HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 2013-05-23 Appendix A - Multimodal Level of Service Analysis ReportCity of Tukwila: Background Report for the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan Update
Transportation Analysis and 2030 Improvement Recommendations
May 2012
APPENDIX A:
MULTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS REPORT
Submitted by:
Fehr & Peers
11410 NE 122nd Way
Suite 320
Kirkland, WA 98034
(425) 820 -0100
Prepared for:
City of Tukwila
Department of Public Works
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
January 2011
FEHRt PEERS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY 2
LOS Definitions 5
Auto LOS 5
Bicycle LOS 5
Pedestrian LOS 5
CHAPTER3. RESULTS 6
LOS E/F Segments 26
CHAPTER 4. RECOMMENDATIONS 28
Auto LOS E/F 28
Bicycle LOS E/F 29
Pedestrian LOS E/F 33
Next Steps 35
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Summary of Data Sources
Attachment B: Description of Assumptions
Attachment C: Non - Motorized Corridors, Existing Conditions
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 — City of Tukwila — Key Map (Zones) 7
Figure 2A — City of Tukwila — Intersection and Roadway Automobile Level of Service (Zone 1) 8
Figure 2B — City of Tukwila — Bicycle Level of Service (Zone 1) 9
Figure 2C — City of Tukwila — Pedestrian Level of Service (Zone 1) 10
Figure 3A — City of Tukwila — Intersection and Roadway Automobile Level of Service (Zone 2) 11
Figure 3B — City of Tukwila — Bicycle Level of Service (Zone 2) 12
Figure 3C — City of Tukwila — Pedestrian Level of Service (Zone 2) 13
Figure 4A — City of Tukwila — Intersection and Roadway Automobile Level of Service (Zone 3) 14
Figure 4B — City of Tukwila — Bicycle Level of Service (Zone 3) 15
Figure 4C — City of Tukwila — Pedestrian Level of Service (Zone 3) 16
Figure 5A — City of Tukwila — Intersection and Roadway Automobile Level of Service (Zone 4) 17
Figure 5B — City of Tukwila — Bicycle Level of Service (Zone 4) 18
Figure 5C — City of Tukwila — Pedestrian Level of Service (Zone 4) 19
Figure 6A — City of Tukwila — Intersection and Roadway Automobile Level of Service (Zone 5) 20
Figure 6B — City of Tukwila — Bicycle Level of Service (Zone 5) 21
Figure 6C — City of Tukwila — Pedestrian Level of Service (Zone 5) 22
Figure 7A — City of Tukwila — Intersection and Roadway Automobile Level of Service (Zone 6) 23
Figure 7B — City of Tukwila — Bicycle Level of Service (Zone 6) 24
Figure 7C — City of Tukwila — Pedestrian Level of Service (Zone 6) 25
Figure 8 — City of Tukwila — Study Segments with a Bicycle, Pedestrian or Automobile Level of Service of
`E or `F' 27
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 — Multimodal Level of Service Data Input Requirements 4
Table 2 — LOS E/F Segments 26
Draft Report: Multimodal Level of Service Analysis Results
City of Tukwila (SE10- 0181.01)
January 2011
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Fehr & Peers has completed a multimodal level of service (MMLOS) analysis for the City of Tukwila. As
described in Deliverable #1 (attached as Attachment C), MMLOS summarizes the quality of the
transportation system for autos, bicycles, and pedestrians based on the methodologies defined in
NCHRP Project 3 -701. MMLOS is an advancement over traditional LOS techniques, which focus solely
on automobile progression and delay to drivers.
This report summarizes the results of the MMLOS analysis for auto, bicycle, and pedestrian modes on
roadway segments within the City of Tukwila. The results of the MMLOS analysis are followed by a list of
preliminary recommendations for improving the LOS of poorly performing segments.
1 These methodologies will also be included in the upcoming 2010 update to the Highway Capacity Manual.
fr
FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
Draft Report: Multimodal Level of Service Analysis Results
City of Tukwila (SE10- 0181.01)
January 2011
CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY
A report by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 3 -70 defines the
methodologies to calculate MMLOS for auto, bicycle, transit, and pedestrian modes along roadway
segments. These methods were applied to a set of major arterial roadways in the City of Tukwila to
calculate LOS for pedestrian, bicycle, and auto modes. Although transit LOS is included in the MMLOS
methodology, it was not calculated in this analysis as the City has no control over the transit service
provided by King County Metro and Sound Transit. While LOS is determined independently for each
mode, it is important to recognize variables that improve the LOS of one mode may worsen the LOS for
another mode. For example, widening an intersection may improve auto LOS by reducing delay but
worsen pedestrian and bicycle LOS by increasing crossing distances and exposure to conflicting vehicles.
Thus balancing LOS by modes becomes a challenge, and in some cases it may be more appropriate to
identify corridors that favor one mode over another to avoid creating a situation where all modes perform
poorly. The diagram below highlights the interaction of the MMLOS data.
LOS Data Interactions
Facility
Design
1
Lane Geometry
Y
v
Facility Facility Mode
Control Maintenance Volumes
Auto/Trucks
• Auto
- Speed
O 76
� y
Auto LOS
Bike LOS
Pedestrians
Bike -Ped
Conflicts
1
P
Density
.1 1 •
FEHR ( PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
Draft Report: Multimodal Level of Service Analysis Results
City of Tukwila (SE10- 0181.01)
January 2011
As described in Deliverable #1, the City of Tukwila identified 67 arterial study segments for MMLOS
evaluation. In order to complete the MMLOS analysis for each mode, data were collected in both
directions of the study segments. The data inputs for the MMLOS computation are summarized in
Table 1. Due to construction activities and road closures, we were not able to collect data in the newly
annexed southern portion of Tukwila, and these segments were not analyzed. In total, MMLOS was
computed for 118 directional segments.
In accordance with MMLOS methodology, each segment must begin and end at a signalized intersection.
While this was not the case for several of the designated segments, certain assumptions were made and
are included in Attachment B. A summary of data sources that were used in the MMLOS calculations is
provided in Attachment A.
fr
FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
Draft Report: Multimodal Level of Service Analysis Results
City of Tukwila (SE10- 0181.01)
January 2011
TABLE 1 — MULTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE DATA INPUT REQUIREMENTS
Data
Auto LOS
Bicycle LOS
Pedestrian LOS
Street Geometry
Number of directional through lanes
X
X
X
Travel lane widths (feet)
X
X
Median width (if present, in feet)
X
Bike lane width (if present, in feet)
X
X
Shoulder width (if present, in feet)
X
X
Planter strip width (if present, in feet)
X
Presence of barrier in planter strip (yes /no)
X
Sidewalk width (if present) (feet)
X
Presence of left hand turning lane(s) at intersections (yes /no)
X
Length of analysis segment (feet)
X
X
X
Presence of right turn channelization islands at intersections
(yes /no)
X
Number of cross - street through lanes at intersections
X
Cross - street curb to curb length (feet)
X
Number of unsignalized intersections and driveways (per mile)
X
X
Pavement condition (1 -5 scale)
X
Demand
Intersection vehicle turning movements (vehicles per hour)
X
X
X
Vehicle right turn on red volume (vehicles per hour)
X
Vehicle peak hour factor (PHF)
X
X
X
Percent heavy vehicles
X
Percent of on- street parking occupied
X
X
Intersection Control
Saturation flow rate through lanes (vehicles per lane per hour)
X
Green time per cycle for through movement (percentage)
X
X
Cycle length (seconds)
X
X
Quality of signal progression (1 -5 scale)
X
Speed limit (miles per hour)
X
X
X
Cross street speed limit (miles per hour)
X
Source: Fehr & Peers 2011
FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
Draft Report: Multimodal Level of Service Analysis Results
City of Tukwila (SE10- 0181.01)
January 2011
LOS DEFINITIONS
This section provides a qualitative description of how NCHRP Project 3 -70 defines LOS for auto, bicycle,
and pedestrian modes. The full equations necessary to compute MMLOS are complex and are not
included in this report. Refer to the NCHRP documentation for additional details.
