The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2581 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2 5 8 1 2 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN , WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AND APPROVING THE AUBURN COMMUTER RAIL STATION SITING STUDY FOR INCLUSION AS AN ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON WHEN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR GROWTH MA~AGEMENT ACT COMPLIANCE ARE ADOPTED. 4 5 6 7 WHEREAS, city of Auburn Ordinance No. 4647 approved 8 November 9, 1993 established an Interlocal Agre1ament between the City and Metro to use grant funds for a Commuter Rail 9 10 11 12 13 station Siting Study; and WHEREAS, Otak, Inc., an architectural and engineering firm, was hired to conduct the study; and WHEREAS, a committee of local citizens appointed by the 14 Mayor participated in the planning effort; and 15 WHEREAS, this document resulted in a recommendation for 16 17 one rail station site on the Burlington Northern Railroad and one rail station site on the Union Pacific Railroad; and 18 WHEREAS, the overall preferred site identified in the 19 study is a downtown site located on the Burlington Northern 20 railroad; and 21 WHEREAS, the Planning commission held a Public Hearing on 22 the study and recommended approval to the City council on 23 November 1, 1994; and 24 25 26 ...-..-------------------------- Resolution No. 2581 December 14, 1994 Page 1 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 2 WHEREAS, the City Council held a Public: Hearing on 3 December 5, 1994; 4 NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CI~~Y OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, IN A REGULAR MEETING DULY ASSEMBI,ED, HEREWITH RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 5 6 7 section 1. The aforementioned Auburn Commuter Rail 8 station siting Study, to be attached as Exhibit "A", as recommended by the Planning commission, is her.awith adopted and approved for inclusion as an element of the revised City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan to be adopted in spring 1995. It 9 10 11 12 is herewith directed that the Auburn Commuter Rail station 13 siting Study be filed along with this Resolution with the 14 Auburn City Clerk and be available for public inspection. 15 section 2. The City of Auburn is in support of the 16 concept of commuter rail serving South King County and, as recommended in the study, herewith indicates i1:s preference 17 18 for a downtown rail station site located on the Burlington Northern rail line. Section 3. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation. -------------------------------- Resolution No. 2581 December 14, 1994 Page 2 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 2 3 DATED and SIGNED this 19th day of December, 1994. 4 CITY OF AUBUlUr 5 6 ~-J.uL G . {3ð~ CHARLES A. BOOTH MAYOR 7 8 9 10 ATTEST: 11 12 t!1~/JJ~ Rob~n Wohlhueter, City Clerk 13 14 15 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~ Michael J. Reynolds, Acting City Attorney -------------------------------- Resolution No. 2581 December 14, 1994 Page 3 -- CHARLES A. BOOTH, MA YOR Victor Thompson, Finance Director FINANCE DEPARTMENT 25 West Main. Auburn WA 98001-4998 (206) 931- 3033 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) )ss. ) I, Robin Wohlhueter, the duly appointed, qualified City Clerk of the City of Auburn, a Municipal Corporation and Code City, situate in the County of King, State of Washington, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2581 of the resolution of the City of Auburn, entitled "A RESOLUTION." I certify that said Resolution No. 2581 was duly passed by the Council and approved by the Mayor of the said City of Auburn, on the 19th day of December, 1994. Witness my hand and the official seal of the City of Auburn this June 9, 1995. ~torJJr1bd(J / Robin Wohlhueter City Clerk City of Auburn 'Ø~r£ Auburn Commuter Rail Station Siting Study \ ,1\ fll .. .:.. . \uburn I,~" ~"'iltt.L\"" , ~., ." . ,. .., ,,-1.' '~" , . ,;--4 "\ .. " ,: . ,,,'.'-' ".-. c- ..::- > , . " - -< , , ,. '; ~ . . . ,. c;"(" ,.., ~ 'oJ¡;;. " l' '~i ., Submitted by: otak ~ït December 1994 ß~/d:Jg/ ,...... ,...... Auburn Commuter Rail Station Siting Stud:y Acknowledgments City of Auburn Charles A. Booth - Mayor Contributing City Staff Planning Department Paul Krauss, AICP - Director of Planning and Community Development Bob Sokol, AICP - Senior Planner Betty Sanders, ASLA - Associate Planner Public Works Department Jack Locke, PE - Project Engineer Nick AfZali - Transportation Planner Commuter Rail Citizens Committee Bob Aubert - Instructor, Green River Community College Alisha Baltzell- Student, West Auburn High Linda Bee - General Services Administration John Cossano - The Boeing Company Juan Huseby - Auburn p]~nning Commission Alan Keimig - Auburn Downtown Association Sharon LaVigne - Representative for Auburn Disabled Citizens Mike Monisette - Auburn Chamber of Commerce Paul Nelson - Auburn Resident Carol Scofield - Pacific Pl~nning Commission Kathy Thompson - Auburn Resident Rich Wagner - Auburn City Council Glenn Wilson - Mayor of Algona Regional Transit Authority Valerie Batey Consulting Team Otak, Inc. - Lead Consultant, Architecture, Land Planning, Transportation Planning, Civil Engineering Robert Bernstein, Inc. - Transportation Impact Analysis Sverdrup Civil, Inc. - Railroad Engineering Applied Geotechnology, Inc. - Soils and Hazardous Materials Study Adopted by Resolution Number 2581 December 19, 1994 Table of Contents Auburn Commuter Rail Station Siting Study Page 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................".......... 1 1.1 Authorization 1.2 Project Scope 1.3 Public Process Chart 1: Commuter Rail Station Siting Study Flow Chart 1.4 Coordination with Other Projects in Auburn. 2.0 Design Requirements ................................................................................ t, .. .. .. .... 7 2.1 Rail Station Physical Needs 2.2 Station Access and Circulation 2.3 Rail Line Requirements Figure 1: Prototypical Track and Platform Layout, Burlington Northern Figure 2: Prototypical Track and Platform Layout, Union Paci{1.C Figure 3: Bi·Level Commuter Coach 2.4 Urban Design and Land Use Considerations Figure 4: Urban Design and Land Use Vision 2.5 Ridership Demand 2.6 Bicycle and Pedestrian Requirements Figure 5: Bicycle and Pedestrian Use Vision 2.7 Development of the Site Evaluation Criteria 3.0 Alternative Site Analysis .................................................................................... 20 3.1 Site Descriptions Figure 6: Site Locations Map 3.2 Site Opportunities and Constraints Figures 7 . 12: Opportunities and Constraints Maps · Traffic Access and Circulation Figure 13: City of Auburn Arterial Street Plan Figure 14: Current Daily Traffic Volumes Figure 15: South King County Transit System Figure 16: Greater Auburn Transit System · Bus Access and Circulation · Transit and Land Use Relationships · Rail Impacts to Vehicle Circulation · Pedestrian and Bicycle Access · Environmental Considerations 3.3 Schematic Site Plans Figures 17 . 23: Schematic Site Plans 4.0 Site Selection ........................................................................................................ 49 4.1 Site Ranking Process 4.2 Site Evaluation Matrix (Final R»nldngs) 4.3 Recommended Sites 5.0 Conceptual Site Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 55 Figure 24: Downtown Site Conceptual Site Plan Figure 25: SuperMall Site Conceptual Site Plan 6.0 Project Implementation .................................. '" .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . '. . .. 80 if - ~ ' 1.0 Introduction , ! r ! The Auburn Commuter Rail Station Siting Study is a concept level planning document. As the project continues, increasing levels of planning, design, and environmental review will be implemented. Tlùs report describes the process and conclusions of the preliminary planning effort used to select the optimal location for a multi-modal commuter rail, bus, and auto transit center within the City of Auburn. The project also included programming and development of design requirements for the commuter rail station and supporting facilities. [J I f ¡ I 1 , J , . ¡ , , , , I I, I! The Auburn Commuter Rail Station will be part of the proposed regional commuter rail system. Rail service will extend south from downtown Seattle to Tukwila, Kent, Auburn, Sumner, Puyaliup and Tacoma. The rail system will also include service to Renton and North of Seattle to Everett. The Regional Transit Authority (RTA) is cUlTently evaluating the feasibility of extending service further south from Tacoma to DuPont and Fort Lewis. Expanded transit service will include convenient connections to other destinations such as Federal Way, SeaTac and the Eastside through expanded bus service. I! I r--l , J , . J ! J ¡ J J J J ] J The RTA is cUlTently completing a general Environmental Assessment and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the South Corridor Commuter Rail Project. A bond measure will be proposed to the voters on March 14,1995 to help fund construction of the commuter rail system. Additional funding will come from Federal grants. Service 1 J Commute,. Røil Stølio,. Sjli,., Study would begin as soon as the rail stations can be approved and built. Four alternative sites on the Burlington Northern rail line and two alternative sites on the Union Pacific rail line were studied. Opportunities and constraints were analyzed and schematic site plans were prepared as a "test-of·fit- exercise for each of the six sites. A site sel'3Ction matrix was developed by the cCinsulting team, and reviewed by a Commuter Rail Citizens Committee organized by the City of Auburn in May 1994. The Citizens Committee included members from local businesses, the Auburn Downtown Association, Chamber of Commerce, Regional Transit Authority, thE! Auburn Phmning Commission and City Council, Pacific Planning Commission, City of Algona, local schools and interEisted citizens. The Citizens Committee assistE!d in developing criteria for site sele(:tion, then evaluated and ranked the sites.. Tlùs resulted in a recommendation Cif one site on each rail line. More detailed! conceptual site plans were then. developed for the two selected sites, and tile potential benefits of each site were further evaluated. The project also included review and input from City stafr and various public agencies. The sites selected through this process include a downtown site on the Burlington Northern rail line, which is the overall prefeITed site, and a site adjacent to the SuperMall, which is the prefernBd site on the Union Pacific line. The opportunities and constraints each site offers are 1 described in more detail in Figures 7 - 12, pages 24 and 25, and throughout the report. Sketches and descriptions of the potential development of the prefeITed sites are found in Section 5.0, Conceptual Site Plans. Funding for the development of the basic commuter rail station site will be provided by the RTA. In their earliest planning scenarios, the RTA allocated a certain amount for each station site. During the preliminary engineering phase (which will occur after a regional transportation pIan is approved by voters), these figures will be reviewed and refined to reflect the unique situation of each station site. The RTA will then work with each jurisdiction to identify funding sources for project costs that go beyond the basic station features funded by the RTA. This report is intended to be adopted by the Auburn City Council as a recommendation to the RTA Board as the City's preferred location and site plan for a single station on each rail line. This report will also be used as a basis for future station area planning for surrounding land uses, traffic access and circulation, parking and bus service, as well as capital facilities and pedestrian connections, and bicycle facilities planning to be completed by both the City and the RTA. 1.1 Authorization This pl~nn;ng effort was authorized by the City of Auburn through an agreement with Otak, dated March 7, 1994. The report was prepared under the direction of City staff with input from the Auburn Commuter Rail Citizens Committee, Metro, the Regional Transit Authority, Burlington Northern Railroad and the 2 Union Pacific Railroad. Funding for the planning study was provided by a grant from Metro, and is now admilJdstered by the RTA. The original source of this ·pass- through" grant is the Washin~rton Department of Transportation, through its High Capacity Transit program. , , . ! , ! J 11 1.2 Project Scope 11 ! I Task I: Project Coordination and Management This task included meetings and coordination with the Citizens Committee, City staff and involved agenciE!S, as well as management of the consulting team's efforts. , , ~ . · , , t · . , i , · . ! J Regular discussions with the HTA commuter rail planning staff were held for coordination with the overall commuter rail system design and enviroDiJIlental assessment currently being completed. Coordination with the City ofPuyallup Commuter Rail Station consull~ing team was included for consistency ÌIl design. ; J ¡ J : 1 : J ¡ 1 This task also included assisting the City with an open house meeting. Using citizen and staff input, the consulting team will make recommendations to the PI~nn;1'\g Commission for site selection. The Planning Commission will then forward their recommendations to the City Council for approval. ¡ I ¡ 1 I J I J ¡ 1 1 ] Task II: Commuter Rail Station Design Requirements Task IT included identification and progT"mm;ng of the various elEtments required for a commuter rail station located in Auburn. The design elements included rail station programming of the 1 ) 1 J ; J , J I . J , , . j City 0( Auburn 0.. j ! ! platform, station area needs, ancillary use buildings, ridership demands, parking requirements, bus transfer and transit needs, rail requirements, nonmotorized transportation modes and land use considerations. The consulting team developed a set of site selection criteria with the Citizens Committee and City staff. The selection criteria listed in Section 4,2 of this report were used to rank the various sites for selection. , 1 , , r J f1 r-1 fJ [] rJ Task III: Analysis of Alternative Sites Task III included identification of various sites in the City deemed appropriate for development as a commuter rail station. Preliminary environmental, land use, transportation and site pl"nn;T\g analyses were completed for each site. A list of c ! l) , 1 , , , I J J J I J I J ] ] ] J J J ] J J J Commut.r Rail Station Siting Study opportunities and constraints were developed for each site, along with a "test- of-fit" site plan. The analysis i1ûormation was reviewed by the Citizens Committee. Task IV: Site Selection and Development This task included filling out a site selection matrix for each site. 'rhe highest ranking sites on each rail line were selected by the Citizens Commiittee, consulting team, and City staff. Refined preliminary site planning was I:ompleted for the two selected sites, along: with this report. The report will act as a recommendation of site selection to the City Council for adoption. The following flow chart (Chart 1) illustrates the process of this study. 8 City Receives Grant from Metro to Identifv Potential Station Sit.. Consultant SelecUon II Cltv Council Adoøllon and Site Recommen- dation to RT A Forma Citizen. Committee Review and Refine Site Evaluation tot.trilc with Citizens Committee II 1.3 Public Process ldentlfv Design Parameters and I..ues Cililens Commrttee S.,leçt Pre- felred Sitt's for r\10fe Det3rled In\:estig;Jtlon One Srte on Union P3crfrc Line One Site 011 BurlHH]tou Northern Litle Tnree Counties Vote on Regional Transit Plan, Spring 1 895 Develop Sit. Selection Criteria ",nalylll of each ~me Develop Sit. Opportunl- tIel and Constraints Develop Conceptual Site Plans to "Test Fit.. : J 11 Refine Site Plans Prepare Project Report ¡ I , , I , , , , . í Planning C:Ommlu60n R:evlew , . Commuter Rail Station Visioning wltn Citizens Committee If Vote I, Successful r:=::::I Det~fed PI.Jl1nil1g .Jnd Site Investr· g.JtlOn Ph.Jses ~ l' I J J J II ] · ] ¡ j I J I J I J J I ! J · J Chart 1: Commuter Rail Station SltInr Study Flow Chart Source: OI4k Public input and direct community involvement were considered crucial for success of the project. A rigorous plan for public input was developed by both City staff and members of the consulting team. During the station siting study process, 4 regular meetings with the Citizens Committee were organized by the City. Active involvement of the Committee occurred during the site evaluation and plAnning process, with a meeting approximately every three to four weeks throughout the duration of the study. During an extended meeting, the Citizens · ¡ '-' City 0{ Aubrmo , , ~ t Committee toured the six candidate sites. A total of five meetings were held with the . Citizens Committee in developing this report. 