HomeMy WebLinkAboutCTP_Final_2012 Chpt 3-7.pdfComprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-1
CHAPTER 3.
NON-MOTORIZED
TRANSPORTATION
Non-motorized transportation is an integral
component of Auburn’s transportation
system. Non-motorized travel includes
walking, bicycling, and equestrian travel, as
well as emerging modes. The City seeks to
enhance the non-motorized travel
environment both for recreational travel and
trips that might otherwise be taken via a car
or bus in order to improve mobility and
environmental health.
The City recognizes that the evolution of the
transportation system has favored the
automobile as a mode of travel. A side effect
of this process has been the erosion of
conditions favorable to non-motorized travel.
This chapter seeks to expand travel choices
by fostering conditions in which non-
motorized modes are a realistic and attractive
travel option.
Planning and developing a strong non-
motorized network supports several state and
national acts, including Washington’s Growth
Management Act, Clean Air Act, and
Commute Trip Reduction Act, and the
federal Clean Air Act, the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (SAFETEA-LU) and its successors.
Supporting the non-motorized system helps
ensure compliance with these initiatives and
the healthy community principles espoused
by PSRC through the Destination 2030 update
process and Vision 2040. It also increases
funding opportunities for City projects.
This chapter is divided into three subsections:
pedestrian travel, bicycle travel, and
equestrian travel. Each subsection contains
an assessment of existing conditions and
needs, followed by guidelines for
development of the future system.
3.1 Pedestrian Travel
As an urban center, the City encourages
transportation planning that emerges from a
clear land-use plan based on a community
vision. In this vision, Auburn supports
higher density housing in the downtown;
neighborhood commercial districts; and
landscaped, pedestrian-oriented street and
sidewalk design. This pattern of development
reinforces a positive pedestrian environment.
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Auburn has many assets, which contribute to
a welcoming pedestrian environment, most
notably a pedestrian-scaled downtown and an
extensive network of parks and trails. The
Riding on the Interurban Trail
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-2
needs assessment highlights these existing
assets and identifies improvement needs.
EXISTING PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT
As a whole, Auburn’s urban fabric in the
downtown has remained intact and supports
a positive pedestrian environment.
Businesses, shops, and single-family homes
front streets with sidewalks and street trees.
However, over time surface parking lots have
replaced some of these buildings, leaving
large expanses of asphalt in portions of the
downtown. These environments tend to
discourage walking. In addition, some of the
older sections of sidewalks need repair or
replacement.
Since adoption of the 1997 Transportation Plan,
there have been improvements to Main
Street, the B Street SE Plaza, and pedestrian
improvements behind the shops on East
Main Street. In addition, the new Sounder
commuter rail station and transit hub at West
Main Street and C Street SW provide
pedestrians more options for connecting to
regional destinations. These improvements
contribute to a more hospitable environment
for pedestrians.
Commercial development outside the
downtown exists primarily along arterials and
is dominated by strip development and auto-
oriented businesses. Although sidewalks are
provided on most arterials, pedestrians may
feel exposed to the traffic. Surface parking
lots border the sidewalks, and driveways
interrupt the continuity of the sidewalk
system. The heavy volumes of vehicular
traffic and wide streets along arterials, such as
Auburn Way, pose a barrier for pedestrians
walking along or crossing the roadway. Two
particularly problematic locations are the
midblock crossing between Dogwood Street
SE and Hemlock Street SE at Auburn Way
South, and 26th Street NE at Auburn Way
North.
Sidewalk Inventory
A sidewalk inventory was conducted as part
of the Plan update in 2005. A subsequent
inventory was conducted in 2008 to collect
sidewalk data for the West Hill and Lea Hill
areas that annexed into the City in 2008. The
inventory identifies sidewalks in the City, as
shown in Figure 3-1. The inventory also rates
their condition. This inventory will help the
City identify problem areas and program
improvements according to prioritization
guidelines, outlined later in this chapter. The
following paragraphs describe the survey and
other findings.
The older residential neighborhoods tend to
have sidewalks on both sides of the street, but
they vary widely in condition and
construction standards. Some residential
areas, such as southwest Lea Hill, were built
under King County’s jurisdiction and
sidewalk construction was not required.
Breaks in the sidewalk network require
pedestrians to maneuver around parked cars,
into private yards, or into the street. In newer
neighborhoods such as Lakeland Hills,
Crosswalk with Pedestrian Refuge
3rd Street NW at Auburn Post Office
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-3
sidewalks built to current standards are
provided on both sides of the street.
The sidewalk survey of the Lea Hill and West
Hill annexation areas reveals a sporadic and
often disconnected sidewalk system. Several
of the newer residential developments have
sidewalks, but many of the older residential
areas and arterial streets are missing large
segments of sidewalk, resulting in a poor
pedestrian environment.
Trail Network
Auburn’s developing trail network provides
local and regional connections for
recreational use, commuting and travel in
general. Currently the only regional trails that
have been developed include the Interurban
and portions of the Green River and White
River Trails. The Lakeland Hills Trail
provides residents in the neighborhood a
connection to Sunset Park. Figure 3-1
summarizes the existing pedestrian infra-
structure within the Auburn city limits.
SCHOOL ACCESSIBILITY
School safety is a major concern for parents,
students, the school districts, and the City
alike. The Auburn School District, working
with an advisory committee, has established a
safe walking area for each elementary and
middle school based on the presence of
sidewalks, walking paths, and safe
neighborhood streets, as well as the
availability of safe street crossings and the
traffic conditions in the surrounding
neighborhoods. All routes within the safe
walking areas are designated as ‘Safe Routes
to School’. Occasionally, individual schools
will notify parents and students of preferred
walking routes within each area.
Recently, several safety improvements have
been made to Safe Walking Routes
throughout Auburn. Olympic Middle School
now has a non-motorized path on H Street
SE adjacent to the school, flashing beacons
on 17th Street SE and 21st Street SE, as well as
new crosswalks at several locations. These
improvements were made possible by a Safe
Routes to School grant. The City has also
been steadily working on placing flashing
beacons on Safe Walking Routes for public
schools in Auburn. The flashing beacons
have been funded through a combination of
grant programs and City resources.
Despite the progress that has been made over
the past several years, there are still areas of
need. The following issues and needs were
identified to enhance and improve the safety
for school children in and around the school
safe walking areas.
Cascade Middle School
The crossing at M Street NE and 24th Street
NE experiences heavy traffic. The City and
school district are working to increase the
safety of this crossing near the school.
Dick Scobee Elementary School
The “River Bend” or “River View” neigh-
borhood has indirect access to the school as
pedestrians must exit the neighborhood to
the east via Riverview Drive, the opposite
direction of the school. Furthermore, heavy
vehicular traffic on 22nd Street NE makes it
unsafe to cross M Street NE at that
intersection. The School District is exploring
ways to improve access and make the
neighborhood part of the school’s safe
walking area. One possible solution would be
to obtain an easement and construct a
pedestrian path from the neighborhood to
14th Street NE. Pedestrian improvements are
also needed along K Street NE from Harvey
Road NE to 14th Street NE.
Pioneer Elementary School
K Street SE, located behind the school, has
poor drainage. During the rainy season, an
area between the school building and the road
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-4
floods, blocking the school entrance with
water. This area is part of the designated safe
walking area, and the flooding prohibits 50 to
75 students from accessing their
walking route to and from school on rainy
days.
Terminal Park Elementary School
There is a natural tendency for kids to walk
from Terminal Park Elementary to Holy
Family School and Olympic Middle School.
A pedestrian trail that connects these three
schools would provide a direct route for
pedestrians.
Evergreen Heights Elementary School
The area around Evergreen Heights
Elementary School, including S. 316th Street,
56th Avenue S., and 51st Avenue S., has
incomplete pedestrian facilities. In addition,
residents have noted that South 316th Street
needs improved speed enforcement.
Hazelwood Elementary School
Sections of SE 304th Street near Hazelwood
Elementary School are missing sidewalks.
Lea Hill Elementary School
There is a need for sidewalks along 124th Ave
SE north of SE 310th Street, and along SE
312th St in vicinity of 124th Ave SE.
Mountain View High School
There is a need for sidewalks along 124th Ave
SE where missing near school, especially
between SE 288th St and SE 304th St, and
along 132nd Ave SE between SE 288th St
and SE 299th St.
Auburn will continue to work with the
Auburn School District, and other school
districts within its limits and potential
annexation areas to improve school walk
routes.
Riverside High School & Ilalko Elementary
While they are not within the Safe Walking
Route areas, students on the north side of the
White River attend both Riverside High
School and Ilalko Elementary. The
completion of a White River/A Street SE
pedestrian crossing would greatly benefit
student at these two schools. Currently, the
closest route to reach these two schools
requires children to walk north to
41st/Ellingson Road.
ACCESSIBLE ROUTES OF TRAVEL
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
requires that all new public, commercial and
institutional developments meet ADA
standards. Furthermore, existing public
buildings, public outdoor facilities, and public
rights-of-way shall be retrofitted to achieve
accessibility. An accessible route of travel is
designated to accommodate the needs of
many different people, including those who
are blind, using wheelchairs, pushing a stroller
or cart, or injured. The law requires that
municipalities have a transition plan in place
to address ADA issues. The City of Auburn
details the ADA design specifications in the
Auburn Engineering Design Standards manual.
Safe Walking Route to School
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-5
SITE DESIGN
Pedestrian conditions should be evaluated at
the earliest stage of new development. The
zone between the development and the
public right-of-way needs to contribute to
pedestrian network connectivity and
continuity. In addition to the public right-of-
way, the interior of the site ought to be
examined for suitable pedestrian circulation.
Wherever possible, walkways should be
placed along the most direct routes to
connect buildings, parking, bus stops, and
other attractions. In some cases, walking trails
that link residential streets to collectors or
arterials can provide a more direct pedestrian
connection than travel along the sidewalk
network, particularly in neighborhoods
without a street grid system.
FUTURE SYSTEM
This section describes the City’s vision for the
future pedestrian system and identifies
programs and initiatives that will enable it to
achieve this vision.
DOWNTOWN
The downtown is historically the social heart
of the community, a place for people to
interact. It is considered one of the primary
pedestrian-oriented areas in the City.
Important existing pedestrian downtown
linkages include connections from W Main
Street to the transit hub and commuter rail
station, and between W Main Street and the
Auburn Regional Medical Center. The
Downtown Plan, a special area plan adopted in
2001 as part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan,
anticipates high pedestrian oriented
developments in this area, particularly around
the Auburn Transit Center. The Downtown
Plan also identifies W Main Street, A Street
SW, Division Street, and the alley south of
Main Street as high priority pedestrian
corridors. In addition, several recently
ADA Standards
The ADA has several requirements to help
ensure ease of access for all non-motorized
travelers, including those in wheelchairs and
motorized scooters. Some of these
requirements are as follows.
In most cases, a minimum 3-foot wide
clear zone must be provided along a
route with obstacles.
Railings should be between 34” and
38”. If children are the primary users
of a facility, a 2nd set of handrails, no
taller than 28”, should be installed.
Generally, grades along an accessible
route walking path should not exceed
1:20 or 5%. Ramp slopes should not
exceed 1:12 or 8.33% in new facilities.
If a designated accessible route has a
grade greater than 5%, it is considered
a ramp and must have handrails and
landings.
Source: ADA and Architectural Barriers Act
(ABA) Guidelines, http://www.access-
board.gov, 2004.
*Note these standards change regularly and
should be confirmed before applying them to a
sitedesign.
West Main Street, Downtown Auburn
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-6
completed projects have helped improve
non-motorized access to the downtown and
transit station, including the West Main Street
Streetscape project, completed in 2007, and
the A Street SE Pedestrian Improvement
project, designed to improve ADA access
under the railroad bridge just north of 6th
Street SE and completed in 2009.
A Downtown Circulation planning process is
also underway. This effort will provide
guidance for further enhancement of the
pedestrian and bicycling environment in
downtown Auburn.
The Sound Transit commuter rail station and
transit hub have created demand for new
mixed-use development, including retail and
living spaces. The City is committed to
focusing new commercial and residential
development within walking distance of the
transit hub and has been working on
partnerships to bring several mixed-use
developments to the downtown core. These
development provide an opportunity to
establish pedestrian friendly design,
streetscape improvements (including street
furniture), and improved street crossings
along streets exterior to, and within the
development.
In order to create a foundation for the
anticipated downtown revitalization, it is vital
to have a pedestrian network that extends
beyond the downtown in place.
COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS
Auburn has several commercial corridors,
most notably Auburn Way North and South,
that are frequently traveled by pedestrians.
While most of these areas have sidewalks,
there is the opportunity to enhance the
pedestrian environment. For instance,
pedestrian crossing issues arise because
pedestrians often cross at unsignalized
locations rather than walking to the nearest
signalized crossing. This dynamic is partially
attributable to the location of bus stops in
relation to employment centers. Hence,
efforts should be made to locate bus stops so
commuters crossing to the opposite side of
the road are dropped off and picked up near a
signalized intersection. Likewise, the City
should encourage major employers to locate
near transit routes and stops. Furthermore,
pedestrian connections from residential areas
to commercial corridors can be enhanced
through site design policies that encourage
more direct non-motorized connections to
major retail locations. Future planning along
commercial corridors should also include
amenities such as landscaping adjacent to the
sidewalk, improved pedestrian crossings, and
enhanced bus stops at high use locations.
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
Investment in Auburn’s neighborhoods is an
essential component of providing a
comprehensive and functional pedestrian
network. As noted in the needs assessment,
sidewalk conditions vary throughout the City.
This plan acknowledges the need to retrofit
the pedestrian network in many areas of the
City and incorporate pedestrian facilities into
new development. Financial mechanisms to
help accomplish this goal are described later
in this chapter.
LEA HILL AND WEST HILL AREAS
The Lea Hill and West Hill areas were
annexed into the City of Auburn in 2008.
Because these areas were developed largely
under a county rural standard, many of the
streets are lacking pedestrian facilities,
resulting in a disconnected pedestrian system
that has both safety and quality of life
repercussions. A sidewalk inventory was
conducted in Lea Hill and West Hill in 2008
to identify gaps in the sidewalk network and
help the City prioritize areas for targeted
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-7
investment. Refer to Figure 3-1 to view
existing sidewalks.
HIGH PRIORITY PEDESTRIAN CORRIDORS
Figure 3-2 identifies High Priority Pedestrian
Corridors that are currently lacking a
complete sidewalk system. Some of the
corridors have sidewalks on one side or for
portions of the corridor. Others are missing
sidewalks altogether.
These High Priority Pedestrian Corridors
were selected based on the following criteria:
pedestrian volumes; proximity to schools,
parks, transit routes and commercial areas;
and where missing gaps can be completed.
The High Priority Pedestrian Corridors are
roadway corridors where the City intends to
target investment in pedestrian facilities. The
City’s current half street policy requires
sidewalk to be installed by developers
whenever significant improvements are made
to a property. This has proven to be an
effective means of building out the sidewalk
network. However, it is a slow process
because it relies on new development or
redevelopment to occur, making it difficult to
complete whole corridors. By programming
specific pedestrian corridors for investment,
the City can leverage grant dollars and other
resources to more strategically complete gaps
in key pedestrian corridors.
The High Priority Pedestrian Corridors
identified in Figure 3-2 should be reviewed
regularly for inclusion in the City’s Six-Year
Transportation Improvement Program and
for grant funding opportunities.
AUBURN PARKS, RECREATION & OPEN SPACE
PLAN 2005
The Auburn Parks, Recreation & Open Space
Plan identifies specific projects for the
development of local and regional trails. The
Auburn-Pacific trail will provide a multi-use
path that improves access from the White
River to downtown. A planned pedestrian
crossing, under the BNSF railroad tracks just
north of the White River Bridge, will improve
the regional trail system by providing a
connection to the City of Pacific.
Funding is still needed for the White River
Trail connection to A Street SE and the north
Auburn section of the Green River Trail.
Private development may help fund a portion
of the two-mile segment of the Green River
Trail.
Planning efforts are also focused on the Mill
Creek Corridor/Auburn Environmental Park
and southeast trails. This park project will
introduce residents to the ecosystem along
the creek. More detail on all of these efforts
can be found in the Trails chapter of the
Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan.
An important component of Auburn’s trail
system includes trailheads. Trailheads should
be inviting to users and provide amenities
such as parking, bicycle racks, information
Auburn Multi-Use Trail
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-8
kiosks, restroom facilities, water fountains,
trash receptacles, and seating facilities.
Trailheads should be constructed and
improved as Auburn’s trail system further
develops. See Figure 3-4 for existing and
proposed trails and trailhead locations.
FUNDING MECHANISMS
Sidewalk Improvement Program
The City of Auburn developed the Sidewalk
Improvement Program in 2004 to repair
existing sidewalks and complete missing links
in the sidewalk network. These funds are
essential for promoting non-motorized travel
and can be used to leverage other funding
sources, such as state and federal grants.
Auburn has identified three principal areas in
which sidewalk improvements should be
prioritized: corridors that provide access to
and within the downtown, school zones,
and parks. Additional criteria for priority
access improvement could include, but are
not limited to, areas with high concentrations
of senior citizens or disabled citizens, areas
with high volumes of pedestrian-transit
interaction, and areas where property owners
are willing to financially participate in the
construction of sidewalk improvements
through a local improvement district (LID).
The selection of future sidewalk
improvements relies on a hierarchy of
existing conditions. The call-out box lists
some key conditions that will be considered
when prioritizing projects.
“Save Our Streets” Program
In November 2004, Auburn residents
approved Proposition 1, “Save Our Street”
Program, which creates a dedicated local
street fund. This money will be set aside for
repair and maintenance of local roadways. In
addition, priority will be given to improving
street crossings that are identified as safe
walking routes to schools or are near essential
public facilities. Projects under this program
may also include enhanced pedestrian and
bicycle facilities on or near roadways under
repair.
“Arterial Streets” Program
With the success of the “Save Our Streets”
Program for residential streets, the City is
reviewing the potential of implementing a
similar program for arterial streets. Pedestrian
amenities and safety improvements would be
included in many of the arterial improvement
projects funded by such a program.
Local Improvement Districts
Local Improvement Districts (LID) enable
city investment in a specified area by
leveraging city funds with contributions from
property owners in the district. LID’s use
limited city resources to improve
neighborhood quality and can be used to
finance new sidewalks.
Sidewalks will be prioritized:
Where hazardous conditions are
present;
On school walk routes;
Where extensive improvements are
needed in a single neighborhood;
Along streets with curb and gutter;
Along Downtown pedestrian
corridors;
Where curb ramps are missing; and
Where they will complete a missing
link in a pedestrian network.
Where property owners are willing to
financially participate in the
construction of sidewalk
improvements through an LID.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-9
SAFETY EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT
Awareness of pedestrian safety issues should
be promoted through educational programs
and enforcement efforts. This combination
helps reinforce key safety issues such as safe
pedestrian crossings and speeding. The City
will proactively work to identify problem
areas and issues. The following list contains
examples of some techniques that can be
employed in these efforts.
Establishing non-motorized travel
information kiosks at key City destinations
(e.g. Main Street, Supermall, Emerald Downs,
trails).
Displaying educational information in City
publications, on the website, and on TV.
Developing wayfinding signage to direct
pedestrians and bicyclists.
Partnering with the School District to teach
children safe walking and biking behaviors.
Launching public information campaigns for
problematic locations and partnering with the
Police Department to provide enforcement.
Increasing driver awareness of vehicle speeds
through the presence of radar speed signs and
photo enforcement in school zones.
