HomeMy WebLinkAboutCTP_Final_2012 Chpt 1-2.pdf Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Comprehensive
Transportation Plan
Adopted by Ordinance No. 6280
December 7, 2009
Revised by Ordinance No. 6394
December 5, 2011
Revised by Ordinance No. 6440
December 17, 2012
Cover Design: Lisa Worden, Auburn High School, 2005
Table of Contents
Page
Chapter 1 Introduction 1 - 1
1.1 Purpose 1 - 1
Vision 1 - 1
GMA Requirements 1 - 1
1.2 How the City Uses the Plan 1 - 2
Needs Assessment 1 - 2
Policy Development 1 - 3
Capital Facilities Plan and Transportation Improvement Program 1 - 3
1.3 Regional Coordination 1 - 4
WSDOT 1 - 4
Sound Transit 1 - 4
King County 1 - 4
Pierce County 1 - 4
Countywide Planning Policies 1 - 5
PSRC – Vision 2040 and Transportation 2040 1 - 5
Adjacent Cities 1 - 5
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 1 - 6
1.4 Accomplishments Since the Last Plan 1 - 7
1.5 Plan Organization 1 - 7
1.6 Staff Resources 1 - 10
Chapter 2 The Street System 2 - 1
2.1 Existing Street System 2 - 1
Functional Classification 2 - 1
Traffic Volumes 2 - 5
Speed Limits 2 - 5
Traffic Signals and Signs 2 - 5
Freight 2 - 6
Safety 2 - 7
2.2 Street Standards and Levels-of-Service 2 - 8
City LOS Standards and Current LOS 2 - 9
State Highway LOS 2 - 11
2.3 Future Street System 2 - 13
Methodology for Evaluating Future System 2 - 13
Future System Recommendations 2 - 23
Transportation System Management 2 - 24
Transportation Demand Management 2 - 24
Street Maintenance & Rehabilitation 2 - 25
Neighborhood Needs 2 - 26
Intergovernmental Coordination 2 - 26
Chapter 3 Non-Motorized Transportation 3 - 1
3.1 Pedestrian Travel 3 - 1
Needs Assessment 3 - 1
Future System 3 - 5
3.2 Bicycle Travel 3 - 9
Needs Assessment 3 - 9
Future Travel 3 - 13
3.3 Equestrian Travel 3 - 16
Needs Assessment 3 - 16
Future System 3 - 17
3.4 Future Non-Motorized System 3 - 18
Chapter 4 Transit 4 - 1
4.1 Needs Assessment 4 - 1
Existing Transit Services 4 - 1
Metro and Pierce Transit 4 - 2
Sound Transit 4 - 4
4.2 Transit User Needs 4 - 4
Demographics 4 - 4
Service Coverage 4 - 5
Major Trip Generators 4 - 7
Schedules 4 - 7
Urban Design 4 - 8
Improving Local Service 4 - 9
Facilities 4 - 9
4.3 Transit System Recommendations 4 - 10
Metro Transit 4 - 10
Pierce Transit 4 - 11
Sound Transit 4 - 11
City of Auburn 4 - 11
Chapter 5 Policies 5 - 1
5.1 Coordination, Planning and Implementation 5 - 1
5.2 Street System 5 - 10
5.3 Non-motorized System 5 - 15
5.4 Transit System 5 - 18
5.5 Air Transportation 5 - 18
Chapter 6 Funding 6 - 1
6.1 Financial Planning and Programming 6 - 1
Transportation Improvement Program 6 - 1
Capital Facilities Plan 6 - 1
6.2 Funding Sources 6 - 2
General Tax Revenues 6 - 2
Grants 6 - 2
Loans 6 - 3
Private Sector Contributions 6 - 3
Funding Partnerships 6 - 3
Future Financing Possibilities 6 - 4
6.3 Funding Strategies and Project Prioritization 6 - 4
Chapter 7 Monitoring and Evaluation 7 - 1
7.1 Annual Updates 7 - 1
Reevaluation 7 - 1
Technical Information 7 - 1
Model Updates 7 - 2
Comprehensive Plan Consistency 7 - 2
7.2 Multi-Year Updates 7 - 2
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1-1 Adjacent Jurisdictions 1 - 6
Figure 1-2 Progress Since 2000 *
Figure 1-3 Public Works Department Staff Resources 1 - 10
Figure 2-1 Functional Roadway Classifications *
Figure 2-2 Average Daily Traffic Volumes *
Figure 2-3 Truck Route Map *
Figure 2-4 Auburn Corridor Section Map *
Figure 2-5 Population, Housing and Job Growth (1980 - 2030) 2 - 13
Figure 2-6 Roadway Improvement Alternatives *
Figure 2-7 Intelligent Transportation Systems *
Figure 3-1 Existing Sidewalks *
Figure 3-2 Future Priority Sidewalk Corridors *
Figure 3-3 Existing Bicycle Facilities and Multi-Use Trails *
Figure 3-4 Future Bicycle Facilities and Multi-Use Trails *
Figure 3-5 Bicycle Corridors and Connectors *
Figure 4-1 Existing Transit Serving Auburn *
Figure 4-2 Transit Dependent Areas *
Figure 4-3 Transit and Major Trip Generators *
*Figure located following the chapter corresponding to the figure number.
List of Tables
Page
Table 1-1 Transportation Improvements Completed Since 2000 1 - 8
Table 2-1 Notable Roadway Classification Changes Since 2005 2 - 2
Table 2-2 Auburn Corridor Level of Service 2 - 10
Table 2-3 Future Roadway Capacity Improvement Projects and Cost
Estimates 2 - 16
Table 2-4 Future Project Groups – P.M. Peak Hour LOS in 2030 2 - 22
Table 3-1 Existing Bicycle Facilities 3 - 12
Table 3-2 Priority Bicycle Facilities Inventory 3 - 21
Table 3-3 Existing Equestrian Facilities 3 - 16
Table 3-4 Future Trail and Bicycle Facility Projects 3 - 20
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction Page 1- 1
CHAPTER 1.
INTRODUCTION
The transportation system is a vital
component of Auburn's social, economic,
and physical structure. On the most basic
level, it enables the movement of people and
goods throughout the City and the region.
Long term, it influences patterns of growth
and economic activity by providing access to
different land uses. Planning for the
development and maintenance of the
transportation system is a critical activity for
promoting the efficient movement of people
and goods, for ensuring emergency access,
and for optimizing the role transportation
plays in attaining other community
objectives.
1.1 PURPOSE
The Comprehensive Transportation Plan is
the blueprint for transportation planning in
Auburn. It functions as the overarching
guide for development of the transportation
system. The Plan evaluates the existing
system by identifying key assets and
improvement needs. These findings are then
incorporated into a needs assessment, which
informs the direction the City will take in
developing the future transportation system.
This Plan is multi-modal, addressing multiple
forms of transportation in Auburn including
the street network, non-motorized travel,
transit, and air transportation. Evaluating all
modes uniformly enables the City to address
its future network needs in a more
comprehensive and balanced manner.
VISION
The Comprehensive Transportation Plan
reflects the needs and sensibilities of the
Auburn community and, in doing so, seeks
to:
Enhance the quality of life for all
Auburn residents;
Encourage healthy community principles
through non-motorized travel;
Promote a transportation system that
supports local businesses and enhances
economic development opportunities;
Create a transportation system that is
thoughtfully designed and welcoming to
visitors; and
Provide a balanced, multi-modal
transportation system that addresses
local and regional needs.
GMA REQUIREMENTS
Washington State’s 1990 Growth
Management Act (GMA) requires that
transportation planning be directly tied to
the City’s land use decisions and fiscal
planning. This is traditionally accomplished
through the adoption of the Comprehensive
Plan transportation element. However,
Auburn fulfills this mandate by adopting the
Auburn Transit Center
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction Page 1- 2
Comprehensive Transportation Plan as the
City’s Comprehensive Plan transportation
element. In order to be GMA compliant, the
Comprehensive Transportation Plan must:
Use land use assumptions to estimate
future travel, including impacts to state-
owned facilities;
Inventory the existing transportation
system in order to identify existing
capital facilities and travel levels as a
basis for future planning;
Identify level-of-service (LOS) standards
for all arterials, transit routes, and state-
owned facilities as a gauge for evaluating
system performance;
Specify actions and requirements for
bringing into compliance locally owned
transportation facilities or services that
are below an established level-of-service
standard;
Determine existing deficiencies of the
system;
Identify future improvement needs from
at least ten years of traffic forecasts
based on the adopted land use plan;
Include a multiyear financing plan based
on the identified needs;
Address intergovernmental
coordination; and
Include transportation demand
management strategies.
1.2 How the City Uses the
Plan
The Comprehensive Transportation Plan
provides policy and technical direction for
development of the City’s transportation
system through the year 2030. It updates
and expands upon the 1997 Transportation
Plan by recognizing network changes since
the last plan, evaluating current needs, and
identifying standards for future development
and various infrastructure improvement
scenarios. The Plan underwent a major
update in 2005 and a midterm update in
2009 to incorporate the Lea Hill and West
Hill annexation areas into the Plan. The
2009 update also included new modeling
work which brought the Plan from a 2020 to
a 2030 horizon year.
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A system-wide, multi-modal needs
assessment was conducted throughout plan
development to ascertain which aspects of
Auburn’s transportation system work well
and which ones need improvement. An
evaluation of potential solutions and
investment priorities was also conducted as
part of this process. The end result is that
Auburn has a more thorough understanding
of system deficiencies, a better grasp of the
best ways to address these deficiencies, and
direction for growing the system in a
sustainable manner.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Public outreach was an important
component of the need assessment process.
One open house and several neighborhood
meetings were held to solicit feedback from
the public on transportation issues, both
during the 2005 and 2009 update processes.
The 2009 update, which incorporated the
Lea Hill and West Hill areas into the Plan,
also included an online questionnaire aimed
at gathering information about the
transportation concerns of Auburn residents.
A citywide telephone survey was also
conducted in May 2005 and followed up
with a June 2009 survey that measured
resident’s opinions and behaviors to
determine their satisfaction with City services
and the overall quality of life in Auburn.
Both surveys concluded that investment in
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction Page 1- 3
City roads is a high priority, but overall
satisfaction with the transportation system is
mixed.
During the 2005 update, the City formed a
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to
provide guidance in specialized areas of
transportation. The TAC was composed of
staff from City departments such as Parks,
Police, Planning, and Public Works; the
Washington State Department of
Transportation; Metro Transit; the Auburn
School District; and the Muckleshoot Indian
Tribe. It also contained Auburn residents
with different areas of expertise, from
neighborhood needs to non-motorized
travel, a planning commissioner, a City
councilmember, the President of the Auburn
Area Chamber of Commerce, and a freight
industry representative.
The 2009 update used the City’s
Transportation, Trails, and Transit (TTT)
Committee as a sounding board for the plan
update. The TTT Committee is comprised of
representatives from Auburn’s various
geographical areas and the business
community.
POLICY DEVELOPMENT
The City creates policies to state preferences
for preservation of the existing system and
development of the future transportation
system. Policies can be qualitative in nature,
but often they are quantitative and prescribe
a specific standard.
Policies are also important for communi-
cating the City’s values and needs to
neighboring jurisdictions and regional and
state agencies. The City works in
collaboration with other governmental and
non-governmental organizations. Having
established policies in place enables the City
to more effectively influence change in
keeping with its needs and objectives.
LOS AND CONCURRENCY
The concurrency provisions of the 1990
Growth Management Act (GMA) require
that local governments permit development
only if adequate public facilities exist, or can
be guaranteed to be available within six
years, to support new development.
The GMA requires each local jurisdiction to
identify facility and service needs based on
level-of-service (LOS) standards. The City
establishes corridor LOS standards for all
arterial and collector streets, on a scale of
“A” to “F”. Auburn ensures that future
development will not cause the system’s
performance to fall below the adopted LOS
by doing one or a combination of the
following: limiting development, requiring
appropriate mitigation, or changing the
adopted standard.
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN AND
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM
The City uses the Transportation Improve-
ment Program (TIP) and Capital Facilities
Plan (CFP) to develop a financial plan for
capital improvements in Auburn, thus
enabling the City to fulfill the GMA
requirement of having a multiyear financing
plan based on the identified transportation
needs.
The TIP, a 6-year transportation financing
plan, is fiscally constrained for the first three
years and is adopted annually by the City
Council. It is a financial planning tool used
to implement the list of transportation
improvement projects identified in the
Transportation Plan analysis of existing and
future traffic conditions. It is reviewed
annually by the City Council and modified as
project priorities and funding circumstances
change.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction Page 1- 4
The Capital Facilities Plan is also an annually
adopted 6-year financing plan. However, it
is fiscally constrained for all six years. Unlike
the TIP, the CFP is an adopted element of
the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Also, the
CFP includes non-transportation projects in
addition to the transportation related
projects also found in the TIP.
1.3 REGIONAL
COORDINATION
More and more, Auburn’s transportation
system is influenced by what happens
beyond its city limits. Growth in neighbor-
ing communities, infrastructure maintenance
by regional agencies, the lack of funding for
road maintenance as well as capacity
expansion, and competing demands for
transit services all affect mobility in Auburn.
