The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTrans 2015-10-19 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETCity of Tukwila Transportation Committee ❖ Joe Duffie, Chair ❖ Allan Ekberg ❖ Kathy Hougardy AGENDA Distribution: P. Brodin J. Duffie R. Turpin A. Ekberg M. Hart K. Hougardy Clerk File Copy K. Kruller 2 Extra D. Robertson Pg. 1 Mayor Haggerton place pkt pdf on Z: \TC -UC D. Cline Agendas L. Humphrey e-mail cover to: A. Le, B. Giberson C. O'Flaherty, J. Duffie, F. Iriarte D. Almberg, B. Saxton, R. Tischmak S. Norris, M. Hart, G. Labanara L. Humphrey MONDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2015 — 5:15 PM FOSTER CONFERENCE ROOM — 6300 BUILDING (formerly known as Conference Room #1) Item Recommended Action Page 1. PRESENTATION(S) 2. BUSINESS AGENDA a) 42nd Ave S - Multiple Intersections a) Information Only Pg. 1 Sight Distance Analysis 3. SCATBd b) • SCATBd September 15, 2015 Meeting Summary b) Information Only Pg. 11 • October 9, 2015 Advanced Transportation Technologies Notes and Agenda • SCATBD October 20, 2015 Meeting Agenda 4. MISCELLANEOUS 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS Future Agendas: Next Scheduled Meeting: Monday, November 2, 2015 SThe City of Tukwila strives to accommodate individuals with disabilities Please contact the Public Works Department at 206 - 433 -0179 for assistance. Transportation Committee - 2015 Work Plan Description Qtr Dept Action or Briefing Status BNSF Intermodal Facility Access Design contract (to COW only) 1 PW A Complete 42 Avenue South Phase 111 Design Contract Supplement — design undergrounding 2 PW A Complete Seattle City Light underground agreement & revised design 3 -4 PW A Follow -up on potential for coordination with SeaTac 2 PW B Complete ADA Improvements Design contract 2 PW A Complete Crosswalk Petition for TIB /S 1391 St - Engineering analysis 3 PW B Bid award 2 PW A Annual Overlay and Repair Program Bid Award 2 PW A Complete SP Avenue S (S 137`h — S 144`h St) & Water /Sewer /SSWM Funding and Design contract 3 PW A Complete Approval to apply for TIB grant 3 PW A Complete Cascade View Safe Routes to School Closeout 3 PW A Complete Thorndyke Safe Routes to School Closeout 3 PW A TUC Transit Center /Andover Park West Closeout 3 PW A Small Roadway & Safety Improvements Allentown Roadside Barriers — outreach and design alternatives 2 PW B Complete Roadside Barrier Bid Award 3 PW A Residential Street Improvements /Walk & Roll Citywide Comprehensive Update & Safety Priority list Consultant selection 4 PW A Complete p Annual Bridge Inspections and Repairs Program update 4 PW B Major Maintenance on 3 Bridges 2015 - Design Contract 3 PW A Complete Duwamish/ S 1191 Ped Bridge — present condition and repairs 1 PW B Complete Boeing Access Road over BNRR Bridge Rehab Bid Award 4 PW A TUC Ped /Bike Bridge Right -of -way and Easement Acquisition /Ordinance 1 & 3 PW A Complete Bid Award 4 PW A Interurban Avenue S (S 143` — Fort Dent Way) Status update 4 PW B S144 t St Phase 11(42° Ave S — TIB) Bid award 4 PW A OTHER TIB pedestrian bulb replacement (test locations) site tour 4 PW B Transit plan update contract 4 PW A Complete Transportation Improvement Program 2016 -2021 Resolution 2 PW A Complete CTR Grants 2 PW A Complete S.144 t St Bridge over 1 -5 (design, cost estimate) 4 PW B Dangerous intersections (S. 146` and 42n , S. 1401 and 42n) 4 PW B Standard Reports /Briefings Frequency Dept. Facility Tours As needed PW SCATBD Monthly CM Hougardy Committee Work Plan Council, Staff City of Tukwila Updated 10/6/15 Cit y of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Haggerton Transportation Committee FROM: Bob Giberson, Public Works Director"o By: Robin Tischmak, City Engineer DATE: October 16, 2015 SUBJECT: 42nd Ave S - Multiple Intersections Sight Distance Analysis ISSUE Investigate sight distance and visibility for the existing conditions on 42nd Ave S at the intersections of S 140th St, S 146t' St and S 148th St. BACKGROUND Multiple complaints/concerns from local residents and drivers have recently been received by the City regarding limited sight distance entering 42nd Ave S from stop controlled side streets that include S 1401h St, S 146 1h St and S 148th St. Public Works Engineering staff has reviewed each location and compiled data and photographs of the existing conditions. Engineering standards for sight distance were applied at each location to determine if any deficiencies exist and whether or not any improvements or other action is warranted. ANALYSIS A sight distance analysis for each location will be presented at the meeting, including any recommended corrective actions. Information regarding sight distance design standards and driver responsibility is attached for reference. RECOMMENDATION For Transportation Committee discussion only. Attachment: Excerpts from 2011 AASHTO Manual RCW 46.61.190 CAUs9rs\susanTesktopJC Agenda ItemsNnfo Memo Sight Dist.docx 5-20 1 A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets width provided, traffic volume, remaining life of the structure, pedestrian volume, aonw storage, design speed, crash history, and other pertinent factors. Vertical Clearance Vertical u|curuone at underpasses should be at least 4.3 nu [14 5] over the entire roadway widdh, with an verti- cal clearance ofat least 4.5m[15ft]. 