Enforcing pedestrian, bicyclist, and driver
infractions, and posting signage to reinforce
this priority.
3.2 Bicycle Travel
Bicycle facilities are an important component
of Auburn’s transportation and recreational
infrastructure. Bicycling provides a clean,
non-motorized form of transportation and
allows citizens to maintain a healthy lifestyle.
It also helps improve traffic congestion and
air quality by providing an alternative to
driving. Increasingly, bicycle commuting is
becoming a more popular alternative, and the
City must take steps to provide a more
functional and attractive network for
commute cyclists, in addition to recreational
cyclists.
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The topography in many parts of Auburn is
flat and conducive to cycling for a range of
skill levels. Areas along the Green and White
Rivers provide recreational opportunities for
multi-use trails that support bicyclists,
pedestrians and equestrians. The Interurban
Trail is part of a major north-south regional
trail system. The Green River trail is also an
extension of a north-south regional trail.
Therefore, Auburn has a good network of
existing or planned north-south recreational
trails. However, there are few existing cross-
town connections and new connections onto
the West Hill and Lea Hill are needed.
Recreational and commuter cyclists travel
along the Interurban Trail to areas north and
south of Auburn. Cyclists also frequently ride
along S 277th to the east side of Green River
Road, and down along the Green River to 8th
Street NE, or down R Street NE to SE
Auburn Black Diamond Road. SE Auburn
Black Diamond Road and SE Green Valley
Road are popular routes for accessing areas
east of Auburn. However, these roads are
characterized by dangerous cycling conditions
and are not suitable for inexperienced cyclists.
Also, once in Auburn, there is no clear
direction for traveling within and through the
City.
Bicycle lanes are extremely limited on city
arterials and collectors, making it difficult
both for regional and local riders to navigate
for any reasonable distance through the City.
Limited bicycle storage is also a hindrance to
cyclists. Figure 3-3 identifies existing trails
and bike lanes in the City.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-10
AUBURN BICYCLE TASK FORCE
In March 2010, Mayor Peter Lewis formed
the City of Auburn Bicycle Task Force.
Mayor Lewis intended that the Bicycle Task
Force would further develop and refine
develop the City’s goals and policies for its
bicycle transportation system, The Task
Force was comprised of a broad cross
section of community members and
interested parties that were charged to
develop recommendations on bicycle
facilities, issues and opportunities centered on
the following three principles:
Connections – As an example how do
bicycle riders get from the north end to the
south end of the City or from Lakeland to
Lea Hill?
Recreation Opportunities – As an example,
how does the City further build and capitalize
on a bicycle network to support and enhance
the recreation options for its citizens?
Economic Development – As an example,
how does the City capitalize on the
Interurban Trail as a conduit of customers for
existing and new businesses?
The Bicycle Task Force was comprised of
twelve individuals plus representatives from
Auburn School District, Green River
Community College and Cascade Bicycle
Club that were invited to be part of Task
Force. The Task Force met a total of 14 times
between April 2010 and November 2010
including a three hour community tour on
Saturday, July 24, 2010 and a joint meeting
with Auburn Tourism Board and Auburn
Downtown Association on August 12, 2010.
The Committee worked on a variety of issues
including mapping of bicycle facilities and
identification of bicycle related projects and
priorities.
On November 29, 2010, the Task Force’s
recommendations were presented at an
Auburn City Council Committee of the
Whole meeting. The Task Force presented
both short-term and long-term
recommendations consisting of:
Short-Term Recommendations:
1. Use Sharrows1/Share The Road signage
in residential and some non-residential
areas of City.
2. Implement a pilot program concept for
Sharrows/Share the Road consisting of:
a. 18-24 month program period
b. Pre-established performance
measurements
c. Pre-established reporting protocols
d. Future policy consideration
opportunity for City Council
3. Continue installation of bike lanes in parts
of City where there is existing/adequate
right-of-way.
4. Develop Auburn specific bicycle signage
program to highlight corridors,
connectors and in-city/out of city
destinations.
1Sharrows also known as shared lane markings, are
on-street legends that reinforce the existing rules of
the road. They are not separate bike lanes: a motorist
can still drive over the sharrows. Motorists should
expect to see and share the lane with bicyclists.
Sharrows indicate to bicyclists the best place to ride
in the lane. Sharrows are typically used in locations
where the roadway width is not adequate to provide
dedicated bike facilities or on downhill lanes where
bicyclists might travel a similar speed as motor
vehicles.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-11
5. Make improvements to existing
Interurban Trail – signage, pavement
conditions, vegetation maintenance, grade
crossings, and upgrades to user facilities
at Main Street crossing.
Long-Term Recommendations:
1. Develop capital improvement program
project with cost estimate for design and
construction of bicycle/pedestrian bridge
at southern terminus of M St. west of
existing Stuck River Vehicle Bridge.
2. Develop capital improvement program
project with cost estimate for design and
construction of innovative and safe
pedestrian/bicycle crossing at M
St./Auburn Way South intersection.
3. Install one or more bike boxes2 through
“pilot program” approach to test
effectiveness and public response –
possible locations West Main Street/C
Street intersection, M Street/Auburn Way
South intersection, Ellingson Rd/A Street
intersection.
4. Install bicycle/pedestrian crossing
warning systems along Interurban Trail at
all crossing locations – 277th, 37th St. NW,
West Main St. and 15th St. SW.
5. Develop an official Auburn Bike Map.
In addition, the Bicycle Task Force presented
the City Council with bicycle oriented
economic development recommendations
including:
Develop the Auburn Sounder Station as
“starting point” for bike club rides.
2 Bike Boxes are a traffic control device at signalized
intersections that require motorists to stop a short
distance before the crosswalk and allow bicyclists to
stop in the area between the cars and the crosswalk.
Bicycle boxes give bicyclists priority by allowing
them to go to the head of the line.
Rally the Auburn Downtown Association
and Auburn Tourism Board to develop
business support for bicycle riders/create
bike-friendly businesses.
Create the perception of Auburn as
“Bicycle City of South King County”.
Use social media to advertise Auburn as
bicycle friendly community.
Connect with different types of bicycle
organizations about bicycling
opportunities in Auburn,
Establish an annual bike event in Auburn
similar to Redmond Criterium and
Enumclaw Days that offer bike awareness
and other events such as time trials, road
races and multiple terrain racing.
Develop an annual road race on Auburn
streets – work with promoters to have
different levels of road racing to appeal to
multiple types of riders.
Establish tie ins with bicycle racing events
at Pacific Raceway like weekly criterium
races, mountain biking and Cyclocross.
Following the presentation of its
recommendations to the Auburn City
Council, the Auburn Bicycle Task Force has
continued to meet and work with City staff
and the City of Auburn Transportation, Trails
and Transit Committee to further refine and
develop its recommendations.
BICYCLE FACILITY CLASSIFICATION
The American Association of State Highway
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has
developed classifications for bicycle facilities
and parking. Bicycle classification is based on
the design and exclusiveness of use.
Class I multi-use trails that allow bicycles
include the Interurban, White River, and
Green River Trails. Some Class II bicycle
lanes are located at:
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-12
Table 3-1 Existing Bicycle Facilities
Facility Potential
Primary Users
Mileage within
City Limits
Hard-surface Trail Bicyclists
Pedestrians 28.5 miles
Soft-surface Trail
Equestrians
Off-road Cyclists
Pedestrians
2.17 miles
On-street Bike Lane Bicyclists 7 miles
S 277th Street, between the West Valley Hwy
and B Street NW;
22nd Street NE between I and M Streets NE;
12th and 17th Street SE between A Street SE
and Auburn Way;
S 21st Street SE between A Street SE and R
Street SE;
29th Street SE/Riverwalk Drive SE between
A St. SE and 28th St. SE; and
Terrace Drive.
Bike parking facilities are classified by length
of use: long term, medium term, and short
term. The longer bikes are to be stored, the
more durable the facility’s design must be.
Bike storage facilities are located at only a few
locations throughout the City. These include
the transit center, which provides 12 bike
rack spaces and eight spots in the lockers.
Table 3-1 lists existing bicycle facilities; Figure
3-3 identifies facility locations.
IMPROVEMENT NEEDS
Cyclists desire safe routes that make
connections throughout the City and to
regional points of interests. The existing
facilities fall short of creating a bicycle
network in Auburn. They are isolated from
one another. If unfamiliar with the terrain
and/or unskilled, cyclists may find it difficult
to bike through Auburn.
Bicycle Facility Classification
Separate Facility (Class I) – A non-
motorized facility, paved or unpaved,
that is physically separated from
motorized vehicular traffic by an open
space or barrier. It is sometimes referred
to as a Bicycle Path, Bike Trail, Non-
motorized Trail, Multi-purpose Trail or
some combination thereof.
Bike Lane (Class II) – A portion of a
roadway that is designated by striping,
signing, and pavement markings for
preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists.
Typically these lanes are located outside
of the vehicle travel lane.
Bike Route (Class III) – A segment of
road designated by the jurisdiction with
appropriate directional and informational
markers, but without striping, signing and
pavement markings for the preferential
or exclusive use of bicyclists.
Bike Friendly (Class IV) – A roadway not
designated by directional and
informational markers, striping, signing,
or pavement markings for the
preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists,
but containing appropriate bicycle-
friendly design standards such as wide
curb lanes and bicycle safe drain grates.
Source: Engineering Design Standards Manual,
City of Auburn
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-13
The City plans to build out the bicycle
network and provide better east-west
connections. Upgrading bicycle facilities on
city streets is an important component of this
plan.
Auburn shall make greater efforts in the
future to encourage bicycle use, particularly
for commuting purposes, as a form of
transportation demand management (TDM).
One mechanism of doing so is to encourage
major employers to locate near trails and
bicycle routes, and to provide facilities
conducive to bicycling to work. Also, the
City needs to take a more aggressive role in
programming implementation of the future
bicycle network identified in this chapter,
ensuring that eventually all residents of and
employees in Auburn feel comfortable
commuting on bike. In addition, Auburn
should seek outlets, including the City’s
website, to provide up-to-date information on
bicycling options within the City and to
regional destinations.
The Commute Trip Reduction (CTR)
program provides a formal mechanism for
encouraging these practices and is required by
state law for employers with 100 or more
employees arriving at a single location during
the AM peak. Auburn’s CTR program calls
out bicycle storage facilities, lockers, changing
areas, and showers as measures employers
can take to meet CTR goals. In addition,
Auburn can use the SEPA process to
encourage development of these facilities at
the time of new development or tenant
improvements.
The Downtown Plan also discusses the need for
improving bicycle facilities in the area. On-
street bicycle facilities will be sought in
association with planned roadway
improvements. In addition, the City should
investigate providing bicycle storage and
other amenities on city owned properties.
The Auburn Bicycle Task Force working with
staff representatives from the City Public
Works Department identified and inventoried
a series of bicycle facility improvements.
These improvements and associated issues
and opportunities are presented in Table 3-2,
Priority Bicycle Facilities Inventory.
FUTURE TRAVEL
The future bicycle network includes corridors
for regional, recreational, and cross-town
connections. The regional corridors will
provide connections to the Valley
communities as well other areas of King and
Pierce Counties. Local biking groups have
identified the Interurban Trail and Green
River Trail as important regional connections.
Other planned regional connections will link
Auburn to attractions around the Puget
Sound Region including Mount Rainer, the
Port of Tacoma, and the Cities of Seattle and
Woodinville.
The Green and White River corridors are
multi-functional, providing recreational
opportunities for regional and local bicycle
trips. Therefore, the City has prioritized the
completion of both these trail systems. Also,
Auburn will seek to enhance portions of City
trail systems whenever possible, by providing
amenities for non-motorized travelers such as
rest areas, as well as safety improvements
The Work is Easier when Shared
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-14
including warning signage and grade
separated trails. Additional cross-town
connections that complete the bicycle
network will consist of local trails and on-
road facilities linking Auburn's
neighborhoods.
The bicycle routes identified for future
development link to existing multi-use trails
and bike lanes. The R Street corridor from
Auburn Black Diamond Road to 12th Street
SW will provide a north-south connection
between the Terminal Park neighborhood
and other future bicycle lanes linking to the
downtown and North Auburn. A future
connection between Auburn Black Diamond
Road and Auburn Way S is also proposed.
The future Bonneville Power Trail will be a
separated, hard surfaced trail crossing the Lea
Hill area and connecting to the Interurban
Trail and West Hill via on-street bicycle
facilities. Numerous other on-street bicycle
facilities and trails are planned. They are all
identified in Figure 3-4, found at the end of
this chapter.
The Auburn Bicycle Task Force identified a
future bicycle system based on the concepts
of corridors and connectors. The Bicycle
Task Force defines corridors as north/south
bicycle facilities and connectors as east/west
bicycle facilities. These corridors and
connectors are identified in Figure 3-5, found
at the end of this chapter. The Bicycle Task
Force’ corridors and connectors are intended
to promote cross town and regional travel
and connections as specified below:
Corridors:
West Valley Corridor – 29th Street NW to
Peasley Canyon Rd S
North – 15th Street NW, Terrace Drive NW,
West Hill, Federal Way via Peasley Canyon
or Mountain View Drive, Emerald Downs,
Interurban Trail
South - – 15th Street NW, Terrace Drive
NW, West Hill, Federal Way via Peasley
Canyon or Mountain View Drive,
Interurban Trail
F Street/Les Gove Corridor – East Main
Street to Les Gove/12th Street SE
North – downtown Auburn,
Main Street connector
South – Les Gove Community
Campus, South End M Street
corridor
A/B Street Corridor – 37th Street NW to
Main Street
North – North end businesses/industrial
parks, Interurban Trail, Kent
South – Downtown Auburn, Auburn
Regional Medical Center, City Services,
Main Street connector
R Street NE/I Street NE Corridor – Main
Street to 37th Street NE
North – Lea Hill, North Auburn
communities, Brandon Park, Green River
Community College, other
connectors/corridors
South – Downtown Auburn, south end
Auburn, Lea Hill, North Auburn
communities, Brandon Park, Green River
Community College, other
connectors/corridors
C Street Trail – 15th Street SW Corridor –
Ellingson Road to 15th Street SW at
Interurban Trail
North – Interurban Trail connection,
YMCA, SuperMall, Algona, Pacific,
Tacoma, Seattle, Kent
South – A Street SE-Lakeland Hills
Corridor, Lakeland Hills community, South
Auburn
South End M Street Corridor – E Main
Street down M Street to 37th Street SE to
Ellingson Rd SW
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-15
South – Les Gove Park, Game Farm Park,
other connectors to South Auburn
communities
North – Game Farm Park, Les Gove Park,
Downtown Auburn
Kersey Way SE Corridor – M Street/33rd
up Kersey Way to Randall Ave SE up to 9th
Street
South – Bonney Lake, Sumner, East Lake
Tapps, Buckley, connecting with Stewart
Road Connector
North – Game Farm Park, South End M
Street Corridor, Downtown Auburn, Les
Gove Park
A Street SE –Lakeland Hills Corridor -
Ellingson Rd SW to Lake Tapps Parkway
SE
North – Roegner Park, Lakeland Hills
community
South – Roegner Park, Lakeland Hills
community, Stewart/Lake Tapps Parkway
Connector
Green River Road Corridor – 8th Street NE
to 104th Avenue NE out Green River Road
to 277th
North – Auburn Golf Course, Mary Olson
Farm, Kent, Green River
South - Auburn Golf Course, Mary Olson
Farm, Green River, Issac Jacobs Park,
Downtown Auburn, other
connectors/corridors
124th SE Corridor – GRCC to North City
Limits
North – Kent
South – Green River Community College
Connectors:
Stewart/Lake Tapps Connector - Stewart
Road to Lake Tapps Parkway to 182nd
East – Lakeland Hills, Lakeland Hills Town
Center, Sumner, Bonney Lake, Kersey Way
West – Lakeland Town Center, Pacific,
Sumner, Algona, Edgewood, Tacoma
Riverwalk/Auburn Way South/Enumclaw
Connector - 29th/M Street up Riverwalk to
Dogwood out Auburn Way South
East – Muckleshoot Indian Reservation,
Game Farm Park, White River
Amphitheater, Academy, Enumclaw
West – South end Auburn communities, M
Street corridor, Muckleshoot Indian
Reservation , Game Farm Park, downtown
Auburn
Main Street Connector – R Street to West
Valley
West – Downtown Auburn, Interurban
Trail, Sounder Station, City Services,
Auburn Environmental Park, Auburn
Regional Medical Center, Federal Way,
West Hill
East - Downtown Auburn, Interurban Trail,
Sounder Station, City Services, Auburn
Environmental Park, Auburn Regional
Medical Center, Lea Hill, Green River
Community College, Black Diamond
North 37th Street /West Hill Connector – I
Street to 51st Street
East – North Auburn businesses,
Interurban Trail, West Hill, Emerald
Downs, Kent, North Auburn communities,
West – North Auburn businesses,
Interurban Trail, West Hill, Federal Way
Lea Hill Connector – R Street up Lea Hill
to Hwy 18
East – Green River Community College,
Lea Hill, Pacific Race Ways, Kent, Maple
Valley, Covington
West – Downtown Auburn
North 37th Street /West Hill Connector – I
Street to 51st Street
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-16
East – North Auburn businesses,
Interurban Trail, West Hill, Emerald
Downs, Kent, North Auburn communities
West – North Auburn businesses,
Interurban Trail, West Hill, Federal Way
R Street SE/Auburn Black Diamond Road
Connector – East Main to East City Limits
East – Flaming Geiser State Park, Green
Valley Road, Black Diamond
West – Downtown Auburn
The selection of bike facility projects will be
based upon safety, route continuity and
connectivity issues. In addition to new bicycle
corridors, spot safety improvements are an
important component of the City’s future
bicycle network. Improvements are needed
at 15th Street SW and the Interurban Trail and
C Street SW and Ellingson. In addition, safe
access to downtown Auburn and onto West
Hill and Lea Hill are a priority for the City.
Typical bicycle route improvements along a
Class I facility include purchasing the right-
of-way, designing the trail, and constructing
the trail and trailhead. For a Class II pathway,
improvements include striping lanes,
installing warning and directional signage, and
painting bike symbols on the pavement.
As this plan is updated in the future,
emphasis should continue to be placed on
developing a safe and convenient bicycling
environment for both recreational and
commuter cyclists of all experience levels.
3.3 Equestrian Travel
Auburn citizens have a long history of
supporting the planning and development of
equestrian facilities. The City intends to
increase its network of soft-surface, multi-use
trails in more rural locations with appropriate
facilities suitable for equestrian use.
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Auburn’s equestrian trail system is quite
limited. The Parks Department currently
manages a two-mile, soft-surface trail, along
the White River at Roegner and Game Farm
Wilderness Parks. Otherwise, there are no
formal equestrian trails in Auburn.
Horse owners do have informal access to the
soft-surface path adjacent to the Interurban
trail, as well as large open spaces in the rural
area just south of the White River and east of
Kersey Way in southeast Auburn. To reach
the open areas, many ride along the edge of
roads such as 53rd and 56th Streets SE. These
are narrow roads with gravel shoulders.
Drainage swales run parallel to many portions
of these roads, and while conditions vary,
typically there is a narrow unpaved shoulder
or grassed area alongside the road where
horses can walk.
