Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2014-07-14 Item 2B - Presentation - Sound Transit Long Range Plan UpdateTO: City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM Mayor Haggerton City Council FROM: Brandon J. Miles, Economic Development Planner DATE: July 7, 2014 SUBJECT: Sound Transit's Long Range Plan Update Briefing by Sound Transit ISSUE Staff from Sound Transit will provide a briefing to the City Council regarding the agency's ongoing project to update its long range plan. BACKGROUND Sound Transit is currently in the process of updating its Long Range Plan (Plan). The Plan outlines the agency's vision for the high capacity transit (HCT) system serving urban areas in Snohomish, King, and Pierce Counties. The Plan was last updated in 2005 and served as a foundation for voter approval of Sound Transit 2 in November of 2008. Sound Transit has indicated that is hopes to go to the voters in November of 2016 to seek authorization for Sound Transit 3, which would further expand HCT in the region. Prior to a vote, Sound Transit would need to obtain authority from the State Legislature to increase its taxing authority. On June 13, 2014, Sound Transit issued a draft Supplement Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) regarding proposed changes to the Plan. A copy of the Executive Summary to the draft SEIS is attached. The Executive Summary outlines various proposed corridors that Sound Transit may consider providing HCT in the future. Staff is currently reviewing the draft SEIS document and comments are due to Sound Transit on July 28, 2014. The Sound Transit Board will be considering updates to the Plan in fall of 2014, with final action scheduled in December. Sound Transit staff will provide a brief presentation to the City Council regarding proposed changes to the Plan. This presentation will be high level. It is important to note that the Long Range Plan is not fiscally constrained (limited by budget). The Plan presents a wide range of options to provide HCT in the Sound Transit service area. Once the Long Range Plan is adopted, the Sound Transit Board will consider changes to the Service Plan. The Service Plan is fiscally constrained and will set the stage for the actual projects that will go before the voters as part of a future Sound Transit 3 vote. DISCUSSION Sound Transit Existing Long Range Plan provides many projects and services that could benefit the City, if implemented. The projects listed below are in Sound Transit's existing Long Range Plan and the revised long range plan, discussed below, builds on these existing projects. These projects are currently not funded. 1. Light Rail, connecting Burien to Tukwila, via SeaTac. Sound Transit is currently studying this proposed Tight rail route (HCT Corridor Studies). The route may be extended to connect West Seattle to Burien, SeaTac, and Tukwila. 2. Increase Parking Capacity at Tukwila/International Blvd Station. INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 Sound Transit's current long range plan includes a project to increase parking capacity at the TIB Station. The amount of needed parking is scheduled to be determined after the stations at South 200th Street and the University of Washington open. In 2004, as part of the initial permitting for the Tukwila International Blvd (TIB) Light Rail Station, the City issued a parking determination regarding the minimum number of parking stalls at the station. In 2004, it was presumed that the TIB Station would be the southern station in the Central Light Rail Link. However, Sound Transit has been able to secure funding to extend Light Rail to S. 200th Street and a station is currently under construction. The 200th station may relieve parking issues at the TIB Station. Recognizing that conditions had changed, in 2011, the City and Sound Transit signed an agreement regarding parking at the TIB Station. The agreement, included as an attachment to this memo, defers the submission of parking studies by Sound Transit until 12 months after the start of operations at both the 200th Light Rail Station and the station at the University of Washington (UW). There is concern that any relief in parking caused by the opening of the S. 200th Station may be offset by increased parking demand associated with the station at the UW. 3. North Tukwila Light Rail Stations. Sound Transit's current long range plan includes light rail stations near Boeing Access Road and S. 133rd Street; both stations were part of Sound Move1, but the placement of these stations was deferred. Initial modeling shows that if both of these stations were in operation it would increase total overall boardings on the Central Link by three percent (5,200 total boardings; 3,200 boardings at Boeing Access Road and 1,900 at S. 133rd. ), while only increasing travel time between Kent/Des Moines and Westlake by about two and half minutes. The City's TIB Station would see boardings decrease by about 1,100, thus likely reducing parking demand at the station. The Sabey Corporation has approached the City about moving ahead as quickly as possible with a station near Boeing Access Road. Sabey has stated to the City staff that it is seeing more interests by potential office tenants to be located near light rail stations. 4. HCT from Renton to Lynnwood. This route could include light rail and /or bus rapid transit and could help alleviate traffic on Interstate 405. It is unclear if this connection would extend to the City's Sounder Station If extended to the City's Sounder Station, this could also allieviate congestion on State Route 167 and Interstate 5. The City may want to advocate for this extension The following projects, which may benefit the City, are currently shownto be included in the Long Range Plan Update. 1. New Light Rail Line from North Tukwila to SODO. No specific route has been identified. 2. Light Rail Line from Puyallup /Sumner to Renton, via 167. It is unclear if this would connect to the City's Sounder Station on Long acres way. Sound Move was the intial vote in November of 1996 that provided Sound Transit its intial tax funding. Z: \Brandon \Sound Transit \FINAL INFO MEMO, 2014.07,14.doc 2 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 3 3. Regional Express bus connecting Renton to Downtown Seattle. This would likely go through Tukwila and the City may want to advocate for a stop in the Southcenter area of the City. 4. Regional Express or Bus Rapid Transit, connecting Tacoma to Bellevue. This would likely go through Tukwila and the City may want to advocate for a stop in the Southcenter area of the City. 5. Regional Express or Bus Rapid Transit, connecting Kent to SeaTac Airport. This route could go through the City and could be used to provide Tukwila South with increased bus transit. 6. Regional Express or Bus Rapid Transit, connecting Puyallup to Rainer Valley. This route would likely pass by the City and the City may want to advocate that a stop is provided in the City. 7. Expanded HCT from the Tukwila Sounder Station to Downtown Seattle via Sea -Tac Airport, Burien, and West Seattle. This route would expand HCT in the City's Southcenter area of the City. Access to HCT is vital to the City's businesses, residents, and property owners. Additionally, in order for the City's Urban Center and Manufacturing Industrial Center to remain competitive, they must have expansive linkage to HCT connecting the City to the region. Overall, the Sound Transit's current and long range plan assist in achieving this goal. The purpose of tonight's meeting is for the Council to have a high level discussion about Sound Transit's Long Range Plan update. The City's Police Department is working with Sound Transit on safety related issues at our light rail station but that topic is not part of the long range plan update and so is not intended to be part of tonight's discussion. Staff intends to have further discussions with the City Council in the coming months regarding Sound Transit's Long Range Plan and the City's advocacy priorities. FINANCIAL IMPACT None. RECOMMENDATION Information Only. ATTACHMENTS • Sound Transit's SEIS Executive Summary. • Dispute Resolution Settlement Agreement Regarding Noise and Parking Between the City and Sound Transit, July of 2011. Z: \Brandon \Sound Transit \FINAL INFO MEMO, 2014.07.14.doc 3 EXECUTIVE SU INTRODUCTION ound Transit is updating its Regional Transit Long -Range Plan, which outlines the agency's vision for a high- capacity transit (HCT) system serving the urban areas of Snohomish, King, and Pierce Counties. The plan includes corridors for light rail, commuter rail, and regional express bus /bus rapid transit. The plan focuses on the functional elements of the system —how HCT and supporting services will continue to help meet the transportation needs created by future population and em- ployment growth in the region. Sound Transit is in the process of com- pleting the second phase of its investments, known as Sound Transit 2 (ST2), consistent with the current 2005 Long -Range Plan. An updated Long -Range Plan will look further ahead by addressing regional transit needs that remain after the ST2 system plan is fully implemented. As required by the Washington State Environmental Policy Act, this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) supports Sound Transit's current planning and decision - making efforts for an updated Long -Range Plan and future transit system plan. This Draft SEIS presents a plan -level environmental review of two Long -Range Plan Update alternatives, the Current Plan Alternative (the No Action Alternative) and the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative (the Action Alternative). Each alternative considers broad actions throughout the region— transit modes, corridors, types of sup- porting facilities, programs, and policies. Upon completion of the environmental review process, the Sound Transit Board will decide whether to revise the Long -Range Plan. S -1 5 Regional Transit Long -Range Plan Update History and Background of the Regional Transit Long -Range Plan In 1996, Sound Transit developed and adopted its first Regional Transit Long -Range Vision, which later evolved into the agency's Long -Range Plan. At the same time, Sound Transit adopted The Ten -Year Regional Transit System Plan, which became known as Sound Move. Sound Move was the first phase of investments for im- plementing the Long -Range Vision. The current Long - Range Plan was adopted in 2005 as an update to the original Long -Range Vision. The second phase of invest- ments, the ST2 System Plan, was subsequently adopted in 2008 and is in the process of being implemented. Sound Transit's Long -Range Plan is a fiscally uncon- strained plan that includes services and facilities to connect the region's growth centers with high - capacity transit. The regional transit system currently includes light rail, commuter rail, bus rapid transit (BRT), and re- gional express bus services and facilities. It also includes programs and policies that support these services. Sound Transit's services are integrated with local transit service, providing a "coordinated system of services" to make it easy to move around the region. The envisioned network of transit services described in the Long -Range The purpose of the Long -Range Plan Update is to define a regional HCT system that could effectively and sustainably serve the mobility needs of the central Puget Sound region through 2040 and beyond. 