Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutComprehensive Transportation Plan 2007Comprehensive Transportation Plan ,,++? 11 ???5? ?jlQ ? ? '3ar!} C A ?:F': w °?,f ?? ? V + r ''?' ??a?k ,.1 i1 a ?? t' ? ? ?,F ?????,1 ,,? ?,? ?' .. ??'t+? ?? ,? ?. :° atr - ; ?? - ,? ? ?.. ? ?'' ,` ;a?;,' ,_ t, _? ? ,. __. ??r .. e.: . - ?,A? :. p . ` ? _ ?. v rat ? ? ?{ ? . s ? f.?, ? a ? ?1 ? 3 ?i e ? >YW k4' ? ?:? V r N i'?.? ? ? ? '? ?"ft ? o- . 5... A - 'K 4 y ? 1 5 ,?, .313:. a?y???t ??' 3 .: "a " }?..? ? ?? ?? 7 @ a _ .? '. :g, 3.. ? ? ,1 ?,.. ..F - - 4 11 K ¢ N1 4? { ?,±? ?gi t? j ,?? ?' Y?"r"?. ?? ;??;,_ ?°? ?"-L iws? ? +ial ? ??1?? ??3? ? ?!w'r?e,?i ?iM a y. ? Y ?' a' x. 1 ? :4 e y? !?? ?, ? ?y'?M. °4 ???' t{ 1 L T ? " ,?,?, y +'6`?' f ?W "^ 'sue "'?n?'.dac ('? N1??1 J $„ , ? ? ?F1'M?h ? tii 'r, ,*tr.. ;' n?? .. ? ?#`., ? LA. ???? F ,Vr .? - ?a? ? 4 L? a? I ° ? r4 ???'o i. ?s .?? f ?. ,yaw , y F f 'YJ ?. n ?. x - - - au.-._ r; -. ? .? ^I- ?' ? ? v? Z ? fiµ???l[ r?? `4x ?? 4'; Te" 11/.x. ????4 ??/) ,y?/?l{ fin t ?' ? li"y,; ,?+cV . ??l - AIC ? ? .:. i??r'?yyf F??)y '? ,?e y_e ? ?? ? ?V 1. • CITY?F ? Comprehensive Transportation Plan ?t.l L L.J WA5 ti 1 i?! GTQlJ Acknowledgements The City would like to acknowledge and thank those who contributed to the development of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. In addition to those listed below, numerous individuals provided insight, expertise, and other contributions that informed this plan. Mayor Peter B. Lewis Councilmembers Sue Singer, Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Backus Gene Cerino Lynn Norman Bill Peloza Roger Thordarson Rich Wagner, TACMember Technical Advisory Committee (TACK Mike Cowles, BNSF Railroad Jim Denton, Auburn School District Jack Lattemann, Metro Transit Jay Jenks, Community Representative Doug Johnson, Metro Transit Fra n k M a n se I I, Community Representative Mike Morrisette, Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce Lee Singer, Community Representative Steve Taylor, Muck/eshoot Indian Tribe Ed Vanderpol, Oak Harbor Freight Lines Tom Washington, WSDOT Consultant Team Don Samdahl, P.E., MiraiAssociates Yukari Bettencourt, MiraiAssociates Virginia Brix, MiraiAssociates Howard Wu, MiraiAssociates Bob Shull, P.E., PTVAmerica Inc. Adopted by Ordinance No. 6138 December 17, 2007 Planning Commission Dave Peace, Chairman Yvonne ward, Vice Chair Kevin Chapman Ronald Douglass, TACMember Renee Larson Joan Mason Judi Roland Staff Dennis Dowdy, P.E. Jeff Dixon Ingrid Gaub, P.E. Tiffin Goodman Bill Helbig, P.E. Ryan Johnstone Paul Krauss, AICP Wi I I Lathrop Bill Mandeville Amber Mund David Osaki, AICP, TACMember Laura Philpot, TACMember Megan Robel Dan Scamporlina, TACMember Dennis Selle, P.E. Carlene Teterud Joe Welsh, TACMember Seth Wickstrom Angela Wingate Walt Wojcik Cover Design: Lisa Worden, Auburn High School, 2005 Includes Revisions through 2007 °?r°F Comprehensive Transportation Plan AuBUxN WASHINGTON Table of Contents Page Acknowledgements Chapter 1 Introduction 1 - 1 1.1 Purpose 1 - 1 Vision 1 - 1 GMA Requirements 1 - 1 1.2 How the City Uses the Plan 1 - 2 Needs Assessment 1 - 2 Policy Development 1 - 3 Capital Facilities Plan and Transportation Improvement Program 1 - 3 1.3 Regional Coordination 1 - 3 WSDOT 1 - 4 Sound Transit 1 - 4 King County 1 - 4 Countywide Planning Policies 1 - 4 PSRC -Vision 2020 and Destination 2030 1 - 5 Adjacent Cities 1 - 5 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 1 - 6 1.4 Accomplishments Since the Last Plan 1 - 6 1.5 Plan Organization 1 - 7 Chapter 2 The Street System 2 - 1 2.1 Existing Street System 2 - 1 Functional Classification 2 - 1 Traffic Volumes 2 - 5 Speed Limits 2 - 5 Traffic Signals and Signs 2 - 5 Freight 2 - 5 Safety 2 - 6 2.2 Street Standards and Levels-of-Service 2 - 7 City LOS Standards and Current LOS 2 - 8 State Highway LOS 2 - 9 2.3 Future Street System 2 - 12 Methodology for Evaluating Future System 2 - 12 Future System Recommendations 2 - 18 Transportation System Management 2 - 18 Transportation Demand Management 2 - 19 Neighborhood Needs 2 - 19 Street Maintenance & Rehabilitation 2 - 20 Intergovernmental Coordination 2 - 20 Chapter 3 Non-Motorized Transportation 3 - 1 3.1 Pedestrian Travel 3 - 1 Needs Assessment 3 - 1 Future System 3 - 5 3.2 Bicycle Travel 3 - 8 Needs Assessment 3 - 8 Future Travel 3 - 10 CITY?F ? ? Comprehensive Transportation Plan t.l L L.J WA5 ti 1 i?! GTQlJ 3.3 Equestrian Travel 3 - 10 Needs Assessment 3 - 11 Future System 3 - 12 3.4 Future Non-Motorized System 3 - 12 Chapter 4 Transit 4 - 1 4.1 Needs Assessment 4 - 1 Existing Transit Services 4 - 1 Metro Transit 4 - 2 Sound Transit 4 - 3 4.2 Transit User Needs 4 - 4 Demographics 4 - 4 Service Coverage 4 - 5 Major Trip Generators 4 - 6 Schedules 4 - 7 Urban Design 4 - 8 Improving Local Service 4 - 8 Facilities 4 - 9 4.3 Transit System Recommendations 4 - 10 Metro Transit 4 - 10 Sound Transit 4 - 11 City of Auburn 4 - 11 Chapter 5 Policies 5 - 1 5.1 Coordination, Planning and Implementation 5 - 1 5.2 Street System 5 - 8 5.3 Non-motorized System 5 - 14 5.4 Transit System 5 - 16 5.5 Air Transportation 5 - 17 Chapter 6 Funding 6 - 1 6.1 Financial Planning and Programming 6 - 1 Transportation Improvement Program 6 - 1 Capital Facilities Plan 6 - 1 6.2 Funding Sources 6 - 2 General Tax Revenues 6 - 2 Grants 6 - 2 Loans 6 - 3 Private Sector Contributions 6 - 3 Funding Partnerships 6 - 4 Future Financing Possibilities 6 - 4 6.3 Funding Strategies and Project Prioritization 6 - 5 Chapter 7 Monitoring and Evaluation 7 - 1 7.1 Annual Updates 7 - 1 Reevaluation 7 - 1 Technical Information 7 - 1 Model Updates 7 - 2 Comprehensive Plan Consistency 7 - 2 7.2 Multi-Year Updates 7 - 2 °?r°F Comprehensive Transportation Plan AuBUxN WASHINGTON List of Figures Paae Figure 1-1 Adjacent Jurisdictions 1 - 5 Figure 1-2 Progress Since Last Transportation Plan Figure 2-1 Functional Roadway Classifications Figure 2-2 Daily Traffic Volumes 2005 Figure 2-3 Truck Routes Figure 2-4 Auburn Corridor Section Map Figure 2-5 Population, Housing and Job Growth (1980 - 2020) 2 - 12 Figure 2-6 Roadway Improvement Alternatives Figure 3-1 Existing Pedestrian Facilities Figure 3-2 Existing Bicycle Facilities Figure 3-3 Future Trail and Bicycle Network Figure 4-1 Existing Transit Serving Auburn Figure 4-2 Transit Dependent Areas Figure 4-3 Transit and Major Trip Generators "Figure located following the chapter corresponding to the figure number. List of Tables P? Table 1- 1 Transportation Improvements Completed During the Past 5 Years 1 - 8 Table 2- 1 Notable Roadway Classification Changes Since 1997 Plan 2 - 4 Table 2- 2 Auburn Corridor Level of Service 2 - 10 Table 2- 3 Future Roadway Improvement Projects and Cost Estimates 2 - 14 Table 2-4 Future Project Alternatives -LOS in 2020 2 - 17 Table 3- 1 Existing Pedestrian Facilities 3 - 3 Table 3- 2 Existing Bicycle Facilities 3 - 9 Table 3- 3 Existing Equestrian Facilities 3 - 11 Table 3-4 Future Trail and Bicycle Facility Projects 3 - 14 ? ? q CITY OF ? ? WASHINGTQN CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Comprehensive Transportation Plan The transportation system is a vital component of Auburn's social, economic, and physical structure. On the most basic level, it enables the movement of people and goods throughout the City and the region. Long term, it influences patterns of growth and economic activity by providing access to different land uses. Planning for the development and maintenance of the transportation system is a critical activity for promoting the efficient movement of people and goods, for ensuring emergency access, and for optimizing the role transportation plays in attaining other community objectives. 1.1 PURPOSE The Comprehensive Transportation Plan is the blueprint for transportation planning in Auburn. It functions as the overarching guide for development of the transportation system. The Plan evaluates the existing system by identifying key assets and improvement needs. These findings are then incorporated into a needs assessment, which informs the direction the City will take in developing the future transportation system. This Plan is multi-modal, addressing multiple forms of transportation in Auburn including the street network, non-motorized travel, and transit. Evaluating all modes uniformly enables the City to address its future network needs in a more comprehensive and balanced manner. Auburn Transit Center VISION The Comprehensive Transportation Plan reflects the needs and sensibilities of the Auburn community and, in doing so, seeks to: ¦ Enhance the quality of life for all Auburn residents; ¦ Encourage healthy community principles; ¦ Promote a transportation system that supports local businesses and enhances economic development opportunities; ¦ Create a transportation system that is thoughtfully designed and welcoming to visitors; and ¦ Provide a balanced, multi-modal transportation system that addresses local and regional needs. GMA REQUIREMENTS ?Xlashington State's 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that transportation planning be directly tied to the City's land use decisions and fiscal planning. This is traditionally accomplished through the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan transportation element. However, Auburn fulfills this mandate by adopting the Chapter ?. Introduction Page 1-1 c?TYO? ? Com rehens?ve Trans ortat?on Plan p p WASHINGTON Comprehensive Transportation Plan as the identifying standards for future development City's Comprehensive Plan transportation and various infrastructure improvement element. In order to be GMA compliant, the scenarios. Comprehensive Transportation Plan must: ¦ Use land use assumptions to estimate future travel, including impacts to state- owned facilities; Inventory the existing transportation system in order to identify existing capital facilities and travel levels as a basis for future planning; ¦ Identify level-of-service (LOS) standards for all arterials, transit routes, and state- owned facilities as a gauge for evaluating system performance; ¦ Specify actions and requirements for bringing into compliance locally owned transportation facilities or services that are below an established level-of-service standard; ¦ Determine existing deficiencies of the system; ¦ Identify future improvement needs from at least ten years of traffic forecasts based on the adopted land use plan; ¦ Include a multiyear financing plan based on the identified needs; ¦ Address intergovernmental coordination; and ¦ Include transportation demand management strategies. 1.2 How the City Uses the Plan The Comprehensive Transportation Plan provides policy and technical direction for development of the City's transportation system through the year 2020. It updates and expands upon the ?9?7 Tran.r?ortation Plan by recognizing network changes since the last plan, evaluating current needs, and NEEDS ASSESSMENT A system-wide, multi-modal needs assessment was conducted throughout plan development to ascertain which aspects of Auburn's transportation system work well and which ones need improvement. An evaluation of potential solutions and investment priorities was also conducted as part of this process. The end result is that Auburn has a more thorough understanding of system deficiencies, a better grasp of the best ways to address these deficiencies, and direction for growing the system in a sustainable manner. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Public outreach was an important component of the need assessment process. One open house and several neighborhood meetings were held to solicit feedback from the public on transportation issues. A citywide telephone survey was also conducted in May 2005, which concluded that investment in City roads is the number one spending priority when surplus tax funds are available. The City also formed a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to provide guidance in specialized areas of transportation. The TAC was composed of staff from City departments such as Parks, Police, Planning, and Public ?lorks; the ?Xlashington State Department of Transportation; Metro Transit; the Auburn School District; and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. It also contained Auburn residents with different areas of ? Survey of Auburn Residents, prepared by Hebert Research, May 2005. Chapter ?. Introduction Page 1- 2 ? ? q CITY OF ? ? WASHINGTON Comprehensive Transportation Plan expertise, from neighborhood needs to non- motorized travel, a planning commissioner, a City councilmember, the President of the Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce, and a freight industry representative. The TAC members were tremendously valuable in shaping the plan and advising on behalf of their constituents. POLICY DEVELOPMENT The City creates policies to state preferences for preservation of the existing system and development of the future transportation system. Policies can be qualitative in nature, but often they are quantitative and prescribe a specific standard. Policies are also important for communi- cating the City's values and needs to neighboring jurisdictions and regional and state agencies. The City works in collaboration with other governmental and non-governmental organizations. Having established policies in place enables the City to more effectively influence change in keeping with its needs and objectives. LOS AND CONCURRENCY The concurrency provisions of the 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA) require that local governments permit development only if adequate public facilities exist, or can be guaranteed to be available within six years, to support new development. The GMA requires each local jurisdiction to identify facility and service needs based on level-of-service (LOS) standards. The City establishes corridor LOS standards for all arterial and collector streets, on a scale of "A" to "F". Auburn ensures that future development will not cause the system's performance to fall below the adopted LOS by doing one or a combination of the following: limiting development, requiring appropriate mitigation, or changing the adopted standard. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN AND TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The City uses the Transportation Improve- ment Program (TIP) and Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) to develop a financial plan for capital improvements in Auburn, thus enabling the City to fulfill the GMA requirement of having a multiyear financing plan based on the identified transportation needs. The TIP, a 6-year transportation financing plan, is fiscally constrained for the first three years and is adopted annually by the City Council. It is a financial planning tool used to implement the list of transportation improvement projects identified in the Transportation Plan analysis of existing and future traffic conditions. It is reviewed annually by the City Council and modified as project priorities and funding circumstances change. The Capital Facilities Plan is also an annually adopted 6-year financing plan. However, it is fiscally constrained for all six years. Unlike the TIP, the CFP is an adopted element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Also, the CFP includes non-transportation projects in addition to the transportation related projects also found in the TIP. 1.3 REGIONAL COORDINATION More and more, Auburn's transportation system is influenced by what happens beyond its city limits. Growth in neighbor- ing communities, infrastructure maintenance by regional agencies, the lack of funding for road maintenance as well as capacity Chapter ?. Introduction Page 1- 3 AUBURN WASHINGTON Comprehensive Transportation Plan expansion, and competing demands for transit services all affect mobility in Auburn. This Plan calls for effective interjurisdictional actions to address cross-border issues and to mitigate the impact of new development. The Plan also recognizes that other jurisdictions, particularly state government and transit providers, are responsible for a major share of the transportation facilities serving Auburn. WSDOT The ?Xlashington State Department of Transportation owns four major routes connecting Auburn to the region: SR 167, SR 18, SR 164 (Auburn `X1ay South), and a portion of ?Xlest Valley Highway. Auburn works with the state to study these corridors and implement roadway improvements. WSDOT also serves an important role as administrator of federal and state transportation funds. SOUND TRANSIT Sound Transit provides a variety of regional transit services for King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties. In Auburn, Sound Transit provides commuter rail and express bus service. The Transit Center also serves as a hub and transfer station for local transit service provided by Metro Transit. Sound Transit is in the process of identifying Phase II investments, including the possibility of additional rail and bus service in Auburn. Funding has yet to be identified for these future improvements. The transit chapter provides more detail on current Sound Transit services, remaining needs for regional transit service, and the role Auburn plays in coordinating with the agency. KING COUNTY King County Metro Transit, a division of the King County Department of Transportation, provides local bus service for the Auburn area. Planned service for the City of Auburn is described in the Six-Year Transit Development Plan for 2002 to 2007. The City has developed an employee Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program in cooperation with Metro Transit. Details of the CTR program are summarized in the Non- motorized and Transit chapters of this plan. King County Road Services Division is responsible for maintaining and regulating the roadway network in King County, including those areas of King County that are in Auburn's Potential Annexation Area (PAA). King County Road Services has a number of programs and plans in place that regulate development and other activities affecting the county's roadway network. The City coordinates with King County in an effort to ensure the infrastructure in the potential annexation areas are commensurate with City standards. COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES Under the Growth Management Act, King and Pierce Counties have adopted Countywide Planning Policies to guide development in both incorporated and unincorporated areas of their jurisdictions. The policies support county and regional goals of providing a variety of mobility options and establishing level-of-service standards that emphasize the movement of people and not just automobiles. The Countywide Planning Policies are also important because they provide direction for planning and development of the potential annexation areas. In line with these policies, Auburn works closely with the counties to ensure an adequate transportation Chapter ?. Introduction Page 1- 4 ?t??F `? * Comprehensive Transportation Plan AUBURN WASHINGTON infrastructure is provided in the annexarion CITS' of ILENT areas. PSRC -VISION 2020 AND DESTINATION 2030 The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) sets policy for King, Pierce, Kitsap, and Snohomish counties through its long-range planning document, Vision 2020, and its regional transportation plan, Destination 2030. Both documents encourage future growth to be concentrated in urban centers. They also seek to provide amulti-modal transportation system that serves all travel modes, actively encouraging the use of alternatives to the automobile. Another important policy theme is a focus on maximizing the efficiency of the transportation system through transportation demand management (TDM) and transportation system management (TSM) strategies, as well as completing critical links in the network. Auburn's Transportation Plan must be consistent with PSRC's regional planning efforts. PSRC is in the process of updating both Vision 2020 and Destination 2030. Auburn has been and will continue to be actively involved in these efforts. ADJACENT CITIES The City recognizes the importance of coordinated and strong interjurisdictional action because transportation impacts do not stop at local boundaries. The City works closely with neighboring cities and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe to address transportation issues. These neighbors adopt goals and policies that directly impact the Auburn community. In developing this plan, analysis was undertaken to ensure that all transportation system improvements are compatible with neighboring jurisdictions. The City of Kent shares Auburn's northern border and several regional transportation corridors including S 277th Street, SR 167, and the ?'Iest Valley Highway. Phase III of the S 277th Street reconstruction started in January 2004. The project will improve a half-mile-long section of S 277th Street that currently carries 8,500 to 12,900 vehicles per day, allowing it to safely carry the 23,800 to 32,900 vehicles that are projected to use the corridor daily in 2020. The City of Kent is also a partner in the SR 167 corridor improvement study currently being undertaken by ?XISDOT. A significant component of this study is accommodating regional freight traffic, much of which is generated from the high concentration of warehouses in Auburn and Kent. Figure 1-1. Adjacent ]urisdictions Chapter ?. Introduction Page 1- 5 AUBURN WASHINGTON CITY OF FEDERAL ?XIAY Comprehensive Transportation Plan The City of Federal ?Xlay is located west of Auburn, beyond the potential annexation area. Several roadways, most notably SR 18, connect Auburn and Federal ?'Iay. Auburn and Federal ?X1ay regularly coordinate on roadway improvements affecting both jurisdictions. The two jurisdictions are also collaborating with King County to develop municipal service standards, including street standards, in the potential annexation area located between the two cities. CITES OF SUMNER?ALGONA? PACIFIC?BONNEY LAKE The City partners with its southern neighbors in many respects, including street system planning, transit planning, and regional trail planning. For instance, Auburn and the City of Pacific are working to complete the ?lhite River Trail on both sides of the BNSF rail track. Auburn is also working with Sumner to implement Van Share service for commuter rail passengers and Algona to obtain funding for ?1est Valley Highway improvements. The City coordinates primarily with Bonney Lake for provision of water service in the Pierce County portion of the City. However, efforts to coordinate transportation systems and services will likely occur in the future. Partnerships with neighboring cities will continue to be an important factor in successful transportation planning in the valley. MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe is situated in the southeastern portion of the City and in unincorporated King County, generally to the east of Auburn ?Iay South (SR 164) and south of Hwy 18. The Muckleshoot Tribe operates two major attractions in or near Auburn: the Muckleshoot Casino and the ?lhite River Amphitheatre. Both of these activity centers generate a large number of auto taps. Commercial development on tribal lands is expected to increase in the future and must be evaluated during transportation planning efforts. The City and tribe must coordinate on a variety of transportation planning issues, both to accommodate the capacity needs derived from traffic generated by tribal land uses and to ensure the tribe has a functioning transportation system for its members. The Muckleshoot Tribe is currently dev- eloping its own Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Plan to identify needs and plan for its future transportation network. A draft Comprehensive Plan was released in March of 2005. One theme that is emerging from this effort is the need to build awell- connected internal roadway system on the reservation. Currently, Auburn ?'Iay South is the main travelway for drivers and pedestrians traveling between tribal locations. A more extensive internal network would increase transportation efficiency, improve pedestrian safety, and decrease the travel demand on Auburn ?X1ay South. 1.4 Accomplishments Since the Last Plan During the past five years, over ? 100 million in transportation improvements have been completed in the City of Auburn. These projects have emphasized providing new road capacity, improving pedestrian safety, and providing better access to regional transit services including commuter rail. Table 1-1 and the related map (Figure 1-2) show the key projects completed since the ?9?7 Tran.?ortation Plan. The completed projects list includes a new transit center and Chapter ?. Introduction Page 1- 6 ? ? q CITY OF ? ? WASHINGTON Comprehensive Transportation Plan parking garage in downtown Auburn with access to buses and the new Sounder commuter rail service. Other major projects include the 3rd Street overpass and the Lake Tapps Parkway extension, which created additional access and capacity for the Lakeland Hills and Lake Tapps neighborhoods. 1.5 Plan Organization The next three chapters are organized according to the three primary transportation system types in Auburn: the street system (Chapter 2), the t?or?-motorized system (Chapter 3), and the transit system (Chapter 4). Each chapter contains a needs assessment and discussion of the future system, including proposed projects or improvements. The remaining chapters cover subjects pertaining to all three system types. Chapter 5 details the City's transportation objectives and policies. Chapter 6 discusses funding sources that can be used to finance future network improvements. Chapter 7 identifies a monitoring and evaluation strategy to ensure the document remains relevant and that progress is made towards implementation of the Plan. Chapter ?. Introduction Page 1- 7 AUBURN WASHINGTON Comprehensive Transportation Plan Table 1-1. Transportation Improvements Completed During the Past Five Years 1 W Valley Hwy Reconstruction 2003 Street 2 41st SE & "A" St SE Capacity Improvement 2005 Street 3 Auburn Way South ITS Improvements, Phase 1 2005 Street 4 Citywide Sidewalk Improvement Ongoing Non-motorized 5 Lake Tapps Pkwy Road Extension -east 2003 Street 6 Downtown Lighting Program Ongoing Street/NM 7 Downtown Transit Station Kiss & Ride Lot 2004 Transit 8 Lake Tapps Pkwy Median Guardrail, l2% grade 2004 Street 9 Downtown Fred Meyer Constructed Trail 2003 Non-motorized 10 White River Trail Trail Lighting 2003 Non-motorized 11 Dykstra Park Footbridge Repair 2003 Non-motorized 12 Lakeland Hills Way/E Valley Hwy Traffic Signal 2004 Street 13 "A"Street SE Rehab/Improvement 2002 Street 14 Auburn Way S / Riverwalk Dr Changed Traffic Signal 2001 Street 15 Citywide Traffic Signal System 2001 Street 16 42nd NW ("B" - "C") Bought land for ROW 2001 Street 17 "J" Street SE (12th -Les Gove Park) Bike Lanes 2000 Non-motorized 18 15th St SW -Industry Dr to "C" St SW Bike Lanes 2002 Non-motorized 19 Transit Center Pedestrian Bridge 2002 NM/Transit 20 "A" St SW at 2nd Street SW Traffic Signal 2002 Street 21 37th St NW/UPRR Railroad Crossing 2000 Street 22 Terrace Drive Street Lighting 2001 Street/NM 23 29th and "R" Street SE Traffic Signal 2001 Street 24 8th NE ("K" NE to AWN) Paved Road and added Pedestrian Path 2001 Street/ Non-motorized 25 15th St SW at "C" St SW Changed Signal 2001 Street 26 Kersey Way Heavy Pavement Overlay 2001 Street 27 3rd St SW Grade Separation 2001 Street 28 S 277t" Street Grade Separation 2002 Street 29 Transit Center Commuter Rail Station & Parking Garage 2000 Transit 30 West Main St at Union Pacific Railroad Crossing Gate 2005 Street/NM 31 Kersey Way at Oravetz Road Traffic Signal 2005 Street 32 "C" St between Ellingson Rd & 15t" St SW Road Widening 2005 Street 34 3rd St NE at Auburn Post Office Pedestrian Crossing 2005 Non-motorized 35 Oravetz Road Guardrail 2004 Street 36 Terrace Drive Guardrail 2005 Street *Refer to Figure 1-2 for location of project improvements. Chapter ?. Introduction Page 1- 8 LEGEND N Auburn City Limits ®-?- Principal Arterials Potential Annexation o Completed Projects Area Miles 0 0.5 1 PROGRESS SINCE LAST AUBURN ? ?H0.ElHAN Y0II IMACINtiP TRANSPORTATION PLAN Figure 1-2 TransPOrtanion Pla ng 6 E nglneering * Refer to Table 1-1 for the list of improvements made since the last transportation plan. A??u? Chapter 2? THE STREET SYSTEM Comprehensive Transportation Plan The Auburn transportation system is comprised of different transportation modes that move people and freight throughout the City and broader region. The system is multi- modal, however, the primary mode of travel is still the automobile. This is made possible by an extensive road network within the City and throughout the region. The roadway system provides the primary means for transportation throughout the Auburn area. The City is served by an extensive street network, which includes freeways, arterials, collectors, and local streets. This chapter describes that network and how well it serves the City presently and in the future. Under the Growth Management Act, cities and counties are required to adopt level-of-service (LOS) standards to establish what level of congestion a community is willing to accept and to determine when growth has consumed that available capacity. The GMA requires that land use and transportation planning be coordinated so that transportation capacity is evaluated concurrent with development. This chapter sets the standard for performance of the street network and discusses strategies to preserve and improve the system for future use. Downtown Auburn View from Transit Center Parking Garage 2.1 Existing Street System FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION Streets function as a network. The logic and efficiency of the street network are dependent upon how streets move traffic through the system. Functional classification is the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, according to the character of service they are intended to provide. There are three main classes of streets in Auburn: arterials, collectors, and local streets. City street classifications are identified in Figure 2-1. All streets have been classified using the Federal Functional Classification system. Note that King County's classifications differ from Auburn's on several corridors in the Lea Hill PAA. The Auburn Deign Standard; Chapter 1 D - Street-, identifies design standards for each type of street, in conformance with ?1SDOT and AASHTO standards. The Street chapter includes street design requirements for widths, radii, typical speed limits, and other information along with typical street layouts and cross-sections. Street