the next several years before it can be considered a "real" in- crease in actual revenue. Second, the board has recognized that changes will occur to the original Sound Move financial assumptions during the course of 10 years, and has provided for those changes within the adopted financial policies. Should the increased revenue forecast produce actual increased revenues, the board has the necessary decision-making tools contained within the financial policies to determine the use of those dollars. The revenue forecast and these issues will be further discussed during the board's delib- eration about the 1999 financial plan. For purposes of this adopted budget, the debt service and reserve figures contained in the capital plan summary tables are equal to the original Sound Move assumptions and do not reflect the impact of the forecasted $141.6 million of increased revenues. However, the inflation forecast currently used in the fi- nancial model was also used to convert the project costs in the budget from 1995 base -year dollars to year -of -expenditure dollars. The current 10 -year forecast of 2.8 percent average annual inflation is slightly lower than the original 3.7 percent average annual inflation estimated in Sound Move. CASH FLOW SUMMARY Sound Transit's estimated cash flow for 1999 is summarized on the following page. Sound Transit's fi- nancial system is maintained on a proprietary fund or accrual basis. While general governmental fund accounting attempts to measure the flow of current resources, cash inflows and outflows during the year, accrual basis accounting attempts to measure the flow of economic resources. Proprietary funds report revenues when earned and expenses when incurred. The timing of cash inflows and outflows is not a fac- tor in the determination of the economic health of the agency. The following table summarizes Sound Transit's 1999 year-end estimated cash position, and reconciles the accrual budget figures on a cash basis. At the end of 1998, Sound Transit is projected to have a cash position of approximately $260 million. In 1999; revenues and other financing sources will exceed cash expenses and outlays by approximately $104 million to create an ending cash position of $363.6 million. These cash balances are necessary to fund future peak -year expenses when expenses will be greater than revenues. Sound Transit capital outlays in future years will exceed tax revenues and grants, at which point Page 37 Sound Transit 1999 Cash versus Accrual Budget This table provides a reconciliation of the Sound Transit cash and accrual revenue, outlay and expense information presented in this budget. Est. Cash Balance, January 1, 1999' $259,973,177 Less Expenses and Outlays Salaries and Benefits2 Leases and Rentals3 Services4 Materials and Supplies Misc. Expensess Other Expenses Depreciation Debt Service Capital Outlays6 Transit Operations and Other O&M Total Expenses & Outlays Cash Basis Accrual Basis $ 13,855,395 $ 1,200,325 6,923,087 886,109 1,557,942 238,770 2,031,011 8,600,000 355,018,685 10,272,100 14,276,023 1,192,316 7,343,305 891,096 1,622,693 247,857 2,031,011 9,316,667 432,996,547 10,341,741 Revenues Sales Tax7 Motor Vehicle Excise Taxa Farebox Revenues Interest Revenue10 Total Revenues 400,583,424 179,271,770 45,270,920 1,645,822 15,023,450 480,259,256 180,718,000 45,823,000 1,825,795 17,704,000 Other Financing Sources Capital Grant Sources" Bond Proceeds' Total Other Financing Sources 241,211,962 246,070,795 49,500,000 54,000,000 200,000,000 200,000,000 249,500,000 254,000,000 Equals Net Income for 199912 S 198,808,086 I Ending Cash Balance, December 31, 1999 S 350,101,715 NOTES 'Assumes a $200 million bond sale in December 1998 closes ( i.e. ST receives cash) in January 1999. Bonds will be priced in December 1998, but S.T. will not receive cash until January 1999. 'December 1999 payroll is accrued in 1999, but portions are not distributed until January 2000. As end -year staff levels are forecast to be slightly higher than beginning year staff levels, this results in higher accrual and cash expenditures for salaries and benefits for 1999. 'Assumes occupancy of Union Station in 40 1999, which lowers 'rental' payments and results in a higher cash and accrual figure. 'Expenditure levels increases throughout 1999, and services accrued at year end are not fully paid out until 1st quarter of 2000. 'Expenditure levels increases throughout 1999, and services rendered (obligated) at year end are not fully paid out until 1st quarter of 2000. 'Accrued outlays higher than cash because Sound Transit will sign contracts to receive capital goods, equipment and services in 1999 and work will be completed on those goods, but some invoices for that work will be paid after December 1999. 'Sales tax revenue is accrued in the month in which tax is assessed. There is a two month lag between when the funds are accruec and when funds are actually received from the state by Sound Transit. For 1999, accrued sales tax revenues are higher than cash because tax receipts are forecasted to be higher at end year than beginning year. °Motor vehicle excise tax is accrued in the month in which the tax is assessed. There is a 1 month lag between when the funds are accrued and when funds are actually received from the state by Sound Transit. For 1999, accrued MVET revenues are higher than cash because tax receipts are forecasted to be higher at end year than beginning year. "Assumes cash received from Pierce Transit lags behind collection of farebox revenue. 10Most Sound Transit investments pay interest semi-annually. Each month, the interest earned on these investments is recorded as if paid monthly, but cash is not received until future periods. As investment balances increase throughout 1999, the accrual basis will be higher than the cash basis. Includes approximately $9 million of interest on bond proceeds that would be used to make debt service payments in 1999. "Grant funding accrued when Sound Transit initiates draw down for expenditures. It is estimated that Congress will appropnate $76 million in 1999, of which Sound Transit will draw down $68 million (90%). "On an accrual basis, equals revenues less expenses (not including capital outlays). Page 38 Sound Transit will draw down cash balances from previous years and issue debt. The board may choose to issue debt in 1998 to take advantage of current low interest rates, even though the agency has a positive cash position. The issuance of debt substantially increases the agency's cash balance, however that cash balance is already obligated for outlays for capital purchases. If the agency were to issue debt before year- end 1998, the agency would make debt service payments in 1999. The budget assumes a debt issuance of $200.0 million in late 1998, and $9.3 million in interest payments in 1999. The actual amount of issuance may vary depending on market conditions and estimated cash requirements. REVENUES AND FINANCING SOURCES Retail Sales and Use Tax Sound Transit collects 4/10 of one percent Retail Sales and Use Tax on transactions in the Sound Transit District. The Retail Sales and Use Tax is imposed on the sale of most goods and certain services in the district. The tax is collected by businesses, who then remit the tax to the state. This tax is both a sales tax and a use tax, with the use tax collections amounting to about eight percent of the total taxes collected. The use tax is levied on items purchased out-of-state but used in state, and on other items for which sales tax has not been paid. The tax is collected by the state Department of Revenue and remitted to Sound Transit through the Office of the State Treasurer. Motor Vehicle Excise Tax Sound Transit collects 3/10 of one percent Motor Vehicle Excise Tax. The Motor Vehicle Excise Tax is a tax levied on the value of motor vehicles and collected at the time of vehicle licensing. The tax is col- lected by the state Department of Licensing and remitted to Sound Transit through the Office of the State Treasurer. Federal Funding and Grants Sound Transit is seeking federal funds to pay a portion of the costs associated with building the Sound Move plan. While the Sound Move financial plan conservatively assumed a 20 percent federal share, Sound Transit has consistently indicated its intent to seek more federal funds than assumed in the finan- cial plan. The Sound Move financial plan assumed that most of the federal funds for Sound Transit would come from what is referred to as federal Section 5309 "New Starts" funds. New Starts are discretionary funds, earmarked directly by Congress for major capital investments in fixed guideway systems in urban areas. They are administered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The finance plan also assumed addi- tional funding from other federal grant sources. Specifically, the finance plan assumed: • $550 million (1995$)' from New Starts funds to help finance the Link light rail system between Seat- tle and SeaTac. $707 million in year -of -expenditure dollars Page 39 • $177 million (1995$)2 from a from a variety of federal funding categories, including New Starts, to help fund the Sounder commuter rail program and Regional Express projects. Sound Move federal funding assumptions were purposefully conservative regarding the level of federal participation. However, Sound Transit has consistently indicated its intent to seek more New Starts funds than assumed in the financial plan. The adopted policies state that if additional federal funding is attained for the Link light rail program, it will be used to fund the segment between the University District and Northgate. The policies further state that Sound Transit will seek to apply for other grants in partnership with other local agencies and jurisdictions. Sound Transit was able to secure and obligate small amounts of federal funding for Sounder commuter rail planning earlier in this decade prior to approval by the voters. Following the passage of Sound Move by the district's voters, the agency secured an $18 million appropriation from Congress from the New Starts fund for to help fund the Link light rail and Sounder commuter rail programs. In June of 1998, a new multi-year, multimodal transportation spending bill was signed into law. Called the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21' Century (TEA -21), the legislation replaces the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, also known as ISTEA, which expired in 1997. TEA -21 provides the overall funding levels and policy framework for federal transportation funding for federal fiscal years 1998 through 2003. (The federal fiscal year runs from October 1St through September 30th.) It is anticipated that a new multi-year bill will be authorized when TEA -21 expires. Therefore, Sound Tran- sit's 10 -year implementation timeframe will span two authorization bills: TEA -21 and its successor. TEA -21 generally preserves ISTEA's framework and policies. It includes a real -dollar increase in funds for both highway and transit spending, including the New Starts program. The bill authorizes $41.3 bil- lion for transit for fiscal years 1998-2003, with $36.2 billion guarantied to be funded. This represents a 50 percent increase over transit funding for the six preceding years. An additional $5.1 billion was authorized, but not guarantied, and would be subject to higher than projected federal revenues and/or re- ductions in other programs. TEA -21 places greater emphasis on funding New Start projects that are either in final design or construc- tion, requiring that 92 percent of the funds appropriated by Congress in each fiscal year be spent on proj- ects in those implementation stages and only 8 percent on projects in planning or preliminary engineering stages. Sound Transit will be eligible to compete for the larger 92 percent allocation in that the Sounder Seattle -Tacoma line is currently advancing into final design. The Everett -Seattle and Tacoma -Lakewood Sounder lines are scheduled to enter final design in federal FY 2000. The Link light rail central corridor project is scheduled to enter final design in federal FY 2001. As of August 1998, Sound Transit has appropriations pending in Congress for FY 99. Both the House and Senate have earmarked their transportation appropriations bills as follows: • Section 5309 Discretionary: New Starts - The Senate. earmarked $47 million for Sounder and $13 mil- lion for Link. The House earmarked $19.5 million for Sounder and $1 million for Link. • Section 5309 Discretionary: Bus — The House earmarked $16 million to Sound Transit for its bus pro- curement program. In contrast, the Senate did not earmark specific bus projects but created a list of "candidate projects" (including Sound Transit buses) and forwarded the list to the FTA for recommen- dations regarding which bus projects should receive funding. 2 $202 million in year -of -expenditure dollars Page 40 • Both the House and Senate bills will go to a conference committee to reconcile the differences be- tween them. It is anticipated that this process will be completed by early to mid-October 1998. • The Adopted 1999 Budget assumes a congressional appropriation of $76.0 million, of which Sound Transit will draw down $68.0 million (90%). In the third quarter of 1998, Sound Transit continued to draw down federal funds from our $1.3 million federal discretionary grant which was obligated through a grant agreement with the FTA in 1997. With a total of $20.8 million in New Starts funding now appropriated to the Link light rail and Sounder com- muter rail programs ($2.9 million in federal FY 97, $17.9 million in federal FY 98), Sound Transit sub- mitted grant applications to the FTA to obligate $11.9 million of the total appropriations for the Central Link light rail line (Northgate/Downtown-Seattle/SeaTac) environmental impact statement/preliminary engineering and $8.9 million for Sounder's Tacoma -to -Seattle vehicle and locomotive purchases. The Adopted 1999 Budget assumes that all of these grants will be drawn down by year end 1998. Farebox revenues The Adopted 1999 Budget includes approximately $1,825,800 in farebox revenues from the Regional Ex- press Bus service in 1999. No revenues are assumed for Sounder commuter rail, as service is likely to begin late in 1999. Current financial plans assume over $150 million in farebox and other operating reve- nues over the 10 -year implementation. Computations in the financial plan are based on graduated rider- ship forecasts tied to individual project completion during the period. It is assumed that present transit fares continue with fare increases matching only inflation rates. Assumed farebox recovery ratios by mode are: 53 percent for Link light rail, 23 to 32 percent for Sounder commuter rail and 32 percent for Regional Express. Annual fare revenue is projected to be $38 to $40 million (expressed in 1995 dollars) following the complete implementation of the regional transit system for all modes of transit. Interest earnings In 1999, Sound Transit will earn an estimated $17.7 million in interest on its investments (on an accrual basis). On Sept 25, 1997, the Sound Transit Board adopted Resolution 97 which instituted Sound Tran- sit's investment policy. The primary objectives of Sound Transit's investment activities under the policy are (in order of priority) to ensure safety of the original principal investment amounts, maintain sufficient liquidity to meet all agency operational requirements and achieve a return on investment. Sound Transit's investment portfolio will be structured with the objective of attaining a market rate of return throughout the budgetary and economic cycles. THE REGIONAL ECONOMY The economy within the Sound Transit district continued to grow in 1998, but at a slower rate than in 1997. While macroeconomic conditions at the national level remain supportive of continued growth, there are significant concerns at the international level due to the current economic crises in Asia and Russia, and concerns about the near-term viability of Latin American economies. Growth -sustaining factors in- clude relatively low interest and inflation rates, continued increases in productivity and strong business investment. However, the increasing trade deficit and the effect of the recent correction in stock prices on consumer demand could result in a further deceleration of growth. Overall, the foundations of the local economy remain solid but are not as stellar as they appeared in 1997. Page 41 Washington's economy remains one of the nation's most robust. When the Corporation for Enterprise Development (CED) recently graded states on economic performance, business vitality, and development capacity, only Washington and Colorado received A's on all three performance criteria. However, there are substantial disparities in economic performance within the state, with those counties dependent on resource-based industries such as farming and forest products faring much worse than counties in urban areas dependent on manufacturing, trade and services. The Puget Sound region is home to some of the best -performing counties in the state. As of June 1998, the Seattle metropolitan area and the Bellevue - Everett -Tacoma metropolitan area had unemployment rates of 3.0 percent and 4.4 percent, respectively. These compare favorably with a 4.7 percent unemployment rate for the state of Washington, 8.4 percent for Yakima county, and double-digit rates of unemployment for other resource- and farming -based re- gions of the state. The Puget Sound's share of Washington employment has been increasing steadily over the past few years. In 1997-98, the region accounted for more than 100 percent of the job growth in Washington, making up for job losses in other regions of the state. As the following table shows, the Puget Sound region, home to half of Washington's residents, could be regarded as the state's engine of growth. Employment Growth in Puget Sound and Washington State The most significant factors accounting for stronger growth in the Puget Sound region compared to the national economy are the strength of the aerospace and high technology sectors. Accordingly, the recent slowdown in these sectors is being reflected in the Puget Sound economy. Employment growth in the Puget Sound region declined from a 6.0 percent annual ratein the fourth quarter of 1977 to a 3.5 percent annual rate in the first half of 1998 after Boeing halted hiring in January. Boeing intends to eliminate up to 28,000 jobs by the end of 1999, with 7,000 to 12,000 of those job losses expected within the Puget Sound area. Boeing executives have acknowledged that the current aircraft delivery cycle, said to have begun in 1996, will peak with 620 deliveries in 1999. Because of competitive pressures in the computer industry, Intel announced plans to lay off 600 workers at its DuPont site. Microsoft remains in a strong competitive position and continues to provide a foundation for other high technology companies in the region. Outside the aerospace and high technology areas, the Puget Sound economy remains fundamentally sound. Continued growth in services and construction has helped to ameliorate the impact of the slow- down in aerospace and high technology. Strong population inflows also helped fuel demand for homes, consumer durables and services. Moreover, public sector investment throughout the region has been a stimulus for economic activity and is expected to have a stabilizing influence in the future. The Federal Reserve Bank's expressed willingness to reduce interest rates in order to maintain economic growth would seem to reduce the probability of a severe recession in the near future. Page 42 1999 REVENUE FORECAST Forecast methodology Forecasting revenues for the Sound Transit District presents unique challenges, as its jurisdictional boundary does not correspond to any economic reporting entity. The district includes incorporated and unincorporated areas in three counties — King, Pierce and Snohomish. To forecast revenues for its five subareas — Snohomish, North King, South King, East King, and Pierce — Sound Transit starts with a three -county (King, Pierce and Snohomish) regional forecast produced by Conway and Associates for Sound Transit. This long-term forecast uses as a base a national economic forecast from Standard and Poor's Data Resources Inc. (DRI). This national economic forecast is input into Conway and Associates' regional economic model, which combined with a separate model of the aerospace sector, accounts for local labor markets and industries. The model generates 10 -year estimates of taxable retail sales andmotor vehicle values for the three -county region andindicates, via the growth rates associated with the forecast tax bases, the business cycle expected within the next 10 years. Using actual tax collections and seasonality factors, Sound Transit computed 1998 taxes bases for the Retail Sales and Use Tax and Motor Vehicle Excise Tax. These computed tax bases add forecasts for use taxes and rental car taxes that may not have been accurately captured by the Conway and Associates model. The growth rates from this long-range forecast are used to extend the computed 1998 tax bases into the future, replicating their cyclical pattern. The tax bases are distributed among Sound Transit's subareas using shares of regional tax bases computed with historical data from the state Department of Revenue, the state Department of Licensing and Sound Transit collections. Shares for periods after 1998 are estimated with a regression model. The Retail Sales and Use Tax and Motor Vehicle Excise Tax rates are applied to the estimated tax bases to derive Sound Transit revenues. Where necessary, two- and one- month lags are implemented to convert Retail Sales and Use Tax revenues and Motor Vehicle Excise Tax revenues, respectively, from an accrual to a cash basis. Forecasts for 1999 Conway and Associates is forecasting continued, albeit slower, economic growth in 1999.for the Puget Sound region. Sound Transit is forecasting a five percent growth in its Retail Sales and Use Tax base and a seven percent growth in its Motor Vehicle Excise Tax base in 1999. Actual tax collections are assumed to be slightly less than what would be generated by the full estimated tax base to ensure conservatism in the estimates. Sound Transit's current 10 -year forecast calls for slowing economic growth from 1999 through 2001, at which point the economy will experience a mild recession. After 2002, the economy is forecast to begin a slow rebound. Economic growth in the region is forecast to be strongest in the East King, South King and Snohomish subareas. Inflation forecast Sound Transit's current economic forecast also includes a projection for inflation, which is derived from the same Conway and Associates economic model that is used to forecast revenue growth. Inflation is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 2.8 percent from 1997 to 2006, compared with a 3.7 percent rate assumed in the original Sound Move estimates. Conway and Associates is forecasting the inflation rate to remain moderate — under 4.1 percent — through 2006. Page 43 This inflation forecast is also used to convert project costs from their original 1995 dollar base to a year - of -expenditure basis. The inflation forecast is applied both to costs and revenues. A change in the rate of forecasted inflation will directly impact both Sound Transit's total program costs and its revenues. A de- crease in inflation will cause total program costs (in year -of -expenditure dollars) and revenues to decline, while an increase in inflation will cause total program costs and revenues (in year -of -expenditure dollars) to increase. The 1998 capital spending plan applied a single inflation rate - the consumer price index (CPI) - to all elements of capital project budgets. The CPI is the most widely used price index and is based on the changes to a price of a "shopping cart" of goods purchased by most consumers. In 1999, Sound Transit begins to apply a building cost index (BCI) to the construction -related elements of the program. A Seattle -area forecast of this cost index for 1998-2008 was developed for Sound Transit by DRI. The BCI is based on changes to the price of a "shopping cart" of goods related to construction - skilled labor, structural steel, lumber and cement. Construction costs behave differently from consumer good and services costs over time - sometimes higher, sometimes lower - and Sound Transit has begun to take this difference into account. The BCI is being applied to all construction -related costs, while the CPI is being applied to other elements, such as design costs. A right-of-way index (ROWI) was developed by Sound Transit to reflect property acquisition costs. The following table shows Sound Transit's inflation rate forecasts. Sound Transit Inflation Rate Forecasts Adjusting inflation forecasts on a yearly basis and applying them to updated cost estimates, while at the same time tracking program costs to original 1995 dollar estimates, will present reporting and monitoring challenges for Sound Transit in future years. However, Sound Transit is committed to this effort to pro- vide the board and the citizens of the region an open and clear means of monitoring Sound Transit per- formance. Page 44 SOUNDER COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM SUMMARY Sounder commuter rail adds 82 miles of two-way rush-hour passenger train service using existing railroad tracks between Everett, Seattle, Tacoma and Lakewood. Sounder will offer a fast, dependable and easy- to-use commute option linking major destinations in Snohomish, King and Pierce counties. The commuter rail system includes 14 stations (and three provisional stations) as part of Sound Move. Current plans are for major multi -modal terminals in Everett, Seattle and Tacoma. Major intermodal ter- minals (including Washington State Ferries) developed through a partnership between Sound Transit and other public agencies are also planned for the Mukilteo and Edmonds waterfronts. Additional stations may be built in future phases. Sounder will build on a railroad network already in place, increasing the transportation system's people -moving capacity and, by making necessary track and signal improve- ments, improving the capacity of those lines for other passenger and freight trains as well. Through a joint development program promoting public/private partnerships, Sound Transit will develop park-and-ride lots, transit centers and stations to serve and support the Sounder commuter rail system. The goal of the program will be to encourage transit and pedestrian access to stations by establishing and promoting partnerships with parties interested in locating in areas served by commuter rail. The Sounder commuter rail line between Tacoma and Seattle will begin operating by the end of 1999. The lines between Everett and Seattle and between Tacoma and Lakewood will follow in 2001. The track, signal and communications equipment improvements required to operate commuter rail will provide the speed and reliability necessary to offer attractive passenger service and build ridership in the corridor. The 1999 Budget includes refinements based on new details where it pertains to major equipment costs (such as milestones for the manufacture and delivery of cab cars, coaches and locomotives) and develop- ments related to current project schedules. The major elements of the Sounder project are the Tacoma -to -Seattle segment, the Everett -to -Seattle segment, Lakewood -to -Tacoma segment, procurement of cars, locomotives and coaches, arrangements for a fleet maintenance yard and shop, and start-up and operations activities. The segments mentioned above consist of station design and construction, as well as track and capacity improvements. The seg- ments consist of the following phases: environmental assessment/impact and preliminary engineering, final design, and construction. The 1999 Budget Plan covers all activities necessary to begin operation of the Tacoma -to -Seattle seg- ment. This includes design and construction of all stations and track and signal improvements between Tacoma and Seattle. Construction activities will be followed by a start-up and testing phase which will ensure that cab cars, coaches, locomotives and fare collection equipment are in working order and that all track and signal improvements are operational. Other activities supporting the beginning of service between Seattle and Tacoma have been more clearly defined for budget planning and are included in projected administrative and operational costs. Special programs and services related to mobilization will be required leading up to and including the initial phases of service with a commensurate increase in associated costs. This effort includes: the Ambassador Page 45 Program and related customer services, Operation Life -Saver (safety training), as well as the Operating Plan and the preparation of manuals, schedules and related informational materials. The marketing effort will include advertising through various media and public relations in order to communicate to the public the availability, key features and benefits of the new commuter rail service. Also included in the 1999 Budget Plan are activities that will complete environmental reviews of the Everett -to -Seattle and Lakewood -to -Tacoma segments of the commuter rail system, so that station design and construction as well as track and signal upgrades can commence. OBJECTIVES, ACTION PLANS AND BUDGET DETAILS Objectives 1. Design and construct the Sounder commuter rail system outlined in Sound Move within the voter - approved budget. 2. Begin Sounder service between Tacoma and Seattle by year-end 1999. 3. Begin Sounder service between Everett and Seattle, and Lakewood and Tacoma by 2001. 4. Maintain funding equity targets established by the board. 5. Achieve genuine funding partnerships with other public and private entities having a stake in the suc- cess of the Sounder commuter rail project. 6. Achieve a broad sense of community ownership of the project and service. 7. Maximize the meaningful involvement of minority/women/disadvantaged business enterprise and small and/or local firms in design and construction. 8. Maximize the use of local labor force in design and construction. 9. Minimize the size of the Sounder staff while ensuring that the staff reflects the diversity of the re- gion's population. 10. Achieve high ridership levels exceeding projections made at the time of voter approval. 11. Achieve a service that is fully integrated into a regional fare structure, successfully coordinated with other transit services throughout the region, and which allows Sounder riders to experience a truly seamless transit system. Action Plans Tacoma -to -Seattle segment 1. Complete final design and construction of track and capacity improvements necessary for start-up of operations for the Tacoma -to -Seattle segment by December 1999. 2. Complete station design activities for Tacoma -to -Seattle segment by January 1999. 3. Initiate station construction activities for the Tacoma -to -Seattle segment by April 1999. 4. Complete station construction activities for the Tacoma -to -Seattle segment by November 1999. Page 46 5. Begin Sounder commuter rail service from Tacoma -to -Seattle by December 1999. 6. Successfully complete testing on cab cars and coaches for Tacoma -to -Seattle service by December 1999. 7. Complete testing of fare collection equipment for the Tacoma -to -Seattle by December 1999. 8. Negotiate operating agreement for Sounder commuter rail by the fall of 1998. 9. Develop operating plan for Sounder commuter rail by the spring of 1999. 10. Develop and implement customer service and safety training for Sounder commuter rail to support service in December 1999. Everett -to -Seattle segment 1. Address comments on the Everett -to -Seattle environmental impact statement by May 1999. 2. Issue final environmental impact statement and receive Record of Decision by June 1999. 3. Begin preliminary engineering for track and capacity improvements on the Everett -to -Seattle segment of Sounder commuter rail by April 1999. 4. Issue Request for Proposal (RFP) for station design contracts in June 1999 (after receipt of Record of Decision). 5. Initiate station design activities for the Everett -to -Seattle segment in September 1999. Lakewood -to -Tacoma segment 1. Begin preliminary engineering for track and capacity improvements on the Lakewood -to -Tacoma segment of Sounder commuter rail by April 1999. 2. Issue RFP for station design activities on the Lakewood -to -Tacoma segment by March 1999. 3. Award contracts for station design on the Lakewood -to -Tacoma segment by May 1999. 4. Issue RFP for construction of connections by December 1999. Page 47 SOUNDER COMMUTER RAIL —1999 Action Plans ACTIVITY 1ST QUARTER 2ND QUARTER 3RD QUARTER 4TH QUARTER Tacoma - Seattle Segment Complete final design and construction of track and capacity improvements necessary for start-up of operations Complete station design activities Initiate station construction activities Complete station construction activities Begin service from Tacoma to Seattle by Dec. 31, 1999 Successfully complete testing on cab cars and coaches Complete testing of fare collection equipment Develop operating pan Develop and implement customer service and safety training for Sounder Commuter Rail to support service Everett - Seattle Segment Address comments on the Everett to Seattle Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Issue Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and receive Record of Decision (ROD) Begin Preliminary Engineering for Track & Capacity Improvements Issue RFP for Station Design Contracts Initiate station design activities Negotiate Operating Agreement Lakewood - Tacoma Segment Begin preliminary engineering for track and capacity improvements Issue RFP for station design activities Award contracts for station design Negotiate Operating Agreement arud 3 Q 1998 onga,ng ongoing onga,n Page 48 DEPARTMENTAL OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL PLAN SUMMARY SOUNDER COMMUTER RAIL* OPERATING BUDGET Salaries and Benefits Leases and Rentals Services Materials and Supplies Miscellaneous Expenses Other Expenses Depreciation Subtotal Operating Budget Adjustment for Non-cash Items Transit Operations Allocated From (To) Other Departments 1997 ACTUALS ADOPTED 1998 BUDGET 1998 ACTUALS $ 397,783 60,596 313,234 2,383 24,593 6,039 0 804,629 0 0 477.982 Total Operating/Allocation Budget 1,282,611 Allocation to Capital (1,282,611) $ 951,568 198,172 464,500 26,500 93,200 105,348 0 1,839,288 0 0 1,479,013 3,318,301 (3,318,301) $ 853,460 186,448 14,821 28,143 64,473 10,415 10,502 1,168,262 0 0 3,478,683 4,646,945 (4,646,945) ADOPTED 1999 BUDGET $ 1,165,857 161,669 172,949 24,729 93,918 17,691 197,155 1,833,967 (197,155) 1,105,557 5,572,441 8,314,810 (7,102,808) Net Operating Budget 0 0 0 1,212,002 CAPITAL PLAN Allocation to Capital Capital Outlays 1,282,611 0 3,318,301 119,001,299 4,646,945 39,018,968 7,102,808 261,880,743 Total Capital Plan 1,282,611 122,319,600 43,665,912 268,983,551 TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL PLAN $ 1,282,611 $ 122,319,600 $ 43,665,912 S 270,195,553 'The Adopted 1998 Capital Plan reflected anticipated obligations. The 1998 Estimates and the Proposed 1999 Budget Capital Plans are presented on an accrual basis. On an obligation basis, the agency is on budget with respect to the Adopted 1998 Capital Plan. Page 49 DEPARTMENTAL OPERATING BUDGET SOUNDER COMMUTER RAIL 1997 ADOPTED 1998 ACTUALS 1998 BUDGET ACTUALS ADOPTED 1999 BUDGET SALARIES AND BENEFITS Salaries $ 264,777 $ 694,295 $ 599,531 Benefits 133,006 257,273 253,929 Subtotal Salaries and Benefits 397,783 951,568 853,460 LEASES AND RENTALS Admin. Facilities Rental Leased Vehicles/Parking Facilities Meeting Space Leased Fumiture/Equipment Subtotal Leases and Rentals SERVICES Consultant Management Legal Accounting/Auditing Maintenance Courier Printing/Binding Advertising/Marketing Interlocal Agreements Other Services Subtotal Services MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 56,889 180,405 165,900 O 0 18,175 88 0 0 3,619 17,767 2,373 60,596 198,172 186,448 191,960 52,500 0 0 0 0 34,759 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 2,282 O 0 5,376 549 12,000 462 O 0 0 0 400,000 0 85,965 0 6,701 313,234 - 464,500 14,821 Office Supplies 1,494 24,000 13,676 Postage 890 2,500 3,847 Small Equipment/Fumiture (<$5,000) 0 0 6,330 Other Materials and Supplies 0 0 4,291 Subtotal Materials and Supplies 2,383 26,500 28,143 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES Dues and Memberships 0 0 Travel and Meetings 12,654 26,800 Books and Subscriptions 488 2,400 Training 0 13,000 Contingency 0 50,000 Other Misc. Expenses 11,452 1,000 Subtotal Miscellaneous Expenses 24,593 93,200 OTHER EXPENSES $ 935,452 230,405 1,165,857 142,939 16,884 500 1,346 161,669 0 0 0 0 4,189 0 2,500 1,000 100,000 65,260 172,949 6,000 0 10,729 8,000 24,729 (a) (b) (c) (d) O 4,500 (e) 26,964 26,418 (f) 1,508 1,500 (g) 2,006 6,500 (h) O 50,000 33,996 5,000 (i) 64,473 Telephone 216 11,875 4,011 Insurance 5,823 93,473 4,981 Interest Expenses 0 0 1,422 Subtotal Other Expenses 6,039 105,348 10,415 DEPRECIATION EXPENSE Depreciation Expanse 0 0 10,502 Subtotal Depreciation Expense 0 0 10,502 (Subtotal 93,918 5,122 12,569 0 17,691 197,155 197,155 $ 804,629 $ 1,839,288 $ 1,168,262 $ 1,833,967 TRANSIT OPERATIONS 0 0 0 1,105,557 (TOTAL $ 804,629 $ 1,839,288 $ 1,168,262 Page 50 S 2,939,524 (i) OPERATING BUDGET NOTES (a) Administrative facilities rental expenses are allocated to each department based on the department's percentage of total agency usable square footage. This expense item also includes the fee associated with early termination of the lease at the Second and Spring building. (b) Leased vehicles and parking facilities are allocated to each department based on the department's percentage of total agency Fibs. (c) Interlocal agreement expenses consist of $100,000 for an agreement with Pierce Transit. (d) Other services include an FTE allocated moving expense associated with Union Station for each divi- sion and the following: • $2,000 in the Director's Division for miscellaneous audio and video production; and • $50,000 in the Sounder Staff Division for temporary administrative employment positions. (e) Dues and membership expenses are based on the agency standard of $300 per F1'h. (f) Travel and meeting expenses include • $13,418 in the Director's Division for four APTA conference ($5,308), three BNSF meetings in Chicago ($3,720), three BNSF meetings in Ft. Worth ($3,390) and miscellaneous travel ($1,000); and • $13,000 in the. Sounder Staff Division based on the agency standard of $1,000 per FTE. (g) Books and subscription expenses are based on the agency standard of $100 per FTE. (h) Training expenses consist of the following: • $1,500 in the Director Division based on the agency standard of $250 per FTE; and • $5,000 in the Sounder Staff Division based on the agency standard of $250 per FTE for eight staff members and $600 per FTE for five staff members. The increase to $600 is to account for newer staff members who will need additional training in 1999. (i) Other miscellaneous expenses consists of $5,000 in the Sounder Staff Division for expenses related to advertising/public awareness for various projects. (j) Insurance expenses are allocated to each department based on the department's percentage of total agency Fibs. Page 51 SOUNDER COMMUTER RAIL Everett EVERETT Everett to Seattle • track & facilities .j 4 .1• %I King . ,ti,; BELLEVUE/ •' 1i Boeing r Access •lb •• •' TuktiWa 275 Seattle to Auburn tradedfaclroes Kern A 120 � Auburn to Lakewood 1 Tacoma tradc d fac&bes Dome • 2: 1 ''fffff 241 Sumner Puyanup **r1 Page 52 • Provisional station subject to funding availability from within Ina North King County subarea. MAP KEY • Sounder Commuter Rail Service Trains using existing railroad tracks between Everett, Seattle, Tacoma and Lakewood. 0 Capital projects 9.10.98 - Sounder Commuter Rail Department Projects Summary All figures in YOE $000s Project Number and Name 1997-98 (est.) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005-06 Total 100 Everett to Seattle (Track & Facilities) $6,771 $19,190 $40,031 $16,427 $8,798 $9,038 $9,291 $19,356 $128,901 110 CR -Sea to Auburn (Track & Facilities) $19,566 $108,491 $60,084 $31,928 $7,015 $7,205 $7,407 $15,432 $257,129 120 CR-Aubum to Tacoma Dome (Trk & Fac) $17,032 $57,615 $107,981 $28,780 $8,388 $8,616 $8,858 $18,454 $255,724 201 CR -Everett to Multimodal $478 $4,613 $8,059 $1,236 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,385 203 CR - Bond St. Station (Everett) $23 $166 $770 $21,5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,174 205 CR - Mukilteo Station $139 $3,036 $3,656 $372 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,202 207 CR - Edmonds Station $183 $2,755 $3,830 $442 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,210 231 King St. Station $1,181 $9,362 $1,067 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,610 233 CR - Boeing Access Road Station Tukwila $157 $424 $9,225 $1,166 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,972 235 CR -Tukwila Station (Longacres) $7,945 $6,952 $325 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,222 237 Kent Station $2,003 $6,977 $139 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,118 239 Auburn Station $2,913 $6,819 $777 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,509 241 CR - Sumner Station $1,724 $3,957 $128 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,809 243 Puyallup Station $2,804 $7,513 $255 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,572 245 Tacoma Dome Station $3,763 $15,181 $742 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,686 251 CR - S 56th St. Station $523 $6,617 $981 $197 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,318 253 CR - Lakewood Station $559 $8,818 $1,186 $197 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,760 255 Lakewood CBD Rail Station conn $17 $1,709 $1,523 $1,343 $184 $0 $0 $0 $4,776 Total $67,782 $270,195 $240,758 $82,301 $24,365 $24,859 $25,555 $53,242 $789,077 Sounder Commuter Rail Projects: Sound Move Compared to Current Budget 00 Project Number and Name Sound Move Budget in 1995 $000s Current Budget Current Budget in 1995 $000s in YOE $000s 100 Everett to Seattle (Track & Facilities) $107,000 $107,000 $128,901 110 CR -Sea to Auburn (Track & Facilities) $220,000 $220,000 $257,129 120 CR -Auburn to Tacoma Dome (Trk & Fac) $217,000 $217,000 $255,724 201 CR -Everett to Multimodal $12,000 $12,000 $14,385 203 CR - Bond St. Station (Everett) $1,000 $1,000 $1,174 205 CR - Mukilteo Station $6,000 $6,000 $7,202 207 CR - Edmonds Station $6,000 $6,000 $7,210 231 King St. Station $11,000 $10,087 $11,610 233 CR - Boeing Access Road Station Tukwila $10,000 $9,087 $10,972 235 CR -Tukwila Station (Longacres) $13,000 $13,000 $15,222 237 Kent Station - $6,000 $7,826 $9,118 239 Auburn Station $9;000. $9,000 $10,509 241 CR - Sumner Station $5,000 $5,000 $5,809 243 Puyallup Station $9,000 $9,000 $10,572 245 Tacoma Dome Station $17,000 $17,000 $19,686 251 CR - S 56th St. Station $7,000 $7,000 $8,318 253 CR - Lakewood Station $9,000 $9,000 $10,760 255 Lakewood CBD Rail Station conn $4,000 $4,000 $4,776 Total $669,000 $669,000 $789,077 Sounder Commuter Rail - Subarea Expenses and Outlays All figures in YOE $000s Subarea 1997 - 1998 (Est.) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 - 2006 Subtotal Snohomish County South King County Pierce County $7,593 $29,759 $56,346 $18,691 $8,798 $9,038 $9,291 $33,766 $139,025 $71,616 $33,094 $7,015 $7,205 $7,407 $26,422 $101,410 $112,796 $30,516 $8,572 $8,616 $8,858 $19,356 $15,432 $18,454 $158,872 $314,560 $315,645 Grand Total: $67,782 $270,195 $240,758 $82,301 $24,385 $24,859 $25,555 $53,242 $789,077 Department i3 Commuter Rail szDivision 00 Commuter Rail ro tal Project 100 Everett to Seattle ^ (Track & Facilities) Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description Sound Transit will provide commuter rail service between Seattle and Everett on the existing Burlington Northem Santa Fe (BNSF) tracks. Initial service will consist of bi- directional service during the AM and PM commute hours to 12 round trips five days a week. Improvements to tracks, signal, and communication equipment plus a maintenance base are included, as are operating costs. System -wide capital and operating costs are prorated on a projected vehicle -mile of service basis. The draft EIS comment and response period will be underway through the second quarter of 1999. The FEIS Is scheduled to be issued late In the same quarter. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $107,000 - $107,000 $128,901 Subarea `: ..1997481est )? ' ;.; . ; 1999 ` .2000: " : 2001.. 2002 2003 ` " =2004 . : 52005-06 Subtotal ' Snohomish County $6,771 $19,190 $40,031 $7,883 $90 $63 $65 $135 $74,227 Total $6,771 $19,190 $40,031 $7,883 $90 $63 $65 $135 $74,227 Operating/Maintenance Costs (in YOE $000s) '`, ' Subarea,i "`° 1997=98 (est.) :,.1999 ' . 2000 . 2001 :; 2002. 2003 ., . 2004 2005-06 :Subtotal :4'3; Snohomish County $128,901 $54,674 Total $54,674 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) ., 1997.98 (est) , • .. .«1999 1; 2000 .. 2001- 2002.. 2003: 82004:. ,, 2005.06 ; Grand Total ; . $128,901 Department !3 Commuter Rail Division 00 Commuter Rail Project 110 CR Sea to Auburn (Track & Facilities) Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description Sound Transit will implement the startup of service between Tacoma and Seattle by year-end 1999, initially planned as 18 trains per day during peak periods. Vehicles and Improvements to track, capacity, maintenance yards, and shops are included in the cost. Operating costs for the Seattle-to•Aubum segment are Included In thls line item. System -wide capital and operating costs are prorated on a projected vehicle - mile of service basis. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) L $220,000 $220,000 T$257,129 Subarea _1997=98 040 ° ' '. Y}1989 ....,;, 2000 2001;, 2002 { ; 2003. 2004 ' 2005'06' :'Subtotal South King County $19,566 $107,935 $52,874 $25,116 $173 $160 $165 $343 .. ,. $206,332 Total $19,566 $107,935 $52,874 $25,116 $173 $160 $165 $343 $206,332 Operating/Maintenance Costs (in YOE $000s) : Subarea' ` ; ` : 1997-98 (est.) . .:1999 ` . ` 2000 2001. ; : ; 2002 • .2003 .: ; : 2004' ` 2005-06 - Subtotal South King County $50,797 Total $50,797 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) '41997-90 (esL) .::.'= ¢1999. ' ` r. ;: ; 2000 r , , ..: 2001' ` , 2002 ` ` 2003 2004. x ai 2005=06 ' ` Grand Total $257,129 Department Commuter Rail Division oo ro Project Commuter Rail 120 CR -Auburn to Tacoma Dome (Trk & Fac) Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description Sound Transit will implement the startup of service between Tacoma and Seattle by year-end 1999 and between Tacoma and Lakewood by early 2001. Vehicles, improvements to track, ROW and capacity, and maintenance yards and shops are included in the cost. Operating costs for the Auburn -to -Lakewood segments are included In this line item. System -wide capital and operating costs are pro -rated on a projected vehicle -mile of service basis. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) $217,000 -----1 Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) – $217,0001 Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) — $255,724 i Suberea , .1.997-98.060.:: 1999 r . °2000„ ; • ,., ;"„;"2001 ' 2002 2003 '~ r ; •.. 2004 . '2005-06 Subtotal Pierce County $17,032 $56,960 $102,858 $20,634 $153 $158 $162 $338 $198,295 Total $17,032 $56,960 $102,858 $20,634 $153 $158 $162 $338 $198,295 Operating/Maintenance Costs (in YOE $000s) .Subarea: ; x ; `;:1 .7-98 (est:) -' -- '1999 , `,.2000 ._ , `12:2001 : a' 2002. 2003. 2004, < 200546 >4Subtotel Pierce County $255,724 $57,429 Total $57,429 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) =m1997-98„(est ). a a e. 1999 2000 -;:2001- ' 2002 :'.:. 2003 2004 ' 2005.06 Grand. Total ':;_ $255,724 -- - Department 13 Commuter Rail Division 00 Commuter Rail�V� Project 201 CR -Everett to Multimodal Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description Development of Sound Transit components of a transportation center located at Smith Avenue and Pacific In Everett. The center will accommodate a variety of transportation modes currently operating or potentially operating Into the City of Everett. The modes Include intercity rail (Amtrak); intercity bus (Greyhound); public transit bus (Everett Transit, Community Transit, Sound Transit); commuter rail; park- and-ride; charters, taxis, shuttles; and non -motorized travel (bicycling and walking). The Center will also include a passenger terminal and park-and-ride lot(s). Station design Is scheduled to begin In the third quarter of 1999. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) $12,000 Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) r__ $12,000 Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $14,385 -901Wea, : :.1997-98.1eat) .:. ;1999.E ,`; .0 ..2000 ', : , 21101. •. .. :.; 2002 2003 ': 2004 . . 2005-06.: Subtotal Snohomish County $478 $4,613 $8,059 $1,236 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,385 Total $478 $4,613 $8,059 $1,236 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,385 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) ;•.1997 98.(eat;). 99:' '.: `; .2 2002 0 2 2005-0 `Grand Total $478 $4,613 $8,059 $1,236 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,385 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) - CGSt:Element, °., `. 199748! est: ( ) ;" L1999 :9=> ',2000• .: 2001 .._ ..� t: •.2002 2003' a : <20pq ; ; .Subtotal.. 2005-06 �9, . , .. " .: Agency Development $66 $68 $70 $72 $0 $0 $0 $0 $275 Preliminary Engineering $0 $237 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $237 EIS $211 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 . $0 $211 Final Design and Specification $0 $710 $0 $0 . $0 $0 $0 $0 $710 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $3,599 $2,594 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,193 Construction 80 $0 $3,287 $1,045 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,333 Contingency $200 $0 $2,108 $119 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,427 Total $478 $4,613 $8,059 $1,236 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,385 Department 13 Commuter Rail Division 100 Commuter Rail Project [03 CR - Bond St. Station 1 (Everett) Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description Redevelopment of the current Amtrak station (on Bond Street) into a commuter rail station. The project will likely include interior/exterior refurbishment, track Infrastructure upgrades, minor parking improvements and public transit bus access/layover. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) $1,000 Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) 1 $1,000 Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) 1 Y ~ $1,174 : :.;Subarea :11997-98 (est.), ; ;;1999,.. 2000.',460.1...',. .> . 1: ,. _ ' .: ' : -2002 2003 . <; , `:.. 2004 2005-06 Subtotal Snohomish County $23 $166 $770 $215 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,174 Total $23 $166 $770 $215 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,174 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) 07.-08. Olt) L :. 9' $23 $166 $770 1;21 117 '; 2005-06 Grand OtaL: ' $0 0 0 0 $1,174 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) :Coat Elen ant'• + .1997.98'(est,y x. `' ;:1999 >' 12000, - 2001 2002 . 2003 2004 2005=06 ' .,. Subtotal Agency Development $6 $6 $6 $6 $0 $0 $0 $0 $23 Preliminary Engineering $0 $34 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $34 EIS $18 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18 Final Design and Specification $0 $70 $32 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $102 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $500 $149 $0 $0 $0 $0 $649 Contingency $0 $56 $232 $60 $0 $0 $0 $0 $348 Total $23 $166 $770 $215 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,174 Department 3 Commuter Rail Division 00 Commuter Rail Project 205 CR - Mukilteo Station Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description The City of Mukllteo is leading a plan to construct a new multi -modal terminal on the central Mukilteo waterfront to accommodate a new, dual -slip ferry terminal, bus service, vehicles/parking, overhead pedestrian loading, bicycles and commuter rail service. Various parts of this large scale plan may proceed independently. Among these Is Sound Transit commuter rail station which to the extent possible will be developed in such a way as to serve both existing and future needs, the design of which is scheduled to begin in the third quarter of 1999. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $6,000 �` w�., $7,202✓-��� ; Subarea . , . ;:1997.96 (eat,j a 1999 2000. ; , , 2001 ::: 2002 , 2003; ' ` : '' 20Q4 2005=06, ; , . Subfotal Snohomish County $139 $3,036 $3,656 $372 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,202 Total $139 $3,036 $3,656 $372 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,202 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) 7.4)8;test;)::.,.. 1999 2003 2 2005;0 iGrand Total $139 $3,036 $3,656 $372 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,202 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) Coet:Element; 097=98'(e80•' '. 1999.' , `e ,..:2000 2001; $ . _ ° 2002 ` ` 2003 2004 2005=06 Su. total Agency Development $33 $34 $35 $36 $0 $0 $0 $0 $137 Preliminary Engineering $0 $203 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $203 EIS $106. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $106 Final Design and Specification $0 $423 $191 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $614 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $2,199 $1,516 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,714 Construction $0 $0 $1,054 $336 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,390 Contingency $0 $178 $860 $0 $0 . $0 $0 $0 $1,038 Total $139 $3,036 $3,656 $372 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,202 00 ro Department 3 Commuter Rail Division 00 Commuter Rail Project 207 CR -Edmonds Station Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description The City of Edmonds and others are developing a plan to construct a new multi- modal terminal at Point Edwards to accommodate a dual -slip ferry terminal, bus service, vehicles/parking, a people mover, overhead pedestrian loading, bicycles, and commuter and Inter -city rail service. Various parts of this large-scale plan may proceed independently. Among these is Sound Transit commuter rail station which, to the extent possible, will be developed in such a way as to serve both existing and future needs. Station design Is scheduled to begin in the third quarter of 1999. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s). Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $6,000 $7,210 .: Subarea ..: 2 :199748 (061.):,..• 1999 2000 :. 200t.. : - 2002 2003 ` ` .1.2004 ' 2005=06 ;: ., :Subtotal : Snohomish County $183 $2,755 $3,830 $442 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,210 Total $183 $2,755 $3,830 $442 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,210 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) :997-98�(eati)�• �, 2001:.,:' 2002. • °'2003 21 2005-06 Grand .Total $183 $2,755 $3,830 $442 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,210 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) 'oal Eletnenf: ::':11:g0-311-(01; w1999 i 2000 2001 :'2002 2003 :.2004 2005-06 l, Subtotal• Agency Development $33 $34 $35 $36 $0 $0 $0 $0 $137 Preliminary Engineering $0 $203 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $203 EIS $106 $o $o $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $106 Final Design end Specification $0 $187 $434 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $621 ROW Acquisition end Permits $0 $2,199 $1,516 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,714 Construction $0 $0 $986 $406 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,392 Contingency $44 . $133 $860 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,037 Total $183 $2,755 $3,830 $442 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,210 Department E3 Commuter Rail Division Commuter RaII Project 1231 King Si. Station Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description The State and others are developing a plan to renovate the existing King Street Station facility to create an intermodal facility to accommodate Amtrak trains, the state's high-speed rail service, local transit, Interstate buses, and taxis. Various parts of this large-scale plan may proceed Independently. Among these is Sound Transit commuter rail station that will be developed In such a way as to serve both existing and future needs. The commuter rail portion will have construction completed during 1999. Difference between the Sound Move figure and the proposed budget in 1995$ Is a Board -approved transfer to the Kent station. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $11,000 $10,087_.._ $11,610 .subarea:.:.: 1,;<1y99788 (eat) : , • ::; ' 1999. :.".:. ; : ; - 2000— ; . --2001: 2002 ::., • 2003 2004 2006-106 Subfotel South King County $1,181 $9,362 $1,067 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,610 Total $1,181 $9,362 $1,067 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,610 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) 199-98 (est.)r[,: 2,000 x;;2001 -2, 2003 2 2005+06 .' Grand Total';; $1,181 $9,362 $1,067 0 $0 $0 $0 0 $11,610 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) _:.' Cost Element 1,;<1y99788 (eat) : .. .1999- ; : 2000 - 2Q01;; _ 2002 2003 ...: a ` 2004 .:2005-06 .` Subtotal ; Agency Development $88 $79 $81 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $248 Preliminary Engineering $198 $0 $0 $0 . $0 $0 $0 $0 $198 EIS $50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50 Final Design and Specification $594 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $594 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $1,219 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,219 Construction $0 $7,251 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,251 Contingency $251 $813 $985 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,050 Total $1,181 $9,362 $1,067 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,610 0oo co Department 13 Commuter Rail Division 00 Commuter Rail Project X233 CR - Boeing Access Road Station Tukwila Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description Development of a commuter rall station on the south side of Boeing Access Road, west of 1-5. The station will serve transfer passengers to/from the light rail facilities. Construction of this facility is projected to occur at a later time than other stations between Tacoma and Seattle, because of the need to coordinate with final decisions regarding the location and design of the co -located light rail station. Difference between the Sound Move figure and the proposed budget in 1995$ is a Board - approved transfer to the Kent Station. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) $10,000 Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s)r $9,087 Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $10,972_ �Wtl) ;Subarea :;'1097,-68 (esta) , • : 1999 ": , 2 .:2001.4. :.. . 2002 ` : 2003 _ ; _ : •2004' • " .E .: _2005-06"'� SubtotalP ' : South King County $157 $424 $9,225 $1,166 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,972 Total $157 $424 $9,225 $1,166 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,972 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) 1997=98.(est) 2002 20 4 2005=06 rand Total $157 $424 $9,225 $1,166 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,972 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) „ :Cost Element:,! :1997.98 (est.) ;"� t, r X1999 X2000 ` 2001::` ... '.. 2002 2003; :':2004 : - '2005.06 ,: Subtotal Agency Development $77 $79 $70 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $225 Preliminary Engineering $0 $137 $67 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $205 EIS $45 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $45 Final Design and Specification $0 $0 $313 $322 $0 $0 $0 $0 $635 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $172 $3,315 $475 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,962 Construction $0 $0 $3,923 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,923 Contingency $35 $36 $1,537 $368 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,977 Total $157 $424 $9,225 $1,166 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,972 - Department 3 Commuter Rail Division 100 Commuter Rail Project 1235 CR -Tukwila Station (Longacres) Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description Development of a commuter rail station located south of 1-405, between the Union Pacific and Burlington Northem/Santa Fe tracks, at South 156th Street (several altemative locations will be analyzed). The station will include bus access, pedestrian waiting areas, bicycle storage and up to 1,000 parking stalls. Station design activiites will be completed by early 1999. Construction is anticipated to begin by the second quarter of 1999. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) T 013,000 Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) LAdopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $13,000 $15,222 •`:` Subarea .'a. _1997.08 (est.) 1999 . 2000: '' :;2001:.,.. .:2002,, 2003 2004 2005-06 . ;`. Subtotal`::' _. South King County $7,945 $6,952 $325 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,222 Total $7,945 $6,952 $325 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,222 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) 1997.98 (est.) ° 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005.06 Grand Total $7,945 $6,952 $325 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $15,222 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) i.:a., Oat Element: , 199708 (eSL)... 1.999 r;.Y'.. 2000 > 2001, =..;2002.. ; `2003 :2004. :2005-06 '......=Subtotal Agency Development $99 $97 $93 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $289 Preliminary Engineering $202 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $202 EIS $58 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $58 Final Design and Specification $476 $122 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $597 ROW Acquisition and Permits $7,110 $2,625 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,735 Construction $0 $3,644 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,644 Contingency $0 $464 $232 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $696 Total $7,945 $6,952 $325 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,222 Department Division Commuter Rail Commuter Rail Project 1237 Kent Station Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description Development of a commuter rail station located between Smith and James streets. The station will include a bus transfer facility with a pedestrian waiting area, bicycle storage facility and a regional park-and-ride lot, Including parking garage. Station design activities will be completed by early 1999. Construction is anticipated to begin by the second quarter of 1999. Difference between the Sound Move figure and the proposed budget in 1995$ reflects Board -approved transfers from the Boeing Access Road and King Street stations. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) I $6,000 Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) $7,826 Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $9,118 ; 3` :Subarea- ? .;1997-98:(seta ' 11999s:„ ; `' ', :2000 ,. „ t ::: 2001: ; .2002 2003`:., :2004° ' 2005-06 SuiStotal ';'.a South King County $2,003 $6,977 $139 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,118 Total $2,003 $6,977 $139 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,118 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) 199748 (est.) :.1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005-06 Grand.Total $2,003 $6,977 $139 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $9,118 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) . Cost Element' . '4- .1997-981est. 1999.,:,-;';',C :: '. 2000 <; : - 2001 "• 2002. :2003. 2004: ' . .. 2005-06 : , Subtotal: Agency Development $55 $56 $23 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $135 Preliminary Engineering $99 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $99 EIS $26 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26 Final Design and Specification $241 $57 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $299 ROW Acquisition and Permits $1,359 $2,263 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,622 Construction $0 $3,937 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,937 Contingency $222 $662 $116 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,001 Total $2,003 $6,977 $139 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,118 � - - - - - -. - Department }3 Commuter Rail Division Project Commuter Rail 1239 Auburn II Station Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description Development of a commuter rail station south of Main Street, between 8 and C streets. The station will Include a bus transfer facility with pedestrian waiting area, bicycle storage facility and a regional park-and-ride lot. Station design activities will be completed by early 1999. Construction Is anticipated to begin by the second quarter of 1999. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) $9,000 Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) • $9,000 $10,509 • : Subarea, ` .' 1997-98 (est) . , ':' , .i999- . =a ' 2000P ' 2001A.> ' 2002 ..., 2003 , 2004 - ' 2005-06'. ` Subtotal South King County $2,913 $6,819 $777 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,509 Total $2,913 $6,819 $777 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,509 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) t)97=98:(est.) • . « 2001;' 2002, , 2003 ; 20 2005-06 Grand ;Total $2,913 $6,819 $777 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,509 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) Coit -Element :• '•1997798.(est.); x ?; .1999,.'..1';'-:?. , ., 2000 , 2001 2002 ' .2003 `,• 2005-06 Subtotal Agency Development $88 $90 $23 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $201 Preliminary Engineering $165 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $165 EIS $41 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $41 Final Design and Specification $397 $100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $498 ROW Acquisition and Permits $1,698 $3,141 $0 $0 • $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,839 Construction $0 $3,066 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,066 Contingency $524 $421 $754 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,699 Total $2,913 $6,819 $777 $4 $0 • $0 $0 $0 $10,509 Os N Department l3 Commuter Rail Division f 00 Project 241 CR - Sumner Station Commuter Rail Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description The station will be located along the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe tracks In downtown Sumner most likely between Maple and Harrison Streets and Traffic Avenue and Narrow Street. Some station elements will be located on both sides of the tracks. While primarily intended to serve commuter rail operations, this facility will also include express bus, local bus and park-and-ride facilities. Station design activities will be completed by early 1999. Construction Is anticipated to begin by the second quarter 011999. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $5.000 5,000 5,809 ',:; Sutierea .. ,i_1997.98`(eet.) .` 1999. . °:2000 ` '' : , 2001=;;, : 2002 ...2003,..:. 2004 , .., ..: 2005-06 . Subtotal Pierce County $1,724 $3,957 $128 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,809 Total $1,724 $3,957 $128 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,809 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) 11997910est:). 2003; `2005-06 ,' Grand Total .- $1,724 $3,957 $128 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,809 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) cost'Element;, 1997.98 (eat.)'; ,;,N , ;_1999 : Y ;,' ;2000 : `, 2001 ? P : * ;, 2002. '2003 2004 - ; 2005-06_ Subtotal Agency Development $28 $28 $12 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $67 Preliminary Engineering $99 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $99 EIS $14 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14 Final Design and Specification $238 $61 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $299 ROW Acquisition and Permits $1,085 $1,315 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,400 Construction $0 $1,918 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,918 Contingency $260 $635 $116 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,011 Total $1,724 $3,957 $128 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,809 Department 13 Commuter Rail Division ;00 Commuter Rail Project 243 Puyallup Station Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description The station Is planned for downtown Puyallup between Main and Stewart Avenues and 2nd and 3rd street NW. While primarily intended to serve commuter rail operations, this facility will also Include express bus, local bus and park-and-ride facilities. There also exists the possibility of connecting the station's pedestrian "plaza" to Meridian Street. Station design activities will be completed by early 1999. Construction is anticipated to begin by the second quarter of 1999. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget $9,000 May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) $9,000 Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) ( $10,572 Subarea ,} :1997 98, est ` . `; x ; 1999 20, .: 2001. ::2002 2003 • : >`'.2004 ;:.2005-06 ;Subtotal Pierce County $2,804 $7,513 $255 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,572 Total $2,804 $7,513 $255 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,572 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) 1997=98(est; 99 2003 2005-06 Citan&Tota $2,804 $7,513 $255 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,572 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) %° . Coat Element : 1997.98' est t � ; : . - 1999 �.�2000 ; `.'' 2001, :.• .. _ ; : 2002 ,' � ' .. 2 2004.': :: 2005-06 . Subtotal � .. Agency Development $33 $34 $23 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $90 Preliminary Engineering $132 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $132 EIS $25 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25 Final Design and Specification $317 $81 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $398 ROW Acquisition and Permits $2,067 $3,956 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,023 Construction $0 $2,551 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,551 Contingency $230 $891 $232 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,353 Total $2,804 $7,513 $255 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,572 Department `3 Commuter Rail 1 Division 00 Commuter Rail Project €245 Tacoma Dome 1 Station Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description This station will be located between Puyallup Avenue East and East 25th from E to G Street. It will include commuter rail, light rail and bus facilities, and parking for approximately 2,000 cars. The station may also include commercial development, intercity bus, Amtrak station and 'Train to the Mountain" facilities. Pierce Transit Is currently constructing Phase I, a 1,200 car structured park-and-ride facility. Additional park-and-ride capacity, commuter rail and Tight rail facilities will be added by Sound Transit. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget IMay 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) C $17,000 f L Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $17,000 J $19,686 Subarea ' ' r : ;>1997-98. (eet.):.. ": `t ;1999 :. ,2000: .2001:., ,. :,2002 •, 2003 ; '2 °: 200:596... : . `: Subtotal ": : Pierce County $3,763 $15,181 $742 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,686 Total $3,763 $15,181 $742 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,686 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) '1.997 98;(est ) 2t 2003. Grand Total $3,763 $15,181 $742 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,686 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) C.ost,Eleriient ,; i997=981e44 . 1999 ; :2000;. •••-2,001.°-:i: • 2002 ;: ='2003 2004;`.: �.; 2005=06 ;:Subtotal...;.. Agency Development $110 $113 $46 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $269 Preliminary Engineering $396 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $396 EIS $47 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $47 Final Design and Specification $15 $1,201 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,216 ROW Acquisition end Permits $1,848 $4,183 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,030 Construction $0 $7,683 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,683 Contingency • $1,346 $2,002 $696 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,044 Total $3,763 $15,181 $742 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,686 Department 3 Commuter Rail Division 100 Commuter Rail Project 251 —CR - S 56th St. _ Station Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description This project is the first station facility on the Lakewood commuter rail extension and Is expected to be served by local transit and a park-and-ride lot. The station location has not yet been determined, although it Is assumed to be in the vicinity of South 56th Street. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $7,000 $8,318 Subarea`: ;: :1997-98(est.) '',1999 ::. 2000 .:2001,: • 2002 i. 2003 `2004 2005-06 ,Subtotal,.. ;.. Pierce County $523 $6,617 $981 $197 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,318 Total $523 $6,617 $981 $197 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,318 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) -1997-118(est.), ss =: ,`'2001•.. 2002 .2003 2004 "2005-06 Grand Total $523 $6,617 $981 $197 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,318 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) ,£a:. , Cost Element •, . .1997=98 (esti) ;1999 2000 `:: ; ' 2001 .: . ° ,2902' 2003 . ; ,, • ;.. ;2004 1200506 ;: ,' .:7Subtotal ,.. Agency Development $17 $17 $17 $18 $0 $0 $0 $0 $69 Preliminary Engineering $99 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $99 EIS $168 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $168 Final Design and Specification $198 $101 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $300 ROW Acquisition end Permits $0 $4,875 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,875 Construction $0 $1,271 $500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,772 Contingency $41 $353 $464 $179 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,036 Total $523 $6,617 $981 $197 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,318 Department 13 A Division {00 0o ii ,e V tv Project ,253 CR -Lakewood Station Commuter Rail Commuter Rail Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description This station will be the southem terminus of the commuter rail line. It Is expected to be a rail facility served by local and regional express transit, with a park-and-ride lot. Two possible sites have been discussed: near the Intersection of 100th Street SW and Lakeview Drive, or near the intersection 011-5 and Bridgeport Way. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) $9,000 Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) f _ $9,000 Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $10,760 Subarea .1997=98:(est.). • • 1999 2000 ``' 2001... ::.2002 ' : 2003 :.2004 ' 2005-06 :- '..Subtotal • Pierce County $559 $8,818 $1,186 $197 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,760 Total $559 $8,818 $1,186 $197 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,760 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) 1997 0 (eat:), ` ;:1999 :2000: 2001:. 2002. .•20 2004 Grand Total ', $559 $8,818 $1,186 $197 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,760 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) . 'cot Element,;,t ,. 1997.98'(eat.); :: 1999', :2000 ; . :..: 2001; , , ' 2002 ; , « ,2003 ,' "2004.... ` •2005-06 • _ ` : ;Subtotal . Agency Development $17 $17 $17 $18 $0 $0 $0 $0 $69 Preliminary Engineering $99 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $99 EIS $217 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $217 Final Design and Specification $198 $101 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $300 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $7,312 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,312 Construction $0 $854 $878 $0. $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,732 Contingency $29 $534 $290 $179 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,031 Total $559 $8,818 $1,186 $197 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,760 Department [3 Commuter Rail Division !00 Commuter Rail Project }255 Lakewood CBD Rail Station conn Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description This project will be a series of street-scape and community improvements that will help to integrate Sound Transit facilities in the vicinity of Lakewood into the larger community. These improvements will remove some of the barriers (nonexistent sidewalks, poor lighting, little noise -buttering, etc.) that currently exist. The improvements will be located in the vicinity of the Lakewood Commuter Rail Station. The location of the station has not yet been determined. If this project occurs entirely within existing public ROW, no environmental review may be necessary. Design will be initiated during 1999. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) $4,000 Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $4,776 4,000 ,_- Subarea....:.:',1997-98. est � � . , 1999 . � 2000 ':... .., :::',..:','•2001:. . .. 2002 : ,,- a:: '. ; ' 2003 • :.:. . 2004;;., . � , 2005-06 .Subtotal •Pierce County $17 $1,709 $1,523 $1,343 $184 $0 $0 $0 $4,776 Total $17 $1,709 $1,523 $1,343 $184 $0 $0 $0 $4,776 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) 1997-98 (esf»):;:`, :. 1999f, 20O0 $17 $1,709 $1,523 -2001 '2002 $1,343 $184 2003 2005=06 } :(nand Toa . $0 0 $0 $4,776 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) ':. Coet;Element, ; :1997,-98 (est) 1989 : ;"; 2000 c.._ :-2001;.. • ,';. _x;`2002 , ; ` 2003 � . '< : 2004 2005-06 :' Sub_ total -.->. Agency Development $17 $17 $17 $18 $0 $0 $0 $0 $69 Preliminary Engineering $0 $101 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $101 EIS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Final Design and Specification $0 $203 $104 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $307 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $1,219 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,219 Construction $0 $0 $996 $1,027 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,023 Contingency $0 $169 $406 $298 $184 $0 $0 $0 $1,057 Total $17 $1,709 $1,523 $1,343 $184 $0 $0 $0 $4,776 LINK LIGHT RAIL PROGRAM SUMMARY The Link light rail component adds a new type of high-capacity transit to the transportation system of our region. The 23 -mile central system will have two segments: from downtown Seattle north to the Univer- sity District, potentially onto Northgate, and from downtown Seattle south through Southeast Seattle and Tukwila to SeaTac. Link is a cost-effective way to serve the core of the regional system where transit rid- ership is the highest. This new transportation link provides a stepping stone for expansion into the next century (a two-way light rail line can carry the same number of people as 12 freeway lanes). The central system will include 21 stations within walking distance of major destinations as well as con- nections to local bus service. Some stations will include connections to Regional Express buses, Sounder commuter rail, the monorail and the waterfront streetcar. The most significant investment required for the electric light rail system, the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel and its five stations, is already in place. Sound Move also includes Tacoma Link which connects downtown Tacoma with the Tacoma Dome Sta- tion—a regional transit terminal near the Tacoma Dome where riders can connect with local buses, Re- gional Express services, and Sounder commuter rail. Five stations will serve downtown Tacoma. Tacoma Link is scheduled to commence operations in 2001. Sound Transit expects existing revenue sources to be sufficient to build the light rail line between the University District and SeaTac (South 200th Street). Sound Transit expects to find, and will aggressively seek, additional funding sources to extend Central Link from the University District to Northgate. That segment will not be built unless additional funds are secured. If voters authorize additional capital pro- grams after the 10 -year system plan is otherwise in place, this segment will be the first to be built under the new program. Putting Link in Place For purposes of environmental review, Sound Transit is studying Central Link project in six geographic segments, each of which includes alternatives for light rail routes and station locations. In May 1998, the Sound Transit Board selected a series of alignment alternatives to proceed into the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The draft EIS, prepared by Link's project development staff, will be available for public review and comment in December 1998. The segments are as follows: Segment A–Northgate to University District This segment includes four alignment alternatives. All four run along I-5 from Northgate to Lake City Way, at which point the alignment may either proceed along the highway on 8th Avenue (one option is elevated, the other underground) until approximately 55th and then head southeast toward the 45th Street Station or head southeast at Lake City Way in a tunnel to either Roosevelt or 12th Avenue. From North - gate to Lake City Way, the route is a combination of at -grade and retained cut -fill alignments. Page 75 Segment B—University District to Westlake Station This segment includes two alternatives: one alignment would run in a tunnel from the University District through First and Capitol Hills; the other would run in a range of vertical alignments primarily along Eastlake. Segment C—Westlake Station to South McClellan Street This segment includes the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) and existing stations at Westlake, University Street, Pioneer Square and the International District. Existing DSTT stations would need to be modified to fit low -platform rail cars and their overhead power systems. From the International District station, the route could follow two distinctly different alignments to the Rainier Valley: south via the E3 busway and east in a tunnel under Beacon Hill or along the I-90 corridor via the D2 roadway. Segment D—South McClellan Street to Boeing Access Road This segment would begin at South McClellan Street and run primarily along MLK Jr. Way to Boeing Access Road. Both at -grade and elevated profiles are being considered for MLK Jr. Way from McClellan south to Graham. There are two alternatives to running entirely along MLK JR. Way, one would run along Rainier Avenue and cross over to MLK at Alaska Street; the other route would stay on Rainier until it reaches South Oregon at which point it would transition to a tunnel, which would emerge at Graham. Segment E—Tukwila This segment would start at the Boeing Access Road and continue south through the City of Tukwila to approximately SR 518. Three primary route alternatives are under consideration in this segment: Pacific Highway South, Interurban Avenue South, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Way South. The route alternatives offer options for connecting to Sounder commuter rail service at either Boeing Access Road or Longacres Way, and for serving Tukwila's Southcenter Urban Center at either Baker Boulevard or Strander Boule- vard. Segment F—SeaTac The SeaTac segment extends from the northern boundary of the City of SeaTac at South 152nd Street and Pacific Highway to South 204 Street. From South 152nd to South 160th the east side of the street lies in the City of Tukwila, while the west side is in the City of SeaTac. The routes entering SeaTac would be either along SR 99 from the north or along SR 518 from the east. Park-and-ride lots are proposed in con- junction with the north and south SeaTac stations. A north central station may be co -located with the Port of Seattle's proposed Ground Transportation Center and extension of the Satellite Transit System. Three route alternatives have been identified with two design options, for a total of five route alternatives. Tacoma Link will run from downtown Tacoma to the Tacoma Dome, a multi -modal regional transit cen- ter. The line will run at -grade and will provide connections to downtown offices, the theater district and the University of Washington's Tacoma campus. In June 1998, the board selected the most promising Tacoma Link routes. The route is essentially L-shaped. Sound Transit is studying two north -south align- ments (one along Commerce Street, the other on Pacific Avenue). and three east -west alignments (one on East 25th Street, one on Puyallup Avenue and the third in a shared corridor with Sounder commuter rail). The first implementation stage includes environmental review, preliminary engineering and design, and preferred alternative refinement for both Tacoma and Central Link. These activities commenced in early 1998 and will be completed in early 2000. The level of activity will be steady throughout the phase as indicated by the approximately equal expenditure levels in 1998 and 1999. In 1998, the department com- pleted conceptual engineering design for all Link alignments under consideration. After a 60 -day public comment period, the Sound Transit Board will select the preferred routes and station locations in early 1999. Sound Transit will complete the final environmental work and preliminary engineering by the fall of 1999. At that time, the exact train routes and station locations will be determined. This stage also in - Page 76 cludes an extensive community process to refine the preferred alternatives for each segment and define potential alternative alignments. Link staff opened to regional offices in 1998—one in the Rainier Valley and the other in downtown Tacoma. Once preliminary engineering and environmental review is completed, Sound Transit will begin final de- sign and right-of-way acquisition followed by the beginning of construction in 2001. The amount budg- eted for final design in 1999 is for Tacoma Link; final design of Central Link cannot commence until FTA has issued its Record of Decision (ROD) with respect to the project. Sound Transit will begin to ac- quire the necessary rights-of-way for Tacoma Link in 1999. Central Link rights-of-way requirements analysis and relocation planning will be performed in 1999 so as to allow acquisition as soon as possible after issuance of the ROD. Sound Transit will determine the construction schedule for Central Link by the end of 1999. When final engineering is complete, Sound Transit will conduct a major review of project revenues to make sure the agency's subarea equity goals can be met before construction contracts are awarded. If the cost is lower than estimated and/or additional funds have been secured, Sound Transit will extend the line from the University District to Northgate. Sound Transit studied vehicle options for both Central Link and Tacoma Link in 1998. The agency will commence procurement of Tacoma vehicles in 1999. When Link service begins operating in the downtown Seattle transit tunnel, the number of people using the tunnel will triple. This may require shifting some buses to surface streets. Sound Transit worked with Seattle and King County throughout 1998 to address bus operational issues that may arise as a result of this shift. As with any major public construction project, the community will be involved in the project from begin- ning to end. Opportunities for public and technical review will be included in each stage. OBJECTIVES, ACTION PLANS AND BUDGET DETAILS Objectives 1. Design and construct the light rail transit system outlined in Sound Move. 2. Complete the light rail transit system within the voter -approved budget. 3. Achieve system operation by the year 2006. 4. Maintain equity targets established by the Sound Transit Board. 5. Achieve broad sense of community ownership in the project. 6. Maximize minority/women/disadvantaged business enterprise and small and/or local firm involve- ment in design and construction. 7. Maximize use of local labor force in design and construction. 8. Minimize the size of Sound Transit staff. 9. Design the system to achieve very long-term goals for regional transportation needs, system quality, community fit and enhancement and environmental quality. Page 77 Action Plans Complete Link project development to 30 percent design and complete final envi- ronmental impact statement. Complete preliminary engineering (30 percent design) of the light rail project. Prepare the final environ- mental impact statement and obtain a Record of Decision from the Federal Transit Administration. To complete these tasks, Sound Transit will work in collaborative partnerships with the cities of Seattle, Ta- coma, Tukwila and SeaTac; with King County and Pierce Transit; and with communities, neighborhoods, businesses, and individuals affected. Completion of project development to this level includes: 1. Complete public hearings on the draft EIS and the locally preferred alternative, and provide staff sup- port to the Sound Transit Board to achieve identification of the locally preferred alternative in early spring 1999. 2. Complete a final environmental impact statement on the project, including appropriate mitigation measures, and submit the document to the Federal Transit Administration for certification and a Rec- ord of Decision by the end of 1999. 3. Complete preliminary engineering (30 percent design) on the locally preferred alternative and de- velop reliable cost estimates for construction. 4. Conduct peer reviews and a value -engineering workshop. 5. Ensure that the design criteria developed for the system (a) have been applied consistently to stations, guideways, facilities and affected streetscapes; (b) will make the system function effectively; and (c) will enhance the communities through which it passes. 6. Prepare to begin negotiations with the Federal Transit Administration for a Full -Funding Grant Agreement on the central Link project. 7. Commence final design for Tacoma Link. 8. Procure Tacoma light rail vehicles. Actively support light rail -related development activities by the cities and others. The investment being made in the light rail system offers a unique opportunity for cities and other agen- cies to focus new housing and other land development around stations; improve and integrate transit services; and promote short-term and long-term economic opportunities and job creation in the light rail corridor. Sound Transit cannot accomplish these things unilaterally, thus we will actively support activi- ties by others through memoranda of agreement, contracts and technical assistance. 1. Continue to assist each of the four cities, King County and Pierce Transit in the development of sta- tion area plans, bus route restructuring plans, zoning, and comprehensive plan actions. Encourage transit -oriented land use and physical improvements around light rail stations. 2. Encourage economic development activities concerning light rail design and construction by public agencies, educational institutions, non-profit organizations, and private corporations to enhance the creation of new jobs in the region. 3. In cooperation with cities and other agencies, explore the use of any rights-of-way Sound Transit will acquire for the light rail system as opportunities for transit -oriented joint development. Complete a.strategy for design, construction and procurement of equipment. During 1999, as part of preliminary engineering, fully investigate innovative design and implementation options for the light rail system. Bring these to the Sound Transit Board for decision and application to the project. These include: Page 78 1. Explore tunneling methods used in other light rail systems to reduce costs and risk. Determine if such methods are appropriate for the conditions and features of the planned corridors. 2. Investigate the potential for faster implementation with variations from the conventional approach of completing design and then taking bids for construction. Bring information about these "design - build" variations to the board for discussion and decision. 3. Develop detailed construction packaging plans considering: (a) implementation methods selected; (b) timing of the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel retrofit for light rail vehicles; (c) schedule re- quirements for vehicle delivery and maintenance facility completion; (d) projected cash flow re- quirements; and (e) mitigation of construction impacts on businesses, homes and transit users. 4. Prepare procurement documents, as needed, for final design services and/or design -build services, vehicles, other equipment, and track materials 5. Prepare for right-of-way acquisition, final design and construction activities in 2000. 6. Prepare preliminary contract packaging and project specifications. Complete agreements for the permitting of the system. Work with Seattle, Tacoma, Tukwila, and SeaTac, and with state and federal regulatory agencies to de- velop plans for the design review and permit process for all aspects of the system. Formalize these plans in written agreements, as appropriate. Continue an aggressive public outreach program. Continue to emphasize an open, public, participatory design effort that consciously attempts to involve all affected individuals and groups during design. The aim of these efforts is to identify and respond to issues of concern to all affected parties when developing design solutions. Continue to support the procurement of federal funds for the project. Work closely with Sound Transit's Board and Governmental Affairs staff to provide information about the light rail projects and its importance to the region to Washington's congressional delegation, other elected officials and the Federal Transit Administration. This includes completion of the annual and semi- annual updates of information for use by the Federal Transit Administration in completing its 5309 Re- port to Congress on New Start Rail projects. Control project costs, schedule and quality. Develop and consistently apply the following management and control systems for design and construc- tion: document control, change control, contract management, scheduling, estimating, and configuration. Page 79 LINK LIGHT RAIL —1999 Action Plans ACTIVITY 1ST QUARTER 2ND QUARTER 3RD QUARTER 4TH QUARTER Complete Link Project Development to 30 percent Design and FEIS Environmental Review Public hearings on DEIS Prepare and submit final EIS Preliminary. Engineering Proceed to 30% design of LPA Conduct peer and value engineering reviews Other Activities Commence Tacoma Link final design Procure Tacoma Vehicles Actively Support LRT -Related Development Activities by the Cities and Others Assist municipal partners with their planning efforts Encourage economic development along corridor Explore development opportunities within ROW Complete a Strategy for Design, Construction and Procurement of Equipment Analyze tunneling methods Investigate implementation options Develop construction packages Prepare procurement documents FFGA negotiations with FTA Complete permitting agreements with local jurisdictions Continue public outreach efforts Further develop and apply project control tools through 1 Q 2000 started 3 Q 1998 through 3 Q 2000 starred 2 Q 1998 through 4 Q 2000 started 2 Q 1998 through 4 Q 2006 started2 Q 1998 through 4 Q 2006 started 4 Q 1998 stt4r ed 4 Q 1998 started 3 Q 1998 through 4 Q 2002 through 1 Q20112 stoned 4 Q 1998 through 3 Q 1999 started 4 Q 1997 through 4 Q 2066 started 4 Q 1997 through 4 Q 2066 Page 80 DEPARTMENTAL OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL PLAN SUMMARY LINK LIGHT RAIL* OPERATING BUDGET Salaries and Benefits Leases and Rentals Services Materials and Supplies Miscellaneous Expenses Other Expenses Depreciation Subtotal Operating Budget Adjustment for Non-cash Items Transit Operations Allocated From (To) Other Departments 1997 ADOPTED 1998. 1998 ACTUALS BUDGET ACTUALS $ 444,747 84,257 71,523 4,429 26,939 10,221 0 642,116 0 0 1,103,474 Total Operating/Allocation Budget 1,745,590 Allocation to Capital (1,745,590) $ 3,726,193 295,207 250,000 22,000 114,500 333,789 0 4,741,689 0 0 4,330,153 $ 2,427,205 277,056 76,924 100,147 200,971 27,810 124,880 3,234,992 0 0 2,253,256 9,071,842 5,488,248 (9,071,842) (5,488,248) ADOPTED 1999 BUDGET $ 3,867,624 255,890 64,446 84,155 154,700 59,262 547,574 5,033,651. (547,574) 0 1,351,350 5,837,427 (5,837,427) Net Operating Budget 0 0 0 0 CAPITAL PLAN Allocation to Capital Capital Outlays ITotal Capital Plan 1,745,590 556,410 9,071,842 44,425,388 5,488,248 21,563,232 5,837,427 60,370,856 2,302,000 53,497,230 27,051,480 66,208,283 TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL PLAN $ 2,302,000 $ 53,497,230 $ 27,051,480 S 66,208,283 *The Adopted 1998 Capital Plan reflected anticipated obligations. The 1998 Estimates and the Proposed 1999 Budget Capital Plans are presented on an accrual basis. On an obligation basis, the agency is on budget with respect to the Adopted 1998 Capital Plan. Page 81 DEPARTMENTAL OPERATING BUDGET LINK LIGHT RAIL 1997 ACTUALS ADOPTED 1998 BUDGET 1998 ACTUALS ADOPTED 1999 BUDGET SALARIES AND BENEFITS Salaries Benefits Subtotal Salaries and Benefits LEASES AND RENTALS Admin. Facilities Rental Leased Vehicles/Parking Facilities Meeting Space Leased Fumiture/Equipment Subtotal Leases and Rentals SERVICES Consultant Management Legal Accounting/Auditing Maintenance Courier Printing/Binding Advertising/Marketing Interlocal Agreements Other Services Subtotal Services MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES Office Supplies Postage Small Equipment/Fumiture (45,000) Other Materials and Supplies . Subtotal Materials and Supplies MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES Dues and Memberships Travel and Meetings Books and Subscriptions Training Contingency Other Misc. Expenses Subtotal Miscellaneous Expenses OTHER EXPENSES Telephone Insurance Interest Expenses Subtotal Other Expenses DEPRECIATION EXPENSE Depreciation Expense Subtotal Depreciation Expense (Subtotal $ 290,236 154,511 444,747 71,274 0 4,600 8,383 84,257 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,234 0 48,045 16,244 71,523 3,055 1,374 0 0 4,429 .110 19,052 682 0 0 7,095 26,939 30 10,191 0 10,221 0 0 $ 2,683,322 1,042,871 3,726,193 248,057 0 0 47,150 295,207 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250,000 0 250,000 19,500 2,500 0 0 22,000 5,000 37,500 3,000 19,000 50,000 0 114,500 39,388 294,401 0 333,789 0 0 $ 1,721,407 705,798 2,427,205 219,605 48,607 746 8,097 277,056 0 0 0 0 5,246, 3,772 390 0 0 67,517 76,924 54,472 8,813 31,301 5,561 100,147 2,226 47,686 5,338 3,575 0 142,146 200,971 10,821 14,051 2,937 27,810 124,880 124,880 $ 3,083,657 783,968 3,867,624 202,340 50,652 0 2,898 255,890 0 0 0 0 12,567 0 0 0 0 51,879 64,446 13,250 0 56,905 14,000 84,155 13,500 63,600 11,850 11,250 50,000 4,500 154,700 21,555 37,707 0 59,262 547,574 547,574 $ 642,116 $ 4,741,689 $ 3,234,992 $ 5,033,651 TRANSIT OPERATIONS 0 0 0 (TOTAL $ 642,116 $ 4,741,689 $ 3,234,992 Page 82 0 S 5,033,651 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (9) (h) (i) OPERATING BUDGET NOTES (a) Administrative facilities rental expenses are allocated to each department based on the department's percentage of total agency usable square footage. This expense item also includes the fee associated with early termination of the lease at the Second and Spring building. (b) Leased vehicles and parking facilities are allocated to each department based on the department's percentage of total agency FTEs. (c) Other services include an HE allocated moving expense associated with Union Station for each divi- sion and the following: • $2,500 in the Project Development Division for temporary administrative services; and • $9,600 in the Systems Engineering Division for temporary administrative services. (d) Small equipment/furniture expenses include $13,750 in division specific purchases based on ap- proximately $300 per 1-"1'h. and $58,065 in allocated computer equipment expenses associated with new and temporary employees in the department. (e) Dues and membership expenses are based on the agency standard of $300 per FIE. (f) Travel and meeting expenses include the following: • $6,600 in the Director Division for three trips to meet with FTA ($3,600) and two additional trips at $1,500 each; • $24,000 in the Project Development Division for 16 staff to attend one conference each at $1,500 per trip (includes conference fees); • $7,500 in the Project Control Division for five staff to attend one conference each at $1,500 per trip (includes conference fees); • $12,000 in the Civil Engineering Division for eight staff to attend one conference each at $1,500 per trip (includes conference fees); and • $13,500 in the System Engineering Division for nine staff to attend one conference each at $1,500 per trip (includes conference fees). (g) Books and subscription expenses include the following: • $300 in the Director Division and $1,800 in the Project Development Division based on the agency standard of $100 per HE; and • $2,500 in the Project Control Division, $2,250 in the Civil Engineering Division, and $5,000 in the System Engineering Division to establish reference libraries in these divisions. (h) Training expenses are based on the agency standard of $250 per FTE. (i) Insurance expenses are allocated to each department based on the department's percentage of total agency FTEs. Page 83 LINK LIGHT RAIL r TACt Tacoma Dome MAP KEY Link Electric Light Rail Service Electric light-rail trains in the region's most densely -developed areas. Dashed line indicates the portion of the light-rail system that will be built if additional funding is secured. Page 84 Link Light Rail - Subarea Expenses and Outlays All figures in YOE $000s Subarea 1997 - 1998 (Est.) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 - 2006 Subtotal North King County $20,928 $40,870 $58,327 $177,822 $305,056 $391,247 $290,854 $565,248 $1,850,353 South King County $8,778 $12,462 $19,580 $30,236 $79,013 $86,474 $72,369 $112,316 $421,229 Pierce County $2,330 $12,876 $8,636 $26,314 $13,490 $4,624 $4,600 $6,664 $79,533 Grand Total: $32,036 $66,208 $86,543 $234,372 $397,559 $482,345 $367,823 $684,228 $2,351,115 A 00 Oo Department 14 Link Light Rail Division 00 Link Light Rail Project 900 System Wide Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description This project will be 23 miles of mostly grade -separated, double -track LRT line on new right-of-way running from the Univeristy District through downtown Seattle to SeaTac, serving 21 new stations and the major transit markets of the University District, Capitol Hill, First Hill, southeast Seattle, and Tukwila. An extension serving Northgate will be built pending additional funding. Conventional LRT low -floor vehicles are expected to be used, and will operate 18 to 20 hrs/day, seven days/week, with six to eight minutes between vehicles. Through downtown Seattle, light rail service will operate in the existing transit tunnel. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $1,801,000 1 $1,801,000 $2,351,115 j ::•:^re'. ;Yr.2•.n,Yis"ai^- <_ SUbi44,, ., . .� �_t^e.~x,,c. s t i�,' X1997-98= 8 a: >..F..�.. �", :>�'":f t ..,. t..,��•.;�;�.,. <,`�'��'�.. 99k .;;., d;, 6 r : -�> S'.. ;i..r r ,=2200,. ai! A • :'€ '2002 : ,-.It.j-.... \: .>s.r>.2003�• ;, +. ?. r2004;?".r i :200506:� •.!. �,, Stibtotala'r''-:° North King County $20,928 $40,870 $58,327 $177,822 $305,056 $391,247 $290,854 $524,420 $1,809,525 South King County $8,778 $12,462 $19,580 $30,236 $79,013 $86,474 $72,369 $98,742 $407,655 Pierce County $2,330 $12,876 $8,636 $23,397 $10,460 $1,512 $1,392 $0 $60,602 Total $32,036 $66,208 $86,543 $231,455 $394,529 $479,233 $364,615 $623,162 $2,277,781 Operating/Maintenance Costs (in YOE $000s) .f4y'{A' •H>4'•:If! ec`g. ;, 8uberea�' � t x. , w.i,5a :, .. > X1997 est :. „ a "�, .)� ..�..., VI,:: ° '�J1988T� I,: � , :�1: e•i -di` �:: ?2000 i*yx li. } 2001 i :2002 ^.7.� OO;i ` .2 >. 7j , .. 2�4��:4 .., x' 2 t 005.06 ,,Subtotal- North King County $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,829 $40,829 South King County $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,574 $13,574 Pierce County $0 $0 $0 $2,917 $3,030 $3,112 $3,208 $6,664 $18,931 Total $0 $0 $0 $2,917 $3,030 $3,112 $3,208 $61,067 $73,334 Total Protect Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) s1997=84'(eeo $32,036 $66,208 • $86,543 $234,372 $397,559 081.7 5 x2003;: $482,345 $367,823 2805-06` $684,228 rand total $2,351,115 Capital Cost Elements (In YOE $000s) FaV...i✓ ,.)', o,..:P•.aa ,r.,.: ; t±os ' Eleme ti 4 e.. r++�dK 1� .1907;,88 feet) 1 ..'{�,ii '�C Y. �: aF ' . '' �e1'899 Y 6:�`�J }!•..".Y^ Vt sv r .::2�t14 � f , 20g1. i`w 2 '1 .3..y^ '.. ;2003 2�4 j:; ... 2005-08 Subtotal Pre-Engineering/EnvReview $32,036 $55,031 $0 $2,142 $0 $0 $0 $0 $89,210 Final Design and Specification $0 $589 $34,859 $53,721 $24,612 $0 $0 $0 $113,781 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $8,703 $39,153 $18,111 $0 $0 $0 $0 $65,967 Construction $0 $0 $4,101 $152,393 $369,917 $458,934 $338,596 $450,026 $1,773,966 Vehicles $0 $1,885 $8,430 $5,088 $0 $20,300 $26,019 $173,135 $234,858 Total $32,036 $66,208 $86,543 $231,455 $394,529 $479,233 $364,615 $623,162 $2,277,781 REGIONAL EXPRESS PROGRAM SUMMARY Regional Express has four distinct programs that are designed to improve the quality and amount of bus service and transit ridership throughout the region. 1. Regional Express bus — a strategic network of 20 new bus routes connecting the major urban centers with other cities and communities in central Puget Sound. 2. High -occupancy -vehicle (HOV) direct access projects — 14 specially designed HOV on/off ramps to improve transit speed and reliability. 3. Community Connections — 33 projects (transit centers and park-and-ride Lots) that will provide transit facilities for both regional and local transit services. 4. Systems Integration — responsible for ensuring that Sound Transit rail and bus services work together with other transit services in the region, as well as leading the long-range planning effort, Research and Technology Fund and Fare Integration Fund. Regional Express Bus Twenty new Regional Express bus routes will take advantage of the improved speed and reliability the HOV access improvements will offer. The new high-speed Regional Express bus routes will offer fre- quent, two-way service throughout the day. The Regional Express buses will serve major regional centers and destinations and provide connections to other transportation components of Sound Move and local bus service. The board has approved contracts to purchase Regional Express buses. Delivery of the 40 foot Gillig and 60 foot New Flyer buses is scheduled to begin in the first quarter of 1999. Maintenance and passenger facilities will be expanded as necessary. Sound Transit will enter into agreements with the region's transit agencies to operate the Regional Express bus routes using a single -ticket policy. Sound Transit has been, and will continue to be, working closely with the region's transit operators to put Regional Express bus services in place. The Service Implementation Plan will develop a comprehensive Regional Express bus service start-up plan that will be expanded along with local transit service changes to make sure the services are fully coordinated and that subareas receive maximum improvements while the region receives maximum mobility. Once the Service Implementation Plan is adopted by the Sound Transit Board, the Regional Express bus budget will be revised to reflect the plan's service commitments. In areas where existing transit markets or capital facilities do not currently support the planned new serv- ice levels, those services will be added in increments to meet demand. Sound Transit and the region's transit agencies will monitor system performance and recommend changes to subarea service plans that are consistent with Sound Transit's adopted financial policies. Page 87 HOV Direct Access The HOV direct access improvements will be developed through a partnership between Sound Transit and the state Department of Transportation (WSDOT). The improvements will expand and improve a network that the region has already begun, creating a permanent part of our regional transit system. The improvements extend the existing HOV-lane system and facilitate the creation of a continuous inside -lane HOV network. Sound Transit will fund special access ramps to make it easier for transit and carpools to reach and use the HOV lanes at specific locations. Traffic flow will also improve in general purpose lanes since buses and carpools will no longer have to weave through several lanes of traffic to reach the HOV lanes. The HOV direct access improvements will create new links between suburban centers serving our re- gion's fastest growing areas with efficient transportation options. A single HOV lane carries the same number of people as three general traffic lanes. Working with WSDOT and through the annual budget review process, Sound Transit will either fund construction of new access ramps to the existing and already funded HOV lanes or fund other appropriate alternatives. WSDOT will then move all HOV lanes in those corridors to the inside lane of the road. The Sound Transit Board views completion of the state's freeway HOV-lane "core system" in the Puget Sound region as an important priority. However, Sound Transit assumes the state will complete construc- tion of the core HOV-lane system in accordance with its freeway HOV policy. If the state does not fulfill its funding obligation, the Sound Transit Board will conduct an open and pub- lic process to determine whether Sound Transit funding is available (e.g. from savings realized in other program elements) and should be used to help complete the core HOV-lane system. HOV access ramps are the preferred investment for improving speed, reliability and ridership of Regional Express and other transit buses by eliminating the need to weave across general-purpose lanes to reach HOV lanes. A committee of representatives of WSDOT, transit operators and citizen groups has been appointed to assess the Sound Move HOV projects and provide policy options to the Sound Transit Board by the end of 1998. This assessment will determine whether there are ways to achieve equivalent transit speed, reliability and ridership at a lower cost or by making transportation system management improve- ments instead. Regional and local land -use objectives and comprehensive plans will also be considered in the assessment. Each HOV segment and direct -access ramp will open as soon as WSDOT completes it, with all of Sound Transit -funded improvements operational by the end of 2006. Community Connections To maximize public access to the regional system, Sound Transit will fund a variety of community con- nection facilities including transit centers, transit access improvements and park-and-ride lots. These fa- cilities are intended to improve local access to the regional system while improving connections to local transit services. Sound Transit intends to maximize the local benefits of these facilities by promoting designs and loca- tions that encourage joint development and maximize pedestrian access. Sound Transit also intends to Page 88 evaluate the degree to which these facilities reduce the need for people to drive. The objective of the evaluation will be to produce a mix of investments within the available budget, which maximize public transportation benefits in the area around the proposed community connections facilities. The location, design and construction of these facilities will be determined through a collaborative process involving the public, local jurisdictions and other transit agencies. Sound Transit will develop park-and-ride lots and transit centers that support the HOV access improve- ments and regional bus systems through a joint development program designed to establish and promote public/private partnerships and partnerships with local jurisdictions. Sound Transit will consider ways to develop facilities that are pedestrian -friendly and easier to reach from adjacent communities through al- ternatives to the car (i.e. walking, biking and transit). Access improvements that extend the benefits and the scope of the transit system to more people and to more places will be considered eligible for Sound Transit funding as part of individual project budgets. Systems Integration The Systems Integration division is responsible for three primary areas outlined in Sound Move: Fare In- tegration, Research and Technology, and Phase II Planning. Each of these areas are funded by the Re- gional Fund. In addition to these specific responsibilities, this division is responsible for addressing policy issues related to all lines of business such as addressing potential changes to Sound Move, transit -oriented development and developing a bicycle policy. Fare integration - Sound Move promises a uniform, single -ticket fare system and an integrated fare pol- icy for the region's entire public transit service network. Common fare media (tickets, passes, etc.) create a uniform way to pay for a transit trip. Integrated fare structures set common ways to price trips, espe- cially those involving a transfer between systems. The Regional Express staff is working with partner transit agencies to help develop a fare system that works best for customers and creates a seamless system of services throughout the region. Research and technology – Funding was also set aside for the development of new technologies and/or research that will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of public transit. This includes looking at vehi- cle technologies that would reduce impacts to the environment as well as incentives and programs to en- courage the use of transit. Phase II planning – Staff also maintain communication with subarea groups including Eastside Trans- portation Partnership, South County Area Transportation Board, SeaShore, Snohomish County Core Team and various groups in Pierce County. The main purpose is to provide information on current Sound Transit activities and participate in current transportation development in those areas. Activities include monitoring current development and its relationship to Sound Transit projects and identifying future needs to be researched in preparation for Phase II. Schedule changes and future schedule maintenance The Adopted 1999 Budget and Action Plans reflect changes in schedules for several Community Connec- tions and HOV Access projects. Sound Move included the completion dates for the 48 Community Con- nections and HOV Access projects. The 1998 Action Plans were based on the Implementation Guide. Projects were phased based on similar durations for similar types of projects (HOV projects were typi- cally estimated at four years, for example) without information on individual differences among these Page 89 projects. The Implementation Guide also used cash-flow availability as a way to determine phasing and duration of projects. During the past year, Regional Express has developed detailed project schedules that reflect the complexity and duration of individual projects. The 1999 proposal indicates that a total of eight projects in the Community Connections and HOV divisions will finish later than indicated in the 1998 Action Plan. It is possible that three Community Connections and HOV Access projects could be com- pleted ahead of the Sound Move completion dates. Regional Express has proposed Budget and Action Plans assuming minimal time spent on process ap- peals, right-of-way disputes, agency disagreements or litigation. It is also assumed that documents will receive prompt review by agencies that need to approve decisions related to environmental regulation, land -use regulation, financial contributions and the like. While the approach may encourage an aggressive pace, it also suggests that the schedules will require updating as individual projectsencounter some of these problems. OBJECTIVES, ACTION PLANS AND BUDGET DETAILS Objectives 1. Form effective partnerships with the region's transit agencies, communities, Link light rail and Sounder commuter rail to design and maintain integrated transit services to increase and improve transportation options for the region, helping to create a seamless regional public transportation sys- tem for the rider. 2. Form effective partnerships with local jurisdictions, WSDOT, the region's transit agencies, and other stakeholders to design and construct the Community Connections and HOV Access projects to facili- tate Regional Express bus service and other transit services. 3. Maintain coordination with subarea planning groups (e.g. Eastside Transportation Partnership, South County Area Transportation Board, Snohomish County Core Team and Seattle -Shoreline) to inform them of Sound Transit progress, coordinate Sound Transit projects with local needs and identify fu- ture subarea programs. 4. Develop and maintain Sound Transit's 10 -year implementation and six-year plans. Ensure Sound Transit projects are a part of the region's action plans. Action Plans Bus service 1. Work with the other transit agencies in the service implementation area to ensure Regional Express bus service operates efficiently, accomplishes the goals of Sound Transit and integrates with other transit services. 2. Continue to identify fleet needs and develop best practices for the maintenance of Sound Transit fleet. 3. Review performance measures for monitoring and analyzing service. 4. Analyze maintenance facility needs for the Regional Express fleet. Page 90 5. Identify early implementation opportunities where rider demand exists, the transit operator has fleet capacity for additional service and the cost fits into Sound Transit's financial plan. 6. Implement a service -costing model that will be used for the operation and maintenance of Sound Transit routes and fleet in the monitoring of agreements with the transit agencies. 7. Continue monitoring early implementation service agreements and review these for efficiency and service quality. 8. Continue to develop a systematic approach in the development of projects with direct and indirect relations to Regional Express Bus service. 9. Implement a coordination strategy for operations and customer service -related concerns. 10. Implement all appropriate Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. Project development - Community Connections and HOV Access programs 1. Develop project -specific agreements with WSDOT for professional services covering preliminary engineering, design and construction administration for projects within WSDOT rights-of-way. 2. Develop project -specific agreements that outline roles and responsibilities with jurisdictions and tran- sit agencies for HOV Access or Community Connections projects. 3. Continue environmental, design and construction work on projects. Systems Integration 1. Implement regional passes and fare integration policies in conjunction with the beginning of Regional Express and Sounder services. 2. Work with transit agencies and others to evaluate alternative bus power technologies and vehicle communication programs including possible Intelligent Transportation System demonstrations. 3. Continue to support Link, Sounder and Regional Express needs for service integration plans, travel demand and traffic forecasting. 4. Work with subarea groups to improve communication of Sound Transit progress and involvement in planning activities. 5. Continue to provide agency policy support for topics affecting each line of business including support for revisions to Sound Move, transit -oriented development and fare policy. 6. Departmental community involvement (a) Continue to coordinate department, division and project -level publications and printed materials with agency materials. (b) Develop and implement marketing plan for commencement of Regional Express services. (c) Provide multiple opportunities for public input. Continue to track and provide summary informa- tion for presentation to boardmembers. Page 91 REGIONAL EXPRESS —1999 Action Plans ACTIVITY 1 ST QUARTER 2ND QUARTER 3RD QUARTER 4TH QUARTER Bus Program Bus Fleet Acquisition 40 -foot Gillig Buses: Delivery/Acceptance (70) 60 -foot New Flyer Buses: Delivery/Acceptance (25) Allocation of Fleet Training (Operations & Maintenance) Early Implementation of Services King County Pierce County Snohomish County Maintenance Facility Assessments System -wide Facility Assessment Pierce Transit Facility Assessment Service Implementation Agreements Customer Servicellnformation Program Implementation of General Program Telephone Information Timetable/Schedules Govemmental Service Agreements System Coordination Radio Communications Operations Standards (street supervision) Community Connections and HOV Access Kirkland Transit Center/Park and Ride. Preliminary Engineering/Environmental Documentaton Evaluation of refined altematives Public meetings/public hearings/ community outreach continued started 1 Q 1998 started 1 Q 1998 started 2 Q 1998 started 2 Q 1998 started 3 Q 1998 started 3 Q 1997 started 3 Q 1997 started 1 Q 1998 started 1 Q 1998 through 4 Q2000 started 2 Q 1998 started 3 Q 1998 started 3 Q 1998 started 2 Q 1998 started 3 Q 1998 started 3 Q 1998 started 2 Q 1998 through 3 Q 2000 started 2 Q 1998 through 3 Q 2000 started 4 Q 1998 through 4 Q 2002 Page 92 REGIONAL EXPRESS —1999 Action Plans ACTIVITY 1ST QUARTER 2ND QUARTER 3RD QUARTER 4TH QUARTER Kirkland HOV Direct Access Ramps Preliminary Engineering/ Environmental Documentaton Evaluation of refined alternatives Public meetings/public hearings/ community outreach Mercer Island Transit Station/Park and Ride Preliminary Engineering/ Environmental Documentaton Evaluation of alternatives Public meetings/public hearings/ community outreach Final design Mercer Island 1-90 Two-way transit operations Preliminary Engineering/ Environmental Documentaton Evaluation of altematives Public meetings/public hearings/community outreach 1.5 @ 112th (Silver Lake) HOV Preliminary Engineering/Environmental Documentaton Evaluation of altematives Public meetings/public hearings/ community outreach 112th St Park & Ride 1 Flyer Stop (Silver Lake) Preliminary Engineering/Environmental Documentaton Evaluation of altematives Public meetings/public hearings/community outreach Final design continued started 2 Q 1998 through 3 Q 2000 started 2 Q 1998 through 3 Q2000 started 4 Q 1998 through 4 Q2004 torted 2 Q1998 started 2 Q 1998 started 4 Q 1998 through 4 Q2002 through 4 Q 2000 :and 2 Q 1998 tarred 2 Q 1998 tarred 4 Q 1998 through 3 Q 2003 through 4 Q2002 through 3 Q2002 through 4 Q2000 Page 93 REGIONAL EXPRESS —1999 Action Plans ACTIVITY 1ST QUARTER 2ND QUARTER 3RD QUARTER 4TH QUARTER 1-405 @ Park Avenue (Renton) HOV Work program preparation Project Agreement with WSDOT Preliminary Engineeering/Environmental Documentation Evaluation of alternatives Public meetings/public hearings/community outreach Talbot Road (Renton) HOV Work program preparation Project Agreement with WSDOT Preliminary Engineeering/Environmental Documentation Evaluation of alternatives Public meetings/public hearings/community outreach Overlake TCIP&R Preliminary Engineeering/ Environmental Documentation Evaluation of alternatives Public meeting/public hearings/ community outreach Final Design Construction 1-5 @ 320th (Federal Way) Preliminary Engineeering/ Environmental Documentation Evaluation of Refined Altematives Public meeting/public hearings/ community outreach continued through 3 Q2000 through 1 Q2000 through 2 Q 2005 through 3 Q logo started 2 Q 1998 started 2 Q 1998 through 1 Q2000 through 2 Q2005 started 3 Q 1998 through 4 Q2000 through 4 Q 2000 starred 2 Q 1998 through 1 Q2000 started 3 Q 1998 through 1 Q2000 started 4 Q 1998 through 1 Q2004 Page 94 REGIONAL EXPRESS —1999 Action Plans ACTIVITY 1ST QUARTER 2ND QUARTER 3RD QUARTER 4TH QUARTER 1-5 @ 272nd (Federal Way) Preliminary Engineeering/ Environmental Documentation Evaluation of Refined Altematives Public meeting/public hearings/ community outreach Federal Way Transit Center/City Center Preliminary Engineeering/ Environmental Documentation Evaluation of Refined Altematives Public meeting/public hearings/community outreach Star Lake Park and Ride Preliminary Engineeering/ Environmental Documentation Evaluation of Refined Alternatives Public meeting/public hearings/community outreach South Hill Park -and -Ride Lot Preliminary Engineeering/ Environmental Documentation Evaluation of alternatives Public meeting/public hearings/community outreach Final Design Tacoma Dome Expansion Preliminary Engineeering/ Environmental Documentation Public meeting/public hearings/ community outreach Final Design continued started 2 Q 1998 through 1 Q2000 started 3 Q 1998 through 1 Q2000 started 4 Q 1998 through 1 Q2005 started 2 Q 1998 through 1 Q 2000 started 3 Q 1998 through 1 Q2000 started 4 Q 1998 through 2 Q2002 started 2 Q 1998 through 1 Q2000 started Q 1998 through 1 Q 2000 started 4 Q 1998 started 4 Q 1998 through 3 Q2003 tarted 4 Q 1998 arted 3 Q 1998 through 4 Q2000 through 1 Q2000 started 3 Q 1998 through 3 Q2000 Page 95 REGIONAL EXPRESS —1999 Action Plans ACTIVITY 1ST QUARTER 2ND QUARTER 3RD QUARTER 4TH QUARTER SR 512 Park -and -Ride Expansion Preliminary Engineeering/Environmental Documentation Evaluation of altematives Public meeting/public hearings/community outreach 1-5 @ 164th (Ash Way) NOV Access WSDOT Agreement Preliminary Engineeering/Environmental Documentation Evaluation of Refined Altematives Public meeting/public hearings/community outreach Lynnwood Transit Center Preliminary Engineeering/ Environmental Documentation Evaluation of Refined Altematives Public meeting/public hearings/ communityoutreach Lynnwood 1-5 Direct Access Ramps Preliminary Engineeering/Environmental Documentation Evaluation of Refined Altematives Public meeting/public hearings/community outreach Swamp Creek Park & RideIHOV Access Preliminary Engineering/Environmental Documentation Evaluation of Altematives Public meeting/public hearings/ community outreach Final design continued through 1 Q 200 through 1 Q 2002 through 1 Q200 through 2 Q 2003 Started 2 Q 1998 through 1 Q2000 Started 2 Q 1998 through 1 Q2000 Started 4 Q 1998 through 4 Q 2002 Started 2 Q 1998 through 1 Q2000 started 2 Q 1998 through 1 Q 2000 ta¢rted 2 Q 1998 Started 2 Q 1998 started 2 Q 1998 through 4 Q200.3 4}arted 2 Q 1998 through 3 Q2042 through 1 Q20o1 Page 96 REGIONAL EXPRESS —1999 Action Plans ACTMTY 1ST QUARTER 2ND QUARTER 3RD QUARTER 1 4TH QUARTER Bothell/Canyon Park Flyer Stop Work program preparation Bothell Branch Campus Access @ 195th/1- 405 Work program preparation Dupont Park & Ride Negotiate agreement with developer Ash Way Park & Ride Project Closeout Mountlake Terrace Flyer Stop Project Agreement with WSDOT Preliminary Engineering/Environmental Documentation Evaluation of altematives SR -99 Improvements (Lynnwood) Construction Pacific Avenue Overpass (Everett) Preliminary Engineering/Environmental Documentation Public meeting/public hearings/community outreach Right-of-way acquisition Final design South Everett Transit Center Preliminary Engineering/Environmental Documentation Evaluation of Altematives Public meeting/Public hearings/community outreach Final design continued $fared 1 Q 1998 through 3 Q2000 through 3 Q2000 started 3 Q 1998 stared 3 Q 1998 through 3 Q 200 through 3 Q2000 through 3 Q 2000 through 4 Q 2001 through 1 Q 2000 Page 97 REGIONAL EXPRESS —1999 Action Plans ACTIVITY 1ST QUARTER 2ND QUARTER 3RD QUARTER 4TH QUARTER Bellevue Transportation Center Preliminary Engineeering/ Environmental Documentation Evaluation of Refined Altematives Public meeting/public hearings/ community outreach Final Design Federal Way Park and Ride Preliminary Engineering/Environmental Documentation Evaluation of Refined Altematives Public meeting/public hearings/ community outreach Bellevue 1-405 Direct Access Ramps Preliminary Engineering/Environmental Documentation Public meeting/public hearings/ community outreach Final design Systems Integration Fare Integration Regional Pass Development Regional Pass Implementation Research and Technology Regional Bus Technology Demo Regional Vehicle Communications Strategies Smart Card Development Phase II Planning Service Integration and Travel Demand Forecasting Subarea group outreach Various project studies continued starred 1 Q1998 starred 1 Q 1998 started 2 Q 1998 through 1 Q2000 through 1 Q2000 started 2 Q 1998 through 1 Q2000 started 3 Q 1998 through 1 Q2000 carted 4 Q 1998 through 2 Q2002 starred 1994 started 1994 through 4 Q 2003 started 2 Q 1998 through 1 Q200 through 2006 started 3 Q 1998 through 4 Q 2006 started 2 Q 1998 started 1 Q 1997 through 2006 started 4 Q 1997 started 4 Q 1996 through 2006 ongoing Page 98 REGIONAL EXPRESS —1999 Action Plans ACTIVITY 1ST QUARTER 2ND QUARTER 3RD QUARTER 4TH QUARTER Agency Support Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Fare Policy Departmental Community Involvement Produce Department and Division summary materials Provide individual project information Marketing for Regional Express Implementation Monitor/Document Community Input 'tared 4 Q 1997 through 2006 rtciud 4 Q 1997 through 2006 ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing Page 99 DEPARTMENTAL OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL PLAN SUMMARY REGIONAL EXPRESS* OPERATING BUDGET 1997 ACTUALS ADOPTED 1998 BUDGET 1998 ACTUALS Salaries and Benefits $ 331,079 Leases and Rentals 42,106 Services 102,761 Materials and Supplies 10,448 Miscellaneous Expenses 7,770 Other Expenses 8,016 Depreciation 0 Subtotal Operating Budget 502,180 Adjustment for Non-cash Items Transit Operations Other O&M (Fare Integration) Allocated From (To) Other Departments 0 45,045 21,615 682,832 Total Operating/Allocation Budget 1,230,057 Allocation to Capital (725,006) $ 1,586,305 210,424 945,054 39,000 124,150 173,472 0 $ 1,195,603 157,794 448,006 56,465 71,953 16,222 19,653 3,078,405 1,965,696 0 0 594,000 859,898 0 113,989 2,584,531 722,013 6,256,936 3,547,607 (4,087,484) (2,112,723) ADOPTED 1999 BUDGET $ 2,063,689 139,325 171,508 53,438 100,550 34,843 334,218 2,897,570 (334,218) 7,607,480 1,628,704 1,947,511 13,747,047 (3,791,739) Net Operating Budget 505,051 2,169,452 1,434,883 9,955,308 CAPITAL PLAN Allocation to Capital Capital Outlays 725,006 4,087,484 181,994 82,473,686 2,112,723 4,139,474 3,791,739 87,035,449 Total Capital Plan 907,000 86,561,170 6,252,197 90,827,188 TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL PLAN $ 1,412,051 $ 88,730,622 $ 7,687,080 S 100,782,496 'The Adopted 1998 Capital Plan reflected anticipated obligations. The 1998 Estimates and the Proposed 1999 Budget Capital Plans are presented on an accrual basis. On an obligation basis, the agency is on budget with respect to the Adopted 1998 Capital Plan. Page 100 DEPARTMENTAL OPERATING BUDGET REGIONAL EXPRESS 1997 ADOPTED 1998 ACTUALS 1998 BUDGET ACTUALS SALARIES AND BENEFITS Salaries $ 231,909 $ 1,150,064 $ 831,840 Benefits 99,170 436,241 363,763 Subtotal Salaries and Benefits 331,079 1,586,305 1,195,603 LEASES AND RENTALS Admin. Facilities Rental Leased Vehicles/Parking Facilities Meeting Space Leased Fumiture/Equipment Subtotal Leases and Rentals SERVICES Consultant Management Legal Accounting/Auditing Maintenance Courier Printing/Binding Advertising/Marketing Interlocal Agreements Other Services Subtotal Services MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 40,062 185,727 127,677 O 0 25,900 O 1,000 848 2,044 23,697 3,370 42,106 210,424 157,794 86,173 380,000 328,923 O 50,000 15,267 630 5,000 1,750 O 500 0 O 0 432 O 0 1,133 O 50,000 4,431 O 35,000 14,623 1,841 250,000 25,629 14,117 174,554 55,819 102,761 945,054 448,006 Office Supplies 9,926 31,500 16,729 Postage 522 7,500 12,683 Small Equipment/Fumiture (45,000) 0 0 6,810 Other Materials and Supplies 0 0 20,244 Subtotal Materials and Supplies 10,448 39,000 56,465 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES ADOPTED 1999 BUDGET $ 1,622,353 $ 441,336 2,063,689 $ 106,991 $ 30,391 $ 0 $ 1,943 139,325 $ 32,000 $ 3,000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 8,040 $ 0 $ 1,000 $ 0 $ 100,000 $ 27,467 171,508 $ 5,000 $ 0 $ 40,518 $ 7,920 53,438 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Dues and Memberships 175 6,350 593 $ 8,100 (g) Travel and Meetings 6,999 30,000 18,584 $ 27,000 (h) Books and Subscriptions 591 3,000 1,101 $ 2,700 (i) Training 0 21,000 2,630 $ 6,750 Q) Contingency 0 50,000 3,447 $ 50,000 Other Misc. Expenses 5 13,800 45,597 $ 6,000 (k) Subtotal Miscellaneous Expenses 7,770 124,150 71,953 OTHER EXPENSES Telephone 736 18,911 7,048 Insurance 7,280 154,561 7,442 Interest Expenses 0 0 1,733 Subtotal Other Expenses 8,016 173,472 16,222 DEPRECIATION EXPENSE Depreciation Expense 0 0 19,653 Subtotal Depreciation Expense 0 0 19,653 'Subtotal 100,550 $ 12,219 $ 22,624 $ 0 34,843 334,218 334,218 $ 502,180 $ 3,078,405 $ 1,965,696 $ 2,897,570 TRANSIT OPERATIONS 45,045 594,000 859,898 (TOTAL $ 547,225 $ 3,672,405 $ 2,825,594 7,607,480 S 10,505,050 (1) Page 101 OPERATING BUDGET NOTES (a) Administrative facilities rental expenses are allocated to each department based on the department's percentage of total agency usable square footage. This expense item also includes the fee associated with early termination of the lease at the Second and Spring building. (b) Leased vehicles and parking facilities are allocated to each department based on the department's percentage of total agency FTEs. (c) Consultant expenses include the following: • $2,000 in the Regional Bus Division; • $5,000 in the Community Connections Division for on call analytical services such as TIP work; and • $25,000 in the Systems Integration Division for employee development, facilitation services, con- sultant support for T.O.D., and/or for other agency policy development such as bicycle policy. (d) Interlocal Agreement expenses of $100,000 reflect agreements to assess existing transit facilities and to identify Regional Express facility needs at those locations; and to restructure bus routes. (e) Other services include an FTE allocated moving expense associated with Union Station for each divi- sion and the following: • $2,000 in the Regional Bus Division for temporary administrative services; and • $1,600 in the Community Connections Division for temporary administrative services. (f) Small equipment and furniture expenses include $8,500 in division specific purchases and $28,765 in allocated computer equipment expenses associated with new and temporary employees in the depart- ment. (g) Dues and membership expenses in each division are based on the agency standard of $300 per FTE. (h) Travel and meeting expenses in each division are based on the agency standard of $1,000 per FTE. (i) Books and subscription expenses in each division are based on the agency standard of $100 per 1,1'b. (j) Training expenses in each division are based on the agency standard of $250 per FTE. (k) Other miscellaneous expenses include $5,000 in the Regional Bus Division and $1,000 in the Com- munity Connections Division. (1) Insurance expenses are allocated to each department based on the department's percentage of total agency Fits. Page 102 REGIONAL EXPRESS BUS A Everett to Aurora Village: SR 99 8 Everett to Mtlk Terrace/ Seattle: l-5 C Everett to Bellevue. SR 527 D Lynnwood to Bellevue. 1-405 E Woodinville to Northgate F Issaquah to Bellevue/ Northgate G Redmond to Bellevue/ Seattle H Bellevue to SeaTac 1 Redmond to University District J Federal Way to Bellevue K Puyallup to Bellevue M SeaTac to Seattle N Tacoma to Seattle O Tacoma to Seattle Express P Lakewood to Seattle Express Q Tacoma Dome toAubum. SR -167 R South Hill to Dupont Express S Lakewood to Tacoma Express T Midcounty to Downtown Tacoma Express U Lakewood to Puyallup Express .%9' Eterett Community Coj (EVERETT MAP KEY Regional Express Bus Service New express bus routes using the HOV Expressway, major arterials and expanded system of park-and- ride lots. Page 103 REGIONAL EXPRESS COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS \ ' "•: Everett Community College / EVERtiEast Everett South Evere Silvertake Swacee mp Mek. QJflYOI Park Terrace Bothell • CDNer!ar ©BELLEVUE Newcastle326 Like Co Federal Way CD Tacoma Dome Lakewood C) 0 South Hal DuPont Page 104 MAP KEY Community Connections Facilities include flyer stops. transit centers, and park-and-ride enhancements or new capacity. CD Capital projects REGIONAL EXPRESS NOV ACCESS • EVERETT BELLEVUE 1 ... Bellevue e Catmint/ Note: Full implementation of the NOV Expressway requires partnership with the Washington State Department of Transportation. MAP KEY HOV Expressway A continuous system of HOV lanes with special access ramps for transit and carpools. Capital projects 9.10.98 Page 105 Regional Express Department Summary a Division All figures in YOE $000s 1997-98 (est.) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005-06 Subtotal Community Connections $9,151 $22,621 $64,616 $67,489 $53,704 $33,662 $26,173 $44,763 $322,179 HOVDirectAccess $7,628 $16,774 $43,976 $71,132 $80,841 $132,171 $88,323 $35,647 $476,493 Regional Bus $1,034 $55,815 $45,486 $58,414 $54,103 $55,424 $59,858 $128,797 $458,931 Systems Integration $2,040 $3,924 $13,574 $13,621 $17,400 $17,798 . $18,061 $46,458 $132,876 Total $19,854 $99,135 $167,652 $210,656 $206,048 $239,055 $192,415 $255,664 $1,390,479 Regional Express Projects: Sound Move Compared to Current Budget Division/Project Sound Move Budget Current Budget Current Budget In 1995 $000s in 1995 $000s in YOE $000s Community Connections 310 Lynnwood Transit Center $15,000 $15,000 $18,280 312 Mountlake Terrace Flyer Stop $3,000 $3,000 $3,703 314 South Everett Transit Center $3,000 $3,000 $3,544 316 North Everett Transit Center $1,000 $1,000 $1,288 318 112th St. P&R/Flyer Stop (Silver Lake) $14,000 $14,000 $17,206 320 Federal Way Transit Center/City Center $4,000 $4,000 $4,817 322 Bellevue Transit Center $15,000 $15,000 $17,837 324 Bothell/Canyon Park Flyer Stop $5,000 $5,000 $6,856 326 Issaquah Transit Center $10,000 $10,000 $13,725 328 Kirkland Transit Center $10,000 $10,000 $12,403 330 Newcastle Transit Center $5,000 $5,000 $7,116 332 Overlake Transit Center/P&R (NE 40th) $5,000 $5,000 $5,774 340 Ash Way Park & Ride $2,000 $2,000 $2,293 342 Swamp Creek HOV and Park & Ride $8,000 $8,000 $9,623 344 Lynnwood Transit Center/P&R Connector $2,713 $2,713 $3,145 345 Lynnwood SR -99 Transit Lanes $2,287 $2,287 $2,629 346 East Everett P&R (formerly'Landfilr) $15,000 $15,000 $20,697 348 Lynnwood Park and Ride Enhancements $2,000 $2,000 $2,420 350 Star Lake/Other Federal Way Park& Ride $16,000 1$16,000 $19,808 352 Other Park & Ride Expansion $5,000 $5,000 $6,690 354 Mercer Island Station/Park & Ride $10,000 $10,000 $12,157 356 Tacoma Dome Expansion $10,000 $10,000 $11,712 358 South Hill Park & Ride $5,000 $5,000 $5,894 360 Dupont Park & Ride $5,000 $5,000 $6,128 362 SR 512 Park & Ride Expansion $5,000 $5,000 $6,022 ' 370 Pacific Ave. Overpass (Everett) $10,000 $10,000 $12,069 372 Bothell Branch Campus Access@ 195th/I-405 $5,000 $5,000 $6,700 374 Willows HOV (Redmond) $5,000 $5,000 $6,607 376 Woodinville Arterial HOV Enhancements $5,000 $5,000 $6,420 378 Small Cities Transit Access $3,000 $3,000 $4,255 380 Unincorporated King Co. Transit Access $5,000 $5,000 $6,849 to 382 1-90 Two Way Transit Operations $15,000 $15,000 $18,457 0.4 `0 384 SR -522 HOV Enhancement (Wood.to Bothell) $11,000 $11,000 $13,921 0 390 Community Connections System Wide $0 $0 ($111) 395 Funds for Other Projects $20,000 $20,000 $25,244 Subtotal $257,000 $257,000 $322,179 Division/Project Sound Move Budget Current Budget Current Budget In 1995 $000s in 1995 $000s in YOE $000s b A oo HOV Direct Access c) 105 1-5 @ 164th (Ash Way) $11,000 $11,000 $13,951 111 1-5 @ Lynnwood Park & Ride $30,000 $30,000 $37,416 115 1-5 @ 112th (Silver Lake) $6,000 $6,000 $7,340 125 1-5 @ 320th (Federal Way) $25,000 $25,000 $31,393 131 1-5 @ 272nd (Federal Way) $27,000 $27,000 $34,810 135 1-405 @ Southcenter (Tukwila) $18,000 $18,000 $24,035 140 Kirkland 1-405 HOV Access Improvements $84,000 $84,000 $106,486 145 1-405 @ Bellevue $66,000 $66,000 $81,216 150 1-405 @ Park Ave (Renton) $32,000 $32,000 $41,686 155 1-405 @ Talbot Road (Renton) $31,000 $31,000 $40,342 160 1-90 @ Eastgate Park & Ride $29,000 $29,000 $38,904 165 1-90 @ Sunset Interchange (HOV Share) $16,000 $16,000 $19,021 190 HOV System Wide $0 $0 ($107) Subtotal $375,000 $375,000 $476,493 Regional Bus Program Wide $361,000 $367,774 $458,931 Subtotal $361,000 $367,774 $458,931 Systems Integration 405 Fare Integration $45,000 $45,000 $57,947 410 Research & Technology $30,000 $30,000 $37,488 415 Phase 11 Planning/Engineering $30,000 $30,000 $37,441 Subtotal $105,000 $105,000 $132,876 Total $1,098,000 $1,104,774 $1,390,479 Regional Express - Subarea Expenses and Outlays All figures in YOE $000s Division / Subarea 1997-98 (est.) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005-06 Subtotal Community Connections Snohomish County $2,561 $8,403 $22,379 $34,706 $18,332 $6,936 $8,715 $20,058 $122,089 South King County $1,048 $1,060 $6,306 $8,420 $5,448 $5,078 $3,936 $5 $31,301 East King County $5,161 $8,642 $17,189 $18,812 $29,366 $21,647 $13,520 $24,694 $139,032 Pierce County, $382 $4,516 $18,742 $5,551 $558 $1 $1 $5 $29,756 Total: $9,151 $22,621 $64,616 $67,489 $53,704 $33,662 $26,173 $44,763 $322,179 HOV Direct Access Snohomish County $1,332 $2,191 $4,752 $5,634 $22,897 $21,886 $1 $5 $58,699 South King County $1,594 $1,429 $6,671 $6,011 $13,464 $30,042 $20,723 $10,276 $90,209 East King County $4,702 $13,154 $32,553 $59,488 $44,480 $80,243 $67,598 $25,366 $327,585 Total: $7,628 $16,774 $43,976 $71,132 $80,841 $132,171 $88,323 $35,647 $476,493 Regional Bus Snohomish County $0 $8,119 $7,670 $7,399 $8,105 $8,571 $8,886 $20,900 $69,650 South King County $0 $7,710 $3,981 $7,069 $6,617 $6,735 $7,704 $16,981 $56,796 East King County $119 $13,751 $20,410 $23,729 $21,764 $23,509 $25,900 $52,079 $181,260 Pierce County $915 $26,235 $13,425 $20,218 $17,618 $16,609 $17,368 $38,837 $151,225 Total: $1,034 $55,815 $45,486 $58,414 $54,103 $55,424 $59,858 $128,797 $458,931 Systems Integration Regional Fund $2,040 $3,924 $13,574 $13,621 $17,400 $17,798 $18,061 $46,458 $132,876 Total: $2,040 $3,924 $13,574 $13,621 $17,400 $17,798 $18,061 $46,458 $132,876 Grand Total: $19,854 $99,135 $167,652 $210,656 $206,048 $239,055 $192,415 $255,664 $1,390,479 Community Connections Division Projects Summary All figures in YOE $000s b o Project Number and Name 1997-98 (est.) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005-06 Total 0 310 Lynnwood Transit Center $564 $677 $5,854 $8,009 $3,176 $0 $0 $0 $18,280 312 Mountlake Terrace Flyer Stop $0 $60 $243 $988 $2,412 $0 $0 $0 $3,703 314 South Everett Transit Center $46 $1,008 $2,490 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,544 316 North Everett Transit Center $0 $0 $14 $112 $550 $612 $0 $0 $1,288 318 112th St. P&R/Flyer Stop (Silver Lake) $0 $998 $3,469 $8,467 $4,271 $0 $0 $0 $17,206 320 Federal Way Transit Center/City Center $558 $233 $1,592 $1,951 $483 $0 $0 $0 $4,817 322 Bellevue Transit Center $674 $4,886 $7,510 $4,767 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,837 324 Bothell/Canyon Park Flyer Stop $0 $0 $0 $0 $117 $1,425 $1,936 $3,378 $6,856 326 Issaquah Transit Center $0 $0 $0 $0 $210 $2,474 $4,183 $6,859 $13,725 328 Kirkland Transit Center $935 $340 $742 $3,618 $6,768 $0 $0 $0 $12,403 330 Newcastle Transit Center $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $107 $1,486 $5,523 $7,116 332 Overlake Transit Center/P&R (NE 40th) $504 $2,058 $3,213 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,774 340 Ash Way Park & Ride $866 $295 $1,131 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,293 342 Swamp Creek HOV and Park & Ride $392 $802 $601 $7,132 $696 $0 $0 $0 $9,623 344 Lynnwood Transit Center/P&R Connector $0 $0 $3,145 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,145 345 Lynnwood SR-99 Transit Lanes $0 $2,629 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,629 346 East Everett P&R (formerly 'Landfill') $0 $0 $0 $0 $361 $2,777 $5,069 $12,491 $20,697 348 Lynnwood Park and Ride Enhancements $65 $180 $183 $1,028 $963 $0 $0 $0 $2,420 350 Star Lake/Other Federal Way Park& Ride $434 $762 $4,732 $6,378 $4,708 $2,794 $0 $0 $19,808 352 Other Park & Ride Expansion $0 $0 $0 $110 $276 $2,304 $4,000 $0 $6,690 354 Mercer Island Station/Park &Ride $1,163 $546 $3,676 $2,362 it$4,410 $0 $0 $0 $12,157 356 Tacoma Dome Expansion $232 $1,715 $9,765 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,712 358 South Hill Park & Ride $58 $1,837 $3,999 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,894 360 Dupont Park& Ride $0 $231 $3,493 $2,140 $264 $0 $0 $0 $6,128 362 SR 512 Park & Ride Expansion $0 $859 $1,486 $3,407 $270 $0 $0 $0 $6,022 370 Pacific Ave. Overpass (Everett) $325 $1,692 $1,986 $5,616 $2,449 $0 $0 $0 $12,069 372 Bothell Branch Campus Access@195th/I-405 $0 $0 $0 $106 $1,257 $1,853 $1,564 $1,920 $6,700 374 Willows HOV (Redmond) $0 $0 $0 $101 $1,262 $2,709 $2,534 $0 $6,607 376 Woodinville Arterial HOV Enhancements $0 $0 $61 $1,257 $1,812 $3,290 $0 $0 $6,420 378 Small Cities Transit Access $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $91 $1,189 $2,976 $4,255 380 Unincorporated King Co. Transit Access $0 $0 $0 $143 $241 $1,638 $683 $4,144 $6,849 382 1-90 Two Way Transit Operations $1,676 $705 $1,229 $2,897 $7,200 $4,751 $0 $0 $18,457 384 SR-522 HOV Enhancement (Wood.to Bothell) $0 $0 $807 $3,611 $6,141 $3,362 $0 $0 $13,921 390 Community Connections System Wide $661 $108 ($126) ($125) ($108) ($135) ($181) ($203) ($111) 395 Funds for Other Projects $0 $0 $3,319 $3,413 $3,515 $3,610 $3,711 $7,676 $25,244 Total $9,151 $22,621 $64,616 $67,489 $53,704 $33,662 $26,173 $44,763 $322,179 - HOV Direct Access Division Projects Summary All figures in YOE $000s Project Number and Name 1997-98 (est) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005-06 Total 105 1-5 0 164th (Ash Way) $0 $119 $1,174 $824 $3,259 $8,574 $0 $0 $13,951 111 /-5 ® Lynnwood Park & Ride $1,252 $1,661 $3,100 $842 $17,466 $13,096 $0 $0 $37,416 115 1-5 0 112th (Silver Lake) $0 $428 $489 $3,981 $2,184 $259 $0 $0 $7,340 125 1-5 0 320th (Federal Way) $672 $979 $1,880 $2,452 $11,775 $13,636 $0 $0 $31,393 131 1-5 0 272nd (Federal Way) $788 $373 $4,825 $2,364 $0 $12,160 $14,300 $0 $34,810 135 1-405 0 Southcenter(Tukwila) $0 $0 $0 $1,229 $1,725 $4,283 $6,460 $10,338 $24,035 140 Kirkland 1-405 HOV Access Improvements $2,293 $1,403 $6,890 $25,164 $18,907 $26,175 $25,653 $0 $106,486 145 1-405 0 Bellevue $1,858 $10,668 $12,648 $17,721 $18,097 $20,223 $0 $0 $81,216 150 1-405 0 Park Ave (Renton) $0 $595 $1,737 $2,652 $3,938 $15,565 $12,950 $4,249 $41,686 155 1-405 0 Talbot Road (Renton) $0 $595 $1,664 $2,513 $1,740 $16,105 $13,508 $4,217 $40,342 160 1-90 0 Eastgate Park & Ride $0 $0 $245 $1,937 $1,877 $2,255 $15,570 $17,020 $38,904 165 /-90 ® Sunset Interchange (HOV Share) $0 $0 $9,445 $9,576 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,021 190 HOV System Wide $765 ($47) ($119) ($123) ($126) ($160) ($119) ($177) ($107) Total $7,628 $16,774 $43,976 $71,132 $80,841 $132,171 $88,323 $35,647 $476,493 Regional Bus Division Subareas Summary All figures in YOE $000s Subarea 1997-98 (est.) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005-06 Total Snohomish County $0 $8,119 $7,670 $7,399 $8,105 $8,571 $8,886 $20,900 $69,650 South King County $0 $7,710 $3,981 $7,069 $6,617 $6,735 $7,704 $16,981 $56,796 East King County $119 $13,751 $20,410 $23,729 $21,764 $23,509 $25,900 $52,079 $181,260 Pierce County $915 $26,235 $13,425 $20,218 $17,618 $16,609 $17,368 $38,837 $151,225 Total $1,034 $55,815 $45,486 $58,414 $54,103 $55,424 $59,858 $128,797 $458,931 Systems Integration Division Projects Summary All figures in YOE $000s Protect Number and Name 1997-98 (est.) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005-06 Total 405 Fare Integration $579 $1,713 $4,670 $4,700 $4,920 $5,315 $5,566 $30,484 $57,947 410 Research & Technology $808 $1,316 $5,022 $5,031 $5,049 $5,054 $5,063 $10,145 $37,488 415 Phase 11 Planning/Engineering $653 $896 $3,882 $3,890 $7,431 $7,429 $7,432 $5,829 $37,441 Total $2,040 $3,924 $13,574 $13,621 $17,400 $17,798 $18,061 $46,458 $132,876 Department re -Regional Express Division oo a Project 34 Community Connections 310 Lynnwood Transit Center Capital Costs (In YOE $000s) Description Development of a Transit Center to support some or all of the following: regional and local bus services, park-and-ride facilities, HOV access, Tight rail service, and pedestrian and bicycle operations for existing and future transit facilities. The project Includes a detailed transit facility needs assessment and siting study to identify strategies for near and Tong -tern Integration of regional transit facilities and services with existing and future services. The project will be coordinated with City of Lynnwood, WSDOT, Community Transit, and the Sound Transit. Site alternatives are currency being evaluated. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $15,000 $15,000 $18,280 +. +.. +9*. ''�';r�c�s+a � 'sa�3" t t .;;�; .�$ ber � :��'¢ya...000;94.14.,. 'K"' ..�.a�•..�-.�+.� ..•rvy • ?0 �;� +... .: t P. �' •� );',r'�, ° ,i , �w� «•a.1 fA� .?S @�.� i;rFe ';,,,:'73..., x. ,200r `t`• F$ J� L. iA'";e•Xti...s.. ;i: �`.. aa>i:' y `:1S ".v 4k^t ;�`�, 2001'�.,� ..R:J� .. NY"� .,i• "Ks�' ii.. :al:: ,e:: .:2002 `,.,,.�..,r . .. .. _ } , ;2003 ...v ... .Y..�, °`tf . 7.K'a:;::4 200 t e.C. .. .. ..':. S<�Y.t ...-.••a ,q; ^ .t.. ;I .A < ,<e:205-06:$ <�' ... .. ... '4 . Y•D sii..f.sr. •.'. t ` � /� ��y .< r�i eav;�SYbtOaNl<; i:. Snohomish County $564 $677 $5,854 $8,009 $3,176 $0 $0 $0 $18,280 Total $564 $677 $5,854 $8,009 $3,176 $0 $0 $0 $18,280 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) '•' ' • �i .q4+c :, JA§'A20 . .u; gi ) -.: ;. , . ,. !' �..„,:;: ;205-06, atr 10'Y r')titfwi $564 $677 $5,854 $8,009 $3,176 $0 $0 $0 $18,280 ,e $892 Capital Cost Elements (In YOE $000s) yJ.,:.L4. 8 8.' iS. ; 00$(00 JS'+�pa .h?afi S . -: 6W i20O 2 b a/ �2OO tt 2W :ifa.... W{!. ,.F A> •Sti{QOIil � Agency Development $26 $33 $263 $373 $196 $0 $0 $0 ,e $892 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $537 $644 $44 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,226 Final Design and Specification $0 $0 $1,200 $309 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,509 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $0 $3,826 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,826 Construction $0 $0 $0 $6,587 $2,268 $0 $0 $0 $8,854 Contingency $0 $0 $522 $740 $712 $0 $0 $0 $1,974 Total $564 $677 $5,854 $8,009 $3,176 $0 $0 $0 $18,280 . Department Division Project 5 Regional Express 34 Community Connections 312 Mountlake Terrace Flyer Stop Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description Construction of a median transit flyer stop and pedestrian connections adjacent to the existing park-and-ride. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $3,000 -._. $3,000 $3,703 1 t ' a7•a ce if.' tiB l, yy e , j;,°YaXt+.i•... Ee; »•. .;•!�,.a •r'i-. , < : .,'. • ! t . i7 ... . , , :•# s:;; "."_ .�—. -..<i ' .�� � SYy bAk a...t 1 Snohomish County $183 $0 $60 $56 $243 $0 $0 $988 1 $2,412 $0 $207 Final Design and Specification $0� $0 $0 $3,703 Total $0 $60 $243 $988 $2,412 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) $0 $60 $243 $988 $2,412 $0 $0 $3,703 $0 $0 $0 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) z.�°Ce-00141 _ r248 4t��;4•;.'t 12481:411 ! 1, -' ",•i •''% r, 4.n..t,r4.a '•,y:Q.> ': .... )i�„• -.Y• .-3 - � .�.,_,.v: ...ari.. .,,O. uYt.Q•Y Agency Development $0 $3 $12 $46 $122 $0 $0 $0 $183 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $0 $56 $151 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $207 Final Design and Specification $0 $0 $81 $238 $0 $0 $0 $0 $320 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $611 $1,981 $0 $0 $0 $2,592 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $92 $309 $0 $0 $0 $401 Total $0 $60 $243 $988 $2,412 $0 $0 $0 $3,703 00 co ti o 00 ro 09 Project Department 5 Regional Express Division 34 Community Connections 314 South Everett Transit Center Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description Redevelopment of the current transit layover/stop area at the Everett Mall into a transit center that would be Integrated Into any future redevelopment of the Everett Mall. This facility will accommodate Everett Transit, Community Transit and Sound Transit service and provide a connection to the Interurban Trail and a pedestrian link to the Mall. The Mall has submitted expansion plans to the City of Everett for approval. These plans Include construction of a transit center on the Mall property. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) 1-$-3,000 $3,000 $3,544 lJ il:Ft iNiil ;F t. �`-**WV a.•,,,�3:•:a ', a.ie : '/5 .. t i::i�i tis'''e • .. .a�1.� : %..-'yIMi�M/�/�V►I'� ... + ...(8 .: " :. . . i. . :W�/��C_/��� t...1f ♦K,.i';l yr•` ,. , r ti Snohomish County $46 $1,008 $2,490 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,544 Total $46 $1,008 $2,490 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,544 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) T"PWArt09:g iL Graaii0otai> $46 $1,008 $2,490 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,544 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) aL+ :•�diiacyEie }1�9�A'..�a 1 9T li 5•5Y 5�F' ,��e r .�Y?.3.�.. `.. .,+„•:. „r.1•1 ,>.' •..�W,..'• . «z . 1 .: :k t20.. -� `..1 : • .,. ,• 3tbtoal<s », Agency Development $2 $46 $124 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $172 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $44 $158 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $202 Final Design and Specification $0 $225 $81 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $306 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $487 $253 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $741 Construction $0 $0 $1,743 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,743 Contingency $0 $91 $289 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $380 Total • $46 $1,008 $2,490 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,544 Department 15 Regional Express Division Project 34 Community Connections 316 North Everett Transit Center Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description Development of an off-street transit center located in the vicinity of Everett Community College. The project would provide a layover and transfer location for Everett Transit and Sound Transit services. Pedestiran connections to Broadway and the College's pedestrian circulation system are also envisioned. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $1,000 $1,000 r$1,288 1 fd".A.g, wT Q r >a..✓c:": tiCSJ�,4- 1. _V'pp" '3fti•,J:s�'.fy00✓ ..'P j•:-.:,,,,.•:„ +t • ,;,r{:i'' . L40001 �. >< s . _,v 2,... i* n.ti%t�t01 �.' , Snohomish County $0 $0 $14 $112 $550 $612 $0 $0 $1,288 Total $0 $0 $14 $112 $550 1 $612 $0 $0 $1,288 Total Protect Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) rf997�ea'#.'j{ $0 wol 1,0 r" 200!3=06 • ran 3T}4tat $0 $14 $112 $550 $612 $0 $0 $1,288 Capital Cost Elements (In YOE $000s) r .•s_f. ,""S.:4s ,•,y'qj ; •. rro8 • *8..645 i . w�+'_� nv j �1 t y p .,s �'�,A�S14 ii ,. y w. yF. ��hpp'37V-4q - �,.;., u �F7 ._.. ard_ $ei ofi.6,,,,. 5.2 .. , ' �, fit. Via. .eyi S .•am,. 2Q0�.:•.� . _ a C J� .,, �x . 2 �n 5 . , J d •.. '2 t .'' 'O6' -c. i, ..y... �,, ,J 11�f;C .. Agency Development $0 $0 $1 $6 $27 $29 $0 $0 $63 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $0 $0 $12 $60 $0 $0 $0 $0 $71 Final Design and Specification $0 $0 $0 $36 $74 $0 $0 $0 $109 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $0 $0 $0 $274 $0 $0 $0 $274 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $126 $509 $0 $0 $635 Contingency $0 $0 $1 $11 $49 $74 $0 $0 $135 Total $0 . $0 $14 $112 $550 $612 $0 $0 $1,288 oAo re Oo Project Department I Regional Express Division 1 Description 34 Community Connections 318 112th St. P&R/Flyer Stop (Silver Lake) Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Development of a park-and-ride facility located at 112th ST. SW and 1-5 (assumed Initially at 400 stalls) In the median of 1-5 just south of the current overcrossing. Bus service (Sound Transit, Everett Transit, Community Transit) would be able to board and alight customers at the park-and-ride facility. Ride -sharing would also be Integral to the lot. The access for buses and other HOVs could be from the freeway or off the HOV direct access ramps (described as a separate project). Non-HOVs would have their access to the park-and-ride restricted to the freeway. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $14,000 1 $14,000 r $17,206 i�. ,.;,, `' s # IrA,a;) .f.Y,: ' r 9 .00, 7..: .• as 8 ., ;;i?t W X=>' s:; a :'20f1p. ` +.." s 1 ,, - Z" x . , :mow y 2 � aa ;. 2003 .. .. � •.2004 ,_. 20Q5- 6„ Sub'tt tai; Snohomish County $0 $998 $3,469 $8,467 $4,271 $0 $0 $0 $17,206 Total $0 $998 $3,469 $8,467 $4,271 $0 $0 $0 $17,206 Total Project CostsSh-- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (In YOE $000s) 097fresL`Tti L . , : ,,)q.: >s .,`,....,y„K,y,. ,,i 1.9$T 98t(e8t ,, AV :�' � ���yv,,.r,✓.- '. '�y�,', $. 4 f- ?? r' r ..� ��.. ,,.,� e+..^'r^• ;:. ; .� ,-� .t . �.'; R:- . ; s •SYF .{�Y 1. <s', ,•r r.:l+e'.,rty , 2002 ' :fit • �_ � L.e. .,�. ., -�� >- }..�"•; �. � 21)03 ����::, 2004 `' . ,.,,.„ _ ,' • 2005-0 6 �� :,v Cirand�tTota��' $0 $998 Pre•Engineering/Env Review $3,469 $946 $8,467 $4,271 $0 $0 $0 $0 $946 $0 , $17,206 $0 $1,461 $0 $0 $0 $0 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) laC 9menyM„ 097fresL`Tti L . , : ,,)q.: >s 2 001. 6 ,. �2gY, = 0_, ;r:D.*,. 0,-,,v' 5-6K f t :zSb4, a1,; Agency Development $0 $52 $174 $424 $182 $0 $0 $0 $832 Pre•Engineering/Env Review $0 $946 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $946 Final Design and Specification $0 $0 $1,461 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,461 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $0 $1,521 $2,107 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,628 Construction $0 $0 $0 $5,171 $3,319 $0 $0 $0 $8,490 Contingency $0 $0 $314 $764 $771 $0 $0 $0 $1,849 Total $0 $998 $3,469 $8,467 $4,271 $0 $0 $0 $17,206 — - ,— — - - - - - Department Division Project 5 Regional Express 1 34 Community Connections 320 Federal Way Transit Center/City Center Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description Construction of a transit center to serve Federal Way. Several site alternatives are being evaluated. A system evaluation Is In process to resolve the location in relation to construction of the HOV access ramp in the vicinity of 320th, proposed park-and- ride improvements, transit service circulation and potential future LRT service. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s)[ Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) $4,000 Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) I` $4,817_ $4,000 ,: y.i �. ice. . w; ti Vic. +.'.� t, . 1� /e `-, 5l ✓ ..- :�'i.m,. . ^. ./ drpn a"i,!!�.�yy��-4,g ,' p`,24094( VVN i `�.'S44,��. y.�...: 'j, �p r,sr..xes+-8:c ?9, ""�ai `a 6eil �t$i+. 3'.:✓, �..�^...a' ^ ' �'^.'�hFb�I� ' f'J'. "'ilii.• :!.(�(� ..,:i. "D Ib �' ��d� ,) , fl'.e.fW1]�:J3+ -.,..." i'aX°-.. , :,.,:;r, t. „�..4,,. .r,.. '.:;::,:':;• ••fwL },�*,, :�kj?' �t,/�M� n) : .. .-.fa!W�td.,...'�< ....'2. .5:.' ' r;.. �Utit�t 1iw4-_ South King County $558 $233 $1,592 $1,951 $483 $0 $0 $0 $4,817 Total $558 $233 $1,592 $1,951 $483 $0 $0 $0 $4,817 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) r • •98% 9e,�e>} .);�- m.}��j1 q a ;tlrr : t�s�,,'.T7rf- .,- r .iA ? dfr 002'. 2 wool: $558 $233 $1,592 $1,951 $483 $0 $0 $0 $4,817 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) 0(004nt:. •.y ,..ts04s:tesi���We9: „„` ,,„ .fl= °. t ooi -. .� .'.•002• • ��2oos, r• �.,. ....'2. ,.02oo5:os. ;:�,:utiiota Agency Development $29 $12 $79 $100 $21 $0 • $0 $0 $241 Pre•Engineering/EnvReview $530 $221 $12 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $762 Final Design and Specification $0 $0 $348 $24 $0 $0 $0 $0 $372 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $0 $1,012 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,012 Construction $0 $0 $0 $1,648 $379 $0 $0 $0 $2,027 Contingency $0 $0 • $141 $179 • $83 $0 $0 $0 $404 Total $558 $233 $1,592 $1,951 $483 $0 $0 $0 $4,817 Department Regional Express j Description Division Oo N o Project 34 Community Connections 322 Bellevue Transit Center Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Construction of a new Bellevue Transportation Center In downtown Bellevue. Alternative locations are under study In the Immediate vicinity of the existing Transit Center. Three site alternatives will be selected for further environmental analysis in 1998. Alternatives under consideration include Joint public/private development and modifying service oriented to distributed routes and facilities. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $15,000 1 $15,000 $17,837 .r,9 �> '6�Q ✓s Su . ea ..,, ,Su ! - 4 :�.... �.. ;*. .,.i9 � . t. rest ,."-.;Y'• .a,t.n.'1. 414 <..999 ,. -.,..c.4'.K .�h:9 t.f' Z "2 .. N-', (y �'.�i..r.)" \ Vl 9 46..r a.; 20 1 �', •$$e'� s..,,. 2 `s.- K v S?= is�.�:� ` °. .. 2003 t - i w� •2004 ^r ; 2005-06 �:tYO •lj�,l Owe, .. East King County $674 $4,886+ $7,510 $4,767 $0 $0 $0 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $639 $0 $17,837 Total $674 $4,886 $7,510 $4,767 $0 $0 $0 $1,127 $436 $0 $17,837 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) 4700404 $674 $4,886 $7,510 $4,767 $0 $0 '> 2005 $0 $0 r�;�(3miid'Tofsi $17,837 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) ; r:^. ,.�'g rz.�V: C fit,€fgrhent ::n' ,..?.. _ r 97 .t � :s'I.'.Y?W�� ,;; rroe'_'wY.vl 5 , g.:04) a?.'� " '2f`1.00 , z; �),.s�; �:�^ ,.; E • . , t 2 � ' . "L .'s: •'.�' 2 ?A02 •':... A,... •2 , �.°'� ` '' 20Q4 °¢ 2005.06 ` k ..2 .. .Subtotal ' .._ Agency Development $35 $246 $380 $205 $0 $0 $0 $0 $866 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $639 $634 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,273 Final Design and Specification $0 $1,127 $436 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,563 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 • $2,437 $1,267 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,705 Construction $0 $0 $4,742 $3,767 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,509 contingency $0 $442 $685 $795 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,922 Total $674 $4,886 $7,510 $4,767 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,837 - Department 15 Regional Express 1 Division 34 Community Connections Project 324 Bothell/Canyon Park Flyer Stop Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description Fund the design and construction of a new Bothell/Canyon Park flyer stop. Site locations for this facility are preliminary. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $5,000 1 $5,000 $6,856 w.g,Pryf; ,bsW t�00‘140V .'11990' 1 .=5: 'te.J .;;yt. � ' ;: 2 nV71h,•, i.:,^J^•x!h,.,',2002 ;:.; 4;!:i.:2.. x-3 .. . x _..... ,.SubXcta., East King County $0 $0 $0 $0 $117 $1,425 $1,936 $3,378 ..,- $6,856 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $117 $1,425 $1,936 $3,378 $6,856 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) tilifebflP 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $117 $1,425 $1,936 a,: 2005.06 Grand total z $3,378 $6,856 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) ,.`*-�,.,�: Coef; 8 bt9i' 9 s� _ 3. r.�? ..• t` .y .,.y. � }-,;�._�°yr''��' X97.48. " �. � �.1, .. � �.,�;..�'as� 3f 'Y` `'1 ��.':�.;is.W..,.,�•;;� .=5: 'te.J .;;yt. � ' ;: 2 ,.n;, c x: ' u , $1 2001.. xr : ,i!.. � .2002 >� �t,'::s ay. ,,- •„fir.:. ;a. ,� P2003,1:.g.... .. ��:�2004,� r , . s';;>'2fJ0S 06 �; , .::1�<S � { ubtofsl Agency Development $0 $0 $0 $0 $6 $71 $95 $154 $326 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $0 $0 $0 . $0 $110 $265 $0 $0 $375 Final Design and Specification $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $252 $324 $0 $576 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $711 $739 $0 $1,450 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $608 $2,800 $3,408 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $126 $171 $424 $721 Total $o $0 $0 $0 $117 $1,425 $1,936 $3,378 $6,856 Department r5 Regional Express Division 34 Community Connections Project 326 Issaquah Transit Center Capital Costs (In YOE $000s) Description Construction of a new Issaquah Transit Center or expansion of existing park-and-ride lot. Currently the location of this new facility is preliminary. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) 10,000 1 7 $13,725 W•�z>' a Sti�alea ;v s are ` "',.. s�i97.98,(eeL t•_ ,•r 11 4,•y^.. .'. bzP9 .a .t., Z. a'",, cA -200+ <, . �:, ° rL 2001 ° t, ""'. '1':i ... 2002, .�•.. ' �, •, "2003 , . °` 2004 a „t._ 2005-06 , . ;>,.,... 'subtotal; East King County $0 $0 $0 $0 $210 $2,474 $4,183 $6,859 $13,725 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $210 $2,474 $4,183 $6,859 $13,725 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) .+a'' ,�(( %i!" �.'�^', ,a.iC'�'s..t is -, :r989 � � x:.� ,�:� ,sas QOti ��... Baa , An '''9:tTj((e. 8LqLi:N n ' -al. : .,p t.; Y., ..' >t., � o 2002_ .:<4, ,1 • l .at , ..' •.. ' 25+M-.0.. , rtrandToa; . = $0 $0 $654 $0 $0 $0 $210 $2,474 $199 $4,183 $0 $6,859 $13,725 Final Design and Specification $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) ,'s,�.:,.p� `^a:.•�'L "tSd« `.5' .y}Isd: , �Cget= lem00 .,..�,,. :�,s.>. ,}� `tr? _ 4W-- (est::. .+a'' ,�(( %i!" �.'�^', ,a.iC'�'s..t is -, :r989 � � x:.� ,�:� ,sas QOti ��... Baa , An " „ ., e, S.'.k, t �'p 2001 . :,:. . ,. } h Y t "H o ;', ,,;,. r�• • i.' "1... `, 2003,..¢. •.> _ .... .>i`•.'.;',. °Y:. ..%�.: ;r, 2004:' ..s , t;4 t{S t�- 2005-06 . a. ..>�.�;, r., :{yr';Y Subtotal �..._ Agency Development $0 $0 $0 $0 $11 $121 $206 $316 $654 Pre•EngineeringrEnv Review $0 $0 $0 $0 $199 $552 $0 $0 $751 Final Design and Specification $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $378 $778 $0 $1,156 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 • $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,423 $1,478 $0 $2,900 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,350 $5,460 $6,810 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $371 $1,083 $1,453 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $210 $2,474 $4,183 $6,859 $13,725 Department Division Project 5 Regional Express J Description 34 Community Connections 328 Kirkland Transit Center Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Design and construction of a new Kirkland/Totem Lake Transit Center and/or park- and-ride. Several site alternatives are being evaluated. Preliminary alternatives Include the Kirkland CBD on N.E. 85th St. near 1-405 and within the Totem Lake activity area. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $10,000 11 $10,000 $12,403 1 X( pp� : ,tz u ar ,� f, t'k'1 re t� . M.n Uaa Ba t...:. d"i�+i.:F !a� 7. I� 5y 9 e" dA -. F•.i :. .Y�I.. I,Y' 1� a', , ;Y r' _�• - a.v;, .,'F r '. qyy'-'.2 s. ii La �VMV}V� ♦. ` ,N,rra l.W,��. '^�•y '' .... r:iWG .. ... i�. la £4 iVW7 f.. ...# •2004:. /� ,} ... f. P ` A � ditaiii . East King County $935 $340 $742 $3,618 $6,768 $0 $0 $0 $12,403 Total $935 $340 $742 $3,618 $6,768 $0 $0 $0 $12,403 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) ro; • 'andTTotal, r? $935 $340 $742 $3,618 $6,768 $0 $0 $0 $12,403 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) J'� ¢J. :,.A. �,ry", ,4.. ,; tiik p,,��7.: 'rtr�j'�Y�4.7{•" ��r �iP�' A '1• i' a":�'� '.. (K;.,,.; --q::,,,: w' '1:: .ate` •; <;•: - „ . . 9 1t" • '-• t• � 9.0140: t: ps'.. , tf ,,,9:$• •. •t ""..Y? t ;.''�" t: -.,r:::::. -;24:02.0.;:.-i. k ` `? r: e .. W.....ti ti, v..9 ,,,�, % �� C aag u. s.=+,,.r g a a. a, �rs2001';" <� X003, Vit. •2004:. ; ;;� 2QOb-0Q< . Subtotal , ,.. Agency Development $48 $18 $38 $175 $318 $0 $0 $0 $598 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $886 $322 $194 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,402 Final Design and Specification $0 $0 $464 $482 $0 $0 $0 $0 $945 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $0 $0 _ $2,646 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,646 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,840 $0 $0 $0 $5,840 Contingency $0 $0 $46 $316 $610 $0 $0 $0 $972 Total $935 $340 $742 $3,618 $6,768 $0 $0 $0 $12,403 Department 15 Regional Express ' Description Division oo co -t Project 34 Community Connections 330 Newcastle Transit Center Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Design and construction of a new Newcastle Transit Center or park-and-ride. Currently the location of this new facility Is preliminary. The project boundaries are: North boundary, SE 63rd Street east of Coal Creek Parkway, and SE 69th Street, west of Coal Creek Parkway, the South boundary is SE 175th Street, the East boundary is 133rd Ave. SE and the West boundary is 128th Ave. SE. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) C $5,000 $5,000 1 $7,116 ...;., .,�y x. Ya:B,K't .per� $$ 9U��jrea.',....�;, .' -mt? «;:3: •:, J✓.:�,i;�A K- $-t .. �. t+� n'i>' .@�>s,u:..Ey, '. } a.,K y �1�9�-98 Ilt. Y,�Y. J 'e\Z �(S4 :,- �."19�'T6�� Yj.7'91-7,,C. }�. �� �19�.� W4.^K'` .^,>•.w vvyy'��Y : : 'M. '�yyam.}�.� 1< -;f^:, . , J+''... .�' F:�41•-%'... Yi y :r'. , 0, , !'Si�-.�. �.. \Ui y$0 ..L8. T i7"-�': ',ir ,% .cY�- .�-t9 {pt'�T ;.� �'e E eli'ii.�}^, `• :i'<;}'. .r? .. 200 , e: 1'li✓. �.. .7. 'IAG ' ` �'):.x- 2004...,:1 1'�.8�. �+W�`: .. Di: ) t.... .:iK: ...x. 4Y.e ZU05-06 ^.1 'l.��iv.>, .rg•tP.,^:"..r� N�$UbtO "e, I�� � �� I... Fr East King County $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $107 $1,486 $5,523 $7,116 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $107 $1,486 $5,523 $7,116 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) 1: TaltRW;;;t1z4X19,074V!IT.-• *9:04 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $107 $1,486 006. $5,523 $7,116 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) ;:3, ,< ; � »t„< C9.040.4*... t .�i97�$,� �, �3'. t}. »Y c,.r<••{,a;r : •.§ 9 +y,r ,K-., .,+,r , : 00$ .t .,... 2004 .r ...i.. t. 2002 ..2003. 2004.!,'. .. ., 200 rOt3 ,x., Subtota. Agency Development $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5 $73 $258 $336 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $102 $284 $0 $386 Final Design and Specification $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $259 $333 $592 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $739 $767 $1,506 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,554 $3,554 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $131 $610 $741 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $107 $1,486 $5,523 $7,116 Department Division Project 5 Regional Express 1 34 Community Connections 332 Overtake Transit Center/P&R (NE 40th) Capital Costs (In YOE $000s) Description Construction of a new Redmond/Oveiiake Transit Center on a 10 -acre site provided by Microsoft at N.E. 40th St. and 156th Ave. N.E. to be served by Sound Transit, King County, Community Transit, and employer shuttles. Inclusion of park and ride capacity Is being evaluated. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) • a $5,000 $5,774 ';T,• :.:00440 .!f9 79 7�98.� '. g.4'�' ..;=�`..�, , .i(�.,...i3.3a2 6+� ' 1 , n : ` <., »20 20 �•t... �a1• �v SUbt0 East King County $504 $2,058 $3,213 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,774 Total $504 $2,058 $3,213 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,774 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) $504 $2,058 .71 $3,213 $0 $0 $0 $0 5= $0 hand",Total $5,774 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) 3 <C t, 'kit!r%i �:)4#44ti"..,; A6: �'�,y.'41-:g. ik.- t�t., +Y��, ..., x. y..,..r9..,' ;22 .>a x,•2, ..., ....._ 20 ; SutiO. Agency Development $26 $107 $152 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $285 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $478 $401 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $879 Final Design and Specification $0 $1,127 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,127 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $230 $2,679 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,909 Contingency $0 • $193 $381 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $574 Total $504 $2,058 $3,213 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,774 Department r5-- Regional Express Division 00 ro Project 34 Community Connections 340 Ash Way Park & Ride Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description A one thousand stall park-and-ride lot Is under construction In the northwest quadrant of 1-5 and 184th In Snohomish County. Sound Transit has committed $1,075.000 to the project. The project Is being developed In partnership with Community Transit and WSDOT. The facility will be served by Community Transit and Sound Transit buses. Scheduled opening late 1998. Surplus funds from this project may be reallocated within the Snohomish County subarea upon close-out of the project. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) L r $2,000 $2,000 — $2,293 j t;: w. • lv¢z .y 4 i1it�irea, :; i.'";i q.. 3 !*.liii<tr �'a; xs ,1 "a''`7,- alt `.Y?Y''. . A { +'wv. . v ` .. 'A: a.• .''' , 120 1. `2' 1Di ::. tr.,- , 2002+ . . }. a u t.. � ^i ,...' 2004 +-' , . 2008.96 rA S..a, i�. G : / ..:. Subtotal Snohomish County $866 $295 $1,131 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,293 Total $866 $295 $1,131 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,293 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) 7gg R• t s1898� azsg 5�i: ' b ? 88t .r i $866 $295 $1,131 $0 $0 $0 $0 r'an'd'T3ta $2,293 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) ... ,:. eCost tom.ept v.a( •t i5a 4; • !. .J,'4 Q r41, ,..?.'�qi- R'_�a.R r 1 .r :} ,h;Jte.{•5" + r >t: t Sbo1 Agency Development $41 $14 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $54 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Final Design and Specification $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 construction $825 $282 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,107 Contingency $0 $0 $1,131 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,131 Total $866 $295 $1,131 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,293 — — Department 15 Division Project Regional Express 1 Description 34 Community Connections 342 Swamp Creek HOV and Park & Ride Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Construction of en expanded facility on WSDOT ROW just north of the existing park- and-ride lot with direct ramp access from the lot to SR -525. Sound Transit Is currently working with WSDOT on design and environmental Issues. Project will be constructed in coordination with WSDOT's SR 525 Widening project. The Sound Transit Board combined the Swamp Creek Park and Ride project with the Swamp Creek HOV project. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) C$8,000 .._ $8,000 $9,623 ., <'tl?'t.:. ;i'�''a'tfw,.91' • S areae;*+ ,i, .':-1119798 ..T.,. .Q..+kY.. "+a>i $sti` N, see t. �. e:w .��s•^ty'"�'. `saY,., -9 '1 1999.''i,i3 c. t5',--'1S��,. S -. i,; i` ruy.2 ' .: �J .tri. r+. t2S 3> ' 2001 'v .. , ... ., t. t• . `.T:,�f. 'JY%p...if.Wf c...., , �ir - '14W�7 ..5' ' i., .. .:fVVY;.... - t ;J d>. 7ididWi. , Snohomish County $392 $802 $601 $7,132 $696 $0 $0 $0 $9,623 Total $392 $802 $601 $7,132 $696 $0 $0 $0 $9,623 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) .;4-10.7.4 , r..e,'rj> -e��.�:�es�;�„�'' .?- -,,.. ., '-f'a y.,>t,�#;�• ..,.,r+,, 4's''' '�r��:t.?.��rF�,: 4� 2001�;'�r7 {,•�/�?,.2002,`� „F..•�7{i `f,;.'.:±- 't :,`-a" ,�r® . �Q03-.;�„ .� :5�. 2005-06 ; ,�a'2004; .� - V 't3ranci=Total $392 $802 $601 $7,132 $696 $0 I'. 50 $0 $9,623 $15 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) iLr0.0* . .Ke•mnt x9•48: P.e•� »�� gt �;� V s.--.'A.4....11 s'y r$,.'t. r. .•. i;1: -:,:i; .. .2LWV �Q4 206 s,',';T:., . SUtitO d Agency Development $21 $42 $31 $364 $15 $0 $0 $0 $472 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $371 $183 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $554 Final Design and Specification $0 $563 $569 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,133 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $15 $0 $0 $0 $0 50 $0 $15 Construction $0 $0 $0 $6,113 $322 $0 $0 $0 $6,434 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $656 $360 $0 $0 $0 _$1,015 Total $392 $802 $601 $7,132 $696 $0 $0 $0 $9,623 Department Regional Express Division oo ro N Co Project 34 Community Connections 344 Lynnwood Transit Center/P&R Connector Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description Lynnwood has received funding for this project from other sources and has requested reprogramming of these funds to another project (SR 99 HOV Improvements). In May 1998, the Board approved R98-23 which added the SR 99 HOV Improvements project to Sound Move and reallocated $2.5 million from the Transit Center/P&R Connector project to the SR 99 HOV Improvements project. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) $2,713 Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) $2,713 J Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) r $3,145 B.a � 1 Y_3`q qli 89ti., &�. 'es` $r, 'tu�r.cF �* wnRi�itB�, . ?i:q�!�:�+ :. ,t;}j.:• : ryD.W1. i 900"!,.. .:. +rS M .;b z 9s"rf• .t. F^^,ss � :f �}y Z0Jr'r sA l'..*':*"..,. -..U,: t70 County $0 $0 $3,145 $0 $0 $0:�._ $0 $0 4:..5; $3,1' $0 $0 $0Total $3,145Snohomish $0 $0c $07ej $0, $0:: $3,145 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (In YOE $000s) eqs . wr e,y,,,. A+a �,._. �',}1. ,. T' :row 7�''in' Yq'6k,��jL�';�} 1; '44.1r .`ea�4°d•:°Y ..: , ssaw �997[88,(9t3g ' „ -,: ,i RlAil,1 r.:yt2® x:s X2fi.e2i 'Ot : h ',14''''.sZ• 1 c 4 $0 . s Gra,..nd ;;. rota, $0 $158 $0 $0 $3,145 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,145 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) . y., °"+d,;,..aa, •w2 3 ,� : (,get Sl , ntP , .:0;:. eqs . wr e,y,,,. A+a �,._. �',}1. ,. T' :row 7�''in' Yq'6k,��jL�';�} 1; '44.1r .`ea�4°d•:°Y ..: , ssaw r s ^1.1 5:' ? i.:?•: ,: h• `a ,' . ✓i [ ' '- � , ? OZ , .'.-' ., a X003. . ^'r L }2004: .. .. t.. ....2005.06:) , ., .::','; `.,.. .....S i to ,1, Agency Development $0 $0 $158 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $158 Pre•Englneedng/Env Review $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Final Design and Specification $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contingency $0 $0 $2,988 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,988 Total 80 $0 $3,145 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,145 Department Division Project 5 Regional Express 34 Community Connections 345 Lynnwood SR -99 Transit Lanes Capital Costs (In YOE $000s) Description Resolution 98-23 added the SR 99 HOV Improvements project and authorized $2.5 million in project costs. The project budget has been adjusted to reflect agency development costs. This protect will provide HOV lanes and associated transit improvements in the SR 99 corridor between the Snohomish -King County line (S.W. 244th St.) and 148th St. S.W. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $2,287 $2,287 $2,629 °'*V,, .r.!{ ,,:v?.3 d:�u�e•+ •���..,. fp.:o�, s'19914:9.000,414.0;:k. ,,�1898�'.��' t,+ u. k. Y'w' '6'' St.,A �T?..:..2d,�10 1.1t,AU'!.....;:,:,'; °i ..2001 v;: '{r -'3iiR ' 2002 { :.j;+,,.r. {b03� a e. .2004 s � � • '2ot)6,� ,t �. - nr�. : Subtot�i�� Snohomish County $0 $2,629 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,629 Total $0 $2,629 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,629 Total Project -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (In YOE $000s) . ! x !, > . •. '' 200 1.i c .;4:*::::,:' .. y .,. 2 , . .ry.,, 1: v;w.• - {. <. •.:Ge��V{/7,',�f s ` 6• 7Costs j.? 1987,a�'(e.��}.gz.��; i+•,° .'*f',l 99 fin .,,1998°�'„,�`*;�c',t�..::r?Ota'.R;tUr la.. 'D;n;i:A1" :1' ';:-.:'-•:,°,! ;`���4►.ri :� sF.'��,.2002 .?' iS::'.1:§?, ./,�'. . s. r 203<. $0 .5, _,., r, J; .2004 , 9. t t:2 :,�,2 -06` - Win .o,•- gY s $0 $0 $2,629 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $2,629 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,629 $2,629 Capital Cost Elements (In YOE $000s) ?°° ,.,Co tiiiiiiiit,54 1997484x?) ;�'( . ! x !, > . •. '' 200 1.i c .;4:*::::,:' .. y .,. 2 , . .ry.,, 1: v;w.• - {. <. •.:Ge��V{/7,',�f s ` 6• r,:8ilbtoiasIZ Agency Development $0 $128 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $128 Construction $0 $2,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 . $2,500 Total $o $2,629 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,629 00 N b Department A Division oo ro Project 5 Regional Express 1 Description 34 Community Connections 346 East Everett P&R (formerly °Landfill°) Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Development of a park-and-ride facility located between 41st Street and 36th Street and the Snohomish River and 1-5. Up to 1,000 stalls could be accommodated. The facility would be served by Regional Express bus service, other transit services, and ride -sharing activities, and Include access to/from 1-5. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (In 1995 $000s) $15,000 1 Adopted Budget (In 1995 $000s) [ $15,000 j Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) I __ $20,697 ] r,ar�.. F i. `6 t ;9 . ". «4'..:.2 ; • '20iNr. .,, 3.i, t. ;t. .•,!. '. r 0¢3 a: : )• .. !,,• .A290fi=06 .., .f Srbtoai.,tP: .s.' Snohomish County $0 $0 $0 $0 $361 $2,777 $5,069 $12,491 $20,697 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $361 $2,777 $5,069 $12,491 $20,697 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) a't+e Fda • .99`'48 (lis f�: — Department 5 Regional Express j Division 34 Community Connections Project 348 Lynnwood Park and Ride Enhancements Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description Development of Improvements at the Lynnwood park-and-ride lot to support regional and Improved local service connections, and mitigate congestion in the vicinity of the tot which will Improve transit speed and reliability. Improvements could Include modification of transit bays and parking areas to integrate lot operations with other Sound Transit investments In Lynnwood, Including HOV direct access and a Lynnwood Transit Center. Improvements could also include access and egress improvements to and from 44th Ave W (requiring transit -only slgnalization) and 46th Ave W. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $2,000 $2,000 $2,420 J 1 4YB0 7. ri• ,? , % 0A W ....f .',r. a.awrti/.rv...W • ..S<1........t ... w4° .., ..., 7.. `2 .... '2-0 U)tbtat Snohomish County $65 $180 $183 $1,028 $963 $0 $0 $0 $2,420 Total $65 $180 $183 $1,028 $963 $0 $0 $0 $2,420 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) • 'and�'fotat' $65 $180 $183 $1,028 $963 $0 $0 $0 $2,420 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) 47,),i,..5-:L£-:.G•.f.W ,98, esmeMj » `,,. .,- . 11;t7A �t. .. tr.,. F°.l,'}{-,. tom L}. C�.4•; 1. . e.RHj -- n�r:<s,4�:.^.',,..r,'•f.� r. .LVY.. 'II, .. ,. :V :,:s.AIA. .. ,..�,. ..•a6`e••'if��V/H�7,� 1...s C W�r'. ....:y..`.::S:btcti Agency Development $3 $9 $9 $52 $45 $0 $0 $0 $119 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $62 $171 $3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $236 Final Design and Specification $0 $0 $153 $38 $0 $0 $0 $0 $191 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $844 $293 $0 $0 $0 $1,136 Contingency $0 $0 $17 $94 $625 $0 $0 $0 $736 Total $65 $180 $183 $1,028 $963 $0 $0 $0 $2,420 A 00 m t� Project Department {5 Regional Express Division 34 Community Connections 1 350 Star Lake/Other Federal Way Park& Ride Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description Construction of expanded park-and-ride capacity at Star Lake and Federal Way In the vicinity of S.W. 320th St. between 1-5 and SR 99. Design will be coordinated with HOV access decisions and service Improvements. Future LRT service Issues may also need to be addressed. Several site alternatives are currently being evaluated. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) $16,000 Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) $16,000 Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $19,808 Ay;...*<'" a�>:s kxStib;it $ Yr> .;> -f°', g :i >z,fiy;...7,... es , . .:.n;- ,�; `.-* 1989 ,, . �.r.;w, 'r;; {. :i. +r:� :700. �., t 7. ; , : 2001 `ri;T sf �:•,' �. !�.+i �, 2003 P.. ::c^?�:• •. `: 2003 ;s: y, >.� �r 2004 :1 •; 2005-06 •} ,• M. e._M, r �; .-s^�' ' ' x uhtotal ,. South King County $434 $762 $4,732 $6,378 $4,708' $2,794 $0 $0 , $19,808 ota 4,732 $6,378 $4,708 $2,794 $0 $0 $19,808 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) •ix.GS °1J''i. A(9�9]i c i1,aLZ7, sy.v-3/4)97-9810414t.: y.4' .>,. �1999.t✓ : ; " 7::' t7 ', `a^vJ : 2000 •4'. ➢ . _ 2001 "!'o::.. , t.M �. . 2002 p :(-f':c, .i�•.�4, �`t ,•2003 _::.`Y d x .2004 b 2005 06 $235 .3?. a "Grand Taal.^ < $434 $762 $4,732 $0 $6,378 Pre-Engineering/EnvReview $4,708 $2,794 $31 $0 $0 $0 $19,808 $0 $1,164 Final Design and Specification $0 $0 $1,507 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) t ocYxten„tg iC•: +798t (01,41.)i'1. •ix.GS °1J''i. A(9�9]i c i1,aLZ7, . MM// ;.. ,e P.M SZ 104 ,a Agency Development $23 $39 $235 $318 $239 $130 $0 $0 $985 Pre-Engineering/EnvReview $411 $722 $31 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,164 Final Design and Specification $0 $0 $1,507 $170 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,678 ROW Acquisition and Permits . $0 $0 $2,534 $1,973 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,507 Construction $0 $0 $0 $3,344 $4,037 $1,957 $0 $0 $9,337 Contingency $0 $0 $424 $573 $432 $707 $0 $0 $2,137 Total $434 $762 $4,732 $6,378 $4,708 $2,794 $0 $0 $19,808 - - - Department r5 Regional Express Division Project 34 Community Connections 352 Other Park & Ride Expansion Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description Sound Transit, King County Metro, cities, and unincorporated areas of South King County need to work through a collaborative process to determine the appropriate regionally significant project in this area. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (In 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) r $5,000 $5,000 $6,690 t°r d.c '11, k ;{;'$u y., 'a : ffi 997x5 . °4i s, is ,, 989 , x Y atm, 1::. ,.4. fi"C'. t. 0... $ . , . Yn +Y >' '1�1 .;'' .d ts T �. , ,::i_.: •i• �:"; r.. ?003'i _.t:;;.},:. �•1:.Ka;,'fr, v ;2Q04: # 200$-06,,tJ k . x •' , iSlil total :... South King County $0 $0 $0 $110 $276 $2,304 $4,000 $0 $6,690 Total $0 $0 $0 $110 $276 $2,304 $4,000 $0 $6,690 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) o`l%?-i rpt ? (•e '4 Y` ' •Txsm ,+ r•: c , Y''''ffh .,iv.:^C{ ,i'W •1 n . , .p rS . 2002 Agency Development .2 at 25.µ F , .. „ Grand TotalC % $0 $112 $0 . $0 $0 $110 $276 $2,304 $0 $4,000 $0 $6,690 $0 $0 $365 Final Design and Specification $0 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) 2..�Yrtet u�Ai , hb x � o`l%?-i 0WV :.�°.. .0 z: 1 � „..- 2 ' a.. 2Q :.. r?• • ,, , 20=6 i Subtoal , Agency Development $0 $0 $0 $6 $15 $112 $188 . $0 $321 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $0 $0 $0 $104 $261 $0 $0 $0 $365 Final Design and Specification $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $567 $0 $0 $567 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,423 $0 $0 $1,423 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,305 $0 $3,305 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 • $0 $202 $507 $0 $709 Total $0 $0 $0 • $110 $276 $2,304 $4,000 $0 $6,690 Department Division oc re L.4 a Project Regional Express 34 Community Connections 354 Mercer Island Station/Park & Ride Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description Design and construction of a new Mercer Island Transit Center/Park and Ride. Site alternatives are currently being evaluated. The preliminary boundaries are: north boundary, center roadway of Interstate 90; south boundary, SE 27th St.; west boundary, 77th Avenue SE; and east boundary 80th Ave. SE. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) i $10,000 $12,157 J 0104011eta 0010401o.' 000t0(04 'C 3 �e6 AZ2.:. - —.144y; A zm 2p.,:¢3:�.~ .V>i>ia4,e-.�.� -3: 200r� >:P..; t sUO8 1 r East King County $1,163 $546 $3,676 $2,362 $4,410 $.r0 $0 I $0 $12,157 Total : $1,163 $546 $3,676 $2,362 $4,410 $0 $0 Final Design and Specification $0 $12,157 J Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) w•..., ..i1 t>m»i,-[$.•� 9 7000!1 •Y•xitir,3:< Ae6 ... :v ;2I�0/0� 3 gP ,.nijtL 20i5-06v,'ry1 j1 t'Grad1rVta $1,163 $546 $3,676 $2,362 $4,410 $0 $0 $0 $12,157 I Capital Cost Elements (In YOE $000s) ss : c !Ay . 'sa 1L .. �$ gyi Fiy ,:,*:ii . ^a2bi, iy tZbo. 4 .-0 :s coa3 Agency Development $61 $28 $182 $120 $199 $0 $0 $0 $590 Pre•Engineering/EnvReview $1,102 $462 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,564 Final Design and Specification $0 $56 $856 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $912 ROW Acquisition end Permits $0 $0 $2,256 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,256 Construction $0 $0 $0 $1,782 $3,738 $0 $0 $0 $5,520 Contingency $0 $0 $383 $459 $474 $0 $0 $0 $1,315 Total $1,163 $546 $3,676 $2,362 $4,410 $0 $0 $0 $12,157 = . Department [5 Regional Express l Description Division 34 Community Connections Project 356 Tacoma Dome Expansion. Capital Costs (In YOE $000s) Phase I of Tacoma Dome Station was completed and opened In October 1997. Phase II expansion of the Tacoma Dome Station parking structure will provide additional parking capacity to support implementation of Regional Express, Sounder Commuter Rall and Link Light Rail services. The Phase II structure will be located to the south on property adjoining the existing park-and-ride facility. This project also Includes pedestrian facilities connecting the three modes of transportation. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) $10,000 I Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) ( $10,000 r J Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $11,712 �1 Su. 8r@a•�'..sr'.^m;... «��,�:%4ij7;�?,�,' .�:�>:�"� :-�,;�� 1 r-1 �c:,�t'j,",,...�'�� 't.'.'t. ��;..t ,,1.i.ig',rrK., 9' - a•- .i t>'20QQ N,g,,t:. :a .S� , sF S'�j.�3�.r .�� F . '2004 s3' ...L Yk.s �005?06,r is .P w��:'Stibtbtal Pierce County $232 $1,715 $9,765 �y 2005-06 $0 $0 rand ., $0 $0 $0 $11,712 Total $232 $1,715 $9,765 $0 so so so $0 $11,712 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) {'F.4 "'s. a'°4ck',�� :- r•��9�?�.����� ',., Me:. �.. ..�'b r�'}!. 'i.:": < � ��f:.'�1 ,,JTa..,;,&.. n '(. )' . " ad'A,r'+S^•i ,2QlQ .;� ..>vrk r� w:• pare. ti<F... `y 1 20t)1:�•. _ el 1, 8$��'` G € as;r;;�s:�'tA�s {' '� z' .z.;;'.;£„ •S**°: .aro r v ;x ; r�pQllp,,,ta , y �.`" � '.20021 f �•,�, S.i, � �Y. ,�;�003r ,,r�'� >.n . ��'2�04a�i°�°t; �y 2005-06 ,' ;� ��:, rand ., $232 $1,715 $451 $9,765 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Final Design and Specification $0 $1,014 $0 $0 $11,712 $0 $0 $0 $1,014 ROW Acquisition end Permits $0 $0 $0 Capital Cost Elements (In YOE $000s) x5::4c• p*r„3nty '7'04i `G8 8'`� �;' � � 1,_n, n, , , {'F.4 "'s. a'°4ck',�� :- r•��9�?�.����� ',., Me:. �.. ..�'b r�'}!. 'i.:": < � ��f:.'�1 ,,JTa..,;,&.. n '(. )' . " ad'A,r'+S^•i ,2QlQ .;� ..>vrk r� w:• pare. ti<F... `y 1 20t)1:�•. _ ty.� '''. ., ...� ,.2�2 v ,., t i..� .>•:.-STr• ' �O :.. •S}' ° ,, ,:.Y ,, Sutitbtal Agency Development $12 $89 $475 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $576 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $220 $451 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $671 Final Design and Specification $0 $1,014 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,014 ROW Acquisition end Permits $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $8,180 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,180 Contingency $0 $161 $1,109 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,271 Total $232 $1,715 $9;765 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,712 Department [5 Regional Express a Division oo ro a Project 34 Community Connections 358 South Hill Park & Ride Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Pierce County Total Description Construction of a new park-and-ride facility serving South Hill and Puyallup. The proposed facility location Is on the northwest comer of the intersection of SR 512 and 94th Avenue SE on land owned by WSDOT. This project was first Identified by Pierce Transit and WSDOT several years ago. Preliminary engineering and environmental review phases were initiated In 1998. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) C $5,000 Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) t $5,000 Adopted Budget (In YOE $000s) $5,894 1 5ra .yrs \�, �.,.8'r� ,j�.'0.g7:64172 axe', a�..�..t;1'/>...+ Y } ' 1C s�.4 .rFV a.;ia^e M. ,, v'M.A.' t�t ... A •,wi:.:g'✓.,a" .= %� ' y,: r Q{x}1 ,� .,.,fi...J..i Zm*...r.ae�.. %, r.. �:i;, `i �;.:r .`SI ,k J C Sh... 1S ce'ty�t :, I. '' ,.44- ' c_ ''''''.44-':,:' VV�h a.y nitM - ' ✓ : 2O ... +... _ C r � .Z/�(��!W•'t�$ii.1# a �5�. .. � .... 4.t i1 C::. , t Vit, $58 $1,837 $3,999 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,894 $58 $1,837 $3,999 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,894 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) P. 6r ;2i'1:. $58 $1,837 e%x $3,999 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 randtTo +w ea. tal? $5,894 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) �3C,k 8, ;�mss..�'1 ,„. Me .°,fv•` a d .t x�k„ . �'f1j ' ... ; GS 1 , ' Jr004?.� O6f _ r � ubiotal Agency Development $3 $92 $191 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.. $287 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $55 $282 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $337 Final Design and Specification $0 $563 $58 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $621 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $731 $380 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,111 Construction $0 $0 $2,904 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,904 Contingency $0 $168 $465 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $633 Total $58 $1,837 $3,999 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,894 Department 5 Regional Express Division Project 34 Community Connections 360 Dupont Park & Ride Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description This park-and-ride facility will be the southern terminus of the Seattle Express bus route. The project will be constructed In the vicinity of Exit 119 at 1-5. A proposal has been received from a private developer to construct this project as a design/build, tum -key project. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) [_ _ $5,000 J Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) FW $5,000�� Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) e $6,128 1 7,'.. w'4=.• +4✓!`:^ ,.•,.Su..4Ca: ;aq; k� '7,''''' �y,: _', ;'�.99lG98; ejlt.}' .. �4k .2' ?- , �, r.�c.;�996%��:§ ' pry;, 'M,,[4v,4 ,, ...:s°•:2� �-r`i, A1.,^.., ' 'mss. °200 P. + . �.:; _;�.,.,: �3 ... .2004.; <..2005.06 .. �.1; .. < ;Subtotal Pierce County $0 $231 $3,493 $2,140 $264 $0 $0 $0 $6,128 Total $0 $231 $3,493 $2,140 $264 $0 $0 $0 $6,128 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) $0 $231 $3,493 $2,140 $264 $0 $0 $0 $6,128 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) ,;,troEemer.g -17$1e04rat; 9a_ �-; n.;0 . :,"e" $00� z . i. 2p02S?ti 2004. .�.. .... 2008.06 . Subtot;ai Agency Development $0 $12 $157 $110 $16 $0 $0 $0 $295 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $0 $197 $29 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $226 Final Design and Specification $0 $0 $406 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $406 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $0 $2,534 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$2,534 Construction $0 $0 $58 $1,834 $126 $0 $0 $0$2,018 Contingency $0 $21 $310 $197 $122 $0 $0 $0 $649 Total $0 $231 $3,493 $2,140 $264 $0 $0 $0 $6,128 Department (5 Regional Express , Description A Division 00 Project 34 Community Connections 362 SR 512 Park & Ride Expansion Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) This project will expand the park -and -fide capacity at or near Pierce Transit's existing SR 512 park-and-ride lot. The project site Is located at the southwest comer of SR 512 and 1-5. The site is bounded by 1-5, SR 512, South Tacoma Way and South Tacoma Way Extension (Union Avenue). The possibility of combining this project with the Sounder Commuter Rail Lakewood Station Is being considered. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) r $5,000 $5,000 $6,022 1 •<�•�a , NSu74:ii$,i 2.4958e4, :Srry7; ' ,, .c, ,..0-°M"x airy'''r4.✓, „, %� 6;' 2 . "20 f , ?0 ., Subtoto Pierce County $0 $859 $1,486 $3,407 $270 $0 $0 ' $0 $6,022 Total $0 $859 $1,486 $3,407 $270 $0 $0 $0 $6,022 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) 70 . e9�9:V4s'i wVyrU;3, •,•'.Z'. 2 K 202;; �N �9�1:0:8A40.74147.5, :�.. , 7fit 8r i't .�:. X..f Y'+''✓>i •4::',Y.:4 >,;;r� 2�;:..•:�,zap� �": . 9...' � •Y`�y y, ...t,� ,.. , ?otnr-��: � , ✓2003 ' ' ' ...,2doa ...•. I':•�..�..: Laos -os .":a�na>,rotai:.- ✓ 'Q iY $0 $859 $1,486 $3,407 $270 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,022 Final Design and Specification $0 $394 $406 $0 $0 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) _ ogr,se� ts° 'T ( 70 . e9�9:V4s'i wVyrU;3, •,•'.Z'. 2 K 202;; 20.^ : .::';L • 00 : ,: ', _,.,.,Subtotal Agency Development $0 $45 $67 $159 $23 $0 $0 .$0 $294 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $O $338 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $338 Final Design and Specification $0 $394 $406 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $800 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $0 $760 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $760 Construction $0 $0 $119 $2,934 $126 $0 $0 $0 $3,179 Contingency $0 $81 $134 $315 $120 $0 $0 $0 $651 Total $O $859 $1,486 $3,407 $270 $0 $0 $0 $6,022 = = Department 5 Regional Express Division 34 Community Connections Project 370 Pacific Ave. Overpass (Everett) Capital Costs (In YOE $000s) Description Construction of a grade -separated overpass along Pacific Avenue between Broadway and Hill. The project will minimize delays to Sound Transit, Everett Transit and Community Transit bus service, facilitate access to the Everett station, and allow for the Improvement of freight rail speed within the City of Everett. Preliminary engineering and environmental review were Initiated in 1998. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) fl$10,000 It $10,06- r$12,069 rE0 bae ;yaa ' 68i.-'k$Q��sitr .t;..:k k;t:dr4*, .. ..iy1. ..X.s ..'. rF ... ,»W.-.!�. t. a••:a•-. '.W°•kh '4'''' � -. ..... O0VP: r ',1444600W Snohomish County $325 $1,692 $1,986 $5,616 $2,449 $0 $0 $0 $12,069 Total $325 $1,692 $1,986 $5,616 $2,449 $0 $0 $0 $12,069 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) 005- �riit Total $325 $1,692 $1,986 $5,616 $2,449 $0 $0 $0 $12,069 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) RN,Teements: -NA 2.401" }. t,y( e.09::9a,'r;:? 'If r7� n ?:',..;{ < S , ...�r �.` WL,.f"'.. t. a••:a•-. '.W°•kh '4'''' '�l ."'iWi ; YtLWjYj tO41..'� q'.4t.°dt •' 'f,V3: 41#9{ Agency Development $17 $88 $99 $286 $98 $0 $0 $0 $587 Pre•Engineering/EnvReview $308 $770 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,078 Final Design and Specification $0 $676 $696 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,372 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $0 $1,014 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,014 Construction $0 $0 $0 $4,814 $1,893 $0 $0 $0 $6,707 Contingency $0 $159 $179 $516 $458 $0 $0 $0 $1,311 Total $325 $1,692 $1,986 $5,616 $2,449 $0 $0 $0 $12,069 Department [5 Regional Express a Division Oo ro 44. o Project 34 Community Connections 372 Bothell Branch Campus Access @ 195th/I-405 Capital Costs (In YOE $000s) Description Design and construction of new HOV!Translt access to the University of Washington/Cascadia Campus. Site locations for this facility are preliminary. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (In 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $5,000 j $5,000 $6,700 n_. }., _f>b..Y49Eari 007 28V§ .rP. s✓C'ay :MX_ .P!,f..�s11T -,1,,.?:, M .A.4 4 t<.,AF.a.. . W.. 1. • S'.'?..\ .. ..... ,..Mae�7 ,^ .r.f 2y 4-1.k.'r P. -,. r . ; W...7 .-V... 6. h '{ 70tpPvY East King County $0 $0 $0 $106 $1,257 $1,853 $1,564 $1,920 $6,700 Total $o $0 $0 $106 $1,257 $1,853 $1,564 $1,920 $6,700 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) $0 fijig $0 $0 d {„u $106 $1,257 $1,853 $1,564 $1,920 901* $6,700 Capital Cost Elements (In YOE $000s) • fix, .etxA�Y.,'.'; v.v :c`.; -" Gas em+� .. ._, .. ..<cT!° P� �y „t ..u... �99�`fr, s 'r o.< G,tT?.��. ' .w;w �v,�2'."ia � .-i'W` irs� �'p•iY�a.,'�:;''�ny {!vrr, a.:a I; :.• 200 • .�� ✓a":, r._ 2002_ ;J; :, ,..2003 f' .. ::,,v,-,1 Q. i. 04.. - is .. 200$-06 ¢ ,y. r ..0 =Subtotal Agency Development $0 $0 $0 $6 $61 $76 $71 $107 $321 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $0 $0 $0 $100 $265 $0 $0 $0 $365 Final Design and Specification 80 80 80 $0 $246 $315 ' $0 $0 $561 ROW Acquisition end Permits 80 $0 $0 $0 $685 $711 $0 $0 $1,396 Construction $0 80 $0 $0 $0 $584 $1,350 $1,400 $3,335 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $166 $143 $413 $722 Total $0 $0 $0 $106 $1,257 $1,853 $1,564 $1,920 $6,700 — 000 t0 ti Department Division Regional Express 34 Community Connections 1 Project 374 Willows HOV — (Redmond) Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description Design and construction of new HOV enhancements on Willows Road, which could Include Queue -By -Pass lanes at critical Intersections between NE 124th Ave. and NE Redmond Way on Willows Road. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) L $5,000 �f Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) $5,000 1 Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $6,607 an'.3Z,fit.¢" �,.t. rear• s i r', u' ��S'(:_, ,.:19974491, lL� - V :1.,$� '� $ �{• o-� •%. 5. --2 M..ir(h•.` .4•✓•a s.k}t.C.. .?,<:2' tyr k"ZZ> a r : � , , 2001 °, :W.;Y. a w: {v -i`.�. � >�pp2.. , Al �:Q• ? ,:) 03� •\'r § ; 2004 . .. 2005.06' � y, r� $upptotdi �1 'e.d�,. if East King County $0 $0 $0 $101 $1,262 $0 $2,709 $2,534 $0 $0 $6,607 Total $O $0 $0 $101 $1,262 Final Design end Specification $2,709 $2,534 $0 $0 $6,607 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (In YOE $000s) ri*,00440U•.g{ r +r rg Yee $0 $0 $0 $101 $1,262 $2,709 $2,534 i.s arane.fi3i $6,607 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) a- p�•7k+. Ci�pp{r§;:3. *We :'•4.�-. .wSE4•.,��m,.. ....k''9�f. �: +s.rl"Y-ry�' ' �'r`i7jf�9`�v'�(g�Sf. :.�P � .a\. ...�� 1" "'?,, :t 4,`" '}M9,, �v 3j r., �,...rc U� -�,,F'� u.ifv tf �: ''':. •ei9' 'd.•%.S:••'i...• �a �.a..`� ai y L , •.n, -e:� .� _ r�W1i j ,.L'i f ( M .i' 'ZW� .n t�;, e��rj ... L; dF GWq.r. •.a...' a .: �(�� '%l 1 t ,1 �,� t <i 4.„ j .; r Y;. tSubt�tiate Agency Development $O $0 $0 $5 $63 $135 $114 $0 $316 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $0 $0 $0 $97 $269 $0 $0 $0 $365 Final Design end Specification $0 $0 $0 $0 $246 $315 $0 $0 $561 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $0 $0 $0 $685 $711 $0 $0 $1,396 Construction . $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,304 $1,958 $0 $3,262 contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $243 $463 $0 $706 Total $0 $0 $0 $101 $1,262 $2,709 $2,534 $0. $6,607 Department (5 Regional Express zDivision 34 Community cro mConnections Project 376 Woodinville Arterial HOV Enhancements Capital Costs (In YOE $000s) Description Design and construction of new HOV enhancements, which could include arterial Queue -By -Pass lanes at critical Intersections between SR -202 and the new (Major Retail Development) activity center with direct transit access from SR -522. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $5,000 $5,000 $6,420 sKb a... itY; 7=: • ,, :#`Yh,r gMpr •.t. r ym s cZewtn��f - .;.;-0,!,=.4,:,. ,.,„'.„... ;.., :.1-. j�.' ; wi: tank* Ja• a :, East King County $0 $0 $61 $1,257 $1,812 $3,290 $0 $0 $6,420 Total $O $0 $61 $1,257 $1,812 $3,290 $0 $0 $6,420 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) i9e tes#.j< riti d�a99". $0 $0 $61 $1,257 • 44 �^.rtFn $1,812 $3,290 $0 0005+06 .r '04-c040 $0 I $6,420 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) /� •a°r♦. r i'4''' et O9t.EI9Rtlent • ,, r -. ._ ....2?S �0Ya: gy' :LJ. �Va_T'�V'))vVM-1 . n . i s [Fro.. .'Nt� . '6: qy'"X__•ttJ: 4 ;} �`°'d d1v3 ��i'++A '�Y.��,x �tj ...;L � �^3• �J *-5,, .� :jy 2 <F°..i3 '�e'+�'Q���,"�. Tw lY. ... •, vK.iC 9” `4 Ct- ����py�) _�.ii ✓ �• � �,. .7... �.., .. MI{ , '1n•WG C�� t .Y:. AN:', •l'.- i.-- ....: ��/�� ya`y {Sy-�: .r.. �VMV, :.. :.��y. -ry .....�W'Tt �. :.1-. j�.' ; wi: 4• s��i�%�OtB�r. _. ..1 .. yw, .4 *00.4 AgencyDevetdpment $O $0 $3 $62 $90 $154 $0 $0 $309 Pre-Englneering/Env Review $0 $0 $58 $298 $0 $0 $0 $0 $356 Final Design and Specification $0 $0 $0 $238 $307 $0 $0 $0 $545 ROW Acquisition and Permits $O $O $0 $658 $685 $0 $0 $0 $1,344 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $568 $2,609 $0 $0 $3,177 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $162 $527 $0 $0 $689 Total $o $0 $61 $1,257 $1,812 $3,290 $0 $0 $6,420 Department 15 Regional Express Division Protect 34 Community Connections 378 Small Cities Transit Access Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description The SR -520 Point Cities and the Sound Transit need to work through a collaborative process to determine the appropriate regionally significant project to thls area. It has not been decided if these access Improvements will be service or capital. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) $37000 1 Adopted Budget (In 1995 $000s) L $3.000 j Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $4,255 �j Y • -..$�xu..9read''.,P-, ; i;.w98ebt: Airli- . Y � „ .0 ... i=" ,�. TA l,. s .> .X. •YF . -.;:.+. ... - �.:,.M1..<. .• -M . at :'•, f.—. ,... w. 4- `vaf "1.; 3. ubtotal3 . ... East King County $0 $0 $0 $0 $91 $1,189 $2,976 $0 $231 $0 $0 $0 $91 $1,189 $0 $0 $2,976 $360 $4,255 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $91 $1,189 $2,976 $4,255 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) v894..oiz 40010_ttes 8: '4� ��• t. t9 VO: 01:f;., '`a g.3 �410s x��€%ft-� ` ".' s, `' ,r.,' �...:P�� . </ i �., .. '2001 R , ..... t 2002 .,.> _ ' c `2003 :;k 2004 f r:... �i ; 2005-060} ' . �... °Grand Total' . ... P $0 $5 $0 $0 $200 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $0 $0 . $0 $0 $91 $1,189 $2,976 $4,255 $231 Final Design and Specification $0 $0 I $0 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) '".etoeata:. 9 v894..oiz 1 f i10441W,A-7, i :gQi- . 4 %, 2. �.':',(7, . -.. �, _-0 .... k'1v,1 Subto8: - Agency Development $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5 $56 $139 $200 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $0 $0 . $0 $0 $0 $86 $145 $0 $231 Final Design and Specification $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $360 $360 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $887 $0 $887 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,133 $2,133 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $101 $344 $445 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $91 $1,189 $2,976 $4,255 Department 5 Regional Express —I Description Division 00 ro Project 34 Community Connections 380 Unincorporated King Co. Transit Access Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) East King County Total The unincorporated cities and Sound Transit need to work through a collaborative process to determine the appropriate regionally significant protect in this area. It has not been decided if these access Improvements will be service or capital facilities. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $5,000 $5,000 $6,849 s t,4� E���-�it89t ZI.'`PLI°°"'..t ���j'{� r�, .s. '+�-. 'l::k+7 1,}J(���(y�+. i�{' � •..•y��+�'�!YtRdy .� ,3r r %'a'TJ'•. i^r6siLV�}i �.*a�R .t n�we 4' '���vT •'.1Sr^ fes; -, d 'j a;-T—T ,.'' [ ,s- ...' ' '� , xl �v.•t. l,W�{/O � • f:1 : �7V�t�W!t. $0 $0 $0 $143 $241 $1,638 $683 $4,144 $6,849 $0 $0 $0 $143 $241 $1,638 $683 $4,144 $6,849 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) $0 $0 ytgt�'s. $143 $241 3 $1,638 $683 $4,144 $6,849 Capital Cost Elements (In YOE $000s) t F. agem ent:,� .� i x ..,,r,41,,�,,,a.� C10149fliiiii:" t �.,--.z.3< ...�.,.��.�� s'�'"; {999 ,N.,r�cj�, ,,.� ; ;j ''''''!1..;: fig f ,201'.":54,:.',:" •f.•..;u n, .... . -�'..,ai;$.+a 2002::: ; 4 490''';; 2 x, 2pp5:p •�,e,� � ,t ;, ;. r ,�,z 51Jbt0�81; .F:' ; Agency Development $0 $0 $0 $7 $12 $77 $35 $193 $324 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $0 $0 $0 $136 $228 $0 $0 $0 $364 Final Design and Specification $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $583 $0 $583 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,423 $0 $0 $1,423 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,430 $3,430 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $139 $65 $521 $724 Total $o $0 $0 $143 $241 $1,638 $683 $4,144 $6,849 Department Division Project 5 Regional Express J Description 34 Community Connections 382 1-90 Two Way Transit Operations Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) WSDOT currently operates the center lanes In the peak direction only. The project Is intended to allow two-way transit operations on 1-90 and support the Mercer Island Station/Park & Ride. Preliminary engineering and environmental review were Initiated In 1998. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $15,000 $15,000 1 $18,457 _l .,:y;r. i •.11D!„ak �'?:2:�':.,klt7 .:: •ie8t.�t ., e.:'n!h-, ,y,.'ti.>Yx,.a'Sv�.3b<�Y:...`�..?''r',..=-A:•.* •:r1; �yyu;{:: ... 4'. - F �.. .,2�1.,; ° .,d• 1 i •!Z;,..1,;1,, _ vji2U0i ZYV9 2�-06 ....;.�: ..g. Ut7tQ�:. ,- East King County $1,676 $705 $1,229 $2,897 $7,200 $4,751 $0 $0 $18,457 Total $1,676 $705 $1,229 $2,897 $7,200 $4,751 $0 $0 $18,457 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) $1,676 $705 $1,229 $2,897 $7,200 $4,751 $0 1 05- $0 ��and;•Tota $18,457 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) rx: '�T s£;�'i:; ost. O: ientn , , �,� ,w . a�. •. ","F' .w'-i'�•$1�}a z: 7. �r19 .�$•(es i�:t�sw:� �'1• u_,5.. "°, �.$�$ .��r,Y.��{ra'Ir'i��0., Y�-� .ri,%i i' : , ,s. ...�•-.. ? v. ley- 'Y: r; ".. > 2 ,.,:� „ Q01 ;��.:. 2 y a:3 � 20d.?:��x.>..�' .�.; �2 ... ..., 0.03 , , 'Jn• a ti ,. .2004:. 2 t.� 005Q6,�., Z:i. ' 4s � , Sutitoxal��,, Agency Development $87 $37 $64 $148 $367 $202 $0 $0 $905 Pre-Engineering/EnvReview $1,589 $480 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,069 Final Design and Specification $0 . $188 $1,165 $399 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,753 ROW Acquisition end Permits $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $2,350 $5,820 $3,509 $0 $0 $11,678 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,013 $1,040 $0 $0 $2,053 Total $1,676 $705 $1,229 $2,897 $7,200 $4,751 $0 $0 $18,457 Department Division 00 ro o. Project 5 Regional Express 1 Description 34 Community Connections 384 SR -522 HOV Enhancement (Wood.to Bothell) Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Construction of HOV improvements between Bothell and Woodinville including but not limited to bypass lanes, interchange and Intersection Improvements and park-and- ride Improvements. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $11,000 1 $11,000 l $13,921 :•iP.%:.?;�vKx4:•'airyF� YAW . r. ... 4 . .q t.�.^s9?3o 6wVs?' ...:'• •t,. .`:.' •`4. .Z,j :i.i.wsA+a .W'. • : a :-v.,..✓+.y. .:I. -�1..,. t a ..,... 'tZ..//5 0..�)t✓.-'t.�. n ... !•�r. , -.4,'.. .. Sub o.t. ;Si East King County $0 $0 8807 $3,611 $6,141 $3,362 $0 $0 $13,921 Total $0 $0 $807 $3,611 .$6,141 $3,362 $0 $0 $13,921 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) :0991 9Se8. ,' k` r%►R ra $0 $0 $807 $3,611 $6,141 $3,362 $0 $0 $13,921 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) k.'ZeI, AO**}''1Q�Q/'l'Z:a ... Sr'ii.i; ..:,. }�Y •.?.� /y,V i.� T�'"-`>'�a v,�d�\, 5 i r+`, �;r N.f«Yn(.r �z`,"+,� i. r,'�," ♦.�,.r..•, 4 v.T .�, ,i4r. ),, i,adYy"... {:t� 4W1 ,i ,'�� rfN1 s.s' .•. y s•`Nf . �;� ae VYZ - l. g. MVVt �• s.id`M� t. •t+, .. •eNtA, ':iW7 f� ..... �f',...r N..y,.° FSM �. �7tiii.:4 -.. ... Agency Development 80 $0 $42 $174 $314 $141 80 $0 $671 Pre-Engineering/Env Review 80 $0 $765 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $765 Final Design and Specification 80 80 $0 $226 $982 $0 $0 $0 $1,209 ROW Acquisition and Permits 80 80 80 $2,897 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,897 Construction 80 80 80 $0 $4,279 $2,609 $0 $0 $6,888 Contingency 80 80 $0 $314 $566 $612 $0 $0 $1,491 Total $0 $0 $807 $3,611 $6,141 $3,362 $0 $0 $13,921 Department 15 Regional Express Division 34 Community Project Connections 395 Funds for Other Projects Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description Sound Transit, jurisdictions, and agencies will need to work through a collaborative process to determine regionally significant projects for their funding sources. It has not been decided if these access improvements will be service or capital facilities. The City of Mill Creek has proposed transit improvements on SR 527 that are being evaluated. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) L $20,000 1 $20,000 $25,244 11 .p..¢y.,, i;..• ; 10N.Y{,�a^• . i. Al,�. ,..a,�.'.�Lh a^� yd�f' i' ,firY•' (.^s`W'.., • ....,,e .;:4 . ' .7.-4 .£ .i.; .. .`.. ^r•• .Z , .7.>, .rP_l.n,,W•'!T°. !:':.:;g;. 20 .! t_. W.'Vr {" /4,Q:.}c'i'btOtai :la..�.c Snohomish County $0 $0 $3,319 $3,413 $3,515 $3,610 $3,711 $7,676 $25,244 Total $0 $0 $3,319 $3,413 $3,515 $3,610 $3,711 $7,676 $25,244 Total Protect Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) ��ee.Y. }f 1::,y 9i7T- ,pYB . wk\-_v��. ;, ;r}�;;,y •• �: „:,•«;'b'w9�,�• 7t .> �'s .,..aar-n .S!y i" 1�yE`nsat:ti x...4001:4,,,x-t, Y•,..r,+. E� 2r� r > ..1 `�w �t 3' 'f. , 8 est) *OAR iR ;•`•4 : s ,:s...`"',>�:a�' :3 tt , : ;. y: E'.i .,., ..e, e.:,..,�. ,-:a.: : b ,,`... ; ;t r . 1 ''.:c. r . P.. b; -., _r. '1 ,. ,..&, r n`y ? c;' .2Q03 .. ..... ;;°% _ ;•.'; 2�4'.,`-` 'i .< °,'x`"2 w _ ger, .2008-�6, t.:••,� ' • brand: 3 ,Total,. $0 $193 $0 $1,255 $3,319 $0 $3,413 $0 $0 $3,515 $0 $3,610 $0 $3,711 Final Design and Specification $0 $7,676 $25,244 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $0 $0 Capital Cost Elements (In YOE $000s) x:rj '�.., Or: C�((d8**.E li roti Ill ..T ..Y. «,d' ���..a.v..r�:`,.p���..,..�.ii,: ��ee.Y. }f 1::,y 9i7T- ,pYB . wk\-_v��. ;, ;r}�;;,y •• �: „:,•«;'b'w9�,�• 7t .> �'s .,..aar-n .S!y i" 1�yE`nsat:ti x...4001:4,,,x-t, Y•,..r,+. E� 2r� r > ..1 `�w �t 3' n. �: t: t , . 2/ n ':{:b; �.y>.. .n i? >;rn•,-;1:-.;:7-4,.:2004a'::,,,. ! 2M,� .41;•p°1'j ;7 V{IJ ..'4.: .Y, i,,.e; ,ZV{/J'VV ,r..{.,' 4. y �S{✓IWt��le. Agency Development $0 $0 $173 $178 $183 $188 $193 $341 $1,255 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Final Design and Specification $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contingency $0 $0 $3,146 $3,235 $3,332 . $3,422 $3,518 $7,335 $23,989 Total $o $0 $3,319 $3,413 $3,515 $3,610 $3,711 $7,676 $25,244 Department Division 0o co Project 5 Regional Express 35 HOV Direct Access 105 1-5 @ 164th (Ash Way) Capital Costs (In YOE $000s) Description This project would connect the park-and-ride lot (that began construction In September 1997) In Snohomish County with the inside 1-5 HOV lanes via a flyover ramp allowing direct access for buses and carpools. This will allow Northbound HOVs to exit and Southbound HOVs to enter 1-5. This project will be located at 1-5 and 164th (Ash Way). May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $11,000 $11,000 $13,951 �:'a 1� '�jart .i' °3 d•.. Ca`>a�y'�'tv�,�q�p: .:�.,.g; 4t 0p1�j %(��p' �','b.�.<".'�a",\y'A� .-. >:� � «+;Mi *AV '. �x 6N'��,''T,.<•' .J."!.t.". lb:1tr+A» '�� ^f rf ..fi af.>,ZI7�N� :'%4e � g��i�jy�r;�. d A ,i.� iWti e �..t v.�Ar1� 1 . ,��,v,+.-'' -.LWG s,t >'. j'an.� ff1 .. i�'-�•^i � � /GV,. e. •4. �7 1 .�.,e �, 2�Q4. i;•r .. :A,"i2 B'� _ ��r'l .6.x`1 �� '^ V�itatal.. i4y a Snohomish County $0 $119 $1,174 $824 $3,259 $8,574 $0 $0 $13,951 Total $0 $119 $1,174 $824 $3,259 $8,574 $0 $0 $13,951 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) EI si $0 $119 t? . $1,174 $824 $3,259 $8,574 $0 $0 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) +' •E:, a;a9t8 X.1♦4 .gnoi; 40.,pa 4,^ �br :i ..$3:1 3' 6 +.,s YF:tl rq >'';-A.,:',1'. 0.4-.:. ..rx1 . ° kL•.-:(." ) i._.00 0•.• . , : :�.S.'.l .., c< .0 i. _56 5': 2. • S'_`;6,-,SUtiaal,r. Agency Development $0 $7 $61 $43 $164 $405 $0 $0 .._ .i $680 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $0 $113 $649 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $762 Final Design end Specification $0 $0 $464 $703 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,167 ROW Acquisition end Permits $0 $0 $0 $0 $274 $0 $0 $0 $274 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,524 $7,029 $0 $0 $9,553 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $77 $297 $1,140 $0 $0 $1,515 Total $0 $119 $1,174 $824 $3,259 $8,574 $0 $0 $13,951 Department Division Project 5 Regional Express 35 HOV Direct Access 111 1-5 @ Lynnwood Park & Ride Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description Construction of a "T -ramp" connection to allow both northbound and southbound buses and carpools to connect directly from the Lynnwood Park -and -Ride Lot at 44th Avenue West to the 1.5 HOV lanes. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) I$30,000 $30,000 $37,416 ,7zt048.°+7i 6, , , >ty, >t>Y; w2 9 gait, 7?QqA 't'.; �2r.;. , {'s'..Elv, y�, t,,.,ti 3c{..,y%K :aa•t `�-;.^� 2004. �. �2 4 <•E. ?ba"- Snohomish County $1,252 $1,661 $3,100 $842 $17,466 $13,096 $0 $0 $37,416 Total $1,252 $1,661 $3,100 $842 $17,466 $13,096 $0 $0 $37,416 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) 99T tq > 4 S f (et $1,252 $1,661 YL $3,100 $842 $17,466 20, $13,096 $0 $0 Cirajtj. Total $37,416 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) oto �,, .,t:xs -g" .c ..;-.,',‘,E70.90:44.1, } Cosi O�iE! iit.° ...�� „xw�, .{ ', i7€ �• > P ^"sil' F3gt:. 6�?35s;% Y r... Vis_• ''S',g 1. •: i;, :r� t`2Qf1 ,, �:,. _. ,,�' t+.t. ,I ?d,+a 2 2� . .. 00 , •4';: :4v ; - :,_ .2003. , ;. ;004,x.'2005 i..,,; ..? .Y•: �:,..-Q6 y.� Subtotal .... Agency Development $65 $87 $161 $44 $889 $593* $0 $0 $1,838 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $1,187 $1,574 $145 $0 • $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,906 Final Design end Specification $0 $0 $2,794 $719 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,513 ROW Acquisition end Permits $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,975 $10,327 $0 $0 $25,302 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $79 $1,602 $2,176 $0 $0 $3,857 Total $1,252 $1,661 $3,100 $842 $17,466 $13,096 $0 $0 $37,416 Department Division 000 o Protect 5 Regional Express 35 HOV Direct Access 115 1-5 @ 112th (Silver Lake) Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description This project would provide direct access from 112th Street SE to the 1-5 HOV center lanes In Snohomish County. The construction of new ramps would allow northbound HOV vehicles to exit and southbound HOV vehicles to enter 1-5. The environmental analysis will Include alternate ways of making the connection. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) $6,000 Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) ( $6,000 j Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) C $7,340 t, . �;1�^ ., i.? 3tT, '''..w 9F 044 }7.9 i;;�gp (e ° ,VA��}..�1 �.T.. ..•f .T v` ,�t�~' ()') ! >'•RX'lY4-.._�.. � r5 fia ' 'A.+, •.,�a•x. F',�Yl'{f..YVV44. Lx.. h�$ - ''�.Q� i(" - fi, ��A }.i �.5' .. I�/�/�� s .,a� Fyy'ms�:�X .'��LWi, .y.: t� I��/��y .. 'S^ �t t �iWV .•vr' •2 O4 ''•7c:\ LV\A... = fi^..I�.(�./.��_/�Q vh :LVYJ1/V� ... '.;} p <', *Oil 'r ... Snohomish County $0 $428 $489 $3,981 $2,184 $259 $0 $0 $7,340 Total $0 $428 $489 $3,981 $2,184 $259 $0 $0 $7,340 Total Protect Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (In YOE $000s) .l raiid'.Total $0 $428 $489 $3,981 $2,184 $259 $0 $0 $7,340 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) . bii:'#rc•„�y' 7.i'js, i �a`•V4 404,0iii, t� i mss.... ..+, _k.a ri. +"Y lli 'YI:S}Y°'pr�j� �y '�1� ;t4 +8t3t� , SSS. :.. c {,x `.Y.w .,�,.a x�,i<�'�i , R.. •.. 3,.1 ^t 'N. 3F�.t% � +$a �{yd::('.•2 yh + �3 , -tl ,-, :� e> t ., :•ya9o�' t.w FA ` 1 20Q. .:X`"�Kv f� `12 002 1. ._ e_.<x, /� ..,i}> .(.` P.f' 003 ,<rt.. , :�.r�`: �.�; .✓�. 2004 '�S.'x Subt ta(, t1 _ 4, Agency Development $0 $23 $26 $203 $87 $23 $0 $0 $361 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $0 $406 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $406 Final Design and Specification $0 $0 $464 $167 $0 $0 $0 $0 $631 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $0 $0 $263 $0 $0 $0 $0 $263 Construction $0 $0 $0 $2,983 $1,894 $0 $0 $0 $4,877 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $365 $203 $236 $0 $0 $803 Total $0 $428 $489 $3,981 $2,184 $259 $0 $0 $7,340 00o ro tiLol Department 15 Regional Express Division Project JDescription 35 HOV Direct Access 125 1-5 @ 320th (Federal Way) Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) This project would provide direct Inside access to and from 1-5 In the vicinity of the Federal Way Park -and -Ride Lot located at S. 324th Street. The Inside ramps would connect the median HOV lanes to a crossing of southbound 1-5 that would tie directly to or In the vicinity of the park-and-ride lot. With this treatment, buses could avoid traveling the congested 320th Street corridor, and could enter and exit the inside HOV lanes both northbound and southbound. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) r$25,000 $25,000 ( $31,393 �.xa°p.. s., . . a 4''''' �e.. : M y 001 r.,A 17., ; , 3.1- S .. , 2O .S qi A: V 3n ,;.t. , -.. Ubtaal... South King County $672 $979 $1,880 $2,452 $11,775 $13,636 $0 $0 $31,393 Total $672 $979 $1,880 $2,452 $11,775 $13,636 $0 $0 $31,393 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) $672 r4wi $979 $1,880 l $2,452 $11,775 $13,636 $0 c ai $0 irarid Totals $31,393 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) ya,4. //�� jj ♦-., .�Sp�-i ..t A: L'''q� i.e , \IO L{ lerrieht,4 ..i z. ;.. .._..i' ..: j.s.: i,'-"J.t�, . f 1v �7>'PV• Ali ..g . .. ��. .-Si�v�•-i lm.t.' r: .3' P LTi^5 t7a,7 `3..«a.l'w - f^ Nx�`iv.! . -Y -.-'WVid r `. w'4f i.: i'C'fl. n, f...i..r{ t •$.r'•.4ti• :. ": n':J ,:J .;'�.t.0 �r �..- I °' -.+t •'L i na.. M'� . .': :,gala .. '1.'1;::'4.: e� ..4 .,...`..7''. K.,�... k•..':2`!`!"�,AY...F+. ... J LWJ�VV ,id92. i.2•Yy:,' .`t': ��7UbtQ aill F: Agency Development $35 $51 $95 $128 $599 $625. $0 $0 $1,533 Pre•Engineering/EnvReview $636 $928 $52 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,617 Final Design and specification $0 $0 $927 $2,095 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,022 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $0 $634 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $634 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,095 $11,082 $0 $0 $21,177 Contingency $0 $0 $172 $230 $1,080 $1,928 $0 $0 $3,410 Total $672 $979 $1,880 $2,452 $11,775 $13,636 $0 $0 $31,393 Department Division oo ro N Project 5 Regional Express 35 HOV Direct Access 131 1-5 @ 272nd (Federal Way) Capital Costs (In YOE $000s) Description Construction of a "T -ramp" to connect with the 1-5 Inside HOV lanes, extend over the southbound lanes, and touch down adjacent to the Star Lake Park -and -Ride Lot. This project will allow buses and carpools to enter the HOV lanes, both northbound and southbound, from the park-and-ride lot. Buses would also be able to make passenger stops. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $27,000 [ $27,000 $34,810 �R3't.C:C B'Yt< 44i- HTf,, : t r✓�:4900444 ' ' r., M1•n :ay :H :Mt.'P.. '''T:' z?.L.{v` % � oT... .�..Z�O. `ei ,. 4 '•� .. t..ZMC • , I :.'iatQs{ #<,:... �a -' -utY South King County $788 $373 $4,825 $2,364 $0 $12,160 $14,300 $0 $34,810 Total $788 $373 $4,825 $2,364 $0 $12,160 $14,300 $0 $34,810 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) 40 >( nd _Total $788 $373 $4,825 $2,364 $0 $12,160 $14,300 $0 $34,810 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) '• ,A1004040 w �i9974ol f{ n .. ^,� .7> i0;='' .. 2OO1;`' :2002 x n .2Q�3 , ' '... 2004c 'S` ':':.i.4.00 ''• Subtotal . Agency Development $41 $19 $238 $123 $0 $615 $647 $0 $1,683 Pre-EngineeringIEnvReview $748 $354 $64 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,165 Final Design and Specification $0 $0 $927 $2,019 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,947 ROW Acquisition end Permits $0 $0 $3,168 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,168 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,435 $11,664 $0 $22,099 Contingency . $0 $0 $428 $222 $0 $1,110 $1,990 $0 $3,749 Total $788 $373 $4,825 $2,364 $0 $12,160 $14,300 $0 $34,810 �. Department Regional Express 1 Description Division Project 35 HOV Direct Access 135 1-405 @ Southcenter (Tukwila) Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) This project would provide a transit stop near South Center for regional routes on 1- 405. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget On 1995 $000s) $18,000 1 $18,000 l 1 Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $24,035 l.t t-4 ! itaoir -� „,T . ,.,,yi )" �J;. S. ,,,, S_C .. , nl;. ,.. ;% ., : .:Y ..,^':. _ :J:^ ,,,• '..%>f . { . . •404oel . s - South King County $0 $0 $0 $1,229 $1,725 $4,283 $6,460 , $10,338 $24,035 Total $o $0 $0 $1,229 $1,725 $4,283 $6,460 $10,338 $24,035 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) } ^R1 PJQQrQQ�. 1. 1ast4•, 4t... ..,, ..J.u:.:; V,It ..J...}t`,gC�W`.••.-.t ''..; ..-,g•y ;.n, • c. ; ;q. de • k°•... WV t.!. F. $0 $0 $0 $0 . $217 $1,229 $1,725 $1,162 $4,283 $6,460 $0 $10,338 ran total. $24,035 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) � ti9^G gO:1474M$ '.•. tAV4a ;. Y. .Z/�V/, •:._'T•.�*•'C,. .>.. W.:.,:ifMW4 0 'Y.: .'4:..:.. d :?:•�`<`.GW 2 { •i 6 . .: titotai:..',:hV0fn.:�t`9i 8 Agency Development $0 $0 $0 $64 $90 . $217 $325 $466 $1,162 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $0 $0 $0 $1,049 $246 $0 $0 $0 $1,295 Final Design end specification $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,228 $782 $0 $0 $2,009 ROW Acquisition end Permits $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $285 $0 $0 $285 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,609 $5,549 $8,555 $16,712 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $116 $162 $391 $586 $1,317 $2,572 Total 80 $0 $0 $1,229 $1,725 $4,283 $6,460 $10,338 $24,035 Department Division 00 Project 5 Regional Express j Description 35 HOV Direct Access 140 Kirkland 1-405 HOV Access Improvements Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) This protect provides direct HOV ramps connecting the future 1-405 Inside HOV lanes and addressing transfers between local and regional buses serving the Totem Lake area, Kingsgate and Houghton park-and-ride lots with connections between Kirkland and Redmond. Each proposed direct access ramp could Include: in-line transit stops serving park-and-ride lots and pedestrian walkways connecting directly into park-and- ride lots, both of which allow greater transit routing flexibility by not requiring all routes to travel to the park-and-ride lots. Possible project sites Include NE 70th, NE 85th, NE 132nd, and NE 124th. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) $84,000 �l Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) ( $84,000 Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $106,486 1 i,i.-. .pe.i,,. )444ihis .4i'e 3. ,.,.�. '3t �' •) a ''`'"$!"fb ,.�,: n.�!'.�:s,� '?�: tw - f+.4.•...,, ..+, x2 e t} ;• .,.y �$� . ¢�,- : bbry,, .K. .r �S �t'rr�. :t- .`�1„2', :.��. ��$� �s s. < ,+#vw.a.,. .:dsS,PF"i5+ •thy, 0 ts- *. ��,�3n.� ,•'� :>'NL', S :b:f: . «> f. ,-,¢'w y. l",• � e. 200 • �. !1 \.�4.. tti Y-Iu. ... ,rv•t: 1r` -'i •'i.i>,r, ! i >*9 �.•,. 2002; b "#;�.,:sr. w. _>s,,rq ^'° .•J'_ .tY,x, a-."� a . >}2003y.nr� t:t - w+s, . ��..-, X2004'7:1X2005.0 q- 3'�, •., ;� : �,k ,•.t '' . ,,,., bto�al East King County $2,293 $1,403 $6,890 $25,164 $18,907 $26,175 $25,653 $0 $106,486 Total $2,293 $1,403 $6,890 $25,164 $18,907 $26,175 $25,653 $0 $106,486 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) 7p $2,293 1 $1,403 $6,890 $25,164 $18,907 003{ c �r $26,175 $25,653 aC $0 draiid4gtat $106,486 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) f•' ' `7hn.: :� t ,cGoa}I(r eii . �+�� �.,. ..-�,s�e:�+,,t +., sp,�. a. 197 18 ., .,,�.� 'Sr ri f :�.. � . �'' V, �.`,'-��'?tr,,,.,,� � 'S•re.{, r.: .,T' .. x = 2>fi00t: , �`°�',..�.a.,,..�,<.�,.........t. L:. :i �?•s:. :' �r�i a 2pfN . .1g.' <.,:.��w: . == f 2042 ........ ..;,w. ..> t. xa 2 < > ...... .8 •. qn>}.: . ,. ; 2 �, -> 004 ' ;' •• . ��2005=06 ,� ,s: $04001. Agency Development $120 $73 $359 $1,256 $970 $1,325 $1,064 $0 $5,168 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $2,173 $1,330 $734 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,237 Final Design and Specification $0 $0 $5,797 $10,322 $5,314 $0 $0 $0 $21,433 ROW Acquisition end Permits $0 $0 $0 $11,323 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,323 Construction $0 $0 $0 • $0 $10,875 $22,462 $19,374 $0 $52,711 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $2,263 $1,748 $2,388 $5,215 $0 $11,614 Total $2,293 $1,403 $6,890 $25,164 $18,907 $26,175 $25,653 $0 $106,486 Department 15 Regional Express Division Project j35 HOV Direct Access 145 -146-6-4- Bellevue Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description In partnership with WSDOT and the City of Bellevue, the construction of access ramps connecting NE 6th St in downtown Bellevue to the center lanes of 1-405; improving city street Intersections near the ramps; and sharing the cost of environmental mitigation. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $81,216 $66,000 _ $66,000 .'i 'F';X+,v :• 4 eie •;. , •Yr: At' •, �a:�. {> 99x;59'rLe� ;., it^p;*9'344;''''"i" �a s d. i rx t�'�:�$i";,• -_.y 20b2 a< T�-' ?'.yj.._ 2003, ,,, . , .}. 2004 2005.06 ` Sfitito l' East King County $1,858 $10,668 $12,648 $17,721 $18,097 $20,223 $0 $0 $81,216 Total 81,858 $10,668 812,648 $17,721 $18,097 $20,223 $0 $0 $81,216 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) 1997 :tet}: $1,858 $10,668 2 $12,648 $17,721 002 $18,097 $20,223 0 5 $0 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) ' CG+i rri*flt 1.0001:40 44)i . 5v. -1t. 'P• 4'ro"*i i2 <9 r ..•2�13- 'r•P20V" Wi •O6V "'b''''4ttQui.' Agency Development $97 $536 $639 $902 $922 $854 $0 $0 $3,950 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $1,321 $1,803 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,124 Final Design and Specification $440 $1,915 $1,322 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,677 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $5,070 $2,643 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,713 Construction $0 $0 $6,505 $14,793 $15,102 $15,551 $0 $0 $51,952 Contingency $0 $1,344 $1,540 $2,025 $2,072 $3,818 $0 $0 $10,800 Total $1,858 $10,668 $12,648 $17,721 $18,097 $20,223 $0 $0 $81,216 Department " Division oo m a Project 5 Regional Express 35 HOV Direct Access 150 1-405 @ Park Ave (Renton) Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description An elevated HOV connection between SR 900 and 1-405 could be constructed. It would require the construction of median HOV direct access ramps to SR 900 and the construction of a new bridge structure over SR 900 to accommodate widening on 1-405. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $32,000 $32,000 $41,686 3: ;: ^-L•ffin 70 iii *:. w' , ,.\% { � ..' Jtistlit f .. .� S M,89.fie `3 ,.. ���� r., °',nsee; a"r„4Lt. i2:. G'•:e - >. . ''',>, i°?2-...,•i �.z�.,.. d�e;. :;,;; „'.7:t.,,,;:;,;; �.. - . ZW4 k i. § s:. . ( Subto•wl > {: .. East King County $124 $0 $595 $0 $1,737 $1,646 $2,652 $0 $3,938 $0 $15,565 $12,950 Final Design and Specification $4,249 $0 $41,686 ota 595 1,737 $2,652 $3,938 $15,565 $12,950 $4,249 $41,686 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) V-990.010474 $0 54 $595 $1,737 $2,652 $3,938 $15,565 $12,950 a ,,2005-06 (3ratiii`:Total $4,249 $41,686 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) NY aF-0 �.,, ,04, :�elr)0nt, W14,04, .tat} � w' , ,.\% { � ..' Jtistlit f .. .� S x�+"^.r4 7 <i..f }}, 89yjy . r 7i �fh »+.rY�{�ri' tY'L°`� ^t'� i.}} , y!r`� ��oir;44,:.,;4-7-2001:;. .y�`��d �_d `19.•x°2. r«. , C k {f 0 2 . °4�,�. .v. w '.�.3•iin.fCr•I..t2WVY_ '°i..''A•i e, i,�, /��I�» 1: � c *A:.:; n. - .,:.,. ` /�/� ' f ♦ P2WT°['7( F• •,Y< /�/�5}�� „ itN �2WV�VV T .1 ..£ .t• {� ... .^Su/JtQ�1 Agency Development $0 $32 $90 $138 $194 $788 $652 $124 $2,018 Pre•Engineering/EnvReview $0 $563 $1,646 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,210 Final Design and Specification $0 $0 $0 $2,265 $1,203 $0 $0 $0 $3,468 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,193 $0 $0 $0 $2,193 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,357 $11,123 $2,800 $27,281 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $249 $349 $1,420 $1,174 $1,325 $4,517 Total $0 $595 $1,737 $2,652 $3,938 $15,565 $12,950 $4,249 $41,686 Department 15 Regional Express 1 Division 35 HOV Direct Access Project 155 1-405 @ Talbot Road (Renton) Capital Costs (In YOE $000s) Description This protect would provide direct access to and from the south (only) from 1-405 to Talbot Road (SR 515) with direct access at Grady Way. Access to SR 515 could be a viable option even if HOV direct access with SR 167 Is constructed. These ramps will connect the south end of downtown Renton with 1-405 to and from the west. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (In 1995 $000s) 1 $31,000 Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) $31,000 Adopted Budget (In YOE $000s) ( $40,342 . P:x(a.. 8k ceA-.4" ; ' 993 ::•r�45w 2.+a0 1 ,rz..d�2i.1 .4'..:1),;:f•z • 't ..e-. : �'; .. ,. i; s.J.''''' ; . i . .':.'.i. + ei• 5 .cZ; • :liE gUt�ta East King County $0 $595 $1,664 $2,513 $1,740 $16,105 $13,508 $4,217 $40,342 Total $0 $595 $1,664 $2,513 $1,740 $16,105 $13,508 $4,217 $40,342 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (In YOE $000s) `etas )" a• 2005-06>- $0 005=06> $0 $595 $1,664 $2,513 $1,740 $16,105 $13,508 $4,217 $40,342 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) • ,.-40,1exn80iy • ... . ,. ... ,w41 $7' :�t�s ty,ry� � .'vf`•f�-�, r''�`�':'d.r....Ye."1!. '''° . r-.1.4.1. . , .e sf. a.i_ , +f�Ai > 20p s � .. , 1.: ::•4 :.. '20:,''';',-;:,,,c,; .,J s, � ,;1';2003 .. . ,� eb. , . ,.. . +.... .. '`i -2004 d';` � ..... 2wiL'LV � +; tF : } � �V{it�ta� Agency Development $0 $32 $87 $131 $90 $816 $681 $125 $1,961 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $0 $563 $1,577 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,140 Final Design and Specification $0 $0 $0 $2,146 $1,215 $0 $0 $0 $3,361 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $0 $0 $0 $274 $0 $0 $0 $274 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,820 $11,603 $2,800 $28,223 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $236 $161 $1,469 $1,225 $1,292 $4,383 Total $0 $595 $1,664 $2,513 $1,740 $16,105 $13,508 $4,217 $40,342 Department z Division oo ro Project 5 Regional Express 35 HOV Direct Access 160 1-90 @ Eastgate Park & Ride Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description This protect would connect center lanes on 1-90 to the Eastgate Park -and -Ride Lot using a °T° with a ramp over the westbound lanes of 1-90. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) 1 $29,000 Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) ( $29,000 } Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) (I( $38,9041) a;z,i�•�.'2 3D�re,tAv ,! ! ' ' .,v.e44)_.,. j5•� 1a1. _ , ''' Ma,ttI ; MNi %:W :::..,� x, k .. Wn•.„1Y:7; -,. 'c 2 :YY.(•W♦ t.:a.. .. , . idiiiifi I :; East King County $0 $0 $245 $1,937 $1,877 $2,255 $15,570 $17,020 $38,904 Total $0 $0 $245 $1,937 $1,877 $2,255 $15,570 $17,020 $38,904 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) $0 $0 FR $245 $1,9371 $1,877 $2,255 $15,570 $17,020 ;�`'Cirand'T,ota� f $38,904 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) 'otE„ le. _nt, <...'.s, • +s�„aZ.'e•. '.':^ ai._„ 9t' F .o a..2i� ;Ra`, .t<.,.�2p'',,?i.;',. . . ,..21• x1 ... i_ • 2 r 2005-06, ..- Subto$,i Agency Development $0 $0 $13 $101 $98 $116 $784 $770 $1,882 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $0 $0 $232 $1,836 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,068 Final Design and Specification $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,602 $1,646 $0 $0 $3,248 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $285 $0 $0 $285 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,373 $13,865 $27,238 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $177 $209 $1,413 $2,385 $4,184 Total $0 $0 $245 $1,937 $1,877 $2,255 $15,570 $17,020 $38,904 Department Division 15 Regional Express 35 HOV Direct Access Project 165 1-90 @ Sunset Interchange (NOV Share) Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description This protect will connect the outside lanes on 1-90 with arterial streets within Issaquah. The transit -related cost for the project description entering Draft EIS Is substantially less than $16 million (in 1995$). If the current project moves forward, use of the balance will need to be determined. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) r $16,000 $16,000 1 $19,021 j , .'4,0:44 ep• Y. 70144. `"q {•? ¢ .9..'Y _.,* .;�'" ,.., a 0 ' s..4•i' f .cr�:».Y.:c..0 '.''. •.:w�4..:,NW20JSr C:..G°a; ' � ,.. . sn, `2002 r eP . `2..e?, - .t' ..... • ' ,d.e .a .... v-....0 a 1,.1.Y: u..tT ';+,C. i" ,. foiE"a , East King County $0 $0 $0 $0 r $0 $19,021 $9,445i $9,576 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $0 $19,021 Total $0 $0 $9,445 $9,576 $o $o $o $o $19,021 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance >.t? 6p. 7' 2001;.:: �P (in YOE $000s) 'r < a 200 " t ;2O 03 .. qu;:. i {. j�'�i \'i�[•a •. ;2004�..ti', .•,,., r .Y�cr..,=4: 2005-06 ..;: t a , aranf� Totat� .. fix. gl 'i991,98.�est:jJ.�, y �'');..17,.. ,r��e:�' 's rc.:.'. .k., ,p , •?�'4'.-94::.,5'..,;.?.., k�`-s�a: 2 ,'.t't ��, �a.: �: $0 $0 $0 $9,445 $9,576 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 r $0 $19,021 $0 Final Design and Specification $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) .:.i'74„.,41,',...1,,, A g.w > i♦.BntL g., t n.ix'.,: -}: ' ryV� '- ;1f 9'-98; 8$t. 3 ., 39 .��:.. ,�t�°F, ;Aa x'j �(�py� xly. .`4.w7) •n.y` LO ..-. ---a _u.n-�'S�z`f,� i:�vM'¢��1....x vy Yw .,, ". ;.yi. t.l': �.,4 tie a'�� .,;L�t),.Q a'.:&.y tft,,,/x�3 ZWI a : , „ .. �,, .. ? `.. :c' q,.�x. s. ,.j;002. {t<* _ o Y _.. ;. �/�p >r'i 2003..1. •r v,. ... .. ,.: r',. /�/��. !%;... .. ZW't' I ., . r .. .. .... /��.. .f -v, Y;.20VJ/V 3 . .�.. b e b{� .w .y. •.,Subt�W1 .. s-. Agency Development $0 $0 $225 $225 $0 $0 $0 $0 .. $450 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Final Design and Specification $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ROW Acquisition and Permits $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $4,500 $4,499 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,999 Contingency $0 $0 $4,720 $4,852 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,571 Total $0 $0 $9,445 $9,576 $0 • $0 $0 $0 $19,021 Department (5 (Regional Express Division Project 36 Regional Bus All Snohomish County bus routes Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description All Regional Express bus projects in Snohomish County are represented here: all of routes A and B, and portions of routes C and D (see map for route details). Also represented here is Snohomish County's portion of bus maintenance facility costs. This budget Incorporates the Board -adopted Service Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP reflects 1) an Improved rounding methodology, Indicating that the budget (In 1995$) should have been $55,000 rather than $56,000; and 2) updated service commitments and costs. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) ( $56,000 Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) ( $55,704 Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $69,650 • >:55 • . �{�• y.d+••{�•:r�:1° ,..•i .li3ii '4� hnwp'.rop������pp '/9.Y�a �jY !,"l 141 eel: ... }"�(> s t••kr' }k�" * '.1.a. Ycr aq .., c ;. `.� net 't".. 5 a 6.is(. . ..� '. . tMh )i j'j ;:•± ' ,r , �, '•I.. S .._ C4.�.. . 1:i,. •�:.=[; l ,� 2002.x; .:;k ) .i r '. ,$003 - .... 2004 �;t ...... T 5=06 - ubtotal, Snohomish County $0 $0 $6,644 $1,475 $2,178 $5,492 $20,900 $982 $924 $1,017 $730 $7,841 $51 $104 $11,705 Operating/Maintenance Costs (in YOE $000s) ::.r„'+€ U ,0•4s,:g:t?x`,,p, 19, i. ..(00.)4:•^®�s ..„�81 J. ;',r ,tt:•: . ta.:,.2 r- :T<. i,.., yi ,.h4� > 004)6',.,,,,:,�-,r ubOial: Snohomish County $3 $0 $8,105 $1,475 $8,571 $5,492 $20,900 $6,417 $924 $7,088 $0 $7,841 $8,836 ] $20,796 $57,944 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) Kt1. 8•8w14.� ,.y1. ,• whi.:'r♦W"s�y i voli i °. 'i\i.'L / ,i_ b` 'Keratt F:tc?'.t' .${.3:4, 4 Y.f ,,,w27,--.; '2 Q0 '=- .. � 2001~ �.- '.$} .'31-4 : iy=" o' ,F _ ..,, 2002 `i i,``r a r- `.:2003„ ° , ., P:2004.... .... X2005 06 r t • ` »-Grand. Total: !, $0 $48 $8,119 $7,670 $3 $7,399 $8,105 Construction $8,571 $8,886 $20,900 $69,650 $924 $254 $0 $0 Capital Cost Elements (In YOE $000s) 'dSpE81u:6flt,',Kd Kt1. 8•8w14.� ��N�meaIFq:��S5>..Sv'.a r .2"�:1iF..r.,} s'.w Ye . ....;; •,02 :•",s,°s? '},..'ita' >�2004V,.=;<'.. v2.`.. ,25.0 ' • <.. s.L ?SuitOta Agency Development $0 $176 $269 $48 $50 $35 $3 $5 , $586 Construction $0 $0 $467 $892 $924 $254 $0 $0 $2,538 Vehicles $0 $6,468 $1,442 $42 $43 $440 $48 $99 $8,582 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total $0 $6,644 $2,178 $982. $1,017 $730 $51 $104 $11,705 Department 5 Regional Express Division 36 Regional Bus Project IAll South King County bus routes Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description All Regional Express bus projects In South King County are represented here: all of route M, and portions of routes H, J, K, and N (see map for route details). Also represented here is South King County's portion of bus maintenance facility costs. This budget Incorporates the Board -adopted Service Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP reflects 1) an Improved rounding methodology, indicating that the Sound Move budget (in 1995$) should have been $40,000 rather than $39,000; and 2) updated service commitments and costs. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $39 000 $45,393 $56,796 Sabirea:.r,:. il,1997.981est.) ,.,x999<;1.. _.. :2000;'.i ., ., LT.20Q1 y� t 2002 , L ,,2003,,,; .,. '2004: :,/2005=06 5iibtotal South King County $0 $6,807 $1,066 $2,614 $779 $269 $84 $143 $11,762 Operating/Maintenance Costs (In YOE $000s) Y , C.Si� area.f �'•,S. r.�� 199f.98. (4;94?; 200 South King County $0 $902 $2,914 $4,455 $5,838 $6,466 $7,620 '2006-01 $16,838 utitatal $45,035 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) $7,710 r,14.;i':;- $3,981 $7,069 $6,617 $6,735 $7,704 2005 randaTotal'i;' $16,981 $56,796 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) CoEeinen;k 1997=98(et:I .;�„ 9w ✓ � 2 . ..,•,.., 1 �> :2002 � . '�r, .:20050 �'Subtotal 4,`,: Agency Development $0 $192 $205 $130 $38 $14 $4 $7 $589 Construction $0 $475 $772 $664 $688 $189 $0 $0 $2,788 Vehicles $0 $4,534 $66 $1,343 $39 $48 $60 $101 $6,191 Contingency $0 $1,607 $23 $477 $14 $18 $21 $35 $2,194 Total $0 $6,807 $1,066 $2,614 $779 $269 $84 $143 $11,762 Department Regional Express 00 Division N Project 36 Regional Bus All East King County bus routes Capital Costs (In YOE $000s) Description All Regional Express bus projects In East King County are represented here: all of routes E, F, G, and 1, and portions of routes C, D, H, J, and K (see map for route details). Also represented here Is East King County's portion of bus maintenance facility costs. This budget Incorporates the Board -adopted Service Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP reflects 1) an improved rounding methodology compared to that used In Sound Move; and 2) updated service commitments and costs. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) r $145,000-1 Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) $144,549 Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $181,260 j herr .,fi2„ ,,., k.s a.. ' t:. r. -:4 {- .} ... i:7 by S(I iiS'. ; ...�;.,_.,r!r,....'�:P�`nC':>*i°a...,..,�<..a�1ty=�(�r.���.t�.,'�:rt„. r rot v ..§.r ai 1�;a 1aa(14 (10431;C* �ro fossa..., z14*. `�* ', .3.t h �. �Y.' ',Y.:,>:ti .. � u""�.'�i:„•,�„DDi`.,> tL... �y .. ,., >" r.. 3,.....�.: , .+ .;r. .: ,<'?•,. ,.....,.c. ;� , ..di :p.' � .�.,,"�.< .a. ,r�<;?;y . _Z00!{ �• ,«is. v..h .a.. s. 2t105'.asi �,r ,ti+s'.:i �T< %.*--,.. East King County $0 $11,145 $10,634 $8,205 East King County $3,173 $2,829 $2,351 $1,635 $39,972 Operating/Maintenance Costs (In YOE $000s) 2,F..:t.=..0 44- ', .. 10a 4 z*�W,.. <t, •4 tk ;r.. d$,' .. , k +' -:2 L> ,.. f .,<,. . ..::,,•a .;ti..' ., i. Agency Development $0 •:4 �.. 250�t w,.,.''^�:0001(060 SUb.t OAd,: f, East King County $119 $81 $2,606 Construction $9,776 $15,524 $2,485 $18,591 $2,875 $20,680 ] $23,549 $50,444 $141,289 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) 1484 fi';4 rai 4: Otal$ r' $119 $13,751 $20,410 $23,729 $21,764 $23,509 $25,900 $52,079 $181,260 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) ^.s .;s.. .1�... K.. t�. ;,. COSy :�I�h3ent ,.crs19$��8� hy:� *WOW a,^`93,' ✓s ;'�.s:. A'.3c* `^; C s�fiY��999�,p1 �+t -, •;�, , • M:ft 2'y1t:• ,,�,..-r:,,.., 2Q�0.'<i~; .&.::r>..•t.�,2� ' 1.. L,'., F lr j�;':a>: e.S. .s'•I''2002 L.f'` S� , e �3 .t. 9 S ''' .1' ,. 2005-0 g,; ...'t: . StibtOt81 Agency Development $0 $309 $784 $407 $155 $140 $118 $81 $1,993 Construction $0 $542 $2,485 $2,867 $2,875 $800 $0 $0 $9,568 Vehicles $0 $9,116 $6,522 $4,367 $128 $1,673 $1,978 $1,376 $25,160 Contingency $0 $1,179 $843 $565 $16 $216 $255 $178 $3,251 Total $0 $11,145 $10,634 $8,205 $3,173 $2,829 $2,351 $1,635 $39,972 Department 5 Regional Express i Division 136 Regional Bus Project All Pierce County bus routes Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description All Regional Express bus projects In Pierce County are represented here: all of routes 0, P, 0, R, S, T, and U, and portions of routes K and N (see map for route details). Also represented here is Pierce Countys portion of bus maintenance facility costs. This budget Incorporates the Board -adopted Service Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP reflects 1) an Improved rounding methodology, Indicating that the budget (In 1995$) should have been $122,000 rather than $121,000; and 2) updated service commitments and costs. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) r$121,000 1 $122,128 $151,225 viz,..;' f, , $uberea,. e?; :> $92 L:. 8- 1.04 ,s r. ° „�rx= 14 A":'s .F;1�9 .,;'". , 'fit. 'e>' r ET 2000 w A ;.,, t..t" tP �Yt'"ii:k." i'. :t: a 201' , .Y•:% .y ,'y -ia P '<: 2002 :tt >. ;q .> �.,�. ;>. a>....,:1' 2003 . ; - 'ao.' .c,� 2l]04 m'.A°°' `, � :,', -t " 20QS-08 - a. r.., - .. 4' F1 i:"„ i ..•..`. ,409. al!,Q;'".' Pierce County $15,068 $16,559 $0 $108,600 $23,016 I $3,538 $8,415 $2,704 $4,258 $16,609 $1,542 $809 $1,049 $42,625 Operating/Maintenance Costs (in YOE $000s) ;,y�`r•J'.9 o`Y"vY.7'." 6 e, t areS �1900,'(e t;..� g-. , :, , s'\ 00v .,'.‘••)?: , 0 .. • '{:20 $ . . 205= 4, >, .[. t Pierce County $915 $3,219 $9,888 $11,803 $13,360 $15,068 $16,559 $37,788 $108,600 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) i ,q. :40'.14 .,� P,[, 99198 :(est e..‘: 14t17.: 1999!.44,' 1a,s t.i•E •Grand;Tote,iy>; 8t S `,. ...,.� 0 ;%4c , , li • 2. $714 .200� F,, $915 $40 $26,235 $2,132 $13,425 $0 $20,218 $2,704 $17,618 $16,609 $856 $17,368 $38,837 $151,225 Vehicles $0 $17,722 $97 $3,970 $751 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) i,.CO3,E(18ht i ,q. :40'.14 .,� .iii,:::0 . ,.*.�trat+:• ,2,.. iJ{ , h>2....y. PA,�.A�...="»•., ,t.,.2 at•e.^. n ....,.2�.;. ^ t•'4s;'.?•;,.�,_, x.2 .,. ;... ..,. .T•• btotelr •-•. 4,0 Agency Development $0 $624 $714 $417 $209 $76 $40 $52 $2,132 Construction $0 $589 $2,704 $3,114 $3,124 $856 $0 $0 $10,387 Vehicles $0 $17,722 $97 $3,970 $751 $496 $625 $809 $24,469 Contingency $0 $4,081 $22 $914 $173 $115 $144 $187 $5,636 Total $0 $23,016 $3,538 $8,415 $4,258 $1,542 $809 $1,049 $42,625 Department Division 00 co A Project 5 Regional Express 38 Systems Integration 405 Fare Integration Description Develop a vision of a °seamless" system of transit service and the "one ticket ride." Identify how RTA dollars will be used to achieve this vision and ensure the success of existing transit agencies as well. Operating/Maintenance Costs (in YOE $000s) May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) r $45,000 ! Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) `F $45,000 1 Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $57,947 ;ia.'" �i '+k f'F6f ,J'%'.• �{ ,... e:ii 9j : 51 e4r1! 586. P -i�4%?:•�y ¢a¢, "b• } QQ3( sk rQ; r.. *�$;:�e$t. �,y(7' P.. L.7.'`i ii. i 7' �. sc 7} : X' d`, v`'r"�$. :?��(gq����'��' . f�.a- �..I .-` VOW K �. ..7<�J .1..: "'4�'e5,.fi:i.:: ., :�fi 7 �+:i�r � /` lan iPX..,:r r.1 �.4 J �y �{ rv, n�7�.3 -•' " .�.>�...,. i-%rA �: S' 'Av asy-r. w..ro�w.p ::Y '� n .%S �}... ~. ZT � o.. ^.A:. .. --'. y(�p��� pYt`� . r K �: Timet' - - ( .. E nc f1IVa17V h.. %,;td'^:4- u (,• {� ti .. ' u4 4 Regional Fund $579 �; 200.5-06, ' .. .,.. .. . �. $1,713 $4,670 $4,700 $4,920 $5,315 $4,700 $5,566 $4,920 $30,484 $57,947 Total $579 $30,484 $1,713 $4,670 $4,700 $4,920 $5,315 $5,566 $30,484 $57,947 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) •...,;. «5.,�. .y I 9=991I St) r1 ._ ��°.bjh�'a.�o,.w.�a'�-'a��€1'��3'1?J... WOW i•. -� .. - �$ AM. rt'<b:,';A ,..�O.i ,. ..v'��-«_'�.�",u ii rY.�°x^.',Y�,r } r , . i 200�k:?.:':,,, g n,_ ,.., ..,d ..7 =2 �•.'y - ,c. 2=: �w200 •,yr..... • ,..., '..-,?.%,,i':s',i`'g!'.,:: .. .< •�, a... 2 4 :t - . �; 200.5-06, ' .. .,.. .. . �. i.g.0i iikt.4tai� ,., ., a $579 $1,713 $4,670 $4,700 $4,920 $5,315 $5,566 $30,484 $57,947 — - Department Division 5 Regional Express 38 Systems Integration Project 410 Research & Technology Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description Develop program and objectives for RTA participation in new and innovative approaches to improving transit service delivery and encouraging people to use alternative modes of travel. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) C $30,000 $30,000 1 $37,488 t nay.' a^m•fA' 0.. ry ... . 4040 181144 A:: Oi5:•7',�.�, T t W ' , , r . •.t�>>r.'2t102 )..y :2004 .� s � �, r 200b=0B j :% :��ubto�al Regional Fund $808 $1,316 $5,022 $5,031 $5,049 $5,054 $5,063 $10,145 $37,488 Total $808 $1,316 $5,022 $5,031 $5,049 $5,054 $5,063 $10,145 $37,488 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) 900440 0• '(1f ,. .,. ,. r4.*;,: ?i; ... •< 12001' t `>. titi.' , t;e. ` 2003 +i r ; 2004 :.g t• '(iii$4.4 _ .., .'7sLit'erld: Ot9i;.. $808 $1,316 $5,022 $484 $5,031 $5,049 $5,054 Pre-Engineering/EnvReview $5,063 $10,145 $37,488 $4,574 $4,578 $4,570 $4,566 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) Coo?gf'etne; 900440 . �g t-�,s ;nels , r .. C�::001,Y . •x. 2002 a- ?. r2".040:1; . '' '2 . 00.0 oay': Agency Development $433 $432 $445 $457 $471 $484 $498 $1,040 $4,260 Pre-Engineering/EnvReview $374 $884 $4,577 $4,574 $4,578 $4,570 $4,566 $9,105 $33,228 Total $808 $1,316 $5,022 $5,031 • $5,049 $5,054 $5,063 $10,145 $37,488 0oo co ON Department A Division 00 rn a Project 5 Regional Express 38 Systems Integration 415 Phase II Planning/Engineering Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description Identify and analyze alternatives for future extensions of the Sound Transit System. Sponsor community, agency and subarea discussions to identify elements to be presented to the voters to fund system expansions. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) C $30,000 Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) r $30,000 Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) II $37,441 1 T"0iScik,';" x.•:19n7. 9pv6a"i)ii 74 �«., ..< t 3wf,W]..d,^..{ .•;*«•?`-{, F-+ i•':aaqW�_�1y a.•a', .> .' r ,.x.! .... ..2W�rY t t,. . i1 �.. -;8u.bynly.. ..y ' Regional Fund $653 $896 $3,882 $3,890 $7,431 $7,429 $7,432 $5,829 $37,441 Total $653 $896 $3,882 $3,890 • $7,431 $7,429 $7,432 $5,829 $37,441 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) •Jt %ai rt :( 7L77 984 iiv!Js Y, Q � 4. ,�.`,y�} r. 'rf a �:%6�,3-..� ��..:'p: a .; i"e ZVJN ?1, , .i . , S.. 3.:rasty i` 1:. , ''' F ` .. .� ' '2 .\y ... � tr 7 F. :: ;z4 � .. •�� '''' -. �: i - �• ' .. 4 • '.b :,• ?ou5 6 ' 0rai4-10al $653 $397 $896 $3,399 $3,882 $306 $3,890 $3,528 $7,431 $7,429 $7,043 $7,432 $5,829 $37,441 Total $653 $896 $3,882 $3,890 $7,431 $7,429 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) _VY�b OataGOkit'1: r d^..: 7 .. (40X.711,0:0S •Jt ja'.'1,... f • xK... :ft`Ai. i ka; .,. `.. -,-. <.�,a'.`Jam�L.,f. W ' s, � ? .., .;a'.r.:., -.°ZOOA ..,y. . ..,.a ....qw a•-Ci ��j •.. i'. '.t eVti0IQ Agency Development $348 $345 $355 $365 $376 $386 $397 $829 $3,399 Pre-Engineering/Env Review $306 $551 $3,528 $3,525 $7,055 $7,043 $7,035 $5,000 $34,042 Total $653 $896 $3,882 $3,890 $7,431 $7,429 $7,432 $5,829 $37,441 BOARD ADMINISTRATION Page 167 BOARD ADMINISTRATION OBJECTIVES, ACTION PLANS, AND BUDGET DETAILS Sound Transit Board Objectives 1. Provide policy direction and governance to ensure Sound Move the Ten -Year Regional Transit System Plan is completed on time and within budget. 2. Work with other legislative bodies on topics. affecting and/or of interest to Sound Transit, such as: • federal funding • state legislation • communication with legislative bodies at the local jurisdiction level • service and fare integration with local transit governing boards. 3. Establish a policy calendar of future board actions to enable the board to anticipate and be prepared for upcoming decisions and to monitor the activities of the agency. 4. Assure that the views of the region's citizens, Sound Transit customers and local communities are reflected in board policies. 5. Work with local jurisdictions and other entities on capital construction projects to ensure a collabora- tive approach to completing projects on schedule and within budget. Sound Transit Board Administration Objectives 1. Ensure that board and committee meetings, agendas, materials and notifications comply with board - adopted rules and operating procedures, as well as with state laws concerning meeting notification, Open Public Meetings Act and Open Public Records Act. 2. Ensure that the official records of board and committee proceedings comply with board -adopted rules and operating procedures, as well as with state laws concerning the open public records act. 3. Certify and file the legislative actions of the Sound Transit Board. Action Plans 1. Increase the efficiency of transmitting meeting agendas and materials to Sound Transit Board through the use of technology. 2. Maximize public availability and accessibility to board schedules, agendas, materials, records of board proceedings through Sound Transit's Web page. 3. Implement a system for tracking Sound Transit Board actions and decisions. Page 169 4. Implement internal quality assurance/quality control systems to ensure Sound Transit Boardmembers have, in a timely manner, the information and materials needed in order to take action, make deci- sions, provide direction and provide oversight. Page 170 BOARD ADMINISTRATION —1999 Action Plans ACTIVITY 1ST QUARTER 2ND QUARTER 3RD QUARTER 4TH QUARTER Increase the efficiency of transmitting meeting agendas and materials to ST Board through the use of technology Maximize public availability and accessibility to board schedules, agendas, materials, and records of board proceedings through ST's Web page Implement a system for tracking ST Board actions and decisions Implement intemal quality assurance/quality control systems to ensure ST Board members have the information and materials they need , ongoing ongoin ongoing Page 171 DEPARTMENTAL OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL PLAN SUMMARY BOARD ADMINISTRATION OPERATING BUDGET Salaries and Benefits Leases and Rentals Services Materials and Supplies Miscellaneous Expenses Other Expenses Depreciation Subtotal Operating Budget Adjustment for Non-cash Items Allocated From (To) Other Departments Total Operating/Allocation Budget Allocation to Capital 1997 ACTUALS ADOPTED 1998 BUDGET 1998 ACTUALS $ 176,159 9,089 10,429 2,608 27,466 2,184 0 $ 221,039 33,380 20,040 15,000 63,325 25,203 0 227,935 377,987 0 0 0 0 227,935 377,987 0 0 $ 254,546 23,295 24,467 12,158 11,378 5,669 8,932 340,445 0 0 340,445 0 ADOPTED 1999 BUDGET $ 322,554 21,497 24,853 1,573 64,175 6,517 25,867 467,037 (25,867) 0 441,170 0 Net Operating Budget 227,935 377,987 340,445 441,170 CAPITAL PLAN Allocation to Capital Capital Outlays 0 49,904 0 39,772 0 43,560 0 115,298 Total Capital Plan 49,904 39,772 43,560 115,298 TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL PLAN $ 277,839 $ 417,759 $ 384,005 Page 172 S 556,468 DEPARTMENTAL OPERATING BUDGET BOARD ADMINISTRATION 1997 ADOPTED 1998 ACTUALS 1998 BUDGET ACTUALS ADOPTED 1999 BUDGET SALARIES AND BENEFITS Salaries $ 130,910 $ 162,684 $ 186,401 Benefits 45,249 58,355 68,145 Subtotal Salaries and Benefits 176,159 221,039 254,546 LEASES AND RENTALS Admin. Facilities Rental Leased Vehicles/Parking Facilities Meeting Space Leased Fumiture/Equipment Subtotal Leases and Rentals SERVICES Consultant Management Legal Accounting/Auditing Maintenance Courier Printing/Binding Advertising/Marketing Interlocal Agreements Other Services Subtotal Services MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 5,593 .16,958 15,747 O 0 5,229 1,916 7,200 1,464 1,580 9,222 855 9,089 33,380 23,295 O 0 0 5,433 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 - 0 204 0 1,626 0 0 317 O 0 887 O 0 0 O 0 0 4,792 20,040 21,637 10,429 20,040 24,467 Office Supplies 741 6,000 3,000 Postage 1,867 9,000 493 Small Equipment/Fumiture (45,000) 0 0 8,666 Other Materials and Supplies 0 0 0 Subtotal Materials and Supplies 2,608 15,000 12,158 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES Dues and Memberships Travel and Meetings Books and Subscriptions Training Contingency Other Misc. Expenses Subtotal Miscellaneous Expenses OTHER EXPENSES 0 500 244 27,159 9,725 9,653 70 0 217 0 3,100 1,087 O 50,000 0 237 0 178 27,466 63,325 11,378 Telephone 0 3,123 3,670 Insurance 2,184 22,080 1,484 Interest Expenses 0 0 514 Subtotal Other Expenses 2,184 25,203 5,669 DEPRECIATION EXPENSE Depreciation Expense 0 0 8,932 Subtotal Depreciation Expense 0 0 8,932 (TOTAL $ 227,935 $ 377,987 $ 340,445 $ 264,713 57,841 322,554 12,611 4,502 3,450 934 21,497 4,000 0 0 0 7,117 0 0 0 0 13,736 24,853 800 0 773 0 1,573 500 12,275 400 1,000 50,000 0 64,175 3,166 3,352 0 6,517 25,867 25,867 S 467,037 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Page 173 OPERATING BUDGET NOTES (a) Administrative facilities rental expenses are allocated to each department based on the department's percentage of total agency usable square footage. This expense item also includes the fee associated with early termination of the lease at 1100 Second Avenue. (b) Leased vehicles and parking facilities are allocated to each department based on the department's percentage of total agency full time equivalents (Fibs.) (c) Other services include recording/transcribing services for board meetings ($4,800) and committee meetings ($5,400) and Union Station moving costs. The moving costs are allocated to departments based on the department's percentage of total agency 1-1Es. (d) Travel and meeting expenses of $12,275 include boardmember mileage reimbursement for meetings ($7,200), board administration staff mileage reimbursement ($1,800), board meeting refreshments ($2,400) and retreat meal ($875). (e) Insurance expenses are allocated to each department based on the department's percentage of total agency FTEs. Page 174 EXECUTIVE'S OFFICE Page 175 EXECUTIVE'S OFFICE OBJECTIVES AND BUDGET DETAILS Objectives 1. Create communication and reporting mechanisms (including a policy calendar for future board ac- tions) which enable the board to anticipate upcoming policy decisions and to monitor the activities of the agency. 2. Attract and retain a highly qualified and diverse workforce. Balance the need to assure appropriate management of Sound Transit programs with the desire to minimize permanent agency staff. Develop Sound Transit staff in accordance with the agency's performance management system. 3. Assure that the views of the region's citizens, Sound Transit customers and local communities are reflected in proposed board policies. 4. Maintain Sound Transit's focus on completing the Sound Move plan while ensuring that the agency's programs support the region's economic development and growth management goals. 5. Strengthen Sound Transit's role in federal, state and regional forums, including discussions regarding transportation funding strategies. 6. Provide management oversight to ensure Sound Move — The Ten -Year Regional Transit System Plan is completed on time and within budget. Page 177 DEPARTMENTAL OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL PLAN SUMMARY EXECUTIVE OPERATING BUDGET Salaries and Benefits Leases and Rentals Services Materials and Supplies Miscellaneous Expenses Other Expenses Depreciation Subtotal Operating Budget Adjustment for Non-cash Items Allocated From (To) Other Departments Total Operating/Allocation Budget Allocation to Capital 1997 ACTUALS ADOPTED 1998 BUDGET 1998 ACTUALS $ 286,595 $ 7,234 34,814 51 19,672 2,911 0 351,277 0 (87,819) 263,458 296,800 28,893 23,795 9,000 335,700 33,570 0 727,758 0 (181,940) 545,818 $ 324,850 25,672 3,364 2,138 67,954 7,023 8,502 439,502 0 (153,826) 285,676 ADOPTED 1999 BUDGET $ 345,195 20,033 8,653 1,573 176,400 5,317 23,088 580,260 (23,088) (195,010) 362,162 Net Operating Budget 263,458 545,818 285,676 362,162 CAPITAL PLAN Allocation to Capital Capital Outlays 0 66,539 0 43,087 0 43,560 0 115,298 Total Capital Plan 66,539 43,087 43,560 115,298 TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL PLAN $ 329,997 $ 588,905 $ 329,236 Page 178 S 477,460 DEPARTMENTAL OPERATING BUDGET EXECUTIVE SALARIES AND BENEFITS 1997 ADOPTED 1998 ACTUALS 1998 BUDGET ACTUALS Salaries $ 178,233 $ 210,870 $ 215,819 Benefits 108,362 85,930 109,031 Subtotal Salaries and Benefits 286,595 296,800 324,850 LEASES AND RENTALS Admin. Facilities Rental Leased Vehicles/Parking Facilities Meeting Space Leased Fumiture/Equipment Subtotal Leases and Rentals SERVICES Consultant Management Legal Accounting/Auditing Maintenance Courier Printing/Binding Advertising/Marketing Interlocal Agreements Other Services Subtotal Services MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 6,832 19,348 18,100 O 0 6,141 O 0 0 402 9,545 1,430 7,234 28,893 25,672 O 0 0 17,946 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 63 O 0 257 O 0 0 O 0 0 12,991 0 0 3,877 23,795 3,045 34,814 23,795 3,364 Office Supplies 0 6,000 443 Postage 51 3,000 493 Small Equipment/Fumiture (<$5,000) 0 0 1,203 Other Materials and Supplies 0 0 0 Subtotal Materials and Supplies 51 9,000 2,138 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES ADOPTED 1999 BUDGET $ 277,194 68,001 345,195 13,532 4,502 0 1,999 20,033 0 0 0 0 1,117 0 0 0 0 7,536 8,653 800 0 773 0 1,573 (a) (b) (c) Dues and Memberships 1,694 6,000 6,180 1,000 (d) Travel and Meetings 17,543 74,000 57,082 74,000 (e) Books and Subscriptions 375 2,000 0 400 (f) Training 0 3,700 628 1,000 (g) Contingency 0 250,000 3,846 100,000 Other Misc. Expenses 60 0 217 0 Subtotal Miscellaneous Expenses 19,672 335,700 67,954 OTHER EXPENSES Telephone 0 4,130 4,441 Insurance 2,911 29,440 1,961 Interest Expenses 0 0 621 Subtotal Other Expenses 2,911 33,570 7,023 DEPRECIATION EXPENSE Depreciation Expense 0 0 8,502 Subtotal Depreciation Expense 0 0 8,502 (TOTAL $ 351,277 $ 727,758 $ 439,502 176,400 1,966 3,352 0 5,317 23,088 23,088 S 580,260 (h) Page 179 OPERATING BUDGET NOTES (a) Administrative facilities rental expenses are allocated to each department based on the department's percentage of total agency usable square footage. This expense item also includes the fee associated with early termination of the lease at 1100 Second Avenue. (b) Leased vehicles and parking facilities are allocated to each department based on the department's percentage of total agency full time equivalents (FTEs.) (c) Other services expenses are for temporary receptionist services ($4,000) and Union Station moving costs. The moving costs are allocated to departments based on the department's percentage of total agency Fits. (d) Dues and membership expenses are for Rotary membership. (e) Travel expenses include Transportation Research Board, Railvolution, 3+ APTA conferences, and other conferences/meetings and out-of-state travel for the executive director and boardmembers. (f) Books and subscription expenses are based on the agency standard of $100 per FTE. (g) Training expenses are based on the agency standard of $250 per FTE. (h) Insurance expenses are allocated to each department based on the department's percentage of total agency 1- lEs. Page 180 LEGAL Page 181 LEGAL OBJECTIVES, ACTION PLANS AND BUDGET DETAILS General Counsel Objective Provide sound, timely and cost-effective legal advice to the Sound Transit Board and staff. Action Plans 1. Provide timely responses to Sound Transit Board and staff requests for legal services. 2. Identify, analyze and propose solutions to potential legal issues well in advance of the time such is- sues will affect Sound Transit's ability to complete projects on time and within budget. 3. Manage and coordinate Sound Transit's environmental compliance functions to ensure agency com- pliance with local, state and federal environmental laws affecting Sounder commuter rail, Link light rail and Regional Express projects. 4. Provide legal assistance in negotiating right-of-way, real property acquisition and relocation agree- ments. 5. Identify and utilize local attorneys who practice in the affected communities to provide legal services to Sound Transit where appropriate. Assure that the outside general counsel, bond counsel and com- muter rail counsel are involved appropriately in providing specialized legal services to Sound Transit. 6. Review all proposed contracts, real estate transactions and interlocal agreements to assure compliance with federal and state law and the adopted policies of the Sound Transit Board. 7. Provide legal assistance in developing equipment lease proposals to minimize the cost of the com- muter and light rail equipment to be acquired by Sound Transit. 8. Continue to develop and implement project management procedures to minimize construction dis- putes between Sound Transit and its general contractors and subcontractors. 9. Supervise Sound Transit litigation as it arises, including condemnations, tort claims, contract dis- putes, employment claims and construction disputes. 10. Represent Sound Transit in Section 13(c) labor negotiations with Department of Labor and local un- ions. Diversity Programs Objective Provide sound and effective guidance, leadership, management and advocacy to develop and assist Sound Transit in adopting and implementing policies and strategies laid out by the Guiding Principles for Em- ployment and Contracting. Page 183 Action Plan 1. Continue to develop, implement and monitor agency policies as adopted by Resolutions No. 17, 29, 59, 63, and 78-1 and Motions 17 and 29 of the Sound Transit Board. Ensure that the minor- ity/women/disadvantaged business enterprise, local and small business program policies are effective and comply with federal and state law. 2. Ensure that policies and programs for equal employment opportunity (EEO) in contracting are effec- tive and comply with federal, state and local law. Monitor the agency's intemal employment and EEO programs and policies to ensure effectiveness and compliance with federal, state and local law. 3. Develop and implement Sound Transit's economic development strategy. 4. Pursuant to title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and policies pertaining to Environmental Justice, ensure that diverse populations, particularly people of color, per- sons with disabilities and low-income persons, are afforded equal opportunity in all Sound Transit programs and services. Real Estate Objectives 1. Pursue acquisitions, right-of-way agreements, easements and other real estate matters under direction from the agency, including lines of business. 2. Provide identification and management of transit -oriented development and joint development op- portunities as they relate to Sound Move, coordinating effectively within the agency, with other juris- dictions, the private business sector and the public. 3. Provide for the relocation of all affected parties, assuring compliance with federal, state and local statutes, Sound Transit policies, and according to schedule and budget requirements. 4. Provide asset management planning and implementation for the agency's real property assets includ- ing investment planning, surplus property marketing, and disposal and other related asset manage- ment activities. Action Plans 1. Establish acquisition, relocation, facilities, joint development and asset management functions for the agency. Develop and implement policies and procedures in coordination with the General Counsel division. Acquire identified real estate and relocate businesses as needed, working with General Counsel division to identify, implement and manage litigation associated with acquisition of real property. 2. Work with lines of business to identify Sound Transit's short-term and long-term acquisition and re- location plan. Proceed with acquisitions/relocations based on schedules as set by lines of business and in coordination with agency goals. 3. Manage the design and move to long-term headquarters, assuring coordination and compliance with all agencies, jurisdictions and community groups. 4. Manage and integrate the development and implementation of the adopted policies for transit -oriented development and joint development projects. Page 184 LEGAL DEPARTMENT —1999 Action Plans ACTIVITY 1ST QUARTER 2ND QUARTER 3RD QUARTER 4TH QUARTER General Counsel Respond to Board and staff requests for legal services Identify, analyze, and propose solutions to issues well in advance of potential impacts Manage and coordinate environmental compliance functions Provide legal assistance in negotiating rights-of-way, real property acqusition, and relocation agreements Identify and work with outside attomeys from affected communities and regarding bond and other counsel Review proposed contracts, real estate transactions, and interlocal agreements Provide legal assistance on developing equipment lease proposals Continue to develop and implement project management procedures Supervise litigation as it arises Represent Sound Transit in labor negotiations Diversity Division Continue to develop, implement, and monitor agency policies regarding minority, women, disadvantaged, local and small businesses Monitor intemal EEO programs and agency's compliance with federal, state, and local laws Develop and implement the economic development strategy Ensure equal opportunity of programs and services, particularly pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and policies pertaining to Environ- mental Justice continued ongoing ongoing ongoing ong¢ing ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing ongping ongoing ong,ing ongping ong/ping Page 185 LEGAL DEPARTMENT —1999 Action Plans ACTIVITY 1ST QUARTER : 2ND QUARTER 3RD QUARTER 4TH QUARTER Real Estate Establish functions, policies, and procedures for the agency Develop and implement acquisition plans for lines of business Manage design and move to new headquarters Manage policies of joint development projects ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing Page 186 DEPARTMENTAL OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL PLAN SUMMARY LEGAL* OPERATING BUDGET Salaries and Benefits Leases and Rentals Services Materials and Supplies Miscellaneous Expenses Other Expenses Depreciation Subtotal Operating Budget Adjustment for Non-cash Items Allocated From (To) Other Departments Total Operating/Allocation Budget Allocation to Capital 1997 ACTUALS ADOPTED 1998 BUDGET 1998 ACTUALS 201,199 $ 69,944 652,516 2,801 22,409 6,504 0 955,372 0 (289,634) 665,738 1,090,367 96,245 3,650,984 23,000 44,310 105,345 0 $ 1,028,071 142,593 1,580,451 350,733 129,836 13,884 190,434 5,010,251 3,436,002 0 0 (2,940,838) (2,269,171) 2,069,413 1,166,830 0 0 ADOPTED 1999 BUDGET $ 1,656,605 152,816 1,399,139 61,624 141,045 28,957 88,371 3,528,557 (88,371) (2,178,884) 1,261,302 0 Net Operating Budget 665,738 2,069,413 1,166,830 1,261,302 CAPITAL PLAN Allocation to Capital Capital Outlays (Total Capital Plan 0 256,179 0 115,956 0 217,799 0 576,489 256,179 115,956 217,799 576,489 TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL PLAN $ 921,917 $ 2,185,369 $ 1,384,630 'Adjusted to include the Real Estate Division. S 1,837,791 Page 187 DEPARTMENTAL OPERATING BUDGET LEGAL* 1997 ACTUALS ADOPTED 1998 1998 BUDGET ACTUALS ADOPTED 1999 BUDGET SALARIES AND BENEFITS Salaries Benefits Subtotal Salaries and Benefits LEASES AND RENTALS Admin. Facilities Rental Leased Vehicles/Parking Facilities Meeting Space Leased Fumiture/Equipment Subtotal Leases and Rentals SERVICES Consultant Management Legal Accounting/Auditing Maintenance Courier Printing/Binding Advertising/Marketing Interlocal Agreements Other Services Subtotal Services MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES Office Supplies Postage Small Equipment/Fumiture (45,000) Other Materials and Supplies Subtotal Materials and Supplies MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES Dues and Memberships Travel and Meetings Books and Subscriptions Training Contingency Other Misc. Expenses Subtotal Miscellaneous Expenses OTHER EXPENSES Telephone Insurance Interest Expenses Subtotal Other Expenses DEPRECIATION EXPENSE Depreciation Expense Subtotal Depreciation Expense $ 154,632 $ 46,567 201,199 29,916 0 0 40,028 69,944 318,841 0 315,845 0 7,128 0 0 0 0 10,701 652,516 2,801 0 0 0 2,801 3,536 1,566 12,967 1,670 0 2,670 22,409 11 5,095 1,398 6,504 0 0 798,213 $ 737,086 292,154 290,985 1,090,367 87,053 0 0 9,192 96,245 550,000 146,000 2,160,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 794,984 3,650,984 19,500 3,500 0 0 23,000 6,000 19,510 8,100 5,700 0 5,000 44,310 9,665 95,680 0 105,345 0 0 1,028,071 112,397 20,947 3,436 5,813 142,593 333,636 0 1,028,614 0 24,681 11,726 13,103 0 0 168,691 1,580,451 121,365 41,777 185,096 2,496 350,733 5,608 46,309 35,910 10,390 0 31,619 129,836 7,513 5,265 1,106 13,884 190,434 190,434 'TOTAL $ 955,372 $ 5,010,251 $ 3,436,002 Page 188 $ 1,324,858 331,747 1,656,605 124,409 22,512 4,900 994 152,816 314,000 0 438,750 0 6,785 0 19,000 15,000 0 605,604 1,399,139 14,000 14,900 27,724 5,000 61,624 9,320 42,005 16,000 23,720 50,000 0 141,045 12,199 16,759 0 28,957 88,371 88,371 S 3,528,557 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (0 (9) (h) (i) C) (k) OPERATING BUDGET NOTES (a) Administrative facilities rental expenses are allocated to each department based on the department's percentage of total agency usable square footage. This expense item also includes the fee associated with early termination of the lease at the Second and Spring building. (b) Leased vehicles and parking facilities are allocated to each department based on the department's percentage of total agency full time equivalents (F1'hs.) (c) Consultant expenses include $39,000 in the General Counsel Division for independent third party judge for environmental impact statement appeals ($35,000) and retreat facilitation services ($4,000); $175,000 in the Diversity Programs division for outreach policy development ($50,000), training consultant ($25,000), diversity newsletter consultant/advertising services ($25,000), research services ($25,000) and consultant services for construction, labor and diversity issues ($50,000); and $100,000 in the Real Estate division for four contracts not to exceed $25,000 each for agencywide acquisition and relocation consulting services (e.g., transit oriented development, event management, etc.). (d) Legal services include $409,500 for general legal services and $29,250 for employment issues. Line - of -business-related legal services are billed directly to capital projects. The following is an estimate of the 1999 LOB -related legal services. Sounder commuter rail at $1,392,000 which includes: • $300,000 for attorney services • $351,000 for two contested condemnations is $234,000 for cross-border leasing • $146,250 for 12 property acquisitions and nine relocations • $100,000 for four environmental hazard issues • $87,750 for other environmental issues • $50,000 for labor negotiations, and • $123,000 for hearing ($98,000) and litigation ($25,000) expenses associated with an environ- mental appeal. Regional Express at $181,350 which includes: • $117,000 for environmental issues, and • $64,350 for interlocal agreements Link light rail at $210,750 which includes: • $87,750 for environmental issues, and • $123,000 for hearing ($98,000) and litigation ($25,000) expenses associated with an environ- mental appeal. (e) Other services include an FTE allocated moving expense associated with Union Station for each divi- sion and the following: • $95,924 in the General Counsel division for temporary legal services ($77,924), and legal interns ($18,000); • $400,000 in the Diversity Programs division for the Economic Development Program; and • $92,000 in the Real Estate division for temporary services ($84,000) and an intern ($8,000). (f) Small equipment/furniture expenses include $5,000 in the General Counsel Division for a laptop computer; $11,200 in the Real Estate division for filing cabinets ($4,800), bookshelves ($5,000) and flat files ($1,400); and $11,792 allocated to the department for computer equipment expenses associ- ated with new and temporary employees. (g) Dues and membership expenses include Washington State Bar Association for six lawyers, King County Bar Association for six lawyers, Transportation Research Board, Northwest Minority Sup- plier Development Council, Economic Development Councils and others. (h) Travel and Meeting expenses include $24,482 in the General Counsel division for APTA and COMPTO conferences, National Bar Association meeting, and trips to Chicago and Ft. Worth for Page 189 commuter rail negotiations; $5,523 in the Diversity Programs division for APTA Conference, the Na- tional Transportation Civil Rights Conference, and diversity meetings in Oakland; and $12,000 in the Real Estate division for APTA and IRWA conferences. (i) Books and subscription expenses include $10,000 in the General Counsel Division for West Group, McQuillans, Westlaw and miscellaneous publications; $400 in the Diversity Programs Division for OMWDBE; and $5,600 in the Real Estate division for the Daily Journal of Commerce, the Puget Sound Business Journal, and Metroscan software subscription and database upgrade. (j) Training expenses include $6,600 in the General Counsel division for staff members to attend two two-day seminars, one one -day seminar and miscellaneous training sessions; $2,120 in the Diversity Programs division for civil rights training and other miscellaneous training; $15,000 in the Real Es- tate division for FTA training sessions and continuing education classes. (k) Insurance expenses are allocated to each department based on the department's percentage of total agency FTEs. Page 190 Page 191 1. Increase and maintain public awareness of Sound Transit and the facilities and services being devel- oped; help create a positive public attitude about Sound Transit; and help prepare the market for using the new services. 2. Maintain effective two-way communication with the news media about Sound Transit's progress, issues, schedules and opportunities for public involvement. 3. Communicate information to the public using a variety of cost-effective, visually engaging media, while being sensitive to cultural and language diversity. 4. Establish and maintain a consistent public image in agency communications, marketing efforts and community outreach. 5. Incorporate public art in the design of systems and facilities which reflects the communities served and contributes to a positive experience for customers. 6. Create visual unity and effective communication in the elements of the system — vehicles, facilities, signage, and customer information — to facilitate customer use. 7. Develop effective customer information services. Action Plans 1. Marketing: Develop an overall marketing plan for the agency, implement specific marketing activities having agencywide benefits and provide guidance on marketing efforts within the lines of business and assure coordination between those efforts. Page 193 2. Video projects: Produce and distribute to local cable networks a 30 -minute monthly video program about Sound Transit's progress, produce topical videos to supplement the monthly programs and for use in public involvement efforts and communication to general and specific audiences, and produce video footage for video news releases. 3. Public information: Prepare and distribute print and electronic public information pieces to inform general and specific audiences. Includes Sound Transit Wave (quarterly newsletter), On Board (regular report following board meetings), Update (as needed), subarea and project brochures (update as needed), Annual Progress Report to Citizens (November), Annual Report (second quarter), special issue fact sheets and provide editorial services to all agency departments on public information pieces and reports. 4. Media relations: Prepare and distribute news releases to announce major actions and events; maintain regular contact with news reporters; hold editorial board briefings and conduct other activities at key project milestones; establish and maintain relations with local community media to encourage timely and accurate information about specific community -level progress and opportunities for public in- volvement; and monitor news coverage. 5. Community outreach: Manage the agency's centralized speakers bureau, mailing database, 1-800 phone line and responses to citizen inquiries; work with other divisions to assure comprehensive community outreach; and provide assistance to the line departments in planning and implementing specific community outreach activities. 6. Graphics and visual communications: Design and produce public information materials and displays for use by all agency departments and provide graphic design and technical illustration services to agency departments for project -specific needs; and ensure that timelines are directly tied to publica- tion schedules, key decision schedules and community outreach activities. 7. stART — public art program: Identify systemwide and project -specific opportunities for incorporating art in the design and construction of facilities; establish agreements with local jurisdictions regarding processes for selecting artists and reviewing proposals; manage the lead artist contracts established in 1998; and develop and manage contracts with project team artists selected in 1999; and ensure that timelines are directly tied to project schedules in the lines of business. 8. Information Center: Research information as needed by agency staff; order and distribute periodicals and reports; coordinate distribution of Sound Transit publications to area library systems; catalogue new additions and maintain electronic access to publications, videos, slide images and other informa- tion in the collection; and respond to public requests for information. 9. Internal Communications: Manage and expand the internal electronic communication network to keep staff apprised of agency policies, issues, progress, schedules, etc. Produce regular weekly reports and relay urgent information as needed. 10. Signage: Develop a system -side signage and way -finding manual and work with agency departments in implementing the guidelines to unify communications through signage and customer information. 11. Customer Information: Coordinate efforts among the departments and with other transit partners to establish customer information services. 12.. Agency -wide Coordination: Report to the Board's Finance Committee on efforts to coordinate mar- keting and communications services agency -wide. Page 194 Human Resources Objectives 1. Overall objective Attract, recruit, develop and retain a highly qualified, well-trained and diverse workforce. 2. Employment Promote and develop partnerships with hiring directors and managers to recruit and attract a qualified and diverse workforce. 3. Employee services Conduct classification and compensation review, employee orientation, benefits assistance and training. 4. Human Resources policies and administration Manage and maintain various related personnel guidelines, human resources information system, person- nel records, equal employment opportunities (EEO), compliance/affirmative action programs, classifica- tion and compensation system, recruitment, selection and hiring, salary administration, benefits admini- stration, workers' compensation administration, performance management program (performance review and annual performance awards), and employee development and training program. 5. Human Resources planning Support the strategic efforts of the agency including organizational development, performance manage- ment, employee development and human resource planning. Action Plans 1. Selection and hiring: (a) Carry out recruitment, selection, and hiring efforts to fill position requests and/or vacancies. Pro- vide title and market information as necessary. (b) Maintain a roster of temporary service agencies for temporary employee requests: 2. Benefits: Implement anticipated benefits program changes including obtaining third -party, adminis- trator, providing employee sessions and handling individual updates and/or new additions. 3. Consultant services: Work with management consultants for organizational development, human re- sources information system, performance management, training initiatives, human resources support and other services as needed. 4. Guidelines and/or policies: (a) Review, revise or develop, as necessary, human resources guidelines and/or policies (e.g. person- nel, selection and hiring, EEO/affirmative action, training, etc.). (b) Disseminate guideline and/or policy updates to employees, as necessary. 5. Administration: (a) Administer and coordinate various management programs such as: employee orientation, salary administration, compensation committee review and approval, performance management, and EEO/affirmative action. Page 195 (b) Provide periodic reports to agency management and the board's executive committee. (c) Provide and submit any annual agency reports required, such as, EEO/affirmative action compli- ance. 6. Training: (a) Develop and implement agency training plan for 1999. Maintain a roster of training consultants, conduct agencywide training initiatives, and utilize Human Resources Information System train- ing module to record and track individual employee training received. 7. Systems development: (a) Establish and maintain a variety of administrative tasks and automated systems related to person- nel records, administration of human resource programs and activities, and management informa- tion systems. (b) Implement market salary survey techniques and an automated system. (c) Implement any required human resource information system changes or enhancements and ensure appropriate interface with agency's financial system. Government Relations Objectives 1. Federal Represent Sound Transit and promote and protect its interests in Washington, D.C. through contact with Sound Transit's congressional delegation and through executive branch agencies. 2. State Represent Sound Transit and promote and protect its interests in Olympia through regular contact with the governor, legislators, and executive branch agencies. 3. Regional/local Represent Sound Transit and promote and protect its broad regional policy interests with local jurisdic- tions' elected officials and staff. Coordinate with lines -of -business directors and their staff on local issues with regional significance and on development of agreements with local jurisdictions, transit agencies, state department of transportation (WSDOT) and other relevant agencies. Represent Sound Transit in re- gional forums such as Puget Sound Regional Council and provide policy analysis on issues of regional significance. Action Plans 1. Federal (a) Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriation. Develop and implement comprehensive strategy for obtaining Sound Transit's FY 2000 Section 5309 New Starts appropriation: to advance Sounder's prelimi- nary engineering, environmental analysis, and final design on Seattle -Everett and Tacoma - Lakewood; and to advance Link's project from preliminary engineering and into final design. Obtain a FY 2000 Section 5309 bus appropriation for Regional Express. Consult and coordinate Page 196 with other central Puget Sound transit agencies in development of Regional Express appropriation request. (b) Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Coordination. Maintain relationships with FTA as it re- views and approves grant funding for Sound Transit projects and provide policy analysis as nec- essary. 