IMPROVEMENT NEEDS
The lack of equestrian trail miles in the City
and connectivity to regional equestrian
facilities are two areas that need
improvement. As indicated by Table 3-3,
there are currently two-miles of formal
equestrian trails in the City. This is a barrier
to most equestrians, particularly those
bringing horses via trailer. In order to
become a more equestrian friendly
community, Auburn must undertake planning
Table 3-3 Existing Equestrian Facilities
Facility Potential
Primary Users
Within
Auburn
City Limits
Within
Auburn
PAA
Soft-
surface
Trail
Equestrians
Off-road Cyclists
Pedestrians
2.17 miles 2 miles +
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-17
initiatives to expand the current network and
link to regional trails.
Auburn, as a regionally designated Urban
Center, is becoming increasingly urbanized.
As the City continues to urbanize, it will seek
opportunities to include equestrian planning
in its infrastructure improvements. Special
consideration for equestrian facilities should
be given to southeast Auburn and the Lea
Hill potential annexation area as both have
existing equestrian communities.
Loop trail development is one strategy that
can be employed to increase the length of
equestrian trails in Auburn. Loop trails can
be linked to existing linear facilities, thereby
increasing network miles.
Opportunities to expand the equestrian trail
system should be considered in all future
infrastructure planning and development.
Features such as busy arterial streets, steep
slopes and narrow bridges are barriers to
equestrian travel. Hence, equestrian trail
planning should go hand in hand with other
planning activities the City is undertaking.
When planning equestrian trails, other
facilities such as trailer parking and directional
signage must be accommodated.
FUTURE SYSTEM
The southeast Auburn area, south of the
White (Stuck) River and east of Kersey Way,
should be designated as an Equestrian
District. Future development in this area
should be consistent with that designation.
Southeast Auburn is particularly suitable as
an Equestrian District because it contains a
City watershed, shorelines of statewide
significance, and numerous critical areas.
Equestrian trails may be situated near some
of these features, whereas more intense
development may be unsuitable. Equestrian
trails may also be appropriate for parts of Lea
Hill, and should be evaluated as the area
annexes into the City. When locating
equestrian trails along rural roads, it may be
appropriate to maximize trail potential by
constructing a wider shoulder able to
accommodate equestrian travel on one side of
the road.
Members of the equestrian community in
Auburn have emphasized the desire for a trail
connection between Roegner Park and
southeast Auburn. One potential alignment
would be along a route roughly parallel to
Kersey Way and 53rd Street SE. The Parks
Plan identifies this future trail as the Williams
Trail. Potential obstacles include critical area
impacts and right-of-way acquisition. The
topography along Kersey Way includes steep
hillsides and large drainage swales. As trail
planning progresses to a more detailed level,
other alignments should be evaluated.
The equestrian routes identified for future
development are concentrated along the
White River, the Green River, and in the
properties in southeast Auburn that are
owned by public and semi-public
organizations. These routes are identified as
soft-surface, multi-use trails that are suitable
for riding and walking. Construction costs
and the extent of clearing needed are much
less for soft-surface trails than for paved
trails. Some of the soft-surface trails are
proposed to occur in conjunction with a
paved trail. Summaries of trails that are
appropriate for equestrian use are listed in
Table 3-3. Design specifications for
equestrian trails will be incorporated into the
Auburn Engineering Design Standards manual.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-18
3.4 Future Non-motorized
System
Auburn’s future non-motorized system
consists of an interconnected network of
sidewalks, bike lanes, multi-use trails, and
equestrian paths. The list of proposed
projects in Table 3-3 is developed for
planning purposes. Figure 3-4 identifies the
location of the trail projects identified in
Table 3-3 and maps the future trail and
bicycle network.
This network will provide regional,
recreational and citywide connections for a
variety of non-motorized modes. The
completed portions of the Interurban and
Green River Trails connect pedestrians,
cyclists, and equestrians to areas north and
south of Auburn, while the White River Trail
provides for east-west travel. Additional bike
lanes through town and completion of the
paved trail network will guide cyclists safely
to points of interests and through congested
areas of the City.
The establishment of an equestrian district
and trails in the southeast portion of the City
permits more opportunities for equestrian
travel in scenic areas.
Pedestrians will be able to travel more safely
and comfortably with the completion of the
sidewalk network, new crossings and street
lighting, increased driver awareness, and
better street design near schools and
frequently traveled pedestrian locations. The
addition of the BNSF undercrossing, just
north of the White River and west of A Street
SE, will provide safe passage for pedestrians.
A new trail connection along C Street SW will
provide pedestrians and cyclists with a safer
connection to downtown and the Transit
Center.
PROMOTING HEALTHY COMMUNITIES
The City of Auburn envisions a
transportation system that will help promote
healthy community principles by coordinating
land use, the non-motorized transportation
system, and transit in a manner that
encourages walking and bicycling. The Puget
Sound Regional Council has identified several
elements, which contribute to the desirability
of walking, bicycling, and transit use.3
Concentrating complementary uses such as
restaurants, retail and grocery stores
proximate to residences and employment.
Linking neighborhoods by connecting streets,
sidewalks, and trails.
Designing for safe and welcoming pedestrian
and bicycle facilities.
Enhancing transit opportunities and non-
motorized connections to transit facilities.
Reducing and mitigating the effects of
parking.
3 Vision 2040 Update Issue Paper on Health: What’s
Health Got to Do with Growth Management,
Economic Development and Transportation?, Puget
Sound Regional Council, Dec. 2, 2004.
White River Trail
Multi-Use Path
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-19
These principles, many of which can be
promoted by thoughtful transportation
systems planning, encourage healthier
communities by increasing physical activity
and decreasing air pollution caused by vehicle
emissions. Auburn has historically planned
for a transportation system that incorporates
many healthy community principles, such as
transit facility planning and regional trail
planning. In addition, the Downtown Plan calls
for a mixed-use, high density, pedestrian
oriented downtown. In the future, Auburn
shall continue to promote these principles
through long-range planning efforts, capital
facility improvements, development review,
and community activities involving active
lifestyle elements.
IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS
The City has developed policies and identified
funding strategies that will help implement
the future non-motorized network. They can
be found in Chapters 5 and 6 of this plan.
The planning direction outlined in this
chapter shall be used as the foundation for
implementing the non-motorized policies and
securing funding.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-20
Table 3-4 Future Trail and Bicycle Facility Projects
Trail
Name Description Potential
Users
Skinner-
Road/3rd
Avenue
This trail, located within the City of Pacific, will provide connections for users west of the
BNSF railroad to the White River Trail, the Supermall and downtown Auburn via the C
Street trail.
Bicyclists
Pedestrians
Green River
Trail
This paved trail will be part of a regional recreational corridor. King County is the lead
administrator of the project but will work in collaboration with the City for the portion of
the trail in Auburn. The trail alignment will extend along the west bank of the Green
River from S 277tth St., south to Brannan and Dykstra Parks. It will then cross at the
Dykstra Park bridge over to the east bank before crossing back to the west bank at the
Green River beach access. A parallel trail on the east side of the Green River will exist
between S 277th St. and Dykstra Park, also providing a connection to Green River Road.
Two bridges are proposed; one south of the new S 277th St. and one for the Green River
beach access. The trail will end at Auburn Narrows. There may be some technical
difficulties aligning the trail on the east side of the river from S. 277th Street to the 8th
Street NE Bridge. Safety issues will have to be studied further and adequately addressed
during implementation of the trail.
Bicyclists
Equestrians
Pedestrians
Mill Creek
Path
This looped recreational path spurs off the Interurban Trail and will go through the
Auburn Environmental Park.
Off-road Cyclists
Pedestrians
Equestrians,
possibly
White River
Trail
The White River Trail runs along the south side of the White River from Roegner Park to
the eastern edge of Game Farm Park. Future extensions of the trail are planned from A
Street SE to Roegner Park, across the White River via the future BNSF Railroad
underpass, on the south side of the river within the City of Pacific, and from Game Farm
Wilderness Park to southeast Auburn along the White River.
Bicyclists
Equestrians
Off-road Cyclists
Pedestrians
Williams
Trail
These recreational trails are intended to use public or quasi-public lands, including utility
corridors. A variety of loop trails may be possible within this large area.
Bicyclists
Equestrians
Off-road Cyclists
Pedestrians
Bonneville
Power Trail
This east-west trail will extend from Lea Hill to potentially I Street, where it will connect
to West Hill via the 37th Street NW street ROW. There are topographical and
environmental challenges that will need to be addressed during the design phase.
Bicyclists
Pedestrians
Equestrians
Academy
Trail
The portion of Academy Drive from SR 164 to Green Valley Road is permanently closed
to vehicle traffic. However, it has the potential to be re-opened as a multi-use
recreational trail.
Bicyclists
Pedestrians
Equestrians
Lakeland
Hills Trail
This trail connects the growing Lakeland development with Mill Pond Drive and Oravetz
Road. It is unique in Auburn because it passes directly through a residential
neighborhood. A significant portion of the trail is already built; future connections will
allow residents to travel from Oravetz Road to Lake Tapps Parkway and Sunset Park.
Pedestrians
*Refer to Figure 3-4 for the location of future trail projects.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-21
Table 3-2 Priority Bicycle Facilities Inventory
Segment
ID #
Current
Street
Classification
Location R-O-W
Impacts
Existing
Bicycle
Facilities
Proposed Bicycle
Facilities
1 Arterial A St NW 15th St NW
& 3rd St NW None None Striped Bike Lane on one
side of street
2 Non Residential
Collector
Green River Rd
between N City
Limits and 104th Ave
SE and 104th Ave SE
between Green River
Rd and 8th St NW
None None
Sharrows - shoulder to right
wheel well on both sides
install "Share the Road"
signage along street
segment; Improve asphalt
on shoulder on west side
3 Arterial
Lea Hill Rd between
104th Ave SE and
132nd Way SE
None None
Maintain shoulder with bike
signage- preference for uphill
is to move in fog line and
narrow lane to allow for
striped pedestrian/bike lane
4 Arterial
Peasley Canyon
Road to W Valley
Hwy
WSDOT
ROW
impacts
None
Striped bike lanes on both
sides of street - reduce
speed limit to 35 MPH
5 Arterial
M St SE between E
Main St and 37th St
SE
Yes,
significant
ROW
impacts
None north
of 29th St,
Striped bike
lanes
between
29th &
37th.
Striped Bike Lanes on both
sides along entire route;
Need to transition riders at
12th Street/M Street
intersection to help prepare
for safe crossing at 17th
Street/Auburn Way South /M
Street Intersection; 17th
Street realignment project
will close off bike access via
17th - investigate existing
island at M Street/17th
Street
6 Residential
Collector
S 296th St between
51st Ave S and W
Valley Hwy
None None
Sharrows & "Share the
Road" signage on uphill
portion & Sharrows on
shoulder inside of fog line
from 65th to 51st
7 Arterial
15th St NW between
M St NW and
Interurban Trail
WSDOT
ROW
impacts
None Paved bike path on both
sides
8 Arterial E Main St between M
St and R St None None Sharrows and "Share the
Road" signage
9 Arterial
Auburn Way South
between Dogwood
St SE and 32nd St
SE
None None
Directional signage only -
direct onto Dogwood only;
"Share the Road" signage
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-22
10 Residential
Collector
R St NE between 8th
St NE and E Main St None None
Striped bike Lanes on both
sides - possible lane size
reduction/no parking
elimination; 2 bike lanes with
parking on one side
11 Arterial
I St NE to 14th St NE
to Pike St NE
between 37th St NE
and 8th St NE
None None Install bike symbol signs
within bike lanes
12 Arterial
Lakeland Hills Way
between Oravetz Rd
SE and Lake Tapps
Pkwy SE
None None
Sharrows between curb and
fog line and "Share the
Road" signage spaced along
travel route
13 Arterial
10th St NE to 9th St
NE to 8th St NE
between C St NW
and Pike St NE
None None
Sharrows & "Share the
Road" signage along entire
route
14 Non Residential
Collector
4th St NE between
Auburn Ace NE and
M St NE
None None Use existing facilities & install
"Share the Road" signage
15 Arterial
Kersey Way SE
between R St SE and
Lake Tapps Pkwy SE
None None
Tapered road does not allow
for safe bicyclist movements;
need to connect asphalt
sections = short term fix
16 Arterial 37th St NE between
B St NW and I St NE None None Sharrows & "Share the
Road" signage
17 Arterial
8th St NE between R
St NE and 104th Ave
SE
Yes None
Shared pedestrian/bike
sidewalk along south side of
8th Street from R Street to
bridge
18 Residential
Collector
37th St SE between
M St SE and R St SE None None
Need crosswalk across R
Street at 37th Street
intersection
19 Arterial
Lakeland Hills Way
to Oravetz Road to
Oravetz Place ( A St
Loop)
None None Share the road and
directional signage
20 Arterial
8th St NE between
Pike St NE and R St
NE
None None
Crosswalk needed at 8th
Street/R Street intersection
to transfer to north side
connection to R Street
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-23
21 Arterial
R St NE to Auburn
Block Diamond Rd
between E Main St
and E City Limit
None None
Install bike lanes on both
sides outside of fog line
between East Main and RR
tracks - look at narrowing
lanes; Install "Share the
Road" signage between RR
tracks and Auburn Black
Diamond Road
22 Arterial Main St between A
St NW and M St NE None None Sharrows and "Share the
Road" signage
23 Arterial M St NE between 4th
St NE and E Main St None None
Striped bike lanes on both
sides along entire route - 3
lane facility with bike lanes
24 Residential
Collector
D St SE between
37th St SE and 41st
St SE
None None Sharrows and "Share the
Road" signage
25 Arterial
37th St NW between
West Valley Hwy and
B St NW
None None
Speed Concerns; Current
Speed of 40 MPH too high;
Ramps at Interurban Trail
not at correct grade for sight
visibility; Vegetation at 37th
Street parking lot overgrown
26 Arterial
112th Ave SE to SE
81st St between SE
304th St and SE
274th St
None None Sharrows and "Share the
Road" signage
27 Non Residential
Collector
SE 304th St between
112th Ave SE and
124th Ave SE
None None Sharrows and "Share the
Road" signage
28 Arterial
124th Ave SE
between SE 304th St
and N City Limits
None None Sharrows and "Share the
Road" signage
29 Arterial
124th Ave SE
between SE 304th St
and SE 312th St
None None Sharrows and "Share the
Road" signage
30 Arterial
124th Ave SE
between SE 312th St
and SE 320th St
None None Sharrows and "Share the
Road" signage
31 Non Residential
Collector
SE 320th St between
124th Ave SE and
112th Ave SE
None None Sharrows and "Share the
Road" signage
32 Residential
Collector
112th Ave SE
between Lea Hill Rd
SE and SE 320th St
None None Sharrows and "Share the
Road" signage
33 Arterial
132nd Ave SE
between SE 288th St
and SE 304th St
None None Sharrows and "Share the
Road" signage
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-24
34 Non Residential
Collector
SE 304th St between
124th Ave SE and
132nd Ave SE
None None Sharrows and "Share the
Road" signage
35 Arterial
15th St NW between
M St NW and
Terrace Dr NW
None None Striped bike lanes on both
sides
36 Arterial
W Valley Hwy
between W Main St
and 15th St NW
None None Striped bike lanes on both
sides
37 Arterial
132nd Way/Ave SE
between SE 312th St
and SE 304th St
None None Sharrows and "Share the
Road" signage
38 Non Residential
Collector
S 331st St between
321st St S and W
Valley Hwy
None None Sharrows and "Share the
Road" signage
39 Arterial
Lake Tapps Pkwy to
Sumner Tapps Hwy
between 182nd Ave
E and S City Limits
None None Striped pedestrian bike lanes
on both sides
40 Arterial 41st St SE between
C St SW and D St SE None None Sharrows and "Share the
Road" signage
41 Residential
Collector
Howard Rd SE
between Riverwalk
Dr SE and???