classifications define the character of service that a road is intended to provide. The Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2-1 ?TV?L.Jil1 \ wASw?r?cranr Comprehensive Transportation Plan three major street classes, arterials, collectors, and local streets, all have subclasses described below. ARTERIALS Arterials are the highest level of City street classification. There are two types of arterials in Auburn. Principal Arterials are designed to move traffic between locations within the region and to access the freeways. Design emphasis is placed on providing movement of inter-city through traffic in addition to intea-city traffic. Direct access to commercial and industrial land uses is permitted. These streets are the highest traffic volume corridors, generally have limited land access, and are used for cross-town trips. These arterials are the framework street system for the City and are located at community and neighborhood boundaries. They are typically constructed to accommodate five lanes of traffic with speed limits of 35 to 45 mph. Principal arterials include: Auburn way North, Auburn way South, A Street SE, East Valley Highway, 15th Street Nw,15t11 Street Sw, Lake Tapps Parkway E, Peasley Canyon Road, and the west Valley Highway. Principal Arterial Minor Arterials interconnect and augment the principal arterial system by providing access to and from the principal arterials and freeways. They serve moderate length trips at a somewhat lower mobility than principal arterials, distribute traffic to smaller geographic areas than principal arterials, and should not enter neighborhoods. They are typically constructed to accommodate four lanes of traffic with speed limits of 3o to 35 mph. A few streets with this classification are: 37111 Street Nw, Emerald Downs Drive, 8111 Street NE between Auburn way North and Harvey Road, Oravetz Road, Kersey way, Ellingson Road, Main Street, 29th Street SE, Lea Hill Road, and 312th Street SE in King County. COLLECTORS Collectors are a step below arterials in the City classification system. There are three types of collectors in Auburn. Residential Collectors are used to connect local streets and residential neighborhoods to community activity centers and minor and principal arterials. Residential Collectors are typically constructed to accommodate two travel lanes with medians and turn pockets at intersections or two travel lanes with bike lanes. Operating speed is generally 30 mph. Several streets have this classification, including 12111 Street SE, 17th Street SE, 21?t Street SE, 37111 Street SE, Mill Pond Drive, and Evergreen way SE. Non-Residential Collectors connect non- residential areas such as industrial and commercial areas to minor and principal arterials. Non-Residential Collectors are typically constructed to accommodate two lanes and a center two-way left-turn lane, with an operating speed of 30 mph. They may serve neighborhood traffic generators such as stores, elementary schools, churches, clubhouses, small hospitals or clinics, areas of small multifamily developments, as well as other Chapter 2. The Sheet System Page 2- 2 ?T1..+F ? V 1 u ?1 WA5H1NG7C7lV Comprehensive Transportation Plan commercial and industrial uses. Examples of non-residential collectors include: Pacific Avenue South from Ellingson Road to 1 ?t Avenue North, Green River Road, and 4111 Street NE from Auburn Avenue to M Street NE. Residential Collector Rural Collectors are routes located in areas with a more rural character. They carry traffic between local and arterial streets. Rural Collectors provide access to all levels of arterials, are typically constructed to accommodate two lanes with gravel shoulders on both sides, and provide an operating speed of 30 to 40 mph. The gravel shoulder may be reduced on one side to provide a wider shoulder on the other for equestrian access, with permission from the City Engineer. Streets in this classification are located near the southeast city limits and include 55111 Avenue SE, 53?a Street SE, and Randall Avenue SE. LOCAL STREETS Local Streets are the most common street type in the City. Local streets comprise all facilities not part of one of the higher classification systems. Local streets primarily provide direct access to abutting land and to the higher order streets. Service to through traffic is discouraged. There are four categories of local streets. Local Residential Streets provide access to abutting residential parcels. They offer the lowest level of mobility among all street classifications. The street is designed to conduct traffic between dwelling units and higher order streets. As the lowest order street in the hierarchy, the street usually carries no through traffic and includes short streets, cul- de-sacs, and courts. The speed limit is generally 25 mph. Local Non-Residential Streets provide direct access to higher order classification streets and serve primarily industrial and manufacturing land uses. They offer a lower level of mobility and accommodate heavy vehicle traffic. Typically they have two travel lanes with a speed limit of 25 mph. Rural Residential streets primarily provide access to adjacent land and distribute traffic to and from the principal or minor arterials, rural collectors, and local access streets. The travel distance is relatively short compared to Rural Collectors. Rural Residential streets are two lane roadways with gravel shoulders and a speed limit of 25 mph. Private Streets may be appropriate for local access in very limited usage. They provide direct access to City streets and are built to the same design and construction standards as City streets. They are privately maintained by a City recognized organization. From a planning perspective, acknowledgment and proper designation of functional classifications allows for the preservation of right-of--way for future transportation corri- dors, whether the corridor provides access to car, HOV, transit, bike, or pedestrian use. Functional classification helps establish corridors that will provide for the future movement of people and goods, as well as emergency vehicle access, through the City. Proper designation is crucial to the planning effort; as development occurs, accommodation Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 3 ?TV?L.Jil1 \ wASw?r?cranr Comprehensive Transportation Plan for the appropriate transportation corridors should be incorporated into development plans. The City has reclassified several street segments since 1997, as shown in Table 2-1. Reclassifications occur over time in response to changes in the function of the streets, the traffic patterns, and the character of the surrounding land uses. Table 2-1 indicates that some streets have been reclassified to a higher classification, while others have been moved to a lower classification. ALLEYS AND ACCESS TRACTS Alleys provide vehicular access to abutting properties, generally through the rear or side of the property. Alleys can be public or private and serve several purposes including access management and the alleviation of traffic problems on city streets. Alleys should provide through access to city streets or adequate turnaround space if through access is not feasible. Alleys shall be constructed to allow for general-purpose and emergency access at all times. Table 2-1. Streets with Notable Changes Since Adoption of 1997 Roadway Functional Classification System Street Name Segment 1997 Plan Classification Proposed Classification Streets that increased in classification Peasley Canyon W Valley Hwy to western Ci limits minor arterial principal arterial A Street SW W Main St to A St Loop local non-residential collector R St SE bypass ABD Rd to M St SE near 7t" St non-residential collector minor arterial 51st Ave S S 321st St to S 331st local minor arterial Howard Rd R St SE to Riverwalk Dr local residential collector Ellin son Rd C St SW to SR 167 unclassified minor arterial Bounda Blvd 0 St to AI ona Blvd local minor arterial 112t" Ave SE SE 312t" to SE 320th local residential collector SE 118t" Road A (Kent Watershed future road to SE 304t" St local residential collector Lake Tapps Pkwy E SR 167 to Old Man Thomas future minor arterial principal arterial Sumner-Tapps Pkwy extension/16t" St E Old Man Thomas to 16t" St E future residential collector principal arterial Lake Tapps Pkwy 62nd St SE/Old Man Thomas to 9t" St (runs above N Ta s Estates future minor arterial existing Streets that decreased i n classification 22nd Street NE/ Riverview Dr/14t" St/M St/Pike St Pike St to Harvey residential collector local 12t" St SE A St SE to M St SE minor arterial residential collector 17t" St SE A St SE to M St SE minor arterial residential collector SE 2841"and 109t" Ave SE 112t" Ave SE to SE 281St L-sha ed road se ment future residential collector local Chapter 2. The Sheet System Page 2- 4 ?T1..+F ? V 1 u ?1 WA5H1NG7C7lV Comprehensive Transportation Plan Access Tracts, sometimes referred to as shared driveways, provide vehicular access for lots that do not abut a street or alley. They are most common in panhandle lots or rear lots that do not have street or alley access. Access tracts are privately owned and maintained. They must provide for sufficient vehicular movement and turnaround space, be free of temporary and permanent obstructions, and provide for emergency access. TRAFFIC VOLUMES Average daily traffic counts are obtained from data collected in the spring of each year. Figure 2-2 shows the average daily traffic volumes on City arterials based on a seven-day week average. The highest daily volumes are found on Auburn ?Iay South, A Street SE, Auburn ?Xlay North, Harvey Road, M Street, Lakeland Hills ?1ay, and 15111 Street N?1. A major contributor to the high traffic volumes on City arterials is traffic passing through the City. This pass-through traffic originates in surrounding jurisdictions and uses City streets to access the major regional highways, such as SR 18 and SR 167. Roughly 35 percent of traffic on Auburn's arterial and collector networks is attributable to pass-through traffic. The City is committed to working with ?XISDOT to improve the state highway system, thereby reducing the demand on the City street system. SPEED LIMITS The City designates speed limits as a means of alerting drivers to safe and appropriate travel speeds for a particular corridor segment. Local roads are generally designated at 25 mph zones, with some exceptions such as near schools. The City routinely monitors corridors to ensure appropriate speed limits are in place. Legal speeds are located in City code and are clearly signed on the roadways. TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SIGNS Traffic signals, signs, and pavement markings are used to direct drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists, thereby increasing the effective use of the roadway by moving traffic more efficiently and safely. The City uses the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) as guidance for design, construction, and placement of signs in the right of way. FREIGHT Auburn is an important freight hub in the Puget Sound region, and the efficient movement of freight, through and within the City, is critical to Auburn's economic stability. Both rail and truck freight, originating largely in the Ports of Tacoma and Seattle, pass through Auburn regularly. The Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) have rail lines running through Auburn. The Union Pacific line runs north-south, to the east of the Interurban Trail. Burlington Northern Santa Fe moves freight in both the north-south and east-west directions. BNSF has adouble- track, federally designated, high-speed railroad line running north-south. The Stampede Pass line runs east-west through south Auburn, entering the north-south line just south of the Auburn Transit Center. In addition, the company maintains a railyard between A Street SE and C Street S?YI, south of SR 18. In the future, this area may develop as a multi-modal railyard, prompting the need to mitigate increased truck traffic through capacity improvements. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe also has plans to increase traffic on the Stampede Pass line, the east-west rail line running through Auburn. In anticipation of this increase and in order to mitigate the traffic and safety impacts of current rail movements on this line, the City has programmed a grade separation project on M Street SE. Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 5 ?TV?L.Jil1 \ wASw?r?cranr Comprehensive Transportation Plan The pavement at the crossing of the Union Pacific Railroad at 15111 Street S?1 is in very poor condition. Rehabilitation of the pavement is a high priority for the City, and a project has been programmed to reconstruct 15111 Street S?1 from C Street S?1 to the railroad tracks. Auburn experiences considerable truck traffic. The City has designated truck routes for through freight movement in an effort to maximize the efficacy of and protect the roadway infrastructure. Current truck routes are shown in Figure 2-3. The City defines truck freight movement as the movement of heavy and medium trucks. 1Vledium trucks include trucks with two to four axles and two-axle trucks with six tires. Heavy trucks include all articulated trucks, trucks with one to three trailers, and?or with three to nine axles. Truck routes, established by City ordinance, are designated for roadways that incorporate special design considerations such as street grades, continuity, turning radii, street and lane widths, pavement strength, and overhead obstruction heights. The City expects that the majority of regional trips will take place on state highways. However, recognizing that trips through the City are sometimes necessary, Auburn has designated a network of north-south and east- west corridors as truck routes, which are built to truck standards. In addition, the City has designated future truck routes, which will be built to truck standards whenever opportunities exist to reconstruct the roadway network, either through public improvement projects or through agreements with private developers. Auburn has significant industrial and commercial development throughout the City. The City encourages local delivery trucks to use the designated truck network as much as possible, but recognizes that trips on non-truck routes will sometimes be necessary. The City is committed to supporting local industry, business, and residential needs and recognizes that the ability to ship and receive freight is essential to the success of many businesses. Therefore, the City will collaborate with local businesses to improve freight access, while maintaining the roadway infrastructure, whenever possible. This may include adopting City Code and updating the Design and Construction Standards iri a manner that favors these priorities. Truck Traffic Building on S 27?' Street SAFETY The City places a high priority on providing a safe transportation system for travelers of all modes. Continual efforts are made to construct and retrofit streets in a manner that improves safety and decreases the likelihood of accidents. Pedestrian crossings and other non- motorized safety issues are discussed in the following chapters. Railroad crossings, emergency response needs and accidents related to the street system are discussed below. RAILROAD CROSSINGS At grade railroad crossings create a potentially dangerous situation for motorists, non- motorized travelers, and rail passengers. Auburn has several at grade railroad crossings. The Union Pacific line crosses city streets at South 285111 Street, 37tH Street Nw, 29111 Street Chapter 2. The Sheet System Page 2- 6 ?T1..