6 Plan is at a corridor -wide level; specific routes or align- ments are not defined. The Long -Range Plan has been implemented in phases through voter - approved funding programs, first through Sound Move and then ST2, which were both fiscally constrained. That is, they were limited by the funds projected to be available. Environmental Review Process This Draft SEIS is part of a phased environmental re- view process. It supplements and builds on the Regional Transit System Plan Final EIS of 1993 (JRPC 1993) and the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the Regional Transit Long -Range Plan of 2005 (Sound Transit 2005), which were prepared to support Sound Transit's previous long -range planning efforts. This SEIS process precedes any future proj- ect -level environmental review for individual projects. They may be implemented under future funding pro- grams once ST2 is completed. This Draft SEIS evaluates the potential transportation and environmental effects of implementing the Current Plan Alternative and the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative using a 2040 planning horizon. Corridors in the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative could be selected in whole, or in part, by the Board when updat- ing the plan. Along with other information developed through the update process (e.g., the high- capacity transit corridor studies —see page 12), this SEIS will support the deci- sions of the Sound Transit Board to: • Ensure that the Long -Range Plan continues to meet Sound Transit's goals • Make revisions to update the Long -Range Plan Purpose and Need Purpose The purpose of the Long -Range Plan Update is to define a regional HCT system that could effective- ly and sustainably serve the mobility needs of the central Puget Sound region through 2040 and beyond, providing an alternative to travel by automobile and the congested freeway network. The Long -Range Plan Update will consider the projected regional popula- tion, employment, and transportation growth. This will be done in coordination with, and with the support of, the growth management strategies established in regional land use, transportation, and economic devel- opment plans. Need An update to Sound Transit's Long -Range Plan is need- ed to achieve the following: • Make it consistent with updated local and regional plans Sound Transit's Long -Range Plan is a part of the larger regional transportation picture and feeds into Transportation 2040, the Puget Sound Region's Transportation Plan. Since the 2005 Long -Range Plan was adopted, Transportation 2040, Vision 2040, and other local plans have been updated by the Puget Sound Regional Council, the region's federally S -2 June 2014 recognized metropolitan planning organization. County and city comprehensive plans throughout the region reinforce the need for HCT investments to support new and continued population and em- ployment growth, as well as to provide for vibrant urban communities that offer alternatives to travel via the automobile. Sound Transit's Long -Range Plan Update will help support these plans. • Incorporate current population and employment forecasts From a base of more than 2.8 million today, the region's population is expected to grow by over 30 percent to more than 3.7 million in 2040. During the same period, employment is expected to grow even faster, from approximately 1.5 million jobs to over 2.5 million, an increase of 62 percent. The projected increases in population and jobs in the Plan area will result in more congestion. The Long - Range Plan update will address appropriate HCT service to support the anticipated growth. • Identify potential modifications to the plan that could serve as a basis for the next phase of HCT improvements to continue to address long -term mobility needs It has been almost 10 years since the Long -Range Plan was last updated. During that time, several Sound Transit projects have been in varying stages of planning, design, and construction. Sound Tran- sit's system ridership has grown almost 155 percent and is expected to continue to increase. An update to the Long -Range Plan may identify potential new or modified HCT corridors and services. It may also clarify modal choices and services for HCT corridors in the current plan. Goals The goals of the current Long -Range Plan were re- fined for the Long -Range Plan Update and include the following: • Provide a public high - capacity transportation sys- tem that helps ensure long -term mobility, connec- tivity, and convenience for residents of the central Puget Sound region for generations to come • Strengthen communities' use of the regional tran- sit network • Create a financially feasible system • Improve the economic vitality of the region • Preserve and promote a healthy and sustainable environment Alternatives Considered in the SEIS Two alternatives have been developed for evalua- tion in this Draft SEIS: the Current Plan Alternative (the No Action Alternative) and the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative (the Action Alternative). These alternatives include a wide range of high - capacity corridors and modes for purposes of updating the fis- cally unconstrained Long -Range Plan. 5 -3 7 S -4 8 Regional Transit Long -Range Plan Update MAP KEY Current Plan Alternative Light Rail Service 111111 High- Capacity Transit 1 1 1 1 Future Light Rail Service 111111 Potential Rail Extensions - Commuter Rail Service O Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) - Regional Express Bus Service Local Bus Service Sound Transit District Boundary University Place Lakewood DuPont. 1 ) • • Mukilteo Everett ill reek Lynnw Edmonds Shorelin Ballard Snohomish County Woodinville KingCouniy - -- Seattle West Seattle Burie Redmond Overlake ellevue Renton Federal Way Tacoma ....• 11 11 Puyallup • ti (-s Thurston County (' Pierce County Frederickson Orting Kent Auburn Sammamish Issaquah Sumner) Bonney Lake"—,,,f Kog couno, Pierce CO 0 N Miles 0 4 8 Source: Sound Transit 2014 Figure S -1 Current Plan Alternative June 2014 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement oee Development of alternatives Three primary HCT transit technologies and support- ing services were studied in this Draft SEIS —light rail, commuter rail, and regional express bus /BRT. In addi- tion, the Draft SEIS also looked at streetcar services. Each of these modes is further defined in Chapter 2 of the Draft SEIS. Sound Transit conducted a scoping process for the Long -Range Plan Update SEIS in fall 2013. The more than 5,000 comments received helped Sound Transit determine which alternatives and environmental issues would be studied in the Draft SEIS. The Scoping Summary Report for the 2014 Long -Range Plan Update presents more detailed information about the com- ments received. Many suggestions made during scoping were related to corridors and specific services or facilities within HCT corridors already in the Current Plan Alternative. These corridors and "representative projects" (see page S -8) were presumed to be developable under the Current Plan Alternative. Suggestions for new transit corri- dors were put through a screening process in order to develop the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative. The screening criteria used during this process were based on the purpose and need for the Long -Range Plan Update and the goals and objectives described in Chapter 1 of the Draft SEIS. Current Plan Alternative (No Action Alternative) The No Action Alternative, referred to in the Draft SEIS as the Current Plan Alternative, consists of the current 2005 Long -Range Plan plus the Sound Transit Board actions taken as part of the development and imple- mentation of the ST2 program. Key Board decisions that affected corridors in the Long -Range Plan are listed in Chapter 2 of the Draft SEIS. Figure S -1 shows the general corridors that would be served as part of the Current Plan Alternative. For purposes of analyzing potential impacts on the trans- portation system and on transit ridership, all of the corridors shown in Figure S -1 were included as part of the Current Plan Alternative. When analyzing potential environmental impacts for this alternative, the Draft SEIS focuses primarily (but not exclusively) on those corridor sections that do not yet have service in opera- tion, are not yet under construction, or have otherwise not begun project -level environmental reviews. Those corridors are shown in Figure 2. On Figure S -2, the light rail, commuter rail, and bus corridors in operation, under construction, or in project -level environmental review are screened back because they have already been, or are currently, subject to project -level environmental review. Light rail Some corridors previously designated in the 1996 and 2005 Long -Range Plans as potential rail extensions were subsequently funded through Sound Move and ST2. Light rail elements of the Current Plan Alternative that were funded through Sound Move and ST2 and are in operation, under construction, or in project -level envi- ronmental review include the following: • Central Link from Sea -Tac Airport to Downtown Seattle • S. 200th Link Extension from Sea -Tac Airport south to S. 200th Street • University Link Extension from Downtown Seattle to the University of Washington • Northgate Link Extension from Husky Stadium to Northgate • Lynnwood Link Extension from Northgate to Lynnwood • East Link light rail from Seattle to Downtown Redmond • Federal Way Link Extension from South 200th Street to the Federal Way Transit Center • Tacoma Link light rail from Tacoma Station to Downtown Tacoma and an extension to the west • Operations and maintenance facilities in Seattle and Tacoma and a satellite facility in either Lynnwood or Bellevue Some of the remaining corridors in the Current Plan Alternative were identified as "Potential Rail Extensions" in the 2005 Long -Range Plan but have not yet been included in a system plan for project develop- ment or construction. Therefore, decisions on mode in those corridors have not yet been made but could be light rail. For purposes of analyzing potential impacts associated with the Current Plan Alternative, corridors A through H reflect potential rail extensions that were analyzed as light rail corridors (see the Current Plan Alternative list on page S -6 and Figure S -2). Some of these corridors were also evaluated for commuter rail and /or BRT (see the "Commuter Rail" and "Regional Express Bus /BRT" sections below). Light rail corridors would have similar service charac- teristics as the Link light rail system implemented as 5 -5 9 Regional Transit Long -Range Plan Update part of Sound Move and ST2 and would operate primar- ily on exclusive rights -of -way or on surface streets with protected rights -of -way. Commuter rail Sound Transit currently operates Sounder commuter rail service from Everett to Lakewood. Some of the corridors in the Current Plan Alternative identified as "Potential Rail Extensions" in the 2005 Long -Range Plan have not yet been included in a system plan for construction (or the project development phase). These corridors, I and J, are shown in Figure S -2 and the Current Plan Alternative list on this page. Since they could be implemented as commuter rail, they were evaluated as such