The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSEPA E07-001 - CITY OF TUKWILA - 2007 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS2007 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS & REZONE L06 -093- TRANSIT CENTER; L06 -095 & L06 -96 - BONSAI NORTHWEST CITY - WIDE E07 -001 Dept. Of Community Development • City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I , t/l,S HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing 11 L L I Determination of Non - Significance 7 _ 1 k Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Mailer's Signature: LYt -ock_ Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit _ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 1 / V Other g-f -t � J >P� c� - t °- Cai =r 'Clz.ovi-c/1 'y? A-14-1124.401�. Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this /J day of year 20177 in the P: ADMINISTRATIVEFORMS \FORMSUFFIDAVITOFDISTRIBUTION Project Name: 'zD C .` " 11 A 11 L L I Project '7 7 _ 1 k Number: b "c ( Mailer's Signature: LYt -ock_ Person requesting mailing: P: ADMINISTRATIVEFORMS \FORMSUFFIDAVITOFDISTRIBUTION GJ ( ) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF EN RS () FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMI TION () DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE () U.S. ENVI MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY () U.S. DE .U.D. () NATIONAL RINE FISHERIES SERVICE WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( ) OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ( ) TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT () DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES () OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR () DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. () DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE KING COUNTY AGENCIES () DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. O DEPT OF ECOLOGY,_SHORELAND.DIV__._ >QDEP_T_OF ECOLOGY,.SEP_ADIVISION' ( ) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL • SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS • SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION () BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD () FIRE DISTRICT #11 () FIRE DISTRICT #2 () K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION () K.C. DEPT OF PARKS & REC () KC. ASSESSORS OFFICE ( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT () TUKWILA LIBRARY () RENTON UBRARY () KENT UBRARY () CITY OF SEATTLE UBRARY �) OWEST () SEATTLE CITY LIGHT () PUGET SOUND ENERGY () HIGHUNE WATER DISTRICT () SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) AT &T CABLE SERVICES ( ) KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: () PUBLIC WORKS ()POUCE () PLANNING () PARKS & REC. O CITY CLERK SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES UTILITIES CITY AGENCIES ( ) FIRE ( ) FINANCE () BUILDING ( ) MAYOR OTHER ( ) PUGET SOUND REGIONAL. COUNCIL ( ) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ( ) MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE ( ) CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM ( ) FISHERIES PROGRAM ( ) WILDLIFE PROGRAM ( ) SEATTLE TIMES ( ) SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL P:WDMINISTRATIV E\FORMS \CHKLIST.DOC () HEALTH DEPT () PORT OF SEATTLE (.) KC. DEVIL ENVOI SERVICES-SEPA INFO CNTR )(KC._TRANSIT DMSION- -SEPA. OFFICIAL -- () KC. LAND & WATER, RESOURCES ( ) FOSTER LIBRARY ( ) K C PUBLIC UBRARY ( ) HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) OLYMPIC PIPELINE ( ) VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT ( ) WATER DISTRICT #20 ( ) WATER DISTRICT #125 ( ) CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS () BRYN MAWR- LAKERIDGE SEWERANATER DISTRICT () RENTON PLANNING DEPT () CITY OF SEA -TAC () CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS () CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU () STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE' • NOTICE OF AU. SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. LOCAL AGENCIES () DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE () P.S. AIR POLLUTION CLEAN AGENCY () SOUND TRANSIT () DUWAMISH RIVER CLEAN -UP COAUTION 'SEND NOTICE OF ALL APPUCATIONS ON OUWAMISH RIVER MEDIA ( ) HIGHLINE TIMES ( ) CI.TUKWILA.WA.US.WWW SEPA MAILINGS • Mail to: (comment period starts on date of mailing) Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section *Applicant *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list) *Any parties of record • send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination KC Transit Division. — SEPA Official would like to receive information about all projects that might affect transit demand Send These Documents to DOE: SEPA Determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed or sent to newspaper) SHORELINE MAILINGS:... Notice of Application for a Substantial Development Permit must be mailed to owners and to property' owners within 500 feet of subject property, comments are due 30 days after the notice of application is mailed/posted. The notice of Application for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must include a statement that any person desiring to submit written comments on the application or desiring to receive notification of the final decision on the application may do so within 30 days of the notice of application. If a hearing will be held on the application, the hearing notice must include the information that written comments may be submitted, or oral presentation made at the hearing. Shoreline Permit Notice of Decision: . Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 21-clay appeal period begins date received by DOE) Department of Ecology Shorelands Section State Attorney General . *Applicant •.Indian Tribes *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list). *Any parties of record • send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination Send These Documents to DOE and Attornev General: Permit Data Sheet Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) Shoreline Permit Application Forin (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) - Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements — Cross- sections of site with structures & shoreline - Grading Plan - Vicinity map SEPA determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline Notice of Application Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed) P: ADMINISTRATIVE%FORMS\CHKUST.DOC • • SEPA mailing John Muth 5021 S. 144th St. Tukwila, Wa 98168 Christopher Brown 9688 Rainier Avenue S. Seattle, WA 98118 -5981 Bonnie Hanson Egis Real Estate 4671 174th Court SE Bellevue, WA 98006 -6534 John Stokke Open Frame LLC • P.O. Box 88198 Tukwila, WA 98138 13,■1 11. Wi ll;aMso , Est. 11 C 1111 #4111 0y) L Ow ix, P.o. aox 194921 Sea'tt'le, W/4 le 139- 0 eV John Stokke Open Frame LLC PO Box 88198 Tukwila, WA 98138 Christopher Brown 9688 Rainier Ave. So. Seattle, WA 98118 -5981 Bonnie Hanson Egis Real Estate 4671 — 174th Court SE Bellevue, WA 98006 -6534 Bill H. Williamson, Esq.] The Williamson Law Office PO Box 99821 Seattle, WA 98139 -08221 John Muth 5021 So. 144th St. Tukwila, WA 98168 CITY OF TUKWILA STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) CHECKLIST ADDENDUM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN /ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS PROJECT TITLE: Addendum —SEPA Checklist Determination of Non-Significance (File # E07 -001) PROPOSED ACTION: The City of Tukwila is proposing amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map as follows: • L06- 093 — Transit Center — Revise Policy • L06- 095— Bonsai Northwest — Change Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Regional Commercial Center (RCC) to Low Density Residential (LDR) • L06 -096 -- Bonsai Northwest— Change Zoning Map from Regional Commercial Center (RCC) to Low Density Residential (LDR) In response to a change in the wording of a proposed policy change (File #L06 -093) , additional environmental analysis has been prepared as an addendum to an existing non - project (programmatic) SEPA checklist (File #E07 -001) Comprehensive Plan amendments can be adopted by the City Council once per year, as authorized by the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) and the Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 18.80. PROPONENT AND LEAD AGENCY: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 SEPA RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Steve Lancaster, Director Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: 206 - 431 -3683 CONTACT PERSON: Rebecca Fox Telephone: 206 - 431 -3683 E -mail: rfox a,ci.tukwila.wa.us LOCATION OF DOCUMENTS: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA Office Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Rf 1 04/12/2007 Q: \COMP PLAN AMEND 2006 - 2007 \SEPAaddendum4.9.07.doc • • SEPA COMPLIANCE: The Determination of Non - Significance for amendments to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Land Use Map and Zoning map was issued on March 15, 2007. It was circulated to affected agencies and other parties of interest. No comment period was required. Per Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 21.04.280, no administrative appeal is allowed. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW —SCOPE OF SEPA CHECKLIST ADDENDUM: The original SEPA checklist assessed the impacts of changing Comprehensive Plan Policy 13.4.8 as follows: 13.4.8. "Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Westfield Mall at Southcenter, and surrounding businesses to locate a pedestrian friendly transit centerand related amenities on or in the vicinity of Andover Park West, between Baker Boulevard Following a public hearing on March 22, 2007, the City of Tukwila Planning Commission recommended that the following changes be made and forwarded to the Tukwila City Council for adoption: 13.4.8. Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Westfield Mall at to locate a pedestrian friendly transit center and related amenities on Andover Park Wcst in the Tukwila Urban Center north of Minkler Boulevard. This addendum evaluates environmental impacts of revised Policy 13.4.8 as recommended by the Tukwila Planning Commission above. Attachment A shows the area described in the Planning Commission's recommendation. Neither the Addendum nor the original Checklist analyzes site - specific impacts; rather, they focus on area -wide impacts for this non - project, programmatic proposal. Specific land use, traffic and other environmental impacts will be evaluated when specific Transit Center sites and configurations are proposed for consideration. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and rules established for the act, WAC 197- 11, outline procedures for the use of existing environmental documents and preparing addenda to environmental decisions. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS All environmental elements were adequately addressed by SEPA checklist issued on March 15, 2007. Further, subsequent "project" actions will require the submittal of separate environmental review. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT The proposed amendment further expands the geographic area that can be considered as a possible site for a future Transit Center to include the entire Tukwila Urban Center north of Minkler Boulevard, rather than being limited to the area along or adjacent to Andover Park West (per the staff recommended change to Policy 13.4.8 as discussed in the SEPA Rf 2 04/12/2007 Q: \COMP PLAN AMEND 2006 - 2007 \SEPAaddendum4.9.07.doc • • checklist) or Andover Park West between Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard (per existing Policy 13.4.8). In so doing, it provides greater flexibility and range in the siting decision. SUMMARY OF CHANGED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The Planning Commission's recommendation expands the geographic area to be considered as a potential Transit Center site to include the Tukwila Urban Center north of Minkler Boulevard. The expanded area proposed by the Planning Commission does not affect the environmental impacts that were already discussed in the checklist. There are no new impacts unique to the Tukwila Urban Center north of Minkler Boulevard. The analysis remains the same. Although the geographic scope is broader, the policy change recommended by the Planning Commission remains a non - project action. Specific environmental impacts of siting, constructing, and operating a Transit Center will be analyzed during Transit Center site selection and development of a specific Transit Center project. RECOMMENDATION The City of Tukwila environmental checklist provided analysis of the environmental impacts associated with implementing changes to the Comprehensive Plan. The nature of the proposed change is such that it does not result in significant impacts and all remain within the range of alternatives examined original checklist. The City of Tukwila has reviewed the proposed amendments and has found that they are consistent with the scope of the SEPA checklist. Therefore, this action will not create additional or significant impacts.beyond those previous identified and does not warrant separate environmental review as outlined in the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), WAC 197 -11. Signature: L A Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Dated: ,1 12 ) z`'u-) Rf 3 04/12/2007 Q: \COMP PLAN AMEND 2006 - 2007 \SEPAaddendum4.9.07.doc City of Tukwila Transit Center L06 -093 Cty of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development INFORMATION MEMO To: Community Affairs and Parks Committee From: Steve Lancaster, Department of Community Development Date: April 11, 2007 Subject: 2007 Comprehensive Plan Amendments ISSUE fter holding a public meeting on March 5, 2007, the Tukwila City Council forwarded a omprehensive Plan amendment, a Comprehensive Plan map change and a rezone ;- request to the Planning Commission for a hearing and recommendation. The Tukwila lanning Commission held a public hearing on March 22, 2007, and made ecommendations to be forwarded back to the City Council. Steve Lancaster, Director BACKGROUND This memo will provide background information on the Planning Commission's recommendations and the status of this year's review process. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS /ALTERNATIVES The applications and Planning Commission recommendations are as follows: • Transit Center —Modem Wording. Applicant: Tukwila Department of Community Development (File #L06 -093) — The proposal seeks to modify existing policy 13.4.8 to provide greater flexibility in finding a location for a future Transit Center by expand the geographic area that can be considered for a site. The current policy states that a future Transit Center should be sited on Andover Park East between Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard. The Planning Commission recommended wording allows greater flexibility in selecting a location for the future Transit Center by expanding significantly the geographic area beyond Andover Park West and the vicinity of Southcenter Mall to include the entire Tukwila Urban Center north of Minkler Boulevard. (Exhibit A) • Redesignate property from Regional Commercial Center (RCC) to Low Density Residential (LDR) at S. 144`h and 51St Avenue S.) Applicant: John Muth (File #L06- 095 and L06 -096) –The Planning Commission recommended approving the applicant's request to redesignate approximately .63 acres of a 1.35 acre site from commercial (RCC) to single - family residential (LDR) with the condition that the applicant apply for a Boundary Line Adjustment separating the RCC from the new LDR within 90 days of Council's approving the request. The property is vacant RF 1 Q: \COMP PLAN AMEND 2006 - 2007 \CAPinfomemo4.24.07.doc 04/12/2007 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 0 Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 o Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 nursery property adjacent to and associated with the Bonsai Northwest nursery property. After the hearing, staff learned that the Boundary Line Adjustment presented a problem for the applicant since the two properties had different mortgages. The applicant would prefer to apply directly for a Short Plat. Staff therefore would like uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve changing a portion of the property from RCC to LDR, but to modify the condition by requiring a complete Short Plat application, within 90 days of Council approval, rather than a Boundary Line Adjustment application. If the applicant does not submit a Short Plat application within 90 days, the City would draw the boundary between RCC and LDR as per that shown in the application materials. Attached Exhibits B shows the subject area.. ACTION Staff requests that the CAP forward this issue to the COW for a briefing at its meeting on May 14, 2007, and to the Regular Meeting on May 21, 2007 for a public hearing. After the hearing on May 21, the City Council will decide whether to approve, modify or reject the requests. RF 2 04/12/2007 Q: \COMP PLAN AMEND 2006 - 2007 \CAPinfomemo4.24.07.doc FINDINGS PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Tukwila proposes to update the wording of existing Transportation Element Policy 13.4.8 in order to better reflect transit system and Transit Center analysis, and to expand options for siting a Transit Center. (Attachment A) The existing policy wording is the following: 13.4.8. "Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Wesield Mall at Southcenter, and surrounding businesses to locate a pedestrian friendly transit center on Andover Park West, between Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard." Following their hearing on March 22, 2007, the Planning Commission revised the original request to recommend the following wording. Changes to the existing policy are highlighted: 13.4.8. Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Westfield Mall at to locate a pedestrian - friendly transit center and related amenities on Andover Park West in the Tukwila Urban Center north of Minkler Boulevard., . :: - ::. .. ::. " This policy change is proposed in order to provide greater flexibility in selecting a location for the Transit Center. In revising this policy, the Planning Commission wanted to remove references to specific businesses, including Westfield Southcenter Mall and to e -the' geographic area uiidei considcration for siting a Transit Center. The area under consideration as a site for the future Transit Center was expanded considerably to include the entire Tukwila Urban Center north of Minkler Boulevard, rather than focusing on two blocks along Andover Park West corridor in the general vicinity of the mall. (Attachment B) This change will enable the analysis contained in the Tukwila Transit Plan (4/05), and issues raised by property owners, Metro Transit and the City of Tukwila to be more fully addressed when a specific site for the Transit Center is considered and its specific impacts are discussed. BACKGROUND Project History The vision for the Tukwila Urban Center foresees a vibrant high- density area with regional employment, areas of high quality housing, excellent retail and recreational opportunities for business people, residents and shoppers. High quality transit and pedestrian facilities are a vital part of this vision. The Tukwila Transit Center would replace existing, inadequate bus stops that serve the area in the general vicinity of the Westfield Southcenter Mall along Andover Park West. (Attachment B) The Tukwila Transit Center will be a facility that can accommodate current and future passenger demands, promote transit ridership, provide expanded Rf 2 04/10/2007 Q: \COMP PLAN AMEND 2006 - 2007 \CCStaffReptTransitCtr#L06 - 093-- 4.23.07.doc capacity for transit service (King County Metro and future Sound Transit Express or Bus Rapid Transit) and improve passenger and business safety and security. It will be a first step towards implementing the future that is envisioned for the Tukwila Urban Center. It is intended to set the standard for quality redevelopment and serve as a catalyst for the implementation of the larger vision. The Tukwila Transit Plan (4/05) analyzes the future Transit Center and possible locations. The Tukwila City Council was briefed on this proposal on February 12, 2007, and held a public meeting on March 5, 2007. At that meeting, the proposal was forwarded to the Planning Commission for a March 22, 2007 hearing and recommendation. Vicinity /Site Information Land uses immediately adjacent to possible Transit Center locations in the vicinity of Andover Park West are: North — Commercial/Retail South — Commercial/Retail /Warehouse East— Westfield Southcenter Mall West— Commercial /Retail /Office/Warehouse REVIEW CRITERIA 1) Describe how the issue is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. If the issue is not adequately addressed, is there a need for it? Consideration of a site for a future transit center is addressed at the policy level, and is not related to a specific project at this point. Through several policies and their implementation strategies, Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan addresses the need for good transit service and, by extension, the Transit Center in the Tukwila Urban Center Element. These include: Tukwila Urban Center -- Policy 10.1.1 Recognize the Tukwila Urban Center as a regional commercial /industrial area, with opportunities for residential development served by a balance of auto, pedestrian and transit facilities. Implementation Strategy • Coordinate land use with City facility improvements, for transportation facilities such as transit facilities and structured parking easily accessed by service streets and from freeways Tukwila Urban Center - -Goal 10.3 Transportation and Circulation A balanced transportation network that complements the Tukwila Urban Center land use and design policies and provides access for all transportation modes, to, from, and within the center. Rf 3 04/10/2007 Q: \COMP PLAN AMEND 2006 - 2007 \CCStaffReptTransitCtr#L06 - 093-- 4.23.07.doc Tukwila Urban Center -- Policy 10.3.1. Regional Access. Promote transportation and transit services and facilities, as well as traffic management systems that increase and improve access to and from the Tukwila Urban Center for all transportation modes; encourage a range of solutions, including but not limited to local circulator systems, regional- serving park -n -ride sites, connections to regional rail alignments, and regional and local high- occupancy vehicle systems. Implementation Strategy • Develop, in conjunction with appropriate transit providers, transit facilities and routes in the Tukwila Urban Center Transportation -- Policy 13.4.8 addresses developing and locating a transit center as follows: "Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Westfield Mall at Southcenter, and surrounding businesses to locate a pedestrian - friendly transit center on Andover Park West, between Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard." The Tukwila Transit Center will be integrated with the future redevelopment of the Tukwila Urban Center Core, to the east, and is a necessary component of meeting travel demand management requirements for the Tukwila Urban Center as a whole. The proposed policy change is needed since the current wording is unnecessarily restricts the location and choice of potential sites for the future Transit Center. The recommended policy change does not deal with specific impacts of locating or operating a future Transit Center. These issues will be fully discussed at a later time when specific sites are proposed and considered. The Tukwila Transit Plan (4/05) was adopted as part of the update to the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element in 2005. It analyzes Tukwila's transit system's existing conditions and future needs. It recognizes that development of a Transit Center is is central to the transit system, and evaluates several possible sites within the Tukwila Urban Center core. 2) Impacts The recommended amendment expands the geographic range of possible locations for the future Transit Center. Per the Planning Commission's recommendation, the future Transit Center could be located in the Tukwila Urban Center north of Minkler Boulevard, rather than being specifically limited to the area between Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard on Andover Park West. This means that any impacts associated with constructing the Transit Center, and the resulting bus and pedestrian travel and traffic might be felt in a slightly different location in the TUC. Building an improved Transit Center in the future would address the deficiencies of the existing transit stops and provide improved service to the Tukwila Urban Center, including the Westfield Southcenter Mall. Specific impacts of operating a Transit Center will be addressed when specific sites are proposed. 3) Is the proposed change the best means for meeting the identified public need? Rf 4 04/10/2007 Q: \COMP PLAN AMEND 2006 - 2007 \CCStaffReptTransitCtr#L06 - 093-- 4.23.07.doc What other options are there for meeting the identified public need? The recommended change broadens the geographic range of locations for consideration as sites for the future Transit Center, and clarifies the intent of the Tukwila Transit Plan (4/05). It would also allow a fuller discussion of issues that are being raised by the City of Tukwila, property owners and Metro Transit. Other possible options would be to: • focus siting options to include the area along or in the vicinity of Andover Park West north of Minkler Boulevard; • retain references to collaborating with the Mall and area businesses to site the Transit Center; • leave the current wording of Policy 13.4.8 unchanged. 4) Will the proposed change result in a net benefit to the community? If not, what result can be expected and why? The proposed change will benefit the community by allowing a fuller discussion of potential sites, with the likely result that a better site will be chosen. The Tukwila Transit Center is critical to the future growth and urban development in the Tukwila Urban Center, and offers the community significant benefits. Replacing the existing, inadequate transit stops by siting an expanded, high quality Transit Center will: 1) help create a long -term solution to the need for high - quality, high - capacity transit facilities as a part of a more balanced multimodal transportation system; 2) offer access to jobs and increased mobility for all transit patrons, including minority, low - income, transit dependent and "choice" riders; 3) substantially improve pedestrian safety by providing crossing improvements and reconfiguring the stop locations to reduce the incentives to jaywalk; 4) reduce crime and fear of crime through improved lighting and other measures; 5) encourage transit riders and others to make trips by foot and by bicycle; 6) protect and enhance property by providing an attractive community amenity. Specific traffic, land use and other impacts will not be evaluated at the policy stage, but will be considered as specific Transit Center sites and projects are proposed. CONCLUSIONS 1) By allowing greater flexibility in locating the future Tukwila Transit Center, the proposal supports improved transit service and acknowledges the importance of the Transit Center in redeveloping the Tukwila Urban Center; 2) The proposal expands the geographic range of possible locations for the future Transit Center and other pedestrian - friendly transit facilities north of Minkler Boulevard in the Tukwila Urban Center; 3) The current policy overly limits the geographic area that can be considered as a site for the future Transit Center. The Planning Commission recommendation considerably expands the geographic area for potential future Transit Center sites beyond the current center of ridership and routing in the vicinity of the Mall Rf 5 04/10/2007 Q: \COMP PLAN AMEND 2006 - 2007 \CCStaffReptTransitCtr#L06 - 093-- 4.23.07.doc along Andover Park West to include the entire northern portion of the Tukwila Urban Center; 4) The proposed change benefits the community by allowing fuller discussion of potential sites for the Transit Center, with the likely result that a better site will be chosen. Specific impacts will be evaluated when specific Transit Center sites and configurations are proposed for consideration. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approving the amendment as recommended. Rf 6 04/10/2007 Q: \COMP PLAN AMEND 2006- 2007 \CCStaftReptTransitCtr #L06 - 093-- 4.23.07.doc Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila . AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION .1-, ;Y HEREBY DECLARE THAT: CS Notice of Public Hearing i, Determination of Non - Significance Notice of Public Meeting .- _!«itigated Determination of Non- ignificance 'r/ CM 1 - rjQ %4 Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt ' Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice l Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Person requesting mailing: Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit _ __ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this ke day o f rokcil in the year 20 P: ADMINISTRATIVEFORMS \FORMS\AFFIDAVITOFDISTRIBUTION Project Name: A1'AL/1 C 'r/ CM 1 - rjQ %4 Project Number: -7-001 Mailer's Signature: l te.44.4._ Person requesting mailing: P: ADMINISTRATIVEFORMS \FORMS\AFFIDAVITOFDISTRIBUTION () U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGIPv'EERS () FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ( ) DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE () () () () () () FEDERAL AGENCIES () U.S. ENVIF ENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY () U.S. DEPT OF H.U.O. () NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE () DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. () DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELAND DIV C2EPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION' _(() FICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL • SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS • SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION KING COUNTY AGENCIES () BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD O FIRE DISTRICT #11 () FIRE DISTRICT #2 () K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION () KC. DEPT OF PARKS & REC () KC. ASSESSORS OFFICE () TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) TUKWILA LIBRARY () RENTON UBRARY () KENT LIBRARY . () CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY () QWEST () SEATTLE CITY LIGHT ( ) PUGET SOUND ENERGY () HIGHLNE WATER DISTRICT () SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) AT &T CABLE SERVICES SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES UTILITIES CITY AGENCIES () KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: () PUBLIC WORKS () FIRE () POLICE () FINANCE () PLANNING () BUILDING () PARKS & REC. () MAYOR () CITY CLERK () HEALTH DEPT ( ) PORT OF SEATTLE O KC. DEV & ENVOI SERVICES-SEPA INFO CNTR ( ) K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL ( ) KC. LAND & WATER RESOURCES ( ) FOSTER LIBRARY ( ) K C PUBLIC UBRARY ( ) HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT () OLYMPIC PIPELINE ( ) VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT ( ) WATER DISTRICT #20 ( ) WATER DISTRICT #125 () CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS () BRYN MAWR- LAKERIDGE SEWERNVATER DISTRICT () RENTON PLANNING DEPT () CITY OF SEA -TAC () CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU () STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE' • NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( ) PUGET SOUND REGIONAL. COUNCIL ( ) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ( ) MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE ( ) CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM () FISHERIES PROGRAM ( ) WILDLIFE PROGRAM MEDIA ( ) SEATTLE TIMES ( ) SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL P:\AD MIN I STRATIV E\FORMS \CHKLIST. DOC () DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE () P.S. AIR POLLUTION CLEAN AGENCY () SOUND TRANSIT () DUWAMISH RIVER CLEAN -UP COAUTION 'SEND NOTICE OF ALL APPUCATIONS ON OUWAMISH RIVER () HIGHLINE TIMES ( ) CLTUKVVILA.WA.US.WWW �IC NOTICE MAILINGS FOR PS SEPA MAILINGS Mail to: (comment period starts on date of mailing) Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section *Applicant *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list) Any parties of record ,>" * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination KC Transit Division. — SEPA Official would like to receive information about all projects that might affect transit demand Send These Documents to DOE: SEPA Determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed or sent to newspaper) SHORELINE MAILINGS:. Notice of Application for a Substantial Development Permit must be mailed to owners and to property owners within 500 feet of subject property, comments are due 30 days after the notice of application is mailed/posted. The notice of Application for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must include a statement that any person desiring to submit written comments on the application or desiring to receive notification of the final decision on the application may do so within 30 days of the notice of application. If a hearing will be held on the application, the hearing notice must include the information that written comments may be submitted, or oral presentation made at the hearing. Shoreline Permit Notice of Decision: Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 21 -day appeal period begins date received by DOE) Department of Ecology Shorelands Section State Attorney General *Applicant *Indian Tribes . . *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list). Any parties of record * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination Send These Documents to DOE and Attornev General: Permit Data Sheet Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) Shoreline Permit Application Form (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) - Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements — Cross- sections of site with structures & shoreline - Grading Plan — Vicinity map SEPA determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline Notice of Application Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed) P:1ADMINISTRATIVE FORMS\CHICLIST.DOC to • DNS oNLy SEPA mailing 3/16/07 John Muth 5021 S. 144th St. Tukwila, Wa 98168 Christopher Brown 9688 Rainier Avenue S. Seattle, WA 98118 -5981 Bonnie Hanson Egis Real Estate 4671 174`h Court SE Bellevue, WA 98006 -6534 John Stokke Open Frame LLC P.O. Box 88198 Tukwila, WA 98138 City Tukwila Steven M Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 Fax: 206 -431 -3665 Web site: http://www.citukwila.wa.us Steve Lancaster, Director DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) File Number: E07-001 Applied: 03/06/2007 Issue Date: 03/15/2007 Status: APPROVED Applicant: CITY OF TIIKWILA Lead Agency: City of Tukwila Description of Proposal: Comprehensive Plan amendments SEPA checklist -- includes L06 -093 (Transit Center), L06- 095 -- Bonsai NW RCC to LDR, and L06- 096(Rezone) —Bonsai NW RCC to LDR. Location of Proposal: Address: Parcel Number: Section/Township/Range: Citywide The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on'the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2) (c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued under WAC 197 -11- 340(2). Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431 -3670 ILAARc % ► S 2.3o1 Date Any appeal shall be linked to a specific governmental action. The State Environmental Policy Act is not intended to create a cause of action unrelated to a specific governmental action. Appeals of environmental determinations shall be commenced within the time period to appeal the governmental action that is subject to environmental review. (RCW 43.21C.075) Coco a k , \3 Cove -1041 S LtPe.-, -004— Co.,_ r- - c E- - 6 —) --a 10 as -1 K1vT Control No. Epic File No. E01 -007 Fee: Receipt No. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2006 (2007) 2. Name of applicant: City of Tukwila 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Contact: Rebecca Fox 206- 431 -3683 rfox @ci.tukwila.wa.us 4. Date checklist prepared: March 13, 2007 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): This is a non - project action. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. This is a non - project action. No further activity is planned at this time. Plans will be evaluated once a specific Transit Center project (L06 -093) or Boundary Line Adjustment /Short Plat /development project (L06 -095 and L06 -096) is proposed. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHE IST • Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (October, 1995) Addendum to the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Addressing Implementing Zoning Code Amendments (November, 1995) • L06- 093 —This is a non - project action. Once a specific Transit Center project is proposed, environmental review will be prepared. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 -- This is a non - project action. Once a specific project is proposed, environmental review will be prepared as appropriate. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. • L06 -093 — Application pending for Comprehensive Plan Amendment • L06-095 — Application pending for Comprehensive Plan Amendment /Map designation • L06 -096 — Application pending for Zoning Map Change. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. • L06- 093 —This is a non - project action. A future Transit Center may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit depending on the amount of soil that is disturbed. Typical Tukwila permits will likely include a Type C right -of - Way permit, Type C Grading Permit, drainage review, Type D Long Term Permit and design review and building permits. • L06 -095 and L06 -095 — This is a non - project action. Future construction will require either a boundary line adjustment or short plat, and building and Public Works permits. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternates of your proposal and should not be summarized here. This is a non - project action. • L06 -093 — The proposal amends existing Comprehensive Plan policy 13.4.8 in order to provide greater flexibility in selecting a location for a future Transit Center within the Tukwila Urban Center, and to reflect the analysis prepared for the Tukwila Transit Plan . A Transit Center would replace existing, inadequate bus stops that serve the area in the general vicinity of the Westfield Southcenter Mall. The Tukwila Transit Center will be a facility that can accommodate current a Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHEILIST future passenger demands, promote transit ridership, provide expanded capacity for transit service (King County Metro and future Sound Transit Express or Bus Rapid Transit) and improve passenger and business safety and security. The existing policy wording is the following: 13.4.8. "Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Westfield Mall at Southcenter, and surrounding businesses to locate a pedestrian friendly transit center on Andover Park West, between Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard." The proposed policy wording broadens possible siting locations as follows, with changes highlighted: 13.4.8. Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Westfield Mall at Southcenter, and surrounding businesses to locate a pedestrian friendly transit center and related amenities on or near Andover Park West, between Baker Boulevard and Strandcr The Tukwila Transit Plan (2005) calls for a Transit Center to meet future operational needs for transit. Choosing a site for the Transit Center and developing a specific project will include considerations of capacity, passenger demand, safety and reliability, cost, passenger safety, while fitting within the Tukwila Urban Center vision of a long -term increase in density. • L06 -095 — The proposal is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map to redesignate property at 14427 51St Avenue South from Residential Commercial Center (RCC) to Low Density Residential (LDR); • L06- 096 —The proposal is an amendment to the Zoning Map to redesignate property at 14427 51st Avenue South from Residential Commercial Center (RCC) to Low Density Residential (LDR); 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. These are non - project actions. • #L06 -093 "Transit Center" amendment site is in the vicinity of Andover Park West in the Tukwila Urban Center. Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC.IST • • #L06 -095 and L06 -096 are located at 14427 51St Avenue South. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? This is a non - project action. • L06 -093 — No sensitive areas are located in the vicinity of Andover Park West. • L06 -095 & L06- 096 — Portions of the site include Type 2 slopes i.e. Landslide potential is moderate; slope is between 15% and 40% and is underlain by relatively permeable soils. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: This is a non - project action. • L06 -093 — General vicinity of Andover Park West is flat • L06 -095 & L06 -096 —Slopes and flat b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? This is a non - project action. • L06 -093 — Generally flat terrain along Andover Park West and vicinity • L06 -095 & L06 -096 — between 15% and 40% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. This is a non - project action. Specific soil conditions will be evaluated when projects are proposed. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. This is a non - project action. Specific soil conditions will be evaluated when projects are proposed. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Page 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHEQLIST This is a non - project action. Specific information about filling and grading will be evaluated when a specific proposal is submitted. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. This is a non - project action. Erosion could occur as a result of clearing and construction as vegetation is removed and soils are exposed through excavation. Impacts associated with individual future developments will be analyzed when development applications are submitted. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? This is a non - project action. Information about the percentage of the site to be covered with impervious surfaces will be known and evaluated when specific development proposals are submitted in the future. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: This is a non - project action. In general, once a specific proposal is prepared, project design will minimize erosion potential by proper design and construction practices. During construction, the contract will be required to employ Best Management Practices to control erosion. Specific information about erosion or other impacts to the earth will be considered when specific development proposals are submitted in the future. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. This is a non - project action. In general, during construction emissions would include primarily particulate matter and small amounts of carbon monoxide from construction machinery exhaust. There would be fugitive dust from earth moving or excavation activities and diesel smoke. In addition, temporary odors from machinery exhaust and paving activities could occur. Any future development resulting from the amendments will be required to meet all air quality regulations, and will be evaluated at that time. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Page 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CHE IST • This is a non - project action. No off -site emissions known at this time. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Non - project action. Specific measures to reduce or control emissions will be implemented at the time a specific project is constructed. Measures to reduce or control emissions are likely to include the following: • Cover loads, wet down during transport of fill material or topsoil; • Clean up any spills of transported material on public roads promptly by frequent use of a street sweeper machine; • Cover loads of hot asphalt to minimize odors; • Schedule work tasks to minimize disruption of existing vehicle traffic on streets in the vicinity of the proposed project; • Maintain all construction machinery engines in good mechanical condition to minimize exhaust emissions. No additional measures to reduce operational air quality effects beyond those typically employed by the transit service providers are likely to be needed or proposed. Within the region, the proposed Transit Center would contribute to improvement of air quality as persons make greater use of transit as an alternative to the use of private automobiles. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year -round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. • L06 -093 — No surface water in immediate vicinity. Tukwila Pond and Duwamish River are within one -half mile • L06 -095 and L06-096—N/A 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Non - project action. N/A 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Non - project action. N/A Page 6 ENVIRONMENTAL CHE•IST • 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. Non - project action. N/A 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. N/A 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Non - Project Action. N/A b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. Non - project action. Groundwater impacts are not anticipated and will be evaluated once a specific project is submitted. 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Non - project action. Potential wastewater discharge will be evaluated once specific projects are proposed. No discharge of waste material into the ground from septic tanks or other sources is planned. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. This is a non - project action. Specific runoff impacts will be evaluated for any future development proposals. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Page 7 ENVIRONMENTAL CHE•IST This is a non - project action. Specific impacts of waste materials will be evaluated for specific future development proposals. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: This is a non - project action. Specific measures to reduce or control runoff impacts will be evaluated if a specific project is submitted. 4. Plants This is a non - project action. The following vegetation is found in the vicinity of Andover Park West (L06 -093), and at 14427 51st Avenue South (L06 -095 and L06 -096). a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: x deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other x evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other x shrubs x grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? This is a non - project action. No vegetation removal is proposed at this time. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. This is a non - project action. No threatened or endangered species are known, but this element would be evaluated for a specific proposal. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Non - project action. Item does not apply 5. Animals a.. Circle any birds or animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Page 8 ENVIRONMENTAL CHEAP/LIST This is non - project action. The following animals are found in the vicinity of Andover Park West (L06 -093) and 14427 51St Avenue South (L06 -095 and L06 -096) Birds:. Songbirds Mammals: Squirrels, rodents Fish: Other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Not known. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Non - project action. No measures proposed at this time. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Non - project action. Additional energy will be used if projects are constructed in future. Additional environmental review will be prepared if project is proposed. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Non - project action. Solar potential of adjacent properties would not be affected by future development. Additional environmental review will be prepared if project is proposed. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Non - project action. Additional environmental review will be prepared if project is proposed. L06 -093 — Energy conserving lighting could be included in the future plans. L06 -095 and L06 -09 — "Green Building" practices could be suggested to developer. 7. Environmental Health Page 9 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECSIST • a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Non - project action. Additional environmental review will be prepared if project is proposed. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Non - project action. No special emergency services required at this time. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Non - project action. No environmental health hazards will result. Additional environmental evaluation will be prepared if a specific project is proposed. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Non - project action. Additional environmental evaluation will be prepared if a specific project is proposed. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short -term or long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Non - project Action. Additional environmental review will be prepared if project is proposed. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: N/A 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? • L06 -093 — Mall, retail, commercial, warehouse, office, service, pond /park, roadway uses along Andover Park West corridor and vicinity. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Single - family residential, vacant land, nursery, office, road and Sound Transit light rail b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Page 10 ENVIRONMENTAL CHE•IST • • L06 -093 — Land along Andover Park West and vicinity may have been used for agricultural activity 30+ years ago. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Site is currently vacant and accessory to adjacent nursery. c. Describe any structures on the site. • L06 -093 — Andover Park West and vicinity are in the Tukwila Urban Center, and are developed with a range of structures, including those used for office, retail, warehouse, recreation, and other activities. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — No structures are on the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Non - project action. No demolition. Additional environmental review will take place if a specific project is proposed. L06 -093 — No demolition is proposed. Depending on site that is ultimately selected, some demolition may be required. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? • L06 -093 — Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Residential Commercial Center (RCC) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? • L06 -093 — Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Residential Commercial Center (RCC) g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. • L06 -093 — No environmentally sensitive areas lie along Andover Park West. L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Portions of the site contain steep slopes. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Non - project action. L06 -093 — Neither housing nor employment is considered a part of any future Transit Center proposal. L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Designating the site as LDR would allow housing to be built. Page 11 ENVIRONMENTAL CHE•IST 7• • Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Non - project action. L06 -093 — No housing displacement will occur. L06 -095 and L06 -096 — No housing displacement will occur as site is currently vacant. It is likely that housing will be built in the future on the site. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: This is a non - project action. No measures are proposed or necessary because no displacements would occur. L Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Non - project action. Additional review will be undertaken to ensure compatibility with existing and proposed land uses once a specific project is proposed. • L06 -093 — A transit center is a permitted use within the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) zone. Future development of a Transit Center is compatible with the Tukwila Transit Plan and Comprehensive Plan, and is supportive of state, regional and local efforts to reduce commute trips. The general site area has been identified by the Tukwila Transit Plan and Comprehensive Plan, and is served by transit. A future Transit Center would be sited and designed based on work by design, transportation and planning professionals to ensure compatibility with existing and proposed land uses. Public input would also be evaluated. A focus group was undertaken for the Tukwila Transit Plan and additional public workshops have been held. Design of any future Transit Center would be compatible with the character of the surrounding area. Any specific proposal would be subject to Design Review by the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — If the property were redesignated to LDR, single - family housing could be built at the site. This would be consistent with adjacent land uses. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing? Non - project action. • L06 -093 — No housing units would be provided in association with a future Transit Center. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Redesignating the site to LDR could allow several single- family homes or duplexes to be built. The specific housing impacts would be evaluated once a project was submitted Page 12 ENVIRONMENTAL CHE LIST • b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. This is a non - project action. No housing units will be eliminated. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: No special measures are needed because no negative impacts to housing would occur. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Non - project action. Height impacts will be evaluated once a specific project is proposed. • L06 -093 — A future Transit Center would contain bus bays, pedestrian shelters, sidewalks and landscaping. Height limits would be observed. Building materials are not proposed at this point. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Any structures eventually built would meet the 35' maximum height limit per TMC Chapter 18. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Non - project action. No specific development proposed at this time. No view alteration or obstruction is anticipated resulting from any future projects. Additional environmental evaluation of views will be prepared if a specific project is proposed. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Non - project action. Additional environmental evaluation will be prepared when a specific project is proposed. • L06 -093 — It is anticipated that landscaping would soften direct views of a future Transit Center. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Non - project action. No glare produced. Additional environmental review will be carried out if a specific project is proposed. • L06 -093 — Additional sources of light and glare associated with a future Transit Center would include site lighting and bus traffic. On site lighting would be present throughout the non - daylight hours. Glare from transit Page 13 ENVIRONMENTAL CHE•IST vehicles could be more prevalent at dawn and dusk during the winter months. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Future houses would have on -site lighting, and possible street lighting. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Non - project action. Additional environmental review will be carried out if a specific project is proposed. • L06 -093 — Night lighting would not create a safety hazard or adversely affect views. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Non - project action. No impacts from off -site glare. Additional environmental work will be prepared if a specific project is proposed. • L06 -093 — No offsite sources of light would affect the future Transit Center. Lighting may come from passing vehicles, transit, neighboring businesses, and the street system. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Non - project action. Additional environmental review will be undertaken if a specific project is proposed. • L06 -093 — Transit Center lighting will be carefully planned to ensure the greatest safety for pedestrians and transit users, while minimizing glare and other off site light- related impacts. 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Non - project action. • L06 -093 — Andover Park West is within one block of Tukwila Pond Park, within one -half mile of Bicentennial Park and the Duwamish River Trail. • L06 -095 and L06- 096 —The site is within one -half mile of playing fields at Foster High School and Showalter Middle School, and within 3/4 mile of the Foster Library. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Non - project action. No displacement of existing recreational uses. Page 14 ENVIRONMENTAL CHEIIST 1 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Non - project action. No impacts on recreational opportunities. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a.' Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. There are no places or objects listed on or proposed for , national, state or local preservation registers on or near to the potential project sites. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Non - project action. L06 -093 — Tukwila Bicentennial Park is located within one -half mile of the possible project site. L06 -095 and L06 -096 — No landmarks nearby. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: This is a non - project action. If evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific or cultural resources of potential were discovered during future site excavation or development of a future Transit Center (L06 -093) or housing (L06 -095 and L06 -096), project work in the vicinity would be immediately halted until an expert in the subject area was able to verify the significance of the resource and identify appropriate measures for retrieval and removal from the site. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Non - project action. • L06- 093 — Adjacent streets include: 1) Andover Park West a north /south minor arterial road, served by Metro Transit; 2) Tukwila Parkway /Southcenter Parkway (minor arterial); 3) Strander Boulevard (minor arterial); 4) Baker Boulevard (collector arterial); 5) Minkler Boulevard (minor arterial) ; 6) S. 180th Street (minor arterial); 7) Andover Park East (minor arterial); 8) Southcenter Boulevard; 9) West Valley Highway; 10) I -405; 11) I -5. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Access to the site will be provided either by 51st Avenue South, or by S. 145th Street. Page 15 ENVIRONMENTAL CHE•IST b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? • L06 -093 — Andover Park West is served by Metro Transit routes 126, 128, 140, 150 and 155. A Transit Center would provide improved transit opportunities with bus pull -outs, and enhanced facilities for transit riders, including sidewalks, seating, lighting and other safety features. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — The site is served by Metro Transit route 128 c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Non - project action. Parking impacts will be evaluated when a specific project is proposed. • L06- 093 - -No parking spaces will be created for a future on- street Transit Center, just bus zones. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Future housing would be required to provide two off - street parking spaces. c. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Non - project action. Road improvements will be evaluated when a specific project is proposed. • L06 -093. No road improvements are proposed. The proposal pertains to locations for a future transit center. Some road and frontage improvements may be required for transit operations once a transit center project is proposed. Pedestrian walkways would be provided and /or improved. Per the "Tukwila Transit Plan," bus pull -out stops /bays are proposed. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — No changes in roads or streets are proposed. The proposal could result in eventual single - family housing development, which would require road improvements and site access via existing roads through an existing access easement. Additional environmental evaluation will be prepared if a specific project is proposed. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Page 16 ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC•ST 1 • L06 -093 — Non - project action. The future Transit Center would be located within the Tukwila Urban Center, several blocks from the Tukwila Sounder Commuter Rail station. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Non - project action. N/ A f How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. • L06- 093 -- Non - project action. The Transit Center will not have a park and ride facility, and therefore is not expected to generate any new vehicle traffic or cause any direct traffic impacts on the adjacent streets. The Tukwila Transit Center recommends transit service improvements in hours and fsrequency. Depending on the site that is selected, there may be some re- routing of buses. Future bus service may include implementation of a Bus Rapid Transit route in the I -405 corridor. In the future, transit service increases will be needed to accommodate ridership growth that will occur due to expansion of the Westfield Southcenter Mall, and in the longer term from planned increases in housing and employment resulting from redevelopment of the Tukwila Urban Center. g. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Non - project action. A maximum of four houses could be build on the site. If four houses were built, and each house had generated four to six vehicle trips per day, a maximum of approximately 16 to 24 trips could be generated each day. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: • L06 -093 — The Tukwila Transit Plan recommends short -term, mid -term and long -term service improvements, including extending service hours and frequency, and some route changes to better serve the Tukwila Urban Center. The siting and operation of a Tukwila Transit Center will enable these service improvements to occur. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. L06- 093 —This is a non - project action. Specific impacts on public services will be evaluated once a project is proposed. In general, public service needs of a future Transit Center could include police and fire protection. L06 -095 and L06-096 — This is a non - project action. Specific impacts on public services will be evaluated once a project is proposed. In general, the public service needs of future housing could include police and fire protection, schools and healthcare for future residents. Page 17 ENVIRONMENTAL CHE,IST 0 b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. • L06- 093 —This is a non - project action. Specific measures to reduce or control any direct impacts on public services will be evaluated once a project is proposed. In general potential police and fire protection will be addressed through improved lighting, implementation of security technologies, removal of problematic items such as payphones, incorporation of shelter and landscape design that supports good visibility and creation of an attractive and easily maintainable waiting environment. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — This is a non - project action. A maximum of four single - family homes could eventually be constructed on the site. Although this incremental increase is completely within the existing capacity of Tukwila's public service capabilities, any specific impacts will be addressed once a project is proposed. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. • L06 -093 — This is a non - project action located in the Tukwila Urban Center. All appropriate utilities can be available on site as needed once a site is selected and a specific project proposed. • L06 -095 and L06- 096- -This is a non - project action. All appropriate utilities can be available on site as needed once a specific project proposed, and constructed. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. • L06 -093 -- This is a non - project action located in the Tukwila Urban Center. All appropriate utilities can be available on site as needed once a site is selected and a specific project proposed. Depending on the scope of the Transit Center, utilities are likely to include electricity, water, stormwater, sewer and telephone. • L06 -095 and L06- 096- -This is a non - project action. All appropriate utilities can be available on site as needed once a specific project proposed. Utilities are likely to include water, sewer, electricity, cable, stormwater, telephone. Page 18 ENVIRONMENTAL CHE•IST C. SIGNATURE • The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: .3//3707 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON PROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result form the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than in the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? • L06 -093 Construction of a future Transit Center will result in temporary increases in noise and emissions that will cease once construction is complete. • L06 -093 There will be added noise during construction of houses. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: • L06 -093 Construction of the future Transit Center will be carried out to minimize disruption from temporary noise and emissions. The Transit Center would be designed to reduce or control surface, ground and runoff water impacts, as well as the entry of waste materials into ground or surface waters. As appropriate this may include an oil/ water separator, and stormwater treatment facility for the proposed project. Once, constructed, improved bus service from the Transit Center may lessen reliance on auto trips, and therefore reduce automobile noise and emissions. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 Proper construction techniques will be used to minimize emissions and noise, and stormwater runoff. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish or marine life? Page 19 ENVIRONMENTAL CHE•IST • L06 -093 — Construction of a Transit Center may result in increased impervious surfaces. • L06-093 — The site is currently vacant. Future construction of houses will result in increased impervious surfaces. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish or marine life are: • L06 -093 —A future Transit Center will be landscaped with plant materials. As appropriate, existing vegetation/ trees may be retained. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Some of the site will remain undeveloped. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? • L06 -093 — Construction of a future Transit Center will require the use of resources including electricity, gasoline, building materials (concrete, metal, wood). • L06 -095 and L06 -096 -- Construction of future housing will require the use of resources including electricity, gasoline, building materials. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: • L06- 093 - -Once constructed, a Transit Center will become the focal point of transit use in the Tukwila Urban Center, and will provide enhanced facilities to meet current transit needs and future demands. Increased transit use will conserve petroleum resources by providing individuals with a viable alternative to auto trips. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Future homes encouraged to be built conserve energy and natural resources. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for government protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? • L06 -093 — No impacts on environmentally sensitive areas are anticipated by locating a Transit Center in the vicinity of or along Andover Park West. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Portions of the site contain steep slopes. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: N/A Page 20 ENVIRONMENTAL CHEM/LIST • 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? • L06- 093 —The future Transit Center is compatible with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, the Tukwila Transit Plan (4/05). Tukwila Urban Center vision calls for a long -term increase in density and activities, and the future Transit Center is consistent with this intent. Development of the future Tukwila Transit Center will be a first step towards implementing the future that is envisioned for the Tukwila Urban Center as a vibrant, pedestrian- oriented area in which to live, work, play and do business. When a specific Transit Center project is proposed, it will set high aesthetic standards and serve as a catalyst for implementing the larger vision for the Tukwila Urban Center, including new and compatible development. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Future low- density housing development is compatible with the proposed Low Density Residential (LDR) designation. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: • L06 -093 — Urban design, landscape and architectural aspects of a future Transit Center will result in a high quality project that will avoid negative land use impacts. Key elements will include: 1) design for safety; 2) increased pedestrian access ; 3) integrating the Transit Center into the pedestrian network. The future Transit Center is intended as a necessary community resource to be developed through careful design in order to achieve the most efficient functioning. Safety for individuals and property will be a key consideration. Any proposed Transit Center would be designed for compatibility with existing and future land use in order to maintain and enhance the value of both the public and private property. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? L06 -093 — By 2020 or later, it is assumed that the WSDOT will complete planned improvements to I -405, as well as related arterial improvements. Additional planned regional improvements may also occur by 2020 or later, including: 1) I -405 through Tukwila widened by one lane in each direction; 2) Renton and Tukwila would jointly extend Strander Boulevard from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue S.E. Potential changes to King County's Metro Transit service are unknown. However, a well - designed future Transit Center will allow buses to serve the Tukwila Urban Center with greater frequency. Based on current trends, King County Metro anticipates a conservative baseline ridership growth rate of up to 3% per year. This could mean approximately 4,600 daily riders using a future Transit Center. Page 21 ENVIRONMENTAL CHE•IST Expansion of Westfield Southcenter Mall and the ongoing redevelopment of the Tukwila Urban Center could accelerate ridership growth further. Specific design of a future Transit Center will ensure the most efficient operation possible and minimize transportation impacts. Making all stops pull -out stops will reduce transit /traffic conflicts. Good design, including passenger amenities, shelters and landscaping will increase the comfort of waiting passengers and will encourage and enhance transit use. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — New housing would generate additional vehicle trips, as well as additional transit use. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: L06 -093 — Improved transit facilities and services will reduce demand for auto use, and make road use more efficient. A well - designed and well -sited Transit Center with improved transit rider and pedestrian safety and convenience will result in fewer transit /traffic conflicts, fewer pedestrian /vehicle conflicts and less crime and vandalism. This, in turn, will reduce demands on public services, including police, fire and emergency services. Reductions in demand for public service would be offset by additional housing construction, and increases in employment resulting from redevelopment in the Tukwila Urban Center. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. • L06-093 — The proposal is consistent with local, state and federal requirements for environmental protection by encouraging increased transit use in the Tukwila Urban Center and beyond. • L06- 093 - -The proposal is consistent with local, state and federal environmental requirements. Page 22 ENVIRONMENTAL CHE•IST • F. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the foregoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objectives of the proposal? In the broadest sense, the objective of proposals to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map is to respond to changed conditions in Tukwila, and to keep these documents current so as best to reflect the community's vision. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? If changes are desired, we see no obvious means to implement that change other than amending the primary land use regulatory documents. It might be possible to alter the timetable of changes to delay adoption and implementation. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: L06 -093 — Transit Center location • Deny the request (Retain status quo) • Limit possible locations (i.e. Transit Center to be located north of Minkler Boulevard on Andover Park West) • Expand possible locations (i.e. Transit Center to be sited in Tukwila Urban Center Core) — Preferred action L06 -065 and L06 -09600 — NCC to LDR • Deny the request (Retain status quo) • Approve request • Approve request with condition that applicant must complete Boundary Line Adjustment within three months of City Council approval — Preferred action 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? The proposals require amending the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map. 6. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: Public input and review by the Planning Commission and City Council will minimize potential conflicts with Tukwila codes and policies, and ensure compatibility with the community's goals . Page 23 Rebecca Fox - Re: SEPA review requested - -ASAP From: Cyndy Knighton To: Rebecca Fox Date: 03/14/2007 11:53 am Subject: Re: SEPA review requested - -ASAP »> On 3/14/2007 at 10:48 am, in message < 45F7D2A7. A13D.001F.0(@ci.tukwila.wa.us >, Rebecca Fox wrote: > Hi Cyndy, > Please take a quick look at this SEPA checklist for the Transit Center > amendment ( #L06 -093). Is the transportation info appropriate i.e. adequate > but not too specific? See "Environmental Elements" -- Section B, #14 and > "Supplement for non - project actions " -- Section D #5 and #6. > Steve will sign the document on 3/15, so please provide your comments as > early as possible today, 3/14 > Thanks. > Rebecca Rebecca Fox - Review requested! Transit Center SEPA From: Rebecca Fox To: City Attorney Date: 03/14/2007 9:16 am Subject: [Review requested! Transit Center: SEPA , Hi Shelley, Here is the SEPA checklist for the comp plan amendments, including the Transit Center. itease review asap -(i.e: today 3/14), so that Steve can issue a determination on 3/15. ,„ You may want to concentrate on land use and transportation impacts - - #s 8, 14, and "Non- Project Supplement #s 5 and 6. Thanks for your promptness, and so,sorry about the short time frame. Rebecca Rebecca Fox Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 206 - 431 -3683 (tel) 206 - 431 -3665 (fax) rfox @ci.tukwila.wa.us Page 1 Control No. Epic File No. E01 -007 Fee: Receipt No. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 6,2_-, 5w, , A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2006 (2007) 2. Name of applicant: City of Tukwila 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Contact: Rebecca Fox 206 - 431 -3683 rfox @ci.tukwila.wa.us 4. Date checklist prepared: March 13, 2007 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): This is a non - project action. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. This is a non - project action. No further activity is planned at this time. Plans will be evaluated once a specific Transit Center project (L06 -093) or Boundary Line Adjustment /Short Plat /development project (L06 -095 and L06 -096) is proposed. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (October, 1995) Addendum to the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Addressing Implementing Zoning Code Amendments (November, 1995) • L06 -093 — This is a non - project action. Once a specific Transit Center project is proposed, environmental review will be prepared. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 -- This is a non - project action. Once a specific project is proposed, environmental review will be prepared as appropriate. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. • L06 -093 — Application pending for Comprehensive Plan Amendment • L06 -095 — Application pending for Comprehensive Plan Amendment / Map designation • L06- 096— Application pending for Zoning Map Change. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. • L06 -093 — This is a non - project action. A future Transit Center may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit depending on the amount of soil that is disturbed. Typical Tukwila permits will likely include a Type C right -of - Way permit, Type C Grading Permit, drainage review, Type D Long Term Permit and design review and building permits. • L06 -095 and L06 -095 — This is a non - project action. Future construction will require either a boundary line adjustment or short plat, and building and Public Works permits. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternates of your proposal and should not be summarized here. This is a non - project action. • L06 -093 — The proposal amends existing Comprehensive Plan policy 13.4.8 in order to provide greater flexibility in selecting a location for a future Transit Center within the Tukwila Urban Center, and to reflect the analysis prepared for the Tukwila Transit Plan . A Transit Center would replace existing, inadequate bus stops that serve the area in the general vicinity of the Westfield Southcenter Mall. The Tukwila Transit Center will be a facility that can accommodate current a Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST future passenger demands, promote transit ridership, provide expanded capacity for transit service (King County Metro and future Sound Transit Express or Bus Rapid Transit) and improve passenger and business safety and security. The existing policy wording is the following: 13.4.8. "Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Westfield Mall at Southcenter, and surrounding businesses to locate a pedestrian friendly transit center on Andover Park West, between Baker Boulevard and Strander Boulevard." The proposed policy wording broadens possible siting locations as follows, with changes highlighted: 13.4.8. Support forming a partnership with Metropolitan King County, Westfield Mall at Southcenter, and surrounding businesses to locate a pedestrian friendly transit center and related amenities on or near Andover Park West, between Baker Boulevard and Strander The Tukwila Transit Plan (2005) calls for a Transit Center to meet future operational needs for transit. Choosing a site for the Transit Center and developing a specific project will include considerations of capacity, passenger demand, safety and reliability, cost, passenger safety, while fitting within the Tukwila Urban Center vision of a long -term increase in density. • L06 -095 — The proposal is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map to redesignate property at 14427 51st Avenue South from Residential Commercial Center (RCC) to Low Density Residential (LDR); • L06 -096 — The proposal is an amendment to the Zoning Map to redesignate property at 14427 51St Avenue South from Residential Commercial Center (RCC) to Low Density Residential (LDR); 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. These are non - project actions. • #L06 -093 "Transit Center" amendment site is in the vicinity of Andover Park West in the Tukwila Urban Center. Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST • #L06 -095 and L06 -096 are located at 14427 51St Avenue South. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? This is a non - project action. • L06 -093 — No sensitive areas are located in the vicinity of Andover Park West. • L06 -095 & L06 -096 — Portions of the site include Type 2 slopes i.e. Landslide potential is moderate; slope is between 15% and 40% and is underlain by relatively permeable soils. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: This is a non - project action. • L06 -093 — General vicinity of Andover Park West is flat • L06 -095 & L06 -096 —Slopes and flat b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? This is a non - project action. • L06 -093 —Generally flat terrain along Andover Park West and vicinity • L06 -095 & L06 -096 — between 15% and 40% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. This is a non - project action. Specific soil conditions will be evaluated when projects are proposed. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. This is a non - project action. Specific soil conditions will be evaluated when projects are proposed. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Page 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST This is a non - project action. Specific information about filling and grading will be evaluated when a specific proposal is submitted. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. This is a non - project action. Erosion could occur as a result of clearing and construction as vegetation is removed and soils are exposed through excavation. Impacts associated with individual future developments will be analyzed when development applications are submitted. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? This is a non - project action. Information about the percentage of the site to be covered with impervious surfaces will be known and evaluated when specific development proposals are submitted in the future. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: This is a non - project action. In general, once a specific proposal is prepared, project design will minimize erosion potential by proper design and construction practices. During construction, the contract will be required to employ Best Management Practices to control erosion. Specific information about erosion or other impacts to the earth will be considered when specific development proposals are submitted in the future. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. This is a non - project action. In general, during construction emissions would include primarily particulate matter and small amounts of carbon monoxide from construction machinery exhaust. There would be fugitive dust from earth moving or excavation activities and diesel smoke. In addition, temporary odors from machinery exhaust and paving activities could occur. Any future development resulting from the amendments will be required to meet all air quality regulations, and will be evaluated at that time. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Page 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST This is a non - project action. No off -site emissions known at this time. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Non - project action. Specific measures to reduce or control emissions will be implemented at the time a specific project is constructed. Measures to reduce or control emissions are likely to include the following: • Cover loads, wet down during transport of fill material or topsoil; • Clean up any spills of transported material on public roads promptly by frequent use of a street sweeper machine; • Cover loads of hot asphalt to minimize odors; • Schedule work tasks to minimize disruption of existing vehicle traffic on streets in the vicinity of the proposed project; • Maintain all construction machinery engines in good mechanical condition to minimize exhaust emissions. No additional measures to reduce operational air quality effects beyond those typically employed by the transit service providers are likely to be needed or proposed. Within the region, the proposed Transit Center would contribute to improvement of air quality as persons make greater use of transit as an alternative to the use of private automobiles. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year -round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. • L06 -093 — No surface water in immediate vicinity. Tukwila Pond and Duwamish River are within one -half mile • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — N/A 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Non - project action. N/A 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Non - project action. N/A Page 6 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. Non - project action. N/A 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. N/A 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Non - Project Action. N/A b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. Non - project action. Groundwater impacts are not anticipated and will be evaluated once a specific project is submitted. 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Non - project action. Potential wastewater discharge will be evaluated once specific projects are proposed. No discharge of waste material into the ground from septic tanks or other sources is planned. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. This is a non - project action. Specific runoff impacts will be evaluated for any future development proposals. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Page 7 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST This is a non - project action. Specific impacts of waste materials will be evaluated for specific future development proposals. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: This is a non - project action. Specific measures to reduce or control runoff impacts will be evaluated if a specific project is submitted. 4. Plants This is a non - project action. The following vegetation is found in the vicinity of Andover Park West (L06 -093), and at 14427 51st Avenue South (L06 -095 and L06 -096). a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: x deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other x evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other x shrubs x grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? This is a non - project action. No vegetation removal is proposed at this time. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. This is a non - project action. No threatened or endangered species are known, but this element would be evaluated for a specific proposal. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Non - project action. Item does not apply 5. Animals a. Circle any birds or animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Page 8 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST This is non - project action. The following animals are found in the vicinity of Andover Park West (L06 -093) and 14427 51st Avenue South (L06 -095 and L06 -096) Birds:. Songbirds Mammals: Squirrels, rodents Fish: Other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Not known. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Non - project action. No measures proposed at this time. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Non - project action. Additional energy will be used if projects are constructed in future. Additional environmental review will be prepared if project is proposed. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Non - project action. Solar potential of adjacent properties would not be affected by future development. Additional environmental review will be prepared if project is proposed. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Non - project action. Additional environmental review will be prepared if project is proposed. L06 -093 — Energy conserving lighting could be included in the future plans. L06 -095 and L06 -09 — "Green Building" practices could be suggested to developer. 7. Environmental Health Page 9 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Non - project action. Additional environmental review will be prepared if project is proposed. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Non - project action. No special emergency services required at this time. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Non - project action. No environmental health hazards will result. Additional environmental evaluation will be prepared if a specific project is proposed. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Non - project action. Additional environmental evaluation will be prepared if a specific project is proposed. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short -term or long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Non - project Action. Additional environmental review will be prepared if project is proposed. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: N/ A S. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? • L06 -093 — Mall, retail, commercial, warehouse, office, service, pond /park, roadway uses along Andover Park West corridor and vicinity. • L06 -095 and L06- 096 — Single- family residential, vacant land, nursery, office, road and Sound Transit light rail b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Page 10 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST • L06 -093 — Land along Andover Park West and vicinity may have been used for agricultural activity 30+ years ago. • L06 -095 and L06- 096 —Site is currently vacant and accessory to adjacent nursery. c. Describe any structures on the site. • L06 -093 — Andover Park West and vicinity are in the Tukwila Urban Center, and are developed with a range of structures, including those used for office, retail, warehouse, recreation, and other activities. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — No structures are on the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Non - project action. No demolition. Additional environmental review will take place if a specific project is proposed. L06 -093 — No demolition is proposed. Depending on site that is ultimately selected, some demolition may be required. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? • L06 -093 — Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Residential Commercial Center (RCC) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? • L06 -093 — Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Residential Commercial Center (RCC) g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. • L06 -093 — No environmentally sensitive areas lie along Andover Park West. L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Portions of the site contain steep slopes. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Non - project action. L06 -093 — Neither housing nor employment is considered a part of any future Transit Center proposal. L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Designating the site as LDR would allow housing to be built. Page 11 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1• Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Non - project action. L06 -093 — No housing displacement will occur. L06 -095 and L06 -096 — No housing displacement will occur as site is currently vacant. It is likely that housing will be built in the future on the site. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: This is a non - project action. No measures are proposed or necessary because no displacements would occur. L Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Non - project action. Additional review will be undertaken to ensure compatibility with existing and proposed land uses once a specific project is proposed. • L06 -093 — A transit center is a permitted use within the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) zone. Future development of a Transit Center is compatible with the Tukwila Transit Plan and Comprehensive Plan, and is supportive of state, regional and local efforts to reduce commute trips. The general site area has been identified by the Tukwila Transit Plan and Comprehensive Plan, and is served by transit. A future Transit Center would be sited and designed based on work by design, transportation and planning professionals to ensure compatibility with existing and proposed land uses. Public input would also be evaluated. A focus group was undertaken for the Tukwila Transit Plan and additional public workshops have been held. Design of any future Transit Center would be compatible with the character of the surrounding area. Any specific proposal would be subject to Design Review by the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — If the property were redesignated to LDR, single- family housing could be built at the site. This would be consistent with adjacent land uses. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing? Non - project action. • L06 -093 — No housing units would be provided in association with a future Transit Center. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Redesignating the site to LDR could allow several single - family homes or duplexes to be built. The specific housing impacts would be evaluated once a project was submitted Page 12 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. This is a non - project action. No housing units will be eliminated. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: No special measures are needed because no negative impacts to housing would occur. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Non - project action. Height impacts will be evaluated once a specific project is proposed. • L06 -093 — A future Transit Center would contain bus bays, pedestrian shelters, sidewalks and landscaping. Height limits would be observed. Building materials are not proposed at this point. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Any structures eventually built would meet the 35' maximum height limit per TMC Chapter 18. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Non - project action. No specific development proposed at this time. No view alteration or obstruction is anticipated resulting from any future projects. Additional environmental evaluation of views will be prepared if a specific project is proposed. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Non- project action. Additional environmental evaluation will be prepared when a specific project is proposed. • L06 -093 — It is anticipated that landscaping would soften direct views of a future Transit Center. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Non - project action. No glare produced. Additional environmental review will be carried out if a specific project is proposed. • L06 -093 — Additional sources of light and glare associated with a future Transit Center would include site lighting and bus traffic. On site lighting would be present throughout the non - daylight hours. Glare from transit Page 13 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST vehicles could be more prevalent at dawn and dusk during the winter months. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Future houses would have on -site lighting, and possible street lighting. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Non - project action. Additional environmental review will be carried out if a specific project is proposed. • L06 -093 — Night lighting would not create a safety hazard or adversely affect views. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Non - project action. No impacts from off -site glare. Additional environmental work will be prepared if a specific project is proposed. • L06 -093 — No offsite sources of light would affect the future Transit Center. Lighting may come from passing vehicles, transit, neighboring businesses, and the street system. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Non - project action. Additional environmental review will be undertaken if a specific project is proposed. • L06 -093 — Transit Center lighting will be carefully planned to ensure the greatest safety for pedestrians and transit users, while minimizing glare and other off site light-related impacts. 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Non - project action. • L06 -093 — Andover Park West is within one block of Tukwila Pond Park, within one -half mile of Bicentennial Park and the Duwamish River Trail. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — The site is within one -half mile of playing fields at Foster High School and Showalter Middle School, and within 3/4 mile of the Foster Library. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Non - project action. No displacement of existing recreational uses. Page 14 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Non - project action. No impacts on recreational opportunities. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. There are no places or objects listed on or proposed for , national, state or local preservation registers on or near to the potential project sites. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Non - project action. L06 -093 — Tukwila Bicentennial Park is located within one -half mile of the possible project site. L06 -095 and L06 -096 — No landmarks nearby. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: This is a non - project action. If evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific or cultural resources of potential were discovered during future site excavation or development of a future Transit Center (L06 -093) or housing (L06 -095 and L06 -096), project work in the vicinity would be immediately halted until an expert in the subject area was able to verify the significance of the resource and identify appropriate measures for retrieval and removal from the site. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Non - project action. • L06- 093 — Adjacent streets include: 1) Andover Park West a north/ south minor arterial road, served by Metro Transit; 2) Tukwila Parkway /Southcenter Parkway (minor arterial); 3) Strander Boulevard (minor arterial); 4) Baker Boulevard (collector arterial); 5) Minkler Boulevard (minor arterial) ; 6) S. 180th Street (minor arterial); 7) Andover Park East (minor arterial); 8) Southcenter Boulevard; 9) West Valley Highway; 10) I -405; 11) I -5. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Access to the site will be provided either by 51st Avenue South, or by S. 145th Street. Page 15 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? • L06 -093 — Andover Park West is served by Metro Transit routes 126, 128, 140, 150 and 155. A Transit Center would provide improved transit opportunities with bus pull -outs, and enhanced facilities for transit riders, including sidewalks, seating, lighting and other safety features. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — The site is served by Metro Transit route 128 c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Non - project action. Parking impacts will be evaluated when a specific project is proposed. • L06- 093 - -No parking spaces will be created for a future on- street Transit Center, just bus zones. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Future housing would be required to provide two off - street parking spaces. c. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Non - project action. Road improvements will be evaluated when a specific project is proposed. • L06 -093. No road improvements are proposed. The proposal pertains to locations for a future transit center. Some road and frontage improvements may be required for transit operations once a transit center project is proposed. Pedestrian walkways would be provided and/or improved. Per the "Tukwila Transit Plan," bus pull -out stops /bays are proposed. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — No changes in roads or streets are proposed. The proposal could result in eventual single- family housing development, which would require road improvements and site access via existing roads through an existing access easement. Additional environmental evaluation will be prepared if a specific project is proposed. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Page 16 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST • L06 -093 — Non - project action. The future Transit Center would be located within the Tukwila Urban Center, several blocks from the Tukwila Sounder Commuter Rail station. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Non - project action. N/ A f How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. • L06- 093 -- Non - project action. The Transit Center will not have a park and ride facility, and therefore is not expected to generate any new vehicle traffic or cause any direct traffic impacts on the adjacent streets. The Tukwila Transit Center recommends transit service improvements in hours and fsrequency. Depending on the site that is selected, there may be some re- routing of buses. Future bus service may include implementation of a Bus Rapid Transit route in the I -405 corridor. In the future, transit service increases will be needed to accommodate ridership growth that will occur due to expansion of the Westfield Southcenter Mall, and in the longer term from planned increases in housing and employment resulting from redevelopment of the Tukwila Urban Center. g. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Non - project action. A maximum of four houses could be build on the site. If four houses were built, and each house had generated four to six vehicle trips per day, a maximum of approximately 16 to 24 trips could be generated each day. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: • L06 -093 — The Tukwila Transit Plan recommends short -term, mid -term and long -term service improvements, including extending service hours and frequency, and some route changes to better serve the Tukwila Urban Center. The siting and operation of a Tukwila Transit Center will enable these service improvements to occur. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. L06- 093 —This is a non - project action. Specific impacts on public services will be evaluated once a project is proposed. In general, public service needs of a future Transit Center could include police and fire protection. L06 -095 and L06-096 — This is a non - project action. Specific impacts on public services will be evaluated once a project is proposed. In general, the public service needs of future housing could include police and fire protection, schools and healthcare for future residents. Page 17 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. • L06 -093 — This is a non - project action. Specific measures to reduce or control any direct impacts on public services will be evaluated once a project is proposed. In general potential police and fire protection will be addressed through improved lighting, implementation of security technologies, removal of problematic items such as payphones, incorporation of shelter and landscape design that supports good visibility and creation of an attractive and easily maintainable waiting environment. • L06 -095 and L06-096 — This is a non - project action. A maximum of four single - family homes could eventually be constructed on the site. Although this incremental increase is completely within the existing capacity of Tukwila's public service capabilities, any specific impacts will be addressed once a project is proposed. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. • L06 -093 — This is a non - project action located in the Tukwila Urban Center. All appropriate utilities can be available on site as needed once a site is selected and a specific project proposed. • L06 -095 and L06- 096- -This is a non - project action. All appropriate utilities can be available on site as needed once a specific project proposed, and constructed. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. • L06 -093 -- This is a non - project action located in the Tukwila Urban Center. All appropriate utilities can be available on site as needed once a site is selected and a specific project proposed. Depending on the scope of the Transit Center, utilities are likely to include electricity, water, stormwater, sewer and telephone. • L06 -095 and L06- 096- -This is a non - project action. All appropriate utilities can be available on site as needed once a specific project proposed. Utilities are likely to include water, sewer, electricity, cable, stormwater, telephone. Page 18 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: 3//j/07 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON PROJECT ACTIONS (Do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result form the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than in the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? • L06 -093 Construction of a future Transit Center will result in temporary increases in noise and emissions that will cease once construction is complete. • L06 -093 There will be added noise during construction of houses. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: • L06 -093 Construction of the future Transit Center will be carried out to minimize disruption from temporary noise and emissions. The Transit Center would be designed to reduce or control surface, ground and runoff water impacts, as well as the entry of waste materials into ground or surface waters. As appropriate this may include an oil /water separator, and stormwater treatment facility for the proposed project. Once constructed, improved bus service from the Transit Center may lessen reliance on auto trips, and therefore reduce automobile noise and emissions. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 Proper construction techniques will be used to minimize emissions and noise, and stormwater runoff. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish or marine life? Page 19 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST • L06 -093 — Construction of a Transit Center may result in increased impervious surfaces. • L06 -093 — The site is currently vacant. Future construction of houses will result in increased impervious surfaces. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish or marine life are: • L06 -093 — A future Transit Center will be landscaped with plant materials. As appropriate, existing vegetation/ trees may be retained. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Some of the site will remain undeveloped. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? • L06 -093 — Construction of a future Transit Center will require the use of resources including electricity, gasoline, . building materials (concrete, metal, wood). • L06 -095 and L06 -096 -- Construction of future housing will require the use of resources including electricity, gasoline, building materials. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: • L06- 093 - -Once constructed, a Transit Center will become the focal point of transit use in the Tukwila Urban Center, and will provide enhanced facilities to meet current transit needs and future demands. Increased transit use will conserve petroleum resources by providing individuals with a viable alternative to auto trips. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Future homes encouraged to be built conserve energy and natural resources. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for government protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? • L06 -093 — No impacts on environmentally sensitive areas are anticipated by locating a Transit Center in the vicinity of or along Andover Park West. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Portions of the site contain steep slopes. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: N/A Page 20 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? • L06 -093 — The future Transit Center is compatible with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, the Tukwila Transit Plan (4/05). Tukwila Urban Center vision calls for a long -term increase in density and activities, and the future Transit Center is consistent with this intent. Development of the future Tukwila Transit Center will be a first step towards implementing the future that is envisioned for the Tukwila Urban Center as a vibrant, pedestrian- oriented area in which to live, work, play and do business. When a specific Transit Center project is proposed, it will set high aesthetic standards and serve as a catalyst for implementing the larger vision for the Tukwila Urban Center, including new and compatible development. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — Future low- density housing development is compatible with the proposed Low Density Residential (LDR) designation. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: • L06 -093 — Urban design, landscape and architectural aspects of a future Transit Center will result in a high quality project that will avoid negative land use impacts. Key elements will include: 1) design for safety; 2) increased pedestrian access ; 3) integrating the Transit Center into the pedestrian network. The future Transit Center is intended as a necessary community resource to be developed through careful design in order to achieve the most efficient functioning. Safety for individuals and property will be a key consideration. Any proposed Transit Center would be designed for compatibility with existing and future land use in order to maintain and enhance the value of both the public and private property. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? L06 -093 — By 2020 or later, it is assumed that the WSDOT will complete planned improvements to I -405, as well as related arterial improvements. Additional planned regional improvements may also occur by 2020 or later, including: 1) I -405 through Tukwila widened by one lane in each direction; 2) Renton and Tukwila would jointly extend Strander Boulevard from West Valley Highway to Oakesdale Avenue S.E. Potential changes to King County's Metro Transit service are unknown. However, a well - designed future Transit Center will allow buses to serve the Tukwila Urban Center with greater frequency. Based on current trends, King County Metro anticipates a conservative baseline ridership growth rate of up to 3% per year. This could mean approximately 4,600 daily riders using a future Transit Center. Page 21 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Expansion of Westfield Southcenter Mall and the ongoing redevelopment of the Tukwila Urban Center could accelerate ridership growth further. Specific design of a future Transit Center will ensure the most efficient operation possible and minimize transportation impacts. Making all stops pull -out stops will reduce transit /traffic conflicts. Good design, including passenger amenities, shelters and landscaping will increase the comfort of waiting passengers and will encourage and enhance transit use. • L06 -095 and L06 -096 — New housing would generate additional vehicle trips, as well as additional transit use. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: L06 -093 — Improved transit facilities and services will reduce demand for auto use, and make road use more efficient. A well - designed and well -sited Transit Center with improved transit rider and pedestrian safety and convenience will result in fewer transit /traffic conflicts, fewer pedestrian /vehicle conflicts and less crime and vandalism. This, in turn, will reduce demands on public services, including police, fire and emergency services. Reductions in demand for public service would be offset by additional housing construction, and increases in employment resulting from redevelopment in the Tukwila Urban Center. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. • L06 -093 — The proposal is consistent with local, state and federal requirements for environmental protection by encouraging increased transit use in the Tukwila Urban Center and beyond. • L06- 093 - -The proposal is consistent with local, state and federal environmental requirements. Page 22 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST F. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the foregoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objectives of the proposal? In the broadest sense, the objective of proposals to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map is to respond to changed conditions in Tukwila, and to keep these documents current so as best to reflect the community's vision. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? If changes are desired, we see no obvious means to implement that change other than amending the primary land use regulatory documents. It might be possible to alter the timetable of changes to delay adoption and implementation. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: L06 -093 — Transit Center location • Deny the request (Retain status quo) • Limit possible locations (i.e. Transit Center to be located north of Minkler Boulevard on Andover Park West) • Expand possible locations (i.e. Transit Center to be sited in Tukwila Urban Center Core) — Preferred action L06 -065 and L06 -09600 — NCC to LDR • Deny the request (Retain status quo) • Approve request • Approve request with condition that applicant must complete Boundary Line Adjustment within three months of City Council approval — Preferred action 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? The proposals require amending the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map. 6. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: Public input and review by the Planning Commission and City Council will minimize potential conflicts with Tukwila codes and policies, and ensure compatibility with the community's goals . Page 23 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Page 24 Perteet Phone: Phone: 206-436-0515 Retum Fax: 206-436-0516 Re: Pages Including Cover Page: 31 0 Urgent Comments: TEO/T0001 0 For Review ' 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply Perteetlnc. I 505 Fifth Avenue, Suite 210 1 Seattle, WA 98104 206-436-0515 or 1-8C0-615-9900 I FAX: aro-436-0516 .oui 'laawad 9TS0 9 VT, 90Z XVd L5:9 (NM LOO/PT/0 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of Checklist for Non Project Proposals: Complete this checklist for non project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." In addition, complete the Supplemental Sheet For Non Project Actions (part D). DRAFT SEPA Environmental Checklist Overlake Park - and -Ride Facility T£0 /Z00E ] 4/7/99 DRAFT auI 'aaaaaad 9TS0 9£6 90Z XVd 89:8 UM LOOZ /6T /£0 For non project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. DRAFT SEPA Environmental Checklist Overlake Park - and -Ride Facility 0/£00 01 2 4/7/99 DRAFT .OuI 'aaaaaad 9T50 9£V 90Z XVd 95:9 QaM LOOZ /VT /£O EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Date Received Stamp A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Overlake Park - and -Ride Facility 2. Name of applicant: Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Sound Transit Linda Smith, Project Manager 1100 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101 -3423 206 -689 -4922 4. Date checklist prepared: April 7, 1999 (Draft) 5. Agency requesting checklist: Sound Transit 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction of the project is expected to begin late in 1999, with completion anticipated for early fall of 2000. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Sound Transit has no plans or funding for future expansion of the project proposal. The future SR 520/N.E. 40th Street interchange that will add westbound and eastbound on- and off -ramps at N.E. 40th Street is a separate and independent project being developed by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). Construction of the interchange is scheduled to begin during Spring of 1999. DRAFT SEPA Environmental Checklist Overlake Park - and -Ride Facility 3 4/7/99 DRAFT T£0 /Y0001 '0uT 'laalJaJ 9Tg0 9£17 90Z YVJ 85 :9 03M LOOZ /6T /£0 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. A SEPA Environmental Checklist dated September 7, 1995 was prepared for the City of Redmond, and a Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on: (1) dedication of the project site located in the southwest quadrant of the 156`h Avenue N.E./N.E. 40`h Street intersection to the City of Redmond for future development of a transit center; and (2) of transfer of zoning rights (density transfer) from that property to another Microsoft Corporation property. The Regional Transit System Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement was issued by the Joint Regional Policy Committee on March 3, 1993. The programmatic EIS was the first step in a phased environmental review to examine alternatives to and the environmental effects of adoption of an extensive system of transit capital and service improvements in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties that led to Sound Move. The SR 520 HOV Lanes and New Interchange Final Environmental Impact Statement was issued by WSDOT on August 11, 1995. The EIS examined alternatives to and the environmental effects of widening the freeway to add one High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction between 104th Avenue N.E. and SR 901; a new interchange at N.E. 40th Street (adjacent to the proposed Overlake park- and -ride site); a surveillance, control, and driver information system; and a bicycle trail near SR 520. The Vision 2020 Update and Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Addendum and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was issued by the Puget Sound Regional Council on March 10, 1995, and the Second Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was issued on April 24, 1995. Vision 2020 is the long -range growth management, economic, and transportation strategy for the central Puget Sound region. The Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) is the detailed, long -range plan for future transportation investments in the central Puget Sound region. It is used to select transportation projects and programs for funding under the region's Transportation Improvement Program, and to review transportation elements in local plans and countywide policies for consistency. The Overlake Neighborhood Plan and Bellevue- Redmond Overlake Transportation Study Update was issued by the City of Redmond and the City of Bellevue on April 21, 1998. This integrated Growth Management Act (GMA) document and Draft Environmental Impact Statement examined alternatives and potential effects of a new neighborhood plan for the Overlake Neighborhood and a new transportation plan for the Bel - Red /Overlake Transportation Study (BROTS) study area. The proposed DRAFT SEPA Environmental Checklist Overlake Park- and -Ride Facility T£0 /500 1x1 4 4/7/99 DRAFT .oui '1aaa.zad 9T90 9£t, 90Z %V3 8s:8 tIaM LOOZ /bT /£0 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Overlake park- and -ride project site is contained within both of these study areas. Under the proposed action, zoning for the project site would be changed to Overlake Business and Advanced Technology zone; however, the proposed Overlake park -and- ride facility would remain a permitted use. The final study document and Final EIS is expected to be issued in late Spring to Summer of 1999. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. The project proposal includes adding eastbound and westbound express bus stops (flyer stops) at the future SR 520/N.E. 40th Street interchange now being developed separately by the WSDOT. According to the WSDOT all permits and approvals for the interchange have been secured, and construction is expected to begin during Spring of 1999. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. • Approval of transfer of property ownership - Redmond City Council • Site Plan Review - City of Redmond • Design Review - City of Redmond • Concurrency Exemption - City of Redmond • Clearing and Grading Permit - City of Redmond • Construction Drawing Review - City of Redmond • Building Permit - City of Redmond • Tree Removal Permit - City of Redmond • Class IV- General Forest Practices Permit - Washington State Department of Natural Resources • General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated With Construction Activities - Washington State Department of Ecology 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The proposed Overlake park- and -ride facility is a Sound Transit "First Moves" project, to be developed in partnership with King County Department of DRAFT SEPA Environmental Checklist Overlake Park - and -Ride Facility 5 4/7/99 DRAFT T£0 /900Ia1 *auT 'aea1JaT 9T50 9£V 90Z XV1 95 :9 U M LOOZ /VT /£0 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Transportation, the City of Redmond, and Microsoft Corporation. The proposed facility would function as a service hub for local fixed route transit and para- transit services operated by Metro Transit, regional commuter services operated by Sound Transit and Community Transit, employee shuttle services operated by Microsoft, potential future local public and private employer shuttle services (not a part of this proposal), and vanpool /carpool services. Proposed facility improvements include the following: • a 235 -space commuter park- and -ride lot (including spaces designated for passenger drop- off /pick -up); • passenger waiting and boarding plazas; • bus transit and shuttle van loading bays; • eastbound and westbound express bus stops (flyer stops) at the future SR 520/N.E. 40th Street interchange ramps; • a covered pedestrian walkway on the N.E. 40th Street overcrossing of SR 520; • short -term layover space for buses and shuttles; • after -hours storage for 50 or more shuttle vans; • bicycle storage; • patron amenities, informational kiosks, and signage; • an approximately 2500- square -foot building containing space for central operations and a dispatch center for a private employer- operated shuttle service; • an approximately 2000 - square -foot building containing space for transit - oriented retail and commercial use, a community policing facility, customer washrooms, and transit operational support; • an approximately 1350- square -foot building containing space for a transit and ride -share support center; • ten parking spaces for employee parking; and • five parking spaces for community policing. Please refer to Figure 1, Site Plan. The site currently is owned by Microsoft Corporation, which has agreed to transfer ownership to the City of Redmond for development as a transit facility. It is anticipated that the City will support transfer of ownership directly from Microsoft to Sound Transit to accomplish the proposed development. DRAFT SEPA Environmental Checklist Overlake Park - and -Ride Facility T£O /LOOM 6 4/7/99 DRAFT *Dui 'laal.zad 9T50 9£V 90Z %d3 6S :8 OHM LoOZ /VT /£O rA 008/03 S. • 1 1• 'erteet nc Z t 7f i !itt F Z Y 1 `J 1 E SR 520 eastbound exit (construction in 1999-2000) Transit loading (also on SR 522 westb und) 156th Avenue NE IV _ i,---------____ ----,....- ---- c=:".---- Transit loading [i[ IsIi;v3n= 0 100 200 400 feet 1111C-.3IN SiviNDMA!.Fsrr CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY bt.rch 1599 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map. and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The proposed Overlake park- and -ride project site is located in the City of Redmond, Washington, in the southwest quadrant of the 156th Avenue N.E./N.E. 40`h Street intersection. The approximately 10 -acre parcel is within the Overlake business district, adjacent to the Microsoft corporate campus. The site is bounded by N.E. 40th Street to the north, 156th Avenue N.E. to the east, SR 520 to the west, and N.E. 36th Street to the south. The site is located in township 25 north, range 5 east, section 23. Please refer to Figure 2, Project Location, and Figure 3, Project Site and Vicinity. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH A. General description of the site (circle one):(F1aDrolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other B. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The southern portion of the project site is generally flat. The slope increases gradually to less than 10 -15% in the northern portion of the site. C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Near surface deposits in the project area are mapped primarily as Vashon till based on the Geologic Map of the Redmond Quadrangle, King County, Washington (Minard and Booth, 1988). Vashon till typically consists of a hard or very dense, heterogeneous mixture of sand, gravel, silt, and clay with poor drainage characteristics. Surface conditions observed at the site indicate that Vashon till is covered by a layer of forest duff, and the surficial soils are relatively loose. DRAFT SEPA Environmental Checklist Overlake Park- and -Ride Facility TF.0 /600101 8 4/7/99 DRAFT .3U1 ' aaal.zad 9T50 9Et 90Z WA 65:9 QdM LOOZ /i'T /£0 OVERLAKE TRANSIT FACILITY Figure 2 - Project Location : ^fi j/: �:a.., r- If 11 �� •__.- _7;: --- ->. 1 f -- 1::5:� \T ♦t'" - ,. j" -� - -- I ; ,._.__ � _ Wes y�- _, „,` : - - -- -- • —:� -'- - -11,1 _.il_._ 1 \Jr I��^�..aa`{{'''' ---- '- '''- imjAli- 's,Y•Y :�- _- i II PROJECT T— !K 1 J ..._. SITE II f � — . : `` r. _ - — it _�— I ._F_ % "a — IL . r' -r1I1 PF : I Is,; --r--;---- . - =_ -- - 1NE40th.Sr— .:. ... .'._= - -- t-'' ;, f y e w • 4 li �sbc. r• 1 - I , I • CT %,, E3i i.. fir r r� ! i -Exisf'ng Overlak ♦ r -;�_: >--,='`,S� ' -' � �• ' ` -� -•:.,.-_-,_-• = •Prks &R•�de• --,,::"--.r.,----;-'-., �;;_:;�� -' -_ y „r_'� '♦ .i .d .r i - , ll.,. li- 1L- 1, J�-C_T=I?.i.,..;�- 3�_'i'' -1"__' '`'1 C ,i V -.'.. '�.rJ _l.Jlll__l� 1.-'l ."'.=r- :�1.1.. `t,l i t ,.....itirr ' .:j ' r '.-.!-C'->. ii- .� ..;._ ,•r'r--r- r- ,•,._,_.LJ �.- _..•, 0 :r- rt-i,...r. �� ,f 1 1/ I ` =tY r r �t C ♦ } S I , y , �� ,,,.• -,-"•,_ -- - -r, , : 1 1� .1-.-. 0 r' • :kt:;;:�- 1/4 1/2 � r A�- r� .t ,.-.1_......_._;..-.1... 4lh`' '1 =- :- .1-:!.: Vii_. �; eY�S � {;-. I_r-il.�� 1 mile T SOUNOTR.INS C E N T R A L P U G E T S O U N D R E G I O N A L T R A N S I T A U T H O R I T Y T£0 /OTOf�1 'DUI 'laal.zad 9T50 9£V 90Z XVd 00:6 URA LOOZ /VT /£0 OVERLAKE TRANSIT FACILITY Figure 3 - Project Site and Vicinity • d••••... Ts.•ni-rin FTh pr .1... -; • ' ., • 1 ' * .L.... 1,. •::r .::.. , ,o % ,. ;74 t-...--i--,A,-..r..Ji 1°1* .', .),• 1. -:-.•-:*:'.. 7'. ...tvilv_.•.,...1.,,.. • •-..-. .; .,.. i::- 1 i n; • 1.,...„,,t_ic,... 1 k : . it: • -" '.... aurmssesuz. r ..,..."A . ... .. . 3,k ...: • ,:,, -, . ........,1•••;;- !Aq- . - I.- • -...-': .:;: litt 0410t;S‘iii ' • 0"'";,.../4:64•''' /...', Pr w 1 .,.........----,.7.-.;.o- .., r. •,. „a: ' as: ; . t :•.•44 - •_ .; • • • Nmh 1999 SOUNDMAt.i.ctc CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY 'Dui 'laaldad 9TS0 9 Et 90Z WA 00:6 UM LOO/IT/0 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT The Soil Survey, King County, Washington (USDA, 1973) indicates that the site is mostly blanketed by Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgD and AgC) of the Alderwood series. Glacial till is normally present at a shallow depth. Previous geotechnical studies in areas adjacent to the project site suggest that very dense glacial till consisting of very dense silty sand and sandy silt with variable amount of gravel is present near the ground surface. In the area along the north property line, fill soils and medium dense recessional outwash sand and gravel may be present. D. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Site reconnaissance did not reveal indications of unstable soils. The project site and areas immediately adjacent to the project site are not mapped as landslide hazard areas in the Sensitive Areas Map Folio, King County, Washington (King County, 1990). E. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Initial estimates of filling and grading quantities are as follows: Strip, stockpile and place site topsoil Rough Grade - paved areas Fine Grade - paved and planted areas Imported or placed topsoil 4,067 cubic yards 12,202 cubic yards 7,267 cubic yards 907 cubic yards Sources of these materials have not been identified at this time, but are assumed to be from local (King or Snohomish County) sources. F. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion could occur as a result of clearing and construction as vegetation is removed and soils are exposed through excavation. DRAFT SEPA Environmental Checklist Overlake Park - and -Ride Facility T£0 /ZTODI 11 4/7/99 DRAFT 'Du' '1aalaad 9150 9£Y 90Z XVd T0:6 aHM L00Z /6T /£0 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT G. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 53 percent of the project site would be covered with impervious surfaces. H. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: The project design will minimize erosion potential by proper design and construction practices. During construction, the contractor will be required to employ Best Management Practices (BMP) to control erosion. These BMPs will include: • Minimize the areas of exposure; • Retain vegetation where possible; • Seed or plant appropriate vegetation on exposed areas as soon as work is completed; • Route surface water through temporary drainage channels around and away from exposed areas; • Use silt fences and temporary sedimentation ponds to collect and retain possible eroded material on site; • Complete excavations during the drier summer and early fall months, to the extent possible; and • Intercept and drain water from surface seeps, if any, when they are encountered. Permanent control of surface water will be incorporated in the final grading design. 2. AIR A. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction, emissions would include primarily particulate matter (PM 10 and PM25) and small amounts of carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen from construction machinery exhaust. The sources of particulates would be fugitive dust from earth moving or excavation activities and diesel smoke. Temporary increases in particulate emissions would be noticeable if uncontrolled. In addition, temporary odors from machinery exhaust and paving activities could occur. DRAFT SEPA Environmental Checklist Overtake Park- and -Ride Facility T£0 /£T0 P1 12 4/7/99 DRAFT .Dui `1aaldad 9TS0 9£}5 90Z XVd TO :6 UM LOOZ /bT /£0 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT During long -term operation of the proposed facility, carbon monoxide (CO) emissions will occur as a result of changes in project- related traffic volumes and patterns. Modeling of project - related air quality impacts demonstrated that the maximum predicted eight -hour CO concentrations would be below the federal, state, and local standard for CO of 9.0 parts per million. The proposed project will not create any new violations of the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standard. The proposed project is included in the 1995 Metropolitan Transportation Plan and the 1998 Transportation Implementation Plan, both of which have been found to meet the conformity tests as identified by federal and state conformity regulations. Therefore the proposed project meets the transportation conformity requirements. B. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? if so, generally describe. There are no off -site sources of emissions or odor that would affect the proposal. C. Proposed measures t� reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Measures to reduce or control emissions and other impacts to air will include the following: • Cover loads, wet down, and /or ensure adequate freeboard on trucks during transport of fill material or topsoil; • Clean up spills of transported material on public roads promptly by frequent use of a street sweeper machine; • Cover loads of hot asphalt to minimize odors; • Schedule work tasks to minimize disruption of existing vehicle traffic on streets in the vicinity of the proposed project; and • Maintain all construction machinery engines in good mechanical condition to minimize exhaust emissions. No additional measures to reduce operational air quality effects beyond those typically employed by the transit service providers are necessary or proposed because no substantial adverse impact to air quality would occur. Within the region, the proposed project would contribute to improvement of air quality as persons make greater use of transit as an alternative to use of private automobiles. DRAFT SEPA Environmental Checklist Overlake Park - and -Ride Facility T£0 /YTOIP1 13 4/7/99 DRAFT .aui 'aaaLJad 9T50 9£17 90Z XVJ TO :6 OHM LOOZ /VT /£0 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 3. WATER A. Surface L Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year -round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. There are no surface waters on, or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Water may temporarily pond on the surface of the hardpan till in the southern portion of the site during periods of excessive rainfall. A wetland reconnaissance conducted on September 29, 1998, confirmed that there are no wetlands on the site based on examination of soil conditions, field indicators, and hydrology. 