This Plan calls for effective interjurisdictional
actions to address cross-border issues and to
mitigate the impact of new development.
The Plan also recognizes that other
jurisdictions, particularly state government
and transit providers, are responsible for a
major share of the transportation facilities
serving Auburn.
WSDOT
The Washington State Department of
Transportation owns four major routes
connecting Auburn to the region: SR 167, SR
18, SR 164 (Auburn Way South), and a
portion of West Valley Highway. Auburn
works with the state to study these corridors
and implement roadway improvements.
WSDOT also serves an important role as
administrator of federal and state
transportation funds.
SOUND TRANSIT
Sound Transit provides a variety of regional
transit services for King, Snohomish, and
Pierce counties. In Auburn, Sound Transit
provides commuter rail and express bus
service. The Transit Center also serves as a
hub and transfer station for local transit
service provided by Metro Transit.
The transit chapter provides more detail on
current Sound Transit services, remaining
needs for regional transit service, and the
role Auburn plays in coordinating with the
agency.
KING COUNTY
King County Metro Transit, a division of the
King County Department of Transportation,
provides local bus service for the Auburn
area. Planned service for the City of
Auburn is described in the Six-Year Transit
Development Plan. The City has developed an
employee Commute Trip Reduction (CTR)
program in cooperation with Metro Transit.
Details of the CTR program are summarized
in the Non-motorized and Transit chapters
of this plan.
King County Road Services Division is
responsible for maintaining and regulating
the roadway network in King County,
including the Totem and Klump portions of
King County situated within the City of
Auburn boundaries. King County Road
Services has a number of programs and plans
in place that regulate development and other
activities affecting the county’s roadway
network.
PIERCE COUNTY
As a two county City, Auburn coordinates
with Pierce County on issues concerning the
Pierce County portions of Auburn. Auburn
also participates in The Regional Access
Mobility Partnership (RAMP), a regional
coalition comprised of both public and
private sector interests dedicated to
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction Page 1- 5
improving mobility in the South Puget
Sound and Washington State.
Auburn partners with Pierce Transit on the
497 bus route, which provides peak hour
service from Lakeland Hills to the Auburn
Transit Center. Auburn and Pierce Transit
hope to continue this relationship and
develop future partnerships to expand transit
service in Auburn.
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES
Under the Growth Management Act, King
and Pierce Counties have adopted
Countywide Planning Policies to guide
development in both incorporated and
unincorporated areas of their jurisdictions.
The policies support county and regional
goals of providing a variety of mobility
options and establishing level-of-service
standards that emphasize the movement of
people and not just automobiles. The
Countywide Planning Policies are also
important because they provide direction for
planning and development of potential
annexation areas.
PSRC – VISION 2040 AND
TRANSPORTATION 2040
The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)
sets policy for King, Pierce, Kitsap, and
Snohomish counties through its long-range
planning document, Vision 2040, and its
regional transportation plan, which at the
time this Plan was developed was undergoing
a multi-year update called Transportation 2040.
Both documents encourage future growth to
be concentrated in regional growth centers.
They also seek to provide a multi-modal
transportation system that serves all travel
modes, actively encouraging the use of
alternatives to the automobile. Another
important policy theme is a focus on
maximizing the efficiency of the
transportation system through transportation
demand management (TDM) and
transportation system management (TSM)
strategies, as well as completing critical links
in the network.
Auburn’s Transportation Plan must be
consistent with PSRC’s regional planning
efforts.
ADJACENT CITIES
The City recognizes the importance of
coordinated and strong interjurisdictional
action because transportation impacts do not
stop at local boundaries. The City works
closely with neighboring cities and the
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe to address
transportation issues. These neighbors
adopt goals and policies that directly impact
the Auburn community. In developing this
plan, analysis was undertaken to ensure that
all transportation system improvements are
compatible with neighboring jurisdictions.
CITY OF KENT
The City of Kent shares Auburn’s northern
border and several regional transportation
corridors including S 277th Street, SR 167,
and the West Valley Highway. Phase III of
the S 277th Street reconstruction started in
January 2004. The project improved a half-
mile-long section of S 277th Street that
currently carries 24,000 vehicles per day,
allowing it to safely carry the vehicles
projected to use the corridor daily in 2030.
The City of Kent is also a partner in the SR
167 corridor improvement study currently
being undertaken by WSDOT. A significant
component of this study is accommodating
regional freight traffic, much of which is
generated from the high concentration of
warehouses in Auburn and Kent.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction Page 1- 6
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
The City of Federal Way is located west of
Auburn. Several roadways, most notably SR
18, connect Auburn and Federal Way.
Auburn and Federal Way regularly
coordinate on both motorized and non-
motorized roadway improvements affecting
both jurisdictions.
CITES OF SUMNER/ALGONA/
PACIFIC/BONNEY LAKE
The City partners with its southern
neighbors in many respects, including street
system planning, transit planning, and
regional trail planning. For instance, Auburn
and the City of Pacific are working to
complete the White River Trail on both sides
of the BNSF rail track. Auburn is also
working with Sumner, Pacific and Algona on
roadway improvement projects. The City
coordinates primarily with Bonney Lake for
provision of water service in the Pierce
County portion of the City. However,
efforts to coordinate transportation systems
and services will likely occur in the future.
Partnerships with neighboring cities will
continue to be an important factor in
successful transportation planning.
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe is situated in
the southeastern portion of the City and in
unincorporated King County, generally to
the east of Auburn Way South (SR 164) and
south of Hwy 18. The Muckleshoot Tribe
operates two major attractions in or near
Auburn: the Muckleshoot Casino and the
White River Amphitheatre. Both of these
activity centers generate a large number of
auto trips. Commercial development on
tribal lands is expected to increase in the
future and must be evaluated during
transportation planning efforts.
The City and tribe coordinate on a variety of
transportation planning issues, both to
accommodate the capacity needs derived
from traffic generated by tribal land uses and
to ensure the tribe has a functioning
transportation system for its members.
The Muckleshoot Tribe is developing its
own Comprehensive Plan and
Transportation Plan to identify needs and
plan for its future transportation network. A
draft Comprehensive Plan was released in
March of 2005. One theme that is emerging
from this effort is the need to build a well-
connected internal roadway system on the
reservation. Currently, Auburn Way South is
the main travelway for drivers and
pedestrians traveling between tribal
locations. A more extensive internal
network would increase transportation
efficiency, improve pedestrian safety, and
decrease the travel demand on Auburn Way
South.
Figure 1-1. Adjacent Jurisdictions
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction Page 1- 7
1.4 Accomplishments
Since the Last Plan
During the past nine years, over $130 million
in transportation improvements have been
completed in the City of Auburn. These
projects have emphasized providing new
road capacity, improving pedestrian safety,
and providing better access to regional
transit services including commuter rail.
Table 1-1 and the related map (Figure 1-2)
show the key projects completed since the
1997 Transportation Plan. The completed
projects list includes a new transit center and
parking garage in downtown Auburn with
access to buses and the Sounder commuter
rail service. Other major projects include the
3rd Street overpass, 277th Street Grade
Separations and the Lake Tapps Parkway
extension, which created additional access
and capacity for the Lakeland Hills and Lake
Tapps neighborhoods.
Several non-motorized safety and mobility
projects such as enhanced mid-block
crosswalks on West Main Street, I Street NE,
and Auburn Way North, the West Main
Street project, and Safe Routes to School
projects at Olympic Middle School and
Pioneer Elementary have enhanced the travel
environment for pedestrians and bicyclists in
Auburn.
In addition to the larger-scale capital projects
identified in Figure 1-2, the City also funds
several annual programs that help maintain
or improve the existing system to meet the
changing demands of the City. These
include Traffic Signal Improvements,
Roadway Safety and Infrastructure
Improvements, Sidewalk Improvements,
Traffic Calming, Arterial Preservation, and
Local Street Preservation (SOS Program).
1.5 Plan Organization
The next three chapters are organized
according to the three primary transportation
system types in Auburn: the street system
(Chapter 2), the non-motorized system
(Chapter 3), and the transit system (Chapter
4). Each chapter contains a needs
assessment and discussion of the future
system, including proposed projects or
improvements.
The remaining chapters cover subjects
pertaining to all three system types. Chapter
5 details the City’s transportation objectives
and policies. Chapter 6 discusses funding
sources that can be used to finance future
network improvements. Chapter 7 identifies
a monitoring and evaluation strategy to
ensure the document remains relevant and
that progress is made towards
implementation of the Plan.
Pedestrian Crossing on West Main St.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction Page 1- 8
Table 1-1. Transportation Improvements Completed Since 2000
# Location Project Year
Completed
Type of
Improvement
1 37th St NW/UPRR Railroad Crossing 2000 Street
2 Transit Center Commuter Rail Station & Parking
Garage 2000 Transit
3 Auburn Way S / Riverwalk Dr Changed Traffic Signal 2001 Street
4 29th and "R" Street SE Traffic Signal 2001 Street
5 8th NE ("K" NE to AWN) Paved Road /Pedestrian Path 2001 Street/NM
6 3rd St SW Grade Separation 2001 Street
7 15th St SW - Industry Dr to “C” St SW Bike Lanes 2002 Non-motorized
8 Transit Center Pedestrian Bridge 2002 NM/Transit
9 "A" St SW at 2nd Street SW Traffic Signal 2002 Street
10 S 277th Street Grade Separation 2002 Street
11 West Valley Hwy (15th Street SW to
Peasley Canyon)
Pavement Reconstruction 2003 Street
12 Lake Tapps Pkwy Road Extension - east 2003 Street
13 Downtown Fred Meyer Constructed Trail 2003 Non-motorized
14 White River Trail Trail Lighting 2003 Non-motorized
15 Dykstra Park Footbridge Repair 2003 Non-motorized
16 Downtown Transit Station Kiss & Ride Lot 2004 Transit
17 Lakeland Hills Way/E Valley Hwy Traffic Signal 2004 Street
18 Auburn Way South ITS Improvements, Phase 1 2005 Street
19 West Main St at Union Pacific Railroad Crossing Gate 2005 Street/NM
20 Kersey Way at Oravetz Road Traffic Signal 2005 Street
21 “C” St between Ellingson Rd & 15th St SWRoad Widening 2005 Street
22 3rd St NE at Auburn Post Office Pedestrian Crossing 2005 Non-motorized
23 3rd Street SE/Cross Street SE Intersection Capacity 2006 Street
24 A Street Loop New Road 2006 Street
25 C Street NW (W Main Street to 3rd St.)
)
Pavement Reconstruction 2006 Street
26 Auburn Way South Safety Improvements Safety/Access Control 2007 Street
27 West Main Street Streetscape Bicycle & Pedestrian
/O
2007 NM/ Street
28 Auburn/Pacific Trail (Phase 1) Multi-Use Trail 2007 Non-motorized
29 M Street SE (29th to 37th Streets SE) Pavement Reconstruction 2007 Street
30 6th Street SE (A Street SE to AWS) Pavement Reconstruction 2008 Street
31 East Main Street at F Street SE Pedestrian Crossing 2008 Non-motorized
32 I Street NE at 18th Street NE Pedestrian Crossing 2008 Non-motorized
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction Page 1- 9
33 Auburn Way South & S. 277th Street ITS Improvements, Phase 2 2009 Street
34 Auburn Way North at 42nd Street Pedestrian Crossing Signal 2009 Non-motorized
35 Citywide Save Our Streets (overlay 31.5
miles of local streets)
Ongoing Street
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction Page 1- 10
1.6 Staff Resources
Implementation of the Comprehensive
Transportation Plan requires numerous
resources, including staff time. All
departments play a role in executing the
Plan, but the Public Works Department is
the implementation lead. The Public Works
Department employs engineers, planners,
technical and support staff, and maintenance
and operations personnel to maintain and
improve the City’s transportation system.
Nonetheless, staff performs many functions
and dedicating sufficient resources to carry
out the goals of this plan continues to
present challenges. Figure 1-3 identifies the
basic organization of the Public Works
Department.