2. State (a) Advance Sounds Transit's interests in pursuit of the agency's Legislative program during 1999 session. (b) Brief and seek out issues and concerns of legislators representing the Sound Transit district and of legislative transportation leadership. Continue Sound Transit's efforts to develop relationships with members of the state legislature. (c) Keep the governor's office informed of implementation activities. Work with other executive branch agencies as appropriate. (d) Coordinate development and transmittal of Sound Transit's annual report to the state legislature. (e) Develop and adopt the agency's state legislative program for the 2000 session. 3. Regional (a) Maintain and monitor agencywide coordination efforts with the Puget Sound Regional Council to assure Sound Transit policies, projects, and activities are integrated with regional plans and poli- cies. (b) Partner with representatives of other federal, state, and regional agencies, governments, organiza- tions and associations who have a common interest in public transit and high-capacity transporta- tion legislation and funding. (c) Help identify, plan and acquire federal and state grants. (d) Help lines -of -business to develop and maintain positive working relationships with local jurisdic- tions. Page 197 PUBLIC & GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS —1999 Action Plans ACTIVITY 1ST QUARTER 2ND QUARTER : 3RD QUARTER 4TH QUARTER Communications and Marketing Marketing Video projects Public information Media relations Community outreach Graphics and visual communications STart - Public Art Program Information Center Internal Communications Signage Customer Information Board status report on agency -wide coordination of services Human Resources Selection and Hiring Recruitment Temporary services Benefits Implement benefits program changes Individual updates/new additions Consultant services Procure new human resources information system or enhancements for current system, if necessary Obtain consultant services as needed Guidelines and/or policies Review, revise, or develop human resources guidelines and/or policies Disseminate guideline, policy updates Administration Administration and coordination Quarterly and other periodic reports Annual agency -wide compliance reports continued ongoing ongping ongoing ongoing ongoing ongping ongoing ongoing ongping ongoing ongoing • ongping ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing i ongoing ongoing ongoing Page 198 PUBLIC & GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS —1999 Action Plans ACTIVITY 1ST QUARTER 2ND QUARTER 3RD QUARTER 4TH QUARTER Training Training plan development Training plan implementation Performance management and systems training for directors, managers, and lead staff Systems development Implement market salary survey automated system Implement any required human resource information system changes General administrative tasks and systems maintenance Government Relations Federal Level Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriations Federal Transit Administration coordination State Level Advance the agency's interests in pursuit of our legislative program during the 1999 session Development and maintenance of legislator -specific relationships Keep governor's office informed and work with other executive agencies Coordinate development and transmittal of annual report to the state legislature Develop and adopt the agency's state legislative program for the 2000 session Assist with the identification, planning, and acquisition of federal and state grants Regional Level Maintain and monitor coordination efforts with Puget Sound Regional Council Assist lines of business in developing and maintaining relationships with local jurisdictions Develop partnerships with other like-minded agencies, govemments, organizations, and associations ongoing ongoing ongoing on mg ongoing ongomg ongoing ongoing onjoing ongoing Page 199 DEPARTMENTAL OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL PLAN SUMMARY PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS OPERATING BUDGET Salaries and Benefits Leases and Rentals Services Materials and Supplies Miscellaneous Expenses Other Expenses Depreciation Subtotal Operating Budget Adjustment for Non-cash Items Allocated From (To) Other Departments Total Operating/Allocation Budget Allocation to Capital 1997 ACTUALS ADOPTED 1998 BUDGET 1998 ACTUALS 792,039 62,451 892,606 49,925 320,854 11,406 0 2,129,281 0 (823,480) 1,305,801 0 $ 1,483,542 180,785 2,070,245 251,512 702,100 179,306 0 $ 1,376,037 212,611 1,377,645 135,317 214,937 20,475 52,154 4,867,490 3,389,177 0 (1,887,858) • 0 (1,420,561) 2,979,632 1,968,616 0 0 ADOPTED 1999 BUDGET $ 1,816,539 176,562 2,625,720 252,372 706,303 35,275 149,515 5,762,285 (149,515) (2,580,068) 3,032,703 0 Net Operating Budget 1,305,801 2,979,632 1,968,616 3,032,703 CAPITAL PLAN Allocation to Capital Capital Outlays 0 285,599 0 177,991 0 261,359 0 691,787 Total Capital Plan 285,599 177,991 261,359 691,787 TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL PLAN $ 1,591,400 $ 3,157,623 $ 2,229,975 Page 200 S 3,724,490 DEPARTMENTAL OPERATING BUDGET PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS SALARIES AND BENEFITS Salaries Benefits Subtotal Salaries and Benefits LEASES AND RENTALS Admin. Facilities Rental Leased Vehicles/Parking Facilities Meeting Space Leased Fumiture/Equipment Subtotal Leases and Rentals SERVICES Consultant Management Legal Accounting/Auditing Maintenance Courier Printing/Binding Advertising/Marketing Interlocal Agreements Other Services Subtotal Services MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES Office Supplies Postage Small Equipment/Fumiture (45,000) Other Materials and Supplies Subtotal Materials and Supplies MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES Dues and Memberships Travel and Meetings Books and Subscriptions Training Contingency Other Misc. Expenses - Subtotal Miscellaneous Expenses OTHER EXPENSES Telephone Insurance Interest Expenses Subtotal Other Expenses DEPRECIATION EXPENSE 1997 ACTUALS $ 516,391 275,648 792,039 59,401 3,015 35 0 62,451 450,576 205,543 50 0 191 73 0 111,329 2,500 122,344 892,606 5,978 0 43,947 0 49,925 152,657 16,451 1,305 210 0 150,231 320,854 487 10,919 0 11,406 ADOPTED 1998 BUDGET $ 1,071,012 412,530 1,483,542 145,381 0 20,000 15,404 180,785 0 185,000 0 0 0 0 318,460 78,900 230,000 1,257,885 2,070,245 202,900 48,612 0 0 251,512 123,500 110,000 14,200 24,400 50,000 380,000 702,100 32,105 147,201. 0 179,306 1998 ACTUALS $ 962,620 413,417 1,376,037 172,290 29,764 6,094 4,463 212,611 524,215 8,669 0 0 891 1,482 125,104 28,367 232,500 456,418 1,377,645 28,809 21,759 22,583 62,166 135,317 6,420 43,363 11,989 7,624 0 145,541 214,937 9,694 8,850 1,930 20,475 Depreciation Expense 0 0 52,154 Subtotal Depreciation Expense 0 0 52,154 ADOPTED 1999 BUDGET $ 1,433,792 382,746 1,816,539 139,899 27,015 5,500 4,148 176,562 440,400 40,000 0 0 10,702 0 264,550 630,000 204,993 1,035,075 2,625,720 5,800 46,646 43,825 156,100 252,372 48,500 111,448 11,250 18,605 50,000 466,500 706,303 15,164 20,110 0 35,275 149,515 149,515 TOTAL $ 2,129,281 $ 4,867,490 $ 3,389,177 $ 5,762,285 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (0 (g) (h) (k) (1) (m) (n) (o) (p) Page 201 OPERATING BUDGET NOTES (a) Administrative facilities rental expenses are allocated to each department based on the department's percentage of total agency usable square footage. This expense item also includes the fee associated with early termination of the lease at 1100 Second Avenue. (b) Leased vehicles and parking facilities are allocated to each department based on the department's percentage of total agency F1'hs. (c) Consultant services include the following: • $8,000 in the Deputy Executive Director division for a community leaders survey; • $335,000 in the Government Relations division for a federal specialist ($149,000), state specialist ($102,400), consultant assistance on federal/state funding ($80,000), and other miscellaneous con- sulting services ($3,600); • $1,000 in the Communications and Marketing division for computer software support services; and • $100,000 in the Human Resources division for HRIS system, compensation, and automated mar- ket survey system support. (d) Management expenses of $40,000 in the Human Resources division for a third party HR benefits ad- ministrator, third party section 123/125 administrator, and staff education regarding these programs. (e) Printing/binding expenses consist of $264,550 in the Communications and Marketing division for printing quarterly newsletters, fact sheets, annual report, annual progress report, brochures, calendar, agency letterhead, etc. (f) Advertising/marketing expenses include $600,000 in the Communications and Marketing division for agencywide advertising firm services and general marketing services; and $30,000 in the Human Re- sources division for expenses associated with general recruitment, including job fairs. (g) Interlocal agreement expenses are related to the Puget Sound Regional Council agreement. (h) Other services include an FTE allocated moving expense associated with Union Station for each divi- sion and the following: • $75,000 in the Government Relations division for a temporary and/or an internship position; • $613,860 in the Communications and Marketing division to include school outreach program ($200,000), cable television outreach ($105,000), audio/video services ($50,000), meeting/event support services ($50,000), mailing services ($11,000), etc. (please note that the $180,000 for art- ist services associated with the art program will be assigned directly to the appropriate capital budgets); and • $325,000 in the Human Resources division for agencywide training on organizational develop- ment initiatives ($200,000) and an intern or temporary employee ($125,000). (i) Small equipment and furniture includes $1,000 in the Deputy Executive division; $1,500 in the Gov- ernment Relations Division; $22,200 in the Communications and Marketing division for a digital video compatible NT workstation, VCRs, televisions, CD-ROM bumer, DHR editing deck, editing gear and wireless microphone; $3,000 in the Human Resources division for lateral file cabinets, bookshelves and printer tables; and $16,522 allocated to the department for computer equipment ex- penses associated with new and temporary employees. (j) Other materials and supply expenses consists of $156,100 in the Communications and Marketing di- vision for marketing awareness items, display materials, banners, graphic supplies, etc. (k) Dues and membership expenses include the following: • $6,500 in the Deputy Executive Director division for individual memberships in transportation or- ganizations and chambers of commerce memberships; • $35,000 in the Government Relations division for agencywide memberships in APTA, Alt -Trans, New Start Working Group and Washington State Transit Association; Page 202 • $3,000 in the Communications and Marketing division for professional association dues and communications competition entry fees; and • $4,000 in the Human Resources division for agency and individual staff memberships in HR re- lated organizations including International Professional Management Association, Society of Hu- man Resources Management, and American Compensation Association. (1) Travel and meeting expenses include the following: • $6,000 in the Deputy Executive division for four conferences; • $81,000 in the Government Relations division for 25 person trips to Washington DC with six night stays and other out-of-state conferences and travel to Olympia, regional New Elected Officials Workshop, and miscellaneous forums; • $17,948 in the Communications and Marketing division for travel to IABC Conference, Fuse Magazine Design Conference, Railvolution Conference, Art in Transit Conference, Advanced Cri- sis Management and Media Relations Conference, Siggraph, Transit Information Exchange, APTA, NAB, direct mail workshop and miscellaneous travel; and • $6,500 in Human Resources division for IPMA or SHRM annual conference, APTA Conference and HR roundtable meetings. (m) Books and subscription expenses consist of the following • $200 in the Deputy Executive division based on the agency standard of $100 per FTE; • $3,000 in the Government Relations division for LegLink internet service and government year- books; • $6,550 in the Communications and Marketing division for media directories, news media sub- scriptions, information center database searching, information center subscriptions, video sub- scriptions, etc.; and • $1,500 in the Human Resources division for annual subscriptions including NW Personnel Law Update, FLSA Rules and Regulations, etc. (n) Training expenses consist of the following: • $500 in the Deputy Director division based on the agency standard of $250 per FIE; • $750 in the Government Relations division based on the agency standard of $250 per FTE; • $9,355 in the Communications and Marketing division for registration fees related to IABC Con- ference, Fuse Magazine Design Conference, Railvolution Conference, Art in Transit Conference, Advanced Crisis Management and Media Relations Conference, Siggraph, Transit Information Exchange, APTA, NAB, direct mail workshop and miscellaneous training; and • $8,000 in the Human Resources division for compensation, personnel and performance manage- ment training for division manager and professional staff plus other training expenses related to support staff. (o) Other miscellaneous expenses include the following: • $4,000 in the Deputy Executive division for miscellaneous public affairs expenses; • $2,500 in the Governmental Relations division for advertising expenses in procuring state gov- ernmental relations services; • $440,000 in the Communications and Marketing division for media buys ($400,000) and costs re- lated to distribution of the progress report (i.e. inserting into newspapers, etc.) ($40,000); and • $20,000 in the Human Resources division to advertise employment positions. (p) Insurance expenses are allocated to each department based on the department's percentage of total agency FTEs. Page 203 FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION Page 205 FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION OBJECTIVES, ACTION PLANS AND BUDGET DETAILS Director's Division Objectives 1. Provide financial and administrative support services to the Sound Transit Board, senior management and lines -of -business consistent with the adopted 10 -year system plan and Sound Transit Board poli- cies. 2. Provide management oversight to Finance, Budget and InfoTthation Systems; Accounting, Grants and Treasury; and Contracts and Risk Management. Provide staffing to Citizen Oversight Panel. 3. Secure and manage Sound Transit headquarters including day-to-day management of the facility, maintenance, shipping and receiving, print center and mailroom, records storage, fleet management and other auxiliary services to be identified. Finance, Budget and Information Systems Objectives 1. Provide financial management services, guidance, and analytical support to the Sound Transit Board and executive director using those financial concepts, tools, and techniques that result in the most ef- fective use of Sound Transit financial resources. Apply and promote prudent financial practices. 2. Develop, implement, and monitor long-range financial planning and execute financing as necessary. Provide for the issuance of debt at the lowest possible cost while minimizing risk to Sound Transit and its investors. 3. Develop, implement, and monitor annual operating and capital spending plans consistent with the adopted 10 -year system plan and Sound Transit policies. 4. Provide information technology support services to all departments including hardware, software, communications networks, systems development, support and training necessary for Sound Transit to achieve the goals of the 10 -year system plan. Action Plans 1. Monitor the Adopted 1999 Budget and submit financial status reports and updates to the board on a regular schedule (monthly, if requested) throughout the year. Provide budget monitoring and coordi- nation services (analysis, tracking, and reporting) to the lines of business throughout the year. 2. Produce the Proposed 2000 Budget for consideration by the board in the fall of 1999. Provide budget development services to the lines of business. Continue to refine subarea budgeting, monitoring, and Page 207 reporting processes. Provide staff resources to the board during its consideration of budget prior to adoption. 3. Present an updated financial plan to the board concurrent with its consideration of the Proposed 2000 Budget. Maintain and update the agency's 10 -year financial model. Refine Sound Transit's subarea revenue forecasting methodology. 4. If approved by the board, coordinate the issuance of debt at the lowest possible net costs to the agency. 5. Provide financial analysis services to lines of business and other departments. 6. In conjunction with the lines of business and other departments, assist in development and imple- mentation of clear and concise reporting systems for the board, Citizen Oversight Panel and Sound Transit management to ensure adequate oversight and compliance. 7. Ensure a suitable level and range of information technology at interim headquarters and the new long- term headquarters. Provide ongoing information technology infrastructure and support for agency. 8. Implement a staff Information Systems training program. 9. Implement the information technology strategic plan which was developed in 1998. 10. Where necessary and appropriate, negotiate and competitively procure technology hardware, software and consultant resources for the agency. Accounting, Grants and Treasury Objectives 1. Develop, implement, and manage Sound Transit's interim and long-term core financial systems and direct integration with project management systems. 2. Provide accurate and timely accounting information which is useful to achieving the goals of the 10 - year system plan and beneficial to current and potential investors and creditors and the public. 3. Ensure collections of local sales tax and motor vehicle excise taxes. Attain market rate of return through investment of excess Sound Transit funds. 4. Administer federal and other funding sources and secure new sources of grant funding. 5. Develop and manage Sound Transit's audit services function which includes: contract auditing, finan- cial statement auditing, performance auditing and quality assurance oversight. Action Plans 1. Maintain Sound Transit's interim financial system and implement a long-term financial system that is integrated with the long-term project management system in conjunction with line of business partici- pation. Ensure, through consultant contracts, that implemented systems are developed and maintained properly. 2. Process and analyze month-end accrual accounting information for internal and external uses. Review operating and capital account codings to ensure accuracy and subarea consistency. Page 208 3. Re-evaluate existing investment strategies and implement appropriate strategy for 1999 that takes into effect cash flow requirements to attain a market rate of return. Forecast and evaluate Sound Transit's cash flow on a monthly basis. 4. Develop and monitor ongoing financial audits, performance audits, contract audits and revenue tax compliance audits. 5. Provide training for Sound Transit's Board, management, and staff on Sound Transit financial poli- cies, practices and systems. 6. Provide grant administration process and procedures including development of supporting informa- tion systems, reporting and closeout. Provide primary point -of -contact coordination with grantor agencies, Puget Sound Regional Council, internally with lines -of -business and support divisions to obligate and manage grant funding and to ensure regulatory compliance with funding requirements. 7. Evaluate new funding opportunities. Participate on regional forums for grant criteria development and project selection. Coordinate grant application development internally with project partners and proj- ect selection caucuses. Contracts and Risk Management Objectives 1. Provide our customers with timely, cost effective and legally correct procurement and contracting services. 2. Balance the competing interests of our customers, internal customers, general public, other agencies, and the business community in developing and implementing procurement processes that are fast, fair, and competitive and that use public funds responsibly. 3. Ensure a well-trained project management staff in contract administration and procurement policies and procedures. 4. Provide an agencywide records management system, including a records retention schedule to be in- tegrated with an electronic document control system. 5. Continue ongoing development of risk management policies and line -of -business risk assessments and continue development of customized risk assessment policies and programs. Action Plans 1. Ensure that division contracting staff maintain expertise in a wide variety of procurement processes and procedures by attending procurement and contract trainings. Promote teamwork with internal customers to achieve the agency's mission. Hold quarterly meetings with lines of business for pro- curement planning. 2. Maintain a strong working relationship with the Legal Department to assure compliance with all fed- eral, state and local regulations in order to maintain funding and the public's trust. 3. Conduct ongoing training of project managers both in contract administration and in procurement policies and procedures. 4. Based on strategic planning with the financial systems consultant in 1998, ensure that the procure- ment and purchasing elements of the long-term financial system are implemented. Further ensure that Page 209 there is a smooth transition from the interim Platinum financial system (used for purchase orders, contract reporting and tracking) to the long-term financial system selected. 5. Provide seamless integration with the interim contracts tracking system and the implementation of the long-term financial system. 6. Provide agency records management services. Ensure that all staff are trained and use the records re- tention schedule and are aware of this division as a resource for records management information. 7. Coordinate ongoing implementation of Risk Management's major projects, such as finalizing and distributing risk management manuals for claims reporting and handling, risk identification and insur- ance policy summaries (for past and current years). 8. Develop a safety manual for each line of business, such as the Rail Transit System Safety Programs as required by the Federal Transit Administration. 9. Finalize risk assessment for Sound Transit and begin developing financial strategies for identified risks. These could include insurance self-insurance, captives, pools, and Owner Controlled Insurance Program. Citizen Oversight Panel Objectives 1. Staff the Citizen Oversight Panel on a day-to-day basis. 2. On behalf of the committee, coordinate the provision of other staff resources and consultants as needed. Action Plans 1. Work with the panel to set meeting schedules and agendas. 2. Provide staffing to the panel. Coordinate board, staff, and consultants' participation with panel. Page 210 FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION —1999 Action Plans ACTIVITY 1ST QUARTER 2ND QUARTER 3RD QUARTER 4TH QUARTER Finance, Budget and Information Services Monitor the Proposed 1999 Budget and submit financial status reports and updates to the Board on a regular schedule Produce the 2000 Proposed Budget Present updated Financial Plan to Board Coordinate the issuance of debt Provide financial analysis services to lines of business and other departments Assist in development and implementation of clear and concise reporting systems Ensure suitable level and range of information technology at interim headquarters and new long-term headquarters Implement a staff IS training program Implement the information technology strategic plan which was developed in 1998 Procure agency hardware & software Accounting, Grants and Treasury Services Maintain Sound Transit's interim financial system Implement long-term financial system inte- grated with the project management system to meet lines of business needs; ensure that implemented systems are maintained properly Produce month-end accrual accounting information for intemal and extemal uses; review operating and capital account codings to ensure accuracy and sub -area consistency Reevaluate existing investment strategies and implement appropriate strategy for 1999 forecast and evaluate ST's cash flow on a monthly basis Develop and monitor ongoing financial audits, performance audits, contract audits, and revenue tax compliances audits Provide training for Sound Transit management, and staff on Sound Transit financial policies, practices, and systems continued ongoing ngoing ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing on mg on mg Page 211 FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION —1999 Action Plans ACTIVITY 1ST QUARTER 2ND QUARTER 3RD QUARTER . 4TH QUARTER Provide grant administration function including supporting information systems, reporting, and closeout Provide primary point -of -contact coordination with grantor agencies, PSRC, intemally with lines of business and support divisions to obligate and manage grant funding and to ensure regulating compliance with funding requirements Evaluate new grant funding opportunities; participate on regional forums for grant criteria development and project selection; coordinate grant applications development intemally, with project partners and project selection caucuses Contracts and Risk Management Maintain contracting staff expertise and hold quarterly procurement planning sessions Promote team work with intemal customers Maintain a strong working relationship with the Legal Department to assure compliance with all regulations Conduct ongoing training of project managers in contract administration and procurement policies and procedures Provide a seamless integration with the interim contracts tracking system and the long term financial system Provide agency record management services Ensure all staff are trained and use the records retention schedule Coordinate ongoing implementation of risk management's major projects Develop a safety manual for each line of business Finalize risk assessment for Sound Transit and begin developing financial strategies Citizen Oversight Panel Work with panel to set work program and agendas Provide staffing to panel ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing on oing ongoing ongoing Page 212 DEPARTMENTAL OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL PLAN SUMMARY FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION* OPERATING BUDGET Salaries and Benefits Leases and Rentals Services Materials and Supplies Miscellaneous Expenses Other Expenses Depreciation Subtotal Operating Budget Adjustment for Non-cash Items Allocated From (To) Other Departments Total Operating/Allocation Budget Allocation to Capital 1997 ACTUALS ADOPTED 1998 BUDGET 1998 ACTUALS $ 548,720 112,390 992,627 90,069 31,191 209,428 0 $ 2,095,205 202,470 739,919 77,660 188,875 253,006 0 1,984,424 3,557,135 0 (1,063,354) 921,070 0 0 (3,383,061) $ 1,768,722 262,960 1,968,666 146,154 84,178 40,287 359,122 4,630,089 0 (2,610,394) 174,074 2,019,695 0 0 ADOPTED 1999 BUDGET $ 3,037,960 264,525 2,876,036 411,633 185,602 59,994 665,224 7,500,974 (665,224) (3,917,341) 2,918,409 0 Net Operating Budget 921,070 174,074 2,019,695 2,918,409 CAPITAL PLAN Allocation to Capital Capital Outlays 0 392,490 0 287,209 0 457,379 0 1,210,627 Total Capital Plan 392,490 287,209 457,379 1,210,627 TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL PLAN $ 1,313,560 $ 461,283 $ 2,477,074 *Adjusted to exclude the Real Estate Division. S 4,129,037 Page 213 DEPARTMENTAL OPERATING BUDGET FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION* 1997 ACTUALS ADOPTED 1998 BUDGET 1998 ACTUALS SALARIES AND BENEFITS Salaries Benefits Subtotal Salaries and Benefits LEASES AND RENTALS Admin. Facilities Rental Leased Vehicles/Parking Facilities Meeting Space Leased Fumiture/Equipment Subtotal Leases and Rentals SERVICES Consultant Management Legal Accounting/Auditing Maintenance Courier Printing/Binding Advertising/Marketing Interlocal Agreements Other Services Subtotal Services MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES Office Supplies Postage Small Equipment/Fumiture (45,000) Other Materials and Supplies Subtotal Materials and Supplies MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES Dues and Memberships Travel and Meetings Books and Subscriptions Training Contingency Other Misc. Expenses Subtotal Miscellaneous Expenses OTHER EXPENSES Telephone Insurance Interest Expenses Subtotal Other Expenses DEPRECIATION EXPENSE Depreciation Expense Subtotal Depreciation Expense 'TOTAL $ 393,325 155,395 548,720 66,743 0 6,779 38,868 112,390 782,034 0 377 47,864 7,788 3,266 7,976 0 0 143,322 992,627 90,069 0 0 0 90,069 5,784 8,536 4,393 1,871 0 10,607 31,191 19,310 10,913 179,205 209,428 0 0 $ 1,514,253 580,952 2,095,205 167,638 0 6,000 28,832 202,470 277,250 252,500 0 85,000 0 0 23,500 0 0 101,669 739,919 50,700 26,960 0 0 77,660 15,025 42,000 6,300 24,300 50,000 51,250 188,875 24,845 228,161 0 253,006 0 0 $ 1,228,480 540,242 1,768,722 211,819 39,973 195 10,973 262,960 639,133 278,487 0 143,284 17,359 2,344 8,737 0 361,411 517,911 1,968,666 76,301 3,812 64,703 1,339 146,154 7,831 35,878 7,176 14,910 0 18,383 84,178 19,248 18,288 2,751 40,287 359,122 359,122 $ 1,984,424 $ 3,557,135 $ 4,630,089 'Adjusted to exclude the Real Estate Division. Page 214 ADOPTED 1999 BUDGET $ 2,372,381 665,578 3,037,960 174,161 ' (a) 47,275 (b) 43,088 264,525 1,158,900 ; (c) 250,000 (d) 345,340 (e) 34,229 53,200 (t) 84,000 25,000 925,367 (g) 2,876,036 291,100 (h) 57,000 (i) 60,533 (j) 3,000 411,633 11,035 67,400 10,612 33,705 50,000 12,850 185,602 (k). (1) (m) (n) (o) 17,600 35,193 (p) 7,200 59,994 665,224 665,224 S 7,500,974 OPERATING BUDGET NOTES (a) Administrative facilities rental expenses are allocated to each department based on the department's percentage of total agency usable square footage. This expense item also includes the fee associated with early termination of the lease at the Second and Spring building. (b) Leased vehicles and parking facilities are allocated to each department based on the department's percentage of total agency FTEs. (c) Consultant services consist of the following: • $70,000 in the Director's Division for Citizen Oversight Panel facilitation and consultation; • $313,500 in the Finance, Budget and Information Systems Division for special financial analysis projects and retainer ($67,500), other financial analysis consultation ($51,000), systems develop- ment ($10,000), emerging technologies ($15,000), Year 2000 compliance ($50,000) and informa- tion systems support ($120,000); • $587,000 in the Accounting, Grants and Treasury Division for systems implementation ($140,000), King County GIS support ($22,000), and financial systems consultants ($425,000); and • $188,400 in the Contracts and Risk Management Division for consulting services related to LOB security issues ($100,000) and a half-time procurement consultant ($88,400). (d) Management services consist of $50,000 in the Director Division for business planning and business process evaluation services; and $200,000 in the Contracts and Risk Management Division for prop- erty and casualty services ($190,000) and surety services ($10,000). (e) Accounting and auditing services consist of $320,340 in the Accounting, Grants and Treasury Divi- sion for outside payroll services ($24,000), contract payment audit ($70,000), financial audit ($45,000), performance audit ($100,500), State Auditor's Office ($20,840) and other audit -related services ($60,000); and $25,000 in the Contracts and Risk Management Division for review of pro- curement files and purchase order audit. (f) Courier expenses reflect agencywide courier costs. (g) Other services include an N"1'h allocated moving expense associated with. Union Station for each divi- sion and the following: • $186,400 in the Finance, Budget and Information Systems Division for temporary employment services ($176,400) and agencywide information systems training ($10,000); • $442,000 in the Accounting, Grants and Treasury Division for Department of Licensing MVET processing ($312,000), temporary employment services ($115,000), and safekeeping of invest- ments ($15,000); and • $259,840 in the Contract and Risk Management Division for temporary employment services ($249,840) and off-site storage ($10,000). (h) Office supplies include expenses associated with the General Services Center inventory, which pro- vides basic supplies to the entire agency and on-site consultants. Postage includes expenses associated with the General Services Center for general agencywide post- age needs. This does not include postage for project -specific mailings. (j) Small equipment and furniture expenses include $14,130 for division specific purchases and $47,683 in allocated computer equipment expenses associated with new and temporary employees in the de- partment. (i) Page 215 (k) Dues and membership expenses include the following • $1,800 in the Director Division based on agency standard of $300 per FTE; • $1,500 in the Finance, Budget and Information Systems Division for five memberships including GFOA and WFOA; • $1,880 in the Accounting, Grants and Treasury Division to include memberships in AICPA, WSCPA, GFOA, WFOA, AGA, PSFOA, MTA, American Payroll Association, Grantwriters As- sociation, and CPA licensing dues; and • $5,855 in the Contracts and Risk Management Division for NAPM, ARMA, RIMA and the State Purchasing Coop ($5,000). Travel and meeting expenses include the following: • $7,500 in the Director Division for five trips at $1,500 each. • $12,100 in the Finance, Budget and Information Systems Division for three manager trips ($3,600), one trip per Finance Analyst at $500 each ($2,500), one trip for economist ($1,200), and four trips for Information Systems staff ($4,800); • $24,725 in the Accounting, Grants and Treasury Division for three staff to GFOA Conference ($4,500), three staff to WFOA Conference ($2,250), WSDOT Conference ($750), FTA-related travel ($10,000), GFOA meeting ($1,275), APTA ($1,000), software analysis related travel ($2,000), management concepts ($1,600), and miscellaneous travel ($1,350); and • $23,075 in the Contracts and Risk Management Division for seven staff to the Federal Contracting Practices Conference ($11,725), Risk Management Conference ($3,350), three staff to APTA Con- ference ($3,000) and trips to other transit agencies ($5,000). (m) Books and subscription expenses include the following: • $1,400 in the Director Division based on 1998 actuals; • $3,990 in the Finance, Budget and Information Systems Division for division related publications; • $1,595 in the Accounting, Grants and Treasury Division for Governing, GASB Accounting Re- search Association, Wall Street Journal, GAAFR Review, Public Investor, PI/Seattle Times, GASB, etc.; and ■ $3,627 in the Contracts and Risk Management Division for CFR, RCW, Purchasing Today, Daily Journal of Commerce, Commercial Business Journal, Dane's Wage Rates, Risk publications, etc. (n) Training expenses include the following: • $1,500 in the Director Division based on agency standard of $250 per FM; • $17,900 in the Finance and Budget Division for a software training course and a systems training course for six staff members ($3,000), a professional management training course for one staff member ($2,900), and two training courses for five Information Systems staff members ($12,000); • $8,460 in Accounting, Grants and Treasury Division for grants-related training, GFOA seminar, GFOA Certification Program, database management course, CPA review class and examination fee, management concepts training, general computer training courses, etc.; and • $5,845 in Contracts and Risk Management Division based on agency standard of $250 per FTE plus $2,345 for staff member to attend purchasing management certification program. (o) Other miscellaneous expenses include the following: ■ $4,500 in the Director's Division for RFP advertisements and drinking water expenses. • $350 in the Accounting, Grants and Treasury Division for GFOA's CAFR participation fee ■ $8,000 in the Contract and Risk Management Division for general advertising-related expenses (e.g., agencywide advertising for MWDBEs related to contracts). (p) Insurance expenses are allocated to each department based on the department's percentage of total agency F1'hs. (1) Page 216 Regional Fund Projects Summary AU figures in YOE $000s Protect Number and Name 1997-98 (est.) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005-06 Total 001 Agency Administration $11,140 $10,325 $5,897 $6,063 $6,245 $6,413 $6,593 $13,734 $66,411 002 System -wide Contingency $100 $400 $400 $401 $400 $400 $401 $10,832 $13,333 405 Fare Integration $579 $1,713 $4,670 $4,700 $4,920 $5,315 $5,566 $30,484 $57,947 410 Research & Technology $808 $1,316 $5,022 $5,031 $5,049 $5,054 $5,063 $10,145 $37,488 415 Phase 11 Planning/Engineering $653 $896 $3,882 $3,890 $7,431 $7,429 $7,432 $5,829 $37,441 Total $13,280 $14,649 $19,872 $20,085 $24,045 $24,611 $25,055 $71,024 $212,620 00 co 00 Department I Other Division 100 Other Project 001 Agency Administration Capital Costs (in YOE $000s) Description These are the costs of agency -wide administration which are not allocated to modal departments. They Include approximately 50% of the costs of the Board, Executive, Legal, Public and Govemmental Affairs, and Finance and Administration departments. May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) $55,000 M} $55,000 $66,411 11 •e• -•:Y `S rea •r a: 18•7 98est. '• b.1989 ' s 2000 7....i 2001 'd "; .- 2002,:p'•'2„;.,2003 `{ 2004 2005. 6..: $utitolal tY Regional Fund $2,074 $2,710 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $999 $1,998 $11,783 Total $2,074 $2,710 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $999 $1,998 $11,783 Operating/Maintenance Costs (in YOE $000s) .V tv d�`,:id' «•,a.:y�SAbtirea� .;�,�: � af'• s)'' ��?19$7,-98� ASt,,. .��in ;.•:r1�99,.;.:>;3:� ,.•i..'! $..A''.2 a�000:cv�[`�r� _ 2001 -�: q. .���.,���a2002 ,.,. ,, s.y)., < .. ,r..�200$ •.�:.. u . •:20Q4 � eSaL �,. 2005=1;�.��r. StilitotAl Regional Fund $9,066 $7,615 $4,897 $5,063 $5,244 $5,413 $5,594 $11,736 $54,629 Total $9,066 $7,615 $4,897 $5,063 $5,244 $5,413 $5,594 $11,736 $54,629 Total Project Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) .99798; er t4) `• - {� . ii .� r 2000" .t ; t 2OOi •� +µ - , 2002 : { ,rt 2003{'d x2004 2005.06• . $11,140 $1,000 $10,325 $1,000 $5,897 $2,074 $6,063 $1,000 $6.245 $6,413 $6,593 $13,734 Grand�Total. ,�. $66,411 Capital Cost Elements (in YOE $000s) ;`r',; ,,,�•r.. ,.. .»:•:� .r�rr;<;.yY. v•t:Cost? lamed. ' $- . .,>.�,.. ., v�', :.{5 •.. r�., ,, 1.. :.4 997x, 0=3).{'`p>?'' •$ uy ,..tr x• iii/ ''A. - kr.>.c...3vv4„iv.. fl w'�, , ,a.,., Fai,;':21100'••= g •. D).(d ,•.., ,•S .r. ,,,. ..t :, ' 2001 .�.s, :2002 F' .. . ,a ,. $1,000 .{t.. .. .. $999 2005=06 . ,z•:.. � _ $1,998 Subtotal t•;....r- $11,783 No Phase $2,074 $2,710 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Total $2,074 $2,710 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $999 $1,998 $11,783 Department 0 Other Division 00 Other Project 002 System -wide Contingency Description Systemwide Contingency Includes $100,000 In 1998 and assumes $400,000 In 1999 and 2000 for the economic development program. Operating/Maintenance Costs (in YOE $000s) May 1996 Sound Move Compared to Current Budget May 96 Sound Move (in 1995 $000s) $10,000 1 Adopted Budget (in 1995 $000s) $10,000 1 Adopted Budget (in YOE $000s) L $13,333 . �,. �'t : :',` °.�;, `:� 5`(?�'� ,s�2'��t;r-� r ,s 7, �$, :�; ...� yba¢... :a .,�.�; .,s=,,�k1 . ,.¢' v ' .Y.Fr `?;?,e.� a� ::ii•`" �''1`:.,, t"i. ..:a_ %i°t.•: -{; � :a:_'• .. 2805=06'y . Y^ SilbtOtal. ;•;,>, Regional Fund $100 $400 $400 $401 $400 $400 $401 $10,832 $13,333 Total $100 $400 $400 $401 $400 $400 $401 $10,832 $13,333 Total Protect Costs -- Capital and Operating/Maintenance (in YOE $000s) !;i TijY # 14:*`4 jj P.R..lj +.ba?»<,t:+,ir 1. �t�a°.< M.' i til 1). - •.. �'.r f...� " ::..u..,i. "' f' - ...pit, -5t •� •.> 'y (cr. w.i.y ' q ::: ,a2a,�r {^-�'1`� `t�7" f, 2 1: C .,l 4 , F}. ZQ .� . .'t. + nt a F „ ?QwJt ;! s`'#a'-' a{,. + 3 -'' Qiii,i4 otstV,Ii $100 $400 $400 $401 $400 $400 $401 $10,832 $13,333 Sound Transit 1999 Budget Capital Outlays: Administrative Departments Information Systems Capital Budget $299,398 Agencywide Software Upgrades 12,983 Union Station Furniture & Equip 900,389 Automated Timesheet Software 25,967 FSC Hardware 259,669 FSC Software 1,172,144 Miscellaneous Furniture and Equipment 12,983 High Speed Printer and Color Copier (lease) 25,967 TOTAL ADMIN. CAPITAL OUTLAYS $2,709,500 Page 220 APPENDIX A Glossary of Terms Appendix A, Page 1 GLOSSARY OF TERMS Accounting System. The total set of records and procedures used to record, classify, and report on the financial status and operations of Sound Transit. Adopted Budget. The Board -approved budget and capital plan for Sound Transit for the current fiscal year. Accrual Basis of Accounting. A method of accounting for revenues and expenses when earned or incurred instead of when cash is received or spent. Board. The Board of Directors of Sound Transit. Budget Message. The opening section of the budget document provides the board and the public with a general summary of the most important aspects of the budget and the views and recom- mendations of the executive director. Cost Element. The budget elements of an individual capital project, such as design, construc- tion, and contingency expenses. Capital Spending Plan. The portion of the budget that identifies outlays for the purchase of capital assets. Capital Asset. Assets costing $1,000 or more and having useful lives greater than two years. Capital Outlay. Expenses which results in the acquisition of or addition to fixed assets. Capital Projects. Projects which purchase or construct capital assets. Contingency. A budgetary reserve set aside for emergencies or unforeseen expenses. Departments. Highest organizational unit of Sound Transit, consisting of Board Administration, Executive Director, Office of Legal Affairs, Public and Government Affairs, Finance and Ad- ministration, Sounder Commuter Rail, Link Light Rail, and Regional Express. Depreciation. A method by which the costs of plant, property, and equipment is systematically and rationally allocated over its useful life. Division. Organizational sub -unit within departments. The Executive Director. The executive director of Sound Transit. Expense Category. Groupings of expense types. Shall include, but not be limited to, wages/salaries/benefits, services, office expenses, administrative expenses and other expenses. Expenses. A decrease in net current assets. Expenses include salaries and benefits, administra- tive expenses, debt service, and those current operating costs which require the use of current as- sets. Appendix A, Page 3 Fiscal Year. A 12 -month period to which the annual operating budget applies and at the end of which a government determines its financial position and results of its operations. Sound Tran- sit's fiscal year is concurrent with the calendar year. FTE. The fractional equivalent of one full-time employee working a 40 -hour work week for one calendar year. Proposed Budget. The recommended and unapproved Sound Transit budget submitted by the executive director to the board. Revenues. Increases in proprietary fund type net total assets from other than expense refunds and capital contributions. Reserve. An account used to segregate a portion of fund equity as legally set aside for a specific future use. Sound Transit. The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority. Salaries and Benefits. Amounts paid for services rendered by employees in accordance with rates, hours, terms and conditions authorized by law or stated in employment contracts. This category does not include expenses for temporary employees. Subarea. Five subareas of the Sound Transit District defined for planning and budgeting pur- poses consisting of Snohomish County, North King County, East King County, South King County, and Pierce County. Subarea Equity. The principle established by Sound Move that requires utilizing local taxes and revenues and related debt for projects and services which benefit the subareas generally in pro- portion to the level of revenues each subarea generates. Appendix A, Page 4 APPENDIX B Sound Transit 1999 Staffing Plan Appendix B, Page 1 Board Executive Legal SOUND TRANSIT 1999 STAFFING PLAN 1998 BUDGET 1999 BUDGET CATEGORY 2 CATEGORY 3 13 Public & Govemment Affairs Deputy 2 Govt Relations 3 Comm & Mkting 11 Human Resources 4 Total P&GA 20 Finance &Administration Director 5 Finance & Budget 10 Accounting 8 Contracts 8 Total F&A Sounder Link Director Project Development Project Controls Systems Engineering Civil Engineering Total Link 31 13 1 0 7 0 0 0 3 1 .0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 4 0 0 1 0 4 1 2 2 6 5 1 6 3 0 0 4 4 5 2 16 5 8 9 11 2 1 2 0 2 0 10 8.5 Note: 8 positions could be consultant contract employees or in-house staff. 0 0 0 0 2 13 5 0 0 4 Regional Express Director Regional Bus Cmty Connections HOV Access Systems Integration Total Regional Expre: 40 4 4 5 4 4 5 2 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 21 5 0 0 AGENCY TOTAL 145 35 25.5 28 Appendix B, Page 3 BOARD ADMINISTRATION Board Administrator Administrative Assistant Project Coordinator * Project Assistant 1 1 1 1 Total Board Administration 4 Executive Director Administrative Specialist Receptionists LEGAL General Counsel Chief Counsel Legal Counsel Environmental Compliance SME Paralegal Administrative Specialist * Administrative Assistant * Sr. Environmental Planner Subtotal General Counsel 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 Diversity Program Diversity Program Manager 1 Diversity Program Specialist 1 Subtotal Diversity Program 2 Real Estate Division Manager 1 Sr. Real Estate Rep/SME 2 * Sr. Real Estate Rep/SME 1 * Asset. Manager 1 Project Coordinator 1 *. Project Assistant 2 * Administrative Assistant 1 Subtotal Real Estate 9 Total Legal 20 *denotes new positions Appendix B, Page 4 PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Deputy Executive Deputy Executive Director Public Affairs/Policy Special Assistant Subtotal Deputy Executive 1 1 Government Relations Division Manager 1 Government Relations Specialist 1 Administrative Specialist 1 Subtotal Government Relations 3 Communications and Marketing Division Manager 1 Communications and Marketing Specialist 1 Writer/Editor 1 Media Relations Coordinator 1 Media Relations Specialist 1 Community Relations Coordinator 1 Community Relations Specialist 1 Administrative Assistant 1 Project Assistant 1 Graphic Design Specialist 1 Graphic Designer 1 * Public Art Project Manager 1 * Graphics Technical Illustrator 1 * Database Coordinator 1 Subtotal Communications/ 14 Marketing Human Resources Division Manager 1 Senior Human Resources Generalist 2 Project Assistant 1 * Administrative Assistant 1 Subtotal Human Resources 5 Total Public and Government Affairs 24 *denotes new positions Appendix B, Page 5 FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION F&A Director Director Administrative Specialist Support Assistant * Facilities Project Manager Subtotal F&A Director 1 2 2 1 Finance and Budget Division Manager 1 Economist 1 Senior Finance Analyst 4 Finance Analyst 1 Information Systems (IS) SME/Manager 1 IS: LAN Administrator 1 IS: Network Services Specialist 1 * IS: Systems Analyst 2 Subtotal Finance and Budget 12. Accounting, Grants and Treasury Controller/Treasurer 1 Assistant Controller/Treasurer 1 General Ledger Accountant 1 Payroll Coordinator 1 Senior Accountant, Revenue 1 Accounts Payable Assistant 1 Accounts Payable Coordinator 1 Grants Specialist 1 * Grants Specialist 1 * Administrative Assistant 1 Subtotal Acct., Grants and Treasury 10 Contracts and Risk Management Division Manager 1 Risk Management SME 1 Lead Contract Specialist 1 Contracts Specialist 2 * Contracts Specialist. 1 Contracts Coordinator 1 Records Management Coordinator 1 Administrative Assistant 1 * Cost/Price Analyst 1 * Purchase Order Coordinator 1 * Project Assistant 3 Subtotal Contracts and Risk Mgmt. 14 Total Finance and Administration 42 *denotes new positions Appendix B, Page 6 SOUNDER COMMUTER RAIL Sounder Director Director Administrative Specialist Subtotal Director 1 Sounder Staff Project Manager 1 Program Manager - Project Develop- 1 ment * Program Manager - Operations 1 * Program Manager - Construction 1 Project Control Specialist 1 Project Manager 1 Product Development Manager 1 Community Relations Coordinator 1 Operations Specialist 1 Rail Engineer 1 Project Assistant 3 Subtotal Staff 13 Total Sounder Commuter Rail 15 denotes new positions Appendix B, Page 7 LINK LIGHT RAIL Link Director Director * Project Specialist Administrative Specialist Subtotal Link Director Project Development Program Manager South Corridor Project Manager North Corridor Project Manager Central Segment Project Manager Project Manager, Tacoma Senior Environmental Specialist * Environmental Specialist Community Relations Coordinator Project Coordinator * Project Assistant Administrative Assistant Subtotal Project Development Project Controls Program Manager Project Control Specialist Subtotal Project Controls 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 4 1 1 18 1 4 5 Systems Engineering Program Manager . 1 Program Manager - Systems Engineer 7 * Program Manager - Systems Engineer 1 * Administrative Assistant 1 Subtotal Systems Engineering 10 Civil Engineering Program Manager 1 Administrative Assistant 1 Architect: Stations & Urban Design 1 Geotechnical Engineer 1 Right of Way Engineer 1 Traffic Engineer 1 Structural Engineer 1 Quality Control Spec. Engineer 1 Trackwork Engineer 1 Subtotal Civil Engineering Total Link Light Rail 45 *denotes new positions Appendix B, Page 8 REGIONAL EXPRESS Director Regional Express Director Administrative Specialist Administrative Assistant Project Coordinator * Project Control Specialist * Program Manager Subtotal Director 1 1 1 1 1 1 Regional Express Bus Program Manager 1 Project Coordinator - Plg. and Sched- 1 uling Project Coordinator - Maint. and Ops. 1 Project Assistant 1 * Project Manager 1 Subtotal Regional Express Bus 5 Community Connections Program Manager 1 Project Manager 3 Project Assistant 1 * Project Coordinator 1 * Project Assistant 1 Subtotal Community Connections 7 HOV Access Program Manager 1 Project Manager 2 Project Assistant 1 Subtotal HOV Access 4 Systems Integration Program Manager Project Coordinator Subtotal Systems Integration 1 3 Total Regional Express 26 TOTAL AGENCY FTEs 180 *denotes new positions Appendix B, Page 9 APPENDIX C Sound Transit History Appendix C, Page 1 SOUND TRANSIT HISTORY CHRONOLOGY OF REGIONAL TRANSIT PLANNING IN THE CENTRAL PUGET SOUND: February 1968: Forward Thrust proposal (first ballot). Forward Thrust bond measure dedicated to financing a $1.15 billion Seattle rapid rail and bus transit system fails to receive the required 60 percent super -majority vote. May 1970: Forward Thrust proposal (second ballot). Bond measure to finance revised $1.32 billion rail and bus system again fails. May 1972: Metropolitan Area Transit Plan. Puget Sound Governmental Conference adopts an all -bus transit plan in response to Forward Thrust votes, creating Metro Transit. March 1982: Regional rail evaluation begins. A 1981 study for the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) concludes that regional rail transit is feasible and warrants detailed evaluation. An extensive evaluation process be- gins in 1982. September 1988: King County Advisory Ballot on rail. King County voters approve (by a 2 -to -1 margin) an advisory measure calling for accelerated planning to provide starter -rail service by the year 2000. Metro Council responds by voting to accelerate planning for high-capacity transit. January 1990: Expert Review Panel created. A state -created independent Expert Review Panel is appointed to review Metro's technical methods and planning assumptions in evaluating high-capacity transit alternatives — a first in transit system planning. April 1990: High. Capacity Transit Act. Legislature establishes planning criteria, provides funding and authorizes local -option taxes and implementation mechanisms for high-capacity transit. The Joint Regional Policy Com- mittee (JRPC) is authorized by the legislation to oversee the planning process. Growth Man- agement Act is enacted, requiring consistency between land -use and transportation planning. August 1990: JRPC is formed. An interlocal agreement among the Pierce, King and Snohomish county transit agencies forms the Joint Regional Policy Committee to coordinate regional transit planning. Appendix C, Page 3 October 1990: Vision 2020 links growth and transportation. Puget Sound Council of Governments adopts a general regional policy for linking growth strategies and transportation planning. Spring.1991: Regional Transit Project. High-capacity transit planning is expanded to include preparing a regional transit system plan as a basis for a financial proposal to put before the voters. March 1992: Regional Transit Authority is required. The state Legislature calls for creation of a three -county Regional Transit Authority. Sound Transit is to be formed once participating counties adopt a regional transit system plan. October 1992: Draft Regional Transit System Plan/DEIS issued. A draft transit system plan and accompanying draft environmental impact statement are is- sued for public review and comment. February 1993: Final EIS issued on regional transit options. April 1993: Final EIS is approved. Following a two-month comment and appeal period, hearing examiner gives final approval to the environmental impact statement, dismissing two challenges. May 28, 1993: JRPC adopts Regional Transit System Plan. The JRPC concludes its work by adopting a $13.2 billion transit system plan for the region and recommending formation of a Regional Transit Authority. July 1993: Three county councils "opt in" to Sound Transit. Snohomish, Pierce and King county councils vote to be part of the Regional Transit Plan and create the Regional Transit Authority to implement the plan. September 1993: Sound Transit is formed. The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority holds its first meeting and begins devel- oping a regional transit system and financing package to submit to voters based on the JRPC- recommended system plan October 28, 1994: Sound Transit adopts Regional Transit Master Plan and Phase I ballot pro- posal. Based on the JRPC recommended system plan, Sound Transit adopts a transit Master Plan for the region, and a $6.7 million Phase I rail and bus transit proposal to take to the ballot. December 1994: County councils vote to send Sound Transit Phase I to the ballot. Following a mandated 45 -day review period, the Pierce, King and Snohomish County Coun- cils vote to continue Sound Transit participation and submit Phase I to voters. March 14, 1995: The public vote: Phase I transit system proposal fails. Regional voters turn down the Phase I proposal (46.5 percent: yes; 53.5 percent: no) Appendix C, Page 4 Tukwila Commuter Rail Station SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT Prepared For Sound Transit By MBT Architecture And Duarte Bryant October 23, 1998 Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Schematic Design Report Table of Contents Table of Contents 1.0 PROJECT PROGRAM STATEMENT 2.0 OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS 3.0 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 4.0 MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBING BASIS OF DESIGN 5.0 CONSTRUCTION PROCESS OPTIONS 6.0 ART CONCEPTS 7.0 PRELIMINARY SOILS REPORT MBT Architecture/Duarte Bryant Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Schematic Design Report Technical Advisory Committee Technical Advisory Committee Ross Earnst City of Tukwila Brian Shelton City of Tukwila Ross Hellor City of Tukwila Steve Lancaster City of Tukwila Moira Carr Bradshaw City of Tukwila Lynn Miranda City of Tukwila Sandra Meyer City of Renton Lee Haro City of Renton Doug Johnson King County Metro David Feltman King Country Metro Liz Warman Boeing Jim Neurenburg Boeing MBT Architecture/Duarte Bryant Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Schematic Design Report Sound Transit & Consultants Sound Transit Owner Paul Price Commuter Rail Director Val Batey Project Manager Jai Jeter Contracts Specialist Jerry Mayer System Artist & Station Artist Jack Shah Engineering Specialist Allison Shumate Project Control Specialist Consultants MBT Architecture Architects Peter Hockaday Tom Ayers Paul Harney Dan Nelson Agnes Dolata Mike Burkhardt Duarte Bryant Architects Dutch Duarte Doug Maraist KPFF Consulting Engineers Structural and Civil Engineers Craig D. Olson Ron Leimkuhler Kymberly Harden Abacus Mechanical/ Plumbing/ Electrical Engineers Mark Stavig Walter Knox Rob Voyhow Shannon English Aimee Urich Ed Bright Heffron Transportation Transportation Planners Todd McBryan The Berger Partnership Landscape Architects Tom Berger Greg Brower Adamson Associates Cost Estimating Alice Nguyen MBT Architecture/Duarte Bryant Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Schematic Design Report Project Program Statement PROJECT PROGRAM STATEMENT The Tukwila Commuter Rail Station is a raised platform station serving the City of Tukwila, as well as Renton and surrounding communities. The Station site was selected because of its proximity to regional transportation corridors and strategic position, giving it good access for Park and Ride passengers going to Seattle or Tacoma. Located adjacent to I405 and close to I5 and SR167, the Tukwila Station can ultimately become a transit and transportation link for rail passengers headed for the East Sidt of Lake Washington, the Kent Valley, Seatac Airport and north to Seattle. Ridership for the Tukwila Station is expected to be 1000 boardings per day, which would be make it the second busiest station on the South Line, not including Seattle or Tacoma. The planning of the Tukwila Commuter Rail Station includes potential future rail transit links, as well as accommodation for Amtrak passengers. Sound Transit is currently evaluating alternate routes for the Light Rail System connection from Seattle to Seatac Airport. Two of the three alternatives would pass through the site and connect with the Tukwila Station, and the positioning of this potential Light Rail right-of-way is planned for the property directly east and adjacent to the BNRR right-of-way and Tukwila Station property. Just south of the Station platform, the light rail tracks would arc to the west headed toward Seatac and the Southcenter Shopping Center. Both routes would cross the BNRR tracks and the Station Parking Lot on an overhead alignment, which in turn would require that the Tukwila Light Rail Station be similarly elevated... accessed by stair, elevator and escalator. Although the Light Rail decision and selection of a route for the Seatac Airport connection will not be announced for three to four months, the design of the Tukwila Station will not interfere with the future planning and positioning of the Light Rail Station. The Tukwila Commuter Rail Station site includes all property between the BNRR tracks and the Santa Fe tracks, south of Longacres Way and north of the future Strander Boulevard right of way. A particular asset of this site is that it is adjacent to the Boeing Company's Corporate Headquarters site, directly east and adjacent to the BNRR tracks. Boeing is expanding at this site, and good ridership is expected for the Sound Transit Commuter Rail system from Boeing employees and visitors, including employees who may be traveling to other large Boeing sites such as Everett. Access to the Tukwila Commuter Rail Station site is complicated by several factors. Longacres Way is limited but usable for access from I405 via the West Valley Highway. The City of Tukwila will require a second access to the Station, in addition to Longacres Way. This is proposed to be from Strander Blvd., which currently is improved to. the Santa Fe track crossing. In the short term, this access point will serve fire trucks using the at -grade track crossing, now deeded as a private crossing. Once this can be approved as a public crossing, Strander will serve as Park and Ride access for Station patrons. The ultimate goal is for the Cities of Renton and Tukwila to develop an improved Strander Blvd. Crossing of the Santa Fe and the BNRR tracks as well as a full arterial road linkage to Highway 167 to the east. The Schematic Design of the Tukwila Commuter Rail Station is intended to incorporate the design standards adopted by Sound Transit as published in the Sound Transit Station Design Manual. MBT Architecture/Duarte Bryant I - 1 Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Schematic Design Report Project Program Statement Features of the Tukwila Commuter Rail Station include 778 surface parking spaces of which 16 are sized for the handicapped. Each side of the station has a 600' long boarding Platform, expandable in the future to 1000' long. In order to improve passenger safety and convenience, at grade walkways will connect both side of the tracks, passing directly under the elevated trackway. Included in this phase of the work is an improved underpass at the North end of the Station, where the existing Rail overpass will be rebuilt by others. In the future, a second underpass is planned at the South end of the phase I 600' platform. DESIGN CONCEPT The site plan layout for the Tukwila Station is designed to serve morning and evening park and ride and transit passenger traffic as conveniently aspossible, given the position of the station property itself. Access through Boeing is limited currently to transit and employee traffic only, and public automobile access is currently only from the West Valley Highway Highway. In the future, the improved Strander connection to Renton will have a broad impact in improving access to the site from the east. Parking is available only to the west of the station, and is laid out with a new parking access road which is also designed as a parkway and landscape and drainage feature. Clustered at the North end of the 600' long platform are the bus transit area, the short term parking and the kiss and ride area, and a landscaped "front door" for the Station itself. This placement creates the best convenience for Seattle - bound commuters. STATION DESIGN CONCEPT We have worked with the Tukwila Technical Advisory Committee and the Sound Transit Art Consultant to develop a design theme for the Station elements. The concept is to incorporate strong landscape elements which relate to the natural valley of the nearby Green River. The local history of aircraft development is also recalled in the design of architectural elements such as canopies, which are shaped like bird wings or aircraft wings. The art consultant has developed similar themes in the art program, which will be budgeted as part of this program. LANDSCAPE DESIGN CONCEPT An important element of this project is the landscaping of the streets, access roads, parking lots and plazas and plazas which define the Station. Parking lots are landscaped beyond the City of Tukwila standards and are screened by landscaping from surrounding roads. Columnar trees and deciduous trees recall the riverine setting, and the railroad embankments beyond the platforms will retain the natural local plant materials which act as a small local ecosystem. Closer to the plaza and platforms, the planting materials will be drought tolerant ornamental species. Each of the parking lot segments will have a different primary landscape tree, creating deliberate variety. Pavement materials will be colored concrete, decorated with occasional medallions and feature strips for pattern interest. The railroad embankment is an important landscape design element, very visible and an important location for ornamental shrubs. MBT Architecture/Duarte Bryant I - 2 Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Schematic Design Report Project Program Statement PROGRAM ELEMENTS Raised Platform, 16' wide Canopy shelter, 13' wide Central TVM & Info shelter Handicapped access ramps 778 car parking lots Ticket Vending Machine Booths Bicycle Parking Shelter, 15 bikes Bus Waiting Shelters, 30' long Restroom for Bus Drivers Communications Facility Handicapped Access Platform Trash Containers, Benches Signage & graphics Information kiosk CCTV and PA System Public Telephones Roads, parking, plazas and landscaping estimate. 2 at 600' long 8 at 35' long 2 each @ 60' 2 each 1 each 2 each 2 each 6 each 1 each 1 each 2 each scope to be identified per standards, scope to 2 each Conduit only, scope to Conduit only, scope to are as described above be identified be identified be identified and as noted on the line item cost MBT Architecture/Duarte Bryant I - 3 Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Schematic Design Report Outline Specification OUTLINE SPECIFICATION DIVISION 1: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 01010 — Summary of Work - See Project Program Statement in Section 1. DIVISION 2: SITE WORK 02050 — General Demolition and Site Preparation —Remove topsoil, surface vegetation, existing trees, or other objectionable material in those areas to be graded. 02200 — Earthwork — Excavation and backfilling for bus canopy foundations, utility trenches, and retaining walls. Fill on the embankment for platforms. 02513 — Asphaltic Concrete Paving - Throughout new vehicular roads and parking lots. 02528 — Concrete Paving and Curbs - Portland Cement concrete at platforms, plaza areas, and sidewalks. Accents of colored and sandblasted concrete, and quarry tile, at select locations. 02580 — Pavement Marking - Throughout new vehicular roads and parking lots. 02660 — Water Services — New water lines for toilet room, hose bibs, water fountains, and fire protection. 02735 — Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drainage — New sanitary drains, storm culverts, catch basins, swales, detention ponds, and manholes as required. 02810 — Irrigation - Complete irrigation system for all new planitng areas. 02870 — Site Furnishings - Bicycle racks, benches, tree grates, and trash receptacles at the platforms and thoughout the plaza area. 02910 — Soil Preparation and Finish Grading — Soil amendments as required in new planting areas. 02950 — Planting — Trees, shrubs, and ground cover plants will be integrated throughout the project. DIVISION 3: CONCRETE 03100— Concrete Formwork — High quality materials, accessories, and procedures for forming architectural (exposed) vertical concrete surfaces. 03200 — Concrete Reinforcement 03300 — Concrete = Reinforced cast -in-place concrete for retaining walls, footings, and other structural concrete. DIVISION 4: MASONRY 04200 — Masonry — Ungrouted interlocking pavers on engineered slope at pedestrian underpass. DIVISION 5: METALS 05120 — Structural Steel — Bent pipe and special steel fabrications at canopies. 05500 — Metal Fabrications Ferrous metal handrails at plaza area, platforms, stairs and ramps. Brake -formed aluminum gutters, fascias, and trim pieces. Stainless steel tension cable system for guardrail infill. DIVISION 6: WOODS AND PLASTICS Not Used MBT Architecture/Duarte Bryant 2 - 1 Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Schematic Design Report Outline Specification DIVISION 7: THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION 07600 — Flashing and Sheet Metal —At miscellaneous locations in the project. 07900 — Sealants — At miscellaneous locations in the project. DIVISION 8: DOORS AND WINDOWS 08100 — Metal Doors and Frames — Toilet room. 08700 — Hardware —Toilet room. 08800 — Glazing —Laminated glazing at canopy wind screens. DIVISION 9: FINISHES 09800 — Special Coatings — Shop -applied fluoropolymer coating on finish aluminum elements. 09900 — Painting — Throughout the project, including 3 -part system for shop fabricated ferrous metal elements (canopy structural frames, handrails, and guardrails). DIVISION 10: SPECIALTIES Not Used. DIVISION 11: EQUIPMENT Not Used. DIVISION 12: FURNISHINGS Not Used. DIVISION 13: SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION 13130 — Tension Membrane System — Teflon -coated fiberglass fabric tension membrane at canopies. DIVISION 14: CONVEYING SYSTEMS Not Used. DIVISION 15 - MECHANICAL Refer to Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Basis of Design. DIVISION 16 - ELECTRICAL Refer to Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Basis of Design. MBT Architecture/Duarte Bryant 2 - 2 Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Sound Transit AA 98/7069 4 -Oct -98 Construction Cost Plan Qty Unit Rate $x1,000 Platform Platform structure Platform on grade 21,280 SF 9.00 192 Platform edge walls and footing 2,300 LF 75.00 173 Retaining walls at platform 1,200 SF 28.00 34 Engineered fill 7,800 CY 25.00 195 Handicapped access platforms 2 EA 6,000.00 12 Intertrack fence 600 LF 80.00 48 Platform special fmishes 21,280 SF 5.00 106 Stairs and ramps Stairs 750 SF 40.00 30 Ramps 3,700 SF 15.00 56 Retaining walls at ramps 1,500 SF 30.00 45 Platform canopies Steel Framing, incl. painting and shipping 3,600 SF 95.00 342 Tension membrane system 3,600 SF 45.00 162 Canopy lighting (budget by engineers) 1 LS 61 Canopy heating (budget by engineers) 1 LS 63 Benches and wind screens 8 EA 20,000.00 160 Platform finishes Guard railing 1,250 LF 150.00 • 188 Information kiosks, ticket vending machines, signage by others Platform lighting (budget by engineers) 1 LS 72 Platform power outlets (budget by engineers) 1 LS 12 P.A. / CCTV / telephone rough -in only (budget by engineers) 1 LS 83 Power and data to ticket vending machines (budget by engineers) 1 LS 12 Power and data to dynamic signage (budget by engineers) 1 LS 23 Page 1 of 4 Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Sound Transit AA 98/7069 4 -Oct -98 Construction Cost Plan Qty Unit Rate $x1,000 Platform (continued) Entry plaza AC paving 21,000 SF 4.00 84 Decorative concrete paving 22,900 SF 8.00 183 Water features / sculpture 2 EA 60,000.00 120 Bus shelters (simplified version of platform canopy; 600 SF 100.00 60 Comfort station Structure 50 SF 100.00 5 Finishes 50 SF 60.00 3 Mechanical (budget provided by engineers) 1 LS 7 Electrical (budget provided by engineers) 1 LS 3 Subtotal Platform 2,532 Site Development Parking lot AC paving - roads 53,500 SF 6.00 321 AC paving - parking 244,000 SF 2.80 683 Curbs 12,600 LF 8.00 101 Lighting (budget by engineers) 1 LS 201 Drainage Inlets 32 EA 1,200.00 38 Piping, 12" 3,600 LF 22.00 79 Swales 1,600 LF 8.00 13 Retetion pond structures 2 EA 5,000.00 10 Landscaping Trees, 15 gallon 70 EA 60.00 4 Trees, 24" box 112 EA 125.00 14 Groundcover and irrigation 165,000 SF 3.00 495 Sidewalk 8,000 SF 6.00 48 Subtotal Site Development 2,008 Page 2 of 4 Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Sound Transit AA 98/7069 4 -Oct -98 Construction Cost Plan Qty Unit Rate $x1,000 Pedestrian Underpass Allowance for improvements at new BN bridge 1 LS 50 Subtotal Pedestrian Underpass 50 Utilities Domestic and fire water Piping 2,000 LF 30.00 60 Hydrants and valves 4 EA 1,500.00 6 Connect to existing 1 EA 5,000.00 5 Sanitary sewer Piping 300 LF 25.00 8 Connect to existing 1 EA 3,000.00 3 Electrical Power (budget by engineers) 1 LS 69 Telephone / data (budget by engineers) 1 LS 12 Subtotal Utilities 163 Miscellaneous Site Improvements Longacres (S 158th St) Widen existing street, approx. 10', new curb, gutter and sidewalk on one side 300 LF 200.00 60 New curb, gutter and sidewalk (per side) 400 LF 60.00 24 Curvert at BN embankment Manholes, tie into existing system 1 LS 20 Culvert steel cased 5' 100 LF 325.00 33 Storm drainage piping ADS 4' 190 LF 185.00 35 Subtotal Miscellaneous Site Improvements 172 Page 3 of 4 Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Sound Transit AA 98/7069 4 -Oct -98 Construction Cost Plan Art Allowance Subtotal Contingency for Design Allowance for Cost Rise Qty Unit Rate $x1,000 1% 49 10% 5% 4,973 497 274 Recommended Budget for Construction, 1999 5,744 Note: above costs include all General Contractor's markups and fees. Unit rates include clearing and grading, paving, lighting and drainage. Page 4 of 4 Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Schematic Design Report MEP Basis of Design Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Basis of Design MECHANICAL A. SITE UTILITIES 1. General: Extensions to the Site Utility Systems will be designed by the Civil Engineering Consultant. 2. Water Service: One water supply for the domestic water will be brought to the private bathroom (Comfort Station). The domestic water meter will be located in a below grade vault outside the building by the Civil Engineer. 3. Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drains: The private bathroom (Comfort Station) drainage systems will be connected to the site sanitary sewer and storm drain systems five -feet from the building exterior wall surface. B. HVAC SYSTEMS 1. Codes and Standards: a. Uniform Mechanical Code. b. Uniform Building Code. c. NFPA 90A, Installation of Air Conditioning and Ventilation Systems. d. NFPA-101, Life Safety Code. e. Washington State Energy Code. 2. Design Parameters: a. Outdoor Design Conditions, General: 1. Summer: 85 F dry bulb, 66 F wet bulb, 7.5 mph wind velocity. 2. Winter: 24 F dry bulb, 15 mph wind velocity, 4800 heating degree- days. 3. Building Envelope: MBT Architecture/Duarte Bryant Section 4-1 Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Schematic Design Report MEP Basis of Design a. General: Components of the building envelope serving heated spaces will be insulated to meet or exceed requirements of the Washington State Energy Code, "Building Design by Components Performance Approach". 4. HVAC System Descriptions: a. The private bathroom (Comfort Station) will be heated with an electric space heater and naturally ventilated. b. Electric radiant infrared heaters will be located under each platform canopy to provide heat for people waiting under cover. C. PLUMBING AND SERVICE PIPING 1. Codes and Standards: a. Uniform Plumbing Code b. Uniform Building Code 2. Domestic Water System: a. Private Bathroom (Comfort Station): Cold water will be routed from the site to this facility. Hot water will be generated by a tankless instant water heater. b. Plumbing Fixtures: 1. Water closet and urinals will be flush valve, wall mounted china fixtures with low flow characteristics as required by code. 2. Wall hung lavatories will be china lavatory fixtures with low flow characteristics as required by local codes. 3. Sanitary Waste System: Waste and vent piping will be provided for plumbing fixtures as required. Piping and fittings shall be cast iron, couplings shall be no -hub type, double band below grade and single band above grade. MBT Architecture/Duarte Bryant Section 4-2 Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Schematic Design Report MEP Basis of Design ELECTRICAL A. UTILITIES 1. General: Extension of site utilities will be provided through a coordinated effort between the electrical contractor and the serving utility. 2. Power: Electrical service will be coordinated with the utility (Puget Sound Energy). Service voltage will be 480Y/277 volts, 400 amps, 3 phase, 4 wire fed into the main electrical distribution panel, from a pad -mounted utility transformer. 3. Voice Communications: Service will be coordinated with the utility (US West). The electrical contractor will provide raceways to the communications building; the utility will provide service cables and connections. Utility work will be provided through the Owner. 4. Cable Television: Design will include site raceway system for utility cable system. Cable TV service will be provided through the Owner. B7. POWER DISTRIBUTION—STATION & LOTS 1. General: Power distribution will be designed to provide safe and reliable power to support building lighting, mechanical and general loads. 2. Codes and Standards: a. NFPA 70, National Electric Code b. State of Washington Department of Labor and Industries Regulations c. Utility Company Regulations d. Applicable Energy Codes 3. Voltage Levels: Power distribution, large electrical loads, and motors sized at 1/2 HP and larger will be served by 480 V, 3 phase power. Lighting will be 480, 277 or 240 V, and small convenience loads as well as receptacles will be 120 V. MBT Architecture/Duarte Bryant Section 4-3 Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Schematic Design Report MEP Basis of Design 5. Switchboards/Panelboards: Distribution panelboards will be provided to serve large loads and feeders. Branch circuit panelboards will be located as required to conveniently serve associated loads. 6. Transformers: 480 V primary to 208Y/120 V secondary step-down transformers will be located to provide adequate ventilation. 7. Future Capacity.: Provide minimum of 25% spare capacity and spaces in all switchboards and panelboards. 8. Conductors: Feeders and branch circuits will be designed with sizing based on copper THWN/THHN insulation. Wires will be sized as required to minimize voltage drops in long feeders. 9. Fault Duty: Integrated fault rating as available by manufacturer's UL listing will be utilized to take advantage of the use of circuit breakers; or if integrated ratings are not consistent with the fault duty available, current limiting fuses will be used. 10. No special provisions for lightning protection, computer equipment or power supplies, electromagnetic shielding, grounding, welding, or snow melting equipment are being provided. B2. POWER DISTRIBUTION—COMMUNICATIONS BUILDING 1. General: Only the the feeder to the communications building is provided. The feeder will be terminated at the building panelboard. All power distribution inside of the communications building is by others. 2. Codes and Standards: a. NFPA 70, National Electric Code b. State of Washington Department of Labor and Industries Regulations c. Applicable Energy Codes 3. Building Feeder: The building will be 120/240 volts, 100 amps, single phase. Power will be supplied by a dedicated single phase transformer, which is fed from the station main distribution panel. MBT Architecture/Duarte Bryant Section 4-4 Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Schematic Design Report MEP Basis of Design C. LIGHTING SYSTEMS 1. General: Illumination within parking areas and the site will conform to daytime and extended nighttime use. 2. Codes and Standards: a. IES "Lighting Application Handbook" Washington State Non -Residential Energy Code. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority 3. Fixture types throughout parking areas to be HID (High Pressure Sodium) pole - mounted luminaires. Platform illumination to be HID luminaires, along with compact fluorescent sources for accent illumination. 4. Location Footcandles* Platform average maintained footcandles 4.0 Edge of Platform average maintained footcandles 2.0 Exterior Station Lighting 5.0 Stairs and Ramps 15.0 Toilet Room 30.0 Parking Area 2.0 Underground Passage 15.0 * Minimum maintained footcandles, unless stated as average 5. Fluorescent Lamps: T8, 32W, 13W, 3500 K. 6. Ballasts: High power factor type; fluorescent ballasts to be electronic. 7. Exterior Lighting: HID (high pressure sodium) pole mounted fixtures in parking areas and driveways. Control from a common photocell and timeclock through an mechanically held contactor. Control: Centralized automatic lighting control systems are anticipated. MBT Architecture/Duarte Bryant Section 4-5 Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Schematic Design Report MEP Basis of Design D. EMERGENCY LIGHTS 1. General: Emergency lighting is not provided. E. RACEWAYS 1. General: IMC raceways will be used throughout, for above ground locations. PVC 40 with RGS bends will be permitted for underground raceways; otherwise, rigid galvanized steel will be required. Thin-walled flex aluminum raceways will not be permitted. • F. COMMUNICATIONS 1. General: Design for raceway system only for voice systems. 2. Codes and Standards: a. EIA/TIA G. OTHER SIGNAL SYSTEMS 1.. Provide communications raceways from the communications building to outlet boxes for ticket vending machines, CCTV outlets, and changeable message signs. 2. Provide public address system for platform areas. MBT Architecture/Duarte Bryant Section 4-6 Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Schematic Design Report Construction Process Options CONSTRUCTION PROCESS OPTIONS ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION MEANS AND METHODS Sound Transit's goals for the design and construction of the Tukwila Commuter Rail Station are driven by a tight schedule for the construction completion of the station. The goal is to be ready to open the station January 1, 2000. Methods of construction delivery for the station platform and functioning station elements need to be selected first on the basis of meeting the schedule, and also on the basis of cost effectiveness. Three construction delivery methods are worth examining, and may be appropriate for the Tukwila Project: A. Conventional Design - Bid — Build. B. Fast Track Construction using Construction Management C. Design — Build A. CONVENTIONAL DESIGN BID BUILD The conventional contracting system would be the normal approach for this project. It incorporates all of the standard checks and balances which have been the basis of construction contracting and design contracting in recent years, particularly for public projects. While the process is considered reliable, it has faults as recently applied to large complex projects and as applied in many specialized and specific facility types. In large projects, the conventional approach is defmitely the slowest of the methods above. In addition, it has developed a history of excessive litigation related to change orders plus many other items. For specialized projects, such as parking structures, there has developed a design build industry in which the construction techniques and cost savings have been refined to be more competitive and attractive, compared with the conventional process. The conventional approach remains the norm for public projects, in which the competitive bidding approach is dictated by law. However, many public agencies such as Universities have begun to institute new procedures such as Construction Management and Design Build... in order to speed up the delivery of the work, save costs and reduce litigation. B. FAST TRACK CONSTRUCTION USING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT The construction management process is the current method of choice in the private sector, for the delivery of most projects. In the public sector, the State of Washington has recently started a new process called GCCM (General Contractor Construction Management) which it applies to projects MBT Architecture/Duarte Bryant 5- 1 Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Schematic Design Report Construction Process Options greater than $10 million in construction value. It is an example of several similar approaches, based on the appointment of a construction manager during the design process. The benefits of the CM approach are to allow the owner to speed up the delivery of the finished facility, by overlapping design and construction through the fast track method. Demolition, grading and foundations, for example, can occur while the superstructure is still being designed. It saves time, but does not really save money except in highly inflationary times. But cost benefits are very possible due to having the general contractor on board during design, so that his experience and cost saving methods can be incorporated into the design. C. DESIGN BUILD The design build sector of the construction industry is growing fast, because the reputation of this industry is that it can deliver projects faster, cheaper, and with less litigation. In some cases, this can be true, but in many cases the quality of the building product suffers and the owner and/or architect's control of the product quality is diminished in this process. Design build has found special favor in specific trades, such as mechanical and electrical subcontracting, and specific building industries such as warehouses, parking structures, and multi -unit housing. In many of these sectors the building itself is more of a "product" than a traditional built -to - suit building... and the quality issues are less of a concem. COST -BENEFIT AND SCHEDULE -BENEFIT IMPACTS A. CONVENTIONAL DESIGN -BID -BUILD The conventional process is the process assumed in our cost estimates, and it would be the norm for the primary components of the station itself. B. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, COST IMPACTS The construction cost is likely to work out the same as design -bid -build, using the CM approach. On the one hand, there will be extra costs for fee and overhead, using the CM during the design phases...but these will be balanced by cost savings generated by the CM in reviewing the design. C. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, SCHEDULE IMPACTS We believe that there are real schedule benefits in the CM approach. The project could well lend itself to fast tracking, and also there is real value in having the general contractor on board early to ensure the creation of a realistic schedule that can meet Sound Transit's goals. Also, the CM can push the design team to meet the schedule goals, can institute the permitting submittals, and can create fast tracking when and if this proves necessary. IMT Architecture/Duarte Bryant 5- 2 Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Schematic Design Report Construction Process Options If Sound Transit plans to adopt the CM approach, it will need to start a fair and legal selection process to appoint a Construction Manager. CM fees can be solicited, and a scope prepared as a basis for the fee proposals. We do not necessarily recommend the State's GCCM process as a model, but we can supply more detailed information on how this works, as we are building a large project for the University of Washington under the GCCM system. D. DESIGN BUILD, COST IMPACTS The basic Tukwila Station itself does not lend itself to design build. The major trades on the project are not the usual design -build trades, and the station elements are too unique to allow cost improvement under the design build process. E. DESIGN BUILD, SCHEDULE IMPACTS If design build were to be found appropriate to the Tukwila project, it would not be related to schedule improvements. The design build process in this case would not save time, since there would be a period of preparation of the design build scope documents which might even lengthen the schedule. MBT Architecture/Duarte Bryant 5- 3 Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Schematic Design Report Art Concepts SCHEMATIC DESIGN ART CONCEPTS AND SITE ANALYSIS PROJECT ARTIST — JERRY MAYER Features of Tukwila station site which strongly influence the station design/art: Elevated track -level. "Dramatic" topographical relief. Panoramic view from platform. Upward view from parking area to station platform area. Parking area sits between two elevated track beds. Creates a "valley." Creates definite boundaries. Very little built -environment to offer context. Open "canvas." Opportunity to establish a context. Animals live along track embankment. Features of Tukwila area which strongly influence the station design/art: Rivers (past and present) — Duwamish, Green and Black. Flood plain topography and oxbows. Flood plain flora and fauna. Changes due to both man and nature. Flight — natural and mechanical. Great Blue Heron is the Tukwila City Bird. Other local birds. Boeing located next to station site & throughout local area. Tukwila located at regional "crossroads" — migration & immigration. Human beings. Animals (domesticated and wild.) Rivers, glaciers and mudslide. Transportation and freight. Project design team process/approach to station area design and art: Artists, architects, landscape architects and engineers collaborate. Artists may influence or design construction budget elements. Other designers may help design art budget elements. Artist's fees paid out of art budget. All design disciplines agree on project's "conceptual underpinnings". Art, architecture and landscape components/budgets reinforce each other. Whole station site is considered an artwork. Station design strengthens identity of both Tukwila andSounder. MBT Architecture/Duarte Bryant Section 6.1 Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Schematic Design Report Art Concepts General aesthetic themes of station site area: Treat site as an "echo" of the Duwamish/Green River Valley. Parallel track embankments "echo" bordering hills. Parking lot and platform storm water drainage "echo" rivers. Bio-swale meanders through length of site as much as possible. Drains storm water into two detention ponds. The second (cleaner) pond to be featured. Platform canopy design inspired by graceful local forms. Natural flight — bird and insect wings. Mechanical flight — airplane wings Leaves "Whirleybirds" (maple tree seed pods) ART CONCEPTS/OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN CONSTRUCTION BUDGET: Treat platform run-off water as a water feature. Take advantage of platform/parking elevation differential. "Celebrate" drainge from platform to featured detention pond. Feature/focus of "main" stairs and bus drop-off area. Can be an orienting device for visually impaired. Options (will be a combination): Cistern/slow release/passive. Direct gathering/immediate release/active. "Daylighted" — visual connection. Underground — symbolic connection. "Crossroads Carpets" of sandblasted images on station platform surface. Framed 8 foot by 12 foot areas will contain images. "Crossroads Carpets" themes -- migration, immigration & travel. "Crossroads Carpets" image possibilities (track or "track -like"): Different types of human tracks — moccasin, boot etc. Animal tracks. Various gauge RR tracks (third electric rail, too?). Treads (car, truck, airplane, bicycle, earthmover, etc.) Spawned salmon carcass shapes. Swirl shape created by pulling paddle through water. Glacier scratches or other clues. Images can be etched into: Platform slab concrete. Colored or cast concrete panels. Pedestrian way under new railroad bridge. Retaining wall technique and materials. Lighting MBT Architecture/Duarte Bryant Section 6.2 Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Schematic Design Report Art Concepts Art concepts/opportunities within art budget: Original composition of "random Tukwila sounds." Sounds to emit from speakers in two facing platform canopies. Located at either northernmost or southernmost canopies. User has option to listen or move to another canopy. Location can be orienting device. Sound decibel levels will be moderate with a few exceptions. Composition will incorporate silence with sounds. Example of sounds (past/present): All types of animal and human vocal sounds. All types of animal and human activity sounds. Nature sounds. Transportation sounds. Tukwila residents saying "Tukwila." As many nationalities and accents as possible. Range of ages. Process for creation of artwork. Commissioned sound artist and project artist collaborate. Involve residents of Tukwila as volunteers. Solve installation issues with design team engineers. MBT Architecture/Duarte Bryant Section 6.3 bl/7. 'r F9/7'0N PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY TUKWILA COMMUTER RAIL STATION WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY AND STRANDER BOULEVARD TUKWILA, WASHINGTON _ E-8427 October 23, 1998 PREPARED FOR SOUND TRANSIT C/O MBT ARCHITECTURE tt tt D. Dinkelman, RPG Project Manager Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Manager of Geotechnical Services Earth Consultants, Inc. 1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (425) 643-3780 1-888-739-6670 C I NH i incNn'1 u l wea WHf1C g n i UPI. 07' 10A Earth Consultants Inc. Geotechnical Et),gineere,, Geologists & Etwitonmental Scientists October 23, 1998 E-8427 MBT Architecture 100 Second Avenue, Suite 1770 Seattle, Washington 98104• Attention: Mr. Dan Nelson Dear Mr. Nelson: We are pleased to submit our report titled " Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study, Tukwila Commuter Rail Station, West Valley Highway and Strander Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington." This report presents the results of our field exploration, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses. The purpose and scope of our study was outlined in our August 24, 1998 proposal. Based on the results of our preliminary study, it is our opinion the commuter rail station can be constructed generally as planned. The proposed covered platform areas and other lightly loaded buildings,may be supported on conventional spread and continuous footing foundation systems bearing on at least two feet of structural fill. Grades in the platform areas will need to be raised by eight to ten feet. We estimate the weight of this fill will induce four to six inches of settlement in the underlying compressible soils. Due to the proximity of the platform to the existing railroad, there will be some settlement of the existing tracks. As such, leveling of the tracks after completion of the settlement period will likely be necessary. Detailed preliminary recommendations for these and other geotechnical issues related to the proposed commuter rail station are presented in the attached study. We appreciate this opportunity to have been of service to you on this phase of this project and look forward continuing to work with you as we prepare the final geotechnical engineering study. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. Respectfully submitted, EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Manager of Geotechnical Services SDDIKRC/bkm I1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue, Washington 98005 Bellevue (425) 643-3780 FAX (425) 746-0860 Toll Free (888) 739-6670 trl/P 'rI R1-117:01\1 CINVl1fICNfI'1 NI?Ida IVf1G,f11 AFRI .P..7•10n TABLE OF CONTENTS E-8427 PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 General 1 Project Description ... 1 SITE CONDITIONS 2 Surface 2 Subsurface Conditions 3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 General 3 Site Preparation. and General Earthwork 4 Platform Fill and Settlement Monitoring 5 Conventional Foundations 6 Seismic Design Considerations 7 LIMITATIONS 9 Earth Consultants, Inc. til/ti Rg17,'ON gINVI1fl Nnn NIHda wVIQ:fi QQQI •97.ion PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY TUKWILA COMMUTER RAIL STATION WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY AND STRANDER BOULEVARD TUKWILA, WASHINGTON E-8427 INTRQDUCTION General This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering study completed by Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) for the proposed Tukwila Commuter Rail Station, West Valley Highway and Strander Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington. The purpose of this study is to provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations for the proposed Tukwila Commuter Rail Station. These recommendations will be used in the 30 percent schematic design. Our scope ,of work consisted of conducting a reconnaissance of the site and reviewing our library and files for information on the subsurface conditions for the site and vicinity. At the time our study was performed, the site, existing rail line, proposed platform and parking locations were approximately as shown on the attached Site Plan, Plate 2. Project Description We understand it is planned to construct a commuter rail station at the subject as part of the Sound Transit rail transit system. The station will use the existing north and southbound Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks. The station would consist of raised platforms for loading and unloading passengers and surface level parking and bus drive areas. The raised platforms will be located on the east and west sides of the tracks. The platforms will be level with the existing tracks, which will require raising grades by eight to ten feet adjacent to the existing tracks. The fill placed for the platform will be laterally supported by concrete retaining walls. The platforms will include relatively lightly loaded covered shelter areas. Surface level parking will be provided for passenger vehicles and busses on the west side of the existing railroad tracks. The surface level parking will be at or near existing site grades which are about eight to ten feet below the level of the existing tracks. Access to the platforms will be provided by stairs and ramps. We anticipate the surface level parking will be asphalt paved, with traffic primarily consisting of passenger vehicles and occasional service trucks. EErth Consultant's. Inc. Hl/G 'd 69LZ'oN SINHIIfISN(1'1 HINVINVIG:fI PRO '9.7.10n PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING. STUDY MBT Architecture E-8427 October 23, 1998 Page 2 At the north end of the station, it is planned to provide a bus loading area and plaza. The bus and plaza areas will be constructed near existing grades. Traffic Toads in the bus loading area will consist of frequent, slow-moving and turning heaviiy loaded busses. As such, we anticipate the bus loading and drive areas will be surfaced with a concrete paving section. In the plaza area, a single -story communications building and support facilities are planned. We anticipate these buildings will be of relatively lightly -loaded steel -stud or wood -frame construction with slab -on -grade floors. The preliminary conclusions and recommendations in this study are based on our understanding of the proposed rail station which is in turn based on the preliminary information provided us. If the above project description is incorrect or the project information changes, we should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this study and make modifications, if needed. Changes in the project can also be incorporated into the final geotechnical engineering study. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The proposed Tukwila Commuter Rail Station is located north and east of the intersection of Strander Boulevard and West Valley Highway. The study area is bound to the north by Longacres Way and single -story light manufacturing buildings, to the west by the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way, retail buildings and multi -story hotels, to the south by undeveloped land and to the east by the former Longacres Horse Racing Track. Most of the study area is relatively level, with fess than about five feet of elevation change across the length of the proposed parking area. However, the existing Burlington -Northern Santa -Fe railroad tracks are supported on a wedge of fill about eight to ten feet above the level of the parking, plaza and bus loading areas. In the north half of the study area, there appears to be a recently placed surcharge fill. The fill is on the order of three feet high. The site is sparsely vegetated with grass and large maple trees. Most of the site consists of bare soil. Earth Consultants, inc. i;1/9 'd 69LZ'oN SINVI1flSNfl HIV VVIQ:fl1 QRRI .s7 13n PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY MBT Architecture E-8427 October 23, 1998 Page 3 Subsurface Conditions An understanding of the geologic history and the processes that resulted in deposition of the soil and formation of the present landforms in the site vicinity is a necessary precursor to developing an understanding of the nature of the soil conditions at this site. It also provides a framework for anticipating subsurface conditions that may be reasonably expected based on our past experience with similar geologic units. The study area is located within the Green River Valley. This valley consists of a former marine embayment formed during the Vashon Stade of the Fraser glaciation about 12,000 to 10,000 years before present. The marine embayment was subsequently filled-in by prograding deltaic deposits from the Green River. The deltaic deposits are up to seven hundred (700) feet deep in the vicinity of the site and consist of loose to medium dense black poorly graded sand and silt. As the valley filled to above sea level, the Green River entered a meandering regime, in which the river worked its way back and forth across the valley forming oxbow lakes which may contain peat and silt deposits. Overbank deposits consisting of silt and clay were also laid down across the valley during floods. Based on the geologic history and our experience with similar projects, we anticipate the site is underlain by moderately compressible loose silt and poorly graded sand with silt to a depth of thirty (30) to forty (40) feet below grade. From forty (40) to fifty (50) feet, these soils likely grade to medium dense, eventually becoming dense to very dense at fifty (50) to sixty (60) feet below grade. As part of this study, a subsurface exploration was not conducted. A subsurface exploration consisting of test pits and borings will be performed as part of the final geotechnical engineering study. The groundwater table would likely be encountered at five to ten feet below grade, depending on seasonal conditions. Dl SSION AND E MENDATION • General Based on the results of our preliminary study, it is our opinion the commuter rail station can be constructed generally as planned. The critical geotechnical issues which will need to be addressed for the proposed station are the potential for settlement of the existing rail line which will be induced by the fill placed to raise the platform areas, providing adequate support for the covered platform and parking areas and providing a stable pavement subgrade. Earth Consultants, Inc. til/L 'd 69LZ'0N S1NVI1fSNn5 H1NV3 WVIG:fli RFII .R7.i3n PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY MBT Architecture E-8427 October 23, 1998 Page 4 In order to construct the station platforms at the level of the existing tracks, eight to ten feet of structural fill will need to be placed. This fill will induce a potential stress increase of about 1,200 pounds per square foot (psf) and will preload the underlying compressible soils. We estimate settlement induced by the weight of this fill could be on the order of four to six inches. The settlement induced by the fill should be monitored and when the settlement ceases or the anticipated future settlement is considered with tolerable limits, construction of the platforms may begin. Based on our experience in this area, we estimate a settlement period of six to ten weeks. Due to the proximity of the fill to the existing rail line, it is likely, there will be some settlement of the existing tracks, which will require leveling of the existing tracks after completion of the settlement. Alternatively, the platforms could be structurally supported. In our opinion, lightly loaded structures such as the covered station platforms and service buildings may be supported on conventional spread footing foundation systems. In order to provide adequate bearing support and mitigate the potential for settlement, conventional spread and continuous footing_ foundations should be supported on at least two feet of structural fill. In order to provide adequate support for asphalt and concrete paved surface parking and drive areas, it will be necessary to provide a stable pavement subgrade. In our opinion, the upper foot of the subgrade soils should be compacted in-place to the requirements of structural fill and be in a firm and non -yielding condition. This preliminary study has been prepared for specific application to this project only and in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area for the exclusive use of MBT Architects and their representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Site Preparation and General Earthwork Building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of structures surface vegetation, organic matter and any other deleterious material. Existing underground utilities to be abandoned should be removed so that they do not provide a conduit for water and cause soil saturation and stability problems. Earth Consultants, Inc. i'i/R 'ri 69LZ'oN S.I.NVI1fSNfi1 HAV INd7G:01 RRRI 'R7'1.Of PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY MBT Architecture E-8427 October 23, 1998 Page 5 The ground surface where structural fill, foundations, or slabs are to be placed should be observed by a representative of ECI and proofrolled in order to identify soft or unstable areas. Soil in loose or soft areas, if recompacted and still yielding, should be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill to a depth that will provide a stable base beneath the general structural fill. The optional use of a geotextile fabric placed directly on the overexcavated surface may help to bridge unstable areas. Structural fill is defined as compacted fill placed under buildings, roadways, slabs, pavements, or other Toad -bearing areas. Structural fill under floor slabs and footings should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve (12) inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its laboratory maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near their optimum moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks should also be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of maximum density except for the top twelve (12) inches which should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density. During dry weather, most soils which are compactible and non-organic can be used as structural fill. We anticipate the subsurface soils contain more than five percent fines and will degrade if exposed to excessive moisture, and compaction and grading will be difficult if the soil moisture increases significantly above its optimum condition. If the native soil is exposed to moisture and cannot be adequately.. compacted then it may be necessary to import a soil which can be compacted. During dry weather, non-organic compactible soil with a maximum grain size of six inches can be used. Fill for use during wet weather should consist of a fairly well graded granular material having a maximum grain size of six inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve based on the minus 3/4 -inch fraction. Platform Fill and Settlement Monitoring Up to ten feet of structural fill may need to be placed in order to achieve construction subgrade levels in the platform areas. The weight of this fill will induce a stress increase on the order of 1,200 psf and induce settlement of the underlying moderately compressible soils. Due to the proximity of the platforms to the existing railroad tracks, there will be a corresponding amount of settlement in the existing tracks, which may require leveling of the existing tracks after completion of the settlement period. ,. 1 it • I cni7•nm Earth Concukan$, Inc. QIMNinneMnn LIMq WW7C:flI REFI .9.7.1Of PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY MBT Architecture E-8427 October 23, 1998 Page 6 The settlement induced by the platform fill should be monitored and when the settlement ceases or the anticipated future settlement is considered to be within tolerable limits, construction of the platforms may commence. Based on our experience in this area, we estimate a settlement period of six to ten weeks will be necessary. The actual surcharge period will be dependent upon settlement readings. If a shorter surcharge period is needed, a surcharge could be used. A surcharge would consist of placing fill above the construction subgrade elevation in order to apply more weight to the compressible soils and increase the rate of settlement. In order to effectively preload the platform area, the platform fill should be extended at least five feet beyond the limits of the platform and should include stairways and ramp areas. The side slopes of the platform fill should be inclined no steeper than 1 H:1 V. The settlement monitoring program should consist of setting settlement monitors on the existing site subgrade before fill is placed, monitoring them through completion of fill placements and continuing until the settlement is completed. Conventional Foundations Conventional spread and continuous footing foundation systems may be used for platforms, covered shelters and support buildings. Due to the loose conditions of the near surface soils, conventional foundations should be supported on at least two feet of structural fill. This will require overexcavating the foundation bearing soils to a depth of at least two feet below foundation subgrade elevation and then backfilling the overexcavation with structural fill. The width of the overexcavation should be at least one half the overexcavation depth. For example, assuming a two foot wide footing and two foot overexcavation depth, the overexcavation width would be four feet. With foundation support obtained as described, for design, an allowable bearing capacity of two thousand five hundred (2,500) psf for structural fill can be used. Loading of this magnitude would be provided with a theoretical factor -of -safety in excess of three against actual shear failure. For short-term dynamic loading conditions, a one-third increase in the above allowable bearing capacities can be used. Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24) inches, respectively. For frost protection considerations, exterior foundation elements should be placed at a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches below final exterior grade. Interior spread foundations can be placed at a minimum depth of twelve (12) inches below the top of slab, except in unheated areas, where interior foundation elements should be founded at a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches. Earth Consultants, Inc. til/01 'd 69LZ'°N SINVIlf1SNO� H1 V INVQ:111 RRRI .R7..100 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY MBT Architecture E-8427 October 23, 1998 Page 7 For the above design criteria, estimated settlements of foundations should be one inch or less. Differential settlements are estimated to be on the order of one half inch. Most of the settlement should occur during construction as the dead loads are applied. Horizontal loads can be resisted by friction'between the base of the foundation and the supporting soil and by passive soil pressure acting on the face of the buried portion of the foundation. For the latter, the foundation must be poured "neat" against the competent native soils or backfilled with structural fill. For frictional capacity, a coefficient of .30 can be used. For passive earth pressure, the available resistance can be computed using an equivalent fluid pressure of three hundred (300) pcf. These lateral resistance values are allowable values, a factor -of -safety of 1.5 has been included. As movement of the foundation element is required to mobilize full passive resistance, the passive resistance should be neglected if such movement is not acceptable. Seismic Design Considerations The Puget Lowland is classified as a Seismic Zone 3 in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). Earthquakes occur in the Puget Lowland with regularity, however, the majority of these events are of such low magnitude they are not felt without instruments. Large earthquakes do occur, as indicated by the 1949, 7.2 magnitude earthquake in the Olympia area and the 1965, 6.5 magnitude earthquake in the Midway area. There are three potential geologic hazards associated with a strong motion seismic event at this site: ground rupture, liquefaction, and ground motion response. Ground Rupture The strongest earthquakes in the Puget Lowland are widespread, subcrustal events, ranging in depth from thirty (30) to fifty-five (55) miles. Surface faulting from these deep events has not been documented to date. Therefore, it is our opinion that the risk of ground rupture at this site during a strong motion seismic event is negligible. Earth Consultants, Ino. tI/li rl Rq/7'ON gimdi1ncMn1 NINV1 wdP.Q:nI QPRI .97.10n PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY MBT Architecture E-8427 October 23, 1998 Page 8 Liquefaction Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of time during an earthquake. Groundshaking of sufficient duration results in the Toss of grain to grain contact and rapid increase in pore water pressure, causing the soil to behave as a fluid. To have a potential for liquefaction, a soil must be cohesionless with a grain size distribution of a specified range (generally sand and silt); it must be loose; it must be below the groundwater table; and it must be subject to sufficient magnitude and duration of groundshaking. The effects of liquefaction may be large total and/or differential settlement for structures founded in the liquefying soils. In our opinion, the potential for liquefaction induced settlement at this site is. moderate. Ground Motion Response The 1997 UBC seismic design section provides a series of soil profile types that are used as a basis for seismic design of structures. Based on the encountered soil conditions, it is our opinion that soil type SE from Table 16-J should be used for design. Surface Level Parking Areas The adequacy of site pavements is related in part to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To provide a properly prepared subgrade for pavements, the subgrade should be treated and prepared as described in the Site Preparation and General Earthwork section of this report. This means at least the top twelve (12) inches of the subgrade should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density. (per ASTM D-1557). It is possible that some localized areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade may still exist after this process. Therefore, a greater thickness of structural fill or crushed rock may be needed to stabilize these localized areas. The following pavement section for passenger vehicle parking and drive area can be used: • Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over six inches of crushed rock base (CRB) material, or • Two inches of AC over four inches of asphalt treated base (ATB) material. Earth Conauhanta, Inc. tI/71 'A FQI7.'ON CININI-11cmn1 ulllya wwPc!ni opi •c7.inn PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY MBT Architecture E_8427 October 23, 1998 Page 9 For the bus drive and loading area, the following heavier pavement section should be used: • Six inches of Portland Concrete Cement over twelve (12) inches of crushed rock base. Pavement materials should conform to WSDOT specifications. The use of a Class B asphalt mix is suggested. LIMITATIONS Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the design information provided us, and our experience and engineering judgment. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied. The preliminary recommendations submitted in this report are based on our site reconnaissance and on our work on other projects in the site vicinity. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered during our field exploration, it may be necessary to amend some or all of these recommendations. Earth Coneuttante, Inc. 171/Pi 'rl fig/7'0N SINVI1flSNf0 HIHV INVRG.fll RRFI 'R7.'13 Lr SOUNDTRANS1T June 18, 1998 To Whom it May Concern: Enclosed please find a copy of the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) issued by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for the Environmental Assessment (EA) of the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail project. The FTA recently completed its review of the EA prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act for the project proposed by the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit). The project is a 40 -mile commuter rail system along the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail line, with 9 stations in the cities of Tacoma, Puyallup, Sumner, Auburn, Kent, Tukwila and Seattle. Based on its review the FTA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact on June 10, 1998. Copies of the FONSI, the Environmental Assessment and all related supporting documentation are available to the public for review in Sound Transit's office at 1100 Second Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98101. Copies of the EA and FONSI can be reviewed at local public libraries. Copies of the EA can also be obtained at no charge through the mail. Please contact Val Batey, Project Development Manager at (206) 684- 1591 if you have any questions or if you would like a copy of the EA mailed to you. vb tonsi letter RECEIVED JUN 2 2 1998 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority 000 Second Ave., Suite S00 Seattle, WA 98101-3423 Reception 206.684.6776 Facsimile 206.684.1234 www.soundtransit.org CITY OFTIVED UKWILA JUN 1 9 1998 PERMIT CENTER \\ Chair `, Bob Drewel\ Snobontiob Cotutht E'x'ecutive Vice Chairs Paul Miller Tacoma Cotutcibnember Greg Nickels King County Councihneutber Sarah Casada Pierce Coaahy Councilntentber Ann Davis Lakewood Councilntentber Dave Earling Edmonds Cottncilntentber Mary Gates Federal Way Conncilneenrber Jane Hague King Counhy Coancilatentber Ed Hansen Everett Mayor Richard tMclver Seattle Councibnentber Rob McKenna • King County Coundhnember Sid Morrison Washington State Department of Tiam portation Secretary .1 Dave Russell Kirkland Councilmentbei'J 9 .i, Paul Schell Seattle Mayor Ron Sims King County Executive Cynthia Sullivan King County C'oruuilntentber Doug Sutherland Pierce Cotuthy Executive Jim White Kent Mayor Executive Director Bob White • U.S. Department REGION X 915 Second Avenue of Transportation Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Federal Building, Suite 3142 Federal Transit Washington Seattle, WA 98174-1002 Administration 206-220-7954 208-220-7959 (fax) Mr. Bob White Executive Director Central Puget Sound Regional .Transit Authority 1100 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101-3423 Dear Mr. White: JUN 10 1998 Re: Finding of No Significant Impact - Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Line The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has recently completed its review of the. Environmental Assessment dated June 1, 1998 plus related supporting documentation. Based on our review, FTA has issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the project. A copy of the FONSI is enclosed. Copies of the FONSI, Environmental Assessment and all related supporting documentation should be made available to the public. Notice of this availability should be published in local papers. Please note that if a grant is approved for this project, the standard terms and conditions of the FTA grant contract will require the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) to undertake all environmental mitigation measures identified in the environmental assessment. Thank you for your cooperation in meeting the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. If you have any questions, please contact F. William Fort at (206) 220-4461. Sincerely, Helen M. Knoll Regional Administrator Enclosure cc: Gene Fong, FHWA Washington Division FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TACOMA -to -SEATTLE COMMUTER RAIL PROJECT FTA GRANT NUMBER: WA -03-0078; WA -03-0119 APPLICANT: Sound Transit PROJECT LOCATION: Seattle, Washington PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed Project is a commuter rail line from Tacoma, Washington to Seattle, Washington, inclusive of stations at Tacoma, Puyallup, Sumner, Auburn, Kent, Tukwila/Renton (Longacres), Tukwila (Boeing Access Rd), and Seattle (two stations), Georgetown and King Street (Downtown). The Project includes improvements at the existing King Street Station site in Seattle, construction of new station buildings and associated transfer and parking facilities at all other station stops, improvements for bicycles and wheelchairs at each station site, improvements along the railroad right-of-way between those stations, yard improvements, plus allowance for rail equipment storage, servicing. and maintenance. During the planning process for the project several alternatives have been considered. The mode selected was commuter rail, and the alignment. selected was along the existing Burlington Northern/ Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) double track right-of-way (ROW). Extra tracks would be added to allow for timely commuter train operation near Tacoma, Auburn and Seattle. Project improvements to the right-of-way would be utilized not only by the proposed commuter rail service but also by AMTRAK and existing privately operated rail freight services. Current bus transit service would be redirected in some instances and passengers would be expected to redirect their travel patterns at the time of project implementation. Numerous. related projects in various stages of planning are proceeding independently. These projects have been determined by FTA to be functionally independent of the Tacoma -Seattle Commuter Rail Project, and their impacts are not considered in this Finding. They are: Additional improvements by the private railroads to enhance freight train movement through the corridor, which would be accomplished at the same time as the Project. Rail passenger service on the same railroad right-of-way that would operate at speeds exceeding those envisioned for the proposed commuter rail service. Page 1 of 15 Improvements at selected highway .grade .crossings along the railroad right-of-way in various stages. bf development that would likely proceed as funding is identified. Ancillary commercial development at station sites has generally not been defined. .There is currently no associated transit - oriented development planned at the stations, with the exception of previously planned development near Seattle's King Street Station. Proposed commuter rail lines from Seattle to Everett and from Tacoma to Lakewood would connect with the Project, but the Project has logical termini and independent utility without these projects. Most of the stations would serve as intermodal facilities for commuter rail, bus, vanpool,paratransit, bicycle, wheelchair and pedestrians. Most would have parking. Two stations would connect directly with light rail stations, which are being considered in a parallel environmental process. Right-of-Wav and Railroad Improvements: Aside from improvements ateach station site, most improvements would be made on existing tracksor within the existing BNSF and Union Pacific (UP) rights-of-way. Improvements would be made to signals, switches, track surface, bridges and yards. Where the existing trackage is inadequate to accommodate the commuter rail service, there will be several improvements. These include the following: Tacoma. The BNSF railroad would make improvements to its freight yards to accommodate the storage of passenger- trains near the station. The railroad would also improve access to the AMTRAK and Sound Move passenger stations by adding a third track through the yardeast of the station. Tacoma-Pnyallut2. The railroad would add 2.6 miles of third track to enable passenger trains to bypass freights, which must queue on the main line outside the Tacoma Industrial area. This widening would also permit the straightening of rail line curves to allow for higherpassenger train speeds. The widening and straightening would consume approximately 4 acres of existing wetland and would require mitigation to improve stream flows for migrating fish and to provide appropriate amounts of additional wetlands to compensate forloss of existing wetlands. Black River Bridge. Currently, the railroad crosses over the Black River on a box culvert. The crossing would be replaced by a fully spanning bridge. The bridge would be designed to improve the setting for migratory fish and to meet State of Washington hydraulic code requirements. No new lands would be taken. Track Realignments - Auburn. In order to enable freight trains to merge into the main line from the Stampede Pass route without Page 2 of 15 delaying. passenger service, several miles of double track in the Auburn area would be widened to triple track within the existing railroad right of way. Track Realignments - Seattle to Tukwila. In order to eliminate conflicts between freight and passenger trains, several changes would be made to the main running tracks. Between Georgetown and Tukwla the . separate BNSF ;and UP "rights-of-way would be consolidated into a three track jointly used right-of-way. Signalization of the line would be changed to accommodate the additional passenger service running at higher speeds. Between King Street Station and Georgetown the main passenger and freight lines would be expanded to a three-track operation, permitting freights to move independently of passenger train yard movements and passenger trains to be routed around slow moving freights. station Improvements: A description of the proposed station sites, or their. alternatives, follows: Tacoma Station: The Tacoma. Station would be located about a mile from downtown Tacoma and would consist of one 1100-foot platform which is 2.0 feet wide. It would be located on Burlington Northern/Santa Fe property and would be connected from its south end to the existing Tacoma Dome intermodal station and parking structure by a pedestrian and wheelchair walkway along "F" Street. This walkway would beat-grade and would cross Puyallup Avenue at a signalized crossing. There would be two additional signalized crossings of Puyallup Avenue at "C" Street leading from the bus terminal via a second pedestrjan and wheelchair walkway to mid-platform. Platform access routes would cross a lumber company siding track at grade. The station would be wheelchair accessible. The north end of the platform would connect to the AMTRAK station', improving the AMTRAK platform and allowing for transfer to high speed rail corridor trains. This location would also be the overnight storage site for most trains. This new yard,consisting of two tracks, would be located_in an existing Burlington Northern freight yard. The platform and the commuter rail servicewould be wheelchair accessible. Patronage is estimated at 1200 daily boardings. Puyallup Station: The Puyallup Station would be located in downtown Puyallup. There would be two 20-foot wide platforms on either side of the track extending 1200 feet to the east from Meridian Street North. A new six-bus transfer facility plus automobile parking would be located on 2.1 acres of land between Stewart Street and the west side of the railroad from Meridian Street N. to S.W. 5th Street. On the east side of the tracks, approximately 4.17 acres of mostly vacant land and vacated streets would be paved for parking between Main Street and the railroad. The site is currently occupied by two homes,a triplex and approximately 9 business structures, which would be taken. Projections indicate demand for 270 parking spaces. The station would be wheelchair accessible. There would be two at-grade pedestrian and wheelchair crossings of the railroad tracks, along Page 3 of 15 the sidewalk on the east side of Meridian Avenue and the west side of•S.W. 5th Street, at the two ends of the station. Patronage is estimated at 400 daily boardings. Sumner Station: The Sumner Station would be located close to downtown Sumner. There would be two 20 foot wide platforms extending 1000 feet south -from Maple Street to approximately 100 feet.southof. Harrison Street. The platforms would be located on railroad land. There would be two small parking lots located on vacant land west of the railroad, a half -acre lot between Traffic Avenue and the railroad south of. Maple Avenue and another of equal size adjacent to the railroad and north of Maple Street. On the east side of the station platform, 2.3 acres of vacant land would be used for parking and for four bay bus terminal. A second parking lot would be located on the half acre site of an existing public works facility along Harrison Street. The total amount of parking envisioned is 180 spaces. There would be only one pedestrian and wheelchair crossing of the tracks, at -grade on the sidewalk along the south side of Maple Street. Patronage is estimated at 300 daily boardings. Auburn Station: The Auburn Station would be located in downtown Auburn. There would be two 20 foot wide platforms extending 700 feet south from West Main Street. The platforms would be located on railroad land. Approximately 2.5 acres of parking would be situated between "C" Street and the west side of the railroad. This would be located on a combination of vacant land and land presently occupied by a large business. Approximately 1.3 acres of mostly vacant land would be used for parking on the east side of the railroad north of 3rd Street S.W. A multi -story parking structure has been .proposed between First and Second street west of "A" Street on land occupied by several smaller buildings. The site is occupied by.a house and six business structures, which would be taken. Parking spaces would total 540. A bus transfer facility would be located on the north aide of First Street between "A" Street and the railroad. It would be connected by a pedestrian and wheelchair overpass to both sides of the tracks and would not be funded by Sound Transit. The bus terminal would be adjacent to an historic hotel building. An additional improved pedestrian and wheelchair crossing of the railroad would be at -grade along the sidewalk on the south side of West Main Street. Patronage is estimated at 900 daily boardings. Kent Station: Two sites in Kent remain under consideration. Neither site has significant impacts and therefore neither is preferred from an environmental standpoint. Sound Transit has been working with the City of Kent to arrive at a decision. THis will likely be accomplished during the station area planning process. South Option: The Kent Station, south option, would be located in downtown Kent. There would be two 20 foot wide platforms extending 1100 feet north from Willis Street to Gowe Street. The intermediate, Titus Street, crossing of the railroad Page 4 of 15. is to be closed in order to accommodate the continuous platforms. The platforms will be located On railroad property but will be adjacent to many parcels of property which are being considered for taking to accommodate auto'parking.. Up to 6.6 acres of land, including twelve homes, two duplexes `and 'approximately 12 businesses, are proposed .'for`-taking. to accommodate 810 parking spaces for automobiles'.. and 0.7acres .;:.to provide for a bus transfer terminal serving up .to 10, buses. An alternative parking strategy (including a. parking :structure), which would reduce land taking by approximately '5.acres, is being considered. Funding for the parking structure has notbeen identified. There would be two improved at-grade pedestrian and wheelchair crossings of therailroad, on the north side of Willis Street and the south side'of Gowe Street, at either end of .the station. Patronage is estimatedat 1400 daily boardings. north Option: The Kent Station, north option, would be located north of downtown Kent. There would be two 20 foot wide platforms .extending ;north from Smith -Street, 1200 feet in length on the east side and 960 feet in length on the west side, the latter being shorter due to a railroad freight. siding. Approximately 6.8.acres of land are proposed for parking for 810 vehicles between First Avenue and the railroad on the west of the right-of-way and betweenthe alley east. of Railroad Avenue and the railroad right-of way north of Smith Street. A bus transfer facility for 10 buses on 1.1 acres of land would be located south of James Street adjacent to the railroad track on the east side of the railroad right-of-way. The site iscurrently occupied by five houses, two duplexes and approximately five businesses, which would be taken. An additional 1.6 acres to the north of James Street on the east side of the railroad right-of-way maybe available from the railroad for future parking expansion, if needed. There would be .two improved at-grade crossings for pedestrians and wheelchairs, on the northside of. Smith Street and the south side of James Street. Patronage is estimated at 1400 daily boardings. Renton/Tukwila Station - Longacres Site The preferred site for the Renton/Tuwila Station would be located near the former Longacres Race Track site, south of I-405 and adjacent to the Boeing office complex and a proposed exposition center. The preferred site has also been indicated as the preferred site for a proposed AMTRAK station in the area.. An alternative site at S.W. 43rd Street was considered but not selected. The station is currently proposed to consist of two 20-foot wide platforms, 1100 feet in length (with potential for expansion to 1400 ft). The platforms would be on an approximately 15-foot BNSF embankment on the existing railroad right-of-way. The project would re 8.3 acres of private land for 720 parking spaces and a bus transfer point directly south of I-405, north of Longacres Way. and between the BNSF and UP railroad right-of-ways. Approximately 100 spaces are estimated for AMTRAK needs. The private land has been proposed by the owner to be jointly used by Sound Transit and the exhibition center. The land is currently Page 5 of 15 vacant, though it has beenpreviously graded. Access to the site through private property from the east would be limited until the City of Renton completes its local station -area plan and identifies streets -which would feed the location. Access to the west would be along Longacres Road, a privately improved street without sidewalks. Transfer facilities for bus patrons have not been located but would likely be in the parking area. Pedestrian access would be provided from the west along Longacres Way and there is planned access .to the private Boeing office campus development on the east. The two station platforms would be connected by an existing underpass under the railroad. Access for wheelchairs to the railroad platforms on either side ofthe embankment will be completed in accordance with Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. Patronage is estimated at 1000 commuter rail boardings. Tukwila - Boeing Access Road Station (Transfer to proposed Light Rail Line): The proposed Boeing Access Road Station would be located between the two easternmost tracks of the three track BNSF/UP main line. It is anticipated to be constructed in association with a station on the proposed Northgate-to-SeaTac light rail line, which would intersect the Seattle -Tacoma commuter rail line in the vicinity of Boeing Access Road. This location would allow for persons, many of ethnic minority, to transfer to and from light rail serving the lower Rainier Valley in the City of Seattle and the cities of Tukwila and SeaTac. A small amount of land would be used. for 90 auto parking spaces and for a bus transfer facility. Patronage is estimated at 300 daily passengers. Georgetown Station (Provisional): The proposed Georgetown Station is considered to be "provisional" and would be constructed only if there is sufficient funding available. .It would provide access to persons commuting to job opportunities in the Duwamish Industrial area and would be within walking distance of homes to the east on Beacon Hill and in the Georgetown neighborhood of Seattle. The site would provide opportunities for residents, in what is a minority neighborhood, to commute to work both to the north and the south.. It would consist of one 17 foot wide center platform 1,000 feet in length to be situated between the two easternmost tracks of the combined BNSF/UP. right-of-way beneath Albro Place and Michigan Street. Tracks would be moved in the area in conjunction with freight track realignments on railroad property. One business would need to be relocated. There would be no parking. Wheelchair and pedestrian access would be provided by an elevator to Albro Place. Patronage is estimated at 60 boardings. King Street Station: The proposed commuter rail portion of the King Street Station terminal in Seattle would consistof a single, two sided platform extending south from South Jackson Street approximately 1,000 feet. It would be intersected by a bridge crossing the railroad at Weller Street and connecting the Ring Street Terminal and the International District Station, Page 6 of 15 which serves the current'. bus tunnel and the proposed Northgate to SeaTac rapid transit line. There would also be, a stairway from the north end of,.the platform :to' Jackeon Street to accommodate pedestrians. Wheelchair access' would be. by elevator to the Weller Street overpass. Proposed rail service between Everett and Seattle would also use these platforms and; the trains would likely be through -routed. There would be no parking at the station, withpassengers expected to transfer from transit or to park commercially. Seattle would alsobethe location for trains to be cleaned, serviced and stored during the middle of the day. This would necessitate yard moves from the station as trains were taken out of service. Several trains would also be stored overnight in Seattle. Patronage is estimated at 5200 daily boardings. PROJECT HISTORY: Sound. Transit, its predecessor agencies and the Puget Sound Regional Council ..(PSRC)., the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the region, conducted a series of studies which led to adoption of the proposed project. These included Long Range system planning studies of alternative modes in most regional corridors, financial feasibility studies, and a series of corridor analyses. These studies were brought together into a Major .Investment Study which was endorsed by the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and the Central. Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (RTA) during April 1997. An environmental assessment (EA) of a proposal for a commuter rail line between Tacoma and Seattle was drafted under FTA grant WA -03-0078 during 1994 but was never finalized because the initial public referendum for the RTA was defeated at the polls. After the 1996 public referendum which funded the RTA, the initial draft of the EA was updated to reflect changes which had occurred along the corridor during the interim. This updated analysis was initiated during the autumn of 1997 and finalized during the winter and spring of 1998. It is the _current environmental document for the project.._ _ ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: Studies performed prior to the development of the current environmental review addressed a variety of modal and alignment alternatives, as outlined in Chapter 4 of the Environmental Assessment. Selection of station sites was coordinated with local communities and has been established at most sites. In Kent two alternative station sites continue to be presented. PUBLIC OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT: The public was invited to comment on the initial draft of the Environmental Assessment, which was made available at public meetings held during early January 1998. The public was notified of the opportunity to comment through newspaper advertisements and by other means. The period for public comment was extended Page 7 of 15 through the end of -the month.'There were in excess of 100 comments onthe proposal. The public has been afforded adequate opportunityto.comment on the Seattle -Tacoma commuter rail project. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: Sound Transit carried out a series'of.studies which defined the project's.'alignmentand suggested station sites. It then undertook an'.environmentalanalysis of.the proposed project. After,,a.series of public meetings and an advertised re est for comments the -Final. Environmental Assessment, dated June.1998, was provided to FTA by Sound Transit: The assessment presents the preferred alignment and preferred station sites with the exception of Kent,. Washington where two alternative sites are provided. While potentially significant,impacts were noted by resource-. agencies, Sound Transit.has met with the agencies and addressed: their'concerns. :Appropriate mitigation'measures have been detailed in .the EA and will be conditions of the environmental finding. Based upon.the evaluation contained in the updated EA, including written comments from resource agencies, no significant impacts which cannot -.be mitigated have been found. Sound Transit would undertake the proposed project in accordance with the design elements and mitigation measures presented in the document and in subsequent correspondence, which are incorporated by reference into this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). These measures include, but are not limited to; the. stipulations in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) found in the appendix to the EA, which was developed to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. FTA will require in any future funding agreement on the project and as a .condition of any future approval of a. Letter of No Prejudice (LONP) on the project that all committed mitigation be implemented in accordance•with the EA. Any project changes, including changes in mitigation, deemed to be necessary'or desirable as final design and construction proceed, would be subject to appropriate environmental review prior to FTA approval. FTA would require that Sound Transit.submit written reports on its progress in' implementing mitigation commitments. The measures to minimize harm are'described throughout the EA and are summarized in attachment'A to this document. Especially noteworthy is the following design mitigation feature which has been incorporated into the project design in response to public comments received: Modification to the design of the.Tacoma-Puyallup segment of the railroad right-of-way to address wetland concerns. Page 8 of 15 Matters of environmental justice for low income and minority communities were considered during the evaluation but found not to be issues for this project. These are discussed in section 3.2.2 of the EA. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: 49 USC Section 5324(b) The environmental record for the Tacoma -Seattle Commuter Rail Line includes the previously. referenced EA. This document represents the. detailed statement required by NEPA and by 49USC Section 5324(b) of the Federal Transit Act concerning the following: The environmental impacts of the proposed project; Adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposed project not be implemented; Alternatives to.the proposed project; and Any irreversible and irretrievable impact on the environment which may be involved in the proposed project should it be implemented. On the basis of the evaluation of social, economic, and environmental impacts contained in the EA, and the written and oral comments .offered by the public and other agencies, FTA has • determined in accordance with 49 USC Section 5324(b) of the Federal Transit Act that: Adequate opportunity was afforded for the presentation of views by all parties with a significant economic, social or environmental interest of the community in which the proposed project is located; The.. preservation and enhancement of the environment, and the interest of the community in which the project is located were considered; and There exists no feasible and prudent alternative to the adverse effect of the project and all reasonable steps have been taken to minimize such effect. Conformity with Air Ouality Plans: The Federal Clean Air Act, as amended, requires that transportation projects conform with the State Implementation Plan's purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and of achieving expeditious attainment of such standards. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation implementing this provision of the Clean Air Act (40 CFR Parts 51 and 93) establishes criteria for demonstrating that a transportation project is in conformity with applicable air quality plans. The performance of the. Proposed Action in meeting Page 9 of 15 the conformity criteria in the EPA regulation was evaluated in Section 3.11 of the EA on pages 3.11-1 through 13. Based upon consultation with EPA, the project meets the criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 for projects from .a conforming . plan and TIP, and therefore conforms with air quality plans for the Seattle -Tacoma -Everett region and with the Clean Air Amendments of 1990. The Seattle -Tacoma Commuter Rail Project is included in the conformity analysis performed by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). PSRC has included the project in the region's Long Range Transportation Plan and FY 1998 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The FTA and FHWA jointly found that the TIP conforms with the State of Washington Implementation Plan on November 7, 1997. This action was concurred in by the Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) and the Washington State Department of Transportation and coordinated with EPA. The FY 1998 State of Washington Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), including the Seattle/Tacoma commuter rail project, was approved jointly by FTA/FHWA on June 4, 1998. Because the proposed project is located in a maintenance area for CO and ozone, and a nonattainment area for PM10, a project level conformity analysis satisfying all applicable criteria was conducted for the project. Section 4(f) Findings: The proposed project does not use or significantly impact any park or recreational resources protected by Section 4(f). The project, in conjunction with other projects, would require changes to the appearance of the King Street Station in Seattle, a property included on the National Register of Historic Places and protected under 4(f). Section 4(f) findings for King Street Station were addressed in a separate FTA environmental process administered through the State of Washington and the City of Seattle. In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and other cultural resources legislation, Sound Transit has consulted with the FTA; the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (SHPO); and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council) on this project. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among the FTA, Sound Transit, and the SHPO and concurred in by the Council has been executed to ensure that the project would be implemented in accordance with the stipulations contained in the MOA. This agreement also takes into account the effect of the undertaking on the King Street Station. The MOA is included as an addendum to the EA. Floodplain Finding: DOT Order 5660.2,Floodplain Manan ment and Protection, implements the major requirements of Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, which are to avoid su ort of development in floodplains; to prevent uneconomic, hazardous or incompatible use of floodplains; to restore and preserve the Page 10 of 15 natural and beneficial floodplain values; and to be consistent with the standards and criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program. In'accordance .;with .Executive Order 11988, FTA concludes in Section 3.12 of the EA that while parts of the project are within historic 100-year.-floodplain areas, the railroad right-of-way and embankment have been generally within the proposed location for 125 years. For the most part the project doesnot propose to change the embankment in the floodplain. The base of the track ballast is above the height of the 100 year flood. Where there is to be an addition of the third track along the right-of-way in floodplain areas, alternatives to the location have been considered. It has been concluded that there isno feasible alternative, that there would be no additional stimulus to development in the floodplain as a result of the project, and that improvements to water courses crossing and paralleling the right-of-way as a result of the project would improve the circulation of flood water during episodes of flooding. Areas of station development are, for the most part, outside of flood plain areas. The nature of station area development as a result of the commuter service would be to provide automobile parking and very spare stations. These activities would remove buildings in station areas. Subsequent station-area development would be accomplished in accordance with local and State zoning requirements, which take into consideration development in areas with the potential for flooding. Wetlands Finding: DOT Order 5660.1A states that it is the policy of DOT to assure the protection, preservation and enhancement of the nation's wetlands to the.fullest extent practicable during the planning, construction, andoperation of transportation facilities and projects. FTA implementation of this DOT Order satisfies the major requirement of Executive Order 11990 that new construction located in wetlands be avoided unless there is no practicable alternative to the construction and that the proposed action include all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may result from such construction. An analysis of the alternatives concluded that there was no practicable alternative to the improvements proposed. The identification and analysis of potential wetland impacts of the Seattle-Tacoma Commuter Rail Line are addressed in Section 3.6 of the EA. Consistent with the Executive Order, FTA finds that potential impacts to wetlands will occur as a result of the project. Sound Transit has agreed to undertake actions which would mitigate the impacts of the project on these wetlands. The mitigation actions are intended not only to maintain the natural systems in relationship to the existing right-of-way insuch a way as to minimize harm, but also to improve the existing system in such a way as to enhance the environment which has been impacted by the presence of the railroad in the wetlands for the past century. Page 11 of 15 nEPA Finding: Based on the Environmental Assessment it is the Federal Transit Administrations finding under 23 CFR, 771.121, that, with mitigation, there are no significant impacts on the environment associated with the development and operation of the proposed project. ' V 10 Helen M. Knoll Regional Administrator Date Page 12 of 15 COMMITTED MITIGATION MEASURES - SEATTLE - TACOMA COMMUTER RAIL PROJECT: In the event the project is approved, Sound Transit is committed to all the mitigation efforts documented in the EA. Following is a summary of some of the more important items: 1. Biological Resources/Ecology - Wetlands a. Tacoma -Puyallup: A third track will be added to the current double track right of way adjacent to or in wetlands. Mitigation goals for this portion of improvements include maintaining the preconstruction hydrologic regime of the area, creating replacement wildlife habitat and improving overall habitat quality, and improving water quality. Retaining walls will be designed to support the new .track to avoid or minimize direct loss of wetlands, portions of Clear and Canyon Creeks will be relocated further away from the railroad in order to improve stream habitat values, and new channels will be designed to improve juvenile salmon rearing. This information is further described under the mitigations section of Section 3.6 of the Environmental Assessment and in correspondence between the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and Sound Transit, which is included with this FONSI. b. Black River Bridge: A new bridge is proposed for the BNSF crossing of the. Black River. In-waterwork would be avoided to the maximum extent practicable during construction, and best management practices would be implemented during construction to minimize erosion and runoff. • 2. Contaminated Materials: The participants in the project will provide for the removal of any hazardous or contaminated materials found on the station sites or in other areas where related construction activity will occur. This work will be performed in accordance with procedures identified in the Environmental. Assessment, related documentation and permits which would be issued subsequently. In the case ofcontamination, evaluation of alternative sites and possible remediation will be undertaken in accordance with law. Appropriate health and safety monitoring and procedures will be employed at work sites. FTA does not currently participate in the cost of clean-up of contaminated soils. Under brownfield initiatives being developed, however, this policy may change. 3. Endangered Species: Sound Transit will limit periods of construction within the tidal area in order to meet certain requirements of migrating fish in accordance with procedures outlined in the Environmental Assessment plus documentation and permits issued subsequently. 4. Land Acquisitions and Displacements: In cases of property acquisition and displacement, where federal funds are used, Page 13 of 15 Federal relocation and real property acquisition elines be followed to protect the interests of current landdowners.would Most track widening would occur on existing railroad right-of-way. For approximately 2.6 miles between Puyallup and Tacoma there would be widening of the right-of-way to accommodate a third track. Some of the land to be used would be on landholdings of members of the Puyallup Indian Tribe and on tribal land. These parcels would be obtained in accordance with procedures applicable to the tribal land acquisition or lease. At all other locations, primarily for parcels in station areas, land associated with commuter rail projects would be acquired in accordance with local, state and Federal regulations (FTA Circular 5010.1, as amended) applicable in compensation and/or relocation of property owners. 5. Transportation - Construction: In cases of impacts resulting from station construction, Sound Transit would undertake necessary detour route signing and normal construction safety measures, including the provision of flaggers alternate routes. In cases of construction at railroad grade crossings across major arterials, the hours of construction would be limited to non -peak hours, providing full access during peak traffic hours. Selected street improvements will be made, where appropriate. 6. Noise and Vibration: The participants in the project will undertake certain noise mitigation measures during construction to lessen impacts in accordance withprocedures identified in the Environmental Assessment. Planning and design for crossovers and other special track work will make efforts to avoid noise and/or vibration sensitive land uses. Vehicle specifications will limit vertical resonance frequency of primary suspension. Specific maintenance measures to control vibration, such as rail grinding, wheel truing, wheel flat detector systems and vehicle reconditioning programs, will be part of the normal maintenance practices. 7. Earth: Best management practices would be employed to control potential erosion during construction.. Where depths of liquifiable soils are located 10-50 feet below the ground surface, ground improvement proceduressuch as deep dynamic compacction, vibro densification, and compaction grouting, may be ne8. Water Quality/Hydrology: For any fill required in the 100 year floodplain to construct the new third track segment between Tacoma and Puyallup, construction will comply with applicable Federal and local regulation to minimize floodplain impacts. Measures such as improving, replacing or adding culverts for streams crossing under BNSF track are proposed as part of the project. Construction at station sites will fully comply with local permitting requirements. Stormwater collection and control system planning and operation will employ a variety of techniques Page 14 of 15 to minimize impacts. Oil and water separators will be used as appropriate or required. Strategies for addressing construction spills and plans for such episodes will be developed. 9. Visual Quality: Visual impacts at several station sites would be reviewed during community based design processes to consider enhancements for the surrounding communities. The MOA for historicpreservation addresses visual impacts as well for settings where there is the potential for impact on historic properties and districts. Further evaluation of the visual and historic potential of facilities could occur during the community based design process. Landscaping :and .vegetation would be provided as definition between communities and stations and parking lots, as appropriate. Where buildings are constructed in street settings, consideration willbe given to including architectual details on exteriors of buildings to provide interest. 10. Historical Resources: The MOA .for the project and the previous MOA for the King Street Station project address processes to be considered for historic preservation. These MOAs are included as appendices to this FONSI. Where historic resources are located in the vicinity of proposed stations, Sound Transit may incorporate compatible station design. 11. Safety and Security: Proper signal and gate protection will be installed at grade crossings where there will be pedestrians .activity crossing active railroad tracks, particularly at sidewalk access points around stations. Sound Transit will also provide extended detection, Constant. Warning Time Signaling (CWT), traffic signal improvements where needed and additional gates as appropriate at 40 grade crossings between Seattle and Tacoma and would provide safety training where appropriate. 12. Archaeological Resources: Field reconnaissance will be taken in advance of any construction activities and professionally trained individuals will be available on site during construction activities, where appropriate. 13. Farmlands Protection: Sound Transit will comply with all applicable requirements of the Farmlands Protection Policy Act of 1981, as amended. These may include completion of coordination before initiation of right-of-way design and land acquisition. Page 15 of 15 JrGU`dii�w:dr:.. June 2,1998 SEAT1LE - to - TAccm. caw= RAIL PROJECT F'CNSI ATTA+CHMENI' #1'' Mr. Don Xauer Area Tlabitat/ltcgion 7 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 600 Capitol Way N Olympia, WA. 98501-1091 Dear Mr. Nauer. Thank you for meeting with us on May 13, 1998 and for your follow-up letter of May 2L 1998 to Mr:Perr Weint ig,'Sound Transit Environmcnta) compliance Manager; We are writing to concur with your letter and specifically with the following pointe. Shrink' this project go forward, we agree and 'emit ,to reasonable, functional, mitigation to be expanded by Sound Transit incorporating Substantial relocation and rerorition of Clear Creek and other potions of.Canyon.Creek away=from the !plaid retaining wall structure involved in the now third track projeetr We further undcrstund and agree that this will involve additional property acquisition for the stream relocation and associated wetland mitigation. We agree and coconut to developing a detailed sur.ant tesiuration plan ' including detailed channel reconfiguration design and structural habitat components, as well as a coniprehenslve revegetacion plan for the restoration of overstory canopy and associated riparian community condition. • We look forward to'your continued involvement on this project and hope that you will be able to provide guidance as we develop the relocation and restoration plans. Thank you for your assistance thus far. Sincerely. Val Butcy Project Development Manager cc: F William Fon, FTA DMv6u391 Ce .?r13 Niro Sand Sesu;e. W% 98WC1-3423 flA i,Rs ar: Fut:,r-:'•.. 2t 6.684.113; ww.r.wirdtraislt.oil Advisory Council On Historic Preservation SEATTLE - to - TAcaa CalM1711Ei PRa3DC`P FCNSI - ATPACIP #2 The ad Post orrice Building 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, Nw 4409 Washington. DC 20004 . MAY 4 1998 Ms. Helen M. Knoll Regional Administrator Region X Federal Transit Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 915 Second Avenue, Suite 3142 Seattle WA 98174-1002 REF: King and Pierce Counties Historic Properties King and Pierce Counties, Washington Construction of Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Project Dear Ms. Knoll: Ott :Z d a Z 1 LYH 8661 The enclosed Memorandum of Agreement for the referenced project has been accepted by the Council. This acceptance completes the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Council's regulations. We recommend that you provide a copy of the fully -executed Agreement to the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (202) 606-8528. Sincerely, Ralston Cox Historic Preservation Analyst Office of Planning and Review Enclosure MEMOFtANDUM OF BETWEEN THE FEDERAL TRANSAGREEMENT THE WASHINGTON STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFO FICER SUBMTITED TO THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION PURSUANT TO 36 CFR § 800.5(eX4) • REGARDING CONSTRUCTION RELATED TO THE TACOMA -TO -SEATTLE COMMUTER PROJECT IN AND KING COUNTIES, WHEREAS. the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration (FTA), has reviewed the proposal of the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Au thty (RTA) to implement commuter rail service on existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe tracks and the construction of new stations and park-and-ride facilities; and WHEREAS, the FTA has determined that the project will have an effect on Kin Station and Old Georgetown City Hall in Seattle g Street Register of Historic Places (NRHP);' properties listed in the National and on the Rainier Cold Storage and Ice/Seattle Brewing. and Malting Company Buildings, Horton Hotel, and Miller Buildin in Seattle Northern Pacific Depot in Kent, Tourist Hotel in Aug • Growers Association Buildings in Puyallup. �' and Puyallup and Sumner Fruit pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.4(c); and R pies eligible for the NRNP WHEREAS. the Memorandum of Agreement Seattle Intermodal Transportation Teminal at Kin StreetA) °g development of the and the Washington State Historic gSimon, executed by the FTA concurring party, and accepted by the Advisory Council (S�)' signed byer the RTA as a (Council) on May 8, 1996, stipulates SHPO a on Historic Pr+eservatioa commuter rail facilities, at King Street Station; ands °f project design, including WHEREAS, the FTA has consulted with the SHPO in accordance National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S. with Section 106 of the • (36 CFR Part 800) to resolve the adverse effects of the Tacoma-to-SeattleImpknUregulations Project on historic properties; andCommuter Rail WHEREAS, the RTA participated in the consultation and has been • this MOA. invited to concur in NOW, THEREFORE, the FTA and the Washington S project, if assisted partially or wholly by monies from theFTA,sha be commuter ran accordance with the following stipulations In order to take into account the effect of m project on historic properties.the . Stipulations The FTA will require that the following measures aro carried out: 1. Project Design A. Desi81. The RTA, the FTA intended grantee, shall proceed with designs for new stations of the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Project at Georgetown in Seattle, Kent, Auburn, and Puyallup, taking into account the recomme hborhood " �� n� approaches in The "Setting (District/Nei 8 ) and New Additions to Historic Buildings". sections of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.1995; pp. 54-55 and 112-113). . B. Review and Approval, The RTA shall provide the S specifications for each new station cited in Stipulation 1.A the 3plans d d design levels. The SHPO will review such plans ands rfi 90% within thirty(30) calendar days.Pa� cations and respond new station cited In Stipulatio1 AuntilA bazlt� proceed u"� construction of any ed written approval of plans and specifications from the SHPO. C. Resolving rnncej, The RTA shall consult with the SHPO concerns raised by the SHPO with regard to plans and specificationsrevsresolve any pursuant to stipulation 1.B. If any such concern is not reviewed the RTA shall seek resolution in act resolved through consultation, accordance with stipulation 2.0 2. Administrative Stipulations A. Definition of oaitts For the purposes of this MOA the term "pMOA" means the FTA, the SHPO. and the Council, each of which � to thisy under 36 CFR § 800.5(eX6) to terminate the consultation has authority representative's written concurrence in the MOA. pro' plus RTA upon B. Alterations to yrojectnts docume. The RTA shall not alter any plans specifications or other documents that have been reviewed and a y va this MOA, except to finalize plans and specifications that have ban pursuant to design level, without first obtainingapprovalapproved at 90% alterations. of the SHPO for the proposed C. Resolving objectio s, Should any party to this MOA object within days after receipt to any plans, specifications. or other documentsthirty (30) for review pursuant fo this MOA, or to the manner in which this MOA is beiing mplrovileemented. the 2 FTA will consult with the objecting party to resolve the ob. determines that the objection objection. � � FTA documentation relevant to the objection toresthe Council, ved, the FTA will forward all response to the objection, and request the further co mmentsl�of the Couunnc l's proposed to 36 CFR §800.6(b). Any Council comment provided in response pursuant will be taken into account bytheaccordance to such a request reference only to the subject of dApU1C. ,with 36 CFR §800.6 carry out with actions under this MOA that are not the subject of the dispute will remain unchibility to anged. all hanged. D.mendment . Any party to this MOA may amended, whereupon the FTA shall consult with the othese r p parties othat this the to be consider such an amendment. 36 CFR §800.5(e) shall govern the execution of anyo such amendment, E. Imolementat' A^d vi ions. H Stipulation 1 above has not been implemented for all station locations where historic properties are affected wi • P mens after execution of this MOA, the � two (2) years determine whether revisions are neeartres to this MOA will review this MOA to MOA will consult in acro �' If revisions are needed, the parties to this accordance with 36 CFR Part 800 to make such revisions. Execution of this MOA by the FTA and the Washington SHPO, its subsequent acceptance by the Council, and implementation of its terms, evidence afforded the Council an opportunity to comment on the Taco FTA has _Rail Project and its effects on historic ro ma-to-Seattle Commuter the effects of the project on historic ro properties. peand that the FTA has taken into account p FEDERAL TRANV'I' ADMINISTRATION By: Helen M. Knoll, Regional Administrator Datc •OA •°I$ • WAS r GTON STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER 1I By: David ' sen, Acting State Historic Preservation Officer 3 Date: 45.1°' Qg . CONCUR: CENTRAL, PUGET SOUND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY By: i.b.c v F Date: Robert K. / /y White, Executive Director ACCEPTED for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation By: o§_= l Date: :. Executive Director 4 The Old Post Office Building 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW *bog Washington. DC 20004. May 9, 1996 SEATTLE — to — TACQMA Ca4MUTER RAIL PFT Ftt SI — ATTACHMENT #3 Patricia Levine Acting Regional Administrator Federal Transit Administration 915 Second Avenue Federal Building, Suite 3142 Seattle, WA 98174-1002 Reply to: 730 Simms Street. *401 Golden. Colorado 80401 REF: Memorandum of Agreement regarding the Seattle Intermodal Transportation Terminal, Ring St. Station, Seattle, WA Dear Ms. Levine: . •. The enclosed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding the rehabilitation of the Ring Street Station for the Seattle Intermodal Transportation Termination Project has been accepted by the Council. This action constitutes the comments of the Council required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation_Act and the Councils regulations. Please send copies of the fully executed MOA to the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer, the. Washington State Department of Transportation, the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, the City of Seattle, and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. The Council appreciates•your cooperation in reaching a satisfactory resolution of this matter. Sincerely, audia Nissley Director, Western Office of Review Enclosure MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION AND THE WASHINGTON STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER SUBMITTED TO THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION PURSUANT TO 36 CFR -§ 800.6(a) REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF THE SEATTLE INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION TERMINAL IN SEATTLE, WASHINGTON WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has determined that the Seattle Intermodal Transportation Terminal project will have an effect upon the King Street Station and the Pioneer Square -Skid Road Historic District, properties included in the National Register of Historic Places, and has consulted with the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800, regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f); and WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Transportation, the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (RTA), the City of Seattle, and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad participated in the consultation and have been invited to concur in this Memorandum of Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City of Seattle created the Pioneer $quare Preservation District by Ordinance 112134, and will conduct its own review of the project design under provisions of the Seattle Municipal Code, Chapter 23.66, regulating special review districts; which review is not subject to the provisions of this Memorandum of Agreement; and WHEREAS, the FTA has not determined which agency may serve as the FTA grantee but will make the terms and requirements of this Memorandum of Agreement (Agreement) a specific condition of the FTA grant. NOW, THEREFORE the FTA and the Washington SHPO, the parties to this Agreement, agree that the undertaking, if assisted partially or wholly by monies from the FTA, shall be implemented in • accordance .with the following stipulations in order to take into account the effect of the undertaking on historic properties. Stipulations The FTA will require that the following measures are carried out 1. Project Design A. The FTA grantee will require that the project designs for rehabilitation and for new construction are in accordance with the historic and architectural qualities of the Pioneer Square -Skid Road Historic District and the King Street Station in terms of scale, massing, color, and materials, and are consistent with the recommended approaches to rehabilitation and new construction set forth in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1992), and that the design and specifications for the project are developed in consultation with the SHPO and submitted to the SHPO for review and comment. • B. In the event it becomes undertaking, asi a necessary to modify the scope of work necessary to implement the and undertaking, in'Apreviously approved, or conditions on the manner grantee shall immediate) notify in which construction is to be carried review, common Y FTA, and FTA shall immediately request and coordinate a t, and consultation process. The parties will take all modifications within the timereasonable steps to complete the review of requested frame required to accommodate the FTA grantee's project construction schedule. C. The analysis, findings, and recommendations in the Hi Section 2 below, shall be used as a guide to the rehabilitation design process. c Structure Report called for in 2. Historic Structure Report A. The FTA grantee will King Street Station, and the report will incl de but not a historic belimited re prior to the rehabilitation of the Brief history of the property, including construction history; Architectural evaluation, including existing conditions of exterior and interior buildi and a room -by -room inventory of significant interior ng fabric ��, featureiand details; Structural evaluation, including the identification of structural problems and ' requirements; seismic retrofit Design parameters for rehabilitation, including the identification of areas to be restored, rehabilitated or redesigned; Materials conservation analysis, clysis, including: exterior masonry 8Dd metals cleaning analysis, mortar analysis, and exterior and interior paint analysis; Applicable original and as -built measured drawings, plans and photographs. to support and illustrate the report contents; ppo Recommendations for necessary architectural, existing conditions and structural and mechanical work based on preservation objectives, listing priorities, phasing and estimated costs. B. The FTA grantee will provide the SHPO with the opportunity historic structure report and will consider all SHPO comments in evellopireview vthe final h comment on thise report in accordance with the SHPO recommendations. 8 historic structure 3. Administrative Conditions A. The FTA grantee will require that the historic structure report Agreement is prepared by or under the direct supervision of a r prepoPursuant to this Preparation of such reports and meetingperson or persons experienced in the Qualification o such reds(48 at a minimum the Secret FR 44738-9) for historic architects, Th of the Interior'sae shallProfessionalult SHPO in regard to the selection of the The - FTA person or persons to prepare the histort�'c structres report the B. If either of Stipulations 1 and 2 above have not been implemented within execution of this Agreement, the parties to this Agreement will review this A re two 2 whether revisions are need ()Years after ed. If revisions are needed, the parties to this Agreement will consultment to in e accordance with 36 CFR Part 800 to make such revisions. C. The FTA grantee will permit the SHPO to review and comment on all contracts that the FTA grantee proposes to use to implement the teams of this A terms of any such contract, nor appoint new Agreement The FTA grantee will not alter the first affording the SHPO the o personnel responsible for overseeing such contra without determine whether it will opportunity to review the proposed replacementM' parties to this Agreement reqwilns�ult revisions c s be a this A personnel a change ed Agreement If revisions are needed,othe 36 CFR part 800 to make such revisions. D. Should any party to this Agreementspecifications, object within thirty (30) days after receipt to any plans, ports, or other documents•provided for review to the manner in which this Agreement is beingPursuant to this A Party to resolve the objection. If the FTA dote tnesemented, the FTA will consult with the8r'etxtrn8 or request the further commf the Advise that the objection cannot be 36 CFR §800.6(b). Any Council comment Advisory tin responon se Historicresolved, the FTA will Preservation (Council)e pursuant to account by the FTA in accordance with 36 po such a request will be taken into dispute;t the he FT res CFR §800.6(eX2) with reference on responsibility to carry out all actions under this A h'torhe not the subjects of the the dispute will remain unchanged, Agreement that are the of Execution of this Memorandum of A subsequent bythe BxCemeni by the FTA and the Washington SHPO, its afforded the Council acceptanceaCouncil, and implementation of its to opportunity to comment on the Seattle Into mal Tena that the FTA has project and its effects on historic properties, and that the FTA has taken into account Transportation actoTerminal undertaking on historic properties, unt the effects of the FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION By: c , ,,,1 Patricia Levine, Acting Regional Administrator WASHINGTON STATE HISTORIC PRESERVA'T'ION OFFICER ( By: --- zst4?o 1 Mazy Thompson, State Historic Preservation Officer Date: _ y - / S' id Date: 12.4(4 Concur. • WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By: es Slakey, Public Transportltion and Rail Director CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONALTRANSIT AUTHORITY By: Robert K. White, Executive Director CITY OF SEATTLE By: BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILROAD By: . Mitchell II ACCEPTED for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation By: Robert ' . Bush, Executive Director Date: Y-26 -9l Date: .7-2r- P( Date: Date: Date: J —Cr "'P' y ■ ■ MEMORANDUM DATE: June 13, 1996 TO: Recipients of the Seattle Intermodal Transportation Terminal Final SEPA Environmental Impact Statement/Final NEPA Environmental Assessment t -n Attached for your review is the combined Final SEPA Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and NEPA Environmental Assessment (EA) and the NEPA Finding of No Significant Impact Intermodal Transportation Terminal. These documents have been prepared pursuan(t ttoNThefState Seattle Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Chapter 43.21C, Revised Code of Washington, SEPA Guidelines, and Chapter 197-11 Washington Administrative Code; The City of Seattle Municipal Seattle SEPA Ordinance; and The National Environmental Policy Act, 42 USC 43Code, Chapter and the25.U Mass Transportation Administration NEPA Guideline, 49 CFR 622. e9•. and the Urban DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL. The proposed Seattle Intermodal Transportation Terminal would centralize a variety of local and regional transportation modes for public travel into a single facility located at the King Street Railroad Station in Pioneer Square in Seattle. The SEPA Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/NEPA Environmental Assessment (EA) assesses the impacts of three alternatives for the redevelopment of the King Street Station as the Seattle Intermodal Transportation Terminal: the No Action Alternative, the Rail -Hub Alternative, and the Full Build Alternative. The Rail -Hub Alternative has been recommended by the Seattle Engineering Department as the preferred alternative for public review for the SEPA EIS. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. The Final EIS/EA is an addendum to the Draft EIS/EA. The Draft and Final EIS/EA together comprise the SEPA Environmental Impact Statement/NEPA Environmental Assessment. A SectionEvaluation of the and a Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement nt on measures to minimize hhaann to t pacton the King Street ce are included in the Final EIS/EA.the historic resource are The Draft EIS/EA was published April 28, 1995, and the public comment period ended on May 30, 1995. During the comment period, twelve letters were received from agencies, government entities, community groups, and individuals. A public hearing to receive comments on the Draft EIS/EA was held May 18, 1995. The comment letters and public testimony are addressed in the FEIS. The Final EIS/EA was issued May 24, 1996. On May 24, 1996, the Federal Transit Administration issued a NEPA Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Publication of notice of the FEIS constitutes notice that the Seattle Engineering Department has determined the SEPA EIS to be adequate. No substantive action will be taken on this proposal for seven days following publication of Notice of Availability of the FEIS. ooaa Ili SOUND TRANSIT TACOMA -to -SEATTLE COMMUTER RAIL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Prepared for The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority - Sound Transit by Adolfson Associates, Inc. and associated firms June 1998 Issuing Agencies Federal Transit Administration Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority Prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA-42 USC 4321) and FTA Environmental Impact and Related Procedures (49 CFR 622) and related guidance; Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and related amendments and Executive Orders; State Environmental Policy Act (RCW 43.21C); Chapter 197-11 WAC (SEPA Rules); and Sound Transit's SEPA Resolution (implementing SEPA Procedures). Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PLANNING PROCESS 1-1 1.1.1 Sound Move: The Ten -Year Regional Transit System Plan 1-1 1.1.2 Background of High -Capacity Transit Planning 1-2 1.1.3 Consistency with Regional Planning Efforts 1-2 1.1.4 Sound Move Major Investment Study 1-3 1.2 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 1-4 1.2.1 Support of Growth Areas 1-5 1.2.2 Alternatives to Traffic Congestion 1-5 1.2.3 Increases in Transit Speeds and Reliability 1-6 1.2.4 Support of State of Washington Intercity Rail Program 1-7 1.2.5 Freight Mobility 1-7 1.2.6 Support of Multi-modalism 1-8 1.2.7 Need for Specific Track Improvements 1-9 1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS 1-9 1.3.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 1-9 1.3.2 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) 1-9 1.3.3 Prior Environmental Review 1-10 CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL 2.1 OVERVIEW 2-1 2.2 RAIL CORRIDOR 2-2 2.3 STATIONS 2-6 2.3.1 Station Locations 2-6 2.3.2 General Description of Stations 2-6 2.3.3 Station -by -Station Descriptions 2-9 2.4 OTHER ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 2-12 2.4.1 Maintenance Facilities 2-12 2.4.2 Fleet Size 2-15 2.4.3 Vehicles 2-15 2.4.4 Feeder Bus System & Sound Transit Regional Express Bus Svc. Impvmts. 2-15 CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3.1 LAND USE 3.1-1 3.1.1 Methodology and Assumptions 3.1-1 3.1.2 Overview of Impacts on Land Use 3.1-1 3.1.3 Seattle to Tukwila 3.1-3 3.1.3.1 Existing Conditions 3.1-3 3.1.3.2 Land Use Plans and Policies 3.1-3 3.1.3.3 Potential Impacts and Mitigation 3.1-6 Table of Contents June 1998 Page TOC -1 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 3.1.4 Tukwila to Kent 3.1-7 3.1.4.1 Existing Conditions 3.1-7 3.1.4.2 Land Use Plans and Policies 3.1-8 3.1.4.3 Potential Impacts and Mitigation 3.1-9 3.1.5 Kent to Auburn 3.1-9 3.1.5.1 Existing Conditions 3.1-9 3.1.5.2 Land Use Plans and Policies 3.1-10 3.1.5.3 Potential Impacts and Mitigation 3.1-11 3.1.6 Auburn to Sumner 3.1-11 3.1.6.1 Existing Conditions 3.1-11 3.1.6.2 Land Use Plans and Policies 3.1-12 3.1.6.3 Potential Impacts and Mitigation 3.1-13 3.1.7 Sumner to Puyallup 3.1-14 3.1.7.1 Existing Conditions 3.1-14 3.1.7.2 Land Use Plans and Policies 3.1-14 3.1.7.3 Potential Impacts and Mitigation 3.1-15 3.1.8 Puyallup to Tacoma 3.1-15 3.1.8.1 Existing Conditions 3.1-15 3.1.8.2 Land Use Plans and Policies 3.1-16 3.1.8.3 Potential Impacts and Mitigation 3.1-17 3.2 SOCIOECONOMICS 3.2-1 3.2.1 Land Acquisitions and Displacements 3.2-1 3.2.1.1 Methodology 3.2-1 3.2.1.2 Existing Conditions 3.2-1 3.2.1.3 Potential Operating Impacts 3.2-1 3.2.1.4 Cumulative Impacts 3.2-5 3.2.1.4 Mitigation 3.2-6 3.2.2 Environmental Justice 3.2-6 3.2.2.1 Introduction 3.2-6 3.2.2.2 Methodology 3.2-7 3.2.2.3 Existing Conditions 3.2-7 3.2.2.4 Potential Impacts 3.2-8 3.2.2.5 Cumulative Impacts 3.2-9 3.2.2.6 Mitigation 3.2-9 3.2.3 Social Impacts 3.2-10 3.2.3.1 Existing Conditions 3.2-10 3.2.3.2 Potential Impacts 3.2-10 3.2.3.3 Cumulative Impacts 3.2-11 3.2.3.4 Mitigation 3.2-11 3.3 TRANSPORTATION 3.3-1 3.3.1 Methodology 3.3-1 3.3.2 Affected Environment 3.3-1 3.3.2.1 Transportation Infrastructure 3.3-1 3.3.2.2 Growth Management and Concurrency 3.3-2 3.3.2.3 Transit Operations and Levels of Service 3.3-3 3.3.2.4 Existing Corridor Traffic Conditions 3.3-4 Page TOC -2 June 1998 Table of Contents Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 3.3.2.5 Existing Railroad Operations 3.3-4 3.3.2.6 Existing Station Area Traffic Conditions 3.3-5 3.3.3 Potential Impacts and Mitigation 3.3-6 3.3.3.1 Impacts of Construction 3.3-6 3.3.3.2 Impacts of Operation 3.3-6 3.3.3.3 Station Area Traffic Impacts 3.3-9 3.3.3.4 Railroad Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts 3.3-24 3.3.3.5 Railroad Freight Operating Impacts 3.3-26 3.4 NOISE AND VIBRATION 3.4-1 3.4.1 Methodology and Approach 3.4-1 3.4.1.1 Noise 3.4-1 3.4.1.2 Vibration 3.4-2 3.4.2 Affected Environment 3.4-3 3.4.2.1 Noise and Vibration Guidelines 3.4-3 3.4.2.2 Sensitive Corridor Land Uses 3.4-7 3.4.2.3 Ambient Conditions 3.4-7 3.4.3 Potential Impacts 3.4-10 3.4.3.1 Baseline Condition 3.4-10 3.4.3.2 Commuter Rail Noise Impacts 3.4-11 3.4.3.3 Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts 3.4-14 3.4.3.4 Station Area Impacts 3.4-15 3.4.3.5 Construction Impacts 3.4-15 3.4.4 Mitigation 3.4-16 3.4.4.1 Noise Mitigation 3.4-16 3.4.4.2 Vibration Mitigation 3.4-16 3.4.4.3 Station Areas 3.4-16 3.4.4.4 Construction 3.4-16 3.5 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.5-1 3.5.1 Methodology 3.5-1 3.5.2 Affected Environment 3.5-1 3.5.3 Environmental Health Impacts 3.5-5 3.5.3.1 Contamination 3.5-5 3.5.3.2 Hazardous Cargo 3.5-5 3.5.4 Mitigation 3.5-5 3.5.5 Cumulative Impacts 3.5-6 3.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES/ECOLOGY 3.6-1 3.6.1 Study Methods and Assumptions 3.6-1 3.6.2 Existing Conditions 3.6-2 3.6.3 Potential Impacts 3.6-8 3.6.4 Mitigation 3.6-10 3.6.5 Cumulative Impacts 3.6-12 Table of Contents June 1998 Page TOC -3 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 3.7 HISTORICAL, PARK, AND RECREATION RESOURCES 3.7-1 3.7.1 Historic Properties 3.7-1 3.7.1.1 Methodology and Approach 3.7-1 3.7.1.2 Affected Environment 3.7-2 3.7.1.3 Potential Impacts and Mitigation 3.7-7 3.7.2 Park and Recreation Resources 3.7-9 3.7.2.1 Methodology and Assumptions 3.7-10 3.7.2.2 Existing Conditions 3.7-10 3.7.2.3 Impacts and Mitigation 3.7-12 3.7.2.4 Cumulative Impacts 3.7-13 3.8 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.8-1 3.8.1 Methodology/Approach 3.8-1 3.8.2 Affected Environment 3.8-1 3.8.2.1 Seattle to Tukwila 3.8-1 3.8.2.2 Tukwila to Kent 3.8-7 3.8.2.3 Kent to Auburn 3.8-8 3.8.2.4 Auburn to Sumner 3.8-9 3.8.2.5 Sumner to Puyallup 3.8-10 3.8.2.6 Puyallup to Tacoma 3.8-11 3.8.3 Potential Impacts and Mitigation 3.8-15 3.8.3.1 Seattle to Tukwila 3.8-15 3.8.3.2 Tukwila to Kent 3.8-16 3.8.3.3 Kent to Auburn 3.8-17 3.8.3.4 Auburn to Sumner 3.8-17 3.8.3.5 Sumner to Puyallup 3.8-17 3.8.3.6 Puyallup to Tacoma 3.8-17 3.8.4 Cumulative Impacts 3.8-18 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 3.10 SAFETY AND SECURITY 3.10-1 3.10.1 Methodology/Approach 3.10-1 3.10.2 Affected Environment 3.10-1 3.10.3 Potential Impacts and Mitigation 3.10-2 3.10.3.1 Railroad Grade Crossings 3.10-2 3.10.3.2 Pedestrian At -Grade Crossings At Stations 3.10-3 3.10.3.3 Personal Security 3.10-3 3.10.3.4 Emergency Preparedness 3.10-4 3.10.4 Cumulative Impacts 3.10-5 3.11 AIR QUALITY 3.11-1 3.11.1 Affected Environment 3.11-1 3.11.1.1 Airborne Pollutants 3.11-1 3.11.1.2 Regulatory Setting 3.11-2 3.11.1.3 Air Quality Trends 3.11-3 3.11.2 Potential Impacts 3.11-4 3.11.2.1 Corridor Air Quality 3.11-4 3.11.2.2 Local Air' Quality 3.11-7 3.11.3 Conformity 3.11-12 3.12 WATER QUALITY/HYDROLOGY 3.12-1 3.12.1 Methodology and Assumptions 3.12-1 3.12.2 Existing Surface Water Conditions 3.12-1 3.12.2.1 Water Quality 3.12-1 3.12.2.2 Floodplains 3.12-5 3.12.2.3 Surface Water Drainage 3.12-5 3.12.3 Impacts 3.12-6 3.12.3.1 Rail Lines 3.12-6 3.12.3.2 Stations 3.12-7 3.12.4 Mitigation Measures 3.12-9 3.12.4.1 Rail Lines 3.12-9 3.12.4.2 Station Sites 3.12-9 3.12.5 Cumulative Impacts 3.12-10 3.13 EARTH 3.13-1 3.13.1 Methodology 3.13-1 3.13.2 Existing Conditions 3.13-1 3.13.3 Discussion of Potential Operating Impacts by Alternative 3.12-4 3.13.4 Mitigation 3.12-5 3.13.5 Cumulative Impacts 3.13-6 3.14 ENERGY 14.1 CHAPTER 4.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT SELECTED 4.1 INTRODUCTION 4.0-1 4.2 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT SELECTED 4.0-1 Table of Contents Page TOC -5 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 4.2.1 Express Bus/HOV Alternative 4.0-1 4.2.2 Electrified Commuter Rail Alternative 4.0-2 4.3 RAILROAD ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED BUT NOT SELECTED 4.0-3 4.3.1 Union Pacific Railroad Alternative 4.0-3 4.4 COMMUTER RAIL ELEMENTS CONSIDERED BUT NOT SELECTED 4.0-4 4.4.1 Renton Spur Commuter Rail Service 4.0-4 4.4.2 Maintenance Facility Location Alternatives 4.0-5 4.4.3 Alternative Station Locations 4.0-6 CHAPTER 5.0 PUBLIC AND AGENCY COORDINATION 5.1 Prior Environmental Review 5.0-1 5.2 Coordination During the EA Process 5.0-1 CHAPTER 6.0 REFERENCE MATERIALS GLOSSARY LIST OF TABLES Tab. # Table Name On or Follows Page 2.1 Summary of Railroad Improvements 2-3 2.2 Station Locations and Characteristics 2-8 2.3 Commuter Rail Stations Ridership Forecasts for 2010 2-9 3.1.1 Consistency of Station Sites with Comprehensive Plans and Zoning 3.1-2 3.2.1 Potential Displacements at Proposed Station Sites 3.2-2 3.2.2 Existing Land Use at Station Sites 3.2-3 3.2.3 Census Tracts in Vicinity of Station Sites 3.2-7 3.2.4 Demographic Data for Station Areas 3.2-9 3.3.1 P.M. Peak Period Average Door -to -Door Transit Travel Time from Seattle to Selected Centers 3.3-4 3.3.2 Intersection Level of Service Definitions 3.3-5 3.3.3 2010 P.M. Peak Mode Share for Alighting Passengers 3.3-8 3.3.4 2010 Estimated Daily Boardings by Station 3.3-9 3.3.5 2010 P.M. Peak Park -and -Ride Trips by Station 3.3-9 3.3.6 Longacres Station Level of Service Summary 3.3-12 3.3.7 SW 43rd Street Station Level of Service Summary 3.3-14 3.3.8 Downtown Kent (North) Station Level of Service Summary 3.3-15 3.3.9 Downtown Kent (South) Station Level of Service Summary 3.3-17 3.3.10 Auburn Station Level of Service Summary 3.3-19 3.3.11 Sumner Station Level of Service Summary 3.3-21 3.3.12 Puyallup Station Level of Service Summary 3.3-22 3.3.13 Intersection Level of Service Summary Tacoma Station 3.3-24 3.3.14 Commuter Rail Grade Crossings 3.3-25 Page TOC -6 June 1998 Table of Contents Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment LIST OF TABLES (cont.) Tab. # Table Name On or Follows Page 3.3.15 Peak Hour Impact of Train Movement at Grade Crossings in the Year 2010 3.3-26 3.3.16 Level of Service at Grade Crossings in year 2010 3.3-27 3.4.1 FTA Noise Impact Criteria 3.4-5 3.4.2 Ground -Borne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria 3.4-6 3.4.3 Summary of Sensitive Land Uses within 750 Feet of BNSF Railroad Tracks 3.4-7 3.4.4 Noise Monitoring Site Characteristics 3.4-8 3.4.5 Commuter Rail Noise Assumptions and Initial Forecasts 3.4-11 3.4.6 Projected Noise Impacts on Noise Sensitive Areas Near Monitored Sites 3.4-13 3.4.7 Vibration Analysis Assumptions 3.4-14 3.6.1 Ecologically Sensitive Areas in the Vicinity of Station Sites 3.6-1 3.6.2 Summary of Potential Wetland Impacts from Track Improvements Between Puyallup and Tacoma. 3.6-8 3.7.1 Summary of Historic Resources Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.7-3 3.7.2 Park and Recreation Facilities Along the BNSF Corridor 3.7-11 3.10.1 Commuter Rail Grade Crossings Along the BNSF Line 3.10-3 3.11.1 National, State, and Local Ambient Air Quality Standards 3.11-2 3.11.2 Year 2010 Corridor -Level Vehicular Tailpipe Emissions Analysis 3.11-5 3.11.3 Year 2010 Corridor -Level Bus Emissions Analysis 3.11-6 3.11.4 Commuter Train Emissions Analysis 3.11-7 3.11.5 Year 2010 Corridor -Level Air Quality Impacts (Proposed Action) 3.11-7 3.11.6 Intersection Screening Results 3.11-9 3.11.7 Existing Year (1997) Maximum Predicted CO Concentrations 3.11-12 3.11.8 Year 2010 Maximum Predicted CO Concentrations 3.11-12 3.12.1 General Water Use Criteria 3.12-2 3.12.2 Range of Selected Water Quality Values at Green River Sampling Stations 3.12-3 3.12.3 Range of Selected Water Quality Values at Puyallup River Sampling Stations 3.12-4 3.12.4 Development Levels of Proposed Station Sites 3.12-6 3.12.5 Potential Hydrology/Water Quality Impacts 3.12-7 3.12.6 Estimated Percent Increase in Runoff Per Unit Area from Largely Undeveloped Station Sites 3.12-9 5.1 Governmental Agencies, Affected Tribes and Interested Parties Consulted 5.0-2 5.2 Kent Station Land Requirements 5.0-6 LIST OF FIGURES Fig. # Figure Name On or Follows Page 2.1 Location and Description of Station and Rail Improvements 2-2 2.2 King Street Station Layout 2-15 2.3 Georgetown Station (Provisional) 2-15 2.4 Longacres Station 2-15 2.5 Downtown Kent (North) Station (Alternative) 2-15 2.6 Downtown Kent (South) Station (Alternative) 2-15 2.7 Auburn Station 2-15 2.8 Sumner Station 2-15 Table of Contents Page TOC -7 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment LIST OF FIGURES (cont.) Fig. # Figure Name On or Follows Page 2.9 Puyallup Station 2-15 2.10 Tacoma Station 2-15 3.1.1 City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan Designations 3.1-4 3.1.2 Cities of Tukwila, Renton, and Kent Comprehensive Plan Designations 3.1-6 3.1.3 City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Designations 3.1-8 3.1.4 City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan Designations 3.1-12 3.1.5 City of Sumner Comprehensive Plan Designations 3.1-14 3.1.6 City of Puyallup Comprehensive Plan Designations 3.1-14 3.1.7 City of Tacoma Comprehensive Plan Designations 3.1-16 3.4.1 Typical Commuter Day -Night Levels 3.4-2 3.4.2 Typical Ground -borne Vibration Levels 3.4-3 3.4.3 Ldn Distance Calculation Curve 3.4-12 3.4.4 Maximum Leg Distance Calculation Curve 3.4-12 3.4.5 Generalized Ground Surface Vibration Curves 3.4-14 3.6.1 Wetland Areas Along Rail Corridor Near Curve #34 and the Proposed Third Track Addition 3.6-4 3.13.1 Major Fault Zones in Puget Sound 3.13-4 Page TOC -8 June 1998 Table of Contents Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS/REFERENCES 1) King Street Station area DRAFT plans/layouts by Otak 2) Weller Street Pedestrian Walkway Summary 3) Auburn 3rd Street Grade Separation site plan (May 7, 1998) 4) Tacoma Dome Station, 1998 5) Landuse maps: Tacoma -to -Seattle segment 6) Grade Crossing Diagnostic Project Summary 7) South Downtown Waterfront Master Development Plan: Pedestrian/bicycle access and mobility 8) DRAFT Commuter Rail Station Design Manual: Section 4, General Requirements: Bicycles 9) Right -of -Way acquisitions in area of new third track 10) FEMA floodplain maps: Seattle, King St. Station 53033C0630 F South Seattle 53033C0640 F Boeing Access Road 53033C0645 F 53033C0957 F Black River/Tukwila 53033C0976 F Tukwila 53033C0978 F 11) North Kent 53033C0986 F Kent 53033C0988 F South Kent/Auburn 53033C1251 F North Auburn 53033C1253 F Auburn 53033C1261 F South Auburn 53033C1263 F 12) Sumner 5301470005 D Puyallup 5301440005 B 5301380329 C 5301380328 5301380326 5301380307 C Tacoma 5301480025 B 13) Major Fault Zones, Puget Sound: Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network (PNSN)/ University of Washington (UW)/ US Geological Survey (USGS) 14) Soils/Prime Farmland maps: Natural Resource Conservation Service, USDA, 1998 15) FRA Track Safety Standards/Earthquake policies (1995) BNSF Engineering Instructions/Earthquake policies (January .1998) 16) Sound Transit, Resolution No. 98-5: MOU establishing a cooperative relationship for regional planning and coordination with transit agencies, PSRC 17) Sound Transit, Motion 98-25: Transit Oriented Development (TOD) policies List of Supporting Documents/References Page 1 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 18) Sound Transit, Resolution No. 98-9: King County Metro Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 19) Sound Transit, Resolution No. 92: Pierce Transit Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 20) Principal Parties for FAST Corridor: Proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 21) Advisory Council on Historic Preservation/Federal Transit Administration MOA 22) Letters and Comment Sheets received during comment period 23) Letter: Ron Sims, King County Exec to Leona Orr, Kent City Council Chair (March 11, 1998) 24) Excerpt: Sound Transit 1998 Adopted Budget, Commuter Rail Department (November 3, 1997) **These items are not included in the EA, but are available for review at Sound Transit offices upon request.** Page 2 June 1998 List of Supporting Documents/References Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PLANNING PROCESS 1.1.1 Sound Move: The Ten -Year Regional Transit System Plan The 10 -year plan for the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit), entitled Sound Move: The Ten -Year Regional Transit System Plan, was adopted by the Sound Transit Board in 1996. On November 5, 1996, voters within the Sound Transit district approved a tax package to provide local funds to implement the plan. The plan is the culmination of over seven years of effort by Sound Transit and its predecessor, the Joint Regional Policy Committee (JRPC). Its goal is to provide a cost-effective public transportation system in the central Puget Sound region that affords an attractive alternative to the single -occupant automobile. Currently, the cost of traffic congestion on the regional transportation system is estimated at $1.2 billion per year in lost time, money, and resources. Sound Move is designed to provide a balanced approach to increasing the capacity, utility and convenience of the existing transit system by offering an integrated package of transit options. Collectively, this system of options will slow congestion growth, reduce the growing strain on the region's roads, and provide a reliable, efficient, and congestion -free alternative to single -occupant vehicle travel. The plan will make better use of transportation corridors by adding new high-capacity services and facilities. Proposed improvements include: • An 81 -mile commuter rail system with 14 stations • Twenty-five miles of a starter light rail transit (LRT) system with 26 stations • The High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Expressway, a partnership with Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to create a continuous HOV network with direct access ramps for transit and carpools • New regional express bus routes that will use the HOV Expressway • Community connections to the new regional transit system, including transit stations, transit centers, rail stations, and park-and-ride lots The environmental impacts of the plan and alternatives were evaluated in a plan -level State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) environmental impact statement (EIS) in 1993. That EIS focused on the regional, corridor -level impacts of all of the elements in the plan. This environmental assessment focuses on the central portion of Sound Move 's commuter rail component, which runs north and south along the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) rail corridor from the Tacoma Amtrak station to King Street Station in Seattle. This chapter provides background on the overall context of regional transit planning, in which the proposed Tacoma -to -Seattle commuter rail project is an important component. It also discusses the purpose and need of the project, including commuter rail's specific contributions to achieving l Purpose and Need Page 1-1 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment regional high-capacity transit goals, and describes the environmental review process to date. 1.1.2 Background of High -Capacity Transit Planning In 1990 the Washington State Legislature passed the High -Capacity Transit Act, which established a high-capacity transit (HCT) program, funded planning by local jurisdictions, and enacted tax mechanisms to pay for building a regional transit system. The legislation required a planning process modeled on the alternatives analysis prescribed by the former Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA, which became the Federal Transit Administration [FTA] in 1991). In August 1990 the JRPC, made up of elected officials from Snohomish, Pierce, and King Counties, was formed by an interlocal agreement to oversee regional transit planning in accordance with state legislation. In 1991, the legislature passed three HCT transit bills covering planning and funding, public involvement, review requirements for the use of state HCT funds, a detailed process for HCT project coordination, and the establishment of a process for creating Sound Transit. An expert review panel was also established. In late 1991, it became evident, based on the new legislation, that rapid transit planning needed to take place within the context of an overall regional transit plan. Accordingly, the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) prepared a comprehensive plan for regional transit through 2020. Metro issued the draft Regional Transit System Plan and the accompanying SEPA Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in October 1992, and the final plan and EIS in February 1993. The JRPC adopted the plan in May 1993 and voted to recommend the formation of the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) to implement the plan. In July 1993, the three county councils agreed to participate in the plan, and they created the RTA -Sound Transit to move the plan forward to a public vote. Sound Transit modified the Regional Transit System Plan and adopted it in October 1994. However, financing for the plan was defeated at the polls when placed on the ballot in 1995 for approval by voters in the Pierce -King -Snohomish County service area. In response to the defeat, Sound Transit formed the Regional Outreach Committee, an advisory panel of civic leaders, to assist in developing a new proposal. The new plan was developed with input from the community at all levels. In May 1996 the Sound Move plan was adopted by Sound Transit, and in November 1996 a tax package to implement the revised plan was approved by a vote of 57 to 43 percent. 1.1.3 Consistency with Regional Planning Efforts The Puget Sound region's transit planning process occurred during a time of significant change in federal and state legislation, which shaped further changes in Page 1-2 June 1998 Purpose and Need Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment regional planning. The 1991 federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) strengthened the role of local governments in coordinating transportation and growth management through metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). In 1990, the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) mandated consistency between land use and transportation planning. One way to accomplish this consistency is by channeling regional growth into "urban centers" linked by effective transportation networks. The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) was designated as the Central Puget Sound region's MPO under ISTEA, and also assumed responsibility for regional planning under GMA. In 1992, PSRC adopted policies requiring that projects approved for federal transportation funds under ISTEA also support countywide and regional growth management plans and objectives. PSRC's primary planning document is the Vision 2020 plan, an integrated land use and transportation strategy that includes a Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) responding to the requirements of ISTEA. In June 1996, PSRC issued a finding that the Sound Move plan is consistent with the region's MTP. Conclusions are summarized as follows for the MTP's major policies: • Optimize the Use of Transportation Facilities and Services—Sound Move plans to maximize current transportation system investments by using existing facilities (e.g., freight rail lines) to increase overall regional capacity. • Manage the Demand for Travel—Sound Move offers a "well -matched combination of HCT services tailored to fit the distinct needs and constraints of travel demand in most of the major travel corridors in the RTA's three -county area. The RTA's proposal will improve transit as an option for regional trips and enhance the operation of local transit services to a point where public transit is far more competitive with the auto than it is today." • Support Pedestrian and Transit -oriented Land Use Patterns—The Sound Move plan would support compact development, enabling people to make more trips by foot, bike, and transit and to depend less on auto travel. Investments in community connections, rail alignments and stations would provide focal points for higher -density and mixed-use growth patterns. 1.1.4 Sound Move Major Investment Study As required by ISTEA, a major investment study (MIS) for the Sound Move plan was completed in May 1997. The purpose of the MIS was to determine whether the plan was a justifiable public investment in terms of social costs and benefits, and to identify how FTA criteria for new projects were satisfied. The MIS fmdings were that Sound Move's proposed services and facilities would realize a return on investment of 7.4 percent in real terms, computed over an assumed 50 year useful life of capital assets. This compares favorably to benchmarks of economic performance for public projects. The plan's net benefits were estimated at $9.9 billion in 1995 Purpose and Need Page 1-3 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment dollars; with a discount applied to compensate for future risks, the estimated net present value is about $4 billion. The evaluation of the plan employed six criteria for new project development, as published by the FTA in December 1996: (a) mobility improvements, (b) environmental benefits, (c) operating efficiencies, (d) cost-effectiveness, (e) transit - supportive land use policies, and (f) other factors. According to specific measurements proposed by FTA under each of the six criteria, the MIS concluded that Sound Move would: 1. Save about $190 million annually in travel time for users and non-users. 2. Reduce energy consumption and contribute to air quality conformity as stated in the region's MTP. 3. Reduce transit operating costs per passenger mile as compared to no action and transportation system management (TSM) alternatives. 4. Result in incremental costs per rider of $10.61 compared to no action and $6.23 compared to TSM. 5. Strongly support the GMA and local transit -supportive land use plans. 6. Take advantage of institutions and capabilities already in place in the Puget Sound region, including the Commute Trip Reduction Act and many transportation demand management strategies. The transit ridership forecasts provided the basis for the MIS evaluation. The forecasts, completed by Sound Transit in cooperation with the PSRC, were consistent with regional land use and travel demand models. The ridership forecasting process was subjected to intense review by the State Expert Review Panel over a 7 -year period from 1990 to 1996. The Panel established a special subcommittee for the review of ridership forecasts to ensure reasonable and credible projections. 1.2 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED The proposed commuter rail service addresses transit and mobility needs in the corridor from downtown Seattle through the Duwamish and Green River valleys to Tukwila, Renton, Kent, and Auburn in King County, and through the White and Puyallup River valleys to Sumner, Puyallup, and Tacoma in Pierce County. The proposed action is part of the adopted regional transit plan for the central Puget Sound region. In addition, the proposed commuter rail service and facilities support the comprehensive plans adopted or amended by cities in the corridor, which propose revitalization and concentration of new growth in local downtown areas, and for the new MTP. The objectives to be addressed by the proposed action include the provision of a high capacity transit mode that: Page 1-4 June 1998 Purpose and Need Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment • Offers a travel time advantage over single occupant vehicles during peak commute hours within the Tacoma -to -Seattle corridor. • Provides quality transit service that is safe, economical, relatively frequent, and operates on a reliable schedule. • Is easily accessible to transit patrons arriving at and departing from stations by the most convenient mix of travel modes for that station: walking, biking, feeder bus, regional express bus, light rail, intercity rail, auto drop-off/pick-up, or park-and- ride. • Can be implemented quickly (to be operational by the end of the year 1999), using mostly existing infrastructure, and with modest capital investment compared to development of new tracks on new right-of-way. • Both supports and is planned for in the growth management plans of the local jurisdictions along the Tacoma -to -Seattle corridor. • Minimizes negative environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed system, and does not constrain the movement of freight. These objectives are satisfied by the proposed action as described in the following sections. 1.2.1 Support of Growth Areas The PSRC's Vision 2020 Update and MTP, as well as local jurisdiction and county plans adopted in response to Washington State's GMA, call for increased employment and residential densities in designated urban centers, as well as local cities in the corridor. In general, the new land use plans assume that HCT and related feeder service would provide the necessary mobility in and between centers to promote higher density development and pedestrian -friendly environments. The proposed action provides the HCT service called for in these plans. 1.2.2 Alternatives to Traffic Congestion North -south transportation needs in this corridor are currently served by three controlled access freeways (1-5 from Seattle to Tukwila; I-405 from Tukwila to Renton; and SR -167 from Renton to Puyallup) and a major arterial (SR -167 from Puyallup to Tacoma). Local and express bus services are provided by two transit agencies, King County Metro and Pierce Transit. Transportation problems in the corridor are related to regular and recurring freeway and highway congestion at peak commute hours. 1-5,1-405, and SR -167 regularly carry volumes in excess of capacity, causing extensive rolling slowdowns, especially at interchanges between freeways, but often extending for many miles along each corridor. Growth projected in the corridor will exacerbate this problem by 2010. Purpose and Need Page 1-5 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment While the levels of ridership that can be achieved by any transit alternative will not substantially reduce congestion in the corridor, increased transit ridership can slow the growth of congestion, and improved regional transit services will provide an alternative to driving in increasingly congested traffic. 1.2.3 Increases in Transit Speeds and Reliability Because buses operate on the same roadways as other vehicles, traffic congestion in the corridor has reduced transit speeds, created longer operating schedules, impacted schedule reliability, increased operating costs, and required larger bus fleets. The planned completion of the HOV system within the corridor will offer some congestion relief; however, bus speed and reliability will still be compromised by several factors, including: • Congestion in HOV lanes. • Lowered speeds due to congestion adjacent to HOV lanes. • Lack of direct HOV connections at system interchanges, such as between SR -167 and I-405. • Lack of direct HOV connections between freeways and surface streets. • Lack of separated guideways and HOV connections into city downtowns. These limitations will constrain bus ridership in the corridor; however, even if all the bus speed and reliability problems were addressed, ridership would be difficult to serve with conventional bus service. Projections indicate that peak direction commuter rail ridership could reach 2,255 in the peak hour and 1,230 in the peak half hour (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 1994). Projections of transit demand for the Puget Sound Regional Council's MTP indicate that transit demand on the system could be considerably higher than this projection. Even if equivalent bus service could be provided, this level of ridership would strain the capacity of the bus system. In contrast to conventional bus service, the proposed commuter rail service would operate on rights-of-way independent of congested roadway traffic. This feature would allow the addition of new transit capacity with lower travel times than comparable bus service, more reliable schedules, and the potential to efficiently serve future ridership growth by increasing either the number of cars per train or the frequency of service. Also, the location of the BNSF tracks in the downtown areas of cities throughout the corridor will support convenient access by populations in designated urban centers. The proposed action also would provide needed connections to other transit services included in the Sound Move plan. These connections would provide a seamless transit system in the central Puget Sound region, further reducing transit travel times and increasing the reliability of connections from one part of the region to another. Connections would include: Page 1-6 June 1998 Purpose and Need Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment • Commuter rail service north from King Street Station in Seattle to Everett. • Commuter rail service south from the Tacoma Dome Intermodal Facility to Lakewood. • A connection to light rail at downtown Seattle, providing service north to the University District and Northgate and southeast to Rainier Valley. • A potential connection to light rail at Boeing Access Road in Tukwila, providing service northeast to Rainier Valley and south to SeaTac. • A connection to light rail at the Tacoma Dome Intermodal Facility, providing service north to downtown Tacoma. • A connection to regional express bus service at King Street Station, providing service west and southwest to West Seattle and Burien. A connection to regional express bus service at Auburn, providing service west to Federal Way. • A connection to regional express bus service at Puyallup, providing service north to Federal Way and south to Parkland and Lakewood. • A connection to HCT at Tukwila, providing service west to SeaTac and east and north to Renton and Bellevue. 1.2.4 Support of State of Washington Intercity Rail Program WSDOT is committed to the expansion of higher -speed intercity passenger rail service from Portland to Vancouver, British Columbia. Within the Tacoma -to -Seattle project area of the proposed action, intercity passenger rail service would also use the BNSF tracks, with stops at Tacoma Amtrak and King Street Stations, and possibly at Tukwila as well. The track improvements proposed in conjunction with the proposed action are necessary to increase train speeds and avoid adverse impacts to freight mobility between Tacoma and Seattle. These track improvements would also reduce conflicts between commuter rail and high-speed rail schedules. The intercity rail program has identified the need for a number of track and signal improvements in order to accommodate increased speeds in the Tacoma -Seattle corridor, including many of those in this proposal. The proposed action has assumed that the track and signal improvements analyzed in this document would be paid for by the commuter rail capital budget; however, the two programs may share costs, providing benefits for both rail passenger programs with a single set of improvements. Commuter rail service in the corridor would also provide feeder service to light rail transit at the Tacoma Dome, Boeing Access Road and King Street Stations. 1.2.5 Freight Mobility The Puget Sound economy is trade -oriented, and strongly tied to the ability to move goods between modes, to and through the ports, and out to the rest of the world. For that reason, the transportation system is critical to the region's economic vitality. Currently, several initiatives are underway to improve the efficiency of goods Purpose and Need Page 1-7 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment movement. The group primarily responsible for coordinating goods movement issues is the Regional Freight Mobility Roundtable (Roundtable), jointly convened through PSRC and the Economic Development Council of Seattle and King County. After a formal review of potential Sound Transit commuter rail impacts on freight mobility, including technical input provided by BNSF and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), the Roundtable concluded: "...a mixed rail strategy including commuter rail can work. Based on our discussions, we support this effort... The Ports of Seattle and Tacoma and the Washington State Department of Transportation will greatly benefit from the continued Sound Transit work to help advance a long-term mixed -rail corridor serving passenger rail needs, while not impacting current and future freight rail needs that connect this region to a much broader national and Pacific Rim economy." (From a letter to Sound Transit Chairman Bob Drewel, May 28, 1996.) Sound Transit is currently engaged in discussions and negotiations with BNSF, the ports, WSDOT, and local jurisdictions to ensure that implementation of rail passenger service does not cause a rail system capacity constraint. Sound Transit is seeking to leverage its sizable investment in rail capacity and to form partnerships to resolve remaining issues. These include addressing persistent choke points in the region's freight rail system so that commuter rail service can operate reliably in a busy freight corridor, scheduling passenger trains so as not to disadvantage goods movement, prioritizing time -sensitive freight trains, and separating some grade crossings in freight corridors. The Sound Move commuter rail proposal may indirectly result in additional benefits to freight rail capacity, though they have not been quantified. For example, the proposal includes track and signalization improvements that are necessary to attain acceptable speed and reliability on the freight rights-of-way that will be used by commuter trains. These improvements would also allow increases in freight trains, enabling increased container shipments into and from the ports of Seattle and Tacoma. 1.2.6 Support of Multi-modalism In keeping with the federal ISTEA, the proposed action includes opportunities to facilitate intermodal transfers and to benefit freight and intercity passenger rail. These include: • Coordinating with the City of Seattle's development of an intermodal terminal at King Street Station. • Potential for coordinating commuter rail, light rail, and regional express bus service, as discussed above. • Coordinating commuter rail with feeder bus service. Page 1-8 June 1998 Purpose and Need Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment • Providing bicycle and pedestrian amenities to facilitate non -motorized access to the system. • Establishing connections with intercity passenger rail at Tacoma and Seattle, and possibly an intermediate station. • Providing for automobile access to the system. • Providing track and signal improvements that would enhance freight mobility and improve safety in the Tacoma -Seattle rail corridor. 1.2.7 Need for Specific Track Improvements New track will be added to the existing rail lines in several locations along the corridor. These areas are identified in Chapter 2, Description of the Proposal (see Table 2-1, Summary of Railroad Improvements). In particular, two new segments of track are proposed in order to maintain speed and reliability for commuter trains. These segments are: between the King Street Yard and Argoand between Puyallup and Tacoma. In addition, between Argo and Black River the exisitng three tracks (one Union Pacific and two BNSF) will be rearranged within the existing railroad rights-of-way to make a joint triple -track Central Traffic Control (CTC) mainline dispatched by the BNSF.The purpose and need for each of these segments is discussed in Chapter 2. Environmental impacts of the new track are discussed in the appropriate sections of Chapter 3 of this document. 1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS 1.3.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) This document is an Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared in compliance with NEPA. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is the lead agency responsible for NEPA compliance. The EA has been prepared consistent with the FTA's Environmental Impact and Related Procedures (49 CFR622), the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and related amendments and Executive Orders. The environmental assessment is prepared to assist the FTA in determining if further environmental review is required for the proposed project. Agency coordination, as required by the FTA's NEPA procedures, has been an important part of the environmental review process. This coordination is discussed in Chapter 5 of this document. In addition to the required agency coordination, Sound Transit created a public review period to solicit review comments on a Draft EA it published in late December 1997. Three public meetings were held (Seattle, Kent and Puyallup) in January 1998. Comments were received until January 30, 1998. These comments are also summarized in Chapter 5. 1.3.2 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) This EA, along with a Notice of Adoption, will be used to satisfy the requirements of SEPA. Sound Transit is the lead agency responsible for SEPA compliance. Sound Purpose and Need Page 1-9 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Transit will adopt this EA to satisfy requirements for a determination of nonsignificance. A Notice of Adoption will be issued on the project in June of 1998. 1.3.3 Prior Environmental Review In March 1993, Sound Transit's predecessor, the JRPC, issued a final State Environmental Policy Act Environmental Impact Statement (SEPA EIS) on the Regional Transit System Plan, including commuter rail service on existing tracks between Tacoma and Seattle. The EIS analyzed environmental impacts of the planned system, including the relationship between the regional transit system plan and adopted land use plans, air quality, ecosystems, energy, visual quality, transportation, land use, utilities, and parks and recreation. Secondary impacts are also described in more detail in technical reports prepared as background for the EIS, particularly those on land use, growth management, and station area planning (BRW, 1991). These documents are incorporated by reference into this environmental assessment. Copies are available for review at Sound Transit. In December 1993, Sound Transit began project -level environmental review for the Tacoma -to -Seattle commuter rail project and a Determination of Significance (DS) was issued. Scoping meetings were held in each of the communities served by the commuter rail line, and a preliminary environmental review document was prepared. The document was circulated to local jurisdictions for their review and comment. When the first vote on financing for the RTA failed in March 1995, work on the environmental review document was suspended. Sound Transit reactivated the environmental review for the Tacoma -to -Seattle commuter rail project in fall 1997, following voter approval of the Regional Transit System Plan in November 1996. This document updates the environmental work begun in 1993 to reflect new project design decisions, changes in adopted plans and regulations of the affected municipalities, updated traffic forecasts, and other factors. Station design, rail engineering, track improvements, and purchase of the train sets will follow completion of environmental review, with commuter rail service between Tacoma and Seattle now planned to begin in late 1999. In addition to updating the environmental analysis, the form of this document has also been changed. The prior draft document was a NEPA EA/SEPA Supplemental EIS. The current document is a NEPA EA, with a SEPA Notice of Adoption to follow. The DS issued in 1993 is being withdrawn and the form of the document is being changed for several reasons. First, the prior analysis revealed no probable significant adverse environmental impacts, the threshold for preparing an EIS. Second, community acceptance (based on public input) was high and public controversy about the project's environmental issues was low. Third, for the reasons described in section 4.3 below, the Union Pacific (UP) track alternative was eliminated from consideration. Without the UP track alternative, and given the lack of significant impacts, the need for an EIS evaluating alternative was absent. Finally, Sound Page 1-10 June 1998 Purpose and Need Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Transit has entered a set of Mitigation commitments that assure that the project will not have any significant adverse environmental impacts. Other environmental documentation has been prepared on projects related to the proposed Tacoma -to -Seattle commuter rail project. This previous work includes: • Seattle Intermodal Transportation Terminal: Final SEPA EIS/NEPA EA (City of Seattle/Federal Transit Administration, 1995) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FTA, 1990) • Tacoma Dome Intermodal Facility Final SEPA EIS/NEPA EA (Pierce Transit and Federal Transit Administration, 1996 and FONSI (FTA, 1996)) • State Route 519 Intermodal Access Project NEPA EA (Federal Transit Administration, Federal Highway Administration, Washington State Department of Transportation, 1997 and FONSI 1997) These documents are incorporated by reference into the environmental assessment. Copies of these documents are available for review at Sound Transit. Purpose and Need Page 1-11 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL This chapter describes the proposed Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Project. The purpose of the project is to provide peak -hour commuter rail service between Tacoma and Seattle. Commuter trains will run in each direction along the 40 -mile corridor at approximately half-hour intervals during peak commute hours (6 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 7 p.m.). The trains will run on existing tracks, and will stop at up to nine stations along the corridor, including the Tacoma and Seattle (King Street) stations. 2.1 OVERVIEW The proposed action is the culmination of a seven-year planning process, during which time many alternatives have been considered and carefully evaluated. Alternatives considered have included alternative transportation modes or systems, commuter rail on the Union Pacific rather than the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) tracks, and different elements within the proposed commuter rail action. A full discussion of alternatives to the proposed action that have been considered but not selected is found in Chapter 4 of this EA. The text in Chapter 2 below provides a complete description of the proposed action, i.e., commuter rail service between Tacoma and Seattle on existing BNSF tracks. The Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Project involves the development of new commuter rail service between downtown Seattle and Tacoma on existing BNSF tracks. Access to the service would be provided from stations located within the cities of Seattle, Tukwila, Kent, Auburn, Sumner, Puyallup, and Tacoma. Figure 2.1 shows the track alignment and the proposed station locations and alternatives. Buses would provide access to all stations. The Tacoma -to -Seattle corridor would also be served by a background bus system of routes providing radial and crosstown service in areas without rail access, as well as by Sound Transit's regional express bus system. In addition, pedestrian and bicycle access to all stations will be encouraged and enhanced by station design and station area improvements. The assumed service level is for bi-directional 30 -minute peak hour service during the morning and evening commute hours. Morning service would begin at approximately 6:00 a.m. and end at 9:00 a.m.; evening service would be from approximately 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. A total of 9 morning and 9 evening trips is assumed. Improvements along the BNSF main line are proposed in order to allow increased passenger train speeds and to minimize conflicts with existing train traffic. These improvements are necessary so that commuter rail service can operate reliably in a busy freight corridor, and to ensure that freight mobility is not adversely affected by commuter rail operations. Improvements include upgrading turnouts, replacing switch machines and siding switches, removing and replacing worn track, adding track and rebuilding track within the railroad right-of-way in some locations,. providing grade crossing protection, providing additional train control, and improving Description of the Proposal Page 2-1 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment grade crossing and signals. A summary of proposed improvements is provided in Table 2.1. The proposed commuter rail service will share the existing rail infrastructure with the on-going and growing freight railroad and with existing passenger service. Sound Transit is strongly committed to operating a safe, reliable commuter service, without adversely affecting freight and passenger service, both of which are important to the region's economy. Sound Transit intends to fund improvements to the railroad corridor consistent with commuter train use of the railroad, and assuming simultaneous use of the railroad by passenger and freight trains For ease in understanding Table 2.1, the BNSF mainline milepost (MP) designation by segment is as follows: • King Street Station area - (MP 0.0 to 0.40) • Seattle to Argo (Georgetown) (MP 0.40 to 3.4) • Argo (Georgetown) to Black River (Tukwila) (MP 3.4 to 8.8) • Black River Area (Tukwila) (MP 8.8 to 10.7) • Black River (Tukwila) to Kent (MP 10.7 to 17.1) Kent to Auburn (MP 17.1 to 21.6) • Auburn to Sumner (MP 21.6 to 29.2) • Sumner to Puyallup (MP 29.2 to 32.8) • Puyallup to Reservation (in Tacoma) (MP 32.8 to 38.2) • Reservation (in Tacoma) to Tacoma Amtrak Station (MP 38.2 to 40) Page 2-2 June 1998 Description of the Proposal TACOMA -TO -SEATTLE SOUNDER COMMUTER RAIL: LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF STATION AND RAIL IMPROVEMENTS 0 track Improvement IIN crossover areas Ei historic sites Onoise sensitive land -use sites Figure 2.1 KEY: TACOMA -TO -SEATTLE SOUNDER COMMUTER RAIL: LOCATION & DESCRIPTION OF STATION AND RAIL IMPROVEMENTS ,F., ++nNumber `..aM« -• r L{SY Y.... ... 4. IMa, 1I. �. 111,1 t.. ~ C}Cv+Y: Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Table 2.1 Summary of Railroad Improvements Segment Description of Improvements Systemwide • Add Centralized Traffic Control from Seattle to Reservation. 'MP:0.Q.:- MP. 0.4 ` r�Y • Replace' existingNo. 9 turnouts.at`-King Street:Station sidings, r with No 11 nor larger turnouts and improve•signals accordingly • rad,rAdd,and rebuild, trackage near the ,ICing StreetStation area >x ; •-, witliin.the:BNSF ngt.:91:E91. ti y ;, MP 0.4 — MP 3.4 • Extend train detection circuits at Royal Brougham, Holgate, Lander and Horton Streets to permit 50 mph. • Resurface track to permit 50 mph. • Realign curves. • Add third track north of Argo (3.3 miles long). • Improve Argo interlocking. x 4=-MP:.8 � • " '• t` ;: R a{ '�< `rv•-``i 'Extend trainFdetection circuits at'Military Road to accommodate L 79 mph ` �•x .Re-arrangetthree}mainlinctrackswithin existing`ROW;,�° MP 8.8 — MP 10.7 • Improve Black River Interlocking. '.)10 .Iii ` .1.17'1 � , , . V f � r �"r ,. h -r :,°,, " g :.;��}Resurface:tiack;to�Class'4dstandards.between:MP.�?141--`1`5.9: a , ix. { hand MP 16 6 17 1�.to accommodate.79 mph ; rro ,,.;•� �sRealignjcurves t" F ,� p 3. •'`Exfend street crossing detection•at°ten existing grade crossings • Addlead itaCkSoa crossovers, realign and rehabilitate track a- between OrillaMand:Kent ` j MP 17.1 — MP 21.6 • Resurface track to Class 4 standards throughout to accommodate 79 mph. • Add gates at three private crossings. • Enhance protection at six existing grade crossings. • Add crossovers near MP 17.1. "fi2P,21*6 .MP29 •;' t .,- 'i;..=,.-',rY _� . c•A• • ;crossover nearrMP 2 5 , ,1; •Construct=additio al centerisidmgss(thud back) atAubunaMP , �,-x..!18:-.23 7, .$."�r�: � G;�;';.•Y . r :, -__- MP 29.2 — MP 32.8 • Resurface track between MP 30.5 and 32.8 to permit 79 mph. 2:8-` ,: 8 0 ..1- • ; Ad s ; 'li'°"i :trackMa= 1' 8 MP 39.0 — MP 40.0 • Improve passenger rail siding at Amtrak Station. 2.2 RAIL CORRIDOR The proposed action is for commuter rail service to be provided on the BNSF tracks between Tacoma and Seattle. The UP tracks were considered but not recommended for several reasons, principally because the UP corridor has only one mainline track for most of its length, while the BNSF corridor generally includes two existing sets of parallel tracks. Considerably more acquisition of right-of-way and construction of new track would be required for commuter rail service to operate on the UP tracks, with greater associated costs and environmental impacts. Chapter 4 provides additional discussion of the UP alternative. For most of the 40 -mile corridor between Tacoma and Seattle on the BNSF right-of-way, there are two sets of parallel mainline tracks. Generally, the commuter trains will operate on the existing tracks. As noted above in Table 2.1, improvements are proposed at various locations throughout the corridor. Description of the Proposal June 1998 Page 2-3 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment In two areas, new track will be added parallel to the existing track. These segments of new track are specifically required to maintain speed and reliability for commuter trains at particularly congested areas of the BNSF line. These segments are described in more detail below. From the King Street Yard to Argo, approximately 3.3 miles of new third track will be constructed parallel to the existing BNSF tracks to address congestion problems created by the large volume of freight train movements in this corridor. The new track will allow commuter trains to maintain reliable schedules in this area. The second segment of new track is located between milepost 35.4 and milepost 38 of the BNSF main line between Puyallup and Tacoma. There are two broad objectives that are met by this section of new track: 1. The public expects Sounder trains to operate without delays due to freight traffic. 2. The Port of Tacoma expects Sounder trains to leave the Port unaffected in terms of its ability to send and receive trains to and from the East. The public expects Sound Transit to operate 18 "Sounder" commuter rail trains during weekday peak hours between Tacoma and Seattle, eventually between Lakewood and Seattle. This total includes nine morning peak trains and nine afternoon peak trains. The Sound Move plan adopted by the Sound Transit (then RTA) Board and the voters also included a commitment to the region's freight mobility. This commitment was essential to the adoption of the plan, and to support for the plan from the Ports, because of awareness of the limited rail capacity on the existing trackage. Reservation Interlocking is the junction of the Union Pacific main line and the BNSF main lines adjacent to the Puyallup River near the east city limits of Tacoma. The train congestion currently occurring at Reservation Interlocking would not allow for reliable commuter service. At this junction, a collection of switches and signal lights within a few hundred feet of each other control the movements of many types of train activity to and from six basic connections. These connections are: • BNSF main line to Portland, over which the Union Pacific (UP) has operating rights. • BNSF main line to Seattle (over which Sound Transit wishes to obtain operating rights for commuter rail trains). • UP main line to the UP Fife Yard and to Seattle. • Access to the BNSF Tacoma Yard. • Access to the BNSF Log Yard. • Access through the nearby Bullfrog Junction to the Port of Tacoma South Intermodal Support Yard for the BNSF, the UP, and the Tacoma Belt Line. Page 2-4 June 1998 Description of the Proposal Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment The Tacoma Eastern Railroad crosses over Reservation Interlocking on a bridge, but is not directly connected to the BNSF main line today. At Reservation, UP trains enter and leave the BNSF main line. The UP trains include trains from Seattle as well as trains to and from the Port of Tacoma and the Fife Yard. This traffic creates a point of severe freight capacity constraint today. The constraint is complicated by train movements from the BNSF Tacoma yards that encroach on or block other main line movements at Reservation. Trains from both directions often sit at the signals here for long periods waiting for clearance through the area. A 7000 - foot long container train starting from a stop at a signal takes 12 to 14 minutes to the clear the interlocking switch. Concern about Delays for Sounder Commuter Trains. With only the two existing tracks east of Tacoma, commuter trains would regularly get trapped behind freight train activity at this location. This situation would preclude the reliable transit service that is the prime justification for the commuter rail investment. Restricting freight activity during commuter hours is not an option open to Sound Transit. The commuter rail project cannot be implemented without a third track that would keep Sounder trains off the main line as they approach the Reservation congestion point. Port of Tacoma Concern. Access for intermodal freight traffic from the Port of Tacoma to the East occurs via Seattle and Stevens Pass. This access is critical to the economic health of the Port and the region. In order for commuter rail service to begin, the Port must be convinced that it will not effectively be closed off from the East during commuter hours because of passenger trains. The operational scheme that has been devised over years of study of potential commuter rail service involves "leap -frogging" the longer and slower freight trains through the corridor during commute periods via a series of strategically located third tracks. It is the shorter and faster commuter trains that would actually leap past the freight trains at these third tracks. For example, a high-value intermodal train arriving into the corridor at the start of the afternoon commute period would not have to be held up until 7:00 p.m. if it could proceed in stages through the corridor. Because of the speed differences between freight trains (40 — 50 mph) and passenger trains (60 — 79 mph) through the corridor, and because of the half-hourly headways for the commuter trains, based on operational studies the third tracks for passing must be situated about 14 to 17 miles apart. With this spacing, the freight train can pull off the passenger track at a relatively low speed, pull back onto the main line immediately in the wake of the faster commuter train, and arrive at the next pull -off before the next commuter train must pass. This spacing presumes rather tightly operated corridor, with good performance by the equipment, the dispatchers, and the engineers; but it can effectively keep the Port of Tacoma open to train traffic during commute hours. Description of the Proposal Page 2-5 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Because of the existing congestion on both sides of the Reservation Interlocking, one of these passing locations must occur here. There must be sufficient third track to enable intermodal freight trains to reach about 45 miles per hour from a standing start at Reservation before merging with the commuter trains. This would enable them to arrive at an Auburn third track before the next commuter train approaches too closely from behind. 2.3 STATIONS 2.3.1 Station Locations As indicated in Figure 2.1, nine stations are proposed for the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail project. These include eight funded stations and one provisional station (Georgetown) for which funding has not been identified. Stations would be located in Seattle, Tukwila, Kent, Auburn, Sumner, Puyallup, and Tacoma. 2.3.2 General Description of Stations A station -by -station description is provided below, in the next section. This section describes features that will be common to all stations. These features will undergo detailed design during the next phase of the project. This next phase, the community- based design process, will include preselection of qualified design firms by Sound Transit, selection of a design team for each station jointly by the local jurisdiction and Sound Transit, and design development by the selected firm in consultation with the local jurisdiction's staff, a community-based advisory committee, and Sound Transit. In the case of stations located on jurisdictional boundaries, the adjacent jurisdictions will be involved in the community-based advisory committee. Each station will be equipped with a platform adjacent to the tracks. Platform amenities would include canopies with wind and climate protection along the entire length of the platform, as well as lighting, benches, public telephones, trash receptacles, information kiosks, and related signage and directional aids. Fare vending and collection equipment, park-and-ride and bus loading and unloading facilities, and secure bicycle storage would also be provided. Because the commuter rail project is anticipating ten -car trains by full implementation in 2010, Sound Transit proposes to construct platforms long enough to accommodate the 920 -foot ten -car trains at build -out. A 1,000 -foot platform length was identified in establishing station design guidelines. In some instances, as discussed below, that length is modified due to the particular circumstances of the station or features of the site. Secure bicycle storage lockers and/or racks will be provided at all stations. Siting and the amount of bike storage lockers and/or racks to be provided will be determined during the station design process. The lockers will be sized to accommodate adult - sized mountain bikes. The stations are situated such that they can take advantage of existing and planned non -motorized trails/routes. Page 2-6 June 1998 Description of the Proposal Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Each station would also be equipped with a "mini -high platform" designed to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Mini -high platforms are essentially short lengths of platform raised to provide access to the rail cars by passengers with disabilities. The mini -high platforms are assumed to be 14 -feet square and 21 to 23 inches above the top -of -rail, or 13 to 15 inches above the main platform. Ramps would provide access from the station platforms to the mini -high platforms. They would be positioned at one end of the platform and serve the front door of the lead car in a train. The lead car would be equipped with a ramp or bridge that is positioned to allow access to the vehicle from the platform. Pedestrians will generally cross the tracks at -grade at existing sidewalk crossings. These crossings are discussed in more detail for each station in the next section.. Sidewalks will be upgraded to meet minimum standards where necessary. In addition, all stations will be constructed so that as demand warrants, future above/under track pedestrian grade -separated crossing is not precluded. The stations analyzed in this environmental assessment represent a basic level of development, sufficient to allow station access with some amenities. The environmental impacts of these basic stations are discussed in Chapter 3. In many cases, local jurisdictions may wish to enhance stations and station areas to encourage private development, provide a focus for downtown activities, improve visual quality and enhance the pedestrian- and bicycle -friendly nature of station areas. Where jurisdictions have already created potential station -area plans, these station area developments are noted in the environmental assessment and are considered to be potential indirect impacts of the build alternatives, but not direct results of the commuter rail program. Appendix A contains Sound Transit's Draft Station Design Manual, which provides additional details on standards and design criteria for the stations. Table 2.2 summarizes basic information about each of the proposed stations included in the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail project. As noted above, final design issues will be resolved during the community-based design process. Description of the Proposal Page 2-7 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Table 2.2 Station Locations and Characteristics Station Location Platform Type Station Access Station Facilities Center Side Walk P&R Auto Drop- Off Bus Bus Transfers On- Street On- Site Parking Spaces °1CmgtStreet `" fglation 7:71,7".. r X 4'� f "" Sit C ", 'w X: X -% "" 'R 0{ ° 7Dowritown .•Seattle 3 ;., Georgetown East of Airport (provisional) Way at Ellis Avenue X X ..t .� X , X .,.. X X : •+so.=.:'.., a..IC.. ..P tr. X X X 77C7- t X X 0 :{P to; be built b.ya. 4IRITY 630 - .. 810 -Boeing =:; Nearantersection°' rAccess,Road pofBoeing Access '.-.. z d-4 ,vak �.o�ad:2._nd BNi• SP F X :>`� ,: t`d"r... v•Y•',?W, ,°4 , . C..4Z.''b f' Yt' X 77x—,7",..7$10' X 7" Longacres South of I-405, west of former •..,Stree Longacres race track 4 twn . atries` westside.of RailroadAvenue Gowe to Willis between 1st and Railroad Avenue X , ° ' .. X Downtown` Kentnorh (Alternve) >r • X ,', '. ,. w '. X X ,,:� X s Downtown Kent (south) (Alternative) 'Downtown t `South of Main Auburn ,,C,vlc 'Street, btWif.."B° ll' T. ••d'Itretree I Sumner South rofVMaple Street btwn. Narrow Avenue and Traffic Avenue ` ✓.� j". •, , r 1 ,t:. X . ; X . . 'X ,' A r m �� : X ,. 544 - .. , . X X X X } X 180 O ti F z ' r._.. • wntown -. • South -of Stewart . Puyallup "p, ; §Avenue, btwri �2nd&:3rd Streets�1; . zI-NW.Y.1- ,-, d° Xx v 4,• ; at . � -� ` r M. :X"'� y , Tacoma Tacoma Amtrak Station/Tacoma Dome _ X X X X X X 720 Conceptual design has been guided by the results of the transportation analysis prepared for Sound Move. Patronage forecasts for the Sounder commuter rail trains were completed as part of the benefits analysis of the Sound Move Ten -Year Transit Plan. An Expert Review panel, established by the State of Washington legislature and appointed by the Governor, reviewed the Sound Transit ridership forecasting methods over a seven- year period. The review found the methods and the resulting forecasts to be reasonable and prudent. Page 2-8 June 1998 Description of the Proposal Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment The methods are documented in the Travel Forecasting Methodology Report (RTA, November 1993). The resulting forecasts are documented in Sound Move —Appendix C: Benefits, System Use and Transportation Impacts. Because Sound Move was adopted by the RTA Board and presented to the voters as an integrated transit system of three modes, separate estimates of certain regional impacts cannot be made specific to one mode, such as the Sounder commuter rail trains. Appendix C presents certain information by mode, and other information as system -level estimates. However, ridership forecasts at individual Sounder stations are available. The station -level details presented in Chapter 3 of the Environmental Assessment are consistent with the forecasts developed for Appendix C. Ridership forecasts are shown in Table 2.3. Table 2.3 Commuter Rail Stations Ridership Forecasts for 2010 "Reverse direction" = p.m. inbound + am. outbound boardings paring space requirement assumed at 90% of auto -access riders 2.3.3 Station -by -Station Descriptions King Street. King Street will be the north terminal of the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail project. Pedestrian access to the streets above will be provided by three stairways and two elevators. As illustrated in Figure 2.2, two stairways will provide access to the Weller Street Pedestrian Bridge/Overpass, and a third stairway will provide access to Jackson Street. Two elevators, one to the Weller Street Overpass and one to Jackson Street will also be provided. Description of the Proposal June 1998 Page 2-9 Boardings Reverse Direction Auto Access Walk Bike Light Rail/Bus/ Ferry Xfer Parking Spaces Everett - '' 0 r. '- '' "?.,:;3`150,_..„. ° :. •i:?. ;270';;; Everett West 200 50 100 50 0 90 '.114- ilteok' -.� ... ',-'400 =' ° _ '50, j10O " 50` : 200:, 90 ,,.-. Edmonds 300 50 100 100 50 90 .•RichmondBeach`; ; 0 ` ; ... ° 0°'„ 0 0 Ballard 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.Kimg Aireet ;I.. a ; 5100%; ; 'x;900 ' ' 'r;''0F :; b1050° ` ;t 3'150 . 0•, Georgetown 0 0 0 0 0 0 • oeing:Access .•`, -- 300i : ., -,-,,:,..7411 5 ..._ , s-100`{�:' :� 0 :.' >.',50'''''.:% ;ems {90.:; Longacres 900 100 700 0 100 630 t=: 't°_).:::_ -- )40..4 y` ;;:200 .4 Tt900 . 100 _ I.. 200f „- 810;1; Auburn 900 100 600 50 150 540 :`,,'S ‘.• :�'•';`,4'.4 . ,s •x300 r < " 0:'}r ° ;?� ,� � 4`V 4200 ter. • 50:-,,•: ;° ;;�'::� .50'� ,. . '" 0 ;. Puyallup 400 50 300 0 50 270 °4Tacomk ...`:..k.-'''' - 400;r ,: 200:'' a`;a ,' X800 '"..: AS „a. • S. 566 Street 200 0 150 0 50 135 Lakewood * : ' : _ 600 ;;!..,k:°15.0 . E 07.9 '; A 00;4::: • 405 Total 12,600 1,950 4,800 1,500 4,350 4,320 "Reverse direction" = p.m. inbound + am. outbound boardings paring space requirement assumed at 90% of auto -access riders 2.3.3 Station -by -Station Descriptions King Street. King Street will be the north terminal of the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail project. Pedestrian access to the streets above will be provided by three stairways and two elevators. As illustrated in Figure 2.2, two stairways will provide access to the Weller Street Pedestrian Bridge/Overpass, and a third stairway will provide access to Jackson Street. Two elevators, one to the Weller Street Overpass and one to Jackson Street will also be provided. Description of the Proposal June 1998 Page 2-9 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Pedestrians will have access to the International District Station transit center via the Weller Street Overpass and Jackson Street. The Weller Street Overpass is a King County project scheduled for construction in 1999. Design criteria included the requirement that peak 15 -minute crowds exiting a Kingdome or new football stadium event be accommodated on the overpass (Design Report for Stadium Area Elevated Pedestrian Walkways — Weller Street; KPFF for King County, 1998). Pedestrian flow analysis was prepared for the Weller Street Overpass design, and, as indicated in the Design Report, future Sound Transit stairway and elevator connections to the overpass are incorporated. Environmental review of the Weller Street Overpass was included in the Environmental Assessment for SR 519 (May 1997). A park-and-ride lot is not proposed for the King Street station. The ridership forecasts indicate that commuters will arrive at the station from bus, ferry, light rail, or on foot. Pedestrians will use existing street -level sidewalks and crossings, or the Weller Street Overpass, to access the station from other travel modes. No changes are proposed to the Union Station or King Street Station buildings as part of the project. King Street Station building modifications proposed as part of the Seattle Intermodal Transportation Terminal are separate from the platform construction proposed by the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail project, and are discussed in the SEPA EIS/NEPA EA for the Seattle Intermodal Transportation Terminal (1995). That EIS is incorporated by reference into this environmental review document. Georgetown. Georgetown is a provisional station for which funding has not been identified. As indicated on Figure 2.3, the platform would be 1,000 feet by 17 feet. Pedestrian access would be by stairway and elevator to the Albro Place Overpass. No park-and-ride is proposed for the Georgetown station. Additional design detail and supplemental environmental review would be prepared for this station should funding be identified. Boeing Access Road. A station at Boeing Access Road (BAR) is indicated on Figure 2.1. There is a degree of uncertainty about the BAR station at this time, for several reasons. The station is proposed primarily as an intermodal transfer point between commuter rail and the Link light rail transit (LRT) line, a separate component of the Sound Transit program. Because final siting of the LRT will determine the location of the BAR station, the location shown on Figure 2.1 is tentative. If the LRT alignment ultimately selected does not cross I-5 at BAR, the need for a station at BAR will be reexamined. A conceptual layout of the BAR station has not been prepared, and environmental review of the station will occur as part of the LRT NEPA EIS. Longacres. The Longacres station is depicted on Figure 2.4. Two 1,000 -foot by 20 - foot platforms have been assumed. Amtrak has indicated its preference to include a stop at the Longacres station for its passenger service as well. Recent discussions Page 2-10 June 1998 Description of the Proposal Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment with Amtrak indicate that the proposed 1,000 foot platforms would be adequate. The Longacres site can accommodate platforms of this length. Amtrak has not yet prepared a schedule or budget for developing any facilities at Longacres. Sound Transit is coordinating with Amtrak on the station design. Surface parking for 720 vehicles is proposed at the site, north of Longacres Way. Pedestrian access to the eastern platform is via the existing grade -separated underpass at Longacres Way. There is a potential for a joint development project at Longacres with the property owner. Options being explored by Sound Transit and the owner include a possible development of structured parking. Downtown Kent North. Figure 2.5 shows the conceptual layout of the potential station in Kent. Two potential stations are being considered for downtown Kent, and each is evaluated for environmental impacts throughout this EA. Only one of these stations will be built; the Sound Transit Board will make a fmal decision on the location of the Kent station. For the Downtown Kent North site, a platform of 1,100 - feet by 20 -feet is proposed on the east side of the tracks, while a 960 -foot by 15 -foot platform is proposed for the west side. The differences are due to the need to maintain access via an existing industrial lead to the Borden Chemical site, located west of First Avenue. Pedestrian crossings of the tracks are proposed at the existing at -grade sidewalk on Smith Street. Downtown Kent South. Figure 2.6 depicts the conceptual site plan for the Downtown Kent South station and parking areas. Two 1,000 -foot by 20 -foot platforms are proposed between Gowe Street and Willis Street. At -grade pedestrian crossings of the tracks will be the existing sidewalk at Willis Street. Throughout this EA, a variation of the South Kent site altemative that incorporates a 500 -stall parking garage is also considered. The depiction on Figure 2.6 represents a worst-case analysis in terms of property acquisition needs. The variation that incorporates a parking garage would require substantially less acquisition of property, but is not included in the approved Sound Transit budget. Auburn. The conceptual site plan for the Auburn station is shown in Figure 2.7. Two 700 -foot x 20 -foot platforms are included. The shorter platform lengths result from the need to accommodate the BNSF switch at the south end of the platforms for freight movement to the east. Sound Transit is coordinating its planing for the Auburn station with the City's ongoing design for a 3'd Avenue SW Grade Separation project, to assure both that the station will not preclude construction of the grade separation, and that surface or structural parking west of the tracks will remain accessible after construction of the grade separation. Description of the Proposal Page 2-11 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Pedestrian crossings will be possible both at the existing at -grade sidewalk crossing at Main Street, and via a new overpass connecting the surface parking west of the tracks with the bus terminal on the east side. As indicated on the site plan, a parking structure is included between "A" and "B" Streets east of the tracks. This structure has been proposed by the City of Auburn, but is not included in the approved Sound Transit budget. Sumner. The site plan for the Sumner station is shown in Figure 2.8. Two 1,000 - foot by 20 -foot platforms are proposed, with an at -grade pedestrian crossing at the existing sidewalk along Maple Street. Parking for 180 stalls would be located in surface lots on both sides of the tracks. Puyallup. Figure 2.9 shows the Puyallup station conceptual site plan. Two 1,000 - foot by 20 -foot platforms are included, as well as surface parking on both sides of the tracks. Pedestrians would cross at the existing at -grade sidewalk crossings on Meridian Street and Fifth Street. Tacoma. The southern terminus of the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail project is proposed for the area immediately west of the existing Amtrak station. One platform, extending westward for 1,100 -feet between the Amtrak platform on the east and East "F" Street on the west, is included in the station, as illustrated in Figure 2.10. Parking will be at the Tacoma Dome Station. Pedestrian connections from the platform to the parking will be via the sidewalk and crosswalk at East "F" Street, as well as from a new easement from the platform to Puyallup Avenue and then along sidewalk and crosswalks to the Tacoma Dome Station. The easement will be located between the BNSF property at the station's west end and the lumber yard property on its east. Existing rail access to the lumber yard would be maintained. The station location adjacent to the Tacoma Amtrak station is proposed as an interim solution. With the future extension of commuter rail service from Tacoma -to - Lakewood, Sound Transit anticipates relocating the Tacoma station to a permanent location at Freighthouse Square, one and one-half blocks south of the interim station. Environmental review of commuter rail service at the interim station is included in this EA; the interim station will serve as an independent and fully -functioning commuter rail station. Environmental review of a relocated station at Freighthouse Square, as well as extension of commuter rail service south from Tacoma -to - Lakewood, is being conducted separately. 2.4 OTHER ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 2.4.1 Maintenance Facilities Using Federal and State passenger rail funding, Amtrak is in the process of expanding, rehabilitating and rebuilding the passenger coach maintenance yard, the Amtrak Pacific Northwest Maintenance Facility (King Street Yard), located just a few blocks south of King Street Station. This rebuilt yard, valued at $45M - $50M, will Page 2-12 June 1998 Description of the Proposal Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment be used to service Amtrak long-distance trains and WSDOT-supported Pacific Northwest Corridor passenger trains. Additional maintenance and storage capacity will be available, above that needed for these inter -city trains. Amtrak has approached Sound Transit about entering into a contractual arrangement through which Amtrak would maintain the Sound Transit fleet during the mid-day period. Amtrak fleet maintenance requirements occur primarily during the overnight hours. The Sound Transit Board has directed staff to pursue this option because it has the potential to significantly lower the capital costs of the Sounder commuter rail program. Amtrak's King Street Yard project schedule can accommodate Sound Transit's planned opening day in December 1999 and by mid -2001, Sounder service on the full 81 -mile system to Lakewood. It is Sound Transit's current expectation that coach and locomotive maintenance will be performed under contract at the refurbished Amtrak maintenance facility. As the remaining segments are brought into service, storage and inspection layover yards will be added at each of the two terminus stations (Lakewood and Everett). Sound Transit is procuring bi-level commuter cars and conventional passenger locomotives for this service. The bi-level cars will have approximately 150 seats per car, plus for restrooms and bicycle and wheelchair tie -down areas. All trains will operate in a push-pull manner on both the Everett and Lakewood lines, through the use of cab -control cars at the train end opposite the locomotive. Sounder service will require small overnight layover yards at the Lakewood and Everett stations. The functions to be performed at the layover facilities and at the Amtrak yard include: Layover functions: • Interior cleaning • Preparation for morning rush (e.g., electrical checks, inspection) • Hotel power • Very minor maintenance (e.g., light bulbs, brake shoes) • Personnel needs (e.g., lockers, showers, parking, operating crew on -duty room, including computers, telephones, and fax machines for communication with dispatchers). Description of the Proposal Page 2-13 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Shop functions: • Heavy interior cleaning • Inspection • Exterior washing • Wheel truing • Sanding • Fueling • Toilet filling/dumping • Parts inventory • Maintenance (e.g., electrical, HVAC, glazing, lubrication) • Supervision/administration • Personnel needs (e.g., lockers, showers, parking, break room, including computers, telephones, and fax machines for communication with dispatchers). There will normally be five trains idle in Seattle during the midday. At night, five trains will be stored at the south terminus in Lakewood, and three trains will be stored at the north terminus in Everett. No trains will normally be stored overnight in Seattle Sound Transit also plans certain trackage improvements in the vicinity of the rebuilt Amtrak passenger yard. These may be summarized in three categories: • Relocate BNSF mainlines to east of yard • Add running tracks between yard and King St. Station • Power all non -yard switches, connecting to BNSF Centralized Traffic Control (CTC). Relocation of the BNSF mainlines to the east side of the yard will situate the yard on the same side of the mainline as King St. Station. This move will significantly reduce capacity problems related to crossing the BNSF mainlines in the movement of trains between the yard and the station. Adding off -main -line running tracks between the yard and the station will give deadhead trains a constantly clear path to and from the station, reducing traffic impacts on Royal Brougham. Present requirements'for stopping and backing up empty trains, and for blocking the crossing while waiting to clear switches, will be eliminated. Furthermore, replacement of the five mph switches with 20 mph switches will greatly reduce the time any train spends crossing Royal Brougham. Most importantly, connecting the yard access tracks and the station platform tracks to CTC will significantly reduce delays to trains and to automobile traffic on Royal Brougham. Page 2-14 June 1998 Description of the Proposal Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 2.4.2 Fleet Size The procurement schedule for Sounder vehicles calls for: • Base order of 6 locomotives delivered by Sept 1999 through Jan. 2000 • Options for 5 additional locomotives delivered by Jan. 2001 • 38 bi-level cars delivered Oct. 1989 through April 2000 • Options for 16 additional bi-level cars delivered by Jan. 2001 • Options for 4 additional bi-level cars delivered by Mar. 2001 The options include some flexibility for adding to the first order enough cars to cover expected ridership growth through 2010. Amtrak has indicated their ability to meet Sound Transit fleet maintenance requirements through this period. 2.4.3 Vehicles Diesel locomotives would be used in operation of the Tacoma -to -Seattle commuter rail service. Trains of diesel locomotive -hauled coaches capable of push-pull operations are considered the most cost-effective approach for a start-up operation. While electrification has some environmental advantages and self-propelled coaches are used on a number of other systems, the ready availability, lower cost and greater flexibility of the diesel locomotive has clear advantages for the system as presently contemplated. The passenger cars for the Tacoma -to -Seattle commuter rail service would be of the bi-level type, designed and manufactured to provide seating for about 150 passengers. 2.4.4 Feeder Bus System and Sound Transit Regional Express Bus Service Improvements The feeder bus plan would consist of a network of bus routes serving the commuter rail stations, based on modifications and additions to service provided by King County Metro and Pierce Transit. Local -express bus routes that duplicate service provided by the commuter rail line would be truncated at stations and converted to feeder routes. These truncated routes would operate to collect passengers in local service and take them to the nearest rail stations, where passengers would transfer to commuter rail. All stations would be served by one or more local -feeder routes. More detail is provided in Section 3.3, Transportation. Description of the Proposal Page 2-15 June 1998 Cross Section Thru Stations LITN SOUNDTRANSIT Future Potential Pedestrian Connection to International District Station King Street Station Layout Figure 2.2 NOTE: PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO CENTER PLATFORM FROM ALBRO PLACE OVERPASS VIA STAIRS/RAMPS/ELEVATOR. 0 z - I 200 SCALE "=200' GEORGETOWN STATION (PROVISIONAL) FIGURE 2.3 SOUNDTRANSIT ADOLPSON 0901/ ASSOCIATES, INC Carter.Burgess r 4^ 1 POTENTI EXPAND TO 1400' 0 z I 200 SCALE : 1"=200' LONGACRES STATION FIGURE 2.4 SOUNDTRmSIT 4.9"le ADOLPSON ASSOCIATES„ INC IM Carter •Burgess Ac RE PARKING., .w.t_v_-4.w_w_w:w.w:w_w:w:w:w:w:w:•:w:•:�.-•:•:♦-r:wrw-w-8-w:w-w-w:w-w-w-w'w-w �w�w�w�w��'wwwwJiQ/rwwwww�w�ww�ir�1��►�I���I�I�Vi1:1��..1:��1�1:1:1:1:1:0:.1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:�:1:1:�Y:�:1:1:�:�:1: 2.0 RES PARIW ALFA.,. RAILR i AT GRADE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ON EXISTING SIDEWALK POTENTIAL EXPANSION I 0 200 SCALE : 1"=200' DOWNTOWN KENT (NORTH) STATION (ALTERNATIVE) FIGURE .: 2.5 diSIOUNDTRANSIT tatibADOLPSON ASSOC IATI S, INC Wes Carter= Burgess AT GRADE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ON EXISTING SIDEWALK -7111,41,1 TV174^i4 »r+test. i Y` - s � —JeMe "• � 4 � C t i;4 � S 6: ®.O.O.O7�7O747A•a ivail�vi�iPafif t @ .9 Avi��O�V�O�$ 0 4 6 Zd."2•� .4` .A �i iia t►.6 o 6 . - - -. ► i 0 BUS -BAYS AT GRADE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ON EXISTING SIDEWALK �— z 200 SCALE ,F =200' DOWNTOWN KENT (SOUTH) STATION (ALTERNATIVE) FIGURE 2.6 111SIOUNDTRANSIT ADOLFSON ASSOCIATES, INC. �-�� Carter =Burgess 441 ISS PARKING. n rn 0 200 SCALE : I"=200' AUBURN STATION FIGURE 2.7 IrSOUNDTRANSIT ,ssoa„,D itat aig carte' • Bibi a, Oa . • •••••• ""'"" = =„.• =-Le 2.28( tti—IAC. PARKING WITH --$6BUS BAY TERMINAL - Det5Ei-pirAN. AT RA , C kSkIN a; 'T EXISTIN3 SIDEWALK A • 6 .t J tc• " - -v. A -4e ••• .1° 0 200 SCALE : 181=200' SUMNER STATION FIGURE 2.8 SOUNDTRANSIT ADOLPSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CarternBurgess AT -GRA PEDES CROSS ON EXI SIDEW .4 ►"� 1 A:P !_G.4..:O.♦ (1.0.�A.O�� O • ♦ O �r� V4''' �� O ^.'� .. iY_O O O 0,1 ! �► 0.6 O O V_O_O.V_V�V V wv �. ��.Vr rvrv.�����"i�.►"w i�A i A 1`�`4�0`O�O'�.�. �:�. . 0 200 SCALE : 1"=200' PUYALLUP STATION FIGURE • 2.9 SO&JNDTRANSIT ASSOCIATES, INC Carterellorgess *roueK. i�r„M!:sMlll,Y+`M, 11 *wow a '*""""" *-"r __ ,r M«.,.+►� MIiMMFI MC cY '*`..��... a.�.'.�•. +l y.rNn ArIM 3�irlA+ik 411"r"*r. .rrrr wMr C74 d e4r4iible'S'rA"rai.ila74l4lZlaW! !AIVI' O O 111KP e O 0_N,l4_b7C-l► 6 e. .4 A ,a. a Il ... - +� �.s ,,•- �". EXISTING TACOMA EASTERN RAILROAD TRACKS Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3.1 LAND USE 3.1.1 Methodology and Assumptions A variety of sources were used to compile the following land use information and assess potential impacts. Current land use was verified through site visits. Comprehensive land use and subarea plans were reviewed where applicable, and maps of existing and proposed land uses, as well as zoning, were referenced. Local jurisdiction planning staff were contacted to discuss future development in station areas. All the jurisdictions through which the commuter rail passes have completed comprehensive plans in response to the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA); some of these jurisdictions have also completed or are in the process of completing downtown or subarea plans for areas in which proposed stations are located. Adopted comprehensive plans, subarea plans, and development regulations are discussed under Existing Conditions. Land Use Plans and Policies sections examine potential future land use conditions that are likely to develop around station locations given existing zoning and land use policies. Potential impacts and mitigation associated with the proposed project are also discussed. Refer to Section 3.2 for a discussion of potential acquisitions and displacements associated with station siting and construction. 3.1.2 Overview of Impacts on Land Use Overall, no significant adverse long-term land use impacts are expected as a result of the proposal. Commuter rail is explicitly consistent with existing land use designations and adopted comprehensive plan policies in most jurisdictions, and indirectly supported by other plans and policies calling for increased emphasis on public transportation as well as greater density in the vicinity of station sites (Table 3.1.1). Long-term land use impacts would primarily occur around new station locations where residential development consistent with local zoning could occur over time, and where automobile and pedestrian traffic could attract commuter -oriented businesses. Station locations that currently are not centers of commercial activity could be affected more than existing urban centers because of the potential for development of vacant land near stations. Office and other job-related land uses are also likely to increase around station sites as developers realize the potential for commercial development at these sites. Research on the land use effects of rail transit in the United States and Canada indicates that while rail transit can influence urban development, other factors such as favorable zoning, the availability of land, general economic conditions, and an area's market attractiveness exert an influence on development in the vicinity of rail transit sites (Huang 1996). As a result, long-term impacts of commuter rail are likely to vary from one station site to another. Land use impacts may also occur along the rail corridor as a result of increased train operations. Land uses which might be most sensitive to increased train operations are residential, recreational/park areas and community use facilities such as schools, community centers, libraries, cemeteries and historic sites. As noted in segment -by - Land Use June 1998 Page 3.1-1 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Table 3.1.1 Consistency of Station Sites with Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Station Jurisdiction Comprehensive Plan Zoning King Street' •, ';. - ; " ' • .. '-'.',' :''' '''-'.''-,- ,•,- -7' ..:!,-,:-.•:' :•-• i'..*:- : , - 7 .:::i4i4'°: • , .:. t,',.:41,-.. ':.' ,.,-..;;;%;•,":.`: .°;: .:t.'15 . -'".":. , .• !i: ',.',.,'''''.:' '''' ,:::;' Seattle . ', ''. : • ' '. ---,'.-:„:: .: •-•'•,; - :' ....' .., ':-...-• ' '''' 1 . -,...,.7 . ''-). Commuter rail consistent with .Comprehensive Plan: Design/operate -" - facilities and serviaslcir easy - --.:::•-•:: intginqdal'Iranafeiti,-N64Pee.ifie ''',-?1' ;.stigiitiitaideiitI6d.-I--,:•';'"..„ Pioneer Square Mixed. Proposal is • for use olexisting.faCility.:'. `. . .• f'.-.. „.. -:` -1:-:7.-".., ,.-. - ::, ''• - :' ''..:.:•:,...4i•-.,•,:,', ,..:•-..1.:,... ..,.. Georgetown ,- en): ccessv .aa ".'0,-;::...j,fi-..ii,1-,'• .? , : ,,,.. .., 1...„4.'"S";::''''''''•.:2,1"7:::',,.' Longacres Seattle irTri . --• , ii,t., ,„,.„ 2..4t4 Tukwila Commuter rail consistent with Comprehensive Plan. Design/operate facilities and services for easy intermodal transfers. No specific station sites identified. .mmuter coni n Comprehensive -Pian. ;.. siting '6IStritiOtijn"Soiiikoenter:Mall''..f°•,.'". ateEi:‘,..:1-'7°;:,--:-.1•:. ..,3,;,..-'::-..-°'s:::- ...', - --:-..... Commuter rail consistent with Comprehensive Plan. Encourages siting of station in Southcenter Mall area. Commercial. Station permitted use. :•-•••*:..r•-....: ; I ea 0 '4strIE, 15•.4''ffi10 „permitted use. Station iinclaSsi, •;i4se;'-'. ;-.,•;--..-.,•,--;;,..,-,5:•-r-,.17.;.::::":.- ..•,..--,...i,.....,,,,,,,,, Tukwila Urban eenter. Parking lot permitted use. Station conditional use. 7D-FivntiWEiff77;wn ;;i f,..,-...,:;': (North) ','1%, ;', 1 • • .'''', '1,:t :7 77,, -*.Z..?..'; -.1 ' - :-'17.;• '. -. ,..-,: . ..,.-,I" . "..W.-' .' •-•,,,,,,, ‘,,,..,.." " Sfil *atm r. : tirs own swn-area -!:.,....,•. -consistent w . ompre ensive Plan. ....•:,, h.', i -t.,:- . ',:lti.: •', 1 • . 0 owntown • • Ir:, 1 actu—nnr.7 yParkmgai.Downtown Commercial; :zone:Conditional:use. ,,, : .;.,..-,-,,,,,,-,--%,--., • , Downtown Kent (South) Kent Commuter rail in downtown area consistent with Comprehensive Plan. Downtown Strategic Action Plan, adopted March 1998, recommends south site "with parking structure." Downtown Commercial Enterprise. Conditional use. own .wn gplth u gulp- 2:,- <4" ',:;•,:' 1.mmu er : n'own ! 7AT:are.a consistent mi ,Comprehensive Plan 4permitted ' -cittiiiii diletitiO4iifCommuter : ' f c41.:„C0-':#4.,.' -.04,.,3 '"t.' ., ....;-.. ..01.4t.wiLuauall'.atuu -1,-..-...:, -.4, a ea .„iL:.,.M,,„" e.'r,CI.,.: ._.a: .„il "Sta W;classifie 'a•-.• s- A- ., t-VGtriCerim: enffacilitiesv. cqiiclitiqn ., . 0i, .• .s,-; .,,,71',..; ,:,..-,.,:3,.;N ';.- f,,,,N,:-.4-rk.r...A i •:..use..„,; .1..71!:.-ar„, ;-_, ,.., . _ •:.-‘,;....!.. ,..., Downtown Sumner own;91m1 ..- llii ' 7 ; Puyallup , ., : =, - -, .. .. ,--,-., .1;.;,,. : . -,:., ... -, . • , - • „:..,,,,-,,-. • . Tacoma Sumner 7,, • -,. .1,, ,,, .station . • t' ' --:' - Tacoma Downtown area station identified as a "skip stop” in Comprehensive Plan. Location identified in Sumner Commuter Rail Station Planning Study. -1c4intriu. rai .c.bnsislenttNyti• mprehensiVe'.Plan':.•NO specific s#6:10entificitz:Pci,ible../' . , downtown,'s'' acknowledgedit•-.a41:.:. . 1S Equitable consideration of all modes of travel in planning, programming, and implementation. Commuter rail consistent with Tacoma Dome Area Plan. Preferred route on Chehalis - Western Line. Commercial Business District. Conditional use. - ommerc : . : usmess 0 Stnctf ._ . ;,-.(tAD).andiiglittanUfacturing-H ,:tFOning:t;coniditionettuseja:c:BP;:,!4. -•-' p. er-mitte' d useim : Light \ifitiaiiiii_NZ. ,-' Light Industrial. Use of existing facility. Page 3.1-2 June 1998 Land Use Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment segment discussions below, the land uses and comprehensive planning designations of land along the rail corridor are generally industrial or manufacturing; where buffers between the BNSF right-of-way and sensitive land uses are not present, the location is discussed. Construction of stations and supporting infrastructure would have short-term impacts, including minor disruption of local businesses and residential areas due to station construction activity and the associated increase in dust, construction equipment noise, and traffic congestion from the movement of construction vehicles. Land use impacts could be controlled and mitigated by local jurisdictions through their comprehensive planning and development regulation processes. In addition to the project's relationship to comprehensive plans and zoning, a review of local shoreline master programs was conducted. Shorelines are defined as the area extending 200 feet horizontally from the ordinary high water mark of a designated shoreline, as well as associated wetlands. If final project design includes development in the shoreline environment, a shoreline substantial development permit may be required from the local agency with jurisdiction. Two project areas were identified as potentially affected by shoreline regulations. Depending on final station site design, development at the SW 43rd Station alternative site could occur in the shoreline environment of Springbrook Creek. Shorelines of Springbrook Creek in the project area are regulated by the individual shoreline master programs of the cities of Renton and Kent. Development of the proposed new third track between Puyallup and Tacoma could also affect designated shorelines along the Puyallup River. These shorelines are regulated under the Pierce County Shoreline Master Program. Development of new third track would be a permitted shoreline use in this location, according to Pierce County Shoreline regulations. 3.1.3 Seattle to Tukwila 3.1.3.1 Existing Conditions The Seattle -Tukwila segment extends from the King Street Station in downtown Seattle to the Boeing Access Road in Tukwila, and includes two potential stations in Seattle and one in Tukwila. Most land uses adjacent to the BNSF line are industrial. The Kingdome, Pioneer Square District, International District, and surrounding commercial land uses are located at the northern end of the corridor. Industrial, commercial and some office uses predominate between the Kingdome and the proposed site of the Georgetown station. Georgetown contains both commercial and residential uses. South of Georgetown are Boeing Field, I-5, some light industrial, and other airport -related land uses. The primary residential uses are located across I-5 in the Beacon Hill area, to the east of the BNSF line. Light industrial and warehouse are the predominant land uses in the vicinity of the Boeing Access Road. 3.1.3.2 Land Use Plans and Policies The City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan designates downtown Seattle, including the area around the King Street Station, as an Urban Center, and the remainder of the Land Use June 1998 Page 3.1-3 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment corridor within Seattle, with the exception of a small area near Georgetown, as a Manufacturing Center (Figure 3.1.1). The city has established the Urban Center designation to promote concentrated employment and housing with access to a regional HCT system. Manufacturing centers are intended for land use density and capacity to be sufficient to support manufacturing and industrial uses. The Manufacturing Center designation near Georgetown may increase the density and intensity of manufacturing and industrial uses along the corridor. The rail alignment from King Street Station south through Seattle is adjacent to properties zoned industrial from the Kingdome to the Boeing Access Road station site, with the exception of two to three blocks of Neighborhood Commercial zoning in Georgetown. Nearby commercial and residential zones are isolated from the BNSF line by an industrial buffer zone. The eastern side of I-5 is zoned single- and multi -family residential. The Duwamish Greenbelt Overlay along the western border of these residential areas buffers them from I-5 and industrial zones. At Seattle's southern border the BNSF line passes into Tukwila; unincorporated King County is located just east of the corridor. Tukwila has designated land adjacent to the BNSF line as Light and Heavy Industrial, Low Density Residential, and Parks and Open Space (Figure 3.1.2), with corresponding zoning. King County has designated land east of the corridor as an urban growth area that includes single and multi -family residential zoning and a heavy manufacturing area. A range of residential housing types is encouraged in this area, as is employment growth. King Street Station King Street Station is located at the junction of the Pioneer Square Preservation District and International Special Review District neighborhoods, as designated by the city. In the vicinity of the station, land uses include a variety of offices, retail businesses, restaurants, multi -family residential uses, and the Kingdome. This location is on the southern edge of the urban center designated Seattle Central Business District (Figure 3.1.1). Land nearest the station includes railroad facilities and rights-of-way, parking lots, and street rights-of-way. The existing zoning is a mixed use designation which allows a wide variety of commercial and residential uses of varying densities, subject to special design review consistent with the regulations of the Pioneer Square Preservation District. A rail passenger terminal is consistent with the existing and historic use of the site, and would be permitted subject to the Pioneer Square Preservation Board's approval of construction plans. Improvements have been approved by the City of Seattle for redevelopment of the site as an intermodal station serving rail as well as city bus passengers. The institution of commuter rail passenger service is consistent with the alternative adopted by the City of Seattle and further described in the King Street Intermodal Station Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Assessment, May 1995. In addition to the already -approved redevelopment of the King Street Station itself, there are a number of ongoing and proposed projects in and around the King Street Station area that will result in substantial changes to land use patterns in the area. Page 3.1-4 June 1998 Land Use 143052.A1.01/ Revisions 3-12-98 / SeattleCompPlan/ 12-1-97/ GM.SEA/ jg BNSF Mainline Potential Station Sites Urban Center Manufacturing/Industrial Center Source. City of Seattle Planning Department. Juy 19,1994. ♦ ♦ • ♦ / • ♦/ •• • • •/ r♦ ♦ / • {`/ • • /♦/ �..«./ �♦%v. souNnraaNsn City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan Designations Figure 3.1.1 March 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Current or proposed projects include the redevelopment of Union Station to the east, development of the King Street Center commercial and office development to the west, and construction of new professional football and baseball stadiums (replacing the Kingdome) to the south. Cumulatively, these projects will result in a substantial increase in density in the area. Commuter rail service would be consistent with these cumulative land use changes. Georgetown Station Land uses near the Georgetown Station include industrial, commercial and residential uses, and public facilities. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the area is manufacturing/industrial center (Figure 3.1.2). The Michigan Street on-ramp passes over the station site. To the north are industrial uses, including the Rainier Brewery. To the south is the Georgetown Professional Center. The Beacon Hill residential area is separated from potential impacts of the station by I-5, yet is close enough for station access. The Albro Street overpasses crosses over the south end of the site. Zoning in Georgetown is predominantly commercial, allowing personal and household retail sales and services, as well as passenger terminals and principal use parking. The nearby residential area is zoned single family residential, while the residential area east of I-5 is zoned single- and multi -family residential. The area along Airport Way South both to the north and south of the proposed Georgetown station is zoned for industrial uses. Under the current Comprehensive Plan designation, it is unlikely that there will be significant development over much of the area immediately surrounding the proposed station site. Much of the area has been designated as a "Neighborhood Anchor" in the Comprehensive Plan, and plan goals call for a service and transit focus for such areas, where existing conditions are intended to be maintained. Boeing Access Road Station The site is characterized by vacant land just south of Boeing Access Road between the railroad tracks on the west and I-5 on the east, and is close to large employment centers to the north and west, including Boeing, and commercial and residential areas east of I-5. Nearby land uses include warehousing and trucking, railroad, light industrial, office, commercial, and I-5, as well as office and some residential uses. Across the tracks to the west is a rail yard and a firing range. The City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan designates the site as heavy industrial (Figure 3.1.2), with heavy and light industrial zoning. The site is surrounded by heavy and light industrial zones. The station site also lies within the King County International Airport navigable airspace and is, therefore, subject to Federal Aviation Administration approval after a review of height restrictions, noise sensitivity, and electronic interference. The station site is also located in the Tukwila Manufacturing and Industrial Center (MIC), where the city will encourage existing light and heavy industrial uses to remain. The City recently completed a "Planned Action" Draft EIS for the MIC. The Planned Action EIS was developed to allow future projects in the MIC that are Land Use June 1998 Page 3.1-5 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment consistent with city plans, policies, and development regulations for the light and heavy industrial zones to be approved with minimal additional SEPA review. These development conditions are likely to favor continued presence of industrial uses. 3.1.3.3 Potential Impacts and Mitigation With the exception of development at station sites, short-term, direct land use impacts as a result of the proposed action are unlikely. Construction activities beyond station locations would be minor, primarily occurring in the railroad right-of-way and including track and crossing upgrades. The Seattle to Tukwila segment of the corridor is already highly developed, and existing land uses are currently affected by noise and other impacts associated with nearby rail service. Once commuter rail service begins, it is unlikely that the increased frequency of trains would affect these land uses significantly. Trains would operate during weekday peak commute hours. In the long term some development may occur near the railroads as Seattle and Tukwila encourage more industrial redevelopment in their manufacturing centers. Assuming adequate transit service, commuter rail would increase accessibility to these employment centers. Because of the predominance of heavier commercial and industrial land uses, retail development and increased residential densities are likely to be limited in this segment except in the immediate vicinity of the stations. King Street Station The commuter rail proposal would result in the construction of extended platforms with canopies, subject to the approval of the Pioneer Square Preservation District Board. The Board was created to advise the director of the Seattle Department of Community Development and determine the appropriate use, site development and architecture of the private and public buildings in the Pioneer Square Historic District. Pedestrians would reach street level by way of King Street Station or by means of stairs, escalators, or elevators to the planned Weller Street pedestrian bridge. The commuter rail proposal does not include modifications to either King Street or Union Station, and will use the planned Weller Street Pedestrian Bridge, or proposed future pedestrian linkages through the new Union Station development to street level. Over the long term, the proposal to add commuter rail platforms at the existing King Street Station is consistent with proposed redevelopment plans for the area and is unlikely to have significant direct impacts of its own on land use in the vicinity of the station. Provision of commuter rail is also consistent with the City of Seattle's Comprehensive Plan (Table 3.1.1). Georgetown Station Potential short-term impacts may include minor disruption to local businesses and street access due to construction activity. Neighborhood businesses near the site may experience some short-term disruption; however, no on-site parking is proposed at this station, and most construction should occur on-site and in the railroad right-of- way, largely avoiding disturbance to local business activity. Page 3.1-6 June 1998 Land Use 143052.A1.01/ Revisions 12/17/97 / TkwlaRentnKentCompPlans/ 3-12-98/ GM.SEA / jg • LAKE WASHINGTON \ \, )% Boeing ACC Ss Rd. Potential Station Sites Low Density Residential Souce: City of Tukwila, City of Renton, and City of Kent Comprehensive Plans. SOUNDTRANSIT S. 180th St. , i f \\ 11;;5e�'t;♦131,W, Inc.; May, 1994 Cities of Tukwila, Renton, and Kent Comprehensive Plan Designations Figure 3.1.2 March 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Over the long-term, the station may contribute to the revitalization of Georgetown's economy by increasing local and regional access to and from the area. Location of a proposed station at this location is consistent with the City's emphasis on development in existing urban areas. Underutilized properties could house spin-off retail and/or development and more affordable housing in this mixed use area. Boeing Access Road Station Potential short-term impacts may include minor disruptions to local businesses due to construction and traffic congestion on access roads; however, the location between I-5 and the existing railroad tracks is relatively isolated from area businesses. As a result, construction impacts to businesses should be minor. Over the long term, the station is expected to be consistent with existing and future development in the area. This commuter rail station is envisioned as a transfer point to and from Sound Transit's Link light rail line, and its final location will depend on future siting decisions for the Link light rail program. The City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan notes that commuter rail could provide travel alternatives for MIC employees and regional travelers. The train station would require an unclassified use permit according to the Tukwila Zoning Code. In general, land use impacts of the proposal in the Seattle -to -Tukwila segment of the corridor are consistent with local and regional comprehensive planning; mitigation will consist of efforts to minimize short-term disruption during construction of station platforms. 