None None Sharrows and "Share the
Road" signage
42 Arterial
29th St SE between
M St SE and
Riverwalk Dr SE
None None Install bike symbols in
existing bike lanes
43 Local Street
Dogwood St SE to
Forest Ridge Dr SE
to 28th St SE
between Auburn
Way South and
Riverwalk Dr SE
None None Sharrows and directional
signage
44 Interurban Trail North/south through
City None None
Interurban Trail south of
West Main Street needs to
be repaired; Need to explore
speed reductions near all
Interurban Trail Crossings;
vegetation maintenance
needed on Interurban Trail
on both sides of 37th St NE;
45 Principal Arterial Trail Connection None None Directional signage only
46 Residential
Collector
M St SE over White
River Yes None
New shared use bridge over
the river connecting M St SE
to Whiter River Trail.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-25
47 Residential
Collector
62nd Street between
Lakeland Hills Way &
Lake Tapps Parkway
None None Striped bike lanes on both
sides along entire route
48 Arterial
A Street SE between
Ellingson & Trail
Connection
Yes None Signage only
49 Arterial M Street over White
River Yes Non
Bicycle/pedestrian bridge
over White River to connect
to White River Trail
50 Arterial
B Street between
37th St NW & 30th
St NW
None None Sharrows & signage
51 Arterial
B Street between
30th St NW & 15th
St NW
None None Sharrows & signage
52 Arterial
B Street between 3rd
St NW & West Main
Street
None None Sharrows & directional
signage
53 Arterial
Peasley Canyon
Road from 321st to
W. Valley Highway
None None
Bike path on outer edge of
Peasley Canyon Park-n-Ride
for uphill climb;
54 Arterial
W. Main Street
between Interurban
Trail & A St SW
None Yes
Interurban Trail west to W
Valley Hwy = 3 vehicle lanes
and striped bike lanes on
both sides
55 Arterial
W. Main Street
between Interurban
Trail & W. Valley
Highway
None None
W Valley Hwy. to Interurban
Trail = 3 vehicle lanes and
striped bike lanes on both
sides
56 Arterial Dogwood Loop None None Sharrows and signage
57 Residential
Collector
62nd Street between
Lake Tapps Parkway
& 16th Street
None None Sharrows and signage
Sources: City of Auburn, King County
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nmnm
nmnm
nmnm
nm
nm nmnm
nm
nm
nmnm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
3 7 t h W a y
132nd
Ave
37th S t
304th St
316th St 316th St
56th
Ave
56
th
A
v
e
284th Pl
37th St
12
4th
Avct
296th St
304th
W a y
56
th
Pl
288th St
284th St
3 7 t h S t
11
2
t
h
Pl
28 4 t h S t
37th Pl
132nd
Ave
296th Pl 112th
Ave
296th St
288th St
304th St
112th
Ave
124th
Ave
Auburn
Ave
Auburn
Way
321st St
P
e
a
s
l
e
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
d
M ilita ry
Rd
1st Ave
17th St
Main St
312th S t
Jovita
B
lvd
8 th St
Stewart Rd
Tapps Hwy
Ellingson Rd
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
D
ieringer
Hwy
Valley
Hwy
15th St
277th St
V
a
l
l
ey
Hwy
Gree n
River
R
d
15 th S t
Ha
r
v
e
y
R
d
3 31st S t
2
1
0
t
h
A
v
e
24th St
34 2nd St
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
0
5
t
h
P
l
Kersey
W
ay
M
St
L e a H i l l Rd
104th
Ave
5 5 t h Ave
A
St
A
St
C
S t
UV164
UV167
UV18
UV516
UV167
Existing Sidewalks
nm Schools
Parks
1/4 Mile from School
1/2 Mile from School
City Limits00.5
Miles
°
Auburn Transportation Plan
Existing
Sidewalks
Figure 3-1
Sources: City of Auburn, King County
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nmnm
nmnm
nmnm
nm
nm nmnm
nm
nm
nmnm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
3 7 t h W a y
132nd
Ave
37th S t
304th St
316th St 316th St
56th
Ave
56
th
A
v
e
284th Pl
37th St
12
4th
Avct
296th St
304th
W a y
56
th
Pl
288th St
284th St
3 7 t h S t
11
2
t
h
Pl
28 4 t h S t
37th Pl
132nd
Ave
296th Pl 112th
Ave
296th St
288th St
304th St
112th
Ave
124th
Ave
Auburn
Ave
Auburn
Way
321st St
P
e
a
s
l
e
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
d
M ilita ry
Rd
1st Ave
17th St
Main St
312th S t
Jovita
B
lvd
8 th St
Stewart Rd
Tapps Hwy
Ellingson Rd
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
D
ieringer
Hwy
Valley
Hwy
15th St
277th St
V
a
l
l
ey
Hwy
Gree n
River
R
d
15 th S t
Ha
r
v
e
y
R
d
3 31st S t
2
1
0
t
h
A
v
e
24th St
34 2nd St
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
0
5
t
h
P
l
Kersey
W
ay
M
St
L e a H i l l Rd
104th
Ave
5 5 t h Ave
A
St
A
St
C
S t
UV164
UV167
UV18
UV516
UV167
Priority* Pedestrian Corridor
Existing Sidewalks
nm Schools
Parks
1/4 Mile from School
1/2 Mile from School
City Limits
0 0.5
Miles
°
Auburn Transportation Plan
Future Priority
Sidewalk Corridors
Figure 3-2*Priority for Funding
Sources: City of Auburn, King County
In
t
e
r
u
r
b
a
n
Whi
t
e
R
i
v
e
r
T
r
a
i
l
UV516
UV164
UV18
UV167
2 n d S t
O
St
22nd St
3rd St
6th St
29th St
1st Ave
1 s t S t
A
St
Academy
D
r
Hemlock
St
116th
Ave
3 2 n d S t
11
6
t
h
A
v
e
Pacific
Ave
3 2 1 s t S t
Harvey
R
d
D
St
118th
Ave
316th St
Howar d R d
2 7 2 n d S t
3 0th St
E
St
280th St
292nd
S t
K
erse
y
W
ay
304th Wa y
6
2
n
d
S
t
29 6th S t
17th St
320th St
284th St
12th St
F
St
3 7 t h S t
300th S t
12th St
1
0
5
t
h
Pl
16th
St 9th St
4th St
56th
Ave
21st St
Terr
a
c
e
Dr
2
1
0th
A
v
e
29th S t
R
S
t
15th St
Or a vetz Rd
1 5 t h St
8th St
37th S t
El li n gso n R d
8 t h S t
Lea Hill Rd
P
e
a
s
le
y
C
a
n
y
o
n Rd
C
St
I
St
Mount Vi
ew Dr
51st
Ave
Lakeland
Hill
s
W
a
y
S u m n er Ta p p s H w y
12
4
t
h
A
v
e
Auburn
Way
Main St
A
St
2 77th St
G
ST
SW
Dogwood
St
182nd
Ave
Ri v erv iew Dr
Mill Pond
Dr
B ou n dar y Bl vd
M
St
104th
Ave
7
2nd
Ave
C
St55th Ave 285th St
V
a
l
l
e
y
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 River
R
d
B
St
Valley
Hwy
H
St
nm SchoolsParksCity Limits
Bike Routes (Class 2 or 3)Multi-Use Trails (Class 1)
0 0.5
Miles
°
Auburn Transportation Plan
Existing Bicycle Facilitiesand Multi-Use Trails
Figure 3-3
Sources: City of Auburn, King County
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
In
t
e
r
u
r
b
a
n
Whi
t
e
R
i
v
e
r
T
r
a
i
l
UV516
UV164
UV18
UV167
2 n d St
O
St
22nd St
3rd St
6th St
29th St
1st Ave
1 s t S t
A
St
Acade
m
y
D
r
Hemlock
St
116th
Ave
14th St
3 2 n d St
11
6
t
h
A
v
e
Pacific
Ave
3 2 1 s t S t
Harvey
R
d
D
St
118th
Ave
316th St
Howar d R d
2 7 2 n d S t
3 0th St
E
St
280th St
292nd S t
K
erse
y
W
ay
304th Wa y
6
2
n
d
S
t
296th St
17 th St
320th St
284th St
12th St
F
St
37th St
300th S t
12th St
1
0
5
t
h
Pl
16th
St 9th St
4th St
56th
Ave
21st St
Terr
a
c
e
Dr
2
1
0th
A
v
e
29th S t R
St
15th St
Or a vetz Rd
15th St
8th St
37th S t
El li n gso n R d
8 t h S t
Lea Hill Rd
P
e
a
s
le
y
C
a
n
y
o
n Rd
C
S
t
I
St
Mount Vi
ew Dr
51st
Ave
S u m n e r Ta p p s H w y
12
4
t
h
A
v
e
Auburn
Way
Main St
A
St
2 77th St
G
ST
SW
Dogwood
St
182nd
Ave
R
St
Riv ervie w Dr
Mill Pond
Dr
Bo u nd ary B lv d
M
St
104th
Ave
7
2nd
Ave
C
St55th Ave 285 th St
V
a
l
l
e
y
H
w
y
132nd
Ave
3 04th St
C
St
Emerald
Downs
D
r
E
v
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
Way
M
St
112th
Ave
Green River
R
d
B
St
Valley
Hwy
H
St
nm Schools
ParksCity Limits
!(Existing Trailhead
!(Future Trailhead
Bike Routes (Class 2 or 3)Multi-Use Trails (Class 1)Future Bike Route (Class 2 or 3)Future Multi-Use Trail (Class 1)0 0.5
Miles
°
Auburn Transportation Plan
Future Bicycle Facilitiesand Multi-Use Trails
Figure 3-4
UV18
UV164
A S t E
St
3rd St
6 th St
1s t S t
F
S
t
2 n d S t
8 t h S t
4 th S t
M a i n S t
G
ST
SW
Auburn Way
R
St
C
S
t
M
S
t
H
St
AUBURN
GOLF
COURSE
WASHINGTON
NATIONAL
GOLF
COURSE
SUMNER
MEADOWS
GOLF
LINKS
TAPPS
ISLAND
GOLF
COURSE
TAPPS
ISLAND
GOLF
COURSE
TAPPS
ISLAND
GOLF
COURSE
TAPPS
ISLAND
GOLF
COURSE
TAPPS
ISLAND
GOLF
COURSE
TAPPS
ISLAND
GOLF
COURSE
TAPPS
ISLAND
GOLF
COURSE
IN
T
E
R
U
R
B
A
N
T
R
A
I
L
MAIN ST CONNECTOR
A/
B
S
T
R
E
E
T
C
O
R
R
I
D
O
R
12
4
T
H
A
V
E
S
E
C
O
R
R
I
D
O
R
GR
E
E
N
R
I
V
E
R
R
O
A
D
C
O
R
R
I
D
O
R
LEA HILL CONNECTOR
STEWART/LAKE TAPPS CONNECTOR
SO
U
T
H
A
U
B
U
R
N
M
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
E
C
O
R
R
I
D
O
R
WE
S
T
V
A
L
L
E
Y
C
O
R
R
I
D
O
R
A
S
T
S
E
A
N
D
L
A
K
E
L
A
N
D
H
I
L
L
S
C
O
R
R
I
D
O
R
NORTH 37TH ST NW AND WEST HILL CONNECTOR
NO
R
T
H
A
U
B
U
R
N
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
/
I
S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
C
O
R
R
I
D
O
R
RIV
E
R
W
A
L
K
-
A
U
B
U
R
N
W
A
Y
S
-
E
N
U
M
C
L
A
W
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
O
R
C
S
T
R
E
E
T
T
R
A
I
L
A
N
D
1
5
T
H
S
T
S
W
C
O
R
R
I
D
O
R
KE
R
S
E
Y
W
A
Y
/
L
A
K
E
T
A
P
P
S
C
O
R
R
I
D
O
R
KENT
PIERCE
COUNTY
KING
COUNTY
SUMNER
PACIFIC
EDGEWOOD
ALGONA
FEDERAL
WAY
18
18
516
164
167
167
AUBURNENVIRONMENTALPARK
MUCKLESHOOTCASINO
SUPERMALL
A
S
T
S
E
C
S
T
S
W
B
S
T
N
W
AUBURN
W
A
Y
S
I
S
T
N
E
M
S
T
S
E
AU
B
U
R
N
W
A
Y
N
51
S
T
A
V
E
S
12
4
T
H
A
V
E
S
E
WE
S
T
V
A
L
L
E
Y
H
W
Y
N
13
2
N
D
A
V
E
S
E
R
S
T
S
E
C
S
T
N
W
W MAIN ST E MAIN ST
11
2
T
H
A
V
E
S
E
41ST ST SE
KERS
E
Y
W
A
Y
S
E
29TH ST SE
SE 312TH ST
8TH ST NE
ORAV
E
T
Z
R
D
S
E
M
S
T
N
E
D
S
T
N
W
4TH ST SE
15TH ST NW
A
S
T
N
E
LA
K
E
T
A
P
P
S
P
K
W
Y
S
E
WES
T
V
A
L
L
E
Y
H
W
Y
S
LEA HILL R
D
S
E
37TH ST NE
S 316TH ST
S 277TH ST
321ST ST S
PEASLEY CANYON RD S
D
S
T
N
E
EA
S
T
V
A
L
L
E
Y
H
W
Y
S
E
H
A
R
V
E
Y
R
D
N
E
15TH ST SW
BOUNDARY BLVD SW
A
S
T
N
W
AU
B
U
R
N
A
V
E
N
E
TE
R
R
A
C
E
D
R
N
W
SE 281ST ST
SE 304TH ST
17TH ST SE
6TH ST SE
3RD ST SW
10TH ST NE
12
4
T
H
A
V
E
S
E
A
S
T
S
E
R
S
T
S
E
S 277TH ST
F S
T
R
E
E
T
/
L
E
S
G
O
V
E
C
O
R
R
I
D
O
R
AUB
U
R
N
B
L
A
C
K
D
I
A
M
O
N
D
/
G
R
E
E
N
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
O
R
Schools
Connectors
Corridors
Interurban Trail
Parks
Auburn City Limits
Figure 3-5: Bicycle Corridors and Connectors Printed On: 09/19/11Map ID: 3741
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.
05001,0001,5002,0002,500
FEET
Focus Areas
Dow
n
h
i
l
l
B.P.A Powerline Right of Way
B.P.A Po
w
e
r
l
i
n
e
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
W
a
y
B.P.A Pow
e
r
l
i
n
e
R
i
g
h
t
o
f
W
a
y
VA
L
E
N
T
I
N
E
ToToFlaming Flaming GeyserGeyser
EMERALDDOWNS
AUBURNDOWNTOWN
SUPERMALL
YMCA
LES GOVE
H
i
l
l
AUBURNGOLFCOURSEBRANNAN PARK
MARYOLSONPARK
LAKELAND HILLSCOMMERCIALAREA
Only
ToToKentKent
ToToKentKent
ToToKentKentToToKentKent&&SeattleSeattle
ToToFederal Federal WayWay
ToToFederal Federal WayWay
ToToFederal Federal WayWay
ToToEdgewoodEdgewood
ToToMiltonMilton
To To TacomaTacoma
ToToSumnerSumner&&PuyallupPuyallup
ToToSumnerSumner&&BonneyBonneyLakeLake
ToToBonneyBonneyLakeLake
ToToEnumclawEnumclaw
ToToBlackBlackDiamondDiamond
ToToPacificPacificRacewaysRaceways
GRCC
GAMEFARMPARK
MUCKLESHOOTCASINO
PACIFICRACEWAYS
IN
T
E
R
U
R
B
A
N
T
R
A
I
L
INT
E
R
U
R
B
A
N
T
R
A
I
L
ToToKentKent
Rec
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
Uphill Route
AUBURNENVIRONMENTALPARK
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 1
Auburn Transit Center
CHAPTER 4.
TRANSIT
Transit service is a key component of
Auburn’s transportation system, improving
mobility within the City and providing
connections to the employment and
commercial centers of western Washington.
Unlike the street and non-motorized
systems, Auburn does not directly
administer transit service. Rather, the City
works with the following regional and
county transit agencies to coordinate service
in Auburn: Sound Transit, Metro Transit,
and Pierce Transit. These agencies are
publicly funded and are responsible for
providing transit service within their
jurisdictions.
Today, Auburn is served by local and
regional bus, as well as a commuter rail line
that runs between Seattle and Tacoma.
However, transit in the area has a long and
interesting history. In the early part of the
twentieth century, Puget Sound Traction,
Light and Power linked Auburn to Seattle
via a fast electric interurban line until
progress on Highway 99 and the rise of
automobile use ultimately doomed the
system. Seattle-Tacoma interurban rail
service ended on December 30, 1928.
After World War II, policymakers and
planners made several unsuccessful efforts
to recreate a regional transit system to
address suburban sprawl and growing
traffic congestion. That changed in 1972,
when voters approved the creation of
Metro Transit, an all-bus system now
operated by King County. In 1979, Pierce
Transit was formed when voters passed a
0.3 percent sales tax to fund public
transportation.
In 1995, voters in King, Snohomish, and
Pierce Counties rejected a $6.7 billion
Regional Transit Authority (RTA) proposal
for light rail, standard-gauge commuter rail,
and express buses. However, a smaller
“Sound Transit” plan, valued at $3.9 billion,
won approval on November 5, 1996.
On September 18, 2000, almost 72 years
after interurban cars stopped running, the
first Sound Transit ‘Sounder’ commuter
trains rolled between Seattle, Auburn and
Tacoma – reinstating an important regional
rail link. Today Auburn is also served by an
extensive local bus system operated by
Metro Transit. It is also connected to
Seattle, Bellevue, and Pierce County by
Sound Transit Express bus service.
4.1 NEEDS ASSESSMENT
EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICES
The following section provides a brief
summary of the public transportation
services offered in Auburn. Existing transit
service for the Auburn area is identified in
Figure 4-1.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 2
Metro Transit Hybrid Articulated Bus
Courtesy: Metro Transit
METRO AND PIERCE TRANSIT
BUS SERVICES
Metro Transit provides local bus services
linking destinations within the community
and providing a regional connection at the
downtown Auburn Transit Center and the
Auburn 15th Street NW Park-and-Ride.
Metro Transit offers the following services
in Auburn.
Route 152 runs weekday peak hour service
between the Auburn Transit Center, the
15th Street NW Park-and-Ride, Star Lake
Park-and-Ride (I-5/S 272nd Street) and
downtown Seattle.
Route 154 provides weekday service
between the Auburn Transit Center, the
Auburn 15th Street NW Park-and-Ride, the
Kent Transit Center, Boeing in Kent, the
Tukwila Park-and-Ride, Boeing Field and
Development Center, and the Federal
Center South in Seattle.
Route 164 provides important local service
between Kent and Green River Community
College.
Route 180 provides service daily between
southeast Auburn, Auburn Station, and
Kent Station/Transit Center, meeting the
MT 150, with service to and from Seattle, at
Kent Station. Until the early evening hours,
Route 180 also serves Sea-Tac Airport and
the Burien Transit Center.
Route 181 provides weekday/weekend ser-
vice between the Twin Lakes Park-and-
Ride, Sea-Tac Mall, Federal Way Transit
Center, the Supermall, Auburn Transit Cen-
ter, and Green River Community College.
Route 915 provides weekday peak hour
service, scheduled to meet the Sounder
Commuter Rail trains at Auburn Station, as
well as weekday midday service between the
Auburn Transit Center and Enumclaw via
Auburn Way South and SR 164.
Route 917, operated by DART, provides
weekday and Saturday service between
Lakeland Hills, A Street SE, 41st Street SE,
Algona, the Supermall, the Social Security
Administration, the General Services
Administration (GSA), and the Auburn
Transit Center. The route offers Dial-A-
Ride (limited variable route) service in
portions of Lakeland Hills and Algona.
Community Shuttle – Routes 919 & 910
Route 919 is a DART route, which
beginning in February 2010 will operate
fixed route service every 60 minutes
between I Street NE/40th Street and Les
Gove Campus between approximately 8:00
a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekdays.
Route 910 is also a DART route and
beginning in February 2010, will function as
a community shuttle circulator service with
the Route 919. The 910 will be timed to
meet the 919 at the Auburn Transit Station
and provide service between downtown
Auburn and the Supermall/YMCA on 15th
Street SW.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 3
DART Vehicle
Courtesy: City of Kent
Route 497 is a route operated by Pierce
Transit in partnership with the City of
Auburn, Sound Transit, and Metro Transit.
It operates peak hour service between
Sunset Park in Lakeland Hills and the
Auburn Transit Station. The 497 is a
commuter oriented route, but is open to all.
In the future, the City hopes to expand the
497 to all day service to provide more
comprehensive transit service to the
Lakeland Hills area.
ACCESS
ACCESS Transportation is a paratransit
service, providing door-to-door, shared-ride
van transportation within most of King
County. The Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) requires curb-to-curb
paratransit service as a safety net for
persons whose disabilities prevent use of
accessible non-commuter, fixed route bus
service. Complementary paratransit service
is intended to offer a comparable level of
service to that provided by regular bus
service. Paratransit service is not required
nor intended to meet all the transportation
needs of persons with disabilities, but
rather, to provide public transportation in a
more specialized form.
VANPOOL SERVICES
Metro Transit and Pierce Transit sponsor
vanpool services that serve residents and
employees in Auburn. Vanpool is a shared-
ride service that provides group transport
for commuters with proximate origins and
destinations. Vanpool is a popular and
flexible service that provides commuters
with an alternative to driving alone and
fixed-route transit service. Currently, Pierce
County sponsors eight vanpools either
beginning or ending in Auburn; Metro
Transit sponsors several as well. Vanpool
will undoubtedly continue to be an
important strategy for mitigating peak hour
congestion throughout Auburn and the
region.
TRANSIT FACILITIES
Metro Transit owns and operates several
transit facilities, including the Auburn 15th
Street NW Park-and-Ride with approxi-
mately 358 surface parking stalls. Metro
also operates into the Auburn Transit
Center in downtown Auburn. Additionally,
the system maintains approximately 180
other bus stops in the community, 17 of
which contain passenger shelters.
COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION (CTR)
Under state law, the City is required to
administer a Commute Trip Reduction
program for all employers in Auburn with
at least 100 employees arriving during the
peak morning commute hours. The City of
Auburn contracts with Metro Transit to
provide CTR support services for the CTR
affected local employers. Currently, there
are 11 CTR employers in Auburn with a
total of 5,500 employees. The agency assists
employers in complying with state law by
providing rideshare support and a host of
other incentives aimed at reducing single
occupant vehicle travel.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 4
Sounder Train
Courtesy: Sound Transit
Sound Transit Regional Express Bus
Courtesy: Sound Transit
SOUND TRANSIT
Sound Transit provides limited stop,
regional transit services linking Auburn to
major regional destinations in King and
Pierce Counties. The agency offers two
types of service, Sounder commuter rail and
regional express bus.
SOUNDER COMMUTER RAIL
Sound Transit operates the Sounder
commuter rail service on the Tacoma –
Seattle routing via the BNSF Railway.
Sound Transit provides weekday peak hour
trips northbound to Seattle in the AM and
southbound from Seattle to Tacoma in the
PM. Additional special event service to and
from Seattle and the Emerald Downs
racetrack in Auburn is offered on
weekends.
Currently, seven trains operate northbound
to Seattle in the morning peak and return
southbound during the PM peak. Two
trains operate southbound to Tacoma in the
morning and northbound in the early
evening.