Figure 1-3. Public Works Department Staff Resources (2009)
Public Works Director
City Engineer/Assistant Director
(133)
Transportation Manager
(9)
Maintenance & Operations Manager
(73)
Utilities Engineer
(9)
Assistant City Engineer
(35)
Sr. Project Engineer
(9)
Construction Manager
(7)
Development Engineer
(3)
Survey Supervisor
(3)
Development Support
Supervisor
(3)
Contract Administrator
(4)
M & O Support
Manager
(4)
Sewer Division
Manager
(10)
Storm Division Manger
(16)
Street Division
Manager
(13)
Water Distribution
Manager
(10)
General Services/Fleet
Manager
(6)
Water Operations
Manager
(6)
(Staff)
Sources: City of Auburn, King County
37th Pl
284th St
288th St
56
th Pl
296th St
37t h S t
316th St316th St
3 7 t h W a y
112th
Ave
132nd
Ave
37th S t37th S t
296th Pl
304th St
56th
Ave
5
6
th
A
v
e
284th Pl284th S t
1
2
4
t
h
Av
c
t
304th W ay
132nd
Ave
112th
Ave
296th S t
11
2
t
h
Pl
288th St
124th
Ave
Main St
312th St
1st Ave
8t h S t
Stewart Rd
Tapps Hwy
Ellingson Rd
Milwaukee
Blvd
Pacific
Ave
3rd Ave
307th Pl
277th St
3 42nd St
1
05
th
P
l
3 31st S t
1 6 t h S t
321st St
Di
e
ri
nge
r
Hw
y
15th St H
arvey
R
d
2
1
0th
A
v
e
24th St
8th St
Lake Holm Rd
R
St
4
6
t
h
P
l
Kersey Way
8th St
12th St
9th St
182n
d
A
ve
51st
Ave
272
n
d
S
t
320th St
V
a
l
l
e
y
H
w
y
Jovita
Blvd
Valley
Hwy
Valley
Hwy
Green
Rive
r
R
d
15th St
Auburn Ave
94th
P
l
Pe
a
s
l
e
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Rd
122nd
Ave
Military
Rd
17t h St
M
St
Lea H ill R d
104th
Ave
55th Ave
A
St
A
St
C
S t
Auburn
Way
214th
Ave
164
167
516
167
18
4
14
18
11
17
3
20
15
10
34
12
1
33
19 31
13
21
30
32
7
2928
5
26
Major ProjectsCity Limits00.5
Miles
Auburn Transportation Plan
ProgressSince 2000
Figure 1-2
Auburn
Ave
C
St
C
St
Auburn
Way
C
St
A
St
M a in S t
16418
22
6
9
23
25
27
1628
24
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 1
Chapter 2.
THE STREET SYSTEM
The Auburn transportation system is
comprised of different transportation modes
that move people and freight throughout the
City and broader region. The system is multi-
modal, accommodating cars, trucks, buses,
pedestrians, and bicyclists. This is made
possible by an extensive road network within
the City and throughout the region.
The roadway system provides the primary
means for transportation throughout the
Auburn area. The City is served by an
extensive street network, which includes
freeways, arterials, collectors, and local streets.
This chapter describes that network and how
well it serves the City presently and in the
future.
Under the Growth Management Act, cities and
counties are required to adopt level-of-service
(LOS) standards to establish what level of
congestion a community is willing to accept
and to determine when growth has consumed
that available capacity. The GMA requires that
land use and transportation planning be
coordinated so that transportation capacity is
evaluated concurrent with development. This
chapter sets the standard for performance of
the street network and discusses strategies to
preserve and improve the system for future
use.
2.1 Existing Street System
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
Streets function as a network. The logic and
efficiency of the street network are dependent
upon how streets move traffic through the
system. Functional classification is the process
by which streets and highways are grouped into
classes, or systems, according to the character
of service they provide. There are three main
classes of streets in Auburn: arterials,
collectors, and local streets. City street
classifications are identified in Figure 2-1. All
streets have been classified using the Federal
Functional Classification system guidelines.
The Auburn Engineering Design Standards, Chapter
10 - Streets, identifies design standards for each
type of street, in conformance with WSDOT
and AASHTO standards. The Street chapter
includes street design requirements for
configuration, geometrics, cross sections and
other information.
Street classifications define the character of
service that a road is intended to provide. The
three major street classes, arterials, collectors,
and local streets, all have subclasses described
below.
Downtown Auburn
View from Transit Center Parking Garage
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 2
ARTERIALS
Arterials are the highest level of City street
classification. There are two types of arterials
in Auburn.
Principal Arterials are designed to move
traffic between locations within the region and
to access the freeways. Design emphasis is
placed on providing movement of inter-city
through traffic in addition to intra-city traffic.
Direct access to commercial and industrial land
uses is permitted. These streets are the highest
traffic volume corridors, generally have limited
land access, and are used for cross-town trips. Principal Arterial
Street Name Segment 2005 Plan ClassificationCurrent Classification
112th Avenue SESE 304th St to SE 320th StResidential CollectorMinor Arterial
124th Avenue SESE 312th St to SE 320th StNonresidential CollectorMinor Arterial
S 320th Street 112th Ave SE to 124th Ave SE Nonresidential CollectorMinor Arterial
105th Place Lea Hill Road to 112th Ave SENonresidential CollectorResidential Collector, Type I
104th Ave SE/SE 304th
St SE 320th St to 132nd Ave SENonresidential CollectorMinor Arterial
12th St SE (Future)M St SE to Dogwood St SENonresidential Collector Residential Collector, Type I/
Minor Arterial
Dogwood St SEScenic Dr SE to Auburn Way SResidential CollectorMinor Arterial
Stuck River DriveKersey Way SE to 3600 blockLocal Residential Collector, Type II
29th St NE / M St NW15th St NW to Emerald Downs DrLocal Nonresidential Collector
F St SE 4th St SE to Auburn Way SNonresidential CollectorResidential Collector, Type I
22nd Street NEO St NE to Riverview Dr NELocal Residential Collector, Type I
Riverview Dr NE22nd Street NE to Pike St NELocal Residential Collector, Type I
55th Avenue S S 305th St to S 316th St Local Residential Collector, Type I
55th Avenue S S 336th St to S 346th St Local Residential Collector, Type I
56th Avenue S S 316th St to S 331st St Local Residential Collector, Type I
S 300th St / 64th Ave S65th Ave S to 51st Ave S Local Residential Collector, Type I
O St SW 15th St SW to Boundary BlvdMinor Arterial Nonresidential Collector
Boundary Blvd Algona Blvd N to 15th St SWMinor Arterial Nonresidential Collector
Streets that increased in classification
Streets that decreased in classification
Table 2-1. Streets with Notable Changes Since Adoption of 2005 Roadway Functional
Classification System
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 3
These arterials are the framework street system
for the City and usually connect through to
neighboring jurisdictions. They are typically
constructed to accommodate five lanes of
traffic with speed limits of 35 to 45 mph. The
design year average daily traffic (ADT) is
greater than 15,000 vehicles per day. Principal
arterials are heavily utilized as bus routes,
carrying both local and regional services. In
some cases, on-street bicycle facilities are not
appropriate for Principal Arterials and
bicyclists should be accommodated on a
parallel Class I separated trail. Pedestrians are
accommodated on sidewalks.
Minor Arterials interconnect and augment the
principal arterial system by providing access to
and from the principal arterials and freeways.
They serve moderate length trips at a
somewhat lower mobility than principal
arterials and distribute traffic to smaller
geographic areas. Minor arterials may serve
secondary traffic generators such as business
centers, neighborhood shopping centers, major
parks, multifamily residential areas, medical
centers, larger religious institutions, and
community activity centers. While minor
arterials should not enter neighborhoods, they
do provide access between neighborhoods.
They are typically constructed to accommodate
four to five lanes of traffic with speed limits of
30 to 35 mph and a design year ADT of 10,000
to 20,000 vehicles per day. Minor arterials are
frequently utilized as bus routes, have sidewalks
to comfortably accommodate pedestrians and
may include Class II bicycle lanes.
COLLECTORS
Collectors are a step below arterials in the City
classification system. There are three types of
collectors in Auburn.
Residential Collectors, Type I are used to
connect local streets and residential
neighborhoods to community activity centers
and minor and principal arterials. Residential
Collectors, Type I are typically constructed to
accommodate two travel lanes with medians
and turn pockets at intersections or two travel
lanes with Class II bicycle lanes. The posted
speed limit is generally 30 mph and the design
year ADT is 2,500 to 10,000 vehicles per day.
Residential Collectors, Type I have sidewalks
and may be utilized for some transit service,
including dial-a-ride transit and paratransit
services.
Residential Collectors, Type II are routes
located in areas with less intensive land uses.
They carry traffic between local and arterial
streets. Residential Collectors, Type II provide
access to all levels of arterials, are typically
constructed to accommodate two lanes with
gravel shoulders on both sides, and have a
speed limit of 30 to 40 mph. The gravel
shoulder may be reduced on one side to
provide a wider shoulder on the other for
equestrian access or bicycle travel. Residential
Collectors, Type II do not have sidewalks and
generally do not carry transit services except
for paratransit and possibly dial-a-ride-transit.
The design year ADT is 1,000 to 5,000 vehicles
per day.
Non-Residential Collectors provide intra-
community access by connecting non-
residential areas such as industrial and
commercial areas to minor and principal
arterials. They may serve neighborhood traffic
Residential Collector, Type I
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 4
generators such as stores, elementary schools,
religious institutions, clubhouses, small
hospitals or clinics, areas of small multifamily
developments, as well as other commercial and
industrial uses. Non-Residential Collectors are
typically constructed to accommodate two
lanes and a center two-way left-turn lane, with
a speed limit of 30 mph and may include Class
II bicycle lanes. The design year ADT is 2,500
to 5,000 vehicles per day. Non-Residential
Collectors have sidewalks and may be utilized
for some transit service, including dial-a-ride
transit and paratransit services.
LOCAL STREETS
Local Streets are the most common street type
in the City. Local streets comprise all facilities
not part of one of the higher classification
systems. Local streets primarily provide direct
access to abutting land and to the higher order
streets. Service to through traffic is
discouraged. There are four categories of local
streets.
Local Residential Streets, Type I provide
access to abutting residential parcels. They
offer the lowest level of mobility among all
street classifications. The street is designed to
conduct traffic between dwelling units and
higher order streets. As the lowest order street
in the hierarchy, the street usually carries
minimal through traffic and includes short
streets, cul-de-sacs, and courts. The speed
limit is generally 25 mph and the design year
ADT is 200 to 1,200 vehicles per day. Local
Residential Streets, Type I have sidewalks to
accommodate pedestrians and in most cases,
bicyclists may travel comfortably on the
shoulder of the road (Class IV bicycle facility).
Transit service is generally limited to dial-a-ride
transit and paratransit.
Local Residential Streets, Type II serve
areas with less intensive land uses by providing
access to adjacent land and distributing traffic
to and from the principal or minor arterials,
residential collectors, type II, and local access
streets. The travel distance is relatively short
compared to Residential Collectors, Type II.
Local Residential Streets, Type II are two lane
roadways with gravel shoulders and a speed
limit of 25 mph. The design year ADT is 100
to 1,000 vehicles per day. Because these streets
have low traffic volumes, bicyclists can
comfortably share the travel lane with
motorized vehicles. Since Local Residential
Streets, Type II do not have sidewalks,
pedestrians walk along the shoulder of the
road. Transit service is very infrequent and
most likely limited to paratransit and possibly
dial-a-ride-transit.
Local Non-Residential Streets provide direct
access to higher order classification streets and
serve primarily industrial and manufacturing
land uses. They offer a lower level of mobility
and accommodate heavy vehicle traffic.
Typically they have two travel lanes with a
speed limit of 25 mph and the design year
ADT is 400 to 1,200 vehicles per day. Local
Non-Residential Streets have sidewalks to
accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists may
travel on the shoulder of the road (Class IV
bicycle facility), although bicycle travel may not
be as comfortable as on Local Residential
Streets due to a greater frequency of trucks and
other heavy vehicles. Transit service is generally
limited to dial-a-ride transit and paratransit.
Private Streets may be appropriate for local
access in very limited usage. They provide
direct access to City streets and should be
limited to those streets accessing properties
within a planned area or properties immediately
adjacent. Private streets at minimum are built
to the same design and construction standards
as a local residential street.
From a planning perspective, acknowledgment
and proper designation of functional
classifications allows for the preservation of
right-of-way for future transportation corri-
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 5
dors, whether the corridor provides access to
car, HOV, transit, bike, or pedestrian use.
Functional classification helps establish
corridors that will provide for the future
movement of people and goods, as well as
emergency vehicle access, through the City.
Proper designation is crucial to the planning
effort; as development occurs, accommodation
for the appropriate transportation corridors
should be incorporated into development
plans.
The City has reclassified several street
segments since 2005, as shown in Table 2-1.
Reclassification occurs over time in response to
changes in the function of streets, the traffic
patterns, and the character of the surrounding
land uses. In particular, some streets within
both the West Hill and Lea Hill were
reclassified since they were annexed from King
County in 2008. Table 2-1 indicates that some
streets have been reclassified to a higher
classification, while others have been moved to
a lower classification.
ALLEYS AND ACCESS TRACTS
Alleys provide vehicular access to abutting
properties, generally through the rear or side of
the property. Alleys can be public or private
and serve several purposes including access
management and the alleviation of traffic
problems on city streets. Alleys should provide
through access to city streets or adequate
turnaround space if through access is not
feasible. Alleys shall be constructed to allow
for general-purpose and emergency access at all
times.
Access Tracts, sometimes referred to as
shared driveways, provide vehicular access for
lots that do not abut a street or alley. They are
most common in panhandle lots or rear lots
that do not have street or alley access. Access
tracts are privately owned and maintained.
They must provide for sufficient vehicular
movement and turnaround space, be free of
temporary and permanent obstructions, and
provide for emergency access.
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Average daily traffic counts were obtained
from data collected in the spring of 2008 and
2009. Figure 2-2 shows the average daily
traffic volumes on City arterials for the years
2008 and 2009, based on a seven-day week
average. The highest daily volumes are found
on Auburn Way South, A Street SE, Auburn
Way North, Harvey Road, Lea Hill Road/SE
312th Street, M Street, Lakeland Hills Way,
51st Avenue S, and 15th Street NW.