+F ? V 1 u ?1 WA5H1NG7C7lV Comprehensive Transportation Plan N?1, ?1est Main Street, and 15111 Street S?1. The Burlington Northern Sante Fe (BNSF) tracks intersect city streets at 371 Street N?1, 29111 Street N?1, 3rd Street N?1, ?1 Main Street, M Street SE, and the Auburn Black Diamond Road. ?1ith more than 60 trains passing through the City each day, the City has many at grade crossings, each with unique safety implications. The City coordinates with railroad operators and the State to upgrade the crossings whenever possible. For instance, new long-gate crossing arms were recently placed at the Union Pacific crossing on ?I Main Street. Also, in 2002 the pedestrian overpass at the Auburn Transit Center was completed, adding a new measure of safety for pedestrians crossing the railroad tracks. BNSF Freight Train at West Main Street EMERGENCY RESPONSE Providing residents with quick responses in emergency situations is a high priority for the City. The City works to provide an adequate street network that will ensure multiple alternate routes for emergency vehicles. Fire response vehicles are equipped with traffic signal controls that enable emergency vehicles to secure safe and rapid passage through signalized corridors. In addition, the City has mutual-aid agreements with nearby emergency response operators to ensure adequate coverage in case of road closures or other obstacles that would otherwise prevent timely emergency response. ACCIDENTS The City collects and monitors accident data to identify roadway hazards, and seeks to correct hazardous locations in the City by implementing appropriate safety measures. ?lhile the City relies primarily on its own data, accident data from other sources, including neighboring jurisdictions and the State, is utilized whenever available. 2.2 Street Standards and Levels-of-Service The GMA requires the City to establish service levels for the street network and to provide a means for correcting current deficiencies and meeting future needs. Transportation planners and engineers use the term `level-of-service' (LOS) to measure the operational performance of a transportation facility, such as a street corridor or intersection. This measure considers perception by motorists and passengers in terms of speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions and delays, comfort, and convenience. Levels-of-service are typically given letter designations from `A' through `F', with LOS A representing the best operating conditions, and LOS F representing the worst. LOS can be quantified in different terms, depending on the transportation facility. Definitions for each level-of-service and the methodologies for calculating the level-of-service for various facilities are contained in T?an.r?ortation Kesea?ch Board, High?ay Capacity 1Ulanual 2000. The City most commonly uses corridor level- of-service for accessing facilities. Generally, this is considered the most comprehensive way to determine traffic impacts. The following descriptions provide some guidance for Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 7 ?TV?L.Jil1 \ wASw?r?cranr Comprehensive Transportation Plan interpreting the meaning of each LOS letter for corridor LOS on city streets. ¦ ¦ ¦ LOS A describes primarily free-flow operations at average travel speeds, usually about 90 percent of the FFSfree flow s?eed? for the given street class. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Control delay at signalized intersections is minimal. (Free-flow speed is the average .need of vehicles on a given facility, measured under low-volume condition; when d?zvers tend to d?zve at their desired need and are not constrained by control delay. Control delay is the total elapse time from a vehicle joining the queue until its departure from the stopped ?o?ition at the head of the queue. This includes the time required to decelerate auto the queue and accelerate back to free flow ?peed.? LOS B describes reasonably unimpeded operations at average travel speeds, usually about 70 percent of the FFS for the street class. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted, and control delays at signalized intersections are not significant. LOS C describes stable operations; however, ability to maneuver and change lanes in midblock locations may be more restricted than at LOS B, and longer queues, adverse signal coordination, or both may contribute to lower average travel speeds of about 50 percent of the FFS for the street class. LOS D borders on the range in which small increases in flow density of vehicles may cause substantial increases in delay and decreases in travel speed. LOS D may be due to adverse signal progression ?a large percentage of vehicles arriving at the intersection on a red, rather than green light, inappropriate signal timing, high volumes (of traf?, or a combination of these factors. Average travel speeds are about 40 percent of FFS. ¦ LOS E is characterized by significant delays and average travel speeds of 33 percent or less or the FFS. Such operations are caused by a combination of adverse signal progression, high signal density (closely spaced signal??, high volumes, extensive delays at critical intersections, and inappropriate signal timing. ¦ LOS F is characterized by urban street flow at extremely low speeds, typically one-third to one-fourth of the FFS. Intersection congestion is likely critical at signalized locations, with high delays, high volumes, and extensive queuing. CITY LOS STANDARDS AND CURRENT LOS It is necessary to define LOS standards for transportation facilities to enforce the concurrency requirements of the Growth Management Act. If development results in a facility's service falling below a defined LOS standard, concurrency requires the devel- opment causing the deficiency be remedied or the permit for that development be denied. Auburn defines unsatisfactory LOS as: an unacceptable increase in hazard or decrease in safety on a roadway; an accelerated deterioration of the street pavement condition or the proposed use of a street not designated as a truck route for truck movements; an unacceptable impact on geometric design conditions at an intersection where two truck routes meet on the City arterial and collector network; an increase in congestion which constitutes an unacceptable adverse envi- ronmental impact under the State Environmental Policy Act; or the inability of a facility to meet the adopted LOS standard. The City uses corridor LOS as its primary measurement of transportation system impacts. Chapter 2. The Sheet System Page 2- 8 ?T1..+F ? V 1 u ?1 WA5H1NG7C7lV Comprehensive Transportation Plan The City corridors typically used for analyzing LOS are shown in Figure 2-4, although the City may require analysis of a different segment in order to assess the full LOS impacts. All arterials and collectors in Auburn have designated LOS standards. The LOS standard for these corridors is primarily LOS D with the exception of some corridors that may operate as LOS E or F, with a specified maximum travel time. Of note, the King County Urban- area standard, which governs the City's King County PAA, is LOS E. Hence, the City LOS standard differs from the County standard for several corridors in the PAA. Table 2-2 identifies Auburn's LOS Standards, as well as the 2005 corridor LOS. As indicated in the table, LOS was calculated for many of Auburn's street corridors using traffic counts taken in May 2005. For the other corridors, in which 2005 counts were not available, LOS was projected using the City's traffic model, which includes historic counts and land use and employment assumptions. STATE HIGHWAY LOS Amendments to the GMA in 1998 added new requirements for local jurisdictions to address state-owned transportation facilities, as well as local transportation system needs in their comprehensive plans (RCS 47.06.140). House Bill 1487, adopted by the ?Xlashington State Legislature in 1998, requires that the transportation element of local comprehensive plans include the LOS standards for Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS). HB 1487 clarified that the concurrency requirement of the GMA does not apply to HSS or other transportation facilities and services of statewide significance. HB 1487 also requires local jurisdictions to estimate traffic impacts to state-owned facilities resulting from land use assumptions in the Comprehensive Plan. THE WSDOT STANDARD ?ISDOT uses an LOS methodology called the Average Capacity Ratio (ACR) to measure the severity of congestion over a 24-hour period. The ACR is the ratio of the Annual Average Daily Traffic to the one-hour capacity of a facility. Index volumes under this system will range from 2 (little to no congestion) to 24 (congestion over the entire 24-hour day). The Washington State Transportation Commission adopted the ACR as an index to measure facility performance and to establish thresholds for identifying deficiencies. The adopted threshold ARC index value is a 10 for urban highways and a 6 for rural highways. Highways that exceed these thresholds are considered deficient. The ACR thresholds approximate LOS D operations in urban areas and LOS C operations in rural areas. The goal of the Washington Department of Transportation (WSD01? is to maintain the acceptable operation of its key system corridors designated as HSS. Both the SR 18 and SR 167 freeways are designated as HSS. The current LOS standard for both SR 18 and SR 167 is ACR 10. The Puget Sound Regional Council adopted LOS standards in the Fall of 2003 for regionally significant state facilities also designated as `Non-HSS'. In Auburn, SR 164 is identified as a Tier 2 Non-HSS roadway. Tier 2 is defined as a route that serves the "outer" urban area -those outside the 3-mile buffer - and connects the "main" urban growth area (UGA) to the first set of "satellite" UGA's (e.g., SR 164 to Enumclaw). These urban and rural areas are generally farther from transit alternatives, have fewer alternative roadway routes, and locally adopted LOS standards in these areas are generally LOS D or better. The proposed standard for Tier 2 routes is LOS D. Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 9 ?T'tJ ? L.J 1 ?1 \ ?y wA5lili?G70N Comprehensive Transportation Plan Table 2-2. Auburn Corridor Level of Service ?, ? ,,? 1 Auburn Way North 15th St NE Northern City Limits D D* 2 Auburn Way North East Main St. 15th St NE E E* 3 Auburn Way South East Main St. "M" St SE E E* 4 Auburn Way South "M" St SE Eastern City Limits E D* 5 M St.IHarvey Auburn Way North East Main St. E E* 6 M St./Harvey East Main St Auburn Way South D C* 7 Evergreen Way Lakeland Hills Way Kersey Way D Future 8 37th St NE/NW West Valley Hwy "I" St. NE D D* 9 15th St NE/NW West Valley Hwy Auburn Way North F*** F* 10 Auburn Ave I "A" St SR 18 Southern City Limits D C* 11 Main St West Valley Hwy "R" St D B** 12 15th St SW West Valley Hwy "C" St SW D C* 13 "C" St SW Ellingson SR 18 D D* 14 West Valley Hwy Northern City Limits Southern City Limits E E* 15 S 277th St Frontage Rd. 108th Ave SE E E* 16 "R" St./Kersey Way Auburn Way Southl 17th. St SE Southern City Limits D C** 17 Lake Tapps Parkway East Valley Hwy. 182nd Ave E D A** 18 "A: St SW/NW/ "B" St NW 4t" St NW S 277th St D 6** 19 8th St NE/Lea Hill Rd. Auburn Way North 132nd Ave SE E E** 20 "D" St NWIEmerald Downs Dr S S 277th St 15th St. NW D A** 21 "I" St NE S 277th St Harvey Rd D 6** 22 132nd Ave SE SE 282nd St SE 312th St D 6** 23 124th Ave SE SE 282nd St SE 320th. St D 6** 24 104th Ave SE/SE 304th St 8th St NE 132nd Ave SE D C** 25 105th Place SEI107th Place SE/ SE 320th St Lea Hill Rd 124th Ave SE D C** 26 Lakeland Hills Way SE Lake Tapps Parkway Oravetz Rd D 6** 27 29th St SEIRiverwalk Dr. A Street SE Auburn Way South D C** 28 108th Ave SE/112th Ave. SE S 277th St SE 304th St D 6** 29 49th St NW 6 St NW S 277th St D Future 30 "R" St SE/Auburn Black Diamond Rd 8th St NE SR 18 D 6** 31 17th St SE "A" St SE Auburn Way South D D** 32 41st St SE/Ellingson Rd "A" St SE Western City Limits E E** 33 Lakeland Hills Way SEIOravetz Rd East Valley Hwy. Kersey Way E E** 34 3rd St SW/Cross St "C" Street Auburn Way South D C** Corridor segments within Downtown Auburn may operate at LOS E in accordance with the Auburn Downtown Plan. All other arterial and collector corridors must operate at LOS D or better, unless otherwise indicated in Table 2-2. *LOS calculated from 2005 traffic counts, using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology. **LOS estimated using the City's traffic model. *** Total travel time in the eastbound direction cannot exceed 1000 seconds for this corridor to meet the LOS standard. *Refer to Figure 2-4 for location of identified corridor segments. Chapter 2. The Sheet System Page 2- ? 0 ?T1..+F ? V 1 u ?1 WA5H1NG7C7lV LAND USE?TRANSPORTATION RELATIONSHIP Comprehensive Transportation Plan A broad overview of Auburn's Comprehensive Plan land use map shows industrial (light and heavy) designations in the west side of the City along both sides of ?Xlest Valley Highway, strip commercial development along Auburn ?Xlay South and a sizable commercial plan designation near the intersection of the SR 18 and 15111 Street S?1 interchange (SuperMall). Downtown Auburn is roughly located east of the Interurban Trail, north of SR 18, west of F Street SE/NE, and south of 3r`? Street Nw/NE and 4111 Street NE. Residential development exists along the Auburn valley floor, west hill, and east hill (Lea Hill in unincorporated King County and Lakeland Hills). As with many cities in South King and Pierce counties, especially those along the SR 167 corridor, the local land use plan is characterized by a predominance of industrial land use designations. The land use element identifies "Industrial" as the City's second most pre- dominant zoning designation (residential being first). Consequently, the City's land use plan establishes a development pattern that has industrial related traffic impacts upon the State Highway System. This includes the frequent movement of freight. Auburn's industrial areas also consist of light industrial warehouse development. This type of development typically results in a relatively low PM peak hour trip generation impact. There are a number of circumstances including potential tax policy changes, which may lead to a change in land use designations and, as a consequence, a reduction in the prevalence of industrial uses in this area and throughout Auburn. Another key land use feature in the land use element is a "Heavy Commercial" designation at 15111 Street S?X1, adjacent to SR 167 and SR 18. This commercial designation is the site of the Supermall. The Supermall attracts customers on a regional basis and impacts use of the State Highway System in this respect, even more so than the downtown or the strip commercial development along Auburn ?1ay. Commercial development in downtown Auburn and along Auburn ?Xlay tends to serve more localized needs. The City's Comprehensive Plan land use map focuses residential development in the valley and in the west hills, Lea Hill, and