REGIONAL EXPRESS BUS SERVICE
Route 564/565 offers daily weekday,
limited stop service between the Federal
Way Transit Center (565 only), the South
Hill Transit Center (564 only), the South
Hill Park & Ride (564 only), the Sumner
Station (564 only), the Auburn Transit
Center, the Kent Transit Center, the
Renton Transit Center, the Bellevue Transit
Center, and the Overlake Transit Center.
TRANSIT FACILITIES
Sound Transit owns and operates the
Auburn Transit Center located at 1st Street
SW and A Street SW. This full service
multi-modal facility provides parking for
365 vehicles in a 6-story parking garage and
113 stalls in a surface parking lot. The
facility currently handles approximately 450
daily bus trips (117 Sound Transit trips; 333
Metro Transit trips). Daily, 1,200
passengers board buses at the facility, and
900 passengers disembark. Daily commuter
train boardings currently average about 400
passengers.
4.2 Transit User Needs
DEMOGRAPHICS
People use public transportation for two
reasons: because they have to ride or
because they choose to ride. Carrying the
choice rider, such as commuters, often has
the greatest positive impact on the
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 5
transportation system by helping control
peak hour traffic demand. But providing a
“safety net” of adequate transportation to
those who absolutely depend on it is,
arguably, public transportation’s most
important role.
There are a number of ways to identify
“transit dependency” but the most effective
way is to identify locations with high
concentrations of residents who have no
vehicle available in their household. An
examination of the most recent year 2000
Census data available from the Bureau of
the Census shows that some areas of
Auburn have a surprisingly high number of
households with no vehicle available. As a
comparison baseline, 9 percent of Auburn
households have no vehicle available; this
percentage is consistent with that of King
County (9 percent) and slightly higher than
that of Pierce County (8 percent). For the
purpose of this analysis, block groups with
significant concentrations of residential
development in which over 12 percent of
households have no vehicle available are
considered transit dependent areas. There
are eleven census block groups in Auburn
in which over 12 percent of households
have no vehicle available, nine of which
have significant concentrations of
residential development and are therefore
identified as transit dependent areas. It is
also notable that four of the nine block
groups with large concentrations of
residential development have at least 20
percent of households with no vehicle
available. The nine block groups comprising
the transit dependent areas had a total of
3,698 households in 2000, 771 (21 percent)
of which had no vehicle available. Figure 4-
2 shows the transit dependent areas and
overlays the existing transit service in order
to identify if adequate transit service is
available to these highly transit dependent
neighborhoods.
Comparing the neighborhoods in question
to the transit route structure, it is apparent
that the vast majority of Auburn’s most
transit dependent population lives within ¼
miles of a fixed route bus – the distance
standard most often identified by the transit
industry as a reasonable walking distance to
transit. An exception to that rule is the area
near Dogwood Street SE north of Auburn
Way South where many of the transit
dependent residents are located more than
¼ mile from fixed route bus service.
In the future, it will be critical to ensure
these areas continue to be well covered by
transit service, both in terms of route and
schedule coverage.
SERVICE COVERAGE
Generally speaking, local transit service
coverage in Auburn is well planned and well
operated. Nonetheless, there are some
areas of the community that do not have
adequate local service coverage, as well as
some highly important regional bus links
and commuter rail services that have yet to
be completed.
LOCAL BUS SERVICE
Several of Auburn’s most populated
neighborhoods are deficient in local bus
service, including West Hill, Lakeland Hills
during the non-peak hours, and parts of
east and north Auburn. This is
problematic, for choice riders because it
indicates a missed opportunity to alleviate
demand on the street system and for transit
dependent riders because those populations
have inadequate transportation options.
The least served residential area of Auburn
is West Hill, an area with approximately
5,000 residents and no transit service.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 6
Lakeland Hills, a planned residential
community with approximately 3,800
homes has peak hour service to downtown
Auburn but is lacking in all day service. Lea
Hill, a predominantly residential community
on Auburn’s east hill does have two transit
routes, but still, a large percentage of the
neighborhood is not within walking
distance of a transit route. In 2009, a license
plate survey of the Auburn Transit Station
garage indicated a substantial number of
Lea Hill residents utilize the transit services
at Auburn Station. This suggests that a
commuter oriented shuttle serving Lea Hill,
similar to the shuttle implemented in
Lakeland Hills, would be very successful.
Additionally, residential areas of east
Auburn, east of M Street NE and south of
8th Street NE, and parts of northeast
Auburn, east of I Street NE, are also
located more than ¼ mile from fixed route
bus service. Hence, it is inordinately
difficult for residents of these areas to use
transit, both for local trips and for
connecting to regional routes via the
Auburn Transit Center.
The design of King County Metro’s local
bus routes in Auburn should be reviewed in
relation to future changes in Sound
Transit’s Sounder commuter rail and
regional express bus services to identify
opportunities and priorities for productive
improvements to transit coverage,
frequency, and hours of operation.
Figure 4-3 highlights areas of the Auburn
community with minimal transit service.
REGIONAL BUS SERVICE
The most important unmet regional transit
need is for all day, express bus service to
and from Tacoma and Seattle. While the
original Sound Transit Regional Express Bus
Service Plan contained a direct link between
Auburn and Tacoma, the connection was
dropped from Sound Transit’s later service
plans. Likewise, despite limited peak hour
commuter rail being available to and from
Seattle, a midday commuter rail connection
is, according to Sound Transit, only likely in
the distant future. Instituting a reliable, all-
day bus connection to and from Seattle will
also encourage increased commuter rail
ridership by providing a midday transit
option as a safety net for those with
daytime business in Tacoma or Seattle.
Instituting express bus service to and from
Seattle and Tacoma will also provide an
unmet regional transit opportunity for
people who work in Auburn and who live
north of Auburn. The availability of all-day
regional bus service to and from Tacoma
and Seattle on regular headways will also
help meet the shift time requirements of
major Auburn employers whose shift times
are currently not compatible with Sounder
commuter rail arrival times. In summary,
the future availability of all-day, direct
express bus connections between Tacoma
and Seattle, Washington’s two largest cities,
with stops at the stations served by Sounder
commuter rail, should be a top priority.
SOUNDER COMMUTER RAIL
Sounder Commuter Rail, a highly popular
and attractive service, operates bi-
directionally in the peak periods, although
a.m. southbound service is minimal. The
current orientation of morning commuter
rail service predominantly northbound to
Seattle provides limited opportunity for
most of the employees of South King
County businesses to access their work sites
via commuter rail.
INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL
Auburn is an ideal location for a future stop
on the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor,
which runs from Vancouver, BC to
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 7
Auburn YMCA - Major trip generator
Eugene, OR. WSDOT is currently
evaluating and seeking funding for the
proposed expansion of existing intercity rail
service, which would provide an alternative
to air travel and interstate highway travel.
When that occurs, Auburn would be an
ideal location for an interim stop between
Seattle and Tacoma. Auburn is centrally
located in South King County at the
intersection of SR 18 and SR 167. Auburn
has existing urban rail station with a parking
garage and can offer and interstate
passengers a convenient boarding point.
The Auburn Station currently serves over
2,500 bus passengers and 900 commuter
rail passengers and is centrally located
within 10 miles of 500,000 people.
MAJOR TRIP GENERATORS
A major transit trip generator is a location
which has the potential to generate a
significant number of transit trips. Included
are major employers, major shopping
destinations, and community activity
centers. Figure 4-3 shows the area’s major
transit trip generators. Among the trip
generators that are currently not served by
transit are the Safeway Distribution Center,
UPS on C Street NW and ADESA on 37th
Street NW. Emerald Downs receives
transit service only via a private shuttle
connection at the Auburn 15th Street NW
Park-and-Ride.
SCHEDULES
The scheduling of transit service is often as
important as route alignment and coverage
in determining the success of the service.
SCHEDULING TO SUCCESSFULLY SERVE
EMPLOYERS
One of the most overlooked aspects of
transit system design is scheduled transit
arrival times versus major employer shift
times. While a transit system can physically
serve the front door of a work site, its
actual scheduled arrival times will often
determine if anyone rides the system. It is
not the intention of this effort to conduct
an exhaustive employer shift time analysis
of the community. However, an example of
the challenge can be found in examining
one of Auburn’s major employers, the
Boeing Company. While the company’s
primary morning shift time arrival occurs at
6 AM, the earliest southbound Sounder
train from Seattle, arrives in Auburn at 6:36
AM. Likewise, the first run of the day for
the Metro Route 181 from Federal Way and
Lea Hill arrive near Boeing at
approximately 6 AM, making it difficult for
employees to meet the shift time.
The lack of transit schedule synchronization
with key employers in a community can
also negatively impact other opportunities.
The City of Auburn in partnership with
Metro Transit was the first agency in Puget
Sound to create the concept of ‘Van Share’,
a specialized transit service in which
vanpools carry employees to their
employer’s front door from regional transit
centers. Where the schedules work, such as
in providing a direct link between Boeing’s
Renton facilities and the Tukwila Sounder
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 8
commuter rail station, the concept has been
highly successful. On the other end of the
trip, the Van Share concept can be
successfully implemented to transport
employees between their homes and the
Transit Station, saving capacity on the
roadway and at the Transit Center parking
facilities.
Due to the fact that Auburn’s major
employer shift times frequently don’t match
Sounder and bus transit arrival times, Van
Share has not yet achieved its promise in
Auburn.
To maximize the investment in public
transit service in Auburn, it is
recommended that both Sound Transit and
Metro Transit conduct a thorough
evaluation of their schedules with a focus
on improving service to major employers in
the Auburn area and in south King County
in general.
SERVICE FREQUENCY
A second consideration in scheduling
service is ensuring that enough service is
available to meet the demand.
Metro Transit Route 181 between Federal
Way and Green River College has
experienced a sharp increase in ridership in
recent years. It now carries a healthy
518,000 riders per year. It is notable that
ridership and productivity (rides per service
hour) particularly increased on Route 181
following a set of changes in September
2003 that focused on more direct routing,
expanded evening service, and improving
Saturday service frequency to every 30
minutes.
Sound Transit Route 565 has also benefited
from an investment in additional service
hours. A 45 percent increase in service
hours on the route between 2002 and 2004
was mirrored by a 79 percent increase in
ridership during the same period.
Although absolute ridership is an important
measure of effectiveness, the load factor by
trip and time of day is a more accurate
indicator of the need for additional service
and therefore, should be examined prior
implementation of any service changes.
Sounder Commuter Rail has also been
immensely popular, indicating that
increased service is supported by the
ridership demand. Each morning, Sounder
already carries the equivalent of a lane of
traffic on SR 167 or I-5, emphasizing the
importance of expanding the service.
The Auburn Station in particular is a highly
successful component of the Sounder
service. Total boardings at the Auburn
Transit Center average over 400 riders per
day on the first three morning trains,
exceeding initial ridership expectations and
making Auburn one of the busiest stations
on the Sounder route.
URBAN DESIGN
The design of the build environment has
direct implications on the quality and
availability of transit service. Urban design
can either encourage or inhibit the
provision of local transit service. Some
inhibitors to providing neighborhood
service include inadequate street geometry
and construction, lack of a satisfactory
location for a terminal at the end of the
route, absence of a street grid that could be
used to turn around a bus, and the absence
of a connected sidewalk network. Ideally,
new residential developments should be laid
out with future transit route alignments in
mind and supporting transit facilities.
Likewise, retrofits of the existing street
network should accommodate transit
design considerations.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 9
IMPROVING LOCAL SERVICE
Over the past year, City staff, elected
officials, and Metro Transit have conducted
multiple meetings with the local community
regarding the need for changes to local
transit service. Among the most consistent
themes repeated in those meeting has been
the desire for improved connections from
residential areas to shopping and services,
especially for seniors. Many residents of
Auburn have inadequate access to shopping
and essential services, such as medical care.
In many cases, this is attributable to lack of
fixed-route bus service within a ¼ mile
walking distance or inadequate schedule
frequency. Although Metro Transit
provides some specialized transportation
services for the disabled through its
ACCESS service, the vast majority of
people do not qualify for paratransit
services, yet are disinclined to use standard
bus service for a number of reasons.
Auburn and Metro Transit have partnered
through the Transit Now initiative to
implement a community shuttle circulator
service, scheduled to begin in 2010. The
shuttle will link major commercial and
activity areas. Initially, the service will run
on one hour headways due to funding
limitations. As the service becomes more
popular, increasing the service frequency
may become more feasible.
FACILITIES
Two types of transit facility improvements
stand out as important needs: commuter
parking and passenger shelter upgrades.
Parking needs at the Auburn Transit Center
have reached a critical state. A 2009 review
of the parking garage and surface parking
lot revealed that on a typical weekday,
general purpose parking spots were at
100% capacity. In addition, neighborhoods
near the transit station, particularly those
bordering West Main Street, have
experienced a significant increase in
commuter on-street parking, making it
difficult for residents to find parking during
the day and early evening.
Building the infrastructure to accommodate
the commuter parking demand is an
essential component of making transit an
attractive commute option for choice riders.
In order to do so, early planning is essential
to identifying the future demand and
acquiring needed land. A 2009 review of
the parking garage and surface parking lot
revealed that on a typical weekday, general
purpose parking spots were at 100%
capacity. In addition, neighborhoods near
the transit station, particularly those
bordering West Main Street, have
experienced a significant increase in
commuter on-street parking, making it
difficult for residents to find parking during
the day and early evening.
Currently, several transit stops in Auburn
that meet Metro’s boarding standards for
needing passenger shelters do not have
shelters. These locations include:
41st Street SE and A Street SE
F Street SE and Cedar Drive
17th Street SE and B Street SE
37th Street SE and D Street SE
E. Main Street and H Street SE
2nd Street SE and A Street SE
2nd Street SE and B Street SE
9th Street NE and Auburn Way N
15th Street NE and D Street NE
Auburn Way N and 28th Street NE
Auburn Way N and 22nd Street NE
F Street SE and 25th Street SE
15th Street SW and O Street SW
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 10
Metro Transit should work towards
providing shelters at the locations identified
above, as well as other stops that meet the
threshold for passenger boardings. Also, a
new stop is required at A Street NE and
10th Street NE due to the recent re-routing
of a Metro Transit route. This stop serves
local employers and residents, including
SHAG (Senior Housing Assistant Group).
Future planning of changes to fixed-route
services in Auburn should be accompanied
by an inventory of transit passenger
facilities to identify and prioritize potential
improvements to shelters, benches, pads,
bus zones, and customer information.
Pedestrian improvements around existing
or planned transit stops, including
enhanced crosswalks and pedestrian
refuges, should also be examined by the
City. The placement of bus stops is driven
by a variety of criteria including transit
system operating and design standards,
professional engineering field evaluation,
and public input. Integrating pedestrian
improvements in that process will require
both procedural and programmatic
changes. While painting crosswalks is a low
cost, relatively quick opportunity that could
be instituted quickly if identified as part of
the field evaluation, building medians or
signals for pedestrian refuge is a longer-
term prospect and requires engineering and
additional funding.
4.3 Transit System
Recommendations
This section contains the recommendations
derived from the transit needs assessment,
as discussed in the first part of this chapter.
Recommendations are organized according
to the lead agency that would likely
implement them, with the understanding
that implementation of any major system
improvement will require the collaboration
of many agencies.
METRO TRANSIT
Metro Transit initiated the Auburn-Kent
project in Fall 2005; the project was
completed in 2006. The purpose of the
project was to work with a Sounding Board,
local jurisdictions, and stakeholders to
develop a set of recommendations for
changes to bus service and facilities in the
Auburn-Kent area that could be
implemented in the future as new resources
become available or through the redirection
of existing resources. The project was an
opportunity for the City and Metro Transit
to work together to identify strategies for
implementing the recommendations in this
Plan.
Implement transit service from
Auburn’s West Hill to the downtown,
most likely routing down 51st Ave S and
collecting passengers.
Implement additional transit service,
particularly geared towards commuters
and targeting areas outside of the
walking distance of existing transit
services on Lea Hill.
Examine service coverage in the
Dogwood Street SE area to enhance
access for the transit dependent.
Conduct a thorough evaluation of
transit schedules; improve service to
major employers in the Auburn area.
Expand the Route 152 to all-day, dual-
direction service between Auburn and
Seattle.
Install passenger shelters at stops where
boardings meet Metro Transit’s
standard for requiring passenger
shelters. Work with the City to enhance
security and reduced vandalism.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 11
Add a new stop, including a possible
shelter, at A St. NE and 10th St. NE.
Work with the City to create additional
parking near the Auburn Transit Center
to serve Metro Transit riders.
Work with the City and Sound Transit
to develop strategies that improve
regional connections between Auburn
and other communities.
PIERCE TRANSIT
Consider expanding the hours of
service on Route 497 to improve service
to Lakeland Hills.
SOUND TRANSIT
Conduct a thorough evaluation of
transit schedules; improve bus and rail
service to major employers in the
Auburn area.
Institute all-day, express bus service to
and from Tacoma and Seattle, with
regular stops along the Sounder rail line.
Work with the City and Metro Transit
to develop strategies that improve
regional connections between Auburn
and other communities.
Immediately begin working with the
City in partnership to create additional
parking near the Auburn Transit
Center, as specified in ST 2, the most
recent voter approved regional transit
package.
CITY OF AUBURN
Work with the PSRC, WSDOT, Metro,
Pierce, and Sound Transit to develop
strategies that improve regional
connections between Auburn and other
communities.
Immediately begin working with Sound
Transit and Metro Transit in
partnership to create additional parking
near the Auburn Transit Center.
Institute a program to enhance
pedestrian access to transit stops.
Institute a process and seek grant
funding to enhance accessibility to
Metro Transit stops such as wheelchair
landing pads and wheelchair ramps
adjacent to accessible bus stop
locations.