A major contributor to the high traffic volumes
on City arterials is traffic passing through the
City. This pass-through traffic originates in
surrounding jurisdictions and uses City streets
to access the major regional highways, such as
SR 18 and SR 167. Nearly 50 percent of traffic
on Auburn’s arterial and collector networks is
attributable to pass-through traffic. The City is
committed to working with WSDOT to
improve the state highway system, thereby
reducing the demand on the City street system.
SPEED LIMITS
The City designates speed limits as a means of
alerting drivers to safe and appropriate travel
speeds for a particular corridor segment. Local
roads are generally designated at 25 mph zones,
with some exceptions such as near schools.
The City routinely monitors corridors to ensure
appropriate speed limits are in place. Legal
speeds are located in City code and are clearly
signed on the roadways.
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SIGNS
Traffic signals, signs, and pavement markings
are used to direct drivers, pedestrians, and
bicyclists, thereby increasing the effective use
of the roadway by moving traffic more
efficiently and safely. The City uses the Manual
of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 6
as guidance for design, construction, and
placement of signs in the right of way.
FREIGHT
Auburn is an important freight hub in the
Puget Sound region, and the efficient
movement of freight, through and within the
City, is critical to Auburn’s economic stability.
Both rail and truck freight, originating largely in
the Ports of Tacoma and Seattle, pass through
Auburn regularly.
The Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF)
have rail lines running through Auburn. The
Union Pacific line runs north-south, to the east
of the Interurban Trail. Burlington Northern
Santa Fe moves freight in both the north-south
and east-west directions. BNSF has a double-
track, federally designated, high-speed railroad
line running north-south. The Stampede Pass
line runs east-west through south Auburn,
entering the north-south line just south of the
Auburn Transit Center.
In addition, the company maintains a rail yard
between A Street SE and C Street SW, south of
SR 18. In the future, this area may develop as a
multi-modal rail yard, prompting the need to
mitigate increased truck traffic through capacity
improvements. The Burlington Northern Santa
Fe also has plans to increase traffic on the
Stampede Pass line, the east-west rail line
running through Auburn. In anticipation of
this increase and in order to mitigate the traffic
and safety impacts of current rail movements
on this line, the City has programmed a grade
separation project on M Street SE.
The pavement at the crossing of the Union
Pacific Railroad at 15th Street SW is in very
poor condition. Rehabilitation of the pavement
is a high priority for the City, and a project has
been programmed to reconstruct 15th Street
SW from C Street SW to the railroad tracks.
Auburn experiences considerable truck traffic.
The City has designated truck routes for
through freight movement in an effort to
maximize the efficacy of and protect the
roadway infrastructure. Current truck routes
are shown in Figure 2-3. The City defines truck
freight movement as the movement of heavy
and medium trucks. Medium trucks include
trucks with two to four axles and two-axle
trucks with six tires. Heavy trucks include all
articulated trucks, trucks with one to three
trailers, and/or with three to nine axles. Truck
routes, established by City ordinance, are
designated for roadways that incorporate
special design considerations such as street
grades, continuity, turning radii, street and lane
widths, pavement strength, and overhead
obstruction heights.
The City expects that the majority of regional
trips will take place on state highways.
However, recognizing that trips through the
City are sometimes necessary, Auburn has
designated a network of north-south and east-
west corridors as truck routes, which are built
to truck standards. In addition, the City has
designated future truck routes, which will be
built to truck standards whenever opportunities
exist to reconstruct the roadway network,
either through public improvement projects or
through agreements with private developers.
Auburn has significant industrial and
commercial development throughout the City.
The City encourages local delivery trucks to use
the designated truck network as much as
possible, but recognizes that trips on non-truck
routes will sometimes be necessary. The City is
committed to supporting local industry,
business, and residential needs and recognizes
that the ability to ship and receive freight is
essential to the success of many businesses.
Therefore, the City will collaborate with local
businesses to improve freight access, while
maintaining the roadway infrastructure,
whenever possible. This may include adopting
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 7
City Code and updating the Auburn Engineering
Design and Construction Standards in a manner
that favors these priorities.
SAFETY
The City places a high priority on providing a
safe transportation system for travelers of all
modes. Continual efforts are made to
construct and retrofit streets in a manner that
improves safety and decreases the likelihood of
accidents. Pedestrian crossings and other non-
motorized safety issues are discussed in the
following chapters. Railroad crossings,
emergency response needs and accidents
related to the street system are discussed
below.
RAILROAD CROSSINGS
At grade railroad crossings create a potentially
dangerous situation for motorists, non-
motorized travelers, and rail passengers.
Auburn has several at grade railroad crossings.
The Union Pacific line crosses city streets at S
285th Street, 37th Street NW, 29th Street NW,
West Main Street, and 15th Street SW. The
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) tracks
intersect city streets at 37th Street NW, 29th
Street NW, 3rd Street NW, W Main Street, M
Street SE, and the Auburn Black Diamond
Road. With more than 60 trains passing
through the City each day, the City has many at
grade crossings, each with unique safety
implications. The City coordinates with
railroad operators and the State to upgrade the
crossings whenever possible. For instance,
new long-gate crossing arms were recently
placed at the Union Pacific crossing on W
Main Street. Also, in 2002 the pedestrian
overpass at the Auburn Transit Center was
completed, adding a new measure of safety for
pedestrians crossing the railroad tracks. The
City is underway with design of the M Street
SE grade separation project. This project will
grade separate M Street SE at the BNSF
Stampede Pass tracks by lowering M Street SE
under the railroad overpass. The second phase
of the project will create and a new connector
road between M Street and Auburn-Black
Diamond Road. Construction of the grade
separation phase of the project is anticipated to
be complete during 2013.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND
MANAGEMENT
Providing residents with quick responses in
emergency situations is a high priority for the
City. The City maintains a Comprehensive
Emergency Management Plan and supporting
plans which identify critical facilities that
should be maintained as a first priority during
catastrophic events. Critical transportation
facilities, although subject to change, generally
Truck Traffic Building on S 277th Street
BNSF Freight Train at West Main Street
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 8
include Principal Arterials, bridges and major
evacuation routes within the City.
In addition, the City works to provide an
adequate street network that will ensure
multiple alternate routes for emergency
vehicles. Fire response vehicles are equipped
with traffic signal controls that enable
emergency vehicles to secure safe and rapid
passage through signalized corridors. In
addition, the City has mutual-aid agreements
with nearby emergency response operators to
ensure adequate coverage in case of road
closures or other obstacles that would
otherwise prevent timely emergency response.
ACCIDENTS
The City collects and monitors accident data to
identify roadway hazards, and seeks to correct
hazardous locations in the City by
implementing appropriate safety measures.
While the City relies primarily on its own data,
accident data from other sources, including
neighboring jurisdictions and the State, is
utilized whenever available.
2.2 Street Standards and
Levels-of-Service
The GMA requires the City to establish service
levels for the street network and to provide a
means for correcting current deficiencies and
meeting future needs. Transportation
professionals use the term ‘level-of-service’
(LOS) to measure the operational performance
of a transportation facility, such as a street
corridor or intersection. This measure
considers perception by motorists and
passengers in terms of speed, travel time,
freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions and
delays, comfort, and convenience.
The City currently uses a single-mode LOS
system based upon vehicular travel. In the
future, a multi-modal system which includes
transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists should be
developed and adopted.
The currently adopted LOS methodology gives
letter designations from ‘A’ through ‘F’, with
LOS A representing the best operating
conditions, and LOS F representing the worst.
LOS can be quantified in different terms,
depending on the transportation facility.
Definitions for each level-of-service and the
methodologies for calculating the level-of-
service for various facilities are contained in
Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity
Manual.
The City most commonly uses corridor level-
of-service for accessing facilities. Generally,
this is considered the most comprehensive way
to determine vehicular traffic impacts. The
following descriptions provide some guidance
for interpreting the meaning of each LOS letter
for corridor LOS on city streets.
LOS A describes primarily free-flow
operations at average travel speeds, usually
about 90 percent of the FFS (free-flow speed)
for the given street class. Vehicles are
completely unimpeded in their ability to
maneuver within the traffic stream.
Control delay at signalized intersections is
minimal. (Free-flow speed is the average
speed of vehicles on a given facility, measured under
low-volume conditions, when drivers tend to drive
at their desired speed and are not constrained by
control delay. Control delay is the total elapse
time from a vehicle joining the queue until its
departure from the stopped position at the head of
the queue. This includes the time required to
decelerate into the queue and accelerate back to
free-flow speed.)
LOS B describes reasonably unimpeded
operations at average travel speeds, usually
about 70 percent of the FFS for the street
class. The ability to maneuver within the
traffic stream is only slightly restricted, and
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 9
control delays at signalized intersections
are not significant.
LOS C describes stable operations;
however, ability to maneuver and change
lanes in midblock locations may be more
restricted than at LOS B, and longer
queues, adverse signal coordination, or
both may contribute to lower average
travel speeds of about 50 percent of the
FFS for the street class.
LOS D borders on the range in which
small increases in flow (density of vehicles)
may cause substantial increases in delay
and decreases in travel speed. LOS D may
be due to adverse signal progression (a
large percentage of vehicles arriving at the
intersection on a red, rather than green light),
inappropriate signal timing, high volumes
(of traffic), or a combination of these
factors. Average travel speeds are about
40 percent of FFS.
LOS E is characterized by significant
delays and average travel speeds of 33
percent or less or the FFS. Such
operations are caused by a combination of
adverse signal progression, high signal
density (closely spaced signals), high volumes,
extensive delays at critical intersections,
and inappropriate signal timing.
LOS F is characterized by urban street flow
at extremely low speeds, typically one-third
to one-fourth of the FFS. Intersection
congestion is likely critical at signalized
locations, with high delays, high volumes,
and extensive queuing.
CITY LOS STANDARDS AND
CURRENT LOS
It is necessary to define LOS standards for
transportation facilities to enforce the
concurrency requirements of the Growth
Management Act. If development results in a
facility's service falling below a defined LOS
standard, concurrency requires the devel-
opment causing the deficiency be remedied or
the permit for that development be denied.
Auburn defines unsatisfactory LOS as: an
unacceptable increase in hazard or
unacceptable decrease in safety on a roadway;
an accelerated deterioration of the street
pavement condition or the proposed regular
use of a street not designated as a truck route
for truck movements that can reasonably result
in accelerated deterioration of the street
pavement; an unacceptable impact
on geometric design conditions at an
intersection where two truck routes meet on
the City arterial and collector network; an
increase in congestion which constitutes an
unacceptable adverse environmental impact
under the State Environmental Policy Act; or
the inability of a facility to meet the adopted
LOS standard.
The City uses corridor LOS as its primary
measurement of transportation system impacts.
The City corridors typically used for analyzing
LOS are shown in Figure 2-4, although the City
may require analysis of a different segment in
order to assess the full LOS impacts. All
arterials and collectors in Auburn have
designated LOS standards. The LOS standard
for these corridors is primarily LOS D with the
exception of some corridors that may operate
as LOS E or F, with a specified maximum
travel time.
While the City uses a p.m. based LOS system,
a.m. LOS impacts may be examined in
situations where unique conditions are likely to
results in an a.m. LOS deficiency.
Table 2-2 identifies Auburn’s LOS Standards,
as well as the 2009 corridor LOS. As indicated
in the table, LOS was calculated for many of
Auburn’s street corridors using traffic counts
taken in Spring 2008 and Spring 2009.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 10
ID Corridor From To
LOS
Standard
LOS
2009
1Auburn Way North 15th St NE Northern City LimitsDC/D
2Auburn Way North East Main St. 15th St NE ED
3Auburn Way South East Main St.M St SE DF/E
4Auburn Way South M St SE Eastern City Limits DC
5M St./Harvey Auburn Way NorthEast Main St.EC
6M St./Harvey East Main St Auburn Way South DD/C
7Evergreen Way Lakeland Hills Way Kersey Way DFuture
837th St NE/NWWest Valley Hwy I St. NE DB/C
915th St NE/NW West Valley Hwy Auburn Way NorthF**D
10Auburn Ave / "A" St SR 18Southern City LimitsDB
11Main StWest Valley Hwy R St DC
1215th St SW West Valley Hwy C St SW DD
13C St SW Ellingson SR 18 DC/E
14West Valley Hwy Northern City Limits15th Street NW EB/C
15S 277th St Frontage Rd.108th Ave SE EE/B
16R St./Kersey Way Auburn Way S.Oravetz Road DA/B
17Lake Tapps Parkway East Valley Hwy.182nd Ave E DB
18"A" St SW/NW/ "B" St NW 4th St NW S 277th St DFuture
198th St NE/Lea Hill Rd.Auburn Way North132nd Ave SE EC/B
20D St NW/Emerald Downs Dr S 277th St 15th St. NW DA/B
21I St NE S 277th St Harvey Rd DA/B
22132nd Ave SE SE 282nd St SE 312th St DB
23124th Ave SE SE 282nd St SE 320th. St DC
24104th Ave SE/SE 304th St8th St NE 132nd Ave SE DB/A
25105th Pl SE/SE 320th StLea Hill Road 124th Ave SE DB
26Lakeland Hills Way SELake Tapps Parkway Oravetz Rd DC/D
2729th St SE/Riverwalk Dr.A Street SE Auburn Way South DC
28108th Ave SE/112th Ave. SES 277th St SE 304th St DA
2949th St NW B St NW S 277th St DFuture
30R Street SE 8th St NE 4th Street SE DB/C
313rd St SW/Cross St C Street Auburn Way South EE
3217th St SE A St SE Auburn Way South DB/A
3341st St SE/Ellingson RdA St SE Western City LimitsEF
34Lakeland Hills Way/OravetzEast Valley Hwy Kersey Way EA/B
35West Valley Hwy 15th Street NWSouthern City LimitsEC/B
36Kersey Way Oravetz Road Southern City LimitsD A
37S. 316th Street/Terrace DriveWest Valley Highway Western City LimitsDB
38S. 296th Street/65th AveWest Valley Highway Western City LimitsDB
3951st Ave S.S. 288th StreetPeasley Canyon RdDB
40S. 284th Street112th Ave SE124th Ave SEDB/A
41S. 284th Street124th Ave SE132nd Ave SEDFuture
42R St. Bypass/Black DiamondM Street SESR 18DFuture
*
**
Table 2-2. Auburn Corridor Level of Service
Corridor segments within Downtown Auburn may operate at LOS E in accordance with the Auburn Downtown Plan. All other arterial and collector
corridors must operate at LOS D or better, unless otherwise indicated in Table 2-2.