5.3.4 Roadside Design Clear Zones Clear zones are not applicable to local urba streets. Lateral Offset Lateral offset is defined in Section 4.6.2. Further discussion and suggested guidance on the application of lateral offsets is provided in the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide (9). On all streets umioimum lateral offset of0.5 m [1.5 O] should be provided between the curb face and obstructions such uautility poles, lighting poles, and fire hydrants. In areas of dense pedestrian traffic, the construction ofvertical curbing (typically 150 to225 mm [61o9 iu] high) aids io delineating areas with high-volume pedestrian traffic. Trees are acceptable along local streets where speeds are 60km/h [40 mph] m less, where curbs are pres- ent, and where adequate sight distance is available from intersecting streets and driveways. Guardrail is not used extensively on \oou| streets except where there is u significant risk tomotorists and pedestrians, such as along sections with steep foreslopes and at approaches to overcrossing structures. On facilities without acnc6 and with u shoulder width less than 1.2 m [4 D], umiuimum lateral offset of |2m|4 ft] from the edge oi the traveled way should beprovided. 5.3.5 Intersection Design Intersections, including median openings, should be designed with adequate intersection sight distance, as described in Section 9.5, and the intersection area should be kept 6rn ofobstacles. To maintain the minimum sight distance, restrictions on height of embankment, locations of buildings, on-street parking, and screening fences may be appropriate. Any landscaping in the clear-sight triangle should be low grow- ing auda6unldnothebigbectbuu}.Om[3fda6ovodbelcve|nftbe intersecting street pavements. Intersecting streets should meet at approximately a 90-degree angle. The alignment design should le ad- justed to avoid an angle of intersection of less than 60 degrees. Closely spaced offset intersections should be avoided, whenever practical. The intersection and approach areas where vehicles are stored while waiting to enter the intersection should he designed with urelatively flat grade; the maximum grade oothe approach leg should not exceed 5 percent where practical. Where ice and snow may create poor driving conditions, the desirable grade oo the approach leg should hc0.5 percent with uo more than 2 percent wherever practical. Chapter 5—Local Roads and Streets 1 5-21 At street intersections, there are two distinct radii that need to be considered -the effective turning radius of the turning vehicle and the radius of the curb return (see Figure 5-3). The effective turning radius is the minimum radius appropriate for turning from the right-hand travel lane on the approach street to the appropriate lane of the receiving street. This radius is determined by the selection of a design vehicle ap- propriate for the streets being designed and the lane on the receiving street into which that design vehicle C will turn. Desirably this radius should be at least 7.5 in [25 ft]. R I Actual Curb Radius fl FR2 = Effective Radius 11"iguire 5-3. Actua9 Curb Radius and Effective Radius for Right-1'urn Movements at Bntersecfions The radius of the curb return should be no greater than that needed to accommodate the design turning C, radius. However, the curb return radius should be at least 1.5 in [5 ft] to enable effective use of street- sweeping equipment. In industrial areas with no on-street parking, the radius of the curb return should not be less than 10 m [30 ft]; the use of a three-centered curve with sufficiently large radius to accommodate the largest vehicles expected with some frequency is desirable. Further information pertaining to intersection design appears in Chapter 9. 5.3.6 Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings Appropriate grade-crossing warning devices should be installed at all railroad-highway grade crossings on local roads and streets. Details of the devices to be used are given in the MUTCD (12). In some states, the final approval of the devices to be used may be vested in an agency having oversight over railroads. Sight distance is an important consideration at railroad-highway grade crossings. There should be suffi- cient sight distance along the road and railroad tracks for an approaching driver to recognize the crossing, perceive the warning device, determine whether a train is approaching, and stop if necessary. (For further information on railroad-highway grade crossings, see Section 9.12.) Signalized intersections adjacent to signalized railroad grade crossings should be designed with railroad preemption. 9-30 1 A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets . .......... b - ..... ...... . ..... . - --------- :£Major Road ............ -- — ---- as Clear Sight Triangle Decision Point Approaching sight'iriangie for Viewing Traffic Approaching the Minor Road frorn the Left �Major Road ----- ------- Clear Sight TrerGle Do bsion Point Approaching Sight Triangle for Viewing Traffic Approaching the Minor Road from the Right Approach Sight Triangles (Uncontrolled or Yield-Controiled) _A- E ..... . .... . -------- -- ..................... . .. ........ . .. ", C F a tear Sight Trengld� Decision Point - Departure Sight Triangle for Viewing Traffic Approaching the Minor Road from the Left Majcar Road - — — ---------- Clear SigN Triangle Decision Point Departure Sight Triangle for Viewing Traffic Approaching the Minor Road from the Right Departure Sight Triangles (Stop-Controlled) —B— Figure 9-15. Intersection Sight Triangles The vertex of the sight triangle on a minor -road approach (or an uncontrolled approach) represents the decision point for the minor-road driver (see Figure 9-15A). This decision point is the location at which the minor-road driver should begin to brake to a stop if another vehicle is present on an intersecting approach. The distance from the major road, along the minor road, is illustrated by the distance a, to the left and a2 to the right as shown in Figure 9-15A. Distance a2 is equal to distance of plus the width of the lane(s) departing from the intersection on the major road to the right. Distance a2 should also include the width of any median present on the major road unless the median is wide enough to permit a vehicle to stop before entering or crossing the roadway beyond the median. The geometry of a clear sight triangle is such that when the driver of a vehicle without the right-of-way sees a vehicle that has the right of way on an intersecting approach, the driver of that potentially conflict- ing vehicle can also see the first vehicle. Distance b illustrates the length of this leg of the sight triangle. Thus, the provision of a clear sight triangle for vehicles without the right-of-way also permits the drivers I of vehicles with the right-of-way to slow, stop, or avoid other vehicles, if needed. Chapter 9— Intersections 1 9 -31 Although desirable at higher volume intersections, approach sight triangles like those shown in Figure 9 -15A are not needed for intersection approaches controlled by stop signs or traffic signals. In that case, the need for approaching vehicles to stop at the intersection is determined by the traffic control devices and not by the presence or absence of vehicles on the intersecting approaches. Departure Sight Triangles A second type of clear sight triangle provides sight distance sufficient for a stopped driver on a minor -road approach to depart from the intersection and enter or cross the major road. Figure 9 -15B shows typical departure sight triangles to the left and to the right of the location of a stopped vehicle on the minor road. Departure sight triangles should be provided in each quadrant of each intersection approach controlled by stop or yield signs. Departure sight triangles should also be provided for some signalized intersection approaches (see Case D in Section 9.5.3 on "Intersection Control "). Distance 02 in Figure 9 -15B is equal to distance a, plus the width of the lanes) departing from the intersection on the major road to the right. Distance a2 should also include the width of any median present on the major road unless the median is wide enough to permit a vehicle to stop before entering or crossing the roadway beyond the median. The appropriate measurement of distances a, and a2 for departure sight triangles depends on the placement of any marked stop line that may be present and, thus, may vary with site - specific conditions. The recommended dimensions of the clear sight triangle for desirable traffic operations where stopped vehicles enter or cross a major road are based on assumptions derived from field observations of driver gap- acceptance behavior (12). The provision of clear sight triangles like those shown in Figure 9 -15B also allows the drivers of vehicles on the major road to see any vehicles stopped on the minor -road approach and to be prepared to slow or stop, if needed. Identification of Sight Obstructions within Sight Triangles The profiles of the intersecting roadways should be designed to provide the recommended sight distances for drivers on the intersection approaches. Within a sight triangle, any object at a height above the eleva- tion of the adjacent roadways that would obstruct the driver's view should be removed or lowered, if practical. Such objects may include buildings, parked vehicles, highway structures, roadside hardware, hedges, trees, bushes, unmowed grass, tall crops, walls, fences, and the terrain itself. Particular atten- tion should be given to the evaluation of clear sight triangles at interchange ramp /crossroad intersections where features such as bridge railings, piers, and abutments are potential sight obstructions. The determination of whether an object constitutes a sight obstruction should consider both the horizontal and vertical alignment of both intersecting roadways, as well as the height and position of the object. In making this determination, it should be assumed that the driver's eye is 1.08 m [3.50 ft] above the roadway surface and that the object to be seen is 1.08 m [3.50 ft] above the surface of the intersecting road. This object height is based on a vehicle height of 1.33 m [4.35 ft], which represents the 15th percentile of vehicle heights in the current passenger car population less an allowance of 250 mm [10 in.]. This allow- ance represents a near - maximum value for the portion of a passenger car height that needs to be visible for another driver to recognize it as the object. The use of an object height equal to the driver eye height makes intersection sight distances reciprocal (i.e., if one driver can see another vehicle, then the driver of that vehicle can also see the first vehicle). 9'32 | A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets Where the sight-distance value used in design is based on a single-unit or combination truck as the design vehicle, it is also appropriate touse the eye hei�htofu�ook driver io cbeddogmi�tobstructions. The recommended value of a truck driver's eye height is 2.33 in [7.6 ft] above the roadway surface. 