The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutComprehensive_Transportation_Plan_2009 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Comprehensive Transportation Plan Adopted by Ordinance No. 6280 December 7, 2009 Cover Design: Lisa Worden, Auburn High School, 2005 Table of Contents Page Chapter 1 Introduction 1 -1 1.1 Purpose 1 -1 Vision 1 -1 GMA Requirements 1 -1 1.2 How the City Uses the Plan 1 -2 Needs Assessment 1 -2 Policy Development 1 -3 Capital Facilities Plan and Transportation Improvement Program 1 -3 1.3 Regional Coordination 1 -4 WSDOT 1 -4 Sound Transit 1 -4 King County 1 -4 Pierce County 1 -4 Countywide Planning Policies 1 -5 PSRC – Vision 2040 and Transportation 2040 1 -5 Adjacent Cities 1 -5 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 1 -6 1.4 Accomplishments Since the Last Plan 1 -7 1.5 Plan Organization 1 -7 1.6 Staff Resources 1 -9 Chapter 2 The Street System 2 -1 2.1 Existing Street System 2 -1 Functional Classification 2 -1 Traffic Volumes 2 -5 Speed Limits 2 -5 Traffic Signals and Signs 2 -5 Freight 2 -6 Safety 2 -7 2.2 Street Standards and Levels-of-Service 2 -8 City LOS Standards and Current LOS 2 -9 State Highway LOS 2 -11 2.3 Future Street System 2 -13 Methodology for Evaluating Future System 2 -13 Future System Recommendations 2 -23 Transportation System Management 2 -24 Transportation Demand Management 2 -24 Street Maintenance & Rehabilitation 2 -25 Neighborhood Needs 2 -26 Intergovernmental Coordination 2 -26 Chapter 3 Non-Motorized Transportation 3 -1 3.1 Pedestrian Travel 3 -1 Needs Assessment 3 -1 Future System 3 -5 3.2 Bicycle Travel 3 -9 Needs Assessment 3 -9 Future Travel 3 -11 3.3 Equestrian Travel 3 -12 Needs Assessment 3 -12 Future System 3 -13 3.4 Future Non-Motorized System 3 -14 Chapter 4 Transit 4 -1 4.1 Needs Assessment 4 -1 Existing Transit Services 4 -1 Metro and Pierce Transit 4 -2 Sound Transit 4 -4 4.2 Transit User Needs 4 -4 Demographics 4 -4 Service Coverage 4 -5 Major Trip Generators 4 -7 Schedules 4 -7 Urban Design 4 -8 Improving Local Service 4 -9 Facilities 4 -9 4.3 Transit System Recommendations 4 -10 Metro Transit 4 -10 Pierce Transit 4 -11 Sound Transit 4 -11 City of Auburn 4 -11 Chapter 5 Policies 5 -1 5.1 Coordination, Planning and Implementation 5 -1 5.2 Street System 5 -9 5.3 Non-motorized System 5 -15 5.4 Transit System 5 -17 5.5 Air Transportation 5 -18 Chapter 6 Funding 6 -1 6.1 Financial Planning and Programming 6 -1 Transportation Improvement Program 6 -1 Capital Facilities Plan 6 -1 6.2 Funding Sources 6 -2 General Tax Revenues 6 -2 Grants 6 -2 Loans 6 -3 Private Sector Contributions 6 -3 Funding Partnerships 6 -3 Future Financing Possibilities 6 -4 6.3 Funding Strategies and Project Prioritization 6 -4 Chapter 7 Monitoring and Evaluation 7 -1 7.1 Annual Updates 7 -1 Reevaluation 7 -1 Technical Information 7 -1 Model Updates 7 -2 Comprehensive Plan Consistency 7 -2 7.2 Multi-Year Updates 7 -2 List of Figures Page Figure 1-1 Adjacent Jurisdictions 1 -6 Figure 1-2 Progress Since 2000 * Figure 1-3 Public Works Department Staff Resources 1 -9 Figure 2-1 Functional Roadway Classifications * Figure 2-2 Average Daily Traffic Volumes * Figure 2-3 Truck Route Map * Figure 2-4 Auburn Corridor Section Map * Figure 2-5 Population, Housing and Job Growth (1980 -2030) 2 -13 Figure 2-6 Roadway Improvement Alternatives * Figure 2-7 Intelligent Transportation Systems * Figure 3-1 Existing Sidewalks * Figure 3-2 Future Priority Sidewalk Corridors * Figure 3-3 Existing Bicycle Facilities and Multi-Use Trails * Figure 3-4 Future Bicycle Facilities and Multi-Use Trails * Figure 4-1 Existing Transit Serving Auburn * Figure 4-2 Transit Dependent Areas * Figure 4-3 Transit and Major Trip Generators * *Figure located following the chapter corresponding to the figure number. List of Tables Page Table 1-1 Transportation Improvements Completed Since 2000 1 -8 Table 2-1 Notable Roadway Classification Changes Since 2005 2 -2 2 Table 2-2 Auburn Corridor Level of Service 2 -10 Table 2-3 Future Roadway Capacity Improvement Projects and Cost Estimates 2 -16 Table 2-4 Future Project Groups – P.M. Peak Hour LOS in 2030 2 -22 Table 3-1 Existing Bicycle Facilities 3 -10 Table 3-2 Existing Equestrian Facilities 3 -12 Table 3-3 Future Trail and Bicycle Facility Projects 3 -16 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 1. Introduction Page 1-1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION The transportation system is a vital component of Auburn's social, economic, and physical structure. On the most basic level, it enables the movement of people and goods throughout the City and the region. Long term, it influences patterns of growth and economic activity by providing access to different land uses. Planning for the development and maintenance of the transportation system is a critical activity for promoting the efficient movement of people and goods, for ensuring emergency access, and for optimizing the role transportation plays in attaining other community objectives. 1.1 PURPOSE The Comprehensive Transportation Plan is the blueprint for transportation planning in Auburn. It functions as the overarching guide for development of the transportation system. The Plan evaluates the existing system by identifying key assets and improvement needs. These findings are then incorporated into a needs assessment, assessment, which informs the direction the City will take in developing the future transportation system. This Plan is multi-modal, addressing multiple forms of transportation in Auburn including the street network, non-motorized travel, transit, and air transportation. Evaluating all modes uniformly enables the City to address its future network needs in a more comprehensive and balanced manner. VISION The Comprehensive Transportation Plan reflects the needs and sensibilities of the Auburn community and, in doing so, seeks to: Enhance the quality of life for all Auburn residents; Encourage healthy community principles through non-motorized travel; Promote a transportation system that supports local businesses and enhances economic development opportunities; Create a transportation system that is thoughtfully designed and welcoming to visitors; and Provide a balanced, multi-modal transportation system that addresses local and regional needs. GMA REQUIREMENTS Washington State’s 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that transportation planning be directly tied to the City’s land use decisions and fiscal planning. This is traditionally accomplished through the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan transportation element. However, Auburn fulfills this mandate by adopting the Auburn Transit Center Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 1. Introduction Page 1-2 Comprehensive Transportation Plan as the City’s Comprehensive Plan transportation element. In order to be GMA compliant, the Comprehensive Transportation Plan must: Use land use assumptions to estimate future travel, including impacts to stateowned facilities; Inventory the existing transportation system in order to identify existing capital facilities and travel levels as a basis for future planning; Identify level-of-service (LOS) standards for all arterials, transit routes, and stateowned facilities as a gauge for evaluating system performance; Specify actions and requirements for bringing into compliance locally owned transportation facilities or services that are below an established level-of-service standard; Determine existing deficiencies of the system; Identify future improvement needs from at least ten years of traffic forecasts based on the adopted land use plan; Include a multiyear financing plan based on the identified needs; Address intergovernmental coordination; and Include transportation demand management strategies. 1.2 How the City Uses the Plan The Comprehensive Transportation Plan provides policy and technical direction for development of the City’s transportation system through the year 2030. It updates and expands upon the 1997 Transportation Plan by recognizing network changes since the last plan, evaluating current needs, and identifying standards for future development and various infrastructure improvement scenarios. The Plan underwent a major update in 2005 and a midterm update in 2009 to incorporate the Lea Hill and West Hill annexation areas into the Plan. The 2009 update also included new modeling work which brought the Plan from a 2020 to a 2030 horizon year. NEEDS ASSESSMENT A system-wide, multi-modal needs assessment was conducted throughout plan development to ascertain which aspects of Auburn’s transportation system work well and which ones need improvement. An evaluation of potential solutions and investment investment priorities was also conducted as part of this process. The end result is that Auburn has a more thorough understanding of system deficiencies, a better grasp of the best ways to address these deficiencies, and direction for growing the system in a sustainable manner. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Public outreach was an important component of the need assessment process. One open house and several neighborhood meetings were held to solicit feedback from the public on transportation issues, both during the 2005 and 2009 update processes. The 2009 update, which incorporated the Lea Hill and West Hill areas into the Plan, also included an online questionnaire aimed at gathering information about the transportation concerns of Auburn residents. A citywide telephone survey was also conducted in May 2005 and followed up with a June 2009 survey that measured resident’s opinions and behaviors to determine their satisfaction with City services and the overall quality of life in Auburn. Both surveys concluded that investment in Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 1. Introduction Page 1-3 City roads is a high priority, but overall satisfaction with the transportation system is mixed.. During the 2005 update, the City formed a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to provide guidance in specialized areas of transportation. The TAC was composed of staff from City departments such as Parks, Police, Planning, and Public Works; the Washington State Department of Transportation; Metro Transit; the Auburn School District; and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. It also contained Auburn residents with different areas of expertise, from neighborhood needs to non-motorized travel, a planning commissioner, a City councilmember, the President of the Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce, and a freight industry representative. The 2009 update used the City’s Transportation, Trails, and Transit (TTT) Committee as a sounding board for the plan update. The TTT Committee is comprised of representatives from Auburn’s various geographical areas and the business community. POLICY DEVELOPMENT The City creates policies to state preferences for preservation of the existing system and development of the future transportation system. Policies can be qualitative in nature, but often they are quantitative and prescribe a specific standard. Policies are also important for communicating the City’s values and needs to neighboring jurisdictions and regional and state agencies. The City works in collaboration with other governmental and non-governmental organizations. Having established policies in place enables the City to more effectively influence change in keeping with its needs and objectives. LOS AND CONCURRENCY The concurrency provisions of the 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA) require that local governments permit development only if adequate public facilities exist, or can be guaranteed to be available within six years, to support new development. The GMA requires each local jurisdiction to identify facility and service needs based on level-of-service (LOS) standards. The City establishes corridor LOS standards for all arterial and collector streets, on a scale of “A” to “F”. Auburn ensures that future development will not cause the system’s performance to fall below the adopted LOS by doing one or a combination of the following: limiting development, requiring appropriate mitigation, or changing the adopted standard. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN AND TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The City uses the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) to develop a financial plan for capital improvements in Auburn, thus enabling the City to fulfill the GMA requirement of having a multiyear financing plan based on the identified transportation needs. The TIP, a 6-year transportation financing plan, is fiscally constrained for the first three years and is adopted annually by the City Council. It is a financial planning tool used to implement the list of transportation improvement projects identified in the Transportation Plan analysis of existing and future traffic conditions. It is reviewed annually by the City Council and modified as project priorities and funding circumstances change. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 1. Introduction Page 1-4 The Capital Facilities Plan is also an annually adopted 6-year financing plan. However, it is fiscally constrained for all six years. Unlike the TIP, the CFP is an adopted element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Also, the CFP includes non-transportation projects in addition to the transportation related projects also found in the TIP. 1.3 REGIONAL COORDINATION More and more, Auburn’s transportation system is influenced by what happens beyond its city limits. Growth in neighboring communities, infrastructure maintenance by regional agencies, the lack of funding for road maintenance as well as capacity expansion, and competing demands for transit services all affect mobility in Auburn. This Plan calls for effective interjurisdictional actions to address cross-border issues and to mitigate the impact of new development. The Plan also recognizes that other jurisdictions, particularly state government and transit providers, are responsible for a major share of the transportation facilities serving Auburn. WSDOT The Washington State Department of Transportation owns four major routes connecting Auburn to the region: SR 167, SR 18, SR 164 (Auburn Way South), and a portion of West Valley Highway. Auburn works with the state to study these corridors and implement roadway improvements. WSDOT also serves an important role as administrator of federal and state transportation funds. SOUND TRANSIT Sound Transit provides a variety of regional transit services for King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties. In Auburn, Sound Transit provides commuter rail and express bus service. The Transit Center also serves as a hub and transfer station for local transit service provided by Metro Transit. The transit chapter provides more detail on current Sound Transit services, remaining needs for regional transit service, and the role Auburn plays in coordinating with the agency. KING COUNTY King County Metro Transit, a division of the King County Department of Transportation, provides local bus service for the Auburn area. Planned service for the City of Auburn is described in the Six-Year Transit Development Plan. The City has developed an employee Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program in cooperation with Metro Transit. Details of the CTR program are summarized in the Non-motorized and Transit chapters of this plan. King County Road Services Division is responsible for maintaining and regulating the roadway network in King County, including the Totem and Klump portions of King County situated within the City of Auburn boundaries. King County Road Services has a number of programs and plans in place that regulate development and other activities affecting the county’s roadway network. PIERCE COUNTY As a two county City, Auburn coordinates with Pierce County on issues concerning the Pierce County portions of Auburn. Auburn also participates in The Regional Access Mobility Partnership (RAMP), a regional coalition comprised of both public and private sector interests dedicated to Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 1. Introduction Page 1-5 improving mobility in the South Puget Sound and Washington State. Auburn partners with Pierce Transit on the 497 bus route, which provides peak hour service from Lakeland Hills to the Auburn Transit Center. Auburn and Pierce Transit hope to continue this relationship and develop future partnerships to expand transit service in Auburn. COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES Under the Growth Management Act, King and Pierce Counties have adopted Countywide Planning Policies to guide development in both incorporated and unincorporated areas of their jurisdictions. The policies support county and regional goals of providing a variety of mobility options and establishing level-of-service standards that emphasize the movement of people and not just automobiles. The Countywide Planning Policies are also important because they provide direction for planning and development of potential annexation areas. PSRC – VISION 2040 AND TRANSPORTATION 2040 The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) sets policy for King, Pierce, Kitsap, and Snohomish counties through its long-range planning document, Vision 2040, and its regional transportation plan, which at the time this Plan was developed was undergoing a multi-year update called Transportation 2040. Both documents encourage future growth to be concentrated in regional growth centers. They also seek to provide a multi-modal transportation system that serves all travel modes, actively encouraging the use of alternatives to the automobile. Another important policy theme is a focus on maximizing the efficiency of the transportation system through transportation demand management (TDM) and transportation system management (TSM) strategies, as well as completing critical links in the network. Auburn’s Transportation Plan must be consistent with PSRC’s regional planning efforts. ADJACENT CITIES The City recognizes the importance of coordinated and strong interjurisdictional action because transportation impacts do not stop at local boundaries. The City works closely with neighboring cities and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe to address transportation issues. These neighbors adopt goals and policies that directly impact the Auburn community. In developing this plan, analysis was undertaken to ensure that all transportation system improvements are compatible with neighboring jurisdictions. CITY OF KENT The City of Kent shares Auburn’s northern border and several regional transportation corridors including S 277th Street, SR 167, and the West Valley Highway. Phase III of the S 277th Street reconstruction started in January 2004. The project improved a halfmile-long section of S 277th Street that currently carries 24,000 vehicles per day, allowing it to safely carry the vehicles projected to use the corridor daily in 2030. The City of Kent is also a partner in the SR 167 corridor improvement study currently being undertaken by WSDOT. A significant component of this study is accommodating regional freight traffic, much of which is generated from the high concentration of warehouses in Auburn and Kent. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 1. Introduction Page 1-6 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY The City of Federal Way is located west of Auburn. Several roadways, most notably SR 18, connect Auburn and Federal Way. Auburn and Federal Way regularly coordinate on both motorized and nonmotorized roadway improvements affecting both jurisdictions. CITES OF SUMNER/ALGONA/PACIFIC/BONNEY LAKE The City partners with its southern neighbors in many respects, including street system planning, transit planning, and regional trail planning. For instance, Auburn and the City of Pacific are working to complete the White River Trail on both sides of the BNSF rail track. Auburn is also working with Sumner, Pacific and Algona on roadway improvement projects. The City coordinates primarily with Bonney Lake for provision of water service in the Pierce County portion of the City. However, efforts to coordinate transportation systems and services will likely occur in the future. Partnerships with neighboring cities will continue to be an important factor in successful transportation planning. MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe is situated in the southeastern portion of the City and in unincorporated King County, generally to the east of Auburn Way South (SR 164) and south of Hwy 18. The Muckleshoot Tribe operates two major attractions in or near Auburn: the Muckleshoot Casino and the White River Amphitheatre. Both of these activity centers generate a large number of auto trips. Commercial development on tribal lands is expected to increase in the future and must be evaluated during transportation planning efforts. The City and tribe coordinate on a variety of transportation planning issues, both to accommodate the capacity needs derived from traffic generated by tribal land uses and to ensure the tribe has a functioning transportation system for its members. The Muckleshoot Tribe is developing its own Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Plan to identify needs and plan for its future transportation network. A draft Comprehensive Plan was released in March of 2005. One theme that is emerging from this effort is the need to build a wellconnected internal roadway system on the reservation. Currently, Auburn Way South is the main travelway for drivers and pedestrians traveling between tribal locations. A more extensive internal network would increase transportation efficiency, improve pedestrian safety, and decrease the travel demand on Auburn Way South. Figure 1-1. Adjacent Jurisdictions Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 1. Introduction Page 1-7 1.4 Accomplishments Since the Last Plan During the past nine years, over $130 million in transportation improvements have been completed in the City of Auburn. These projects have emphasized providing new road capacity, improving pedestrian safety, and providing better access to regional transit services including commuter rail. Table 1-1 and the related map (Figure 1-2) show the key projects completed since the 1997 Transportation Plan. The completed projects list includes a new transit center and parking garage in downtown Auburn with access to buses and the Sounder commuter rail service. Other major projects include the 3rd Street overpass, 277th Street Grade Separations and the Lake Tapps Parkway extension, which created additional access and capacity for the Lakeland Hills and Lake Tapps neighborhoods. Several non-motorized safety and mobility projects such as enhanced mid-block crosswalks on West Main Street, I Street NE, and Auburn Way North, the West Main Street project, and Safe Routes to School projects at Olympic Middle School and Pioneer Elementary have enhanced the travel environment for pedestrians and bicyclists in Auburn. In addition to the larger-scale capital projects identified in Figure 1-2, the City also funds several annual programs that help maintain or improve the existing system to meet the changing demands of the City. These include Traffic Signal Improvements, Roadway Safety and Infrastructure Improvements, Sidewalk Improvements, Traffic Calming, Arterial Preservation, and Local Street Preservation (SOS Program). 1.5 Plan Organization The next three chapters are organized according to the three primary transportation system types in Auburn: the street system (Chapter 2), the non-motorized system (Chapter 3), and the transit system (Chapter 4). Each chapter contains a needs assessment and discussion of the future system, including proposed projects or improvements. The remaining chapters cover subjects pertaining to all three system types. Chapter 5 details the City’s transportation objectives and policies. Chapter 6 discusses funding sources that can be used to finance future network improvements. Chapter 7 identifies a monitoring and evaluation strategy to ensure the document remains relevant and that progress is made towards implementation of the Plan. Pedestrian Crossing on West Main St. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 1. Introduction Page 1-8 Table 1-1. Transportation Improvements Completed Since 2000 # Location Project Year Completed Type of Improvement 1 37th St NW/UPRR Railroad Crossing 2000 Street 2 Transit Center Commuter Rail Station 2000 Transit 3 Auburn Way S /Riverwalk Dr Changed Traffic Signal 2001 Street 4 29th and "R" Street SE Traffic Signal 2001 Street 5 8th NE ("K" NE to AWN) Paved Road /Pedestrian Path 2001 Street/NM 6 3rd St SW Grade Separation 2001 Street 7 15th St SW -Industry Dr to “C” St SW Bike Lanes 2002 Non-motorized 8 Transit Center Pedestrian Bridge 2002 NM/Transit 9 "A" St SW at 2nd Street SW Traffic Signal 2002 Street 10 S 277th Street Grade Separation 2002 Street 11 W. Valley Hwy (15th St. SW to Peasley Canyon) Pavement Reconstruction 2003 Street 12 Lake Tapps Pkwy Road Extension -east 2003 Street 13 Downtown Fred Meyer Constructed Trail 2003 Non-motorized 14 White River Trail Trail Lighting 2003 Non-motorized 15 Dykstra Park Footbridge Repair 2003 Non-motorized 16 Downtown Transit Station Kiss & Ride Lot 2004 Transit 17 Lakeland Hills Way/E Valley Hwy Traffic Signal 2004 Street 18 Auburn Way South ITS Improvements 2005 Street 19 West Main St at Union Pacific Railroad Crossing Gate 2005 Street/NM 20 Kersey Way at Oravetz Road Traffic Signal 2005 Street 21 “C” St between Ellingson Rd & 15th St SW Road Widening 2005 Street 22 3rd St NE at Auburn Post Office Pedestrian Crossing 2005 Non-motorized 23 3rd Street SE/Cross Street SE Intersection Capacity 2006 Street 24 A Street Loop New Road 2006 Street 25 C Street NW (W Main Street to 3rd St.) NW) Pavement Reconstruction 2006 Street 26 Auburn Way South Safety Improvements Safety/Access Control 2007 Street 27 West Main Street Streetscape Bicycle & Pedestrian 2007 NM/Street 28 Auburn/Pacific Trail (Phase 1) Multi-Use Trail 2007 Non-motorized 29 M Street SE (29th to 37th Streets SE) Pavement Reconstruction 2007 Street 30 6th Street SE (A Street SE to AWS) Pavement Reconstruction 2008 Street 31 East Main Street at at F Street SE Pedestrian Crossing 2008 Non-motorized 32 I Street NE at 18th Street NE Pedestrian Crossing 2008 Non-motorized 33 Auburn Way South & S. 277th Street ITS Improvements 2009 Street 34 Auburn Way North at 42nd Street Pedestrian Crossing Signal 2009 Non-motorized Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 1. Introduction Page 1-9 1.6 Staff Resources Implementation of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan requires numerous resources, including staff time. All departments play a role in executing the Plan, but the Public Works Department is the implementation lead. The Public Works Department employs engineers, planners, technical and support staff, and maintenance and operations personnel to maintain and improve the City’s transportation system. Nonetheless, staff performs many functions and dedicating sufficient resources to carry out the goals of this plan continues to present challenges. Figure 1-3 identifies the basic organization of the Public Works Department. Figure 1-3. Public Works Department Staff Resources (2009) Public Works Director City Engineer/Assistant Director (133) Transportation Manager (9) Maintenance & Operations Manager (73) Utilities Engineer (9) Assistant City Engineer (35) Sr. Project Engineer (9) Construction Manager (7) Development Engineer Engineer (3) Survey Supervisor (3) Development Support Supervisor (3) Contract Administrator (4) M & O Support Manager (4) Sewer Division Manager (10) Storm Division Manger (16) Street Division Manager (13) Water Distribution Manager (10) General Services/Fleet Manager (6) Water Operations Manager (6) (Staff) Sources: City of Auburn, King