Total travel time in the eastbound direction cannot exceed 1000 seconds for this corridor to meet the LOS Standard.
Split LOS indicates directional LOS in either the East-West or North-South direction. Otherwise, the LOS is the same in both directions.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 11
STATE HIGHWAY LOS
Amendments to the GMA in 1998 added new
requirements for local jurisdictions to address
state-owned transportation facilities, as well as
local transportation system needs in their
comprehensive plans (RCW 47.06.140). House
Bill 1487, adopted by the Washington State
Legislature in 1998, requires that the
transportation element of local comprehensive
plans include the LOS standards for Highways
of Statewide Significance (HSS). HB 1487
clarified that the concurrency requirement of
the GMA does not apply to HSS or other
transportation facilities and services of
statewide significance. HB 1487 also requires
local jurisdictions to estimate traffic impacts to
state-owned facilities resulting from land use
assumptions in the Comprehensive Plan.
THE WSDOT STANDARD
WSDOT has identified an LOS standard of
“D” for all urban Highways of Statewide
Significance (HSS) according to the State
Highway System Plan (HSP). All state highways
within the City of Auburn, including SR 18, SR
167, and SR 164 are classified as urban
Highways of Statewide Significance, and
therefore have an LOS standard of “D”.
Land use and the transportation system are
closely linked, each influencing the
development of the other. Hence, for the
purpose of this plan, it is necessary to evaluate
how land use patterns impact the
transportation system.
LAND USE/TRANSPORTATION
RELATIONSHIP
A broad overview of Auburn’s Comprehensive
Plan land use map shows industrial (light and
heavy) designations in the west side of the City
along both sides of West Valley Highway, strip
commercial development along Auburn Way
South and a sizable commercial plan
designation near the intersection of the SR 18
and 15th Street SW interchange (Super Mall).
Downtown Auburn is roughly located east of
the Interurban Trail, north of SR 18, west of F
Street SE/NE, and south of 3rd Street NW/NE
and 4th Street NE. Residential development
exists along the Auburn valley floor, West Hill,
and Lea Hill and Lakeland Hills. A major land
use activity in Lea Hill includes the Green
River Community College located on SE 320th
Street.
As with many cities in South King and Pierce
counties, especially those along the SR 167
corridor, the local land use plan is characterized
by a predominance of industrial land use
designations. The land use element identifies
“Industrial” as the City’s second most pre-
dominant zoning designation (residential being
first). Consequently, the City’s land use plan
establishes a development pattern that has
industrial related traffic impacts upon the State
Highway System. This includes the frequent
movement of freight. Auburn’s industrial areas
also consist of light industrial warehouse
development. This type of development
typically results in a relatively low PM peak
hour trip generation impact. There are a
number of circumstances including potential
tax policy changes, which may lead to a change
in land use designations and, as a consequence,
a reduction in the prevalence of industrial uses
in this area and throughout Auburn.
Another key land use feature in the land use
element is a “Heavy Commercial” designation
at 15th Street SW, adjacent to SR 167 and SR
18. This commercial designation is the site of
the Supermall. The Supermall attracts
customers on a regional basis and impacts use
of the State Highway System in this respect,
even more so than the downtown or the strip
commercial development along Auburn Way.
Commercial development in downtown
Auburn and along Auburn Way tends to serve
more localized needs.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 12
The City’s Comprehensive Plan land use map
focuses residential development in the valley
and in the west hills, Lea Hill, and Lakeland
Hills. Access to the State Highway System is
generally limited in the east hill, although
Highway 18 can be accessed on Lea Hill at SE
304th Street. Future impacts on the State
Highway System in the Lea Hill area will
primarily be commuter traffic due to the
predominance of residential comprehensive
plan designations in that area. The
development of Lakeland Hills will also
principally result in increased commuter traffic.
Future impacts to the State Highway System
can generally be gauged by projected arterial
link ADT volumes at or near state highway
ramps. This is, at best, only a general estimate
since not all traffic passing through these street
segments is utilizing the State Highway System.
Further, traffic using the arterial segment may
be originating from local jurisdictions outside
of Auburn, and may therefore not result from
assumptions in Auburn’s land use plan.
Several city arterials connect directly to SR 167
and SR 18. Some examples include C Street
SW, West Valley Highway, and Auburn Way
South connections with SR 18, and 15th Street
NW and 15th Street SW connections with SR
167. These streets are among the most heavily
used in the City, a function of their relationship
to the State Highway System. SR 164 is also in
the city limits. Year 2008 and 2009 average
daily traffic (ADT) volumes along SR 164
range from a low of 23,000 near the eastern
city boundary up to 37,000 along Auburn Way
South near SR 18. These volumes are
forecasted to increase substantially over the
next 20 years.
The State Highway System also impacts the
City’s local street system. A “cut-through”
traffic pattern results in significant traffic
volume increases on the local arterial street
system. For example, many of Auburn’s PM
peak hour trips are work to home trips
originating outside of the Auburn area and
destined for residential areas outside of Auburn,
including Pierce County and the Enumclaw
Plateau. This traffic exits state routes and
travels through Auburn to avoid congestion on
the State Highway System. This is evidenced
by increases in traffic counts within the City
that clearly exceed that which might be
expected through anticipated growth and
development patterns outlined in the City’s
land use plan. The City may implement
measures that encourage local traffic
movements and discourage cut-through traffic.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 13
Figure 2-5. Population, Housing, and Job Growth
FOR CITY OF AUBURN 2000 – 2030
1 – Population and housing data for 2000 taken from US Census.
2 – Population and housing projection for 2010, 2020 and 2030 from City of Auburn
3 – Covered employment data and estimates derived from PSRSC.
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
2000 2010 2020 2030
Population Housing Units Jobs
2.3 Future Street System
METHODOLOGY FOR
EVALUATING FUTURE SYSTEM
TRAVEL FORECASTS
HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH
Auburn has grown rapidly during the past
decade, and housing and employment are
expected to continue to increase significantly
by 2030, with the population reaching over
128,000 residents, as shown in Figure 2-5.
Much of the housing growth will come from
higher density re-development in the
downtown area and the rapidly growing
Lakeland Hills and Lea Hill areas.
TRAFFIC GROWTH
The City of Auburn relies on traffic forecasts
using the VISUM travel demand model, which
is based upon the land use plan and
assumptions found in the land use element of
the Comprehensive Plan. Puget Sound
Regional Council (PSRC) household and
employment forecasts are also used. The model
is calibrated to include existing land uses and
local knowledge, including large traffic
generators such as the Supermall of the Great
Northwest, the Emerald Downs Thoroughbred
Racetrack, and the Muckleshoot Indian Casino.
Areas outside of the current city limits that are
expected to significantly
impact the City
transportation system are
included in the model.
The model enables the
City to conduct traffic
forecasts for all arterial
and collector streets
based upon a number of
if-then development and
land use scenarios.
The more dramatic
traffic increases are often
caused by development
outside the City,
especially along the
roadways serving the
Enumclaw Plateau.
Other areas of major
traffic increase include A
Street SE, M Street SE,
and the West Valley
Highway.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 14
THREE SCENARIOS:
FUTURE STREET NETWORK
In order to address the growing traffic
volumes and congestion levels on city streets
by 2030, three alternative roadway
improvements scenarios were examined:
Project Group A: Programmed
Projects: Includes projects in the City’s
Transportation Improvement Program.
Project Group B: Future City Street
Projects beyond the shorter range
Transportation Improvement Program.
Project Group C: Regional
Transportation Projects on State
highways or adjacent jurisdictions’
roadways that impact Auburn.
Each of these project group alternatives is
described below and shown in Figure 2-6.
Project Group A - Programmed Projects
Project Group A is the baseline group of
projects and consists primarily of the projects
programmed in the City’s TIP and in the State
Highway Program. The projects include several
city street widening and connection projects.
See Figure 2-6 for project locations shown in
red on the map.
This includes a project programmed in the TIP
that is not included in the model: the crossing
of the BNSF Rail yard at either 6th Street SW or
15th Street SW. This is discussed in more detail
in the Future System Recommendations
section of this chapter and will likely be
included in future model runs and updates to
this plan.
Project Group B - Future City Street Projects
Project Group B assumes completion of and
builds upon the projects in Project Group A by
adding more city street improvements in highly
congested areas. Many of these projects were
identified as a result of public outreach efforts
held in West Hill and Lea Hill after those areas
were annexed into the City. Potential projects
that were identified through the public
outreach were evaluated against the 2030 level-
of-service results of Project Group A.
Additional project were identified to remedy
predicted level-of-service deficiencies identified
by the City’s traffic demand model (Visum).
The street improvements shown with blue
project numbers in Figure 2-6 include street
widening projects or spot improvements
throughout the City. The spot improvements
consist of intersection channelization and
traffic signal timing projects to improve traffic
flow. Another future project with significant
area wide impacts is the addition of the
Auburn Bypass connecting SR 18 to Auburn
Way South. There are two potential alignments
for the bypass route as indicated in the draft
Bypass Feasibility Report (September 2009), a
partnership between WSDOT, the City of
Auburn, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and
other regional partners. Numerous issues were
considered as part of this study, including
environmental impacts. Although a preferred
alternative will be developed as part of a future
environmental process, for the development of
this plan, the alternative alignment modeled
had the Bypass Road connecting to Hwy 18
east of R Street and used the existing Dogwood
Street alignment to connect to Hwy 18.
The Future City projects are shown in blue on
Figure 2-6.
Project Group C - Regional Transportation
Projects
Project Group C assumes completion of and
builds upon the projects in Project Groups A
and B. This group contains projects focused
on the addition of major regional roadway
improvements. As shown in green in Figure
2-6, the projects include completing the
interchange of SR 18 at SR 167 (and
eliminating access to/from SR 18 at West
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 15
Valley Highway), adding one general purpose
lane in each direction to SR 167 from SR 18 to
I-405, and extending High Occupancy Toll
(HOT) lanes on SR 167 to SR 16, and widening
of SR 164 to Academy Drive, and the addition
of the Auburn Bypass connecting SR 18 to
Auburn Way South. The projects shown in
green on the map are State/Regional projects
and are therefore not currently programmed in
the City’s TIP.
Table 2-3 summarizes the street projects
included in each of the three project groups,
along with planning level cost estimates.
Figure 2-6 a map identifies the location of each
project, as well as the group it is included in.
Additional Projects – Not Identified in
Project Groups A, B, or C
In addition to the projects identified in Table
2-3, four intersections outside of the City were
identified as potential level-of-service concerns
during the public outreach and modeling
processes. While the following intersections
have not been analyzed in detail because they
are situated outside of Auburn’s jurisdiction,
they should be evaluated by the appropriate
jurisdiction and programmed for
improvements as needed.
51st Avenue S & South 316th Street
S. 321st Street & 46th Place
S. 321st Street and Peasley Canyon Road
West Valley Hwy and Peasley Canyon Rd.
Also, there is an intersection project that was
not modeled, but would provide a significant
benefit to reliability and traffic flow associated
with the am drop-off at Rainer Middle School.
Currently, 116th Ave SE around Rainer Middle
School becomes very congested due to the
difficulty clearing the roadway of southbound
vehicles in the a.m. 116th Avenue SE needs to
be widened 3-4 feet in the southbound
direction at Lea Hill Road to allow for a
dedicated right turn lane. This will help relieve
congestion associated with the drop-off period
at Rainier Elementary School.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 16
Table 2-3. Future Roadway Capacity Improvement Projects and Cost Estimates
Map.
No.
