Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Special 2013-07-30 Index 4D.i - Transportation Element - Background Report by Fehr & Peers
City of Tukwila Background Report for the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan Update Transportation Analysis and 2030 Improvement Recommendations FEHR'' PEERS • IT • • Draft Report Submitted by: Fehr & Peers 1001 - 4th Ave Suite 4120 Seattle, WA 98154 Prepared for: City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 May 2012 City of Tukwila Background Report for the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan Update Transportation Analysis and 2030 Improvement Recommendations Prepared for. City of Tukwila Public Works Department Cyndy Knighton, Senior Transportation Engineer 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 DRAFT Prepared by: Fehr & Peers 1001 4th Avenue, Suite 4120 Seattle, WA 98154 May 2012 FEHO'PEERS TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 3 CHAPTER 2. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS 5 Study Area 5 Street Classification 5 North /South Arterials 5 East/West Arterials 5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 9 Transit 9 Sound Transit 9 King County Metro 13 Tukwila Transit Master Plan 14 Park and Ride Lots 14 Freight and Heavy Rail Transportation 15 Train Volumes 15 Existing Railroad Rights of Way 15 Truck Transportation 16 Transportation Safety 18 Traffic Volumes 23 Southcenter Mall Trip Generation 23 Transportation System Operations Analysis 27 Methodology 27 Results 33 CHAPTER 3. 2030 FORECAST ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY 65 Land Use Assumptions 65 Transportation Network Assumptions 69 2030 Model Review 69 CHAPTER 4. 2030 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE 75 Congested Intersections 83 Signalized Intersections 83 Unsignalized 84 Pedestrian and Bicycle Conditions 84 CHAPTER 5. 2030 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS 85 LOS Methodology Options for Roads 87 TIF Zone 1 2030 Recommended Transportation Improvements 97 Recommended Improvements in TIF Zone 1 100 TIF Zone 2 Recommended Transportation Improvements 137 Recommended Improvements in TIF Zone 2 139 TIF Zone 3 Recommended Transportation Improvements 143 Recommended Improvements in TIF Zone 3 146 TIF Zone 4 Recommended Transportation Improvements 173 Recommended Improvements in TIF zone 4. 175 ii APPENDICES Appendix A: Multimodel Level of Service Analysis Report Appendix B: Pedestrian Segment LOS Results Appendix C: City of Tukwila Land Use Forecasts Appendix D: 2030 Revenue Forecasts for Transportation Capital Projects Appendix E: Detailed Cost Estimate Sheets Appendix F: Other Projects Reviewed but not Recommended LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Study Area 6 Figure 2 - Roadway Classification 7 Figure 3 - Speed Limits 8 Figure 4 - Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 10 Figure 5 — Designated Bicycle Friendly Routes 11 Figure 6 - Existing Transit Facilities 12 Figure 7 - Heavy Vehicle Percentages 17 Figure 8 - 2009 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes 24 Figure 9 - Daily Traffic Volume Trends —1994 -2009 25 Figure 10 - Southcenter Cordon Volumes —1994 -2009 26 Figure 11 - Study Segments 29 Figure 12 - Study Intersections 30 Figure 13 — Citywide Pedestrian Corridor LOS Results 34 Figure 14 - Key Map (Zones) 35 Figure 15A — 2010 Intersection and Roadway Automobile Level of Service (Zone 1) 36 Figure 15B — 2010 Bicycle Level of Service (Zone 1) 37 Figure 15C — 2010 Pedestrian Level of Service (Zone 1) 38 Figure 16A — 2010 Intersection and Roadway Automobile Level of Service (Zone 2) 39 Figure 16B — 2010 Bicycle Level of Service (Zone 2) 40 Figure 16C — 2010 Pedestrian Level of Service (Zone 2) 41 Figure 17A — 2010 Intersection and Roadway Automobile Level of Service (Zone 3) 42 Figure 17B — 2010 Bicycle Level of Service (Zone 3) 43 Figure 17C — 2010 Pedestrian Level of Service (Zone 3) 44 Figure 18A — 2010 Intersection and Roadway Automobile Level of Service (Zone 4) 45 Figure 18B — 2010 Bicycle Level of Service (Zone 4) 46 Figure 18C — 2010 Pedestrian Level of Service (Zone 4) 47 Figure 19A — 2010 Intersection and Roadway Automobile Level of Service (Zone 5) 48 iv Figure 19B — 2010 Bicycle Level of Service (Zone 5) 49 Figure 19C — 2010 Pedestrian Level of Service (Zone 5) 50 Figure 20A — 2010 Intersection and Roadway Automobile Level of Service (Zone 6) 51 Figure 20B — 2010 Bicycle Level of Service (Zone 6) 52 Figure 20C — 2010 Pedestrian Level of Service (Zone 6) 53 Figure 21 — Study Segments with a Bicycle, Pedestrian or Automobile Level of Service of 'E' or 'F' 54 Figure 22 — 2010 Midday and Saturday Intersection Level of Service (Zones 1 and 2) 60 Figure 23 — 2010 Southcenter Corridor Level of Service 62 Figure 24 — Household Growth 67 Figure 25 — Employment Growth 68 Figure 26 — Screenline Map 71 Figure 27 — Citywide Screenlines 72 Figure 28 — Study Intersections 73 Figure 29 — 2030 AM Peak Hour Levels of Service 79 Figure 30 — 2030 