1 J J n n r1 r1 rJ Future public meetings will include an open house for review of the selected sites on each rail line, preliminary site plans, and architectural concepts. The open house will provide a public forum for discussion of commuter rail service with relation to the City of AubW'Il, the benefits and effects of selected sites and the opportunities for Auburn. I 1 ! ì I ¡ [ J The commuter rail site selection and planning effort will be reviewed by the AubW'Il PI~nn;ng Commission and the Planning and Community Development Committee. This will result in a recommendation of site selection to the City Council. [J [ J [ J The AubW'Il City Council will hold a public hearing on the site selection. Through this process, the City Council will adopt the study and make a recommendation of site selection to the RTA. [ ! ¡¡ [ J IJ LJ ~J J J J J J J ] Public input for the project included formal presentations and meetings. During the site selection and planning process, RTA held additional workshops and informational meetings for the regional transportation plan. 1.4 Coordination with Other Projects in Auburn The AubW'Il Commuter Rail Station site selection process included close coordination with other City transportation projects, regional transit system improvements and private , J , ~ Commut.r Rail Station Siting Study development projects. This coordination included: · development of a set of constraints for site plan configuration due to land availability and development plans; · coordination with future development plans of the sites being considered; · access opportunities and COJlstraints; · rail line expansion and com]~atibility; · compatibility with Metro bus route expansion and re-routing; aJld · compatibility with the RTA regional commuter rail system envir"nmental assessment and planning. Various projects within the City were evaluated for their possible impact on a commuter rail station. The following specific current and future projects were evaluated for their effect on site selection. "C" Street SW Interchange lj,ith Highway 18 This project will provide direct access to the downtown area by re-coníii:uring 3ni Street SW and ·C· Street SW SlS a part of a new Highway 18 on and off ramp. Main Street Improvement. This project adds pedestrian connections and streetscape enhancements in downtown Auburn. Metro Bru Route Expan.ion and Reconfiguration Metro is planning to re-route sc,me bus service, add service to the SupE,rMall area, and add a bus transfer and park-and-ride facility in the downtown AubUJ~ area, 5 Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Rail Expansion Both railroads plan to add tracks in the future which will affect commuter rail operations and station design. SuperMall of the Great Northwest Development and future expansion plans of the SuperMall project directly affect site planning of a commuter rail station on the Union Pacific rail line. Auburn Race Track Development of a horse race track in north Auburn indirectly affects off-peak ridership demands. Downtown Site Re·Development The owner of the downtown site has 8 expressed desire for re-development of the site which directly affects the !Iite design and opportunities of a commuter rail station. Station Area Land Use Planl The City will be undertaking a pl~nning effort to review existing uses and develop future land uses within a quarter-mile radius around the multi-modal transit station sites. Traffic circulation systems will also be reviewed for adequate service to support the transit-oriented land uses. : 1 · , ¡ i , 1 · , , ~ , 1 . ~ f Each potential site was analyz,ed to determine site planning opportunities and constraints for a commuter rail station. This information was then utilized to further evaluate each of the selected sites. · , . : 1 ¡ J : J : J , I · J ;J ! J ¡ 1 I J ¡ J I J ¡ J ¡ J ¡ ] ; ¡ , , · j ; j <-l Cjty 0( AMbfU'1l [I 2.0 Design Requirements , 1 , , [ J [] [1 [) [ ] r) This section presents the commuter rail station design criteria. Design issues include station programming and design, access and circulation needs within the station site, rail line and operational needs, bus routing and transfer needs, and pedestrian and bicycle access and facilities. pI,mn;ng issues related to the rail station design include ridership demands and urban design and land use considerations. These parameters form the basis for site planning, physical design, and operation of the multi-modal commuter rail station. r 1 , J , , Ii i I ! J : ] : ) ) ] J J . ] J ) ) J J ) 2.1 Rail Station Physical Needs Site pJ"nnh'lg of a multi-modal transit station begins with identification ofthe key elements required for its operation. The number and size of each element determine the station's physical needs. Early forecasting of ridership demand was developed in 1993 by the Regional Transit Authority. These initial figures are used in this study to determine station needs, although more refined ridership forecasting will be performed soon. The' updated ridership demand figures will be incorporated into the station area planning and pre-design phases. The demand was translated into a required number of automobile parking stalls. The ridership demand forecast also set the number ofrail cars to be used for initial service. Bus routing through the station was determined by the long range transit planners at Metro. The number of bus routes using the transit center determines , J J ] J Com","'.r Rail 8tal;on Siti"g Study the number of bus bays requirEid in the design. The rail station platform length and width, as well as waiting shelter building area requirements, were set by' the Regional Transit Authority and the rail service providers. The types of' ancillary uses, such as newspaper, vending, and coffee stands, were forecasted by the Commuter Rail Citizens Committee, consulting team and City staff. The physical requirements for othelr uses, such as pedestrian and bicycle facilmes, drop- off zones ("kiss-and-ride"), Dial-A-Ride Transit (DART), handicapped parking, and employment shuttle service were determined by the Regional Tr:msit Authority Commuter Rail Conceptual Design Criteria. As a result of information gath,ered from the sources listed above, the Auburn Station site plan elements wern determined to include: · 500 (minimum) automobile parking stalls, including barrier-free parking facilities as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); · 10 bus parking bays; · 200'-foot-Iong drop-off zone for automobile "kiss-and-ride", taxi, shuttle service, and DART; · 450' station platform for initiíal five-car train with room for an additional 400' station platform for future tEin-car trains; 7 · 175' beyond each end of the platform for locomotive storage length; · shelter structures for the rail platform and bus transfer center; · ancillary buildings sized to fit each available site; · gated pedestrian track crossings at each end of the platform; and · bicycle storage racks, lockers, and electrical outlets for electric bikes near the passenger shelters. The size of each element required for the transit station was derived from existing planning documents. After the sizes were determined, the site element requirements were then combined to create a site plan for each station site. Site plans were different for each of the six sites evaluated, due to the area and physical shape of the land parcels available. Several planning documents were referenced for this study and used to size and analyze the various site elements, including: · Conceptual Design Criteria and Standards: Volume II - Commuter Rail, Regional Transit Authority, September 1993; · South Corridor Commuter Rail Planning Document, Regional Transit Authority, March 1993; · Long Range Policy Framework for Public Transportation, Metro, October 1993; · South Corridor Commuter Rail Project Environmental Assessment Scoping 8 Documents, Regional Transit Authority, December 1993 and February 1994; · Greater Auburn Transit Service Proposal, Metro; " f. , · Downtown Auburn Design Master Plan, City of Auburn, July 1990; 1 j 1 ¡ 1 · Auburn Urban Design Conæpts Brochure, City of Auburn; · J , . · Auburn North Business Area Plan, City of Auburn, March 1992; . , .\ í , , ~ ~ · Auburn Zoning Ordinance, City of Auburn, 1990; , . ~ ~ .i ¡ · Tri-Met Design Criteria, 'I'ril-Met. Portland, Oregon, May 199:~; ~ f , , i ) · City of Auburn Comprehemive Plan, (Includes the Arterial Street Plan map), City of Auburn, 1986; . ) i : ! ; ) : · City of Auburn 1982 Comprehensive Traffic Plan; · King County Countywide Planning Policies, King County; ¡ J · Puget Sound Regional Councü Multicounty Planning Policia, Puget Sound Regional Council; and ! 1 1] I J ( ) I) U · SuperMall Environmental Impact Statement, Huckell/WeinmslIl Associates Inc., 1992. 2.2 Station Access and Circulation ¡ ) ; J ¡ J A highly functional and converlÍent system of access and circulation is critical to , , , j u City of AMburn , J r. .~ ~ ~ successful transit use. Specific design requirements for access and circulation to serve the commuter rail station and transit center will address various types of uses and users, which include: or 1 1 ¡ n n rl rJ · automobiles; · single and articulated buses; · shuttle buses; · commuter rail trains; · pedestrians; · bicyclists; and · disabled persons. r 1 r J . , ¡ i Each type of use has its own set of requirements for turning radius, parking or stopping space, backup space and access lane width. Auto parking and access, pedestrian waiting spaces, access in compliance with ADA, bicycle lanes, bicycle storage, landscaping, open spaces, and buildings will be governed by the City of Auburn. Requirements for bus bays, bus lanes, bus turning requirements, and drop-off zone length are per Metro and other transit authority standards. Station rail track alignment, platform length and width, platform height and rail line pedestrian crossings will be per the rail service providers requirements. Some of the access and circulation requirements for design include: I J I J I I ¡ I ¡ ] ! 1 . J II I I ¡ J LJ [ I [) U [) LJ [J U [ ] LJ Rail Company Requirements: · 15' rail line separation between tracks; · 25' rail line separation between tracks at center platform areas on the Union Pacific rail line; · 5.5' rail line separation to platform; ij , ~ Commuter Rail Station Siting Study RTA and Metro Requirements: · 14' rail line minimum platfonn width; · 400' (5 car lengths for initial use) and 850' (10 car lengths for futl:Ll'e use) rail line platform length; · 1200' total rail length with .mgines; · 29' wide bus lanes for parkiJag and passing; · 32' minimum bus access roa.dway; · 60' long bus bay with a 6' off-set at 20'; · 25' inside and 55' outside bus turning radius; · 8' x 200', within and tapers, taxi-auto drop-off zone (for 8 vehicles); · 8' at-grade pedestrian rail lIne crossing with gates; · 3'-4" x 6'·2'h" bicycle storag.¡ lockers; City Requirements: · 36' parking lot entry width; · 9' x 19' (90 degree) standard parking stalls; · 8' x 16' (90 degree) compact parking stalls; · 24' minimum auto driveway width; · 13.8' inside auto turning radius; 9 ADA Requirements: · designated barner-free parking spaces with access aisles conveniently 10cated to transit facilities; · handrails on grades greater than 1:20; · levellanding areas at every 2.5' of elevation change; · 2' safety clearance separating pedestrians from trains; and · 8' minimum sidewalk width at bus and train platforms. Metro will update its 10ng range plan for public transportation as part of the regional transportation pIan. Enhanced bus service is a key element in successfully transferring people to and from the commuter rail station. Auto access and a well designed park-and-ride lot are other key elements of the station. Traffic analysis completed for this study is based on existing information and levels of detail equivalent to a preHmin.."Y pl..nning study. Detailed traffic analysis and modeling will be performed in the next phase. 2.3 Rail Line Requirements The Burlington Northern and Union Pacific Railroads each have separate, specific requirements for rail line layout, spacing between tracks, platform dimensions, and other elements related to commuter rail service. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate prototypical track and platform layout criteria for each rail line. Railroad requirements for the number and location of tracks depend on freight 10 service, storage of cars not in use, other service providers such as Amtrak and future expansion plans, Track design also depends on operational requirements for switching and train routing to other areas, speed allowance, at-grade strE!et and pedestrian crossings, storage requirements for staging trains and the type and number oflocomotiv,~s and rail cars to be used for commuter J:'ail service. , ~ ¡ , i ~ " I ¡ , I , , Discussions with the Burlington Northern Railroad have produced a preliminary set of design requirements which satisfy their rail and operational needs. Bl~lington Northern plans to add one track line to their existing two track system. Commuter rail service would 11se the outside tracks, while freight and Amtrak trains would use the center track. Additional side tracks would not be needed at this station location. Burlington Northern would use low levelloading platforms located at the rail height, 5.5 feet from the outside track. They would utilize double high cars with a step-up located inside the car doors. ADA access would be through the first car with an inside lift. Loading platforms would be located on each side of the outside two tracks. The westerly loading platform would be temporary until a th:ird track is built west of the existing two 1;racks. . , ~ ~ I [ . . í ¡ ! ! j. ¡ ) ¡ ] : J : J rJ t 1 , U I ] I ] ( ] 1] ¡ ] ] The Union Pacific Railroad has a slightly different set of requirements. Discussions with Union Pacific indicate th,~ir desire to add a second track, 25 feet east of the existing track. The side track would be two miles long at each station site. The loading platforms would be ei~:ht inches above the track height with a i5.5-foot clearance from the outside rail. There would be a main passenger pÙttform located west of the westerly ~ack which would be used 96 percent of the time. ¡ ] ¡ J 1 ] 1 J Cjy of Auburn , I , , n n rl n n n [J n I! r I , J . , II U [ I ¡ ] ! I ¡ ¡ ! [ ] [ I u LI U U U [ J lJ J I' J J no ILOCOMOTlve~ I II.... -, 8..·· 1 "1 rl .. 310 ~201'-- 11...1,41' PEOESTAIAtI AND ROAD (iIlADECROS$~PEIIMITTEO EITMEIIENO ~OO' 1T~' PL.o.TFORM 1 FUTUAEPlATFOfIM JlOCOMOTIVE'\ EACH SIDE OF TIIACKS 11::-_--::_:_:"_ _:.::::: .... '.~:: .... P~OE8TAI..... =-r(-.:::::': _-:: _:-::~-:: CIIOSSlNG ... "--.,- "--..- "--"- Fi¡¡ure 1: Prototypical Track omd Platform Layout, Burllln¡tou Northern Sou"""OtoJc No. 20 TURNOUT no .~O· I'C"TFonM PETWUN TflAQ\STUIIIE USED Of«<.VQURINGMA!t(ffiNA..ce ON.....INLINe 310' 20 PEDUHU,o,tI,t..NDIIOAO ßIIAOECROUINGPEIlIo4ITTEO "EITHEIIEN[) 400' FUTIJIIEPLUFOIIM ~·"I ~:.. - --:- ..