3.1.4 Tukwila to Kent 3.1.4.1 Existing Conditions This corridor segment extends from south of Boeing Access Road in Tukwila to James Street, located on the northern boundary of the downtown core of Kent. The rail line in this segment is located predominantly within the cities of Tukwila and Kent. The BNSF tracks are on the Renton/Tukwila boundary through a good portion of this segment. The segment includes one station. The preferred location is at Longacres, SW 43rd Street is an alternative location. South of Boeing Access Road the BNSF line and I-5 form a wide swath of rail yard, tracks, and highway with residential and warehousing uses on either side. The BNSF railroad tracks and I-5 run parallel to each other south to the Green River in Tukwila, where I-5 curves to the southwest and the tracks continue south, crossing under I-5 and continuing along the east side of the river. Foster Golf Course, an office park/hotel development, Fort Dent Park, and industrial uses lie adjacent to the river and the railroad tracks. The corridor then follows the eastern border of Tukwila and western border of Renton. The BNSF tracks diverge from the UP as they pass beneath I-405. Adjacent land uses include office parks and residences. The Boeing office and flight training complex at the former site of the Longacres Race Track is located east of the BNSF tracks in this section, just south of I-405. South of Land Use June 1998 Page 3.1-7 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Boeing/Longacres, industrial and commercial uses, hotels, vacant land, and some residences are the predominant land uses. For the next 4.2 miles, to the crossing of SR -167, the BNSF line is bordered by predominantly commercial, office, warehousing, and industrial uses and some vacant land. Between SR -167 and James Street the alignment crosses vacant land, then abuts single-family uses to the west, and warehousing, commercial and multi -family uses to the east. The King County Regional Justice Center is located approximately one- quarter west of the BNSF tracks, on the south side of James Street, and the west side of 4th Avenue S. in Kent. 3.1.4.2 Land Use Plans and Policies South of the Boeing Access Road the BNSF line passes through a narrow strip of land designated by the City of Tukwila as heavy industrial. South and east of I-5 the BNSF line marks the limits between Tukwila and Renton. Most of the land east of the rail line is designated industrial and office employment area in the Renton Comprehensive Plan, while land on the Tukwila side is designated as low-density residential, light industrial, and public recreation along the Green River. South of I- 405 to SW 43rd Street the line passes east of Tukwila's designated Urban Center. Between the BNSF and UPPR rail lines there is also a narrow corridor of land designated by Tukwila as commercial and low-density residential. The City of Kent has designated land uses south of SW 43rd Street as largely Industrial and Manufacturing Center. Most of the Industrial designation is situated between 72nd Avenue South and the Green River. A large area of open space is located along the Green River south of S. 212th Street, and there is a large area of land designated for agricultural uses west of the Green River (Figure 3.1.3). There is also a strip of commercially designated land located along East Valley Highway, south of S. 212th Street. Longacres Station This site is located immediately south of I-405 in the City of Tukwila, between the raised grades of the BNSF and UP railroad tracks. The City of Renton and the Boeing Longacres facility lie immediately to the east. The property is currently vacant and has been recently graded. Other land uses in the vicinity include a large parking area to the east, light industrial buildings, a recreational bike trail, and an existing office building. The site is designated as Urban Center in the City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and is also zoned Tukwila Urban Center. A station and parking would be a conditional use on this site according to the City of Tukwila Zoning Code. Much of the area surrounding the proposed station site is experiencing rapid development, and the conversion of undeveloped properties to commercial and/or office related uses is likely to continue. Page 3.1-8 June 1998 Land Use 143052.A1.01/ Revisions 3-12-98 / KentCompPlan/ 12-17.97/ GM.SEA / jg St. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 S. 22 1 S.'228th St. KENT E.:601,km: St. SOUNDTRANSIT / LEGEND 1111 1111111 r t+.1'..t.tttItt4 • "r• BNSF Mainline Potential Station Sites Agricultural Community Facility City Center Industrial Manufacturing Center Commercial Mixed Use Single Family Low Density - Multi -family Medium Density - Multi -family Mobile Home Park Office/Multi-family Open Space Source: Kent Comp Plan Land Use Map Downtown Kent (North) Station Alternative Downtown Kent (South) Station Alternative Source: BRW, Inc.; May 1994 City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Designation: Figure 3.1.: March 1991 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 3.1.4.3 Potential Impacts and Mitigation It is unlikely that there will be significant direct, short- or long-term land use impacts along this segment of the corridor as a result of the proposed action. Similar to other corridor segments, freight and passenger rail service already operates, and much of the land is zoned Industrial. The addition of nine trains during the a.m. and nine trains during the p.m. peak hour commute times would not add substantially to existing noise, traffic disruption, or other impacts associated with existing train operations. Longacres Station Short-term construction impacts are unlikely to affect any land uses adjacent to the proposed construction site, since there would likely be adequate physical distance between development of the station and parking areas and adjacent commercial uses. Long-term impacts could include spin-off retail development near the station, as well as other businesses or industries. Such development would likely result in more pedestrian -oriented development in the future than presently exists. The City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan generally supports commuter rail in the vicinity of the Tukwila Urban Center, and particularly in the vicinity of Southcenter Mall. Because of the immediate proximity of the Boeing Longacres facility and the City of Renton, Sound Transit will continue to coordinate with the City of Renton and Boeing as well as with the City of Tukwila throughout station design and development. 3.1.5 Kent to Auburn 3.1.5.1 Existing Conditions The BNSF alignment runs through Kent's city center to an unincorporated area of King County at approximately South 259th Street. Land use designations south of the city center are residential with retail/commercial along major arterials (Figure 3.1.3). Commercial, retail, and office uses dominate the city's downtown business district. The City Hall, public library, police station, small parks, a few residences, and a number of churches are also located in this area. Further south and to the east are mostly light industrial/ business park uses, with some residential uses and retail/commercial uses along South Central Avenue. To the west are vacant land and light industrial uses. Unincorporated King County in this area (South 259th Street to South 277th Street) includes single-family, light industrial, and undeveloped parcels. Agricultural land is located to the east and south of the Green River. Uses in Auburn include industrial and undeveloped land as well as a small amount of single-family residential. At 15th Street NW, land use includes a portion of the North Auburn Central Business District, light and heavy industrial, and a mix of retail and commercial uses. The downtown area, east of the BNSF line, contains commercial and single- and multi -family uses. West of the tracks are single-family residences, West Auburn High School, industrial uses, and vacant land. Land Use June 1998 Page 3.1-9 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Downtown Kent (North) Station The downtown Kent station site is located between James and Smith Streets. It includes vacant land as well as parcels occupied by a cold storage facility, a feed supply store and warehouse, and unimproved parking lots or outdoor storage areas. Adjacent land uses include a residential to the north across James Street, commercial uses to the northeast, and Borden Playfields to the west. Single-family residences are located to the north and east of the site. The Borden Chemical Company is west of the BNSF line and the proposed station, and is served by a rail lead. Proposed surface parking would be on property currently occupied by commercial, manufacturing, and light industrial uses. Downtown Kent (South) Station This site is also located in the downtown Kent mixed use/commercial area. The site is south of the existing vacant Kent Depot building as well as several commercial, light manufacturing, and industrial businesses. Surface parking areas proposed for the station are currently occupied by single-family residential as well as commercial and light industrial uses. Adjacent land uses include a city park to the north, commercial businesses to the east, and a variety of small downtown businesses and residences to the west. 3.1.5.2 Land Use Plans and Policies King County's Comprehensive Plan designates the unincorporated King County portion of the BNSF line as an Agricultural Production District. The proposal is consistent with the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, City of Kent Draft Downtown Action Plan, City of Auburn's Comprehensive Plan, and the Downtown Auburn Design Master Plan. These plans comply with GMA policies and explicitly recognize Sound Transit plans, or they provide policies supporting regional public transportation and transit -supportive development. Kent Downtown (North and South) Stations Both sites are located in Kent's downtown area and are designated as City Center in the Kent Comprehensive Plan. The City Center designation allows high-density, mixed-use development. Retail, office, multi -family residential, and public facility land uses are permitted outright under this designation (Figure 3.1.3). Parcels that are currently vacant or occupied by low-density warehouse or light industrial uses are encouraged by this City Center designation to be redeveloped to higher -intensity uses. The Downtown Strategic Action Plan, recently adopted (March 1998), also addresses land use in the vicinity of both station sites. The Plan's goals are to encourage development of an urban center and to implement the Kent Comprehensive Plan. The development of a commuter rail station "with structured parking" at the south site, between Gowe and Willis Streets, is recommended in the adopted plan. Page 3.1-10 June 1998 Land Use Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 3.1.5.3 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Similar to other segments, impacts to land uses along the BNSF line between stations are not expected to be significant. This corridor is already affected by existing freight and passenger train operations, and commuter rail service is not expected to add significantly to any conditions, such as noise, that could result in changes in land use. Kent Downtown (North and South) Station Sites Short-term land use impacts around both station sites are expected to include construction impacts such as noise, dust, and disruption of traffic and/or access to businesses. Because of the high number of smaller, active uses, short-term impacts from the south site alternative (without a parking garage) are expected to be greater compared to those at the north station site. A train station and associated parking would be considered a conditional use by the city at either station site. Long-term impacts would be associated with the potential for a station to encourage higher -density housing and commercial/retail uses nearby. Such development would be consistent with Kent comprehensive plan policies and zoning, and is supported in the city's recently adopted Downtown Strategic Action Plan. 3.1.6 Auburn to Sumner 3.1.6.1 Existing Conditions This segment begins at "C" Street NW and Main Street in Auburn and continues south along SR -167 through the cities of Algona and Pacific, and unincorporated Pierce County to the proposed downtown Sumner station. The corridor begins adjacent to the Auburn downtown core, passes south and east of the Auburn SuperMall and crosses through an agricultural valley with occasional commercial and residential areas to Sumner. Two stations (Auburn and Sumner) are discussed in this segment. Just south of SR -18, land use is commercial to the west. A park is located on the north side of 15th Street SW. Land uses farther south include light and heavy industry. Light manufacturing, commercial buildings and trailer parks are east of "A" Street SE. From the northern limit of the Town of Pacific to the White River are single-family residential uses except for commercial uses near the White River bridge. From the White River to the Sumner city limit, land use to the west is agricultural residential. To the east, land uses are agricultural and light industrial, including a Puget Power utility station. In Sumner, land use to the east is single-family residential, with agricultural uses changing to light and heavy industrial to the west near the city center. Single- and multi -family uses are located adjacent to the Central Business District and on both sides of the tracks near the Puyallup River. Land Use June 1998 Page 3.1-11 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Downtown Auburn Station Land use surrounding the proposed Auburn station site is currently a mix of vacant property, warehouse, commercial, and residential uses. A strip of vacant land immediately east of the railroad tracks is sometimes used as staging and storage for rail -related construction; properties further east include small offices, parking, and commercial businesses. Immediately west of the railroad tracks is an existing warehouse, while areas further west are dominated by single-family residences. The station site is located just to the south and west of the city's downtown core. The site is located within the Auburn city center, within a pedestrian oriented environment and within walking distance to most downtown retail and commercial centers as well as City Hall, West Auburn High School, and Auburn General Hospital. Nearby land uses are light industrial, residential, civic center, and retail/commercial. Sumner Station Existing land use in the vicinity of the Sumner station consists of a mix of single family residential, commercial, public use, and vacant land. Land immediately to the east and west of the railroad tracks, outside of the railroad right of way, is currently vacant. Further to the east of the railroad tracks lies an area of single-family residences, as well as an area currently used by the city for storage. A large auto dealership and additional single family residences are located across Traffic Avenue to the north. There is also a small city park adjacent to and immediately west of the railroad tracks. 3.1.6.2 Land Use Plans and Policies According to the Auburn Comprehensive Plan, the downtown Auburn area will remain the focal point for business, government, and cultural activities in the city. Predominant Auburn Comprehensive Plan land use designations throughout central Auburn include downtown, heavy commercial, light industrial, office, residential, and public (Figure 3.1.4). Pierce County has included the segment north of Sumner within the county's -Urban Growth Area, with increased commercial, industrial and residential density north of Sumner. Part of this corridor will be an employment center for low-density industrial, manufacturing, and warehousing with supporting commercial development, with the remainder being moderate density single-family. Sumner's plans for the corridor include increased commercial and industrial uses and a conversion of single- to multi -family residential near the city center. Some agricultural areas may also convert to residential. Auburn Station The Auburn Comprehensive Plan designates the station area for a mix of light and heavy commercial, light and heavy industrial, public, high density residential, and downtown, with corresponding zoning (Figure 3.1.4). The Downtown Auburn Design Master Plan calls for a mixed-use environment to complement a potential Page 3.1-12 June 1998 Land Use 143052.A1.02/ Revisions 12/17/97 / AubumCompPlan/ 12-17.97/ GM.SEA / jg >\\\\\\1,_. >\\\\\\ >,•,•,•,••••••••••• /I/f/ > \ •\ •\ •N. •\ . Auburn •>• ,`,`,`,`,`,` Municipal Yf`• •/`,`•,`•,`•,`i Airport • A• • • • • • • 15thfSt.',�ytd/ /,. II 1 \ \ \ .. 1,`,; `,`,`, .• \\.\ , \\\. \\\ \ 15th St. NL, North Business District,, 9 • th St. N 11 LEGEND Cross BNSF Mainline Potential Station Sites High Density Residential Office/Residential General Commercial Dowtown Planning Area Planned Business Parks Light Industrial Heavy Industrial Public & Quasi -Public Open Space SourceCity of Auburn, Dec. 1995 \\ c • • pubur2 . 61ackDia0 , 4th St. S 15th St. SW Downtown Auburn a Station AUBURN • 1st Ave. S Source: BRW, It ; May 1994 SOUNDTRANSIT \\\\ ` /`/` // ////////// /////////// \ \\\\\\\\\\ \ \\\\\\\\\\ / /////,///// \ \\\\\\\\\\\ • //////////, \ \\\\\\\\\\\ //////////// \ \\\\\\\\\\\ \ • \\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\\\\\\\\\\ • \\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\ 17th St. SE 21st St. SE 29th St. SE 37th St. SE City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan Designations Figure 3.1.4 March 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment transit station. The site is zoned heavy commercial, which does not explicitly allow a commuter rail station, but does allow bus passenger terminals. Auburn completed a station siting study that selected the proposed site for the station location. The City is in the process of updating its Downtown Plan, which will address the proposed commuter rail station and surrounding area in more detail. Sumner Station The proposed station is located just south and west of the downtown Sumner area. Sumner Comprehensive Plan designations include low-density residential, commercial, and central business district (Figure 3.1.5). Plan policies call for establishment of the downtown area as an intra -community transit hub. Future land use in this area is likely to consist of pedestrian -oriented commercial uses as well as infilling residential development, including multi -family units above ground floor commercial uses. The northern portion of the site is zoned Central Business District with small retail and office businesses, while the southern portion is zoned residential. A commuter rail station would be permitted through a conditional use permit. Single-family zones are to the south and east. West of the site are mainly commercial uses, with single-family residences to the south. There are no significant land use changes anticipated around this site. In 1994, the City of Sumner completed a Commuter Rail Planning Study to evaluate the proposed station site to develop conceptual station designs, determine opportunities and constraints for both the BNSF and UP alignments, assure compatibility with the city's Comprehensive Plan, seek community involvement, and identify any fatal project flaws. The study found that the site is consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan. The study also concluded that the site provided the opportunity to create a mixed use activity center supporting downtown employment and businesses. 3.1.6.3 Potential Impacts and Mitigation It is unlikely that significant impacts will result from commuter rail activity along this segment of the rail corridor. Like the remainder of the Seattle to Tacoma corridor, this segment already experiences passenger and freight train traffic, and it is unlikely that the addition of nine trains in the a.m. and nine trains during the p.m. peak hour would further disrupt existing land uses. Downtown Auburn Station Short-term impacts could include temporary relocation of parking or disruption of commercial activity on the east side of the railroad tracks. Long-term impacts and secondary development may increase mixed-use development within the downtown, including high-density residential, retail/commercial, office, entertainment and cultural events. Consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan policies and area zoning for central business district development, future development in the vicinity of Land Use June 1998 Page 3.1-13 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment the proposed station site is likely to be characterized by higher density, more pedestrian oriented development than presently exists. Future development, including design of the rail transit station, will be required to be consistent with the City's Downtown Plan. The commuter rail station would support the development of the downtown into a viable urban center by providing a transportation hub in close proximity to existing and planned downtown commercial uses. Sumner Station Construction impacts may include minor traffic congestion that would be disruptive to nearby land uses. The area adjacent to the south end of the proposed platform may be affected more than others due to its predominantly residential character and proximity to the station site. Mitigation may include locating staging areas away from sensitive land uses, or avoiding construction during times of greatest potential disturbance. Over the long term, the project is likely to encourage infill in the area and support the continued transformation of Stunner's downtown area into a more pedestrian -oriented, mixed use neighborhood, consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan. 3.1.7 Sumner to Puyallup 3.1.7.1 Existing Conditions The Sumner to Puyallup segment extends from the proposed station south of Maple Street and east of Traffic Avenue in downtown Sumner through Puyallup to the proposed Puyallup Station site just northwest of the intersection of Meridian and Main Streets in the city's downtown core. From the proposed Sumner station site south and west toward Puyallup, the BNSF line is bordered by general commercial and low density residential uses. West of the Puyallup River crossing, the route enters the City of Puyallup, and existing land use is mostly agricultural, with a large apartment development and a restaurant to the northwest. Land use becomes light manufacturing/commercial and then single- and multi -family near the city center. In Puyallup's downtown, land uses are more pedestrian -oriented commercial. One commuter rail station (Puyallup) is discussed within this segment. Downtown Puyallup Station This site is located just to the west of Meridian Avenue and north of Main Street in Puyallup's downtown core area. To the north of the railroad tracks an existing parking lot serves a variety of local businesses in the area. The properties immediately south of the railroad tracks contain agriculture -related packing, supply, and warehouse facilities and unimproved parking for commercial vehicles. Commercial business abut the site to the north across Stewart Avenue, to the west along Meridian Street, and to the south along Main Street. 3.1.7.2 Land Use Plans and Policies The small area of southwest Sumner through which this segment of the BNSF line passes contains a mix of residential and commercial uses (Figure 3.1.6). Farther west along the BNSF line, Puyallup has designated the area south of Traffic Road as Page 3.1-14 June 1998 Land Use 143052.A1.01/ SumnerCompPlan/ 3-12.98/ GM.SEA 48th St. E. .\\\\\\,\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ J f / ! J / r /////1/ /!r!lf.J,./.r!/ 1 , !r//, • rr,//r// \,\\\\„ . \ \ , \ , \ \ \ \ „ \ \ \ l /!////,////!/ f' ,r//// ,////fir \ \ /%• •‘ \ \ ♦ \ \ , \ ,-fit 1- / '\1%/%/%'\ '♦/%/\'\'\'%' \`\'\'\'. \�1 / /////a7//////. t/f// / ////ir,,/,// , \////_ ei / //�`p' .// „/\r,��. ./,/,/,/\/,/\/\\ \ 1 / • r//.•/,///.,r/ 1.1, ▪ , r , / ! r / , r - • ..,,,;•..,,•;% , %.,%, /`/`/`i ,`/`/`' ......-/-7—/ /`/`/`/� \ ,\\\\\\,\\\\\ 1 ' .../.•/•/•'•//•/•'.•'•',./.•"....',./s.'4 \/ \r \/ ,/ \ '' Y \ \ , \ a , , , \ , , , \ \ , \\ / , , , �,., / , .., e/ / / / / / \\ \\\\ '/ ♦\\\\,\ I ▪ ```' , 40P` ` /'• `` ` '// • 0 1 11 11 11 11 1 Valley Ave E LEGEND ESS BNSF Mainline Potential Station Sites Low Density Residential 1 Low Density Residential 2 Medium Density Residential Central Business District General Commercial • Light Industrial Heavy Industrial Public and Private Facilities and Utilities Source: City of Sumner, March 16,1994 N uJ SUMNEF Main St. 1411 Main Ave. E Source: BRW, Inc.; May 1994 1 1 I I • \s SOUNDTRANSIi City of Sumner Comprehensive Plan Designations Figure 3.1.5 March 1998 143052.A1.01/ PuyallupCompPlan/ 3-12-98/ GM.SEA LEGEND ■■ \\ BNSF Mainline Potential Station Sites Agricultural Overlay Low Density Residential Urban Density Residential High Urban Density Residential Manufacturing Production Fairgrounds Open Space, Greenbelts & Buffers Source: City of Puyallup, 1983 SUMNER • Source: BRW, Inc.; May 1994 Downtown Puyallup (W. Stewart, 2nd - 4th St. NW) Station PUYALLUP City of Puyallup Comprehensive Plan Designations Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment business and research park with an agriculture overlay. Areas further to the west, toward downtown Puyallup, have been designated for light manufacturing and warehouse uses with an agriculture overlay, encouraging continued farming in the short term but indicating that these lands are likely to be converted from their current agricultural use in the future (Figure 3.1.6).' Puyallup Station The Puyallup Comprehensive Plan's pedestrian -oriented commercial designation (Figure 3.1.6) recognizes the future role of the downtown as a "principal community shopping area" and as a "focal point of the community." While not specifically identified in the Comprehensive Plan, a commuter rail station is likely to be recognized as an important component of the development of this downtown area by providing easy access to downtown businesses and services. The city's ongoing downtown improvement project, which includes landscaping as well as traffic intersection and sidewalk improvements, is intended to support existing commercial uses while further encouraging pedestrian -oriented uses downtown. The site is zoned as commercial business district, and "community facility" uses, such as the proposed station, are considered a permitted use in the city's central business district according to the city's municipal code. The proposed station location was endorsed during the City's station siting study effort. 3.1.7.3 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Significant impacts resulting from commuter rail activity along this segment of the rail corridor are not likely. Like the remainder of the Seattle to Tacoma corridor, much of the corridor already experiences freight and passenger train traffic, and it is unlikely that the addition of commuter rail service would further disrupt land uses along the corridor. The proposed project is consistent with both Sumner and Puyallup planning efforts and would not conflict with existing or planned land use. Puyallup Station Construction would temporarily disrupt traffic, particularly along Stewart Avenue. In the long-term, downtown business patronage could increase and existing land uses may become more dense over time, consistent with comprehensive plan designations and zoning. 3.1.8 Puyallup to Tacoma 3.1.8.1 Existing Conditions The Puyallup to Tacoma segment extends from the downtown core of Puyallup to immediately west of the existing Amtrak station in Tacoma. Land uses in the Puyallup city limits include a small area of pedestrian -oriented commercial activity and light manufacturing and warehousing. Much of the western portion of the city consists of single-family residential land. From the Puyallup city limits to the area just east of the Tacoma city limits, land uses include agricultural and low-density Land Use June 1998 Page 3.1-15 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment residential. Uses become industrial/light manufacturing, auto -oriented commercial and warehouse, and retail businesses within the Tacoma city limits. A rail yard and industrial uses are located to the north of the corridor. This segment includes one station in Tacoma. Tacoma (Interim) Station This site is immediately west of the Amtrak rail station in Tacoma, which includes a station building, platform, parking, and drop-off facilities. The site is located on the north side of Puyallup Avenue and is surrounded by a variety of light industrial, service, and manufacturing activities. The site is also adjacent to the Tacoma Dome transit facility. This structure recently opened as a transit hub for bus service as well as a four-story parking structure, and bus bays along Puyallup Avenue. 3.1.8.2 Land Use Plans and Policies In the city's Comprehensive Plan, Puyallup has proposed to increase multifamily residential density around the downtown core area to accompany pedestrian -oriented commercial business. The city is also completing improvements to the downtown core as part of a multi-year project that includes modifications to sidewalks, traffic intersections, and landscaping to create a more pedestrian -friendly environment. This project is expected to be completed within the next two years. All of these projects would be in close proximity to the proposed commuter rail station. Pierce County's Comprehensive Plan has designated much of the BNSF line between Puyallup and Tacoma as moderate density single family, rural separator, and moderate intensity employment center. Moderate density single-family residential areas are generally characterized by densities of up to six dwelling units per acre. The rural separator designation allows a residential density of one dwelling unit per 2.5 acres. Moderate intensity employment centers are intended to accommodate uses such as light industrial, warehousing, and corporate offices as well as light manufacturing, assembly, and wholesale activities. Agricultural land conversion policies are intended to address the potential conversion of agricultural land. The segment in Tacoma is designated for industry and mixed use, with zoning including light industrial and mixed commercial, which allows transit facilities (Figure 3.1.7). Tacoma Station The Tacoma Comprehensive Plan indicates that the BNSF line and the proposed Tacoma Station are within an area designated for high intensity land use including industrial, and, in the Central Business District, redevelopment of historically industrial, warehouse, and manufacturing properties. The Central Business District is intended to have the highest concentration of urban growth in the city, including a mix of commercial, light industrial, and some residential development. Numerous transportation facilities are under construction and/or anticipated in this area and will need careful integration with expanding commercial and residential developments. Page 3.1-16 June 1998 Land Use 143052.A1.01/ Revisions 3-12-98 / TacomaCompPlan/ 12-17-97/ GM.SEA / jg LEGEND BNSF Mainline Tacoma Eastern Railroad Potential Station Site Industrial 6.2.2-1 Mixed Commercial Source: City of Tacoma Land Use Map, 1997 Interim Tacoma Station (Initial service) ..roma Dome Marshall Ave. Source: BRW, Inc.; May 1994 SOUNDTRANSR City of Tacoma Comprehensive Plan Designations Figure 3.1.7 March 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment The city's development goals for the Tacoma Dome Station area provide for a high concentration of mixed uses to establish a livable urban neighborhood with multi -modal transportation facilities. The Tacoma Dome Area Plan was recently prepared to guide future development in the 320 -acre area bounded by I-5, the Thea Foss waterway, Pacific Avenue, and Portland Avenue. A commuter rail station location in this Central Business District/Tacoma Dome Area would be consistent with the Area Plan's policy to encourage urban, transit -supportive mixed use in the vicinity of the intermodal transportation center. Permitting issues are likely to be minimal, since the station would take advantage of an existing use at the Tacoma Amtrak station by extending its platforms to the west to provide a pedestrian connection with the Tacoma Dome Station facility. Zoning for this area is light industrial to the east and mixed commercial to the west; both allow transportation facilities. 3.1.8.3 Potential Impacts and Mitigation No significant long- or short-term land use impacts are anticipated along the Puyallup to Tacoma segment of the BNSF line. The proposed new third track (estimated between MP 35.4 and MP 38) would not substantially change the character of land uses in this location, although conversion of a narrow corridor of vacant land to use for the new track would occur. Tacoma Station The Tacoma Station would require little new construction, with the exception of an extension of the rail station platform west from the existing Amtrak facility. This construction would occur in the BNSF right-of-way. Rail access to the lumber yard just west of the Amtrak station would be maintained. An easement will be necessary to allow pedestrians to cross from the platform south to Puyallup Avenue between the lumber yard and the BNSF office and storage building to the west. Mitigation will include discussions with adjacent businesses to alleviate potential construction impacts, including conditions related to hours of operation, movement of construction vehicles, and maintenance of rail access. Over the long-term, use of this interim station and the future relocation of the station site to the south side of Freighthouse Square will support both ongoing and future nearby development and redevelopment. Freighthouse Square and other commercial businesses may experience an increase in activity. These issues are explored in the Tacoma Dome Area Plan. Overall, commuter rail service will be only one of several components contributing to the redevelopment of this area. Land Use June 1998 Page 3.1-17 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 3.2 SOCIOECONOMICS 3.2.1 Land Acquisitions and Displacements Commuter rail would operate primarily on existing tracks and would not require acquisition of large amounts of new right-of-way. However, some displacement of land uses would result, primarily from the construction of stations and associated park -and -rides. Table 3.2.1 summarizes the number and type of properties potentially affected by displacements. Only those station sites where buildings would be displaced are listed. Land acquisition is discussed under each station below. The discussion of displacements is preliminary and based on conceptual station designs. It serves primarily as an aid for comparing station location alternatives. Actual displacements will depend on the final design of the stations and parking areas. In cases where business or residential displacements occur, Sound Transit will comply with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act, state law, and with its own adopted policies and procedures to protect the interest of current landowners. Appropriate compensation and assistance in relocation will be provided consistent with applicable laws and procedures and available to all displaced businesses and residents. 3.2.1.1 Methodology This section identifies the approximate extent of residential and business displacement which may result from the proposal and identifies potential property acquisitions. Displacement of existing land uses was determined through aerial photographs, detailed maps of the study area, county assessor's records, and field visits to the study area. 3.2.1.2 Existing Conditions The existing land uses along the BNSF alignment were described previously in Section 3.1. The land uses which occupy the proposed station areas are summarized in Table 3.2.2. 3.2.1.3 Potential Operating Impacts Commuter rail would operate primarily on existing tracks and would not require acquisition of large amounts of new right-of-way. New track sections are proposed for areas between King Street Station and Georgetown, and for a 2 to 3 -mile segment just east of Tacoma. Much of these sections are within existing BNSF right-of-way; however, acquisition of several parcels of vacant land could be required. Some displacement of land uses would result from the construction of station and/or associated commuter parking. Socioeconomics June 1998 Page 3.2-1 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Table 3.2.1 Potential Displacements at Proposed Station Sites Station Site Number of Properties' Building Types Aggregate Assessed Value of All Properties (includes both vacant and developed properties) ($) King Street Station 0" Georgetown 0 "Boeing Access : Road Unknown- • .to be°determined‘whenlRT.station:is• sited Kent North 19 • 3 warehouses (cold storage, grain elevator/warehouse, concrete block warehouse) • park and pool lot • duplex • 5 houses (additional 2 with offices) • 2 offices/storage • welding shop • service garage 2,235,300 Kent South 7 h 33 ; .(g = r t • 2 duplexes$`" •, 121.homes`(onewitliservice= )• ,,commercial/apartment•..�ldg garage., bt 't• � retail°' � • 2 offices/shops �5 repamshops �• 3, warehouse,, storage, shop • ' , • ar mg/accessory,im • rovetite •�` a •3,503,700 • :7 Auburn 15 • warehouse • gas and grocery store • warehouse/office (auto related repair) • medical clinic • shop • house • aeronautics office 1,082,003 Sumner. 4 " ` •_`<. " • . City garagea • $a {t yy `yyg1�:���j,.1M"7',.;.^'s..�C- ahT.n_- Y t ` so�x'a:C:^y;^�4 "s'st''a,�i',-:s '�'�': ''�sMM� ab}+�" P. '.f•.. - i•'nv .A<. »ile 4 +'*t ... ,. A62,100, a. f -°* j d .... :, ,�:, ...k _ e •,-� Puyallup 18 • 2 houses • 4 retail stores (barber shop, stores) • school of cosmetology • cannery • warehouse • 2 parking lots • office building • triplex 1,627,200 tTacoinaJnterun ` { : 1 :Station " „; . , d� " s ki. r •h i L uN ?. �.: <z 's'y� ;.1s� .., Y „ xx jam, ,, ?-.t � A 4:. 7 kt .. � ,� �ln �'fi 4 DsP' _ f`:°'"1"7.1f-';',1: t.. ,`fi.!, �, 3r,�: `� .,� , # s. �.F T �z . s F •,i., 4). t �, 1 One property may be composed of several consolidated parcels in single ownership. Source: King and Pierce County Assessor's Offices Page 3.2-2 June 1998 Socioeconomics Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Table 3.2.2 Existing Land Use at Station Sites Station Site Existing Land Use King Street Station, _ , • 'Railroad station,,parking lots . t _ _ Georgetown ' Boeing Access Road' _. • Railroad and street right-of-way, outdoor storage : , •; •Vacant A i .. ,._ :.., _ ti . ,- :_-., „_.- ° • Vacant Longacres Downtown (North);Kent :: Downtown (South) Kent £ , • Commercial,1ightmanufacturing;.parkmg, outdoor P residential „pie:lunite • Gypsum supply, auto body shop, machine shop, other light industrial and commercial, some residential Downtown Auburn =' .m: .2 • ;. a uuse, retail, offce, public loading dock;.some-77 - _residential° =' R _,.MJF -,. .. .-:..-; ... _,.�. • City storage, vacant land Sumner Downtown Puyallup , � t ..8 a T,. -= '• ,..Parking lots,' oading doc ° warehouses, commercial building some retail.:residential • Passenger rail station, truck terminal, BNSF office building Tacoma Amtrak Station King Street Station The King Street Station would not require acquisition of property or displacement of existing land uses. Georgetown Station The Georgetown Station would be built on vacant land adjacent to the railroad tracks along the east side of Airport Way. No buildings would be displaced, although a secured outdoor storage area may require relocation. Boeing Access Road Station Construction of a commuter rail station would likely not require acquisition or displacement of businesses or residences at the Boeing Access Road location. The area adjacent to the tracks is currently undeveloped. Longacres Station This site is currently undeveloped, no displacement is proposed. Downtown Kent (North) Station The Downtown Kent (North) Station platforms, bus access, and auto drop-off areas are proposed for the area bounded by James Street, Railroad Avenue, Smith Street, and First Avenue. Acquisition of this area would displace a vacant building and outdoor storage area on First Avenue. On Railroad Avenue, an existing cold storage facility and a feed store with outdoor storage would be displaced. Socioeconomics June 1998 Page 3.2-3 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Additional land for station parking would be acquired on the east side of Railroad Avenue, east of the station. This area currently contains businesses, five houses, a duplex, and an air quality monitoring station (Table 3.2.1). Downtown Kent (South) Station The location of parking and bus facilities at the Downtown Kent (South) Station would require displacement of a variety of businesses and 14 residences. This includes five businesses on Railroad Avenue between Titus and Gowe St.; several businesses and four houses along Railroad Avenue between Titus St. and Willis St.; and 6 houses, 2 duplexes, and one business along 1st Avenue between Titus St. and Willis St. Some parking and/or outdoor storage would also be displaced (Table 3.2.1). Substantially less displacement would be required if the south site were to incorporate a parking garage for' some or all of the station's commuter parking. A 500 -stall garage on the half -block east of Railroad Avenue between Titus and Gowe Streets, for example, could reduce the acreage needed at the south site by four or five acres, reducing commercial and residential displacement considerably. A parking garage is not included in the approved Sound Transit budget. Downtown Auburn Station Location of a station and associated parking facilities would require displacement of an existing loading dock on the east side of the railroad tracks. A convenience store/gas station on the west side of the tracks would be displaced, as would the existing warehouse/office structure on the west side of the tracks. An automotive shop on the east side of `B" Street would be displaced as would one residence and some additional office/commercial uses (Table 3.2.1). Sumner Station The site includes two large vacant parcels adjacent to the railroad tracks on either side: one between Narrow Street and the railroad tracks and the other between Traffic Avenue and the railroad tracks, as well as a parcel on the east side of Narrow Street. Property on the Narrow Street side is currently owned by the City of Sumner and used for storage and maintenance shops. Acquisition of these properties is proposed. The City of Sumner has plans to relocate the storage and maintenance uses. Downtown Puyallup Station Commercial, off-street parking would be displaced for station related parking and bus access on the south side of Stewart Avenue. The station may displace some existing businesses and a loading dock on the south side of the tracks. Two houses, four retail stores, and parking may also be displaced (Table 3.2.1). Page 3.2-4 June 1998 Socioeconomics Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Tacoma Station The platform would be extended between the railroad tracks and an existing lumber yard adjacent to the Amtrak station, but would not displace the lumber yard's facilities or impede existing uses or rail access to the property. An easement for pedestrian access to Puyallup Avenue would be required between the lumber yard and a BNSF office and maintenance facility property. The BNSF facility would not be displaced. 3.2.1.4 Cumulative Impacts Acquisition and displacement associated with the proposed action is not expected to have significant cumulative impacts with other planned or reasonably anticipated projects. The high-speed passenger rail program being considered by WSDOT has not yet identified acquisition needs or displacement impacts, but it is anticipated that the passenger rail program will operate on the same tracks as Sound Transit's commuter rail program. Within the commuter rail corridor analyzed in this environmental assessment, the high-speed rail is expected to serve King Street Station and Tacoma, with possibly a third stop at Tukwila. Existing or proposed new commuter rail stations would be used, and additional acquisition of land is not expected at King Street Station. In addition, Amtrak has indicated its intention to serve a new station in Tukwila. Coordination between Amtrak and Sound Transit is underway to incorporate the Amtrak requirements at the proposed Longacres station in Tukwila. With the Fast Corridor proposal, additional improvements associated with the rail corridor may be constructed to address congestion at grade crossings (at -grade street crossings of the tracks). These improvements, primarily aimed at separating the street traffic from the tracks by constructing overpasses or underpasses, are intended to maintain the region's economic competitiveness in goods movement by improving rail freight mobility. As proposed by the Fast Corridor project, the grade separations would be jointly funded by King County and the ports of Tacoma and Seattle, with possible additional federal, state, or private funding. Some property acquisition and/or displacement may occur as a result of these projects, and those impacts may cumulatively result in greater impacts than those of Sound Transit's commuter rail program in isolation. One of the grade separation projects that is included in the Fast Corridor proposal is located at SW 43rd Street/South 180th Street. Plans for the grade separation at this location are not developed at this time, so cumulative impacts cannot be identified. A second grade separation project is being considered near the Auburn commuter rail station. The "C" Street project would reconstruct the access ramp from SR -18 to "C" Street and either depress or elevate 3rd Street, south of the commuter rail station. The City of Auburn is considering preliminary design altematives at this time; final plans, and thus acquisition and displacement impacts, are not known. The project will Socioeconomics June 1998 Page 3.2-5 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment undergo separate environmental review later this year, as an independent project when its impacts can be identified. Sound Transit is coordinating with the City of Auburn to insure that the grade separation and ramp project is compatible with the Auburn station. Project descriptions and schedules for constructing other grade separations for freight mobility in the Tacoma -to -Seattle corridor are not available at this time; consequently, cumulative impacts related to acquisition and displacement are not estimated. However, no other grade separations are reasonably foreseeable near proposed station locations. 3.2.1.4 Mitigation Business and residential displacements would occur as a result of the purchase of land by Sound Transit. In cases where federal funds are used in the project, the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Acts would be followed to protect the interests of current land owners. The State of Washington also has a similar law covering the acquisition of property. Sound Transit's policies would also apply for acquisition and relocation. Federal and state laws establish a uniform policy for the fair and equitable treatment of people or businesses displaced as a direct result of state or federally funded public works programs. A Sound Transit representative will meet with affected property owners and tenants to explain the acquisition process. Independent appraisers would appraise property to determine just compensation. Relocation assistance would be provided when necessary, and relocation guidance would be available to persons affected by a project. Descriptions of Sound Transit relocation programs would be distributed to affected land owners and land occupants as one of the first steps in the acquisition process. 3.2.2 Environmental Justice 3.2.2.1 Introduction Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations, was promulgated on February 11, 1994. The Executive Order requires each federal agency, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to achieve environmental justice as part of its mission. Agencies are to identify, and address as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low- income populations. In June 1997, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) implemented Order 5610.2 to establish procedures for DOT agencies, including FTA, to comply with the Executive Order. This section discusses the proposed action's compliance with the Executive Order and DOT Order 5610.2. Because other sections of this environmental assessment establish the proposal's lack of significant impacts, the discussion focuses on the Page 3.2-6 June 1998 Socioeconomics Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment proportion of'transit-dependent populations, which include both minority and low- income groups as defined in the Executive Order, living in the areas near the proposed commuter rail stations. The analysis assesses whether these groups are likely to benefit from the enhanced transit opportunities afforded by commuter rail service. 3.2.2.2 Methodology In order to identify potentially transit -dependent populations, census tracts around or near the station locations were identified. Analysis at a greater level of detail was not necessary, as the station sites along the corridor do not lie in predominantly residential or urban downtown areas and, as a result, do not have sufficient data available at the block level for meaningful analysis. The 1990 Census data from the Standard Tape File Volume Three (STF3A) was used in this analysis and was retrieved directly from the Census Bureau via its interactive web page. Characteristic indicators of transit -dependent populations include the following: • Age (Below 16 or above 65 years of age). These populations are either too young to drive or may have physical limitations which inhibit their driving activity. • Race (Non-white populations). Recent immigrants and economically disadvantaged racial groups constitute a large percentage of transit -dependent populations. • Employment (Unemployed populations). Unemployed individuals often do not have resources to use a private automobile. • Household income (Populations below the poverty line). Individuals living in households below the poverty line have few resources to devote to transportation. 3.2.2.3 Existing Conditions Table 3.2.3 shows census tracts having the potential to contribute to walk-up ridership at the proposed commuter rail stations. These census tracts either contain a proposed station, or are within a roughly 1 -mile radius from a proposed station. Table 3.2.3 Census Tracts in Vicinity of Station Sites INIMMETrinriENMEMON King County Kent orth/South_ 297 292.02 ',D{Vo�Ljw�ntown F� v 1, is{: . �`^i'i7Xly �" + " lgib v . „r . ,p v- . 1 ` I • 1'- ` ', Boeiril Access Road 263 117 119 Geor l etown 104 109 110 e noun Tacoma MO 602 616.02 733 Downtown Sumner Socioeconomics June 1998 Page 3.2-7 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Table 3.2.4 contains the results of the demographic analysis used to identify concentrations of potentially transit -dependent individuals. Counts of each indicator characteristic were calculated as a percentage of the total population in the census tract and then compared against countywide percentages. Each tract was then identified as being either above or below the countywide average. In addition, an index was used as the numerical count of each indicator characteristic registering above the countywide average. The higher the index value, the more transit -dependent individuals can be assumed in the census tract and thus provided benefit by the associated station. The index scale is from 1 (fewest number of transit -dependent categories above the countywide average) to 5 (highest). 3.2.2.4 Potential Impacts The proposed action would not involve any significant adverse impacts on populations protected by the Executive Order. As documented in other sections of this environmental assessment, implementation of commuter rail service would not result in substantial noise level increases, violations of ambient air quality standards, or other environmental health hazards. Potential land use redevelopment in station areas would occur in accordance with adopted plans and codes; traffic increases associated with commuter travel to the stations would be limited to morning and evening commute hours. It is possible that one or more displaced businesses could be owned by, provide employment for, or provide service to members of a protected population, but the overall numbers of displacements are small, and relocation assistance would be provided in accordance with federal and state law and adopted Sound Transit policy. No displacement of affordable housing is anticipated. Based on the analysis, the commuter rail alignment along the BNSF corridor has the potential to provide mobility benefits to transit -dependent populations, while reducing household travel costs. At several stations, the analysis indicates that significant concentrations of transit -dependent populations will be served. All stations contain at least one indicator above the countywide average. Page 3.2-8 June 1998 Socioeconomics Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Table 3.2.4 Demographic Data for Station Areas Station Tract % Non- White % Age <16 % Age 65+ % Unemployed 16+ % Below Poverty Level Index Pierce Countywide 14.81 24.70 10.45 2.96 10.93 pf Tacomai ri . d w C ...� , n at �a s ''602 r"• ' -616 02' b #.. •. �• r� x. � E in - ? + , ; 9`) i Pr + a. _ .., a j.l •:e .: g> r Downtown Puyallup 734.03 - - + - - 1 705 - - + - - 1 Down own Sumner ° r x 733 ` {' , +x. ,,+ 4 si xa ✓ .t., - A^i m.. .fr;1"Ky', '«' ..."3.".�3.¢i,e' '_} A.. r.'xa'r.l'%b:. i .% . , .,„ i, ,i'Sr�t x . - .,..a i.1.-..°1,--;::-, .,2 King Countywide 15.06 20.4 11.10 2.35 7.8 i s a -a .rp Auburn 'rd{ 305,'.01 ” l + -� mss. + ^.ss, r H s' a.,v. g `•r* + , f }�k z ;• ,, Kent 297 - - + - - 1 292.02 - - - + - 1 )L' onres P 262 + + 2 s '{• '^� • 259 + ' A -�- 8 ti 3 Boeing Access Road 263 + - + + + 4 117 + + + + + 5 119 + + + - + 3 Georgetown ,. z > 104 + + ei•� 109 f�+.F� + 7 + P :4', +.,..., + ... e� ; Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 3.2.3 Social Impacts This section discusses the potential for the proposed action to affect community cohesion and neighborhood character along the commuter rail alignment and in station areas. 3.2.3.1 Existing Conditions The communities in the BNSF corridor developed along the Duwamish, Green, White, Stuck, and Puyallup River valleys. These early agricultural settlements were later linked by roadways and rail lines. Most of the existing cities were incorporated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and were farming -based communities for much of their history. Rail lines, including the Northern Pacific, the Milwaukee Road, and the Seattle -Tacoma Interurban Railway, were central to the communities' development. The railroads carried produce, freight, and passengers north and south to depots in the town centers. With the construction of I-5, I-405, and SR -167 in the 1950s and 1960's, urbanized development began to spread south from Seattle and north from Tacoma into the valley areas. Most of the BNSF corridor today is dominated by commercial and industrial land uses. Few residential neighborhoods lie close to the rail line. 3.2.3.2 Potential Impacts Potential effects of the proposed action on community cohesion and neighborhood character could result from increased train traffic along the BNSF track and from the construction of new stations and associated facilities. The increase in train traffic would not be significant in proportion to overall traffic on the line and would not affect nearby residential areas accustomed to the frequent passage of trains. Access across tracks at grade crossings would be impeded during the passage of commuter trains, but the impedance would be temporary and minor, particularly in comparison to that posed by the longer freight trains that are more common users of the track. Since no track extensions are proposed, no fragmentation of neighborhoods is expected. Construction of new stations has the potential to alter the character of surrounding neighborhoods. However, since none of the proposed stations are located in a primarily residential area, the effects on existing neighborhoods would be minimal. Several communities (e.g., Kent, Auburn and Sumner) have completed or are developing subarea plans in which the stations are a focal point for mixed-use redevelopment. In these cases, construction of the new station would support community redevelopment plans. Pedestrian and vehicular grade crossing improvements resulting from the development of proposed stations would improve connections across the railroad tracks in general. Page 3.2-10 June 1998 Socioeconomics Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 3.2.3.3 Cumulative Impacts Increases in passenger rail traffic related to WSDOT's High Speed Passenger Rail proposal or more frequent Amtrak service would add to the cumulative social impacts of rail traffic in the Tacoma -to -Seattle corridor. These impacts are not expected to be significant because of the primarily industrial and commercial uses that lie adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. 3.2.3.4 Mitigation No mitigation would be required. Socioeconomics June 1998 Page 3.2-11 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 3.3 TRANSPORTATION 3.3.1 Methodology Transit ridership forecasts were developed by Sound Transit for the purpose of assessing the transportation impacts of the proposed Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Project. Forecasts were prepared for a baseline and commuter rail service along the BNSF alignment. The methods and assumptions used to develop the ridership forecasts are described in detail in a document entitled, Travel Forecasting Methodology Report - Final Draft (Regional Transit Authority and Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc., November 1992). The methods used were consistent with those developed under the guidance of the State of Washington Expert Review Panel, which reported independently to the Governor, the Legislature and the Department of Transportation. The Vision 2020 population and employment forecasts prepared by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) were used for developing ridership forecasts for the Commuter Rail Project. The Vision 2020 forecasts assume that future growth in the region will be primarily concentrated inside urban growth boundaries as designated by King and Pierce County Comprehensive Plans. Station area traffic impacts for those stations which would allow commuter rail users to park-and-ride were analyzed in detail according to the methods and procedures described in the Station Area Traffic Impacts Analysis Methodology Report (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 1994). Existing, future baseline, and proposed action conditions for the p.m. peak hour were assessed. Mitigation was identified for intersections that the project causes to operate at unacceptable conditions (generally, those that drop to level of service (LOS) F because of the project). Traffic impacts at public railroad grade crossings were analyzed for the Year 2010. Baseline LOS conditions were estimated based on projected p.m. peak hour traffic volumes on the affected roadways, and expected freight and intercity passenger rail traffic on the BNSF main line. The levels of service at each grade crossing were estimated at each crossing location based on added impacts due to the proposed commuter rail service. 3.3.2 Affected Environment 3.3.2.1 Transportation Infrastructure Roads and Highways There are approximately 15,000 miles of roads in the central Puget Sound region. The interstate and state highway system, while representing only 7 percent of the road network, accounts for nearly one-half of the region's vehicle miles of travel (VMT). The Tacoma -to -Seattle project area contains approximately one-third of the region's Transportation June 1998 Page 3.3-1 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment roadway mileage, or approximately 5,000 miles, and carries between 35 and 40 percent of the region's total VMT (Puget Sound Regional Council). Railroads Freight rail lines serve a number of locations in the Tacoma -to -Seattle corridor. BNSF and Union Pacific (UP) main lines operate from Tacoma to Seattle by way of the Green River Valley. The BNSF main line between Tacoma and Seattle carries about 26 freight trains per day, plus six Amtrak passenger trains. The UP main line carries about 12 trains per day. Park -and -Ride Lots and Transit Centers There are 15 permanent and 19 leased park-and-ride lots served by transit in the King County portion of the Tacoma -to -Seattle corridor, with a combined capacity of 6,000 cars. Pierce County has 19 lots in the study area with approximately 3,000 spaces, including the new Tacoma Dome Station. King County Metro has four transit centers (Burien, Renton, Kent, and Federal Way) and Pierce Transit has six (Tacoma Community College, Lakewood Mall, Tacoma Mall, Parkland, 72nd & Portland Ave., and Puyallup). Some transit centers are located in conjunction with park-and-ride lots. Others, such as Tacoma Community College, are independent facilities allowing timed transfers between routes as well as pedestrian connections to centers. 3.3.2.2 Growth Management and Concurrency Washington State's Growth Management Act (GMA, codified as RCW 36.70A) promotes the responsible management of land use and population growth. For those counties and cities planning under the GMA, urban growth areas are designated, plans are established to provide adequate infrastructure for those urban growth areas, and development outside designated urban growth areas is restricted. Sound Transit's program for commuter rail, light rail, and regional express bus service is a critical element in the regional effort to improve transit infrastructure capacity. Beyond its general applicability to the GMA's requirements for infrastructure planning, the Sound Transit program is consistent with the PSRC's integrated land use and transportation plan. The PSRC is the regional planning organization charged with assuring that the region's land use and transportation planning is consistent with federal legislation. At an individual project level, the GMA requires that local agencies provide adequate infrastructure capacity concurrent with new development. These "concurrency requirements" have been adopted as Concurrency Management ordinances for traffic levels of service by most of the cities along the Tacoma -to -Seattle commuter rail project. Tacoma, Puyallup, Auburn, Kent, Tukwila, and Seattle have such ordinances. Although Sound Transit's mission is to provide transit infrastructure for the region, the text below incorporates local concurrency requirements into the mitigation discussion in those cases where project -generated park-and-ride traffic affects intersection levels of service. Page 3.3-2 June 1998 Transportation Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 3.3.2.3 Transit Operations and Levels of Service Existing transit services provided by King County Metro, Pierce Transit, and Sound Transit consist of local, express, and custom bus, as well as subcontracted services. Frequency of service ranges from 15 to 30 minutes on the express bus routes during the p.m. peak period. Mid-day frequencies range from 30 to 120 minutes with an average of about 45 minutes. In 1997, weekday ridership on fixed route, fixed schedule portions of the transit system inside the Sound Transit district is approximately 300,000. King County Metro King County Metro operates service within King County. Estimated ridership in 1997 was 81.7 million. • Local bus service in the South Corridor operates daily on a fixed -route, fixed schedule basis with typical peak headways of 10 to 60 minutes and mid-day headways of 15 to 60 minutes. • Express services consist of commuter -oriented limited stop service with typical headways of 20 to 60 minutes. • Custom service is express bus service for groups of 40 or more commuters not served by regular transit service. • Paratransit service using vans or smaller vehicles is operated on fixed routes or flexibly with advance reservation in areas that cannot support regular bus service. • The Waterfront Streetcar links the downtown Seattle waterfront and the International District/King Street Station area with.20 to 30 minute headways. • The Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) serves downtown Seattle with five underground stations between the International District station and Convention Place station. There are currently 30 routes using the DSTT, with 33,000 riders to date. Pierce Transit Pierce Transit operates within Pierce County and to destinations within King and Thurston counties. There were 12.3 million riders in 1997. • Express routes provide two-way service between Tacoma and downtown Seattle every 5 to 7 minutes in the peak period and every 30 minutes during the mid-day on weekdays. • Local routes operate daily on arterials in Pierce County and to Federal Way and Enumclaw in King County. Peak headways range from 15 to 60 minutes. Off-peak headways range from 15 minutes to 2 hours. Typical Tacoma -to -Seattle Transit Travel Times Transit travel times depend on traffic volume and speed, since most bus routes operate in mixed traffic. Transit travel has slowed as the region's highways have Transportation June 1998 Page 3.3-3 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment become more congested. In 1990, average transit travel times to selected centers ranged from 35 to 78 minutes (Table 3.3.1). These travel times represent the average of all trips on transit to the centers, including time spent traveling to and from the bus. Table 3.3.1 P.M. Peak Period Average Door -to -Door Transit Travel Time from Seattle to Selected Centers Seattle to Selected Centers 1990 Travel Time (By bus in minutes) rRenton .,; 3. . `` X63. Tukwila 64 rent, z'• epi � . sxu• iT .� •ft4 .1• ' rY ?: nJ & .- +. • t ,.:MJt «. r -v • tA4nx1` O 74 k '`i � \.x rv• ze2 Auburn _ . acoma '`•'.'L• •. `:. s ,- ' .' ,..2-.„-.-A.0_;.--.'-': Source: RTA, 1994 3.3.2.4 Existing Corridor Traffic Conditions Existing traffic conditions were evaluated using data provided by PSRC. In 1990, the estimated daily vehicle miles traveled in the south corridor were 21.5 million miles, and the total travel time was 39.2 million minutes per day. The resulting average travel speed in the corridor was 33 miles per hour. 3.3.2.5 Existing Railroad Operations As indicated previously, the Seattle -Tacoma railroad corridor currently carries approximately 26 through freight trains and 6 passenger trains per day. The number of freight movements per day varies depending on the arrival and departure times of ships at the ports, yard operations, and maintenance activities, among other factors. Once underway, a train's progress is dependent on a number of other factors, such as the train's priority from the dispatcher, speed restrictions, gradient, curvature, switching operations, and the location and condition of other trains along the corridor. Passenger trains, which will include commuter rail trains, receive the highest priority from the dispatcher. A number of agencies have the authority to set speed restrictions. In general, under the authority of RCW 81.48.030, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) has the authority to set speed restrictions within the limits of any city or town or based on unique local conditions. In first class cities (e.g. Seattle or Tacoma), in non -incorporated areas, and at grade crossings the Federal Railroad Administration Trade Safety Standards dictate the appropriate speed limits. The length and location of sidings parallel to the mainline is important to allow trains and other equipment to pass. Typically, the lower priority train is switched to the siding to allow the higher priority train to proceed uninterrupted. Signals for trains along the corridor are currently spaced about every two or three miles. This is Page 3.3.4 June 1998 Transportation Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment acceptable for predominately freight movements but will not be adequate for a mixture that includes a high number of commuter trains. 3.3.2.6 Existing Station Area Traffic Conditions Level of service analysis was conducted at critical intersections within a defined study area for each station. Level of service definitions are provided in Table 3.3.2. Only those stations where park-and-ride spaces would be provided were analyzed (SW 43rd Street, Longacres, Downtown Kent North and South sites, Auburn, Sumner, Puyallup, and Tacoma). Table 3.3.2 Intersection Level of Service Definitions Definitions The level of service analysis for the signalized and unsignalized intersections was performed using the Signal 94 and Highway Capacity Software computer programs, and based upon the method presented in the Updated 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. For signalized intersections LOS is defined in terms of delay. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. For example, according to the HCM: LOS A describes operations with very low delay, i.e., less than 5.0 seconds per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. LOS B - D represents a continued increase in delay until LOS E is reached, which represents the limit of acceptable delay. LOS E describes operations with delay in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. LOS F describes operations with delay in excess of 60.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with over saturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high V/C ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. Source: Updated 1994 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board Special Report No. 209 All study intersections in the vicinity of the proposed Tacoma station presently operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during afternoon peak -hour traffic conditions. Surrounding the Puyallup, Aubum, and Kent stations, there are one to three intersections operating at level of service "E," which indicates that the average delay per vehicle is in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 seconds. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. Transportation June 1998 Page 3.3-5 Tacoma -•to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Most of the study intersections in the vicinity of the proposed Sumner station presently operate at LOS F. This means the average intersection delay is greater than one minute for each vehicle traveling through the intersection, which is considered to be unacceptable by most drivers. One intersection within the study area of the proposed Auburn station, and another near the SW 43rd Street station, are also operating at LOS F during afternoon peak -hour traffic conditions. 3.3.3 Potential Impacts and Mitigation 3.3.3.1 Impacts of Construction Baseline Conditions Construction of roadway and transit improvements under 2010 baseline conditions would have minor impacts on traffic flows at various locations in the Tacoma -to - Seattle corridor. No significant adverse impacts are expected from construction. Proposed Action Construction of commuter rail stations is not expected to have significant adverse impacts on traffic, although it may result in temporary adverse impacts on traffic circulation in station areas. •Construction of stations is not expected to require closure of adjoining arterials. Construction of station platforms and other station -related structures will not affect freight service on adjacent tracks. Construction of track improvements along the BNSF mainline may cause temporary slowing of freight service while tracks are being worked on. This slowing would be similar to routine railbed maintenance and would not impede freight or passenger service. An exception to this conclusion may be the addition of new third track just east of where the tracks cross under I-5 near the Puyallup River (estimated MP 35.6 - MP 38.2). The exact nature of the construction will be further clarified during final design of the improvements. BNSF will coordinate the construction, passenger, and freight traffic to minimize impacts to existing rail service. Mitigation of traffic impacts resulting from station construction would include any necessary detour route signing and normal construction safety actions, including providing flaggers and alternate routes..Mitigating impacts of construction at grade crossings across major arterials would include limiting hours of construction across arterials to non -peak hours and providing full access during peak traffic hours. 3.3.3.2 Impacts of Operation Ridership for the proposed project was estimated by Sound Transit for the year 2010, based on expected patterns of land use and travel demand. Ridership figures reported do not include demand -responsive service, vanpools, or carpools, except where those trips transfer to the regional fixed -route, fixed -schedule system. Regional traffic levels were estimated based on the PSRC's forecasted traffic network, with Page 3.3-6 June 1998 Transportation Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment adjustments made based on the number of trips that had been diverted to the transit system, as indicated by the ridership forecasts. Ridership was estimated conservatively, assuming no differential change due to adopted land use plans or measures to reduce automobile use. Consequently, ridership estimates can be considered the minimum ridership to be expected. Changes in land use plans to encourage higher densities and transit -oriented development or measures to discourage automobile use may result in additional ridership on the system. Baseline Conditions Transit Operations and Ridership. Under baseline conditions, 325,600 daily transit trips are projected to be attracted to the regional system in 2010, an increase of 27 percent compared to 1992 levels. Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation. An extensive designated bicycle route system is envisioned for the region. Most bicycle routes follow existing streets, rather than using exclusive rights-of-way. Major exclusive bikeways include the Burke -Gilman Trail from Seattle to Bothell, the Sammamish River trail from Bothell to Redmond, the I-90 Trail from Seattle to Bellevue, and, in the project corridor, the Interurban Trail and Green River Trail in the Green River Valley. Most bicycle routes intersect transit routes. Bicycle lock-up facilities are provided at many park-and-ride lots and transit centers. In addition, Pierce Transit and King County Metro can transport bicycles on most buses. In spite of the extensive bicycle circulation system, many regional and local trips are difficult to make by bicycle. In some areas, freeways form barriers to bicycle access. Major arterials often lack bicycle lanes and, although formally available to bicycles, present safety hazards for bicyclists. In some areas, freeways and major arterials are the only direct routes between neighborhoods, which effectively denies access by bicycle. Because much of the region has developed in response to the automobile and lacks pedestrian amenities, many areas could be considered "pedestrian unfriendly." Pedestrian amenities that encourage use of transit include sidewalks, planting or landscaped strips or trees buffering arterials from walkways, crosswalks at intersections, and laying out commercial areas to allow pedestrians to reach buildings without crossing large parking lots. Many parts of the region lack these amenities. In these areas, it is more difficult for pedestrians to reach bus routes or to transfer between routes, even when bus service is available. Transportation June 1998 Page 3.3-7 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Proposed Action Transit Ridership by Mode of Access. Table 3.3.3 presents estimated p.m. peak period ridership by mode -of -egress (i.e., the means by which passengers are projected to get from the rail station to their destination). Table 3.3.3 2010 P.M. Peak Mode Share for Alighting Passengers Station LRT/Ferry Bus Transfer (%) Park -and -Ride (%) Non -Motorized (%) artreat„ i =-4O'4' :.• = w0,, 5;.1004. 60•:r. Georgetown oeia " ccess ' - d •. Georgetown 90 60 ' i 0 10 731- a-access Roa! 50 . _ • 45 :1;400 , 5 Auburn � Suinn '`r Longacres I 1 �'a..tra x t4`'r. • 4t• r"g' .m:`...in"s. s"." ' . t;-�3o....a”. r,"�aaa f,,. xe.:i -• e..n , a , A.,•,4,41 ». - "sj:..c,,,` si t, a�"{,�S ��g y : �Gii:=w Kent (South) , .,.A2.d:uY. r 35 { `4I:' .T.:,'1,:...,‘ 5 ,;40 r •i 4. ,,® a af't'l' 60 90 55, . 9 • >r.x,. .v:r. ' 5 , w._ 5 su.Yo-: w.,l"'�. ,.."•C. •Le ..., 5 5 . ! :Auburn.L .. Puyallup RSumnp73 .. _ . Tacoma Dome 25 70 5 Transit Volumes by Major Rail Segment. Table 3.3.4 presents estimated weekday peak hour commuter rail volumes (i.e., the number of transit passengers boarding at each proposed station). Table 3.3.4 2010 Estimated Daily Boardings by Station Station Boardings :King Street-. :.• = ..` 5;.1004. Georgetown oeia " ccess ' - d •. , 60 ' i Longacres 1,000 o ;oro' = ` :1;400 , Auburn � Suinn '`r +r ' 90��0��, E4A 400 } . af't'l' Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation. The proposed commuter rail service includes the following measures to improve transit/bicycle connections: • Allowing bicycles on commuter trains. • Providing weather -protected bicycle storage at stations. • Improvements for safe bicycle travel on adjacent arterials. • Providing safe bicycle connections on the station sites. Page 3.3-8 June 1998 Transportation Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment These improvements would enhance the use of bicycles, both for access to stations and for longer regional trips in the commuter rail corridor. Sound Transit will work with local jurisdictions and landowners to encourage bicycle/pedestrian amenities and pedestrian -oriented, development as part of commuter rail station areas. Pedestrian and bicycle access improvements near stations would be included in project -level design. Improvements in pedestrian and bicycle access would encourage reduced use of single -occupant -vehicles to reach commuter rail stations. Commuter rail service would also support more intensive use of land in station areas. To the extent this occurs, pedestrian and bicycle use would be likely to increase, since these modes become more efficient as land use intensifies. 3.3.3.3 Station Area Traffic Impacts Traffic impacts have been assessed only for those stations which accommodate park- and-ride trips. Stations with feeder bus and walk/bicycle access only are expected to have minimal traffic impacts. The results of the detailed analysis are summarized by individual park-and-ride station in subsequent subsections. The 2010 "Build" conditions assume a nine trains, six "inbound" and three "outbound" during the morning and afternoon peak commute hours. Morning service would begin at approximately 6:00 a.m. and end at 9:00 a.m., and the afternoon service would be from approximately 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. For the stations analyzed, the afternoon peak period was used to determine the impacts at each study location. Estimates of new trips arriving at each station on the commuter rail line were made. Commuter rail users are expected to arrive at stations by the following modes: driving or riding in a private vehicle; riding in a feeder or local bus; or walking or bicycling (sometimes referred to jointly as "non -motorized"). Table 3.3.5 summarizes the estimated vehicle trips generated by the proposed park-and-ride lots at each station during the 2010 p.m. peak hours. Table 3.3.5 2010 P.M. Peak Park -and -Ride Trips by Station Station Boeing Access Road Downtown Kent (North or South) Sumner Tacoma Estimated Peak Hour Trips 40 iii 450 4141 50 Es +x9 375 The following summarizes the traffic impacts under the baseline and proposed action conditions at each proposed commuter rail station. Mitigation, such as a Transportation June 1998 Page 3.3-9 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environrnental Assessment proportionate share of the cost of transportation improvements, is identified for those intersections which are projected to be'operating at LOS F as the result of the proposed commuter rail project. Mitigation measures are not recommended for intersections that are projected to operate at LOS F under baseline conditions (i.e., with or without commuter rail service). King Street The existing King Street Station will be modified to include a commuter rail center platform (1,000 feet long and 15 feet wide) as described in Chapter 2.0, Description of the Proposal. No commuter parking will be provided as part of the project; therefore, no traffic analysis was conducted. The proposed action is itself a measure to address worsening traffic congestion, by providing a convenient and dependable transit alternative for commuters. Station access will be via existing sidewalks and the Weller Street Pedestrian Bridge. Modifications proposed as part of the Seattle Intermodal Transportation Terminal are separate from the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Project, and are discussed in the EIS/EA for the Seattle Intermodal Transportation Terminal. No changes are included in the proposed action to feeder transit services in the vicinity of King Street Station. These services include local bus, express bus and trolley bus (Community Transit, King County Metro, and Pierce Transit) on adjacent streets, the Waterfront Trolley, and transit operations in the downtown Seattle transit tunnel accessible at the International District Station across 4th Avenue S. Also, auto pick-up/drop-off, taxi -cab, and tour bus access is available at the existing King Street building entrance. The Colman Dock Ferry Terminal is located approximately 10 blocks to the north and west, accessible via the Waterfront Trolley. Georgetown Station The Georgetown station would not include any parking to accommodate park-and- ride access. No traffic analysis was conducted. The proposed action is considered a mitigative action for worsening traffic congestion, providing a convenient and dependable transit alternative for commuters. Grade -separated pedestrian access would likely be provided the Albro Street overpass to convey commuters to the center platform along the tracks. Auto pick-up/drop-off and feeder bus access would all occur at existing street level along the adjacent Airport Way and Ellis Avenue. Boeing Access Road The proposed Boeing Access Road station would serve as an on-line station for the proposed action and as a transfer station to and from the Link light rail transit line. No parking would be provided in conjunction with the proposed action. However, a park-and-ride lot may be provided at a later date in conjunction with the implementation of a Boeing Access Road station for the Link light rail transit service. Because a station and park-and-ride will not be constructed until light rail service begins, transportation impacts of a station at this location will be analyzed during the light rail environmental review process. Page 3.3.10 June 1998 Transportation Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Longacres The Longacres station would be located on the south side of I-405 between the UP and BNSF mainline railroad tracks. The proposed 720 stall park-and-ride lot would likely be constructed between the railroad tracks just north of the proposed station. Two access alternatives were analyzed: 1) access to the station and park and ride from Longacres Way, and 2) access from South 156th Street/SW 16th Street. Separate access scenarios were analyzed in order to provide a conservative approach for the traffic operations analyses and represent worst-case traffic impact conditions. West Valley Highway (SR 181), located west of the proposed station site, is a principal north -south arterial connecting directly to I-405. The arterial intersects other minor and collector arterials such as Fort Dent Road, Grady Way, Strander Boulevard, and South 180th Street. The study area is currently served by King County Metro bus routes 108, 150, 153, 154, 160, 163, 280, and 340. Routes 108 and 154 provide service from the Boeing industrial area to Renton and Auburn, respectively. Routes 150, 160, and 163 provide service between Kent and downtown Seattle. Route 153 provides service between Kent and Renton. Route 280 provides service between Seattle, Tukwila, and Bellevue and Route 340 between Burien, Bellevue, and Shoreline. Level of Service was analyzed at 10 critical intersections within the study area. Results are summarized in Table 3.3.6. Three out of the 10 study intersections are expected to operate at acceptable LOS D or better during the 1997, 2010 baseline, and 2010 proposed action p.m. peak hour traffic conditions. These intersections are Longacres Way/West Valley Highway, Strander Boulevard/West Valley Highway and Lind Avenue/SW 16th Street. The intersection of Fort Dent Road/West Valley Highway is operating at LOS E under existing conditions and would continue to operate at this level under both future baseline and 2010 project conditions. The intersections of Grady Way/West Valley Highway and South 180th Street/West Valley Highway are operating at LOS F under existing conditions and would continue to operate at this level under both future baseline and 2010 project conditions. The intersection of Lind Avenue/Grady Way operates at LOS D under existing conditions, and is expected to fall to LOS E under both the 2010 future baseline and project conditions. The intersections of Oakesdale Avenue/SW 16th Street and Oakesdale Avenue/Grady Way currently operate at LOS B and LOS C, respectively. The 2010 baseline and project altemative levels of service are projected to fall to LOS E for the Oakesdale/SW 16th Street intersection and LOS F for the Oakesdale/Grady Way intersection. The existing Oakesdale Avenue and SW 16th Street intersection currently operates as a three leg unsignalized intersection. The 2010 intersection configuration was assumed to be a four -leg signalized intersection. Transportation June 1998 Page 3.3-11 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment The intersection of South 156th Street/West Valley Highway operates at LOS C under existing conditions, and is expected to drop to LOS E under 2010 baseline conditions. If access to the project site is located off of Longacres Way, the intersection would operate at the same level of service as baseline conditions, LOS E. If the project access is located off of 156th/16th Street, level of service at the intersection would drop to LOS F. The SW 16th Street extension to West Valley Highway, and the Oakesdale extension southward to SW 31st Street are both assumed to be completed by 2010. These improvements are expected to increase traffic volumes along these roadways, as indicated by declining levels of service at the SW 16th Street and Oakesdale Avenue study intersections. Table 3.3.6 Longacres Station Level of Service Summary *Unsignalized Intersection The level of service analysis for future conditions incorporates intersection improvements at Strander Boulevard and roadway extensions of SW 16th Street and Oakesdale Avenue that are planned by others. The level of service at the South 156th Street/West Valley Highway intersection is projected to decline from LOS E to LOS F if the project access were located on 156th/16th Street. To maintain the 2010 baseline LOS, project access could be provided along Longacres Way, or two access points could be provided, one on Longacres Way and one on 156th/16th Street, or 156th Street could be designed to discourage through traffic. Page 3.3-12 June 1998 Transportation Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment The levels of service at the remaining study intersections would not be affected by project -related trips and mitigation would not be necessary. Mitigation measures would, however, be needed to improve the proposed park-and-ride lot access. Longacres Way is currently in poor condition and would need to be reconstructed and channelized to support project -related traffic. This access improvement would be pursued by Sound Transit in conjunction with other benefited property owners. Tukwila's Traffic Concurrency Standards (TMC Chapter 9.48) may require fair -share participation in the cost of improvements identified in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the following intersections: • Grady Way/West Valley Highway • South 156th Street/West Valley Highway • South 180th Street/West Valley Highway Downtown Kent (North) The proposed Downtown Kent (North) Station would serve as an on-line station for Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail service. The station would be located on both sides of the BNSF tracks between Smith and James Streets. The passenger platform, some surface parking, and a bus loading/unloading area would be located west of Railroad Avenue, and a park-and-ride lot would be located on the east side of Railroad Avenue, with entrances and exits via Railroad Avenue. Some additional parking would be provided on the west side of the tracks and on the east side of First Avenue. The study area analyzed consists of major roadways in the vicinity, including the east -west roadways of James, Smith, Meeker, Gowe, and Willis Streets and the north -south roadways of Washington Avenue (SR -181), the Valley Freeway (SR -167), 4th Avenue, and Central Avenue. Downtown Kent is currently served by 13 bus routes with primary destinations including downtown Seattle, Renton, Southcenter, Boeing, and Auburn. An existing park-and-ride lot is located east and south of the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and James Street. This lot has a weekday utilization rate of 57 percent. In addition to the existing bus routes, additional bus routes and/or modifications to bus routes would be made to provide better service to and from the commuter rail station. Three peak - only routes and five all -day routes would serve the station. A new route from Auburn to SeaTac via Kent would serve the station all day. Route 150 from Auburn and Routes 166/169 from Highline Community College and Renton would also be rerouted to serve the station. Route 168 from Timberland would be modified to terminate at the station. Three peak -only express routes, the 158, 159, and 162, would terminate at the proposed station. A reduction in the number of existing trips from the East Hill to the park-and-ride located west of the tracks would be lildey, with a new transit focus at the commuter rail station. The level of service analyis for both Kent Station alternatives did not incorporate this reduction, and thus may overstate impacts somewhat. Transportation June 1998 Page 3.3-13 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Level of service analysis was conducted at 15 locations in the study area. The results are summarized in Table 3.3.8. There are three locations where the level of service is currently at LOS E: James Street at Central Avenue; Smith Street at Central Avenue; and Meeker Street at Washington Avenue. All three intersections are projected to deteriorate to LOS F under future baseline conditions and would remain at "F" under the proposed action. Although delay would not be significantly increased by the project at any of the three intersections, the operating condition at James and Central could be improved to LOS E by constructing additional left -turn lanes for the southbound approach. This mitigation will be needed with or without the project, so it is not included in the analysis of the proposed action. The intersection of Smith with Central could also be improved to LOS E by constructing an additional southbound left turn pocket and a westbound right turn pocket, which will be needed by the 2010 forecast year with or without the proposed action. This improvement is not included in the analysis of the proposed action. No mitigation actions are readily available for the Meeker and Washington intersection, nor are any required in conjunction with the proposed action. The intersection of Gowe Street and Central Avenue is projected to deteriorate from the existing LOS C to LOS F under the future baseline conditions, and would remain unchanged at LOS F in conjunction with the proposed action. No mitigation actions are proposed for the intersection, nor are any required in conjunction with the proposed action. The intersection of Willis Street and Washington Avenue is expected to deteriorate from LOS E to LOS F under the proposed action conditions. The addition of a right turn lane for the southbound movement is included in the proposed action to improve operations to LOS E. Park-and-ride traffic would be expected to exit via Railroad Avenue intersections at James and Smith Streets. These intersections are controlled by stop signs, and the existing levels of service were estimated at LOS D and LOS E, respectively. This situation is likely to change under the proposed action condition given the very high through movements at both James and Smith Streets. If signalized, the James Street and Railroad Avenue intersection would be expected to operate at LOS A and the Smith Street and Railroad Avenue intersection would be expected to operate at LOS B. The installation of traffic signals at these locations is therefore included as part of the proposed action. Page 3.3..14 June 1998 Transportation Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Table 3.3.8 Downtown Kent (North) Station Level of Service Summary No Intersection 1997 Avg. Delay Sec/Veh 2010 Baseline Avg. Delay Sec/Veh 2010 Action Avg. Delay Sec/Veh 2010 Action W/ Mitigation Avg. Delay SecNeh 1 a James,St. and , Washington Ave D . u 32 le.E ' _> x 4513` t s t E 46 3 r s . 2 James St. and 4th Ave. C 24.0 D 37.3 D 37.6 - '3a ,CA.; :7,ameensrS- taid '.- ', za5„ , .$ � `1 . k ,p,-,, �H6 . n� a9 6 , � :Fp �.....0 ` ; ,X : y 4 Smith St. and 4th Ave. B 10.0 C 15.9 D 25.6 - - 5m!'! amu• . .S11.,/an' . p r Cenfra,Ave : 'a a. 7 rk..,..2„.11.,,..:1_,..."' r 1 ,r Jp_. k , 48.1 F al0 5 -,...J; �'.^eS,rn .4. =F ^ .° 763 ' <E* r '4'3' '• .: ' �9 r`> 6 Meeker St. and Washington Ave. E 76.6 F 78.9 - - 7r n Meeker`:St .and'4th Ave - r tae B, ' .�.. 'u .* x'63 *•B } .'.ca i' �.t ? :i .. , • �.".'.i,Y.'aS'h�' 10.5 B Pr B 16.5 , , A 14.7 a > 4 .Cf-...��� - x - - 8 Meeker St. and Central Ave. B 9.9 B ;9" .. Gowe St. and 4th ?j .s B' 'i','!,-40." X52: ,13 }"...'lsw F �� °E ,c« . » �' a.f 1 .: -,,,j.-i- 66.7 � ' 5� $� - 4' v ad", �:'� s B .l. F °F" `$ s .>. ' x`' 5'3 ; a T.4 t r; a ,68.8 70 5 '� s �•T .-,, �= F'3'7,T'. a-fi ..r.. . 10 Gowe St. and ��Cyen�tral Ave.y,jy °VVi11is Seai:id a r . • ':' Washington Ave F '''''ll r 65.9 � /� `F 1 V ,-r......az - '" , , :,�-E`er r...�.. .. - .. a 42 9 a.t 12 Willis St. and SR - 167 southbound ramps B 12.5 D 25.1 D , 38.2 - - <' [V w i I.S.l x . n S P `167 northbound S..-. "T. 3 k -c. i "`4 C- kt + y+ ru 1p'a +^•� .k A r 8 y 4420'8-tt "D ' pY �� fly '.y;ytari�,H? b,_±_. +x3R.R• Y*f ; M 364iP d 'P t i `,• D c• , 36 4 - \"^�'6 M .�va F-7--'7774.77-----'7"- '.'gyp . R' �, ��• •t, -B "l '7- %i:y .. f^,.: "z. ,.E4 1-3.` - 14 Willis St. and 4th Ave C 18.3 C 23.6 C 24.0 - } . Y ♦ t 1 t� an � �! . 1 r ii snT ` CeritralAve ., --i•i . x J > '..,'. • i f ' }Pr ,.•• - e Tx4 t' F , `_�.• " r }. '�* N s..S•T , A .y ' .:�s , .> .. i;e,, 30 S ' � _,�> , 3`s � ( 41,-.. ik rn� *Not included in the proposed action. Kent's Concurrency Management Ordinance (KCC Chapter 12.11) establishes "mobility management zones and standards." The City will not approve a development proposal that causes the congestion to exceed the LOS standard for the mobility management zone affected. The standard for Kent's Central Business District (CBD) is set at a 1.0 volume/capacity ratio. A volume/capacity ratio of greater than 1.0 is generally considered to be equivalent to LOS F. Downtown Kent (South) The proposed Downtown Kent (South) Station would serve as an on-line station for Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail service. The station would be located on both sides of the BNSF tracks between Gowe and Willis Streets. As a result of the Transportation June 1998 Page 3.3-15 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment proposed action, the Titus Street railroad would be permanently closed to through traffic. Traffic from Titus Street would be required to divert to other parallel arterials such as Willis, Gowe, or Meeker Streets. A bus loading/unloading area and park-and- ride lots would be located on the east side of the railroad tracks, with entrances and exits via Railroad Avenue. Parking would be provided either by surface lots or a parking garage. Surface lots would be located: on both sides of Railroad Avenue between Willis and Titus Streets; on the east side of Railroad Avenue between Titus and Gowe Streets; and on the east side of First Avenue between Willis and Titus Streets. The parking garage would be located on the east side of Railroad Avenue between Titus and Gowe Streets. The study area analyzed consists of major roadways in the vicinity, including the east -west roadways of James, Smith, Meeker, Gowe, and Willis Streets, and the north -south roadways of Washington Avenue (SR -181), the Valley Freeway (SR -167), 4th Avenue, and Central Avenue. Downtown Kent is currently served by 13 bus routes with primary destinations including downtown Seattle, Renton, Southcenter, Boeing, and Auburn. An existing park-and-ride lot is located east and south of the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and James Street. This lot has a weekday utilization rate of 57 percent. In addition to the existing bus routes, additional bus routes and/or modifications to bus routes would be made to provide better service to and from the commuter rail station. Three peak - only routes and five all -day routes would serve the station. A new route from Auburn to SeaTac via Kent would serve the station all day. Route 150 from Auburn and Routes 166/169 from Highline Community College and Renton would also be rerouted to serve the station. Route 168 from Timberland would be modified to terminate at the station. Three peak -only express routes, the 158, 159, and 162, would be terminated at the proposed station. Level of service analysis was conducted at 15 locations in the study area. The results are summarized in Table 3.3.9. There are four locations where the level of service is "E" today: James Street at Central Avenue; Smith Street at Central Avenue; Meeker Street at Washington Avenue; and Willis Street at Washington Avenue. All four intersections are projected to deteriorate to LOS F under future baseline conditions and would remain at "F" under the proposed action. Additionally, the intersection of Gowe Street and Central Avenue operates at LOS F under existing conditions and will remain at LOS F under future conditions. Although delay would not be significantly increased by the project at any of these five intersections, the operating condition at James and Central could be improved to LOS E by constructing additional left -turn and right tum lanes for the southbound approach, and a right turn pocket for the westbound approach. This mitigation will be needed with or without the project, so it is not included in the analysis of the proposed action. The intersection of Smith with Central could also be improved to LOS E by constructing an additional southbound left tum lane, and a westbound right turn pocket, which will be needed by the 2010 forecast year with or without the proposed action. This improvement is not included in the analysis of the proposed action. No mitigation Page 3.3-16 June 1998 Transportation Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment actions afe proposed for the Meeker and Washington intersection, nor are any required in conjunction with the proposed action. Table 3.3.9 Downtown Kent (South) Station Level of Service Summary No Intersection 1997 Avg. Delay Sec/Veh 2010 Baseline Avg. Delay Sec/Veh 2010 Action Avg. Delay Sec/Veh 2010 Action W/ Mitigation Avg. Delay Sec/Veh t1-,t...:,'•'•s 4 James;St and•,; • . Washm on Ave fe D• t cf F. 32'sl;, la n q ', E w s y Se 4523 T e E rb 45.5 ;.'� t i a•- l Yr➢ 2 James St. and 4th Ave C 24.0 D 37.3 D. 37.6 - - ,. •t ; •et .�.IYe.°°''C t ' aures t.�an , � ?1•, . - P C Central Ave '. r ..?' ... <.s .- - 4, ' " 52: : ^ ,, �• X {per ei '•,t,i... ..,v'{%a. m 44 i,.!9 y; y :``.L+.a1.Bi_.�.... , 9 1 a 5. .. ... F , ,� � :, ... ....t 69 S r , r.al.. •`'g ;. •* r , , 1 , ,.'-^'# P• -" ^h,.'.. t. 7,g �4?.7 .... ,. ke 4 5 •Y•i't.' Smith St. and 4th Ave. SMi tails $� b}I:`•`tG .. ,?•'entraFAve _, B 1 yam ,m` 10.0 i r r( _ ', 3 r' ..s` ' C a'• ' S e.pei y � � . `. "•. 15.9 . +'S �7 Y t �s-4; 3 C ; t F K y%R i T.] ° 15.9 • 72 , 'C .. - 777 . i..cg ^$° f - _ : Y• - 43�ltt� s • , 6 Meeker St. and Washington Ave. E 48.1 F . 76.6 F 77.7 - - 17, a Mdeker:St. ani:4 i_ r Ave`rry• Meeker St. and Central Ave. � B •3 9.9 .' B 6.5' ., ;B 6. g,. 8 10.5 B 10.5 - - .7• 9 10 GuWe.1Sand4--r am bv`fL Gowe St. and Central Ave. th rc x F : �S,.tG•._ k� =: 65.9 1•c.. .r ' F •4sx5,, .:. • f 66.7 r'�, , rd � r F c - ri't c 'Sr f ct 66.8 (x r • • a -•k,,' - - 1:> l ,. .ani t; yi`1 Washingpt}on A e5 Fig J.,;r :" ice.. . Yia,:rray"�R+ + Y x 4 ,� " ,cY�.-. r.," ;598 r t•! r• 669 rz= ,_'r _ _ f Y , - . a. ... ,., 495 • Y 12 Willis St. and SR - 167 southbound ramps B 12.5 D 25.1 D 29.7 - - „; ` `. .r I 7 tai. S s` `167northboundrb . • t•� a -'F rXra Csn,c 4i.°3 ,�'.,r 6�,G�i � tie °, n, yy� b.•x .[., `208%, ,.a P :• :s i _.._1 ' r . D; ..'° aa.. .^r r." `.,..'? d. c . �•, [ 1 .k`�. f ti • r 364 r w a j; X�. n z..-< T` '. E am id a i�. ( "' 409` g dwt'.a }i .}P'°' r',1 D' '' ✓ ' L 23+9 14 Willis St. and 4th Ave. C 18.3 C 23.6 C 24.1 - - . oiCniallvP .r i;`'F '...s,'< .. .r' b4 Mr"i • rX C r 7 .r.•• b'y .a $b +.';rW• ° Sft .. 2` •'� : • • ..s. f _>w i ,r% .atr ..^- 14.fy. *Not included in the proposed action The intersection of Gowe Street and Central Avenue is projected to deteriorate from the existing LOS C to LOS F under future baseline conditions, and would remain unchanged at LOS F in conjunction with the proposed action. No mitigation actions are proposed for the intersection, nor are any required in conjunction with the proposed action. The intersection of Willis Street and Washington Avenue is expected to deteriorate from LOS E to LOS F under the proposed action conditions. The addition of a right Transportation June 1998 Page 3.3-17 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment turn lane for the southbound movement is included in the proposed action to improve operations to LOS E. Additionally, the intersection of Willis Street with the northbound SR 167 ramps would decline from LOS D to LOS E as a result of project generated traffic. Operations could be improved by adding a lane for the westbound right turn movement. This mitigation would improve the level of service to LOS D, and it is included in the proposed action. The park-and-ride traffic would be expected to exit the site via Railroad Avenue intersections at Gowe, Meeker and Smith Streets. These intersections are controlled by stop signs and the existing levels of service were estimated at LOS D/E. This situation is likely to worsen under the proposed action condition given the very high through traffic movements. The installation of traffic signals at these locations is therefore included as part of the proposed action. Downtown Auburn The Auburn station would be located downtown, northeast of the SR -18/ "C" Street Southwest interchange, along the BNSF tracks between First and Third Streets Southwest. The proposed park-and-ride lot would be located east and west of the commuter rail platform with access via "C" Street Southwest, "B" Street Southwest, "A" Street Southwest, and Main Street. The study area for traffic impacts was bounded by "C" Street Southwest on the west, 3rd Street Southwest/Cross Street Southeast on the south, Main Street on the north, and Auburn Way on the east. Seven Metro bus routes currently serve downtown Auburn with primary destinations including downtown Seattle, Southcenter, Kent, Federal Way, Pacific, and Enumclaw. The existing Auburn park-and-ride lot is located outside the study area at 15th Street NE and "A" Street NE, served by one additional bus route. Several existing routes would be rerouted or modified to feed the commuter rail station. Eight signalized and two unsignalized intersections were analyzed with and without the commuter rail project. The results of the level of service analysis are shown in Table 3.3.10. Additional traffic generated by the proposed rail station would cause one intersection to change from LOS B under the future baseline conditions to LOS C with the proposed action; all other intersections would be expected to operate at the same level with or without the project. The intersection at Cross Street Southeast/ Auburn Avenue is projected to drop to LOS F under the baseline condition, and adding project related traffic to this intersection would cause longer intersection delays. The level of service at this intersection could be improved to LOS D by adding a right -turn lane for the eastbound approach. This right turn lane is assumed to be included as a mitigative action for the proposed action. Page 3.3.18 June 1998 Transportation Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Table 3.3.10 Auburn Station Level of Service Summary No. Intersection 1992 Avg. Delay SecNeh 2010 Baseline Avg. Delay Sec/Veh 2010 Action Avg. Delay SecNeh 2010 Action with Mitigation 1 • ,$11.;18, eastbound ramps/ "C" ,St.;SW:{ F* N/A D . 31.3. D 33 8 2 SR -18 westbound ramps/"C" St. SW E* N/A D 30.8 D 38.2 -- ,.3. •T'luiirSt: SW`I"C"'St:SSV - i . 5 ;C,: 18 5 '' C ,.25 0 _ 4 Main St./"C" St. SW B 7.9 C 17.3 B 17.4 _ .,., c. `� '° uurn$ ve: � :.c.x.,, L,. _. .< >•rr. •;.:-;3—k:StxFs. tB ` ... 6tF 1i - .. ; t ,� 3 9� 6 Main St./Auburn Way C 16.8 E 54.9 E 54.7 7i aCloss7.St.1 AuhumrAve• •- .,,' f-TiE sig•4 , 10 : :-.-'1.124 F `190.2 `j) 8 Main St./Division St. B 6.8 B 7.3 B 7.3 -- Y N =4th A urn aye�; 9.7 . �: 77 3 C, 9A •�.� 10 2nd St. SE/Auburn Ave. B 6.1 B 9.1 B 10.1 -- * Unsignalized intersections Downtown Sumner The proposed Downtown Sumner Station would serve as an on-line station located along the BNSF tracks east of Traffic Avenue and south of Maple Street. The proposed park-and-ride lot was assumed to be located on the north side of the station with driveway entrances and exits via Maple Street, Narrow Street, and Traffic Avenue. The project area is located near the SR -167 and SR -410 interchange, bounded by Main Street on the north, the White River on the west, SR -410 on the south, and Alder Avenue on the east. Three Pierce Transit routes currently serve the study area. Routes 406 and 407 serve Downtown Sumner with primary destinations including downtown Puyallup, Bonney Lake, Prairie Ridge and Enumclaw. Route 202 connects downtown Sumner with Tacoma and Lakewood Mall.. There is no existing park-and-ride lot or transit center in the study area. Existing bus routes would be modified/rerouted to feed the commuter rail station. Five routes are assumed to terminate at the park-and-ride lot under the proposed action. In addition, it is anticipated that Route 406/407 will be modified in order to link neighborhoods surrounding Shaw Road with the commuter rail station. Level of service analyses were conducted at five locations within the study area. Table 3.3.11 summarizes the results. The unsignalized intersection at Traffic Avenue/Maple Street is predicted to operate at acceptable LOS C or better during all traffic study conditions, and the Alder Avenue/Main Street intersection is predicted to fail under both the baseline and proposed action conditions. At the Alder Avenue/Main Street intersection, the existing traffic control consists of two stop signs Transportation June 1998 Page 3.3-19 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail ' Environmental Assessment at the eastbound and northbound approaches and a yellow flashing light at the ' westbound approach at Main Street. The level of service could be improved by removing the stop sign for the eastbound approach and installing a yellow flashing light for eastbound traffic and a red flashing light for northbound traffic. Flashing lights would warn vehicles entering the intersection to proceed with caution or to stop. As a result, the level of service could be expected to improve to LOS C. This is not included as part of the proposed action because the proposal does not change the level of service compared to baseline conditions. No mitigation is necessary. All three signalized intersections analyzed along Traffic Avenue are expected to degrade to LOS F during both 2010 baseline and proposed action conditions. The average intersection delays at these signalized intersections would remain the same Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Table 3.3.11 Sumner Station Level of Service Summary No Intersection 1997 Avg. Delay Sec/Veh 2010 Baseline Avg. Delay Sec/Veh 2010 Action Avg. Delay Sec/Veh 2010 Action W/ Mitigation Avg. Delay Sec/Veh Signalized 1 6 Trac'A"ve &.SR i, 410 westbound L ;F 4'F 4 �; 69 8 a F 83.9 F E,'p 83 9 2 Traffic Ave. & SR - 410 eastbound ramps E 51.4 F 90.4 F 90.4 - - ? -.• t. zz tt WMX' s Tac've an. +��i�}xd��T' Mallgbgrh�6ez• .. l$ •.k +A3^ al?' , .0 .:'' *x°. � .. •'n t.re:Y 44°y20 roro.��w Y , 'e-, yc faLA:1.�„+ � `i.u..+i . E a .. , aw .. r . ‘ e:4 9 ,uC-�a+�.,,. t.,. °�i ? , AFsPR r 2 q F . •.• • .. 3A A' '`. y84 9 t .•�k.,• xe..r. , v e •4k%' § j �•c,r�f�."nz- ',>'.a x x .• � >` ,F • P„a. «q. rx*, :,.+ Unsignalized 4 " ry w.+- M'Y W x�. rG c� `Ave ' t ; ;s' , '.`r . u" n - i = q s ./MapleSt.. ,. 4 " PA ' . 1- -,1 ...14 c'llr '� 0 4x, - b '#j- -�- _ ¢Y.• , M t 'B 4 ¢ -,' n o - ..:.. rF . k 9 6 r' t f r • . a ^y, C - r.. M' J "11,2 �. ,:..:,F +3Y.G '.Y ^� •'mv'" z .r"r - e � X7 S ` � _• 5 Alder Ave. and Main St. B 8.5 F >60 F >60 C* N/A * Not included in the proposed action Downtown Puyallup The proposed commuter rail station would be located in downtown Puyallup, south of West Stewart Avenue and along the BNSF tracks between 2nd and 4th Streets NW. A park-and-ride lot would be located on the north side of the station with access via West Stewart Avenue, and on the south side of the station, with access from Main Avenue. The project area is bounded by River Road on the north, 4th Street NW/5th Street NW on the west, Main Avenue on the south, and 2nd Street NE on the east. Currently, seven Pierce Transit bus routes serve the Puyallup Transit Center, which is located outside of the study area at Pioneer and 3rd Street SW. Primary destinations for the existing routes include downtown Tacoma, Federal Way Park -and -Ride, Sumner, Bonney Lake, Enumclaw, and the Parkland Transit Center. All bus routes operating in downtown Puyallup would be rerouted to serve the proposed commuter rail station. A new route, operating along 9th Street, would link the South Hill Park and Ride lot and South Hill Mall Transit Center with the commuter rail station. Its schedule would be fully coordinated with commuter rail operations. Within the study area, one =signalized and 10 signalized intersections were analyzed. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 3.3.12. All existing study intersections are estimated to operate at LOS C or better during the afternoon peak -hour traffic conditions. Two intersections would drop to LOS F for the 2010 baseline and proposed action traffic conditions, and one intersection would deteriorate to LOS E conditions with or without the proposed action. The average delay for vehicles using these intersections would increase under the proposed project by less Transportation June 1998 Page 3.3-21 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment than 10 seconds for the LOS F intersections, and less than one second at the LOS E intersection. Table 3.3.12 Puyallup Station Level of Service Summary No. Intersection 1997 Avg. Delay Sec/Veh 2010 Baseline Avg. Delay Sec/veh 2010 Action Avg. Delay Sec/Veh 1 ,b. st -�` Signalized diver: • • t d 4t, 41,-1-411.. r. : �... ,... r i. .gym. s` Stewart Ave. And 4th St. NW , ;,B. . �'�. C ..':9:5 ' << �n s _ �``> 17.9 ...; D: ' i�z`•'�'o:' ,a:. F : ' ,> r '34:8.>" ' .: _ ib:7 71.5 ,. ; -� F ..3f4 8;� lKt�jS 79.4 3 :4s :41NfainiAve: Anil¢.Sth St4NW4 ; n, ' aA ;4:21'.,:.:': ;a;:, .313^ - x S8 rrr " '=B 7. f 'rtk 5 River Rd.And Meridian St. B 15 E 50.8 E 51 6 , i t ve ff. an. en � fan ' ; • � f 1 .- _ F . : :B # •7 7 StewartnAve.ASt. B 11.8 F 71.6 .And �M1�e�r'idianlT Mani; V �AndaMer�di n S1: <:n. . `e Y.<"S L•id.°<_ ,,L:: 4,iB /63� ;6:9 Z} £ A to tele 9 5th Ave. NE and 2nd St. NE B 7.2 B . ,-.77,M":77 8.6 5.6 1 , B B c 8.6 I � tew Ave.. , ! n t ,,.;;,."*i°,1 ,..3 .9:C.i e : k B '• 'f37;2;::, 5.6 �r� 4 °Y 11 Main Ave. And 2nd St. NE Unsignalized 2 Ii ' . .2", ' i.., B , 5.6 B rt s7 None of the study intersection levels of service would deteriorate as a result of the proposed commuter rail station. As a result, no mitigative actions are included in the proposed action. Puyallup administers a concurrency test for development permit applications according to the provisions of PMC Chapter 21.18. A reduction in LOS below the minimum LOS standard generally cannot be approved without mitigation. LOS standards are established in the current capital facilities program. Commuter rail patrons would use Stewart Avenue to access the station. Restricted on -street parking on Stewart Avenue in the station vicinity would reduce traffic flow interruptions to through traffic. Tacoma (Interim) Station The proposed action includes an interim terminal station just west of the existing Tacoma Amtrak station. This station site is located on the north side of Puyallup Avenue between "E" and "G" Streets. The station platform would be located across the street from the new Tacoma Dome Station This interim station would consist of a 1000 -foot long platform with shelters and a pedestrian walkway to connect across Puyallup Avenue to the intermodal facility. A future study of the extension of commuter rail service to Lakewood will evaluate relocating the Tacoma commuter rail station from the Amtrak site to Freighthouse Square, two blocks to the south. The Tacoma Dome Station, opened by Pierce Transit in October 1997, includes a four - level 1,200 stall parking structure with entrances and exits to the parking lot on East 25th Street and East "0" Street. Bus circulation to the site is located on the Puyallup Page 3.3-22 June 1998 Transportation Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Avenue frontage, with both on- and off-street loading areas. From the proposed commuter rail platform, commuters will be able to walk across Puyallup Avenue at the existing "G" Street signalized intersection, directly to the bus loading area to transfer, or to a car in the parking structure. The study area for assessing traffic impacts is bounded by Puyallup Avenue and South 24th Street on the north, Pacific Avenue on the west, I-5 on the south, and Portland Avenue on the east. Nine local routes would serve the station all day, with all but three ending at the station. Routes that would be extended to serve the commuter rail station include 11, 27, 60, 102X, and 28 from Point Defiance, South 19th Street, the Tacoma Tide Flats, Gig Harbor, and South 12th Street, respectively. Route 42 from McKinley Avenue to downtown Tacoma would be modified to serve the station. Routes 41, 400, and 500 which currently serve the station location will continue service. As travel habits change from bus to commuter rail, service on Sound Transit's Regional Express routes "0" and "P" would be reduced in proportion to ridership reductions. Traffic analyses were conducted at 13 signalized and three unsignalized locations to assess the impacts of the new commuter rail service. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 3.3.13. Additional traffic generated by the proposed rail station would be expected to affect only one signalized intersection. This intersection is located at Pacific Avenue and South 25th Street. Providing a left -turn pocket for the westbound traffic movement would improve the intersection LOS to LOS D. This modification is part of the proposed action. Two unsignalized intersections along East 25th Street at East "A" and East "C" Streets are also projected to drop from LOS B to C and LOS A to B, respectively. However, these intersection LOSs are within acceptable traffic operating conditions and no improvements are necessary. Tacoma administers a concurrency test according to the provisions of TMC Chapter 13.16. A permit that results in the reduction of LOS below the minimum LOS standard generally cannot be approved without mitigation. LOS standards are found in the current adopted Capital Facilities Program. Transportation June 1998 Page 3.3-23 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Table 3.3.13 Intersection Level of Service Summary Tacoma Station No. Intersection 1997 Avg. Delay Sec/Veh 2010 Baseline Avg. Delay Sec/Veh 2010 Action Avg. Delay Sec/Veh 2010 Action W/ Mitigation Avg. Delay Sec/Veh Signalized `1PacificlAve./So. '-24th:St.'',,-°.L'-_ Pacific Ave./So. 25th St. x99i',„::: .. ;.a..`_ -B.. - °>•`. 12,6 r s f B 13:4 r , r 1 " B B 2 7.7 C 23.6 F 81.4 ?n - D .. , . _:: 31.3 , CT' - ., ,3-..:,4.,),°:".4.. _:„ 4 $actfi&Ar4So ✓- `t 261,,.._,_11&;1.:-„L',._•-4i.,;a E. "A" St./E. 26th St. I-5 ram. ,, `,.._==g B 38'- ' , nP. 7.5 {pD _ ..:a'. ... ,.` , ' B 11.4 B 11.4 - - •, 5 2 a E.a S`t)3"rS 26th +1 L.;1vS:ram`, E. "A" St./E. 24th St. L B A r; 11.4 t�B_• c,8dt u # B 84 , 6 F 63.4 F 63.4 - - 7 _. .'•q F D'.t./E"26t11 t. ! e„^ :.a`aSL.. , ' , Ny . �s _b , , 7 - '°„ q.. 5 p .. ... B , � `p , .. , . e � 8 9 „ ' `?{'_;",.." _ 59.8 ,'72.0 a y _,end_ :.a .:n .. j 27.5 B' .... ., - E 6. .}!. D `,� 9 3 ¢ ... 59.9 f' 72 0 {' �`. },iJ 28.5 ` c � 4n .. q •J xY } aZ •` 8 E "D" St./E. Puyallup Ave. C -E °:77,4767-7,7-7,77,7,F,77— . Fi..�.,p...a, _.r.T S.< B 21.6 �,!{w"}J� 9.8 E n wi. . -tn h• ..: :,y., D . .n . f - :"O.�' P_: •. - _ .,., .4a- .., �..�a. ,. - ri?d .]Puyail`up Ave I. a , .. f •icr� .� .' .Portland. Ave:.., E. 27th St./ Portland Ave. 1-5 ramp 10 1 x 13 E.28th°St/ Portland Ave _-I-S?ramp F E."D" St./E. 25th St �M ? T.11'.3 • . & 4 .,,.... 15:5 1 P tC .. �.....n >tt 15- ,' ' , , •� t • B* 8.7 Bx 9,9 B 14.3 - - 715.: s asap p ;ya ups ,.: •:, $ ..AveXE:"G„ � ,�, Unsignalized ' *. .� s'tx':.��" a: d."ya, 6•3 •.e s - �,,a •i.� •..:' s� �:B , • '. s<.r`a.3.; : . � �10.2�-;•s <._.r i.,.:.a a,.. 'B ,..... „ 10 SS, :. �. t. „ •M. ; k , � , ... .', ° :, a. � a—' _....,.,. �> -'®.�e•f ;ia. 12$z.�.\7.:t.�x. "c«� .sd'?'i•$ d,..2t 5hW Ga... ,iZF ^4 't.",'. aar 344 : ,..,..< 1 381, 1 1 . t t,..S 4Lom £ • "} { 14 E. "G" St./E. 25th St. A 3.1 B 6.1 B 6.3 •♦ '�... vd VSs S`� '" Ly m t"$ .&. +d£`�:' i .. ...+ecs nd, $ a. �4LR �J t % ^ i cs°:4>+�n"'• ii«X. ,''�". vt °P d, e4, #her , l.. t..7 .C'w 7„"i .f o mrt «.a_ ...'a, v° ' < •...t.. •} } *Unsignalized Intersections 3.3.3.4 Railroad Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Wherever commuter trains would cross a street or highway at -grade there would be an impact on traffic operations. Some traffic on the affected street or highway would be delayed as trains approach and cross the roadway. A summary of grade crossing locations in the corridor is shown in Table 3.3.14. Page 3.3-24 June 1998 Transportation Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Table 3.3.14 Commuter Rail Grade Crossings Alignment/ Segment Grade Crossings Existing Protection Proposed Improvements King: Street to:Spokane;� ..Street k '• '- 5: ` .Gates . . Extended detection -CWT-sit:ualm ' . Spokane Street to Georgetown 0 z Gz rBx oe't-rig AccesRot��.. %. 1-e. - :Xtfe, ¢+ Ty( ir1:r:-- '+- u�s,._ �, 6 ' ., • • :]Pi .1.,ae'.1�-.. restnctons ypTraffc +,! •i • •ti ®w} - ad sa,alimpro_vems4�ens ' /T ging___1.1_ tA1-SlYn, :: F?r gyi . Boeing Access Road to Tukwila 3 Gates Extended detection CWT signaling :Tukwilacto:Kent- ; ''.sr 'e.. - "1 Xy ;'ar' fi `3 g .a c. ,*$,5 't' Gates ` = ;: ;ti ' x..^✓'� �rit a°t 8 Gates Speed restrictions 'Extended~detection --a uCriTsignal '" .. '�'°'..:ac^ -.t•. •;? Additional gates Extended detection CWT signaling ' ;p., i. Kent to Auburn 12 ubum•to Sumner, L ,e" a , i, ' e r ,, ;° , w'a ry a •h es Pt ., x ---' .+: 8 gr+e. n :�l. Extende. detection -. ' a -e: <..s :.CWTsipnaltng ' ':,n" '...f., t t Sumner to Puyallup 5 Gates Speed restrictions Extended detection CWT signaling allu".tofiacoma ';:=> .`4_¢ ` . r �' "a "==', . 't �: :-GatesM•iG "``;r' '• _ _‹: .. =•Extended detection =:;n°. - :CW T signaling Commuter trains would move at speeds equal to or greater than freight and Amtrak trains using the same tracks, except when approaching and departing stations. Because they would be relatively short in length (500 feet at the start of service in 1999, and up to 1,000 feet as cars are added over time to match ridership; freight trains can be up to one mile long), the time that commuter trains would require to approach and traverse a crossing would be significantly less than that needed by other trains already operating on the BNSF main line. A commuter train would generally move at speeds of 50 to 75 miles per hour, and would occupy a crossing for four to 13 seconds. In Seattle, south of downtown, the current speed limit is 20 miles per hour; at this speed, a commuter train would occupy a crossing for approximately 17 to 34 seconds. An additional 30 seconds is required for the gates to lower prior to the arrival of the train, and about 5 seconds following the train's passage for the gates to raise. Where influenced by stations, traffic impacts would be greater, since commuter trains would be decelerating, pausing 40 to 60 seconds to discharge and board passengers, and then accelerating. Acceleration and deceleration were factored into the analysis when grade crossings were less than 2,500 feet from a station. Table 3.3.15 shows the estimated amount of time that traffic would be blocked by background freight/Amtrak trains, by the proposed commuter trains, and the combined delays under the proposed action conditions. Freight and Amtrak trains are Transportation June 1998 Page 3.3-25 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment estimated to block traffic during about seven percent of the peak hour. At grade crossings between station areas, the commuter trains would increase the delay by an additional four percent, resulting in combined peak -hour delay of eleven percent. Within the station areas, commuter trains would add an additional seven percent to the background delay, creating overall delays of 14 percent during the peak traffic hour. Table 3.3.15 Peak Hour Impact of Train Movement at Grade Crossings in the Year 2010 General Location Freight/Amtrak Trains Commuter Trains Combined Delay Seconds Percent 1 Seconds Percent 1 Seconds Percent 1 `Betvi+,eeii:Stations u` `250 ` 71:3'« `` `;154':_ x g ..0 ..4 t `.' 14 rA Al!..:',.: Station Areas 250 498 14 1 Percent of time blocked during peak traffic hour. Using forecast traffic volumes for the year 2010 and taking into account the above capacity reductions, the impacts of commuter rail service along the BNSF main line were estimated. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 3.3.16. The analysis shows that no significant adverse traffic impacts would be expected at any of the corridor grade crossings. The proposed action is estimated to change from LOS B to C at South Lander Street and from LOS C to D at Southwest Spokane Street in Seattle. However, the resulting peak hour LOS would still be acceptable (i.e., LOS D or better). The analysis indicates that the proposed commuter rail service is not a critical restraint at any of these crossings, and that roadway LOS would be improved more by adding lanes than by grade -separating the crossings. 3.3.3.5 Railroad Freight Operating Impacts Baseline Conditions The number of trains operating daily in the Tacoma -to -Seattle corridor is not expected to increase substantially by 1998. However, in order to provide a conservative analysis, baseline conditions were evaluated with an assumed increase of approximately 25 trains per day, including 15 additional freight trains and 10 intercity passenger trains. Rail system operations modeling of this increase in train activity resulted in the need to reschedule six trains per day, a seven to nine percent delay ratio. Increases of up to a total of 62 trains a day may occur by the year 2010. Track capacity upgrades would be provided by the BNSF and the State of Washington Department of Transportation to accommodate the increased track speeds needed to implement higher passenger train travel speeds in the intercity Pacific Northwest Corridor that has been designated between Eugene, OR and Vancouver, BC. These upgrades would include extending train detection circuits for at -grade railroad crossings. The FAST Corridor program has targeted a number of grade crossings for closure or separation. The Metropolitan King County Council is also developing its own program to prioritize and fund grade crossing projects. WSDOT, through these and other programs, including the PNWRC program, is working with Page 3.3-26 June 1998 Transportation Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment communities and the BNSF to identify grade crossings that may need enhanced warning signals, grade separation or other treatments to enhance safety. Table 3.3.16 Level of Service at Grade Crossings in Year 2010 Crossing Baseline Proposed Action Kin'! -Str'.eet,Station . ` `` -:.; y ...° MEN.VIN Royal Brougham Way S. Holgate Street S. Lander Street S. Horton Street SW Spokane Street C B B D C C B C D D 11;Geo '*owa-Station:4, ;' ' ` ' Military Road B B aBoem r fAccessRoad.Statiiiii V: ' 5"` SW 43rd Street S. 212th Street S. 228th Street B B A B B A _-1'owatowns1Cent`tStation' North::and°South W. James Street W. Smith Street W. Meeker Street W. Gowe Street W. Titus Street W. Willis Street S. 259th Street S. 277th Street 37th Street NW 29th Street NW 3rd Street NW Main Street W B A C D B A A E D A B D B A C D B A A E D A B D Auburn�Station� � ~ zDowntown; � N 3rd Street SW 8th Street E 24th Street E Williams Avenue Zehnder Avenue Main Street , B D A A A B B D A A A B o town; Su ;; ne;;Statton - .. . , , , Maple Street 15th Street SE 5th Street SE 3rd Street SE Meridian Street N ;, B B E C D B z. B E C D rico. iitownfPu :11u (1StitioiC C . "' , 'A. ` K, n=� s . . 5th Street SW 7th Street NW 12th Street NW Stewart Avenue/66th Avenue 52nd Street E E B C D C E B C D • C - '•* in elr.:xaLl ar.ke:Vs= CH2M Hill, 1997 Transportation June 1998 Page 3.3-27 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 3.4 NOISE AND VIBRATION This section provides an assessment of the noise and vibration impacts associated with the proposed Tacoma -to -Seattle commuter rail project. The assessment includes an investigation of the affected environment, the identification of sensitive receivers, analysis of potential noise and vibration impacts, and an overview of possible mitigation measures for adversely impacted locations. 3.4.1 Methodology and Approach 3.4.1.1 Noise "Noise" is defined simply as "unwanted sound." Sounds are described as noise if they interfere with an activity or disturb the person hearing them. Sound is measured using a logarithmic unit called a decibel (dB). To better approximate the sensitivity of the human ear to sounds of different of frequencies, the A -weighted decibel scale was developed. Because the human ear is less sensitive to higher and lower frequencies, the A -weighted scale reduces the sound level contributions of these frequencies. When the A -weighted scale is used, the decibel levels are denoted as dBA. Sound levels fluctuate with time depending on the sources of sound audible at a specific location. In addition, the degree of annoyance associated with certain sounds can vary by time of day, depending on other sound sources affecting a listener and the activities of that listener. Because the time -varying fluctuations in sound levels at a fixed location can be quite complex, they typically are reported using statistical or mathematical descriptors that are a function of sound intensity and time. The most commonly used descriptor for periods of noise is Leq, which represents the equivalent sound energy of the event as a steady, unvarying tone over a defined period of time, normally one-hour. For transit projects, where there is the potential for noise impacts during evening and nighttime hours, the Ldn noise descriptor is often used. The Ldn„ also abbreviated DNL, is a 24-hour Leq, but with a 10 -dB penalty assessed to noise events occurring at night (defined as 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). The effect of this penalty is that any event during the nighttime hours is equivalent to ten events during the daytime hours. This strongly weights Lth„ toward nighttime noise to reflect the assumption that most people being are easily annoyed by noise during the nighttime hours when both background noise is lower and most people are sleeping. Some typical Ldn values for different communities and areas are given in Figure 3.4.1. The perceptible noise generated by commuter train operations would vary due to a number of factors. Examples include the location of the receiver relative to the railroad tracks, the intervening terrain, the number of locomotives and cars in each train, the operating speed, the condition of the track, and the occurrence and duration of warning whistles at grade crossings and other locations. Because many of these conditions vary throughout the corridor, the noise impacts due to commuter rail service can be expected to vary throughout the corridor. Noise and Vibration Page 3.4-1 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Figure 3.4.1 Typical Community Day -Night Levels Ldn in dBA Rural area with no major roads nearby Typical quiet suburban residential area Quiet suburban residential neighborhood, not close to major roads, little nighttime activity Source: FTA, April 1995 Relatively noisy residential area. Usually a major road or airport is nearby. Residential area with some traffic nearby. Typical of many residential areas Generally considered unacceptable for residential use. Strongly affected by major transportation source. Noisy residential area. Close to a major freeway, close to the end of an airport runway. Very no sy area. Unusual except in rare circumstances The noise impacts of the proposed action were assessed by following the detailed noise analysis procedure outlined in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, distributed by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). This procedure involves determining the noise level attributable to the proposed project and comparing the results to existing levels at noise -sensitive land use locations along the corridor. In this way, the level of impact of proposed commuter rail operations at noise -sensitive locations was determined. 3.4.1.2 Vibration Ground -borne vibration is another potential source of environmental impact resulting from commuter rail service. The effects of vibration primarily occur within buildings, and are perceived as both vertical motion of building surfaces and as an audible rumbling noise. The motion due to ground -borne vibration is described in terms of vibration velocity levels, measured in decibels referenced to 1 micro -inch per second (dB re 10-6 in/sec). The abbreviation VdB is used here for vibration decibels to minimize confusion with sound decibels. The threshold of human perception for vibration is on the order of 60-70 VdB. Figure 3.4.2 provides some typical vibration levels and the usual human response. The identification and analysis of vibration impacts of the proposed action followed the general assessment methodology outlined in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (1995). The manual includes procedures at three different levels of detail: vibration screening to determine if ground -borne vibration from the project may affect sensitive land uses; general assessment to develop a curve of vibration levels as a function of distance from the track; and detailed analysis to develop accurate projections of the ground -borne vibration propagation at specific sites. Page 3.4-2 June 1998 Noise and Vibration Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Figure 3.4.2 Typical Ground -borne Vibration Levels RMS Vibration Velocity Level (VdB) 60 Approximate threshold of human perception 70 Generally acceptable for residential land uses Perceptib e to most people, but rarely considered unacceptable Source: FTA, April 1995 80 90 Sufficient to cause difficulty with tasks such as reading a VDT screen Very noticeable, generally not intrusive for office or institution land uses. Only acceptable for residential land uses if vibration occurs a limited number of times per day. 100 Approximate threshold for damage Approximate threshold for damage to fragile historic buildings. Sufficient to cause cosmetic damage to some buildings. The vibration screening procedure is intended to simplify the analysis of proposed changes that are not likely to create significant adverse impacts. Because the proposed action involves the use of traditional steel -wheel -on -rail technology, the potential exists for ground -borne vibration impacts, and additional investigation was justified. The general assessment procedure, which was employed for this analysis, is intended to provide more specific estimates of potential vibration impacts at sensitive locations by incorporating project -specific information. A base curve is defined that relates overall ground -borne vibration to distance from the source and then adjustments are applied to account for other factors such as vehicle speed and track conditions. Using the base curve and appropriate adjustments, the ground -borne vibration and noise due to the project are estimated for sensitive land use locations in the corridor. After the forecasts are developed for each location, they are compared to the existing vibration levels and the applicable criteria to evaluate the level of impact. For this analysis, existing vibration levels were approximated by modeling existing railroad activity in the corridor and using information from similar projects in the Puget Sound area. 3.4.2 Affected Environment 3.4.2.1 Noise and Vibration Guidelines Several different noise and vibration regulations and ordinances were evaluated for their relevance to the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Study. Applicable agency noise regulations and ordinances reviewed in this section include those from the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Highway Administration, the Washington Department of Transportation, and the Washington Administrative Code. For example, the peak commuter rail hour Lw or daily La are used for commuter rail noise, and the Washington Administrative Code is used for construction noise Noise and Vibration Page 3.4-3 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment analysis. The following sections contain a review of noise -specific regulations and a review of ground -borne vibration regulations and ordinances. The FTA uses the La metric for assessing impacts related to transportation projects. The criteria in the FTA Guidance Manual are founded on well-documented research on community reaction to noise and are based on change in noise exposure using a sliding scale. The amount that the transit project is allowed to change the overall noise environment is reduced with increasing levels of existing noise. The FTA Noise Impact Criteria groups noise sensitive land uses into the following three categories: Category 1: Buildings or parks where quiet is an essential element of their purpose. Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This includes residences, hospitals, and hotels where nighttime sensitivity is assumed to be of utmost importance. Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category includes schools, libraries, churches, and office buildings which depend on quiet as an important part of operations. Lth, is used to characterize noise exposure for residential areas (Category 2) and maximum 1 -hour Leg during the period that the facility is in use is used for other noise sensitive land uses such as school and applicable office buildings (Categories 1 and 3) where nighttime noise levels are not as important. There are two levels of impact included in the FTA criteria. The interpretation of these two levels of impact are summarized below: Severe: Severe noise impacts are considered "significant" as this term is used in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and implementing regulations. Noise mitigation will normally be specified for severe impact areas unless there is no practical method of mitigating the noise. Impact: This level is sometimes referred to as moderate impact. In this range, other project -specific factors must be considered to determine the magnitude of the impact and the need for mitigation. These other factors can include the predicted increase over existing noise levels, the types and number of noise -sensitive land uses affected, existing outdoor -indoor sound insulation, and the cost effectiveness of mitigating noise to more acceptable levels. The noise impact criteria for commuter rail operations are summarized in Table 3.4.1. The first column shows the existing noise exposure and the remaining columns show the additional noise exposure caused by the transit project that is necessary for the two levels of impact. Page 3.4-4 June 1998 Noise and Vibration Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Table 3.4.1 FTA Noise Impact Criteria Project Noise Exposure Impact Thresholds, Ld„ or Leq' Existing Noise (all noise levels in dBA) Exposure Leg or Lda 1 Category 1 or 2 Sites Category 3 Sites Impact Severe Impact Impact Severe Impact rff.',1y,A1.nhi:ent.t.10.?,1F.;":Ainbient+.15'41,+201;1 43-44 52 58 57 63 7:77137:17772 PROCONION . . : '7,--2,.. -W:7 i '4771 46-47 53 59 58 64 :•7:0 '. AV,. 49-50 54 59 59 64 '''':2,54.vc•7•51.7;''..j':,:-_, i..---,-74. • -,:'• T: -.C77..:;;":767)177.7:,,,-75".'-4,'.'••?i'''''': 9L'`'' .--, '5' 52-53 55 60 60 65 55 56 61 61 66 :1,-.15i,..,52,:i.,_•,.;,j! ,,,r77.73T77-471.r.,,,,; .:62:7-,::,-.1,1[777-77:6717:7 ,L_„*. ,-L612Z2-Z. 57-58 57 62 62 67 '41,.,.":: 59/.;•.‘•°,.: ,..!. .::.1: : 8,'-:::',°:";z:,': [441:'661:,----'1:71, ....!' 't,.....„..,:j21;2.,.-:., ',..,„68'';;:',.::-': 61-62 59 64 64 69 ;5:Zit:::03 5::!••-•1 :.F7,77:•• • :6577:; -IE -7'10.,.7.,f7 64 61 65 66 70 TV.s,A1:!65',4!-••••„. '1,,.;::1,f721., 1.7; .--;J,- --'2',t;;;;,'-':. 6..-.,-.'-v-i' — '..-.:::''66: -.:7-::,-, ':--21....'[.. 66 62 67 67 72 •`7, -*•467.. - -•`27*7 egitallit** ...r* -6 ..;.468,t..2:::„;..:,,. .4 '.,,t,..weg • .,,-1..:; 68 63 68 68 73 ?6.9'.2'4'f'ff!:';* 70 65 69 70 74 4.,,,,i,:' -;„1-2:1e„„„-, • "` • '' .0241SteaM 72-73 66 71 71 76 75 66 73 71 78 -,'W, • % '• ticM4:10:1, ,6•StO Olit%16t .14, fr.MMOStaz ' y:1 -:N,.; 9...5.;...„' >77 66 75 71 80 NOTE: Values in this table are rounded to the nearest whole decibel, however impacts are determined using one decimal place. Category Definitions: Category 1: Buildings or parks where quiet is an essential element of their purpose. Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This includes residences, hospitals, and hotels where nighttime sensitivity is assumed to be of utmost importance. Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category includes schools, libraries, and churches. 1 L,, is used for land uses where nighttime sensitivity is a factor and daytime Leq is used for land use involving only daytime activities. Noise and Vibration June 1998 Page 3.4-5 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment The FTA has developed impact criteria for acceptable levels of ground -borne vibration. Previous experience with ground -borne vibration from rail systems and other common vibration sources has provided the following information and guidelines: • The threshold of vibration perception for most humans is around 65 VdB, levels in the 70 to 75 VdB range are often noticeable but acceptable, and frequent levels greater than 80 VdB are often considered unacceptable. • For commuter rail transit systems with limited operations during peak commute hours, limits for acceptable levels of residential ground -borne vibration are usually set at 80 VdB. • Ground -borne vibration from any type of train operations will rarely be high enough to cause any sort of building damage, even minor cosmetic damage. The only real concern is that the vibration will be intrusive to building occupants or interfere with vibration sensitive equipment. Table 3.4.2 summarizes the FTA impact criteria for ground -borne vibration. These criteria are based on previous standards, criteria, and design goals including ANSI S3.29' and the noise and vibration guidelines of the American Public Transit Association. Table 3.4.2 Ground -Borne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria Ground -Borne Vibration (VdB re 1 micro inch/sec) Land Use Category Frequent' Infrequent2 Events Events i ^l $ _. K sb $ `Qf:,,,^ "+7'a"<: rr;' Categoiy ..Butidmgs where€ltiw°ainbietit :vibration is essen`tial for"wtenor ^'' e. s. -4,,..,..k:„.„,,,,®, t a�y�'5�'t '�" loperations., Y = .: - .. • ri ri�°dl rn F P ^ro•a'2. o �F65sVdB'°` rA � ' = ` " �,t{ KrE�,.S 4�( Na, }� ."+ YG.kw 'd` .• •_.�:W's.°..f '". a c 4 f ` 65'VdB3 i' j> r '"y �" y tp± y \ ibz`.�' a� '9 S `L-tY�ar' ,4 �: .� e� ... : riz ... a,a 80 VdB Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. R Ca ,;.0 �.. Institutionalaland uses �zc meuse: ... �C .t^;'d:.° 72 VdB ,'+s 5 dBW" 9Y f ., �q" r •k# ^9• �t� aA .., s ++ .� p$ b�; w iw r1 Nwah ' "Frequent Events" is defined as more than 70 vibration events per day. South/North Transit Corridor project falls into this category. 2 "Infrequent Events" is defined as fewer than 70 vibration events per day. This includes most commuter rail systems. ' This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes. Vibration sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels. Ensuring lower vibration levels in a building often requires special design of the HVAC systems and stiffened floors. "American National Standard: Guide to the Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings," ANSI S3.29-1983, Acoustical Society of America, 1983. Page 3.4-6 June 1998 Noise and Vibration Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 3.4.2.2 Sensitive Corridor Land Uses Maps, aerial photographs and field studies of the Tacoma -to -Seattle commuter rail corridor were used to identify noise- and vibration -sensitive land uses adjacent to the BNSF mainline. The inventory, which is summarized in Table 3.4.3, included 59 existing land uses located within 750 feet (213 m) of the proposed route. This distance is an FTA -recommended screening distance. Outside this distance, noise impacts from commuter train operations would not normally be expected. Identified sensitive receivers within 750 feet of the tracks include residential neighborhoods, schools, libraries, hotels, parks and recreational areas. Table 3.4.3 Summary of Sensitive Land Uses within 750 Feet of BNSF Railroad Tracks Type of Land Use Uses Within 750 Feet of BNSF Tracks r.:.• iti it .�< ./-7 ya d ,.�. iBestdeutial;; 3* r y r r Y� Neiglibo`rhooilij, ,:, .> _.;�, .., _ { r t .t t.. •+4A`Fla. . _:; �u 10 fi mileioti frontage ,� a309'residences _'�• "t :.. _ ..".; Community Use Areas Sumner Library 4 Meeker Mansion Puyallup Nation Tribal Cepter/ Pu'a11u Inp dian Cemetery ,Parks"and 1 4 .`• n r• r � t , , u 5 ; �s �ReCreatlonal AreaS;, , -=,-„,,,:.7.7,1v 4 <. - v t .te' { •; n� <: } i'`'s> ' cJ, .� ci •t t P k � 3: ° ': yg' 'w• '. a - i •.°' `¢Pd ✓� �^^t. " . isiXL.6'+ . Pyya4 t aL jpRd'i sa °.� n ' ' t -at wc,. Z . �� h .a. �� $,�� .3 >� ro x.. `�� fes°. ' -r �.'ri°�< -,. L?�"i � .? � : p� �,�$, � ,, ; ;. 3 ._ fg i.,.., 'e 9' 5 i c..g 5_ i'h�jdd d _ >n ,r {t» a t4 ., a 7" i i' _ ^ P /°$ ,� - { '� eA C P.'..;' �*�' .tpr...� ,R, .. ,, , l .j� .v: i t ^4 r Y °.#. C?e •q ,. ''A: b a, C" t �h�-..,,J- „ r6'eYj,-t �' . . ',i : ' f1� .r, �, , it; r ,s. — r-��" Foster Golf Course, f �t> _ Fort`Dent'Park Interurban Trail' `✓ Duwamisli,Greeti°River Trail! • � Kiwams T9tLots land 2. r �, . ( i+ �Titus ParkZ 4e{4.k!�, 'r $ e�}�� ,a. ' `�urlm1#0*. Teen -�' -.r¢#" � zt�ss'i•. Ktabara'Park Zr.1 4� s a2' Y!' �J t `P �1"y.. -_ ✓ '�' L ,y wy. ..§i. GSA Ballfield nrF'wf i = Sumner Meadows Golf Lmks. ' 6 3. 4 4 jY �,Sieti_enthalerParkf , q i ” P. P: a }1 ti <„ 4Sumner Do yntown Park (planned) .=; ,N. West Auburn Senior High School Kent Junior High School Puyallup Elementary School Schools ' Notes: 1. Located in Tukwila 2. Located in Kent Source: BRW, Inc., June 1994 3. Located in Sumner 4. Located in Puyallup 5. Located in Tacoma 6 Located in Aubum The BNSF mainline has approximately 10.6 miles (17.1 km) of residential areas within 750 feet of the tracks between Tacoma and Seattle. In addition, the proposed alignment passes within 750 feet of three community use areas, five park and recreation areas and one school. 3.4.2.3 Ambient Conditions The proposed commuter rail service would utilize the existing BNSF railroad tracks in the corridor. Currently those tracks are used by freight and intercity passenger Noise and Vibration June 1998 Page 3.4-7 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment (Amtrak) trains, which would continue to operate during and after the implementation of commuter rail service. The tracks presently carry an average of 26 freight and six passenger trains per day. The number of freight trains can vary considerably for a number of reasons, reaching levels of 50 or more per day. Finally, the relatively high volume of existing train traffic in the corridor represents a significant source of noise and ground -borne vibration. Freight trains typically are of much greater length than passenger rains, adding to noise impacts. Noise monitoring was conducted at seven locations in the corridor to determine the existing ambient noise conditions. The seven monitoring sites included a mixture of noise -sensitive residential, educational, public, recreational and open space land uses, representative of the larger number of sensitive land uses in the corridor. Monitoring was conducted throughout the day, assessing ambient noise levels with and without train passbys. The monitoring data, along with information from the EPA, was used to calculate the Ldn at each of the seven sites. Table 3.4.4 lists characteristics of the noise monitoring sites. A more detailed discussion of the sensitive receivers located near monitoring sites in each segment follows. Table 3.4.4 Noise Monitoring Site Characteristics Site Location Ambient Noise Results (Calculated Ldn) Distance from Tracks (ft.) Relative Position of Tracks A °,�j B [7'1 D F Fort'Dent ''ark �.��� ..tLoli.�:�b4��'�.' ;�� .. .�°1:100";;,a--r,i j Tukwila, near I-405 67 100 above i en -` .. writown �. , ae,a Sumner, Downtown 69 200 at grade daf',•.,'.!{s-w_�''�:-^v�+.iaNgrS' Puyallup, Gay Road 68 50 below 170,7 _.ya11 4,SarFA'. nue ®" , 3 :: i 4 Y <„ u r, a 4 „. — 1 Source: BRW Inc., June 1994, MM&A March 1998 It is expected that the current use of the alternative alignments by both freight and intercity passenger trains does generate perceptible ground -borne vibration in some buildings adjacent to the tracks. However, this has been a historic fact of locations near the tracks. No objections have been raised regarding vibration during the public outreach process for this project and no specific problem areas have been identified. Consequently, no detailed measurements of ambient vibration conditions were conducted. It is not known whether the existing railroad traffic results in adverse impacts that exceed the recommended maximum vibration levels. In general, it has been assumed that the principal source of vibration in the corridor is heavy freight train traffic, which will continue to operate regardless of whether the proposed commuter rail service is implemented. Page 3.4-8 June 1998 Noise and Vibration Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment King Street Station Area Noise monitoring was completed at three residential hotels near King Street Station for the Seattle Intermodal Transportation Terminal EIS/EA. The monitoring indicated that daytime Legs were clustered in the 60-65 dBA range for two of the hotels, one 700 feet east of the station and the other 1,300 feet east of the station. The resulting Ldn for this area is 67 dBA. The third hotel, which is only 100 feet east of the BNSF tracks north of King Street station, had an Ldn of 68 to 69 dBA. Seattle to Black River Junction Between the King Street Station and I-5, no noise sensitive areas have been identified. The BNSF tracks pass through industrial areas which are typically unaffected by high noise levels and which in fact generate high levels of noise. There is a residential neighborhood in Georgetown and another adjacent to I-5 and near 56th Avenue South in Tukwila. Both neighborhoods are within 200 feet of the tracks. Ambient Ldn noise levels in the Tukwila neighborhood were determined to be 67 dBA. One residential area is located adjacent to I-5 and near S. 129th Street/Beacon-Coal Mine Road. It is located on a bluff approximately three hundred feet above the proposed alignment. Noise impacts would be mitigated by this topographical feature. Tukwila Two recreational uses are adjacent to BNSF tracks in the segment: Foster Golf Course and Fort Dent Park, both operated by the City of Tukwila. Measured daytime noise levels at Fort Dent Park of 60 dBA Leg resulted in a calculated Ldn of 62 to 64 dBA. No residential sites are located in this segment. Foster Golf Course offers a recreational activity that can be affected by high noise levels. One noise -sensitive area, the Homewood Suites Hotel, is located west of the BNSF tracks just south of Fort Dent Park. Fifteen of the 106 units face the tracks and may potentially be affected by train noise. Tukwila -Kent Segment There are no noise sensitive sites in this segment between Tukwila and Highway 167 in Kent. Although the Springbrook Greenbelt in north Kent is located east of the BNSF tracks near SW 43rd Street, the surrounding area is dominated by commercial and light industrial land use, which is not noise sensitive. Three residential areas, Burlington Green Park, and Kiabara Park are located in and near downtown Kent within 750 feet of the BNSF tracks. All could be potentially affected by train noise. Measured ambient noise levels along N. First Avenue, north of downtown Kent, were 57 dBA Leg resulting in a 59 to 61 dBA Ld„ value, with the lower Ldn at areas shielded from traffic noise on the nearby major highways and arterials. Kent Auburn Segment Approximately 20 single family residences front the proposed alignment in the rural area between downtown Kent and downtown Auburn. In downtown Auburn, several Noise and Vibration Page 3.4-9 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment residences and the West Auburn Senior High School complex are located near the proposed alignment. Ambient noise levels in downtown Auburn were determined to be 68 dBA Leg and the 24-hour Ldn was calculated at 72 dBA. The GSA Park is located south of downtown and is subject to potential noise impacts. Auburn -Sumner Segment Several noise sensitive sites are located on either side of the proposed alignment near the White River, and other sites extend from the King -Pierce County line to the terminus of East Valley Highway in Sumner. Approximately 66 residences and Ilalko Elementary School may be subject to noise impacts from commuter rail operations in the segment. Measured ambient daytime noise levels were 62 dBA Ldn in Pacific and 64 dBA Ldn in Sumner. A row of 20 homes on Elm Street and Siebenthaler Park in Sumner front the alignment. Additional single family residences are located southwest of downtown between the central business district and SR -410. The Sumner Library is within 750 feet of the proposed alignment. Sumner's new downtown park is approximately 100 feet from the tracks. Sumner -Tacoma Segment From the Sumner city limits, the proposed alignment first passes through downtown Puyallup, where no sensitive receivers were identified. West of downtown Puyallup, approximately 2.3 miles of single-family residences front the proposed alignment on both sides, in the vicinity of Stewart Avenue. Measured ambient noise levels in this area were 63 to 65 dBA Ldn. Many other single-family residences are located along the BNSF tracks between Puyallup and the city limits of Tacoma. Puyallup - Tacoma Segment The majority of this segment passes through industrial areas in which no noise sensitive receivers have been identified. One noise -sensitive site is the Puyallup Indian Nation Complex, on a bluff south of the I-5 crossing of the Puyallup River. The Puyallup Nation Tribal Center and the Puyallup Indian Cemetery are sites that could be exposed to noise from commuter rail operations. Ambient noise levels in this area are strongly influenced by noise from I-5, which is located downslope from the complex. 3.4.3 Potential Impacts 3.4.3.1 Baseline Condition Freight rail operations along the BNSF main line may change by the year 2010, causing related increases or decreases in noise and vibration. For the purpose of evaluating changes in noise and vibration due to the implementation of commuter rail and increased passenger rail service, the level of freight rail activity on the BNSF main line was assumed to remain constant at the 1997-1998 level, which correlates with the field noise measurements completed for the project and reported in the preceding section. The reasons for this assumption include: 1) Future changes in freight rail activity will occur with or without implementation of the commuter rail Page 3.4-10 June 1998 Noise and Vibration Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment project; 2) It is difficult to quantify future changes in frequency and type of freight activity; and 3) If increased freight activity were assumed in the future baseline condition it would result in a less conservative noise and vibration assessment for the proposed action, since background noise would be higher and therefore the relative impact of commuter rail and increased passenger rail service would be less than the estimate provided in the following section. 3.4.3.2 Commuter Rail Noise Impacts The potential noise increase due to the proposed commuter rail service was evaluated against the measured ambient noise conditions that were reported in Section 3.4.2.3. The commuter rail characteristics that affect the analysis are shown in Table 3.4.5. These assumptions remain constant throughout the corridor. The table also shows the expected Leq and Ldn at a location 50 feet from the tracks that would be attributable only to commuter trains. Table 3.4.5 Commuter Rail Noise Assumptions and Initial Forecasts Characteristic Assumption Pally.trmran �,..__ �$ ��:L �. . Daily hoursofoperation 6 verage: gtzly.vo ume . _, Average Track Speed (mph) 45 .per_tram ,, ' .. ' Horsepower 3,000 veragethro s e setting; ____ ::t: Jointed track no Forecast Ldn and Leq at 50 feet Ldn = 58 dBA Ley = 58 dBA Source: MM&A, March 1998 Figures 3.4.3 and 3.4.4 show the relationship used to adjust the initial Ldn and Leq for each noise -sensitive location identified in the corridor. The figures used the information in Table 3.4.5 for the noise level predictions. The noise descriptor used to determine impacts is the Ldn for land use areas with nighttime sensitivity, and Leq for other areas. The impact of the forecast project noise at a given location is a function of the ambient noise level at that location. This relationship is illustrated in Table 3.4.1. Generally, areas that have low levels of existing ambient noise would experience more adverse noise impacts than other areas, assuming the same level of project noise. For example, a project noise level of 65 dBA would be considered to have a "severe" impact where ambient noise levels were 63 dBA or less, an "impact" where the ambient noise is 63-70 dBA, and "no impact" where ambient noise levels are greater than 70 dBA. The initial noise forecast at 50 feet for the proposed action is intentionally conservative and actual values are expected to be below the forecasted daily Ldn value of 64 dBA or the peak commuter rail noise hour of 67 dBA Leq. Noise and Vibration Page 3.4-11 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Figure 3.4.3 Ldn Distance Calculation Curve Ldn versus Distance at 45 MPH Leq versus Distance at 45 MPH 65 63 61 61 NN.'4*,.............,o__,___...._.__._._._.+._._____. 59 59 m 57 m 57 v m 53 e 55 J 51 49 53 J 51 45 0 50 , 100 150 Distance 49 250 47 45 0 50 100 150 200 250 Distance Source: MM&A, March 1998 Figure 3.4.4 Maximum Leg Distance Calculation Curve 65 Leq versus Distance at 45 MPH 63 61 59 m 57 e 55 m 53 J 51 49 47 45 0 50 , 100 150 Distance 200 250 Source: MM&A, March 1998 Relationship between Noise Level and Distance Table 3.4.6 summarizes the estimated impacts at noise sensitive areas near ambient noise monitoring sites. For each site, the table lists the measured ambient noise, the estimated project noise, and the resulting impact level, derived from Table 3.4.1. The table also shows an estimate of the future noise level at each site, determined by logarithmically averaging the existing ambient and forecast project noise levels, weighted by exposure time. These estimated total noise levels include all existing train traffic on the tracks, plus the proposed commuter rail trains. Noise monitoring Page 3.4-12 June 1998 Noise and Vibration Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment results were adjusted to determine the existing noise levels at the noise sensitive areas, according to the relationship between noise and distance identified in Figures 3.4.3 and 3.4.4. Although noise modeling was not performed for the noise -sensitive sites near King Street station identified for the Seattle Intermodal Transportation Terminal EA, noise levels near the tracks are high and commuter rail noise would not be expected to increase noise levels noticeably. Table 3.4.6 Projected Noise Impacts on Noise Sensitive Areas Near Monitored Sites Monitoring Site Category* (FTA Noise Impact Criteria) Existing Noise (dBA Ldn) Project Noise (dBA Ldn) Future Noise (dBA Ldn) Net Change (dBA) x South ofjl 54near36, ',Avenue,S.tin 1 ukw.ila i •, . `$a . .i .{ yv .8 L:X3°"a'a. °3S a-.��4%. �'� 4'v1�'Fd • ° ,2 "i �,L t . T . �4 >'�•,4 •iy-h.� ..i 1.4eTJt. =° 'J '=A67g tt55 3 67� _ > r t 0 Fort Dent Park, Tukwila 1 64 53 65 1 ins a i• yt wnstomewst. •K� KfyA `, downtoA.ubfurP.-"C e zet>}a, .s fl :y ;` ^s. .• ;$h v P b - S ': 2 .- . iJ i7a' •— 0 ,.. za Single family homes, E. Valley Hwy, S. of White River 2 64 51 64 0 I!'.*g1e-famyomesoTt'i•s1oh o 9•en,Y.`_• '`do 'town°sefai f ,- - 7il� f ze, n ab;a `av 6 ..••nk ,} ,, t • L 55 � 47 . c t. -- 6. • ., 59 ;� fr r t . 0 '- Sumner Library 3 59 fStewartAvenue, west:ofdovi!ntown`. ?. all ; ...+ � T U a ' 65 r `.55 • Single-family homes along Pioneer Rd 2 67 51 67 0 Source: MM&A., March 1998 *See Table 3.4.1 The values in Table 3.4.6 were compared to the impact criteria in Table 3.4.1, and no significant adverse impacts were identified. As Table 3.4.6 shows, most of the noise sensitive receivers near the monitoring sites are not predicted to increase over their existing Ldn values from the initiation of commuter rail service. This is not to say that some of these sensitive sites are not already severely impacted by noise. Fort Dent Park and the single family residence west of downtown Auburn are now exposed to noise levels considered to be severe under the FTA Noise impact criteria. Other areas, such as commercial and industrial land use, will have future commuter train peak hour Leg values of 67 dBA at 50 feet from the track, to 64 dBA at 100 feet from the track. Given the existing Lw values of 65 to 67 in the area commercial and industrial areas, no impacts were predicted. Noise and Vibration Page 3.4-13 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Warning Whistles The forecast noise associated with the project does not take into account train whistles or at -grade crossing alarm bells. These are considered safety equipment and are not subject to typical operating noise control. 3.4.3.3 Commuter Rail Vibration Impacts The ground -borne vibration impacts of the proposed commuter rail service were determined by estimating the propagation characteristics at areas with vibration sensitive receivers, measuring the distance between the track and the receiver, and determining if the resulting vibration levels exceed the impact criteria. For commuter rail projects, with limited trips, the criterion is 80 dBV (see Table 3.4.2). The presence of freight and passenger trains on the proposed alignment was assumed to be the most significant component of the existing ambient ground -borne vibration in the corridor. The vibration due to existing train traffic was used to approximate ambient conditions. This assumption ignores other potential sources of ground -borne vibration, the magnitude of which would only be evident through detailed, site- specific measurements. Figure 3.4.5 shows the base curves provided by FTA for assessing the vibration propagation characteristics of various transit modes, assuming typical project features and applications. Within a given curve, the top of the range represents the maximum expected vibration level and the bottom represents the average vibration level. Adjustment factors that were used to tailor the base curves for project -specific characteristics and to develop vibration estimates at specific locations within buildings accounted for assumed speed, wheel and rail type and condition, type of track support system, and building characteristics. Assumed conditions for the vibration analysis are summarized in Table 3.4.7. The impacts due to the proposed commuter rail service on the alignment were evaluated using the base curve for locomotive -powered passenger or freight trains in Figure 3.4.5, and the adjustment factors corresponding to the assumptions listed in Table 3.4.7. Where appropriate, site specific adjustments were made to account for the following factors: Crossovers or special track work, transit structures, coupling to building foundations, floor -to -floor attenuation, and amplification due to resonances of floors, walls and ceilings. Page 3.4-14 June 1998 Noise and Vibration 143052.A1.01/ Generalized GroundChart/ 3-12-98/ GM.SEA 100 95 90 85 CD 80 co 132 75 Tico 70 0 'ca 65 0 60 55 50 Locomotive Powered Passenger or Freight (50mph) Rapid Transit Rail Vehicles (50mph) Rubber Tired j Vehicles(30mph). 10 20 30 40 50 60 80 100 150 200 300 Distance from track centerline, ft. Source: Guidance Manual for Transit Noise and Vibration, FTA, 1992. BRW, Inc.; October 1994. SOUNDTRANSIT Generalized Ground Surface Vibration Curves Figure 3.4.5 March 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Table 3.4.7 Vibration Analysis Assumptions Source: Guidance Manual for Transit Noise and Vibration, FTA, 1992 Each location was analyzed based on the applicable vibration guidelines, ambient conditions due to existing train traffic, and the projected vibration levels due to commuter rail service. The vibration levels for both the ambient conditions and the proposed project were forecast within ranges. Comparing them to the FTA Criteria given in Table 3.4.2 indicates that sensitive land uses in the corridor within 80 feet are adversely impacted by the ground -borne vibration from the existing train traffic. The analysis revealed that project related vibration levels produced by commuter rail trains would be about 10 VdB less than vibration levels produced by freight trains already using the corridor, and would only impact sensitive land uses within 35 to 40 feet of the alignment. 3.4.3.4 Station Area Impacts The proposed commuter rail stations are not expected to cause noise or vibration annoyance. Potential sources of noise and ground -borne vibration near the stations would include idling locomotives, feeder bus traffic and increased automobile traffic on adjacent roadways. 3.4.3.5 Construction Impacts The proposed action would utilize existing BNSF railroad tracks, however there are locations where construction activity would be expected during project implementation. The construction would be focused at commuter rail stations, park- and-ride lots, and at locations along the alternative alignments where track improvements are proposed. The locations along the track where a third track or sidings would be constructed would involve construction of the greatest duration, including mileposts 3.4 Argo to 8.8 Black River, 21.6 to 29.2 in Auburn, and 32.8 Puyallup to 37.8 in Reservation. Noise and Vibration Page 3.4-15 June 1998 Assumed Condition BNSF Main Line Factor .' Existing�yTraffic jSV mph CommuterRail L75'mpll�°a peed;?asM=,: : . ,.s,, ri. LF. e : Stiff primary suspension no noiiient;whee ,., -���,.. , � . . no.„ ;.,moo no Worn wheels yes oni trac «i ^t _..,-.. no „ ..- ' .._ Jointed track no 1 satin :slab;track a• �-t -r- . �• .7i.i':r10"";.. t _� , Y Ballast mats no �r ' , i 1. i m - x34. f��ll':re�illence�fasteners�,, r $'s J - . x.. ?:j". aye %�- > Y � ..,a p, •y, + a' ... f va' l(d.w.;u' no . 4 "' ,S 4'7:: x (no l o no . - s. ai Resiliency supported ties 'efficient tton� a :. ,. .� 7. , :� , no , :no . Radiated sound frequency low low Source: Guidance Manual for Transit Noise and Vibration, FTA, 1992 Each location was analyzed based on the applicable vibration guidelines, ambient conditions due to existing train traffic, and the projected vibration levels due to commuter rail service. The vibration levels for both the ambient conditions and the proposed project were forecast within ranges. Comparing them to the FTA Criteria given in Table 3.4.2 indicates that sensitive land uses in the corridor within 80 feet are adversely impacted by the ground -borne vibration from the existing train traffic. The analysis revealed that project related vibration levels produced by commuter rail trains would be about 10 VdB less than vibration levels produced by freight trains already using the corridor, and would only impact sensitive land uses within 35 to 40 feet of the alignment. 3.4.3.4 Station Area Impacts The proposed commuter rail stations are not expected to cause noise or vibration annoyance. Potential sources of noise and ground -borne vibration near the stations would include idling locomotives, feeder bus traffic and increased automobile traffic on adjacent roadways. 3.4.3.5 Construction Impacts The proposed action would utilize existing BNSF railroad tracks, however there are locations where construction activity would be expected during project implementation. The construction would be focused at commuter rail stations, park- and-ride lots, and at locations along the alternative alignments where track improvements are proposed. The locations along the track where a third track or sidings would be constructed would involve construction of the greatest duration, including mileposts 3.4 Argo to 8.8 Black River, 21.6 to 29.2 in Auburn, and 32.8 Puyallup to 37.8 in Reservation. Noise and Vibration Page 3.4-15 June 1998 Tacoma. -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Noise and vibration due to construction could create temporary adverse impacts on adjacent sensitive land uses. However, intense construction activity related to commuter rail would not occur at any specific location for an extensive period of time. 3.4.4 Mitigation 3.4.4.1 Noise Mitigation No noise mitigation measures are proposed in the Tacoma -to -Seattle BNSF corridor. Measures employed to maintain rail vehicles in as -new condition including spin -slide control, wheel truing, and rail grinding will help to keep noise levels down. The most reliable mitigation, sound barriers would not be feasible in this corridor as the placement required for maximum effectiveness would be on private property or require taking of public lands. 3.4.4.2 Vibration Mitigation The results of this assessment indicate that the proposed action would not represent a significant new source of ground -borne vibration impacts, relative to the existing conditions. However, there are several recommended measures that can be implemented to minimize the vibration due to commuter rail service. The most significant opportunity for controlling ground -borne vibration and noise from rail transit projects is adequate maintenance of wheels and rails. Problems with rough wheels and/or rails can increase vibration velocity levels by as much as 20 dB re 10-6 in/sec. Specific maintenance measures to control vibration include rail grinding, wheel truing, wheel flat detector systems, and vehicle reconditioning programs. Other opportunities for minimizing the overall vibration impacts of the proposed commuter rail service include careful planning and design of crossovers and other special track work to avoid sensitive land uses, and development of vehicle specifications that limit the vertical resonance frequency of the primary suspension. 3.4.4.3 Station Areas The noise and vibration impacts near the proposed commuter rail stations are not expected to warrant specific mitigation measures. 3.4.4.4 Construction The potential noise and vibration impacts due to construction associated with the proposed action could be minimized by imposing reasonable restrictions on the construction activity. These restrictions could include time -of -day restrictions on construction activities near sensitive land uses and enforcement of industry noise standards for construction equipment. Page 3.4-16 June 1998 Noise and Vibration Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 3.5 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS This section summarizes the locations of contaminated and potentially contaminated properties within 0.25 mile of the proposed Georgetown, Boeing Access Road, Longacres, SW 43rd Street, Kent Downtown (North and South), Auburn, Sumner, Puyallup, and Tacoma station sites along the BNSF corridor between Seattle and Tacoma. The King Street Station was not investigated during this phase of work because environmental issues at this site have already been studied as part of Seattle Intermodal Transportation Terminal EA. Proposed track improvements outside of the station areas do not involve excavation, for the most part they involve laying new track or signal equipment on existing or new ballast (fill). This part of the project is not expected to encounter any hazardous materials. 3.5.1 Methodology This investigation is an update of previous work completed in 1992 and 1994, and focuses on the discovery of new contaminated sites not listed at the time of the earlier studies. For this update, only proposed station sites were investigated. The investigation entailed reviewing various databases that list known contaminated sites and hazardous waste generators. Databases reviewed included the following: • The Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites (CSCS) Report, Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), Toxics Cleanup Report dated September 24, 1997; • The Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) List, Ecology, dated September 24, 1997; and • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Geographic Information System Database, a new on-line service provided by EPA, dated October 21, 1997. This service plots the locations of National Priority List (NPL) sites; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) sites; Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) sites; and Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) sites. Some sites appearing on the lists are located close enough to proposed commuter rail station locations to cause potential concern over construction impacts. The proposed station sites and nearby contaminated sites are identified below. 3.5.2 Affected Environment Georgetown Station The proposed Georgetown Station site is located between the Corson Avenue and Albro Place overpasses along BN trackage. Three sites listed in the CSCS database, and one site listed in the LUST database and are located within one-quarter mile of the proposed station location. Preservative Paint Company, located at 5410 Airport Way, and Marine Vacuum Service located at 1516 South Graham Street are approximately Hazardous Materials Page 3.5-1 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 400 to 500 feet from the station site. North Coast Chemical Company, located at 6300 17th Avenue South, is located approximately 600 to 700 feet to the south. Although the three sites appear to be too distant from the proposed station location to have directly affected soils on the proposed station site, there is potential for contaminants to have migrated from these sites to the station site in groundwater, depending on the direction of flow. The Preservative Paint site is known to be contaminated with base/neutral/acid organic compounds and metals. A leaking underground storage tank (LUST) on the Preservative Paint site reportedly contaminated soils with petroleum hydrocarbons. Soil, surface water, and groundwater on the Maine Vacuum Service site is confirmed to be contaminated with base/neutral/acid compounds, metals, and phenolic compounds. Soil and surface water on the North Coast Chemical Company site are confirmed or suspected to be contaminated with a wide range of hazardous chemicals including base/neutral/acid compounds, metals, EPA Priority Pollutants, phenolic compounds, dioxin, corrosive wastes, radioactive wastes, and asbestos. Boeing Access Road Station The proposed Boeing Access Road Station site is located south of the Boeing Access Road overpass between I-5 and the BNSF tracks. No known or suspected contaminated sites are located within 0.25 mile of the site. However, given former hazardous materials handling practices by the railroad companies, there may be potential for contamination along the rail line. Longacres Station No contaminated sites included on the Washington State LUST, UST, and CSCS lists, or in federal EPA databases occur on the Longacres station site or its associated park- and-ride. Seven sites on the above lists are located within one-quarter to one-half mile of the site. Two of these are reported as having been cleaned up (Longacres Race Course and Renton Sewage Treatment Plant LUST sites). The Tukwila Gulf Station, located west of the site at 15640 West Valley Highway, is on the LUST list, and is awaiting cleanup. The other four sites appear to be downgradient (north) of the station site. Downtown Kent (North) The Downtown Kent North Station site is located between James Street, Smith Street, 1st Avenue, and Railroad Avenue in Kent. Nine known or suspected contaminated sites are located within approximately one-quarter mile of the proposed station site. The three sites cited in the CSCS list appear to be downgradient or cross gradient from the proposed station site and thus appear to pose little risk. One of the CSCS sites is the Borden Chemical Company plant, located west of the south end of the proposed station site at 421 1st Avenue North. Soils and groundwater on the Borden site are known to be contaminated with base/neutral/acid compounds, non -halogenated solvents, and "conventional contaminants." Although the Borden site appears to be downgradient from the station site, no conclusive studies verifying the actual direction of groundwater flow were conducted during this phase of work. Page 3.5-2 June 1998 Hazardous Materials Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Burdick Feed Company is located at 301 North Railroad Avenue on the south end of the proposed station site. The feed company, which was identified on the FINDS list during an earlier study, handles pesticides and pesticide -treated materials, although no releases have been reported. Of the five LUST sites within one-quarter mile, one is downgradient and two are distant enough from the station site to minimize risks. Two service stations, T&T Stations located at 711 North Central Avenue and Chevron located at 631 North Central Avenue, pose a slight risk of groundwater contamination due to their proximity and possible upgradient locations. Downtown Kent (South) Station The downtown Kent South Station is located on 1st Avenue between W. Gowe Street and W. Willis Street, immediately west of the BNRR tracks. A total of 12 known, suspected, or potentially contaminated sites are located within 1/4 mile of the station site. Of the 12 sites identified, six are in upgradient locations and thus pose the greatest risk. These sites include Mr. Sudsy Car Wash located at 209 S. Central Avenue, and a 7-11 Store located at 511 S. Central Avenue, both of which have reported leaking underground storage tanks. The remaining four upgradient sites are properties on which USTs are reported. These sites include Jackpot Food Mart at 405 S. Central Avenue, Rocky's Lifetime Muffler at 208 S. Central Avenue, Bob Robbins at 111 S. Central Avenue, and Gonnason Marina at 307 S.Central Avenue. Two sites within 1/4 mile and listed on the CSCS list are Sea Kent Cold Storage, and Borden Chemical. Both sites appear to be cross gradient or down gradient from the station site. Since two LUSTs have been reported within 1/4 mile upgradient of the station site, it would be prudent to complete a more detailed Level 1 Environmental Site Assessment prior to purchase, if the south Kent station site is selected. Downtown Auburn Station The Auburn Collision Center, located at 233 West Main Street, was identified on earlier LUST lists but does not appear on the updated list reviewed for this study, suggesting that the site has been remediated to the satisfaction of Ecology. The site is approximately 50 feet from the parking lot to be constructed for the station. The potential for contamination of soils in the proposed parking area therefore appears to be low. Five LUST sites, one of them also appearing on the CSCS list, are located within 0.25 mile of the proposed station site. As all of these sites are at least several blocks away and appear to be in downgradient locations, they are unlikely to have any impact on the station site. Hazardous Materials Page 3.5-3 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Downtown Sumner Station An ARCO station, located at 809 Main Street and identified on the LUST list, is approximately one block north of the parking lot for the proposed Sumner station. Groundwater in the area probably flows west toward the Stuck River, suggesting that any contaminants entrained in groundwater may flow from the service station toward or very close to the proposed parking area. Cleanup efforts commenced in 1989 and 1990, although the site is not yet reported as being "cleaned up." A second service station (Texaco) cited in the LUST list is located at 914 Kincaid, several blocks east of the proposed station. This station also appears to be located hydrologically upgradient from the station site. The site was reported "cleaned up" in 1991. Any contaminants that migrated off-site in groundwater could have migrated toward the proposed station site. A third station, BJ's Auto Supply, it located at 816 Main Street and was used as a full service station until the late 1980's. The presence of contaminants and hazardous waste products has not been determined. Any contaminants migrating onto the proposed station site from the three service stations discussed above would primarily affect groundwater and the soils through which it flowed. No adverse impacts are anticipated unless excavation on the proposed station site is deep enough to intersect groundwater. Downtown Puyallup Station The proposed Puyallup station is located along BNSF trackage at 3rd Street in downtown Puyallup. Pioneer Food & Gas and a local fire station both reported releases from underground storage tanks. Both are located several blocks to the south and are upgradient or cross gradient from the proposed station site. The fire station release was reported cleaned up in 1992, and the Pioneer Food & Gas release is awaiting cleanup, according to current LUST database information. Any contaminants migrating onto the proposed station site from the two release sites discussed above would primarily' affect groundwater and the soils through which it flowed. No adverse impacts are anticipated unless excavation on the proposed station site is deep enough to intersect groundwater. Tacoma Station Of the three contaminated sites identified within one-quarter mile of the Tacoma Station site, only the Manna Pro Corporation (cited in LUST) site located at 518 Puyallup Avenue is near enough or hydrologically located so that it poses any threat to the station. Both soil and groundwater on the Manna Pro property are reported as contaminated, and groundwater quality is currently being monitored on the site. Two properties located to the west of the current Amtrak station are being considered for acquisition for development as a platform. Neither of the properties appears in any of the lists citing contaminated sites. Page 3.5-4 June 1998 Hazardous Materials Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 3.5.3 Environmental Health Impacts 3.5.3.1 Contamination After reviewing various databases listing known and suspected contaminated sites and hazardous waste generators, relatively few sites were found along the proposed BNSF rail corridor. A number of sites were identified near proposed station locations. Impacts of the commuter rail project on human health are expected to be minimal. Station construction will require little or no excavation, while construction of park and ride lots will involve some demolition, as well as grading and paving. Based on the review of available information, no known contamination will be encountered during construction, and exposure of the public to potentially contaminated soil is not expected to occur. 3.5.3.2 Hazardous Cargo The commuter rail service will not transport hazardous materials. The BNSF rail line will continue to function as a freight railroad line, and hazardous materials may be transported along the entire BNSF right-of-way. Any previous spills and releases as well as potential future spills and releases present potential impacts to passenger's and other's safety along the right-of-way and at stations. Shipments of hazardous materials are subject to control under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, thus ensuring a minimal risk of spillage. The potential for releases, and the potential risk to passenger's and other's safety along the right-of-way and at stations, is low. In the unlikely event of a spill, protocols are in place to control and minimize contamination under BNSF's emergency spill response control plans. 3.5.4 Mitigation Properties to be purchased will be subject to Level 1 Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs, or environmental audits). The Level 1 process will include records searches, historical reviews, and site inspections. If a Level 1 ESA suggests there is some potential for contamination, a Level 2 Site Assessment may be undertaken to identify soil and groundwater contaminants as well as migration pathways. Level 2 assessments can include the collection of soil, soil gas, and groundwater samples; laboratory analysis of samples for suspected contaminants; and literature searches. If the findings of these studies are inconclusive, subsequent studies can be used to delineate the extent of contamination, and design a program of remediation. If a given site is contaminated and an alternative site is not identified or chosen, remediation may be required, consistent with applicable law. Remediation could include the removal of contaminated materials, on-site treatment of the materials, or other remedy. Appropriate health and safety monitoring would be conducted on work sites with potential hazardous materials. Proper clothing, breathing equipment, and other measures would be used to provide a safer working environment for construction workers. Hazardous Materials Page 3.5-5 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 3.5.5 Cumulative Impacts No significant cumulative impacts are anticipated. Increases in freight rail service and implementation of high speed rail would use the same tracks and passenger stations as the proposed commuter rail service. The existing risk posed by transport of hazardous cargo is low due to existing controls and protocols and is unlikely to increase substantially under the combined effects of the project with future rail activity. Page 3.5-6 June 1998 Hazardous Materials Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 3.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES/ECOLOGY 3.6.1 Study Methods and Assumptions The methods used to identify existing conditions, sensitive areas, and threatened and endangered species at the proposed commuter rail station sites included a combination of site reconnaissance and review of background information. Each site was visited to determine if conditions had changed since previous studies for the South Corridor Commuter Rail project were conducted (Herrera 1994). Any changes in site conditions are noted in the station descriptions that follow. Sources of background information used to describe Existing Conditions include National Wetland Inventory maps, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species Program data, Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program data, and maps of environmentally sensitive areas provided by local jurisdictions (e.g., King County, Pierce County, and the cities of Renton, Tukwila, Auburn, Sumner, Puyallup, and Tacoma). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was consulted, in compliance with section 7c of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Existing information on environmentally sensitive areas and significant natural resources at the selected sites (e.g., threatened or endangered species or priority habitats) is summarized in Table 3.6.1. Observations made during site reconnaissance, together with available background information, were used to confirm the presence or absence of sensitive areas and important natural resources at the selected sites. Table 3.6.1 Ecologically Sensitive Areas in the Vicinity of Station Sites Ecologically Sensitive Station Areas Endangered Species Approximate Wetland Size Wetland Buffer Wetlands Classification Impacts From Construction and Operation King: Street. Station..: .:None „ None 1' : None one . . aNA NA NA -NA : NA NA.r NA NA NA Y None None ,NANi Georgetown Station ° Boeing ccess . 5.:Wetlands Road`Station , . Longacres Station Wetlands None 6 acres 50 feet Type 2 None Kent.Station , • w . - Downtown North (Layout A) Downtown South (Layout B) None None None None NA NA NA NA NA NA None None Auburn.Station None" one A- : one Sumner Station 'Puyallup None None NA NA NA None Station. Tacoma Station ,1None = { x None . one „,:. N , r _ ;,°!.NA A.4 - - t. None None NA NA NA None Biological Resources/Ecology June 1998 Page 3.6-1 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment A functional assessment of the wetlands between Milepost 35.4 and Milepost 38 has also been prepared. Methods used to complete a functional assessment of wetlands typically involve the identification and evaluation of physical attributes that provide predictive rather than direct measurement of specific ecological functions of concern (Reimold 1994). The assessment method used in this study is based on the Wetland and Buffer Functions Semi -Quantitative Assessment Methodology, Daft User's Manual (Cooke 1996). This method is adapted from a system developed by Reppert et al. (1979) but modified for northwest wetland ecosystems. The revised rating from is presented in tabular format and provides an efficient screening technique for a variety of wetland functions an values. Wetland characteristics are categorized into three groups: lower, medium, and high quality classes. The evaluation questions can be primarily answered in the field but require a review of literature sources such as USGS topographic maps, National Wetlands Inventory maps, stream surveys, soil surveys, and aerial photographs. This method does not assign absolute values to a particular function; rather, it generally identifies functional strengths and weaknesses to help guide management decisions and aid in mitigation choices. Wetland functions are divided into the following categories: flood and stormwater control, base flow and ground water support, erosion and shoreline protection, water quality improvement, natural biological support, general habitat functions, specific habitat functions, and cultural and socioeconomic values. The relative importance of each function is assigned a high, moderate, and low rating based on professional judgement. 3.6.2 Existing Conditions Rail Corridor. The approximately 40 miles of BNSF right of way between Tacoma and Seattle include two parallel tracks placed on rock ballast. A number of switches, sidings, and spurs leading to commercial and industrial customers served by BNSF are also present. Vegetation is generally absent between the two lines and on the ballast. Scattered patches of vegetation occur near the tracks in industrial and urbanized areas; in rural areas, open fields and wetland areas are located near the tracks in a number of locations. A new crossing of the Black River near Fort Dent Park in Tukwila is also proposed as part of track realignment improvements. The tracks cross the river on a steel bridge, an estimated 20 feet above water level; a dirt roadway is adjacent to the river below the bridge and tracks. The Black River originates from groundwater and storm drainage in the center of Renton and flows west for approximately 2.7 miles to its confluence with the Duwamish River. Springbrook Creek is one of the major tributaries to the Black River, draining 12 miles along the east valley hillside. The lower one-half mile of the Black River was channelized and widened by the federal Soil Conservation Service in 1971, and a dam and pump station were constructed at its mouth to pump flows into the lower Green/Duwamish River. The dam includes both upstream and downstream fish passage and migrant collection facilities. Salmonid spawning and rearing, primarily by coho salmon, does occur upstream of Page 3.6-2 June 1998 Biological Resources/Ecology Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment the dam. Overall, water quality and the suitability of the Black River/Springbrook Creek system for salmon habitat has been rated as poor because of low dissolved oxygen levels, elevated summer water temperatures, and poor spawning substrate (Metro, 1991). Several segments of new or realigned track are proposed as part of the project. A new third track is proposed for a segment of the corridor located at Mile Post (MP) 35.4 to MP 38, between Puyallup and Tacoma. Portions of the existing BNSF tracks that are proposed for widening and realignment between MP 35.4 and MP 38 are located along the edge of the historic floodplain of the Puyallup River (USGS 1973 and 1981). The tracks follow this topographic contour from River Road to approximately 521th Street East before heading across the valley floor toward downtown Puyallup. The track sections proposed for widening and realignment cross three streams and several groundwater seeps that flow north towards the Puyallup River. Prior to channelization of the Puyallup River behind levee banks, the project area was periodically flooded by the Puyallup River, with subsequent deposition of fine-grained sediments (USDA SCS 1979). Long-term saturation from all of these hydrology sources has created numerous palustrine wetlands in this area (USFWS 1988a and 1988b). Clear Creek, Squally Creek, and Swan Creek intersect the BNSF tracks between River Road and 52nd Street East. These streams flow from south to northwest through culverts under the tracks and eventually drain into the Puyallup River (Williams et al. 1975). Clear Creek is approximately 4 miles long and the lower 1.5 miles of channel parallels the north side of the tracks between 44th Avenue East and Gay Road (Figure 3.6.1). Squally Creek and Swan Creek are tributaries to Clear Creek, and they combine with Clear Creek within the project area. The combined flow of these three streams passes through a wetland mitigation site recently constructed by the Port of Tacoma that is located southeast of the intersection of River Road and Pioneer Way. Six wetland areas (A through F) occur along the edge of the railroad tracks between River Road and 52nd Street East. These wetlands support a mixture of palustrine forested, scrub/shrub, and emergent vegetation that extends offsite to the north. Clear Creek and a high groundwater table supply hydrology in these wetland areas. A discussion of each of these wetland areas is presented below. Wetland A is located in the wetland mitigation site recently constructed by the Port of Tacoma near River Road. This wetland mitigation site consists of open water ponds, banks with recently planted shrubs and tree saplings, and undisturbed patches of forested wetland. Dominant plants in wetland A include red alder (Alnus rubra), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis), red -osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Eventually, the vegetation planted in this wetland mitigation site will become established, creating forested and scrub/shrub Biological Resources/Ecology Page 3.6-3 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment plant communities that surround the open water ponds. Wetland functions in this wetland mitigation site are rated moderate based on its capability for flood control, water quality improvement, and natural biological support. Wetland B is situated between Gay Road and the intersection of 44th Avenue East and Pioneer Way. This wetland is a mosaic of forested, shrub, and emergent vegetation lining the banks of Clear Creek. Wetland B extends offsite to the north, where it is interspersed with residential housing and livestock pastures. Typical vegetation in this wetland includes red alder, black cottonwood, big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), salmonberry, red -osier dogwood, reed canarygrass, cattail (Typha latifolia), water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa), and lady fern (Athyrium filix femina). Functions and values in Wetland B are rated high based on its ability to recharge groundwater, improve water quality, and general habitat functions. Wetlands C and D are associated with Canyon Creek, in this location also a drainage ditch that parallels the north side of the BNRR tracks. The drainage ditch is maintained and periodically cleared by Drainage District 10. Several culverts underneath the railroad tracks convey surface water runoff and groundwater seepage into this creek/ditch from the steep slopes on the south of the tracks. Wetlands C and D have low functions and values, which mainly pertain to flood and stormwater control, erosion and shoreline protection, and water quality improvement. Wetland C is located along the northern edge of the BNSF tracks across from an auto wrecking yard. Typical plants in this wetland include red alder, salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, and reed canarygrass. Wetland D is located between 44th Avenue East and 52nd Street East. This palustrine wetland has a combination of emergent, scrub/shrub, and forested vegetation that lines the drainage ditch. Dominant plants include red alder, Pacific willow, red -osier dogwood, salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, small -fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus), bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamara), and reed canarygrass. Wetland E is located south of the tracks, opposite the Port of Tacoma mitigation site. Wetland F is also on the south side of the tracks; it is a forested upland wetland located between the tracks and Pioneer Way. Wetland E has functions and values that are rated moderate, based on general habitat functions. Wetland F has a moderate rating as well, for similar reasons. Fish habitat within the project area occurs in the lower 1.5 miles of Clear Creek and the mouths of Swan and Squally Creeks. Anadromous salmon and trout species known to occur in Clear Creek include fall Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho salmon (0. kisutch), chum salmon (0. keta), winter -run steelhead trout (0. mykiss), and cutthroat trout (0. clarki) (WDFW 1994). The lower sections Page 3.6-4 June 1998 Biological Resources/Ecology attar Geek,i wet! wetland E" Pianeer Way START OF THIRD TRACK ADDITION dates ADOLFSON SOUNDTRANSIT ASSOCIATES, INC. 44hAvvenom ,/ BNRR CURVE #34 Road END OF THIRD TRACK ADDITION Lisek Legend Wetlands oneun0hesod on oeobservationsengird en untetineyd distance beyond the ehedod ewe en file sure. NI indicated by the ? smear.) �•-•—• Streams f— — — Drainage ditches 4ifieeiur- Reamed tracks 0 1000 feet Approximate scaleCONIMPreri HERRERA Figure 3.6.1 Wetland areas along rail corridor near Curve #34 and proposed third track addition. Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment of Clear, Swan, and Squally Creeks within the project area are mainly used by juvenile salmon and trout for rearing. Adult salmonids are expected to migrate through the project area in the fall and winter to spawn further upstream and offsite. Wildlife habitat is provided within the riparian corridor along these three streams and the drainage ditches that occur within the project area. Water -dependent wildlife species, such as migratory waterfowl, amphibians, and reptiles are expected to use this riparian habitat. The five wetland areas also provide habitat for passerine birds, raptors, small mammals, and deer. Although the forest canopy is fragmented to the north of the tracks by residential development and livestock pastures, there is a continuous migration corridor for wildlife immediately adjacent to the Clear Creek channel. Stations. Existing conditions at the selected rail station sites are identified and described, including location and general site conditions, adjacent land use, and vegetation cover and wildlife habitat. Any environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., wetlands, streams, or habitat for protected species) that exist at these sites are also described. Potential impacts to these sensitive areas associated with station development are described for each site. King Street Station The King Street Station site is located in downtown Seattle at the existing BNSF/Amtrak station. This site is fully developed to support the activities of Amtrak trains. Existing vegetation in the vicinity of the King Street Station is limited to street trees and ornamental shrubs, which may be used occasionally by small birds as perch sites. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated that a Peregrine Falcon eyrie is located on the Washington Mutual Tower at 1201 Third Avenue in downtown Seattle, 11 blocks (approximately .75 miles) north of the King Street Station. Peregrine Falcons are listed as an endangered species. Georgetown Station Vegetation on-site is limited. The site has been disturbed by past development and is mostly paved or gravel -surfaced. As a result, vegetation consists primarily of grasses and broadleaf herbs that are considered invasive or pioneer species. Some shrubs (i.e., snowberry, mock orange, and Himalayan blackberry) and sapling trees are interspersed in the narrow and mostly herbaceous plant communities that exist between the railroad tracks and Airport Way South. Boeing Access Road Station Station location and wetland impacts will be assessed during environmental review of the light rail project. Longacres Station The site is flat and was used as an overflow parking area for the former racetrack. Surrounding land is developed for industrial, commercial and office uses. Biological Resources/Ecology Page 3.6-5 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Most of the site has been characterized in previous studies (Herrera 1994) as being gravelly and dry. Recent grading activity associated with development of Boeing facilities to the east of the station site has removed the upland plant community. Prior to grading, vegetation cover included species that are common in disturbed areas, such as Himalayan blackberry, Scot's broom, common tansy, Canada thistle, dandelions, and a mixture of upland grasses. A small emergent wetland is located approximately 1,200 feet north of Longacres Way and is most likely beyond the area that would be used for the Longacres Station. This wetland is not indicated on the National Wetland Inventory map for the area (USFWS 1988). It supports scattered cottonwood, creeping buttercup, soft rush, and reed canarygrass. Under the Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance, this Type 3 wetland would require a buffer of 25 feet. Two larger wetland areas totaling approximately 6 acres are located about 1,000 feet south of Longacres Way, and would also likely not be included in the station development area. A large emergent wetland and a smaller forested wetland are indicated on the National Wetland Inventory map for the Renton quadrangle (USFWS 1988). According to the Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance, this Type 2 wetland requires a buffer of 50 feet. Although plant communities to the north and south are disturbed Eby the existing railroad corridor and past land uses, they provide some wildlife habitat for birds, small mammals, and their predators. Bird species observed in the area include red- tailed hawk (a priority species), killdeer, house finch, and song sparrow. Coyote scat has also been observed (Herrera 1994). The wetlands located to the south of the site are potential feeding habitat for great blue heron. According to the Priority Habitat and Species map for the Renton quadrangle (WDFW 1994), an active great blue heron rookery is located approximately one mile from the northern boundary of the proposed station. No other environmentally sensitive areas were observed or identified on the site. Downtown Kent (North) Station The undeveloped portions of this station site are covered with gravel and sparse vegetation that includes upland grasses, Himalayan blackberry, common tansy, and dandelions. Wildlife use of the proposed station area is limited because of the patchiness and low overall coverage of vegetation that is typical of the more densely developed parts of Kent. Small mammals and birds are the most commonly occurring species in this type of habitat. The warehouse roofs and grain elevator towers of the Burdick Feed Company facility at the southern end of the site may be especially attractive as perch sites, and swallows likely utilize the eaves of many warehouse -type buildings in the area for nesting. Page 3.6-6 June 1998 Biological Resources/Ecology Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Downtown Kent (South) Station The station and parking areas of this alternative are developed with commercial and residential structures of smaller scale than those on the Downtown Kent (North) Station alternative. Habitat values are limited because of the disturbed nature of the site. Auburn Station The majority of the property at this station site is sparsely vegetated with invasive plants such as Himalayan blackberry, upland grasses, weeds, and common tansy. The southwest corner of the site contains a triangular parcel that is covered with lawn grass, perennial flowers, and big -leaf maple trees. This level site is highly disturbed and surrounded by urban development that reduces its habitat value. Scattered patches of vegetation and the niches and roof eaves of structures provide some habitat for small mammals and birds that are adapted to an urban setting. Example species include mice, voles, robins, swallows, and starlings. Sumner Station The area between Traffic Avenue and the BNSF tracks is maintained as a park, with mowed lawns and ornamental plantings. The opposite side of the tracks adjacent to Narrow Street is open fields vegetated with a mixture native and hybridized grasses and low herbaceous species such as dandelions. Wildlife habitat is limited on this site because of the small, fragmented plant communities and constant disturbance that is typical of urban and suburban areas. These scattered vegetated areas provide some cover and food for species adapted to disturbed environments such as sparrows, starlings, and mice. Puyallup Station Vegetation cover and wildlife habitat on this site is limited. Scattered patches of vegetation occur between buildings and at the edges of parking areas. Dominant species include invasive and pioneer plants that are common in urban areas. These areas provide some food and cover for species adapted to an urbanized environment, such as pigeons, starlings, sparrows, and small rodents. Tacoma Station Vegetation and wildlife habitat in this industrialized area is very limited. Scattered patches of vegetation occur in alleys, between buildings, and along roadsides and parking lots. Typical species include quackgrass, English plantain, clover, common tansy, dandelion, and Himalayan blackberry. These plant communities are likely used by small numbers of wildlife that are adapted to high levels of noise and activity, such as small rodents, pigeons, sparrows, and starlings. There are no structurally diverse habitats or plant communities on-site or nearby off-site. Biological Resources/Ecology Page 3.6-7 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 3.6.3 Potential Impacts Rail Corridor. Table 3.6.2 summarizes the potential stream and wetland impacts from proposed track improvements between Puyallup and Tacoma. Estimates of the acreage that would be adversely affected by construction of the third track and curve realignment are based on preliminary engineering drawings that have been modified in consultation with WDFW and the Puyallup Tribe. As indicated in Table 3.6.2, wetland impacts resulting from construction of a new third track in this area are estimated to be approximately 4.8 acres. Animals now relying on the wetland and stream habitat lost during construction of the new track sections would be displaced to adjacent habitats and some animals would perish. Displaced animals, including juvenile salmon and trout, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, are expected to return to the relocated Clear Creek channel, reconstructed drainage ditches, and their associated wetlands. Additional replacement wetland habitat would be provided by project mitigation. Disturbances to federally - listed threatened and endangered species are expected to be minor, based on the absence of critical habitat within the project area. Table 3.6.2 Summary of Potential Wetland Impacts from Track Improvements Between Puyallup and Tacoma Other impacts that may result from construction activities in streams, wetlands, and uplands include erosion of exposed soils by rain events during site grading and construction, which could cause erosion of exposed soils and result in sediment Page 3.6-8 June 1998 Biological Resources/Ecology Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment deposition into wetlands and the creek. Accidental spills of fuel, oils, and chemicals could also occur, entering wetlands and streams. A new bridge is proposed for the BNSF crossing of the Black River. In -water work would be avoided to the maximum extent practicable during construction, and best management practices would be implemented during construction to minimize erosion and runoff. Stations. Impacts to biological resources from construction of commuter rail stations and park-and-ride lots are discussed below. King Street Station There are no known significant wildlife habitats in the immediate vicinity of this station. Construction and operation of the commuter rail project would not impact natural resources at the King Street Station site because of the lack of vegetation or other constructed features that provide usable wildlife habitat. Georgetown Station Ecologically sensitive areas, endangered species, and wetlands were not identified on the site. Therefore, construction and operation of the commuter rail project is unlikely to have significant impacts on the natural resources at the Georgetown station. Boeing Access Road Station Development of a commuter rail and/or light rail station would likely result in impacts to wetlands. The character, magnitude, and extent of impacts will depend on final site selection and station design. Impacts to natural resources at the Boeing Access Road station will be evaluated as part of Sound Transit's LINK light rail EIS and are not included in this report. Longacres Station Because the station layout is proposed to extend only 500 feet north and south of Longacres Way, it is unlikely that station construction would have any impact on wetlands located nearby. Most, if not all, of the area that would be used for station construction has been graded recently and the open field habitat that occurred there has been eliminated. Some birds and small mammals likely would be displaced from the vegetated perimeters of the site during construction. The identified great blue heron rookery is located an adequate distance away from the proposed station to prevent disturbance to the rookery from station construction. Downtown Kent (North and South) Stations No ecologically sensitive areas, endangered species, or wetlands were observed or identified on these sites. Construction and operation of the commuter rail project using either station layout is unlikely to have significant impacts on natural resources at the stations. However, some birds and small mammals would be displaced from the urbanized habitats on the sites. Biological Resources/Ecology Page 3.6-9 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Auburn Station No ecologically sensitive areas, endangered species, or wetlands were observed or identified on the site. Construction and operation of the commuter rail project is unlikely to have significant impacts on natural resources at the Auburn station. However, the patchy vegetation that occurs on the site supports small mammals that would be displaced during construction. Sumner Station No wetlands, protected plant or animal species, or other environmentally sensitive areas were observed or identified on the site. Construction and operation of the commuter rail project is unlikely to have significant impacts on natural resources at the Sumner station. However, some species that use the open field and patchy vegetation that occurs on the site would be displaced during construction. Puyallup Station No ecologically sensitive areas, endangered species, or wetlands were identified on the site. Construction and operation of the commuter rail project is unlikely to have significant impacts on natural resources at the Puyallup station. Some small mammals and birds that use the patchy vegetation between existing buildings and parking areas would be displaced during construction. Tacoma Station Ecologically sensitive areas, endangered species, and wetlands were not observed or identified on the Tacoma Amtrak Station site. Construction and operation of the commuter rail project is unlikely to have significant impacts on natural resources at this station. 3.6.4 Mitigation Rail Corridor. Mitigation measures would follow a hierarchy of avoidance, minimization, and compensation for impacts. Options to avoid new construction in this location are limited. As noted earlier in this EA, reservation interlocking is the junction of the Union Pacific main line and the BNSF main lines adjacent to the Puyallup River on the east side of Tacoma. The train congestion currently occurring at Reservation would not allow for reliable commuter service. With only the two existing tracks east of Reservation, commuter trains would regularly get trapped by freight train activity at this location. This would preclude the reliable transit service that is the prime justification for commuter rail investment. Restricting freight activity during commuter hours is not an option open to Sound Transit. The commuter rail project cannot be implemented without a third tack that would keep Sound Transit's trains off the main line as they approach the Reservation congestion point. Page 3.6-10 June 1998 Biological Resources/Ecology Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Appropriate mitigation goals for this project include: • maintaining the preconstruction hydrologic regime of the area, • creating replacement wildlife habitat and improving overall habitat quality, and • improving water quality. Impacts in areas where surface waters (i.e., Clear Creek and drainage ditches) flow adjacent to the railroad tracks may be avoided or minimized by designing retaining walls to support the new track While design work has incorporated these features to avoid or minimize direct loss of wetlands, further mitigation will be included by relocating portions of Canyon and Clear Creeks further away from the railroad embankments than they currently are located. These relocations will improve the streams' habitat values by distancing them from the radiated heat and herbicides used during track maintenance. In addition, the intent will be to design the new channels to improve juvenile salmonid rearing habitat, attenuate flooding, improve water quality, and improve plant species diversity. These new channels could have greater sinuosity, deeper pools, and more large woody debris than the existing channels, and the banks could be vegetated with native tree and shrub species. This approach would improve juvenile salmonid rearing habitat by lowering water temperatures, increasing dissolved oxygen levels, providing resting areas during floods, and encouraging an increase in invertebrate prey densities. Flood flow attenuation would also be improved by these design measures. Restoration of degraded wetlands, enhancement of existing wetlands or creation of new wetland habitat can be employed to compensate for adverse impacts to palustrine wetlands. Wetland mitigation is generally preferred within the localized drainage area, replacing those plant community characteristics that are impacted and providing comparable functions and values. The size and character of wetland mitigation areas will depend on the extent of impact and the type of wetland that is affected (i.e., emergent, shrub or forested), the type of mitigation action used (i.e., restoration, enhancement or creation), and the required replacement ratios, which range from one to six acres per acre of impact. Replacement ratios are defined by both the extent and type of impact. Mitigation requirements and final design will be determined in coordination with local, state, and federal permitting agencies during the permit process. Enhancement of existing wetlands within the immediate vicinity of the site may involve eradicating invasive plant species and planting native vegetation. Invasive plants that should be removed include Himalayan blackberry, evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus), and reed canarygrass. Typical native species that could be planted to enhance existing wetlands include Sitka willow, salmonberry, red -osier dogwood, small -fruited bulrush, and slough sedge (Carex obnupta). Biological Resources/Ecology Page 3.6-11 June1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Wetland restoration typically involves re-establishing wetland hydrology to a former wetland area that has been effectively drained or excavating fill out of a former wetland, and replanting the area with native wetland plants. In February 1998 the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposed to list Puget Sound chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) as a "threatened" species under the Endangered Species Act. Proponents of projects which are planned in the vicinity of chinook salmon habitat are required to evaluate the likelihood of impact to this species. If the federal agency with permitting or approval authority over the project determines that the project is likely to impact chinook salmon, the proponent is required to confer with NMFS regarding the project. Further consultation with NMFS will be required for any activity associated with the project that could result in impacts to fish habitat in Clear, Swan, Squally, other creeks in the vicinity of the proposed new third track, and any other waterways along the Tacoma -to -Seattle commuter rail corridor. In addition, Sound Transit will pay particular attention to the two commuter rail issues of most importance to salmon habitat: construction impacts and stream crossings. Best management practices will be employed to minimize erosion and stormwater runoff impacts during construction of track improvements. In addition, in the vicinity of commuter rail track improvements, Sound Transit will review the condition of stream crossings and work with NMFS to identify appropriate enhancements related to project impacts. Stations. It is not anticipated that mitigation for impacts to biological resources will be required for the proposed commuter rail stations. 3.6.5 Cumulative Impacts No significant cumulative impacts have been identified. Future high speed rail and freight service would use existing commuter rail stations and trackage. No additional loss of wetlands, vegetation, or wildlife habitat is expected. Page 3.6-12 June 1998 Biological Resources/Ecology Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 3.7 HISTORICAL, PARK, AND RECREATION RESOURCES 3.7.1 Historic Properties Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 USC 303), provides protection for significant publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife refuges, and historic sites. Transportation projects that adversely affect such resources may not be approved by the Secretary of Transportation unless a determination is made that there is no feasible and prudent alternative, and all possible planning has been done to minimize harm. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 470f), requires that federal agencies identify and assess the effects of federally assisted undertakings on historic properties, consult with others to find acceptable ways to avoid or mitigate adverse effects, and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment. Regulations governing the Section 106 review process are contained in 36 CFR Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties. These regulations encourage maximum coordination with the environmental review process required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and with other statutes, including Section 4(f). The affected environment section of this report contains information that fulfills the identification and evaluation requirements of the Section 106 process. The impacts section of this report applies the criteria of effect and adverse effect of the Section 106 regulations. This section identifies historic resources that are located within the project's area of potential effect, evaluates impacts on these resources, and recommends mitigation measures to ensure compliance with Sections 106 and 4(0. As this project will have an effect on some historic properties, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) has been developed and executed (see Appendices). The MOA has been signed by the FTA, the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and Sound Transit. It spells out procedures to protect the historic properties and mitigate adverse impacts. In addition, the cities of Seattle and Tacoma, King County, and Pierce County have local review boards implementing ordinances that regulate locally designated landmarks. As this project will have an effect on designated properties in Seattle, local design review and approval is required before permits can be issued. 3.7.1.1 Methodology and Approach Records reviewed at the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) included the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the Washington Heritage Register (WHR), Historic Property Inventory files, and Determination of Eligibility files. The City of Tacoma inventory and the Pierce County inventory, which includes Sumner and Puyallup, were accessed through OAHP. The City of Seattle inventory and the King County inventory, which includes Tukwila, Kent, and Auburn, were reviewed at their respective offices in Seattle. Historical Resources Page 3.7-1 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment A field survey of the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail alignments and station locations was conducted in March and April of 1994. Properties identified through the records search were field checked and evaluated, and the study corridor was surveyed to identify any previously unrecorded resources. As some changes in station locations have occurred in the interim, station sites were again investigated in October of 1997. The investigation of existing trackage between stations was limited to the adjacent 750 feet on either side of the tracks. Because the BNSF tracks are not accessible by road along their entire length, a complete field survey of trackage was not feasible. Observation from overpasses and underpasses was used where frontage roads were not available. The area around station locations was evaluated within a radius of 1/4 mile. Potential eligibility to the NRHP of certain resources and classes of properties was discussed with OAHP staff during the course of the study. The type and degree of effects on historic properties were also discussed and mitigation measures were identified. Because the commuter rail trains would operate on existing tracks, OAHP staff advised that there would be no adverse effects on historic properties located in the vicinity of the tracks other than those identified for any property in the Noise and Vibration and Air Quality assessments. Historic properties located adjacent to station sites, however, could be affected by changes to the character of the property's setting. 3.7.1.2 Affected Environment Historic resources protected under Sections 106 and 4(0 are those that are listed in the NRHP or are eligible for listing in the NRHP. Eligible properties must be at least 50 years old, possess integrity of physical characteristics, and met at least one of the following criteria. A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in out past; C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values; D. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Properties identified and evaluated for meeting NRHP criteria are presented below. Supplemental information, including inventory forms, photographs, and station site plans, were submitted to the Washington SHPO for concurrence on NRHP eligibility and determination of effects. Properties entered in the Washington Heritage Register (WHR) and locally designated landmarks are also identified. While protection of WHR listed properties is not required, OAHP recommends consultation occur if there are potential impacts to these properties. Results of the survey are summarized in Table 3.7.1. Page 3.7-2 June 1998 Historical Resources Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Table 3.7.1 Summary of Historic Resources Impacts and Mitigation Measures Property Segment/Station Status Affected Mitigation Recommended Significant Impact with Mitigation King‘Street'Station - -,, ..; •.•,, , ,, , ,,,,,... , ,.. . , • ,,,,, Downtown:Seatt e - ' LL" ;,,.Station ,;,._. •,.... „ ,,.._. .../.. - ,.., Downtown Seattle Station NR, LL ' - 'es, - .,-. Yes MOA previously ' : • No executed :.,.. - %.2- ..-,-,(.........,-.7, Compatible No Station Design Union Station 12amiercolc1 Storago-,_,"...„ ",' GeorgotoViirStation- 5' 1.,-. ... ._:, .i...', .., '.: • ,. ' '-'-; '1..j;..- 1 •'"!;"-.' :: ' : '''' '''. v .'" .' ' ' ''' ..',..:,., ' •=; '''" ;.:• : - COMpatl I .... ''.;1;» stitiion d`e'i 4:- ' _ . Horton Hotel Georgetown Station eNR Yes Compatible No station design MilletI3iiildbik'. . ''' • i GOrg0OwifStitif.ik,'.., 1 .eNR ' • ,, ' ' :-:...•,,,•;:.:)z-r,:z.,... . ' .._, .7 , Y.,' '',1:4t^ ,,.:;....,,-. '.-''..;,.. l;°:` L,,, .. f., ,,,4,,,., ' : .?t ...: Yes-,... Compatible:,: .:2,,Ay : .. , No ..--z..i,..,?4 stationdesign- Old Georgetown City Hall Georgetown Station Seattle4ukWila',1-,...,..„..., NR, LL WHR.,, - , Yes .,,-, r.•., i Compatible No station design . - :,,;',.; Maple'DonatiOn,Clami,', ::-J ' . NF,DepOt,:kKont-: • . •"-', , - .- • ..4 .-:- , , - . DOViiittiirn`KenC(SOuth) 14 eNR-t5.:. ' - -4 Stiktioll-:.:. '''...7. -,'.c: :;:4.. :,..:42' -. Downtown Kent WHR (North/South) Station - --:;.:',7 i --:..i• -"" < ...;.',A7,7 l'..1'°. No Crn•'' , ' ' r'" Iffi - " :"" i.**•;- station designi; . - ..•- : -, : Carnation Milk Factory First 'Avenue Historic'Diktricl DOwiitovvn Kent (South) " 6WHRs:-:).-.. :---i- Kent:affp; 71, • : ..,,, $tkitiOU,' -1 :: --,:-:'''''•,',..iii',--:, ';-:'-',;';'::::°.. .' '..1.Y.Os` '1,--• T,'.::::: -•-‘:...--: ComPatible'-'.', - 4 , ":No. stition design4.'i . • ' ' " ' Thomas -Nelson House Kent -Auburn eNR 136TviTO---XUE-4---"'wn uni•:;:. -' 61M77:77 •Station -,-: , i-., Yie-,•":;;',-.: =,.' ",l.;r2q4.°%,-;--CT No . Tourist Hotel - -..,-;.,-i''' c.„..-'::', :•',,, s''', - '',- :*:- ,',..f.', ,•„.•4 Compatible- -,-:',".-7.%?, station , design.,-:,..:,-, .-• , - -i E' :--",: , -.: .,.- Dierenger School Auburn -Sumner NR Heiteiti! ,k jams,' oils,e.. s tp .iip,-; , umnFr;1;,.; ' ,,, ,, ' , ,,-.. - No '4,.:,,, . „..,,.--,,,,,c , ;:, . •. • , . ° ,,-.1 Ezra Meeker Mansion Downtown Puyallup NR Station No Puyal up and Sumner ,:.:,... ...., Pawn pm: -iip,Statunt ''eNR' c'Yes.! Fruit •Growers Associationa:,...,_ ,,-...',.::1,-,:i - :-.:•:":...... 'f..., - • ..... • • • • .- .. . . - . - - - . '' • ..,, .: . Cotripgib e Statimitieiiiii ,..,- '1'; - k '4.. • NK - Listedm the National Kegister ot Histonc Places eNR - Eligible for listing in the National Register WHR - Listed in the Washington Historic Register eWHR - Eligible for listing in the Washington Historic Register LL - Designated local landmark Historical Resources June 1998 Page 3.7-3 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Bridges and trestles associated with the trackage of the BNSF alignment were checked against the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) inventory of such structures in Washington State (Soderberg 1980) and, where possible, also evaluated in the field. The HAER inventory includes buildings, bridges, and other structures. None was found to meet NRHP criteria. Seattle - Tukwila King Street Station King Street Station. (303 S. Jackson Street) This operating passenger station was completed in 1906. Its 245 -foot clock tower was modeled after the campanile at the Piazza San Marco in Venice. It is individually listed in the NRHP as well as included in the Pioneer Square -Skid Road Historic District. The station is also included in the City of Seattle's Pioneer Square Preservation District. Union Station. (401 S. Jackson Street) This passenger terminal was completed in 1911 for the Oregon and Washington Railway and Navigation Company. It ceased operating as a railroad station in 1971 and is now used only intermittently for special events. It is individually listed in the NRHP as well as included in the Pioneer Square -Skid Road Historic District. The station is also located in both the City of Seattle's Pioneer Square Preservation District and the International Special Review District. Georgetown Station Rainier Cold Storage and Ice/Seattle Brewing and Malting Co. (6000-6004 Airport Way S.) This complex of early industrial buildings, constructed between 1900 and 1914, is located east of Airport Way, between this street and the railroad tracks. It is a designated City of Seattle Landmark and is eligible for the NRHP. Horton Hotel. (1201 S. Vale Street) This mixed-use business block was built in 1914 by the Horton Investment Company, headed by George Horton, after whom Georgetown was named. It is associated with the pre -World War I building boom in the community and is eligible for the NRHP. Victor L. Miller Building. (6111 13th Avenue S.) This well-preserved example of a one -part, brick and terra cotta, commercial storefront design was built in 1927, as the community of Georgetown continued to prosper. It is eligible for the NRHP. Old Georgetown City Hall. (6202 13th Avenue S.) This key municipal building served the incorporated city of Georgetown before its annexation to Seattle in 1907. It is listed in the NRHP and is also a designed City of Seattle Landmark. Page 3.7-4 June 1998 Historical Resources Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Trackage South of Georgetown Maple Donation Claim. (7200 Airport Way S.) Jacob and Samuel Maple were among the earliest permanent settlers in the area when they filed claims on the lower Duwamish River Valley in September 1851. The historic location, now part of Boeing Field, and is listed in the WHR, but it is a commemorative site only, with no above -ground historic material. Tukwila - Kent Where the corporate limits of the cities of Tukwila, Renton, and Kent meet at SW 43rd Street/S. 180th Street, the tracks of the BNSF Railroad and UP Railroad and the grade (now a bike/pedestrian trail) of the old Interurban run parallel and close together as they cross the roadway. Just west of these combined rights-of-way, the community of Orillia once flourished. Identified 15 years ago in the King County Inventory as a historic district, Orillia has largely vanished. Only three properties remain, of which two are severely altered. Downtown Kent (North and South) Stations Northern Pacific Railroad Depot. This site is located on the east side of the BNSF Railroad tracks between Meeker and Gowe Streets in downtown Kent. The passenger and freight depot is still owned by BNSF, but no longer serves its original function. The railroad played an important role in opening up the White River Valley to agricultural development and settlement. In 1883 the Columbia and Puget Sound Railroad was completed through the valley, connecting the Puyallup Valley at Stuck Junction with the Seattle -Renton line at Black River Junction. After a brief hiatus the line was operated as the Puget Sound Shoreline Railroad under the control of the Northern Pacific. The present building was built in 1926 and replaced an earlier depot on the same site. Because of its good condition, high level of integrity, and historical association with railroad development in the White River Valley, the depot is eligible for the NRHP. Carnation Milk Factory. (203 Meeker Street) Located diagonally across the intersection from the depot, this WHR-listed property marks the location where the first can of condensed milk was produced in 1899. The location is a commemorative site only, and there is no above -ground historic material. First Avenue Historic District. (South First Avenue between Gowe and Titus Streets) The hop boom of the 1880s and subsequent diversified agricultural development in the valley brought prosperity to the town of Kent. By the turn of the century a commercial core was developing astride the railroad tracks along Railroad Avenue and First Avenue. Most of the wooden buildings on Railroad Avenue were destroyed by fire in 1914. The brick, stone, and concrete properties fronting on First Street, built both before and after the fire, remain as a reminder of Kent's early commercial development. This small group of buildings is eligible for the WHR as a Historical Resources Page 3.7-5 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment historic district. The Berlin Brothers Store, east of the depot at 100 South Railroad Avenue, is another commercial property that exemplifies this era of Kent's history. Kent - Auburn Trackage South of Kent Thomas -Nelson House and Barn. (27605 78th Avenue S.) Originally the homestead of John Thomas, who settled here in 1853, the house was expanded by Nelson in 1894. The buildings represent the predominantly agricultural character of the White River Valley in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The property is eligible for the NRHP. A Northern Pacific depot was once located nearby, alongside the tracks at S. 277th Street. Downtown Auburn Station Tourist Hotel. (124-130 W. Main Street) Once touted as the only first-class hotel between Seattle and Tacoma, this 1905 two-story brick building stands as a remnant of the early railroad era in Auburn and turn -of -the -century vernacular architecture. It is eligible for the NRHP. Auburn - Sumner Trackage South of Auburn Dierenger School. (1808 East Valley Road) Located to the east of the railroad line, between the tracks and East Valley Road, the Dierenger School campus, consisting of three buildings dating from 1921 and 1928, is significant as the last remaining resource that can be associated with the historical development of the Dierenger community. The property is listed in the NRHP under Criteria A and C. South of the Dierenger School the BNSF tracks pass over the tailrace of the White River Power Plant. This facility was evaluated in 1988 during a survey of hydroelectric projects in Washington State (Soderberg 1988) and was not nominated to the NRHP. Substations associated with this facility can be found throughout the area. Herbert Williams House. (1711 Elm Street East) Located east of the railroad tracks on the outskirts of Sumner, this 1890 residence is associated with a family prominent in early agricultural development, especially the cultivation of hops, in the Stuck Valley. It is listed in the NRHP. Sumner - Puyallup Sumner Station. There is some older housing stock in the residential neighborhood east and south of the Sumner station location. Individual properties some distance from the station site may be eligible for the NRHP (although one has been determined ineligible after previous review), but there does not appear to be a distinct and cohesive historic district. Page 3.7-6 June 1998 Historical Resources Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Trackage South of Sumner Ezra Meeker Mansion. (321 Pioneer Avenue E.) The most important historic resource in downtown Puyallup, this 1886 home of the "hop king" of the Puyallup Valley is listed in the NRHP. It is located south of the railroad tracks amidst more recent commercial developments. Downtown Puyallup Station Puyallup and Sumner Fruit Growers Association Buildings. (North side of Main Street between 2nd and 3rd Streets) The present group of industrial buildings remain from a larger cannery and shipping complex established by the Association in 1902. Early additions in the 1910s enlarged the complex during the boom in berry cultivation and canning in the valley, and the later introduction of frozen berries. The founding president of the Association, William Paulhamaus, was instrumental in the development of the berry industry and the founding of the Western Washington Fair. The properties are eligible for the NRHP. Puyallup - Tacoma Trackage South of Puyallup No NRHP eligible resources were identified along this segment or in the vicinity of the Amtrak station in Tacoma. 3.7.1.3 Potential Impacts and Mitigation The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act create a process by which federally assisted undertakings are reviewed for their effect on properties listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP. After identifying the historic property, the next step is to apply the Criteria of Effect and Adverse Effect to determine whether the proposed action could affect the property and whether that effect should be considered adverse. The criteria of effect and adverse effect are used to determine if the undertaking could change in any way the characteristics that qualify the property for inclusion in the NRHP. If the characteristics change for better or for worse, it is considered to have an effect. If the undertaking could diminish the integrity of such characteristics, it is considered to have an adverse effect. Adverse effects include, but are not limited to: • demolition or alteration of the property; • alteration of the property's setting; or • introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are out of character with the property's setting. Because the commuter rail service would operate on existing tracks, the impacts of the project would occur mainly at station locations. While no historic resource would Historical Resources Page 3.7-7 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment be altered or directly affected by the commuter rail project, the setting of those resources located in the vicinity of stations could be affected by construction and operation. The effects of the commuter rail project on historic resources are summarized in Table 3.7.1. No structural modifications are proposed to the King Street Station (NRHP-listed) or the NP Depot in Kent (NRHP-eligible - see Table 3.7.1). New commuter rail stations at the King Street and Downtown Kent (South) Stations could, however, indirectly affect these existing buildings by altering the setting. New commuter rail stations at Georgetown, Auburn, and Puyallup could alter the setting of historic properties in the vicinity to some degree. Station designs are being developed that acknowledge the historic context of the site and harmonize with the surrounding buildings. Stations with historic resources located in the vicinity of the proposed site are discussed below. King Street Station. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is currently funding the design for the rehabilitation of King Street Station as the Seattle Intermodal Transportation Terminal, which includes the integration of commuter rail service. This design work is being carried out in compliance with the requirements of an MOA executed between the FTA and the SHPO and accepted by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation on May 8, 1996. Concurring parties which signed the MOA are WSDOT, RTA Sound Transit, City of Seattle, and BNSF. The MOA requires that project designs be prepared in accordance with the historic and architectural qualities of the Pioneer Square Historic District and be consistent with The Secretary of the Interior 's Standards for Rehabilitation and Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Georgetown Station. Construction of the Georgetown station would alter the setting of the historic properties in the vicinity of the station site. The historic character of the site has already been severely compromised by the construction of the Corson Avenue on-ramp to I-5. As mitigation, the design of the commuter rail station could recognize the character of the historic setting and be compatible with it. Downtown Kent (North) Station. The historic resources in Kent would not be affected by construction of the Downtown Kent (North) Station. However, the historic depot would remain underutilized and would not be rehabilitated. Downtown Kent (South) Station. If the former Northern Pacific depot is adapted for use as a commuter rail station, any adverse impacts could be mitigated by the rehabilitation of the depot according to the Secretary's Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings. This type of rehabilitation would also retain the existing compatibility of the depot with the nearby historic commercial buildings. Station development near the depot should be designed to recognize and be compatible with the historic setting. Page 3.7-8 June 1998 Historical Resources Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Downtown Auburn Station. Since the proposed commuter rail station is located near the site of the demolished Northern Pacific depot, the historic association of this use with the Tourist Hotel would be reestablished, and could stimulate revitalization of this property and other commercial buildings on Main Street. As mitigation, the design of the commuter rail station could recognize the character of the historic setting and be compatible with it. Downtown Puyallup Station. Construction of the Puyallup station would alter the setting of the adjacent historic industrial buildings. As mitigation, the design of the commuter rail station could recognize the character of the historic setting, which once included the now -demolished Puyallup passenger depot, and be compatible with this setting. In summary, the proposed action would have no significant impacts at the station locations. Where historic resources are located in the vicinity of proposed stations, impacts could be mitigated by incorporating compatible station design. Section 4(0 of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (hereafter referred to as section 4(0) specifies that transportation projects with federal involvement shall not use any "publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance as determined by federal, state, or local officials having jurisdiction thereof, or any land from an historic site of national, state, or local significance as so determined by such officials unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and (2) such program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic sites resulting from such use" (23 CFR 771.135). As lead agency for NEPA purposes, FTA is responsible for documenting and assessing potential 4(0 impacts from the proposed project. As discussed above, there would be no direct adverse impacts to property during construction over the long term. Other potential 4(0 impacts are classified by 23 CFR 771.135 as "constructive use" impacts. Constructive use occurs when a project's proximity impacts are so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify a resource for protection under section 4(0 are "substantially impaired." Substantial impairment occurs when the protected activities, features, or attributes of the resources are "substantially diminished" (23 CFR 771.135). As discussed above, no substantial impairment of any historic resource would occur. 3.7.2 Park and Recreation Resources This section identifies park and recreation resources located both generally along the BNSF alignment corridor from Seattle to Tacoma and specifically in the vicinity of proposed commuter rail station sites. Indirect impacts to land uses along the corridor, such as noise and visual intrusion from increased rail traffic, are covered in the Noise and Vibration and Visual sections of this document. Historical Resources Page 3.7-9 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 3.7.2.1 Methodology and Assumptions Parks and recreation facilities along the Tacoma -to -Seattle corridor were identified using maps as well as plans and policies of the various jurisdictions in the corridor. City and County staff were contacted to confirm park locations and collect information on park activities and use levels. For the purposes of this report, parks and recreation facilities include local or regional parks; playgrounds, and outdoor recreation facilities associated with schools; and trails. For portions of the alignment corridor beyond the vicinity of proposed station sites, the locations of park and recreation facilities have been identified, their facilities and activities summarized, and their proximity to the BNSF tracks approximated. Parks and recreation facilities located in close proximity to proposed station sites (within a 750 -foot radius) are identified separately and are generally discussed in greater detail below due to the greater potential for impacts to these resources. 3.7.2.2 Existing Conditions There are a number of parks and recreation facilities located throughout the BNSF Seattle -to -Tacoma corridor, ranging from large regional parks and golf courses to small local facilities, such as picnic areas or playgrounds. Park and recreation facilities along the corridor outside the vicinity of station sites are identified in Table 3.7.2. In addition to the parks along the corridor discussed above, there are four parks located in the vicinity of proposed station sites. These parks are discussed below. Borden Plavfield (James St. and 4th Ave. N) This park is located west of the proposed Downtown Kent (South) Station southbound commuter rail platform. The site is leased by the City of Kent from the Borden Chemical Company. The park includes 5.9 acres and provides four baseball/softball fields, bleachers, a multi -use playfield, two soccer fields, and restrooms. Use levels are high during evenings and weekends in spring, summer, and fall and include many organized youth sporting events. Lower levels of informal use also take place during weekday daytime hours. Page 3.7-10 June 1998 Historical Resources Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Table 3.7.2 Park and Recreation Facilities Along the BNSF Corridor Segments Parklands Located Along Segment Approximate Location Tukwila - •-• ,yotiir. Goff Ltiiki.(ASsopintetoioio Ave -.•:54' 1piikivila) 71;4#6; I 18 -hole gO1fCaiirS:eilistaiirani; Orniii-§0;'-!.:.1:;', ', ;.:,'! -_ : -_ •••• ..... • -.,:::_A:::'-‘'''._:..-°.2..:.::.L " ;.- Kent-;.C.qn!PIncillTnntal;L‘--.I..,,`,,-:, •1'." ..•:.-1--::' :::::?;f ::_._:,;<:.: .:' ° ...-;.;_'•-•; [::.-...;;: :,....,°'.•: -° - ,,...".":.-•:. - Interurban Trail: 10' wide paved trail, pedestrian and wheeled activities, some equestrian use. Sniittili:alfrif:Site iniin4liatel}', west oftracks •••..`,.:..":--;,if:''.'.:, '-:. .: ,°':i '..::.:C-• •-. -, -, West of tracks from Fort Dent Park to Pierce County line 'Fort Deo Pirk(0j1:405.11ftertirbanA**.; Tukwila): ,,524acride•sieloped.paik, Iiiiir, baseball/softballfio4i. four , '...; ntai.';finldnilaiiri6..4.(0iis;.PicOki-04.i*i2iiiiiii.:iite*; i.0...TootifOiTiiiii4 ;.lirt IN90.0; bie*liii "'.";',..' :: -.'•• ..i'-1,:i:«4f.:°.'I',.",':::_;:ii.;-.:...;'...: Duwamish-Green River Trail: Follows Green River from Highway 99 to Tukwila/Kent city limits. Bike and pedestrian use. linniediateTi,;!tcst tiffiiiii:- ,..„.; ..' . ':`:-:°Ii`i4-1:;;i..%.:‘,;.°.,::°. ':,•:_1';":...::.:',.:.'L .;_:,-.1.__ __.._:',:-.,...: Connects with Interurban Trail south of Fort Dent Park ToTrrariarratracks-;:::'''.. °:-.:;. ' 4.. :'..? ' ' :......;... . . : .....:'' 150 feet west of tracks ;SiiitiiiiiiIxiiiili Giiiiibelf(Si°180th,St. east :Of BNSF tracks, Kent) .UtirleVelOped;16acre-park: .Val 'n ,trails . •. ; Illre044,;'...,-.'..;:''''°•[...a;':::;4•:','•'..;'-.:[:: l::°' ' 'L:";-;2'": ' ,.. :-:' .:4:: °.•°...,.:-.1.-4.°1-,`......:i.4•°_`.... [ 2.:. • ::* : ' ......... _;.-,"..L.,....;.'.- ... ._ ....-il'ir:4.1,:i-,:„ ., Kiwanis Tot Lot #2 (N. 2nd Ave. and W. Cloudy St., Kent): 0.4 -acre park, barbecue, picnic facilities, play equipment. , KiiiiReiiiiiilsil-Pkili(/IgO-Ni'.Ceniiiil::Aieiities;IKent):1111;8:4:i:ei:.birbecite,ilitiSeballi:S'otlbalI OldS;•basIcetball':,:- : •:CoUrts;bleaChersitolicess!olts;dMilting.fouritains;:Parkingi peal)atek'Piciiio:slielt0i;arci4;:..ojay Oquiprhen4 tntiis;z<.„°:.:-;..-, ,, 4::. ---•..-.,..,,it' ' --s.tr-- -, --1-f:::.,,;,,,:; :,.,..r,f4:-• P., — • ' ,. t ' • . - . • : ,;,',.,-, ',±i- ' ; ..3' • . , i i ,....V , ...:1-...., ..., , 'OOUtt:Si: 0.tr9(iliTaCliitreg ;2'..;_:: '''.'"..''§1-1;:j'::::f'.'1::::' i.7i ....:2,..‘`ii..,2r,i1.::F•'62...°,..i.2s..... '; .::::'Y :' rlIfi.b)•;`,Y.:.;,'.'°. ''''' . , '..,',''',,..',.r-.1,2,',4':CZ.S. ':77,.":.,,!'...,,:.,;f:,":7::',;, Kent Junior High School (James St. and Central Ave., Kent): Multi-purpose fields, track and field facilities. :§bliWee7sIiiTtiucks.:, .,,:',1,„°:•,..7?°1:.:,[..:•:,,xrii,°: - •.. - ...-•, ,'::t.,.....f.,':.ft. , : i., :. -1..*: ''.,,i71%,-,;',..:„5,;,,: ':2,, :;,1.';', '2,'; ';;;;,::: '1',:"::::'°:,;,. , ' ' :1,:,,,;i::::.: ,.,:, 900 feet east of tracks Kent - 1010 CIIY°_PairksactietioiiPtirk20Aii.Si'ah(l.W.:G#V.0 Sti`Kift): 0..58 aciet;;P:ifii:C.faCiliticA ;tillblf.e.aft..--_: . . .. Auburn Titus Park 1st Ave. S. and W. Titus St : 0.25 acres, 2 picnic tables, barbecue, bench. 900 feet oftracks Immediately west of tracks .... _30foti-!/64of tracks 0.75 miles west of tracks :Khval.,_ rprk#11(5,:: it.Ave4,000 WiCiv".St:i Keil* J0:6 atte§i,.0.aibeduc,,oicitic facilities, play:equiptpent.J2:i - : Mill Creek Park (parallel to Smith Street): 107 acres, trail along Mill Creek, amphitheater, restroom. Auburn- Tp,s,,t.!eii1Icielq'(sw15th:SC:od psspy.yrA0biiiiiy. ;..0;.46i4i bilikitivaim)0!•:flejcliVOlti-y equipment,•" 10iiIC•al;eas; Sumner-Paiiiing,4reitrOoni-id,;".1.41%'.‘2';:•'-i-. '.'.'4:,:i.f;':-.,--3-..'..0;;:',;,,;.l,•tq,:".. ,,,.':•-ii,f.1.1:',;,;7'.,'.:;•.,.!::::: !I#iiiieiliiii0Jk.VestOf,friOlii;•[,•.:: - ....,:-..::...;';'4';',.).!•:.:--.... . ,.. ., -:...- -.:,,;' , Immediately west of tracks 100 feet east tif &Tic r'"----'..'.., Sumner Meadows Golf Links (South of 8th St. E along Stuck River): 280 acres, 18 -hole golf course, driving range, clubhouse. i".SiiiiTifilliTliTif;Pkiiiligilit; itidAnnnikSe:;SOIrnniit-'BO"---T-TeWalf.0-111.4 nifil..g;;4414fisi:Iiiii-intrtig.tut.0"011.spaaP::1 Downtown Sumner Heritage Park (900 block of Narrow St.) 0.7 acre park with lawns and gazebo Sumner - -..Piiiiieik'Pak:291i,S.Weill(liti0;ptii,01140)!'°'2'4iieS;:tiiiiiilifii iioToliiislitygipii4:0iiiii0pleijt7iiiCiii6liiii,iiiiiesit6iiiiii ',..,:; Puyallupr.knt.'6'-iii-c6i,"--..:•:Uilt.i.:':- ' :';;,',';:iI11:::'''::Z.°..-'.. .......r•:':::i'Pj,:';`;f,'...:.::::.'1'.,:jr*}q:,t.r-,?::::1 _., . : .',':',,7::::!:•)..2:-.::::.:.:,•-i Grayland Park 601 N. Meridian, Puyallup): 3.2 acres, wading pool, plaxground, picnic areas, restrooms. ..9.1.0'fdt;sii4th oftracks ' . • • ": ; .:',..-.:,:,;.,:, 1000 feet north of tracks °800-,feefiotilli offiric161„..,:•••'-::,,_ 700 feet north of tracks iP0lliljilf.-2111khSai1"; 0 501,1t;„'NNAriiiiyti 00; JvIii tiipiiipOie fielZfieliSliiaCe.:I.:',...,':;", ;,-,'.°::'';,fn.,7.-1:2,11:1',F.'Li..1 .:7;.":.! Puyallup Elementary School (52nd Street) Puyallup - undevelopedS.4Tati,Creek:p!rk4'ILargely,park along Swan creFk 2.5 trail,alopg,cTeek, :trail along pin . f ravine. :. Tacoma_.__...-;...„•,°,,.,„',,.-,..°..."•.,°...°.:.,:': °..'.'.'.•-..:-....::•••:.......,.•::..-.,,-:- . ;..... .. ...... ' . ..-:.. t.;...!. -;,.:.;.,: ....-.- .-.. ::•. ..,°...1•?......°.:1•....-.......•.,:,..,- ..: Puyalluo Indian Cemetery (2002 E. 28th St., Tacoma): 2 acres, open space, mature trees. Nortl! portLon 400 feet fiqin'tfacks •. :.,., •.-•::......'„_.: .-..; . . .. :.,..... 750 feet southwest of tracks ZillerLesc 1.Hilhg0h0Ol..q.00IET2sihTsf.; TtiZeiiiiojiTT4L-ieiiiiiijii7p*po7iliFficld's;iiiii-eqoioiiiiit,opeil:::. .- ..,.,..;—,:' , --, '. 2`."-,(V;'Y ,'":'.:'' '' - : ' . ::,:,' ; .!:3,.° -1.1:?.°"• -•11:",. * : -.-...,. , ....?'. ',i :,;(,..:.-1 /..•': ,;:', . . . .;', • ..,. ,: :. , .. ' .. 1 • ,-,, 4, ,-, , • ,.. :- .1 .-.:.:1 1 SPewc: -.;.'i.:- ''...411tZ•a0 :..d.ihi.. 41 ..,. i ,,,, ;!.,..,-..?..1,..:;1:,.,1,,K,..-,:.,...?!.,.,;,•:,1.:,.• , 1,', :,-,...f.,...,...:•.:-.,-..;:???,. ?.': s'!..'.1 -;,-. , .v,- " iii7:::te:.‘-','.-4.1 ... ';';z...;;':..F'...,-,'4;'41vVi!•`-'...'..•-•: ..',:-.-..,.?, A'56feef iiiiati Of tiaCkl-)7-: t-iire, -..,:, ' ,f1: •.,; ... : , ... ; ..-rr:‘,AV' _ . , • ; . *-1.: i.:, t.:,.. ;AY ? '''':,.';'. e ,-., .: , , :: • !.1:;:,,',.•,,, , ,,,.*:,.' : , - ,,. - ' • . Historical Resources June 1998 Page 3.7-11 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Burlington Green Park (Railroad Ave. between W. Meeker St. and W. Smith St.) ,This 1.5 -acre park is located across Smith Street to the south of the proposed Downtown Kent (South) Station and immediately north of the Kent Depot station. The site is leased by the City of Kent from BNSF. Park facilities include a gazebo, picnic tables, horseshoe pits, a demonstration compost project, and Chinese garden. The park is primarily used during daytime hours by individuals eating lunch or walking in the vicinity. Use levels are light. Kaibara Park (1st Ave. between Gowe St. and W. Smith St.) This 1 -acre park is located across the BNSF tracks to the west of Burlington Green Park. The site is leased by the city from BNSF. Park facilities include a Japanese garden, walking path, picnic areas, and fish pond. Types of use and use levels are similar to Burlington Green Park. Heritage Park (Downtown Park) This 0.7 -acre park is on the site of an abandoned gas station and parking lot, at the corner of Kincaid Avenue and Narrow Street about two blocks from the proposed Sumner station. The park includes a gazebo and is used for a variety of community events, including an open air summer market. 3.7.2.3 Impacts and Mitigation Corridor Park and Recreation Resources No significant impacts to park and recreation resources located along the corridor beyond the vicinity of station sites are anticipated. See the Visual Quality and Noise and Vibration sections for a discussion of potential impacts along the corridor. Since freight trains already operate on the BNSF line, any increases in noise or visual disruption from train operation is expected to be minor. The proposed project would result in an increase of approximately 9 trains during the weekday a.m. peak commute hours and 9 trains during p.m. peak commute hours. No trains would operate during weekends or during weekday off-peak hours. While commuter rail operation during the weekday evenings in spring and summer months may coincide with some high periods of park use.However, because most park and recreation facilities are not located immediately adjacent to the tracks, any disturbance caused by rail operation would be minimized by the separation of the facility from the tracks by roads, buildings, or screening vegetation. Parks In the Vicinity of Station Sites Borden Plavfield, Kent. This park is located immediately west of the Downtown Kent north site. No portion of this park would be required for station platforms or parking. Some impacts from construction noise, traffic, and dust are anticipated, but would be separated from the tracks by an existing parking area. Impacts from increased train frequency are expected to be minor. Page 3.7-12 June 1998 Historical Resources Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Technical Report in Support of EA Burlington Green and Kaibara Parks, Kent. These parks are located immediately to the north of the proposed Downtown Kent South site and south of the Downtown Kent north site. While no portions of either park would be required for station platforms or parking, some impacts to park use due to their proximity to the station sites are anticipated. Construction noise, traffic, and dust would be expected to temporarily affect park uses. During operation, the frequency of trains passing the parks would increase, and bus and automobile traffic would increase. However, since overall use levels are light and use at both parks occurs during daytime hours when commuter rail would not be in operation, impacts from both rail and vehicular traffic are expected to be minimal. Heritage Park, Sumner. Construction noise and traffic would only slightly affect Heritage Park. The park is located north of the proposed station site, and there would be no direct impacts from proposed platforms or parking. During operations, most traffic would use Traffic Avenue and Maple Street to reach the station and, thus, would not pass the park. The park would be affected by increased noise of trains passing by, but the noise increase is not expected to be significant. Since most park use occurs during daytime hours when commuter rail would not be in operation, impacts from both rail and vehicular traffic are expected to be minimal. As discussed above, there would be no direct 4(0 impacts to park property during construction, and no use of park property would be required for the project over the long term. Other potential 4(0 impacts are classified by 23 CFR 771.135 as "constructive use" impacts. Constructive use occurs when a project's proximity impacts are so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify as a resource for protection under section 4(0 are "substantially impaired." Substantial impairment occurs when the protected activities, features, or attributes of the resources are "substantially diminished" (23 CFR 771.135). Constructive use may include substantial increases in noise, impairment of aesthetic features, restriction of access, increases in vibration, or ecological intrusion. As discussed above, no substantial impairment of any park resources would occur. 3.7.2.4 Cumulative Impacts No significant impacts to historic or parks and recreation resources are anticipated. Neither the increased frequency in freight traffic or implementation of high speed rail is expected to contribute to adverse effects on historic resources or impacts to parks and recreation, as both would operate on the same BNSF track and, where applicable, use the same stations as the proposed project. Historical Resources Page 3.7-13 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 3.8 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.8.1 Methodology/Approach The cultural resource evaluation consisted of an archival review of information regarding the aboriginal occupation and historical development of the proposed sites for stations and new trackage. Original land surveys, flood control surveys, early county atlases, ethnographic notes and maps, ethnographic publications, community histories, archaeological survey reports, and tribal histories were utilized to provide information about aboriginal and historical land use patterns. The University of Washington Libraries, Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP), and Larson Anthropological/ Archaeological Services' in- house library were accessed for information. The OAHP records were reviewed for archaeological site locations, cultural resource assessments, and survey reports within or near site boundaries. This information was used to determine the proximity of archaeological resources eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and to assist in assessing the probability for archaeological resources at each proposed station location. Local tribes were contacted by formal letters to their respective chairpersons for comments on the proposed project. Field visits were conducted at the Boeing Access Road Station, Georgetown Station, Longacres Station, SW 43rd Street Station, Downtown Kent (North and South) Stations, Downtown Auburn Station, Downtown Sumner Station, and the Puyallup Station to determine if ground exposures existed that would help determine cultural resource probability. A field reconnaissance of the proposed new trackage between Tacoma and Puyallup was also conducted, although some portions of this area were not accessible due to the presence of fencing or wet ground (see Appendices). No field reconnaissance or field visits were completed for the King Street Station or Tacoma Amtrak Station because these areas have no subsurface exposures. Recommendations on the King Street Station and Tacoma Amtrak Station were based on literature review. The description of existing conditions and overall summary evaluation for the proposed commuter rail stations are presented below for each proposed location. 3:8.2 Affected Environment 3.8.2.1 Seattle to Tukwila King Street Station The proposed King Street Station site is on the former tideflats of Elliott Bay between a small peninsula and former forested uplands along the mainland shore. The Elliott Bay tideflats have been buried by substantial landfill deposits, a product of extensive sluicing of hillsides, that enabled the industrial development and commercial expansion of downtown Seattle. Archaeological and Cultural Resources Page 3.8-1 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment The proposed King Street Station site was surveyed for cultural resources during the construction of Interstate 90. This study concluded that archaeological resources were destroyed during landfill and urban development (Robinson 1982). The nearest recorded archaeological site is 451(I18, an assemblage of six artifacts over a mile southwest of the King Street Station site, exposed during freeway construction in the 1960s (Deane 1966). The site is within the aboriginal territory of the Duwamish, a group who lived primarily on the shores of Elliott Bay, Lakes Washington and Union, and the Duwamish and Cedar Rivers. The Duwamish depended on salmon for their primary subsistence with extensive secondary contributions of shellfish, berries, roots, and land game. In Elliott Bay, salmon were caught with hook and line and nets, bottomfish such as flounder were speared, and clams were dug with a short digging stick. Salmon and clams were consumed fresh, dried, or smoked for winter storage or trade. The proposed site is adjacent to a Duwamish winter village known as Djidjilal'i, meaning "a little place where one crosses over," that was on the former promontory extending into Elliott Bay (Waterman 1922:188). There were formerly two clusters of winter houses on both sides of the sandspit (Waterman 1922:188). Native presence in the area continued through the turn of the 19th century with the establishment of temporary campsites near the site (Sanborn Map Company 1888). The campsites were probably established by local groups who were working in sawmills or engaged in clamdigging or fishing activities for sale to local citizenry. Seattle was first settled in 1851; six months later Dr. David S. Maynard arrived, taking a Donation Land Claim of 640 acres on Elliott Bay that includes the King Street Station site (Bagley 1929:1:554). Maynard operated a general store, exported salmon, practiced medicine, established the county seat, built a hospital, and platted the original town of Seattle on his claim. In 1889 a fire destroyed much of the city, part of it within the site vicinity, which was later filled (Earth Technology 1984:39). Extensions of railroad lines into Seattle in the late 1880s and early 1890s were built over the filled tideflats and contributed to development of the area. The King Street Station was built in 1906 shortly after the Great Northern and Northern Pacific railroads bored a tunnel under downtown Seattle to complete the northern rail approach to Seattle (Dorpat 1984:47). The King Street Station was placed at the southern end of the tunnel and became the picturesque station that city residents had been anticipating since the Northern Pacific's arrival in 1890 (Dorpat 1984:46). South of the King Street Station is the former community of Hooverville, a depression -era settlement of shacks and camps built by homeless men in an abandoned shipyard (Dorpat 1984:104). In spite of Robinson's (1982) assumptions regarding the unlikely probability of archaeological resources remaining extant under fill, recent discoveries in Seattle suggest such assumptions are erroneous. The West Point Shell Midden sites in Discovery Park are eligible for listing on the NRHP and were identified under 30 feet Page 3.8-2 June 1998 Archaeological and Cultural Resources Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment of fill (Lewarch et al. 1993:57). Another site, 45KI432, was identified in the parking lot of a tow truck company on the former shoreline of the mouth of the Duwamish River (Solimano et al. 1993). The subsurface area beneath and adjacent to King Street Station has a high probability for hunter -fisher -gatherer archaeological resources and/or historic archaeological deposits. Archaeological deposits in this area would be especially important because they may reflect early Indian/Euroamerican interaction and may clarify questions regarding Seattle's early history. Potential archaeological material might include data relating to salmon, bottomfish, and shellfish harvesting; and features such as fire pits, hearths, house posts, shell middens, and other cultural material expected in association with winter house sites. Historic archaeological material that could be expected in the site would be railroad equipment and trackage, historic tools, machinery, and other technology from business operations, structural remains, pilings, and historic refuse. Georgetown Station The Georgetown Station site is within the former floodplain of a meander in the Duwamish River. The site is east of a large looping curve in the former river course above the mouth. The river has since been straightened to form the Duwamish Waterway, but remnants of the former riverbend are represented by Slips No. 2 and No. 3 (Bortelson et al. 1980). The site has not been systematically surveyed for cultural resources, nor have archaeological sites been identified within the site. A cultural resources investigation of a proposed Federal Detention Center site one mile northwest of the site was conducted and determined to have a low probability for cultural resources. A series of cultural resource assessments were also performed for the Duwamish River valley for the former METRO's (now merged with King County) Renton Effluent Transfer System from the Black River to the Duwamish River. The project appears to have been within or near the Georgetown Station site boundaries, but the lack of clear mapping makes proximity determination infeasible (Kennedy 1985). The Georgetown Station site is within the territory of the Duwamish, whose subsistence activities are described in the King Street Station section above. The Georgetown Station site was near the bank of the Duwamish River known to its aboriginal inhabitants as Bia'pt b meaning "ground dropping down" in reference to the eroding riverbank (Waterman 1922:193). The nearest documented Duwamish village was Tuqwe'Ltid located, 1/4 mile south of the site on a flat area within a bend in the former river meander (Waterman 1922:193). The Georgetown Station site is within the Donation Land Claim of Luther Collins, one of the first settlers to arrive in Seattle in 1851. He took a claim of 640 acres along the Duwamish River and established a farm with fruit orchards, vegetables, and livestock (Watt 1931:32-33,191-192). Collins was supportive of early efforts to build a road from Seattle to Steilacoom; a spur of this road passed through the site (United States Surveyor General 1861). Much of the Collins claim was divided into Archaeological and Cultural Resources Page 3.8-3 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment homesites in 1893 to meet the post -Alaska gold rush demand for housing and made available for commercial activities, resulting in the community of Georgetown (Reinartz 1991:77). The Columbia and Puget Sound Railroad, built in 1878 to transport coal to Elliott Bay, passed the east boundary of the site as did the Grant Street and Interurban Electric Railways (Bagley 1929:1:304-308). Although the Georgetown Station site is 1/4 mile east of an old Duwamish River meander channel, it is well within the village territory of Tuqwe'Ltid. In addition, the channel was very active and may have been closer to the proposed station than indicated by this channel. Alternately, the active river may have eroded early archaeological deposits. The types of archaeological resources expected in the Georgetown Station site may include hunter -fisher -gatherer cultural deposits and historic archaeological material. Cultural material resulting from aboriginal occupations might include deposits relating to seasonal fishing camps such as fire pits, drying rack structures, middens, tools, fish trap and weir remnants, and artifactual material. Potential historic archaeological remains in the site might consist of farming tools, structural remains and foundations, historic refuse, railroad berms, railroad machinery and trackage, and remnants of historic roads such as planks and timbers. Boeing Access Road Station The proposed Boeing Access Road Station site is in the floodplain of the Duwamish River at the northern foot of a bedrock outcrop that is a remnant of Tertiary Age bedrock scoured by Pleistocene glaciers. The final natural meander of the Duwamish River passes west of the site shortly before it enters the channelized Duwamish Waterway. The site has not been systematically surveyed for cultural resources, and no archaeological sites have been identified within or near its boundaries. A cultural resource overview of a proposed combustion turbine site one mile west of the site on the west side of the Duwamish River recommended field reconnaissance due to the high probability of cultural resources (Larson et al. 1992a). The site is also one mile north of the Allentown Site (45KI431), a salmon fishing camp that was determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The Allentown Site was mitigated through data recovery, and a hunter -fisher -gatherer archaeological component dating between AD 1820 and 1854 was identified (Lewarch et al. 1996). In addition, a historic occupation by a non-native settler in 1854-1855 followed by historic Indian fishing activity dating between 1870 and 1900 were also documented through analysis of site materials. Please refer to the King Street Station section, above, for a description of Duwamish Indian subsistence activities. The bedrock outcrop adjacent to the site was known to the Duwamish as Cxi'yaqu, meaning "beaver" , and represents a scene of the North Wind and South Wind creation story that was known throughout aboriginal Puget Page 3.8-4 June 1998 Archaeological and Cultural Resources Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Sound (Waterman 1922:194). The nearest ethnographic village was Sqoa'lqo at the confluence of the Black, old White, and Duwamish Rivers (Waterman ca. 1920). The Boeing Access Road Station site is adjacent to the community of Duwamish/ Allentown, first settled in 1854 (Reinartz 1991:153). It was framed by Puget Sound Electric and the Northern Pacific Railroads, which helped shape the history of the Duwamish/Allentown communities by encouraging suburban development over agricultural activities as the preferred land use (United States Army Corps of Engineers 1907; Reinartz 1991:90). Boeing Field is north of the proposed Boeing Access Road Station. The field was established in 1928 and enlarged in the 1940s. The Boeing Access Road Station site has the potential to contain aboriginal and historical archaeological resources. Aboriginal resources may derive from spiritual activities represented by fire modified rocks from sweat lodges and spirit questing places, and petroglyphs or pictographs associated with the mythologically important hill. Historic archaeological resources may include historic refuse, agricultural equipment, structural remains and foundations, fencing, railroad trackage, railroad equipment and accessories, and railroad berms. Longacres Station The proposed Longacres Station site is located in the Green (formerly White) River alluvial floodplain in a flat area at approximately 20 feet above mean sea level. The area is noted historically for its close proximity to the Green River, which meanders west and north of the project area. Historic modifications to the Green River occurred in the late 1800s when the river was channeled to facilitate development, primarily associated with the construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal, as well as the Puget Sound Electric Railway, the Northern Pacific Railroad, and the Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul Railroad. Prior to the development of the Lake Washington Ship Canal and construction of the Howard Hanson Dam, which served to reduce floods in the valley, the Green River was highly susceptible to lateral migration (Mullineaux 1970; Palmer 1992). Factors contributing to hunter -fisher -gatherer use of the project area would be salmon resources and probably plant procurement/processing. Limiting factors for the presence of cultural resources are historic modifications made to the project area, such as earthmoving and filling activities for construction of the area as an overflow parking lot for the former Longacres Racetrack. The proposed Longacres Station was surveyed for cultural resources and no archaeological sites have been identified within project area boundaries. Several cultural resource survey and monitoring efforts have been conducted within a 1.5 mile radius of the project area; two archaeological sites were identified during those activities. Site 45KI6, a shell midden, is within one-quarter mile of the proposed Longacres Station site. Site 45KI6 was identified 10 feet below ground surface during construction of the Highway 181/Interstate 405 Interchange in 1963 (Dalan et Archaeological and Cultural Resources Page 3.8-5 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment al. 1981:19). The site was destroyed during construction. In 1978, more midden deposits and a fish weir were identified, but these deposits were also destroyed during road construction (Jones and Stokes, Incorporated 1992:16). The White Lake Site (45KI438 and 45KI438A) was identified approximately 0.75 mile northwest of the Longacres Station site during archaeological monitoring of pipeline construction (Lewarch et al. 1996). Deposits consisted of low-density hunter -fisher -gatherer organic midden, shell midden, fire modified rock (FMR), and hearth features. Researchers suggested the White Lake Site (45K1438 and 45KI438A) was probably associated with the historic Indian village of Sqoa'lqo, a large Duwamish village with access to the large salmon runs at the former confluence of the Black, White, and Duwamish Rivers (Lewarch et. al. 1996). A parcel on the south boundary of the project area was assessed through a cultural resource overview in 1994 for the proposed Longacres North Station that was part of the original Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Project (Forsman et al. 1994). Field reconnaissance was recommended due to the high probability for cultural resources indicated by the overview (Forsman et al. 1994:48). Several surveys in the vicinity have been undertaken with negative results. A cultural resource survey undertaken by Northwest Archaeological Associates of the former Longacres Race Track adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project area yielded no evidence of cultural material (Jones and Stokes Associates, Incorporated 1992). Approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the proposed station site, archaeological monitoring of road construction on Springbrook Creek east of Orillia was conducted but no cultural resources were observed (Robinson 1983). A cultural resource survey consisting of systematic test cores was also conducted west of the Longacres Station Alternative project area along the west bank of the Green River and no cultural resources were identified (Elmore 1980). A cultural resource survey was conducted for the SW 43rd right-of-way between West Valley Road and East Valley Road, approximately 1.25 miles south of the proposed Longacres Station project area and monitoring recommendations were extended (Jermann 1974; Skolnik and Heiser 1975). Monitoring was also recommended by OAHP for the excavation of underground fuel tanks for Costco Wholesale project in the Orillia area (Thompson 1997). The proposed station site is within the territory of the Duwamish, who depended primarily on salmon for subsistence. The nearest Duwamish winter village was at Sqoa'lqo approximately 0.75 miles northwest of the proposed station site at the confluence of the Black, White, and Duwamish Rivers (Waterman ca. 1920). The Duwamish had a fish weir on Springbrook Creek, which runs east of the project area (Waterman ca. 1920). Salmon weirs, made from small tree poles, cedar limbs and other plant materials, were usually placed near a bend in the river and trapped salmon were taken from the water with dip nets (Bagley 1929:1:743-744). Waterman (ca. 1920) describes a point near the project area as Cuhu'dutug wcL, a place name Page 3.8-6 June 1998 Archaeological and Cultural Resources Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment meaning "burning each other" in reference to the snakes that burned in the sand there on hot summer days. Many of the descendants of the Duwamish formerly living in the project area are members of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, the Suquamish Tribe, or the Duwamish Tribe (Lane 1983). A large number of these descendants either live on the Muckleshoot Indian Reservation in Auburn or the Port Madison Indian Reservation in Suquamish. The Duwamish Tribe is currently seeking recognition from the federal government. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe exercises Treaty fishing rights in the Green and Duwamish Rivers in the project area vicinity. The south half of the project area is within the Donation Land Claim of Henry Meader, a farmer from Massachusetts and one of the first settlers in the Seattle region. He settled on his claim in December 1854 but died six months later (Seattle Genealogical Society 1980:67). A portion of the claim was purchased in 1881 by Martin Nelsen, an immigrant from Denmark who constructed farm buildings and raised potatoes, hops, orchard fruit, hay, and a dairy herd (Bagley 1929:1:701-702; United States Army Corps of Engineers 1907). James Nelsen, another Danish immigrant, acquired the rest of the former Meader property in the late 1880s (Jones and Stokes Associates, Incorporated 1992:21). James Nelsen built a successful dairy operation in 1903 and by 1907 held the land which incorporates the entire proposed Longacres Station site (Anderson Map Company 1907). In 1907, James Nelson had established a house, field, and orchard approximately 500 feet west of the southern portion of the project area (United States Army Corps of Engineers 1907). The proposed station site was crossed or bordered by two railroad lines, the Northern Pacific and Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul Railroad, constructed in 1887, and the Puget Sound Electric Railway, known as the Interurban electric train track, all contributing to the development of the area as a major agricultural center (Reinartz 1991:38). The Longacres Racetrack, built in 1933, stood as an example of the area's prosperity and affluence before closing in 1992. 3.8.2.2 Tukwila to Kent Downtown Kent (North and South) Stations The proposed station alternatives are on the old Green River floodplain, at 30 feet amsl. The stations would be approximately one-half mile from the highlands along the east edge of the valley. .. No known archaeological sites exist within one mile of the proposed stations. The closest site is Alvord's Landing, 45KI179H, on the west bank of the Green River, south of the proposed stations. This landing was operated by Thomas and Maria Alvord, and was a thriving riverboat stop in the late 1800s, before railroads became the main mode of transporting goods and people (Lentz 1990:17-20). No cultural resource surveys have been conducted that include the proposed stations. The proposed stations lie in the aboriginal territory of the Green and White River Indians, who were assigned to the Muckleshoot Indian Reservation. These groups lived in small independent villages, usually located at the mouths or confluences of streams or rivers. Although politically independent, strong social and economic ties Archaeological and Cultural Resources Page 3.8-7 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment existed between the villages (Smith 1940:6-9). Villages were occupied in the winter, the inhabitants dispersing in the spring, summer, and fall to smaller regional camps to gather a wide array of resources such as terrestrial mammals, plants, and berries. Even though these groups had access to vast upriver terrestrial resources, the primary food source was the large runs of migrating salmon, which could be dried for winter use. Passage to salt water was gained through a network of trails to the west, allowing these groups access to the shellfish beds of Puget Sound, or down the Duwamish River by canoe to Elliott Bay (Larson 1993:27). Potential types of archaeological deposits near these site alternatives could include hunter -fisher -gatherer or historic cultural resources. Aboriginal resources might be associated with resource procurement such as salmon fishing and processing indicated by fire hearths or ovens, and camp middens from salmon fishing or shellfish processing. Historic deposits could include structural remains, machinery from farming or industry, railroad beds or trackage, and historic refuse. 3.8.2.3 Kent to Auburn Downtown Auburn Station The proposed Downtown Auburn Station is on the east side of the BNSF tracks, south of Main Street in downtown Auburn. The proposed site is currently over one mile from either the Green or White Rivers, although prior to historic modification of the area it was less than 1/4 mile west of the banks of the White River. Due to continuous flooding, the White River was diverted from its confluence with the Green River and now flows south along what was the Stuck River. The old White River channel, while no longer holding water, and probably filled in most places, has a high probability for archaeological cultural resources. It is probable that most of the old White River channel has been filled. The elevation is approximately 60 feet amsl, with flat topography. No recorded archaeological sites have been identified within one mile of the proposed station, although two cultural resource surveys have been conducted in the vicinity. A survey was undertaken of three alternatives for SR 164, east of M Street Southeast (Robinson 1983b). The area had been heavily disturbed by a gravel quarry and development, and no cultural resources were identified. A second cultural resource survey was conducted of the Miles Sand and Gravel Company, east of downtown Auburn, south of the Green River, for the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. This area was also heavily disturbed from quarrying operations and development. The survey was conducted by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and focused on 10 acres around White Lake. No cultural resources were observed (James 1992). The Mill Creek (SAMP) Cultural Resource Overview was also inclusive of the site (Larson et al. 1994). The Downtown Auburn Station site is located one mile southwest of Ila'l-qo, a major Green River Indian village, and one mile southeast of the fish weir on Peasley Creek (Waterman ca. 1920). The Downtown Auburn Station site is also less than one mile southwest of two ethnohistoric homesites belonging to Indian Tom and Alvord Jack Page 3.8-8 June 1998 Archaeological and Cultural Resources Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment (Vine 1990:36-37). These individuals were Green River Indians who established homes near the ancient village of Ila'l-qo before movement to the Muckleshoot Indian Reservation. Evidence of aboriginal burials have been identified by early settlers within 0.25 mile radius of the Downtown Auburn Station site (Larson et al. 1994:17). The proposed Downtown Auburn Station was originally settled by Dr. Levi Ballard and his wife Mary, who came to the Northwest in 1865 (Vine 1990:19). Ballard, a surgeon, was instrumental in the development of Auburn as a town. He owned the first general store, platted the first parcel of land, and was responsible for building the Ballard Road, which connected the Steilacoom-to-Seattle Road and the Green River Road, making Auburn a hub of transportation. The types of cultural resources expected in the Downtown Auburn Station site would be associated with aboriginal, ethnohistoric, and historic occupations. Potential aboriginal archaeological resources might include fire pits, sweat lodges, land depressions from temporary camp locations, midden deposits, fish weir and trap remnants, lithics, and burials. The presence of ethnohistoric homesites heightens the potential for the presence of cultural resources that exemplify native adaptation to the changing environment and technology introduced by Euroamerican immigrants. Ethnohistoric resources might include historic refuse mixed with midden deposits, a blend of native food refuse and introduced agricultural food products, and evidence of native adaptations to new materials. Historic archaeological resources would relate to the agricultural development of the land and might consist of historic refuse, structural remains, irrigation ditches, fencing and fence posts, farm tools, butchering areas, and historic well sites. 3.8.2.4 Auburn to Sumner Downtown Sumner Station The proposed Downtown Sumner Station is located in the floodplain of the confluence of the White and Puyallup Rivers. Formerly, the White River split south of Auburn and its southerly branch, known as the Stuck River, flowed into the Puyallup River at Sumner. The entire White River flow was later diverted into the Stuck River and is now known as the White River. Comparison of historic maps with modern maps suggests that the confluence probably moved slightly east of its former position as a result of increased water flows through the old Stuck River channel (United States Surveyor General 1864; United States Geological Survey 1981). The proposed Downtown Sumner Station has not been systematically surveyed for cultural resources and no archaeological sites have been identified within or near site boundaries. It is within the territory of the Puyallup, a hunting -fishing -gathering people who lived above the shores and tideflats at the mouth of the Puyallup River, on Hylebos and Wapato Creeks, and on the banks of the upper Puyallup and its tributaries (Smith 1940:7-14). Salmon were taken from the river with weirs and traps, spears, and dip nets and represented a substantial portion of the Puyallup diet. Shellfish from Commencement Bay, and roots, berries, herbs, and land game from the Archaeological and Cultural Resources Page 3.8-9 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment upriver prairies and forested uplands supplemented the aboriginal diet. The site is near the winter village of Staxabc on the northeastern bank of the confluence of the Stuck and Puyallup Rivers (Smith 1940:8, 10). Waterman (ca. 1920) designates the confluence as St xo'cid meaning "mouth of Stuck." The community of Sumner is part of a landform referred to as Qwe'qwestolb meaning "sandy place" (Waterman ca. 1920). The Downtown Sumner Station site is within the Donation Land Claim of William M. Kincaid established in 1854 (Bonney 1927:135). Kincaid, whose wife died during their western migration, settled on his 160 -acre claim with his seven children. He built a cabin near the Stuck River, which was burned during the Indian Wars of 1855- 56 (Ryan 1988:11). Kincaid returned in 1859 and later sold his claim in parcels to family and local entrepreneurs. His claim was platted in 1883 and incorporated as Sumner in 1891. Sumner was part of the profitable hop farming industry established in the Puyallup River Valley in the 1880s. The farms were visited each harvest season by Indians from throughout Puget Sound and British Columbia who lived in seasonal camps and worked for wages in the fields (Ryan 1988:115-117). The site is located on a former hop field across the tracks from the old Northern Pacific Railroad Depot (Sanborn and Perris Map Company 1890). The Northern Pacific built a spur line through Sumner to Seattle in the mid -1880s, contributing to the economic growth of the community. The site also straddles the bed of a historic road to Tacoma and Steilacoom (United States Surveyor General 1864). Types of archaeological resources expected on the Downtown Sumner Station site may be associated with aboriginal winter village and seasonal camps as well as historical settlement and historic Indian camps. Cultural materials from aboriginal occupations might include lithics, middens, house floors and posts, fire pits, roasting pits, sweat lodges, and other structural remains. Ethnohistoric archaeological deposits from temporary hop -picking camps from the late 1800s may also exist and would consist of historic refuse, fire pits, and campsites. Historic archaeological deposits would relate to the settlement, agricultural development, and commercial growth of the area and might include structural remains and foundations, historic refuse, farm tools and machinery, ditches, fencing, railroad trackage and berms, railroad machinery and tools, historic road beds, and camps. 