HomeMy WebLinkAboutReg 2021-07-19 Item 5B - Update - BNSF Alternative Access Study Environmental Impact Statement ProcessCOUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
In fials
Meeting Date
Prepared by
Mayor's review
Council review
07/19/21
JR
ITEM INFORMATION
ITEM NO.
5.B.
27
STAFF SPONSOR: HARI PONNEKANTI
C)RIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 07/19/21
AGENDA ITEM TITLE BNSF Alternative Access Study
EIS Process Budget, Schedule, and Next Steps
CATEGORY Discussion
07/19/21
❑ Motion
Mtg Date
❑ Resolution
Mtg Date
❑ Ordinance
Mtg Date
❑ Bid Award
Mt Date
❑ Public Hearing
Mtg Date
❑ Other
Mtg Date
Ai tg Date
SPONSOR ❑Council Mayor HR DCD ❑Finance Fire TS P&R ❑Police 11 PW ❑Court
SPONSOR'S Staff is seeking Council direction on a funding path to implement an Environmental Impact
SUMMARY Statement (EIS) for the BNSF Alternative Access Study, as well as hire a Term -Limited
Project Manager to manage the EIS process and the EIS consultant qualification request.
An EIS is intended to be an impartial tool to identify and analyze probable adverse
environmental impacts, reasonable alternatives, and possible mitigation for the impacts.
The funding required is anticipated to be in the range of $900,000 - $1,200,000.
REVIEWED BY
Trans&Infrastructure
❑ CommunitySvs/Safety ❑ Finance Comm. ❑ Planning/Economic Dcv.
❑ Arts Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm.
COMMITTEE CHAIR: VERNA SEAL
❑ LTAC
DATE: 07/12/21
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR/ADMIN.
COMMITTEE
Public Works Department
Unanimous Approval; Forward to New Business
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$900,000 - 1,200,000 $0.00 $0.00
Fund Source: I
Comments: I
MTG. DATE
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
07/19/21
I
MTG. DATE
ATTACHMENTS
07/19/21
Informational Memorandum dated 07/09/21
Transportation & Infrastructure Services Meeting Info Memo- Dated May 21, 2021
Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes- Dated June 14, 2021
Minutes from Transportation and Infrastructure Committee meeting of 07/12/2021
27
28
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
Pub.k Works Deportment - Hari P+annek roti, Director/City Engineer
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Transportation and Infrastructure Services Committee
FROM: Hari Ponnekanti, Public Works Director/City Engineer
CC: Mayor Allan Ekberg
DATE: July 9, 2021
SUBJECT: BNSF Alternative Access Study
Project No. 99510409
EIS Process Budget, Schedule, and Next Steps
ISSUE
Information regarding the BNSF Alternative Access Study Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process, identifying
budget sources, outlining consultant selection process, and project schedule. Staff is requesting direction on a funding
path to implement a Term -Limited Project Manager to manage the EIS process and the EIS consultant qualification
request.
BACKGROUND
On June 14, 2021, at the Committee of the Whole Meeting, Council directed Public Works staff to proceed with staff
recommended Options 1 and 2, which include updating costs estimates and a full EIS review of all alternate routes.
Option 1: Update Previous Cost Estimates: Estimated cost is $15,000 to $50,000
Staff estimates that the supplemental costs to update the David Evans contract for the cost estimate revisions to the report will
be approximately $15,000 to $50,000.
Option 2: EIS on all alternatives: Estimated cost is $750,000 to $900,000
Staff estimates that the supplemental costs to start and finish an environmental impact application process is approximately
$750,000 to $900,000. The cost would depend on the scope, such as the number of route alternatives (or the number of
environmental elements) selected for review. The estimated timeline for completing this EIS is 18 to 24 months. This EIS would
be useful only for a certain period of time and depending on when funding was secured (if several years later due to Federal or
State funding availability), it may need to be updated (supplemented) for an additional cost. A full EIS or partial EIS will both
require the City to hire a term -limited Project Manager at a cost of approximately $300,000 for two years. This brings the total
estimated costs up to $1.2 million dollars for the EIS and City staff requirements.
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") on all four alternative routes as compared to the status quo / "no
action" alternative is recommended prior to choosing a preferred route. An EIS is intended to be an impartial tool to identify
and analyze probable adverse environmental impacts, reasonable alternatives, and possible mitigation for the impacts. An EIS
is required when significant adverse environmental impacts are likely from a project, such as here, where two of the
alternatives involve a new bridge across a salmon bearing river. If a full scope EIS is undertaken, all of the alternatives in the
2016 Draft BNSF Access Study would be analyzed, including the following four alternatives along with the status quo (S. 124th
St. and 42nd Ave. S. bridge).
1
Airport Way S.
3
Gateway Drive - north leg
2
S. 112th Street
4
48th Avenue S.
29
Map of the study area and alternatives routes
Environmental Elements Considered for EIS Analysis
1. Earth
2. Air
3. Water
4. Plants
5. Animals
6. Energy & Natural Resources
7. Environmental Health
8. Land and Shoreline Use
9. Housing
10. Aesthetics
11. Light and Glare
12. Recreation
13. Historic and Cultural
Preservation
14. Transportation
15. Public Services
16. Utilities
Rhone; 2O6-433-1840 Email.: Mayor@TukwilaliVA.gov • Website: TukwilaWA.gov
30
1
Scoping is the first step in the EIS process. The purpose of scoping is to narrow the focus of the EIS to significant
environmental issues, eliminate insignificant impacts from detailed study, and identify alternatives to be analyzed in the EIS.
Scoping also provides notice to the public and other agencies that an EIS is being prepared and initiates their involvement in
the process. The result of the scoping process might be a reduced number of access alternatives and/or environmental
elements to be studied. While a narrower document will reduce costs, one that does not fully consider environmental impacts
may be more vulnerable to legal challenge.
DISCUSSION
EIS Schedule
Staff outlines the following schedule:
3rd Quarter of 2021
Identify Project Funding
3rd and 4th Quarter of 2021
Hire Term -Limited Project Manager
4th Quarter of 2021
Begin monthly progress meetings with the Allentown Community
1st Quarter of 2022
Start Request for Qualifications process for EIS consultant,
select consultant, and bring contract to Council for approval
2nd Quarter of 2022
Start the EIS
4th Quarter 2023
Complete the EIS and report to Council and the Allentown Community
Funding Sources
The first step in the EIS schedule and process for the BNSF Alternative Access Study is to identify funding sources. Staff has
identified five options for potential funding sources for this project:
1. Transfer unused funds from the 42nd Ave South Bridge Replacement Project design phase after utilizing the PSRC
contingency grant funds.
2. Use ending fund balance from the general fund. (For example in 2020, we ended the year with over $1 million above our
required reserves.)
3. Reallocate a portion of the Solid Waste Utility Tax for year 2022 and 2023 to this project.
4. Move/prioritize funds from other CIP projects during the next budget amendment process to provide a clear funding path for
the BNSF Alternative Access Study EIS process.
5. Issue an Infrastructure Bond for the BNSF Alternative Access Study Project costs and take advantage of the low-interest
rate. The Bond can be repaid over several years.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The overall staffing and consultant costs were in the range of $900,000 - $1,200,000. The interest payment cost will depend on
the options chosen from above. Final direction on the funding choices above should be included in the budget amendment
process. Staff will proceed hiring a Term -Limited Project Manager to complete the consultant qualification request and EIS
process. The project will start incurring costs in the beginning of 2022.
RECOMMENDATION
Discussion only.
Attachments: Transportation & Infrastructure Services Meeting Info Memo- Dated May 21, 2021
Council of the Whole Meeting Minutes- Dated June 14, 2021
Phorse; 246-433-1840 + Email: Mayor TukwilaWA.gov' • Website: TukwilaliVAogov
2
31
32
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
Palk Works Department - Hari Porinekantrz Director/C+ty &rrgirreer
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Transportation and Infrastructure Services Committee
FROM: Hari Ponnekanti, Public Works Director/City Engineer
CC: Mayor Allan Ekberg
DATE: May 21, 2021
SUBJECT: BNSF Alternative Access Study
Project No. 99510409
Project Update and Next Steps
ISSUE
Information regarding the BNSF Intermodal Facility Access Study.
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this memorandum is to share history and information regarding alternatives for a new truck traffic route into the
BNSF intermodal yard to relieve truck traffic from the Allentown neighborhood ("the Project"). While the Tukwila City Council
has been considering access alternatives for the BNSF intermodal yard since the late 1990's, no preferred alternative route
has been selected.
The goal of an alternative route has always been to improve the quality of life for residents in the Allentown, Duwamish and
surrounding areas, which are impacted by the estimated 3,000 trucks per day (of the total 10,000 vehicles per day) which use
the current route (status quo) on S. 124th St. and 42nd Ave. S. bridge to access the BNSF intermodal yard. These trucks
impact air quality, noise, and the safety of residents. A common goal is to move this truck traffic out of the residential area.
Selecting and creating an alternative route into the BNSF intermodal yard has several challenges due to overall costs, lack of
funding options for an alternative route, environmental concerns and potential litigation.
Immediately below is a historical timeline of events related to consideration of alternative routes. This timeline is based on
available records and remembrances of those involved.
I. Historical Alternative Route Consideration Timeline
As shown below, in 1997, the City of Tukwila began studying access alternatives to the BNSF Intermodal Facility.
Date
Activity
1997
•
Hanson & Wilson Co. Access Study for BNSF
1998
•
Harding Lawson Associates Study
2000
•
Cooper Consulting Engineering Study (because previous two studies presented substantially
different capital estimates)
May 2011
•
City Council adopted Res 1741 opposing federal pre-emption relating to railroads
•
Council Member (CM) Hougardy met with Port Commissioner Tarleton to discuss BNSF
expansion concerns
•
City met with BNSF to discuss alternate access
•
City sent letter to BNSF discussing lack of financial assistance, deterioration of 42nd Ave
Bridge from truck traffic
•
BNSF response letter offering further discussions but no specifics
https://lukwilawa.sharepoint.com/sites/publicworks/engineering/PW Drop Box/01 TIC Agenda/2021 Agenda Items/TIC 05-24-21/g. BNSF Alternate Study/info memo BNSF alternatives 050721.docx
3
33
Date
Activity
July 2011
•
•
City met with BNSF to clarify understandings and address neighborhood concerns, Council
Members (CMs), Ball Janik (Federal Lobbyist) and reps from Senator Murray, Senator.
Cantwell, Congressman Smith in attendance
City met with Allentown residents
August 2011
•
BSNF letter to city proposing to meet every six months and asserting no plans for expansion
(follow up meetings were not made)
February 2012
•
City met with Ball Janik (Federal Lobbyist) to discuss BNSF and Strander Blvd Ext
May 2012
•
DC trip to meet with reps from Surface Transportation Board
July 2012
•
City met with BNSF followed by letter to Sen. Cantwell
August 2012
•
Allentown residents give public comment opposing alternative route on 115th/116th
November 2012
•
City met with BNSF
April 2013
•
•
•
City Council discussed BNSF Railyard
City met with BNSF and Ball Janik to discuss engineering options, 30% design, EIS, cost
sharing, pursuit of TIGER (Federal grant opportunity), neighborhood livability
Council's CAP Committee discussed scope of work for neighborhood livability study
May 2013
•
City met with BNSF
June 2013
•
Council added BNSF Regional Access Center to Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
August 2013
•
City Council discussed options for study/report for Allentown and BNSF intermodal facility
October 2013
•
City receives Request for Proposal (RFP) from BNSF on southern access alternatives for
review
March 2014
•
City met with BNSF
April 2014
•
City forms internal working group of staff and three CMs
May 2014
•
•
BNSF group meets with Allentown residents on draft Request for Quote (RFQ) for livability
Mayor and CMs meet with Murray, Cantwell and Smith in DC
June 2014
•
•
City talked with Smith office about cooperative funding agreement
BNSF group met with Allentown residents
July 2014
•
•
BNSF Workgroup Tour arranged by Ball Janik
Cooperative Funding Agreement with BNSF for alternative access study
November 2014
•
•
Neighborhood canvassing re: livability
City Council discussion on draft scope of work for BNSF Facility Access Study
March 2015
•
Contract with David Evans and Associates for BNSF Facility Access Study
August 2015
•
Council briefed on progress of BNSF study - August 10, 2015 Council of the Whole (C.O.W.)
December 2015
•
Council briefed on progress of BNSF study - December 14, 2015 C.O.W.
March 2016
•
BNSF Access Study Open House (Tukwila Community Center and Online)
November 2016
•
BNSF Intermodal Facility Access Study — Draft Alternative Screening Analysis Report
November 28, 2016
December 2016
•
Draft Study findings transmitted to City Council
March 2017
•
City met with BECU to discuss their concerns with the Gateway Drive alternative
Phone; 206-433-1800 * Email.; Mayor@TukwilaVVA.gov « Website: TukwiiawA.gcv
34
4
Date
Airport Way S.
3
Activity
May 2017
S. 112th Street
•
Notice of SEPA Application issued with comment period ending - June 2, 2017
August 2017
•
Open House — Preferred Alternative Outreach -. August 17, 2017
September 2017
•
Bob Giberson retires; Robin Tischmak becomes Interim Public Works Director
January 2018
•
Henry Hash becomes Public Works Director
March 2019
•
Great Northern Corridor Coalition (GNCC) Meeting and Tour of the BNSF South Seattle
Intermodal Facility. March 27, 2019
June 2019
•
•
TIS Committee discussed project and sent to C.O.W.
Councilmembers toured BNSF facility
October 2019
•
CM Kruller toured BNSF facility with NLC's Brittney Kohler
July 2020
•
Hari Ponnekanti named Interim Public Works Director
February 2021
•
Hari Ponnekanti appointed Public Works Director
May 2021
•
Council's Transportation and Infrastructure Committee agenda item
June 2021
•
Public open house to be held
II. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
In 2015, the City of Tukwila and BNSF jointly funded an access study for a total cost of $241,173.23 to determine a potential
new alternative route for truck traffic into the intermodal yard. As part of the study, open houses were held and community
input was collected. The following four alternatives were considered along with the status quo (S. 124th St. and 42nd Ave. S.
bridge).
1
Airport Way S.
3
Gateway Drive - north leg
2
S. 112th Street
4
48th Avenue S.
In December 2016, the City began environmental review of the access study by completing a SEPA checklist. After receiving
comments that probable, significant adverse environmental impacts of some for the truck route alternatives would trigger the
requirement for a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the City paused environmental review in August 2017 due to
several factors, including but not limited to:
City staff did not clearly articulate the various challenges associated with the alternative access effort, including:
o No budget or clear direction for completing next phases of alternative access study
o Required environmental regulatory process and potential project opponents
o Increased concerns regarding 42nd Ave S. Bridge and focus on securing state grant funds (City applied for
bridge replacement grant funds in 2017 and 2019 without success)
o Other capital project priorities on Capital Improvement Plan, (such as the Strander Boulevard extension into
Renton and 42nd Ave S. Bridge replacement)
- Changes in city personnel
Phone; 2O6-433-1$40 * Email: Mayor@TitikwillaWA.gov + Website: TukwilaliVA.gcv
5
35
Map of the study area and alternatives routes
Phone: 206433-1800 • Email: Mayor@TukwilaWA.gov • Website: TukwilaWNA.gov
36
6
III. POTENTIAL NEXT STEPS
To move forward with an alternative access analysis, the environmental review must be resumed for a set of feasible
alternatives and the status quo (no action alternative). Early SEPA review requires having each of the access alternatives
defined well enough to adequately conduct the review for possible environmental impacts.