County 37th Pl 284th St 288t h St 56th Pl 2 96th St 37th St 316th St 316th St 37th Way 112th Ave 132nd Ave 37th St 37th St 296th Pl 304th St 56th Ave 56th Ave 284th Pl 284th S t 124th Avct 304th Way 132nd Ave 112th Ave 296th St 112th Pl 288th St 124th Ave Main St 312th St 1st Ave 8th St Stewart Rd Tapps Hwy Ellingson Rd Milwaukee Blvd Pacific Ave 3rd Ave 307th Pl 277th St 342nd St 105th Pl 331st St 16th St 321st St Dieringer Hwy 15th St Harvey Rd 210th Ave 24th St 8t h St Lake Holm Rd R St 46th Pl Kersey Way 8th St 12th S t 9th St 182nd Ave 51st Ave 272nd St 320th St Valley Hwy Jovita Blvd Valley Hwy Valley Hwy Green River Rd 15th St Auburn Ave 94th Pl Peasley Canyon Rd 122nd Ave Military Rd 17th St M St Lea Hill Rd 104th Ave 55th Ave A St A St C St Auburn Way 214th Ave 164 167 516 167 18 4 14 18 11 17 3 20 15 10 34 12 1 33 19 31 13 21 30 32 7 28 29 526 Major Projects 0 0.5 City Limits Miles Auburn Transportation Plan Progress Since 2000 Figure 1-2 Auburn Ave C St C St Auburn Way C St A St Main St 164 18 22 6 9 23 25 27 1628 24 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2-1 Chapter 2. THE STREET SYSTEM The Auburn transportation system is comprised of different transportation modes that move people and freight throughout the City and broader region. The system is multimodal, accommodating cars, trucks, buses, pedestrians, and bicyclists. This is made possible by an extensive road network within the City and throughout the region. The roadway system provides the primary means for transportation throughout the Auburn area. The City is served by an extensive street network, which includes freeways, arterials, collectors, and local streets. This chapter describes that network and how well it serves the City presently and in the future. Under the Growth Management Act, cities and counties are required to adopt level-of-service (LOS) standards to establish what level of congestion a community is willing to accept and to determine when growth has consumed that available capacity. The GMA requires that land use and and transportation planning be coordinated so that transportation capacity is evaluated concurrent with development. This chapter sets the standard for performance of the street network and discusses strategies to preserve and improve the system for future use. 2.1 Existing Street System FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION Streets function as a network. The logic and efficiency of the street network are dependent upon how streets move traffic through the system. Functional classification is the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, according to the character of service they provide. There are three main classes of streets in Auburn: arterials, collectors, and local streets. City street classifications are identified in Figure 2-1. All streets have been classified using the Federal Functional Classification system guidelines. The Auburn Engineering Design Standards, Chapter 10 -Streets, identifies design standards for each type of street, in conformance with WSDOT and AASHTO standards. The Street chapter includes street design requirements for configuration, geometrics, cross sections and other information. Street classifications define the character of service that a road is intended to provide. The three major street classes, arterials, collectors, and local streets, all have subclasses described below. Downtown Auburn View from Transit Center Parking Garage Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2-2 ARTERIALS Arterials are the highest level of City street classification. There are two types of arterials in Auburn. Principal Arterials are designed to move traffic between locations within the region and to access the freeways. Design emphasis is placed on providing movement of inter-city through traffic in addition to intra-city traffic. Direct access to commercial and industrial land uses is permitted. These streets are the highest traffic volume corridors, generally have limited land access, and are used for cross-town trips. Principal Arterial Street Name Segment 2005 Plan Classification Current Classification 112th Avenue SE SE 304th St to SE 320th St Residential Collector Minor Arterial 124th Avenue SE SE 312th St to SE 320th St Nonresidential Collector Minor Arterial S 320th Street 112th Ave SE to 124th Ave SE Nonresidential Collector Minor Arterial 105th Place Lea Hill Road to 112th Ave SE Nonresidential Collector Residential Collector, Type I 104th Ave SE/SE 304th St SE 320th St to 132nd Ave SE Nonresidential Collector Minor Arterial 12th St SE (Future) M St SE to Dogwood St SE Nonresidential Collector Residential Collector, Type I/Minor Arterial Dogwood St SE Scenic Dr SE to Auburn Way S Residential Collector Minor Arterial Stuck River Drive Kersey Way SE to 3600 block Local Residential Collector, Type II 29th St NE /M St NW 15th St NW to Emerald Downs Dr Local Nonresidential Collector F St SE 4th St SE to Auburn Way S Nonresidential Collector Residential Collector, Type I 22nd Street NE O St NE to Riverview Dr NE Local Residential Collector, Type I Riverview Dr NE 22nd Street NE to Pike St NE Local Residential Collector, Type I 55th Avenue S S 305th St to S 316th St Local Residential Collector, Type I 55th Avenue S S 336th St to S 346th St Local Residential Collector, Type I 56th Avenue S S 316th St to S 331st St Local Residential Collector, Type I S 300th St /64th Ave S 65th Ave S to 51st Ave S Local Residential Collector, Type I O St SW 15th St SW to Boundary Blvd Minor Arterial Nonresidential Collector Boundary Blvd Algona Blvd N to 15th St SW Minor Arterial Nonresidential Collector Streets that increased in classification Streets that decreased in classification Table 2-1. Streets with Notable Changes Since Adoption of 2005 Roadway Functional Classification System Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2-3 These arterials are the framework street system for the City and usually connect through to neighboring jurisdictions. They are typically constructed to accommodate five lanes of traffic with speed limits of 35 to 45 mph. The design year average daily traffic (ADT) is greater than 15,000 vehicles per day. Principal arterials are heavily utilized as bus routes, carrying both local and regional services. In some cases, on-street bicycle facilities are not appropriate for Principal Arterials and bicyclists should be accommodated on a parallel Class I separated trail. Pedestrians are accommodated on sidewalks. Minor Arterials interconnect and augment the principal arterial system by providing access to and from the principal arterials and freeways. They serve moderate length trips at a somewhat lower mobility than principal arterials and distribute traffic to smaller geographic areas. Minor arterials may serve secondary traffic generators such as business centers, neighborhood shopping centers, major parks, multifamily residential areas, medical centers, larger religious institutions, and community activity centers. While minor arterials should not enter neighborhoods, they do provide access between neighborhoods. They are typically constructed to accommodate four to five lanes of traffic with speed limits of 30 to 35 mph and a design year ADT of 10,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day. Minor arterials are frequently utilized as bus routes, have sidewalks to comfortably accommodate pedestrians and may include Class II bicycle lanes. COLLECTORS Collectors are a step below arterials in the City classification system. There are three types of collectors in Auburn. Residential Collectors, Type I are used to connect local streets and residential neighborhoods to community activity centers and minor and principal arterials. Residential Collectors, Type I are typically constructed to accommodate two travel lanes with medians and turn pockets at intersections or two travel lanes with Class II bicycle lanes. The posted speed limit is generally 30 mph and the design year ADT is 2,500 to 10,000 vehicles per day. Residential Collectors, Type I have sidewalks and may be utilized for some transit service, including dial-a-ride transit and paratransit services. Residential Collectors, Type II are routes located in areas with less intensive land uses. They carry traffic between local and arterial streets. Residential Collectors, Type II provide access to all levels of arterials, are typically constructed to accommodate two lanes with gravel shoulders on both sides, and have a speed limit of 30 to 40 mph. The gravel shoulder may be reduced on one side to provide a wider shoulder on the other for equestrian access or bicycle travel. Residential Collectors, Type II do not have sidewalks and generally do not carry transit services except for paratransit and possibly dial-a-ride-transi t. The design year ADT is 1,000 to 5,000 vehicles per day. Non-Residential Collectors provide intracommunity access by connecting nonresidential areas such as industrial and commercial areas to minor and principal arterials. They may serve neighborhood traffic Residential Collector, Type I Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2-4 generators such as stores, elementary schools, religious institutions, clubhouses, small hospitals or clinics, areas of small multifamily developments, as well as other commercial and industrial uses. Non-Residential Collectors are typically constructed to accommodate two lanes and a center two-way left-turn lane, with a speed limit of 30 mph and may include Class II bicycle lanes. The design year ADT is 2,500 to 5,000 vehicles per day. Non-Residential Collectors have sidewalks and may be utilized for some transit service, including dial-a-ride transit and paratransit services. LOCAL STREETS Local Streets are the most common street type in the City. Local streets comprise all facilities not part of one of the higher classification systems. Local streets primarily provide direct access to abutting land and to the higher order streets. Service to through traffic is discouraged. There are four categories of local streets. Local Residential Residential Streets, Type I provide access to abutting residential parcels. They offer the lowest level of mobility among all street classifications. The street is designed to conduct traffic between dwelling units and higher order streets. As the lowest order street in the hierarchy, the street usually carries minimal through traffic and includes short streets, cul-de-sacs, and courts. The speed limit is generally 25 mph and the design year ADT is 200 to 1,200 vehicles per day. Local Residential Streets, Type I have sidewalks to accommodate pedestrians and in most cases, bicyclists may travel comfortably on the shoulder of the road (Class IV bicycle facility). Transit service is generally limited to dial-a-ride transit and paratransit. Local Residential Streets, Type II serve areas with less intensive land uses by providing access to adjacent land and distributing traffic to and from the principal or minor arterials, residential collectors, type II, and local access streets. The travel distance is relatively short compared to Residential Collectors, Type II. Local Residential Streets, Type II are two lane roadways with gravel shoulders and a speed limit of 25 mph. The design year ADT is 100 to 1,000 vehicles per day. Because these streets have low traffic volumes, bicyclists can comfortably share the travel lane with motorized vehicles. Since Local Residential Streets, Type II do not have sidewalks, pedestrians walk along the shoulder of the road. Transit service is very infrequent and most likely limited to paratransit and possibly dial-a-ride-transit. Local Non-Residential Streets provide direct access to higher order classification streets and serve primarily industrial and manufacturing land uses. They offer a lower level of mobility and accommodate heavy vehicle traffic. Typically they have two travel lanes with a speed limit of 25 mph and the design year ADT is 400 to 1,200 vehicles per day. Local Non-Residential Streets have sidewalks to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists may travel on the shoulder shoulder of the road (Class IV bicycle facility), although bicycle travel may not be as comfortable as on Local Residential Streets due to a greater frequency of trucks and other heavy vehicles. Transit service is generally limited to dial-a-ride transit and paratransit. Private Streets may be appropriate for local access in very limited usage. They provide direct access to City streets and should be limited to those streets accessing properties within a planned area or properties immediately adjacent. Private streets at minimum are built to the same design and construction standards as a local residential street. From a planning perspective, acknowledgment and proper designation of functional classifications allows for the preservation of right-of-way for future transportation corri Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2-5 dors, whether the corridor provides access to car, HOV, transit, bike, or pedestrian use. Functional classification helps establish corridors that will provide for the future movement of people and goods, as well as emergency vehicle access, through the City. Proper designation is crucial to the planning effort; as development occurs, accommodation for the appropriate transportation corridors should be incorporated into development plans. The City has reclassified several street segments since 2005, as shown in Table 2-1. Reclassification occurs over time in response to changes in the function of streets, the traffic patterns, and the character of the surrounding land uses. In particular, some streets within both the West Hill and Lea Hill were reclassified since they were annexed from King County in 2008. Table 2-1 indicates that some streets have been reclassified to a higher classification, while others have been moved to a lower classification. ALLEYS AND ACCESS TRACTS Alleys provide vehicular access to abutting properties, generally through the rear or side of