3.8.2.5 Sumner to Puyallup Downtown Puyallup Station The Downtown Puyallup Station site is located within the floodplain of the Puyallup River. This reach of the Puyallup River has been constrained due to flood control measures, but is the same approximate distance from the site as the original river course. The Downtown Puyallup Station site has not been systematically surveyed for cultural resources, and no archaeological sites have been identified within or near site boundaries. Please refer to the BNSF Railroad Downtown Sumner Station section for Page 3.8-10 June 1998 Archaeological and Cultural Resources Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment a description of Puyallup subsistence and settlement patterns. The proposed site is on or adjacent to a place known as Qwa, meaning "dog -fish" (Waterman ca. 1920), described as: The ground here quivers if anyone steps on it. Springs under the ground make it very soft and shaky. The Indian belief is that an animal like a dogfish, but spotted, lives under the ground here. That is why the ground trembles. Puyallup possesses an agricultural heritage, beginning as a group of scattered farms. Later, the area was primarily a hop growing center, diversifying to berries and tulips after the decline of the hops due to infestation (Kirk and Alexander 1990:320). The arrival of the Northern Pacific Railroad opened new markets for agricultural products, making Puyallup a major farming center. The town was first platted by Ezra Meeker, one of its early pioneers, in 1877, and incorporated in 1880 (Pierce County Planning and Natural Resource Management ca. 1988:10). The site is traversed by three spurs of the historic road to Steilacoom (United States Surveyor General 1864). It is also along the route of the Northern Pacific Railroad leading to Tacoma. Potential types of archaeological resources expected on the Downtown Puyallup site consist of fisher -hunter -gatherer and/or historic cultural deposits. Cultural resources of aboriginal origin may include temporary campsite features, fire pits, structural remains, house floors, post holes, fish weir and trap remnants, and middens. Historic archaeological resources would include cultural materials associated with settlement, agricultural development, and railroad construction activities in and near the site. 3.8.2.6 Puyallup to Tacoma Third Track The proposed third track project area is within the floodplain of the Puyallup River between the south bank of the river and the walls of the Puyallup River Valley. The Puyallup River's lower floodplain was a former marine embayment that extended as far upriver as Alderton 5,100 years ago (Dragovich et al. 1994:15). The former mouth of the Puyallup has over time slowly migrated in a northwest direction to the present delta at Commencement Bay. The present floodplain does not exceed 1,000 years in age. However, the terraced valley walls date from over 11,000 years ago, when the glaciers began their slow northerly retreat. The present Puyallup River and associated tributaries have been altered by channelization and other modifications in the previous 100 years. The most significant change was the channelization of the former meander of the Puyallup River into the river's current linear course. The project area is bounded by the bank of the former meander between Mileposts 37 and 38 (United States Surveyor General 1873a). Clear Creek formerly emptied into the Puyallup River in the vicinity of 31st Avenue Court East approximately 0.2 miles north of the project area. The lower course of Clear Creek has been altered and the creek presently empties into Swan Creek near the northwestern end of the project area (United States Geological Survey 1994; United States Surveyor General 1873a). Archaeological and Cultural Resources Page 3.8-11 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Squally Creek is a tributary of Clear Creek and currently enters Clear Creek through an underground culvert. Swan Creek is a tributary of the Puyallup River that roughly maintains its former course. The proposed third track project area has a high probability for cultural resources, especially in the sections that approach the former meander of the Puyallup River or cross the former beds of Clear Creek and Swan Creek. These areas would have been conducive to establishment of fish weirs, seasonal camps, and other resource procurement or processing stations over the past 1,000 years. The northwestern end of the project area partially ascends the upper terraces of the river which may be as old as 11,000 years. The project area has been surveyed for cultural resources and no archaeological sites have been identified within project area boundaries. The nearest archaeological site is the Wapato Creek Fish Weir Site (45PI47), a remnant of a fish weir located on Blair Waterway in Tacoma, 1.5 miles north of the project area's northwestern end (Munsell 1981). This site suggests that intact archaeological resources in the project area may be buried beneath fill and/or alluvial deposits. The site, which contained weir stakes, rope, netting, and basketry fragments, was identified during construction activities beneath an approximately seven foot layer of historic fill overlaying a two meter layer of alluvial deposits. Four cultural resource assessments or monitoring efforts conducted within two miles of the project on file at OAHP have been initiated by road improvements (Robinson 1982a, 1982b) or utility excavations (Hart Crowser, Incorporated 1990; Thomas 1978) and have not identified any evidence of archaeological deposits. However, Larson (1985) surveyed proposed road improvements at the Puyallup Tribal Center, 1,000 feet west of the project area's northwestern terminus, and identified a historic site. Larson (1986) tested the historic site, identified two historic components, and determined that they would not be affected by the proposed project activity. The project site is in the aboriginal territory of the Puyallup, a Lushootseed (Puget Salish) speaking group, that lived above the shores and riverbanks of the Puyallup River, on Hylebos and Wapato Creeks, and on the banks of the upper Puyallup and its tributaries (Smith 1940:7-14). The Puyallup relied upon salmon taken from the Puyallup River and associated tributaries, shellfish from Commencement Bay, and plant resources and land game from upriver prairies and forested uplands for their subsistence. The southeastern end of the proposed project area is one mile west and in the territory of the village at the mouth of Clarks Creek known as Tsagwegwabc, taken from the term for the drainage meaning "raven" (Smith 1940:10; Waterman ca. 1920). On the west end of the project area there are references to a village in the vicinity of the former Cushman School, which now houses the Puyallup Tribal Center. Smith (1940:9) describes this village as catcgad or "main village" near the former Cushman School at the mouth of Clay Creek. Waterman (ca. 1920) records the name for Clay Page 3.8-12 June 1998 Archaeological and Cultural Resources Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Creek as Ke_labid, meaning "place where salmon eggs are stored." Waterman (ca. 1920) describes another stream near the Cushman School, either a tributary of Clay Creek or a closely adjacent stream, as Bsx"a_ged, meaning "place at the head of something, where there are swans." The village and place names associated with the Cushman School vicinity are within 1/4 mile of the northwestern terminus of the project area (United States Surveyor General 1873a; United States Geological Survey 1894-1895). Waterman (ca. 1920) names the present Swan Creek, "Ca_sqwed," meaning "clear," and assigns a village named Ca_sq"ed-_id, meaning "mouth of Ca_sq"ed," to the confluence of Swan Creek and the Puyallup River. A place known as SaoXo_Xele_uX, meaning "place where they practice or train for war" is on a flat across from the mouth of present Swan Creek. The village and place name associated with present Swan Creek are 100 to 200 feet west of the project area in the vicinity of Milepost 38 (United States Surveyor General 1873a; United States Geological Survey 1894-1895; Waterman ca. 1920). Another village site was recorded in the vicinity of the former mouth of present Clear Creek along the south bank of the Puyallup River, Qoleq!, which was 1,000 feet north of the project area in the vicinity of Milepost 37 (United States Surveyor General 1873a; United States Geological Survey 1894-1895; Waterman ca. 1920). The identification of village sites and place names along and near the northwestern portion of the project area suggests that a high probability for ethnographic archaeological resources exists between Mileposts 37 and 38. The Tacoma area was first settled by Nicholas DeLin and two partners who established sawmills at the mouth of the Puyallup River on Commencement Bay in 1853. In 1854, the Puyallup Indian Reservation was established by the Treaty of Medicine Creek near the mouth of the Puyallup River and included the project area. The Puyallup Reservation later had a variety of federally established facilities, including a schoolhouse, industrial school, boarding school, hospital, and an Indian agency building (Larson 1986:54). The reservation land became increasingly valuable as Tacoma grew into an economic center. By 1868 squatters resided on reservation lands (Larson 1986:55). The Puyallup requested that their land be divided into allotments to discourage squatters and to maintain control of their reservation. The project area crosses the allotments of several Puyallup allottees including: Zachias, William Meander, Joshua Quartz, Bruce Sasticums, Marcellus Spot, John Swan, Napoleon Whatgub, and Paul Wynaco (Smith 1940:327-330). Early surveys of the Puyallup Indian Reservation suggest the types of land use in the project area vicinity in the early 1870s (United States Surveyor General 1873a, 1873b). Logging roads and skid roads in the northwestern end of the project area indicate timber harvest activities, and a "well traveled trail" suggests former native trails continued to be used by the Puyallup and non-native settlers (United States Surveyor General 1873b). Archaeological and Cultural Resources Page 3.8-13 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment In 1886, the Northern Pacific Railroad was built through the Puyallup Indian Reservation to meet rails descending from Stampede Pass, further encouraging non- native settlement on the reservation (Morgan 1979:204). This motivated the passage of laws in the 1890s that allowed the sale of Indian allotments, including over half of the original reservation (Ruby and Brown 1986:168). The Northern Pacific Railroad also acquired lands and rights-of-way within the reservation (Ruby and Brown 1986:168). The history of the Puyallup Indian Reservation suggests that the project area might contain historic archaeological material related to historic Puyallup allotment occupations, early logging operations, railroad construction, and construction and occupancy of reservation lands by government employees and contractors providing education and administrative services to the Puyallup Tribe. Small fragmented brick and glass was identified on the ground surface near 52nd Street East. The historic materials may have been part of imported fill soils that appear related to development for the Chief Leschi Indian School, which is located nearby. The school is north of the tracks, and at the time of the survey, property between the school and the railroad had been recently graded. Four screened shovel probes placed adjacent to the brick and glass fragments did not reveal any undisturbed strata or artifact concentrations. Tacoma Station The proposed Tacoma Station site is on the former flat delta of the Puyallup River where it enters Commencement Bay. The southern portion of the site lies on the first terrace above Commencement Bay at the foot of the bluffs rising above the bay. A small stream with several branches also entered the bay from the elevated terraces. The Tacoma Station site has not been systematically surveyed for cultural resources and no identified archaeological sites are located within its boundaries, although shell middens were identified in the Commencement Bay area in the early 20th century (Wickersham 1900; Smith 1907). Cultural resource surveys and testing have been conducted in the site vicinity, but no significant cultural resources have been identified (Robinson 1983c; Hart Crowser, Incorporated 1987, Larson and Lewarch 1989). Two cultural resource surveys conducted.on the Puyallup Tribal Center grounds resulted in the identification of historic archaeological deposits, one of which was considered potentially significant, requiring further analysis (Larson 1985), and the other of little or no significance (Larson 1986). Cultural resource assessment and monitoring of a fiber optic line west of the site was conducted; no cultural resources were identified (Larson et al. 1992b). The Tacoma Amtrak Station site is one half mile east of the Union Station/Warehouse District, where archaeological investigations were conducted prior to the renovation of Union Station; no cultural resources were identified (Hart Crowser, Incorporated 1987). Page 3.8-14 June 1998 Archaeological and Cultural Resources Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment The proposed Tacoma Station site is near several important aboriginal village sites and resource procurement areas. It is also within the an area that hosted the first settlement and commercial development in Tacoma and greater Pierce County. The Puyallup lived on the shores of Commencement Bay at and near the mouth of the Puyallup River and its upriver banks. Their orientation to and dependence on marine resources such as shellfish and sea mammals was more pronounced the closer the winter village was to Puget Sound. The site is approximately one half mile east of two ethnographic villages known as Spwiya'labc and Twadebdcab (Smith 1940:9), a temporary camp, TsalaL-ale (Waterman ca. 1920), and a medicine house (Haeberlin and Gunther 1930:9). The site is within the Donation Land Claim of Nicholas Delin, a Swedish immigrant carpenter, who was the first non-native settler on Commencement Bay in 1852 (Larson et al. 1992b:13-14). Delin established a small cabin, sawmill, and garden on his claim. He later sold his claim because of competition from sawmills to the north. The area around Commencement Bay was a focal point of railroad development after Tacoma was chosen as the western terminus for the Northern Pacific transcontinental railroad, which arrived in 1873 (Kirk and Alexander 1990:329). The post -settlement land use history of the site was so intertwined with the development of the railroad that by 1912 a variety of commercial enterprises including a fruit cannery, peanut roaster, candy manufacturer, freight houses, ice company, and a wholesale grocery warehouse (Sanborn Map Company 1912), were built on that property. The proposed Tacoma Station site was probably an area that was occupied aboriginally and subsequently by Tacoma's first pioneers and early industry. Types of hunter -fisher -gatherer cultural deposits might include fish weir and trap remnants, middens, fire pits and hearths, structural remains, house posts and post holes, house floors and structural remains, burials, sweat lodges, lithic and bone tools, and decorative items. Potential historic archaeological material include structural remains and foundations, fence posts, historic refuse, remains of railroad trackage and equipment, railroad machinery, and commercial factory machinery and refuse. 3.8.3 Potential Impacts and Mitigation 3.8.3.1 Seattle to Tukwila King Street Station The proposed King Street Station area is one of high probability for hunter -fisher - gatherer archaeological resources. However, the King Street Station site is buried in fill, thus impacts to archaeological resources are unknown. A professional archaeologist should monitor subsurface excavations expected to penetrate fill to native soils should such excavation be required. However, it is expected that little or no excavation would be required as part of the proposed project. In addition, if the station is constructed entirely in fill, archaeological monitoring would not be necessary. Archaeological and Cultural Resources Page 3.8-15 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Georgetown Station The proposed Georgetown Station has a moderate probability for historic and hunter - fisher -gatherer archaeological deposits. Because the native soils have been buried in fill, archaeological monitoring would need to accompany subsurface disturbance that penetrated fill to native soils. Because probability for cultural resources is moderate in this location, monitoring should continue only if the native soils encountered suggest a likelihood for historic or hunter -fisher -gatherer occupation. Boeing Access Road Station Impacts to buried cultural resources are unknown. The proposed site has a moderate probability for cultural resources, but those resources may be related to spiritual activities. If construction activities are proposed to penetrate fill materials to native soils, an archaeologist should monitor initial excavations until native soils and geomorphology suggest archaeological deposits would not be present. Longacres Station No potentially significant cultural resources were identified during field reconnaissance and no archaeological sites are recorded in the project area. The project area appears to have a moderate probability for cultural resources based on its proximity to the Duwamish River and location within the territory of the dense cluster of Duwamish villages on the former Black River. However, extensive grading and other ground disturbance has occurred within the project area, possibly destroying previously extant archaeological material. The project area is located adjacent to old river channels of the Green River, but would have been situated at a relatively low elevation prior to filling, and not on a natural levee, where hunter -fisher -gatherer use would be more probable. Since no evidence of cultural resources was identified within the proposed Longacres Station Alternative, no further cultural resource investigations or monitoring are recommended. If archaeological material is encountered during the proposed project construction, work should be halted while the OAHP and a professional archaeologist are consulted to determine appropriate follow-up. 3.8.3.2 Tukwila to Kent Downtown Kent (North and South) Station Impacts to buried cultural resources are unknown, although the area has a moderate probability for cultural resources based on the literature search. A portion of the site has been developed, which may have destroyed archaeological deposits. If the ground surface is visible, field reconnaissance should precede any subsurface construction activities, including geotechnical investigations. If the ground surface is not visible and subsurface construction associated with this station is expected to penetrate fill into native soils, monitoring by a professional archaeologist should accompany proposed ground disturbing activities. Page 3.8-16 June 1998 Archaeological and Cultural Resources Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 3.8.3.3 Kent to Auburn Downtown Auburn Station Impacts to buried archaeological cultural resources are unknown, although the area has a high probability for cultural resources based on the literature search. A portion of the site has been developed, which may have destroyed archaeological deposits. If the ground surface is visible, field reconnaissance should precede any subsurface construction activities, including geotechnical investigations. If the ground surface is not visible and subsurface construction associated with this station is expected to penetrate fill into native soils, monitoring by a professional archaeologist should accompany proposed ground disturbing activities. 3.8.3.4 Auburn to Sumner Downtown Sumner Station Impacts to buried cultural resources are unknown, although the area has a moderate probability for cultural resources based on the literature search. A small portion of the site has been developed, which may have destroyed archaeological deposits. If the ground surface is visible, field reconnaissance should precede any subsurface construction activities, including geotechnical investigations. If the ground surface is not visible and subsurface construction associated with this station is expected to penetrate fill into native soils, monitoring by a professional archaeologist should accompany proposed ground disturbing activities. 3.8.3.5 Sumner to Puyallup Downtown Puyallup Station Impacts to buried cultural resources is unknown, but the literature search suggests the site has a moderate probability for cultural resources. Much of the site has been developed, which may have destroyed archaeological deposits. If the ground surface is visible, field reconnaissance should precede any subsurface construction activities, including geotechnical investigations. If the ground surface is not visible and subsurface construction associated with this station is expected to penetrate fill into native soils, monitoring by a professional archaeologist should accompany proposed ground disturbing activities. 3.8.3.6 Puyallup to Tacoma Third Track No recorded archaeological resources were identified in the literature and no potentially significant archaeological resources were identified during field reconnaissance. Previous land use activities related to railroad construction, flood control, and road building were evident in extensive ground disturbance and may have disturbed previously existing archaeological deposits in the project area. There is a high probability for hunter -fisher -gatherer resources at the northwestern end of the project area between Mileposts 37 and 38, based upon ethnographic data that Archaeological and Cultural Resources Page 3.8-17 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment identifies two Puyallup villages near this section. The terraces defining the Puyallup River floodplain were above the former shoreline of the old marine embayment and may contain occupations as old as 11,000 years. Former river and/or creek confluences in the project area vicinity are areas of high probability for hunter -fisher - gatherer land use and may contain shell middens or other archaeological deposits. Historic archaeological deposits related to early federal government facilities on the Puyallup Indian Reservation may be extant in the west portion of the project area. Monitoring of ground disturbing activities in the northwestern end of the project area is recommended. Construction monitoring should be conducted by a professional archaeologist until the archaeologist determines that undisturbed native ground surfaces are not present within the monitoring area. If archaeological deposits are identified that may be significant, appropriate steps should be taken to maintain integrity of the deposits. A plan to evaluate the archaeological deposits should be developed by a professional archaeologist through consultation with OAHP and the Puyallup Tribe. Ground surfaces within the project area that were not surveyed because rights -of - entry were not provided should be surveyed by a professional archaeologist for cultural resources prior to any ground disturbing activities, including geotechnical testing, grading, and/or clearing. Tacoma Amtrak Station The proposed Tacoma Amtrak Station area is one of high probability for hunter - fisher -gatherer and possibly historic archaeological resources according to archival review. However, the Tacoma Amtrak Station site is buried in fill or has undergone development which may have destroyed cultural resources; as a result, impacts to archaeological resources are unknown. A professional archaeologist should monitor subsurface excavations that are expected to penetrate fill to native soils. If the proposed station is constructed entirely in fill, archaeological monitoring would not be necessary. 3.8.4 Cumulative Impacts No significant cumulative impacts to archeological and cultural resources are anticipated. Neither the increase in frequency of freight train traffic nor the implementation of high-speed rail would require any significant construction that could disturb sites if archeological or cultural significance. These operations would operate on existing track and/or would use the same stations as the proposed project. Page 3.8-18 June 1998 Archaeological and Cultural Resources Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 3.9 VISUAL QUALITY 3.9.1 Methodology and Assumptions The methodology used to evaluate visual impacts involves four basic steps: define the visual environment of the project area; assess visual resources; identify viewer groups and evaluate their exposure and sensitivity to the visual resources; and evaluate the change in visual resources from the proposed project and viewer response. The visual quality of the project area is identified as low, moderate, or high. Low visual quality consists of visual elements which leave negative or no visual impressions, disrupt visual patterns, or result in a distinct contrast between natural and manmade elements. Moderate visual quality consists of visual elements which leave marginally memorable impressions, slightly disrupt visual patterns, and result in some disruption between natural and manmade elements. High visual quality consists of visual elements which leave strong positive memorable impressions and consist of well - blended visual patterns and harmonious man-made and natural elements. Only evaluated visual impacts have been identified in this section. Impacts include a distinct change created by project features, positive or negative, in the overall visual quality of the surrounding area. 3.9.2 Affected Environment The affected environment and potential adverse impacts with proposed mitigation measures are addressed separately for each project element having probable visual impacts. No significant visual impacts have been identified along the alignment outside of the station sites because there would be no substantial modification or expansion of the railroad tracks or associated facilities. The basic stations would generally consist of a platform on each side of the tracks extending approximately 1,000 feet in length and up to 20 feet in width. Canopies would be provided for weather protection. Parking, auto, and bus loading areas would be provided at each station except the King Street and Georgetown Stations. A community-based design process will be implemented for each station to create station designs that consider the local context and aesthetic preferences. The final station design at each location resulting from this future community-based design process is likely to include additional features and design elements not described in this analysis. 3.9.2.1 Seattle -Tukwila Segment King Street Station The King Street Station has been designated as a landmark in the City of Seattle's Pioneer Square Preservation District. The building is an L-shaped three-story red brick building constructed in the Venetian style with a 240 -foot clock tower. The station's primary aesthetic features include its location within the historic district, the visual prominence of the stand alone building and brick clock tower, its cohesive brick and granite exterior, the building mass, and its presence as a landmark. The King Street Station terminal provides an important aesthetic quality to the surrounding area and is compatible with surrounding historic structures. The project includes existing the track area east of the station. This area is depressed Visual Quality June 1998 Page 3.9-1 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment approximately 20-30 feet below the surrounding street system and is covered by South Jackson Street and the 2"d Avenue South Extension. King Street Station and the Amtrak passenger platform and cover lie on the west, while the columns and support structure for 4th Avenue South are to the east. The site is enclosed, uninviting, and has a low visual quality. Few views are available from the site other than the adjacent tracks, walls, and station because of its enclosed and depressed location. The Kingdome and industrial development is partially visible to the south. The site is visible from the sidewalks of the adjacent streets above and from two mid -rise (4- to 10 -story) residential buildings north of South Jackson Street. Georgetown Station The Georgetown station site is located along the east side of Airport Way South, directly below the elevated Carleton Avenue South ramp to I-5. The north half of the station site beneath the ramp is currently a parking lot lying between the ramp supporting columns. A lawn strip with cherry trees separates the railroad tracks and parking. The southern half of the site is a fenced and overgrown equipment and truck storage area, and also includes a stand alone billboard. The area south and west contains a low-rise commercial district and vacant industrial buildings. To the north is an old, but well preserved, two story brick office building and 4 -story brick industrial storage building. The office building is a designated landmark, historically housing the Rainier Brewery offices. To the east are multiple rail tracks, the ramp overpass structure, and the embankment for I-5 which is vegetated with evergreen trees and offers some visual relief from the industrial character of the railroad corridor and surrounding commercial area. The site and surrounding area generally have an old industrial, somewhat rundown character with low visual quality. The site area is located on the edge of the historic Georgetown district. Views from the site are of the surrounding features and are restricted by the adjacent development to the west, south, north, and freeway to the east. The most sensitive views of the site would be from a few one- to two-story residences in the commercial area southwest of the site. Occupants of the commercial and industrial buildings, motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians along the adjacent roads would also have views of the site. Boeing Access Road Station The station would be located on a flat area between I-5 and the BNSF tracks, and south of the Boeing Access Road, which is an overpass across I-5 and the BNSF tracks at the station site. The site is currently vegetated with relatively tall deciduous trees and shrub areas and is lower in elevation than the general surroundings. The site is bordered by the Boeing Access Road bridge structure and side slopes to the north and northwest. I-5 is located directly east with Beacon Hill rising beyond. The I-5 interchange with the Boeing Access Road currently contains gravel stockpiles. A few commercial and light industrial buildings are visible along the west side of the hill. Several parallel railroad tracks and some container storage are located to the west and extend to the south. The visual character of the site and site area is generally a mix of industrial, major transportation corridors, and vacant open space and has a low visual Page 3.9-2 June 1998 Visual Quality Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment quality. Views from the site are largely restricted by the overpass to the north and Beacon Hill to east. Limited views are available to the south and west but are also limited by trees and topography. Primary views to the site are from I-5 and the Boeing Access Road. Longacres Station The Longacres site is situated between the raised grades of the Union Pacific (UP) and BNSF tracks immediately south of I-405. This flat site appears to have been recently graded and is vegetated with grass. The grade of the BNSF tracks are about ten feet above the site grade. The side slopes of the raised BNSF tracks are vegetated with blackberry and scattered deciduous trees. I-405 is a raised structure about 30 to 40 feet tall with scrubby vegetation beneath. East of the BNSF tracks is a large gravel parking area serving the Boeing business park development beyond. West of the UP tracks is a row of one- to two-story light industrial buildings, a major transmission power line corridor, recreational bike trail; an eight to nine story office building is located to the southwest. Views from the office building toward the site are partially screened by a stand of deciduous trees along the UP railroad. The area directly south has the same character as the station site. The site has an open character because of the flat topography and lack of tall vegetation, although the I-405 structure is a dominant enclosing feature to the north. The site and immediate vicinity has a low visual quality. Views of the local development are restricted by the raised UP and BNSF tracks, but views are available of the background hills and Mt. Rainier. The site is briefly visible to motorists on I-405, 158t Street to the south, the Boeing parking lot; more distant views of the site are available from the upper floors of the office and industrial development in the vicinity. 3.9.2.2 Tukwila Kent Segment Downtown Kent (North) Station The main part of the Downtown Kent North station site consists of the half block on both sides of Railroad Avenue between James and Smith Streets. The southcenter end of the site is currently occupied by the Burdick Feed Company. A gravel, slightly overgrown, equipment storage and parking area occupies the central part of the site west of Railroad Avenue, and a two-story cold storage building is located at the north end. To the east of Railroad Avenue are one- to two-story older single-family residences, to the north is an open field, and to the south are additional low-rise buildings. The Burdick Feed grain elevators have an industrial character but have an interesting architectural form composed of a combination of cylindrical and rectilinear forms, pitched roofs, and tall structural features. The flat site consists of open space on the west side of the tracks with two industrial buildings immediately adjacent at the south and north ends. Overall, the site has a low visual quality; however, the Burdick Feed grain elevators are a noted visual landmark forming a gateway to the downtown (Downtown Kent Action Plan Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, 1997). Visual Quality June 1998 Page 3.9-3 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Directly north of the site is a one story industrial, commercial, and residential development with mature trees intermixed. South of the site are International Gardens and Sister City Parks, consisting of a narrow green space paralleling the railroad tracks on both sides and a gazebo. To the west are isolated industrial buildings and parking with some perimeter trees bordered on the north side by Borden Playfield, a large maintained lawn area with some trees. Low rise commercial development borders Central Avenue along the east side of the site. Power distribution lines parallel the railroad and Railroad Avenue. Views from the site are restricted to the immediate area because of the flat topography and surrounding development. Taller office buildings to the southeast and east behind the buildings adjacent to the site would also be visible from the station. Residences to the northeast and northwest have prominent views of the station site, as do users of the Borden Playfield and the park to the south, and employees of businesses along the east side. Views of the station site would also be prominent from First Avenue, North Railroad Avenue, West James Street, and West Smith Street. Downtown Kent (South) Station The northeast block of the station site is fairly open, containing only the one-story historic train depot building, parking lot, and unmaintained landscaping. The depot building sits on a raised concrete foundation with exterior facades composed of a brick wainscot, a yellow -beige concrete or stucco upper facade, and double -hung wood frame windows. The composition shingle, hipped roof has large eaves with curved support brackets. A tall brick chimney is located in the central back side of the roof. The depot building is oriented toward the railroad tracks. The southwest block contains a large one-story light industrial building. The northeast block contains one - to two-story retail development which abuts the sidewalk and forms a continuous building facade along Railroad Avenue. Retail uses on Central Avenue are of a strip commercial character. Twenty to 30 foot street trees extend along the block on Railroad Avenue and Meeker Street. The southeast block contains mixed one-story commercial development that has an inconsistent street presence and building type; a few of the buildings are rundown and overgrown. The site as a whole has a low visual quality, but the depot building and retail development to the northeast have a moderate visual quality. The area north of the site includes the International Park and retail development, similar to the northeast block. Kaibara Park and the backside of one to two story retail buildings border the west side of the railroad tracks. Low rise commercial and light industrial uses extend to the south. Strip commercial development is located immediately to the east along Central Avenue. A hill with both single-family and two to three story multi -family development overlooks the site from the southeast. Views from the site are largely restricted to the immediate surroundings because of the generally flat topography and adjacent development. The hill to the east and southeast Page 3.9-4 June 1998 Visual Quality Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment encloses that side of the site. The most sensitive views toward the site are from the parks and residential uses on the east hill. The site is also visible from the area businesses and roadways. 3.9.2.3 Kent Auburn Segment Downtown Auburn Station The Downtown Auburn station site would be located on the west side of downtown Auburn, between "A" Street SW to the east, "C" Street SW to the west, Main Street West to the north, and 3rd Street Southwest to the south. "B" Street is part of the site. The majority of the site is an open area with gravel or low vegetation consisting of grass and weeds. A few pieces of construction equipment and materials are stored on the site. A continuous row of one-story older industrial and commercial buildings lies on the southwest corner east of the tracks, and a one-story convenience store is located in the northwest corner east of the tracks. An electrical distribution line runs parallel to the tracks on the east side. The station site is industrial in character and not visually compatible with the adjacent single-family residences and downtown area. Overall the site has a low visual quality. The area north of the site is commercial with some residential uses. This includes Main Street to the northeast, which contains two- to five -story commercial and residential urban development with a well designed streetscape including colored walks and street trees. Many of the buildings are older vintage brick or masonry. Immediately adjacent to the west are indistinct one- to two-story commercial buildings, including a vehicle repair shop with vehicle storage and fencing. A one- story brick office building and landscaped parking lot is located to the southeast. The area south is similar to the site, except the SR -18 elevated overpass forms a visual boundary about two blocks south. Views of single-family residences to the west would also be possible from the station. The area to the east is primarily low-rise strip commercial with unmarked parking lots with some single-family homes intermixed. Views from the site are largely restricted to the surrounding development because of the flat topography, but some background hills are visible to the west. The most sensitive views of the site are from single-family residences to the west across "C" Street SW and multi -family residences on Main Street to the north. The station site would also be visible from the downtown and surrounding streets and commercial development as well as motorists traveling on the elevated SR -18 freeway structure 3.9.2.4 Auburn Sumner Segment Downtown Sumner Station The Downtown Sumner station site would be located along Traffic Avenue between Harrison Street and Maple Street. The site is a flat undeveloped open space vegetated primarily with grass. The grass area west,of the tracks is maintained as lawn, and a row of cherry trees parallels the west side of the tracks parallel to Traffic Avenue. A fenced recycling area with drop boxes is located east of the tracks. Power lines follow Visual Quality June 1998 Page 3.9-5 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment the railroad along both sides. The site has a low visual quality. The surrounding community is a mixture of predominantly commercial and single-family residences. To the north and west of the site the visual environment consists of one-story commercial development including a large car dealer. The south end of downtown Sumner and Heritage Park can be seen to the northeast. Directly east and south are single family residences, a few two story multi -family buildings, and a day care/preschool with an outdoor play area. Southwest of the site is a narrow park paralleling the tracks consisting largely of lawn, street trees, and intermittent vehicle pullouts, seating, and shrub plantings. Views from the site are expansive because of the flat topography and low-rise character of the adjacent development. Local hills are visible in many directions, and Mt. Rainier and the foothills of the Cascades can be seen to the southeast. The most sensitive views are from the residential development south and east of the site. The site is also visible from the surrounding roads, commercial development, and Heritage Park in downtown. 3.9.2.5 Sumner -Puyallup Segment Downtown Puyallup Station The flat station site would be located in the Puyallup downtown area south of Stewart Avenue, between 4th Street Northwest and 2nd Street Northwest. The site is a transition area between the downtown area to the north and industrial area to the south. The station site is currently used as a parking area for local businesses and is paved and partially fenced. It is not consistent with the adjacent downtown area, offers no memorable visual impressions and, therefore, has a low visual quality. The site is bordered by one- to two-story retail and commercial buildings to the north and east. The buildings are a mix of older brick and nondescript newer buildings. One- to three-story industrial buildings dominate the area south and west of the site. A rail maintenance, industrial -appearing building and retail building are located at the west end of the site. Views from the site are largely restricted to the surrounding commercial and industrial development. Distant views are possible of Mt. Rainier and the Cascades to the southeast over the adjacent commercial buildings. There are no highly sensitive viewers with direct visibility of the site. It would.be seen from the commercial center to the east, adjacent industrial and commercial development, and surface streets. 3.9.2.6 Puyallup -Tacoma Segment Tacoma Station The Tacoma site is a flat area located north of Puyallup Avenue between East "F" Street and McKinley Avenue. An existing BNSF building is located at the west end of the site. This building is a two-story brick building at the north end, with a one- story section extending south. The one-story section is characterized by loading docks closed with cinder block masonry and aluminum awnings facing Puyallup Street. The Page 3.9-6 June 1998 Visual Quality Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment east end of the site contains a one-story lumber storage building. A fenced lumber yard and equipment storage area lie between the two buildings, and a small parking lot is situated west of the BNSF building. The existing Amtrak Station is located to the east. The site has an industrial character and low visual quality. The area north of the site contains a large railyard serving the port and often contains parked train cars that obscure views to the north. Immediately south of the site is the new Tacoma Dome Station, which is dominated by a five -story parking structure. An entry portal, clock tower, pedestrian bridge, and covered and landscaped transit stops are located directly across Puyallup Street from the BNSF building. The transit station is primarily a beige concrete structure accented by green steel structural members. The remaining area to the north and south is characterized by older low-rise industrial and commercial buildings with no architectural consistency, sparse landscaping, power lines, and billboards. Views from the site are dominated by the adjacent transit station, industrial development and railyard. Beyond the railyard to the northeast the Tacoma downtown skyline is visible and the striking sail -like superstructure of the SR -509 bridge. The most sensitive view of the station site is from the transit station because of the number of people moving through the facility. The site would also be visible from area businesses and surface streets. 3.9.3 Impacts and Mitigation 3.9.3.1 Seattle -Tukwila Segment King Street Station Impacts. Development of the King Street Station would consist of new pedestrian platforms and overhead structures on both sides of the BNSF tracks. Additional overhead structures above the platforms would further enclose the site and restrict the limited views to and from the platform area. These improvements would not diminish the low visual quality of the site or surrounding area. There is an opportunity, however, to improve the appearance of the site and immediate area through the station design. The platform and overhead cover could be designed with architectural detail, color, and other enhancements to increase the aesthetic quality of the platform area. Mitigation. There would be no mitigation required. Georgetown Station Impacts. The station would have a covered platform on the west side of the BNSF tracks and east side between the BNSF and UP tracks south of the elevated Carleton Avenue ramp with ADA parking, auto drop, and a bus loading/unloading area provided adjacent to Airport Way South. A pedestrian bridge would connect the two platforms. Visual Quality June 1998 Page 3.9-7 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment The station would enhance the visual character and quality of the surrounding area by replacing parking and an existing overgrown storage area with coherently designed platforms, parking, and overhead structures. The existing landscaping along the east side of the site would be removed to accommodate the platform and bus loading area. This loss would be more than offset by the proposed landscaping, which would provide screening to the west where the more sensitive viewers are located. The north half of the site would be in the shadows of the overhead ramp structure for much of the day. Mitigation. No significant adverse visual impacts would occur from the project. However, because it is near a landmark building and on the edge of the historic Georgetown area, an MOA with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has been developed to ensure compatible station design. Boeing Access Road Station Impacts. Impacts of development of a commuter rail station at this site will be evaluated as part of the Link Light Rail Transit environmental review process. Mitigation. No significant adverse visual impacts would occur from the project. Longacres Station Impacts. Development of this site would include a covered and elevated platform on both sides and at grade with the BNSF tracks, and a park and ride lot for up to 1,000 vehicles. The station platforms would add some visual diversity to a nondescript area but would have little effect on the visual resources of the area because of the existing low visual quality and low viewer exposure and sensitivity. By virtue of its size, the park and ride lot would degrade the area visual quality, but the two raised railroad beds would screen it from most views except those from I-405, 158th Street, and the upper floors of the commercial building to the southwest. Mitigation. Landscaping could be added to the interior and around the perimeter of the park and ride lot to screen and break-up views of the parking area. 3.9.3.2 Tukwila Kent Segment Downtown Kent (North) Station Impacts. The Downtown Kent (North) Station site could improve the visual quality of the area by replacing industrial structures and storage areas with station structures and landscaping to complement adjacent parks. Mitigation. The architecturally distinct south end of the Burdick Feed grain elevator building could be evaluated during the community based design process to explore preserving this element. Site landscaping could screen adjacent residential uses. Page 3.9-8 June 1998 Visual Quality Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Downtown Kent (South) Station Impacts. The proposed station would retain the depot building and construct platforms on both sides of the tracks to the south. The Titus Street railroad crossing would be closed, thus allowing construction of the platforms continuously along the tracks. Construction of the canopy structure over the pedestrian platforms could obstruct views and the historical setting of the depot building. To accommodate the required parking, a four-story parking garage may be constructed on the eastern two blocks. The station development would replace a largely nondescript commercial /industrial area with a coherent design over a four block area. The height and bulk of the parking garage may, however, be out of scale with the surrounding one- to two- story commercial development and break the pattern of the grid system and blocks in the area. Mitigation. Design of the station platforms and canopies could consider and be sensitive to the setting of the historic depot building and adjacent parks. Canopies could reflect or complement the architectural style of the depot. The parking garage could provide pedestrian scale detail at street level, architectural detail on the exterior facades to provide interest and, if practical, incorporate modulation and setbacks to break-up the scale of the structure. 3.9.3.3 Kent Auburn Segment Downtown Auburn Station Impacts. The station would have covered platforms on both sides of the BNSF tracks, with the main bus/auto loading areas adjacent to the station on the east side of the tracks. The largest parking lots would parallel the tracks on the west side. The station would replace the unkempt open areas and industrial and commercial buildings currently occupying the site. They would be replaced by a station facility which would provide a unified design to the area. The station and parking areas would be landscaped. The City's Downtown Auburn Design Master Plan recommends that the main station building allude to the historic Auburn depot building and create a focal point for the area. The plans as indicates that site improvements be well designed by providing paved parking and pedestrian paths, lighting, landscaping, and other site amenities. Construction of the station could encourage redevelopment of the surrounding area, thus improving the overall visual quality in the station vicinity. Mitigation. No additional mitigation measures are required. The community based design process should provide a station consistent with the recommendations in the Downtown Master Plan. 3.9.3.4 Auburn Sumner Segment Downtown Sumner Station Impacts. The station would have covered platforms on either side of the tracks and Visual Quality June 1998 Page 3.9-9 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment parking lots at the north end of the station on both sides of the tracks. The station would improve the overall character of the nondescript site by creating a coherent visual feature in the community and generally enhancing its overall visual quality. The residences to the east would be exposed to the station parking lots and bus auto loading areas; screening would be necessary. The City has initiated its community based design process through preparation of the Sumner Commuter Rail Station Planning Study (1994). The study provides the basic design concepts to guide station development. The fundamental concept is for the station to create a strong pedestrian linkage and gateway to the retail core of the city and enhance the identity of the downtown as the civic heart of Sumner. The station structures would be based on an interpretation of old hop kilns that once dotted the Sumner area. They are characterized by simple rectilinear design with steeply pitched roofs and tall chimney - like vent towers coming up out of the roof peaks. Mitigation. Parking and vehicle loading areas immediately adjacent to residential areas could be screened with landscaping. The community design process should provide compliance with the City's design guidelines for the station. 3.9.3.5 Sumner Puyallup Segment Downtown Puyallup Station Impacts. The station site would include a northbound and southbound platform, a park-and-ride lot along the north side of the site, a bus and car loading area along the south side of the site, and an additional loading area south of the tracks and platforms between two warehouse buildings. The station would enhance the visual quality of the site and surrounding area by providing a coherently designed facility replacing the existing parking lot. Mitigation. The station development would improve the visual environment and no mitigation is required. The parking lot is closest to the adjacent commercial buildings and Stewart Avenue and could provide landscaping along the perimeter to buffer these views. 3.9.3.6 Puyallup -Tacoma Segment Tacoma Station Impacts. Development at this site would be minor, consisting only of canopied platforms and surface pedestrian connections to the transit station. The storage yard east of the BNSF building would be modified to allow a pedestrian connection through it. The station platforms would be partially screened by the BNSF building and have the railyard as a backdrop as seen from the transit station and other areas to the south, east, and west. This station would not have significant impacts to visual resources because of its minimal improvements proposed at this location and the fact that it would be visible to few sensitive viewers. Page 3.9-10 June 1998 Visual Quality Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Mitigation. No mitigation is required. 3.9.4 Cumulative Impacts No significant visual quality impacts are anticipated. Both the proposed high-speed rail project and increases in freight traffic would operate on existing tracks and/or would use the stations included as part of the proposed project. As a result, there is no substantial construction that could foreseeably result in visual quality concerns. Visual Quality June 1998 Page 3.9-11 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 3.10 SAFETY AND SECURITY This section provides a summary overview of potential safety and security issues associated with the proposed South Corridor Commuter Rail Project. The discussion addresses all aspects of safety and security, with an emphasis on at -grade roadway/railroad crossings, at -grade pedestrian crossings at stations, and station area security. 3.10.1 Methodology/Approach Potential commuter rail safety and security issues include: • Safe operational interface between all transportation modes, including railroad traffic and vehicular traffic on affected roadways. Of particular concern are at -grade crossings, where the commuter trains would cross existing roadways. • Passenger safety and security aboard buses and trains, at transit stations, and in adjacent areas. • Seismic safety and the provision of emergency services. Hazardous materials issues are discussed separately in Section 3.5 of this document. Discussion of the potential impacts of commuter rail in these areas is based primarily on the experience and practices of other operating rail systems. 3.10.2 Affected Environment The proposed action would utilize existing mainline railroad tracks that serve high volumes of freight train traffic. As such, the routes traverse a variety of corridor land uses, including industrial/warehousing districts, central city commercial areas, activity centers, residential areas, and agricultural lands. The areas of greatest safety concern are typically where the highest concentrations of people and vehicles are in proximity to the tracks, increasing the potential for collisions and other accidents. In general, these conditions correspond to central city commercial areas and other activity centers. In these areas, railroad accidents are most likely to occur at grade crossings with roadways. Accidents at protected railroad grade crossings often are due to ignorance of the risks or errors in judgment, both of which can result in disregard of the measures intended to ensure personal safety. Common examples include walking along railroad tracks and driving around lowered crossing gates. There are 37 existing at -grade crossings along the BNSF line between the Kingdome in downtown Seattle and the Amtrak station in Tacoma. Currently, these grade crossings are protected by either railroad crossing signals and gates, or by restrictions on railroad operating speeds. Table 3.10.1 lists the existing corridor grade crossings by segment and indicates the type of protection currently provided. Safety and Security Page 3.10-1 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Typical safety measures which are used to enhance pedestrian and vehicular safety at grade crossings range from passive devices, such as crossbucks and other warning signs, to active controls including flashing lights, ringing bells, and crossing gates. Railroad locomotives are also equipped with whistles that are commonly used to alert motorists when a train is approaching. Additional safety measures used along railroad rights-of-way include the installation of security fencing and posting of no trespassing signs. 3.10.3 Potential Impacts and Mitigation Because the rail corridor already operates for freight and passenger trains, grade crossing issues already are being addressed and continually evaluated. It is not anticipated that the addition of commuter rail will significantly increase safety concerns beyond existing conditions. 3.10.3.1 Railroad Grade Crossings Mitigation measures could include flashers, bells, or gates at every public grade crossing location, pedestrian barriers and overpasses where appropriate, and an aggressive public information/education program to promote awareness of railroad grade crossing risks and regulations. The proposed grade crossing safety improvements are listed in Table 3.10.1. Measures that could further enhance crossing safety include Constant Warning Time signaling and Automated Horn System warning devices. Constant Warning Time (CWT) signaling is a state-of-the- art technology that can eliminate the problem of premature. warning activation at grade crossings, providing a fixed -length warning time for trains that approach at various speeds. With traditional signaling technology, a slow-moving train activates the warning devices too early, which can result in increased disregard for safety devices by motorists. The CWT technology is well-suited to the proposed commuter rail project because of the significant difference in speeds between the commuter trains and the freight trains. Currently, CWT is being used at some crossings along the BNSF alignment. The Automated Horn System (AHS) was developed to provide an alternative to train whistling for audible warning at grade crossings and other locations. The potential benefits of this technology include increased safety at grade crossings and reduced noise impacts on adjacent properties. Instead of moving with the locomotive, the AHS is installed at the crossing location, with directional horns focused on each of the roadway approaches. Currently, the AHS is undergoing testing in other parts of the country. Test results indicate that the directional horn produces higher sound levels along the roadway approaches and less noise at land uses adjacent to the railroad tracks approaching the crossing. Page 3.10-2 June 1998 Safety and Security Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Table 3.10.1 Commuter Rail Grade Crossings Along the BNSF Line Alignment/ Segment Grade Crossings Existing Protection Proposed Mitigation KingStreet to Spokane'Street <..... r .J:Yij }..a ,. r^ v< r >.a 5 .... Gates ,,,�. ..-, . t..•r Extended detection '6,14Siina1thg L .. .--. Spokane Street to Georgetown 0 :Georgetown to•Boeing Access Road `{ lGate ,, 3 :'s=, restrictions.. Gates "Extended detection =" - -CWT."signaling •• s`Traffic:signal:improvements Extended detection CWT signaling " .., Boeing Access Road To Tukwila Tukwila:to en t x.r -... .. 4 ` Gates: `.,., 5 . Speed restrictions Gates xtended' • etec $ on . CWT signaling , Additional gates Extended detection CWT signaling _. • .. Kent to Auburn 11 :Au urnY.to Sumner ' , r "7 Gate"s', ;� ` ;:Extended:detection rz °` } :`CWT sign . Extended detection CWT signaling Sumner to Puyallup 4 Gates Speed restrictions 'Puyallup -Tacoma` - t v ,•? . r .. 5 °.Gates <` $.: :':r ,Extendeddetection.$ .e .II. FFsi alaig: SP. source: PB/KE, Detailed Defin tion of Alternatives Report, May 1994; and PB/KE Draft Grade Crossing Impact Analysis for South Corridor Commuter Rail Project Service, 1994 A public information program to encourage railroad grade crossing safety could be promoted by Sound Transit. An example program is Operation Lifesaver, which is sponsored by the railroad industry. 3.10.3.2 Pedestrian At -Grade Crossings At Stations The Puyallup, Sumner, and Kent stations are on-line with side platforms that flank the dual tracks located in the center of the station. At these stations pedestiran access relies on the existing (or improved) sidewalks for grade crossing. Pedestrians would cross the railroad main line at the adjacent street intersection at -grade. Proper signal and gate protection for the crossings would be provided where required to minimize the potential for harm to individuals. At King Street Station, Georgetown, Boeing Access Road, Longacres, and Auburn, grade -separated crossings will be provided for pedestrians. 3.10.3.3 Personal Security Passenger security both off and on the train is another area where mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed project. Prior to final project planning, the proposed commuter rail station locations and site design criteria would be reviewed to identify possible safety enhancements. Station design and orientation on the site should allow waiting areas to be visually accessible from adjacent streets and populated areas for security reasons. The design also should allow for ease of surveillance for police patrol cars. No shrubs should be taller than the driver's eye level for adjacent parking areas and along the alignment. Station entrances should be Safety and Security Page 3.10-3 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment located to provide easy access from various directions and to allow monitoring by other passengers and system personnel. The shelters should be well lighted, well maintained, and patrolled by local police and a transit security force to ensure passenger safety at waiting areas. Emergency telephones should be readily available for individuals to call for help if needed. For on -board security, passengers should be well informed and educated on personal safety practices when using transit. The proposed self-service fare system would provide added passenger security on commuter trains and buses. Self-service fare systems require more transit personnel to be present on the vehicles. These individuals, by their presence, can help to deter criminal behavior, and would have the means to respond or react to problem situations as they occur. Transit industry research of crime levels in neighborhoods adjacent to transit lines is generally inconclusive. Studies of crime levels before and after the construction and operation of a transit improvement show little or no increased crime levels in adjacent areas. 3.10.3.4 Emergency Preparedness The proposed commuter rail project would be built to design criteria that include provisions for seismic safety. Soils reports for bridges would be prepared to identify known earthquake faults in the area, geologic -seismic features of the area, potential for liquefaction, depth of bedrock and recommended design acceleration at the site. All bridges, stations and other structures would be designed and built according to the most current seismic design standards. Emergency procedures for responding to earthquakes should be established. In the event of an earthquake, trackwork and bridges would need to be inspected thoroughly but rapidly, so service can resume as soon as it is safe to do so. Train operators should be trained in emergency inspection procedures, including visual inspection of the line and checking the condition of the rails, signals and switches. The initial assessment would be followed by a detailed inspection process where track service crews are deployed along the corridor. The crews would conduct close inspections of each track section to detect changes in the alignment of the rail and ties, broken bolts, downed wires, and damage to retaining walls, embankments, bridges or other structures. FRA track safety standards currently require a special inspection of the track involved as soon as possible after a flood, fire, severe storm, or other events that may have damaged the track structure. BNSF safety standards are more specific in Washington, following an earthquake exceeding a magnitude of 5.0, inspections would be required for a distance of at least 70 miles from the epicenter. For magnitudes 5.0 to 5.9, trains proceed at restricted speeds until the inspection is complete; for earthquakes of greater than 6.0, train traffic is halted until inspections are completed. A safety plan for the commuter rail system would be developed prior to the start of operations. This plan should involve coordination with all local police and fire Page 3.10-4 June 1998 Safety and Security Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment departments to ensure that emergency access routes are not blocked. The safety plan would also include detailed plans for the evacuation of trains and station areas in the event of an emergency. 3.10.4 Cumulative Impacts With the implementation of appropriate safety and security measures, no significant cumulative safety and security impacts are anticipated. Although the frequency of both passenger and freight train service is expected to increase, it is likely that additional grade crossing protection and personal security measures would be taken in association with these future projects to minimize impacts. These measures are typical of both passenger and freight rail operations. • Safety and Security Page 3.10-5 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 3.11 AIR QUALITY This section documents the analysis of potential air quality impacts associated with the proposed Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Project. The purpose of the analysis was to estimate the future air quality conditions under the future baseline and proposed action conditions, identify potential corridor and local air quality impacts and mitigation, and address project and plan -level conformity. 3.11.1 Affected Environment 3.11.1.1 Airborne Pollutants Ambient air quality is a function of many factors, including climate, topography, meteorological conditions, and the production of airborne pollutants by natural or artificial sources. The major airborne pollutants of interest in the central Puget Sound region include carbon monoxide, particulate matter, ozone, and the ozone precursors, hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen. These regulated pollutants are among those commonly referred to as criteria pollutants. • Carbon Monoxide — Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless toxic gas formed by the burning of fuels containing carbon. Motor vehicles are the principal source of CO emissions in urban areas. Maximum concentrations usually occur near roadway intersections and other areas of traffic congestion, but tend to decrease rapidly with distance from such sources. • Particulate Matter — Particulate matter (PM) enters the air from industrial operations, vehicular traffic, and other sources, such as burning wood and other materials. Most of the particulate matter generated by motor vehicles consists of resuspended road dust. Two common classifications for particulate matter are total suspended particulate (TSP) and inhalable particulate matter (PM10), which only includes particles with a diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers. • Ozone — Ozone (03) in the lower atmosphere is a harmful air pollutant and contributes to the formation of smog. It is a secondary pollutant formed by the reaction of hydrocarbons (HC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the presence of strong sunlight. Generally, controlling emissions of these precursors can reduce ozone levels. Hydrocarbons — Hydrocarbons (HC) are a key component in the formation of ozone. These compounds are emitted or evaporate into the atmosphere from a variety of sources, particularly the storage and combustion of fuels in motor vehicles. Oxides of Nitrogen — Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) are another precursor to the formation of ozone. They are produced as the result of high-temperature fuel combustion and subsequent atmospheric reactions. Common sources of NOx are diesel -fueled motor vehicles, power plants, refineries, and other industrial operations. Air Quality June 1998 Page 3.11-1 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 3.11.1.2 Regulatory Setting National ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) identify criteria pollutant concentrations that are not to be exceeded over specified time periods. Primary air quality standards are defined for the protection of public health, and secondary standards are intended to protect the natural environment. Table 3.11.1 shows the primary and secondary NAAQS for the major airborne pollutants of concern. The Washington State Department of Ecology and the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) have adopted state and local ambient air quality standards that are equivalent to the national standards. Table 3.11.1 National, State, and Local Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant National Washington State Puget Sound Region Primary Secondary •`Carbon.Monoxide:_ 8 -Hour Average 1 -Hour Average- —`:°, 9 ppm{ 35;ppm h r. NSI 1°35.,ppm`:° r , K 9'1 s 9 ppm 35 ppm - Ozone 8 -Hour Average 0.08 ppm 0.08 ppm 0.08 ppm 0.08 ppm � Particulate Mitt er.(Po) ;' M; L .�, t. 1 i�,°i ,}tg-�.R�. ., 4 .Yi PJxzair ""v'T Annual Anthmetic"Ave ge, .24 Hour Average:.�- f r..'4 z } -... Y 1. s &r to -a v'2 ,50 µg/m3r &tr �15� p µa3 , ^'y' S4 µg/m3 r;l. SU µgL : NS1 NS1 '., Y L - . J'. f { m�S =` ' �. •�.aar. . y.a4),s, X50 µg/m3 _ ;, :150<µg/m3 <. f r °•+ D ? k -4 '4:•st,ax ;y 50 u. 3 !1 150 µ m . NS' NS' N l .:.. 1� I•.. �< Particulate Matter (TSP) Annual Geometric Average 24 -Hour Average NSA NS1 60µg/m3 µg/ 3 150m ource: Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, 1996 Data Summary. NSA No Standard Established A recent change that may affect the Puget Sound region is promulgation of new federal air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter with a diameter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The EPA is phasing out the current 1 -hour ozone standard and replacing it with an 8 - hour standard of 0.08 ppm. An area will attain the standard when the 3 -year average of the annual 4th highest daily 8 -hour concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. This will serve as both the primary and secondary ozone standard as shown in Table 3.11.1. EPA is revising the primary PM standards by adding a new annual standard for particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5), set at 15 µg/m3, and a new 24-hour PM2.5 standard set at 65µg/m3. EPA is retaining the current annual Page 3.11-2 June 1998 Air Quality Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment PM10 standard. An area will attain the annual standard when the 3 -year average of the annual arithmetic mean of the PM2.5 concentrations is less than or equal to 15 µg/m3. The new 24-hour standard will be based on the 98th percentile of monitored 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations (averaged over 3 years). As with the ozone standards, PM primary and secondary standards will be the same. Preliminary analysis by PSAPCA indicates the region should be able to attain both revised standards. Under federal regulations, areas that violate primary ambient air quality standards are designated as nonattainment areas, and State Implementation Plans (SIPs) must be developed to bring these areas into attainment. Based on local air quality monitoring data and approved maintenance plans, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that the central Puget Sound region is in attainment for CO and ozone standards. Prior to October/November 1996, the area had been designated as a nonattainment for both carbon monoxide and ozone. Three areas in the region --the Tacoma Tideflats, part of Kent, and Seattle's Duwamish industrial area-- were designated as nonattainment for PMI() in 1991. The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency submitted a Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for these areas to EPA in October 1997. Local monitoring data demonstrates that the PM10 standard has been attained in all three areas, and it is expected that EPA will redesignate these areas to attainment. The federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 require that transportation projects in nonattainment or maintenance areas conform to the SIP, i.e., the region's strategy for attaining the NAAQS. To determine if a project such as the proposed action is in conformance with the SIP, the Clean Air Act provides that the project must not: 1) produce new air quality violations; 2) worsen existing violations; or 3) delay timely attainment of the ambient air quality standards. Section 3.11.3 below discusses the conformity findings for this project. 3.11.1.3 Air Quality Trends The central Puget Sound region is designated as being in attainment for all criteria pollutants except PM10. Emission projections and ongoing monitoring throughout the central Puget Sound region indicate that the ambient air pollution concentrations for CO and PK() have been decreasing over the past decade, albeit for different reasons. Ozone concentrations have remained fairly stable. The decline for CO is due primarily to improved emission controls on motor vehicles, which account for a significant portion of these emissions in the region. Over time however, there are other factors with the potential to counteract this downward emission trend. For example, each year there are more motor vehicles traveling on the region's roadways, and people in the area are making more trips of greater distance. Estimates by the Air Quality June 1998 Page 3.11-3 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment PSRC indicate that emissions may turn upward as early as 2005, and could threaten attainment status for certain pollutants. Declining PMI() emissions are largely a result of industrial process, road dust and woodsmoke controls. 3.11.2 Potential Impacts Because of the current maintenance status of the central Puget Sound region for CO and ozone, evaluating the air quality impacts of the proposed action is an important step in the project planning process. The approach used for this evaluation addressed both corridor and local air quality impacts. In addition, the methodology included a project -level conformity analysis to satisfy federal, state, and local air quality regulations. 3.11.2.1 Air Quality in the Tacoma Seattle Railway Corridor This section describes the general approach and assumptions that were used to identify the corridor -level air quality impacts of the proposed action. Airborne pollutants considered in the analysis include carbon monoxide (CO), the ozone precursors (NOx and HC), and particulate matter (Pm o). For the purposes of this analysis, corridor air quality impacts were defined as the incremental change in 2010 corridor pollutant levels as a result of commuter rail operations relative to the future 2010 baseline condition. It was assumed that the net changes in corridor pollutant levels would result from three key factors; changes in vehicular tailpipe emissions, changes in bus emissions, and emissions generated by commuter train locomotive operations. Vehicular Tailpipe Emissions The objective of this task was to estimate the effects of the proposed action on Year 2010 corridor -level emissions from motor vehicles. Relative differences in estimated tailpipe emissions were assumed to be a direct function of the net changes in daily vehicle -miles of travel (VMT), the average travel speed, and the corresponding pollutant emission rates. The total number of daily vehicular trips in the corridor was not expected to change significantly as a result of the proposed action, so the relative impacts on corridor cold start emissions were assumed to be negligible for this analysis. The net change in VMT represents the decline in vehicular travel due to commuter rail ridership, adjusted to account for mode split and trips redirected to park-and-ride lots at commuter rail stations. Assumptions and results related to Year 2010 corridor travel were obtained from the analysis of commuter rail -related transportation impacts, which relied on regional highway and transit ridership modeling provided by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and RTA. Anticipated changes in daily VMT were converted to changes in corridor vehicular tailpipe emissions by applying appropriate emission factors. Year 2010 average Page 3.11-4 June 1998 Air Quality Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment vehicular emission factors for CO, NOx, HC and PM10 were generated with EPA -approved emissions models (MOBILE5a and PARTS). The following steps summarize the general procedure used to estimate the effects of the proposed action on corridor vehicular tailpipe emissions: 1) Identify the impacts of the proposed action on Year 2010 corridor VMT, relative to 2010 baseline conditions. 2) Determine Year 2010 average vehicular emission factors for CO, NOx, HC and PM10, based on a forecast average corridor travel speed of 31.5 miles per hour. 3) Calculate the net changes in daily pollutant emissions for commuter rail service on the BNSF line, relative to the baseline, by applying the emission rates to the corresponding changes in VMT, as shown in Table 3.11.2. Table 3.11.2 Year 2010 Corridor -Level Vehicular Tailpipe Emissions Analysis 1. Net difference in corridor -level VMT relative to 2010 baseline conditions. 2. Change in corridor -level emissions, relative to 2010 baseline conditions. Source: RTA, PSRC, and BRW Inc., February 1995; and PSAPCA March 1998. Bus Emissions This section examines the estimated impacts of changes in bus operations on the corridor -level air quality. Like the vehicular tailpipe emissions, the bus emissions analysis involved the application of average emission factors to the estimated change in travel. The changes in Year 2010 bus platform miles for the proposed action on the BNSF mainline, relative to the baseline, were obtained from the commuter rail ridership modeling results. Representative bus emission factors were obtained from a 1995 study of the Metro bus fleet, which included estimates of the fleet average emission rates for CO, NOx, HC, and PM10. As shown in Table 3.11.3, the corridor - level emissions due to bus operations are expected to decrease under the proposed action relative to the future no -action baseline. Air Quality June 1998 Page 3.11-5 Pollutant Emission Factor (g/veh-mi) Proposed Action Net VMT Difference' (veh-mi per day) Emission Change2 (kg/day) ..CO. :°10:9,:. :. , :125,000.:. : ' ::..: -1,363 NOX 2.1 l:6 s ° °111 -125,000 -125,000.,, ... , -263 -200:A ; .. ° °:HC° PK() -125,000 -213 1. Net difference in corridor -level VMT relative to 2010 baseline conditions. 2. Change in corridor -level emissions, relative to 2010 baseline conditions. Source: RTA, PSRC, and BRW Inc., February 1995; and PSAPCA March 1998. Bus Emissions This section examines the estimated impacts of changes in bus operations on the corridor -level air quality. Like the vehicular tailpipe emissions, the bus emissions analysis involved the application of average emission factors to the estimated change in travel. The changes in Year 2010 bus platform miles for the proposed action on the BNSF mainline, relative to the baseline, were obtained from the commuter rail ridership modeling results. Representative bus emission factors were obtained from a 1995 study of the Metro bus fleet, which included estimates of the fleet average emission rates for CO, NOx, HC, and PM10. As shown in Table 3.11.3, the corridor - level emissions due to bus operations are expected to decrease under the proposed action relative to the future no -action baseline. Air Quality June 1998 Page 3.11-5 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Table 3.11.3 Year 2010 Corridor -Level Bus Emissions Analysis Pollutant Emission Factor (g/mi) Net Bus Service Differences (platform -miles) Emission Change2 (kg/day) CO 11.11 ...-6;800:. -76 -189 NO AHC 27.85 -6,800 ..2.6 1.7 . -6,809,_:„,.., -6,800 . g -18-- 7 - -12. PM,, 1. Net difference m corridor -level bus platform miles relative to 2010 baseline conditions. 2. Change in corridor -level emissions, relative to 2010 baseline conditions. 3. Exhaust particulate emissions only, does not include resuspended road dust. Source: RTA and BRW Inc., February 1995; and PSAPCA March 1998. Commuter Train Emissions The purpose of this task was to estimate the contribution of commuter rail operations to pollutant emissions within the project corridor. The proposed service would utilize conventional diesel-electric locomotives, which are potential sources of CO, NOx, HC, and PMI() emissions. Year 2010 daily emissions from the commuter rail operations were estimated by determining the required fleet size, estimated fuel consumption, and applying representative emission factors. The analysis was based upon 16 commuter train trips daily under the proposed action, which assumes that trains operate on 30 -minute intervals only during peak hours. Pollutant emission factors that are representative of modern diesel-electric passenger locomotives 1973-1999 were used in the analysis. The assumed emission rates were obtained from the Emission Standards Reference Guide for Heavy -Duty and Nonroad Engines (EPA 420-F-97-014). The assumed locomotive fleet is made up of 3,000 -hp EMD 12-710G3B-EC, F59PHI passenger engines. Table 3.11.4 shows the assumed commuter train emission factors for CO, NOx, HC and PM10, expressed in pounds per gallon of fuel. Also shown in Table 3.11.4 is the estimated daily fuel consumption for the Tacoma -to -Seattle operation, and the resulting pollutant emissions. As Table 3.11.4 indicates, the operation of the proposed commuter trains would represent a new transportation source of air pollutants in the corridor, particularly for NOx. Page 3.11-6 June 1998 Air Quality Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Table 3.11.4 Commuter Train Emissions Analysis Pollutant Train Emission Factor (kg./gallon) Estimated Fuel Consumed (gallons/day) Total Emissions (kg./day) `CO , .. . .• •_ `0.9L751•2.4'.',, $ : :1;288 -4; 4., '>1�182 t' -:,, : NOX 1.7434 , . ,..."0.1835/ 1,288 . ,1.88 ':., : ,• 2;245 w« ; . ` 237k {.: 142 HC . PM,o 0.1101 1,288 ounce: Emission Standards Reference Guide for Heavy -Duty and Nonroad Engines, EPA; and CH2M HILL, March 1998. Summary Table 3.11.5 summarizes the estimated worst-case impacts of the proposed commuter rail project on corridor -level air quality, relative to 2010 baseline conditions. Combining the estimated reductions in vehicular tailpipe and bus emissions with the estimated increases due to the commuter trains identifies the net changes in corridor pollutant emissions. Table 3.11.5 Year 2010 Corridor -Level Air Quality Impacts (Proposed Action) Pollutant' Change in Vehicular (kg/day) Change in Bus Emissions 1 (kg/day) Commuter Train Emissions (kg/day) Change in Corridor Emissions (kg/day) O: . ,.`4,363. .._. -263 . -76._ .. -189 . �- .., ._1;182" 2,245 ' . -257. 1,793 NOX. HC • -200"_' . 18; " ' ` 237;x;, a 19 PM,a -213 -12 142 -83 elatwe to 2010 baselme conditions Source: CH2M HILL, March 1998 The results shown in Table 3.11.5 indicate that corridor -level emissions of CO and PM10 would be reduced under the proposed action relative to the 2010 baseline condition. The analysis also shows that corridor NOx and HC emissions would be higher due to the addition of commuter rail locomotives. The emission analysis was based upon 16 commuter train operations daily. 3.11.2.2 Local Air Quality—CO Hot Spot Analysis for Conformity Determination The purpose of this section is to summarize the evaluation of local air quality impacts due to the proposed commuter rail service. Local air quality analysis generally consists of a CO "hot spot" investigation, which identifies potential exceedances of the NAAQS for CO. Because the project is located in a CO maintenance area, determining whether it would cause violations of the NAAQS is an important step in Air Quality June 1998 Page 3.11-7 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment establishing conformity under the federal regulations (see Sec. 3.11.1.2 above). Vehicular traffic is the most significant source of CO emissions in the central Puget Sound region. Because CO emissions dissipate rapidly with increasing distance from the source, the highest CO concentrations are likely to occur at congested roadway intersections or other locations where motor vehicles tend to idle for a period of time. The methodology used to identify local CO impacts in the study area followed the EPA -recommended procedure for microscale air quality analysis. The general evaluation procedure was based on EPA and state guidance documents (Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway Intersections, EPA, 1992, and Guidebook for Conformity, Draft Final Report, PSRC, WSDOT et. al., May 1995). The recommended approach includes a multiple intersection screening process, followed by microscale CO analysis with the CAL3QHC line -source dispersion model. The methodology used to screen locations for more detailed hot spot analysis considered both congested intersections in the corridor and proposed park and ride lots or parking garages. It was determined that the selected intersections discussed below represented the appropriate locations for detailed microscale CO analysis. In assessing the proposed parking areas adjacent to stations, for example, the Kent station was identified as the location with the highest estimated number of daily boardings (see Table 3.3.4). As indicated in Table 3.3.5, the Kent station is estimated to generate approximately 450 peak hour trips. A worst-case assessment would assume that these trips would enter the street network from a parking garage onto Railroad Avenue. Ticket gates or parking fee collection booths are not proposed, and the traffic would enter at mid -block from two driveways; onto a relatively low- volume road. In contrast, the nearby intersection that was selected for microscale analysis (James Street and Central Avenue) has an estimated 5,980 peak hour vehicles with an average delay per vehicle of 69.1 seconds (Table 3.11.6). The discussion below provides more details on the hot spot screening process and microscale analysis performed. Intersection Screening This first task in the microscale analysis was to select intersections and other locations for evaluation of local air quality impacts. A multiple intersection screening analysis was undertaken to identify locations requiring further microscale air quality analysis with CAL3QHC. The procedure used Year 2010 estimated PM peak -hour traffic volume and level -of -service (LOS) to select the study area roadway intersections or at -grade crossings that are most likely to produce CO hot spots under the alternative scenarios. Information used in the intersection screening process was obtained from the transportation impact analyses prepared for the project. In addition to the regional highway and transit ridership modeling results, the transportation analysis included level -of -service calculations for station -area roadway intersections and at -grade crossing locations in the corridor. Page 3.11-8 June 1998 Air Quality Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment The intersection screening process included the following steps: 1) Identify and rank the top 20 intersections and at -grade crossings by Year 2010 estimated traffic volumes; 2) Determine the average delay and LOS for those 20 locations based on traffic volumes, existing layouts, and committed capacity modifications; and 3) Select the highest volume locations and the worst LOS locations for further analysis. Both the EPA and state guidance documents call for selecting the top three intersections for modeling, but four were modeled for this project to assure reasonable geographical distribution. These locations are listed in Table 3.11.6. Table 3.11.6 Intersection Screening Results Intersection PM Peak Hour Volume' Level -of -Service Delay2 (sec/veh) LOS ;Puyallup Ave:lPortlandrAve -(Tacoma =6 925 g ; •"72:0 " `' River Road/Meridian Street (Puyallup) 5,245 50.8 E James St TCentraTAvenue . (Kent).. " _ .• . , r~ , u� "5,980 a.. L ' a.._ ' 69.1 F r South 180th Street/W. Valley Hwy. (Renton) 7,050 73.4 F 1. Combined Year 2010 intersection approach volume. 2. Average intersection vehicular delay. Source: CH2M HILL, March 1998. Microscale Analysis The four intersections selected for further analysis were evaluated for the future baseline and proposed action conditions using a microscale analysis procedure. Microscale analysis is used to estimate maximum 1 -hour and 8 -hour CO concentrations in the vicinity of an intersection for comparison with the NAAQS. It was assumed that if the selected intersections did not show exceedances of the standards as a result of the proposed project, the less congested locations would not exceed the standards either. The microscale analysis procedure is designed to simulate worst-case CO concentrations at specified points near a roadway or intersection. For each selected location, the following steps were applied to each of the project alternatives: Air Quality June 1998 Page 3.11-9 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 1) Assemble the required data for the analysis, including meteorological conditions, site characteristics, traffic parameters, and emission variables. 2) Identify receptor locations near the intersection for simulation of future ambient CO concentrations; 3) Compute the worst-case 1 -hour CO concentration using CAL3QHC. 4) Estimate the worst-case 8 -hour CO concentration by applying a suitable persistence factor to the computed 1 -hour concentration. The use of a persistence factor is intended to reflect the relationship between 1 -hour and 8 - hour traffic and meteorological conditions. 5) Compare the results with the ambient air quality standards to identify adverse impacts, including new or aggravated violations. This local air quality analysis approach was applied for the existing year (1998) and with the proposed project for the forecast year (2010). The CAL3QHC microscale modeling process required a number of parameters and assumptions. Those model inputs, outlined below, were consistent with EPA recommendations and were intended to represent reasonable worst-case scenarios at the four selected intersections. • Meteorological Variables • Averaging Time: 60 minutes • Surface Roughness: 321 cm • Settling Velocity: 0 cm/sec • Deposition Velocity: 0 cm/sec • Wind Speed: 1.0 in/sec • Stability Class: E • Mixing Height: 1000 meters • Background Concentration: 3.0 ppm • Traffic Variables • Lane configuration, link volume, signal cycle length, red time and lost time were taken from the project traffic analysis. • Site Variables • Intersection layouts and roadway link coordinates were determined from maps and aerial photographs of the study area. • Emission Variables • Running emission rates were generated with MOBILE5a using parameters obtained from PSRC. Free flow speeds were estimated based on local conditions and EPA recommendations. Page 3.11-10 June 1998 Air Quality Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment • In accordance with EPA guidance, idle emission rates were calculated by converting the 2.5 mph MOBILE5a running rate from grams per mile to grams per hour. • The EPA -recommended default persistence factor for urban areas of 0.7 was used. Receptors at each intersection were defined where the public is likely to have access and be exposed to the ambient CO concentrations. At a minimum, three were located along each intersection approach, at the head, mid -point and tail of the queue, and one was located along each intersection departure. Placing the receptors as close as reasonably possible to the roadways ensured that the maximum CO concentrations would be detected. After all of the necessary parameters had been identified, the CAL3QHC model was run for each scenario. The results of the CO microscale modeling are summarized in Table 3.11.7 for the existing year and Table 3.11.8 for the forecast year. For each location, Table 3.11.8 shows the highest predicted 1 -hour and 8 -hour CO concentrations under baseline and proposed project conditions. As the results in Tables 3.11.7 and 3.11.8 indicate, exceedances of the 8 -hour CO ambient air quality standard were encountered at three of the four selected locations in 1998, and at all four of the locations in 2010. This demonstrates the highly congested traffic conditions within the corridor which the proposed project is intended to help address by providing a reliable transit alternative. As indicated by the comparison of the future baseline to the proposed action, no change in CO concentrations will be caused by the proposed project. In conformity terms, these results indicate that the project will not cause or contribute to any new violation of the federal air quality standard nor will it increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of the standards, as discussed further in the following section. It is important to note that the modeled CO concentrations used in this conformity analysis are based on emission factors and EPA models that build in very conservative assumptions which cumulatively would be expected to overestimate impacts. These are useful tools when used as a screening method as they are used in this conformity determination analysis. It would not be reasonable, however, to view these results as a reflection of actual conditions. In fact, ongoing CO monitoring and CO saturation studies carried out by the Department of Ecology continue to indicate that intersections in the Puget Sound region are attaining the ambient air quality standard for CO. Air Quality June 1998 Page 3.11-11 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Table 3.11.7 Existing Year (1998) Maximum Predicted CO Concentrations Intersection Averaging Period Maximum Concentration (Ppm) Existing Conditions CO Standard P,uyallup,Avenue/Portland"Avenue i (Tacoma) :::-:7-:',.,c. ®- : `=''''-i"~ i " ".1 -hour. � "8rhouh 16.9 z r 11.8 ;a` :. 35;ppm R' rx;,9.ppm . River Road/Meridian Street (Puyallup) 1 hour 8 hour 11.9 8.3 35 ppm 9ppm Names Sheet^I . , ° , ;Central=Avenue;(Kent� x , .. - l hour: -:''-,'''',:f • =8 hour ,k: a ` 18.5 - 13 0 ; a 35 m 9 ppm'. 35 ppm 9 ppm South 180th Street/West Valley Highway (Renton) 1 hour 8 hour 16.9 11.8 Source: CH2M HILL, March 1998. Table 3.11.8 Year 2010 Maximum Predicted CO Concentrations Intersection Averaging Period Maximum Concentration' (P m) Baseline Conditions Proposed Action Puyallup Aven.,..ueIPortlandiAvenu ;(Tacoma)' '' ., 'dhf ourt , r •`'°$ hour A5:7=� u d .1 f l 0 ,.„ :.,. , �11 o .. k. River Road/Meridian Street (Puyallup) 1 hour 8 hour 13.5 9.5 13.5 9.5 James.StreetJ r °'°. - Central Avenue�:(Kent), . „ s 4 l -Mit—, ° ; 8 hour. dy 15 7 11 O . „ , 15 7 f' ��._ 1.1:0 . i , South 180th Street/West Valley Highway (Renton) 1 hour 8 hour 16.2 11.3 16.2 11.3 1. The applicable national ambient CO standards for the 1 -hour and 8 -hour averaging periods are 35 ppm and 9 ppm, respectively. Source: CH2M HILL, March 1998. 3.11.3 Conformity Because the proposed project is located in a maintenance area for CO and ozone, and a nonattainment area for PM10, federal and state air quality regulations require that a project -level conformity analysis be conducted, as documented in the previous section. A conformity analysis is used to determine if a transportation activity (plan, program or project) conforms to the purpose of the SIP, which is to achieve and maintain the federal air quality standards. The criteria for conformity specify that a transportation activity cannot: Page 3.11-12 June 1998 Air Quality Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment • cause or contribute to any new violation of the federal air quality standards; • increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of the standards; or • delay timely attainment of the standards. A conformity analysis for the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Project has been performed to demonstrate whether or not the above criteria are met. Although there were several issues to be addressed by the conformity analysis, the primary concern of the.project-level conformity determination is the investigation of potential CO hot spots. No PM10 hot spot analysis is required for this project. The PM10 hot spot requirements are currently deferred until EPA releases modeling guidance and announces in the Federal Register that the requirements are in effect (which it has not yet done). 61 Fed. Reg. 36132 (July 9, 1996). The proposed project was incorporated into the most recent ozone attainment demonstration conducted by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) with regional vehicle mile traveled (vmt) and emission estimates provided by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). The PSRC's plan level conformity analyses also incorporate roadway (vmt) aspects of this project. There are four basic steps that are used to address the CO hot spot analysis requirements of a project -level conformity determination, including: 1) Determine whether or not the project requires an air quality conformity finding. The conformity regulations apply to all non-exempt projects in CO non -attainment and maintenance areas that are on the regional transportation system. 2) If the project is subject to the conformity rules, ensure that it is included in the regional transportation plan. Projects that are not included in the regional transportation plan, either in concept or in detail, cannot receive a conformity finding. 3) Ensure that the project is included in a conforming regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). 4) Complete a CO hot spot analysis for the opening year and the forecast year. The conformity analysis conducted for this project included the four steps listed above, and satisfied all applicable criteria. Sound Transit consulted with PSAPCA in conducting this conformity analysis. PSAPCA staff provided written comments on a draft of this air quality section and oral comments at a meeting with Sound Transit representatives, and those comments have been addressed in this document. Furthermore, Sound Transit representatives, in coordination with PSRC, have determined that the proposed action is included in the current Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), which has been found to meet the conformity tests as identified by federal and state conformity regulations. Prior the region being designated as attainment for CO and ozone, the PSRC issued a finding that the MTP conformed to the Central Puget Sound region CO, ozone, and the Seattle-Duwamish River, Kent Valley and Tacoma Tideflats Particulate Matter State Implementation Plans. Air Quality June 1998 Page 3.11-13 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 3.12 WATER QUALITY/HYDROLOGY 3.12.1 Methodology and Assumptions This section evaluates potential water resource impacts along the project corridor. These impacts include effects on surface water quality, current flood conditions, and surface water runoff. The corridor was also evaluated with respect to permits that may be needed to comply with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations under the Rivers and Harbors Act. In the King County portion of the corridor, surface water conditions were evaluated using reports generated by the King County Department of Metropolitan Services (referred to in this report as METRO, and previously known as the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle). Surface water conditions in Pierce County were evaluated using a report generated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Washington Stream Catalog (Williams, et al. 1975) and Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) data for the Puyallup River. METRO conducts ongoing monitoring of streams in western King County, and data are published on a tri -annual basis. Pierce County does not generally monitor streams on a regular basis. Consequently, most stream data available for Pierce County are not current. However, rivers, including the Puyallup River, are monitored on a regular basis and data collected by Ecology. Floodplain information was evaluated using Flood Insurance Rate Maps for King and Pierce Counties. Surface water runoff conditions were estimated using data from King County and Pierce County soil surveys and Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin. Changes in runoff volumes were estimated using the curve number technique developed by the Soil Conservation Service (Ecology 1992). This technique uses precipitation volume and a curve number to estimate runoff volumes. The curve number reflects the ability of an area to infiltrate precipitation and is based on soil type and land use. Developed site conditions assumed coverage of 75 percent of a site by impermeable surfaces. 3.12.2 Existing Surface Water Conditions 3.12.2.1 Water Quality Chapter 173-201A of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) specifies the water quality classification for major Washington streams and lakes. Table 3.12.1 provides general water use criteria for each classification. Surface waters of the state are classified as AA, A, B, C, and Lake. The major contributing factor to water quality in streams and rivers is land use, with the best water quality typically found in watersheds that are less developed. Water Quality/Hydrology Page 3.12-1 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Table 3.12.1 General Water Use Criteria Classification Fecal Coliform Dissolved Oxygen Temperature pH :Lake " Geometric:mean value shall:not exceed:50-No Measurablej:: -No measurable. colonies/100:mi with not morethan"10 decrease'from;; change from percent of the:sainples{exceeiiing natural. natural '1 00. ml;�1. n•�. ;condition : ' conditions " Same as above Shall exceed Shall not 9.5 mg/L exceed 16°C No measurable change_from natural :: -a. conditions Shall be within 6.5 and 8.5 AA A : r Geometric mean value shall not exceed `.Shall°exceed '° > , " x .. . Shall not 100 colonies/100:mi wrth not{mare than 8 O mg/L < a � exceed,18°C s, 10 percent of the`.samples exceeding , Jv y• z d.K) S sC ,�. C �Y°^'G: du eP V ..�IM1 Yf 'x.J 'S C'y y, � :..200:colomes/10Q m1P%. . • r - „ ' P+"' =r �'-.1�3.--�z -., y:. •i•vtaz.-a. L�.eTs' 5-`� ..i... .... Same as above !, °. ; < . h ... •A. ".i�.a y B Geometric mean value shall not exceed Shall exceed 200 colonies/ 100 ml, with not more than 6.5 mg/L 10 percent of the samples exceeding 400 colonies/100 ml Geometric mean value shall not°exceed Shall-: exceed 200"colonies/100 mi-wi h-nofmorethan 4 0 mg/L 10 percent of the samples exceeding 400 colonies/100 ml _ Shall not exceed 21 °C 'Shail not -. • `° ' exceed22°C ' , Same as above sShall'be'wi hin 6.5'to 9.0 C ource: WAC Chapter 173-201A and Washington State Department of Ecology, 1992 Water Bodies and Drainage Basins Water bodies crossed by the BNSF alignment include the Green River, Springbrook Creek, Black River, the Cedar River, Mill Creek, the White (a.k.a. Stuck) River, the Puyallup River, Salmon Creek, Clark's Creek, Canyon Creek, Clear Creek, and Swan Creek. Major drainage basins include the Green River Basin, Lake Washington Basin, and Puyallup River Basin. Green River. The Lower Green River drainage basin area is approximately 24,000 acres. METRO has four monitoring stations on the Green River: at Fort Dent Park, upstream from the confluence with Springbrook Creek, just upstream from the confluence with Soos Creek, and upstream from the confluence with Newaukum Creek. The proposed station site at SW 43rd Street is located to the east of the Green River. All four monitoring sites have been classified as Class A by Ecology, and the river has good to very good water quality. The water quality at the Soos Creek and Newaukum Creek sites is generally better (rated very good) than at the other two sites. The measured ranges of values for temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and conductivity during the period of October 1990 through September 1993 are shown on Table 3.12.2. Black River. Once the lower reach of the Cedar River/Lake Washington system, it presently conveys the flow of Springbrook Creek to the Green River. The Black River is a salmonid bearing water although habitat in this reach is relatively poor, serving mostly as a migratory corridor for habitat upstream. Page 3.12-2 June 1998 Water Quality/Hydrology Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Table 3.12.2 Range of Selected Water Quality Values at Green River Sampling Stations Monitoring Site Temperature (°C) . Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) pH Conductivity (µmhos/cm) �ort Dent � �.�� • ' �..:.`; � .�3.0 -:19,9.. � �:} { :��.;:a7�'1`�-:13:0.�-�� �. •�, 6:27..=:7.50 •, L ;, 55 -:185. • .) Above Springbrook Creek 1.0 - 20.0 2.0 - 18.0 7.4 - 13.0 6.24 - 7.80 • 53 - 171 (Above-.Soos;Creek r: a, •,: .,.E.7767.711(707-",71 , .; ,• . r:.:, eYYa;s .,,�93::,::14:UrA.,.:�46 t6:66:,;7..10 ;104 1: , Above Newaukum Creek 9.8 - 14.0 5.92 - 8.20 32 - 82 ource: King County Metro, 1994 Metals levels during stormwater events, generally the worst case conditions, exceeded EPA standards once (for copper) during 12 stormwater events measured by METRO from 1990 through 1993. Springbrook Creek. Springbrook Creek is a tributary to the Black River and is a part of the larger Green River Basin. Springbrook Creek itself has a drainage basin of approximately 15,000 acres. METRO has one monitoring station at the mouth of the creek. The creek has been designated a Class A water body, but water quality has been rated as poor. An examination of data collected from March 1990 through September 1993 shows that temperatures ranged from 0.9 to 18.2°C, dissolved oxygen readings ranged from 2.8 to 9.8 mg/L, pH ranged from 6.25 to 7.42, and conductivity readings ranged from 58 to 850 µmhos/cm. Most conductivity readings were well above 100 .tmhos/L. Of the dissolved oxygen data, 28 of the 33 readings were below the Ecology standard, reflecting the effects of nearby development and channelization. Water in Springbrook Creek also showed relatively high readings for turbidity, ammonia, total phosphorous, and fecal coliform. Metals levels during stormwater events exceeded EPA criteria for copper five times during 12 monitored stormwater events. Mill Creek. Mill Creek (also known locally as Hill Creek or Mill -Hill Creek) is a tributary to the Green River and is part of the larger Green River basin. Mill Creek itself has a drainage basin of approximately 6,000 acres. METRO has one monitoring station near the mouth of Mill Creek. The creek is designated as Class A, but has generally poor water quality. An examination of data collected from October 1991 through September 1993 shows that temperatures ranged from 0.5 to 17.0°C, dissolved oxygen readings ranged from 3.1 to 9.5 mg/L, pH ranged from 6.354 to 7.70, and conductivity ranged from 138 to 280 µmhos/cm. Dissolved oxygen levels were below the Ecology standard for 18 of the 24 samples taken on Mill Creek. Of all the rivers and streams monitored by METRO, Mill Creek base flow readings indicated the highest loading rates for total phosphorous and ammonia. Metals levels measured by METRO during rainfall events did not exceed any EPA criteria. White River. The White River, also known as the Stuck River, designated as a Class A water body, drains a total area of about 316,000 acres and is a tributary to the Puyallup River. The USGS has one monitoring site on the White River at Sumner. Water Quality/Hydrology Page 3.12-3 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment An examination of the data collected from August 1983 through May 1984 shows that temperatures ranged from 5.5 to 17°C, dissolved oxygen ranged from 9.2 to 11.8 mg/L, pH ranged from 6.8 to 7.4, and conductivity ranged from 41 to 82 µmhos/L. Nitrogen levels were relatively low, and one organic compound, 1,1,1 -trichloroethane (1.2 µg/L), was detected during one round of sampling. Ecology data from 1990 indicates that concentrations of nutrients remain low, while pH and conductivity values are very similar. Puyallup River. The Puyallup River drains a total area of approximately 620,000 acres and is designated as Class A. Three USGS monitoring sites of interest are located on the Puyallup River: at Lincoln Avenue in Tacoma, at Puyallup, and at Alderton. The ranges of measured values for temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and conductivity during the period from August 1983 through September 1984 are provided in Table 3.12.3. Table 3.12.3 Range of Selected Water Quality Values at Puyallup River Sampling Stations ource: USGS, 1987 Concentrations of nitrogen compounds were low for all sites. During one round of sampling the following organic compounds were detected in Puyallup River water samples: 1,1,1 -trichloroethane (1.0 µg/L) at Puyallup, and chloroform (1.0 µg/L),. trichloroethene (1.0 µg/L) and diethyl phthalate (3.2 µg/L) at Lincoln Avenue. An examination of Ecology water quality data for the Puyallup River for the period from January 1990 through March 1994 shows that temperatures ranged from 2.0 to 16.1°C, dissolved oxygen ranged from 9.3 to 13.1 mg/L, pH ranged from 7.0 to 7.9 mg/L, and conductivity ranged from 41 to 114 µmhos/cm. Salmon Creek. Salmon Creek, also known as Strawberry Creek, is a spring -fed tributary of the White River. The stream catalog indicates that the creek contains coho, pink, and possibly chum salmon. Clark's Creek. Clark's Creek drains an area of approximately 10,432 acres and is a tributary of the Puyallup River. Clark's Creek has been sampled at a station near Puyallup. An examination of the data indicates that temperatures ranged from 9.0 to 11.5°C, dissolved oxygen ranged from 7.5 to 11.6 mg/L, pH ranged from 6.4 to 7.3, and conductivity ranged from 125 to 162 µg/L. Concentrations of nitrogen compounds were relatively low. Three organic compounds were detected in one set Page 3.12-4 June 1998 Water Quality/Hydrology Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment of water samples taken from Clark's Creek. These included benzene (1.3 µg/L), 1,2- dichloroethene (1.0 µg/L), and trichloroethene (1.0 µg/L). Clear Creek. Clear Creek has a drainage basin of approximately 7,744 acres and is a tributary of the Puyallup River. Clear Creek has been sampled at 31st Avenue Court East in Tacoma. An examination of the data indicates that temperatures ranged from 8.0 to 12.0°C, dissolved oxygen ranged from 7.1 to 11.5 mg/L, pH ranged from 6.3 to 7.3, and conductivity ranged from 155 to 206 µmhos/cm. Concentrations of nitrogen compounds in Clear Creek were relatively low. Samples from Clear Creek were not tested for organic compounds. Swan Creek. Swan Creek has a drainage basin of approximately 2,022 acres and is a tributary of Clear Creek. Swan Creek was sampled at Pioneer Way in Tacoma. An examination of the data indicates that temperatures ranged from 8.5 to 11.5°C, dissolved oxygen ranged from 9.9 to 12.0 mg/L, pH ranged from 6.8 to 7.8, and conductivity ranged from 105 to 157 µmhos/cm. Concentrations of nitrogen compounds in Swan Creek were relatively low. Samples from Swan Creek were not analyzed for organic compounds. 3.12.2.2 Floodplains The boundaries of the 100 -year floodplains within the study area were identified on Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Major floodplain areas in the vicinity of the rail corridor are associated with the Green River, White River, Puyallup River, and associated smaller tributary creeks. In most cases, the existing rail line is elevated sufficiently above the floodplain to prevent inundation during flood events. There have been no incidents of flooding interfering with railroad service in the past 25 years (BNSF). 3.12.2.3 Surface Water Drainage In general, runoff conditions are highly dependent on the amount of impermeable surface present and soil type. The proposed station sites can be divided into three types of sites for determining surface water drainage: (1) highly developed sites, where 75 percent or more of the proposed station area is covered by impermeable surfaces; (2) moderately developed sites, where 25 to 75 percent of the site is covered by impermeable surfaces; and (3) slightly developed to undeveloped sites, where less than 25 percent of the proposed station area is covered by impermeable surface. In general, soils at all station sites are poorly to well drained and topography is generally flat. Existing development levels at proposed station alternatives are shown on Table 3.12.4. Water Quality/Hydrology Page 3.12-5 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Table 3.12.4 Development Levels of Proposed Station Sites Highly Developed Moderately Developed Slightly to Undeveloped (greater than 75% (between 25% and 75% (less than 25% impermeable surface) impermeable surface) impermeable surface) King Street - Seattle Downtown Kent Boeing Access Road Georgetown - Seattle Tacoma Amtrak SW 43rd Street - Renton Downtown Auburn Downtown Sumner Downtown Puyallup ource: iloateng ssociates and BRW Inc., October 1994 Navigable Waterways Since 1890, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) has been regulating selected activities in the nation's waterways. Most of these responsibilities have been directed towards protecting navigable waterways (for example, the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899). The following activities are regulated by the Corps: • Discharge of dredged or fill materials into navigable waterways. • Structures or work in, or affecting, navigable waterways. Types of structures include riprap, power transmission lines, and tunnels. The authority to issue permits for bridges and causeways was transferred to the Secretary of Transportation in 1966. • Transportation of dredged materials for disposal in the ocean. Since none of these types of activities have been proposed, it is not anticipated that any permits will be needed to comply with the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. However, in issuing permits, the Corps takes into account factors such as wetlands, historic buildings, and floodplains. Navigable waterways in the South Corridor area include the Duwamish Waterway (which becomes the Green River), the Cedar River, and the Puyallup River. 3.12.3 Impacts 3.12.3.1 Rail Lines Since the project will for the most part involve the use of existing rail lines, no significant impacts are expected from the use of the rail lines. Construction of 2.6 miles of new track between Tacoma and Puyallup along side of the current BNSF right -of way is not expected to have any significant impact on water quality. In general, most construction in floodplains includes either bridge or culvert crossings or the filling of floodplain area to elevate a property above the 100 -year flood level. Crossing structures generally have minimal impact on the flooded area. Filling in areas subject to flooding can reduce the effective base flood storage volume of a river system, causing an increase in the base flood elevation. The proposed new third track between Tacoma and Puyallup closely bounds the existing BNSF tracks which Page 3.12-6 June 1998 Water Quality/Hydrology Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment parallel the 100 -year floodplain of the Puyallup River. Construction includes fill of up to 4.6 acres of wetlands within the 100 -year floodplain along this 2.6 mile stretch. The proposed relocation of Clear Creek to the north of the existing tracks and proposed third track will be designed to improve water quality as well as the capacity, if possible, of the waterway. 3.12.3.2 Stations Impacts to water quality at station sites are primarily related to increased runoff, and associated erosion and contaminant transport, due to construction and operation of station sites. Few to no floodplain impacts are associated with station sites, as proposed stations are located largely out of mapped 100 -year floodplains. Runoff from potential from station sites is largely related to the amount of development on station site. Table 3.12.5 summarizes potential hydrology and water quality impacts at proposed station sites, while the following sections discuss potential impacts individually for water quality, floodplains, and runoff. Table 3.12.5 Potential Hydrology/Water Quality Impacts Station Site Water Quality Impacts Floodplains Impacts Runoff Potential King Street . ' $ Little :. None .. `Lo ' _ '�' Georgetown Little None Low Longacres a <; .:Higher lociiL .• °Som,e Local=:•' High Downtown•Kent : = , .:Somelocal4°` ; None.., '- • ', ;Moderate_ Kent Depot Little None Low 3Downtown=Aubrurn '.• `. .Little` a: z;:;a 1 1` J _ Low•_° Downtown Sumner ,;None Some local Some local High ':Downtown;Pu allup ° ,p' Y ` t p ;.�. �;Lrttle _ :�,°� = Y.None:; ' ,, Low::�i4� � .u. ;� Tacoma Little None Low ource: Boateng & Associates and BRW, Inc.; October 1994 Water Quality In general, all potential water resources impacts from the construction and operation of proposed stations would be similar in nature. Impacts would be associated with both short-term construction activities and long-term operation. These two types of impacts are discussed below. Construction. Construction of stations would include either removal of existing structures and construction of new ones, or the clearing and grading of a site and construction of new structures. Removal of vegetation from the ground and exposure of the soil to rainfall can greatly increase the potential for erosion, which can in turn cause sedimentation and increased turbidity in area surfacewaters. Increased erosion Water Quality/Hydrology June 1998 Page 3.12-7 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment can also occur when soil is exposed due to removal of existing impermeable surfaces, such as asphalt. This is especially important at those sites that are directly bordered by surface water bodies or wetlands. Heavy equipment used during construction can require large amounts of fuel, and spill of chemicals or fuel during construction could also pose a threat to water quality. On-site refueling and storage areas could be a source of small fuel spills. Over time, such spills can cause high levels of runoff contamination. Operation. Impacts to water quality during operation are primarily due to runoff from roofs and paved areas. Virtually all urban runoff contains contaminants. Pollutants from paved areas originate from small spills of car fluids, tire wear, deposition of airborne particles in vehicle dust and exhaust, brake wear, and winter sanding/salting. Contaminants may include petroleum products, heavy metals (such as lead, mercury and zinc), and organic compounds. Additionally, paving of previously vegetated areas can increase the runoff velocity, which increases the runoffs capacity to carry sediments. This can result in sedimentation of surface waters. Maintenance of landscaped areas can add contaminants such as fertilizers and pesticides to runoff. Fertilizers are of concern because they contain nutrients that accelerate eutrophication (algae growth) in rivers, streams, and lakes. Water quality impacts would be avoided or minimized during construction and operation through compliance with Ecology -approved city and county grading and drainage ordinances or, where appropriate, the Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin. Ordinances generally require the on-site detention and/or treatment of stormwater generated from a project site and use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). For construction sites disturbing more than 5 acres, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit would be required. In addition, a 401 Water Quality Certification would be required for the project to verify that federal water quality standards would not be violated. Floodplains and Wetlands None of the proposed station sites along the BNSF corridor are located within 100 - year floodplains. Surface Water Drainage Runoff from a project site is primarily affected by the amount of impermeable surface present. The volume of surface water runoff in urbanized areas is higher due to a greater amount of impermeable surface and higher runoff velocities due to increased surface smoothness. This increase in velocity and volume leads to increased peak flows during rainfall events. Impacts to areas that are already highly urbanized are expected to be minimal. Overall, estimated increases in runoff for the highly Page 3.12-8 June 1998 Water Quality/Hydrology Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment developed to moderately developed sites are expected to be minimal. These figures are estimates of the percent increase in runoff per unit area of the site, and were calculated assuming 75 percent of the site would consist of impermeable surfaces. Sites with lower estimated increases in runoff are either located on soils that have a low runoff potential, or are only slightly developed. Runoff potential from these sites is shown on Table 3.12.6. Sites with higher estimated increases in runoff are located on soils that have a moderately high runoff potential. Table 3.12.6 Estimated Percent Increase in Runoff Per Unit Area from Largely Undeveloped Station Sites Station Site (2-year/24-hour event) Estimated Increase in Runoff Depth Per Unit Area Estimated Percent Increase Per Unit Area Impact on Associated Water Body Boeing Access Road (GreenRiver) .. r1 .L --' * i a ; ,..� . _-rr . * Slight Tukwila (Green River) * * Slight Downtown Sumner . '(Puyallup River) ' '.i r 0`68 mch"es J e ;q f . `85% . °i .4yi.:.•,d'; t.d6•xi t�4 , > . Puyallup/Sumner (Puyallup River) 0.68 inches 85% Slight ource: Boateng & Associates and BRW Inc., October 1994 * Soil type not available. 3.12.4 Mitigation Measures 3.12.4.1 Rail Lines For any fill required in the 100 -year floodplain to construct the new third track segment between Puyallup and Tacoma, construction will comply with applicable federal and local regulations to minimize floodplain impacts. Mitigation measures such as improving, replacing or adding culverts for streams crossing under the BNSF track are also proposed as part of the project. 3.12.4.2 Station Sites Water Quality Construction. Local jurisdictions have extensive code requirements to minimize sediment and erosion impacts, and this project will fully comply with local permitting requirements prior to construction. Depending on what is required by the local jurisdiction, such measures could include covering stockpiled soils, and use of sediment traps and ponds, constructing on areas that already contain impermeable surfaces, minimizing construction in general, clearing areas just prior to construction, and revegetating cleared areas as soon as possible. Water Quality/Hydrology Page 3.12-9 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Mitigation for construction spills could include several strategies. On-site refueling areas and areas of fuel or chemical storage could be minimized wherever possible. A spill control and prevention plan could be implemented for all construction areas of the site. This plan could include clean-up procedures, in the event of a small and large spills, as well as training for personnel on the reduction and elimination of potential sources of small spills. All refueling areas could be bermed or curbed and lined with impermeable materials where possible, and drainage could be diverted away from these areas. Facilities could be maintained for proper collection and disposal of any waste products, such as used motor oil. Operation. A stormwater collection and control system can minimize many of the impacts during operation. Stormwater would be detained in wet or dry detention facilities on the station site consistent with applicable requirements. Oil/water separators would be used as required. Infiltration could be used where suitable soil conditions exist, but only if adequate safety factors are considered and maintenance can be provided. No direct discharges to wetland areas would be allowed. Grassy swales near paved areas would also be used to slow the velocity of surface runoff and allow particulates to settle out, and nutrients carried by the runoff can be filtered by vegetation. Surface Water Drainage Construction. Runoff impacts can be mitigated by using areas that are already developed for parking and other facilities. For sediment and erosion impacts of increased runoff, standard sediment and erosion control practices should be utilized. These practices include covering stockpiled soils, and use of sediment traps and ponds. These impacts can also, be mitigated by minimizing construction in general, clearing areas just prior to construction, and revegetating cleared areas as soon as possible. Operation. A stormwater collection and control system can minimize many of the impacts during operation. Stormwater would be detained in wet or dry detention facilities on the station site consistent with applicable requirements. Infiltration could be used where suitable soil conditions exist, but only if adequate safety factors are considered and maintenance can be provided. No direct discharges to wetland areas' would be allowed. Grassy swales near paved areas could also be used to slow the velocity of surface runoff. Stormwater will be handled as directed by local, state, and federal permitting. 3.12.5 Cumulative Impacts No significant cumulative water quality impacts are anticipated. Future high-speed rail service and increases in freight rail service would operate largely on the same BNSF track and/or use the same stations as the proposed project. As a result, little new construction would be required, and no significant water quality impacts are anticipated. Page 3.12-10 June 1998 Water Quality/Hydrology Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 3.13 EARTH 3.13.1 Methodology Information on project area topography, geology/soils, and geologic hazard areas was obtained from published information and site reconnaissance. Subsurface geotechnical investigations have not been conducted but will be conducted where appropriate during the design phase of the project. Geologic hazards evaluated include erosion, landslide and seismic hazards. 3.13.2 Existing Conditions Topography The existing BNSF alignment is generally flat, lying within the lowlands of the Duwamish, Green, White, and Puyallup River valleys. The existing tracks pass near valley side slopes in south Seattle along Beacon Hill, and in Tukwila. Proposed station sites are also flat and, with the exception of the SW 43rd Street and Longacres sites, are at grade with the adjacent tracks. The railroad tracks at the SW 43rd Street and Longacres sites are raised on fill above the surrounding valley and the station sites are below the track grade by about 6 to 8 feet at the SW 43rd Street site and 10 to 12 feet at the Longacres site. Geology/Soils The geology along the alignment is closely related to the topography described in the previous section. Within the Duwamish, Green, White, and Puyallup River valleys, the geology at the ground surface generally consists of recent soil deposits; at the flanks of the valleys the exposed geology generally consists of soils that were deposited either before or during the last glaciation, over 10,000 years ago. Rock outcrops occur at only a limited number of locations. The recent soils on the valley floors include alluvial, landslide, and peat deposits. The alluvial deposits are made up of sands, silts, and clays. Typically, the sands and silts are loose, and the clays are soft, as these deposits have not been over-ridden by past glaciations. The thickness of the alluvial deposits can range from a few feet near the edge of the valleys to 50 feet or more at the center. Along the flanks of the valleys, landslide deposits occur. The landslide deposits are erratic mixtures of clays, silts, sands, gravels, and boulders, depending on the type of material making up the valley slopes. In some areas such as the Puyallup River valley, thick deposits of highly compressible peat are found. The peat can be as much as 20 feet thick. The glacially over-ridden deposits range from hard, concrete -like mixtures of clay, silt, sand, and gravels, which make up the Vashon till, to more uniform deposits of sand and gravels of the Salmon Springs drift. These materials are typically very dense or stiff in consistency, and, therefore, exhibit very high strengths and very low Earth June 1998 Page 3.13-1 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment compressibility. The high strengths of these deposits lead to very steep slopes at some locations. Exposed deposits of rock are found in the Duwamish River Valley. These rocks include sandstone, siltstone, claystone, and shale of the Puget Group and Renton Formation. Erosion Hazard Areas Erosion can occur through either wind or water action. The primary cause of erosion in the Puget Sound area is water. Water erosion occurs by raindrop impact, sheet flow, or channelized flow (streams and rivers). Soil types erode at different rates, depending on the physical and chemical characteristics of the soil, as well as its protective vegetative cover, topographic position, rainfall intensity, and the amount and speed of runoff water. Erosion is greater on slopes and increases as water volumes and flow rates increase; cleared areas are far more susceptible to impacts than vegetated ones because of the stabilizing effects of root networks. Non -cohesive soils, such as fine sand and silt, are the most prone to erosion of all project -area soils. Large, channelized flows can result in the movement of larger soil particles such as coarse sands and gravels, as well as erosion of cohesive silts and clays. Vegetated soils in the project area appear to be stable with no erosion. Minor erosion can be observed in steeply graded sandy areas with no vegetative cover. Several soil types in the study area are identified in the Soil Conservation Service King County Soil Survey as exhibiting severe erosion hazard: Alderwood gravely sandy loam, Alderwood-Kitsap, Beauxsite gravely sandy loam, Kitsap silt loam, Ovall gravely sandy loam, Ragnar fine sandy loam, Ragnar-Indianola Association, and any occurrence of River Wash, or Coastal Beaches. Similar soil types were identified in Pierce County as well as the following additional soil types with erosion potential: Semiahmoo muck, Shalcar muck, Sultan silt loam, Biscot loam, Xerochrepts, Xerothents, and Puget silty. Landslide Hazard Areas Landslide hazards in the project area are associated with the steep slopes along the valley sides. Slopes steepened past a critical angle, which varies according to the strength of the soil, will produce mass movement termed "landslides." Landslides usually occur in areas of steep slopes or in loose or saturated soils and are made unstable by various geologic factors or human, created conditions. Factors that can contribute to slope instability include over -steepening of natural slopes; man-made fills consisting of loose, wet, or saturated fill soils; and the presence of groundwater in interlayered fine- and coarse-grained soils. High groundwater conditions can lead to seepage forces and high pore -water pressures. These conditions can also decrease soil stability by decreasing friction between soil particles in coarse-grained deposits and by creating excess pressure in fine-grained deposits that are poorly drained. Page 3.13-2 June 1998 Earth Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Slope stability is also influenced by seismic activity. Seismic forces generated by earthquakes can further destabilize slopes through ground movement or through temporary loss of strength as a result of ground vibrations. Slopes that are existing at a configuration that is only marginally stable could be further destabilized with the introduction of this additional force. The BNSF alignment passes adjacent to a potential landslide area at the south end of Boeing Field in south Seattle, an area immediately south of South 129th Street in Tukwila, and an area north of Sumner. In the Tukwila area, the BNSF right-of-way borders the landslide hazard area for less than one-half mile. This landslide area consists of a wooded slope stretching from where I-5 crosses S. 129th Street to approximately one half -mile southeast of that intersection. Seismic Hazard Areas Seismic hazard areas are defined as areas subject to severe risk of earthquake damage as a result of seismically induced settlement, soil liquefaction, or landslides. Seismic hazards exist primarily in areas of loose soils lacking cohesion where high groundwater conditions exist. In these areas, the soil may be subject to settlement, some loss of strength, or liquefaction as a result of earthquake shaking. Saturated, soft to loose, fine-grained silty to sandy soils, typically present in alluvial deposits at the base of over -steepened slopes, and loose, saturated manmade fills are generally the areas most susceptible to this type of behavior. Within the study area, these conditions are most likely within areas of valley alluvium and areas of loose saturated manmade fills. Ground surface settlement can occur as a result of earthquake forces. Settlements related to liquefaction are the most common, however, vibration -induced settlement can also occur in loose, sandy material that is moist or dry. Settlement in this type of material is generally much less than that associated with liquefiable materials. Settlement could occur in potentially liquefiable alluvial soils within the flood plain of the Duwamish, Green, White, or Puyallup Rivers or at locations of loose manmade fills. Liquefaction also results in a reduction of soil strength, which can cause the ground to lose its ability to support an overlying structure, and can cause lateral ground movement. Lateral movement is the most likely to occur within several hundred feet of rivers. At these locations the river bank can flow towards the river during strong ground motions. The BNSF alignment passes through a designated liquefaction -prone area from King Street Station south to Boeing Access Road. Stations in this segment include the King Street Station, Georgetown, and Boeing Access Road. Much of the alignment along the Green, White, and Puyallup Rivers also passes over alluvial soils that could be susceptible to liquefaction during a large seismic event. The BNSF tracks pass directly through a seismic hazard area south of downtown Kent, near the Green River. Earth June 1998 Page 3.13-3 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment About one-half mile of the BNSF tracks pass through this seismic hazard area and another half mile of the track lies adjacent to the area. No stations are proposed in or near this seismic hazard area. Development on a seismic hazard area must be preceded by a study evaluating site- specific conditions. For development to proceed, the study must show that the site is not located in a seismic hazard area or demonstrate a commitment to mitigation procedures that would render the proposed development to have an acceptable level of risk from future seismic induced hazards. This study must be accepted by the affected jurisdiction and conform with the applicable building codes. Figure 3.13-1 shows the approximate locations of major faults in the Puget Sound are (Gower and others, Seismotectonic Map of the Puget Sound Region, 1985). The faults labeled Seattle Fault and Fault I on the figure may be the same fault, according to the University of Washington Geophysics Program. These two (or possibly one) faults cross the BNSF mainline in the vicinity of the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail project. 3.13.3 Discussion of Potential Operating Impacts The proposed project will involve earthwork (i.e. grading) along the alignment for station construction, including platforms, park and ride lots, and the other elements of each station. Grading will also be required where new track is constructed. Earthwork for station construction would generally be minor and balanced on-site because station sites are flat and, with two exceptions, at relatively the same grade as the existing tracks. To accommodate the grade differential between the existing tracks and the surrounding ground at the South 180t Street and Longacres sites, the station platforms would be constructed on either a supporting structure or fill. If filled, the Longacres site could require approximately 20,000 cubic yards of imported material, while the South 180th Street site could require approximately 13,000 cubic yards of imported material. Erosion Erosion impacts during project construction are primarily related to the increased potential for erosion resulting from exposure of excavated soils to water. If not controlled, such erosion could result in the deposition of silt and/or sediment in wetlands, streams, or any other adjacent surface water, and in biofiltration facilities. It is also likely that soils could be tracked onto nearby paved roads by construction vehicles. Wind action over exposed soils could generate dust (see Air Quality section of this document). There would be no construction or development in the identified erosion hazard areas near the White River in southern King County or north of Sumner. Page 3.13-4 June 1998 Earth N. Whidbey Is. Fault E?verett G S. Whidbey Is. Fault ▪ 1 123 SOUNDTRANSIf 122 Major Fault Zones in the Puget Sound Figure 3.13.1 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Landslide Hazard Area Impacts The project does not propose to construct new track or stations in the areas adjacent to or at the foot of landslide hazard areas. The impact of commuter rail on the risk of landslides along existing track would be negligible. It is, therefore, unlikely that construction or operation of the project would have an affect on or be affected by landslides. Seismic Hazard Area Impacts Station improvements at the King Street Station, Georgetown, Boeing Access Road, and other potential areas to the south lie within liquefaction -prone areas. Proper ground improvement or support measures and embankment compaction would be incorporated in project design to reduce the risk of liquefaction; therefore, the potential for structure or pavement damage in any areas of liquefaction -prone soils and is low. Railroads through seismic hazard areas do not warrant the same concerns as building large structures on a hazard area. In the event of an earthquake, all track segments would be thoroughly inspected. The only effect of the tracks passing through a seismic hazard area would be the need for a more detailed inspection of the tracks in such an area after an earthquake. The likelihood of seismic events is no greater within the corridor than in other portions of the region. As noted in Section 3.10, both the FRA and BNSF have requirements for inspections following an earthquake. BNSF requires that all signals, tracks, and bridges be inspected for a distance of at least 70 miles for an earthquake of magnitude 5.5 or greater in Washington. Signals only are inspected for an earthquake of magnitude 5.0 to 5.4. 3.13.4 Mitigation Potential erosion during project construction would be mitigated by the use of best management practices specified in the erosion and sedimentation control plans for the project, as required by state and local jurisdictions. Typical measures include erosion fences, sediment ponds, and covering of stockpiled soils when practicable (See Water Quality/Hydrology Section). Re-establishment of vegetation in non -paved cleared areas as soon as possible and application of appropriate ground cover will minimize the potential for erosion hazards during operation. Proper subgrade preparation and embankment compaction will reduce the risk of liquefaction and roadway damage in any areas of liquefaction -prone soils encountered during construction. At locations where depths of liquefiable soils are located 10 to 50 feet below the ground surface, ground improvement procedures may be necessary. Ground improvement procedures include deep dynamic compaction, vibro- densification, and compaction grouting. Earth June 1998 Page 3.13-5 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 3.13.5 Cumulative Impacts No significant cumulative earth impacts are anticipated. Future high-speed rail service and increases in freight rail service would operate largely on the same BNSF track and use some of the same stations as the proposed project. As a result, little new construction would be required, and no significant earth -related impacts are anticipated. Page 3.13-6 June 1998 Earth Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 3.14 ENERGY The proposed project enhances transit mobility by providing an alternative to the single occupant vehicle. During construction there will be a short-term consumption of energy in the form of fossil fuels and electricity. Natural resources such as asphalt, sand, gravel and water will be consumed during construction. Substantial depletion of any natural resource is not expected as a part of this project. Operation of the project will result in the long-term use of electricity for facilities and fossil fuels for locomotives. No energy conservation measures are included in this proposal since the overall affect of the proposal is to provide a means to reduce fuel consumed by single occupant vehicles. Energy June 1998 Page 3.14-1 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 4.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT SELECTED 4.1 - INTRODUCTION The proposed action resulted from a seven year planning process, during which time many alternatives were considered, but not selected for further analysis. The alternatives considered included different transportation modes or systems, commuter rail on another railroad company's tracks, and different elements within the proposed commuter rail action. Some of these alternatives were evaluated in the Regional Transit System Plan EIS (1993, Sound Transit). The alternatives previously considered are summarized in this chapter by the groupings of 1) system alternatives, 2) railroad alternative, and 3) alternative commuter rail components. The discussion includes a description of each alternative, performance information (if available), and the reasons that it was not selected. 4.2 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT SELECTED 4.2.1 Express Bus/HOV Alternative The Express Bus/HOV Alternative represented a low -to -modest capital cost approach to improving transit service between downtown Seattle and Tacoma via the Green and Puyallup River valleys. This alternative was analyzed in the 1993 Regional Transit System Plan EIS. The alternative emphasized expanded express bus service operating in extended HOV lanes on both I-5 and SR -167. Transit service within the corridor was proposed to be improved by implementing new all -day express bus routes connecting the communities in the corridor and by expanding local bus services within each community. The expansion of bus service was proposed to be supported by capital improvements such as: • Direct HOV access ramps to and from I-5 at Spokane Street and SR -516, and SR - 167; • Improved or new transit centers in Tukwila at Southcenter, Kent, Renton, Auburn and Sumner; • Park-and-ride capacity improvements including expansion of the Kent -Des Moines Road lot and two new lots located in North Renton and at the Sumner Transit Center; • Queue bypass lanes for buses to avoid long traffic queues at intersections near transit centers in Renton, Tukwila, Kent and Auburn; and • New and expanded maintenance facilities for larger Metro and Pierce Transit bus fleets, and other items like bus stop shelters and signs. _ The projected transit ridership of the HOV/Express Bus Alternative was 4,800 greater on an average weekday than the 2010 baseline condition. The reason for the increased patronage was the assumed increase in transit frequency of service and new route coverage. Alternatives Considered Page 4.0-1 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment This alternative was not selected as part of the Sound Move Plan. Reasons why the Express Bus/HOV Alternative was not selected include the following: the all -bus alternative would result in smaller ridership increases as compared to the commuter rail alternative due to slower operating speed, poor schedule reliability (due to roadway congestion), and capacity problems. Express Bus/HOV also would not support the adopted PSRC Vision 2020 Plan or the comprehensive plans of local jurisdictions in the Green and Puyallup River valleys as well as the commuter rail alternative. 4.2.2 Electrified Commuter Rail Alternative Electrification of commuter rail service between Tacoma and Seattle was considered in the environmental scoping process conducted in 1994. Electrifying the corridor would involve the construction of overhead electric lines along the length of the Tacoma -to -Seattle corridor, electric substations to supply the power, and the purchase of electrically -powered locomotives rather than the more common diesel-electric locomotives. The suggested benefits of this alternative were lower operating and maintenance costs, reduced use of energy and associated cost, lower noise levels, and lower air pollutant emissions as compared to diesel-electric motive power. It can be assumed that the projected ridership of the electrified commuter rail system would be the same as that for commuter rail using conventional diesel-electric locomotives. The reasons that the electrified commuter rail alternative was not retained for further analysis include the following: • The capital cost of electrification would be very high as compared to the proposed action, which would require relatively minor improvements to use the existing tracks. • The time required to engineer and construct the electrification improvements would be much longer than the proposed action, which is intended to be implemented by the year 2000 under the adopted Sound Move plan. • The overhead electrification would be problematic to implement because the Tacoma -to -Seattle tracks are used extensively for double -stack container cars. • Electrifying the Tacoma -to -Seattle line could be inconsistent with future planned commuter rail extensions to Lakewood and Everett, especially the latter, which may be even more difficult to implement due to construction in a shoreline environment. • The noise, air and energy analyses associated with the proposed action do not indicate significant environmental effects that would warrant the high capital investment associated with electrifying the Tacoma -to -Seattle railroad line at this time. Page 4.0-2 June 1998 Alternatives Considered Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Conversion to all -electric at some time in the future would depend on clarification of how electrification of the trackage could be engineered to accommodate both the commuter rail service, high priority container trains, and general rail freight traffic. 4.3 RAILROAD ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED BUT NOT SELECTED 4.3.1 Union Pacific (UP) Railroad Alternative The UP Railroad Alternative would have utilized primarily the tracks of the UP Railroad to operate commuter rail service between Tacoma and Seattle. BNSF tracks would have been used from King Street Station in downtown Seattle to Argo (Georgetown) and the UP tracks from Argo to Fife near Tacoma. From Fife the UP Alternative would have used the Tacoma Eastern Railroad to a southern terminus at Freighthouse Square, near the new Tacoma Dome Station. Capital improvements that would have been needed under the UP Alternative to provide for increased passenger train speeds are summarized below by track milepost. Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) would be installed throughout the corridor; new 2nd track would be installed for 29.35 miles and a 3rd track for 1.4 miles; the existing track would be resurfaced for 33.2 miles; curves would be realigned to allow higher speeds; and improved detection or other improvements would be made at 47 grade crossings. • King Street Station, Seattle to Georgetown (BNSF MP 0 to 3.4): Station sidings at King Street Station; replacement of No. 9 turnouts with No. 11 turnouts and improved signals; extended train detection circuits at Royal Brougham, Holgate, Lander, Horton and Spokane Streets; resurfacing of track; realignment of curves; addition of a third track 1.4 miles long north of Argo; and improve the Argo interlocking. • Georgetown to Tukwila, (UP MP 179.97 to 173): Military Road detection circuits would be extended; curves realigned; track resurfaced to Class 4; 2nd track added between MP 179.6 and 173.85; and Black River interlocking improved with No. 20 power operated turnouts and crossovers. • Tukwila to Kent (MP 173 to 166): Realign curves; resurface existing track to Class 4 between MP 171 and 167.5; add 2nd track from 172.8 to 166; upgrade crossing protection at 7 grade crossings. • Kent to Auburn (MP 166 to 160.8): Resurface track to Class 4; add gates for 2 street crossings and extend detection circuits for 6 street crossings; realign curves; add 2nd track from MP 166 to 162.7, and from MP 161.8 to 160.8. • Auburn to Puyallup (MP 160.8 to 154.3): Realign curve; upgrade track from MP 154.9 to 154.3; add gates for 3 street crossings; add 2nd track from MP 160.8 to 154.8. • Puyallup to Fife Yard (MP 154.3 to 147.3): Resurface track to Class 4; add gates for 14 street crossings; extend detection circuits for 15 street crossings; add 2nd track from MP 154.3 to 147.6. Alternatives Considered Page 4.0-3 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment • Fife Yard to Tacoma Dome Station (MP 147.3 to 145.4): Resurface track between MP 147.3 and 146.2; new 2nd track from MP 146.2 to 145.4; replace single track structures and trestles; provide layover and storage tracks west of the Tacoma Dome Station. The UP Alternative was not selected for several reasons, including the following: • The UP Alternative would require more extensive construction than the BNSF trackage, which is already a double -tracked main line, resulting in substantially higher capital cost and greater adverse environmental impacts. Negative impacts on wetlands and stream crossings especially would be much worse for the UP Alternative than the proposed action. • Communities in the Tacoma -to -Seattle commuter rail corridor expressed a preference for the BNSF station sites, because they provided better service to established urban centers. The UP Alternative would have depended on stations located in more suburban locations, that would be less convenient to pedestrian, bicycle, and feeder bus access, necessitating larger park-and-ride capacity for increased drive access. • WSDOT intercity rail passenger service was already focused on BNSF facilities, which currently carry Amtrak service, providing opportunities for joint development of track improvements within the corridor. • BNSF facilities would be used for proposed future extensions of commuter rail service to Lakewood and Everett. The logistics of providing that service would be simplified if the BNSF trackage is also used in the Tacoma -to -Seattle corridor. 4.4 COMMUTER RAIL ELEMENTS CONSIDERED BUT NOT SELECTED 4.4.1 Renton Spur Commuter Rail Service The Renton Spur Commuter Rail Service was considered previously (in 1994-1995) to evaluate its feasibility and potential environmental impacts in conjunction with both the BNSF and UP Alternatives. The proposed alternative would have included commuter rail service operating on 30 minute headways during peak hours and 60 minute headways during non -peak hours. The 3.6 mile long BNSF Renton spur line from Black River Junction (near north Tukwila) to north Renton would be used, with two station stops located in downtown and north Renton. The spur line would have operated independently from the main Tacoma -to -Seattle trunk of commuter rail service, with a transfer to the main line at the Tukwila station. In addition to the development of the two stations, 1.4 miles of new double track and a new bridge over the Black River would have to be constructed to accommodate the passenger rail service. The proposed downtown Renton station would have been located along Houser Way between Morris Avenue South and 4th Street, with bus loading at the intersection of 4th Street and Bennett Avenue South. The proposed north Renton station included a 500 stall surface parking lot, and was proposed to be located parallel to Houser Way and north of N. 8th Street. Page 4.0-4 June 1998 Alternatives Considered Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment The Renton Spur alternative was not selected for inclusion in the Sound Move plan primarily because the City of Renton and the RTA Board chose bus -based transit improvements instead of commuter rail service, including the development of a new downtown Renton transit center, reconfigured local and express bus transit services, and new HOV access ramps to I-405. 4.4.2 Maintenance Facility Location Alternatives The development of a new commuter rail maintenance facility was considered by previous planning efforts, although it is not a part of the proposed action. The purpose of such a facility would be to store, fuel, sand, wash and maintain locomotives, and to store, clean and maintain coaches and other equipment associated with operating the service. The maintenance needs would include light service, such as lubricating wheel boxes and work on air and braking systems, and heavy maintenance requiring service and inspection pits, elevated side platforms, a diesel exhaust system, overhead cranes and below floor lifting systems, a wheel truck shop, electronic shop, brake shop, welding and brazing equipment, wheel machining, pressing, boring and truing equipment, lubricating oil supply and drainage system, water supply and drainage system, compressed air system, a battery room, air conditioning shop, and diesel engine shop. The space required for this facility would be a parcel of land about 10-15 acres in size, rectangular or trapezoidal in shape, parallel to the railroad tracks, and about 2,800 feet long. The location would provide direct access to the main line of the operating railroad. The most efficient location would be convenient to downtown Seattle, where most trains will sit midday, or to either terminus to minimize deadhead travel requirements. Based upon the above needs and criteria, three alternative sites were considered for maintenance facility locations: 1) Auburn Yard, using portions of the BNSF Auburn Yard near MP 23, bounded by "A" and "C" Streets and 29th and 27th Streets; 2) Fife Yard, adjacent to the existing UP main line and yard; and 3) Tacoma Industrial Area, adjacent to the existing BNSF yard north of I-5 and west of the Puyallup River. Maintenance facilities were not included in the proposed action for the following reasons: • The full extent of the Puget Sound commuter rail system will not be known until the engineering design and environmental review are completed for the proposed extensions of commuter rail service from Tacoma to Lakewood in Pierce County, and from Seattle to Everett in Snohomish County. Those analyses are not scheduled to be completed until late 1998. • For Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail operations, existing maintenance providers have facilities usable for commuter rail maintenance without major modifications. The sites that were previously considered for a maintenance facility may be considered at some time in the future. For the initial Tacoma -to -Seattle commuter rail Alternatives Considered Page 4.0-5 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment service under the proposed action, maintenance activities will be contracted to Amtrak, BNSF, or another rail maintenance provider. 4.4.3 Alternative Station Locations Commuter rail stations were evaluated previously for several sites that are not included in the proposed action. Stations that were analyzed previously but were not selected for further analysis as part of the proposed action include stations along the UP Alternative, and three additional station locations along the BNSF main line. Two of the stations were at Spokane Street in Seattle and at Nielsen Farms in Tukwila. These stations were not included in the proposed action for a variety of reasons. These reasons include low ridership projections at these sites, access problems, poor location relative to the tracks, an inability to upgrade tracks, and incompatibility with future commuter rail service. A commuter rail station at Freighthouse Square in Tacoma was not included in this analysis because the configuration of the station is dependent on the design for connecting BNSF tracks to Tacoma -Eastern (T -E) tracks from the east as well as connecting from the T -E to BNSF again to continue west and south to Lakewood. This engineering will be completed as part of the design for the Tacoma -to -Lakewood extension. Spokane Street, Seattle - The Spokane Street Station was formerly (1994-1995) considered as a provisional site on the BNSF main line tracks. The rationale for the station location was to provide for an access point to commuter rail in the south downtown industrial area, and to provide for an intermodal transfer for bus/ferry riders from West Seattle via Spokane Street who might wish to travel via commuter rail either south to Tacoma or north to Everett. The station site is located adjacent to 2nd Avenue South and south of Spokane Street, at the rear of the Seattle City Light headquarters. It was not included in the proposed action because the projected ridership was too low to justify it, and bus access was problematic (because of conflicts from waterborne traffic, rail traffic and turning movement restrictions). Nielson Farm, Tukwila - The Nielsen Farm site was formerly (1994-1995) considered as a potential station site to serve commuter rail, park-and-ride, and electric light rail transit (LRT). The site is located north of I-405 at Grady Way, bounded by the Green River on the north, Interurban Avenue on the west, and the BNSF main line on the east. Approximately 800 parking spaces were assumed to be included on the site, with feeder bus access from Interurban Avenue and Grady Way. The site was used previously as a dairy farm and a commercial nursery, and it included a barn, recently destroyed by fire, that was of potential historic significance. The site is no longer under consideration because it is poorly located relative to the Page 4.0-6 June 1998 Alternatives Considered Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment alignment of the railroad tracks: The BNSF tracks adjacent to the site are in the middle of an outside curve, contributing to a poor/unsafe operating environment for a station. Also, the BNSF tracks are east of the UP tracks in that location so patrons would have to cross the UP tracks to get to the station platforms. 'The bus access to the site is difficult due to the congested traffic conditions at the intersection of Interurban Avenue, Grady Way and the adjacent I-405 ramps. In addition, a commercial development proposal is pending for the site, increasing the cost and difficulty of property acquisition. Freighthouse Square, Tacoma - The Freighthouse Square site was formerly (1994- 1995) considered as the only Tacoma Dome area station. It is located between East 25th and East 26th Streets, and between East "D" and "G" Streets. This location is immediately adjacent to the existing Freighthouse Square building. Underground pedestrian walkways were proposed to connect the commuter rail platforms to Pierce Transit's Tacoma Dome Intermodal Terminal, located on the north side of East 25th Street, across the street from Freighthouse Square. This site remains the proposed station for future service, but was not included in the proposed action for reasons including the following: • The track access to the station would be via the Tacoma Eastern Railroad, which could require upgrading of a steel bridge and a timber viaduct, both to the east of the station site, plus new track construction connecting the two railroads. • The necessary improvements could not be designed and environmental review completed in time to be included in the initial service start up. • The extension of service from Tacoma to Lakewood would likely use the Tacoma Eastern tracks that pass through the Freighthouse Square station area, so it is appropriate for the Lakewood extension study to also evaluate the station location. For these reasons, the existing Tacoma Amtrak station was included for initial commuter rail service startup as part of the proposed action. The Freighthouse Square station will be evaluated as part of the Tacoma to Lakewood extension. SW 43'd Street. The SW 43rd Street location was considered as an alternative to the Longacres station in Tukwila. Located about a mile south of Longacres, the SW 43'd Street site is undeveloped. It is no longer being considered, because Tukwila has recommended the Longacres station, because Amtrak has indicated that it will include a passenger station at Longacres, and because the SW 43rd Street location includes a wetland area that would be adversely affected by station development. Alternatives Considered Page 4.0-7 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 5.0 PUBLIC AND AGENCY COORDINATION 5.1 Prior Environmental Review In 1992 and 1993, a plan -level environmental review of the full Regional Transit System Plan was conducted under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). That analysis included programmatic review of Tacoma -to -Seattle commuter rail service, as well as extensions of commuter rail north to Everett and south to Lakewood. It also addressed light rail and regional express bus service alternatives. Public review of the system plan and the draft SEPA EIS concluded with publication of a Final SEPA EIS in March 1993. Subsequent project -level environmental analysis under SEPA and NEPA specific to the commuter rail project from Tacoma to Seattle was conducted in 1994 and 1995. This work was reactivated in the summer of 1997 and includes this EA. 5.2 Coordination During the EA Process Sound Transit has coordinated with federal, state, and local agencies during preparation of the Environmental Assessment. Meetings have been held with the Federal Transit Administration (the lead agency for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act), Federal Highway Administration, Washington State Department of Transportation, Washington Department of Ecology, and eight cities along the Tacoma -to -Seattle commuter rail project alignment. Consultation on air quality data and methodology took place with the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. Consultation and data collection with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (threatened and endangered species), Washington Department of Natural Resources (Natural Heritage Program's information system for significant natural features), and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (priority habitats and species) have been completed in compliance with Section 7 requirements. Additional consultation and meetings on project issues have been held with the Puyallup Tribe, the Washington State Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, WDFW, Ecology, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Public input has been solicited throughout the environmental review process as well. Community meetings were held in October, 1997, in Seattle, Tukwila, Kent, Auburn, Sumner, Puyallup, and Tacoma. These meetings provided an opportunity for the public to learn about the project and to offer input into project elements such as station location and layout. Following publication of a Draft Environmental Assessment in December 1997, another set of public meetings was held. These meetings were held in January 1998, in Seattle, Kent, and Puyallup. The public was invited to view elements of the proposed project and to comment on the draft EA document. Beyond the agency consultation process and the series of public meetings, Sound Transit invited comments from agencies, tribes, and the public during a written comment period it established on the Draft EA document. The Draft EA was sent to federal and state agencies, affected tribes, utilities, associations, libraries, the local media, local jurisdictions, transit agencies, counties, ports, and interested individuals. Twenty-eight letters were received from agencies, local communities, tribes, the Public and Agency Coordination Page 5.0-1 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment business community, and interested citizens. In addition, more than 50 comment forms distributed at the public meetings were received, both at the meetings and afterward. Table 5.1 includes a list of governmental agencies, affected tribes, and interested parties consulted. Table 5.1 Governmental Agencies, Affected Tribes and Interested Parties Consulted • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Amtrak • State of Washington - Department of Ecology • State of Washington - Department of Fish and Wildlife • State of Washington - Department of Natural Resources • State of Washington - Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation • State of Washington - Department of Transportation • Puyallup Tribe of Indians - Fisheries • King County • Port of Seattle • Port of Tacoma • Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency • Puget Sound Regional Council • City of Auburn • City of Kent • City of Renton • City of Seattle • City of Tukwila • Feet First - Pedestrian Advocacy Agency for Puget Sound Area • Kent Downtown Partnership • The Vestry, St. James Episcopal • WSHARP, George Benson • Kent A. Anderson • Mary Anderson • Penni Arave • Jack Becver and Mary Lou Becver • Briann • Carl Bowles • Gene A. Brooks • Mike Brutsche • James Coppo • Diane Cummings • Davis Wright Tremaine for McLeod Development Company • J. J. Dickinson • Charles Eberhardy • Larry Eilers • Michael A. Foronda • Ken Gilbert • Roger Allen Gilbert • Rose I. Gilbert • Alex Griffin • Kristi Hoover • Robert F. Kelly • Janet Larson • Sandra Marley • Will McCoy • Douglas McLean • Corey E. Nygard • John Nason, Architect • J. Randy Pollack • Don E. Rasmussen • Bob Russell • Linda Seaberg • Barbara Seal • Raymond R. Seal • Sharon Senn, The Collectable Cat • Don Shaffer • Jim Simpson • Debbie Stewart • Garry Stewart • Bonnie Jean Stucks • Audrine Templeton • Diane Thompson • Sherry Thompson, New Woman Books • Craig A. White • J.J. Wickinson Page 5.0-2 June 1998 Public and Agency Coordination Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Major issues and concerns have been incorporated, and corrections made, where appropriate in this Final EA. The issue areas addressed in written comments included the following: Clarification of Proposal: Several commentors requested additional project description detail, such as the number of new park and ride stalls, more details on station design, and additional information on transit centers and park and ride connections. The number of stalls proposed for each park and ride lot was indicated in Chapter 2 of the Draft EA, Description of the Proposal (Table 2.2). Station layouts provided in the EA represent only a conceptual level of design detail. Station designs will be refined during the community-based design process. That process has begun with the short -listing of qualified firms to prepare the designs; design work is expected to begin immediately after receipt of a FONSI. Sound Transit will work with the local community and a design firm to complete final plans for the layout and architectural features of each station. While these plans have not yet been developed, it should be noted that the design plans for stations will not include large or elaborate structures. The approved commuter rail budget includes funding for station platforms, canopies and weather protection, ticketing and schedule kiosks, parking, lighting, and landscaping. Parking structures or garages are not included in the Sound Transit budget. All station facilities, including platforms, parking and bus transfer areas will meet ADA requirement. For the Kent South and Auburn stations, where the local community has proposed that a parking garage be constructed instead of surface stalls, the potential impacts of such a structure have been discussed in the EA. Additional detail developed during the community-based design process is not expected to substantially alter the analysis and conclusions about station impacts included in the EA. Intergovernmental Coordination: Several issues related to intergovernmental coordination were raised in written comment letters. Concerns included coordination with existing and other proposed freight and passenger rail service; establishment of an intergovernmental planning process; joint use of transit facilities between agencies; and intermodal connections between commuter rail, proposed light rail, and bus service. Sound Transit recognizes the importance of ongoing coordination with agencies and local jurisdictions during final design, permitting, and operation, so that elements such as connections with existing transportation systems and ownership, operation, and maintenance responsibilities are addressed. While these details will be resolved prior to the start of commuter rail service, they are not expected to substantially change the analysis and conclusions about environmental impacts included in this EA. Memorandums of Agreement/Understanding between Sound Transit and King County, Pierce Transit, and Community Transit are in the Appendices to the EA. Station Design: Several commentors requested that additional information on station design such as proposed station structures, pedestrian facilities, auto access and drop - Public and Agency Coordination Page 5.0-3 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment off, and bus shelters be included in the EA. As noted above, these final details will be developed during the final design phase of the project. It is anticipated that final designs will be consistent with local design guidelines and community preferences. The selection of the design team, and the monitoring of the work as the design proceeds, will be by the local advisory committee. Parking Demand At Stations: Commentors requested additional information on how estimates for the numbers of train boardings at each station were developed, and how the resulting parking demand was calculated. Prior to the approval of financing for the Sound Move regional transit plan by voters in the three -county region in November 1996, an Expert Review Panel was appointed by the Governor. This panel of twelve national transportation experts evaluated and recommended assumptions to be used in developing credible and realistic forecasts for the transit program's ridership. Based on ridership forecasts and the anticipated mode split for commuters arriving at individual commuter rail stations, a parking demand estimate was developed for each station. Ridership and park and ride usage will be monitored as commuter rail service begins. The goal of Sound Transit is to establish a sufficient parking supply so that actual demand will be accommodated, with an ability to adjust as ridership builds. A common experience of commuter rail programs that have been implemented across the United States has been that insufficient parking constrains ridership and adversely impacts suburban downtowns with overflow commuter parking. For this reason, Sound Transit believes that an adequate parking supply, including the ability to expand the number of commuter park and ride spaces if necessary, is a critical element in the commuter rail program's success. Appropriate environmental review would be conducted before parking capacity is expanded. Motorized and Non -Motorized Access To/From Stations: Commentors expressed concern about the ease of motorized, pedestrian, and bicycle access to and from stations and the resulting impacts to adjacent land owners and businesses. Some of these issues will be addressed during the individual station design process discussed above. Sound Transit has been working with the local jurisdictions for several years now to identify appropriate locations for the stations, the park and ride lots, and access to the stations. Traffic Impacts at Stations: Several comments were received regarding potential traffic impacts at stations, including questions regarding how estimates of mode of access to and from stations was derived, and when and where mitigation would be provided. The discussion above concerning parking demand addresses the issue of ridership and mode split. The mitigation measures identified in this EA have been developed to address actual impacts of the commuter rail project. Sound Transit is engaged in discussions with each of the local jurisdictions to finalize mitigation measures, and has prepared a separate Mitigation Document that establishes the details of its commitment to mitigate project impacts. Sound Transit is a component of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan to provide additional transit capacity to the region. Its net effect on the regional transportation system is expected to be positive. Page 5.0-4 June 1998 Public and Agency Coordination Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Freight Mobility: Greater clarity on relationships between commuter rail and freight rail was requested in some written comments, including those submitted by the Port of Seattle and Tacoma. Sound Transit has been an active participant in meetings with the railroads and ports to address the need for freight mobility while providing capacity to allow for commuter rail service. Sound Transit is fully committed to continue these discussions to resolve details in a way that assures that the region's freight rail capacity is not compromised by new commuter rail service. As part of the ongoing coordination, BNSF and Sound Transit are preparing capacity analysis and modeling studies to assure that freight capacity is maintained. These studies will reflect the fact that improvements required to accommodate Sound Transit's commuter rail program will be available for freight rail use for the 18 hours per day during which commuter rail trains will not be operating. Continued coordination with ongoing programs for freight mobility, including the Freight Action Strategy for the Puget Sound Corridor (FAST Corridor), will address issues such as congestion at freight crossings and port access connections. New Third Track: Written comments expressed concern about the level of analysis conducted to evaluate potential impacts to sensitive resources in the vicinity of proposed new third track just east of Tacoma. As noted in the EA , the analysis conducted for the EA has been based on early engineering design of the track improvements. Field work and wetland reconnaissance by professional biologists during preparation of the EA identified the nature of worst-case impacts likely to result from new track construction in this area. Final design will occur in the near future, in conjunction with wetland mitigation design, and will be used for permit review and issuance. This sequence is appropriate, because the nature of project impacts can be identified at this time and because both NEPA and SEPA encourage environmental review and agency coordination early in the process. The permit review process will allow close coordination with the permitting agencies, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, affected Tribes, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Detailed design work and analysis of alternatives will help finalize the mitigation program, over which the permitting agencies retain jurisdiction. Location of Kent Station: Several comment letters, and numerous one-page comment forms, were received addressing the siting of the station in Kent. The Commuter Rail project includes one station to be located in downtown Kent. Two potential locations have been assessed in this document: (1) a north site, located between James and Smith Streets; and (2) a south site, located between Gowe and Willis Streets. The environmental consequences of locating a station at either location are summarized below and are discussed in more detail throughout the EA. In January 1998, the Kent City Council indicated its preference for the south site, and in February noted its intention to include the south site as the preferred station location in the Downtown Strategic Action Plan. Both the north and south sites, and Public and Agency Coordination Page 5.0-5 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment a variation of the south site that includes a parking garage rather than exclusively surface parking, are compared below according to several factors. Traffic Circulation. The north site allows more direct access to the East Hill area, and according to correspondence from King County Executive Ron Sims to Kent City Council President Leona Orr March 11, King County Metro supports a north site location for more efficient bus service. In addition, street closures would not be required for the north site. While the south site would require the permanent closure of the Titus Street crossing, traffic modeling of impacts at each site by a consultant to the City of Kent indicates little difference in terms of intersection level -of -service impacts. Acquisition and Relocation. If constructed with surface parking, the north site as illustrated in Figure 2-5 would require acquisition of approximately 8.95 acres, while the south site would require acquisition of about 7.83 acres. Because the south site has a larger number of parcels, more owners, less vacant property, a higher number of relocations, and more residential structures, the range of relocation costs for the south site is projected to be higher than for the north site. Acquisition and relocation for a south station that includes a parking garage (in place of surface parking for 500 stalls) would require acquisition of approximately one acre, and substantially fewer parcels. As discussed above, parking structures are not included in the approved Sound Transit budget. These comparisons are illustrated in Table 5.2 below: Table 5.2 Kent Station Land Requirements Station North South South/Garage Parking Type Surface Surface Surface Plus Structure `. Total.areivof parcels .. °t '•390;0611 s4. ft: 7:72„ 441= 61. ' At?, •_43 200:s 5 Number of parcels 23 36 Footprint -of extstiitg 70 95”,sq , . ?;::,•; 1177,8.19 sq ft : f 15,814. . ft n:r° P` Type of buildings 10% residential; 19% residential; 90% industrial 67% industrial service/ light service/ light manufacturing manufacturing 100% industrial/ service/light manufacturing Future Capital Improvement Planning. One letter noted the potential grade separation of both Smith and James Streets from the railroad trucks as a factor favoring the south site. While Sound Transit recognizes the need to coordinate capital facility planning in order to minimize taxpayer investments in infrastructure, a review of the available information indicates that grade separations of James and Smith Streets are very unlikely in the near future. For example, references to the grade separation projects in Page 5.0-6 June 1998 Public and Agency Coordination Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment the Kent Six Year Transportation Improvements Plan indicate that approximately 99 percent of the estimated $103 million cost would be financed by unidentified sources other than state and local funding. The FAST Corridor project, a joint undertaking of the cities, ports, railroads, and regional and state agencies in the corridor focusing on freight mobility, has similarly indicated a low priority for grade separation at Smith or James Streets. Neither grade separation is included in the FAST Corridor project's "high priority" or "moderate/high priority" categories. (Grade separating Willis Street both BNSF and UP tracks are included in the "moderate/high priority" category). Public and Agency Coordination Page 5.0-7 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 6.0 REFERENCE MATERIALS This chapter provides a summary listing of the numerous resources that were utilized during the preparation of this document. Those resources included technical reports and other documents obtained from local, regional, state and federal government entities, and from the various members of the project team. In addition, many key individuals provided valuable input throughout the process. The following sections list the supporting technical documents, source materials, and key contacts for this project. GENERAL RESOURCES Boateng Environmental Scientists. 1994. Surface Water Quality, Flooding, and Surface Water Drainage; Proposed South Rail Corridor. Boateng Environmental Scientists. 1994. Known and Potential Hazardous Waste Along BNRR and UPRR Corridors Between Seattle and Tacoma. Boateng Environmental Scientists. 1997. Review of Sternoff Property Environmental Documents. Prepared for Lloyd Skinner, Adolfson Associates, Inc. Seattle, Washington. Courtois & Associates. 1994. Regional Transit System South Corridor Commuter Rail Project: Draft Technical Report: Environmental Assessment, Historic Resources. David Evans and Associates. 1995. Seattle Intermodal Transportation Terminal: Final SEPA EIS/NEPA EA. Don Shimono Associates. 1994. Seattle to Tacoma Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Report: Parklands Report. Don Shimono Associates. 1994. Seattle to Tacoma Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Report: Visual Quality Report. Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1997. Ecosystems Technical Memorandum. Tacoma - to -Seattle Commuter Rail Project (plus attachments). Prepared for Adolfson Associates, Inc. and Regional Transit Authority. Seattle, Washington. Joint Regional Policy Committee (JRPC). 1993. Regional Transit System Plan SEPA Environmental Impact Statement. King and Pierce Counties, Washington; Federal Transit Administration; and Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority. 1994. Draft Supplemental Scoping Summary Report, EIS and EA for South Corridor Commuter. Larson Anthropological/Archaeological Services. 1997. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority South Corridor Commuter Rail Project Cultural Resource Overview. Prepared for Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority. Seattle, Washington. References June 1998 Page 6.0-1 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Larson Anthropological/Archaeological Services. 1998. Cultural Resource Assessments for Proposed BNSF Third Track and Proposed Longacres Station. Prepared for CPSRAT. Seattle, Washington. Metro reports on Tukwila Park -and -Ride. Tacoma Dome Park -and -Ride Lot EA. Metro, Pierce Transit, Community Transit, Everett Transit, SNO-TRAN, and Washington State Department of Transportation. 1993. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Regional Transit System Plan. NBBJ/Geise & Associates. 1994. Preliminary Draft: South Corridor Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment: Land Use. Parsons Brinckerhoff/ICF Kaiser Engineers. 1994. Regional Transit System Plan Refinement of Proposed South Corridor Alignments. Parsons Brinckerhoff/ICF Kaiser Engineers. 1994. Commuter Rail Capital Cost Evaluation (Draft). Parsons Brinckerhoff/ICF Kaiser Engineers. 1994. Draft Grade Crossing Impact Analysis for South Corridor Commuter Rail Service. Parsons Brinckerhoff/ICF Kaiser Engineers. 1994. Memorandum: Costs for Commuter Rail Passenger Stations. Parsons 13rinckerhoff/ICF Kaiser Engineers. 1994. Memorandum: Revised Commuter Rail System Operating Scenarios, O&M Costs and Fuel Consumption Estimates. Parsons 13rinckerhoff/ICF Kaiser Engineers. 1995. Regional Transit System South Corridor Commuter Rail Project Final Draft Detailed Definition of Alternatives Report. PDQ&D. 1994. Draft Methodology Report Station Area Traffic Impact Analysis. Regional Transit Authority and Federal Transit Administration. 1993. South Corridor Commuter Rail Project Scoping Information Report. Regional Transit Authority. 1994. Regional Transit System Master Plan. Regional Transit Authority. 1996. The Ten -Year Regional Transit System Plan and Appendices. Sound Transit. 1997. 1998 Budget for Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit). Washington State Department of Transportation. 1997. Public Review Draft: Intercity Passenger Rail Plan for Washington State. 1997 — 2020. Page 6.0-2 June 1998 References Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 6.1 LAND USE City of Auburn. 1995. City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan. City of Auburn, WA. City of Auburn. Downtown Auburn Design Master Plan. City of Auburn, WA. City of Kent. 1995. City of Kent Comprehensive Plan. City of Kent, WA. City of Kent. 1997. Downtown Kent Action Plan Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. City of Kent Planning Department, Kent, WA. City of Puyallup. 1994. City of Puyallup Comprehensive Plan. City of Puyallup, WA. City of Renton. 1994. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. City of Renton, WA. City of Seattle. 1994. Toward a Sustainable Seattle: A Plan for Managing Growth, 1994-2014. City of Seattle, WA. City of Seattle. 1995. Seattle Intermodal Transportation Terminal Final SEPA EIS/NEPA EA. City of Seattle Engineering Department, Seattle, WA. City of Sumner. 1994. Sumner Commuter Rail Station Planning Study. Prepared by Dennis Tate Associates, JHK & Associates, and T. Ellen Sollod. City of Sumner. 1996. Sumner Comprehensive Plan. City of Sumner, WA. City of Tacoma Planning and Development Services Dept. 1993. Land Use Management Plan. City of Tacoma, WA. City of Tukwila. 1995. City of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan. City of Tukwila, WA. City of Tukwila. 1996. City of Tukwila Zoning Code. City of Tukwila, WA. Huang, H. 1996. "The Land Use Impacts of Urban Rail Transit Systems." Journal of Planning and Literature: Vol. 11 (1) Sage Publications, Inc. Pierce County Planning and Land Services. 1994. Comprehensive Plan for Pierce County, Washington. Pierce County, Tacoma, WA. Pierce Transit Development Department and City of Tacoma Planning and Development Services Dept. 1995. Tacoma Dome Area Plan. Prepared by NBBJ Inc., Seattle, WA. Title 13, Tacoma Municipal Code. Tacoma Zoning Code. Title 15, Kent City Code. Zoning. Title 18, Auburn Municipal Code. Auburn Zoning Code. Title 18, Sumner Municipal Code. Sumner Zoning Code. References June 1998 Page 6.0-3 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Title 18, Tukwila Municipal Code. Tukwila Zoning Code. Title 20, Puyallup Municipal Code. Puyallup Zoning Code. Title 23, Seattle Municipal Code. Seattle Land Use and Zoning Code. Title 4, Renton Municipal Code. Zoning. 6.2 SOCIOECONOMICS Census of Population and Housing. 1992. 1990: Summary Tape File 3 on CD-ROM (machine- readable data files) prepared by the Bureau of the Census, Washington. The Bureau (producter and distributor). U.S. Census Bureau. 1990. 1990 Census Data, Standard Tape File Volume Three. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. 6.3 TRANSPORTATION City of Puyallup. 1994. City of Puyallup Comprehensive Plan. City of Puyallup, WA. City of Renton. 1995. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element. City of Renton, WA. David Evans and Associates . 1994. Seattle Intermodal Transportation Terminal Technical Appendix: Transportation Analysis. Prepared for Seattle Engineering Department and Federal Transit Administration. JHK & Associates . 1995. Final Report , City of Puyallup Commuter Rail Station Siting Study. Prepared for the City of Puyallup, WA. Parametrix, Inc. 1997. City of Puyallup Meridian Two -Way Conversion Analysis. Prepared for the City of Puyallup, WA. Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. 1994. Draft Methodology Report for Station Area Traffic Impacts Analysis. Prepared for Regional Transit Authority, Seattle, WA. Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. 1995. Draft Station Area Traffic Impact Analysis for the South Corridor Commuter Rail Reports. Prepared by for Regional Transit Authority, Seattle, WA. Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. 1995. Impact Analysis for South Corridor Commuter Rail Service Methodology. Prepared by for Regional Transit Authority, Seattle, WA. Strong Concepts. 1997. Signal 94, Signalized Intersection Analysis Software. Transportation Research Board. Updated 1994. Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209. Page 6.0-4 June 1998 References Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment 6.4 NOISE AND VIBRATION Federal Transit Administration. 1995. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Federal Transit Administration, Washington. D.C. 6.5 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997. Geographic Information Query System. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Underground Storage Tank (UST) List, Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) List, Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Site (CSCS) List. Washington Sate Department of Ecology,. 1989-1996. Northwest Regional offices. Stemoff Metals Property Files. 6.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES/ECOLOGY Cook, S. 1996. Wetland and Buffer Functions Semi -Quantitative Assessment Methodology, Draft Users Manual. Cooke Scientific Services. Seattle, Washington. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro). 1991. Metro Treatment Plant at Renton: Phase III Enlargement Final Environmental Impact Statement. Metro, Seattle, WA. Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1994. Preliminary Assessment of Ecosystems, Wetlands and Endangered Species. Regional Transit Authority South Corridor Commuter Rail Project. Reimold, R.J. 1994. Wetlands Functions and Values. Chapter 4 in Applied Wetlands Science and Technology. Donald Kent, ed. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. Reppert, R.T., W. Siglio, E. Stakhiv, L. Messman, and C. Meyers. 1979. Wetland Values - Concepts and Methods for Wetlands Evaluation. Research Report 70-R1, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia U.S. COE. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. USDA SCS. 1979. Soil Survey of Pierce County Area, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the Washington State Agricultural Experiment Station. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. USFWS. 1987. National wetland inventory map for South Seattle Washington quadrangle. 1:24,000. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. USFWS. 1988. National wetland inventory map for Renton, Washington quadrangle. 1:24,000. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. References June 1998 Page 6.0-5 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment USFWS. 1988a. National wetland inventory map. Puyallup quadrangle. 1:24,000. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. USFWS. 1988b. National wetland inventory map. Tacoma South quadrangle. 1:24,000. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. USGS. 1973. Topographic map. Puyallup quadrangle. 1:24,000. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. USGS. 1981. Topographic map. Tacoma South quadrangle. 1:24,000. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Watershed Dynamics. 1996. Wetland delineation map for Zelman Properties Company. Prepared by Watershed Dynamics and Barghausen Consulting Engineers. WDFW. 1994. Priority Habitats and Species and Natural Heritage wildlife data map for Renton, Washington quadrangle. Washington Department of Wildlife, Habitat Division, Olympia, WA. WDFW. 1994. Unpublished data from salmon spawning surveys and juvenile releases into Clear, Squally, and Swan Creeks by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. Williams, W.R., R.M. Laramie, and J.J. Ames. 1975. A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization. Volume 1: Puget Sound Region. Washington Department of Fisheries. 6.7 HISTORICAL RESOURCES Work on the project was initiated by contacting the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and appropriate staff of the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP). There was continuing coordination with OAHP throughout the study, especially with Gregory Griffith, Comprehensive Planning Specialist, and Sara Steel, Inventory Records Specialist. Coordination with the King County Historic Preservation Program was maintained through Charles Sundberg, Preservation Planner, and with the City of Seattle Office of Urban Conservation through Elizabeth Chave, Landmarks Preservation Board Coordinator. The City of Tacoma Historic Preservation Officer, Valerie Sivinski, provided information on historic properties in her jurisdiction. Lentz, Florence, K. 1990. Kent, Valley of Opportunity. Windsor Publications, Inc. Chatsworth, California. Price, Lori. 1990. Puyallup Centennial. Special Edition of the Pierce County Herald. Page 6.0-6 June 1998 References Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Reinartz, Kay Francis. 1991. Tukwila, Community at the Crossroads. The City of Tukwila, Washington. Soderberg, Lisa. 1980. Historic Bridges in Washington State. National Register of Historic Places. Inventory -Nomination Form; and Historic American Engineering Record Inventory Forms. Soderberg, Lisa. 1988. Hydroelectric Power Plants in Washington State, 1890-1938. National Register of Historic Places. Multiple Property Documentation Form. 6.8 ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Anderson Map Company. 1907. Plat Book of King County, Washington. Anderson Map Company, Seattle. Bagley, Clarence. 1929. History of King County, Washington, Volumes 1-4. S.J. Clarke Publishing Company, Chicago, Illinois. Bonney, William P. 1927. History of Pierce County, Washington. Pioneer Historical Society Publishing Company, Chicago, Illinois. Bortelson G.C., M.J. Chrzastowski, and A.K. Helgerson. 1980. Historical Changes Shoreline and Wetland at Duwamish River and Elliott Bay, Washington. Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA -617 (Sheet 7). Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey. Prepared for United States Department of Justice and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Bucknam, Robert C., Eileen Hemphill -Haley, and Estella B. Leopold. 1992. "Abrupt Uplift Within the Past 1,700 Years at Southern Puget Sound, Washington". Science 258:1611- 1614. Charles Metsker. 1936. Metsker's Atlas of King County. Seattle, Washington. Dalan, Rinita, Sandra Hunt, and Steve Wilke. 1981. Cultural Resource Overview and Reconnaissance: Green River Flood Damage Reduction Study. Geo -Recon International, Seattle. Submitted to the Seattle District, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Contract No. DACW67-81-C0150. Seattle, Washington. Deane, Louise. 1966. Archaeological Site Survey Record 45KI18. On file Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia, Washington. Dorpat, Paul. 1984. Seattle, Now and Then. Tartu Publications. Seattle, Washington. Dragovich, Joe D., Patrick T. Pringle, and Timothy J. Walsh. 1994. Extent and Geometry of the Mid -Holocene Osceola Mudflow in the Puget Lowland: Implications for Holocene Sedimentation and Paleography. Washington Geology 22(3):3-26. Dunne, Thomas and William E. Dietrich. 1979. Technical Appendix A: Geology and Hydrology of the Green River. In River of Green, edited by Jones and Jones, Seattle, pp. References Page 6.0-7 June 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment A -1--A-33. Jones and Jones, Seattle for the King County Division of Planning, Department of Planning and Community Development. Seattle, Washington. Earth Technology Corporation. 1984. Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel Project. Submitted to Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Seattle. On file at State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia, Washington. Elmore, Stephen H. 1980. Archaeological Test Coring at the proposed Tukwila Development Site. Letter Report from Office of Public Archaeology, University of Washington, Seattle, to Harley Jansen, Tecton Company, Lafayette, California, 21 April. Forsman, Leonard A. and Lynn L. Larson. 1997. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, South Corridor (Tacoma -to -Seattle) Commuter Rail Project, Cultural Resource Overview. LAAS Technical Report #97-18. Larson Anthropological/ Archaeological Services, Seattle. Submitted to Adolfson Associates, Incorporated for Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, Seattle. Forsman, Leonard A., Paul S. Solimano, and Lynn L. Larson. 1994. Seattle -Tacoma Commuter Rail Project Cultural Resource Overview. LAAS Technical Report #94-4. Larson Anthropological/Archaeological Services, Seattle. Submitted to BRW, Inc., Seattle for the Regional Transit Authority, Seattle. General Land Office. 1864. General Land Office Map, Township 20N, Range 4E, Willamette Meridian. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington. Geographic Names Used by Indians of Puget Sound. 1922. Geographical Review 12:175-194. Haeberlin, Hermann and Erna Gunther. 1930. "The Indians of Puget Sound". University of Washington Publications in Anthropology 4(1):1-83. Hart Crowser, Incorporated. 1987. City of Tacoma, Water Division, Pipeline No. 5 Construction Report, Historic and Cultural Resources. Tacoma Water Division, City of Tacoma, Tacoma. Submitted to King County Building and Land Development Division, Seattle. On file State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Hart Crowser, Incorporated. 1990. City of Tacoma, Water Division, Pipeline No. 5 Construction Report, Historic and Cultural Resources. Hart Crowser, Incorporated, Seattle. Submitted to King County Building and Land Development Division, Seattle by the City of Tacoma. James, Charles D. III. 1992. Archaeological Survey of the Muckleshoot-Miles Sand and Gravel Settlement Area, City of Auburn, King County, Washington. Project No. P l OT 109A01- 1992, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Portland, Oregon. Jermann, Jerry. 1974. SW 43rd Street/S 180th Street Project Archaeological Survey. Letter Report to Llewellyn Mathews, Wilsey and Ham, Tukwila, Washington, 25 November. Page 6.0-8 June 1998 References Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Office of Public Archaeology, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Washington, Seattle. On file at the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Jones and Stokes Associates, Incorporated. 1992. Draft Technical Report: Cultural Resources, The Boeing Company, Longacres Office Park, Renton, Washington. Submitted to City of Renton, Renton, Washington. Northwest Archaeological Associates, Incorporated. Seattle, Washington. Kennedy, Hal. 1985. Renton Effluent Transfer System Construction Contract Report ETS- 4A/4B, 6, 7, 8A/8B, 9,10. Blukis Onat Applied Sciences, Incorporated, Seattle. Submitted to URS Engineers, Contract CW/F2-82. Kirk, Ruth and Carmela Alexander. 1990. Exploring Washington's Past: A Road Guide to History. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Lane, Barbara. 1983. The Duwamish Indians and the Muckleshoot and Port Madison Indian Reservations. Report prepared for the Muckleshoot Tribe, Auburn, Washington and the Suquamish Tribe, Suquamish, Washington. Larson, Lynn L. 1985. A Cultural Resource Assessment of Road Improvements, Puyallup Indian Reservation, King County, Washington. Office of Public Archaeology, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Washington, Seattle. Submitted to the United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Puget Sound Agency, Everett, Washington. Larson, Lynn L. 1986. Report on Archaeological Testing on the Muckleshoot and Puyallup Reservations. Reconnaissance Report No. 47. Office of Public Archaeology, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Washington, Seattle. Prepared for the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Puget Sound Agency, Everett, Washington. Larson, Lynn L. 1993. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Traditional Shellfish Use Report and Direct Testimony. Report prepared for the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Auburn, Washington. On file at Larson Anthropological/Archaeological Services. Seattle, Washington. Larson, Lynn L. and Dennis E. Lewarch. 1989. Cultural Resource Assessment of Proposed SR 509 East/West Corridor, 1-705 to East 11th Street and Marine View Drive Discipline Report. LAAS Technical Report #89-3, Larson Anthropological/Archaeological Services. Seattle, Washington. Larson, Lynn L., David M. Grant, and Leonard A. Forsman. 1994. Mill Creek Drainage Basin Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) Cultural Resource Overview Draft Final Report. Prepared for United States Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle. LAAS Technical Report 94-2, Larson Anthropological/Archaeological Services. Seattle, Washington. References June 1998 Page 6.0-9 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Larson, Lynn L., Dennis E. Lewarch, Leonard Forsman and Paul Solimano. 1992a Seattle City Light Combustion Turbine Project Cultural Resources Assessment. LAAS Technical Report #92-12, Larson Anthropological/Archaeological Services. Seattle, Washington. Larson, Lynn L., Leonard Forsman, and Paula G. Johnson. 1992b. Cultural Resource Assessment and Monitoring, Tacoma Diversity Fiber Optic Route, Pierce County, Washington. LAAS Technical Report #92-11, Larson Anthropological/ Archaeological Services. Seattle, Washington. Lentz, Florence. 1990. Kent, Valley of Opportunity. Windsor Publications. Chatsworth, California. Letter Report Auburn, King County. 1983b. An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Three Proposed Alternatives for SR 164: R St. Vicinity to 32nd St. S.E. Vicinity. Office of Public Archaeology. University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. Letter Report to Richard C. Houghton, City of Renton, 1983a. Archaeological Monitoring of the SW 43rd Street (South 180th Street) Construction Project.. Office of Public Archaeology, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Washington, Seattle. On file at the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia, _. Washington. Letter Report. 1983c. Archaeological Augering at SR 705: Tacoma Spur, Pierce County, Washington (L-6385). On file State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia, Washington. Lewarch, Dennis E., Lynn L. Larson, Leonard A. Forsman, Guy F. Moura, Eric W. Bangs, and Paula Mohr Johnson, (Larson Anthropological/Archaeological Services). 1996. King County Metro Alki Transfer/CSO Project Allentown Site (45K1431) and White Lake Site (45K1438 and 45K1438A) Data Recovery. Draft Report. LAAS Technical Report #95-8., Seattle. Submitted to HDR Engineering, Bellevue, Washington and King County Department of Metropolitan Service$. Seattle, Washington. Metsker, Charles. 1926. Metsker's Atlas of King County. Seattle, Washington. Morgan, Murray. 1979. Puget's Sound, A Narrative of Early Tacoma and the Southern Sound. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Mullineaux, Donal. 1970. Geology of the Renton, Auburn, and Black Diamond Quadrangles, King County, Washington. U. S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 672. Munsell, David. 1981. Cultural Resources Site Survey Record, 45PI47. On file State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Palmer, Stephen P. 1992. Preliminary Maps of Liquefaction Susceptibility for the Renton and Auburn 7.5' Quadrangles, Washington. Washington Division of Geology and Earth Page 6.0-10 June 1998 References Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Resources, Open File Report 92-7, July 1992. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia. Pierce County Planning and Natural Resource Management, ca. 1988. Pierce County Historic Properties. Pierce County Planning and Natural Resource Management. Tacoma, Washington. Reese, Gary Fuller. 1989. Origins of Pierce County Place Names. R & M Press, Tacoma. Reinartz, Kay F. 1991. Tukwila, Community at the Crossroads. City of Tukwila. Tukwila, Washington. Robinson, Joan. 1982a. SR 5: Fife Vicinity Park and Ride. Cultural resource reconnaissance report on file at the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Robinson, Joan. 1982b. A Cultural Resource Reconnaissance of SR 705: SR 5 to E. 26th Street Ramp, Pierce County, Washington. Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia. On at the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Robinson, Joan. 1983. Archaeological Monitoring of the SW 43rd Street (South 180th Street) Construction Project. Letter Report to Richard C. Houghton, City of Renton, 18 May. Office of Public Archaeology, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Washington, Seattle. On file at the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Robinson, Joan. 1982.1-90 Seattle Access Study: Sites of Recreational, Cultural, Historic, and Archaeological Significance. Letter Report on file at the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia, Washington. Ruby, Robert H. and John A. Brown. 1992. A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Ryan, Amy M. 1988. The Sumner Story. Heritage Quest Press. Orting, Washington. Sanborn and Perris Map Company. 1890. Insurance Maps of Sumner, Washington. Sanborn - Perris Map Co. Ltd. New York, New York. Sanborn Map Company. 1888. Insurance Maps of Seattle, Washington. Sanborn Map Company. New York, New York. Sanborn Map Company. 1912. Insurance Maps of Tacoma, Washington. New York, New York. Seattle Genealogical Society. 1980. Washington Territory Donation Land Claims. Seattle Genealogical Society, Seattle. Skinner, Lloyd. 1998. Adolfson and Associates, personal communication, March 3. References June 1998 Page 6.0-11 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Skolnik, Arthur M. and David W. Heiser. 1975. Draft EIS -SW 43rd (South 180th) Street, East Valley Road to West Valley Road Proposed Joint Project by the Cities of Renton and Kent. Letter from Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, Olympia, to Warren C. Gonnason, City of Renton, 13 November. On file at Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Smith, Harlan. 1907. Archaeology of the Gulf of Georgia and Puget Sound. American Museum of Natural History Memoirs, Vol. 4, Part 6, pp. 301-441. Smith, Marian W. 1940. The Puyallup-Nisqually. Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology, Volume 32. Columbia University Press, New York. Solimano, Paul S. and Lynn L. Larson. 1995. Addendum to the Seattle -Tacoma Commuter Rail Project Cultural Resource Assessment for the Auburn BN Yard, BN Tacoma Main Yard, and Fife UP Yard. Letter report from Larson Anthropological/Archaeological Services to Kris Liljeblad, BRW, Incorporated. Seattle, Washington. Solimano, Paul S., Lynn L. Larson and Dennis E. Lewarch. 1993. Cultural Resource Testing 45KI432 Alki Transfer/CSO Project West Seattle Pump Station, King County, Washington. LAAS Technical Report #93-7, Larson Anthropological/Archaeological Services. Seattle, Washington. The Coast. 1909. "Orillia, Washington". The Coast, January, 27:1:397. Thomas, Robert. 1978. Archaeological Monitoring of Soil Borings at the Puyallup Sewage Treatment Facility. Letter Report from the Office of Public Archaeology, University of Washington, Seattle to James S. Dowe, Gray and Osborne, Seattle, 20 July. Thompson, Gail. 1997. Archaeological Monitoring Plan for Construction of the Costco Wholesale Underground Gasoline Storage Tanks, Tukwila, Washington. Historical Research Associates, Seattle. HRA# 569CIS. Submitted to Costco Wholesale, c/o Mulvanny Partnership Architects, Bellevue, Washington. United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1907. Duwamish-Puyallup Surveys, Sheet 6, Black River Junction. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle. United States Geological Survey. 1894-1895. Tacoma Quadrangle. United States Geological Survey, Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. United States Geological Survey. 1994. Tacoma South Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series. United States Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado. United States Geological Survey. 1981. Puyallup Quadrangle, Washington -Pierce County. United States Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior. Reston, Virginia. Page 6.0-12 June 1998 References Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment United States Surveyor General. 1873a. General Land Office Survey Map, Puyallup Indian Reservation, Township 20 and 21 North, Range 3 and 4 East, Willamette Meridian. On file at the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia. United States Surveyor General. 1873b. General Land Office Survey Notes, Puyallup Indian Reservation, Township 20 and 21 North, Range 3 and 4 East, Willamette Meridian. On file at the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia. United States Surveyor General. 1861. General Land Office Map, Township 24 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, Washington. Vine, Josephine Emmons. 1990. Auburn, A Look down Main Street. The City of Auburn. Auburn, Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 1862. General Land Office Map, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian. Olympia, Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 1863. General Land Office Map, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian. Olympia, Washington. Waterman, T.T. ca. Puget Sound Geography. Unpublished manuscript on file Pacific Northwest . 1920. Collection, Allen Library, University of Washington, Seattle. Waterman, T.T. ca. Puget Sound Geography. Ms. on file, Pacific Northwest Collection. Allen Library, University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. Watt, Roberta Frye. 1931. Four Wagons West: The Story of Seattle. Binfords and Mort. Seattle, Washington. Wickersham, James. 1900. "Some Relics of the Stone Age from Puget Sound". The American Antiquarian 22:141-149. Wilson, Marshall. 1964. "Postmark of Orillia to Vanish June 5". Seattle Times, 27 May, Page 6. Wissel, Jayne. 1978. Orillia Historic District. King County Historic Sites Survey Inventory Sheet, File No. 0244. King County Historic Sites Survey, Seattle. On file at the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia, Washington. 6.9 VISUAL QUALITY City of Auburn. 1990. Downtown Auburn Design Master Plan. Auburn, Washington. City of Kent. 1992. Downtown Design Review Handbook. City of Kent Planning Department. Kent, Washington. References June 1998 Page 6.0-13 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment City of Kent. 1997. Downtown Kent Action Plan Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. City of Kent Planning Department. Kent, Washington. City of Tacoma and Pierce Transit. 1994. Tacoma Dome Area Plan, A Land use Management Plan Element. Tacoma, Washington City of Sumner. 1994. Sumner Commuter Rail Station Planning Study. City of Sumner Planning Department. Sumner, Washington. 6.10 SAFETY/SECURITY Parsons Brinckerhoff/ICF Kaiser Engineers. 1994. Final Grade Crossing Imapct Analysis for suth Corridors Commuter Rail Services. 6.11 AIR QUALITY Booz -Allen & Hamilton, Inc. 1991. Locomotive Emission Study. Booz -Allen & Hamilton, Inc. Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. 1993. 1993 Annual Report. Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, Seattle, WA. Southwest Research Institute. 1992. Exhaust Emissions from Two Intercity Passenger Rail Locomotives. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway Intersections. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Procedures for Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 6.12 WATER QUALITY/HYDROLOGY Brenner, Bob. King County Department of Metropolitan Services (METRO). Ebbert, J.C., G.C. Bortleson, L.A. Fuste', and E. A. Prych. 1987. Water Quality in the Lower Puyallup River Valley and Adjacent Uplands, Pierce County, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report 86-4154. Tacoma, Washington. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1987. Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), King County, Washington. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1989. Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). Pierce County, Washington. Hanowell, Ray. Pierce County Environmental Health. Pierce County, Washington. Hopkins, Brad. Department of Ecology. Southwest Regional Office. Page 6.0-14 June 1998 References Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment Kibbey, Heather. Pierce County Surface Water Management, Pierce County, Washington. King County Department of Metropolitan Services. 1994. Water Quality of Small Lakes and Streams Western King County 1990-1993. Water Resources Section for Water Control Department, King County Department of Metropolitan Services, Seattle, Washington. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. 1990. Quality of Local Lakes and Streams 1988-1989 Status Report prepared by Water Resources Section. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Washington. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. 1990. Seattle. 1990. Quality of Local Lakes and Streams 1989-1990. Update prepared by Water Resources Section Water Pollution Control Department. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1993. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33: Navigation and Navigable Waterways, Part 200 to End. Office of Federal Register. Washington, D.C. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1992. Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin (the Technical Manual). 6.13 EARTH Livingston, Vaughn E., Jr. 1971. Geology and Mineral Resources of King County Washington. State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, Washington. Mullineaux, Donald Ray, 1965. Geologic Map of the Auburn quadrangle, King and Pierce Counties, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1973. Soil Survey of King County. King County, Washington. Walsh, Timothy J. 19$7. Geologic Map of the South One Half of the Tacoma quadrangle. Tacoma, Washington. References June 1998 Page 6.0-15 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY OF TERMS ACHP: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act ADT: Average Daily Traffic AWDT: Average weekday traffic BACT: Best Available Control Technology BNSF: Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railway CEQ: Federal Council on Environmental Quality CFR: Code of Federal Regulations CO: Carbon monoxide COE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CTC: Centralized Traffic Control CTR: Commute Trip Reduction Legislation CZMA: Coastal Zone Management Act dBA: decibels DNR: Department of Natural Resources DOI: Federal Department of the Interior ECOLOGY - Washington State Department of Ecology EIS: Environmental Impact Statement EO: Executive Order EPA: Federal Environmental Protection Agency FHWA: Federal Highway Administration FONSI: Finding of No Significant Impact FTA:Federal Transit Administration GMA: Growth Management Act Acronyms and Glossary of Terms Page 1 June 3, 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment HC: Hydrocarbons HOV: High -occupancy Vehicle ISTEA: Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act ITE: Institute of Transportation Engineers LAG: Logal Agency Guidelines LOS: Level of service LRT: Light rail transit MOA: Memorandum of Agreement MSA and CMSA: Metropolitan Statistical Area MTP: Metropolitan Transportation Plan NAAQS: National Ambient Air Quality Standards NACHP: National Advisory Council for Historic Preservation NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act; see also SEPA NOx: Oxides of Nitrogen NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 03: Ozone OAHP: Office of Archaeological and Historic Preservation P&R: Park and Ride Lot PM: Particulate Matter PSAPCA: Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency PSRC: Puget Sound Regional Council RCW: Revised Code of Washington ROW: Right -of -Way RR: Railroad, Railway RTPO: Regional Transportation Planning Organization Page 2 June 3, 1998 Acronyms and Glossary of Terms Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment SEPA: State Environmental Policy Act SHPO: Washington State Historical Preservation Officer SIP: State Implementation Plan SMS: Safety Management System SMSA: Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area SOV: Single Occupancy Vehicle TDM: Transportation Demand Management TIP: Transportation Improvement Program TSM: Transportation System Management USDOT: United States Department of Transportation USFWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VMT: Vehicle miles traveled WAC: Washington Administrative Code WDFW: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WSDOT: Washington State Department of Transportation WUTC: Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Acronyms and Glossary of Terms Page 3 June 3, 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment GLOSSARY OF TERMS ADA: The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which mandates changes in building codes, transportation, and hiring practices to prevent discrimination against persons with disabilities. ANADROMOUS FISH: Fish that ascend rivers from the sea at certain seasons for breeding (e.g., salmon). ARTERIAL ROADWAY: A roadway with partial control of access, with some at -grade intersections, intended to move high volumes of traffic over longer distances and higher speeds than secondary roadways. AT -GRADE: On the ground surface, or on the surface level at which significant pedestrian and vehicular traffic occurs. AVERAGE RIDE TIME: Average riding time spent by passengers during one trip. AVERAGE SPEED: The average velocity of a vehicle from stop or station to the next stop or station, beginning with door opening and ending with door opening. AVERAGE WAIT TIME: Average time spent by passengers in the station (or stop) in waiting for transit service. BELOW -GRADE: Placed below the ground surface, as with a subway. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE (BMP): A method, activity, or procedure for reducing the amount of pollution entering a water body. BOARDING TRIPS: Number of trips boarding (entering) transit vehicles, regardless of whether the trip involves a transfer from another transit vehicle. Depending on whether a transfer is used, a fare may or may not be collected for each boarding trip. CAAA: The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 identify "mobile sources" (vehicles) as primary sources of pollution and call for stringent new requirements in metropolitan areas and states where attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) is or could be a problem. CAPITAL COSTS: Non-recurring costs required to construct transit systems, including costs of right-of-way, facilities, vehicle power distribution, associated administrative and design costs, and financing charges during construction. CFR: The codified administrative regulations of the federal government. CITY/COUNTY, LOCAL AGENCY, OR AGENCY: Any municipal corporation within the state of Washington. CLASS I PROJECTS: Those projects likely to have a significant impact and requiring an EIS. Page 4 June 3, 1998 Acronyms and Glossary of Terms Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment CLASS II PROJECTS: Those projects with no significant impact and excluded from environmental documentation requirements. CLASS III PROJECTS: Those projects in which the significance of impacts is not established. Such projects require an EA to evaluate the extent of the project impacts. CMS: Congestion Management Systems require large metropolitan areas (200,000 population or more) and states to develop management plans which make new and existing transportation facilities more effective through the use of travel demand management and operational mangement strategies. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT: Applicants for federal permits or licenses must certify that their project will comply with the State Coastal Zone Management Program (Shoreline Management Act—RCW 90.58—applies to projects within 61 m (200 feet) of a shoreline). COLLECTOR STREETS: Streets upon which traffic in a particular neighborhood flows to exit or enter the neighborhood. CTR: The Commute Trip Reduction legislation, which requires major employers in the eight most populated counties in the state to take measures to reduce the number of single occupant vehicle (SOV) trips and the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by their employees. dBA: Abbreviation for decibels of sound pressure as read on the "A" scale. DEADHEAD TIME: The time when vehicles are traveling without passengers to the beginning or from the end of a service route. DETERMINATION OF VALUE: The agency's approved fair market value of a right of way acquisition. DISTRIBUTION: The process of letting passengers off at a number of different locations. EA: Environmental Assessment, a document prepared for federally funded, permitted, or licensed projects, that are not categorical exclusions (CE) but do not appear to be of sufficient magnitude to require an EIS. The EA provides sufficient analysis and documentation to determine if a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) can be adopted or if an EIS must be prepared. EIS: Environmental Impact Statement, a detailed written statement of project environmental effects required by state and/or federal law. This term refers to either a Draft or Final Environmental Impact Statement, or both, depending on context. EMISSION CONTROL: Method by which emissions are governed in an effort to minimize the amount of pollutants and/or the noise emitted. EMISSIONS: Particulate, gaseous, noise, or electromagnetic by-products of the transit system or vehicle. Acronyms and Glossary of Terms Page 5 June 3, 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment END TERMINAL: A transit station located at the end of a transit line. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: A term used for any document that identifies the social, economic, and environmental effects of a proposed action. EXCLUSIVE GUIDEWAY (DEDICATED): A guideway or roadway to be used only for transit vehicles. It is usually completely grade -separated from other types of vehicles. EXPRESS SERVICE: Transit service where a very limited number of stops are made en route. FARE STRUCTURE: The methodology of determining the fare that a passenger pays for service. FEEDER SERVICE: Local transit service that feeds some other (usually faster and higher capacity) transit service. FINAL DESIGN: The final phase of a project's design process. During final design, contract plans and specifications necessary for bidding are prepared. These contract documents provide all the necessary information needed by suppliers and contractors to construct the facility. FINAL ESTIMATE: An estimate of the total cost of a project prepared after completion of the construction contract and used as the basis for final payment to the contractor. FISCAL YEAR: (FY.For the Federal Government): October 1 to September 30; used for accounting purposes and further divided into three-month quarters. FLOOD HAZARD: Construction affecting a flood -control zone, through flooding, erosion, or deposition of materials. FREQUENCY, VEHICLE: Rate of vehicle arrivals at a station or stop along a transit line (e.g., six per hour). Rate of vehicle arrivals at a station or stop along a transit line (e.g., six per hour). FTA: Federal Transit Administration (formerly the Urban Mass Transit Administration, UMTA). GRADE -SEPARATED: Crossing lines of traffic are vertically separated from each other. GRADE: The degrees of incline or decline from horizontal; the amount of steepness of a particular portion of an alignment. Usually measured in percent. GROUNDWATER INFILTRATION: Infiltration that enters the sewerage system through pipe defects located below the normal groundwater table. GUIDEWAY: Specifically designed path for transit vehicles. It usually contains the vehicles by providing vertical support and lateral guidance. Railroad track and ballast are used as guideways for rail vehicles. Page 6 June 3, 1998 Acronyms and Glossary of Terms Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment HEADWAY: The time interval between identical points on successive vehicles passing the same point along the way (e.g., 10 -minute headways). The frequency of service on a particular route or line. HOV LANE: A lane of a highway or street specifically designated for buses or HOV vehicles. HOV: High Occupancy Vehicle. A car, van, or bus used to carry more than one person per trip. Cars or vans are considered HOV's if they are being used by a carpool. HYDROLOGY: The science dealing with the properties, distribution and circulation of water. The term usually refers to the flow of water on or below the land surface before reaching a stream or man-made structure. INFILTRATION: The penetration of water from the land surface into the soil, or the penetration of water from the soil into a sewer system by such means as defective pipes, pipe joints or connections, or manhole walls. INTERCHANGE: The system of interconnecting ramps between two or more intersecting roadways or guideways that are grade -separated. ISTEA: Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. LEAD AGENCY: A federal, state, or local agency taking primary responsibility for preparing an environmental document. LEQ: Energy equivalent hour. Used in averaging noise levels over an hour or other time period. LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS): A measure of traffic flow that ranges from a letter designation of "A" through "F". "A" denotes free-flowing traffic conditions with no delays, "F" denotes substantial traffic congestion with excessive delays. LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT (LRT): Transit mode characterized by an overhead electric power source, and by its ability to operate in both an at -grade and/or a grade -separated environment. LINE MILE: Unduplicated miles of rail line, regardless of the number of tracks. LINK: A representative portion of a transportation network which joins two modes. LINKED TRIPS: Total passenger trips excluding transfers. The number of linked trips is always less than or equal to the number of unlinked trips is always less than or equal to the number of unlinked (boarding) trips. LIQUEFACTION: A temporary transformation of moist soils. into a fluid mass usually caused by earthquakes. LOCAL AGENCY AGREEMENT: An agreement to allocate federal funds to a transportation project. Negotiated between a local agency and WSDOT. Acronyms and Glossary of Terms Page 7 June 3, 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment LOCAL AGENCY, CITY/COUNTY, OR AGENCY: Any municipal corporation within the state of Washington. LOCAL MATCH: That portion of a project's cost paid for with local agency funds. LOCAL SERVICE: A type of operation involving frequent stop and consequent low speeds, in order to pick up and deliver transit passengers as close to their origins or destinations as possible. MODAL SPLIT: The proportioning of trips between travel modes, such as the proportion of automobile versus transit trips. MODE: A particular form or method of travel distinguished by vehicle type, operation technology, and right-of-way separation from other traffic. MODEL: Transportation models are computerized procedures for predicting changes in travel patterns in response to changes in development patterns, transportation systems, and demographics given certain assumptions about travel behavior based on existing conditions. NAAQS: National Ambient Air Quality Standards were set by the Environmental Protection Agency to define air pollution. EPS established NAAQS measures for six pollutants: carbon monoxide, ozone, particulate matter, lead, sulfur dioxide, and nitrous oxide. NETWORK: A system of real or hypothetical interconnecting lines within a transportation model that form the configuration of transit routes and stops constituting a total transportation system. NORMAL PASSENGER LOAD: Typically one standing rider for each seated rider. This is about 2.4 square feet of gross floor area per passenger. OFF-PEAK: Those periods of the day where demand for transit service is not at a maximum. ONE-WAY VOLUME: The number of vehicles or passengers traveling in a single direction on a rail alignment or roadway. OPERATING COSTS: Recurring costs of operating transit systems. These costs include wages and salaries, maintenance of facilities and equipment, fuel, supplies, employee benefits, insurance, taxes, and other administrative costs. The amortization of facilities and equipment is not included. , OPERATING REVENUE: The gross income from the operation of the transit system, including fares, charter income, concessions, advertising, etc. Does not include interest from securities, non-recurring income from sale of capital assets, and so forth. PARK-AND-RIDE (P&R) LOT: The transfer point of an intermodal trip where the driver of an automobile parks the automobile and changes to either bus or rail transit. PATRONAGE (RIDERS): The number of person -trips carried by a transit system during a specified period. Page 8 June 3, 1998 Acronyms and Glossary of Terms Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment PEAK HOUR: The hour of the day in which the maximum demand for service is experienced. PEAK PERIOD: A specified period for which the volume of traffic is greater than that during any other similar period (i.e., peak hour, peak five minutes, etc.). PERSON -TRIP: A trip made by a person by any travel mode. PRE -DESIGN: The initial phase of a project's design process. The results of this initial phase are generally limited to determination of the alignment, layout and technology for the project. PROXIMITY DAMAGES: An element of severance damages caused by the proximity of the remainder of a land parcel to the improvement being constructed, such as a highway. It may also arise from proximity to an objectionable site or improvement, or from all causes such as dirt, noise, or vibration. RIGHT-OF-WAY: The horizontal and vertical space occupied by an alignment, which a transit authority has control over, either through outright ownership. Lease agreement, or an easement. ROUTE MILES: The length of an LRT alignment or bus route measured in miles between its end points. SECONDARY ROADWAYS: Streets on which traffic flows to pass from one neighborhood to another. SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION: A document presenting the consideration, consultations, mitigative measures, and alternatives studied for the use of properties identified in Section 4(F) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act as amended (49 USC 1653H). SECTION 4(F) LANDS: Generally, public parks, recreation areas, wildlife refuges, and historic sites. SEVERANCE DAMAGES: The reduction of the market value of a remaining area because of a partial acquisition of property or property rights (damage to the remainder). See also proximity damages. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT: See Coastal Zone Management. SOCIALLY AND ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED INDIVIDUALS: Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian -Pacific Americans, Asian -Indian Americans, and any other minorities or individuals found to be disadvantaged by the Small Business Administration pursuant to Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act. These individuals must be U.S. citizens or lawfully admitted permanent residents. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA): A state law (Chapter 43.21C RCW), which requires that state agencies and local governments consider environmental impacts when making decisions regarding certain activities, such as development proposals over a certain size, Acronyms and Glossary of Terms Page 9 June 3, 1998 Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment and comprehensive plans. As part of this process, environmental impacts are documented and opportunities for public comment are provided. TCM: Transportation Control Measures are implemented to enable nonattainment areas meet their emissions goals. They can include Transportation Demand Management measures, parking policies and pricing, or other system improvements which reduce congestion. TDM: Transportation Demand Management measures try to reduce the proportion of SOV commuters. TDM measures can include portion of non -SOV modes of transportation, car and vanpool formation assistance, transit subsidies, and a variety of other measures. TERMINAL: The end station or stop of transportation routes of one or more modes. Transfer facilities and amenities are often provided. THEORETICAL HEADWAY: The closest time interval in which two successive vehicles may safely operate along a section of a transit line. TIP: Transportation Improvement Program is a three-year transportation investment strategy, required at the metropolitan level, and a two-year program at the state level, which addresses the goals of the long-range plans and lists priority projects and activities for the region. (At the state level, the TIP is also known as a STIP, not to be confused with a SIP.) TOTAL TRAVEL TIME: The total elapsed time between trip beginning and end. It includes travel, transfer, and waiting time. TRANSFER TIME: The elapsed trip time required to change between modes or to transfer between routes of the same mode. TRANSFER: The portion of a trip a transit patron makes as he or she changes from one connecting route to another in order to complete his or her trip. TRANSIT: A transportation system principally for moving.people in an urban area and made available to the public usually through paying a fare. Typical vehicles used for transit include buses, rail cars, and other fixed guideway vehicles. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM): A set of transit service improvement options that generally includes lower-cost projects to improve the existing transportation highway or transit network. TRAVEL TIME: The time required to travel between two points (excluding access time or waiting time). TRIPS: The one-way movement of one person between origin and destination, including the walk to and from the means of transportation. VANPOOL: A carpool that uses a van instead of a passenger automobile. Page 10 June 3, 1998 Acronyms and Glossary of Terms Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment WAITING TIME: The part of the total travel time required for the transit vehicle to arrive, after the patron arrives at the station or stop. WETLANDS: Lands covered by shallow water or lands where the water table is at or near the surface; includes marshes, swamps, bogs, natural ponds, wet meadows and river overflow. Acronyms and Glossary of Terms Page 11 June 3, 1998 SOUNDTRANSIT Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority Tacoma-- to - Seattle Commuter Rail Notice of Adoption of Federal Transit Administration NEPA Environmental Assessment Issuing Agency Central Puget Sound Regional Transportation Authority (Sound Transit) Prepared in compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 43.21C RCW); SEPA Rules (Chapter 197-11 WAC); and Sound Transit's SEPA Resolution (No. R7-1) June 1998 NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) for the - Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Project Adoption for (check appropriate box) 0 DNS 0 EIS Q Other Mitigated DNS Description of current proposal: Sound Transit proposes to develop and operate commuter rail service between downtown Tacoma and Seattle, Washington along the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe. Railway (BNSF) right-of-way. Service will be largely on existing tracks, with improvements along the BNSF main line (including new additional track) as required to -allow increased -passenger train speeds and to minimize conflicts with existing train traffic. The project includes specific mitigation commitments, which are described in more detail below. Access to the service will be provided from stations located within the cities of Seattle, Tukwila, Kent, Auburn, Sumner, Puyallup and Tacoma. Commuter trains will run in each direction along the 40 -mile corridor at approximately one-half hour intervals during peak commute hours. A total of 9 morning and 9 evening trips is planned. All stations except for those in downtown Seattle and Georgetown (provisional) will include park-and-ride facilities. In addition, pedestrian and bicycle access to all stations will be encouraged and enhanced by station design and station area improvements. Buses will provide access to all stations. Some stations will also be served by the regional express bus system. Station sites analyzed as part of this project represent a basic level of development, including parking, drop off areas, and station platforms. Design and construction of station sites will occur in accordance with a community-based design process. This process will include selection of a design team for each station jointly by the local jurisdiction and Sound Transit, and design development by the selected team in consultation with the local jurisdiction's staff, a community-based advisory committee, and Sound Transit. Construction of the Tacoma -to -Seattle stations and track improvements is projected to start in late 1998. Operation is expected to begin in late 1999. Other components of the Sound Transit program, including extensions of commuter rail service, light rail transit, and regional express bus service, will be coordinated and integrated with the Tacoma-to-Seattle'commuter rail project, and will be subject to separate environmental review. A plan -level environmental impact statement was prepared for the Regional. Transit System Plan in early 1993 (Regional Transit System Plan EIS), which included the current proposal. Project - level environmental review for the proposal began in December 1993 when a SEPA determination of significance (DS) was issued. Scoping meetings were held in each of the communities served by the commuter rail line in early 1994, and a combined preliminary National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental assessment (EA) and State 1 Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) supplemental EIS was prepared. The document was circulated to local jurisdictions for their review and comment. When the first vote on financing for the -Regional -Transit -System -Plan failed -in -March -1995,-work-on.the . environmental review was suspended. Sound Transit reactivated the environmental review for the project in the fall of 1997, following voter approval of financing for the plan in November 1996. The current review of the proposal updates the environmental work begun in 1993 to reflect new project design decisions, changes in adopted plans and regulations of the affected municipalities, updated traffic forecasts, and other factors, including express mitigation commitments made by Sound Transit. As part of this review, the DS issued in 1993 is being withdrawn (pursuant to WAC 197-11-360(4)) and the form of SEPA documentation is being changed. There are several reasons for this. First, the prior analysis revealed no probable significant adverse environmental impacts, the threshold for preparing an EIS. Second, community acceptance (based upon public input) was high and public controversy about the project's environmental issues was low. Third, the Union Pacific (UP) track alternative was eliminated from consideration. Without the UP track alternative, and given the lack of significant impacts, the need for an EIS evaluating alternatives: was absent. Finally, Sound Transit has entered a set -of mitigation commitments that assure that the project will not have any significant adverse environmental impacts. These mitigation commitments are set out in Attachment A and are incorporated herein by reference. These commitments will be fully integrated into the project. A draft EA was issued in December 1997 for public and agency comment. The EA was revised in response to these comments. The completed EA was submitted to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the lead agency for NEPA compliance, on April 6, 1998. Accompanying the submittal of the EA was Sound Transit's mitigation commitments and a request for a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). FTA submitted additional comments, which were addressed in a final EA prepared in June 1998. This adoption notice satisfies the SEPA requirements for adoption contained in WAC 197-11-610 (2) and the Department of Ecology's SEPA Handbook. Proponent: Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) Location of current proposal: The project will be located between downtown Tacoma and Seattle generally on existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway right-of-way. The northern terminus of the line will be at King Street Station in downtown Seattle and the southern terminus will be just west of the existing Tacoma Amtrak station. Title of document being adopted: NEPA Environmental Assessment for Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail 2 Agency that prepared document being adopted: Federal -Transit -Administration (FTA) Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) Date adopted document was prepared: June 1998 Description of document (or portion) being adopted: The document being adopted is an Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The EA includes technical information that was used to complete the analyses and a full list of references and information sources used.- The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is the lead agency responsible for NEPA compliance. The EA has been prepared consistent with the FTA's Environmental Impact and Related Procedures, -the Council on Environmental Quality -Regulations, -and related amendments, 'Executive -Orders, and agency guidance. Other environmental documentation has been prepared on projected related to the Tacoma -to - Seattle commuter rail project. This work includes the following: • Seattle Intermodal Transportation Terminal: Final SEPA EIS / NEPA EA (City of Seattle/Federal Transit Administration, 1995) (evaluating King Street alternatives and impacts) • Tacoma Dome Intermodal Facility Final EIS (Pierce Transit 1996) (evaluating facility alternative and impacts) • State Route 519 Intermodal Access Project Environmental Assessment (Federal Transit Administration / WA. State Dept. of Transportation / King County, 1997) (evaluating intermodal access project in the vicinity of the King Street station) These documents are incorporated by reference into the EA and are available for review at Sound Transit's offices. If the document being adopted has been challenged (WAC 197-11-630), please describe: N/A 3 The document is available to be read at (place/time): Copies -.of -the NEPA-Environmental_Assessment-.and .-the --other_documents -referenced-in this adoption notice are available for review at Sound Transit's office during normal business hours: 1100 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98101-3423 (206) 684-6776 Copies of the EA will also be provided to agencies and the public upon request. We have identified and adopted this document as being appropriate for this proposal after independent review. The document meets our environmental review needs for the current proposal and will accompany the proposal to the decisionmaker. We have also reviewed the mitigation commitments established for the proposal and other information on file and have determined that the proposal will not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment: There -is no comment -period- for this adoption notice. You may appeal this determination to Bob White, Executive Director, Sound Transit, 1100 Second Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, Washington, 98101-3423 no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 17, 1998, by submitting a written statement requesting an appeal and setting forth the information required by Sound Transit's SEPA-rules (Resolution No. R7-1), and paying the required fee. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from Sound Transit. Name of agency adopting document: Sound Transit Contact Person: Val Batey, Project Development Manager, Commuter Rail Department (206) 684-1591 Responsible official: Paul Price Position/title Phone: Director, Commuter Rail Sound Transit (206) 689-4760 Address: 1100 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98101-3423 Date: June 3, 1998 Signature: 4 —ATTACHMENT A Mitigation Commitments for the Sound Transit Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Project These environmental mitigation commitments have been developed by the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit), to mitigate adverse environmental impacts that may occur as a result of the development and operation of the Tacoma -to -Seattle component of Sound Move's commuter rail program. - This mitigation program derives from the environmental analysis contained in the NEPA Environmental Assessment (EA) and related documentation developed for the project. The elements of the mitigation program track the order of the elements of the environment set out in the NEPA EA. This mitigation program contains Sound Transit's most current commitments regarding mitigation. To the extent that this material differs from the potential mitigation measures described in provisions of the EA or elsewhere, this program supersedes those provisions. It may be further updated by the Sound Transit Board, and it may be subject to further refinement as part of the permitting process. Unless otherwise noted, the elements of this program apply to all commuter rail stations and track improvements proposed in the Tacoma -to -Seattle project. 1. LAND USE 1.1 Land Use impacts will be controlled and mitigated by local jurisdictions through their comprehensive planning, zoning and other implementation ordinances and development regulation process. 2. SOCIOECONOMICS 2.1 Business and residential displacements would occur as a result of the purchase of land by Sound Transit. To mitigate the impacts of displacement, Sound Transit will follow federal and state relocation requirements, as applicable. These include the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Acts and similar Washington state laws. 2.2 Sound Transit will develop and follow its own relocation assistance procedures for affected landowners. 2.3 In the event of acquisition of all or part of a parcel of property, appropriate compensation will be paid, consistent with applicable laws and procedures. A-1 3. TRANSPORTATION 3:1- During -construction, Sound -Transit -will provide -any -necessary -detour -route signing, flaggers, alternate routes, and other safety actions. For at -grade crossings at major arterials, hours of construction may be limited to non -peak hours to provide full access during peak traffic hours. 3.2 During operation of stations that accommodate park-and-ride trips, Sound Transit will mitigate traffic impacts at intersections that are projected to be operating at LOS F as a result of the proposed commuter rail project, or otherwise in compliance with local jurisdictions' Traffic Concurrency Standards. Specifically, Sound Transit will provide the mitigation measures set out in Mitigation Program Table 1 below. Mitigation Program Table 1 Stations Mitigation Longacres • • Reconstruct and channelize Longacres Way Participate in the extension of 16th St. SW/S. 156`h St. Downtown Kent (North or South) • • • Signalize James and Smith Streets at Railroad Ave. Add right turn lane at Willis St. and Washington Ave. Add westbound right turns lane at Willis St. and northbound SR 167 ramp. Auburn • Right turn lane for eastbound Cross St. SE/Auburn Ave. Sumner • May include traffic signals, signal phasing, interconnecting signals, and channelization. Puyallup • May include improvements to signals for protected left turn movements, new signals and interconnecting signals. Tacoma • Left turn pocket at Pacific Ave. and 25`h St. A-2 4. NOISE AND VIBRATION 4.1 During construction, Sound Transit will impose reasonable and appropriate restrictions on the construction activity, including time -of -day restriction on construction activities near sensitive land uses and enforcement of industry noise standards for construction equipment. • 4.2 To minimizevibration during rail operation, Sound Transit will develop and implement a maintenance program, which may include rail grinding; wheel truing, wheel flat detector systems, and vehicle reconditioning programs. In addition, Sound Transit will plan and design crossovers and other special track work to avoid sensitive land uses and will develop vehicle specifications that -limit the vertical resonance frequency of the primary suspension. 5. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 5.1 Sound Transit will perform an Environmental Site Assessment (ESA or environmental audit) for all property acquisitions. If a project site is contaminated, Sound Transit will either select an alternative site or undertake remedial actions appropriate for the site, such as removal of contaminated material,•on-site treatment, or other remedy. 5.2 Sound Transit will monitor work sites that are identified as potentially having hazardous materials. Depending on the specific hazardous materials suspected at a given site, Sound Transit will conduct appropriate health and safety monitoring, testing and other protections to ensure a safe working environment for construction workers. 6. WETLAND RESOURCES/ECOLOGY In the rail corridor, the new third track segment will be designed to avoid or minimize wetland impacts. In the event that such impacts cannot be avoided, Sound Transit will work closely with the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), the local jurisdiction(s), affected tribes and the Corps of Engineers through the § 404 permit process to formulate and implement an appropriate wetland mitigation plan, including identifying appropriate locations for wetland creation and/or enhancement to mitigate wetland losses. General Statement of Commitments • Sound Transit commits to providing restoration, compensation, or enhancement when any wetland is permanently altered as a result of the Project. Sound Transit will ensure that the Project is designed to employ all practicable methods to minimize harm to wetlands. • Sound Transit will commit to principles of impact assessment and a formula for mitigation replacement for those impacts, if any, that are not identified until construction A-3 or operation, or that result from impacts that unavoidable or not susceptible to restoration by other action. The principles of impact assessment that shall be applied to all unanticipatedd-impacts-are,,-in-descending-order-ofimportance, avoidance, -minimization, restoration, rehabilitation, and compensation. Wetland Mitigation Plan Development • Sound Transit will consult with Ecology, WDFW, the local jurisdiction(s), affected tribes and the Corps during the development and review of the wetland mitigation plan. • Sound Transit will replace or enhance the function and value of any affected wetland based upon an approved evaluation procedure such as Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) or Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP). Mitigation Measures • Any restored, created, or enhanced wetland shall be of at least the same quality and endurance as the wetland it replaces. • Wetland restoration, creation and enhancement shall not result in a net loss of wetland acreage and functions. • In-kind replacement of functions and values is preferred. Sound Transit will commit to restoration that duplicates the overall functions and values of the wetland to be replaced. Restoration will include at least 50 percent in-kind mitigation unless Sound Transit demonstrates at least one of the following after consultation with WDFW and Ecology: (1) that the wetland is already significantly degraded and out -of -kind replacement will result in wetland with greater functional value; or (2) that scientific problems peculiar to the particular site make implementation of in-kind mitigation impractical; or (3) that out -of -kind mitigation will best meet identified goals and/or provide greater acreage replacement. • Sound Transit's wetland mitigation plan will provide permanent protection and management to avoid further degradation. • For the first five years after construction, Sound Transit will monitor the success of all mitigation steps taken pursuant to the plan annually and take correction action to ensure success, with written reports to FTA and copies to Ecology and WDFW. • • During the plan development process, Sound Transit will consult with WDFW, Ecology, the local jurisdiction(s), and affected tribes to develop an appropriate "success" standard. • For those restoration, creation or enhancement areas that are not considered "successful" after five years, additional replacement will be provided consistent with the goals of restoring and enhancing affected wetlands. A-4 Additional mitigation measures may be added after consultation with Washington Department of Fish and -Wildlife, -and -Tribal -Fisheries. 7. HISTORIC RESOURCES 7.1 Sound Transit will avoid/mitigate any impacts to historic resources by developing station designs that are compatible with the site of historic structures. For those station sites with historic resources, Sound Transit has developed a Memorandum of Agreement with the State Historic Preservation Office to provide specifically for compatible station design and protection of historic resources. 8. ARCHEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 8.1 For all station sites, Sound Transit will arrange for a professional archeologist to monitor subsurface excavations expected to penetrate fill to native soils. 9. VISUAL QUALITY 9.1 Sound Transit will use a community-based design process and establish Technical Advisory Committees for each station to create designs that consider local context and aesthetic preferences. 9.2 In developing station sites, Sound Transit will preserve existing vegetation to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with site development. Sound Transit will use landscape screening where appropriate and in accordance with local codes and ordinances. 10. SAFETY AND SECURITY 10.1 At selected public grade crossings identified in the EA, Sound Transit will employ mitigation measures including flashers, bells and gates. 10.2 For pedestrian grade crossings, Sound Transit will provide gate and signal protection as required by applicable safety requirements. 10.3 Sound Transit will participate in public information and education programs to promote awareness of railroad grade crossing risks and regulations. 10.4 Constant Warning Time (CWT) signaling and Automated Horn System warning devices will be employed at grade crossings as identified in the EA. A-5 11. WATER QUALITY/HYDROLOGY - 1 Sound -Transit will -comply with applicable laws and regulations for design of stormwater collection, treatment and discharge to avoid or minimize sediment and erosion impacts. Depending on local conditions and requirements, specific steps may include covering stockpiled soils, use of sediment traps and ponds, locating construction on areas with existing impermeable surfaces, minimizing new construction, and revegetating cleared areas as soon as practicable. 11.2 Sound Transit will minimize on-site refueling and chemical storage areas. Water drainage will be directed away from any on-site refueling or chemical storage areas. 11.3 For site development located in a floodplain, Sound Transit will design and size culverts and crossings consistent with applicable requirements. 12. EARTH 12.1 Sound Transit will use best management practices, consistent with applicable laws and regulations, to avoid or mitigate any erosion impacts. 12.2 Sound Transit will reestablish vegetation in non -paved cleared areas as soon as practicable consistent with site development and will apply appropriate ground cover to minimize erosion. 13. OTHER 13.1 ENERGY - All proposed facilities will be designed to minimize the use of electricity and fuels. A-6 SOUNDTRANSIT Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority Real Property Acquisition and Relocation Policy, Procedures & Guidelines Revision 1 April, 1998 Index 1. POLICY 6 2. PURPOSE 6 3. STATE AND FEDERAL LAW CERTIFICATION 6 4. ACCOUNTABILITY AND DELEGATION 7 5. DEFINITIONS 7 5.1. Appraisal. 7 5.2. Acquisition Price. 7 5.3. Appraised fair market value. 7 5.4. Business. 7 5.5. Comparable replacement dwelling. 8 5.6. Contribute materially. 9 5.7. Decent, safe, and sanitary (DSS) dwelling. 9 5.8. Displaced person. 10 5.9. Dwelling. 11 5.10. Fair market value. 12 5.11. Farm operation. 12 5.12. Financial assistance. 12 5.13. Initiation of negotiations. 12 5.14. Mortgage. 12 5.15. Nonprofit Organization. 13 5.16. Owner of displacement dwelling. 13 5.17. Person. 13 5.18. Procedures. 13 5.19. Program. 13 5.20. Project. 13 5.21. Salvage value. 13 5.22. Small business. 14 5.23. State. 14 5.24. Tenant. 14 5.25. Uneconomic remnant. 14 5.26. Uniform Act. 14 04/07/98 Page 2 of 54 Rev. #1 5.27. Unlawful occupancy. 14 5.28. Utility Costs. 14 5.29. Utility facility. 14 5.30. Utility relocation. 15 5.31. Voluntary transaction. 15 5.32. WSDOT. 15 6. APPLICABILITY 15 6.1. Real Property Acquisitions, Generally. 15 6.2. Exceptions. 15 6.3. No Duplication of Payments. 16 7. REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION PROCEDURES 16 7.1. Appraisals. 16 7.2. Review of appraisals. 18 7.3. Making an Offer to Acquire Property and Negotiating for Purchase. 19 7.4. Acquisition of tenant -owned improvements. 20 7.5. Acquisition of uneconomic remnants. 21 7.6. Notices to Owners. 21 7.7. Short Term Rental of Property by Owner or Tenant. 21 7.8. Donations. 21 7.9. Initiation of Condemnation Proceedings. 22 7.10. Expenses Incidental to Transfer of Title. 22 7.11. Inverse Condemnation. 23 8. PAYMENT FOR MOVING AND RELATED EXPENSES 23 8.1. Non -Residential Moves. 23 8.2. Non -Residential Moves: Fixed Payment in Lieu of Reimbursement for Actual Moving Expenses. 26 8.3. Residential Moves: Actual Expenses. 28 8.4. Residential Moves: Fixed Payment In -Lieu of Reimbursement of Actual Expenses. 28 8.5. Residential Moves: Mobile Homes. 29 8.6. Ineligible Moving and Related Expenses. 29 8.7. Discretionary utility relocation payments. 30 8.8. Extraordinary Expenses. 30 8.9. Utility Facility Relocation Costs. 31 9. RE-ESTABLISHMENT EXPENSES 31 9.1. Eligible expenses. 31 04/07/98 Page 3 of 54 Rev. #1 9.2. Ineligible expenses. 32 10. PAYMENTS FOR REPLACEMENT HOUSING 32 10.1. For Certain Homeowners. 32 10.2. For Tenants and Others. 36 10.3. Additional rules governing replacement housing payments. 38 11. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE 41 11.1. Relocation Advisory Services. 41 11.2. Coordination of relocation activities. 42 11.3. Relocation Notice and Information. 42 11.4. Availability of Comparable Replacement Dwelling Before Displacement. 43 11.5. Eviction for cause. 45 11.6. Claims for relocation payments. 45 11.7. Relocation planning. 46 12. CHARACTERIZATION OF PAYMENTS 47 13. RELOCATION APPEALS PROCESS 47 13.1. Appealable Actions. 47 13.2. Limitations. 48 13.3. Form of notice. 48 13.4. Time limit for initiating appeal. 48 13.5. Review of files by person making appeal. 48 13.6. Scope of Review Appraisal. 48 13.7. RTA Official to Review Appeal. 48 13.8. Determination of Notification. 48 13.9. Hearing process. 49 13.10. Discovery. 49 14. MOBILE HOMES 49 14.1. General Provisions. 49 14.2. Replacement housing payment for one hundred eighty -day mobile home owner -occupants. 49 14.3. Replacement housing payments for ninety -day mobile home occupants. 50 14.4. Additional rules governing relocation payment to mobile home occupants. 50 15. LAST RESORT HOUSING 52 15.1. Applicability. 52 15.2. Methods of providing replacement housing. 52 04/07/98 Page 4 of 54 Rev. #1 CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY'S REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION POLICY, PROCEDURES, AND GUIDELINES 1. POLICY In order to build and operate a high capacity transit system consisting of commuter rail service between the cities of Everett and Tacoma, 25 miles of light rail service between the cities of SeaTac and Seattle and within the city of Tacoma, and a program of regional bus service, HOV improvements, and park -and ride facilities throughout the central Puget Sound region, it will be necessary for the RTA to acquire real property. This will result in the dislocation of property owners, businesses, tenants, and individuals located within buildings on such real property. It is the RTA's intent to treat such property owners and their tenants fairly, to minimize hardships of displacement by equitable treatment of persons and businesses displaced as a direct result of the development of Sound Move, and to seek cooperative settlements of property acquisitions and relocation claims. These Real Property Acquisition and Relocation Policy, Procedures, and Guidelines ("Procedures") are written to provide the RTA the ability to accomplish these goals within the RTA's limited resources and schedule constraints. These Procedures should be implemented so as to encourage the cooperative acquisition of real property for the implementation of Sound Move by agreements with owners and tenants that avoid protracted disputes and litigation where possible. However, all properties acquired under this Program, whether acquired cooperatively or through eminent domain litigation will be acquired "under threat of condemnation." 2. PURPOSE These Procedures are to be carried out such that the RTA's program of acquisition of real property for, and relocation of persons displaced by, the implementation of Sound Move, the RTA's ten-year plan to build and operate a high capacity transit system in the Central Puget Sound Region ("Project"), complies with applicable federal and state law. The Project will include transit supportive and transit oriented development undertaken by the RTA consistent with the RTA Board's adopted guidelines for transit oriented development. 3. STATE AND FEDERAL LAW CERTIFICATION The RTA certifies that it will comply with chapter 8.26 RCW, chapter 468-100 WAC, USCA Title 42, and 49 CFR Part 24 in connection with the acquisition of real property for, and relocation of persons displaced by, the implementation of Sound Move. In order to do so, RTA is establishing a real estate acquisition and relocation program that is comprised of these Procedures and future administrative policies and procedures (the "Program") 04/07/98 Page 6 of 54 Rev. #1 4. ACCOUNTABILITY AND DELEGATION The RTA Board will be responsible for the policy direction of the RTA's Program. By adopting these Policies, Procedures and Guidelines the RTA Board is establishing the acceptable terms and conditions for the property acquisitions by the RTA. The RTA Board will determine when real property must be acquired by the use of condemnation. However, in the interest of administrative efficiency, the Board hereby acknowledges certain delegations of authority regarding property and leasehold transactions and improvements. The Board hereby further authorizes the Executive Director to adopt such administrative rules, procedures or guidelines as the Executive Director may determine to be necessary to implement these Procedures. 5. DEFINITIONS 5.1. Appraisal. A written statement independently and impartially prepared by a qualified appraiser setting forth an opinion of defined fair market value of an adequately described property as of a specific date, supported by the presentation and analysis of relevant market information. 5.2. Acquisition Price. The price, based upon appraisal fair market value, paid to acquire real property for Project. 5.3. Appraised fair market value. The value arrived at using appraisal and review appraisal value. This value may be given as a range of.values, with no more than a 10% variation from the higher end of the range. 5.4. Business. Any lawful activity, except a farm operation, that is conducted: a. Primarily for the purchase, sale, lease, and/or rental of personal and/or real property, and/or for the manufacture, processing, and/or marketing of products, commodities, and/or any other personal property; or b. Primarily for the sale of services to the public; or c. Solely for the purpose of Section 8.1, conducted primarily for outdoor advertising display purposes, when the display must be moved as a result of the project; or d. By a nonprofit organization that has established its nonprofit status under applicable federal or state law. 04/07/98 Page 7 of 54 Rev. #1 5.5. Comparable replacement dwelling. A dwelling that meets the additional rules in Section 10.3 and which: a. Is decent, safe, and sanitary according to the definition in Section 5.7. b. Is functionally equivalent to the displacement dwelling with particular attention to • the number of rooms and living space. This means that the replacement dwelling should perform the same function, provide the same utility, and is capable of contributing to a comparable style of living. A comparable replacement dwelling need not possess every feature of the displacement dwelling, but the principal features must be present. Functional equivalency generally is an objective standard, reflecting the range of purposes for which the various features of a dwelling may be used. However, in determining functional equivalency, the RTA may consider reasonable tradeoffs for specific features when the replacement unit is equal to or better than the displacement dwelling. c. Is adequate in size to accommodate the occupants. d. Is located in an area that is not subject to unreasonable adverse environmental conditions, is not generally less desirable than the location of the displaced person's dwelling with respect to public utilities and commercial and public facilities, and is reasonably accessible to the person's place of employment. Comparables may be used from neighborhoods similar to that of the acquired dwelling. e. Has a site that is typical in size for residential development with normal site improvements, including customary landscaping. The replacement site need not include either a special improvement or a major exterior attribute of the displacement site in accordance with Section 10.3.a, paragraph 2. f. Is currently available to the displaced person on the private market. However, a comparable replacement dwelling for a person receiving government housing assistance before displacement may reflect similar government housing assistance. Is priced within the financial means of the displaced person. (1) For a one hundred eighty -day owner -occupant described at Section 10.1.a, a comparable dwelling is considered to be within the displacee's financial means if the owner will receive the full price differential as described in Section 10.1.a (3), all increased mortgage interest costs as described in Section 10.1.a (4), and all incidental expenses as described in Section 10.1.a (6) , plus any additional amount required to be paid under Article 15. (2) For a ninety -day tenant -occupant described at Section 10.2.a, a comparable dwelling is considered to be within the displacee's financial means if after application of the rental assistance payment, described in said section, the displacee's portion of the monthly rent plus utilities do not exceed person's g. 04/07/98 Page 8 of 54 Rev. #1 (3) base monthly rental for the displacement dwelling as described in 10.2.a (2) (b). For a displaced person who is not eligible to receive a replacement housing payment under Section 10.2.a due to failure to meet the length of occupancy requirements, comparable housing is considered to be within the displacee's financial means if the RTA pays that portion of the monthly housing costs that would exceed thirty percent of the displacee's monthly income for forty-two months or, if receiving a welfare assistance payment from a program that designates amounts for shelter and utilities. Replacement housing payments would be paid under Article 15. 5.6. Contribute materially. During the two taxable years before the taxable year in which displacement occurs, or during such other period as the RTA determines to be more equitable, a business or farm operation: a. Had average annual gross receipts of at least five thousand dollars ($5,000); or b. Had average annual net earnings of at least one thousand dollars ($1,000); or c. Contributed at least thirty-three and one-third percent (33 1/3 %)of the owner's or operator's average annual gross income from all sources. d. If the application of the above criteria creates an inequity or hardship in a given case, the RTA may approve the use of other criteria as determined appropriate. 5.7. Decent, safe, and sanitary (DSS) dwelling. A dwelling that meets applicable housing and occupancy codes. However, any of the following standards that are not met by an applicable code will apply, unless waived for good cause by the applicable federal funding. The dwelling will: a. Be structurally sound, weather tight, and in good repair. b. Contain a safe electrical wiring system adequate for lighting and other electrical devices. c. Contain a heating system capable of sustaining a healthful temperature (of approximately seventy degrees) for a displaced person. d. Be adequate in size with respect to the number of rooms and area of living space needed to accommodate the displaced person. There will be a separate, well -lighted and ventilated bathroom that provides privacy to the user and contains a sink, bathtub or shower stall, and a toilet, all in good working order and properly connected to appropriate sources of water and to a sewage drainage system. In the case of a housekeeping, dwelling, there will be a kitchen area that contains a fully 04/07/98 Page 9 of 54 Rev. #1 usable sink, properly connected to potable hot and cold water and to a sewage drainage system, and adequate space and utility service connections for a stove and refrigerator. e. Contains unobstructed egress to safe, open space at ground level. If the replacement dwelling unit is on the second story or above, with access directly from or through a common corridor, the common corridor must have at least two means of egress. f. For a displaced person who is handicapped, be free of any barriers that would preclude reasonable ingress, egress, or use of the dwelling by such displaced person. 5.8. Displaced person. a. General: Any person who moves from the real property or moves his or her personal property from the real property (this includes a person who does not meet the length of occupancy requirements of Sections 10.1.a and 10.2.a): (1) As a direct result of the RTA's acquisition of, or the initiation of negotiation for, such real property in whole or in part for the Project; or (2) As a direct result of a written order from the RTA to vacate such real property for the Project; or As a direct result of the RTA's acquisition of, or written order to vacate for the Project, other real property on which the person conducts a business or farm operation; (4) As a direct result of a voluntary transaction by the owner as described in Section 6.2.a, thereby displacing a tenant; or (5) As a direct result of the RTA's rehabilitation or demolition for the Project ; or (6) As a direct result of the RTA's initiation of negotiations, acquisition of, demolition of, in whole or in part, other real property on which the person conducts a business or farm operation, for the Project. Eligibility under this subparagraph (6) is only for purposes of obtaining relocation assistance advisory services under Section 11.1 and moving expenses under Sections 8.1, 8.3,and8.4. (3) b. Persons not displaced: The following is a nonexclusive listing of persons who do not qualify as a displaced person under these Procedures. (1) A person who moves before the initiation of negotiations except one who is required to move for reasons beyond his or her control as explained in Section 10.3.e; or 04/07/98 Page 10 of 54 •Rev. #1 (2) A person who initially enters into occupancy of the property after the date of its acquisition for the Project (such determination will be made in accordance with any guidelines of the federal funding agency); or (3) A person that the RTA determines is not required to relocate permanently as a direct result of the Project; or (4) A person that the RTA determines is not displaced as a direct result of a partial acquisition; or (5) A person who, after receiving a notice of relocation eligibility also receives a notice of non eligibility (described in Section 11.3.b, paragraph 2); or (6) An owner who voluntarily sells his or her property as described in Section 6.2.a after being informed in writing that if a mutually satisfactory agreement of sale cannot be reached, the RTA will not acquire the property; or (7) A person who retains the right of use and occupancy of the real property for life following its acquisition by the RTA; or (8) A person who retains the right of use and occupancy of the real property for a fixed term after its acquisition for a program or project receiving federal financial assistance from the Department of Interior; or (9) A person who has occupied the property for the purpose of obtaining assistance under the Uniform Act; (10) A person who is determined to be in unlawful occupancy or a person who has been evicted for cause before the initiations of negotiations for the property; (11) A person who initially enters occupancy of the property after the date of its acquisition for the Project; (12) A person who, after receiving notice of relocation eligibility, is notified in writing that he or she will not be displaced for the Project . Such notice will not be issued unless the person has not moved and the RTA agrees to reimburse the person for any expenses incurred to satisfy any findings of contractual obligations entered into after the effective date of the notice of relocation eligibility ; or (13) An owner -occupant who moves as a result of the rehabilitation or demolition of the real property . (However, the displacement of a tenant as a direct result of any acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition for a federally assisted project is subject to these Procedures.) 5.9. Dwelling. The place of permanent or customary and usual residence of a person, as determined by the RTA according to local custom or law, including a single family house; a single family unit in a two-family, multifamily, or multipurpose property; a unit of a condominium or cooperative housing project; a nonhousekeeping unit; a mobile home; or any other fixed or installed residential unit other than a unit customarily 04/07/98 Page 11 of 54 Rev. #1 used, and currently (although not necessarily immediately) capable of use, for transportation or recreational purposes. 5.10. Fair market value. The value of real property established by an appraisal and review appraisal, as set forth in Article 7 and Section 5.3. 5.11. Farm operation. Any activity conducted solely or primarily for the production of one or more agricultural products or commodities, including timber, for sale or home use, and customarily producing such products or commodities in sufficient quantity to be capable of contributing materially to the operator's support. 5.12. Financial assistance. A grant, loan, or contribution, except a federal guarantee or insurance. 5.13. Initiation of negotiations. The date of delivery of the initial written offer by the RTA to the owner or the owner's representative to purchase real property the Project for the amount determined to be just compensation. However: a. If the RTA issues a notice of its intent to acquire the real property, and a person moves after that notice, but before delivery of the initial written purchase offer, the "initiation of negotiations" means the date the person moves from the property. (See also Section 14.4.c.) b. If the displacement is caused by rehabilitation, demolition, or privately undertaken acquisition of real property (and there is no related federal or state agency acquisition) the initiation of negotiations means the notice to the person that he or she will be dsiplaced by the Project or, if there is no notice, the actual move of the person from the property ; or c. In the case of a permanent relocation to protect the public health and welfare under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-510, or "Superfund"), the "initiation of negotiations" means the formal announcement of such relocation or the federal or federally -coordinated health advisory where the federal government later decides to conduct a permanent relocation. 5.14. Mortgage. Any of such classes of liens as are commonly given to secure advances on, or the unpaid purchase price of, real property, under the laws of the state of Washington, together with the credit instruments, if any, secured thereby. 04/07/98 Page 12 of 54 Rev. #1 5.15. Nonprofit Organization. An organization that is incorporated under the applicable laws of a state as a nonprofit organization, and exempt from paying federal income taxes under Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC 501). 5.16. Owner of displacement dwelling. A displaced person owns a displacement dwelling if the person holds any of the following interests in real property acquired for the Project: a. Fee title, a life estate, a ninety-nine year lease, or a lease, including any options for extension, with at least fifty years to run from the date of acquisition; or b. An interest in a cooperative housing project that includes the right to occupy a dwelling; or c. A contract to purchase any of the interests or estates described in subsection (a) or (b) above; or d. Any other interests, including a partial interest, which in the judgment of the RTA warrants consideration as ownership. 5.17. Person. Any individual, family, partnership, corporation, or association. 5.18. Procedures. The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority's Real Property Acquisition and Relocation Policy, Procedures, and Guidelines as contained in this document. 5.19. Program. The RTA's real property acquisition and relocation program, comprised of the Procedures and any administratively adopted procedures and policies regarding real property acquisition and relocation. The Project includes transit supportive and transit -oriented development undertaken by the RTA consistent with the RTA Board's adopted guidelines for transit oriented. development. 5.20. Project. Sound Move, the RTA's 10 -year plan to build and operate a high capacity transit system in the Central Puget Sound Region. 5.21. Salvage value. The probable sale price of an item, if offered for sale on the condition that it will be removed from the property at the buyer's expense, allowing a reasonable period of time to find a person buying with knowledge of the uses and purposes for which it is 04/07/98 Page 13 of 54 Rev. #1 adaptable and capable of being used, including separate use of serviceable components and scrap when there is no reasonable prospect of sale except on that basis. s 5.22. Small business. Any business having not more than five hundred employees working at the site being acquired or permanently displaced by the Project. Sites occupied solely by outdoor advertising signs, displays, or devices do not qualify as a business for purposes of Article 9. 5.23. State. Any department, commission, agency, or instrumentality of the state of Washington. 5.24. Tenant. A person who has temporary use and occupancy of real property owned by another. 5.25. Uneconomic remnant. A parcel of real property in which the owner is left with an interest after the partial acquisition of the owner's property, and that the RTA has determined has little or no value or utility to the owner. 5.26. Uniform Act. The Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq), and amendments thereto. 5.27. Unlawful occupancy. A person is considered to be in unlawful occupancy when such person has been ordered to move by a court before the initiation of negotiations for the acquisition of the occupied property, or is determined by the RTA to be a squatter who is occupying the property without permission of the owner and otherwise has no legal right to occupy the property under Washington law. The RTA may, at its discretion, consider such a squatter to be a legal occupant. 5.28. Utility Costs. Expenses for heat, light, water, and sewer. 5.29. Utility facility. Any electric, gas, water, steampower, or materials transmission or distribution system, any transportation system, any communications system, including cable television, and any fixtures, equipment, or other property associated with the operation,maintenance, or repair of any such system. A utility facility may be publicly, privately, or cooperatively owned. 04/07/98 Page 14 of 54 Rev. #1 5.30. Utility relocation. The adjustment of a utility facility required by the Project. It includes removing and reinstalling the facility, including necessary temporary facilities, acquiring necessary right-of-way on new locations; moving rearranging or changing the type of existing facilities; and taking any necessary safety and protective measures. It also means constructing a replacement facility that has the functional equivalency of the existing facility and is necessary for the continued operation of the utility service, the Project economy, or sequence of Project construction. 5.31. Voluntary transaction. A donation, exchange, market sale, or other type of agreement entered into without compulsion on the part of the RTA. 5.32. WSDOT. The Washington State Department of Transportation. 6. APPLICABILITY 6.1. Real Property Acquisitions, Generally. These Procedures apply to real property acquisitions by the RTA for the purposes of implementing the Project. These Procedures apply to the acquisition of the following property interests: a. Fee simple title; b. Fee simple title subject to a life estate or a life use; c. Acquisition by leasing when the lease term, including option(s) for extension, is 50 years or more; and d. Acquisition of permanent easements. 6.2. Exceptions. These Procedures do not apply to the following: a. The property is to be acquired through a voluntary transaction when the following conditions also exist: (1) The property to be acquired is not part of the Project area where all, or substantially all, of the property within the area is eventually to be acquired, (2) The RTA will not acquire the property in the event negotiations fail to result in an amicable agreement; and 04/07/98 Page 15 of 54 Rev. #1 (3) The owner is so informed in writing. (4) The RTA will inform the owner of what it believes to be the fair market value of the property. b. The property is to be acquired from a federal, state, or local public agency. c. The property is to be acquired without the use of federal funds and federal funding requirements are determined not applicable, in which case the RTA may, in its discretion, not apply all or any part of these Procedures. 6.3. No Duplication of Payments. No person will receive any payment under these Procedures if that person receives a payment under federal, state, or local law that is determined to have the same purpose and effect as such payment under these Procedures. 7. REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION PROCEDURES To the greatest extent practicable, the RTA will make reasonable efforts to acquire real property expeditiously and by negotiation based on appraised fair market value. As soon as feasible, the RTA will notify owners of the RTA's interest in acquiring the real property and the basic protections, including the RTA's obligation to secure an appraisal, provided to the owner as set forth herein. Real property will be appraised before the initiation of negotiations. The owner and his designated representative will be given an opportunity to accompany at least one RTA appraiser during his inspection of the property, except in cases where an appraisal is waived as set forth below. 7.1. Appraisals. Before initiating negotiations to acquire real property, the RTA will obtain an independent third party appraisal of the property. a. An appraisal is not required in the following circumstances: (1) The owner is donating the property and releases the RTA from its obligation to appraise the property; or (2) The RTA determines that an appraisal is unnecessary, because the valuation problem is uncomplicated and the fair market value is estimated at two thousand, five hundred dollars ($2,500) or less, based on a review of available data.' b. Standards. The format and level of documentation for an appraisal will depend on the complexity of the appraisal problem. The RTA will develop minimum standards for appraisals consistent with established and commonly accepted appraisal practice for those acquisitions which, by virtue of their low fair market value or simplicity, 04/07/98 Page 16 of 54 Rev. #1 do not require the in-depth analysis and presentation necessary in a detailed appraisal. A detailed appraisal will be prepared for all other acquisitions. A detailed appraisal will reflect nationally recognized appraisal standards, including, to the extent appropriate, the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisition. An appraisal must contain sufficient documentation, including valuation data and the appraiser's analysis of that data, to support the appraiser's opinion of fair market value. At a minimum, the appraisal will contain the following items: (1) The purpose and/or the function of the appraisal, a definition of the estate being appraised, and a statement of the assumptions and limiting conditions affecting the appraisal. (2) An adequate description of the physical characteristics of the property being appraised (and, in the case of a partial acquisition, an adequate description of the remaining property), a statement of the known and observed encumbrances if any, title information, location, zoning, present use, an analysis of highest and best use, and at least a five-year sales history of the property. All relevant and reliable approaches to fair market value consistent with commonly accepted professional appraisal practices. If more than one approach is utilized, there will be an analysis and reconciliation of approaches to fair market value that are sufficient to support the appraiser's opinion of fair market value. (4) A description of comparable sales, including a description of all relevant physical, legal, and economic factors such as parties to the transaction, source and method of financing, and verification by a party involved in the transaction. A statement of the fair market value of the real property to be acquired and, for a partial acquisition, a statement of the fair market value of the damages and benefits, if any, to the remaining real property. (6) The effective date of valuation, date of appraisal, signature, and certification of the appraiser. (3) (5) c. Influence of the implementation of the Project on just compensation. To the extent permitted by applicable law, the appraiser in his "before" valuation will disregard any decrease or increase in the fair market value of the real property caused by the implementation of the Project, or by the likelihood that the property would be acquired for the Project, other than that due to the physical deterioration within the reasonable control of the owner. d. Owner retention of improvements. If the owner of a real property improvement agrees and is permitted to obtain the right to remove it in whole or in part from the project site, the amount to be offered for the interest in the real property to be acquired will be the amount determined to be just compensation for the owner's entire interest in the real property. The RTA will deduct the salvage value of the improvement to be removed from the payment. 04/07/98 Page 17 of 54 Rev. #1 e. Qualifications of appraisers. Appraisers will be licensed to perform appraisals in the State of Washington and will be members in good standing and, at a minimum, hold a professional designation from one or more of the following nationally recognized appraisal societies: (1) Appraisal Institute (2) International Right of Way Association, (3) National Association of Independent Fee Appraisers Appraiser qualifications will be consistent with the level of difficulty of the appraisal assignment. If the appraisal assignment requires the preparation of a detailed appraisal pursuant to Section 7.1.(b), and the RTA uses a contract (fee) appraiser to perform the appraisal, such appraisers must be certified in accordance with TitleXI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery & Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA). The RTA will review the experience, education, training, and other qualifications of appraisers, including review appraisers, and use only those the RTA determines to be qualified. f. Conflict of interest. No appraiser or review appraiser may have any interest, direct or indirect, in the real property being appraised for the RTA that would in any way conflict with the preparation or review of the appraisal. Compensation for making an appraisal will not be based on the amount of the valuation. No appraiser may act as a negotiator for real property that that person has appraised. 