A. SEPA Review of All Routes (EIS).
Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") on all four alternative routes as compared to the status quo / "no
action" alternative is recommended prior to choosing a preferred route. An EIS is intended to be an impartial tool to identify
and analyze probable adverse environmental impacts, reasonable alternatives, and possible mitigation for the impacts. An EIS
is required when significant adverse environmental impacts are likely from a project, such as here, where two of the
alternatives involve a new bridge across a salmon bearing river. If a full scope EIS is undertaken, all of the alternatives in the
2016 Draft BNSF Access Study would be analyzed.
Below are the elements considered during SEPA review/analysis:
Environmental Elements for SEPA Analysis
1. Earth
2. Air
3. Water
4. Plants
5. Animals
6. Energy and Natural Resources
7. Environmental Health
8. Land and Shoreline Use
9. Housing
10. Aesthetics
11. Light and Glare
12. Recreation
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
14. Transportation
15. Public Services
16. Utilities
Scoping is the first step in the EIS process. The purpose of scoping is to narrow the focus of the EIS to significant
environmental issues, eliminate insignificant impacts from detailed study, and identify alternatives to be analyzed in the EIS.
Scoping also provides notice to the public and other agencies that an EIS is being prepared, and initiates their involvement in
the process. The result of the scoping process might be a reduced number of access alternatives and/or environmental
elements to be studied. While a narrower document will reduce costs, one that does not fully consider environmental impacts
may be more vulnerable to legal challenge.
IV. PROJECT CHALLENGES
The Project presents numerous, significant challenges. The status quo involves the 42nd Ave S bridge, which is nearing the end
of its useful life, is beyond repair and requires replacement. All potential alternatives are challenging due to overall costs, lack
of funding options for an alternative route, environmental concerns and potential litigation.
Anticipated Cost Considerations:
Option 1: Update Previous Cost Estimates: Estimated cost is $15,000 to $50,000
Staff estimates that the supplemental costs to update the David Evans contract for the cost estimate revisions to the report will
be approximately $15,000 to $50,000.
Option 2: EIS on all alternatives: Estimated cost is $750,000 to $900,0001
Staff estimates that the supplemental costs to start and finish an environmental impact application process is approximately
$750,000 to $900,000. The cost would depend on the scope, such as the number of route alternatives (or the number of
environmental elements) selected for review. The estimated timeline for completing this EIS is 18 to 24 months. This EIS would
be useful only for a certain period of time and depending on when funding was secured (if several years later due to Federal or
1 Updated (April 2021) cost estimate from David Evans and Associates; a limited scope EIS would be less, yet likely could still
cost between $500,000 and $750,000.
Phone; 206 -433 -MO * Email: Mayor@TtikwillaWA.gov * Website: TukwilaWA.gov
7
37
State funding availability), it may need to be updated (supplemented) for an additional cost. A full EIS or partial EIS will both
require the City to hire a term -limited Project Manager at a cost of approximately $300,000 for two years. This brings the total
estimated costs up to $1.2 million dollars for the EIS and City staff requirements.
Option 3: Research and analyze funding options to secure future funding if feasible:
Seek via State and Federal funding for an alternative access route, once it has been defined. At this time there is a current lack
of funding for new bridges, which are proposed in two of the four alternatives, as such, there is not currently a good fit for state
and federal funding. However, the potential for a Federal infrastructure package may occur, but is unknown at this time. Nor are
the application requirements known. Those potential funds may be used to fix deteriorating infrastructure rather than `build new'.
The City will follow this closely. In addition, if a bridge was chosen as the alternate access, it will serve primarily as a bridge for
freight traffic. Access to Baker Commodities or residential use would have to be considered but may be a design challenge in
certain cases. The reality that the public will not be able to use this infrastructure, and that it will largely benefit private industry,
makes it a difficult candidate for public funding.
Project Costs
Project costs for any alternative are unknown until preliminary engineering is underway. For example, an estimated cost for the
48th Ave S. route alternative, developed in 2016, was approximately $20 million. Due to price escalation, in 2019, it was estimated
that this cost could have nearly doubled to $34M. Any estimate will need to be updated, and based on this alternative's less
than 10% design, any alternative's design would need to progress further to get a better cost estimate.
An example of a project in the City for comparison is the Strander Boulevard easterly extension into Renton, WA. That project
was originally estimated at $29 million, upon completion of design work, it was identified at $80 million. The City, even with
existing State and Federal resources, did not have the money to proceed with the project, so it was cancelled. The City had
received Federal grant funding of $5 million for the design work, but since the project was stopped, the City had to return that
funding to the Federal Government.
Potential Litigation
Due to the complexity of these alternatives, there are various entities who may challenge any of these alternatives, including
adjacent property owners, tribal governments, other city and state governments, and local businesses.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Option 1: Staff estimates that the supplemental costs to update the David Evans contract for the cost estimate revisions to the
report will be approximately $15,000 to $50,000. Please note that these cost estimates are based on a very preliminary
engineering design and are subject to change.
Option 2: Staff also estimates that the supplemental costs to start and finish an environmental impact statement process is
approximately $750,000 to $900,000. This effort will also require a term -limited Project Manager at a cost of approximately
$300,000 for two years. The total for Option 2 is approximately up to $1.2 million dollars.
RECOMMENDATION
It is Staffs recommendation that it would be most appropriate to proceed with Options 1 and 2.
ATTACHMENTS: Draft BNSF Intermodal Facility Access Study - Draft Alternative Screening Analysis (full draft)
Draft BNSF Intermodal Facility Access Study — Preferred Alternative Outreach Summary
Phone; 246-433-1840 * Email: Mayor@TukwilialiVA.gov • Website: TukwilawA.gov
38
8
BNSF RAILWAY INTERMODAL FACILITY ACCESS STUDY
ALTERNATIVE SCREENING ANALYSIS REPORT
Prepared for:
City of Tukwila
Public Works Department
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98005
Prepared by:
David Evans and Associates, Inc.
14432 SE Eastgate Way
Bellevue, WA 98007
November 28, 2016
9
39
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION 2
PROJECT BACKGROUND 2
SUMMARY OF DESIGN CRITERIA 2
ALTERNATIVES 2
Airport Way S Alternative 4
S 112th Street Alternative 4
S 124th Street Alternative 4
Gateway Drive Alternative 5
48th Avenue 5 Alternative 5
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA COLLECTION 6
Critical and Sensitive Areas 6
Fish and Wildlife 6
Water Resources 6
Hazardous Materials 7
Geological and Soils 7
Cultural and Historical Resources 7
SCREENING MATRIX 7
Matrix Criteria 8
Scoring Methodology 10
SCORING OF ALTERNATIVES 11
CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY ESTIMATES 13
CONCEPTUAL PLAN SHEETS 13
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1— Project Study Area 3
Figure 2 — Selection Criteria Screening Matrix 12
APPENDICES
Appendix A — Alternative Plan Sheets
Appendix B — Truck Access Routes
Appendix C — Roadway Cost Estimate Back-up
P:ItITUKA00000013s0600INF{)i0670FeportstSNSa= Intermodal Access Screening summary 2016-1128.docx
City of Tukwila i Alternative Screening Analysis
40 BNSF Intermodal Facility Access November 28, 201610
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Alternative Screening Analysis Report for the City of Tukwila was prepared by David Evans and
Associates, Inc. to evaluate alternative access to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway
intermodal facility in Tukwila, Washington. This facility is also known as South Seattle Yard. BNSF
Railway also sponsored this study.
The existing access to the intermodal facility uses 42nd Avenue S and S 124th Street. S 124th Street
is also a residential collector street serving the community of Allentown. Several residential homes
with driveways are located on S 124th Street, as is the Tukwila Community Center which houses an
aquatic center, meeting rooms, classes and activities for all ages, and playground and ball fields.
This study did not create new alternatives but used alternatives that were developed by previous
studies. A total of five alternatives were studied: Airport Way S, S 112th Street, S 124th Street,
Gateway Drive — North Leg, and 48th Avenue S.
Several desktop researches were performed as part of this study. These researches included critical
and sensitive areas, fish and wildlife, water resources, hazardous materials, geological and soils, and
cultural and historical resources.
A scored screening matrix was developed collaboratively between the City of Tukwila, BNSF
Railway, and David Evans and Associates, Inc. The matrix was presented to Tukwila City Council as
well as to the public for their feedback on the screening matrix criteria. The public was allowed to
provide feedback via an on-line open house and an in-person open house.
Representatives from Tukwila, BNSF Railway, and David Evans and Associates, Inc. met to score
each alternative using a numerical scoring system from 1 to 9. The score for each criteria was
added, and the lowest score is the preferred alternative.
Based on the scoring result, the 48th Avenue S alternative is the preferred alternative.
P:ItITUKA00000013106001NF010670ReportslBNSF Intermodal Access Screening summary _2016-1128.docx
City of Tukwila 1 Alternative Screening Analysis
BNSF Intermodal Facility Access November 28, 201611
41
42
INTRODUCTION
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway owns an intermodal facility that transfers containers
from trucks to railroad and vice versa. This facility is located within the City of Tukwila city limits in
the Allentown community. The intermodal facility is adjacent to Interstate 5 (1-5) and just south of
King County International Airport, also known as Boeing Field. BNSF calls this facility South Seattle
Yard.
The only access route to the intermodal facility is along the southern edge of the Allentown
community on S 124th Street. In order to improve livability and safety without compromising the
operations of the yard, the community and the City are seeking an alternative access route to the
intermodal facility.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The project area is located in the incorporated community of Allentown, within the City of Tukwila.
For several years, the City has worked with Allentown residents on issues related to community
impacts resulting from the BNSF South Seattle Intermodal Facility, and on identifying alternatives
for a rerouted truck access—one with fewer adverse impacts on the neighborhood. Trucks currently
use 42nd Avenue S and S 124th Street to access the rail facility. Over 20 different alternatives for
truck access to the rail facility have been studied since 1998.
Truck traffic has increased along the existing truck route over the last several years, due to
increased rail activity. The approximately 50 homes along S 124th Street experience 24-hour per
day truck traffic, adding to the other existing airport, highway, and train noise levels in the
neighborhood. Truck traffic also creates safety issues for residents. Trucks back up at the
checkpoint station at the east end of 5 124th Street, idling on S 124th Street, waiting to check into
the rail facility, creating access difficulties, vehicle exhaust, noise, and safety issues for residents.
SUMMARY OF DESIGN CRITERIA
After discussions with the City, the typical roadway section for this project used a 12 -foot lane, 5 -
foot bike lane, 5 -foot landscape strip, and 5 -foot sidewalk. The total width for this roadway section
is 75 feet (includes 1 -foot for curbs on both side of the street). This same width was also used for
the bridge section.
In developing the concept roadway profiles, a design speed of 35 mph was used.
Since the new access would primarily be used by trucks, the maximum roadway grade used was five
percent.
ALTERNATIVES
The City of Tukwila began studying access alternatives to the BNSF Intermodal Facility in 1998. An
alternative study was performed by Harding Lawson Associates. Another access alternative study
was performed by Cooper Consulting Engineering in 2000. This access study did not develop new
alternatives, but used leading alternatives from these previous studies.
P:ItITUKA0000001310600INFO10670ReportslBNSF Intermodal Access Screening summary _2016-1128.docx
City of Tukwila 2 Alternative Screening Analysis
BNSF Intermodal Facility Access November 28, 201612
Figure 1 shows the project study area. The following provides a description for each alternative.
Figure 1— Project Study Area
S 112th Street
Alternative
a..
48th Avenue S
Extension
Alternative Nc
P:ItITUKA0000001306001NFD10670RepertstEINSF Intermodal Access Screening summary 2016-1126.docx
City of Tukwila
BNSF Intermodal Facility Access
3
Alternative Screening Analysis
November 28, 201613
43
44
Airport Way S Alternative
This alternative access would connect the northern end of the intermodal facility to Airport Way S.
The existing railroad maintenance road would be reconstructed and provide ingress and egress to
the intermodal facility. A new intersection and traffic signal would be required at Airport Way and
the access road. Plan sheets for this alternative can be found in Appendix A.
Due to geometric constraints and the alignments of Airport Way S and the new access road, access
from Airport Way south of the new intersection to the intermodal facility is not feasible. Entry and
exit from the intermodal facility would only be north of the new intersection. Taking into account
these restrictions, 1-5 freeway access would be via S Norfolk Street, East Marginal Way S, and S
Boeing Access Road. A figure of the truck freeway access route can be found in Appendix B.
This alternative access would require the existing bridge on S Boeing Access Road over the railroad
tracks to be reconstructed due to the width of the new access road and the existing bridge
configuration.
This alternative would require the intermodal facility to construct the following at the north end of
the yard: a check-in/check-out facility, truck queuing lanes, an operations building, and a truck
storage access road along the western edge of the facility. This new road cannot be built within the
existing BNSF parcel, so new right-of-way would be required.
S 112th Street Alternative
This alternative would connect to the northern half of the intermodal facility. This new roadway
would begin at East Marginal Way S and use the existing Seattle Public Utilities and Seattle City
Light utilities corridor. The utilities corridor borders a shooting range to the north, and Duwamish
Hill Preserve and a residential neighborhood to the south. A bluff separates the higher -elevation
residential neighborhood from S 112th Street to the north and the rail facility to the east.
The existing utility corridor contains three separate high-power transmissions lines and a large -
diameter water line, as seen in aerial photos.
Plan sheets for this alternative can be found in Appendix A.
The truck freeway access route to 1-5 would be via East Marginal Way S and S Boeing Access Road. A
figure of the truck freeway access route can be found in Appendix B.
This alternative would require the intermodal facility to construct the following at the north end of
the yard: a check-in/check-out facility, truck queuing lanes, an operations building, and a truck
storage access road along the western edge of the facility. This new road cannot be built within the
existing BNSF parcel, so new right-of-way would be required.
S 124th Street Alternative
This alternative would use the existing route and connect into the intermodal facility at its current
location. Truck traffic would continue to access the rail facility using Interurban Avenue S, 42nd
Avenue S, S 124th Street, and the existing check-in/check-out facility. No improvements or changes
would occur to the streets along the route as part of this project. This route is adjacent to
P:ItITUKA00000013106001NF0I0670ReportsIBNSF Intermodal Access Screening summary _2016-1128.docx
City of Tukwila 4 Alternative Screening Analysis
BNSF Intermodal Facility Access November 28, 201614
approximately 50 homes and the Tukwila Community Center, and runs through the middle of the
Allentown neighborhood. Impacts to the neighborhood associated with the truck traffic would
continue, similar to existing conditions, and could continue to worsen, based on recent increases in
freight -related truck traffic in this area. Due to its age and service life, the 42nd Avenue S bridge
over the Duwamish River would require replacement. Plan sheets for this alternative can be found
in Appendix A.