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. The project proposal does not require any work over, in, or within 200 feet of surface waters. 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. The project proposal does not involve placement or removal of fill or dredge material. 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. The project proposal does not involve surface water withdrawals or diversions. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. The project site is not within a 100 -year floodplain. DRAFT SEPA Environmental Checklist Overlake Park - and -Ride Facility 14 4/7/99 DRAFT T£n /cifa .oUI '1aa1aad 9150 9£Y 90Z XVd ZO:6 OHM LOOZ /I7T /£0 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. The project proposal does not involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters. B. Ground 1. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. The project proposal does not involve withdrawal of, or discharge to, ground water. 2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. The project proposal does not involve discharge of waste material into the ground from septic tanks or other sources. C. Water Runoff (including stormwater): 1. Describe the source(s) of runoff (including stormwater) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Stormwater from rainfall would provide the only source of runoff from the project site. Adjacent properties are fully developed, and there are no off -site runoff sources. Stormwater runoff would sheet flow on roadway and auto parking areas to gutters that would direct the flow to catchbasins before being conveyed directly to the proposed stormwater treatment facility. The stormwater treatment facility would outlet to a City of Redmond storm drainage system trunkline located in 156'h Avenue N.E., and eventually outlet directly to Lake Sammamish. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. The conveyance system for runoff from the transit center area, where diesel buses are likely to idle or park, would include an oil /water separator to address the potential for DRAFT SEPA Environmental Checklist Overlake Park- and -Ride Facility TE0/9TOI71 15 4/7/99 DRAFT 'Dui 'laal.zad 9T90 9E% 90Z rid ZO:6 tI M LOOZ /I'T /E0 T£0 /LTO [131 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT leaks or spills within that limited area of the proposed facility. With proper maintenance, this would prevent motor oils from entering ground or surface waters. D. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: In addition to those measures identified previously under Section 1. Earth, the project design will minimize surface, ground, and runoff water impacts by inclusion of a stormwater treatment facility in the proposed project. The stormwater treatment facility would be designed as a combination large wetpond and detention facility. The large wetpond would follow the September 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual as required for the targeted 50 percent phosphorous removal goal that is applicable to the Lake Sammamish basin. The total wetpond volume would equal 4.5 times the mean annual runoff volume from the site, or approximately 45,000 cubic feet. The detention element of the pond would restrict the site runoff to match the existing design peak (runoff coefficient = 0.20) that was used in the City of Redmond storm drainage system design. Sediments would be removed from the pond bottom during routine maintenance. There is no plan to line the pond at this time. Although, phosphorous is specifically noted because of its ease of testing, it is expected that the pond's performance would be similar for removal of other contaminants in the runoff as well. 4. PLANTS A. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree alder.map e aspennothe black cottonwood, paper birch X evergreen tree fir, edar, pine other: western hemlock X shrubs: redstem dogwood, Scot's broom, salal, blackberry, other grass pasture crop or grain X wet soil plants: cattailcluttercup,)ulrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other X other types of vegetation: fireweed, fern, other DRAFT SEPA Environmental Checklist 16 Overtake Park- and -Ride Facility 4/7/99 DRAFT .ouI `1aalaad 9TS0 9£6 90Z XVd Z0 :6 OHM LOOZ /%T /£0 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONI.Y TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The site vegetation is successional, composed of mostly alder with several bigleaf maple and Douglas fir specimens. Construction and operation of the proposed project will require removal of the majority of the vegetation present onsite. Most of the trees to be removed are alder 12 inch diameter at breast height (dbh) and smaller. Most of the bigleaf maple and Douglas fir will be retained. Overall, it is anticipated that the proposed design will retain greater than 35 percent of the existing healthy trees that measure 6 inches or greater in diameter at breast height (dbh), or are as small as 4- inch -dbh and within a stand of trees (or single tree) that is judged to be of particular value by virtue of age, height, utility, or function. C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered species are known to exist on or near the project site. D. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: It is anticipated that the project design will meet or exceed the City of Redmond tree protection requirements. In addition, the following measures will be incorporated into the project proposal as feasible to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site: • Northwest native species will be planted in natural areas to remain natural; • More trees will be planted than will be removed; • Trees and vegetation to be saved will be clearly marked prior to site clearing; • Native species will be salvaged within the areas to be cleared prior to the start of construction. Specimens that can be transplanted to other portions of the site will be collected using King County Conservation District recommendations on salvaging native plants; • Blackberries will be controlled until native plantings establish themselves. Native species that can out - compete blackberries will be among those selected; and • The proposed wet ponds will be landscaped with Northwest native wetland species where possible. DRAFT SEPA Environmental Checklist Overtake Park - and -Ride Facility 17 4/7/99 DRAFT TF.O /ATO1t *auI '1aalaad 9T40 9£V 90Z XVd ZO :6 aHM LOOZ /VT /£0 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE. ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 5. ANIMALS A. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: heron, eagl ongbir• other great horned owl, pileated woodpecker mammals: deer, bear, elk, beave othe mountain beaver, raccoon, cottontail, squirrel fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: B. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Coordination was conducted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concerning the potential for any threatened or endangered species to be on, near, or make use the project site. According to the USFWS there are no threatened or endangered species within the vicinity of the project site. C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The project site does not serve as part of a migration route. The site is an island of habitat that is disconnected from regional forest patches and surrounded by busy urban aterials and a state highway (SR 520). D. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: In addition to the measures identified previously under Section 4. Plants, the following measures will be incorporated into the project proposal as feasible to further increase the value of the site to wildlife: • Snags will be retained within stands of trees to be saved; • If an existing snag represents a hazard due to its height or proximity to a structure, it will be topped to a suitable height and retained on the site; • Remnant old- growth stumps and downed wood will be retained within stands of trees to be saved; and • Trees selected for planting will include native species that provide food and cover for wildlife. DRAFT SEPA Environmental Checklist Overtake Park - and -Ride Facility T£0 /6TO 01 18 4/7/99 DRAFT *Dui 'aaalaad 9T50 9£1, 90Z XVd £0 :6 UM L00Z /VT /£0 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES A. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. The project proposal will use electricity for exterior and interior lighting. Electricity or natural gas will be used for water and space heating. B. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. The project proposal will not affect potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties. C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The project proposal will comply with current building codes that incorporate energy conservation guidelines and requirements. No further measures are proposed or necessary. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH A. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. A residence was identified as existing on the northern portion of the project site in aerial photographs dated 1956 through 1980. It is possible that the residence may have used petroleum products for heating oil or other fueling uses if activities supported local farming practices. An investigation into the possible presence of underground storage tanks will be conducted as a precaution prior to development of the property. There are no potential environmental health hazards associated with operation of the project proposal. DRAFT SEPA Environmental Checklist 19 4/7/99 DRAFT Overtake Park - and -Ride Facility ITO /OZO E1 .Dui ' laa1Jad 9TS0 9£V 90Z XVd £O:6 QEM LOOZ /'T /£0 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special emergency services would be required beyond those occasionally required by other similar public facilities. These likely could include police, fire, and emergency medical services. 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: An investigation into the possible presence of underground storage tanks associated with the previous residence on the site will be conducted as a precaution prior to development of the property. There are no environmental health hazards associated with operation of the project proposal, and no other special measures are proposed or necessary. B. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Noise generated by vehicular traffic operating on adjacent urban arterials and SR 520 would be noticeable to patrons using the proposed facility. 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. On a short -term basis (during construction), noise levels would temporarily increase near the construction site due to heavy equipment use and construction materials transport. Sound levels generated during construction would vary widely based on the construction phase and equipment used. During Long -term operation of the proposed facility, increased noise levels would be associated with increased vehicular traffic at and in the vicinity of the project site. The site is bordered on three sides by a freeway, interchange, and high - volume arterial streets. Modeling of noise levels in the vicinity shows that during the PM peak hour, when the incremental effect of project- related traffic would be greatest, the predicted increase in noise levels with the project is so small as to be barely discernible. The proposed facility likely would be in operation from approximately 5:00 AM to 10:00 PM, with peak activity occurring during the morning and evening commute periods. DRAFT SEPA Environmental Checklist Overlake Park- and -Ride Facility T£0 /TZOIai 20 4/7/99 DRAFT our 'leal.zad 9TS0 9£17 90Z Xvd £0:6 COM LOOZ /6T /£O EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: No measures to reduce or control noise are proposed or necessary because no discernible increase in operational traffic noise would occur. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE A. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The project site is currently undeveloped, forested open space. The previous James River Paper box manufacturing plant is located across N.E. 40th Street from the site, to the north. Please refer to Figure 3, Project Site and Vicinity. The Cambrian Apartments occupy the northeast quadrant of the 156th Avenue N.E./N.E. 40th Street intersection. The Microsoft corporate campus is located across 156th Avenue N.E. to the east, and across N.E. 36th Street to the south. The right -of -way for SR 520 borders the western boundary of the project site. B. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. There is no known record of the project site being used for agriculture. C. Describe any structures on the site. The project site contains no structures or other development. D. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No structures will be demolished. E. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The project site is zoned Business Park (BP). Transit facilities are a permitted land use within the Business Park zone when the site is served by public transportation. F. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The comprehensive plan designation for the project site is Advanced Technology Manufacturing Center. DRAFT SEPA Environmental Checklist Overlake Park - and -Ride Facility T£0 /ZZ01P1 21 4/7/99 DRAFT •aui 'lae aad 9TS0 9£t 90Z XVd £0:6 CEM LOOZ /t?T /£0 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT G. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? The project site is not within a designated shoreline. H. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No portion of the site is classified as environmentally sensitive by the City of Redmond or King County. 1. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? No one would reside at the completed park- and -ride facility. Approximately 22 to 28 persons could work in the proposed on -site transit - oriented retail and commercial, shuttle operations, transit service center, and community policing facilities. J. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? No displacements would result from the proposed project. K. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: No measures are proposed or necessary because no displacements would occur. L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The proposed facility is a permitted use within the existing Business Park zone, as well as the new Overlake Business and Advanced Technology zone contained in the proposed Overlake Neighborhood Plan and Bellevue- Redmond Overlake Transportation Study Update (April, 1998). Development of a quality park- and -ride facility at the site is compatible with the high density of employment in the surrounding business park, and is supportive of state, regional, and local efforts to reduce commute trips. The site is readily accessible by the local and regional transportation system. In addition, the project site has been specifically identified by the City of Redmond for use as a transit center and /or park - and -ride lot in separate agreements with the City of Bellevue, dated August 4, 1993, and Microsoft Corporation, dated July 16, 1996. DRAFT SEPA Environmental Checklist Overlake Park - and -Ride Facility T£0 /£ZOI$t 22 4/7/99 DRAFT •pui •aeal.zaa 9T50 9£17 90Z XVd VO :6 00M LOOZ /VT /£0 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Design of the facility would be compatible with the character of the surrounding area based on sensitive consideration of scale, mass, building materials, and criteria outlined in the City of Redmond Community Development Guide. The project proposal will be subject to Site Plan Review and Design Review by the City of Redmond. 9. HOUSING A. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. No housing would be developed as part of the project proposal. B. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. No housing would be eliminated as a result of the project proposal. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: No special measures are proposed or necessary because no impacts to housing would occur. 10. AESTHETICS A. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The tallest height of any structure would be approximately 21 feet. Building exteriors have not been identified at this stage, but it is expected that they would include decorative unit masonry, metal roofing, aluminum window frames, and wood columns in colors and textures that would complement the site function and character of the surrounding area. B. What 'views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Existing views of indigenous vegetated open space would be replaced with views of an attractive suburban- or urban - oriented park- and -ride facility within a treed site, with increased vehicular and pedestrian activity. The facility would contain paved parking DRAFT SEPA Environmental Checklist Overlake Park- and -Ride Facility TEO /VZOIi 23 4/7/99 DRAFT Dui ' aaa aad 9T90 9E17 90Z XVd P0:6 03M L00Z /YT /E0 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT (about 175 spaces total in the northern portion of the site and about 75 in the southern portion), vehicle travel lanes, transit loading and layover areas, up to three clustered one -story structures (ranging from approximately 1350 square feet to 2500 square feet), covered waiting areas, a covered pedestrian walkway on the 40th Street N.E. overcrossing of SR 520, two wet ponds, and landscaping throughout the site. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: It is anticipated that the project design will meet or exceed the City of Redmond tree protection requirements, and will retain more than 35 percent of the existing healthy trees that measure 6 inches or greater dbh, or are as small as 4- inch -dbh and within a stand of trees (or single tree) that is judged to be of particular value. Landscaped buffers and medians would be located throughout the parking areas to soften the appearance created by the paved surfaces. Landscaping also would soften direct views of project structures, waiting buses, and parked automobiles. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE A. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Sources of light and glare associated with the project proposal would include new overhead site lighting and vehicular traffic. On site lighting would be present throughout the non - daylight hours. Glare from transit and commuter vehicles would be more prevalent at dawn and dusk during the winter months when the primary commute periods extend beyond the daylight hours. B. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Night lighting and increased light and glare from vehicular traffic associated with the facility may be considered a nuisance level impact by some, but it would not create a safety hazard or adversely affect views. C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? There are no off -site sources of light or glare that would affect the proposal. Light and glare from vehicles operating on SR 520 and the adjacent arterial street system will be noticeable to patrons using the proposed facility. DRAFT SEPA Environmental Checklist Overlake Park- and -Ride Facility TEO /5Zo tTh 24 4/7/99 DRAFT �uI 'aaaadad 9T50 9Eb 90Z TVA 60:6 (BM LOOZ /YT /E0 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT D. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: The following measures will be incorporated into the project design to reduce or control light and glare impacts: • Lighting types and height of lighting support poles will be carefully planned to reduce potential spill of light off the project site; • On site lighting will include horizontal cutoffs to minimize potential glare and spill of light; and • Plant materials for landscaping and buffer plantings will be considered and located to effectively reduce light and glare from vehicles maneuvering on the site. 12. RECREATION A. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? No designated or informal recreational opportunities are provided within the project site or adjacent area. The future SR 520 bicycle and pedestrian trail will be routed adjacent to the SR 520 westbound express bus stop (flyer stop). B Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No existing recreational uses would be displaced by the project proposal. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: No measures are proposed or necessary because no adverse impacts to recreation would occur. The proposed project would result in new opportunities for passive recreation activities such as viewing art objects that would be incorporated into the project design, strolling or jogging along the paved pedestrian paths, and having lunch or taking breaks within the landscaped areas. DRAFT SEPA Environmental Checklist Overlake Park- and -Ride Facility T£0 /9Z0 rl 25 4/7/99 DRAFT 'DUI •laalJad 9T50 9E17 90Z XVd V0:6 UaM LOOZ /i'T /E0 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION A. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. There are no places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers on or near to the project site. B. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. There are no landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or near to the project site. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: If evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural resources of potential significance were discovered during site excavation or development, project work in the vicinity would be immediately halted until an expert in the subject area was able to verify the significance of the resource and identify appropriate measures for retrieval and removal from the site. 14. TRANSPORTATION A. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The local streets, arterials, and highways that serve the site are shown on Figure 2, Project Location, and Figure 3, Project Site and Vicinity. Access into the park -and- ride facility will be from 156th Avenue N.E. at about N.E. 38th Street for buses, and at the existing N.E. 36" Street for automobiles and shuttles vehicles. Please refer to Figure I, Site Plan. A new interchange being constructed at SR 520 and N.E. 40th Street will provide efficient access to the regional highway system. DRAFT SEPA Environmental Checklist Overtake Park- and -Ride Facility TEO /LZOI - dI 26 4/7/99 DRAFT •oui 'aaaaJad 9T50 9E% 90Z rid 50:6 URA L00Z /t'T /E0 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. • Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? King County Metro routes 222, 225, 230, 233, 239, 242, and 263 operate on 1561h Avenue N.E., N.E. 4011' Street, and N.E. 36t1i Street in the site vicinity. Community Transit operates routes 441 and 442 on 156th Avenue N.E. adjacent to the site. New bus transit stops will be provided as part of the proposed facility, both within the site as well as adjacent to the site (northbound and southbound) on N.E. 156'h Street. Express bus stops (flyer stops) will be provided at SR 520 on the new eastbound and westbound ramps to N.E. 40th Street. C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The proposed project would provide a total of 250 parking spaces. Of this total, 235 are park- and -ride spaces (160 long -term park- and -ride spaces in the northern portion of the site, 60 long -term park- and -ride spaces in the southern portion of the site, and 15 short-term pick -up /drop -off spaces in the south lot). In addition, the project would include five community policing parking spaces and ten employee parking spaces for use by the shuttle operations, transit service center, and potential vendors. No parking spaces are expected to be eliminated. D. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The project proposal would create a new intersection with 15691 Avenue N.E. at approximately N.E. 38t11 Street for transit access into the site. This intersection would be signalized and interconnected with 156th Avenue N.E. signals at N.E. 36'1i Street and N.E. 40th Street. A northbound to westbound, transit -only left -turn lane would be constructed on 15611' Avenue N.E. Pedestrian crosswalks with pedestrian- actuated signals would be provided on the west and north crosswalks. The northeast signal pole at the existing 156th Avenue N.E./N.E. 36`1 Street intersection may be relocated. E. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The proposed project will not use or occur in the vicinity of water, rail, or air transportation. DRAFT SEPA Environmental Checklist Overlake Park - and -Ride Facility T£0 /8Z0P1 27 4/7/99 DRAFT •Oui •aaalaad 9T90 9£% 90Z XVd 5O :6 UM LOOZ /l'T /£0 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT F. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Up to 1,100 vehicle trips per day would enter and leave the project site, including about 275 vehicle trips during the peak hour. Peak volumes would occur during the evening commute period. These trips include about 506 that are connected to use of proposed on -site parking to access bus transit. Trips to the proposed park -and -ride lot would be from a local draw area, with most coming from an area north of N.E. 8th Street, south of Old Redmond Road, and east of N.E. 148th Street. In addition, as Sound Transit regional express service from Overlake to Seattle replaces King County Metro service from the existing Overlake Park - and -Ride, about 50 daily vehicle trips would divert from the existing park- and -ride to the new facility. These trips are included in the 1,100 vehicle trips per day identified previously, but they already exist on 156th Avenue N.E. or other nearby arterials. The remainder of the 1,100 daily trips are for passenger pick -up and drop -off (80 daily trips), public bus transit (216 daily trips), private shuttle vehicles (252 daily trips), and on -site employees (46 daily trips). More than half of the bus transit and shuttle trips are the result of existing vehicles already using the local arterial system that would simply be redirected into the proposed facility. Only transit vehicles and, potentially, private shuttle buses would enter the facility at the new intersection at approximately N.E. 38th Street. All other shuttle and private vehicles would use the existing 156th Avenue N.E. intersection at N.E. 36th Street. G. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: The new signalized intersection on 156th Avenue N.E. at approximately, N.E. 38th Street would be pedestrian- and transit - actuated, and would not interrupt traffic flow on 156th Avenue N.E. until actuated. The signal also would be interconnected with the 156`h Avenue N.E. signals at N.E. 36th and 40th Streets in order to minimize traffic delay. DRAFT SEPA Environmental Checklist Overlake Park - and -Ride Facility T£0 /6ZOla1 28 4/7/99 DRAFT .oui 'laalaad 9T90 9EV 90Z XVd SO :6 a M LOOZ /VT /E0 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONI..Y TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 15. PUBLIC SERVICES A. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The proposed project could result in the need for occasional police, fire, and emergency medical services as required by other similar public facilities. However, the additional demand associated with the project is expected to be negligible. B. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. The proposed facility would include building space for community policing use. This would be expected to increase security in the area and, potentially, result in fewer police and aid calls. 16. UTILITIES A. Circle utilities currently available at the site: a ectrici a telephon: sanitary sewe septic system, otherfber optics B. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Utilities and their providers would be: • Natural gas and electric power would be provided by Puget Sound Energy; • Telephone would be provided by US West; and • Water, stormwater, and sanitary sewer would be provided by the City of Redmond. The owner and provider of fiber optics is not known at this time. All utilities would require on -site trenching for pipe and conduit installation and connection to underground utilities in adjacent public rights of way. DRAFT SEPA Environmental Checklist Overtake Park - and -Ride Facility TE0 /0£0Ii 29 4/7/99 DRAFT DUI 'aaalJad 9T50 9E17 90Z IVd 50 :6 (BM LOOZ /VT /£0 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my. knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: DRAFT SEPA Environmental Checklist Overtake Park - and -Ride Facility 30 4/7/99 DRAFT T£0/T£001 •3UJ •laawad 9TS0 9£17 90Z Via SO:6 GU LOOZ /%T /£0 city of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director To: Kathy Sawyer 6.. From: Rebecca Fox Date: May 16, 2007 Subj: SEPA appeal (L07 -001) Attached please find the materials used to prepare the SEPA checklist, including: 1) Tukwila Transit Plan (4/05) 2) Tukwila Comprehensive Plan (12/05)- • Chapter 10 • Chapter 14 The checklist was prepared to address the impacts of a non - project action (i.e. wording change for existing policy). Specific environmental impacts will be evaluated once a site for the transit center is selected and a project is finalized. Rf 1 05/16/2007 6300 Southc i leV tt 10h9dV k a',\ Ified FMIPhaacPhone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 TUKWILA TRANSIT PLAN FINAL REPORT FINAL TUKWILA TRANSIT NETWORK PLAN For: City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Prepared by: - Perteet Inc. 2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900, Everett, WA 98201 425 - 252 - 77001- 800 - 615 -9900 April 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND 1 1.2 AREA DESCRIPTION 1 1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES 3 1.4 PROJECT REPORT OVERVIEW 3 CHAPTER 2: MARKET RESEARCH 5 2.1 2001RIDER / NONRIDER SURVEY FINDINGS 5 2.2 PUBLIC Focus GROUP DISCUSSIONS 5 2.3 INTERCEPT SURVEY SUMMARY 7 CHAPTER 3: SERVICE ANALYSIS DATA 20 3.1 OVERVIEW 20 3.2 SYSTEM ANALYSIS 20 3.3 KEY SERVICE FINDINGS 37 3.4 ROUTE ANALYSIS 38 CHAPTER 4: SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS 57 4.1 SERVICE MODIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 57 4.2 ROUTE RECOMMENDATIONS 59 CHAPTER 5: TRANSIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 68 5.1 INTRODUCTION 68 5.2 NEED FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 68 5.3 EXISTING FACILITIES 69 5.4 LONG RANGE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 71 5.5 KEY CAPITAL NEEDS RECOMMENDATIONS 75 TABLE 2 -1: TABLE 2 -2: TABLE 2 -3: TABLE 2 -4: TABLE 2 -5: TABLE 2 -6: TABLE 3 -1: TABLE 3 -2: TABLE 3 -3: TABLE 4 -1: TABLE 5 -1: TABLE 5 -2: TABLE 5 -3: LIST OF TABLES TRAVEL MODE DISTRIBUTION 8 DESTINATION Bus ROUTES 10 TRIP PURPOSE 11 DESTINATION CITY FOR CURRENT TRIP 11 DESTINATIONS DIFFICULT TO REACH FROM SOUTHCENTER 14 SERVICE AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DESIRED BY EXISTING PASSENGERS 16 WEEKDAY HEADWAYS ON KING COUNTY ROUTES SERVING THE TUC 21 SATURDAY HEADWAYS ON KING COUNTY ROUTES SERVING TUKWILA 22 SUNDAY HEADWAYS ON KING COUNTY ROUTES SERVING TUKWILA 22 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES 59 BRT LAYERED SERVICE CONCEPT PROJECTED RIDERSHIP 75 PROJECTED NUMBER OF BUSES SERVING TUKWILA TRANSIT CENTER 76 EVALUATION OF TUKWILA TRANSIT CENTER EXPANSION OPTIONS 77 i LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 -1: EXISTING TUKWILA ROUTES 2 FIGURE 2 -1: Focus GROUP DISCUSSION SUMMARY 6 FIGURE 2 -2: ROUTES PASSENGERS WERE WAITING TO TRANSFER To 9 FIGURE 2 -3: ORIGINS OF PEOPLE WALKING TO Bus STOP 9 FIGURE 2 -4: Bus RIDERSHIP FREQUENCY 12 FIGURE 2 -5: NUMBER OF VEHICLES IN HOUSEHOLD 13 FIGURE 2 -6: RESPONDENT AGE DISTRIBUTION 13 FIGURE 2 -7: TIMES OF POOR TRANSIT SERVICE TO SOUTHCENTER 15 FIGURE 2 -8: TUKWILA STATION MODE SPLIT FOR DISEMBARKING PASSENGERS 17 FIGURE 2 -9: ORIGINS OF TUKWILA SOUNDER PATRONS 17 FIGURE 2 -10: DESTINATIONS FOR SOUNDER PASSENGERS COMING TO TUKWILA STATION 18 FIGURE 2 -11: RESPONDENT SOUNDER USAGE 19 FIGURE 3 -1: AREAS IN TUKWILA LACKING 30 MINUTE SERVICE 24 FIGURE 3 -1: AREAS IN TUKWILA LACKING 30 MINUTE SERVICE 25 FIGURE 3 -2: TUKWILA MEDICAL FACILITIES 28 FIGURE 3 -3: TUKWILA COMMUNITY AGENCIES 29 FIGURE 3 -4: TUKWILA SCHOOLS 30 FIGURE 3 -5: TUKWILA MAJOR EMPLOYERS 31 FIGURE 3 -6: TUKWILA WEEKDAY DAILY RIDERSHIP MAP 33 FIGURE 3 -7: TUC WEEKDAY DAILY RIDERSHIP MAP 34 FIGURE 3 -8: WEEKDAY DAILY PASSENGER LOADS ON TUC STREETS 35 FIGURE 3 -9: WEEKDAY BOARDING ACTIVITY WITH THE CITY OF TUKWILA 36 FIGURE 3 -10: ROUTE LEVEL RIDERSHIP BY DAY OF WEEK FOR ROUTES SERVING TUKWILA 36 FIGURE 3 -11: ROUTE LEVEL PRODUCTIVITY BY DAY OF WEEK FOR TUKWILA ROUTES 37 FIGURE 4 -1: TUKWILA ROUTE RECOMMENDATIONS 58 FIGURE 4 -2: TEMPORARY TUKWILA COMMUTER RAIL STATION MAP 66 FIGURE 5 -1: Bus STOPS NECESSITATING A Bus SHELTER 70 FIGURE 5 -2: CENTRAL LINK ROUTE 72 FIGURE 5 -3: CENTRAL LINK ROUTE IN TUKWILA 72 FIGURE 5 -4: POTENTIAL I -405 BRT ROUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 2004 PRESENTATION 74 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A: FOCUS GROUP REPORT ii Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 PROTECT BACKGROUND The City of Tukwila requested technical assistance to conduct a Transit Plan of existing Sound Transit and King County Metro routes within Tukwila in order to better meet the needs of the communities, residents, employers, and employees. The goal was to improve and maximize usage of all transit service in the area, make service faster, more effective, and help Tukwila meet its development potential. In April 2003, The City of Tukwila initiated the Tukwila Transit Plan, which will be a component of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Three different efforts are being addressed by the Tukwila Transit Plan; supporting the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) effort, and developing a short- and long -range transit vision for the City of Tukwila. 1.2 AREA DESCRIPTION The City of Tukwila is located approximately 11 miles south of downtown Seattle. According to the 2000 census, the City has a population of approximately 17,000 residents. In 2002, Tukwila had over 34,000 jobs. The Tukwila Transit Plan study area is bounded by the city limits. Land uses in Tukwila are a mixture of several different distinct land uses, ranging from residential, warehouse /distribution, office, to retail development. Northern Tukwila is characterized by industrial and manufacturing land uses. Western and eastern Tukwila have residential neighborhoods. In South Tukwila, the Tukwila Urban Center, is one of the regional retail powerhouses and is characterized by a regional mall, Westfield Shoppingtown Southcenter (Southcenter) as well as the supporting retail development surrounding it. The southern portions of the TUC are primarily characterized by warehouse /warehouse - retail types of land uses. There are virtually no current residents in the TUC study area. King County Metro provides bus service throughout the City of Tukwila. Fourteen different routes provide intra - Tukwila service and direct service to Burien, Kent, Auburn, Seattle, Renton, and West Seattle. At this time, Sound Transit does not serve any destinations in Tukwila with Regional Express Bus service. Sounder, the regional commuter rail service, has a stop in Tukwila at Tukwila Station. Sounder commuter rail service currently consists of three trains to Seattle in the morning peak and three trains to Tacoma in the afternoon peak. Figure 1 -1 shows the existing routes within Tukwila. The S, outhcenter Mall isrthe focal point of transitservice, within Tukwila. Five routes connect at this locationOf tho' se Routest 28 1015 terniina a #the,lV1a and oute 1267terminates at Tukwila Station: ining-tWoMlitdiTitlIMO an teItoute 150, represent the major east - west and northsouthyroutesroughT,ukwila. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 1 April 2005 Figure 1 -1 Existing Tukwila Routes 11l1i I, esno g Legend esmaso Route 110 sum* Route 110 Partial aeleum • 41 in Route 128 anew Route 140 mum Route 140 Partial ammo Route 150 • e Route 154 ammo. Rode 155 ■■■ Route 180 meow Route 103 mom Route 170 - Route 174 P i naps Ibmilugien HEI 6 1�� 1 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 2 April 2005 Routes in the Tukwila include: 110 Tukwila Station — North Renton 126 Rainier Beach — Tukwila Station 128 Southcenter — Admiral District 140 Burien — Renton 150 Auburn — Seattle 154 Auburn — Boeing Industrial 155 Fairwood — Southcenter 160 Kent East Hill — Tukwila — Seattle 163 Kent East Hill — Tukwila — Seattle 170 McMicken Heights — Seattle 174 Federal Way — SeaTac — Tukwila — Seattle 941 Star Lake — First Hill Sounder Commuter Rail 1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES Several: objectivesaguidedatheir akwiiattiarisit planiii effort: Those - objectives ?include: • Toiensure lelcompatibility, ofcsystem,planning with: other local and;;regional long -range planningiefforts • To determine the feasibility of implementing expanded transit services and facilities in Tukwila. • To identify approaches to improving system ridership productivity, service cost effectiveness, and cost efficiency. • To determine a future route network which will best meet anticipated demand for services. • To improve system connections, transfer options and facilities. • ? ot'd ttfy O itimal locations- for - additions tsystem>facilities` , 1.4 PROJECT REPORT OVERVIEW This section summarizes the information gained and developed during the development of the Tukwila Transit Plan. That effort has resulted in a determination of the existing conditions under which King County Metro currently operates and a documentation of expectations for future service. The remainder of this report is divided into chapters summarizing the results of a task or group of tasks within the project. A number of differing information sources have been employed in compiling this summary of project findings. Among these sources are: • A review of previously- adopted plans, goals and objectives of Tukwila, King County Metro, and Sound Transit, • Three focus groups, • Intercept surveys of Sounder and King County Metro riders, • Boarding and alighting counts of all King County Metro Weekday, Saturday, and Sunday services, • Observations of King County Metro operations, • Community data and observations, and • Public outreach and participation, including five Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) workshops. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 3 April 2005 The remainder of this document is organized into a number of individual chapters, documenting the findings of the tasks comprising the Tukwila Transit Plan. In general, the organization of this report is as follows: • Chapter 1 gives a short overview of the Tukwila Transit Plan, including a short history and background of the area, and describes the organization of the remainder of the Project Report. • Chapter 2 describes the findings and conclusions developed from the market research, including focus groups and intercept surveys. • Chapter 3 summarizes data analysis utilized to support the project recommendations, including the boarding and alighting counts and on -site observations. • Chapter 4 describes the project recommendations based upon the data analyzed as described m Chapter 3, including individual route alignment and schedule changes, additional services required to help meet system service goals and objectives, regional service expansion and system governance. • Chapter 5 summarizes capital analysis used to support project recommendations for capital facilities and infrastructure within Tukwila, including passenger amenities, shelters, bus stop locations, and transit signal priority. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 4 April 2005 Chapter 2: Market Research The Transit Plan included an assessment of the attitudes and awareness of transit operations of its riders and non - riders. Four different efforts were undertaken to understand the existing market and market potential. The King County Metro 2001 Rider/Nonrider Survey was reviewed. In addition, the results of three focus groups, a Southcenter intercept survey, and a Tukwila Station intercept survey are described in this section. Full documentation of the focus group survey may be found in Appendix A. 2.1 2001 RIDER/NONRIDER SURVEY FINDINGS The King County Metro 2001 Rider/Nonrider Survey provides valuable insight into the potential transit market for Tukwila. In particular, the origin and destination of travel to /from Tukwila is indicative of how well today's transit service is meeting the needs of commuters. The 2001 Rider/Nonrider Survey shows that the number of King County workers commuting to South King County jobs has increased from 17 to 19 percent between 2000 and 2001. The largest destinations are: • Renton (32 %) • Kent (22 %) • Auburn (10 %) • Sea -Tac (12 %) • Federal Way (7 %) • Tukwila/Southcenter (7 %) According to the survey, nearly half of South King County residents work in a South King County destination. Destinations for South King County residents include: • South King County (45 %) • Downtown Seattle (17 %) • North King County (19 %) Some of the key findings of the 2001 Rider/Nonrider survey are that: 1. South King County residents tend to work in South King County. 2. gTukwila/Southeenter is; oneiofttthejlaTgestFdestinationst fog commuter "sinSouth'1Knz eountyy74 3. ilntra -South King .Comity$ connections ar rucial in s ry ngithe Sout nKin_g County travel market. s acs 2.2 PUBLIC FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS Public focus group discussions provided a valuable assessment of local transit needs and opportunities in Tukwila. Three focus group discussions were conducted with transit users and with business owners and managers to learn more about attitudes toward current services and desired improvements to services and facilities. Two rider groups were divided as follows: (1) riders living in Tukwila or Renton, and (2) riders traveling in or through Tukwila from other locations. A third discussion was conducted with Tukwila business owners and managers. The brief focus groups helped to identify commuting patterns, satisfaction with current transit operations, suggestions for service improvements in the study area, and perception of transit's image in Tukwila. All of the groups were consistent in their suggestions for improving transit service and facilities in Tukwila. Figure 2 -1 represents the major themes from those discussions. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 5 April 2005 Figure 2 -1 Focus Group Discussion Summary Route Improvements Desired: • Provide some type of shuttle, or other frequent bus service between the Southcenter Mall and the businesses along or near Southcenter Parkway. People who work and shop in the Tukwila Urban Area and want to use transit are currently limited in their access to all of the businesses in the area. • Provide additional express options. Tukwila is a transit hub. Each day, thousands of people pass through the area traveling to other destinations. Despite this fact, transit does not yet provide express options for many of these destinations. There is an especially high demand for more express options from Tukwila to Downtown Seattle. • Provide service from Tukwila west to Highway 99 and east to the Kent Valley. Scheduling Improvements Desired: • Increase frequency of service on major routes. Many of the major routes need more frequent service (Routes 101, 150 and 174 were mentioned); and express bus hours should be extended to provide service for those who work beyond the traditional 8 AM to 5 PM workday (Routes 140, 160, 163, 240 and 941 were mentioned). • Modify service to reflect current transit needs. Tukwila is a major destination. Although the population of Tukwila is small, each day some 50,000 people (according to an estimate from one of the participants in the business discussion) come to Tukwila to work. Additionally, thousands come to Tukwila to shop, especially on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. The current transit routes and schedules do not appear to respond to these needs. • Improve Sounder service and improve bus connections with Sounder. Varied work and shopping schedules now mandate that Sounder service be provided beyond traditional commuter times. Furthermore, additional bus connections are needed between Sounder and other travel destinations, as well as to businesses located within Tukwila. Other Improvements Desired: • Improve bus stop maintenance. Bus stop locations in Tukwila need to be better maintained and more bus shelters are needed (many riders are under the impression that the bus stops on the Eastside are nicer because they are in high income areas). • Increase safety. Many people are concerned about safety on the buses, especially on buses that travel Highway 99 (Route 174). They want to see uniformed security people on routes that have a history of safety incidents. • ProVideradditional bus7stops, around the , Southcenter Mall f • Increase marketing efforts. Transit is a concept that needs more marketing, in general. The major benefits — no parking costs, no traffic hassles, and in some instances, shorter travel times — should be known to more commuters. Many employers will be willing to help with marketing efforts if they are given the information to provide to their employees and if bus stops are conveniently located in relation to their workplaces. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 6 April 2005 2.3 INTERCEPT SURVEY SUMMARY Perteet conducted an intercept survey of bus riders waiting for bus connections in Tukwila on May 14th and 15th, 2003 between the hours of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. The surveys were handed out and collected at the Metro bus stop located at Andover Park West and Baker Boulevard (Southcenter stop). An additional survey was conducted at the Tukwila Station on May 14, 2003. Both boarding and deboarding passengers were handed a survey. Intercept surveys are not random sample surveys. Care must be exercised in inferring attitudes and travel patterns of the entire ridership, based on responses to this survey. Overall, we estimate that 15.5 percent of all riders at the Southcenter stop were surveyed and 41 percent of riders at the Tukwila Station were surveyed. Therefore, the intercept surveys should provide a valuable overview of rider opinions. Key Findings from Existing Passengers • The most common trip purposes are other' (24 %), work (21 %), personal errands (18 %), and shopping (17 %). • Approximately 43 percent of those waiting at the Southcenter bus stop are waiting to transfer. Transfers to Routes 140 and 150 were the most common. Many of those waiting for a transfer went to Southcenter Mall to shop while waiting for a bus. • Forty-three percent walked to the Southcenter bus stop from an area destination. Southcenter Mall was the origin of 70 percent of those walking to the Southcenter stop. • Most riders walk, on average, three minutes or less to and from a bus stop. • Most riders believe King County Metro is providing the right overall level of service to the Southcenter bus stop. Only 18 percent of respondents indicated there were times when bus service was lacking. Evening span, frequency, and weekend service were identified most often by those unhappy about the level of service. • Eighty -nine percent of respondents indicated that Southcenter had bus service to the right destinations. Kirkland, Tacoma, Des Moines, and Seattle were the most frequently identified destinations without service from Southcenter. • The top improvement priorities for Southcenter riders are improved shelters, benches, and associated capital amenities. • The King County Metro VanShare program is crucial in serving the diverse travel patterns of passengers arriving at the Tukwila Sounder Station each morning. 2.3.1 Southcenter Bus Stop Passenger Survey Analysis Perteet conducted an intercept survey of transit riders waiting for bus connections in Tukwila on May 14th and 15th, 2003, between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. The surveys were handed out and collected at the Metro bus stop located at Andover Park West and Baker Boulevard (Southcenter stop). Based on King County Metro ridership data, a total of 1,244 passengers boarded buses at this location during the survey. Surveys were given to 341 riders, and 193 were returned, yielding an ' "Other" is defined as all trip purposes except for work, personal errands, shopping, school K -12, college /university, recreation/social, or medical. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 7 April 2005 overall return rate of 56.6 percent. Overall, we estimate that 15.5 percent of all riders at the Southcenter stop were surveyed. The results, while self - selected, are statistically valid. Transit Accessibility The survey asked waiting passengers how they arrived at the Southcenter bus stop. Passenger transfers (43 %) and walking (43 %) were the two most common responses (Table 2 -1). After transfers and walking, motor vehicle (12.7 %) was the next most frequent mode choice. Bicycle arrivals account for the remainder of survey respondents. It should be noted that some survey respondents selected more than one travel mode, so the total percentages reported total more than 100 percent. Table 2 -1 Travel Mode Distribution Mode Responses Counted Percent of Responses of Total Transfer 115 42.8% 59.6% Walk 115 42.8% 59.6% Drove 4 1.5% 2.1% Dropped Off 18 6.7% 9.3% Motor Vehicle -Other 12 4.5% 6.2% Bicycle 5 1.9% 2.6% Total 269 100.0% 139.4% Of the passengers who were transferring, approximately half were to Routes 140 and 150 (Figure 2 -2). Metro Routes 39 and 128 also received a significant portion of the transfers, each with more than 10 percent of the transfer activity observed. Riders reported transferring to a total of six different routes (several passengers indicated transferring to routes that do not serve Tukwila; these routes were not counted in the Transfer Analysis). . .The- averageytransferpassenger waited- more-than 1= 7- mintiEfor .a_connection,- unth.a- maximum transfer timerof 45 minutes reported Thirty percent of the transferring survey respondents mdicated that they shopped while waiting for aection. : ox� Finately thre uartters of -_ 5 ttransferringJriders ;iridicatedAlity engag''ed iiiiRiiil activity'(75 7%) W ule bng ' F, o.large:number:of respondents, also - indicated that:theywalkedlo:the Southcenter bus -stop -qbe average trip time for a pedestrian is three minutes. Responses indicate that the majority (70.3 %) of pedestrians were coming from Southcenter Mall while 2.5 percent identified Target as the origin of their trip (Figure 2 -3). The destinations of the remaining 27 percent were unspecified. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 8 April 2005 150 32% Figure 2 -2 Routes Passengers Were Waiting to Transfer To No Route Specified 7% Target 3% Other 27% 32% Figure 2 -3 Origins of People Walking to Bus Stop 128 13% Southcenter Mall 70% Final Tukwila Transit Plan 9 April 2005 Destination Information The survey counted more persons waiting at the Southcenter stop for Route 140 than any other bus route (Table 2 -2). It should be noted that Route 150 actually has the highest ridership of any route at the Southcenter stop. According to the survey responses, Routes 150 and 128 both had significant ridership activity. Two other routes (39 and 155) were also identified, although none received more than 10 percent of the boarding activity. Table 2 -2 Destination Bus Routes Bus Route Responses Counted Percent of Responses of Total 39 15 8.1% 7.8% 128 28 15.1% 14.5% 140 86 46.2% 44.6% 150 45 24.2% 23.3% 155 11 5.9% 5.7% Total 185 100.0% 96.4% The survey asked each person to identify his or her trip destination (Table 2 -3). More respondents indicated "Other" for their destination (24.3 %) than any other destination. Work was the most frequently identified specific destination (21.0 %) with personal errands (18.2 %) and shopping (16.6 %) the only other destination types that received more than 10% of riders, although Kindergarten through High School (6.6 %) and College/University (5.0 %) trips collectively account for 11.6 percent of respondent total trips. Renton was the most frequent destination city for survey respondents (Table 2-4). Seattle and Kent were also frequent destinations at 18.2 percent and 14.7 percent, respectively. Less popular destinations included Burien (7.6 %) and SeaTac (7.1 %), while fewer trips were made to smaller or more remote destinations, such as Enumclaw, Boulevard Park, and White Center. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 10 April 2005 Table 2 -3 Trio Purpose Activity Responses Counted Percent of Responses of Total Work 38 21.0% 19.7% Personal Errands 33 18.2% 17.1% Shopping 30 16.6% 15.5% School.K -12 12 6.6% 6.2% College/University 9 5.0% 4.7% Recreation or Social 8 4.4% 4.1% Medical 7 3.9% 3.6% Other 44 24.3% 22.8% Total 181 100.0% 93.8% Table 2 -4 Destination City for Current Tri Destination City Responses Counted Percent of Responses of Total Renton 38 22.4% 19.7% Seattle 31 18.2% 16.0% Kent 25 14.7% 13.0% Tukwila 17 10.0% 8.8% Burien 13 7.6% 6.7% SeaTac 12 7.1% 6.2% Auburn 9 5.3% 4.7% Federal Way 6 3.5% 3.1% Southcenter 4 2.4% 2.1% West Seattle 3 1.8% 1.6% Airport 3 1.8% 1.6% Skyway 3 1.8% 1.6% Tacoma 1 0.6% 0.5% Des Moines 1 0.6% 0.5% White Center 1 0.6% 0.5% Boulevard Park 1 0.6% 0.5% Enumclaw 1 0.6% 0.5% Fairwood 1 0.6% 0.5% Total 170 100.0% 88.1% Rider Information More than half of survey respondents ride the bus five or more days per week (Figure 2-4). An additional 18.2 percent of respondents indicated that they ride the bus three to four times per week. Overall, the overwhelming majority of respondents were regular bus riders. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 11 April 2005 Less than Weekly Once a Week Two Days a Week Three Days a Week Four Days a Week Five Days a Week Six Days a Week Seven Days a Week Figure 2 -4 Bus Ridership Frequency rr": -:t. a _• ��1 x .r�,t ..:r x Pfi' 3 ° '> i e.+x :p ,�¢• .- C • . b i ¢ 3K' A r .i .t r? ^ j}'" t r' 9 ?.7 'l �r r �=��lt ',D, °Zr t3 4' ! ef .. .. .> . , t .r !�: r $r@a a .4., �" '... .e• ,t5�°` +4 L s6 �%.., 161' cP.r• gIl z.t31 cMt Z r, .� ¢�° >. a..Y'A.� •..yp xrCyI tcy -•--- l' 0.+�+�a£ � 7 R+: r Y• t l,K a s F +�+ "°h '✓-el ip P(YH`'i'r} l y' A 3 Y 'ni... t. P h , ,..a t.Y3ea'} Kr {"a z J.`>t•� a a S; .'r �' _ty�•1^Y i.g !t ,p*n i...: {fie. w"' i` D?5�.7 etr'7'�. �„ sqq,,,, } �l r� 7 d x ' e. ti * ' c,a E, my y xy ,,, • u "'r�''W` , ' d )'13s1 e i �Pt 7 � : S -t 1,- av s' s} t� °a tiry &S'r V. :I i .y.%A'` a.Ti• t3 p! r� ..{, rty,}y a s 'sCS .ry • t ro. y �B 1 P 7 xd� 3• • 9!+t • . 6 4,•:,) ..3 a }.. P"�"L.�' „ °y L 'r+-' ; �•'`.3 1:1 5 r, n yf ; r 1 . !c t ? N 4 . 3 t%a � la� ¢¢t #a tk^r r YU ,q. •.7 (ft '1 ,.. ^^• '1. ak a'Ca r. • � t 3y'0.,7 .t + .1t _d. r ♦ sprt tJ "5:1�; 1��; ?"'i:' `r S• k �a N. P' S j�,� . • . ,„r'. ,a• it th a s.c vs. Sys .�I. .. y i N 4 5 •� A °,.'fig- 1` 41 ; ' 'H ' 7 .a`a t, r nX�' A 3rL�^..�:2G.,11.•rD 4.0 :D .., .1' +•• „� • qry}.�� `i 'Y1 g371r„& .iy� 'i�fP 7pTS 4bt ..� 3 r s h Xf ,. SYaw^ cT Tn t 7.1! : ), c ...'414 b •` t T"�s 3F �, .nr -� ! .+,• r; -w xf it :. .q4 } Pk 't ��?,p.3 � �'' •� '� •k r. i'', A dd }s t±} na Ae A9+ a N s yr a y4 e.., .� tiX [i+ +� A'�o ' •. f 'a r t r i1. #F+r� �t av .. i rr, M`f ` a: r E tfsl 1, 4. L%L p. C • S` � +al ..aC 37 4it t A. .....T r `zs _ r ••••.. ^'•N'T'� �Si.. 'DiTed ". ,i #+ J �. i 23' t'FRt3?7 i. ,.. c oa w a ,V. ' .,Tlw 4.,:, e.L. Pwrt '�'!a'� ' ': t t Sa,.,iG .e 5,,..v .r�:y, I t�/ f 1sd1 1I ` r ,.. t % : x, p, +s eC�. t ms i3 L ' �t- q ..� r `.'sr. 1'�n : iJ Tt6: ,yt° 6i '°n 7 ui' xx. ..7,.p{et }� ed Fy�si .h' °•i 'L_': t+..Y f- 4 rtr«., a C ` �q } ^'•Xt id 'T ii^@ 1 S w.'d, r 1: gt} t: «� .. 3 J ,Y . w 3P` wy i. �t 3 • s%ta[..�'°P4C "�F y •� #u3fi?E F,';,: S�j %.yql Y i M'33• '� p,�rc „ Al D ... h v ' •"+l �IW �{a €7�•. .i.P eor 'T ,y y'J'1'�J tK7, Kx} Vf.K : J'K fVl'•.. RTi+r* I 's 'K�.2 .� _ .� >•{'�.3 r .. ° .i it"tr 1. 3 ( '7 ✓' .St k'� iq 1 T,' Y„r,g� .• �* Xa t • na - r h as �r '� }x t s 3. � :''k �k <''a cYl, ��'y'; CE . ..ys�l ' )*S dut .Jt hl 5: Sire . i Y.' ,..' .. „;,'" 3> {,...� r r! l?i '. 1'rikl .. uwv7' .,.b �fy ,:C1 p.1 Ws RT G ja ..11 't: ` M• �9g�� -s+ ?:+D. § ?.''ti. t.« ._ 4h rl3r -.t.�+ri .« . 3 . '., 4;' 0% 6% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% The average trip length reported by survey respondents was 33.2 minutes. The longest trip time reported was 99 minutes, while the shortest trip was anticipated to take only 2 minutes. Just more than half (50.2 %) of the trips were anticipated to take between 10 and 30 minutes, while 29.5 percent were anticipated to take longer than 30 minutes. Over half (57 %) of respondents indicated that they did not have a current drivers license and more than two thirds (73.3 %) did not have a vehicle available for to make their trips. Based on the responses, the majority of transit users at the Southcenter Mall stop are captive riders. Only about a quarter of riders are choice riders. Slightly more than a third of those responding to the survey had one vehicle available in their households (Figure 2 -5). About 26 percent of respondents indicated they had no vehicle available. This, along with the fact that over half of respondents do not have a driver's license, confirms that few riders at the Southcenter stop are choice riders. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 12 April 2005 a 5 „ 4 • .c O x2 0 Figure 2 -5 Number of Vehicles in Household ° & l {x5 ,3, 3° • `9✓,''". "b. S: .. < • 9 .&( Aa•..y,�p[ •r gEBRIMEMENIE ,d'• R 7f d # 2 -+t y ^,. t j j°x i. .B !r tx r' i ". . > ..Fa +...ig., A 1 }4 TEA fit � K'>kS- ice. L: :- . s { . S' .. _ T r4 ark - 5 s.fi. Y n t r" IA _ ti •wsa$ x ter i-.r `�Z " 4 a+'t C r •'s ¢. $! a. 2s F}' RX„ _i =ST; '9' 4 S r};i ? ae r »t.''q-ii +,g3 a{. 'dt: t d i },,4+s S.iG .1r -... L� .Y°S a a 7� _a r - '4 k� + o- .a .. .s r s s '.``f §'" { { '�P y.t -$" k Z .«* 4.+e iti m 3.wy k �'� i : Sew 'F c}.:^r•ik!'a � l -.Y i : ra,} fi'@ *itKI brc� k n } n � 1'4r y '$3 } .1' is i# J Z9: P 24 < ye,1r ? }{a Ty •g? 1 y ,r.,. > r� a3' 7', a i 7 .ar�,rC ✓t�,�;;: 'yY '. rs2' t ^z a .•,• a p '8 !r! •_� • " .../,. 'ii t 9 `ad,. a j C,iAS $11 5^l`..,.�1'LppY 'Fa.. o 4 - Y R a- C._'�y' ga. i't�i g -)t� { . B `' $ •+. :£ 0"�5 ° y' d '•-_ y.� }. 'R.T t C ro •v� #:r a y39LY fe i `^s � 9 '�r�+, i,,,° _ A. 74d a. '' C •t .. _' *; F_ e.1 1~* ��a �� ra'K* .'"5,y� -Tdi`' 4'sY `§ •.3,5Yy.; •s. At` 3 r a "'u:tfir °i., d yxi9 18 ,.`. • a ✓` �ti ,_ o by n sw� ..}i! � . a } 745; iift 'l d„F i '.1.0 :?G +�4R't� " " "` P 'PI k "s 'd 3 g✓a+i; G:_ rf ",➢<..xtttLI:ti _ 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Percent of Respondents 25% 30% 35% 40% There was a fairly even distribution of ages found in the survey (Figure 2 -6). One third of respondents were under the age of 18. Most age brackets had 10 percent representation. Only 9.3 percent of the respondents were 55 or older. Survey respondents tended to be male (56 %). This is an interesting result, as the prototypical rider in King County is a female. Figure 2 -6 Respondent Age Distribution 25-34 13% 16 -17 13% Final Tukwila Transit Plan 13 April 2005 Areas for Improvement The survey asked in an open -ended question if there were any destinations that were difficult to reach within and from Tukwila. Multiple survey respondents identified Tukwila destinations at Southcenter Parkway, the other side of Southcenter Mall, Allentown, and the existing transit focal point of Andover Park West and Baker Boulevard (where this survey was conducted) as difficult to reach. Eleven percent of respondents indicated that cities outside of Tukwila were difficult to access. According to them, Kirkland, Tacoma, Des Moines, and Seattle were the most difficult cities to reach by bus (Table 2 -5). Neither Tacoma, Des Moines, nor Kirkland has direct bus service from Southcenter. Table 2 -5 Destinations Difficult to Reach from Southcenter Destination City Responses Counted Percent Of Responses of Total Kirkland 5 21.7% 2.6% Tacoma 3 13.0% 1.6% Des Moines 3 13.0% 1.6% Seattle 3 13.0% 1.6% Renton 2 8.7% 1.0% Burien 2 8.7% 1.0% Auburn 1 4.3% 0.5% Federal Way 1 4.3% 0.5% SeaTac 1 4.3% 0.5% Bothell 1 4.3% 0.5% Lakewood 1 4.3% 0.5% Total 23 100.0% 11.9% The survey asked if there were times of the day that bus service was less poor (Figure 2 -7). Only 18 percent of riders indicated that there is a time when bus service is lacking. Among respondents, riders who indicated that there are times that need improved service, late night service after 11 p.m. and evening service after 6 p.m. were the most frequent responses. Weekend and all -day service improvements were identified as potential improvements as well. From the results of the survey, it appears that existing patrons are satisfied with the level of peak hour service. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 14 April 2005 Times of Poor Transit Service Late Night Evening Weekends All Day Mid Day Afternoon Figure 2 -7 Times of Poor Transit Service to Southcenter SEMEN tie % jj.t(( � t .C'i l G II. L '� �iM ^�.f.T L aff t Y�� F J 7-`..1i'? J .VP.,:'... '::.1.-,:: f aF a t "Ni�Yq Yr'C; qi° [5 t• b 'fir ^F r i• �,+as „.(;. '4°s aytC} �A tn. ri3 T Y( - • . �. 4 =1 • E'� °� i{ . . t :e it " d f j Y s.� F�y. YS.�771 • `':, .hi'.. P±'_,,� h l at r.a �7.n M 1f,.>'3'3'u �A ^C n'f —70:::m".. �� : - �jYi scf} 'MI'. —£}iyL .b i,if,tx�i+S t'�° , .,a iy a� " +t{ia 'i 1 r' r`i lar fi u[ rrr. � r .- ts .. h i214L{ y � e Z_ -r LL°' 3 a-r �' 'd�' a v% } t� '-;r, t r-c f a *,v.l, Y ,+ t^ f,t ihi.Yqqqq 4x +i<� a S« L .YY :�" �3'"a ak'wtili. 3 kai- .1 �-a .. r J� "^T S .'Fvii s4'3.. k d'� e1 .27 °4 1�r 44i5- ..k? +i«i f t i^' * r'fS i "'�5•� $�, t�' I LS.. � Fs E 9' - `•�C i. �• 5Y,^h� ?�. F 6i �i (, r g � i., $,5 j , {yJ4 +wti 44 ' I 3 � .... '` e ;fr '�� • cam' . s xE'�r yt l }TgaR sa L L 5 +t$ '* a�tY� RtR ! � ':r r . {� y °�Fr F .4 , .M ? P LJi,"i.... {° &. §-s t °�.. a^r4 ,i, d ' s: ?�,tak e .t` ri 3''3 N1 ? .1 C ate? Aa n ,F'C .T , Y ' E ' S °Y 'w h'td7 tiM { •� s. � A to yF `�` �^ t -� -,..,-,3_� G : 271. it'r: ...."-:,*z :, *z � '''' ?N u :,k,„ R'.i' ,� as �.. ke 7 y{,dj f` ^ Z 1 t { " 1 3 9 a,r% t t -} w _ e t `...$v ris5s ,;� SY`:° f f .+.1f! J 1 y •`t,y a` _,' ld a ;',.1, 8 yxYp .' ix �y E^, lm t jt 4" r r y^{�*'d £ : ° 1 SA t 3y ;.1. 4.. g' dir R3 p�'23 `^ 5g ° .4q ,? tY 'CS 1 ,e, tM'%h'a r➢ya „-_ �i -� mu i..- ilk; &7°4 } yy .st ? 4 1"-"")r S *'' T =y.l, { d. L(.L �l 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Percent of Respondents 25% 30% 35% The most common improvement requested by riders was the provision of benches or other seating space at transit stops, with 25 percent of all riders identifying it as an improvement (Table 2 -6). In addition, bus shelters were also identified by an additional 16 percent of respondents for a total of slightly over 40 percent of respondents indicating that capital improvements are desired improvements. Frequency, span of service, and weekend service were much less frequently indicated as an improvement. Usually, in rider surveys, frequency tends to be the most requested improvement desired. The results of the survey confirm that the Southcenter stop capital facilities are less than optimal. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 15 April 2005 Table 2 -6 Service and Capital Improvements Desired by Existing Passengers Improvement Responses Counted Percent of Responses of Total Seating Space/Benches 12 24.5% 6.2% Shelter 8 16.3% 4.1% More Frequency 4 8.2% 2.1% Sundays 3 6.1% 1.6% Later Hours 3 6.1% 1.6% Transfer Center 3 6.1% 1.6% Trash Control 3 6.1% 1.6% Pay Phones 2 4.1% 1.0% On Time 2 4.1% 1.0% Post Schedule 2 4.1% 1.0% Everything New 2 4.1% 1.0% New Paint 1 2.0% 0.5% Smoking Area 1 2.0% 0.5% Park and Ride Lots 1 2.0% 0.5% Pedestrian Crossing Light 1 2.0% 0.5% Other 1 2.0% 0.5% Total 49 100.0% 25.4% 2.3.2 Longacres Passenger Survey Analysis An additional survey was conducted at the Tukwila Sounder Station on May 14, 2003. Both boarding and deboarding passengers were handed a survey. Of the 108 passengers who accessed Sounder at Tukwila Station on May 14, 44 responded to the survey; an effective response rate of 41 percent. It should be noted that care should be given in drawing conclusions from this survey, as the sample size is only 44 respondents. Transit Accessibility Ninety percent of all respondents were traveling from points south of Tukwila to Tukwila Station. Upon arriving at Tukwila Station, the majority of respondents traveled to their destination via vehicles parked at the park- and -ride (Figure 2 -8), i.e., VanShare vehicles. King County Metro operates a VanShare program, which allows 3 or more commuters to share a vanpool vehicle from a park- and -ride to their destination. There were 20 VanShare vehicles parked at the Tukwila Station prior to the arrival of the first train. Only 8 percent of respondents walked to Tukwila Station. The low number of pedestrians accessing the station is no surprise given the location and the distances and walking environment to the closest places of employment. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 16 April 2005 Figure 2 -8 Tukwila Station Mode Split for Disembarking Passengers (how passengers get to their destinations from Tukwila Station) Walk 8% Origin Information The majority of people accessing the Tukwila Station are headed to /from points south, such as Auburn, Tacoma, and Puyallup (Figure 2 -9). Only a small percentage of riders are heading north on Sounder. According to May 2003 Sound Transit passenger counts, approximately 100 passengers arrive in Tukwila on Sounder and 20 depart on Sounder in the morning peak. Tukwila Station is the only Sounder station other than downtown Seattle that is primarily a destination. Figure 2 -9 Origins of Tukwila Sounder Patrons Commuters between Tukwila/Renton to /from North 10% Commuters between Tukwila/Renton to/from South 90% Final Tukwila Transit Plan 17 April 2005 Destination Information Upon arriving in Tukwila, passengers fairly evenly distribute themselves with destinations in Renton, Tukwila, and SeaTac (Figure 2 -10). SeaTac (and the Airport) and Tukwila were the most frequently identified destinations from the Sounder Station. The destination pattern shows the importance of the VanShare program, as regular transit service would be hard pressed to serve this variety of destinations well. Figure 2 -10 Destinations for Sounder Passengers Coming to Tukwila Station Rider Information Work was identified as the primary trip purpose for 95 percent of all respondents, which is to be expected given the limited train schedule. The majority of passengers surveyed indicated that they rode Sounder five days a week (Figure 2 -11). The number of occasional riders was low. This is not surprising, due to the large dependence on VanShare to get to destinations; the use of VanShare requires an on -going commitment. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 18 April 2005 Five times a week Four times a week Three times a week Twice a week Once a week Figure 2 -11 Respondent Sounder Usage ,t r ' � h y. s ✓�1 kb, �y s'}' i. to t "JgdEr � r t 3{ F''4''`4' da z Zsi9g, „� ly S e�F - ! Yi •J % a aaJ c.°y is -SR ?.•`�' Y tt' •ar tr E `� T K__,. �” t .Ya{ . K 3 t iQ, Y E` 4.. +JE• ' ��+:F�'. ' !turd 4 t"' 'Y .x. Y Wi 5T'1'if'•%.' f& t1 dSi�i a r C i i .� F S �"' ' d�.' ..1-, }tyy "f Z -.#`o *�T`z .. ;^ ,q c 4 ? . +'}'k! },,- �1'We i..:' v gfg„ t �4 L..tt ■ iY t"? ...s •.�..��5.- .... ? t 'fin '.Y�ls Sr'3fMa`9,'L }1� • }{�.F Tj t' '4a'y4 •,�,„tF bi ! t, , 4 frgyt y 'q�i, .M J ^' � �i x te9"° C a d l '�.. Y -"t +t 4 ,¢{" -� Yg�yj •4 �r BY �81A J°•� fu.'S� a`�.N s'%tr 3 1 4 y F s 1 0, �� ,:la...+ S °"�4i t }j� yj 3 aJF rA. � R 7 { R. ' . p✓6 1 6ty^a z �"l( 1 i S r l ( w, - d y 9 '� Lb .i"v,. {'LYMk�s &°ri^pi%'°*'y".pit: S,h t`� `� i t 4 r.. ry 'Y`�•�.. + ,i W^ ..e Si Bh w}s'S � " +l=JkTr �- } t �,;� a+�t P i }FF g t ' e . n [Fye .s �' i + a , C lq-'Fp ,S d ed ° . �� f }gt ? i i4 v°S C S } drp- d d. P " � s C 's.FQt. �e' i a ' f a t J i RF• C 7 ''pS• Y}- �.' _ „y > -' ,,qT t{ 3 Sbt .'n ) �. qqyyw %v tr C � R �9.T t t "Vi1�t . a. M,...� } Y Yp „A,t ' LL #�' 3 '?..M S ,pI j a 34 'D 9 1 i 1"�• yL• Vic- a S. i'a'sY" J ' ii, p* pr -t')"r tf. - �, t . t g #+.- yr `S .i L 7 ti' 1j 4" tf9'.. $ f ,...7- ..1.--, V rA t ,a m } E�Y ` °a r x r'. • ,fit t �t r q $ r'§` y i., ]._ 1° Fy{Aa r`i-T _trf.f$3 4..i' g i. i i s E,}. 3 Yf •rft '4'd � � ki x... T� j , y- � .�.a1 .Yj ; • 4 i � � S .. ' ' ry i � ^ hq t �( E iri 4 Y �L . .e.�a, ''t .'"gE i�, t6• x ia �+n ` l 'ti,r ro,✓ , �s :$ 1( ,r dC Y2 S( yYY i i ". i+ L* "fS t j . 3 . A J�,-, e y r'( . �0.d .a 'Lt4 � z'C` d ? zp Vr �2.. •, Mif ° 3 "`� 1ri ^` _ a 4 C R Y ? nw .�•S ( r d; S +k : •t �, j" " ^` . �i ' a • �pp yL Q t +� J7. eW.iP` .,;}y�y[yn iE•V.+ 3.� •'i,-,G�i�.',: t TTT`" td :I 1 •t'�s _�j `',. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 80% 70% 80% Nearly all of surveyed riders (98 %) indicated that they have a current drivers license. Also, nearly all surveyed riders (95 %) had a vehicle available to make this trip. Clearly, the passengers using Sounder to Tukwila Station are overwhelmingly choice riders. The age range of riders was concentrated among the usual employee profile. There were virtually no elderly, pre -teen, or late teen riders. Almost all riders were aged 25 -34 (11 %) and 35 -55 (84 %). Just over half of riders were men (52 %). Areas for Improvement The sample size is too small to statistically validate the areas for potential improvement. However, the responses do give a clue as to potential connections and potential improvements. Survey respondents identified Southcenter, Interurban Avenue, the King County Metro South Base, and Group Health on East Marginal Way as difficult to reach. There were no instances of multiple areas being identified, although South Base and Group Health are immediately adjacent to each other. The most common improvement requested by riders was the provision of shelters at transit stops. Three people (8 %) identified those as an improvement. Specific locations were at the Sounder Station and Route 124 bus stop. Other requests included connection to the southbound Route 154 and better connections with Route 124. . Final Tukwila Transit Plan 19 April 2005 Chapter 3: Service Analysis Data 3.1 OVERVIEW This chapter summarizes the analysis of existing operations of transit routes in preparation for the development of route and schedule modification options to be described in Chapter 4. Among the subjects covered in this document are: • Ridership by system and individual route; • Service levels by system and individual route; • Ridership productivity analysis; • Service efficiency calculations; and • Existing Service Providers Summary. 3.2 SYSTEM ANALYSIS The analysis of Tukwila routes is based upon information provided by King County Metro staff. Data concerning the service span, service frequency, hours and miles of service provided, the hourly cost of services and ridership has been collected from a number of sources and consolidated into a number of tables and graphics which are displayed in this section. 3.2.1 Service Provided King County Metro provides bus service throughout Tukwila with fourteen different routes. The characteristics of each route are discussed in this section. Span of Service in Tukwila For good availability of service, users must have both an adequate span and frequency of service options. Tables 3 -1, 3 -2, and 3 -3 provide an overview of King County Metro's service by time period for weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays. In these tables, peak hour service is defined as 6. a.m. to 9 a.m., midday service is from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., early evening service is from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. and late evening service is from 9 p.m. to midnight. It is clear that significant amounts of service are concentrated on peak hours and on the regional routes. Because of the strong peak orientation, transit is not regarded as a viable option for many types of trips; for example, major destinations such as the Southcenter Mall have high trip propensities on weekends and evenings, precisely when most local service no longer operates. In the interest of encouraging transit usage among both employees and customers of this facility, public transit services would need to operate late enough to serve these later hours of operation. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 20 April 2005 Table 3-1 Weekday Headways on King County Routes Serving Tukwila Route Destination Peak (min.) Midday (min) Early Evening (min) Late Evening (min) 110 Tukwila Station; Renton Boeing plant, PACCAR 30 126 Tukwila Station, Southcenter, Gateway Corporate Center, Rainier Beach 30 128 Admiral District, West Seattle Junction, South Seattle Community College, White Center, Highline Specialty Medical Center, Riverton Heights, Southcenter 30 30 30 140 Burien, Sea -Tac Airport, McMicken Heights, Southcenter, South Renton P &R, Renton Transit Center 15 30 30 155 Fairwood, Cascade Vista, Valley Medical Center, Southcenter 60 60 60 150 Downtown Seattle, Tukwila P &R, Southcenter, Kent Boeing, Kent Transit Center, Regional Justice Center, Kent, Auburn 15 30 30 60 154 Federal Center South, Duwamish Boeing, Tukwila P &R, Kent Boeing, Kent P &R, Auburn 60 160 Downtown Seattle, Tukwila P &R, Kent Boeing, Glencarin, Kent East Hill 30 163 Downtown Seattle, Tukwila P &R, Valley Medical Center, Kent East Hill 30 170 McMicken Heights — Boeing — Seattle 30 174 Downtown Seattle, Duwamish/Boeing, Sea -Tac Airport, Midway, Federal Way 10 -30 30 30 30 280 S. Renton P &R, Tukwila (Interurban Ave S. only), I -5, Downtown Seattle, SR -520, Bellevue, Renton 90 941 Providence Medical Center, Harborview, Swedish, Virginia Mason, Tukwila P &R, Star Lake P &R, Kent -Des Moines P &R 30 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 21 April 2005 Table 3-2 Saturday Headways on King County Routes Serving Tukwila Route Destination Peak (min.) Midday (min) Early Evening (min) Late Evening (min) 128 Admiral District, West Seattle Junction, South Seattle Community College, White Center, Highline Specialty Medical Center, Riverton Heights, Southcenter 30 30 30 60 140 Burien, Sea -Tac Airport, McMicken Heights, Southcenter, South Renton P &R, Renton Transit Center 60 60 60 155 Fairwood, Cascade Vista, Valley Medical Center, Southcenter 60 60 60 60 150 Downtown Seattle, Tukwila P &R, Southcenter, Kent Boeing, Kent Transit Center, Regional Justice Center, Kent, Auburn 30 30 30 60 174 Downtown Seattle, DuwamishBoeing, Sea -Tac Airport, Midway, Federal Way 30 30 30 30 280 S. Renton P &R, Tukwila (Interurban Ave S. only), I -5, Downtown Seattle, SR -520, Bellevue, Renton 90 Table 3-3 Sunday Headways on King County Routes Serving Tukwila Route Destination Peak (min.) Midday (min) Early Evening (min) Late Evening (min) 128 Admiral District, West Seattle Junction, South Seattle Community College, White Center, Highline Specialty Medical Center, Riverton Heights, Southcenter 60 60 60 140 Burien, Sea -Tac Airport, McMicken Heights, Southcenter, South Renton P &R, Renton Transit Center 60 60 60 150 Downtown Seattle, Tukwila P &R, Southcenter, Kent Boeing, Kent Transit Center, Regional Justice Center, Kent, Auburn 30 30 60 60 174 Downtown Seattle, Duwamish/Boeing, Sea -Tac Airport, Midway, Federal Way 30 30 30 30 280 S. Renton P &R, Tukwila (Interurban Ave S. only), I -5, Downtown Seattle, SR -520, Bellevue, Renton 90 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 22 April 2005 Service Frequency Access to the transit network must also take account of the frequency of service being provided. As reflected in Figure 3 -1, much of the service in Tukwila, particularly during evenings, operates at average headways in excess of 30 minutes. Based on national transit experience, choice riders can reasonably be expected to use service that operates every 30 minutes or better. Service operating at frequencies longer than every 30 minutes tends to attract only those riders with few other transportation choices. In Figure 3 -1, Peak hour service is defined as 6 a.m. to 9 a.m., midday service is from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., and evening service is from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. In general, service is most frequent during peak commuter times. However, there is one area in particular without adequate service levels; Southcenter Parkway. On Saturday, route coverage deteriorates as large areas within Tukwila have substandard service. On Sunday evenings, only transit service on International Boulevard operates at frequencies that typically attract choice riders. Route Coverage Overall route coverage, i.e., having a bus route within a quarter mile of any location within Tukwila, is quite good during peak hours. Most major streets and destinations have a bus route traveling past it on weekdays; the big exceptions are shown in Figure 3 -2, Tukwila Hill and Duwamish/Allentown (both of which lost bus service September 2004). However, as demonstrated in the "Service Frequency" section, when only routes with adequate service frequencies are accounted for, the actual route coverage within Tukwila diminishes, particularly during weekends and evenings. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 23 April 2005 Weekday Saturday Sunday Figure 3 -1 Areas in Tukwila Lacking 30- Minute Service Peak. Midday Evening Peak Midday Evening Peak Midday Evening E30 Minute Service within City of Tukwila EgiCity of Tukwila Areas Not Covered by 30 Minute Service Outside City of Tukwila City Limits Final Tukwila Transit Plan 24 April 2005 Figure 3-2 Neighborhoods Lacking Bus Service Final Tukwila Transit Plan 25 April 2005 Interconnectivity to Tukwila Destinations When examined at a route level, interconnectivity between major Tukwila destinations is not well coordinated. The following examples illustrate the lack of a coordinated intra - Tukwila route network. Tukwila Station Tukwila Station is served by both Sounder and AMTRAK services. Connecting bus service to Tukwila Station is provided during peak hours only by three routes. Currently, there is no midday service to Tukwila Station even though AMTRAK trains stop there during those times. During peak hours, there is no direct service from Tukwila Station to the employment areas in North Tukwila. Route 126 provides service between Tukwila Station and the large employment areas along E. Marginal Way; however, the route is so indirect that few Sounder patrons are likely to utilize the route to get between Tukwila Station and North Tukwila. Tukwila Urban Center /Southcenter The Tukwila Urban Center /Southcenter area is one of the commercial powerhouses in King County. Its entertainment and retail activity is expanding further to the south along Southcenter Parkway. Despite the large amount of retail activity, bus service tends to focus on the traditional commuting times, which is more suited for office workers than those working in the service /retail sector. Frequent evening service is restricted to Andover Park West and the area immediately surrounding Southcenter Mall. With such limited access, the TUC is not effectively served by transit from most areas of the City. Weekend service is concentrated along Andover Park West and the area immediately surrounding the Southcenter Mall. Service exists on Strander Boulevard, but the span and frequency are such that few choice riders would choose the service. The TUC is one of the highest ridership areas in South King County for existing transit services. The ridership in the TUC is all -day, not necessarily focused on peaks, as the retail and service activities are all -day destinations. In order to tap into focused land use areas that will generate ridership throughout the day, and not just during peaks like park - and -ride lots, High Capacity Transit along the I-405 corridor should serve the TUC. Service exists on Southcenter Parkway, but its span (no evening or Sunday service) and frequency (hourly) are such that few choice riders would use the service. The TUC has direct service to all major South King County destinations except for Federal Way. According to the King County 2001 Metro Rider/Nonrider Survey, Federal Way is identified as being the destination for 7 percent of all commuters heading to South King County; no service between Tukwila and Federal Way is a gap. S. 154` Street LINK Station Site The S. 154th Street LINK Station site is one of the future transit hubs within the city. The existing bus route structure does not effectively provide service to this site, although it should be noted that the route structure will likely change to address some of the connectivity issues. For example, there is no direct bus connection between the TUC and the S. 154th Street LINK Station. There is also no connection to the Burien Urban Center. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 26 April 2005 Also, adjacent Tukwila neighborhoods are not provided with feeder service to the LINK Station, forcing potential patrons to use scarce park- and -ride stalls. Service to Tukwila Destinations Tukwila has a unique geographic configuration and zoning. The northern part of the city is characterized by industrial areas. The major commercial center surrounding the Southcenter Mall is separated from all residential development by either I -5, I-405, or the BNSF railroad. Residential development occurs predominantly in the areas west of I -5 and on Tukwila Hill, which is bounded by I-405, I -5, and Interurban Boulevard. Transit service to major destinations such as medical facilities, human service agencies, schools, and major employers are discussed below. Medical Facilities Tukwila has only one major medical facility within city limits, Highline Community Hospital (Figure 3 -3). It should be noted that Group Health, a major employer, has administrative offices in Tukwila, not a healthcare facility. Highline Community Hospital is located on the western edge of the City, and there are several ancillary medical businesses surrounding it. Route 128 provides all -day weekday, Saturday, and Sunday service to Highline Community Hospital. Community Agencies Several community resources are located throughout Tukwila (Figure 3-4). Several serve markets greater than just Tukwila. For instance, the King County Housing Authority has one of its offices just north of I -5 on 65th Avenue S. For the most part, community agencies are well served by frequent service. There are several exceptions, however. Neither the Tukwila Library nor the Tukwila Community Center are currently served by transit. Schools Tukwila has three elementary schools, one middle school and one high school (Figure 3- 5). In general, elementary schools are not considered a good transit market. Middle and high schools, however, traditionally have been very good transit markets. Foster High School and Showalter Middle School are both served by Route 128, which operates at 30- minute frequencies throughout the day. Route 128, while serving the schools directly, only serves a limited number of residences in Tukwila. Students, particularly those in East Tukwila on Tukwila Hill, have long walks in order to access Route 128. Major Employers There are 22 major employers (100 plus employees) in Tukwila. In addition, the Tukwila Urban Center has several buildings and developments that house more than 100 employees in separate companies. Figure 3 -6 shows the location of major employers in Tukwila. Virtually all major employers are adjacent to an existing bus route. However, some of these routes do not operate throughout the day, and therefore provide only limited mobility to employers. In particular, Group Health on E. Marginal Way and the Boeing Employee Credit Union (Gateway Center) are underserved considering the number of employees. It should be noted that King County Metro has marked buses heading from downtown Seattle to South Base as serving Group Health. During non- peak hours, Gateway Center employees must walk ' of a mile in a pedestrian hostile environment to the Interurban Park- and -Ride, which is served by all -day service. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 27 April 2005 Figure 3 -3 Tukwila Medical Facilities Final Tukwila Transit Plan 28 April 2005 Figure 3-4 Tukwila Community Agencies Final Tukwila Transit Plan 29 April 2005 Figure 3-5 Tukwila Schools Final Tukwila Transit Plan 30 April 2005 Figure 3 -6 Tukwila Major Employers Final Tukwila Transit Plan 31 April 2005 3.2.2 Existing Tukwila Ridership Patterns2 The Fall 2002 count of transit riders within Tukwila shows an average daily ridership of approximately 9,100 boardings and alightings. The most activity (boardings /alightings) occurs at Southcenter Mall, where 2,200 daily weekday riders use the transit stop at the intersection of Andover Park West and Baker Boulevard. The Interurban Park- and -Ride has an average of 1,850 daily boarding and alighting passengers. Other high ridership stops are located at the intersection of Andover Park West and Strander Boulevard, which has 525 daily riders and at International Boulevard and S. 144th Street. Figure 3 -7 shows the highest ridership stops throughout Tukwila. A large proportion of ridership activity takes place within the Tukwila Urban Center. Figure 3 -8 shows actual bus stop level ridership within the Urban Center. The focus of service is reflected in the ridership patterns. Southcenter Parkway ridership is virtually insignificant. Bus routes traversing the TUC carry significant passenger loads. Figure 3 -9 shows the passenger loads on routes heading through the TUC. The heaviest ridership corridors correspond to the alignment of Route 150 and Route 140. The passenger load data confirms that transit passengers are attracted to the TUC from all directions, i.e., loads are consistent, and ridership activity at individual stops is high. As shown in Figure 3 -10, Routes 128, 140, 150, and 174 are some of the routes with the highest ridership activity within the City of Tukwila. It should be noted that only Route 150 serves a park- and -ride within Tukwila; this high level of ridership is accessing bus service by walking to bus stops, not driving. Figure 3 -11 shows the total ridership levels by day for bus routes traveling through Tukwila. Ridership is highest on weekdays, and progressively less for Saturdays and Sundays. One interesting element from Figure 3 -11 is that Saturday ridership on Route 140 is only 45 percent less than weekday ridership even though there is approximately two thirds less service; there is latent demand for Saturday service that is unmet on Route 140. One of the methods to measure the productivity and efficiency of bus routes is to calculate the number of passengers that are carried by platform hour3. Figure 3 -12 details the productivity of each route that operates through Tukwila. Route 174 is the most productive route in Tukwila. For these routes serving the TUC, Routes 128, 140, and 150 are the most productive: Route 150 is the most productive weekday and Sunday route and Route 140 is most productive Saturday route. 2 Ridership numbers in this section are based on King County Metro Fall 2002 data. They also include two routes that no longer serve Tukwila. In September 2004, as part of a South King County service change, the resources for Routes 39 and 124 were reallocated to create Route 126. Due to the recent nature of this change, no ridership information is available for the new Route 126. 3 A platform hour is defined as an hour of bus service; it includes time spent in revenue service carrying passengers, time spent traveling to /from the bus base, and recovery time at the end of routes. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 32 April 2005 Figure 3 -7 Tukwila Weekday Daily Ridership Map lit all 1, Ira 1 1 MEM- Legend: Total Daily Activity Center Subarea LJ Park and Ride Tukwila City Limits AR WI r)I Final Tukwila Transit Plan 33 April 2005 Figure 3 -8 TUC Weekday Daily Ridership Map ni Legend: : Total Daily Activity 1%; Urban Center. Subarea E Park and Ride 0 Tukwila City Limits Final Tukwila Transit Plan 34 April 2005 Figure 3 -9 Weekda Dail Passen er Loads on TUC Streets Final Tukwila Transit Plan 35 April 2005 Figure 3 -10 Weekday Boarding Activity within the City of Tukwila 1,400 1,200 H 1,000 cn c 800 0 m �o • 600 Y 400 200 0 39 124 128 140 150 154 155 160 163 170 173 174 280 941 Route Figure 3 -11 Route Level Ridership by Day of Week for Routes Serving Tukwila 7,000 6,000 a 5,000 s 4,000 c) 3,000 rt 3 I- • 2,000 1,000 0 39 124 128 140 150 154 155 160 163 170 173 174 280 941 Route o Weekday • Saturday o Sunday Final Tukwila Transit Plan 36 April 2005 1,258 743 876 605 I2I 137 ma 22 124 , 5 129 11 39 124 128 140 150 154 155 160 163 170 173 174 280 941 Route Figure 3 -11 Route Level Ridership by Day of Week for Routes Serving Tukwila 7,000 6,000 a 5,000 s 4,000 c) 3,000 rt 3 I- • 2,000 1,000 0 39 124 128 140 150 154 155 160 163 170 173 174 280 941 Route o Weekday • Saturday o Sunday Final Tukwila Transit Plan 36 April 2005 Figure 3 -12 Route Level Productivity by Day of Week for Tukwila Routes 3.3 KEY SERVICE FINDINGS Several service themes become apparent when examining each route on a system level and at an individual level. The key findings are described below. • Weekend Service is Inadequate in the TUC Weekend car traffic to the TUC is as high, and in some cases/locations is higher than weekday traffic. However, several bus routes serving the TUC do not operate during weekends (e.g., Route 155 does not operate on Sundays), or they operate much less frequently. (e.g., Route 140 only operates hourly on weekends). The Saturday ridership levels on Route 140, in particular, clearly show demand for more service. Significant markets are being ignored as a result of not having sufficient weekend service. • Span of Service in the TUC is Inadequate The span of service along International Boulevard is excellent. However, the retail and entertainment opportunities in the TUC are not well served late at night by transit service. Most routes operate infrequently, if at all during evenings and Sundays. • Transit Connections to Tukwila Station are Poor Routes serving Tukwila Station operate only during the peaks. There is no connecting service for midday AMTRAK service. In addition, the peak -only orientation and poor signage results in confusion whether there actually is connecting bus service. There is no direct connecting service to the North Tukwila employment areas. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 37 April 2005 • Trips Within the TUC are not Well Served by Transit Based on ridership data and the on -board surveys, it appears that few people are using transit to travel within the TUC. Low frequency, a lack of identity and fear of getting on the wrong bus are probable roots of this behavior. An examination of car traffic patterns within the TUC, however, reveals that many cars are making trips internal to the TUC, as people travel from one business to the next. These trips are rarely made on transit. • Bus Connections to S. 154th Street LINK Station are Limited According to Sound Transit, the Tukwila LINK light rail station at 154th Street will open in 2009. There is currently no bus route that directly connects the proposed LINK station to the TUC or to Burien. Neighborhood feeder service has not been planned, either. Direct connecting service is crucial to make LINK an integral part of providing access to the TUC. Neighborhood feeder routes are necessary to reduce demand for scarce parking stalls at the S. 154th Street Station. • 1-405 Bus Rapid Transit Stop in TUC is Necessary The I-405 Plan recommended that all -day, high -speed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), with buses coming every 10 minutes, be provided in the I-405 corridor. The current planning efforts show an option for service to Tukwila Station and the TUC. Initial ridership projections for the I-405 BRT are approximately 4,500 daily passengers by 2014. Given that there are close to 2,000 daily boardings at the stops immediately surrounding the Southcenter Mall today, it is apparent that a major, existing all -day transit destination was being bypassed by the proposed I-405 BRT. Currently, the ridership potential for I-405 BRT service to the TUC is being examined as a part of the I-405 Bus Rapid Transit Study. • No Direct Connections from the TUC to Federal Way The TUC has direct bus service from Renton, Kent, Auburn, Seattle, SeaTac, and Burien, all of which have large concentrations of transit service. The one major South King County location that does not have direct service to the TUC is Federal Way, even though large amounts of service between Seattle and Federal Way pass by the TUC on I -5, and Federal Way and Tukwila are both major South King County destinations. The new Federal Way Transit Center and the revitalized Federal Way downtown area are both catalysts for potential new service connecting Tukwila and Federal Way. 3.4 ROUTE ANALYSIS King County Metro operates thirteen different bus routes and Sound Transit operates one commuter rail line within the TUC. In addition, a private provider, Seattle Southside Express, runs regularly scheduled service between Tukwila hotels, Southcenter Mall, and downtown Seattle. Hotel shuttles offer non - scheduled service between hotels and Sea -Tac Airport, but due to the proprietary nature of this service, it is not summarized in this section. Each route has unique operating characteristics, strengths and weaknesses. The operating characteristics of each route operating within Tukwila were examined. Each route includes a description and a problem statement which outlines any issues with the route. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 38 April 2005 Route 39 Tukwila — Rainier — Seward Park — Downtown Seattle Route Description Route 39 connects downtown Seattle with Beacon Hill, Rainier, Seward Park, Rainier Beach, and the Southcenter Mall. The only stop within Tukwila was at the Southcenter Mall. Despite only having one stop, it was the sixth highest ridership route in Tukwila. In September 2004, as a part of a South King County service change, the resources used by Route 39 to serve Tukwila were reallocated to create Route 126, which is also discussed in this section. Route 39 continues to operate in Seattle, but no longer serves Tukwila. Problem Statement The productivity of the segment to Tukwila was low. Thirty-eight trips traveled to Southcenter, and carried 243 passengers, for an average of 6.4 passengers per. trip. Likewise, because the route operates on the freeway, it did not have opportunities to increase access by increasing the number of stops. The majority of ridership to Tukwila accessed the route in Rainier Beach. Route 39 did not extend to the Southcenter Mall during the a.m. peak or evenings. This severely limited its potential to serve non - retail oriented job sites within Tukwila. Service ending prior to 7:00 p.m. also limits the amount of retail employment that can be attracted to this route. Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour4 2003 per Trip Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday 1,117 13.0 16.4 30 — pm only 30 N/A 30 60 Service Span (to Tukwila) Weekday 9:30A to 6:00P Saturday 10:30A to 6:00P Sunday 11:OOA to 6:00P Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 85.7 2003 Trips 68 A platform hour is defined as an hour of bus service; it includes time spent in revenue service carrying passengers, time spent traveling to /from the bus base, and recovery time at the end of routes. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 39 April 2005 Route 110 North Renton — Renton Transit Center — Boeing — Sounder Route Description Route 110 provides peak hour service that connects the high density employment sites through Renton. Specific destinations include Renton Boeing Plant, Paccar, the Renton Transit Center, employment areas along N. 7th, and during peak times only, the Tukwila Sounder Station. It operates weekday peaks only. Only three morning and three afternoon trips serve the Tukwila Sounder Station. Problem Statement Route 110 has low productivity, which is not surprising given its duplicate routing (with Route 140) and the fact that it only operates during peak hours. Route 110 has extensive duplication with Route 140, which operates more frequently and all day. In addition, Route 110 does not fully maximize its connectivity opportunities with the Sounder trains, particularly during the a.m. peak. The schedule is designed only to take people from the train to Renton sites in the morning, and not vice versa. All layover for the route is at the north end of the route, with none occurring at the Sounder Station. Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday 79 5.1 2.8 30 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Service Span Weekday 6:10A to 9:00A 2:30P to 6:00P N/A N/A Saturday Sunday Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Weekday Trips 15.3 28 MAP LEGEND Mr oa rop.Nratopa. NMn auream to TWa.Ba CenMNr Rail Satan • TIME POINT: anatrrrWtn wed for Itrs acfwWM r2tenro wit Mod al the top of Urn 0rn a toasemM bs ar220 .1 1108 POINTRRM.gFER POINT =nerd ❑ MNDMMI: A smitten m✓09.4Opal(O remtort. 1 a RENTON 8 2nd 86 aaN1e. 9 451 NORTH RENTON MX ❑ NSit8t ^ 0 0 z i z asr.ar12 i 4.44\ tP SW 78t 8t15 O r• SIN 1sthSt —N"❑ .1 F.+.eo... 121 1u NO 104 fu 344 103 1N M 107 1111 104 146 24 NI 112042 ▪ ,URVIIIA 3 ■ 2An yy iTAT pll .R s Longacres wy SOUTHWEST RENTON m 4 aofaoPnaAR UNMAN A (T1I0 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 40 April 2005 Route 124 Southcenter — North Tukwila — Gateway — E. Marginal Way Route Description Route 124 connected the Southcenter Mall with City Hall, the Gateway office complex, several Tukwila neighborhoods, and the E. Marginal Way employment areas. This was the only route that was wholly within the City of Tukwila. It operated only during peaks and consisted of a huge loop on its northern end. It was one of the weakest routes in Tukwila, with only 41 boardings. In September 2004, as a part of a South King County service change, the resources used by Route 124 were reallocated to create Route 126, which is also discussed in this section; Route 124 has been deleted — it no longer serves Tukwila. Problem Statement Route 124's productivity was low. It was one of the worst performing routes in Tukwila. The route operated on several neighborhood streets that have little ridership, yet slowed the route down. The majority of ridership on the route was oriented toward the Southcenter Mall. Route 124 was the only route to provide direct service to the office complex on Gateway Drive. Route 124 had several severe deficiencies. First, the terminal loop at the end of the route provided coverage, yet anyone along the route had to endure out -of- direction travel. The routing on Tukwila Hill between Southcenter and the Interurban Park- and -Ride traveled through a low- medium density neighborhood. Ridership was poor and the routing was time- consuming. Finally, the peak - only and hourly nature of the route combined to prevent all but captive riders from using this route. Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday 41 6.0 5.1 60 N/A N/A N/A N/A Service Span Weekday 6:30A to 9:OOA 3:30P — 6:45P Saturday N/A Sunday N/A Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Trips 6.8 No Route Map is available for this route 7 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 41 April 2005 Route 126 Tukwila Station — Southcenter — Gateway — E. Route Description Route 126 is a new route that began service in September 2004. It replaces service and connections formerly provided by Routes 39 and 124. The route connects Tukwila Station with Southcenter Mall and the residential areas in West Tukwila, as well as providing service to employment centers along E. Marginal Way and the Gateway Center. Route 126 also connects the Tukwila employment centers with the population centers around Rainier Beach. Route 126 operates during peak hours only. Problem Statement Route 126 is a new route, so no ridership or productivity data are available. Route 126 schedules are designed to provide feeder service for Sounder patrons from South King County wishing to access Tukwila job centers. Route 126 does not provide service to the proposed urban center along International Boulevard or the future S. 154th LINK Station. In one year, after ridership data are available, the impacts of bypassing these ridership generators will be known. Marginal Way — Rainier Beach Route Statistics Riders 2004 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip No Data No Data No Data Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday 30 N/A N/A N/A N/A Service Span Weekday 6:00A to 8:50A 3:40P to 6:45P N/A N/A Saturday Sunday Weekday Service Provided 2004 Plat. Hours 2004 Trips RAINIER BEACH 22.3 22 RAIIIIER BE ?CH 9121■81 i ...n 1p {tt X4184 IlORA11Y CORPORATH CINTHR 8OUTHCEN Final Tukwila Transit Plan 42 April 2005 Route 128 Southcenter — White Center —West Seattle Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip Route Description Route 128 connects the Southcenter Mall with West Seattle. Within Tukwila, it provides service to Highline Community Hospital, International Boulevard, Foster High School, and the neighborhoods adjacent to Macadam Road. It operates throughout the day and on Saturday and Sunday as well. It has the fourth highest ridership activity of all routes in Tukwila Problem Statement Route 128 has high productivity and the ridership has been growing. The route's ridership is encouraging especially considering that it does not serve downtown Seattle. The route traverses several areas that have excellent transit demographics. The highest ridership stops are at the Southcenter Mall, S. 144' Street/Tukwila International Boulevard, White Center transfer point, South Seattle Community College, and along California Avenue SW in West Seattle. This is a good route. Route 128 ends at the Southcenter Mall and does not connect to the Tukwila Sounder Station. This is a lost opportunity to provide service from the Kent Valley via Sounder to the Highline Community Hospital and to West Seattle. In addition, Route 128 has large amounts of layover scheduled for weekdays and Sundays. On weekdays, 30 percent of route resources are spent in non - revenue service. Likewise, on Sundays 44 percent of route resources are spent in non - revenue service. This compares poorly with the national industry standard of 15 percent or less. Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday. Service Span Weekday Saturday Sunday 2,611 26.1 39.0 30 30 30 30 60 5:OOA to 10:00P 6:OOA to 10:00P 6:10A to 8:20P Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Weekday Trips 100.2 67 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 43 April 2005 Route 140 Renton — Tukwila— SeaTac— Burien Route Description Route 140 provides all -day service connecting Renton, Tukwila, Southcenter, Sea -Tac Airport, and Burien. Within Tukwila, Route 140 serves the Sounder Station, Southcenter Mall, and McMicken Heights. It operates throughout the day and on Saturday and Sunday as well. It has the fifth highest ridership activity of all routes in Tukwila Problem Statement Route 140 has high productivity. The highest ridership stops are at the Renton Transit Center, South Renton Park- and -Ride, Southcenter Mall, Sea -Tac Airport, and the Burien Transit Center. This is one of the few east -west routes that connects with several higher frequency north -west routes. Route 140 does not serve Sounder Station on all trips. This leads to the perception that King County Metro does not serve the commuter rail station. Route 140 travels through several high- congestion areas, including the airport, Strander Boulevard, and the area around West Valley Highway /Grady Way, all of which impact on -time performance. Despite traveling through congested areas, Route 140 has large amounts of layover, particularly during the midday and evening. During both the a.m. and p.m. peak, Route 140 has approximately 20 minutes of layover at each end. During the midday and evening, the average layover at each route end is approximately 35 minutes. It is highly unusual and unlikely that on -time performance issues demand longer layover times during the midday than during the peak; the midday layover times are high. In addition, on Saturdays and Sundays between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m., Route 140 spends more than half of its resources in layover. In other words, drivers drive the route one -way for 55 minutes and then sit for 60 minutes prior to their next trip. King County Metro should examine its layover requirements to determine if changes in operating practices can fund 30- minute Saturday service between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Route 140. It appears that this is possible. Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday Service Span Weekday Saturday Sunday 2,437 19.9 28.0 15 30 60 60 60 5:30A to 10:00P 8:OOA to 10:00P 8:OOA to 10:00P Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Weekday Trips 122.5 87 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 44 April 2005 Route 150 Seattle — Tukwila — Southcenter — Kent — Auburn Route Description • Route 150 provides all -day service connecting downtown Seattle, Tukwila, Kent, and Auburn. Within Tukwila, Route 150 serves the Interurban Park - and -Ride, City Hall, and the Southcenter Mall. It operates throughout the day and on Saturday and Sunday as well. It has the highest ridership activity of all routes in Tukwila, with almost double the boardings of any other route within Tukwila. Problem Statement Route 150 has excellent productivity, and within Tukwila, an almost even distribution of passengers heading north- and southbound. The highest ridership stops are in downtown Seattle, the Interurban Park -and- Ride, Southcenter Mall, Kent Transit Center, and Auburn Sounder Station. Route 150 is an excellent route. According to King County Metro, Route 150 has severe on -time performance issues which are partly caused by traveling on congested streets and by indirect routing. Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 5,493 2003 per Plat. Hour 28.1 2003 per Trip 51.3 Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday Service Span Weekday Saturday Sunday 15 30 30 30 30 5:OOA to 2:26A 5:45A to 2:26A 6:45A to 2:26A Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 195.3 2003 Weekday Trips 107 DOWNTOWN SEATTLE (as •se• Sap) • •qei •.e.•aee. war I• MOWS. ..5,• Spokane N 2..d a SW Final Tukwila Transit Plan 45 April 2005 Route 154 Federal Center South — Boeing — Tukwila — Kent — Auburn Route Description Route 154 provides peak directional service from Auburn, Kent, and Tukwila to industrial employment sites south of downtown Seattle. There are only two trips in the morning to Seattle and two afternoon trips back to Auburn. This is one of the lowest ridership routes within Tukwila. Problem Statement Route 154 has poor productivity considering it is a direct, peak only route. It carries only 12.2 passengers per platform hour. In addition, a quarter of the ridership on this route travel on the segment between Auburn and Tukwila, where all destinations are duplicated by Route 150. The highest ridership stops are at the Kent Transit Center, Tukwila Sounder Station, and the Boeing stops on Marginal Way. Route 154 duplicates the Route 150 alignment over 50 percent of its route length. In the southbound trips, the route does not deviate into Tukwila Station, which reduces the ability to connect with trains and potential passengers from Pierce County. Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 99 2003 per Plat. Hour 12.2 2003 per Trip 24.8 Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday 2 morning NB trips 2 afternoon SB trips N/A N/A N/A N/A Service Span Weekday 5:OOA to 8:OOA 2:30P to 6:50P Saturday N/A Sunday N/A Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Weekday Trips 8.1 NOI.iM•OY•0 ZOOM UN• BOEING INDUSTRIAL "I MIMO DC IAA • LODEND s— Nrrr r•.•rN. •�r�OwT..�Ir� �r.irr•r.r. rwr Mi. W I MM. -. t✓4_. lbw. Yrw..r .e... `ii -o rims .,� roorrern.sawm rorr immeam 00111140 •.N.O Awes. r O 01D••OIOIO ZOOM DM TUKWILA N IPAC ..� /I KENT w.r.w Q s_. 1 .; w•r I r •s N. Mt •• AUBURN Is •MM;wr1 tot i• In/ ... .A III •M 4 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 46 April 2005 Route 155 Southcenter — 180th— Petrovitsky — Fairwood Route Description Route 155 provides all -day weekday and Saturday service between the East Kent area and the commercial and employment areas m Tukwila. It is the only route that operates on Southcenter Parkway within Tukwila. Service is hourly throughout weekdays and Saturdays. This is the sixth highest ridership route within Tukwila. Problem Statement Route 155 productivity is below average. The ridership is oriented to Southcenter. Ridership along Southcenter Parkway is relatively low. The highest ridership stops are at the Southcenter Mall and Valley Medical Center. Route 155 frequencies are inadequate to provide more than basic coverage along the route. Choice riders tend not to use routes that operate at 60- minute frequencies. Route 155 also has a large terminal loop combined with a long layover in the middle, which is detrimental to ridership development. On -time performance has been problematic for Route 155 due to heavy and unpredictable congestion. Route 155 does not connect with Tukwila Station, so it is unable to act as a potential Sounder Feeder Route from the Kent East hill. Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday Service Span Weekday Saturday Sunday 388 13.7 14.4 60 60 N/A 60 N/A 5:10A to 7:00P 8:10A to 7:00P N/A Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 28.4 2003 Weekday Trips 27 Tukwila Pkwy sourN 7� Baker Blvd ❑ `sw e. :6 Strander Blvd 111, N' MAP LEGEND Makes all regular stops. • TIME POINT: Street intersection used for time schedule reference point listed at the top of time columns to estimate bus arrival and trip times. 4 TRANSFER POINT: Route intersection for transferring to the connecting route or routes indicated. 30 O T IME POINTITRANSFER POINT combined. ❑ LANDMARK A significant geographical reference point. tie FAIRW00D SE le !E Mel VALLEY °a CENTER S 180th St 43rd at 6E 178th FAIRWOOD CENTER ❑ 1EiulpOVfab RN e c'^ in l 8E 177th sE 170th Nee P•hovItalry Rd Final Tukwila Transit Plan 47 April 2005 Route 160 Seattle — Interurban Park - and -Ride — Kent Route Description Route 160 provides peak directional weekday service between the East Kent area, the Interurban Park - and -Ride in Tukwila and downtown Seattle. Route 160 supplements Route 150 trips between the Interurban Park -and- Ride and downtown Seattle. Problem Statement Route 160 productivity is average in terms of passengers per trip but below average in terms of passengers per platform hour. Loads average 17 passengers per bus prior to the Interurban Park - and -Ride and 33 passengers between the Park - and -Ride and downtown Seattle. The highest ridership stops along the route are in downtown Seattle and the Interurban Park -and -Ride. Route 160 splits the commuter market with Routes 150 and 163 between the Interurban Park - and -Ride and downtown Seattle. In the morning peak, passengers can take the first bus; however, in the evenings, passengers must chose whether to take a tunnel bus (Route 150) or a surface route (Routes 160 and 163), which leads to load imbalances. For instance, on Route 160, there are 120 passengers on 4 trips in the . morning and 70 passengers on 3 trips in the afternoon. Route 160 does not tie into the Sounder Station even though it travels within a half mile of the station. Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday Service Span Weekday Saturday Sunday 192 15.7 27.4 4 morning NB trips 3 afternoon SB trips N/A N/A N/A N/A 5:45A to 8:15A 4:00P to 6:00P N/A N/A Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Weekday Trips DOWNTOWN SEATTLE •=0r, TUKWILA CEP N CLEO a..W 12.2 7 IMP MUD 4w ...emu 'It. me somnwnwia mon P.M nste LAMMINtle•Inpftel "WINS almempll 0 CLENCARIN se saes ea ram R Vera Or ENA�LL ! ua.ew ulnae la MUM 114 I NORTH Final Tukwila Transit Plan 48 April 2005 Route 163 Seattle – Interurban Park - and -Ride – Kent Route Description Route 163 provides peak directional weekday service between the East Kent area, the Interurban Park - and -Ride in Tukwila and downtown Seattle. Route 163 supplements Route 150 trips between the Interurban Park -and- Ride and downtown Seattle. Problem Statement When compared to other Tukwila routes, Route 163 productivity is average in terms of passengers per trip but below average in terms of passengers per platform hour. Route 163 is a stronger route than Route 160. The highest ridership stops along the route are in downtown Seattle and the Interurban Park - and -Ride. Route 163 splits the commuter market with Routes 150 and 160 between the Interurban Park - and -Ride and downtown Seattle. In the morning peak, passengers can take the first bus; however, in the evenings, passengers must chose whether to take a tunnel bus (Route 150) or a surface route (Routes 160 and 163), which leads to load imbalances. There are 142 passengers on 4 trips in the morning and 113 passengers on 4 trips in the afternoon. Route 163 does not tie into the Sounder Station even though it travels within a half mile of the station. Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat Hour 2003 per Trip Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday 256 15.6 32 4 morning NB trips 4 afternoon SB trips N/A N/A N/A N/A Service Span Weekday 5:45A to 8:15A 4:00P to 6:30P N/A N/A Saturday Sunday Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Weekday Trips DOWNTOWN SEATTLE �..a.mpgy 16.4 8 NAP MEND 10y6b.�w.}K .a►s .110 �.VIRRP/HUOI•011• wu ..ara Mn w.1. __ Y.. 0 w INIOMIU¢..p.....p..w sas 0 A N MEI UM CLENCARIN NlIaNA b tAla Or IIMIst se a«e • .1 NONTN A MERIDIAN matt Final Tukwila Transit Plan 49 April 2005 Route 170 Seattle — International Blvd — McMicken Heights Route Description Route 170 provides peak directional weekday service between McMicken Heights, north Tukwila, Airport Way, and downtown Seattle. This route does not take I -5 to downtown, and is a relatively slow ride to downtown Seattle. Problem Statement Route 170 productivity is fair in terms of passengers per trip but below average in terms of passengers per platform hour. Military Road at S. 152nd Street is the highest ridership stop within Tukwila. Other high ridership stops are at the King County Airport and downtown Seattle. The routing through Tukwila is relatively circuitous. Route 170 ridership is unbalanced, with 57 passengers in the p.m. peak and 112 in the a.m. peak. DOWNTOWN SEATTLE 0 1r A Nl e 9 Royal Brough 8 Spokane 8t M0 usom WI ompAr•lop. • TIME .wrImo A,............+ =Men '.m ' ° " • ..a....• mewl Pyles Pim . 17:077 OOP POPrt: w. e....Mm tea. connallpnaM or robe InSaa. 10 nxc P'OW PPAPMnr POW anew. p71a A1S_as14/111P1•11 Ol. iiMNt�411�.... nkwa arm • 8 Norfolk 8t 8 116th`Ma X 8144th 81 `\O W® 152nd 6t 160th St t7a 8 178th 8t MCMICKEN FR HEIGHTS y t w 8 186th 6t Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip 169 14.4 21.2 Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday 5 morning NB trips Peak 3 afternoon SB trips Weekday Base N/A Evening N/A Saturday N/A Sunday N/A Service Span Weekday 6:OOA to 8:30A 4:00P to 6:00P Saturday N/A Sunday N/A Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Weekday Trips 11.7 8 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 50 April 2005 Route 173 Federal Way — Des Moines — I -5 — Marginal Way — Boeing Route Description Route Statistics Route 173 provides peak directional weekday service Riders between Federal Way and Des Moines and the Boeing 2003 Daily and industrial employment sites along Marginal Way. 2003 per Plat. Hour There are only 2 trips per day in each direction and times 2003 per Trip are geared to meeting shift times. Problem Statement Route 173 productivity is below average in terms of passengers per trip and passengers per platform hour. The highest ridership stops along the route are at the Federal Way Transit Center and at the Federal Center South along Marginal Way. There were few other stops with more than a couple of riders. Peak hour routes should have higher productivity than Route 173. It appears that this market is insufficient to support the level of bus service that it has. 67 10.3 16.8 Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday 2 morning NB trips Peak 2 afternoon SB trips Weekday Base N/A Evening N/A Saturday N/A Sunday N/A Service Span Weekday 5:30A to 8:OOA 3:00P to 6:00P Saturday N/A Sunday N/A Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Weekday Trips 6.5 4 No Route Map is available for Route 173. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 51 April 2005 Route 174 Seattle — Interurban Park - and -Ride — Kent Route Description Route 174 provides all -day service between Federal Way, Des Moines, SeaTac, Tukwila, and downtown Seattle via old Highway 99 (known as Tukwila International Boulevard in Tukwila). It operates seven days a week and throughout the night as well. Problem Statement Route 174 is an excellent route. Its productivity is the best of any route operating in Tukwila. Within Tukwila, the highest ridership stops are along Tukwila International Boulevard at S. 144th Street, S. 148`' Street, and S. 152nd Street. Route 174 has heavy ridership especially considering the frequency throughout the day. Given the high ridership, shorter frequencies would be expected. The span of service is excellent. Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday Service Span Weekday Saturday Sunday 6,270 32.4 64.0 20 30 30 30 30 5:30A to 3:30A 5:30A to 3:30A 5:30A to 3:30A Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 193.7 2003 Weekday Trips 98 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 52 April 2005 Route 941 Federal Way — Tukwila — Seattle First Hill Route Description Route 941 provides peak directional weekday service between the park- and -ride lots along I -5 between Federal Way and the medical facilities on First Hill in Seattle. The only stop within Tukwila for this route is at the Interurban Park- and -Ride. Problem Statement Route 941's productivity is among the best of any route in Tukwila. Heavy ridership occurs on all trips. The Interurban Park- and -Ride in Tukwila is one of the highest ridership stops on this route. This is an excellent route that meets a specific niche market very well. FIRST HILL (See detail map) II� + IYIRE =HS (OTT LIMisr q +'e 1513 166 197 159 192 574 162 194 i R • MAP LEGEND ...UM Makes limited or no steps TIME POINT. Street intersection used far time schedule reference print listed at the tcp of time columns to estimate bus arrival and bhp times. 4.3 lip TIME POINT/TRANSFER POINT combined FAR a ZONE Additional fare required. . Pfn PARK & RIDE: Designated free perking area with direct bus service to major commerdel centers. Ft` TMWIa P5 R 150 154 160 163 ith �\ ww4e4 PM TI'RMNAL Ro'� STAR ` } LAKE E. nM TEr NAL • O+ � S1272nd St SWLal ems` 1e op 444 Freeway MatIon 1S2 194 574 190 197 192 194 197 ,t i N Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday Service Span Weekday Saturday Sunday 570 28.4 47.5 7 a.m. trips 5 p.m. trips N/A N/A N/A N/A 5:50A to 8:50A 3:30P to 6:30P N/A N/A Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Weekday Trips 20.1 12 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 53 April 2005 Sounder Tacoma — Puyallup — Sumner — Auburn — Kent - Tukwila - Seattle Route Description Route Statistics Sounder provides peak directional weekday commuter rail service between Tacoma, the Kent Valley, and downtown Seattle. The only stop within Tukwila for this route is at the Tukwila Sounder Station Problem Statement Sounder ridership has been increasing steadily since service inception. In Tukwila, the ridership patterns have been such that approximately 100 passengers deboard in the morning in Tukwila and 20 persons board. In the afternoon, this pattern is reversed. Tukwila is the second most popular destination along the Sounder route, after downtown Seattle. Based on existing marketing conditions, it appears that Tukwila Station is more of a destination than a trip origin. The addition of three more peak oriented trains and off - peak direction trains will further increase the market potential. It appears that the travel time savings of the train between Tukwila Station and King Street Station do not appear enough to attract riders from the much more frequent bus service at either the S. Renton Park -and- Ride or the Interurban Park- and -Ride. Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip 2737 456 456 Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday 3 morning NB trips Peak 3 afternoon SB trips Weekday Base Evening Saturday Sunday N/A N/A N/A N/A Service Span Weekday 6:15A to 7:45A 4:55P to 6:35P Saturday N/A Sunday N/A Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours 2003 Weekday Trips 6.0 6 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 54 April 2005 AMTRAK — Cascade Servic Seattle — Tukwila — Tacoma — Olympia — Chehalis e — Vancouver — Portland Route Description Six daily AMTRAK trains currently serve Tukwila Station. Southbound trains to Portland depart Tukwila Station at 7:44 a.m., 1:59 p.m., and 5:39 p.m., while northbound trains to Seattle depart at 11:48 a.m., 3:32 p.m., and 9:17 p.m. Problem Statement Service was initiated at Tukwila Station in 2001. Since service inception, ridership has increased more than 300 percent. a 8 5.A 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 8.000 5.000 4,000 3,000 2.000 1,000 0 Tukwila, Washington 2001 2002 2003 Route Statistics Riders at Tukwila Station 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip 25 N/A 4.2 Service Headway (Minutes) Weekday 3 morning NB trips Peak 3 afternoon SB trips Weekday Base N/A Evening Saturday Sunday Service Span Weekday Saturday Sunday N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours N/A 2003 Weekday Trips 6 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 55 April 2005 Seattle Southside Express SeaTac Hotels — Tukwila Hotels — Southcenter — Seattle Route Description The Seattle Southside Express provides scheduled shuttle service between SeaTac and Tukwila hotels to the Southcenter Mall and downtown Seattle. The shuttle provides door -to -door service to the hotels; passengers must call ahead for the service. The fare to Seattle from Tukwila locations is $12 roundtrip or $7 one -way. There is no fare to travel from SeaTac and Tukwila hotels to Southcenter Mall. The service is provided with 15 and 24 passenger vans. This service has been operating to Southcenter Mall since Fall 2003. The Southcenter Mall provides operating assistance to the private service provider to ensure that hotel guests have an easy way to access shopping opportunities. Additional funding for this route is provided by the Hotel Tax, and the contract is administered by the Tourism and Marketing Department. Thus far, ridership has been growing on the route, although actual ridership numbers are unavailable. Problem Statement The Seattle Southside Express is a fine example of a private provider filling a transportation niche within Tukwila and caters directly to those unwilling or unaware of the public transportation offered by King County Metro. Route Statistics Riders 2003 Daily 2003 per Plat. Hour 2003 per Trip Service Headway (Minutes) Winter Weekday Service Span Weekday Saturday Sunday N/A N/A N/a 6 round trips daily 9:45A to 7:15P 9:45A to 7:15P 9:45A to 7:15P Weekday Service Provided 2003 Plat. Hours N/A 2003 Trips 10 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 56 April 2005 Chapter 4: Service Recommendations Chapter 4 summarizes the project recommendations based upon the data described in Chapters 2 and 3 and the public process. 4.1 SERVICE MODIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS The ridership data has been used to prepare individual activity profiles of each of the routes operated by King County Metro. The data have been aggregated to depict ridership patterns along each route alignment. Often, the gathered and analyzed bus stop -level data does not, in itself, suggest modifications to the route's alignment or schedule, but merely serves to validate the existing operation. In a few instances, this information has directly suggested modifications to meet specific operational needs of that route. Some changes in route alignments or schedules have been proposed to meet a system -wide need, unrelated to a specific route's ridership, productivity, patterns of activity or schedule adherence. In those cases, the ridership data has been used to identify any negative rider impacts expected to result from any proposed modifications. The overall themes guiding the recommendations were the creation of several different focal points for service in Tukwila, including the S. 154th Street Station, Tukwila Station, a Southcenter Transit Center, and a new link connecting Tukwila Station and Southcenter. Improved routes and frequency feed into this multi-hub concept. The service recommendations are not cost - neutral — they will require additional funding. Overall, the immediate service recommendations reflect the desire to improve frequency along the productive routes, serve new destinations, and to improve route directness. Figure 4-1 shows the overall long -term route restructure recommendations. The corresponding description of the routes shown in Figure 4-1 is in the following section. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 57 April 2005 Figure 4-1 Tukwila Long-Term Route Recommendations Long-Term Proposals for Tukwila Routes To Burie$ ( T " Renton ! ¢, 6 \10 1111, To Fe e \; ay; z Final Tukwila Transit PIan 58 April 2005 4.2 TUKWILA ROUTE RECOMMENDATIONS The following section describes the recommendations for both existing and proposed routes within the TUC. Table 4 -1 summarizes the changes and a full description of each one of the recommendations follows. Table 4 -1 Summary of Recommended Changes Route' Recommended Changes Short Term Recommendations (2005 -2009 Implementation) 128 Span: Extend Sunday Evening service for one hour. Frequency: Improve Sunday service to 30- minute service. Routing: None. 140 Frequency: Improve Saturday service to 30- minute service. 150 Span: None. Frequency: Improve weekday frequency to all -day 15- minute service. Routing: None. 154 Span: None. Frequency: None. Routing: Restructure route to serve Tukwila Station and employment sites north. Mid -Term Recommendations (2009 & Changes to Feed LINK & Tukwila Station) 126 Routing: Adjust routing to serve S. 154 a' Street Station and Tukwila International Boulevard/S. 144th Street. Span: Add midday, evening, and weekend service. Frequency: Midday, evening, and weekend service should be 30- minute service. 128 Span: None Frequency: None. Routing: Extend Route 128 to Tukwila Station. 140 Span: Add earlier trips on weekends. Frequency: Improve Sunday service to 30- minute service. Routing: Restructure route so that it provides a direct route between S. 154th LINK station and the TUC (it would no longer serve Sea -Tac Airport), and serve Tukwila Station on every trip. Long -Term Recommendations (2010 -2015 Implementation) 155 Span: Implement Sunday service. Frequency: Improve weekday frequencies to every 30 minutes. Routing: None. BRT5 Span: Implement weekday, Saturday, and Sunday route. Frequency: Ten to 20 minute service weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays. Routing: From TUC to Sea -Tac Airport and Renton, and points beyond. Fed. Way Rte.4 Span: Implement weekday, Saturday, and Sunday route. Frequency: Every 30 minutes weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays. Routing: From TUC south on Southcenter Parkway to serve new development. TUC Trolley Span: 11:00 a.m. — 8 p.m., weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays. Frequency: 10 minutes. Routing: Tukwila Station, Baker, Andover Park W., Strander, Southcenter Parkway, Segale Park Dr. C, Andover Park W., S. 180th and return. 5 The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route or the Federal Way route could be operated by either ST or KCM. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 59 April 2005 Short Term Recommendations (2005 -2009 Implementation) These recommendations represent the highest priority for improving transit mobility within Tukwila. They do not assume that any additional capital facilities have been constructed. Route 128 Short -Term Recommendations The current span and frequency of Sunday service does not meet the needs of the TUC. While most stores at Southcenter close at 7:00 p.m. on Sundays, some are open past 8:00 p.m. Route 128 should operate to accommodate these employees and shoppers. In addition, Sunday service on Route 128 operates every 60 minutes, which is inadequate to attract choice riders to the TUC. Route 128 should operate every 30 minutes on Sundays and also operate one hour later. This recommendation will require approximately 2,000 additional service hours. 128 Short -Term Existing Recommended Span — Weekday Saturday Sunday 5:00A to 10:00P 6:OOA to 10:00P 6:10A to 8:20P 5:OOA to 10:00P 6:OOA to 10:00P 6:10A to 9:20P Frequency (minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Weekday Evening Saturday Sunday 30 30 30 30 60 30 30 30 30 30 Additional Cost 2,000 hours Route 140 Short -Term Recommendations Weekend service on Route 140 operates hourly, which is inadequate given the TUC destinations and connections. Route 140 should operate every 30- minutes on weekends. Based on an examination of weekday and weekend layover practices on Route 140, some Saturday 30- minute service can be implemented at no net new cost by reducing weekday /Saturday layover and reallocating those resources to Saturday service. 140 Short-Term Existing Recommended Span — Weekday Saturday Sunday 5:30A to 10:00P 8:OOA to 10:00P 8:OOA to 10:00P 5:30A to 10:00P 8:OOA to 10:00P 8:OOA to 10:00P Frequency (minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Weekday Evening Saturday Sunday 15 30 60 60 60 15 30 60 30 60 Additional Cost No Cost Route 150 Short -Term Recommendations Route 150 is a great route that has tremendous additional ridership potential. Route 150 should operate every 15 minutes during the weekday midday. Improved weekday midday frequency would create a new market, not only for service between the TUC, Seattle, and Kent, but also for making trips requiring a midday transfer. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 60 April 2005 Funding for improved midday service has not been identified. This improvement, however, has such great ridership potential that it should be considered for short-term implementation. 150 Short -Term Existing Recommended Span — Weekday Saturday Sunday 5:OOA to 2:27A 5:45A to 2:26A 6:45A to 2:26A 5:OOA to 2:27A 5:45A to 2:26A 6:45A to 2:26A Frequency (minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Weekday Evening Saturday Sunday 15 30 30 30 30 15 15 30 30 30 Additional Cost 10,500 hours Route 154 Recommendations In order to address the duplication issues with Route 150 and to provide a direct route from Tukwila Station to north Tukwila employment sites, restructure Route 154 to begin at Tukwila Station and end at Federal Center in South Seattle. The route would operate peak directionally, like today, and provide direct service to Gateway, Group Health, and Boeing. The portion of the existing route between Auburn and Kent would continue to be served by Route 150. By deleting the portion between Auburn and Tukwila, three trips in the morning and three trips in the afternoon can be operated, increasing service by 50 percent. This recommendation should be implemented upon initiation of the full Sounder schedule. This recommendation is cost - neutral — existing route resources would be reallocated to the new alignment. 154 Short-Term Existing Recommended Span — Weekday 5:OOA to 8:OOA 2:30P to 6:50P 5:OOA to 8:OOA 2:30P to 6:50P Frequency (minutes) Weekday Peak 2 morning trips 2 afternoon trips 3 morning trips 3 afternoon trips Additional Cost No Cost Mid -Term Recommendations (LINK Implementation & Tukwila Station) These recommendations should be implemented upon completion of the LINK S. 154th Street Station and the construction of Tukwila Station. Full implementation of 18 Sounder trains is assumed. Route 126 Mid -Term Recommendations The current span of service is three hours in the morning and three hours in the afternoon peaks. The existing span is inadequate to accommodate travel patterns to /from the TUC. All -day service and weekend service are necessary to provide full access from west Tukwila neighborhoods to the TUC. Route 126 bypasses both Tukwila International Boulevard and the S. 154`s Street Station, missing the two potential all -day ridership markets on this route. Route 126 should be realigned to serve Final Tukwila Transit Plan 61 April 2005 the S. 154th Street Station, so that local residents can access LINK without using the park -and- ride. It is only by realigning this route to serve the S. 154t Street Station that enough ridership demand exists for all -day service on Route 126. This recommendation should be implemented upon the initiation of LINK service at the S. 154t Street Station. This recommendation will require approximately 17,500 additional service hours. 