for purposes of analyzing potential impacts associated with the Current Plan Alternative. Regional express bus /bus rapid transit Numerous corridors are identified for regional express bus, BRT, or —in most cases —both under the Current Plan Alternative. Sound Transit currently operates 26 regional express bus (ST Express) routes, many of which operate in high- occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. For purposes of analyzing potential environmental impacts for the Current Plan Alternative, this Draft SEIS focuses on the regional express bus and BRT cor- ridors not yet implemented and includes corridors M through Y. For BRT corridors M through S, ST Express bus service currently operates in all of these corridors except corri- dor P, which is the Eastside Rail Corridor east of Seattle. Each of these corridors is also shown as a BRT corridor in the 2005 Long -Range Plan and therefore could also be considered for higher performing BRT operating within exclusive rights -of -way where feasible. Corridors T through Y of the Current Plan Alternative are identified exclusively for regional express bus service (no BRT) in the 2005 Long -Range Plan but are not yet in service. High- capacity transit The Current Plan Alternative includes two corridors identified in the 2005 Long -Range Plan as "HCT" without specifying a particular mode. These corri- dors could be implemented as light rail or as BRT. For purposes of analyzing potential impacts associated with the Current Plan Alternative, this Draft SEIS evaluates Current Plan Alternative LIGHT RAIL Potential light rail corridors in the Current Plan Alternative. Potential rail extensions, assumed light rail. A Tacoma to Federal Way B Burien to Renton C Bellevue to Issaquah along I -90' D Renton to Lynnwood along 1 -405 E Renton to Woodinville along Eastside Rail Corridor F Downtown Seattle to Ballard' G Ballard to University of Washington' H Lynnwood to Everett COMMUTER RAIL Potential commuter rail corridor in the Current Plan Alternative. Potential rail extension, assumed commuter rail. 1 DuPont to Lakewood J Renton to Woodinville along Eastside Rail Corridor REGIONAL EXPRESS BUS /BUS RAPID TRANSIT Bus rapid transit (BRT) M Federal Way to DuPont along 1 -5 N Renton to Puyallup along SR 167 O Bellevue to Issaquah along 1 -90 P Renton to Woodinville along Eastside Rail Corridor Q Renton to Lynnwood along 1 -405 R Seattle to Everett along SR 99 S Lynnwood to Everett along 1 -5 Regional express bus T Puyallup to DuPont via Cross Base Highway U Puyallup to Lakewood ✓ Puyallup to Tacoma W SeaTac to West Seattle X Redmond to Kirkland Y North Bothell to Mill Creek to Mukilteo HCT (mode not specified) K University of Washington to Redmond via SR 520' L Northgate to Bothell on SR 522 Portions of these corridors could be constructed in tunnels. S -6 10 June 2014 C Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 0�6 MAP KEY Projects Approved in Sound Move/ ST2 System Plans (In Operation /In Design or In Construction /In Project Development) Light Rail Service Future Light Rail Service Commuter Rail Service Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Regional Express Bus Service Local Bus Service Sound Transit District Boundary Corridors in 2005 LRP (Not Yet Included in a System Plan) 11111 Potential Rail Extensions 1 ■II■ High- Capacity Transit Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Regional Express Bus (not in service) University Place Lakewood 3 DuPont J Mukilteo 1 Everett I. Mill reek Edmonds Lynnwoocr~oi■ _ _ O Bothell Snohomish County qtr Woodinville King County — Shoreline_,,, Ballard Northgate Kirkland - �-f J Seattle' West Seattle 4 Burien Redmond ▪ Overlake ▪ Bellevue Mercer — •• Island! MN Sammamish Tukwila 10011 Renton SeaTac Des Moines Fede? Way Tacoma\ E Auburn ._ Issaquah Kent Thurston County C Pierce County Frederickson Orting Sumner r/ Bonney Lake `, Kn9 r--� County Pierce "1, ti 0 N Miles 0 4 8 Source: Sound Transit 2014 Figure S -2 Current Plan Alternative— corridors analyzed in this Draft SEIS S -7 11 these two HCT corridors shown on the Current Plan Alternative list on page S -6 and Figure 5 -2, as both light rail and BRT. Similar to the current Sound Transit system operating today, regional express bus /BRT service could be im- plemented as an interim HCT mode for all or portions of potential light rail corridors until funding becomes available. Representative projects, programs, and policies Stations, park and rides, operations and maintenance facilities, access improvements, and other supporting transit facilities may be implemented along any of the Current Plan Alternative corridors, whether or not they have been implemented as part of Sound Move or ST2. This includes new track infill stations or other infrastructure that may be needed along routes already in service. The 2005 SEIS referred to these as "repre- sentative projects" since they represent the types of projects that could be built along any existing or future corridor. Building from the list in the 2005 Long -Range Plan SEIS, an updated list of representative projects for the Current Plan Alternative can be found in Appendix A of the Draft SEIS. These types of projects and their potential environmental impacts are broadly discussed in the Draft SEIS. The types of representative projects are as follows, listed below by mode: • Light rail— Service expansion, transit stations and park- and -and ride facilities, pedestrian and bicycle access and safety, and operations and maintenance facilities • Commuter rail— Service expansion, new track, transit stations and park- and -ride facilities, pedes- trian and bicycle access and safety, and operations and maintenance facilities • Regional express bus /bus rapid transit — Service expansion or revised bus routes, transit stations and park- and -and ride facilities, HOV direct access, transit priority improvements, rider amenities, grade or barrier separation, and operations and maintenance facilities The following programs and policies have been adopt- ed by the Sound Transit Board and would continue to remain in effect as part of the Current Plan Alternative: • Transit - Oriented Development Policy (December 2012) • Sustainability Initiative (June 2007) • System Access Policy (March 2013) • Updated Bicycle Policy (April 2009) • Environmental Policy (April 2004) Potential Plan Modifications Alternative (Action Alternative) The Potential Plan Modifications Alternative assumes implementation of all the elements of the Current Plan and adds HCT corridors and services that are potential modifications to the Current Plan. These corridors, shown in Figures S -3 and S -4, represent a menu of op- tions that the Sound Transit Board could choose from when updating the Long -Range Plan. S -8 12 June 2014 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Light rail New light rail corridors considered under the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative would have the same characteristics as light rail corridors under the Current Plan Alternative. Commuter rail The additional commuter rail segments would have similar physical and operating characteristics to the existing Sounder line. There are existing rail lines along Corridors 16 and 18, while there are none along Corridor 17. Potential Plan Modifications Alternative X00 Regional express bus /bus rapid transit The Potential Plan Modifications Alternative includes many new regional express and /or BRT corridors. High - capacity transit corridors Some suggestions for new HCT corridors or service did not specify a mode and are numbered as corridors 19, 20, and 21 on Figure S -3. Similar to HCT corridors in the Current Plan Alternative, these new HCT corridors were evaluated as both BRT and light rail corridors. LIGHT RAIL 1 Downtown Seattle to Magnolia /Ballard to Shoreline Community College 2 Downtown Seattle to West Seattle /Burien 3 Ballard to Everett Station via Aurora Village, Lynnwood 4 Everett to North Everett 5 Lakewood to Spanaway to Frederickson to South Hill to Puyallup 6 DuPont to Downtown Tacoma via Lakewood, Steilacoom, and Ruston 7 Puyallup /Sumner to Renton via SR 167 8 Downtown Seattle along Madison Street or to Madrona 9 Tukwila to SODO via Duwamish industrial area 10 North Kirkland or University of Washington Bothell to Northgate via SR 522 11 Ballard to Bothell via Northgate 12 Mill Creek, connecting to Eastside Rail Corridor 13 Tacoma to Ruston Ferry Terminal 14 Tacoma to Parkland via SR 7 15 Lynnwood to Everett, serving Southwest Everett Industrial Center (Paine Field and Boeing) COMMUTER RAIL 16 Puyallup /Sumner to Orting 17 Lakewood to Parkland 18 Tacoma to Frederickson REGIONAL EXPRESS BUS /BUS RAPID TRANSIT Bus rapid transit (BRT) 22 Puyallup vicinity, notably along Meridian Avenue 23 Madison Street in Seattle Regional express bus 24 Issaquah to Overlake via Sammamish and Redmond 25 Renton to Downtown Seattle 26 UW Bothell to Sammamish via Redmond 27 Titlow Beach to Downtown Tacoma 28 Renton (Fairwood) to Eastgate via Factoria 29 145th Street from 1 -5 to SR 522 30 North Kirkland to Downtown Seattle 31 Woodinville to Bellevue 32 Woodinville to Everett 33 Connection to Joint Base Lewis - McChord Regional express bus /BRT (mode not specified) 34 Tacoma to Bellevue 35 Kent to Sea -Tac Airport 36 Puyallup to Rainier Valley HCT (mode not specified) 19 Tukwila Sounder Station to Downtown Seattle via Sea -Tac Airport, Burien, and West Seattle 20 Downtown Seattle to Edmonds via Ballard, Shoreline Community College 21 West Seattle to Ballard via Central District, Queen Anne STREETCAR Streetcar corridors were identified in the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative, typically as options to connect areas to regional transit hubs. A potential new tunnel under Downtown Seattle could also or alternatively support a Ballard -to- Seattle light rail line, which is included in the Current Plan Alternative. S -9 13 Regional Transit Long -Range Plan Update MAP KEY Potential Plan Modifications Alternative Light Rail - High- Capacity Transit - Commuter Rail Current Plan Alternative Light Rail Service 1111111 High- Capacity Transit 1 1 1 1 Future Light Rail Service 111111 Potential Rail Extensions Commuter Rail Service Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Regional Express Bus Service Local Bus Service Sound Transit District Boundary Mukilteo Everett Mill Creek Edmonds Lyn Shoreli Ballard w - ' Redmond Overlake Snohomish County Woodinville King County Seattle Bellevue Sammamish We Seatt Burien SeaTac Des Moines Renton Kent Auburn (c) Issaquah Sumner \, ~ �n9C Bonney Lake P--� aunty terse c, ,\ ( , -1 1 • ti Thurston County ' Pierce County Frederickson Orting 0 N Miles 0 4 8 Source: Sound Transit 2014 Figure S -3 Potential Plan Modifications Alternative —light rail, commuter rail, and high- capacity transit S -10 June 2014 14 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement X00 MAP KEY Potential Plan Modifications Alternative - Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) • Regional Express Bus - Regional Express Bus /BRT Current Plan Alternative Light Rail Service 1111111 High- Capacity Transit 1 1 1 1 Future Light Rail Service 111111 Potential Rail Extensions Commuter Rail Service Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Regional Express Bus Service Local Bus Service 7 Sound Transit District Boundary Mukilteo Edmonds Lynnwood Shoreline 29 Ballard Everett ill Creek et '3 ai tt) Kirklan Northgate Snohomish County King County Woodinville Redmond Seattle West Seattle Burien Bellev Sa amish SeaTac Des Moines FederWay 34 36 Tacoma\ Auburn Kent University Place Lakewood DuPont 1 Thurston County ( Pierce County Puyallup Frederickson Orting 0 Sumner a) Issaquah ,� Kp Bonney Lake'w_ -L,cou r Y Pierce (�. • n • l 0 N Miles 0 4 8 Source: Sound Transit 2014 Figure 5 -4 Potential Plan Modifications Alternative — regional express bus and bus rapid transit 15 41111.1 17/1/7/47 ////4"1",41&‘_ 71 /I/_/777-79 .iiidoor* 01111110„. 