Auto LOS
Auto LOS is based on the average number of stops per mile and the presence of left turn lanes at
signalized and unsignalized intersections along the roadway segment. Stops per mile are calculated
using the volume to capacity (v /c) ratio and signal progression2 of the through movement at the segment's
downstream intersection. With the exception of the presence of left -turn lanes at unsignalized
intersections along the segment, auto LOS is completely dependent on the characteristics of the
intersection located at the downstream end of the roadway segment. Roadway characteristics such as
lane width or presence of street trees are not included in the methodology.
Bicycle LOS
Bicycle LOS is a weighted average of study segment LOS and intersection LOS. Bicycle segment LOS is
based on vehicle volume, vehicle speed, number of lanes, percent heavy vehicles, parking conditions,
lane and shoulder widths, pavement quality, and number of unsignalized conflicts3. Bicycle intersection
LOS is based on vehicle volumes, bicycle crossing distance, and lane geometries. Bicycle LOS is not
influenced by grades or other factors that may increase the physical difficulty of bicycling.
Pedestrian LOS
Pedestrian LOS is influenced by vehicle speed and volume, parking conditions, sidewalk width, buffer and
barrier presence'', shoulder or bike lane width, sidewalk and intersection geometry, and cross street
speed and volume. Similar to bicycle LOS, pedestrian LOS is based on a weighted average of the
segment and intersection LOS. Due to the nature of different modes of travel, appropriate scale of
segments for automobile and bicycle LOS may not coincide with that of pedestrian travel. For this
reason, a set of smaller segments were created for pedestrian LOS analysis.
2 Signal progression is a term from the Highway Capacity Manual, which describes the quality of signal coordination
on a one to five scale. Signal progression of one represents very poor progression where vehicles are stopped by
most traffic signals, while five represents exceptional progression where vehicles can proceed along a corridor with
few stops or delays.
Unsignalized conflicts are defined as unsignalized side street and driveway intersections.
4 A buffer is an area (typically landscaped) between the edge of the sidewalk and the edge of the roadway. A barrier
is a design feature that physically separates the pedestrians from the traffic stream. A barrier can be a railing, a low
wall, or a row of closely spaced trees.
w
FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
Draft Report: Multimodal Level of Service Analysis Results
City of Tukwila (SE10- 0181.01)
January 2011
CHAPTER 3. RESULTS
Using the methodologies described above, MMLOS was determined for auto, bicycle, and pedestrian
modes on the study segments in Tukwila. The study area was divided into six zones, as shown in Figure
1. The results are shown in Figures 2 -7. Each figure number has three components -A showing auto LOS,
B showing bicycle LOS, and C showing pedestrian LOS.
'f
FEHR ( PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
410'
U
c Z
Q W
O
O cn N
AGO
OZ�
›- Qw
Zw
O�
UJ
N
m
O
CC
Z OF-
ce-
V')�
w;
0
°
¢
FIGURE 2A
' IA
U
w
>z
O
Y w N
N
w
wO
OJ
w
H w
UJ
w
J
U
0
m
ce-
FIGURE 2B
E
E
ui
0
0
N
0
O
coI
W
J
0
E
E
0
0
O
0)
t0
0)
0
O
E
O
W
0
1
O
0
w = co
�o
�s
z d
o
0
a N
a
2
�
wa
;
CITY OF TUKWILA -
ce-
PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE
W
Z
0
N
FIGURE 2C
LEGEND
Level of Service
• A - B • D AM Level _ •
❑ C U E - F of Service
Q Study Intersection
• Signalized
Unsignalized
PM Level
of Service
N
NOT TO SCALE
W
v
0
0
c
fa
F E HoRAT& PEERS
\ \FPSE2 \Data2 \2010Projects \SE 10- 0181.00_Tukwila_TransElement \Graphics \G IS \MXD\zone_maps\ALL \fig 16A_Ios_zone2_INT. mxd
CITY OF TUKWILA -
INTERSECTION AND ROADWAY
AUTOMOBILE LEVEL OF SERVICE
(ZONE 2)
FIGURE 3A
fa
FEHR & PEERS
CITY OF TUKWILA -
BICYCLE LEVEL OF SERVICE
(ZONE 2)
FIGURE 3B
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
\ \FPSE2 \Data2 \2010Projects \SE 10- 0181.00_Tukwila_TransElement \Graphics \G IS \MXD\zone_maps\ALL \fig 16B_Ios_zone2_BI KE.mxd
LEGEND
Level or Jervice
A - B • D
❑ C ❑ E - F
1
N
NOT TO SCALE
Baker Blvd
•-°1
fa
FEHR & PEERS
CITY OF TUKWILA -
PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE
(ZONE 2)
FIGURE 3C
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
\ \FPSE2 \Data2 \2010Projects \SE 10- 0181.00_Tukwila_TransElement \Graphics \G I S \MXD\zone_maps\ALL \fig 16C_Ios_zone2_P ED. mxd
LEGEND
Level of Service
❑ A - B • D
• C • E - F
Q Study Intersection
• Signalized
• Unsignalized
AM Level — •k PM Level
of Service of Service
0
N
NOT TO SCALE
Gay
fp
FEHR & PEERS
CITY OF TUKWILA -
INTERSECTION AND ROADWAY
AUTOMOBILE LEVEL OF SERVICE
(ZONE 3)
FIGURE 4A
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
\\ FPSE2\ Data2\ 2010Projects\ SE10- 0181.00_Tukwila_TransElement \ Graphics \G IS \MXD\ zone_ maps \ALL \figl7A_los_zone3_INT.mxd
LEGEND
Level of Service
A -B • D
C E E - F
N
NOT TO SCALE
Southcenter Blvd
42c
1
fp
FEHR & PEERS
CITY OF TUKWILA -
BICYCLE LEVEL OF SERVICE
(ZONE 3)
FIGURE 4B
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
\\ FPSE2\ Data2\ 2010Projects\ SE10- 0181.00_Tukwila_TransElement\ Graphics \GIS \MXD\zone_maps \ALL \figl7B_Ios_zone3_BI KE.mxd
fa
FEHR & PEERS
CITY OF TUKWILA -
PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE
(ZONE 3)
FIGURE 4C
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
\ \FPSE2 \Data2 \2010Projects \SE 10- 0181.00_Tukwila_TransElement \Graphics \G I S \MXD\zone_maps\ALL \fig 17C_Ios_zone3_P ED. mxd
la 44.
Ili 0
Q 0> Z
cc
0
w N
O CO
I- CC w
u O
OZ�
›-Qw
Z W
UO_I
UJ
N
m
O
w2
Z 0
ce-
FIGURE 5A
. t
it '_ .> r €
di 441v,
tik,
ik•
g
cA.