7.2. Review of appraisals. Appraisals will be reviewed as follows: a. All reviewing appraisers will be required to meet the minimum qualifications specified in section 7.1.e above. b. A qualified reviewing appraiser will examine all appraisals, and where appropriate as required by federal funding, agency regulations or grant requirements, assure that they meet applicable appraisal requirements and will, before acceptance, seek necessary corrections or revisions. The qualifications of the appraiser for each case depend on the complexity of the appraisal problem. The review appraiser will determine whether the appraiser's documentation, including valuation data and analyses of that data, demonstrates the soundness of the appraiser's opinion of fair market value. c. If the reviewing appraiser is unable to approve or recommend approval of an appraisal as an adequate basis for the estimate of just compensation, and it is determined that it is not practical to obtain an additional appraisal, the reviewing appraiser may develop appraisal documentation in accordance with the above section to support an approved or recommended fair market value. The RTA may 04/07/98 Page 18 of 54 Rev. #1 determine whether a second review is needed if the first review appraiser establishes a fair market value different from that in the appraisal report(s) on the property. d. The review appraiser's certification of the recommended or approved fair market value of the property will be set forth in a signed statement that identifies the appraisal reports reviewed and explains the basis for such recommendation or approval. Any damages or benefits to any remaining property will also be identified in the statement. The level of explanation by the review appraiser depends on the complexity of the appraisal problem. The RTA may accept a simple approval endorsement by the review appraiser in the case of a low value property requiring an uncomplicated valuation process. e. When the review appraiser provides justification for a modification in fair market value from the appraisal, fair market value will be determined based upon the opinion of the review appraiser. In cases where the recommended increase or decrease in fair market value exceeds ten percent (10%) a second appraisal or review appraisal will be conducted by the RTA unless mutual agreement on the acquisition price is reached between the seller and the RTA. 7.3. Making an Offer to Acquire Property and Negotiating for Purchase. a. Establishing Just Compensation. Before initiating negotiations to acquire property, the RTA will establish an amount that it believes to be just compensation for the property. The amount will be based on an appraisal and review appraisal, and will not be less than the RTA's appraisal of the fair market value of the property. In establishing just compensation, the RTA will disregard any decrease or increase in the fair market value of the property that occurred before the date of valuation (a) as a result of the Project or (b) because of the likelihood that the property would be acquired for the Project. The RTA will then make a prompt offer to acquire the property for the full amount of just compensation it established. b. Information to Owner. At the time negotiations are initiated, the RTA will provide the owner of the property with a written statement of, and summary of the basis for, the amount the RTA established as just compensation. Where appropriate, the just compensation for the real property, for any damages to remaining real property, and for any benefits to remaining real property will be separately stated. In addition, the RTA's written statement will include a description and location identification of the real property and the interest in the real property to be acquired, along with an identification of the buildings, structures, and other improvements (including removable building equipment and trade fixtures) that are considered to be part of the real property (e.g. a tenant -owned improvement) and indicate that such interest is not covered by the offer. c. Basic Negotiation Procedures. The RTA will make reasonable efforts to contact the owner or the owner's representative and discuss its offer to purchase the property, including the basis for the offer of just compensation, and explain these Procedures 04/07/98 Page 19 of 54 Rev. #1 to the extent applicable, including payment of incidental expenses in accordance with Section 7.10. The owner will be given reasonable opportunity to consider the offer and present material the owner believes is relevant to determine the value of the property and to suggest modification of the proposed terms and conditions of the purchase. The RTA will consider the owner's presentation. d. Updating offer of just compensation. If the information presented by the owner or a material change in the character or condition of the property indicates the need for new appraisal information, or if a significant delay has occurred since the time the appraisal(s) of the property, the RTA will have the appraisal(s) updated or obtain a new appraisal(s). If the latest appraisal information indicates that a change in the purchase offer is warranted, the RTA will promptly re-establish just compensation and offer that amount to the owner in writing. e. Unless the necessary authority has been delegated to the Board, all real estate acquisitions and relocations, either through negotiation or condemnation, must be authorized by the RTA Board. In some instances, the Board has delegated such authority to the RTA's Executive Director under Resolution 78. 7.4. Acquisition of tenant -owned improvements. a. Acquisition of improvements: When acquiring any interest in real property, the RTA will offer to acquire at least an equal interest in all buildings, structures, or other improvements located upon the real property to be acquired or that the RTA determines will be adversely affected by the use to which such real property will be put. This will include any improvement of a tenant -owner who has the right or obligation to remove the improvement at the expiration of the lease term, except when tenant -owner is compensated to remove an improvement through relocation reimbursement, as provided in Section 8. b. Improvements considered real property: Any building, structure, or other improvement, which would be considered to be real property if owned by the owner of the real property on which it is located, will be considered to be real property for purposes of this Article. c. Appraisal and establishment of just compensation for tenant -owned real property improvements: Just compensation for a tenant -owned- real property improvement is the amount that the improvement contributes to the fair market value of the whole property or its salvage value, whichever is greater, less any applicable depreciation. d. Special conditions: No payment will be made to a tenant -owner to acquire any real property improvement or relocate any tenant -owned real estate fixture unless: (a) The owner of the real property on which the improvement is located disclaims all interest in the tenant's realty improvement or fixture; and 04/07/98 Page 20 of 54 Rev. #1 (b) The tenant -owner, in consideration for the acquisition payment, assigns, transfers, and releases to the RTA all of the tenant -owner's right, title, and interest in the realty improvement; and (c) The payment does not result in the duplication of any compensation otherwise authorized by law. e. Alternative compensation: Nothing in these Procedures will be construed to deprive the tenant -owner of any right to reject payment under these Procedures and to obtain payment for such property interests in accordance with other applicable law. 7.5. Acquisition of uneconomic remnants. If the acquisition of only a portion of a parcel of property would leave the owner with an uneconomic remnant, the RTA will offer to acquire the remnant. In cases where the RTA identifies certain opportunity exists to further the RTA's commitment to transit -oriented development, it may acquire additional property, in whole or in part. In such cases, property owners and tenants will be deemed eligible for just compensation and relocation benefits according to these Procedures. 7.6. Notices to Owners. Except in unusual circumstances, the RTA will provide at least ninety days written notice of the date by which a business or a tenant must move its operation or relocate its use. The RTA will document its determination of unusual circumstances in its record. 7.7. Short Term Rental of Property by Owner or Tenant. If an owner or tenant is permitted to occupy the real property acquired on a rental basis for a short term or for a period subject to termination on short notice, the RTA will not impose a rental amount that exceeds the fair rental value of the property to a short-term occupier. The RTA may further reduce the short-term rental rate in consideration of the owner or tenant's cooperation in facilitating the RTA's acquisition or in recognition of additional expenses or costs incurred by the person or tenant to move out and relocate on an accelerated basis. In any case, however, no owner or tenant may occupy real property owned by the RTA for less than the minimum rental rate amount determined by the RTA, consistent with this section. Such rental relationship will be documented using a lease agreement containing reasonable terms and conditions required by the•RTA. Such lease may include a requirement of a refundable security deposit and provision for increased "holdover" rent if the tenant fails to vacate promptly. 7.8. Donations. A person whose real property is being acquired in accordance with these Procedures may donate the property after being fully informed of the right to receive just compensation for the property, any part thereof, any interest therein, or any compensation paid for it to any agency as the person may determine. The RTA will 04/07/98 Page 21 of 54 Rev. #1 be responsible for assuring that an appraisal of the real property is obtained unless the owner releases the RTA from such obligation or as provided in Section 7.1.a(1). 7.9. Initiation of Condemnation Proceedings. The RTA will not advance the time of condemnation, or defer negotiations or condemnation, or the deposit of the funds with the court, or take any other coercive action to induce an agreement on the price to be paid for the property. However, in order for the RTA. to comply with the schedule for implementation of the Project, it may become necessary to initiate condemnation as soon as practicable after the Board of the RTA has selected final alignments and station and facility locations and purchase offers are submitted to the property owners and either deferred or rejected. Negotiations may continue with affected parties after the initiation of condemnation proceedings at the discretion of the RTA. a. Deposit of Purchase Price. Consistent with the procedures in Chapter 8.26 RCW, no property owner will be required to surrender possession of real property before the agreed purchase price is paid or deposited with a court having jurisdiction over. the condemnation of the property for the benefit of the owner. The amount paid or deposited will not be less than the RTA's appraisal of the fair market value of such property or the amount of the award of compensation in the condemnation proceeding for the property. In exceptional circumstances, with the prior approval of the owner, the RTA may obtain a right -of -entry for construction purposes before making a payment available to an owner. b. Payment of Costs and Fees. Except as required by law, the RTA will not reimburse the owner of the real property for any expenses associated with a formal condemnation proceeding conducted by the RTA. Instances in which the RTA will be required to pay reasonable expenses, including engineering, appraisal, and attorney fees, include the following: (1) The court's final judgement is that the RTA cannot acquire the real property by condemnation; or (2) The RTA abandons the condemnation proceedings other than as agreed upon in settlement; or (3) The court having jurisdiction renders a judgement of inverse condemnation or; (4) The RTA effects a settlement of such proceedings. 7.10. Expenses Incidental to Transfer of Title. As soon as practicable after the date of payment of the purchase price or the date of deposit in court of funds to satisfy the award of compensation in a condemnation proceeding to acquire real property, whichever is the earlier, the RTA will reimburse the owner to the extent the RTA deems fair and reasonable, for expenses the owner necessarily incurred to transfer right, title or interest to the RTA as provided in RCW 8.26.200. Whenever feasible, the RTA will pay such costs directly so that the owner 04/07/98 Rev. #1 • Page 22 of 54 will not have to pay the costs and then seek reimbursement. These costs may include the following: a. Recording fees, excise taxes: evidence of title boundary surveys, legal descriptions of real property, and similar expenses incidental to conveyance of the real property to the RTA. The RTA will not pay costs incurred solely to perfect the owner's title to the real property; b. Penalty costs and other charges for prepayment of any pre-existing recorded mortgage entered into in good faith encumbering the property; c. The prorated portion of any prepaid real property taxes that are allocable to the period after the RTA obtains title to the property or effective possession of it, whichever is earlier. 7.11. Inverse Condemnation. No owner will be intentionally required to institute legal proceedings to prove the fact of the taking of the owner's real property. 8. PAYMENT FOR MOVING AND RELATED EXPENSES If the RTA determines that the implementation of the Project will result in the displacement of a person who is dwelling on or conducting business on the real property being acquired, the RTA will reimburse or make a payment in lieu of reimbursement to the displaced person for certain costs and expenses required to move the individual, business, farm operation, or other personal property. 8.1. Non -Residential Moves. The RTA will reimburse the displaced business or farm operation for their documented actual moving and related expenses that the RTA determines to be reasonable and necessary, including those expenses described below. a. Eligible Expenses. (See Section 8.6 for a list of ineligible expenses) (1) Transportation of personal property. Transportation costs for a distance beyond fifty miles are not eligible, unless the RTA, at its sole discretion, determines that relocation beyond fifty miles is justified. (2) Packing, crating, unpacking, and uncrating of the personal property. (3) Disconnecting, dismantling, removing, reassembling, and reinstalling relocated machinery, equipment, and other personal property, including substitute personal property described in paragraph 12 below. This includes connection 04/07/98 Page 23 of 54 Rev. #1 to utilities available nearby. It also includes modifications to the personal property necessary to adapt it to the replacement structure, the replacement site, or the utilities at the replacement site, and modifications necessary to adapt the utilities at the replacement site to the personal property. (Expenses for providing utilities from the right-of-way to the building or improvement are excluded.) (4) Storage of the personal property for a period not to exceed twelve months, unless the RTA determines, in its sole discretion, that a longer period is necessary. (5) Insurance for the replacement value of the personal property in connection with the move and necessary storage. (6) Any license, permit, or certification required of the displaced person at the replacement location. However, the payment may be based on the remaining useful life of the existing license, permit, or certification. (7) The replacement value of property lost, stolen, or damaged in the process of moving (not through the fault or negligence of the displaced person, his or her agent, or employee) where insurance covering such loss, theft, or damage is not reasonably available. (8) Professional services necessary for the tasks listed below. Such professional services may include legal fees not to exceed seven thousand, five hundred ($7,500,) (other than legal fees ineligible for reimbursement under Section 8.6), real property or equipment appraisals not to exceed five thousand ($5,000,) property surveys for replacement location, and accounting fees not to exceed two thousand, five hundred ($2,500,) including applicable local and state taxes associated with those fees. (a) Planning the move of the personal property; (b) Moving the personal property; and (c) Installing the relocated personal property at the replacement location. (9) Re -lettering signs and replacing stationery on hand at the time of displacement that are made obsolete as a result of the move. (10) Actual direct loss of tangible personal property incurred as a result of moving or discontinuing the business or farm operation. The payment will consist of the lesser of: (a) The value of the item for continued use at the displacement site, less the proceeds from its sale. (To be eligible for payment, the claimant must make a good faith effort to sell the personal property, unless the RTA determines that such effort is not necessary. When payment for property loss is claimed for goods held for sale, the value will be based on the cost of the goods to the business, not the potential selling price.); or (b) The estimated cost of moving the item, but with no allowance for storage. (If the business or farm operation is discontinued, the estimated cost will be based on a moving distance of fifty miles.) 04/07/98 Page 24 of 54 Rev. #1 (11) The reasonable cost incurred in attempting to sell an item that is not to be relocated. (12) Purchase of substitute personal property. If an item of personal property that is used as part of a business or farm operation is not moved but is promptly replaced with a substitute item that performs a comparable function at the replacement site, the displaced person is entitled to payment of the lesser of: (a) The cost of the substitute item, including installation costs at the replacement site, minus any proceeds from the sale or trade-in of the replaced item; or (b) The estimated cost of moving and reinstalling the replaced item but with no allowance for storage. At the RTA's discretion, the estimated cost for a low cost or uncomplicated move may be based on a single bid or estimate. (13) Searching for a replacement location. A displaced business or farm operation is entitled to reimbursement for actual expenses, not to exceed one thousand dollars, as the RTA determines to be reasonable, which are incurred in searching for a replacement location, including: (a) Transportation; (b) Meals and lodging away from home; (c) Time spent searching, based on reasonable salary or earnings; (d) Fees paid to a real estate agent or broker to locate a replacement site, exclusive of any fees or commissions related to the purchase of such site. (14) Other moving -related expenses that are not listed as ineligible under Section 8.6, as the RTA determines to be reasonable and necessary. b. Notification and inspection. The following requirements apply to payments under Article 8: (1) The RTA will inform the displaced person in writing, of the requirements of subparagraphs (2) and (3) below, as soon as possible after the initiation of negotiations. This information may be included in the relocation information provided to the displaced person as set forth in Section 11.3. (2) The displaced person must provide the RTA reasonable advance written notice of the approximate date of the start of the move or disposition of the personal property and a list of the items to be moved. The RTA may waive this notice in its discretion. The displaced person must permit the RTA to make reasonable and timely inspections of the personal property at both the displacement and replacement sites and to monitor the move. (3) 04/07/98 Page 25 of 54 Rev. #1 c. Self -moves. If the displaced person elects to take full responsibility for the move of the business or farm operation, the RTA may make a payment for the person's moving expenses in an amount not to exceed the lower of two acceptable bids or estimates obtained by the RTA or prepared by qualified staff. At the RTA's discretion, a payment for a low cost or uncomplicated move may be based on a single bid or estimate. d. Transfer of ownership. Upon request and in accordance with applicable law, the claimant will transfer to the RTA ownership of any personal property that has not been moved, sold, or traded in. e. Advertising signs. The amount of a payment for direct loss of an advertising sign that is personal property will be the lesser of: (1) The depreciated reproduction cost of the sign, as determined by the RTA, less the proceeds from its sale; or (2) The estimated cost of moving the sign, but with no allowance for storage. 8.2. Non -Residential Moves: Fixed Payment in Lieu of Reimbursement for Actual Moving Expenses. a. Business: A displaced business may be eligible to choose a fixed payment in lieu of a payment for actual moving and related expenses, and actual reasonable reestablishment expenses provided for in section above. The payment except for payment to a nonprofit organization, will equal the average annual net earnings of the business, as computed in accordance with subsection (e) of this section, but not less than one thousand dollars or more than twenty thousand dollars.' The displaced business is eligible for the payment if the RTA determines that: (1) The business owns or rents personal property that must be moved in connection with such displacement and for which an expense would be incurred in such move; and, the business vacates or relocates from its displacement site; and (2) The business cannot be relocated without a substantial loss of its existing patronage (clientele or net earnings). A business is assumed to meet this test unless the RTA demonstrates that it will not suffer a substantial loss of its existing patronage; and (3) The business is not part of a commercial enterprise having more than three other entities that are not being acquired by the RTA, and that are under the same ownership and engaged in the same or similar business activities. (4) The business is not operated at a displacement dwelling solely for the purpose of renting such dwelling to others; and 04/07/98 Page 26 of 54 Rev. #I (5) The business is not operated at the displacement site solely for the purpose of renting the site to others; and (6) The business contributed materially to the income of the displaced person during the two taxable years before displacement. b. Determining the number of businesses: In determining whether two or more displaced legal entities constitute a single business that is entitled to only one fixed payment, the RTA will consider all pertinent factors including the extent to which: (1) The same premises and equipment are shared; (2) Substantially identical or interrelated business functions are carried out and business and financial affairs are commingled; The entities are held out to the public, and to those customarily dealing with them, as one business; and (4) The same person, or closely related persons own, control, or manage the affairs of the entities. (3) c. Farm operation: A displaced farm operation, may choose a fixed payment in lieu of a payment for actual moving and related expenses in an amount equal to its average annual net earnings as computed in accordance with subsection e of this section, but not less than one thousand dollars nor more than twenty thousand dollars.3 In the case of a partial acquisition of land that was a farm operation before the acquisition, the fixed payment will be made only if the RTA determines that: (1) The acquisition of part of the land caused the operator to be displaced from the farm operation on the remaining land; or (2) The partial acquisition caused a substantial change in the nature of the farm operation. d. Nonprofit organization: A displaced nonprofit organization may choose a fixed payment of one thousand to twenty thousand dollars4 in lieu of a payment for actual moving and related expenses if the RTA determines that it cannot be relocated without a substantial loss of existing patronage (membership or clientele). A nonprofitorganization is assumed to meet this test, unless the RTA demonstrates otherwise. Any payment in excess of one thousand dollars must be supported with financial statements for the two twelve-month periods before the acquisition. The amount to be used for the payment is the average of two years annual gross revenues less administrative expenses. e. Average annual net earnings of a business or farm operation: The average annual net earnings of a business or farm operation are one-half of its net earnings before federal, state, and local income taxes during the two taxable years immediately 0407/98 Page 27 of 54 Rev. #1 before the taxable year in which it was displaced.5 If the business or farm was not in operation for the full two taxable years before displacement, net earnings will be based on the actual period of operation at the displacement site during the two taxable years before displacement projected to an annual rate. Average annual net earnings may be based upon a different period of time when the RTA determines it to be more equitable. Net earnings include any compensation obtained from the business or farm operation by its owner, the owner's spouse, and dependents. The displaced person will furnish the RTA proof of net earnings through income tax returns, certified financial statements, or other reasonable evidence that the RTA determines is satisfactory. 8.3. Residential Moves: Actual Expenses. The RTA will reimburse the displaced owner -occupant or tenant of a residential dwelling for their documented actual moving and related expenses that the RTA determines to be reasonable and necessary including the actual reasonable expenses in moving the person, her family, or other personal property. a. Disconnect, dismantle, and remove displaced personal property. b. Pack displaced personal property. c. Transport displaced person and personal property within fifty miles. The RTA may authorize transportation costs of a distance beyond fifty miles based on economic feasibility of the available choices of replacement locations, but not on the displacee's subjective preferences. d. Store personal property for a period not to exceed twelve months, unless the RTA determines a longer period is necessary. e. Unpack relocated personal property. f. Reassemble, reinstall, and reconnect relocated personal property. g. Insure for the replacement value of personal property in connection with the move; or where insurance covering loss, theft, or damage in the process of moving (not through fault or negligence of the displaced person or the person's agent, or employee) is not reasonably available, pay the replacement value for such loss, theft, or damage. h. The replacement value of property lost, stolen, or damaged in the process of moving (not through the fault or negligence of the displaced person, his or her agent, or employee) where insurance covering such loss, theft, or damage is not reasonably available. i. Reimburse other moving -relating expenses that are not listed as ineligible under Section 8.6, as the RTA determines to be reasonable and necessary. 8.4. Residential Moves: Fixed Payment In -Lieu of Reimbursement of Actual Expenses. 04/07/98 Page 28 of 54 Rev. #1 A person displaced from a dwelling or a seasonal residence is entitled to receive a fixed payment in lieu of a payment for actual moving and related expenses covered under Section 8.3. This allowance will be determined according to the applicable schedule approved by the Federal Highway Administration and WSDOT, except that the expense and dislocation allowance to a person occupying a furnished one -room unit shared by more than one other person involving a minimum of personal property to be moved, will be limited to fifty dollars.6 8.5. Residential Moves: Mobile Homes. If the displaced dwelling is a mobile home and/or mobile home site, the provisions below will supplement the procedures set forth above regarding reimbursement of moving expenses for persons displaced from a residential dwelling. However, if the mobile home is not acquired but the owner obtains a replacement housing payment under one of the circumstances described in Section 14.2.c, the owner is not eligible for payment for moving the mobile home. a. A displaced mobile homeowner, who moves the mobile home to a replacement site, is eligible for the necessary and reasonable cost of disassembling, moving, and reassembling any attached appurtenances (such as porches, decks, skirting, and awnings) that were not acquired, anchoring of the unit, and utility "hook-up" charges. b. If a mobile home requires repairs and/or modifications so that it can be moved and/or made decent, safe, and sanitary, and the RTA determines that it would be practical to relocate it, the reasonable cost of such repairs and/or modifications is reimbursable. c. A non -returnable mobile home park entrance fee is reimbursable, to the extent it does not exceed the fee at a comparable mobile home park, if the person is displaced from a mobile home park or the RTA determines that payment of the fee is necessary to effect relocation. 8.6. Ineligible Moving and Related Expenses. The RTA willnot reimburse for certain moving and related expenses (residential and non-residential), including the following: a. 1. The cost of moving any structure or other real property improvement in which the displaced person reserved ownership. However, this section does not preclude the computation under Section 10.1.a(3)(d)(iii) or b. Interest on a loan to cover moving expenses; or c. Loss of goodwill; or 04/07/98 Page 29 of 54 Rev. #1 d. Loss of profits; or e. Loss of trained employees; or f. Any additional operating expenses of a business or farm operation, incurred because of operating in a new location except as provided in Section 9.1, paragraph j; or g. Personal injury; or h. Any legal fee or other cost for preparing a claim for a relocation payment or for representing the claimant before the RTA; or i. Expenses for searching for a replacement dwelling; or j. Physical changes to the real property at the replacement location of a business or farm operation; or k. Costsfor storage of personal property on real property already owned or leased by the displaced person. 8.7. Discretionary utility relocation payments. If the Project causes the relocation of a utility facility and the relocation of the facility creates extraordinary expenses for its owner, the RTA may, at its option, make a relocation payment to the owner for all or part of such expenses, if the following criteria are met: a. The utility facility legally occupies State or local government property, or property over which the State or local government has an easement or right-of-way; and b. The utility facility's right of occupancy is pursuant to State law or local ordinance specifically authorizing such use and occupancy has been granted through a franchise, use and occupancy permit, or other similar agreement; and c. Relocation of the utility facility is required by and is incidental to the primary purpose of the Project; and d. There is no federal law, other than the Uniform Act, that clearly establishes a policy for the payment of utility moving costs that is applicable to the Project; and e. State or local government reimbursement for utility moving costs or payment of such costs by the RTA is in accordance with State law. 8.8. Extraordinary Expenses. For the purposes of this Article, the term extraordinary expenses means those expenses which, in the RTA's opinion are not routine or predictable expenses relating to the utility's occupancy of rights-of-way, and are not ordinarily budgeted as operating expenses, unless the owner of the utility facility has explicitly and knowingly agreed to bear such expenses as a condition for use of the property, or has voluntarily agreed to be responsible for such expenses. 04/07/98 Page 30 of 54 Rev. #1 8.9. Utility Facility Relocation Costs. A relocation payment to a utility facility owner for moving costs under this section may not exceed the cost to functionally restore the service disrupted by the Project, less any increase in value of the new facility and salvage value of the old facility. The RTA and the utility facility owner will reach prior agreement on the nature of the utility relocation work to be accomplished, the eligibility of the work for reimbursement, the responsibilities for financing and accomplishing the work, and the methods of accumulating costs and making payment. 9. RE-ESTABLISHMENT EXPENSES The RTA may reimburse a displaced business, farm, or nonprofit organization for re- establishment expenses up to a maximum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000).7 Such reimbursement would be for expenses actually incurred in relocating and reestablishing the small business, farm or non-profit organization at a replacement site. This reimbursement would be in addition to any reimbursement for moving and related expenses provided for in Article 8 above. 9.1. Eligible expenses. Reestablishment expenses must be reasonable and necessary, as determined by the RTA. They may include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Repairs or improvements to the replacement real property as required by federal, state, or local law, code, or ordinance. b. Modifications to the replacement property to accommodate the business operation or make replacement structures suitable for conducting the business. c. Construction and installation costs, not to exceed one thousand five hundred dollars8 for exterior signing to advertise the business. d. Provision of utilities from right of way to improvements on the replacement site. e. Redecoration or replacement of soiled or worn surfaces at the replacement site, such as paint, paneling, or carpeting. f. Licenses, fees, and permits when not paid as part of moving expenses. g. Feasibility surveys, soil testing and marketing studies. h. Advertisement of replacement location, not to exceed one thousand, five hundred dollars ($1,500).9 i. Professional services in connection with the purchase or lease of a replacement site. J• Increased costs of operation during the first two years at the replacement site, not to exceed five thousand dollars, for such items as: 04/07/98 Page 31 of 54 Rev. #I (1) Lease or rental charges; (2) Personal or real property taxes; (3) Insurance premiums; and (4) Utility charges, excluding impact fees. k. Impact fees or one-time assessments for anticipated heavy utility usage. 1. Other items that the RTA considers essential to the reestablishment of the business. m. Expenses in excess of the maximums set forth in subsections (c), (h), and (j) in Section 9.1 may be considered eligible if large and legitimate disparities exist between costs of operation at the displacement site and costs of operation at an otherwise similar replacement site. In such cases the applicable federal funding agency may, at the RTA's request, waive the regulatory limitation for reimbursement of such costs but in no event will total costs payable under this section exceed the ten thousand dollar ($10,000) statutory maximum. 9.2. Ineligible expenses. The following is a nonexclusive list of reestablishment expenditures not considered to be reasonable, necessary, or otherwise eligible: a. Purchase of capital assets, such as, office furniture, filing cabinets, machinery, or trade fixtures. b. Purchase of manufacturing materials, production supplies, product inventory, or other items used in the normal course of the business operation. c. Interior or exterior refurbishments at the replacement site that are for aesthetic purposes, except as provided in Section 9.1, paragraph e. d. Interest on money borrowed to make the move or purchase the replacement property. e. Payment to a part-time business in the home that does not contribute materially to the household income. 10. PAYMENTS FOR REPLACEMENT HOUSING 10.1. For Certain Homeowners. In addition to payments otherwise authorized by these Procedures, the RTA will make an additional payment to persons displaced from a dwelling actually owned and occupied by the displaced person for not less than one hundred eighty (180) days 04/07/98 Page 32 of 54 Rev. #1 immediately before the initiation of negotiations for the acquisition of the property. The additional payment will be made only to persons who purchase and occupy a decent, safe, and sanitary replacement dwelling within one year after the date when the person receives final payment from the RTA for the acquired dwelling or the date when the RTA's obligations under RCW 8.26.075 are met, whichever date is later, unless the RTA extends this period for good cause. If the period is extended, the payments will be based on the costs of relocating the person to comparable replacement dwelling within one year of the extension date. Such payment will not exceed twenty two thousand, five hundred dollars ($22,500)10, and will be established as set forth in Section 10.1.a below, and, in the case of mobile home owner - occupants, as supplemented by Sections 14.2 and 14.3 below. a. Replacement housing payment for one hundred eighty -day homeowner -occupants. (1) Entitlement: A displaced person is entitled to the replacement housing payment for a one hundred eighty -day, homeowner -occupant if the person: (a) Has actually owned and occupied the displacement dwelling for not less than the one hundred eighty days immediately before the initiation of negotiations; and (b) Purchases and occupies a DSS replacement dwelling within one year after the later of (except that the RTA may extend the one-year period for good cause): i. The date the person receives final payment for the displacement dwelling or, in the case of condemnation, the date the required amount is deposited in the court; ii. The date the person moves from the displacement dwelling; or iii. The date the RTA's obligations under Article 15 are met. (2) Amount of payment: The replacement housing payment for an eligible one hundred eighty -day homeowner -occupant may not exceed twenty-two thousand, five hundred dollars ($22, 500)11. The payment under this section is limited to the amount necessary to relocate to a comparable replacement dwelling within one year from the date the displaced homeowner -occupant is paid for the displacement dwelling, or the date such person is initially offered a comparable replacement dwelling, whichever is later. The payment will be the sum of: (a) The amount by which the cost of a replacement dwelling exceeds the acquisition cost of the displacement dwelling (price differential), as determined in accordance with subparagraph (3) of this section; and (b) The increased interest costs and other debt service costs to be incurred in connection with the mortgage(s) on the replacement dwelling (increased mortgage interest cost), as determined in accordance with subparagraph (4) of this section; and 04/07/98 Page 33 of 54 Rev. #1 (c) The necessary and reasonable expenses incidental to the purchase of the replacement dwelling (incidental purchase expense), as determined in accordance with subsection (6) of this section. (3) Price differential: (a) Determination of price differential: The price differential to be paid under subsection (2)(a) of this section is the amount that must be added to the acquisition cost of the displacement dwelling to provide a total amount equal to the lesser of: i. The reasonable cost of a comparable replacement dwelling as determined in accordance with Section 10.3.a; or ii. The purchase price of the DSS replacement dwelling actually purchased and occupied by the displaced person. (b) Mixed-use and multifamily properties: If the displacement dwelling was part of a property that contained another dwelling unit and/or space used for nonresidential purposes, and/or is located on a tract larger than a site that is typical for residential purposes, only that portion of the acquisition payment that is actually attributable to the displacement dwelling will be considered its acquisition cost when computing the price differential. (c) Insurance proceeds: To the extent necessary to avoid duplicate compensation, the amount of any insurance proceeds received by a person in connection with a loss to the displacement dwelling due to a catastrophic occurrence (fire, flood, etc.,) will be included in the acquisition cost of the displacement dwelling when computing the price differential. (d) Owner retention/salvage of displacement dwelling: If the owner retains ownership of, or obtains salvage rights to, the person's dwelling, moves it from the displacement site, and reoccupies it on a replacement site, the purchase price of the replacement dwelling will be the sum of: i. The cost of moving and restoring the dwelling to retain the functional utility it had when situated on the displacement site; and ii. The cost of making the unit a DSS replacement; and iii. The current fair market value for residential use of the replacement site (based on any reasonable evaluation method determined by the RTA), unless the claimant rented the displacement site and there is a reasonable opportunity for the claimant to rent a suitable replacement site; and iv. The retention/salvage value of the displacement dwelling, as determined from the acquisition of the displacement dwelling. (e) Owner constructs replacement dwelling: If the owner obtains a DSS replacement dwelling by contracting for or otherwise obtaining new construction, the purchase price of the replacement dwelling will be the sum of: 04/07/98 Page 34 of 54 Rev. #1 i. The cost necessary to construct a dwelling that is comparable to the displacement dwelling; and The current value for residential use of the replacement site (based on any reasonable evaluation method determined by the RTA), unless the claimant rented the displacement site and there is a reasonable opportunity for the claimant to rent a suitable replacement site. (4) Increased mortgage interest costs: (a) The RTA will determine the factors to be used in computing the amount to be paid to a displaced person under subsection (2)(b) of this section. The payment for increased mortgage interest costs will be the amount that will reduce the mortgage balance on a new mortgage to an amount that could be amortized with the same monthly payment for principal and interest as that for the mortgage(s) on the displacement dwelling. In addition, payments will include other debt service costs, if not paid as incidental costs, and will be based only on bona fide mortgages that were valid liens on the displacement dwelling for at least one hundred eighty days before the initiation of negotiations. Subparagraphs (b) through (e) of this subsection will apply to the computation of the increased mortgage interest costs payment, which payment will be contingent upon a mortgage being placed on the replacement dwelling. (b) The payment will be based on the unpaid mortgage balance(s) on the displacement dwelling; however, in the event the person obtains a smaller mortgage than the mortgage balance(s) computed in the buydown determination the payment will be prorated and reduced accordingly. In the case of a home equity loan the unpaid balance will be that balance that existed one hundred eighty days before the initiation of negotiations or the balance on the date of acquisition, whichever is less. (c) The payment will be based on the remaining term of the mortgage(s) on the displacement dwelling or the term of the new mortgage, whichever is shorter. (d) The interest rate on the new mortgage used in determining the amount of the payment will not exceed the prevailing fixed interest rate for conventional mortgages currently charged by mortgage lending institutions in the area in which the replacement dwelling is located. (e) Purchaser's points and loan origination or assumption fees, but not seller's points, will be paid to the extent: i. They are not paid as incidental expenses; ii. They do not exceed rates normal to similar real estate transactions in the area; iii. The RTA determines them to be necessary; and iv. The computation of such points and fees will be based on the unpaid mortgage balance on the displacement dwelling, less the amount 0407/98 Page 35 of 54 Rev. #1 (5) determined for the reduction of such mortgage balance under this section. The displaced person will be advised of the approximate amount of this payment and the conditions that must be met to receive the payment as soon as the facts relative to the person's current mortgage(s) are known and the payment will be made available at or near the time of closing on the replacement dwelling in order to reduce the new mortgage as intended. (6) Incidental purchase expenses: The incidental purchase expenses to be paid for a one hundred eighty -day homeowner -occupant (under subsection (2)(c) of this section) or for down payment assistance (under Section 10.3) are those necessary and reasonable costs actually incurred by the displaced person incident to the purchase of a replacement dwelling, and customarily paid by the buyer, and are limited by such costs based on the cost of a comparable replacement dwelling pursuant to Section 10.3.a, including: (a) Legal, closing, and related costs, including those for title search, preparing conveyance instruments, notary fees, preparing surveys and plats, and recording fees. (b) Lender, FHA, or VA application and appraisal fees. (c) Loan origination or assumption fees that do not represent prepaid interest. (d) Certification of structural soundness and termite inspection when required. (e) Credit report. (f) Owner's and mortgagee's evidence of title, e.g., title insurance. (g) Escrow agent's fee. (h) State revenue or documentary stamps, sales or transfer taxes. (i) Such other costs that the RTA determines to be incidental to the purchase. (7) Rental assistance payment for one hundred eighty -day homeowner: A one hundred eighty -day homeowner -occupant who is eligible for a replacement housing payment under subsection (1) of this section but elects to rent a replacement dwelling, is eligible for a rental assistance payment not to exceed five thousand, two hundred fifty dollars ($5,250)12, computed and disbursed in accordance with 10.2.a. 10.2. For Tenants and Others. In addition to payments otherwise authorized by these Procedures, the RTA will make an additional payment to persons displaced from a dwelling who is not eligible to receive a payment under Section 10.1 if the dwelling was actually and lawfully occupied by the displaced person for not less than ninety days immediately before (a) the initiation of negotiations for acquisition of the dwelling, or (b) in any case in which displacement is not a direct result of acquisition, such other event as is prescribed by Section 10.2.a. The payment will consist of the amount necessary to 04/07/98 Page 36 of 54 Rev. #1 enable the person to lease or rent for a period not to exceed forty-two months, a comparable replacement dwelling, but not to exceed five thousand, two hundred ($5,200).13 The amount of the payment will be established as provided in paragraph 1 below, and, in the case of 90 -day mobile home occupants, as supplemented by Sections 14.3 and 14.4. a. Replacement housing payment for ninety -day occupants. (1) Entitlement: A tenant or owner -occupant displaced from a dwelling is entitled to a payment not to exceed five thousand two hundred fifty dollars14 for rental assistance, as computed in accordance with subsection (2) of this section, or down payment assistance, as computed in accordance with subsection (3) of this section, if such displaced person: (a) Has actually and lawfully occupied the displacement dwelling for at least ninety days immediately before the initiation of negotiations; and (b) Has rented, or purchased, and occupied a DSS replacement dwelling within one year (unless the RTA extends this period for good cause) after: i. For a tenant, the date the tenant moves from the displacement dwelling; or ii. For an owner -occupant, the later of: (A) The date the owner -occupant receives final payment for the displacing interest, or in the case of condemnation, the date the required amount is deposited with the court; or (B) The date the owner -occupant moves from the displacement dwelling. (2) Rental assistance payment: (a) Amount of payment: An eligible displaced person who rents a replacement dwelling is entitled to a payment not to exceed five thousand, two hundred fifty dollars ($5,250)15 for rental assistance. (See also Section 10.3.b.) Such payment will be forty-two times the amount obtained by subtracting the base monthly rent or the fair market rent (in accordance with (b) of this subsection) of the displacement dwelling for a reasonable period before displacement, as determined by the RTA, from the lesser of: i. The monthly rent and average monthly cost of utilities for a comparable replacement dwelling; or ii. The monthly rent and estimated average monthly utilities for the DSS replacement dwelling actually occupied by the displaced person. (b) Base monthly rental for displacement dwelling. The base monthly rental for the displacement dwelling is the lesser of: 04/07/98 Page 37 of 54 Rev. #1 (3) The average monthly cost for rent and utilities at the displacement dwelling for a reasonable period before displacement, as determined by the RTA. (For an owner -occupant, use the fair market rent for the displacement dwelling. For a tenant who paid little or no rent for the displacement dwelling, use the fair market rent, unless its use would result in a hardship because of the person's income or other circumstances); or ii. Thirty percent of the person's average gross household income. (If the person refuses to provide appropriate evidence of income or is a dependent, the base monthly rental will be established solely on the criteria in (b)(i) of this subsection. A full time student or resident of an institution may be assumed to be a dependent, unless the person demonstrates otherwise.) iii. The total of the amounts designated for shelter and utilities if receiving a welfare assistance payment from a program that designates the amounts for shelter and utilities. (c) Manner of disbursement: A rental assistance payment may, at the RTA's discretion, be disbursed in either a lump sum or in installments. However, except as limited by Section 10.3.g., the full amount vests immediately, whether or not there is any later change in the person's income or rent, or in the condition or location of the person's housing. Down payment assistance payment: (a) Amount of payment: An eligible displaced person who purchases a replacement dwelling is entitled to a down payment assistance payment in the amount the person would receive under subsection (2) of this section if the person rented a comparable replacement dwelling. At the discretion of the RTA, a down payment assistance payment may be increased to any amount not to exceed five thousand, two hundred fifty dollars ($5,250).1 However, the payment to a displaced homeowner will not exceed the amount the owner would receive under Section 10.1.a, paragraph 6 if he or she met the one hundred eighty -day occupancy requirement. The RTA's discretion to provide the maximum payment will be exercised in a uniform and consistent manner, so those eligible displaced persons in like circumstances are treated equally. A displaced person eligible to receive a payment as a one hundred eighty -day owner -occupant under Section 10.1.a is not eligible for this payment. (b) Application of payment: The full amount of the replacement housing payment for down payment assistance must be applied to the purchase price of the replacement dwelling and related incidental expenses. (c) Mobile Homes (See Sections 14.2 and 14.3.) 10.3. Additional rules governing replacement housing payments. 04/07/98 Page 38 of 54 Rev. #1 a. Determining cost of comparable replacement dwelling: The upper limit of a replacement housing payment will be based on the cost of a comparable replacement dwelling. (1) Three -comparable method: If available, at least three comparable replacement dwellings will be examined and the payment computed on the basis of the dwelling most nearly representative of, and equal to, or better than, the displacement dwelling. An adjustment will be made to the asking price of any dwelling, to the extent justified by local market data. An obviously overpriced or underpriced dwelling may be ignored. (2) Major exterior attribute: If the site of the comparable replacement dwelling lacks a major exterior attribute of the displacement dwelling site (e.g., the site is significantly smaller or does not contain a swimming pool), the value of such attribute will be subtracted from the acquisition cost of the displacement dwelling for purposes of computing the replacement housing payment. Remainder offer: If the acquisition of a portion of a typical residential property causes the displacement of the owner from the dwelling and the remainder is a remnant of the displacement dwelling site or a buildable residential lot, the RTA may offer to purchase that remainder. If such an offer is made and the owner refuses to sell the remainder to the RTA, the value attributable to that remainder, will be added to the acquisition price paid for the displacement dwelling for purposes of computing the price differential. (4) Location: Comparable replacement dwellings will be selected preferably from the neighborhood in which the displacement dwelling was located or, if not otherwise feasible, from nearby or similar neighborhoods where housing costs are generally the same as in the displacement neighborhood. Where that is not possible dwellings may be selected from neighborhoods where housing costs are the same or higher. (3) b. Applicability of last resort housing: Whenever a twenty-two thousand, five hundred dollar ($22,500) replacement housing payment under Section 10.1.a or a five thousand, two hundred fifty dollar ($5,250) replacement housing payment under Section 10.2.a would be insufficient to ensure that a comparable replacement dwelling is available on a timely basis to a person, the RTA will provide additional or alternative assistance under the last resort housing provisions in Article 15, which may include increasing the replacement housing payment so that a replacement dwelling is within the displaced person's financial. c. Inspection of replacement dwelling: Before making a replacement housing payment or releasing a payment from escrow, the RTA or its designated representative will inspect the replacement dwelling and determine whether it is a DSS dwelling. d. Purchase of replacement dwelling: A displaced person is consideredto have met the requirement to purchase a replacement dwelling, if the person: 04/07/98 Page 39 of 54 Rev. #1 (1) Purchases a dwelling; or (2) Purchases and rehabilitates a substandard dwelling; or (3) Relocates a dwelling that the person owns or purchases; or (4) Constructs a dwelling on a site the person owns or purchases; or (5) Contracts for the purchase or construction of a dwelling on a site provided by a builder or on a site the person owns or purchases; or (6) Currently owns a previously purchased dwelling and site, valuation of which will be on the basis of current value. e. Occupancy requirements for displacement or replacement dwelling: No person will be denied eligibility for a replacement housing payment solely because the person is unable to meet the occupancy requirements set forth in this chapter for a reason beyond the person's control, including: (1) A disaster, an emergency, or an imminent threat to the public health or welfare, as determined by the applicable federal funding agency; or (2) Another reason, such as a delay in the construction of the replacement dwelling, military reserve duty, or hospital stay, as determined by the RTA. f. Conversion of payment: A displaced person who initially rents a replacement dwelling and receives a rental assistance payment under Section 10.2.a(2)(a), is eligible to receive a payment under Section 10.1(a) or Section 10.2.a(3)(a), if the person meets the eligibility criteria for such payments, including purchase and occupancy within the prescribed one-year period. Any portion of the rental assistance payment that has been disbursed will be deducted from the payment computed under Section 10.1 or Section 10.2.a(3)(a), . Payment after death: A replacement housing payment is personal to the displaced person and upon the person's death the undisbursed portion of any such payment will not be paid to the heirs or assigns, except that: g. (1) The amount attributable to the displaced person's period of actual occupancy of the replacement housing will be paid. (2) The full payment will be disbursed in any case in which a member of a displaced family dies and the other family member(s) continue to occupy a DSS replacement dwelling. (3) Any portion of a replacement housing payment necessary to satisfy the legal obligation of an estate in connection with the selection of a replacement dwelling by or on behalf of a deceased person will be disbursed to the estate. 04/07/98 Page 40 of 54 Rev. #1 11. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE At the request of a displaced person, business, or farm operation, the RTA will provide relocation assistance advisory services, and may also provide relocation services to any person occupying property immediate adjacent to the property where the displacing activity occurs, if the RTA determines that the displacing activity is causing substantial economic injury to the adjacent property. 11.1. Relocation Advisory Services. The RTA's relocation assistance advisory services will include, but are not limited to, such measures, facilities, or services as may be necessary or appropriate to: a. Determine the relocation needs and preferences of each person to be displaced and explain the relocation payments and other assistance for which the person may be eligible, the related eligibility requirements, and the procedures for obtaining such assistance. This will include a personal interview with each person. b. Provide current and continuing information on the availability, purchase prices, and rental costs of comparable replacement dwellings, and explain that the person cannot be required to move unless at least one comparable replacement dwelling is made available as set forth in Section 11.4. (1) As soon as feasible, the RTA will inform the person in writing of the specific comparable replacement dwelling and the price or rent used for establishing the upper limit of the replacement housing payment (see Sections 10.3.a and 10.3.b) and the basis for the determination, so that the person is aware of the maximum replacement housing payment for which the person may qualify. (2) Where feasible, housing will be inspected before being made available to assure that it meets applicable standards. If such an inspection is not made, the person to be displaced will be notified that a replacement housing payment may not be made unless the replacement dwelling is subsequently inspected and determined to be decent, safe, and sanitary (DSS). Whenever possible, minority persons will be given reasonable opportunities to relocate to DSS replacement dwellings, not located in an area of minority concentration, that, are within their financial means. This does not, however, require the RTA to provide a person a larger payment than is necessary to enable a person to relocate to a comparable replacement dwelling. (4) All displaced persons, especially the elderly and handicapped, will be offered transportation to inspect housing to which they are referred. (3) 04/07/98 Page 41 of 54 Rev. #1 c. Provide current and continuing information on the availability, purchase prices, and rental costs of comparable and suitable commercial and farm properties and locations. Assist any person displaced from a business or farm operation to obtain and become established in a suitable replacement location. d. Minimize hardships to persons in adjusting to relocation by providing counseling, advice as to other sources of assistance that may be available, and such other help as may be appropriate. e. Supply persons to be displaced with appropriate information concerning federal and state housing programs, disaster loans and other programs administered by the Small Business Administration, and other federal, state, and local programs offering assistance to persons to be displaced. f. Any person who occupies property acquired by the RTA, when such occupancy began subsequent to the acquisition of the property, and the occupancy is permitted by a short-term rental agreement or an agreement subject to termination when the property is needed the Project, will be eligible for advisory services, as determined by the RTA. 11.2. Coordination of relocation activities. Relocation activities will be coordinated with project work and other displacement - causing activities to ensure that, to the extent feasible, persons displaced receive consistent treatment and the duplication of functions is minimized. 11.3. Relocation Notice and Information. a. General Relocation Information Notice: As soon as feasible, the RTA will provide a person scheduled to be displaced with a copy of these Procedures, along with a general written description of the RTA's relocation Program. The written description will include at least the following: (1) Informs the person that the person may be displaced for the project and generally describes the relocation payment(s) for which the person may be eligible, the basic conditions of eligibility, and the procedures for obtaining the payment(s). (2) Informs the person that the person will be given reasonable relocation advisory services, including referrals to replacement properties, help in filing payment claims, and other necessary assistance to help the person successfully relocate. Informs the person that he or she will not be required to move without at least ninety days' advance written notice (see subparagraph (c) of this section), and informs any person to be displaced from a residential dwelling that the person (3) 04/07/98 Page 42 of 54 Rev. #1 cannot be required to move permanently unless at least one comparable replacement,dwelling has been made available. (4) Describes the person's right to appeal the RTA's determination as to eligibility for, or the amount of, any relocation payment for which the person may be eligible under these Procedures. b. Notice of relocation eligibility: (1) Eligibility for relocation assistance will begin on the date of initiation of negotiations for the occupied property. When this occurs, the RTA will promptly provide written notice to all occupants to be displaced of their eligibility for applicable relocation assistance. (2) An occupant may subsequently be provided a notice of noneligibility if the RTA determines the person will not be displaced. Such notice may be issued only if the person has not moved and the RTA agrees to reimburse the person for any expenses incurred to satisfy any binding contractual relocation obligations entered into after the effective date of the notice of relocation eligibility. c. Ninety -day notice: (1) General: No lawful occupant will be required to move unless the occupant has received at least ninety days advance written notice of the earliest date by which he or she may be required to move. (2) Timing of notice: The RTA may issue the notice ninety days before it expects the person to be displaced or earlier. When possible the RTA will attempt to provide maximum notification time but in any event no less than 90 days, except in case of urgent need(s). Content of notice: The ninety -day notice will either state a specific date as the earliest date by which the occupant may be required to move, or state that the occupant will receive a further notice indicating, at least thirty days in advance, the specific date by which the occupant must move. If the ninety -day notice is issued before a comparable replacement dwelling is made available, the notice must state clearly that the occupant will not have to move earlier than ninety days after such a dwelling is made available. (4) Urgent need: In unusual circumstances, an occupant may be required to vacate the property on less than ninety days advance written notice if the RTA determines that a ninety -day notice is impracticable, such as when the person's continued occupancy of the property would constitute a substantial danger to health or safety. A record of the RTA's determination will be included in the applicable case file. (3) 11.4. Availability of Comparable Replacement Dwelling Before Displacement. 04/07/98 Page 43 of 54 Rev. #1 No person to be displaced will be required to move from the person's dwelling unless at least one comparable replacement has been made available to the person. a. Policy: Three or more comparable replacement dwellings will be made available unless such dwellings are.not available on the local housing market. When otherwise feasible, in accordance with Section 11.1.b, paragraph 3 and Section 10.3.a, paragraph 4, comparable replacement dwellings to be made available to minority persons may include dwellings not located in an area of minority concentration. A comparable replacement dwelling will be considered to have been made available to a person, if: (1) The person is informed of its location; and (2) The person has sufficient time to negotiate and enter into a purchase agreement or lease for the property; and in order to meet the deadlines of the project, the RTA may, at the request of the displaced person, provide assistance in these negotiations. Subject to reasonable safeguards, the person is assured of receiving the acquisition payment to which the person is entitled in sufficient time to complete the purchase or lease of the property. (3) b. Circumstances permitting waiver: The applicable federal funding agency may grant a waiver of the policy in subparagraph a of this section in any case where it is demonstrated that a person must move because of: (1) A major disaster as defined in section 102(c) of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5121); or (2) A presidentially declared national emergency; or (3) Another emergency that requires immediate vacation of the real property, such as when continued occupancy of the displacement dwelling constitutes a substantial danger to the health or safety of the occupants or the public. c. Basic conditions of emergency move: Whenever a person is required to relocate for a temporary period because of an emergency as described in subparagraph b of this section, for purposes of filing a claim and meeting the eligibility requirements for a relocation payment, the date of displacement is the date the person moves from the temporarily -occupied dwelling. The RTA will: (1) Take whatever steps are necessary to assure that the person is temporarily relocated to a sanitary dwelling; and 04/07/98 Page 44 of 54 Rev. #1 (2) Pay the actual reasonable out-of-pocket moving expenses and any reasonable increase in monthly housing costs incurred in connection with the temporary relocation; and Make available to the displaced person as soon as feasible, at least one comparable replacement dwelling. (For purposes of filing a claim and meeting the eligibility requirements for a relocation payment, the date of displacement is the date the person moves from the temporarily occupied dwellings.) (4) The person is entitled to be heard according to Article 13 in the event of a grievance. (3) 11.5. Eviction for cause. Eviction for cause must conform to applicable state and local law. Any person who has lawfully occupied the real property, but who is later evicted for cause on or after the date of the initiation of negotiations, retains the right to the relocation payments and other assistance set forth in these Procedures. Any person who occupies the real property and is not in lawful occupancy on the date of initiation of negotiations is presumed to be entitled to relocation payments and other assistance set forth in this Article 11 unless the RTA determines that: a. The person received an eviction notice before the initiation of negotiations and as a result of that notice is later evicted; or b. The person is evicted after the initiation of negotiations for serious or repeated violations of material terms of the lease and occupancy agreement; and c. In either case the eviction was not undertaken for the purpose of evading the obligation to make available the payments and other assistance set forth in Article 11. For purposes of determining eligibility for relocation payments, the date of displacement is the date the person moves or the date a comparable replacement dwelling is made available, whichever is later. This section applies only if the RTA had intended to displace the person. 11.6. Claims for relocation payments. a. Documentation: Any claim for a relocation payment must be supported by documentation reasonably necessary to support expenses incurred, such as, bills, certified prices, appraisals, or other evidence of such expenses. Payment for a low cost or uncomplicated move may be made without documentation of actual costs when payment is limited to the amount of the lowest acceptable bid or estimate obtained by the RTA. The RTA will provide a displaced person with reasonable assistance necessary to complete and file any required claim for payment. 04/07/98 Page 45 of 54 Rev. #1 b. Expeditious payments: The RTA will review claims expeditiously. The RTA will promptly notify claimants as to any additional documentation that is required to support the claim. Payment for a claim will be made as soon as feasible following receipt of sufficient documentation to support the claim. c. Advance payments: If a person demonstrates the need for an advance relocation payment in order to avoid or reduce a hardship, the RTA may issue the payment, subject to such safeguards as are appropriate to ensure that the objective of the payment is accomplished. d. Time for filing: All claims for a relocation payment must be filed with the RTA within eighteen months after: (1) For tenants, the date of displacement; (2) For owners, the date of displacement or the date of the final payment for the acquisition of the real property, whichever is later. The RTA will waive this time period for good cause. e. Multiple occupants of one displacement dwelling: If two or more occupants of the displacement dwelling move to separate replacement dwellings, each occupant is entitled to a reasonable prorated share, as determined by the RTA, of any relocation payments that would have been made if the occupants moved together to a comparable replacement dwelling. However, if the RTA determines that two or more occupants maintained separate households within the same dwelling, such occupants have separate entitlements to relocation payments. f. Deductions from relocation payments: The RTA will deduct the amount of any advance relocation payment from the relocation payment(s) to which a displaced person is otherwise entitled. Similarly where such a deduction would not prevent the displaced person from obtaining a comparable replacement dwelling as required by Section 11.4 the RTA may deduct from relocation payments any rent that the displaced person owes the RTA. The RTA will not withhold any part of a relocation payment to a displaced person to satisfy an obligation to any other creditor. g. Notice of denial of claim: If the RTA disapproves all or part of a payment claimed or refuses to consider the claim on its merits because of untimely filing or other grounds, it will promptly notify the claimant in writing of its determination, the basis for its determination, and the procedures for appealing that determination. 11.7. Relocation planning. The Project will be planned in such a manner that the problems associated with the displacement of individuals, families, businesses, farms, and non-profit organizations are recognized and solutions are developed to minimize the adverse impacts of displacement. Such planning, where appropriate, will precede any RTA action that 04/07/98 Page 46 of 54 Rev. #1 will cause displacement, and will be scoped to the complexity and nature of the anticipated displacing activity including an evaluation of Program resources available to carry out timely and orderly relocations. Planning may involve a relocation survey or study, which may include the following: a. An estimate of the number of households to be displaced including information such as owner/tenant status, estimated value and rental rates of property to be acquired, family characteristics, and special consideration of the impacts on minorities, the elderly, and the handicapped, when applicable. b. An estimate of the number of comparable replacement dwellings in the area (including price ranges and rental rates) that are expected to be available to fulfill the needs of those households displaced. When an adequate supply of comparable housing is not expected to be available, consideration of housing of last resort actions should be instituted. c. An estimate of the number, types, and size of the businesses, farms, and non-profit organizations to be displaced and the approximate number of employees that may be affected. d. Consideration of any special relocation advisory services that may be necessary from the RTA and other cooperating agencies. 12. CHARACTERIZATION OF PAYMENTS No payment received by a displaced person or business under these Procedures may be considered as income for the purpose of determining the eligibility or extent of eligibility of any person for assistance under any state law for the purposes of any income tax or any tax imposed under Title 82 RCW and the payment will not be deducted from any amount to which any recipient would otherwise be entitled under Title 74 RCW. No payment received by a displaced person under these Procedures will be considered as income for the purpose of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, which has been redesignated as the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or for the purpose of determining the eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social Security Act or any other federal law except for any federal law providing low-income housing assistance. 13. RELOCATION APPEALS PROCESS The RTA will promptly review appeals in accordance with the requirements of applicable law and these Procedures. 13.1. Appealable Actions. A person may file written notice of an appeal with the RTA in any case in which the person believes that the RTA has failed to properly determine the person's eligibility 04/07/98 Page 47 of 54 Rev. #1 for, or the amount of, a payment required under these Procedures, or a relocation payment required under the Program. 13.2. Limitations. A person is entitled to only such benefits as are specifically delineated in these Procedures. 13.3. Form of notice. Appeals must be in writing. The RTA will consider a written appeal regardless of form. The appeal notice or letter should state what issues are being claimed, the reasons why the aggrieved person believes the claim should be allowed, and how the person believes he or she is otherwise aggrieved. The letter or notice should clearly identify the RTA's project and the parcel of real property involved and should bear the signature and address of the aggrieved person or the person's authorized representative. The RTA may refuse to schedule any review or hearing on an appeal until these requirements have been complied with or may issue an order providing for dismissal of such appeal upon failure to comply within a reasonable time specified by the RTA, which will not be less than 14 days. 13.4. Time limit for initiating appeal. The time limit will be sixty days after the person receives written notification of the RTA's determination on the person's claim. 13.5. Review of files by person making appeal. The RTA will permit a person to inspect and copy all materials pertinent to the person's appeal, except materials that are classified as confidential by the RTA. The RTA may, however, impose reasonable conditions on the person's right to inspect, consistent with applicable laws. 13.6. Scope of Review Appraisal. In deciding appeal, the RTA will consider all pertinent justification and other material submitted by the person, and all other available information that is needed to ensure a fair and full review of the appeal. 13.7. RTA Official to Review Appeal. The RTA Executive Director or his or her authorized designee will conduct the review of the appeal. However, in no event will the reviewing official have been directly involved in the action appealed. 13.8. Determination of Notification. Promptly after receipt of all information submitted by a person in support of an appeal, the RTA will make a written determination on the appeal, including an explanation of the basis on which the discussion was made, and furnish the person a 04/07/98 Page 48 of 54 Rev. #1 copy. If the full relief requested is not granted the RTA will advise the person of his or her right to seek judicial review. 13.9. Hearing process. Except as they may be inconsistent with the rules of this chapter, the practice and procedure rules as set forth in chapter 468-10 WAC will apply to appeals under this Program. Where the rules of these Procedures conflict with those of chapter 468-10 or 10-08 WAC, the rules of these Procedures will govern. 13.10. Discovery. Discovery will be available in relocation appeals as follows. Any party to a relocation appeal may obtain discovery from any party by written interrogatories, written admissions, oral depositions, subpoena duces tecums, and written requests for production of documents. The procedures regarding these methods of discovery are found at CR 28 through 36 and 45(b) as now or hereafter amended and are hereby incorporated in these Procedures. 14. MOBILE HOMES 14.1. General Provisions. This Article 14 describes the requirements governing the provision of relocation payments to a person displaced from a mobile home and/or mobile homesite who meets the basic eligibility requirements of these Procedures. Except as modified by Section 8.5 and this Article 14, such a displaced person is entitled to a moving expense payment in accordance with Article 8 and a replacement housing payment in accordance with Article 10 to the same extent and subject to the same requirements as persons displaced from conventional dwellings. 14.2. Replacement housing payment for one hundred eighty -day mobile home owner - occupants. A displaced owner -occupant of a mobile home is entitled to a replacement housing payment, not to exceed twenty-two thousand, five hundred dollars ($22,500)17 under Section 10.1 if: a. The person both owned the displacement mobile home and occupied it on the displacement site for at least the one hundred eighty days immediately before the initiation of negotiations; b. The person meets the other basic eligibility requirements in Section 10.1.a; and c. The RTA acquires the mobile home and/or mobile homesite or the mobile home is not acquired by the RTA but the owner is displaced from the mobile home because the RTA determines that the mobile home: 04/07/98 Page 49 of 54 Rev. #1 (1) Is not and cannot economically be made decent, safe, and sanitary; or (2) Cannot be relocated without substantial damage or unreasonable cost; or (3) Cannot be relocated because there is no available comparable replacement site; or (4) Cannot be relocated because it does not meet mobile home park entrance requirements. If the mobile home is not actually acquired, but the RTA determines that it is not practical to relocate it, the acquisition cost of the displacement dwelling used when computing the price differential amount, described in Section 10.1.a, will include the salvage value or trade-in value of the mobile home, whichever is higher. 14.3. Replacement housing payments for ninety -day mobile home occupants. A displaced tenant or owner -occupant of a mobile home is eligible for a replacement housing payment, not to exceed five thousand, two hundred fifty dollars ($5,250), under Section 10.2 if:18 a. The person actually occupied the displacement mobile home on the displacement site for at least the ninety days immediately before the initiation of negotiations; b. The person meets the other basic eligibility requirements in Section 10.2.a, paragraph 1; and c. The RTA acquires the mobile home and/or mobile homesite, or the mobile home is not acquired by the RTA but the owner or tenant is displaced from the mobile home because of one of the circumstances described in Section 14.2.c. 14.4. Additional rules governing relocation payment to mobile home occupants. a. Replacement housing payment based on dwelling and site: Both the mobile home and mobile homesite must be considered when computing a replacement housing payment. For example, a displaced mobile home occupant may have owned the displacement mobile home and rented the site or may have rented the displacement mobile home and owned the site. Also a person may elect to purchase a replacement mobile home and rent a replacement site, or rent a replacement mobile home and purchase a replacement site. In such cases, the total replacement housing payment will consist of a payment for a dwelling and a payment for a site; each computed under the applicable section in Sections 10.1 through 10.3. However, the total replacement housing payment under Sections 10.1 through 10.3 will not exceed the maximum payment (either twenty-two thousand, five hundred dollars 04/07/98 Page 50 of 54 Rev. #1 ($22,500) or five thousand, two hundred fifty dollars ($5,250) permitted under the subsection that governs the computation for the dwelling. (See also Section 10.3.b.) b. Cost of comparable replacement dwelling: (1) If a comparable replacement mobile home is not available, the replacement housing payment will be computed on the basis of the reasonable cost of a conventional comparable replacement dwelling. (2) If the RTA determines that it would be practical to relocate the mobile home, but the owner -occupant elects not to do so, the RTA may determine that, for purposes of computing the price differential under Section 10.1.a, the cost of a comparable replacement dwelling is the sum of: (3) The value of the mobile home; (4) The cost of any necessary repairs or modifications; and (5) The estimated cost of moving the mobile home to a replacement site. c. Initiation of negotiations: If the mobile home is not actually acquired, but the occupant is considered displaced under these Procedures, "initiation of negotiations" is the date of initiation of negotiations to acquire the land, or, if the land is not acquired, the date of the written notification that the occupant is a displaced person under this chapter. d. Person moves mobile home: If the owner is reimbursed for the cost of moving the mobile home under this chapter, the owner is not eligible to receive a replacement housing payment to assist in purchasing or renting a replacement mobile home. The owner may, however, be eligible for assistance in purchasing or renting a replacement site. e. Partial acquisition of mobile home park: The acquisition of a portion of a mobile home park property may leave a remaining part of the property that is not adequate to continue the operation of the park. If the RTA determines that a mobile home located in the remaining part of the property must be moved as a direct result of the project, the owner and any tenant will be considered a displaced person who is entitled to relocation payments and other assistance under this chapter. f. General provisions: Section 10.1 also applies. 04/07/98 Page 51 of 54 Rev. #I 15. LAST RESORT HOUSING 15.1. Applicability. a. Basic determination to provide last resort housing: A person will not be required to move from the person's dwelling unless the RTA has made available to the person at least one comparable replacement dwelling. Whenever the RTA determines that a replacement housing payment under Sections 10.1 through 10.3 would not be sufficient to provide a comparable replacement dwelling on a timely basis to the person, the RTA may take appropriate cost-effective measures this section to provide such a dwelling. The RTA's obligation to ensure that a comparable replacement dwelling is available will be met when such a dwelling, or assistance necessary to provide such a dwelling, is offered under the provisions of this Article 15. b. Basic rights of persons to be displaced: (1) The provisions of this section do not deprive any displaced person of any rights the person may have under the Policy and Procedures. The RTA will not require any displaced person to accept a dwelling provided by the RTA under these Procedures (unless the RTA and the displaced person have entered into a contract to do so) in lieu of any acquisition payment or any relocation payment for which the person may otherwise be eligible. A one hundred eighty -day homeowner -occupant who is eligible for a payment under Section 10.1 is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to purchase a comparable replacement dwelling. (2) The actual amount of assistance will be limited to the amount necessary to relocate to a comparable replacement dwelling within one year from the date the displaced homeowner -occupant is paid for the displacement dwelling or the date the person is initially offered a comparable replacement dwelling, whichever is later. The RTA is not required to provide persons owning only a fractional interest in the displacement dwelling a greater level of assistance to purchase a replacement dwelling than the RTA would be required to provide such persons if they owned fee simple title to the displacement dwelling. If such assistance is not sufficient to buy a replacement dwelling, the RTA may provide additional purchase assistance or rental assistance. (3) 15.2. Methods of providing replacement housing. The RTA has broad latitude in implementing its last resort -housing program, but implementation will be on a reasonable cost-effective basis. 04/07/98 Page 52 of 54 Rev. #I a. The methods of providing last resort housing include, but are not limited to: (1) Rehabilitation of and/or additions to an existing replacement dwelling. (2) The construction of a new replacement dwelling. (3) The provision of a direct loan, which requires regular amortization or deferred repayment. The loan may be unsecured or secured by the real property. The loan may bear interest or be interest free. (4) A replacement housing payment in excess of the limits set forth in these sections. A rental assistance subsidy may be provided in installments or in a lump sum. (5) The relocation and, if necessary, rehabilitation of a dwelling. (6) The purchase of land and/or a replacement dwelling by the displacing RTA and subsequent sale or lease to, or exchange with, a displaced person. (7) The removal of barriers to the handicapped. (8) The change in status of the displaced person from tenant to homeowner when it is more cost-effective to do so, as in cases where a down payment may be less expensive than a last resort rental assistance payment. b. Under special circumstances, modified methods of providing housing of last resort permit consideration of: (1) Replacement housing based on space and physical characteristics different from those in the displacement dwelling. (2) Upgraded, but smaller replacement housing that is decent, safe, and sanitary and adequate to accommodate individuals or families displaced from marginal or substandard housing with probable functional obsolescence. (3) The financial means of a displaced person who is not eligible to receive a replacement housing payment because of failure to meet length -of -occupancy requirements when comparable replacement rental housing is not available at rental rates within thirty percent of the person's gross monthly household income. 16. NOTICES Notices will be written and will be in plain understandable language. Persons unable to read and understand the notice must be provided with appropriate translation and counseling. Each notice will indicate the name and telephone number of a person who may be contacted for answers to questions or other needed help. Notices will be personally served or sent by registered or certified first-class mail return receipt requested and documented in the RTA's files. 04/07/98 Page 53 of 54 Rev. #1 17. RECORDKEEPING The RTA will maintain records of acquisition and displacement activities in sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance with these Procedures and law. These records must be maintained for at least 3 years after each owner of a property and each person displaced from a property receives the final payment to which the person is entitled under these Procedures or in accordance with federal funding requirements, whichever is later. Such records will be confidential regarding their use as public information, unless applicable law provides otherwise. 18. CONTRACTS FOR SERVICES In order to prevent unnecessary expenses and delays, and to promote uniform and effective administration of the Program, the RTA may enter into contracts with any individual, firm, association, local public agency or state agency for services in connection with these Procedures or may carry out its functions under these Procedures through any state agency or local public agency having an established organization for conducting relocation assistance programs. 1 49CFR§24.102(c) 2 RCW 8.26.035(3), WAC 468-100-304(1), 49CFR§24.306(a) 3 WAC468-100-304(3), 49CFR§24.306(c) 4 WAC468-100-304(4), 49CFR§24.306(d) 5 WAC468-100-304(5), 49CFR§24.306(e) 6 WAC468-I00-302, 49CFR§24.302 7 RCW8.26.035(d), WAC468-100-306, 49CFR§24.304 8 WAC468-100-306(c) 9 WAC468-100-306(h) 1° RCW8.26.045(1), WAC468-100-401(2), 49CFR§24.401(b) 11 WAC468-100-401(2), 49CFR§24.401(b) 12 WAC468-100-401(6), 49CFR§24.401(1) 13 RCW8.26.055(1), WAC468-100-402(1), 49CFR§24.402(a) 14 RCW8.26.055(1), WAC468-100-402(2)(a), 49CFR§24.402(b) 15 WAC468-100-402(2)(a), 49CFR§24.402(b) 16 WAC468-100-402(3)(a), 49CFR§24.402(c) 17 WAC468-100-401, 49CFR§24.503(a) 18 WAC468-100-504, 49CFR§24.504 04/07/98 Page 54 of 54 Rev. #1 REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 72 A RESOLUTION of the Board of the Regional Transit Authority for the Pierce, King, and Snohomish Counties Region declaring that adoption of financial policies to govern the financing and implementation of any regional transit system plan constitutes a major decision that requires a two-thirds vote of the Board; and adopting financial policies, as recommended by the RTA Finance Committee, for the implementation of the Ten -Year Regional Transit System Plan. WHEREAS, the Regional Transit Authority ("RTA") district includes urban portions of three counties and contains areas with diverse transportation patterns and high capacity transportation needs; and WHEREAS, the RTA is committed to achieving equity among the subareas in the RTA district as to funding and provision of high capacity transportation services and facilities; and WHEREAS, the RTA Board desires to set forth financial policies that reflect the RTA's commitment to such equity while maintaining the flexibility necessary to finance the Ten -Year Regional Transit System Plan on a consolidated basis ("Ten -Year System Plan"); and WHEREAS, the RTA Board is authorized, pursuant to RCW 81.112.040 and Section 7 of Resolution No. 1, adopted September 17, 1993, to designate certain actions of the RTA Board as major decisions that require an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the entire membership of the Board; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of the Regional Transit Authority as follows: Section 1. The RTA Board declares that adoption of, and any subsequent amendment to, financial policies to govern the financing and implementation of any regional transit system plan constitutes a major decision that requires an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the entire membership of the Board. Section 2. The Board hereby adopts the "Financial Policies" document attached hereto as Exhibit A as the financial policies to govern the financing and implementation of the Ten -Year Regional Transit System Plan ("Ten -Year System Plan ") that the RTA Board intends to adopt in 1996. Section 3. The RTA directs the Executive Director and the Finance Director to monitor the RTA's performance under the adopted Financial Policies and, from time to time, to report to the RTA Board regarding the same and to make recommendations regarding desireable revisions to said Financial Policies. Section 4. The RTA Board directs the Executive Director to establish and manage an internal program to implement the Financial Policies adopted by the Board, and the Board authorizes the Executive Director to interpret and apply, with necessary and appropriate discretion, said Financial Policies in the event of changed conditions or circumstances. ADOPTED by the Board of the Regional Transit Authority for the Pierce, King, and Snohomish counties region at its meeting held on May 31, 1996. By Bob Drewel Chair of the Board ATTEST: By Marcia Walker Board Administrator AWG04K.DOC Resolution No. 72 Page 2 of 2 Adopted 5/31/96 REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 73 A RESOLUTION of the Board of the Regional Transit Authority for the Pierce, King, and Snohomish Counties region adopting a Ten - Year Regional Transit System Plan, together with related Appendices, and a Regional Transit Authority Long -Range Vision, and rescinding Resolution No. 40. WHEREAS, on May 28, 1993, the Joint Regional Policy Committee ("JRPC"), created pursuant to RCW 81.104.040, adopted a high capacity transportation plan for the Central Puget Sound region known as the Regional Transit System plan; and WHEREAS, said plan culminated years of intensive planning and public involvement by the JRPC and local governments and transit agencies in an effort known as the Regional Transit Project; and WHEREAS, on September 17, 1993, the Regional Transit Authority ("RTA") was formally constituted pursuant to RCW 81.112.030 and, as directed by law, commenced steps to review and implement the Regional Transit System plan in order to develop a high capacity transportation system as contemplated by Chapters 81.104 and 81.112 RCW; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 40, adopted October 28, 1994, the Board of the RTA adopted a Phase I System Plan for initial implementation and authorized necessary review steps, and by Resolution No. 53, adopted January 13, 1995, called for a special election to approve local taxes to implement said plan; and WHEREAS, the election held on March 14, 1995, to fund a Phase I Regional Transit System plan was unsuccessful; and WHEREAS, the RTA has since participated in or sponsored community meetings, regional forums, and formal public hearings to discuss development of a new regional transit system plan and service and facility alternatives within the plan; and WHEREAS, the RTA Board established a Regional Outreach Committee to provide expert and citizen advice to the RTA in developing a new regional transit system plan; and WHEREAS, in response to such community outreach and public input the RTA has prepared a Ten -Year Regional Transit System Plan, together with Appendices (the "Ten -Year System Plan"), and a Regional Transit Authority Long -Range Vision to respond to the region's high capacity transportation needs; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, the RTA independently reviewed the content of the environmental analysis performed by the Joint Regional Policy Council ("JRPC") in the Final Environmental Impact Statement issued in March 1993 for the JRPC Regional Transit System plan, and determined that it meets the RTA's environmental review standards and needs for the adoption of the Ten -Year System Plan and the Regional Transit Authority Long Range Vision; and WHEREAS, on May 22, 1996 the RTA adopted the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the JRPC Regional Transit System plan, and issued a notice of adoption, all pursuant to WAC 197-11-630; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, the RTA independently reviewed the content of the environmental analysis performed by the Puget Sound Regional Council ("PSRC") in the Vision 2020 Addendum and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, dated March 10, 1995, and determined that it meets the RTA's environmental review standards and needs for the adoption of the Ten -Year System Plan and the Regional Transit Authority Long Range Vision; and WHEREAS, on May 22, 1996 the RTA adopted the Vision 2020 Addendum and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, dated March 10, 1995, and issued a notice of adoption, all pursuant to WAC 197-11-630; and Resolution No. 73 Page 2 of 4 Adopted 5/31/96 WHEREAS, the Board of the RTA has determined that it is in the best interests of the citizens of the region to adopt as a new plan for the RTA the Ten -Year System Plan as substantially contained in Exhibit A attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the Board of the RTA has further determined that it is in the best interests of the citizens of the region to adopt the Regional Transit Authority Long -Range Vision, as substantially contained in Exhibit B attached hereto; and WHEREAS, drafts of the Ten -Year System Plan have been transmitted to an expert review panel pursuant to RCW 81.104.110, and said panel will conduct further review after said Plan is adopted as herein provided; and WHEREAS, drafts of the Ten -Year System Plan and the Regional Transit Authority Long -Range Vision have been transmitted to the PSRC for purposes of determining consistency with applicable laws and regulations; and WHEREAS, the alternatives identified for implementation in the Regional Transit Authority Long -Range Vision and the Ten -Year System Plan are within the range of alternatives and impacts reviewed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement issued in March 1993 for the JRPC Regional Transit System plan, and the Vision 2020 Addendum and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, dated March 10, 1995; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 72, adopted May 31, 1996, the Board of the RTA adopted financial policies to guide funding of high capacity transportation services and facilities in the Ten -Year System Plan and to achieve equity among the subareas in the RTA district; and WHEREAS, the Board of the RTA has considered the Regional Transit Authority Long - Range Vision and the Ten -Year System Plan components and their environmental impacts and has determined that such Plan is in the best interests of the citizens of the Central Puget Sound region and is capable of providing the high capacity transportation system as contemplated by Chapters 81.104 and 81.112 RCW; Resolution No. 73 Page 3 of 4 Adopted 5/31/96 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of the Regional Transit Authority as follows: Section 1. The Board of the RTA hereby adopts the Ten -Year Regional Transit System Plan substantially as contained in Exhibit A attached hereto, together with its related Appendices, and further identifies said Plan as the RTA's high capacity transportation plan to be implemented pursuant to Chapters 81.104 and 81.112 RCW. Section 2. The Board of the RTA hereby adopts the Regional Transit Authority Long - Range Vision, substantially as contained in Exhibit B attached hereto, as the RTA's statement of goals, policies and strategies to guide long-range development of the regional high capacity transportation system. Section 3. The Board of the RTA further authorizes the Executive Director to take any actions necessary to implement the policies and determinations of the Board pursuant to this resolution and to complete required reviews of said Plan. Section 4. The Board of the RTA hereby rescinds Resolution No. 40, adopted October 28, 1994, which adopted a Regional Transit System Master Plan, approving within said Plan a Phase I System Plan. ADOPTED by the Board of the RTA for the Pierce, King and Snohomish Counties region at its meeting held on May 31, 1996. By Bob Drewel Chair of the Board ATTEST: Marcia Walker Board Administrator Resolution No. 73 Page 4 of 4 Adopted 5/31/96 SOUND TRANSIT RESOLUTION NO. R98-43 A RESOLUTION of the Board of the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority authorizing the Executive Director to acquire, dispose, or lease up to 13.8 acres of property for construction of the Longacres Commuter Rail Station by purchase or by condemnation. WHEREAS, a Regional Transit Authority ("RTA"), hereinafter referred to as Sound Transit has been created for the Pierce, King, and Snohomish County region by action of their respective county councils pursuant to RCW 81.112.030; and WHEREAS, on November 5, 1996, Central Puget Sound area voters approved local funding for Sound Move, the ten-year plan for regional high-capacity transit in the Central Puget Sound Region; and WHEREAS, Sound Move provided for the implementation high capacity commuter rail service between Tacoma and Seattle, and further provided for the construction, operation and permanent location of the Longacres Commuter Rail Station and associated parking facilities in Tukwila, Washington; and WHEREAS, in June 1998, a Federal Transit Administration ("FTA") conducted an environmental evaluation of the proposed location for the Longacres Commuter Rail Station and issued a finding of no significant environmental impact. In compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act , Chapter 43.21 RCW, and the implementing regulations set forth in WAC 197-11, Sound Transit considered and adopted the FTA's finding of no significant environmental impact for the Tacoma -Seattle commuter rail project, including the Longacres Commuter Rail Station location; and 4 WHEREAS, after consideration of the finding of no significant environmental impact, and public and governmental comments, Sound Transit selected a site for the Tukwila station that will require the acquisition of up to 13.8 acres in private ownership. The property is situated adjacent to the former Longacres Race Track between the railroad tracks at S. 158th Street and is reasonably described in Exhibit A attached hereto; and WHEREAS, in order to acquire the property determined to be necessary for the construction, operation and permanent location of the Longacres Commuter Rail Station, it is necessary for Sound Transit to acquire by purchase or to condemn certain lands and rights in property for public purposes, as hereinafter stated; and WHEREAS, Sound Transit has commissioned appraisals to determine the fair market value of the property and will continue to negotiate in good faith with the owners of the properties authorized to be condemned with the intent of reaching agreements for the acquisition of the property for fair market value; and WHEREAS, the funds necessary to acquire the property by purchase or to pay just compensation adjudged due after condemnation shall be paid from Sound Transit general funds; H NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority as follows: SECTION 1. The Executive Director is hereby authorized to execute such agreements as are customary and necessary for the acquisition, lease, or disposal of up to 13.8 acres of property described in Exhibit A, said property to used for the construction of the Longacres Commuter Rail Station in Tukwila. In accordance with Sound Transit's adopted Real Property Acquisition and Relocation Policies, Procedures and Guidelines, the acquisition price of the property shall Resolution No. R98-43 Page 2 of 4 Adopted 9/10/98 not exceed the fair market value to be determined when the appraisal evaluation process is completed; provided that in the event that the fair market value of the property exceeds Sound Transit's estimated range of the fair market value as indicated by preliminary appraisal evaluations, then the Executive Director shall obtain approval from the Executive Committee before the acquisition of the property by purchase or by condemnation. Section 2. The Sound Transit Board of Directors deems the Longacres Commuter Rail Station to be constructed in Tukwila to be a public use for a public purpose. The Board deems it necessary and in the best interests of the citizens residing within Sound Transit's boundaries to acquire the property identified herein as being necessary for the construction, operation and permanent location of the Longacres Commuter Rail Station and associated parking facilities. The Board directs that all, any portion thereof, of the property identified herein be immediately acquired by voluntary agreement, or in lieu of agreement, that said properties be condemned, appropriated, taken and damaged for the construction, operation and permanent location of the Longacres Commuter Rail Station, said property being described in Exhibit A incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. The Sound Transit Board of Directors finds that the public health, safety, necessity, convenience and welfare demand and require that the above-described properties be immediately acquired, condemned, appropriated, taken and damaged for the construction, operation and permanent location of the Longacres Commuter Rail Station and associated parking facilities in Tukwila. SECTION 4. Sound Transit has complied with the State Environmental Policy Act and the guidelines of WAC Chapter 197-11 with respect to this resolution authorizing condemnation proceedings. Resolution No. R98-43 Page 3 of 4 Adopted 9/10/98 SECTION 5. In addition to the authority granted the Executive Director in Section 1 above, condemnation proceedings are hereby authorized to acquire all, or any portion thereof, of the properties and property rights and/or rights in the properties described in the attached Exhibit A for the purpose of constructing, owning and operating the Longacres Commuter Rail Station and associated parking facilities in Tukwila. SECTION 6. The funds necessary to acquire the property by purchase or to pay just compensation adjudged due after condemnation shall be paid from Sound Transit general funds. ADOPTED by the Board of the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority at a regular meeting thereof held on the 10th day of September 1998. Paul Miller Board Chair ATTEST: Marcia Walker Board Administrator Resolution No. R98-43 Page 4 of 4 Adopted 9/10/98 SOUND TRANSIT RESOLUTION NO. R98-44 A RESOLUTION of the Board of the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority to delegate to the Executive Committee all such powers as enumerated in Resolution 78-1 as are necessary to acquire, dispose, lease or otherwise authorize any real property transaction(s) necessary for the construction and operation of the Longacres Commuter Rail Station in Tukwila, Washington. WHEREAS, a Regional Transit Authority ("RTA"), hereinafter referred to as Sound Transit (ST) has been created for the Pierce, King, and Snohomish County region by action of their respective county councils pursuant to RCW 81.112.030; and WHEREAS, on November 5, 1996, Central Puget Sound area voters approved local funding for Sound Move, the ten-year plan for regional high-capacity transit in the Central Puget Sound Region; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. R98 -43 authorized the Executive Director to acquire by purchase or by condemnation up to 13.8 acres of certain real property reasonably identified in Exhibit A hereto, and deemed necessary for the construction and operation of the Longacres Commuter Rail Station in Tukwila, Washington, at a purchase price not to exceed the fair market value of the property as established by Sound Transit's appraisal evaluation process. Resolution No. R98-43 further provides that in the event the fair market value of the property exceeds Sound Transit's estimate of the property's fair market value, then the Executive Committee must approve the acquisition or condemnation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority that all such powers as enumerated in Resolution 78-1 as are necessary to acquire, condemn, dispose, lease or otherwise authorize any real property transaction(s) necessary to acquire the real property deemed necessary for the construction and operation of the Longacres Commuter Rail Station in Tukwila, Washington are delegated to the Executive Committee, including the authority to approve expenditures in excess of five million dollars ($5,000,000), provided that this Resolution is supplemental to Resolution No. R98-43 and shall not limit the authority and powers granted thereunder. ADOPTED by the Board of the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority at a regular meeting thereof held on the 10th day of September 1998. Paul Miller Board Chair ATTEST: Marcia Walker Board Administrator Resolution No. R98-44 Page 2 of 2 Adopted 9/10/98 SOUND TRANSIT RESOLUTION NO. R99-11 Acquisition of certain Real Property, by purchase or condemnation, and payment of eligible relocation and re-establishment benefits to affected parties for Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Project BACKGROUND AND COMMENTS Meeting: Date: Type of Action: . Staff Contact: Phone: Executive 5/7/99 Discussion and Recommendation Larry Ellington 689-7442 Committee Board 5/13/99 Discussion/Possible Action Larry Ellington 689-7442 ACTION: The Board is requested to authorize and to delegate to the Executive Director the authority to acquire, dispose, or lease certain real property interests by voluntary agreement, by condemnation, or by settling condemnation litigation or entering administrative settlements, and to pay eligible relocation and re-establishment benefits to affected parties as necessary for the construction of the Tukwila, Puyallup, and Tacoma Dome Commuter Rail Stations as part of the Tacoma to Seattle Commuter Rail Project ("the Project"). BACKGROUND: In order to build and operate a high capacity transit system consisting of commuter rail service, light rail service, and a program of regional bus service, HOV improvements, and park-and-ride facilities throughout the central Puget Sound region, it will be necessary for Sound Transit to acquire real property. Sound Transit's authorizing legislation grants the agency the power of eminent domain to accomplish such acquisitions. The acquisition of real property will, in some cases, result in the displacement of property owners, tenants and businesses. The Tacoma -to - Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment identified the locations of nine (9) commuter rail stations and identified the real property necessary for construction and operation of the stations. Tukwila and Puyallup Commuter Rail Stations Resolution 98-50 previously authorized the acquisition or condemnation of certain properties necessary for commuter rail stations in Puyallup, Sumner, Auburn and Kent. Resolution 98-43 authorized the acquisition of property for the Longacres (Tukwila) Station. Subsequent design development for the commuter rail stations in Tukwila and Puyallup has identified certain additional real properties to be necessary to the construction and operation of these two commuter rail stations. Tacoma Dome Station The FTA conducted an environmental assessment of a commuter rail facility at the Tacoma Dome Station at Freighthouse Square in Tacoma and on April 6, 1999 issued a finding of no significant environmental impact. The Freighthouse Square location replaces the interim station site evaluated in the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment. In compliance with SEPA, Sound Transit considered andadopted the FTA's Finding of No Significant Impact for this facility. Certain property rights are needed at Freighthouse Square to facilitate construction and operation of the station. The real properties ("Properties") identified in this requested action (see Exhibit "A" to Resolution 99-11) are consistent with the Environmental Assessment for the Tacoma to Seattle Commuter Rail Project and with the Environmental Assessment for the Commuter Rail Facility at Tacoma Dome Station. Sound Transit has commissioned appraisals and environmental investigative studies of each of the Properties. These evaluations will be completed and fair market value established according to the Sound Transit's Real Property Policy, Procedures and Guidelines ("Real Estate Policy") adopted by the Board on April 23, 1998. Discussions with the property owners, business owners and tenants to acquire property and accomplish the relocation of occupants are underway. These discussions will continue in earnest in an effort to achieve negotiated agreements to purchase the Properties and pay relocation benefits to the occupants.. Pursuant to applicable state and Federal law, and consistent with Sound Transit's Real Estate Policy, .representatives and staff from Sound Transit will meet individually with each property owner to explain the acquisition process and negotiate agreements. Property owners will be afforded reasonable time to consider Sound Transit's offer to purchase. Sound Transit may not always be able to acquire necessary real property by negotiated agreement. In these cases, it will be important that Sound Transit be able to move forward expeditiously to file condemnation actions. Each anticipated condemnation action would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Real estate staff and legal counsel will work closely together and with the property owner and their representatives to assure alternatives for reaching mutual agreement have been considered. The Executive Director would be authorized to settle condemnation litigation and enter administrative settlements in lieu of litigation, based on legal counsel recommendation for amounts reasonably approximating fair market value and within authorized budgets. Consistent with Sound Transit's Real Estate Policy and applicable state and federal law, Sound Transit will also negotiate with each legal occupant of the Properties to establish eligibility and identify assistance for the relocation and re-establishment expenses associated with moving to a new location. Staff will continue to inform the Executive Director and Board members regularly on the status of any condemnation case(s) prior to filing, completed voluntary acquisitions and relocation agreements reached. Staff would return to the Executive Committee or the Board, according to Resolution 78-1, if negotiated purchases, relocation agreements, condemnation litigation Resolution No. R99-11 Page 2 of 4 Background and Comments settlements, or administrative, settlements (settlements in lieu of filing condemnation) exceed the authorized budget amounts. RELEVANT BOARD POLICIES AND.PREVIOUS ACTIONS TAKEN: • Adoption of Sound , ( May 31, 1996) • Resolution 78-1, (April 9, 1998) • Approval of Real Property Acquisition and Relocation Policies, Procedures and Guidelines (April 23, 1998). • Resolution 98-49, adopting 1999 Budget (November 12, 1998). • Motion 98-43, directing staff to begin the property acquisition process and station design process for the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Project upon receipt of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).(June 11, 1998). • Resolution 98-43, authorizing acquisition of real property for the Longacres Commuter Rail Station, (September 10, 1998) • Resolution 98-50, authorizing staff to acquire, dispose, or lease all real property interests by voluntary agreement or by condemnation and to pay eligible relocation and re-establishment benefits to affected parties as necessary for commuter rail stations in Puyallup, Sumner, Auburn and Kent for the Tacoma to Seattle Commuter Rail Project(November 12, 1998) FUNDING: Funding for acquisition and relocation is included in the estimated Right -of -Way acquisition cost for each Commuter Rail station which is part of the overall Sounder Commuter Rail budget. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In accordance with Sound Transit's Real Estate Policy, the acquisition price of the Properties will be based upon an appraisal of fair market value, as determined by a formal appraisal process including a review of the appraisal. In some cases, Sound Transit's purchase offer may not be deemed acceptable to the Seller and efforts to acquire the property through negotiation may prove unsuccessful. In order to acquire the Properties and to meet the schedule and budget for the Project, Sound Transit may need to rely upon its power of eminent domain. Condemnation litigation can be a lengthy process and the ability to file the suit in a timely manner is crucial to our overall success. In accordance with Sound Transit's Real Estate Policy, staff is committed to reaching agreements with all parties through negotiated settlement and avoiding prolonged litigation whenever possible. Negotiations with property owners to purchase property voluntarily would continue up until trial whenever possible. COST: Resolution No. R99-11 Page 3 of 4 Background and Comments The total acquisition price of the Properties will be based upon appraisals of fair market value. Pursuant to Sound Transit's Real Estate Policy the cost for reimbursement of eligible relocation and re-establishment expenses will be determined based upon the displaced parties' relocation plan and the actual costs incurred. Funding for property acquisition and relocation is included in the estimated Right -of -Way acquisition cost for each station, as part of the overall Sounder Commuter Rail budget. ALTERNATIVES: • Seek Board or Executive Committee approval for each real property acquisition, relocation agreement, condemnation action and/or settlement of litigation. CONSEQUENCES OF DELAY: The timely acquisition, by negotiation or condemnation, of real property together with the relocation of businesses, tenants and residents, is necessary for the successful completion of the Tacoma -to -Seattle segment of the Sounder Commuter Rail line. Delay in authorization will result in delay of acquisition and vacation of property, which could negatively affect the construction schedule of the Sounder project. LEGAL REVIEW: The Background and Comments and Resolution have been reviewed and approved by the Legal Department. Resolution No. R99-11 Page 4 of 4 Background and Comments SOUND TRANSIT RESOLUTION NO. R99-11 A RESOLUTION of the Board of the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority authorizing the Executive Director to acquire, dispose, or lease certain real property interests by negotiated purchase, by condemnation, by settling condemnation litigation or entering administrative settlements, and to pay eligible relocation and re-establishment benefits to affected parties as necessary for the construction and operation of commuter rail stations at Tukwila, Puyallup and Tacoma for the Tacoma -to Seattle Commuter Rail Project. WHEREAS, a Authority ("Sound Transit") has been created for the Pierce, King, and Snohomish County region by action of their respective county councils pursuant to RCW 81.112.030; and WHEREAS, on November 5, 1996, Central Puget Sound area voters approved local funding for Sound Move, the ten-year plan for regional high-capacity transit in the Central Puget Sound Region; and - WHEREAS, Sound Move provided for the implementation of high capacity commuter rail service between Tacoma and Seattle, and further provided for the construction, operation and permanent location of nine (9) rail stations in Tacoma, Puyallup, Sumner, Auburn, Kent, Tukwila and Seattle; and WHEREAS, in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), the Federal Transit Administration ("FTA") conducted an environmental assessment of the proposed locations for the nine (9) Commuter Rail Stations, and in June 1998 issued a finding of no significant environmental impact. In compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA"), Sound Transit considered and adopted the FTA's finding of no significant environmental impact for the Tacoma -Seattle commuter rail project, and WHEREAS, in compliance with NEPA, the FTA conducted an environmental assessment of the Commuter Rail Facility at Tacoma Dome Station and issued a finding of no significant environmental impact on April 6, 1999. In compliance with SEPA, Sound Transit considered and adopted the FTA's finding of no significant environmental impact for the Commuter Rail Facility at Tacoma Dome Station; and WHEREAS, Resolution 98-50 authorized the Executive Director authorized to acquire, dispose, or lease certain real property interests by negotiated purchase or by condemnation and to pay eligible relocation and re-establishment benefits to affected parties as necessary for the construction and operation of commuter rail stations for the Tacoma to Seattle Commuter Rail Project; and WHEREAS, subsequent design development for the commuter rail stations in Tukwila and Puyallup has identified certain additional real properties as necessary to the construction of the Tukwila and Puyallup commuter rail stations, consistent with previously completed federal and state environmental evaluations, and said properties are reasonably described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto; and WHEREAS, in order to acquire the properties determined to be necessary for the construction, operation and permanent location of the Tukwila, Puyallup, and Tacoma commuter rail stations, it is necessary for Sound Transit to acquire by negotiated purchase or to condemn certain lands and rights in property described in Exhibit "A" for public purposes, and to pay eligible relocation and re-establishment benefits to affected parties; and Resolution No. R99-11 Page 2 of 5 Adopted 5/13/99 WHEREAS, Sound Transit has commissioned appraisals to determine the fair market value of the properties and will continue to negotiate in good faith with the owners of the properties authorized to be acquired by negotiated purchase or condemned with the intent of reaching agreements for the voluntary acquisition of the property for fair market value; and WHEREAS, the funds necessary to acquire the property by voluntary purchase or to pay just compensation adjudged due after condemnation and the funds necessary to pay eligible relocation and re-establishment costs shall be paid from Sound Transit general funds; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. by the Board of the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority as follows: SECTION 1. The Executive Director is hereby authorized to execute such agreements as are customary and necessary for the acquisition, lease, or disposal of the real property interests described in Exhibit "A", and for the payment of eligible relocation and re-establishment costs, said property to be used for the construction of the Tacoma to Seattle Commuter Rail Stations in Tukwila, Puyallup, and Tacoma. In accordance with Sound Transit's adopted Real Property Acquisition and Relocation Policies, Procedures and Guidelines, the acquisition price of the properties shall not exceed the fair market value to be determined through the appraisal process; provided that in the event the total of the acquisition, relocation and re-establishment costs of the properties at any particular station exceeds Sound Transit's approved budget for right-of-way acquisition (plus contingency) for that station location, then the Executive Director shall obtain approval from the appropriate committee or the Board, per Resolution 78-1, before the Resolution No. R99-11 Page 3 of 5 Adopted 5/13/99 acquisition of the property for that station by purchase or by condemnation and the payment of eligible relocation and re-establishment costs. SECTION 2 The Executive Director is hereby authorized to settle condemnation litigation or enter administrative settlements (a settlement in lieu of initiating condemnation litigation) for the acquisition of the real property interests described in Exhibit "A". Such settlements shall be made only upon the recommendation of legal counsel, for amounts deemed to be a reasonable estimation of fair market value, and shall not exceed established budgets. For all other settlements proposed, the Executive Director shall obtain prior approval of the appropriate committee or the Board, per Resolution 78-1. SECTION 3. The Sound Transit Board of Directors deems the Tacoma to Seattle Commuter Rail Stations in Tukwila, Puyallup, and Tacoma to be a public use for a public purpose. The Board deems it necessary and in the best interests of the citizens residing within the Sound Transit district boundaries to acquire the property identified herein as being necessary for the construction, operation and permanent location of the Tacoma to Seattle Commuter Rail Stations in Tukwila, Puyallup, and Tacoma. The Board directs that all, any portion thereof, of the property identified herein be immediately acquired by voluntary agreement, or in lieu of agreement, that said properties be condemned, appropriated, taken and damaged for the construction, operation of the Tacoma to Seattle Commuter Rail Stations in Tukwila, Puyallup, and Tacoma, said properties being described in Exhibit "A" incorporated herein by reference and that eligible parties be paid relocation and re-establishment costs associated with displacement from the properties. SECTION 4. The Sound Transit Board of Directors finds that the public health, safety, necessity, convenience and welfare demand and require that the above-described properties be Resolution No. R99-11 Page 4 of 5 Adopted 5/13/99 immediately acquired, condemned, appropriated, taken and damaged for the construction, operation and permanent location of the Tacoma to Seattle Commuter Rail Stations in Tukwila, Puyallup, and Tacoma. SECTION 5. Sound Transit has complied with the State Environmental Policy Act and the guidelines of WAC Chapter 197-11 with respect to this resolution authorizing condemnation proceedings. SECTION 6. In addition to the authority granted the Executive Director in Section 1 above, condemnation proceedings are hereby authorized and the authority is hereby delegated to the Executive Director to take action as related to such condemnation proceedings to acquire all, or any portion thereof, of the properties and property rights and/or rights in the properties described in the attached Exhibit "A" for the purpose of constructing, owning and operating the Tacoma to Seattle Commuter Rail Stations in Tacoma, Puyallup, and Tacoma. SECTION 7. The funds necessary to acquire the property by purchase or to pay just compensation adjudged due after condemnation shall be paid from Sound Transit general funds. ADOPTED by the Board of the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority at a regular meeting thereof held on the 13th day of May, 1999. Paul E. Miller Board Chair ATTEST: Marcia Walker Board Administrator Resolution No. R99-1 1 Page 5 of 5 Adopted 5/13/99 R99-11 - EXHIBIT A Station . Owner/Contact Parcel # Site Address Puyallup James F. and Jerald F. Johannes 794010 025 0 794010 026 0 201 West Main Ave, Puyallup 201 West Main Ave, Puyallup LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel A: The west half of Lot 5 in Block 4 of Puyallup, J.P. Stewart's Addition, according to Plat recorded in Volume 1 of Plats at page(s) 39, in Puyallup, Pierce County, Washington. Parcel B: Lot 6, and the following described easterly part of Lot 7; beginning at the southeast corner of said Lot; thence west along the south line thereof, 33.47 feet; thence north 154.4 feet, more or less, to the north line of said Lot at a point 1.26 feet east of the northwest corner thereof; thence east along the north line of said Lot to the right of way of Northern Pacific Railway; thence along the said right of way to the northeast corner of said Lot; thence south along the east line of said Lot 145.36 feet, more or less, to point of beginning, all in Block 4 of J.P. Stewart's Addition to Puyallup, according to Plat recorded in Book 1 of Plats at page 39, in Puyallup, Pierce County, Washington. Station Owner/Contact Parcel # Site Address Puyallup Puyallup Valley Cold Storage Inc. 794010 024 0 042028 100 2 133 West Main, Puyallup 133 West Main, Puyallup LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel A: Lot 2, except the east 28.24 feet thereof, all of Lots 3 and 4, and the east 17 feet of Lot 5, all in Block 4 of Puyallup, J.P. Stewart's Addition, according to Plat recorded in Volume 1 of Plats at page(s) 39, in Puyallup, Pierce County, Washington. Parcel B: Beginning in the City of Puyallup at a point 188.25 feet west and 30 feet north of the quarter section corner on line between Sections 27 and 28, Township 20 North, Range 4 East, W.M.; thence north 103 feet, more or less, to Northern Pacific Railway Company's right of way; thence north 75°10' west along the southern boundary line of said right of way 62 feet; thence south 117:83 feet, more or less, to the northern boundary line of Main Street in said city; thence east 60 feet to the point of beginning, in Puyallup, Pierce County, Washington. R99-11 - EXHIBIT A - continued Station Owner/Contact Parcel # Site Address Puyallup Uniland Investors 794030 004 0 794030 005 0 042028 104 4 112 W Stewart Ave, Puyallup 218 N Meridian, Puyallup 206 N Meridian, Puyallup LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel A: The north 18 feet of the following described property: Beginning at a point 30 feet west and 239.58 feet north of Quarter Section corner between Sections 27 • and 28, Township 20 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in Pierce County, Washington, at the intersection of the north boundary line of the Northern Pacific Railroad Right of Way and the west line of Meridian Street; thence north 45 feet; thence west 100 feet; thence south 19.16 feet to the north boundary line of the Northern Pacific Railroad Right of Way; thence easterly along the line of said right of way to the point of beginning. Parcel B: Commencing at a point 30 feet west and 239.58 feet north of the Quarter Section corner between Sections 27 and 28, Township 20 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in Pierce County, Washington, at the intersection of the north boundary line of the Northern Pacific Railroad Right of Way and the west line of Meridian Street; thence north 45 feet; thence west 100 feet; thence south 19.16 feet to the north boundary line of the Northern Pacific Railroad Right of Way; thence north 75°10' west along said line of Right of Way 20.68 feet; thence north 14 feet; thence east 20 feet to the point of beginning. Station Owner/Contact Parcel # Site Address Puyallup C. Ray Beasley 042028 104 2 202-04 N Meridian, Puyallup LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Beginning at a point 30 feet west and 3 chains and 63 links north of the Quart Section corner on the Line between Sections 27 and 28, Township 20 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in Pierce County, Washington, at the intersection of the north boundary line of the railroad land granted by J.P. Stewart for railroad purposes and the west boundary of the county road which runs north on the section line between said Section 27 and 28; thence north 27 feet, more or less, to a point 18 feet south of the southeast corner of the premises heretofore owned by N.H. Morell and Edith B. Morell, his wife; thence west 100 feet; thence south to the Northern Pacific Railway Company Right of Way; thence southeasterly along the north boundary of said Right of Way to the point of beginning. Resolution No. R99-11 R99-11 - EXHIBIT A - continued Station Owner/Contact Parcel # Site Address Tukwila Boeing Company 000580 0018 08 Tukwila LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Commencing at a point which lies on the NE corner of proposed short plat, Lot 2, said point also lying on the centerline extension of S. 158th Street. Thence east on said street centerline extension, a distance of 100' to the true point of beginning; Thence east a distance of 40 feet; thence south, running parallel with the easterly margin of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right of way line, a distance of 300 feet; thence west to the easterly margin of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right of way line; thence north along the easterly mtrgin of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right of way to the point of beginning. Resolution No. R99-11 R99-11 - EXHIBIT A - continued Station Owner/Contact Parcel # Site Address Tacoma Keith Stone 207522 001 1 207522 001 5 207524 001 1 207524 001 3 2501 East D St., Tacoma 2501 East D St., Tacoma 430 E 25th St. #11, Tacoma 440 502 East 25th St., Tacoma LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel A: The northerly 77 feet of the easterly 135 feet of Block 7524, and the northerly 77 feet of Block 7526 of the Tacoma Land Company's First Addition to Tacoma, W.T., according to Plat file for record July 7, 1884 in the Office of the County Auditor, in Tacoma, Pierce County, Washington; Together with that portion of vacated East "F" Street, vacated by City of Tacoma Ordinance No. 3218 dated October 9, 1907, adjoining the northerly 77 feet of said Blocks 7524 and 7526; Except from said Block 7526, that portion appropriated by the City of Tacoma for the construction and maintenance of a public street, by Decree entered September 12, 1928 in Pierce County Superior Court Case No. 61287, and being described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Block 7526; thence northerly along the east line of f said Block, a distance of 119.73 feet; thence in a southwesterly direction on a curve to the right having a radious of 538 feet and concentric with a curve having a radius of 573 feet, whose tangent at a point on the center line of East "G" Street, 36.80 feet south of the center line of East 25th Street, making an angle of 14°22' to the southwest with the said center line of East "G" Street, a distance of 130.04 feet to a point of compound curve; thence continuing southwesterly on a curve to the right having a radius of 283 feet, a distance of 1.32 feet to a point on the south line of said Block 7526, said point being 2.64 feet west of the southeast corner of Lot 10, in said Block 7526; thence easterly along the south line of said Block, a distance of 52.84 feet to the place of beginning. Parcel B: The northerly 77 feet of Blocks 7522 and 7524 of the Tacoma Land Company's First Addition to Tacoma, W.T., according to Plat filed for record July 7, 1884 in the Office of the County Auditor, in Tacoma, Pierce County, Washington; Except the east 135 feet of said Block 7524; Together with that portion of vacated East "E" Street adjoining said Blocks 7522 and 7524, which upon vacation, attached to said property by operation of law. Parcel C: The south 20 feet of the north 97 feet of Blocks 7520, 7522, 7524 and 7526 in the Tacoma Land Company's first Addition to Tacoma, W.T., according to Plat filed for record July 7, 1884 in the Office of the County Auditor, in Tacoma, Pierce County, Washington; Except that portion of Lots 11 and 12, said.Block 7526 taken by the City of Tacoma by Decree of Appropriation entered September 12, 1928 in Pierce County Superior Court Case No. 61287. Situate in the County of Pierce, State of Washington. Resolution No. R99-11 R99-11 - EXHIBIT A Station Owner/Contact Parcel # Site Address Kent Mr. & Mrs. Leo C. Brutsche 714280 0135 05 223 W Smith St Kent 98032 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in Block 3 of Ramsay's Addition to the town of Kent, according to Plat recorded in Volume 16 of Plats at page(s) 89, in King County, Washington; Together with that portion of vacated Second Avenue adjoining, which upon vacation under City of Kent Ordinance No. 2779, recording No. 8807130681, attached to said property by operation of law. Station Owner/Contact Parcel # Site Address Kent JSWJ Partnership 714280 0160 03 301 1st Ave N Kent 98032 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 7 in Block 3 of Ramsay's Addition to the town of Kent, according to Plat recorded in Volume 16 of Plats at page(s) 89, in King County, Washington; Except that portion conveyed to the City of Kent by recording Nos. 7607010194 and 7607010195 described as follows: That portion of Lot 7 in Block 3 of Ramsay's Addition to the town of Kent, according to Plat recorded in Volume 16 of Plats at page(s) 89, in King County, Washington, described as follows Beginning at the southeast corner of said Lot; thence north along the east line of said Lot a distance of 10 feet; thence in a southwesterly direction to a point on the south line of said Lot which lies 65 feet west of. beginning; thence east to beginning. Station Owner/Contact Parcel # Site Address Kent Laville and Rasmussen 714280 0165 08 311 1st Ave N Kent 98032 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 8 in Block 3 of Ramsay's Addition to the town of Kent, according to Plat recorded in Volume 16 of Plats at page(s) 89, in King County, Washington. R99-11 - EXHIBIT A - continued Station Owner/Contact Parcel # Site Address Kent Richard Carmack 714280 0170 01 714280 0171 00 317 1st Ave N Kent 98032 319 1st Ave N Kent 98032 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 9 and 10 in block 3 of Ramsay's Addition to the town of Kent, according to Plat recorded in Volume 16 of Plats at page(s) 89, in King County, Washington. Station Owner/Contact Parcel # Site Address Kent Dan & Lanny Silvestri 714280 0180 09 714280 0185 04 327 1st Ave N Kent 98032 321 1st Ave N Kent 98032 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel A: Lot 11 in Block 3 of Ramsay's Addition to the town of Kent, according to Plat recorded in Volume 16 of Plats at page(s) 89, in King County, Washington. Parcel B: Lot 12 in Block 3 of Ramsay's Addition to the town of Kent, according to Plat recorded in Volume 16 of Plats at page(s) 89, in King County, Washington. Resolution No. R99-11 R99-11 - EXHIBIT A — continued Station Owner/Contact Parcel # Site Address Puyallup James F. and Jerald F. Johannes 794010 025 0 794010 026 0 201 West Main Ave, Puyallup 201 West Main Ave, Puyallup LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel A: The west half of Lot 5 in Block 4 of Puyallup, J.P. Stewart's Addition, according to Plat recorded in Volume 1 of Plats at page(s) 39, in Puyallup, Pierce County, Washington. Parcel B: Lot 6, and the following described easterly part of Lot 7; beginning at the southeast corner of said Lot; thence west along the south line thereof, 33.47 feet; thence north 154.4 feet, more or less, to the north line of said Lot at a point 1.26 feet east of the northwest corner thereof; thence east along the north line of said Lot to the right of way of Northern Pacific Railway; thence along the said right of way to the northeast corner of said Lot; thence south along the east line of said Lot 145.36 feet, more or less, to point of beginning, all in Block 4 of J.P. Stewart's Addition to Puyallup, according to Plat recorded in Book 1 of Plats at page 39, in Puyallup, Pierce County, Washington. Station Owner/Contact Parcel # Site Address Puyallup Puyallup Valley Cold Storage Inc. 794010 024 0 042028 100 2 133 West Main, Puyallup 133 West Main, Puyallup LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel A: Lot 2, except the east 28.24 feet thereof, all of Lots 3 and 4, and the east 17 feet of Lot 5, all in Block 4 of Puyallup, J.P. Stewart's Addition, according to Plat recorded in Volume 1 of Plats at page(s) 39, in Puyallup, Pierce County, Washington. Parcel B: Beginning in the City of Puyallup at a point 188.25 feet west and 30 feet north of the quarter section corner on line between Sections 27 and 28, Township 20 North, Range 4 East, W.M.; thence north 103 feet, more or less, to Northern Pacific Railway Company's right of way; thence north 75°10' west along the southern boundary line of said right of way 62 feet; thence south 117.83 feet, more or less, to the northern boundary line of Main Street in said city; thence east 60 feet to the point of beginning, in Puyallup, Pierce County, Washington. Resolution No. R99-11 a. R99-11 - EXHIBIT A - continued Station Owner/Contact Parcel # Site Address Puyallup Uniland Investors 794030 004 0 794030 005 0 042028 104 4 112 W Stewart Ave, Puyallup 218 N Meridian, Puyallup 206 N Meridian, Puyallup LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel A: The north 18 feet of the following described property: Beginning at a point 30 feet west and 239.58 feet north of Quarter Section corner between Sections 27 and 28, Township 20 North, Range .4 East, W.M., in Pierce County, Washington, at the intersection of the north boundary line of the Northern Pacific Railroad Right of Way and the west line of Meridian Street; thence north 45 feet; thence west 100 feet; thence south 19.16 feet to the north boundary line of the Northern Pacific Railroad Right of Way; thence easterly along the line of said right of way to the point of beginning. Parcel B: Commencing at a point 30 feet west and 239.58 feet north of the Quarter Section corner between Sections 27 and 28, Township 20 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in Pierce County, Washington, at the intersection of the north boundary line of the Northern Pacific Railroad Right of Way and the west line of Meridian Street; thence north 45 feet; thence west 100 feet; thence south 19.16 feet to the north boundary line of the Northern Pacific Railroad Right of Way; thence north 75°10' west along said line of Right of Way 20.68 feet; thence north 14 feet; thence east 20 feet to the point of beginning. Station Owner/Contact Parcel # Site Address Puyallup C. Ray Beasley 042028 104 2 202-04 N Meridian, Puyallup LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Beginning at a point 30 feet west and 3 chains and 63 links north of the Quart Section corner on the Line between Sections 27 and 28, Township 20 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in Pierce County, Washington, at the intersection of the north boundary line of the railroad land granted by J.P. Stewart for railroad purposes and the west boundary of the county road which runs north on the section line between said Section 27 and 28; thence north 27 feet, more or less, to a point 18 feet south of the southeast corner of the premises heretofore owned by N.H. Morell and Edith B. Morell, his wife; thence west 100 feet; thence south to the Northern Pacific Railway Company Right of Way; thence southeasterly along the north boundary of said Right of Way to the point of beginning. Resolution No. R99-11 REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY MOTION NO. 98-19 BACKGROUND AND COMMENTS Meeting: Date: Agenda Item: Staff Contact: Phone: Board Meeting 3/12/98 No. 8 Paul Price 689-4760 Val Batey 684-1591 ACTION: The Board is asked to identify preferred station locations for the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail project for purposes of environmental review. The Board is also asked to adopt an environmental mitigation program for the project. Based on the preferred station locations identified and the adopted mitigation program, staff will complete the environmental review for the project and forward the Final NEPA Environmental Assessment to the Federal Transit Administration. BACKGROUND: The RTA is completing environmental review for the Seattle -Tacoma Sounder Commuter Rail project. This involves preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The purpose of this environmental assessment is to provide environmental information to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to support a decision on grant funding and to other federal agencies to support project permitting. The environmental review also includes an "expanded" environmental checklist in compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) to support RTA Board actions on the project, as well as local permitting. The Federal Transit Administration's NEPA regulations provide that a final EA may identify an agency's preferred alternative and document the decision process that led to it. SEPA regulations allow agencies to identify preferred alternatives in environmental documents. To address these regulations, the Board is asked to identify preferred station locations for the project, selecting from the alternatives analyzed in the environmental documents. The RTA Board has had an opportunity to review the draft EA and environmental checklist and was briefed on February 12 on the impacts of, and choices among, the alternatives. Additional briefing will be provided to the Board on the alternate station locations before the Board is asked to make a decision on the preferred sites. That briefing will include market value, relocation cost and construction cost estimate information for the Kent station alternatives addressed in the environmental document. Staff has also developed an environmental Mitigation Program and is asking for Board review and approval of that program. Staff also requests authorization to include additional mitigation measures as determined to be appropriate as the environmental review process is completed. This environmental mitigation program is based on measures recommended as part of the environmental review process, and it has been shared with many of the affected local jurisdictions for their review. Once adopted by the Board, these and any other additional mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project. These measures will ensure that the project, as mitigated, will not have any significant adverse environmental impacts. Once adopted, staff will complete the project SEPA review and will likely issue a mitigated determination of nonsignificance. The RTA began the environmental review process for this project in 1994 by holding community scoping meetings, preparing a preliminary environmental review document, and circulating the document for review by local jurisdictions. That environmental review was suspended in 1995, as the Regional Transit System Plan was revised after the first vote. The process resumed in September 1997 to reflect developments in project design, local conditions, and other factors. A new round of community meetings were held in October and November 1997 to inform the community of the RTA's revised plans, the schedule for environmental review, the opportunities for public involvement and the implementation schedule. A preliminary draft EA/Environmental Checklist was distributed to FTA and local jurisdictions for comment in November 1997. In December 1997, a'draft EA/Environmental Checklist was then distributed for public review and comment. During that time, public information meetings were held in Puyallup, Kent, and Seattle. In addition, the RTA has coordinated with state and federal resource agencies. The period for public and agency comment on the draft document closed on January 30, 1998, and the RTA is considering the comments and is revising its environmental document to reflect and respond to those comments. This environmental review is a project -level environmental review and is part of phased environmental review under SEPA. It builds on prior plan -level review prepared by the Joint Regional Policy Committee (1993 Environmental Impact Statement on the Regional Transit System Plan) and the Puget Sound Regional Council (1995 Environmental Impact Statement on the Metropolitan Transportation Plan). The RTA's Major Investment Study completed in March 1997, and approved by the Puget Sound Regional Council, also addresses the project. Additional environmental review has been conducted by local jurisdictions as part of their Comprehensive Plan update process. The EA/Environmental Checklist provides a brief analysis of alternatives and environmental impacts. It is accompanied by a Technical Report that includes more detailed information. The purpose of the EA is to provide the FTA with the information required to determine whether to prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement or to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The EA/Environmental Checklist addresses the development of nine commuter rail stations and the track and signal improvements required to provide peak hour commuter services between Tacoma and Seattle starting in December 1999. Impacts discussed in the document include the effect of development on land use, transportation, air quality, noise, biological resources, historical and archaeological resources, and visual quality, among other elements. The draft environmental assessment indicates that a fast and effective transportation alternative can be provided cost effectively and implemented on schedule, and that environmental impacts identified can be mitigated through project design. RELEVANT BOARD POLICIES AND PREVIOUS ACTIONS TAKEN: • Adoption of Sound Move (Resolution No. 72). • Adoption of 1998 Budget (Resolution No. 101). • Also see Background discussion above. 2 KEY FEATURES: ■ Identifies preferred station locations for purposes of environmental analysis. ■ Adopts an environmental mitigation program. ■ Directs Staff to finalize environmental documentation and forward to the FTA. FUTURE BOARD DISCUSSIONS AND ACTIONS: ■ Final selection of station locations, following completion of environmental review. FUNDING: The proposed action is consistent with the adopted budget. ALTERNATIVES: Delay identification of preferred station locations and adoption of environmental mitigation program to a later time. CONSEQUENCES OF DELAY: Postponing these decisions would result in extending the schedule for environmental review, which would delay Board actions necessary to implement the project. ( 3 Regional Transit Authority Motion No. 98-19 A motion of the Board of the Regional Transit Authority for the Pierce, King, and Snohomish Counties region identifying preferred station locations, adopting an environmental mitigation program, and directing staff to finalize the environmental review of the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail project. Background: The RTA is undertaking environmental review of Sound Move's Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail project. A draft NEPA Environmental Assessment ("EA") and SEPA environmental checklist has been prepared that identifies station location alternatives. In progressing with the environmental review, staff has requested direction from the RTA Board to identify preferred station locations and adopt an environmental mitigation program. Motion: It is hereby moved by the Board of the Regional Transit Authority that staff is authorized to complete the environmental review for the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail project with the following direction: 1. For the Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail project, the RTA identifies the following sites (as more fully described in the draft EA and checklist) as the preferred station locations for purposes of environmental review: • Tacoma (interim) • Downtown Puyallup • Downtown Sumner • Downtown Auburn • Longacres • Boeing Access Road • Georgetown • Seattle King Street 2. Adopt an environmental mitigation program for the project, substantially in the form attached as Exhibit A, and authorize staff to include additional mitigation measures as determined to be appropriate as the environmental review process is completed. 3. Finalize the project environmental review, based on the preferred station locations identified above and the adopted mitigation program . Approved by the Board of the Regional Transit Authority for the Pierce, King, and Snohomish Counties region at a regular meeting thereof on the 12th day of March, 1998. ATTEST: Marcia Walker Board Administrator Bob Drewel Board Chair Motion No. 98-19 Page 2 of 2 Adopted 3/12/98 Sound Move Launching a Rapid Transit System for the Puget Sound Region RTA Chair Bob Drewel, County Executive Snohomish County RTA Vice Chairs Paul Miller, Councilmember City of Tacoma Greg Nickels, Councilmember King County RTA Boardmembers Martha Choe, Councilmember City of Seattle Ann Kirk Davis, Councilmember City of Lakewood Dave Earling, Councilmember City of Edmonds Mary Gates, Councilmember City of Federal Way Jane Hague, Councilmember King County Ed Hansen, Mayor City of Everett Gary Locke, County Executive King County Rob McKenna, Councilmember King County Sid Morrison, Secretary Washington State Dept. of Transportation Norm Rice, Mayor City of Seattle Dave Russell, Councilmember City of Kirkland Cynthia Sullivan, Councilmember King County Bill Stoner, Councilmember Pierce County Doug Sutherland, County Executive Pierce County Jim White, Mayor City of Kent Sound Move Launching a Rapid Transit System for the Puget Sound Region As adopted May 31, 1996 Contents Why regional transit? Sound Move — the ten-year system plan One piece of the puzzle 1 2 Growing and growing and growing. 2 The benefits 3 Investing in mobility 3 Investing in regional connections 3 Investing in our econoiny 4 Investing in our environment 5 Principles and commitments 5 The Regional Transit District Annexing new areas and extending RTA services 7 Annexations 7 8 Extending RTA services beyond district boundaries 9 Sound Move — the Ten -Year Regional Transit System Plan A system of high-capacity corridors and new community connections High-capacity travel corridors High-occupancy-vehicle,Expressway with regional express buses Commuter The Regional Transit Authority District map • El etr.'ic,light rail `- . . . . . . . l'he rterlWear regional transit systkrn plan snap t"last!, ,(1-- �;� lilnOvat,on furld(R. �. . Woorki`rlgrtogetheroidulated-system of services �. GatewaNs to-thearegio 1—'141411,'Jco��unu►uty. yonnectiorls _Using the=systemh `p, 1 �. [• r {`(Yhi • '"Easy system access n r li M "1411 II A ons ticket ride_ Al Y • ;;� rrI► If ► ruff x- '4`. Goordinated routes and schedulesa Puffing the system in place Implementing the plan in stages 26 HOV Expressway 26 Regional express buses 27 Commuter rail 27 Electric light rail 29 Conimunity connections 30 Park-and-ride lots 31 Keeping on track and within budget 31 A community effort 31 Public involvement principles 32 The environmental process 32 Paying for the system RTA taxing and bonding authority 33 Financial plan framework 33 Costs and schedule 34 Funding 35 Risk assessment 35 Financial policies 35 Appendices, .----e.t, I V' A. Detailed description of facilities and costs / / v C. Benefits, system use and transportation impacts of Sdund Move D:Sound c. /,' with land-tth-e-planning,-__..- S" ' t \ \Vs\ t 11 .t.lillill .... B. Financial Policies L Why regional transit? There's an old saying that advises "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." But if you are one of thousands of people traveling on our region's overburdened and clogged highways each day you can probably relate to a modified version of that proverb — it's broke, let's fix it. The problem is traffic congestion. Our region rates some of the worst traffic in the country (ranking behind only such major cities as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago and New York). We've outgrown our transportation system. In the time it took to build our current freeway system, the region's population grew by two-thirds. At the same time, the number of miles people travel each day grew by a whopping 450 percent. Today's increased number of two -worker households, more frequent job changes and longer work commutes are putting more demand on our transportation system than it can handle. No one likes traffic. It takes a frustrating toll on our time and our nerves. But much more sobering and far reaching is the impact congestion has on our jobs, economy and environment. Congestion reduces productivity by making it harder for employees to get to work on time. Those same traffic jams also make it more difficult to get goods to market. Such impacts can cause existing companies to relocate and potential businesses to look elsewhere for places to expand and build factories. And as companies leave they take vital jobs with them. Just building more roads won't solve the problem. There isn't enough space or money to build enough roads to keep up with growing transportation needs. Southern California learned a costly lesson that investing billions in more roads and freeways doesn't eliminate congestion. The answer is to take a cost-effective and balanced approach to increase the capacity of the existing system by offering a package of transportation options — including improving transit and increasing road capacity in some areas. Collectively that system of options could actually slow congestion growth, reduce the growing strain on our roads and provide a reliable, efficient and congestion - free alternative for those that use it. Sound Move — the ten-year system plan Sound Move — the Ten -Year Regional Transit System Plan being proposed by the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority — takes just such an approach to begin "fixing" our transportation system. It's the first, ten-year step toward a long-range Regional Transit Vision. That vision is to expand the capacity of our region's major transportation corridors by adding new high= capacity transportation services and facilities. Sound Move includes a mix of transportation improvements — High -occupancy -vehicle Expressway, regional express bus routes, commuter rail and light rail. The plan includes new community "gateways" — connections in urban and suburban areas for communities to connect to the rest of the region. Sound Move is an opportunity for the region to test drive a regional transit system before deciding how much more of the vision to commit to. One piece of the puzzle Sound Move isn't the only thing planned to fix our regional transportation system, nor has it been prepared in a vacuum without coordination with other regional efforts and agencies. The plan was developed to fit within the region's comprehensive Metropolitan Transportation Plan. That plan includes all forms of transportation — high-capacity transit, local transit, HOV lanes, ferries, airports, automobiles, freight traffic, bicycles, and pedestrians. Sound Move also fits with the plans of local transit agencies who have been partners in regional transit planning. The RTA has designed new regional services that are coordinated with services provided by local transit and transportation agencies, offering a regionwide integrated system of routes, schedules and fares. Growing and growing and growing... Growth in any area is desirable and is the by-product of a strong, healthy and competitive economy. In another 25 years there will be 1.4 million more people living here. In addition to being part of the comprehensive Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Sound Move fits in with the region's adopted vision for guiding future growth in ways that maintain our region's high quality of life and preserve its environment. The high- capacity transit system's purpose is to improve mobility within the urban areas by providing travel alternatives so they may grow comfortably while preserving rural areas for future generations. 2 The benefits Investing in mobility Transit today carries 40 percent of the trips through our region's most congested areas at the most congested times. If all of the people currently using transit switched to driving alone they would create a line of bumper -to - bumper cars almost 700 miles long (enough cars to completely fill all the lanes of the Interstate 5 and Interstate 90 within the region). Sound Move will expand on existing local transit services with a convenient, reliable, easy-to-use regional system that is less susceptible to congestion than current services. By year 2010, Sound Move will increase transit system ridership to a level that equals a line of cars more than 950 miles long (a line of cars that could easily stretch to San Francisco, and then some). { Sound Move can make public transportation a viable and attractive alternative to driving alone by offering fast, frequent service and a wide array of transportation options with regionwide connections. And Sound Move includes a single -fare system allowing people to travel around the region using a variety of transit services with a single ticket or pass. Investing in regional connections Sound Move creates more and better regionwide connections providing access to job sites, schools, shops, museums, parks, theaters and sports arenas to everyone regardless of whether they have access to an automobile. Sound Move can help attract large special events to the region. Atlanta was selected to host the 1996 Summer Olympics in part because it had a rapid transit system capable of handling large numbers of people. Sound Move can provide direct connections to the Kingdome, the new baseball stadium, Husky Stadium, the Tacoma Dome, Meydenbauer Center and the Washington State Convention and Trade Center. Those connections will provide the capacity to handle large crowds and ridership surges. 3 Investing in our economy An investment in transit is an investment in our region's long-term mobility and economic stability. The alternative to investing in our transportation system is worse congestion. And congestion already costs our region an estimated $1.2 billion a year in wasted time, money and resources. Sound Move includes a new HOV expressway system and two new rail systems -- electric light-rail and commuter rail. It is estimated that a $100 million investment in transit capital improvements generates some 6,000 direct and indirect jobs and a threefold increase in business revenues. High-capacity transit can help attract businesses and jobs to the region by helping make the overall transportation system work .better and give employees better (and more) transportation choices. The presence of transit stations and community transit connection points can encourage long-term commitments from developers to invest and locate businesses near stations. Investing in reliable, easy-to-use transit to keep pace with our growing population will enhance economic stability and actually add to the tax base of the region, thus enabling us to address other needs, including other transportation improvements. For example, the Commonwealth of Virginia invested in its Metrorail heavy -rail system (serving Washington D.C.) starting in 1974. Twenty years later they found that the investment provided a net rate of return to the community of more than 12 percent annually and generated 26 million square feet of commercial development (2 million above what was projected). And by year 2010 Metrorail is projected to have generated 90,000 permanent jobs and spurred $15 billion in new development. Sound Move Investing in our environment Transit already accounts for 75 million trips a year regionwide, or about 258,000 trips daily 365 days a year. Imagine the effects on our air and water quality if those trips were made by car instead? Cars are our largest source of air pollution and energy use. All types of public transportation (trains, buses, carpools and vanpools) produce far less grams of air pollutants per rider than a single -occupant car. Sound Move provides several convenient and reliable energy- efficient alternatives to driving alone. 2020 tailpipe emissions per by mode 350 major pollutants in grams/day 1400 300 250 200 1000 150 800 100 600 50 400 Car Commuter 1 _ train passenger Bus Electric train Sound Move's rail components require only one-third of the right-of-way of a six -to eight -lane freeway but provide the people -moving capacity of a 12 -lane freeway. Because less land is needed, natural resources and scarce open space are easier to preserve and protect. Sound Move provides the tools to make the region's growth management plan work by connecting cities and major centers. The regional transit system plan also supports adopted land -use plans and helps meet transportation demand management goals. Similarly, transit -supportive local land -use planning and implementation are critical to the success of ten-year system plan investments. Principles and commitments By adopting this ten-year plan, the RTA commits to the following principles: • Regional scope — the RTA's plan is a regional system designed to recognize regional as well as local needs throughout the three -county RTA District. The RTA recognizes that investments in any particular subarea yield benefits throughout the region, and that these shared benefits help tie the RTA District together. • Conservative funding assumptions — the primary funding sources will be modest voter -approved local tax increases, federal grants and long-term bonding. The RTA assumes no state funds, thus placing no additional demand on limited state resources that are needed for other regional transportation investments. Energy consumption by person excluding deadhead mileage 1600 BTU's per passenger mile 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 Car Commuter Bus Electric 1 ' passenger train train 5 The RTA assumes federal funding for new rail starts of $55 million per year and other federal funding sources of $18 million per year. Additional funds will be requested but the plan does not speculate beyond current sound estimates of federal support. Local tax rate increases will include a local sales tax increase not to exceed 4/10 of one percent and a motor vehicle excise (license tab) tax increase not to exceed 3/10 of one percent. • Equitable distribution of revenues — local tax revenues will be used to benefit the five subareas of the RTA District (Snohomish County, North King County, South King County, East King County and Pierce County) based on the share of revenues each subarea generates. This distribution formula will apply to all future phases. • Simultaneous work on projects in all subareas — work will begin on projects in each of the subareas so benefits will be realized throughout the region as soon as possible. Projects likely to be implemented in the latter part of the ten-year period are those requiring extensive engineering and community planning. • Coordinated services — regional and local transit services will be coordinated and a single fare structure will be used. • System completion within ten years — different parts and segments of the plan will be implemented in stages and be operational as soon as possible; the entire system will be completed and operational within ten years. • System expansion or tax rollback — Any second phase capital program which continues local taxes for financing will require voter approval within the RTA District. If voters decide not to extend the system, the RTA will roll back the tax rate to a level sufficient to pay off the bonds and operate and maintain the investments made as part of Sound Move. • Annexations and extensions of service outside the RTA District — the RTA may provide services outside the taxing district by contracting with local agencies. Areas that would benefit from RTA services may be annexed into the RTA District if citizens within those areas vote for annexation. • Public accountability — the RTA will hire independent auditors and appoint a citizen committee to monitor RTA performance in carrying out its public commitments. Citizens will be directly involved in the placement, design and implementation of facilities in their communities. 6 Sound Move The Regional Transit District The RTA District boundary is shown on the RTA District map (see page 8). It defines the service area as required by state law. The RTA District currently includes the most congested "urban" areas of King, Pierce and Snohomish counties. The RTA District boundary lines generally follow the urban growth boundaries created by each county in accordance with the state Growth Management Act. The urban growth boundaries guide how and where growth will take place in each county. The RTA District boundary was adjusted in some places in consideration of voter precinct boundaries, city limit lines, and geography. The RTA boundary: • shows the area where high-capacity transportation (HCT) services will be added to our transportation system • establishes representation on the RTA Board as prescribed by state law • shows the area in which local taxes authorized by voters to help finance the Regional Transit System will be collected • demonstrates how regional services and facilities can support growth management goals and adopted land -use plans. For planning and budgeting purposes the RTA has divided the district into five geographic subareas. The system components in Sound Move address unique needs in each of these areas. The local tax revenues generated in each of these areas will be spent on the investments that benefit those areas. Annexing new areas and extending RTA services Annexations According to state law, after voters within the district boundaries have approved a ballot proposition authorizing local taxes to support the ten-year system plan, the RTA Board may approve resolutions calling for elections to annex areas outside, but adjacent to, the RTA District. An annexation may require adoption of a revised RTA Regional Transit Long -Range Vision. The following legal requirements are required to annex areas into the RTA: • Board membership — If the RTA District changes, a change in the make-up of the RTA Board membership may be required. Board membership must be "representative" of the proportion of the population from each county that falls within the RTA District. Geographic s subareas Snohomish. County subarea East King North King County subarea County subarea South King County subarea Pierce County subarea 7 Mill ynnwood Mtlk. Terrace Shoreline Bothell Woodinville Snohomish County King County Ballard Totem Laky Kirkland Redmond U -District Bellevue Seattle Wes 'Seattle Newcastle Issaquah Renton Kitsnp County Pierce County Des Moi 'es _oma Federal Way Auburn Algorta Pacific Sumner Steilacsiti1 Puyallup • o Lakewood 0 McChord buPont Fort Lewis t• Pierce County Thurston County Parkland N 0 1 2 3 Legend A M® JRegional Transit District Subareas for planning and budgeting purposes 8 • Areas that may be annexed — Areas that would benefit from RTA services may be annexed into the RTA District. Services or projects proposed must be consistent with the central Puget Sound region's Metropolitan Transportation Plan. • Adoption by RTA Board and City/County councils — The RTA Board may call for annexation elections after consulting with any affected transit agencies and with the approval of the legislative authority of the city or town (if the area is incorporated) or with the approval of the area's county council (if it is unincorporated). • Tax vote by area citizens — Citizens in areas to be annexed are permitted to vote on annexation and imposition of taxes at rates already imposed within the RTA District boundaries. Because the RTA encourages areas to annex into the district as early as possible to expand access to regional transit system benefits, the authority will include the following policies in annexation agreements: • the RTA will not attempt to recover the capital costs from annexed areas of facilities put in place before the annexations • the RTA commits that, when annexed, the taxes from areas joining the RTA District will be used only for specific facilities and services for up to 5 years as described in an inter -local agreement with that area. After 5 years, the tax revenues from an annexing area would be combined with funds from the appropriate subarea. Extending RTA services beyond district boundaries The RTA will commit to extending new services beyond its boundaries to make connections to significant regional destinations contingent on agreements with local government agencies. Such service extensions would be implemented at a mutually agreeable cost. This option would permit areas outside of the RTA District to function as part of the regional system. Extending RTA services outside of its district would require agreements with the affected local transit agency or other appropriate government agencies. The RTA will enter into agreements with agencies beyond the district boundary to integrate fares. This will allow flexible transfers between various transit operators and prevent citizens who live outside the district from being penalized for making regional trips via transit instead of an automobile. 9 Sound Move Sound Move the Ten -Year Regional Transit System Plan A system of HCT corridors and new community connections Sound Move is the first step toward improving the way we, as a region, move. In turn, the plan maintains our region's economic strength locally and globally. It focuses on the most congested areas of our region, creating a comprehensive, regional high-capacity travel network. Whether people are traveling to work, school, recreational opportunities or shopping, the goal is to provide more options — dependable alternatives for getting around in our communities and the region. One of the most important features of Sound Move is that it provides a network of frequent, convenient and dependable services that can be used with a single ticket (see the ten-year system plan map). The services are tailored to the unique needs of the diverse subareas within our region. Think of Sound Move as the tie that binds the region together, connecting the communities of the Central Puget Sound region in a way that supports local land -use plans, joins economic centers and expands local transit services. By.proviiding direct connections to many destinations, Sound Movowill help reorient local services to meet mo � community needs. 74 New regional transit services will free up significant bus service hours now provided by local transit agencies. The RTA will work with local transit agencies to identify local service and/or community connections such as park-and-ride lots that support the regional transit system. These local resources will be distributed to subareas based on the investment each makes in the regional service responsible for freeing local bus service hours. Transit centers, park-and-ride lots, commuter rail and light rail stations will be developed to encourage and promote joint development through public/private partnerships and partnerships with local jurisdictions. These partnerships will provide opportunities to attract and shape development at and around community connections in ways that benefit both transit users and adjacent communities. The joint development program will encourage services and businesses that support transit -use, walking and bicycling. Paired with improved access for pedestrians and persons with disabilities, the joint development program will broaden the scope,of community connection benefits. Sound Move High-capacity travel corridors In developing a comprehensive transportation plan, planners look at the main travel corridors or routes that people use to go from one point in the region to another. For example, Interstate 5 is a major north -south travel corridor in the region. Sound Move expands on existing travel corridors and creates new high-capacity transportation (HCT) corridors linking our economic centers and communities. The types of investments made to create this system of HCT corridors have three objectives: • do more with what we have • build on existing facilities • begin building new corridors. High -occupancy -vehicle Expressway with regional express buses The HOV Expressway will be developed through a partnership between the RTA and the state Transportation Department. It expands and improves upon a network that the region has already begun, creating a permanent part of our regional transit system. The HOV Expressway includes the state's program to fill the gaps and extend the existing HOV-lane system to create a continuous inside -lane HOV network. The RTA will fund special access ramps to make it easier for transit and carpools to reach and use the HOV Expressway. Traffic flow will also improve in general purpose lanes since buses and carpools will no longer have to weave through several lanes of traffic to reach the HOV lanes. The HOV Expressways create new links between suburban centers serving our region's fastest growing areas with fast efficient transportation options. A single HOV lane carries the same number of people as three general traffic lanes. New regional express bus routes will take advantage of the improved speed and reliability the HOV Expressway will offer. The new high-speed regional express bus routes will offer frequent, two-way service throughout the day. The regional express buses will serve major regional centers and destinations and provide connections to other transportation components of Sound Move. 11 15p $ Sound Move Working with the state Transportation Department and through the annual budget review process, the RTA will fund construction of new access ramps to the existing and already funded HOV lanes or fund other appropriate alternatives. The state Transportation Department will then move all HOV lanes in those corridors to the inside lane of the road. The RTA Board views completion of the state's freeway HOV lane "core system" in the Puget Sound region as an important priority. However, the RTA assumes the state will complete construction of the core HOV lane system in accordance with its freeway HOV policy. If the state does not fulfill its funding obligation, the RTA Board will conduct an open and public process to determine whether RTA funding is available (e.g. from savings realized in other program elements) and should be used to help complete the core HOV lane system. Because the RTA will be making a significant investment in the state high - occupancy vehicle system, it will have an on- going interest in how that system functions. Before committing funds for HOV projects, the RTA Board must be satisfied that the HOV system will be managed in a way that maintains adequate speed and reliability for transit into the future. State Transporation Department HOV Core Lane program Everett Mukilteo Mill Creek Bothell Shoreline Woodinville Redmond Seattle Bellevue Ruston Federal Way Tacoma; Fircres Milton Fife Lakewood 0 Issaquah Newcastle Renton Kent Auburn Algona Pacific Sumner A Bonney Lake Puyallup Completed or funded HOV core Unfunded HOV core 12 Sound Move The RTA will negotiate an agreement with the state Transportation Department and the Puget Sound Regional Council similar to the state Transportation Commission's existing Statewide Freeway High -Occupancy Vehicle Policy to specify mutually acceptable speed and reliability standards, and how those standards will be monitored and maintained. In negotiating this agreement the RTA will seek to specify how it will be compensated if those standards are not maintained and the advantages to transit created by its investment are reduced. The RTA will develop park-and-ride lots and transit centers that support the HOV Expressway and regional bus systems through a joint development program designed to establish and promote public/ private partnerships and partnerships with local jurisdictions. The RTA will look at ways to develop facilities that are pedestrian - friendly and easier to reach from adjacent communities by alternatives to the car (i.e. walking, biking and transit). Access improvements that extend the benefits and the scope of transit system to more people and to more places will be considered eligible for RTA funding as part of individual project budgets. Commuter rail The commuter rail component adds two- way rush-hour train service using existing railroad tracks between Everett, Seattle, Tacoma and Lakewood. Commuter rail will offer a fast, dependable and easy-to-use commute option, linking major destinations in Snohomish, Pierce and King counties. The 81 -mile commuter rail system includes 14 stations (and three provisional stations) as part of Sound Move. Additional stations may be built in future phases. Commuter rail will share several stations with Amtrak and the state's expanding intercity rail service between Portland and Vancouver, B.C., creating opportunities for interstate and local connections. 13 Commuter rail builds on a railroad network already in place, increasing the transportation system's people -moving capacity and, by making necessary track and signal improvements, improving the capacity of those lines for other passenger and freight trains as well. Recognizing the on-going siting and design process for a new ballpark and other potential sports complex improvements in the Kingdome area, the RTA will also explore the possibility of providing special event commuter rail service if funding is available. The RTA will develop park -and -ride -lots, transit centers and stations that serve and support the commuter rail system through a joint development program promoting public/private partnerships and partnerships with local jurisdictions. The goal of the program will be to encourage transit and pedestrian access to stations by establishing and promoting partnerships with parties interested in locating in areas served by commuter rail. The joint development program will try to establish transit and pedestrian -friendly improvements and land uses in surrounding areas. Access improvements that extend the benefits and the scope of transit system to more people and to more places will be considered eligible for RTA funding as part of the budget for each station. Electric light rail The electric light rail component adds a new form of high-capacity transit for our region. The service is designed to connect Northgate, Roosevelt, the University District, Capitol Hill, First Hill, downtown Seattle, the Rainier Valley area and SeaTac (terminating at South 200th Street) — the state's highest employment areas with the highest transit ridership in the region. 14 Sound Move includes 25 -miles of a starter light rail system with 26 stations within walking distance of major destinations as well as connections to local bus service. Some stations will include connections to regional express buses, commuter rail, the Monorail and the Waterfront Streetcar. The most significant investment required for the electric light-rail system — the downtown Seattle transit tunnel and its five stations — is already in place. Recognizing the on-going siting and design process for a new ballpark and other potential sports complex improvements in the Kingdome area, the RTA will explore the possibility of providing special event electric light-rail service, including a potential light-rail spur serving the sports facilities if funding is available. Sound Move also includes light-rail service connecting downtown Tacoma with the regional transit terminal near the Tacoma Dome where riders can connect with regional express services, commuter rail and Amtrak. Four stations will serve downtown Tacoma destinations. The RTA has identified reliable funding sources for building the light-rail line between the University District and SeaTac (South 200th Street). The RTA expects to find, and will aggressively seek, additional funding sources to build the segment of the light-rail line between the University District and Northgate. If additional funds are not found, the University District to Northgate segment will not be built. If voters authorize additional capital programs after the ten-year system plan is otherwise in place, this segment will be the first to be built under the new program. 15 nd Move - , '..„.1:1.dwntewn Everett detail JECC 4E o, to eb••,swris:0,r4uet.yg:.coii Everett ast Everett • FefnIon, Whidbey /s4,0 4° • h L Mukilte4o cor '41 Everett— Silver Lake • • • Swamp Cree • • • Mill Creek _Ferry to Kingston Edmonds ) 1 Aurora Village *Richmond Beach Shoreline • • • • • • . • . • • *Ballard • L n woo Mtlk. Terrace wWoljodinville Bothe -I c7 /Lake Forest Pail( DdwntOwaSeattlesdetail • Westlake Station. 1111.8m,,z • ""illee • las ,1•3 7V. Ala king—StreTt Station • • • • University StreetttatioXFirst IiII Station (thou gay International— District —Station— • fe",', • Fe fryo yins: S-eattle- West Seatle_ Georgetown Fa VII untlerOy ejcv vas6°' Canyon Park — I \ \L\ake\City _ 1Northgate Kirklan Roosevelt 81t nBrickyard riFicku r N. Kifklarld Redmond /03/erlake Newcastle uah Downtown Tacoma detail Commencement Bay Rail line will follow SR -99 or Interurban Burn. Renton I� Sea-TacAirport SeaTac Theater District _Station. • S.1.3th•Street Station University �& M` useu m.Station S. 24th Street Station Des Moines= i StarLake Federal•Way Tacoma Dome Station • 4IL okcr ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ▪ Auburn TCC Tacoma Dome South'Tacoma u Sumner • Puyallup Lakewood LO Parkland South Hill DuPont ° As adopted May 31, 1996 H Note: Full implementation of the HOV Expressway requires partnership with the Washington State Department of Transportation. * Provisional station subject to funding availability from within the North King County subarea. Map key: �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Electric Light -Rail Service Electric light-rail trains in the region's most densely -developed areas. Dashed line indicates the portion of the light-rail system that will be built if additional funding is secured. ■•..N•...•.•••.•.■ Commuter Rail Service Trains using existing railroad tracks between Everett, Seattle, Tacoma and Lakewood. HOV Expressway A continuous system of HOV lanes with special access ramps for transit and carpools. Diamonds indicate direct access ramps or flyer stops. • Regional Express Bus Service New express bus routes using the HOV Expressway, major arterials and expanded system of park-and-ride lot. Local Bus Service Network of bus routes provided by local transit agencies. 000 Community Connections Major points where local and regional transit services connect. "P" indicates park-and-ride enhancements or new capacity. Sound Move The electric light-rail line is a cost-effective way to serve the core of the regional system where transit ridership is the highest. This new transportation link provides a stepping stone for expansion into the next century (a two-way light-rail line can carry the same number of people as 12 freeway lanes). The Northgate to SeaTac (South 200th Street) light-rail line will be built in three segments. The first segment will be a line south between downtown Seattle and the airport serving the Rainier Valley area. That part of the system will be built primarily on aerial structures and on the surface through southeast Seattle. The south light-rail line will include connections at the Boeing Access Road station to regional express buses and commuter rail. Between Boeing Access Road and SeaTac, the RTA will evaluate an alignment using State -Route 99 and an alternative route using Interurban Avenue to Southcenter. The second segment will be built between downtown Seattle and the University District via a tunnel under First Hill, Capitol Hill and the Ship Canal. The engineering work for the north line will take longer to complete than the south line so construction of the north line will likely not begin until the south line is already under construction. The third segment of the light-rail line will be between the University District and Northgate, and will be built when construction funds have been identified and guaranteed. 18 Innovation fund Since we live in an age of continual change, Sound Move provides flexibility to consider new ideas, services and technology innovations. The RTA will evaluate and fund innovative ways to provide transit service, reduce dependency on single -occupancy vehicles, improve public transportation's cost- effectiveness, and better respond to customer needs. The RTA will evaluate technological innovations (alternative fuels and propulsion systems, quieter equipment, lighter vehicles, energy efficient engines, and ways to improve passenger comfort) and ways to reduce impacts on the environment. The RTA will also explore incentives and programs to encourage people to use regional transit more. The RTA will work with the community and the private sector to take part in a demonstration of personal rapid transit (PRT) or other technologies. PRT is an experimental type of automated transit consisting of small cars running on a guideway carrying two to six passengers per car. The demonstration could show how PRT or other new technologies could be appropriate investments in future transit system phases. Photo courtesy of Titan PRT Systems, Inc. Working together — a coordinated system of services By coordinating with local transit and other transportation services Sound Move will make it convenient and easy to move around the region. Crucial to the ten-year system plan and the entire regional transportation system are the mechanisms that make different transportation components work together to create an efficient network connecting the entire region. These mechanisms include: • coordinating local and regional transit schedules, tying services together and creating important regionwide connections • building transit centers, park-and-ride lots and stations where different types of transportation come together to make connections simple and efficient • developing a uniform pass or ticket that can be used on local buses, regional express buses and trains, making transfers easy. 19 Gateways to the region — community connections Combined, new regional HCT corridors and services will link our economic centers and provide new connections for local communities. Sound Move will create new "gateways" from communities to the region and from the region to communities. Those gateways include transit stations, park-and- ride lots, transit centers and rail stations that create community connections where people can reach their destination on foot, by bicycle, or by accessing other transportation services. Snohomish County New park-and-ride lot capacity improvements will be prioritized at locations where HOV direct access and regional bus service increases demand and where no surplus capacity exists. Criteria used to guide park-and-ride lot investments include: HOV direct access, adequate regional and/or local bus service levels and achieving standards for current and projected use. The following matrix shows the hundreds of connections that will be possible at these new gateways (note: some facilities listed are existing but will be served by new regional RTA services under the Ten -Year Plan): Com. Rail Reg. Bus Local Bus Park & Ride HOV Access Ferry Amtrak Ped./Bike Everett Multi -Modal Station Bond Street Station East Everett Park -and -Ride N. Everett Transit Center S. Everett Transit Center 112th Park -and -Ride & flyer stop (Everett) Mukilteo Station Swamp Creek Park -and -Ride Ash Way Park -and -Ride Mountlake Terrace flyer stop Mill Creek Lynnwood Park -and -Ride enhancements Lynnwood Transit Center Edmonds Multi -Modal Station • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • J • 1 • ,• • • • • Other projects: Pacific Avenue overpass (Everett); Lynnwood Transit Center/Park-and-Ride lot connection 20 Sound Move North King County Aurora Village Transit Center Richmond Beach Shoreline Lake Forest Park Lake City Northgate Transit Center Northgate Station Roosevelt Station Ballard Station Lt Rail Com Rail Reg Bus Local Bus HOV Access Amtrak Ped /Bike • • • • • • • • • • * N. University District Station (45th) • • • S. University District Station (Pacific) • Capitol Hill Station • First Hill Station • • * • • • • * * • • • • • • • • Convention Place Station • • • Westlake Station • i University Street Station • • • • • • • • Pioneer Square Station • 1 King Street/International District Station • I-90/Rainier Station (Atlantic St.) • McClellan Street Station • Columbia City Station (Edmonds St.) • Othello Street Station • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Henderson Street Station • • • Georgetown Station West Seattle Junction Fauntleroy * • • * • • * Provisional station subject to funding availability from within the North King County subarea. * • • 21 Sound Move South King County Boeing Access Road Station Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Tukwila Light Rail Station N. SeaTac Station Sea -Tac Airport Station SeaTac Station (S. 200th St.) Burien Transit Center Lt. Rail Com.Rail Reg. Bus Local Bus Park & Ride HOV Access Ped./Bike • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • `• • • • • • • • • • j • • • • 1 Kent/Des Moines Kent Commuter Rail Station Auburn Station • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Federal Way Transit Center • • • • • LStar Lake Park -and -Ride (Federal Way) • • • • • East King County Reg. Bus Local Bus Park & Ride HOV Access Ped./Bike Canyon Park Park -and -Ride • • • • • Bothell Transit Center • • Woodinville Park -and -Ride • • Kirkland Transit Center (124th) • • S. Kirkland Park -and -Ride • L Redmond Park -and -Ride • • • • • • NE 40th Transit Center (Redmond) • Eastgate Park -and -Ride • Bellevue Transit Center S. Bellevue Park -and -Ride Mercer Island Park -and -Ride • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • •- • • • • 22 East King County (continued) Reg. Bus Local Bus Park & Ride HOV Access Ped./Bike Issaquah Transit Center & Park -and Ride • • • • • Newport Park -and -Ride • • Newcastle Transit Center • • • Renton Transit Center • • • • • Other projects: Willows HOV (Redmond); Woodinville arterial HOV enhancements; I-90 two-way center roadway; SR 522 HOV enhancements Pierce County Lt. Rail Com. Rail Reg. Bus Local Bus Park & Ride Amtrak Ped./Bike Sumner Station • • • • • Puyallup Station • • • • • Tacoma Dome Multi -Modal Station • • • • • • • S. 24th Street Station • _ • • University & Museum Station (S. 19th St.) • • • S. 13th Street Station • Theater District Station (S. 9th St.) TCC Transit Center • • • • • • • • South Tacoma Station • • • • • Lakewood Station • SR 512 Park -and -Ride Dupont Park -and -Ride Parkland South Hill Park -and -Ride • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i • • • • • 23 Using the system Easy system access Sound Move will create a regional transit system that is easy to reach and use by everyone including pedestrians, bicyclists, people with disabilities and other public transportation customers. The RTA will work with local public transportation agencies, communities and local governments to place and design transit facilities that fit with local community plans. This will include making improvements within one-half mile of each • E station for safe, easy transit, pedestrian and bicycle access. Transit facility designs will be flexible, allowing each station to reflect and fit into the community it serves while providing standard features for transit customers such as: • security and safety design standards • consistent route and schedule information • easy -to -read and consistent signs • pedestrian -friendly design and full access for people with disabilities •--bicycle access and storage • transit -friendly access to allow smooth transfers from one type of public transportation to another (i.e. bus to rail, or bus to bus). • convenient taxi access. A one -ticket ride Since high-capacity transit is just one part of the overall regional transportation system, it is important that Sound Move work well with services already being provided or planned at the local and statewide level. One way to make sure Sound Move provides a smooth connection with other services in the region is to develop a uniform, single -ticket fare system among local and regional transit providers. This will allow customers to use a single ticket or pass to travel on any and all of the types of transit within the region (i.e. local bus, regional bus, light rail, commuter rail and ferries). The RTA will work with public transportation providers in the region to develop an integrated fare'.policy for the • entire public transit service network. t -y /400 24 Coordinated routes and schedules Simple and coordinated connections are necessary between all parts of the regional transportation network — buses, rail, ferries, carpools, vanpools, shuttles, circulators, intercity rail lines, taxis, airports, bicycles and pedestrians. These simple and coordinated connections can be achieved by sharing stations, simplifying transfer policies and using common fares. An important part of integrating these services is providing several stations or transit centers where many transportation services come together, making transfers and connections convenient and expanding the scope of the entire transportation system. For example: Say you live in Bellevue and want to go to the University of Washington. You catch a local bus to the Bellevue Transit Center, transfer to a regional express bus which takes you directly to the University — all accomplished with a single ticket. Or say you want to take advantage of the state's new intercity rail service between Portland and Vancouver, B.C. but don't live near an Amtrak station but do live near a commuter rail station. You can take commuter rail to one of three combined commuter rail, intercity rail and Amtrak stations and purchase a ticket for either an intercity rail or Amtrak interstate destination. Those stations will also be served by local and regional bus service as well as taxis. The RTA will work with local transportation providers to make sure that local and regional transit schedules mesh and that parallel, competing services are avoided. 25 Sound Move Putting the system in place Implementing the plan in stages The ten-year timeframe for putting the plan in place begins the day after voters approve funding for the new regional transit system. The plan that is presented to the voters represents the RTA's preferred system based on extensive system -level planning and public involvement conducted to date. As the RTA proceeds to more detailed planning and engineering levels, it will continue to identify and evaluate alternatives that might achieve the same system goals and benefits more cost- effectively. Individual parts of the system will come on line as they are completed and the entire system should be up and running within 10 years. While putting each part of the plan in place, the RTA will use a variety of techniques to make sure that the system is developed and operated as cost-effectively as possible. Techniques could include: value engineering, citizen committees, technical review committees and expert review committees. As services begin operating, the RTA will monitor system performance and productivity and make changes to service plans when appropriate. HOV Expressway Working with the state Transportation Department and through the annual budget review process, the RTA will fund construction of new access ramps to the existing and already funded HOV lanes or fund other appropriate alternatives. The state Transportation Department will then move all HOV lanes in those corridors to the inside lane of the road. The RTA Board views completion of the state's Freeway HOV Lane "core system" iri the Puget Sound region as an important priority. However, the RTA assumes the state will complete construction of the core HOV lane system in accordance with its freeway HOV policy. If the state does not fulfill its funding obligation, the RTA Board will conduct an open and public process to determine whether RTA funding is available (e.g. from savings realized in other program elements) and should be used to help complete the core HOV lane system. HOV access ramps are the preferred investment for improving speed and reliability of regional express buses by eliminating the need to weave across general purpose lanes to reach HOV lanes. Before building individual HOV access ramps, the RTA will work with the state Transportation Department, local transit operators, local jurisdictions and citizen committees to assess each facility's location and function. This assessment will determine whether there are ways to achieve equivalent transit speed, reliability and ridership at a lower cost or by making transportation system management 26 improvements instead. Regional and local land -use objectives and comprehensive plans will also be considered in the assessment. Actual design and construction of all HOV lanes and ramps will be done by the state Transportation Department. Each HOV segment and direct access ramp will open as soon as the state Transportation Department completes it, with all of the RTA funded improvements operational by the end of ten years. Regional express buses Regional express buses will be purchased immediately and begin operating as soon as the vehicles are delivered. Maintenance and passenger facilities will be expanded as necessary. The RTA will enter into interlocal agreements with Pierce Transit, King County Metro, Community Transit and Everett Transit to operate the regional express bus routes using a single -ticket policy. The RTA will work closely with local transit operators to put regional express bus services in place. Regional express bus service will be expanded along with local transit service changes to make sure the services are fully coordinated and that subareas receive maximum improvements while the region receives maximum mobility. In areas where existing transit markets or capital facilities don't currently support the planned new service levels, those services will be added in increments to match demand. The RTA and local transit agencies will monitor system performance and recommend changes to subarea service plans that are consistent with the RTA's adopted financial policies. Commuter rail The RTA Board and citizens from throughout the region have discussed and reviewed the benefits and costs of commuter rail during the entire system planning process. Because commuter rail is a major regional investment, there must be continued, deliberate and careful consideration given to developing this new north -south HCT corridor. Communities, local jurisdictions and citizens will be part of the project from beginning to end. The commuter rail line between Tacoma and Seattle will begin operating first, followed soon after by the lines between Everett and Seattle and between Tacoma and Lakewood. Since a network of rail tracks is already in place, the necessary track and signal improvements needed for commuter rail service could take between two and four years to complete. Service could begin shortly thereafter. The track, signal and communications equipment improvements required to operate commuter rail will provide the speed and reliability necessary to offer attractive passenger service and build ridership in the corridor. These improvements will also improve the capacity, reliability and dependability of the state's intercity rail service, regular Amtrak interstate passenger service and freight train traffic. Stage I — Within the first two years following voter approval of funding for Sound Move, the RTA will: • Develop contractual cost-sharing relationships with affected organizations and jurisdictions before putting commuter rail service in place (affected organizations and jurisdictions could include but are not limited to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe and. Union Pacific railroads; the ports of Tacoma, Seattle and Everett; the state Transportation Department; Amtrak; the federal government; and local governments). These partnerships will result in lower capital costs than would occur if the RTA were to fund the improvements alone. • Further analyze projected operating and maintenance costs to try to reduce costs. The goal is to achieve operating and maintenance subsidy levels that come as close as possible to regional bus service subsidy levels. • Establish performance objectives to monitor and evaluate commuter rail service productivity related to cost, ridership and other relevant measures. • Assess the results of the preceding tasks and make final decisions about what modifications — if any — should be made to the commuter rail program before any contracts are awarded (local jurisdiction review and public input will be an integral part of this process). 28 Stage II — • The RTA will negotiate service -provider contracts as part of commuter rail operations to make sure the authority is reimbursed for capital facilities and equipment costs it may no longer need to use. • Based on system performance and productivity monitoring, the RTA may choose to modify service (i.e. increase or decrease service; add or drop stations; add or delete segments; change days and times of service, etc.). In keeping with RTA financial policies, any savings realized by modifying or reassessing the commuter rail program will be reallocated to the subarea originally assessed with that portion of program cost. Electric light rail The region has discussed and reviewed the benefits and costs of various electric light-rail alignments throughout system planning. Based on extensive public and jurisdictional discussion and review, the starter system presented to the voters is the RTA's preferred alternative. However, since this is a major regional investment and provides the region with significant new transportation capacity, there needs to be continued deliberate and careful consideration of the alignments, markets served and station locations. The Northgate to SeaTac (South 200th Street) electric light-rail line will be built in three segments that will be developed in several stages. The preferred alignment for the first segment is from downtown through the Rainier Valley to SeaTac (South 200 Street). Between Boeing Access Road and SeaTac, the RTA will evaluate an alignment using State -Route 99 and an alternative route using Interurban Avenue to Southcenter. The preferred alignment for the second segment is from downtown Seattle through First Hill and Capitol Hill to the University District. The preferred alignment for the third segment is through the Roosevelt District to Northgate. The first implementation stage will include environmental review, preliminary design and preferred alternative refinement for each of the three segments. This stage will also include an extensive community process to refine the preferred alternatives for each segment and define potential alternative alignments. 29 Before supporting construction of the preferred alternative, alternative alignments will be evaluated to determine which maximize ridership, minimize capital and operating cost per passenger trip and create the greatest economic net benefit. In particular, special attention must be paid to which alignment generates the most new ridership as opposed to riders simply shifting from one type of transit to another. Once preliminary engineering and environmental review is completed the RTA will begin the next stage — final design and right-of-way acquisition followed by construction. The RTA intends to begin building the south segment first while final engineering is completed on the two north segments. When final engineering is complete, the RTA will conduct a major review of project funding status to make sure the authority's equity principle can be met before construction contracts are awarded. If the cost is lower than estimated and/or additional funds have been appropriated, the RTA will build the light-rail segment between the University District and Northgate. When electric light-rail service begins operating in the downtown Seattle transit tunnel, the number of people using the tunnel will triple. This may require some buses to be shifted to surface streets. The RTA will work with Seattle and King County to address bus operational issues that may arise as a result of this shift. As with any major construction project the community will be involved in the project from beginning to end. Opportunities for public and technical review will be included in each stage of the implementation plan. Community connections To maximize public access to the regional system, the RTA will fund a variety of community connection facilities including transit centers, transit access improvements, and park-and-ride lots. These facilities are intended to improve local access to the regional system while improving connections to local transit services. The RTA intends to maximize the local benefits of these facilities by promoting designs and locations that encourage joint development and maximize pedestrian access. The RTA also intends to evaluate the degree to which these facilities reduce the need for people to drive. The objective of the evaluation will be to produce a mix of investments within the available budget which maximize public transportation benefits in the area around the proposed community connection facilities. The location, design and construction of these facilities will be determined through a collaborative process involving the public, local jurisdictions and local transit agencies. 30 Park-and-ride lots Sound Move adds park-and-ride lot capacity in some areas to get the best performance out of the transit system while providing convenient access for transit customers. The demand for expanded park-and-ride lot capacity can be reduced if the RTA, local transit agencies, local jurisdictions and the public can successfully: • encourage as many people as possible to reach the transit system using local transit or other HOV modes • develop land -use polices thataretransit- and pedestrian -friendly and encourage mixed- use development around transit stations • encourage joint use and development of park-and-ride lots • allow park-and-ride lots to be converted to other uses when transit- and pedestrian - friendly development patterns make the specific site inappropriate for continued park-and-ride use • develop ways other than park-and-ride lots that are as efficient and effective in achieving ridership goals with less effect on the environment. Keeping on track and within budget Sound Move is based on extremely conservative cost and ridership assumptions and methodologies reviewed by an independent expert review panel appointed by the governor, the state Legislature and the state Transportation Department. In addition, the RTA has adopted strict cost management control principles to make certain Sound Move stays on schedule and within budget. Those principles include: • hiring independent auditors and appointing a citizen oversight committee to monitor RTA performance and make sure the authority maintains full public accountability • rewarding contractors for excellence and penalizing them for cost overruns or not completing projects on schedule • using outside or independent professional "value" engineers to analyze preliminary designs and identify, wherever possible, less expensive ways of completing projects. A community effort Citizens played a key role in shaping the ten-year system plan and will play an even greater role in its implementation. Sound Move reflects the dynamic nature of our region. It therefore needs the ideas and collaboration of the region's diverse interests to put the many new transportation services and facilities in place.. 31 The RTA will provide the resources and support necessary to involve the public at all levels of planning (local, corridor, regional) and during all phases of putting the plan in place (environmental, preliminary engineering, final design, construction, operation). The RTA will also support independent citizen and/or technical review committees to oversee and provide advice to the RTA during detailed electric light-rail segment planning. One of the first tasks of a citizen committee for the north light-rail line will be to consider and to help identify an alternative northern route which can be evaluated against the preferred alternative during environmental review and preliminary engineering stages. At a minimum the evaluation will include performance criteria such as ridership, cost,. cost-effectiveness, compatibility with local community plans, direct service to the University District, speed and capacity, and impacts to existing transportation capacity in the corridor. The time and resources devoted to the task of identifying an alternative northern route shall be established at the beginning of the citizen process. Public involvement principles The RTA will work with local public transportation agencies, local jurisdictions and agencies to create an open public involvement process with ample opportunities to inform and involve the community. Citizens and groups will have extensive opportunities to interact with, and receive a response from, appointed and elected officials on issues of interest or concern. The RTA will ensure that: • citizens have access to the planning process • citizens' input is actively sought at all stages of planning and development • a representative cross-section of interests is engaged • all programs and activities are publicized and the proceedings and records made available for public review • citizens have opportunities to affect decisions before they are finalized • citizens' inquiries, suggestions and ideas are answered or accounted for in the decision-making process. The environmental process A goal of the plan is to maximize the positive effects we can make on our region's economic, social and physical environments. The RTA will work with the community to carefully evaluate the short and long-term effects of implementing and operating Sound Move investments. Citizens will be involved in community -level environmental review of each facility as it is planned in greater detail. The RTA will fully comply with all federal, state and local environmental evaluation processes. 32 Paying for the system RTA taxing and bonding authority State law allows the RTA to ask voters in the Central Puget Sound region to increase their local taxes to pay for a regional HCT system. The law allows the RTA to ask voters within the RTA District for up to a 9/10 of one percent sales tax, 8/10 of one percent motor vehicle excise (license tab) tax, and an employer tax of $2 per employee. The financial plan assumes the local funding for Sound Move at less than 40 percent of the authorized level. Funds will come from a 4/10 of one percent increase in sales tax and a 3/10 of one percent increase in the license tab tax to be collected within the RTA District. State law also allows the RTA to issue municipal bonds. The financial plan for Sound Move includes long-term bond financing at a level significantly lower than state law allows. I.' 3177.1i,": 1.0 I lilt I A H !II 1 rsr n :4 Zt2 def Financial plan framework The proposal to be placed before the voters will be a ten-year construction plan financed in part by long-term bonds. As elements are completed, they will begin operating during that ten-year period. After the ten-year period, the RTA's tax revenues will be used to continue transit operations and pay for debt service. Any second phase capital program which continues local taxes for financing will require approval by a vote of those citizens within the RTA District. The RTA is committed to building and operating a ten-year system plan that can be confidently funded and completed as promised to the region's citizens. To carry out this commitment, the RTA adopted the following guidelines for the financial plan: • local tax rates — Sound Move will be funded in part by local revenues, generated within the RTA District boundaries, including a local sales tax increase not to exceed 4/10 of one percent and motor vehicle excise (license tab) tax increase not to exceed 3/10 of one percent. • state and federal program funding — The RTA assumes no state funds, thus placing no additional demand on limited state resources that are needed for other regional transportation investments. The RTA assumes federal funding for new rail starts of $55 million per year and other federal funding sources of $18 million per year. Additional funds will be requested but the plan does not speculate beyond current sound estimates of federal support. 33 • conservative borrowing levels — The RTA Board has established financial policies to ensure conservative use of long-term debt (bonding). Because transit facilities provide benefits over a long span of time, it is reasonable to finance their construction over a period that extends beyond the ten- year system plan construction timeframe. • subarea benefits — The RTA is committed to invest revenues to benefit the areas where they are raised. The amount of long- term debt financing used to benefit each subarea will be based on its financing capacity (defined by revenues generated and ability to repay debt after covering operating expenses). • ten-year implementation — Different parts and segments of the plan will be implemented in stages and be operational as soon as possible. The RTA is committed to the entire system being completed and operational within 10 years. Costs and schedule Table 1 summarizes the cost of putting Sound Move in place and operating regional express bus routes and rail lines. The costs associated with construction include markups to cover potential mitigation, engineering, administration, project management, insurance, and other overhead costs, as well as contingencies for unforeseen expenses. Operating and maintenance costs include overhead and administration expenses, and an operating reserve account equal to two months operating costs set aside for unexpected expenses. Table 1. Costs All figures in $millions HOV Expressway access ramps Regional express bus Commuter rail Electric light rail Community connections Regional fund/reserves Debt service $377 $361 $669 $1,801 $255 $280 $171 $3,914 Table 2. Revenues All figures in $millions Local taxes Bonding Federal Farebox/other $1,980 $1,052 $727 $155 TOTAL $3,914 The schedule for funding the system follows the general implementation schedule described in the "Putting the System in Place" section. Actual future cash flow will determine detailed scheduling priorities. The long-term cash flow analysis assumes that debt financing (bonds) will be necessary during the concentrated construction and implementation stages when capital costs alone exceed annual revenues. 34 Sound Mow Funding The financial principles provide the foundation for determining what revenue sources should be relied upon to pay for Sound Move. The system plan will be paid for with a combination of voter approved local taxes, federal grants, farebox revenues, borrowed funds (bonds), and interest revenues (see Table 2). System operating costs beyond the ten-year implementation period will be paid for with local taxes, farebox revenues, interest earnings, private sources, and federal operating assistance. Risk assessment The assumptions used to project costs and revenues for Sound Move are consciously conservative. The assumptions have been carefully analyzed to provide a cushion in case there are adverse changes in one or more of the revenue or expense projections. Experience shows that if one assumption changes, other key indicators would likely change in a similar manner. For example, if inflation were to escalate projected costs, interest rates and earnings and tax revenues Revenues would also be higher than plan projections. The RTA, however, has adopted several strategies within its financial polices to reduce the impact of any imbalance between planned expenditures and available revenues. Financial policies The financial policies provide important tools to the RTA to make sure that Sound Move is financed on time and within budget, and that principles and commitments to the public are met. G Distributing revenues equitably — Since local tax revenues will be usedto benefit the RTA District's five subareas based on the share of revenues each subarea generates, adopting this ten-year plan represents an equitable distribution of revenues and benefits. Budgets for each of the five subareas, including the subarea's projected share of local taxes, borrowed funds, federal grants, farebox revenues, and related expenditures, will be monitored and adjusted on an annual basis to make sure that equitable distributions of revenues are maintained. Expenditures Revenues & expenditures by subarea Snohomish subarea Pierce subarea South King subarea 35 • Regional fund — The regional fund will pay for systemwide elements of Sound Move. These elements include the integrated fare policy that creates a single - ticket ride, innovative technologies, and planning for any future capital investments that will be placed before the region's voters. The regional fund will also pay for RTA administration. The fund will be created with an equal percentage of local tax revenues contributed by each of the five subareas plus interest earnings. • Conservative borrowing levels — The RTA is committed to placing limits on its use of long-term debt. It has adopted several policies to make sure this commitment is met. These policies establish the conservative approach the RTA will use to calculate the cash flow available to service debt, set a debt service coverage ratio policy, and reserve a portion of the RTA's debt financing capacity to provide a future potential funding source for unforeseen circumstances. • Public accountability — The RTA will hire independent auditors and appoint a citizen oversight committee to monitor RTA performance in carrying out its public commitments. • System expansion or tax rollback — Any second phase capital program which continues local taxes for financing will require voter approved within the RTA District. If voters decide not to extend the system, the RTA will roll back the tax rate to a level sufficient to pay off the outstanding bonds and operate and maintain the investments made as part of Sound Move. iRJli �:I:C nl`II 36 Sound Move — The Ten -Year Regional Transit System Plan The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority 821 Second Avenue, M.S. 151 Seattle, Washington 98104-1598 E-mail: rta@scn.org 1-800-201-4900 Information presented in the ten-year system plan is provided by the RTA to inform citizens and may be reproduced freely. RTA Executive Director: Bob White Editor: Tim E. Healy Designer: Kathryn DeMeritt This information is available in accessible formats on request at 684-6776 (voice) or 684-1395 (TDD). RTA information is also available through the Worldwide Web at http: / /www.wsdot.wa.gov/ CPSRTA/. Regional Transit Authority Sound Move Launching a Rapid Transit System for the Puget Sound Region Appendix A: Detailed description of facilities and costs As adopted May 31, 1996 l Contents Subarea project list summary Snohomish County 1 North King County 1 South King County 1 East King County 1 Pierce County 2 Subarea totals 2 Regional fund 2 Total revenues and expenditures 2 Snohomish County Revenues and project list 3 North king County Revenues and project list 5 South king County Revenues and project list 6 East king County Revenues and project list 8 Pierce County Revenues and project list 10 Regional Fund Revenues and project list 12 Subarea project list summary RTA's Revenue 1 Expenditures All figures in 1995 $millions Capital O&M Total Snohomish County — Taxes - $257 Commuter rail $89 $43 $132 Federal - $28 HOV access 49 - 49 Bonding - $60 Regional express bus 10 46 56 Farebox - $17 Community connections 96 96 Debt service 7 7 Subtotal - $362 Reserves 3 3 Regional fund 7 12 19 $251 $111 $362 North King County — Taxes - $581 Electric light rail $1,381 $30 $1,411 Federal - $452 Contribution to commuter rail Bonding - $503 and regional bus O&M 26 26 Farebox - $23 Debt service 47 47 Reserves 32 32 Subtotal - $1,559 Regional fund 16 27 43 $1,397 $162 $1,559 South King County — Taxes - $354 Electric light rail $315 $10 $325 Federal - $163 Commuter rail $228 $41 $269 Bonding - $284 HOV access 70 - 70 Farebox - $28 Regional express bus 11 28 39 Community connections 25 25 Subtotal - $829 Debt service - 56 56 Reserves 18 18 Regional fund 10 17 27 $659 $170 $829 East King County — Taxes - $420 HOV access $258 $258 Federal - $45 Regional express bus 35 110 145 Bonding - $69 Community connections 109 109 Farebox - $33 Debt service 14 14 Reserves 10 10 Subtotal - $567 Regional fund 11 20 31 $413 $154 $567 1 10 year time frame; 0.52% sales tax equivalent A-1 RTA's Revenue 1 Expenditures All figures in 1995 $millions Capital O&M Total Pierce County — Taxes - $368 Federal - $39 Bonding - $136 Farebox - $32 Subtotal - $575 Subarea Totals — Taxes - $1,980 Federal - Bonding - Farebox - $727 $1052 $133 Subtotal - $3,892 Regional Fund — Interest - $22 Electric light rail Commuter rail Regional express bus Community connections Debt service Reserves Regional fund Electric light rail Commuter rail HOV access Regional express bus Community connections Debt Service Reserves $50 222 36 25 10 $343 $1,746 $539 $377 $92 $255 $3,009 Fare integration Research & technology $30, Phase II planning / engineering $30 RTA agency administration Systemwide contingency Total revenues and expenditures — Revenues - $3,914 Expenditures - $60 $3,069 $15 46 85 47 21 18 $232 $65 268 121 25 47 21 28 $575 $55 $1,801 $130 $669 $377 $269 $361 $255 $171 $171 $110 $110 $735 $45 $55 $10 $110 $3,744 $45 $30 $30 $55 $10 $170 $845 $3,914 A-2 1 10 year time frame; 0.52% sales tax equivalent Snohomish County Revenues All figures in 1995 $millions Taxes - $257 Federal - $28 Bonding - $60 Farebox - $17 Total - $362 Project List Capital O&M Combined Commuter Rail — Everett to Seattle (track & facilities) $64 Everett Multimodal $12 Mukilteo Station $6 Edmonds Station $6 Bond St. Station (Everett) $1 $43 $107 $12 $6 $6 $1 Total - $89 $43 $132 HOV Access — I-5 @ 164th (Ash Way) $11 $11 I-5 @ Lynnwood P&R $30 $30 I-5 @ 112th (Silver Lake) $6 $6 SR -525 @ 164th (Swamp Creek) $2 $2 Total - $49 $49 Regional Express Bus — Everett to Aurora Village: SR 99 $3 $11 $14 Everett to Mountlake Terrace / Seattle: I-5 $4 $21 $25 S. Everett to Bellevue: SR 527 (Snohomish) $2 $9 $11 Lynnwood to Bellevue: I-405 (Snohomish) $1 $5 $6 Total - $10 $46 $56 A-3 All figures in 1995 $millions Capital O&M Combined Community Connections — Lynnwood Transit Center $15 $15 Ash Way Park & Ride $2 $2 Swamp Creek Park & Ride $6 $6 Mountlake Terrace Flyer Stop $3 $3 Lynnwood Transit Center - Park & Ride Connector $5 $5 Pacific Avenue Overpass (Everett) $10 $10 South Everett Transit Center $3 $3 East Everett Park & Ride (formerly "Landfill") $15 $15 North Everett Transit Center $1 $1 Lynnwood Park & Ride enhancements $2 $2 112th St. Park & Ride / Flyer Stop (Silver Lake) $14 $14 Funds for other Projects $20 $20 Total - $96 $96 Debt service — $7 $7 Reserves — $3 $3 Regional fund — $7 $12 $19 Grand total — $251 $111 $362 A-4 North King County Revenues All figures in 1995 $millions Taxes- $581 Federal- $452 Bonding - $503 Farebox - $23 Total - $1,559 Project List Capital O&M Combined Electric light-rail — North University District to Boeing Access Rd. $1,355 $30 $1,385 NE 45th Street Station Pacific Street Station Capitol Hill Station First Hill Station Convention Place Station Westlake Station, University Street Station Pioneer Square Station International District Station 1-90/Rainier Station (Atlantic St.) McClellan Street Station Columbia City Station Othello Street Station Henderson Street Station Boeing Access Road Station North University District to Northgate $26 $26 (contribution pending additional funding) Roosevelt Station Northgate Station Commuter rail — Richmond Beach Station Ballard Station Georgetown Station Contribution to commuter rail & regional bus O&M — $26 $26 Debt service — $47 $47 Reserves — - $32 $32 Regional fund — $16 $27 $43 Grand Total — $1,397 $162 $1,559 * Provisional station subject to funding availability A-5 South King County Revenues All figures in 1995 $millions Taxes- $354 Federal - $163 Bonding - $284 Farebox - $28 Total - $829 Project List Capital O&M Combined Electric light rail — Boeing Access Rd. to S. 200th St. (SeaTac) $315 $10 $325 Tukwila Station N. SeaTac Station (SR -518) Sea -Tac Airport Station SeaTac Station ( S. 200th St. ) Commuter Rail — Seattle to Auburn (track & facilities) $179 King St. Station $11 Boeing Access Road Station (Tukwila) $10 Tukwila Station (Longacres) $13 Kent Station $6 Auburn Station $9 Total - $228 $41 $220 $11 $10 $13 $6 $9 $41 $269 HOV Access — 1-5 @ 320th (Federal Way) $25 $25 I-5@ 272nd (Federal Way) $27 $27 I-405 @ Southcenter (Tukwila) $32 $32 Total - $70 - $70 A-6 Capital All figures in 1995 $millions O&M Combined Regional express bus — Bellevue to SeaTac (south) $3 $8 $11 Federal Way to Bellevue (south) $2 $3 $5 Puyallup to Bellevue (south) $2 $2 $4 SeaTac to Seattle $3 $8 $11 Tacoma to Seattle (south) $1 $7 $8 Total - $11 $28 $39 Community connections — Federal Way Transit Center/City Center $4 $4 Star Lake or other Federal Way park-and-ride lot capacity improvements $16 $16 Other Park-and-ride expansion $5 $5 Total - $25 $25 Debt Service — Reserves — Regional fund — Grand Total — $10 $56 $56 $18 $18 $17 $27 $659 $170 $829 A-7 East King County Revenues All figures in 1995 $millions Taxes - $420 Federal - $45 Bonding - $69 Farebox - $33 Total - $567 Project list Capital O&M Combined NOV access — Kirkland I-405 HOV access improvements $84 $84 I-405 @ Bellevue $66 - $66 I405 @ Park Ave., (Renton) $32 $32 I-405 @ Talbot Rd. (Renton) $31 $31 I-90 @ Eastgate Park-and-ride $29 $29 I-90 @ Sunset Interchange (HOV Share) $16 $16 Total - $258 $258 Regional express bus — S. Everett to Bellevue: SR 527 (east) $2 $4 $6 Lynnwood to Bellevue: I-405 (east) $2 $5 $7 Woodinville to Northgate $4 $10 $14 Issaquah to Bellevue/Northgate $7 $22 $29 Redmond to Bellevue / Seattle $5 $20 $25 Redmond to Seattle: SR 520 $4 $3 $7 Bellevue to SeaTac (east) $3 $14 $17 Redmond to U. District $4 $13 $17 Federal Way to Bellevue (east) $2 $11 $13 Puyallup to Bellevue (east) $2 $8 $10 Total - $35 $110 $145 A-8 Capital All figures in 1995 $millions O&M Combined Community Connections — Bellevue Transit Center $15 - $15 Bothell / Canyon Park flyer stop $5 - $5 Bothell Branch Campus Access @ 195th/1-405 $5 $5 Issaquah Transit Center $10 - $10 Kirkland Transit Center $10 $10 Mercer Island Station /Park & Ride $10 - $10 Newcastle Transit Center $5 $5 Willows HOV (Redmond) $5 $5 Overlake Transit Center / Park & Ride (NE 40th) $5 $5 Woodinville Arterial HOV Enhancements $5 $5 Small cities transit access $3 $3 Unincorporated King Co. Transit Access $5 $5 I-90 two-way center roadway $15 $15 SR -522 HOV enhance. (Woodinville to Bothell) $11 $11 Total - $109 $109 Debt service — $14 $14 Reserves — $10 $10 Regional fund — $11 $20 $31 Grand Total — $413 $154 $567 A-9 Pierce County Revenues All figures in 1995 $millions Taxes - $368 Federal - $39 Bonding - $136 Farebox - $32 Total - $575 Project List Capital O&M Combined Commuter Rail — Auburn to Lakewood (track & facilities) $171 Sumner Station $5 Puyallup Station $9 Tacoma Dome Station $17 S. 56th St. Station $7 Lakewood Station $9 Lakewood CBD Rail Station connection $4 Total - Electric Light -Rail — $222 $46 $217 $5 $9 $17 $7 $9 $4 $46 $268 Tacoma CBD /Waterfront to Tacoma Dome multi -modal Terminal $50 $15 $65 Total - $50 $15 $65 Regional Express Bus — Puyallup to Bellevue: SR -167 (Pierce) $2 $7 $9 Tacoma to Seattle: I-5 (Pierce) $2 $7 $9 Tacoma to Seattle Express $12 $28 $40 Lakewood to Seattle Express $5 $17 $22 Tacoma Dome to Auburn: SR -167 $2 $5 $7 South Hill to Dupont Express $5 $4 $9 Lakewood to Tacoma Express $3 $8 $11 Midcounty to Downtown Express $3 $4 $7 Lakewood to Puyallup Express $2 $5 $7 Total - $36 $85 $121 A-10 Capital All figures in 1995 $millions O&M Combined Community Connections — Tacoma Dome Expansion $10 $10 South Hill Park & Ride $5 $5 Dupont Park & Ride $5 $5 SR 512 Park & Ride Expansion $5 $5 Total - $25 - $25 Debt service — $47 $47 Reserves — $21 $21 Regional fund — $10 $18 $28 Grand Total — $343 $232 $575 A-11 Regional fund Revenues All figures in 1995 $millions Local tax revenue, 7% contribution - $139 Interest earnings - $31 Total - $170 Project List Capital O&M Combined Fare integration Research & technology $30 Phase II planning / engineering $30 RTA agency administration Systemwide contingency Total - $60 $45 $45 $30 $30 $55 $55 $10 $10 $110 $170 A-12 Sound Move Launching a Rapid Transit System for the Puget Sound Region Appendix B Financial policies As adopted May 31, 1996 Contents Introduction Purpose 1 Legal responsibilities 1 Financial Policies Equity 3 Definition of equity 3 Implementation policy 3 Subarea budgets 3 Monitoring function 4 Adjustments to subarea budgets 4 Regional fund 5 Funding sources 5 Uses for regional fund 5 Debt financing capacity 5 Legal definition of RTA debt financing capacity 5 Calculation of debt financing capacity 5 Debt service coverage ration policy 5 Uses of debt financing 6 Allocation of RTA debt capacity to subareas 6 Debt management guidelines 6 Setting priorities for expenditures 7 Public accountability 7 Future phases 7 Voter approval requirement 7 Tax rate rollback 7 Financial policies review 7 Introduction Purpose The RTA Board adopted an initial framework for the financing of Sound Move, by setting local tax rates, focusing on minimal debt financing, requiring conservative projections for federal and state funding, and establishing a definition by which equity will be measured. The Financial Policies reflect the RTA Board's policy intent for implementing the financial framework, for ensuring that the ten-year construction program is completed on time and within budget, and for providing the tools to the Board to appropriately manage toward and respond to future conditions. Legal responsibilities In adopting these Financial Policies, the RTA Board recognizes certain legal responsibilities. Existing state law grants all legislative and policy authority to the RTA Board, and does not allow the Board to abrogate, transfer or delegate such authority to other agencies or to the five subareas within the RTA District. Consequently, all funds collected by or provided to the RTA, including local tax revenues, federal and other government grants, bond proceeds, fare box revenues, interest earnings, and private development revenues, may be disbursed only with approval of the RTA Board. Priorities for disbursements will be determined within the RTA's annual budgetary process, which by law requires a favorable vote by two-thirds of the RTA Board. Similarly, the RTA Board recognizes that bonds issued by the RTA will be secured by a pledge of repayment through local taxes. When the bonds are issued, the RTA will enter a binding contract with its bondholders that requires a first claim against local tax revenues for repayment. Stated differently, bondholders will have a legal priority to the RTA's local tax revenues, above and beyond any commitment the RTA may wish to make with its subareas that no subarea will pay another subareas' debt. Therefore, these Financial Policies reflect the RTA's commitment to subarea equity while maintaining the flexibility necessary to manage the financing of the system plan on a consolidated basis and within legal constraints. B-1 Financial Policies "Subarea Fences" RTA Board Revenues and funds collected Expenditures / disbursements Sources of funds #1 • Local taxes • Federal funding • Bond proceeds • Misc. revenues Five subarea budgets • Capital and contingencies • Operations and maintenance (O&M) • Reserves — O&M Debt service Capital replacement Sources of funds #2 • Contribution of local taxes, <10% • Interest earnings Regional fund • Fare integration • Research and technology • Future phase planning • System -wide contingency • RTA administration B-2 Financial policies Equity Definition of equity a) Equity will be defined as utilizing local tax revenues and related debt for projects and services which benefit the subareas generally in proportion to the level of revenues each subarea generates. This equity principle will apply to the ten-year system plan as well as all future phases. The Financing Plan for Sound Move reflects this equity principle by providing a budget for each of the five RTA subareas, comprised of the subarea's share of local taxes, bonding capacity, farebox proceeds and an assumption for federal funding. The five subareas are defined as Snohomish County, North King County/ Seattle, East King County, South King County, and Pierce County. While the Financing Plan will be managed by the RTA Board on a consolidated basis, the RTA will establish an accounting system by which to report individual subarea performance. b) The RTA Board agrees, therefore, that the facilities, projects and services identified in the adopted Ten -Year System Plan represent a reasonable definition of equity for purposes of satisfying both public policy concerns and statutory requirements. The subarea budgets will serve as the starting point for evaluating the equity principle during the ten year construction period. Implementation policy a) Subarea budgets: 1. The RTA Financing Plan will provide a budget for each of the five RTA subareas, comprised of the subarea's projected share of local taxes, bonding capacity and farebox proceeds, and an assumption for federal funding, and related expenditures. 2. Local taxes will be allocated to subarea budgets based on actual sales tax and motor vehicle excise tax receipts collected by subarea and within the RTA District. Annual RTA and subarea budgets will incorporate updated forecasts based on these actual receipts. A percent of local taxes from each subarea will be allocated to the Regional Fund to fund system -wide costs (see Regional Fund below). 3. Government funding will be allocated in two ways: • Government funding received that is general in scope for facilities and/or services that appear in several subareas will be allocated to subarea budgets proportional to the subareas' percentage share of total RTA local taxes collected and projected. • Government funding that is received for a specifically determined facility and/or service will be allocated to the subarea(s) which benefits from the facility and/or service 4. Miscellaneous revenues, such as those generated through private -public partnerships, advertising and terminal concessions, will be allocated to subarea budgets based on subarea investment in B-3 Sound Move the facility and/or service from which the revenue is generated. Because these revenue sources carry a high level of uncertainty, projections will not be included in the adopted Financing Plan or in the original subarea budgets. 5. Bonding capacity will be allocated based on a subarea's ability to repay the debt service after covering operating and maintenance costs, and consistent with the RTA's debt service coverage ratio policy (see Debt financing capacity below). 6. The subarea expenditures will be allocated in terms of the facilities and services to be provided, their projected costs and project contingencies, associated operating costs, debt service, and reserves for debt service, operations and maintenance, and capital replacement. The allocation of expenditures for facilities and services that cross subarea boundaries will be made by the RTA Board with consideration to subarea benefits and priorities. b) Monitoring function: 1. The RTA will establish an accounting system by which to report performance against subarea budgets. This monitoring and reporting function will be incorporated into the RTA's annual budgeting process. 2. The RTA will establish an independent audit function to oversee its monitoring and reporting of subarea budgets. 3. The RTA will appoint a citizen oversight committee to monitor RTA performance (see Public accountability below). c) Adjustments to subarea budgets: 1. The RTA will establish a process by which subarea budgets can be adjusted, based on current revenue and expenditure forecasts. Since the subarea budgets will be included within the RTA's general budget, adjustments to subarea budgets will occur every year as a step in the RTA's annual budget adoption, which requires a two- thirds favorable vote of the RTA Board. Adjustments to subarea budgets can include additional priority projects and/or services within that subarea should funding be available. This adjustment process recognizes that some fluctuation in revenues and expenditures against forecasts will occur 2. For those cases where a subarea's actual and projected expenditures exceed its actual and projected revenues and funding sources by 5 percent or greater, and/or where unforeseen circumstances occur which would result in an inability to substantially complete projects within such subarea's plan, the RTA Board shall take one or more of the following actions: • Correct the shortfall through use of such subarea's uncommitted funds and/or bond capacity which is available to the subarea; and/or • Scale back the subarea plan or projects within the plan to match a revised budget; and/or • Authorize a vote of the RTA District on a revised ballot measure. B-4 Regional fund Funding sources The RTA will establish a regional fund that will be funded through a percent of local tax revenues contributed by each of the five subareas and interest earnings. The percent of local tax to be contributed will be set in the adopted Financing Plan, and then reviewed and set annually through the RTA budget process. It will not exceed ten percent per year during the ten-year system plan period. Uses for regional fund The regional fund will be used to fund system -wide elements. These elements include: a) The RTA's fare integration program. b) The RTA agency administration, including: • research and development of new technology; • planning and environment analysis for a future capital program. c) Contingencies that may occur due to shortfalls in actual revenues collected or funding obtained, and/or overruns in actual expenditures relative to cost estimates provided that the funding of such contingencies shall not diminish the RTA's ability to fully implement its fare integration program. Debt financing capacity Legal definition of RTA debt financing capacity a) The RTA's enabling legislation defines the RTA's capacity for issuing general obligation debt at one and one-half percent of the value of the taxable property within the boundaries of the RTA District (and with approval of three-fifths of voters voting with the RTA District, up to five percent of the value of the taxable property within the district's boundaries). There is no dollar limit for revenue indebtedness. b) However, through the following policies, the RTA will implement a substantially more conservative use of debt financing. Calculation of debt financing capacity The RTA recognizes that its future bondholders will hold first claim against its local sales tax and motor vehicle excise tax revenues as the pledged sources for repayment. However, the RTA's debt financing capacity will be calculated on a more conservative basis, by evaluating all revenues and deducted total operating expenses for net revenues available for debt service. Debt service coverage ratio policy a) The RTA further recognizes the importance of a conservative debt service coverage ratio, both to insure a conservative use of debt and to secure favorable financing costs. B-5 b) :For planning purposes, the RTA's debt service coverage ratio policy will be set at an average coverage ratio of 2.0x for net revenues over annual debt service costs, not to fall below 1.3x in any single year. Prior to bond issuance, the RTA will establish the appropriate debt service coverage ratio to incorporate into its bond covenants. Uses of Debt Financing a) Debt financing in the context of the ten- year construction program covers two distinct types of borrowing, the first related to long term debt financing, and the second related to short term debt financing. b) Short term debt financing (with terms of ten years or less) is expected to be used primarily to bridge the gap between the necessary timing of expenditures and the anticipated receipt of revenues. c) The use of long term financing (with terms of more than ten years) is expected to be limited to capital and related costs for portions of the program that have a useful life in excess of the term of the debt. Long term financing should be preserved for those aspects of the program for which other sources of funds are not likely to be available (e.g., due to timing or eligibility constraints) or for which a local match is required to access such source of funds. d) The RTA will reserve a portion of its legal debt financing capacity to provide a potential funding source by which to address unforeseen circumstances. This reserve is defined at five percent of the capital costs reflected in the ten-year construction program. Allocation of RTA debt capacity to subareas a) The amount of long-term debt financing used to benefit each of the subareas will be based on each subarea's ability to repay debt after covering operating costs. b) While the above policy prescribes the use of debt financing within subarea budgets, the RTA Board will manage the agency's debt capacity on a consolidated basis. Debt management guidelines The RTA Board has established, and will maintain, specific guidelines for managing the authority's debt use. B-6 Sound Move Setting priorities for expenditures Based on the ten-year system plan, the RTA will develop a six year capital improvement budget, to be updated every two years as a step in the annual budgeting process and which will require adoption by a two -third favorable vote of the RTA Board. The RTA will establish guidelines for its budgeting process and criteria by which to establish priorities for expenditures. Public accountability To insure that the ten-year construction program development and implementation occurs within the framework and intent of these policies, the RTA will: a) Conduct an annual comprehensive performance audit through independent audit services; b) Appoint and maintain for the ten-year construction period a citizens' oversight committee, charged with an annual review of the RTA's performance audit and financial plan, for reporting and recommendations to the RTA Board. Future phases Voter approval requirement The RTA Board recognizes its authority to fund Sound Move's future operations, maintenance and debt service as well as any future phase capital program through a continuation of the local taxes initially authorized by the voters. However, in its commitment to public accountability, the RTA Board pledges that any second phase capital program which continues local taxes for financing will require approval by a vote of those citizens within the RTA District. Sales tax rate rollback Should voter approval for a future phase capital program not be forthcoming, the RTA Board will initiate two steps to roll back the rate of sales tax collected by the RTA. a) First, the RTA will first initiate an accelerated pay off schedule for any outstanding bonds. Second, the RTA will implement a tax rollback to a level necessary to pay the accelerated schedule for debt service on outstanding bonds, system operations and maintenance, fare integration, capital replacement, and agency cost. b) Once all debt is retired, the RTA will implement a tax rollback to a level necessary to pay for system operations and maintenance, fare integration, capital replacement and agency administration. . Financial policies review These Financial Policies will apply to future capital programs. They will be reviewed for applicability prior to any submittal of a future capital program to the RTA District voters. B-7 Sound Move Launching a Rapid Transit System for the Puget Sound Region Appendix C: Benefits, system use and transportation impacts of Sound Move As adopted May 31, 1996 Contents Introduction 1 Benefits of RTA investments in the regional transit system Background 3 Transit passenger trips 3 Forecast methods 4 Travel time savings 7 Transit ridership on RTA routes 8 Travel time and number of transfers between selected centers 8 Transit impact by major corridor 8 Transit trips to selected centers 9 Benefits in addition to transit ridership of Sound Move . . 10 Benefits of RTA investments in the HOV Expressway system and regional express bus service Additional benefits of the HOV Expressway system 16 Using the regional express bus routes 17 Regional express bus route ridership, by route 18 Benefits of RTA investments in commuter rail and electric light rail Rail hoardings 19 O&M costs, fare revenue and operating subsidies Fares 20 Net operating cost 20 System efficiency 20 Cost effectiveness 21 O&M cost of the regional express bus system by route 21 Comparing the capacity of rail systems and highway 23 System reliability 26 References . 27 Introduction Voters in the central Puget Sound region are being asked to make a major financial investment in transportation improvements proposed in the Ten-year Regional Transit System Plan. This report provides the region's citizens with an assessment of various benefits the region can expect from this investment. Transportation improvements are undeniably linked to the growth, development, quality of life and economic vitality of a region. Sound Move proposes a range of different types of transit improvements to improve mobility and provide a solid basis for meeting the anticipated growth in transportation demand in our region well into the 21st century. In investment terms, Sound Move proposes to expand and diversify our region's portfolio of transportation investments. Since improved transportation is such an important part of maintaining the livability and vitality of the region — and because the RTA system plan offers a broader range of improvements than traditional transit plans (including HOV Expressways and region - wide transit system coordination) — this analysis goes a step beyond an ordinary approach to analyzing benefits. Rather than simply looking at the narrow range of direct benefits that can be thoroughly documented or conservatively projected this report provides a broader discussion of community and regional benefits that can be expected from this investment. As with road and highway construction, transit investments create value within a community that goes beyond where projects are built and how much concrete is poured. Personal mobility, regional connections, the availability of transportation alternatives, and impacts on the growth patterns, quality of life and the economic well-being of the region are all values that must be considered in deciding on a transit investment, as they traditionally are in decisions on road investments. Table 1 shows many of the broader performance measures which can be difficult to quantify yet deserve consideration. Only by considering these indirect benefits along with the traditional measures of transit improvements and their costs can the citizens of our region have the complete picture necessary to make an informed decision. Such consideration forces a look at the longer-term benefits and regional impacts of the proposed system, not just a limited look at the direct transportation benefits at the end of the 10 - year construction period. Many of the benefits — such as development patterns or shifting travel patterns — will not be realized until well after the proposed system is in place and functioning. Data and methodology used to analyze direct benefits of the transportation improvements in this proposal have been declared appropriate following rigorous scrutiny by an independent Expert Review Panel appointed by, and accountable to, the state of Washington. The entire contents of this report will be subject to Expert Review Panel review. C-1 Table 1: Measures of performance by type Transit measures Other measures Transit ridership (e.g., passenger trips and boardings) Additional transit passenger trips Time savings (to users) Value of travel time savings benefit (to users) Subsidy per passenger trip and per passenger mile Farebox recovery ratios (OR / OE) Transit system productivity Vehicle miles reduced Improvements in transit system reliability New businesses attracted to the region Increased commercial activity Reduction in highway delay for private and commercial vehicles Construction and related employment Increased rail freight mobility Attaining Commute Trip Reduction Act goals Safety benefits of locating HOV in center of roadway Increased connections between, and to / from regional economic centers Reducing or controlling sprawl into currently unde- veloped, natural areas Property value in areas near transit investment Enhancing the pedestrian environment and allowing more trips to be made without car Increased opportunities for local mobility due to reallo- cation of bus service Transportation benefits during special events (reduced parking, reduced congestion, travel time savings) Vehicle operating and cost savings Tourist spending Reduced parking demand (and value of parking costs saved) C-2 Sound Move Benefits of RTA investments in the regional transit system Background The three -county district represented by RTA has been studying ways to increase transportation capacity for several years, because: • population, employment and travel growth have strained our existing highways and arterials to capacity • future growth will make congestion worse — congestion and delays will spread to more hours and more roads each day • due to cost, environmental impacts, community opposition and lack of available right-of-way and funding, new highway construction is unlikely within the RTA District • the existing bus system is largely stuck in the same traffic jams as private vehicles, so the RTA wants to extend exclusive and semi -exclusive rights-of-way to new transit services that have very high capacity, and at the same time benefit many existing bus routes • transit's capacity potential is very great, for example: a light-rail line can provide the same peak -hour people -moving capacity as a 12 -lane highway at only 25 percent to 33 percent of the cost, and in a much narrower space • unlike most other metropolitan areas, the central Puget Sound region has its travel channeled into only a few major corridors by the same hills, mountains and water that make this such a desirable place to live. These constraints make transportation solutions relatively more expensive than in many other parts of the U.S. Transit passenger trips There are about 2.5 million persons living in 1.1 million households within the RTA District. Table 2 shows the intentionally conservative estimates for daily and annual ridership for Sound Move. These estimates include only those transit riders using regularly scheduled, regular fare bus and rail lines within the RTA District boundary (dial - a -ride, subscription bus, school bus, etc. are excluded). The Transportation System Management (TSM) forecast reflects transit ridership growth due to population and employment increases, completion of the state Transportation Department's core HOV system and those transit service increases that can be paid for within existing transit agency tax sources. The TSM alternative was originally studied along with the RTA's 1995 Phase I transit proposal and was presented in the Regional Transit System Master Plan Technical Appendix (February, 1995). The methods and data used in this TSM forecast are completely consistent with the current RTA ten-year system plan analysis. Although on a broad basis the TSM alternative is consistent with the six-year plans of local transit agencies, it is not intended to specifically represent those plans since they do not cover the period through year 2010. C-3 Sound Move Highlight: About 258,000 trips are made each day on the fixed -route transit system in the Puget Sound Region. If all of those trips were instead made in single -occupant vehicles it would create a line of cars almost 650 miles long. The year 2010 daily transit ridership represents a line of cars more than 950 miles long. Definitions: • Boardings —Transit boardings represent the number of times a passenger steps into any transit vehicle. • Passenger trips (or transit trips) — Trips represent the complete journey made by a person from an origin to a destination (such as home to work). Because people may transfer from one route to another to complete such a journey, trips can consist of more than one transit boarding. • Transfers —Transfers are the movement of passengers between vehicles and routes to complete their trips. Transfers explain why the average transit trip consists of more than one boarding, and are a good measure of how well integrated the individual routes making up a transit system are. Transfer rates are an indication of how the individual elements of a transit system complement each other. Nationwide, and indeed worldwide, higher transfer rates are strongly and positively correlated to higher transit ridership. • Passenger miles — Passenger miles are a measure of service that a transit line or route is providing to its customers. It is a function of the average length of a trip made by passengers. For example, 100 passengers traveling ten miles each result in 1,000 passenger miles. Likewise, it would take 500 people to travel the same 1,000 passenger miles if their average trip length was only two miles. Table 2: Ten-year total transit trips Daily transit trips* Percent change from existing Daily transit boardings Annual transit trips Annual transit hoardings Transfer rate 2010 TSM (previously 2010 RTA Existing studied) forecast Forecast with incremental Commute Trip Reduction ridership 258,000 N/A 335,000 75 million 98 million 1.3 323,000 +25% 428,000 98 million 130 million 1.32 389,000 +51% 555,000 117 million 167 million 1.43 439,000 + 70% 625,000 131 million 187 million 1.43 Transit trips and boardings included here apply only to the fixed -route, scheduled -service parts of the transit system. Demand -responsive, school bus, custom/subscription bus and van services are excluded. C-4 Sound Move Highlight: It's claimed: that transit carries a relatively; small portion of all trips in the region: depending on how "trips" are counted between 3and 8 percent. But, the same could be claimed about the regional highway system. After five decades and many. billions of dollars of investment, the region's interstate highway system (1-5, 1-90 and 1-405) carries only about 10 percent of all trips. The bottom line is that the region's economy needs a balanced, well- functioning transportation system — including roads and transit — to remain competitive. Forecast methods The RTA's forecasts are based on: • a thoroughly documented modeling/ forecasting methodology developed over a five-year period, and specifically designed to avoid the systematic biases which contributed to over -forecasts of transit ridership in other parts of the country during the 1980s • a methodology reviewed by the state's independent Expert Review Panel, appointed to ensure that RTA methods are reasonable and comply with commonly accepted engineering, forecasting and planning practices • adopted regional population and employment forecasts. The transit ridership evaluated throughout the remainder of this report is based on the formal ten-year forecast, and exdudes the presumption that transit could serve a larger share of the transportation market due to people shifting travel modes because of the Commute Trip Reduction Act. The impacts of C:1'R are outside the RTA's formal travel demand forecasting process. The ridership also excludes the success of cities and counties in achieving state Growth Management Act goals and ridership beyond the 2010 horizon. The forecasts of HOV ramp use and benefits come from a recent state Transportation Department technical report. Highlight: A recent study by the Federal Transit Administration concluded that: the annual local, state and federal subsidies to the transit system in Washington, DC returns $3.2 billion in measurable benefits each year. These benefits include congestion relief, times savings' for individuals and freight, and transportation cost savings for households near transit stations. C-5 The 2010 ten-year transit ridership forecast includes the effects of population and employment growth, the effects of transit improvements (including reinvesting local bus service made available by the regional express routes), the six-year plans of the transit operators within the RTA District and completion of the HOV lanes in the three - county area. The forecast reflects putting in place a ten-year transit system plan, including: • twenty regional express bus routes, • twelve HOV ramps providing direct access to center HOV lanes, serving: — the RTA's new regional express bus routes, — existing services provided by Community Transit, Everett Transit, Pierce Transit and King County -Metro, — carpools and vanpools • a commuter rail line from Everett to Lakewood, • a light-rail line in Seattle from 45th Street to S. 200th Street via Sea -Tac Airport, and • a light-rail line in Tacoma from 9th Street to the Tacoma Dome commuter rail station. Highlight: The estimates in this report represent the transit ridership on average weekdays and, in the case of annual values, include average weekends. If the RTA investment does even a moderately better job of serving special events, this would add another two million trips per year. Table 4: Summary of transit boardings Weekday Annual boardings boardings Light rail 107,000 32.6 million Commuter rail 12,600 3.2 million Regional express bus 54,000 15.8 million Total 173,600 51.6 million Table 3: Travel time savings by mode Daily Time Savings (minutes) Annual Time Savings (million hours) Annual Value of Savings (millions of 1995 $) Carpools Bus and vanpools riders Rail riders Total 380,000 1.6 $19.2 350,000 1.5 $18.0 1,050,000 5.1 $61.2 1,780,000 8.2 $98.4 C-6 Sound Move Travel time savings Table 3 illustrates the combined travel time savings for the region achieved by the investments included in Sound Move. The value of the time savings alone that result from the efficiencies inherent in the RTA transit system improvements amount to $32 per year for every person living in the RTA District in the year 2010. Table 5: Travel times and number of transfers between selected centers PM peak -period travel times (includes time on vehicle plus transfer time) Origin center Trip Existing bus 2010 RTA RTA time savings Snohomish County Everett to downtown Seattle 1311 60 Everett to downtown Seattle to Kent 2032 853 North King County Downtown Seattle to Columbia City 29 13 Downtown Seattle to Puyallup 84' 54 Downtown Seattle to Everett 75 67 Downtown Seattle to Capitol Hill 16 5 South King County Auburn to Tacoma Dome 80' 21 Kent to Columbia City 661 303 Renton to Federal Way 78 47 East King County Bellevue to Federal Way 101' 64 Bellevue to Sea -Tac Airport 78 49 Canyon Park to Bellevue 611 26 Pierce County Puyallup to downtown Seattle 108' 54 Downtown Tacoma to downtown Seattle 58 58 Lakewood P&R to Auburn 70' 38 71 118 16 30 8 11 59 36 31 37 29 35 54 0 32 ' This trip requires a transfer between bus routes. 2 This trip requires two transfers between bus routes. 3 This trip would require a transfer between rail lines (at some times of the day). C-7 Transit ridership on RTA routes Table 4 summarizes the average weekday light rail, commuter rail, and regional bus boardings for 2010, assuming Sound Move is completed. After the ten-year plan is completed, 44 percent of all transit passengers in the region will make all or part of their trips using an RTA service. Travel time and number of transfers between selected centers Comparing travel times for two different transit systems is a deceptively simple - sounding way of evaluating the value of a transit investment — especially when the two systems are very different. Such a comparison is affected by the introduction of an HOV expressway system, electric light rail, and commuter rail. These new elements, paired with fare integration, will significantly change the way many people make their transit trips in the future. In reality, it is exceedingly difficult to fairly express the relative advantages and disadvantages of each system strictly using tables. However, for consistency with previous planning, Table 5 compares existing transit travel to future transit travel times on RTA services. Transit impact by major corridor Table 6 shows the portion of all travel through the region's major highway corridors that will be carried in transit vehicles during rush hours. Highlight: The region is in the process of developing and implementing strategies for achieving state Commute Trip Reduction Act goals — a 35 percent reduction of "vehicle miles of travel" consumed by workers traveling to/from major employment sites during peak hours. To the extent that the RTA program can provide an alternative way to meet this aggressive goal (rather than forcing employers to find their own solutions) the daily and annual transit ridership could be as high as 439,000 and 131 million, respectively. This represents a 70 percent increase over today's ridership levels. Table 6: Peak transit share of all travel, by corridor, 2010* Corridor Share of all trips made in carpool, vanpool, bus or train I-5 North I-5 South 1-5/Pierce County Cross lake I-405 North I-405 South 40 percent 40 percent 25 percent 30 percent 30 percent 30 percent * These numbers illustrate the importance of transit in the major corridors at the most congested times of the day. C-8 Sound Move Additional ridership benefits, not included in the Table 6, may be expected from travel to and from special events. Rail transit has proven more attractive than expected for single site, high -traffic special events. This includes sporting events and other high - attendance public events. The Tacoma Dome, the Kingdome, the new baseball stadium at the south end of Seattle's downtown, the Puyallup Fairgrounds, the Bellevue Convention Center, the Washington State Convention & Trade Center and the University of Washington are all within walking distance of major transit stations included in Sound Move. While this region is perhaps less familiar with transit's effectiveness in mitigating traffic associated with these types of events, other regions have found transit to be essential in delivering significant percentages of event attendees without the serious congestion and parking impacts experienced here. Transit trips to selected centers Table 7 presents the percentage of work and college trips made by transit riders to a set of selected regional centers. This 1990 data is from the U.S. Census Journey -to -Work survey compiled by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). Percentages include ridership on fixed route, fixed schedule transit service. Excluded are paratransit, dial -a -ride, carpools / vanpools, etc. The range shown for future transit mode shares comes from two sources. The low end of the range comes from the RTA's own conservative forecasting for the year 2010. The high end of the range comes from the PSRC's recent travel demand forecasting supporting its Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). The MTP is an update of the transportation element of Vision 2020, the region's adopted growth strategy. Table 7: Activity center mode splits Percentage of work and college trips by transit Center 1990 Range of transit % future transit % Downtown Everett 2% 5% to 30% Northgate 7% 8% to 16% University District 18% 22% to 52% Downtown Bellevue 5% 7% to 47% Downtown Seattle 34% 45% to 60% Downtown Tacoma 3% 6% to 37% Average 13% 17% to 45% C-9 Sound Move The values shown are for PSRC's preferred implementation strategy (Note: these are year 2020 projections). Results for the other PSRC strategies would be in the range shown. The transit mode shares projected by the PSRC are significantly higher in part because their forecasts are not constrained by FTA guidelines in the same way as the RTA's. This is particularly true when looking at the effect of a regional rail system on land use and regional policies to reduce both congestion and vehicle emissions. The PSRC makes a deliberate effort to forecast these effects. Benefits in addition to transit ridership of Sound Move The RTA believes that only a broader interpretation of transit system benefits can account for the new transit systems (and the popularity of those systems) in the following west coast cities: • San Diego, CA • Los Angeles, CA • San Jose, CA • San Francisco, CA • Sacramento, CA • Portland, OR • Vancouver, BC As an example, Tri -Met in Portland concluded that "Investment in new development adjacent to MAX already exceeds the cost of the project by fivefold." Highlight If the RTA investment in bus service, rail systems and HOV direct access ramps affects the regional economy sufficiently to increase personal income by as little as one-tenth of one percent (.001), that increase can be conservatively estimated to be $85 million per year. If the RTA's economic benefit increased employment one-half of one percent (.0051 that increase would be worth $425 million each year. This increase represents only personal income, and excludes any additional affect on regional commercial activity. Table 8 presents the varied benefit measures benefit with an estimated dollar range for each. The value ranges might be compared, for example, to the ten-year system plan cost per year of approximately $200 million (in local tax dollars). The variety of benefits is wide and far-reaching. Table 8b presents a wide range of additional measures which are worthy of consideration when evaluating a regional transit investment. These measures are either more qualitative in nature or difficult to quantify. For that reason, the RTA has not made a formal dollar -value estimate of the benefits. Nonetheless, these measures bring up significant potential benefits worthy of additional public discussion and research. C-10 Sound Move In addition to the number of riders and the associated costs, there are many other aspects of Sound Move that deserve attention. These issues are presented as questions and answers in Table 9. Table 8: Annual value of regional benefits from investing in Sound Move Measures Low -range Mid-range High -range estimate estimate estimate ($M/yr) ($M/yr) ($M/yr) Travel time savings for system users 78 98 118 Parking cost savings for system users 10 13 16 Reduction in vehicle miles traveled (auto operating cost savings) 15 19 23 Travel time savings for drivers of private vehicles 16 20 24 Reduction in required employer-provided parking 12 14 17 Increased mobility for commercial vehicles 11 13 16 Construction and related employment 64 80 96 Increased property value in areas near Under Under Under transit stations study study study Bus service replaced by RTA, available for reinvestment 20 25 30 Improvements in transit system reliability 5 7 9 Total 231 289 349 C-11 Sound Move Table 8b: Additional measures of regional benefits worthy of consideration (and further research) Increased commercial activity from new businesses attracted to the region due to improved transportation Value of retaining existing employers in the region due to transportation improvements Increased rail freight mobility Aid to the region's employers in achieving the Commute Trip Reduction Act goals Transportation benefits (reduced parking, congestion, and travel time savings) of transit carrying a higher share of trips to special events Vehicle ownership and insurance savings Increased tourist expenditures Air quality and other health benefits Safety benefits of locating HOV lanes in center of road Increased connections between and to / from regional economic centers Reduction or control of suburban sprawl into currently undeveloped, natural areas Enhanced pedestrian environment allowing more people to engage in activities without a car Improvements in road system reliability Increased opportunities for local mobility due to reinvestment of bus service New people -moving capacity in the region's most congested corridors Preservation of transit travel times via dedicated ROW, while roads become more congested Integrating the four -operator, multi -county transit fare systems Improving transit as a travel option for both "choice" and "dependent" riders during a period in which the region's roads become more congested C-12 Table 9: Other issues related to benefits of Sound Move Questions Answers Is the RTA Ten -Year System Plan part of a comprehensive; approach to regional mobility? Will the RTA Plan improve transit travel times in the region's congested corridors? Will the RTA plan provide additional capacity in congested corridors? Are the new RTA services and facilities being integrated into the existing transit system and fare structure? Is the RTA plan part of an integrated regional growth management strategy? Does the RTA serve major centers of economic activity? Does it improve access to jobs? Does the RTA plan improve access to opportunities and activities, for individuals facing special challenges to their mobility? Yes — the RTA ten-year system plan is consistent with the region's adopted Metropolitan Trans- portation Plan, and puts in place a large part of the transit component of that plan. Yes — the bus, HOV and rail investments improve travel times in all major corridors, especially compared to future congested speeds. Because much more of the transit system will operate in protected rights-of-way, transit speeds and travel times will be preserved at the same as the roadway system becomes much more congested and auto travel gets slower. Yes — the plan significantly increases people - moving capacity in all major, congested corri- dors. Yes — the plan enriches the existing network of express bus routes, enhances service coordina- tion at rail stations and new transit centers, and provides significant new funding for fare integration. The RTA plan allows the local bus operators to reinvest 400,000 hours of bus service each year. Yes — a "high-capacity transportation" system has always been regarded as essential to the success of growth management in this region. Yes — RTA services (bus and rail) will connect centers with over 700,000 jobs. All major special events locations are connected by RTA services. Yes — all RTA services and stations will be fully accessible to people with disabilities. All major employment and special event locations will be served by the RTA. The regional express bus system also includes supplemental ADA funding. C-13 Sound Move Benefits of RTA investments in the HOV Expressway system and regional express bus service The state Transportation Department's Office of Urban Mobility has estimated that the direct access HOV ramps included in the RTA ten-year plan will serve slightly more than 200,000 people on an average day. Forty- two percent of these trips will be on buses — to a great extent the RTA's regional express bus routes — with the remainder in carpools and vanpools. The HOV Expressway system will also offer significant time saving advantages for both carpool and vanpool users and passengers on the region's bus systems. Table 10 shows benefits achieved through the HOV Expressway investments. The HOV Expressway system, the bus services that will use that system, and the person trips served will benefit nonusers as well. Vehicle trips made in the HOV Expressway segments — including those made by express buses — will be removed Highlight: One full 40 foot bus is equivalent to a line of cars stretching • six city blocks, if traffic is moving at 25 m.p.h., or • 4.5 city blocks if traffic is moving at 15 m.p.h.. from general purpose traffic lanes, freeing up capacity on the region's highways. As capacity shifts, general purpose vehicle speeds will increase, making for faster trips for both personal trips and commercial vehicles. Some people will shift their travel modes to take advantage of the attractive, competitive alternative to the car offered by the HOV Expressway system, further increasing travel time advantages for general purpose traffic. Table 11 summarizes these travel time benefits. Table 10: Travel time savings for HOV Expressway system users Daily time savings (min.) Annual time savings (mil. of hours) Annual value of savings (mil. of 1995 $) Carpools and vanpools* Bus passengers Total for RTA ten-year plan 380,000 1.6 $19.2 350,000 1.5 $18.0 730,000 3.1 $37.2 * Though included here, carpool and vanpool users are not counted in the transit ridership discussed throughout this appendix. C-14 As individuals switch to carpools, vanpools and buses from single -occupant vehicles, and as time savings accrue for all highway system users — and as these benefits spread out to vehicles on arterials and local roads — there will be regional economic benefits that can be estimated. These benefits included reduced operating costs for automobiles. These benefits are summarized in Table 12. As people experience travel time savings moving around the region, and as some find improved, faster transit to be an attractive option to their private auto, employers will also benefit. Table 13 summarizes just one of these benefits — reduced employer-provided parking. Table 11: Peak -period travel time savings for drivers Peak vehicle -miles reduced per day Daily reduction in peak -period delays (person hours) Annual reduction in peak -period delays (millions of person hours) Annual value of savings 300,000 6,700 1.7 $20 million Table 12: Auto operating cost savings Mode shift savings Annual vehicle miles of travel Auto operating cost savings Parking cost savings Total savings 125 million $19 million $13 million $32 million Table 13: Benefits to employers Reduction in demand for employer-provided parking spaces Annual cost per parking place Savings 14,000 $1000 $14 million C-15 Additional benefits of the HOV Expressway system Developing an HOV Expressway will have several important regional benefits, including: • Connecting regional economic centers — The RTA will connect many of the region's vital economic centers. While many will be connected by the electric -light rail and commuter rail systems, an even larger number will be connected by an HOV system significantly enhanced by the RTA's investment. Regional economic centers receiving direct benefit of the HOV Expressway system and the express bus route services are listed in Table 14. The centers shown will be connected to all others via bus routes using the HOV Ex- pressway system. • Reliability of the regional bus system — It is difficult to forecast and place a dollar value on the improved transit and HOV system reliability that the HOV Expressway system will create. Since the current HOV system isn't continuous, and direct access to the lanes is rare, vehicles that might otherwise make their entire trip in an HOV lane actually make a large portion of that trip in general purpose lanes. This means that for significant parts of their journeys, buses and HOVs are subject to the delays, breakdowns and gridlock common on the region's highways. The HOV Expressway system, along with completion of the HOV core Table 14: Centers connected via bus routes using HOV Expressway Economic center Center employment (2010) Auburn Bellevue Dupont Eastgate Everett Federal Way Issaquah Kent Kirkland Lakewood Lynnwood Overlake Puyallup Redmond Renton Seattle Sumner Tacoma SeaTac Tukwila Totem Lake Northgate Bothell University District 10,000 58,00 7,000 10,000 35,000 18,000 8,000 21,000 8,000 5,000 18,000 27,000 8,000 11,000 35,000 209,000 6,000 51,000 26,000 26,000 10,000 14,000 9,000 19,000 Total 650,000 C-16 lanes by the state, will create a seamless system of exclusive transit/ HOV rights-of- way, where HOV's can get out of the congestion caused by general purpose traffic. The potential improvement to bus service is so dramatic that completing the HOV system has been a major goal of the region's transit operators for a decade. • Safety effects of direct access to HOV lanes — Changing lanes ranks among the most hazardous vehicle movement on a highway. The RTA's direct access ramp elements will eliminate, to a great extent, the current system's indirect access to the "wrong" side of the freeway which forces buses and HOVs to weave through traffic to get to HOV lanes. The ramps will also help eliminate the multiple unsafe lane changes to get on and off the highway. While reduced accidents, and the cost of those accidents can't be forecast, it is nonetheless a direct benefit of the RTA's investment. The value of this safety benefit would be difficult to overstate. While difficult to quantify, the safety aspect of the direct access ramps will make a real difference in the lives of the approximately 200,000 people who will use them on an average day. These people will not have to experience four to six lane changes each that it commonly takes to reach and then exit the center HOV lanes. Highlight: Based on US Dept. of Energy data, American Public Transit Association estimates the fuel efficiency comparisons of public transit compared to the average car to be: • one bus with seven passengers is equivalent to one car • one full bus equals six cars Using the regional express bus routes The regional express bus routes would typically operate in an express mode. Most of them would operate frequently (every 15 minutes during rush hours), and would operate all day, every day. The total annual ridership on these routes is 15.8 million. The average weekday boardings total 54,000. In addition to the ridership on these routes, the RTA transit investments free up hours of bus service for reinvestment in local routes. The RTA and local bus operators would work together to determine the locations of these reinvestments after RTA services are in place. The potential ridership gains from these additional local bus services are substantial. Assuming that the reinvested bus service is equal in productivity to the present Pierce Transit local routes and King County -Metro suburban routes, the estimated 400,000 hours of service would carry approximately six million additional riders per year. C-17 Sound Move Regional express bus route ridership, by route The bus routes shown in Sound Move are an example of a regional express bus system that responds to each subarea's priorities. These routes were defined with enough detail to estimate costs and ridership for final plan adoption, but the routes will be refined as they are put in place. The community involvement process, and subarea priorities at the time the routes are implemented will affect the way the actual routes are initiated. For this reason, the detailed ridership forecasts simply illustrate the general service plan. It is essential to have flexibility when developing the scope and schedules of new regional express bus services so that the routes can respond to actual customer demand. Because of the cost factors surrounding new all -day express bus routes, the RTA will put regional express bus routes in place incrementally. This will allow initial service levels to build to full service over time (an average of three years). During this time, the RTA will review route ridership as it is established and grows. It will allow bus service resources to be retargeted if a bus route fails to prove reasonably attractive to riders. This retargeting will respect the needs and priorities of subareas from whose budget the service funding is drawn. The incremental approach will allow the RTA to effectively balance the dual goals of offering efficient services and delivering services promised in Sound Move. Table 15: Regional express bus route forecasts RTA regional express Annual boardings bus routes (millions) A. Everett - Aurora Village 0.4 B. Everett -Mountlake Terrace - Seattle 1.3 C. Everett - Bothell - Bellevue 12 D. Lynnwood - Bothell - Bellevue 0.8 E. Woodinville - Northgate 05 F. Issaquah- Bellevue- Northgate 1.7 G. Redmond - Bellevue - Seattle 22 H. Bellevue - Renton - SeaTac 1.4 I. Redmond - University District 0.5 J. Federal Way - Auburn - Renton - Bellevue 0.7 K Puyallup - Auburn - Renton - Bellevue 0.7 L. SeaTac - West Seattle - Seattle 13 M. Tacoma - Federal Way - SeaTac - Seattle N. Tacoma - Seattle 0. Dupont - Lakewood - Seattle P. Tacoma - Auburn Q. South Hill - Dupont R. Lakewood - Tacoma S. Mid -Pierce County - Tacoma T. Lakewood - Puyallup Total 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.5 15.8 C-18 Benefits of RTA investments in commuter rail and electric light rail There are several well-established reasons for the RTA to consider rail as a significant component of a regional transit plan: • since rail usually travels in its own right-of- way, it offers a high-speed alternative to cars • trains operating in their own right-of-way are extremely reliable since they are not subject to congestion, accidents, breakdowns or bad weather delays. Not all of the benefits that urban areas derive from a rail system can simply be stated as some form of "count" or another — such as the number of rail users or, the number of rail riders who would have been in cars had the rail system never been built. Another good measure of the benefits of rail might be the listing of "Preferred Cities for Corporate Relocation" recently published by the Urban Land Institute. The Institute's Land Use Digest 2 listed the ten cities receiving the most corporate reallocations for both 1994 and 1995. In both years, nine of the ten cities have either long-established rail systems or new ones undergoing expansion. Rail boardings Table 16 shows the estimated rail boardings by line for Sound Move. With 105,000 boardings, the Seattle-SeaTac light-rail line would carry well over three times the current ridership of Portland's MAX line. A range of commuter rail ridership is shown. The range is due to a degree of uncertainty that remains regarding the following factors: • the breakdown between peak- and off-peak direction service, and • the degree of through -routing of the service between the two lines to the north and south of downtown Seattle. While the range shown here is for informational purposes, all the ridership - related numbers used elsewhere in this document (including the measures of productivity) reflect the low end of the range. The RTA has made use of the "worst case" commuter rail forecasts to ensure that all the estimates and calculations are conservative. Table 16: Rail station boardings Line Daily boardings Annual boardings Seattle-SeaTac light-rail line Tacoma light-rail line Everett -to -Seattle commuter rail* Lakewood -to -Seattle commuter rail* Total 105,000 2,000 2,400 - 3,200 10,200 -14,000 119,600 -124,200 32.0 million 0.6 million 0.6 - .8 million 2.6 - 3.6 million 35.8 - 37.0 million * All calculations of commuter rail productivity use the low end of the range shown. C-19 Sound Move O&M costs, fare revenue and operating subsidies Fares Fare revenue forecasts assume continuing the present transit fares to 2010, with fare increases only matching the inflation rates assumed in the financial plan. Based on the ridership forecasts, the fare revenues upon completion of the ten-year plan would be: • Light rail = $20 million /year • Commuter rail= $5 -7 million / year • Regional express bus= $13 million/year These annual fare revenues are expressed in constant 1995 dollars. Net operating cost The net operating cost subsidy is the annual operating and maintenance (O&M) cost, minus fare revenues. System efficiency Table 17 reflects the farebox revenues and O&M costs of the RTA plan by mode. The farebox recovery ratios (operating revenue per operating expense ratios) shown in Table 18 exceed those established as minimum acceptable levels by the RTA Board; 40 percent and 20 percent for the rail and bus systems, respectively. Table 17: Net operating cost Annual O&M riders cost Fares Light rail 32.6 M $38 M $20 M Commuter rail 3.2-4.4 M $21.7 M $5- $7 M Regional express bus 15.8 M $40.5 M $13 M Table 18: Farebox recovery Light rail 53 Commuter rail 23 - 32% Rail system combined 42 - 45% Regional express bus routes 32% System total 38 - 40% C-20 Cost effectiveness Table 19 reflects the annual O&M cost of the RTA ten-year plan per additional rider over the cost of the existing transit system. O&M cost of the regional express bus system by route The RTA regional express bus routes would typically operate with limited stops. Most of these routes are different from today's express routes in that they would run quite frequently — every 15-30 minutes during peak periods and every 30-60 minutes during the rest of the day — and would operate in two directions, all day, every day (including week- ends). The total estimated annual ridership on these new routes is 15.8 million boardings. As shown in Table 18, the 20 all -day regional express bus routes would have an average farebox recovery ratio of about 32 percent. For individual routes this recovery ratio would range between 15 percent and 50 percent (this compares to system farebox recovery ratios for the region's four transit operators ranging from 5.6 percent to 23.4 percent according to the Federal Transit Administration report: 1994 Transit Profiles for Agencies in Urbanized Areas Exceeding 200,000 Population). Comparing route -level forecasts to system -level statistics could easily lead to misleading conclusions because: Table 19: Annual O&M cost of the system plan per additional rider Year 2010 Additional passenger trips compared to today's system Additional transit boardings compared to today's system Cost per additional passenger trip Cost per additional boarding 42 million 69 million $2.40 $1.45 • System -level operating revenue per operating expense (OR/OE) ratios typically include more operating revenue than fares alone — for example, advertising revenue. RTA regional express route estimates represent farebox revenues, only. No other operating revenues are included. • Many reporting methods also omit some operating expenses which the RTA has included (e.g., a 15 percent add-on for ADA supplemental service). These various supporting costs are very often excluded when transit system bus operators present route level information, complicating direct comparisons. C-21 Due to the cost factors surrounding new all -day express routes, the RTA will put the regional express bus routes in place incrementally. This will allow a buildup from initial service levels to full service over time. During this period, the RTA will conduct a systematic review as route ridership is established and grows. Table 20 presents the annual boardings and O&M costs for the regional express bus system, by route. Highlight: Among US cities with populations over 1 million, cities with rail systems have transit mode splits - the share: of all trips served by transit - 120 percent higher than cities with bus -only transit systems. Sources: 1990 US Census and Federal Transit Administration Section 15 reports Table 20: Regional express bus route forecasts RTA regional express bus routes Annual boardings Annual 0&M cost (millions) (millions) A. Everett - Aurora Village B. Everett - Mountlake Terrace - Seattle C. Everett - Bothell - Bellevue D. Lynnwood - Bothell - Bellevue E. Woodinville - Northgate F. Issaquah - Bellevue - Northgate G. Redmond - Bellevue - Seattle H. Bellevue - Renton - SeaTac I. Redmond - University District J. Federal Way - Auburn - Renton - Bellevue K. Puyallup - Auburn - Renton - Bellevue L. SeaTac - West Seattle - Seattle M. Tacoma - Federal Way - SeaTac N. Tacoma - Seattle 0. Dupont - Lakewood - Seattle P. Tacoma - Auburn Q. South Hill - Dupont R. Lakewood - Tacoma S. Mid -Pierce County - Tacoma T. Lakewood - Puyallup TOTAL 0.4 1.3 1.2 0.8 0.5 1.7 2.2 1.