PM Peak Hour Levels of Service 80 Figure 31 — 2030 Midday and Saturday Peak Hour Levels of Service 81 Figure 32 — 2030 Southcenter Corridor Level of Service 82 Figure 33 — Transportation Impact Fee Zone 1 Transportation Improvements 99 Figure 34 — Transportation Impact Fee Zone 2 Transportation Improvements 138 Figure 35 — Transportation Impact Fee Zone 3 Transportation Improvements 145 Figure 36 — Transportation Impact Fee Zone 4 Transportation Improvements 174 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1 — Sound Transit Link Light Rail Headways 9 Table 2 — Southcenter King County Metro Bus Routes 13 Table 3 — Tukwila King County Metro Bus Routes 14 Table 4 — Tukwila Park and Ride Lot Utilization 15 Table 5 — Roadway Segments with Above Citywide Average Collision Rates 19 Table 6 — Intersections with Above Average Collision Rates 20 Table 7 — Intersection Pedestrian and Bicycle Collision Analysis (2004 -2009) 21 Table 8 — Roadway Segment Pedestrian and Bicycle Collision Analysis (2004 -2009) 22 Table 9 — Southcenter Mall Trip Generation 23 Table 10 — Input Data Requirements — Pedestrian and Bicycle LOS Calculations 28 Table 11 — Definition of Intersection Levels of Service 31 Table 12 — 2010 AM and PM Peak Intersection Level of Service 56 Table 13 — 2010 Midday and Saturday Intersection Level of Service 59 Table 14 — 2010 Southcenter Corridor Level of Service 63 Table 15 — 2010 and 2030 Land Use Summary for City of Tukwila 65 Table 16 — PM Peak Hour Traffic Growth at Southcenter Screenlines 70 Table 17 — PM Peak Hour Traffic Growth Projected at Citywide Screenlines 70 Table 18 — 2030 AM and PM Peak Intersection Level of Service 75 Table 19 — 2030 Midday and Saturday Intersection Level of Service 78 Table 20 — Recommended Transportation Improvements by Priority (Costs in Thousands)........ 88 Table 21 — Recommended Transportation Improvements in TIF Zone 1 97 Table 22 — S 180th Street/Andover Park West PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations 105 Table 23 — Recommended Transportation Improvements in TIF Zone 2 137 Table 24 — Recommended Transportation Improvements in TIF Zone 3 143 Table 25 — Recommended Transportation Improvements in TIF Zone 4 173 VI City of Tukwila: Background Report for the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan Update Transportation Analysis and 2030 Improvement Recommendations May 2012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Transportation Element of the City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan is used to ensure that adequate transportation infrastructure is provided to accommodate future land use growth as required by the Growth Management Act. An important component to fulfilling the transportation goals and policies outlined in the Transportation Element is an assessment of existing and future transportation system performance. This report highlights a multimodal assessment of existing and future transportation operations and suggests a list of recommended improvements to ensure that Tukwila's residents and visitors can conveniently access all areas in the City for years to come. This Background Report is divided into two main parts: Existing Conditions and Future Conditions. The first part focuses on the existing conditions of Tukwila's transportation system and highlights how well the current system accommodates travel by bicycle, pedestrian, and automobile modes. As described in Chapter 2, Tukwila's transportation system generally accommodates auto travel well, with just a handful of locations operating at a poor automobile level of service (LOS). However, the pedestrian and bicycle modes are not well served, with many corridors in the city operating poorly. In many ways, the existing performance of the transportation system reflects how performance has historically been evaluated —with a strong bias towards auto travel. A key feature of this new analysis is a focus on other modes, notably pedestrian and bicycle travel. While there are also means to assess transit LOS, this was not a focus of this analysis since the City of Tukwila does not have any control over transit service. This assessment uses the latest methodologies from the Transportation Research Board to assess multimodal level of service (MMLOS) and represents the first widespread use of this technique in the State of Washington. Through the application of the MMLOS method, the City has gained an understanding of its results and applicability, as well as its limitations. These limitations principally are 1) inability to consider urban form; 2) the lack of sensitivity to terrain; and 3) lack of consideration of other principal bicycle and /or pedestrian amenities. Given these limitations, the City should establish policy guidelines related to how the results of the MMLOS analysis should be interpreted. The second part (Chapters 3 -5) of this document focuses on future year automobile travel and LOS. MMLOS analysis was not performed under 2030 conditions since the MMLOS techniques are largely