Sources: City of Auburn, King County Metro, King County
1
3
2
nd
Ave
3 7 t h W a y
2 84th Pl
37th St
316th St 316th St
56th
Ave
56
t
h
A
v
e
37th St
1
2
4
t
h
A
v
c
t
296th St
304th W ay
56
th Pl
288th St
284th St
37th St
28 4t h S t
37t h Pl
296th Pl 112th
Ave
296th S t
112th
P
l
288th St
304th St
112th
Ave
124th
Ave
Military
Rd
C
S t
Auburn
Way
Kersey Way
307th Pl
Pea
s
l
e
y Ca n y on Rd
1st Ave
17th St
M a i n S t
312th St
V
a
l
l
e
y
H
w
y
Stewart Rd
Tapps Hwy
Ellingson Rd
R
St
Pacific
Ave
3rd Ave
8th St
12th St
321st St
9th St
182nd
Ave
51
s
t
A
v
e
1
0
5
t
h
P
l
272
n
d
S
t
320th St
Jovita
Blvd
Valley
Hwy
D
ier
inger
Hwy
15th St
Valley
Hwy
Green
Riv
er
R
d
15t h St
H
a
r
v
e
y
R
d
34 2nd S t
2
1
0th
A
v
e
24th St
3 31st S t
8th St
Lake Holm Rd
94th
P
l
214th
Ave
R
St
122nd
Ave
277th St
4
6
t
h
P
l
1 6 t h S t
M
St
104th
Ave
55th Ave
A
S
t
A
St
UV164
UV18
UV167
K180
K919
K914
K180
K914
K183
K164
K952
K919
K564
K565
K565
K159
K164
K168K158
K181
K564
K952
K152
K181
K564
K181
K181
K915
K152 K164
K180
K564
K917
K564
K565K565
K565
K917
K915
K159
K180
919
910
497
910
497
919
Transit Station
Surface 113
Garage 365
SR 18/Auburn-Black Diamond Rd26 SpacesPeasley CanyonRd/West Valley Hwy54 Spaces
Lake Meridian P&R172 Spaces
Auburn P&R358 Spaces
Æa Park & Ride
!!Bus Stop
Bus Route
Commuter Rail
nm Schools
Airport
City Limits
School
Super Mall
Parks
Urban Center00.5
Miles
°
Auburn Transportation Plan
Existing TransitServing Auburn
Figure 4-1
Sources: City of Auburn, King County Metro, King County
1
3
2
nd
Ave
124th
Ave
3 7 t h W a y
37th S t
316t h 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 St284th S t
37t h Pl
296th Pl 112th
Ave
296th S t
112th
P
l
288th St
304th St
112th
Ave
Military
Rd
C
S t
Kersey Way
307th Pl
Pea
s
l
e
y
Ca n y on Rd
1st Ave
17t h St
Main St
312th St
V
a
l
l
e
y
H
w
y
Stew art Rd
Tapps Hwy
Ellingson Rd
R
S
t
Pacific
Ave
3rd Ave
8th St
12th St
321st St
9th St
182nd
Ave
51st
Ave
1
0
5
t
h
P
l
272
n
d
S
t
320th St
Jovita
Blvd
Valley
Hwy
Di
e
ri
nge
r
Hw
y
15th S t
Valley
Hwy
Green
Rive
r
R
d
15 th S t
H
arvey
R
d
3 42nd St
2
1
0th
A
v
e
24th St
3 31st S t
8th St
Lake Holm Rd
94th
P
l
214th
Ave
R
St
122nd
Ave
277th St
4
6
t
h
P
l
1 6 t h S t
M
St
104th
Ave
55th Ave
A
St
A
St
516
167
18
164
180
919
914
180
914
183
164
565
181
919
159
164
158
564
952
152
154
181
565
181
181
181
915
152
180
564
564
564
154
154
917
565
180
564
952
565
917
915
159
919
910
497
919
910
497
Lake Meridian P&R172 Spaces
Auburn P&R358 Spaces
SR 18/Auburn-Black Diamond Rd26 SpacesPeasley CanyonRd/West Valley Hwy54 Spaces
Park & RideBus StopBus RouteCommuter Rail
SchoolsAirportTransitDependent Areas
SchoolSuper MallParksCity Limits00.5
Miles
Auburn Transportation Plan
TransitDependent Areas
Figure 4-2
Sources: City of Auburn, King County Metro, King County
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
Æa
Æa
Æa
ÆaÆa
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
288th St
296th Pl 124th
Ave
304th St
112th
Ave
3 7 t h W a y
316th St 316th St
37th St
37t h S t
296th St
56
th Pl
288th St
284th St
56th
Ave
56
t
h
A
v
e
2 84th Pl
1
2
4
t
h
A
v
c
t
304th W ay
37th Pl37th St
28 4t h S t
112th
Ave
296th S t
1
3
2
nd
Ave
112t
h
Pl
Pacific
Ave
8th St
Lake Holm Rd
R
St
M
St
104th
Ave
55th Ave
A
St
307th Pl
A
St
C
S t
Auburn
Way
1
05
th
P
l4
6
t
h
P
l
Pe
a
s
l
e
y
C
a
n
y
o
n
Rd
Military
Rd
214th
Ave
17th St
Main St
312th St
1st Ave
Stewart Rd
Tapps Hwy
Ellingson Rd
Kersey Way
8th St
12th St
9th St
182nd
Ave
3 31st S t
51
s
t
A
v
e
272
n
d
S
t
320th St
V
a
l
l
e
y
H
w
y
Jovita
Blvd
Valley
Hwy
1 6 t h S t
3rd Ave
V
a
l
l
e
y
Hwy
Green
Riv
er
R
d
15t h St
321st St
277th St
D
ier
inger
Hwy
34 2nd S t
H
a
r
v
e
y
R
d
94th
P
l
2
1
0th
A
v
e
24th St
122nd
Ave
UV516
UV167
UV164
UV167
UV18
Transit Station
Surface 113
Garage 365
SR 18/Auburn-Black Diamond Rd26 Spaces
AuburnP&R358 Spaces
Peasley CanyonRd/West Valley Hwy54 Spaces
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
21
^_Major Trip
Generators
1/4 Mile Buffer
Æa Park & Ride
Commuter Rail
Bus Route
City Limits
School
Urban Center
Parks00.5
Miles
°
Auburn Transportation Plan
Transit andMajor Trip Generators
Figure 4-3
Auburn RegionalMedical Center
Auburn High School
Auburn RiversideHigh School
West AuburnHigh School
YMCA
Supermall
Les Gove CommunityCampus
SHAG (Senior HousingAssistant Group)
Auburn City Hall
Green RiverCommunity College
Boeing / SSA / GSA
Safeway DistributionCenter
UPS Supply ChainSolutions
ADESA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.Muckleshoot Casino
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 1
CHAPTER 5.
POLICIES
Transportation objectives and policies
establish the framework for realizing the
City’s vision of its transportation system.
Policies provide guidance for the City, other
governmental entities and private
developers, enabling the City to achieve its
goal of providing adequate public
infrastructure to support its needs and
priorities in accordance with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. The policy framework
presented below is a guideline, which the
City will use to evaluate individual projects
and address its infrastructure needs.
The objectives and policies are organized
according to five broad headings. The first
heading, Coordination, Planning and
Implementation, addresses the system
comprehensively, detailing policies that
pertain to the planning and implementation
of the system as a whole. The subsequent
four headings list policies specific to the
following systems: Street system, Non-motorized
system, Transit system, and Air transportation.
The analysis of the transportation system, as
well as any individual proposals, shall
consider all modes of transportation and all
methods of efficiently managing the
network.
5.1 Coordination, Planning
and Implementation
OBJECTIVE: COORDINATION
To be consistent with regional plans and the
plans of neighboring cities, to encourage
partnerships, and not to unreasonably
preclude an adjacent jurisdiction from
implementing its planned improvements.
POLICIES:
TR-1: Coordinate transportation operations,
planning and improvements with other
transportation authorities and governmental
entities (cities, counties, tribes, state, federal)
to address transportation issues. These
include:
Improvement of the state highway
network through strong advocacy with
state officials, both elected and staff, for
improvements to state highways and
interchanges;
Improvements to roadways connecting
Auburn to the surrounding region,
including SR 167, SR 18, SR 181/West
Valley Hwy, SR 164, and S 277th Street;
Public Art on West Main Street
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 2
Improved access to the Interstate 5
corridor and regional employment
centers;
Transit connections to the Regional
Growth Centers;
Establishing the Auburn Station as a
center for multi-modal transportation
connections to proposed future intercity
rail service;
Strong advocacy with US congressional
members to provide funding to mitigate
transportation problems connected to
interstate commerce; and
Proactively pursuing forums to
coordinate transportation project
priorities among other governmental
entities, including proposed future
intercity rail service.
OBJECTIVE: LONG-RANGE
PLANNING & PROGRAMMING
To continue to plan for the future of the multi-
modal transportation system through long-
range planning, programmatic planning, and
financial planning, in compliance with the
Growth Management Act.
POLICIES:
TR-2: The Comprehensive Transportation Plan
shall be evaluated and amended annually to
ensure it is technically accurate, consistent
with state, regional, and other local plans,
and in keeping with the City's vision of the
future transportation system.
TR-3: The Six-Year Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) and Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)
shall be updated annually to reevaluate
project priorities, develop a plan to fund
capital improvement projects, and ensure
consistency between project priorities and
financing plans. Project evaluation criteria
shall foster economic development,
maximize utilization of city financing to
match transportation grants, promote safety,
integrate planning of other projects
requiring disturbance of pavements,
promote mobility, and optimize the
utilization of existing infrastructure.
OBJECTIVE: SAFETY
To provide a transportation system that is safe
for all users.
POLICIES:
TR-4: Safety shall be prioritized over driving
convenience.
TR-5: Use net revenues from photo
enforcement operations to fund safety
related projects.
TR-6: Recognize the potential effects of
hazards on transportation facilities and
incorporate such considerations into the
planning and design of transportation
projects, where feasible.
OBJECTIVE: CONNECTIVITY
To provide a highly interconnected network of
streets and trails for ease and variety of
travel.
POLICIES:
TR-7: An efficient transportation system
seeks to spread vehicle movements over a
series of planned streets. The goal of the
system is to encourage connectivity while
preventing unacceptably high traffic
volumes on any one street. Ample
alternatives should exist to accommodate
access for emergency vehicles. For these
reasons the City will continue to plan a
series of collectors and arterials designed to
national standards to provide efficient
service to the community.
TR-8: Encourage the use of trails and other
connections that provide ease of travel
within and between neighborhoods,
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 3
community activity centers, and transit
services. Development patterns that block
direct pedestrian access are discouraged.
Ample alternatives should exist to
accommodate non-motorized transportation
on arterials, collectors, and local roads.
OBJECTIVE:
COMPLETE STREETS
Ensure Auburn’s transportation system is
designed to enable comprehensive,
integrated, safe access for users of all ages
and abilities including pedestrians, bicyclists,
motorists, transit riders and operators, and
truck operators.
POLICIES:
TR-9: Plan for and develop a balanced
transportation system, which provides safe
access and connectivity to transportation
facilities for users of all ages and abilities
including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists,
transit users and operators, and truck
operators.
TR-10: Plan for, design, and construct all
transportation projects, whether City led or
development driven, to provide appropriate
accommodation for bicyclists, pedestrians,
and transit users in a manner consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan, except in
situations where the establishment of such
facilities would be contrary to public health
and safety or the cost would be excessively
disproportionate to the need.
TR-11: Ensure the transportation system
meets the requirements outlined in the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
TR-12: The Auburn Engineering Design
Standards is the primary vehicle for executing
the Complete Streets Objective and should
include standards for each roadway
classification to guide implementation.
TR-13: Context and flexibility in balancing
user needs shall be considered in the design
of all projects and if necessary, a deviation
from the Auburn Engineering Design Standards
may be granted to ensure the Complete
Streets Objective and supporting policies are
achieved.
OBJECTIVE:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Minimize the environmental impacts of all new
transportation projects and transportation
related improvements.
POLICIES:
TR-14: Thoroughly evaluate the impacts of
all transportation projects and apply
appropriate mitigation measures in
conformance with SEPA, the Critical Areas
Ordinance, and other city, county, state, and
federal regulations.
TR-15: Identify and consider the
environmental impacts of transportation
projects at the earliest possible time to
ensure planning and decisions reflect
environmental values, to avoid delays later in
the process, and to reduce or avoid potential
problems that may adversely impact the
environment and project outcome.
Helping those with Special Needs
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 4
TR-16: Incorporate green technology and
sustainability practices into transportation
improvements whenever feasible.
TR-17: Support efforts to improve air
quality throughout the Auburn area and
develop a transportation system compatible
with the goals of the Federal and State Clean
Air Acts.
TR-18: Require air quality studies of future
major development to assess impacts
created by site generated traffic.
OBJECTIVE: LEVEL-OF-
SERVICE (LOS) THRESHOLD
To ensure that new development does not
degrade transportation facilities to below LOS
standards.
POLICIES:
TR-19: New development shall not be
allowed when the impacts of the new
development on the transportation system
degrades the LOS to below the adopted
LOS standard, unless the impacts are
mitigated concurrent with the development
as described in Chapter 2.
TR-20: The term "below level-of-service"
shall apply to situations where traffic
attributed to a development likely results in
any of the following.
a. An unacceptable increase in hazard or an
unacceptable decrease in safety at an
intersection or on a roadway segment.
b. 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.
c. An unacceptable impact on geometric
design conditions at an intersection where
two truck routes meet on the City arterial
and collector network.
d. An increase in congestion which
constitutes an unacceptable adverse
environmental impact under the State
Environmental Policy Act.
e. An increase in queuing that causes
blocking of adjacent land uses or
intersections
f. A reduction in any of the four (4) LOS
standards below.
1. Arterial and Collector Corridor LOS: The
level-of-service standard for each arterial
and collector corridor is “D”, unless
otherwise specified in Chapter 2 of this plan.
The City may require a development or
redevelopment to examine a shorter or
longer corridor segment than is specified in
Chapter 2, to ensure a project's total LOS
impacts are evaluated.
2. Signalized Intersection LOS: The level-of-
service standard for signalized intersections
is “D”, with the following exceptions; for
signalized intersections of two Arterial roads
the level-of-service standard during the AM
and PM peak periods is “E” for a maximum
duration of 30 minutes and for signalized
intersections of two Principle Arterial roads
the level-of-service standard during the AM
and PM peak periods is “E” for a maximum
duration of 60 minutes. The City may
require a development or redevelopment to
examine individual signalized or roundabout
intersections for LOS impacts to ensure a
project's total LOS impacts are evaluated.
3. Two-Way and All-Way Stop Controlled
Intersection LOS: The level-of-service
standard for two-way stop controlled and
all-way stop controlled intersections, is “D”.
If LOS falls below the standard, analysis and
mitigation may be required in a manner
commensurate with the associated impacts.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 5
This may include, among other
requirements, conducting a traffic signal
warrant analysis and installing or financing a
signal or roundabout.
4. Roundabout Intersection LOS: The level-
of-service standard for roundabout
controlled intersections is “D”. The City
may require a development or
redevelopment to examine to examine
roundabout intersections for LOS impacts
to ensure a project’s total LOS impacts are
evaluated.
TR-21: Establish a multi-modal level-of-
service system in the future.
TR-22: PM level of service is the city
standard. AM level of service may need to
be analyzed in situations where specialized
conditions exist that disproportionately
impact AM traffic.
OBJECTIVE: CONCURRENCY
To ensure transportation facilities do not fall
below the adopted level-of-service standard,
as required by the Growth Management Act.
POLICIES:
TR-23: Require developments to construct
or finance transportation improvements
and/or implement strategies that mitigate
the impacts of new development concurrent
with (within 6 years of) development, as
required by the Growth Management Act.
TR-24: New development that lowers a
facility’s level-of-service standard below the
locally adopted minimum standard shall be
denied, as required by the Growth
Management Act. Strategies that may allow a
development to proceed include, but are not
limited to:
Reducing the scope of a project (e.g.
platting fewer lots or building less square
footage);
Building or financing new transportation
improvements concurrent with (within 6
years of) development;
Phasing/delaying a project;
Requiring the development to
incorporate Transportation Demand
Management strategies; or
Lowering level-of-service standards.
TR-25: The denial of development in order
to maintain concurrency may be grounds for
declaring an emergency for the purpose of
amending the Comprehensive Plan outside of
the annual amendment cycle.
TR-26: Evaluate city transportation facilities
annually to determine compliance with the
adopted level-of-service standards and, as
necessary, amend the Six-Year Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) and Capital
Facilities Plan (CFP) to remedy identified
deficiencies.
TR-27: Coordinate transportation
improvements with the State, Counties, and
neighboring jurisdictions to encourage
through trips to occur on state facilities,
reducing stress on the city street network.
OBJECTIVE: FINANCE
To finance the transportation systems
necessary to serve new development, while
ensuring the City has the capability to finance
general transportation needs.
POLICIES:
TR-28: Require developments or
redevelopments to construct transportation
infrastructure systems needed to serve new
developments.
TR-29: Actively pursue the formation of
Local Improvement Districts (LID) to
upgrade existing streets and sidewalks and
construct new streets to the appropriate
standard.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 6
TR-30: Improvements that serve new
developments will be constructed as a part
of the development process. All costs will
be borne by the developer when the
development is served by the proposed
transportation improvements. In some
instances, the City may choose to participate
in this construction if improvements serve
more than adjacent developments.
TR-31: Revenues for street transportation
improvements should primarily provide for
the orderly development of the City's
transportation system in compliance with
the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The
basic criterion for such funding should be
the degree to which that project improves
the overall transportation system and not
the benefit that might accrue to individual
properties. Where it is possible to establish
a direct relationship between a needed
improvement and a development, the
development should be expected to
contribute to its construction.
TR-32: Encourage public/private
partnerships for financing transportation
projects that remedy existing and anticipated
transportation problems, or that foster
economic growth.
TR-33: Aggressively seek and take advantage
of federal, state, local, and private funding
and lending sources that help implement the
City's Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
TR-34: Maintain a traffic impact fee system
based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers
(ITE) guidelines, as modified by the City
Council, as a means of enabling
development to mitigate appropriately for
associated traffic impacts.
TR-35: Reassess the land use element of the
Comprehensive Plan if funding for
transportation facilities is insufficient to
maintain adopted level-of-service standards.
OBJECTIVE: QUALITY OF LIFE
To improve the quality of life for Auburn
residents and businesses through design of
the transportation system.
POLICIES:
TR-36: Enhance the livability of Auburn
through a variety of mechanisms, including
the innovative design and construction of
roadways, non-motorized facilities, and
associated improvements. Apply design
standards that result in attractive and
functional transportation facilities.
OBJECTIVE: EDUCATION AND
ENFORCEMENT
To improve transportation safety and
awareness through education and
enforcement.
POLICIES:
TR-37: Utilize education to increase
awareness of existing traffic laws and safety
issues, especially as they relate to pedestrians
and bicyclists.
TR-38: Engage the community in
transportation issues through public
involvement and partnerships with
organizations such as the Auburn School
District.
TR-39: Identify areas with persistent traffic
violations and address these violations, in
part, through Police Department
enforcement.
TR-40: Develop rider information packages
that inform users of commuter, transit, rail,
trail, and air transportation opportunities.
TR-41: Emphasize enforcement of the
"rules of the road" for pedestrians, bicyclists
and motorists whose actions endanger
others. Conduct enforcement in a manner
that reinforces the messages found in non-
motorized education & safety programs.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 7
Moving Traffic More Effectively with
Intelligent Transportation Systems
TR-42: Utilize photo enforcement, where
appropriate, to encourage safer driving
practices.
OBJECTIVE: TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM)
To efficiently operate the existing
transportation system through Transportation
System Management (TSM) strategies,
thereby maximizing resources and reducing
the need for costly system capacity expansion
projects.
POLICIES:
TR-43: Use TSM strategies to more
efficiently utilize the existing infrastructure
to optimize traffic flow and relieve
congestion. Examples 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).
TR-44: Support Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITS) implementation in
coordination with Figure 2-7. Future ITS
corridors will be prioritized using the
following criteria.
Grants, loans, or partner funding can be
leveraged to expand the ITS system on a
specific corridor(s).
There is existing infrastructure that
would make it easier and more cost
efficient to implement ITS elements.
The corridor(s) completes a logical
segment or missing link in the citywide
ITS network.
Significant travel-time savings can be
achieved with ITS implementation.
Corridor supports other City
communication and technology needs.
ITS implementation would have
significant safety benefits, including
reducing the need for police flaggers in
intersections during events.
TR-45: ITS elements include but are not
limited to:
Operational improvements such as
traffic signal coordination;
Traveler information including traffic
alerts and emergency notification;
Incident management; and
Traffic data collection.
TR-46: Require development to contribute
its share of ITS improvements as mitigation.
TR-47: Program signal timing to encourage
specific movements and the use of travel
routes that are underutilized.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 8
OBJECTIVE: TRANSPORTATION
DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM)
To utilize transportation demand management
strategies to lessen demand for increased
street system capacity, help maintain the LOS
standard, and enhance quality of life for those
who use and benefit from the transportation
system.
POLICIES:
TR-48: Encourage the use of high-
occupancy vehicles (buses, carpool, and
vanpool) through both private programs and
under the direction of Metro and Pierce
Transit.