Location
(corridor and segment) Description Total Cost
(2012 dollars)
Project Group A - Programmed Projects
1
S. 277th Street Install 1 new lane WB and 2
new lanes EB (widen to 5 lanes
total) and install a Class 1 trail
$7,647,300
AWN to Green River Bridge
2
D Street NW
Construct 4 lane arterial $6,000,000
37th Street NW to 44th Street NW
3
I Street NE Corridor
Construct 5 lane arterial $6,760,000
45th Street NE to 52nd Street NE
4
A Street NW Phase 1
Construct multi-lane arterial $8,600,000
3rd Street NE to 14th Street NW
5
A Street NW Phase 2
Construct multi-lane arterial $3,300,000
W. Main Street to 3rd Street NW
6
M Street Grade Separation Grade separated railroad
crossing $22,500,000
3rd Street SE to 8th Street SE
7
BNSF Yard Grade Separation Construct road across BNSF
yard $32,000,000
location to be determined
8
F Street SE Widen to 3 lanes and bike
lanes and parking $2,500,000
4th Street SE to Auburn Way South
9
M Street NE
Widen to 4 lanes $1,475,000
E Main Street to 4th Street NE
10
8th Street NE Add EB lane to south side of
8th Street NE $1,450,000
Pike to R Street NE
11
49th Street NE Construct multi-lane arterial
connection $3,350,000
Auburn Way North to M Street NE
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 17
Project Group A - Programmed Projects (Cont.)
12
8th Street NE Redesign intersection, add an
eastbound U-turn. $392,000
at 104th Ave SE
13
Auburn Way South
Add WB to NB right turn lane $1,100,000
at M Street SE
14
124th Ave SE Corridor Phase 1
Widen to 4 lanes and bike lanes $1,950,000
SE 318th Street to SE 312th Street
15
124th Ave SE Corridor Phase 2 Intersection capacity
improvements $1,250,000
124th Ave SE and SE 312th Street
16
124th Ave SE Corridor Phase 3 Intersection capacity
improvements $850,000
124th Ave SE and SE 320th Street
17
SE 320th Street
Widen to 3 lanes and bike lanes $690,000
124th Ave SE to GRCC west end
18
East Valley Highway
Add ITS system $800,000 41st Street SE to Lake Tapps
Parkway
19
Auburn Way South Widen to 5 lanes and signalize
Hemlock Street SE $2,332,000
Fir Street to Hemlock Street
20
M Street SE Corridor
Construct multi-lane corridor $6,675,000
8th Street SE to Auburn Way South
21
29th Street SE EB/WB dual left turn lanes and
pedestrian safety improvements $1,800,000
at R Street SE
22
Auburn Ave NE Improve lane design and
improve pedestrian access $915,000
at 3rd Street NE
Subtotal for Project Group A $114,336,300
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 18
Project Group B - Future City Street Projects
23
Lea Hill Road Segment 1 Widen to 2 lanes each direction
including widening of the Green
River Bridge. Includes bike lanes
and sidewalks.
$24,700,000
R Street NE to 104th Ave SE
24
Lea Hill Road Segment 2
Widen to 2 lanes each direction.
Includes bike lanes and sidewalks. $11,400,000
104th Ave SE to 112th Ave SE
25
Lea Hill Road Segment 3
Widen to 2 lanes each direction.
Includes bike lanes and sidewalks. $3,575,000
112th Ave SE to 124th Ave SE
26
S 312th Street Add NB right turn lane, EB right
turn lane, WB left turn lane, and
signal. Provide sidewalks and bike
lanes on all legs.
$1,720,000
112th Ave SE
27
112th Ave SE Extend road to Lea Hill Road.
Include sidewalks and bike lanes
both sides.
$6,500,000
SE 310th Street to Lea Hill Road
28
SE 304th Street Add signal and NB left turn lane.
Include sidewalks and bike lanes
both sides.
$1,300,000
112th Ave SE
29
GRCC On-site Improvements If it will show in model, construct
750' 3-lane section at GRCC
entrance with 2 entrance lanes,
one exit lane plus a right turn exit
pocket onto 124th NB. Bike lanes
and sidewalks included.
$300,000
GRCC Entrance
30
GRCC Improvements at 124th
Ave SE
Construct 500' section from SE
320th to SE 318th Way with three
SB lanes and one NB lane. The
southbound lanes will be two left
turn into GRCC and one right turn
onto SE 320th. Bike lanes and
sidewalks included.
$510,000 SE 318th Street to SE 320th
Street
31
SE 284th Street / SE 288th
Street
Construct new collector linking
284th Street at 124th Ave. to 288th
Street at 132nd Ave. Road will be
one lane each direction with bike
lanes and sidewalks.
$7,700,000
124th Ave SE to 132nd Ave SE
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 19
Project Group B - Future City Street Projects
32
A Street Loop Add one-way (EB) road with
unsignalized free right turn at A
Street SE. Include sidewalks both
sides of new road.
$1,700,000
A Street SW to A Street SE
33
A Street SE / C Street SW Coordinate signals at A and C
Street together. At A Street, add
additional WB thru lane; At C
Street, restripe to allow SB left turn
lane. Include sidewalks on all legs
of both intersections.
$1,500,000
Ellingson Road
34
West Valley Highway Widen to 2 lanes each direction,
and include sidewalks both sides;
Between Main Street and SR 18,
add bike lanes both sides or non-
motorized trail on one side.
$16,000,000 37th St NW to north City limits,
and 15th St SW to SR 18
35
Auburn Way South Bypass Construct an Auburn Way South
Bypass between Riverwalk Drive
and R Street SE with new
connection to SR 18 at R Street
SE.
$60,450,000
Riverwalk Drive to SR 18 at R
Street SE
36
51st Ave S Provide protected SB left turn
phase and signal and SB left turn
lane; Include bike lanes and
sidewalks on all legs.
$1,400,000
S 296th Street
37
108th Ave SE / 112th Ave SE
Realign / improve radius at doglegs
(SE 281st St.) for safety, and
realign intersecting streets to
improve site distances. Widen to 4
lanes north of 284th St. At 286th St,
widen to allow for turn pockets.
Include bike lanes and sidewalk
both sides of 108th/112th.
$7,700,000
S 277th Street to S 286th Street
Subtotal for Project Group B $146,455,000
Total Groups A and B $260,791,300
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 20
Project Group C - Regional Transportation Projects
38
SR 164 Widen road to two lanes each
direction plus a center two-way left
turn lane. Upgrade the intersection
of Auburn Way South and
Dogwood St to accommodate
Bypass traffic.
$61 M
Hemlock to Academy
39
SR 167 From I-405 to SR 18, add one NB
and one SB general purpose lane;
From SR 18 to SR 161, add one
NB HOT lane and one SB HOT
lane; Add direct NB/SB HOV/HOT
lane connection ramps between SR
167 and I-405; Add NB and SB
auxiliary lanes between I-405 and S
180th Street; Add NB and SB
auxiliary lanes between SR 516
and S 277th Street; Extend SR 167
from SR 161 to SR 509
$4.4 B
I-405 to SR 509
40
SR 18 Complete ramp from EB SR 18 to
SB SR 167 and eliminate SR 18
access from West Valley Highway
near Peasley Canyon.
Included in Project
40 at SR 167
41
SR 167
Add HOV lane each direction $120 million
(State Funded) 15th Street NW to 8th Street E
42
Stewart Road Widen to 2 lanes each direction and
center turn lane in the Cities of
Sumner and Pacific. Includes
widening of the White River bridge.
$40,000,000
SR 167 to East Valley Highway
43
51st Ave S
Add signal $490,000
S 288th Street
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 21
FUTURE LEVEL OF SERVICE
Each of the roadway improvement project
groups was evaluated with a generalized level-
of-service methodology using the VISUM
software. This methodology produces an
estimate of corridor LOS based upon the p.m.
peak hour speeds along each roadway segment
within a corridor. This methodology is
consistent with, but not as detailed as, the LOS
methodology used by the City to examine
concurrency requirements. However, the
modeled results provide a good measure with
which to compare the relative transportation
benefits associated with each of the project
groups. Table 2-4 shows the LOS side-by-side
for the three project group alternatives.
Project Group A
Project Group A contains committed City
roadway projects that are expected to be
implemented in the future. Some of the
projects are completely funded. The City is
actively seeking funding for the other projects
on the TIP and in the CFP. While these
projects will have beneficial effects on traffic
flow in the near future, by the year 2030 there
will be considerable traffic congestion on the
city street system, even with these
improvements. Much of this congestion will
be due to the growth in traffic on city streets
created by new development in adjacent
jurisdictions. Most of the principal and minor
arterial routes within the City will experience
moderate or high congestion levels in 2030
with Project Group A improvements only.
Nine of the 42 established corridors will not
meet their LOS standard by implementing
Project Group A only.
Project Group B
Project Group B adds more city street
widenings and spot improvements to Project
Group A to address some of the most heavily
congested roadways. These projects will
improve the LOS in the Lea Hill neighborhood
(such as 8th Street / Lea Hill Road) and along
portions of 29th Street E, Riverwalk Drive, R
Street, S 277th Street, and 3rd Street SW / Cross
Street., R. In most of these situations, the LOS
will improve but still remain at moderate to
high congestion levels.
Five of the 42 established corridors will not
meet their LOS standard by implementing only
Project Groups A and B.
Project Group C
Recognizing that city street improvements
alone are unlikely to solve the City’s future
traffic congestion, Project Group C considers
the effects of implementing regional
transportation capacity improvements on SR
167 and SR 164 in addition to Group A and B
projects. Project Group C also includes the
potential bypass that would provide a direct
link in east Auburn between SR 18 and SR 164.
These regional projects would provide
substantial congestion relief along key Auburn
streets, such as West Valley Highway (south of
SR 18), A Street SE and C Street SW (both
south of SR 18), Auburn Way South and, W
Main Street. More traffic would remain on the
state highways rather than city streets, while the
bypass route would reduce congestion along
much of Auburn Way South and M Street SE.
Despite the improvements resulting from
Project Groups A, B, and C, traffic congestion
in 2030 would persist on several city arterial
and collector corridors. The City will closely
monitor these corridors and examine further
actions that might be appropriate.
Four of the 42 established corridors will not
meet their LOS standard under Alternative 3,
but many of them do show some
improvement.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 22
GroupGroupsGroups
IDCorridorFromTo A A & B A, B, & C
1Auburn Way North15th St NENorthern City LimitsCCB/C*
2Auburn Way NorthEast Main St. 15th St NECCC
3Auburn Way SouthEast Main St.M St SE EED
4Auburn Way SouthM St SEEastern City Limits FFC/F
5M St./Harvey Auburn Way NorthEast Main St.DD/ED/E
6M St./Harvey East Main St Auburn Way South D/ED/EC/E
7Evergreen Way Lakeland Hills Way Kersey Way A A A
837th St NE/NWWest Valley HwyI St. NEC/DCC
915th St NE/NWWest Valley HwyAuburn Way NorthC/DC/DC/D
10Auburn Ave / "A" St SR 18Southern City LimitsDDC
11Main StWest Valley HwyR StCCD/C
1215th St SWWest Valley Hwy C St SW F/EF/EF/E
13C St SWEllingsonSR 18DDB/D
14West Valley HwyNorthern City Limits15th Street NWB/DB/DB/D
15S 277th StFrontage Rd.108th Ave SEDCC
16R St./Kersey WayAuburn Way S.Oravetz Road D/E C/DC/D
17Lake Tapps Parkway East Valley Hwy.182nd Ave E BBB
18"A" St SW/NW/ "B" St NW 4th St NW S 277th St B/CB/CB/C
198th St NE/Lea Hill Rd.Auburn Way North132nd Ave SE F/E E/DE/D
20D St NW/Emerald Downs Dr S 277th St 15th St. NW BBB
21I St NE S 277th St Harvey Rd B/CB/CC
22132nd Ave SE SE 282nd St SE 312th St B/DCC
23124th Ave SE SE 282nd St SE 320th. St DC/BC/B
24104th Ave SE/SE 304th St8th St NE 132nd Ave SE CCC
25105th Pl SE/SE 320th StLea Hill Road 124th Ave SE DCC
26Lakeland Hills Way SELake Tapps Parkway Oravetz Rd A A A
2729th St SE/Riverwalk Dr.A Street SEAuburn Way South E/C D/CC
28108th Ave SE/112th Ave. SES 277th StSE 304th St C/F A/DA/D
2949th St NWB St NWS 277th StD/CD/BC/B
30R Street SE**8th St NE4th Street SEB/AC/AC/A
313rd St SW/Cross StC StreetAuburn Way SouthD/CC/BC/B
3217th St SEA St SEAuburn Way SouthBBB
3341st St SE/Ellingson RdA St SEWestern City LimitsE/CE/CE/C
34Lakeland Hills Way/OravetzEast Valley Hwy Kersey Way BBB
35West Valley Hwy15th Street NWSouthern City LimitsEEE/C
36Kersey WayOravetz RoadSouthern City LimitsA/BA/BB
37S. 316th Street/Terrace DriveWest Valley Highway Western City LimitsB/CB/CB
38S. 296th Street/65th AveWest Valley Highway Western City LimitsCCC
3951st Ave S.S. 288th StreetPeasley Canyon RdDDD
40S. 284th Street112th Ave SE124th Ave SECCC
41S. 284th Street124th Ave SE132nd Ave SEn/aCC
42R St. Bypass/Black DiamondM Street SESR 18 F/DF/DF/D
*
**
Table 2-4. Future Project Groups - P.M. Peak Hour LOS in 2030
Split LOS indicates directional LOS in either the East-West or North-South direction. If there is no split, the LOS is the same in both directions.