Lakeland Hills. However, much of Lea Hill is in unincorporated King County. Access to the State Highway System is generally limited in the east hill, although Highway 18 can be accessed on Lea Hill at the eastern boundary of the City's Potential Annexation Area. Future impacts on the State Highway System in the Lea Hill area will primarily be commuter traffic due to the predominance of residential comprehensive plan designations in that area. The development of Lakeland Hills will also principally result in increased commuter traffic. Future impacts to the State Highway System can generally be gauged by projected arterial link ADT volumes at or near state highway ramps. This is, at best, only a general estimate since not all traffic passing through these street segments is utilizing the State Highway System. Further, traffic using the arterial segment may be originating from local jurisdictions outside of Auburn, and may therefore not result from assumptions in Auburn's land use plan. Several city arterials connect directly to SR 167 and SR 18. Some examples include C Street S?1, ?1est Valley Highway, and Auburn ?Xlay South connections with SR 18, and 15111 Street N?1 and 15111 Street S?X1 connections with SR 167. These streets are among the most heavily used in the City, a function of their relationship to the State Highway System. SR 164 is also in the city limits. Year 2005 average daily traffic (ADT) volumes along SR 164 range from a low of 20,000 near the eastern city boundary up to Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 7 ? ?TV?L.Jil1 \ wASw?r?cranr Comprehensive Transportation Plan 36,000 along Auburn ?Xlay South near SR 18. These volumes are forecasted to increase substantially over the next 20 years. The State Highway System also impacts the City's local street system. A "cut-through" traffic pattern results in significant traffic volume increases on the local arterial street system. For example, many of Auburn's PM peak hour trips are work to home trips originating outride of the Auburn area and destined for residential areas outside of Auburn, including Lea Hill (unincorporated King County), Pierce County and the Enumclaw Plateau. This traffic exits state routes and travels through Auburn to avoid congestion on the State Highway System. This is evidenced by increases in traffic counts within the City that clearly exceed that which might be expected through anticipated growth and development patterns outlined in the city's land use plan. The City may implement measures that encourage local traffic movements and discourage cut-through traffic. 2.3 Future Street System METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING FUTURE SYSTEM TRAVEL FORECASTS HOUSINGAND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH Auburn has grown rapidly during the past decade, and housing and employment are expected to continue to increase significantly by 2020, with the population reaching over 85,000 residents, as shown in Figure 2-?5. Much of the housing growth will come from higher density re-development in the downtown area and the rapidly growing Lakeland Hills and Lea Hill areas. Figure 2-5. Population, Housing, and Job Growth for City of Auburn 1980-2020 90 000 , 80 000 , 70 000 , 60 000 , 50 000 , 40 000 , 30 000 , 20 000 , 10,000 0 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 ? Population ¦ Housing Units ? Jobs 1 -Population and housing data for 1980, 1990 and 2000 taken from US Census. 2 -Population and housing projection for 2010 & 2020 from City of Auburn's 2020 Population Estimate. 3 -Covered employment data and estimates derived from PSRC. Chapter 2. The Sheet System Page 2- 72 ?T1..+F ? V 1 u ?1 WA5H1NG7C7lV TRAFFIC GROWTH Comprehensive Transportation Plan The City of Auburn relies on traffic forecasts using amicrocomputer-based transportation planning model, TMODEL2, which is based upon the land use plan and assumptions found in the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan. Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) household and employment forecasts are also used. The model is calibrated to include existing land uses and local knowledge, including large traffic generators such as the Supermall of the Great Northwest, the Emerald Downs Thoroughbred Racetrack, and the Muckleshoot Indian Casino. Areas outside of the current city limits that are expected to significantly impact the City transportation system are included in the model. The model enables the City to conduct traffic forecasts for all arterial and collector streets based upon a number of if-then development and land use scenarios. The more dramatic traffic increases are often caused by development outside the City, especially along the roadways serving the Enumclaw Plateau. Other areas of major traffic increase include A Street SE, M Street SE, and the ?1est Valley Highway. THREE SCENARIOS: FUTURE STREET NETWORK In order to address the growing traffic volumes and congestion levels on city streets, three alternative roadway improvements scenarios were examined: ¦ Alternative 1: Programmed Projects: Includes projects in the City's Transportation Improvement Program and funded State highway improvements. ¦ Alternative 2: Improvements included in Alternative 1 plus additional City street improvements. ¦ Alternative 3: Improvements included in Alternative 2 plus additional regional transportation projects on State highways. Each of these alternatives is described below and shown in Figure 2-6. Alternative 1- Programmed Projects Alternative 1 consists primarily of the existing city street system plus projects programmed in the City's TIP and in the State Highway Program. The projects include several city street widening and connection projects plus the extension of HOV lanes along SR 167. See Figure 2-6 for project locations, shown with blue project numbers. There is one capacity project programmed in the TIP that is not included in the model: the SR 18 EB Ramp (6111 Street SE to Auburn ?Xlay South with Grade Separation at BNSF). It is discussed in more detail in the Future System Recommendations section of this chapter and will likely be included in future model runs and updates to this plan. Alternative 2- New City Street Improvements Alternative 2 builds on the projects in Alternative 1 by adding more city street improvements in highly congested areas. The street improvements shown with green project numbers in Figure 2-6 include street widening projects in North Auburn and the Lea Hill area, combined with spot improvements along A Street SE and R Street SE in the southern part of the City. The spot improvements would consist of intersection channelization and traffic signal timing projects to improve traffic flow. The seven projects shown on the map are not currently programmed in the City's TIP. Alternative 3- Regional Transportation Projects Alternative 3 focuses on the addition of major regional roadway improvements. As shown with brown project numbers in Figure 2-6, the Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 73 ?TV?L.Jil1 \ wASw?r?cranr Comprehensive Transportation Plan projects include widening of SR 18 (between SR 167 and I-5), adding one lane to SR 167 from SR 18 to I-405, widening of SR 164 to the ?Ihite River Amphitheater, and the addition of the Auburn Bypass connecting SR 18 to Auburn ?Xlay South. The actual alignment of the bypass route is currently being studied by ?ISDOT, the City of Auburn, and other regional partners. Numerous issues are under consideration as part of this study, including environmental impacts. As the study moves forward and begins to identify a preferred alignment, issues related to construction of arterials and freeways in rural areas and natural resource lands will be addressed. The projects shown on this map are State projects and are therefore not currently programmed in the City's TIP. Table 2-3 summarizes the street projects included in each of the three alternatives, along with planning level cost estimates. Figure 2-6 identifies the location of each project, as well as the alternative it is included in. Table 2-3. Future Roadway Improvement Projects and Cost Estimates Alternative 1-Programmed Projects S 277th Install 1 new lane WB and 2 new lanes * 1 AWN to Green River Bridge EB (widen to 5 lanes total) and install a Class 1 trail $2 769 990 D St. NW * 2 37th Street NW to 44th Street NW Construct 4 lane arterial $2,800,000 I St NE Corridor 3 Construct 5 lane arterial $5,805,000 AStNW 4 W Main St to 14th St NW Construct multi-lane arterial $10,386,149 Evergreen Way 5 Lakeland Hills Way to Kersey Way Construct new road Developer funded M Street Grade Separation Grade separated RR crossing; 6 E. Main to AWS construct bypass road from M St. SE to Auburn Black Diamond Rd $26,232,709 F Street SE Widen to 3 lanes + bike lanes and 7 4th St SE to Auburn Way S parking 1850 000 $ ' ' M Street N E 8 E Main St to 8th St NE Widen to 4 lanes $1,971,000 6th Street Ramps Realign SR 18 ramp, grade separate * 9 C St SW to Auburn Way S RR crossing, widen 6th St SE to 4 lanes $32,000,000 SR 167 HOV lanes $120 million* 10 to th 15 St. NW to 8 St. E (Pacific) Add 2 HOU lanes (State Funded) Subtotal (Alternative 1) $203,814,848 Chapter 2. The Sheet System Page 2- 74 ?T1..+F ? V 1 u ?1 WA5H1NG7C7lV Table 2-3 continued Comprehensive Transportation Plan Alternative 2 -New City Street Projects 11 37th St NW Add 2 l 1 EB 1 WB W Valle Hw to Auburn Wa N anes: , $9,116,000 A Street SE/E Valley Hwy 12 3rd Street SE to Lakeland Hills Way Upgrade 4 intersections $2,400,000* 13 R Street SE 2 i ti U d t 17th Street SE to 41st Street SE pgra n ersec ons e $1500 000 ' 14 8th Street NE/Lea Hill Road/SE 312th Street Add 2 lanes: 1 EB,1 WB $16 555 000* M Street to 124th Ave SE , , 15 R Street NE Add 2 l 1 NB 1 SB * E Main Street to 8th Street N E anes: , $1,725,000 16 SE 304th Street Add 2 l 1 EB 1 WB SR 18 to 112th Ave SE anes: , $9,130,000 Subtotal (Alternative 2) $40,426,000 Total (Alternatives 1 & 2) $244,240,848 Alternative 3 -Regional Transportation Projects 17 Auburn Bypass Add 4 l 2 NB 2 SB TBD (WSDOT is i l i Auburn Way S to SR 18 anes: , prepar ng p ann ng level cost estimates 18 SR 164 TBD (WSDOT is Hemlock to Amphitheater Add 2 lanes: 1 NB, 1 SB preparing planning level cost estimates 19 SR 167 $80 million - $1.5 SR 18 to I-405 Add 2 lanes: 1 NB, 1 SB billion* 20 SR 18 Add 1 l 1 EB In excess of $40 I-5 to SR 167 anes: million* * Indicates planning level cost estimate. * Refer to Figure 2-6 for project locations Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 75 ?TV?L.Jil1 \ wASw?r?cranr FUTURELEVEL OFSERVICE Comprehensive Transportation Plan Each of the roadway improvement alternatives was evaluated with a generalized level-of- service methodology using the TModel2 software. This methodology produces an estimate of corridor LOS based upon the average speeds along each roadway segment within a corridor. This methodology is consistent with, but not as detailed as, the LOS methodology used by the City to examine concurrency requirements. However, the modeled results provide a good measure with which to compare the relative transportation benefits associated with each of the alternatives. Table 2-4 shows the LOS side-by- s?de for the three roadway alternatives. Alternative 1 Alternative 1 contains committed City roadway projects that are expected to be implemented in the future. Some of the projects are completely funded. The City is actively seeking funding for the other projects on the TIP and in the CFP. ?lhile these projects will have beneficial effects on traffic flow in the near future, by the year 2020 there will be considerable traffic congestion on the city street system, even with these improvements. Much of this congestion will be due to the growth in traffic on city streets created by new development in adjacent jurisdictions. Virtually all of the principal and minor arterial routes within the City well experience moderate or high congestion levels in 2020 with Alternative 1 improvements only. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 adds more city street widenings and spot improvements to address some of the most heavily congested roadways. These projects will improve the LOS in the Lea M neighborhood and along portions of M Street/Harvey Road, Auburn ?Xlay North, R Street/Auburn Black Diamond Road, and S 277th Street. In most of these situations, the LOS will improve but still remain at moderate to high congestion levels. It is notable that the 8th Street NE/Lea Hill Road corridor (Table 2-4, ID 19) did not realize alevel-of-service improvement in Alternative 2 despite capacity improvements along a portion of that corridor (Table 2-3, Map No. 17). The model run indicated that speeds increased, but not enough to improve the LOS. This corridor should be evaluated further with a more in-depth operational analysis to understand the full impact of road improvements in the vicinity. Alternative 3 Recognizing that city street improvements alone are unlikely to solve the City's future traffic congestion, Alternative 3 considers the effects of implementing regional transportation capacity improvements on SR 18, SR 167 and SR 164. In addition, this alternative includes the potential bypass that would provide a direct link in east Auburn between SR 18 and SR 164. These regional projects would provide substantial congestion relief along key Auburn streets, such as Auburn ?Xlay South and 15th Street S?XI, ?1 Main Street, RStreet/Auburn Black Diamond Road, and 29th Street SE. More traffic would remain on the state highways rather than city streets, while the bypass route would reduce congestion along much of Auburn ?Iay South. The eastbound lane expansion of SR 18, between I-5 and SR 167, is not part of the State's System Plan but it is a project that the state should consider in future planning efforts. If SR 167 is eventually widened, there should be a thorough examination of the potential and trade-offs of widening SR 18 in the eastbound direction. Despite the improvements resulting from the projects in Alternative 3, traffic congestion in 2020 would persist on several city arterial and collector corridors. The City will closely monitor these corridors and examine further actions that might be appropriate. Chapter 2. The Sheet System Page 2- ? 6 ?T1..+F ? V 1 u ?1 WA5H1NG7C7lV Comprehensive Transportation Plan Table 2-4. Future Project Alternatives -LOS in 2020 1 .. ? Auburn Way North . ? 