focused on the present physical conditions as opposed to future travel demands and therefore 2030 MMLOS conditions would be about the same unless there were major changes to the pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Using the results of the existing conditions MMLOS and 2030 auto LOS analyses, a set of transportation system improvements was developed. Cost estimates and revenue projections were calculated and a final set of cost - constrained, prioritized multimodal projects was developed. The recommended transportation improvement project list in this report combines input from City staff, its consultants, the City's current Transportation Improvement Program, and the City's Walk and Roll nonmotorized transportation plan. It is expected that this list of projects will form the foundation for future transportation investments in the City. FEHR4 PEERS ftrAii City of Tukwila: Background Report for the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan Update Transportation Analysis and 2030 Improvement Recommendations May 2012 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION One of the most important, yet underappreciated elements of daily life is travel. People must travel to meet nearly every need: work, recreation and social activities, eating, and shopping. The fact that mobility affects quality of life and economic vitality is barely noticed until travel becomes difficult. To meet this need for mobility, the City of Tukwila plans, develops, and maintains the transportation network in the City. The transportation system includes everything from roadways and sidewalks, to bicycle lanes and trails. In addition, the City works in conjunction with other agencies like the Washington State Department of Transportation and King County Metro to provide connections to the regional highway system and services like public transit. Ultimately, Tukwila is committed to providing a transportation system that is efficient, convenient, and safe for all users. Tukwila's Vision for Transportation Given the importance of travel, a long range vision for the transportation system is critical to ensure that future residents of Tukwila have good access to jobs, services, and recreation. The Transportation Element of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan represents the City's vision for transportation. The Transportation Element identifies goals and policies to help achieve that vision and it also defines a transportation funding program for implementation. The last update of the Transportation Element occurred in 2005. Since that time, a number of major roadway projects from the previous plan were completed, Sound Transit commenced Link Light Rail service in the city, the economic climate in the region has changed, and the Tukwila South area has been annexed. Considering all these changes, the City determined that it was time to update the Transportation Element. In addition to updating the Transportation Element to reflect the changes above, it is the goal of the City to incorporate a more multi -modal emphasis in the Transportation Element. A key element of this approach is the implementation of a "Complete Streets" concept where travel by all modes — walking, bicycling, transit, and cars /trucks —is accommodated throughout Tukwila. Background Report As a basis for updating the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, Fehr & Peers has prepared this Background Report. The intent of the Background Report is to provide the technical details to assist City staff and decision makers in identifying and prioritizing the transportation capital project needs. These new transportation projects will provide the infrastructure necessary to accommodate the next 20 years of growth in the City and will also help Tukwila's transportation network mature into a more multimodal system. The Background Report covers all modes of transportation that are provided in the City. However, as transit services are provided by King County Metro and Sound Transit, the report does not include extensive evaluation of transit services in the City. To facilitate project identification, the Background Report includes the following: • An inventory and description of the existing transportation system bicycles, roads, and transit) • Existing conditions level of service analysis for pedestrians, intersections. for all modes (pedestrian, bicycles, roadways, and • Forecasts of future traffic growth and its impacts to the transportation network in Tukwila. • Assessment of how future traffic growth might impact the ability to meet concurrency requirements. FEHR4 PEERS City of Tukwila: Background Report for the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan Update Transportation Analysis and 2030 Improvement Recommendations May 2012 • Transportation improvement projects identified as needed to satisfy City's concurrency standards. • Integration of the bicycle and pedestrian projects identified in the Walk and Roll Plan. • Descriptions of recommended transportation projects. • Project prioritization framework. • A strategy that identifies funding resources for prioritized projects. In addition to providing technical information to help identify and prioritize potential projects, it is envisioned that the Background Report will assist the City in developing the Capital Improvement Program and the Transportation Improvement Program. Also, information in the Background Report can be used for applying for various Federal and State grants. 