As a mitigation measure for the truck noise, it is assumed that a noise wall would be constructed
along the northern edge of 42nd Avenue S. The construction of this new noise wall would require
the acquisition of all homes whose driveways are on 42nd Avenue S. Also, seven roadways (43rd
Avenue S, 44th Avenue S, 45th Avenue S, 46th Avenue S, 47th Avenue S, 48th Avenue S, and 49th
Avenue S) would have their access to 42nd Avenue S closed. These streets would become dead-end
streets, and new cul-de-sacs would be constructed at the south end of each street. All of the
neighbor access would be shifted to S 122nd Street to the north.
There would be no changes to freeway access with this alternative. A figure of the truck freeway
access route can be found in Appendix B.
There would be no changes to the intermodal facility as part of this alternative.
Gateway Drive Alternative
This alternative access would connect to the intermodal facility at its current check-in/check-out
location. This alternative would begin at Interurban Avenue S, use the north leg of Gateway Drive,
construct a new roadway between the Boeing Employee Credit Union (BECU) buildings, construct a
bridge over the Green River Trail and Duwamish River, go through residential parcels, and tie into
the existing intermodal check-in/check-out facility. This alternative would construct three new at -
grade intersections at Gateway Drive (east leg), 50th Place S, and 51st Place S. The new bridge
would include a 10 -foot -wide pedestrian facility. Plan sheets for this alternative can be found in
Appendix A.
The truck freeway access route to 1-5 would be via Interurban Avenue S. A figure of the truck
freeway access route can be found in Appendix B.
There would be no changes to the intermodal facility as part of this alternative.
48th .Avenue S Alternative
This alternative access would connect to the southern end of the intermodal facility. This
alternative would begin at Interurban Avenue S, use the existing 48th Avenue S roadway, and
construct a new bridge over the Green River Trail and Duwamish River, as well as a roadway that
goes under the existing S 129th Street bridge and into the rail yard facility. The new bridge would
include a 10 -foot -wide pedestrian facility. Plan sheets for this alternative can be found in Appendix
A.
The truck freeway access route to 1-5 would be via Interurban Avenue S. A figure of the truck
freeway access route can be found in Appendix B.
P:ItITUKA00000013106001NF010670ReportslBNSF Intermodal Access Screening summary _2016-1128.docx
City of Tukwila 5 Alternative Screening Analysis
BNSF Intermodal Facility Access November 28, 201615
45
46
This alternative would require the intermodal facility to construct new truck queuing and exiting
lanes. All new lanes can be constructed within BNSF parcels. No construction or modification would
be needed at the existing check-in/check-out facility or operation building.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA COLLECTION
To assist in screening the alternatives, existing information in the following subjects was gathered
and displayed as geographic information system (GIS) maps. No field work was conducted, and the
information for the existing conditions came from publicly -available sources. An Existing Conditions
Technical Memorandum was prepared for each subject area. This information will also be used in
the technical discipline reports prepared as part of the environmental documentation under SEPA.
• Critical and Sensitive Areas
• Fish and Wildlife
• Water Resources
• Hazardous Materials
• Geological and Soils
• Cultural and Historical Resources
The following sections provide a summary of the findings.
Critical and Sensitive Areas
The project area is located in the Puget Sound lowlands, within the tidally -influenced Duwamish
estuary ecosystem. Category III and IV wetlands exist within the project study area. The Duwamish
River runs through the middle of the project area and is designated by the City of Tukwila as a
shoreline of statewide significance.
Fish and Wildlife
Fish and wildlife use of the project study area is limited by its high density of industrial, commercial,
and residential development. Terrestrial wildlife habitat in the project area is limited to the buffers
of wetlands, the narrow riparian fringe along the Duwamish River, and a few scattered undeveloped
steep slopes and undeveloped parcels.
Fish use in the Duwamish River, which contains a wide range of native and nonnative fish species,
includes several species listed as threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act
(ESA), including Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, and bull trout.
Water Resources
According to the King County Aquifer Recharge Area map, no critical aquifer recharge areas are
located within the project area. Since the Duwamish River is a designated floodway that is
contained by constructed levees, there are no 100 -year or 500 -year floodplains located within the
project study area.
All alternatives fall within Tukwila's shoreline jurisdiction.
P:ItITUKA000000130600/NF0406:0RepolV8NSF Intermodal Access Screening summary _2016-1128.docx
City of Tukwila 6 Alternative Screening Analysis
BNSF Intermodal Facility Access November 28, 201616
The Duwamish River is on the Ecology 303(d) list for over 300 water quality pollutants.
Hazardous Materials
Hazardous material sites were identified within the project study area. Each site was assigned a risk
rating (low, medium, or high). The risk assigned was based on professional judgment considering
each site's distance to the alternative footprint, type, duration of historical development,
contaminated media, known gradient and contaminant migration potential. The majority of the
sites were classified as low risk. Concerns exist based on historical or current development, but the
likelihood for conditions at the site to affect the project is assessed as relatively low.
Geological and Soils
The project study area is located within the Duwamish River valley. Prior to human modifications,
the Duwamish River was a natural distributary channel of the Cedar and Green Rivers, as well as the
White River. These rivers originate on the flanks of Mount Rainer.
Predominate geologic units mapped in the area of the proposed route alternatives include:
alluvium, bedrock, and glacial deposits. The alternative routes are primarily located within the areas
mapped as alluvial deposits. Bedrock is mapped along the southeastern edge of the Duwamish
River valley in the project study area. Exposed bedrock outcrops are also mapped in the northern
portion of the project area while a glacial deposit area was mapped along the southwestern edge of
the project study area.
In general, there are relative good soils within the project area; however, the potential of
liquefaction does exist within the project study area, especially along the riverbanks.
Cultural and Historical Resources
The project study area is within an area identified by local Native American groups as a traditionally
important landscape. Traditional cultural properties are known to be in the vicinity of each access
alternative.
Remnants of electric railroad may be located at the western ends of all of the alternatives, and
would be considered as items of archaeological importance if encountered.
The project study area contains several buildings, structures, and objects (BSO) that are 35 years or
older. The majority of these BSOs are residential homes. Survey and elevations need to be
performed to determine if they are eligible for registry.
SCREENING MATRIX
In the following two sections, an explanation of the selection criteria matrix is presented. The first
section, Matrix Criteria, discusses the criteria groups and each individual criterion. The second
section, Scoring Methodology, discusses the approach used to score each alternative.
P:ItITUKA00000013106001NFO10670Reports44NSF Intermodal Access Screening summary _2016-1128.docx
City of Tukwila 7 Alternative Screening Analysis
BNSF Intermodal Facility Access November 28, 201617
47
Matrix Criteria
A screening matrix was developed to score the alternatives. The City of Tukwila, BNSF Railway, and
David Evans and Associates, Inc. worked collaboratively to create the screening matrix. The matrix
was then presented to the City Council and the public for their comments. Bob Giberson, Tukwila
Public Works Director, presented the screening matrix to the City Council. The City Council did not
have any comments on the screening matrix.
The screening matrix was presented to the public via two venues: an on-line open house and an in-
person open house. The public did not have any comments on the screening matrix.
The screening matrix contained four groups of scoring criteria. The groups and group descriptions
are as follow:
• Right -of -Way
This group evaluates the need for new right-of-way to construct the alternative and
railroad yard modifications and the complexity or difficulties in obtaining the new right-
of-way.
• Construction
This group evaluates the complexity, difficulties, and impacts of constructing the
alternatives.
• Railroad
This group evaluates the complexity, difficulties, and impacts to the operations of the
existing railroad intermodal facility.
• Environmental
This group evaluates the complexity, difficulties, and impacts to the environment,
preparing the required environmental documentation, and obtaining construction
permits.
For each of these groups, more in depth scoring criteria were used. The following section describes
these additional scoring criteria.
Right -of -Way
• Residential
This criterion evaluates the need for new residential right-of-way to construct the
alternative, and the complexity or difficulties in obtaining the new residential right-of-
way.
• Commercial
This criterion evaluates the need for new commercial right-of-way to construct the
alternative, and the complexity or difficulties in obtaining the new commercial right-of-
way.
P:I8TUKA00000013106001 F00670ReponsONSF Intermodal Access Screening summary _2016-1128.docx
City of Tukwila
48 BNSF Intermodal Facility Access
8 Alternative Screening Analysis
November 28, 201618
• Vacant Land
This criterion evaluates the need for new vacant land right-of-way to construct the
alternative, and the complexity or difficulties in obtaining the new vacant land right-of-
way.
Const rt
• Utilities Relocation
This criterion evaluates the complexity or difficulties of relocating existing utilities
(power, telephone, gas, water, etc.). A couple of examples are the type of overhead
lines (transmission versus distribution), and the size of water line (12 inches versus 6
feet).
• Road Construction
This criterion evaluates the complexity, difficulties, and impacts to existing roadways in
constructing the alternative. Some examples are roadway horizontal or profile revisions,
stormwater or sidewalk reconstruction, and illumination/traffic signals construction or
revisions.
• Impacts Traffic during Construction
This criterion evaluates the complexity, difficulties, and impacts to existing traffic in
constructing the alternative. Some impact examples are the number of days and hours
for lane or roadway closures, the length of detour routes, and the delays for vehicles to
reach their destination.
Railroad
• Railroad Yard Access To and From Freeway
This criterion evaluates the complexity or difficulties of vehicle access from the railroad
intermodal facility to the freeway and vice versa. Some examples are the distance a
vehicle travels from the intermodal facility to the freeway, the number of signalized
intersections a vehicle will cross, and the turning movements (i.e., right turns versus left
turns).
• BNSF Yard Access Reliability
This criterion evaluates the complexity, difficulties, and impacts to providing a reliable
access to the intermodal facility. The main criterion is the risk associated with an
alternative for a closure of a route that restricts access to the facility. This could be due
to any reason: bridge closure or collapse, flooding, or road closure.
• Impacts to Railroad Operations
This criterion evaluates the complexity, difficulties, and impacts to existing intermodal
facility operations. Some examples are relocating the check-in/check-out facility,
relocating the operations building, vehicle circulations within the facility, or access to
storage areas.
P:ItITUKA00000013906001NF01067OReparesISAISF Intermodal Access Screening summary _2016-1128.docx
City of Tukwila 9 Alternative Screening Analysis
BNSF Intermodal Facility Access November 28, 201619
49
• Air Quality
This criterion evaluates the complexity, difficulties, and impacts of air quality.
• Noise
This criterion evaluates the complexity, difficulties, and impacts of noise to sensitive
receivers.
• Historic. Cultural. and Archaeological Resources
This criterion evaluates the complexity, difficulties, and impacts on historical structures
and to cultural or archaeological sites.
• Critical/Sensitive Areas
This criterion evaluates the complexity, difficulties, and impacts to critical and sensitive
areas.
• Geotechnical
This criterion evaluates the complexity, difficulties, and impacts of geotechnical items to
the construction of the alternative.
• Traffic - Operations
This criterion evaluates the complexity, difficulties, and impacts of traffic operations due
to the alternative.
• Permitting
This criterion evaluates the complexity, difficulties, and impacts of obtaining permits
needed to construct each alternative.
The last group in the screening matrix is construction cost. This was included for information
purposes only. The construction cost was separated into two groups. The first one, Roadway
Construction, represents the cost to construct the roadway improvements, or reconstruction of the
existing roadway. The second one, Railroad Yard Construction, represents the cost to construct
improvements or reconstruct the intermodal facility.
Scoring Methodology
A numerical scoring system was used to score each alternative. The scoring range was 1-9 with 1
representing the least difficulty or complexity and 9 representing the most difficulty or complexity.
With this system, the preferred alternative will have the lowest total.
In addition to a numerical score, a color coding system was implemented in order to provide a quick
of the scoring. The colors used were red, yellow, and green. The color assignment for the numerical
scores is as follows:
P:ItITUKA000000110600INFO'0670F eportsONSF Intermodal Access Screening summary 2016-1128.docx
City of Tukwila
10 Alternative Screening Analysis
50 BNSF Intermodal Facility Access November 28, 201620
Color
Numerical Score
Description
Green
1 through 3
Low Complexity/Difficulty
Yellow
4 through 6
Medium Complexity/Difficulty
Red
7 through 9
High Complexity/Difficulty
SCORING OF ALTERNATIVES
The selection criteria matrix was sent to the City of Tukwila and BNSF Railway in order for them to
score, independently, each alternative. David Evans and Associates, Inc. also scored each alternative
independently. On July 20, 2016, representatives from City of Tukwila, BNSF Railway, and David
Evans and Associates, Inc. met to develop a collaborative score for each alternative. The following
figure shows the scoring as a result of this meeting.
P:ItITUKA0000001310600INFO10670ReportsIBNSF Intermodal Access Screening summary _2016-1128.docx
City of Tukwila 11 Alternative Screening Analysis
BNSF Intermodal Facility Access November 28, 201621
51
Figure 2 — Selection Criteria Screening Matrix
52
SELECTION CRITERIA MATRIX 1
Cost 1
(suoIIIW) lso3 loa)ad moio
CO
ER
v
oi
6.3
a)
N
69-
coco
N
69
69
(suolliw) lso3 uoponJlsuoo We), PeoJlle2ti
0
rn
EA
0
cci
EA
0
ER
0
ci
vt
.1:
EA
I
(suo!IIW) l503 uop3rusuo3 Aempeod
co
of
EA
v
N
Efl
a)
N
EA
CO
N
EA
a)
69
p
a -103S Rlol
,-c
T
T
CO
coo
Environmental
velours
cNng.3s
v
v
supliwiad
w
r-
cQ
co
(0
suopeJado - aweu
co
r-
co
ccs
LO
leo!UEloWOO
v
v
r-
n
r-
sea.iy OAplsuaSAeollN3
r-
r-
v
r<
r-
saomosaa IealsoloaeyoJy pue 'Krum 'puolsp {
N
N
a)
co
co
SON
cc)
a)
co
r,
/Wen° my
co
r- '
cc)
r)
c\
Railroad 1
moms
N
N
'
0)
suolleJado peomeb of spedw!
a)
a)
co
Aupciella?J ssa33y P.eA dSNB
o)
v
LC)
v
v
AemaaJd WOil pue of ssaooy pie), peo.med
co
co
co
v
c'')
1 Construction 1
IelogInS
N
N
a
uoly3nJlsuo3 sulxip oweu spedwl
a)
v
a)
co
r-
uollarulsuo3 peod
rn
N
0)
CO
r-
uolleoolaa sap!IIlf1
a) '
a)
v
r-
co
—
Right -of -Way
lelol4ns
0
('-4
4-
N
r
pue1lue3eA
rn
a)
1 CO
(0
co
Iel3Jawwoo
O)
a)
N
CT)
co
lelluapisaM
co
0o
a)
r-
E/!
w
E
0.1
Q
Airport Way S
S 112th Street
S 124th Street
Gateway Drive - North Leg
48th Avenue SE
Low Complexity/Difficulty
Medium Complexity/Difficulty
v
High Complexity/Difficulty
(72
r•
22
U
r
g summary 2016
modal Access Scr
4)
U
1)
T
U
CO
LL
f9
= O
�L L
I- 4'
C
O LL
> c/)
+' Z
U CO
CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY ESTIMATES
Conceptual construction costs and right-of-way estimates were determined for each alternative.
The construction cost estimates were separated into three categories: roadway construction cost
(includes bridge construction), railroad construction cost, and right-of-way acquisition cost.