Corridor 30 assumes R Street terminates at 4th Street SE and does not connect to R Street Bypass Road.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 23
FUTURE SYSTEM
RECOMMENDATIONS
FUTURE STREET IMPROVEMENTS
The proposed future street plan consists of a
combination of city street and regional
transportation improvements, described in
Table 2-3 and shown in Figure 2-6. The City
cannot adequately solve traffic congestion by
making city street improvements alone.
Partnerships with WSDOT, King and Pierce
Counties, and other agencies are essential to
implementing the future street system in
Auburn. The following actions are proposed:
1. Implement street projects prioritized in the
City’s TIP and CFP;
2. Program and seek additional funding for
street capacity projects not currently
identified in the TIP and CFP; and
3. Work collaboratively with WSDOT and
other partner agencies to implement
roadway improvements on the regional
highway network.
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN
Auburn’s Downtown is undergoing
considerable growth and transition to a higher
density, mixed use town center. Major
development including expansion of the
Auburn Regional Medical Center and related
businesses is occurring to the north of Main
Street. Along Main Street and to the south,
commercial, residential, and office
development is planned.
The transformation of downtown Auburn will
include many changes to the public right-of-
way and streetscape. A Downtown Circulation
Plan will be developed to accommodate the
many types of travelers that will be using
downtown streets including pedestrians,
bicyclists, transit users, truck operators, and
personal vehicle users. An improved pedestrian
and bicycle environment will need to be
designed into the fabric of downtown Auburn.
At the same time, there are several major
north-south corridors which run through the
downtown, so accommodation for high
volumes of vehicular travel and the potential
repercussions of modifying the existing street
system will need to be considered in the
development of the Downtown Circulation Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL PARK DISTRICT
In the vicinity of the Environmental Park, to
the west of downtown Auburn, the City is
looking at establishing low impact roads and
projects that add sidewalks, trails, and
additional connectivity between Clay Street and
Western Avenue. This area will be examined in
more detail for transportation improvements as
the concept for the Environmental Park
District is further refined.
41ST STREET SE/ELLINGSON ROAD BETWEEN A ST
SE AND C ST SW
The area around 41st Street SE/Ellingson Road
between A Street SE and C Street SW
continues to be a chokepoint for Auburn
drivers. This plan identifies some intersection
improvements at the intersections of A and 41st
Streets SE and C Street SW and Ellingson
Road that will help to some degree. Still the
close spacing of these two intersections,
coupled with the numerous business and
residential accesses in the area warrant a more
in depth study of the area. This study will likely
also include the entire A Street SE and C Street
West Main Street, Downtown Auburn
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 24
SW corridors, including evaluation of the two
BNSF railyard crossing projects discussed
below. The results of the 41st Street
SE/Ellingson Road study will be incorporated
into a future update of this plan.
6TH STREET SE & 15TH STREET SW RAIL YARD
CROSSINGS
The City has identified two additional projects
that were not modeled in the future roadway
improvement scenarios; a BNSF rail yard
crossing at 6th Street SE and one at 15th Street
SW, both of which would connect C Street SW
and A Street SE via a grade-separated crossing.
The City anticipates only one of the two
projects will be necessary to accommodate the
2030 traffic demand. There are a variety of
criteria that will enable the City to evaluate
which project is ultimately chosen as the
preferred alternative, including development of
the BNSF property as a multi-modal rail yard,
commercial development on Auburn Way
South and A Street SE, development of the
GSA property, funding feasibility,
neighborhood impacts, transportation impacts,
and engineering feasibility. Since these projects
were not considered in the 2030 traffic model,
it is difficult to access the projects’ impacts.
However, it is expected both projects would
increase east-west mobility in Auburn. The
15th Street crossing would also lead to
considerable increases in traffic across the
Terminal Park neighborhood.
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
MANAGEMENT
Transportation system management (TSM)
techniques, which make more efficient use of
the existing transportation system, can reduce
the need for costly system capacity expansion
projects. These techniques can also be used to
improve LOS when travel corridors approach
the adopted LOS standard. TSM techniques
used by the City include:
Rechannalization/restriping, adding turn
lanes, adding /increasing number of
through lanes;
Signal interconnect and optimization;
Turn movement restrictions;
Access Management; and
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).
The City will continue to use these TSM
techniques to maximize the efficiency of the
street network. Of the various TSM strategies
available, ITS is a relatively new technology
being implemented by the City as a cost
effective means of increasing system capacity.
The ITS system enables the City to change
traffic signals in real-time, thereby handling
unusual increases in traffic or traffic obstacles
such as event related traffic and accidents. For
example, ITS has proven successful in
mitigating the impact of event traffic traveling
south on Auburn Way South, often during the
PM peak, to the White River Amphitheatre.
The City will continue to roll out ITS
capabilities on corridors around the City, as
referenced in Figure 2-7 and detailed in the ITS
policies found in Chapter 5.
In addition to TSM strategies, the City strives
to provide viable alternatives for travelers, to
ensure freedom of choice among several
transportation modes, including transit, biking
and walking as alternatives to the automobile.
The City will prioritize the development of
pedestrian-friendly environments such as
bicycle routes and pedestrian paths as the non-
motorized system expands.
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND
MANAGEMENT
Reducing congestion includes strategies to
reduce demands on the transportation system.
The State of Washington emphasized the
importance of transportation demand
management (TDM) by adopting the Commute
Trip Reduction law 15 years ago. That law
requires all major employers, with over 100
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 25
employees arriving between the hours of 6:00
and 9:00 AM, to develop programs and
strategies to reduce the number of commuter
automobile trips made by their employees.
Transportation demand management reduces
demand on the street system. While TDM and
TSM employ a different suite of strategies, they
share many of the same benefits. Both increase
the efficiency of the transportation system,
reduce the need for costly capacity expansions,
help improve LOS, and contribute to an
enhanced quality of life for those who use and
benefit from the transportation system. TDM
strategies include:
ride-sharing through vanpools and
carpools;
preferential parking for high-occupancy
vehicles;
car sharing programs;
transit use incentives;
parking management to discourage single
occupant vehicle (SOV) travel;
telecommuting;
alternative work schedules to compress
the work week or shift the commute
outside the typical commute hours; and
urban design encouraging non-motorized
travel through design features.
The City of Auburn will continue to encourage
drivers of single occupancy vehicles to consider
alternate modes of travel such as carpools,
vanpools, transit, non-motorized travel, and
alternative work schedules.
STREET MAINTENANCE &
REHABILITATION
The City is responsible for maintaining the
physical structure of the roadway system.
However, pavement maintenance is costly, and
sufficient funds are generally not readily
available. Recognizing this dilemma, Auburn
residents approved Proposition 1, the “Save
Our Streets” (SOS) Program, in November
2004. The SOS program creates a dedicated
local street fund for repair, rehabilitation, and
maintenance of local roadways.
SOS Program – Crack Seal
SOS Program - Before Pavement
SOS Program - Asphalt Overlay
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 26
The City plans to create a similar program to
establish a dedicated fund for the repair and
maintenance of arterials and collectors. The
City arterial and collector systems have been
subjected to significant wear for years, with few
mechanisms available to the City to funds
repairs. Hence, the City will be seeking the
support of residents, businesses, and state
lawmakers to establish a fund to repair these
corridors. As repairs are made, the City will be
attentive to corridors with substantial freight
and bus traffic. These corridors will be
retrofitted, whenever possible, with design and
construction features that accommodate truck
and bus travel, such as thicker pavement and
wider curb radii.
NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS
Transportation systems and facilities can have
adverse impacts on neighborhoods. Impacts
include safety problems due to speeding
vehicles and increasing traffic volumes,
increased traffic resulting from drivers seeking
alternate routes to congested arterials, and the
resulting air and noise pollution.
Neighborhoods throughout the City are
concerned with these traffic impacts and want
to discourage traffic from using their streets for
cut-through traffic.
City policies discourage through traffic in
neighborhoods. The City also has a traffic
calming program that addresses the pedestrian,
bicycle, and automobile traffic safety concerns
that threaten neighborhoods. The traffic
calming program is a community-based helps
alleviate traffic safety concerns for pedestrians,
bicyclists, transit users, and motorists. The
program raises public awareness of traffic
safety issues and ways that people can help
minimize traffic problems in their own
neighborhoods.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
COORDINATION
The Growth Management Act (RCW
36.70A.070) provides that comprehensive plans
should include a discussion of intergovern-
mental coordination efforts, including “an
assessment of the impacts of the transportation
plan and land use assumptions on the trans-
portation systems of adjacent jurisdictions.”
Auburn works closely with neighboring cities,
the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and state and
regional agencies to ensure coordinated efforts
are made in developing all modes of the
transportation system. Among other efforts,
the City of Auburn coordinates on both long-
range planning efforts and ongoing
development.