IL
' W
W
Z
cc O
W N
H W
U-O
OJ
HW
>
UJ
0 W
J
U
00
ce-
Con
w;
w=
o
0
W
FIGURE 5B
3S£
NOT TO SCALE
0 W
m
Q 0
• •
0
Level of Service
FIGURE 5C
771471I ,
5
•
Level of Service
LI A -B
L C
•
•
•
■
D
E - F
Study Intersection
Signalized
Unsignalized
AM Level PM Level
of Service of Service
:47a
14 la • fi
N s 764th St
NOT TO SCALE
fa
FEHR & PEERS
CITY OF TUKWILA -
INTERSECTION AND ROADWAY
AUTOMOBILE LEVEL OF SERVICE
(ZONE 5)
FIGURE 6A
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
\\ FPSE2\ Data2\ 2010Projects\ SE10- 0181.00_Tukwila_TransElement \ Graphics \G IS \MXD\ zone_ maps \ALL \figl9A_Ios_zone5_INT.mxd
S 132nd St
•
LEGEND
Level of Service
C A - B • D
I1 C f1
E - F
N
NOT TO SCALE
S 164th St
fa
FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
\ \fpse2 \data2 \2010Projects \S E 10- 0181.00_Tu kwila_TransElement \Graphics \G IS \MXD \zone_maps\ALL \fig 19B_Ios_zone5_BIKE. mxd
CITY OF TUKWILA -
BICYCLE LEVEL OF SERVICE
(ZONE 5)
FIGURE 6B
...® ®ter
1 ti •
•
LEGEND
Level of Service
L A - B • D
C 0 E - F
N
NOT TO SCALE
fa
FEHR & PEERS
CITY OF TUKWILA -
PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE
(ZONE 5)
FIGURE 6C
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
\ \fpse2 \data2 \2010Projects \S E 10- 0181.00_Tu kwila_TransElement \Graphics \GI S \MXD\zone_maps\ALL \fig 19C_Ios_zone5_PED.mxd
>,s
•
SBoeing Access'' Rd co
LEGEND
Level of Service
A - B • D
C • E - F
Q Study Intersection
• Signalized
• Unsignalized
AM Level � • PM Level
of Service of Service
0
N
NOT TO SCALE
S112thSt
v
rn
fa
FEHR & PEERS
CITY OF TUKWILA -
INTERSECTION AND ROADWAY
AUTOMOBILE LEVEL OF SERVICE
(ZONE 6)
FIGURE 7A
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
\ \fpse2 \data2 \2010Projects \S E 10- 0181.00_Tu kwila_TransElement \Graphics \GI S \MXD\ zone_ maps \ALL \fig20A_Ios_zone6_INT. mxd
LEGEND
Level of Service
A -B • D
L C ❑ E -F
D
N
NOT TO SCALE
fa
FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
\ \fpse2 \data2 \2010Projects \S E 10- 0181.00_Tu kwila_TransElement \Graphics \G IS \MXD\ zone_ maps \ALL \fig2OB_los_zone6_BIKE. mxd
CITY OF TUKWILA -
BICYCLE LEVEL OF SERVICE
(ZONE 6)
FIGURE 7B
fa
FEHR & PEERS
CITY OF TUKWILA -
PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE
(ZONE 6)
FIGURE 7C
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
\ \fpse2 \data2 \2010Projects \S E 10- 0181.00_Tu kwila_TransElement \Graphics \GI S \MXD\ zone_ maps \ALL \fig20C_Ios_zone6_PED.mxd
Draft Report: Multimodal Level of Service Analysis Results
City of Tukwila (SE10- 0181.01)
January 2011
LOS E/F SEGMENTS
For the purposes of this study, segments in the City of Tukwila receiving an LOS of either E or F were
considered to be performing poorly. The poorly performing segments and modes are summarized in
Table 2 and shown in Figure 8.
TABLE 2 — LOS E/F SEGMENTS
Segment (Direction)
From
To
Auto
LOS
Bike
LOS
Pedestrian
LOS
West Valley Highway (NB)
S 180th Street
Strander Boulevard
X
X
West Valley Highway (SB)
Strander Boulevard
S 180th Street
X
Andover Park East (NB)
S 180th Street
Minkler Boulevard
X
Andover Park East (NB)
Strander Boulevard
Tukwila Parkway
X
Andover Park West (NB)
Minkler Boulevard
Strander Boulevard
X
Southcenter Parkway (NB)
Strander Boulevard
Northwest Mall Entrance
X
S 180th Street (WB)
West Valley Highway
Southcenter Parkway
X
S 180th Street (EB)
West Valley Highway
Southcenter Parkway
X
Klickitat Drive (EB)
53rd Avenue S
Southcenter Parkway
X
61st Avenue S (SB)
Southcenter Parkway
Southcenter Boulevard
X
61st Avenue S (NB)
Southcenter Boulevard
Southcenter Parkway
X
X
Interurban Avenue S (SB)
58th Avenue S
Southcenter Boulevard
X
Interurban Avenue S (SB)
1 -5 NB On -Ramp
58th Avenue S
X
Interurban Avenue S (SB)
Macadam Rd S
1 -5 NB On -Ramp
X
Southcenter Boulevard (EB)
1 -5 SB Off -Ramp
61st Avenue S
X
Southcenter Boulevard (EB)
61st Avenue S
West Valley Hwy
X
S 144th Street (EB & WB)
East End of 1 -5
Overnass
58th Avenue S
X
53rd Avenue S/ 137th
Street /52nd Avenue S (SB)
Interurban Avenue S
S 144th Street
X
Martin Luther King Jr. Way
(NB & SB)
East City Limit
North City Limit
X
X
40th Avenue S (SB)
East Marginal Way
42nd Avenue S
X
Baker Boulevard (EB & WB)
Andover Park West
Andover Park East
X
Tukwila International
Boulevard (SB)
Green River
SR -599 Ramp
X
S 178th Street (WB)
Southcenter Parkway
West City Limit
X
Boeing Access Road (WB)
Martin Luther King Jr.
East Marginal Way S
X
East Marginal Way S (NB)
S 115th Street
Boeing Access Road
X
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011
w
FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
26
•
a
LEGEND
— Study Segment
City of Tukwila
Potential Boundary Change
To Tukwila
To Seattle
j -....
Annexation Area
1r I= 11 ■
0
N
NOT TO SCALE
S 93rd St
5 96th 5t
7
Westbound Pedestrian (part)
Northbound Bicycle Boeing Access Rd s �L 1
_ \1
41
Southbound Pedestrian (part) \ a
dd
a
d
— = w
\ q.
1�1
132nd St
\ \-J
r
/S112tkhSt CITY OF \es v(-
V T P ;,! / L A Y Northbound and Southbound
5115th St Bicycle and Pedestrian
J
N
4, \ I
Q
,l
V7
v
cc
v
Q A
t 2
Southbound Pedestrian (part) Ytt.-
55
S 124th St
1
S 129th St GG
I ?z-
,r
///
"9a ( Southbound Pedestrian (part)
f 2
4. ;`
•� 1\e/' Southbound
Bicycle \ ',1\' ` ..iJ 14
S 144th St
�\ m
Southbound Bicycle
Lake
Washington
�\
\\\ mean it 37 �aQ
Eastbound and
Westbound Bicycle
0
a
loth St_
Westbound Pedestrian
Southbound Bicycle
Northbound
a .
5outhcenterBly A
� utomobile;
Southbound
Pedestrian
and Automobile
m
,
rot It°
Eastbound Pedestrian
L.
Tukwila
Pond
•k25 Blvd
•
Strander Blvd
Iry
Eastbound and
Westbound Bicycle
Northbound Bicycle
2
Northbound
C� Bicycle
•
■�•Minkler Blvd
23 }0
Westbound Pedestrian (part)
lts
/
Westbound Pedestrian
St
Northbound
Bicycle
S 180th St
' S 180th St
Westbound Bicycle
Eastbound Pedestrian (part)
S 200th St
ca /
`2 /
�o/
S 204th St /'
Northbound Bicycle;
Northbound (part) and
Southbound Pedestrian
1
fp
FE HoRAT& CONSULTANTS PE ERS
\ \fpse2 \data2 \201 OProjects \SE 10- 0181.00_Tukwila_TransElement \Graphics \G IS \MXD \zone_maps \MidSat\fu II \fig08_Ios_allZones_E- F_Segs. mxd
CITY OF TUKWILA -
STUDY SEGMENTS WITH A BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN
OR AUTOMOBILE LEVEL OF SERVICE OF 'E' OR 'F'
FIGURE 8
Draft Report: Multimodal Level of Service Analysis Results
City of Tukwila (SE10- 0181.01)
January 2011
CHAPTER 4. RECOMMENDATIONS
Listed below are a series of preliminary improvement recommendations for each LOS E/F segment.