126 Mid -Term Existing Recommended Span — Weekday Saturday Sunday 6:OOA to 8:50A 3:40P to 6:45P 6:OOA to 10:00P 7:OOA to 10:00P 8:OOA to 10:00P Frequency (minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Weekday Evening Saturday Sunday 30 30 30 30 30 30 Additional Cost 17,500 hours Route 128 Mid -Term Recommendations Upon completion of the Tukwila Station bus facilities, Route 128 should be extended to Tukwila Station. The extension addresses a lost opportunity to provide service from the Kent Valley via Sounder to the Highline Community Hospital and to West Seattle. The cost for the extension should be negligible, as it would be paid for with the existing layover hours scheduled for weekdays and Sundays. 128 Mid -Term Existing Recommended Span — Weekday Saturday Sunday 5:OOA to 10:00P 6:OOA to 10:00P 6:10A to 8:20P 5:OOA to 10:00P 6:OOA to 10:00P 6:10A to 9:20P Frequency (minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Weekday Evening Saturday Sunday 30 30 30 30 60 30 30 30 30 30 Additional Cost No Cost Route 140 Mid -Term Recommendations Sunday service on Route 140 operates hourly, which is inadequate given the TUC destinations and connections. Route 140 should operate every 30- minutes on Sundays. Weekend span should also be expanded, particularly for early morning trips. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 62 April 2005 The routing between Sea -Tac and the TUC is circuitous. In an effort to reduce out -of- direction travel, we recommend realigning Route 140 to use Southcenter Boulevard/S. 154t between the TUC and Burien. Connections between the TUC could be served by either a BRT route between the TUC and Sea -Tac Airport or with a transfer from Route 140 to LINK at Southcenter Boulevard/S. 154th Street. This improvement should be made upon initiation of LINK service to the S. 154t Street Station. This recommendation can be accomplished with existing resources. Existing resources may also be used to improve midday service frequencies to every 15 minutes. Route 140 should be permanently routed to Tukwila Station via Longacres Way and SW 16th Street . This would address three issues. First, it could improve on -time performance as Route 140 would no longer travel through the heavily congested Grady Way/West Valley Highway/I- 405 interchange. Second, it addresses the perception that King County Metro does not serve Tukwila Station; the confusing practice of "some trips stop at Tukwila Station and some do not" would cease. Lastly, it would provide AMTRAK customers the opportunity to transfer to transit service. Currently, three Cascades trains stop at Tukwila Station and there is no connecting transit service. King County Metro intended on implementing this change in 2003, but they were unable to negotiate access with Boeing, which owns a portion of the roadway which this alignment would traverse. Negotiations with Boeing to allow buses to travel from SW 16th Street to Longacres Way should be restarted to better serve Tukwila Station. These recommendations are all possible using existing resources — no net new hours are necessary to implement this recommendation. 140 Mid -Term Existing Recommended Span — Weekday Saturday Sunday 5:30A to 10:00P 8:OOA to 10:00P 8:OOA to 10:00P 5:30A to 10:00P 6:OOA to 10:00P 6:OOA to 10:00P Frequency (minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Weekday Evening Saturday Sunday 15 30 60 60 60 15 15 30 30 30 Additional Cost No Cost Long -Term Recommendations (2010 -2015) These recommendations should be implemented after service has been restructured to account for LINK service and the upgraded Sounder Service. These recommendations assume several new developments. For instance, • Development in Tukwila Valley South will be underway — creating new markets south of the TUC. • The TUC Subarea Plan Long -Term redevelopment samples show a new east -west connection between the TUC and Tukwila Station - this new connection includes a new bridge across the Green River, potentially along Baker Boulevard. The new bridge would allow direct connections between the TUC and Sounder service without using the heavily congested Strander Boulevard corridor. Upon completion of this East -West Corridor, it is expected that it becomes the prime link for buses traveling between the TUC and Sounder Station (as shown in Figure 4-1). Final Tukwila Transit Plan 63 April 2005 Route 155 Long -Term Recommendations Poor frequency severely reduces the effectiveness of Route 155's service on Southcenter Parkway. Route frequency must be improved to every 30 minutes on weekdays and weekends in order for this route to be a realistic option for persons wishing to travel to Southcenter Parkway. In addition, increased frequency could better serve the north side of Tukwila Valley South, tie residential development in Kent to Tukwila Station, and provide a Sounder to Valley Hospital connection. Span should be increased so that the last trips in the evening accommodate the hours of operation of Southcenter Mall. This recommendation should be implemented in the mid -term, between 2010 and 2015 — it is a lower priority improvement than improving access to the TUC with Routes 126, 140, and 150. The cost for increasing span and improving service to 30- minutes during weekdays and Saturdays, as well as adding Sunday service is approximately 12,200 hours. 155 Long -Term Existing Recommended Span — Weekday Saturday Sunday 5:10A to 7:00P 8:10A to 7:00P 5:10A to 9:00P 8:10A to 9:00P 8:10A to 9:00P Frequency (minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Weekday Evening Saturday Sunday 60 60 60 30 30 60 30 30 Additional Cost 12,200 hours Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Long -Term Recommendations Two different BRT processes have been proposed for Tukwila. The King County Metro BRT line outlined in the existing Six -Year Plan would connect Federal Way with Sea -Tac Airport and Tukwila Station. One of the options for the I-405 BRT Study connects Renton and Bellevue with Tukwila Station and the TUC. For the purposes of long -range transportation needs, both alignments are necessary to provide high capacity transit to the TUC and to provide an all -day destination for the BRT. Park -and- rides will not generate all -day ridership for transit lines — active land uses such as the TUC will. Routing for the BRT through the TUC should follow either Strander Boulevard or a new Baker Boulevard between Tukwila Station and Southcenter Mall, and continue north to the Airport via Strander Boulevard, Klickitat, and SR 518. For the purposes of this plan, either Sound Transit or King County Metro can operate either BRT line. Costs for the BRT are wholly dependent on which alignment is chosen by the I-405 BRT Study, therefore, no predictions for costs are made as a part of this plan. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 64 April 2005 Federal Way Route Long -Term Recommendations A new route is proposed that connects the TUC to the proposed development in the Tukwila Valley South annexation (TVS). At this time, plans show up to 14 million square feet of new development in this location, although it should be cautioned that this is exploratory at this point. Bus service is necessary to connect the TVS property to both the TUC as well as points to the south. Given the projected densities, the service should operate, at a minimum, every thirty minutes on weekdays and weekends. This route should begin at Tukwila Station and use Southcenter Parkway to connect to the TVS property. This route could be operated by either Sound Transit or King County Metro. Operating this route at 30- minute headways on weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays would require approximately 26,800 hours. Federal Way — Tukwila Long -Term Existing Recommended Span — Weekday Saturday Sunday None 6:OOA to 11:00P 8:OOA to 10:00P 8:OOA to 10:00P Frequency (minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Weekday Evening , Saturday Sunday None 30 30 60 30 30 Additional Cost 26,800 hours TUC Trolley Long -Term Recommendations A rubber tired trolley route connecting Tukwila Station, the TUC core, Southcenter Mall, the Southcenter Parkway commercial area, and the north end of the TVS properties is recommended. The proposed routing would begin at Tukwila Station and follow the following alignment: Baker Boulevard, Andover Park W., Strander Boulevard, Southcenter Parkway, Segale Park Dr. C, Andover Park W., S. 180th and return. A trolley that is frequent (every 10 minutes or better) plus fun (either a modern futuristic design or a classic wooden trolley replica) will attract people to park once in the TUC and use the trolley to visit other destinations. This approach has been used successfully to carry passengers and enhance the image of lifestyle centers, downtowns, and suburban shopping centers. It is unlikely that a TUC Trolley will rank highly as part of King County Metro's overall South King County transit priorities. Therefore, it is imperative that local businesses within the TUC join in funding the Trolley. The estimated cost for adding a TUC Trolley route is 20,000 hours. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 65 April 2005 TUC Trolley Long -Term Existing Recommended Span — Weekday Saturday Sunday None 7:OOA to 11:00P 10:OOA to 9:30P 10:OOA to 9:30P Frequency (minutes) Weekday Peak Weekday Base Weekday Evening Saturday Sunday None 10 10 15 15 15 Additional Cost 20,000 hours Sounder Service Long -Term Recommendations Sound Transit's "Sounder" commuter rail service serves the eastern edge of Tukwila's Urban Center area with three northbound trains in the morning and three southbound trains in the afternoon. The service runs between Tacoma and Downtown Seattle. The ridership pattern is currently such that approximately 100 persons deboard the northbound trains to head to destinations and only 20 people board the northbound trains in the morning. The reverse pattern is observed in the afternoon. The current Tukwila Station is a temporary structure, with very limited facilities (Figure 4 -2). A permanent station is slated for completion in the next four to seven years. The permanent station plan features station platforms with a pedestrian tunnel connecting both sides of the track. Walkways and roadways will also be improved to enhance pedestrian access. Figure 4-2 Temporary Tukwila Commuter Rail Station Map Barking • '11to. Parking entrance : (1AccessibMe parking •Wcyaekxkers 'V Sounder:. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 66 April 2005 LINK Long -Term Recommendations Construction of the Link Station at S. 154th Street is slated to commence in 2005 and the station is expected to be operational in 2009. The Station will be elevated with side platforms. Projected ridership for the station is 5,000 daily boardings. Connections between the S. 154th Street Station and the TUC are described in the recommendations for Route 140 and the BRT. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 67 April 2005 Chapter 5: Transit Capital Improvements 5.1 INTRODUCTION Implementing transit service enhancements in Tukwila and creating a service network that supports existing and emerging travel patterns is a key stratagem for attracting and maintaining transit riders. However, other factors beside service availability influence "the decision to ride ". These factors include the speed and reliability of transit service, the convenience of facility and service access, and the overall attractiveness of transit services and facilities. Collaborating with the region's transit providers in investments in infrastructure that can improve transit travel time, reliability, and productivity as well as developing support facilities and amenities for passenger safety, comfort, and convenience is an objective of the City of Tukwila. At this time, millions of dollars worth of LINK and Sounder commuter rail projects are underway in the Tukwila area to support transit operations. However, other investments in the "transit environment" are still needed to optimize the transit service in the City of Tukwila. The level of resources available for capital improvements required by the transit service network in Tukwila is limited and comes from a variety of sources. Further, transit providers —Sound Transit in particular through LINK and Sounder —will spearhead many of the transit rail improvements undertaken in the City, but be much less involved in the crucial bus connections to /from the rail stations. 5.2 NEED FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS The goal of increasing overall transit ridership within the City of Tukwila drives the need for both service and capital improvements. Transit speed and reliability, improved passenger amenities, and access to transit service are all crucial for attracting and maintaining transit riders. In order to maximize the effectiveness and utilization of the service improvements, operating costs must be contained. Increasing traffic congestion and the associated reductions in transit travel time and unreliability have detrimental effects on transit ridership. Also, additional congestion has an effect on operating costs. The more buses are delayed, the greater the cost to the operating agency, King County Metro. King County Metro spends tens of thousands of annual service hours (equating to millions of dollars) on maintaining existing service levels on routes that operate on highly congested roadways. For example, a route may need four buses to operate in the morning, midday, and evening, but congestion- related delays require the addition of a fifth bus in order to maintain the same level of service in the afternoon peak. The capital cost of the fifth bus and the operating hours necessary to operate it are directly caused by congestion and travel time delays that can potentially be addressed by capital projects. Speed and reliability enhancing capital projects could allow more hours to be used for service expansion and allow areas with transit needs to be served. In addition to saving scarce operating dollars, capital speed and reliability projects will assist in attracting additional ridership. Transit travel times are generally longer than auto travel times. Capital speed and reliability projects can help close this travel time gap, particularly on routes that operate through congested areas. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 68 April 2005 In addition to bus travel time, the ease of accessing transit service is a prime determinant of ridership. Throughout Tukwila, there are streets with high levels of bus service, yet the supporting infrastructure of sidewalks, curb cuts, or shelters make it impossible to easily access the buses. Moreover, if you can access the bus stops, the waiting environment is unfriendly, and not conducive to extended waiting. For example, portions of Interurban Avenue S. have limited commuter bus service operating on adjacent to the Gateway Center. Interurban Avenue S. in this area has limited sidewalks; bus patrons must walk on a grassy shoulder. In addition, there are no shelters, leaving passengers exposed to the elements. Finally, traffic levels on Interurban Avenue S. are high. The overall experience of a person accessing transit is poor on this segment of Interurban Boulevard. Correspondingly, no matter how much service levels are improved on Interurban Boulevard, ridership response will likely be muted. Capital investments are necessary to improve ridership in this corridor. The Interurban Avenue S. example is repeated throughout Tukwila and shows the need for a comprehensive look at both service and capital improvements to help Tukwila achieve its transit ridership goals. The following sections will outline the recommended capital improvements that both supplement and support the necessary service frequency improvements. The goal of the resulting mix of both service and capital improvements is to maximize the overall return on transit investment and improve system -wide transit ridership. 5.3 EXISTING FACILITIES King County Metro and Sound Transit maintain capital facilities within Tukwila. King County Metro maintains bus shelters, bus stops, and layover facilities throughout Tukwila. The City of Tukwila assists with maintenance tasks such as garbage pickup and on -going costs such as power for lighting. Currently, there is only one major bus facility located within Tukwila; the Interurban Park- and -Ride. Sound Transit operates Tukwila Station in east Tukwila. Southcenter Bus Stop The focal point of bus service within the TUC is located on southbound Andover Avenue W. just south of Baker Boulevard. Due to historical reasons, there is no corresponding northbound stop. Given the passenger loads of over 1,000 boardings daily at this location, the amenities and weather protection are woefully inadequate. There is not enough shelter space or seating area. In addition, from an operating standpoint, the one -way stop forces buses to travel out -of- direction to serve the one bus stop. This adds to passenger travel time and operating costs. Tukwila Station Sound Transit has constructed a temporary structure at Tukwila Station to accommodate AMTRAK and Sounder trains. There are 234 parking stalls at the temporary station. Utilization of the parking is less than 20 percent. Tukwila Station ridership has been such that this is a destination station instead of an origination station; ergo the lower parking utilization. A contributing factor to the low parking utilization is the poor signage to Tukwila Station. The permanent station's projected completion date is within the next ten years. Interurban Park - and -Ride This 255 stall park- and -ride is located in Interurban Avenue just south of I -5. There is a smaller 39 stall lot immediately adjacent to the Interurban Park- and -Ride. These lots are the closest to Seattle of all park- and -rides in the South I -5 corridor. The facilities are chronically above capacity. Due to the proximity to Seattle and the good service levels between these facilities and downtown Seattle, it is very popular with non - Tukwila residents. Hide - and -ride parking on neighborhood streets up the hill from the Park- and -Ride is commonly used for overflow purposes. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 69 April 2005 Bus Shelters In suburban environments, as a rule, shelters should be provided if there are 25 or more boardings per day. Within Tukwila, based on Fall 2002 data, there are seven bus stops that have 25 boardings or more, yet no existing or planned shelter. One of these stops is at the Interurban Park - and -Ride, two are on Macadam Road, one is on S. 144th Street, and the remaining three are immediately adjacent to the intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park W. (Figure 5- 1). Figure 5 -1 Bus Stops Necessitating a Bus Shelter liii X111 ..:. Nam pow mum im nova rm i1 11111 immxtuien romorill WHAM rte,= r�.rrre�r3l9 .� ra Stops,with it+.b .: °- saps ■atn sni ee Without stow .• Final Tukwila Transit Plan 70 April 2005 5.4 LONG RANGE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Several projects are in the planning stage that will have immediate effect on transit in Tukwila. Central LINK Central LINK (LINK) is the initial 14 -mile light rail line that will serve downtown Seattle, the industrial area south of downtown, and residential and commercial neighborhoods in Beacon Hill, the Rainier Valley, Tukwila, and SeaTac (Figure 5 -2). Within Tukwila (Figure 5 -3), only one station is planned at S. 154th Street (a second station at Boeing Access Road has been deferred). While not directly in the TUC, connections to /from LINK will play a significant role in improving transit access within the TUC. S. 154`h Station The S. 154th Street Station will provide access to residents of Tukwila, SeaTac, and Burien. Major destinations within the vicinity of this stop include the future Tukwila Village, the TUC, and significant amounts of multi - family housing. The station will be elevated and will include approximately 600 parking stalls at opening. It will also include connections to bus services. A shuttle bus will connect passengers from the S. 154th Station to Sea -Tac International Airport until the light rail station is constructed in 2011. A ride on LINK from downtown Seattle to S. 154th Street will take 33 minutes. LINK trains will start service from downtown Seattle to South 154th Street by 2009 and by 2020 are projected to carry at least 42,500 riders a day. Local transit links to the S. 154th Station will be provided by King County Metro, including the connection to the TUC. Some changes in routing are expected upon the opening of the S. 154th Station, but more changes could be expected in 2011 upon extension to the Airport. Tukwila Station A draft design for the permanent Tukwila Station has been completed. However, based on a cursory review of the final design, there are several issues. Over 400 parking stalls have been designed, even though existing utilization of the 250 car lot is less than 20 percent. Due to budget constraints, the actual Station design is functional, yet it is not a placemaking place, such as Auburn, Kent, or Sumner. Any hope for Tukwila Station acting as an anchor for a Transit Oriented Development depends on changing the station design from its current auto - oriented incarnation into more of a pedestrian destination. Also, a clearly defined bus /train transfer area could address the public perceptions that such a connection does not exist. Sound Transit and the City of Tukwila are planning to reexamine the station design in order to accommodate the potential relocation of the Union Pacific railroad tracks and to determine the best access from Strander Boulevard to the station site. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 71 April 2005 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 72 April 2005 Transit Signal Priority TSP is a technology that allows specially equipped buses to communicate with an approaching traffic signal and ask it to provide additional green light time for the bus. A transponder installed on the bus sends a signal to a controller at the street intersection. King County's TSP system is not the pre - emption system used to serve emergency vehicles. Pre- emption may 'skip side street signal phases. When TSP is activated, the traffic controller provides the additional green time to the bus by reducing the green time available to the side streets and pedestrian crossing to safety and service minimums. The goals of this project are to improve transit travel time and schedule reliability. Transit riders who experience a smoother and more comfortable ride with fewer stops are more likely to continue riding. Improved service means people who have not taken the bus before may be more likely to try it. Fewer stops also mean reductions in the driver's workload, fuel consumption, vehicle emissions, and maintenance costs. Currently, King County Metro has installed TSP on Aurora Avenue N. in Shoreline and Seattle, Rainier Avenue in Seattle, and at the intersections of NE 8th Street/148t Avenue & 156t Avenue NE. The results of these projects will be used to improve strategies on other active, funded projects on which King County is collaborating with local cities. These projects include the following corridors: • Lake City Way in Seattle • 15th Avenue W. and 1st Avenue South in Seattle • State Route 99/Pacific Highway South in Federal Way, Kent, Des Moines, SeaTac and Tukwila • NE 124th Street in Kirkland • 148th and 156th Avenue NE in Redmond • Downtown Renton There are no existing plans for TSP on Tukwila streets, although the ability to implement TSP will be enhanced throughout Tukwila by the City's Signal Interconnect project, which is scheduled for construction in the TUC in 2006. High Capacity Transit Currently, there are no regional plans to serve the TUC by existing or future high capacity transit systems. However, Sound Transit is currently conducting a study regarding the feasibility of a high capacity transit line that could directly serve the TUC. It should be cautioned, however, that the Sound Transit work is only a feasibility study and is not a commitment on the part of Sound Transit to fund or operate any of the alternatives from the study. I -405 Bus Rapid Transit The I-405 Bus Rapid Transit Concept is currently being studied as part of the overall project to improve mobility along the I-405 corridor. The initial concept recommended that all -day, high- speed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), with buses coming every 10 minutes, be provided in the I-405 corridor. Dedicated HOV lanes and direct access ramps would allow BRT buses to travel at high speeds with a high degree of reliability. Attractively designed buses and stations would make the passengers feel comfortable in riding the BRT buses. BRT fares would be collected off - vehicle, similar to other high capacity transit. The BRT stations would be located along I-405 at key communities in South Snohomish County and East and South King County. According to the Final Tukwila Transit Plan 73 April 2005 August 2003 Concept White Paper, a stop is projected for Tukwila in a future expansion. The August 2003 Concept White Paper 2010 ridership projection for the entire Bus Rapid Transit line was 4,500 daily boardings. Existing routes are projected to carry 3,500 daily boardings; the I-405 corridor BRT line carries only 1,000 more daily passengers at a cost of $0.5 to $1.5 billion. Since the 2003 Concept White Paper was completed, more detailed routing and ridership analyses have been completed as part of the I-405 BRT Pre- Design Study. Figure 5 -4 shows an example network of the layered service concept that is being discussed as part of this effort. The layered service concept is preliminary only and the configuration of the proposed BRT system is still under development. Figure 5 -4 Potential I-405 BRT Routes from September 2004 Presentation -1 405 'BRT Pre- Design Study. :Example;■etwork Modeling Purposes Only . to Lynnwood Transit Center Kenmore Park- and Rule SearacAirport • Station ukwila: Urban TCenter es Everett Station' - 5/1126 :SCSW :'Park- and Ride Aslway`: :Pink-and-Ride; nyon Paik Station - Woodmwlle Town Center 1') • Woodinh7le Park and•Ride Brickyard Station 111 Totem Lake Station 1 I 1 Houghton Park -and Rlde III 411110 :Bellevue Downtown;; LM Station: enao.NOillioi(Hips:$0titin ; Renton Downtown . Port Quendall Station. :Station Renton • : Boeing :South.Rentons ' .Park - and -Ride • Kent Station • _:Legend 1-405 EKX A . -<: (Konrnoie - .Tukwila)' 1.405. EKX$ (Lynnwood =:Sea Tec) :.: •(EVerett- 'Belevue):. 1- 4005EKX -D; ,... (WOOdigvdle Kent): Tukwila Station and the TUC are two of the route termini for one of the "route layers ". Table 5- 1 shows the predicted a.m. peak ridership for the Tukwila BRT stops. No commitments on which routing alternative should be pursued have been made at this time. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 74 • April 2005 Table 5 -1 BRT Layered Service Concept Projected Ridershiv6 5.5 KEY CAPITAL NEEDS RECOMMENDATIONS Tukwila Transit Center (Southcenter Mall) The existing focal point of bus service within the TUC is located on southbound Andover Park W. just south of Baker Boulevard. Due to historical reasons, there is no corresponding northbound stop. Given the passenger loads of over 1,000 boardings daily at this location, the amenities and weather protection are woefully inadequate. There is not enough shelter space or seating area. In addition, from an operating standpoint, the one -way stop forces buses to travel out -of- direction to serve the one bus stop. This adds to passenger travel time and operating costs. King County Metro, Westfield, and the City of Tukwila have held discussions regarding the location of improved facilities for Mall patrons. Four different options were examined on Andover Park West between Tukwila Boulevard and Strander Boulevard. The locations on Andover Park West included: 1. Existing southbound bays plus new northbound bays by the Acura property. 2. Existing southbound bays plus new northbound bays by the Fatigue property. 3. New southbound bays north of Baker Boulevard plus new northbound bays by the Fatigue property. 4. Increase existing southbound bay capacity to 3 bays with independent arrival/departure capabilities. At this time, a decision has been made to proceed with increasing southbound bay capacity to 3 bays with independent arrival/departure . Increasing the southbound bay size will address some of today's capacity needs — it is inadequate for future service needs, particularly if BRT service is initiated. A further explanation of future capacity needs is discussed below. Future Operational Needs of the Tukwila Transit Center The Tukwila Transit Center, even with the expansion of the southbound bay, cannot accommodate the number of buses that would be operating through the Tukwila Transit Center if all the Long -Range Recommendations are implemented. Today, approximately 300 buses travel through the Tukwila Transit Center area. In the future, this could almost triple to 850 buses — depending on funding availability. 6 Source for routes and ridership projections is 1-405 Bus Rapid Transit South Corridor Pre - Design, City of Tukwila Update, September 20, 2004 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 75 April 2005 2014 2030 Station Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings 7 Tukwila Station 90 6 103 TUC Station 11 53 15 81 5.5 KEY CAPITAL NEEDS RECOMMENDATIONS Tukwila Transit Center (Southcenter Mall) The existing focal point of bus service within the TUC is located on southbound Andover Park W. just south of Baker Boulevard. Due to historical reasons, there is no corresponding northbound stop. Given the passenger loads of over 1,000 boardings daily at this location, the amenities and weather protection are woefully inadequate. There is not enough shelter space or seating area. In addition, from an operating standpoint, the one -way stop forces buses to travel out -of- direction to serve the one bus stop. This adds to passenger travel time and operating costs. King County Metro, Westfield, and the City of Tukwila have held discussions regarding the location of improved facilities for Mall patrons. Four different options were examined on Andover Park West between Tukwila Boulevard and Strander Boulevard. The locations on Andover Park West included: 1. Existing southbound bays plus new northbound bays by the Acura property. 2. Existing southbound bays plus new northbound bays by the Fatigue property. 3. New southbound bays north of Baker Boulevard plus new northbound bays by the Fatigue property. 4. Increase existing southbound bay capacity to 3 bays with independent arrival/departure capabilities. At this time, a decision has been made to proceed with increasing southbound bay capacity to 3 bays with independent arrival/departure . Increasing the southbound bay size will address some of today's capacity needs — it is inadequate for future service needs, particularly if BRT service is initiated. A further explanation of future capacity needs is discussed below. Future Operational Needs of the Tukwila Transit Center The Tukwila Transit Center, even with the expansion of the southbound bay, cannot accommodate the number of buses that would be operating through the Tukwila Transit Center if all the Long -Range Recommendations are implemented. Today, approximately 300 buses travel through the Tukwila Transit Center area. In the future, this could almost triple to 850 buses — depending on funding availability. 6 Source for routes and ridership projections is 1-405 Bus Rapid Transit South Corridor Pre - Design, City of Tukwila Update, September 20, 2004 Final Tukwila Transit Plan 75 April 2005 Table 5 -2 Projected Number of Buses serving Tukwila Transit Center Future Travel Patterns at the Tukwila Transit Center Upon redevelopment of the TUC, Baker Boulevard (or a close -by parallel street) will likely assume the role of a transit corridor between Andover Park W. and Andover Park E. Figure 4 -1 shows the potential route alignments upon completion of the Baker Boulevard corridor. As shown in Figure 4-1, there would be three different route patterns: 1. Routes traveling north -south through the Tukwila Transit Center, 2. Routes traveling east -west through the Tukwila Transit Center, and 3. Routes ending at the Tukwila Transit Center. The location and configuration of an expanded Tukwila Transit Center must take into account - these three travel patterns, and serve them with a minimum of out -of- direction travel. Future Layover Needs at the Tukwila Transit Center With the construction of Tukwila Station and the redevelopment of the TUC, the number of routes ending at the Southcenter Transit Center is expected to decrease from the existing two routes (Routes 155 and 128) to zero. Staging space and the associated layover space in the TUC will become less necessary. Location of Transit Center The transit center location must meet several potentially competing needs. Some considerations include: • Capacity: Can the Transit Center meet the space demands for additional service in the future? • Passenger Demand: Transit Centers should be located as close to actual destinations as possible. Placing transit centers adjacent to non - developed, non - passenger generating land use areas such as freeways or parking lots should be avoided. • Bus Operations — Safety and Reliability: Transit Centers should not introduce bus operating issues that compromise either safety or schedule reliability. • Cost: Transit Centers should not introduce out -of- direction travel that increases transit operating costs. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 76 April 2005 Existing Buses per Weekday Long -Term Buses per Weekday Route Southbound Northbound Southbound Northbound 126 11* 11* 34 34 128 34 33 34 33 140 43 44 56 56 150 54 53 66 65 155 14 13 28 29 Fed. Way Rt. 0 0 30 30 TUC Trolley 0 0 90 90 BRT 0 0 90 90 Total 156 154 428 427 Service levels in this table assume additional funding sources — it does not represent a commitment by any transit agency to provide this level of service. * Route currently does not serve Andover Park W., but instead stays on Strander Boulevard. This analysis assumes that Route 126 will be rerouted upon redevelopment of Baker Boulevard. Future Travel Patterns at the Tukwila Transit Center Upon redevelopment of the TUC, Baker Boulevard (or a close -by parallel street) will likely assume the role of a transit corridor between Andover Park W. and Andover Park E. Figure 4 -1 shows the potential route alignments upon completion of the Baker Boulevard corridor. As shown in Figure 4-1, there would be three different route patterns: 1. Routes traveling north -south through the Tukwila Transit Center, 2. Routes traveling east -west through the Tukwila Transit Center, and 3. Routes ending at the Tukwila Transit Center. The location and configuration of an expanded Tukwila Transit Center must take into account - these three travel patterns, and serve them with a minimum of out -of- direction travel. Future Layover Needs at the Tukwila Transit Center With the construction of Tukwila Station and the redevelopment of the TUC, the number of routes ending at the Southcenter Transit Center is expected to decrease from the existing two routes (Routes 155 and 128) to zero. Staging space and the associated layover space in the TUC will become less necessary. Location of Transit Center The transit center location must meet several potentially competing needs. Some considerations include: • Capacity: Can the Transit Center meet the space demands for additional service in the future? • Passenger Demand: Transit Centers should be located as close to actual destinations as possible. Placing transit centers adjacent to non - developed, non - passenger generating land use areas such as freeways or parking lots should be avoided. • Bus Operations — Safety and Reliability: Transit Centers should not introduce bus operating issues that compromise either safety or schedule reliability. • Cost: Transit Centers should not introduce out -of- direction travel that increases transit operating costs. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 76 April 2005 • Passenger Safety: Transit Centers should not compromise passenger safety and therefore the need to cross streets for transfers should be minimized. • Fit within TUC Vision: The TUC plan calls for a long -term increase in density and activities to the east and south of the Mall. The proposed Transit Center improvements should be compatible with the proposed density increases. Each of the four locations has been evaluated based on these six different criteria. The results of this evaluation is shown in Table 5 -3 and is discussed below. Table 5 -3 Evaluation of Tukwila Transit Center Expansion Options Southbound Location Northbound Location Capacity Passenger Demand Safety for Buses Cost Passenger Safety Within TUC Vision Total Existing Acura property • G G • c • 6 Existing Fatigue property • C • f> ' E; G C North of Baker Fatigue property • O G ; C- C t, Expanded Existing Zone None C c • O G (j 6 Legend Much Worse than Average 0 Average c Much Better than Average 1. Existing southbound bays plus new northbound bays adjacent to the Acura property. — This Transit Center configuration would have the capacity for future service increases, including the BRT. This Transit Center would best meet the needs of the Mall, the redeveloped TUC, and is within 'A mile walking distance of a significant portion of the TUC. The near side stop in the northbound direction is a minor safety and reliability issue that may be addressed with a separate signal phase — it is addressable. From a passenger safety perspective, only one street would need to be crossed to transfer. Virtually no out -of- direction travel is introduced for buses, which reduces operating costs and increases ridership potential. Buses traveling on east -west routes can use Baker Boulevard and stop at the Tukwila Transit Center in both directions. This is an improvement over today's operation. This location is well situated to accommodate the redevelopment in the TUC. 2. Existing southbound bays plus new northbound bays adjacent to the Fatigue property. = This Transit Center configuration would have the capacity for future service increases, including the BRT. The northbound stop is located further away from the active land uses than all of the other altematives, which will reduce ridership potential. From a bus operator standpoint, the far side configuration of the Transit Center for both stops improves the ability to access and egress the stops. It is less optimal for passenger safety, as passengers would need to cross two wide streets to transfer between routes. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 77 April 2005 Significant out -of- direction travel is introduced for buses, particularly east -west routes (Routes 126, 140, and 155) that are traveling through the TUC. In order to access the northbound stops, east -west buses would need to travel all the way to Tukwila Parkway, which would add several minutes of running time. This location is an improvement over today's operation, and is reasonably well situated to accommodate the redevelopment in the TUC. 3. New southbound bays north of Baker Boulevard plus new northbound bays adjacent to the Fatigue property. — A Transit Center located entirely to the north of Baker Boulevard on Andover Park W. has the capacity for future service increases, including BRT. It is not located well to accommodate future passenger growth because the center is further removed from active land uses — the passenger draw area shrinks as one approaches I-405. The near side stop in the southbound direction is a minor safety and reliability issue that may be addressed with a separate signal phase — it is addressable. From a passenger safety perspective, only one street would need to be crossed to transfer. This location introduces out -of- direction travel for any bus routes traveling east -west through the TUC, including Routes 126, 140, 155, and any other future east -west route such as BRT or Federal Way route. Out -of- direction travel adds travel time, which reduces ridership potential and adds operating costs. While an improvement over today's operation, this location is not ideally situated to accommodate the redevelopment in the TUC. 4. Increase existing southbound bay capacity to 3 bays with independent arrival/departure capabilities. — A Transit Center located entirely to the north of Baker Boulevard on Andover Park W. does not have the long -term capacity for future service increases, including BRT. Expanding the southbound capacity by one bay is an excellent interim solution for the next five or six years. However, it is insufficient, by itself, to accommodate a more than doubling of bus service to the Transit Center, which given the growth in the TUC is projected in the long -term. This location has few safety and reliability issues. It is the easiest of options for most passenger transfers — although anyone transferring to Route 150 in the northbound direction must cross Andover Park W. and walk a long block. This transit center configuration often introduces passenger confusion. Several routes stop in the same area, but they go different directions. For instance, Route 140 heads to both Renton and Burien from the same bus stop. Many passengers do not see the headboard showing the destination and then ask drivers their destinations, which slows down operations and adds costs. The routing to serve this location creates out -of- direction loops. Route 140, in particular, has confusing figure 8 alignment around Southcenter Mall as a result of having only southbound bays in the Tukwila Transit Center. Confusing routing patterns inhibit potential ridership. King County Metro currently incurs additional operating costs as a result of out -of- direction travel. The existing site, without a corresponding northbound stop, does not tie into the TUC core development occurring on the east side of Andover Park West. Expansion of the existing Transit Center to three bays is a welcome addition that will address short-term capacity concerns. Additional space will be necessary for higher frequency services desired in the long -term. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 78 April 2005 Joint Development Potential The current bus boarding area is perceived negatively by many of the surrounding business owners. According to them, the bus stop brings vandalism, other crimes, and vagrants into a prime retail area. This perception, whether right or wrong, can only be changed using some of the elements that addressed this issue in other areas. Eyes on the street are essential to reduce this perception. A standalone transit center at the edge of a parking lot, no matter how architecturally appealing, will not entirely remove the perception that transit attracts undesirable elements. Throughout the country, it is becoming apparent that the key to success for transit centers is joint development. Whenever possible, a transit center should be integrated with an active land use such as a coffee shop, restaurant, or something else that could cater to the needs of both people at the transit center and to patrons coming to the Mall. These types of businesses provide the "eyes on the street" security. Businesses adjacent to the transit center can generate revenues from this facility and make this into an asset instead of a perceived liability. A successful transit center will have a supporting business adjacent to it. Relocated transit center plans, no matter the location, should integrate the transit center into active land uses. Tukwila Transit Center Amenities In addition to the recommended joint development features, the existing waiting area should be improved to incorporate the following features: o Widened Sidewalks — During large parts of the day, the existing sidewalk is choked with waiting passengers. Passengers spill into the Mall parking lot to avoid the crowded sidewalk conditions. Sidewalk width should be widened by at least 4 feet to 14 feet wide. o Sitting Areas — Currently, there are few opportunities for waiting passengers to be seated. Visual inspection has showed that waiting passengers often sit on the curb separating the sidewalk and the Mall parking lot. o Shelters — There are two standard sized shelters at the existing Southcenter Mall stop. Given over 1,000 daily patrons at this stop, two shelters provide inadequate shelter. A larger canopy type shelter should be considered in lieu of adding additional standard transit shelters. Given the traffic levels on Andover Park West, pullouts are essential for this transit center. Two bays in each direction should accommodate both existing and future demand. Tukwila Station In 1999, Sound Transit completed a draft design for the Tukwila Sounder Station. The draft design assumes primary access to /from the facility from Longacres Way, with provisions for a roadway extension to the proposed Strander Boulevard. The station design includes parking for over 400 parking stalls, a pedestrian tunnel under the tracks, artwork, two retention ponds, a kiss - and -ride, bus loop, bus driver facilities, and bus shelters. One of the goals of the Tukwila Station design was to be functional, yet not place as much emphasis on place - making as stations in Kent, Auburn, Sumner, and Puyallup. Budget, or lack thereof, has been a prime reason for the reduced place - making emphasis. The draft design of Tukwila Station no longer meets the conditions of the site. The railroad track relocation of the UP railroad, the connection to the Strander overpass, and the sizing of the park - and -ride are all issues that must be incorporated into the final design. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 79 April 2005 Railroad Track Relocation At this time, the Union Pacific (UP) and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroads have come to verbal agreements regarding consolidating the rail corridors that are located just east of West Valley Highway. A written agreement is being developed to finalize the details. According to our understanding of the agreement, the BNSF line will remain in its existing configuration and retain its existing right -of -way. Between I-405 and south of Strander Boulevard, the UP line will be relocated to operate immediately adjacent to the BNSF right -of- way. The UP will retain its 100 foot right -of -way. Thus, at the end of the relocation process, there will be a combined 200 foot right -of -way that includes both the BNSF and UP tracks. The City of Tukwila, Sound Transit, and Renton are currently working on a plan to phase the relocation of the UP tracks, construction of the permanent station, and construction of the Strander Boulevard overpass. Parking The draft station design shows approximately 400 parking stalls. Current utilization of the 250 car temporary park- and -ride is less than 20 percent, even though the existing Sounder schedules of three northbound trains in the morning and three southbound trains in the afternoon serves the peak of the peak market to /from Seattle. Based on visual inspection, a large amount of parking at Tukwila Station is for VanShare vehicles, not for people driving to Tukwila Station to park. Based on the 20 Sounder boardings at Tukwila Station in the northbound direction in the morning peak, about 20 parking spaces are being used by commuters heading to Seattle. Parking utilization is not growing, even as originating ridership at all other stations has grown dramatically. Ridership, and park- and -ride utilization, may increase as Sounder frequencies improve. According to Sound Transit, full operation of Sounder past Tukwila Station will include 18 trains (nine in the morning and nine in the evening). According to Sound Transit, by 2008, there will be six northbound trains and three southbound trains in the morning and six southbound and three northbound trains in the afternoon. Headways will be approximately 30 minutes. An examination of the ridership patterns at Tukwila Station show that the demand for park -and- ride space is very limited. Currently, Tukwila Station is the second largest destination (after downtown Seattle) along the south Sounder Line. There are approximately 25 northbound boardings and 150 alightings in the morning peak. Even if frequencies, span of service, and direction of service were improved, it is unlikely that originating ridership would dramatically increase. One of the best methods to measure ridership potential is to examine the existing ridership patterns and growth. With rail service, a doubling of service could double, triple, or even quadruple existing ridership. Even if ridership to Seattle quadrupled from 25 to 100 passengers, park- and -ride demand would reach around 100 stalls. Based on our experience, it is unlikely that ridership at Tukwila Station would quadruple. Ridership at Tukwila Station has been limited even though parking is available, the peak arrival times for commuters to the Seattle market are being made now, and there are seats available on the existing trains. The ridership pattern at Tukwila Station is a clear example where the market has spoken and the demand for Sounder from Tukwila Station to downtown Seattle is limited. Several factors may contribute to this. Signage to the existing station is poor and the temporary facilities at the station Final Tukwila Transit Plan 80 April 2005 (both parking and platforms) are not inviting. Access to /from residential areas is poor — there is no easy way for potential passengers from South Renton to get to Tukwila Station without significant out -of- direction travel. In addition, there are several competing facilities such as the South Renton and Interurban Park- and - Rides, where bus service is more frequent and has better travel times to downtown Seattle, particularly north downtown, than Sounder service from Tukwila Station. These competing facilities also have a way for passengers to get back to their cars during midday, which Tukwila Station does not. The market for parking demand as a result of AMTRAK service at Tukwila Station is harder to quantify. The Tacoma AMTRAK station has approximately 66 stalls and the Lacey station has approximately 90 stalls. Assuming that the marketplace is similar, the AMTRAK parking demand and the commuter market into Seattle parking demand may be met with 200 stalls. The lack of park- and -ride demand at Tukwila Station is a unique case as it is contrary to both local and national trends regarding the insatiable demand for commuter rail parking. It is also unique in that the two closest bus park- and -rides (Interurban and South Renton) are both over capacity, yet Tukwila Station has not been able to siphon off that demand. Based on the market conditions at Tukwila Station, two- hundred park -and -ride stalls should be sufficient to meet future parking demand. In the unlikely case that additional parking will be needed in the long -term future, the existing station parking access should be configured so that it can be structured in the future. Bus Facilities The draft station design includes a 150 foot long area for buses and passengers, or between two and three bays, depending on bus size. This is enough to handle the large volume of buses that travel through the facility, i.e., routes that do not begin or end at Tukwila Station. It is, however, inadequate for future bus service needs. Long -range plans show potential for up to five routes terminating at Tukwila Station. At a minimum, layover space for an additional three buses is necessary; four spaces are desirable. Pedestrian Amenities Rail station walking draw areas typically extend at least 1/2 mile. The draft station design incorporates a new walking path from the rail platforms to the existing sidewalk on Longacres Way just west of the UP railroad. No provisions for sidewalks or walking paths have been made from the rail platforms to Strander Boulevard. It is also unclear how the new platforms tie into the Boeing Longacres pedestrian paths, even though this is a walking pattern seen today even with the limited train frequency. Other than Boeing Longacres, there are very few destinations within easy walking distance of Tukwila Station. However, today's conditions should not form the basis for the pedestrian network within Tukwila Station. At a minimum, the station design should include a pedestrian connection to Strander Boulevard, Boeing Longacres, and a direct connection crossing West Valley Highway, preferably tying into a new river crossing and access into the Tukwila Urban Center. Placemaking Due to budget constraints, the draft Station design is functional, yet it is not a placemaking location, such as Auburn, Kent, or Sumner. The station locations in these other communities are well marked by both signage and a placemaking distinct station. The current Tukwila Station location is not signed well and is virtually invisible. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 81 April 2005 Any hope for the Tukwila Station becoming more visible in the community and acting as an anchor for a Transit Oriented Development depends on changing the station design from its current auto - oriented incarnation into more of a pedestrian destination. A more placemaking, visible station should lead to increased ridership. In addition, a visual connection between Tukwila Station and the Tukwila Urban Center are vital to address the public perceptions that no connections between the two locations exist. Access to Tukwila Station As described in Chapters 3 and 4, the I-405 BRT must stop in ridership generating areas such as the TUC in order to increase its ridership potential. Without additional ridership, the I-405 BRT will likely fail due to insufficient rider potential. One of the critical elements in ensuring that the I-405 BRT serves the TUC and Tukwila Station is determining how to reduce travel times to these locations. One of the ways previously discussed that would improve access to Tukwila Station has been the Tukwila Station I-405 Direct Access Ramps (DAR). While this option would improve transit access to /from Tukwila Station, technical challenges and the associated costs have removed this option from further consideration in the immediate future. A second way to improve access to Tukwila Station is to provide an access from Strander Boulevard to the Tukwila Station area. Such an access will provide travel time advantages if the I-405 BRT directly serves the Station (a different service scenario calls for the BRT line to stop directly on Strander Boulevard and not go directly into the Station). The new access from Strander Boulevard into the Tukwila Station area is desirable, but not absolutely necessary from a transit standpoint. The access is much more important to help with vehicular circulation, as shown in the Tukwila Urban Center Subarea Plan. Tukwila Station Recommendation The draft station design does not meet the needs of Tukwila as a transportation anchor. It calls for parking that is unnecessary, has inadequate pedestrian facilities, and has no bus facilities. A complete redesign of Tukwila Station is necessary in order to create a community and transportation focal point, resize the parking lot to be in line with actual demand, expand bus facilities to facilitate the transfer to /from trains, and link it to the TUC core. Tukwila Station represents a unique opportunity to create a community focal point. S. 154th Street Station The planned S. 154th Street Station includes provisions for parking expansion if demand warrants. It also includes bus zones on S. 154t Street and within the station itself, which will ease transfers between buses and LINK. A bus zone on northbound International Boulevard immediately adjacent to the West Pedestrian Access Stair should be considered to prevent out -of- direction travel for existing bus patrons. Bus Shelters Bus shelters should be installed in high ridership locations. There are seven high ridership locations within Tukwila that warrant new shelters (Figure 5 -1). The shelters, if part of a transit corridor, should architecturally fit in with the rest of the corridor. Final Tukwila Transit Plan 82 April 2005 Transit Signal Priority (TSP) Bus travel times are extraordinarily dependent on existing traffic conditions, as they share a common street with automobiles. Bus travel times have been increasing as overall congestion has increased, leading to increased operating costs for King County Metro. TSP represents one low - cost way to improve bus speed and reliability. International Boulevard, Andover Park West and Strander Boulevard have the frequency and ridership loads that would warrant TSP implementation. The City of Tukwila is currently in the process of interconnecting signals. As part of this project, in cooperation with King County Metro, the City should incorporate the hardware necessary to upgrade these signals to "TSP - ready". Final Tukwila Transit Plan 83 April 2005 Appendix A Focus Group Report Focus Group Discussions Concerning Public Transportation Services for the Tukwila Urban Area SUMMARY REPORT BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY Perteet Engineering, Inc., of Everett, Washington, is working with the City of Tukwila to develop the Tukwila Transit Network Plan. The study reviews all elements of the public transportation system serving the Tukwila Urban Area. As part of this study, focus group discussions were conducted with transit users and with business owners and managers to learn more about attitudes toward current services and desired improvements to services and facilities. Carolyn Browne Tamler, principal of Carolyn Browne Associates, a Bellevue marketing research and community involvement consulting firm, facilitated the discussions. Two discussions with riders were held during the evening of Tuesday, September 16, 2003, in the Community Resource Center of the Tukwila Police Department located in the Westfield Southcenter Shopping Mall. Cards were distributed at several bus stop locations and at the Sounder train station to recruit people interested in discussing issues about public transit. Most of the participants were recruited through contacts made at the Interurban Park -and -Ride and at the Sounder train station. Riders were approached at the Southcenter bus stop and at bus stops at the intersection of Highway 99 and S. 144th Street, but many of these riders are non - English speaking and/or low- income, and were not comfortable completing the recruitment card. Recruiters used the information on the completed cards to select people to invite to the discussions. The groups were divided as follows: (1) riders living in Tukwila or Renton, and (2) riders traveling in or through Tukwila from other locations. A third discussion was conducted with Tukwila business owners and managers at the Conference Room of the Southwest King County Chamber of Commerce, 16400 Southcenter Boulevard, in Tukwila. This group met from Noon to 1:30 p.m. The business participants were recruited with the help of the Southwest King County Chamber of Commerce. This report includes summaries of the major themes from the discussions and the participants' comments. Participants who are current users of the transit system are referred to as "riders," while owners and managers of businesses in the Tukwila area are referred to as "business people." The opinions expressed throughout this report are those of the discussion participants. It should also be noted that the comments reflect individuals' perceptions of facts. Although information obtained from focus group discussions is not statistically projectable, the responses and ideas from the participants do provide a representative portrait of the opinions of the population from which they were drawn, in this case, people who are currently using public transit in or out of Tukwila, and members of the business community in Tukwila. I SIGNIFICANT THEMES FROM THE THREE DISCUSSIONS All of the groups were consistent in their suggestions for improving transit service and facilities for the Tukwila Urban Area. The most frequently repeated concerns, included: • Provide some type of shuttle, or other frequent bus service between the Southcenter Mall and the businesses along or near Southcenter Parkway. People who work and shop in the Tukwila Urban Area and want to use transit are currently limited in their access to all of the businesses in the area. • Provide additional express options. Tukwila is a transit hub. Each day, thousands of people pass through the area traveling to other destinations. Despite this fact, transit does not yet provide express options for many of these destinations. There is an especially high demand for more express options from Tukwila to Downtown Seattle. • Modify service to reflect current transit needs. Tukwila is a major destination. Although the population of Tukwila is small, each day some 50,000 people (according to an estimate from one of the participants in the business discussion) come to Tukwila to work. Additionally, thousands come to Tukwila to shop, especially on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. The current transit routes and schedules do not appear to respond to these needs. • Improve Sounder service and improve bus connections with Sounder. Varied work and shopping schedules now mandate that Sounder service be provided beyond traditional commuter times. Further, additional bus connections are needed between Sounder and other travel destinations, as well as to businesses located within Tukwila. • Improve bus stop maintenance. Bus stop locations in Tukwila need to be better maintained, and more bus shelters are needed (many riders are under the impression that the bus stops on the Eastside are nicer because they are in high income areas). • Increase frequency of service on major routes. Many of the major routes need more frequent service (Routes 101, 150 and 174 were mentioned); and express bus hours should be extended to provide service for those who work beyond the traditional 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. workday (Routes 140, 160, 163, 240 and 941 were mentioned). • Increase safety. Many people are concerned about safety on the buses, especially on buses that travel Highway 99 (Route 174). They want to see uniformed security people on routes that have a history of safety incidents. • Provide additional bus stops around the Southcenter Mall. • Provide service from Tukwila west to Highway 99 and east to the Kent Valley. • Increase marketing efforts. Transit is a concept that needs more marketing, in general. The major benefits — no parking costs, no traffic hassles, and in some instances, shorter travel times — should be known to more commuters. Many employers will be willing to help with marketing efforts if they are given the information to provide to their employees, and if bus stops are conveniently located to their workplaces. II RESPONSE SUMMARY FROM RIDERS LIVING OUTSIDE THE TUKWILA- RENTON AREA SUMMARY Eleven people confirmed their intention to participate in the discussion when they were contacted on the morning of September 16. However, only four people were present for the discussion at 5:30 p.m. These four participants engaged in a lively discussion with the moderator. In an effort to learn more about the attitudes of those who did not attend, the recruiters at Consumer Opinion Services were asked to call back those who did not show, as well as others who qualified, but had previously said they could not attend the discussion. The tabulations of those who were contacted for this brief telephone survey are included at the end of this section of the report. Based upon the recruiting cards returned, primarily from the Interurban Park- and -Ride and the Sounder Train Station, a high proportion of transit riders traveling to or through Tukwila commute from the south to the north, coming from areas as far away as Tacoma, Puyallup, Bonney Lake and other areas in South King County and Pierce County. Many have access to a car but choose to use transit to avoid the cost and hassle of parking, as well as the inconvenience of driving long distances through heavy traffic. The most important transit improvements desired by the four discussion members and by those who were contacted later by telephone include: • More frequent bus service is needed for the major routes serving Tukwila; many major routes only provide hourly service; • Additional service is needed along Southcenter Parkway; • Bus stops need better maintenance and more bus shelters should be provided; • More East -West routes are needed; and • More express buses are needed in and out of Tukwila, especially to Seattle. There was strong agreement among the participants that Tukwila should market itself as a shopping destination, and provide better bus access to the stores and buses. PARTICIPANTS Only four of the eleven confirmed participants attended the discussion. Three are riding Metro buses only, while one person is riding Sounder. Only one in the group has access to a car; the others use buses for all of their transportation needs, except when friends can provide a lift. Name Years Riding Local Transit Occupation Residence Age Kelly 5 Restaurant employee Auburn 22 Sean 3 Manufacturing Auburn 25 Evans 4 Student at BCTI Kent 26 Jeremy 12 Computer Administrator Tacoma 34 III WHAT'S WORKING WELL WITH CURRENT TRANSIT SYSTEM? The four riders started the discussion by sharing their positive views of the transit system. These comments included: "The drivers are polite;" "The buses are usually on time;" "There are many routes;" There seem to be enough bus stops and they are generally clean." All agreed they feel safe when riding a bus and that purchasing tickets is easy. They have experienced no difficulties obtaining and using transfers. ARE THERE LOCATIONS NOT CURRENTLY SERVED WHERE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE BUS SERVICE ADDED? The Business Computer Training Institute (BCTI) student said there is no direct service to the school at present, which is located at 15445 — 53rd Avenue S. He says several students there have commented on the need to provide bus service to the school. Two people who commute from Pacific each day commented that Route 917 runs in a loop on the hour, but not on Sundays, which makes it difficult at times to get to Route 150 that they take into Tukwila. WHAT ARE THE CURRENT MAJOR ISSUES RELATING TO PUBLIC TRANSIT IN TUKWILA? There was agreement among all the participants that the buses that go to Bellevue "are newer and nicer quality than the ones that come to Tukwila." They also noted that the Sounder buses are generally nicer than the Metro ones. The major issues identified by the members of the group included: • Lack of bus service on and near Southcenter Parkway, which makes it difficult for people who work in the area to take a bus to the business. The buses that do go there only run hourly. The participants suggested adding local shuttle service that would circulate between the Mall and the other major retail businesses in the Tukwila Urban Area. • Lack of bus shelters. There are few covered bus shelters in the Tukwila area, and many compared this to the abundance and quality of bus shelters they have noticed in Bellevue. • Travel between Tukwila and areas to the West (Highway 99) and East (Kent) is difficult. • Buses need to operate more frequently. As an example, they pointed out that Route 150 runs only once an hour in the early morning and late evening. Many other routes provide only hourly service. Since many people now work hours beyond the normal 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., the bus service is not matching the needs of employees, many of whom currently have to choose to arrive early or late to work. It is also not serving the needs of those who might want to take the bus to shop in Tukwila. IV MARKETING IDEAS Although one person suggested that most people use public transportation out of necessity, there was agreement that using transit for special purposes is a good way to familiarize people with what it is like to use transit. Their ideas included: • Buses for special events, such as Mariners and Seahawks games; • Special buses during the Christmas holiday season from park- and -rides to Southcenter — all agreed this would be a great idea since "holiday traffic is horrible" at Southcenter; and • Sounder service is great from Tacoma and draws people who might otherwise never use public transportation. Someone added that stress and miles driven are great incentives to try using transit. There was also strong agreement that Tukwila needs to market itself as a shopping destination and provide better bus access to the stores and buses. CONCLUSION: WHAT ARE THE THREE MOST IMPORTANT CHANGES, IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRANSIT SERVICE IN TUKWILA? Jeremy: More frequent buses Covered, better bus stops; improve technology at bus stops (sensors to announce bus is coming/light the stop) Reward riders through incentives with retail stores (shop at a store and get a bus pass) Evans: More frequent buses Cleaner bus stops and shelters Increase frequency of bus service Sean: Provide covered shelters /seating at bus stops More east -west routes; it is difficult to get service from Tukwila to Kent or to the residential areas to the west Increase frequency of service Kelly: Better bus accessibility to stores and businesses on Southcenter Parkway More express buses in and out of Tukwila to major transit centers Special event and seasonal bus service Promotions with retailers to provide free bus use with purchase V RESPONSE SUMMARY FROM RIDERS LIVING WITHIN THE TUKWILA- RENTON AREA SUMMARY Most of the participants are commuting from their homes in Tukwila or Renton to their jobs, most of which are in Seattle. Largely, they are choosing to use transit to avoid parking costs and traffic hassles at their commute destinations. The service and facilities improvements deemed most important by the riders include: • More frequent bus service around Southcenter and to the businesses on and near Southcenter Parkway (such as a shopper's shuttle); • Improving maintenance at bus stop locations in Tukwila; • Extending bus routes serving the Fairwood Area (Routes 155, 148 and 101) past 140th to provide service to the new residential neighborhoods off Petrovitsky Road; • More frequent service on the major routes (Routes 150, 174, 101); • Establishing Tukwila as a major transportation hub with links to other areas throughout King County and Pierce County; • Providing facilities (restrooms and drinking fountains) at the major transit centers; and • Extending the hours for express bus service (Routes 140, 160, 163, 240, and 941). Participants noted that there seems to be little marketing of transit. They believe more advertising will promote the key benefits of transit — no parking or traffic hassles — and, hence, will build usage. PARTICIPANTS Nine of the 12 people who confirmed their attendance participated in the discussion. The participants included five women and four men, ranging in age from 31 to 60. Six of the nine have access to a car and are choosing to use transit. All are using the bus to commute to work. Three are using Sounder or Sound Transit in addition to Metro. Name Years Riding Local Transit Occupation Residence Age Dean 20 Engraver Tukwila 52 Toni 5 Legal Secretary Tukwila 60 Dona 5 Pharmacist Tukwila 48 Cynthia 5 Administrative Assistant Renton 45 Donna 29 Accountant Tukwila 48 Inez 22 Business Owner Tukwila 47 Kim 4 Engineering Manager Renton 43 Aotham 3 Internet Engineer Tukwila 30 Jason 7 Telecommunications Tukwila 31 VI WHY ARE YOU CHOOSING TO USE TRANSIT IF YOU HAVE A CAR? Most of the participants are traveling from Tukwila and Renton to Downtown Seattle, and most are choosing to use transit. The greatest motivators for using transit are to avoid the cost of parking in Downtown Seattle and avoiding the traffic hassles of driving into the city. They say that taking a bus or train into Seattle is easy and convenient. One person has an employer providing a free bus pass. Another drives to the train station in Tukwila and takes Sounder into Downtown Seattle. One person simply avoids driving because it is "dangerous and expensive." WHAT'S WORKING WELL WITH CURRENT TRANSIT SYSTEM? The most positive responses concerning transit relate to the variety of good connections between Seattle and Tukwila. Those who can use the Sounder or Express buses say these are good services and save travel time. One person in the group had special praise for the number of bus stops on Route 128 between Southcenter Boulevard and International Boulevard, claiming it was easy to find a place to catch a bus. WHAT ARE THE CURRENT MAJOR ISSUES RELATING TO PUBLIC TRANSIT IN TUKWILA? Those who live in the Fairwood Area of Renton are feeling frustrated in trying to use transit. One of the discussion participants explained, "From Petrovitsky Road, I can't get to the bus without having to drive; but, there's no place to park at 140th and Petrovitsky where the bus stop is located; if I continue into Downtown Renton, I can't find parking in Downtown Renton." She added bus routes are needed in the neighborhoods to connect with buses going to other locations and to take residents to the Sounder train station. It appears that many people don't know the exact location of the Sounder train station; only four of the nine participants were knowledgeable about where to catch the train. One of the four found the location by accident. Those who knew the location pointed out that the only guide directing people to the Sounder Station is a tiny sign with a logo. Bus connections from the Sounder station are not adequate ( "I get off the train and see the bus leaving and going around the corner; then I have to wait 30 minutes for the next "); at present, there are only a few connections from the Sounder station to buses traveling to other locations. Route 124 only runs three times in the morning and three times in the evening, and only once an hour. A participant commented, "If I miss one of these buses, I am late for work." The buses also do not run on the weekends. Southcenter is a hub, but buses do not go around the Center and there are few bus options that go to businesses on Southcenter Parkway. It was suggested, and all agreed, that it would be nice to have a shopper's shuttle in the Southcenter area similar to one operated in the shopping district of Kent. Bus stops for the Southcenter Mall should be located in the mall to make it safer to go from the bus into the Mall. SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS AND PRIORITY RATINGS Participants were asked to make a laundry list of the improvements they would like to see. After the list was completed, they were asked to choose seven items (from the 29 listed) that they believe to be most important. The suggestions are organized below with those receiving the highest priority ratings listed first: VII Suggestion Number Giving Priority • Provide a shopper's shuttle around Southcenter. 5 • Maintain Tukwila bus stops at the same level as those in Bellevue (all agree that bus stops in Bellevue are much nicer than in Tukwila — "they have more money "). 5 • Extend Routes 155, 148 and 101 past 140th to provide service to the new neighborhoods off Petrovitsky Road. 5 • Provide more frequent service for the main line routes (Routes 150, 174, 101). 4 • Make Tukwila a regional transit hub so it is easier to get from Southcenter to other locations. 3 • Provide maintained restrooms (even if restrooms were coin - operated) and drinking fountains at the major transit centers. 3 • Extend hours for express bus service (Routes 160, 163, 941,140, 240). 3 • Make improvements to bus stops - more seating, more shelters. 3 • Provide air - conditioned buses ( "Why are Sound Transit buses air conditioned ? "). 3 • Improve safety on Route 174 ( "I've heard it's the most dangerous route in Seattle "); especially at night. 2 • Post schedules at the bus stops. 2 • Provide better transfer connections and coordination. 2 • Provide an express bus from Downtown Seattle to the Sounder train station to make up for missed bus service connecting to the train station ( "It takes forever to get from Tukwila to Seattle on the 150 "). 2 • Provide express bus service from Fairwood Area to Downtown Seattle. 2 • Provide direct bus service from Tukwila to the Eastside (currently, it is impossible to get there without going to Downtown Seattle and transferring). 2 • Provide express service on Route 155; it currently takes too long to get to Tukwila from the neighborhoods. 2 • Create more bus stops/bus routes around Southcenter. 2 • Add uniformed security people on the buses; provide a hotline number to report regular problem riders; have bus drivers enforce rules on the bus (radios, cell phones, sleeping across the seats, etc.). 2 • Promote buses going to special events (such as buses to Mariners and Seahawks games). 2 VIII Suggestion Number Giving Priority • Ensure that bus stops are near crosswalks at the transfer points and in busy areas. 2 • Review usage of local shuttles to determine why they are not being more fully used (Route 124); are they being marketed? Are they convenient routes? Are they not running often enough? ( "It doesn't go anywhere I need to go "). 1 • Expand Interurban Park- and -Ride ( "It's full before 7 a.m.; it's always full "); South Renton and K -Mart parking lots are full (people are using these locations as a park- and —ride lots). 1 • Provide services for the blind at major bus stops. 1 • Provide more kneeling buses for easier access. 1 • Increase promotions using media other than the Web; use space on the bus. 1 • Provide more sidewalks around the transfer points. 1 • Create a Metro route map that is less confusing; Provide route maps on the buses. - IDEAS FOR MARKETING TRANSIT USE There appears to be very little marketing of transit at the present time. Participants had several suggestions to marketing the system: • Increase marketing efforts on the buses themselves; • Market special event service better ( "but don't cram people into the buses. "); • Develop television commercials ( "I have never seen a TV commercial for Metro. "); • Develop radio commercials which would be good for people who are stuck in traffic; • Promote how easy it is to get into Seattle using the bus. All agreed that parking costs and traffic are two major incentives for using transit; • Work to improve Metro's image by providing higher quality buses and making them more comfortable. CONCLUSION: WHAT ARE THE THREE MOST IMPORTANT CHANGES, IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRANSIT SERVICE IN TUKWILA? Jason More comfortable, luxurious buses Improve safety so people are not afraid of riding Make bus service more reliable Aothan: More frequent mainline service Better service around Southcenter Better infrastructure around the transfer points IX Kim: Frequent service around Southcenter and to and from the major park and rides Regional transit facility targeted to Seattle commuters Express routes to Seattle from outlying neighborhoods Inez: Need shopper's shuttles in the Southcenter area More frequent service Buses need to be on time Dona: Improve safety on the buses Air - conditioned buses & kneeling buses More evening service on the mainlines Cynthia: Better coordination of buses to improve transfer service More express service directly from neighborhoods to Downtown and to the train station Extend peak hour service Donna: Better connections between Sounder and other bus service to the Local areas (Mall, Downtown Renton, etc.) Improve parking at park and rides Expand service from Fairwood Area to Seattle and the train station Toni: Shopper's shuttle; better connections for shoppers in the area Better coordination of bus and train schedules Expand spaces in the park and rides Dean: Make Tukwila a regional hub More buses in Southcenter More bus shelters X RESPONSE SUMMARY FROM BUSINESS OWNERS AND MANAGERS DOING BUSINESS IN THE TUKWILA URBAN AREA SUMMARY The business people who came to the meeting are interested in providing any assistance they can to help improve the public transit services in and out of Tukwila. They pointed out the immense traffic problems around the Southcenter Mall on the weekends (Friday through Sunday) and during the winter holidays. Many of these business professionals currently provide some type of subsidy to employees who commute using transit; others are willing to consider the possibility of doing so. They are also willing to consider promoting other types of transit use to their employees. Bus stop locations at the Southcenter Mall do not provide convenient drop offs for many of the Mall customers; the BECU Gateway employees who use transit must walk a mile from the bus stop to their work location. As a demonstration of their desire to help, all of the participants said they are willing (and eager) to come to another meeting to review suggested alternatives for public transportation. Here are the priorities for improvements that were suggested by the business group: • Provide bus equipment to match the needs of the community; i.e., smaller buses for the neighborhoods and larger, articulated buses for the express routes; • Improve connecting bus service with the Sounder train; more frequent buses, buses going to more destinations from the Sounder station and buses going directly to the local businesses in Tukwila; • Provide more convenient bus service between the Southcenter Mall and other businesses in the Tukwila Area, especially the businesses on Southcenter Parkway; • Provide more frequent service on the major routes; and • Provide more bus information to employers to pass on to their employees. PARTICIPANTS Nine participants were recruited with the help of the Southwest Chamber of Commerce. They included four women and five men, most of whom are owners or managers where they are employed. The participants represented a broad range of types and sizes of businesses, plus the Tukwila School District. All expressed a strong commitment to identifying ways to improve public transportation within the Tukwila Urban Area. XI Name Business/Position Number of Employees Rick Graff Office Depot, Store Manager 30 Michael Silver Tukwila School Dist., Superintendent 350 employees 2,600 students Nancy Damon S.W. King Co. C of C, Executive Director 5 employees 500 business Mike West South Town Auto Rebuild, Owner 7 Jean Christofferson Bon — Macy's, Manager 460 620 in fall Bill Arthur Segale Business Park, Manager On Tukwila Planning Commission. Segale owns retail center in town 24 Teresa Kiekenapp Costco, Human Resources Manager 375 450 for holidays Todd Pietzsch BECU, Manager of Bus. Development 500 Diane Jensen Highline Com. Hospital, Emp. Benefits 300 EMPLOYEES TAKING PUBLIC TRANSIT Most participants claimed they know of only a few employees who take the bus. Sounder has increased the ability of some employees to get to work (one of the companies provides a vanpool service to and from Sounder), although some employees who might use Sounder cannot get transportation from the train station to work. WHAT IS WORKING WELL FOR TRANSIT NOW? Most notably, those who use transit avoid the parking cost and hassles in Downtown Seattle. Tukwila is a major pass - through area; many people transfer in and out of Southcenter to other places. Public transit provides transportation services for many low- income people who use the buses along Highway 99. The Tukwila Schools Superintendent noted that about 24 students use Metro when they miss regular bus service. Most BECU employees are using vanpools because there is no bus service provided to the Gateway facility. SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS & PRIORITY RATINGS Participants were asked to make a laundry list of the improvements they would like to see. They provided 17 suggestions, from which they were asked to select five they believed to be the most important priorities. XII Suggestion Number Giving Priority • Provide bus equipment that matches the needs of the community; smaller buses are needed for the neighborhoods, and large, articulated buses are needed for express routes. 7 • Provide more frequent service between Sounder and bus service to other areas. "Sounder is attractive because it saves a lot of time, but the poor links to other transportation make it not attractive." (The Bon - Macy's manager says that many in administration would like to take Sounder, but can't get connections to Southcenter); "I would hop the train in a minute, but I can't get to work after I get up here." 6 • Provide a shuttle service between Sounder and local businesses; Businesses or individuals may be willing to subsidize shuttle service between Sounder and other businesses in Tukwila. 5 • Make bus service convenient between the Mall and businesses on Southcenter Parkway and other areas. 4 • Provide more frequent service on the major bus lines. 4 • Provide more bus information to local businesses to pass on to their employees. 4 • Improve safety, especially on buses and at bus stops on Highway 99 (Route 174) and on other routes; there are drug sales going on at bus stops; people need to feel safe riding on the buses. "174 is the poster child for bus safety problems." 3 • Locate bus stops more conveniently. 3 • Acknowledge Tukwila as a destination (Boeing, Costco, Bon — Macy's, School District are all major employers); City says 50,000 commute to Tukwila everyday. 3 • Provide east -west service between S. 144th Street and Pacific Highway to the Tukwila Urban Center/Hwy. as well as Highway 99 to Interurban Ave. 2 • Coordinate bus schedules with the needs of retail sales people; Bon- Macy's employees begin work at 6 a.m., 9:30 a.m., 1:30 p.m. 1 • Maintain bus stops ( "Some look like trash pits. "). 1 • Provide more direct bus service in and out of Tukwila. 1 • Increase transit use promotions. 1 • Provide bus service for families who need to travel to social and health service providers. - • Make Southcenter Mall and Southcenter Parkway a more transit - friendly environment — better service, frequency, transit lanes, pullouts. - • Provide more access from residential areas to Tukwila businesses. - During the Christmas shopping time, the area is not a traffic- friendly place. It can take 40 minutes to exit the parking lot in December. A friendlier bus system could help to improve sales by allowing better access to the businesses from transit. In doing so, people could avoid the traffic and parking problems at Southcenter. Locally, it can take an hour to go two miles on the buses. Southcenter is especially busy on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. "Traffic is all about the weekends here." Local people don't come down to the Mall to shop on the weekends. There is no bus service to local neighborhoods, which means local people cannot take a bus to the Mall or the other Southcenter businesses. IDEAS FOR MARKETING TRANSIT USE First, there was consensus that if transit service can be improved, there will be more benefits to promote. Some of the marketing ideas suggested included: • Provide more bus information to local businesses to give to their employees; • Provide maps and information showing the system displayed in major transit centers; • Increase promotions and provide incentives for riding transit; • Six of the nine business participants are either already subsidizing bus travel, or would be willing to provide some kind of subsidized bus pass. They believe this is an excellent incentive to use transit; and • Some businesses might be willing to encourage bus use, but the concept would need to be tested first. CONCLUSION: WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT CHANGES / IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRANSIT SERVICE IN TUKWILA? Diane Mini van to provide service from Sounder to work More direct routes from Tukwila to other areas Todd: Make quick, easy connections from Sounder and Sound Transit coming into Tukwila Match transportation needs of those coming in to and out from Tukwila Teresa: A light rail system in place Shuttle system that runs in the Southcenter area Bill: Plan transportation services based upon the needs of the people Copy what has worked well elsewhere Look at some forms of altemative transportation (Sounder, light rail, people mover, etc.) Jean: Recognize that Tukwila is a destination and not just a pass - through area, and identify the needs of the people coming into this hub Mike: I have no confidence in the Metro bus system; it's more of a nuisance on Highway 99 Nancy: Make it quick, convenient and easy intra and inter; people need to know it's there and it's going to move them Michael: People need to think of Tukwila as a hub and identify where the spokes go to increase ridership: South King County, Eastside, etc. Rick: Study the travel patterns of people coming in and out of Tukwila and travel times; suit transportation to travel needs INTEREST IN COMING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO LOOK AT ALTERNATIVES All were willing to come again and help to evaluate proposed improvements. XV