4 FEHR4 PEERS City of Tukwila: Background Report for the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan Update Transportation Analysis and 2030 Improvement Recommendations May 2012 CHAPTER 3. 2030 FORECAST ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY The previous chapter summarized existing transportation conditions (2010) focused on vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle modes. The following three chapters of this document describe the operations of the transportation system under 2030 conditions. Future traffic operation conditions were analyzed using the quantitative methods described in the existing conditions document. Using the results of the 2030 operation analyses, recommendations to improve the transportation system in the City were developed. This chapter describes the assumed changes in land use patterns and the transportation network changes that are expected between now and 2030. The process to update the travel model is also described. The next chapter describes the projected traffic LOS results for the study intersections across the City. Analysis periods include the AM and PM peak hours, as well as weekday midday, and Saturday peak hours in the Southcenter area. The purpose of the Chapter 4 analysis is to identify traffic deficiencies that would occur between now and 2030, without additional roadway improvements. Pedestrian and bicycle LOS analysis was not prepared in 2030 since, unlike auto LOS, pedestrian and bicycle LOS are not based on their demands. Therefore, if no physical changes are anticipated between now and 2030, the pedestrian and bicycle LOS will approximately be the same as the existing conditions. The last chapter provides a list of recommended projects designed to improve pedestrian, bicycle, and auto LOS. The recommended projects are prioritized based on the LOS improvement needs, funding availability, potential for grant funding opportunities, and the City's land use goals. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS Land use forecasts for 2030 are provided by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and are based on regional population and employment growth forecasts. Table 15 summarizes the citywide forecasts for total households and employment and compares the 2030 forecasts to the 2010 land use estimates that were used to calibrate the travel model. Figures 24 and 25 summarize the growth in households and employment in each Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) within the City. TABLE 15 — 2010 AND 2030 LAND USE SUMMARY FOR CITY OF TUKWILA 2010 2030 Percent Growth Total Households 7,440 12,300 65% Employment (workers) 47,540 75,210 58% Source: City of Tukwila, 2011. As described in the existing conditions document, the Tukwila travel demand forecasting model has a finer land use zone system (TAZs) than the PSRC travel model. This additional level of detail allows the travel demand forecasting model to produce more accurate results; however, an additional step is required to develop the fine- grained land use forecasts. As shown in the table above, households and employment in Tukwila are expected to grow by 65 and 58 percent, respectively, over the next 20 years. This estimate is based on the PSRC growth forecasts for the regional model TAZs within the City. In order to accommodate the City's higher resolution TAZ system, Tukwila staff allocated the PSRC growth to each TAZ in the city based on the availability of vacant and redevelopable lands. As shown in Figures 24 and 25, substantial development is expected in FEHR/S' PEERS City of Tukwila: Background Report for the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan Update Transportation Analysis and 2030 Improvement Recommendations May 2012 the Tukwila South area, between S 180th and S 200th Streets. In that area, approximately 400 new households and 13,000 new jobs are expected to be added by 2030. Other major growth areas include: • Southcenter —1,400 new households and 4,200 new jobs • North West Valley Highway Corridor —1,400 new households and 300 new jobs • Boeing Field Area —1,800 new jobs Growth in the areas outside of city limits are based on the data from the PSRC 2030 land use forecasts. 66 FEHR4 PEERS City of Tukwila: Background Report for the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan Update Transportation Analysis and 2030 Improvement Recommendations May 2012 CHAPTER 5. 