-- --=---., - - ==='::::. --:=:; "- II<ITE,RlJRBI\NTIIAIL ~ Fleure 2: Prototypical Track omd Platform 1..ayo1.t, Union Paclflo Sou"""OtoJc Ticketing, shelters and ancillary uses would be located on the main platform only. A 14-foot-wide center platform would be placed between the tracks for use only when maintenance is being performed on the main line and the commuter rail train is usiDg the side track (approximately 4 percent of the time). Union Pacific would use double high train cars with a 17-inch step inside the car door requiring the two-inch-high platform Commuter Rail Støtion Siting Study above track height. ADA service would be through lifts inside the first car. The passenger platforms need to be located on a straight line beyond any curvature in the rail tracks. The Union Pacific: commuter rail train would operate on thla main track, loading and unloading passengers traveling in both directions at the west side platform. Figure 3 illustrates the bi- level commuter coach which UI proposed for use on both rail lines. 11 ~~_. --------6IE---...:;r=:--------,/i1 . . .-- fìi -~ --- ---i\ Ii 16' m ----- ~dJ·· "" """ r;;::::::=J. ~ "1'" ,~_/ ~IJ ,_, , B.LevelCommulerCoach ~~PP'roX.150perwonpel'car r- 10'4 SidøProl,le ~~t Fløure S: BI·Leve\ 'Dommuter Coach Source: RI!jfÌonDJ Transit Authcrity,lIail Vehick. Figure ,1tJI·1, May 27, 1994 2.4 Urban Design and Land Use Considerations Urban form is a critical element in the creation of transit-oriented communities, both large and small. Dense urban areas SUITOunding a transit center with well- defined linkages to subordinate activity centers provide the optimal form to support multi-modal transit use. Low density land use is the least desirable growth pattern for successful transit use. Successful integration of public transportation into the urban fabric of smaller cities such as Auburn requires a strong land use policy that provides the fÌ'amework for future development and/or redevelopment. The design of new development'or redevelopment can encourage greater use of public transportation in many ways. If the design principles are considered early in the design of the project, costs of well- planned development and redevelopment can be minimized. Development can and should be designed to accommodate travel by all modes. Design should reflect the needs of pedestrians, transit riders, bicyclists, and motorists, by creating clustered densities of retail, commercial, office, and 12 residential uses witlùn a quarter-mile radius of multi-modal transit connections. To encourage use by pedestrians, urban design must have a balanced and attractive pedestrian system. Factors that encourage people to walk can be as subtle and simple as creating a plea;sant environment for the pedestrian. Some key elements oftransit-supportiv,s urban design are described below. . Buildings, streets, and public spaces need to be oriented toward the pedestrian while also providing safe access and parking for motor vehicles. . Buildings should be design,ed and sited in ways that serve transit riders, pedestrians and bicyclists fLS well as automobile drivers. Shoppiing and employment areas need to Ibe designed close to the street with at l,sast one entrance oriented to pedestrians and transit users. Suburban ofJ'ice and industrial park buildings should be clustered at intersections, close to the street line, TTI"ldng them more readily accessible from nearby tran.sitJbus stops. . An urban design consideration which can be used to create a more City at Aubum ~ r " \ : 1 n 11 ! J ! 1 . 1 , . , , , , . ¡j .i ! I ; ) : ] , ) : J : J J I ¡ I ¡ ] I ] ¡ ) ¡ I 1 J ! I :1 ¡ J : J . , ¡ , ~ , j ( pedestrian-friendly environment is the need to mix different types of land uses close together. Mixed uses create opportunities to substitute walking for driving, create activity centers and create a sense of security along a street. !J . . , ¡ 1 ( J n n f 1 ( I . Residential growth within walking distance (one-quarter-mile) of multi- modal transit stations should be at higher densities than outlying areas. A gradient of densities should exist within the walking radius of a transit stop, with the highest intensity of use located nearest the transit facility. , ~ I' , , i ¡ I ¡ . Street patterns can be a limiting factor for providing good transit service, such as discontinuous street patterns which make it difficult to walk to bus stops and transit centers. Interconnected streets give pedestrians many alternative walking paths and help shorten walking distances. Motorists also have more routes to follow, which reduces the volume of cars on anyone street. Mlijor streets and arterials pose special design problems for transit, and often create a hostile environment for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. To encourage transit use, safe pedestrian crossings must be allowed at frequent intervals. Pedestrians also need to be buffered from traffic by parking or landscaping. Bicyclists may need dedicated lanes and parking ares to reduce conflicts with vehicular traffic. I ! [ ] ¡ J : ] ; ] r1 ¡ J II [J I ] II LJ [J 11 II The sites being studied for the Auburn Commuter Rail Station offer differing challenges and opportunities related to urban design. The sites that are surrounded by vacant land offer the potential to establish the transit center as u LJ l ] I J L_J Commuter Rail Slat ion SHing Study a focus and to develop a speciJlc station area plan accompanied by applicable urban design guidelines. Street patterns and design can be planned to ¡guide development in a transit-supportive mRnner. Land uses can be ad,justed to create a transit-supportive cOlnmunity. The downtown Auburn site ofJrers the advantage of bringing transit service (bus and rail) to the established cOJrnmunity center. The transit center will become a focal point within downtown and can serve as a catalyst for SWTOunding development and redevelopment, capitalizing on a mlijor public investment. Figure 4 illustrates a concept of the co~amuter rail station in an urban setting. Once a site is chosen, pIRnn;T1I~ must be conducted for the area SWTOUJlding the station site. The resulting station area plan is intended to adjust exis·ting land uses to optimal transit-supportive uses. In areas already developed, such as at the downtown site, urban design guidelines for the transit center and surroun.ding area need to be established and coordinated with the Downtown Auburn D1esign Master PIan already adopted,and the Auburn Urban Design Concepb not yet adopted by the City. These urban design guidelines and concepts must be implemented to create an active and cohesive downtown communit". The station area plan must consider the outlined design principles and land use considerations. It should also develop urban design guidelines that are appropriate for the surrounding community and compatible with the City of Auburn comprehensive pIan:Ding goals and policies. Public and private 13 partnerships and public investment in infrastructure should be addressed as a requirement to meet these goals. 2.5 Ridership Demand It is anticipated that the following ridership groups would potentially use the Auburn Rail Station and the supporting transit facilities: . commuters living in the Auburn area aniving by foot, bike, auto or bus, who would ride to work to either Seattle, Tacoma, or other employment centers along the rail line or connecting transit conidors; 14 , . . " I ] II ! 1 ~ ! 11 j J: , , " ~ , ¡ . , ~ ! ; ¡ FI¡ure 4: Urban Deol,.. _ Land UIe Vlùon Sou"",: OtolJ í ! n : ] : ¡ : J ¡ J · commuters living outside the Auburn area who would ride the rail line to work in either downtown Auburn or at other employment centers in the Auburn region (for examplE!, the General Services Administration, SuperMall, Boeing, Auburn. General Hospital, and City of Aubw"ll); ¡ ¡ J 1 J ( J I ) J ) · recreationists and shopper!1 who would use the commuter rail servilce to travel to and from the Auburn are,a for various events and activities; and · other users, such as students attending Green River Community College. ¡ ¡ Events and activities other trum employment that would be expected to draw people to the Auburn re¡¡~on include ¡ J ¡ J , I , : J City of Au.bum j , ¡ !! the proposed thoroughbred race track, Muckleshoot Casino, downtown and SuperMall shopping, and the Green River and Interurban regional trail systems. , " .. ! 1 ì! n n fl f1 r1 The commuter rail ridership forecasts used in this first phase of station planning and development were derived from ·system-Ievel" forecasts prepared by Metro in 1991. (The system-level forecasts are compiled in the Travel Forecasting Results Report, Regional Transit Project, February, 1992.) I 1 , , I ¡ The system-level forecasts are very generalized. Their main purpose is to provide a comparison of the overall ridership levels generated by four basic regional transit system alternatives: "No- Build," ·TSM" (expanded bus service), "Transitway" (expanded bus service with exclusive busways) and "Rail" (including both rail rapid transit and commuter rail). The Travel Forecasting Results Report provides only a general description ofthe "Rail" alternative, with little useable information for this study. [ J I ] II [ I ; I ; J n I I II [] II lJ LJ LJ U U The most detailed Auburn-related ridership information compiled in the report was a forecast of total transit trips generated within the entire Green River Valley. RTA staff extracted and derived the following specific Auburn station ridership forecast information to be used for the Auburn Station Site Study: Deflnitiona: Auburn Commuter Rail Station Ridership Forecast . For Year 2010 . During the pm peak hour Cnmmuter Rail Alif!htinVII to park-and-ride transfer to bus walk 800 200 80 20 Cnmmuter Rail Bnardinf!.. from park-and-ride transfer from bus walk 500 400 80 20 Note: The figures above are for commuter rail only. Bus-to-bus transfers: and park- and-ride transfers to and from bus service are not included. Detailed forecasts are being prepared as part of the Environmental Assessment (EA) cUlTently being prepared for the regional commuter rail system.. The EA will address several rail system alternatives in the south conidor. The commuter rail alternatives are described in the South CorricúJr Commuter Rail Service Alter714tives Report. Detailed ridership forecasts are being prepared for alternatives to be addressed in, the EA, including three alternatives ODe the Burlington Northern line and one on the Union Pacific rail line. The "alternatives" will be system operation alternatives, AllghtlllC" - peopleleeving the train to other modes of travel, such as auto, bus and bicycle. BoardiDgø - people getting on the train from other modes of travel, such as auto, bus and bicycle. Egreu - the method of travel to and from the station, such as auto, bus, bicycle and walking. PM Peak Period - the hour of heaviest train use in the evening, consisting of 45 percent of the commutars forecast for the three hour peak period. U lJ ~J Commuter Rail Stølion Siting Study 15 varying in frequency of peak direction service (I.e., northbound in the morning and southbound in the evening), reverse service frequency, service to Renton, etc. Because the rail service provider has not yet been determined, this study has selected one site on each rail line. Each site will be used as the basis for forecasts prepared for the various alternatives. Separate forecasts will not be prepared for each station site alternative. When the forecasts are complete, RTA will provide the following detailed planning and design-level forecast results for the selected commuter rail station site(s): · commuter rail station pm peak period alightings by egress mode: - bike; - walk; - transfer to bus; and - auto (including percentage of auto drivers); · commuter rail station pm peak period boardings by access mode; · full origin-destination trip table for auto trips to and from the commuter rail station; and · required park-and-ride spaces. RTA staff has predicted that the 2010 plAnning and design-level ridership forecasts for Auburn will be higher than the earlier system-level forecasts due to the following two factors. · The rail rapid transit line to Federal Way, which would draw some riders away from the commuter rail line, was included in the forecasts, but will not be included in the plAnning and design- level forecasts. 16 . The cost of parking in downtown Tacoma and other urban centers was not included in the forecastll, but will be included in the plAnning and design- level forecasts. These issues will increase the "reverse commute" ridership forecasts "to," instead of "from," Auburn. :1 !1 : 1 A preliminary assessment of sl~ation requirements was prepared based on the available system-level forecasts and the anticipated pl..nning and design-level forecasts. f 1 ¡ 1 " '!! , ~. The system-level forecasts indiicate that more than 400 park-and-ride spaces will be needed at the Auburn Commuter Rail Station for commuter rail riders alone. Anticipated higher ridership fc,recasts and the addition of park- and-ride d.emand for regional bus service suggest that we should plan for a minimum of liOO park- and-ride spaces. , , . . ; ¡ ¡ ! !J ¡ I : I : I fl RTA staff estimates that as much as four to six percent of trips to and from employment and activity centers (such as the Boeing Auburn plant, GanElral Services Administration (GSA) and Social Security, and the SuperMalI) would use commuter rail if a station is conveniently accessible (within a quarter-mile walking distance). With a convenient commuter rail station, the thousands of employees at Boeing and GSA and the estimated 2,800-a,500 peak hour automobile trips generated by the SuperMall would provide signiJlicant ridership potential. ! J I J ¡ I I J I J ¡ J ¡ J ¡ J ; 1 ¡ J : J U CiIy of AMbIU'fJ ¡ j ¡ , n 2.6 Pedestrian and Bicycle Requirements n rJ n n n {] n n . General Considerations Pedestrians and bicyclists from the surrounding area will need convenient and safe access to and from the selected station site. However, the level of pedestrian and bicycle use will be dependent on the station site's proximity to people living within walking and bicycling distance. Studies have shown that the highest level of use of public transit facilities by pedestrians and bicyclists occurs where transit stops are within a ten minute walk or ride from the home or office. The Regional Transit Authority estimates that, generally, five percent or less of commuter rail users will be pedestrians walking from the surrounding area. r ¡ I I I J [ ] I J ! 1 í J n II I J U LJ U U U LJ LJ LJ [ J Improvements which will encourage pedestrian and bicycle use include textured and/or separated pavement areas and paths, bicycle racks and storage lockers, directional signs and signalization, where appropriate. Landscaping and trees can be used to distinguish pedestrian and bicycle use areas, as well as to provide safe separation from vehicular travel ways. In addition to the basic necessity for serving pedestrians and bicyclists, as a public facility, the commuter rail station design must comply with ADA. Requirements include curb cuts at street crossings, smooth transitions between pavements and surfaces, maximum sidewalk grades not to exceed five percent with the provision of30-foot-Iong eight percent ramps where necessary, use of special signs, auditory devices, chair lifts, and in some cases, elevators. lJ ¡ _J Commuter Ra.il Støtion Siting Stfldy It is preferable to avoid busy street and arterial crossings, where possible, since these tend to deter pedestrian and bicycle use. Streets within an area to be actively used by pedestrians are typically tree- lined and narrower to slow traffic , encourage walking and create a pleasant, human-scale streetscape. Bicycle lanes are demarked on both sides of the street , or separated bicycle paths are provided, where possible, to encourage safe and convenient bicycle travel. Certain types of land uses and special events will tend to draw pedestrians and bicyclists from one location to :another within a typical quarter-mile easy walking distance, or within a ten minute walk or bike ride. Public plazas, park!!, food service areas, shops, entertainment and musical events are examples of the types of uses which will encourage movement of pedestrians and bicyclists through an area. Another important consideration in the Pacific Northwest is climate, which severely inhibits pedestrian anLd bicycle use during the winter and spring seasons when heavy rains occur. Develloping covered walkways and sheltenl at appropriate distances will encourage pedestrian use during poor we:ather. Figure 5 illustrates a conceptual relationship of bicycle and pedlastrian use to transit use. The feasibility of providing pedestrian and bicycle access and facilities wa:s identified for each of the six sites, given EOOSting conditions, as part of this st~r. Specific opportunities and constraints related to pedestrian and bicycle use at each site are discussed in Section 3. 