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 1.3 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.5 $1.6 $2.9 $1.8 $1.5 $1.7 $3.7 $3.3 $3.2 $1.9 $2.0 $1.4 $1.3 $1.2 $4.6 $2.8 $0.9 $1.9 $1.3 $0.6 $0.9 15.8 $ 40.5 Note: The RTA cost estimates include a 15% add-on for ADA supplemental service. C-22 Sound Move Comparing the capacity of rail systems and highways This section provides a consistent, conservative and understandable calculation of capacity for the highways and rails. This is a comparison of practical highway capacities with practical rail capacities. Comparisons are not made of "theoretical" maximum capacities that have not been experienced or sustained, in the case of highways, or might not be achievable, in the case of rail. Capacity is defined as the highest number of vehicles that can be accommodated by a lane as a stable flow of traffic according to the Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual. Highway engineers usually describe highway operation in terms of levels of service (LOS), ranging from LOS A to LOS F. LOS F represents "breakdown flow" and is usually referred to as the failed condition. According to the Highway Capacity Manual, "the boundary between LOS D and LOS E describes operation at capacity. Operations at this level are extremely unstable.... At capacity, the traffic stream has no ability to dissipate even the most minor disruptions. Any incident can be expected to produce a serious breakdown with extensive queuing.. . . Maneuverability within the traffic stream is extremely limited, and the level of physical and psychological comfort afforded to the driver is extremely poor. Average travel speeds at capacity are approximately 30 m.p.h.." Highlight: Compared to a peer average (including Tri -Rail, BWI Airport, Northern Indiana, Penn DOT, Staten Island and Caltrain) for commuter rail operating expenses, the RTA commuter rail system will have a 14 percent to 19 percent lower average cost per trip. The Highway Capacity Manual also states that "the LOS E boundary ... has been generally been found to be the critical density at which capacity most often occurs. This corresponds to ... a capacity of 2,000 pcphpl [passenger cars per hour per lane] for 60 -mph and 70 -mph design speeds." Thus, the actual number of vehicles per lane is less than 2,000 per hour if the traffic includes vehicles larger than passenger cars (i.e., trucks). Using the 2,000 vehicles per hour per lane as the standard for sustainable capacity, the practical person -carrying capacity of a lane can be determined by multiplying the number of vehicles by the average occupancy of a vehicle on the highway. A survey of western U.S. cities shows that the average vehicle occupancy (AVO) on highways range from around 1.1 persons per vehicle to 1.3. In 1990, Puget Sound area counts showed average vehicle occupancies at 21 locations along the region's highways ranging from 1.05 to 1.24 in the morning and from 1.06 to 1.4 in the afternoon (these counts and the U.S. Census report that average occupancy dropped in the region between 1980 and 1990). C-23 Based on current Puget Sound region information, average vehicle occupancy over an entire day does not appear to exceed 1.25 (give or take a couple hundredths of a person) — though there aren't enough comprehensive counts or surveys to allow a definitive calculation. The state Transportation Department sometimes uses the 1.25 value for highway performance analysis. Assuming there is an average of 1.25 persons per vehicle, the average person - carrying volume on an average freeway lane is 2,500 people per hour, as shown in Table 21. This translates into a six -lane highway with a practical person -carrying capacity of 15,000 people per hour, or twelve -lanes capable of accommodating 30,000 people per hour. The passenger carrying capacity of a rail system is a function of the number of rail vehicles in a train, the number of passengers carried in each vehicle and the number of trains that operate per hour in each direction. Table 21: Highway lane capacity (LOS E capacity per lane) (Average vehicle occupancy) (Persons per lane per hour) 2,000 x 1.25 = 2,500 Table 22: Peak -use rail system capacity Passengers Per Train Trains Passengers Per Hour Per Hour Two Directions Passengers Per Hour 750 x 20 15,500 x 2 = 30,000 C-24 The RTA light-rail system will accommodate six -car trains. The capacity of each rail car, including standing passengers, is 125 people (this number is consistent with experience in many U.S. cities and does not exceed vehicle capacity recommended by the Federal Transit Administration for use in federally -supported planning studies). Thus, six -car trains would each be capable of carrying 750 passengers. With modern signaling, the RTA rail lines will be capable of a peak -use level of service of at least one train every three minutes. This translates into 20 trains per hour, per direction, and yields a peak system capacity as shown in Table 22. A rough comparison, shown in Table 23, can then be done between the current capacity of the region's highways and the proposed rail system. Highlights: A recent Federal Transit Administration study concluded that households in communities with a variety of commercial activities within walking distance of rail stations save an average of $250 per month in car ownership costs. Nationwide this savings totals $20 billion per year. Table 23: Current highway and proposed rail system capacity Highway Rail Number of Persons Total highway per highway lanes lane capacity 6 x 2,500 = 15,000 12 x 2,500 = 30,000 Equivalent one direction rail capacity Equivalent two direction rail capacity 15,000 N / A N / A 30,000 C-25 System reliability Reliability is one measure of a transpor- tation system's performance. It plays an important role in influencing how a person chooses to travel (auto, bus, rail, bicycle, etc.). System reliability basically evaluates how many transit vehicles arrive on time, or within a limited deviation from a published schedule. System reliability has dropped significantly inthe central Puget Sound region's transportation network in the last decade. Single -occupancy vehicles are experiencing a high degree of unreliability because of traffic congestion. Traffic congestion in the central Puget Sound corridor has increased rapidly in the last ten years, and it now affects travel on most -major freeways, expressways and arterials. Hours of congestion have also increased, with stop -and -go traffic a commonplace experience at midday and on weekends in many places. Traffic congestion is expected to get worse as travel demand continues to rise. The reliability of public transportation is experiencing a decline similar to general automobile traffic in many corridors where high -occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes are not available. For example, bus operating speeds on urban arterials in the Seattle have dropped 22-46 percent between 1962 and 1992. Even with HOV lanes, traffic pinch -points have substantially reduced reliability. The three types of transit featured in the RTA ten-year system plan (light rail, commuter rail, and regional express bus routes on HOV lanes) will provide greater reliability than the current public transportation system. The light-rail system will provide significantly greater reliability than all other types of public transportation in the region. The light-rail system will operate in exclusive rights-of-way (a mix of tunnels, priority surface and aerial alignments). Since the commuter rail system will run entirely on existing and improved freight railroad tracks — with a high degree of grade separation and fully protected at -grade crossings (with signals, crossing arms, etc.) — it should operate very reliably. Finally, the regional express bus system will be more reliable than current bus service (though it will be less reliable than the light rail and commuter rail systems because it must still deal with general traffic congestion). These new regional bus services will use HOV lanes wherever available. The RTA will also work closely with local jurisdictions to develop transit priority treatments at critical "pinch points" on regional express bus routes to allow faster and more reliable service. Overall, Sound Move should offer greater system reliability than is currently available. C-26 Sound Move References American Automobile Association, "Statistics: Auto Operating Costs", in The Urban Transportation Monitor, (May, 1995). American Public Transit Association, Try Transit Week Program Guide, (May, 1996). Arrington, G. B., Jr., Beyond the Field of Dreams: Light Rail and Growth Management in Portland, Tri -Met, (March, 1995). Cambridge Systematics, et al, Investment in Public Transportation: The Economic Impacts of the RTA on the Regional and State Economies, Northeastern Illinois Regional Transportation Authority (January, 1995). Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, "Decision '96" Resource Book: Developing a New Phase I Transit System Ballot Proposal, (January, 1996). Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, Master Plan, (October, 1994). Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, Phase I Study Options Results Report, (September, 1994). Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, Regional Transit System Master Plan Technical Appendix, (February, 1995). Federal Transit Administration, Transit Profiles: Agencies in Urbanized Areas Exceeding 200,000 Population for the 1994 National Transit Database Report Year, (December, 1995). King County Transit Division, Six -Year Transit Development Plan for 1996 - 2001, Transportation Department (December, 1995). Landis, Guhathakurta and Zhang, Capitalization of Transit Investments into Single Family Home Prices: A Comparative Analysis of Five California Rail Transit Systems, University of California at Berkeley, Working Paper 619, (July, 1994). Land Use Digest 2, ULI -the Urban Land Institute, (February, 1996). Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Managing Employee Parking in a Changing Market, Service Development Division, (November, 1993). Oregon Department of Transportation, Freight Mobility Study, per conversation with C. Deffebach, Portland METRO, (May, 1996). Parsons Brinckerhoff/Kaiser Engineers, Regional Transit System Statewide Employment and Income Impacts, (July, 1994). Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., Travel Time Savings Summary Report: Puget Sound HOV Pre -Design Studies, Phase II (Final Draft), Washington State Department of Transportation, Office of Urban Mobility, (March, 1996). Phillips, Don, "Federal Study Says Spending on Transit Reaps Bonanza for Area", in The Washington Post, (April, 1996), reference to Federal Transit Administration 1996 report. Puget Sound Regional Council, 1995 Metropolitan Transportation Plan: The Transportation Element of Vision 2020, the Region's Growth Management, Economic and Transportation Strategy, (May, 1995). C-27 Puget Sound Regional Council, 1995 Population and Employment Forecasts for the Central Puget Sound Region, (August, 1995). Shunk, Gordon A. (editor), The Effects of Added Transportation Capacity (Conference Proceeding), Texas Transportation Institute, (1991). Trade Development Alliance of Greater Seattle, King County: Crossroads of the Global Economy, King County Economic Development Office (1995). C-28 Sound Move Launching a Rapid Transit System for the Puget Sound Region Appendix D is Sound Move impacts, system performance and : framework for integration with land -use planning. As adopted May 31, 1996 Con tents Environmental, social and economic impacts Environmental impacts 1 Social'impacts 2 Economic impacts 3 System performance characteristics Regional express bus services 4 Commuter rail 4 Electric light rail 5 Framework for integrating regional transit system and land use Regional -level coordination 6 Corridor -level coordination 7 Community -level coordination 7 Sound Move Environmental, social and economic impacts Environmental impacts In 1993, the Joint Regional Policy Committee (JRPC) prepared an environmental impact statement for their Regional Transit System Plan. That document also describes the environmental impacts of the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority's Ten -Year Regional Transit System Plan. The EIS contains an extensive analysis of environmental impacts, and a description of the relationship between the high-capacity transit system and adopted land -use plans. The EIS also identifies other environmental impacts such as air quality, ecosystems, energy, visual quality, transportation, land use, utilities and parks and recreation. These impacts are described in more detail in technical reports prepared as background for the EIS, particularly Land use, Growth Management and Station Area Planning (BRW, 1991). The EIS describes the relationship between the regional transit system plan and adopted land -use plans. In particular, the EIS discusses how the plan supports regional growth management planning. Successful growth management planning can reduce the automobile use growth rate, create more pedestrian -friendly environments in urban centers, reduce the suburban sprawl growth rate, and preserve open space and environmentally sensitive areas, particularly on the urban fringe. Although the EIS makes it clear that the regional transit system alone will not be sufficient to bring about these beneficial results, it also makes it clear that an integrated high-capacity transit system is one of the elements critical to successful regional growth management . Sound Move environmental impacts fall within the range of alternatives and environmental impacts examined in the JRPC environmental analysis. Sound Move is a subset of the JRPC-adopted system plan and is covered by the existing system plan EIS. Because the range of alternatives and impacts of Sound Move are addressed in the JRPC environmental analysis, a supplemental EIS is not required. The RTA adopted the JRPC's EIS as appropriate for Sound Move after independent review. D-1 Since the JRPC issued its EIS in 1993, the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) developed and adopted its Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), and issued an EIS in. 1995. The MTP is the region's long range transportation plan, satisfying Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) requirements. MTP elements include completing the state Transportation Department's core HOV lane system. Since the information included in the PSRC's MTP environmental analysis is more current and, in some respects, more detailed than the JRPC system plan EIS (it addresses the previously adopted RTA Master Plan, elements of the proposed ten-year plan and long-range vision, and the state Transportation Department HOV lane system for central Puget Sound), the RTA also adopted the MTP EIS. The state Environmental Policy Act permits agencies to use environmental documents that have been previously prepared to evaluate proposed actions, alternatives or environmental impacts. The proposals may be the same as or different from those analyzed in the existing document. The RTA adopted both the JRPC's System Plan EIS and the PSRC's MTP EIS pursuant to SEPA, and notice of this adoption was issued on May 22, 1996. Social impacts The JRPC environmental analysis shows that the most significant social impacts of the plan are increased accessibility for the region's transit -dependent populations in the region. This determination is based on the analysis included in the Accessibility of Transit - Dependent Populations report (BRW, 1992). The EIS showed that transit riders' accessibility would be significantly improved by the increased speed and reliability of transit and the increase in service. Accessibility would increase particularly for the low-income populations of the International District and the Rainier Valley. Transit travel times to employment centers outside Seattle from low income areas in Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma would decrease and more transit would become more reliable. More employment centers would become reasonably and regionally accessible by transit. The EIS also shows that the regional transit system would be significantly expanded, substantially increasing accessibility for transit -dependent groups such as the elderly and disabled throughout the region. The regional transit system would also reduce automobile dependence for the general population. Refinements to the plan made since the EIS was published will also increase accessibility. These refinements include providing an integrated fare structure. D-2 Sound Move Other plan social impacts include support for the urban centers developed in VISION 2020 and related county and local government comprehensive plans in the region. While the urban centers concept was developed primarily to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution growth, it also has potentially beneficial social impacts in promoting pedestrian -oriented neighborhoods throughout the region, which in turn will increase social contacts within communities and strengthen community spirit. Economic impacts The plan's regional economic impacts described in the JRPC EIS are based primarily on the analysis in the Rail Construction Employment and Income Impact Assessment (Parsons / Kaiser, December 1992). This analysis showed a net economic benefit to the region from the inflow of federal funds to build the proposed system. Response to comments on the EIS indicate that, due to the jobs and income generated during construction, the proposed system would indirectly have a beneficial impact on the tax revenues available to local governments. The increased tax revenue would be reflected indirectly through an increased debt capacity for local governments, as well as through greater capacity to fund projects and programs with cash. The EIS analysis also indicates that adding people -moving capacity in currently congested urban centers would help to stimulate new development in these areas and could also reduce commercial traffic costs. Refer to the Economic benefits, system use and transportation impacts of the RTA ten-year system plan appendix for information about the economic impacts of the proposed plan. D-3 System performance characteristics Regional express bus services Regional express bus services are high- speed routes that operate in both directions throughout the day. These routes would operate primarily on existing, heavily traveled, state and federal Interstate highway corridors using HOV lanes and major arterials with necessary improvements to maintain travel speeds and reliability consistent with Sound Move. These corridors would provide substantially higher passenger capacity, speed and service frequency than existing service. The routes would be provided in corridors without rail service, or in corridors where rail is planned (to help build a strong transit market before the rail line is in place). When the rail system is extended along corridors served by regional bus, the bus route may be eliminated to avoid duplicating service. Regional express bus route characteristics: • serves a major travel corridor directly • operates all day, every day • runs frequently, generally with 15 minute, two-way service • operates at reasonably high speeds, generally averaging 18 to 20 m.p.h. (with stops), using HOV lanes and other systems giving priority to transit such as signal preemption when available • connects two or more of the designated VISION 2020 urban centers • crosses city or county boundaries, and carries a significant portion of passengers traveling between jurisdictions • provides connections to commuter rail, light rail, ferries, other regional express buses, and local service networks. By providing a link between the regional rail system and local bus service, the regional express bus system will play a key role in helping develop and enhance both regional and local transit markets and providing connections to and between urban and regional activity centers. Commuter rail The regional rail system vision includes commuter rail service between Lakewood, Tacoma, Seattle and Everett, that will begin operations within four years of locally committed funding. This service would operate on existing railroad rights-of-way initially using diesel -powered locomotives and two-level commuter cars. The RTA will work with the railroads, potential bidders, major private sector employers along the proposed route and federal, state and local agencies, to develop a funding package to put the line in place. The RTA will also continue to work in a coalition with the ports, state Transportation Department and other partners to seek additional state and federal funds for the project. D-4 Sound Move The commuter rail system is expected to include the following general characteristics. Commuter rail characteristics: • maximum speed - 79 m.p.h. • average speed - 35 m.p.h. • frequency (service will be structured to avoid affecting freight movement): — nine trains each peak -use period (morning and evening) between Seattle and Lakewood — six trains each peak -use period between Seattle and Everett • power source - Initially diesel / electric, with ability to convert to alternative fuels or all -electric in future • train capacity - 3 to 10 car trains with capacity for 450 to 1,500 passengers • peak -hour, peak direction capacity - 6,000 maximum • station spacing - About 4 to 5 miles, closer in high employment centers • right-of-way: railroad tracks shared with freight, signalized grade crossings • implementation - Implementation of service and related capital investments will be developed along with a procurement process and negotiated agreement. These characteristics are based on current rail technologies. The RTA will evaluate emerging rail technologies while developing each phasing package. Electric light rail The regional rail system technologies will generally have the following design and performance characteristics to achieve the system objectives to the greatest extent feasible. Electric light-rail characteristics: • maximum speed — at least 55-65 m.p.h. • average speed — 25-35 m.p.h. • frequency — every 6 to 15 minutes. • power source — electricity • train capacity — 4-6 car train, at 125/car, or 500-750 passengers • facility capacity — 22,000 per hour, per direction • service capacity — 6,000-11,000 per hour, per direction • station spacing —1 to 2 miles on average, closer in high transit volume areas • right-of-way — exclusive grade -separated and surface alignments, separated from traffic, with priority given with signals at grade crossings and intersections. • alignments — connect directly to centers and maximize pedestrian and transit access. D-5 Sound Move Framework for integrating regional transit system and land use Land -use planning that supports transit is critical to the success of the regional transit system. The transit system and local growth management plans are consistent with each other and meet state GMA guidelines. Implementation schedules also require local jurisdiction cooperation. Because local jurisdictions have direct land -use authority, partnerships must be established to make sure that land -use planning efforts and transit service investments support each other. The RTA's enabling legislation requires the authority to favor cities and counties with supportive land -use plans when implementing its programs. In addition, the RTA is obligated, in cooperation with public and private interests, to promote transit - compatible land uses and development that includes joint development. A clearly defined process for coordinating land -use planning and regional transit development should be jointly developed by the RTA, the PSRC, the state Transportation Department, counties, local public transportation agencies, and local jurisdictions within the three -county area. The following three-level structure - Regional, Corridor, and Community - is recommended as a framework for developing this -process. Regional -level coordination The VISION 2020 growth and transportation strategy and the subsequent adopted Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) provide the broad regional framework to develop the regional transit system plan. Regional guidance needs to continue to make sure that future transit decisions, such as specific station locations and alignments, and future local development decisions, such as station area land -uses and densities, are consistent with VISION 2020, the MTP and other regional plans. Coordination on the regional level will allow local jurisdictions, the state Transportation Department, PSRC, local transit operators, and the public to work with the RTA to: • develop a process to preserve right-of-way for regional transit facilities • establish transit service standards and transit -supportive guidelines for regionally designated centers • establish regionally consistent policies for land -uses and densities commensurate with the level and type of transit station investment • monitor the development of the regional transit system and land -use policies to make sure the regional growth and transportation strategy is achieved. The RTA will work together with the PSRC and local jurisdictions to assess local jurisdictions' progress in meeting the VISION 2020 growth management objectives. D-6 Sound Move Corridor -level coordination Corridor -level coordination will be important as the RTA and local jurisdictions work on the more detailed aspects of implementing the regional transit system. Planning will be focused along specific segments of each corridor to evaluate potential transit alignments, station locations, and other transit -related facilities based on guidance established through regional -level coordination Corridor -level coordination will provide the RTA the opportunity to work closely with counties, local jurisdictions, local communities, public transportation agencies and the state to: • jointly determine rail station locations and the specific alignments that link rail stations • establish how priority investments in transit facilities can support jurisdictions that adopt land -use policies that support transit • define the role of each station based on both local plans and goals and the requirements of regional growth management goals and the regional transit system - • determine the appropriate supporting facilities and services for each station based on its defined role within the corridor. Corridor -level coordination will ensure that the transit services and local impacts of those services are distributed in a way that is acceptable to the communities along regional transit corridors. Community -level coordination Building on regional and corridor -level coordination efforts, community -level planning will enable local jurisdictions to establish an ongoing working relationship with the RTA and local public transportation agencies to: • evaluate station facility plans for compatibility with local plans to make sure that the station "fits" within the local community • balance local land -use and transportation planning needs with the regional transit responsibilities of the RTA • involve local government and citizens in designing rail stations that make attractive and functional additions to the surrounding community • pursue joint development opportunities at transit facilities and in surrounding areas as appropriate to support increased transit use and community objectives. D-7 Recognizing that different types of station facilities are appropriate for different types of station areas, the RTA will work with local jurisdictions and local transit operators to develop a set of minimum development standards for each type of station facility. These minimum standards will include pedestrian- and transit-friendly'design standards, zoning provisions, access and circulation in and around station areas; and should consider at least: • desired joint development opportunities and densities within station right-of-way • urban design • parking policies • non -motorized access • motorized access (with HOV priority) • projected ridership volumes. These standards will be used by the RTA to help define the characteristics of each station and establish any financial support it might provide to local jurisdictions for station area improvements. D-8 eReDoatPU Transit Authority The Regional Transit Long -Range Vision As adopted May 31, 1996 Contents Introduction The Regional Transit Authority 1 The plan and the vision 2 Vision goals and objectives 2 Goals 2 Objectives 3 The regional transit vision 4 Environmental analysis for the regional transit system 5 The Regional Transit District The Regional Transit District map 6 Annexing new areas and extending RTA Services 7 Annexations 7 Extending RTA services beyond district boundaries 8 The Regional Transit System A network of services 9 The Regional Transit long-range vision map 10 Building blocks of the long-range vision 12 High -occupancy -vehicle Expressway 12 Regional express buses 13 Commuter rail 13 Electric light-rail 14 Future HCT corridors 14 Gateways to the region — community connections 15 Working together — a coordinated system of services Facilities that fit with the community they serve 16 Encouraging policies that support transit 17 Coordinated routes and schedules 17 A one -ticket ride 17 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) 18 Innovation fund 18 Bringing the vision into focus Regional relationships 19 Right-of-way preservation 20 Reviewing and updating the long-range vision 21 Long-range vision funding RTA taxing authority 22 Future financial capacity 22 Introduction If you've lived in the Central Puget Sound region for any length of time, you've probably used the phrase, "I remember when..." many times when talking about how the region has grown and changed over the years. Andwith another 1.4 million people living here in another 25 years, you'll probably be using that phrase quite a few more times. Our region's growth is the by-product of a strong, healthy and competitive economy in a region often cited as one of the most livable in the country. Unfortunately, growth and growing pains go hand-in-hand. In addition to being one of the most livable places in the country, the Puget Sound region also has some of the worst traffic. Some of the physical attributes of our region that make it such a desirable place to live — the water, hills and mountains — also create natural barriers to expanding our transportation system. One of the toughest challenges ahead of us is keeping our economy — and the growing number of people in the Puget Sound region — moving over the next quarter of a century. The Regional Transit Authority The region has both local and regional •transportation needs. Local transit agencies focus on local needs. But until 1993, there was no single agency with the responsibility — or with the authority — to deal with regional public transit needs. It was then that the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (RTA) was created to take on the challenge of regional mobility and develop and deliver a high-capacity transportation (HCT) system to the citizens of urban King, Pierce and Snohomish counties as part of the region's overall long-range transportation plan. High-capacity transportation simply refers to a transit system that carries large numbers of people faster and more frequently than a basic, conventional local transit system. To do this, the type of transit used in the system (express buses, rail or both) usually need to run in their own rights-of-way, separated from general traffic (and general traffic jams). 1 The plan and the vision Building on years of intensive planning and public involvement, the RTA has crafted a new proposal for an HCT system: Sound Move — the Ten -Year Regional Transit System Plan. It is the "System Plan" the RTA is required by state law to prepare. Sound Move can only be implemented if voters approve an increase in local taxes to fund the system. Sound Move implements the first phase of the RTA's Regional Transit Long -Range Vision described in this document. Think of the long-range vision as the map for reaching the region's transportation goals. The long- range vision describes an HCT system that will be included as the HCT component of any state and regional long-range transportation plans. The long-range vision provides the long-range goals, policies and strategies that guide development of the regional transit system during each implementation phase. Long-range vision goals and objectives The long-range vision's goals and objectives are: Goals • Provide a public transportation system that ensures long-term mobility for the citizens of the Puget Sound region for generations to come. — Provide reliable, convenient and safe public transportation services throughout the region and create an integrated system of transit services and fares. • Preserve communities and open space — Support communities' ability to develop — consistent with state and regional laws and growth management policies — in ways that keep our neighborhoods livable and protect our natural resources and open space. • Contribute to the region's economic vitality — Increase access to jobs, education and other community resources; enhance the region's ability to move goods and services. • Preserve our environment — Conserve land and energy resources, and control air pollution. 2 Objectives • Keep the region moving — Increase the percentage of people using public transportation throughout the region for all trips, not just trips to work. — Increase the percentage of people using transit for their trips to work and the percentage using transit to reach major regional employment centers. — Increase public transportation ridership at a rate faster than the population is growing. — Reduce the average time it takes to make a trip by transit. — Increase transit speeds and improve the reliability of transit service. — Make it easier to use transit to reach jobs, schools , medical facilities, recreation and shopping throughout the region. — Support ridesharing, vanpooling and other commute trip reduction programs that complement the regional transit system. • Offer cost-effective and efficient transportation solutions — Offer the most efficient and effective services and facilities possible within available resources. • Create a regional transit system that provides social, economic and environmental benefits. — Help limit urban sprawl, maintain open space and protect natural resources. — Support creation of communities that are easy to reach and use on foot, by bicycle, on transit and by people with disabilities. Increase transportation options that use less energy, consume less land resources and produce less pollution. • Develop equitable transportation solutions — Offer transit services that benefit subareas within the region in proportion to the revenues they generate. • Create a financially feasible system — Develop a system that is affordable to build, run and use. • Offer regional services that work well with other transportation services — Work with local public transportation providers and the state Transportation Department to coordinate services and develop a single -fare structure. 3 The regional transit vision State law charges the RTA with planning, building and operating a high-capacity transportation (HCT) system for the Central Puget Sound region. The RTA's vision for the region's HCT system — and an essential tool for the region's healthy growth — is a combined rail and regional express bus system. That vision is to expand the capacity of our region's major transportation corridors by adding new high-capacity transportation services and facilities. In addition to increasing the people -carrying capacity of the region's most heavily used transportation corridors, the system would also support growth management policies, limit sprawl and provide the mobility needed for a vital economy. The long-range vision includes a mix of transportation improvements — high - occupancy -vehicle expressway, regional express bus routes, commuter rail and light rail. The vision includes community "gateways" — connections in urban and suburban areas for communities to connect to the rest of the region. The long-range vision also includes the supporting services and facilities needed to put such a system in place. 4 Environmental analysis for the regional transit system In March, 1993, the RTA issued a final environmental impact statement for the regional transit system plan. The final EIS defined and evaluated different technologies, route alignments and areas served in order to determine the benefits and impacts of different transit systems. The RTA Board's decision-making process relies in part on the final EIS. The regional transit system described in this long-range vision reflects the program defined in the final EIS. Decisions that fall outside of the scope of the final EIS will require additional environmental analysis. All capital projects covered by this long- range vision will be subject to a full environmental review meeting state and federal requirements. Such project -level environmental review, including extensive public involvement, must be completed before project construction and implementation. Long-range vision development has been guided by legislation in place at the time the document was adopted. Regional and statewide transportation and growth management plans also played a major role in how this vision was developed. The RTA will continue to use current legislative policies to monitor the development of the transit system. 5 Kheap County Prcrce County Steilacoprn uPont is Fircrest University Place Mukilteo / Ed ends i Shoreline Ballard Seattle 1 West5eattle m .. P Evere" ynnwood Mtlk. Terrace Snohomish County Bothell Woodinville king County Northgate U District Capitol Hdli Totem Kirkland Redmond Bellevue Mercer Island Nettle Bunten Tukwila . Renton SeaTac Norrnandy Park Des Moines • 4'R ston Tacoma Lakewood McChord Fort Lewis Pierce County Thurston County Partiland Federal Way Kent r Auburn s' Algona Pacific Milton Fife Sumner Bonney,, Lake ��Couaty AmuCounty 7 Puyallup PIs$gti'ah 0 1 2 3 Legend AKies Regional Transit District Subareas for planning and budgeting purposes 6 The Regional Transit District The RTA District boundary is shown on the RTA District map. It defines the service area as required by state law. The RTA District currently includes the most congested "urban" areas of King, Pierce and Snohomish counties. The RTA District boundary lines generally follow the urban growth boundaries created by each county in accordance with the state Growth Management Act. The urban growth boundaries guide how and where growth will take place in each county. The RTA District boundary was adjusted in some places in consideration of voter precinct boundaries, city limit lines, and geography. The RTA boundary: • shows the area where high-capacity transportation (HCT) services will be added to our transportation system • establishes representation on the RTA Board as prescribed by state law • shows the area in which local taxes authorized by voters to help finance the Regional Transit System will be collected • demonstrates how regional services and facilities can support growth management goals and adopted land -use plans. For planning and budgeting purposes the RTA has divided the district into five geographic subareas. The system components in Sound Move address unique needs in each of these areas. The local tax revenues generated in each of these areas will be spent on the investments that benefit those areas. Annexing new areas and extending RTA services Annexations According to state law, after voters within the district boundaries have approved a ballot proposition authorizing local taxes to support the ten-year system plan, the RTA Board may approve resolutions calling for elections to annex areas outside, but adjacent to, the RTA District. An annexation may require adoption of a revised long-range vision. The following legal requirements are required to annex areas into the RTA: • Board membership — If the RTA District changes, a change in the make=up of the RTA Board membership may be required. Board membership must be "representative" of the proportion of the population from each county that falls within the RTA District. • Areas that may be annexed — Areas that would benefit from RTA services may be annexed into the RTA District. Services or projects proposed must be consistent with - the central Puget Sound region's Metropolitan Transportation Plan. • Adoption by RTA Board and City/County councils — The RTA Board may call for annexation elections after consulting with any affected transit agencies and with the approval of the legislative authority of the city or town (if the area is incorporated) or with the approval of the area's county council (if it is unincorporated). 7 • Tax vote by area citizens —Citizens in areas to be annexed are permitted to vote on annexation and imposition of taxes at rates already imposed within the RTA District boundaries. Because the RTA encourages areas to annex into the district as early as possible to expand access to regional transit system benefits, the authority will include the following policies in annexation agreements: • the RTA will not attempt to recover the capital costs from annexed areas of facilities put in place before the annexations • the RTA commits that, when annexed, the taxes from areas joining the RTA District will be used only for specific facilities and services for up to 5 years as described in an interlocal agreement with that area. After 5 years, the tax revenues from an annexing area would be combined with funds from the appropriate subarea. Extending RTA services beyond district boundaries The RTA will commit to extending new services beyond its boundaries to make connections to significant regional destinations contingent on agreements with local government agencies. Such service extensions would be implemented at a mutually agreeable cost. This option would permit areas outside of the RTA District to function as part of the regional system. Extending RTA services outside of its district would require agreements with the affected local transit agency or other appropriate government agencies. The RTA will enter into agreements with agencies beyond the district boundary to integrate fares. This will allow flexible transfers between various transit operators and prevent citizens who live outside the district from being penalized for making regional trips via transit instead of an automobile. 8 The Regional Transit System A network of services The goal of the long-range vision is to improve the way we, as a region, move. In turn, the vision aims at maintaining our region's economic strength locally and globally. It looks to creating a comprehensive, regional high-capacity travel network. Whether people are traveling to work, school, recreational opportunities or shopping, the goal is to provide more options — dependable alternatives for getting around in our communities and the region. One of the most important features of the long-range vision is creation of a network of frequent, convenient and dependable services that can be used with a single ticket (see the Regional Transit System Long -Range Vision map). The services within that network are tailored to the unique needs of the diverse subareas within our region. In developing a comprehensive transportation plan, planners look at the main travel corridors or routes that people use to go from one point in the region to another. For example, Interstate 405 is a major north -south travel corridor in the region. The long-range vision expands on existing travel corridors and creates new high-capacity transportation corridors linking our economic centers and communities. The regional transit system will be the tie that binds the region together, connecting the communities of the Central Puget Sound region in a way that supports local land -use plans, joins economic centers and expands local transit services. By providing direct connections to many destinations, the long- range vision will help reorient local services to meet more community needs. The long-range vision will be brought into focus in several phases: • Phase I (Sound Move) — do more with what we have; build on existing facilities and begin building new high-capacity travel corridors. • Future phases — expand and complete the high-capacity travel corridors; balance the blend of transportation services offered within the regional transit network and increase the service and hours of operation. 9 The Regional Transit Long -Range Vision A • Everett - to 40,00. • Mukilte01 • • iSouth • Art it Everett\ *' • • • • Mill Creek • • ,4r1 to Kings!on • 41 Lynnwood • ' Edmonds • ( Rickmond Beach I Shor:eline • • • : • . • • ivornigaw • • ; Bat larc 11: • C. , 11. • ki • - • ,c _ ..Fer, y to I4,Tslow i - en!iSeattle m" - . fo' • ..,<.,,,, , • 1 ,. al West Seattle • '=• I. I • •0 • GeorgetownV' • s, „k FauntleMy , •v- ,-- Boeing o - - ! Access Woodinville mg rem Mercer Is. City „11. 1 Redmond Overtake Bellevue Newcastle ' ; 4'• gssaquiti DuPont 1IUKWIla • •7`• Burjen —°',, SeaTac Des Moines Federal Way Tacoma: • 1 •• • South Tacoma • • • • 1 Lakewood, As adopted May 31, 1996 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ a ■ t ▪ Kent ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ :Auburn ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ m Sumner ,r •� Renton South Hill Map key: �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Electric Light -Rail Service Electric light-rail trains in first ten-year plan. Dashed line indicates the portion of the light- rail system that will be built if additional funding is secured. MOB ■■.■.■■....I Commuter Rail Service Trains using existing railroad tracks. 5• HOV Expressway A continuous system of HOV lanes with special access ramps for transit and carpools. Regional Express Bus Service Express bus routes using the HOV Expressway, major arterials and expanded system of park-and-ride lots. =M 1 1E1=111=11 Potential Rail Extensions Possible extensions of light rail, commuter rail or other technology. Local Bus Service Network of bus routes provided by local transit agencies. Building blocks of the Tong -range vision The regional transit system includes regional services such as HOV Expressways, regional express buses, commuter rail, light rail that are integrated with local services such as local bus, carpools and vanpools. The regional system also includes community connections (transit stations, park-and-ride lots, transit centers and rail stations). Although rail may be the future phase technology used in some corridors where additional HCT investments are envisioned beyond Sound Move, other HCT components of the regional transit system (HOV Expressway, regional bus service, additional community connections) may be expanded as well. Final decisions about the best mix of technologies in future phases will be made based on performance of Sound Move investments, public votes, evolving technologies, environmental analysis, actual population and employment growth, changing development trends and future transportation priorities of the RTA District's subareas. High -occupancy -vehicle Expressway The long-range vision includes completing an HOV Expressway made up of all of the core HOV lanes planned by the state Transportation Department and RTA -funded direct access ramps. The HOV Expressway will be developed through a partnership between the RTA and the state Transportation Department. It expands and improves upon a network that the region has already begun, creating a permanent part of our regional transit system. The HOV Expressway includes the state's program to fill the gaps and extend the existing HOV-lane system to create a continuous inside -lane HOV network. The RTA will fund special access ramps to make it easier for transit and carpools to reach and use the HOV Expressway. Traffic flow will also improve in general purpose lanes since buses and carpools will no longer have to weave through several lanes of traffic to reach the HOV lanes. The HOV Expressways create new links between suburban centers serving our region's fastest growing areas with fast efficient transportation options. A single HOV lane carries the same number of people as three general traffic lanes. The RTA Board views completion of the state's freeway HOV lane "core system" in the Puget Sound region as an important priority. However, the RTA assumes the state will complete construction of the core HOV lane system in accordance with its freeway HOV policy. 12 If the state does not fulfill its funding obligation, the RTA Board will conduct an open and public process to determine whether RTA funding is available (e.g. from savings realized in other program elements) and should be used to help complete the core HOV lane system. Regional Express Buses The long-range vision includes a regional network of express buses operating on freeways and major arterials. Many of the new regional express bus routes will take advantage of the improved speed and reliability the HOV Expressway will offer. The new high-speed regional express bus routes will offer frequent, two-way service throughout the day in the region's most congested corridors. The regional express buses will run every 15 minutes in major corridors during rush hours and every 15-30 minutes at other times. The regional express buses will serve major regional centers and destinations and provide connections to other transportation components of the regional transit system. The RTA does not propose directly operating any bus services in the region. Bus services proposed by the RTA would be provided primarily through interlocal agreements or grants with the local transit agencies within the RTA District. Commuter rail The long-range vision includes two-way commuter rail service on existing tracks all - day and everyday between Lakewood, Tacoma, Seattle and Everett. Commuter rail will offer a fast, dependable and easy-to-use commute option, linking major destinations in Snohomish, Pierce and King counties. Commuter rail builds on a railroad network already in place, increasing the transportation system's people -moving capacity. By making track and signal improvements necessary for commuter rail, the RTA improves the capacity of those lines for other passenger and freight trains as well. Commuter rail will share several stations with Amtrak and the state's expanded intercity rail service between Portland and Vancouver, B.C., creating opportunities for interstate as well as local connections. The RTA will develop a partnership with the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern railroads; the ports of Seattle, Tacoma and Everett; and the state Transportation Department to implement the commuter rail system. Track and signal improvements, grade separation at major crossings and improvements required to operate commuter rail and the state's intercity rail program will also benefit freight train traffic and support our region's economic growth. 13 Electric light-rail The long-range vision includes electric light-rail lines linking the four major regional centers — Everett, Seattle, Tacoma and Bellevue. Electric light rail is a cost-effective way to serve the core of the regional system where transit ridership is the highest (a two- way light rail line can carry the same number of people as 12 freeway lanes). This new transportation link provides a stepping stone for expansion well into the next century. Sound Move includes a light-rail line between the University District, Capitol Hill, First Hill, downtown Seattle, the Rainier Valley area and SeaTac (S. 200th Street). If additional funding is available, the RTA will also extend the light-rail line to Roosevelt and Northgate during the Sound Move ten-year implementation period. Sound Move also includes light-rail service connecting downtown Tacoma with the regional transit terminal near the Tacoma Dome. Future HCT corridors Factors that will determine what additional HCT investments will be made in future phases — including future rail extensions — include evolving technologies, environmental analysis, actual population growth and employment, changing development trends and future transportation priorities of the RTA District's subareas. Before additional light-rail segments are considered, Sound Move lines must be substantially completed and voters must approve funding for any additional capital investments beyond Phase I. Possible light- rail line extensions already covered by environmental studies include: • North University District to downtown Everett • SeaTac (S. 200th Street) south to Fort Lewis/DuPont • I-405 between 164th S.W. (Swamp Creek) and Sea -Tac Airport • I-90 between downtown Seattle and Issaquah • Downtown Seattle to downtown Bellevue and downtown Redmond • Downtown Seattle to Ballard to the University District HCT improvements not listed above would need appropriate environmental review before being included in the long-range vision. 14 Gateways to the region — community connections Combined, new regional high-capacity transportation corridors and services will link our economic centers and provide new connections for local communities. The long- range vision includes creating many new "gateways" from communities to the region and from the region to communities. Those gateways include transit stations, park-and- ride lots, transit centers and rail stations that create community connections where people can reach their destination on foot, by bicycle, or by accessing other transportation services. New park-and-ride lot capacity improvements will be prioritized at locations where HOV direct access and regional bus service increases demand and where no surplus capacity exists. Criteria used to guide park-and-ride lot investments include: HOV direct access, adequate regional and/or local bus service levels and achieving standards for current and projected use. The community connections will, of course, also be readily accessible by all types of public transit. The RTA will work with local public transit agencies and local jurisdictions to make it easier for transit to reach and use the community gateways with improvements such as integrated signal systems and automated vehicle identification systems. The RTA is also committed to supporting other, non -motorized means of transportation such as bicycles. The long-range vision provides space for bicycles on buses and trains as well as safe bicycle storage at transit stations. The vision also includes, where practical, improvements for safe bicycle travel as part of HOV improvements and within rail corridors. 15 Working together — a coordinated system of services By coordinating with local transit and other transportation services, the long-range vision will make it convenient and easy to move around the region. Crucial to the vision and the entire regional transportation system are the mechanisms that make different transportation components work together to create an efficient network connecting the entire region. These mechanisms include: • coordinating local and regional transit schedules, tying services together and creating important regionwide connections • building transit centers, park-and-ride lots and stations where different types of transportation come together to make connections simple and efficient • developing a uniform pass or ticket that can be used on local buses, regional express buses and trains, making transfers easy. Facilities that fit with the community they serve The long-range vision will create a regional transit system that is easy to reach and use by everyone including pedestrians, bicyclists, people with disabilities and other public transportation customers. The RTA will work with local public transportation agencies, communities and local governments to place and design transit facilities that fit with local community plans. This will include making improvements within one-half mile of each station for safe, easy transit, pedestrian and bicycle access. Transit facility designs will be flexible, allowing each station to reflect and fit into the community it serves while providing standard features for transit customers such as: • security and safety design standards • consistent route and schedule information • easy -to -read and consistent signs • pedestrian -friendly design and full access for people with disabilities • bicycle access and secure storage • transit -friendly access to allow smooth transfers from one type of public transportation to another (i.e. bus to rail, or bus to bus). • convenient taxi access 16 Encouraging policies that support transit The RTA's long-range vision includes encouraging local jurisdictions, agencies and private developers to develop policies and services that encourage and support transit and transit facilities. This could include: • Encouraging pedestrian -oriented communities, especially along major arterials in areas with mixed residential and commercial developments easily served by transit. • Launching joint efforts among the RTA, local transit agencies, jurisdictions and communities to combine frequent, reliable transit service with improvements for pedestrians. • Looking for opportunities between private developers and local jurisdictions to jointly develop and run peoplemover, shuttle or circulator systems that would expand the scope of transit station service areas. Coordinated routes and schedules Simple and coordinated connections are necessary between all parts of the regional transportation network — buses, rail, ferries, carpools, vanpools, shuttles, circulators, intercity rail lines, taxis, airports, bicycles and pedestrians. These simple and coordinated connections can be achieved by sharing stations, simplifying transfer policies and using common fare structures. An important part of integrating these services is providing stations or transit centers where many transportation services come together, making transfers and connections convenient and expanding the scope of the entire transportation system. A one -ticket ride Since high-capacity transit is just one part of the overall regional transportation system, it is important that it work well with services already being provided or planned at the local and statewide level. One way to make sure HCT provides a smooth connection with other services in the region is to develop a uniform, single -ticket fare system among local and regional transit providers. This will allow customers to use a single ticket or pass to travel on any and all of the types of transit within the region (i.e. local bus, regional bus, light rail, commuter rail and ferries). The RTA will work with public transportation providers in the region to develop an integrated fare policy for the entire public transit service network. 17 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Achieving the full benefits of the long- range vision will require extensive efforts by local, regional and statewide agencies and the private sector to promote using public transportation and other options that reduce the number of miles traveled in single - occupant vehicles. The RTA will cooperate with other public transportation agencies working with employers and local jurisdictions to match high quality transit services with economic incentives to use transit and promote ridesharing and other options to reduce drive - alone commute trips. Innovation fund Since we live in an age of continual change, the long-range vision provides flexibility to consider new ideas, services and technology innovations. The RTA will evaluate and fund innovative ways to provide transit service, reduce dependency on single -occupancy vehicles, improve public transportation's cost- effectiveness, and better respond to customer needs. The RTA will evaluate technological innovations (alternative fuels and propulsion systems, quieter equipment, lighter vehicles, energy efficient engines, and ways to improve passenger comfort) and ways to reduce impacts on the environment. The RTA will also explore incentives and programs to encourage people to use regional transit more. The RTA will work with the community and the private sector to take part in a demonstration of personal rapid transit (PRT) or other technologies. PRT is an experimental type of automated transit consisting of small cars running on a guideway carrying two to six passengers per car. The demonstration could show how PRT or other new technologies could be appropriate investments in future transit system phases. 18 Bringing the vision into focus Regional relationships The long-range vision will be implemented in phases. In addition to the RTA, many different local jurisdictions and agencies will be responsible for putting portions of the regional transportation system in place. The next planning and development stages will require integration of the system and land -use development at the regional, local and community levels. The public and private sectors played an important role in developing the long-range vision and will continue to be important during each phase of system implementation. The long-range vision recommends the following general responsibilities for putting the regional transit system in place: • Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and County Growth Management Act (GMA) Plans — The PSRC's Regional Transportation Plan and the GMA plans of counties taking part in the RTA should be amended to reflect the adopted regional transit system long-range vision. The PSRC and each participating County GMA program should assure that programming to fund major transportation service and facility decisions is consistent with regional and local transportation, growth management and land -use plans. • Local jurisdictions — Local jurisdictions should develop land -use and transportation plans and regulations that support regional and county plans and the long-range vision. Jurisdictions should also develop processes for timely approval of transit facilities and Transportation Systems Management (TSM) capital projects to support interim bus service expansion and long-term HCT service within the respective jurisdictions. • Public transit agencies — Local transit agencies will provide community and local bus services integrated with the regional transit system. These agencies should plan, design, build, own and operate local bus facilities. • Washington State Department of Transportation — The state Transportation Department's primary responsibility is to plan, design, build and operate the state core freeway HOV system, including freeway to freeway HOV connections, and connections to the ferry system. The RTA may help fund selected parts of the HOV system within the RTA District. The state Transportation Department is also responsible for intercity rail and freight mobility in the region. 19 • The RTA — The RTA will obtain funding to put in place the long-range vision and coordinate its development with other transportation investments to improve mobility in the region (including intercity rail and freight movement improvements). Funding will include a local tax increase proposal for voter approval as necessary to fund improvements within the RTA District. The RTA will impose and collect voter approved local -option taxes and allocate funds for elements of the plan. The RTA will also be responsible for implementing the regional rail system component and financing the regional express bus system and portions of the HOV Expressway system. Implementing the RTA's capital and service programs will support growth management strategies and plans that complement the regional transit system. Right-of-way preservation The RTA will develop a right-of-way preservation program in each participating county to set aside sites for potential rail or regional express bus stations, route alignments, operating facilities and other facilities needed for the long-range system. Right-of-way will either be optioned, bought or preserved by using local land -use zoning and permitting when allowed by law. The RTA will work with the state Transportation Department and other responsible agencies while developing projects to pinpoint areas where right-of-way is limited and many different transportation improvements are proposed. Regional transit proposals in these corridors will require careful design and coordination to accommodate the RTA's plans along with other proposed transportation improvements. Property for stations will be acquired in ways consistent with local jurisdictions' comprehensive plans. In some cases, the RTA will work with local transit operators to acquire property that will be used for interim bus services and facilities that may be converted to rail. When appropriate, the RTA will jointly fund interim facilities with local transit operators, the state, local jurisdictions and local businesses. The RTA will work with local transit operators to evaluate bus service that mirrors rail service patterns to sites purchased in advance that eventually may be served by rail. The RTA will help local transit agencies design transit facilities and infrastructure to allow for expanded bus service or conversion to rail service. 20 Reviewing and updating the Tong -range vision The long-range vision will be updated with each development phase of the RTA's system plan. Each development phase will describe: • projects to be funded • how projects contribute to putting the long-range vision in place and meeting system goals and objectives • how projects conform with the long-range vision • a public and local jurisdiction involvement program • a budget and financing plan including an equity review • how the plan is consistent with local and regional transportation and growth management plans • significant changes from previous plans. In preparing and updating the system plan, the RTA will look at the status of growth management and land -use plans; air quality goals and conditions; status of the state's commute trip reduction objectives; overall transportation system coordination and any new conditions or regulations. Before adopting each system plan, the RTA will evaluate estimated costs, ridership, and system level social, economic and environmental impacts. This information will be made available to the public for use in the decision making process. The RTA will also publish a summary of the public involvement process and a summary of public comments and how they shaped the plan being considered. Each system plan will also contain a financial plan including a description of how the tax revenues will be distributed to pay for different transit components. This assessment will also include operating and maintenance costs for the entire system once it is complete. The RTA may enlist the help of an expert review panel, a technical advisory committee and/or a citizens advisory committee to review successive system plans and long- range vision developments. This information and feedback would be used by the RTA Board to help make decisions regarding plan changes. State law requires that "major decisions" of the RTA require a favorable vote of two-thirds of the entire RTA Board. Major decisions include: • adopting or amending the long-range vision • making system plan implementation decisions • adopting annual budgets • authorizing annexations • changing the composition of the board • selecting an executive director. 21 Long-range vision funding RTA taxing authority State law allows the RTA to ask voters in the Central Puget Sound region to increase their local taxes to pay for a regional transit system. The law allows the RTA to ask voters within the RTA District for up to a 9/10 of one percent sales tax, 8/10 of one percent motor vehicle excise (license tab) tax, and an employer tax of $2 per employee. The Law also allows the RTA to issue outstanding municipal bonds equal to up to 1.5 percent of the assessed property value within the RTA District. The financial plan assumes the local funding for Sound Move at a much lower level than state law allows. Funds will come from a 4/10 of one percent increase in sales tax and a 3/10 of one percent increase in the license tab tax to be collected within the RTA District. Funding of Sound Move also includes about $1,052 million in long-term bonds. The RTA is asking voters for less than 40 percent of its local taxing authority and bonding capacity to fund Sound Move. The financial policies adopted for Sound Move require that any second phase capital program which continues local taxes for financing will require voter approval within the RTA District. If voters decide not to extend the system, the RTA will roll back the tax rate to a level sufficient to pay off the outstanding bonds and operate and maintain the investments made as part of Sound Move. Future financial capacity In planning for future transit system phases, the RTA will revisit the funding sources and assumptions developed for Sound Move to determine whether they are applicable to future phases. A cash flow model — consistent with the financial capacity analysis for Sound Move — will be used to determine the financial feasibility for each subsequent phase. This analysis will examine possible financing methods and identify appropriate funding levels from available revenue sources. 22 • Metro Pierce Transit Community Transit Everett Transit SNO-TRAN Washington State -Department of Transportation • (;) • COVER MEMO The modern era of rapid transit planning began in Seattle in the mid-1960s. Proposals for a rail transit system were not approved by the voters in 1968 and again in 1970. Rapid transit planning was revived by the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) in 1981. In 1986, the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) and PSCOG completed the Multi -Corridor project, which recommended that a passenger rail system be in opera- tion by 2020. In 1988, the PSCOG Assembly adopted a policy advancing the planning schedule for rail to begin operating by the year 2000. In 1990, the Washington State Legis- lature established the State High -Capacity Transportation (HCT) program, which provided a mechanism and funding for preparation and adoption of a regional HCT plan in the central Puget Sound region. In response, Metro began preparing detailed alternatives analysis. By the spring of 1991, however, it became evident that rapid transit planning had to proceed within the context of an overall regional transit plan. Metro, Pierce Transit, and the Snohomish County Transportation Authority (SNO-TRAN) then began preparing a comprehensive plan for regional transit in the year 2020, when the initial network of rapid transit lines could be completed. The Regional Transit System Plan is the result of that effort. Metro is issuing this final environmental impact statement (FEIS) with Community Transit, Everett Transit, Pierce Transit, SNO-TRAN, and WSDOT under the guidance of the Joint Regional Policy Committee (JRPC). The FEIS examines alternatives to and the environmental impacts of the Regional Transit System Plan, which includes proposals for significant transit capital and service improvements in King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties, including building a regional rapid -transit system. • The proposed capital and service improvements are needed to increase the speed and efficiency of public transit, provide a more attractive alternative to using single -occupant motor vehicles, improve regional mobility, and support regional growth management and air quality programs. The System Plan FEIS is intended to provide a broad overview of rapid transit improve- ments. It is considered to be a "programmatic" FEIS under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Project -specific environmental review will be carried out for each transit corridor after adoption of a preferred alternative by the JRPC. The project -specific review will meet both the State and National Environmental Policy Act requirements. In addition, related Transportation Systems Management (TSM) improvements will also be addressed in subsequent environmental review. SEPA encourages agencies to review general programs in broader environmental documents, with subsequent documents concentrating solely on project -specific issues. The analysis in this programmatic FEIS will be used to narrow the range of alternatives to be considered in subsequent environmental review. The System Plan FEIS identifies and compares the environmental impacts associated with three alternatives for expanding transit facilities and service, as well as a No -Build Alter- native to serve as an environmental baseline. While all three build alternatives.represent similar bus service increases, they represent different philosophies and cost levels for improving regional transit. The lowest -cost alternative - the TSM Alternative = represents ' the improved transit efficiency that can be achieved by completing the regional high - occupancy -vehicle (HOV) system, adding significant HOV improvements to regional arterials, and greatly expanding park-and-ride lot capacity. The intermediate -cost alterna- tive - the Transitway/TSM Alternative - adds exclusive transitways in the core of the region Cover Memo arch 3, 1993 a Two to the improvements planned under the TSM Alternative. The higher cost Rail/TSM Alternative provides an extensive regional rail system with most of the service and capital improvements proposed for the TSM Alternative. Major issues addressed in the System Plan FEIS include the effect of each of the alterna- tives on regional transportation, including transit service and traffic; the degree to which each alternative supports PSCOG's Vision 2020 land -use plan and the goals of the Growth Management Act; consistency with land -use patterns and growth management planning; the potential construction impacts of each alternative; potential impacts on the natural environment; potential impacts on the built environment; and potential impacts on people in the region, including noise, air quality, and visual impacts. Chapter 1 in this FEIS provides an introduction to the system plan, its purpose and the needs it is serving, the scope of the FEIS, the history of corridor and alignment screening, and the public involvement and decision making processes for the project. Chapter 2 describes the System Plan alternatives, including variations and supplements, and explains why other alternatives are not considered in detail in the FEIS. Chapter 3 describes the results of the evaluation of impacts and potential mitigation measures for each of the alter- natives. Chapter 4 describes the consistency of the alternatives with Vision 2020 and countywide growth management planning. Chapter 5 summarizes the comments received on the draft Environmental Impact Statement. Regional Transit System Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 FEIS Text March 1993 Issuing Agencies Community Transit Everett Transit Metro (SEPA Lead Agency) Pierce Transit SNO-TRAN Washington State Department of Transportation Prepared in compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (RCW 43.21 C) and Metro Resolutions 4480 and 4925 implementing SEPA in Metro procedures. This document is available in accessible formats on request by calling (206) 684-1165 (voice) or (206) 6841682- (TT)) Cover printed on 90% recycled paper, 10%.of which is post -consumer waste. Text pages printed on 50% recycled paper, 10% of which is post -consumer waste. FACT SHEET Nature and Location of Proposal The Regional Transit System Plan study area is the urbanized part of King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties, extending roughly from Marysville in the north to Lakewood south of Tacoma, bounded by Puget Sound on the west and the Cascade foothills on the east. The alternatives discussed in this programmatic Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) encompass a range of major capital improvements to the region's transit and high - occupancy -vehicle infrastructure, as well as significant transit service expansion in the region. A No -Build Alternative and three action alternatives are examined: Transportation Systems Management (TSM); Transitway/TSM; and Rail/TSM. The TSM Alternative includes: o completing the regional high -occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane system o adding HOV lanes and other improvements on many of the region's arterials and highways o converting the 1-90 center roadway to a 2 -way busway o expanding park-and-ride capacity o investment in pedestrian, bicycle, and transit -friendly facilities along major transit corridors o a substantial increase in transit funding, with most of the increase used to expand service in suburban areas. The increase would be distributed proportionately by population. The Transitway/TSM Alternative includes: o the service and most of the capital improvements proposed under the TSM Alternative o an exclusive transitway from downtown Seattle to Northgate along the Interstate 5 express lanes o an exclusive. busway from downtown Seattle to Tukwila along existing railroad right-of- way o an exclusive busway from downtown Seattle through Bellevue along segments of Interstate 90, Interstate 405, 114th SE, and existing railroad right-of-way. The Rail/TSM Alternative includes: o the service and many of the capital improvements proposed under the TSM Alternative o rapid rail from Seattle to Everett by way of Capitol Hill (JRPC recommended ahgnment) or I-5 through the University District. A branch line or through routing would also serve Paine Field. o rapid rail from Seattle to Tacoma by way of Rainier Valley (JRPC recommended alignment) or Boeing Field o rapid rail from Seattle to Bellevue, with spurs extending to Issaquah, Redmond, and Lynnwood o rapid rail in the I-405/State Route 518 corridor from Bellevue to Burien o commuter rail through the Puyallup and Green River valleys from Tacoma to Seattle. Fact Sheet i March 1993 Proponents: Community Transit 1133 164th Street Southwest Suite 200 Lynnwood, WA 98037 (206) 348-7190 Everett Transit 3200 Cedar Street Everett, WA 98201 (206) 259-8908 Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) Regional Transit Project 821 2nd Avenue M.S. 151 Seattle, WA 98104-1598 (206) 684-1999 or (800) 894-1548 Pierce Transit 3701 96th Street Southwest Tacoma, WA 98499-0070 (206) 581-8000 Snohomish County Transportation Authority (SNO-TRAN) 1133 164th Street Southwest Suite 102 Lynnwood, WA 98037 (206) 787-1901 Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) 401 2nd Avenue South or Transportation Building Seattle, WA 98104 Olympia, WA 98504 (206) 464-5878 (206) 753-2931 Proposed Implementation Date: Regardless of the alternative selected, work on project -level EISs and preliminary engineering and design could begin in 1993 and, assuming the voters approve funding, service expansion could begin in 1994. If the Transitway/TSM Alternative is chosen, construction would be complete and full operation would begin in 1999. If the Rail/TSM Alternative is selected, the south corridor commuter rail service could begin in 1996. Operation of initial rapid rail segments could begin four years later, in 2000. Final construction would end between 2000 and 2020. Fact Sheet ri March 1993 Lead Agency: Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Regional Transit Project 821 2nd Avenue M.S. 151 Seattle, WA 98104-1598 (206) 684-1999 or (800) 894-1548 Responsible Official: Gregory M. Bush Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Environmental Compliance Division 821 2nd Avenue M.S. 120 Seattle, WA 98104-1598 (206) 684-1165 Contact Person: Mike Wold Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Environmental Compliance Division 821 2nd Avenue M.S. 120 Seattle, WA 98104-1598 (206) 684-1167 Licenses Required: No licenses are required before the Joint Regional Policy Committee (JRPC), made up of representatives of the proponent agencies, adopts a Regional Transit System Plan. Licens- es required to implement specific components recommended in the System Plan will be identified in subsequent environmental review. Upon adoption, the JRPC will transmit the System Plan to the King, Pierce, and Snohomish County councils for their approval, which will set in motion the. formation of a Regional Transit Authority (RTA) covering portions of the three counties. The RTA in turn will present the System Plan to the voters for approval. The System Plan also must be approved by the Federal, Transit Administration (FTA) before the RTA proceeds with the next step in the planning process. Fact Sheet ui March 1993 Authors and Principal Contributors: Principal Authors Environmental Review Noise, Air Quality, Energy Patronage Geology, Transportation, Utilities Water Quality, Hydrology Parks Land Use, Visual Quality Historic and Cultural Resources Ecosystems Metro staff BRW, Inc. BRW, Inc. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. Parsons Brinckerhoff/Kaiser Engineers Team Boaten& and Associates Don Shimono Associates NBBJ/Geise Associates in Architecture/Don Shimono Associates Shirley Courtois/BRW, Inc. BRW/Don Shimono Associates Draft EIS Issue Date: October 12, 1992 Final EIS Issue Date: March 3, 1993 Nature and Date of Final Action: Adoption of a System Plan by the Joint Regional Policy Committee in Spring 1993. Type and Timing of Subsequent Environmental Review: This programmatic FEIS is part of a "phased" environmental review process. If a rapid transit alternative is chosen, one or more project -level Draft Environmental Impact State- ment(s) would be completed by early 1994. Preliminary design and the Final Environ- mental Impact Statement(s) would be completed by early 1995. Commuter rail and Trans- portation Systems Management capital projects would receive more environmental review on a project -by -project basis from 1993 to 2020, as appropriate. Previous Environmental Review: The following studies provide the background for the current planning effort and are incorporated by reference into this EIS: Snohomish County Transportation Authority. Public Transportation Plan for Snohomish County, Washington. Final Environmental Impact Statement. (1989). Pierce County. Pierce County Transportation Plan Policy Document. Final Environ- mental Impact Statement. (1989). Puget Sound Council of Governments. Vision 2020; Growth Strategy and Transpor- tation Plan for the Central Puget Sound Region; Final Environmental Impact State- ment. (1990). The documents mentioned here, as well as technical reports, background data, and supporting information, may be viewed at the Metro Library, Ninth Floor, Exchange Building, 821 Second Avenue, Seattle, Washington. Fact Sheet iv March 1993 Location of EIS Background Data: Metro Library Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle 821 2nd Avenue 9th Floor Seattle, Washington Cost of a Copy of the Final EIS: The Regional Transit System Plan Final EIS is available at no cost to interested citizens and groups. Copies may be obtained from Metro's Environmental Compliance Division, 821 Second Avenue, M.S. 120 (12th floor), Seattle, WA 98104-1598 or by phoning (206) 684-1165 or (206) 684-1682 (TTY). One copy will be provided to each individual. Appeals: Appeals of SEPA procedural determinations, including challenges to the FEIS, are governed by Metro Resolution Nos. 4480 and 4925. Copies of these resolutions are available from Metro by calling the contact person listed above. To be timely, a letter of appeal must be delivered or mailed to Metro's Executive Director (Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, 9th floor, Exchange Building, 821 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104) within fifteen (15) days of the date the challenged environmental document is issued. The required form and content of a letter of appeal are set forth in the resolutions cited above. If a hearing is requested in any proper letter of appeal, that hearing will begin on Wednesday, March 31, 1993. Copies of the administrative record and related documents are available for review at the Metro Library, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, 821 Second Avenue, 9th floor, Seattle, WA 98104. Fact Sheet v March 1993 Table of Contents Executive Summary xi Proposal And Objectives xii Purpose And Need xvi Public And Agency Review xix Scope of EIS xxiii Guide to the EIS' Alternatives xxv Capital Cost Estimates and Ridership Forecasts xxxii Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures xxxiii Areas of Controversy and Uncertainty and Issues to Be Resolved xl 1.0 Introduction 1-1 1.1 Background 1-1 1.2 System Plan Definition 1-2 1.3 Project Purpose and Need 1-4 1.3.1 Transportation System Problems 1-4 1.3.2 Roots of Current Transportation Problems 1-5 1.3.3 Options 1-9 1.3.4 System Plan Purpose 1-16 1.4 History of the System Plan 1-16 1.5 EIS Purpose 1-21 1.6 Scope of the System Plan EIS 1-21 1.7 Screening of Rapid Transit Corridors and Alignments 1-24 1.7.1 North Corridor Alternatives Analysis 1-25 1.7.2 Multi -Corridor Project1-30 1.7.3 North Corridor Extension Project (NEXT) 1-32 1.7.4 Tacoma -Seattle Transit Connections Study (Tac -Sea) 1-34 1.7.5 Metro 2000 1-35 1.7.6 Regional Transit Project (RTP) 1-37 1.8 Existing Transit Plans 1-38 1.9 Public Involvement 1-40 1.10 Expert Review Panel 1-44 1.11 Decisionmaking Process and Criteria 1-44 2.0 Alternatives 2-1 2.1 No -Build Alternative 2-1 2.2 Build Alternatives 2-7 2.2.1 TSM Alternative 2-15 2.2.2 Transitway/TSM Alternative 2-18. 2.23 Rail/TSM Alternative 2-24 2.2.4 The JRPC Recommendation 2-36 2.3 Potential Rail/TSM Variations 2-38 2.4 Potential Rail/TSM Supplements 2-40 2.5 Surface Light Rail Systems 2-49 2.6 Other Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in This EIS 2-64 2.7 Benefits and Disadvantages of Delaying Action 2-69 Table of Contents vii March 1993 3.0 Affected Environment, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3-1 3.1 Earth 3-1 3.2 Air Quality 3-4 3.2.1 Affected Environment 3-4 3.2.2 Construction Impacts 3-18 3.2.3 Operations Impacts 3-20 3.2.4 Mitigation of Impacts 3-31 3.2.5 Conformity Statement 3-31 33 Noise and Vibration 3-32 3.3.1 Affected Environment 3-32 3.3.2 Construction Impacts 3-38 3.3.3 Operations Impacts 3-42 3.3.4 Mitigation of Impacts 3-46 3.4 Water Quality and Hydrology 3-48 3.5 Ecosystems 3-56 3.6 Energy 3-60 3.7 Environmental Health 3-66 3.8 Visual Quality and Aesthetic Resources 3-75 3.9 Transportation 3-81 3.9.1 Affected Environment 3-81 3.9.2 Impacts of Construction 3-90 3.9.3 Impacts of Operation 3-92 3.9.4 Mitigation Measures 3-116 3.10 Land Use and Economics 3-118 3.10.1 Affected Environment 3-118 3.10.2 Construction Impacts 3-121 3.10.3 Operations Impacts 3-124 3.10.4 Mitigation of Impacts 3-131 3.11 Utilities and Public Services 3-134 3.12 Parks and Recreation 3-136 3.13 Historic and Cultural Resources 3-142 4.0 Consistency with Regional Land Use Plans, Policies and Legislation 4-1 4.1 Growth Management Act 4-1 4.2 Vision 2020 4-4 4.3 Countywide Planning Policies 4-5 4.4 Local Plans 4-9 5.0 Summary of Comments on the Draft EIS 5-1 5.1 Summary of Comments 5-1 5.2 List of Commenters 5-4 Glossary References Distribution List Table of Contents viii March 1993 Tables 1 Right -of -Way Required to Move 22,000 People per Hour xviii 2 Comparison of Programmatic and Project -Level Scopes of Environmental Analysis xxiv 3 Components of the Three Build Alternatives xxvii 4 Summary of System Alternatives Characteristics xxxiii 1.1 Regional Rapid Transit Planning Chronology 1-17 1.2 Dates and Locations of DEIS Public Hearings, Community Meetings, and Open Houses 1-43 2.1 Bus Service Characteristics by Alternative 2-2 2.2 Operating and Maintenance Costs for Each Alternative 2-5 2.3 Conceptual 2020 Fleet Compositions 2-6 2.4 Components of the Three Build Alternatives 2-9 2.5 Conceptual Rail Routes 2-35 2.6 Peak Hour Frequencies of Rail Operations 2-35 2.7 Comparison of Rail/TSM Alternative with JRPC's Draft System Plan 2-37 2.8 Consistency of Surface Light Rail with Land Use Goals 2-51 3.2.1 Estimated 1990 Transit Fleet Emissions by Operator 3-21 3.2.2 Comparative Motor Bus Emission Factors 3-22 3.23 Estimated 2020 Emissions by Operator and Alternative 3-24 3.2.4 Regional Motor Vehicle Emissions by Alternative 3-25 3.2.5 Estimated Percentage Changes in Regional Motor Vehicle Emissions by Alternative 3-26 3.2.6 Estimated Commuter Rail (Diesel) Exhaust Emissions 3-30 3.3.1 APTA Maximum Single Event Noise Level Design Goals 3-35 3.4.1 Estimated Increases in Surface Runoff from the Build Alternatives 3-53 3.6.1 BTUs per Passenger Mile 3-60 3.6.2 Estimated Annual Regional Transportation Energy Consumption 3-63 3.6.3 Construction Energy Consumption and Payback Period 3-63 3.6.4 2020 Estimated Transportation Energy Consumption 3-64 3.7.1 Generalized Hazardous Materials Users by Corridor 3-67 3.7.2 Identified Known or Potentially Significant Hazardous Waste Sites 3-69 3.9.1 Changes in Transit Ridership per Capita 3-83 3.9.2 PM Peak Period Weighted Average Door -to -Door Transit Travel Time from Selected Centers to Destinations within the Region 3-88 3.93 1990 and 2020 (PSRC Adopted) Performance Measure Characteristics for Daily Vehicle Trips for All Purposes 3-95 3.9.4 Existing and 2020 (PSRC Adopted) Total Daily and Annual Transit Ridership and Transfers 3-96 3.9.5 Trips per Capit 2020 3-98 3.9.6 Totl Daily Transit Trips for Seattle CBD and Each Corridor by Origin and Destination 3-100 3.9.7 1990 and 2020 (PSRC Adopted) Daily Transit Trips by Mode of Access 3-101 3.9.8 1990 and 2020 (PSRC Adopted) Daily Transit Share for Work Trips to/from Selected Centers 3-101 3.10.1 Estimated Employment, 1980 to 1990 3-118 3.10.2 1990-2020 Projected Population, Household, and Employment Growth3-119 3.103 Operations and Maintenance Employees 3-126 3.12.1 Park and Recreation Facilities 3-138 4.1 Consistency of Alternatives with Land Use Goals 4-2 Table of Contents ix March 1993 Figures 1 Typical High Capacity Transit xiv 2 Public Involvement/Awareness Program xxi 3 System Plan Alternatives xxvi 4 Environmental Summary Matrix xlv 1.1 Study Area Boundaries 1-3 1.2 Actual versus Projected Vehicle Miles Traveled 1-7 1.3 At -Grade Right -of -Way Requirements for 22,000 Riders per Hour 1-11 1.4 2020 Estimated Potential Air Pollutant Production per Passenger Mile 1-13 1.5 Energy Consumption by Mode 1-14 1.6 Corridor Screening 1-26 1.7 King County Comdor Screening History 1-27 1.8 Snohomish and Pierce County Corridor Screening History 1-28 2.1 Background Highway Improvements 2-3 2.2 Typical Priority Treatments on Arterial Streets 2-8 2.3 TW Community Service Concept 2-11 2.4 Major Transit Streets Concept 2-13 2.5 Example of Transit -Oriented Redevelopment 2-14 2.6 Regional Transit Service Concept 2-16 2.7 TSM Regional HOV System and Capital Improvements 2-19 2.8 Regional Transitway Alternative Improvements 2-20 2.9 Typical Transitway and HOV Facilities 2-21 2.10 2020 Rail Corridors (Communities/Markets Served) 2-26 2.11 Typical Rail Stations 2-27 2.12 2020 Regional Rail Base Alignment 2-28 3.1 Carbon Monoxide Levels - Multi -Year Summary 3-9 3.2 Summary of Air Pollutant Sources, Puget Sound Region 3-12 3.3 Estimated Air Pollutant Production Per Passenger Mile (Carbon Monoxide and Nitrogen Oxides by Mode) 3-13 3.4 Estimated Air Pollutant Production Per Passenger Mile (Hydrocarbons and Particulate Matter by Mode) 3-14 3.5 Aggregate Vehicle Fleet Air Pollutant Emissions and VMT by Year 3-17 3.6 Tailpipe Pollutant Emissions Relationship to Vehicle Speed 3-19 3.7 Outdoor Noise Levels and Noise Abatement Criteria 3-34 3.8 Regional Floodplain Areas and Drainage Basins 3-49 3.9 Location of Major Wetlands, Lakes and Streams 3-57 3.10 Average Energy Consumption by Mode 3-61 3.11 Current Average Energy Consumption Per Passenger Mile 3-62 3.12 Hazardous Waste Site Locations 3-68 3.13 Regional Visual and Aesthetic Resources 3-76 3.14 Travel, Population, & Employment Growth 3-84 3.15 Automobile Travel Time Contours from Downtown Seattle 3-85 3.16 Hourl Trac Distribution on I-5 3-86 3.17 2020 SRC Daily Vehicle Volumes at Selected Screenlines 3-97 3.18 2020 PSRC -Daily Transit Volumes at Selected Screenlines 3-99 3.19 2020 aily ransitway Passenger Volumes 3-108 3.20 2020 Conceptual Rail Service Plan 3-112 3.21 2020 Daily Rail Passenger Volumes 3-115 3.22 2020 Areas of Major Employment 3-122 3.23 Transit Supportive Land Uses 3-127 3.24 Example ofMixed-UseJoint Development in Other Cities 3-132 3.25 Parks and Recreational Facilities near Rapid Transit Corridors 3-137 3.26 Regional Areas of Historical Significance Potentially Affected by System Plan Alternatives 3-144 Table of Contents x March 1993 Executive Summary The Regional Transit Project (RTP) is a cooperative project among the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro), Pierce Transit, and Snohomish County transit planning and operating agencies, including Snohomish County Transportation Authonty (SNO-TRAN), Community Transit, and Everett Transit. Elected officials from the governing boards of these transit agencies and the secretary of the State Department of Transportation (WSDOT') form a Joint Regional Policy Committee (JRPC) to guide the project. The JRPC is proposing a System Plan for joint public transit development in the three - county region made up of parts of King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. The Final Environmental Impact Statement provides a programmatic analysis for the year 2020 of the alternatives developed to respond to the transit needs and serves as input, along with other evaluation criteria, to decisions on the System Plan by the JRPC. The System Plan is designed to implement the public transportation objectives adopted by the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG), now the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) in 1990. The System Plan also responds to initiatives from the Washington State Legislature for growth management, high-capacity transit planning, limiting single -occupant vehicle (SOV) trips to major employment sites, and addressing the air quality nonattainment status of Large portions of King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties under federal law. The System Plan proposes a major public transit investment to help meet the region's transportation needs. Vision 2020's transportation goals are integral to the region's land -use vision, which includes limiting growth on the urban fringe and concentrating new development in already developed and developing centers. The Vision 2020 plan aims to contain urban residential growth and concentrate new employment growth in 12 to 17 urban centers that could be efficiently served by regional rapid transit. Access to jobs by transit as an alternative to the single -occupant vehicle (SOV) is emphasized. The vision allocates a large share of transportation investment to rapid transit, buses, and high - occupancy -vehicle facilities. It also includes a major shift in local bus service to provide service to each center from surrounding areas. The vision supports major transportation demand management programs that encour- age people to use transit, carpool, or nonmotorized modes. These strategies include extensive rideshanng programs, parking charges for SOVs, preferential parking for HOVs, and transit pass fare subsidies. The Vision 2020 goals focus on managing regional growth and preventing further deterioration of the quality of life due to urban sprawl, traffic conges- tion, pollution, and environmental degradation. By laying out a plan for managing regional growth, Vision 2020 is a basis for responding to the mandate of Washington State's Growth Management Act. Recently enacted growth management, transportation management, and air quality management laws (Chapter 36.70A RCW, Chapter 81.104 RCW, and the federal Clean Air Act Amendments) all mandate creating attractive alternatives to automobile use in general, and to single -occupant vehicle use in particular. The System Plan responds to these mandates. Executive Summary xi March 1993 Proposal And Objectives The Regional Transit Project (RTP) has four main goals. The first goal is to ensure the ability to move around the region by providing reliable, convenient, and safe public transportation services throughout the region. Strategies to reach this objective include: o operate a public transit system that is reliable, affordable, accessible, safe, and attractive o take steps to create competitive advantages for transit by removing it from mixed traffic or giving it priority. The second goal is to preserve communities and open space by supporting communities' ability to develop in ways that preserve and enhance their livability and limit mtrusion into rural areas. Strategies to reach this objec- tive include: o reinforce desirable community characteristics o stimulate the development of desirable characteristics. The third goal is to improve the region's economic vitality by increasing access to jobs, education, and other community resources. Strategies to achieve tis objective include: o improve transit access to jobs and other activities o provide services and facilities that benefit all socioeconomic groups. The fourth goal is to preserve environmental quality by conserving land and energy resources and containing growth in air pollution. Strategies to achieve this objective include: o reduce sin8le-occupancy vehicle use o. support Vision 2020 centers -oriented land use. To reach these goals, the RTP is committed to working with community, environmental, and business groups to develop a comprehensive public transportation plan to present to the voters. The plan will increase transit's market share, help reduce single -occupant vehicle use, and provide an early return on the transit investment by immediately expanding transit service. When combined with growth management strategies and an aggressive regional transportation demand management ('TDM) program, the plan will provide necessary transportation capacity to serve as an increasingly important alternative to the SOV. The Regional Transit System Plan proposes capital improvements and service expansion that will increase transit speeds and reliability, encourage use of transit and high -occupancy vehicles, and increase service to areas that are currently underserved. The Plan identifies centers served, corridors, technology options, costs, and transportation system impacts centered around rapid transit system alternatives. If adopted, the rapid transit system would be built over the next thirty years, with initial operation beginmng around the year 2000. Executive Summary xii March 1993 Elements of the System Plan The System Plan is based on a partnership among the existing transit agencies, WSDOT, and the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) to be estab- lished under Chapter 81.112 RCW. A mix of funding sources and service strategies is assumed. The System Plan has five main elements. The first is restructuring and expanding bus service. Bus transit service in the three - county region would increase by 40 percent in the first 10 years and almost double by the year 2020, with the initial increases taking place within the first year of voter -approved financing. The expanded bus service would be designed to provide all -day connections throughout the region. Direct regular regional service would be provided between activity centers. Increased regular and on-call, all -day service would be provided from urban and suburban neighborhoods to activity centers. Service would also be provided within activity centers to make it possible to travel easily through- out the region by public transit throughout the day. The second plan element is to improve transit system integration 'and access. Improvements would be made to local streets to increase transit speeds, schedule reliability, and convenience. Access to transit would be improved for everyone, including people with disabilities. Bicycles would have access to the transit system and bicycle storage facilities would be improved and expanded. The third plan element is completing the regional high -occupancy -vehicle (HOV) systemlanned by WSDOT, providing measures to give HOVs (buses, vanpools, and carpools) prionty on congested major arterials, and expanding park-and-ride lot facilities. This plan element would increase public transit efficiency and reliability by taking buses out of congested general-purpose traffic lanes. It would also provide a travel time incentive for using carpools, vanpools, and bus transit, and.would support local governments and employers' transportation demand management plans. Accelerated implementation of the HOV element of the plan would require a partnership between WSDOT and transit agencies, in additionto a policy decision by local governments and transit agencies authorizing funding for an expedited program. The amount of RTP funding, if any, in the HOV lanes is still being discussed by the JRPC and will be decided prior to finalization of the plan. The fourth plan element involves creating a partnership between transit agencies, local governments, communities, and private investors whose job will be to develop economically viable pedestrian -oriented transit centers and corridors. Successful centers and corridors will have a more intense mix of commercial, office, and multi -family development and be conducive to nonmotorized and transit access. Elements that create a pedestrian -friendly environment includeedestrian walkways, bicycle lanes, crosswalks, pedestrian -controlled -signals, lighting, planted medians, tree -lined streets, and transit preferential amenities. The fifth plan element is a regional rapid transit system, with either buses running on a combination of HOV lanes and transitways (physically divided lanes for buses and carpools) at critical choke points or a regional rapid rail system, supplemented by a commuter rail line m the Green River Valley (Figure 1). (Unless otherwise indicated, "rail" in this document refers to the rapid rail system and not to commuter rail.) Using separate rights-of-way with limited stops would let transit users travel between the region's centers at speeds comparable to or better than the private automobile without the Executive Summary xiii March 1993 Wansit Project CNC COUNT? • PERCE COUNTY. 111101101111111 COUNT( RTPCC4 i.41.1.0141,PIVIth.)1 • Typical High Capacity Transit System Plan EIS FIGURE automobile's environmental costs. The result would be increased mobility for those choosing transit. Crucial to the success of the plan are the ongoing efforts to manage growth in the region under the Growth Management Act and to reduce commuter trips under the Commute Trip Reduction law. Planning under the Growth Management Act will concentrate new growth into urban centers and provide the infrastructure to serve that growth, generate a higher ridership for public transit, and incorporate measures to favor transit and HOVs. Implementation of the Commute Trip Reduction law will also cause a reduction in SOV trips and an increase in transit ridership, HOV use, and nonmotorized travel. Alternatives The System Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) identifies and compares the environmental impacts of three alternatives for investing in transit facilities and service, as well as a No -Build Alternative that serves as an environmental baseline. While all three build alternatives represent similar bus service increases, they represent different philosophies and cost levels for improving regional transit and its associated land and environmental conditions. Under all three build alternatives, there would be efforts to increase bus speed and efficiency, transit -friendly land use, and the percentage of transit, HOV, and nonmotonzed trips. o The TSM Alternative represents improved transit efficiency that can be achieved by, completing the regional high -occupancy -vehicle (HOV) system, adding significant HOV improvements to regional arterials, and greatly expanding park-and-ride lot capacity. It is the lowest -cost alternative at 3.5 billion dollars more than the No -Build Alternative. o The Transitway/TSM Alternative would provide exclusive busways and transitways, physically separated for buses and carpools, in the region's core in addition to the improvements planned under the TSM Alternative. At 4.3 billion dollars more than the No -Build Alternative, it is the intermediate -cost alternative. o The Rail/TSM Alternative provides an extensive regional rail system along with most of the proposed TSM Alternative's service and capital improvements. It is the most expensive alternative at 10.3 billion dollars more than the No -Build Alternative. Environmental Process The System Plan is a programmatic document and is being reviewed as such _under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Project -level EISs for rapid transit and for the related TSM capital improvements will supplement this progranunatic review when and if voters approve the System Plan. Corridor environmental work will meet both SEPA and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. SEPA encourages agencies to review general programs in broader environmental documents, with subsequent documents concentrating solely on project -specific issues. Analysis in this programmatic EIS will be used to screen alternatives considered in subsequent environmental review. Executive Summary xv March 1993 Executive Summary xvi March 1993 demand and an erosion of the effectiveness of alternative transit invest- ments. o Lower-cost investments for managing travel demand - such as ridesharing and expanded bus service - have been of limited benefit because they are constrained by congested roadways. In the past 25 years, several comprehensive transportation plans have been prepared that recommended transportation investments for the central Puget Sound region. Each plan anticipated the major transportation problems faced by the region today: severe congestion, declining travel speed, and a lack of transportation alternatives. Generally, however, the major improve- ments necessary to counter these problems have not been made because of political and economic considerations. These include 156 miles of freeways proposed in the 1967 Puget Sound Regional Transportation Study, a 97 -mile rapid transit system recommended in the Forward Thrust plan in 1968, and 87 miles of freeway and 89 miles of transitways proposed in the 1974 Transportation Plan for the Puget Sound Regio n . sequent estimated that o the t wowould cost of the recommended draft System Plan, WSDOT approximately 14 billion dollars to provide the same mobility as the transit plan by expanding existing freeways. Furthermore, travel in the region today far exceeds the volume projections made in former transportation plans. Several trends have contributed to the growth in travel (PSCOG 1990): o Population and employment growth caused a dramatic increase in the number of trips. o Dispersed land -development patterns increased the average distance traveled to work. o Automobile ownership increased 108 percent between 1970 and 1990, contributing to a drop in the number of people riding together to make a trip and an increased number of vehicular trips. o Two income households and multipurpose work trips have increased, changing the patterns and direction o peak -hour travel demand. Today, we travel more often, over longer distances, and with fewer people than in the past. All of these trends have overburdened the transportation system. Between 1990 and 2020, the central Puget Sound region is projected to experience a 52 percent increase in population and a 57 percent employment growth. Traffic is projected to increase by 78 percent (PSCOG 1988). Since 1970, transit service and ridesharing have been used to stretch roadway capacity by reducing the number of vehicles required to carry a given number of people. While the service investments have been effective, they have not been enough. Though transit and vanpool ridership has doubled since 1970, the 1990 transit and vanpool capacity represented a smaller portion of total daily travel than in 1970 (PSCOG 1990). Executive Summary March 1993 Capacity Higher capacity facilities, such as HOV lanes and rapid transit, are more effective in moving high volumes of people than general-purpose roadways. Freeway lanes remain effective up to volumes of about 2,000 vehicles per hour passing a single point. This capacity is reduced when roadways have closely spaced on- and off -ramps, curves, steep grades, or other constraining features. With an average of 1.2 persons per vehicle, one general-purpose freeway lane can effectively carry up to.2,400 people per hour. Depending on the mix of vehicles (buses, vanpools, and carpools), an HOV lane has a range of capacities, depending on location, separation, and access and egress facilities. A protected HOV lane used primarily by buses could carry over 9,600 people per hour. However, if this theoretical capacity is adjusted to reflect speed advantage, expected capital investment, and vehicle mix and occupancy expected for purposes of modeling, HOV lanes in the region can be expected to carry between 4,800 and 5,700 persons per hour, depending on minimum vehicle occupancy requirements. The theoretical per direction capacity of a busway, or barrier -separated lane for exclusive use for buses, is approximately 22,000 persons per hour in one direction past a single point. However, this theoretical capacity would require a level of transit service and capital investment much higher than that represented by the Transitway/TSM Alternative studied in this FEIS. Adjusting for these factors, the transitway lanes in the Transitway/TSM Alternative can reasonably carry up to 9,400 persons per hour in buses, vans, and HOVs. A rapid rail line operating in exclusive right-of-way has the theoretical capacity to carry over 22,000 persons per hour in each direction past a single point. These numbers represent the rail capacity of.the downtown Seattle transit tunnel; capacity would be higher in segments with less frequent station stops. In comparison, the bus passenger capacity of the downtown tunnel is about 13,400 persons per hour in each direction. Right -of -Way The land displaced by alternatives carrying higher -capacity vehicles would be less than the comparable displacement needed to increase freeway capacity Freeway with one 3 + HOV lane in each direction 246 Exclusive Busway 47 Rail 40 A freeway that includes an HOV lane in each direction requires 16 lanes or 246 feet of continuous right-of-way. (At current levels of carpool use, one HOV lane in each direction would have enough capacity for all the HOVs on the freeway.) An exclusive 2 -lane busway would require about.47 feet of Executive Summary xviii March 1993 right-of-way, expanding to 72 feet or more at stations. A rail line would require about 40 feet of continuous right-of-way, expanding to 60 feet or more at station areas. Air Pollutants The alternatives that best accommodate higher -occupancy vehicles have the greatest potential to reduce energy dependence and decrease vehicular emissions. In 1990, motor vehicles in the region generated about 70 to 75 percent of all carbon monoxide emissions and 80 percent of all particulate emissions polluting the region's air. Although passenger car emissions per vehicle mile have decreased significantly since the 1970s, growth in total vehicle miles traveled has diminished the air quality benefits of cleaner cars and is expected to contribute to increased aggregate vehicular emissions within the next 10 to 15 years. In 2020, a person driving alone in a gasoline - powered car will generate approximately 12 grams per mile of carbon monoxide, more than 100 times the average per passenger emissions of a natural gas bus (at the current average occupancy of 11 persons, including deadhead miles). The same person would generate approximately 2.5 times as much nitrogen oxides and 13 times as much hydrocarbon emissions as expected average per passenger emissions of a natural gas powered bus. Estimated average exhaust particulate emissions per person for a gasoline - powered SOV and a natural-gas powered bus would be roughly equivalent. Energy Similarly, the person traveling in an SOV requires about 6,200 BTUs of energy per mile; about 2,067 BTUs of energy by 3 -person carpool; and about 3,775 BTUs of energy in a 40 -foot bus with an average load. At peak periods, however, transit vehicle energy efficiency becomes two to three times better because of increased passenger loads. Land Use. The State Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW) requires consistency and coordination between land -use planning and transportation planning. The act promotes higher -density development in the urban parts of the region and discourages growth beyond the urban boundary. Freeways and similar facilities aimed primarily at serving automobiles promote a dispersed, low-density growth pattern, particularly on the fringes of the urban area. Bus and, to an even greater extent, rapid transit facilities can contribute to more concentrated employment and residential densities than new freeways and arterials. In areas where there is efficient mass transit, supported by appropriate land use, zoning, and other policies, businesses and residents cluster near transit facilities. In turn, bus and rapid transit facilities are most successful where there are relatively high-density employment and housing areas. Growth management, as mandated by the state legislature and developed in Vision 2020, encourages a change of emphasis away from SOVs in the new transportation facilities developed in the future. Public And Agency Review Shaping the System Plan has involved active agency and public participation. There will also be many future opportunities for agency and public Executive Summary xix March 1993 involvement and review during subsequent environmental review of system design, construction and implementation phases. To date, the public involvement program has included four series of public forums, numerous meetings with community and business groups, discussions with special interest groups, and public hearings on the scope of the environmental review and on the Draft EIS (Figure 2). In addition, RTP funded a group composed of representatives of a number of citizen's groups, known as the Soundmg Board, to provide additional input into System Plan development. The JRPC and the transit agencies received comments and summaries from these meetings. Section 1.9 gives a detailed summary of the public involvementprogram to date. Other agencies have been involved in developing and reviewing the alterna- tives. These have included: o a regular technical forum for agency staff o participation by RTP staff in regional transportation planning bodies o meetings with staff of most of the local jurisdictions in the RTP planning area. Agencies formally commented on alternatives as part of Vision 2020, Metro Long Range Plan, Metro 2000 plan, Snohomish County Public Transporta- tion Plan, and Pierce County Transportation Plan scoping processes. Supplemental scoping for the System Plan was carried out in May and June of 1992. Hearings on the Draft EIS took place in November 1992. Planning has been carried out in three main corridors: the North Corridor, including the portion of King County north of downtown Seattle and west of Lake Washington and Snohomish County except for the I-405 corridor; the South Corridor, including Pierce County and the portion of King County south of downtown Seattle and west or south of Lake Washington, and the East Corridor, including King County east of Lake Washington and north of Renton, as well as the 1-405 corridor in Snohomish County. North Corridor Coordination with jurisdictions in the North Corridor takes place through several regional bodies. In Snohomish County, SNO-TRAN is therimary review body for the Snohomish County portion of the North Corridor'spRTP plan. Staff and policy makers meet frequently with several groups in Snohomish County, including: o NEXT TAC, SNO-TRAN'S technical advisory group for station area studies and system planning o the Snohomish County JRPC Advisory Group o Snohomish County Tomorrow, which is responsible for coordinating owth management planning o C, an interjurisdictional technical advisory group putting together a county -wide transportation plan o the Snohomish County Planning Directors o the Joint Board Meetings of SNO-TRAN, Community Transit, and Everett Transit o the Lynnwood Legacy, a joint project to develop a comprehensive plan for Lynnwood o the Snohomish County Committee for Improved Transportation. Executive Summary xx March 1993 Key Milestones/Decisions Research Baseline Survey: King County 3 -County Regional Survey Funding Survey Community Involvement Community/Neighborhood Outreach Public Forums DEIS Hearings Roundtables (Metro) Regional "Sounding Board" Citizens Advisory Groups Public Information Newsletters/Brochures/Fact Sheets Special Information Document Public Awareness Media Relations Paid Communication 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 SSF W S S F W SSF W SSF W SSF W Scoping: System Planning A A Scoping: Project Planning A A A A t A Draft System LPlan/EIS Supplemental Scoping A A A A System VOTE Plan/ EIS '411( Scoping Notice A Workshop Scoping Notice + A A Scoping Status DEIS/ Notice Report Draft Plan A EIS System Plan KM COWRY • PIERCE OMIT' • 11110110141111 COUNT/ RTP00.3 Public Involvement/Awareness Program System Plan EIS FIGURE 2 In King County, RTP staff has facilitated work sessions, made presentations, and given periodic updates to the University District Citizens' Advisory Committee, the Northgate Citizen's Advisory Committee, the Washington State Department of Transportation, the City of Seattle Long Range Planning and Engineering Departments, and King County staff. Represen- tatives from the Seattle Office for Long Range Planning regularly attend RTP community outreach meetings. King County and RTP staff have held review meetings on such issues as transit service and park-and-ride facilities in the unincorporated areas of the North Corridor within King County. South Corridor Progress on the System Plan, and its predecessors Metro 2000 and the Long Range Plan, has been reviewed by South Corridor local jurisdictions' staff through: o participating in region -wide workshops defining rail and transitway alternatives early on in the project o attending presentations to community groups and elected officials made by RTP staff. In addition, RTP staff have reviewed study assumptions and schedules with the staff of local jurisdictions affected by the alignment options and with existing transportation study groups in the South Corridor. RTP staff have met with the staff of the cities of Seattle, Tukwila, Renton, SeaTac, Federal Way, Kent, Auburn, King County, Pierce County, the Port of Seattle and the Washington State Department of Transportation. RTP has met transportation study groups, including the South Access Advisory Board and the South King County Transportation Board. East Corridor Coordination with jurisdictions in the East Corridor has included: Eastside Transportation Plan. The Eastside Transportation Plan (ETP) was formed in 1987 to coordinate, help reach a consensus about, and implement a major multiple -project multijunsdictional transportation improvement plan for the eastside. By agreement between mayors of eastside cities and RTP project managers, ETP is the primary review body for the East Corridor's RTP planning process. All RTP information and recommendations are funneled through the ETP for review and concurrence before being presented to the transit agencies and the JRPC. ETP membership includes WSDOT, the State Transportation Improvement Board, the Puget Sound Regional Council, Metro, King County, Snohomish County, and the cities of Mercer Island, Bellevue, Kirkland, Issaquah, Renton, Redmond, and Bothell. East Corridor Workshops. The RTP has held workshops with the cities of Bellevue and Redmond planning staffs to review proposed rail and transit - way alignment alternatives in the two communities and jointly in the Overlake area. The workshops helped screen out alignment alternatives that did not appear to warrant more study. Meetings and Field Surveys with Agency Staff in the East Corridor. RTP staff met with the staffs of the cities of Issaquah, Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Mercer Island, and Bothell. At these meetings, RTP staff presented an overview of the planning process to date and, except for Mercer Island, toured each city and its potential alignments. Executive Summary xxii March 1993 Meetings with Eastside Elected Officials. RTP staff has presented information on the System Plan through formal presentations before various city councils and through individual bnefings with eastside mayors and council members. Current and Future Coordination Along with issuing this FEIS, the JRPC has made and will be making recommendations about the draft System Plan, including: • o More bus service options o Alignment alternatives in selected areas o Transit mode o Funding alternatives o Neighborhood links to the regional system o Implementation staging or phasing. Citizens' comments on each of the issue areas have been summarized and provided to the decision makers during their deliberations. Public involve- ment has continued during the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and development of the FEIS. Following the issuance of the FEIS, adoption of the final System Plan, and formation of an RTA, the System Plan, including a financing plan, will be presented to the voters for approval in November 1993. The public involvement process will continue during the project -level environmental review, conceptual engineering, and predesign analysis phases of the project. Staff will continue working with the agencies to resolve alignment and station issues and other capital and service improvement issues in their jurisdictions. Assuming passage of a financing proposal, local and state agencies, as well as the public, will maintain involvement through corridor -level planning and hearings; hearings on the project -level EIS(s); design hearings and meetings for specific alignments and station locations as appropriate during station -area planning;,and meetings throughout the construction process. Scope of EIS This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is part of a "phased" environ- mental review process. Phased review is designed to assist agencies and the public to focus on issues that are ready for decision and exclude issues already decided or not yet ready for decision. Phased review begins with broader programmatic or nonproject environmental documents that are generally followed by narrower, site-specific or project -level documents. The project -level documents usually incorporate prior general discussion by reference and concentrate solely on the issues specific to that phase of the proposal. Because of the System Plan's complexity, geographical extent, and time frame, several phases will be necessary before environmental review is complete. Beginning with the current programmatic review, analysis will proceed into project -level review. Project -level review will analyze in detail the alternative adopted during the system planning process, either by corridor, or beginning with a 'core" system of improvements. In some cases, more specific projects with early implementation dates, such as commuter rail or Transportation Systems Management (TSM) improvements, will receive project -level review before or at the same time as other project -level environmental review. Specific alignments for the alternative adopted at the system level will be selected during project -level review. Analysis then Executive Summary xxiii March 1993 proceeds into site-specific preliminary engineering and design along with further coordination with agencies and meetings with the public. Projects not covered by these analyses would be analyzed in project -level documents later in the project, again with subsequent preliminary engineering and design review. This EIS is a programmatic, nonproject EIS. As such, it evaluates the poten- tial broad System Plan impacts. The EIS reviews impacts and alternatives at a detail level consistent with the issues addressed in the System Plan. In most instances, the EIS identifies possible adverse impacts of the alternatives . at a regional level. Even when specific alignments are discussed, impact consideration is generic. The understanding is that additional analysis of impacts and recommended mitigation measures will be done later during project -level environmental review after a system alternative is adopted. Table 2 compares the scope of analysis of the System Plan EIS with that of subsequent project -level review for specific issue areas. Table 2. Comparison of Programmatic and Project -Level Scopes of Environmental Analysis. Subject Area System Plan EIS Transportation Air Quality Noise Water Quality/ Hydrology Ecosystems Energy Environmental Health Visual Quality Land Use and Economics Parks and Recreation Historic/Cultural Resources Project -Level Review Regional traffic levels and modes Regional transit ridership and accessibility Regional mobility and travel times Traffic levels on specific roadways Ridership/accessibility to centers Mobility/travel times between specific centers Regional air pollutant loadings Air quality at critical locations Typical noise and vibration impacts Specific noise and vibration impacts Regional changes in runoff Runoff to specific water bodies Regional pollutant loadings (qualitative) Specific pollutant loadings Potential wetlands affected Specific wetlands affected Potential types of impacts and mitigation Specific wetland impacts and mitigation Approximate comparative energy More specific energy requirements requirements Potential hazardous waste sites affected Specific impacts on hazardous waste sites Typical visual impacts of the alternatives Specific visual impacts Consistency with regional and local plans Consistency with regional and local plans Impacts on regional economics Impacts on specific businesses Typical/regional land use impacts Impacts on specific local land uses Potentially affected parks Specific park impacts Potentially affected resources Specific impacts on historic and cultural resources A recommended draft System Plan was issued at the same time as the DEIS. Copies of the draft System Plan are available from Metro. An address, Executive Summary xxiv March 1993 telephone number, and contact person are provided in the Fact Sheet at the beginning of this document. Guide to the EIS The EIS is divided into five chapters. The first chapter, the introduction, gives the background of the project, public involvement, the decisionmaking process, and the purpose and scope of the environmental review. The second chapter describes the alternatives under consideration and potential supplements. It also discusses other alternatives that have been proposed andexplainswhy they are not being analyzed in detail here. The third chapter analyzes the environmental impacts of the alternatives at a programmatic level, by element of the environment. Each section of the third chapter discusses an element of the environment as it exists today, the impacts on that element of building each of the alternatives (construction impacts), the impacts of operating the transit system under each of the alter- natives (operations impacts), and measures that could be taken to mitigate adverse impacts. The final section in Chapter 3 summarizes adverse impacts of each alternative that would be difficult or impossible to mitigate. Chapter 4 discusses consistency of the alternatives with on-going growth management planning in the region. Chapter 5 summarizes comments received on the draft EIS. Alternatives The No -Build Alternative provides a baseline for evaluating the environmental impacts of the build alternatives. Three build alternatives are considered: The stand-alone Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative has been defined to provide a baseline for evaluating the cost- effectiveness of the more capital -intensive Rail/TSM and Transitway/TSM Alternatives. The TSM Alternative also defines a basic transit service network and set of roadway improvements that would be implemented - with modifications - as a part of either the Transitway/TSM or Rail/TSM Alternatives. The Transitway/TSM Alternative is an intermediate -cost alternative that adds barrier -separated busways and transitways in the region's core to the TSM improvements. The Rail/TSM Alternative provides an extensive regional -rail system with most of the service and capital improvements proposed for the TSM Alternative (Figure and Table 3). Services and facilities would be provided by a variety of agencies using a variety of funding sources. For example: o_ Freeway HOV lanes would be built and operated by WSDOT using federal, state, and local funds. o HOV improvements off the freeways would be jointly developed by local jurisdictions, WSDOT, and the transit agencies with funding from state, federal, and local sources. o Supporting bus services would be the responsibility of the local transit operators and paid for out of available transit revenue sources. o Rapid transit services and related facilities would be provided by a Regional Transit Authority (RTA) and funded with voter -approved tax revenues, federal funds, fares, etc. Executive Summary xxv March 1993 Transitway/TSM Alternative (Includes TSM system) YNe(WbOD I;IiMQNDS R <; :f1.;MT..ETIcRLI BOIHELLG.,,RKLAND:: THGATh. ry :•r TOTEM LAKE REDMOND sgtLt;1tUE ft EASTGATE.. ISSAOUAH » RENTON <`! tITUKWILA FEDERAL WAY FEDERA4 TACOMA'; ``• KEWOOD r PUYALLUP KENT AUBURN LEGEND inn::',» Supporting HOV Transltwsy/Buswsy Rail/TSM Alternative (Includes TSM system) MILK. TERR. BOTHELL •KIRKLA THGATE ;:;' This shows the baseline alignments used for modeling. Other alignments are being considered. Regional -'Ili. Transit u_u •• OWN Project IOW mum, • PIERCE Calm. a$aaru 4 CalrTY RTPDD4 System Plan Alternatives System Plan EIS FIGURE 3 Table 3. Components of the Three Build Alternatives. Alternative TSM Transitway Rail/TSM /TSM Capital Projects to Improve Regional Service New Freeway HOV Lanes Highway and arterial HOV and transit improvements Transitway System Rail System Commuter Rail Line from Seattle to Tacoma New Stations New Park -and -Ride Stalls New Bus Maintenance Bases Regional Service Improvements Expanded system of regional express bus routes Rail system service Commuter rail service from Seattle to Tacoma Local Service Improvements Expanded local/express bus routes and service Expanded local feeder bus service Expanded demand -responsive service Expanded service for elderly and people with disabilities Expanded vanpool program Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements Improved bicycle access to transit Increased bicycle transport on transit Increased pedestrian amenities and access at transit hubs and along transit corridors 384 Lane Miles Yes No No No 0 14,000 4 384 Lane Miles Yes Yes No No 10 14,000 4 Yes Yes No No No No 384 Lane Miles Yes No Yes Yes 78 38,000 3 Interim Only Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes While each of the three build alternatives has a somewhat different approach - to regional services, community bus services would be similar. Community bus services would be expanded to provide all -day service throughout the region's urbanized areas, either through fixed routes in higher -density areas and with demand -responsive services and service to park-and-ride lots in lower -density areas. Community bus service would be structured to provide good connections to the regional transit system. Similarly, transit would play an increased role in vanpooling by substantially enlarging vanpool fleets under all the alternatives. The choice of a recommended system will be based on a variety of criteria, including: o effectiveness in increasing mobility Executive Summary xxvii March 1993 o social, economic, and environmental impacts o effects on regional equity o financial feasibility o consistency with the Vision 2020 plan. Specific kinds of evaluation measures include: o capital costs o system ridership o percentage of trips by transit, vanpool, or carpool o travel time savings o miles and hours traveled per day per person o transit speed and reliability o links between employment and residential areas o ease of off-peak travel o the farebox revenue that can be expected in relation to costs o operating and maintenance costs o ability to operate effectively in the built environment o support for creation of pedestrian- and transit -friendly communities o cost-effectiveness o geographic and socioeconomic equity o impacts on land use o use of energy o effect on air pollutant emissions o environmental impacts o affordability. The System Plan alternatives represent a range of transit investment options over the next thirty years. Each alternative includes a basic network of transit services and facilities, a particular technology emphasis, and an emphasis on service between urban activity centers. All three build alterna- tives aim to improve public transit service throughout the region, including improved connections between neighborhoods and regional centers, and among regional centers. The three build alternatives are also designed to significantly improve the speed, reliability, and frequency of transit service throughout the region dung both peak and off-peak service hours. The System Plan also anticipates that the increase in transit investment will be carried out with transit -compatible land use planning around stations and. transit centers. The System Plan anticipates an increase in demand for public transit due to adopted governmental policies: o The state Growth Management Act requires transportation plans to be consistent and coordinated with comprehensive plans. Concurrency requires that needed transportation facilities or strategies be in place at the time of development or within six years in order for development to proceed. o New regulations for transportation demand management will require major employers to significantly decrease the percentage of employees using SOVs by using incentive and disincentive programs. o Implementation of Vision 2020 and countywide planning policies will increase employment and residential densities in the three -county area Executive Summary xxviu March 1993 and will increase the use of public transit and carpools rather than single - occupant vehicles (PSCOG 1990). o New federal requirements in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) will also increase the demand for public transit and requirements for provision of such services. o New federal and state clean air requirements will require measures to limit automobile miles traveled and increase transit use and ridesharing. The specific proposals included in each build alternative are the product of an extended and intensive period of conceptual engineering, public involve- ment, and local jurisdiction coordination. Adopted and proposed transporta- tion plans were also examined and keypoints for improving transit and HOV speeds and effectiveness were identifid. The alternatives as defined were approved by the sponsoring transit agencies, the Joint Regional Policy Committee, and the Expert Review Panel. No -Build Alternative The No -Build Alternative limits capital investment by regional transit agencies to that necessary for maintaining existing service. Transit fleet levels would remain about the same, except for Pierce Transit's fleet, which would be reduced by about 10 percent because of a lack of funds and the need to substantially increase special programs, such as services to the disabled population. The No -Build Alternative also assumes a baseline roadway network, which is defined as the existing roadway network plus significant roadway projects that ]jurisdiction are currently building or have funding available to complete. The baseline roadway network includes budgeted portions of WSDOTs HOV lane program that are expected to be built by 1993. The baseline roadway network excludes unbudgeted portions of the network, even if they are included in future plans. The transit system associated with the No -Build Alternative would consist of the existing 1991 transit network. Except for currently funded park-and-ride and transit lot expansions, the No -Build Alternative would not require building new transit maintenance or operating facilities beyond existing facilities. The capital cost of the No -Build Alternative would be about 1.2 billion dollars. The No -Build Alternative is an unrealistic alternative, in the sense that, regardless of the decision made on System Plan proposals, transit service levels are likely to grow over the next thirty years. Historically, transit revenues have grown by about two percent per year. In fact, two of the transit operators (Community Transit and Everett Transit) have adopted plans that indicate substantial increases in transit service in the future (see Section 1.8). However, the No -Build. Alternative serves as the baseline for evaluating the environmental impacts of the other alternatives. It will be carried forward into project -level evaluation to meet Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requirements for evaluating alternatives. The FTA guidelines define the No -Build Alternative as including only budgeted programs. As required by FTA guidelines, all elements of the No -Build Alternative are also part of each of the other alternatives. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative The TSM Alternative emphasizes nearly doubling regional bus transit service, as well as capital projects to support transit efficiency, and investments in transit -friendly bicycle, pedestrian, and land use Executive Summary xxix March 1993 improvements in local neighborhoods. In King and Snohomish counties, total bus hour operation would increase by almost 60 percent by the year 2020, compared to the No -Build Alternative. Total hours would increase by about 12 percent in Pierce County under the scenario used for ridership modeling. In addition, Pierce Transit is considering substantial increases in local service beyond those considered for modeling purposes. The TSM Alternative provides a transit service framework to develop more capital intensive rapid -transit proposals and serves as a baseline for evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of the other two build alternatives. The TSM Alternative increases regional and community bus transit service to and between centers identified in Vision 2020 for King, Pierce, and Snohom- ish counties. Service improvements would emphasize all -day and more frequent two-way and reverse commute service, with increased access to a regional bus system. Connections between regional centers and smaller activity centers would also increase. Improved transit centers and new park- and-ride lot spaces would accommodate the proposed service expansion. To support this service concept, the freeway HOV network of the No -Build Alternative would be completed and expanded, adding projects to improve transit system speed and reliability. Buses and carpools would have better access to the HOV network and improved speed and reliability on key arter- ial roadways. Transit stations and park-and-ride lots would be expanded to improve access to the transit system and connections between routes. Pedes- trian and bicycle access to the transit system would be improved. Implemen- tation of this alternative would require coordination with WSDOT and local jurisdictions for phasing and financing. Capital costs of the TSM Alternative would be approximately $3.5 billion dollars more than the No -Build Alternative, including about $1.3 billion to complete WSDOTs freeway HOV network. Transitway/TSM Alternative The Transitway/TSM Alternative evolved from earlier evaluation of a fully dedicated busway alternative developed as part of the Metro 2000 project. That busway alternative was a rapid -transit system with scope and alignments similar to those proposed in the current Rail/TSM Alternative. Preliminary capital costing and operating plans indicated that the fully dedicated busway system would have as high or a higher capital cost, a higher operating cost, and lower capacity and ridership than a comparable rail system. As such, it was considered unlikely to provide a competitive alternative to a rail proposal. In light of these conclusions, the JRPC and the Planning Subcommittee of the Metro Council directed RTP staff to develop a second all -bus alternative which would be intermediate between the TSM and Rail/TSM alternatives in terms of cost and performance. The current revised Transitway/TSM Alternative is designed to improve on the TSM Alternative while taking advantage of ways a bus -based system might be more flexible and cost-effective than a rail system. The unique features of the Transitway/TSM Alternative are barrier - separated bus -only and bus -carpool lanes in the core of the region. The transitway would consist of three legs radiating from downtown Seattle, one to Northgate, one to Bellevue, and one to Tukwila, with buses continuing on freeway HOV lanes from the ends of the transitway into Snohomish and. Pierce counties and on the eastside. Access/egress ramps would connect the transitway with stations and park-and-ride lots. Executive Summary ?DOC March 1993 Transitway/TSM Alternative bus service levels would be about the same as the TSM Alternative, with some adjustment due to an increase in average speed of about three percent and additional service. The alternative would emphasize improvements in regional and community services with local - express and express -only operations enhancing connections to centers. These operations would be overlaid on the TSM transit, paratransit, and ndesharing measures. Express routes would run directly between park-and- ride lot facilities or transit centers by way of the transitway and HOV lanes to regional centers such as downtown Seattle, the University District, Everett, Tacoma, and downtown Bellevue. Frequent direct express service would be provided from Tacoma to Everett through downtown Seattle and from Bellevue to Everett and downtown Seattle. Local -express routes would pick up and drop off passengers in neighborhoods, serve local park-and-ride lots or transit centers, and connect to regional centers and other centers by way of the transitway and HOV network. The Transitway/TSM Alternative builds on the TSM Alternative, taking advantage of the increased bus fleet, the 2020 regional HOV system, and the speed and reliability improvements developed as a part of the TSM Alterna- tive. However, some projects included in the TSM Alternative are not included in the Transitway/TSM Alternative due to the duplication of function by the transitway and related improvements. Other TSM projects have been modified to complement the transitway system collection and distribution functions. Capital costs of the Transitway/TSM Alternative would be approximately $4.3 billion dollars more than the No -Build Alternative. Rail/TSM Alternative The rail system in the Rail/TSM Alternative has evolved from years of evaluation and public involvement, including the conceptual rail system in Vision 2020. General rail system alignment screening has emphasized cost- effectiveness, operational considerations, and potential environmental impacts. Screening has taken into account comments gathered from more than two years of meetings with agencies and community groups and public forums. The Rai1fTSM Alternative proposes an extensive all _day rail system. At peak penods, trains would run every two to fifteen minutes, depending on the corridor served. In the North Comdor, the system would provide service between downtown Seattle, Capitol Hill (if the alignment recommended by the JRPC is selected), the University District, Northgate, Lynnwood, and Everett. In the South Corridor, the system would directlylmk downtown Seattle, Rainier Valley (JRPC recommended alternative) or the Duwamish Industrial area, SeaTac, Federal Way, and Tacoma. Service would be provided across Lake Washington from downtown Seattle to Bellevue, Redmond, and Issaquah. Another rail line would directly link Paine Field, Bothell, Kirkland, Bellevue, Renton, and Burien. Finally, a commuter rail line, powered initially by diesel locomotives and using existing freight and passenger railroad lines, would link Seattle and Tacoma by way of the Green River Valley. Commuter rail in the Green River Valley takes advantage of the fact that existing rail lines in that area serve a number of centers that would not be otherwise served very well by Executive Summary good March 1993 the rapid rail system. Commuter rail could be implemented at a much lower cost than a second rapid rail line in that corridor. This alternative includes about 125 miles of rapid rail running on an exclu- sive, grade -separated right-of-way and a 40 -mile initially diesel -operated commuter rail line. For planning and modeling purposes it has been assumed that the rapid rail system would have operating characteristics similar to recently built systems in other cities and that it would have similar environmental impacts. Within the range of other North American rail lines, the rail system that is proposed would fall into the definition of "heavy" rail, since it would have a relatively high capacity and would operate almost entirely on an exclusive guideway completely separated from automobile traffic. A major advantage of evaluating conventional rapid rail is that it has been used extensively in other North American cities and therefore the technology's advantages and disadvantages have become apparent. Bus service improvements proposed in the TSM Alternative would be reori- ented in the Rail/TSM Alternative to provide community connections to the rail system. Express bus routes would continue to run where they could provide superior service between centers. Competing bus service would be eliminatedonlyif it was slower than rail service. Because of the large invest- ment required to build the proposed rail system, specific TSM improvements were. evaluated with respect to the degree to which they would support the system or the general system objectives. Many of the capital improvements in the TSM Alternative were not included in the Rail/TSM Alternative because they duplicated rail system functions or did not support the system goals. At the same time, the Rail/TSM Alternative expands park-and-ride capacity beyond that proposed for the TSM Alternative. Capital costs of the Rail/TSM Alternative would be approximately $103 billion dollars more than the No -Build Alternative Capital Cost Estimates and Ridership Forecasts Table 4 summarizes the capital and operating and maintenance cost estimates, ridership forecasts, and cost-effectiveness measures for the alternatives evaluated in the System Plan FEIS. Ridership for the build alternatives was estimated conservatively, assuming no changes in adopted land -use plans. Cost per new rider applies only to the Transitway/TSM and Rail/TSM Alternatives, since the TSM Alternative serves as the baseline for this measure. It should be noted that No -Build Alternative costs for Community Transit and Everett Transit are lower than those in their adopted plans, due to the restrictive nature of the No -Build assumptions. For infor- mation on CTs and ETs adopted plans, and projections for Pierce Transit, see Section 1.8. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures The Environmental Summary Matrix (Figure 4) at the end of this section summarizes the adverse environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and Executive Summary xxxii March 1993 unavoidable adverse impacts for each alternative discussed in this FEIS. As a programmatic document, only generic and regional impacts have been identified and considered. The environmental review also attempts to identi- fy fatal flaws in the conceptual designs that have been used for costing and ridership estimation. In most cases, conceptual designs have been modified to avoid potential fatal flaws. In a few cases, as with the North Corridor transitway, potential fatal flaws have been unavoidable and are identified in this document as such. More specific impacts will be identified for alterna- tives carried into the project -level environmental review phase. The follow- ing is a summary of the major impacts identified for the alternatives: Table 4. Summary of System Alternatives Characteristics. Alternative Capital Cost. (billions of 1991 $) Annual Cost Operating and Daily Ridership Cost per per New Maintenance Cost Ridership (year 2020) Rider Rider (millions of 1991 $) (Year 2020) (millions) (1991 $) (1991 $) No -Build $1.2 $274 388,500 109.4 3.67 NA. TSM $4.7 $399 473,900 133.7 5.92 NA. Transitway/ $5.5 $406 480,000 135.4 6.36 1139 TSM Rail/TSM (includes Commuter Rail) $11.5 $492 560,500 1573 7.94 12.52 No -Build Alternative Major impacts of the No -Build Alternative would be indirect and, to some extent, are difficult to define precisely. No beneficial impacts can be identified for this alternative. Even as need for -transit service rises with increased population, employment, and traffic congestion, the speed and efficiency of transit service would continue to deteriorate. The need for transit service would significantly exceed capacity on several parts of the transit system, particularly in downtown Seattle and the University District during rush hour. Traffic would exceed roadway capacity on the majority of freeways at rush hour, with no real alternative for peak -hour travel. Reduced accessibility of existing centers would encourage auto -oriented development on the urban fringe. Land -use plans calling for limited urban sprawl and increased density in present centers would be difficult to implement, as would provisions of the Growth Management Act. The No -Build Alternative would not support efforts to implement trip -reduction and air quality -control programs. Lacking a better alternative, SOV use would increase at a higher rate than transit use, worsening air quality and increasing fuel consumption. It should be noted that the No -Build Alternative uses restrictive assumptions regarding levels of transit service, in keeping with its definition as a baseline alternative. For more realistic assumptions about expansion of transit service in Snohomish and Pierce counties, see Section 1.8. TSM Alternative Beneficial Impacts. While not satisfying current state requirements of the High Capacity Transportation Act, the TSM Alternative would support measures to reduce vehicle trips, with beneficial effects on regionalmobility and air quality. The TSM Alternative may also provide some support to Executive Summary xvdii March 1993 regional land -use plans limiting urban sprawl and increasing densities in current activity centers. Compared to the No -Build Alternative, the TSM Alternative would improve transit speeds and efficiency and generally increase transit capacity to meet demand where possible. Transit ridership would be about 20 to 25 percent higher with this alternative than with the No -Build Alternative. Potential Adverse Impacts. The TSM Alternative's construction scale is such that there could be major regional and local construction impacts, depending on improvement phasing. Significant local impacts will be evaluated as 13art of project -level environmental review. TSM Alternative bus traffic levels would meet or exceed the capacity of the downtown Seattle transit tunnel and the street network in downtown Seattle at rush hour, resulting in a constraint to meeting the demand created by the TSM Alternative. Transit fleet energy use would almost double. The TSM Alternative could have site-specific environmental impacts, such as: o Construction of HOV lanes on existing highways would temporarily disrupt freeway and arterial traffic, causing congestion and safety hazards. o Ramps and parking garages could be visually obtrusive to communities. o Traffic would increase near park-and-ride lots. o Air quality would decrease near park-and-ride lots and in congested areas, due to increased levels of traffic. o Noise would increase near transit centers and park-and-ride lots. o Building more park-and-ride lots and adding vehicle lanes would increase stormwater runoff. o Building HOV facilities in some areas could disturb hazardous waste sites, historic and cultural resources, open space, and parks. o Building HOV facilities could require relocating utility lines. No site-specific impacts are defined at this analysis level. Mitigating these impacts would be evaluated on a project -specific basis. Transitway/TSM Alternative Beneficial Impacts. The Transitway/TSM Alternative would increase transit service and efficiency, increasing transit ridership by providing faster regional transit service than the TSM Alternative. This alternative would further increase transit speeds and efficiency and the viability of programs designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled in the region. Transit service on exclusive busways would be consistent with the Vision 2020 regional rapid transit proposal, although the transitway system would not be as extensive as Vision 2020's proposal. Increased emphasis on transit stations and service to centers would also support regional land -use plans for limiting urban sprawl and concentrating new growth in existing centers. Support would, however, be limited by the inability of transitway buses to provide direct service into major centers in the region. Potential Adverse Impacts. This alternative's impacts would be generally similar to but greater than those of the TSM Alternative. The likelihood of construction impacts affecting regional traffic patterns increases. The alter- native would have major effects on traffic because it would convert the I-5 express lanes from use by general-purpose traffic to an exclusive transitway for buses and carpools. Use of the express lanes as a transitway would be necessary to provide high-speed, high-capacity transit service to Northgate Executive Summary xxxiv March 1993 and beyond into Snohomish County. Closing the express lanes would divert automobile traffic onto surface arterials and through North Seattle neigh- borhoods, significantly degrading air quality and increasing traffic and noise in those areas. Because of this impact, the North Corridor transitway is considered to be fatally flawed. In addition, ridership on the East Corridor transitway would be slightly lower than under the TSM Alternative, indicating that this segment of the system would not be cost-effective. As with the TSM Alternative, the numbers of buses needed to carry projected ridership would exceed the capacity of the downtown Seattle transit tunnel and of downtown Seattle surface streets, resulting in a constraint on the system's capacity. Like the TSM Alternative, the Transitway/TSM Alternative could affect stormwater runoff quality and quantity, air quality, visual quality, utility corridors, hazardous waste sites, historic and cultural resources, open space, and parks. It could also create some noise and traffic impacts. These impacts would be mitigated on a project -specific basis. Compared to the TSM Alternative, the Transitway/TSM Alternative would increase impervious surface and stormwater runoff. Transitway ramps and aerial structures would visually affect adjacent communities. The transitway could also affect the setting of historic properties along the Burlington Northern railroad tracks south of downtown Seattle. Rad/TSM Alternative Beneficial Impacts. The Rail/TSM Alternative would have beneficial impacts, including greatly increasing transit service and efficiency and signifi cantly increasing transit ridership. The alternative would provide enough capacity to meet the high end ofprojectedtransit demand. The alternative would better support transportation plans emphasizing reducing vehicle miles traveled in the region than other alternatives and would reduce the amount of energy used for transportation in the region. This could have beneficial effects on regional mobility and air quality. The Rail/TSM Alter- native would also fully support regional land -use plans limiting urban sprawl and concentrating new growth in existing centers. Potential Adverse Impacts. The scale of construction for this alternative would be much greater than for the other alternatives. There are potential regional traffic congestion impacts at certain phases in the construction process. In addition to the impacts expected for the TSM Alternative, examples of likely construction and operation impacts include: o extensive construction impacts along rail rights-of-way, including noise, vibration, dust, and traffic o significant impacts from construction of subway stations in urban commercial areas o potential effects on important ecosystems such as Mercer Slough, Swamp Creek, Kelsey Creek, and major rivers o greater right-of-way acquisition and business and residential relocation than the other alternatives - particularly for stations. The greater scale of the impact is due to the greater extent of the rail system. o increased transit energy use, although most of the increase would be from energy-efficient electnc vehicles Executive Summary xxxv March 1993 o potential noise impacts from aerial and at -grade structures o visual impacts of aerial and at -grade structures o short-term traffic impacts due to construction and, if an alignment is selected that reduces I-5 capacity by taking lanes between downtown Seattle and the University District, significant traffic and air quality impacts. o increased development pressure around some station areas o potential impacts on utility lines, parks, hazardous waste sites, and historic and cultural resources. Summary of Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Most impacts of the build alternatives could be reduced with mitigation measures. However, some impacts, usually minor, could not be mitigated. In a few cases, alternatives may have significant impacts. Types of impacts can be divided into those caused by construction and those resulting from opera- tion of the system. Construction Impacts Construction impacts are, in general, temporary and not of long-term signifi- cance. However, the actual facilities would represent permanent changes to sites. Temporary Construction Impacts Construction disturbs the land, resulting in potential soil erosion and increased sedimentation. Dewatering during excavation could cause tempor- ary groundwater lowering. Construction equipment emits air pollutants, increases nearby noise levels, and may affect nearby visual quality. Sensitive land uses, such as parks and historic and cultural resources, may be particu- larly affected. Construction may disturb wildlife and reduce their popula- tions. Construction may disrupt nearby businesses, resulting in loss of income. Construction may cause traffic congestion and may temporarily shut off utilities. Construction may impede access to public facilities with traffic restrictions, parking or loading zone displacement, or other factors. Emergency vehicles may also be impeded along or across roadways involved in project construc- tion. The magnitude of impacts depends on the geographic extent of the construction required for the alternatives under consideration. All of the alternatives would have some unavoidable construction impacts, roughly proportional to the scale of construction, with the fewest impacts under the TSM Alternative and the greatest under the Rail/TSM Alterna- tive. Both the Transitway/TSM and Rail/TSM Alternatives involve con- struction along rail rights-of-way, which could affect rail operations. Construction impacts of the Rail/TSM Alternative would be several times greater than theSM or Transitway/TSM Alternatives. Construction might have regional effects on traffic congestion and speeds. The most significant Executive Summary xxxvi March 1993 localized construction impacts would occur during construction of under- ground stations along urban arterials. Direct impacts would include: o high levels of noise o production of dust and diesel exhaust o mud affecting roadways, sidewalks, and neighboring businesses o significant effects on traffic resulting from lane closures and detours. Construction of underground stations in commercial areas would have signif- icant traffic, noise, dust, mud, and air quality impacts on adjacent businesses. Construction would also result in a reduction in parking, require pedestrian detours, and increase delivery costs, reducing business income. Utility disruptions could result in temporary business closures. Some businesses might fail or relocate, particularly those whose income was dependent on successful competition with businesses in other parts of the region. Tunneling for the Rail/TSM Alternative would temporarily lower local groundwater levels. Building new bridges over the Duwamish, Puyallup, and Sanunamish Rivers, and probably Mercer Slough, could temporanly increase suspended sediments. In the Duwamish River, suspended sediments could be contaminated with heavy metal and hydrocarbons. The Rail/TSM Alter- native could affect ecosystems in Mercer Slough, the Duwamish, Puyallup, Cedar, and Sammamish rivers, and Swamp, Hylebos and Kelsey creeks. Commuter Rail Element Temporary construction impacts would mainly occur in station areas and could affect adjacent properties and arterials as noted above. Permanent Construction Impacts Construction results in permanent land use changes, with permanent impacts on hydrology, habitats, visual quality, roadway capacity, utilities, parks, and historic and cultural resources. Construction could uncover hazardous waste, resulting in a need for remediation or alipment rerouting. In general, impacts would be proportional to the scale of construction. No -Build Alternative No -Build construction will result in local increases in impervious surface on sites, with slightly increased levels of runoff into storm drainage systems. It will remove small areas of vacant land, resulting in slight reductions of habitats. Construction will have minor impacts on local visual quality. TSM Alternative The TSM Alternative would require about 199 acres in business/industrial areas and 174 acres in residential areas. This would probably require some business, residential, and utility relocation. Park-and-ride lots could visually conflict with surrounding land uses. New ramps could affect views from some neighborhoods. Impervious surface could increase by as much as 374 acres, increasing runoff by 49 acre-feet during the 25 -year storm. Construc- tion on currently vacant land would locally reduce wildlife habitat. Executive Summary xxxvii March 1993 Transitway/TSM Alternative The Transitway/TSM Alternative would need about 293 acres of business/industrial land and 190 acres of residential land, probably requiring relocation of some businesses, residences, and utility lines. Stations, park- and-ride lots, and new ramps could conflict visually with surrounding neigh- borhoods. Impervious surface could increase by up to 482 acres, increasing runoff by 60 acre-feet during the 25 -year storm. Construction on vacant land could locally reduce wildlife habitat. This alternative would have severe and permanent impacts on traffic in the North Corridor by closing the I-5 express lanes to SOVs. Closure of part of 114th Avenue NE in Bellevue would have restrict access to adjacent businesses. The busway from Spokane Street to SR -599 would require railroad track relocation. Rail/TSM Alternative At -grade and aerial structures in roadways could permanently reduce road and intersection capacity on East Marginal Way, I-5, Martin Luther King, Jr., Way, and arterials in Tacoma, Federal Way, SeaTac, south Snohomish County, and Everett. The nonrecommended I-5 alignment between downtown Seattle and the University Seattle would have severe impacts on traffic congestion in Seattle's North End. The Rail/TSM Alternative would require 1,021 acres, probably resulting in some relocation of businesses, residences, and utilities. The exclusive guide- way could separate parks from nearby neighborhoods. The alternative may alter the visual quality of areas along alignments, near new ramps, and at station locations. Increased impervious surface could increase runoff by as much as 128 acre-feet during the 25 -year storm. Construction on vacant land would locally reduce wildlife habitat. Tunneling for the Rainier Valley, Capitol Hill, and Bellevue Way alignments could increase the probability of uncovering hazardous waste or contamina- ted groundwater, requiring remediation or moving the alignment. Commuter Rail Element. Permanent impacts would mainly occur at station areas, with construction of stations and park-and-ride lots. Operations Impacts Operational impacts may occur because of the actual transit system opera- tion or due to land use or other changes caused by the alternative. Direct Operations Impacts Bus -based transit systems typically emit air pollutants; pollutants may also be washed into surface waters. To the extent that the build alternatives increase the number of miles traveled by transit vehicles as compared to the No -Build Alternative, they will increase energy use and emission of pollutants. Air and water pollutants may in turn affect human health and ecosystems. However, these effects would be more than offset by decreases in vehicle miles traveled in the region as compared to the No -Build Alternative. Use of alternative fuels would further reduce transit emissions. Executive Summary xxxviii March 1993 In the case of the NO -Build, TSM, and Transitway/TSM Alternatives, electricity use would be limited to Metro's trolley and streetcar services. Electricity use would be about double the No -Build Alternative under the TSM and Transitway/TSM Alternatives. Electricity use would be much greater under the Rail/TSM Alternative. Even under the Rail/TSM Alter- native, electricity use would be an insignificant fraction of regional electric demand. Direct operational effects include increased transit -related noise. Quiet residential areas, parks, and sensitive public facilities adjacent to ali ments, stations, transit centers, and park -and -rides would be particularly affected. Wildlife in natural areas could also be affected. Because the TSM and Transitway/TSM Alternatives tend to use facilities along existing rights-of- way, while the Rail/TSM Alternative is likely to use some alignments off existing roadways, this effect may be more noticeable under this alternative. Transit service levels have direct impacts on transit riders. In the case of the No -Build Alternative, the demand for transit service will exceed system capacity, resulting in overcrowded buses and loss of some peak -hour riders. Under the TSM and Transitway/TSM Alternatives the number of buses required to meet demand in downtown Seattle would exceed street and tunnel capacity, resulting in loss of riders. Commuter Rail Element Commuter rail is not expected to have any significant adverse operational impacts. There may be some impacts on traffic flows at at -grade crossings due to increased train traffic. Indirect Operations Impacts Transportation -Related Impacts The alternatives will affect the operations of the entire transportation system. The build alternatives would contribute to a reduction in traffic and an increase in mobility as compared to the No -Build Alternative. An increase in traffic means reduced travel times, increased emission of air pollutants, and increased pollutant loadings in stormwater runoff. The regional increase in vehicle miles under the No -Build Alternative is an unavoidable adverse impact of that alternative. Locally, to the extent that an alternative increases automobile traffic near a park-and-ride lot or station, it will have adverse impacts on air quality, noise, and traffic. The likelihood of such local impacts will increase with increased transit investment, with the greatest effects likely under the Rail/TSM Alternative. Land Use -Related Impacts The transportation system increases the attractiveness of certain areas for development, primarily by increasing accessibility. However, the transpor- tation system may also reduce the attractiveness of some areas because of adverse traffic, noise, and air quality impacts. Development may constitute a beneficial or an adverse impact, depending on the community. Displacement of residential uses by commercial uses is often an adverse impact, but in certain areas may be beneficial. To the extent that the transportation system does not support the types of development envisioned in adopted land use plans, it can be said to have an adverse impact. Executive Summary ,ccdx March 1993 Vision 2020 serves as the region's adopted land use and transportation plan for the year 2020. The goals of Vision 2020 are least supported by the No - Build Alternative. The No -Build Alternative would discourage development in many activity centers by doing little to improve accessibility and would encourage development on the urban fringe, contrary to the plan's intent. The TSM and Transitway/TSM Alternatives would support some of the land use policies of the plan, but would be unable to provide efficient transit service in crowded activity centers. The Rail/TSM Alternative would be the most consistent with the Vision 2020 plan. Commuter Rail Element Commuter rail could have indirect impacts on traffic, noise, and air quality at station areas; otherwise, indirect impacts would be beneficial. Areas of Controversy and Uncertainty and Issues to Be Resolved The alternatives considered in the Final EIS will likely generate issues that will need to be addressed during the subsequent project -level planning phase. The principal issues to be resolved include: Selection and Development of Alternatives The most important decision involves which alternatives should be carried forward into more detailed, project -specific planning analysis and environ- mental review. At the broadest level, this choice is among the alternatives examined in the System Plan and the System Plan FEIS. However, several related issues, described below, need to be considered before choosing an alternative. Scale of the Alternatives. In adopting a final System Plan, the JRPC could chose an alternative from among those evaluated in the FEIS or it could chose an alternative smaller in scale. For example, the draft System Plan recommends a variation of the Rail/TSM Alternative considered in the DEIS. That variation focuses on a shorter planning horizon (2015 versus 2020), fewer miles of rapid rail (84 miles versus 124 miles), and other differences in scale. Other proposals emerged during the public comment process, such as the SMART (Sound Metropolitan Regional Transit) proposal, which promotes constructing a short "starter' system before implementing a full regional rail system. The-FEIS provides the JRPC with all the information and analytic tools it needs for evaluating the environmental impacts of such alternatives. In general, the environmental impacts of such scaled-back alternatives would be lower than the impacts of the alternatives discussed in the FEIS. So long as the impacts of the selected alternative fall within the range of impacts and alternatives analyzed in the FEIS, no additional environmental review would be required before the JRPC makes a decision on the System Plan. Section 2.2.4 provides a more detailed example of how the FEIS can be applied to analyzing a smaller -scale Rail/TSM Alternative. Technology Options. Choosing among the alternatives involves a choice between bus or rail technology for regional service. A combined Executive Summary xl March 1993 rail/transitway system could also be picked. Similarly, the commuter rail element of the Rail/TSM Alternative could be considered independently of the rest of the rail system and could conceivably be combined with elements of the other build alternatives. The FEIS provides decision makers with the analytic tools for assessing the environmental impact of such an alternative. The basic technology choice will be based on a number of evaluation criteria, including the cost-effectiveness of each alternative, both overall and in the North, South, and East corridors. This decision will be made by the JRPC during system -level planning. While the EIS assumes that conventional rapid rail would be used for the Rail/TSM Alternative, a final choice on rail technology(ies) has not been made. System needs have been defined as a minimum set of operating characteristics that any rail technology would have to meet to be effective in this region. If the Rail/TSM Alternative is chosen for further evaluation, a final decision will have to be made on the specific type of rail technology. The choice will be between basic rail technologies, such as conventional light rail versus a higher performance rail system. Factors which will be consid- ered in the rail technology choice will include system capacity, speed, passen- ger loading characteristics, traction power systems, and control systems. This decision will be made during project -level planning. Exclusive versus Nonexclusive Rights -of -Way. In defining the alternatives, it has been assumed that the Rail/TSM Alternative rail system will run on mostly exclusive rights-of-way with no at -grade crossings (except for commuter rail and possibly the connection between Bellevue and Renton and the ends of the line in Tacoma and Snohomish County). Transitway/TSM Alternative bus service would run on a combination of exclusive and nonexclusive rights-of-way. Bus service in the TSM Alternative would operate on. nonexclusive rights-of-way. Exclusive rights-of-way, while generally costing more than nonexclusive rights-of-way, offer higher speeds and greater reliability because of fewer conflicts with general-purpose traffic. Systems with nonexclusive rights-of-way run at slower speeds, but generally are less expensive. The alternative choice thus involves choosing the amount of exclusive rights-of-way that will be appropriate for the regional public transit system. These decisions will be made during both system -level and project -level planning. Generalized Rail Alignment Options. If the Rail/TSM Alternative is chosen for more study, generalized alignment choices must be made. In the North Corridor, alignment choices must be made, particularly in north King County and Snohomish County. In the South Corridor, alignment choices must be made between SR -99 and I-5 through Federal Way. In the East Corridor, alignment choices must be made between downtown Bellevue and Redmond and between Mercer Island and Bellevue. Other alignment variations may be proposed and considered in the future. These decisions will be made dunng system- and project -level planning. Specific Alignment Options. Once general alignments are picked, specific routes and profiles (aerial, at -grade, or underground) must be developed and chosen as a part of project -level design and environmental review. Specific alignment choices will be made based on cost, feasibility, environmental impacts, and extensive coordination with local communities and the public. These decisions will be made during project -level planning. Station Area Planning: Final station or transit center locations will involve a number of considerations, including cost, land availability, environmental Executive Summary xli March 1993 impacts, accessibility to alignments, and public and local jurisdiction input. A decision must be made in each station area whether to encourage intensified development or to enact policies that preserve current land uses at that location. Such decisions will in part depend on decisions made in the current growth management planning process. Because the final decisions will be made by affected jurisdictions, the RTP will work with them to ensure that station facility planning incorporates significant local input and station area planning is directed by local agencies. TSM Improvements. Although TSM improvements have been assumed for each build alternative, actual TSM improvement implementation will require more study and refinement based on public comment and input from local jurisdictions. For example, the City of Seattle has proposed a service structure for that city that would be a major departure from previous assumptions. Some TSM capital improvements and service structures may be deleted or modified while others may be added, based on the project -level review process. Similarly, the specific TSM service structures assumed under the three build alternatives may be modified, based on the ridership modeling results and local community and agency input. These decisions will be made during project -level planning. Support Facility Locations. All three build alternatives will require more support and maintenance facilities in the three -county region. While the System Plan FEIS identifies general needs and possible general locations for such facilities, specific alternative locations for such facilities must be chosen as part of project -level planning and environmental review processes, at least for the initial project phase. Phasing. The System Plan FEIS only covers the issue of phasing in a generic way. If the Rail/TSM Alternative is chosen, decisions will have to be made as to the minimum operating segment length in each corridor and the extent of the initial rail system. In addition, supplemental' alignments and extensions may be considered in certain areas. Because of its smaller extent and capital costs, transitway system phasing will be less of an issue. However, TSM improvement phasing and its relationship to rail or transitway facilities will be an important issue, since TSM improvements may, on the one hand, supplement or mitigate the construction impacts of rapid transit facilities and, on the other hand, may be redundant to components of the rapid transit system. These decisions will be made during project -level planning. Financing. Funding sources may include a sales tax increase, a motor vehicle excise tax increase, federal funding, and private funding. Some federal funds have also been authorized by the Surface Transportation Act of 1991. In addition, consideration has been given to gasoline and other taxes. The financing option mix will be presented to the voters for approval. These decisions will be made by the JRPC during system -level planning. System Development The System Plan FEIS presents the fully developed regional transit system in the year 2020. System development will occur gradually. Each new capital improvement or service increment will affect ridership m a way that may or may not have been accurately predicted. Because the System Plan will be implemented in stages, the results of each phase may change subsequent plan phases. Modifications could include service increases or decreases to partic- ular areas, phasing changes, and TSM or rapid transit capital improvement changes. These decisions will be made dunng project -level planning. Executive Summary xlii March 1993 Land Use. Changes in land use and development over the next thirty years will affect how the regional transit system develops. System Plan ridership forecasts are based on an assumption (as mandated by the Federal Transit Administration (Ryan 1986)) that development patterns or land use will not substantially change over the life of the project. In reality, substantial capital investments in public transit,articularly systems with exclusive rights-of-way, often significantly affect residential and employment densities near transit lines. Increased densities along transit lines would increase public transit demand, requiring additional transit capacity modifications to meet increased demand. Demand could also be consciously increased by jurisdictional requirements, such as zoning, in some station areas. On the other hand, the achievement of higher density and concentrated land uses could be curtailed or prevented by failure to upgrade the capacity of other public infrastructure, such as sewer and treatment plant capacities. The System Plan FEIS does address potential changes in public transit demand and how these would affect the capacity requirements of the alternatives. Capacity Constraints in the Transit Network and Transportation System Ridership and traffic modeling for the System Plan alternatives indicates that: o Ridership demand would exceed transit capacity at many critical locations in the No -Build Alternative o Bus volumes to meet ridership needs would exceed street capacity in downtown Seattle, the University District, and a few other key locations under the TSM and Transitway/TSM Alternative, but not under the Rail/TSM Alternative o Automobile volumes will exceed roadway capacity in certain areas under all alternatives. The forecasting models predict ridership and traffic levels in a functioning transportation system. It is more difficult to predict what will happen if the transportation system does not function. In the short term, it is easy to predict that overcrowded buses and traffic jams will result if demand exceeds system capacityand that has been incorporated into the environmental analysis. In thlong term, it is likely individual behavior and public policy will change in response to transportation system failures. Such changes are difficult to predict and are beyond the scope of this environmental impact statement. Environmental Issues Site -Specific Environmental Impacts. As noted, the System Plan FEIS is a programmatic document. It does not consider detailed impacts of the alternatives on particular sites or locations, unless it is clear that impacts are probable at a specific site. If one of the build alternatives is chosen, project - level environmental review will identify significant environmental impacts of that alternative at, specific locations. Section 1.63 gives examples of impacts that will be more appropriately considered in project -level review. Regional Electrical Power Sources. Although the System Plan FEIS considers electric power sources for the Rail/TSM Alternative and regional power providers' ability to meet power requirements, it is impossible to forecast specific electnc power sources used to supply the system in the future. The regional power sources m the year 2020 represent a decision that will have to Executive Summary xliii March 1993 be made through the political process. The Bonneville Power Administration expects to produce most of the region's additional energy needs through conservation, greater power generation and transmission efficiency, cogeneration in industrial plants, and natural gas-fired combustion plants. Except for natural gas, these sources would probably not have signifi- cant potential adverse environmental impacts. Because the electric power requirement of any build alternative is a very small percentage of the total regional supply (Moorman 1992), it was not considered necessary to evaluate further the effects of policy alternatives. The selected System Plan alternative is not likely to affect the regional power supply choice in the future. Transit Fleet Fuel Requirements. Although it is clear that the transit fleet in the year 2020 will be required by the federal Clean Air Act to produce far fewer air pollutant emissions than today's transit fleet, it is not clear what fuel type will be used to meet emissions requirements. There could be changes in air pollutant emission levels and the demand for particular fuels, depending on the fuel that is ultimately chosen. Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields. The potential health effects of low- level electromagnetic fields have been a recent subject of public concern. Because the Rail/TSM Alternative would require extensive electrical distri- bution facilities, the potential EMF radiation effects from the distribution system are considered in this EIS. Research to date suggests that the poten- tial health risks of exposure to the direct current distribution lanes likely to be used for the rail system are significantly less than the risks associated with the more common alternating current distribution lines. Epidemiologic studies of EMF effects have not produced conclusive evidence of any health hazards at the field levels generally associated with rail power distribution systems. Applicable EMF research will continue to be monitored and reported during the project -level environmental review process. Executive Summary xliv March 1993 _ Impact Aha No -Build TSM Ttansltway/TSM Rall/TSM Construction Operation Construction Operation Construotlon Operation Conetneotlon Operation Earth • No Significant Im- pacts • No Significant Im• pacts • No Significant Int- papspacts • More Earth Movement than No -Build • No Significant Im- • Minor Tunneling: Otherwise Impacts Similar to TSM • No Significant Im- pacts • Tunneling Alignments May Result In Settle- ment, Erosion and Ground Water int- pane • Seismic Issues Related to Tunnels WI be Considered During System Design Alr Quality • Minimal Impacts • Regional Alr Quality Standards May Not Be Met; Est. • 2020 Base Level Motor Vehicle Emissions In M.Tona/Day: CO 962. HC 212, NOx 139 • Construction CO and Dust • Congestion -Related CO • Modest AirOuallty Benefit (New Transit Riders) • Emission Reductions from No -Build In M.Tona/Day: CO -16, HC -2, NOx-2 . Construction CO and Dust • Congestion -Rotated CO • Modest Alr Ouality Benefit • Emission Reductions from No-BuildM.Tons/Day:In HC -4, NOx-3 CO 18, • Construction CO and Dust elRail • CCommuter CO;O; Commuter Rall Corridor. Relief In ��h • Consistent with Vision 2020 Plan • EmioReductions from ns/DayNo-Build c lud- Ing commuter) all): CO -40, HC -9, NOx-3 NoiseNibratlon • Impacts of Adopted/ Funded Projects Only • Increased Traffic Noise on Principal Roadways During Non -Peak Periods • Increased Traffic Noise on Minor Arterials and Local Streets • Localized Conatruc- tion Nolse Impacts Related to New HOV Lanes and Park -and- Ride Lots ' • Localized Increases of Traffic Noise Near New Access Ramps, and Park -and -Ride Lots • Nlghtlme Construction Noise Impacts (e.g. Convention Place Station to I.6 Express Lane Tunnel, Taneitway Between SE 8th St. and SR 520) • Greater Amount of Construction Activity and Associated Noise Impacts than TSM Artemative • Increased Bus Operations Within Tranettways Would Contribute to Some Increase In Traffic Noise Over TSM Alternative • Nightlme Construction NoleeNlbratlon Impacts of Tunnel/Subsurface Stations and Bridge Construction • Greater Amount of Construction Aseocl- ated Noise than Transltway Ahemative • Bridge Alignment Over Portage Bay Would Have Greater Noise Impacts Than Tunnel Alignment • Bellevue Way Align- ment Would Have Greater Impact Than I- 405/BNRR Alignments • Sensitive Area: 1.6 Corridor from Ship Canal Bridge to Snohomish County • Noise from Surface or Aerial Rall Structures Could be Greater Than Bus Alternatives ' Water Quality/ Hydrology • No Significant Im- pacts • No Significant Change In Stormwater Runoff OuantIles • Temporary Increases In Erosion and Sediment In Surlace Runoff • Potential Dewatering at Multi -Level Parking Sites • Approximate Increase ol 48 -Acre -Feet of Surface Runoff During 26 -Year Storm • Potential for Localized Impacts (e.g. Land- scaped Areas) • Temporary Increases In Erosion and Sediment In Runoff • Potential Dewatering for Minor Tunnel Construction • Potential for Impacts increased Over TSM Alternative Due to More Construcibn • Approximate Increase of 85 -Acre -Feet of Surface Runoff During 26 -Year Storm • Potential for Localized Impacts • Temporary Increases In Erosion and Sediment In Runoff • Potential Tunnel Dewatering (e.g. Capitol HIII, Rainier Valley and Downtown Bellevue Alignments) • Bridge Conslructon over Duwamish, Puyallup. Cedar and Sammamlah Rivers, Mercer Sbugh, Swamp Creek, and Possibly Portage Bay • Temporary Increase In Suspended Solids • Approximate Increase of 141 -Acre -Feet of Surface Runoff during 25 -Year Storm • Potential for Localized Impacts (e.g. Small Drainages. Land - scaped Areas) Regional -:ill Transit a. flaw $ project BIG caurrtr.PERM COUNTY. axorcMsacarom RTPDDS Environmental Summary Matrix System Plan EIS FIGURE 4 Impact Area No -Build TSM Transltway/TSM Rail/TSM Construction Operation Construotlon Operation Construction Operation Construotlon Operation • Temporary Habitat • Localized Impact • Temporary Habitat • Localized Impact • See TSM • See TSM • Major Ecosystems • See TSM Disturbance and Loss Near Park -and -Ride Disturbance and Lose Near Park -and -Ride • . Potential Wetland Potentially Affected: • Accese/Salety Ecosystems Associated with Park- and-Ride Lots • Sites Potential Lose of Habitat Associated with Urban Sprawl Associated with Park- arxi-Ride Lots, Access Points and HOV Lanes Sites Impact on BNRR Tracks North of Bellevue Swamp Creek, Ouwamish, Puyallup, Sammam!eh and Cedar Rivera; Kelsey Impacts In Undevet- oped Areas Creek, Mercer Slough • 2.5 Trillion BTUs I • Transit Fleet Con- • Energy Costs Assad- • Transit Fleet Con- • See TSM: 30.5 • Transit Fleet Con- • See TSM • Tranelt Fleet Con - Construction Energy sumptlon: 1.9 Trillbn ated with Site Prepa- sumptlon: 3.4 Trillion Trillion BTUs Con- Gumption: 3.6 Trillbn • Energy Expended to sumptlon: 3.8 Trillion Energy Consumption. BTUs per Year and Vehicle Conaumptlon of 190.7 Trillion BTUs ration, Construction of HOV Lanes/Transit Faclllltes, and Trans- BTUs per Year and Vehicle Consumption 01187.5 Trillion BTUs etrrction Energy Cost BTUs per Year and Vehicle Consumption o1 1872 Trillion BTUs Construct Guideway and Fabricate Vehicles • 61.8 Trillion BTUs BTUs per Year and Vehicle Consumption of 183.7 Trillion BTUs per Year Toning Materials to • 17.2 Year Payback • 20.8 Year Payback Construction Energy • 9.6 Year Payback Subject Sltee(s): 31.7 Period Period Cost Period Trillion BTUs • Minimal Park -and- • Increased Traffic • Localized Impact from • Park -and -Ride She • See TSM • Transhway Stations • See TSM Alternative • Potential Adverse Visual Quality/ Vi VI Q Ride Construction Impacts Congestion Affecting Corridor Aesthetics Equipment/Construc- tion Activity, Tempo- rary Loss of Vegeta- tion Impacts (e.g. In- creased Illumination, Change In Land Use) • Could Improve Visual Quality and Character of Activhy Centers • Impacts to Residential Areas with Aerial or Surface Rall Potential Enhance - Aesthetic ment of Resources Character of Activity Centers • Minor Traffic Impacts • Annual Transit • Temporary Traffic and • Annual Transit • Temporary Impacts to • Permanent Closure • See TSM • Traffic Capacity Ridership: 109 MIIUon Congestion Impacts Ridership: 134 Million Rae Facllhles (Spo- of 1.5 Express Lane • Potential for Regional Reduction on 1-5 • VMT: 84.2 MIUIon' During HOV, Park- • VMT: 82.7 Million/ kane Street to SR 599 to SOVe Traffic Congestion Between Seattle CBD Transportation Day and -Ride and Transit Day and From Downtown • Fatal Flaw: Major Impacts and Non hgate (1-5 • VHT: 5.1 Million /Day Base Constructbn • VHT: 5.0 Million/Day Bellevue to SR 520) Congestion on 1-5 N. • Closure of Streets for Alignment) and on SR VMT: Vehicle Miles of • Transit Demand • Transit Demand • Potential for Regional of Downtown Seattle Tunnel Construction 99 South of SeaTac Travel Exceeds Capacity In Downtown Searle Exceeds Capacity In Downtown Seattle Congestion Impacts • Permanent Closure of • Permanent Closure of 114th Avenue NE • Reduced Freeway/ Arterial Street Capac- (11This Alignment le Chosen) VHT: Vehicle Hours of and University District 1-5 Express Lane to • Annual Transit Illy on At Grade • Potential Fatal Flaw Travel SOVs Ridership: 135 AUgnments (N. Corridor I-5 • Permanent Closure of Million • Commuter Rall AUgnment Only): 114th Avenue NE In • VMT: 82.8 Million/ Service: Temporary Major Congestion on Bellevue CBD • Day VHT: 6.0 Million/ Disruption of Freight and Passenger RaU 1-5 N. of Downtown Seattle Day Operations Between • Annual Transit Seattle and Tacoma Ridership: 157 Million • Bridge Corstructbn: • VMT: 81.0 Million/ Temporary Naviga- liana' Impacts • Day VHT: 4.9 MIIIIorVDay ra Regional mm.lh Transit EMI Project IMO COUNTY • PIENS 0001nY• EMOICMa$I rxxMTY RTPOO4 Environmental Summary Matrix System Plan EIS FIGURE 4 Impact Area No-Bulld TSM Transitway/TSM RaII/TSM Construction Operation Construction Operation Construction Operation Construction Operation Land Use/ Economics • Park -and -Ride Specific Land Use Changes i • • • • Increased Pressure for Devebpment of Urban Fringe Inconsistent with Local and Regional Plans Operations and Mainte- naive Expenditures Will Generate Regional Output of 5448 Million • Acquisition of 374 Acres of Land • Terrporary Disruption Adjacent Businesses/ Residences - • Generate Approximately 500 Construction Jobs (25 years), 400 Jobs in Related Industry and 52.6 Billion in Production In Puget Sound Region • Increased Development Opportunities Around Transit Centers • Acquisition of 482 Acres of Land • Temporary Disruption Adjacent Businesses/ Residences .• Generate Approximately 600 Construction Jobs (25 years), 400 Jobs in Related Industry and 53.0 Billion in Production in Puget Sound Region • • • See TSM Alternative Potential for Increased Errpbyment and Population Near Major Centers (e.g. Northgate, South Snohomish County, Duwamish Industrial Area, Kent- Des Moines Road, South 272nd Street, South 84th Street) Partially Consistent With Vision 2020 Plan • Acquisition of 1021 Acres of Land • Temporary Disruption of Adjacent Businesses/ Residences . • Generate Approximately 1,330 Constniction Jobs (25 years), 1,700 Jobs in . Related Industry and 58.2 &Ilion in Production in Puget Sound Region • Significant Local Irnpacrts During Construction of Subway Stations • Consistent withVision 2020 Plan • Increased Accessbility of Station Areas • Provide for Employment/ Development Growth in Centers • Potential for Intensitica- lion of Land Use at Station Areas • Potential Adverse Impacts to Residential Neighborhoods Sur - rounding Park -and -Ride Stations - - Utilities and Public Services • No Significant Impacts • Minimal Impacts to Utility Service and Systems • • Potential Congestion May Result in Impeded Access to Particular Areas by Mobile Services Such as Polioe, Fire Protection or Emergency Medical Setvices Minimal Impacts to Utility Services and Systems • Potential Short -Term Impact s on Access to and Usability of Public Service Facilities and on the Movement of Emergency Vehicles in the -Vicinity of Construc- tion Activity • Minimal Impacts to Utility Services and Systems • • Impacts Limited to Public Service Facilties Close to Park -and -Ride Sites or Other TSM Facilities Minimal Impact to Utility Services and Systems • Potential Shod -Term Impacts on Access to and Usability of Public Service Facilities and on the Movement of Emergency Vehicles in the Vicinity of Construc- tbn Activity • Potential Impact of Relocating Service Facilities • • • Potential Reduction In Accessbility and Public Services From Some Locations or Impeded Access for Mobile Emergency Services Potential kir Duality and Noise Impacts on Public Service Facilities Emergency Access to Elevated or Tunnel Segments of Atignments will Require Special Planning and Equipment • Potential Short -Term Impacts on Access to and Usability of Public Service Facilities and on the Movement of Emer- gory Vehicles In the Vicinity of Constniction Activity • Potential Impact of Relocating Service Facilities • Potential Impacts on Utility Services and Systems Due to Tunnel- Ing Activities • Potential Reduction in Accessbility and Public Services From Some Locations or Impeded Access for Mobile Emergency Services • Potential Air Duality and Noise Irrpacts on Public Service Facilities • Emergency Access to Elevated or Tunnel Segments of Alignments will Require Special Planning and Equipment Parks and ROCreation • No Significant Impacts . • No Impact • Potential Short- Term Impact to Approxi- matey 21 Parks (e.g. Access, Usability, Right- of -Way) • • Impacts Umited to Park ' Lands Close to Park- and -Ride Sites Improved Accessibility to Parklands • See TSM Alternative • Soo TSM Alternative • Potential Impact 10 50 Parks (e.g. Access, Visual, Right -of -Way, Usability) • See TSM Alternative • Improved Accessbility to Parklands Historic and Cultural Resources • • No Significant Impacts • No Significant Impacts • Potential Impacts to Historic Districts/ Properties, Including Koelefs Corner in Lynnwood • • See Construction Impacts • Potential Impacts to Rainier Cold Storage and Ice/Seattle Brewing and Malting Company Building Airport Way South and Georgetown City Hall. Ramps and Stations Could Impact Nearby Historic Proper- ties • See Construction Impacts • • Greatest Potential for Impacts to Historic Resources, Including Capitol Hill Area, Harvard- Belmont Historic District, Volunteer Park, University District, Columbia City Historic District, Historic/ Conservation Districts in Tacoma and Properties in Everett • See Construction Irrpacts • Operations of Commuter Rail Could Affect Historic Properties in Downtown Seattle, Green River Valley, Kent, Auburn, Puyallup and Puyallup River Valley MM. • Regional 111 Transit U5fl1.Ul Project IMO COUNTY • PIERCE COUNTY • 64014011160 COMM RTPOD6 Environmental Summary Matrix System Plan EIS FIGURE 4 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background The Regional Transit System Plan addresses transportation and mobility issues in the central Puget Sound region, encompassing King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. Population and employment have grown rapidly in this area during the last decade and that growth is expected to continue over the next 30 years. Consequently, the three counties, each of which originally grew around its own urban center, have become a single urban growth area with major employment centers developing in suburban areas. Transporta- tion planning has necessarily become regional in scope. Population and employment decentralization, increasing population, and increasing vehicle use by households have strained the limits of the transportation infrastruc- ture. They have also exacerbated air quality problems. The region has three options to deal with the problem: (1) significantly expand freeway and arterial networks to accommodate expected automobile traffic increases, (2) find ways to significantly increase transit, high -occupancy vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian trips to slow the increase in automobile traffic, and/or (3) reduce growth in total vehicular trips and trip lengths by changing land use patterns. Because of the environmental and policy constraints on expanding single -occupant vehicle facilities, the region'suris- dictions have turned to the second and third options. The Puget Sound' Council of Government's (PSCOG's) Vision 2020 Plan (PSCOG 1990) emphasized public transportation improvements. Elected officials and transit providers, including Community Transit, Everett Transit, the Munici- pality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro), Pierce Transit, and the Snohomish County Transportation Authonty (SNO-TRAN) have been working together to develop a regional mass transit system that could provide a competitive _alternative to single -occupant vehicles. These operators have also been working with local planning authorities and the Washington State Depart- ment of Transportation (WSDOT) to ensure compatibility of transit improvements with land -use and transportation plans. Metro, as the transit provider for the central and largest county in the three -county area, has taken the lead role in defining the alternatives by which a regional mass transit system could be realized by the year 2020. Those alternatives are the subject of this System Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The Joint Regional Policy Committee (JRPC) is guiding the Regional Transit Project. The JRPC, established according to state law in 1990, is made up of transit agency governing board members (local elected officials) plus the state's Secretary of Transportation. The transit agencies are Metro, SNO-TRAN, Commumty Transit, Everett Transit and Pierce Transit. The JRPC must approve the final Regional Transit System Plan before a multi - county Regional Transit Authority (RTA) is created and seeks voter approval for the plan. An independent Expert Review Panel (ERP), also established according to state law, was appointed by the governor, legislature and state transportation department to make sure the analysis in the RTP proposal is sound. The ten - member panel approves methodology for all RTP analyses, reviews all RTP technical documents, and must complete its review of the analysis used to Background 1-1 March 1993 develop the System Plan before the RTA presents a rapid -transit funding proposal to voters. 1.2 System Plan Definition The JRPC recommended a draft System Plan to help focus public review and comment on alternatives described in detail in this DEIS. The draft System Plan addresses regional public transportation needs and objectives in Snohomish, King and Pierce counties. The following discussion summarizes the proposed system improvements, the Study Area, and its boundaries and comdors. A recommended draft System Plan was issued at the same time as the DEIS. Copies of the System Plan are available from Metro. An address, telephone number, and contact person are provided in the Fact Sheet at the beginning of this document. 1.2.1 Description The draft System Plan proposes capital improvements and service changes that will improve regional mass transit, increase transit speeds, service, and reliability, and encourage transit and high occupancy vehicle use by giving them priority on arterials and freeways. A rapid transit system is a central plan element. The plan identifies centers served, corridors, technology options, costs, and transportation system effects. The rapid transit system would be built over the next 30 years, with service projected to begin in the year 2001. This system is crucial to maintaining mobility to support regional growth strategies as outlined in PSCOG's Vision 2020 plan. The capital improvements analyzed in the System Plan FEIS include a proposal for a rapid rail system serving Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, Bellevue and other centers, coupled with commuter rail in the Green River Valley. Alternatively, a lower-cost transitway system serving the same centers is analyzed in this FEIS, as well as a set of specific transportation system management (TSM) improvements, which are analyzed both as a separate alternative and as a stand-alone base for either rapid -transit alternative. 1.2.2 Boundaries The System Plan is regional in scope, covering the urbanized areas of King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. The plan study area includes the I-5 and I- 405 corridors north to Marysville; the 1-5, Green Puyallup River valleys, and I-405 corridors south to Tacoma and Lakewood; and the I-90 and SR -520 corridors east to Issaquah and Redmond. 1.2.3 Study Area The regional transit plan divides the study area into three major subareas (Figure 1.1), the North, South and East subareas. Downtown Seattle is included in all three subareas. For simplicity, the three study subareas are referred to as the North Corridor, South Corridor, and East Corridor in this document. The corridors have been defined for study purposes only. The identified boundaries are not meant to reflecta staging plan for the System. Background 1-2 March 1993 �tCCHDRD PM COWRY •►Blee COURT• IMC4C111814 COWRY RRrvccz Study Area Boundaries System Plan EIS FIGURE 1.1 hour speeds on freeways and major arterials are 50 percent slower. Travel speeds have also become very sensitive to minor traffic incidents. Due to congestion, a temporary loss of just one lane can slow traffic for an extended time. o A lack of alternatives to the single -occupant vehicle (SOV), or personal automobile, underlies and aggravates the more apparent problems of congestion and slower travel. Existing alternative travel routes are limited by the region's topography. Most traffic is channeled into a handful of heavily -traveled corridors. Alternatives to single -occupant vehicle (SOV) travel are unattractive to many travelers. The existing high -occupancy -vehicle (HOV) system provides limited benefit because it is fragmented. In key sections, the "system" currently allows travel in only one direction. Because buses operate in the same roadways as general and HOV traffic, transit typically offers no comparative speed advan- tage. Transit routes also cannot consistently provide convenient, timely connections to outlying destinations due to current funding limitations. These factors make it very difficult for transit to compete with SOVs. 1.3.2 Roots of Current Transportation Problems Major transportation system changes are typically designed to meet travel needs 20 years in the future. Today's transportation problems can be traced to transportation investment decisions and travel changes that have occurred since about 1970. Today's problems evolved from a lack of investment in major transportation infrastructure and facilities while the amount of miles traveled soared: o Major transportation improvements recommended in past regional plans have consistently been deferred or eliminated. Today's trans- portation problems were clearly anticipated in previous regional plans. The improvements recommended to address these problems, however, have largely been eliminated or deferred. Though many reasons exist for not making investments, the net effect is that transportation system capacity has changed only marginally since 1970. o Travel growth has far exceeded the projections on which past trans- portation plans were based. Today's travel volume is 30 percent to 70 percent greater than projected in past transportation plans. Because the improvements recommended in the past were based on lower travel volumes than exist today, there is a tremendous shortfall in transportation system capacity. o Alternative investments for managing travel demand have not been able to solve the problem. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, attention was turned to public transit, vanpools, ridesharing, and other techniques to meet travel needs instead of building new roads. These efforts produced significant benefits, but they did not substitute for major improvements. Further, their potential benefit has been limited by development patterns and economics that have discouraged transit use and by the lack of infrastructure improvements. Project Purpose and Need 1-5 March 1993 o Continued residential suburbanization, a more rapid suburbanization of employment locations, and a continued trend toward lower -density development have increased the distance between home, work, and shopping areas. These trends have added to travel demand growth, since maintaining mobility now requires longer trips. This trend has been encouraged by free parking in most areas and low gasoline prices. The trends have also eroded alternative transit investments' effectiveness, since these work best when serving concentrations of employment, concentrations of population, or both. 1.3.2.1 Rejection of Previous Recommendations In the past 25 years, several comprehensive transportation plans have been prepared recommending transportation investments for the central Puget Sound region. Each plan anticipated the major transportation problems faced today - severe congestion, declining travel speed, and a lack of trans- portation alternatives. With the notable exceptions of the downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel, the I-90 bridges, and the first phase of the HOV system, the improvements necessary to avoid these problems have not been made. The following deferred or eliminated transportation investments could have altered the nature and reduced the scale of current problems: o 156 miles of freeways recommended in the Puget Sound Regional Transportation Study: Recommendations to 1990 (1967) o a 47 -mile rail rapid transit system recommended in Report on a Comprehensive Public Transportation Plan for the Seattle Metropolitan Area (1967) o 87 miles of freeways and expressways and 89 miles of exclusive transit - ways recommended in the 1990 Transportation System Plan for the Central Puget Sound Region (1974) o 118 miles of high -occupancy -vehicle (HOV) lanes recommended in the Regional Transportation Plan (PSCOG 1982). These investments were not made because of the unattractive political and economic costs associated with building major roadways and abelief that . low-cost alternatives to automobile travel could satisfy browing travel needs. The void left by eliminating or deferring the above projects proved difficult to overcome with low-cost alternatives. 1.3.2.2 Travel Demand Growth Today's regional travel far exceeds projections used to support past trans- portation plan recommendations (Figure 1.2). Because those plans underes- timated today's travel volumes, the problems resulting from eliminating and deferring major transportation investments have been compounded. While travel can be measured in many ways, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is a generally -accepted term for the overall travel volume on a transportation system. In 1990, PSCOG estimated daily VMT was about 55.1 million miles (PSCOG 1990). This compares to 32 million VMT forecasted for 1990 in Project Purpose and Need 1-6 March 1993 Actual Puget Sound Reg. Trans. Study, 1967 1990 Trans. System Plan, 1974 Regional Trans. Plan, 1982 OKI COATI • POCK GOYIM, 9110K011311 MORI RTP£020O Actual Versus Projected Vehicle Miles Traveled System Plan EIS FIGURE 1.2 1967. Today's VMT already exceeds a year 2000 projection prepared just nine years ago. Why has travel increased so dramatically? Several trends have contributed to its growth (PSCOG 1990): o Population and employment growth dramatically increased the number of trips. Between 1970 and 1990, population in the region grew by 30 percent and employment doubled. Also, due to a prevalence of two - income families, tnps were concentrated in peak periods. o Land -development patterns increased distance traveled. In 1990, the average work trip was 9.8 miles, versus 8.7 miles in 1970. Average residential density declined from about 20 people per acre in 1970 to about 14 people per acre in 1990. This was a principal cause of longer trips. o Automobile ownership increased by 108 percent between 1970 and 1990, adding to a drop in automobile occupancy (the number of people riding together). In 1990, there was roughly one car in the region for every person of driving age. Today, we travel more, over longer distances, and with fewer people than in the past. This has overburdened the transportation system. Between 1990 and 2020, the central Puget Sound region is projected to grow by 52 percent in population and 57 percent in terms of jobs. Traffic is projected to increase by 78. percent. The projected results are sobering: peak period congestion of up to five hours each afternoon and average freeway speeds of less than 15 mph (PSCOG 1988). 1.3.2.3 Insufficiency of Low -Cost Transportation Investments Several types of investment have been made since 1970 as an alternative to building roadways and major facilities. Transit service, vanpools, and ride - sharing have been used to stretch roadway capacity by reducing the vehicle numbers required to carry a given number of people. Other strategies, such as flexible work hours and telecommuting, have tried to reduce congestion by diverting travel from the peak commuting hours. While the service investments have been effective, they have not been enough (PSCOG 1990). Though transit and vanpool ndership has doubled since 1970, transit and vanpool capacity in 1990 represented a smaller portion of total daily travel than in 1970. In spite of emphasis placed on these programs, their relative benefit has declined because of the tremen- dous travel increase. Furthermore, these measures' potential benefits are limited by land -development practices and economics that encourage SOV travel. Residential densities have dropped 30 percent since 1970. Free, ample parking has been a feature of almost half of new jobs since 1970. During the 1980s, as travel expanded rapidly, the cost oowning and operat- ing a car dropped. Finally, the same congestion that has slowed automobile travel has made transit less efficient and less reliable than ten years ago. If an investment in transit and HOV facilities is to be effective, it must be at a scale much greater than the investments of the past twenty years. Project Purpose and Need 1-8 March 1993 1.3.3 Options One way to deal with the region's transportation problems would be to build new roadways, particularly freeways. A second option is to significantly increase the ability of public transit and HOVs to compete with SOVs. The Regional Transit Project is evaluating a combination of HOV lanes and rapid -transit alignments, due to their relative cost-effectiveness, lesser right- of-way requirements, and relative environmental benefits. The Regional Transit Project is also proposing to increase transit efficiency and speed by improving bus access to the HOV system and identifying and "choke choke points for public transit. To take advantage of increased speeds and efficiency created by the capital program and to bring passengers to the rapid transit system, there would also be a significant increase in and restructuring of transit service to better meet the region's transportation needs. 1.3.3.1 Comparative Cost -Effectiveness of Transportation Facilities New transportation facilities needed to address transportation problems in the central Puget Sound region are likely to total several billion dollars over the next 30 years. Thus, alternative facility investments' cost-effectiveness will be a serious concern. A facility's potential cost-effectiveness is measured by comparing cost to the number of users it serves at a time over a given distance. Cost-effectiveness depends on the ability to attract enough users to offset the initial capital cost of a facility. It thus is affected by the convenience to users: o Freeway lanes remain effective up to volumes of about 2,000 vehicles per hour passing a single point. This capacity is reduced when roadways have closely spaced on- and off -ramps, curves, steep grades, or other constraining features. With an average of 1.2 persons per vehicle, one general-purpose freeway lane can effectively carry up to 2,400 persons per hour. The cost per passenger mile of freeway travel, based on average vehicle occupancies, changes little as travel volume increases - additional lanes must be added for about every 2,400 vehicles. o Depending on the mix of vehicles (buses, vanpools, and carpools), an HOV lane has a wide range of theoretical capacities. The theoretical capacities are affected by the location of the facility (center or side of freeway) and the capital investment made in separation protection and access and egress facilities. A protected HOV lane used primarily by buses could carry upwards of. 9,600 people per hour. For study purposes, the theoretical capacity was adjusted to reflect a traffic volume (vehicles per hour) that would maintain a speed advantage over the freeway lanes, the TSM capital investment made in exclusivity and access and ingress improvements, and the type of vehicles and average vehicle occupancy rates expected from the RTP projections of travel demand by mode. The resulting capacity estimates are 4,800 to 5,700 persons per hour. Assuming the mix of carpools, vanpools, and buses is constant, the range in capacity results from the minimum number of persons allowed for a carpool. Project Purpose and Need 1-9 March 1993 o Rapid transit can be much more cost-effective than freeway invest- ments, provided that enough riders are attracted to the system. The theoretical capacity of a busway, or barrier -separated lane for exclusive bus use, is approximately 22,000 persons per hour in one directionypast a single point. This equates to 560 buses per hour loaded with 40 persons per bus. However, use of this theoretical capacity would not accurately reflect the transit service or capital investment represented in the Transitway/TSM Alternative studied in this FEIS. Accommodating this volume of bus flow would require exclusive use of the transitway by buses, a transitway 47 feet wide (two lanes in each direction), a larger investment in entrance ramps, exit ramps, priority treatments, terminal facilities, center street capacity, and many more buses than are currently antici ated. After these factors have been adjusted for, the transitway lanes in the Transitway/TSM Alternative (single highway lanes with jersey concrete barriers) can accommodate a combination of buses, vans, and HOVs with a reliable capacity of approximately 9,400 persons per hour. A rapid rail line with 4 -car trains operating in exclusive right-of-way on 90 second headways has the capacity to carry over 22,000 persons per hour past a single point in each direction. The capacity is determined by multiplying the trains per hour times the number of cars per train times the number of people per car (40 trains per hour times 4 cars per train times 140 persons per car). These numbers represent the rail capacity of the downtown Seattle transit tunnel; capacity would be higher in segments with less frequent station stops. In companson, the bus passenger capacity of the downtown Seattle transit tunnel is about 13,400 passengers per hour in each direction. 1.3.3.2 Comparative Right -of -Way Requirements Any significant new transportation facility will require right-of-way, whether for automobile lanes, rail beds, busways, or HO'Tlanes. In a built-up urban area, right-of-way can be a significant percentage of the facility cost. The greater the amount of right-of-way required, the more businesses and residences that must be relocated and the more neighborhood disruption is likely. The wider the right-of-way required for a new facility, the greater the probability that the resulting displacement costs and neighborhood disrup- tion will be unacceptable. In the comparison of right-of-way requirements that follows, the figures for right-of-way width represent typical cross-sections for the respective facilities. The figures are from one side of the facility to the other and do not include any easements or temporary right-of-way requirements needed during construction. The land displacement of alternatives carrying higher -capacity vehicles would be less than the comparable displacement needed to increase freeway capac- ity for general-purpose traffic. To move 22,000 people per hour, a freeway carrying general-purpose traffic would require 18 lanes (9 in each direction). This requires approximately 270 feet of continuous right-of-way, expanding to well over 300 feet for access and exit ramps (Figure 1.3). A freeway that includes an HOV lane in each direction requires 16 lanes or 246 feet of continuous right-of-way to move 22,000 people per hour. (Given Project Purpose and Need 1-10 March 1993 Freeway With No Carpool Lanes Freeway With Carpool Lanes Busway Rail Regional 1 Transit Project 04 oa. m • rem Down • sawaN wua. RT OMOD At -Grade Right -of -Way Requirements for. 22,000 Riders per Hour System Plan EIS FIGURE 1.3 current automobile occupancies, one HOV lane in each direction would be sufficient to carry all HOVs.) An exclusive 2 -lane busway would require about 47 feet of right-of-way, expanding to 72 feet or more at stations. The cross-section through a busway typically includes a twelve -foot travel lane, a ten -foot shoulder for emergencies, and 1.5 feet of clearance from side obstructions. The resulting 23.5 feet increases to 47 feet when bidirectional travel is added. Off-line stations are required to maintain high capacity and result in a 72 foot cross- section: a twelve -foot travel lane, a twelve -foot bus loading lane, and a twelve -foot station platform, or 36 feet per direction. A rapid rail line would require about 40 feet of continuous right-of-way, expanding to 60 feet or more at station areas. The cross-section through a double -tracked rapid rail line usually requires approximately fourteen feet from the centerline of one track to the centerline of the other track, which provides enough space to accommodate a catenary pole; seven feet of clearance from the centerline of each track to the edge of any obstruction, and an additional six feet for walkways, acoustical barriers, ditches, or walls, depending on the vertical profile. The 40 foot requirement for the line section expands to approximately a 60 feet minimum when a center or side station platform is added. Commuter rail, because it usually operates on existing railroad tracks, generally needs no new right-of-way. It is clear from the comparison that the displacement impacts of the higher capacity alternatives would be much less than the comparable displacement needed to increase freeway capacity. 1.3.3.3 Comparative Environmental Benefits The option chosen to deal with our transportation problems will also affect air quality and energy use (Figures 1.4 and 1.5). Motor vehicles generate about 70 to 75 percent of total carbon monoxide emissions and 80 percent of the particulate matter polluting the region's air. Although emissions per passenger car have dropped significantly since the 1970s, growth in total vehicle miles traveled has dinumshed the air quality benefits of cleaner cars and is expected to contribute to a reversal of recent trends and increase aggregate vehicular emissions within the next 10 to 15 years. The Puget Sound region is currently in nonattainment status with respect to National Ambient Air Quality Standards for carbon monoxide, ozone, and particulate matter. It is estimated that in 2020 a person driving alone in a gasoline - powered car will generate an average of about 12 grams of carbon monoxide per mile, which is more than 100 times the expected average carbon monoxide emissions per passenger mile of a natural gas bus with the expected average occupancy of 11 people, factoring in deadhead miles. It is estimated that the same person in an SOV would generate approximately 2.5 times as much nitrogen oxides and 13 times as much hydrocarbon emissions as the expected per passenger mile emissions of a natural gas powered bus. Estimated average exhaust particulate emissions would be roughly equivalent per passenger mile for a gasoline -powered SOV and a natural gas powered bus. Estimated per passenger mile emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons from the exhausts of three-person carpools in gasoline - powered cars are significantly higher than for natural gas buses. Estimated per passenger mile particulate emissions from the exhausts of carpools and vanpools would probably be somewhat less than the overall average per Project Purpose and Need 1-12 March 1993 Hydrocarbons Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Oxides Particulate Matter LEGEND •. Regional 1.7111 Transit um mos 1 Project ONO COLINIV • PEACE couerrf • PODIUM WWI RTPCO204T Single -Occupant Vehicles 3 -Person Carpool Natural Gas Bus (11 Passengers)* * Projected average transit passenger load per mile including deadhead mileage. Source: BRW, Inc. based on Mobile 4.1 Emissions Model, Booz, Allen & Hamilton 2020 Estimated Potential Air Pollutant Production per Passenger Mile System Plan EIS FIGURE 1.4 7000 6000 - • 5000 m 4000 a>' c0 a 3000 - N D m 2000 - 1000 0 sov Automobile *At current average Metro passenger Toad. **Average Toad projected for 2020. Diesel Bus' (11 Passengers) Electric Train" (24 Passengers) ▪ Regional -m nalnsit Q om' Project 1010 cam • reef Court! • mows., COUNTY RTPGo ssr Energy Consumption by Mode System Plan EIS FIGURE 1.5 1.3.3.4 passenger mile emissions from the exhaust of a natural gas bus, although vehicular exhaust particulate emissions as a whole are expected to be quite low by weight in 2020. Individuals riding on electric trolley buses or electrically powered rail vehicles will not contribute to vehicle exhaust emissions, although there are likely to be some electrical power source emissions associated with the use of fossil fuel powered energy plants which contribute to regional electrical energy supply. Similarly, the person traveling in an SOV requires about 6,200 BTUs of energy per mile; about 2,067 BTUs of energy by carpool; and about 3,775 BTUs of energy in a 40 -foot bus with an average load. At peak hours, when transit vehicles are near capacity, energy use per passenger mile is typically half to two-thirds less. The choices we make will thus have major implications for our ability to control air pollution and conserve energy for years to come. Growth and Transportation Demand Management The Growth Management Act (HB 2929 and ESHB 1025; codified at Chapter 36.70A RCW) passed by the. Washington State Legislature in 1990 requires consistency between land -use and transportation planning. In practice, this means that the transportation system must be capable of serving the land use, population, and employment of the region at a level of service acceptable to jurisdictions. The Growth Management Act also requires the region's counties to set urban growth boundaries. The thrust of the act is to promote higher -density development in the urban parts of the region and discourage growth beyond the urban boundary. Similarly, PSCOG's (1990) regional plan, Vision 2020, proposes a regional growth management strategy that includes developing compact, well-defined communities, concentrating new employment growth into selected centers, providing higher -density residential areas, and containing urban area expan- sion. Freeways and similar facilities aimed primarily at serving automobiles promote a dispersed, low-density growth pattern, particularly on the urban fringe. As a result, open space is being consumed at an alarming rate. Since 1970, while population grew by 30 percent, the amount of developed land in the region expanded by 80 percent. Growth management, as mandated by the State Legislature and developed in Vision 2020, encourages a change in the emphasis on the types of new transportation facilities developed in the future. Rapid transit facilities promote more concentrated employment and residen- tiaf densities than new freeways and arterials. In areas where there is efficient mass transit and appropriate zoning, businesses and families can cluster near transit facilities. Bus and rapid transit facilities are most successful where there are relatively high-density employment and housing areas. Vision 2020 calls for a regional rapid transit system to support higher densities and policies and facilities promoting HOV use and discouraging single -occupant vehicle use. In 1991, the State Legislature passed the Commute Trip Reduction Act, HB 1671, which provides that counties, cities, and towns must implement a commute trip reduction plan for major employers. The plan includes goals Project Purpose and Need 1-15 March 1993 1.3.4 for reduction of single -occupant commute trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per employee. The law provides further support for policies that discourage SOVs and promote transit, HOVs, and bicycling and pedestrian modes, as well as alternatives such as telecommuting. System Plan Purpose The System Plan purpose is to present an effective rapid transit alternative to the problems associated with automobile use in the three -county region. It has also been developed in response to a King County vote in 1988 calling for expedited regional rapid transit planning. Just implementing the System Plan will not solve congestion on the region's freeways and arterials or environmental problems associated with automo- bile use. It will, however, effectively provide mobility for people throughout the region without requiring them to depend on the congested freeway network. The System Plan proposes the following to increase public transit's efficiency and effectiveness: o completing the freeway HOV system through a combination of federal, state, and local funding o improving bus access to the HOV system o identifying and removing transit "choke points" by giving buses priority at those points o improving the public transit infrastructure o substantially expanding bus service o promoting transit-, bicycle-, and pedestrian -friendly land use in major transit corridors o building a regional rapid transit system. The System Plan will also support city and county measures enacted to manage growth and reduce automobile use to major employment and commercial centers. Finally, the System Plan's emphasis on public transit facilities provides more regional transportation capacity without requiring the amount of additional nght-of-way or increased environmental impacts of adding comparable capacity for SOVs on regional roadways. 1.4 History of the System Plan The following is a brief history of planning for rapid transit in the central Puget Sound region. Table 1.1 shows a chronology of the most significant events. 1.4.1 Forward Thrust A rail system was first proposed in Seattle in 1968. The Forward Thrust Public Transportation Plan proposed a $385 million Metro general obligation bond issue to fund the local one-third share of a $1.155 billion coordinated bus/rail rapid transit system. The plan was one of 12 ballot elements of the proposed capital improvement program and was defeated in the 1968 Metro general obligation bond election. A comprehensive Public Transportation Plan and a financing plan for the Seattle metropolitan area to improve and increase public transportation in the region to 1985 and beyond was placed on the ballot again in 1970. The $440 million general obligation bond to fund a $1.321 billion bus and rail transit system was defeated. Project Purpose and Need 1-16 March 1993 Table 1.1. Regional Rapid Transit Planning Chronology. Date Significant Event 1968 Forward Thrust Public Transportation Plan. Proposed rapid transit bond issue failed 1970 Rapid transit bond issue failed 1981 PSCOG Light -Rail Transit (LRT) Feasibility Study.. Concluded LRT was feasible; ranked corridors 1982 PSCOG adopted Regional Transportation Plan, including LRT recommendations 1984 North Corridor preliminary alternatives analysis initiated by PSCOG and Metro with UMTA funding support 1986 Multi -Corridor Project (MCP), joint PSCOG/Metro rapid transit alternatives analysis recommended rail planning to begin in 1993, rail system in operation by 2020 1986 North Corridor Extension Project by SNO-TRAN. Recommended LRT extension to Everett 1987 Tacoma -Seattle Transit Connections Project. Recommended LRT extension south to Tacoma 1987 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study. 1988 State Rail Commission Report. Recommended planning requirements, implementation authorities, and rail funding 1988 King County Advisory Ballot. King County voters support accelerated rail planning 1988 PSCOG advanced rail implementation schedule to begin operating by year 2000 1989 Metro Long -Range Plan scoping conducted Metro High -Capacity Transit Program begins Public, Transportation Plan for Snohomish County Pierce County Transportation Plan Policy Document 1990 Expert Review Panel established High Capacity Transit Act passed Growth Management Act passed Transit agencies set up Joint Regional Policy Committee PSCOG adopts Vision 2020 Plan Vision 2020 Plan Draft and Final EIS issued Metro's draft Long -Range Plan prepared 1991 Scoping for Metro 2000 Plan Metro, Pierce Transit, and SNO-TRAN begin preparing regional transit system plan Commute Trip Reduction Act passed 1992 Draft Regional Transit System Plan and System Plan DEIS issued 1993 System Plan FEIS issued 1.4.2 Establishing Rapid Transit Feasibility After the two votes failed, railplanning went into abeyance through the 1970s. Planning for a rapid r system was revived by the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) in its 1981 Light -Rail Transit Feasibility Study. The study concluded that light-rail transit could be feasible in the central Puget Sound region and ranked the region's high-volume traffic corridors by the probable feasibility and cost-effectiveness, as follows: 1. North Corridor and downtown Seattle, between downtown and Lynnwood 2. East Corridor from downtown Seattle to the north or northeast of Bellevue 3. South Corridor to south of Southcenter in a nonfreeway alignment 4. South Corridor to Tacoma 5. North Corridor to Everett. History of the System Plan 1-17 March 1993 1.4.3 The study recommended more detailed analysis of alignment alternatives. PSCOG adopted the recommendations in 1982 in the Regional Transporta- tion Plan. North Corridor preliminary alternatives analysis began in 1984 as a joint PSCOG-Metro effort, with partial funding from the Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA). The study recommended light-rail transit and advanced bus technology as preferred alternatives for the North Corridor. It also recommended a bus tunnel in downtown Seattle. The preferred align- ment followed I-5. PSCOG adopted these recommendations. Analysis of rapid transit alternatives continued in 1986 with theoint Metro- PSCOG Multi -Corridor Project (MCP). The project studied light-rail transit, bus trunk/feeder and baseline bus service in the three major corridors for the year 2020. The MCP recommended that a passenger rail system be in opera- tion by the year 2020, but deferred further detailed rail planning until 1993 (PSCOG/Metro 1986). This schedule allowed for evaluating the effects of the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel and the new I-90 bridge, and complet- ing major elements of the state HOV system elements before selecting an initial rail segment. The study recommended: o Preparing a detailed public transportation plan through the year 2000 o Developing rail right-of-way preservation programs o Promoting transit -supportive development by local governments. Two other studies, SNO-TRAN's North Corridor Extension Project (SNO- TRAN 1986) in Snohomish County and the Pierce County Subregional Council's Tacoma -Seattle Transit Connections Project recommended light- rail extensions north to Everett along I-5 and south to Tacoma, respectively. The PSCOG Executive Board and the Metro Council endorsed the recom- mendations and those of the Multi -Corridor Project. Metro's Long -Range Plan Metro followed up on the Multi -Corridor Project recommendations in its Long -Range Plan program, evaluating transit alternatives for the 1990s. Dunng the 1988 budget process, the Capital Program was amended to provide $1.1 million for planning right-of-way preservation, developing rail - convertibility standards, and conducting station -area analyses for potential station sites. Several factors made it clear that detailed rail planning needed to start before the recommended target date of 1993, including: o The State Rail Development Commission assumed an earlier rail implementation schedule. o Public surveys revealed an intense interest in rail technology. o Legal analysis indicated that a successful right-of-way preservation program would require a policy decision on an initial segment. o Major capital investments in key markets such as Bellevue and the University District needed to be coordinated with future rail invest- ments. o Capacity constraints outside of downtown Seattle needed to be addressed as soon as possible because of increasing congestion. History of the System Plan 1-18 March 1993 o Regional decisions regarding transportation investments in new roadways needed to be integrated with rail planning. In response to these issues the Metro Council adopted Resolution No. 5502 on September 15, 1988. The resolution required Metro to help develop a three -county interagency coordination plan and recommended: o Evaluating an initial rail and integrated bus system o Beginning construction of an initial rapid -transit system by 1995. 1.4.4 Rapid Transit Planning In 1988 the PSCOG Assembly adopted a policy to advance the planning schedule for rail to begin operating by 2000. PSCOG's 1990-2000 High - Capacity Transit System Plan identified priority locations throughout the region for HOV facilities, passenger ferries, and rail and busway systems. In 1990 the State Legislature established a state high-capacity transportation program, which funded planning by local jurisdictions and tax mechanisms for paying for building.a system. It required a planning process modeled on the alternatives analysis process prescribed by the UMTA (now the Federal Transit Administration or FTA). In response, Metro modified its rapid -transit planning to begin alternatives analysis for a regional system, rather than only one transportation corridor. Potential alignments were screened for feasibility and environmental impacts. It was evident by spring 1991 that rapid -transit planning had to take place within the context of an overall regional transit plan. It also became apparent that the 20 -year minimum specified by UMTA (now FTA) for alternatives analysis was not sufficient to analyze the proposed rapid -transit system's full extent and impacts. For these reasons, Metro put detailed alter- natives analysis on hold until it could produce a comprehensive plan for regional transit through the year 2020. The System Plan is the result. The Snohomish County Transportation Authority (SNO-TRAN) has been coordinating rapid transit planning within Snohomish County. In 1988, the jurisdictions situated along the I-5 corridor between the Snohomish/King County line and the City of Everett adopted an intergovernmental agreement pertaining to the preservation of right-of-way and associated land for a planned high capacity transit system within the I-5 corridor of Snohomish County. Since then a series of local station area studies have been completed to assist local jurisdictions in their consideration and evaluation of alternative sites for high capacity transit stations (SNO-TRAN 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990). 1.4.5 Recent Legislation Affecting Local Mass Transit Growth Management Act The 1990 Growth Management Act, HB 2929 (codified as Chapter 36.70A RCW), requires transit level of service (LOS) standards, plans complying with standards, and identification of expansion needs. The act also requires local jurisdictions to implement transportation demand management strategies, including measures to boost transit use. Transportation plans must be consis- tent with comprehensive plans and the transportation system must serve the History of the System Plan 1-19 March 1993 land use, population, and employment provided for in the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan must include an acquisition plan for trans- portation corridors. The 1991 amendments to the Growth Management Act, HB 1025, provides incentives for local governments to comply with HB 2929. The act also requires regional planning among Pierce, King, and Snohomish counties and coordinated transportation planning between counties and cities. See also Appendix F. • High Capacity Transit Legislation HB 1825 - High Capacity Transit Funding and Planning established the joint regional policy committee (JRPC). The JRPC is responsible for preparing and adopting the high capacity transportation System Plan, to be reviewed by the expert review panel. The act encourages counties to adopt goals for reducing SOV use and provides taxing authority to accelerate HOV lane development and increase HOV use. HB 1677- High Capacity Transit Funding and Planning details the funding, public involvement, and review requirements for use of state HCT funds. H$ 2151- High Capacity Transit details the process for coordination between agencies and local jurisdictions. HB 2610 - Regional Transportation defines the process b which two or more counties can establish a regional transit authonty (RTA) to develop and operate a high capacity transit system. See also Appendix F. Other Legislation The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments require EPA to issue guidelines for transportation control measures for improved public transit, busways, and HOV lanes, employer -based transportation management plans, trip -reduc- tion ordinances, providing high -occupancy, shared -ride services, and a phase- in of alternative fuel vehicles for auto and truck fleets. The amendments also require local transportation plans to include the purpose of eliminating and reducing air quality violations. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) repre- sents landmark transportation legislation with potentially far reaching impli- cations for helping to achieve the objectives of the federal Clean Air Act. It requires coordination between the transportation and air quality planning processes, with flexible funding being provided to help urban areas develop and implement the transportation portions of State Implementation Plans. A $6 billion Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program is created to help implement projects and programs that will contribute to achieving attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Urbanized areas over 200,000 population are designated as Transportation Demand Management Areas. Each such area is to have a congestion management system that provides for "use of travel demand reduction and operational management strategies." The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires transit agencies to make their services accessible to people with disabilities or to provide substantially equivalent service for people who cannot be accommodated on the transit system. To meet the ADA requirements, transit agencies will be upgrading transit vehicles and loading facilities, buying new vehicles that provide substantially better access, designing transit centers and stations with access for people with disabilities in mind, and expanding their demand -responsive services to people with disabilities. History of the System Plan 1-20 March 1993 HB 1671 - Transportation Demand Management requires Washington counties, cities, and towns to implement a commute trip reduction plan for major employers. The plan includes goals for reduction of SOV commute trips and VMT per employee; designation of commute trip reduction zones; requirements for trip -reduction programs by major employers and public agencies; and parking policy revisions. The act allows civil penalties for employers who fail to implement or modify programs. 1.5 EIS Purpose The System Plan EIS provides a programmatic review of the Regional Transit System Plan. Adoption of a System Plan preferred alternative will be anonpro ect action, which is defined by SEPA as an action "different or broader than a single site-specific project" (WAC 197-11-774). More detailed study of the adopted alternative will take place in project -level analysis and environmental review. The System Plan EIS addresses the potential impacts of the alternatives on a regional and corridor -wide level. Review of localised impacts of the adopted alternative will be completed during the project -level phase. Environmental review is being carried out at the programmatic level in the System Plan EIS for several reasons: o Programmatic review allows a broader time frame and a larger system to be considered than procedurally possible under FTA's Alternatives Analysis process. Alternatives Analysis would icer EIe considers the of n initial rail or transitway system. TheSystem Plan expanded system that would be in place by the year 2020. o Considering alternatives at the programmatic level allows evaluation to focus on the types of systems that could be built under each alternative, rather than the specific alignments and station locations. A two-stage environmental process allows regional transit agencies and the public to evaluate the relative merits of a rail, transitway, or TSM -based system and to agree on a particular system before committing resources to timely mnsidration of how a multi -corridor evaluation of alignments. system would operatands a tune y whole, rather than just in isolated corridors. o Subsequent project -level analysis and environmental review will focus on the environmental impacts of specific capital projects within the subregional corridors that are included in the adopted System Plan. In contrast, System Plan environmental review allows the transit system and transit alternatives to be considered as a whole. 1.6 Scope of the System Plan EIS "Scoping" is a formal process for determining the range of proposed actions, alternatives and impacts to be discussed in an EIS. A "scoping process" includes the commenta brief s made by potentiallyect taffecttged agenublic cies and the and documenting public. History of the System Plan 1-21 March 1993 1.6.1 Previous Scoping System Plan environmental review has evolved out of previous planning efforts, most of which underwent their own scoping processes. Those planning efforts included the Pierce County Transportation Plan; SNO- TRAN's Public Transportation Plan for Snohomish County, Washington; Puget Sound Council of Government's (PSCOG's) Vision 2020 scopmg, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and Final Environmental Impact State- ment; scoping for Metro's Long Range Plan, scoping for the Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Metro 2000, and supplemental scoping for the System Plan EIS. Public input for these plans covered the full range of actions, alternatives, impacts and issues considered in the System Plan EIS. o The Public Transportation Plan for Snohomish County, Washington (SNO-TRAN 1989a) reviewed public transportation options for Snohomish County through the year 2020, including high ,capacity transit. Many of the System Plan's proposals for Snohomish County are based on the Snohomish County plan recommendations. Public input on the document included written comments and testimony from a February 1989ublic hearing. Public comments on this document were considered in defining the scope of the System Plan EIS. o The Pierce County Transportation Plan Policy Document (Pierce County 1989) reviewed transportation options for Pierce County through the year 2020. The plan endorsed high-capacity transit and transit service expansion in Pierce County. The plan was reviewed in a draft and final EIS, and received public comments both in writing and at hearings on the draft EIS. Comments received during the scoping process and on the draft EIS relating to transit improvements and high-capacity transit were considered in defining the scope of the System Plan EIS. o PSCOG's Vision 2020 growth strategy and transportation plan for the central Puget Sound region (King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties) (PSCOG 1990) included a rapid transit system similar to that proposed by the System Plan in all but one of its build alternatives. The System Plan rapid transit alternatives are intended to support the Vision 2020 plan Preferred Altemative's land -use policies. Land -use and employment forecasts for ridership modeling were updated from PSCOG projections. Scopingfor the Vision 2020 EIS took place in October 1989 (PSCOG 198; the draft Environmental Impact State- ment was issued in April 1990; and the final Environmental Impact Statement was issued -in Summer 1990. Both the scoping comments and comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement were - considered in defining the scope of the System Plan EIS. o Metro's 1990 Long -Range Plan, an update of Metro's 1980 long-range plan, was a precursor to the current system planningeffort. The Long - Range Plan, which was never completed or adoptewas to have covered the period 1990 to 2000, and in concept included most of the transportation systems management service elements now included in the System Plan. Scoping for the Long -Range Plan took place in Fall 1989. Comments from this scoping were considered in defining the scope for the System Plan EIS. Scope of the System Plan EIS 1-22 March 1993 1.6.2 o Metro 2000 scoping took place in February 1991. Scoping meetings were held in King and Snohomish counties to solicit comments on the scope of impacts of rapid -transit alternatives through the year 2010, as well as the Transportation System Management Alternative included in the System Plan (Metro 1991). As a result of this scoping effort and the public and agency comments received, it became evident that rapid transit planning had to be conducted within the context of an overall plan for regional transit. It also became evident that a longer planning horizon (through the year 2020, as opposed to 2010) was appropriate. Accordingly, the scope of the Metro 2000 plan was expanded to the scope of the present Regional Transit System Plan. o Supplemental scoping for the System Plan EIS took place in May and June 1992 to allow agencies and the public to review plans for a 2020 system. Comments from this scoping were used to further define the System Plan EIS scope. Scope of the Present Document This environmental impact statement is a programmatic, nonproject EIS. As such, it is scoped to evaluate broad potential System Plan impacts. The scope of this EIS is based on the previous scoping and supplemental scoping conducted by Metro in the spring of 1992, as described above. In response to public and agency scoping comments, and consistent with the programmatic nature of the document, the EIS discusses the impacts and alternatives at a detail level consistent with issues addressed in the System Plan. The impact areas are regional. Issue areas addressed in the EIS and the general scope of analysis include: Air Quality: regional air quality trends and conditions; regional automobile and transit emissions. Noise: sources of noise associated with the alternatives; vibration from construction and operation; mitigation options. Water Quality and Hydrology: regional runoff increases due to more impervi- ous surface and water quality impacts of airborne pollutants that ultimately are carried into streams, lakes and Puget Sound. Ecosystems: inventory of wetlands potentially affected in each corridor; likely impact. Energy: each alternative's expected net added energy requirements; regional energy generation capacity; comparative energy efficiency of technologies; travel -related energy consumption of the alternatives; construction energy required. Environmental Health: location and types of potentially hazardous sites; electromagnetic field effects. Visual Quality: generic impacts of each alternative's infrastructure require- ments and potential regional impacts. Transportation: corridor -level traffic; transit ridership, accessibility, and efficiency; regional mobility and travel times; alternatives' capacity limits. Scope of the System Plan EIS 1-23 March 1993 Scope of the System Plan EIS 1-24 March 1993 meetings and involvement to ensure that the alignments were reasonable and met with public approval. RTP did not reevaluate all possible alignments for rapid transit. Rather, it built on earlier analyses in developing a set of reasonable alternatives for further study and environmental review. The evaluation process included several separate studies (Figures 1.6, 1.7, and 1.8): o The North Corridor Alternatives Analysis (1982-1983) considered align- ments between downtown Seattle and south Snohomish County o The Multi -Corridor Analysis (1984-1986) considered potential alignments from downtown Seattle to Federal Way and east King County and further screened and evaluated alignments considered in the North Corridor Alternatives Analysis. o The North Corridor Extension Project (1984-1986) considered rapid transit feasibility in Snohomish County. The analysis was further refined between 1986 and 1990. o The Tacoma Seattle Connections Project (1985-1986) considered extensions of South Corridor alignments into Pierce County. o Metro 2000 (1990) screened rail and busway alignments for 2010. o Regional Transit Project (1991 to date) expanded Metro 2000 to 2020. 1.7.1 North Corridor Alternatives Analysis Theurpose of the North Corridor Alternatives Analysis was to determine the feasibility of transportation improvements, including rapid transit, in King County's North Corridor and to assess their costs and benefits. Screening was done by the Transportation Alternatives Analysis Steering Committee, an interagency committee of the PSCOG and Metro. Eight alignments were considered in the initial phase (PSCOG-Metro 1983). Three were carried into the second phase, and two survived that screening. 1.7.1.1 Public Involvement Project staff met with many business and community organizations,ublic agencies, and special interest groups. Community forums were held. News- letters, brochures, fact sheets, and reports that were at the meetings were accompanied by a response form. Results of the questionnaires and meeting comments were presented to the Transportation Alternatives Analysis Steering Committee (PSCOG-Metro 1982). 1.7.1.2 Evaluation Criteria First Phase (1982) Alignments were evaluated for: o cost o accessibility to a feeder bus network o impacts of construction o service to activity centers o distance from center of transit demand. Screening of Corridors 1-25 March 1993 21 2 24 19 KING COUNTY PIERC:e9t4VT..?* 29 SNOHOMSH COUNTY KING COUNTY LEGEND N A 0 t 2 3 1. Aurora mm. 2. 15th NE 3. E. Capitol Hill 4. Lake City Way 5. Burke -Gilman Trail 6. 15th NW 7. 8th NW 8. BNRR 9. Duwamish/Tukwila 10. Dthvamish/Elurien 11. SR-509/Burien 12. W. Seattie/Burien 13. Rainier/Renton 14. Tukwila/Aubum 15. Renton/E. Kent 16. Tukwila/Sea-Tim 17. Burlen-Sea-Tac 18. SR -520 19. BNRR to Woodinville 20. Seattle Center to S. Lake Unlon 21. Everett/Marysville 22. Everett/Lake Stevens 23. Mill Creek/Snohomish/ Lake Stevens 24. Alderwood/MUI Creek 25. Paine Field/Everett Mall 26. Paine Field/Everett 27. SR -99 to S. Everett 28. Tacoma Tidelands 29. Tacoma/Lakewood 30. Tacoma/Parkland Generalized Alignments Screened System Plan Corridors Regional Transit Project RIMO COUNTY • PENX COUNTY • MOH01011 COURT RTPF0204C Corridor Screening System Plan EIS FIGURE 1.6 . North Corridor • Alternatives Analysis (1982-1983) PHASEI'` PHASE 11 Multi -Corridor Analysis (1984-1986) :PHASES PHASE II Metro 2000 (1990-1991) 1ST SCREENING 2ND SCREENING Regional Transit Protect (1991 - (Including special studies) NORTH CORRIDOR > 1-5 —� _.). ----> > -(Rhododendron Line Report) Aurora —0,- --30---00-X>X 15th NE —>X—�X E. Capitol Hill ---»X Lake City Way --0•X Burke -Gilman Trail —)X 15th NW --->X 8th NW —40-X 'W Capitol Hill/ U. District } > (Ballard-Laurelhurst Study) • > X > X Seattle Center/—>.X S. Lake Union BNRR --IP-X X >' SOUTH CORRIDOR Duwamish/Tukwila —> —> •Duwamish/Sea > > Tac -> ------)P. X Duwamish/Burien -->X > X > > > SR-509/Burien —> ---» X W. Seattle/Burien --00•X 'Rainier/Duwamish X > ----»X Rainier/Renton ---�X X (Rainier Urban Rail Report) •Burien/Renton > ) - 'Green Tukwila/Renton --> ---)P- X Tukwila/Auburn --i► --Ow X > - River Valley > Commuter Rail 'Burien/SR-99/SeaTac Renton/E. Kent —'-),- __L____),,. x X Burien/Sea-Tac Airport -3 —» > > X X Burien/SeaTac —)►X (Airport bypass) Tukwila/Sea-Tac Airport -> '1-90 > EAST CORRIDOR > X > > SR -520 > --) ` >X BNRR to —>'X Woodinville & Bothell 'Bellevue/Rentor*X *NO COUNTY. PONCE COUNTY • IINCNONUIN COUNTY X Screened from consideration • Part of current system plan King County Corridor Screening History System Plan EIS FIGURE 1.7 North Corridor Extension Project (1984-1986) PHASE I PHASE 11 Everett/Marysville > X Everett/Lake Stevens > X Mill Creek/Lake Stevens > X Alderwood/Mill Creek > X Paine Field/Everett Mall > X Paine Field/Everett YIP SR -99 to S. Everett > X 1-5 to S. Everett Aldenvood/Paine Field X Tacoma -Seattle Transit Connections Study (1985-1987) PHASEI Aubum/Puyallup/Tacoma S. Federal Way/Fde/Tacoma S. Federal WayTdeflats/Tacoma —> X Tacoma/Lakewood Tacoma/Parkland —� X PHASE II PHASE Ill X Screened from consideration * Part of current system plan (Green River Valley Commuter Rail) OKI Doom• PIERCE COUD.• .glp. H DIMITY RTPPoQOtD.• Snohomish and Pierce County Corridor Screening History System Pian EIS FIGURE 1.8 Second Phase (1983) Alignments were evaluated for the following characteristics: o capacity o service growth potential o transportation plan compatibility o costs o land use and traffic impacts o achievability o potential for incremental development o maximum use of public right-of-way 1.7.1.3 Alignments Considered Alignments considered included: I-5 from downtown Seattle to Lynnwood ("I-5"). This alignment would directly serve the Seattle CBD, University District, Northgate, and Alderwood Mall. Aurora Avenue/Interurban from Seattle CBD to Lynnwood ("Aurora"). This alignment was proposed to promote development of the Aurora corridor. Eastlake/15th NE/I-5 from Seattle CBD to Lynnwood ("15th NE"). This alignment would serve University District, Northgate, and Alderwood Mall. Capitol Hill/Montlake/University District/Lake City Way ("Forward Thrust East"). This alignment was part of the 1970 Forward Thrust proposal. Capitol Hill Montlake/University District/Burke-Gilman Trail ("Burke - Gilman"). This alignment used right-of-way along the Burke -Gilman Trail. Elliott/ 15th NW/Interurban to Lynnwood ("Forward Thrust West"). Elliott/15th NW/8th NW/Interurban ROW to Lynnwood ("Forward Thrust West Variation"). Burlington Northern. Seattle to Edmonds ("Burlington Northern ROW"). This alignment was thought to have relatively available right-of-way. 1.7.1.4 Recommendations First Phase The I-5, Aurora, and 15th NE alignments were recommended (PSCOG- Metro 1983). All had good feeder bus connections. The I-5 and 15th NE alignments served major activity centers and were near the center of transit demand. Aurora was considered to have good development potential. Forward Thrust East was dropped because of cost, construction impacts, and inadequate bus feeder potential. Burke -Gilman was dropped for similar reasons, and because of existing use of the trail. Forward Thrust West and its Screening of Corridors 1-29 March 1993 1.7.2 variation were screened out because of cost and limited bus feeder potential. The Burlington Northern ROW was screened out because it served no major activity center and was far from the center of transit demand. Second Phase 1-5 was recommended because it was in the center of transit demand, served University District and Northgate, and would have minimal neighborhood impacts. However, it would likely take I-5 capacity. Aurora was recommended for further study because it would have moderate neighborhood impacts, traffic impacts, and cost, and would leave HOV capacity on I-5. However, the corridor did not serve two major activity centers (University District and Northgate) and would not efficiently serve neighborhoods east of I-5. The hybrid Aurora/I-5 alignment was developed for further study because it wouldreducethe Aurora alignment's neighborhood and traffic impacts, while serving Northgate and avoiding impacts on I-5 capacity. However, it would have major construction impacts on north Green Lalce neighborhoods and would not serve the University District. The 15th NE alignment was screened out because it would have severe neighborhood impacts and a very high cost. Multi -Corridor Project The Multi -Corridor project evaluated rapid transit in the North, South, and East Corridor Study Areas in King County under the policy guidance of the PSCOG-Metro Multi -Corridor Steering Committee. The North Corridor Alternatives Analysis was considered in evaluating North Corridor aliign- ments. However, Aurora Avenue was not studied, due to lack of service to the University District. 1.7.2.1 Public Involvement Project staff met with about 50 organizations, agencies, and interest groups dunng the Multi -Corridor Project. Fourteen forums were held in downtown Seattle, University District, north Seattle, Bellevue, Renton, Tukwila, Kent, Federal Way, and Shoreline. Results of questionnaires and comments from meetings and forums were presented to the Multi -Corridor Steering Commit- tee (PSCOG-Metro 1986). 1.7.2.2 Evaluation Criteria Phase I Phase I sought to identify all possible alternatives and screen out the least promising. Criteria for evaluation (PSCOG-Metro 1985) included: o Directness of service to potential transit users o Directness of service to areas with highway capacity deficiencies o Connections to and between major activity centers o Compatibility with local plans Screening of Corridors 1-30 March 1993 Phase II Phase II analyzed the remaining alignments. Evaluation criteria included: o transit ridership o cost-effectiveness o maximizing operational safety and highway capacity o affordability o connections to and between activity centers o compatibility with land use plans o • development opportunities near transit facilities transit trips to major activity centers o transit service schedule reliability o significant environmental impacts 1.7.2.3 Generalized Alignments Evaluated North Corridor An I-5 alignment and one detouring to the UW campus were evaluated. East Corridor While alignmentsast Bellevue were evaluated, the main analysis focused on whether to serve downtown Bellevue by using SR -520 or I-90. South Corridor Because of the number of variations considered, it is easiest to discuss the South Corridor analysis in terms of links between centers that were consid- ered. These included: o Seattle CBD/Duwamish employment centers to Tukwila o Seattle CBD/Duwamish employment centers to Sea -Tac Airport o Seattle CBD/Duwamish employment centers to Burien o Seattle CBD to Burien via SR -509 o Seattle CBD to Burien via West Seattle o Seattle CBD/Rainier Valley to Duwamish employment centers o Seattle CBD/Rainier Valley to Renton o Tukwila to Renton o Tukwila to Auburn o Renton to East Kent o Burien to Sea -Tac Airport o Tukwila to Sea -Tac Airport In Phase I, only options to Sea -Tac Airport, Tukwila, and Renton were considered in detail, although extensions further south were discussed. In Phase H, extensions to Federal Way, Auburn, and east Kent were added. 1.7.2.4 Recommendations Phase I Only East and South Corridor options were evaluated in Phase I. Screening of Corridors 1-31 March 1993 1.7.3 East Corridor. Alignments not serving downtown Bellevue were dropped due to low ridership and lack of service to the largest Eastside activity center. Both SR -520 and I-90 alignments were recommended for further analysis. South Corridor. The Duwamish/Tukwila, Tukwila/Renton, and Tukwila/Sea-Tac Airport links were carried forward because they would supplement highway capacity. The Duwamish/Sea-Tac Airport and Sea -Tac Airport via SR-509/Bunen links were carried forward because they would serve major employment centers. The Duwamish/Burien, West Seattle/Burien, Rainier/Renton and Rainier/Duwamish links were screened out because they would be too circuitous and slow for extensions into south King County. In addition, the analysis concluded that Rainier Valley links were too far east to allow efficient feeder bus service to western portions of the corridor. Phase II North Corridor. An I-5 alignment and the alignment serving the University campus were recommended for further analysis (PSCOG-Metro 1986). East Corridor. The SR -520 crossing was dropped because of low ridership, lower feeder bus potential, higher cost, and lower cost-effectiveness compared to I-90. South Corridor. An option serving the Duwamish area, Tukwila, Sea -Tac Airport, and Federal Way was selected because of ridership, bus feeder potential, and cost-effectiveness in serving the densest portions of the corridor. North Corridor Extension Project (NEXT) The NEXT project was aoint project of SNO-TRAN, Community Transit, Ev.erett Transit, and PSCOG. The project started station area preplanning following a finding of feasibility in 1986. Four station area studies (1987-90) from Mountlake Terrace to Everett refined alignment and station options. 1.7.3.1 Public Involvement Public involvement included the NEXT Newsletter; public meetings; group briefings; and regular presentations to city councils and planning commis- sions. Advisory committees of local government staff, local businesses, and elected officials also participated. 1.7.3.2 Evaluation Criteria First Phase (1984-1986) Alignments were evaluated for (SNO-TRAN 1986): o Development at stations o Environmental review o Ridership and capacity measures o Cost-effectiveness Screening of Corridors 1-32 March 1993 o User benefits o Feasibility o Public support. Second Phase (1986) Alignments were evaluated using the following measures: o Jobs/population within 1/2 mile o New employment/housing within 1/2 mile o Housing/businesses displaced o Roadway/traffic impacts o Construction impacts o Various environmental impacts o Pressures to change land use o Transit ridershipmode split o System capacity o Cost o Travel time savings o Quality of service o Availability of rights-of-way. 1.7.3.3 Alignments Considered Alignments considered included: I-5 to Alderwood Mall. This alignment from the North Corridor Alternatives Analysis was reexamined. I-5/SR-99. This set of alignments studied I-5 to Lynnwood and from Lynnwood north to Everett via Paine Field, Everett Mall (I-5), and SR -99. Downtown Everett via I-5. This alignment included a branch to Paine Field. Paine Field via I-5/SR-526 and via SR -525. This set of alignments did not serve downtown Everett, ending at southwest Everett/Paine Field. Everett Mall/I-5. SR -99. SR -525/526. Mill Creek via I-5 and 164th SW. This alignment focused on southwest Snohomish County. Marysville via I-5. This alignment extended north Marysville. Lake Sfevens via I-5/SR-2 and SR -9. One alternative used I-5 to Everett and then SR -2. The other alternative used SR -9 from Alderwood. 1.7.3.4 Recommendations First Phase (1985) Four alternatives were recommended for further study: o two 'build" alternatives to downtown Everett via I-5 or Paine Field Screening of Corridors 1-33 March 1993 1.7.4 o an all bus TSM Alternative o a "No -Build" alternative. Second Phase (1986) Analysis of four alternatives and variants produced this recommendation: The preferred alternative was rail in the I-5 corridor to downtown Everett. Additional study of Paine Field and east King County access was called for. Tacoma -Seattle Transit Connections Study (Tac Sea) The Tacoma -Seattle Transit Connections Study was a joint project of Tacoma, Fife, Pierce Transit, Pierce County, WSDOT, and PSCOG. The objective was to develop a mid- and long-range plan for improved transit service between King and Pierce Counties. 1.7.4.1 Public Involvement A citizens committee made up of business and public representatives provid- ed input throughout the study. Community involvement also included a project newsletter, public meetings, attitude surveys, news releases, and presentations to community groups. 1.7.4.2 Evaluation Criteria Phase I (1985-1986) High-capacity transit alternatives were evaluated by the following measures: o- potential transit ridership o potential availability of lower cost right-of-way oeconomic development potential. Phase II (1986) Alignments to the Puyallup River were evaluated, mainly on the basis of cost.. Phase III (1986-1987) There was no analysis of specific corridors or alignments in this phase. 1.7.4.3 Alignments Considered Generalized alignments considered included: Green River Valley through Puyallup to Tacoma. S. Federal Way to Tacoma on I-5, SR -99, or the Interurban and 20th St. E. S. Federal Way to Tacoma on SW 348th and the new SR -509. Screening of Corridors 1-34 March 1993 Tacoma to Lakewood using I-5 or Tacoma Way South and I-5. Tacoma to Parkland using SR -7. 1.7.4.4 Roconrnendations In Phase 1, the "I-5 corridor," including I-5, SR -99, and SR -509, was preferred over the Green/Puyallup River valley because of links to the preferred corri- dor in King County and higher ridership and population concentrations. The study concluded that transit ridership south o Tacoma Mall would not justify rail. Phase 2 and 3 made no further alignment recommendations. 1.7.5 Metro 2000 Metro 2000 considered the recommended Multi -Corridor alignments, many alignments that had been dropped, and a few that had not been previously considered. Alignments were evaluated for both busway and rail lines. The Metro Council's Planning Subcommittee made screening decisions. 1.7.5.1 Public Involvement Metro 2000 public involvement is described in Section 1.9. Alignment and corridor recommendations included input from meetings with the public, jurisdictions, and community and interest groups. 1.7.5.2 Evaluation Criteria The criteria for evaluation of alignments (Metro 1990a) included: o potential for growth and development along the corridor o enhancement of mobility along the corridor o efficiency of alignments along the corridor o practicality of the alignment o potential ridership o cost-effectiveness o community support o possible advantage in financing o environmental considerations o consistency with Vision 2020 Plan 1.7.5.3 General Alignments Evaluated North Corridor North Corridor screening considered the Aurora, I-5, and Lake City Way corridors. Variations of the I-5 alignment served Capitol Hill/University District and Seattle Center. The Aurora and Lake City Way alignments were only considered for busways. South Corridor Phase I screening considered many Multi -Corridor links, including: Screening of Corridors 1-35 March 1993 o Duwamish/Tukwila o Duwamish/City of SeaTac o SR-509/Burien o Rainier/Renton o Burien/Sea-Tac Airport. In addition, a link from Burien to SeaTac bypassing Sea -Tac Airport, a commuter rail line from downtown Seattle to Auburn, and the SR -99/I-5 corridor south of SeaTac were added. Phase II added a Rainier Valley/Duwamish industrial link. East Corridor Most of the recommended Multi -Corridor alignments were considered through Phase II, as well as variations. Added alias s ents linked Woodinville and Bothell to Totem Lake or Redmond on BNR • right-of-way and Belle- vue to Renton in the I-405/BNRR corridor. 1.7.5.4 Recommendations First Screening North Corridor. The I-5 alignment and its west Capitol Hill/University District variation were recommended because of compatibility with the downtown transit tunnel, high ridership, and service to activity centers. The Seattle Center link was considered incompatible with the downtown transit tunnel and too expensive. An east Capitol Hill variation was dropped because of excessive grades, transit tunnel incompatibility, high cost, and circuitous routing (Metro 1990b). Aurora was screened out because it would not serve major activity centers, conflicted with the transit tunnel, and would have major traffic impacts. Lake City Way was screened out because it would not serve Northgate or the I-5 travel corridor and would have major traffic impacts. South Corridor. Most of the ali ents were recommended for further study. The Duwamish/Tukwila Sea -Tac Airport corridor was screened out due to limited right-of-way and circuitous routing (Metro 1990b). East Corridor. The I-405/BNRR corridor between Bellevue and Renton was screened out due to very low transit demand. The Woodinville/Totem Lake or Redmond alignment was dropped due to low densities, proximity to agricultural land and the urban growth boundary, and lack of service to the I-405 corridor (Metro 1990b). Second Screening The second screening revealed that busways would, in general, be more expensive and have lower capacity and ridership than comparable rail lines (see Section 2.6.1). The busway option was dramatically scaled back and designed to be a lower cost, possibly more flexible alternative to a rail system (the Transitway/TSM Alternative). Rail corridors were analyzed as described below. North Corridor. Both alignments were carried forward for further analysis (Metro 1990c). Screening of Corridors 1-36 March 1993 1.7.6 South Corridor. Recommended options assumed a commuter rail line in the Green River Valley. The first, Duwamish/SeaTac/Federal Way, directly served major activity centers at a relatively low cost, with good extensions to Tacoma. The second, Rainier Valley/SeaTac/Federal Way, served a major residential transit market, helped to alleviate Rainier Valley traffic conges- tion, and had positive land use impacts (Metro 1990c). SR -509 to Burien and beyond was screened out for the following reasons: o difficulties in crossing the Duwamish River at the First South Bridge o failure to serve the Boeing Field employment center without serving a high-density residential area (e.g., Ramer Valley) o more costly service and increased travel times to Sea -Tac and beyond o more difficult bus connections without compensating ridership o the ability of TSM to solve this SR -509's transit problems. The Rainier/Renton corridor was dropped because of more circuitous routing to south King County and Pierce County than the Rainier/Duwamish link and because it would be even more expensive than the Rainier Valley option. East Corridor. All the alignments and variations were recommended for further study (Metro 1990c). Regional Transit Project (RTP) RTP expanded Metro 2000 to serve major centers in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties by the year 2020. Metro 2000 alignments were extend- ed past their previous termini using NEXT and Tac -Sea recommendations and some previously screened alignments were reexamined for their poten- tial in a 2020 system. Alignment decisions will be made by the Joint Regional Policy Committee (JRPC). General alignments added or extended by RTP include: o I-5/SR-99 from Lynnwood to Everett o Evergreen Way in Everett o Airport Road from I-5 to Paine Field o I-405 from I-5 in Snohomish County to Totem Lake o I-90 from I-405 to Issaquah o BNRR/I-405 from Bellevue to Renton o BNRR/I-405/SR-518 from Renton to Burien o I-5/SR-99 from Federal Way to Tacoma o Extension of commuter rail to Tacoma. T- hese extensions were considered necessary to complete a regional system. RTP studied two corridor alignment options for the North and South Corri- dors in Seattle. In the North Corridor, RTP compared an alignment serving First Hill and Capitol Hill with direct service to the University District with one serving south Lake Union, crossing the Ship Canal on the I-5 express lanes, and connecting to a people mover serving the University of Washing- ton campus. In the South Corridor, RTP compared two alignments serving Rainier Valley and south Boeing Field (one on Rainier Avenue and the other on Martin Luther King, Jr. Way) with an alignment serving the Duwamish Industrial area. Based on the size of markets served and ridership Screening of Corridors 1-37 March 1993 o Echo Lake o Maltby o Snohomish o Harbor Pointe o Arlington o Gold Bar o Sultan Fleet Requirements Given an annual growth rate of approximately 1.66 percent, as shown in CTs Comprehensive Plan, fleet size and service hours could approximate the following: 1993 2001 2010 2020 Service Hours Local 154,549 176,306 204,464 241,059 Commuter 61,067 85,596 111,683 136,142 Paratransit 47,317 60,000 69,583 82,037 Vanpool 42,777 85,922 99,645 117,479 Fleet Local 101 122 142 167 Commuter 108 140 183. 223 Paratransit 26 45 50 59 Vanpool 129 259 297 350 1.8.3 Everett Transit Everett Transit's 1989-1999 Transit Development Plan includes service increases to respond to anticipated growth. Since adoption of that plan, additional growth is anticipated to respond to the Navy Homeport and the Boeing Everett Facility expansion. Most growth will occur in service hours and fleet size. Service expansion will include new routes as well as increased service frequencies. 1993 2001 2010 2020 Service Hours Fixed Route 86,734 112,491 142,955 181,736 Demand Resp 11,405 16,193 23,590 32,582 Fleet _ Coaches 33 45 59 79 Vans 7 9 12 15 Transit centers may include: o Everett CBD (expansion) o Paine Field Park -and -rides may include: Existing Transit Plans 1-39 March 1993 o Eastmont park-and-ride o Everett park-and-ride All Everett Transit service is currently described as "local" fixed -route, although some actually provides short-range commuter service to downtown Everett and to the South Everett employment center. 1.8.4 Pierce Transit Pierce Transit now operates more service than what is reflected in the No - Build Alternative, which would feed directly into the regional system. Pierce Transit's recently developed System Plan (1992-2020) indicates demand for increases in all categories of service currently provided: Seattle/Olympia Express, local service, specialized transportation, and rideshare. In order to expand these services to meet 2020 demand, additional revenue will be required. Primary existing revenue sources include MVET and a 0.3% local sales tax. The Pierce Transit Board is currently considering when and if to ask voters to approve the additional 0.3% local sales tax allowed by State law for public transit benefit associations (PTBAs). In the absence of additional revenue, the agency will follow a "No System -Wide Growth" alternative. The specific charactenstics of this alternative will be determined through the devel- opment of service priorities that may lead to a reallocation of service resources. Current levels that could be reallocated under a No -System -Wide Growth alternative are: 1992 LEVELS Fixed Route Total Revenue Hours Total Revenue Miles Peak Buses Total Buses 488,409 7,260,000 149 169 Demand Response Total Revenue Hours Total Revenue Miles Vans Vanpool 88,890 1,659,000 27 37 1.9 Public Involvement The regional transit system planning process has included many opportuni- ties for public participation to shape the plan. Public involvement activities are summarized below. There will also be significant opportunities for public involvement during the design, construction and implementation phases and associated environmental review. 1.9.1 Public Involvement Program Goals The main goals of the ongoing public involvement and information effort are: o Encourage public dialogue about the region's transportation needs o Inform the public about transit alternatives and their impacts Existing Transit Plans 1-40 March 1993 o Involve citizens in shaping the System Plan and environmental review o Elicit comments and ideas from the public at key decision points. o Ensure that citizens are able to make an informed choice about the resulting long-range transit plan. 1.9.2 Public Involvement/Information Program Elements The ongoing public involvement program includes the following elements: o Public forums and meetings o Community and interest group briefings o Newspaper inserts and public information documents o Media releases and briefings o Discussion groups o Public heanngs o Bimonthly newsletters o Slide shows o Public opinion surveys o Citizens advisory committee o An arts program. 1.9.2.1 Discussion and Evaluation of Alternatives (Fall 1989 - Spring 1991) The project's first phase focused on gathering comments from as many citizens as possible about system improvements and rapid transit alignments. In fall 1989, Metro issued a scoping notice for its Long. Range Plan to about 5,000 citizens, local jurisdictions, environmental organizations, and business and community groups. While the Long -Range Plan was never completed or adopted, the comments received by Metro were incorporated into the current planning effort. Metro staff met with more than sixty community, business and public interest groups, presenting a rapid transit program overview, discussing alignments, and soliciting citizen comments. A citizen survey in the summer of 1990 identified public issues and concerns about transportation issues. At that time, Metro began a bimonthly project newsletter and involved the Citizens Transit Advisory Committee (CTAC) Planning Subcommittee in Metro. Council Transit Planning Subcommittee deliberations. In October 1990, nine broad-based public meetings were held in areas throughout King County for citizens to comment on the whole regional transit plan. About 550 people attended the forums. In Snohomish County, 41 briefings were held by SNO-TRAN staff during the same period. Comments•received at meetings with organized groups, at public forums, and through the surveys helped the Metro Council's Planning Subcommittee and SNO-MAN modify, eliminate and add rapid transit alignments in all three corridors. Once the recommendations were made, Metro also initiated Alternatives Analysis. In February 1991, Metro and SNO-TRAN held nine scoping meetings ul King County and one in Snohomish County. The meetings (1) obtained more comments on the System Plan alternatives and (2) invited government agencies, citizens groups and the general public to Public Involvement 1-41 March 1993 The draft System Plan and draft EIS were issued for comment in October 1992. In November 1992, Metro and the other regional transit agencies conducted hearings to gather public comment on the draft EIS (Table 1.2). An extended 45 -day public comment period continued through November 30, 1992. A number of extensions to the comment period were granted on request. This final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), along with responses to all public and agency comments received on the draft EIS, is now being issued. The comments received on the draft EIS and draft System Plan will also be used by the JRPC to shape the final System Plan. Table 1.2. Dates and Locations of DEIS Public Hearings, Community Meetings, and Open Houses. Date (1992) Community Mtng/ Open Hearing House* Location Wed. Nov. 4. Thu. Nov. 5 Mon. Nov. 9 4-7 pm 7-9 pm* 4-7 pm 7-9 pm* 4-5 pm 7-9 pm 7-9 pm 5-6 pm Ramada Inn Northgate Kales Jr High, Puyallup City Council Chamber • Auburn Community Room Lakewood Mall Tacoma Library 4-7 pm 7-9 pm 4-7 pm Tue. Nov. 10 11 am- 12:30 pm 2-6 pm 4-7 pm Thu. Nov. 12 Mon. Nov. 16 4-7 pm 4-7 pm 11 am - 12:30 pm 2-5:30 pm 7-9 pm 12:30-2 pm 6-8 pm 7-9 pm 7-9 pm 7-9 pm 12:30-2 pm 5:30-7:30 pm Triton Union, Edmonds Comm. Coll., Lynnwood Schafer Auditorium Seattle University Conference Center Bellevue Tyee High School, SeaTac City Council Chamber Redmond San Juan Rm, West Coast Everett Pacific Hotel Federal Building Auditorium, Seattle - Thu. 447 pm 7-9 pm City Council Chamber Nov. 19 Federal Way 'Events in Lakewood and Puyallup were community meetings; all others were open houses. In the fall of 1992, a second survey was conducted to assess voter awareness and overall support for the recommended draft System Plan, refine existing understanding of voter preferences for financing mechanisms, understand how cost affects sport for the system, examine voter preferences for options such as r construction, HOV lane construction, and use of funds for additional transportation improvements, identify additional information the voting public may need before deciding whether to vote for or against building the system, and address particular issues of concern and interest to Public Involvement 1-43 March 1993 the three counties participating in the survey. Approximately 2600 registered voters took part in a brief telephone survey. About 400 of those contacted in each county also participated in a second survey by mail. The Regional Transit Authority and local transit providers will continue the public involvement process, providing input into the project -level environ- mental review, comdor and design hearings, conceptual engineering, and predesign project phases. Public meeting presentations, interest group discussions, media releases, and newsletters will help refine the alternatives and prepare voters to make an informed choice about the regional transit proposal. If voters approve continued work, regional transit agencies will involve the public through hearings on the project -level environmental review, at design meetings for specific alignments and station locations, and at meetings throughout construction. 1.10 Expert Review Panel The Expert Review Panel is comprised of ten members and was mandated by the State of Washington High Capacity Transit Legislation. The panel is appointed by the Governor to provide independent oversight on the technical aspects of RTP planning, including ridership forecasting, cost estimating, and environmental analysis. Its members and the disciplines they represent are as follows: Name Association Discipline Aubrey Davis, Chair John Basic Maud Smith Daudon David Hodge Tom Matoff Edward L. McLean Michael Meyer - Gerrit Moore Scott Rutherford Doug Wentworth President Emeritus, Group Health. Former UMTA Regional Administrator Boeing Company, Retired Port of Seattle University of Washington Sacramento RTD Construction Consultant Georgia Institute of Technology Washington Environmental Council University of Washington Sacramento RTD Public Policy Emerging Technologies Finance Geography Rail/Bus Operations Engineering/Cost Estimating Modeling/Planning Environment Engineering/Planning Rail/HOV Planning/Finance 1.11 Decisionmaking Process and Criteria Regional Transit Project planning is guided by the Joint Regional Policy Committee (JRPC). The JRPC is made up of King, Pierce, and Snohomish county elected officials from participating transit agencies, as well as the Secretary of WSDOT. The JRPC has adopted goals and objectives for the RTP. RTP has four main goals. The first goal is to ensure the ability to move around the region by providing reliable, convenient, and safe public transportation services throughout the region. Strategies to reach this objective include: o operate a public transit system that is reliable, affordable, accessible, safe, and attractive. o take steps to create competitive advantages for transit by removing it from mixed traffic or giving it priority. Public Involvement 1-44 March 1993 The second goal is to preserve communities and open space by supporting communities' ability to develop in ways that preserve and enhance their livability and limit intrusion into rural areas. Strategies to reach this objec- tive include: o reinforce desirable community characteristics. o stimulate the development of desirable characteristics. The third goal is to improve the region's economic vitality by increasing access to jobs, education, and other community resources. Strategies to achieve this objective include: o improve transit access to jobs and other activities. o provide services and facilities that benefit all socioeconomic groups. The fourth goal is to preserve environmental quality by conserving land and energy resources and containing growth in air pollution. Strategies to achieve this objective include: o reduce single-occupancy vehicle use. o support Vision 2020 centers-oriented land use. The choice of a recommended alternative will be based on a variety of criteria, including: o effectiveness in increasing mobility o the 2020 and phased system alternatives' cost and efficiency o social, economic, and environmental impacts o effects on regional equity o financial feasibility o consistency with the Vision 2020 plan. Specific kinds of evaluation measures include: o capital costs o system ridership o percentage of trips by transit, vanpool, or carpool o travel time savings o miles and hours traveled per day per person o transit speed and reliability o links between employment and residential areas o ease of off-peak travel o the farebox revenue that can be expected in relation to costs _ o operating and maintenance costs o ability to operate effectively in the built environment o support for creation of pedestrian- and transit-friendly communities o cost-effectiveness o geographic and socioeconomic equity o impacts on land use o use of energy o effect on air pollutant emissions o environmental impacts o affordability. The RTP planning and decision-making process has several overlapping stages: Decisionmaking Process 1-45 March 1993 o System Planning. This current phase includes considering the transit plan for the entire region through the year 2020. Planning must include enough detail to be able to compare general alignments, markets served, and technology. When a decision is made on these issues, the System Plan recommended alternative and a financing plan will be placed on the ballot for voter approval. This recommended alternative may be based on one of the alternatives discussed in this FEIS, may consist of a combination of elements from two or more alternatives, or may consist of a scaled-back version of one alternative or a combination of alternatives. - o Project -Level Analysis. This phase includes corridor -level planning and hearings, as well as considering specific alignments and station locations and supporting TSM improvements for the adopted System Plan alternative. Alternatives will be considered in enough detail at the project level to make choices between specific alignments and profiles (e.g., tunnel, at -grade, or aerial) and approximate location of stations and other facilities. o Preliminary Engineering and Design Review. This phase includes consideration of precise location and facility types, as they will be built, including review of designs and design hearings. Decisions will be made on specific mitigation measures for impacts identified in previous phases and on specific facility design details. Decisionmaking Process 1-46 March 1993 2.0 Alternatives The System Plan alternatives represent a range of transit investment options. Each alternative includes a basic network of transit services and facilities and a particular technology emphasis. The criteria for choosing an alternative include projected ridership; percentage of trips made by transit, vanpool, or carpool; travel time savings, links between employment and residential areas, ease of off-peak travel; farebox revenue; operating and maintenance costs; cost-effectiveness; relationship to local and regional plans; and environmen- tal impacts. The No -Build Alternative is used as a baseline to evaluate the environmental impacts of the other alternatives. The Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative is used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the capital - intensive Rail/TSM and Transitway/TSM Alternatives. The Transit- way/TSM Alternative proposes a barrier -separated transitway in the region's core, as well as most of the TSM Alternative. The Rail/TSM Alternative proposes a rapid rail system serving the urbanized portion of the region, a commuter rail line in the Green River Valley, and the major portion of the TSM Alternative. Alignments and station locations were developed for the alternatives for ridership modeling, system performance evaluation, generic environmental impact evaluation, and cost estimation. However, the alignments and facility locations do not include all those that could be evaluated in project -level review. Alternatives are described in terms of corridors. An alternative defined as the "Interstate 5 corridor" would be near, but not necessarily on, I-5. Specific alignments and facility locations will be defined and evaluated in project -level review. A variety of agencies and funding sources would contribute. For example: o Federal, state, and local funds would pay for freeway HOV lanes. o Arterial HOV improvements would be developed and funded by local jurisdictions, WSDOT, transit agencies, and the federal government. o 1..ocal transit operators would provide supporting bus services. o A Regional Transit Authority (RTA) would construct and operate rapid transit services and related facilities with its own funds, as well as federal money. 