9.5.3 Intersection Control The recommended dimensions of the sight triangles vary with the type of traffic control used muu in- tersection bnoaueediffemmlypuaofomtro|iroponediOercut\ogduonotruinuyondrivereuod,tberofore, result in different driver behavior. Procedures to determine sight distances at iutecsocbuuo are presented below according to different types of traffic control, uofollows: • Case --Intersections with no uoutr^l • CaseB– -Intersections with stop control on the minor road – CueuBl -- Loftturufiocotbcmioorroud � Case B2-- Right turn from the minor road – Case 83--Croyaiog maneuver from the minor road " CaseC-- Intersections with yield control ou the minor road – Case Cl—Crossing maneuver from the minor road – Case C2-- Left or right turn from the minor road • Case with traffic signal control • CumeB— luicrncotiomawNball-wu stop control • Case F —Lcft turns from the major road Case A--|ntensections with NoControl For intersections not controlled by yield signs, stop signs, m traffic signals, the driver ofovehicle ap- proaching an intersection should be able to see potentially conflicting vehicles in sufficient time to stop before reaching the intersection. The location nf the decision point (driver's eye) of the sight triangles on each approach is determined from model that io analogous to the stopping sight distance model, with slightly different assumptions. While some perceptual tasks at intersections may need substantially less time, the detection and recogni- tion ofovobio|ct6utioumubstuotialdiatauoomvuyouuniutemocdoAupproaob'oodiuneartbclimituof the driver's peripheral vision, may take up to 2.5 s. The distance to brake to a stop can be determined from the same braking coefficients used todetermine stopping sight distance in Table 3'1. Field observations indicate that vo6iu\ns approaching oocuutrn|]xd iuteryeodnom typically slow to ap- proximately 50 percent of their midblock running speed. This occurs even when no potentially conflicting vehicles are present (1J). This initial slowing typically occurs o1 deceleration rates upto 1.5 m/sz [5 ft/oz]. Deceleration at this gradual rate has been observed to begin even before a potentially conflicting vehicle comes into view. Braking at greater deceleration rates, which can approach those aouumodio stopping 9-38 1 A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets intersection is located on a 4 percent upgrade, then the time gap selected for intersection sight distance design for left turns should be increased from 8.0 to 8.8 s, equivalent to an increase of 0.2 s for each per- cent grade. The design values for intersection sight distance for passenger cars are shown in Table 9-6. Figure 9-17 includes design values, based on the time gaps for the design vehicles included in Table 9-5. No adjustment of the recommended sight distance values for the major-road grade is generally needed be- cause both the major- and minor-road vehicle will be on the same grade when departing from the intersec- tion. However, if the minor-road design vehicle is a heavy truck and the intersection is located near a sag vertical curve with grades over 3 percent, then an adjustment to extend the recommended sight distance based on the major-road grade should be considered. Table 9-6. Design Intersection Sight Distance-Case B1, Left Turn from Stop MAR M M ME Intersection S SightLL� I Intersection S Sight Distance f for D Distance f for Design P Passenger C Cars D Design S Stopping P Passenger C Cars Speed S Stopping Sight C Calculated D Design S Speed S Sight C Calculated D Design (km/h) D Distance (m) ( (M) ( (M) ( (mph) D Distance (ft) ( (ft) ( (ft) . ............ 20 2 20 4 41.7 4 45 1 15 8 80 1 165.4 1 170 30 3 35 6 62.6 6 65 2 20 1 115 2 220.5 2 . . 40 5 50 8 83.4 8 85 2 25 1 155 2 275.6 2 280 50 6 65 1 1043 1 105 3 30 2 200 . 335 60 8 85 1 125.1 1 130 3 35 2 250 3 385.9 3 ....... . 70 1 105 1 146.0 1 150 4 40 3 305 4 441.0 4 .. . 80 1 130 1 166.8 1 170 4 45 3 360 4 496.1 5 .. . . 90 1 160 1 187.7 1 190 5 50 4 425 5 551.3 5 555 100 1 185 2 208.5 2 210 5 55 4 495 6 606.4 6 -- 110 2 220 2 229.4 2 230 6 60 5 570 6 661.5 6 665 120 2 250 2 250.2 2 255 6 65 6 645 7 716.6 7 720 Note: Intersection sight distance shown is for a stopped passenger car to turn left onto a two-lane highway with no median and grades 3 percent or less. For other conditions, the time gap should be adjusted and the sight distance recalculated. Sight distance design for left turns at divided-highway intersections should consider multiple design ve- hicles and median width. If the design vehicle used to determine sight distance for a divided-highway intersection is larger than a passenger car, then sight distance for left turns will need to be checked for that selected design vehicle and for smaller design vehicles as well. If the divided-highway median is wide enough to store the design vehicle with a clearance to the through lanes of approximately I in [3 ft] at both ends of the vehicle, no separate analysis for the departure sight triangle for left turns is needed on the minor-road approach for the near roadway to the left. In most cases, the departure sight triangle for right Chapter 9—Intersections | 9-41 Table 9-8. Design Intersection Sight Distance—Case 82 Right Turn from Stop, and