17 Rail Line Crossings Pedestrians and bicyclists will need to cross the rail lines to access the co=uter rail station and transit center site. Rail line crossings may be particularly necessary at the downtown site where facilities would be located on either side of the tracks. Safety is the primary consideration in development of rail line crossings. "At-grade- crossings would be the most feasible and cost-effective rail line crossing method at the co=uter rail station site. "At-grade- crossings would include train-activated warning systems which would activate grade crossing equipment comprised of signal lights and gates to deter pedestrians, bicyclists and motor vehicles from crossing the lines when a train is approaching. 18 q , , : ì n 11 11 n 11 ~ , ,~ ¡ , . ¡ , ¡ I ¡ I ¡ J ¡ ) Firure 5: Bicycle and Pede"trIan Uoe Vlolon Source: Otale : ) : ) Development of underground tunnels or overhead bridge crossings requires careful pl~nn;ng and design. Meetin¡¡ ADA requirements would require ÎJ1Stallation of elevators and/or complex systems oframps to meet m;n;mum gradients. Pedestrian tunnels are often undesirable in urban areas because of potential security risks. If tunnels are utilized, high-ÌJJltensity lighting and clear visibility from either end are highly reco=ended. The structural support elements and vertical dimensional requirements neElded for rail line bridges may be costly. Elevators would also be required for overhead crossings to provide ADA access. n : J 11 I ) ( ) { J I J I ] ¡ J ¡ J ¡ j . I . J ;j City 0( Auburn . ¡ , j , " I 2.7 Development of the Site Evaluation Criteria , . ~ .,. 1 ¡ In early May of 1994, Otak prepared comprehensive site evaluation criteria based on experience with other transit site selection projects for Pierce Transit and Tri-Met in Portland, Oregon. The evaluation criteria included both objective and subjective questions ranging from specifics about site size and connections to roadways, to aesthetics and a sense of community. The draft criteria were reviewed with City of Auburn staff members from the plAnning and public works departments, and then expanded and revised based on staff input. On May 31,1994, the criteria were presented to the Commuter Rail Citizens Committee. Based on the Committee's input, the criteria were then revised for the final time and ready for use in site evaluation. The criteria included evaluation of the following major issues: n n II [) r I . . , . I I , , I ¡ I! I j II í I ! J ¡ ¡ f I! [ J [ 1 [ J II U U [ ] lJ , ,j J 1 nJ Commut.,. Rail Station Siting Study · issues that affect the entire community; · land use compatibility; · site specific issues of size and available utilities; · environmental impacts; · transit operational issues; and · traffic and circulation issues for the site and surrounding areas, Each of these areas were repl'<~sented by a series of evaluation statements, ranked as · cd" .f:~'-" . "A kin go , ¡u,¡', or poor. ran g process then took place to determine the two prefelTed sites for the commul;er rail station. 19 3.0 Alternative Site Analysis This section describes the six different sites selected for consideration. Four sites were evaluated along the Burlington Northern rail line and two along the Union Pacific rail line. Potential sites to be studied were originally identified by City of Auburn staff. The consulting team reviewed additional sites along both rail lines and found none more appropriate or efficient than the six sites evaluated through this study. These and other potential sites were presented and discussed with the Citizens Committee. . Two of the additional sites considered were located along the Burlington Northern rail line. One is located north of 15th Street toward the Metro Park-and- Ride. The other is near the proposed race track. Site access was restricted and inconvenient for buses and autos; there were wetlands which restricted development; and these sites did not have a close relationship and pedestrian connection to major employment centers, the downtown core area or high density transit supportive land uses. Other potential sites further south had many of the same constraints. Additional sites were also evaluated along the Union Pacific rail line, including sites north of Highway 18 which had severe restriction for bus and auto access as well as wetlands and elevation difference between the rail line and surrounding property. In addition, these sites did not provide convenient pedestrian access to major employment centers, the downtown core area or high-density plAnning areas. 20 ~ T Each of the six final selected ¡¡ites were analyzed for opportunities and constraints to development as a multi-modal commuter rail station. Schematic site plans were then developed as a "test-of-fit" for the station on each site. , 1 ~ ¡: :1 ¡ 1 3.1 Site Descriptions 11 n The existing physical charactE!ristics and surrounding land uses related. to each of the six alternative commuter rail station sites are described below. Descriptions of the sites are based on field reconnaissance, as well as review of existing topography maps and aerial photos supplied by the City. li'igure 6 illustrates the location and configuration of each site. ~ ! ,¡ ;, . . , r i j ¡ ! ¡ ) : ) ; I : I ; ) Site 1: North Auburn, 14th StreetNW Site 1 is located in the North Auburn area, south of 15th Street NW. It is, directly adjacent to the south side of tile Value Inn Motel and east of the Burlington Northern rail line. 14th Street NW provides direct street access to the north boundary of the site. The Burlington NortherrL rail line is located along the west boundary of the site for a distance of approximatel:~ 650 feet. The 12.7-acre site is rectangular in shape and is a relatively flat, open fi1eld, with no structures or significant trees. PrAHmin,,"Y site reconnaissanl:e determined that wetlands maJ' exist on approximately 80 percent of the site. J I ¡ J I ) I ) I) 1 ) ¡ J Site 1 is zoned C1, Light COlIlIllerc:ial, and :is surrounded by other commercially zoned properties on the north, east and south, ~ , , j 1 , " .i. : ] ; Cjy of A1Ihum ~ , , j r--" and heavy industrial zoned property to the west, Existing land uses surrounding the site include the Value Inn Motel to the north, the Metro Park-and-ride lot and the Auburn Municipal Airport to the northeast, undeveloped properties to the east and south, and light manufacturing to the west. A Fred Meyer shopping center is located to the southeast. I. .. r 1 i, [I II [1 r] Site 2: North Auburn. South of Site 1 Site 2 is adjacent to Site 1 on the south side. Site 2 currently has no improved direct street access. The Burlington Northern rail line is 10cated along the west boundary of the site for a distance of approximately 650 feet. The site is similar in character to Site 1, approximately 12.7 acres, with a rectangular shape and no structures or significant trees. Site 2 also contains potential wetland areas on approximately 80 percent of the site. rl r 1 " r. i j ! f i j [ I I J I J I ¡ ¡ J J I J J J J J J ] Site 2 is zoned C1, Light Commercial, and is surrounded by commercially zoned property to the north, east and south, and property zoned for heavy industrial to the west. Surrounding land uses include undeveloped properties to the north, east and south and industrial to the west. A Fred Meyer shopping center is located just to the southeast of the site. Site 3: Downtown Auburn The downtown site is located at the western edge ofthe downtown core, between "B" and "C" Streets SW and West Main and 3rd Street SW. The surrounding street system provides direct access. SR 18 is located directly south of the site. Plans are in process to improve the "C" Street ramp onto the highway. The Burlington Northern rail tracks bisect the site. The Commuter Rail Station Siting Study site is linear and approximately 5.5 acres in size including the railroad right-of-way. The site contains various structures, including some warehouse, old manufacturing and light industrial buildings, as well as a gasoline, service station with a convenience store. The site and surrounding properties ar1¡ relatively flat with no known environmeIltally sensitive areas. There are some mature trees on a portion ofthe site, near an old home. The downtown site is zoned a c:ombination ofC2, Central Business Distric:t, C3, Heavy Commercial, and M1, Liight Industrial. Surrounding land uses are mixed, including commercial IIJItd office, multi-family and light industrial to the north, east and south, and primarily single family residential to the west. The single family residential area to the west is in transition, with some of the houses able to be converted to commercial, oBice or other uses. Site 4: South Auburn, "C" Street SW at 15th Street SW Site 4 is located at a Burlington Northern switchyard, in the south part of Auburn, directly adjacent to and east of"C" Street SW. The site is part of the Auburn rail yard and is square in shape with a linear extension of 12th Street SE, providing access from "A" Street SE, wesl~ to the site. The site contains railroad operations structures and facilities which :are currently in semi-active use. The site does not contain trees or water-related environmental sensitivities, but could contain some contaminated subsurface conditions due to the historic nLilyard use. 21 The site is zoned M1, Light Industrial, and is surrounded by commercially zoned property to the north, residentially zoned property to the east and industrial and public property to the south and southwest. Existing land uses surrounding the site include railyard operations to the north and south, single family residences to the east and the Federal GSA and Boeing operations centers to the west. The GSA park is located directly west of the site across ·C· Street SW. Site 5: SuperMal1 Site 5 is located in the southwest portion of Auburn, near the city limits line. The site is within the proposed SuperMall of the Great Northwest project site. The site is provided direct access from 15th Street SW. The Interurban Trail, which is located within the Puget Sound Power and Light Company right-of-way, borders the site on the east. The Union Pacific rail line is located adjacent to the Interurban Trail to the east. The 6.6-acre site, including rail and trail right-of-way, is rectangular in shape and is currently a flat, open, graded field with no structures, trees or environmentally sensitive areas. There are potential wetlands located between the Interurban Trail and the railroad tracks. Site 5 is zoned C3, Heavy Commercial, and is surrounded by industrial and manufacturing properties and land uses to the north, east and south, as well as the commercially zoned SuperMall site directly to the west. The Boeing Company operations center is located to the southeast. 22 Site 6: South of SR 18 and West of"C" Street SW Site 6 is the largest alternative site, approximately 9.5 acres. The site would be provided street access by an extension of 8th Street SW, which connects to ·C· Street SW. SR 18 is located adjacent to the north boundary of the site" but there is no direct access to the highwa:~ from the site, The Union Pacific railliILe borders the site on the west. The site is currently a flat, open field. There are potential wetlands located in the ditch lines along the existing railroad tracks. " , ï n 11 I 1 n ! 1 , , .. Îi · , , · , The site is zoned M1, Light Industrial, and is surrounded by other properl~es zoned industrial to the north and south, with commercially zoned propertiesl to the east. Existing land uses surrounding the site include a restaurant to the eallt, the GSA operations center to the south" the SuperMall site across the railroad tracks to the west. ¡ I ! ! ¡ ] ¡ I ; I 3.2 Site Opportunities and Constraints : J n ¡ I Each of the six sites was anal)'Zed to determine potential opportunities and constraints related to development of the commuter rail station. Figures 7 through 12 illustrate each of the six sites and include a summary of primary opportunities and constraints ,associated with the existing conditions at each site. 1] I ] I ] I ] 1 ] 1 J I J ; J : J , , ¡ j : ] City of AlÙJum · · , , , r: , 11 11 11 r 1 , . 11 r "! , I i 1 ! t I ¡ r J ! ¡ II ! J ! I : J : I ~ J :¡ : ] .J .] J ] J J J J Firure 8. Site Locatlono Map Sourœ:Otak Commllt.T Rail Station Siting Study 23 [=2·:~~.1 ....-,.. , , ~ J",:r , "-,)1 'II~ , II' I,~\ 'II" ,K I U ,;\ ~~ : l:t'l\\ ;"::~7~~o , , I -~.,- ~""",,- ~.-. --. FI¡rure 7: Site 1: North Auburu, 14th Street NW ~:"'C~~~,;,.';.:; --::"''"ri'~' At .~ - -i ~. V - , I I " V' - FI¡rure 8: Site I: North Aubun>, South of Site 1 FI¡rure 8: Site 8: Downtown Aubum 24 1 r Sit. I: North Auburn, 14th SIT",., NW Opportunitiøs: · minimal impact on surrounding land uses · proximity to Metro park-and-ride · good direct street access would contribute to the North Auburn Central Business Development Plan Constraints: · 80 percent of site in wetlands · poor relationship to downtown and employment centera, existIng residential areas · limited pedestrian and bicycle access · out of bus route concentration area . . ; 1 n (] n !1 n ¡¡ Siú 2: North Auburn, South oJ'Sik 1 Opportunities: · milÚmal impact on sUJTOunding land uses · would contribute to the North Auburn Central Business Developmen1t Plan Constraints: · street access would need to be ,developed · 80 percent of site in wetlands · poor relationship to downtown and employment centera · limited pedestrian access and connection opportunities · not compatible with bus routes ! ! J 11 j 1 : I : I Siú 8: Doœntown Auburn Opportunities: · encourages a sense of community (highly visible location) · excellent relationship to downt,wn (çonvenient connection to servic:es) · Itrang potential for community redevelopment and revitalization · compatible with sUlTOunding lllnd uses · optimal location for bus routes Constraints: · remediation may be necessary lor conteminated material clean-up prior to development requIrea structured parking dUll to limited size and configuration · potential street blockages by tr.ún · smaller than Ideal size; limited expansion · increased COlt for structured parking · requires shuttle to Boeing/GSAlSuperMall n 1 ] u ( J IJ IJ 11 U 11 11 ¡ J ¡ 1 u Cify of AMburn 1 , , j < ¡ , 1 ~ ¡ , ) {t i I n rJ fI n [! f ¡ FI¡ure 10: Site 4: South AubUl'1>o "C. St at 16th St I ¡ I ¡ r ] + [ rJ J ¡ J ì I I I l! U [ U U LJ LJ U U LJ U U FI¡ure 11: Site 6: SuperMan ç'; .~._----_.._.._.~ '.: - FI¡ure 12: Site 8: South of SR 18 and Weot of "C. Commute, Rail Stotion SHin. Study Site 4: Sout" Auburn, "C. St SlV alI5t" St SW Opportunitiu: would require street revisions that would provide a new 15th Street crossing of trackB · good street access · proximity to major employmenl; centers (Boeing and GSA) · compatibility with surrounding land uses Constraints: potential major hazardous waste clean-up difficult bus route connections · poor pedestrian access opportUlúties · significant re-routing of tracks necessary in rail yard · poor relationship to downtown su. 5: SuperMalI Opportunitk.: · proximity to Super Mall and major employment centers · direct connection to the Interwìban Trail compatible with aWTounding land usea · direct sb"eet access opportunities Constrainta: · requires more linear site development due to adjacent SuperMall plans · some wetlands exist along tracks · poor relationship to downtown land lackB opportunity to encourage community development · dlstent from residential area a · would require shuttle service to Boeing, GSA SUe 6: Sout" of SR 18 and Welt of "C. St SW Opportunitiu: · large site and could easily support program requirements · visible from Highway 18 overp8JiS · proximity to SuperMaIl · adjacent to Interurban Trail Constraints: · difficult direct atreet access · possible wetlands adjacent to trnckB · poor relationship to downtown · poor proximity to employment cnntere 26 The existing characteristics of each site were evaluated in six main areas: · traffic access and circulation; · bus access and circulation; · transit and land use relationships; · rail impacts to vehicular circulation; · pedestrian and bicycle access; and · environmental considerations. Traffic Access and Circulation City of Auburn Arterial Street Plan The City of Auburn Arterial Street Plan is shown in Figure 13. The Arterial Street Plan identifies "a system of City, state, and county streets designed to move traffic to or from one area wi thin the local area to or from another area.