15th St NE Northern City Limits D ?? D D 2 Auburn Way North East Main St. 15th St NE C C C 3 Auburn Way South* East Main St.4t" St NE "M" St SE F F F 4 Auburn Way South "M" St SE Eastern City Limits F F C 5 M St.IHarvey Auburn Way North East Main St. F E E 6 M St.IHarvey East Main St Auburn Way South F F F 7 Evergreen Way Lakeland Hills Way Kersey Way E E E 8 37th St NE/NW West Valley Hwy "I" St. NE F F D 9 15th St NE/NW West Valley Hwy Auburn Way North F E E 10 Auburn Ave ./ "A" St 4th St. NE SR 18 Southern City Limits F F F 11 Main St West Valley Hwy "R" St. D D C 12 15th St SW West Valley Hwy "C" St SW E E C 13 "C" St. SW Ellingson 15th St. NW SR 18 C C C 14 West Valley Hwy Northern City Limits Southern City Limits F F F 15 S 277th St Frontage Rd. 108th Ave SE F E E 16 "R" St./Kersey Way Auburn Way South/ 17th St S E Southern City Limits E E E 17 Lake Tapps Parkway East Valley Hwy. 182nd Ave E B B 6 18 "A: St SW/NW/ "B" St NW 3rd St. SW 4t" St NW S 277th St C C B 19 8th St NE/Lea Hill Rd. Auburn Way North 132nd Ave SE F F F 20 "D" St NW/Emerald Downs Dr S S 277th St 15th St NW B 6 6 21 "I" St NE S 277th St Harvey Rd C 6 6 22 132nd Ave SE SE 282nd St SE 312th St D B B 23 124th Ave SE SE 282nd St SE 320th. St 6 6 6 24 104th Ave SE/SE 304th St 8th St NE 132nd Ave SE F C B 25 105th PI SEI107th PI SE/ SE 320th St Lea Hill Rd 124th Ave SE D D D 26 Lakeland Hills Way SE Lake Tapps Parkway Oravetz Rd C C C 27 29th St SE/Riverwalk Dr. A Street SE Auburn Way South E E C 28 108th Ave SE/112th Ave. SE S 277th St SE 304th St E D D 29 49th St NW B St NW S 277th St F F F 30 "R" St SE/ Auburn Black Diamond Rd 8th St NE SR 18 F E C 31 17th St SE "A" St SE Auburn Way South F F F 32 41st St SEIEllingson Rd "A" St SE Western City Limits E E E 33 Lakeland Hills Way SE/ Oravetz Rd East Valley Hwy. Kersey Way F F F 34 3rd St SW/Cross St "C" Street Auburn Way South E E D Source: City Traffic Model (TModel2) *Refer to Figure 2-4 for location of identified corridor segments. Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 77 ?TV?L.Jil1 \ wASw?r?cranr FUTURE SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS FUTURE STREET IMPROVEMENTS Comprehensive Transportation Plan The proposed future street plan consists of a combination of city street and regional transportation improvements, described in Table 2-3 and shown in Figure 2-6. The City cannot adequately solve traffic congestion by making city street improvements alone. Partnerships with wSDOT, King and Pierce Counties, and other agencies are essential to implementing the future street system in Auburn. The following actions are proposed: 1. Implement street projects prioritized in the City's TIP and CFP; 2. Program and seek additional funding for street capacity projects not currently identified in the TIP and CFP; and 3. ?X1ork collaboratively with ?SDOT and other partner agencies to implement roadway improvements on the regional highway network. 6TH STREET SE & 15TH STREET SW RAILYARD CROSSINGS The City has identified two additional projects that were not modeled in the future roadway improvement scenarios; a BNSF railyard cross- ing at 6th Street SE and one at 15th Street S?1, both of which would connect C Street Sw and A Street SE via agrade-separated crossing. These projects will likely be modeled in future model runs of the city street network. The City anticipates only one of the two projects will be necessary to accommodate the 2020 traffic demand. There are a variety of criteria that will enable the City to evaluate which project is ultimately chosen as the preferred alternative, including development of the BNSF property as a multi-modal railyard, commercial development on Auburn ?Xlay South and A Street SE, development of the GSA property, funding feasibility, neighborhood impacts, transportation impacts, and engineering feasibility. Since these projects were not considered in the 2020 traffic model, it is difficult to access the projects' impacts. However, it is expected both projects would increase east-west mobility in Auburn. The 15th Street crossing would also lead to considerable increases in traffic across the Terminal Park neighborhood. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT Transportation system management (TSM) techniques, which make more efficient use of the existing transportation system, can reduce the need for costly system capacity expansion projects. These techniques can also be used to improve LOS when travel corridors approach the adopted LOS standard. TSM techniques used by the City include: ¦ Rechannalization?restriping, adding turn lanes, adding increasing number of through lanes; ¦ Signal interconnect and optimization; Turn movement restrictions; ¦ Access 1Vlanagement; and ¦ Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). The City will continue to use these TSM techniques to maximize the efficiency of the street network. Of the various TSM strategies Chapter 2. The Sheet System Page 2- ? 8 West Main Street, Downtown Auburn ?T1..+F ? V 1 u ?1 WA5H1NG7C7lV Comprehensive Transportation Plan available, ITS is a relatively new technology being implemented by the City as a cost effective means of increasing system capacity. The ITS system enables the City to change traffic signals in real-time, thereby handling unusual increases in traffic or traffic obstacles such as event related traffic and accidents. For example, ITS has proven successful in mitigating the impact of event traffic traveling south on Auburn ?Iay South, often during the PM peak, to the ?Ihite River Amphitheatre. The City will continue to roll out ITS capabilities on corridors around the City. In addition to TSM strategies, the City strives to provide viable alternatives for travelers, to ensure freedom of choice among several transportation modes, including transit, biking and walking as alternatives to the automobile. The City will prioritize the development of pedestrian-friendly environments such as bicycle routes and pedestrian paths as the non- motorized system expands. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT Reducing congestion includes strategies to reduce demands on the transportation system. The State of ?Xlashington emphasized the importance of transportation demand management (TD1VI) by adopting the Commute Trip Reduction law 15 years ago. That law requires all major employers, with over 100 employees arriving between the hours of 6:00 and 9:00 AM, to develop programs and strategies to reduce the number of commuter automobile trips made by their employees. Transportation demand management reduces demand on the street system. ?lhile TDM and TSM employ a different suite of strategies, they share many of the same benefits. Both increase the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce the need for costly capacity expansions, help improve LOS, and contribute to an enhanced quality of life for those who use and benefit from the transportation system. TDM strategies include: ¦ ride-sharing through vanpools and carpools; transit use incentives; ¦ parking management to discourage single occupant vehicle (S0? travel; ¦ telecommuting; alternative work schedules to compress the work week or shift the commute outside the typical commute hours; and ¦ urban design encouraging non-motorized travel through design features. The City of Auburn will continue to encourage drivers of single occupancy vehicles to consider alternate modes of travel such as carpools, vanpools, transit, non-motorized travel, and alternative work schedules. NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS Transportation systems and facilities can have adverse impacts on neighborhoods. Impacts include safety problems due to speeding vehicles and increasing traffic volumes, increased traffic resulting from drivers seeking alternate routes to congested arterials, and the resulting air and noise pollution. Neighborhoods throughout the City are concerned with these traffic impacts and want to discourage traffic from using their streets for cut-through traffic. City policies discourage through traffic in neighborhoods. The City also plans to implement a traffic calming program that will address the pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile traffic safety concerns that threaten neighborhoods. The traffic calming program would be a community-based education, enforcement, and engineering effort that would help alleviate traffic safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and motorists. The program would raise public awareness of traffic safety issues and ways that Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 79 ?TV?L.Jil1 \ wASw?r?cranr Comprehensive Transportation Plan people can help minimize traffic problems in their own neighborhoods. STREET MAINTENANCE & REHABILITATION The City is responsible for maintaining the physical structure of the roadway system. However, pavement maintenance is costly, and sufficient funds are generally not readily available. Recognizing this dilemma, Auburn residents approved Proposition 1, the "Save Our Streets" (SOS) Program, in November 2004. The SOS program creates a dedicated local street fund for repair, rehabilitation, and maintenance of local roadways. The SOS program sunsets in 2010. The City plans to create a similar program to establish a dedicated fund for the repair and maintenance of arterials and collectors. The City arterial and collector systems have been subjected to significant wear for years, with few mechanisms available to the City to funds repairs. Hence, the City will be seeking the support of residents and businesses in establishing a fund to repair these corridors. As repairs are made, the City will be attentive to corridors with substantial freight and bus traffic. These corridors will be retrofitted, whenever possible, With design and construction features that accommodate truck and bus travel, such as thicker pavement and wider curb radii. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION The Growth Management Act (RCS 36.70A.070) provides that comprehensive plans should include a discussion of intergovern- mental coordination efforts, including "an assessment of the impacts of the transportation plan and land use assumptions on the trans- portation systems of adjacent jurisdictions." Auburn works closely with neighboring cities, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and state and regional agencies to ensure coordinated efforts are made in developing all modes of the transportation system. Among other efforts, the City of Auburn coordinates on both long- range planning efforts and ongoing development. ---- _?. ?.- .?; _ _ -, = ?_. P. ?d E ?- 4 ?r s?? ?,?: .. ? ? ? . Y? - ?a ? ?? i ? ? ?? ???E '4?a & ?s.,d l? ,k4? TF '.=i .% f'. '? ?= ?? .? ? ?, ? . ?? - SOS Program -Before Pavement ???- - ? ?? ??,? ,? ?, ?, ,? ?? _ .??. ,. ? ?? y. .? ?. ??' M??.?4 ? ? i r?Y ?,?'? ,? ? , ? ? ? SOS Program -Crack Seal Treatment SOS Program -Asphalt Overlay Chapter 2. The Sheet System Page 2- 20 BASE DATA PROVIDED BY (c) CITY OF AUBURN, ALL RIGHiS RESERVED. NO WP,RRANTI ES OF ANY SORT, INCLUDING ACCURACY, FITNESS OR MECHAMABI LITY, ACCOMPHNY THIS PRODUCT Legend ? P.A.A. N HIGHWAY OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS FUNCTIONAL ROADWAY ?PRINCIPALARTERIAL aKINGIPIERCE CLASSIFICATIONS AuB??v MINOR ARTERIAL ? ? ? i FUTURE PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL WASHING'1?ON RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR ? i FUTURE MINOR ARTERIAL Figure 2-1 NON RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR FUTURE RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR ?RURALCOLLECTOR FUTURE NON RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR 0 0.25 0.5 1 LOCAL -•• FUTURE RURAL COLLECTOR -PRIVATE • • • • FUTURE LOCAL Miles ?1 LEGEND N Auburn City Limits 10,000 Auburn 2007 Counts (7 day average) Potential Annexation 10,000 Auburn 2006 Counts Areas (7 day average)* 10,000 Daily Traffic Volumes Auburn 2005 Counts ? (7 day average)* DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AUBURN Figure 2-2 Miles 0 0.5 1 * Counts are rounded to the nearest hundred. LEGEND Auburn City Limits Existing Streets Potential Annexation City Truck Routes Areas ?i` City Future Truck Routes N State Truck Routes Miles D 0.5 1 TRUCK ROUTES AUBURN ?g4Fl'FNN VOpIiWIGMtO Figure 2-3 LEGEND N Auburn City Limits Potential Annexation Area Downtown Auburn ?? Corridor Sections Miles 0 0.5 1 AUBURN CORRIDOR ???i SECTION MAP ? ?????'????????????'?' Figure 2-4 * Refer to Tables 2-2 and 2-4 for the LOS standards and projected 2020 LOS levels for the identified corridors. LEGEND N Auburn City Limits ? Alternative 1 Potential Annexation Area - Alternative 2 ?? Principal Arterials ?" Alternative 3 MinorlCollector Arterials 2? Number of Lanes Added Miles * Not Included in Traffic Model D D.5 1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT AUBURN ALTERNATIVES ? ?°n`?F??NY"u`?'A°'"`c Figure 2-6 AUBURN WASHINGTON CHAPTER 3. Comprehensive Transportation Plan NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION Non-motorized transportation is an integral component of Auburn's transportation system. Non-motorized travel includes walking, b?cychng, 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 tl?s 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 ?Xlashington'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 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and its successors. Supporting the non-motorized system helps ensure compliance with these initiatives and the healthy community principles espoused by Riding on the Interurban Trail PSRC through Destination 2030 and the Vision 2020 update process. 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 apedestrian-scaled downtown and an extensive network of parks and trails. The needs assessment highlights these existing assets and identifies improvement needs. Chapter 3. Non Motorz?ed Transportation Page 3-? AUBURN WASHINGTON EXISTING PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT Comprehensive Transportation Plan 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 X997 Tran.?ortation Plan, there have been improvements to Main Street, between Auburn ?Xlay and B Street N?XI/S?XI, 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 ?Xlest Main Street and C Street S?X1 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 ?Iay, 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 ?1ay South, and 26th Street NE at Auburn ?'Iay North. Crosswalk with Pedestrian Refuge 3rd Street NW at Auburn Post Office Sidewalk Inventory A sidewalk inventory was conducted as part of the Plan update. 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 schedule 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, sidewalks built to current standards are provided on both sides of the street. The sidewalk survey did not include the potential annexation areas (PAA); they are largely lacking in sidewalks. Nonetheless, sidewalks are often built as new development occurs, particularly within the Auburn `Xlater and Sewer Service Areas. Table 3-1 Chapter 3. Non Motorised Transportation Page 3-2 ? ? q CITY OF ? ? WASHINGTQN Comprehensive Transportation Plan inventories the total sidewalk mileage it1 Auburn. 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 ?Xlhite 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, and Table 3-1 contains a mileage inventory of all pedestrian facilities, including trails. Table 3-1. Existing Pedestrian Facilities Bicyclists Hard-surface Disabled 26.78 miles Trail Pedestrians Equestrians Soft-surface Off-road Cyclists 2.17 miles Trail Pedestrians Sidewalks* Pedestrians 193.5 miles Existing side?al?s sere calculated for one side of the road only. Side?al?s Within Auburn PAA sere not inventorzed. SCHOOL ACCESSIBILITY School safety ?s a mayor 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. 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. Olympic Middle School H Street SE, between 17th Street SE and 21St Street SE, has no sidewalk, yet over 200 students walk the corridor daily. The shoulder is often flooded, forcing students to walk in the vehicle travel lane. A separated walking space for pedestrians would increase pedestrian safety. 