Case B3,Crossing Maneuver Intersection Sight intersection Sight Stopping Distance for Stopping Distance for Design Sight Passenger Cars. Design Sight Passenger Cars Speed Distance Calculated Design Speed Distance Calculated Design 20 20 36.1 40 15 80 143.3 145 30 35 54.2 55 20 115 191.1 195 40 50 72.3 75 2S 155 238.9 240 50 65 90.4 95 30 200 286.7 290 60 85 108.4 110 35 250 334.4 335 70 105 126.5 130 40 305 382.2 385 80 130 144.6 145 45 360 430.0 430 90 160 162.6 165 50 425 477.8 480 100 185 180.7 185 55 49S 525.5 53 0 110 220 198.8 200 60 S70 573.3 575 120 250 216.8 220 65 645 621.1 625 130 285 234.9 235 70 730 668.9 670 75 820 716.6 720 80 910 764.4 765 Note: Intersection sight distance shown is for a stopped passenger car to turn right onto orto cross v two- lane highwaywhhnomedianandwithgmdesof3perceruor|ea.Forothercnnditions,thedmeXap should be adjusted and the sight distance recalculated. 46.61.185 <<, 46,61190 >> 46.61.195 RCW 46.61.190 Vehicle entering stop or yield intersection. (1) Preferential right-of-way may be indicated by stop signs or yield signs as authorized in RCW 4736A 10. (2) Except when directed to proceed by a duly authorized flagger, or a police officer, or a firefighter vested by law with authority to direct, control, or regulate traffic, every driver of a - vehicle approaching a stop sign shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before , entering a marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering the roadway, and after having stopped shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time when such driver is moving across or within the intersection orjunction of roadways. (3) The driver of a vehicle approaching a yield sign shall in obedience to such sign slow down to a speed reasonable for the existing conditions and if required for safety to stop, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering a marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or if none, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering the roadway, and then after slowing or stopping, the driver shall yield the right-of- way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time such driver is moving across or within the intersection orjunction of roadways: PROVIDED, That if such a driver is involved in a collision with a vehicle in the intersection orjunction of roadways, after driving past a yield sign without stopping, such collision shall be deemed prima facie evidence of the driver's failure to yield right-of-way. [2000 c 239 § 5; 1975 c 62 § 27; 1965 ex.s. c 155 § 30.] Notes: Rules of court: Monetary penalty schedule -- IRLJ 6.2. Captions not law -- 2000 c 239: See note following RCW 49.17.350. Severability - -1975 c 62: See note following RCW 36.75.010. Stop signs, "Yield" signs -- Duties of persons using highway: RCW 47.36.110. Page I of I 8/27/2015 15(xf ety .P1 WTSEA '000 CONTROVERSIES |NTSE By Skeet Gaul (TGE Instructor &VVTGEATreasurer) Issue: Should We Teach Students to Make 'Double Stops'? Nowhere in the RCW's does it say that double stops are required at intersections with stop signs. RCW46'61.190 says that after coming to at the stopping position we must "yield the right of way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another, road way so closely as to constitute an immediate hazardt— " The,word 'yield' is cla - nfied in the Wash inbton,State;Driver� s Guide as meanin " g you "must do,everything you can to prevent \. Furthermore, RCW47.36'110 says that when a person approaches an intersection that has a stop sign, that the person is required to stop. Then, "A person stopping at such asign shall proceed through that portion of the highway in a careful manner and at a reasonable rate of speed not to exceed twenty miles per hour. VVe can certainly see if an intersection vve are about to enter ie clear ornot. But ifvve have a closed Line of sight /L[S\.i[ovvhotvvecmn'taaeUlsdnnighthurtua. The question becomes, "How will we know if the intersection is about to become a closing path of travel (POT) by an approaching vehiclevve can't see, due toa closed LO@?^ VVm don't know the vehicle iocoming, but if we just trust what we see in front of us and enter the intersection, a collision will occur and it will be our fault because vva "failed toyie|d^. The law doesn't care that vva couldn't see the vehicle cnnling.t8o',@df��W��h"'a've�ex6cu[6d | |6d@ti So, hmakes sense that after making our correct and complete stop, we should proceed with caution todetermine if our Path of travel io open orclosing. Proceeding with caution doesn't mean that we have to stop again, completely. If we can make the determination that our POT is open, while abU noUing, then we may proceed safely into the interoecUon, without making a second stop. The problem becomes, what do you teach young students, whose scanning skills and gap judgment and are not equal to more experienced drivers? 