10.001111 • i 16 Streetcar Streetcar services were identified in the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative, typically as options to con- nect areas to regional transit hubs. Representative projects, programs, and policies The types of representative projects or support facilities described by mode for the Current Plan Alternative could similarly be implemented along any of the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative corridors. A list of representative projects for the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative can be found in Appendix A of the Draft SEIS. The Potential Plan Modifications Alternative could in- clude new programs and policies or it could build upon existing programs and policies. For example, it could include new initiatives related to: • System access • Demand management • Research and technology Key Transportation Impacts Impacts of plan alternatives on total transit ridership This section describes the impacts on total transit rid- ership of two scenarios: 1) the Current Plan Alternative as compared to the Sound Transit system implemented through completion of ST2, and 2) the Potential Plan High- capacity transit corridor studies ST2 directed Sound Transit to conduct the follow- ing high - capacity transit corridor studies: • Ballard to Downtown Seattle HCT Corridor Study • Central to East HCT Corridor Study - Ballard to University District — Redmond to Kirkland to University District - Kirkland -to Bellevue to Issaquah — I -405 BRT — Eastside Rail Corridor • Federal Way to Tacoma HCT Corridor Study • Lynnwood to Everett HCT Corridor Study • South King County HCT Corridor Study — Downtown Seattle to West Seattle to Burien - Renton to Tukwila, SeaTac, and on to Burien All of the corridors listed above are also evaluat- ed in the Draft SEIS as part of the Current Plan Alternative (except Downtown Seattle to West Seattle, which is evaluated as part of the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative). However, the HCT corridor studies and the Long -Range Plan Update SEIS are evaluating potential transit improvements in these corridors at a different scale. The HCT corridor studies are evaluating options within a more localized area and in greater detail, while the Draft SEIS generally identifies plan -level alter- natives and evaluates their impacts at a broader regional level. To the extent possible, the Draft SEIS incorporates information available from these HCT corridor studies. S-12 June 2014 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement oee Modifications Alternative compared to the Current Plan Alternative. The description of impacts focuses on how corridors included in the alternatives affect transit ridership at selected screenlines shown on Figure S -5. Current Plan Alternative When compared to completion of ST2, the corridors included in the Current Plan Alternative would expand HCT service to communities throughout the Plan area (Sound Transit's service area). The changes in ridership resulting from the Current Plan Alternative when compared to completion of ST2 reflect the relative effectiveness of Plan corridors in attracting riders. One major change under the Current Plan Alternative is reduced transit travel times as compared to ST2. These changes in transit travel times result from exclusive right -of -way for transit as compared to mixed opera- tions in ST2. The reduced travel times could also result from more direct transit connections under the Current Plan Alternative as compared to connections in ST2. Examples of reduced transit travel times include: • Tukwila to Bellevue central business district (CBD) • SeaTac to Tacoma CBD • Ballard to Everett CBD • Kirkland to Kent CBD • Paine Field to Seattle CBD The reduced transit travel times would result in transit ridership increases. The extent of ridership changes in the year 2040 from new corridors would vary substan- tially, ranging from approximately 15,000 additional transit riders per day to less than 3,000 additional tran- sit riders per day at selected screenlines. The effectiveness of a corridor in terms of increasing ridership could be particularly high if it has one or more of the following characteristics: • It is resulting in a major increase in daily transit rid- ership (5,000 or greater) at one or more screenlines • It is resulting in transit ridership increases at more than one screenline • It is the only corridor affecting ridership changes at a screenline; at most screenlines, multiple corridors are affecting transit ridership changes The following information summarizes the relative effectiveness of the corridors in the Current Plan Alternative in influencing transit ridership changes. The corridors, shown on Figure S -2, are in order of daily transit ridership increases. Corridor A —Light rail between Tacoma and Federal Way: Corridor A would contribute to a major increase in daily transit ridership (15,000) at King County/ Pierce County Line West (screenline 6). Corridor A also would increase ridership (5,000) at North of Spokane Street (screenline 2), as riders continue from Tacoma to Seattle. Corridor B —Light rail between Burien and Renton: On its own, this corridor would result in a major in- crease in daily transit ridership (10,000) at West of SR 167 /Rainier Avenue (screenline 14). Screenlines represent a method to measure and show changes in ridership for multiple routes within a corridor. The screenlines discussed in this Executive Summary are intended to capture the potential effects on transit volumes of HCT elements included in the Current Plan Alternative and the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative. Corridor F —Light rail between Downtown Seattle and Ballard: Corridor F would contribute to the major increase in daily transit ridership of 10,000 at Ship Canal (screenline 1). Corridor G —Light rail between Ballard and University of Washington: Corridor G would result in a major increase (15,000) in daily transit ridership at Wallingford (screenline 20). Corridor H —Light rail transit extension from Lynnwood Transit Center to Everett: Corridor H would contribute to a major increase in transit rider- ship (10,000) at the Ship Canal (screenline 1). Corridor H would also contribute to a major transit ridership increase (10,000) at the King County/Snohomish County Line West (screenline 6), as well as a ridership increase (5,000) at North of SR 526 South of Everett (screenline 5). S -13 17 Regional Transit Long -Range Plan Update SELECTED SCREENLINES 1. Ship Canal 2. North of Spokane St 3. West Seattle Bridge 4. King /Snohomish Line —East 5. North of SR 526 6. King /Snohomish Line —West 7. SR 522 8. Crosslake —SR 520 &I-90 Bridges 9. West of 148th 10. North of Totem Lake 11. East of Lake Sammamish 12. North of Renton 13. North of SR 518 14. West of SR 167 /Rainier Ave 15. South of Renton 16. King /Pierce Line —West 17. King /Pierce Line —East 18. North of S 72nd St 19. East of Canyon Rd E 20. Wallingford 21. North of Downtown Bellevue M u ki lteo Everett Edmonds Lynnwood Shoreline _ Snohomish County :Bothell Woodinville King County — — Redmond Overlake Seattle West Seattle Burien Sammamish Bellevue Tukwila 12 Renton SeaTac Des Moines Federal Way Tacoma University Place Lakewood 3 DuPont a 1 Puyallup 1 X19 1 Sumner Bonney Lake K;c p • ,frolnty erne c01.. ... .f' unty5 �• J • ti 1 Thurstoc County C Fierce County 0 N 0 4 8 Miles Figure 5 -5 Selected Screenlines S -14 June 2014 18 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement oee Corridor D —Light rail from Renton to Lynnwood along I -405: Corridor D would contribute to transit ridership increases (5,000) at King County/Snohomish County Line East (screenline 4). In addition, corridor D would contribute to transit ridership increases (5,000) at North of Totem Lake (screenline 10) and North of Renton (screenline 12). The remaining transit corridors in the Current Plan Alternative would result in relatively low transit rider- ship increases at the selected screenlines. Potential Plan Modifications Alternative When compared to the Current Plan Alternative, the elements included in the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative would result in further expansion of HCT service throughout the Plan area. It should be noted that the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative does not represent an integrated HCT system but is instead a menu of potential additions to the Current Plan Alternative. Accordingly, there are corridors that may duplicate other corridors in serving the same trav- el market. One major change under the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative is reduced transit travel times to many locations as compared to the Current Plan Alternative. In some cases, operating characteristics for the corridors would involve exclusive right -of -way for transit as compared to mixed operations in the Current Plan Alternative. In other cases, the reduced transit travel time would result from more direct connections under the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative as compared to transit service connections in the Current Plan Alternative. Examples of reduced transit travel times include: • West Seattle to Seattle CBD • Bellevue CBD to Kent CBD • Paine Field to Everett CBD • U- District to Kent CBD • Seattle CBD to Tacoma CBD These reduced transit travel times would result in transit ridership increases. The extent of ridership changes in the year 2040 from new corridors would vary substantially, ranging from approximately 20,000 addi- tional transit riders per day to less than 3,000 additional transit riders per day at selected screenlines. The following information summarizes the rela- tive effectiveness of corridors in the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative in increasing transit rider- ship. These corridors are shown on Figures S -3 and S -4. As is the case with corridors in the Current Plan Alternative, the effectiveness of any corridor in the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative would be particularly high if it has one or more of the following characteristics: • It is resulting in a major increase in daily transit rid- ership (5,000 or greater) at one or more screenlines • It is resulting in transit ridership increases at more than one screenline • It is the only corridor affecting ridership changes at a screenline; at most screenlines, multiple corridors are affecting transit ridership changes Corridor 2 —Light rail between Downtown Seattle, West Seattle, and Burien: This corridor is affecting transit ridership at four locations, North of Spokane Street (screenline 2), West Seattle Bridge (screenline 3), North of SR 518 (screenline 13), and West of SR 167/ Rainier Avenue (screenline 