2.1 No -Build Alternative The No -Build Alternative limits capital investment to budgeted programs or - programs necessary to maintain existing transit service levels. This is unreal- istic, since service levels have historically grown by about two percent per year. Community Transit and Everett Transit have already planned to substantially increase future transit service (see Section 1.8). However, these unrealistic assumptions provide a baseline for evaluating environmental impacts of the alternatives. At the project level, the No -Build Alternative will meet Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requirements for alternative evaluation. As required by the FTA guidelines, the other alternatives include the background capital improvements assumed for the No -Build Alternative. No -Build Alternative 2-1 March 1993 2.1 .1 No -Build Concept The No -Build Alternative assumes the baseline roadway network in 2020 (Figure 2.1), defined as: o Existing roadway network in 1990 o Significant roadway projects that were under construction in 1990 o Significant roadway projects that had funds allocated to them by 1990 o Portions of WSDOTs HOV program budgeted by 1990. The No -Build Alternative uses the existing 1991 transit network. Capital improvements are limited to projects under construction or in the current capital budget when the alternative was defined in 1990. Buses would be acquired to maintain existing service levels. The No -Build Alternative as defined does not include construction of new transit maintenance or opera- tions facilities, but does include some needed expansion of current bases. Supplemental Transportation Services RTP agencies are committed to serving seniors and riders with disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires the agencies to serve people with disabilities who are unable to use regular service. Under current plans, Metro will equip all buses with wheelchair lifts and offer door-to-door service at least 17 hours a day. Everett Transit will double its demand - responsive vans, increase service hours, and equip 60 percent of its buses with wheelchair lifts. Similar arrangements are being planned for Pierce and Community Transit. RTP would expand supplemental programs for low- income seniors and persons with disabilities by 25 percent beyond current plans. Supplemental services are the same under all alternatives, including the No -Build Alternative. 2.1.2 Transit Service Plan No -Build transit service is based on the September 1991 service provided by Metro, Community Transit (CT), Everett Transit (ET), and Pierce Transit (PT) (Table 2.1). Service hours and miles were increased somewhat to compensate for schedule delays expected by 2020. Table 2.1. Bus Service Characteristics by Alternative. 1990 No -Build TSM Transitway/TSM 1 Rail/TSM 'Hours and Miles in thousands. Alternatives derived from factored results, as defined for purposes of ridership modeling. For information on existing and planned local service, see Section 1.8. Platform hours are the number of hours that all or some of the coaches in the active fleet are in service. Platform miles are the number of miles traveled by all or some of the coaches in the active fleet within a given period of time. No -Build Alternative 2-2 March 1993 Regional Transit. Project IONG JNTY' PIERCE ODNTY• SNOHOMISH COUNTY EISHWY EISHWYIMPCOr • J1.8 - 02-23-93 Background Highway Improvemen System Plan 1 FIGURE 2.1.2.1 Community Transit Community Transit will continue to operate fixed route, fixed schedule service in Snohomish County and to destinations in King County, including: o Commuter service to downtown Seattle, Bellevue, and Redmond o Express service to the University of Washington main campus o Local suburban service in Snohomish County, as well as to Aurora Village and downtown Bothell o Local rural service to major Snohomish County centers o In -county commuter service to major employers o Dial -a -ride and other demand -responsive paratransit services. 2.1.2.2 Everett Transit Everett Transit will continue to provide service within the Everett city limits and the urban service area (just outside city limits) in Snohomish County. Everett Transit service also includes: o Dial -a -Ride service o commuter service to the Everett Boeing facility o suburban service to local centers. 2.1.2.3 Metro Metro will continue to operate a range of King County services, including: o Local service on surface streets and arterials o Express service, generally commuter -oriented and limited to the peak period in the peak direction o Custom subscription service to employment centers and schools o Fixed -route paratransit service in areas of low population densities -o Dial -a -ride and other demand -responsive paratransit services. 2.1.2.4 Pierce Transit Pierce Transit will serve Pierce and King county destinations, including: o Express freeway routes to downtown Seattle from Pierce County o Local routes in Pierce County and to Federal Way and Enumclaw o Demand -responsive service from low-density communities . 21.25 Costs No -Build Alternative capital costs would be $1.2 billion (1991 dollars). Operating and maintenance costs would be.$274 million per year (Table 22). No -Build Alternative 2-4 March 1993 fleet levels. No -Build Alternative 2-5 March 1993 Table 2.3 Conceptual 2020 Fleet Compositions. Number of Vehicles in Model* Operator Vehicle Type No -Build TSM Alter- Transitway/TSM Rail/TSM Alternative native Alternative Alternative Community Bus 233 382 384 285 Transit Everett Bus 42 82 82 56 Transit Metro Bus 1,014 1,173 1,177 1,601 Trolley 138 223 223 237 Dual -Powered 236 556 572 0 Streetcar 5 5 5 5 Pierce Bus 194 211 211 172 Transit Regional Rapid Rail Transit Car 0 0 0 387 Transit Commuter Rail Car 0 0 0 50 Authority Locomotive 0 0 0 11 Total 1,862 2,632 2,654 2,804 'Represents only vehicle needs for comparison of alternatives and ridership results. Results are factored for constrained ridership and operations/maintenance cost calculations. CT, ET, and PT would have additional buses as needed for local service. For actual local service plans of these agencies, see Section 1.8. In addition, approximately 370 shuttle vans would operate in King County, 150 in Pierce County, and 160 in Snohomish County. The vanpool fleet would expand to 1,710 vans in King County, 700 vans in Pierce County, and 730 vans in Snohomish County. Because vanpool demand is mainly affected by marketing and transportation demand management measures, the program is the same under all alternatives. Assumed Highway Network Improvements by Other Jurisdictions North Corridor. Capacity improvements include interchange modifications along I-5 and Interstate 405, additional lanes on State Route 99, State Route 525, and 196th Street Southwest in Snohomish County and on Emerson Place and North ate Way in the City of Seattle, and extension of Broad Street in the Cityof Seattle (see Technical Appendix A). The No -Build Alternative was dened before the $47 million Boeing transportation mitigation package was negotiated for Southwest Everett and does not include those improvements. South Corridor. Improvements include new arterials in south King County; new interchanges on I-5 at Sea -Tac and State Route 161; capacity improve- ments on I-5 and SR -18; widening of existing arterials; connection of State Route 167 with I-5; a freeway (SR -509) across the Tacoma tideflats; new interchanges along State Route 18; and a second bridge with HOV lanes over the Duwamish River at First Avenue South (see Technical Appendix A). East Corridor. Improvements include rebuilding the collapsed Interstate 90 bridge over Lake Washington; new interchanges on State Route 520; conver- No-Build Alternative 2-6 March 1993 sion of Northeast 8th Street and Northeast 10th Street in Bellevue into one- way couplets; widening portions of I-405, State Route 900, SR -202, State Route 527, and several arterials; new arterials; and modification of interchanges on I-405 and SR -520 (see Technical Appendix A). HOV Network Improvements South Corridor. HOV projects being completed include median lanes on portions of I-5. East Corridor. When the I-90 bridge is rebuilt, the center roadway will provide reversible HOV lanes. 2.2 Build Alternatives Three build alternatives involving extensive service expansion and capital investment are considered in this EIS (Table 2.4). All three alternatives have as a common base a set of Transportation Systems Management (TSM) measures, as described below. Each build alternative was developed based on initial assumptions about service hours and associated fleet levels. However, the ridership model for the build alternatives was structured to allow adjustment of service hours and fleet sizes to meet demand, as reflect- ed in the ridership model. The service hours and fleet sizes reported in Tables 2.1 and 2.3 reflect these adjustments. Concepts Common to the Build Alternatives All three build alternatives include Transportation Systems Management (TSM) measures. Tse measures would increase regional and community transit service to and between Vision 2020 centers. Service improvements include all -day and more frequent two-way service, with increased connections to the regional system and between regional and other centers. Improved transit centers and new park-and-ride spaces would accommodate the proposed service expansion. Regional TSM capital improvements would complete, expand, and enhance WSDOTs freeway diamond lane network, adding projects from Vision 2020 to improve transit speed and reliability. TSM would provide better access to freeway HOV lanes and give HOVs priority on key arterial links to transit stations and park-and-ride lots. WSDOT would complete a freeway control and driver information system to monitor traffic flow, provide drivers infor- mation on congestion, and rapidly respond to incidents. Priority would be given to transit/HOV operations to by-pass congestion. Community TSM capital improvements would increase the security, conven- ience, reliability and speed of transit/HOV operations. Improvements include passenger facilities and transit centers, intersection by-pass lanes and priority signalization, lighting, landscaping, widened sidewalks, and arterial HOV/transit lane development (Figure 22). No -Build Alternative 2-7 March 1993 Left Turn Signal Priority Bus Bulb Signal Priority Advance Green Signal Priority Advance Green • HOV Lanes • Signal Coordination • Queue Bypass • Left Turn Priority • Bus Bulbs 0 Queue Bypass Lane Signalized Intersection .Na COUNTY • REM COUNTY • UNONONION COUNTY RTPO0269N • Typical Priority Treatments on Arterial Streets System Plan EIS FIGURE 2.2 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Table 2.4. Components of the Three Build Alternatives. Alternative • TSM Transitway Rail/TSM /TSM Capital Projects to Improve Regional Service New Freeway HOV Lanes Highway and arterial HOV and transit improvements Transitway System Rail System Commuter Rail Line from Seattle to Tacoma New Stations New Park -and -Ride Stalls New Bus Maintenance Bases Regional Service Improvements Expanded system of regional express bus routes Rail system service Commuter rail service Local Service Improvements Expanded local/express bus routes and service Expanded local feeder bus service Expanded demand -responsive service Expanded service for elderly and people with disabilities Expanded vanpool program Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements Improved bicycle access to transit Increased bicycle transport on transit Increased pedestrian amenities and access at transit hubs and along transit corridors 384 Lane Miles Yes No No No 0 14,000 4 384 Lane Miles Yes Yes No No 10 14,000 4 Yes Yes No No No No 384 Lane Miles Yes No Yes Yes 78 38,000 3 Interim Only Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes . Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Some arterial HOV treatments are on roadways feeding the regional HOV system. Other arterials that support intense all -day transit operations are candidates for a range of TSM improvements. Bicycle Access Improvements would be integrated into the transit system under all three build alternatives. Access improvements would include improved bicycle access to transit centers and stations; improved bicycle lock-up facilities at stations; carrying bicycles on transit vehicles where feasible; including improvements for safe bicycle travel on arterials; and working with local junsdictions to identify and improve bicycle connections with transit. Build Alternatives 2-9 March 1993 o giving transit investment priority to areas undertaking significant demand -management measures. Transit Service Plans Common to the Build Alternatives This section describes how TSM service improvements could be developed for the period from 1991 to 2020. Actual TSM service improvements would be based on future subarea planning carried out with local jurisdictions. Service Orientation. The TSM service plan increases service convenience and frequency, community-based services, and access to centers. Community Service Structure. The all -day TSM community service concept (Figure 2.3) links communities and centers to the regional system and helps people move around their communities by improving transit connections and frequency. The concept includes: o Linking centers with the regional network and improving transit mobility within communities; o High -frequency community bus routes on primary arterials between dense urban neighborhoods and along suburban arterials with pedestrian -oriented development stimulating high ridership; o _ Quick, convenient routes serving lower -density communities o Flexible transit services (shuttle services, DART, route deviation, etc.) serving dispersed communities and special transportation needs. Service Supported by Transit -Oriented Land Use. The high -frequency, community-based service outlined above would be supported by encouraging transit -oriented land use. This includes: o Mixed use housing, retail, offices, schools, and other uses highly oriented to transit o Moderate densities o Clustering of activities within walking distance of transit stops Build Alternatives 2-10 March 1993 ICING COUNTY -%ERCE COUNTY• SNO OMISH COUNTY cxonien.cdr - jib - 02.23-43 TSM Community Service Concept System Pian EIS FIGURE 2.3 o Parking controls o Pedestrian -oriented site design. Other Supportive Service Elements. Expansion of ridematching programs, vanpools services, and supplemental programs for seniors and the disabled, as proposed under the No Build Alternative, would augment the TSM service concept. Capital Elements Common to the Build Alternatives The TSM service plan would need systemwide capital improvements as well as supportive regional and local improvements within each corridor. Because final identification and evaluation of TSM facilities will occur during project -level planning, the facilities and locations described as part of this alternative are only illustrative, for purposes of system evaluation. Systemwide Capital Elements. Systemwide capital elements include infrastructure to support significant expansions in service: bus fleet, maintenance bases, vanpool and shuttle vans, computer systems, passenger shelters, traffic flow and safety improvements, and other projects (see Technical Appendix B). Systemwide capital elements also include: Vanpools and Shuttle Vans. The Commute Trip Reduction Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, along with regional population and employment growth, require a significant increase in the fleet of smaller, more flexible vehicles, regardless of the selected alternative. The program includes about 3,140 vanpools and 680 shuttle vehicles by 2020. Other Systemwide Elements. Improvements to computer systems, passenger shelters, traffic flow and safety, trolley overhead network, and the like are required to support the transit systems. Local Capital Facility Improvements. At the community scale, capital - improvements would encourage people to use transit and rideshanng in their communities. TSM improvements include by-pass lanes at congested intersections, increased distance between some bus stops; improved access to transit centers; better pedestrian access and waiting facilities; improved lighting; and adjustment of signals to give buses and HOVs prionty. Along transit corridors, RTP would encourage partnerships linking pedestrian - oriented land use investments to transit capital and service improvements. Technical Appendix B includes a summary of TSM capital improvements included within the build alternatives for the purposes of evaluation. Transit Corridor Improvements. RTP proposes a partnership between transit, municipalities, local communities, and private investment to develop economically viable pedestrian -oriented linear corridors or activity clusters with a more intense mix of commercial, office, and multifamily development. Moderately scaled mixed use development, combined with pedestrian walkways, bicycle lanes, crosswalks, medians, pedestrian controlled signals, lighting, boulevard treatments, street trees, and the other transit preferential amenities identified above will help create an environment conducive to walking and transit access. Combined with intense transit service supported by proposed TSM investments (Figure 2.4), the program could nurture a shift from an automobile -oriented environment toward one emphasizing bicycles, pedestrians, and transit (Figure 2.5). Build Alternatives 2-12 March 1993 Regional service between Centers KING COUNTY •FISK*COUNT/ •wwNowHcawtt RTPCC8 Major Transit Streets Concept System Plan EIS FIGURE 2.4 �•� r /l� 443! -31C* ISWIZA04/ WW4F7r, �` Ve 1 "Zi Before: Auto Oriented and Separate Single -Use Developments Shop Parking Lot Sidewalk Two Tum Lanes Lane Automobile Related Development Two Lanes Sidewalk Parking Lot Shop ENfifia1.wuu»�••, •••�•,•�r. sa/�dr iii/!/i�• ff Ari�/�� After: Mixed -Use Pedestrian Oriented Community Centers Regional MB Transit 'oJl.' Project .0 COUNT. PEACE oamr• 111010311014 oourrr RTPCCS Shop Side- Park- Two Park- Side- Shop walk ing Lanes ing walk Transit Related Development Example of Transit -Oriented Redevelopment System Plan EIS FIGURE 2.5 The partnerships will be key to developing and implementing locally respon- sive community plans. In addition to local service investments, RTP capital contributions may improve lighting, sidewalks, bicycle storage, stop access, and transit priority (queue by-pass, preferential signals, pedestrian bulbs, parking management). Trolley service will be extended to reduce bus emissions and noise. 2.2.1 TSM Alternative 2.2.1.1 TSM Alternative Concept The TSM Alternative uses TSM measures, as described above, along with improved regional bus connections, to substantially increase transit service. By emphasizing lower-cost capital improvements and smaller -scale general traffic and HOV improvements, it provides a baseline against which the cost-effectiveness of major capital investments will be evaluated. While some of the projects in the TSM Alternative are included in transit agencies' adopted plans (see Section 1.8), they are in addition to the No -Build Alter- native (see Section 2.1). 2.2.1.2 TSM Alternative Transit Service Plan The regional transit network would link communities and regional centers (Figure 2.6) in both peak and off-peak directions and improve service across county boundaries, as recommended by Vision 2020. Other new routes would respond to expected population and employment growth. Regional service would be augmented by peak -period commuter express routes serving major centers. Regional service would connect major centers (Everett, University District, Bellevue, and Tacoma) and downtown Seattle, consistent with Vision 2020's centers concept. The following would guide the design of regional services: o fast, frequent all -day limited -stop service o linking centers, local transfer points, and the regional system o a high level of commuter service to regional employment sites Subarea Applications: Service Orientation and Frequency The following is an overview of how the TSM Alternative could be applied in each subarea in terms of service orientation and frequency. Community Transit. Community Transit (CT) would double its total hours of transit service (Table 2.1). Regional service would operate every 30 minutes or less to downtown Seattle and 60 minutes or less to Seattle's north end during the service day. CT is also planning to enhance service to south Everett. Local service to Bothell and Aurora Village would run at least every 60 minutes. TSM service improvements include: o Providing service seven days a week o Increased commuter service to South Everett employment sites o Tripling peak -hour and doubling all day regional service o Doubling local peak -hour service on key suburban routes Build Alternatives 2-15 March 1993 LAKE STEVENS BOTHELL ISLAND SEATTLEI4 'it �► WEST SEATTLE EAST ATE ISSAQUAH BURIEN LEGEND prVt Suburban Activity Center Frequent service between activity centers 00 COUNTY • MICE caunv saaeN COUNTY matt+ Regional Transit Service Concept System Plan EIS FIGURE 2.6 o New routes in the southeast Snohomish County/Bothell area o Increased evening and weekend service o Innovative fixed -route paratransit service to low-density areas. Everett Transit. Everett Transit would double its service, focusing on the growing inner-city commuter market (Table 2.1). Service improvements include: o Doubling bus frequency on peak -hour service to downtown Everett o Doubling bus frequency on selected midday service o Improving commuter service to South Everett employment sites. Metro. Metro would increase service hours by nearly 60 per cent (Table 2.1), improving local connections between centers and linkages to regional limited stop services operating on the freeway HOV system. All -day service frequencies would increase in the suburbs. All -day, frequent express services would connect major centers and local communities. Some express services may operate exclusively along freeways. connecting to transit centers and local routes. In areas such as the University Distnct, local/express routes would be coordinated to serve centers and the freeway system. Peak period commuter routes would provide one -seat rides from neighborhoods and park-and-ride lots to major employment centers. Service would include: o Minimum 15 minute frequency during most of the day on primary routes within the dense urban areas of Seattle o Minimum 30 minute frequency on secondary urban routes and primary suburban routes o At least 60 minute frequency within or between major suburban areas o Direct commuter routes with at least six one-way trips on each route o Demand -responsive service in lower density suburban areas o Customized bus services to major employment sites. Pierce Transit. Pierce Transit would expand service to downtown Seattle, based on the level of demand identified by the modeling effort. Local community service and express services to downtown Tacoma would signifi- cantly improve. Proposed TSM service improvements include: o Tripling express service from Tacoma and Lakewood to downtown Seattle o Doubling peak -hour service to employment and other transit centers _o Doubling service on key midday routes to outlying centers. Additional Pierce Transit plans are described in Section 1.8. 2.2.1.3 TSM Alternative Capital Elements In addition to the general TSM capital elements described above, the TSM Alternative would include the following: Fleet. The regional bus fleet will be expanded by nearly 40 percent to support the service plan, reaching 2,632 vehicles (Table 2.3). Buses would use clean air technology such as natural gas fuels and electrical propulsion. Build Alternatives 2-17 March 1993 Included in the fleet expansion are more dual power (electric/diesel) coaches using the downtown Seattle transit tunnel. Maintenance Bases. Four new bases would be needed to store and maintain the expanded fleet. Bases would include new fueling and storage facilities to accommodate the switch to alternative fuels. Downtown Seattle Tunnel Modifications. Pre -staging facilities at the downtown Seattle transit tunnel would be required to handle the increased volume of buses. Regional Capital Facility Improvements At the regional scale, 384 lane miles would be added to complete the freeway HOV network. A freeway signal control/driver information system would improve traffic flow. Access improvements would give priority to transit and carpools. A major park-and-ride expansion would create nearly 14,000 stalls, most adjacent to the freeway system (Figure 2.7). In addition, 20 new freeway flyer stops would be built next to park-and-ride lots, allowing buses to remain in freeway rights-of-way. Artenal HOV lanes and priority on freeway ramps would give transit and carpools priority access to the freeway HOV system. The alternative also includes 26 miles of overhead trolley wire extensions on primary arterials. These improvements would significantly benefit transit and carpool speed and reliability. Cost of Facilities This alternative would cost $3.5 billion more than the No -Build Alternative. 2.2.2 Transitway/TSM Alternative 2.2.2.1 Transitway Concept The Transitway TSM Alternative adds exclusive guideways for buses and carpools to theasic TSM measures. In contrast to rail vehicles, buses can leave guideways and travel to off-line stations and through local neighbor- hoods, minimizing transfers between feeder service and the regional system. Buses can also skip intermediate stops between centers, share busway facili- ties with other HOVs, and use facilities designed for general-purpose traffic. The Transitway/TSM Alternative is intermediate in cost between the TSM and Rail/TSM Alternatives because of the smaller extent of the transitway and its use of already existing rights-of-way. The Transitway/TSM Alternative builds on the HOV system, giving more speed and reliability where HOV lanes are inadequate. Facilities would include exclusive busways, barrier -separated transitways for buses and • HOVs, freeway HOV lanes and direct access ramps, stations, and parking facilities (Figures 2.8 and 2.9). The alternative would improve transit access to centers such as the University District and Bellevue, would replace the reversible lanes on I-5 with a two-way transitway for buses, vanpools, and carpools, and would replace the reversible lanes on I-90 with a two-way busway. Use of the I -5 -express lanes would provide high-speed, high-capacity service to Northgate and into Snohomish County. Build Alternatives 2-18 March 1993 r PARK- AND-RIDE SPACES NORTH CORRIDOR PARK- AND-RIDE SPACES EAST CORRIDOR PARK- AND-RIDE SPACES SOUTH CORRIDOR 17IO oounr• PUKE COWflT•Mac t/N COWRY RTPG026W No -Build Park -end -Ride Capacity Total New Park -and -Ride Spaces TSM Regional HOV System and Capital Improvements System Plan EIS FIGURE 2.7 Stations / Access Imp Park & Ride Expansion New Arterial Regional Transitway Alternative aNGCOIRITY• PIERCE COUNTY. SNONONISNCOUNTY TWAYF31.Wr • Jl8 • 02.23.93 Improvements System Pian EIS FIGURE 2.8 Outside HOV Lanes on Freeway RIER Inside/Center HOV Lanes on Freeway BARRIER Barrier Separated Transitway in Center of Freeway IOW oourn • MICE COMM' • laNONgN alum Fri PGo w+ Typical Tiransitway & HOV Facilities System Plan EIS FIGURE 2.9 The Transitway/TSM Alternative takes advantage of the TSM Alternative's bus fleet, HOV system, and speed and reliability improvements. However, some TSM projects would not be included in the alternative due to duplica- tion of function by the transitway and related improvements. Other TSM projects would be modified to complement the transitway system (see . Technical Appendix B). The following description portrays the Transitway/TSM Alternative in terms of the general areas served, the general service pattern, and the facilities required, which are part of the decisions to be made for the System Plan. Although the description refers to specific rights-of-way and facility locations, this is for study purposes only. 'Other alternative alignments will continue to be considered. Detailed evaluation of specific alignments and facilities will occur during project -level environmental review if this alternative is adopted for the System Plan. 2.2.2.2 Transitway Service Plan Operating Concept The Transitway/TSM Alternative would emphasize regional, local -express and express -only operations overlaid on neighborhood transit, paratransit, and ridesharing measures. Express -only routes would operate directly between park-and-ride facilities or transit centers to regional centers or between several centers. To take advantage of the transitway, some routes to downtown Seattle which currently cross Lake Washington on SR -520 would be rerouted onto I-90. The alternative would include two regional routes along I-5 and I-405, offering frequent all -day service. A trunk route would run every fifteen minutes between Everett and Tacoma by way of downtown Seattle. Another regional route would run every thirty minutes between south Everett and Bellevue. Local -express service would combine collector and line -haul functions into one operation. Local -express routes would pick up and drop off passengers in neighborhoods and serve local park-and-ride lots or transit centers before connecting to other centers by way of the transitway network. Feeder bus service would also berovided to stations and park-and-ride lots. Feeder route passengers would transfer to express routes or the express portions of local/express routes. Backsround transit service would consist of the TSM Alternative's baseline transit service modified to eliminate duplication and improve travel time and reliability. Some TSM baseline routes would be rerouted onto the transitway or truncated to provide feeder bus service. Service Hours and Frequency Transitway/TSM hours and frequency would be similar to the TSM Alterna- tive. Increased transit speeds would increase platform miles somewhat over the TSM Alternative (see Table 2.1). 2.2.2.3 Transitway Capital Facilities In addition to TSM capital elements, the Transitway/TSM Alternative would include the following: Build Alternatives 2-22 March 1993 Fleet. The regional bus fleet would be expanded by over 40 percent over the No -Build Alternative to support the service plan, reaching 2,654 vehicles (Table 2.3). Buses would use clean air technology such as natural gas fuels and electncal propulsion. Included in the fleet expansion are more dual power coaches using the downtown Seattle transit tunnel. North Corridor The North Corridor transitway for buses, vanpools, and carpools would extend to Northgate from the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel along I-5. The I-5 express lanes would become a two-way, barrier -separated transitway connecting with HOV lanes to the south and north. By 2020, HOV lanes would be extended to Marysville and connect to Paine Field/Southwest Everett along SR -525 and SR -526. Ramp Access. Conversion of the I-5 reversible lanes to a two-way transitway would require new ramps and operational changes on existing ramps. New ramps would include a northbound transit tunnel from Convention Place Station, three new full access ramps in the University District, a new north- bound offramp at Lake City Way, and full directional access ramps at North - gate. Northbound HOV access would be available from the existing Dearborn and Cherry/Columbia Street ramps and at Mercer Street. South- bound buses and HOVs could exit the transitway on existing ramps at Pine/Pike Streets, Stewart Street, and Mercer Street. The existing 42nd Street off -ramp would provide a northbound exit from the transitway. The existing Northeast 65th and Lake City Way ramps would provide southbound transitway access. Other Access Improvements. Transit improvements would be provided in the University District. HOV signal and lane prioritization would be added on Northeast 45th Street and other streets with heavy transit usage. Stations/Access Points. On-line (freeway) stations would be located at: o Mountlake Terrace o I-5/52nd Avenue West o Lynnwood Park -and -Ride o 164th Street SW o 128th Street Southwest Buses would exit the transitway to serve off-line stations such as Everett Mall, downtown Everett, and Marysville, as well as various locations in King County. South Corridor A- n exclusive busway would follow the E-3 busway and Union Pacific/ Burlington,Northern Railroad rights-of-way from downtown to center HOV lanes on I-5 near the I-5/State Route 599 interchange. As an alternative, the transitway could follow SR -99 and SR -599 to connect with I-5. Buses could continue on I-5 HOV lanes south to Tacoma and Lakewood. New connect- ing ramps would be needed between the I-5 HOV lanes at SR -599 and the transitway. TSM transit hubs would be off-line stations in this alternative. Stations/Access Points. On-line stations would be located at: o Royal Brougham Way . Build Alternatives 2-23 March 1993 o South Spokane Street o Boeing Access Road o South 84th Street in Tacoma o South 272nd Street. An off-line station would be located at Kent -Des Moines Road. Transitway exit points would be located at Royal Brougham Way and South Holgate Street, and at Boeing Access Road. In addition to planned TSM access ramps (see Technical Appendix B), HOV lane access to Sea -Tac Airport would be provided at SR -599. East Corridor The East Corridor exclusive busway would extend from downtown Seattle east along the I-90 center lanes. Buses on the busway would then either enter shoulder HOV lanes on I-405 by means of new ramps or continue in center HOV lanes along I-90 to Issaquah. From the I-405 HOV lanes at SE 8th Street, buses would enter a three-mile long exclusive busway west of I- 405 through downtown Bellevue. After recrossing I-405, the busway would follow Burlington Northern right-of-way to freeway HOV lanes on 1-405 or SR -520 to continue north or east. Stations/Access Points. The alternative would include on-line stations at: o I-90 and Rainier Avenue o Wilburton park-and-ride o Bellevue Convention Center. There would also be full bus access on I-90 to Mercer Island center and Mercer Island park-and-ride. Access to the I-405 HOV lanes north of Belle- vue would be provided at Northeast 8th, Northeast 70th, Northeast 85th, Totem Lake, and Northeast 160th. Access on SR -520 could be provided at 130th Northeast, 148th Northeast, Northeast 36th, Northeast 51st, and State Route 901. Cost of Facilities This alternative would cost $4.3 billion more than the No -Build Alternative. 2.2.3 RaiI TSM Alternative The Rail/TSM Alternative overlays an extensive rapid rail system and a commuter rail line onto most of the regional and local TSM improvements, including the completed freeway HOV system. Some TSM projects which provided access between freeways and centers. or park-and-ride lots would be replaced by direct rail service. Significant expansion in park-and-ride capacity is also proposed, as compared to that for the TSM or Transit- way/TSM Alternatives. 2.2.3.1 Technology This alternative would be based on an rapid rail system on exclusive, grade - separated right-of-way. For purposes of evaluation, it is assumed that this system would operate with steel wheels on steel rails and would draw power from an overhead catenary. Maximum speeds would be 55 to 70 mph, with average speeds (including station stops) around 35 to 40 mph. The appropriate rail technology would be selected during project -level planning and environmental review (see Section 2.6.8). The alternative also includes Build Alternatives 2-24 March 1993 conventional commuter rail service on existing right-of-way between Tacoma and Seattle. Unless otherwise indicated, "rail' in this document refers to rapid rail and not to commuter rail. 2.23.2 Capital Facilities This description portrays the Rail/TSM Alternative in terms of general areas served, feeder bus pattern, and the support facilities, which are part of the decisions to be made for the System Plan. Although the description refers to specific rights-of-way and facility locations, this is for study purposes onty. Other alternative alignments and facility locations will continue to be considered. Detailed evaluation of specific alignments and facilities will occur during project -level environmental review if this alternative is adopted for the System Plan. The configuration of the regional rail system is illustrated in Figure 2.10. For illustration purposes only, typical rail stations are shown in Figure 2.11. Baseline alignments and stations used for modeling are shown in Figure 2.12. Major alternative alignments considered for ridership modeling are described under the corridor descriptions below. Other potential varia- tions and supplements to the baseline alignment are described in Sections 2.3 and 2.4. Rail facilities would be overlaid on a reduced set of TSM measures and an expanded park-and-ride capacity, based on the demand indicated by ridership modeling. Alignment Characteristics. The major portion of the rail system would be on a grade -separated alignment, completely separated from motor vehicle, non - motorized, or rail traffic. Portions of the alignment would be in tunnels, constructed either by boring (tunneling underground) or by cut -and -cover techniques (excavating each tunnel from above and covering it with a lid). Portions of the alignment would be in retained cuts (below the surface but • open to the sky). At -grade, or surface, portions of the grade -separated align- ment would operate over or under any roadways they crossed. Aerial portions of the alignment would be on structure above the surface of the ground. The entire commuter rail line and possibly some portions of the rapid rail line in Pierce and Snohomish counties would run on the surface with at grade street crossings. Such crossings would require crossing barriers, warning signals, and special signalization. Fleet. As shown in Table 2.3, the 2020 rail system would require almost 400 rail transit cars, as well as 30 conventional commuter rail cars and 11 locomotives for the commuter rail line. The regional bus fleet would be expanded almost 30 percent to support the service plan, reaching nearly 2,360 vehicles (Table 2.3). By 2020, dual -powered buses would be eliminated from the fleet, as buses would no longer use the downtown Seattle tunnel. Buses would use clean air technology such as natural gas fuels and electrical propulsion. Stations. Approximately 78 stations are proposed for the rail system. Poten- tial station locations in each corridor are described below. To allow the speeds necessary in a regional system, most stations would be 1.5 to 2 miles apart, although they would be closer in high transit volume areas. Commuter rail stations would be spaced about 5 miles apart. Final locations and design of stations would be determined during detailed planning, including community involvement and environmental review, to assure community Build Alternatives 2-25 March 1993 Regional Transit Pro"ect 10.03=WTI• PIOCECamr•3101ora1COMM' arse 2020 Rail Corridors (Communities,/Markets Served) System Plan EIS FIGURE 2.10 Aerial, Center Platform At -Grade Side Platform Subway Center Platform Ole CORM( • 'WU COINTY • 11101101014 COLVIN RTPG0269G Typical Rail Stations System Plan EIS FIGURE 2.11 Source: AraI/Jackson Architects & Planners, 1991 PL ALLUP BONNEY Regional ;IU Transit Project 2020 Regional Rail Base Alignment System Plan EIS FIGURE 2.12 compatibility and appropriate levels of walk, bicycle, bus, and automobile access. Rail Maintenance Facilities. The rail system would need a major mainte- nance and storage facility of about 50 acres in the South Corridor and smaller maintenance and storage facilities in the other corridors. North Corridor Alignment Description. The North Corridor alignment would extend from the, Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel to the University District, Northgate, Lynnwood, and Everett. Two alignment options have been studied between downtown Seattle and Northgate: o The alignment recommended by the JRPC serves First Hill, Capitol Hill, the University District, and the Roosevelt neighborhood by way of a tunnel extending under Capitol Hill, Portage Bay and the University District to the general vicinity of Northeast 70th Street, and continues northward to Northgate along the I-5 corridor. o The second alignment follows the I-5 corridor to Northgate, providing service to south Lake Union instead of Capitol Hill. The I-5 alignment would include a people mover to link service to the University of Washington campus. Three general alignment variations are being studied between Northgate and Lynnwood: o The first continues north along the I-5 corridor to Lynnwood. o The second diverts from the I-5 corridor north of Northgate, connects to SR -99 (Aurora Avenue North) somewhere between Northeast 125th Street and Northeast 155th Street and continues north along SR -99 to the vicinity of 220th Street in Snohomish County, where it would leave SR -99 and rejoin the I-5 alignment south of the Lynnwood park-and- ride. o The third is similar to the second between Northgate and 220th Street, but continues north along SR -99, connecting to a local surface rail alignment being considered within Snohomish County. This alignment would reach Everett along the SR-99/Evergreen Way corridor, by- passing Alderwood Mall in Lynnwood. _Three principal alignment options are being examined which would extend regional rail service from Lynnwood to Everett: o The first continues north along the I-5 corridor from Lynnwood, follows Broadway within Everett to a bus and automobile intercept station near I-5 east of downtown Everett, and proceeds at -grade into downtown Everett. The Southwest Everett area would be served with a spur from I-5 to SR -526 along Airport Road. o The second diverts from the I-5 corridor near Airport Road to the Southwest Everett area, proceeds east in the SR -526 corridor to SR-99/Evergreen Way, then north along Evergreen Way to downtown Build Alternatives 2-29 March 1993 Everett, and then connects to a bus and automobile intercept station near I-5 and SR -2. o The third option diverts from the I-5 corridor near Alderwood Mall, rejoining SR -99 near SR -525, proceeds north along SR -99, diverts to the Southwest Everett area along Airport Road, proceeds east in the SR - 526 corridor to SR-99/Evergreen-Way, and then north along Evergreen Way to downtown Everett. Other regional rail alignments may be considered involving variations or elements of any of the aforementioned alignments. Both surface alignments and a subway alignment are being considered for service within downtown Everett. Due to the need to maintain adequate traffic operations within downtown Everett, a change in service characterist- ics would probably be required between the surface alignment and the trunk line portion of the alignment. Options include turning back some trains or reducing train length at a station south of Everett or operating a shuttle rail segment from downtown Everett with cross -platform transfers at a trunk line station south of downtown. Three local surface rail alignments are also being considered from downtown Everett south into Snohomish County. These extensions of local surface rail would orient rail service toward local and intracounty transit needs and alter the access pattern and feeder bus service to the trunk line terminal station. The principal local surface rail alignments under consideration would extend south from downtown Everett along the Evergreen/SR-99 corridor. They include: o extending to the vicinity of Everett Mall o extending to SR -526, then west to provide service to Paine Field and Southwest Everett o bypassing Paine Field and Southwest Everett and following SR -99 to the vicinity of the King/Snohomish county line to connect to the trunk line alignment at a transfer station. Section 2.3 provides a more detailed description of the local surface rail concept and a summary of the evaluation to date of possible alignments. Transit service within the north corridor could also be supplemented with express passenger ferry service or commuter rail service between Seattle and Everett (see Section 2.4). • Stations/Access Points. Stations would provide access from employment centers, neighborhoods, park-and-ride lots, and other transit lines. Potential station locations between downtown Seattle (Convention Place Station) and Northgate include: Capitol Hill alignment: First Hill (Madison Street) Capitol Hill (1 or 2 Broadway stations) University District (2 stations on 15th NE) I-5 alignment: Mercer St/S. Lake Union NE 45th St (connected to UW with a people mover) Build Alternatives 2-30 March 1993 Northeast 65th Street Northgate Potential station locations between Northgate and the Lynnwood park-and- ride lot include: Northeast 65th St Northgate • I-5 Alignment Northeast 145th Street Northeast 175th Street 220th St. SW (Mountlake Terrace) 236th St. SW (Mountlake Terrace Aurora/SR-99 Alignment: North 130th Street North 145th Street North 155th Street North 175th Street North 192nd Street Aurora Village 220th Street Southwest Other potential stations within Snohomish County include: I-5 alignment: Lynnwood park-and-ride Lynnwood center/Alderwood Mall 164th St SW 128th St SW (S. Everett) Everett Mall Broadway/35th St SE SR-99/Evergreen Way alignment (stations only under consideration for local surface rail options are indicated with * ): 228th St SW * Edmonds park-and-ride * Lynnwood * � 180th St * Keelers Corner * 148th St SW * SR -525 * North Manor Way * Airport Road 112th St SW 100th St SW * Casino Road * Campus Parkway * Madison Street 52nd St SW * 41st St SW 35th St SW * Southwest Everett link station locations: o SR-99/Airport Road o Beverly Park Road o Paine Field/Southwest Everett o Casino Road and 10th Avenue (local surface rail) o SR 526 Downtown Everett and vicinity station locations: o Everett park-and-ride o Smith Avenue (downtown surface alignment) o downtown Everett o Everett Waterfront Build Alternatives . 2-31 March 1993 Stations south of Northgate and in downtown Everett would be reached primarily by walking, bicycling, or feeder bus, as would local surface rail stations. Regional rail stations between the Northgate station and downtown Everett would incorporate moderate to substantial park-and-ride capacity, for up to 11,500 new park-and-ride spaces within the north corridor. Maintenance Facilities. Permanent maintenance and storage facilities would probably include a central facility in the industrial area south of Seattle and a smaller vehicle maintenance and storage facility somewhere in north King or Snohomish county. South Corridor Alignment Description. One alignment would extend from downtown Seattle through Federal Way to Tacoma. A connecting east -west segment would extend from Burien east around the south end of Lake Washington to connect with the East Corridor. A commuter rail line would extend from downtown Seattle to Tacoma through the Green River Valley. Two alignment options, one serving the Duwamish industrial area and the other Rainier Valley, are being studied between downtown Seattle and south Boeing Field. The two options rejoin near Boeing Access Road. The align- ment continues south along SR -99 or Interurban Avenue South (serving Southcenter) to SR -518 and then directly serves Sea -Tac Airport. The alignment continues through the City of SeaTac and follows the proposed SR -509 extension to connect with I-5 near South 216th Street. It then follows the I-5/SR-99 corridor south to Tacoma. The alignment could potentially be extended south to serve the Lakewood market. See section 2.4.2.4 for a more detailed discussion. Duwamish Industrial Alignment. This alignment follows the E-3 busway south from downtown Seattle past South Spokane Street. It crosses the rail yards to follow Fourth Avenue South to East Marginal Way South. It continues along East Marginal Way South to Boeing Access Road, where it crosses the Duwamish River and connects to SR -99. Rainier Valley Alignments. The Rainier Valley alignments follow I-90/Dearborn to Rainier Avenue South, then Rainier Avenue South or Martin Luther King, Jr. Way to South Henderson Street, then Henderson west to the south end of Boeing Field. The alignment recommended by the JRPC is the Rainier/Martin Luther King alignment. Stations/Access Points. Stations would provide access from employment centers, neighborhoods, park-and-ride lots, and other transit lines. Potential locations along the Duwamish industrial alignment include: o Royal Brougham Way o South Spokane Street o South Michigan Street o 16th Avenue South o South end of Boeing Field. Potential locations in Rainier Valley include: o Vicinity of I-90 o South McClellan Street o South Genesee Street Build Alternatives 2-32 March 1993 o South Graham Street ,. o South Henderson Street. Other potential station locations include: o Boeing Access Road and East Marginal Way South o Southcenter o SR-99/SR-518 interchange o Sea -Tac Airport o SeaTac Town Center o Kent -Des Moines Road o Star Lake o Federal Way o South Federal Way o SR -167/I-5 (Fife) o Vicinity of the Tacoma Dome o Downtown Tacoma. Potential stations along the east -west alignment include: o Burien o SR -99 o Southcenter o Boeing Longacres site o South Renton o Renton Boeing plant o Kennydale. Stations north of Boeing Access Road and in SeaTac and downtown Tacoma would be reached primarily by bicycling, walking, or transit feeder service. The station at the SR-99/SR-518 interchange would be primarily a transfer station between rail lines. Other stations would probably include a signifi- cant park-and-ride component. About 10,000 new park-and-ride spaces would be built along the corridor. Maintenance Facilities could be near Kent -Des Moines Road or Boeing Access Road and near SR-518/SR-99. • Commuter Rail Element. Commuter rail (see Figure 2.12) consists of conventional rail cars pulled by a locomotive, operating with greater frequency in the direction of commuter travel. The downtown service would long through the Green River Valley from Tacoma to Burlington Northern or Union Pacific Railroad tracks by 1997. The commuter rail line could connect with the rapid rail system at Tacoma, Longacres, Boeing Access Road, and downtown Seattle. A commuter rail spur line could also run from Black River Junction to north Renton as an interim service until the rapid rail link is completed between Renton and the Seattle -Tacoma rapid rail line (see Section 2.4.2 for more details). Potential Tacoma -Seattle commuter rail stations include: o Downtown Seattle o Spokane Street o Georgetown o Boeing Access Road (Oxbow) o Longacres Build Alternatives 2-33 March 1993 o Downtown Kent o North Auburn o Downtown Auburn o South Auburn o Puyallup o Sumner o Tacoma Dome o Tacoma CBD. Except for downtown Seattle, Spokane Street, and Tacoma, these stations would likely need a significant park-and-ride component to serve transit riders not able to effectively use feeder bus service. Additional local stops with limited service designed for transit and nonmotorized access may be proposed during project -level review. Commuter rail maintenance facilities could be in Auburn or Tacoma. East Corridor Alignment Description. The East Corridor alignment would link the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel to downtown Bellevue following I-90 to I-405, Richards Road, or possibly Bellevue Way. From downtown Bellevue the line would branch northeast to Redmond and north along I-405 to Alderwood Mall. Other segments would follow I-90 to Issaquah and Burlington Northern tracks to Renton. Station/Access Points. Station locations being studied include: o I-90 at Rainier Avenue South o Mercer Island o I -90/I-405 or Factoria o South Bellevue park-and-ride or Wilburton park-and-ride lot o Downtown Bellevue o locations along I-405 including Houghton, Northeast 85th, Totem Lake, Northeast 160th, east Bothell, and Canyon Park o Locations between Bellevue and Redmond, including Northup/124th NE, Overlake, Evergreen Highlands, Northeast 51st/SR-520,-downtown Redmond, and southeast Redmond. Additional stations could be located at Eastgate park-and-ride lot and Issaquah. Stations could be located south of Bellevue at Newport Hills and near May Creek. Stations in Seattle, downtown Bellevue, Overlake, downtown Redmond, and downtown Issaquah would be reached primarily by walking, bicycling, or bus feeder service. Other stations would probably include a significant park-and- ride component. About 13,000 new park-and-ride spaces would be added along the corridor. Maintenance Facilities. Interim facilities could be located near Metro's current Bellevue base. Permanent facilities would be in southeast Redmond. Cost of Rail/TSM Facilities This alternative would cost $10.3 billion more than the No -Build Alternative. Build Alternatives 2-34 March 1993 2.2.3.3 Rapid Rail Service Plan The service plan is an example of how the rail and bus system could operate. The plan is preliminary and subject to change. Operating Concept Rapid rail service could operate along five through routes (Table 2.5). Transfer points would be at Lynnwood, downtown Seattle, downtown Belle- vue, I -405/I-90, SR -99 or Interurban/SR-518, and I-90/Rainier (if a Rainier Valley alignment is selected; see the South Corridor discussion in Section 2.2.3.2). The rapid rail system would rely on TSM -based feeder bus routes, transit centers, and park-and-ride lots linked with rail stations. Table 2.5. Line Conceptual Rail Routes. Service Area Description Line 1 Line 2 Line 3 Line 4 Line 5 Commuter Rail Everett to Seattle, then east to Issaquah. Everett to Seattle, then east to Bellevue and Redmond. Northgate to downtown Seattle, continuing south to Tacoma. Paine Field through Bothell, Bellevue, and Renton to Burien. Northgate to Seattle, continuing south to Federal Way. Seattle to Tacoma through the Green River Valley. Service Hours and Frequency The system would operate 20 hours a day. By 2020, frequencies would range from every two to twenty minutes (Table 2.6). Table 2.6. Peak Hour Frequencies of Rail Operations (2020). Segment Line(s). Peak Base Owl Frequency Frequency Frequency Everett to Northgate Northgate to Seattle CBD Seattle CBD to Federal Way Federal Way to Tacoma Seattle CBD to I -405/I-90 Bellevue CBD to I -405/I-90 Bellevue CBD to Redmond Issaquah to I-405/1-90 Paine Field to Bellevue CBD Burien CBD to I-405/1-90 Seattle to Tacoma 1,2 1,2,3,5 3,5 3 1,2 2,4 2 1 4 4 Commuter Rail 5 minutes 8 minutes 10 minutes 2 minutes 3 minutes 7 minutes 3 minutes 4 minutes 10 minutes 10 minutes 15 minutes 20 minutes 5 minutes 8 minutes 10 minutes 6 minutes 9 minutes 10 minutes 12 minutes 18 minutes 20 minutes 12 minutes 18 minutes 20 minutes 15 minutes 20 minutes 20 minutes 15 minutes 20 minutes 20 minutes 15 minutes Bus Service The background Rail/TSM bus system would consist of feeder buses and local buses. The feeder bus network would serve rail stations. The network Build Alternatives 2-35 March 1993 of local and express bus routes that do not specifically serve stations would provide supplemental community and regional service. TSM routes near rail stations would probably be rerouted to serve the stations. TSM routes which were redundant with rail service would be truncated or deleted entirely. New routes would be proposed, as appropriate, to serve rail stations from areas unserved by modifications to the TSM bus network. North Corridor. All stations would be served by one or more feeder routes. The. University District and Northgate stations would have the greatest number of feeder buses. In addition to North Corridor routes, the University District stations would be served from the East and South corridors. In Everett new local circulator routes would provide access to rail stations from areas not served by the TSM network. The local bus system would still link areas west of I-5 to downtown Seattle. Metro would also provide local service between First Hill and North Seattle and paratransit services to Kenmore and Bothell. Community Transit would continue to link local Snohomish County communities, as well as Aurora Village. Everett Transit would continue to provide Everett local service and express service between Mukilteo and Everett Boeing, South Corridor. Feeder routes would link stations with south King County communities, Rainier Valley, West Seattle, and south Seattle. Pierce Transit would link the rail system to the rest of Pierce County. Metro would link Burien, West Seattle, Southcenter, and Renton to stations along the Burien- Renton alignment. Pierce Transit would provide new routes connecting Bonney Lake, Lakewood, Olympia, and Fort Lewis to rail stations. Metro would still provide express service between downtown Seattle and White Center, Harbor Island, Beacon Hill, and Vashon Island. Metro and Pierce Transit would continue to provide local service in the South Corridor. East Corridor. Feeder bus service would operate to all rail stations in the East Corridor. A new route would link Totem Lake and Kirkland to the University District, stopping at stations at Totem Lake, NE 85th, and NE 70th. Express buses would still link Snohomish County to Redmond. Local regular bus service would still be provided, as well as express bus service to downtown Seattle from Kirkland. 2.2.4 The JRPC Recommendation On September 18, 1992, the Joint Regional Policy Committee (see Section 1.1) adopted Resolution No. 4. This resolution recommends for public review and comment a draft System Plan that could be implemented in the region by the year 2015. A summary of the JRPC's recommendation follows; a more detailed version is contained in the Draft Regional Transit System Plan. The draft System Plan recommended by the JRPC will be revised, based on comments received during the review period for the DEIS. JRPC adoption of a final System Plan is scheduled for spring of 1993, after the issuance of this Final Environmental Impact Statement. Build Alternatives 2-36 March 1993 This FEIS covers a wide range of alternatives to ensure that the range of impacts and potential mitigation measures covers the range of alternatives, impacts, and mitigation measures of the plan that may ultimately be adopted by the JRPC. More scaled-back options, such as recommended by the JRPC in the recommended draft System Plan, are possible. Given the broad scope of this EIS, the final System Plan adopted by the JRPC will likely fall within the range of alternatives and impacts considered herein. If it should fall outside these ranges, additional system -level environmental analysis may be required under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). It should be noted that the JRPC's recommendation is not a "preferred alter- native" designation as described in SEPA or Metro's SEPA Rules. The designation of a preferred alternative will occur only after the public review process is complete and the Final EIS is issued. It should be further noted that, under both SEPA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the final selection of modes and alignments can be made only after project - level environmental analysis is complete. 2.2.4.1 Comparison of Rail/TSM Alternative and the Draft System Plan Recommended by the JRPC The draft System Plan recommended by the JRPC is a variation of the Rail/TSM Alternative covered in detail in this FEIS (Table 2.7). Generally speaking, the impacts of the Rail/TSM Alternative (described in Chapter 3 of this 1IS) will be similar to those of the JRPC recommendation. Howev- er, the geographic extent of impacts of the JRPC's draft System Plan is somewhat less. The discussion of the affected environment and the list of potential mitigation measures is identical between the two, but the extent of where mitigation measures are necessary will be somewhat less under the JRPC's draft System Plan. Table 2.7. Comparison of Rail/TSM Alternative with JRPC's Draft System Plan. TSM Improvements Bus Service Rail/TSM Alternative $826 million investment See Section 2.2.3.3 Rail Stations North Corridor South Corridor East Corridor Rail Miles - Markets Served by Rail Up to 21 Up to 22 Up to 22 124 miles See Section 2.2.3.2 Commuter Rail 40 miles Up to 10 stations JRPC Recommendation $12 billion investment Same as Rail/TSM, except additional express bus service on I-405 and 1-90 to serve Bothell, Renton, and Issaquah Same as Rail/TSM Up to 16 in initial phase Up to 15 in initial phase 84 miles Same as Rail/TSM except Bothell, Issaquah, Renton. These could receive extensions of the rail system after 2015. 44 miles, including spur to Renton Boeing Up to 12 stations The draft System Plan recommended by the JRPC for the rail component focuses on the time frame through 2015, whereas the remainder of -the draft System Plan focuses on a time frame through 2020. The JRPC has not precluded future extensions of the rail system that could include those Build Alternatives 2-37 March 1993 segments of the Rail/TSM Alternative not contained in its recommended draft System Plan. These segments include: Lynnwood to Totem Lake via Bothell, South Bellevue to Issaquah, and South Bellevue to Burien via Renton. A commuter rail extension to serve downtown Renton and North Renton -Boeing has been added. Decisions concerning future extensions will be made by the appropriate policy body at some future date. 2.2.4.2 Phasing of the JRPC Recommended Rail Plan The final system plan, to be adopted by the JRPC in early 1993, will identify the initial markets that rail would serve by 2005. One of three general approaches will be followed in making this initial phasing decision: o Option A. Construct as much of the central portion of the system by 2005 as possible. o Option B. Construct as much of one corridor by 2005 as possible, while delaying implementation in the other corridors. o Option C. Construct operable portions of the system in each of the three counties by 2005. The impacts discussion in Chapter 3 of this FEIS covers general construction impacts of building a rail system. The type of impacts will not vary among the phasing alternatives; the geographic extent of the impacts at any moment in time and the duration of impacts will vary among the phasing alternatives. Under Option A, the initial impacts will center on the neighborhoods immediately adjacent to downtown Seattle and will gradually move out in three directions. As construction proceeds, construction impacts will move out to widely separated areas within King County and then to Snohomish and Pierce Counties. Under Option B, impacts will focus on several neighborhoods adjacent to downtown Seattle during an intense, but relatively short construction period. Impacts will remain concentrated in communities on the single corridor until work in that corridor is complete. Under Option C, initial impacts will center on downtown Everett and Tacoma and in neighborhoods around downtown Seattle. The distance between construction sites and the multiple alignments being worked on at once will likely mean slower construction in each segment, given the flow of construction funds and limits of regional construction capacity. The intensity of impacts along a given segment will be less than in other options, but will likely be more prolonged. Consideration should be given to measures that would maintain the mutual economic vitality of the region's primary centers during the initial construction phase that would affect Everett, Tacoma and Seattle. impacts of potential alignment variations will be evaluated in more detail during project level planning and environmental review. 2.3.1 North Corridor Local surface rail in lieu of regional grade -separated rail operations has been evaluated along potential alignment segments within Snohomish County (see Section 2.2.3.2). The intent of instituting local surface rail would be to better serve local and intracounty service needs and reduce capital costs. Local surface rail alternatives would use relatively exclusive, non -grade - separated right-of-way within existing roadways. Most intersections would be crossed at grade, with train movement expedited with signal preemption or other measures. Between intersections, the rail guideway would be protected by barriers or raised curbs. Trains would consist of two rather than four cars to be compatible with smaller, closer spaced stations and to minimize traffic conflicts. Local surface rail vehicles would operate more slowly and with less schedule reliability than grade -separated regional trains. Transfer stations would probably be needed for passengers traveling between the local and regional portions of the rail alignment. Depending on the location and length of the local surface rail operation, express bus service might be used to provide service from outlying areas to the northern terminus of the regional rail system and possibly downtown Seattle. Bus capacity constraints within downtown Seattle may limit this possibility. The travel time between downtown Eyerett and downtown Seattle on the regional grade -separated rail system would be about 50 minutes. Incorporat- ing a local surface rail segment within the corridor would increase the rail -travel time by 25 to 30 minutes if local surface rail extended to the King/Snohomish county line, 8 to 12 minutes if local surface rail extended to the Everett Mall area, and 12 to 16 minutes if local surface rail extended to the Southwest Everett area. Because of closer station spacing, local surface rail service would be more accessible to people using nonmotorized transportation. Preliminary ridership estimates suggest that local surface rail between downtown Everett and the Everett Mall would have slightly greater ridership than the baseline alignment, due to an increase in local ridership. However, local surface rail between downtown Everett and the Southwest Everett area would have lower overall ridership. Local surface rail along SR -99 between downtown Everett and the vicinity of the King/Snohomish county line would have substantially lower ridership. • Preliminary cost estimates indicate that the entire Snohomish County portion of the rail alignment would cost approximately $870 million for the through regional service baseline alignment (with at -grade service within downtown Everett and a spur to the Southwest Everett area), $500 million for the alternative incorporating local surface rail between downtown Everett and the county line, $890 million for the alternative incorporating local surface rail to Everett Mall, and $770 million for the alternative incorporating local surface rail extending to the Southwest Everett area. Rail/TSM Variations 2-39 March 1993 Local surface rail operations are likely to increase traffic congestion along the alignment. Surface rail will reduce the amount of richt-of-wayavailable for vehicular movement and on -street parking and loading. Roadway traffic capacity will be reduced. Cross -street traffic along affected roadways will experience greater congestion due to the restriction of cross traffic to fewer intersections and the effect of signalreemption. Left turn movements between intersections would be precluded. Local emergency vehicle opera- tions would also be affected. Areas that experience increased traffic congestion may experience an increase in vehicular exhaust emissions. However, local surface rail may also reduce vehicle exhaust emissions by increasing local transit ridership and reducing the number of local buses. Hence, the net local air quality impacts are uncertain. Other factors being equal, local surface rail operations are quieter than regional rail operations, due to lower average speeds. However, local surface rail operations would in general be located on streets with lower traffic volumes and speeds than freeway rights -of -ways used by much of the baseline alignment. Hence; background traffic noise within the local surface rail corridors is generally lower than noise in the regional rail service corridors. Potentially sensitive land uses, such as residences, tend to be closer to local surface rail alignment options than freeway rights -of -ways. Hence, the potential noise impacts may not be significantly different. Development of a surface rail facility would probably involve full reconstruc- tion of streets and sidewalks from property line to property line, including utility and drainage work within the more limited nghts-of-way in the urban portion of the alignments. Additional right-of-way area might be needed for stations. Right-of-way reconstruction will present an opportunity to provide roadway enhancements that could significantly improve the visual quality and pedes- trian environment of affected roadways. Surface rail operations will have less visual impact than elevated grade -separated operations. 2.3.2 South Corridor A surface rail line connecting Tacoma with the regional rail system and serving downtown Tacoma may be evaluated in the future, particularly if the rapid rail line is routed to Lakewood rather than downtown Tacoma. The impacts of building and operating surface rail to downtown Tacoma would be similar to those described for a surface rail system in the North Corridor (see Section 2.3.1). 2.4 Potential Rail/TSM Supplements Additional alignments have been proposed to enhance the rail system's abili- ty to serveopulations and centers. These supplements are being evaluated for cost-effectiveness and potential to reduce transit travel times, contribute ridership, and reduce traffic congestion. If results are favorable, these alignments may be added to the System Plan by the JRPC. If one or more Rail/TSM Variations 2-40 March 1993 2.4.1 2.4.1.1 are added to the System' Plan, the impacts would be studied in detail during project -level environmental review. The potential supplements are not crucial to the operation of a regional system. Because of this, the operating characteristics would differ from the rest of the system. Some additions could operate at -grade on barrier - separated tracks at slower speeds than the rest of the system. The advantages of at -grade rail operations over buses are increased capacity, slightly higher speed, and reliability. Congestion Pricing Under congestion pricing, use of major automobile transportation facilities would be regulated with tolls and/or permits to limit the number of vehicles using the facilities. This would provide both a financial base for transit and HOV improvements and a means of reducing congestion on key facilities. Recent technology allows charges to be made to users electronically, rather than with toll booths. Congestion pricing would have some equity issues, since financial impacts on lower-income individuals would be greatest. Privacy issues would also need to be resolved, since a computerized system could track individual travel habits. Land use and traffic impacts could also occur in areas without congestion pricing. However, congestion pricing could be a viable supplement to any Of the build alternatives to reduce peak auto travel, stimulate transit ridership., and increase the use of HOV lanes and transitways, and it will be explored in future planning. North Corridor Ballard to Laurelhurst Rail Service A supplementary alignment could extend east from Ballard through Fremont, Wallingford, the University District and Laurelhurst. A Metro study (Parsons/Kaiser 1991) concluded that at -grade light rail or enhanced bus service would be feasible and attract 6,200 more daily transit riders than existing bus service by 2020. Total daily ridership might pass the capacity of bus service but be within the capacity of light rail. Enhanced bus service or light rail could have serious impacts on parking, the availability of loading zones, and traffic along the corridor. However, replacement parking and loading zone access would be developed as a component of the project. Metro is also evaluating streets parallel to Northeast 45th for enhanced transit service. 2.4.1.2 Seattle to Everett Commuter Rail A preliminary analysis has been made of the potential use of 34 miles of existing Burlington Northern Railroad (BNRR) tracks between downtown. Seattle and downtown Everett for commuter rail service. The alignment includes about 27 miles of double track and 7 miles of single-track, the latter in intermediate sections. Much of the alignment is a series of curves with few tangent sections and only limited minor grades. Under the preliminary service concept, service would begin at a new station and multi -modal transportation center east of downtown Everett in the vicinity of Smith Avenue, Pacific Avenue and the Interstate 5 overpass. This Rail/TSM Supplements 2-41 March 1993 station would include a large park and ride lot, supporting bus loading and turn around areas, and a drop off area. The commuter rail train would pass through the single-track tunnel under downtown Everett to the existing Amtrak Station on the Everett waterfront, which could accommodate bus and passenger car drop off zones and draw walk-on patronage. From there the line would continue along the Puget Sound shoreline to a new station in Mukilteo near the Washington State Ferry Terminal. Due to space restrictions and local traffic congestion, this station would probably include only limited park-and-ride spaces and bus and auto loading. A shuttle bus could connect the station to major employment centers in the Paine Field area. The station could possibly also be served by shuttle service from a remote park-and-ride. From Mukilteo the line would continue south to a station in Edmonds. The existing Amtrak station could serve as an interim station near the existing Washington State Ferry terminal, with space for a bus turn around and drop off facility. Longer range commuter rail plans will probably include a station near the new planned ferry terminal location. South of Edmonds, commuter rail service would pass along the community of Woodway, cross into King County, and serve a station in the Richmond Beach area. A Richmond Beach station could accommodate a small park- and-ride lot , drop-off space, and a bus turn around. South of Richmond Beach, the line would pass through Richmond Beach County Park, below the Highlands, and through Carkeek and Golden Gardens parks in Seattle on existing rights-of-way. Trains would cross Salmon Bay on the drawbridge just west of the Chittenden Locks. The line would then turn to the southeast paralleling Salmon Bay and then south through the Interbay Yards. After passing under West Garfield Street, the line would parallel Elliott Avenue and cross Broad Street. South of Broad Street the line would parallel Alaskan Way and proceed through the downtown railroad tunnel to the terminus and possible interconnection with proposed South Corridor commuter rail service at 4th and Jackson. Preliminary evaluation indicates that local developmentplans and the narrow existing railroad right-of-way near the north portal ofthedowntown rail tunnel preclude a North Portal commuter rail station. A joint facility relating to the new Port of Seattle headquarters is possible, as is a station at 3rd and University. Commuter rail stations would be developed off-line along siding tracks accessible from both directions, with high level platforms. Expected track work would include providing double track through the Interbay Yard and new station sidings. Track rehabilitation would be required to modify and upgrade some curves. Upgraded crossing protection would be provided, including new gates at currently unprotected or marginally protected crossings. Crossing improvements would include lengthening existing train detection circuits near at -grade crossings to account for higher train operating speeds. Additional signal blocks would be provided due to the increased service and higher train operating speeds. Site work would also include minor grading, utility relocation, and drainage improvements along selected portions of the right-of-way. The preliminary capital cost estimates for implementing commuter rail operations is approximately $92 million (1991 dollars). Service on the line would be provided by trains with locomotives and two to five bi-level passenger cars. Service would initially run during peak periods weekday only, from approximately 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 4 .m. to 7 p.m. Midday service could be added when warranted by growth in demand. As the number of trains per day increases, conflicts with freight traffic and Rail/TSM Supplements 2-42 March 1993 Amtrak operations could increase. This could result in longer run times and reduced reliability in maintaining published schedules. A preliminary estimate of 2020 North Corridor commuter rail ridership, based on the described system and assuming express transit service is maintained within the SR -99/I-5 corridor between Everett and Seattle) includes 2,000 passengers boarding to and from downtown Seattle and mainland origins and destinations in the corridor, 400 reverse commute boardings pnmarily to downtown Everett and the Paine Field area, 200 boardings, from Mukilteo ferry walk-ons, and 100 boardings from Edmonds ferry walk-ons. Some of the origins and destinations of these riders would be to the south of Seattle. Major factors affecting the eventual ridership of commuter rail operation include o the extensiveness of feeder bus service to stations and the degree to which competing or parallel regional express bus routes are eliminated o the frequency of commuter rail service, the actual speed of the service, and any relative speed advantages over competing express bus routes o whether throughservice to Tacoma is operated on a one -seat ride basis o the supply of park-and-ride spaces at stations o future levels of service on connecting ferry routes o parking costs at employment locations in the commuter rail corridor o the potential presence of parallel passenger -only ferry service from Everett, Mukilteo, Kingston, and Edmonds to Seattle. Based on the preliminary estimate.of 2,700 daily boardings, commuter rail service could be provided by three train sets which with four arrivals at Seattle's King Street Station and three arrivals at the East Everett Station between 6 and 9 a.m. The afternoon peakperiod would be similar, except that four northbound and three southboundtrains would be provided. Improved track speeds could be obtained with modest track and signal improvements and approval by the Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission and the City of Seattle. Assuming improved speed limits and assuming that the commuter rail train would have priority over all other rail traffic during the peak periods, it is estimated that the run time between the East Everett Station and the Seattle King Street Station would be about 55 minutes, including station dwell times. Run times would. be 62 minutes in the absence of speed improvements. Headways between trains would range from 30 to 45 minutes. Commuter rail service along the Burlington Northern rail alignment would result in minimal disruption of traffic because most of the railroad right-of- way is bounded by water to the west and there are few destinations other than beaches west of the right-of-way. However, commuter rail traffic could have localized adverse affects on rush hour traffic at some at grade road crossings in downtown Seattle and in the Everett area. Park-and-ride spaces may be sharply limited, depending on specific siting options in Mukilteo, Richmond Beach, and Edmonds. If significant park- and-ride capacity is provided at these stations, they will contribute to increased local peak commute period traffic. At both Edmonds and Mukilteo, the additional traffic could conflict with ferry traffic. At Richmond Beach, weekday traffic volumes are relatively limited, with the exception of truck traffic from the Chevron facility at Point Wells. However, traffic Rail/TSM Supplements 2-43 March 1993 moving to a station and associated ark -and -ride facility in Richmond Beach would have to pass through single family residential areas. Commuter rail service between Seattle and Everett would increase the frequency of train passby and train horn noise affecting an extensive area of single family homes extending from Interbay to the Everett waterfront. Increased rail speeds would slightly raise levels of noise from passing trains Maximum expected speed increases would be modest (5 to 10 mph) and would &enerally occur within the areas where existing speed limits are most restrictive. Although commuter rail service would be .limited to daytime and early evening operations, it could affect the timing of other rail operations, possibly increasing in nighttime rail operations along the line. The increased train traffic would also increase the train generated vibration affecting nearby residences, although the level of vibration from commuter rail would probably be less than that from freight trains due to the significantly lighter train cars used for commuter rail services. Without mitigation, increased train operations could contribute to increased hazards to pedestrians along the railroad alignment. The railroad passes through a number of parks and abuts miles of residential development where informal track access and crossing occurs. However, the introduction of commuter rail service would be accompanied by improvements in grade crossings to enhance pedestrian and vehicular safety. Increased fencing and electrically -controlled gates could reduce potential hazards to pedestrians. Commuter rail operations could affect historical properties, historic districts, and archaeological sites in downtown Seattle, along the Puget Sound shoreline, in Mukilteo, and in Everett. Increased vehicular traffic, train movements, noise, and vibration could adversely affect historic districts or could encourage rehabilitation of nearby histonc structures in or near the Pioneer Square Historic District, the Seattle Chinatown Historic District, "Historic Everett," or other historic districts or areas along the alignment. The alignment passes through or near a number of histonc resources, including, but not limited to, the Great Northern Railroad tunnel, the Chittenden Locks, the Lake Washington Ship Canal Historic District, the railroad draw span bridge, Japanese Gulch, a historical archaeological site located east of Mukilteo, andtheRucker Hill Historic District in Everett. Care would be taken in constructing any new track segments to avoid identified historic properties and investigate any archaeological sites in the vicinity of construction sites. The BN alignment passes across or near several known or potentially significant hazardous waste sites, including the East Waterway in Everett, the Unocal Edmonds Bulk Plant and the U.S. Defense Fuel Supply Point in south Snohomish County, and Alaska Pacific Fisheries, Balmer Yard, Inter -bay Yard, the Monterey Apartments site, and the Unocal -Seattle Marketing Terminal in north King County. These sites would probably not be disturbed by implementation of commuter rail service. Bluff stabilization along portions of the rail right-of-way, if required, could affect local ground water flow, although the impacts would probably not be significant. Construction of required track improvements could contribute to brief disruptions of freight or passenger rail operations along the line. Rail/TSM Supplements 2-44 March 1993 2.4.1.3 Express Passenger Ferry Service Community Transit is evaluating a private sector proposal for express and passenger ferry service between Everett, Mukilteo, Edmonds, Seattle. Such an operation could increase intercounty commuter capacity and slightly reduce of the volume of overland commuter trips within the north corridor. It would also require newoparking facilities and increase peak-hour traffic volumes near ferry d 2.4.2 South Corridor 2.4.2.1 Rainier Local Surface Rail If the Duwamish rail alignment were chosen, Rainier Avenue could become an at-grade supplemental alignment that could increase the rail system's ridership and service area. A Metro study (Parsons/Kaiser 1991) concluded that light rail along Rainier Avenue from downtown to South Henderson Street would be feasible, but would either require additional right-of-way or have serious traffic impacts. 2.4.2.2 SeaTac People-Mover Project The proposed People-Mover project would use personal rapid transit (PRT) technology to serve the airport, hotels and other businesses in the Sea-Tac area. PRT technology uses automated vehicles on a fixed guideway. The small vehicles are used by an individual or small group traveling together by choice. The small guideways can be above ground, at ground level, or underground. The system would be a network of guideways with vehicles summoned for individual trips to provide non-stop, origin-to-destination service. This technology has never been implemented in public transit service to date. The SeaTac People-Mover system would have 17 lane-miles of one-way elevated guideway along street rights-of-way. There would be 31 stations, located on an "off -line" guideway, such that vehicles could bypass stations and avoid intermediate stops. The system would be integrated into buildings wherever opportunities exist. Some stations could be located in the lobbies of new or existing hotels, office buildings and the Sea-Tac Airport terminal. Some stations would require stairways and elevators or escalators for access. Up to 30,000 riders per day could use the PRT system being considered for 2010, based on a variety of assumptions, including: - o No competing shuttle services would be provided in the study area. o Full development of the Aviation Business Center. o 5,000 riders per day transferring from a nearby RTP rail station. 2.4.2.3 Renton Commuter Rail The Regional Transit Project evaluated a possible extension of the commuter rail service to Renton. This would allow commuter rail service between Renton and Seattle and between Renton and Tacoma as an interim service until a rapid rail link is completed between Renton and the Seattle-Tacoma Rail/TSM Supplements 2-45 March 1993 rapid rail line. The evaluation covered alignment, operations, markets served, ridership and access. Alignment Description Commuter rail could serve Renton using an existing Burlington Northern branch line. The rail line branches from the main line at the Black River Junction, just north of the recommended Longacres station. The distance from this junction to north Renton is 4.2 miles. The rails have six grade crossings with streets in downtown Renton. Commuter rail service to Renton would require some modification to the track. Track exists today to allow direct service between Seattle and Renton. The portion of the junction that would allow direct service between Tacoma and Renton would need to be reconstructed. Other track and signal improvements would be needed to improve operating speeds. Operations Commuter rail could operate every 20 to 30 minutes between Renton and Seattle and Renton and Tacoma. The operating schedule assumes cooperation and flexibility on the part of Burlington Northern and Union Pacific Railroads in terms of shifting freight service to accommodate increased passenger service due to commuter rail. As with the mainline commuter rail service, commuter rail service to Renton could begin within two years of receiving funding. Similar to the mainline service, operations would begin during peak penods only, with service to and from Tacoma, Seattle, and Renton. Commuter rail service to Renton would use the same type of locomotives and coaches proposed for the mainline service. All vehicles and stations would meet requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Renton commuter rail would not require additional maintenance and storage facilities. Locomotives and coaches would share maintenance facilities with the Seattle -Tacoma service. Major Places or Markets Served Renton commuter rail stations could be located in the vicinity of the existing "Spirit of Washington " depot to serve downtown Renton. A second station could be located between N. 8th and Park Avenue to serve the manufacturing areas in North Renton. A third station could be added in the future near the Black River Corporate Park as that area develops. Assuming stations as proposed on the mainline and track and signal improvements, travel times would be 52 minutes between Tacoma Dome and North Renton and 25 minutes between King Street Station and North Renton. Passengers could transfer to rapid rail at Tacoma Dome, Longacres, Boeing Access Road, or King Street Station for access to other destinations. Ridership Daily two-way ridership would be approximately 3,000 with peak period service between Renton, Tacoma, and Seattle in year 1999. These ridership Rail/TSM Supplements 2-46 March 1993 estimates assume adequate bus feeder service to commuter rail stations and expansion of park-and-ride facilities as recommended in the draft System Plan. 2.4.2.4 Lakewood/McChord Rail Service The Regional Transit Project completed a study of possible alignments and stations, operations, costs, and ridership for an extension of rapid rail to the Lakewood/McChord area. From the Lakewood/McChord area, the study identified potential future extensions to Fort Lewis. Alignment Descriptions Although the description refers to specific rights-of-way and facile locations, this is for study purposes only. Other alternative alignments and facility locations would continue to be considered Detailed evaluation of specific alignments and facilities will occur during project -level environmental review if this proposal is adopted for the System Plan. The Lakewood/McChord rapid rail could begin at the Tacoma Dome. From the Tacoma Dome, several alignment options are possible. These include right-of-way along I-5, South Tacoma Way, or portions of existing railroad right-of-way. The rail line would cross under the I-705 spur to follow either alignment. If on S. Tacoma Way, the rail would pass under SR -16 and Union Avenue. Rail on I-5 would be elevated to cross these and other major roads. To reach Lakewood, the alignment could use 100th St. SW. A combination of at -grade and elevated configurations is possible, depending on the alignment. An at -grade alignment on S. Tacoma Way could operate in the median, with curb barriers from cross traffic except at major intersections such as 3. 38th St. The rail line can be elevated to avoid impacts on traffic. Either alignment could operate at speeds of 35 to 40 mph, consistent with the rapid rail system in the region. Operations The Lakewood/McChord extension could operate as part of the rapid rail system. Trains from Federal Way and North Pierce County could operate to the Lakewood/McChord area. Based on the operating assumptions for the rapid rail system, this would mean that trains could run every 10 or 15 minutes to Lakewood/McChord. Rail in downtown Tacoma could operate as part of the rapid rail system or as an independent rail spur. As an independent spur, trains could operate frequently, connecting the commercial areas and university areas with the Tacoma Dome station. Regional trips would transfer at the Tacoma Dome station. Asart of the regional system, train frequencies would depend on the regional system and would likely be less often than as an independent spur, but fewer people would need to transfer. Major Places or Markets Served The Tacoma to Lakewood/McChord corridor has a variety of significant transit destinations that could be served by rail, including: Rail/TSM Supplements 2-47 March 1993 o Tacoma Mall and the surrounding commercial/residential community near 38th and Pine. o South Tacoma business community along South Tacoma Way. o Lakewood Mall and surrounding development. o Military facilities with their combined civilian and military employment and resident populations. (Total civilian and military employment at these facilities exceeds 30,000, by far the largest employment base in Pierce County.) In addition, some stations would have park-and-ride lots to allow automobile access, as well as transit access to the stations. • The Tacoma Dome station would be a major transfer point to other transit modes. From the Tacoma Dome station, people could travel to downtown Tacoma on frequent rail service, to northeast Pierce County and the Kent - Auburn valley on commuter rail, to South Tacoma and Lakewood/McChord on the rapid rail, or to Federal Way, SeaTac, Seattle, and other destinations on rapid rail. Since the Tacoma Dome station will also be a focal point for Pierce Transit services, transfers to the bus system would also be possible. Extension to Fort Lewis Rapid rail could extend service to the milita employment and resident base by extending the line beyond the Lakewood/McChord area. Right-of-way along I-5 or within the existing railroad right-of-way could be used for rail service. Ridership Preliminary estimates indicate that 6,000 to 9,000 daily riders could be expected on rail between Fort Lewis and Tacoma, depending on the physical and operational scenario. Daily riders could be expected to increase from 7,000 to 8,000 on rapid rail north of the Tacoma Dome with rapid rail service to Lakewood/McChord. Potential Environmental Impacts Typical environmental impacts of a line between Tacoma and Lakewood or McChord would be similar to those described for other portions of the rail alignment in Chapter 3. Specific environmental issues and constraints that should be noted include: o The Lakewood/Fort Lewis area is underlain by well -drained gravels which could provide some unique construction and dewatering problems if any underground facilities are envisioned. o The Lakewood/Fort Lewis part of the corridor is very noisy due to air traffic at McChord Air Force Base and I-5 traffic. Construction and operations noise would probably be well -masked by preexisting noise. However, some residential areas do border the corridor and could be affected. o Clover Creek and American Lake in south Pierce County are close to potential alignments and could be affected. o There is considerable communication between surface and groundwater in the Lakewood area. Many lakes and ponds are fed by groundwater discharge from aquifers. The alignment under consideration comes to within about 500 feet of the lake at its southern end. If contaminants Rail/TSM Supplements 2-48 March 1993 from construction were allowed to enter groundwater, there might be some effect on water quality in the lake. o Extension south from Tacoma to Lakewood or McChord would increase the total impervious surface created due to construction of the rail system. o The Lakewood/McChord area includes various hazardous materials users and sites, including light industry, vehicle -related businesses, McChord Air Force Base, the Ponders Corner and American Lake Gardens Superfund sites, and Xytec Plastics and Associated Military Camp Murray MTCA sites. o Perkins Park and the Tacoma Country and Golf Club could be affected by the alignments under consideration. o Historically significant properties are located at Camp Murray adjacent to Burlington Northern tracks and at Fort Lewis. Commemorative trees (remnants of the "Boulevard of Remembrance" are located between I-5 and Burlington Northern tracks in three locations. 2.4.3 East Corridor 2.4.3.1 Eastside Commuter Rail RTP has studied a commuter rail link between Renton and Bellevue along existing Burlington Northern right-of-way as an interim service before construction of the main rail system in this corridor. The line would provide two-way peak -hour service between South Kirkland Park -and -Ride and Boeing Renton, downtown Renton, and the main Seattle -Tacoma commuter rail line. However, daily ridership would be low, estimated at about 2,000. 2.4.3.2 1-405 Access Improvements RTP is considering specific access improvements to the planned center HOV lanes along I-405 if, as is likely, these segments are not part of the initial eastside rail segments. These access improvements would consist of ramps giving buses direct access to I-405 center HOV lanes from nearby park-and- ride lots. Because of initial low projected ridership on these segments, bus service would have sufficient capacity to serve these areas until the 2020 system is built. 2.5 Surface Light Rail Systems "Light rail transit" ("LRT) encompasses a range of overhead electrically powered rail systems that run either in mixed traffic or on exclusive rights-of- way. The term "light" usually refers to capacity, not vehicle size or weight. "Surface" light rail systems run at grade. They typically have average operating speeds of 5 to 20 mph and capacities between 4,000 and 12,000 persons -per -hour in each direction. Light rail technology is flexible and adaptable. With grade -separated facilities, two or more linked light rail vehicles (LRVs) can carry relatively large numbers of passengers. When the system has an unobstructed trackway, it can convey passengers at relatively high average speeds. Light rail can also operate on surface streets and in mixed traffic where increased access is necessary and operational disruption can be minimized. Rail/TSM Supplements 2-49 March 1993 The level of service that can be achieved with surface light rail systems is significantly lower than that of grade -separated systems. The most important aspects of the level of service (speed, capacity and reliability) are discussed below: Speed A high-volume rail line should operate at an average speed that is competitive with automobiles traveling the same distance. A slow system will not attract a major share of potential transit demand. Speed is a function of several factors, including exclusivity of right-of-way, distance between stations, and dwell time at stations. A surface LRT system like MAX in Portland would operate at average speeds of 18 to 20 mph, relatively slow compared to the grade -separated Rail/TSM Alternative, which would average 35 to 40 mph. Capacity Surface LRT operating across intersections is typically limited in terms of train length and frequency. Train length will be limited to something shorter than a city block, since trains cannot block intersections when stopped at stations. Train frequency is also limited, since there must be time for cross traffic to clear intersections between trains. Conventional transit practice and highway standards suggest that when train frequencies are under 6 minutes, cross traffic on arterials will be affected to the extent that grade separation is necessary. Between 6 and 16 minute headways, traffic levels, levels of service on cross streets, and the importance of cross streets to the community and emergency services become important criteria for assessing operational feasibility. These constraints limit the capacity of surface LRT systems, as compared to grade -separated systems. Schedule Reliability Because surface LRT must deal with cross traffic and crossing pedestrians, slowdowns and stoppages will sometimes occur at intersections, particularly at peak hours when congestion or accidents prevent crossing vehicles from clearing the intersection. These considerations will reduce system speeds, schedule reliability, or both. Land Use Consistency In general, a light rail system would not serve regional land use objectives as well as a comparable rapid rail system (Table 2.8). The slower speeds and lower capacity would reduce its ability to support concentrating density into cenfers, as called for by Vision 2020 and emerging countywide planning policies. Additionally, it would be unlikely to strongly encourage joint development near its smaller stations. While surface LRT has been very successful in some systems due to low-cost right-of-way or a very dense urban setting, its operating performance relative to grade -separated systems is generally characterized by slower speeds, lower ridership, lower capacity, and lower reliability. These characteristics mean that surface LRT is unlikely to satisfy the demands of a three -county system. Surface Light Rail 2-50 March 1993 Table 2.8. Consisten of Surface Li ' ht Rail with Land Use Goals. GMA and/or Vision 2020 w Encouraging growth in urban areas w Reducing sprawl w Encouraging efficient multimodal transportationm Encouraging economic development consistent with comprehensive plans w Retaining open space and developing recreating opportunities m Protecting environment and enhancing the area's quality of life s Encouraging citizen involvement in the planning process vv Concurrency between public facilities and new private development w Encouraging historic preservation Countywide Planning Policies King County Promotion of contiguous and orderly development and provisionw of urban services to such developmentm Siting public capital facilities of a countywide or statewide nature m Countywide transportation facilities and strategies m Joint county and city planning within urban growth areas w Countywide economic development and employment Pierce County Designation of urban growth areas and distribution of 20 -year population forecasts a' w Countywide transportation facilities and strategies rovision of urban services to such w of contiguous and orderly development and p developmentm Siting of public capital facilities of a countywide or statewide nature Snohomish County Urban growth areas and population distribution ��' w Transportation facilities and strategies m Contiguous and orderly development w Siting of capital facilities n= nil; w = weak; m = moderate; s= strong However, there may be a place for surface LRT in the system plan. It may be more appropriate toward the suburban ends of the alignments(i.e., for TacomaPPspeed and Everett) and for local feeder lines where the and reliability can give way to the need for flexibility that light rail transit offers in concentrated urban centers. The above discussion makes someageneral aobservations e treuly tali°ke about ereus a verface ry light rail systems, but no two lightsystems, variation in both system configurations and the levels of service that they provide. It is essential that local factors, such as development patterns, population densities, system demand, and physical characteristics be taken into account in discussing any surface LRT system. 2.5.1 Rhododendron Lines (Regional Transit Alternative) The Puget Sound Light Rail Society organization STo advais ance theoup ofcoIIcept f surface rivate citizens who have formed a non-profit li t rail transit (LRT) as a transit solution for the Puget Sound region.The PSLRTS includes a number of engineers and architects, as well as private Surface Light Rail 2-51 March 1993 citizens with a wide range of backgrounds and skills. They have also engaged consultants with rail transit expertise to assist them in the development of their concept. PSLRTS has been working on the Rhododendron Line concept for a number of years. Members of PSLRTS have widely publicized their plan and have presented their proposals at many public meetings, as well as at meetings of the JRPC, the ERP, Sounding Board and other groups. The Rhododendron Line concept has evolved over time. The original proposal was a barrier -separated surface light rail transit network or "core - system" comprised of two lines: a north -south line connecting Everett, Seattle and Tacoma following the SR -99 and SR -525 corridors and an eastside line linking Bellevue and Seattle via I-90. The original proposal also called for a comprehensive network of bus and transportation system management improvements for the region, similar to the TSM measures proposed for the three System Plan alternatives. RTP's analysis of the original Rhododendron Line proposal concluded that while costs of the line would be lower than those of the comparable RTP line, ridership would also be much lower because of lower speeds, lack of service to high -demand transit markets like First Hill, the University District, and Northgate, lack of drive access to the system, and system capacity constraints. Consequently, cost-effectiveness was likely to be considerably lower than the Rail/TSMyAlternative and, like the R2B2 proposal discussed below, was likely to be as low or lower than the TSM Alternative. There would also be significant impacts on traffic and air quality (due to increased congestion) along SR -99. For these reasons, surface rail along SR -99 alignment was not considered to be a viable alternative and was not evaluated further in the DEIS. After the DEIS was issued, the PSLRTS presenteda revised plan, which advances a number of new ideas and alignments. This proposal, referred to as the "Regional Transit Alternative," includes not only an extensive LRT system, but also proposed expansion of trolley bus routes and a variation of commuter rail service. The PSLRTS proposal is offered as a low-cost alternative to the RTP System Plan. 2.5.1.1 History Over the past two years, the relationship between the PSLRTS and RTP has been characterized by a series of disagreements about the respective proposals. RTP staff and consultants reviewed and critiqued an early version of the PSLRTS proposal, pointing out a number of potential shortcomings of the concept. PSLRTS has issued a number of publications and given presentations which have criticized the RTP proposal. Both proposals have evolved significantly over the past two years. Many of the RTP criticisms of the Rhododendron Lines proposal (and the PSLRTS responses to those criticisms) are no longer relevant, as they relate to alignments which are no longer being proposed. The following discussion describes and reviews the Regional Transit Alternative proposal as presented by PSLRTS in its November 1992 transmittal to Metro. Correspondence and testimony related to previous proposals, while included in the documentation of comments and responses to the DEIS, are not discussed further in this section. Surface Light Rail 2-52 March 1993 2.5.1.2 The PSLRTS Proposal Description The PSLRTS proposal contains three major elements: o A 78 -mile surface light rl system from Everett to Tacoma and to Bellevue on the Eastside."pre-light rail o City_ ,Link" City -Suburban Rail �aslroad rights-of-wayService,. described froTacma to system operating on existing. Seattle via the Green River Valleyand a t Kirkland Burlington Northern trackage. This approximately v2 miles. Expansion of a roximately 50 miles, o Electric Trolleybus System Exp pp primarily on existing diesel bus routes within the city of Seattle. l LRT Aliments. North Corridor. The proposed North Corridor hr Ali h Seattlesw ut duse current Dthe Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) g configuration. The line would proceedithe 1-5 right of -way to Roosevelt Way.h using one of the 1-5 l It lanes to Northgate and continueoceed at- rade on SR -99 would. then follow Roosevelt Way to SR -99 and prwould roceed in the old to 218th Street S.W. in Snohomish County.P interurban right-of-way to SR -525,t Col7idor Main Line would c cn on SR -525 back to SR -9 ontinue follow SR-99 to Airport Road. The North Everett, with branch lines to Paine Field and Everett Mall. South Corridor. From the DSTT, the line w Spokould use the E-3 ane Styreet, and Spokane Street. There would be an underpass at South the alignment would proceed�in the Union Pacific and the 4th Avenue South.. It would follow East Marginal South rights-of-way to East Marginal Way Way South and railroad nghtathou along SeaTac, the Federal Wayt side of , on to SR -99. It would remain on SR -99g downtown Tacoma. East Corridor. The proposed alignment the BNdutilize the 1-90 center right-of-way to NE 6th Street. to 1-405, where it would turn no Thero osal includes several options to provide direct service to downtown Bellevue using loops on surface streets. "Ci -Link" Ci Suburban Rail N1SC Service. The Raili"l�ransit11� RT) whenoposal - allow for conversion of the se Light _ patronage levels and funding resouces permit.commuter It rropp vehicles. either self- propelled rail -diesel cars or conventional City -Link services would include BN corridor from Tnukwilae via tto Kirkland.e Green River Valley and a Renton Line in the Electric Trolley Bus System Exaa liion.n s ane d RTS probupo callsernNew for about 50 miles of new trolley overhead trolley routeswouldserve IeBallard, Northgate, y Wallingford, Green Lake, DennyRadeas1kUCrown nierstDistrict, north Capitol Hill, Seattle Pacific University, Woodland Park, and several locations in southeast Seattle. Surface Light Rail 2-53 March 1993 Cost LRT. PSLRTS estimates that the proposed 78 -mile surface LRT system could be implemented for a total cost of approximately $2.3 billion. This estimate is proposed to cover construction of trackage, stations, vehicle maintenance bases, and power and control systems. It includes a contingency fund and allowances for engineering and administrative costs. The average cost per mile for this system is $29.5 million. City Link. The total projected cost includes approximately 52 miles of track, 15 stations and 14 train sets: Green River Valley corridor $227 million Renton Corridor $127 million Total $354 million Trolley Bus System Expansion. The estimated cost of the proposed trolley system expansion is $175 million. This accounts for 50 miles of new trolley lines at $3.5 million/mile. 2.5.1.3 Operations LRT The PSLRTS proposal sets forth the following operating characteristics for the surface LRT system: o Surface operation. The system would operate on the surface throughout the system with the exception of DSTT. There would be limited overpasses and underpasses in congested areas. o Existing rights-of-way. The system would be constructed primarily on existing public rights-of-way, including I-5, SR -99, the E-3 busway, and SR -525. o Access . There would be frequent stops, every 0.75 to 1 mile on average o Frequent Service. Trains would run every 5 to 10 minutes during rush hours and every 15 to 20 minutes during off-peak hours. o Capacity. The system could accommodate up to 18,000 passengers per hour per direction (assuming four car trains operating every two minutes). o Speed. Average speed of the system is calculated as about 31 miles per hour, not including slower running times through the downtowns of Seattle, Tacoma, Bellevue or Everett. o Safety. System would include automatic traffic signal preemption at all grade crossings using state-of-the-art technology. "City -Link" The proposed "City Link" system would have very similar operating characteristics to the commuter rail element of the RTP recommended draft System Plan. Electric Trolley Bus System Expansion Both the extent of the system and the proposed operations are very similar to the trolley bus expansion which is included in the TSM component of the RTP Rail/TSM Alternative. Surface Light Rail 2-54 March 1993 2.5.1.4 Analysis and Comparison Bus System The PSLRTS proposal advocates a significant increase in bus service, particularly with a number of specific routes that could be converted to electric trolley bus service. The total cost included in the PSLRTS proposal for bus services is $175 million, the cost of the trolley system expansion. The RTP recommended draft System Plan also proposes a significant increase in bus service. The bus service increase is based on a de tailed study of the service areas and the number of bus hours anticipated to provide the higher level of service. The plan includes approximately $1.3 billion purchase of the buses needed to provide the increased service and for bus operation and maintenance. The RTP recommended draft System Plan also includes $1.2 billion for new capital facilities to support bus services. This includes bus bases, trolley system expansion, transit centers, freeway access improvements, and a number of types of arterial street improvements to improve the speed and reliability of the bus service. The total portion of the RTP recommended draft System Plan cost estimate (through 2010) dedicated to improvements in bus service is $2.5 billion. Both the PSLRTS and RTP proposals describe major bus service improvements. The RTP recommended draft System Plan includes the total amount needed to fund such improvements, whereas the PSLRTS proposal includes funding for only a relatively small element of the bus program. "City-Link"/Commuter Rail Again, the PSLRTS proposal and the RTP recommended draft System Plan include very similar notions of commuter rail type service. The PSLRTS proposal has broader coverage in that it includes a line from Tukwila to Kirkland, which is not in the recommended draft System Plan. This alignment was studied as part of the RTP but was not included in thethe high draft System Plan because of projected low ridership, cost of upgrades to the existing rail line, and environmental impacts. A shorter segment from 1T kk Hila to northRenton is being reevaluated for possible inclusion inSystem lan. The commuter rail service from Tacoma to Seattle is estimated to cost $180 million in the RTP recommended draft System Plan. The somewhat larger "City -Link" element of the PSLRTS Proposal is estimated at $354 million. Rail Operations and Capital Replacement The estimated cost of the RTP recommended draft System Plan includes funds to operate the rail system as segments are completed. It also includes an allowance for replacement of capital facilities as required through 2010. These items account for $600 million of the estimated RTP costs. The PSLRTS plan does not include operations or capital replacement costs. Surface Light Rail 2-55 March 1993 Rail System The major differences in the two proposals lie in the configuration and operation of the respective rail elements. These differences are subsequently reflected in the cost of the proposals. Although the RTP has evaluated a much larger rail system, as reflected in the Final EIS, the recommended draft System Plan recommends a scaled-back investment in new rail facilities. The recommended draft plan is appropriate for comparison with the PSLRTS proposal. Some of the key comparisons are summarized as follows: Item PSLRTS RTP Miles of Track 77 mi. 88 mi. New Rail Stations 66 52 Park and Ride Spaces 6,400 31,000 Rail Vehicles 250 320 Estimated System Cost $ 2.3 billion $ 6.2 billion 2.5.1.5 Cost The RTP developed a cost estimating methodology that was intended to respond to widespread criticism that many transit projects throughout the U.S. have experienced significant cost overruns during the past decade. To assure that the RTP did not follow this trend, the legislation that initiated the High Capacity Transit (HCT) studies called for the appointment of a panel of outside experts to review the program and ensure that the cost estimates were adequate. The'RTP proceeded to define alternatives with a level of conceptual engineering that is unprecedented in any previous system planning effort. Through this work, RTP identified grades, curves, and both constructed and natural obstacles encountered along conceptual alignments. This was done so that the cost of dealing with such conditions could be accurately reflected in the project capital cost estimate. The system profile, whether the rail line is at -grade, aerial or underground, was analyzed with respect to availability of right-of-way and impacts on those specific areas the system was designed to serve. In estimating station costs, the RTP approach was to include the cost of improvements needed to assure good pedestrian, bicycle, auto, and bus access to stations. Finally, contingencies and allowances for engineering and administration are included at levels that are consistent with professional cost engineering standards and federal guidelines. Cost estimates for the PSLRTS rail system reflect a more general approach of developing unit costs for various system components and multiplying such costs by theestimated quantity of each item. This is a reasonable approach to develop "order of magnitude" estimates, provided that adequate contingencies are added to the baseline estimates to cover unforeseen costs. The lower the level of engineering done to define the project, the higher the contingency should be. The proposed PSLRTS light rail system is estimated by its proponents to cost $2.3 billion, about $3.7 billion less than the cost of the RTP rail system. Much of the cost difference is due to the estimating approach. IftheRTP's methodology were applied to the proposed PSLRTS system, the cost of that system would be 50 to 70 percent higher than the current estimate. This accounts for between $1.2 and $1.6 billion of the total cost difference between the systems. Surface Light Rail 2-56 March 1993 The remainder of the difference in cost, about $2.1 to $2.5 billion, is primarily related to differences in the number of markets served by the two systems, the frequency of service provided, and the capacity of the system. 25.1.6 Markets Served The recommended RTP alignments, including a number of alternatives which will need to be analyzed further as the project proceeds, serve all of the markets that the PSLRTS rail system would serve except for the Duwamish industrial area in South Seattle. RTP provides direct rail service to a number of additional markets not served directly by the PSLRTS system. These include: First Hill, Capitol Hill, University District, Rainier Valley, East Bellevue, Overlake, Redmond, and the I-405 corridor between Bellevue and Totem Lake. The JRPC concluded that the benefit of connecting these centers with the regional rail system and the increased ridership produced by these connections justified their inclusion in the recommended draft System Plan. Because the PSLRTS proposal has more total stations than the RTP system, PSLRTS claims that more places can be served. With 66 stations in the 77 - mile PSLRTS system, the average distance between stations is about 1.2 miles (not 0.75 to 1 mile, as stated in the PSLRTS proposal). In any rail system, there is a trade-off between the number of stations and the speed of the system. RTP ridership models have analyzed this trade-off in detail in efforts to optimize system speed and access to the system. This type of analysis will be continued at an even more detailed level as stations are defined during project -level planning. 2.5.1.7 ' Level of Service There are three components of level of service that are considered in a transit system: speed, reliability and capacity. Speed The PSLRTS proposal states an average system speed of 31.24 mph, not including slower running times through the downtowns of Seattle, Everett, Tacoma, and Bellevue. The RTP uses a computer simulation to calculate speeds and travel times. The model accounts for grades, curves, station stops, acceleration, and braking of trains based on characteristics of current rapid rail vehicle technology. When applied to the PSLRTS proposal, this model indicates that, in non -grade separated portions of the alignments, travel times would be considerably longer than those shown in the PSLRTS proposal. The • results of that analysis are summarized as follows: North Corridor. For the PSLRTS alignment, the RTP staff calculates a travel time of 69 minutes from Everett to Seattle, or about 12 minutes longer than the PSLRTS-calculated time. The RTP run time from Seattle to Everett is 51 minutes. South Corridor. RTP staff calculations result in a travel time of nearly 86 minutes from Tacoma to Seattle, or 23 minutes longer than the PSLRTS calculation. The RTP run time from Seattle to Tacoma is 56 minutes. Surface Light Rail 2-57 March 1993 East Corridor. Travel times from Bellevue to Seattle would be similar for the RTP and PSLRTS systems, as the PSLRTS alternative is mostly grade separated in this corridor. For both the North and South corridors, RTP simulations show average speeds for the rail line of about 5 mph less than the PSLRTS calculations, i.e., 27 mph in the north and 23 mph in the south. The same type of simulation for the RTP rail system results in average speeds of 36 mph for both the North and South corridors, including travel time through the downtowns of Everett, Tacoma and Seattle. The difference is due to the number of station stops and restrictions encountered by running at -grade in the SR -99 corridor. Reliability Surface LRT with traffic preemption typically achieves a satisfactory level of reliability as compared to automobiles or buses. Even though the current PSLRTS proposal has a much greater amount of grade separation than the previous proposals, it is estimated that there are still over 300 street crossings or merges between Everett and Tacoma. Each of the crossings and merges presents an opportunity for both auto and pedestrian traffic to delay trains, despite the best efforts at traffic signal preemption and control. This results in lower reliability than the RTP system, which operates primarily in exclusive rights-of-way. Capacity While absolute numbers for capacity and rail systems are typically quoted based on vehicle loadings and headways, it is important to address capacity as it relates to level of service. The RTP has a calculated capacity of 22,400 passengers per hour. Because of the configuration of the system, particularly the exclusivity of right-of-way and the design of the control systems, trains can be operated at 90 second intervals without diminishing the speed and reliability of the system. The forecast peak demand in 2020 is about 15,000 passengers per hour. Thus, the system design incorporates an "expansion factor" of about 50% to accommodate future growth in ridership. The PSLRTS rail system is based on an operations plan which calls for four - car trains at five minute intervals. Peak capacity, using the same length of trains and same loading factor per car as RTP, would be about 6,800 passengers per hour. With a good operating plan and sufficient controls, train frequency could be increased to a train every four minutes without diminishing system speed and reliability. This would yield a peak capacity of 8,400 passengers per hour. While it is possible to increase the frequency of the trains to attain higher capacity, the speed and reliability of the system as well as its efficiency would begin to diminish as frequencies increase. While operating cost is not addressed in the PSLRTS proposal, it would take more equipment and operators to provide the PSLRTS service due to the longer system cycle times. Surface Light Rail 2-58 March 1993 Surface Light Rail 2-59 March 1993 25.1.10 The current PSLRTS proposal would utilize the I-5 reversible lanes from Convention Place Station to Northgate. This alignment was studied in detail as part of the RTP System Planning Effort. For the rail line to enter the reversible lanes from Convention Place Station, it has to cross the entire reversible lane section. This effectively eliminates the use of the reversible lanes for all other traffic south of Stewart Street. This displaced traffic would add to the already serious congestion in the I-5 mainline. North of Stewart Street, the PSLRTS proposal would occu . y two of the reversible lanes. It is estimated that this will displace over 41,111 cars per day in this already congested corridor. The PSLRTS north ali a, i. ent shows the rail line displacing only one lane of traffic. While possi • le, this results in substandard highway conditions (no shoulders or shy distances) which would require WSDOT and FHWA variances. SR -99 The PSLRTS proposal would take two general purpose lanes from SR 99 in addition to the center turning lane or a parking lane. Depending on the configuration of stations, additional right-of-way would be either purchases or taken from the existing roadway at station locations. Two lanes of surface LRT would theoretically absorb more than the number of people displaced by loss of these lanes. However, given travel patterns in the corridor, it is anticipated that traffic levels would still be higher than today in 2020 even with an LRT line. The loss of a significant amount of roadway capacity is expected to have severe adverse traffic impacts throughout the corridor, with spillover effects on neighborhood streets. Operation of a surface LRT system would also have serious impacts on east - west traffic crossing SR 99. The PSLRTS proposal has added a number of flyovers at critical intersections to help relieve this impact. However, with the high degree of signal preemption proposed throughout the corridor, east - west traffic impacts would still be significant. Implementation Schedule The PSLRTS states that its 78 -mile system can be in full operation in ten years after the start of construction. The conversion and retrofit of the I-5 Ship Canal Bridge, the many neighborhood environmental impacts and their mitigations, permitting processes, and other work restrictions will make it very difficult to maintain this schedule. The 88 -mile RTP system is anticipated to be complete within 13 to 15 years after the start of construction. In any case, the difference in schedules between the two systems is realistically about 3 years, not 15 to 20 years as stated by the PSLRTS. 25.1.11 Conclusion Over the past three years RTP has studied many potential rail alignments in detail. The alignments proposed by the PSLRTS have all been analyzed as part of this effort. In this analysis, the potential for implementing lower cost, at -grade profiles was exhausted before moving to a more costly aerial or subway profile. The tradeoffs between system speed, number of stations, system access, ridership and costs were all studied in great detail. Surface Light Rail 2-60 March 1993 Surface LRT options were analyzed to the .point that it became clear that these options did not adequately serve the goals and objectives of the Regional Transit Project. Because of the superior performance of the grade - separated RTP system in terms of consistency with land -use objectives, level of service, and ridership, it was recommended as the rail technology in the recommended draft System Plan. This recommendation is consistent with the analytical approach of the RTP which was designed to assure that cost and ridership projections would be realistic, and would avoid the much -publicized pitfalls experienced in past transit planning efforts. The methodologies and results employed in the RTP process have had extensive and favorable review by the Expert Review Panel. Finally, it should be recognized that System Planning is the first step in a long process required for implementation of a transit project. While the System Plan establishes the basic system requirements, each aspect of the system will be analyzed in greater detail through the Alternatives Analysis, Predesign and Final Design phases of the project. Continued efforts will be made to find ways to reduce costs while maintaining levels of service. This process will likely include further analysis of surface LRT segments in a number of areas in the region. 2.5.2 R2B2 The Institute for Transportation and the Environment (IfTE) proposed R2B2 (Rail*Rail*Bus*Bike/Pedestrian) as an at -grade light rail system serving shorter trips within urban centers and their neighborhood commercial corridors and subcenters, R2B2 emphasizes converting automobile street and highway capacity to transit, pedestrian, and bicycle capacity and maximizing pedestnan and bicycle travel within the urban area. To connect regional centers, R2B2 proposes an -expanded point-to-point express bus network on HOV lanes, completing the regions planned HOV system, and converting general-purpose lanes to HOV lanes before building new lanes. Bus service would be expanded and reoriented to increase ridership in outlying areas. R2B2 proposes a 42 -mile surface light rail system serving Seattle, Mercer Island, Bellevue, Tukwila, and SeaTac, as well as separate systems in Tacoma and Everett. Rail would operate at grade in existing rights-of-way or, very rarely, in tunnels and on aerial structures where no alternative exists. King County rail corridors would include downtown Seattle to Northgate by way of Aurora, downtown Seattle to Factoria on I-90, downtown Seattle to SeaTac on Burlington Northern tracks and SR 518. Other possible alignments include 15th NW to Northgate through Ballard and Eastlake to the University District and Northgate. R2B2 suggests that converting right-of- way within existing transportation corridors to surface light rail would be a cost-effective way to increase ridership and capacity of the transit system. 2.5.2.1 Philosophy R2B2 proposes at -grade light rail on existing roadways as a means of reducing tine costs and construction impacts of a rail system. While the proposal would result in significant reduction of road and intersection capacity along some arterials, proponents of R2B2 consider that to be in line with a philosophy of discouraging automobile use. Similarly, R2B2 would Surface Light Rail 2-61 March 1993 The Seattle R2B2 rail lines would cost about $2 billion, $1 billion less than the equivalent RTP rail segments. Combined with TSM capital improvements, R2B2 capital cost would total about $6.6 billion. System Capacity R2B2 would operate its east and south lines in the downtown tunnel by alternating trains and buses. The technical problems of operating buses and trains together would reduce the tunnel's passenger capacity below what it would be when operating buses or trains alone. About 90 buses per hour could operate through the tunnel, about 100 fewer than the maximum possible under the TSM or Transitway/TSM Alternatives. The displaced buses would use surface streets. However, transit capacity on downtown Seattle surface streets is limited by the ability to move buses through bus zones and intersections. Transit already uses 50 percent of available curb space and lane capacity in downtown Seattle dunng peak hours. Just as under the TSM Alternative, there would not be enough street capacity to meet transit demand by the year 2020. System Ridership Four factors would reduce potential ridership on the R2B2 system, as compared to the three RTP build alternatives. The first is the bus capacity constraint in downtown Seattle noted above. This could result in a loss of 17,000 more potential daily riders than under the TSM Alternative. Second, the surface light rail routes to Northgate and Rainier Valley would run at relatively low speeds, as compared to the RTP system, to accommodate traffic at some intersections. Although signal prioritization could increase speeds to some extent, signal prioritization could probably not be used at congested intersections, since frequent interruption of signal cycles would further degrade intersection level of service. Low speeds would reduce potential ridership, since the lines would be less competitive with automobiles and non -motorized transportation. While there might be some ridership gain, as compared to the TSM Alternative, the ridership gain would be limited. Third, the rail lines on the Seattle waterfront do not serve the main areas of downtown employment. While some different riders would be gained by increasing waterfront service, there would be a net ridership loss of about 10 Surface Light Rail 2-62 March 1993 ' percent in the SR -99 North Corridor and about 1,800 daily riders in the Rainier corridor, as compared to the TSM Alternative. If the lines followed surface streets in the main part of downtown Seattle (e.g., 3rd Avenue), they would further reduce surface bus capacity, potentially canceling out any ridership benefits. Finally, R2B2 would not build any new park-and-ride facilities, which would limit ridership.gains. R2B2 proponents believe some of the ridership could be regained with increased feeder bus service. However, feeder buses and park-and-ride lots serve, somewhat different markets, and some suburban trips cannot be effectively served with feeder buses. Since the proposed levels of RTP feeder bus service are already based on demand forecasted by the ridership model, increases in bus service would have a limited effect on ridership. Limiting drive access to the system would result in a net ridership loss. Because ridership loss would depend on the particular configuration of suburban service and could be solved by building some park-and-ride lots, estimated ridership for R2B2 was not reduced for this factor. R2B2 was found to attain slightly less than the ridership attracted by the TSM Alternative. R2B2 would continue to connect most centers using express bus service, which would maintain ridership levels in those corridors. As under the TSM Alternative, ridership would increase in outlying areas due to the expansion of community transit and bus service. Traffic Impacts R2B2 proposes to use right-of-way within existing transportation corridors for an at -grade surface hght rail system. This would result in reduced capacity on several major arterials. For example, Aurora Avenue, currently a six lane arterial carrying up to 78,000 trips per day, would be reduced to four - lane vehicular traffic and a two-way rail system. . R2B2 would have severe impacts on traffic in corridors proposed for surface -rail. Unlike the RTP alternatives, which seek to increase transit carrying capacity while limiting traffic impacts, R2B2 aims to create an environment conductive to transit, bicycles, and pedestrians by reducing arterial automobile capacity. Capacity reduction will significantly increase traffic congestion, with associated impacts on local air quality and adjacent neighborhoods. The proposal assumes that over time SOV users would shift to transit, which would increase ridership and reduce congestion. However, in the short term many of the affected tnps would seek alternate routes, resulting in increased congestion in residential areas. Schedule R2B2 proposes that the 43 -mile surface rail system could be completed by 1998, three years earlier than initial RTP segments. This schedule assumes that the limiting schedule factor is building major facilities for the RTP system, in particular the North and South Corridor tunnel segments. In reality, overall construction time is more dependent on contract packaging than on the type of work. The real limiting factor is the time required for preliminary engineering, alternatives analysis, and project -level environmental review before construction and the time needed to construct and test traction power, signals and control systems, maintenance and storage facilities, and rail vehicles during and after guideway and station construction. These components of system construction would take similar Surface Light Rail 2-63 March 1993 amounts of time for any system. Because of this, there is little or no time advantage for R2B2 in terms of initial date of operation. Conclusion R2B2 was proposed as a lower-cost, more easily implemented surface rail alternative for the region. Analysis showed that it would indeed be lower cost, would have fewer regional construction impacts than the Rail/TSM Alternative, and would substantially increase ridership over the No -Build Alternative. However, R2B2 reduces the passenger -carrying capacity of transit in downtown Seattle, even compared with the all -bus TSM Alternative. Because of this loss of capacity, as well as relatively low speeds and circuitous routing on two of the proposed rail lines, system ridership would be slightly less than under the TSM Alternative, at a considerably higher cost. R2B2 could have significant impacts on traffic and air quality on arterials where traffic lanes were used for the rail system. Even with some modifications to the R2B2 proposal to increase ridership, it would be unlikely to be as cost effective as the TSM Alternative. For these reasons, R2B2 was not considered to be a viable alternative and was not evaluated further in this EIS. 2.5.2.3 Evolution of R2B2 2.6 In response to the DEIS, no new or revised proposals were formally presented by the IfTE. However, discussions between R2B2 proponents and RTP staff have continued. The R2B2 proponents continue to advocate that shorter, less expensive surface light rail lines be built in urban areas of the region as the initial rail transit investment. Other Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in This Environmental Impact Statement Many alternatives were suggested during public comment on the Vision 2020 EIS and duringthe formaTP scopingprocess. Some of these were consid- ered and screenedlR from further analysis because they did not meet the objectives of the Regional Transit Project. Others were variations of the alternatives currently under consideration. These alternatives are summarized below, with an explanation of why they were not considered in this EIS. 2.6.1 Extensive Busway System The results of the scoping process for Metro 2000, which was used for initial RTP System Plan scoping, included as an alternative an extensive system of busways following the same corridors as the proposed rail system. Initial costing and conceptual planning indicated that, given the same alignments, a high-capacity rail system would cost the same or less than a comparable busway system, while having superior capacity. Capital costs would be higher for a busway system because: Surface Light Rail 2-64 March 1993 o Busways require wider rights-of-way, increasing land and construction. costs. The wider right-of-way is due to the need for a breakdown/passing lane, which is not necessary for a rail line, since disabled rail cars can be pushed to the next station or siding. o Busways in tunnels require more safety features than rail lines. This is because buses would be dual -powered, i.e., have both combustion and electric motors, and would therefore be carrying explosive fuels, increas- ing the risk of fire or explosion in case of an accident. Using all -electric buses would reduce the safety problem, but would also reduce opera- tional speeds and flexibility. Operations and maintenance costs for a high-capacity all -bus system were expected to be higher than for rail, largely due to the higher number of dnvers needed to transport a comparable number of patrons. Other significant contributors to higher busway costs included higher vehicle maintenance costs and lower service reliability. While busway capital and operations costsroved comparable to or higher than those for rail, system capacity and performance characteristics clearly favored rail technology. Because of the ability to physically link rail vehicles, significantly greater numbers of riders can be transported to and through any given location. This capacity issue was of particular concern between and within some of the region's larger centers, where even busway technology is clearly unable to handle projected future levels of transportation demand. The extensive grade separation envisioned in the busway alternative also eliminated the main advantage of bus technology over rail - the ability of the bus to conveniently enter and exit the busway in order to provide express and local/circulation service, thereby reducing transfers. Service reliability was another key system performance criterion that favored the application of rail technologies over extensive busways. While busways were recognized as being able to provide a level of service exclusivity and reliability well in excess of conventional bus service, busway service would be subjected to the same service anderformance irregularities as automobile traffic at busway access points andduringthe collection and distribution portions of trips, both of which invariably require some use of local streets and arterials. For these reasons, the extensive busway alternative was dropped from consideration and the less costly Transitway/TSM Alternative, which retained many of the attractive features of busway service, was developed to take its place (Parsons/Kaiser 1993). 2.6.2 Mixed Rail and Transitway Operations This FEIS assumes that either a rail or a transitway system would be devel- oped for rapid transit. However, a transitway could operate in one of the three major corridors, with rail in the other two corridors, or vice versa. A crucial issue of such a mix would be the technical problems associated with running both trains and buses on the same alignment in the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel. Joint operation would be feasible but would require reducing bus and train frequency below that which could be achieved by a single mode, thus reducing the tunnel's capacity. Travel times through the tunnel would be increased by 29 per cent with mixed operations (Manuel Other Alternatives Considered 2-65 March 1993 Padron 1989). This mode of operation would probably be used during initial phasing of the Rail/TSM Alternative, until rail volumes in the tunnel made this impossible. Otherwise, a mixed system's impacts would be a combination of rail impacts in the rail corridor(s) and transitway impacts in the transitway corridor(s). Except for Seattle CBD operations, discussion of systemwide impacts would be similar. If the JRPC chooses a rail/transitway combination, effects of mixed operation would be evaluated in future project -level environmental review. 2.6.3 Using Existing Freeway or Arterial Lanes for Rail or Transitway Using existing general-purpose lanes instead of new rights-of-way for rapid transit facilities has been frequently proposed at community meetings. Except in a few areas, RTP has not proposed using existing lanes for rail or transitway. RTP's general policy is that HOV lanes should be added to existing general-purpose traffic lanes. Where capacity is sufficient to allow conversion of a general-purpose lane to an HOV lane, such conversion will be considered in lieu of adding a lane. RTP studied the probable effects of taking general-purpose freeway lanes for transit or HOV use on I-5, SR -520, I-405, and I-90. The principal finding of the study (Parsons/ICF Kaiser 1991) is that restricting general-purpose lanes on a congested freeway for transit or HOV use would cause severe conges- tion on the remaining lanes, bringing peak hour traffic to a virtual standstill and severely affecting air quality. Some drivers would switch to HOVs under these conditions, but many trips simply would not be served. Traffic conges- tion impacts on I-5 would be high enough to call into question the viability of the North Corridor transitway. Over 1500 peak hour trips could not be served if a lane were converted on SR -520 and over 1000 trips could not be served after converting a lane on I-405. Conversion would likely minimize or eliminate the air quality and energy benefits of HOV facilities. However, using existing lanes on freeways that are not as heavily traveled, such as I-90 between Issaquah and Bellevue, may be a viable way to reserve future HOV capacity. 2.6.4 System North of Snohomish County, South of Pierce County, or East of King County Public comments were made advocating a high-speed rail system serving the I-5 and I-90 corridors as far north as Vancouver, British Columbia, as far south as Portland, Oregon, and east to Spokane. A high-speed rail line linking major cities in the I-5 corridor or linking Seattle with eastern Washington could be a useful transportation improvement. WSDOT is currently studying these options. These lines would enhance interregional mobility, providing energy-efficient alternatives to driving or flying. However, such lines, to maintain competitive speeds, would have only limited stops in the central Puget Sound region. They would not address the need for efficient mass transit within the metropolitan area and would do little to enhance local mobility. RTP would enhance the ridership of these lines by coordinating its planning with WSDOT and working to provide good Other Alternatives Considered 2-66 March 1993 connections from high-speed rail stations in the three -county area to other regional destinations: A System Plan objective is to respond to urban growth boundaries proposed under growth management. If the intraregional rapid transit system extended beyond those growth boundaries, it could encourage urbanization in rural areas and would be inconsistent with Vision 2020 and growth management. 2.6.5 Commuter Ferries Puget Sound commuter ferries supplement the alternatives and will continue to do so. Commuter ferries have also been suggested to link east King County with Seattle and to provide north -south links along Puget Sound. 2.6.5.1 Commuter Ferries on Lake Washington Moving people on passenger ferries could be an alternative to moving them in buses across the congested Lake Washington bridges. This option was studied in previous rapid transit planning efforts. A report to PSCOG (Madsen 1988) concluded that: o A high-speed passenger ferry system on Lake Washington is technically feasible; however, speed, noise, and wake controls could restrain the application of this technology. o Ferries could not compete with bus travel times and ferry patrons would have to transfer at each end of the ferry route. The travel time disadvantage occurs because ferry terminal sites could not be close enough to major centers. o Terminals, park-and-ride lots, and roadway improvements would be needed to support the ferry system, resulting in major traffic, noise, and wave erosion impacts on nearby communities. o Cost-effectiveness would be low because of high capital and operating costs shared among a limited ridership. Lake Washington ferry service was therefore not considered in this DEIS. 2.6.5.2 Commuter Ferries Serving Tacoma, Seattle, Edmonds, and Everett North -south regional mobility could be improved with ferry service along the east shore of Puget Sound. Such service is being studied by WSDOT and the JRPC and could supplement RTP's rapid transit proposals. However, except for Everett, downtown Seattle, and downtown Tacoma, major centers are not located on Puget Sound and would not be served. Existing ferry terminals also suffer from traffic congestion and poor arterial access. Expanded ferry service by itself would not be adequate for addressing the region's transit needs, but could provide supplemental service for the system (see Section 2.4.1.4).. Other Alternatives Considered 2-67 March 1993 2.6.6 Computer -Directed Non -Fixed Route System During Metro 2000 scoping, suggestions were received to eliminate fixed bus routes and provide door-to-door demand -responsive service. In the most developed proposal (Metro 1991), riders would communicate their location and destination to a central computer, which would assign buses to take them to community transfer stations, from there to destination transfer stations, and finally to their actual destination. While this proposal addresses the difficulties of serving the variety of trip types undertaken by the population, it lacks the ability to separate regional transit trips from congested arterials and freeways and provide them with congestion -free routes to their destinations. Transit vehicles would continue to lose time due to congestion, whether fixed route or not. Since the ability to attract riders is linked to speed and reliability, ridership would be relatively low. In\addition, computer -directed routing over an entire metropolitan area is an undeveloped technology. It is now used in limited area dial -a -ride service. It is unlikely that such a Large system could be implemented without potentially significant cost overruns, programming errors, and access problems. On a smaller scale, this type of system will be used for transit services to - passengers under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Such a system will be compatible with any of the alternatives and could be an integral component of TSM dial -a -ride service under all three build alternatives. 2.6.7 Major Extension of Electric Trolley System This technology alternative would substitute electricity, an energy-efficient power source, for other bus fuels. Advantages would include reduced tailpipe emissions from the transit fleet, increased ability of the fleet to climb steep grades, and a potential for increased use of Metros dual -mode bus fleet. The effects of using alternatively fueled buses, including trolley or electric buses, have been considered as part of all the alternatives in terms of energy usage and air quality. However, a major extension of the trolley system is not considered in detail for this EIS for two reasons. First, by itself this technology does not address the System Plan objectives of increasing regional mobility, removing transit from congestion caused by general- purpose traffic, and concentrating growth. Second, express bus service using an electric trolley system may run into technological and design limitations. The Seattle trolley buses and supporting overhead electrical distribution system, like most trolley bus systems, are designed for maximum speeds of 40 mph, which would be unsuitable for effective express bus service. 2.6.8 Alternative Rail Technologies In this EIS, it is assumed that a rail system would operate like new systems in other cities, including San Diego, Portland, and Vancouver, B.C., and that it would have similar impacts. This technology has been used extensively and its advantages and disadvantages are apparent. Other possible technologies, such as monorail, maglev, or terrafoil (ssee Glossary), have not been used on a city-wide basis for intraurban transportation and have not been tested on operational issues such as switching, crossing lines, and carrying large passenger loads between urban stations (PBQD 1991j,k). In addition, some of the proposed rail system's facilities, including the Downtown Seattle Other Alternatives Considered 2-68 March 1993 Transit Tunnel and the I-90 floatingbridge, were specifically designed to accommodate a conventional rapidrailsystem. Other technologies would be more difficult or impossible to accommodate (Gannett-DeLeuw 1990). Adverse impacts of a different rail technology would likely be similar to or worse than those of conventional rail. If a different type of technology is chosen, potential differences in its environmental impacts would be consid- ered in subsequent environmental review. 2.6.9 Phasing Specific phasing alternatives were not considered as a part of this FEIS. Phasing is discussed generically, in terms of the expected land use and traffic impacts at interim terminals, and in terms of the need to promote transit - friendly land use beyond the initial segments of a rapid transit system. However, specific phasing decisions, such as the initial segment or corridor for a rapid transit system, may not be made until after a System Plan alterna- tive is selected. Proposed phasing will be reviewed as part of project -level environmental review. 2.7 Benefits and Disadvantages of Delaying Action Delaying action would have few environmental or procedural benefits. The need for transportation improvements already exists. Traffic congestion, transit inefficiency, and air pollution problems will continue to worsen. There are clear disadvantages to delaying action. Disadvantages include: o Available right-of-way and station and park-and-ride sites are disap- pearing. Regional development will reduce available land and increase project costs and displacement impacts. o The lack of a competitive transit system encourages low-density, sprawling development that favors automobiles and is difficult to serve with public transit. o New land -use plans are currently being written. Without coordination with transit planning, these plans are unlikely to thoroughly support regional transit. o Federal funds are available to help pay for commuter rail and rapid transit. Delay could cause these funds to be allocated to other .projects. Additional funds would require more Congressional action. o Not doing anything will worsen air quality and traffic congestion and fail to support measures to reduce SOV trips and manage growth. Delaying major transit investments will limit the effectiveness of programs to manage transportation demand and reduce air pollution. A possible benefit of delaying action on the System Plan is that many existing local plans do not give clear direction regarding preferred station and align- ment locations for transit improvements and rapid transit service. The land - use and transportation policies that would increase employment and residential densities and encourage transit use are not yet in place in many Other Alternatives Considered 2-69 March 1993 cases. While RTP is working for consistency between local land -use and transportation policies and plans and the regional transit proposals, it might be simpler if those policies were already in place. On the other hand, exist- ing planning schedules allow for and encourage close interaction between land -use and transportation planning authorities to ensure full compliance with the Growth Management Act. Similarly, WSDOT is currently studying increased ferry, highway, and inter- city rail investments that could be linked to local transit service. Because those planning efforts are much less complete than the System Plan, delaying action could allow more coordination. However, as state plans solidify, System Plan elements can be adjusted to integrate the plans. 2-70 March 1993 Other Alternatives Considered . 3.0 Affected Environment, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.1.1 General Geology This chapter considers the various elements of the affected environment in the study area, the impacts that the four alternatives would have on that environment, and ways in which potential impacts could be mitigated. Impacts and mitigation measures are considered, for the most part, at a regional level or as typical impacts and mitigation measures, as is appropriate for a nonproject-lever document. Earth Affected Environment The central Puget Sound region lies in a glacially scoured basin between mountains to the east and the west. The landscape iss a series of north-south- trending ridges separated by deep trough occupiedby marine fresh- water rswater lakes, and streams Most surface and shallow subsurface soils were deposited during the most recent glaciation. These deposits generally include, from oldest to youngest: o lakebed sediments (silts and clays) o deposits from glacial runoff (sands and gravels) o glacial till (very dense mixture of gravel, sand, silt, and clay). Relatively recent (less than 10,000 years old) stream deposits and artificial fill are also present in many places. Steep slopes in the area are conducive to landslides. Unconsolidated lakebed deposits and peats are prone to settlement. Strong lateral stresses in hard silt and clay adversely affect construction of retaining walls and under- ground facilities. Underground facilities could also be adversely affected by the water -bearing sand and gravel. 3.1.1.2 Seismicity Historically, the region has had relatively frequent earthquakes of low to moderate intensities. Potential earthquake effects include ground shaking, loss of soil strength leading to ground failure (liquefaction), lateralspreading, ading, and landslides. Liquefaction occurs primarily in clean, loose, saturated Earth 3-1 March 1993 sands, and can cause substantial settlement. The distribution and thickness of glacially -consolidated sediments, unconsolidated stream and lake deposits, and filled land critically affect earthquake motions and ground failure. The most probable major earthquakes in the central Puget Sound area are deep (30 to 40 miles) earthquakes with magnitudes of 6 to 7.7, likely to occur every 30 to 50 years. Otherotential earthquakes include shallow earthquakes along the Pacific coast with magnitudes of 8 to 9, likely to occur at intervals of hundreds of years. Scientists have recently postulated a major "Seattle fault" in the region beginningnear Winslow on Ba.mbridge Island and running under downtown Seattleasterly to near Fall City. The exact path of the fault or faults is unknown. Shallow (less than 10 miles deep) earthquakes along the fault could have magnitudes of 7 to 7.5, apparently occurring at intervals of thousands of years. The most recent earthquake on the fault occurred roughly 1,000 years ago. 3.1.1.3 Subsurface Conditions Earth Developed areas in the region are built largely on glacial deposits. Many of the industrial areas are built in river valleys or estuaries, consisting of recent stream deposits and fill materials. Large sections of downtown Seattle have been modified by excavating and filling. While most of the area has a great thickness of glacial sediment, there are sedimentary rocks outcrops in Rainier Valley and on Beacon Hill. Thus, geologic conditions include soft saturated clay to very dense till, as well as artificial fill and sedimentary rock. North Corridor Capitol Hill has clay and sand glacial deposits. Perched groundwater is likely in sand where it lies above clay. High ground water levels, locally under pressure, are likely in the University District. Landslides may occur within clay deposits along the I-5 alignment. Deposits of soft clays, silts, peat, and -fill occur in low-lying areas near Northgate, the county line, Swamp Creek, and parts of Everett. South Corridor Rainier Valley has some fill overlying unconsolidated deposits. Outcrops of sedimentary rock are likely above the valley. Soils east of Boeing Field include fill overlying glacially consolidated deposits. Duwamish Valley soils have been modified with fill. Glacially consolidated deposits are found in the I-5/SR-99 corridor south of the Duwamish Valley to the Milton area, where peat and soft soils are found in depressions and creek bottoms. Soft soils and high groundwater levels are likely in the Duwamish, Green, Cedar, and Puyallup River valleys. East Corridor Mercer Slough includes soft peat, clay, and silt with groundwater at or near the surface. Groundwater is also likely close to the surface along Interstate 405 in Bellevue. Deposits of soft soils are likely along May Creek. Along the I-90 corridor, soft surface soils are found near Lake Sammamish and the forks and tributaries of Issaquah Creek. Sedimentary rock outcrops are also found on the south side of I-90 west of Issaquah. 3-2 March 1993 The geology along the I-405 corridor primarily consists of dense, glacially consolidated till and sand. Low lying areas near creeks and rivers include soft deposits of peat, clay, and silt, as well as unconsolidated sand deposits. Artificial fill is also likely to be present in low-lying areas. An outcrop of igneous rock is present along I-405 just west of the area where it crosses the Green River. Construction Impacts The magnitude of construction impacts would be greatest for the Rail/TSM Alternative, since it involves extensive tunneling and excavation. Construc- tion impacts would be much less for the TSM and Transitway/TSM Alterna- tives. No significant impacts are expected under the No -Build Alternative. Construction vibration may affect structures, depending on construction and soil types, method of excavation, and distance to structures. Surface settle- ment would be localized. Settlement would be of particular concern near large structures and in sand and gravel, fill, and lake and lemenstreamadeposits.rticularly Loss of soil into tunnels may also cause surface settlement, in water -bearing deposits. Subsurface settlement is more likely over deposits of soft clays and silts, peat, and f Groundwater, particularly under pressure, will affect construction, requiring dewatering during construction of underground facilities, which could also cause settlement of adjacent property. Special tunneling techniques will be required where groundwater is present. Appropriate designfeatures will be needed to permanently drain underground facilities while minimizing the effect on adjacent property. Special construction procedures will be required where sedimentary rock is found. Excavation may require blasting, which could have noise, vibration, and safety impacts. Commuter Rail Element Significant amounts of excavation are not expected for this alignment, although station and park-and-ride construction would require some excava- tion and earth impacts. Operations Impacts Transit operations can be affected by earthquakes. Most soils in the region are glacially overconsolidated and as such are not susceptible to vibration - induced settlement. However, each corridor includes soils prone to liquefac- tion, particularly fill soils, tidal flats, and other unconsolidated deposits. Ground vibration could cause settlement in unconsolidated soils. North -south RTP rapid transit alignments would cross the recently postulated "Seattle fult." Since the exact location of the fault is unknown,. the potential crossing points cannot be precisely determined. At -grade transit operations, whether consisting of trains operating on rails or buses operating on pavement, would likely experience the same types of damage that would occur to highways during a significant earthquake. In , I addition, buses could airs to bede pavement could be accomplished detou ed past damaged areas. Repairs quickly. 3-3 March 1993 to rail require special equipment, and it would likely require more time to place a rail system back into operation. The costs of repairs to either type of surface transit infrastructure would likely be similar in magnitude. Above -grade structures, whether elevated train platforms, busways, or bridges, are designed to withstand shaking from specific magnitude earthquakes. However, they cannot be designed to withstand the displacement that could occur directly over a fault. Below -grade facilities would also be designed to withstand a certain amount of ground shaking. In addition, tunnels can be designed to withstand a certain amount of ground displacement along a fault through the use of "crushable backpacking" surrounding the tunnel lining. This concept has been utilized in constructing tunnels through known fault zones in California. It could not be used along the "Seattle fault" in the absence of much more specific information regarding the fault's location. The design of any new RTP facilities (or renovation and upgrading of existing acilities to accommodate regional transit operations) would be comply with all applicable building codes and current or updated seismic code requirements. RTP facilities would be more likely to survive earthquake impacts than existing transportation infrastructure, which was built to less stnngent seismic standards. tables, and figures have been updated to reflect the corrected data. None of the corrections or changes sigmficantly affect the analysis or conclusions. 3.2.1 Affected Environment 3.21.1 Policy Setting Air Quality Despite progress over the last decade in controlling emissions from large industrial sources and automobiles, ambient air pollution (pollution of outdoor air) continues to be a serious environmental threat in the state and local region. In 1989, the Washington State Environment 2010 project identified ambient air pollution as the number one threat to the environment (State of the Environment Report 1989). The City of Seattle recently ranked transportation sources of air pollution as the City's top environmental challenge in terms of both relative risk and overall priority for action (City of Seattle 1991). Air Pollutants of Concern Criteria Pollutants. The federal Clean Air Act established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for six criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (03), particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (S02) and lead (Pb). See Section 3.7.13 for health effects of these pollutants. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a deadly gas formed from incomplete combustion of carbon -containing fuels. Motor vehicles are the principal source of carbon monoxide emissions within the metropolitan region. Ozone (03) forms in the lower atmosphere from the reaction of hydrocarbons (HC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the presence of sunlight Hence its precursors, HC and NOx, are the emitted pollutants of concern. Various polluting hydrocarbon compounds are emitted or evaporate into the air in connection with the use and combustion of fuels in motor vehicles. The particulate matter of concern consists of two classes: total suspended particulates (TSP) and inhalable TSP that is made up of particles 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10). Particulate matter enters the air from industrial operations, vehicular traffic, and other fuel combustion sources, including wood stoves. Most of the PM10 generated by motor vehicles consists of resuspended road dust. In addition to adverse health effects, suspended particulates contribute to the soiling of buildings and reduced visibility. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) forms as the result of high-temperature fuel combustion and subsequent atmospheric reactions. In addition to health effects, it reacts with moisture to form acid mist or rain. Sulfur dioxide (SO2), a colorless corrosive gas, is produced by industrial processes and the combustion of sulfur -containing fuels, including coal, oil, and diesel fuel. In addition to health effects, SO2 damages the foliage of trees and agricultural crops and contributes to the formation of acid rain. Since the introduction of unleaded gasoline, lead is no longer a tailpipe emission of significant concern. 3-5 March 1993 CO2. Although not a criteria pollutant, or. even generally conceived as a pollutant, carbon dioxide (CO2 ), a major by-product of burning fossil fuels, is a growing concern because of its contribution to global warming. Toxic Air Pollutants. Principal transportation -related toxic air pollutants, for which data are extremely limited, include benzene, formaldehyde, gasoline vapors, and diesel particulates. Mobile source emissions are extremely complex. Hundreds of compounds are associated with both the gas phase and particulate components of emissions. The levels of potential health risk associated with various toxic air pollutants are highly variable. Toxic air pollutants have been associated with increased cancer risk. Toxic air contaminants overlap other categories of pollutants including total suspended particulates,PM10, and hydrocarbons. Ambient Air Quality Standards and Nonattainment Areas Ambient air quality standards identify pollutant concentrations that are not to be exceeded over specified periods. Primary standards protect public health. Secondary standards protect the natural environment. Under the federal Clean Air Act, areas that violate primary standards are designated "nonattainment areas" and State Implementation Plans (SIPs) must be developed to bring these areas into attainment. SIPs generally include transportation control measures to reduce motor vehicle emissions. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 The federal Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 reflect a national commitment to attain air quality standards. As a result, attainment of ambient air quality standards is now a critical objective in making urban transportation investment decisions. The 1990 AAA requires establishing objectives for emission reductions within nonattainment areas, updating emissions inventories in revised SIPs, forecasting vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and developing contingency measures to put into effect if air quality standards or VMT forecasts are exceeded. The 1990 CAAA requires the PSRC to determine the effect on air quality of any proposed transportation plan, program, or project. More specifically, the PSRC is responsible for ensuring that new transportation plans, programs, and projects will not: o cause or contribute to violations of air quality standards o increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality problems o delay attainment of air quality standards. The -PSRC, as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), also prepares of Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) for the central Puget Sound region. The TIP is a six year regional plan for transportation projects, specifying project timing, costs, funding sources and priorities. Eligibility of projects for federal funding is dependent on inclusion in the TIP and a finding (by the PSRC and the Federal Highway Administration) that the TIP conforms with air quality and congestion management objectives. In 1991, the PSRC found that both the Vision 2020 plan and the 1992 TIP conform to the federal Clean Air Act and the Washington SIP. This finding was approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation. In 1992, PSRC staff also found that the Rail TSM Alternative would support the Vision 2020 Air Quality 3-6 March 1993 Air Quality plan better than the other alternatives (see first volume of comments and responses) and could help to achieve its objectives, including: o limiting the spread of urban development o concentrating growth in centers o improving connections between land use activities o enhancing the competitiveness of transit o protecting environmental resources. After a Final System Plan is adopted by the JRPC, the PSRC Transportation Policy Board and Executive Board will issue a conformity finding. Federal and State Clean Air Acts and Washington State Implementation Plan (SIP) Under the federal Clean Air Act, states which violate national ambient air quality standards must adopt a SIP for attaining the standards and to submit this plan to the U.S. EPA for approval. The Puget Sound region must attain carbon monoxide (CO) standards by December 31, 1995 and ozone (03) standards by November 15, 1993. Prior to any formal redesignation of the local nonattainment areas as attainment areas, the state must also adopt a 10 -year maintenance plan and submit it to the U.S. EPA for approval. Failure to submit an acceptable SIP may result in sanctions that include withholding federal highway and mass transit funding. The federal and state clean air acts require all transportation plans, programs, and projects to conform with the SIP. Preparation of the SIP is the responsibility of the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE), in cooperation with the PSRC and the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA). The DOE also administers state programs that are important to maintaining air quality in the nonattainment area,, including the oxygenated fuel program, SIP conformity determinations, and vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program. Drafts of the SIPs for carbon monoxide and ozone were published by DOE in November and December, 1992. The final SIPs will include new state conformity regulations (Chapter 173-420 WAC), which were adopted in January 1993. These regulations establish process based on existing requirements of the Clean Air Act, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), the State Growth Management Act (GMA) and the State and National Environmental Policy Acts (SEPA and NEPA). In this process, conformity occurs primarily at the regional level through the PSRC, acting as the MPO in cooperation with local units of government, the PSAPCA, the DOE, the Washington State Department of Transportation, the EPA, and the United States Department of Transportation. A wide range of transportation control measures (TCMs) may be included in SIP supplements and subsequent maintenance plans to further reduce motor vehicle emissions. Commute Trip Reduction Law The 1991 Washington State legislature enacted a law to improve air quality, reduce traffic congestion, and decrease the consumption of petroleum fuels. The law requires employer -based programs that encourage alternatives to SOVs for commuting to the workplace. The law applies to employers with 3-7 March 1993 100 or more full time employees in a single location who begin the work day between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. in counties with populations of greater than 150,000. Although no specific requirements are placed on transit providers, improved transit service will help employers meet the mandates under the law. These mandates include a reduction in single occupant commute trips of 15 percent in 1993, 25 percent by 1997, and 35 percent by 1999. 3.21.2 Historical and Existing Air Quality Conditions The Puget Sound region currently meets federal standards for lead, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides, but portions of the region exceed standards for carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and ozone. Motor vehicle tailpipe emissions are primary sources of carbon monoxide and ozone. Tailpipe emissions and resuspended road dust contribute to suspended particulates. Carbon Monoxide (CO) Within the Puget Sound region, motor vehicles contribute roughly 70 to 75 percent of carbon monoxide emissions. Carbon monoxide's impact is usually very localized. Highest concentrations often occur near congested roadways and intersections. Violations of carbon monoxide standards within the region have decreased since the early 1970s, due to replacement of older "dirtier" vehicles with newer cars that comply with more stringent emission standards. A multi-year summary of CO levels is shown in Figure 3.1. The state's I/M program has also contributed to lower CO emissions. In 1987 and 1988, downtown Bellevue, Everett, Seattle, and Tacoma, and the University District were nonattainment areas for CO. Seattle met the CO standard in 1989 and in 1990 Bellevue, Tacoma, and the University District also met the standard. In 1991, CO concentrations exceeded the 8 -hour standard in Tacoma and Everett, and came close to exceeding it in the University District, Northgate, and downtown Seattle. In 1992, in response to the 1990 CAAA requirements, Ecology consolidated these localized CO nonattainment areas into a single regional nonattainment area that extends along the I-5 corridor from Marysville to south Pierce County. Ozone (03) ' Ozone results from sunlight -driven chemical reactions in the air between nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons. The highest levels of ozone tend to occur on hot afternoons when urban area emissions trapped beneath temperature inversions are exposed to high temperatures. Because northerly winds often develop during these days, the highest ozone levels tend to occur south to southeast of the major urban areas where precursor emissions occur. Hence high ozone levels tend to be" more of a regional than a localized concern. EPA designated the Puget Sound region as "in attainment" of the 03 standard in January 198'7, based on measured concentrations over a three- year averaging penod. This designation continued until 1990, when the standard was exceeded at three monitoring sites. In 1992, the EPA designated the three -county region as a "marginal" nonattainment area for ozone. The vehicle emission testing program is being expanded throughout the Puget Sound area to help bring the region back into compliance. Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) and PM10 Industrial areas in Seattle and Tacoma have consistently violated the State and regional standard for TSP. Motor vehicles contribute roughly 80 percent Air Quality. 3-8 March 1993 " E 0 0. 0 = 0) co co 12 a) 0 45it0 2 w rn E`� za 40 30 20 10 . —.—. .- \ / \_ ii \ Seattle Tacoma LEGEND —•— Seattle Everett Bellevue Tacoma Source: Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency; Air Quality Data Summary, 1989 — l Bellevue ................................ '1, L .,11' •`�. '.,..o...... o... •: •--�Everett i'1 •4.. ' • q_ - I1 I 1 I 1 1 r........,, ..........▪ ..... ••-• I ..'........ 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 Year IM -n Regional Transit ▪ Project IMO COUNTY. r9N10!aour ,.wooer' ootxn FIT PO0299C Carbon Monoxide Levels - Multi -Year Summary System Pian EIS FIGURE 3.1 of TSP emissions. Within King County, PM10 constitutes about 40 percent of total on -road suspendedarticulates. At least 50 percent of on -road PM10 consists of resuspended road dust, with the remainder deriving from vehicle exhaust and dust from vehicle brake and tire wear. Three Puget Sound PM10 nonattainment areas (Seattle, Kent, and Tacoma) have been designated, although recent monitoring indicates compliance with standards. PM10 concentrations have been monitored in the region since 1983. The region has generally been in compliance with the annual PM10 standard and has only had isolated instances where the one day value was exceeded. Within the last several years, two locations within the port area of Tacoma have barely exceeded the 24 hour average PM10 standard. Between 1987 and 1989, neither Seattle nor Tacoma attained State and regional TSP standards, but both attained federal, State and regional PM10 standards. More recent data indicate a similar pattern. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Washington State and Puget Sound annual and 24-hour average standards for SO2 are more rigorous than federal standards. Historical data (1987 through 1990) show no violations of the three annual standards, but indicate violations of State and regional one-hour and five-minute standards in 1987. 3.2.1.3 Long Term Trends Air Quality The dramatic improvements in air quality that occurred in the 1980s were attributable to several factors: o strong public environmental awareness and consensus for regulatory and political change during the 1960s and 1970s o the availability of effective, relatively inexpensive technological improvements for automobile emission control systems o the introduction of light -weight durable materials to replace steel, which allowed cars to become lighter and more fuel-efficient o the increased cost and limited supply of gasoline due to the Middle East oil embargo of the 1970s o economic prosperity during the 1980s, which helped replace many old cars without emission control systems. The following trends work against improvements in the levels of motor vehicle emissions in the Puget Sound region: o Economic recession during the 1990s has slowed the introduction of newer cars into the vehicle fleet. o - VMT is projected to increase by 78% by 2020. o The arterial transportation system is mature, with no planned signifi- cant increase in roadway capacity. o Increased congestion and travel delay and slower travel speeds are expected. o In the absence of significant policy changes, average vehicle emission rates are expected to stabilize around 2005. On the other hand, many factors point to the possibility of future legislation which could lead to increased use of low or zero emissions motor vehicles, which would considerably reduce aggregate motor vehicle emissions. Air Quality 3-10 March 1993 Global Warming The burning of fossil fuel in motor vehicles contributes to the production of carbon dioxide which contributes to potential global warming. Although increased transit use may modestly reduce motor vehicle use, the heavy use of automobiles for personal transportation needs is expected to continue. Hence, significant reductions of motor vehicle carbon dioxide emissions will depend on significant introduction and use of motor vehicle technologies which substantially reduce carbon dioxide emissions.. 3.2.1.4 Transportation and Air Quality Motor vehicles currently generate roughly 80 percent of all particulate emissions within the region, 70 to 75 percent of carbon monoxide emissions, 60 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions, and 25 percent of hydrocarbon emissions (Figure 3.2), although these proportions have changed. Motor vehicle emissions continue to be of concern, since levels of carbon monoxide, ozone, and fine particulate matter have approached or exceeded National Ambient Air Quality Standards in recent years and the growth of regional vehicle miles of travel could worsen regional motor vehicle emissions. Mode Choice With current motor vehicle emission characteristics, individual mode choices (walking, bicycling, driving in an SOV, or riding in a carpool or on a bus) substantially affect individual contributions to aggregate motor vehicle emissions. Walking, bicycling, or use of HOVs reduce vehicle miles of travel and emissions per passenger mile of vehicular travel. Vehicle Occupancies Vehicle occupancy rates have a major impact on per -passenger -mile pollutant emissions and energy efficiencies of different transportation modes. Thus, it is important to consider the characteristic passenger loads associated with different modes. Figures 3.3 and 3.4 illustrate the per - passenger -mile emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, and particulate emissions for commuter rail trains, buses, and cars operated as SOVs or three-person carpools. Average transit vehicle passenger loads are generally considerably less than their capacities, due to their moderate to low ridership during nonpeak service hours and "deadhead" miles (non -revenue miles traveled without passengers between routes and operating bases). The basic pattern of many transit routes, where passengers are picked up at stops toward one end of the route -and disembark at a series of stops toward the other end of the route, also contributes to reduced overall passengers loads. Average bus passenger loads were estimated using Metro fleet data. The average passenger load per mile for Metro's 1990 fleet (total annual passenger.miles divided by total annual vehicle miles, including deadhead miles) was 11.2 people (14.1 for the electric trolley fleet and 11.0 for the diesel bus fleet). Metro's deadhead miles constitute about 25 percent of its total transit vehicle miles and are equivalent to about 33 percent of revenue miles (USDOT/FTA Data Tables for the 1990 Section 15 Report Year, December, 1992). Air Quality 3-11 March 1993 100% 90% 0 80% co 0 • 70% 03 ct 60% ;7. • 50% 0 03 a) 30% n. E • Ta. rc 20% 0 o. 0. 10% PM CO HC NOx SO2 LEGEND Major Pollutant Sources On -Road Transportation Off -Road Transportation Residential Heating. Other Area Sources Seurat 17J112 Department Eccdogy Stale Implonanbilcn Kin kr Carbon Idoncoido and Ozone; and Puget Sand Ak Poll/ion Coward Agency Point Sources Air Pollutants PM - Particulate Matter CO - Carbon Monoxide HC -Hydrocarbons NOx - Nitrogen Oxides SO2 - Sulphur Dioxide Regional Transit Project 012 COUNT/ • PUCE COUNT, COUWIT RTPCdX569E Summary of Air Pollutant Sources, Puget Sound Region System Plan EIS FIGURE 32 12 10 Commuter Rail 1990 2020 Natural (146 Passengers) Diesel Bus Gas Bus (11 Passengers) (11 Passengers) 2020 12 Person Van Pool Carbon Monoxide by Mode Grams/Passenger Mile 1990 Sing e Occupant Auto 2020 Single Occupant Auto (gas) Commuter Rail 1990 2020 Natural 2020 12 1990 Single (146 Passengers) Diesel Bus Gas Bus Person Van Occupant Auto (11 Passengers) (11 Passengers) Pool Nitrogen Oxides by Mode Grams/Passenger Mile 2020 Single Occupant Auto (gas) Regional Transit ammejtr 1 Project OIG courn • PIERCE OOLINTT • 911106401111111 COWRY RTPG0269K Estimated Air Pollutant Production Per Passenger Mile System Plan EIS FIGURE 3.3 4 3 2 1 3 Person Carpool 3 Person Carpool 0 _JIIII III Commuter Rail 1990 2020 Natural 2020 12 1990 Single 2020 Sing e (146 Passengers) Diesel Bus Gas Bus Person Van Occupant Auto Occupant Auto (11 Passengers) (11 Passengers) Pool - (gas) Hydrocarbons by Mode Grams/Passenger Mile AIMS Commuter Rail 1990 2020 Natural 2020 12 1990 Single 2020 Single (146 Passengers) Diesel Bus Gas Bus Person Van Occupant Auto Occupant Auto (11 Passengers) (11 Passengers) Pool (gas) Particulate Matter by Mode Grams/Passenger Mile Estimated Air Pollutant Production Per Passenger Mile System Plan EIS FIGURE 3.4 Air Quality Average passenger loads of different types average vehicles varpassenger loads than y considerably. All carry considerably greater the average passenger car. Average bus passenger load (with an off -or of service hours and deadhead mileage factored in)is generally magnitude (10 times) greater than that of passenger cars. It is conservatively estimated that the rapid rail cars recommendedinthe Rail/TSM Alternative would have an average buses. overall Cooccu occupancy trains 24 passengers, twice the average occupancy would average 146 passengers, an order of magnitude greater than average bus occupancy. The high average passenger loads of rapid rail vehicles and commuter rail trains results not only from their greater passenger capacities, but from longer average ride lengths, the application of rail service to areas and routes that have the highest service demand, and the ability of rail vehicles to make more round trips during peak periods. The per -passenger -mile emissions of passenger cars depends ith only a the different transportation mode functions they play. Operated are single occupant vehicles (SOVs). Operated with 2 or more passengers they are carpools or high occupancy vehicle (HOV). Since average assenger car occupancy rates are a statistical abstraction encompassing both SOVsS and HOVs, the FEIS compares average per -passenger -mile emission and energy consumption characteristics of HOV transportation modes with those of SOVs rather than the average overall occupancy rate of passenger cars, but uses the average rate when computing total vehicle emissions and energy use. Both peak and average performance of transit vehicles are important when comparing their emissions and energy efficiency o low loads on many transit vehicles (LOVs). During peak travel periods, peak passenger vehicles approach or exceed seat capacities. However, even during peak periods, the number of transit passengers varies on and between routes. . Average bus passenger loads during the 3 -morning daily loadsd npeaks are generally at least two to three timesgreater than average (Line, 1993; Beal, 1993). Average peak commuter rail train loads are expected to be at least 60 percent greater than average daily loads (Line, 1993; Beal, 1993). Hence, peak period bus emissions per passenger mile is about 50 to 67 percent less than the overall average levels shown in Figures 3.3 and 3.4. Averagee peak d to be 3riod 5 to 40 ponserceer nalower than the average er mile for commuter railxp levels shown in Figures 3.3 and 3.4. During peak travel periods, the contribution of low -occupancy -vehicle (LOV) modes to aggregate motor vehicle emissions is the greatest, due to the high volumes of LOV passenger miles and the adverse effects of traffic congestion. Traffic congestion will cause the peak period per -passenger -mile ernission rates of LOVs to be significantly higherotn an tthseor tel shown ho hides Figures 3.3 and 3.4. The per-vehicle-milebut the eraffect on average also deteriorate during peak trafficperiods, emissions per passenger mile is lessened due to the larger passenger loads. The larger passenger loads of transit vehicles result in transit vehicles generally having at least competitive and frequently much better pollutant emissions and energy efficiencies per passenger mile than LOVs. 3-15 March 1993 Vehicle Emissions The emissions characteristics of transit vehicles and passenger cars are highly variable, due to different power sources (electric trolleys, diesel buses, dual - mode buses, gasoline -powered cars, diesel -powered cars, electric cars, etc.) and the ongomg impacts of regulatory changes and technological advances. A variety of factors could lead to adoption of more stringent vehicle emission restrictions or tougher fuel economy requirements, which could significantly alter technologies and emissions characteristics of both transit vehicles and passenger cars. While it is reasonable to expect some of these improvements over the next thirty years, neither their timing or results are sufficiently assured to provide a sound basis for projecting different 2020 emissions characteristics for transit vehicles and passenger cars. Passenger Cars. Over the last ten to fifteen years, increasingly stringent passenger car emissions standards have dramatically reduced motor vehicle emissions. As older cars continue to be replaced by newer cars, average motor vehicle emissions declined. Vehicle emission rates are expected to decline at a diminishing rate until about 2005. Thereafter, unless there are significant changes in regulations, average vehicle emissions are not expected to change significantly (EPA Mobile 4.1 Emissions Model). Projected increases in vehicle miles traveled within the central Puget Sound region (as projected by the PSRC) are expected to reverse the decline in aggregate motor vehicle emissions around 2005. Figure 3.5 illustrates the expected relationship over time between growing regional VMT and motor vehicle emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons. Transit Vehicles. On a per -vehicle -mile basis, buses (the vast majority of which have been diesel -powered) have typically generated a considerably greater amount of exhaust pollutants than automobiles. Diesel bus emissions have varied greatly as a result of wide variations in emissions characteristics of the range of bus diesel engines. Conventional diesel -powered buses have been notorious for odorous smoky emissions. The conventional diesel exhaust emissions have included substantially more particulates than the gasoline engine exhaust. Diesel particulate emissions include significant quantities of potentially hazardous very fine respirable particulates. Some of the compounds associated with diesel exhaust particulates (such as benzo(a)pyrene) are known carcinogens. Nevertheless, aggregate regional transit fleet emissions represent less than one percent of aggregate motor vehicle emissions. Within King County, transit fleet carbon monoxide emissions are currently less than 0.2 percent of total motor vehicle carbon monoxide emissions duringthe winter season when carbon monoxide emissions tend to be highest ooz Allen & Hamilton, 1992). Stringent new emission standards applied to urban buses during and after the 1990s will help substantially reduce transit fleet emissions of nitrogen oxide and particulate matter. Diesel buses meeting the 1998 urban bus particulate emission standards will have no visible soot in their exhaust. The 1990 vehicle emission rates in Figures 33 and 3.4 are based on estimated average emissions per mile for automobiles (based on MOBILE4.1 generated data) and estimated average (1990) regional diesel bus emissions. The assumed 2020 emission rates for both buses and passenger cars are based on implementation of currently adopted emission standards, including Air Quality 3-16 March 1993 1000 800 co Tra co p • = c 600 c .0•••• c 0 > •co E .co • 400 4s, Z El 4) 200 as • • \ • . • • • . • • • .. • • • . • • • • ' \ • • \ .0.• • • • . ... N.. .. ..e• .....* •. ..••••••4' •• ...••• ...••• Carbon Monoxide •..•••• •-------••••............_.....•—•4"--..---°-... -...,. • .• Vehicle Miles .• °' *0 ••• .• .4 • -** •• • .• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Hydrocarbons' ...................... LEGEND Carbon Monoxide Hydrocarbons Nitrogen Oxide Vehicle Miles Travelled Source: EPA Mobile 4.1 Emissions Model and PSRC ....................................................................................................... Nitrogen Oxide 1990 1995 2000 2005 Year 2010 2015 2020 ION COUNTY • PIM NUM .111101MIPPI COJPITY RTPODS Aggregate Vehicle Fleet Air Pollutant Emissions and Vehicle Miles Travelled by Year System Plan EIS FIGURE 3.5 strict urban bus emission standards. Estimated passenger car emissions for 2020 have been estimated to be equivalent to those of gasoline -powered passenger cars meeting current adopted emissions standards and reflect only the changes expected as older cars are replaced with newer cars meeting current emissions standards. Projected commuter rail emissions are based on the current unregulated diesel technology of commuter rail trains. Cleaner technologies may become available within the time horizon of the RTP, but cannot be assured. Figures 3.3, 3.4, and 3.11 highlight the impact specific technologies used in transit vehicles on their emissions and energy efficiency relative to those of LOVs. Electric transit vehicles are not included in the figures because they do not produce exhaust emissions. As the figures illustrate, natural gas buses produce substantially lower carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and particulate emissions than today's diesel bus fleet. Even the 1990 diesel bus fleet produces significantly lower carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions per passenger mile than low occupancy gasoline -powered motor vehicles. Vehicle Operating. Characteristics Temperature, altitude, vehicle load, and speed also affect exhaust emissions. Exhaust emissions per mile are worst when vehicles are idling, generally diminish up to speeds of about 45 to 50 mph, and then generally increase at higher speeds. Figure 3.6 illustrates the relationship between vehicle speeds and emissions per mile of principal exhaust pollutants. Average vehicle operating speeds can play a significant role in altering the rates of traffic -generated exhaust emissions. Traffic congestion, leading to delays and reduced speeds, can significantly elevate exhaust emission rates per vehicle mile and contribute to localized carbon monoxide "hotspots." Before their engines reach normal operating temperatures, motor vehicles produce up to 30 times their normal emissions per mile. These emissions are know as "cold -start" emissions. Unlinked short vehicle trips contribute disproportionately to increased motor vehicle emissions. 3.2.2 Construction Impacts Construction could likely to generate localized dust and exhaust emissions from vehicles and equipment. Construction within existing roadways could contribute to localized traffic congestion, worsening local exhaust emissions. Increased exhaust emissions from slower general purpose traffic is likely to have a greater impact on localized air quality than exhaust emissions from construction equipment. The quantities of directly generated construction dust and exhaust emissions will depend on the amount of clearing, grading, and excavating associated with each alternative. Trucks and other vehicles driven to and from sites may also track mud along access routes, potentially contributing to dustroblems. PSAPCA regulations require that the best available control technology be used to control fugitive dust emissions. 3.2.2.1 No -Build Alternative There would be air quality impacts from the No -Build Alternative from construction of committed projects and infrastructure maintenance projects. Impacts would be minimal. Air Quality 3-18 March 1993 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 m a, 80 0 0 3 70 O O . 60 50 40 20 10 5 0 LEGEND CO - Carbon Monoxide — — - THC - Total Hydrocarbons NOX - Oxides of Nitrogen Source: Mobile 4.1 Emissions Model, USEPA 1991. 4 • - 1 - •. -..._ • •� 0 1 1 1 — —___+— --r--, 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Vehicle Speed (MPH) moo cousin, • rexE care • soasai cairn RTPGR264! Tailpipe Pollutant Emissions Relationship to Vehicle Speed System Plan EIS FIGURE 3.6 3.2.2.2 TSM Alternative The expansion of HOV and park-and-ride systems would result in construction -related CO and dust emissions. Construction could also cause lane restrictions and temporary closures that would increase congestion related emissions of CO. 3.2.2.3 Transitway/TSM Alternative Construction air quality impacts would be more extensive than the TSM Alternative, but not as extensive as the Rail/TSM Alternative. Construction of a two-way transitway on major freeways would cause increased CO emissions due to traffic slow -downs and delays and increased particulates from grading, excavation, and materials handling. Development of the transitway on I-5 reversible lanes could require temporary lane closures along I-5, resulting in increased traffic congestion and exhaust emissions. 3.2.2.4 Rail/TSM Alternative • The Rail/TSM Alternative would include extensive construction below ground, at ground level, and above grade. Building the fixed guideway and stations for the rail system would involve the greatest amount of construction, excavation, and movement of soils. Removing and disposing of tunnel spoils and placing road bed ballast may contribute to significant dust emissions at construction and construction staging sites. Tunnel and subway construction would result in relatively high concentrations of equipment exhaust emissions near tunnel portals and cut - and -cover subway stations. Construction of the I-5 rail alignment in the North Corridor could potentially cause moderate to severe air quality impacts during some phases. Use of the I-5 bridge for rail operations would require extensive upgrading of the bridge and could require temporary lane closures, substantially reducing bridge capacity. Significant lane closures would lead to substantial traffic congestion, contributing to elevated air pollutant emissions. Commuter Rail Element Commuter rail could be implemented with relatively minimal construction impacts because the required right-of-way and rails are largely in place. Some localized construction impacts would occur in connection with stations and park-and-ride lots along the alignment. 3.2.3 Operations Impacts Conservative estimates of increased 2020 ridership indicate that regional transit system improvements would reduce aggregate regional VMT in 2020 by roughly two to four percent with a roughly corresponding reduction of motor vehicle emissions (MVE) of one to four percent. The Rail/TSM Alternative would contribute to the greatest reduction of VMT and MVE, corresponding to its greater ridership. Full implementation of the PSRC Vision 2020 plan and Commute Tnp Reduction Law requirements would increase transit ridership by 5 to 18 percent over the conservatively projected levels, depending on alternative. Potential technological and legislative developments could also result in increased use of lower or zero emission vehicles. The extent, nature, and interrelationships of these Air Quality 3-20 March 1993 developments could result in future outcomes substantially at odds with the assumed scenario in this analysis. Although the TSM, Transitway/TSM, and Rail/TSM Alternatives all encompass substantial increases in transit service miles within the region, transit fleet emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter are expected to be substantially reduced relative to 1990 levels, as a result of new urban bus emission standards.. Transit fleet emissions may also be reduced due to greater use of HOV lanes and other transportation infrastructure improvements that expedite the transit vehicle movement. However, these benefits may be countered to some extent by transit service modifications which could lessen the some transit vehicle operating efficiencies.. The greatest potential air quality benefits of the RTP are likely to be achieved in some local areas where there will be particularly heavy transit volumes. Air quality benefits in these areas would include reduced transit vehicle emissions. There could also be some benefits associated with the improved emissions characteristics of motor vehicles operating within less congested traffic, attributable at least in part to better through and local transit service. The University District, for example, could experience a net reduction of motor vehicle emissions because of a substantial increase in electrified through transit service, substantially improved transit connections to other areas, and substantially reduced bus exhaust emissions. Existing Transit Fleet Emissions The current regional transit fleet consists mainly of diesel -powered buses and smaller numbers of electric buses/streetcars and gasoline -fueled vans. Table 3.2.1 indicates estimated 1990 transit fleet emissions based on the assumed average 1990 diesel bus emission factors indicated in Table 3.2.2. Data compiled in the last two months regarding the average diesel emissions of Metro's current (1992) diesel fleet indicates that the emission factors used to estimate 1990 fleet emissions of carbon monoxide and particulates were slightly higher than actual 1990 emissions of Metro's fleet However, for the sake of consistency, the EPA emission factors cited in Table 3.2.2 have been used throughout the EIS analysis for estimating 1990 transit fleet emissions and emissions per transit -passenger mile. Table 3.2.1. Estimated 1990 Transit Fleet Emissions by Operator (Kilograms/Day) Community Everett Pierce Metro Pollutants: Transit Transit Transit Transit Totals CO 563 105 618 3,283 4,569 HC 67 12 73 388 540 NOx 596 111 654 3,471 4,832 PM 103 19 113 598 10,774 Source: BRW, Inc.; Based on platfom: miles indicated in Table 2.1; and emissions factors from US EPA AP -42 Appendix N, Diesel Powered Transit Bus Emission Factors (DDA 6V-92TA)... Because of tightening bus emission standards, engine manufacturers have been developing, testing, and producing new transit engine/fuel technologies which provide much better emissions characteristics than conventional diesel buses. Principal technologies include cleaner -burning diesel engines with exhaust after -treatments and engines which burn methanol or natural gas. Air Quality 3-21 March 1993 Table 3.2.2 contrasts the comparative emission factors of conventional 1990 diesel buses with hypothetical buses which just meet applicable 1998 emissions requirements (new diesel technologies can meet this standard) and a new state -of -the art natural gas bus. Table 3.2.2. Comparative Motor Bus Emission Factors (grams/mile). Bus (exactly meeting Source: Est. 1990 Diesel Bus applicable 1998 Fleet Emissions* standards) * * New Natural Gas Bus Engine * * * Pollutants: Carbon Monoxide 26.2 31.6 1.5 Hydrocarbons 3.1 2.7 2.2 Nitrogen Oxides 27.7 8.1 73 Partic.. Matter 4.8 .1 1 'Estimated 1990 fleet emissions based on data provided in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. AP -42 document, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Appendix N - Diesel Powered Transit Buses (DDA 6V-92TA).. "EPA 1998 Urban Bus Emission Standard converted to approximate average grams/mile. "' Cummins L-10 Natural Gas Bus. Booz, Allen and Hamilton, 11/5/92. Evolving engine and emission control technologies, along with changing fuel formulations, make it difficult to predict probable future bus emissions other than by assuming best available current technologies which at least meet the applicable 1998 urban bus emission standards. In the Puget Sound region, Pierce Transit and Metro have committed to using natural gas in newly acquired motor buses. Community Transit and Everett Transit have not yet decided how they will meet the new standards. 3.2.3.1 No -Build Alternative and Forecast Overview Forecast Methodology The MOBILE 4.1 vehicle emission model provided mobile source emission rates for carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides. Input data . for the model was provided by the Washington State Department of Trans- portation, the State Department of Ecology, the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, and the Puget Sound Regional Council. Pollutant emissions were estimated based on projected transit operating characteristics and ridership, as well as projections of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle hours of travel (VHT) and delay for each of the transit system alternatives. Particulate emissions were not modeled, due to the lack of a readily available and reliable methodology. In addition, motor vehicle particulate emissions are of limited concern, given the limited particulate emissions of motor vehicle exhausts and the dramatic reduction of transit vehicle particulate emissions which will occur as a result of new federal urban bus emission standards. Also, the elevated levels of particulates that have been experienced within the region have generally been limited to industrial areas. Additional air quality modeling, using the new MOBILES emissions model, will be undertaken in connection with the conformity review required prior to the System Plan being adopted as part of the regional transportation plan. Localized air quality analysis using the MOBILES emissions model will be undertaken for selected locations during project -level planning and environmental analysis associated with selection of specific alignments and facility locations. Air Quality 3-22 March 1993 Projected Transit Fleet Emissions Transit fleet emissions have been projected for the alternatives by assuming that all motorized buses in the fleet will use natural gas or some other fuel/engine technology with emissions characteristics comparable to or better than the natural gas engine emission characteristics in Table 32.2. Table 3.2.3 indicates projected transit fleet emissions by operator for each of the alternatives. Although commuter rail (which is expected to operate with diesel technology within the foreseeable future) is a part of the Rail/TSM Alternative, emissions from commuter rail have been tabulated separately to facilitate comparison of transit bus emissions of the alternatives. Also, emissions impacts of commuter rail operations are more localized than other transit vehicle emissions, which would occur throughout the region. Estimated transit fleet emissions under the No -Build Alternative reflect substantial reductions of all exhaust pollutants relative to the 1990 baseline. Although the No -Build Alternative incorporates about a ten percent increase in transit service miles (see Table 2.1 ), No -Build fleet emissions reflect a 94 percent reduction of carbon monoxide emissions relative to the 1990 fleet, a 9percent reduction of hydrocarbon emissions, a 74 percent reduction of nitrogen oxide emissions, and a 98 percent reduction of particulate emissions. These reductions are entirely attributable to conversion of the bus fleet to natural gas from conventional diesel technologies. Estimated transit fleet emissions for the TSM, Transitway/TSM, and Rail/TSM Alternatives reflect increases relative to the 2020 No -Build Alternative that are generally commensurate with the increases in bus revenue miles under each of the alternatives. Specifically, bus revenue miles and transit emissions of the TSM Alternative reflect about a 75 percent increase over the No -Build Alternative. The Transitway/TSM Alternative reflects about a 80 percent increase in revenue miles and transit fleet emissions, and the Rail/TSM Alternative reflects about a 33 percent increase in bus service miles and transit fleet emissions relative to the No -Build Alternative. The lower increases for the Rail/TSM Alternative are due to the replacement of substantial numbers of buses with electric rail vehicles and commuter rail trains. With the exception of hydrocarbon emissions, fleet emissions for all of the alternatives are less than 1990 levels. Slight increases in hydrocarbon emissions are attributable to the fact that hydrocarbon emissions of natural gas engines yield the least improvement relative to conventional diesel bus emissions. Hence, the substantial increases in bus service miles contribute to modest increases in transit fleet hydrocarbon emissions. The relatively high carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions of the commuter rail component of the Rail/TSM Alternative more than double the volume of those pollutants produced by other transit vehicles which are part of the Rail/TSM Alternative, but the aggregate transit fleet emissions of the Rail/TSM Alternative are still very limited and less than one percent of projected aggregate motor vehicle emissions. Air Quality 3-23 March 1993 Table 3.23. Estimated 2020 Emissions by Operator and Alternative (in kg/dav).* Alternative Community Everett Pierce Metro Total No -Build Transit Transit Transit CO 47 8 39 196 290 HC 68 12 58 287 425 NOx 227 40 188 953 1,408. PM 3 1 3 13 20 TSM . CO 90 18 44 351 503 HC 132 26 64 515 737 NOx 439 87 213 1,708 2,447 PM 6 1 3 ' 23 33 Transitway/TSM CO 90 18 44 366 518 HC 132 26 64 537 759 NOx 439. 87 213 1,783 2,522 PM 6 1 3 24 34 Rail/TSM*" CO 59 it 35 277 382 HC 87 16 51 406 560 NOx 289 54 169 1,348 1,860 PM 1 1 2 18 25 • Assumes conversion of entire regional fleet to natural gas before 2020. • **Table only reflects tailpipe emissions from buses and rapid rail vehicles (no tailpipe emissions from electric rapid rail vehicles) . Commuter rail operations employing diesel powered trains would generate additional estimated emissions (in kg/day) as follows: CO -340; HC -120; Nitrogen Oxides - 2670; particulate matter - 60; and Sulfur Dioxide - 200. Source: Platform miles from Seattle Metro, 8/17/92; natural gas emission factors : Booz, Allen & Hamilton, 11/5/92. Regional Motor Vehicle Emissions As noted earlier, regional traffic congestion is expected to worsen in the next thirty years due to increases in regional VMT in conjunction with little increase in major roadway capacity. Estimated vehicle trip demand in 2020 is expected to significantly exceed the capacities of many principal roadways. Congestion and associated problems are likely to be particularly great where bridges are the only practical linkages between areas. As noted earlier and illustrated in Figure 3.5, aggregate vehicle fleet emissions are trending downward, due to signs cant continuing but diminishing benefits from older more polluting vehicles being replaced by newer vehicles meeting current emissions standards. However, this trend is Air Quality 3-24 March 1993 expected to level off after about 2005. After that time, growth in regional V lwl i is expected to elevate aggregate motor vehicle emissions. Table 3.2.4. Regional Motor Vehicle Emissions by Alternative (Metric Tons*/Dayl* 1990- 2020. System Alternatives: le Emissions: 1990l No -Build TSM Transitway Rail * Baseline (2020) I (2020) 2020 I (2020) . Carbon monoxide: All M. Vehicles 1,182.3 Transit Fleet 4.5 Hydrocarbons: All M. Vehicles 175.4 Transit Fleet .5 Nitrogen Oxides: All M. Vehicles 128.6 4.8 Transit Fleet Particulate Matter. All M. Vehicles not avail. Transit Fleet .80 962.2 .3 211.5 .4 139.1 1.4 not avail. .02 945.8 .5 209.9. .7 136.8 2.4 not avail. .03 944.5 .5 207.6 .8 136.6 2.5 not avail. .03 922.4 .4 202.8 .6 133.5 1.9 not avail. .03 'Metric ton = l,uuu xg = • **Commuter Rail emissions (also expressed in metric tons/day), which would be in addition to the emissions shown ' for the Rail/TSM alternative would be: CO - .34; HC - .12; NOx - 2.67; TSP - .06; SO2 -.20 + Source: BRW, Inc. based on MOBILE4.1 Emission Model; forecast of vehicle miles of travel vehicle hours of travel (as indicated in Table 3.9.3; and natural gas emission factors by Booz Allen & Hamilton, 11/5/92 and data provided by Metro and other transit operators; 2/26/92. Table 3.2.4 summarizes estimated aggregate regional motor vehicle and transit fleet emissions for 1990 and 2020 for each of the alternatives. The separate tabulation of transit vehicle emissions highlights the minor role of transit fleet emissions with respect to aggregate motor vehicle emissions. Table 3.2.5 presents an overview of projected changes in aggregate regional motor vehicle emissions. The first row of Table 3.2.ilbetween ide tifieesexpected and percentage changes in aggregate motor vehicle emissions the 2020 No -Build Alternative. Given the very limited role otransite fleete emissions with respect to aggregate motor vehicle emissions, d changes in motor vehicle emissions are essentially attributable to the combined effects of increased aggregate regional vehicle miles of travel expected by 2020 and changed emission characteristics of the regional fleet of motor vehicles. Aggregate motor vehicle carbon monoxide emissions are projected to be roughly 18 percent lower than in 1990. However, the projected lower level for 2020 occurs within the context of a trend of increasing motor vehicle carbon monoxide emissions, as illustrated in Figure 3.5 Aggregate motor vehicle emissions of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides are expected to have increased by 2020. These projections of aggregate motor vehicle emissions present rough order - of -magnitude estimates of general timing and upward or downward trends. These projections are very sensitive to specific models and input data. Use Air Quality 3-25 March 1993 of different models and/or different or more detailed input data could significantly alter the estimated time when aggregate motor vehicle emissions would begin increasing and/or the erected percentage increases or decreases of motor vehicle emissions in 2020 relative to 1990. However, variations in these projections are not significant with respect to evaluating comparative air quality impacts of the alternatives. The State Department of Ecology will continue to evaluate projected future motor vehicle emissions within the region in relation to its role in preparing and implementing the SIP. The lower part of Table 3.2.5. indicates the estimated percentage changes in emissions, relative to' the 2020 No -Build Alternative, for the TSM, Transitway/TSM, and Rail/TSM Alternatives. These changes are driven principally by the impact of expected ridership differences between the alternatives on aggregate vehicle miles of travel within the region. Table 3.2.5. Estimated Percentage Changes in Regional Motor Vehicle Emissions by Alternative . Carbon Hydrocarbons Nitrogen Particulate Monoxide Oxides Matter No -Build (2020): -18% +21% +8% Not estimated rel. to 1990 TSM: rel. to No -Build -1-2% -1-2% -1-2% Not estimated Transitway: rel to No -Build -1-2% -1-2% -1-2% Not estimated Rail: rel. to No -Build -4% -4% 4% Not estimated Source: BRW Inc., February 199Z based on MOBILE4.1. Particulate emissions were not calculated due to the fact that they are not expected to change significantly and the lack of a readily available and reliable forecast methodology. Any increase in emissions of ozone precursors or particulate matter over 1990 levels is undesirable, given the current nonattainment status of the region for those pollutants. Maintenance of CO attainment status within the region may also not be easily achieved. Compliance with CO standards is based on localized concentrations of CO. Highly congested roadways or intersections producing high CO concentrations could contribute to a continuation of the region's CO nonattainment status, despite reductions in aggregate regional CO emissions. Mitigation of local CO "hot spots" might be possible through travel demand management (TDM) actions. However, in the absence of an attractive and competitive public transit alternative to encourage and facilitate greater transportation mode shifts, these TDM actions could essentially move traffic and associated emissions to other locations within the region. While the choice of a particular regional transit system alternative will contribute to shifts toward greater transit use, other supportive actions will also be needed, such as land use patterns that are more transit- and Air Quality 3-26 March 1993 pedestrian -friendly, and parking regulations and pricing to discourage SOV use. Achievement of air quality standards within the region will require significant measures directed toward reducing the motor vehicle emissions. 3.23.2 TSM Alterative Increased service coverage and frequency under the TSM Alternative is conservatively estimated to contribute to a modest increase in transit mode share, which would result in a reduction of motor vehicle emissions of about one to two percent relative to levels under the No -Build Alternative (see Tables 3.2.4 and 3.2.5). As reflected in Table 3.2.4, slight increases in transit fleet emissions would be more than offset by reductions of motor vehicle emissions due to reduced vehicle miles of travel. It is estimated that the TSM Alternative would result in average daily reductions of at least 16 metric tons of carbon monoxide, 2 metric tons of hydrocarbons, and 2 metric tons of nitrogen oxides compared to the 2020 No -Build Alternative. New transit bases would contribute to increased local carbon monoxide emissions near the bases, but the levels generated would be limited due to the substantially reduced emissions of future transit buses. Under the TSM Alternative, the percentage of transit trips accessed by people driving (or being driven) to park-and-ride lots, formal drop off locations, or non -designated parking locations is projected to be about 23 percent of all transit trips as compared to the 15 percent who currently access transit by car. Increased use of the transit drive -access options near areas which are difficult to provide good local transit coverage within is not expected to significantly affect aggregate motor vehicle emissions on either a regional or localized basis. The Transit System Access subheading in the discussion of the Rail/TSM Alternative provides an in depth discussion of the air quality implications of increased drive access to transit trips. 3.2.3.3 Transitway/TSM Alterative Because the Transitway/TSM Alternative would only provide about three percent more service miles than the TSM Alternative, reductions of regional motor vehicle emissions would not differ significantly from the reductions under the TSM Alternative. Increased transit fleet emissions would be more than offset by reductions of motor vehicle emissions. The Transitway/TSM Alternative would result in average daily reductions of at least 18 metric tons of carbon monoxide emissions, 4 metric tons of hydrocarbon emissions, and 3 metric tons of nitrogen oxide emissions, compared to the No -Build Alternative. Use of the I-5 reversible lanes in the North Corridor for the transitway would significantly reduce the general purpose vehicle carrying capacity of the corridor. The expected increase in transit ridership of the Transitway/TSM Alternative would not compensate for the lost general-purpose vehicle capacity of the corridor. As aresult, traffic congestion and average vehicle speeds and emissions would be worse in portions of the North Corridor than would be expected under the No -Build Alternative. Increased use of transit drive -access options would not significantly affect aggregate regional or local motor vehicle emissions. The Transit System Air Quality 3-27 March 1993 Access subheading in Section 3.23.4 provides an in-depth discussion of the air quality implications of increased drive access to transit trips. 3.2.3.4 RaiUTSM Alternative The Rail/TSM Alternative would build on the benefits provided by the TSM Alternative with a 124 -mile regional rail network. The Rail/TSM Alternative would achieve the greatest increase in transit ridership of all the alternatives. Hence it would also contribute to the greatest transit mode shift and reduce regional VMT motor vehicle emissions by roughly four percent. Excluding commuter rail emissions, the substantial use of electric rail vehicles would substantially reduce transit vehicle emissions relative to the TSM and Transitway/TSM Alternatives. However, with diesel commuter rail emissions, the aggregate Rail/TSM transit fleet produces significantly more nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions than the TSM or Transitway/TSM Alternatives. However, similar to the TSM and Transitway/TSM Alternatives the increases in transit fleet emissions (including commuter rail emissions) would be more than offset by reductions of motor vehicle emissions. The Rail/TSM Alternative (including commuter rail) would result in average daily reductions of at least 40 metric tons of carbon monoxide, 9 tons of hydrocarbons, and 3 tons of nitrogen oxides, compared to the 2020 No -Build Alternative. The air quality impacts of the Rail/TSM Alternative have been evaluated based on the baseline rail alignment, which within the Seattle portion of the North Corridor is the Capitol Hill/University District tunnel alignment. Development of the rail system on the North Corridor I-5 alignment would substantially alter localized traffic and air quality impacts. Use of the I-5 reversible lanes for a rail line would significantly reduce the available general purpose vehicle carrying capacity. As a result, traffic congestion and average vehicle speeds and emissions within the I-5 corridor would be only slightly better than under the No -Build Alternative. Air Quality Localized air quality impacts can be expected to occur around park-and-ride lots and stations due to increased traffic. Potential impacts of this type will be examined in detail during project level planning and analysis. Transit System Access (Transit Stations and Park -and -Ride Lots) Under the Rail/TSM Alternative, 26 percent of all transit trips would be accessed by driving (or being driven) to park-and-ride lots, formal drop-off locations at transit stations, or non -designated parking locations. This compares with 23 percent for the TSM, Transitway/TSM, and No -Build Alternatives and the 15 percent drive access of the current transit system. Some DEIS commenters were concerned that drive access to the transit system would substantially diminish potential air quality benefits of improved transit operations, since high "cold -start" vehicle emission rates might occur in connection with transit drive -access trips and use of park-and-ride lots. Vehicles operating immediately after a cold start emit roughly 30 times the emissions of engines at normal operating temperatures. On average, it takes vehicle engines roughly 8.5 minutes to reach normal operating temperatures and exhaust emission characteristics (U.S. EPA, 1977). A rough estimate was made of the comparative emissions of making trips to and from a park - 3 -28 March 1993 and -ride lot ata distance of 1.5 miles (assuming 100 percent cold -start emissions each way for the park-and-nde lot trip) versus making a 20 mile home -to -work -and -back round trip. The emissions produced by the park- and-ride lot trips (consisting entirely of cold start emissions) amounted to fifty percent o the emissions produced by the round commute trip. This suggests that transit drive access trips probably produce significantly fewer emissions than the drive commute trips they replace. However, transit drive access trips clearly produce more emissions than would be produced by equivalent nonmotorized access transit trips. Commute trip options and their associated vehicle emissions consequences tend not to be as simple as the above analysis suggests. Many of the transit trips accessed by driving would not occur without the drive access option. Even with good local transit service in the draw areas of drive -access facilities, many potential transit users, because of where they live relative to local transit service options, find local transit access either too inconvenient and/or slow relative to the convenience and speed of commuting by car or accessing transit by car. In addition, without good transit drive access, overall transit ridership is likely to be lower and the number of low - occupancy -vehicle commute trips (most of which involve cold -start emissions which are likely to persist for longer periods of time than would occur with a park-and-ride access trip) is likely to increase. Finally, experience with existing facilities such as park-and-ride lots shows that when these facilities, the volume of transit passenger drop-offs and use of undesignated parking areas tends to increase significantly. It is also not clear that potential motor vehicle emission consequences associated with reduced drive access facilities would be less than those of transit system alternatives incorporating greater selective use of drive access facilities. While individuals who take the bus all the way from their homes to work and back do not contribute to cold -start or other vehicle emissions, they or someone else in their household will be more likely to contribute to local vehicle emissions in the course of making local convenience or errand trips that might otherwise have been linked to a transit -access trip. This is due to the fact that errands that might have been linked to transit -access trips must still be made and are likely to involve use of an automobile. Also, vehicles left at home by individuals who directly access transit trips make it easier for other household members to make other vehicle trips. In summary, reductions in vehicle emissions from reduced use of drive access options would in many instances be overshadowed by increased emissions from increased numbers of low -occupancy -vehicle commute trips (which are likely to contribute to both local cold -start emissions and greater aggregate emissions) and increased numbers of unlinked local trips. From a local perspective, it is even more difficult to assess whether there are likely to be net air quality gains or losses from reducing transit drive access options. In general, the impact would depend on the local importance and attractiveness of particular transit drive -access options compared to the difficulties of providing good local transit service. If increased numbers of very low to zero emission vehicles are driven within the region in the future, the issue of motor vehicle emissions in relation to increased use of transit drive access options would subside. Also, if the use of electric vehicles becomes more common, their expected shorter driving range is likely to make them an attractive option for transit drive access trips. Air Quality 3-29 March 1993 Indirect Emissions of Electric Transit Vehicles Less than one fifth of the power used by an electric rail system within the Puget Sound region would be supplied, from fossil fuel generating plants. About 80 percent of the region's electrical power is provided by hydroelectric generating plants. The percentage of the regional electrical power supply provided from fossil fuel burning plants is expected to remain low; any additional fossil fuel electrical power plants would have to comply with increasingly stringent emission limitations. The Bonneville Power Administration currently anticipates that natural gas is most likely to be used to fuel additional generators. Such a facility might be constructed within the central Puget Sound regional airshed. However, it would have to meet stringent new source emission requirements, which include emissions offsets for pollutants for which the area is designated nonattainment and for which the source is considered a "major source." Commuter Rail Commuter rail would probably initially use diesel-electric locomotives. Table 3.2.6 indicates estimated average grams per mile and metric tons per day of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and sulfur dioxide that would be generated by commuter rail operations. In the absence of stricter emissions controls or improved commuter rail engines, commuter rail will contribute significantly greater volumes of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter per average expected passenger mile than natural gas buses. The relatively high emissions of commuter rail is partially due to the fact that unregulated rail diesel emissions are being compared to state-of-the-art natural gas bus emissions. While new regulations and/or new rail engine developments resulting In the use of cleaner rail engines could occur over the time horizon of the RTP, neither the timing or specific character of such developments can be predicted or assured. The per -passenger -mile emission rates of commuter rail versus buses, SOVs, and three-person carpools are illustrated in Figures 3.3 and 3.4. The average emissions per passenger mile of commuter rail are greatly diluted by its much higher average passenger load. Table 3.2.6. Estimated Commuter Rail (Diesel) Exhaust Emissions Pollutant Emissions (Metric Tons/Day) Emissions (Average Grams/Mile) Carbon Monoxide .34 70.4 Hydrocarbons .12 23.7 Nitrogen Oxides 2.67 554.8 Particulate Matter .06 13.1 - Sulfur Dioxide .20 40.4 Air Quality Source: BRW Inc., March, 1992. Fuel consumption data from operating and Maintenance Cost Methodology Report, Commuter Rail Transit, January 15, 1992; emissions data provided by Jim Stoetzel, Burlington Northern Railroad Commuter Rail Line Manager. 3-30 March 1993 3.2.4 Mitigation of Impacts Construction impacts could be reduced by incorporating mitigation measures into construction specifications. Mitigation to control fugitive dust, deposition of particulate matter, and emissions of CO could include: o Surfacing of roadways, road shoulders, parking lots and storage areas. Surfacing these areas with gravel or spraying with water or biodegradable soil stabilizers would reduce. particulate emissions. o Stabilizing storage piles and material handling and transfer areas by covering with tarps, enclosing materials in buildings, or spraying with water. Water from spraying operations could be returned to the soil profile and some might percolate down into the water table. Particulate matter, along with any transported contaminants, would be removed physically as the water filters through the soil profile. o Spraying grade and fill operations with water could reduce particulate emissions by up to 50 percent. o Wetting materials in trucks, using coverings, or providing adequate freeboard (space from the top of the material to the top of the truck) would reduce fugitive dust and deposition of particulates. o Locating construction area access points away from sensitive receptors may be used to reduce exposure to particulates. o Providing wheel washers to reduce particulate matter carried offsite would decrease deposition of particulate matter on area roadways. o Removing particulate matter deposited on paved roads would reduce mud on area roadways. o Routing construction trucks to avoid populated areas and to reduce traffic delays during peak travel times would reduce the population exposed and the pollutants emitted. o Requiring appropriate emission control devices on construction equipment would reduce CO emissions. Using relatively new, well- maintained equipment also would reduce CO emissions. Selection and/or development of mitigation measures will be determined and documented in project -level environmental review. Mitigation to reduce long-term emissions should not be needed under the build alternatives, assuming improvement over the No -Build and that no nonattainment situations result from improvements. These determinations will be made during project level environmental review. 3.2.5 Conformity Statement The project area includes non -attainment areas for carbon monoxide, ozone, and particulate matter. Revised SIPs have been published by the Washington State Department of Ecology and are expected to be approved by the U.S. EPA. These include a newly adopted state conformity regulation (Chapter 173-420 WAC) which establishes an approval process based upon all applicable state and federal environmental and transportation regulations, including the Clean Air Act Amendments, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, the State Growth Management Act, and the Washington State and federal Environmental Policy Acts. The key conformity requirements are that transportation activities not: Air Quality 3-31 March 1993 o cause or contribute to any new violation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) o increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of the NAAQS, or o delay the timely attainment of the NAAQS. Determinations of conformity are made on the regional level by the PSRC in cooperation with the Department of Ecology and other jurisdictions. The PSRC has previously found the Vision 2020 Plan to be in conformity with the SIP. The PSRC has also indicated that the Rail/TSM Alternative is the most supportive (of the alternatives considered) of the adopted Vision 2020 Plan. A formal finding of conformity with the Vision 2020 Plan is anticipated by the PSRC Transportation Policy Board and Executive Board on the Final System Plan after its adoption by the JRPC. A finding of conformity with the SIP is likely to follow if the Rail/TSM Alternative is the basis for the Final System Plan. 3.3 Noise and Vibration 3.3.1 Affected Environment 3.3.1.1 Terminology Noise Noise is annoying, disturbing, unwanted sound. The impact of noise depends on the levels and characteristics of background noise sources. The same noise may be disruptive within a quiet environment and unnoticed within a noisy environment. A logarithmic decibel (dB) scale is used to measure noise levels. Because human perception of sounds depends on their frequency or pitch, a special "A -weighted" frequency scale (dBA) is used to measure environmental noise levels. All noise levels cited in this discussion are measured on the dBA scale. Transit -generated noise varies considerably over time. There are several noise descriptors that can be used to express and evaluate transit noise impacts. Lmax represents the maximum level of a noise source. Leq measures the average sound level occurring over a designated period of time (such as an hour). Lmax and the peak hour Leq are preferred descriptors for rail noise. Leq is also an appropnate measure for bus noise. The da -night sound level (Ldn) is similar to a 24-hour Leq, but adds a 10 decibel penalty for all noise occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The Ldn is particularly appropriate where transit operations are located near residential areas and activities sensitive to early morning or late night noise. Vibration Ground vibration refers to time -dependent movement of the earth. Ampli- tude and frequency are the key vanables associated with ground vibration. Amplitude is the peak displacement of ground at a given location during a specified time interval, defined in terms of displacement (distance of Air Quality 3-32 March 1993 movement), velocity (speed of movement), or acceleration (rate of change of velocity). Frequency is the rate at which the ground vibrates through a full cycle and returns to its original position. 3.3.1.2 Criteria Noise There are no federal standards pertaining to noise exposure from rapid transit projects. However, a variety of noise criteria have been developed to help assess the significance of transportation -related noise impacts and identify the levels at which noise abatement or mitigation measures are appropriate. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines provide that noise impacts from highways occur when noise substantially exceeds existing levels or exceeds criteria for various land use categories (Figure 3.7). For category "A" land uses, the hourly Leq should not exceed 57 dBA. For category "B" land uses, the criterion is 67 dBA. The category "C" criterion is 72 dBA. The Federal Transit Administration's (FTA's) noise criteria for rail transit rovide that a peak hour increase of three dBA (Leq) or less is an insignifi cant impact. A peak hour increase of 4 to 10 dBA (Leq) is possibly signifi- cant igncant and may require mitigation, depending on existing noise levels and the presence of sensitive receptors. An increase of 10 dBA (Leq) or more is probably significant and will probably require mitigating measures. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines categorize noise impacts based on the amount of change in noise levels. Most people do not notice an increase in noise of 3 dBA or less. An increase of up to 5pdBA is considered a slight impact. An increase of 5 to 10 dBA is considered a significant impact, and an increase of more than 10 dBA is considered a serious impact. The EPA does not regulate environmental noise levels. However, it has studied the effect of noise levels on public health and welfare and identified guidelines for sound levels. An Ldn of 55 is specified for outdoor areas in whichuiet is a basis for use. A 24-hour Leq of 55 is specified for outdoor areas were people spend limited amounts of time. The Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) guidelines recommend an outdoor day -night sound level (Ldn) of 65 dBA or less as an "acceptable" noise exposure level. Common building construction methods result in acceptable indoor noise levels and outdoor levels are relatively pleasant for recreation and play. The HUD guidelines stipulate that an Ldn above 65 is normally unacceptable. If noise is at or above this level, barriers may be required to reduce exterior sound levels to acceptable levels. Special construction measures may be necessary to ensure that outdoor noise levels are properly attenuated. The HUD guidelines provide that an Ldn in excess of 75 dBA is unacceptable. The American Public Transit Association (APTA) has guidelines for maximum rapid transit noise levels (Lmax) within various land uses (Table 3.3.1): APTA has also specified maximum exterior noise levels for particular uses, tncludin 75 dBA for churches, theaters, schools, hospitals, museums, and libraries; 70 dBA for concert halls, radio and television studios, and Noise and Vibration 3-33 March 1993 NOISE LEVELS Common OUTDOOR Noise Levels Jet Flyover at 1000 ft. (Peak Passby Noise) i00 Motorcycle at 25' (Peak Passby Noise) Jackhammer at 50' Metro Diesel Bus (Peak Passby Acceleration Noise at 50') Busy Freeway (Leq) Downtown Traffic (Leq) (dBA) Normal Conversation; € 60 Urban Residential g. (Nearby Traffic) (Leq) 1.4 Light Traffic (Leq) at 100' Suburban Neighborhood (Leq) (Distant Traffic) Bird Calls Lower -Limit Urban Ambient Sound (Leg) Soft Whisper Quiet Rural Area (No Traffic) (Leq) Threshold of Hearing FHWA Exterior Noise Abatement Criteria (Leq. Average Sound Level) Category "C" Land Use: Commercial, office, industrial and other developed lands. Category "B" Land Use: Picnic areas, recreational areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries and hospitals Category "A" Land Use: Unique tracts of land in which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance J"G Regional 'transit •JLC'Project sc COMM • MICE Cara .6100101614 COMM 3TPF6204P Outdoor Noise Levels and Noise Abatement Criteria System Plan EIS FIGURE 3.7 auditoriums; and 65 dBA for "• uiet" outdoor recreation areas. Noise above the guidelines could be a si i' ' I cant impact. APTA has also prescribed design criteria for maximum transit groundborne noise for different land uses, building types, and room uses. Local governments generally do not regulate overall transportation noise on public rights-of-way. An exception is Bellevue, which requires a noise analy- sis if existing or projected peak -hour traffic noise exceeds Leq 67 dBA on adjacent properties or if noise levels will increase by 5 or more dBA. Most local noise control ordinances limit the maximum noise at 50 feet for heavy motor vehicles, including trucks and buses, to 83 dBA. In Seattle, construction noise can generally exceed normal daytime noise limits by up to 25 dBA, with short-term allowances for higher levels up to 99 dBA. Night noise within residential areas is generally limited to 45 dBA or existing noise levels. Table 33.1. APIA Maximum Single Event Noise Level Design Goals. APTA Community Area Category Lmax Design Criteria. dBA Commercial Single -Family Multi -Family Buildings I - Low Density Residential 70 75 80 II - Average Density Residential 75 75 80 DI - High Density Residential 75 80 85 IV - Commercial 80 80 85 V - Industrial 80 80 • 85 Source: APTA 198). Vibration Based on laboratory research and field observations, various guidelines have been formulated to specify vibration thresholds for potential human annoy- ance or structural impacts. The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT 1979) has suggested vibration thresholds to be used to evaluate proposed transportation improvements. 3.3.1.3 Soames of Noise and Vibration Noise Transportation systems generally produce the most noise within urban areas. Principal sources include airplanes, railroads, and motor vehicles. Aircraft produce some of the loudest ambient noise levels within the region. Noise from traffic and rail operations is focused along principal railroad and roadway corridors. Noise and Vibration 3-35 March 1993 Traffic noise levels are highly variable depending on a variety of roadway characteristics and traffic variables that differ by roadway and time. Traffic speed is one of the most critical variables. At slower speeds, motors and exhaust systems are the principal sources of noise. At the higher speeds characteristic of free-moving highway traffic, road/tire contact noise is a significant component of traffic noise. Higher volumes of traffic generally produce higher noise levels. However, the effect of increasing traffic volumes tends to be more significant on roadways with lower traffic volumes. In general, a doubling of traffic volumes along a roadway increases average traffic noise levels by about 3 dBA. A change in noise level of 3 dBA is barely perceptible. When increased traffic volumes reach or exceed roadway capacities, the resultant slower vehicle speeds frequently reduce traffic noise levels for periods of time. The levels of traffic noise reaching adjacent land uses are also significantly influenced by distance between traffic lanes and abutting land uses. Noise from rail operations is more variable (broken into discrete pass -by episodes) than roadway noise. Railroad noise depends on the types of trains, the numbers and lengths of trains, and their operating speeds. Rail noise is also affected by the design and maintenance of the vehicles and track. In addition, at -grade rail operations across roadways involve use of vehicle whistles and roadway crossing bell signals. The significance of general traffic, bus, and rail noise depends not only on the pattern, level, and character of the noises from each source, but also on the particular types of land uses and activities that occur along affected comdors and their sensitivity to noise. Vibration Natural sources of ground vibration include fault displacements, land slippa&e, and the response of objects to wind. Vibration is also caused by explosions, machinery, and heavy equipment such as pavement breakers. Cars, buses, trucks, and rail vehicles can contribute to ground vibration by causing pavement or rails to vibrate. The vibration can be transmitted through the ground to nearby structures. The strength of these vibrations depends on vehicle technology, weight, and speed, and roadway roughness. The strength of ground vibration diminishes very rapidly with distance. The amount of reduction depends in part on soil type and underlying geology. 3.3.1.4 Ambient Conditions Traffic Noise Along many freeways, highways, and arterial roadways in the project corri- dors, average traffic noise levels reaching nearby residential areas exceed the 67 dBA (Leq) standard set by FHWA. Average freewaynoise levels range from about 63 to 78 dBA (Leq) at nearby structures. Nise adjacent to SR -99 ranges from 73 to 81 dBA. Noise along Rainier Avenue South and Martin Luther King, Jr. Way ranges from 64 to 68 dBA. The differences are due to factors including speeds, vehicle mix, and setbacks. Noise and Vibration 3-36 March 1993 Bus Noise Noise from buses depends on the bus sizes and types. Electric buses are considerably quieter than diesel buses. There are also slight variations depending on engine type and coach size and weight. Diesel engines tend to produce more noise than equivalent gasoline engines. People usually find the general character and frequency range of diesel engine noise annoying. When idling or operating at low load, diesels tend to "clatter" and to produce a more metallic sound than gasoline engines. The generally lower frequen- cies of diesel noise compared to gasoline engine noise tend to result in greater levels of noise penetrating nearby buildings (OECD 1986). The peak accelerating noise (Lmax) produced by the diesel coaches currently operated by Metro ranges from about 80 to 83 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Peak cruising noise, even at high speeds, is somewhat less than peak accel- erating noise. The significance of transit noise depends on background traffic and the mix of vehicle types. On heavily traveled roadways, the contribution of bus noise to total traffic noise is generally very limited. Rail Noise Segments of existing railroad lines are being considered for portions of the regional high capacity transit system. The rail system under consideration may use segments of the BN 'RR right-of-way between Bellevue and Renton. Noise from this line is low due to limited use and low speeds. Commuter rail is proposed along the rail corridor in the Green River Valley between Tacoma and Seattle. The Burlington Northern (BN) and Union Pacific (UP) Railroads have separate rights -of way in this corridor, with a common right-of-way between Georgetown and Tukwila. Both lines run through predominantly industrial, commercial, and agricultural areas. However, portions of both lines abut residential uses. The BN line is welded rail double -track, with an average of 50 freight trains and six AMTRAK passenger trains per day. Freight trains operate at speeds up to 50 mph and passenger trains operate at even higher speeds. From a distance of 50 feet freight trains operating on welded rails generally have an Lmax of 84 dBA at 35 mph and 90 dBA at 55 mph. Trains operating on jointed rails generally produce noise levels about 4 dBA louder. The UP line is a jointed rail single-track and carries an average of 12 trains per day operating up to 40 mph. Noise levels are somewhat lower and rail pass -by noise episodes are less frequent along the Union Pacific line. The segment of the corridor with a common right-of-way experiences combined noise from the two railroads. Vibration There are almost constant background vibrations within most urban environments, most of which are imperceptible except to extremely sensitive monitoring equipment. Ground vibration is generally only of concern if it annoys people or damages structures. At some locations, such as those with very sensitive laboratory equipment, sensitivity to ground vibration may be much greater. Noise and Vibration 3-37 March 1993 Low level ground vibration is generated in all transportation corridors, but is generally below the threshold of human perception. Peak vibration levels caused by very heavy vehicles may be perceptible within 5 to 10 feet of traffic lanes. Even the strongest traffic -induced vibrations generally diminish to levels that are imperceptible to humans within 20 feet of roadways (PSCOG 1983). 3.3.2 Construction Impacts Construction noise and vibration impacts would be experienced by people who live in, work in, or visit the immediate vicinity of construction sites. Noise Construction noise impacts are likely to be significant in some areas due to the character, magnitude, and duration of construction. Construction equipment noise varies, depending on the types, size, and age of equipment and the types of operations. Most construction equipment produces noise levels from 72 to 94 dBA at 50 feet, with heavier equipment tending toward the high end of this range. Some operations, such as concrete breaking and pile driving, generate more noise, including peaks above 100 dBA. The levels of construction noise reaching abutting buildings or residences would be even higher than the levels where construction occurs closer than 50 feet from affected structures. Vibration The significance of construction vibration impacts will, depend on the types of construction activities that occur at specific locations. Major concrete demolition and major excavation or tunneling is the most likely to generate significant vibration impacts. Percussive pile driving could be a significant short term source of vibration affecting nearby structures. The significance of impacts depends on construction methods, distance, types of nearby buildings and human activities, and mitigation measures. Project -level analysis will identify operations that are likely to generate significant levels of vibration, vibration -sensitive structures and activities, and specific mitigation measures. 3.3.2.1 No -Build Alterative Under the No -Build Alternative, construction noise impacts would be limited to that of construction of currently adopted projects. Some of these construction activities could generate significant local noise impacts. 3.3.2.2 TSM Alternative Expansion of the HOV lane network, park-and-ride lots, and access roadways would result in temporary local construction noise and vibration impacts at project sites. Noise impacts would be expected to be limited, but there could be some project sites where construction noise impacts could be significant. 3.3.2.3 Transitway/TSM Alterative Because of the additional construction activity associated with construction of busways and related support facilities, this alternative would probably generate more construction noise im acts than the TSM Alternative but considerably less than the Rail/TSMPAlternative. Noise and Vibration 3-38 March 1993 North Corridor Building new access tunnels and ramps connecting the I-5 express lanes with Convention Place Station and the University District would cause consider- able noise, much of which would occur within the I-5 right-of-way and generally be blanketed by traffic noise. However, some of the work is likely to occur at night when there is generally less traffic noise and construction noise would be more noticeable in nearby residential areas. Noise from construction of the transitway on the reversible lanes of the I-5 Ship Canal bridge could seriously affect adjoining residential areas. South Corridor Most of the new busway would follow the BN and I-5 rights-of-way through industrial areas. Because of this, construction noise would be blanketed by background traffic and industrial noise and would not affect nearby land uses. East Corridor Construction of the aerial busway between Southeast 8th Street and SR -520 would generate considerable noise. Much of the noise would be somewhat blanketed by existing traffic noise, but work at night may generate noise levels that could affect nearby sensitive uses. 3.3.2.4 Rail TSM Alternative The Rail/TSM Alternative would result in the greatest amount of construc- tion noise and vibration because of the magnitude, geographic extent, and type of construction required. Depending on location, proximity of adjacent uses, construction techniques, and effectiveness of mitigation, construction noise and vibration could significantly affect adjacent structures and activi- ties. Construction of subway stations and tunnel segments will require the heavi- est and most sustained construction activity. The majority of the tunnel alignments would probably be constructed using tunnel boring techniques. Where tunnels are bored, surface construction may be considerably less than would be experienced with cut -and -cover construction, with a great deal of surface construction activity focused at tunnel portals and temporary construction access portals. At tunnel portals, there may be considerable noise from staging, loading, and transporting construction equipment and materials, as well as from ventila- tion or other mechanical systems. Many portal activities are likely to continue through the night. Routes used to transport excavation spoils and other construction materials to and from portals would experience increased heavy truck noise over extended periods of time. Even when tunnels are bored, there is likely to be considerable surface construction along the alignment, including utility work and grouting and/or dewatering operations, and a variety of other activities and operations. Surface improvements along bored alignments may range from restoring affected areas to total upgrading of rights-of-way, including removal and replacement of the entire street and many of the utilities. Noise and Vibration 3-39 March 1993 Some tunnel segments, including most transitions to at -grade or elevated alignments, and most subway stations will be built using cut -and -cover construction within street rights-of-way. The cut -and -cover technique would involve substantial to very extensive utility relocation work, demolition and removal of street surfaces, placement of perimeter retaining structures, construction of temporary street and sidewalk decking, soil excavation, modification of any affected building foundations, construction of station or tunnel structures, backfilling, and reconstruction of the roadway. The cut - and -cover technique would produce substantial periods of loudconstruction noise, which would be likely to affect nearby businesses, residences or other land uses. In addition, routes used to transport excavation spoils and other construction materials would experience increased heavy truck noise over extended periods. It may be possible to construct deep subway stations using subsurface mining techniques. This technique would considerably reduce surface noise from construction. However, there would still be significant surface construction at station locations to build station access and ventilation portals. Moderate to extensive street improvements may also be required, which would increase surface construction noise impacts. Tunnel and subway construction may also increase levels of vibrations that could adversely affect nearby structures and activities, particularly near sensitive land uses such as hospitals, research facilities, or historic structures. 'The strength of construction -induced vibrations is heavily influenced by the specific types of construction equipment and operations, the depth of construction, and the distance to potentially affected structures. Unusual soil properties could exacerbate vibration impacts. Major construction activity directly abutting buildings would be more likely to cause vibration that could annoy people, adversely affPct equipment, or cause minor structural damage. Where needed, special construction techniques or measures can minimize significant vibration impacts. Vibration monitoring equipment can also be used to help maintain impacts within specified levels. Aerial guideway construction would generally involve considerably less heavy demolition and construction noise than cut -and cover tunnel construction. However, the aggregate impacts of building an aerial guideway would be influenced by the extent of street and utility improvements required in conjunction with the project. Depending on the extent and magnitude of required right-of-way improvements for specific bored tunnel and aerial guideway segments, the relative magnitude of construction noise could be comparable. Some construction is likely to extend into late evening or nighttime hours. Major construction within roadway rights -of -ways, particularly urban streets, is likely to require significant nighttime construction in order to maintain adequate daytime traffic movement and local access. Utility work requiring service interruptions is generally scheduled at night to reduce inconveniences and may be noisy. Major earth work and excavation within street rights -of - ways also tend to involve occasional utility damage requiring immediate emergency repairs that may extend into nighttime hours. When nighttime construction noise occurs near residences or other buildings such as hotels, hospitals, or long-term care facilities, it is particularly likely to be disruptive. Although local noise regulations generally prohibit significant Noise and Vibration 3-40 March 1993 nighttime construction noise within residential zones, many people live in other types of land use zones and may not be protected from nighttime noise. Construction may require noise variances that grant relief from standard noise limits for specific projects to shorten project duration. Such variances would significantly increase nighttime noise construction in affected areas. Any sensitive land uses in such areas could be seriously affected. Careful scheduling and choice of construction techniques and equipment can significantly reduce noise impacts. However, even with use of substantial noise mitigation measures, some construction activities, such as concrete breaking, are likely to cause considerable noise impacts when they occur over significant periods of time near occupied structures. North Corridor Construction of the I-5 alignment in the central portions of Seattle, including potential cut -and -cover tunnel construction between Convention Place Station and Mercer Street and major construction on the Ship Canal bridge and other I-5 structures would produce considerable construction noise ner residential areas. Much of the work would probably require substantial late evening or nighttime construction activity to reduce traffic impacts. Although background traffic noise would help to mask construction noise some nearby residences could still experience considerable noise, particularly during demolition work. In some areas, noise could be accentuated by reflection off retaining walls or the upper deck of the I-5 Ship Canal bridge. Construction of a below -grade people mover in the University District for the I-5 alignment would involve large scale construction over a substantial area for an extended period of time. Such a project would probably involve substantial surface construction and require significant nighttime work to reduce traffic impacts. Noise could significantly affect both residential and commercial activities within the district. Various mitigation techniques could be used to reduce noise impacts. The Capitol Hill alignment between Convention Place and the University District would be constructed by boring. Surface construction would focus at tunnel portals, including temporary construction access portals, subway station locations, and ventilation/emergency access shafts. However, there could also be considerable surface construction along much of the align in immediate proximity to commercial, institutional, and residential lnd ent uses. Construction of the Aurora/SR-99 alignment would probably involve tunnel or aerial guideway segments along the transition between I-5 and SR -99. This portion of the alignment would probably cut through residential areas and involve heavy construction activity near residences, with considerable noise impacts. South Corridor Construction of subway and aerial guideway segments along the Rainier Avenue South/Martin Luther King Jr. Way South alignment would generate significant construction noise near residences. Noise and Vibration 3-41 March 1993 Commuter Rail Element. Development of the commuter rail line would probably produce relatively limited localized construction noise from construction of station and park-and-ride facilities. Rail line upgrades would involve relatively limited construction activity and noise. East Corridor Tunnel construction in downtown Bellevue could generate substantial noise in some areas. Although most of the tunnel would probably be bored, a portion of the southern approach would probably involve cut -and -cover construction near residential areas, motels and hotels. Subway stations would probably be constructed with cut -and -cover techniques, resulting in considerable surface noise over substantial periods of time. The northern subway station might be located close to residential areas where construction noise impacts would be greater. 3.3.3 Operations Impacts Noise from regional transit operations will depend on the types of vehicles and equipment used, the character and locations of the alignments, and the impacts of the new facilities and transit operations on background traffic patterns. Locally increased noise may occur due to changed traffic patterns, increased bus operations, newrail transit or commuter rail operations, or bus or rail operations at transit stations, park-and-ride lots, new vehicle mainte- nance and storage facilities, or other new transit facilities. The character and level of local noise impacts from either bus or rail opera- tions will depend on their proximity to noise -sensitive land uses, local noise levels, and the location and design of facilities. With the exception of tunnel segments, most rapid transit facilities would be located within existing freeway, highway, arterial, and railroad rights-of-way, where noise levels are relatively high. However, some of the facilities would be developed in outly- ing areas where noise levels are lower than on principal roadway corridors. Traffic noise within the region is expected to increase with or without regional transit improvements. Although the build alternatives will cause some shift of riders from low occupancy to high occupancy vehicles, the reduction in regional VMT is expected to be relatively modest. Bus and train operation can contribute to roadway vibration. The signifi- cance of such vibration depends on roadway structure, vehicle weights and speeds, local soils, and the distance between roadways and potentially affect- ed structures. Generally, roadway engineering prevents perceptible levels of vibration from reaching adjacent areas or structures. 3.3.3.1 No -Build Alternative Future traffic noise levels are expected to be slightly elevated relative to current levels. Many roadways will experience modest increases in noise from increased traffic volumes and longer peak traffic periods. Many roadways may also experience periods of reduced traffic noise due to slower vehicle speeds as traffic volumes exceed road capacities. Local changes in traffic noise levels may also occur as drivers use alternate routes when confronted with severe congestion. Changes of this type could contribute to increased traffic noise on local and minor arterial streets. Noise and Vibration 3-42 March 1993 3.3.3.2 TSM Alternative The peak noise level or Lmax from a bus operating at 35 mph is generally about 74 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. At 50 mph the peak noise level is about 80 dBA. These levels are about 10 dBA &eater thaneak noise from automobiles, and are roughly comparable to noise producedbymedium to large trucks. New or expanded transit stations, park-and-ride lots and HOV lane access points may contribute to local increases in traffic volumes and noise that could affect nearby residential areas or other sensitive land uses. New HOV lanes will probably contribute to increased vehicle speeds, which could slightly increase traffic noise in some areas. New HOV lanes may also result in traffic lanes being moved closer to abutting land uses, although in most instances the change in noise levels would be slight. Noise from bus operations will depend on the mix of buses in the fleet, along with miles and hours of service by vehicle type. Increased bus operations on HOV lanes could affect approximately 31 miles of roadways that are bordered by residential and other sensitive land uses, including portions of I-5 between the ship canal and south Snohomish County and 1-405 between Snohomish County and Renton, Because of the high traffic noise along freeways and other principal roadways, increased bus operations would not be expected to significantly affect noise levels. Along freeways, the noise from vehicles traveling within HOV lanes may dominate when general purpose traffic lanes are particularly congested. Increased vibration could reach nearby properties where the construction of new lanes reduces the distance between traffic and abutting properties. However, the increases would not be expected to be significant. 3.3.3.3 Transitway/TSM Alternative In addition to the impacts from TSM improvements, transitway operations could slightly increase noise and vibration near new busways and transitways. Because the facilities would be mostly on freeways, the potential increases in noise and vibration are not expected to have any significant impact. Transitway operations at some limited locations, such as on the reversible lanes of the 1-5 Ship Canal bridge, could result in noise impacts. 3.3.3.4 Rail/TSM Alternative Rail Operations People living or working close to rail alignments could experience noise or vibration impacts from train operations, station activities, tunnel ventilation shafts, and maintenance work. The significance of impacts would depend on local noise levels and the distances between rail facilities and other land uses and structures. Rail operations noise is likely to be less significant within heavily traveled rail or highway corridors than where alignments pass through quieter areas. The maximum noise produced by rail transit tends to be 2 to 5 dBA greater than noise from buses at comparable speeds. However, both bus and rail Noise and Vibration 3-43 March 1993 noise levels and characteristics are highly variable, depending on specific technologies, equipment, operating parameters, and alignment charac- teristics. Sources and levels of noise from rail operations depend on the type of propulsion system, track and supporting structures, wheels and axle trucks, braking system, and noise mitigation. The most significant sources of rail noise tend to be wheel noise, noise from elevated structures, groundborne noise, and propulsion system noise (Saurenman 1982). Steel wheels on steel rails can be a major source of noise. Potential wheel/rail noise falls into three broad categories. Squeal (or screech) is a high-pitched noise produced as trains round sharp curves. Impact noise is the "clickety-clack" or banging caused when trains pass over uneven track joints. Modern railroad systems generally use welded rails, largely eliminating impact noise. However, worn areas on wheel rims can generate similar noise. "Roar" is a steady sound produced as a result of small rough areas on wheels and/or rails. State-of-the-art wheel and track technologies and maintenance have substantially reduced screech and impact noise. The vertical profile of rail guideways can be a significant variable with respect to the levels of noise. Below grade alignments generally introduce the least amount of noise. The only at -grade noise associated with tunneled guideways comes from ventilation ducts and tunnel portals. Of the non - tunnel options, retained -cut guideways generally cause the least noise impacts because they reduce or eliminate line -of -sight noise paths. In the absence of noise barriers, at -grade rail operations radiate considerably more noise into abutting areas than retained -cut guideways. Elevated guideways can be significant sources of noise. Vibration and noise from wheels on rails can be transmitted to supporting structures. Vibrating structures can in turn radiate significant noise to surrounding areas. Aerial structures may also increase noise impacts due to greater elevation relative to surrounding buildings, which may result in radiating noise further into surrounding areas. Aerial structures may also transmit through openings in supporting structures and may deflect traffic noise. However, the difference in elevation of adjacent land uses can also result in lower noise impacts. Noise from elevated structures is generally less of a problem in modern transit systems built entirely of concrete or incorporating a concrete deck supported by steel girders (Shearer 1986). Sound barriers on aerial structures can reduce noise levels to below the levels characteristic of comparable unscreened at -grade facilities. A rail line's horizontal profile can also contribute to significant local noise. Rail operations around sharp curves are more likely to produce screech from the interaction of rails and wheels. Steeper grades are likely to increase propulsion system noise during ascents and brake noise during descents. However, most modern commuter and electric rail systems use electrical regenerative braking systems, which eliminate most brake noise. Rail operations also introduce a certain amount of vibration into the ground and adjacent structures along rail alignments, which could damage historical structures, adversely affect the functioning of sensitive equipment, or annoy people. Occupants of affected buildings can either "feel" vibration as mechanical motion or hear it as a low -frequency rumbling. Although groundborne noise and vibration are most likely to be noticed near tunnels, Noise and Vibration 3-44 March 1993 they can be potential problems near any type of rail structure. Modern vibra- tion testing and analysis techniques can be used to predict vibrations and help design rail systems to reduce vibration to acceptable levels. The rail system trains will probably have an average cruising speed of about 50 to 55 mph, but could, depending on technology, have cruising speeds of up to 70 mph along some segments. Peak pass -by noise at a distance of 50 feet for trains traveling at 50 mph for six of the newer rail transit systems in North America ranges from 72 dBA for the Sky Train system in Vancouver, B.C. to 90 dBA for the Folson light rail line in Sacramento, California. Peakpass-by noise for the six ssyystems mventoried generally increases by about 2 dBA for each additional 10 mph increment. rn sections with noise barriers, the noise produced by Sky Train operating at 50 mph is reduced to about 63 dBA. Excluding the Sacramento system, which is notably louder than the other lines, the average 50 mph pass -by Lmax is about 81 dBA. The average pass - by noise level at 25 mph at 50 feet is about 77 dBA. Trains would only reach maximum cruising speeds along limited segments of track. The highest cruising speeds would only be reached along the long straight alignment segments, generally located in outlying areas. The pass -by noise experienced along much of the alignment would be altered by lower speeds and noise from train acceleration and braking. Rail noise and vibra- tion within the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel would be modest due to low operating speeds in the tunnel and noise and vibration attenuation measures in rail vehicles and their wheel assemblies. An electric rail line on the BNRR right-of-way between Renton and Bellevue could have serious noise impacts where the alignment abuts residential areas. Noise impacts from existing rail operations are limited due to the very limit- ed use ofthetracks and low speeds. The new rail line would involve a number of trains operating at much higher speeds throughout the day and during early mormng and late evening hours. Rail car storage and maintenance yard facilities would be a local source of noise. These facilities would be located within industrial or other areas where noise is of little concern. If these facilities are located where there is a greater sensitivity to noise, measures would be incorporated into their design to reduce noise impacts. Tunnel ventilation portals could also be a potential source of noise. Routine ventilation noise can generally be readily controlled to the point where it should have little or no impact within most environments. The noise from emergency ventilation equipment is likely to be noticeable, but will only occur dunng emergencies and system testing. Substantial portions of the potential surface and elevated rail alignments under consideration abut noise -sensitive residential land uses. Most of the I-5 alignment between Seattle's Eastlake area and south Snohomish County abuts residential development. The mixed land uses along Martin Luther King, Jr. Way South include residential buildings in close proximity to the roadway. Rail operations could increase noise and vibration along elevated segments of the alignment. Vibration and noise will vary depending on the placement of the guideway in relation to the surrounding roadway, the acoustic layers and track mountings utilized, and the physical proximity and sensitivity of Noise and Vibration 3-45 March 1993 noise receptors. On potential alignments such as Roosevelt Way North in north Seattle, the physical proximity and sensitivity of abutting residential uses, along with relatively limited background traffic noise, could result in significant noise impacts Elevated guideways along the outsides of rights-of- way would increase the potential noise impacts on adjacent properties. Guideways located within the medians of roadways would haveless noise impact. Where needed, noise barriers and other noise attenuation measures would reduce noise impacts. Commuter Rail Element Commuter rail would have an average cruising speed of about 55 to 60 mph along portions of the line within developed areas where there are more at - grade crossings and a top speed of up to 79 mph in suburban or other areas where there are limited at -grade crossings. The maximum pass -by noise level at a distance of 50 feetroduced by trains traveling at 55 mph would be 83 dBA. At a speed of 35 mph, the maximum pass -by noise would be 77 dBA. The noise from commuter rail operations would probably have relatively little impact along the BN alignment between Seattle and Tacoma, given the high speeds and volumes of trains already using the tracks and the relative lack of residential areas or other noise -sensitive receptors. Noise impacts would be greater along the UP alignment segment, which accommodates fewer trains and trains operating at lower speeds than the BN alignment. If the UP alignment is used, jointed rails would be replaced with welded rails to increase speeds and reduce noise. Because commuter rail operations would be limited to commuting and possibly midday periods, its only potential impact on nighttime noise levels would be between 5 and 7 a.m. Average hourly and all day noise levels would increase, but there would not be an increase in the maximum noise associated with passing trains along the BN alignment. The frequency of train -related noise will increase, especially during the morning and late afternoon commute hours. Whistle noise, which is required at all grade crossings, could also be of concern. As with noise levels, vibration levels are not expected to increase but the frequency of railroad -related vibration will increase. 3.3.4 Mitigation of Impacts 3.3.4.1 Construction Possible measures to mitigate construction noise and vibration include: o Strictly enforce noise ordinance restrictions, including nighttime restrictions. o Restrict particularly noisy construction operations to avoid sensitive times. o Require contractors to muffle equipment noise. o Mandate temporary noise barriers between work zones and sensitive uses. Noise and Vibration 3-46 March 1993 o Notify nearby land owners prior to periods of unusually loud construction noise. o Require contractors to prepare approved noise control plans where noise impacts are likely to exceed permitted limits. o Monitor construction noise levels to ensure compliance with applica- ble limits. o Institute a construction "hot line" to handle noise complaints on a timely basis. o Use construction techniques (such as pile auguring instead of pile driving) to reduce noise and vibration impacts. o Use passive measures (trenching, sheet piling, and screening) to modify the propagation paths of ground vibrations. o Monitor vibration levels at sensitive receptors. 3.3.4.2 Operations The most effective way to reduce operating noise impacts is to select and design alignments and facility sites to avoid majornoise f can Impactsre be possible, avoiding residential areas will reduceimpacts. reduced by using major existing rail or roadway corridors for development of new rail transit operations. Noise mitigation measures include: reduce noise emissions levels; create barriers between noise sensitivereceptors; change near noise sources.All of these optionsill be considered during prelimi- nary and final engineering. Noise can be reduced by.using the best available technologand mainte- nance techniques for a given eniEdcleoldddd can contribute to smoother, quieter gudewaYsaneh propulsion, braking, and steering equipment. Barriers blocking the direct line -of -sight between a noise and sensitive recep- tors can reduce noise by 8 to 10 dBA. This would bring most noise levels within applicable standards for receptors 50 feet or more from a given source. The need for such measures will be determined in project -level planning. If noise impacts would be unacceptable even after mitigation, affected properties may be acquired or redeveloped with less noise -sensitive uses. Project -level analysis will examine system components and facility locations where vibration could be a particular concern to determine where more analysis and mitigation may be required. Vibration simulation techniques can be used to evaluate potential vibration impacts. Facilities and equip- ment can then be designed to achieve appropnate groundborne vibration limits. Noise and Vibration 3-47 March 1993 Skykomish River sgoHOIAs'4 COUNTY NO COUNTY 44 isas iia 444 :` --.- s. *9i�.---•• ----------- • .4) • NB al Regional Transit Project 0o cOUfn• recEoou r•a1oeorwCOWRY R{PFG204E Regional Floodplain Areas and Drainage BasinsSystemlan s FIGURE 3.8 The Snohomish River Basin covers 1,978 square miles in Snohomish and King counties. Tributaries include the Skykomish and Snoqualmie Rivers. The Snohomish River is designated Class A and generally meets this standard. However, there is contamination from industrial uses in the Snohomish River near Everett. The Lake Washington Cedar River Basin covers 600 square miles in King County. The Lake Washington Ship Canal, Lake Umon, Lake Washington, and Lake Sammamish are designated Lake Class and generally meet this standard. The Cedar River is designated Class A and meets those criteria. The Sammamish River is designated Class AA, but sometimes exceeds each of the criteria. Metal concentrations in the basin are generally less than EPA criteria for harm to aquatic life. Most tributaries of the system are designat- ed Class AA, but their actual wateruality ranges from fair to good, with most of them sometimes exceeding fecal coliform, temperature, and dissolved oxygen criteria, and some have problems with copper, zinc, and iron contamination. The Duwamish/Green River Basin covers 470 square miles in King County. The Duwamish River is designated Class B, but fecal coliform counts sometimes exceed this critenon. The river has a history of high metal and organic compound concentrations from industrial uses, often exceeding levels harmful to aquatic life. Sediments in the lower Duwamish are contaminated with metals and organic chemicals. The Green River is designated Class A, but sometimes exceeds the fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, and temperature standards. The water quality has been improving since sewage treatment plant effluent was stopped from being discharged into the river. The Puyallup/White River Basin drains 1,464 squaremiles of Pierce and King counties. The Puyallup River is designated Class B for the its first mile and, along with the White River, is designated Class A upstream. Fecal coliform levels sometimes exceed the standards. Turbidity standards are also exceed- ed in the summer, due to glacial runoff. Cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc concentrations in the Puyallup River sometimes exceed state water quality criteria (Parametrix 1989; Ebben 1987). Many smaller streams, including Chambers, Wapato, Hylebos, Des Moines, Miller, Salmon, Longfellow, Pipers, Boeing, and Pigeon creeks, flow directly into Puget Sound. Data on stream water quality is incomplete in many cases. Some streams are relatively uncontaminated; others have problems with fecal coliform bacteria, nutrients, heavy metals, and organic chemicals. Because of their size, these streams are particularly susceptible to contamination (Metro 1990a). Stormwater The discharge of urban stormwater to the environment causes physical, chemical, and biological degradation of local lakes and streams and Puget Sound. Stormwater often contains high levels of nutrients, leading to increased algal growth and lowered oxygen levels in lakes; high levels of fecal coliform bactena; and high levels of heavy metals and hydrocarbons from roadways and parking lots (Hubbard 1989). In the early 1980s, Metro beganan intensive program to reduce contami- nated runoff from its transit facilities, which included installing state-of-the- art oil -water separators, enlarging detention facilities, removing contaminat- Water Quality and Hydrology 3-50 March 1993 ed soils, replacing leaking underground storage tanks, monitoring compliance full time, and strengthemng training. Advances continue to be made, includ- ing using new, nontoxic detergents to wash buses. 3.4.1.2 Groundwater Resources Groundwater is found at relatively shallow depths in the project area,'- ly 25 to 50 feet below ground level. Principal aquifers consist of glace or alluvium, with depths to water of 25 to 50 feet in the glacial dnft and less than 25 feet in alluvial aquifers. Alluvial aquifers are found along the princi- pal rivers in the region. In most areas, groundwater quality meets drinking water standards. The most common water quality problems are high iron and manganese concen- trations. Groundwater in some areas, such as Superfund sites, has been contaminated with heavy metals, hydrocarbons, solvents or other toxic pollutants. The City of Renton's sole source aquifer consists of coarse-grained alluvial and deltaic deposits near the mouth of the Cedar River. The aquifer protec- tion area extends generally south and east from the city's well field near the center of Renton. The City of Issaquah's drinking water aquifer has several recharge areas, including an area directly beneath downtown Issaquah. 3.4.2 Construction Impacts 3.4.2.1 No -Build Alternative No significant water quality impacts from construction are expected under this alternative. 3.4.2.2 TSM Alterative Construction of park -and -rides and HOV facilities would expose soils for site preparation, grading, excavation, and filling, increasing the potential for erosion and sedimentation. This would be particularly noticeable in smaller drainages. Heavy equipment operation and refueling in construction areas would also increase the potential for oil and fuel spills entering surface runoff and groundwater. Excavation of sites for multilevel park -and -rides might require dewatering in areas where groundwater is near the surface, which could temporarily affect water levels in nearby wells. 3.4.2.3 Transitway/TSM Alternative Construction impacts of the Transitway/TSM Alternative would be similar to those of the TSM Alternative. In addition, dewatering for minor tunneling could cause temporary lowering of groundwater levels near tunneling sites. 3.4.2.4 RaiJTSM Alterative Most construction impacts from this alternative would be similar to but greater than the TSM and Transitway/TSM Alternatives, due to the increased scale of construction. Tunnel construction site dewatering, permanent or long-term structure dewatering, and permanent subsurface structures may have a long-term impact on groundwater flow patterns. Continuous dewatering and/or Water Quality and Hydrology 3-51 March 1993 permanent tunnel structures may cause a barrier effect. This effect, however, would be directly related to the configuration of the tunnel with respect to the geologic and hydrogeologic setting. For example, if the tunnel was constructed above an aquifer water table, the flow pattern would probably not be interrupted. However, if the tunnel was constructed perpendicular to the groundwater flow direction, and at or below aquifer groundwater levels, flow patterns could be interrupted. Impacts of each tunnel would be assessed during project -level environmental review. North Corridor Capitol Hill Alignment. Dewatering may be necessary to carry out the extensive tunneling proposed for this alternative, creating localized depres- sions in water tables. After construction, water levels would likely return to preconstruction levels. I-5 Alignment. This alternative involves extensive tunneling between the Convention Place Station and Mercer Street and north of NE 42nd Street. This could have temporary impacts on groundwater levels. South Corridor The Rail/TSM Alternative could require new bridges over the Duwamish, Puyallup and Cedar Rivers. Construction could cause temporary increases in suspended sediments in these rivers. Stirring up contaminated sediments in the Duwamish River could release toxic chemicals into the water. The sole source aquifer in Renton could be affected by construction of the rail line in that area. Rainier Valley Alignment. This alignment could involve extensive tunneling, with possible temporary effects on focal groundwater levels. Commuter Rail Element. Construction of commuter rail stations could require work near the Green River. Both railroad rights-of-way cross the Green River in Kent, the Burlington Northern at approximately South 269th Street and the Union Pacific's at.approximately South 259th Street. The BN also crosses the White River in the City of Pacific and the UP crosses the Puyallup River near I-5 in Tacoma. None of the potential station sites are located adjacent to any surface water bodies. Short-term construction . impacts on water quality will also occur due to erosion and sediment runoff and dust emissions. East Corridor Dewatering necessary for tunneling through downtown Bellevue would temporarily lower groundwater levels. Tunneling under Bellevue Way, if that alignment was chosen, would have temporary local effects on ground- water levels, but no permanent impacts. The alternative would require bridges over the Sammamish River at Redmond and Bothell, which could temporarily increase suspended sediments there. Bridging Mercer Slough for the I-405/BNRR alignment would have similar impacts. The alignment would probably cross Issaquah's aquifer recharge area. 3.4.3 Operations Impacts Impervious surface was estimated conservatively by assuming new rights-of- way were unpaved before acquisition. Heavy metals (lead, zinc, etc.) and Water Quality and Hydrology 3-52 March 1993 organic compounds are pollutanln ene�ral,�thyfound in urban ese pollutants crnrease'v�nth the includ- ing highways and parking lots Nutrient or pesticide runoff from number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). as newlylandscaped areas are other pollutant sources. Natrrnie kes. such sanding nitraes or phosphates, accelerate algae production in of roadways and parking lots, vehicle leaks, and accidental spills are also potential pollution sources. 34„3.1 No -Build Alternative No significant changes in stormwate runoff quantitiesand highways built�inotheregio e expected because of the project. Newroads by other agencies, however�coead increasese ma er�runoff pollutants. tormwater Total Increas- es as suspended regional VMT would oxygen demand, nitrogen, nitrates, nitrites, solids, chemical phosphorus, zinc, copper, and organic contaminantsresult if dib expected pollutants to mcrease. Impacts on groundwater quality could migrate to the water table. 314.3.2 TSM Alterative Completion of TSM capital improvements would n of p result in a permanent increase in impervious surface total increasgel�n surface runoff of appro374 ximately es (Table 3.4.1); resulting 48 acre-feet during the greatest storm of 24-hour duration that would be likely to occur over a.penod of 25 years. This impervious in runoff ��ace d be insignificant on a regional scale.H drainages. phave a significant effect o regional effect on od elevations is anticipated. expected in floodplauis, no gi Table 3.4.1. Estimated Increases in Surface Runoff from the Build Alternatives for a 24 Hour 25 -Year Storm. Affected Predevelopment Postdevelopment Corridor Alternative Area Acres Runoff Acre -Feet Runoff Acre -Feet North TSM 175 18 38 Transitway/TSM 176 377 8 38 18 38 Rail/TSM 81 South TSM 129 17 3527 8 3 Transitway/TSM 212 3357 58 Rail/TSM East TSM 70 10 20 Transitway/TSM 94 503 107 27 Rail/TSM Total No -Build 374 45 93 TSM Transitway/TSM 482 1 8 58 123 264 Rail/TSM Source: Acreages from Metro; runoff calculations from Boateng (1991). The effect of bus service increases on stormwater runoff quality would be insignificant and offset by the reduction in vehicle miles traveled, as March 1993 Water Quality and Hydrology 3-53 compared to the No -Build Alternative. A much greater effect on water quality would result from a net increase in vehicle miles traveled in the region. Total suspended solids, chemical oxygen demand, nitrogen, nitrates, nitrites, and phosphorus would be expected to increase. Zinc, copper, and organic contaminants would also increase. Impacts on groundwater could result if water containing dissolved pollutants migrates to the water table. The degree to which these pollutants affect regional water bodies depends on the design of roadway stormwater detention and filtering systems. More localized effects on water quality could be caused by increased landscaping, as well as increased roadway surface requiring winter sanding, as compared to the No -Build Alternative. 3.4.3.3 Tiransitway/TSM Alterative The Transitway/TSM Alternative would increase impervious surface by about 482 acres, leading to an increase of runoff of about 68 acre-feet during the 25 -year storm of 24-hour duration (Table 3.4.1). This increase would have an insignificant effect on a regional scale. However, increases in runoff. could have a significant effect on stormwater in smaller drainages. Since no construction is expected in floodplains, no regional effects on flood eleva- tions would be anticipated. Vehicle miles traveled would be less than under the No -Build Alternative. However, increased population and other factors will cause a net increase in VMT from 1990. This will increase stormwater runoff pollutants such as total suspended solids, chemical oxygen demand, nitrogen, nitrates, nitrites, phosphorus, zinc, copper and organic contaminants. Water quality could be affected by slightly increased landscaping under this alternative, as well as slightly increased roadway surface requiring winter sanding, as compared to the TSM Alternative. 3.4.3.4 Rail/TSM Alterative The Rail/TSM Alternative would increase impervious surface by about 1,021 acres, leading to an increase of runoff by 141 acre-feet during the 25 -year storm of 24-hour duration (Table 3.4.1). Much of this increase would be due to the increased numbers of park-and-ride spaces proposed for this alterna- tive. The increase would be insignificant on a regional scale. However, increased runoff could have a significant effect on storm runoff in smaller drainages and on some small drainages crossed by rail lines. Bridges and culverts would be designed to minimize impacts on flood capacity and would be unlikely to restrict the passage of floodwaters. The effect of increases in bus service would be insignificant and offset by the reduction in vehicle miles traveled as compared to the No -Build Alternative. However, overall vehicle miles traveled would still increase as compared to 1990, increasing total suspended solids, chemical oxygen demand, nitrogen, nitrates, nitrites, phosphorus, zinc, and copper in runoff. Groundwater quali- ty could be degraded if water containing pollutants reaches the water table. More localized water quality impacts could be caused by increased landscap- ing under this alternative, as well as increased roadway surface requiring winter sanding. Water Quality and Hydrology 3-54 March 1993 Commuter Rail Element Stations and park-and-ride lots will have some impact on surface water quali- ty because the increased impervious surface area will result in increased surface -water runoff. 