11m SOUTH COUNTY AREA TRANSPORTATION BOARD (SCATBd) September 15, 2015 MEETING SUMMARY Members Councilmember Bill Peloza (Chair) Councilmember Dana Ralph (Vice - Chair) Commissioner Don Meyer Elizabeth Leavitt Lance Newkirk Councilmember Linda Johnson Mayor Dave Hill Deputy Mayor Jeanne Burbidge Councilmember Debi Wagner Chris Arkills Charles Prestrud Lance Newkirk Councilmember Barry Ladenburg Councilmember Stacia Jenkins City of Auburn City of Kent Port of Tacoma Port of Seattle City of Pacific City of Maple Valley City of Algona City of Federal Way City of Burien King County (Alternate) WSDOT (Alternate) City of Pacific City of SeaTac City of Normandy Park I. Open Meeting After introductions the Board approved the meeting summary for the July 21, 2015 SCATBd meeting. II. Reports, Communications and Citizen Requests to Comment Mayor Hill reported on the upcoming meeting of the Regional Transit Committee. Councilmember Ladenburg reported on the SCR's Public Issues Committee meeting where King County representatives asked for member insights on how to fund and maintain unincorporated area roads. Councilmember Jenkins reminded Board members to provide her with ideas on SCATBd's legislative agenda for 2016. Board members suggested a number of topic to explore including air quality in relation to the airport, oil train safety, clean fuel, advocate for high speed rail in the Vancouver and Portland corridor, unincorporated areas funding support of preservation of arterials and state routes, complete what's been funded, SR 167 capacity still needs attention, a review of the gas tax direct distribution formula to counties and cities, and program to address the regional arterial network that links cities, towns and unincorporated communities in King County. The Board will review a draft legislative message at their October 20 meeting. III. Update on State Projects in Adopted Transportation Package, John White — WSDOT Mr. White said that the 2015 adopted transportation package (Connecting Washington Program) was a 16 year program that included line item improvement projects and a significant preservation program. The Connecting Washington Program is based on a "practical design" approach to project development that encourages creative and innovative engineering to identify solutions that meet project needs for the least cost. Overseeing this approach is a Practical Solutions Committee that is chaired by the Chaired by the Secretary of Transportation with members comprised of WSDOT agency leadership, including the NW Region Administrator. The committee will hold monthly meetings to review projects at key delivery milestones. Mr. White highlighted the major South Sound "i projects which included the I -405 Renton to Lynnwood corridor projects, Puget Sound (SR 167 & SR 509) Gateway projects, Federal Way Triangle projects, SR 18 Eastbound Ramp to SR 167, SR 518 Des Moines Memorial Drive Interchange project, and the I -5 /SB S 320`h St to Duwamish River Bridge concrete pavement rehabilitation project. IV. Update on King County Metro's Long Range Public Transportation Plan, Brianna Lovell & Graydon Newman — King County Metro Transit Ms. Lovell and Mr. Graydon briefed the Board on the status of Metro's Long Range Public Transportation Plan. Ms. Lovell said the plan will include year 2025 and 2040 service networks and RapidRide like transit services. The plan will also include alternative transit services discussion rural areas of King County, and a capital investment plan to support the future transit network. The development of the long range plan is being coordinated with Sound Transit's System Development Plan for ST3. Mr. Newman said that South King County feedback to Metro staff included the need to improve connections to Eastside cities and HCT, more east -west connectivity, better connections to Manufacturing /Industrial Centers, interest in alternative services for low density and hard -to -serve areas, and the need for express transit service from more rural cities. Mr. Lovell said that they expect to have a draft plan in March, 2016, and a final plan in the summer of 2016. V. Update on the Regional Transportation Technology Symposium, John Niles — CATES Mr. Niles briefed the Board on the status planning for the October 9, 2015 symposium, the speakers, and the registration for the symposium. The Symposium will also include a presentation/discussion on Metro's Alternative Services and Ridesharing programs. Councilmember Linda Johnson encouraged cities to send their elected and staff members to the symposium saying that it will be well worth the time. Mayor Hill said that this should be the first of a series of events because of the large amount of material that can be covered. Mr. Prestrud commented local agencies should be aware of new transportation technology when developing their long range transportation plans VI. Public Comment Todd Woosley commented on the need more capacity for rubber tired vehicles and the need for additional revenues for arterials and freeways. Other Attendees: Kelly Peterson, Kent Michael Golden, WSDOT Maiya Andrews, Burien John Niles, CATES Bob Lindskov, Covington Brandon Carver Des Moines Rick Perez, Federal Way Todd R. Woosley, ETA Kendra Breiland, Fehr & Peers Jim Seitz, Renton Tom Gut, SeaTac Nathan Jones, Boeing Brittany Jarnot, Outcomes by Levy Katie Kuciemba, SCA Joe Welsh, Auburn Kelly Peterson, Kent Paul Takamine, KCDOT John White, WSDOT Brianna Lovell, KCDOT- Transit Graydon Newman, KCDOT- Transit `m Advanced Transportation Technologies Conference (ATTC) Notes - Mercer Island Corn. Ctr. - 9 Oct 2015 ➢ Agenda Topics - Notes: ➢ Inrix - Develops Car data to assist driver to go from point A to point B (connectivity solutions). 