The estimates were by three separate entities. The conceptual roadway construction cost estimates
were determined by David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA). The railroad costs were determined by
BNSF Railway. The right-of-way costs were determined by Abeyta & Associates, a right-of-way
specialist, and a subconsultant to DEA.
The following table provides the conceptual costs for roadway construction, roadway right-of-way,
railroad facilities construction, and railroad right-of-way.
Alternative
Conceptual Cost Estimate (in millions)
Roadway Costs
Railroad Costs
Roadway
Right -of -Way
Railroad
Right -of -Way
Total
Airport Way S
$14.5 - $19.3
$0
$58.5 - $78.0
$9.0 - $12.0
$98.3 - $109.3
S 112th Street
$12.4 - $16.6
$3.6 - $4.8
$47.7 - $63.6
$3.3 - $4.4
$80.5 - $89.4
S 124th Street
$18.9 - $25.3
$ 2.7 - $3.6
$0
$0
$26.0 - $28.9
Gateway Drive
-North Leg
$11.3 - $15.0
$6.2 - $8.3
$0
$0
$21.o- $23.3
48th Avenue S
$10.2 - $13.6
$1.7 - $2.3
$3.3 - $4.4
$0
$18.3 - $20.4
CONCEPTUAL PLAN SHEETS
For each alternative, plan sheets were created. These plan sheets show the proposed roadway
edges and new right-of-way. Intermodal facility new construction is not included in these plans.
P:ItITUKA0000001310600INF010670ReporlslBNSF Intermodal Access Screening summary _2016-1128.docx
City of Tukwila 13 Alternative Screening Analysis
BNSF Intermodal Facility Access November 28, 201623
53
54
Appendix A —
Alternative Plan Sheets
P:ItITUKA0000001810600INF010670ReportskaNSF Intermodal Access Screening summary _2016-1128.docx
City of Tukwila Alternative Screening Analysis
BNSF Intermodal Facility Access November 28, 201624
55
56
1 lif9iliftWrio oiliiR
1j31 -IS 33S
ZOdd 3N1-1H01dW
05+9 'dls - ,
ZOdd 133HS 33S
09+9 'VIS 3NI1H3IWi
0
0 r M N
u N
„ + cV
m
r QJ
99 94+9 :S )A3
0 2
d N
,
W
<W U
W Y
0
a
0. r
I 0
x
94 10 30A
16 zL+L SCAB
W
0
4
a
O
o_
0
-
0
0
90-00 =30/A
10870+9 9023
tt0 of s0AB
ZZ L£a-'b 'S )A8
0491 = 2319
0101+0 = 719 »7308 30Vd`
0
O O O 0 0
bZlZ
z4 l0
09'10
00 00
90 1Z
79 00
0110
96 10
98 00
97 lZ
09 0Z
62 OZ
90 0Z
00 00
40 00
S661
64 61
90`61
19 81
00"8l
O
+
m
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
1.0
0
0
L va
n
0
O
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
AIRPORT WAY S. ALTERNATIVE
0,
O a
0
CO
0
LL
0
U
Q
0
0
0
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER PARKS *BUILDING
6mp-01.00V)Ifll-lOdd AVM700d8IV 11V-11\S133HSLL1\4V00040\67000000V)IIl1V6d - wd4Z Z 0407/1I. 01P
57
UPIAMMPIIIR WEI
COdd 133HS 33S
00+ZI- 'VIS 3NI1HOIWW
Odd 133HS 33S
OO+Z 'VIS 3 N I1HOEVIN
O 0 0 0 p
,() 10 M N
5I•ZZ ,30A=
199 91+£1 OA
1£9ZZ 30A0
£9 L6+11 .93A3
ll ZZ 30A8
£9 29+-11. 3>9
_CZ ZZ 30A,i.
SSS 96+01 ` OA3
19/ 1Z ,33>6
3
0
O
10
1°
0
SS £9+01 -'0A8
96 09 33A_.
117S 6L+6 50/%3
t
i 0!_ 0Z 33A£1
..39 60+5 5 M8
0
0
90 ZZ Lc)
0/ lZ
99'ZZ
08 1Z
.61./Z
68 19
b£ 1Z
90 1 Z
99 OZ
00 09
bL OZ
00.0Z
0 0 0 0
N
IOdd 133HS 33S
09+9 'V1S 3NI1HOIVIN
0
0
31
0
0
0
6,
rZ 1Z
Z£ 19 ro
0
a
n.
0
w
0
0
0)
w
0
0
>-
✓
J _
0
LL
J
z
0
z
w
1-
z_
//LL
V/�
J
z
m
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
AIRPORT WAY S. ALTERNATIVE
U
Z1.6
o0
M
Z W (.00 0
a�
>a_ ;o
w
o0�yV
> 'A j N
a VI
0 a v ,
o d
Z m
0
O d
0
0
O
0
0
v
d
0
W
a
0
.2
a
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER *PARKS *BUILDING
6'PEL00VW11-ZOdd ASMl10 ll\S133HSU110V00040\EL000000VW11\1Fd- wdLZZ61.21/LL 01P
58
lir NA' Wimil WI El daiRI
60dd 133HS 33S
OS+L 'VIS 3NI1HOIVW
ZOdd 133HS 33S
OO+Z1. 'd1S 3N11HOIVW
17Odd 133HS 33S
09+L1. 'VIS 3NI1H31t1W
O O O O
0
0 V M N
0
Ls oz 3999
C9 L£+91 '093
O
W
0
IL; 02 399E1
£9 Z9+LL S098
1£9 L0+91 -0099
0
_a a
— a 3
o 50
O
26 61. 3090
Cca 7c-
0
0
Eta.
l
0
d
ZOdd 133HS 33S
OO+Z� 'VIS 3NI1HO1VW
00 05
0961
62 0Z
40 02
Os 02
90 02
99 OZ
8£ 61
0
+
rn
0
0
0
0'
cO
0
c)
Scale AS SHOWN
Z
0
w
0
—J
0
w
U
Z
0
w
Z
w
1-
J
AIRPORT WAY S. ALTERNATIVE
0
0
0
LL
0
0
N
U
W
a`
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER PARKS *BUILDING
fimp'ELOOVWIl-EOdd 1.VM1210d8IV 1lV-ll\S133HSLL1\OV00040\EL000000V11111\16d- wd6Z-Z SLIZI/ll olp
59
Nii"91011M19ali WEI A440
£Odd 133HS 33S
09+LL '`d1S 3NIlH31VIN
O
506 O7. = n3�3
96 60+ZZ VIS N1369 30559
55 61 3053
i
O
159 L5+05 0053
}b8 61 305/1
59 55+61 1,059
F
w
59 05
89 05
6S OZ
00 05
£t 05
Z OZ
LO 00
66 LI
L9 6l
O 0 0 0 0
M N
£0dd 133HS 23S
05+L L *VIS 3NIlHO LWJ
Z L
LL 61
£b'9I
O
0
N
O
+
O
0000 I
09 61 rn
AS SHOWN
0
w
0
0
w
0
0
J
0
LL
-J
Z
0
Z
w
Z
rU-
MZ
W
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
AIRPORT WAY S. ALTERNATIVE
0
O
LL
2
of
01
U
W
0
01
0
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER *PARKS *BUILDING
WAVE LOOVNIU-YOddAVMldOdLIIV iiv-i11SJ.33HSLLIIQYIxPY1gEl OOOOOportiuFd - wd9GZ 91151/11 OIP
60
ZOdd l]9HS J9S
00+9 'VIS 2NI1HOIVIN
ZOdd 133HS gDS
09+9 'VIS 2NI1HOIVW
O O O O p
1) f M N
26 61. 30A3
97 Lb+8 9OA3
> n'
740 61 30A8
_. _. 9h ZL+b..-SOAK
00'00
Sb 6L
ZO OZ
09 6L
o'OZ
0961
99 6L
8£ 61
6781
£L 61
00 91
9891
0091
£9'9
10 21
9£81
00 91
L' '9
40'9
+0'91
0 0 00 0 p \\777
7 N V€
0
a
0
•
Scale AS SHOWN
0
w
0
L.6
a.
(1)
w
0
U
>-
U
J
z
0
z
w
H
z_
iL
z
m
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
112TH ST. ALTERNATIVE
Z co
N N W m
Z W 00IO
Q c0 CfD
rn a
Q
�0u3
W V 4
L C N
CI
O N r
Q (0 O
0 Q ;_92
c 61
z m
6Mp'ELW9W11-Ladd H.ZU ll9-ll\S133HSLL1\4900070\E 1000000yN(ll9Fd - Wd45:S SL/9 L/LL llw
61
£0dd 133HS 33S
00+ZI..VIS 3NIlHOIVW
1.0dd 133HS 33S
00+9 'V1S 3NI1H31VW
3
r o
£0dd 133HS 33S
00+Z1, 'VIS 3NI1HOIVVI
O O O 0 0
b0 41 33A_°
09 10+01 1 3A3
06 91 :3JAd
09 9Z+6 S)A9
0
Z w
0
1b"Sl
6Cl
OL Cl
66'£ l
8601
26 Cl
SZ bl
L6 01
S9 61
L6 £1
00 Cl
90'61
Z8'21
bS b l
£b 91
if 91
CO Ll
L6 Ll
b9 Ll
6181
9091
11 61
68 81
O O O O
Lc-) - M N
1.0dd 133HS 33S
09+9 'V.'S 3NIlHO1VW
00 00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.44
0
42
cn
1-
0
w
0
w
w
0
0
>H
J _
0
w
J
z
0
1-
cc
w
H
z_
z
m
z
0
w
0
J
1-
H
a
W
0
z
0
w
1-
z
w
1—
J
112TH ST. ALTERNATIVE
vi
0>
02
1 0
m
0
0
O U
rn
w
nom`.
0
*ENGINEERING*STREETS *WATER *SEWER PARKS *BUILDING
6MP£L00V)111v0+J H.21/ 11V-ll\S133HSUl\OV00040\£L000000VNI11\1Vd - S 81191/1,111u
62
1 WdY1th WEI nit&O
eOckl .1.3_31-13 3S
ool-etb15 3N/7N0.. b
� 1
17Odd 13HS 23S
09+LNI1H31VW
o o 0 0 0
4) d 0 N
f 0t 06+: l SOA]
63 IN '30A8
3t.
3L L6+Sil ,S3A8
63
L9 31 30,13
£9 68+£ l 5069
2L 31 90A8
£9 69+31 5069
93 91
3601
lb 01
9L b l
00 1,1
00 61
0£ 141
00 b1
96'£1
9L£/
39 £1
94 £ l
93 E l
09£1
b6 31
Z£ £l
9931
31
L9 3)
60 31
62 31
o o 0 0
1) d M N
ZOdd 1331-1S 33S
00+Z1. 'VIS 3N1-1H3IWJ
29 31
0
0
3)
0
0
0
0
6-
0
a
0
N
9101 • o
0031
c)
0
0
9
Scale AS SHOWN
1-
0
w
LL
a
w
0
U
u_
0
,Z
v
w
0
J
1-
H
a
w
0
Z
0
0
w
1
z
w
1-
J
112TH ST. ALTERNATIVE
1/i
Z m
u7
Z Li 0
W (0o 0
�c0
>Q N CO)
W_ >0n
Q U L 0 N
NN
U) C
<
1)
z CO
tpla
O 2
w
0
LL
0
0 U
W
0/
0
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER PARKS *BUILDING
bmWEl00VN111-E0dd H121•1 11V-11\S133HSLL1\0V00040\EL 000000VNI1111Fd - Wd99.9 61/91/11 //0
63
`iiilmlimMMi WEI diall&R
£Odd 133HS 33S
09+L1 '` IS 3NI1H3IWJ
O O 0 0 0
M d M N
(9
zw
W
6
(0
0
0
0
O
Ia
60 OZ
11 61
66 61
9121
60'02
IZ'Ll
0 6-S 1
O O 0 0
N 7 M N
Odd 1331 -IS 33S
09+L'VIS 3N111 -131W1
9291
X661
u0
rn
0
0
a.
0
co
0
0
o
to
r
0
a
0
N
Z
0
2
0
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
112TH ST. ALTERNATIVE
z_ W
M
Z W OOH
> 'Q_+
W U LN
O W
/rA 7 N
> G
Q N O
o m
z m
O
0
0
U
w
0
0
a
limp ELOOV)11i-40dd Hlill 11V-11\SJ99HSU1\OV00040\EL000000MUll(Od- Wd99:9 SL/91/1L 11W
64
iiii"IIMMI911 WEI didiNla
IAD -IMO -139 S
3NI1HOIVW
ZOdd 38S
2NI1HO1VW
1H9Ib 3AO9b' DDS
ANI-11O1VW
CO
Crai
ii
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
S. 124TH ST. ALTERNATIVE
0
0
0
LL
I
d
U
w
-97
0
0
0
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER PARKS *BUILDING
0MP'El00VW11-1.0dd F 10 111V-ll0)J.0 HSLLl\OV00040\Ew00000VNIll\I\d- wtl85:L 91.21./l I. 01P
65
'if ift &
£0dd 1AAHS AAS
00+9 '` IS 2NI7HO LW'J
66
£Odd 123HS A9S
00+9 '`d1S 3N111131VW
O 6 O O p
to :t 0 N
00 30
00 33
60 13
09 1Z
09 13
99 10
39"1Z
10"33
1,9 Z3
90 03
00.93
O O 0 0 0
0 4 0 N
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
5
1
Scale AS SHOWN
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
S. 124TH ST. ALTERNATIVE
U
1.Z
Zi a CnW
Z oc
- =com co
W_ao�
0 o y t
>'A
v, c
c N o
0 Q v
m
0
0
LL
a a
YN
U
W
� C
a
E%1
*ENGINEERING*STREETS*WATER *SEWER PARKS *BUILDING
OMP'£LOOVWII-ZOdd H14Z1 11V-ll\S133HSUAOV000b0\ELOo0000VW11NFd - wdZOZ 9121/11 oIP
tOdd 133HS D3S
09+1-1. 'VIS DNI1HOJVW
ZOdd 138HS 33S
00+9 'd1S 3NI1H3IVIN
diciii&R I
fOdd 1DDHS 2J8
09+14 L "V1S 3 N I-1HOIVIN
U 0
t7 N
Z W
F<
w
w
06 ZZ
09 00
00 40
00 60
6l£0
66 ZZ
LS 00
10 ZZ
00'ZZ
00 ZZ
3NOW_I 00 ZZ
O 0 0 0 0
ZOdd 12JHS 3DS
00+9 'VIS 3NI1H31VW
0
0
+
0
0
0
0
0
0
up
'M
d
0_
Cra
Scale AS SHOWN
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
S. 124TH ST. ALTERNATIVE
6)
L LI
0)
X00
Coro
rn
> 0 �1
✓ 6)0
ra
6)
m
O=
o
0
m
0
0
0
0
U
w`
'o
0
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER PARKS *BUILDING
6mp EL00VW11-EOdd_H14ZL 11V-11\S133HSLL1\OV00060\EL000000VNf11\1Fd-wd79091/ZL/LL 011,
67
iiimildhWrilip WEI nii&O
90dd 133HS 33S
OO+LL 'V1S 3NI1H31VW
£0dd 133HS 33S
09+11- 'd1S 3NIlH31VW
90dd 133HS 33S
OO+LL 'b�1S 3NIlHa1VW
o o 0 0 0
1-
2
ZO ZZ
6Z ZZ
007Z
10 ZZ
LO ZZ
Z0Z0
Lb ZZ
ZS ZZ
OS"ZZ
ZS ZZ
SL ZZ
o o o 0 0
10
£Odd 133HS 33S
00+I• 'd1S 3N1-1HOINW
06 ZZ
0
+
0
0
0
+
0
0
0
0
0
d
0
ce
LL
0 0
0)
Mr, I nets I 1:M
1-
0
w
O
0
w
0
0
_
U
J
O
u_
z
m
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
S. 124TH ST. ALTERNATIVE
0.