· The designated arterials are "designed to accommodate moderate to high traffic volumes with a minimum of disruption in the flow." The City has three classes of arterials: · Major Arterials are constructed and striped to a standard to accommodate five lanes of traffic · Arterials are constructed and striped to a standard to accommodate four lanes of traffic · Residential Arterials are constructed to a standard to accommodate four lanes of traffic, but striped to accommodate two lanes of traffic. Additionallanes would be provided if and when traffic flows require such striping for efficient traffic flow. Major arterials in the study area are illustrated in Figure 13. In addition to the arterials, access to the study area is provided by two freeways: SR 167 (the "Valley Freeway") and SR 18. Freeway 26 access to the study area is a va:ilable from SR 18 at the West Valley Road and "C· Street SW interchanges, and from SR 167 at the 15th Street SW and 15th Street NW interchanges. In order to be consistent with the City's road classificatiions, the main access routes to the commuter rail station should be from freeways, major arterials and arterials. V"' · ! . : 1 11 n Traffic Volumes Current daily traffic volumes ill the study area are compiled in Figure 14. Traffic volumes are heaviest (20,000+ vehicles per day) on 15th Street NW east ofSR 167, on Auburn Way N, and on "A· Street SE. Daily volumes are also heavy (14,000+) on the freeway access routes to and from the Boeing and GSA employment c:enter: 15th Street SW east of SR 167 and "C· Street SW south ofSR 18. Traffic volumes on these streets are expected to increase significantly with the opening I)fthe SuperMall. 11 11 'f -, ¡ · . J. ¡. ¡ I ! ] ¡ ] ¡ I : ] Sites 1 and 2: North Auburn Regional access to the North Auburn station sites (in the vicinity of 15th Street NW) would be via 15th Street NW from the SR 167 interchange, via "C· Street NW or the planned northward exte:llSion of "B. Street NW from the SR 18 int.!rchange, and via 15th Street NE or the planned westward extension of 8th StrEiet NE from Auburn Way N. Local access would be via these same arterial connection:~. · 1 · j n : ] U IJ I J I J I] U ! I These sites allow sufficient aCI'\eage for the parking of 500 vehicles, with additional space available for expansion. However, the presence of wetlands on tht!se sites may limit the area which can actually be developed. ¡ I ¡ J 1 J u c;,y 0( AMbum , , , , í ' J ~ , , ,--.... ~'~ I-~j~ r: (] [1 l I \ :¡: .1 -J\ I '\ '" r·-...... "" - ~ -\tß.I; f ~,' :,~~0Jj~~ vJ ~ r,c ~ ~1! I 'ì -'"," ft.~'\ "-- ~t~ 1- t::- , - 1..1 ~~~'-., .'1. .1 I ~)~ ~~rt - -L~I\ .- ; '~. ~ 'I V 'tt ~ ~1: . I- __JF!l 1\ ~;;/ . < . W\ÿjiVr~ C >- JJL' ~,"r 1\ ( Lr-LY _¡-.. I'~ n)ß;, \ÞtL ,. ~ .r ,) 'r. ~~ 1 Ir- I "e_ ~:;:~ IP\\ 1"1/; [1: l ~ . \--1- V .J- I ~) -.: . t~- . IV f- jl - ' 1:............ ~~,:::J D! =-11 ~i:······.... ~ 1)) ,:;:-'- ~ r= ~7 f1j~ ~~~ ~ =1 > !-ì-, I- f2,. ~'= t _..... ~ ~ ~ ~ P- ~ ~3. -.... - \ ~ i~ ~~ \ ~ r ; _ ~ ;J fl"\ .......... I I ~ - -- ~~_____, .! I ~~_ I ........ --- .... ---- ,J ~ r J rJ I J r ; r ¡ I j [ J II U [ ¡ [ ] : I , 1 , ¡ ¡ . J ] J 1 J J J J .""- r- e- ""I I - Exl.Hng Arterld Planned Arterial Plcmed Arterial (General Location) --- ....... __to art_ lnclcates I'II.I1iw of Icr.a. I '1'.. ~ 'L.I!' ~ Ii.I 'Li!' ~ ' I FEET ~ 0 ~ 1 ð ,- - . MILES I L..- _ .--/ FI¡uro 18: City of Aub1lJ'l1 Artodù Street Plan Soøree: City of Aubunt 1986 Ca"pro1aa...ivo Plan J I _J Con..muter RoH Slat ion Siting Study ( 'J:1 I (f) ú/ w L W I- '" ( (f) , , ¡¡: w 15TH ST NW, : i s: z ... rl V> a: 14TH ST 5TH S NE >- NW « ~ 14TH ST 11 I ~ w ¡ 1 . I , >- z . ~ I- ~ W !J -' z ¡ ! ~ -' 0 « I- > ;j !J "- u . . (:J ~ i' . ~ . , 1 -. ¡ 6TH ST NW t , ì l- . J !J >- U « -' u : J ST : I 0 s: 18 8 W V> en ; I ð ... >- ... l- V> V> V> en cr '" ... w 0 w JJ z í ~ -' t : J 18 1] I ) I ) I J 8E l ) .2TH ST w w I) '" '" : . II Ii; ... '" w 0 w (f) ] I- BOYD ST SW en se . 17TH: IJ « . FIpre 14: Current DaiIJI' TratIIo Volumeo ¡ ] Source: OIM, witlo If'ø/1ic 001....... provitkd by 1M City of Auburn Public Wcrio I ~ j U 28 City of AMburn , , Due to the heavy traffic volumes on 15th station-related traffic impacts. on ¡¡ f Street NW and the elevation difference downtown Auburn s.treets by allowing between the roadway and the station sites station traffic to reach the pal'k-and-ride , 1 (the roadway is elevated to cross over the lot without crossing the railroad tracks .~ 1 r I railroad tracks), special care will be and without traveling through downtown. needed for the design of grade connections n to the intersection(s) connecting the Development of the dOwntOw)l site as station site with 15th Street SW and ·C· proposed would require the construction of [ J Street SW, west of the railroad line. a parking garage to accommodate a Traffic control and lane configuration minimum of 500 vehicles. This is fJ modifications at the 8th Street NE and preferred over the constructiOiIl of several rJ Auburn Way N intersection may also be at-grade parking lots for two reasons. required to accommodate station traffic. First, minimal vacant land within the r ¡ downtown area is available, and should be Site 3: used primarily for redevelopment for , , i J Downtown Auburn commercial and residential USIBS. And I; Regional access to the downtown station second, having parking confinl!d to one site (between Main and 3rd) is provided by area reduces confusion and frustration I ¡ the SR 18 and "C' Street SW interchange, that commuters experience when parking located immediately southwest of the site. is scattered over several differ,ent I J Regional access from the north is also locations. I J provided by the ·C· Street NW and 15th Street NW connections to SR 167 and Parking in this location could provide ! J Auburn Way N. Access from the southeast additional parking for weekend civic requires either travel through downtown events or holiday shopping. Alternative , 1 Auburn (on Cross or Main Streets), or a locations area also available for additional Ii. j I ¡ "short-hop' on SR 18 from the Auburn parking capacity if this is need.ed to meet Way S interchange, or the proposed "M" future ridership demand. II Street SE interchange, to "C' Street SW. Local access would be via "C' Street NW Due to the proximity of the downtown [ J and SW and W Main from the west side of station site to the SR l8 and "C" Street [ ¡ Auburn, and via "ß" Street NW, 3rd Street interchange, placement of the ¡lite access SE, E Main, and Cross Street from the points, realignment and improyement of LJ east side. adjacent streets is being closely coordinated with the current l'Eidesign of LJ Most of the traffic traveling to and fÌ'om the "C' Street ramps. Station traffic the station will use "C' Street from 15th impacts on the Cross and "A" Street SE, W lJ SW, fÌ'om SR 18, and fÌ'om 15th NW. Main Street and "C" Street SW, "A" Street :J Access from the south can also be obtained SE and Auburn Way N, and 3nl Street NE from . A" Street SE to Pacific and Auburn and Auburn Way N intersectioIls should be J Way South to Enumclaw. A majority of analyzed and evaluated later Íl:l the the downtown station parking stalls station development process. J should be placed on the west side of the J railroad tracks. This will facilitate safe and convenient access, and will minimize J J j Commuter Rail Stati.on Siting Study 29 Site 4: South Auburn, "cn Street SWat 15th Street SW In order to provide adequate access to this station site, an extension of 15th Street SW from "C" Street SW across the railroad right-of-way to "A" Street SE will be required. The crossing will be required to go either over or under the railroad tracks. The extension of 15th Street SW is identified in the City's Arterial Street Plan. Station parking and passenger drop-off facilities should be located on the east side of the mainline tracks, because adequate space is available in this location. There are no rail line crossings between 3rd Street SW and Ellingson Road, 1.7 miles to the south, making the station site relatively inaccessible from the west side of the tracks without the 15th Street SW extension. The Boeing, GSA and SuperMall employment and activity centers are located west of the station site. Freeway access to the station would also be somewhat inconvenient without the 15th Street SW extension, as station traflic would have to travel either from the "C" Street interchange through part of downtown to "A" Street SE, or through residential areas from the Auburn Way interchange to "A" Street SE. It should be noted that the 15th Street SW extension would need to be designed with convenient "C" Street access whether it passes over or under the main line railroad tracks. With an easterly extension of 15th Street SW, regional access to the site would be via 15th Street SW from the SR 167 interchange, via "C" Street SW from the SR 18 interchange, and via "A" Street SE and via 12th, 17th, and 21st Streets SE from SR 164 (Auburn Way S) from the south and southeast. Local access would 30 be via these same arterial connections, as well as via "A" Street SE from the downtown area. Sites 5 and 6: SuperMall Regional access to the station sites on the Union Pacific railline south of SR 18 near the SuperMall would be via 115th Street SW from the SR 167 interchange and from the "C" Street and SR 18 interchange. Local access would be via the same arterials. Without the planned 15th Street extension (described above), 10cal and regional access from southeast Auburn and Auburn Way S would be circuitous and inconvenient. Access to the sites would be significantly improved by the construction of"H" Street SW from 15th Street SW north under S:R 18 to W Main Street, as shown in the Arterial Street Plan, or by the construc:tion of a new connection east to "C" Street SW on the alignment of 8th Street SW. Traffic impacts due to station-related traffic mixing with heavy peak volum.es to and from Boeing, GSA, and the SuperMall will need to be thoroughly investigated if the Union Pacific Railroad is selected as the service provider. The SuperMall peak use may be at different times then the employment centers. : 1 . . i I :! . , j; f! , , ~ ! : ! ¡ J : J : J : J : J ¡ I 1 Parking on Site 5 would encompass the 500 park-and-ride spaces being provided by the SuperMall. The 10cation of parking and expansion on this site would have to be negotiated with the mall OWtlers and managers. Site 6 has adequatE! room for both CUITent and future parkin¡g needs. I ] 11 I J 1 J 1 J I J Bus Access and Circulation , , ¡ Long Range Service Concept A long range transit service cOJ]ccept for Auburn, comprising both region.al and ¡ J ¡ J u City of Auburn ~ ! , ! f local service elements, was developed by Metro as part of the South King County element of the Regional Transit Project (see Figures 15 and 16). The Auburn service concept, as outlined in the Long Range Policy Framework for Public Transportation (Metro, October, 1993), incorporates the Tacoma-Seattle commuter rail service as its main element, with supporting and complementary bus service. ~ ! '- I f J I n n [I n r J Bus routes identified in the long range service concept are focused on the Auburn Commuter Rail Station as a hub for commuter rail feeder bus service, local fixed route bus service, local demand- responsive bus service, regional bus connections to the Eastside, and subregional bus connections to Federal Way and southeast King County. The convenience and feasibility of bringing each ofthese bus services into and through the commuter rail station differs significantly from site to site. f .~ a ~ ! ; I] [ ¡ [ J [ ) [ J r] , I J J J ] J J J J J J J J In addition to serving the commuter rail station, bus route planning attempts to provide as much service as possible to the Super Mall, located east ofSR 167 between SR l8 and 15th Street SW. Service would be provided by terminating some fixed routes at the SuperMall, by running other routes through the SuperMall area, and by providing direct destination service to the SuperMall through demand-responsive local service and Pierce Transit service from Sumner, Puyallup and Tacoma. Another very important element of the long range service concept is the continued commitment to serving downtown Auburn and the central Auburn residential areas that are served today. For this reason, all service to and from the commuter rail I ] Commuter Rail Station Siting Study station will supplement and complement, but not replace, central Auburn service. Auburn BUll Routell and Service The long range service concept identifies as many as ten bus routes thai; could serve commuter rail riders and connect with one another at the Auburn COmmlJlter Rail Station. These bus routes inchlde: · regional service to SeaTac area (via West Valley Highway); · regional service to the Easts:ide (via Auburn Way and SR 167); · subregional service to Federal Way (transit station); · subregional service to Enum.claw; · local service to East Hill; · local service to Green River Community College; · local service to southeast Auburn; · local service to the southwest Auburn industrial area; · local service to the SuperMalll; and · demand-responsive service t,,) Algona- Pacific. Although not included in the service concept, there may be an additional market for service to the North Lake Tapps and Lakeland Hills area in Pierce County. It is possible that some of the pl)tential routes will be combined (for example, the East Hill and Green River Community 81 0 2 , N MilES A : 1 LEGEND :1 .......... BN Track nann UP Track : 1 - Lakewood Alignment H -.- Dupont I Fort Lewi. Extension : 1 0 Candidate Stations ¡ ] ! ] ] J . J : ] '.. U IJ I ] I ] I 1 U 11 ¡ J ~ LAKEWOOD ì . ~~ 'I'~~ DuPont/ ~¥~" Fort Lewis ,~'\ Station ~i D''''''' FORT LEWIS Fi¡ure 16: South KJua" Coanty 1'raDIIlt Sy_ Source: Re¡¡icool Trunait Authority, Taco"", ID Lakewood Commuter l/4il F_ibility Stud)" MørcA 21, 1994 1] ¡ J J 32 City 0( AMbuno LJ ~. 1; , , , , , , r I n [! fl f 1 , 1 ¡ I , , I ¡ I ¡ I] I I [1 ¡ I ¡ I i J [ I [ 1 LJ [1 LJ [ J U ~J J J J J j View of Greater Auburn, looking northeast .~ Ii ~~:n;:---' _ S.aTac "cJl¡"", Go"C"ulS~ ~_.":~ubvm "'u¡'"'~~'rpÕrI - _:':"~'..,. , Legend J.:=:=: II =-- -, o =... ) --- . ·0 FJWnoncIw.. ==-æ:"-t?--:::l=.s:-æ= "~ "TO. G...øn Riv.r C.C. t;'''''~ ¡J,,,,,, C"""""nlly CoJI"'JO¡..___:"<' _ / " C, J; " / . .,..-- TO. . .,.rnclaw j®- FI¡ure 16: Greater Aubuni Trauolt Syotem Sou,": Al¡¡ona Auburn Pacitk, Transit Seroice Propoaal, &gional Trrmoit Pro,jec~ Auguot, 1993 College routes) and it is likely that some of the services will be routed through the transit center (for example, the Federal Way and Green River Community College routes, or the Enumclaw and Eastside routes>. It is highly desirable to route as many buses as possible through the commuter rail station in order to mAlrim;ze the effectiveness, efficiency, and travel demand coverage of the transit system. Bringing multiple routes together at the station will improve the convenience of bus to bus and bus to rail connections and improve transfers from one bus route to another. Commuter Røil S'ølion Siting S'udy The general location of each allternative commuter rail station site presents different opportunities and constraints for coordination with the overall transit service concept for Auburn. All evaluation of,the compatibility of each station site to the service concept is s=ized below: Sites 1 and 2: North Auburn North Auburn station sites (in the vicinity of 15th Street NW) would be compatible with bus service to and from S.