AUTO LOS E/F
Southbound 61st Avenue S from Southcenter Boulevard to Tukwila Parkway
Currently, the southbound segment of 61st Avenue S has an auto LOS of E. Due to the short distance of
this segment and the traffic signal delay at the Tukwila Parkway / 61st Avenue S intersection, the
segment has a relatively high number of stops per mile. The number of stops per mile is the most
influential variable in calculating auto LOS, so this high value translates into poor auto LOS. Field
observations confirm the poor auto LOS findings and indicate that heavy turning movements at the
Southcenter Boulevard / 61st Avenue S and Tukwila Parkway / 61st Avenue S intersections cause long
queues to form on eastbound Southcenter Boulevard and southbound 61st Avenue S.
In order to relieve some of the queuing that is forming along the southbound 61st Avenue S segment and
improve traffic progression on this segment, the traffic signal timing could be improved to coordinate the
eastbound right turn movement from Southcenter Boulevard and the southbound left turn movement from
61st Avenue S to Tukwila Parkway. By coordinating these two movements, the average number of stops
per mile on the southbound 61st Avenue S segment would be reduced and the auto LOS would improve.
Since changing traffic signal timings could impact the progression on Southcenter Boulevard and Tukwila
Parkway, a larger coordinated signal study focusing on both of these corridors should be conducted.
Northbound 61St Avenue S from Tukwila Parkway to Southcenter Boulevard
The auto LOS for the northbound segment of 61st Avenue S is E. Similar to the southbound segment,
poor auto LOS is caused by heavy traffic volumes and closely spaced traffic signals that do not favor
progression along 61St Avenue S. The auto LOS for this segment could be improved in one of two ways.
1) The 61st Avenue S Bridge could be widened to include three northbound lanes, which would increase
the queue storage capacity of the northbound segment and increase the capacity of the Southcenter
Boulevard / 61st Avenue S intersection.
2) Traffic signal coordination could be improved at the Southcenter Boulevard / 61st Avenue S and
Tukwila Parkway / 61st Avenue intersections to favor northbound and southbound movements across the
61st Avenue S bridge. The progression for the movement along this segment is poor, as vehicles moving
north through the Tukwila Parkway / 61st Avenue S intersection are usually met with a red signal at the
Southcenter Boulevard / 61st Avenue S intersection. Coordinating this heavy movement could decrease
delay through the segment and improve the auto LOS. As described above, any traffic signal coordination
adjustments along 61st Avenue S would require a larger coordinated signal study focusing on the
Southcenter Boulevard and Tukwila Parkway corridors.
w
FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
Draft Report: Multimodal Level of Service Analysis Results
City of Tukwila (SE10- 0181.01)
January 2011
BICYCLE LOS E/F
Northbound West Valley Highway from S 180th Street to Strander Boulevard
The bicycle LOS along this segment is E. The poor LOS can be attributed to relatively high vehicle
speeds and high traffic volumes along with narrow travel lanes and a narrow shoulder. A relatively high
percentage of heavy vehicles (16 percent) were also observed on the segment.
Given that West Valley Highway is a major north /south arterial through the City of Tukwila, carrying over
1,200 northbound vehicles during the PM peak hour, a reduction of vehicle capacity in order to
accommodate bike lanes is not recommend. Providing additional bicycle capacity through right -of -way
acquisition may be difficult as the Green River borders the segment to the west and several businesses
border the segment to the east.
Therefore, we recommend that cyclists seeking a northbound or southbound route through this corridor
be directed to the Interurban Trail or Green River Trail. Both trails are dedicated bike paths with no
vehicular traffic. The Interurban Trail, located east of West Valley Highway is a direct and level route with
very few vehicle conflicts. The Green River Trial, located west of West Valley Highway, meanders along
the bank of its namesake river and provides a less direct but more scenic option than either West Valley
Highway or the Interurban Trail. The Green River Trail is a good option for recreational cyclists who are
less concerned with minimizing distance or travel time. No action is recommended for this segment as
sufficient parallel bicycle routes exist.
Northbound Andover Park E from S 180th Street to Minkler Boulevard
The bicycle LOS for this segment is E. This poor bicycle LOS is a result of narrow vehicle lanes with no
shoulders and a large number of unsignalized conflict points along the corridor. Field observations
indicate that many on the businesses along the roadway have multiple driveways accessing Andover
Park E.
Bicycle and pedestrian LOS could be improved along this corridor by reducing the number of lanes from
four to three, which is commonly known as a "road diet." The road would be restriped to include one
through lane in each direction with a center two -way left turn lane. The remaining roadway width would
be restriped to create a bicycle lane in each direction. With average daily traffic volumes along this
segment under 10,000 vehicles per day, this three -lane configuration would provide adequate capacity to
provide auto LOS of D or better.
In addition to the road diet, we also recommend that an access consolidation study be considered to
determine the feasibility of reducing the number of driveways along the corridor. Fewer driveways will
reduce the number of unsignalized conflicts, which will improve bicycle LOS. In addition, fewer driveways
and a three -lane roadway configuration will provide the opportunity to create landscaped medians,
improving the aesthetic quality of the roadway.
Northbound Andover Park E from Strander Boulevard to Tukwila Parkway
The bicycle LOS for this segment of Andover Park E is E. Along this segment, high vehicular volumes,
the lack of a shoulder, and a large number of unsignalized conflicts cause the poor LOS.
Consolidating driveway access will lead to an improved bicycle LOS. Several businesses on the east
side of the segment have multiple driveways. Reducing access points to one per business would improve
the bicycle LOS from E to D.
w
FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
Draft Report: Multimodal Level of Service Analysis Results
City of Tukwila (SE10- 0181.01)
January 2011
1
Bicycle LOS on this corridor could also be improved from E to C with a road diet. However, the average
daily traffic volume along this segment is over 13,000 vehicles per day, which could result in a negative
impact on auto LOS unless additional lanes are provided at key intersections like at Baker Boulevard and
Strander Boulevard. Although road diets along corridors with similar traffic volumes have been
successfully implemented in other areas, further studies on this corridor should be considered prior to
implementing a lane reduction.
Northbound Andover Park W from Minkler Boulevard to Strander Boulevard
Limited space for cyclists on this four -lane roadway with no shoulders and heavy traffic volumes results in
a bicycle LOS of E. The segment also includes a large number of unsignalized conflicts that exacerbate
the poor LOS.
Driveway consolidation could be considered as part of a bicycle LOS improvement plan for the corridor.
Many businesses along the corridor have multiple access points that could potentially be removed;
however an access study is recommended to determine the feasibility of reducing the number of
driveways.
A road diet could also improve the bicycle LOS along the corridor. Although this segment serves a
relatively high traffic volume (over 13,000 vehicles per day), benefits to pedestrians and cyclists along the
corridor may outweigh any degradation in auto LOS. The City should consider further studying the impact
of a road diet on this segment, potentially in conjunction with the road diet analysis for Andover Park E
between S 180th Street and Tukwila Parkway.