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 Chapter 3. Non Motorz?ed Transportation Page 3-3 AUBURN WASHINGTON Comprehensive Transportation Plan 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. 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. 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 irl the Auburn Design Standards manual. 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 areas follows. ¦ In most cases, a minimum 3-foot wide clew 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 2?d 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://wuvw.access- board.gov, 2004. *Note these standards change regularly and should be confirmed before applying them to a site desian. 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. ?Xlherever possible, walkways should be placed along the most direct routes to Chapter 3. Non Motorised Transportation Page 3-4 Safe Walking Route to School ? ? q CITY OF ? ? WASHINGTQN Comprehensive Transportation Plan connect buildings, parking, bus stops, and other attractions. FUTURE SYSTEM This section describes the City's vision for the future pedestrian system and identifies programs and initiatives that will enable it 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 ?1 Main Street to the transit hub and commuter rail station, and between ?1 Main Street and the Auburn Regional Medical Center. The Do?vnto?vn 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 Do?vnto?vn Plan also identifies ?1 Main Street, A Street S?'I, Division Street, and the alley south of Main Street as high priority pedestrian corridors. In addition, several planned projects will improve non-motorized access to the downtown and transit station, including the ?1est Main Street Streetscape project and the A Street SE Pedestrian Improvement project, designed to improve ADA access under the railroad bridge just north of 6? Street SE. 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. 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 ?Xlay North and South, that are frequently traveled by pedestrians. ?lhile 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 that 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. 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. Chapter 3. Non Motorz?ed Transportation Page 3-5 West Main Street, Downtown Auburn AUBURN WASHINGTON RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS Comprehensive Transportation Plan 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. ANNEXATION AREAS As adjacent areas are annexed into the City, they will be considered for non-motorized improvements. Most new developments that occur in the PAA include sidewalks. Since the City of Auburn provides water and/or sewer for the majority of the PAA, the issuance of a water and/or sewer availability certificate is conditioned to require developers to conform to Auburn's street standards, which include sidewalks. PAAs include Lea Hill to the northeast, and areas to the southeast (Pierce County), and northwest (?X1est Hill). For the remaining areas in the PAA, the City will continue to work with King and Pierce Counties to encourage the building of sidewalks whenever possible. 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 amulti-use path that improves access from the ?Xlhite River to downtown. A planned pedestrian crossing, under the BNSF railroad tracks just north of the ?Xlhite River Bridge, will improve the regional trail system by providing a connection to the City of Pacific. Funding is still needed for the ?Xlhite River Trail connection to A Sheet 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. See Figure 3-3 for existing and proposed trail 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. Auburn budgets funds annually for the program. In 2004 and 2005, ? 100,000 was budgeted for improvements. These funds are essential for promoting non-motorized travel and can be used to leverage other funding sources, such as state and federal grants. Currently, the City is working to develop criteria for prioritizing sidewalk projects. Chapter 3. Non Motorised Transportation Page 3-6 Auburn Mu/t?-Use Trail ? ? q CITY OF ? ? WASHINGTQN Comprehensive Transportation Plan Auburn has identified three principal areas in which sidewalk improvements should be prioritized: corridors that provide access to and w?th?n the doWhtoWil, school zones, and parks. Additional criteria for priority access improvement could include, but are not limited to, areas with high concentrations of senor citizens or disabled c?t?zens and areas with high volumes of pedestrian-transit interaction. 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. 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. "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. The program sunsets in 2010. "Arterial Streets" Program ?1ith 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. 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. ¦ Enforcing pedestrian, bicyclist, and driver infractions, and posting signage to reinforce this priority. Chapter 3. Non Motorz?ed Transportation Page 3-7 AUBURN WASHINGTON 3.2 Bicycle Travel Comprehensive Transportation Plan 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. NEEDS ASSESSMENT EXISTING CONDITIONS The topography in many parts of Auburn is flat and conducive to cycling for a range of skill levels. Moving away from the valley floor, riding becomes more challenging. Therefore, existing and planned bicycle trails are focused primarily in the flatter areas. 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. 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 3-2 identifies existing trails and bike lanes in the City. 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 Imulti-use trails that allow bicycles include the Interurban, White River, and Green River Trails. Class II bicycle lanes are located at: ¦ 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; and ¦ 29th Street SE/Riverwalk Drive SE between A Street SE and 28th Street SE. 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 3-2 lists existing bicycle facilities; Figure 3-2 identifies facility locations. Chapter 3. Non Motorised Transportation Page 3-8 ? ? q CITY OF ? ? WASHINGTQN Comprehensive Transportation Plan 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 I? - 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: Design Standards Manual, City of Auburn, 2004 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 Table 3-2 Existing Bicycle Facilities Hard-surface Bicyclists 26.78 miles Trail Pedestrians Equestrians Soft-surface Off-road Cyclists 2.17 miles Trail Pedestrians On-street Bicyclists 5 miles Bike Lane and/or unskilled, cyclists may find it difficult to bike through Auburn. 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. In addition, future annexation plans provide opportunities for expanding the existing bicycle infrastructure beyond the current city limits. 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. 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 Chapter 3. Non Motorz?ed Transportation Page 3-9 AUBURN WASHINGTON Comprehensive Transportation Plan the time of new development or tenant improvements. The Do?nto?n 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. 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 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 S?XI will provide anorth-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 ?Xlay S is also proposed. The future Bonneville Power Trail will be a separated, hard surfaced trail connecting the Lea Hill area to the Interurban Trail. Numerous other on-street bicycle facilities and trails are planned. They are all identified in Figure 3-3, found at the end of this chapter. The selection of bike facility projects will be based upon safety, route continuity and connectivity issues. 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. 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 Chapter 3. Non Motorised Transportation Page 3-70 The Work is Easier when Shared ? ? q CITY OF ? ? WASHINGTON Comprehensive Transportation Plan 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 atwo-mile, soft-surface trail, along the ?'Ihite River at Roegner and Game Farm ?Xlilderness 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 ?lhite River and east of Kersey ?1ay in southeast Auburn. To reach the open areas, many ride along the edge of roads such as 53fd and 56? 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. Table 3-3 Existing Equestrian Facilities .m ?, Soft- surface Trail Equestrians Off-road Cyclists Pedestrians 2.17 miles 2 miles + 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 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. ?1hen planning equestrian trails, other facilities such as trailer parking and directional signage must be accommodated. FUTURE SYSTEM The southeast Auburn area, south of the ?lhite (Stuck) River and east of Kersey ?Xlay, 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 Chapter 3. Non Motorz?ed Transportation Page 3-? 1 AUBURN WASHINGTON Comprehensive Transportation Plan Hill, and should be evaluated as the area annexes into the City. ?Xlhen 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 ?1ay and 53fd Street SE. The Parks Plan identifies this future trail as the ?lilliams Trail. Potential obstacles include critical area impacts and right-of--way acquisition. The topography along Kersey ?Xlay 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 ?Xlhite 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 3-4. Design specifications for equestrian trails will be incorporated into the Auburn Design Standards manual. 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 3-4 is developed for planning purposes. Figure 3-3 identifies the location of the projects identified in Table 3-4 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 ?lhite 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 ?lhite River and west of A Street SE, will provide safe passage for pedestrians. A new trail connection along C Street S?X1 will provide pedestrians and cyclists with a safer connection to downtown and the Transit Center. Chapter 3. Non Motorised Transportation Page 3-72 ? ? q CITY OF ? ? WASHINGTON Comprehensive Transportation Plan "? ?YII1tG 'I??rv? ???•... i? { City ?f Auburn Parks and Rsae ?, ;? r Ac w' k.. 1'? White River Trail Multi-Use Path 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.1 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. i Vision 2020 + 20 Update Issue Paper on Health: tiVhat's Health Got to Do with Growth Management, Economic Development and Transportation?, Puget Sound Regional Council, Dec. 2, 2004. 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 Do?vnto?vn Plan calls for amixed-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. Adventure in Auburn Chapter 3. Non Motorz?ed Transportation Page 3-73 °??°F ' Comprehensive Transportation Plan AUBURN Table 3-4 Future Trail and Bicycle Facility Projects ,? 1 Auburn- This cross-town trail will provide connections for users west of the BNSF railroad to Bicyclists Pacific Trail downtown, the White River Trail, and the Super Mall. Pedestrians 2 Green River This paved trail will be part of a regional recreational corridor. King County is the lead Bicyclists Trail administrator of the project but will work in collaboration with the City for the portion Equestrians of the trail in Auburn. The trail alignment will extend along the west bank of the Green Pedestrians River from S 277ttn 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 277t" St. and Dykstra Park, also providing a connection to Green River Road. Two bridges are proposed; one south of the new S 277t" 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. 3 W Main Reconstruct existing sidewalks and add pedestrian amenities between the Interurban Bicyclists Street Trail and the Transit Center along W Main Street. Amenities include: lighting, Pedestrians Streetscape landscaping, public art, and wayfinding signs. New Class II bike lanes between the Interurban Trail and downtown will enhance east-west cross-town connections. Note, this improvement is scheduled for construction in 2007 and shown in Figure 3 Z, Existing Bicycle Facilities, as well as Figure 3-3. 4 Mill Creek This looped recreational path spurs off the Interurban Trail and will go through the Off-road Cyclists Path Auburn Environmental Park. Pedestrians Equestrians, possibly 5 White River The White River Trail runs along the south side of the White River from Roegner Park Bicyclists Trail to the eastern edge of Game Farm Park. Future extensions of the trail are planned Equestrians from the Interurban Trail to A Street SE via Ellingson Road and the future BNSF Off-road Cyclists Railroad underpass, from A Street SE to Roegner Park, and from Game Farm Pedestrians Wilderness Park to southeast Auburn along the White River. 6 Williams These recreational trails are intended to use public orquasi-public lands, including Bicyclists Trail corridors along the BPA powerline, Pacific Northwest pipeline, and the City-owned Coal Equestrians Creek Springs Watershed. A variety of loop trails may be possible within this large Off-road Cyclists area. Pedestrians 7 Bonneville This east-west trail will extend from Lea Hill to the Interurban Trail. There are Bicyclists Power Trail topographical challenges that will need to be addressed during the design phase. Pedestrians Equestrians 8 Academy The portion of Academy Drive from SR 164 to Green Valley Road is permanently closed Bicyclists Trail to vehicle traffic. However, it has the potential to be re-opened as a multi-use Pedestrians recreational trail. Equestrians 9 Lakeland This trail connects the growing Lakeland development with Mill Pond Drive and Pedestrians Hills Trail 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. *Refer to Figure 3-3 for location of future trail projects. Chapter 3. Non Motorised Transportation Page 3-74 ?? ,\ LEGEND Auburn City Limits Potential Annexation Area Existing Multi Use Trails 0 Existing Sidewalk Miles 0.5 1 N ? 112 mile from School i Schools 114 mile from School Parks ® Pedestrian Issue ? Trip Generator EXISTING PEDESTRIAN ???? FACILITIES '?? ""'?``'?ly? Figure 3-1 Tr. ,?,??r??i.rri.???rr ? ????',r»?,? ?: ? ? i 4;l rr i? w.e ?i r i4/ ?? ,\ LEGEND N Auburn City Limits ?? Schools Potential Annexation ? Parks Area Existing Multi Use Trails ? Trip Generator Existing Bike Lanes Miles 0 0.5 1 EXISTING BICYCLE ???? FACILITIES '?? ""'?``'?ly? Figure 3-2 Tr. ,?,??r??i.rri.???rr ? ????',r»?,? ?: ? ? i 4;l rr i? w.e ?i r i4/ i ? _,_ 1 BASE <. _????? ?r `?i ?...,...., }.r ?... Auburn, all rights reserved. No warranties of any sort, including accuracy, fitness or merchantability, accompany this product. LEGEND Auburn City Limits r Schools Potential Annexation ? Parks Area Existing Multi Use Trails 0 Trip Generator - - Proposed Trail Existing Bike Lanes - - - Proposed Bike Lanes Miles • • • • • ? Proposed Bike Routes o 0.5 ? FUTURE TRAIL AND ??e? BICYCLE NETWORK ,a.rs?iii•,? ? ?>, Figure 3-3 ?i iF,l it i?w.??ir i41 * Refer to Table 3-4 for descriptions of proposed trails. ? ?. ??.? E/? '?? ?'' f ,/ `! / ? ? q CITY OF ? ? WASHINGTQN :? ?` ?? CHAPTER 4. TRANSIT Comprehensive Transportation Plan 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. Unhke 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 Auburn Transit Center 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. Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- ? AUBURN WASHINGTON METRO TRANSIT BUS SERVICES Comprehensive Transportation Plan 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 N?X1 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 N?X1 Park-and-Ride, Star Lake Park-and-Ride (I-5/S 272?d Street) and downtown Seattle. Route 154 provides weekday service between the Auburn Transit Center, the Auburn 15th Street N?X1 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 is outside of Auburn, yet provides important local service between Kent and Green River Community College. Route 180 is a new route, which provides service daily between southeast Auburn, Auburn Station, and Kent Station/Transit Center until 1:00 am., meeting the MT 150, with service to and from Seattle, at Kent Station. During expanded peak hours (northbound approximately 3:00 - 8:00 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m., southbound approximately 5:15 - 7:15 a.m. and 11:45 a.m. - 6:15 p.m.), 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 ?1ay 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 ?Xlay South and SR 164. Metro Transit Hybrid Articulated Bus Courtesy: Metro Transit 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. Route 919 is a DART route, which operates fixed route service every 60 minutes between A Street NE/10th Street NE and Dogwood Street SE/Auburn ?1ay South between approximately 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekdays and between approximately 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on Saturdays. Route 919 also provides dial-a- ride service to north and south Auburn and to the Auburn Senior Center. Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 2 ? ? q CITY OF ? ? WASHINGTON ACCESS Comprehensive Transportation Plan 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 paratrans?t service ?s intended to offer a comparable level of service to that provided by regular bus service. Paratrans?t service ?s not required nor intended to meet all the transportation needs of persons with d?sab?t?es, but rather, to provide public transportation in a more spec?ahzed form. DART Vehicle Courtesy: City of Kent 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 contrnue to be an important strategy for mit?gat?ng peak hour congestion throughout Auburn and the region. TRANSIT FACILITIES Metro Transit owns and operates several transit facilities, including the Auburn 15th Street N?X1 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. 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 - Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 3 AUBURN WASHINGTON Comprehensive Transportation Plan Seattle routing via the BNSF Railway. Sound Transit provides weekday peak hour taps northbound to Seattle in the AM and southbound from Seattle to Tacoma m the PM. Additional special event service to and from Seattle and the Emerald Downs racetrack in Auburn ?s offered on weekends. Currently, four trains operate northbound to Seattle in the morning peak and return southbound during the PM peak. Sound Transit has indicated nine train pairs, operating in both directions during the AM and PM, will be available by late 2008, completing the commuter rail service specified in Sound 1?love, Sound Transit's Phase I investment package. Sounder Train Courtesy: Sound Transit t? , +, _? , .? ? 1?1 --?.? ._ Sound Transit Regional Express Bus Courtesy: Sound Transit REGIONAL EXPRESS BUS SERVICE Route 564/565 offers daily weekday, limited stop service between the Federal ?Xlay 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 S?XI. 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 hoardings 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 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. Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 4 ? ? q CITY OF ? ? WASHINGTQN Comprehensive Transportation Plan 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 1/4 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 ?'Iay South where many of the transit dependent residents are located more than 1/4 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 Lakeland Hills 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 neighborhood of Auburn is Lakeland Hills, a planned residential community with approximately 1,000 homes and no fixed route bus service for 75 percent of the community south of Mill Pond Drive. Likewise, 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 1/4 mile from fixed route bus service. Hence, it is inordinately difficult for residents of these areas to use Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 5 AUBURN WASHINGTON Comprehensive Transportation Plan transit, both for local gips 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. ?'Ihile the original Sound Transit Regional E.x?ress 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, ?Xlashington'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, should also be operated bi-directionally in the peak periods as originally planned. The current orientation of morning commuter rail service only northbound to Seattle provides no opportunity for most of the employees of South King County businesses to access their work sites via commuter rail. 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 new YMCA and Junior Achievement in the vicinity of Perimeter Road, the Safeway Distribution Center, UPS on C Street N?XI and ADESA on 37th Street N?X1. Emerald Downs receives Auburn YMCA -Major trip generator Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 6 ? ? q CITY OF ? ? WASHINGTON Comprehensive Transportation Plan transit service only via a private shuttle connection at the Auburn 15th Street N?X1 Park-and-Ride. The Super-mall receives only indirect transit service via Metro routes 181 and 917 (DART), which pick up and drop off passengers on 15th Street S?1 rather than at the Supermall entrance. 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. ?Xlhile 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. ?lhile the company's primary morning shift time arrival occurs at 6 AM, the earliest northbound Sounder train from Pierce County, which houses a number of Boeing employees, arrives in Auburn at 6:10 AM Likewise, the first run of the day for the Metro Route 181 from Federal way arrives near Boeing at approximately 6 AM, too late to meet the shift time; the westbound Route 181 from Lea Hill also arrives too late at 6:06 AM 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. ?Xlhere the schedules work, such as in providing a direct link between Boeing's Renton facilities and the Tukwila Sounder 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. As shown in Figure 4-2, Metro Transit Route 151 serves some of the most transit dependent neighborhoods in Auburn. The route is highly popular and productive, carrying over 49 riders per revenue hour. Despite the addition of no new service hours, route ridership has grown from 292,000 annual riders in 2002 to over 374,000 annual riders in 2004. That increase, coupled with the route's very high ridership per hour, warrants examining whether there is a need for additional service on the route. Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 7 AUBURN WASHINGTON Comprehensive Transportation Plan Likewise, Metro Transit Route 181 between Federal ?'Iay and Green River College has experienced a sharp increase in ridership in recent years. ?1?th only a 25 percent increase in service hours between 2002 and 2004, the route's ridership has grown 65 percent. 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 to the maximum number of trains identified in Sound 1Vlove, Sound Transit's Phase 1 service plan, as soon as possible. The Auburn Station in particular is a highly successful component of the Sounder service. Total hoardings 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. 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 1/4 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. Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 8 ? ? q CITY OF ? ? WASHINGTQN Comprehensive Transportation Plan Auburn is an ideal location for implementation of a community shuttle service. There are a number of concentrated commercial areas, such as the downtown and along 15th Street S?X1 and portions of Auburn ?1ay North. The City is also home to the Auburn Regional Medical Center and the regional YMCA, both significant attractions that would benefit from additional and more direct transit service. ?Xlhile the concept of a local shuttle is appealing, it is expensive to implement and operate. The City of Auburn and Metro Transit should work together to leverage shared resources and identify new resources that can be dedicated to the implementation of a community shuttle service. One possibility for maximizing resources entails utilizing a DART mini-bus as a commuter shuttle between Lakeland Hills and the Transit Center during the AM and PM peaks and converting the shuttle to a community shuttle service route during the non-peak hours. This would ensure the route is continuously in operation. Furthermore, the service would meet the needs of two different transit user populations by providing fast connections for commuters destined for the Transit Center during the peaks and improved access to shopping and medical uses on an alignment and schedule that addresses user needs during the non-peak hours. 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 are approaching a critical dimension. ?1hen only six of the 18 commuter trains in Sound Transit's Phase 1 service plan were operating, the Auburn Transit Center's parking garage and surface lot averaged 94 percent occupancy, per King County Metro. Since the fourth train pair began operating in September 2005, the lot often exceeds capacity. 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. & Surface Parking Lot Courtesy: Walt Wojcik 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 ?1ay N ¦ 15th Street NE and D Street NE ¦ Auburn ?Xlay N and 28th Street NE ¦ Auburn ?Xlay N and 22nd Street NE ¦ F Street SE and 25th Street SE ¦ 15th Street S?XI and 0 Street S?X1 Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 9 Transit Center Parking Garage AUBURN WASHINGTON Comprehensive Transportation Plan Metro Transit should work towards prov?d?ng shelters at the locations ?dent?fied above, as well as other stops that meet the threshold for passenger hoardings. Also, a new stop is required at A Street NE and 10? 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). Metro Transit has noted that a westbound stop, which seemed necessary at the time of re-routing, will not be installed unless the inbound routing of Routes 150, 152 and 154 is changed. This is due to the difficulties of these buses turning right from westbound to northbound at this intersection. 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. ?'Ihile 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 ?ur?sd?ct?ons, and stakeholders to develop a set of recommendations for changes to bus service and fac?hties m the Auburn-Kent area that could be implemented m 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. ¦ Examine service coverage in the Dogwood Street SE area to enhance access for the transit dependent. Consider providing fixed route bus or Van Share service to major trip generators such as the YMCA, Junior Achievement, the Safeway Distribution Center, UPS and ADESA. Consider extending fixed route service coverage to improve service to Lakeland Hills and/or consider instituting Van Share to connect Lakeland Hills to the Transit Center. Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 10 ? ? q CITY OF ? ? WASHINGTQN Comprehensive Transportation Plan Conduct a thorough evaluation of transit schedules; improve service to major employers in the Auburn area. ¦ Add service frequency (transit trips) on the Route 151 and consider adding service hours to Route 181. ¦ Expand the Route 152 to all-day, dual- direction service between Auburn and Seattle. Work with the City of Auburn to implement a responsive community shuttle service, which provides better service to shopping, medical care, and other community services. ¦ Install passenger shelters at stops where hoardings meet Metro Transit's standard for requiring passenger shelters. Work with the City to enhance security and reduced vandalism. ¦ 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. SOUND TRANSIT ¦ Expand Sounder service to 18 trains daily, the number of train trips identified in Sound 1?love, Sound Transit's Phase 1 service plan, as soon as possible. Operate Sounder service bi-directionally during the AM and PM, as originally planned. 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. CITY OF AUBURN Work with the Metro 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. Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 1 ? ??''?'? 7? I 5 z ??--,? L S 296th ST ?. a W W ?, a ? F S 316th ST PEASLEy ?ANYp Rp Peasley Canyon P&R ? 54 Spaces ? _ J? Z , a Z tr m 30th ST NW Auburn P&R 358 Spaces ?I zz?asr I ? 8th ST I I Transit Station ; Surface 113 ?ed? ? Garage 365 ?; ' ' Auburn ? --?® Black Diamond ? ? ????-- e Road P&R Y,,. ;?- 26 Spaces SE 9?eG W O c r- S ? ? ? ? i S L • ? Ll . I _ ? ? LEGEND N ? Auburn Cit Limits ? y Local Bus Routes Potential Annexation ' ' ' ' Local Bus Route with Area No Stops ? Park-and-Ride Lot ? ? Local Bus Route Number ?--I- Commuter Rail ? Regional Bus Routes 0 Miles ® 0.5 1 Regional Bus Route Number EXISTING TRANSIT ? 4 AUBURN SERVING AUBURN ? M°??"?Y°°?Ma°???° Figure 4-1 Transportation Planning ? Eneineerina ?'" ?? I 's z ??--,? L S 296th ST ?. a Zr a? Z tr m 30th ST NW Auburn P&R 358 Spaces I,C z2?asr ?„ ? - ?Tp,tJ W W ?, a ? F S 316th ST PEASLEy pANYp Rpm Peasley Canyon P&R ? 54 Spaces ? _ J? I ? 1 BASE Transit Station ??-' Surface 113 ??r ?? Garage 365 ?? ,, = o" ? I?a.,_ ?... N ST a , L J 29th ST ,,, _.. sLL T..S><, r // _ ? _ ?9 z _ 2? w 920 ? h, Q w ?y ( N 9 ? ?? 9 Aq A ?1? ? _? O Z N ? i ?{ / 1 ? ? ?? ?? ! _. _w? ? I ? ?? ED BY: (c) City ofAuburn, all rights reserved. No warranties of any sort, including accuracy, fitness or merchantability, accompany this product. LEGEND N Auburn Cit Limits ? Local Bus Routes ? y Potential Annexation ' ' ' ' Local Bus Route with Area No Stops ? Park-and-Ride Lot Regional Bus Routes ?--I- Commuter Rail Transit Dependent Population Miles 0 0.5 1 TRANSIT DEPENDENT AUBURN AREAS ????t,??Y???MA?,NF? Figure 4-2 Transportation Planning ? Eneineerina LEGEND N ? Auburn Cit Limits ? y Local Bus Routes Potential Annexation ' ' ' ' Local Bus Route with Area No Stops ? Park-and-Ride Lot Regional Bus Routes ?--I- Commuter Rail Minimal Transit 0 Miles 0.5 1 Service TRANSITAND MAJOR AUBURN TRIP GENERATORS ? ?°?`?NY°°'MA°,N`° Figure 4-3 Transportation Planning ? Eneineerina ?, WA51?ili?lGTON CHAPTER 5. POLICIES Comprehensive Transportation Plan 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 hn?le?nentatzon, addresses the system comprehensively, detaihng pohcies that pertain to the planning and irnplementat?on of the system as a whole. The subsequent four headings list pohcies specific to the following systems: Sheet yste?n, Non-?noto?i?ed ys?te?n, Transit yste?n, and Air tran.?ortation. 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 /?Xlest Valley Hwy, SR 164, and S 277th Street; C??pter 5. Policies Page 5- 7 Auburn Way South