14). The extent of rider- ship changes is major — between 10,000 and 20,000 per location. At three locations, other corridors contribute to the ridership increases. However, at West of SR 167/ Rainier Avenue (screenline 14), corridor 2 would be the only one contributing to the ridership increases. Corridor 19 —HCT line from Tukwila Sounder Station to Sea -Tac Airport to Burien to Downtown Seattle via West Seattle: This corridor is resulting in major transit ridership increases (20,000) at North of Spokane Street (screenline 2) and West Seattle Bridge (screenline 3). Corridor 19 is also contributing to rider- ship increases (10,000) North of SR 518 (screenline 13). Corridor 7 —Light rail from Puyallup /Sumner to Renton via SR 167: This corridor contributes to rid- ership increases at North of SR 518 (screenline 13). Corridor 7 is also resulting in transit ridership increases at two other locations: South of Renton (screenline 15) and King County/Pierce County Line East (screenline 17). At all locations, the added daily transit ridership is 10,000 at each screenline. Corridor 10 —Light rail from North Kirkland to UW Bothell to Northgate via SR 522: This corridor is increasing transit ridership at SR 522 (screenline 7) and at North of Totem Lake (screenline 10). Daily transit S -15 19 ridership increases at each screenline would be approx- imately 5,000. Corridor 11 —Light rail from Ballard to Bothell via Northgate: This corridor is contributing to tran- sit ridership increases at two locations, Ship Canal (screenline 1) and SR 522 (screenline 7). Daily transit ridership increases at each screenline would be approx- imately 5,000. Corridor 20 —HCT line from Downtown Seattle to Edmonds via Ballard and Shoreline Community College. This corridor is contributing to transit rider- ship increases (5,000) at the Ship Canal (screenline 1). Several corridors would be affecting one location. These are corridors: • 1 —Light rail north /south– Downtown Seattle to Magnolia /Ballard to Shoreline Community College • 5 —Light rail from Lakewood to Spanaway to Frederickson to South Hill to Puyallup • 6 —Light rail from DuPont to Downtown Tacoma via Lakewood, Steilacoom, and Ruston • 9 —Light rail from Tukwila to SODO via Duwamish industrial area • 12 —Light rail to Mill Creek, connecting to Eastside Rail Corridor The remaining transit corridors in the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative would result in relatively low transit ridership increases at the selected screenlines. Impacts of plan alternatives on the regional transportation system Implementation of the Current Plan Alternative and the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative would impact physical components of the multimodal transportation system, including public transit, operations of free- ways and local streets, parking, non - motorized modes (pedestrian and bicycle facilities), safety, and freight. The items included in this section address impacts relat- ed to both operations and construction. This assessment of potential impacts is a high -level overview of what could occur. No specific alignments have been selected for any transit mode, and there is no determination as to corridor profile (whether any particular element would be underground, at grade, or elevated). S -16 20 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement oee Local bus service New rail service and regional express bus /BRT could replace some transit services provided by local agencies, potentially freeing service hours for the local transit provider to use elsewhere. Demand could increase for local bus service connecting to new light rail and commuter rail stations and regional express /BRT services. Buses that use streets or freeways undergoing construction of new transit facilities could temporarily travel more slowly or be detoured to adjacent streets, which could increase walking or bicycling travel times to access the bus. Highways and roads Consistent with Transportation 2040, the assumption is that all limited access roadways will be tolled or man- aged by 2040. However, if lanes are not managed to allow 45 mile per hour speeds 90 percent of the time on limited- access roadways, then speeds for buses on these roadways could be much lower in some cases. Both alternatives include new rail and bus corridors that, depending on the alignment and design, could impact local streets and freeways. These impacts could include use of lane capacity for HCT guideways and stations, at -grade crossings for rail or BRT, and increased conges- tion around stations and park and rides. Construction of HCT could occur on or adjacent to the freeway system, arterials, or local streets. This construction could close road and freeway lanes for short or long durations, which could reduce lane capacity, lower speeds and increase congestion, and require detours diverting traffic from the freeway system, arterials, and local streets to alterna- tive routes. Parking With expanded rail or BRT service, demand for park- ing at stations could increase, which could spill over into surrounding neighborhoods. Decreased on- street parking in some corridors could occur to accommodate new guideways and stations. Loss of parking on- street and at park- and -ride facilities could be expected during guideway and station construction and where new or expanded park- and -ride facilities occur. Safety Rail and BRT facilities could create safety impacts for at -grade crossings or where operating in mixed traffic. Projects include safety features and often upgrades for unprotected pedestrian crossings on commuter rail lines. With new rail and bus service, there would be increased vehicular, walk, and bike activity in station areas potentially impacting the safety of roadway and non - motorized systems. Non - motorized systems — pedestrian and bicycle facilities Both the Current Plan Alternative and the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative could include potential pedestrian and bicycle facilities that improve access to transit facilities. With expanded transit operations under each alternative, there could be potential impacts on pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Construction could temporarily close or restrict pedes- trian and bicycle facilities such as sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails. Construction also would temporarily result in other localized impacts, such as increased conges- tion, restricted access to facilities, and a lower quality pedestrian and bicycle environment. Freight movement A reduction in vehicle miles traveled from both alterna- tives would benefit freight movements on highways. In some cases, new guideways and stations could reduce access to driveways used to access businesses. In addi- tion, rail development could displace on- street loading capacity for trucks delivering goods. Construction of transit facilities could temporarily re- strict freight movement and access to businesses. New commuter rail service could require that some existing freight rail lines be upgraded or improved, which would result in construction activity in the railroad right -of- way or adjacent areas. Key Environmental Impacts The Draft SEIS describes the affected environment and potential impacts and mitigation for the Current Plan Alternative and the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative. The impact analysis is at a level of detail consistent with the broad, plan -level issues being ad- dressed in the Long -Range Plan Update. For the Current Plan Alternative, the environmental impact analysis focuses on corridors A through Y, as shown in Figure S -2. A qualitative summary of poten- tial environmental impacts and benefits is depicted in Table S -1 (light rail and commuter rail corridors) and Table S -2 (regional express bus /BRT corridors). For the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative, corridors 1 through 36, as shown on Figures S -3 and S -4, refer to IS -17 21 Regional Transit Long -Range Plan Update Table S -4 (light rail and commuter rail corridors) and Table S -5 (regional express bus /BRT corridors). The ratings used in these summary tables reflect a relative comparison between corridors based on the analysis in the Draft SEIS. Overall, increasing HCT under either the Current Plan Alternative or the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative is generally expected to decrease energy consumption and reduce greenhouse gas and other air emissions in the region as more people choose to use transit instead of travel in single- occupancy vehicles. In addition, an expansion of regional high - capacity transit is consistent with state and regional growth manage- ment goals and is consistent with the vast majority Overall, increasing transit options is generally expected to decrease energy consumption and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the region as fewer people travel in single- occupancy vehicles. 22 of local plans in the region. Other key environmental effects include potential noise and /or vibration impacts to surrounding land uses, impacts to wetlands and streams, adverse effects to historic properties, and the use of parks and recreational facilities. The extent to which impacts could occur varies depend- ing on the concentration of resources within a corridor and the transit mode being evaluated. In general, imple- menting any of the transit modes within existing road- way or railroad rights -of -way would likely have the least amount of environmental impacts. If additional lanes were to be constructed for exclusive BRT lanes or light rail guideways, the potential for impacts to surrounding resources could increase. Light rail, BRT, or commuter rail on new alignments have the highest likelihood of impacts to surrounding land uses or resources; however, such impacts would be avoided and minimized to the extent possible during future project -level planning and environmental reviews. Earth • Risks are related to geologic hazards that already exist, including steep slopes that are more prone to erosion or landslides, soft soils, and seismic and liquefaction hazards. • Depending on location, all modes would have com- parable susceptibility to geologic hazards. • Corridors in areas with the highest susceptibility to certain geologic hazards include N in the Kent Valley along SR 167 and V in the Puyallup River Basin, both in the Current Plan Alternative; and 7 (also in the Kent Valley along SR 167) and 16 between Puyallup and Orting, both in the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative. Air quality • The Current Plan Alternative would reduce green- house gas and other air emissions in the region as more people choose to use transit instead of travel in single- occupancy vehicles. • The Potential Plan Modifications Alternative would provide an incremental reduction as transit corri- dors are added. Noise • Commuter rail has the highest maximum noise levels of all transit modes; however, it operates less frequently, with service occurring during peak commute hours. In terms of potential noise impacts, light rail and BRT are similar, although BRT generates more noise for a similar number of passengers served. • The highest potential for noise impacts occurs in corridors with dense residential development. This includes BRT or light rail corridors along SR 99 such as R (BRT