Northbound Southcenter Parkway from Strander Boulevard to Northwest Southcenter Mall
Entrance
The NCHRP 3 -70 methodology does not accurately reflect the T- intersection geometry along this
segment (see Attachment B). However, based on field observations, we estimate that this segment has a
bicycle LOS of E. We based the poor LOS on the heavy traffic volumes, lack of shoulders or bike lanes,
and the proportion of heavy vehicles traveling on the segment (8.2 percent).
As the Klickitat Drive / Southcenter Boulevard intersection will soon undergo reconstruction, we are
recommending that no pedestrian or bicycle improvements be implemented along this segment. Cyclists
should seek alternate routes such as Andover Park W.
Westbound S 180th Street from West Valley Highway to Southcenter Parkway
The bicycle LOS for westbound S 180th Street is currently E. High vehicle volumes along with the lack of
bicycle facilities such as shoulders or bike lanes lead to the poor LOS.
The bicycle LOS could be improved along this segment by widening the street to provide bicycle lanes;
however, businesses and the Green River levee could make any roadway widening costly and technically
challenging. Heavy traffic volumes and complex geometric configurations (long crossing distances, dual
right turn lanes) at the S 180th Street / Southcenter Parkway and S 180th Street / West Valley Highway
intersections also limit the ability to improve bicycle LOS along this segment.
Given the proposed development in the Tukwila South Project area (along Southcenter Parkway, south of
S 180th Street), future traffic volumes on S 180th Street will increase, which will further degrade the
bicycle, pedestrian, and auto LOS of this corridor. To address the transportation challenges along this
segment, a full multimodal access study should be prepared as part of the ongoing Transportation
Element update. This multimodal study should consider a variety of enhancements including additional
roadway capacity and the development of a parallel pedestrian and bicycle facility.
fr
FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
3U
Draft Report: Multimodal Level of Service Analysis Results
City of Tukwila (SE10- 0181.01)
January 2011
Southbound Interurban Avenue S from 58th Avenue S to Southcenter Boulevard
The Bicycle LOS for this segment is currently F. Heavy vehicle volumes, a high proportion of trucks, and
narrow shoulders are the main factors leading to the poor LOS result. The two intersections analyzed for
this segment (Southbound 1 -405 ramps and Grady Way /Southcenter Boulevard) also contributed to the
poor LOS because of the long crossing distances.
Without increasing the width of the roadway, improving the bicycle LOS of the segment is not feasible in
the near -term. Considering the high vehicle volumes, a road diet is not recommended in this location.
While the Green River Trail parallels this segment, its circuitous routing may be unattractive to commuting
cyclists. Cyclists traveling on this corridor increase their trip by over one mile when using the Green River
Trail as an alternate route. As part of the Transportation Element update, the feasibility of a long -term
strategy to add bike lanes and improve bicycle LOS on this facility should be explored.
Southbound Interurban Avenue S from 1 -5 NB On -ramp to 58th Avenue S
The bicycle LOS for this segment is currently E. As with the previous segment, high traffic volumes, a
high percentage of heavy vehicles, and a lack of shoulders or bicycle lanes are the primary factors
contributing to the poor LOS. The segment also has a high number of unsignalized driveways and
intersections.
Without increasing the width of the roadway, improving the bicycle LOS of the segment is not feasible.
However, the Green River Trail, a non - motorized recreational path, parallels Interurban Avenue along the
east side of the road. Cyclists can use the Green River Trail as viable alternate route as it adds no
additional distance to their route. To better direct southbound cyclists the Green River Trail, we
recommend providing directional signs, potentially at the Interurban Avenue / 48th Avenue S intersection.
Eastbound and Westbound S 144th Street between the 1 -5 Overpass and 58th Avenue S
These eastbound and westbound segments have a bicycle LOS of E due to poor pavement quality. The
city should consider repaving this street. With better pavement quality, these segments would have a
bicycle LOS of B.
Southbound 53rd Avenue S / 137th Street / 52nd Avenue S from Interurban Avenue S to S 144th
Street
This segment has a bicycle LOS of E due to poor pavement quality. The city should consider repaving
this street. With better pavement quality, this segment would have a bicycle LOS of B.
Northbound and Southbound Martin Luther King Jr. Way between the East City Limit and the
North City Limit
Martin Luther King Jr. Way has a deficient LOS in both directions for both bicycle and pedestrian modes.
The segment, which is located between the Martin Luther King Jr. Way / Boeing Access Road
intersection and Tukwila's east city limit, is a limited access highway designed with no bicycle or
pedestrian amenities. Providing pedestrian and bicycle facilities along Martin Luther King Jr. Way would
require coordination between municipalities. As no businesses or pedestrian or bicycle attractions exist
along either side of this segment, no action is recommended at this time.
w
FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
Draft Report: Multimodal Level of Service Analysis Results
City of Tukwila (SE10- 0181.01)
January 2011
Northbound East Marginal Way S from S 115`h Street to Boeing Access Rd
The bicycle LOS of northbound East Marginal Way between S 115th Street and Boeing Access Road is E.
Although this segment has wide shoulders conducive to cyclists, the segment also has a large number of
driveways conflicts. These driveway conflicts are responsible for the poor segment LOS.
The City should consider working with the business along the east side of the East Marginal Way to
develop an access management strategy. The LOS of this segment would significantly improve with the
consolidation of these driveways.
Eastbound and Westbound Baker Boulevard from Andover Park West to Andover Park East
Both eastbound and westbound Baker Boulevard received a Bicycle LOS of F. This poor LOS can be
attributed to the lack of a shoulder or bike lane and a high unsignalized conflicts per mile value. With
average daily traffic volume well below 10,000, the City should consider studying a 4 to 3 lane conversion
or road diet. This would enable bicycle lanes to be placed on either side on the street, improving the
bicycle LOS without significantly impacting traffic operations. The City should also consider driveway
consolidation as part of their bicycle LOS improvement plan as businesses along the corridor have
multiple access points.
w
FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
Draft Report: Multimodal Level of Service Analysis Results
City of Tukwila (SE10- 0181.01)
January 2011
PEDESTRIAN LOS E/F
Westbound Klickitat Drive from Southcenter Parkway to 53rd Avenue S
Westbound Klickitat Drive currently has a pedestrian LOS of E. The poor pedestrian LOS is related to the
lack of sidewalks and relatively high traffic volumes. It is recommended that no action be taken on
improving the pedestrian LOS for this segment as the parallel pedestrian walkway just south of the
segment provides adequate pedestrian service.
Southbound 61st Avenue S from Southcenter Boulevard to Tukwila Parkway
The pedestrian LOS for this segment was determined to be E. No pedestrian facilities currently exist
along this portion of 61St Avenue S. With no separation between the pedestrian and the travel lanes,
along with heavy vehicle volumes, a lack of crosswalks, and multiple turning lanes, pedestrian travel on
the west side of the 61st Avenue S bridge is difficult and potentially hazardous.
With heavy vehicle volumes along the segment, reconfiguring the roadway geometry to provide a
sidewalk is impractical. In the near -term, pedestrians should be urged to use the sidewalk on the east
side of the bridge. Without the modification of the bridge to provide sidewalks or the construction of a
new, wider bridge, pedestrian LOS cannot be improved along this segment.
Eastbound Southcenter Boulevard from 1 -5 SB Off -ramp to West Valley Hwy
Calculations for the sub - segments along this section of roadway yield pedestrian LOS results of C and D.
However, after further analyzing this portion of Southcenter Boulevard, engineering judgment leads us to
believe this segment should fall into the E/F range. With heavy vehicle volumes along Southcenter
Boulevard and no sidewalk present along the majority of the segment, little pedestrian service is provided.