TR-49: Promote reduced employee travel
during the daily peak travel periods through
flexible work schedules and programs to
allow employees to work part-time or full-
time or at alternate work sites closer to
home.
TR-50: Encourage employers to provide
TDM measures in the workplace through
such programs as preferential parking for
high-occupancy vehicles, car sharing,
improved access for transit vehicles, and
employee incentives for using high-
occupancy vehicles.
TR-51: In making funding decisions,
consider transportation investments that
support transportation demand management
approaches by providing alternatives to
single-occupant vehicles, such as transit,
bikeways and pedestrian paths.
TR-52: Recognize emerging TDM strategies
such as tolling, variable-priced lanes, and car
sharing may be effective in certain
situations.
TR-53: Coordinate with Metro and other
jurisdictions to enhance Commute Trip
Reduction (CTR) programs for CTR
employers in Auburn.
TR-54: Lead by example through
implementation of a thorough and
successful Commute-Trip Reduction (CTR)
Program for City employees.
OBJECTIVE: PARKING
To ensure adequate coordination of parking
needs with traffic and development needs.
POLICIES:
TR-55: On-street parking should be allowed
only when consistent with the function of
the street and with traffic volumes.
TR-56: New developments should provide
adequate off-street parking to meet their
needs.
TR-57: Develop and maintain regulations,
which foster a balance between meeting the
need for public parking and ensuring
developers provide adequate parking to
meet the demand generated by new
development.
TR-58: In certain cases, such as in the
Regional Growth Center and in areas with
high pedestrian and transit use, it may be
appropriate to reduce the developer parking
obligation to achieve other community
benefits or employ innovative parking
strategies such as the use of "park & walk"
lots, where people could park their vehicles
and walk to nearby destinations.
TR-59: The City shall evaluate new
residential subdivisions with constrained
space for driveways, utility services, street
lights, street trees, and fire hydrants and the
resultant impact on the provision of
adequate on-street parking. Where
appropriate, the City shall require the
subdivision to provide dispersed locations of
on-street parking (or street accessible
parking) to meet their needs in addition to
the zoning code required off-street parking.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 9
OBJECTIVE: PARK-AND-RIDE
To support development of a regional park-
and ride lot system by Metro Transit, Pierce
Transit, Sound Transit, and the Washington
State Department of Transportation.
POLICIES:
TR-60: Encourage park & ride lots on sites
adjacent to compatible land uses with
convenient access to the Auburn Transit
Station, SR 18, SR 167, and all regional
transportation corridors.
TR-61: Work proactively with Sound
Transit, WSDOT, Metro Transit, and Pierce
Transit to ensure the adequate supply of
park & ride capacity in Auburn.
OBJECTIVE: RIGHT-OF-WAY
To retain and preserve existing right-of-way,
and identify and acquire new right-of-way as
needed to achieve the City's objectives.
POLICIES:
TR-62: The acquisition and preservation of
right-of-way is a key component of
maintaining a viable transportation system.
Methods used to acquire and preserve right-
of-way include:
Requiring dedication of right-of-way as a
condition of development;
Purchasing right-of-way at fair market
value; and
Acquiring development rights and
easements from property owners.
TR-63: Preserve and protect existing right-
of-way through the issuance of permits such
as ROW Use permits and franchise and
public way agreements, by monitoring and
responding to right-of-way encroachments
and safety impacts, and by limiting vacations
of public right-of-way.
TR-64: Vacate right-of-way only when it
clearly will not be a future need or to
support economic development.
OBJECTIVE: MAINTENANCE
AND PRESERVATION
To maintain the City’s transportation system
at a level that is comparable with the design
standards applied to new facilities.
POLICIES:
TR-65: Establish programs and schedules
for the level and frequency of roadway and
non-motorized system maintenance.
TR-66: In order to help ensure the long
term preservation of the city street system,
the City prohibits heavy vehicles that exceed
lawful load limits for state highways from
traveling on city streets, unless the City
permits such travel via the issuance of a
temporary haul permit that requires
appropriate mitigation.
TR-67: Establish standards of street repair
and seek to obtain sufficient financing to
attain and maintain a safe system in good
condition.
TR-68: Continue to implement the “Save
Our Streets” program for maintenance and
rehabilitation of local streets.
TR-69: Create an arterial streets
maintenance and rehabilitation program,
including development of an
implementation timeline and strategy, for
arterial and collector streets in Auburn.
TR-70: The City maintains the option of
closing streets when freezing conditions are
present to prevent frost damage.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 10
5.2 Street System
OBJECTIVE: FUNCTIONAL
CLASSIFICATION
To provide an integrated street network of
appropriate classes of streets designed to
facilitate different types of traffic flows and
access needs.
POLICIES:
TR-71: The city street system is made up of
three classes of streets:
a. Arterials - a system of city, county, and
state streets designed to move traffic to or
from major traffic and activity generators.
Arterials should be adequate in number,
appropriately situated, and designed to
accommodate moderate to high traffic
volumes with a minimum of flow
disruption.
b. Collectors - a system of city streets that
collect traffic and move it from the local
street system to the arterial street system.
c. Local streets - a system of city streets,
which collect traffic from individual sites
and conveys the traffic to the collector and
arterial systems.
TR-72: The Functional Roadway
Classifications Map will serve as the adopted
standard for identifying classified streets in
the City of Auburn and the potential
annexation areas.
TR-73: Ensure all streets classified in the
Comprehensive Transportation Plan are
federally classified.
TR-74: Street standards shall be developed,
modified, and implemented that reflect the
street classification system and function.
The design and management of the street
network shall seek to improve the
appearance of existing street corridors.
Streets are recognized as an important
component of the public spaces within the
City and should include, where appropriate,
landscaping to enhance the appearance of
city street corridors. The standards should
include provisions for streetscaping.
TR-75: The classification standards adopted
in the Auburn Engineering Design Standards are
considered the City’s minimum standards
for new streets. In cases in which the City
attempts to rebuild an existing street within
an established right-of-way, the City Council
reserves the authority to determine if
additional right-of-way should be obtained
in order to realize the improvement.
Preservation of neighborhood continuity
and cohesiveness will be respected.
Save Our Streets - Patching Treatment
Save Our Streets - Overlay
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 11
TR-76: The standards for residential streets
may be modified in cross section to provide
better relationships between the different
components of the street including, but not
limited to, on-street parking, the landscape
strip, and the sidewalk. Among other
objectives, this may be done to balance the
need to provide adequate parking and buffer
pedestrians from traffic.
TR-77: These minimum standards do not
limit or prevent developers from providing
facilities that exceed the City’s standards.
OBJECTIVE: ARTERIALS
To provide an efficient arterial street network.
POLICIES:
TR-78: The City has two classes of arterials,
as follows.
a. Principal Arterials convey traffic along
commercial or industrial activities, and
provide access to freeways. They emphasize
mobility and de-emphasize access to
adjacent land uses. Principal arterial streets
are typically constructed to accommodate
five lanes of traffic.
Principal Arterial: 15th Street NW
b. Minor Arterials convey traffic onto
principal arterials from collector and local
streets. They place slightly more emphasis
on land access and offer a lower level of
mobility than principal arterials. Minor
arterial streets are typically constructed to
accommodate four lanes of traffic.
TR-79: Encourage King and Pierce counties
to develop and implement a similar system
of arterial designations within Auburn's
potential annexation area.
TR-80: Designate new arterials to serve
developing areas concurrent with approval
of such development. Arterials shall be
spaced in compliance with good
transportation network planning principles,
and support the importance of overall
system circulation.
OBJECTIVE: COLLECTORS
To provide an efficient collector street
network, which transitions traffic from the
local street network to the arterial street
system.
POLICIES:
TR-81: The City has three classes of
collectors as follows:
a. Residential Collectors, Type I are used to
connect local streets and residential
neighborhoods to community activity
centers and minor and principal arterials.
b. Non-Residential Collectors connect non-
residential areas such as industrial and
commercial areas to minor and principal
arterials.
c. Residential Collectors, Type II are routes
that connect residential neighborhoods with
less intensive land uses to activity centers,
regardless of traffic volume. They are often
constructed to a lesser standard than
Residential Collectors, Type I and Non-
Residential Collector streets.
TR-82: Encourage King and Pierce counties
to develop and implement a similar system
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 12
of collector designations within Auburn's
potential annexation area.
TR-83: Designate new collectors to serve
developing areas concurrent with approval
of such development. Collectors shall be
spaced in compliance with good
transportation network planning principles,
and support the importance of overall
system circulation.
OBJECTIVE: LOCAL STREETS
To provide an effective street system for local
traffic while maintaining community access.
POLICIES:
TR-84: The local street system is comprised
of all roadway facilities not part of the
higher classification system and is designed
to provide direct access between abutting
land uses and the collector/arterial systems.
The local street types are as follows:
a. Local Residential Streets, Type I serve
primarily residential areas.
b. Local Non-Residential Streets serve
primarily industrial and manufacturing land
uses.
c. Local Residential Streets, Type II provide
access to residential areas that tend to have
less intensive land uses.
d. Private Streets are privately owned by the
communities they serve and are only
permitted under the guidance outlined in the
Private Streets Objective and supporting
policies.
TR-85: Access Tracts may be permitted, as
long as emergency access can be guaranteed
at all times.
TR-86: The local street network shall be
developed to maximize the efficiency of the
transportation network in residential areas
and minimize through traffic in
neighborhoods.
The internal local residential street
network for a subdivision should be
designed to discourage regional through
traffic and non-residential traffic from
penetrating the subdivision or adjacent
subdivisions.
Where possible, streets shall be planned,
designed and constructed to connect to
future development.
When applicable, non-motorized paths
shall be provided at the end of dead end
streets to shorten walking distances to an
adjacent arterial or public facilities
including, but not limited to, schools and
parks.
Residential developments should be
planned in a manner that minimizes the
number of local street accesses to
arterials and collectors.
To promote efficient connectivity
between areas of the community,
existing stub end streets shall be linked
to other streets in new development
whenever the opportunity arises and the
resulting traffic volumes are not likely to
exceed acceptable volumes as identified
in the Auburn Engineering Design Standards.
OBJECTIVE: PRIVATE STREETS
To discourage the development of private
streets and ensure, if they are permitted by
the City, they are constructed and maintained
according to City standards.
POLICIES:
TR-87: Private streets are discouraged, but
may be permitted on a discretionary basis, as
regulated by city code and the Auburn
Engineering Design Standards.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 13
TR-88: If a private street is permitted, it
must be built to public street standards as
identified in the Auburn Engineering Design
Standards and Construction Standards manuals.
TR-89: Private streets must provide for
emergency vehicle access and be privately
maintained by an approved association or
business. The City does not maintain
private streets.
OBJECTIVE: ACCESS
MANAGEMENT
To limit and provide access to the street
network in a manner which improves and
maintains public safety and roadway capacity.
POLICIES:
TR-90: Seek consolidation of access points
to state highways, arterials, and collectors.
This will benefit the highway and city street
system, reduce interference with traffic
flows on arterials, and discourage through
traffic on local streets. To achieve this level
of access control, the City:
Adopts and supports the State’s
controlled access policy on all state
highway facilities;
May acquire access rights along some
arterials and collectors;
Adopts design standards that identify
access standards for each type of
functional street classification;
Encourages consolidation of access in
developing commercial and high density
residential areas through shared use of
driveways and local access streets; and
Will establish standards for access
management, develop a planning process
to work with the community and
implement access management solutions
on arterial corridors.
TR-91: Strive to prevent negative impacts to
existing businesses, without compromising
safety, when implementing access
management.
OBJECTIVE: THROUGH TRAFFIC
To accommodate through traffic in the City as
efficiently as possible, with a minimum of
disruption to neighborhoods.
POLICIES:
TR-92: Continue to coordinate with the
Washington State Department of
Transportation to facilitate the movement of
traffic through the City.
TR-93: Encourage the State and Counties to
develop through routes, which minimize the
impact of through traffic on Auburn's
residential neighborhoods.
TR-94: Actively solicit action by the State
and Counties to program and construct
those improvements needed to serve
Auburn to the state and county arterial and
freeway systems.
OBJECTIVE: TRAFFIC CALMING
To employ traffic calming techniques to
improve safety and neighborhood quality.
POLICIES:
TR-95: Implement the City’s traffic calming
program to improve neighborhood safety
and quality.
TR-96: The traffic calming program shall
require a technical analysis of existing
conditions and appropriate treatments
before actions are taken to fund and
implement traffic calming measures.
TR-97: The traffic calming program shall
incorporate neighborhood involvement and
seek community support.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 14
TR-98: New construction should
incorporate traffic calming measures, as
appropriate.
OBJECTIVE: FREIGHT
MOVEMENTS
To facilitate the movements of freight and
goods through Auburn with minimal adverse
traffic and other environmental impacts.
POLICIES:
TR-99: The movement of freight and goods
is recognized as an important component of
Auburn’s transportation system.
TR-100: The movement of freight and
goods which serve largely national, state, or
regional needs should take place in such a
way so that the impacts on the local
transportation system are minimized. These
movements should take place primarily on
state highways, Interstates, or on grade-
separated rail corridors in order to minimize
the local impacts.
TR-101: Seek public and private partners to
leverage funds for freight improvement
projects and associated mitigation.
TR-102: Continue to work with the Freight
Mobility Roundtable, FAST, FMSIB, and
other local and regional groups to ensure
regional needs are met, and local impacts are
mitigated.
TR-103: All through truck trips and the
majority of local trips shall take place on
designated truck routes, as identified on the
truck route map, Figure 2-7, of the
Comprehensive Transportation Plan. This policy
shall not apply to developments and uses
operating under existing right-of-way use
permits, traffic mitigation agreements or
equivalent agreements directly related to the
regulation of permitted haul routes.
TR-104: If the City is unable to acquire
funding to maintain existing truck routes to
a Pavement Condition Index Standard of 70
on a segment of roadway, that route may be
restricted or closed to truck travel.
TR-105: Work towards designing and
constructing future truck routes, as
identified on the truck route map in Chapter
2 of the Comprehensive Transportation
Plan, to sustain routine truck traffic.
TR-106: Local truck trips that have origins
and/or destinations in Auburn may have to
sometimes use routes not designated as
truck routes. The City may approve the use
of alternate routes not currently designated
as truck routes for truck traffic, with
appropriate mitigation. Approval may be
made through issuance of right-of-way use
permits, traffic mitigation agreements or
equivalent agreements.
TR-107: Development shall be required to
mitigate the impacts of construction
generated truck traffic on the City’s
transportation system, based on the City’s
LOS standard.
TR-108: Temporary haul routes for
overweight or oversized vehicles shall be
permitted under circumstances acceptable to
the City and with appropriate mitigation. A
temporary haul permit must be obtained
prior to the hauling of oversized or
overweight freight.
TR-109: Truck traffic in residential
neighborhoods shall be prohibited, except
for local deliveries within said
neighborhood, unless no other possible
route is available, in which case mitigation
may be required.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 15
OBJECTIVE: LATECOMER
POLICY
To enable private investors to recover a
portion of improvement costs for
transportation facility improvements that
benefit other developments.
POLICIES:
TR-110: The City may enter into latecomer
agreements where substantial transportation
investments are made by one party that
legitimately should be reimbursed by others,
such as, when the infrastructure
improvement will benefit a future
development. Such agreements will be at
the discretion of the City Council.
Latecomer agreements do not apply to
situations in which a property owner is
required to construct improvements per an
existing city code provision, such as in the
case of half-street and other frontage
improvements.
OBJECTIVE: ROUNDABOUTS
To seek air quality, safety, and capacity
benefits by promoting the use of roundabouts
over traffic signals.
POLICIES:
TR-111: Intersections controlled with
roundabouts are preferred over signalized
intersections whenever feasible and
appropriate due to the benefits achieved
with roundabouts including reduced
collision rate for vehicles and pedestrians,
less severe collisions, smoother traffic flow,
reduced vehicle emissions and fuel
consumption, lower long-term maintenance
costs, and improved aesthetics.
TR-112: Developments required to signalize
an intersection as mitigation for a project
may be required to install a roundabout
instead of a traffic signal. The feasibility of
acquiring the land needed for a roundabout
will be considered as a factor in this
requirement
5.3 Non-motorized System
OBJECTIVE: PLANNING THE
NON-MOTORIZED SYSTEM
To plan a coordinated, interconnected
network of non-motorized transportation
facilities that effectively provide access to
local and regional destinations, improve
overall quality of life, and support healthy
community and environmental principles.
POLICIES:
TR-113: Implement land use regulations and
encourage site design that promotes non-
motorized forms of transportation.
TR-114: Include the role of non-motorized
transportation in all transportation planning,
programming, and if suitable, capital
improvement projects.
TR-115: Plan for continuous non-motorized
circulation routes within and between
existing, new or redeveloping commercial,
residential, and industrial developments.
Transportation planning shall seek to allow
Interurban Trail at W Main Street
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 16
pedestrians and bicyclists the ability to cross
or avoid barriers in a manner that is safe and
convenient.
TR-116: Actively seek to acquire land along
corridors identified for future trail
development in the Comprehensive
Transportation Plan and Auburn Parks,
Recreation, & Open Space Plan 2005 and
subsequent Park plans.
TR-117: Schedule, plan and co-sponsor
events that support recreational walking and
bicycling. These events should emphasize
their recreational and health values and
introduce people to the transportation
capabilities of bicycling and walking.
TR-118: Improve and protect the non-
motorized transportation system through
the establishment of level-of-service goals
for non-motorized facilities.
OBJECTIVE: DEVELOPING THE
NON-MOTORIZED SYSTEM
To build a safe, attractive, and inter-
connected non-motorized transportation
system.
POLICIES:
TR-119: Develop and maintain the non-
motorized system, including bike routes,
walkways and equestrian paths, to encourage
significant recreational use.
TR-120: Develop and maintain the non-
motorized system, including bike routes,
sidewalks, and multi-use paths in a manner
that promotes non-motorized travel as a
viable mode of transportation.
TR-121: Develop the non-motorized system
to accommodate appropriate alternative
forms of non-motorized transport, as well as
medically necessary motorized transport.
TR-122: Appropriate street furniture,
lighting, signage, and landscaping should be
installed along non-motorized routes to
increase safety and to ensure that facilities
are inviting to users.
TR-123: Clearly sign and mark major non-
motorized routes to guide travelers and
improve safety.
TR-124: Non-motorized routes shall be
constructed to accommodate emergency
vehicle access and be amenable to law
enforcement.
TR-125: Locate and design non-motorized
transportation systems so that they
contribute to the safety, efficiency,
enjoyment and convenience of residential
neighborhoods.
TR-126: The development of facilities
supporting non-motorized transportation
should be provided as a regular element of
new construction projects. Improvements
shall be secured through the development
review process.
TR-127: Minimize hazards and obstructions
on the non-motorized transportation system
by properly designing, constructing,
managing, and maintaining designated
routes in the system.
OBJECTIVE:
PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL
To enhance and encourage pedestrian travel
in Auburn.
POLICIES:
TR-128: Promote pedestrian travel within
the city and connections to adjacent
communities with emphasis placed on safety
and on connectivity to priority destinations
such as schools, parks, the downtown, and
other pedestrian-oriented areas. Pedestrian-
oriented areas are those areas with high
pedestrian traffic or potential and are
identified in this plan. These areas and
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 17
streets shall encourage pedestrian travel by
providing enhanced pedestrian
improvements or controls on motorized
traffic.