from Seattle to Everett) and 3 (light rail from Ballard to Everett Station), and 20 (BRT from Downtown Seattle to Edmonds). • Light rail corridor 19 from Tukwila to Downtown Seattle via West Seattle is also very densely de- veloped, potentially resulting in a high number of residences impacted. Water quality and hydrology • Runoff from new impervious surfaces can cause bank erosion and increase stream bed depth; how- ever, commuter rail tracks on ballast and ties are not impervious. • Pollutants on new impervious surfaces can de- crease water quality; however, operation of light rail alone is not a pollutant - generating activity. • Light rail corridors D (Renton to Lynnwood along I -405 under Current Plan Alternative) and 7 S -181 June 2014 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement X00 Table 5 -1 Current Plan Alternative summary of impacts —light rail, commuter rail, high- capacity transit — J CC LLJ I- = J 2 cc G Q 0 Haws Ol ale6ylaoN • S e o o• S e S• • es (ozs as p1A) puowpaa Ol Mn • S• e e S A e A •• es (3)13) al'!nu!pooM o1 uoluaa • pooMar1 of luodna • • • S S S • • • • e • • S • • S • S • • • • • llaaan3 Ol pooMuuM 1 S S e O S S e S• 1 S S Mn 01 pae"ee • S 0 • • • S • S • • O e were 0l epees umolumOa e S S• S• S 0 S•• 0 0 0113) al'!nu!pooM of uoluaa • • • es (sob-') paoMuuA1 o; uoluaa j S S 0 0• 1 1 S• 1 es (06 -I) yenbessi of annapag p s• 0 0 e S S S• • es uoluel] of ua!an8 Q S•,, e3 • S 0 S• S e• AeM !eaapai of ewo)el 1 0 1 1 • • 11 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL EFFECTS Noise and Vibration Potential for noise impacts to residences Water Potential for impacts to streams Wetlands Potential for impacts to wetlands Ecosystems Regionally important ecosystem resources Energy Benefit from reduction in energy use Environmental Health Potential for encountering hazardous waste sites Visual Quality Potential for impacts to visual setting Land Use General consistency with plans and policies Public Services/ Potential for conflicts with major utilities Utilities Historic Resources Potential for impacts to historic properties IS -19 23 1 0 1 Regional Transit Long -Range Plan Update Table 5 -2 Current Plan Alternative summary of impacts — regional express bus and bus rapid transit VICOZTA I CI 211 V11:111' 11 oamnoi of laaaD II!W of Ila4lo8 41-10N • 1••••e • • • • • • puehm of puowpag • A • • • • C • • • • • • all4eaS lsaM of gel -eaS • 1 • • • • C • • • • • • ewo)el of dnpeAnd 0 1 • • • • e • • . • •iio pooMale1 el dnileAnd • i • • • • d to •• • . • (RMH aseg ssoao e!A) wodna of dnpeAnd • 1 • • • • <5 • •• • •• (S-I) Ilan/kg 01 pooMUUk1 • A O • • • C A • • 1 • • (66 8S) uaaan3 of alReaS • A 0 • • • e 1 • • • 11 (50t7-I) pooMUUki of uoluag • • • • j • • NO all!AU!pooM of uoluaa 0,11..e, • • • 1 1 • (06-1) yenbessi of annapag ArN S • d • • d • • • • S • (L9 f bs) dnlleAnd of uoluag 0 1 • 0 • • d • • • 1 • • (S-I) luodnd of AeM leiapad e) 1 • • • • e 1 • • 1 • • Hailing of ale6y1J0N • I O A • • <5 e • • • 1 • (0ZS aS ein) puowpaa of Mfl t• t, S e t• • 0 . . . . tI ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL EFFECTS Air Quality Benefit from reduction in greenhouse gases Noise and Vibration Potential for noise impacts to residences Water Potential for impacts to streams Wetlands Potential for impacts to wetlands Energy Benefit from reduction in energy use Environmental Health Potential for encountering hazardous waste sites Land Use General consistency with plans and policies Public Services/ Potential for conflicts with major utilities Utilities Parks and Recreation Potential for impacts to parks and recreation areas Historic Resources Potential for impacts to historic properties S -20 24 June 2014 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ee Table 5 -3 Potential Plan Modifications Alternative summary of impacts —light rail, commuter rail, high- capacity transit IS -21 25 auuv uaana s Isom lea�ua) e!■ paepeg o3 alueaS 3saM C S d e S• C S•• 0 C DD au!las umowMOU e!n spuowP3 0� alueaS unno�uMOO ' S o• c s S e S• • d 0 alueaS IsaM e!n alueaS uMwuMOQ - uaung- uodi!y )e1 -eaS o; egnn�ln . S S e • 0 • S S S • • 0 0 W 2 0 Ld co uosvuapaa3 w ewopel • • 0 S • • • • • • 1 • 1 ; _ puehlaed of pooMa�e1 • • d • 0 0 • • S • • • • 6u!uOo;aauwnS /dnlleAnd 0 • d S••• • • e s S • J a s J^ Ln as ;uaj le!a ;snpul uaan3 MS 6upuas uaaan3 w poomuuA3 ai S C O C • A 1 S•• 1 • s- (L HS) puePlaed ol. ewmei • S e• S• s 0 S• • 1 1 — leu!waal Aiaaj uoTsny o; ewooel • S 0 o s s s 0 S• S d e o O1 op 3213 Oi. 6u!pauuo) raaD 11W4 0 se 0 0 • S • e • S S S a1e6yuoN e!n ilaypog ol. paepeg 0 S 0 0 0• S a S• • e (zzs as) a }e61-11,0N w Ilay;Og Ann ao puepp!�l LIMN 0 1 1 0 0• S C S•• es e leeIsnpul yslweMno e!n NOS of el! W1 0 S• 1 e• s S S• • d 0 uos!pevi 6uole epees uMOluMOG S S d• S• S • S• • 0 0 (L9L HS) uoluay oi. aauwnS /dnl!etnd 0 1. 0 0 • S S S• S S S umsna 'womel!atS 'po oMainn ewoel uMOuMOO Ol juOd •SOS 0 0 0 1 • • 1 1 "' dngeAnd o1 II!H wnos -uos� papaaj- AeMeueds- pooma�lel S S S S c 0 s S S S S S a "' uaaan3 yaaoN oluaaan3 ()sees • S 0 S • • e 0 pooMUU 3 /a•ep!A eawny e!n uonws uaaan3 0l. paelleg • S 0 S c• s • S• • 1 S N ua!ang 'alueaS IsaM 01 aluea5 unnwumoO C S d S C• S S S•• 0 0 D au!laaoyS w paegeg 'egou6e1N- alueaS umolumaCI o s e •S •S 0 S S • 0 N V IL LL W a J H Z W 1— 0 CL H Z 2 uJ Z t.-, o rY c > o Z w W C v m N 0 V 01 0 0 rn o T ii n V 'J 7 N t (p W Air Quality Benefit from reduction in greenhouse gases Noise and Vibration Potential for noise impacts to residences Water Potential for impacts to streams Wetlands Potential for impacts to wetlands Ecosystems Regionally important ecosystem resources Energy Benefit from reduction in energy use Environmental Potential for encountering hazardous waste Health sites Land Use General consistency with plans and policies Public Services/ Potential for conflicts with major utilities Utilities Historic Resources Potential for impacts to historic properties IS -21 25 Regional Transit Long -Range Plan Update Table 5 -4 Potential Plan Modifications Alternative summary of impacts —light rail, commuter rail, high- capacity transit S-22 26 AaiieAiaiuieaoldniond e A A p e A e••• A • • WAN/ ael -eas of luaN e s • S e3 • e • • • • s • annalla8 0l ewoael j A e • • C • • • A • • uolhauuoD 1/118f • / • • • • e • • • • • • uaJan3 olapinuipaoM • A • • • • e • • • • • • annallae of alllnulpooM • s • • • • e • • • • • • alueaS umolumoa of pueppN 41�0N C / • • • • e • • • • • • zzs as of s -I ww laanS ylSbl 6uoly • 1 • • • • e • • • • • • euolaej eln ale6lse3 0l (pooMilej) uoluaa e A • • • • e • • • • • • ewoael umolunnoa of yaea8 molll • / • • • • C 0 • • • • • • puowpaa pue yslwewwes eln ilay108 Mn ' ' • • • • • • • • • • alueaS of uoluaa a s • • • • 6' • • • • • • puowpaa pue yslwewwes eln wlpanp of yenbessl im S • • • • e • • • • • • uoslpeW 6uole alueaS umolwnoa 10 t, • • • • e • • • • • • (any uelpuaW) 6llupin &V AN A 1 A • • • e • • • s A • auuv uaanb 'S S \ !Ma) e!A penes of alueaS 1saM "1,.)11.e 1 • • • 11 )) aulla 'mpg eln spu0w P3 of alueaS U mowmoa e A O•• A e 1••• 11 A O••• e A•• • A A ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL EFFECTS Air Quality Potential for impacts to historic properties Noise and Vibration Potential for noise impacts to residences Wetlands Potential for impacts to wetlands Visual Quality Potential for impacts to visual setting Parks and Potential for impacts to parks and recreation Recreation areas June 2014 f Columbia City Station S F•mmul. 5t (Puyallup to Renton via SR 167 in the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative) could cross the greatest number of streams. Potential Plan Modifications Alternative corridor 12 (Mill Creek connecting to the Eastside Rail Corridor) could cross the greatest number of streams per mile of corridor. • Corridors in the Plan area near the Puget Sound shoreline and large rivers (such as the Puyallup, Snohomish, and Duwamish Rivers) are at risk for inundation from rising sea levels that may occur as the result of climate change. • Fill within floodplains could impede flows and increase the risk of flooding. Climate change could also result in localized flooding in floodplain areas due to increased precipitation from storm events. Corridors in the Current Plan Alternative that in- clude a higher concentration of floodplains include light rail corridors C and D along Lake Sammamish and the Snohomish River, respectively. In the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative, light rail corridor 7 and BRT corridor 36 along SR 167 from Puyallup to Renton, as well as corridor 34 from Tacoma to Bellevue, also have a high concentration of floodplains. Ecosystems • The removal, degradation, or fragmentation of habitat could disturb fish and wildlife movement. Areas potentially affected include those with high concentrations of natural resources, high - quality native ecosystems, and major lakes or rivers. • Current Plan Alternative corridors C (Bellevue to Issaquah) and H (Lynnwood to Everett) and Potential Plan Modifications Alternative corridors 7 (Puyallup /Sumner to Renton) and 12 (Mill Creek connecting to Eastside Rail Corridor) have the greatest density of wetland areas. • Priority conservation areas within corridors near Cougar Mountain and Issaquah Creek (light rail corridor C, BRT corridor 0), Edmonds Point (HCT corridor 20), and a portion of the Joint Base Lewis - McChord between Lakewood and Parkland (commuter rail corridor 17) could be affected. Energy • Under either the Current Plan Alternative or the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative, transportation - related energy consumption is gen- erally expected to decrease as more people choose to use transit instead of traveling in single- occupan- cy vehicles. Environmental health • During construction, the disturbance or release of hazardous materials could occur, particularly in areas with high concentrations of contaminants such as industrialized areas. The Current Plan Alternative includes industrialized areas around the Port of Tacoma (corridor A) and Ballard (corridor F). The Potential Plan Modifications Alternative includes industrialized areas around the Port of Tacoma (corridors 6, 13, and 14) and Ballard (corri- dors 1, 3, 11, and 20). • Electromagnetic fields (EMF) associated with light rail operations could require mitigation to avoid IS -23 27 Regional Transit Long -Range Plan Update impacts to sensitive electronics located in medical and research facilities. Visual quality • Transit features, such as walls, stations, at -grade or elevated guideways, infill stations, operation and maintenance facilities, park -and -ride facilities, and other structures, could result in the alteration or removal of some visual resources (such as a view or structure). • In general, new transportation facilities constructed in existing transportation corridors would be Less likely to negatively affect visual quality than those built in new corridors. Land use • In general, both alternatives would be consistent with state, regional, county, and municipal plans, policies, and legislation. However, Potential Plan Modifications Alterative corridor 16, commuter rail service from Puyallup /Sumner to Orting, may not be consistent with Orting's goal to preserve its small -town character. • The alternatives would improve transit service to regional growth centers and manufacturing and industrial centers, and would focus