O F
0
0
� m
U
Q
0
0
0
0
0
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER *PARKS *BUILDING
6mP'EIAO0Ir11-40dd H14ZL 11V-1.11S133}451.1144V70O6IIERGWOW'v'kf11\1Fd-w490Z 71/Z1.1110IP
68
iiiif"I:mWM: Will &ilia
90dd 133HS 33S
094 -ZZ 'VIS 3NI1HOEVW
iOdd 133HS 33S
90dd 133HS 33S
05+ZZ '`d1S 3NI1HOIVW
0 0 0 0 o
10 21
10 21
1021
10 21
0021
1Z 61
£9 61
1900
96 0Z
LZ 10
C, 0 0 0 0
00+LG 'd1S 3NI1H31VW iOdd 133HS 39S
00+LVIS 3NI1HOIWW
Z0 00
0
0
0
0
+
0
+
co
0
0
+
00
0
0
Scale AS SHOWN
KI,, 1 n,sfe I De.
1-
0
w
O
O z
EL 0
Lu
U -J
U Q
Q
I- ~
a.
_ • W
UV
Q Z
LL
J
z• >
O f—
z
LL -1
LJLJ
L.L H
J
Z Q
Z
LL
z
CO
S. 124TH ST. ALTERNATIVE
U
Z m
Z W cob
`<F jOFDi
< c
W _ Q O
0 t cN
Q O L d
>�mw
Q V!
oQ
0
Z
0�
O
m
0
3
0
d
U
uJ
0
-a
0
4
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER PARKS *BUILDING
6009E 100V)IHl-SOdd H19Z1 11V-11\S133HSLLl\OV00040\E1000000V)illl\16d - Wd60:Z S1/41/1141P
69
J
iiii"%dhWrio WEI niiii&R
‘4,
70
90dd 133HS 33S
05+ZZ 'VIS 3NI1HO1VW
O O O 0 O
7Y M N
w
QgO
(S
z
99 6l
LI LI
L6 S1
9651
0091.
90 91.
26"91
6Ll
O O O O 0
0 M N
90dd 133HS 33S
05+ZZ 'VIS 3NI1HO1VW
1021
0
0
0
+
0
0
0
0
z
Z
Scale AS SHOWN
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
S. 124TH ST. ALTERNATIVE
z co
m
Z W moo
< — Sora
1 Q Q o n
U=cN
CI OEv
> N g
0
0 < 1 °'
m
0 23
z m
0
0
0
0
U
w
0
d.
0
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER *PARKS *BUILDING
6m P'E:OOV11fl,A"90dd HA9ZI. dlV 11\S133HSLL1\(IV000b0\EL000000VNI11\LGd - wdO Z SIRL/ll o1P
1 Vilml&MMPlih WEI di ithila 1
ZOdd l33HS 33S
09+L .VIS 2NI1H31VW
(n�Z
DpOw
'>-%
�CCoJ�
D'o2Q
omoW
U
ZOdd 122HS 33S
05+L 'V1S 3NI1HOEVW
G O O O O
0 1 0 N
Z
6621
1291
6921 -
OL 81
08 91
00 61
05'61
Oct 61
00 05
L9 15
O O G
0 0
L 0- 0 N
08"£5
0
0
0
0
0
0
+
0
0
0
0
0-
+
a
0-
rn
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
GATEWAY DRIVE ALTERNATIVE
U
z_
0)
ZW
>a
wV
Cl 0
> co
? OJ -
m M
rn
6
c
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER PARKS *BUILDING
b0-PClOOVWII-1.Odd AVM9IV9 OV-LL\S133HSLLl\OV000b0\£L000000VW11%,d - wd9Z1L SL/51)1 o1P
71
Nig mlillifiN119111 A440
I.0dd 133HS 33S
09+L 'b1S 3NIlH31VW
72
COdd 133HS 33S
00+E I- 'VIS 3NI1HOIWl
O O O O O
[fl d 0 N
66 OZ
00 00
Le 61
OL91
DO 8l
7681
O O O 0 0
d CV
1.0dd 133HS 33S
09+9 'VIS 3N1-1HOELWJ
1061
9061
06 B1
N
O
D
O
+
0
0
0
03
co
0
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
GATEWAY DRIVE ALTERNATIVE
0
0
0
0
U
U
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER PARKS *BUILDING
6mP El00VWll-ZOdd AVMil iy9 11V-ll\S133HSLLl\OV00040\£L 000000V)U11UFd • wdOE:l 91211110IP
Vil9111ANIMPliii WEI ifiria&O
Odd 13 3NIlH� dW
338
09+8t. tils
1fOdd 133HS 33S
05+81, 'V.'S 3NI1HOEVW
ZOdd 133HS33S
Op+£�
"VIS 3N1-1H01dW
o
2
0
00 00
0000
00 OZ
0
00'00
00 00
0
91 00 d+
02 00
0 0 0 7
0 M N
ZOdd 133HS 33S
00+£1. 'VIS 3Ni-11OIWJ
60 00
0
0
0
M
,M
0
•
•
i
Scale AS SHOWN
C
1-
U
w
O
• z
CL 0
�
En
wW
U -J
U Q
Q D
>-
H w
▪ W
-(-5‹ ZU
w0
J
Q W
Z
O i-
za
11-
W J
Z Q
Z_
LL
z
CO
GATEWAY DRIVE ALTERNATIVE
co
c)
moo
N O to
c0 CC,
>oLA-)
<mLn
0
0
CI
LL
0
0
co
0
0
•O
n.
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER *PARKS *BUILDING
omp•E LOOV1 01-EcddAVM31V0 11V-11\S1331-1SLL1\OV00040\E L000000V)IfLLL20d - wd8Ea S L L/L L .IP
73
1 WdYIth Gi
0 0 'Z y1 'S �3s 1�Odd 133HS 33S
S �Nl�l-I0lbw 0O+17Z 'VIS ANI1H31VW
O O 0 0cm cm'
0
920 £Z
N
zI
63 63 309E1
tt
l7
0
a.
LL 0£ •30N
W.tf7,»Z 163
"
D
o
Q 0
x a.
a
W
OLti
o
Y
1.0H
�a
0
1
O
0
0
06 Z£ 30A2
09 Lb+1.3 t 09
BRIDGE WITH 4% SUPER ELEVATION
*ASSUME 3
OZ Z£ 30A3
01 L0+03 `0093
2' SI AB DEPTH
00 02 3091,1
01 23+61 '5099
N
16 LZ
062 03
94.33
069 LZ
OS £3
06£ 0£
66 £Z
OL£ Z£
6£ £3
£ L6 Z£
099 3£
4lb'2£
OSL Z£
2411
966 0£
SL 03
469 93
£L 03
o 0 0 0
M N
01 4-
COdd IR I -IS 3AS
05+81, •V±S 3NIlHOIVW
Sbl 93
63 13
N
0
0
N
0
0
rn
0
co
5
z
0
0
0
0
W
0
o z
n. 0
W W
U -J
UQ
Q
Hd
J W
-(15‹
LI_0
—J
Q W
z>
o p
z
z a
C
W
J
zQ
L
CO W
GATEWAY DRIVE ALTERNATIVE
co
mo▪ o
�o5 co co
N 6
0
O �
0,
eft
N
d
V
W
0
b.P'CLOOVNf11-40dd AVM9IVD 11V-1115133NS1LL10'V30940AC1W
74
V441 - Wa1.4:1 61/UAL 0IP
��. °0000
POdd 133HS 33S
OO+17Z '`d1S 3NI1HO1WW
T
0
zW
gW
OL -1, 00 = A3-13
0056+bZ = V1S )IV3?J8 30Vd0
l0 00 3005
N 0
+ ro
✓ 0
N ^ N
i N
I- w V
O >
5
>0
0
W
W
°0
0
L.
0
01 00
S0 00
0£ 00
b l'00
ZL 91
0091_
96'91
96 01
Lb'91
0
0
0
N
0
60 Ll
N
6£ 61
0
O
0
0
990 £Z o0
o 0 0 0 0 l6 10 +
N
if1 I� 1S N
tOdd 133HS 33S OO+iZ 't�3-N111-101M
Cr)
0
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
GATEWAY DRIVE ALTERNATIVE
wpm
ffilPi
0
O
LL
N
.Fe
0
-6
0
W
0
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER *PARKS *BUILDING
6mp £ 100V W i-S0dd AVMAIVO 11V-U1S139HSLL1\0V3oc60\£ 1000000V)U11UFd - W d£b:1 91.2141010
75
.00
ZOdd TANS 919
09+9 *V_LS 3N1-1H31VW
76
ZOdd 1IIHS 919
09+9 .VIS JNI1HOIWJ
o o 0 0
0 d 0 N
0
0
00 91
0091
0091
0091
0091
L0'91
2991
90 61
SL 61
0000
£0 00
91£0
0 0 0 0
0 7 0 N
0
0
0
0
+
0
0
+
N
O
+
0
rn
0
0
0
+
N
0
0
0-
a
Scale AS SHOWN
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
48TH AVE. S. ALTERNATIVE
0
0
v
0
6
m
0
c
w
0
-o
0_
F-;
u
*ENGINEERING*STREETS *WATER *SEWER *PARKS *BUILDING
_ J
6mp'£LOOvNfll-;odd H196 11V-ll\S133HSLLL\OVOOOh0\EL000000VW11\11:d - we£PoL 61/Z111101P
COdd 133HS 33S
00+Z1. 'VIS 3NI1HO1VW
1.Odd 133HS 33S
09+9 'VIS 3NI1HO1WW
WEI ifilida
£Odd 133HS 33S
00+ZI- '`d1S 3NI1H3IWJ
0 0 0 0 o 0
OL 61
w
z
F
66 61
06 6
SS 81
0081
00 91
00 81
00"8
00 2
00 91
0 0 0 0 0
10 0 10 N
I.Odd 133HS 33S
09+9 'VIS 3N11HO1VW
0
00 21
00 81
0
N
0
0
0
+
0
0
0
0
+
0
oo
+
0
0
0
•
O
0
0
Scale AS SHOWN
Ki„ i nat. i ao„i
0
w
0
0
w
0
0
u_
0
LL
co
m
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
48TH AVE. S. ALTERNATIVE
U
Z c
10
0
w
a
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER PARKS *BUILDING
6 lPC 1OOV)if.L-ZOdd H1134 11V-11\S133HSLLAOV00040\£1.000000VWll\1Fd- 1.1.1eZEO1 S1/ZMI. 0IP
77
'if :mW19o di a &Gi
frOdd 133HS 33S
O +LL '` IS 3NI1H31VW
Odd 133HS 33S
00+Z1 'VIS 3NI1H31VW
iOdd 133HS 33S
09+LL 'VIS 3NI1HOIVIN
O
0 O O O
0 d 0 N O
0
0000
0
00 00
00 00
00 00
00 00
L6 6
12 61
0
661
06'6
06 6l
O O O
0 0
(0
ZOdd 133HS 33S
00+Z I- 'V1S 3N1-1HOIVW
02 61
00 61
M
O
0
0
s
Scale AS SHOWN
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
48TH AVE. S. ALTERNATIVE
U
z co
cn
111 0m
Z W moo
Q
wm
Q
C �
W ¢ Oa
U - CN
\00 �
jy<
O
co 0Q *'a
o 6
z m
0
0w
0
m
0
0
d
v
w
0`
*ENGINEERING*STREETS *WATER *SEWER PARKS *BUILDING
MPC l00VNl11-EOdd -194 11V-ll\S133HSLLl\0V000601E1000000V0101\1Gd -we4E,0l SL/ZL/IL 0IP
78
1 iiiimliffiM1916 niii&O
EOddlDAHS 3JS
9Odd 133HS 33S
OO+EZ 'V1S 3NI1HOIVW
0 0 0 0 0ry
0
09 9£ 30A3
TZ9 Z1I-99 S3A3
t0£ 1£ 30A8
9?78
2' SLAB DEPTH
4£ £Z 33A0
90 9R+Fi 1 S"17-3
00 OZ 30A9
0
DFI!VEWAY LT (FILL 2 5') -.
90 94;+91. .SJA9
00 0£
900 09 = A313
91 = V1S >173b8 30780,
15
N
O
BEGIN PEDESTRIAN TRAIL
b S'Z£
£9 9£
9941.
99 12
19 19
91 69
9CO9
99`99
19.09
91 49
of 09
69 19
10 09
94 OZ
t0 09
00 OZ
10 09
05+L 'VIS 2NI1H31t/W EOdd l3JHS 33S
05+LL 'VIS 3NIIH3IVW
10 09
N
N
0
O
N
0
N
0
0
O
rn
O
0
10
0
0)
04
0
a
a
5
3
tn
0
K
0
z°
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
48TH AVE. S. ALTERNATIVE
Elo
m
0
0
U
W
0
01
a
a
LL
[.4
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER *PARKS *BUILDING
bmwE L007W11-40dd 1-1194117-ll\S133HSLLJA0V00040\E1000000V1111\1Fd- we6£Al S1,21./1.1.IP
79
VitmlIMMI916 Aiwa
711/1i4P)
O O O O p
o D N 7 N O
t7Odd 13131 -IS 33S
00+£Z 'V1S 3NIlH3IVW
1
it 6Z
86`6Z
S£ 0£
99 9Z
L6 0£
Ll bZ
8b LE
£E ZZ
0
co+
N
0
0
u9
M
61 22
O O
0 0 O O
t7Odd 133HS 33S
00+£Z "VIS 3NI1HOLW'J
80
O
z
0
0
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
48TH AVE. S. ALTERNATIVE
0
z
th
Zw
<
wV
o
Q VI
04
m
in
0)
moo
a,00)
CO 0
CC
rn
> 0 in
.0 CN
0,
C
O
o
z
w
0
0
a
0
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER *PARKS *BUILDING
.'
6MP'£LOOVW71-90dd 11.1187 Ll4'-.E149133H611a\4V000b0\£L000000YW1lUFd- wdZZ l 6I/010 "IP
Appendix B —
Truck Access Routes
P:ItITUKA00000013f0SOOINFOk0670R6porfs8VSF Intermodal Access Screening summary 2016-1128.docx
City of Tukwila Alternative Screening Analysis
BNSF Intermodal Facility Access November 28, 201649
81
82
?[•INDI W iIq
lifmliMM1916
0
Z
0
W
W
J
1
•
15
4,4
11
Scale AS SHOW
LINN:i- rim in*Kium:alma *Ke
0
0
U
1N * TREETS *WATER * WER *PA - K *131 IL, IN
0
a
OmPY31110H )IOO?J1 S 3AV H1134\seln02:1 Aom1\S110IHX3\11\OV=0040\E 100W00V W11NFd - we l4" l l Sl/ZZ/01. qP
83
ViidliWride Wel oih&O
0
0
• UTE: FREEWAY TO BNSF YARD (0.9 MILE,
• UTE: BNSF YARD TO FREEWAY (0.9 MILE,
1
•
:N F INTERNATIONAL FA ILITY A E r.•
TIT •N 'TUAL DE I
N.%
Ifi
3
LL
cLL
• a
>-
<
(cri
Wu.