2030 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Chapter 2 identified existing deficiencies in the bicycle, pedestrian, and roadway network. Chapter 4 identified additional deficiencies projected under 2030 conditions. This section describes recommended roadway improvements that have been developed to address or lessen the degree of existing or future deficiencies on the bicycle, pedestrian, and roadway networks. When developing the recommended improvement projects for this chapter, City of Tukwila staff and its consultant focused on meeting the four main objectives outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan: • Improve and sustain residential neighborhood quality and livability • Redevelop and reinvigorate the Tukwila International Boulevard Corridor • Redevelop and Reinvigorate the industrial areas along East Marginal Way • Support a thriving Urban Center as a true regional concentration of employment, housing, shopping and recreational opportunities As a reflection of these goals, the improvement projects identified in this chapter include a mix of neighborhood -scale projects, major arterial upgrades, improved bicycle and pedestrian connections, and substantial investments in the Southcenter Urban Center. It should be noted that the improvements presented in this chapter are not intended to be a comprehensive list of all transportation projects that may be needed over the next 20 years. Rather, this report focuses on arterials and collector streets. The City of Tukwila has other programs that focus on smaller -scale neighborhood improvements and frontage improvements associated with commercial and industrial redevelopment. To ensure consistency with existing plans, the projects in the 2012 -2017 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) were also reviewed. As described in this chapter, some of the TIP projects were consistent with, or complementary to, the recommendations identified as part of this technical process to update the Transportation Element and were included in the recommended project list shown below. However, some projects in the TIP are not recommended since they do not address deficiencies found as part of this analysis. The TIP projects recommended for removal are identified at the end of this chapter. Recommended projects are organized according to the Tukwila Transportation Impact Fee Zone (TIF) in which they are located, and are organized as such in the following sections. The projects are organized from south to north, and east to west within the each TIF Zone, and are assigned a priority of A, B, or C. Priority A projects are the highest priority, and priority C are those not recommended at this time before 2030. The number system combines these three elements in the format of 1.1.C. The first digit is the TIF Zone, the second is the geographic project number, and the final letter designates the priority. Project prioritization was assigned based on segments or intersections with poor LOS where feasible improvements were identified. Additionally the projects strive to be reasonably balanced between modes and prioritize projects in the existing TIP and grant feasible projects. Cost Estimates To complement the list of recommended improvements, cost estimates are also provided. As with all planning -level cost estimates, these are preliminary and are expected to change based on specific alignments and details that can only be determined during final design. Tables at the beginning of each section provide a summary of the improvement measures' estimated costs. Figures show the project locations within each TIF zone. Following the cost estimate table, each recommended project is described in detail to assist in future planning and the development of upcoming Transportation Improvement Program project lists. Additionally, recommended projects from the 2009 Walk and Roll Plan are included. This plan is based on policies outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the concept of "complete streets," which provides FEHRk PEERS City of Tukwila: Background Report for the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan Update Transportation Analysis and 2030 Improvement Recommendations May 2012 mobility for all users and all modes. Walk and Roll improvements focus on bicycle and pedestrian projects. The recommended projects (A -B projects, including TIP and Walk and Roll projects) identified in the previous chapter have estimated costs of $91,690,000 in TIF Zone1, $13,322,000 in TIF Zone 2, $36,552,000 in TIF Zone 3, and $36,666,000 in TIF Zone 4. The total cost of all recommended projects is estimated at $178,230,000. Appendix E presents the summary cost sheets for projects as estimated by Fehr & Peers. Costs for TIP and Walk and Roll projects were taken from their respective documents. Note that estimates for TIP and Walk and roll projects are planning level estimates and do not have the same level of supporting cost estimation documents as the projects recommendations fully detailed in this report. Projected Revenue Forecasts Estimated transportation revenue forecasts for 2011 -2030 for Tukwila were