Sources: City of Auburn, King County
1
9
0
t
h
Ave
Br
i
d
g
e
t
A
v
e
S t u c k R i v e r Dr
53rd St
55th St
Indus t ry Dr
1st Ave
H
St
2 n d S t
64th
Ave
O
St
22nd St
3rd St
6th St
29th St
1s t St
A
St
Aca
d
e
m
y
D
r
Hemlock
St
14th St
167th
Ave
C
t
3 2 n d S t
12th St
116th
Ave
Pacific
Ave
32 1st S t
Harvey
R
d
D
St
118th
Ave
116th
Ave
316th St
Howar d R d
272 nd St
30th St
E
St
280th St
292nd
S t
K
ersey
W
ay
R
St
I
St
304th Wa y
6
2
n
d
S
t
296th St
17th St
320th St
284th St
F
St
37th St
3 0 0 t h St
12th St
1
0
5th Pl
1 6t h S t
9th St
4th St
56th
Ave
21st St
T
errace
D r
2
1
0th
A
v
e
41st St
29th St
15th St
Oravetz Rd
15th St
8th S t
37th St
El lingson R d
8 t h S t
Lea Hill Rd
Pe
a
s
l
e
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
d
C
St
Mount Vi
ew Dr
51
s
t
A
v
e
L
a
k
ela
nd
Hills
W
a
y
Sumner T a p p s H w y
124th
Ave
Auburn
Way
Main St
A
St
27 7th St
G
ST
SW
Dogwood
St
182nd
Ave
Riv e r v ie w Dr
Mill Pond
Dr
Boundary Blv d
M
St
104th
Ave
7
2nd
Ave
C
St
55th
Ave 285 th S t
Valley
H
w
y
132nd
Ave
304th St
C
St
Emerald
Downs
D
r
E
v
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
Way
M
St
112th
Ave
Green
Rive
r
R
d
B
St
Valley
Hwy
UV164
UV18
UV167
UV18
UV516
HighwayPrincipal ArterialMinor ArterialFuture Minor ArterialResidential Collector, Type IFuture Residential Collector, Type INon-Residential Collector
Future Non-ResidentialCollectorResidential Collector, Type IIPrivateLocalCity Limits00.5
Miles
°
Auburn Transportation Plan
Functional RoadwayClassification
Figure 2-1
Sources: City of Auburn, King County
304th St
2 84th St
11
2
t
h
P
l
316th Ct
56th Ct
3
7
t
h
P
l
56t
h
Pl
296th C t
304th St304th St
56th Ct
284th St
56th
Ave
1
3
2
n
d
P
l
112th
Ave
37th Pl
288th St
5 6th St
56th
Ave
5
6
t
h
P
l
2
9
6
t
h
C
t
56
t
h
A
v
e
56th
Ave
1
2
4
th
A
v
c
t
284th Pl
304th St
1
2
4
t
h
A
v
c
t
1
3
2nd
Ave
56th
Pl
284th St
304th
W ay
284th St
124
t
h
P
l
2 9 6 t h Pl
288th Pl
37th St
316th Pl
288th St
124th
Ave
132nd
Ave
316th St
2 8 4 t h S t
296t h St
304th St
112th
Ave
112th
Pl
316th St
2 84th Way
316th St
288th St
1
1
2
t
h
A
v
e
2 9 6 t h S t
288th St
37th
W a y
37th St
296th St
37th Pl
296th Pl
56th
Ave
52nd St
Auburn Black Dia m o n d R d
8th St
M
ilitary
R
d
Auburn
Ave
C
St
17 th St
15th St
Mount a i n
View D r
Oravetz
R
d
12th St
M S
t
S
u
mner
T
a
p
ps
Hwy
312th St
8th St
K
e
r
s
e
y
W
a
y
1st Ave
G
r
e
e
n
R
iv
e
r
R
d
32 0 t h S t
55t h A v e
104th
Ave
S tewart Rd
Tapps Hwy
L e a
Hill R d
15th S t
288th St
Kersey Way
Ellingson Rd
Auburn
Way R
St
M
St
Milwaukee
Blvd
Pacific
Ave
4
6
t
h
P
l
3 0 4 t h St
C
St
Auburn Black Diamond Rd
R
St
3rd Ave
Lake Holm Rd
8th St
24th St
288th St
2
1
0t
h
A
v
e
132nd
Ave
277th St
132nd
Ave
321st St
124th
Ave
342nd St
51st
Ave
P
e
a
s
l
e
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
d
1
0
5
t
h
P
l
94
t
h
P
l
Valley
Hwy
214th
Ave
Auburn
Way
Jovita Blvd
331st St
V
a
l
l
e
y
H
w
y
C
St
1 6 t h S t
Valley
Hwy
320th St
A
St
122n
d
Ave
2
7
2
nd St
124th
Ave
51st
Ave
A
St
182nd
Ave
3rd Ave
9th St
Main St
Valley
Hwy
UV18
UV516
UV167
UV164
UV167
UV18
4,500
13,016
4,500
1,496
8,
7
5
0
2,59
1
5,7
9
0
16
,
8
6
4
2,1
6
1
5,790
1,
4
8
8
86
2
5,200
24,189
40
3
278
5,
8
9
2
15,388
5,168
8,
6
3
3
4,1
8
5
3,343
23
,
7
9
9
23
,
7
4
6
7,929
18,476
6,
7
1
1
2,5
0
0
28
,
3
9
0
18,390
78
1
1,748
2,991
4,817
4,2
3
4
2,344
22
,
1
0
4
4,500
20
,
2
5
7
25
5
2
2
,
0
1
0
2
,
2
3
7
22
,
9
8
2
7,806
4,
8
4
5
6,031
1,771
5
,
7
5
9
2,9
8
4
1,533
354
5,4
0
8
1
7
,
4
4
2
4,16
7
3,
9
2
0
16,227
13
,
8
0
6
35,98
6
1,
2
9
5
70
6
2,
1
1
5
7,200
3
6
,
9
6
4
5,
8
6
0
18
,
2
5
6
7,6
3
6
9,
0
9
1
8,
9
0
0
3,
9
6
8
1,742
3,0
2
5
5,
6
2
5
7,
9
9
9
29
,
1
8
3
7,
1
6
7
4,1
0
7
4,300
22
,
7
3
3
34,949
14
,
9
4
3
9
,
7
0
0
22,560
19
,
6
6
1
22
,
1
1
2
7,4
6
8
9,
9
9
4
1,
5
5
6
4,133
1,
0
9
0
17
,
2
9
9
4,408
9
,
0
5
8
7,
5
4
8
1
7
,
9
7
0
4,115
11,675
3,760
9,
7
2
7
8,
4
2
4
4,
2
9
1
2,6
3
5
22
,
2
4
6
11
,
8
9
6
4,824
5,
3
0
8
4,
8
2
5
9,496
2,420
9,619
4,127
5,001
3,675
9,
6
4
8
4,616
12
,
4
4
7
8,
3
6
2
Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
100
1,000
10,000
ADT Count Year
City Limits00.5
Miles
°
Auburn Transportation Plan
Average DailyTraffic Volumes
Figure 2-2
##,###2009
2008##,###
Sources: City of Auburn, King County
3 7 t h W a y
132nd
Ave
37th S t
316t h St 316th St
56th
Ave
5
6
th
A
v
e
284th Pl
37th St
1
2
4
t
h
Av
c
t
296th St
304th W ay
56
th Pl
288th St
284th St
37th S t
11
2
t
h
Pl
28 4 t h S t
37th Pl
132nd
Ave
296th Pl 112th
Ave
296th S t
288th St
304th St
112th
Ave
124th
Ave
Auburn Ave
Auburn
Way
321st St
Pe
a
s
l
e
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Rd
Military
Rd
1st Ave
17t h St
Main St
312th St
Jovita
Blvd
8t h S t
Stewart Rd
Tapps Hwy
Ellingson Rd
Milwaukee
Blvd
Pacific
Ave
3rd Ave
8th St
12th St
9th St
182nd
Ave
51st
Ave
272
n
d
S
t
320th St
V
a
l
l
e
y
H
w
y
Di
e
ri
nge
r
Hw
y
Valley
Hwy
15th St
277th St
V
a
l
l
e
y
Hwy
Green
Rive
r
R
d
15th St
H
arvey
R
d
3 31st S t
2
1
0th
A
v
e
24th St
3 42nd St
8th St
Lake Holm Rd
R
S
t
94th
P
l
214th
Ave
1 6 t h S t
307th Pl
122nd
Ave
4
6
t
h
P
l
1
0
5t
h
P
l
Kersey Way
M
St
L e a H ill Rd
104th
Ave
55th Ave
A
St
A
St
C
S t
164
167
18
516
167
0 0.5
Miles
Auburn Transportation Plan
Truck RouteMap
Figure 2-3
Priority 1
Current Local Truck Route
Future Local Truck Route
Current Through Truck Route
Future Through Truck Route
Truck Route (Pavement
Maintained by WSDOT)
Priority 2
Current Local Truck Route
Future Local Truck Route
City Limits
Sources: City of Auburn, King County
31
33
41
30
40
32
29
6
2
5
3
7
12
9
38
8
16
34
37
36
22
25
14
27
42
26
28
35
11
13
17
20
23
1
21
39
24
19
18
15
4
10 3 7 t h W a y
132nd
Ave
37th St
316th St 316th St
56th
Ave
56
t
h
A
v
e
2 84th Pl
37th S t
1
2
4
t
h
A
v
c
t
296th St
304th W ay
56
th Pl
288th St
284th St
37th S t
112t
h
Pl
28 4t h S t
37th Pl
132nd
Ave
296th Pl 112th
Ave
296th S t
288th St
304th St
112th
Ave
124th
Ave
Auburn
Wa
y
321st StPea
s
l
e
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Rd
Military
Rd 1st Ave
17th St
Main St
312th St
Jovita
Blvd
8t h S t
Stewart Rd
Tapps Hwy
Ellingson Rd
R
St
Milwaukee
Blvd
Pacific
Ave
3rd Ave
8th St
12th St
9th St
182nd
Ave
51
s
t
A
v
e
272
n
d
S
t
320th St
V
a
l
l
e
y
H
w
y
Die
ringe
r
H
wy
Valley
Hwy
15th St
277th St
Valley Hwy
Green
Riv
er
R
d
15th St
H
arvey
R
d
3 31st S t
2
1
0th
A
v
e
24th St
34 2nd S t
8th St
Lake Holm Rd
R
St
94th
P
l
214th
Ave
1 6 t h S t
307th Pl
122nd
Ave
4
6
t
h
P
l
1
05t
h
P
l
Kersey Way
M
St
L e a H ill Rd
104th
Ave
55th Ave
A
S
t
A
St
C
S t
UV164
UV167
UV18
UV516
UV167
Corridor SectionsCity Limits00.5
Miles
°
Auburn Transportation Plan
Auburn CorridorSection Map
Figure 2-4
EDGEWOODEDGEWOOD
ALGONAALGONA
PIERCEPIERCE
COUNTYCOUNTY
KENTKENT
PACIFICPACIFIC
SUMNERSUMNER
KINGKING
COUNTYCOUNTY
SUPERMALL
SUPERMALL
MUCKLESHOOTMUCKLESHOOT
CASINOCASINO
51
S
T
A
V
E
S
A
U
B
U
R
N
W
A
Y
S
A
S
T
S
E
K
E
R
S
E
Y
W
A
Y
S
E
12
4
T
H
A
V
E
S
E
P
E
A
S
L
E
Y
C
A
N
Y
O
N
R
D
S
15TH ST SW
H
A
R
V
E
Y
R
D
N
E
W MAIN ST
29TH ST SE
E MAIN ST
11
2
T
H
A
V
E
S
E
15TH ST NW
I
ST
NE
SE 320TH ST
LA
K
E
T
A
P
P
S
P
K
W
Y SE
B
S
T
N
W
T ERR
A
C
E
DR
NW
R
S
T
S
E
S 316TH ST
37TH ST NE
SE 304TH ST
RI V E RWALK
D R SEA
S
T
S
E
8TH ST NE
4TH ST SE
LEA
HILL R D S E
4 1 S T S T S E
SE 312TH ST
BOUNDARY BLVD S W
SE 320TH ST
37T H ST NW
ELLINGSON RD SW
L
A
K
E
L
A
N
D
H
I
L
L
S
W
A
Y
S
E
15TH ST NE
3 21ST ST S
P EASLEY C ANYON RD
S
WE
S
T
V
A
L
L
E
Y
H
W
Y
N
51
S
T
A
V
E
S
D
ST
NE
EA
S
T
V
A
L
L
E
Y
H
W
Y
S
E
C
S
T
S
W
15TH ST NW
WEST
VALLEY
HWY
S
SUM
N
E
R-TAPPS
HWY
E
A
U
B
U
R
N
W
A
Y
N
AU
B
U
R
N
W
A
Y
N
A
S
T
N
E
O R A V E T Z RD
SE
M
ST
SE
R
S
T
S
E
11
2
T
H
A
V
E
S
E
E
A
S
T
VALLE
Y
H
W
Y
SE
EMERALD
DOWNS
DR
NW
M
S
T
N
E
11
2
T
H
A
V
E
S
E
C
S
T
N
W
104TH
AVE
SE
D
ST
NW
C
ST
S
W
15TH ST SW
LA K E T A P P S PKWY SE
S
2
7
2
N
D
W
AY
16TH ST E
9TH ST E
A U B U R N -B L A CK
DIAMO N D RD
SE
MIL
I
T
A
R
Y
R
D
S
S 288TH ST
2
1
0
T
H
A
V
E
E
12TH ST E
M
I
L
I
T
A
R
Y
R
D
S
182ND
AVE
E
21
4
T
H
A
V
E
E
S 277TH ST
12
4
T
H
A
V
E
S
E
J O V I T A B L V D E
WE
S
T
V
A
L
L
E
Y
H
W
Y
N
W
SE 272ND ST116TH
AVE
SE
S 272ND ST
8TH ST E
24TH ST E
M
I
L
I
T
A
R
Y
R
D
S
WEST
VALLEY
H
WY
S
W
S E 2 7 4 TH S T
24TH ST E
68
T
H
A
V
E
S
10
8
T
H
A
V
E
S
E
13
2
N
D
A
V
E
S
E
W
E
S
T
VALLE
Y
HWY
SW
LAKELAKETAPPSTAPPS
34
34
33
28
32
30
27
24 26
23
37
25
31
35
41
40
39
38
42
43
11
18
15
10
19
22
36
21
5
16
9
12
8 6
17
14
2
20
3
4
1
13
18
18
167
167
Information shown is for general reference purposes only and does not necessarily represent exact geographic or cartographic data as mapped. The City of Auburn makes no warranty as to its accuracy.
Auburn Transportation Plan
Hydrology
Streams
Lakes and Rivers
Political Boundaries
City of Auburn
Surrounding Cities
King and Pierce Counties
Projects
Project Group A
Project Group B
Project Group C
Transportation
Arterials
Highways
Locals Printed On: 7/25/2012Map ID: 4035
Roadway Improvement AlternativesFigure 2-6
01,0002,0003,0004,0005,000
FEET
29
Sources: City of Auburn, King County
3 7 t h W a y
132nd
Ave
37th St
304th St
316th St 316th St
56th
Ave
56
t
h
A
v
e
2 84th Pl
3 7 t h St
1
2
4
t
h
A
v
c
t
296th St
304th W ay
56
th Pl
288th St
284th St
37th S t
124th
Ave
112
t
h
Pl
28 4t h S t
37th Pl
132nd
Ave
112th
Ave
284th S t
296t h S t
288th St
304th St
112th
Ave
124th
Ave
Auburn Ave
Auburn
Way
321st StPea
s
l
e
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Rd
Military
Rd 1st Ave
17th St
Main St
312th St
Jovita
Blvd
8t h S t
Stewart Rd
Tapps Hwy
Ellingson Rd
R
St
Milwaukee
Blvd
Pacific
Ave
3rd Ave
8th St
12th St
9th St
182nd
A
ve
51st
Ave
272
n
d
S
t
320th St
V
a
ll
e
y
H
w
y
Die
ringe
r
H
wy
V
a
l
l
ey
Hwy
15th St
277th St
Valley
Hwy
Green
River Rd
15 t h S t
H
arvey
R
d
3 31st S t
2
1
0th
A
v
e
24th St
34 2nd S t
8th St
Lake Holm Rd
R
St
94th
P
l
214th
Ave
1 6 t h S t
307th Pl
122nd
Ave
4
6
t
h
P
l
1
05
th
P
l
Kersey Way
M
St
L e a H ill Rd
104th
Ave
55th
A
v
e
A
St
A
St
C
S t
UV164
UV167
UV18
UV18
UV516
UV167
City Signal
XW PED Signal
!.WSDOT SignalCounty Signal
Existing ITS Corridor
Future ITS CorridorCity Limits00.5
Miles
°
Auburn Transportation Plan
Intelligent TransportationSystems
Figure 2-7