0 <
1—
0
z
00
ZUJ
>•:(
0
DO
>0
<0
0<
0
z
SAL
9
0
0
w
2 4 [c11:141 l 1:1c1/1114 4_44.121/M4_32:14,14:12411;1.1--LAP1111111LcZ
0
ainoa Nona' UO AVNIDIVO Narul \S11£111 -1X3 OV0001,0\Cl000mov>inivvd 6C /zzto ap
84
11011(iMIiyTII:
1.yT:rlhMl'1i WEI ilii:O i
0
Z
• UTE: FREEWAY TO BNSF YARD 1.3 MILE,
•UT : BNSF YARD TO FREEWAY 1.3 MILE,
1
•
.9t
ll
:N F INTERNATIONAL FACILITY A E P. • 1
of
o
00
ZW
><
wv
0 o
>0
<0
❑Q
z
0
0
.0'
3
U
w
a
24 Leif 14413L'c12-�T711 ' Y4_:L1:i3211:1 :ILa 1I LleZ
0
a`
6MP.31f1O8 NOflal DAV H1bZL S\selno2l Nowl\S119IHXD\ll\OVO0040\£ 1000000VNf11\1G d' we44 L L 5 l/ZUOL AP
85
l
86
NOT TO SCALE
0
Z
w
w
J
ROUTE: FREEWAY TO BNSF YARD (1.1 MILE)
ROUTE. BNSF YARD TO FREEWAY (1 1 MILE)
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
I PM Ian. EN
• MN
H
0
w
O
a Z
a0
�(
ww
0
U -�
Q
a
w
U U
Z
�O
J
Z >
Oi
Qz
Z E
LU
W J
Z Q
Z_
LL
Z
00
F-
1 -
(N.1 NN
c
0
z co
Lo.)
CO o 0
g8o
rn
of
a c
WU ¢ orn
r CN
> o o
0 Q0 > a
al
z
z m
Q.
00
ZW
Q
O
m
0
ami
U
0
0
Q
0
S
*ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER *PARKS *BUILDING
rim!, a1flO2J NO11211 IS FUEL l S\solooa Aoral\S1191HX3LL1\OV000b0\E1000000VNf11\1\-d • LE£9-ll 91./ZZ/0 cIP
NOT TO SCALE
0
Z
W
W
J
ROUTE: FREEWAY TO BNSF YARD (1.4 MILE)
ROUTE: BNSF YARD TO FREEWAY (1.4 MILE)
11
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
BNSF INTERNATIONAL FACILITY ACCESS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
N
0
0
0
E,;
* ENGINEERING *STREETS *WATER *SEWER *PARKS *BUILDING
6h\P31fON NOfL1 AVM 11,1Oda V\safnoa Aotil\S1191 HX3\11\O V00040\E L00000OV)Ull\ vd ' coon: t l S 11Z/Ol CIP
8/
88
Appendix C --
Roadway Cost Estimate Back-up
P:ItITUKA0000001310600tNF00670F1aporisIEWSF Intermodal Access Screening summary _2016-1128.docx
City of Tukwila Alternative Screening Analysis
BNSF Intermodal Facility Access November 28, 201655
89
90
TESC and Landscaping
53-55 TESC $53,200.00
56-60 Plantings $105,000.00
61-62 Irrigation $0.00
TESC and Landscaping Subtotal $158,200.00
City of Tukwila
BNSF Intermodal Access Study
Planning Level Cost Estimate
Alternate:
Location:
Length:
Description:
Assumptions:
Airport Way S
Airport Way S to BNSF Intermodal Facility
1800'
Alternative uses Airport Way S to northern end of BNSF yard.
CI
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES IND.
Date:
Prepared by:
Checked by:
11/28/16
MLF
See alternative exhibit
Existing Widths: Pavement Varies 40' to 52' Sidewalk 0 Right -of -Way Varies 60' to 80'
Proposed Widths: Pavement 44' Sidewalk 6' both sides Right -of -Way 67'
Preparation 1 1 Structures
1 Mobilization $772,900.00 48-51 Retaining Walls $71,860.00
2-4 Preparation Items $164,500.00 52 Bridge Structure $6,160,000.00
5-12 Removal Items $82,000.00 Structure Subtotal $6,231,860.00
Preparation Subtotal $1,019,400.00
Grading
13-14 Roadway Grading
15-18 Roadway Foundation
19-24 Utility Excavation
Grading Subtotal
$112,548.00
$150,275.00
$20,400.00
$283,223.00
Storm Drainage
25-36 Conveyance System
37 Culvert/Stream Crossing
38 Detention/Water Quality Facility
Storm Drainage Subtotal
$188,500.00
$0.00
$0.00
$188,500.00
[ Traffic I
I 63-71 Markings and Signing $5,884.00
72-75 Guardrail/Handrail $0.00
76-80 Traffic Signal System $170,000 00
81-83 Illumination System $75,000.00
84-89 Traffic Control $50,000.00
Traffic Subtotal $300,884.00
Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement
39-42 Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement
$146,850.00
HMA Subtotal $146,850.00
Concrete
43-44 Sidewalks and Driveways $100,345.00
45-46 Curbs and Gutters $64,500.00
47 Concrete Roadway $0.00
Concrete Subtotal $164,845.00
Other Items
90-91 Utility Relocates $0.00
92-94 Misc. Construction $22,200.00
Other Items Subtotal $22,200.00
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL (a)
30%
$8,515,962
$2,554,790
$11,070,752
DESIGN ENGINEERING 18% $1,992,740
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 12% $1,328,500
PROJECT ADMINISTRATION 5% $553.540
ENGR. AND ADMIN. SUBTOTAL (b) $3,874,780
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 5% $553,540
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5% $553,540
ENVIRONMENTAL SUBTOTAL (c) $1,107,080
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS (a+b+c) $16,050,000
ROADWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY $0
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL $16,050,000
MARKET CONTIGENCY 20% $3,210,000
ROADWAY TOTAL (d) 519.260.000
RAILROAD IMPROVEMENTS
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
RAILROAD SUBTOTAL
MARKET CONTIGENCY
RAILROAD TOTAL (e)
20%
$65,000,000
$10,000,000
$75,000,000
$15.000.000
$90.000.000
TOTAL PROJECT COST (d+e) (Year 2016) $109,300,000
Page 1 of 1
P:\t\TUKAO00000liiun"itiRNFCLu"5uuelgn•.7ocsluvz.o-sa..' ies'.01_BNSF Access Cost Est Airport.xls
Printed: 11/25816 91
City of Tukwila
BNSF Intermodal Access Study
Planning Level Cost Estimate
Alternate:
Location:
Length:
Description:
Assumptions:
South 112th Street
East Marginal Way to BNSF Internodal Facility
1750'
Alternative uses utility corridor and ties into the northern half of BNSF yard
D DAVID EVANS
ANDASSOCIATES INC.
Date:
Prepared by:
Checked by:
11/28/16
MLF
see alternative exhibit
Existing Widths:
Proposed Widths:
Pavement Varies 40' to 52'
Pavement 44'
Preparation
1
1 Mobilization
2-4 Preparation Items
5-12 Removal Items
Preparation Subtotal
Sidewalk 0
Sidewalk 6' both sides
Right -of -Way Varies 60' to 80'
Right -of -Way 67'
Structures
$276,700.00 49-52 Retaining Walls
$91,600.00 53 Bridge Structure
$30,450.00
$398,750.00
Grading
13-15 Roadway Grading
16-19 Roadway Foundation
20-25 Utility Excavation
Grading Subtotal
$96,889.00
$122,325.00
$16,640.00
Structure Subtotal
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
TESC and Landscaping
1 54-56 TESC $46,400.00
57-61 Plantings $84,890.00
62-63 irrigation $32,400.00
TESC and Landscaping Subtotal $163,690.00
$235,854.00
( Traffic
Storm Drainage 1 64-72 Markings and Signing $5,084.00
26-37 Conveyance System $149,850.00 73-76 Guardrail/Handrail $0.00
38 Culvert/Stream Crossing $0.00 77-81 Traffic Signal System $170,000.00
39 Detention/Water Quality Facility $1,500,000.00 82-84 Illumination System $150,000.00
Storm Drainage Subtotal $1,649,850.00 85-90 Traffic Control $30.000.00
Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement
40-43 Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement
$118,800.00
HMA Subtotal $118,800.00
Concrete
44-45 Sidewalks and Driveways $81,690.00
46-47 Curbs and Gutters $52,500.00
48 Concrete Roadway $0.00
Concrete Subtotal $134,190 00
Traffic Subtotal $355,084.00
Other Items 1
91-92 Utility Relocates $4,000,000.00
93-95 Misc. Construction $29,000.00
Other Items Subtotal $4,029,000.00
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
30%
$7,085,218.00
$2.125.570.00
$9,210,788.00
DESIGN ENGINEERING 18% $1,657,950.00
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 12% $1,105,300.00
PROJECT ADMINISTRATION 5% $460.540.00
ENGR. AND ADMIN. SUBTOTAL $3,223,790.00
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 10% $921,080.00
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5% $460.540.00
ENVIRONMENTAL SUBTOTAL $1,381,620.00
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS (a+b+c)
ROADWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL
MARKET CONTIGENCY
ROADWAY TOTAL (d)
20%
$13,820,000
$4.000.000
$17,820,000
$3,560,000
$21,380.000
RAILROAD IMPROVEMENTS
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
RAILROAD SUBTOTAL
MARKET CONTIGENCY
RAILROAD TOTAL (el
20%
$53,000,000
$3,700.000
$56,700,000
$11.340.000
$68.040,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST (d+e) (Year 2016)
$89,400,000
92 P:\t\TUKA00000013\06001N=D10e5DOesign❑ 1E53F stinrates'.CO BNSF Access Cost Est 112th.xls
Page 1 of 1 Printed: 11/2516
City of Tukwila
BNSF Intermodal Access Study
Planning Level Cost Estimate
Alternate:
Location:
Length:
Description:
Assumptions:
S 124th Street
Interurban Avenue S to BNSF Intermodal Facility
3400'
CI
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES NC.
Date:
Prepared by:
Checked by:
11/28/16
MLF
Alternative uses 42nd Avenue S, over Duwarnish River, right on S 124th Street, and into the existing BNSF yard access.
Improvements along the existing route must be made, i.e. pavement rehabilitation, replacement of bridge over Dtxwamish River. See
alternative exhibit
Existing Widths:
Proposed Widths:
Pavement Varies 40' to 52'
Pavement 44'
Preparation
1 Mobilization
2-4 Preparation Items
5-12 Removal Items
Preparation Subtotal
$937,800.00
$154,400.00
$121,228.00
$1,213,428.00
Grading
13-14 Roadway Grading
15-17 Roadway Foundation
18-23 Utility Excavation
Grading Subtotal
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Storm Drainage
24-35 Conveyance System
36 Culvert/Stream Crossing
37 Detention/Water Quality Facility
Storm Drainage Subtotal
$65,200.00
$0.00
$75,000.00
$140,200.00
Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement
38-41 Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement
$311,500.00
HMA Subtotal $311,500.00
Concrete
42-43 Sidewalks and Driveways
44-45 Curbs and Gutters
46 Concrete Roadway
Concrete Subtotal
$44,000.00
$66,300.00
$0.00
$110,300.00
Sidewalk 0
Sidewalk 6' both sides
Right -of -Way Varies 60' to 80'
Right -of -Way 67'
Structures
47-52 Retaining Walls
53 Bridge Structure
$4,811,400.00
$2,745,600.00
Structure Subtotal $7,557,000.00
TESC and Landscaping
54-56 TESC
57-61 Plantings
62-63 Irrigation
TESC and Landscaping Subtotal
$256,200.00
$86,860.00
$13,500.00
$356,560.00
Traffic
64-72
73-76
77-81
82-84
85-90
Markings and Signing
Guardrail/Handrail
Traffic Signal System
Illumination System
Traffic Control
Traffic Subtotal
$17,680.00
$73,500.00
$180,000.00
$125,000.00
$250,000.00
$646,180.00
Other Items
91-92 Utility Relocates
93-95 Misc. Construction
Other Items Subtotal
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
30%
$100,000.00
$33,200.00
DESIGN ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING
PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
ENGR. AND ADMIN. SUBTOTAL
18%
12%
5%
$133,200.00
$10,468,368 00
$3.140.520.00
$13,608,888.00
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 10%
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 10%
ENVIRONMENTAL SUBTOTAL
$2,449,600.00
$1,633,070.00
$680.450.00
$4,763,120.00
$1,360,890.00
$1.360.890.00
$2,721,780.00
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS (a+b+c)
ROADWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL
MARKET CONTIGENCY
ROADWAY TOTAL (di
20%
$21,090,000
$3.000.000
$24,090,000
$4,820.000
528.910.000
RAILROAD IMPROVEMENTS
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
RAILROAD SUBTOTAL
MARKET CONTIGENCY
RAILROAD TOTAL (e)
20%
so
$0
So
$0
So
TOTAL PROJECT COST (d+e) (Year 2016)
$28,900,000
Page 1 of 1
\t\TUKA00000013%.06NINFMAISCIDes:gnCwcslos,,-EroosesiC3_BNSF Access Cost Est 124th.xls
Printed: 11 /2
$12,510,000
$6,900.000
$19,410,000
$3.880.000
823.290.000 1
City of Tukwila
BNSF Intermodal Access Study
Planning Level Cost Estimate
DAVID EVANS
ANDASSOCIATES'"°-
Alternate: Gateway Drive - North Leg Date: 11/28/16
Location: Interurban Avenue S to BNSF Intermodal Facility Prepared by: MLF
Length: 2700' Checked by:
Description: Alternative uses north leg of Gateway Drive, goes between the two Boeing Credit Union Building, over Duwamish River, and into the
existing BNSF yard access.