3.4.4 Mitigation of Impacts 3.4.4.1 Construction Construction will meet all applicable requirements for controlling runoff and limiting erosion. Water quality impacts during construction would be substantially reduced or eliminated by implementing mitigation measures to control erosion and sedimentation and to stabilize exposed soils. Surface runoff could be diverted or conveyed through construction sites to prevent it from eroding the site and becoming contaminated by sediment. Runoff could be directed over vegetated watercourses, through sedimentation ponds, or through sediment barriers before reaching receiving waters. Check dams could be installed on steeper slopes to prevent excessive flows. Disturbed earth should be planted, mulched, or covered as soon as practical. To prevent water pollution from spills, contractors would implement a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan in accordance with EPA regulations. Impacts of spills could be reduced by berming tanks and refuel- ing areas and locating them away from surface water bodies and by diverting surface runoff to detention ponds. Impacts from building bridges or other structures across water bodies could be minimized by use of dredging and transport methods that reduce the amount of sediment resuspended or lost and the use of silt curtains and cofferdams to contain resuspended sediment in the immediate dredging area. If practical, the use of tunnel construction techniques not requiring dewater- ing could be used. If dewatering is required, any affected well owners could be supplied with alternate water sources. 3.4.4.2 Operation The scale of increases in impervious surfaces could possibly be reduced by increasing feeder bus service to park-and-ride lots, reducing the need for more spaces. This might, however, have a negative impact in terms of rider- ship and increase vehicle miles traveled. The tradeoff would be evaluated during project -level planning. Effects of increased runoff from impervious surfaces would be mitigated by including detention ponds or permeable infiltration galleries or ponds in the design of facilities. Peak rates of runoff would be limited to pre -development peak rates for specific design storms. Biofiltration measures would be used to control water quality of stormwater runoff to predevelopment levels. To minimize impacts on floodplain, any structures crossing these areas would be designed to minimize obstruction of flow and to maintain the effective storage capacity of the floodplain. Use of oil/water separators, sediment ponds, and grassy swales at transit facilities would reduce the potential for polluting surface water. Holding basins would minimize the effects of accidental spills where waters are adjacent to roadways or park-and-ride lots. Use of a pickup sweeper and Water Quality and Hydrology 3-55 March 1993 vacuuming or pumping sand and silt from catch basins would reduce sedimentation from winter sanding. A nutrient and pesticide management program could lessen runoff of these pollutants. 3.5 Ecosystems 3.5.1 Affected Environment The study area contains rivers, creeks, and large wetlands, such as Mercer Slough/Kelsey Creek and Swamp Creek, that provide substantial wildlife habitat (Figure 3.9). A number of jurisdictions require preservation of trees where sensitive areas and unstable soils exist. Substantial greenbelts are found in association with parks, wetlands, cemeteries, golf courses, and areas with steep slopes. Common wildlife species in natural open spaces include deer, raccoons, skunks, rabbits, squirrels, mice, turtles, snakes, and birds. Important aquatic species include game fish such as trout, steelhead, sturgeon, and salmon. The Washington Department of Natural Resources' Natural Heritage Program lists three species of threatened or sensitive plants in the project area: the white -top aster, the tall bugbane, and the choriso bog -orchid. Four sensitive habitats, including high intertidal, low salinity marsh; low intertidal, low salinity, silty marsh; surge plain wetland; and transition zone wetland, were also listed (Norwood 1991a,b). The Washington Department of Wildlife Nongame Wildlife Program lists seven threatened or sensitive species in the project area: the great blue heron, green -backed heron, bald eagle, snowy owl, western bluebird, purple martin, and western pond turtle (Cyra 1990,1991). • Other sensitive species in the project area include the common loon, northern goshawk, and pileated woodpecker. 3.5.2 Construction Impacts Construction impacts would be similar for each alternative but may differ in extent of impact. Wetlands, woodlands, and other fish and wildlife habitats could be degraded or lost due to direct intrusion and removal of vegetation. Some park-and-ride lots could have. significant impacts if they are sited on undeveloped land in suburban areas. 3 5.Z1 No -Build Alternative Temporary habitat disturbance and permanent habitat loss could result from plannedark-and-ride expansions, depending on location. Projects would be designedtominimize impacts on critical or sensitive resources. Overall ecosystem quality may be reduced through direct intrusion, habitat removal, increased runoff, erosion, sedimentation, noise,.dust, and pollutants. Regional impacts would be minimal. Ecosystems 3-56 March 1993 M fi S Skykomish R r SNOHOMSH COUNTY IMO COUNTY i�: w 1.04 !' 27 tc Geek. tf7.e\ Project OIG coven• MICE caw( •eraoIawcoufT RTPF 2ON1 o12 N LEGEND A Mos 1. Snohomish River 2. Silver Lake 3. North Creek 4. Swamp Creek 5. Wetland Complex 6. Lake Ballinger 7. Ronald Bog 8. Lake Union 9. Dueramish!Green River 10. Angle Lake 11. HIB Creek 12. Wetland Complex 13. Spring Brook Creek 14. Green River 15. Wetland Complex 16. Lake Do8on 17. Wetland Complex 18. Hlrlebos Geek 19. Puyallup River 20. Owens Marsh 21. Lake Washington 22. Mercer lr 23. Kelsey Creek Drainage 24. Sarmentsh River 25. Wetland Complex 26. Totem Lake 27. Lake Sammmnish 28. Forbes Lake 29. Bear Geek 30. Yemen's Wetland 31.ClearlSwen Creek 32. Clark Creek 33. Black River 34. Martha Lake 35. Scriber Creek 36. Hall Creek and Lake 37. Auburn Wetland Complex 38. White River 39. White River Power Plant 40. Mimeo Geek 41. Richards Creek 42. Flett Geek 43. Salmon Geek Location of Major Wetlands, Lakesand Streams Near Rapid Transit Alignments System Plan EIS FIGURE 3.9 3.5.2.2 TSM Alternative Construction of park-and-ride lots, HOV lanes (for example, at the Swamp Creek interchange), and associated facilities could permanently remove some habitat and temporarily disturb adjacent habitat. Direct intrusion, removal of vegetation and habitat, increased runoff, erosion, sedimentation, noise, dust, and pollutants may reduce the overall quality of adjacent ecosystems. 3.5.2.3 Trarisitway/TSM Alternative The effects of the Transitway/TSM Alternative on ecosystems would be similar to the effects of the TSM Alternative, with the exception of the busway between Bellevue and SR -520, which could affect the quality of adjacent high-quality wetlands. 3.5.2.4 Rail/TSM Alternative New rail alignments, stations, and access facilities may substantially affect access, usability, and water quality of affected ecosystems through direct intrusion, removal of vegetation and habitat, increased runoff, erosion, sedimentation, noise, dust, and pollutants. Some wildlife species sensitive to human activity would die or move to more remote habitats. Major ecosystems potentially affected by construction of rail lines include Swamp Creek, the-Duwamish River, the Puyallup River, the Cedar River, Hylebos Creek, Mercer Slough, Kelsey Creek, and the Sammamish River. In addition, the rail line could require elumnation of a number of large trees along some freeway corridors, such as I-5 in Snohomish County, with some loss of habitat for birds and small mammals. 3.5.3 Commuter Rail Element The original construction of rail embankments in the Green River and Puyallup River valleys disrupted the natural drainage systems to form wetlands along the rights-of-way. Construction of additional tracks for commuter rail may affect these wetlands, particularly if the Union Pacific line is chosen. Some station sites under consideration, including Boeing Longacres and north Auburn, may also be in or adjacent to wetlands. Exist ing vegetation and wildlife habitat may be disrupted or destroyed by the construction of some stations and/or park -and -rides. No endangered or threatened species are expected to be affected by construction. Operations Impacts Operations impacts could result where new facilities are adjacent to high quality ecosystems. Noise, traffic, pollution, loss of access, and human activi- ty from new park-and-ride lots under the TSM, Transitway/TSM, and Rail/TSM Alternatives, as well as tracks, wires, and associated structures for the Rail/TSM Alternative could increase stress on plant and wildlife populations and lead to reduction in numbers or changes in species distribution. The most serious potential impacts would be where the • Rail/TSM Alternative crosses major ecosystems such as wetlands and rivers. The No -Build Alternative would have little direct impact on ecosystems other than localized impacts near some expanded park-and-ride lots. Indirectly, this alternative may encourage greater sprawl, contributing to habitat loss on the urban fringe. In contrast, the build alternatives are Ecosystems 3-58 March 1993 supportive of a pattern of, regulated land use that will facilitate protection and preservation of significant ecosystems in the region. Commuter Rail Element Operation of the commuter rail line is not expected to have adverse impacts on ecosystems. 3.5.4 Mitigation of Impacts 3.5.4.1 Federal Regulatory Constraints Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 303) requires that no prudent and feasible alternative exist to any federal action using properties covered by the act and that allossible planning has been done to minimize harm. Subject properties include wildlife ulwaterfowl na publicly - owned parks, recreation areas, open spaces, an refuges. Steps to complete Section 4(f) include: o Identifying potentially affected properties o Analyzing potential direct and indirect impacts o Examining alignment variations and design alternatives that might avoid impacts o Identifying measures to mitigate impacts if design variations prove infeasible. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (32 U.S.C. 1344) is used to determine whether discharges of material to surface water (including filling for rights— of-way) are permitted. Under Section 404 and related regulations (40 C.F.R. 230), four conditions must be satisfied: o There can be no practicable alternative to the discharge which would have less impact on the aquatic ecosystem, unless that alternative has other significant adverse impacts. o The discharge cannot violate state water quality or toxic effluent standards, the Clean Water Act Section 307, the Endangered Species Act, or the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act. o No discharge of dredged or fill material can cause or contribute to significant degradation of the waters of the United States. o All appropriate and practicable steps have been taken to minimize potential adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem. The preferred build alternative will comply with Section 4(f), Section 404, and other applicable regulatory processes. 3.5.4.2 Specific Mitigation of Impacts Facilities and alignments could be relocated, lowered below grade, or elevat- ed above grade to minimize impacts to important ecosystems. Construction techniques should minimize impacts to access, and usability of ecosystems. Earth berms, barriers, vegetative screening, and temporary hydroseeding of exposed soils would also minimize impacts. Where feasible, facilities should incorporate significant landscape features and vegetation into site design. Mitigation should aim to replace any lost wetland functions and values. Ecosystems 3-59 March 1993 While avoidance is the best mitigation, wetland enhancement, replacement, or creation, in that order, could be used where impacts are unavoidable. RTP would coordinate and comply with sensitive areas regulations of local jurisdictions in construction and operation of system plan alternatives. 3.6 Energy Automobiles, buses, and rail vehicles are the major transportation energy consumers within the region. Energy is also required to build transportation facilities. 3.6.1 Affected Environment Average energy consumption of transit and automobiles is shown in Figure 3.10. Because transit vehicles and automobiles have different passenger capacities, a more meaningful way to compare each mode is by energy consumption per passenger mile (Table 3.6.1 and Figure 3.11). These figures represent the current energy efficiency of the vehicles, not their potential energy efficiencies or the projected energy efficiency of the System Plan. Substantially greater energy efficiency can be achieved by public transit than automobiles when seats are filled. The actual energy efficiency decreases when vehicles have passenger loads below capacity or must deadhead between passenger pick-up points. Table 3.6.1. BTUs per Passenger Mile. Vehicle BTUs/ BTUs/ Vehicle BTUs/ Passenger Mile Seat Mile Mile* 40' Bus 33,200 755 3,775 60' Bus 36,400 520 2,600 40' Trolley 15,900 353 1,360 60' Trolley 19,200 300 1,150 Dual- 36,400 578 2,890 Power _ Automobile 6,200 1,550 5,170 Rapid Rail 31,700 439 NA. Commuter 350,000 389 NA. Rail YBased on current average automobile occupancy of 1.2 persons and current average Metro loading for diesel and trolley buses. Rapid rail and commuter rail BTUs/Passenger Mile not shown, since these modes do not currently operate in the 3 -county region. Source: BRW 19914 Metro. Comparing estimated regional energy consumption for transit and automo- biles shows that transit use is less than 2 percent of total regional transporta- tion energy consumption (Table 3.6.2). Ecosystems 3-60 March 1993 0 0 O 0 14‘1/41.1) • ▪ l ;`•�� •'11:�/r�lP�YtY r`�OV • iY• Y� W 1 • • • • 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 • : i`�• �� }:�'' • �:►�yi%i'%�i{'��f:i%4� Ali' �r�`lt�! err"'�,�✓��1�`11, i(,' ✓`�1�\. :l• ✓��1,�.x!"- �✓`(t/��i1�J•s���)% ��•lr� ��r-� [/-9:'• •� cii'; 1)•1•)'vlrV..g. e'"��1-`�%lr 11/4.•/1 -✓1} • iY�✓: iY� •-�Y.•�Y;/`:�t' •,1 T`rY1/w✓.✓�!r�w• ✓Yt& ✓1`1)lti.4 • • • • 1 1 • 1f �r�'`fT/ �✓ ti �` �r�rs/ti �•``� 1• �`/'`��'�r� �1ti: f; •:•`r�;l• N • - �titi �i'� • :� Jr • 'Nr . (r �1 �,^ �7t k\1/``ti�p r A• k\TA �r �r �r � �r1r�f7•7 itti Z, Ji; �r�t-!rwr`Yt/`Yi!`Y�/11• .)•w•r`Yi/w�w�i JY wJY�/�•�_ •w� •1 1 1 00 0 0 0 0 Cir) o N • N eimisf is 1 1 i 1 .1,-..`.•€:‘,),3• z ,\` 11�� tr {'tr 'J 1 �\1r• rl ti� l •�� t��• �ex; _rr c m 73.• rf`/J• w�h!r�Y./t!Y..•✓1�1:/�.�1.� ~ 1 1 tl. IS . / •Z It ,r.r: Y.:• �i`�r1 /: Y▪ ..r.-rkt :.)1�1 • 0 O 0 1 ti1?\1/41/�r✓`:1r r.•��.rli 1)1'11. O O C Q� w o c 8 5 1• 1 BTU's/Passenger Mi 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Automobile 40' Bus' • At current average Metro passenger Toads. 60' Bus* 40' Trolley' 60' Trolley* IOW ccurn• .BICE COUNTY • NOKOMIM COWRY RTPf.026%. Current Average Energy Consumption per Passenger Mile System Plan EIS FIGURE 3.11 Table 3.6.2. Estimated Annual R • !Zonal Trans Gasoline or diesel millions of allons Transit 14 Automobiles 860 Source: PSCOG 1990; Metro staff. 3.6.2 Construction Impacts rtation Ene Electricity milli . n kwh 17 Consum tion. BTUs trillio 2 107 Under all alternatives, including the commuter rail element of the Rail/TSM Alternative, increases in fuel consumption due to construction would be minor and would not have a significant impact on fuel availability. Construction energy costs were estimated based on typical energy consump- tion for highway widening, track construction, tunneling, and building of structures, electric substations, signals, stations, parking, and maintenance facilities (Table 3.6.3). Construction energy consumption was weighed against operations energy savings to estimate a payback period for construction energy consumption. The payback period is the approximate length of time required for construction energy consumption (as compared to the No -Build Alternative) to be balanced by operations energy savings. For the purposes of estimation, it was assumed that annual operational energy savings would be equal to 2020 energy savings. Table 3.6.3. Construction Energy Consumption and Payback Period. Construction Energy Net Change Annual Operation Consumption from No-Build Savings Payback Period Alternative (Trillion BTUs) Ton BTUs) (Trillion BTUs) e No-Build TSM Transitway/ TSM Rail/TSM 3.6.3 Energy 2.5 31.7 39.5 29.2 1.7 37.0 1.8 51.8 49.3 5.2 Construction energy consumption would be highest for the Rail/TSM Alter- native at more than 50 trillion BTUs. The Transitway/TSM Alternative would consume about 40 trillion BTUs, while the TSM Alternative would consume about 32 trillion BTUs. The minor construction proposed under the No -Build Alternative would consume only 2.5 trillion BTUs. Because of increased energy savings from operation of the Rail/TSM Alternative (due to higher ridership and lower automobile usage), the payback period for the Rail/TSM AlternativeTransitybe about 10way/TSM Alternatives. as compared to almost 20 years for the TSM and Operations Impacts By 2020, the nonelectric transit fleet would use an alternate fuel such as automo- bilecompreenergy natural um ton are based on the assumption Voris that automobiles energy P 17.2 20.6 9.5 3-63 March 1993 would continue to use nonrenewable fuels for power. The estimates are based on current energy efficiencies of transit vehicles and automobiles; actual energy consumption would depend on future energy efficiency changes. While the overall energy efficiency of vehicles will probably increase by 2020, the actual energy efficiency of automobiles and buses in traffic maydecrease as congestion increases and forces lon&er periods of idling andslowerspeeds. Under these conditions, the relative energy benefits of the build alternatives will probably increase to the extent that they reduce vehicle miles traveled. In addition, the build alternatives, particularly the Rail/TSM Alternative, will encourage a more concentrated pattern of land use which should further reduce vehicle miles traveled and increase efficient energy use. Under all alternatives, portions of the transit system would be powered by electric rather than combustion engines, with the greatest electric use occur- ring under the Rail/TSM Alternative. To the extent that electric power is produced from renewable resources (e.g., hydropower, conservation, wind power), increases in electric consumption may represent increasing use of renewable resources rather than dependence on nonrenewable resources. However, because the mix of power sources in the year 2020 is difficult to forecast, no attempt was made to analyze use of renewable and nonrenewa- ble energy sources. Energy production and transmission, as well as consumption, have impacts on air quality, water quality and availability, fisheries, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and environmental health. Because the build alternatives would reduce demand for combustion fuels and would not significantly increase regional demand for electric power, it was not considered necessary to analyze these indirect impacts of the project. 3.6.3.1 No -Build Alterative For the transit fleet alone, the No -Build Alternative would consume about 1.9 trillion BTUs of energy, including 17 million kwh of electricity, a year, or about 2,270 BTUs per passenger mire (Table 3.6.4). Regional automobile fuel consumption would be about 191 trillion BTUs a year. Table 3.6.4. 2020 Estimated Transportation Energy Consumption (Trillion BTUs). Alternative Transit Automobiles Total Net Change from No -Build No -Build 1.9 190.7 192.6 - TSM 3.4 187.5 190.9 -1.7 -0.9% Transitway/TSM 3.5 187.2 190.8 -1.8 -0.9% Rail/TSM 3.8 183.7 187.4 -5.2 -2.7% 3.6.3.2 TSM Alternative In 2020, the transit fleet would consume about 3.4 trillion BTUs of energy, including 35 million kwh of electricity, about double that of the No -Build fleet, or about 3,040 BTUs per passenger mile. Additional electricity would be used for park-and-ride and maintenance facilities and on-line freeway stations. Energy 3-64 March 1993 Automobile energy consumption would be about 3.2 million BTUs less per year than under the No -Build Alternative. The decrease in automobile energy use would moreth BTUs per y ease in transit energy use, for a net decrease of 1.7 trillion Transitway/TSM Alterative In 2020, the transit system would use about 3.5 trillion BTUs per year, includ- ing 39 million kwh of electricity, or about 3,090 BTUs per aboutpassenger mile. In om arison, regional automobile consumption would be 3.5 ionbile BTUs less than under the No -Build Alternative. The decrease in a utoenergy consumption outweighs BSS ease in transit energy consumption, for a net decrease oftrillion 3„6,3,4 RaiPITSM Alterative The proposed rail system would use about 9.0 kwh per mile traveled by a rail car (Manuel Padron 1992). In 2020, the system would require about 296 million kwh per year to operate and an additional 37 to 49million3kwh3 for station operation. Total annual consumption would be between llion and 345 million kwh. Trolley and streetcar service would require an additional 27 million kwh. Total annual energy consumption, including the remainder of the transit fleet and commuter rail, would be about 4,20BTUs1ion BTUs. The bus portion of the alternative would consume about per passenger mile; the rail system (not including station energy needs) would consume about 1,340 BTUs per passenger mile, and the commuter rail line would consume about 2,390 BT uls perpassenger about 2,600 BTUs per passeng =e consumption of the whole system d mile. Energy consumption of the I-5 alignment would be about 7 due rion equpe ire - year higher than the recommended Capitol Hill align to t, ments for a University District people mover. The energy consumption of the Martin Luther King, Jr. alignment would be about 6 million kwh per year the Rainier Avenue alignment about 8 million kwh per year higher than and greater the of the caseMar if Raininal er Avenue, alignment, largeue r number of underground stations and, the case o In 2020, regional automobile energy consumption would be about 7.0 trillion BTUs less under the Rail/TSM Alternative than under the No -Build Alter- native, resulting in a net decrease of 5.2 trillion BTUs. Energy The increase in electricityconsumption under the Rail/TSM Alternative would not significantlyoorman affect regional power supply ( 1992). Peak hour requirements of the rail system would be Less than 1 percent of extreme peak energy loads. At the present, the Bonneville Poweeldm Administration is evaluating options for meeting increased average and peak c be met demand in the region. By 2010, increased electricity d couldthermal through a combination of conservation and efficiencyimprovements, power plants, cogeneration, and renewable energy (BPA 1992b)). Peak hour demands could be met through accelerated conservation9 p g capital facilities to improve reliability of electric transmission from Eastern Washington (BPA 1992a). However, increased electric usage may require upgrading existing electrical distribution and transmission infrastructure. re. This impact would be evaluated further during Ps g 3-65 March 1993 Commuter Rail Element Fuel consumption by commuter rail would be about 230 billion BTUs in 2020. Commuter rail can be more energy efficient per passenger than SOVs and most buses. Although diesel -powered trains are the proposed technol- ogy, it may be possible in the future to use natural -gas -powered trains on the commuter rail line. 3.6.4 Mitigation of Impacts Any of the build alternatives would result in a reduction of regional energy consumption. Increases in electrical consumption would be insivifficant m terms of regional consumption (less than half of one percent). To mitigate impacts on local electric utilities, the RTP will evaluate energy conservation, energy efficiency, and load management measures as part of project -level planning of facilities, as well as exploring ways to share new nghts-of-ways with electric utilities. 3.7 Environmental Health 3.7.1 3.7.1.1 The alternatives may use sites containing hazardous materials. People excavating contaminated soils, coming in contact with contaminated ground- water, and living near construction areas are the most likely to be affected. In addition, electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and air pollution from project construction and operation could have public health impacts. Affected Environment Toxic and Hazardous Materials For a human health risk to exist, two components must be present: o Toxicity or hazard - the potential for a substance to cause an adverse health impact (e.g., cancer) o Exposure - the potential for someone to come into contact with the hazardous material. Sources and Types The following are examples of land uses that are potential sources of hazard- ous materials, with the type of materials shown in parentheses: o Vehicle -related business, such as gasoline stations, oil -change facili- ties, and vehicle repair and maintenance facilities, (gasoline, diesel fuel, paints, solvents, oils) o Light industry, such as machine shops (solvents), storage yards, and electrical parts manufacturers (solvents, PCBs), boat builders and repairers (fuels, oils, solvents, resins), and metal finishers and platers (heavy metals, solvents) Energy 3-66 March 1993 o Heavy industry, steel la chemical distribution teal) rage, railroad facilities, and m (fuels, solvents, mt o Other land uses, such as dry cleaners and storage yards (sfluorocarbons, other solvents), chemical and photographic labs olvents, chemicals), lumber mills (creosote, PCPs, Meavy metals), railroad yards (fuels, oils, solvents), and landfills (bacteria, methane, etc.). Distribution of Sites Facilities using potentially hazardous materials are found along various segments of the project corridors (Figure 3.12 and Table 3.7.1). Heavy indus- try is generally found in the major industrial areas oee found f SeattlealoTacng Tacoma, and Everett. Vehicle -related businesses and t every corridor and as such are not shown on Figure 3.12. There are a number of sites identified by EPA as Superfund sites and by Ecology. as potentially significant hazardous waste sites in the region near the rail and transitway corridors (Table 3.7.2) Table 3.7.1. Generalized Hazardous Materials Users by Corridor. North Corridor Area Marysville/Snohomish R (I-5) Everett SR -99 Broadway/Commercial(Everett) SR -526, South Everett -5) Lynnwood (I-5) Mntlk Terrace/Edmonds (I-5) Swop gate/GrQnalSe�en Lake (I-5) Capitol Hill (I-5 Seattle CBD (I-5) Lynnwood-Mukilteo (SR -525) Everett to Mukilteo (SR -526) South Corridor Area Duwamish Valley (I-5) Rainier Valley 0-5) Tukwila/Allentown (I-5) Kent/Federal Way (I-5) Milton/Fife/Tacoma Tideflats Tacoma CBD (I-5) S Tacoma Channel. (1-5) Renton/Kent Lakewood n/KKent (SR 167/Green R) Auburn/Pacific/Algona (SR -167) Puyallup R/I-5 (SR -167) BN/UP ROW, yards Sumner industrial area East Corridor Area S Snohomish/Bothell (1-405) Kirkland, NE 124th St 0-405) Bellevue CBD (1-405) Bellevue/Renton (I-405) Renton CBD -405) Tukwila (1-405) Mercer Island 0-90) I-405 to Redmond SR -520) Description of Users • Tire landfill, lumber yards, other industries; military storage depot n. of Marysville Vehicle -related and other businesses, rail yard, light industry Automotive services, dry cleaners, light industry Electric substations (potential PCB contamination) Gas stations, industry, Boeing aircraft, Paine Feld Vehicle -related, other businesses, some light industry, small metal foundry A few gas stations Vehicle -related business, some light industry Vehicle -related businesses, Tight industry/boat services Vehicle -related, other businesses, old Seattle City Light facility Vehicle, other businesses, light industry, rail yard Vehicle -related businesses near 1-405/1-5, I-405/SR-99 Vehicle -related, other businesses near I-5/SR-99; Boeing plant, Paine Field Description of Users High concentration of haz waste users , generators; Boeing Field, related industries Vehicle -related, other business, light industry Vehicle -related, other business, light industry; former coal mines, demolition landfill Auto -related business, light industry, Superfund, other landfills Heavy industry, Superfund arca Vehicle -related, other businesses; light industry, rail yard, station Superfund site; major industrial area, railroads, vehicle -related, other businesses Vehicle -related businesses, McChord AFB (Superfund site) Light industry, Superfund site, vehicle -related businesses, s s,,laKent Air n basin Park Various businesses, Boeing, GSA storage area, vehicle-related Industrial area at intersection Railroads Battery , plastic, and yeast manufacturing, wood treatment, Description of Users Vehicle -related business, office parks Vehicle -related business, light industry Vehicle -related business, some industry Tank farm, lumber mill at May Cr/Lake Washington PACCAR plant (Superfund site), Boeing Vehicle -related business, light industry Vehicle -related, other business Businesses in Overtake, Redmond CBD, light industry Source: Boateng & Associates; July 1991 Environmental Health 3-67 March 1993 •Es$:,••• Marysville/Snohomish River Delta - Tire landfill, lumber yards, Tulalip Storage Depot Everett CBD - Railroad yard Scott Paper Lee Co. SR 526 - industry including Boeing Commercial Airplane plant, Paine Field SR 527-Ught industry ohn Fluke Mfg. raj SNOHOMSH COUMY KING COUVIY Bothell - Light Industry Kirkland - Ught industry Bellevue/Redmond Ught Industry $ass, aftlesCBD - Ught industry, railroad yard Rattier Valley - Vehicle related services, auto 1:ards and industry near Dearborn St. Ki404thiral Ugliftbd • aTkJefIa Qin a I . 4. KetiOgillands 4,41(ttgn.tk 1 Tacom industry, rai446141t47...•• May Creek - Lumbermill, tank farm Renton Boeing PACCAR Plant / %Mem Processpt • •••0, Kent-Ught inabstry, Boeing hicility Auburn/Pacific/ Algona - Boeing _facility, GSA storage abandoned McC ord AFB Issaquah - Some light Industry, former landing Regional Transit Project IMO COUNT/ • PIERCE COUNTY • 111014011121 COINIT RPTF0204F Hazardous LEGEND 4, N A 0 1 2 3 SILIGZENII Waste Site Location(s) - Business type USEPA SUPERFUND Sites X MTCA Sites Railroad Yards Multiple Track Lines 0 Railroad Stations Source: Boateng 1991-92 Waste Site Locations System Plan EIS Figure 3.12 Table 3.7.2. Identified Known or Potentially Significant Hazardous Waste Sites. Area Snohomish County University District Seattle CBD Duwamish Valley EPA Superfund Renton Green River Valley S. King County (I-5) Pierce County Harbor Island PACCAR Manufacturing Western Processing Midway Landfill Kent Highlands Landfill Tideflats Industrial Area South Tacoma Channel McChord Air Force Base Ecology MTCA Everett Tire Fire Everett Landfill BP Service Station Union Station Pioneer Porcelain Enamel Longview Fiber Reichold Chemical/Lone Star Cement Sterno Metals Marine Vacuum Service Metro South Base Baker Commodities Coast Crane Jorgensen Steel Northwest Slag Disposal U -Haul Northwest Powder Coats 3.7.1.2 Electromagnetic Fields The power lines and electrical equipment used by electrically powered transit vehicles produce electromagnetic fields (EMFs):. Recent studies have identified biological effects and possible health risks associated with human exposure to EMFs. The following discusses EMFs ms to the tential nvironn en- tal hazards and examines the relevancy of these once loies under consideration by the RTP. Sources of EMFs All electric currents produce magnetic fields. Naturally occurring mays etic fields are produced by solar radiation, ionizing radiation, currents wit s the earth's interior, and deep space radio emissions. Weak magnetic fields are also produced as part of the natural functioning of organisms. Natural background magnetic fields have historically been weak. The electrification of society has resulted in the exposure of living things to a complex milieu of elevated EMFs across all frequency ranges. EMFs from power lines, wiring, and electrical devices are found in utility corridors, industrial plants, office buildings, public transportation systems, homes, and elsewhere. EMF strengths depend on local electric circuit geometry, current strength, and distance between sources and exposed individuals. Environmental Health 3-69 March 1993 Characteristics of EMFs Magnetic fields form continuous loops around electrical currents, diminish- ing in strength rapidly with distance from the source. Larger current flows produce stronger fields. Overlapping fields may either increase or reduce field strengths depending on their relative orientation. Field strengths tend to be highly variable from location to location and over time at the same location. Commonly experienced EMF strengths are generally reported in milligauss, abbreviated mG." Potential Health Effects of EMFs Although electromagnetic fields appear to cause a variety of biological effects, the underlying mechanisms remain largely unknown and the health implications for humans have yet to be clearly determined (Anderson 1991). Concern about health risks has focused on EMFs associated with extremely low frequency alternating currents (AC) carried by electrical transmission lines and used in most wiring and appliances. Epidemiological studies have demonstrated a consistent association between increased nsks for some cancers and EMF exposure. However, there are strong theoretical arguments against such effects and the possibility of confounding factors has not been adequately dealt with (Wilson 1992). Although some types of EMF exposures may pose health hazards, the evidence is generally recognized as too weak to allow firm conclusions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has asserted that there is no evidence to show that EMFs cause cancer in humans and that more research is needed. Because of the limited understanding of EMF health effects and how they could be caused (Bracken 1991), critical dose and exposure thresholds are not well defined: A number of studies suggest that the strength of an electromagnetic field is not necessarily the most si as ' • cant or only parameter related to health effects. EMF effects at different • eld strengths vary in unusual ways. A field of one intensity may have an effect, while higher or lower intensities may not. There is a general scientific consensus that it is premature to prescribe regulatory limits for EMF exposures. Unlike the fluctuating EMFs associated with alternating current, EMFs associated with direct current (DC) are static. Although very strong static EMFs (with strengths above 10,000 gauss) affect heart function, studies of commonly experienced static EMFs have not produced evidence of serious health hazards (Miller 1987). Transit -Generated EMFs EMFs from electrically powered transit systems have two principal sources: the power distribution system, and vehicle traction motors and associated control equipment. Metro's electric vehicles, including electric trolleys, dual mode buses, and waterfront streetcars, draw power from direct current distribution systems. Future electric transit vehicles would probably also use a DC distribution system. Because the DC current used in most transit distribution systems is rectified AC current, it contains significant vestiges of AC current, which creates a time -varying EMF. However, the strength of the AC ripple is significantly less than the strength of common AC -induced EMFs and does not appear to be of particular concern. On the other hand, most electrical motors on Environmental Health 3-70 March 1993 electric transit vehicles use AC current produced by on -board inverters and propulsion control systems. The intensity and direction of the EMFs produced by this equipment depend on equipment type, location, and filter - mg or shielding used to reduce interference with nearby communications or control systems. There is little information available on the nature, levels, or significance of human EMF exposures from electric transit systems. However, the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center is researching health effects from advanced rail technologies, including maglev and high-speed rail, and exist- ing mass transit systems. The study will address EMF control, mitigation, and regulatory options. The results of this study and parallel studies will be reported in forthcoming RTP environmental studies. 3.7.1.3 Air Pollution Effects on Health Section 32.1 describes the air pollutants of concern in the region. There is increasing evidence that elevated air pollution levels contribute to diminished respiratory health, especially for individuals with respiratory disorders or otherwise impaired respiratory function. Relationships have been demonstrated between increased air pollutant levels and increased hospital admissions for asthma suffers, increased average annual risk of death, and increased mortality rates. The health effects of air pollution impose significant costs on society, including higher health care costs, insurance rates, and absenteeism. Carbon monoxide (CO) is highly toxic. When inhaled, CO reduces blood oxygen -carrying capacity and blood flow, leading to reduced alertness, manual dexterity, learning ability, driving ability, and energy and contributing to increasing chest pains for angina patients. Pregnant women and people with heart disease, asthma, angina, or vascular disease are particularly affected by CO. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) is a toxic gas which plays a key role in producing ozone. Ozone (03) imtates eyes, damages lung tissues, reduces resistance to. colds and pneumonia, aggravates heart disease, asthma, bronchitis and emphysema, and contributes to tiredness and diminished athletic perform- ance. Particulate Matter refers to total suspended particulates (TSP) and inhalable particles 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10). Particulates often carry toxic elements which can damage the respiratory, digestive and lymphatic systems. PM10 in particular is associated with breathing problems, lung damage, and -cancer. Individuals with influenza, chromclung or heart disease or asthma, and the elderly, children, infants, and smokers are the most sensi- tive to PM10• Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) has been associated with respiratory diseases and increased mortality rates. 3.7.2 Construction Impacts Potential impacts to environmental health are similar for all build alterna- tives. Persons involved in excavating, trenching, or moving soil may be affected by hazardous materials. Persons living or working near such sites Environmental Health 3-71 March 1993 may also be exposed through sldn contact, ingestion, or inhalation of soil particles, dust, or vapors. If safe work practices are followed in site prepara- tion and development, the risk of significant adverse impacts is low. Portions of the alternatives cross or include railroad tracks, railroad yards, and other industrial and commercial sites. These rights-of-way and sites may be contaminated with fuels, oils, and materials that have leaked from railroad cars. The risk of explosion also exists in soils contaminated with combustible hazardous wastes, especiallyin the case of vapors associated with fuels. Contaminants would be likelto have entered the soil and groundwater because rail beds are typically built with good drainage. Hazardous materials can travel in groundwater hundreds of feet beyond the boundaries of the properties from which they originated, contaminating soil on properties purchased for rights-of-way. Similarly, groundwater pumped out during tunneling may be contaminated and require special treatment or disposal. 3.7.2.1 No.Build Alterative Construction for the No -Build Alternative involves mainly expansion of a few park-and-ride lots. Hazardous waste would probably have only a small effect on this alternative. Transit service improvements would likely not be affect- ed by hazardous waste. 3.7.2.2 TSM Alterative Construction of some TSM facilities may require excavation or grading of existing land surfaces. The improvements would likely not be affected by hazardous materials. 3.7.2.3 Transitway/TSM Alternative Transitway facilities may require excavation or grading. Hazardous materials may be found, particularly along the railroad rights-of-way proposed for the South and East Corridor busways. The transit improvements would likely not be affected by hazardous materials. 3.7.2.4 RaiI/TSM Alternative The Rail/TSM Alternative has the greatest potential for encountering hazardous materials. Reasons for this include: o Parts of the rail line would be constructed below grade. o The commuter rail line will use existing tracks that pass near rail yards. o The total extent of construction is far greater than for the other alter- natives. Where portions of the rail line are planned to be below grade (particularly close to previous or existing industrial sites on the Rainier Valley and Capitol Environmental Health 3-72 March 1993 3.7.3 Hill alignments), the potential for encountering hazardous materials increas- es, since the amount of excavation will increase. Commuter Rail Element Railroad yards and working tracks are likely sites for hazardous materials spills. Businesses and industries along railroad rights-of-way are also likely to store hazardous materials. It is possible that previously unknown hazardous sites may be discovered at station locations. Project -level planning will include site audits if warranted. Operations Impacts Operation and maintenance of a transit system requires using substances that may affect human health if and when improperly handled or disposed of. Oil-based lubricants, vehicle batteries, parts cleaning fluids, paints, solvents, and fuels are among the products typically used in any transit maintenance facility. Transit vehicles, like other vehicles, are subject to fluid leaks. The regional transit operators have worked n Air Act, Cleanrotect ateree th Act, and meet the regulatory requirements of the Clean Toxic Substances Control Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Health and safety training is mandatory for maintenance employees. Spill response and communication plans have been developed and implemented. Hous mate build alter- erials are dtsposed of following applicable regulations. Because the natives propose more transit vehicles and maintenance facilities, they are likely to use more hazardous substances and generate more waste than the No -Build Alternative. The Rail/TSM Alternative, because it uses more electric vehicles, would have lower risks from hazardous materials than the other two build alternatives. Commuter Rail Element Using conventional diesel technology, commuter rail may result in less emission of some air pollutants per passenger mile than SOVs and three- person carpools, but will slightly increase emissions of nitrogen oxide per passenger mile as compared to SOVs and emissions of other pollutants as compared to buses or electric rail. Significantly increased health risks are unlikely. 3.7.4 Mitigation of Impacts 3.7.4.1 Construction Impact Mitigation Mitigation measures for contaminated properties located within the corridors include either the rerouting of the alignment or investigation and remedia- tion of the properties and health and safety monitoring. Businesses that handle or generate hazardous materials (see Section 3.7.1.1) can be identi- fied from street, topographic, land use, and zoning maps; aerial photos; telephone directories; and visual inspection. EPA and Ecology havP e lists of Superfund, hazardous waste, and underground storage tank sit es.es to be purchased or used for rights-of-way will undergo a Level I environmen- tal sitapdit (see below). In many cases, where hazardous materials ave been known to be associated with a site, such investigations have already Environmental Health 3-73 March 1993 been done and, for many, remediation has been performed and documented. Hazardous waste sites may also be "discovered" during construction. Rerouting the Alignment may require buying additional property, which should be investigated forotential hazardous materials m the soil and groundwater. Expenses ofreroutinginclude property costs, increased expenditures, and decreased speeds and operating efficiency if the route is lengthened. Investigation and Remediation. The initial Level 1 process of investigation may include a records search, site history review, and/or site inspection. Local, state, and federal lists may be reviewed to determine if the site and nearby sites produce, store, generate, or have released hazardous materials. If further action is required, a Level II site audit would evaluate contamina- tion migration pathways and receptors, including collecting and evaluating soil, water, or soil gas samples, air quality monitoring, literature searches, and documenting the findings. If these determinations are inconclusive, then a Level III site audit could summarize the procedures and results of the previous investigations and proceed to intense investigation, including devel- oping and implementing a sampling and monitoring program for soils, groundwater, and surface water. If the site is contaminated and the align- ment is not rerouted, then further remediation would be required, including either: o Removal and proper disposal of soil, water, or both o In-place treatment of soil and water. Health and Safety Monitoring would be done on work sites with potential hazardous matenals. Air can be monitored for concentrations of combusti- ble organic compounds (e.g., gasoline vapors), explosive atmospheres, oxygen concentration, and carbon monoxide concentration. Water may be tested for the presence of hazardous materials. Proper clothing, breathing equipment, and other measures can be used to provide a safer working environment. 3.7.4.2 Operation Impact Mitigation The transit operators will continue to meet health, safety, and hazardous waste regulations, segregate hazardous wastes, and protect employee health through ventilation, firerotection, and other measures. State-of-the-art oil/water separators and stormwater detention will minimize contaminated runoff. Whenever feasible and prudent, nontoxic substances will be used. Air pollutant emissions of diesel -powered commuter rail could be mitigated by introduction of "clean diesel" and natural gas technologies. Given the lack of evidence for and limited understanding of potential health risks from exposure to EMFs produced by electric transit vehicles or power distribution systems, "prudent avoidance" is an accepted strategy for avoiding adverse effects. Transit operators should avoid, prevent, or rmmmize situa- tions°where EMF exposures would be significantly different from commonly experienced exposures. The electric technologies under consideration have been used extensively in other systems and are consistent with a policy of prudent avoidance. Environmental Health 3-74 March 1993 3.8 Visual Qualityand Aesthetic Resources 3.8.1 Affected Environment Existing visual resources can be described in terms of major natural and built features along the rapid transit corridors (Figure 3.13). 3.8.1.1 Natural Features The region is well known for its natural scenic beauty. The local topography is diverse, with hills providing vistas of marine areas, lakes, rivers, forests, and mountains. The waterways are exceptional visual resources. Parks, cemeteries, and golf courses are examples of managed open space that provide a visual contrast to the urban environment. Steep hillside slopes, ver corridors, and greenbelts are examples of other open space that provide visual relief, definition, and screening of views on hillsides and along rivers and roadways. Land Forms The region has many hills and valleys that allow for prominent views. The Cascade and Olympic Mountains are visible throughout the area. Especially valued are views of Mt. Rainier and Mt. Baker. Other significant land forms include ridges, plateaus, river valleys (e.g., the Green River Valley), islands, and wooded and environmentally sensitive areas. Water Features Views of Puget Sound, Bainbridge Island, the Kitsap Peninsula, and Vashon Island are enjoyed from the North and South Corridors. Lake Washington, visible from the East Corridor and Seattle, is also an important visual resource. Boatingand fishingprovide visual interest. Other lakes and rivers that are regionallsigicandue to their size or visibility include Lake Sammamish, Green Lake, Lake Union, Lake Stevens, the Lake Washington Ship Canal and the Puyallup, Duwamish, Green, White, Cedar, Sammamish, and Snohomish Rivers. 3.8.1.2 Built Features Built landmarks assist in identification of areas and in orientation. The downtown Seattle, Tacoma, and Bellevue skylines are prominent landmarks. Other examples are the Kingdome,:Space Needle, Tacoma Dome and the floating bridges. The north -south ridges, hills, and valleys of the region have also shaped the built environment, including distinctive Hilltop. sia residential neighborhoods such as Capitol Hill, Queen Anne, and Visual Quality Residential Environment Urban. High Density (Multi -Family) Residential highrise and midrise build- ings tend to be locateid in urban centers where land costs are high. The most prominent examples are in Seattle. Streets in these areas frequently are in a grid pattern. High-density residential units are commonly in mixed-use settings, including retail and office uses. 3-75 March 1993 11 111 1 3 i Low Rise. Medium to High Density (Multi -Family) Residential buildings, consistingof two to four-story structures, exhibit a wide varietyof visual characteristics depending on location, topography, and age. They are frequently defined by and reinforce the urban street grid pattern. Urban neighborhoods with a grid pattern often have a high men of slityb mouse of consistent but interesting architecture, strategic place � t trees, and/or long views down street corridors. In suburban areas, lowrise buildings are set back from the street and take on more varied forms, depending on the natural attributes of the area, including trees, water, views, and topography. Streets in suburban communities sometimes curve to create ea special cialandvisual effect. and vistas. Uncoordinated development can create Transitional Areas have single-family housing mixed with other types of land use. Changes in scale between building types gives areas a less homo- geneous appearance than others. Lownse commercialbuildings, conven- ience malls, and apartments with parking lots may encroach on public rights- of-way, lending the community a bulkier scale. Such communities may even be visually dominated by large-scale industrial or commercial development. Single -Family Residential communities, like lowrise residential communities, have a range of visual qualities depending upon location, density, and config- uration of vehicular/pedestrian access. In urban, medium density communi- ties, streets may follow a grid or a curvilinear pattern, but houses will be located close to one another. In the suburbs, homes tend l Suburban moreospa around them and curved streets and cul -des aretyp densi- ties may vary fromand cont continuous landscaping createost rural. Often there are no l idewalks. The curvilinear road pattern an appearance of a more open environment. Nonresidential Environment There are five basic types of nonresidential development.Eac Eatch aesthetic character vanes depending on location, topography, h , perceived identity, street pattern, and recent development. Urban Office/Retail Areas have four distinct types. Downtown Seattle has a compact concentration of highrise and midrise buildings surrounded by lower scale, less compact development. In the core, buildings abut street property lines, while building setbacks and parking lots create more variety in the surrounding area. Downtown Bellevue and Tacoma also have strong visual identities. While they follow the traditional street grid, they have smaller cores and are less densely developed than Seattle. All three cities have similar aesthetic characteristics, of usesluding skyline views, landmarks, and the activity created by a Major Commercial Areas, such as Lynnwood, accommodate the automobile. Signage and parking are visible from wide, sometimes curved arterials. These areas lack strong identities, distinguishable architecture, or unique landmarks. Large size and practical function make them recognizable regional destinations. Neighborhood and Smaller City Commercial Areas, such as South Tacoma and downtown Everett are consist oldofr lowrise style and diinrazacter built up to the property line. Many structurt and show signs of reuse. These areas tend to be pedestrian -oriented, fit within the existing street pattern, and relate to nearby residential scales. They often provide identity for the surrounding neighborhood. Visual Quality 3-77 March 1993 Suburban Office/Retail Areas, such as Totem Lake, are distinct from their urban counterparts in that their aesthetic character is commonly determined by the natural features of the surrounding area (e.g., trees, vegetation, and topography). They often have a less formal, more relaxed form. Curvilinear street patterns and more landscaping or parking lots are significant visual characteristics. Office Parks, such as those in Canyon Park, tend to be devel- oped with loosely arranged lowrise buildings surrounded by parking lots. As a result of incremental development, they often have a patchwork pattern. Highway Oriented Commercial areas, such as SR -99 in the North Corridor, are similar to major commercial areas, but are strung out along an arterial street and frequently composed of smaller buildings or groups of buildings. These areas are often surrounded by residential areas with traditional grid patterns. However, such an area may cut across the grid because it f eliows a rnajor topographic feature or historic road. Buildings are between o and three stories high and are interrupted by vacant lots or parking areas. Such an area is frequently not perceived as having a distinct beginning or end. Suburban Retail Areas, such as Tacoma Mall, are also auto -oriented but typically do not relate to the arterial street serving them and have no strong locational identity. Town Centers, such as downtown Issaquah, have concentrated mixed uses. The traditional pattern consists of a main street with one or more intersec- tions creating a central place with a strong identity. Buildings are low and commonly reach the property line. Educational and Medical Campuses, such as the University of Washington, may have large or small buildings organized around pedestrians or vehicles. They contrast with neighborhood land use and access patterns and may or may not be buffered by landscaping. Industrial/Manufacturing Areas include airports and air industry areas (e.g., Boeing), shipping/warehousing areas (e.g. Green River Valley in Kent), :heavy industry, (e.g., Port of Everett, Duwamish Valley, Tacoma Tideflats), and light industry. The first two types have buildings which lack a human scale and provide few orienting elements. While heavy industry commonly relates to the grid street pattern, light industrial parks are often developed along curved streets lined with smaller buildings. The image of light indus- trial parks is determined by the natural features of the area._ Agricultural areas e.g., Green, Puyallup, and Snohomish river valleys) have very low densities and are oriented to the rectangular township/range/ section pattern with interruptions by topography, water, or vegetation. 3.8.1.3 Effects of Air Pollution on Visual Quality Particulate matter and ozone (03), both related to transportation, contribute to diminished visual quality. Particulate matter soils buildings and reduces visibility. Ozone is the primary component of smog, which plagues the region during extended periods of clear weather. For more discussion on standards and regional levels of these pollutants, see Section 3.2. Visual Quality 3-78 March 1993 3.8.2 Construction Impacts 3.8.2.1 No -Build Alterative Only minor construction impacts would be caused by this alternative. 3.8.2.2 TSM Alternative Dust and mud could result from construction. Temporary construction signage and heavy equipment would also be present on sites. Some sites would lose mature vegetation. HOV access rampscould require retaining walls or cut -and -fill on steepslopes, also resulting in vegetation loss. Managed open space could be be manipulated to avoid visual impacts more easily than natural open space. Park-and-ride lots in residential areas may cause a visual discontinuity in the form of paved open space next to houses. Structured parking garages could also conflict with the scale and character of surrounding areas. The visual impact.of HOV lane construction should be minor except where streets and highways are widened or views are blocked. Widening of arterials or highways to accommodate HOV lanes, without mitigation, could increase the visual impact of the roadway and reduce visual buffers between roadways and adjacent uses. 3.8.2.3 Visual Quality Transitway/TSM Alternative Visual impacts of the Transitway/TSM Alternative would be similar to those of the TSM Alternative. However, the transitway would require new ramps at many freeway accessoints, as well as an aerial structure between downtown Bellevue and SR -520, increasing visual impacts. New station area development would for the most part be unobtrusive. However, the scale of new buildings and parking lots could conflict.with compact neighborhood commercial patterns. In fully developed urban locations, commercial build- ings may be displaced by the alignment or stations. RaiIJTSM Alternative In addition to TSM improvements, construction of the Rail/TSM Alternative would require temporary signage, the presence of heavy equipment, and dust and mud on construction sites. The extent of construction impacts would be greater than for the other alternatives, particularly at tunnel portal locations and underground station sites. Urban stations may displace existing commercial and residential buildings. The long platforms may visually separate primary circulation routes. Station construction may also remove existing vegetation and open space. At -grade alignments may require removal of visual buffers along freeways. Parking areas could conflict with the scale of surrounding development and increase paved areas. Visual impacts would differ between tunnels, retained cuts, at -grade, or aerial profiles. Tunnels would not interfere with existing views. Retained cuts would minimize the visual presence of overhead wires. At -grade rail would require barriers or fencing, which could interfere with views across the right-of-way and would be visible from nearby land uses. Urban rail lines, which could possibly be built near the ends of the lines in Pierce and 3-79 March 1993 3.8.3 3.8.3.1 Snohomish counties, could visually enhance auto -oriented commercial corri- dors. Aerial alignments would be the most visible and could significantly affect views through view blockage, shading, and creating a visual barrier. There would be relatively few additional rampsblocking views adjacent to freeways (unlike the Transitway/TSM Alternative), since trains would not need to directly connect with HOV lanes. Commuter Rail Element No aawould be built,so visual po statinn �s. tation-area pannig uld be used to maintain or enhance visual quality. Operations Impacts No -Build Alternative This alternative would have minor direct local impacts on aesthetic resourc- es. Increased traffic congestion could negatively affect aesthetics and increase air pollution, resulting in the loss or degradation of views. 3.8.3.2 TSM Alternative Increased intensity of use at park-and-ride locations could affect the aesthetic qualities of adjacent areas. At bus transfer areas, the increased presence of buses could affect the pedestrian character and appearance of established urban streets. Additional illumination could change the visual character of areas around park-and-ride lots. 3.8.3.3 TransitwaY/TSM Alternative New stations will affect the appearance and character of local areas. However, impacts on residential character should be minimal since stations will be on freeways, at existing park-and-ride lots, or in activity centers. Attractive transit centers with good pedestrian connections may enhance the visual quality of some activity centers. The aesthetic character and identity of suburban town centers and auto - oriented commercial areas could be strengthened by new transit centers serving as focal points for shopping and offices. Stations could encourage higher residential densities around them, which would alter the suburban single-family aesthetic. 3.8.3.4 Rail/TSM. Alternative Rail stations, parking, signage, lighting, and related uses could intrude on established residential areas. Intrusion could be minimized by locating stations on arterials and designing aesthetically -compatible facilities. In town centers, large commercial areas, office parks, or mixed use areas, new transit centers could strengthen visual character by. providing a focal point and encouraging infill development and pedestrian circulation. In older pedestrian -oriented commercial neighborhoods, at -grade rail stations could interfere with compact development patterns, depending on station size. Visual Quality 3-80 March 1993 Commuter Rail Element Impacts would be similar to those of the rapid rail system. 3.8.4 Mitigation of Impacts Many construction impacts would be unavoidable and temporary. Vegetative screening could maintain the visual integrity of natural environments. Where feasible, vegetation removed during construction should be replaced. Specific mitigation measures would be developed during project -level planning and the station area planning process for each station. Operational visual impacts can be mitigated through proper design of facilities, including landscapmg, special signage, lighting, and compatible scale and building materials Landscaping would replace lost vegetation and reduce the scale of parking facilities and stations. Night illumination should be directed downward to minimize spillover into residential areas or loss of light to the night sky. Parking lots should be located and designed to be compatible with adjacent residential areas. While a grid pattern should be used next to grid street patterns, parking that follows topographic and building patterns will work better in more naturalistic residential areas. Terminal shelters could complement the architectural character of the surrounding area. Berms, trees, and shrubs could mask vehicle facilities. Stations could be designed for visual orientation. Design should emphasize quality as well as safety and separate vehicle areas and pedestrian activities. Proper location and design of rail stations and alignments could minimize negative aesthetic effects and enhance urban and suburban character. Alignments should avoid or minimize impacts to viewpoints, parks, view corridors, and scenic routes. Stations and support facilities should fit into neighborhood service and retail areas adjacent to, rather than within, residential development. Height, scale, landscaping, built form, materials, paving, and street furniture should relate to preexisting architectural features. Landscaping and vegetative screening could reduce the visual impacts and enhance views. In areas with limited space or sensitive to new development, alignments and station elements could be located below grade. 3.9 Transportation 3.9.1 Affected Environment 3.9.1.1 Transportation Infrastructure Roads and Highways In 1988 there were approximately 15,000 miles of roads in the region. The interstate and state highway system, while representing only 7 percent of the road network, accounted for nearly half of VMT. Transportation 3-81 March 1993 Railroads Freight lines serve a number of towns in the Valley and from Son. Main lines eattle from Tacoma to Seattle by way of the Green River Everett along Puget Sound. A main eeStevens Pass from Everett. The Burlington Northern Seattle -Tacoma main line six Amtrak Passenger trains. The carries about 50 freight trains per day, plusper day.The BN line from Renton Snohomishbyof Bellevue anut twelve trainsd Wooinville carries one from Renton to Sn two-way freight trip per day, as well as eight weekly round trips of a tourist train between Renton and 'Woodinville. Transit Infrastructure bra a and Maintenance. Metro has elevenfacilities er capital facile ities. Community d maintenance of its vehicles and for m Community Transit has one mai.ntenncbase anh bis one maintenance base for service with Ryder Public Transportation Services, in L wood and one south of downtown Seattle. Everett Transit and Pierce Transit each have one maintenance base. Ti olle Overhead and Electric Substations. Excludthe Downtown ing electrical Tunnel, Metro has 55 miles of trolley overhead power from 33 substations. Downtown Seattle Tunnel and AssociatedFacilities. The Do fivewntos Sea Seattle Tunnel, an exclusive bus tunnel, is 1.3 miles longand isouth of staging areas each end, direct access to the 1-5 exprens to the E-3 ss lanes at the north downtown. The tonne end and the I-90 center roadway at the south end. Waterfront Streetcar Facilities and Stverhead wii and ninations. The ont e stattions onnect- reetcar system includes 2.1 miles of rail and o terminal, and Pier 70 ing the International District, Pioneer Square, the ferry on Elliott Bay. 1Vlonorail. The City of Seattle's Monorail inciludes2 is s o of overhead track connecting Westlake Mall in downtown Seattle enter. HOV Lanes, where present, increase tro nregionalrs speed freeways. d There are There 3 are about 54 lane miles of HOV lanes miles of arterial HOV lanes in Seattle and short egr rarity lanes er ar aOV lanes in Bellevue. In addition, there are HOV P freeway ramps, two HOV exits from the I-5 express lanes, and HOV lanes for preferential boarding of some ferries. Park -and -Ride Lots and Transit Centers. At capacity preasc o present, there are 85 lots served by public transit in King County with a tot p tY has 18 lots Snohomish County has 26 lots with 3,788 stalls. Pierce Countyty aTransit has six, with 2,010 stalls. Metro�ve. Somhas 10 e transit centers are in conjunction with and Pierce Transit h park-and-ride lots. Othe iiide endent fac litlike Aurora aes allowingtimed transfers a Community' College, are P between routes, as well as pedestrian connections to centers. 3-82 Transportation March 1993 3.9.1.2 Traffic Volumes and Trends Since 1960, daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) have more than quadrupled, while freeway mileage has increased by 24 percent and total roadway mileage by 39 percent. By 2020, VMT is expected to more than double. In the same period, freeway lane miles will increase only slightly. Total roadway mileage will increase by 15 percent. In the past 30 years, VMT has increased faster than population growth (Figure 3.14). More households have two workers, new housing and businesses have located in the suburbs, cities have become more dispersed, and the number of vehicles and length of trips per household has increased. As a result, congestion, travel time, and traffic accidents have also increased. "Normal" congestion caused about 30 million person -hours of delay in 1984; by 1990 this figure had risen by 50 percent. In 2005, "normal" congestion will cause about ep75 is for callion st d to decrease delay.erson-hours of ro26 mph in average90 to 14eak mur phby freeway p 2020. Regional travel times will suffer from congestion and delays. Average peak hour travel time in 1991 was 30 to 35 minutes. In 2020, average travel time is expected to be 45 minutes to Northgate and Bellevue and 60 minutes to Sea - Tac Airport (Figure 3.15). Increasing travel time means regional destinations will be less accessible. It will also become more difficult and expensive to transport goods within the region. Both these factors have negative economic effects. Because this EIS focuses on regional impacts, traffic volumes at specific locations have not been studied. However, as an example, Figure 3.16 shows traffic growth on a section of I-5 just south of SR -520. Between 1970 and 1987, the morning and evening peak periods blended into a single all day peak period. Not until the new I-90 bridge opened did the morning and evening peaks return. It is likely that the peak period will again spread to the middle period of the day. Although public transit could provide an alternative to increased congestion, that congestion and the increasing dispersion of home and work sites have kept transit ridership from realizing its potential. Transit ridership per capita increased significantly during the 1970s, due to two oil supply crises and major public investment in transit operations (Table 3.9.1). From 1982 to 1992 it has remained constant at about 33 annual rides per capita. Table 3.9.1. Changes in Transit Ridership per Capita. Annual Transit Date Ridership per Capita % Change Transportation 1960 34 1970 22 -36% 1980 36 + 64% 1990 33 -9% 3-83 March 1993 4,000 Cl) 3,500 — as z z N 3,000 oM = 2,500 J Z 2,000 1 a� a 2 1,500 Z OJ 1,000 as w 500 0 rt Population 1960 TO 2020 TRAVEL, POPULATION& SNOHOMISHEMPLOYMENT COUNTIES WT FOR KING, PIERCE 66% Growth Over 1960 ---R 133% f'"'""!'"t Growth MINIM 450% Growth 52% Growth Over 1990 57% Growth 78% Growth milo ment VMT 1960 Source: PSCOG Population & Employment Forecasts, June 1988 Regional "'III Transit Pro ect !CHO COUNTY • PIERCE COUNT/ • SNOHOMISH COUNT Y pb2 e:Ytp\arowh•b.cdr 2.22.93 1990 YEAR 2020 —100 —90 —80 z —70 y —60 — 50 -1 —40 —30 r —20 z —10 0 Travel, Population, & Employment Growth System Plan EIS FIGURE 3.14 — — — — LEGEND Source: PSCOG; Regional Transportation Facts & Forecasts, 1984 Edition, 1991 Data from Travel Time Survey Regional 111 Transit run Project (NGCOAT' • PIERCE COUNTY • S.VON014,SA COLOCY Pb2 VII:AWsPlant-autotm car 02-:3-93 20 Minute Peak Travel Time -Distance in 1960/1970 Pre -Congestion 20 Minute Peak Travel Time -Distance in 1980 20 Minute Peak Travel Time -Distance in 1991 Note: Circles Radiate from the Point of Origin at 5 Mile Intervals / Automobile Travel Time Contours from Downtown Seattle System Plan EIS FIGURE 3.15 HOURLY TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION ON 1-5 (South of SR -520) AND THE SPREAD OF PEAK -PERIOD CONGESTION New 1-90 Bridge Opens IOW 14000-' /- 120002- 10000 200010000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 12 AM 3 AM 6AM • 9AM Source: Washington State Department of Transportation 12 PM 3PM 6PM 9PM Regional "oni Transit 11"Project Hourly Traffic Distribution on 1-5 System Plan EIS FIGURE 3.16 3,9.1.3 Transit Operations and Ridership For evaluation, transit routes were defined for each alternative, including all King County routes and regionally significant Pierce and Snohomish county routes. In 1990, weekday ndership was 284,000. Thirty-nine percent of the trips were in the North Corridor, 26 percent in the South Corridor, 6 percent in the East Corridor, and 29 percent in downtown Seattle. Transportation Community Transit Community Transit had 4 million riders in 1990. CT operates two types of express service, as well as custom subscription service. Commuter service operates to downtown Seattle, Bellevue, and Redmond Monday through Friday in the peak period and the peak direction, with five to 35 minute headways. Limited off-peak service is provided to downtown Seattle. University service operates to the University of Washington all day Monday through Friday. Typical headways range from 15 to 35 minutes during peak periods. Community Transit also provides all day local service Monday through Saturday with 30 to 60 minute headways. All day suburban service operates between local communities in Snohomish County, as well as to Aurora Village and Bothell in King County. Rural service operates from northern and eastern Snohomish County to major centers. Everett Transit Everett Transit provides fixed -route service within Everett and to points just outside the city limits. There were 1.5 million riders in 1990. Service on Monday through Friday is from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m., with 30 to 60 minute headways. Everett Transit offers more limited service on Saturdays and Sundays. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Metro operates service within King County, with ridership of 77.2 million in 1990. Local bus service operates daily on a fixed -route, fixed schedule basis with typical peak headways of 10 to 60 minutes and midday headways of 15 to 60 minutes. Express service consists of commuter -oriented peak limited -stop service with typical headways of 20 to 60 minutes. Custom service is express bus service for groups of 40 or more commuters not served by regular transit service. Paratransit service using vans or smaller vehicles is operated on fixed routes or flexibly with advance reservations in areas that cannot support regular bus service. The Waterfront Streetcar links downtown Seattle's water- front and Pioneer Square with 20 to 30 minute headways. Pierce Transit Pierce Transit operates within Pierce County and to King and Thurston counties. There were 10.4 million riders in 1990. Express routes serve downtown Seattle every 15 to 30 minutes in the peak period. Local routes operate every day on arterials in Pierce County and to Federal Way and Enumclaw in King County. Peak headways range from 15 to 60 minutes. Off-peak headways range from 15 minutes to 2 hours. Typical Regional Transit Travel Times Transit travel times depend on traffic volume and speed, since most buses operate in mixed traffic. Transit travel has slowed as the region's highways 3-87 March 1993 have become more congested. In 1990, average transit travel times to selected centers ranged from 35 to 84 minutes (Table 3.9.2). Average 1990 travel times to downtown Seattle, Bellevue, and Everett and to the University District were 43, 51, 65, and 48 minutes, respectively. These travel tines represent the average of all trips taken on transit to the selected centers, including time spent traveling to and from the bus. Table 3.9.2. PM Peak Period Weighted Average Door -to -Door Transit Travel Time from Selected Centers to Destinations within the Region (in minutes). 1990 Existing No -Build TSM Transitway Rail Change Change Change Change from No- from from Selected Travel Travel from Travel Build Travel No- Travel No - Destination Time Time Existing Time Time Build Time Build 1 Everett 65 63 -2 60 -3 52 -11 47 -16 2 Paine Field 78 83 5 74 -9 63 -20 51 -32 3 Lynnwood 58 57 -1 53 -4 49 -8 40 -17 4 Northgate 46 52 6 46 -6 43 -9 36 -16 5 University 48 51 3 47 -4 49 -2 37 -14 District 6 Seattle CBD 43 45 2 43 -2 41 -4 38 -7 7 Bothell 67 71 4 64 -7 61 -10 57 -14 8 Bellevue 51 57 6 51 -6 49 -8 43 -14 9 Overlake 84 88 4 80 -8 79 -9 60 -28 10 Redmond 65 71 6 63 -8 63 -8 51 -20 11 Renton 63 68 S 62 -6 61 -7 51 -17 12 Tukwila 64 73 9 66 -7 66 -7 55 -18 13 SeaTac 69 75 6 64 -11 60 -15 48 -27 14 Kent 78 83 5 64 -19 60 -23 54 -29 15 Auburn 74 80 6 64 -16 63 -17 58 -22 16 Federal Way 66 71 5 62 -9 60 -11 52 -19 17 Tacoma 35 35 0 34 -1 33 -2 32 -3 Regional Average 48 50 2 46 -4 45 -5 40 -10 Existing Modal Splits "Modal split" here means the percent of trips that occur by transit as compared to automobiles. Between one and 38 percent of work trips in the region take place on public transit, depending on the location of the work site. Downtown Seattle and the University District have the highest transit shares with 38 and 23 percent, respectively. Bellevue, Renton, Northgate, Tukwila, SeaTac, and Tacoma have transit shares between three and six percent. Other major centers have transit shares between one and three percent. 3.9.1.4 Other Transit Modes Private Bus Service Intercity Bus Services in the three -county area include Greyhound, Evergreen Trailways, Cascade Trailways, and Trailways Northwest. Major stations are located in downtown Everett, Seattle, and Tacoma and are well served by Transportation 3-88 March 1993 public transit in those areas. Airporters and shared -ride vans provide mostly demand -responsive express service to Sea -Tac International Airport. Fixed - route service is available from downtown Seattle. Rail Lines and Monorail Amtrak provides one daily train each way from Seattle and Everett to Spokane and runs three trains a day each way in the Seattle -Tacoma - Portland corridor. Stations at Everett, Seattle, and Tacoma are well served by public transit. The City of Seattle Monorail links downtown Seattle and Seattle Center every 15 minutes during the day and evenings. Rail transit has no significant role in moving people within the three -county region. Ferries Washington State Ferries provides vehicle and passenger service from Seattle and Tacoma to Vashon Island, from Mukilteo to Whidbey Island, from Edmonds and Vashon Island to Kitsap County, and from downtown Seattle to Bainbridge Island and Bremerton. Ferry loading docks include HOV lanes to give priority to buses and carpools at peakcommuter periods. There is also passenger -only service from downtown Seattle to Vashon Island and Bremerton. Pierce County Ferry links Steilacoom to Ketron Island and Anderson Island. The Victoria Clipper provides a passenger link between Seattle and Victoria, B.C. Community Transit serves Edmonds and Mukilteo ferries at least hourly except Sunday. There is frequent Metro service to downtown Seattle ferries. On weekdays, Metro serves the Fauntleroy terminal at least every half hour, the Vashon terminal every 60 to 90 minutes, and the Vashon-Tahlequah terminal with eight trips, while Pierce Transit serves the Tacoma-Vashon and Steilacoom terminals at least every 30 minutes. • Air Service Most regional, national, and international air service is provided at Sea -Tac International Airport. Service to the San Juan Islands and British Columbia is also provided from Lake Union in Seattle and Lake Washington at Kenmore. Metro serves Sea -Tac Airport and Kenmore at least every half hour and serves Lake Union every 15 to 30 minutes. 3.9.1.5 Bicycle Connections to Transit An extensive designated bicycle route system is envisioned for the region. Most bicycle routes follow existing streets, rather than using exclusive rights- of-way. Major exclusive bikeways include the Burke -Gilman Trail from Seattle to Kenmore, the Sammamish River trail from Bothell to Redmond, the I-90 trail from Seattle to Bellevue, and the Interurban Trail in the Green River Valley. Most bicycle routes intersect transit routes. Bicycle lock-up facilities are also provided at many park -and -rides.. In addition, Pierce Transit can transport bicycles on most buses. Metro transports up to two bicycles per bus on a few routes connecting Seattle with the eastside and is currently planning to equip all its coaches with bicycle racks to allow expanded transporting of bicycles. Transportation 3-89 March 1993 In spite of the extent of the bicycle circulation system, many regional and local trips are difficult to make by bicycle. In some areas, freeways form barriers to bicycle access from one side to the other. Major arterials often lack bicycle lanes and, although formally available to bicycles, present safety hazards for bicyclists. In some areas, freeways and major artenals are the only direct routes between neighborhoods, which effectively denies access by bicycle. 3.9.1.6 Pedestrian Connections to Transit Because much of the region has developed in response to the automobile and lacks pedestrian amenities, many areas could be considered "pedestrian- unfriendly." Pedestrian amenities that encourage use of transit include sidewalks; parking strips or trees buffering arterials from walkways; crosswalks at intersections; and laying out commercial areas to allow pedes- trians to reach buildings without crossing large parking lots. Manyarts of the region lack these amenities. In these areas, it is more difficult for pedes- trians to reach bus routes or transfer between routes, even when the bus service is available. 3.9.2 Impacts of Construction 3.9.2.1 No -Build Alterative This alternative would involve no major new construction by transit agencies. Construction of new facilities would have minor traffic impacts on surround- ing roadways. Currently funded expansions of the regional road and highway network that have significance to transit are also assumed for the No -Build Alternative (see Section 2.1 and Technical Appendix A). 3.9.2.2 TSM Alterative Construction of HOV improvements would have temporary adverse impacts on highway traffic. Traffic on arterials and neighborhood collectors could also be adversely affected by park-and-ride and transit base construction. While construction would eventually affect many freeways, highways, and arterials in the region, the construction period would be spread out over several years and would only have relatively short-term local impacts. 3.9.2.3 Transitway/TSM Alterative This alternative would significantlyaffect traffic by closing the I-5 reversible lanes to SOVs (see Section 3.9.3.. Building the South Corridor busway would require some relocation of railroad tracks and interruption of freight service along that alignment. Building the busway from downtown Bellevue to SR -520 could have temporary impacts on rail operations in that area. Other local construction impacts would be similar to, but slightly more widespread, than those described for the TSM Alternative. Transportation 3-90 March 1993 South Corridor Aerial alignments could affect arterials in SeaTac and Federal Way, includ- ing removal of center turn lanes on SR -99. In Tacoma, the capacity of South "C" and Commerce Streets could also be reduced. The rail system would require building bridges across two navigable waterways, the Duwamish River and the Puyallup River. Although bridges would be designed to avoid adverse impacts on waterway traffic, there might be temporary disruptions to navigation during construction. The rail system in the South Corridor using the baseline alignment along Rainier Avenue and Martin Luther King, Jr. Way would be at grade for 18 miles, aerial for 20 miles, and in tunnels for 5 miles. The Rainier Valley alignment staying on Rainier Avenue would replace an aerial mile with a tunnel mile._ The Duwamish Valley alignment would include 22 miles at - grade, 17 miles aerial, and 5 miles of tunnels. Commuter Rail Element. Commuter rail service linking Seattle and Tacoma could require upgrading existing tracks, construction of passing tracks and switches, and increased signalization, as well as construction of stations and park-and-ride lots. This could cause brief disruption of freight and passenger (Amtrak) rail operations. Construction of commuter rail stations and park- and-ride lots may also result in adverse effects on local traffic circulation. East Corridor The rail system in the East Corridor would include 28 miles at -grade, 17 miles of aerial structures, and 4 miles of tunnels. Downtown Bellevue would be affected by tunnel portal and station construction. Arterials in Bellevue's Overlake area would be affected by construction of an -aerial alignment. If the South Bellevue Way alignment was chosen, tunnel construction would have significant traffic impacts on South Bellevue Way, including temporary closure of some traffic lanes and temporary loss of access to the South Belle- vue park-and-ride. Lane closures would increase congestion along South Bellevue Way as well as I405, the most likely alternate route. Some segments of the new rail lines would use existing rail rights-of-way. Construction of the system along the BN right-of-way between Bellevue and Renton would require relocation of existing track and reconstruction of switches for crossings. Disruption of freight operations could be significant. Disruption or blockage of cross streets could also take place. 3.9.3 Impacts of Operation Transportation Ridership and Traffic Assumptions Ridership under the four alternatives was estimated for 2020, based on expected patterns of land use and trip demand. Ridership figures include only trips on the "regional system," which does not include some local bus service in Pierce and Snohomish counties. Ridership figures also do not include ridership on demand -responsive service, vanpools, or carpools, except where those trips continue onto the regional system. Levels of these types of service were expected to be similar across all the build alternatives. 3-92 March 1993 d Regional traffic levels were estimated based he numbersoforicaste had been network, with adjustments : made based It was diverted to the transit system (aswould be regionally significantchange�s in traffic assumed that there 'e alternativo rees. speeds due to any of th Ridership Capacity Constraints Forecasted transit ridership would increase significantlyv � ibrettsed congeeen stion, and 2020 because of population and employment gr higher parking costs, as well as because of im r M eat service under projected and gh , the three build alternatives. Except for the Railsystem ridership would be higher in downtown Seattle bus service hanlevele s would notm o ld handle. Under the No -Build Alternative, be increased to meet projected demand. downtown Seattle dvurin� the a eak Period. on buses would be particularly severe in Projected ridership was reduced when T,If� may/TSM, and Rail/TSM unrealistically high passenger loads. Under the TSM, Alternatives, planned bus service levels f d wn increased Seattle for busesxduring ected demand. However, the street capacity the the peak periods (about 450 surface and 2both ttuhe TSM and T el buses per hour in / peak direction) would be exceeded under TS TSM Alternatives. Ridership forecasts foto reflect tthe hese and Trrt sitwaY/ hM Alternatives were adjusted downwards the Rail/TSM Alternative, enough surface buseswouldsbe replaced downtown underground rail that there would benocapacity Seattle. Higher Densities, Transportation Demand Management, and Ridership Ridership for the four alternatives wasestimated conservatively, change in adopted land use plans or measuresdiscourage eu Because of this, ridership estimates should d considered o a the minimum rider- ship that can be expected. Changes in useplans densities or measures to discourage automobile use would result in additional ridership on the system. To test the effect of increasing densities or discouraging automobile use on system ridership, ridership was estimated for two additional scenarios: (1) implementation of the Vision 2020 PAct. preferred alternative; as detailed below, implemen- tation of the Commute Trip Reduction showed increased ridership for thegreatestof the uild againslternatives, with the Rail/TSM Alternative showing Increases in ridership would be also likely if additional Transportation Demand Management P � ro ams are instituted for employers and other traffic generators not covered by the Commute Trip Reductione Act. manant addition,n olesincreases iKridership n County, which are in somedue to tcas s call for densities policies adoptedthose be g greater than those proposed by the Visihe RTP for thealernatiRTPbuild e. Final- ly, in - ly, the transit corridors program proposedby alternatives should increase ridership beyond that projected by in r ern g densities along selected transit routes and in centers and measures and p despan-oriented site transportation demand management design. Transportation 3-93 March 1993 Impact of Vision 2020 on Ridership and Vehicle Trips for Each Alternative PSRC's Vision 2020 preferred alternative includes policies supportive of public transit, including land use changes and higher parking charges in centers. Implementation of Vision 2020 would increase transit system ridership by 12 percent in the case of the Rail/TSM Alternative, 7 percent under the TSM and Transitway/TSM Alternatives, and 3 percent under the No -Build Alternative. Correspondingly, implementation of Vision 2020 would reduce daily automobile trips by about 14,000 under the No -Build Alternative, 40,000 under the TSM and Transitway/TSM Alternatives, and 81,000 under the Rail/TSM Alternative. The lower impact on TSM and Transitway/ TSM ridership is due to the transit capacity constraints in downtown Seattle (Travel Forecasting Results Report, PBQD 1992). The lower impact on No -Build ridership is due to limited numbers of buses serving increasing demand. The transit share of work trips to major centers would increase under Vision 2020 from 16 to 19 percent under the Rail/TSM Alternative, with the most significant changes occurring for downtown Seattle and Bellevue. The transit share would increase from 13 to 14 percent under the TSM and Transitway/TSM Alternatives. Impact of Trip Reduction Legislation The Commute Trip Reduction Law requires major employers and employers at major employment sites to reduce SOV commute trips. This law could reduce peak VMT by 5 percent, which would increase Rail/TSM Alernat ve ridership by 13 percent (73,700 daily trips) (PBQD 1992). Increases the TransitwayTSM and TSM alternatives would be about 8 percent because of transit capacity constraints in downtown Seattle. Because of a limited bus fleet, the No -Build Alternative would only attract about 4 percent more riders. The law could switch 34,800 SOVs per day to HOVs by 2020. Implementation of Vision 2020 and Commute Trip Reduction legislation together would have a greater effect than implementation of either one alone. Assuming Vision 2020 by itself would account for only 50 percent of intended work trip reductions, by 2020 the two together would increase Rail/TSM ridership by 18 percent, TSM and Transitway/TSM ridership by 11 percent, and No -Build ridership by 5 percent. Accessibility for the Elderly and Disabled All of the alternatives include significant increases in services for the elderly and disabled. A portion of these increases are mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The increases will include substantially expanded door-to-door service and increased accessibility of transit vehicles (see discussion in Section 2.1.1). In addition, the build alternatives will include similar levels of substantially increased demand -responsive door-to- door service for all patrons in certain areas. Expansion of the transit fleets under all build alternatives will incorporate measures to facilitate access to transit vehicles by the elderly and disabled, further increasing the accessibility of the system. Expansion of the system itself will also increase regional accessibility for these sectors of the population. Transportation 3-94 March 1993 3.9.3.1 No -Build Alterative Traffic Volumes and Parking Regional. Vehicle trips are expected to grow considerably between 1990 and 2020 (Table 3.93). In the North Corridor, for instance, daily vehicle trips will increase 63 percent from 2.3 million in 1990 to 3.7 million in 2020. A 64 percent increase in daily vehicle trips is expected in the South Corridor and a 93 percent increase in the East Corridor. Table 3.93. 1990 and 2020 (PSRC Adopted) Performance Measure Characteristics for Daily Vehicle Trips for All Purposes (in thousands). 2020 Corridor 1990 No -Build North Corridor 2,277 3,702 South Corridor 3,328 5,471 East Corridor 1,059 2,037 Three -Corridor Total* 6,664.. 11,210 Three -County Total 6,735 11,298, Corridor North Corridor South Corridor East Corridor Three -Corridor Total* Three -County Total Corridor North Corridor South Corridor East Corridor Three -Corridor Total* Three -County Total 'Excludes Kitsap County 2020 1990 ' No -Build 19,700 32,834 17,730 29,466 7,880 15,154 45,310 47,185 77,454 84,189 2020 1990 No -Build 797 2,208 700 1,572 307 975 1,804 4,755 1.877 5,109 Transportation Auto Vehicle Percent Reduction 2020 from TSM No -Build 3,620 -22% 5,386 -1.6% 2,004 -1.6% 11,010 -1.8% 11,098 -1.8% Trips 2020 Transitway 3,610 5,381 2,001 Percent Reduction from No -Build -2S% -1.6% -1.8% 10,992 -1.9% 11,080 -1.9% Vehicle -Miles of Travel Percent Reduction from No -Build -2.2% -1.6% -1.6% 2020 TSM 32,101 29,006 14,909 76,016 -1.9% 82,695 -1.8% 2020 Transitway 32,012 29,981 14,888 Percent Reduction from No -Build -2S% -1.6% -1.8% 75,881 -2.0% 82,562 -1.9% Vehicle -Hours of Travel Percent Reduction from No -Build -22% -1.6% -1.6% 2020 TSM 2,159 1,547 959 4,665 -1.9% 5,018 -1.8% 3-95 2020 Transitway 2,153 1,546 957 2020 Rail 3,496 5,300 1,942 10,738 10,874 2020 Rail 31,002 28,544 14,450 73,996 81,030 -3.8% Percent Reduction from No -Build -5.6% -3.1% -4.7% -4.2% -3.8% Percent Reduction from No -Build -5.6% -3.1% -4.6% -4S% Percent Percent Reduction Reduction from 2020 Rail from No -Build No -Build -2S% 2,085 -5.6% -1.7% 1,522 -32% -1.8% 929 -4.7% 4,656 -2.1% 4,536 -4.6% 5,010 -1.9% 4,917 -3.8% March 1993 Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) will increase substantially from 1990 to 2020. VMT will increase by 67 percent between 1990 and 2020 in the North Corri- dor, 66 percent in the South Corridor, and 92 percent in the East Corridor. As the number and length of daily automobile trips increase, traffic congestion will increase and average speeds will decrease, since the capacity of the transportation system will not increase significantly under this alternative. Vehicle hours of travel (VHT) will thus grow faster than VMT. In the North Corridor, VHT will increase by 177 percent between 1990 and 2020. In the South Corridor, VHT will increase by 124 percent and in the East Corridor by 218 percent. Screenline Traffic Volumes. Traffic crossing eight screenline locations would increase significantly (Figure 3.17). For instance, between 1990 and 2020, traffic crossing the Ship Canal would increase 24 percent, from' 540,900 to 668,200 vehicles per day, with no increases in highway capacity. Traffic crossing Lake Washington would increase by 38 percent, from 230,800 to 318,900 trips per day. Parking. The No -Build Alternative would not have any direct effects on parking. Indirectly, parking demand is likely to increase as trips increase, reducing supply and increasing prices in some centers. Transit Operations and Ridership The transit fleet and infrastructure would remain essentially the same. Routes and schedules would not change. However, worsening congestion would reduce schedule reliability. System Transit Ridership and Transfers. Total transit trips would increase by 37 percent to 388,500 trips per day in 2020 (Table 3.9.4). Most of the increase (70 percent) would be caused by regional household and employ- ment growth. The remainder would be caused by increases in highway travel times and parking costs. Ridership would not keep pace with population growth. Ridership per capita would actually decline by about 14% (Table 3.9.5). Table 3.94 Existing and 2020 (PSRC Adopted) Total Daily and Annual Transit Ridership and Transfers. Alternatives 1990 (Existing) 2020 No -Build 2020 TSM 2020 Transitway 2020 Rail Estimated Linked Transit Trips 284,200 388,500 473,900 480,000 560,500 Estimated Transit Transfer Boardings Rates 365,400 1.29 497,400 1.28 666,700 1.41 693,200 1.44 838,500 1.50 *Excludes non -forecasted categories of ridership (i.e., school, custom bus). Annualized Linked Transit Trips (in millions)* 80.3 109.4 133.7 135.4 157.3 Transportation 3-96 March 1993 Daily Volumes Selected Screenlines Screenline 1990 ExistingChange Vehicle Trips No Build Vehicle Tris TSM Vehicle From Trl s NO Build Transitway Change Vehicle From Trl s NO Build Rail Change Vehicle From Trips No Build ;;:.,.. , l `` E• ''' North Corridor Y<> > {<''Y SNOHOMISHCOUNTY • ': �+�- 616450,471r-- f, �% Table 3.9.5.. Trips per Capita. 2020. Alternative Annual Trips (millions) Trips per Capita % Change from 1990 No -Build 109.4 29.0 -14% TSM 133.7 35.4 7% Transitway/TSM 135.4 35.9 9% Rail/TSM 157.3 41.7 26% Linked trips represent door-to-door travel that may include transfers. The ratio of total boardings to linked trips is the transfer rate. Under the No - Build Alternative, this rate will fall slightly to 1.28 (Table 3.9.4). The differ- ence is due to decreasing transit reliability caused by congestion. Because transfers are dependent on timely connections, decreased reliability increases the uncertainty of transferring. Transit Ridership By Corridor. Corridor transit ridership illustrates regional travel patterns (Table 3.9.6). The North Corridor generates 110,500 daily transit trips, rising by 27 percent to 140,300 trips in 2020 under the No -Build Alternative. Transit ridership in the East Corridor, South Corridor, and downtown Seattle is expected to increase 84 percent, 34 percent, and 42 percent, respectively. Under the No -Build Alternative, the East Corridor share of transit trips would still be only 8.6 percent, compared to 36 percent for the North Corri- dor, 25 percent for the South Corridor, and 30 percent for downtown Seattle. The North Corridor share would decline slightly between 1990 and 2020 because the North Corridor will not grow as fast as the East and South corri- dors. Downtown Seattle will keep its share due to continuing development and its importance as an employment center. Transit Ridership by Mode of Access. Under the 2020 No -Build Alternative, 77 percent of all riders will walk to the bus and 23 percent will drive (Table 3.9.7). This compares to 85 percent walking and 15 percent driving in 1990. The increase in drive access over walk access reflects a greater dependence on park-and-ride lots and a decreasing ability of fixed bus routes to serve outlying areas. As the urban area spreads, it becomes faster for suburban residents to drive to a park-and-ride lot than to catch a local bus. Transit Volumes at Selected Screenlines. Under the 2020 No -Build Alterna- tive, daily transit trips across the Ship Canal would increase by 40 percent over 1990 (Figure 3.18). Transit volumes crossing Lake Washington, South 188th Street, and the West Seattle Bridge would increase between 58 and 67 percent. Transit volumes on I-405 at Newport Way and near Bothell would double. Transportation Accessibility. Increasing traffic congestion and the lack of investment in park-and-ride lots or HOV lanes would reduce the accessibility of the system, particularly in the suburbs. Reduced reliability of schedules and longer trip times caused by increased congestion would reduce transit service quality, which would particularly affect transit -dependent populations. The quality of service to community facilities would also be adversely affected. 3-98 March 1993 Daily Volumes Selected Screenlines Screenline 1990 Existing Person Trips No Build Person Trips TSM Change Person From Trips No Build Transitway Change Person From Trips No Build Rail % Change Person From Trips No Build .• P .{ j .' *//, f > {� f�.... ; r o ' � 'r�R� . 0. f , 1:,.: ' North Corridor BNOHOMISHCOUN_T_Y_ kkeibbiNl�' Corridor A '•._, _ -% :: sJ%j `` _,-. ,,,""i• F"��ry, A B C D E F G H ShipCanal Lake Washington N. 185th Street S. Spokane Strteet S. 188th Street I-405/Newport West Seattle Bridges Snohomish County Line on Eastside 73,500 21500 21,800 12,400 41800 16,200 1,900 10,400 300 103,100 36500 25,600 56,500 25,600 5,300 17,100 600 113,700 46,400 29,700 65,000 31,900 7,200 18,500 1 800 � +10.3% +27.1% +16.0% +15.0% +24.6% +35.8% +8.2% +200.0% 112,700 47,700 28,700 68,000 34500 6,900 18500 2,000 +9.3% +30.7% +12.1% +204% +34.8% +30.2% +8.2% +233.3% 142,600 58,900 41,400 83,500 42,800 10,000 21,200 6,100 +38.3% +61.4% +61.7% +478% +67.2% +88.7% +24.0% +916.7% �r ;i:.f.. f:<b :"V.':\ F 3z #I' -''' 4, 't < G v. sf r . ux w{ PIERCE , , 4':: '} r' :%,�, h f• % "'i '! ` �A.4-., ; ,••,' a East :6 0 South Corridor 'FO11-N"' kk{� ��` •.,,_, Regional ..p Transit aw ooueY • peK! Daum • es0101111 000KIY RTPF0204H.. 2020 (PSRC Adopted) Daily Tiransit Volumes at Selected Screenlines SystPlan EISem rFIGURE 9.18 Table 3.9.6. Total Daily Transit Trips for Seattle CBD and Each Corridor by Origin and Destination. Origin District 1 North Corridor 2 East Corridor 3 South Corridor 4 Seattle CBD Total Origin District 1 North Corridor 2 East Corridor 3 South Corridor 4 Seattle CBD Total Origin District 1 North Corridor 2 East Corridor 3 South Corridor 4 Seattle CBD Total Origin District 1 North Corridor 2 East Corridor 3 South Corridor 4 Seattle CBD Total Origin District 1 North Corridor 2 East Corridor 3 South Corridor 4 Seattle CBD Total Transportation 1990 Destination District 1 2 3 4 Total Share 61,795 4,524 12,839 31,315 110,473 38.9% 4,524 5,330 1,570 6,702 18,126 6.4% 12,839 1,570 43,245 16,187 73,841 . 26.0% 31,315 6,702 16,187 27,467 81,671 28.7% 110,473 18,126 73,841 81,671 284,111 100.0% 2020 No -Build Alternative Destination District 1 2 3 4 76,640 7,719 14,391 41,543 7,719 11,303 2,625 11,720 14,391 2,625 58,786 22,978 41,543 11,720 22,978 41,543 140,293 33,367 98,780 116,058 2020 TSM Alternative Destination District Total Share 140,293 36.1% 33,367 8.6% 98,780 25.4% 116,058 29.9% 388,498 100.0% 1 2 3 . 4 Total Share 105,533 10,669 18,555 42,151 176,908 37.3% 10,669 15,922 4,153 13,560 44,304 93% 18,555 4,153 86,638 _ 24,539 .133,885 283% 42,151 13,560 24,539 38,554 118,804 25.1% 176,908 44,304 133,885 118,804 473,901 100.0% 2020 Transitway/TSM Alternative Destination District 1 2 3 4 Total Share 107,542 10,606 18,467 42,482 179,097 373% 10,606 15,963 4,400 14,036 45,005 9.4% 18,467 4,400 87,999 24,945 135,811 28.3% 42,482 14,036 24,945 38,607 120,070 25.0% 179,097 45,005 135,811 120,070 479,983 100.0% 2020 Rail/TSM Alternative Destination District 1 2 3 4 116,566 12,321 23,034 53,260 12,321 16,785 5,839 18,645 23,034 5,839 93,116 32,194 53,260 18,645 32,194 43,418 205,181 53,590 154,183 147,517 Total Share 205,181 36.6% 53,590 9.6% 154,183 27.5% 14,517 26.3% 560,471 100.0% Accessibility of employment centers by transit from low-income areas would decline under this alternative. Transit travel times to employment centers in Everett, Bothell, Redmond, Auburn, and Tacoma from low income areas in Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma would increase by about 5 percent (BRW 1992). 3-100 March 1993 Table 3.9.7. 1990 and 2020 (PSRC Adopted) Daily Transit Trips by Mode of Access. Mode of 1990 Estimated No -Build TSM Transitway/TSM Rail/TSM Access Trips Percent Trips Percent Trips Percent Trips Percent Trips Percent Walls 241,800 85% 299,300 77% 366,300 77% 369,900 77% 416,600 74% Drive 42,300 L5% 89,200 23% 107,600 23% 110,100 23% 143,800 26% Total 284,100 100% 388,500 100% 473,900 100% 480,000 100% 560,500 100% In general, transit travel times under the No -Build Alternative would increase between 2 and 9 minutes relative to 1990 (see Table 3.9.2). Access times to Everett and to Lynnwood would decrease slightly, due to improved transit service from Snohomish County to downtown Seattle and the University District. Modal Splits. Under the No -Build Alternative, 34.5 percent of the trips to work in downtown Seattle would be by bus (Table 3.9.8), a decline from 1990. The transit share of trips to work in the University District would decrease slightly, to 22.3 percent. About 1 to 7 percent of trips would be by transit in the rest of the region, a slight increase when compared to 1990. However, the share of trips to work by transit would decline for Lynnwood and SeaTac. Table 3.9.8. 1990 and 2020 (PSRC Adopted) Daily Transit Share for Work Trips to/from Selected Centers. 1990 Existing No -Build TSM Transitway Rail Center Trips Share Trips Share Trips Share Trips Share Trips Share 1 Everett 2,760 2.0% 3,856 2.5% 7,018 4.6% 7,118 4.7% 7,700 5.0% CBD4.8% 2 Paine Field 1,960 2.4% 2,000 1.8% 4,857 4.4% 4,951 4.5% 5,240 3 Lynnwood 763 1.5% 1,150 1.3% 2,121 2.4% 2,268 2.6% 2,607 3.0% 4 Northgate 735 5.9% 1,095 7.4% 1,327 9.0% 1,325 9.0% 1,605 10.9% 5 University 12,044 23.1% 14,050 22.3% 18,711 29.6% 17,948 28.4% 21,549 34.1% District 6 Seattle CBD 77,861 37.7% 104,293 34.5% 105,959 35.0% 107,772 35.6% 141,183 46.6% 7 Bothell 67 2.5% 381 3.7% 544 53% 555 5.4% 592 5.7% 8 Bellevue 1,177 3.9% 4,018 5.9% 5,171 7.6% 5,238 7.7% 5,732 8.4% CBD 9 Overlake 191 1.7% 233 1.7% 444 3.2% 467 33% 654 4.7% 10 Redmond 85 12% 289 1.6% 398 22% 404 2.2% 505 2.8% 11 .Renton 935 3.9% 1,363 4.8% 1,801 6.3% 1,800 63% 2,084 7.3% 12 Tukwila 689 4.3% 1,157 5.1% 1,513 6.6% 1,512 6.6% 1,804 7.9% 13 SeaTac 914 3.9% 831 2.5% 1,207 3.6% 1,311 3.9% 1,757 5.2% 14 Kent 111 1.2% 186 1.3% 384 2.8% 403 2.9% 419 3.0% 15 Auburn 105 1.1% 208 1.5% 348 25% 355 2.6% 374 2.7% 16 Federal Way 561 1.1% 1,259 1.6% 1,680 2.1% 1,710 2.2% 2,289 2.9% 17 Tacoma 5,463 3.0% 7,242 3.1% 11,272 4.8% 11,352 4.8% 11,749 5.0% CBD All 17 106,421 11.8% 143,612 11.3% 164,754 13.0% 166,486 13.1% 207,842 16.4% Centers Transportation 3-101 March 1993 Other Mass Transit Modes Private bus services would be adversely affected by increased traffic conges- tion and the lack of a comprehensive HOV system. Trips could be expected to take longer and schedule reliability would worsen. Increased congestion would also reduce accessibility to ferry, rail, and air service. Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation Bicycle and pedestrian connections to transit would remain the same. However, increasing automobile traffic volumes would reduce the ease of access to many transit facilities. Similarly, to the extent that continued auto dependence encourages urban sprawl and low density development, bicycle and pedestrian shares of travel would probably decline. Relationship to Commute Trip Reduction This alternative would not support efforts to reduce commuter trips to major employment centers, since there would be no change in transit service and no increase in HOV efficiency. 3.9.3.2 TSM Alternative Transportation Traffic Volumes and Parking Regional. The TSM Alternative would reduce auto vehicle trips, VMT, and VHT by between 1.7 and 3 percent relative to the No -Build Alternative (see Table 3.9.3). This level of reduction would probably not significantly reduce regional traffic congestion. The greatest traffic benefit would be felt in peak hour trips to and from the University District, which would be 5 percent less than under the No -Build Alternative. In addition, completion of the HOV lane system and addition of HOV lanes and other amenities to arterials would improve traffic movements for carpools and vanpools. This effect would be enhanced by existing and planned access management programs on area freeways. Screenline Traffic Volumes. The TSM Alternative reduces daily vehicle trips by 0.2 to 2.5 percent from the No -Build Alternative, depending on location (see Figure 3.17). Localized Impacts. Modeling has shown that reduction of traffic levels under the TSM Alternative, even by a few percent, could cause significant improvements in the levels of service at some congested intersections. The extent of the improvement or the number of intersections that would benefit cannot be determined at the system level of analysis. Operation of park -and -rides could have significant impacts on local traffic on adjacent arterials and collector streets. Since park-and-ride lots are typically on arterials at or near freeway interchanges, lots might increase congestion on arterials that serve as freeway collector routes. Attempts to limit parking supply in centers and in transit corridors could result in spillover effects on adjoining residential streets. Similarly, increased transit service to suburban park-and-ride lots could result in parking spillover onto residential streets if park -and -rides were not sized large enough to handle demand. 3-102 March 1993 Transportation Transit Operations and Ridership Transit speed and reliability would be greatly enhanced by completing the freeway HOV system, adding HOV improvements to arterials, improving transit connections, and expanding park-and-ride capacity. Direct bus routes would still link key centers with downtown Seattle. Transit Operations. Community Transit would increase service frequency to downtown Seattle and the University District, expand service to Bellevue, Redmond, and Northgate, create new routes to major centers, and provide suburban and rural access to transit hubs. Everett Transit would offer more frequent service to neighborhoods, centers, and transit transfer points and increase peak period service to workplaces. Metro would develop a system of all -day regional and community routes providing frequent service to centers, neighborhoods, and transfer points. Metro would also expand customized services. It would use demand -responsive services to increase coverage in lower density areas. Pierce Transit would increase bus frequency, operate expanded and consistent two-way service along major routes, connect major centers with express peak hour service, and increase transfer frequency and convenience. For statistics on platform miles and hours for each transit operator, see Table 2.1. Accessibility. Transit accessibility would be improved by increasing service frequency and providing better transit connections. Paratransit routes would expand into currently unserved areas. Increases in numbers and sizes of park-and-ride lots would improve accessibility of express routes. The increases in transit speed and reliability would improve accessibility from low-income neighborhoods to regional employment and commercial centers. Travel time by bus to and from centers would decrease under the TSM Alternative relative to the No -Build Alternative (see Table 3.9.2). This is mostly due to increases in service frequency. Several centers, notably Kent and Auburn, would experience greater travel time savings due to other service improvements, including new routes. Accessibility of employment centers by transit from low-income areas would also increase slightly under this alternative, both relative to 1990 and to the No -Build Alternative. Transit travel times to employment centers outside Seattle from low income areas in Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma would decrease by about 4 percent from 1990 and be about 7 percent lower than for the No -Build Alternative. However, reaching many of these centers from low-income areas would still require very long transit trips. Total System Transit Ridership and Transfers. The TSM Alternative would have 473,900 daily riders, for a total of 133.7 million annual riders in 2020. Ridership under the TSM Alternative would be 67 percent higher than today and 22 percent higher than under the No -Build Alternative (see Table 3.9.4). Fifty-nine percent of the ridership growth is due to regional growth in house- holds and employment. Another 25 percent is due to increased transit service and 16 percent to improvements in transit travel times. As shown in Table 3.9.5, ridership would increase only slightly more than population growth. 3-103 March 1993 Transportation The transfer rate of 1.41 under the TSM Alternative is higher than either the 1990 and the No -Build Alternative transfer rate, due to improved service frequency allowing better transfer connections. A greater number of transit routes would meet at significant trip destinations such as downtown Seattle, transit centers, and park-and-ride lots. Restructuring of routes is a secondary reason for the transfer rate increase. Transit Ridership By Corridor. Daily transit trips to and from the North Corridor would mcrease by 26 percent, or 36,000 (see Table 3.9.6). Rider- ship to and from downtown Seattle, the East Comdor, and the South Corri- dor would increase by 2,000, 11,000 and 35,000 daily trips, respectively, representing a 2.4, 33, and 36 percent increase relative to the No -Build Alternative. Although the North Corridor shows the largest gain in trips, the South Corridor displays the highest percent increase. The large increases in transit trips in the North and South corridors to and from downtown Seattle reflect the strong transit markets in those areas and the increases in transit service quality under this alternative. Transit Ridership By Mode of Access. The mode of access to transit (walk versus drive) would not change significantly under the TSM Alternative. Transit Volumes at Selected Screenlines. Increases in transit trips range from an 8.2 percent increase at the West Seattle Bridge to a 200 percent increase on 1-405 near Bothell (see Figure 3.18). Most of the increases range between 10 and 35 percent. Mode Split. The University District and downtown Seattle show the highest modal splits for work-related transit trips, with 29.6 and 35.0 percent of trips taking place by transit, respectively (see Table 3.9.8). When compared to the No -Build Alternative, tram it work trips would increase to the selected centers by an average of one to two percent. Other Mass Transit Modes Rail and Intercity Bus. Increased express service to downtown Everett, Seattle, and Tacoma would improve regional accessibility of intercity service. Improved regional transit travel times might reduce private bus and airporter ridership between destinations in the region. Ferries. The TSM Alternative would provide more frequent service to the ferry system, particularly to and from downtown Seattle. In addition, peak - hour service would nearly double to the Mukilteo, Edmonds, and Steilacoom ferry terminals. Peak -hour service to the Fauntleroy ferry terminal would also increase. Service to ferry terminals from Vashon Island would be enhanced with dial -a -ride service. Service increases would increase the number of walk-on passengers to the ferry system and reduce the number of vehicles, as compared to the No -Build Alternative. Air Service. Although direct transit service to Sea -Tac International Airport would not increase, the TSM Alternative would increase transit speed, reliability, and connections to the airport. The alternative would also increase transit service to airlines at Lake Union and Kenmore. 3-104 March 1993 Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation The TSM Alternative includes several measures to improve transit/bicycle connections. These include: o carrying bicycles on feeder and regional bus routes, consistent with operating safety, service quality, and passenger comfort o providing weather -protected bicycle storage at park-and-ride lots mcluding improvements for safe bicycle travel on arterials as part of improvements for HOVs. These measures would greatly enhance the connections between bicycles and transit. Under the TSM Alternative, the regional transit agencies would work with local jurisdictions and landowners to encourage pedestrian amenities and pedestrian -oriented development along major arterials and at major inter- sections served by transit. Pedestrian access improvements near park-and- ride lots would also be considered during project -level design. Improvements in pedestrian access would both increase transit ridership beyond the ' estimate made during ridership modeling and would encourage reduced use of SOVs. The increased transit service proposed under the TSM Alternative would have a moderate effect in terms of supporting more intensive use of land in some centers. To the extent this occurs, pedestrian and bicycle use would be likely to increase, since these modes become more efficient as land use intensifies. 'Relationship to Commute Trip Reduction Service increases under this alternative would provide some support to commute trip reduction efforts, particularly outside downtown Seattle. Completion of the HOV system and provision of arterial HOV improve- ments would also provide incentives for increasing vanpooling and carpool- ing. 3.9.3.3 Transitway/TSM Alternative Exclusive transitways in the metropolitan core would allow buses to avoid traffic delays, increasing the speed and reliability of regional service. At the same time, I-5 between downtown Seattle and Northgate would become very congested due to reduced SOV capacity. Traffic Volumes and Parking The Transitway/TSM Alternative reduces traffic levels slightly more than the TSM Alternative. At the corridor level, it reduces vehicle trips, VMT, and VHT by between 2.1 and 3 percent over the No -Build Alternative (see Table 3.9.3). At the screenline level, the Transitway/TSM Alternative reduces traffic between 0.2 percent and 2.8 percent (see Figure 3.17). In the South and East corridors, completion of the HOV system and provid- ing HOV lanes and other improvements on arterials would slightly increase roadway capacity and improve circulation for carpools and vanpools. In the Transportation 3-105 March 1993 Transportation North Corridor, the Transitway/TSM Alternative would reduce roadway capacity for general purpose traffic. Although total transportation capacity is increased, vehicle capacity is reduced because the Transitway/TSM Alterna- tive removes the I-5 reversible lanes from'general traffic use, with significant impacts on traffic congestion. In addition, considerable amounts of traffic would be diverted to other north -south arterials, including SR -99, 15th Avenue Northeast, and smaller neighborhood arterials. The result would be a general increase in traffic congestion in this area (PBQD 1991d). The degree of impact would probably constitute a fatal flaw for the transitway in the North Corridor. The new busway would affect general traffic operations on I-90 between downtown Seattle and Bellevue. HOV traffic and general-purpose Mercer Island traffic would be displaced from the center roadway. Replacing the center roadway with outside HOV lanes, although feasible, would require a significant departure from federal interstate standards for lane and shoulder widths. The potential for accidents would be somewhat higher and incidents such as accidents and breakdowns would have a greater effect on traffic congestion. The Transitway/TSM Alternative would likely cause local traffic and parking impacts similar to those of the TSM Alternative. In addition, traffic to stations could significantly affect congestion on adjacent streets. Transit Operations and Ridership The Transitway/TSM Alternative would provide service comparable to the TSM Alternative. However, transit speeds and reliability would be improved, particularly along I-5, SR -518 to and from Sea -Tac International Airport, and through downtown Bellevue. Since these areas are often transit "choke points," these improvements would increase the efficiency of the regional system. As a result, the Transitway/TSM Alternative could deliver more service in the same amount of time. However, because of difficulties in getting into and out of the University District from the transitway, transit service to the University District would become less efficient, which is • reflected in a reduction in ridership to the University District as compared to the TSM Alternative. Platform miles and hours under the Transitway/TSM Alternative are similar to those for the TSM Alternative. Service miles increase slightly due to improved speeds. Significant changes include a shift to more express and less local mileage. Other major changes include an all -day express route from Everett to Tacoma through downtown Seattle. Another express route would connect South Everett to Bellevue. Some Rainier Valley routes would extend to connect with the transitway at Boeing Access Road. Some SR -520 routes would be rerouted onto the I-90 busway, increasing travel times for those routes. Accessibility. Accessibility for transit riders would be improved by increased speed and reliability of service and improved transit connections to regional routes, particularly from Rainier Valley, Bellevue, SeaTac, and Snohomish and Pierce counties, due to service changes not included in the TSM or No - Build Alternatives. For example, transit riders could reach Everett and Paine Field more quickly because of direct service along I-5. 3-106 March 1993 Accessibility of employment centers by transit from low-income areas would also increase under this alternative, both relative to 1990 and to the No -Build Alternative. Transit travel times to employment centers outside Seattle from low income areas in Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma would decrease by about 5 percent from 1990 and be about 9 percent lower than for the No -Build Alternative. However, reaching many of these centers from low-income areas would still require very long transit trips. Transit System Ridership and Transfers. Ridership would be 480,000 daily and 135.4 million annually. Ridership would be 69 percent higher than in 1990 and 22 percent higher than under the No -Build Alternative (see Table 3.9.4). Fifty-eight percent of ridership growth is due to regional growth. Twenty-four percent is due to increases in transit service and 18 percent is due both to the improved transit travel times and to changes in highway congestion and parking costs. As shown in Table 3.9.5, ridership would increase only slightly more than population growth. The projected Transitway/TSM transfer rate is higher than the 1990, No -Build, and TSM rates. This Sodue to much restructuringproved service of outes under tfrequency, e Transitway/TSM ' which would tate transfers. Some Alter- native would also increase transfers. Transit Ridership By Corridor. As compared to the No -Build Alternative, there would be an additional 39,000 transit trips in the North Corridor, 37,000 trips in the South Corridor, 12,000 trips in the East Corridor, and 4,000 trips in downtown Seattle. The large increases in the North and South corridors reflect the transit market potential in these corridors and the effect of improving transit service under the Transitway/TSM Alternative. Transit Ridership By Mode of Access. The mode Table 3 access to antransit the alk ve(seersus drive)would not change significantly Transitway/TSM Alternative. While new park-and-ride lots would encour- age drive -access trips, increased service frequency and coverage would encourage a comparable increase in walk -access trips. Transit Volumes at Selected Screenlines. The Transitway/TSM Alternative would generate transit volumes similar to the TSM Alternative (see Figure 3.18), generally showing a 10 to 30 percent increase in ridership at specific locations over the No -Build Alternative. The increases range from 82 percent on the West Seattle Bridge to 233.3 percent on I-405 near Bothell. Mode Split. A greater percentage of trips to major centers would be by bus under the Transitway/TSM Alternative than the TSM Alternative (see Table 3.9.8). The University District,and downtown Seattle continue to show the highest transit shares. The increase reflects the greater emphasis placed on transit in the Transitway/TSM Alternative. Transitway Daily Transit Passenger Volumes. The greatest passenger volumes would occur in downtown Seattle with 92,000 daily trips (Figure 3.19). Ridership between downtown Seattle and the University District would be 91,000 per day. The remainder of the North Corridor, with 49,000 to 79,000 daily trips, leads the region in transitway ridership. The South Corridor would have 48,000 daily riders through the Duwamish Valley and 35,000 to 36,000 riders in the rest of the corridor. 36,000 to 39,000 daily riders would cross the I-90. floating bridge into downtown Seattle. The Transportation 3-107 March 1993 65.000 79.000': 0:0 COUNTY • PIERCE COUNTY •SW CUISN COUTCv 9b2 hm-2000U2nvd Cdr 02.23.93 2020 Daily Transitway Passenger Volumes System Plan EIS FIGURE 3.19 remainder of the East Corridor through Bellevue would draw between 13,000 and 21,000 daily riders. Other Transit Modes The Transitway/TSM Alternative would be similar to the TSM Alternative in the connections it would make to other transit services. Travel to inter- city bus, rail, and ferry terminals in Tacoma, Seattle, and Everett would be somewhat quicker and more reliable than under the TSM Alternative. 3.9.3.4 Transportation Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation Measures to improve bicycle circulation would be similar to those for the TSM Alternative, including transporting bicycles on feeder and regional bus routes. In addition, stations would include weather -protected bicycle storage and bicycle access improvements within 1/4 mile of stations. During the project -level phase, consideration would be given to including bicycle paths within transitway alignments. These measures would greatly enhance the connections between bicycles and transit. Measures to improve pedestrian access to transit would also be similar to those for the TSM alternative. Relationship to Commute Trip Reduction Service increases under this alternative would provide some support to commute trip reduction efforts, particularly outside downtown Seattle. Completion of the HOV system and provision of arterial HOV improvements would also provide incentives for increasing vanpooling and carpooling. RailTSM Alternative The rail system would stretch from Everett to Tacoma on both sides of Lake Washington with spur lines to Redmond, Issaquah, and Burien. The alterna- tive would include a commuter rail line through the Green River Valley from Seattle to Tacoma and bus service based on the TSM Alternative. The system would have no at -grade crossings, except on the commuter rail line and possibly in Snohomish County and Tacoma, increasing speed and relia- bility. Transportation Infrastructure Electric rail lines, even those in existing rail rights-of-way, would run on exclusive tracks and would not affect existing rail operations. The 1-5 rail alignment would remove traffic from two of the 1-5 reversible lanes and close the 42nd Street ramp to the University District. Electric rail operations on reinforced steel concrete structures, such as the I-90 bridge or the I-5 express lanes, could induce stray electric current into the structures. By increasing corrosion, stray current could reduce the lifetime of the structures and increase overall maintenance costs. 3-109 March 1993 Dual -power buses presently operating in the downtown tunnel would be displaced onto downtown Seattle surface streets as rail operations were phased into the tunnel. Because these vehicles are somewhat heavier than other articulated buses, they would increase wear on downtown streets until they were replaced as their useful life came to an end. Traffic Volumes The Rail/TSM Alternative provides the lowest regional traffic volumes of the alternatives (see Table 3.9.3). Overall vehicle trips, VMT, and VHT would be 3.7 percent to 6.2 percent less than under the No -Build Alternative. Vehicle trips at screenlines would be reduced by 1 to 5.8 percent. Use of rail would totally remove these vehicle trips from the freeway system. This reduction would not have a major effect on traffic congestion, since traffic levels would still increase from 1990. But it would provide a significant choice for travel in the region. There would also be noticeable effects on peak hour traffic to and from downtown Seattle and the University District. As under the TSM Alternative, completion of the regional HOV system would also improve circulation for carpools and vanpools. However, the I-5 alignment in the North Corridor would reduce the capacity of the I-5 ship canal bridge, causing significant traffic problems on I-5 and diverting significant amounts of traffic to north -south arterials in North Seattle. Automobile travel time for commuter trips to downtown Seattle would probably increase. The rail alignment would affect general traffic operations on I-90 between downtown Seattle and Bellevue. HOV traffic and general-purpose Mercer Island traffic would be displaced from the center roadway. Replacing the center roadway with outside HOV lanes, although feasible, would require a significant departure from federal interstate standards for lane and shoulder widths. Accidents would be somewhat more likely and incidents such as accidents and breakdowns would have a greater effect on traffic congestion. As under the TSM Alternative, reductions of traffic under the Rail/TSM Alternative would have significant beneficial effects on some congested intersections. Since the reduction is greater under the Rail/TSM Alternative than under the TSM Alternative, this effect would probably be more widespread than for the TSM Alternative. However, this alternative could have adverse local traffic impacts, particularly at park-and-ride stations. Traffic to stations could significantly affect congestion on adjacent streets and adversely affect access to stations by buses and nonmotorized modes. This could be particularly true of interim and permanent terminal stations. Terminal stations would serve as collectors for the system and would probably generate a large amount of auto and transit traffic. While permanent terminal stations would likely be sited to minimize traffic disruption, interim terminals, that is, stations that served as the end of a rail corridor while the next segment of the line was being built, might not be well -sited as termini and could have significant, although temporary, traffic impacts. Placing the rail alignment and associated park-and-ride lots along SR -99 rather than I-5 in the North Corridor north of Northgate and the South Transportation 3-110 March 1993 Corridor south of SeaTac could increase traffic volumes on local east -west arterials between SR -99 and The option of at -grade alignments with at -grade ssiths is ends urrenof the tliynbe being considered in Snohomish and Pierce counties, near and At - grade crossings of intersections would likely increase traffic congestion onn. If an the risk of accidents between trains and other modes and asp r accidents at -grade alignment is proposed in these lapping. would be further evaluated during project -level P Attempts to limit parking supply in centers et�slt Similarly, increased corridors could result in spillover effects on adjoining residential stre transit and new rail service to suburban park-and-ride,park-and-rides were not sized parking spillover onto residential large enough to handle demand. Transit Operations and Accessibility Rail Operations. The rail system would provide Seattle wouservicld The 30 to 35 average speed from a terminal station to dofor mph. This compares to an averagelspeed eFigure 1 3.20 mph sates o w the system ress bus service under the No -Build Alteat might operate in the year 2020,a0,except duringheadwa ythe ifo for commuter rail, ated service gwo uend be peak periods. Off-peak one and a half times peak headnutes while commuter rail line would run and late night would be every periods. every 15 minutes during peak Bus er Opations. The Rail/TSM bus system is based on a modified TSM Alternative network. Modifications include: o truncating or deleting routes that duplicate rail service o modifying routes that pass close to proposed stations to serve those stations o adding new routes to rail stations from areas unserved by the TSM bus network. Routes that would be truncated or deleted include those providing express service along I-5, I-90, I-40c5ted RainieSR 520 rst of Avenue.SInhe North Corridif the JRPC or, new recom- mended alternative is selected, circulator routes would operate to Everett andu���a o East Corridor, a new route would operate from To District. In the South Corridor, new routes in Pierce County Fort wouldLope srattes to rail stations from Bonney Lake, Lakewood, Olympia, under the TSM Alternative, east -west service would be strengthened with added frequency and new routes. Current or planned bus rWould be disp a1 tced ontoown tdowntown Seat Jetle tunnel that re not replaced by the rail system these nrstreets, increasing travel be more thanthese offet by decreases in travel time increases in travel time o for other passengers, resulting in a net reduction in travel. Accessibility. Accessibility for transit riders would e significantlynd the increase by the increased speed and reliability of rail in March 1993 Transportation 3-111 Paine Field 4 15 Min. Everett 1 2 12 Min. Northgate 5 3 Downtown Seattle Tunnel Burien 4 15 Min. 4 Min. 10 Min. 2 Min. ZCombined Headway art Federal Way 5 3 10 Min. Tacoma Redmond 10 Min. / 2 12 Min. 1 Issaquah LEGEND Route Number Terminals Frequency 1 Everett - Issaquah 12 Mtn. 2 Everett - Redmond 10 Min. 3 Northgate - Tacoma 10 Min. 4 Paine Field - Burien 15 Min. 5 Northgate - Federal Way 4 Min. Scheduled Train Route Regional ;DI 7Yansit JIB' Project wo Doom • FENCE Coon • zaow1 camr RTPDD2 2020 Conceptual Rail Service Plan System Plan EIS FIGURE 3.20 service over the TSM Alternative. Of all the alternatives, the Rail/TSM Alternative would reduce transit travel times the most (see Table 3.9.2), due to greater frequency and 'speed and better connections between major centers along the I-5, I-405and I-90 corridors outside downtown Seattle, especially in the off-peak direction. Accessibility of employment centers by transit from low-income areas would significantly increase under this alternative, both relative to 1990 and to the No -Build Alternative. If the recommended Rainier Valley alignment is chosen, accessibility would particularly increase for the low-income popula- tion in that area. Transit travel times to employment centers outside Seattle from low income areas in Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma would decrease by about 28 percent from 1990 and be about 32 percent lower than for the No - Build Alternative. More employment centers would become reasonably accessible by transit, without a need to take very long trips. Transit System Ridership and Transfers. Ridership under the Rail/TSM Alternative would be 560,500 per day or 1573 million annually (see Table 3.9.4). This is 96 percent higher than 1990 ridership, 44 percent higher than under the No -Build Alternative, 18 percent higher than under the TSM Alternative, and 16 percent higher than under the Transitway/TSM Alter- native. Only 42 percent of the increase under the Rail/TSM Alternative is due to growth in population and employment. Eighteen percent is due to changes in highway speeds and parking costs, while 40 percent is due to improved transit service. As shown in Table 3.9.5, ridership would substan- tially outpace population growth. Annual trips per capita would be 26 percent higher than in 1990. The transfer rate for the Rail/TSM Alternative would be 1.5, the highest of the alternatives, because of greater transit frequencies serving transfer points, such as downtown Seattle, transit centers, and park -and -rides. In the model used for forecasting ridership, bus routes were truncated only if total system ridership would not decline. Therefore, most transfers would be "opportunistic" rather than "forced;" i.e., the bus -rail transfers are permitted to occur rather than required to occur. In other cities with rail, higher transfer rates are typically caused by bus networks that were developed specifically to feed the rail system. Transit Ridership By Corridor. Transit ridership would increase over the No -Build Alternative 46 percent or 65,000 per day in the North Corridor, 60 percent or 20,000 in the East Corridor, 56 percent or 55,000 in the South Corridor, and 27 percent or 32,000 trips in downtown Seattle, illustrating a dramatic increase in transit level -of -service (see Table 3.9.6). Transit Ridership By Mode of Access. Seventy-four percent of riders would reach the transit network by walking while 26 percent would drive, an increase in drive access over the No -Build Alternative. This is due to the emphasis on transit stations, rail stations, and park-and-ride facilities under the Rail/TSM Alternative. Transit Volumes at Selected Screenlines. Increases in transit ridership at screenlines range from a low of 24 percent to a high of over 900 percent as compared to the No -Build Alternative. The largest increase would occur on I-405 near Bothell. The smallest increase would occur across the West Seattle Bridge. Ridership at the other screenlines would increase 38 to 88 3-113 March 1993 Transportation percent over the No -Build Alternative. These ridership increases result from the higher level of transit service provided by the rail system. Mode Split. The transit share of work trips would be significantly higher than under the other alternatives (see Table 3.9.8). The University s eD, butt nd downtown Seattle would still be the most transit -oriented Northgate, downtown Bellevue, Renton, and Tukwila also would have strong transit ridership. The si a . 'cant increase in transit's share directly reflects the improved service o ' ered by a rail system. Daily Rail Passenger Volumes. For the recommended alignments, the highest passenger volumes are expected in downtown Seattle with 124,000 daily passengers (Figure 3.21). The second highest volume would be between Capitol Hill and the University District with 105,000 daily passengers. Daily passenger volumes greater than 50,000 are also expected between the University District and North Seattle and between downtown Seattle and Boeing Field. Passenger volumes between Seattle and Bellevue would total about 40,000 daily trips. Passenger,volumes drop below 30,000 north of Montlake Terrace, east of Bellevue, and south of the Kent/Des Moines area. Ridership on the I-5 alignment in the North Corridor would be less than the Capitol Hill alignment by 27,000 trips per day. Ridership on the Duwamish alignment in the South Corridor would be less shf thantheR nt would Valler affect y alignments by 13,000 trips per day. The choicelam; ridership north of the University District or south of Boeing Access Road. Phasing and System Ridershiy. Because the rail system would be built over a period of years, system ridership could be affected by land use decisions and development that occurs outside the areas served by the initial rail segments. To the extent that potential station areas are developed in a transit -friendly way prior to being served by rail, overall system ridership will be increased when rail lines reach these areas. The policies of RTP to coordinate with local jurisdictions to preserve rail right-of-way and encourage denser devel- opment in selected potential station areas should have the effect of increas- ing ridership in suburban areas beyond that estimated in the ridership model- ing. In addition, the willingness of local jurisdictions to institute transit - friendly land use and parking policies will increase the likelihood that these areas will be served by the rapid transit system. Commuter Rail Element Commuter rail would operate approximately every fifteen minutes in the peak period and as needed in the off-peak period. The commuter rail line would carry 1,000 to 7,000 passengers per day, with the highest ridership occurring between Kent and downtown Seattle. This would remove about 700 to 750 automobile trips per day. Operations would be coordinated with freight and, if necessary, Amtrak operations. No significant conflicts are expected to occur. Operations could cause significant increases in automo- bile traffic at some stations. General surface traffic could be affected at grade crossings during peak hours, increasing congestion and risks of accidents. A joint analysis by the Port of Seattle and Metro has indicated that commuter rail operations would not adversely affect freight operations Transportation 3-114 March 1993 DREIT tet~-\tt 1 ma CREEKN __ -- �_�/��...-.....-\ Q /'T- 1 SNOHOAI94 COUNTY CNC CQ.Mr �J \ W00DINVILLE 4P LAKE REDMOND • ISSAQUAH `• 0 1 I > 111.11� ; l CR AUBURN` :• • `� M \� PUYALLUP BONNEYLAKE ^ , ,..6A) Regional -w Transit Project Y:,G COCOUNTY • SNO40M154 COU.( TY 002 I:Vn-2001b•wmap-b cdr 02-22.93 2020 Daily Rail Passen Sere of amyPnE S s FIGURE 3.21 between Tacoma and Seattle. Commuter rail would be implemented in such a way as to preserve needed freight capacity for the foreseeable future. WSDOT is also making significant investments in track, signal, andade crossing improvements over the next decade that could significantly benefit rail operations. Other Mass Transit Modes The rail system and TSM improvements would significantly enhance connections to intercity bus and rail lines, ferry service, and Sea -Tac Airport. It would reduce the need to use automobiles to reach these facilities. The increased speed and accessibility provided by the system would increase walk-on ferry traffic, reducing the need to expand ferry vehicle capacity. The system may have an adverse effect on airporter ridership and intercity bus ridership between Tacoma, Seattle, and Everett. Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation Bicycles would be carried on feeder and regional bus routes and rail lines, consistent with operating safety, service quality, and passenger comfort. Stations would include safe and convenient bicycle access. Station and park- and-ride lots would include weather -protected bicycle storage. Bicycle access and storage improvements within 1/4 mile of stations and alon& arterials with HOV improvements would also be included. Rapid transit facilities would be designed to avoid blocking current pedestrian and bicycle access across rights-of-way. During the project level phase, bicycle paths would be built adjacent to rail alignments where feasible. All of these improvements would facilitate use of bicycles for regional trips and encourage less use of single -occupant vehicles. Measures to improve pedestrian access to the transit system would be similar to those for the TSM Alternative and would have a beneficial effect on transit ridership and on reduction of SOV use. Relationship to Commute Trip Reduction Service increases under this alternative would support commute trip reduc- tion efforts throughout the region. Completion of the HOV system and provision of artenal HOV improvements would also provide incentives for increasing vanpooling and carpooling. 3.9.4 Mitigation Measures 3.9.4.1 Construction Impact Mitigation The RTP would work with local jurisdictions and neighborhoods to reduce local construction impacts. Mitigation for traffic impacts could include warning motorists and neighborhood residents of construction areas and designating alternate routes. Detour signing, normal construction safety actions, and a detailed traffic impact mitigation plan would be required. The RTP would also work with BN and/or UP to mitigate construction impacts on their operations. Transportation 3-116 March 1993 For the Transitway/TSM Alternative or the I-5 alignment of the Rail/TSM Alternative, the RTP could institute major trip reduction programs to mitigate the effects of eliminating two or all of the I-5 reversible lanes, including incentives to take transit, additional service and park -and -rides, and public education campaigns. The RTP could fund street improvements in local neighborhoods to discourage traffic diverted from I-5 in those neigh- borhoods. For the Transitway/TSM Alternative, congestion pricing could allow subscribing SOVs to use the transitway, thus increasing capacity. Regional impacts of building the Rail/TSM Alternative could be mitigated by carefully phasing construction to minimize local and regional traffic impacts. As much as possible, all construction in a given location should be done at the same time to avoid future disruptions. Each construction task should be completed as quickly and efficiently as possible. Lane closures should take place during off-peak traffic periods to minimize peak -hour disruption. Where construction noise was not an issue, work could continue on weekends and after normal working hours to reduce traffic disruption. Traffic disruptions on freeways could also be reduced by public information measures, including publicity about the location of construction and advice about alternate routes and a construction location hotline for motorists. Traffic along construction routes could be reduced by providing special transit service and vanpools to carry travelers through construction areas. In cooperation with WSDOT and local jurisdictions, the RTP could institute an incident management program to speed up response to freeway incidents causing congestion, thus improving the effective capacity of roadways during the construction phase. In the South Corridor, early implementation of commuter rail would mitigate traffic impacts by providing an alternative means of reaching downtown Seattle from Pierce County and south King County. 3.9.4.2 Mitigation of Operations Impact The build alternatives would, for the most part, benefit regional transporta- tion and mitigate current mobility problems. However, stations and park- and-ride lots could have local traffic impacts. The RTP would work with local jurisdictions, communities, and neighborhoodsto identify appropriate mitigation during project -level environmental review. Mitigation might include improving local roadway capacity, street enhancements to keep park- and-ride or station traffic out of neighborhoods, the use of residential parking zones, charging for SOVs using park-and-ride lots, and increasing feeder buses serving the park-and-ride to reduce the need for additional parking spaces. To enhance pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections at stations, mitigation could include improving transit connections, improving pedestrian and bicycle facilities on surrounding streets, discouraging automobile traffic, and reducing parking. RTP will work with local jurisdictions to develop parking management plans for centers and transit corridors. Such plans will reduce the traffic demand generated by rapid transit stations and help to increase transit ridership. Parking management programs will include providing preferential parking for HOVs and charging for parking for SOVs. Transportation 3-117 March 1993 Impacts of stray current on reinforced concrete structures could be mitigated with increased inspection and maintenance of these structures. Traffic impacts of commuter rail stations could be reduced by providing additional small non -park-and-ride stations with limited stop service along the commuter rail route. 3.10 Land Use and Economics Major transportation improvements, including new rapid transit systems, do not "cause" land use changes or economic development by themselves. New development patterns are produced by complex mteractions among many variables, including health of the national and regional economy, balance between transportation and development, land use policies and tax structure, political leadership, and public consensus on a region's future. The link between transportation and land use is strong and it is futile to consider one without the other when we look to the future of our region. Transportation provides the means for us to get to the importantlaces in our lives -- where we live, work, play, go to school and conduct our daily business. Land use shapes the way these places look and feel, and how conveniently we can use our transportation system to get to them. This analysis examines the potential for development and land use change under each of the alterna- tives, both regionally and around stations. Development may be encouraged where it is desirable or prevented where it is not, depending on the vision and desires of local jurisdictions and communities. This section considers impacts of the alternatives on land use in the region. Chapter 4 considers the relationship of the alternatives to land use pohcies and plans. 3.10.1 3.10.1.1 Table 3.10.1. County King Pierce Snohomish Region Affected Environment Land Use, Population and Employment Employment In the 1980s, regional employment grew by 34 percent to 1,432,500 (Table 3.10.1). The economy shifted from manufacturing to nonmanufacturing sectors, particularly consumer, producer, and health services and eating and drinking establishments.• About 65 percent of regional employment is m services, 17 percent in government, and 16.5 percent in manufacturing. Estimated Employment. 1980 to 1990. 1980 758,021 185,623 116,582 1,060,226 1990 Share 1990 % Change of Jobs 1,004,300 32.1 70% 243,900 31.4 17% 184,300 58.1 13% 1,432,500 34.2 100% Source: Population and Employment Forecasts, 1988; Revised in 1990; PSCOG. Land Use and Economics 3-118 March 1993 Table 3.10.2. County Parts of Seattle, Bellevue, and Tacoma have the highest employment densities at more than 100 jobs per acre. Everett and the Tacoma Mall area have more than 25 jobs per acre. Downtown Seattle, Bellevue, and Tacoma and Seattle's University District are the major regional office and commercial centers. Employment is in finance/real estate, health services, trade, producer services, and government (including education). Renton and southwest Everett include industrial centers with employment densities over 25 jobs per acre. Densities in other industrial centers, including Tukwila, Kent, Auburn, and Skyway/Boeing Field, are typically quite low. Population and Housing The region's population increased 22 percent from 1980 to 1990 to 2.6 million people m one million households. King County contained 59 percent of that population, with 23 percent in Pierce County and 18 percent in Snohomish County. Households are substantially more dispersed throughout the region than employment. Areas near downtown Seattle and Tacoma exceed 21 units per acre. Densities between five and nine units per acre are found in the oldest Seattle and Tacoma suburbs, close to downtown Bellevue, and near I-5. Most of the region is below five units per acre. Between 1980 and 1989, occupied housing units increased 24 percent. This trend is expected to continue during the next 30 years(Table 3.1 . ). lowest Snohomish County will grow at the fastest rate and King County rate. Rapid growth is particularly evident in the new residential developments on previously vacant and rural land. In spite of this rapid housing supply growth, prices have increased. Increased prices and low vacancies mean there is not enough housing to meet the demand. There is growing concern that many communities do not have enough affordable housing for those employed in the community, especially retail and service workers. 1990-2020 Proiected Population,Household, and Employment Growth. King Pierce Snohomish Population Growth Household Growth Employment Growth 45% 54% 84% Source: PSCOG 1990. 57% 70% 104% 63% - 62% 99% In the 1980s, the housing supply grew fastest near suburban employment and shopping centers. Nearly 73 percent of single-family units built in 1988 were in unincorporated areas. Strong housing demand has also caused land conversion and infill in older neighborhoods. For example, in 1989 6.5 new housing units were created in Seattle for each unit removed (PSCOG 1990). Regionally, new multifamily units built have exceeded single family units in every year since 1985. Housing is considered affordable if housing and utility costs are no more than 30 percent of household income. Average single family home prices far exceed that measure of affordability and the number of affordable housing units is declining. At the same time, the number of poor families has increased and their average income has declined. It takes a wage 230 Land Use and Economics 3-119 March 1993 Sercent higher than minimum wage to pay the average rent in Washington tate (PSCOG 1990). There are also significant differences for housing prices and rental rates within the region. For example, rents in Pierce County are 26 percent lower than in King County. Within King County, certain areas, such as the Green River valley and Rainier Valley, contain most of the affordable housing. This may change by 2020 due to growth management policies encouraging a wider distribution of affordable housing. Housing costs are determined largely b the interaction of supply and demand. However, other factors sig cantly affect both supply and demand, such as interest rates and land avai aI bili p ability. A t the local level, housing costs are affected by location, access to employment, neighborhood amenities or disamenities, and the availability of public facilities. Not all of these factors are straightforward in their effect on prices. For example, being close to centers can involve disamenities, such as high levels of traffic, even though employment access is an advantage. Similarly, while compact residential development generates lower land costs, housing units may not be more affordable, due to higher construction costs or the nature of demand in a submarket. Land Use and Employment Centers North Corridor. The highest densities are between downtown Seattle and Northgate, with multi -family and high-density single-family units, concentrat- ed; retail, and the University of Washington.Northgate and Lynnwood are smalleretail/office areas separated by low-density suburban housing. Everett has medium to high density commercial, residential, and institutional uses. Major employment centers include downtown Seattle, University District, Queen Anne, First Hill, Ballard, Northgate, Edmonds, Lynnwood, southwest Everett, downtown Everett, and Marysville. Southwest Everett is expected to become a primary employment center in the state. South Corridor employment centers include the Duwamish valley, downtown Renton, Tukwila, SeaTac, Kent, Auburn, Federal Way, downtown Tacoma, Puyallup, Sumner, and Lakewood. The Duwamish valley has relatively high- density industrial development. Rainier Valley has medium to high density residential development with some commercial, retail, and industrial uses. Farther south, the I-5 corridor has low to medium density retail and residential development, as well as Sea -Tac Airport. East of I-5, Renton and the Green River valley contain low to medium -density industrial, residential, and agricultural uses and may grow significantly due to major generators such as Boeing. The Puyallup/Fife area and the Tacoma Tideflats are urban areas with low to medium -density industrial, residential and auto -oriented commercial development. Tacoma has relatively high-density residential development, as well as major industrial and retail uses. Downtown Tacoma is a medium to high-density commercial, governmental, and financial center, with an industrial area to the south. The Lakewood area is a commercial and residential area. It is designated as a subregional center in Vision 2020. South of Tacoma, McChord Air Force Base, Fort Lewis, and Madison General Hospital are major employers. The East Corridor has dispersed commercial, office, and industrial activity centers surrounded by low-density housing. Downtown Bellevue is a regional high-density office and commercial center with some high-density residential development. Kirkland has areas of moderate residential density. Land Use and Economics 3-120 March 1993 Downtown Redmond has moderate -density office, commercial, and industrial development. Factoria, Issaquah, Kirkland, Juanita, Totem Lake, Bothell, and the-Bel-Red area have moderate -density e and dstdee and the I-90 corridor have rhail andurial develop- ment. Neighborhoods and Neighborhood Facilities Neighborhoods are defined residential areas, often surrounding a core of busmesses and community facilities. Facilities important to neighborhood health include restaurants, drugstores, grocery stores, schools, libraries, post offices, and churches. Access to facilities and to other residences is crucial in preserving neighborhood integrity, making neighborhoods vulnerable to barriers caused by transportation projects. Some facilities are also sensitive to other impacts, such as noise and vibration. Employment and Population Trends Employment and population growth will be slower than in the past 30 years. Nevertheless, by 2020 regional employment will grow by more than 800,000 jobs, virtually all in trade and services. In 2020, those sectors will provide almost two-thirds of the region's jobs. Population will grow by more than a million. The areas of future employment and population growth depend on local government policies for transportation and land use. Growth pressures are strong in present employment centers, particularly downtown Seattle, Belle- vue, Tacoma, and Everett, along freeway corridors, and on the urban fringe. Because the distribution of growth depends on public policy, PSRC has made two sets of forecasts. While the overall amount of growth will be based on relatively uncontrollable economic patterns, the distribution of growth may change. The adopted 2020 forecasts predict regional patterns under presently adopted local land use policies (Figure 3.22). The Vision 2020 forecasts predict the growth pattern if local jurisdictions adopt strong growth manage- ment policies and direct growth into already -existing centers. On a regional level, Vision 2020 would direct more growth to urbanized Pierce and Snohomish counties and reduce growth in King County and rural Snohomish County. The Vision 2020 forecasts will likely prove to be more accurate as counties and local jurisdictions implement growth management policies. 3.10.2 Construction Impacts 3.10.2.1 No -Build Alternative Construction impacts would be minor. Increases in park-and-ride capacity would be subject to project -level environmental review. This construction would probably not affect land use outside of construction sites. 3.10.2.2 TSM Alternative The TSM Alternative would need about 175 acres of new right-of-way in the North Corridor, 129 acres in the South Corridor, and 70 acres in the East Corridor (Parsons/Kaiser 1991). About 199 acres would be commercial or industrial and about 174 acres would be in residential areas. Some businesses and residences would be relocated. Construction could disrupt Land Use and Economics 3-121 March 1993 NIB MI Regional Transit ect 0000 own,• PEKE00tMPf • 001012111 000.0m RTPF O4R Less than 30,000 Employees Forecast 2020 Employment Percent increase from 1990 to 2020 Source: PSCOG Population and Employment Forecasts, 1988 2020 Areas of Major EnTPI Ymd nj System FIGURE 322.; Land Use and Economics 3-123 March 1993 3.10.3 temporary business closures. Dust and mud could significantly increase cleaning costs. Some businesses near station areas might fail or move. The Rail/TSM Alternative would cost about $11.5 billion. Assuming a proportion of exogenous funding similar to that for the recommended draft System Plan, this would create some 1,300 construction jobs for the 25 -year construction period and 1,700 jobs in related industries (BRW 1991b) and generate $6.2 billion worth of production in the -region. Commuter Rail Element The system would require no additional railroad right-of-way. Construction impacts would be minor. There may be temporary disruption in accessibility for customers and deliveries to businesses. Operations Impacts Urban sprawl is generally described as land development which requires the construction of significant new infrastructure occurring at the fringe of the urbanized region before the development of available land which is served by existing infrastructure within the urbanized boundary. In the Puget Sound region, urban sprawl has occurred in two ways. The first form has resulted from rapid growth of smaller cities, which were originally beyond urban. boundaries, as bedroom communities for commuters. The second form has involved the acquisition and development of very large tracks of land by a single owner/developer at sites beyond the urban boundary.:; Environmental Impacts The negative environmental impacts associated with sprawl-inclu o reduced accessibility because of difficulty in serving low density with transit o highway congestion on suburban roads and freeways o increases in automobile VMT, auto emissions and highway noise o increases in energy consumption o loss of open space, agricultural lands, and wildlife habitat o increased surface water runoff and contamination o social, economic, or racial divisiveness o capital cost of providing new infrastructure and services. o higher profit and lower risks associated with developments on large tracts of•land in single ownership o growth of employment opportunities in the suburbs o growth of households with two or more workers and the likelihood that at least one will be working in the suburbs o high levels of automobile ownershi o the fact that many of the social anal -environmental costs of driving are not borne by automobile owners o continuing improvements in the road network o widespread availability of free parking in suburban locations. Effects of RTP Alternatives on Sprawl The most sprawl -resistant of the transit alternatives without long-term growth management actions are likely to be less effective in combating sprawl than would the least sprawl -resistant alternative in tandem with an ambitious growth management program. This is due to the sheer mass and inertia of the existing land use base in the region. No transit alternative will have much of a land use impact unless other complementary actions are associated with it. Transit system alternatives can help reinforce or hinder efforts to management growth in the region. The likelihood of the various RTP alternatives to have an impact on sprawl are discussed in the sections below. 3.10.3.1 -No-Build Alternative Regional Land Use, Population, and Employm Under this alternative, transit would not support thegoals-of Vision"2020 an growth management to concentrate development and curb urban sprawl. Increased densities may not be achievable or desirable without improved transit facilities and service to alleviate traffic congestion near urban centers. Continued traffic congestion could result in effective moratoria on new development. The pattern of low-density residential development would likely continue. Seattle, Bellevue, Everett, and Tacoma would continue as major urban employment centers. Major employment centers would follow the I-5 corri- dor and the Green River valley. On the eastside, major centers would extend from Lake Washington to the Sammamish Plateau. Traffic congestion would increase delivery costs and make businesses less accessible to employees, causing some relocation from downtown areas to less congested areas. The supply of affordable housing would tend to be located farther away from centers and costs of housing close to employment centers would increase. The annual operating and maintenance costs for the No -Build Alternative , would be about $274 million (1991 dollars). Corridor Impacts North Corridor. Growth in principal activity centers except Everett would be limited by increasing congestion and decreasing accessibility. Low-density infill could occur between centers. Pressure would increase for urban sprawl. The South Corridor's land use pattern would likely remain the same or intensify. Most changes would occur in present urban areas, although Land Use and Economics 3-125 March 1993 increasing congestion could add pressure for sprawl and low density growth on the urban fringe toward Puyallup and in rural Pierce County. East Corridor. Auto -oriented land uses and dispersed land use patterns would remain. Existing activity centers would continue to develop Limited growth would occur as infill or in areas where road capacities permitted. Pressure for urban sprawl would intensify. Local Impacts The No -Build Alternative would have only minor direct local impacts. The few additional park-and-ride lots may discourage nearby residential land uses and increase incentives for auto -related development. Regionally, worsening traffic congestion could lead to lower property values and instability of uses in some neighborhoods. 3.10.3.2 TSM Altemative Regional Land Use, Population, and Employment. Improvements to the HOV system and increased transit accessibility may help to improve mobility to and from major urban centers, allowing employ- ment growth to continue and reducing commercial traffic costs as compared to the No -Build Alternative. Impp roved: transit mobility would also make lower cost housing more accessible to employment. centers., The TSM Alter -42 nati ewould need abut 3 ' Build Alternative: Table 3:10:3) „A ,,it ' e,$399,mil on (1991 doll : . Table 3.10.3. Operations"and MairitenanceEmpioyees yo is' t1li,rlo- tenance,costs vane xiLo:Y r Alternative Transitway/ Rail/ Transit Provider No -Build TSM TSM TSM Community Transit 815 1440 1510 1493 Everett Transit 89 169 169 117 Metro 3533 5832 5912 4801 Pierce Transit 513 594 594 465 Rail 2056* Total 4950 8035 8185 8932 * Includes 211 employees for Tacoma -Seattle Commuter Rail Source: Padron 1992 Corridor Impacts Services oriented to transit riders and employers in centers where auto access is constrained through traffic congestion or parking costs will benefit from increased transit accessibility, which in turn will increase development oppor- tunities and pressures and transit -supportive land uses (Figure 3.23). North Corridor. Activity centers along SR -99 and I-5 may have intensified commercial and multi -family development, especially since mixed-use devel- opment is being encouraged in the mass -transit corridor centers in Snoho- mish County. Other new and improved transit access points could also experience pressures to increase densities. Existing low density residential Land Use and Economics 3-126 March 1993 Transit Transit Supportive Land Uses System Plan EIS FIGURE 3.23 areas would probably not be affected unless located within walking distance of existing or new transit centers or park-and-ride lots. South. Corridor. Capacity increases due to park-and-ride lots and HOV lanes could permit some further land use intensification. towards office areas in South Seattle and the Duwamish valley that evolving development could benefit from improved transit access. Activity centers would absorb additional development, especially near new transit hubs and park-and-ride lots. East Corridor. Additional growth within major activity centers could be supported by improvements to transit systems. Existing low density residen- tial areas would likely not be affected unless they were close to existing or new transit hubs or park-and-ride lots, where pressure may increase for multi -family development or convenience retail services. Large volumes of traffic may also increase pressure for change in the immediate area of park- and-ride lots. Local Impacts Employment and population concentrations may increase around major transit transfer points, particularly in urban areas, including Aurora Village, Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond, Burien, Kent, Auburn, Southcenter, SeaTac, and Renton. However, transfer pointsat park-and-ride lots near freeway interchanges will not cause much activity center development. Mixed-use development may be encouraged as a matter of jurisdictional policy to reduce trips and increase the convenience and accessibility of transit. neighborhood land uses could be affected by new or expanded park-and-ride pits Traffic congestion, noise, exhaust emissions, negative visual; quality, u t and glare, and safety and security issues couldeduce nearby quality of == life, increasing pressure for land use change toward more auto -oriented uses. Operation of new bus maintenance and storage facilities may also affect nearby land uses by increasing traffic and noise. 3.10.3.3 Transitway/TSM Alternative Regional Land Use, Population, and Employment Like the TSM Alternative, increased accessibility and supportive land use plans and zoning may encourage emplioyment and population growth in some major centers under the Transitway/TSM Alternative. This effect will be limited because transitways will in general end on the periphery of activity centers. Typically, transitways are not extended into activity centers because every time the buses leave the main line of a transitway to stop, it. results in a loss of time savings, defeating the benefits of an exclusive right-of-way for buses. Transitways usually are not very compatible with activity centers, because their structure, which is similar to that of elevated freeways, is intru- sive, requires significant amounts of land, and is disruptive to other uses. Reductions in traffic congestion may reduce commercial traffic costs as compared to the No -Build Alternative. The Transitway/TSM Alternative will have a moderately positive impact on housing supply by further improving access to employment. Housing prices may increase in centers with good walking access to the transitway. Land Use and Economics 3-128 March 1993 The Transitway/TSM Alternative would need about 3,235 more employees than No -Build No -Build Alternative (Table 3.10.3). Annual operating and maintenance costs would be $406 million (1 91 dollars). Corridor Impacts North Corridor. Land use impacts are likely to be similar to those of the TSM Alternative, although the addition of park -and -rides and on-line stations could induce moderate land use intensification in activity centers, particularly at Northgate and in south Snohomish County. South Corridor. Land use impacts are likely to be similar to those of the TSM Alternative, although there may be some moderate land use intensifi- cation close to activity centers, particularlyocorridor, whersouth of the �entgdome in ransit accessattle, in the Duwamish Valley, an along would be improved. East Corridor. Land use impacts fazreeway e accessibito be l lityuthe T to �ansse itway/TSM f the TSM Alternative. By improving Alternative may help intensify development in existing activity centers. Local Impacts Transitway alignments would not have major impacts on neighborhoods. Local impacts of stations, park-and-ride lots, and maintenance be a limit- acilities would be similar to those under the TSM_Aliernat Ve. ere ma ons, since ed increase in residential-00100Wmndens�ty w7. the alternative would .slightly: increase ca a(1ty_�and;accessibilhty over -the TSM Alternative. Because-areas;;around o a e fey St ti of likelnt y to be and -ride lots suffer from increased noise an . tr 4 . e� . attractive locations for high density residential -development. • 3.10.3.4 RaiUTSM Alternative Regional Land Use, Population, and Employment This alternative has the greatest potential to affect regional land use, popula- tion, and employment. Additional rail transit capacity would greatly enhance accessibility to regional centers near transit stations, creating incentives for higher employment and population concentrations in most of the centers designated by PSCOG s Vision 2020 Preferred Alternative, stimulating new development in downtown Tacoma and Everett, and helping define concen- trated downtown cores in other emerging urban areas. These esidential devel- opment, become magnets for office, retail, and high-density particularly in less dense urban areas. The added transportationSeattle capacity may help to relieve pressure for limiting downtown growth and Bellevue. Reductions in congestion in these centers may also reduce commercial traffic costs. The Rail/TSM Alternative will thus allow local jurisdictions to focus redevelopment activities in station areas and comply with growth management requirements. Employment centers in the region will become more accessible to low-cost housing areas, but housing pices within centers will tend to increase (BRW 1991g, Parsons/Kaiser 1991e). Station areas near freeways would l attract ercial or high-density residentaBvtopment.In manycases, freeway stations would Land Use and Economics 3-129 March 1993 be beyond convenient walking distance of a center's downtown and would have a limited tendency to intensify uses. The Rail/TSM Alternative would require about 3,992 more employees than the No -Build Alternative (Table 3.10.3). The annual operating and maintenance cost would be $492 million (1991 dollars). Stations with park-and-ride lots located near the urban growth boundaries may encourage some urban sprawl. Park-and-ride lots may also take land near stations that could be used for high-density development, although joint development use of air rights over lots could still be pursued. The existence of such facilities makes it easier for people to live further out, beyond the reaches of transit service. However, the effect on sprawl is unlikely to be significant in relation to existing transportation infrastructure in those areas. A trade-off between encouraging transit -supportive density by limiting the amount of parking spaces at stations and encouraging ridership by providing parking and increasing the draw area of a station should be considered in the design of a system. Corridor Impacts . North Corridor. The key operational impacts would occur at station :locations where transit activities may encourage greater intensification of land uses. Existing communities and neighborhoods, such as the University District, Northgate, Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, and Everett could experience pressures to increase densities and.;types4ofpermitted uses to meet the needs of transit riders }More autoorenited areas may experience :pressure for;intensified deve10 ment-a�.rou l station areas Thepattern of : more established denser mixed uscente . rs w ou�l�'�h-'remforCev i $ T. } q*'T Ae t `^^ . �i T yt s � j jtr�y i y• ~«.rn v, t „ South _Corridor. -Pressure'for land use change wool be=great st where he ` rail line passes directly through commercial or residantial'areas. Land use impacts would be limited where rapid rail follows established freeway or rail rights-of-way. Land use could intensify in centers served by rail, including Rainier Valley, SeaTac, Des Moines, Federal Way, Tukwila, Kent, Auburn, and Fife. Commuter Rail Element. New development, redevelopment or infill, and land use intensification could occur at stations, replacing dispersed auto - oriented land uses. There may be adverse impacts to residential uses near park-and-ride lots. Conversion of agricultural lands in the Green and Puyallup River valleys to other uses could be accelerated as an indirect impact. East Corridor. Since rapid rail would use established rights-of-way to a large extent, land use impacts would primarily occur around station areas. There may be pressure for changes to mixed uses and greater intensities in these areas, including Mercer Island, Factoria, Bellevue, Overlake, Redmond, Kirkland, Bothell, and Issaquah. Local Impacts The potential for station -area impacts to neighborhoods would be greater than under the other build alternatives. In addition, at -grade or aerial alignments may restrict access to some businesses and community facilities. Urban center stations would emphasize transit and pedestrian connections and typically would "not include parking. These stations offer joint Land Use and Economics 3-130 March 1993 development opportunities (Figure 324) and, given concurrence of local jurisdictions, could have high density office, commercial, or residential development. Stations in activity centers would be similar, but might also offer parking. In some centers, there might be pressure for development at a scale greater than that envisioned in local plans. Land values could increase, displacing smaller scale or underutilized activities, and making parking devel- opment expensive. Stations in neighborhoods could also result in pressure for land use changes as property around stations becomes more valuable. If land use did change, impacts could be either positive or negative. Stable single-family neighbor- hoods could be adversely affected if change was allowed by the local juris- diction. A new rail station, in concert with supportive zoning and tax policies, could cause desirable land use changes in unstable, deteriorating, or changing neighborhoods. Park-and-ride stations would have impacts similar to those associated with bus transit park-and-ride lots, as described for the TSM Alternative. These impacts could decrease the value and desirability of adjacent properties for residential or neighborhood commercial use, unless stations were designed as part of multi-purpose, joint developments. Joint development between private developers and transportation agencies can result in such facilities as office buildings or shopping centers combined with park-and-ride stations. epninal stations at the temporary or permanent ends of the rail system ..ould°have greater landuse impacts than other stations, both because they would3require land for rail- car; storage, and because they would be major commuter intercept pomts, Vthusincreasing local traffic. Land speculation and pressure. -for service development may occur. These impacts may decreasetlie desirability of nearby properties for residential or small-scale commercial use.' An exception is the commuter rail terminal in downtown Seattle, which could become part of a multi -modal transportation center. Maintenance facilities would need large areas for rail car storage and movement. Because they would be located in industrial areas, they would probably not affect adjacent land uses. 3.10.4 Mitigation of Impacts 3.10.4.1 Design Process Transit agencies will work with communities in the design process to minimize development, reduce incompatibilities of design or scale, and provide access across alignments. Such measures could include reduction in station size, design features compatible with surrounding uses, pedestrian amenities, provision or denial of automobile access, and visual corridors around stations and across alignments. If local traffic is increased by a transit facility, transit agencies could provide traffic circles and barriers to keep traffic on arterials and off neighborhood streets. Increased feeder bus service to park-and-ride lots could reduce the required size and scale of these facilities. For a further discussion of land use and station area planning, see BRW (1991). Land Use and Economics 3-131 March 1993 fk & 6 t9AflgCIeS, CA 11111r 411112"r: "etve".P. 111111hulit/,! 1111111."11111X: Ita0%asi .„10,19eAmmesumoioy-=wiffew mpo-ffl dui c.t,r timple,;1 ivA , , iriip Irr,777;71,11,747",;:,..,;)7,1r7. 17.!17.7. ifer4FtTi7i4•77.774--,*,,- 1 0 ..;'.11.,:;11•ItrAlliti:1711111,ili..:, iii:;4 .--- ___ Miliiii4". sorsomirifiv. Liddlif,f rim ilttitta= Portland, OR rie:•%41 11111.11 ON Regional Transit Project IONG COUNT . PENCE COUNTY • OCNOMISH COUNT; FROMM Example of Mixed -Use Joint Development in Other Cities System Plan EIS FIGURE 3.24 3.10.4.2 Land use Planning Transit facilities can only induce. development with the support of local jurisdictions. Transit agencies will work with local jurisdictions and communities to develop land use plans around stations and park-and-ride lots to promote certain types of development or preserve areas from devel- opment. However, in certain areas, particularly near some rail stations, there may be tremendous pressure for changes in land use plans to allow increased development. Housing price increases in centers can be offset by encouraging higher density affordable housing. Higher density is generally a necessary condition, but it is not a sufficient condition, to achieve affordable housing. The RTP could work with local jurisdictions to include affordable housing in joint development and station area plans and regulatory and incentive programs. The RTP could also help assemble land parcels in centers for affordable residential development. 3.10.4.3 Relocation and Displacement Procedures During the design process, the exact location of rights-of-way will be deter- minedRight-of-way acquisition would begin once plans are approved and the project is funded. The project's acquisition and relocation procedures are based on the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition. Policies Act of 1970 and state law in Chapter 8.26yof the Revised,mCode of Washington Any persons displaced from homb es, usinesses or fars-will be provided uniform and equitable treatment - Properties to be acquired will be independently appraised for fair market value. The U.S. and Washington State Constitutions guarantee that: "No private property shall be taken or damaged for public or private use without just compensation ..." The difference between the market value "before" and the market value "after" is the just compensation. Purchase offers statingust compensation will be made to property owners. If possible, property would be acquired by negotiation. If negotiations fail, property would be acquired by eminent domain. Eligible individuals, families, businesses, or organizations will receive advisory services and may receive moving costs, housing replacement, rental assistance, or business relocation benefits to minimize hardship and provide .the assistance necessary to accomplish this consistently. The program would: o determine the needs of each person to be displaced o provide information on comparable replacement properties o establish eligibility payments and arrange moves. Various loans and loan guarantees are also available to businesses that can demonstrate need and repay loans and whose preservation will increase or preserve employment. The transit agencies could help businesses determine their eligibility and apply for such loans. Land Use and Economics 3-133 March 1993 3.1 0.4.4 Local Impacts Transit agencies would work with businesses and residents to reduce adverse impacts of facility construction and operation. Construction mitigation could include phasing to ensure preservation of access to adjacent properties; provision of temporary access; compensation for increased expenses (such as cleaning costs); and other measures to reduce noise, air quality, and visual impacts. In addition to mitigation described in the other sections, transit agencies could provide funds for property improvements such as vegetative screening and noise -reducing windows. If construction of major facilities, such as underground stations, would have significant impacts on commercial areas, the RTP would work with business owners to minimize business loss or provide reasonable compensation. Mitigation plans could include: o providing temporary replacement parking o providing shuttle bus and/or increased transit service to affected areas o providing signage, advertising, and incentives for customers o compensation for increased costs of deliveries, cleaning, etc. o making property improvements to reduce construction impacts o compensating for loss of business during construction o aid m relocating to another area o modifying station locations to reduce traffic impacts o mod' g station locations to reduce impacts to sensitive businesses o suspending construction during the peak retail season r o limiting surface construcnon-to'midday a ;en ng•or ght hours o making special access;provis ons for a Berl and dis bi��l erso ��.. .... a .•... .. _- . c..__.: .:.<. >:,5 �.. k,,a.. �.• a-s,i��4e.ri:;F.3:aw"•'•d='sS�7�.fie�4'}h'+i?��:•�-�?rt�^. 3.11 Utilities and Public Service 3.11.1 3.11.2 Affected Environment Mobile public services, such rnceses fi h as meldilcal and educsolid ational 'oval and recycling, and facility -based services, facili- ties, post offices, libraries, community and social service centers, government offices, police stations, jails, solid waste transfer stations, and recycling centers, could be affected by the alternatives. Affected utilities could include storm and sanitary sewer systems, water distribution systems, gas lines, telephone and other communications systems, and electric utilities. In some areas, there are major subsurface utility tunnels and ducts to consider in determining facility alignments and design. Potential impacts, including the cost of relocations and modifications, will be evaluated in more detail in project -level, review. Construction Impacts Impacts of construction would differ in degree between alternatives, but the types of impacts would be similar. Construction of any of the "build" alterna- tives, especially the Transitway/TSM or Rail/TSM Alternatives, could have significant short-term impacts on some public and community services. Access to public services near construction sites may be impeded by traffic restrictions, displacement of parking or loading areas, or other factors. Utilities and Public Services 3-134 March 1993 ,•••, While .the build alternatives would increase general mobility and accessibility within the region, including to medical and community services, they may also limit or impede access to specific public and community service locations and for police, fire, or emergency medical services if new rights-of- way block direct access to particular areas or if traffic to park-and-ride stations significantly increases levels of congestion. Public service facilities such as libraries, hospitals, and schools could also be adversely affected by increased air pollutants or noise caused by transit system operation. Specific impacts of these types will be identified in project -level planning. Emergency access to aerial or tunnel alignments will require careful planning and coordination with emergency agencies. Direct operating impacts on utility services and systems would generally be minimal (see also Section 3.6.3). Indirectly, encouragement of increased densities around transit facilities may increase siting costs for new utilities. The rail system may also produce stray electric currents, possibly corroding pipelines or other metal components of structures. The significance of this problem and appropriate mitigation cannot be addressed m more detail until specific transit technologies and alignments are selected. Commuter Rail Element Impacts are expected to be similar to those of operation of the rapid rail line. Utilities and Public Services 3-135 March 1993 3.11.4 Mitigation of Impacts Project level environmental review of specific alignment and facility locations will identify and evaluate public service facility relocations, significant impacts on access to services, and significant increases in noise or other environmental factors near public facilities. Street closures, detours, or other temporary restrictions of street capacity would be reviewed by local jurisdic- tions and affected emergency services to ensure maintenance of adequate service levels. Permanent emergency service access changes would preserve the minimum standard of service set by appropriate agencies. Mitigation may include building new access or emergency service facilities or relocating emergency services. To mitigate impacts on solid waste services, project -level plans and environmental_review could include strategies for minimizing waste generation, promotin& recycling at rail or transit stations, recycling and disposing of -construction, demolition, and land clearing waste generated by the project, and using recycled materials and products -during project construction. Facilities, equipment, and operations will be planned to minimize the likeli- hood of emergency incidents or need for special security services. Emeren- cy communication systems will be provided, along with plans for evacuation and emergency access. Construction will be closely coordinated with affected utilities. A plan will • be .developed for preventing or compensating for unexpected or. emergency shutdowns 3.12 Parks and Recreation 3.12.1 Affected Environment The region has one of the highest ratios of parks per capita in the nation. Public parks and recreation facilities include large scale r tion fregional parks, neighborhood parks, viewpoints, and playgrounds. lities include swimming beaches, boat launches and moorage, athletic fields, play areas, trails, fishing piers, stadiums, golf courses, zoos/aquariums, urban plazas, picnic areas, pea patches, and gardens. Figure 3.25 shows the location of facilities that may be affected by currently proposed rail or transitway alignments or TSM improvements. Table 3.12.1 lists facilities by corridor. 3.12.2 construction Impacts Physical separation of parks from users (e.g., fencing of a right-of-way) could alter or restrict access. Construction noise could temporarily affect park quality, particularly if construction lasted in a location more than a few months. New rights -of -ways and other facilities could require taking of land from recreation facilities in the path of, or immediately adjacent to, transit alternatives. Utilities and Public Services 3-136 March 1993 • 13 • 43 1•••: SNOHOMSH COUNTY 52 • •50 ••moi - ) 40.44. 46. KING COUNTY 541. ry a4l.Yu» W1!13�S..YF�'GtL� S'•""�'�[M'.�• e.T•-"y.y._.: ....... -9:':J-'msaws :Jl3 :•t:=y"1:i.-. 25 22 • 17 •1.30 IQl • 26 • 31 �r 1 KING COUNTY PIERCE col. JTY\ 701 �. SIP Regional Transit ▪ '•°' Project Imo ca.rtT. PUCCI:0MT • 00011111 COUIIR RTPFOQGL •21 LEGEND N A 0 1 2 3 sae Ifts • 1 Parks and Recreation Faciitles Parks and Recreational Facilities Near Rapid Transit Corridors System Plan EIS FIGURE 3.25 Table 3.12.1. Park and Recreation Facilities. N Pota entially Affected Park/Recreation Facility ort mor 1 Cowen Park 2 Everett Country Qub 3 Jackso PPa�t Golf Course Keogh5 Lake City Park 6 Ballinger Park 7 North Qty Park 8 Rainbow Point Park 9 Ravenna Boulevard 10 Ridgecrest Park 11 Roanoke Park 12 Ronald Bog Park 13 Thornton A. Sullivan Park 29 Burke Gilman Trail 55 Interurban Trail 56 North Acnes Park 57 Evergreen-Washelli Cemetery 58 Shorewood High School Facilities 59 Scriber Lake High School Playground 60 Cascade High School Facilities 61 Nile Temple Golf Course 62 Downtown/JJ. Hill Park 63 Judd & Black Park 64 Veterans Memorial Park 65 W.E. Hall Park 66 C rens Lawn Cemetery 67 Evergreen Cemetery 68 Memorial Stadium 69 Roosevelt Hggh School Facilities 75 Twin Ponds Park 80 North Base Park South Corridor 14 Angle I ake Park 15 Bnghton Playground 16 Burlington Green 17 Cedar River Park 18 Colman Playground 19 Columbia Park - 20 - Commons Pla teld 21 Ftrgrave Pla veld , = 22 Gene Coulon Mem Beach:Park 23 Gethsemane Cemetertyy + •- 24 Kennydale Beach Park..;' 25ark Liberty wood Golf Course 27 28 Midway Parkk a 30 North Green River Park 31 North Soos Park 32 Othello Playground 33 Riverton Part 34 Southgate Park 37 Lany Frost Park 39 Tonkin Park 69 Foster Golf Links 70 Gerrard Park 71 Sumner Golf Course (planned) 72 Mount Baker Boulevard 73 Rainier Playfield 74 Borden Playfield 76 Linda Heights Park 77 Lake Dollof Wetland Park East Corridor 35 Anderson Park 36 Bellefields Nature Park 38 Coal Creek Park 40 Grass Lawn Park 41 Inglewood Country Club 42 Kenmore Log Boom Park 43 Kingsgate Park 44 Lagoon Park 45 Lake Sammamish State Park 46 Marymoor Park 47 McCormick Park 48 Mercer Slough Park 49 Newcastle Beach Park 50 Bear Creek Park 51 Overtake Golf Qub 52 Sammamish River Trail Park 53 Sweyolocken Park 54 Welcome Park 78 Luther Burbank Park 79 Jurisdiction TSM TW RAIL Seattle Everett Seattle Seg attle Mountlake Terrace King Seattle Seattle King Seattle King Everett Seattle Lynnwood 'Seattle Seattle Shoreline School Dist. Edmonds School Dist. Everett School Dist. Mountlake Terrace Everett Everett Mountlake Terrace Everett Everett Everett Everett School Dist. Seattle School Dist. King King King . Seattle Kent King Seattle Seattle•` - ;,, Ptenoelrrlc Renton. , rFedetal Renton_;=�" —J.: Renton 7' King. Renton Kent King King Seattle Tukwila Tukwila Tacoma Renton Tukwila Sumner Sumner Seattle Seattle Kent Kent Kent S S PSS PS PS S PS S S PS S PS PS PSS S S S S PS PS PR PS PS PSS S S S PS PS S S P5 PS PS PS PS S' S S S S PS PS S ..PS S pS -PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS S S S PS PS S PS S PS PS S S S S S PS S S S S PS PS S 8R PSS PR PS S S PS PS PS PS PS PS Redmond PS PS Bellevue King PS PS Redmond S S King S S King S S King Redmond PS PS Washington PS PS King Bellevue Bellevue Bellevue Redmond S S Medina S S King PS PS Bellevue PS PS Redmond PS PS Mercer Island Ental Beach Park Bellevue S�night possible impact; PS - potential significant impact (e.g., access or noticeable visual or noise intrusion); PR - potential right-of-way g Parks and Recreation 3-138 March 1993 3.12.2.1 3.12.2.2 3.12.2.3 No -Build Alternative No significant impacts to parks are expected under this alternative. TSM Alternative Equipment, materials and dust from construction of HOV facilities, transit hubs, and park-and-ride lots may temporarily affect access to and usability of adjacent parks. New HOV facilities might also require park right-of-way. Transitway/TSM Alternative Transitway/TSM Alternative impacts would be similar to those of the TSM Alternative. Transitway construction would not be likely to affect parks; impacts would be due to TSM elements in the alternative. 3.12.2.4 Rai1JTSM Alternative Construction equipment, materials, demolition, clearing and dust may temporarily affect park access, public safety, and usability. New or expanded transportation corridors, stations, and access facilities may require park right - of --way. New transit corridors may affect park access and usability. Transit infrastructure (e.g., wires, rights-of-way, stations) may physically or visually �blikely Specificimpactsd be discussed in an rail,. are to be affected. would projeet-specific environmental reviews. Commuter Rail Element A number ofparks are located within a few hundred feet of the Burlington Northern and/or Union Pacific alignments. However, except for the Borden Playfield, Burlington Green and the Commons Playfield in Kent, none of the existing parks are near or adjacent to potential station sites. Construction or operation of commuter rail is not likely to adversely affect access or usability of any parks. Where additional tracks are required, temporary noise and dust impacts may occur. 3.12.3 Operations Impacts Increased traffic or transit activity near a park could cause changes in access, noise, air quality, and views from the park. On the other hand, the System Plan proposal to include bicycle lanes or trails in plans for HOV lanes and alignments, where possible, could increase recreational opportunities and linear parks in the region. 3.12.3.1 No -Build Alternative The No -Build Alternative would not have a direct impact on parks, but may increase pressure to develop open space on the urban fringe. Parks and Recreation 3-139 March 1993 3.12.3.2 3.12.3.3 3.12.3.4 TSM Altemative Where park-and-ride lots are near parks, there may be traffic, noise, and air quality impacts. At the same time, by improving regional mobility, the TSM Alternative will increase accessibility to parks for transit users. Transitway/TSM Alternative Impacts would be similar to those of the TSM Alternative. Rail/TSM Alternative In addition to traffic, noise, and air quality impacts of auto -oriented stations and park-and-ride lots, rail lines may have apparent noise impacts when the rail alignment is distinct from other transportation corridors, such as the potential Commercial Avenue alignment in Snohomish County. At the same time, the Rail/TSM Alternative would increase accessibility of parks, particularly those within close walking distance of stations. Commuter Rail Element Impacts of increased rail traffic will probably not have a significant impact on parks near to the commuter rail alignment. it gation of Impacts As shown in Table 3.12.3, man y impacts would be minor.. However, in some instances there could be significant impacts requiring mitigation. Federal Regulatory Constraints Section 4(0 of the Department of Transportation Act requires that no prudent and feasible alternative exist to a federally funded project with negative impacts on publicly -owned parks, recreation areas, open spaces, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges and that all possible planning has been done to minimize harm. Steps needed to complete Section 4(0 include: o Identifying all potentially affected properties o Analyzing potential impacts; both direct and indirect o Examining design alternatives that might avoid impacts o Identifying mitigating measures if design variations prove infeasible. The chosen System Plan alternative will comply with the 4(0 process. 3.12.4.1 3.12.4.2 Specific Mitigation The best mitigation is avoiding parks by adjusting horizontal alignments. Where avoidance is not possible, moving the alignment below grade may lessen or eliminate impacts. Special construction techniques may minimize impacts to access and usability of parks when building HOV lanes, transitways, or rail ali ii ents. Landscaped berms, noise barriers, or screening can provi. a visual and Parks and Recreation 3-140 March 1993 auditory separation, although these may make access more difficult. Grade - separated passages may be used to retain access. Design that is sensitive to neighborhood context, scale, and views may also reduce impacts. If land acquisition is necessary, comparable facilities could be provided in a new location. Parks and Recreation 3-141 March 1993 3.13 Historic and Cultural Resources 3.13.1 Affected Environment Archaeological Resources Settlement of the region's river valleys began after the retreat of the last glaciation about 13,500 years ago.Native American people, such as the Suquamish and Duwamish, occupied various sites, the majority along river banks and shorelines. Any areas where original shoreline has been preserved are likely to contain archaeological resources. Extensive public works projects, including waterfront development, regrading, dredging, river channelizing, and tideflat filling, have disturbed or destroyed much the archaeological record. There are fourteen known archaeological sites within the project area, one in the North Corridor, five in the East Corridor and eight in the South Corridor. Ten are prehistoric, one is historic, and three are Native American from the historic period. Traditional Cultural Properties A traditional cultural property is eligible for inclusion in the National Regis- ter of Historic Places because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs in a living community that (a) are rooted in.that community, and (b) are.im • ortant.in maintai•ning community cultural. ident•ity-Theseproperties are; my th ough :uiterviews Lti'56 cult to identify and often;can be ascertaued o er forms of;ethnooraphic research 7InitialF�ros .,,..,propertnes has included consultsng *nthzth�e tion :Office `and the: Governor's'Office of Indian representatives of ethnic communities;wil alignments and station locations are' known. Historic Resources icfPreSer 'contacted once;the preferred Permanent Euroamerican settlement of the region began in the 1850s. Population, trade, and manufacturing grew steadily and was energized by the arrival of transcontinental railroad lines in the 1880s. Tacoma based its future on its harbor and railroad connections. Everett gained its reputation as a mill town. Seattle profited as the Alaska gold rush supply center, but aggressive economic diversification made it the foremost city in the region. Smaller communities often developed as agricultural, logging, fishing, or mining centers, depending at first on water transport and communication. Later, roads and rail lines connected outlying towns to major centers. Evidence of early Euroamerican settlement remains in cities such as Bothell, Edmonds, Redmond, Renton, Kent, Auburn, and Puyallup. Because of extensive human habitation, long-term settlement patterns, and alteration of landforms, construction of an extensive project is likely to uncover both prehistoric and historic resources. Archaeological sites and historic properties must be carefully considered in assessing the effects of any action. Figure 3.26 indicates important individual landmarks and areas with concentrations of historic properties. Parks and Recreation 3-142 March 1993 Preservation Programs Section 4(0 of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303) requires that no prudent and feasible alternative exist to any federal action with negative impacts on historic, cultural, and archaeological properties and areas and that all possible planning has been done to minimize harm. Section 106 of the National Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470f) requires federal agencies to assess impacts on historicroperties, including districts, buildings, structures, sites, objects, traditionalculturalpiioric and archaeological resources. Agencies must consult with theState Preservation Officer and other parties to avoid or mitigate impacts. Agree- ments to avoid or reduce harm are reviewed by the Advisory Council or Historic Preservation. Sections 4(f) and 106 apply to properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Section 4(0 also applies to significant properties under state and local preservation laws. The protection process begins with identification of properties. Often, comprehensive surveys of planning areas result in inventories of potentially eligibleroperties. If resources meet established criteria, they are entered on official lists and become subject to specific conditions or controls. The National Register of Historic Places is the official federal list of historic properties worthy of preservation because of their significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. Two types of ropperties that are increasingly-being recognized as significant are cultural landscapes, d traditional cultural--properties. Cultural landscapes are �� def ned ar aass wit iinwhich elements of the_ landscape (such as buildings, vegetation; transportation networks, land: use patterns, etc.) show the rogression of; human_ habitation overtime. The significance of traditional r_allroperties;detives from their role in the traditional and continuing lkways._of a community. The State Register of Historic Places is the official list of historical properties in Washington State and includes all Washington properties in the National Register. The Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) in Olympia administers the state, National Register, and other preservation programs. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) determines the eligibility of properties for inclusion in the National Register, participates in consultations regarding adverse effects to such properties, and agrees to mitigating measures. Local jurisdictions also administer preservation programs through landmark commissions. These local programs conduct surveys, compile inventories, designate landmark properties, and review actions that affect historic and cultural resources. Local landmarks or properties listed in local registers become subject to local preservation ordinances. Local ordinances generally require that actions affecting designated properties be reviewed by the local • preservation commission orboard, which may withhold or condition. its Parks and Recreation 3-143 March 1993 r b 39 • \I :.... .. 0. .../' t .:.'..i'... ,. ',:!*...,?,:iiii• . 36 i---.:.........:-•• f•-; SNOHOIASH COUNTY • KING COUNTY 37 �27 3, if g-^ II /28 • [1. • *: ,** cz).1 33 : •• 1:7 KING 60UNTY • 32 PIERCECOUNTY :. .....-.. ....-.... .. . ..... .r.ss.:;:-..7... ..,:::,..:::,.....,,,..,.•:::' .:::.--•••::-i;.....• .., .............. ................ .. . *.•:•.:..':-?::::•.•:'•.'.:.-... *.;:.,::•:' • -,.'-.•-.•••:‘'.:::*: .' i'•--•:. 3 IOC COUNTY • PUCE COMITY. SWOOSH CCurn FTT PF0204M 30 31 'o-49 LEGEND Historical Sites AN 0 1 2 3 inn 1. Historic Everett 2. Keeler's Korner 3. Historic Bothell 4. Ravenna Park Ares S. Historic Wallingford 6. University District 7. University of Washington 8. Aurora Avenue Bridge 9. University Bridge 10. Mortlake Bridge 11. Capitol Hill 12. Volunteer Park 13. Harvard -Belmont Historic District 14. Pioneer Square Preservation District 15. Seattle Chinatown Historic DistrictAMemational Special Review District 16. Mt. Baker Tunnel Portals 17. Franklin High School 18. Columbia City Historic District 19. Historic Georgetown 20. Georgetown Steam Plant 21. 14th Avenue South Bridge 22. Boeing Airplane Co., Bldg. No. 105 23 Kubota Gardens 24. Riverton Community 25. Dodds Homestead 26. Highline High School 27. Historic Renton 28. Meiotic Kent 29. Historic Auburn 30. Historic Puyallup 31. Puyallup River Valley 32. Union Depot -Warehouse Historic District/Union Depot Conservation District 33. Old City Hall Historic District 34. Historic Issaquah 35. Winters House 36. Wilberton Trestle 37. Historic Redmond 38. Haro Homestead 39. Historic Lowell 40. Historic Sumner Source: Shirley Courtois, BRW, Inc. • Regional Areas of Historical Significance Potentially Affected by System Plan Alternatives System Plan EIS FIGURE 3.26 3.13.2 approval. Compliance is mandatory in some jurisdictions and voluntary in others. The King County Landmarks Commission designates King County landmarks, significant resources protected by regulation, and Community Landmarks, honorary resources with no regulation. The Urban Conservation Division administers Seattle's cbomplds and az� Preservation including four districts with their own revs Board, which oversees three additional districtsapproves individual landmarks. The Bothell Landmark erva o Board any changes to properties entered in Bothell's Register of Historic Places. The Pierce County Landmarks Commission reviews mdifications of osed alterations or demolitions of designated properties andmay proposals. The City of Tacoma Landmarks Preservation Commission maintains the Tacoma Register of Historic Places and reviews changes to individually registered properties or properties within three special districts. At present, Snohomish County does not have an active preservation program, County there is an inventory of and Stateral Registoric ter resources. properties. g i n the County does, contain Nationaland compliance Everett Register of Historic Places is considered honorary P with Everett Historical Commission recommendations is voluntary. Impacts of Alternatives Impacts to historic properties might, occur a4lon any drop-osed alignment, _ c�ciiltural nresources. especially in areas with_ high concentration`s of , tonC afl - Isolated properties near aalliignments also face ri ks 9en�erally,�preservation, e:, programs and regulations seek t� maintain the -int .0 e-.. aia t deristics enty',' :: that qualify a property for historic status. Adverse impacts may ncl rials, diminishing the integrity of a property's location, design, setting, quality, feeling, or association. Unknown archaeological a duo g resources and that traditional cultural pro ernes may P event, construction w•be suspended until appropriate mitigation decisions are made. 3.13.2.1 Construction Impacts Potential adverse impacts to a property include, but are not_lirnited to: o Physical destruction, damage, or alteration o Isolation from historic setting or changing the setting's character o Restriction of access o Out -of -character visual, audible, or atmospheric elements o Deterioration of property or setting through settlement, erosion, etc. No -Build Alternative The No -Build Alternative would have no adverse impact on identified or potential historic resources. Improvements would be subject to site-specific environmental review. Parks and Recreation 3-145 March 1993 TSM Alternative ■ New or expanded park-and-ride lots, HOV lanes, or other improvements might intrude into historic districts or disturb the setting of individual resources. For example, HOV lanes on SR -99 could affect Keeler's Korner in Lynnwood, a National Register property. Transitway/TSM Alternative ' No impact on historic properties is expected where the transitway is within existing freeway rights-of-way. Construction of the South Corridor busway along Burlington Northern tracks could affect historic resources such as the Rainier Cold Storage & Ice/Seattle Brewing & Malting Company building (City of Seattle Landmark) and Georgetown City Hall (National Register and City of Seattle Landmark). New access ramps and stations might also affect nearby historic properties. Rail/TSM Alternative The Rail/TSM Alternative could have potentially significant impacts on historic resources, particularly from tunneling or laying new tracks. A particularly critical area is on Capitol Hill in Seattle, where several National Register and City Landmark properties and two historic districts are located. The University District contains several recognized historic properties as well as the University of Washington campus. South of downtown Seattle, construction could affect the Columbia City Historic District; properties in Georgetown; Boeing Company Building No. 105; several small historic communities; and archaeological sites near the Duwamish. River. Construction of north, south and east terminals could affect centrally located ■ historic and conservation districts in Tacoma, individual historic properties in downtown Everett, and historic areas in Issaquah. The Winters House on Bellevue Way and the Willberton Trestle, both in Bellevue, may also be affected. Commuter Rail Element. There are historic resources at King Street Station and in downtown Kent and Auburn. However, it would not be essential to disturb or adversely affect any historic property to construct commuter rail. Joint development associated with the project could be used to enhance some historic properties. 3.13.2.2 Operations Impacts Impacts to historic or cultural properties are defined as those that cause: o Isolation from or alteration of historic setting o Restriction of access to historic properties o Economic deterioration of commercial districts or the deterioration of livability of residential districts through traffic pattern changes o Out -of -character visual, audible or atmospheric elements o Deterioration of property or setting through vibration, erosion, etc. Commuter Rail Commuter rail operations could be adjacent to historic properties, historic districts, or archaeological sites in downtown Seattle, the Green River Parks and Recreation 3-146 March 1993 3.13.3 Valley, and the Puyallup River Valley. Increased Square traffic trio. The movements could adversely affect the Pioneer4 commuter rail service could also spark rehabilitation of nearby historic properties. Mitigation of Impacts Specific mitigation measures will depend on specific impacts to identified resources determined during project -level planning. They could include: o Locate facilities to avoid historic lessen pnolse and destruction impacts tion o Provide landscape elements t o Assure design compatibility of facilities near historic distracts or resources and mitigate unforeseen adverse o Monitor construction to identify impacts o Relocate n appro n teperties recordlf of histo cn properties if no alternative to o Make an app , P demolition exists. Parks and Recreation 3-147 March 1993 Consistency with Regional 4.0 Con Y Land Use Plans, Policies, and Legislation The System Plan proposes improvements in three counties, more than thirty municipalities, and within the land use jurisdiction of one oHanantribe. Most local governments have comprehensive Pe u�e cuand etlzoning uniform provisions ces with land use goals and policies. Whilein Snohomish Coun and its local for regional transportation, except municipalities, all jurisdictions are in the process of updating their comprehensive plans to complyno with GMAe ctio being a oordinated by the d countywide planning policies. Regional pl g Pa State Department of Community Development and PSRC. SNO-TRAN has assisted local jurisdictions in Snohomish County in planning station areas and preserving rights-of-way. Government agencies are also in the process of developing plans and ordinances that comply with the CommuteState ies must be coordinaw ed with of 1991. Ordinances adopted by counties and transit agencies, regional planning organizations,rlens f major employers boring Sand must be consistent with commute trip . pl`et ..of nr ado tion by earl jurisdictions. Plans and .ordinances are lar ely tai[g -d-': Tedupt ci :, g votnmiite tip 1993. Consistency of RTP; alternatives with;, ,.n _ � n -� J .j P r'� L.: C"\: tpy '�}S L't R' � of the RTP-alternatii�es�witb - -�; -. Table 4.1 indicates the general consistency growth management, Vision 2020, and separate countywide"plaming Policies adopted by King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. For more specific discussion, see the appropriate sections below. 4.1 Growth Management Act • In 1990, the Washington State Legislature adopted the sttatte s first ampre- hensive growth management act (GMA) to manage growth te's fastest growing counties and the citieswithin agement arthese teecomprehensive�e principal tools for implementing growth1,199e. plans which are to be adopted wls t� these de local gocounties anve cirnmentsJin dduly eveloping The act established thirteengo these plans. These goals include several that are of particular interest to the RTP analysis. o encouraging growth in urban areas o reducing sprawl transportation o • encouraging efficient multimodal o encouraging economic development consistent with comprehensive plans o retaining open space and the developing recreational opportunities of life o protecting the environment and enhance g the area's quality o encouraging citizen involvement in the planning process Consistency with Land Use Plans 44 March 1993 o concurrency between public facilities and new private development ■ o encouraging historic preservation. Table 4.1. Consistency of Alternatives with Land Use Goals. adequate to serve the development at the time ... and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a transportation facility to decline below standards adopted in the transportation element ..." Finally, the Act mandates that the plans' goals, objectives, policies, and strategies be in agreement. To further guide the preparation of comprehensive plans, the 1991 required the proper jurisdictions to develop multicounty and countywide planning policies. King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties have recently adopted and rtified countywide policies. PSRC is leading an effort to identify and address key issues for multicounty planning, such as regional compliance with GMA, compatibility of countywide plans, and the relationship between countywide policies and Vision 2020. The GMA has major implications for the RTP. The development of multicounty, countywide, and comprehensive plan policies and plans that focus heavily on transportation issues provides a timely opportunity for transit operators to work with counties and local jurisdictions to include public transportation needs in these policies, plans, and regulations. The transit system that results should strongly support the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plans currently being developed. These parallel planning processes create a unique opportunity to develop coordinated land use and transportation plans among jurisdictions in the egion�>ST�ieR�ps;one3step-o a process leading to project -specific analyses '93'aiid;final .15i-pjea;'plannipi be :ond that. At each ste , the System Plan efco tired to currents comprehensive .plans and re ations and could • '-� ` ' 'e. i'T ; ii ensure c insisten This will be an interactive diff if necessary. cY• be:io e , . .. ,_... , '166804th comprehensive plan processes also examining their consistency `.cirrenfR'TP_plans- :_ • Table 4.1 analyzes the consistency of the RTP alternatives with the nine key GMA goals and key countywide planning policies. As noted above, these goals and policies are intended to guide development of comprehensive plans, not to evaluate actions such as the RTP. Nonetheless, alternatives that are consistent with these goals and policies should be generally consistent with the T Table 4.1 howl that the RTP alterehensive lans that are rnatives support these gdeveloed using theseoaloslands policies. and policies to varying degrees. In general, the Rail/TSM Alternative most strongly supports the goals of encouraging growth in proximity to needed public facilities, reducing sprawl, encouraging efficient multimodal transportation, and a number of other goals and policies, because it supports land use plans that promote higher densities in population and employment centers. The Transitway/TSM Alternative moderately supports these goals and policies, because it also promotes higher densities in population and employment centers, although to a lesser degree than the Rail/TSM Alternative. The TSM Alternative is least consistent with these goals and policies, because it does not provide rapid service into centers and would not help direct urban development to appropriate areas as well as the high-capacity alternatives. Growth Management Act 4-3 March 1993 4.2 Vision 2020 PSRC's Vision 2020 Growth Strategy and Transportation Plan (1990), which serves as the interim multicounty planning policy document, aims to contain urbanization and focus much of the expected growth into ten to fifteen centers that can be efficiently served by rapid transit. The Plan includes a 130 -mile regional rapid transit system, 300 miles of HOV lanes, significant bus fleet expansion, 20,000 additional park-and-ride spaces, and major transportation demand management. Higher -density residential devel- opment should be within walking distance of rapid transit stations, ferry terminals, or bus centers. The Vision 2020 land use plan represents a regional policy decision about future land use patterns in the region. RTP is an important mechanism to achieve that vision. The System Plan process is a means of choosing the transit system that will help make that vision a reality. The transit solutions discussed in this EIS are directed to a large extent by policy choices already made about land use and regional growth. The following discussion of consistency with Vision 2020 is based on PSRC staffs response letter to the DEIS. No -Build Alternative The No -Build Alternative limits capital investments for transit to those necessary for maintaining existing levels of service and would not provide the major transit expansion necessary to support the -land _use concepts proposed by Vision 2020. In particular, the level and type of transit=service proposed under this alternative would not support the concentration of growth m centers, help to contain urban development within growth areas, or _improve the competitiveness of transit with the automobile. Vision 2020 TSM Alternative Completing the HOV system under this alternative would improve mobility to and from major regional centers and encourage some increased concentration of employment and other land uses. Transit system accessibility, however, would be more dispersed and less intensely focused within major regional centers than with a fixed -route rapid transit system. This less focused network of transit access points may limit the ability of this alternative to optimally support compact, high-density growth in centers. In addition, the lack of a more visible investment in transit infrastructure within major regional centers would not likely provide the incentives necessary to attract substantial investment in centers. Transitway/TSM Alternative Like the TSM Alternative, increased accessibility and supportive land use plans would encourage some increased concentrations of employment and population growth at centers. However, the exclusive transit right-of-way (or transitways) would provide direct transit access to only a few of the major regional centers, including the downtowns of Seattle, Bellevue, Tukwila, and at Northgate. Most of the remaining regional centers would be served by supporting HOV facilities, as in the TSM Alternative. 4-4 March 1993 Extensive feeder bus services wouldbe accessibility and visibleiastations o evidence regional centers, providing more focused f ue to e a financial commitment to transit. t� nH,sowithin Centers may have limited al characteristics of transitway potential for promoting high concentrations of growth. Conventional surface or elevated transrtways are generallyentes nTraot nsitways can erationally rre atiirte significant compatible with dense urban c Ming the amounts of land and can be disruptive to other land uses, potential to increase residential and employment densities. Neither the TSM nor the Transitway/TSM Alternative could accommodate the transit demand associated with implementing the Vision 2020 land useport its land use goals. concept and, consequently, would not fully support Rail/TSM Alternative About 30 percent of the regional population is forecast to be within a 30 minute transit ride of the regional centers would be the averagcomared to 20e travel t ercent fme TSM and Transitway/TSM) and 40 minutes those centers (compared to minutes inuts for TSM and 4i rnities tutand from a es for Transitway/TSM). Based oncomparison selected group of regional centers, the Rail/TSM Alternative would provide travel time savings from three to eight times greater than the TSM or Transitway/TSM Alternative. the; ear Rail transit stations would provide a visible and substantial-inVes�ent.uL,=. rapid transit service at most of the candidate:rr l cene� wood ` 20, rapid rail service would link the downtowns- Redmond, Seattle, Renton, Issaquah,d dateregionalBurien, Tukwila; kwlaenters at Feder keway; Tacoma, and Bellevue, as well as canHill, and Northgate. Totem Lake, University District, First Hill/Capitol Commuter rail would link the downtowns of Sect,Aubun,abe d Tacoma. Other regional and manufacturing/industrial reased to these centers by high en r capacitybus service. ark pot potential for compact high-density centersynwould generate significant employment, commercial, and residential growth. Vision 2020 Summary Although a regional transit system would be only one of many transportation and land use planning actions for managing growth, the type and extent of transit investments would have a significant �� impact rregional centers.n The the sion 2020 objective of concentrating growth Rail/TSM Alternative would support the Vision20 altecenternars gro Under the strategy better than the No -Build, TSM, or Transitway/ Rail/TSM Alternative, more candidate regional the substantial visible nters would be served with high quality, high speed transit s growth within commitment centers (PSRit would 1992).promote compact, high-density major regional 4-5 March 1993 4.3 Countywide Planning Policies Countywide planning policies to guide comprehensive growth management planning have been adopted by the three counties in the region. Although the System Plan is a regional plan and thus is not subordinate to any individual countyplan, it is important that the System Plan be consistent with county plans to the extent possible. RTP is coordinating its regional transit planning with the land use planning taking place in each of the three counties, including modifying its plans as priorities change and become more definite in each county. 4.3.1 King County The King County Growth Management Policy Committee (GMPC) has developed a template for directing county growth over the next 20 years. Much of the growth would occur in Urban Growth Areas (UGAs), which will accommodate at least the 20-year projection of population and employment growth and provide a full range of urban services. Within the UGAs, King County will identify a number of Urban and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers - areas of concentrated employment and housing which would be served directly by high capacity transit. Growth will first be directed to these centers and urbam7ed areas with existing infrastructure capacity, second to areas which can easily be provided with services, and last to areas requiring major infrastructure improvements. Urban separators (permanent low density lands) will protect resource lands and create corridors between urban d e followmnominated areas to serve as urban centers in King . unty :=.Bellevue; Federal Way,4Kent,;Redmond, Renton, SeaTac, Seattle, and Tukwila.°'All of these cities are regional centers under Vision 2020 and would be served by the various alternatives, as discussed in Section 4.2. The following cities have also nominated manufacturing/industrial centers: Kent, Seattle, and Tukwila. These manufacturing centers would be served by rapid rail, commuter rail, or high capacity bus service. As noted in Section 4.1, the System Plan will be compared to current comprehensive plans and regulations and could be modified, if necessary, to ensure consistency with the final designation of these centers. Urban Centers must meet specific criteria for geographic size, number of jobs, and housing densities sufficient to support high capacity transit. Manufacturing/Industrial Centers shall also meet criteria for geographic size, number of jobs, transit, truck access, and parking. Centers will be designated through a joint local-county adoption process. The policies call for the land use pattern to be supported by a balanced multi-modal transportation system (including high capacity transit, a non- motorized component, and transportation demand management (TDM)) cooperatively planned, financed and constructed by county jurisdictions and others. Vision 2020 provides the framework for creating a system of regional centers linked by high capacity transit and HOV, and the Puget Sound Regional Council's Transportation Improvement Program should be the primary tool for prioritizing improvements. Metro is responsible for establishing transit LOS standards. Each jurisdiction shall identify facilities necessary to coincide with target service levels and timing requirements. Countywide Planning Policies 4-6 March 1993 Capital facilities shall be sited to support land use pattern and economic activities while mitigating any negative impacts. Both the Transitway/TSM and the Rail/TSM Alternative would connect the region's major urban and manufacturing centers with fast, efficient service, while expanded and restructured bus service would bring people from neighborhoods into the centers. The TSM Alternative would provide somewhat less efficient connections. The No -Build Alternative would not be consistent with the county policies. All three build alternatives include the following called for in the Countywide Policies: o expanded transit service between residential areas and the centers o interconnected system of diamond lanes o facilities for bikes and pedestrians o programs which support use of transit and ridesharing. Both the Transitway/TSM and Rail/TSM Alternative rovide high capacity transit lines linking major centers. However, the Rail/ TSM Alternative provides a much more extensive network than the Transitway/TSM Alternative. Unlike the Rail/TSM Alternative, neither the TSM and Transitway/TSM alternatives provide the level of transportation capacity in already congested corridors and centers necessary to accommodate projected rau it deiiiand< < ' ; ? a Ja11 three;b• alternatives, the,"system wouldbe implemented icrementally tti-serve:both immediateyand _long term -needs. Transit levels of service;will `be=established;in:coordination with counties and local jurisdi°ctions _to=help;planners anticipate levels of transit service in their communities. Bus service would be expanded and restructured. Along with phased rail system development, this would allow the transit system to support local land use actions and help shape new growth patterns. The capital improvements associated with the three build alternatives would be sited to support the preferred land use pattern and proceed in accordance with the process established by the GMPC. The Rail/TSM Alternative would involve the most extensive siting and development process of the three build alternatives while providing a high level of investment in a number of centers (see also Table 4.1). 4.3.2 Pierce County Pierce County has adopted county -wide planning policies in accordance with the 1991 GMA amendment. Urban Growth Areas (UGAs), accommodating 20 years' growth, are to be determined through a synthesis of city -designated municipal UGAs and county -designated county UGAs. The UGAs' size and boundaries will be based on preserving resource/environmentally sensitive lands and open spaces, new fully contained communities (FCCs) consistent with the centers concept of Vision 2020, adequate provision of services, sufficient supply of developable land, existing projects and development, land features, availability of public services and facilities, and jurisdictional boundaries and designations. The county and cities will also coordinate LOS designations for the transportation system, understanding that such Countywide Planning Policies 4-7 March 1993 An approved countywide transportation plan will establish the basic framework for city and county transportation plans. Core transportation goals include development of a multi -modal system, reduced reliance on single -occupancy vehicles, and increased availability and use of high occupancy vehicles and lanes. Draft policies for transportation include provision of public transportation services appropriate to designated types and intensities of land use, use of TDM to reduce trip making, and development of uniform criteria for locating and mitigating the impact of major county -wide and regional transportation facilities and services, including high capacity transit facilities. The build alternatives, particularly the Rail/TSM Alternative, are consistent with the framework policies in terms of goals and objectives. The Snohomish County policies support the Vision 2020 goals, which call for maintaining regional mobility via creation of a comprehensive multi -modal system consisting of rapid transit, expanded transit service, completion of the HOV system, and reduced reliance on single -occupancy vehicles. Concentration of growth in designated mixed use regional centers served by rapid transit would best be served in Snohomish County by the Rail/TSM Alternative, and to a lesser extent by the Transitway/TSM and TSM Alternative, in that order (see Table 4.1). 4.4 Local Plans Capital projects proposed by the System Plan would affect local jurisdictions throughout the region. The consistency of the project with local plans varies, although most plans call for improvements in transit service. Plans adopted before the system planning effort make little reference to rapid transit within their jurisdictions or endorse transit -supportive land use policies. Most plans are currently being rewritten because of growth management requirements (see Technical Appendix C). For this reason, while a detailed assessment of consistency with adopted local plans was done and can be found in Technical Appendix C, the assessment was not included in the text of the EIS, due to the recognition that most of these plans will change in the next few months. RTP is coordinating its plans with the growth management planning taking place at the local level to ensure as much as possible that its regional planning takes into account local land use pnorities and that local plans reflect to the extent possible the regional transit planning that is taking place. 4.4.1 Changes Needed to Local Plans 4.4.1.1 No -Build Alternative Because it involves no major transit actions, this alternative would not require changes to local plans. 4.4.1.2 TSM Alternative HOV priorities and lanes, park-and-ride lots, and transit promotion might be formally adopted in local plans and codes. Development regulations could reinforce travel demand management (TDM) provisions, encourage transit ridership, carpooling, and bicycling, and discourage SOV use by limiting parking supply and increasing parking costs. It is important to ensure that Countywide Planning Policies 4-9 March 1993 safe and convenient connections can be made by bicyclists and pedestrians to park-and-ride lots. Design guidelines can require that these facilities provide protection from weather, secure places to store bicycles, and safe places to cross streets and travel through parkinglots to create an environment that encourages more pedestrian and bicycle access to transit services. 4.4.1.3 Transitway/TSM Alternative In addition to changes identified for the TSM Alternative, the transitway alignment will require identification and designation in local transportation plans. Land use controls along the alignment may need to be enacted. Station areas, particularly key transfer points and park-and-ride locations, may need special designation. The existing land uses and development density could either be protected and preserved or chand bid be raccessted for redevelopment and intensification. Again, pedestrian can be encouraged and enhanced by means of design guidelines requiring the provision of safe and convenient access to transit facilities. 4.4.1.4 RailTSM Alternative In addition to changes identified for the TSM Alternative, the rail corridors and station areas should be recognized in local plans and zoning. Provisions such as overlay districts would protect existing land d e patterns redevelopment and intensification. Plan, policy eguTatorY responses would be needed to preserve right-of-way and control land speculation. The adoption and implementation of transit-friendlyplans the and policies developb n urisof the dictions will be an important consideration in phasing Rail/TSM Alternative. Local Plans The Rail/TSM Alternative requires considering increases in density and mixed use development. Combining housing and employment at greater densities near stations will require policy and zoning changes and possible upgrades of public infrastructure. Tighter controls will be necessary to discourage rural or suburban development. Commuter Rail Element. locale other and zoning ordinances to fully realize d neto be recognized inplans development potential. 4-10 March 1993 � 5.0 Summary of Comments on the Draft EIS 5.1 Summary of Comments 5.1.1 5.1.1.1 Earth Commenters requested an expanded discussion of the nti area aodof aa newly discovered earthquake fault in the central Puget various build alternatives. Concern was expressed on how ubwayonandhe aerial alignments would withstand the impacts o a major earthquakealong g "Seattle fault." SEPA rules allow a summary of the comments on the draft EIS to be appended to the final EIS wheun thererepetitive. eare e large numberso require that the ents and when many of the comments names of all commenters be listed urt those IS. The are contained in comments received and staff responses two supplemental volumes, which are available upon request from Metro (see Fact Sheet). As noted elsewhere, Metro, as lead agency, responded to the comments by modifying, su lementin or improving the analyses contained in the DEIS pp g and by making factual corrections. Many comments expressed preferences amongthe alternatives rather than seeking changes in the environmental darrant analyis. Those comments were acknowledged but generally further response by Metro. The two volume Comment and Response ers on the Joint Regional documents have been forwardedto the deration, and they are publicallyavailable Policy Committee for their cons Y libraries throu and out sp tnse three -county ntaree hreaereby incorporated into the FEIS see Distribution List). The Comment andltespo by reference. nd in Over 2,000 specific comments reps of the commentwere made in verbal s e received, but This summary is meant to bep not meant to be inclusive of all comments received. Readers are asked to refer to the Response and Comment document for an inclusive listing and discussion of comments. Elements of the Environment 5.1.1.2 Air Quality Commenters questioned the limited beneficial impacts of the build alternatives on air quality. There were eaused by tions on the el buses sand ptions used in determining existing air pollutants requests for includingreconcerned about the adverse p utant calculations. Commenters were impacts of park-and-ride lots on local air quality. Commenters wanted additional information on how Summary of Comments on the Draft EIS 5-1 March 1993 current and future air quality legislation would affect bus and general vehicle fleet emissions. Commenters wanted consideration of the benefits of electric cars and other low -polluting vehicles. Commenters also requested information on pollution caused by electrical generation facilities in the case of expanded trolley fleets and electric rail systems. 5.1.1.3 Noise and Vibration Commenters wanted additional information about noise levels of aerial rail structures, especially along Roosevelt Way between I-5 and Aurora Avenue North.. 5.1.1.4 Water Quality and Hydrology Commenters requested additional information on floodplain regulations and the dewatering related to tunnel construction. 5.1.1.5 Ecosystems. Commenters requested clarification on what wetland mitigation measures would be taken if takings of wetland areas were unavoidable. 5.1.1.6 Energy Commenters questioned the assumptions used in determining existing and future transit fleet energy consumption figures. Specific requests were made for including deadhead miles in energy calculations. Commenters also requested information on energy efficiency of future bus fleets. 5.1.1.7 Environmental Health Commenters suggested several additions to the list �f identified potentially significant hazardous waste sites. Commenters asked for more up-to-date information on the health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs). 5.1.1.8 Visual Quality Commenters expressed concern relative to the visual impacts of aerial structures. 5.1.1.9 Transportation Commenters expressed concern about the relatively limited impact of the build alternatives on regional VMT. Commenters requested additional information on traffic impacts in the vicinity of new park-and-ride lots and proposed rail stations, including more detailed mitigation measures. Commenters requested information on the assumptions used in modeling ridership and mode split. Commenters requested additional information on bicycle access to transit. Commenters requested additional detail concerning the impact of Vision 2020 and the Commuter Trip Reduction Act on potential transit ridership. Commenters requested additional information on the accessibility of the transit system for the elderly and disabled. Commenters requested information on the impacts of commuter rail service on freight railroad operations. Summary of Comments on the Draft EIS 5-2 March 1993 5.1.1.10 Land Use and Economics Commenters requested additional information on the relationship between the Regional Transit Project and Vision 2020, the Growth Management Act, and local comprehensive plans. Commenters requested additional information on employment growth in the region. Commenters requested additional consideration of affordable housing and real estate costs. Commenters requested information on the amount of solid waste generated in the demolition and construction activities and on disposal plans related to such wastes. Commenters expressed concern about the impacts of the build alternatives on urban sprawl and densities. 5.1.1.11 Parks and Recreation Commenters requested clarification on potential impacts on park and recreation facilities. 5.1.1.12. Historic and Cultural Resources Commenters requested infolamenon historical and cultural resources related to the commuterrail t. 5.1.2 Other Topics 5.1.2.1 Alternatives Commenters requested additional clarification of the No -Build Alternative. Commenters requested consideration of rapid rail and/or commuter rail to Renton,Southcenter (Tukwila), LakewooFt. Lewis/McCord, and commuter rail to Everett. Commenters requested consideration of commuter rail on all available freight tracks in the region. Commenters proposed changes in the TSM andTransitway/TSM alternatives. Commenters requested consideration of a larger Transitway/TSM alternative. Commenters requested more detailed consideration of surface light rail options (such as the Rhododendron Line proposal). Commenters requested consideration of cross -lake ferries, congestion pricing, and rail service to Olympia. 5.12.2 Miscellaneous A sample of other comments received on the DEIS and draft System Plan includes: Commenters requested information on the relationship of the RTP to the state's high speed rail plan. Commenters requested an expanded discussion of transportation demand management techniques and the Commute Trip Reduction Act. Commenters requested that the EIS include a discussion of the fiscalimpacts of the alternatives. Commenters questioned the financing plan and e methodology used in determining capital and operating costs. Commenters voiced a range of opinions on the appropriate tax mix for financing the proposed system. Summary of Comments on the Draft EIS 5-3 March 1993 Commenters requested consideration of lifestyle changes required to meet project goals. Other commenters advocated changes in lifestyle to surpass ridership goals. Commenters requested information on the relationship of the current environmental process to NEPA. Commenters requested information on the schedule and methodology to be employed during project -level environmental review. Commenters questioned the use of tunnels in the rail alternative. Commenters both advocated additional HOV lanes and requested no RTP involvement in additional HOV lanes. Commenters expressed a multitude of opinions relative to the Rail/TSM Alternative, ranging from full support to complete opposition. Commenters expressed -a range of opinions on phasing, length of construction, connections with other modes of public transportation (ferries, intercity buses, airports), total construction costs, and conversion of regular freeway lanes for HOV use, among other topics. This summary is meant to be representative of the comments received, but is not meant to be inclusive of all comments received. Readers are asked to refer to the Response and Comment document for an inclusive listing and discussion of comments. 5.2 LIST OF COMMENTERS GOVERNMENT AGENCIES Washington State Department of Community Development Department of Ecology Department of Transportation Senate University of Washington HCT Expert Review Panel Regional Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority Puget Sound Regional Council County King County Eastside Transportation Program Port of Seattle Pierce County Snohomish County Snohomish County Committee on HCT Snohomish County PUD #1 Local LIST OF COMMENTERS GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (Cont.) City of Auburn City of Bellevue City of Bothell City of Edmonds City of Everett City of Everett Public Works Everett School District No. 2 City of Federal Way City of Kirkland City of Lynnwood City of Mountlake Terrace City of Mukilteo City of Renton Seattle City Light City of Seattle Planning Commission City of Seattle City of Sumner City of Tacoma Planning City of Tacoma Environmental Commission City of Tukwila INTEREST GROUPS Bellevue Downtown Association Citizen's Transit Advisory Committee Eastside Transportation Committee EDC of Seattle and King County EDC of Snohomish County. Everett Area Chamber of Commerce For Everett Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce Intercity Transit Leagues of Women Voters of King Co. Municipal League North Renton/Kennydale Neighbohood Puget Power Puget Sound Light Rail Transit Society Queen Anne/Magnolia Noise Abatement Group Rainier'Beach Commuity Club Seattle Community Council Federation Seattle Economic Development Council Seattle/King Association of Realtors Sierra Club Southeast Effective Development, Inc.(SEED) Snohomish CC1T SW King County Chamber of Commerce Tacoma League of Women Voters Washington Environmental Council Washington Natural Gas Washington Society.of Professional Engineers Washington Transportation Policy Institute Summary of Comments on the Draft EIS 5-5 March 1993 LIST OF COMMENTERS INTEREST GROUPS (Cont.) Bernard Development Company The Burke Associates Pathfinder Systems, Inc. Reed TDA M2 INDIVIDUALS Anonymous Hom, Wayne Acheson, Duane Jackowich, Douglas/Shaughnessy, Steven Adams, John Johnson, Donald Albright, Berny Kennedy, Richard Anderson, Stephen Knodell, John Avolio, Joseph, Jr Kronmann, Ken Baker, Roger Kuehne, Lauren Berg, Dell Larkin, Amy Bocksh Long, Sara Bohn, William Mailey, Patrick Bollom, Michael Mandel, Eric Bray, Daniel Maye, Velva Brooks, R./Crockett, C. McIntosh, James Brown, Christopher Menchhofer, Dale Brown, Patricia Moritz, William Browne, Bob Morrill, Richard Burke, Herbert Myewurds, Marc Burt, Robert Nelson, Dick Carter, Pamela Nichols, Ralph Coburn, Jason Nitardy, John Cooper, Hal Nothaft, Walter Cornish, Charlie Oveson, Odd Crisman, Gerald Padelford, Donald Crockett, Carolyn Partridge, Mike Darraugh, Jack Peterson, Keith Dinner, Eva Pope, Jemae Elsaesser, Wayne Price, Oleg Engel, John Reed, R.C. Eno, Kraig Richardson, James Foster, Stacey Ruskie, Howard Foxworthy, Robert Sanger, Eldine Frank, Indra, MD Schack, Steve Gemberling, Ted Scheerer, M.C. Ginn, John Schott, Carolyn Gurley, Worth Schuh, Michael Haigh, John Silva, Jeanette Harkness,Richard Skehan, Michael Hartmann, David Smith, Diana Hartmann, Raymond Smith, James Hemerick, Glen Smith, Peter Henry, Howard Sterling, Jeffrey Henry, Robert Storer, Robert Hensley, Particia Storz, John Herman, John Stuart, Malcom Hill, Gregory Sumner, Larry Summary of Comments on the Draft EIS 5-6 March 1993 LIST OF COMMENTERS INDIVIDUALS (Cont.) Tanner, Jesse Taraday, Jeffery Vaa, Robert Vaupel, Warien Wagner, Peter Waite, Viola Whalen, Robert White, Bob COMMENT SHEETS White, Kathryn Wieckowicz, Donald Wilson, Cynthia Winge, Doug Yee, Warren Zepeda, Barbara Zink, David 1- 42 Anonymous 86 Leslie, Michelle 43 Albrecht, Michael 87 Limbaugh, Sherman 44 Barbero, Roy 88 Link, Tom 45 Barrett, Rick 89 Lisaius, Fred 46 Beachy, Susan 90 Lund, Ray 47 Boushey, Betty 91 Marshall, David 48 Briggs, Geoff 92 Marx, Nancy 49 Brown, Don 93 McCormack, Cecil 50 Browne, Bob 94 Myers, Hank 51 Cady, Charles 95 Nothaft, Walter 52 Coleman, Jean 96 O'Neal,.Anne 53 Custodio, Desiree 97 Oaksen, Greg 54 Dalby, Graig 98 Ostrom, Aaron 55 Dawson, Jo 99 Owens, James 56 Deeter, John 100 Pace, Tony 57 Douglas, Allen 101 Pawlowski, E. J. 58 Eades, B. 102 Peterson, Drew 59 Eberhart, Chuck 103 Petrie, David 60 Eckmann, Eleanor 104 Phelps, Richard 61 Edwards, Wes 105 Pollack, Irwin 62 Ellis, Becky 106 Redding, Judy 63 Evans, Jack 107 Ross, Anita 64 Flem, Lloyd 108 Roth, Catherine 65 Fredin, Jerri 109 Sheldon,Jerome 66 Garrou, Christy 110 Smith, H. 67 Hutchinson, John 111 Spaulding, Hester 68 Ha, Cuong 112 Stankevich, Barry 69 Hadaller, Oren 113 Straight -Wright, Zee 70 Hall Crain, Warren 114 Strannigan, G. 71 Hauge, Ellen 115 Thomson, Eric 72 Hawkins, Liz 116 Vaa, Robert 73 Heggen, Stanley 117 Van Hout, Paul 74 Hemke, Harold 118 Zilmer, Rosemary 75 Hobbs, Michael 76 Huckaby, Michael 77 Jackson, Mamie 78 Johnson, Barbara 79 Keever, Robert 80 'Clinker, Cheryl 81 Knudson, Robert E. 82 Knudson, Sybil 83 Koval, Sheryl 84 Larsen, Bob 85 Leask, Jan Summary of Comments on the Draft EIS 5-7 March 1993 LIST OF COMMENTERS PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY NORTHGATE AUBURN Einar Svensson Craig Chedsey Barry Whittle Rick Barret Jay Bakst Gorden Cambell Peter Van Zant Molly Blades Frank Hutchins Loren Siebert Ron Pierce Bob LeFeber Beverly Stanton Walter Wilke Fred La Croix Mike Ruby Jeffery Sterling Chris Hawkins Dave Paeth Donald Villeneuve Edward Pawloski Bob Whalen Paul Nelson Michael Skehan Bill Morchin Terry Hissong Bruce McTavish Robert Keever Michael Bocatch Gerald Malcom Teresa Gilbert John Keefer EDMONDS SEATTLE UNIVERSITY Al O'Brien Nym Park Helmut Etzel Robert Lazo Larry Sumner Dale Menchhofer Bob Eastman Warren Yee Cecil McCormack Kathy Becker Annette Berget Tony McMahon Alan Marks Scott Haakon Ken Session Bill Clifford Darrell Ash Jean Colman Cindy Torgesen Rich Lang Tom Graff Barbara Weismann Frank Hutchins John Christy David Peckarsky Christopher Brown William Milkey Curtis Knopf Pat McMahan Michael Purman Mark Beals Joel Taunton Doug Hannafious Paul Spitzer Edsel Hammond Anita Ross Chuck Hopper Summary of Comments on the Draft EIS 5-8 March 1993 LIST OF COMMENTERS PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY Cont. BELLEVUE Day Session Evening Session Hans Jensen Rubin Yu Chuck Myrick Jerome Baer John Knodell David Petrie Chuck Quist Frank Ordway Rick Linville Herb McClees John Seebeth Ward Truess Dean Tibbott Bobbie May SEATAC Larry Shannon Rich Harkness Kim Ohlmann Kate Bradley Gene Pollard Bradley Hofer Robert Whitbeck REDMOND Mayor Rants Nancy McCormack Oren Hadaller Martin Sangster James Waters Robert Shindler Denny Lensegrav Tim Ohlmann Alan Andersen Hank Myers Michael Lough Reiner Decker Dana Lough Bruce Playford Calvin Castle Glen Eades Mark Groening Jim Stoltefus Frank Carson Doug Murray Ron Chaput Hal Cooper Brian Epperson Anthony Reumundi Dorothy Waltz Scott Hudson Gifford Jones Darlene Sobieck Glen Ferguson Michael Hoff Jim Turner Holk Jim Reed Summary of Comments on the Draft EIS 5-9 March 1993 LIST OF COMMENTERS PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY Cont. SEATTLE Day Session Evening Session Ian Morrison John Ginn Helen Christopherson Robert Pincus Bill Carey Gregory Hill Warren Crain James McIntosh Tom Donahue Leroy Chadwick H.B. Pemberton Greg Hough Jack Buchans Steve Klein Greg Oakson Mike Bollom Paul Locke Art Pederson Jack Shivlock Tom Tocher Charles Boon . Thor Thompson Tony MacMahon Barbara Zepeda Rick Linville Adam Fast Glenn Chinn Mark Ford Jill King Harry Hull Ken Slusher Mimi Holt Sean Cosgrove Preston Schiller Christy Garrou Erin Laine Daniel Rudie John Guichard Barry Whittle Ryan Hileman Douglas Todhey Peter Ways I Dave Loutzenheider Jeffrey Sterling David Marshall Suzanne Pardee Don Maclaren Jack Ferguson Gregory Herz Frank Ordvay Jeff Taraday Charles Vulliet Mamie Jackson Aaron Ostrom Tom Arden Summary of Comments on the Draft EIS 5-10 March 1993 LIST OF COMMENTERS PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY Cont. FEDERAL WAY EVERETT Jim Smith Rosemarie Green Mark Freitas Tony Pace Larry Corkin Barry Stankeird Marvin Klopstad Kim Starling Richard Yasger Michael Henderson Bob Nichols Bob White Mike Skehan Mark Ahlers David MacDonanld Duane Acheson Robert Whalen Marian Krell }Clifton Belle Frank Curtis Dave Clarke Lauren Countryman Loren Herrigstad Will Mongiello Mike Lanier Tom Burns Mark Ford Clay Kemper M.C. Sheerer Robert Eastman Petrie Wayne Sewell Lloyd Flem David Peckarski Del Berg Bob DeNeui Keith Ono Cheryl Wolff Bob Griebenow Jack Mowreader Gorden Voiles Nancy O'Brien Roger Pence Summary of Comments onthe Draft EIS 5-11 March 1993 GLOSSARY Accessible Transportation Facilities. Transportation facilities that are barrier -free, allowing use by all travelers, including the physically handicapped, elderly, and transportation disadvantaged. Active Coaches. The total bus fleet necessary to meet peak or rush-hour demand; includes spare buses. Activity Center. An area of centralized land use activity, such as a shopping center, industrial park, business district, etc. ADT (average daily traffic). The average number of vehicles passing a point during a 24-hour period. Aerial Structure. A rail or bus structure elevated above the adjacent natural surface, usually on columns. Alignment. The horizontal and vertical path followed by a rail line, busway, transitway, or other public work. Alternative. A reasonable option for addressing corridor transportation problems. Alternatives Analysis. The Federal planning procedure undertaken to determine whether a fixed rail, busway, or transitway alternative is cost-effective. Arterial. A major thoroughfare, used mainly for through traffic rather than access to nearby property. Arterials usually have large traffic capacity and are designed for continuously moving traffic. Articulated Coaches. An extra -long, high capacity bus or trolley bus that has the rear body section or sections flexibly but permanently connected to the front section. The arrangement rt alTthws thelvehicle to bend in curves without interior barriers to prevent movement between the twos s.o Typically, an articulated bus is 54 to 60 feet long and has a passenger seating capacity of At -Grade. Following the existing surface. Bicycle Amenities. Facilities designed and built specifically for bicycles and bicyclists using public transportation. oaing or Bus Bulb. A branch of or widened area us bulb is designed to allow the busof a road that lets buses stop while lto aeenter trafflcdeasily. passengers without blocking traffic. Busway. A section of roadway generally separated from other road facilities and built and operated exclusively for buses. Capital Cost. The expense of putting an alternative into operation, including construction costs, materials, installation of equipment, and purchase of vee Carpool. Two or more people sharing the use, cost, or both or traveling in privately owned automobiles between fixed points on a regular basis. Central Business District (CBD). The downtown area of a city. Circulator Service. Bus service confined to a specific area, such as a downtown or suburban neighborhood, with connections to major travel corridors. 1 Glossary March 1993 Committed Improvement. An improvement which has been funded or has funds committed to it. Commuter Rail. A passenger railroad service that runs within metropolitan areas on tracks that are usually part of the general railroad system. The operations, mainly for commuters, are usually during rush hours. Corridor. A long, relatively narrow area within a region that includes a major direction of traffic flow or connects major sources of trips. Cost -Effectiveness. Ability to attract a Targe proportion of new riders and improve travel times for existing riders in proportion to capital and operating costs. Custom Bus. A subscription bus service serving a group of riders with the same work or school destination. Deadhead. The time a transit vehicle is operating but is not in revenue service. Demand. The amount of transportation desired by the public. Demand Responsive Transit. Transit service using small vehicles with flexible routes and schedules, providing door-to-door or point-to-point transportation, often at the customers request. Dial -a -Ride. A demand -responsive system in which curb -to -curb transportation is provided to people requesting the service by telephone, either on an as needed or subscription basis. Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). A comprehensive study of likely environmental impacts that will result from a project. Dual Powered Bus. An articulated bus equipped with a diesel engine and an electric motor. dual -power buses can operate in either mode (assuming overhead trolley wire is available) but not both modes at the same time. E-3 Busway. A new busway between 4th and 6th Avenues S, extending from the International District Station to S Spokane Street. Efficiency. Leading to optimum public transportation use of existing facilities. EIS. Environmental Impact Statement. Elevated Profile. An alignment that runs above the natural ground surface, either on an aerial structure or on fill. Endangered Species. A species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Express Bus Service. Bus service with limited stops, whether from a collector area directly to a specific destination or in a particular corridor with stops on route at major transfer points or activity centers. Express bus service usually uses freeways, busways, or transitways when available. Fatal Flaw. An engineering or environmental problem with an alignment that makes that alignment impractical or infeasible. Federal Corridor. The one corridor of the three under study for which Metro will seek federal funding. Feeder System. Local transportation service that connects to main -line regional service. Glossary 2 March 1993 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). An update to or revision of a Draft EIS which incorporates responses to comments on the DEIS, as well as any new information on the project and its environmental effects. Finance Advantage. Ability to attract financial or other contributions from the private sector and from federal, state, and local public agencies. Fixed Route/Fixed Schedule Transit Service. Conventional transit service that follows regular, unchanging routes and schedules. FIA. Federal Transit Administration (formerly Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA)). A component of the U.S. Department of Transportation which administers the federal transit program. Grade Separation. Separating intersecting facilities vertically (roads, rail, transitways, etc.) by providing crossing structures. Headway. The time between transit vehicles on the same route. Heavy Rail. A train system, usually powered by electricity, that runs on tracks or roadways built exclusively for rapid transit and separated physically from all other traffic. High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV). A bus, carpool, or vanpool. Home -Based Trip. A trip that has either its origin or destination at the traveler's residence. HOV Improvement. Facilities or priority treatments, such as preferential signalization or queue bypasses, designed to improve HOV roadways. HOV Lane. A highway or street lane reserved for use of HOVs. HOV Priority Treatment. A facility which gives HOVs priority at intersections, entrances, exits, or traffic signals. Hundred Year Flood. The highest flood that has a one percent chance of occurring in any particular year. Hydrology. The paths by which ground and surface water can be expected to flow. Interim Terminal. The temporary end point of a rapid transit line after a construction phase. Joint Development. Coordinated ventures between public and private sectors for developing land above, below, or next to transportation facilities. Land -Use Density. The level of compactness of urban development, usually described as population or dwelling units per acre. Level of Service (LOS). A qualitative rating of how effectively a roadway serves traffic. Light -Rail Transit. A transit system that uses electric rail cars similar to a streetca4r running alone or in short trains on fixed, two -rail guideways (tracks). Linked Trip. A trip from the point of origin to the final destination, regardless of the number of modes or vehicles used. Glossary 3 March 1993 Local Bus Service. Bus service that picks up and drops off passengers at frequent, designated stops on city streets. Maglev (Magnetic Levitation). Support technology that keeps a vehide vertically separated from its track and riding surface by magnetic force. Maintenance Base. A transit vehide base with facilities for maintaining the vehicles. Maintenance Cost. The cost of upkeep of vehicles, alignments, structures, machinery, and equipment. Methodology. The methods used to estimate the social impacts, economic impacts, environmental impacts, capital costs, operating and maintenance costs, service and patronage impacts, and financial impacts of the alternatives and to compare them with each other. Mitigation. Steps taken to moderate the impact of construction or operation of a project. Mobility. Degree to which the transportation system's capacity is increased and to which the proportion of transit users increases. Mode. Means of transportation. Mode Split. The statistical breakdown of travel by alternate modes, usually expressed as a percentage of travel by auto, transit, etc. Mode split is frequently used to describe the percentage of people using public transportation, as opposed to the percentage using private automobiles. Model. A mathematical or conceptual description of a real life situation that uses data on past and present conditions to make a projection about the future. Monitor Species. A species of special interest because it: (1) has significant popular appeal; (2) requires limited habitat during some portion of its life cycle; (3) is an indicator of environmental quality; (4) requires further field investigation to determine population status classification; or (5) was justifiably removed from endangered, threatened, or sensitive classification. Monorail. A transit system (usually elevated) made up of electric -powered vehicles guided by a single rail or beam. Mutagenicity. The ability to cause genetic mutation in a cell or organism. Network. A system of links and nodes of transit routes that describes a transportation system. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A comprehensive federal law requiring an analysis of the environmental impacts of federal actions. No -Build Alternative. The altemative which leaves the situation as it already exists. Non -Home -Based Trip. A trip that has neither its origin or destination at the traveler's residence. Off -Peak Direction. Traffic flow going opposite to the majority of traffic during the rush hour, usually away from downtown or an activity center in the morning and toward downtown or an activity center in the evening. Off -Peak Service. Service that takes place outside of rush hours. Glossary 4 March 1993 Operating Cost. All recurring costs that can be associated with the operation of the system during the period under consideration. Operations and Maintenance. Activities necessary to run and maintain a system. Paratransit. Forms of transportation services that are more flexible and personalized than conventional faced route, fixed schedule service, but not including services such as charter bus trips. The vehicles are usually low- or medium -capacity highway vehicles, and the service offered is adjustable in various degrees to individual users' needs. Park -and -Pool. A carpool method where individuals drive alone to a prearranged point to meet with others to travel together to their destinations. Park -and -Ride Lot. A parking lot where transit riders can leave their cars and ride a bus or other transit mode to another location. Peak Direction. The direction of major traffic flow on a highway or transit facility during rush hours. Peak Hour. The hour during which the maximum amount of travel takes place. Peak Period. The period during which the maximum amount of travel occurs. Usually about 7 to 9 a.m. in the moming and 4 to 6 p.m. in the evening. People -Mover. An automated transportation system that provides short trips to or through an activity center. Person Trip. A trip made by a person by any mode or combination of modes for any purpose. Personalized Rapid Transit (PRT). A small, low -speed guideway transit system using small vehicles designed to provide personalized Tervice by traveling to a desired stop without intermediate stops. Platform Hours. The number of hours that all or some of the coaches in the active fleet are in service. Includes deadheading and layover. Platform Miles. The number of miles traveled by all or some of the coaches in the active fleet within a given period of time. Practicality. Ease of implementing the alternative by the year 2000. Queue Jump. A short section of exclusive or preferential lane that allows specified vehicles to pass a line of automobiles or a congested traffic section. Rapid Transit. A transit system serving an urban area using relatively high-speed rail cars or buses in exclusive rights-of-way, without grade crossings. Relocation Compensation. Money given to businesses or residents displaced by a project, in addition to that needed to acquire properties, to partially or fully pay the costs of moving to a new location. Respirable. Capable of being inhaled into the lungs. Retained Cut. An alignment in a passageway below the normal ground surface, open to the sky and with retaining walls on the sides. Glossary 5 March 1993 Ridership. The number of people making one-way trips on a public transportation system in a given time period. Ridesharing. Vanpooling and carpooling. Right -of -Way. Land acquired for or occupied by a transportation alignment, including unused space along the edges or median of the alignment. Scoping. A process occurring near the beginning of an Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement study that involves the public interest groups, and govemment agencies in defining altematives to be evaluated, identifying impact issues to be addressed, and defining a public involvement program. Scoping Meeting. A formal opportunity for the public, interest groups, and govemment agencies to provide input on the alternatives to be evaluated and issues to be addressed in an Altematives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Screening. Identification of the most reasonable alternatives and elimination of unreasonable altematives from further consideration. Single -Occupant Vehicle (SOV). A motor vehicle carrying only one person. Sensitive Species. A species that could become threatened if current water, land, and environmental practices continue. Threatened Species. A species that could become endangered in the foreseeable future without active management or removal of threats. Transit Center. A transit stop or station at the meeting point of several routes or lines which is designed to facilitate passenger transfers. Transit Dependent. Relying on transit services instead of the private automobile as the main means of travel. Transit Incentives. Actions encouraging the use of public transit, including increased service and reduced fares. Transitway. An exclusive right-of-way that is used both by transit and high occupancy vehicles. Transportation Demand Management. Managing the amount of transportation wanted. Development of policies and programs to motivate people to use public transportation, such as bus pass subsidies, flex- time programs, and limiting free parking. Transportation Systems Management. Making better use of the existing transportation system by using short-term, low -capital transportation improvements that cost less and can be implemented more quickly than a rapid transit system. Trip. A one-way movement of a person or vehicle between two points for a specific purpose; sometimes called a one-way trip to distinguish it from a round trip. Trolley Bypass. Overhead electric trolley wire that allows express trolleys to pass other trolleys making local stops. Trolley Overhead. The existing or proposed trolley network with overhead wire for electric power. Glossary 6 March 1993 Unlinked Trip. Any segment of a linked trip. Vanpool. An organized ridesharing arrangement in which a number of people travel together on a regular basis in a van. Expenses are shared, and there is usually a regular volunteer driver. Wetland. An area that is periodically saturated with water, has soils that have developed under saturated conditions, and contains plant fife characteristic of such areas. Glossary 7 March 1993 REFERENCES Anderson L..1991. Biological Effects of Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields: In Vivo Studies. In: Proceedings of the Scientific Workshop on the Health Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields on Workers. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Washington, D.C. Arai/Jackson Architects and Planners. 1991. Metro Rail Station Site Planning and Design Workbook. Seattle, Washington. Beal, David. Metro RTP System Forecasting Project Administrator,. 1993, supplied average estimated transit passenger trip lengths, and numbers of passenger trips utilized to estimate transit vehicle loads per mile. Best L. 1992. Letter of January 17, 1992 to Kris Liljeblad from Lynn Best, Assistant Director, Environmental Affairs Division, Seattle City Light. Seattle, Washington. Bonneville Power Administration. 1992. Draft Environmental Impacat Statement. Resource Programs. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc. 1992. Progress Report: Transit Bus Clean Fuels Initiative for Seattle Metro. Seattle, Washington. November 5, 1992. Bracken, T. 1991. Occupational Exposure Assessment for Electric and Magnetic Fields in the 10-1000 Hz Frequency Range. In: Proceedings of the Scientific Workshop on the Health Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields on Workers. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Washington, D.C. BRW, Inc. 1991a. Land Use, Growth Management and Station Area Planning — Needs and Issues in Implementing a Successful Rapid Transit System. Seattle, Washington. BRW. 1991c. Memorandum from Kris Liljeblad to Chuck Kirchner re Economic Impact of Transit System Construction. BRW, Inc. Seattle, Washington. BRW. 1992. Memorandum of February 6, 1992 from Kris Liljeblad to Chuck Kirchner re Air Pollutant Emissions by Travel Mode. BRW, Inc., Seattle, Washington. BRW, 1993. Memorandum of February 10, 1993 from Kris Liljiblad to Chuck Kirchner re RTP Environmental Studies (comparative emissions of driving a car to a park-and-ride lot versus commuting by car). BRW, Inc. Seattle, Washington. City of Seattle Planning Department. 1991. Environmental Risks in Seattle, A Comparative Assessment. Seattle Environmental Priorities Project: A Report by the Technical Advisory Committee. Seattle, Washington. Cyra T. 1990. Letter of November 20, 1990 to Mike Wold, Metro re Metro HCT Alignments. State of Washington Department of Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. Cyra T. 1991. Letter of September 26, 1991 to Mike Wold, Metro re Regional Transit Project 2020 Extension. State of Washington Department of Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. References 1 March 1993 Ebben JC, Bortleson GC, Fuste LA, Prych EA. 1987. Water Quality in the Lower Puyallup Valley and Adjacent Uplands, Pierce County, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Report 86-4154. Tacoma, Washington. Gannett-DeLeuw. 1990. Rail Transit Technology and Design Guidelines. Seattle, Washington. Grodner M. 1992. Memorandum of January 10, 1992 to Phil Smelley from Mike Grodner re Identification of Major RTP Utility Conflicts. Parsons Bnnckerhoff/ Kaiser Engineers Team. Seattle, Washington. Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA). 1989. Draft Environmental. Impact Statement. Hennepin County Light Rail Transit System. Minneapolis, Minnesota. Hubbard T, Galvin G. 1989. Stormwater Quality Management in the Seattle -King County Region: An Issue Paper. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, Washington. KJS Associates, Inc. 1992. Snohomish County Rail Alignment Alternatives. Bellevue, Washington Line, Dick, 1993, Memorandum of January 13, 1993 to Mike Wold, Metro Environmental Compliance Division, from Dick Llne, of Parsons Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Inc. Estimates of Vehicle Loading and Passenger Miles by Vehicle Type. Madsen L. 1988. Memorandum of May 16, 1988 to Rick Walsh, Manager, Service Planning and Market Development, from Leonard Madsen, Transit Planner, re City of Bellevue - Resolution No. 4738, Cross Lake Passenger Ferry Service. Metro, Seattle, Washington. Manuel Padron & Associates. 1991. Technical Memorandum on Mixed Operations. Atlanta, Georgia. Manuel Padron & Associates. 1992. Regional Transit Project Preliminary Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimates. Atlanta, Georgia. Mestre VE and DC Wooten. 1980. Noise Impact Analysis, in Rau JG and DC Wooten, Environmental Impact Analysis. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. Miller G, 1987. Exposure Guidelines for Magnetic Fields. Journal of the 'American Industrial Hygiene Association, Vol. 48, December, 1987. Moorman G. 1992. Personal communication of January 17, 1992 with Geoff Morrman, Bonneville Power Administration. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro). 1990a. Quality of Local Lakes and Streams 1988-1989 Status Report. Seattle, Washington. References 2 March 1993 Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro). 1990b. Rapid Transit Alternatives. First Screening Briefing Materials. Seattle, Washington. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro). 1990c. Rapid Transit Alternatives. Second Screening Briefing Materials. Seattle, Washington. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro). 1991. Metro 2000 Regional Rapid Transit System. Scoping Summary Report. Seattle, Washington. Norwood S. 1991a. Letter of January 15, 1991 to Mike Wold re High Capacity Transit Project Corridors. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, Washington. Norwood S. 1991b. Letter of October 18, 1991 to Mike Wold re Regional Transit Project 2020 Extension. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, Washington. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1986. Environmental Effects of Automotive Transport. The OECD Compass Project. Parametrix, Inc. 1989. SR 509 Water Quality Report. Bellevue, Washington. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc (PBQD). Methodology Report. Seattle, Washington. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc (PBQD). Results Report. Seattle, Washington. Parsons Brinckerhoff/ICF Kaiser Engineers Team (Parsons/ICF Kaiser). 1991. Take -a -Lane Study. Seattle, Washington. Parsons Brinckerhoff/Kaiser Engineers Team (Parsons/Kaiser). 1991a. Analysis of the Rhododendron Line Concept. At -Grade Light Rail Transit (LRT) on State Route 99. Seattle, Washington. Parsons Brinckerhoff/Kaiser Engineers Team (Parsons/Kaiser). 1991b. Ballard to Laurelhurst Corridor Study. Seattle, Washington. Parsons Brinckerhoff/Kaiser Engineers Team (Parsons/Kaiser). 1991c. Benson Highway Corridor Study. Seattle, Washington. Parsons Brinkerhoff/Kaiser Engineers Team (Parsons/Kaiser). 1991d. Lane Analysis Results. I-5 Ship Canal Bridge. Seattle, Washington. Parsons Brinckerhoff/Kaiser Engineers Team (Parsons/Kaiser). 1991e. Impact of Rail Transit on Economic Development and Land Use: Case Seattle, Washington. Parsons Brinkerhoff/Kaiser Engineers Team (Parsons/Kaiser). 1991f. Alternative. Seattle, Washington. Parsons Brinkerhoff/Kaiser Engineers Team (Parsons/Kaiser). 1991g. Alternative Capital Cost Estimate Results Report. Seattle, Washington. 1991. Travel Forecasting 1992. Travel Forecasting References I-5 Take a The Studies. No -Build No -Build March 1993 Parsons Brinkerhoff/Kaiser Engineers Team (Parsons/Kaiser). 1991h. Non - Motorized Access Study. Seattle, Washington. Parsons Brinckerhoff/Kaiser Engineers Team (Parsons/Kaiser). 1991i. Rail Alternative Report. Seattle, Washington. Parsons Brinckerhoff/Kaiser Engineers Team (Parsons/Kaiser). 1991j. Rail Technologies and Design Guidelines Update Report. Seattle, Washington. Parsons Brinckerhoff/Kaiser Engineers Team (Parsons/Kaiser). 1991k. Rail Technology Perspective Technical Memorandum. Seattle, Washington. Parsons Brinckerhoff/Kaiser Engineers Team (Parsons/Kaiser). 19911. Rainier Avenue Urban Rail Study. Seattle, Washington. Parsons Brinckerhoff/Kaiser Engineers Team (Parsons/Kaiser). 1991m. Regional Transit Project Rail Alternative Report. Seattle, Washington. Parsons Brinckerhoff/Kaiser Engineers Team (Parsons/Kaiser). 1991n. Transitway Alternative Report. Seattle, Washington. Parsons Brinckerhoff/Kaiser Engineers Team (Parsons/Kaiser). 1991o. TSM Alternative Capital Cost Estimate Results Report. Seattle, Washington. Parsons Brinckerhoff/Kaiser Engineers Team (Parsons/Kaiser). 1991p. 2020 Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative. Seattle, Washington. Parsons Brinckerhoff/Kaiser Engineers Team (Parsons/Kaiser). 1991q. West Seattle Corridor Study. Seattle, Washington. Parsons Brinckerhoff/Kaiser Engineers Team (Parsons/Kaiser). 1992a. Capital Cost Estimate: Rail Alternative. 2v. Seattle, Washington. Parsons Brinckerhoff/Kaiser Engineers Team (Parsons/Kaiser). 1992b. Capital Cost Estimate: Transitway Alternative. Seattle, Washington. Parsons Brinckerhoff/Kaiser Engineers Team (Parsons/Kaiser). 1992c. Evaluation Methodology Report. Seattle, Washington. Parsons Brinckerhoff/Kaiser Engineers Team (Parsons/Kaiser). 1992d. North Corridor Rail Alternative State Route 99 Northgate to Lynnwood. Seattle, Washington. Parsons Brinckerhoff/Kaiser Engineers Team (Parsons/Kaiser). 1992e. North Corridor Traffic Impact Analysis. Seattle, Washington. Parsons Brinckerhoff/Kaiser Engineers Team (Parsons/Kaiser). 1993. Regional Transit Project. Evelopment of the Busway and Transitway Alternative. Seattle, Washington. Pierce County. 1989a. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Pierce County Transportation Plan Policy Document. Tacoma, Washington. References 4 March 1993 Pierce County. 1989b. Final Environmental Impact Statement Pierce County Transportation Plan Policy Document. Tacoma, Washington. Pierce County. 1989c. Pierce County Transportation Plan Policy Document. Tacoma, Washington. Pierce Transit. 1992. Interim Pierce Transit System Plan (1992-2020). Tacoma, Washington. Pool R. 1990. Flying Blind: The Making of EMF Policy. Science, Vol 250, October, 1990. Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG). 1981. Light Rail Transit Feasibility Study. Seattle, Washington. Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG). 1982. Regional Transportation Plan. Seattle, Washington. Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG). 1983 Puget Sound Transportation Alternatives Analysis - North Corridor. Ground -Borne Vibration Report. Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG). 1988. Population and Employment Forecasts. Seattle, Washington. Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG). 1989. Regional Transportation Plan and Development Strategy. Comments on EIS Scoping Notice. Seattle, Washington. Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG). 1990. Vision 2020. Growth Strategy and. Transportation Plan foi the Central Puget Sound Region. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Seattle, Washington. Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG). Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro). 1982. Public Involvement Report - North Corridor. Seattle, Washington. Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG). Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro). 1983. Development of Alternatives - North Corridor. Seattle, Washington. Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG). Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle .(Metro). 1985. Phase I Evaluation of Corridor Options. Seattle, Washington. Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG). Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro). 1986. Summary Report. Multi -Corridor Project. Seattle, Washington. Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG). 1988. Population and Employment Forecasts. Seattle, Washington. References 5 March 1993 Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG). 1989. Regional Transportation Plan and Development Strategy. Comments on EIS Scoping Notice. Seattle, Washington. Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG). 1990. Vision 2020. Growth Strategy and Transportation Plan for the Central Puget Sound Region. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Seattle, Washington. Ryan JM, Emerson DJ, Thomas EL, Mow11 KU, Steinmann R, Martin R, Ossi AJ, Jensen -Fisher R. 1986. Procedures and Technical Methods for Transit Project Planning. Urban Mass Transit Administration. Washington, DC. Saurenman HJ, Nelson JT, Wilson GP. 1982. Handbook on Urban Rail Noise and Vibration Control, U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration. Washington, D.C. Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 1991. Soils, Geology, and Seismic Setting for System Plan Report. W-5805-26. Seattle, Washington. Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 1992. Memorandum of January 15, 1992 to Phillip Smelley from Paul M. Godlewski, P.E. re Draft Input to the Environmental Impact Statement, Section 3.1: Earth, Metro Regional Transit Project. Seattle, Washington. Shearer JD. 1986. Quieting Transit Track. Railway Track and Structures, November, 1986. Snohomish County Transportation Authority (SNO-TRAN). 1986. The North Corridor Extension Project: The Feasibility of High Capacity Transit in Snohomish County. Lynnwood, Washington. Snohomish County Transportation Authority (SNO-TRAN). 1987. Mountlake Terrace Station Area Study. Lynnwood, Washington. Snohomish County Transportation Authority (SNO-TRAN). 1988. Lynnwood Station Area Study. Lynnwood, Washington. Snohomish County Transportation Authority (SNO-TRAN). 1989a. Public Transportation Plan for Snohomish County, Washington. Lynnwood, Washington. Snohomish County Transportation Authority (SNO-TRAN). 1989b. Snohomish County Station Study. Lynnwood, Washington. Snohomish County Transportation Authority (SNO-TRAN). 1990. Everett Station Area Study. Lynnwood, Washington. State of Washington, USEPA. 1989. Environment 2010 - The State of the Environment Report. A joint project of the State of Washington and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Olympia, Washington. Stoetzel J. 1992. Personal communication of March 10, 1992 from James Stoetzel, Manager, Suburban Services, Burlington Northern Railroad. Chicago, Illinois. References 6 March 1993 TRC, Inc. 1990. Air Quality Implications of Transit in the Year 2000. Mountlake Terrace, Washington. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Determination of erce ttageon, Df Vehicles Operating in the Cold Start Mode, EPA 450/3 C. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985.. AP -42 Document - Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Highway Mobile Sources. Washington, DC U.S. Department of Transportation. 1979. Guidelines for Assessing the Environmental Impact of Public Mass Transportation Projects, Notebook 4, Physical Impacts. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, 1980. Urban Rail Noise Abatement Program Digest, May, 1980, (Report No. UMTA-MA-06-0099-80-3). Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Data Tables for the 1990 Section 15 Report Year. December, 1991. Voris M. 1991. Memorandum of August 5, 1991 to Len Madsen re Alternative Fleet Plan Scenarios. •Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. Seattle, Washington. Washington State Department of Transportation. 1991. Passenger Transportation Options in Washington State. Public Transportation Office, Planning Research and Public Transportation Division, Washington State Department of Transportation. Olympia, Washington. Wilson, Barry W. 1992. EMF Research Update. Unpublished manuscript. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. References 7 March 1993 DISTRIBUTION LIST GOVERNMENT AGENCIES & JURISDICTIONS Federal Tribes State U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Coast Guard U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, NW Div. U.S. Dept. of Transportation Federal Transportation Administration Federal Highway Administration, Division Administrator Federal Emergency Management Agency U.S. EPA Region 10 U.S. EPA Wash. OPS Office U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Western Office of Project Review Muckleshoot Tribe of Indians Puyallup Tribe of Indians Tulalip Tribe of Indians Office of the Governor Department of Community Development Department of Ecology Department of Fisheries Department of Wildlife Department of Transportation HCT Expert Review Panel Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation University of Washington Washington Parks & Recreation Commission Regional Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority Puget Sound Regional Council Counties King County Pierce County Snohomish County Snohomish County Ad Hoc Committee on HCT Snohomish County PUD #1 Ports Port of Everett Port of Seattle Port of Tacoma Transit Agencies Community Transit Everett Transit Intercity Transit Metro SNOTRAN Pierce Transit Local DISTRIBUTION LIST City of Algona City of Auburn City of Bellevue City of Black Diamond City of Bonney Lake City of Bothell City of Brier City of Burien City of Carnation City of Des Moines City of Dupont City of Duvall City of Edmonds City of Enumclaw City of Everett Everett School District No. 2 City of Federal Way City of Fife City of Granite Falls City of Issaquah City of Kent City of Kirkland City of Lake Forest Park City of Stanwood City of Lake Stevens City of Lynnwood City of Marysville City of Mercer Island City of Mill Creek City of Monroe City of Mountlake Terrace City of Mukilteo City of Normandy Park City of North Bend City of Pacific City of Puyallup City of Redmond City of Renton City of Roy City of Sea Tac City of Seattle Seattle City Light Seattle Planning Commission City of Snohomish City of Snoqualmie DISTRIBUTION LIST City of Sumner City of Tacoma Tacoma Environmental Commission City of Tukwila City of Wilkeson Town of Beaux Arts Town of Clyde Hill Town of Eatonville Town of Fircrest Town of Hunts Point Town of Milton Town of Orting Town of South Prairie Town of Sultan Town of Woodway Town of Yarrow Point COMMUNITY, BUSINESS, ENVIRONMENTAL & OTHER INTEREST GROUPS Bellevue Downtown Association Citizen's Transit Advisory Committee Eastside Transportation Committee Eastside Transportation Program EDC of Seattle and King County EDC of Snohomish County Everett Area Chamber of Commerce For Everett Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce Intercity Transit Leagues of Women Voters of King Co. Municipal League North Renton/Kennydale Neighbohood Puget Power Puget Sound Light Rail Transit Society Queen Anne/Magnolia Noise Abatement Group Rainier Beach Commuity Club Seattle Community Council Federation Seattle Economic Development Council Seattle/King Asssociation of Realtors Sierra Club Sounding Board Southeast Effective Development, Inc.(SEED) Snohomish County Committee for Improved Transportation Southwest King County Chamber of Commerce Washington Environmental Council Washington Natural Gas Washington Society.of Professional Engineers Washington Transportation Policy Institute Bernard Development Company The Burke Associates Pathfinder Systems, Inc. Soft Pages, Reed TDA, Eager DISTRIBUTION LIST M2, Wieckowicz INDIVIDUALS All individuals commenting by letter, comment sheet or testimony at the public hearings on the draft EIS were sent a copy of the final Environmental Impact Statement. See Chapter 5 for a list of names. LIBRARIES Auburn Public Library Bothell Library Bellevue Public Library Brier Library Edmonds Public Library Everett Community College Library Everett Public Library Granite Falls Library King County Library Lake Stevens Library Lighthouse for the Blind Lynnwood Public Library Marysville Library Metro Library Mill Creek Library Monroe Library Mountlake Terrace Library Mukilteo Library Municipal Reference Library Renton Public Library Seattle Public Library University of Washington, SnTrallo Library NOTICE OF ISSUANCE The following groups were sent a notice of issuance for the final Environmental Impact Statement. A Thousand Friends of Washington Action Council for Esperance Admiral Community Council Alderwood Community Council Alderwood Water & Sewer District Alki Community Club Allci Community Council Allied Arts of Seattle American Association of University Women American Association of Retired Persons American Insitute of Architects, Seattle Chapter American Lung Association of Washington American Planning Association - Washington Chapter Asian Counseling and Referral Service, Inc. Association of Washington Cities ATU Local 587, Dan Linville Auburn Rotary Club Ballard District Council DISTRIBUTION LIST Bellevue Downtown Association Brentwood Neighborhood Assoc. Brier Citizens Committee Brighton Community Council Burlington Northern Railroad Canyon Firs Homeowners Committee Capitol Hill Community Council Capitol Hill District Council Cascade Area Business Neighbors (CABN) Cascade Bicycle Club Cascade Community Council Cascade Natural Gas Center Park Resident's Council Central Area District Council Central Seattle Community Council Federation Chehalis Western Railroad Church Council of Greater Seattle Citizens to Save Puget Sound Civic Club of Lk Forest Pk Coalition of Labor & Business Columbia City Neighborhood Association Concerned Citizens of Georgetown Concerned Citizens of Snohomish County Delridge District Council Downtown District Council Downtown Seattle Association Duwamish View Improvement Club East Bellevue Community Council Eastgate Sewer District Edmonds Council of Concerned Citizens Edmonds Water & Sewer Dept. El Centro de la Raza Fauntleroy Community Assoc. Federal Way Community Council First Hill Improvement Association Floating Homes Association Forbes Water District Frederick -Clover Creek Community Council Fremond Neighborhood Council Friends of Westcrest Park Greater Burien Community Council Greater South Park Association Greenlake Community Council Greenpeace NW Greenwood Community Council GTE Haller Lake Improvement Club Highland park Action Committee Hillman City Neighborhood Association Hilltop Concerned Citizens Holly Park Community Council Human Services Roundtable Inglewood Shores Homeowners Association Institute for Transportation and the Environment Judkins Rejected Community Council DISTRIBUTION LIST Kennard Corner Homeowners Kirkland Alliance of Neighborhoods Lake Ballinger Comm Club Lake TV Cable Larch Way Neighborhood Preservation Assoc. League of Women Voters of Tacoma - Pierce County Licton Springs Community Council Lynnwood Water & Sewer Dept. Magnolia Community Club Martha Lake Community Club Martha Lake Homeowners Marysville Chamber of Commerce Marysville School District #25 Minority Exec. Directors Coalition Mount Baker Community Club Mount Baker Housing Association The Mountaineers Mountlake Terrace Water & Sewer Dept. Mt. Rainier Nat'l Park Assoc. Mukilteo School District #6 Mukilteo Water Department Municipal League of Tacoma/Pierce Co. National Council of Senior Citizens, Puget Sound Council Neighborhood Business Council North Beacon Hill Coalition North City Community Council North Lake Wash Comm. Coalition North Lynnwood Community Council Northeast District Council Northshore School District #417 NW Bicy,:ie Foundation NW Steelhead & Salmon Council - Elliott Bay Chapter Olympic View Water District Olympus I Homeowners Assoc Oso Water Company/Doemus Pacific Northwest Bell People for Downtown Housing Phinney Ridge Community Council Pierce Co. Citizens for Improved Transportation Pilchuck Audubon Society Puget Sound Alliance Puget Sound Council of Sr. Citizens Puget Sound Power & Light Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Queen Anne Community council Rainier Beach Community Club Rainier Vista Community Council Ravenna/Bryant Community Association Renton Rotary Richmond Beach Community Club Richmond Beach Community Council Roosevelt Neighborhood Association Rotary Club of Seattle Rubatino Refuse Company Seattle Bicycle Advisory Group DISTRIBUTION LIST Seattle Housing Authority Seattle Neighborhood Coalition Seattle Urban League Save Our University Place Sheridan Beach Community Club Shoreline Community Council The Sierra Club, Komo Kulshan Group Silver Lake Sewer & Water District Smokey Point Area Chamber of Commerce Snohomish County League of Women Voters Snohomish Wetlands Alliance South Snohomish County Preservation Assoc. Soos Creek Water and Sewer District Sounding Board South Atlantic Community Council South Beacon Steering Committee South County Homeowners Assoc. South Hill Comm. Council South Park Community Club South Snohomish County Chamber of Commerce Sunset Hill Community Club Tacoma Area Chamber of Commerce Tacoma -Pierce Co. Economic Development Board . Tacoma League of Women Voters Tacoma/Pierce County Chamber of Commerce The Breakfast Group Transportation Discussion Group Union Pacific Corp. United Neighborhoods of Tacoma University Community Council University District Community Council UW Inst. for Public Policy & Management Valley Area Transportation Alliance Vision Seattle Wallingford Community Council White Center Chamber of Commerce Willowcrest Wingate Homeowners Assoc Women's Transportation Seminar Woods Trails Homeowners Media Bellevue Journal -American Daily Journal of Commerce Edmonds Tribune Review Everett News Tribune KCPQ TV KCTS TV KING TV KING 1090 KIRO Radio KIRO TV KOMO TV DISTRIBUTION LIST KRKO 1380 AM KUOW Mill Creek Enterprise Mill Creek Tribune News Tribune Pierce County Herald Queen Anne/Magnolia News Robinson Newspapers Seattle Post-Intelligencer Seattle Times The Enterprise The Herald The Weekly Valley Daily News Valley Newspapers