14% of vehicles have data now - by 2020 - 50 %. Driver network, weather, accident, traffic camera's, event's, construction, etc. are available to the driver. Facilities that can control traffic congestions (such as, COA does for MIT Hiway 410 Events). Smart parking availability through vehicle data. Build Smarter Cities -with advanced Technology & Data. ➢ Inrex Panel - transportation issues - population growth & strategies - Using available smart phone apps to use different transportation methods, e.g. use bus rather than car or a bike (data will provide best data). ➢ Commuting in America - Stats on vehicle trends /consumer transportation spending. ➢ Automatic Vehicles (Blackmer Group) - vision from 1939 to present. Autonomous (use of sensors & actuators) - by 2020 no driver in vehicle capability but, human will still need to be available to take over vehicle when necessary. ➢ Transportation Infrastructure (U.S. DOT) - systems built to "react" to conditions - connect all systems together to react better to resolve traffic congestions = improved response times. ➢ Technology Tools (Transpo Group) - Smart Signal Equipment (local events)? Real Time Information Mgt (guidance systems)? Real Time Transit (reader wayfinding)? ➢ Safety - reduce accidents (Target Zero) - Human behavior cause of most accidents. Liberty Mutual - Cautious about vehicle automation. ➢ Proterra - Battery Electric Bus - 75% Urban by 2050. Transit never been more important. Behind on building roads. More transit =more pollution. CO2 levels have increased. Oil production - Increase of emissions. Solar energy increasing in home building. Very cost effective electric vehicle. ➢ Kirkland (Amy Walen) - The Automobile - ➢ Smart - Urban Planner, U of Michigan, Suzan Zielinski -Tools for Action - Mostly Urban Planning topics. ➢ Move passengers into fewer vehicles -Microsoft (Jim Stanton) -transportation for campus employee's - 74 buses, 19 parking lots, paid Metro transit cards - Overlake Transit Ctr. ($33M MS improvements funded). Need a Marshal plan to move the 2040 PSRC planning. ➢ KC Metro (Syd Pawlowski) - Provide Commuter Vans, Vanpoo) & Rideshare programs. Love to partner with entities to move riders in KC. Partnerships - Community Shuttles, Vans, Trip /pool programs, etc. Want transportation equity. Goal - reduce pollution and congestion. Real -Time 13 Ridesharing, icarpool app to register drivers and riders. Small fees apply. Trip Pool - Pilot program underway at Mercer Island and SEKC. ➢ Flexible Transit Options - Uber (wait minutes 2.2 /4.6) 300 cities, 60 countries - Permit to operate in a city - Over 60% of trips replace personal vehicle trips. Reduce traffic jams & congestions. ➢ Lyft & Transit -began 2005 - 65 locations. ➢ KC METRO -Owning my own vehicle? Use transit where available. Save $. There are alternative services for travelers currently being tested /pilot programs underway at KC. ➢ Finished up the day with a free for all Q &A panel's. ➢ Summary: all in all, the 1st conference of this type was well received with nearly 250 in attendance. The planning committee is considering recommending another conference in 2016 because of the success of this conference. Bill Peloza SCATBd Chair 14 Developed and Sponsored by King County's Three Transportation Boards: ETP TRANS SIDE IENT EA / HORE Transportation Forum Co- Sponsored by: Puget Sound Regional Council, King County Metro Transit, Washington State Department of Transportation, City of Mercer Island, City of Kirkland, Cascadia Academy, INRIX, Microsoft, Proterra, Tesla, Via Motors, Fehr & Peers, Transpo Group, PRR, Liberty Mutual, Reason Foundation, The Blackmer Group, and others Organized and Moderated by: The Center for Advanced Transportation and Energy Solutions (CATES) ADVANCED TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES CONFERENCE ADVANCED TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES CONFERENCE What's in the Future and How Do We Plan for It? Friday October 9, 2015 Mercer Island Community & Event Center 8:OOam- 4:30pm MORNING 8:00 AM Check in and coffee, provided all day by Fehr & Peers 1 Vehicle display outside 8:30 Welcoming remarks: Mercer Island Mayor Bruce Bassett; Washington Secretary of Transportation Lynn Peterson; PSR[ Executive Director Josh Brown; Bernard Ta|mas' Mayor of Woodinville and Chair of Transportation Boards Conference Organizing Committee 8:45 Conference introduction and overview: Steve Marshall, Executive Director, Center for Advanced Transportation and Energy Solutions [CATES) 9:00 Keynote Bryan Mistele, CEO of lnrix, "How Advanced Technologies Are Changing Our Ability to Diagnose, Plan for and Address Transportation Congestion and Safety" 9:30 "Vhat is INRIX Forecasting for Puget Sound Congestion? What are the Opportunities for Improvement?" Steve Banfield and Gary Carlin from INRIX; Robin Mayhew, PSRC commenting 10:00 "Traffic, Mode Share, and Population Trends" Alan Pisarski, author of Commuting in America With additional information from University of Washington Professor Emeritus Richard Morrill 10:30 "Smart, Connected and Automated Vehicles: Trends and Outlook" Presentations and discussion moderated by John Niles, CATES Research Director; Shane Blackmer, Blackmer Group; Baruch Feigenbaum, Reason Foundation. 