Assumptions:
See altema8ve exhibit
Existing Widths: Pavement Varies 40' to 52'
Proposed Widths: Pavement 44'
Sidewalk 0
Sidewalk 6' both sides
Right -of -Way Varies 60' to 80'
Right -of -Way 67'
Preparation 1 Structures
1 Mobilization $567,600.00 52-57 Retaining Walls $245,250.00
2-4 Preparation Items $115,000.00 58 Bridge Structure $2.481.600.00
5-12 Removal Items $50,342.00 Structure Subtotal $2,726,850.00
Preparation Subtotal $732,942.00
1 TESC and Landscaping 1
Grading 1 59-61 TESC $256,200.00
13-14 Roadway Grading $28,995.00 62-66 Plantings $156,720.00
15-19 Roadway Foundation $263,004.00 67-68 Irrigation $52,380.00
20-25 Utility Excavation $4,960.00 TESC and Landscaping Subtotal $465,300.00
Grading Subtotal $296,959.00
Storm Drainage
26-37 Conveyance System
38 Culvert/Stream Crossing
39 Detention/Water Quality Facility
Storm Drainage Subtotal
$62,200.00
$0.00
$1,000,000.00
$1,062,200.00
Traffic 1
1 69-77 Markings and Signing $13,040.00
78-81 Guardrail/Handrail $73,500.00
82-86 Traffic Signal System $170,000.00
87-89 Illumination System $247,000.00
90-95 Traffic Control $100 000.00
Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement
40-46 Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement
$207,675.00
HMA Subtotal $207,675 00
Concrete I
47-48 Sidewalks and Driveways $119,145.00
49-50 Curbs and Gutters $66,300.00
51 Concrete Roadway $0.00
Concrete Subtotal $185,445.00
94 P:\t\TUKA0000001�wau, iirruu aau ;�
Traffic Subtotal $603,540.00
Other Items 1
96-97 Utility Relocates $100,000.00
98-100 Misc. Construction $34,600.00
Other Items Subtotal $134,600.00
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $6,415,511.00
CONTINGENCY 30% $1.924.660.00
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $8,340,171.00
DESIGN ENGINEERING 18% $1,501,240.00
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 12% $1,000,830.00
PROJECT ADMINISTRATION 5% $417,010 00
ENGR. AND ADMIN. SUBTOTAL $2,919,080.00
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 10% $834,020.00
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5% $417,010.00
ENVIRONMENTAL SUBTOTAL $1,251,030.00
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS (a+b+c)
ROADWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL
MARKET CONTIGENCY
ROADWAY TOTAL (d)
20%
RAILROAD IMPROVEMENTS
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
RAILROAD SUBTOTAL
MARKET CONTIGENCY
RAILROAD TOTAL (e)
20%
80
80
80
$0
80
TOTAL PROJECT COST (d+e) (Year 2016) $23,300,000
Page 1 of 1
aiimbI eet_BNSF Access Cost Est Gateway.xls
Printed: 11/2
;m'
6
City of Tukwila
BNSF Intermodal Access Study
Planning Level Cost Estimate
Alternate:
Location:
Length:
Description:
Assumptions:
48th Avenue South
Interurban Avenue S to BNSF Intermodal Facility
2600'
CI
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOCIATES INC.
Date:
Prepared by:
Checked by:
11/28/16
MLF
Alternative uses 48th Avenue S, over Duwamish River, and ties into the southern end of BNSF yard
See alternative exhibit
Existing Widths: Pavement Varies 40' to 52'
Proposed Widths: Pavement 44'
[ Preparation
1 Mobilization
2-4 Preparation Items
5-12 Removal Items
Preparation Subtotal
$505,500.00
$90,600.00
$71,671.00
$667,771.00
Grading
13-14 Roadway Grading
15-22 Roadway Foundation
23-28 Utility Excavation
Grading Subtotal
$950.00
$110,341.00
$23,760.00
$135,051.00
Storm Drainage
29-40 Conveyance System
41 Culvert/Stream Crossing
42 Detention/Water Quality Facility
Storm Drainage Subtotal
$201,800.00
$0.00
$750,000.00
$951,800.00
[ Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement 1
43-49 Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement
HMA Subtotal
$164,065.00
$164,065.00
[ Concrete
50-51 Sidewalks and Driveways
52-53 Curbs and Gutters
54 Concrete Roadway
Concrete Subtotal
$129,400.00
$65,850.00
$0.00
$195,250.00
Sidewalk 0
Sidewalk 6' both sides
Right -of -Way Varies 60' to 80'
Right -of -Way 67'
Structures
55-59 Retaining Walls
60 Bridge Structure
$115,250.00
$2,323,200.00
Structure Subtotal $2,438,450.00
TESC and Landscaping
61-63 TESC
64-68 Plantings
69-70 Irrigation
TESC and Landscaping Subtotal
$256,400.00
$136,820.00
$44,280.00
$437,500.00
[
Traffic
71-79
80-83
84-88
89-91
92-97
Markings and Signing
Guardrail/Handrail
Traffic Signal System
Illumination System
Traffic Control
Traffic Subtotal
$7,844.00
$94,000.00
$180,000.00
$279,000.00
$50,000.00
$610,844.00
Other Items
98-99 Utility Relocates
100-102 Misc. Construction
Other Items Subtotal
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
30%
$206,000.00
$18,200.00
DESIGN ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING
PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
ENGR. AND ADMIN. SUBTOTAL
18%
12%
5%
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 10%
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 5%
ENVIRONMENTAL SUBTOTAL
$224,200 00
$5,824,931.00
$1,747,480.00
$7,572,411.00
$1,363,040.00
$908,690.00
$378,630 00
$2,650,360.00
$757,250 00
$378,630.00
$1,135,880.00
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS (a+b+c)
ROADWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY
ROADWAY SUBTOTAL
MARKET CONTIGENCY
ROADWAY TOTAL (d)
20%
$11,360,000
$1,900,000
$13,260,000
$2.650.000
815,910,000
RAILROAD IMPROVEMENTS
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
RAILROAD SUBTOTAL
MARKET CONTIGENCY
RAILROAD TOTAL (e)
20%
$3,700,000
$0
$3,700,000
$740,000
$4.440.000
TOTAL PROJECT COST (d+e) (Year 2016)
$20,400,000
Page 1 of 1
P:\t\TUKA00000013\0600INFO\uo uuesiyuoucs0653E5nmrae.EOE_BNSF Access Cost Est 48th.xls
Printed: 11/2(116
95
96
BNSF RAILWAY INTERMODAL FACILITY ACCESS STUDY
ALTERNATIVE SCREENING ANALYSIS REPORT
Prepared for:
City of Tukwila
Public Works Department
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98005
Prepared by:
David Evans and Associates, Inc.
14432 SE Eastgate Way
Bellevue, WA 98007
November 28, 2016
61
97
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Alternative Screening Analysis Report for the City of Tukwila was prepared by David Evans and
Associates, Inc. to evaluate alternative access to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway
intermodal facility in Tukwila, Washington. This facility is also known as South Seattle Yard. BNSF
Railway also sponsored this study.
The existing access to the intermodal facility uses 42nd Avenue S and 5 124th Street. 5 124th Street
is also a residential collector street serving the community of Allentown. Several residential homes
with driveways are located on 5 124th Street, as is the Tukwila Community Center which houses an
aquatic center, meeting rooms, classes and activities for all ages, and playground and ball fields.
This study did not create new alternatives but used alternatives that were developed by previous
studies. A total of five alternatives were studied: Airport Way 5, 5 112th Street, 5 124th Street,
Gateway Drive — North Leg, and 48th Avenue S.
Several desktop researches were performed as part of this study. These researches included critical
and sensitive areas, fish and wildlife, water resources, hazardous materials, geological and soils, and
cultural and historical resources.
A scored screening matrix was developed collaboratively between the City of Tukwila, BNSF
Railway, and David Evans and Associates, Inc. The matrix was presented to Tukwila City Council as
well as to the public for their feedback on the screening matrix criteria. The public was allowed to
provide feedback via an on-line open house and an in-person open house.
Representatives from Tukwila, BNSF Railway, and David Evans and Associates, Inc. met to score
each alternative using a numerical scoring system from 1 to 9. The score for each criteria was
added, and the lowest score is the preferred alternative.
Based on the scoring result, the 48th Avenue 5 alternative is the preferred alternative.
P:+n rurta0000ao 13I05DOINFOIP67O RoporrskBNSF lnlormodaj Amiss Scroonlnp summon_ 217» 6- r 1 A6, docx
City of Tukwila 1 Alternative Screening Analysis
98 BNSF Intermodal Facility Access November 28, 2016 62
Figure 1 shows the project study area. The following provides a description for each alternative.
Figure 1— Project Study Area
Gateway Drive
Extension
Alternative
4803 Avenues 5
• Extension
Alternative
P;111TUKA0000001310600JNF01O670Raports!BNSF 1ntermoda1 Recess Screening sumrmary_2016.112i.decx
City of Tukwila
BNSF Intermodal Facility Access
3 Alternative Screening Analysis
November 28, 2016 63
99
100
Preferred Alternative Outreach Summary
BNSF Access Study
DRAFT — September 5, 2017
Background
In 2016, the Tukwila community provided input on the screening criteria that was used to develop the
BNSF Access Study report. The City identified a preferred alternative route and shared it with the
community at an open house on August 17, 2017.
Summary
The City of Tukwila hosted an in-person open house at the Tukwila Community Center on August 17,
2017. The in-person house accompanied an online open house, which included the same information as
the in-person open house and was available from August 15 - 28, 2017.
Notifications
The project team advertised the in-person and online open houses in early August 2017. Notifications
included the following:
• Postcard sent to the Allentown and Duwamish neighborhoods
• Emails to the City's project listsery
o Listsery includes community members, business and property owners, other interested
parties
• Flier emailed as attachment to Allentown and Duwamish neighborhood listservs by
neighborhood leaders
• Facebook and Twitter posts on the City's social media accounts
Attendance and visitor statistics
• In-person open house attendance: 42
• In-person comment forms completed: 20
• Online open house visitors: 32
• Online surveys completed: 12
• Overall number of participants: 74
Engagement Methods
In -Person Open House
The City gathered shared information about the preferred alternative and other considered alternatives
during an open house at the Tukwila Community Center on August 17, 2017, from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
Participants viewed informational boards that described the project purpose, schedule, alternative and
preferred routes, screening criteria and environmental process. Project staff were on hand to answer
questions. Participants contributed comments via comment cards. Comments received at the open
house are shown in Appendix 1 and summarized below.
Tukwila BNSF Access Study — Preferred Alternative Outreach Summary
DRAFT
64 101
In-person open house participants give feedback on comment cards.
Online Open House
In order to reach Tukwila businesses and residents who were unable to attend the in-person open
house, the City advertised an online open house, available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, starting
August 15 and ending August 28. The online open house included the same information as at the in-
person open house and a survey that gathered specific feedback in a similar fashion to the comment
boxes at the in-person open house. Comments received through the online open house are shown in
Appendices 2 and summarized below.
Feedback Overview
Several themes emerged from the input received through 32 comments and surveys:
• Those who supported the preferred alternative (15) stated a number of reasons for their
support, including moving the truck route to a commercial street and away from residences,
access/proximity to 1-5 and current residential impacts on 124th.
• All residents who said they live along or near the current access route who participated (4)
supported moving the truck access route to another street.
• Those who opposed the preferred alternative (4) stated increased traffic, business impacts and
residential impacts as reasons for their opposition.
• Several participants urged the City to study or investigate cost (4) and traffic (3). Several
participants also expressed interest in potential environmental impacts (3).
Tukwila BNSF Access Study — Preferred Alternative Outreach Summary
102
DRAFT
65
Next Steps
All feedback presented here is being provided to the project team for consideration. The study and
proposed route will be presented to City Council in the fall of 2017.
One participant requested specific follow up regarding business impacts on 48th Ave S: Quinn Closson,
360-607-8178, qclosson@pape.com.
Appendices
1. Comments gathered at in-person open house
2. Online comments
3. Notifications
Tukwila BNSF Access Study — Preferred Alternative Outreach Summary
DRAFT
66 103
Appendix 1: Comments Gathered at In-person Open House
Note: comments are verbatim as written. Commenters were asked if they live, work or visit Tukwila.
Live Work Visit
Name
Email
Comment (verbatim)
x
Phillip
Camball
Phillameball@hotmail.com
Anything except 48th Ave S.
Minimum public $, maximum
private funding.
x
Angela Steel
angelasb13@hotmail.com
I prefer the 48th Ave S option
as the least impactful to
residential properties in
Allentown and Duwamish.
This option keeps semis on
existing truck routes w/out
creating new roads through
environmentally critical areas
or private property. *Also
need noise wall along edge of
railyard.
[unknown]
[unknown]
My first choice BNSF move out
completely. Second choice I
prefer 48th Ave S. Build wall
to control noise and shaking
control.
x
Mary Fertakis
[unknown]
Thanks for all the work that
has been done on this. The
grid was particularly helpful -
very concrete information and
easy to understand. The
original study in 1990 shows
that the 48th st option was
the least expensive and made
the most sense. It is the same
in 2017. Seems pretty clear
that this is still the direction to
go.
x
x
David
Shumate
David@propeldesigns.com
The 48th Ave and Bridge looks
like the best one!
x
x
Sean Albert
seanalbert2001@hotmail.com
I think the preferred 48th ave
south route is by far the best
alternative!!
Tukwila BNSF Access Study — Preferred Alternative Outreach Summary
104
DRAFT
67
x
Patty Cokus
pcokus@hotmail.com
I agree wholeheartedly with
the preffered study route
where it impacts all identified
impact criteria the least and is
the least expensive. Thank you
for working on this and
advocating for community
input and gathering feedback.
The preferred route makes
the most sense for all.
x
[Illegible]
[unknown]
I think the preferred option
makes the most sense of
those presented. It takes the
traffic completely off
residential streets and on to a
commercial street that
already accomodates semi-
truck traffic.
x
Lucia Nilo
Itannilo@hotmail.com
I hope this project gets look at
seriously as I really enjoy my
home at 124th - but the
vibration of the trucks in and
out 24-7 is really bad and
nuisance. It shakes our house
especially when sleeping - the
NO-Build option: S 124th
should not be an option.
x
Wilfredo Nilo
wznilo@gmail.com
We live by 124th ave which is
active for semi-trucker. Since
we moved here from
September 2016 we felt a
massive vibration everytime
those truckets pass by. We
live in a brand new home and
it created major cracks in aour
garage. We worried whats
gonna happen next.
x
Oscar Uceda
o.uceda@yahoo.com
We would like to support the
prefer alternative for the
trucks route coming in and
out of the BNSF Railroad Yard
facility in Allentown.
Tukwila BNSF Access Study — Preferred Alternative Outreach Summary
DRAFT
68 105
x
x
Becky
[Illegible]
becarosep@aim.com
Concern the increase in traffic
from now and 20 years down
the road on the 48th ave
purposal. What effects it will
have on the businesses on
48th (widening roads etc)
Residents being impacted by
not being able to get access to
the businesses they already go
to.
x
Morgan
Llewellyn
mllewellyn@ccim.net
I'm wonderng how the project
will be funded particularly in
light of the right away
acquisitions required by the
preferred route. It appears the
northern route would have
the least impact on residential
AND commercial businesses.
x
Todd Jones
rain1916@comcast.net
1 stronly oppose Gateway
Drive option and 124th st
options. I do like the 48th st
option or others to the north.
x
Hanice
Ludingtons
shofarJCL@gmail.com
My preference is Airport Way
x
[Illegible]
[Illegible]
The road should go out the
north end. I live on 51st
(across the street from the flat
bed trucks, and am concerned
about where the railroad will
put the road inside this yard.
Will trucks have to be
removed and trailers
[illegible]? And if so, where
will they go? It is close to our
homes, your moving one road
to another.
x
Linda
McLeod
sam.linda.mcleod@gmail.com
No on Gateway Dr. Divides
BECU campuses, has many
employees + customers
x
[unknown]
[unknown]
Airport SO. (BEST) [sic]
Tukwila BNSF Access Study — Preferred Alternative Outreach Summary
106
DRAFT
69
x
Edna edna0801@gmail.com
Derr[illegible]
I live in 122nd st. I hope the
124th s st. would be closed as
enterence of BNSF or trucks
facility. The impact to our
home and neighborhood is
terrible, the house vibrates
each time; lots of noise; and
traffic gets crowded. 48th st is
great alternative for the BNSB
enterence.