growth within the boundaries of Urban Growth Areas. • Under the Current Plan Alternative, connections generally would be added between regional cen- ters and /or manufacturing industrial centers. Connections to other smaller communities include Woodinville (corridors E, J, and P), DuPont (cor- ridors I, M, and T), West Seattle (corridor W), Mukilteo (corridor Y), and Issaquah (corridor 0). • Under the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative, connections generally would be added between regional centers and /or manufacturing industrial centers. Connections to other smaller communities include Woodinville (corridors 31 and 32), DuPont (corridor 6), Mill Creek (corridor 12), Ruston (cor- ridor 13), Parkland (corridors 14 and 17), Orting (corridor 16), Sammamish (corridor 26), Titlow Beach (corridor 27), Eastgate (corridor 28), Rainier Valley (corridor 37), West Seattle (corridor 21), and Issaquah (corridor 24). • Commercial, industrial, and residential land uses could be affected by property acquisitions, displace- ments, and land use conversions. Public services and utilities • Depending on location, all modes would have comparable impacts to public services and utilities. Overall, long -term impacts on utility services and systems are expected to be minimal. • In the Current Plan Alternative, corridors B (Burien to Renton), D (Renton to Lynnwood), and H (Lynnwood to Everett) cross either natural gas in- ter/intra state pipelines or transmission lines. In the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative, corridors 5 ( Lakewood - Spanaway- Frederickson -South Hill - Puyallup), 7 (Puyallup /Sumner to Renton), 12 (Mill Creek connecting to the Eastside Rail Corridor), 16 (Puyallup /Sumner to Orting), 18 (Tacoma to Frederickson), 22 (Puyallup vicinity), and 36 (Puyallup to the Rainier Valley) cross either natural gas inter /intra state pipelines, petroleum product pipelines, or transmission lines. If necessary, these utilities would be relocated. Park and recreation facilities • Both alternatives could result in the acquisition of all or a portion of a park or recreation facility, particularly when other physical constraints limit avoidance or minimization options. King County parks and recreation facilities could be particularly affected given their high density. • In the Current Plan Alternative, light rail cor- ridors D (Renton to Lynnwood), E (Renton to Woodinville), F (Downtown Seattle to Ballard), and G (Ballard to UW) have the greatest potential to impact park and recreation facilities. • For the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative, corridors 1 (Downtown Seattle to Shoreline Community College), 2 (Downtown Seattle to West Seattle /Burien), 19 (Tukwila Sounder Station to Downtown Seattle to Ballard), 8 (Downtown Seattle along Madison Street), and 21 (West Seattle to Ballard) have the greatest potential to impact park and recreational facilities. Historic resources • Property acquisitions could result in the alteration or demolition of architectural properties. • Portions of the corridors between downtown Seattle and Northgate and near downtown Tacoma could be particularly affected given the high concentrations of architectural historic properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places. • In the Current Plan Alternative, light rail corri- dor F (Downtown Seattle to Ballard) would have the greatest potential to affect historic properties. For the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative, S -241 June 2014 28 corridors 1 (Downtown Seattle to Shoreline Community College), 2 (Downtown Seattle to West Seattle /Burien), 4 (Everett to North Everett), 8 (Downtown Seattle along Madison Street), 19 (Tukwila Sounder Station to Downtown Seattle via West Seattle), and 20 (West Seattle to Edmonds) would have the greatest potential to affect historic properties. • Archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties could be affected by ground- disturbing activities, such as the installation of piers to support elevated rail lines or other activities associated with new stations, park- and -ride facilities, or other support facilities. Cumulative impacts • Differences in cumulative impacts between the two alternatives would be relatively minor when consid- ered on a regional scale. • Both alternatives would offer environmental bene- fits. These benefits, combined with other regional plans and projects to help manage growth in a more sustainable manner, could result in greater cumu- lative benefits because they would help to reduce vehicle trips and urban sprawl. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures Sound Transit has established programs, best practic- es, and policies that would guide the implementation of this Long -Range Plan Update and the projects that would follow. These include the agency's commitment to satisfying all applicable laws and regulations and to mitigate significant adverse impacts responsibly and reasonably, consistent with Sound Transit's policies. In addition to meeting environmental commitments, Sound Transit will continue to avoid and minimize impacts where possible. Several environmental ele- ments analyzed in this Draft SEIS are not likely to have significant adverse long -term impacts requiring mitiga- tion after standard project measures are applied, such as earth, air quality, energy, public services, utilities, and water resources. The following text summarizes key areas where mitigation measures are expected to be required. More specific measures would be identified during future project -level environmental reviews. Transportation Mitigation would be required to address impacts to lo- cal transit service, local roadway and freeway facilities, parking, safety, non - motorized facilities in station areas, and freight movement resulting from plan implementa- tion and project development. For construction activities affecting freeways, Sound Transit would work with the Washington State Department of Transportation to develop a plan to coordinate construction with incident management, construction staging, and traffic control where the con- struction could affect freeway traffic, as well as provide construction closure information to the public. Truck access points from the freeway would be identified to minimize impacts on general purpose traffic and inter- change operations. IS -25 29 Mitigation for impacts on local roadway facilities, park- ing, safety, non - motorized facilities, and freight move- ment would comply with local regulations governing construction mitigation, including traffic control and truck routing. For local transit service and facilities, potential route service changes would be coordinated with affected transit systems. For freight - related items, mitigation would be coordinated with local jurisdictions and affected businesses and operators. Noise and vibration Potential measures to control noise and vibration could include acquisition of land for buffer zones, project realignment, bus and roadway design and maintenance, track and wheel design and maintenance for rail systems, minimization of audible warning systems to only the levels necessary, construction of noise walls and other barriers, and sound insulation for buildings. Track sub -base and support structures could be designed to reduce vibration and ground - borne noise levels. Ecosystems Sound Transit would mitigate impacts in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations and local critical area ordinances and their permit requirements. Sound Transit is committed to no net loss of wetland functions and wetland areas. Potential measures to minimize impacts could include minimizing land clear- ing, avoiding sensitive habitat and wetlands, designing fish - passable structures, establishing time -of -year construction restrictions in sensitive areas, enhancing remaining habitat, and compensating or replacing lost wetland areas. Environmental health The Current Plan Alternative and the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative would adhere to all applicable regulations regarding hazardous materials handling and spill response during construction and long -term oper- ation. Any hazardous materials sites in the construction area would be identified and addressed to avoid the potential for exposure or spread of hazardous mate- rials during construction. Should EMF impacts from light rail be identified, modified power delivery designs would be expected to mitigate such impacts. Visual quality and aesthetics Measures to reduce or minimize adverse long -term impacts on visual quality could include avoidance of visually sensitive areas; design or aesthetic treatments to reduce the impacts of transit facilities by integrating them with existing plans, minimizing their size, making them compatible with their surroundings, and shielding light from reaching surrounding properties; and the provision of landscaping and other screening features. Land use Sound Transit would provide relocation assistance and advisory services where property acquisitions and displacements would be unavoidable. The relocation program would be in accordance with state and federal laws and Sound Transit policy. S -261 June 2014 30 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement oee Parks and recreation Sound transit would coordinate with the agencies with jurisdiction over parklands to minimize impacts. Mitigation could include restoration of disturbed parks and open space to pre - project conditions, park enhancement, or replacement of acquired parkland. Construction - period mitigation measures could include maintaining access during road and trail closures and providing coordinated information on access options. Historic resources Sound Transit would determine appropriate mitigation measures in consultation with the lead federal agencies, the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Native American tribes, affect- ed local governments, and other interested parties. Potential mitigation measures could include design- ing facilities to be compatible with historic resources, employing construction methods to minimize impacts, conducting rehabilitation or relocation to appropriate standards, preparing interpretive information for the public, and fully documenting properties if no alterna- tive to relocation or demolition exists. Mitigation mea- sures for archaeological sites could include performing archaeological testing and monitoring in high- proba- bility areas prior to and during construction and data recovery of significant sites. Significant Avoidable Adverse Impacts that Cannot be Mitigated No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to earth, air quality, energy, and public services and utilities are expected with either the Current Plan Alternative or the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative. With implementation of the avoidance, minimiza- tion, and mitigation measures listed above, significant unavoidable adverse impacts to noise and vibration, water quality and hydrology, ecosystems, environmental health, visual quality, parks and recreation facilities, and historic and cultural resources could be minimized for most plan elements under the Current Plan Alternative and the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative. However, significant unavoidable adverse impacts to noise