The pedestrian LOS could be improved by installing a sidewalk along the south side of Southcenter
Boulevard. However, given the lack of businesses or other pedestrian attractions, and the proximity of 1-
405 on this side of the street, it is reasonable to direct pedestrians to use the sidewalk on the north side of
Southcenter Boulevard. We also recommend that the narrow pedestrian path on the south side of
Southcenter Boulevard between 61st Avenue S and 62nd Avenue S be rebuilt to meet City of Tukwila
sidewalk standards. This improved sidewalk will provide better access to the eastbound bus stop located
east of 61St Avenue S.
Westbound Boeing Access Rd from 1 -5 Off -ramp to East Marginal Way S
The pedestrian LOS along the westbound direction of Boeing Access Road is E. This segment has no
sidewalk and requires pedestrians to cross five high -speed ramps accessing 1 -5, Airport Way, and East
Marginal Way. The addition of sidewalks and crosswalks along this segment would improve pedestrian
LOS. While the City's CIP address the replacement of the BNRR Bridge including sidewalks on both
sides, it is being recommended that sidewalks also be placed along the entirety of the segment from the
East Marginal Way intersection to the Martin Luther King Way intersection.
Northbound and Southbound Martin Luther King Jr. Way between the East City Limit and the
North City Limit
Martin Luther King Jr. Way is a limited access highway designed solely for vehicle use. Pedestrians
traveling along this corridor should seek alternate routes. As little to no pedestrian attractions, such as
recreational areas or businesses, are located along this corridor, no action is being recommended.
w
FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
Draft Report: Multimodal Level of Service Analysis Results
City of Tukwila (SE10- 0181.01)
January 2011
Southbound Tukwila International Boulevard from Green River to SR 99 /SR 599 Ramps
Pedestrian LOS along this segment of Tukwila International Boulevard is E. Pedestrians traveling
through this segment have no sidewalk and face relatively long crossing lengths at intersections due to
the SR 99 / SR 599 ramp designs. Improvements at this location could include adding a sidewalk or
reducing pedestrian crossing lengths by providing crosswalks perpendicular to the flow of traffic on
ramps.
Southbound Interurban Avenue S from Macadam Rd to 1 -5 Northbound On -ramp (part)
A pedestrian LOS of E was calculated along this corridor. The segment contains no sidewalks as shrubs
and trees occupy the side of the street, effectively prohibiting pedestrian travel. As no pedestrian
attractions occupy this side of the street and the adjacent land serves as a drainage basin, widening the
right -of -way for the placement of a sidewalk is unreasonable. Pedestrians should be advised to use the
opposite side of the street. No action is recommended at this time.
Southbound 40th Avenue S from S 130x`' St to 42nd Avenue S (part)
This section of 40th Avenue S received a pedestrian LOS of E. Lack of continuous sidewalks and a
narrow shoulder are responsible for the poor rating. As only a large shoulder is present on the opposite,
northbound side of the street, it is recommended that the sidewalk on the southbound side of the street
be extended northward to S 130th St creating a continuous pedestrian facility to serve the local residential
neighborhood.
Westbound Minkler Boulevard from Andover Park East to Andover Park West
This section of Minkler Boulevard received a pedestrian LOS of E. Neither the north nor south sides of
the street have sidewalks as the relatively heavy traffic volumes occupy the corridor. The north side of
the street has several small sections of sidewalk, but the presence of the railroad tracks causes
discontinuities at several locations. While a drainage basin occupies the southern side of the street, it is
recommended that a continuous sidewalk be constructed on the north side to improve pedestrian LOS.
Northbound and Southbound West Valley Highway from Strander Boulevard to S 180th St
The entire southbound side of West Valley Highway from Strander Boulevard to S 180th St received a
pedestrian LOS of E. Pedestrians on this side of the street are faced with high vehicular volumes and
speeds without the safety of a sidewalk. As much of this section is bordered by the Green River and few
pedestrian destinations, no action is being recommended for the southbound side of West Valley
Highway. Pedestrians should be encouraged to use the opposite side of the street or either the
Interurban Trail or Green River Trail which parallel the segment.
One section of the West Valley Highway northbound from S 180th to Strander Boulevard received a
pedestrian LOS of E. This stretch, from approximately the businesses of Leavitt Machinery and Forklift
Parts to SimpleFloors Seattle, is the single northbound section that does not have a sidewalk. It is
recommended that a sidewalk be constructed for this section to provide a continuous pedestrian facility
on one side of West Valley Highway.
Westbound S 178th St from Southcenter Parkway to West City Line
S 178th St westbound received an LOS of E. This calculation was based on the segment LOS rating only
as no downstream intersection was present. The poor LOS can be attributed to the high vehicle volumes
and lack of sidewalk. According to the methodology used for the LOS calculation, the segment also
experienced high vehicular speeds. Because the methodology does not take into account grade and this
fr
FEHR ( PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
Draft Report: Multimodal Level of Service Analysis Results
City of Tukwila (SE10- 0181.01)
January 2011
segment has a severe slope, the average running speed may be overestimated. It is recommended that
a sidewalk be considered for this corridor to increase pedestrian service. The speed limit could also be
reduced to improve LOS.
Eastbound S 180`" St from Sperry Drive to West Valley Highway
See recommendation for corridor in Bicycle LOS E/F section.
NEXT STEPS
In addition to this MMLOS analysis, we will work with staff to establish MMLOS policies to balance
deficiencies and improvement measures for different modes. These MMLOS policies will establish clear
guidance on which modes receive priority when improvement measures result in LOS degradation for
different modes. These policy issues will be discussed as part of the Transportation Element Update.
'f
FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
Draft Report: Results of Multimodal Level of Service Analysis
City of Tukwila (SE10- 0181.01)
January 2011
ATTACHMENT A:
SUMMARY OF DATA SOURCES
Draft Report: Results of Multimodal Level of Service Analysis
City of Tukwila (SE10- 0181.01)
January 2011
TRAFFIC DATA
Several pieces of data used in the MMLOS calculations were taken from turning movement counts
collected at intersections throughout the City of Tukwila. These counts were taken on weekdays during
June and July, 2010. Traffic data extracted from the turning movement counts included peak hour factor
(PHF) and peak hour roadway segment volumes.
HEAVY VEHICLES
The heavy vehicle percentages used in the bicycle LOS calculation were taken from 2010 vehicle
classification counts collected by the City along key corridors. In locations where vehicle classification
counts were not available, heavy vehicle percentages were estimated from the turning movement counts
described above. In locations where neither vehicle classification counts nor turning movement counts
had been collected, heavy vehicle percentages from 2007 turning movement counts were used.
SYNCHRO DATA
The Synchro traffic LOS analysis software was used in several circumstances to calculate input data.
These data included the volume -to- capacity ratio, the proportion of green time for an approach to an
intersection, and the traffic signal vehicle control delay. The time -space diagram feature of Synchro was
also used in determining the signal progression of several segments.
INTERSECTION AND ROADWAY GEOMETRIC FEATURES
Google Earth was used to measure the lengths and widths of the intersections and roadway segments.
Although using Google Earth does not provide exact measurements, precise dimensions were not
necessary for this methodology. Sensitivity tests completed on features such as sidewalk and lane width
revealed the LOS for a given mode was insignificantly affected by increases or decreases of widths within
a one -to -two foot range. Field observations at several locations were used to validate the Google Earth
measurement approach.
PAVEMENT QUALITY
Data for the pavement quality of the study segments was provided by the City of Tukwila in the Pavement
Maintenance Management Program report from 2008. In this report, city roadways were rated 0 -100
based on the Pavement Engineers — Pavement Condition Rating (PE -PCR) system. As described earlier,
the MMLOS methodology requires a 1 -5 pavement rating system to calculate bicycle LOS. The 0 -100
PE -PCR system was broken into five categories (0 -20, 21 -40, 41 -60, 61 -80, 81 -100) which were
simplified to the 1 -5 MMLOS pavement quality rating scheme.