Steven steve@xmrine.com
We'd like to see a traffic
impact study done on
inerurban and exit 156 off 1-5.
Please go to fife and see the
issues they have and avoid
that happening to us.
Tukwila BNSF Access Study — Preferred Alternative Outreach Summary
DRAFT
70 107
Appendix 2: Comments from Online Open House
Note: comments are verbatim as written.
Comment
1. Will all trucks no longer use 124th st ? 2. Will there be entry and exit capability from 50th PL S/129th
street? we must have the capability to enter and exit from 50th PL S/129th street. Please make sure
this option available. Thanks for your consideration
How much will this cost? What about an option to improve the 42nd st. bridge by the community
center and do some mitigation on the streets that the trucks drive down, such as widening the
shoulders of the street, side walks and maybe even some sort of sound barrier? How is this project
prioritized compared to needs in other neighborhoods such as sidewalks and road repair?
I am an employee of BECU and believe that the 48th Ave So. preferred option is by far the best choice.
Not only from a cost perspective but also from a life safety, employee/member environment and the
disruption of multiple businesses/residential and land/building value standpoint. The 48th Ave So.
option already houses a street with truck yard access and would be a much easier way to execute on
this initiative. While I know this still impacts some, it is the reasonable choice and should be adopted.
I am not only a Tukwila resident but also a Tukwila business owner that would be greatly affected by
the "preferred" route of 48th AVE S. The overall impact on the businesses along this route would be
devastating. People are already frustrated with the current amount of big trucks coming along 48th.
We are already lacking suitable gas stations in Tukwila. Please don't make them impossible to get to.
Tukwila is a growing city and the north side (Airport way) of it is already industrial. Interurban Ave is an
incredibly popular thoroughfare for many people going south/north and the 2 gas stations on 48th Ave
services more than half of those people. Please reconsider 112th or Airport way as the better
alternative that will impact our growing city the least amount. Thank you.
I am very happy that the city is analyzing other options for the truck route into the BNSF yard. The
current route is not sustainable. My family prefers the 48th Av S option since it uses an existing
commercial street and is least impactful to residential communities and the environment. I would like
you to heavily factor in the environmental impacts the other two northerly options would have on
wetlands and existing greenspaces.Will the Airport Way option impede future Light rail/Sounder
station location planning efforts? How will the different entrance options impact yard operations?
Currently, the BNSF yard is very noisy 24/7 with back up beepers. Will these operations shift or
diminish with the varying options? Can the city proceed with pursuing the noise wall installation along
the railyard boundary? I think this will make a significant improvement to the quality of life in
Duwamish and Allentown. thank you
I represent The Pape' Group, Inc. who owns the Ditch Witch dealership on 48th Ave, South. I
understand there will be significant traffic impact during construction. I don't think we're overly
concerned about that. However, I'd like a little more information on the traffic study or estimates on
additional traffic impact on 48th Ave. South after completion of the project. Also, will there be any
improvements done to the 48th Ave road itself? Finally, is there something I'm missing that you think
we should be concerned about as a business right on 48th Ave? Thanks, Quinn Closson 360-607-8178
qclosson@pape.com
Tukwila BNSF Access Study — Preferred Alternative Outreach Summary
108
DRAFT
71
!wish that this 124th St. access be change to a different access ASAP because we moved here in a new
home development last year 2016 of Sept. which we are not aware about this 124th St. right beside
our house is the major access for truckers. We encountered 24-7 of a massive vibration like an
earthquake multiple times everyday and we felt scary that our house may collapse one of this day. So
far we had a multiple long cracks in our garage and hopefully will not affect the foundation. We live
right by the stop sign where those truckers heading out from BNSF gate and also for coming in. That
really distract us everyday. There's a time when some of the truck driver lost their focus on the stop
sign especially in the evening and they made an emergency brakes and it shakes the ground so bad and
it vibrates our house also. 1 Believe that 48th Ave S is the best alternatives route for the truckers.
!work at BECU. The Gateway alternative would have a negative impact on our members who come
into our Tukwila Financial Center to conduct their personal business (primarily retail banking, trust
services, and investment services). We are about to engage on a Gateway campus upgrade and a truck
route cutting through the middle of it would have a negative impact on our employee experience and
may have a negative impact on our ability to recruit and retain employees. Given the existing land use
abutting most of your preferred alternative (gas stations, commercial, etc.). 1 can see the potential
noise downside for a hotel (but it's already next To 1-5 and a busy off ramp so marginal impact seems
moderate).
I would like to avoid having another bridge over the river and prefer this option: S 112th Street Thank
you.
Thank you for considering all options and explaining the reasoning. What timeframe are you looking at
for construction of the new bridge and roadway. What impact will there be on the existing Interurban
Bike/Walking Trail both during construction and upon completion. Will traffic studies be done to work
on minimalizing impact at the intersection for traffic on Interurban and from the off ramp on 15?
This route makes the most sense as it is a quick, direct route off of 1-5, drives through a commercial
area only and does not affect the public's experience of their greenspace, except for a small segment
of the bike trail. 1 fully support this preferred route.
What are the costs? How it will be funded?
Tukwila BNSF Access Study — Preferred Alternative Outreach Summary
DRAFT
72 109
Appendix 3: Notifications
Social media
City of Tukwila - Government
August 9 al 3. 4pm k�
Join us for a BNSF Access Study Project Open House on August 17, 2017
The City of Tukwila has identified 48th Ave as the preferred route to
access the BNSF Railway Intermodal Facility in Allentown_ Before the mute
is formally decided_ we're holding an Open House and online foram to talk to
you about the route that we selected based on the criteria you helped us
shape.
BNSF Access Study Project Open House
Thursday, August 17, 2017
5:30 - 7:30 p.m.
Tukwila Community Center
2424 42nd Ave S, Tukwila. WA 98160
Can't snake it to the open house? Share your thoughts onlinel
Now' through. August 20, 2017. you can share your thoughts at
https:„TuKBNSFAccess.Participate.Online All information from the Open
House will be online. Translation options are available.
Email us at AccessStudyrtukwilawa.gov or call 206-433-0179 with any
questions,
CITY OF TUKWILA
BNSF Access Study Project
dir Like
Ci 3
3 shares
• Comment
Tina" OIllabodo her IAI ie5hlia 4M4 Nee 5.5. Lige prekilell mot 4o micro it*
Mr *Awry hrorrmre l Rardnr F n @.b+ t TWO w Weimar award,
.rliblamew.Open e4wae **I w ro-w..rd caw ro.J alto= dm, *wt. SW
ow baud on the o.enno LLS snips
Lad MilirNetil 6w tier asiw+ed rsri►ee rest;
Ogriallovta
▪ Asmoil fir,1 4
s la P Rep
I oes. Cd..twpwryr WNW
bili•int!Awe Sm T1 WAIII'Le
kievf pmrti er triml*IOW 44eprlinvedohnrnafMei e..d
s!e
rookrootreotol poem l.eMFywJ+ir Ski wJMs
Cimino Mewl
Mew [Mrr gh &WW2", ix41 pro CM slime rum ',hcamhh air*
Yl l Mica ^ f fiiamNirarTem. 1a>...r Ordmi,
▪ iNbuinl . Awn My ryrw W r m, =waif ire 7rvwFMM. 41-F.•t Mm
11011111110
4 Share
Facebook post published August 9, 2017.
l
Top Comments
Tukwila BNSF Access Study — Preferred Alternative Outreach Summary
110
DRAFT
73
City of Tukwila 0 @ CityofTukwila r Aug 9 v
Join us for a BNSF Access Study Project Open House on August 17, 2017
0 CITY OF TUKWILA
BNSF Access Study Project
Tweet published August 9, 2017.
Postcard
TS, Citti of kalndo ili rggtlrlhati 4611 iliN* 5 Rr131{ prt¢1aiwrge mu teamrr tdia
1b4way. 4nearrrloi3at F n11tif iR Aio-ntn.rn 6.1,n/the ra.“0 s ficiaraiii
41,04 Ali e1r iVen airnwo - MIEN PIWILMI !4El& m yaw ahnut the rout. It t
iYRinleparcl Waal an Lim moria gnu l os Itolma
IIorlem ad twiteme estes 1m welerared alisienfor remise
L 119ra6&
fhksliiw, Mwusi 17, 3FFLT
534 1300ni
Tudoitlia ratitorveary Celled
17t1i# i7rrd Art S.. Tu11wIPi. 'i4+i 91i Ifi6
'Orel #cats -=t sn & V imm aimwt' tial ,pro,iirsrAJ alto4riziOur Forgo m
rf+Mrkrarr.7.F1itaA weans, NO iAiwr Nor 'r3RPe1 s
oi,N3er lFw!Jrn
NON iMIW6h Awls6at .TE, 31717, !nu tela strati rout thwit11! dialer
Mill kek.p3. TIi,µFMSFikcrSv +r'wtidprot.el .lint
A kr prrrrygran Kra n 010 PIN* * rlatrie __ irlRq Trpry,4,0oi3.1100o4o
id hi,
ErR611161st Arrei3SI .orerub otionea prim' oil ? -431.0179
CITY OF TUKWILA
BNSF Access Study Project
The City has identified 48th Ave 5 as the preferred route to access the BNSF yard in
Allentown. Before the route is formally decided, we're holding an open house and
online forum to talk to you about the route that we selected based on the trite{°
you helped us shape.
Review and comment on the preferred alternative route:
1. In person
Thursday, August 17, 2017
5:30 - 7:30 p.m.
Tukwila Community Center
1242442nd Ave S, Tulcwila, WA 98168
Meet project staff, learn about the preferred afternertive route and
environmental process, and shore your thoughts.
2. Online
Now through August 28, you can share your thoughts online!
Visit TukBN5FAccess.Participate.O11line
All infarmationfrom the in-person event will be online, Translation options are
available.
Questions?
Email us at AocessStudy@tukwilawa.gov or call 206-433-0179.
One side of a postcard sent to the Allentown and Duwamish neighborhoods.
Tukwila BNSF Access Study — Preferred Alternative Outreach Summary
DRAFT
74 111
CITY OF TUKWILA
BNSF Access Study Project
Public Works Administration
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA S818B
Review and comrnent on the
preferred alternative route,
48th Ave 5
In person
Thursday, August 17, 2017
5:30 to 7:30 p.m.
Tukwila Community Center
Online
TukBNSFAccess. Participate.Online
Reverse of a postcard sent to the Allentown and Duwamish neighborhoods.
Emails
Tukwila BNSF Access Study — Preferred Alternative Outreach Summary
112
DRAFT
75
Tukwila City CouncCommittee of the Whole Minutes
June 14, 2021 Page 3 of 5
Based on a question from Councilmember Seal, Vicky Cedsen, Finance Director, indicated a budget
amendment will be required to fund the request for consultant services that will come out of the General
Fund.
Foliowing an inquiry from Council President Kruller, Mr. Golden confirmed the consultants have extensive
experience working with agencies to retain fire services within the organization in addition to other options
such as contracting for services, annexing to a current agency, and forming Regional Fire Authorities.
CONSENSUS EXISTED TO APPROVE THE PROPOSAL FOR CONSULTATION SERVICES AND
TIMELINE FOR ESTABLISHING THE COMMUNITY FIRE ADVISORY TASK FORCE.
e. An update and Council Consensus on options for BNSF Alternative Access Study.
Hari Ponnekanti, Public Works Directorprovided an update on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF)
Intermodal Facility Access Study that reviews alternate routes for a new truck traffic route. Staff is seeking
Council approval on Options 1 and 2 as outlined in the informational memorandum: (1) To update the
David Evans contract to revise previous cost estimates in the report for the amount of $15,000 to
$50,000; and (2) To complete an environment impact statement process which will cost approximately
$75O.0OOhn$9OO.000.inaddition hzhiring aterm-limited Project WYanagerfor$30O.O0Oforhwoyeara.
Councilmember Seal reported the Transportation and Infrastructure Services Committee discussed
pursuing Option 3 (research and analysis of funding options) whenever feasible.
Following a question from Councilmember Hougardy regarding funding sources, Mr. Ponnekanti
explained funding sources could include a waste management surcharge for roads and road -related
projects, bond issues, use of general funds, American Rescue Plan Act funds, or a combination of the
above.
Based on a question from Council President Nru||er, Rachel Bianchi, Deputy City Administrator, shared
the City has been in communication with Allentown residents and intends to hold a community meeting in
the near future. The term -limited Project Manager proposed through Option 2 will also be responsible for
interacting with the community.
CONSENSUS EXISTED TO PROCEED WITH OPTIONS 1 AND 2 AS OUTLINED IN THE AGENDA
DOCUMENTATION.
REPORTS
a. Mayor
Mayor Ekberg shared the Tukwila, City of Opportunity Scholarships were presented to awardees at the
virtual Foster High School Awards Night.
b. City Council
Councilmember Seal reported the Tranand Infrastructure Services Committee forwarded 3
items to the next Regular Meeting Consent Agenda: The Public Works Shops Minkler Restroom Remodel
Project, the Public Works Shops Fence and Gates Pject, and Transportation Demand Management
Program Regional Mobility Grant Program Award. The Committee also discussed trash pickup and graffiti
cleanup and received an update on the Public Works Tenant Improvements project. There will be a page
on the City website that will have contacts listed for issues with illegal dumping and graffiti.
Councilmember Hougardy attended a Sound Cities Association Women in Leadership meeting today
where they discussed the impacts of the pandemic on women.
Councilmember Quinn thanked the Council President and Laurel Humohray, Legislative Analyst, for their
hard work on the recent Council retreat. He relayed a recent incident in Allentown in which a semi -truck
78
113
City of Tukwila
City Council Transportation & Infrastructure Services Committee
Meeting Minutes
July 12, 20215:30 p.m. - Electronic Meeting due to COVID-19 Emergency
Councilmembers Present: Verna Seal, Chair, De'Sean Quinn, Thomas McLeod
Staff Present: Hari Ponnekanti, Rachel Bianchi, David Cline, Brittany Robinson, Mike
Perfetti, Dan Nguyen, Muhammad Musa, Scott Bates,
Guests: Laura Moser & Randy Jones, Waste Management; Barbara Combs,
resident
Chair Seal called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
I. BUSINESSAGENDA
There was consensus to move item E to the second order of business.
A.
Waste Management Service Discussion
Committee members and representatives from Waste Management discussed recent
customer issues and appropriate protocols for handling issues. Ms. Moser & Mr. Jones invited
Councilmembers to contact them directly with future concerns, discussed a forthcoming
rerouting process, and indicated they would follow up with the customer service team to learn
why differing messages are being shared with residents.
Committee Recommendation
Discussion only.
B. BNSF Alternative Access Study Next Steps
Staff presented an update on the BNSF Alternative Access Study Environmental Impact
Statement process, including schedule, community engagement' and funding options.
Item(s) for follow-up:
Plan future discussion around debt capacity.
Committee Recommendation
Discussion only.
C. Resolution: WRIA 9 Watershed Planning 2021-2026
Staff is seekingCouncilapproval of a resolution to adopttheWRIA92021 Update to the Salmon
Habitat Plan.
Committee Recommendation
Unanimous approval. Forward to July26, 2021 Committee of the Whole.
114