11:00 "Making Traffic and Demand Management More Integrated and Predictive" James Co|yarfrom Federal Highway Administration, U.S. DOT 11:15 "Technology Tools for Local Agencies -OptimizingTraffic Today" Jeanne Acutanza from Transpo Group 11:30 "Reducing Accidents, Fatalities, Injuries and Congestion: Target Zero and Technology Working Together" Darrin Gronde|, Director, Washington State Traffic Safety Commission with follow on remarks by Gary Strannigan, Liberty Mutual 11:45 "Connected, Electric and Green - A Tech-Centric Approach to 21st CenturyBus Transit" Ryan Popple, CEO of Proterra m 12:15 PM Lunch and Presentation: Susan Zielinski, Managing Director, SMART (Sustainable Mobility & Accessibility Research &Transformation) at University of Michigan, "Planning for the Future of Transportation." Introduced by City of Kirkland Mayor Amy Walen 1:00 "Getting More Passengers into Fewer Vehicles" Jim Stanton, Microsoft; Syd Pawlowski, King County Metro 1:30 "Advanced Technology Transit: Right-sized, Flexible Transit Options" Aaron Gooze of Fehr and Peers with Brooke Steger, Uber; Todd Kelsay, Lyft; Stephen Hunt, King County Metro 2:00 "Expert Reactions to Advanced Transportation Technologies" Discussion panel of conference presenters from earlier in the day. 2:45 "Legislative Panel on Advanced Transportation Technologies: What's in Store for the Next Legislative Session and Beyond" Panel discussion featuring State Legislators, including Judy Clibborn, Chad Magendanz, Mark Muliet, and Dick Muri. 3:15 Town Hall Q&A discussion with collected written questions to members of the expert and Iegislative panels from throughout the day 3:45 Conference closing remarks |Vehide display outside 4:00 Wine and cheese reception (hosted by Transpo Group) - =�� . ^ • Friday, October 9, 2015 Welcome to the Advanced Transportation Technologies Conference. The topic of this conference is timely. The public now views transportation as the number one Puget Sound regional problem —far ahead of education and jobs. With the recession over, more people are going more places more often, resulting in more congestion, more wasted time and less livability. Our region now ranks 7th for the worst traffic in the country. In a troubling development, national traffic deaths are up 14 percent so far this year and injuries are up 30 percent. This year transportation deaths may exceed 40,000 —up from 32,000 last year. At the same time, newly developed transportation technologies promise powerful tools to better diagnose and ease our transportation problems. Automakers are now making vehicles that will automatically stop before they rear -end or sideswipe other cars or run into pedestrians. Cars with "traffic jam assist" can now travel more safely in stop and go traffic - -when drivers stuck in traffic are tempted to check their emails, talk or text to avoid wasting time. The sensors and the computing power that make safer cars possible are becoming faster, smarter and cheaper. Nissan, Tesla, Google and others predict they will have cars able to operate on autopilot in the five years. Volvo promises cars by 2020 that will have no accidents. King County Metro is testing Proterra's all- electric buses that can alert and soon automatically prevent buses from colliding with cars, bikes and pedestrians. The potential benefits are enormous: As increasingly automated vehicles become more common and affordable, there will be far fewer accidents, deaths and injuries, lower insurance costs and less time wasted in congestion. Roads could carry more vehicles more safely. Drivers impaired by age, disabilities or distractions will be safer. So will pedestrians and cyclists. The combination of smart, connected, increasingly automated vehicles and transit with personal smartphones are transforming transportation - -what some call the "mobility internet." Commuters can soon connect to more flexible transit, vanpool and carpool options and reserve places at park - and -ride hubs. More people can commute in fewer vehicles. Smartphones have already made car - sharing companies including Car2Go, Uber, Ridescout and Lyft possible. But there are plenty of questions that this conference will start to address: • What are these new transportation technologies and their intended and unintended consequences? • Will they increase or decrease congestion, promote vehicle mode shifts, enable better use of the existing roads, park- and -ride centers and transit? • What should local governments and transportation agencies in Washington State do to optimize their planning processes in light of these new technologies? Finally, on behalf of CATES and the event organizing committee from the King County Transportation Boards we thank our public and private sector sponsors for making this conference possible. Steve Marshall, Executive Director, Center for Advanced Transportation and Energy Solutions IVA SOUTH COUNTY AREA TRANSPORTATION BOARD (SCATBd) MEETING DRAFT AGENDA Tuesday, October 20, 2015 9:00 — 11:00 a.m. SeaTac City Hall 4800 South 188th Street SeaTac 1. Open Meeting Action 9:00 a.m. • Introductions • Approve September 15, 2015 SCATBd Meeting Summary 2. Reports and Communications Reports and 9:05 a.m. • Chair or Vice Chair Discussion • Participant Updates from RTC and Other Regional Committees • SCATBd Officer Nominating Committee formation 3. SCATBd 2016 Legislative Agenda: Report and 9:30 a.m. Councilmember Stacia Jenkins /All Discussion 4. Advanced Transportations Technology Report and 10:00 a.m. Report: Steve Marshall & John Niles, CATES Discussion 5. PSRC's Stuck in Traffic, Fall Edition: Gary Report and 10:20 a.m. Simonson, PSRC Discussion 6. • Public Comment 10:50 a.m. • For the Good of the Order • Next SCATBd Meeting: November 17, 2015, November Meeting Treats — City of Federal Way 18