PERCENT OCCUPIED PARKING
The percentage of occupied parking was determined for segments with legal street parking. A field study
was conducted where parked cars were counted along relevant study segments. We estimated the
percentage of occupied parking using the following equation:
Percentage of occupied parking =
Total length of parking area
(Number of parked cars on a segment * 20 feet per parked car)
Draft Report: Results of Multimodal Level of Service Analysis
3ity of Tukwila (SE10- 0181.01)
January 2011
ATTACHMENT B:
DESCRIPTION OF ASSUMPTIONS
Draft Report: Results of Multimodal Level of Service Analysis
City of Tukwila (SE10- 0181.01)
January 2011
ANALYZING T- INTERSECTIONS
The analysis of T- intersections is not addressed in the MMLOS methodology of NCHRP Project 3 -70.
While the methodology allows for the analysis of movements crossing the intersection, there is no
provision for calculating the pedestrian or bicycle LOS on the "top of the T." In other words, the NCHRP
methodology does not give any guidance about the pedestrian or bicycle LOS for the side of the
intersection with no roadway leg.
In these instances, the bicycle intersection crossing distance variable was given a value of 0 in the
calculation. This approach basically rewards the intersection LOS for having no conflicting movements
while continuing to analyze based on other variables. This approach was chosen because while the
bicyclist is not faced with conflicting movements, there is still a negative impact to the cyclist's level of
service due to the presence of the intersection. For example the duration of time spent adjacent to
vehicles and the decrease in comfort traveling through the intersection can all affect the bicycle LOS.
When analyzing pedestrian LOS through a signalized T intersection, an intersection LOS of A was
assumed since the pedestrian faces no conflicts and the overall walking environment is similar to walking
along the street between intersections. The LOS of A effectively removes the intersection from the
pedestrian LOS calculation for segments with T intersections.
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Unsignalized intersections are not addressed in the MMLOS methodology. The methodology used for
bicycle and pedestrian intersection LOS is limited only to four -way signalized intersections. Therefore
engineering judgment was used to describe the LOS for segments with unsignalized intersections;
although these intersections were generally not considered to have any impact beyond the reduction in
bicycle LOS associated with unsignalized conflict points.
RIGHT TURN ON RED (RTOR) VOLUMES
For the purposes of determining the pedestrian intersection LOS, several assumptions were made to
determine the RTOR volume. For intersections where a right turning lane was present, 20 percent of the
total right turning movement for the intersection was assumed to occur on the red light. For intersections
where a shared through and right lane was present, 5 percent of the right turning volume was assumed to
occur on the red light.
PERMITTED LEFT TURNS
In order to determine the permitted left turning volumes, which can conflict with the pedestrian movement,
several assumptions were made. For protected only left turns (signals with red and green left turn
arrows), a value of 0 percent was assumed. For approaches where left turns were permitted only, 100
percent of left turns were defined as potentially conflicting with pedestrian crossings. For approaches
with permitted - protected left turn phasing (where a green arrow is initially given, followed by a permitted
left turn phase), 20 percent of the total left turning movement was assumed to occur during the permitted
(conflicting) phase.
PEDESTRIAN SUBSEGMENTS
In order to produce LOS results to the pedestrian scale, subsegments were created from the original
segments. The MMLOS methodology was consequently broken as some of the subsegments did not
begin and end at intersections. In these cases, the overall pedestrian LOS was determined solely by the
segment LOS value and not a weighted average between segment and intersection LOS.
Draft Report: Results of Multimodal Level of Service Analysis
3ity of Tukwila (SE10- 0181.01)
January 2011
ATTACHMENT C:
NON - MOTORIZED CORRIDORS, EXISTING CONDITIONS
fp
FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 7, 2010 (Update)
To: Cyndy Knighton, City of Tukwila
From: Kendra Breiland and Tom Noguchi, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Deliverable #1: Non - Motorized Corridors, Existing Conditions, and
Previously Identified Needs
SE08 -0181
The City of Tukwila has contracted with Fehr & Peers to develop a process for evaluating
operations of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the City. This analysis, which is funded by an
Energy Efficiency in Transportation Planning grant from the Washington State Department of
Commerce, will include measuring bicycle and pedestrian level of service (LOS) on the City's
roadway network according to the newest procedures described in the draft 2010 Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM). Defining bicycle and pedestrian LOS on key corridors throughout the
City will inform the City's Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update as to which sorts of
projects would most benefit bicycle and pedestrian travel in the City.
This memorandum summarizes the following:
• The City's existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities
• Projects that are currently being planned and constructed, as reflected in the 2010 -2015
Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
• The "Bicycle Friendly Routes" that are identified in the City's Walk and Roll Plan
• The corridors that have been selected for bicycle and pedestrian LOS evaluation
• The data needs to evaluate bicycle and pedestrian LOS on each of the selected corridors
• Connection with the Comprehensive Plan Update process
Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
In 2009, the City published a Walk and Roll Plan, which is Tukwila's key non - motorized
transportation plan. Fehr & Peers has reviewed the Plan and summarized Tukwila's existing
transportation network, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities along arterial roadways. The
following types of transportation facilities were identified as accommodating non - motorized travel:
•
•
•
Sidewalks
Bike lanes
Paved shoulders
11410 NE 122nd Way, Suite 320 Kirkland, WA 98034 -6927 (425) 820 -0100 F: (425) 821 -1750
fehrandpeers.com
Cyndy Knighton — City of Tukwila
6 -7 -2010 (Updated)
Page 2 of 7
fp
FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
Figure 1 summarizes the existing non - motorized facilities on arterials within the City. It is
worthwhile to note that this map does not include the components of the City's non - motorized
transportation network that are outside of the arterial roadways. These facilities include
sidewalks along non - arterial roadways, unpaved paths that are used by pedestrians, and local
roadways that are shared by autos and bikes.
Future Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Fehr & Peers has reviewed the City's 2010 -2015 CIP to determine the sorts of non - motorized
facilities planned for construction in the next five years. As shown in Figure 2, the City plans to
construct new sidewalks on roadways throughout the City, as well as a bike - pedestrian bridge
over the Green River. Not shown on Figure 2 are a number of intersection signal enhancements
and crosswalks included in the CIP, which may also benefit bicycle and pedestrian travel.
Beyond the 2010 -2015 CIP, the City's Walk and Roll Plan designates "Bicycle Friendly Routes"
and provides guidance to ensure that major transportation infrastructure projects include bicycle
and pedestrian elements that are consistent with City's ultimate non - motorized system. The
Plan's Bicycle Friendly Routes are shown in Figure 3 and are intended to provide a coordinated
City bikeway system that connects parks, schools, major employers, transportation centers,
neighboring cities, and other activity centers.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Level of Service Evaluation
To refine the Walk and Roll Plan and inform the City's Comprehensive Transportation Planning
process, Fehr & Peers will be evaluating bike and pedestrian LOS on several key corridors
throughout the City. Figure 4 shows the corridors that were identified by City staff. In general,
these corridors overlap with the Bicycle Friendly Routes identified in the Walk and Role Plan, but
also include some additional locations (particularly near the Southcenter Mall) to ensure that
major bicycle and pedestrian needs are considered.
Traditionally, LOS analysis has focused on a single mode — the auto. However, as jurisdictions
like Tukwila attempt to plan for the travel experience of non -auto modes, a singular focus on
automobile operations provides an incomplete picture. Thus, the City has identified the need to
measure bicycle and pedestrian LOS. Below, we describe how LOS is measured for each mode:
• Autos: Auto operations have traditionally been measured by volume to capacity (V /C)
ratios on roadways and by delay experienced by vehicles at intersections. The 2010
HCM guidelines may enhance these capacity and delay -based metrics to consider
factors like speed and stops per mile.