developed. Full revenue forecast details are included as Appendix D in this document. Revenue forecasts are broken into two main components: 1) existing revenue and 2) potential additional revenue sources. Existing revenue sources for transportation capital improvements (including grants, sales tax, real estate excise tax, and other sources), estimates of revenue over the 2011 -2030 time period range from a low of $71,042,000 to a high of $104,493,000. In terms of potential additional revenue sources, three sources were identified. These sources are 1) implementing a transportation benefit district, 2) voted general obligation bonds, and 3) councilmanic bonds. Estimates of revenue over the 2011 -2030 time period for these additional sources range from a low of $85,927,000 to a high of $187,187,000. The combined total estimated revenue for capital from existing and potential sources ranges from $156,969,000 to $291,680,000. The average of this range is $224,325,000. Based on total estimated project costs, the City will not have adequate capital revenue under existing sources to support all recommended projects. However, utilizing other potential sources of revenue could potentially generate sufficient capital to finance the recommendations. Given that there is uncertainty regarding future revenue and whether the City Council will adopt any of the potential additional revenue sources, the recommended project list was further refined to match the existing revenue forecasts. This list of projects and costs is provided in Table 20 below. Additional projects which were considered but not recommended are provided in Appendix F. Options for Concurrence The 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA) requires each local jurisdiction to identify facility and service needs based on level of service standards for transportation facilities and services. Level of service standards are used to judge the performance of the transportation system. The GMA further requires that a transportation element include specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance any facilities or services that are below an established level of service standard. It also requires that system expansion needs must be identified for at least ten years, based on the traffic forecasts for the adopted land use plan and level of service standards. For the needs, a financing plan must be developed. If probable funding falls short of meeting identified needs, the jurisdiction is given two options: 1) to raise additional funding, and /or 2) to reassess the land use assumptions. Under the GMA it is also possible to lower the LOS standards. The relationship between LOS standards, funding needs to accommodate increased travel, and land use assumptions is referred to as "concurrency ". FEHR' PEERS City of Tukwila: Background Report for the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan Update Transportation Analysis and 2030 Improvement Recommendations May 2012 The concept of concurrency can be illustrated with a three - legged stool. Each leg is characterized as follows: Leg 1- Growth Leg 2- Traffic congestion (measured with the level of service standards) Leg 3- Resources needed to fund new capital facilities The stool must be balanced. If it is standing Capital Traffic upright, then growth is occurring concurrent with Facilities Congestion needed facilities. If the three - legged stool is ($) slanted or tipped, then actions must be taken to keep growth balanced correctly with available funding and standards. To stabilize the stool, the Cy must take one of the following three options: 1. Reduce growth by denying or delaying land use permit applications 2. Increase funding for new facilities 3. Change the level of service standard LOS Methodology Options for Roads The GMA allows each local jurisdiction to choose a LOS method and standards. The text box on the right shows the different LOS methodology options. Generally. one can define a method by selecting an option from each section of the table. For example, the LOS could be measured in terms of delay for averaged PM peak two hours and applied to signalized intersections to calculate level of service. Tukwila currently measures LOS in Southcenter by averaging LOS along corridors. Outside of Southcenter, LOS is based on individual intersection performance. LOS Methodology Options LOS Measuring Method - Volume to capacity ratio -Delay - Average travel time /travel speed LOS Measuring Period -PM peak one hour -AM peak one hour -Noon peak one hour - Weekend peak one hour - Averaged PM peak two hours - Averaged PM peak three hours LOS Applied Location - Signalized intersections - Arterial intersections (including unsignalized intersections) - Corridor average -Area average of intersections - Screenlines - Arterial segments TABLE 20 - RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS BY PRIORITY (COSTS IN THOUSANDS) TIF Zone 1 Projects w \ _ o 2 k k E ■ 0 _ § No Cost Priority C (Post 2030) 7:a VI � a Pedestrian Projects No