TR-129: Focus investments on and
aggressively seek funding for the high
priority pedestrian corridors, identified in
Figure 3-2.
TR-130: Require developers to incorporate
pedestrian facilities into new development
and redevelopment in conformance with the
Auburn City Code.
TR-131: Continue to construct new and
rehabilitate existing sidewalks through a
sidewalk improvement program.
TR-132: Seek ways to provide pedestrian
amenities such as streetlights, trees, seating
areas, signage, and public art along all major
pedestrian travel routes.
TR-133: Work towards buffering pedestrian
walkways from moving traffic, particularly in
areas with high levels of pedestrian
movements, such as near schools and
commercial areas, and along corridors with
heavy vehicular traffic.
TR-134: Pedestrian crossings shall be
developed at locations with significant
pedestrian traffic and designed to match
pedestrian desire lines.
TR-135: Encourage the formation of LIDs
to develop pedestrian pathways and other
non-motorized amenities throughout the
City. Partner with the local school districts
to improve Safe Walking Routes to School.
OBJECTIVE: BICYCLE TRAVEL
To improve Auburn's bicycling network.
POLICIES:
TR-136: Develop programs and
publications, and work with local employers
to encourage citywide bicycle commuting.
TR-137: Designate, develop, and maintain
high priority bicycle routes, in conformance
with Figure 3-4, that create an
interconnected system of bike facilities for
local and regional travel, including on-street
bike routes, and multi-purpose trails.
TR-138: During the development review
process, ensure projects are consistent with
the Non-motorized chapter of the
Comprehensive Transportation Plan by
requiring right-of-way dedications and other
improvements as needed to develop the
bicycle network.
TR-139: Focus investments on and
aggressively seek funding for the high
priority future bicycle corridors, identified in
Figure 3-4 and corridors and connectors, as
applicable, specified in Figure 3-5.
TR-140: Encourage the inclusion of
convenient and secure bicycle storage
facilities in all large public and private
developments.
TR-141: Develop and implement Sharrows
and associated Share the Road signage in
residential and some non-residential areas of
City. To test effectiveness and overall public
response, the implementation of a Sharrows
program with associated Share the Road
signage should be initially conducted
through a pilot program.
TR-142: Continue installation of bike lanes
in parts of City where there is
existing/adequate right-of-way.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 18
TR-143: Develop an Auburn specific bicycle
signage program to highlight corridors,
connectors and in-city/out of city
destinations.
TR-144: Make improvements to existing
Interurban Trail – signage, pavement
conditions, vegetation maintenance, grade
crossings, and upgrades to user facilities at
Main Street crossing.
TR-145: Develop a capital improvement
program project with cost estimate for the
design and construction of
bicycle/pedestrian bridge at southern
terminus of M St. west of existing Stuck
River Vehicle Bridge.
TR-146: Develop a capital improvement
program project with cost estimate for the
design and construction of innovative and
safe pedestrian/bicycle crossing at M
St./Auburn Way South intersection.
TR-147: Install one or more bike boxes
through a pilot program approach to test
effectiveness and public response. Focus
pilot program efforts at key intersections
such as the West Main Street and C Street
intersection, the M Street and Auburn Way
South intersection and the Ellingson Road
and A Street intersection.
TR-148: Install bicycle/pedestrian crossing
warning systems along Interurban Trail at all
crossing locations consisting of 277th Street,
37th St. NW, West Main Street and 15th
Street SW.
TR-149: Develop an official Auburn
Bicycling Guide Map.
TR-150: In coordination with the City
Council, Mayor’s Office, Auburn Area
Chamber of Commerce, Auburn Tourism
Board and appropriate City departments
develop strategies and actions for the
implementation of the bicycle oriented
economic development recommendations of
the Auburn Bicycle Task Force.
OBJECTIVE:
EQUESTRIAN TRAVEL
To improve Auburn's equestrian environment.
POLICIES:
TR-151: Strive to incorporate equestrian
facilities into the design of trail and
transportation facilities, where possible and
appropriate. These efforts should be
concentrated south of the White River in
Auburn's southeast corner and in Lea Hill,
but considered for other areas of the City.
TR-152: Transportation projects, and other
public and private projects, in lower-density
neighborhoods should be evaluated, and
where possible, planned, designed and
constructed to be compatible with
equestrian use.
TR-153: Create an interconnected system of
safe equestrian trails and provide adequate
equestrian amenities adjacent to those trails.
5.4 Transit System
OBJECTIVE: TRANSIT
SERVICES
To encourage the continued development of
public transit systems and other alternatives
to single occupant vehicle travel, to relieve
traffic congestion, to reduce reliance on the
automobile for personal transportation needs,
to improve route coverage and scheduling,
and to ensure transit is a convenient and
reliable mode option for both local and
regional trips.
TR-154: Partner with WSDOT, Metro
Transit, Pierce Transit, and Sound Transit to
achieve Auburn's transit and passenger rail
objectives.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 19
TR-155: Work with local and regional transit
agencies to serve new and existing trip
generators in Auburn, such as colleges,
commercial areas, and community facilities.
TR-156: Encourage Sound Transit, Metro
Transit, and Pierce Transit to expand transit
to underserved areas of Auburn.
TR-157: Partner with WSDOT, Amtrak, and
Sound Transit to establish an intercity
passenger rail stop at the Auburn Station.
TR-158: Consider both the transit impacts
and the opportunities presented by major
development proposals when reviewing
development under the State Environmental
Policy Act.
TR-159: Encourage the inclusion of transit
facilities in new development when
appropriate.
TR-160: Encourage bus stops to be located
at well lit areas.
TR-161: Work with transit providers and
regional agencies to develop a transit system
that is fully accessible to pedestrians and the
physically challenged, and which integrates
the access, safety, and parking requirements
of bicyclists.
TR-162: Identify areas of concentrated
transit traffic and impose design and
construction standards that accommodate
the unique considerations associated with
bus travel, such as street geometry and
pedestrian linkages.
TR-163: Work with transit providers to
create new commuter – oriented transit
routes and maintain existing commuter
routes linked with Sounder commuter rail.
5.5 Air Transportation
OBJECTIVE:
AIR TRANSPORTATION
To provide an efficient municipal airport,
serving light general aviation aircraft, as an
integral part of the City’s transportation
system.
POLICIES:
TR-164: Continue to develop the Auburn
Municipal Airport in accordance with the
Airport Master Plan.
TR-165: The airport shall be managed as a
general aviation facility; the use of jet
aircrafts and helicopters that create noise
and land use conflicts shall be evaluated, in
conformance with FAA regulations.
TR-166: The siting of new airport facilities
shall consider neighborhood impacts such as
increased noise generated from the use of
those facilities.
TR-167: Use of the airport by non-
conventional aircraft such as ultra lights shall
be discouraged, in conformance with FAA
regulations.
TR-168: The City’s zoning ordinance and
other appropriate regulatory measures shall
enforce the airport clear zones as regulated
by the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA). The impact of development on air
safety shall be assessed through SEPA
review, and appropriate mitigation measures
shall be required by the City.
TR-169: Minimize or eliminate the
potentially adverse effects of light and glare
on the operation of the Auburn Airport.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 6. Funding Page 6- 1
CHAPTER 6.
FUNDING
The ability to finance the transportation
system is critical to the implementation of
this plan and the success of the future
transportation system. Funding is needed to
realize the capital improvements and
maintenance activities outlined in this plan.
This chapter details the financial planning
tools and funding mechanisms available to
accomplish these improvements.
6.1 Financial Planning and
Programming
The City reassesses its financial plan annually
in order to ensure programmed
transportation improvements are financially
feasible and prioritized in accordance with
funding availability. The Transportation
Improvement Program and Capital Facilities Plan
are the two financial planning documents the
City uses to identify its financial strategy for
implementing transportation improvements.
TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The City adopts a six-year Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) annually, which
lists programmed transportation
improvements on the arterial and collector
systems, including intersection and non-
motorized improvements. Transportation
needs are identified by examining the latest
information concerning safety and accident
history, growth trends, the traffic model,
traffic studies, and the Comprehensive
Transportation Plan. The TIP adoption
process also includes a revenue forecast and
analysis of available funding. Projects are
then prioritized according to a number of
factors including safety, capacity needs,
access needs, and the likelihood of securing
funding. The first three years of the TIP
must be financially constrained, so project
programming is often limited due to funding
limitations.
The TIP is an important tool for identifying
funding needs and developing a financial
plan for project implementation. It also
feeds into the Capital Facilities Plan.
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
The Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is the
Comprehensive Plan element, which identifies
the financial plan for implementing all capital
improvements in Auburn. Transportation
improvements are included in the Capital
Facilities Plan, which is amended annually.
The Capital Facilities Plan enables the City to
fulfill the GMA requirement of having a
multiyear financing plan based on identified
transportation needs. It also enables the City
to make informed decisions about its
investment of public dollars and make timely
Auburn City Hall
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 6. Funding Page 6- 2
decisions about maintaining levels-of-service
in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan
standards.
6.2 Funding Sources
The City uses a combination of public and
private funding sources to implement
transportation improvements in Auburn,
both for maintenance activities and capital
improvements.
GENERAL TAX REVENUES
The City receives tax revenues from a variety
of state, regional, and local sources including
the real estate excise tax, sales tax, and the
motor vehicle fuel tax. Despite these
revenues, the City has numerous
maintenance and capital improvement needs
that cannot be met by existing tax revenues
alone.
Recognizing the need to raise additional
revenues for the local street system, Auburn
residents approved the ‘Save Our Streets’
(SOS) program in 2004, and in doing so,
created a funding program to help
rehabilitate Auburn’s residential streets.
With the success of the ‘Save Our Streets’
program, the City intends to pursue a
program that will help fund arterial and
collector street maintenance. The City does
have an Arterial Street Fund; however, these
funds have proven inadequate in addressing
all the maintenance and capital needs of the
arterial system.
GRANTS
The City has an active grant program and
continually seeks grants, both private and
public, to improve Auburn’s transportation
system. The following is a list of some of
the grants the City has historically applied for
and will likely apply for again in the future.
FEDERALLY FUNDED PROGRAMS
The Transportation Enhancements
Program funds projects designed to
strengthen the cultural, aesthetic, and
environmental aspects of the inter-modal
transportation system. The program provides
for the implementation of a variety of non-
traditional projects, including the restoration
of historic transportation facilities, the
construction of bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, landscaping and scenic
beautification, and the mitigation of water
pollution from highway runoff.
The Surface Transportation Program
(STP) provides flexible funding that may be
used by states and localities for projects on
any public road, non-motorized
improvements, bridge projects, and transit
capital projects.
The Safety Program is a federal program
targeted at reducing accident rates at
intersections and along corridors, particularly
at those locations with higher than average
fatality and injury rates.
The Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality (CMAQ) program is a federally
funded program administered through
PSRC. CMAQ funds projects and programs
in air quality non-attainment and
maintenance areas, which reduce
transportation related emissions.
In addition to the aforementioned programs,
the federal government has an annual
appropriations bill. Auburn may apply
through the offices of Washington senators
and congressional members for funding for
specific projects. This funding source has
historically been a successful means of
financing some of the City’s more expensive
capital improvement projects.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 6. Funding Page 6- 3
FEDERAL LEGISLATION
In August 2005, the federal government
reauthorized SAFETEA-LU (Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users), a $286.5 billion, six-year transpor-
tation bill that will provide funding for many
of the federal grant programs discussed
above, as well as several new funding
programs.
The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act also dedicates funding to numerous
programs, many of which can be used to
help finance the City’s programmed
transportation improvement projects.
STATE FUNDED PROGRAMS
The Safe Routes to Schools Program is a
state and federally funded program that aims
to protect children from traffic related
deaths and injuries and promotes a healthy
lifestyle by encouraging bicycling and
walking to school.
The Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Grant
is a state funded program that funds non-
motorized safety improvements.
The Transportation Improvement Board
(TIB) administers annual grant programs
that fund roadway and non-motorized
projects that improve safety, mobility,
capacity, and promote economic
development. The TIB offers several
programs, each of which emphasizes
different funding criteria.
The Community Economic Revitali-
zation Board (CERB) is a state funded
program that provides low-cost financing for
public facility improvements that are
required for private development.
LOANS
There are several low-interest loans available
to municipalities, such as the Public Works
Trust Fund Loan. These loans can be
strategically employed to leverage grant
funding by providing a local match, enabling
the City to compete for funding for public
infrastructure projects.
In addition, the City has the option of
issuing bonds for public infrastructure
projects.
PRIVATE SECTOR
CONTRIBUTIONS
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES
The City has an established traffic impact fee
system based on the Institute of Traffic
Engineers (ITE) guidelines, as adjusted by
the City Council. The fee system estimates
the amount of traffic each development is
likely to create, based on the land use and
size. Traffic impact fees compensate the
City for the impact new development is
expected to have on the City street system.
In turn, the City uses the revenues to expand
the street network through system-wide
capacity improvements.
FACILITY CONTRIBUTIONS
In lieu of traffic impact fees, a developer can
improve a facility in a manner commensurate
with the traffic impact the development is
projected to generate. These contributions
do not relieve developers of their obligation
to provide half street improvements
including curb, gutter, sidewalk, drainage,
and street paving adjacent to their
developing property.
FUNDING PARTNERSHIPS
The City has successfully formed several
funding partnerships, which have enabled it
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 6. Funding Page 6- 4
to leverage its resources in implementing
transportation improvements.
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
Local Improvement Districts (LID) enable
city investment in a specified area by
leveraging city funds with contributions from
property owners in the district. In essence,
LID’s are a means of using limited city
resources to improve neighborhood quality
through improvement of streets, sidewalks,
and other features of the roadway.
FAST (FREIGHT ACTION STRATEGY
TEAM)
FAST is an innovative partnership composed
of transportation agencies, ports, cities,
economic development organizations,
trucking, rail, and business interests. One of
FAST’s primary objectives is to obtain
funding for projects that improve freight
mobility. FAST helped fund the S 277th
Street Grade Separation and the 3rd Street
SW Grade Separation. FAST is also working
on securing funds to help implement the M
Street Grade Separation project.
FMSIB (FREIGHT MOBILITY STRATEGIC
INVESTMENT BOARD)
The mission of the Freight Mobility Strategic
Investment Board (FMSIB) is to create a
comprehensive and coordinated state
program to facilitate freight movement to
local, national, and international markets.
FMSIB is also charged with lessening the
impact of freight movements on local
communities. FMSIB obtains funding
directly from legislative appropriations and
has committed funds to the M Street Grade
Separation project.
FUTURE FINANCING
POSSIBILITIES
As the transportation system evolves, so will
the range of financing options available to
the City. In general, the financing options
currently available under state law fall short
of meeting current and anticipated
transportation improvement needs. Hence,
the City will continue to seek fair and
sustainable strategies for funding the
maintenance activities and capital
improvements needed to preserve the City’s
transportation network. Among other
strategies, the implementation of a street
utility may be employed to fund many of the
City’s transportation needs.
STREET UTILITY
A street utility would be used similarly to
how sewer and water utility fees are now
collected. A monthly or annual fee would be
charged to residents and businesses in
Auburn, for example via a flat fee or through
a pro-rated fee based on anticipated usage.
The implementation of a street utility would
require a change in state law. The street
utility system is one in which all residents
and businesses would pay their fair share of
funding street maintenance and repair. If
eventually implemented, a street utility would
undoubtedly be combined with a suite of
other financing strategies the City currently
employs.
6.3 Funding Strategies and
Project Prioritization
The City uses a variety of criteria to prioritize
transportation projects, including safety,
mobility, and overall community benefit. In
addition, the City also considers the
availability of funding and the ability to
leverage city dollars to raise addition funds.
For example, grants are often available for
specific types of capital investments, whereas
they are more limited for maintenance and
preservation. Hence, the City often needs to
budget for maintenance through tax
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 6. Funding Page 6- 5
revenues. Capital improvements may be
financially secured through a combination of
public and private investment. Hence,
project prioritization for capital
improvements is often partially dependent
on the ability to secure outside funding.
Likewise, maintenance and preservation is
highly dependent on the limited tax revenues
available to the City. In the future, the City
will need to continue lobbying for its share
of federal, state, and county tax revenues,
seek creative avenues for securing private
investment dollars and grant funds, and
potentially implement new funding strategies
such as tolling and street utility fees.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 7. Monitoring and Evaluation Page 7- 1
CHAPTER 7.
MONITORING AND
EVALUATION
The Comprehensive Transportation Plan, a
long-range plan with the horizon year 2030,
anticipates the needs and conditions of the
future transportation system, enabling the
City to aptly plan for its current and future
needs. Nonetheless, the transportation
network is dynamic, constantly evolving due
to circumstances beyond the scope and
influence of this plan. Hence, regular
updates are necessary to ensure the Plan
remains current and relevant.
7.1 Annual Updates
The Comprehensive Transportation Plan will
be amended annually as part of the City’s
regular Comprehensive Plan amendment
cycle, which ensures proposed changes go
through a public review process before the
amended plan is adopted by the City Council
at the end of the calendar year. In
preparation for the annual amendment cycle,
the City will review the plan and propose
updates as needed. These proposed updates
may be due to shifts in City priorities, the
availability of new information, or the
relevance of certain plan components.
REEVALUATION
The annual reevaluation process provides an
opportunity for the City to evaluate progress
made in implementing the Plan, as well as
identify new needs that have arisen since the
previous update. The City will look at its
street, non-motorized and transit systems,
and assess whether the Plan adequately
addresses the implementation strategies
necessary to ensure the transportation
infrastructure continues to grow in line with
the City’s objectives.
As part of this process, the City will review
its future projects list and update the Capital
Facilities Plan as appropriate. It will also
review and update the Policies and Funding
chapters, in order to remain consistent with
the City’s vision and current with potential
funding strategies.
TECHNICAL INFORMATION
The Comprehensive Transportation Plan
contains a range of technical data, much of
which informs other elements of the Plan.
As part of the annual amendment cycle,
technical information, such as traffic
volumes, current level-of-service, roadway
classifications, and transit route and ridership
information will be updated. This new
information will inform much of the
evaluative process, enabling the City to
quantify system changes over a period of
time and make apt decisions in planning the
future system.
Auburn Time
Transit Center Clock
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 7. Monitoring and Evaluation Page 7- 2
MODEL UPDATES
The City’s traffic model shall be updated on
a regular basis, every few years, as new land
use, employment, and housing data becomes
available. Model updates are important as
they ensure the City has an accurate
understanding of how land use patterns,
employment, and other factors impact future
transportation conditions, enabling the City
Council to make informed policy decisions.
The model also provides an understanding
of the impacts associated with different
projects, allowing the City to devise a revised
list of future projects to improve capacity
and safety, as well as achieve other priorities.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CONSISTENCY
The annual evaluation process is an
opportunity to ensure the Comprehensive
Transportation Plan is consistent with other
elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan,
including the land use element, economic
development element, Auburn Parks,
Recreation and Open Space Plan, and the Capital
Facilities Plan. Hence, as part of the annual
amendment cycle, the City will ensure these
plan components are consistent with and
supportive of each other.
7.2 Multi-Year Updates
Although the City will go through a formal
process of updating the Comprehensive
Transportation Plan annually, a more
exhaustive process is periodically necessary.
Hence, a thorough rewrite of the Plan shall
be conducted every five to eight years. This
endeavor will include a broad public
outreach effort with input from neighboring
jurisdictions, state and regional agencies, and
Auburn residents and businesses. Much like
the process for the 2005 and 2009 updates, it
will present an opportunity to holistically
examine the current transportation system
and lay the framework for development of
the future system.