and vibration, environmental health, visual quali- ty, land use, parks and recreation facilities, and historic and cultural resources could occur in some corridors and with some modes. Temporary unavoidable adverse impacts could occur to water quality and hydrology and ecosystems during construction. Even with the mitigation measures described above, there could be unavoidable adverse transportation impacts, primarily during construction of the corridors and facilities included in the Current Plan Alternative or the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative. Construction impacts could include temporary lane or roadway closures, loss of parking, increased truck traffic and congestion, and reduced access to businesses. Areas of Controversy and Uncertainty and the Issues to be Resolved The Sound Transit Board will evaluate many issues as it considers updates to the Long -Range Plan. Those issues include understanding the need for projects, achieving balance among the various service areas of the region, and obtaining funding to make the plans a reality. Unresolved regional issues that may affect the updated Long -Range Plan are discussed below. Several corridors were analyzed as part of the Potential Plan Modifications Alternative for possible inclusion in the updated Long -Range Plan. Using the transportation and environmental analysis, as well as other studies, the Sound Transit Board may consider adding some of the Potential Plan Modification Alternative corridors to the updated Long -Range Plan. Sound Transit will consider the specific modes for the HCT corridors included in the Plan. Corridors evalu- ated in this Draft SEIS include light rail, commuter rail, BRT, regional express bus, and streetcar. Each of the mode technologies has distinct advantages. In some corridors, the mode decision could include two or more possibilities. For example, a corridor may be identified as an HCT corridor and /or designated as a potential future light rail extension in the Long -Range Plan. Sound Transit can also consider annexing areas into the Sound Transit district or extending services beyond the current district boundary. Annexation and ser- vice extensions can occur under the Long -Range Plan Update alternatives as long as the legislatively mandated requirements are met. Extensions of service can occur without changing or annexing the district boundary. During the scoping process, Sound Transit received suggestions both to expand the district boundary and IS -27 31 Regional Transit Long -Range Plan Update to extend service outside the current boundary. Sound Transit would work with interested jurisdictions to annex or extend service beyond the current boundary if a proposal is made. Next Steps: Plan Adoption and Implementation With publication of this Draft SEIS, Sound Transit is presenting the results of the plan -level environmental impact analysis on updating the Long -Range Plan and starting a public comment period, which will close on July 28, 2014. 2014 After the close of the public comment period, Sound Transit will use the comments received, along with any updated information, to prepare a Final SEIS. As part of the Final SEIS, comments received on this Draft SEIS will be responded to. Following the issuance of the Final SEIS, the Sound Transit Board will make final decisions on updating the Regional Transit Long -Range Plan. The updated Long -Range Plan will then provide the basis for future transit investments. Future system plans would be submitted to voters for approval. If funding is approved, project -level planning and environmental re- view would be performed, followed by implementation of the projects as appropriate. Complete the Draft SEIS January to June Public Comment Period June 13 to July 28 Figure S -6 Environmental review process Complete FEIS and respond to comments on the Draft SEIS August to November Board Updates LRP December S -281 June 2014 32 11 -104 Council Approval N/A Dispute Resolution Settlement Agreement Regarding Noise and Parking Between City of Tukwila, Washington And Sound Transit (Reference City Contract Number 04 -086) The purpose of this Dispute Resolution Settlement Agreement is to confirm the agreement between Sound Transit and City of Tukwila regarding the issues discussed during the dispute resolution process initiated on November 9, 2010. Since the opening of the light rail system in July 2009, issues have arisen between the City and Sound Transit regarding noise and parking at the Tukwila International Boulevard Light Rail Station (Tukwila Station). Over the past few months, Sound Transit and the City have met in a good -faith effort to resolve these disputes, as provided for in the Development and Transitway Agreement executed between our two agencies in December 2004. We have reached a mutually satisfactory resolution of the issues and both agencies remain committed to working together in a collaborative manner to see that the commitments included in this letter are completed in a timely and efficient manner. To this end, the City and Sound Transit have agreed to settle the disputes as follows, subject to necessary approvals: Link Light Rail Noise Mitigation A dispute arose following initial noise level readings in the First Year Noise and Vibration Testing Results prepared by Michael Minor and Associates (dated December 9, 2009), which exceeded the FTA noise criteria in certain places along the Link Light Rail route in Tukwila. The resolution to this dispute is as follows: 1. Sound Transit is currently in compliance with the FTA noise criteria, and will continue to comply with the FTA noise criteria throughout the City. 2. Sound Transit will install approximately 2700 feet of Type I noise barrier in the vicinity of the Duwamish River neighborhood area, replacing the existing Type II noise barrier. The existing Type 2 barriers in three other locations will remain. 3. Sound Transit will mitigate and maintain noise levels at all other locations along the alignment with measures that may include continued use of Type 2 noise barriers, rail grinding, track lubricators, residential sound insulation, or other measures as determined by Sound Transit to be necessary and effective. 4. Sound Transit will prepare a supplement to the 2010 noise report required under the Unclassified Use Permit addressing the proposed mitigation; a schedule for installing the Type 1 barriers, reasoning for proposing Type 1 barriers as mitigation in the Duwamish River neighborhood area; durability of Type 2 noise 1 69 o f 33 barriers; maintenance and/or replacement requirements for the Type 2 noise barriers; and commitment and schedule for monitoring. The supplement to the noise report will be submitted to the City within 30 days of the effective date of this Agreement. 5. The goal of the Parties is to maintain and monitor noise mitigation as necessary, and to sunset the monitoring requirement within two years following completion and submission of the 2011 Wheel -Rail Noise Study to the City, as contemplated by the original UUP noise condition, unless the Parties mutually agree to an extension. In 2011, the City will perform a review of the 2010 noise report and supplement including field measurements of noise and vibration. Sound Transit will not submit a 2011 noise and vibration report but will submit a 2012 report following installation of the Type 1 barrier, and will submit a 2013 final report. Sound Transit will develop and implement a long -term noise maintenance and monitoring program based on recommendations in the 2011 Wheel -Rail Noise Study, authorized by the Sound Transit Board on March 10, 2011. Sound Transit will share the monitoring results with the City at various intervals, as recommended in the study. 6. The City will review the supplement to the 2010 noise report, for compliance with the original UUP noise condition. Any permit applications and nighttime noise variance application required for installation of the Type 1 noise mitigation will be reviewed administratively and concurrently. A public works permit (long term type D) will be required for installation of the Type 1 barriers, but a building permit is not required. There will be a public informational meeting and comment period for the above - mentioned actions and the City will issue its decisions in a timely manner. The City's decisions may be appealed to the City Hearing Examiner. Tukwila International Boulevard Light Rail Station Parking A dispute arose regarding the need for additional parking at the Tukwila Station, consistent with the City's 2004 Parking Determination. The resolution to this dispute is as follows: 1. Conditions have changed since the 2004 Parking Determination was issued by the City. Sound Transit's long -term strategy is to extend light rail to South 200th Street on an accelerated schedule, subject to Sound Transit Board approval anticipated in July 2011, where 600 to 1050 additional parking stalls are currently planned. It is anticipated that the South 200th and University Link projects will be completed in 2016 when passenger service will commence. It is further . anticipated that the addition of parking spaces south of the Tukwila Station, will provide an attractive alternative for some of the current users of Tukwila Station parking. 34 2. Sound Transit shall provide the Airport Link Extension Parking Demand Study to the City within 30 days of the effective date of this Agreement. 3. Sound Transit shall continue to monitor on -site and off -site Link Light Rail related parking utilization, and implement measures to help mitigate significant hide & ride parking should it occur as required by the 2004 Parking Determination. 4. Following a twelve month period of operation of the South 200`h and University Link projects (2017), during which service levels and ridership are expected to normalize, Sound Transit will prepare and submit to the City a parking study for the Tukwila Station based on a mutually agreed upon scope of work. No other parking studies will be required until this time except the scope of work shall be submitted as part of the Parking Determination amendment request referenced in paragraph 6 below. 5. The City shall defer the requirements of the July 1, 2004 Parking Determination, including the requirement to provide additional parking at the Tukwila Station, until December 31, 2017, provided Sound Transit makes measurable progress to accelerate the extension to South 200`h. The measurable progress shall include obtaining Sound Transit Board approval; obtaining all required permits from the City of SeaTac; and awarding the contract for construction so that additional parking is constructed prior to University Link opening. 6. Sound Transit and the City will work together in good faith to identify potential revisions to the 2004 Parking Determination consistent with this Agreement and Sound Transit will request amendments to the 2004 Parking Determination, together with all supportive documents before December 31, 2012. This will be processed as a Type II Decision pursuant to the City's Land Use Code. The parties have executed this Agreement as of the last date indicated below. This Agreement shall become effective subject to approval by the Sound Transit Board. SOUND TRANSIT CITY OF TUKWILA By Joan arl, CEO Date: ly, S , 2011 3 By c Steve Lancaster, City Administrator Date: July J 1, 2011 35