Cost 22 mƒ a kk «e a o 6 A _ , Priority B (Pre 2030) 7:a U) 1- a Pedestrian Projects Bike Projects 2k a2 0. o J Priority A (Pre 2030) =a B0 1-ƒ a. Pedestrian Projects m 22 mƒ 0) i k k «e a k E K 6s; k _ Project Description South of S 180th Street from Southcenter Parkway to West Valley Highway: New Roadway Construction S 180th Street and Southcenter Parkway: Intersection Improvement S 180th Street and Andover Park W: Intersection Improvement S 180th Street from Sperry Drive S to Green River Bridge: Sidewalk Improvement Andover Park E or Andover Park W from Minkler Boulevard to S 180th Street: Bicycle Facility Improvement Minkler Boulevard and Andover Park W: Intersection Improvement Minkler Boulevard from Andover Park W to W Valley Highway: Roadway Extension Andover Park E from Minkler Boulevard to Strander Boulevard: Bicycle Facility Improvement W Valley Highway from Strander Boulevard to S 180th Street: Sidewalk Improvement © @ < q < q < { < s- < / co s- < 2 @ f co v j c ro a c s E 8 m 0 c E 03 CO u, 8 co E co Et co co E ro e o • E • O a -0 O h l0D CO m Q c O p co N I� -.0r FEHR4 PEERS ' o $17,425 m a v 44 $5,475 n w o w a vi v w :°- w Priority C (Post 2030) C d a` Pedestrian Projects 4 CD v Y_ 03 m 0 a 7 m Q 0 a 0 i ON IMPROVEMENTS BY PRIORITY (1 Priority B (Pre 2030) u) 0 C 0i RI H 'O a` Pedestrian Projects 0 co el v Bike Projects 0 co el v Ee M m 7• Q 0 a CO Priority A (Pre 2030) c m fE 'o a u-) v L6 Ea Pedestrian Projects Y 01 m Q a I,- e9 fD "' Or mNa' Q d i» Ga)_ en VD' to Project Description S 168th (Pond) Street from Southcenter Boulevard to Andover Park E: New Street Construction Treck Drive from Andover Park W to Andover Park E: New Street Construction Green River and Interurban Trails from West Valley Highway: Bicycle Facility Improvement and Signage Strander Boulevard and W Valley Highway: Intersection Improvement Baker Boulevard and Andover Park W: Tukwila Urban Center, Transit Center Baker Boulevard from dover Park W to W Valley Highway: Pedestrian and Bicycle Facility Improvement 1 -5 Northbound Off -Ramp and Southcenter Parkway: Intersection Improvement Andover Park W from Strander Boulevard to Tukwila Parkway: Roadway Widening and Center Turn Lane Construction dover Park E from Strander Boulevard to Tukwila Parkway: Bicycle Facility Improvement Tukwila Parkway and 61st Avenue S: Intersection Improvement * Q O Q < N m M < Ni CO tri 0 cc; < < aD CO O) -.0r FEHR4 PEERS ' �b p F M 49 Q m I— Q m I— N O� 49 co A co O co O N 49 CA CD A � N Priority C (Post 2030) 0 N V O ~a` N Pedestrian Projects M fA 4- M in a- N y Y CD EJ Y_m m O a 0 a0. v < 2 a ❑ 1- ❑ F- n co en tn w ON IMPROVEMENTS BY PRIORITY (1 Priority B (Pre 2030) cm W •O I a` O w Pedestrian Projects C9 Cfl N Q1 fA in CD Bike Projects C9 o i» a- v In vs m <0 Q 2 a I w M 49 Priority A (Pre 2030) 0' 4 FTS a in v w Pedestrian Projects V' c EA °' co w 4 x 0 m O a c4 N N r m Qa N w � le Project Description Tukwila Parkway from 61st Avenue S to 66th Avenue S: Bicycle Facility Improvement Tukwila Parkway from 66th Avenue S to W Valley Highway: Roadway Extension Southcenter Boulevard and 1- 405 Southbound Off -Ramp: Intersection Improvement outhcenter Boulevard from 3rd Avenue S to 66th venue S: Bicycle Facility Im. rovement Southcenter Boulevard from 61st Avenue S to 65th Avenue S: Sidewalk and Crosswalk Improvement Southcenter Boulevard and 65th Avenue S: Crosswalk Improvement Southcenter Boulevard and 66th Avenue S: Intersection Improvement Southcenter Boulevard and W Valley Highway: Intersection Improvement TIF Area 1 Subtotal U N U N 0 N m N Q N m N Q co m N j 0_ 0 m E m z O C E m w e co E co Cr 1- • m c e E 0. • z Q y m m m Q id 0 o' 0 0 CO N � U Iz TABLE 20 - RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS BY PRIORITY (COSTS IN THOUSANDS) _ o TIF Zone 2 Projects $3871 $11,100 I O a N m 44 0 O M O .- TIF Zone 3 Projects O O °O- Priority C (Post 2030) le 0 N V C 43 CO .0.7 ita` Al- O co, Pedestrian Projects in co rn V, in co m r IA S Y_ d m a f0 0)) v, co a u, 4 o o Q o 0. w Priority B (Pre 2030) :S N C1 C d it it 0 Pedestrian Projects in o v. EA in 0 w r) g v, Bike Projects o $2,654 `) g R o a Priority A (Pre 2030) N V O 1' a` 49 Pedestrian Projects 0 0 0 S m O O- 0 v, O w S 7 < o a 0 m u, N co n N n w Project Description Macadam Road S from S 150th Street to Southcenter Boulevard: Pedestrian and Bicycle Facility Improvement Interurban Avenue S from Fort Dent Way to S 143rd Street: Roadway Reconstruction Macadam Road S from S 150th Street to S 144th Street: Sidewalk Improvement Macadam Road S and S 144th Street: Intersection Improvement 53rd Ave S from S 144th Street to S 130th Place: Roadway Widening and Bic cle Facili Improvement TIF Zone 2 Subtotal S 160th Street and 53rd Avenue S from 42nd Avenue S to Klickitat Drive: Bicycle Facili Improvement Klickitat Drive from 53rd Avenue S to Southcenter Parkway: Walkway Im • rovement * U .