~aTac (via West Valley Highway), Enumclaw, and southeast Auburn, which can be routed directly through central Auburn enroute to 83 and from the station. However, all other connections included in the long range service concept would require undesirable and complicated bus routings. The bus routing and lengthened schedule for regional service to and from the Eastside would be excessive. Metro may choose to operate some, but not all, services through a commuter rail station at Sites 1 and 2. According to Metro planners, a downtown Auburn transit center would be required for bus route expansion, if one of the North Auburn sites is selected for the commuter rail station. Although the regular bus routes serving the station and downtown could provide some of the necessary connector service between the commuter rail station and the transit center, additional midday and peak shuttle service may be needed. Shuttle service may also be needed between the station and SuperMall. Site 8: Downtown Auburn Due to its central location, the downtown. station site would be compatible with virtually all of the bus routes included in the long range service concept. Serving a downtown commuter rail station would complement the routes' ability to effectively serve their local, subregional, and regional service areas. A downtown Auburn transit center would be located at the commuter rail station. Regular bus routes and circulator buses serving the commuter rail station and SuperMall would provide connector service between the two. Supplementary midday and peak shuttle service may also be needed. 84 Sites 4, 5 and 6: Industrial Area South of S.R 18 Station sites in the area south of SR 18 would be compatible with bus service to and from the SuperMall and the industrial areas. The sites would also provide regional service to and from the north, Green River Community Coll¡ge, and East Hill. Bus routes could conveniently serve both central Auburn and the !Itation. Federal Way also would be cOJ<lveniently served. Station sites further Ilouth (for example, near 15th Street SW) would create out-of-direction travel for service connecting Federal Way with central Auburn, Green River CC and the East HilI area. Out-of-direction travel also would be required for southeast AuburIl and Enumclaw routes to be able to serve both the station and central Auburn. , : 1 n . 1 ! J : 1 ~ 1 . , . . ¡ ¡ ! : I ¡ ] :] : J : J ; I If the commuter rail station is: located south ofSR 18, another bus transit center will be required near downtoVi'D. Auburn. Although the regular bus routes could provide some of the necessary connector service between the transit ceJllter and commuter rail station, midda)' and peak shuttle service may also be needed. An advantage Site 5, south of SR 18 on the Union Pacific rail line, offers i:s that it would provide the opportunity· to use the SuperMall's 500 park-and-ridEI spaces for commuter rail parking. ; J ¡ J IJ t ] I ) Station Con1U!ctions to 15th Street SW Employment and Ai:tivity C.1nterll The existing and future development along 15th Street SW provides a lar¡¡e potential market for transit. The Boein¡~ plant has nearly 8,500 employees, about 1,000 Social Security Aflministration and GSA employees work on the GSA site (the site has the potential to house othElr federal agencies with many more employees), and the SuperMall is projected to attract as ¡ ) ! J ! J ¡ J ~J ¡ J ¡ J City of AMburn LJ .. .. ¡ t many as 37,000 employee, shopper and delivery vehicle trips each day. ". f I , ;/I; . Encouraging increased transit use by 15th Street employees and shoppers should be a priority of the City of Auburn. Shifting such "destination trips" to transit reduces auto traffic on the regional road system, and reduces traffic on Auburn streets. Currently, the vast majority of the riders forecasted to use the Auburn Commuter Rail Station will be commuters enroute to destinations elsewhere, most of whom will drive their cars to the station's park-and- ride lot. II U II n r ! , , ¡ , r , · . í i Although some of the alternative station sites are located closer to GSA, Boeing and the SuperMall than others, none of the sites are within convenient walking distance of the major south side employment centers except for the SuperMall area itself. Regular scheduled bus service will provide some connector service 1Ì'om each of the various station sites. Initial forecasts indicate that bus service will attract only a small proportion of the commuter and shopping trips. If commuter rail service is to tap this significant rider market, fast and convenient connections must be provided between the commuter rail station, employment sites and the SuperMalI. A shuttle service, coordinated with the train's schedule to minimi7.e transfer wait time, or an automated people-mover (APM) or personal rapid transit (PRT) system, as proposed for the City of SeaTac, may be needed to attract significant ridership from the south side employment and activity center. ! ì , , , 10 II · , , · 1 · J · T i I I) ( I (] U [) [ I , \ l " . J Commut.rRail Station Siting Study Transit and Land Use Relationships The relationship between transit facilities and surrounding land uses is an important consideration in site selection. Typically, certain types of land uses directly adjacent to transit facilities, such as hil~h density residential housing and office ,and commercial employment centers, tend to promote higher levels of ride rei hip. However, for the Auburn Commuter Rail Station, the nature of the land uses directly adjacent to the transit facility will have less impact on overall ridership. It is anticipated that most people 'I1rill drive or ride the bus to and 1Ì'om the station, rather than walk or bicycle. Studies have shown that the highest level of use of public transit facilities by pedestrians occurs where tran,sit stops are within a ten minute walk from. the home or office. However, the Regional Transit Authority estimates that five percent or less of commuter rail users will be pedestrians walking in from the surrounding area. The percentage may increase with more intense land uses in the future. In any case, adjacent land usee: should be supportive and compatible to ~ail station development. For example, commercial and retail services such as dry cleaning, bakeries, convenience stores and vehicle maintenance would provide cOIlvenience to commuter rail users as well as stimulate economic growth in the community. In addition, surrounding community land uses should be carefully planns:d and developed to promote the best transit use scenario. In the future, as growth occurs, and urban residential and employment densities become more concentrated 36 around the commuter rail station, higher levels of pedestrian and bicycle use would be expected. Well-planned communities typically contain an arrangement of moderate to high density residential and employment centers around a core of supporting commercia1lretail shops, public services, and transit facilities. The community retail/public services and transit core is typically located no further than about a quarter-mile from the outside mix of residential and employment uses. A quarter-mile is considered to be an easy walking distance. The Regional Transit Authority recommends encouraging appropriate intensive urban functions adjacent to commuter rail stations, since the stations can become catalysts for growth and development in the SUlTOunding vicinity. According to the RTA, station siting options will be greatly influenced by the desire to contain sprawl and focus development in areas where transit service is readily available. As part of comprehensive pl~nn;ng efforts, the City of Auburn should carefully consider the benefits of appropriate surrounding land uses and take steps to either expand existing supportive and compatible uses, or encourage development of new uses, where possible, in the vicinity of the selected rail station site. Each of the six sites were evaluated in terms of the potential opportunities and constraints associated with surrounding land uses. Both existing land uses and potential land uses, given zoning and comprehensive plan designations, were considered in this study and incorporated 86 into the site selection matrix discussed in Section 4. Site specific opportunities and constraints related to land US<3 at each of the six sites are as follows: Sites 1 and 2: North Auburn Sites 1 and 2 in the north Auburn vicinity are currently vacant but are designated for mixed residential and commercial use. While development of the commuter rail station on these sites would bl~ compatible with surrounding existing and. designated land uses, the sites are somewhat isolated from downtown Auburn and employment centers which tend to draw hi~her ridership levels. Sites 1 and 2; are nearer to the Metro park and ride lot, the airport and the proposed race track than any of the other sites considered in this study. However, the sites are not within walking distance, creating a need for shuttle buses. ~ 1 : J ~ ! , J 7 , ~ J . , . , i, 1 ~ t , . ; r ) A mlijor opportunity available with development of commuter rail service on these sites is the potential to redefine sUlTOunding land uses and build future transit-supportive uses and fadlities. However, much ofÌhe surrounding land is contained within designated wetland area which will limit the extent of development that can occur there. DevelopllIlent of a commuter rail station on Site :~, which is within the planned North Auburn Central Business District (CBD) area, could help to spur overall development of the area in accordance with City plans, if'the wetland issues can be resolved. : J : } : j ! I 1 J ¡ J l] l ) J) Site 3: Downtown Auburn The downtown site represents the greatest opportunity for community redlevelopment and revitalization of any of thE' sites. The site is zoned for mixed use andl is part of the downtown CBD. There is yacant and /; , , , ~ \ , , . , . , City 0( AMburn I ! under-utilized land in the vicinity which could be redeveloped with transit- supportive uses and facilities. The commuter rail station and transit center at this location could become a focal point of the downtown community and serve as a catalyst for sUlTOunding development. capitalizing on a major public investment. Development of the downtown site also offers the opportunity for streetscape improvements and beautification in an area which is currently in a transitional stage and in need of revitalization. Other improvements planned for the downtown area could help to tie the commuter rail station into the community and surrounding environment. Major street improvements would provide an excellent opportunity to maximize public . investment. , , i. n n n n n n Iì 11 I I rI LJ [] [ } : ) ~1 II ~ I J :J ) J J I Site 4: South Auburn, "C" Street SWat 15th Street SW Site 4,located at the Burlington Northern ·switchyard, along ·C· Street SW, between 12th and 15th Streets SFJSW, is currently vacant but used infrequently for various rail yard activities. The site is near the Boeing and General Services Administration employment centers, which would help to draw higher ridership levels. The site is zoned for light industrial use and the mix of SUlTOunding land uses would be compatible with development of commuter rail facilities. However, the site holds minimal opportunity for community development or redevelopment, and it is somewhat isolated from the downtown area. j J Site 5: SuperMall The SuperMall site is currently vacant and undeveloped and designated for industrial 1 J J Commuter Rail Station Sitin, Study or heavy commercial use. The, SuperMall, which is under development directly to the west, would be an excellent nE!ighbor to commuter rail development and would potentially draw higher ridership levels. The site is also close to the Boeing and General Services Administration employment centers, but is not within an acceptable walking distance oj: either employer. All of the surrounding land uses, both existing and planned, are somewhat transit-supportive, yet the area lacks a ·sense of community", as well as higher density residential usel! which are the most transit-supportive. Site 6: South of SR 18 and West of"C" Street SW Site 6 is currently vacant and designated for light industrial use. The site is sUlTOunded by low density heavy commercial and industrial use,s and is near the Boeing and General Services Ailm;n;stration employment CElnters. While Site 6 is closer in proximity to downtown than Sites 1,2,4 aud 5, it is separated from the main downtown area by Highway 18 and ·C· Street SW. There is limited access to SUlTOunding areas and land uses and limited potential for community development or redevelopment. Rail Impacts to Vehicular Circulation In the future, if train lengths are extended to ten cars, from the initial fiVEI cars, trains stopped at the dOwntoWll station, Site 3, will block Main Street fhr short periods of time. This includes ,lime needed for the train to pull into the sUlltion, stop for passenger boarding and alighting, and to accelerate and clear the crossing. The 87 time is estimated to be one to one and one- half minutes. These blockages will disrupt traffic flow temporarily on Main Street. Queuing at the Main Street railroad crossing is not expected to be a significant problem. Tlùs will be more thoroughly evaluated when a full-scale traffic analysis is conducted in future phases of the proj ect. Before the longer trains are initiated, the impacts of using alternate routes should be evaluated. Any necessary traffic control improvements required to facilitate, manage, or discourage the diversion movements, should be identified. The effect of blocking Main Street for train loading and unloading will be determined through a traffic impact analysis to be completed in a future phase of the project. Site 4 is the only other site wlùch would have potential blockage by trains waiting at the station. Trains would block the easterly extension of 15th Street SW between ·C· Street SW and· A· Street SE. This is unlikely, however, as an extension of 15th Street SW would most likely be grade-separated to minimize conflict with trains. Pedestrian and Bicycle Access As discussed in Section 2, the commuter rail station and transit center should support alternative modes of transportation, including use by pedestrians and bicyclists. Pedestrians and bicyclists need safe and convenient access to the site from the surrounding area. Each of the six sites holds differing opportunities and constraints related to pedestrian and bicycle connections and access, and as would be expected, some sites are better suited to nonmotorized transportation use than others. 88 , it Sites 1 and 2: North Auburn Since Sites 1 and 2 are isolatEld from residential areas and downtown Auburn, opportunities for pedestrian connections and access are poor. The sitel! are near the Interurban Trail, a major regional bicycle trail. However, preseIltly there is a lack of bike lanes and sidewalks on nearby arterials connecting the sites to the trail. Overall, Sites 1 and 2 have limited opportunities for developmen1. of nonmotorized transportation lIIlodes. · . 'f ., " l j] n f1 n í } · . Site 3: Downtown Auburn The downtown site is better s111Ïted to multi-modal transportation une, including connections and access for bicyclists and pedestrians, than any of the other sites evaluated in this study. TherlB is moderate to high density houning in the vicinity and direct pedestrian linkages to the downtown area via the established city street system and currently programmed sidewalk: improvements. Bicycle linkages can be made to the nearby Interurban Trail and Main Street. Streetscape improvements (i.e. landscaping, street trees, pavement patterns, etc.>, either planned as part of commuter rail station development, or as part of other downtown redevelopment projects, will help to enhance and improve pedestrian and bicycle use. ! . i i ¡ ¡ I ¡ ¡ I ¡ J I ) )] : 1 I I II I J The downtown site includes eJåsting railroad street crossings at W Main and 3rd Street SW. These crossin~s have train-activated warning systems for velùcles and pedestrians, so d'Bvelopment of the commuter rail station would most likely require only one additio:nal centralized pedestrian crossing. {j I J 1 J } j J · , t j r, · J · ¡ LJ CilyofAJúJum t ¡ r 1 , , Site 4: South Auburn, "C" Street SWat 15th Street SW Site 4 has poor opportunities for pedestrian access and connections due to the barriers of distance, rail lines, Highway 18 and busy arterial streets between the site and the surrounding residential community and employment centers. The Interurban Trail is nearby, but bicycle connections to the trail and to the surrounding street system are poor due to the lack of designated bike lanes. 