• Bicycles: Bicycle operations will consider the experience of cyclists at intersections and
on street segments between intersections. Bicycle experience at intersections is
measured by the physical space available for bicycles and the number of conflicting
vehicles using the intersection. Bicycle experience on roadway segments will consider a
number of factors, including vehicle composition, speed and volume, pavement quality,
physical space allotted to cyclists, the presence of on- street parking, and the number of
conflicts (driveways and intersections) cyclists encounter per mile.
• Pedestrians: Pedestrian LOS can be measured either based on density or non - density
factors. Since overutilization of pedestrian facilities is not presently a concern for
Tukwila, we will use non - density factors to measure pedestrian LOS. These factors
Cyndy Knighton — City of Tukwila
6 -7 -2010 (Updated)
Page 3 of 7
fp
FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
include physical separation of pedestrian and vehicle facilities (via on- street parking, bike
lanes, planter strips, and other buffers), the speed of vehicle traffic, and the presence of
sidewalks.
Measuring LOS for bicycles and pedestrians will require more data than analyses where vehicle
operations are the sole focus. Below, we list the data required to reflect each mode:
• Bicycle: Bicycle operations analyses should include data on the number of conflicts
cyclists face on a roadway segment (driveways and intersections), number of vehicle
lanes, vehicle speeds, volumes and peaking characteristics, pavement quality, on- street
parking utilization, the widths of the bicycle lane and outside vehicle lanes.
• Pedestrian: Pedestrian LOS analyses will assess the pedestrian environmental along
roadway segments. Pedestrian segment LOS will require data on presence of sidewalks,
width of outside vehicle lanes, barriers between pedestrians and vehicles (bike lanes,
shoulders, on- street parking utilization, and other buffers), the continuity and width of
sidewalks, vehicle speeds, volumes, and peaking factors.
The HCM 2010 guidelines will likely provide look -up tables and default values for many of the
above data requirements. However, it is difficult to say the extent to which the default values
would represent conditions in Tukwila. Thus, to accurately measure bicycle and pedestrian LOS
on its transportation network, the City will begin collecting locally valid travel data for use in this
analysis.
Connection with Comprehensive Plan Update Process
It is important to note that non - motorized travel is influenced by both the presence of bike and
pedestrian facilities as well as the mix of adjacent land uses. Land use considerations include the
type of land uses in place and whether they are conducive to non - motorized travel, as well as
how close these land uses are to one another. As the City updates its Comprehensive
Transportation Plan, we will be reviewing how the future land use plan will influence demand for
non - motorized travel.
The work funded by this grant will provide the City with guidance as to how existing non -
motorized facilities function. By pairing an understanding of the City's existing and planned land
uses with how its current transportation system accommodates non - motorized modes, these
efforts will provide the City with a better understanding of where bicycle and pedestrian facility
improvements are needed.
Next Step
During the next phase, Fehr & Peers will collect the data and calculate auto, pedestrian, and
bicycle levels of service for the arterial segments shown in Figure 4.
I
elllg lAccess.„BdI
' St
CITY 0
TUKWILA
S 115th_ S.�
J
Q
■
t
7.
L
er S 124th St
•ar
•
.;129th
'!S 132nd St• •
y•••
■
•
•S
Ad
•
•
S 144th St
Y
tn
thce
ter -BM-ei
•
5 160th St ±,
•
•
•
•
om :4th S� 0_0.4D
S Longacres Way
� I
v
LEGEND
- Existing Sidewalks
AI Existing Bike Lanes
• • • • Paved Shoulders
I J City of Tukwila
Potential Boundary Change
To Tukwila
17jj To Seattle
.I.....
Annexation Area
0
N
NOT TO SCALE
S 204th St
S 180th S$
fp
FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
\\ fpse2\ data2\ 2010Projects \SE10- 0181.01_Tukwila PedBike LOS \ Graphics\ Draft\ GIS \MXD \fig01_bike_side_sldrs2.mxd
CITY OF TUKWILA -
EXISTING PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES
FIGURE 1
\\ _ s'://
Q �\
•
\
g=6. smossimma`
tr1/4„ S 93rd St
S96thSt \
�ff ■■
1,1 \
T
-71v
LEGEND
Planned Sidewalks from CIP
Bike / Pedestrian Bridge
[—__ 1 City of Tukwila
Potential Boundary Change
To Tukwila
!// To Seattle
. -■■-
Annexation Area
=11..
0
N
NOT TO SCALE
s
S Boeing Access Rd
S 112th St r 1 y 7r-)
11Sth St
R'.
l
l
e#
r o3
5 i 32 i1
-)
-)=.1'
S 124th St
rPr4
2■ '6
9P
¢� \ S
ITT
R /
* I
S 144th St
ut
>
v
cr
c
I
S 164th St
S 1Z9th
v,■
>+
GU
01
■
\
\
ss
Lake
Washington
m ▪ \d
�I 3
Svluthcenter Blvd
011 v
n
- - - \ -J
\ 'r7
8rhsr
•
\/ •
Qa •
�- o • a
oc • %
m,/
S 200th St
S 204th St /�
Tukwila Pkwy
Baker Blvd
Tukwila
Pond
c
-c
0
Minkler Blvd
S 180th St
Strander Blvd
Y
>
Andover Park E
v?
l
405
S Longacries Way
S 180th St4
-
fp
FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
\ \FPSE2 \Data2 \201 0Projects \SE10- 0181.01Tukwila PedBike LOS \ Graphics \ Draft GIS \MXD \fig02_pind_side.mxd
CITY OF TUKWILA -
PLANNED PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
FIGURE 2
5 Boei g Access Rd.
s
St CITY OF
T(11 W/LA
S 175th
5 124th St
132nd St
S 144th St
S 160th St
Suth
405 centerBlvd
D 11
\I 1111ii\'
Tukwila Pk�
Or
> , Baker Blv
S Longacres Way
� I
I
S i
S 164th St n
L..
T
a Tukwila
Pond
c
_c
J
t0
Minkler Blvd
Strand gr Blvd
Y
>'
-a I
5 180th St
S 180th Sti
LEGEND
Bicycle Friendly Routes
�— City of Tukwila
Potential Boundary Change
To Tukwila
To Seattle
I : Annexation Area
NOT TO SCALE
in
•
S 204th St /
I _ .
fp
FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
\\ fpse2\ data2\ 2010Projects \SE10- 0181.01_Tukwila PedBike LOS \ Graphics\ Draft\ GIS \MXD \fig03_bike_frd_routes.mxd
CITY OF TUKWILA -
BICYCLE FRIENDLY ROUTES
FIGURE 3
I
tL.S 93rd St
s 960 st
IF ON
s
Boeing`,Access
0 0
St /TY d
TUKWILA
S 175th St 5
S 124th St
\
■5 132nd St
■55)
s
s
S 144th St
47
z
■
5 Longacres Way
� I
v
= ▪ I
L______ _S 160th St
u1
Q
I _ S164thSt y
r
3
0
Minkler Blvd
Tukwila
Pond pa
7 0
0)
Y
5 180th St
LEGEND
Study Segment
City of Tukwila
Potential Boundary Change
To Tukwila
To Seattle
I : Annexation Area
0
N
NOT TO SCALE
5 204th St /
fp
FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
\ \FPSE2 \Data2 \2010Projects \SE 10- 0181.00_Tukwila_TransElement\ Graphics \GIS \MXD \fig04_studySegs.mxd
CITY OF TUKWILA -
STUDY SEGMENTS
FIGURE 4