- N < N N CU M c1 < v N < L0 N m s- M m N M m a j ro EL Q. QE V m ▪ c m E � b c o E co E co IX m ~ E m m , • o. R E o o a c m o •y m c • o p C N U z TABLE 20 — RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS BY PRIORITY (COSTS IN THOUSANDS) C r N r M $3,756 CNO^ ONO' a- N CD N W Priority C (Post 2030) ..L..4 Ch 0 C 0) O 1- a` Pedestrian Projects S 0) 0) Y 0) m •O 0. o4 a o a Priority B (Pre 2030) z'4 N 2 C 01 a) -5. tea` Pedestrian Projects 0 is co N c» r) E» $3,756 $2,102 Bike Projects $1,823 CD N Cfl «y 7•. a 2 a Priority A (Pre 2030) c 0) 0) E o a Pedestrian Projects N Q) CH 0 . 0) m O a 07 el a) te ou3 «03 < o a Project Description 42nd Avenue S from S 144th Street to S 160th Street: Bicycle Boulevard Addition S 152nd Street from Tukwila International Boulevard to 42nd Avenue S: Sidewalk Improvement S 150th Street from Tukwila International Boulevard to 42nd Avenue S: Sidewalk Improvement S 148th Street from Tukwila International Boulevard to 46th Avenue S: Sidewalk Improvement S 146th Street from Tukwila International Boulevard to 47th Avenue 5: Sidewalk Improvement 51st Ave S from S 144th Street to Southcenter Parkway: Bicycle Facility Improvement S 144th Street from 42nd Avenue S to Tukwila International Boulevard: Multimodal Improvements S 144th Street from 42nd Avenue S to 51st Avenue S: Sidewalk Improvement S 144th Street from 42nd Ave S to Macadam Road S: Bicycle Facility Improvement * a) c6 m v ri ¢ ui ri m c0 ri m n ri m co ri ¢ rn ri m o ci m �.; co 0 c m O C m E m CO W o�Q Q C cr m ~ E m e Le a o E cn o a E ro 4 co CCD w o 1- o `• o C N F 0 W 0 49 N N a- 49 co $3,952 a co W co fR M 49 O fR Priority C (Post 2030) 11 S N 0 C 0 H O a` Pedestrian Projects S d 0 0 Y_ N m F a o0 < o a` ON IMPROVEMENTS BY PRIORITY (1 Priority B (Pre 2030) = m co co m 0 C co E • °a m b W 8E C E m • m C �7 ▪ E 0 c b cV C e C0 m m CO Q re O • 0 O 0 0 N U TABLE 20 - RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS BY PRIORITY (COSTS IN THOUSANDS) 3 N pD N 0 O M $36,552 TIF Zone 4 Projects 0 O Priority C (Post 2030) C 'O tea` 0 Pedestrian Projects 0 40 ' 0 m v Y m m a 0 W O 0 a O a` 0 Priority B (Pre 2030) c m CO 'o 1= 0. 0 Pedestrian Projects 0 NI- o N to $21,493 Bike Projects N NI- t al 0 M cr N -m at a 0 Priority A (Pre 2030) c m o a 0 Pedestrian Projects 0 M at S Y m V m O a fze p7 Vi 01 a pp O LI 7 0 (O Q O` 0. r) d9 M et VT Project Description S 130th Street from Tukwila International Boulevard to Macadam Road S: Roadway Widening and Bicycle Facility Improvement E Marginal Way /40th Avenue S and S 130th Street: Intersection Improvement S 115th Street and 42nd Avenue S from E Marginal Way to S 133rd Street: Bicycle Facility Improvement S 125th Street/50th Place S from 46th Avenue S to E City Limits: Bicycle Facility Improvement ukwila International Boulevard from S Boeing • ccess Road to13400 Block ignal: Pedestrian Im • rovement E Marginal Way from S Boeing Access Road to Interurban Avenue S: Bicycle Facility Improvement TIF Zone 3 Subtotal Tukwila International Boulevard from S Boeing Access Road to Green River: Bicycle Facility Improvement It CC! N ri m N ri Q Vi N ri m N ri m N ri Q N ri m m a co m m 0 0 C c E$ m ' 43, W c o E m E m m E Q E o, o b cV C C e .4 m c O o r p c rn F v. in co W Col EA cr) 69° ca 10 rs. M ca cl Priority C (Post 2030) S C 0) E O a` O 40 Pedestrian Projects M, ° v 10 ° a P ta co m u O FA d 0 O) 6 E» co co c v, co 7 v, cm 6o o ao a rn CA o) in w ON IMPROVEMENTS BY PRIORITY ( Priority B (Pre 2030) N C, C m F O a` co Pedestrian Projects N 0 6 t» N 0 co w Bike Projects CO Is. Ci �m a2 a Priority A (Pre 2030) c m E o a 0 Pedestrian Projects O Y CB ' a` K o a� a co n co v, co n M to Project Description S 112th Street from Tukwila International Boulevard to E Marginal Way S: Bicycle Facility Improvement S Boeing Access Road and E Marginal Way S/Tukwila International Boulevard: Intersection Improvement S Boeing Access Road from Martin Luther King Junior Way S to E Marginal Way S: Walkway Improvement S Boeing Access Road from Airport Way S to 1 -5: Bridge Replacement Ryan Way from Martin Luther King Junior Way S to 1st Avenue S: Bicycle Facili Improvement S 102nd Street and S Norfolk Street from W Marginal Place to Airport Way S: Bicycle Facility and Sidewalk Improvement E Marginal Way from N City Limits to S Boeing Access Road: Bicycle Facility Improvement W. Marginal Place S from 14th Avenue S to Existing Trail: Bicycle Trail Extension TIF Zone 4 Subtotal ik m CV v 0 6 v m 7 v Q 6 v m CL) v 0 h v 0 6 v 0 o v rn co co Q. m T/3 m E Q V O C m E m b W 2E co E co as m e Q o E 0 o o N c a m co m m c e o 1- o 0 p C N U z S-. cs, $81,354 CD CO 69 I-- LO 3 o M CV GH Priority C (Post 2030) cu o F a` 0 40 Pedestrian Projects .- n an v 40 Priority A (Pre 2030) Total Priority B (Pre 2030) Total Priority C (Post 2030) Total Grand Total w u Y 01 CO 0 a S co .' 1 40 O u am. •O n• w v co M '1' ON IMPROVEMENTS BY PRIORITY ( Priority B (Pre 2030) =4 N C1 C 01 c O it 6: O 40 Pedestrian Projects $29,925 Bike Projects $28,326 2 m 7•� a O` a n CD M to Priority A (Pre 2030) 4 c m V •0 co it a: N nt Pedestrian Projects co N to to Y G1 m 'o a co w O u 7 Al a�CD a N 0 w Project Description Citywide Total 4t