11 f1 fl n n n , 1 l I I I Site 5: SuperMall The adjacent SuperMall provides a strong opportunity for pedestrian connections. In addition, pedestrian access opportunities to the nearby Boeing and General Services Administration employment centers could be explored and developed. However, these employment centers are located farther from the transit center than normally acceptable for walking. Potential pedestrian connections to residential areas and downtown are poor. The Interurban Trail cuts through the site, providing an excellent linkage to a major regional nonmotorized transportation facility. The opportunity for bike connections in other directions (beyond the Interurban Trail linkage) are poor due to the lack of suitable bicycling conditions. I I II I I [ ¡ I ( , . l n I J U U U LI LJ U .J .J Site 6: South of SR 18 and West of"C" Street SW Site 6 is located east of the Union Pacific line, near the proposed SuperMall. Due to the lack of surrounding street improvements and supportive land uses, a bicycle and pedestrian linkage would be difficult to develop. The Interurban Trail runs adjacent to the site on the west side , .J \ . J J _J Co",,,,,,'e, Rail Station Siting Study of the tracks. However, rail line crossing(s) would be necessar)' to develop these connections, New rail line crossings are difficult to obtain from thEi railroad. Other pedestrian and bicycle cionnections to the community are limited due to the sites isolated condition, and the barriers of Highway 18, and ·C· Street SW. Environmental CODSidel~ations There are several environmental conditions which could significantly limit the potential for site development. These include the presence of wetlands and sensitive areas, or the presence of geotechnical hazards or contaminants in the subsurface soils. Each of the six sites was generally evaluated for the potential of environmental constraints. Refer to the Site Evaluation Matrix in Section 4 of this study for further analysis of potential environmental issues related to each site. Some of the more limiting environmental constraints identified for each of the sites are discussed below. Sites 1 and 2: North Auburn Wetlands comprise approximately 80 percent of each of these sites. The presence of the these wetlands, and associated wetland buffers is a. major constraint to development of a commuter rail station. Potential wetland issues would have to be resolved with the City of Auburn, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Washington State Department of Ecology and any other involved agencies prior to any further developme,nt of these sites. S9 Site 3: Downtown Auburn The downtown site does not contain any wetlands or natural sensitive areas, based on field reconnaissance and review of City sensitive areas maps. There are some mature trees on the residential lot within the site boundary; however, it is likely that those trees which are healthy and of significant character could be preserved and integrated into the station design. Existing and historic uses of the site have created the potential for environmental contamination. Since the downtown site was selected as the prefeITed site for the commuter rail station, potential sources for contamination on the downtown site have been further studied by Applied Geotechnology Inc. (AGI). The AGI study, dated August 11, 1994, was submitted to the City of Auburn separately, and is included as an Appendix to this report. The AGI study found that based on research and observations, there is potential for some site soil and groundwater contamination from recognized on- and off-site sources. Potential contamination concerns are not unexpected, considering the age of the structures on site and the relatively long history of railroad activities and nearby auto repair and industrial facilities. AGI recommended that a Phase II Environmental Investigation be conducted to confirm specific soil and/or groundwater cont~m¡n~tion on the site. Site 4: South Auburn, "C" Street SW at 15th Street SW No wetlands or natUral sensitive areas were identified on Site 4 based on field reconnaissance and review of City sensitive areas maps. However, potential "man-made- environmental hazards could 40 ~ ~ exist. The site has been historically used for railroad operations, and as such there is a high probability of subswi"ace soil and/or groundwater contamÏIllation. · , · , Site 5: SuperMall Findings from site reconnaissance indicate that linear strips of wetland area may exist on either side of the IntE!rurban Trail, west of the tracks. However, the wetland area is not large or significant and could easily be bridged. A sensitive areas variance may be needed for these crossings or development within any designated wetland buffers. ., ~ i r1 J J · . ¡ JI , , · . - , Developers of the SuperMan project have thoroughly reviewed existing site conditions and potential enVÎl'onmental constraints, including geotechnical and hazardous waste concerns, and development of the project site was previously reviewed and approved through SEP A. The existing conditions and required mitigation actions are fully detailed in the Draft and Final EIS for the SuperMall. ~ I · . 1 I 11 ¡ J : 1 : J ! ¡ I Site 6: South ofSR 18 and West of"C" Street SW Site 6 also contains a linear strip of potential wetland area on the east side of the rail tracks. Again this wetland area could easily be bridged and would not prohibit development, assuming a sensitive areas variance could be obtained for the crossings and wetland buffer impacts. No other significant environmental constraints are known to exist on the site. ¡ I II l] I J I J 1 1 ( J I ) ,-J iÌ. J . , , . u City of AMburn , J .;-, d n n 3.3 Schematic Site Plans n n n n n [J II n 11 [] {] o n {] 11 [1 U o D U o [J u U J J J j Schematic site plans were developed for each of the six sites as a "test-of-fit" for development of a commuter rail station and supporting facilities. These schematic plans are included as Figures 17 through 23. Each site was tested to incorporate at least 500 parking stalls, ten bus loading bays, 1,200 feet of rail loading platform with a first phase of 450 feet and a drop- off zone. Generally, the schematic design process confirmed that all of the sites could physically support the necessary program requirements for commuter rail station and transit center uses. Sites 1 and 2 could only be developed assuming the wetland issues are resolved. The size and configuration of either site could easily support the program requirements for a commuter rail station and transit facility. Site 3 could be developed more compactly if structured parking was implemented as Commu.ter Røil Støtio" Sit ill' Study illustrated in Scheme 3B. However, if additional properties are acquired in the vicinity, structured parking may not be necessary, as illustrated in Scheme 3A. Site 4 could support all the program requirements for the commutE!r rail station and transit facility. Site 5 could be developed in a linear shape adjacent to the proposed phas,e two SuperMall buildings. The ext.¡rior circulation and access system. could be designed to be compatible with the SuperMall site and expected traffic flows. Site 6 could support the comm.uter rail station and transit facility requirements in much the same fashion as SitE! 4. Different orientation options for the parking area could be explored to minimize walking distances from the rear of the parking lot to the station platform area. 41 1t I :~:t1 111"1 ': I'" II'I II1I II'I I,'I 'I i I ,I,I -1"11 I1,I III 11'1 I1II 1III I" ¡III II, Ijf Af eo HI6'IfWAY ft> ¡"I++ I "IP~ -. " <:( ~ ~ ~ ~ I\( ~ ~ - - o o - . - - 0- Þvs PICI,. OFF tiN ION ,PAC-If"/&- Pop. 48 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I ¡ f I c ':;;¡( 'e.' f?1f'¡;¡; 1 !'-IVfP rHl. ~Ð Pi....... 23: Site 8 SdulII1atlc Site Plan Sou""" Ow. City of AMbuno 4.0 Site Selection , . n This section describes the process of utilizing the site selection criteria to evaluate and rank each of the six sites chosen as potential alternative locations for the Auburn Commuter Rail Station. This process culminated in the recommendation of one site on the Burlington Northern rail line and one site on the Union Pacific rail line. After this process was completed, the feasibility of developing a multi-modal rail and bus transit station at each of the two prefeITed sites was further evaluated. Conceptual site plans were created for the two sites and are presented in Section 5. n n n ! ! r r , ¡ . , ¡ ~ r i ~ 11 I J 1 J I I . ] , : I 4.1 Ranking Process In early June of 1994, a matrix was developed using criteria agreed upon by members of the professional consulting team, including civil engineers, urban planners, transportation planners and traffic engineers. The consulting team independently ranked each site using the matrix. City of Auburn staff members from the p'"nn;ng and public works departments also ranked the six sites, independently from the consulting team's rankings. ¡ IJ ¡ J U U U ~J J J J J The site evaluation criteria were selected to be non-biased toward any particular site. The criteria included a well-rounded mix of subjective and objective questions about each site. Numerical ratings were not incorporated because the specificity required would be greater than the level of this study. Also, numerical ranking would require more detailed information than I , Commuter Rail Statio,. Siting Study was available for certain catel~ories, such as traffic impacts. Similarly, criteria were not weighted to give one criteria more importance than any other. The value of using numerical ratings and weighting was dis,cussed by the entire study team. Although some criteria have more impact on 1llie successful development of a site, these situations were discussed verbally, rather than developing a more complicated numerical rating system. In fact, as the r"n Idng process was camed out, a weighted r"nldng was not found to be necessary, and recommendations were developed using the matrix in Section 4.2. A "good," "fair," or "poor" response was selected as most appropriate for subjective evaluations as well as detailed objective questions about each site. Th'3 sites with the most "good" rankings became the selected sites. On June 13, 1994, the Auburn Commuter Rail Citizens Committee toured the sites and reviewed each one, consid,ering existing conditions and information presented by the City and COIl!lulting team. The Committee divided into three sub-groups and each ranked the six sites, independently from the rankin.g previously completed by the consulting team and City staff. At the conclusion of this procells, the final results of each group's indepen.dent ranking of the six sites were cClmpiled. Each group compiled slightly different arrangements of "good," fair: ¡md "poor" for each section of the matrix, but the 49 "" -r same conclusions about the six sites were group. The matrix on the folJlowing pages drawn by each separate group. The same represents the compilation of all rankings ". .'T: two sites were clearly prefelTed for siting by the consulting team, City staff and the of the commuter rail station by each Citizens Committee. } I n 4.2 Site Evaluation Matrix Response to Criteria Key fJ (Final ß.s¡nkings) Poor 0 Fair a GQod . lJ Site Selection Criteria Site 1 Site 2 SiteS Site 4 SUe 5 Site 6 f1 Community Issues J Encourages a sense of community 0 0 · a [J 0 1 . ¡ , Enhances a connection to downtown 0 0 · a IJ 0 ! r . , Community support for the site a a · a IJ a , . · 0 .. 0 1 j Impact on businesses a a Impact on existing homes · · a · II · ! J Visual impact of the park-and-ride lot a a a a 12 a !J Proximity to activity and population a a · a H 0 IJ centers Proximity to main roadways a a · a II a : J Convenient connection to shopping a a · 0 · a : J Land Use Issues ¡ I Compatibility with surrounding land · · · · · · ¡ J uses 1) Compatibility with existing zoning · · · · · · Relationship to existing and potential a a · 0 n a [J employment centers within walking I J distance of transit Relationship to existing and potential a a · 0 [] 0 I J moderate and high density housing IJ within walking distance of transit Proximity to a community pedestrian 0 0 · 0 lei 0 ¡ J district 11 Relationship to existing retail area a a · 0 [] 0 Relationship to the Proposed a a a 0 II a ¡ J SuperMall and other proposed : J developments : J ~J ðO City of AMbum ~ ¡ I J Site Selection Criteria Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 n Encourage new ancillary uses (ie., day a a · 0 II 0 n care, libraries, etc.) n Proximity to employment centers a a · a H a Ability to attract Auburn destination 0 0 · a H a n riders n Potential for community 0 0 · a [] 0 redevelopment II Encourages infill housing a a · a [] 0 n Compatibility with existing city a a · a 1:1 a r ! comprehensive planning and policies I ¡ Site Specific Issues IJ Topography suitable for development · · · · I' · Soils suitability 0 0 · · II · II Adequate drainage systems available · · · · II · II Downstream drainage impact · · · · II · IJ Utility services availability · · · · .1 · U Compatibility of the site size and · · a · 1:11 · shape to the design requirements I I Site available for sale · · a 0 1:1 · ¡ Site cost-effectiveness · · a 0 a · I Future expansion capability a a 0 · a · LJ Hazardous waste impacts · · a a · · [J Environmental Issues J Wetlands or sensitive area impacts 0 0 · · · a Impacts on the neighborhood's social a a · a a a J environment J Impacts on the neighborhood's a a · a · a economic environment J Stormwater runoff control and water · · · · · · 1 quality j Light and glare impacts · · · · · · Ability to provide aesthetic a a · a a a J compatibility to adjacent uses J J Commuter Rail Station. Siting Study ðl , , Site Selection Criteria Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 ~'\! Noise impact · · · · II · Air Quality · · · · II · Operational Issues 11 Multi-modal compatibility 0 0 · 0 .. 0 11 Ability to meet the rail service · · · 0 1:1 · n provider's needs Direct access for anticipated bus 0 0 · a .. 0 n routes ¡ I Convenient multi-modal passenger · · · · .. · . , transfer ; ~ ~ Pedestrian access to the platform · · · · .. · " ¡ ,¡ .i Pedestrian track crossing safety · · · · I' · ~i , . Security of the park-and-ride lot and a a · a lei 0 ! I platform area Ability to provide adequate parking · · a · lei · ¡ J Site visibility to users a a · · II 0 1 J Allows efficient parking area layout · · a · II · : J Requirement for parking structures · · · · II · : J Location with respect to user origins a a · a CI 0 Location with respect to user 0 0 · a II a : J destinations 1 J ADA accessibility · · · · II · ¡ 1 Traffic/Circulation Issues 1 I Ease of access toifrom Highways 18 0 0 · a 1/ a I J and 167 Congestion at site access points a a · a .1 0 1 J Extent of off-site transportation a a · 0 .1 0 I 1 improvements required to support the rail station U Access conflicts with bus, auto, a a a a a a 1 J pedestrians and bicycles Parking lot circulation efficiency · · a · . · ¡ j Circulation impacts of train related · · a · a · ; j street blockages , , . ¡ :J 62 City of AMb"", , l , Site Selection Criteria l' Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 SUe 5 Site 6 ., ¡ Pedestrian access and connection opportunities Bicycle route connection opportunities Adequate bicycle access Bus route compatibility DART and shuttle bus compatibility Impacts of station traffic on the arterial system Compatibility with proposed city road improvement projects Ease of access to the downtown area Ease of access to the proposed SuperMall Ease of access to the proposed race track Ease of access to the 15th SW employment center " J. I n n n n r J f t , . , I ¡ ( ¡ 1 IJ I ) 1 ) ¡ I n [ ) LJ LJ U ~J J J I J J ] J 4.3 Recommended Sites The Auburn Commuter Rail station will be part of a regional mass transit system including heavy rail, light rail and expanded bus service. Commuter rail service is the initial step utilizing existing railroad tracks fÌ'Om Seattle south to Tacoma and north to Everett. There are two sets of railroad tracks passing through Auburn. One is owned by the Burlington Northern Railroad Company and the other by the Union Pacific Railroad Company. At the time of this study, a single rail line to be used for commuter rail service has not been determined. The Regional Transit Authority should complete negotiations with the railroad companies within the next few months. ¡ .J Commuter Rail Station Siting Study o o · a .. o a . o a . a . o a . a · · · · a · a a · .. .. II .. .. · · o a · a a · · .. o o o o o · o o o [J .. o a a a o o [] o o o o a II o Consequently, preliminary sit4! planning and site selection was completed for each railline. Once the rail service and track provider is determined, additional and more detailed studies will be completed for the selected site. Initially, many sites were evaluated along both rail lines. Six sites were :selected for further study after the first cut. A citizens committee with representative,s from local business, government, educaticmal institutions and residents; was: formed to oversee the site selection proce'ss. A set of site selection criteria was then established to rank the sites. Preliminary master pl..nnîng and site evaluation was also completed for each site. The site evaluation process cuhninated in a site evaluation meeting with the 63 Citizens Committee. Two sites were recommended for the commuter rail station and multi-modal transit center: Burlington Northern. Preferred Site Site 3: Downtown Auburn. Union Pacific Preferred Site Site 5: SuperMall Study findings conclude that either of the two sites could support development of the commuter rail station and supportive facilities to varying degrees. However, the downtown site is clearly the preferred site based on its 10cation, relationship to the community, community development and community perception, access and circulation opportunities, Metro's planned bus routes, operational issues and ridership potential. Also, it is important to note that additional station sites may be warranted in the future to serve the planned racetrack and other proposed developments. The recommended sites were deterllÚned to have more opportunities than constraints for development of a commuter rail station. The downtown site encouraged a sense of community through its high visibility and its excellent relationship to the downtown area. There is also strong potential for redevelopment and revitalization of the existing surr01¡niling area at the downtown site, as well as compatibility with surrounding land uses and bus route connections. 54 With construction of the "CO Street ramps to Highway 18, the downtown site will have convenient access to fre,eway connections. The site may require some site clean-up due to yearB ofl'ailroad and industrial type use. The site also may require structured parking to meet design requirements due to its limiting size and shape, Main Street will also be blocked temporarily for short periods of time (one to two minuteB) by trains while a train iB in the station. However, all things considered, the Bite scored higher than any other site. · ) , 1 , 1 ¡ n ¡ } fl 11 ! } · . ,¡ i The SuperMall site scored well due to its proximity to a major activity i!lnd employment center. The site has a direct connection to the Interurban :Regional Trail. It also has good highwa.y access. A transit center at thiB site will be compatible with the surrounding land uses. On the other hand, the site requires a linear site plan due to expansion potential of the SuperMail. It; is not well connected to the downtown aI'ea or potential residential zoning. There are also some wetland areas along the existing railroad tracks. The SuperMalI site had more "good" scores on the site selection criteria then other sites along the Union Pacific rail line. f r , , · 1 I II U ¡ J : ] : ¡ ] ¡ J Conceptual plans and further discussion of the benefits related to each of the two preferred sites are presented In Section 5 of this study. ¡ j ( (J ( J 11 [ J ¡ ] 11 ¡J . I , J CUy 0( AMbIU7l 5.0 Conceptual Site Plans ; 1 11 f n The consulting team developed conceptual site plans for the downtown site on the Burlington Northern rail line and the SuperMall site on the Union Pacific rail line. Colored renderings of the conceptual site plans are provided as Figures 24 and 25. The conceptual site plans provide the City with an opportunity to envision how each site could be developed for commuter rail and transit use. These plans are conceptual and based on current program requirements and views of how the commuter rail station should function. The final design process will provide opportunities for more detailed site analysis, planning and architectural design for the selected commuter rail station site. !J t I 1 I ! , . ! r 1 ¡ I ] I] ¡ I ~ 1 , , Downtown Site - Burlington Northern Rail Line The downtown site offers several important benefits for development of the commuter rail station and supporting facilities. : ! r 1 II [J U J J J J ] . Potential for redevelopment and revitalization of the downtown Auburn area and SUITOunding vicinity is available. The commuter rail station would become a focal point in the downtown area and a catalyst for future SUITOunding land uses. The presence of the rail station and transit center could be an incentive to renovation and redevelopment of the nearby residential neighborhoods. New investments in these neighborhoods could be expected. I ~ J . Convenient circulation and access to and from the site in all directions by all modes of transportation are provided, J ] ) Commut.r Rail Station Siting Study including nearby access to Highway 18 and the potential to coordinate with planned Highway 18 and ·C· Street ramp improvements. · Nearby retail, commercial and public services can serve commutElr rail users and there is the potential t'J stimulate development of other supportive services. · Potential pedestrian and bicycle linkages can be provided to SUITOunding areas via city streets and streetscape improvements. · The site provides high visibility, definition, and identity to the community. The conceptual site plan responds to these opportunities and presents a vision of how the commuter rail station could be developed on the downtown site. The plan includes conceptual design for the following elements: · Facilities: commuter rail station facilities and transit center with ten bus bays, "kiss-and-ride" and DART zones, shelters and supportive facilities; · Structured Parking: up to three-story structured parking for approximately 700 spaces for transit service, office and commercial uses, and futUl'E' needs. Initially the parking structure needs to be two stories with at least 1)00 spaces. The parking structure could be designed to blend into the downtown architectural character, as illustrated, and could be anchored on one or both 156 sides by mixed-use, public use (such as a library), or commercial development. Covered pedestrian walkways and plazas could extend from the parking structure into the SUlTOunding streetscape. Landscaping, including street trees, hanging planters and vines growing on the outer surfaces of the structure could be included to soften hard edges and enhance the visual appeal of the structure. . Expanded Parking: parking could be expanded further to the south and east. A triangular shaped block south of 3rd Street SW, east of the railroad tracks, and the block east oCthe transit center between lst and 2nd Streets SW could be reserved for future parking. Purchase options for these properties should be considered in future phases of the project, although this probably would not be necessary with the parking structure. . Amenities: a food court and transit plaza area could be developed adjacent to the commuter rail site, in the northeast comer, to draw commuter rail users into the downtown streetscape, as well as to attract downtown employees and shoppers to the commuter rail station area. . Housing: high density residential or mixed-use redevelopment (for example, cluster housing and housing above retail shops) which could be planned for and developed in areas SUlTOunding the site. One suitable location for this type of development, as outlined in the conceptual plan, would be across ·C· Street SW to the west of the site. . Pedestrian Access: a pedestrian walkway at the approximate center of 66 the rail station area aligned with an existing or future pedestrian access way to downtown. This walkway would be an axial focal point of the project and serve to efficiently direct ¡pedestrians to the station area. · Clock tower: a clocktower structure, which could be located at the north end of the parking and commercial development structure adjiacent to Main Street. This would allow ¡people to look to the west down Main Street and easily identify the station location. · ·C· Street Boulevard: stimulate development of a ·C· Street "boulevard· that would integrate the new west side to the east side commercial core; and · Metro: accommodate the Metro planned bus routes and bus connections. SuperMall Site· Union PØ4~ific Rail Line The selected Union Pacific raill line site is adjacent to the proposed SupElrMall and near the Boeing and General Services Administration operations, which are major regional employers. These businesses would be expected to draw significant ridership to the commuter rail station. Other benefits of the SuperMall site include: · direct linkage to the Interurban Trail, a major regional nonmotorizEid transportation route; · convenient street access and circulation opportunities from the regi.>nal area; and · the potential to plan for futllll"8 transit- supportive development in areas Cil)I of Auburn , 1 , .~ - ! , H f1 n n n ., ! . . , I . . i "! , ¡ II f J ¡ J : ] : J 1 ] r J I J I 1 U I J II LJ : I i j LJ : j , ¡ . ; f'l , I adjacent to the site which are currently undeveloped. " 11 I I The conceptual site plan for the SuperMall Site includes the following design elements: [J ~1 "] ] J . a covered pedestrian walkway placed on an axis to the east central entrance to the SuperMall; . commuter rail station facilities and transit center with ten bus bays, supportive facilities, and "kiss-and-ride" zones; ] J J J ] J I ] J J J J J J ] 1 j J J J Commuter Rail Station Sit in, Study . non-structured parking area for approximately 500 cars, with the potential to share parking aœea with the SuperMall; and . transit buildings and shelters, which could be designed to be compatible with the SuperMall architecture. &7 ~ t$t ~ · ¡;; ] ~ ! o · ¡;; ¡ · ¡ , · ~ ! 1f=~ i l__~~ L r 6- Ç7 J OJ L ~~ 1 ~ ~ ~ a ¡¡; B r <.> I j :~ AI U ~=~CCCCCCCCCC==DDO===~~~~~~O~~~~ . n u f . co ~ ~ H=~I ] ~ ~ J ¡; , ;¡¡ · · ì , , o · · " i ~ ~ I j .. .LìdR ] I f;J ....._-~ -- ~"-'- ~ .. f;J ] J r J / v C=C=C~CCCCCCC===DC~==~~~~D~~~~~~ ¡ 1 n r ) ~ i 6.0 Project Implementation This section outlines a sequence of events which should take place to implement a commuter rail multi-modal station in Auburn. This implementation strategy assumes the regional transit bond issue is successful and commuter rail proceeds as the initial service. n rl n !J r J [ ] Further study will be needed to validate the preferred sites and assure that mitigation for transportation and environmental site remediation are economically feasible. The scope of this study does not include a full scale environmental investigation of the selected sites, which would identifY the presence of contamination requiring remediation or removal prior to development. A detailed transportation needs or impact analysis to assess impacts and determine off-site road improvement needs was also not included in this study. These detailed analyses would be performed in the future with specific site development. , 1 I i [ J [ I [ J II , j I ¡ ] J J j J J 1 J J J J J While it appears that the preferred sites do not present major obstacles to development, the environmental and traffic information described above must be collected and analyzed to more accurately judge the suitability of the selected sites. This more detailed analysis should also provide information about the financial and environmental costs associated with development. There is a logical sequence of events which should be completed to build a multi- modal transit station in Auburn and initiate commuter rail service. The next steps include: Commuter Rail Station Sit in, Stud, · Study Adoption: the Comm.uter Rail Station Siting study should be adopted by the City Council as a recommendation of site selEiction for each rail line to the Regiomù Transit Authority; the site selectioIJI is a recommendation only, and is dependent on future study and verifica.tion of the final site. · Select a Rail Provider: the Regional Transit Authority should complete negotiations with the railroad service and track provider as soon as possible to finalize the actual site selection. A single commuter rail station site will make additional planning more efficient. · Station Area Planning: the City should complete a review and updalte of its comprehensive plan for appropriate transit-oriented land use IIJJcd density within a quarter-mile radiu:; around the transit center. Transit area. planning may require a comprehensbre plan revision for a transit district overlay zone or implementation of a specific station area plan. This pro:'ess should be commenced as soon as possible after the regional transit vote. · Traffic Impact Analysis: As part of the station area planning effort" a detailed analysis should be completed for traffic impacts created by construction of a multi-modal commuter rail1lransit station. The detailed traffic and transportation analysis sho\ùd include: - conceptual design and Opt¡rational analysis of arterial systeIJ~ in 60 immediate vicinity of station with AMlPM traffic forecasts, intersection analysis, traffic operation; - identification of station-related arterial improvements needed outside the station area including number oflanes, intersection configuration, driveway 10cations, and traffic controls; and - development of a specific plan for providing needed connections between the station and the "15th Street SW Employment and Activity Centers" (SuperMall, Boeing's Auburn Plant, and the GSA complex). . Transfer of People Study: the City of Auburn should undertake an analysis and evaluation of shuttle and circulator modes of transit similar to the study conducted for the SeaTac Airport and Pacific Highway South area (SeaTac People Mover Study, 1992). There is a vast resource of as many as 37,000 employee, shopper and delivery vehicle trips each day in the south end large employment centers and SuperMall. Tapping this resource may improve the commuter rail ridership. 61 · Pre-Design: Once the final site is selected and station area planning is underway, more advanced planning, design and environmental permitting should be completed. The pre-design effort will be to 25 percent design. A more detailed cost estimate, should be completed for development of funding requirements for the transit station. Also, environmental documents, such as a project specific Environm,ental Impact Statement and a full-scale environmental investigatioJl for sub- surface contamination, sho1.l1d be prepared and approved by the Regional Transit Authority once funcling is approved. Public input should be a significant element in deveJlopment of the preliminary design com:ept for the Co=uter Rail Station. : 1 < , 1 ¡ ; ¡ · , : ¡ 1 r : 1 · Site Acquisition: the required site area should be assembled and optioned prior to final design. This step would require the vacation of"D" Street (for the downtown site) and implementation of any possible public and private development partnering ag.reements. : J ; J , , · J · Final Design: once funding is secured, final design and constructicln permitting should be implemented with public and rail provider input. · I : ] : J ; [ J ¡ J 1 J 1 J ¡ J ¡ I , , ( j · r · , ~ r · j : J City 0( AMbflm , , ". j