the property. Alleys can be public or private and serve several purposes including access management and the alleviation of traffic problems on city streets. Alleys should provide through access to city streets or adequate turnaround space if through access is not feasible. Alleys shall be constructed to allow for general-purpose and emergency access at all times. Access Tracts, sometimes referred to as shared driveways, provide vehicular access for lots that do not abut a street or alley. They are most common in panhandle lots or rear lots that do not have street or alley access. Access tracts are privately owned and maintained. They must provide for sufficient vehicular movement and turnaround space, be free of temporary and permanent obstructions, and provide for emergency access. TRAFFIC VOLUMES Average daily traffic counts were obtained from data collected in the spring of 2008 and 2009. Figure 2-2 shows the average daily traffic volumes on City arterials for the years 2008 and 2009, based on a seven-day week average. The highest daily volumes are found on Auburn Way South, A Street SE, Auburn Way North, Harvey Road, Lea Hill Road/SE 312th Street, M Street, Lakeland Hills Way, 51st Avenue S, and 15th Street NW. A major contributor to the high traffic volumes on City arterials is traffic passing through the City. This pass-through traffic originates in surrounding jurisdictions and uses City streets to access the major regional highways, such as SR 18 and SR 167. Nearly 50 percent of traffic on Auburn’s arterial and collector networks is attributable to pass-through traffic. The City is committed to working with WSDOT to improve the state highway system, thereby reducing the demand on the City street system. SPEED LIMITS The City designates speed limits as a means of alerting drivers to safe and appropriate travel speeds for a particular corridor segment. Local roads are generally designated at 25 mph zones, with some exceptions such as near schools. The City routinely monitors corridors to ensure appropriate speed limits are in place. Legal speeds are located in City code and are clearly signed on the roadways. TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SIGNS Traffic signals, signs, and pavement markings are used to direct drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists, thereby increasing the effective use of the roadway by moving traffic more efficiently and safely. The City uses the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2-6 as guidance for design, construction, and placement of signs in the right of way. FREIGHT Auburn is an important freight hub in the Puget Sound region, and the efficient movement of freight, through and within the City, is critical to Auburn’s economic stability. Both rail and truck freight, originating largely in the Ports of Tacoma and Seattle, pass through Auburn regularly. The Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) have rail lines running through Auburn. The Union Pacific line runs north-south, to the east of the Interurban Trail. Burlington Northern Santa Fe moves freight in both the north-south and east-west directions. BNSF has a doubletrack, federally designated, high-speed railroad line running north-south. The Stampede Pass line runs east-west through south Auburn, entering the north-south line just south of the Auburn Transit Center. In addition, the company maintains a rail yard between A A Street SE and C Street SW, south of SR 18. In the future, this area may develop as a multi-modal rail yard, prompting the need to mitigate increased truck traffic through capacity improvements. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe also has plans to increase traffic on the Stampede Pass line, the east-west rail line running through Auburn. In anticipation of this increase and in order to mitigate the traffic and safety impacts of current rail movements on this line, the City has programmed a grade separation project on M Street SE. The pavement at the crossing of the Union Pacific Railroad at 15th Street SW is in very poor condition. Rehabilitation of the pavement is a high priority for the City, and a project has been programmed to reconstruct 15th Street SW from C Street SW to the railroad tracks. Auburn experiences considerable truck traffic. The City has designated truck routes for through freight movement in an effort to maximize the efficacy of and protect the roadway infrastructure. Current truck routes routes are shown in Figure 2-3. The City defines truck freight movement as the movement of heavy and medium trucks. Medium trucks include trucks with two to four axles and two-axle trucks with six tires. Heavy trucks include all articulated trucks, trucks with one to three trailers, and/or with three to nine axles. Truck routes, established by City ordinance, are designated for roadways that incorporate special design considerations such as street grades, continuity, turning radii, street and lane widths, pavement strength, and overhead obstruction heights. The City expects that the majority of regional trips will take place on state highways. However, recognizing that trips through the City are sometimes necessary, Auburn has designated a network of north-south and eastwest corridors as truck routes, which are built to truck standards. In addition, the City has designated future truck routes, which will be built to truck standards whenever opportunities exist to reconstruct the roadway network, either through public improvement projects or through agreements with private developers. Auburn has significant industrial and commercial development throughout the City. The City encourages local delivery trucks to use the designated truck network as much as possible, but recognizes that trips on non-truck routes will sometimes be necessary. The City is committed to supporting local industry, business, and residential needs and recognizes that the ability to ship and receive freight is essential to the success of many businesses. Therefore, the City will collaborate with local businesses to improve freight access, while maintaining the roadway infrastructure, whenever possible. This may include adopting Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2-7 City Code and updating the Auburn Engineering Design and Construction Standards in a manner that favors these priorities. SAFETY The City places a high priority on providing a safe transportation system for travelers of all modes. Continual efforts are made to construct and retrofit streets in a manner that improves safety and decreases the likelihood of accidents. Pedestrian crossings and other nonmotorized safety issues are discussed in the following chapters. Railroad crossings, emergency response needs and accidents related to the street system are discussed below. RAILROAD CROSSINGS At grade railroad crossings create a potentially dangerous situation for motorists, nonmotorized travelers, and rail passengers. Auburn has several at grade railroad crossings. The Union Pacific line crosses city streets at South 285th Street, 37th Street NW, 29th Street NW, West Main Street, and 15th Street SW. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) tracks intersect city streets at 37th Street NW, 29th Street NW, 3rd Street NW, W Main Street, M Street SE, and the Auburn Black Diamond Road. With more than 60 trains passing through the City each day, the City has many at grade crossings, each with unique safety implications. The City coordinates with railroad operators and the State to upgrade the crossings whenever possible. For instance, new long-gate crossing arms were recently placed at the Union Pacific crossing on W Main Street. Also, in 2002 the pedestrian overpass at the Auburn Transit Center was completed, adding a new measure of safety for pedestrians crossing the railroad tracks. The City is underway with design of the M Street SE grade separation project. This project will grade separate M Street SE at the BNSF Stampede Pass tracks by lowering M Street SE under the railroad overpass. The second phase of the project will create and a new connector road between M Street and Auburn-Black Diamond Road. Construction of the grade separation phase of the project is anticipated to be complete by 2013. EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND MANAGEMENT Providing residents with quick responses in emergency situations is a high priority for the City. The City maintains a Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan and supporting plans which identify critical facilities that should be maintained as a first priority during catastrophic events. Critical transportation facilities, although subject to change, generally Truck Traffic Building on S 277th Street BNSF Freight Train at West Main Street Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2-8 include Principal Arterials, bridges and major evacuation routes within the City. In addition, the City works to provide an adequate street network that will ensure multiple alternate routes for emergency vehicles. Fire response vehicles are equipped with traffic signal controls that enable emergency vehicles to secure safe and rapid passage through signalized corridors. In addition, the City has mutual-aid agreements with nearby emergency response operators to ensure adequate coverage in case of road closures or other obstacles that would otherwise prevent timely emergency response. ACCIDENTS The City collects and monitors accident data to identify roadway hazards, and seeks to correct hazardous locations in the City by implementing appropriate safety measures. While the City relies primarily on its own data, accident data from other sources, including neighboring jurisdictions and the State, is utilized whenever available. 2.2 Street Standards and Levels-of-Service The GMA requires the City to establish service levels for the street network and to provide a means for correcting current deficiencies and meeting future needs. Transportation professionals use the term ‘level-of-service’ (LOS) to measure the operational performance of a transportation facility, such as a street corridor or intersection. This measure considers perception by motorists and passengers in terms of speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions and delays, comfort, and convenience. The City currently uses a single-mode LOS system based upon vehicular travel. In the future, a multi-modal system which includes transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists should be developed and adopted. The currently adopted LOS methodology gives letter designations from ‘A’ through ‘F’, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions, and LOS F representing the worst. LOS can be quantified in different terms, depending on the transportation facility. Definitions for each level-of-service and the methodologies for calculating the level-ofservice for various facilities are contained in Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual. The City most commonly uses corridor levelof-service for accessing facilities. Generally, this is considered the most comprehensive way to determine vehicular traffic impacts. The following descriptions provide some guidance for interpreting the meaning of each LOS letter for corridor LOS on city streets. LOS A describes primarily free-flow operations at average travel speeds, usually about 90 percent of the FFS (free-flow speed) for the given street class. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Control delay at signalized intersections is minimal. (Free-flow speed is the average speed of vehicles on a given facility, measured under low-volume conditions, when drivers tend to drive at their desired speed and are not constrained by control delay. Control delay is the total elapse time from a vehicle joining the queue until its departure from the stopped position at the head of the queue. This includes the time required to decelerate into the queue and accelerate back to free-flow speed.) LOS B describes reasonably unimpeded operations at average travel speeds, usually about 70 percent of the FFS for the street class. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted, and Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2-9 control delays at signalized intersections are not significant. LOS C describes stable operations; however, ability to maneuver and change lanes in midblock locations may be more restricted than at LOS B, and longer queues, adverse signal coordination, or both may contribute to lower average travel speeds of about 50 percent of the FFS for the street class. LOS D borders on the range in which small increases in flow (density of vehicles) may cause substantial increases in delay and decreases in travel speed. LOS D may be due to adverse signal progression (a large percentage of vehicles arriving at the intersection on a red, rather than green light), inappropriate signal timing, high volumes (of traffic), or a combination of these factors. Average travel speeds are about 40 percent of FFS. LOS E is characterized by significant delays and average travel speeds of 33 percent or less or the FFS. Such operations are caused by a combination of adverse signal progression, high signal density (closely spaced signals), high volumes, extensive delays at critical intersections, and inappropriate signal timing. LOS F is characterized by urban street flow at extremely low speeds, typically one-third to one-fourth of the FFS. Intersection congestion is likely critical at signalized locations, with high delays, high volumes, and extensive queuing. CITY LOS STANDARDS AND CURRENT LOS It is necessary to define LOS standards for transportation facilities to enforce the concurrency requirements of the Growth Management Act. If development results in a facility's service falling below a defined LOS standard, concurrency requires the development causing the deficiency be remedied or the permit for that development be denied. Auburn defines unsatisfactory LOS as: an unacceptable increase in hazard or unacceptable decrease in safety on a roadway; an accelerated deterioration of the street pavement condition or the proposed regular use of a street not designated as a truck route for truck movements that can reasonably result in accelerated deterioration of the street pavement; an unacceptable impact on geometric design conditions at an intersection where two truck routes meet on the City arterial and collector network; an increase in congestion which constitutes an unacceptable adverse environmental impact under the State Environmental Policy Act; or the inability of a facility to meet the adopted LOS standard. The City uses corridor LOS as its primary measurement of transportation system impacts. The City corridors typically used for analyzing LOS are shown in Figure 2-4, although the City may require analysis of a different segment in order to assess the full LOS impacts. All arterials and collectors in Auburn have designated LOS standards. The LOS standard for these corridors is primarily LOS D with the exception of some corridors that may operate as LOS E or F, with a specified maximum travel time. While the City uses a p.m. based LOS system, a.m. LOS impacts may may be examined in situations where unique conditions are likely to results in an a.m. LOS deficiency. Table 2-2 identifies Auburn’s LOS Standards, as well as the 2009 corridor LOS. As indicated in the table, LOS was calculated for many of Auburn’s street corridors using traffic counts taken in Spring 2008 and Spring 2009. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2-10 ID Corridor From To LOS Standard LOS 2009 1 Auburn Way North 15th St NE Northern City Limits D C/D 2 Auburn Way North East Main St. 15th St NE E D 3 Auburn Way South East Main St. M St SE D F/E 4 Auburn Way South M St SE Eastern City Limits D C 5 M St./Harvey Auburn Way North East Main St. E C 6 M St./Harvey East Main St Auburn Way South D D/C 7 Evergreen Way Lakeland Hills Way Kersey Way D Future 8 37th St NE/NW West Valley Hwy I St. NE D B/C 9 15th St NE/NW West Valley Hwy Auburn Way North F** D 10 Auburn Ave /"A" St SR 18 Southern City Limits D B 11 Main St West Valley Hwy R St D C 12 15th St SW West Valley Hwy C St SW D D 13 C St SW Ellingson SR 18 D C/E 14 West Valley Hwy Northern City Limits 15th Street NW E B/C 15 S 277th St Frontage Rd. 108th Ave SE E E/B 16 R St./Kersey Way Auburn Way S. Oravetz Road D A/B 17 Lake Tapps Parkway East Valley Hwy. 182nd Ave E D B 18 "A" St SW/NW/"B" St NW 4th St NW S 277th St D Future 19 8th St NE/Lea Hill Rd. Auburn Way North 132nd Ave SE E C/B 20 D St NW/Emerald Downs Dr S 277th St 15th St. NW D A/B 21 I St NE S 277th St Harvey Rd D A/B 22 132nd Ave SE SE 282nd St SE 312th St D B 23 124th Ave SE SE 282nd St SE 320th. St D C 24 104th Ave SE/SE 304th St 8th St NE 132nd Ave SE D B/A 25 105th Pl SE/SE 320th St Lea Hill Road 124th Ave SE D B 26 Lakeland Hills Way SE Lake Tapps Parkway Oravetz Rd D C/D 27 29th St SE/Riverwalk Dr. A Street SE Auburn Way South D C 28 108th Ave SE/112th Ave. SE S 277th St SE 304th St D A 29 49th St NW B St NW S 277th St D Future 30 R Street SE 8th St NE 4th Street SE D B/C 31 3rd St SW/Cross St C Street Auburn Way South E E 32 17th St SE A St SE Auburn Way South D B/A 33 41st St SE/Ellingson Rd A St SE Western City Limits E F 34 Lakeland Hills Way/Oravetz East Valley Hwy Kersey Way E A/B 35 West Valley Hwy 15th Street NW Southern City Limits E C/B 36 Kersey Way Oravetz Road Southern City Limits D A 37 S. 316th Street/Terrace Drive West Valley Highway Western City Limits D B 38 S. 296th Street/65th Ave West Valley Highway Western City Limits D B 39 51st Ave S. S. 288th Street Peasley Canyon Rd D B 40 S. 284th Street 112th Ave SE 124th Ave SE D B/A 41 S. 284th Street 124th Ave SE 132nd Ave SE D Future 42 R St. Bypass/Black Diamond M Street SE SR 18 D Future *** Table 2-2. Auburn Corridor Level of Service Corridor segments within Downtown Auburn may operate at LOS E in accordance with the Auburn Downtown Plan. All other arterial and collector corridors must operate at LOS D or better, unless otherwise indicated in Table 2-2. Total travel time in the eastbound direction cannot exceed 1000 seconds for this corridor to meet the LOS Standard. Split LOS indicates directional LOS in either the East-West or North-South direction. Otherwise, the LOS is the same in both directions. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2-11 STATE HIGHWAY LOS Amendments to the GMA in 1998 added new requirements for local jurisdictions to address state-owned transportation facilities, as well as local transportation system needs in their comprehensive plans (RCW 47.06.140). House Bill 1487, adopted by the Washington State Legislature in 1998, requires that the transportation element of local comprehensive plans include the LOS standards for Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS). HB 1487 clarified that the concurrency requirement of the GMA does not apply to HSS or other transportation facilities and services of statewide significance. HB 1487 also requires local jurisdictions to estimate traffic impacts to state-owned facilities resulting from land use assumptions in the Comprehensive Plan. THE WSDOT STANDARD WSDOT has identified an LOS standard of “D” for all urban Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS) according to the State Highway System Plan (HSP). All state highways within the City of Auburn, including SR 18, SR 167, and SR 164 are classified as urban Highways of Statewide Significance, and therefore have an LOS standard of “D”. Land use and the transportation system are closely linked, each influencing the development of the other. Hence, for the purpose of this plan, it is necessary to evaluate how land use patterns impact the transportation system. LAND USE/TRANSPORTATION RELATIONSHIP A broad overview of Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan land use map shows industrial (light and heavy) designations in the west side of the City along both sides of West Valley Highway, strip commercial development along Auburn Way South and a sizable commercial plan designation near the intersection of the SR 18 and 15th Street SW interchange (Super Mall). Downtown Auburn is roughly located east of the Interurban Trail, north of SR 18, west of F Street SE/NE, and south of 3rd Street NW/NE and 4th Street NE. Residential development exists along the Auburn valley floor, West Hill, and Lea Hill and Lakeland Hills. A major land use activity in Lea Hill includes the Green River Community College located on SE 320th Street. As with many cities in South King and Pierce counties, especially those along the SR 167 corridor, the local land use plan is characterized by a predominance of industrial land use designations. The land use element identifies “Industrial” as the City’s second most predominant zoning designation (residential being first). Consequently, the City’s land use plan establishes a development pattern that has industrial related traffic impacts upon the State Highway System. This includes the frequent movement of freight. Auburn’s industrial areas also consist of light industrial warehouse development. This type of development typically results in a relatively low PM peak hour trip generation impact. There are a number of circumstances including potential tax policy changes, which may lead to a change in land use designations and, as a consequence, a reduction in the prevalence of industrial uses in this area and throughout Auburn. Another key land use feature in the land use element is a “Heavy Commercial” designation at 15th Street SW, adjacent to SR 167 and SR 18. This commercial designation is the site of the Supermall. The Supermall attracts customers on a regional basis and impacts use of the State Highway System in this respect, even more so than the downtown or the strip commercial development along Auburn Way. Commercial development in downtown Auburn and along Auburn Way tends to serve more localized needs. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2-12 The City’s Comprehensive Plan land use map focuses residential development in the valley and in the west hills, Lea Hill, and Lakeland Hills. Access to the State Highway System is generally limited in the east hill, although Highway 18 can be accessed on Lea Hill at SE 304th Street. Future impacts on the State Highway System in the Lea Hill area will primarily be commuter traffic due to the predominance of residential comprehensive plan designations in that area. The development of Lakeland Hills will also principally result in increased commuter traffic. Future impacts to the State Highway System can generally be gauged by projected arterial link ADT volumes at or near state highway ramps. This is, at best, only a general estimate since not all traffic passing through these street segments is utilizing the State Highway System. Further, traffic using the arterial segment may be originating from local jurisdictions outside of Auburn, and may therefore not result from assumptions in Auburn’s land use plan. Several city arterials connect directly to SR 167 and SR 18. Some examples include C Street SW, West Valley Highway, and Auburn Way South connections with SR 18, and 15th Street NW and 15th Street SW connections with SR 167. These streets are among the most heavily used in the City, a function of their relationship to the State Highway System. SR 164 is also in the city limits. Year 2008 and 2009 average daily traffic (ADT) volumes along SR 164 range from a low of 23,000 near the eastern city boundary up to 37,000 along Auburn Way South near SR 18. These volumes are forecasted to increase substantially over the next 20 years. The State Highway System also impacts the City’s local street system. A “cut-through” traffic pattern results in significant traffic volume increases on the local arterial street system. For example, many of Auburn’s PM peak hour trips are work to home trips originating outside of the Auburn area and destined for residential areas outside of Auburn, including Pierce County and the Enumclaw Plateau. This traffic exits state routes and travels through Auburn to avoid congestion on the State Highway System. This is evidenced by increases in traffic counts within the City that clearly exceed that which might be expected through anticipated growth and development patterns outlined in the City’s land use plan. The City may implement measures that encourage local traffic movements and discourage cut-through traffic. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2-13 Figure 2-5. Population, Housing, and Job Growth for City of Auburn 2000 – 2030 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 2000 2010 2020 2030 Population Housing Units Jobs 1 – Population and housing data for 2000 taken from US Census. 2 – Population and housing projection for 2010, 2020 and 2030 from City of Auburn 3 – Covered employment data and estimates derived from PSRSC. 2.3 Future Street System METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING FUTURE SYSTEM TRAVEL FORECASTS HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH Auburn has grown rapidly during the past decade, and housing and employment are expected to continue to increase significantly by 2030, with the population reaching over 128,000 residents, as shown in Figure 2-5. Much of the housing growth will come from higher density re-development in the downtown area and the rapidly growing Lakeland Hills and Lea Hill areas. TRAFFIC GROWTH The City of Auburn relies on traffic forecasts using the VISUM travel demand model, which is based upon the land use plan and assumptions found in the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan. Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) household and employment forecasts are also used. The model is calibrated to include existing land uses and local knowledge, including large traffic generators such as the Supermall of the Great Northwest, the Emerald Downs Thoroughbred Racetrack, and the Muckleshoot Indian Casino. Areas outside of the current city limits that are expected to significantly impact the City transportation system are included in the model. The model enables the City to conduct traffic forecasts for all arterial and collector streets based upon a number of if-then development and land use scenarios. The more dramatic traffic increases are often caused by development outside the City, especially along the roadways serving the Enumclaw Plateau. Other areas of major traffic increase include A Street SE, M Street SE, and the West Valley Highway. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2-14 THREE SCENARIOS: FUTURE STREET NETWORK In order to address the growing traffic volumes and congestion levels on city streets by 2030, three alternative roadway improvements scenarios were examined: Project Group A: Programmed Projects: Includes projects in the City’s Transportation Improvement Program and funded State highway improvements. Project Group B: Improvements included in Project Group A plus additional City street improvements. Project Group C: Improvements included in Project Group B plus additional regional transportation projects on State highways. Each of these project group alternatives is described below and shown in Figure 2-6. Project Group A -Programmed Projects Project Group A is the baseline group of projects and consists primarily of the projects programmed in the City’s TIP and in the State Highway Program. The projects include several city street widening and connection projects plus the extension of HOV lanes along SR 167. See Figure 2-6 for project locations, shown with red project numbers. There is one capacity project programmed in the TIP that is not included in the model: the crossing of the BNSF Rail yard at either 6th Street SW or 15th Street SW. It is discussed in more detail in the Future System Recommendations section of this chapter and will likely be included in future model runs and updates to this plan. Project Group B -New City Street Improvements Project Group B assumes completion of and builds upon the projects in Project Group A by adding more city street improvements in highly congested areas. Many of these projects were identified as a result of public outreach efforts held in West Hill and Lea Hill after those areas were annexed into the City. Potential projects that were identified through the public outreach were evaluated against the 2030 levelof-service results of Project Group A. Additional project were identified to remedy predicted level-of-service deficiencies identified by the City’s traffic demand model (Visum). The street improvements shown with blue project numbers in Figure 2-6 include street widening projects or spot improvements throughout the City. The spot improvements consist of intersection channelization and traffic signal timing projects to improve traffic flow. The twenty projects shown in blue on the map are not currently programmed in the City’s TIP. Project Group C -Regional Transportation Projects Project Group C assumes completion of and builds upon the projects in Project Groups A and B. This group contains projects focused on the addition of major regional roadway improvements. As shown with green project numbers in Figure 2-6, the projects include completing the interchange of SR 18 at SR 167 (and eliminating access to/from SR 18 at West Valley Highway), adding one general purpose lane in each direction to SR 167 from SR 18 to I-405, and extending High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes on SR 167 to SR 16, and widening of SR 164 to Academy Drive, and the addition of the Auburn Bypass connecting SR 18 to Auburn Way South. The projects shown in green on the map are State/Regional projects and are therefore not currently programmed in the City’s TIP. There are two potential alignments for the bypass route as indicated in the draft Bypass Feasibility Report (September 2009), a Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2-15 partnership between WSDOT, the City of Auburn, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and other regional partners. Numerous issues were considered as part of this study, including environmental impacts. Although a preferred alternative will be developed as part of a future environmental process, for the development of this plan, the alternative alignment modeled had the Bypass Road connecting to Hwy 18 east of R Street and used the existing Dogwood Street alignment to connect to Hwy 18. Table 2-3 summarizes the street projects included in each of the three project groups, along with planning level cost estimates. Figure 2-6 identifies the location of each project, as well as the group it is included in. Additional Projects – Not Identified in Project Groups A, B, or C In addition to the projects identified in Figure 2-3, four intersections outside of the City were identified as potential level-of-service concerns during the public outreach and modeling processes. While the following intersections have not been analyzed in detail because they are situated outside of Auburn’s jurisdiction, they should be evaluated by the appropriate jurisdiction and programmed for improvements as needed. 51st Avenue S & South 316th Street S. 321st Street & 46th Place S. 321st Street and Peasley Canyon Road West Valley Hwy and Peasley Canyon Rd. Also, there is an intersection project that was not modeled, but would provide a significant benefit to reliability and traffic flow associated with the am drop-off at Rainer Middle School. Currently, 116th Ave SE around Rainer Middle School becomes very congested due to the difficulty clearing the roadway of southbound vehicles in the a.m. 116th Avenue SE needs to be widened 3-4 feet in the southbound direction at Lea Hill Road to allow for a dedicated right turn lane. This will help relieve congestion associated with the drop-off period at Rainier Elementary School. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2-16 Map. No. Location (corridor and segment) Description Total Cost (2009 dollars) S. 277th Street AWN to Green River Bridge D Street NW 37th Street NW to 44th Street NW I Street NE Corridor 40th Street NE to 52nd Street NE A Street NW W Main Street to 14th Street NW Evergreen Way Lakeland Hills Way to Kersey Way M Street Grade Separation E Main Street to Auburn Way S R Street Bypass M Street to R Street F Street SE 4th Street SE to Auburn Way S M Street NE E Main Street to 8th Street NE West Valley Highway Main Street to SR 18 49th Street NE Auburn Way N to M Street NE Harvey Road At 8th Street Table 2-3. Future Roadway Capacity Improvement Projects and Cost Estimates Project Group A -Programmed Projects 3 Construct 5 lane arterial $5,782,000 1 Install 1 new lane WB and 2 new lanes EB (widen to 5 lanes total) and install a Class 1 trail $3,069,000 425 Construct new road Developer Funded Construct multi-lane arterial $14,492,000 Construct 4 lane arterial $6,400,000 6 Grade separated railroad crossing $22,400,000 7 Construct bypass road from M Street SE to Auburn-Black Diamond Road. $12,000,000 8 Widen to 3 lanes and bike lanes and parking $1,200,000 Included in Project 9 cost 9 Widen to 4 lanes $4,793,500 10 Add center turn lane, sidewalk on east side, bike lanes, and signal upgrades at West Main Street $5,000,000 11 Construct multi-lane arterial connection $2,000,000 12 Intersection capacity, including addition of one EB through and EB to SB right turn lane Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2-17 Auburn Way S At M Street SE 8th Street NE Pike to R Street NE 8th Street NE at R Street NE SR 167 15th Street NW to 8th Street E Stewart Road SR 167 to East Valley Highway Subtotal For Projects in Auburn (Project Group A) $79,997,000 Subtotal for All Projects(Project Group A) $239,997,000 Project Group A -Programmed Projects (Cont.) 13 Add WB to NB right turn lane $750,000 15 New traffic signal $650,500 14 Add EB lane to south side of 8th Street NE $1,450,000 Widen to 2 lanes each direction and center turn lane in the Cities of Sumner and Pacific. Includes widening of the White River bridge. 17 $40,000,000 16 Add HOV lane each direction $120 million (State Funded) 51st Avenue S 288th Street 51st Avenue S 296th Street S 277th Street Auburn Way N 108th Avenue /112th Avenue SE S 277th Street to S 286th Street 21 Realign /improve radius at doglegs (SE 281st St.) for safety, and realign intersecting streets to improve site distances. Widen to 4 lanes north of 284th Street. At 286th Street, widen to allow for turn pockets. Include bikelanes and sidewalk both sides of 108th/112th. $7,700,000 19 Provide protected SB left turn phase and signal and SB left turn lane; Include bikelanes and sidewalks on all legs $1,400,000 20 Add WB thru lane (east leg) and 2 EB thru lanes on west leg; Relocate existing trail along 277th if needed. $4,100,000 Project Group B -New City Street Projects 18 Add signal $490,000 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2-18 8th Street NE /Lea Hill Rd R Street to 105th Avenue SE S 312th Street 112th Avenue SE 112th Avenue SE SE 310th Street to Lea Hill Road SE 304th Street 112th Avenue SE GRCC On-site Improvements GRCC Entrance GRCC Improvements at 124th Ave SE SE 318th St to SE 320th St GRCC Improvements on 124th Ave SE SE 312th St to SE 318th St GRCC Improvements on 124th Ave SE SE 312th Street GRCC Improvements on SE 320th Street 124th Ave SE to western GRCC entrance 29 Modify signal and rechannelize intersection to accommodate dual southbound thru lanes on 124th and dual left turn lanes from SE 312th WB to 124th SB. $500,000 30 Construct 1400' of 3-lane section from intersection of SE 320th and 124th to western GRCC entrance. Road will include one lane each direction and a dual center left turn lane. Bike lanes and sidewalk included. $640,000 27 Construct 500' section from SE 320th to SE 318th Way with three SB lanes and one NB lane. The southbound lanes will be two left turn into GRCC and one right turn onto SE 320th. Bike lanes and $510,000 28 Construct 2100' of a 4-lane section with two SB lanes, one two-way left turn lane, and a single northbound lane. Bike lanes and sidewalks included. $1,520,000 25 Add signal and NB left turn lane. Include sidewalks and bikelanes both sides. $1,300,000 26 If it will show in model, construct 750' 3-lane section at GRCC entrance with 2 entrance lanes, one exit lane plus a right turn exit pocket onto 124th NB. Bike lanes and sidewalks included. $300,000 23 Add NB right turn lane, EB right turn lane, WB left turn lane, and signal. Provide sidewalks and bikelanes on all legs. $1,720,000 24 Extend road to Lea Hill Road. Include sidewalks and bikelanes both sides. $6,500,000 22 Widen to 2 lanes each direction. At 104th Ave. SE, lengthen EB right turn lane and add WB left turn lane; Dead end 102nd Ave. SE at 8th Street and connect it to 104th Ave SE via a new street segment; At 105th Ave SE, add EB right turn lane, and SB left turn lane. $18,500,000 Project Group B -New City Street Projects (Cont.) Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2-19 8th Street NE /Lea Hill Rd M Street to 124th Ave SE SE 284th /SE 288th St 124th Ave SE to 132nd Ave SE A Street Loop A Street SW to A Street SE A Street SE /C Street SW Ellingson Road 29th Street SE R Street SE Riverwalk Drive Auburn Way S West Valley Highway 37th St NW to north City limits, and 15th St SW to SSR 18 Subtotal (Project Group B) $114,580,000 $194,577,000 37 34 Coordinate signals at A and C Street together. At A Street, add additional WB thru lane; At C Street, restripe to allow SB left turn lane. Include sidewalks on all legs of both intersections. $1,500,000 35 Add one SB and one NB thru lane from 300' north of intersection to 300' south of intersection. Include bikelanes and sidewalks on all legs of intersection. $3,100,000 Provide dual left turn lanes on EB and WB approaches; Stripe north and south legs for 2 receiving lanes. Include sidewalks on all legs, and bikelanes on Auburn Way. $2,400,000 Total (Project Groups A A & B) $1,700,000 Add one-way (EB) road with unsignalized free right turn at A Street SE. Include sidewalks both sides of new road. 31 Expand current two-lane roadway to 4-lanes, including widening of the Green River Bridge. Include bike lanes and sidewalks. $37,000,000 *Cost estimate does not include AWN to M Street segment, but would include most of the costs associated with projects 22, 23, and 25. Widen to 2 lanes each direction, and include sidewalks both sides; Between Main Street and SR 18, add bikelanes both sides or non-motorized trail on one side. $16,000,000 32 Construct new collector linking 284th Street at 124th Ave. to 288th Street at 132nd Ave. Road will be one lane each direction with bike lanes and sidewalks. $7,700,000 33 36 Project Group B -New City Street Projects (Cont.) Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2-20 Auburn Bypass SR 18 to SR 164 SR 164 SR 18 to Academy SR 167 I-405 to SR 509 SR 18 At SR 167 40 From I-405 to SR 18, add one NB and one SB general purpose lane; From SR 18 to SR 161, add one NB HOT lane and one SB HOT lane; Add direct NB/SB HOV/HOT lane connection ramps between SR 167 & I-405; Add NB and SB auxiliary lanes between I-405 and S 180th Street; Add NB and SB auxiliary lanes between SR 516 and S 277th Street; Extend SR 167 from SR 161 to SR 509 $4.4 B 41 Complete ramp from EB SR 18 to SB SR 167 and eliminate SR 18 access from West Valley Highway near Peasley Canyon. Included in Project 40 39 Widen road to two lanes each direction plus a center two-way left turn lane. Upgrade the intersection of Auburn Way South and Dogwood Street to accommodate Bypass traffic. $61 M Project Group C -Regional Transportation Projects 38 Create a new road connecting SR 18 east of R Street to SR 164 at Dogwood Street SE. $65 M Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2-21 FUTURE LEVEL OF SERVICE Each of the roadway improvement project groups was evaluated with a generalized levelof-service methodology using the VISUM software. This methodology produces an estimate of corridor LOS based upon the p.m. peak hour speeds along each roadway segment within a corridor. This methodology is consistent with, but not as detailed as, the LOS methodology used by the City to examine concurrency requirements. However, the modeled results provide a good measure with which to compare the relative transportation benefits associated with each of the project groups. Table 2-4 shows the LOS side-by-side for the three project group alternatives. Project Group A Project Group A contains committed City roadway projects that are expected to be implemented in the future. Some of the projects are completely funded. The City is actively seeking funding for the other projects on the TIP and in the CFP. While these projects will have have beneficial effects on traffic flow in the near future, by the year 2030 there will be considerable traffic congestion on the city street system, even with these improvements. Much of this congestion will be due to the growth in traffic on city streets created by new development in adjacent jurisdictions. Most of the principal and minor arterial routes within the City will experience moderate or high congestion levels in 2030 with Project Group A improvements only. Nine of the 42 established corridors will not meet their LOS standard by implementing Project Group A only. Project Group B Project Group B adds more city street widenings and spot improvements to Project Group A to address some of the most heavily congested roadways. These projects will improve the LOS in the Lea Hill neighborhood (such as 8th Street /Lea Hill Road) and along portions of 29th Street E, Riverwalk Drive, R Street, S 277th Street, and 3rd Street SW /Cross Street., R. In most of these situations, the LOS will improve but still remain at moderate to high congestion levels. Five of the 42 established corridors will not meet their LOS standard by implementing only Project Groups A and B. Project Group C Recognizing that city street improvements alone are unlikely to solve the City’s future traffic congestion, Project Group C considers the effects of implementing regional transportation capacity improvements on SR 167 and SR 164 in addition to Group A and B projects. Project Group C also includes the potential bypass that would provide a direct link in east Auburn between SR 18 and SR 164. These regional projects would provide substantial congestion relief along key Auburn streets, such as West Valley Highway (south of SR 18), A Street SE and C Street SW (both south of SR 18), Auburn Way South and, W Main Street. More traffic would remain on the state highways rather than city streets, while the bypass route would reduce congestion along much of Auburn Way South and M Street SE. Despite the improvements resulting from Project Groups A, A, B, and C, traffic congestion in 2030 would persist on several city arterial and collector corridors. The City will closely monitor these corridors and examine further actions that might be appropriate. Four of the 42 established corridors will not meet their LOS standard under Alternative 3, but many of them do show some improvement. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2-22 Group Groups Groups ID Corridor From To A A & B A, B, & C 1 Auburn Way North 15th St NE Northern City Limits C C B/C* 2 Auburn Way North East Main St. 15th St NE C C C 3 Auburn Way South East Main St. M St SE E E D 4 Auburn Way South M St SE Eastern City Limits F F C/F 5 M St./Harvey Auburn Way North East Main St. D D/E D/E 6 M St./Harvey East Main St Auburn Way South D/E D/E C/E 7 Evergreen Way Lakeland Hills Way Kersey Way A A A 8 37th St NE/NW West Valley Hwy I St. NE C/D C C 9 15th St NE/NW West Valley Hwy Auburn Way North C/D C/D C/D 10 Auburn Ave /"A" St SR 18 Southern City Limits D D C 11 Main St West Valley Hwy R St C C D/C 12 15th St SW West Valley Hwy C St SW F/E F/E F/E 13 C St SW Ellingson SR 18 D D B/D 14 West Valley Hwy Northern City Limits 15th Street NW B/D B/D B/D 15 S 277th St Frontage Rd. 108th Ave SE D C C 16 R St./Kersey Way Auburn Way S. Oravetz Road D/E C/D C/D 17 Lake Tapps Parkway East Valley Hwy. 182nd Ave E B B B B 18 "A" St SW/NW/"B" St NW 4th St NW S 277th St B/C B/C B/C 19 8th St NE/Lea Hill Rd. Auburn Way North 132nd Ave SE F/E E/D E/D 20 D St NW/Emerald Downs Dr S 277th St 15th St. NW B B B 21 I St NE S 277th St Harvey Rd B/C B/C C 22 132nd Ave SE SE 282nd St SE 312th St B/D C C 23 124th Ave SE SE 282nd St SE 320th. St D C/B C/B 24 104th Ave SE/SE 304th St 8th St NE 132nd Ave SE C C C 25 105th Pl SE/SE 320th St Lea Hill Road 124th Ave SE D C C 26 Lakeland Hills Way SE Lake Tapps Parkway Oravetz Rd A A A 27 29th St SE/Riverwalk Dr. A Street SE Auburn Way South E/C D/C C 28 108th Ave SE/112th Ave. SE S 277th St SE 304th St C/F A/D A/D 29 49th St NW B St NW S 277th St D/C D/B C/B 30 R Street SE** 8th St NE 4th Street SE B/A C/A C/A 31 3rd St SW/Cross St C Street Auburn Way South D/C C/B C/B 32 17th St SE A St SE Auburn Way South B B B 33 41st St SE/Ellingson Rd A St SE Western City Limits E/C E/C E/C 34 Lakeland Hills Way/Oravetz East Valley Hwy Kersey Way B B B 35 West Valley Hwy 15th Street NW Southern City Limits E E E/C 36 Kersey Way Oravetz Road Southern City Limits A/B A/B B 37 S. 316th Street/Terrace Drive West Valley Highway Western City Limits B/C B/C B 38 S. 296th Street/65th Ave West Valley Highway Western City Limits C C C 39 51st Ave S. S. 288th Street Peasley Canyon Rd D D D 40 S. 284th Street 112th Ave SE 124th Ave SE C C C 41 S. 284th Street 124th Ave SE 132nd Ave SE n/a C C 42 R St. Bypass/Black Diamond M Street SE SR 18 F/D F/D F/D *** Table 2-4. Future Project Groups -P.M. Peak Hour LOS in 2030 Split LOS indicates directional LOS in either the East-West or North-South direction. If there is no split, the LOS is the same in both directions. Corridor 30 assumes R Street terminates at 4th Street SE and does not connect to R Street Bypass Road. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2-23 FUTURE SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS FUTURE STREET IMPROVEMENTS The proposed future street plan consists of a combination of city street and regional transportation improvements, described in Table 2-3 and shown in Figure 2-6. The City cannot adequately solve traffic congestion by making city street improvements alone. Partnerships with WSDOT, King and Pierce Counties, and other agencies are essential to implementing the future street system in Auburn. The following actions are proposed: 1. Implement street projects prioritized in the City’s TIP and CFP; 2. Program and seek additional funding for street capacity projects not currently identified in the TIP and CFP; and 3. Work collaboratively with WSDOT and other partner agencies to implement roadway improvements on the regional highway network. DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN Auburn’s Downtown is undergoing considerable growth and transition to a higher density, mixed use town center. Major development including expansion of the Auburn Regional Medical Center and related businesses is occurring to the north of Main Street. Along Main Street and to the south, commercial, residential, and office development is planned. The transformation of downtown Auburn will include many changes to the public right-ofway and streetscape. A Downtown Circulation Plan will be developed to accommodate the many types of travelers that will be using downtown streets including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, truck operators, and personal vehicle users. An improved pedestrian and bicycle environment will need to be designed into the fabric of downtown Auburn. At the same time, there are several major north-south corridors which run through the downtown, so accommodation for high volumes of vehicular travel and the potential repercussions of modifying the existing street system will need to be considered in the development of the Downtown Circulation Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL PARK DISTRICT In the vicinity of the Environmental Park, to the west of downtown Auburn, the City is looking at establishing low impact roads and projects that add sidewalks, trails, and additional connectivity between Clay Street and Western Avenue. This area will be examined in more detail for transportation improvements as the concept for the Environmental Park District is further refined. 41ST STREET SE/ELLINGSON ROAD BETWEEN A ST SE AND C ST SW The area around 41st Street SE/Ellingson Road between A Street SE and C Street SW continues to be a chokepoint for Auburn drivers. This plan identifies some intersection improvements at the intersections of A and 41st Streets SE and C Street SW and Ellingson Road that will help to some degree. Still the close spacing of these two intersections, coupled with the numerous business and residential accesses in the area warrant a more in depth study of the area. This study will likely also include the entire A Street SE and C Street West Main Street, Downtown Auburn Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2-24 SW corridors, including evaluation of the two BNSF railyard crossing projects discussed below. The results of the 41st Street SE/Ellingson Road study will be incorporated into a future update of this plan. 6TH STREET SE & 15TH STREET SW RAIL YARD CROSSINGS The City has identified two additional projects that were not modeled in the future roadway improvement scenarios; a BNSF rail yard crossing at 6th Street SE and one at 15th Street SW, both of which would connect C Street SW and A Street SE via a grade-separated crossing. The City anticipates only one of the two projects will be necessary to accommodate the 2030 traffic demand. There are a variety of criteria that will enable the City to evaluate which project is ultimately chosen as the preferred alternative, including development of the BNSF property as a multi-modal rail yard, commercial development on Auburn Way South and A Street SE, development of the GSA property, funding feasibility, neighborhood impacts, transportation impacts, and engineering feasibility. Since these projects were not considered in the 2030 traffic model, it is difficult to access the projects’ impacts. However, it is expected both projects would increase east-west mobility in Auburn. The 15th Street crossing would also lead to considerable increases in traffic across the Terminal Park neighborhood. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT Transportation system management (TSM) techniques, which make more efficient use of the existing transportation system, can reduce the need for costly system capacity expansion projects. These techniques can also be used to improve LOS when travel corridors approach the adopted LOS standard. TSM techniques used by the City include: Rechannalization/restriping, adding turn lanes, adding /increasing number of through lanes; Signal interconnect and optimization; Turn movement restrictions; Access Management; and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). The City will continue to use these TSM techniques to maximize the efficiency of the street network. Of the various TSM strategies available, ITS is a relatively new technology being implemented by the City as a cost effective means of increasing system capacity. The ITS system enables the City to change traffic signals in real-time, thereby handling unusual increases in traffic or traffic obstacles such as event related traffic and accidents. For example, ITS has proven successful in mitigating the impact of event traffic traveling south on Auburn Way South, often during the PM peak, to the White River Amphitheatre. The City will continue to roll out ITS capabilities on corridors around the City, as referenced in Figure 2-7 and detailed in the ITS policies found in Chapter 5. In addition to TSM strategies, the City strives to provide viable alternatives for travelers, to ensure freedom of choice among several transportation modes, including transit, biking and walking as alternatives to the automobile. The City will prioritize the development of pedestrian-friendly environments such as bicycle routes and pedestrian paths as the nonmotorized system expands. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT Reducing congestion includes strategies to reduce demands on the transportation system. The State of Washington emphasized the importance of transportation demand management (TDM) by adopting the Commute Trip Reduction law 15 years ago. That law requires all major employers, with over 100 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2-25 employees arriving between the hours of 6:00 and 9:00 AM, to develop programs and strategies to reduce the number of commuter automobile trips made by their employees. Transportation demand management reduces demand on the street system. While TDM and TSM employ a different suite of strategies, they share many of the same benefits. Both increase the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce the need for costly capacity expansions, help improve LOS, and contribute to an enhanced quality of life for those who use and benefit from the transportation system. TDM strategies include: ride-sharing through vanpools and carpools; preferential parking for high-occupancy vehicles; car sharing programs; transit use incentives; parking management to discourage single occupant vehicle (SOV) travel; telecommuting; alternative work schedules to compress the work week or shift the commute outside the typical commute hours; and urban design encouraging non-motorized travel through design features. The City of Auburn will continue to encourage drivers of single occupancy vehicles to consider alternate modes of travel such as carpools, vanpools, transit, non-motorized travel, and alternative work schedules. STREET MAINTENANCE & REHABILITATION The City is responsible for maintaining the physical structure of the roadway system. However, pavement maintenance is costly, and sufficient funds are generally not readily available. Recognizing this dilemma, Auburn residents approved Proposition 1, the “Save Our Streets” (SOS) Program, in November 2004. The SOS program creates a dedicated local street fund for repair, rehabilitation, and maintenance of local roadways. SOS Program – Crack Seal SOS Program -Before Pavement SOS Program -Asphalt Overlay Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2-26 The City plans to create a similar program to establish a dedicated fund for the repair and maintenance of arterials and collectors. The City arterial and collector systems have been subjected to significant wear for years, with few mechanisms available to the City to funds repairs. Hence, the City will be seeking the support of residents, businesses, and state lawmakers to establish a fund to repair these corridors. As repairs are made, the City will be attentive to corridors with substantial freight and bus traffic. These corridors will be retrofitted, whenever possible, with design and construction features that accommodate truck and bus travel, such as thicker pavement and wider curb radii. NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS Transportation systems and facilities can have adverse impacts on neighborhoods. Impacts include safety problems due to speeding vehicles and increasing traffic volumes, increased traffic resulting from drivers seeking alternate routes to congested arterials, and the resulting air and noise pollution. Neighborhoods throughout the City are concerned with these traffic impacts and want to discourage traffic from using their streets for cut-through traffic. City policies discourage through traffic in neighborhoods. The City also has a traffic calming program that addresses the pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile traffic safety concerns that threaten neighborhoods. The traffic calming program is a community-based helps alleviate traffic safety concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and motorists. The program raises public awareness of traffic safety issues and ways that people can help minimize traffic problems in their own neighborhoods. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION The Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.070) provides that comprehensive plans should include a discussion of intergovernmental coordination efforts, including “an assessment of the impacts of the transportation plan and land use assumptions on the transportation systems of adjacent jurisdictions.” Auburn works closely with neighboring cities, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and state and regional agencies to ensure coordinated efforts are made in developing all modes of the transportation system. Among other efforts, the City of Auburn coordinates on both longrange planning efforts and ongoing development. Sources: City of Auburn, King County 190th Ave Bridget Ave Stuck River Dr 53rd St 55th St I ndustry Dr 1st Ave H St 2nd St 64th Ave O St 22nd St 3rd St 6th St 29th St 1st St A St Academy Dr Hemlock St 14th St 167th Ave Ct 32nd St 12th S t 116th Ave Pacific Ave 321st St Harvey Rd D St 118th Ave 116th Ave 316th St Howard Rd 272nd St 30th St E St 280th St 292nd St Kersey Way R St I St 304th Way 62nd St 296t h St 17th St 320th St 284 th St F St 37 th St 300th St 12th St 105th Pl 16th St 9th St 4th St 56th Ave 21st St Terrace Dr 210th Ave 41st St 29th St 15th St Oravetz Rd 15th St 8th St 37th St El lingson Rd 8th St Lea Hill Rd Peasley Canyon Rd C St Mount View Dr 51st Ave Lakeland Hills Way Sumner Tapps Hwy 124th Ave Auburn Way Main St A St 277th St G ST SW Dogwood St 182nd Ave Riverview Dr Mill Pond Dr Boundary Blvd M St 104th Ave 72nd Ave C St 55th Ave 285 th St Valley Hwy 132nd Ave 304th St C St Emerald Downs Dr Evergreen Way M St 112th Ave Green River Rd B St Valley Hwy UV164 UV18 UV167 UV18 UV516 Highway Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Future Minor Arterial Residential Collector, Type I Future Residential Collector, Type I Non-Residential Collector Future Non-Residential Collector Residential Collector, Type II Private Local City Limits 0 0.5 Miles ° Auburn Transportation Plan Functional Roadway Classification Figure 2-1 Sources: City of Auburn, King County 304th St 284th St 112th Pl 316th Ct 56th Ct 37th Pl 56th Pl 296th Ct 3 04th St 304th St 56th Ct 2 84th St 56th Ave 132nd Pl 112th Ave 37th Pl 288th St 56th St 56th Ave 56th Pl 296th Ct 56th Ave 56th Ave 124th Avct 284th Pl 304th St 124th Avct 132nd Ave 56th Pl 284th St 304th Way 284th St 124th Pl 296th Pl 288th Pl 37th St 316th Pl 288th St 124th Ave 132nd Ave 316th St 284th St 296th St 304th St 112th Ave 112th Pl 316th St 284th Way 316th St 288th St 112th Ave 296th St 288th St 37th Way 37th St 296th St 37th Pl 296th Pl 56th Ave 52nd St Auburn Black Diamond Rd 8th St Military Rd Auburn Ave C St 17th St 15th St Mountain View Dr Oravetz Rd 12th St M St Sumner Tapps Hwy 312th St 8th St Kersey Way 1st Ave Green River Rd 320th St 55th Ave 104th Ave Stewar t Rd Tapps Hwy Lea Hill Rd 15th St 288th St Kersey Way Ellingson Rd Auburn Way R St M St Milwaukee Blvd Pacific Ave 46th Pl 304th St C St Auburn Black Diamond Rd R St 3rd Ave Lake Holm Rd 8th St 24th St 288th St 210th Ave 132nd Ave 277th St 132nd Ave 321st St 124th Ave 342nd St 51st Ave Peasley Canyon Rd 105th Pl 94th Pl Valley Hwy 214th Ave Auburn Way Jovita Blvd 331st St Valley Hwy C St 1 6th St Valley Hwy 320th St A St 122nd Ave 272nd St 124th Ave 51st Ave A St 182nd Ave 3r d Ave 9th St Main St Valley Hwy UV18 UV516 UV167 UV164 UV167 UV18 4,500 13,016 4,500 1,496 8,750 2,591 5,790 16,864 2,161 5,790 1,488 862 5,200 24,189 403 278 5,892 15,388 5,168 8,633 4,185 3,343 23,799 23,746 7,929 18,476 6,711 2,500 28,390 18,390 781 1,748 2,991 4,817 4,234 2,344 22,104 4,500 20,257 255 22,010 2,237 22,982 7,806 4,845 6,031 1,771 5,759 2,984 1,533 354 5,408 17,442 4,167 3,920 16,227 13,806 35,986 1,295 706 2,115 7,200 36,964 5,860 18,256 7,636 9,091 8,900 3,968 1,742 3,025 5,6257,999 29,183 7,167 4,107 4,300 22,733 34,949 14,943 9,700 22,560 19,661 22,112 7,468 9,994 1,556 4,133 1,090 17,299 4,408 9,058 7,548 17,970 4,115 11,675 3,760 9,727 8,424 4,291 2,635 22,246 11,896 4,824 5,308 4,825 9,496 2,420 9,619 4,127 5,001 3,675 9,648 4,616 12,447 8,362 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 100 1,000 10,000 ADT Count Year City Limits 0 0.5 Miles ° Auburn Transportation Plan Average Daily Traffic Volumes Figure 2-2 ##,### 2009 ##,### 2008 Sources: City of Auburn, King County 37th Way 132nd Ave 37th St 316th St 316th St 56th Ave 56th Ave 284th Pl 37th St 124th Avct 2 96th St 304th Way 56th Pl 288th St 284th St 37th St 112th Pl 284th S t 37th Pl 132nd Ave 296th Pl 112th Ave 296th St 288th St 304th St 112th Ave 124th Ave Auburn Ave Auburn Way 321st St Peasley Canyon Rd Military Rd 1st Ave 17th St Main St 312th St Jovit a Blvd 8th St Stewart Rd Tapps Hwy Ellingson Rd Milwaukee Blvd Pacific Ave 3rd Ave 8th St 12th S t 9th St 182nd Ave 51st Ave 272nd St 320th St Valley Hwy Dieringer Hwy Valley Hwy 15t h St 277th St Valley Hwy Green River Rd 15th St Harvey Rd 331st St 210th Ave 24th St 342nd St 8t h St Lake Holm Rd R St 94th Pl 214th Ave 16th St 307th Pl 122nd Ave 46th Pl 105th Pl Kersey Way M St Lea Hill Rd 104th Ave 55th Ave A St A St C St 164 167 18 516 167 0 0.5 Miles Auburn Transportation Plan Truck Route Map Figure 2-3 Priority 1 Current Local Truck Route Future Local Truck Route Current Through Truck Route Future Through Truck Route Truck Route (Pavement Maintained by WSDOT) Priority 2 Current Local Truck Route Future Local Truck Route City Limits Sources: City of Auburn, King County 31 33 41 30 40 3229 6 2 5 3 7 12 9 38 8 16 34 37 36 22 25 14 27 42 26 28 35 11 13 17 20 23 1 21 39 2419 18 15 4 10 37th Way 132nd Ave 37th St 316th St 316th St 56th Ave 56th Ave 284th Pl 37th St 124th Avct 296th St 304th Way 56th Pl 288th St 284th St 37th St 112th Pl 284th St 37th Pl 132nd Ave 296th Pl 112th Ave 296th St 288th St 304th St 112th Ave 124th Ave Auburn Way 321st St Peasley Canyon Rd Military Rd 1st Ave 17th St Main St 312th St Jovita Blvd 8th St Stew art Rd Tapps Hwy Ellingson Rd R St Milwaukee Blvd Pacific Ave 3rd Ave 8th St 12th St 9th St 182nd Ave 51st Ave 272nd St 320th St Valley Hwy Dieringer Hwy Valley Hwy 15th St 277th St Valley Hwy Green River Rd 15th S t Harvey Rd 331st St 210th Ave 24th St 342nd St 8th St Lake Holm Rd R St 94th Pl 214th Ave 16th St 307th Pl 122nd Ave 46th Pl 105th Pl Kersey Way M St Lea Hill Rd 104th Ave 55th Ave A St A St C St UV164 UV167 UV18 UV516 UV167 Corridor Sections 0 0.5 City Limits Miles ° Auburn Transportation Plan Auburn Corridor Section Map Figure 2-4 Sources: City of Auburn, King County 24 27 33 30 26 37 28 32 2121 37 31A 3355 3344 3366 2222 22332255 2299 2200 11991188 31 88 10 77 22 11 33 55 44 11 17 99 16 1515 12 1133 661144 316th St 304th St 37th St 284th St 132nd Ave 132nd Ave 37th Way 56th Ave 56th Ave 284t h Pl 124th Avct 304th St 304th Way 112th Ave 3 7th St 316th St 37th St 296th St 56th Pl 288th St 284th St 37th Pl 112th Ave 296th St 112th Pl 288th St 124th Ave R St Milwaukee Blvd Pacific Ave 3rd Ave 17th St 307th Pl 277th St 342nd St 331st St 16th St 321st St Dieringer Hwy 15th St Harvey Rd 210th Ave 24th St 8th St Lake Holm Rd R St 46th Pl Kersey Way Peasley Canyon Rd 8th St 12th St Military Rd 9th St 182nd Ave Auburn Ave 51st Ave 272nd St 320th St Valley Hwy Jovita Blvd Valley Hwy Valley Hwy Green River Rd 15th St Main St 312th St 94th Pl 214th Ave 1st Ave 122nd Ave Stewart Rd Tapps Hwy M St Lea Hill Rd 104th Ave 55th Ave A St A St C St Auburn Way Ellingson Rd UV516 UV167 UV164 UV18 38 3838 39 4411 æ æ Project Group A* æ æ Project Group B* æ æ æ Project Group C* City Limits 0 0.5 Miles ° Auburn Transportation Plan Roadway Improvement Alternatives Figure 2-6 *Refer to Table 2-3 for project descriptions. Sources: City of Auburn, King County 37th Way 132nd Ave 37th St 304th St 31 6th St 316th St 56th Ave 56th Ave 284th Pl 37th St 124th Avct 296 th St 304th Way 56th Pl 288th St 284th St 37th St 124th Ave 112th Pl 284th St 37th Pl 132nd Ave 112th Ave 284th St 296th St 288th St 304th St 112th Ave 124th Ave Auburn Ave Auburn Way 321st St Peasley Canyon Rd Military Rd 1st Ave 17th St Main St 312th St Jovita Blvd 8th St Stewart Rd Tapps Hwy Ellingson Rd R St Milwaukee Blvd Pacific Ave 3rd Ave 8th St 12th St 9th St 182nd Ave 51st Ave 272nd St 320th St Valley Hwy Dieringer Hwy Valley Hwy 15th St 277th St Valley Hwy Green River Rd 15th St Harvey Rd 331st St 210th Ave 2 4th St 342nd St 8th St Lake Holm Rd R St 94th Pl 214th Ave 16th St 307th Pl 122nd Ave 46th Pl 105th Pl Kersey Way M St Lea Hill Rd 104th Ave 55th Ave A St A St C St UV164 UV167 UV18 UV18 UV516 UV167 City Signal XWPED Signal !. WSDOT Signal County Signal Existing ITS Corridor Future ITS Corridor 0 0.5 City Limits Miles ° Auburn Transportation Plan Intelligent Transportation Systems Figure 2-7 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-1 CHAPTER 3. NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION Non-motorized transportation is an integral component of Auburn’s transportation system. Non-motorized travel includes walking, bicycling, and equestrian travel, as well as emerging modes. The City seeks to enhance the non-motorized travel environment both for recreational travel and trips that might otherwise be taken via a car or bus in order to improve mobility and environmental health. The City recognizes that the evolution of the transportation system has favored the automobile as a mode of travel. A side effect of this process has been the erosion of conditions favorable to non-motorized travel. This chapter seeks to expand travel choices by fostering conditions in which nonmotorized modes are a realistic and attractive travel option. Planning and developing a strong nonmotorized network supports several state and national acts, including Washington’s Growth Management Act, Clean Air Act, and Commute Trip Reduction Act, and the federal Clean Air Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) and its successors. Supporting the non-motorized system helps ensure compliance with these initiatives and the healthy community principles espoused by PSRC through the Destination 2030 update process and Vision 2040. It also increases funding opportunities for City projects. This chapter is divided into three subsections: pedestrian travel, bicycle travel, and equestrian travel. Each subsection contains an assessment of existing conditions and needs, followed by guidelines for development of the future system. 3.1 Pedestrian Travel As an urban center, the City encourages transportation planning that emerges from a clear land-use plan based on a community vision. In this vision, Auburn supports higher density housing in the downtown; neighborhood commercial districts; and landscaped, pedestrian-oriented street and sidewalk design. This pattern of development reinforces a positive pedestrian environment. NEEDS ASSESSMENT Auburn has many assets, which contribute to a welcoming pedestrian environment, most notably a pedestrian-scaled downtown and an extensive network of parks and trails. The Riding on the Interurban Trail Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-2 needs assessment highlights these existing assets and identifies improvement needs. EXISTING PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT As a whole, Auburn’s urban fabric in the downtown has remained intact and supports a positive pedestrian environment. Businesses, shops, and single-family homes front streets with sidewalks and street trees. However, over time surface parking lots have replaced some of these buildings, leaving large expanses of asphalt in portions of the downtown. These environments tend to discourage walking. In addition, some of the older sections of sidewalks need repair or replacement. Since adoption of the 1997 Transportation Plan, there have been improvements to Main Street, the B Street SE Plaza, and pedestrian improvements behind the shops on East Main Street. In addition, the new Sounder commuter rail station and transit hub at West Main Street and C Street SW provide pedestrians more options for connecting to regional destinations. These improvements contribute to a more hospitable environment for pedestrians. Commercial development outside the downtown exists primarily along arterials and is dominated by strip development and autooriented businesses. Although sidewalks are provided on most arterials, pedestrians may feel exposed to the traffic. Surface parking lots border the sidewalks, and driveways interrupt the continuity of the sidewalk system. The heavy volumes of vehicular traffic and wide streets along arterials, such as Auburn Way, pose a barrier for pedestrians walking along or crossing the roadway. Two particularly problematic locations are the midblock crossing between Dogwood Street SE and Hemlock Street SE at Auburn Way South, and 26th Street NE at Auburn Way North. Sidewalk Inventory A sidewalk inventory was conducted as part of the Plan update in 2005. A subsequent inventory was conducted in 2008 to collect sidewalk data for the West Hill and Lea Hill areas that annexed into the City in 2008. The inventory inventory identifies sidewalks in the City, as shown in Figure 3-1. The inventory also rates their condition. This inventory will help the City identify problem areas and program improvements according to prioritization guidelines, outlined later in this chapter. The following paragraphs describe the survey and other findings. The older residential neighborhoods tend to have sidewalks on both sides of the street, but they vary widely in condition and construction standards. Some residential areas, such as southwest Lea Hill, were built under King County’s jurisdiction and sidewalk construction was not required. Breaks in the sidewalk network require pedestrians to maneuver around parked cars, into private yards, or into the street. In newer neighborhoods such as Lakeland Hills, Crosswalk with Pedestrian Refuge 3rd Street NW at Auburn Post Office Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-3 sidewalks built to current standards are provided on both sides of the street. The sidewalk survey of the Lea Hill and West Hill annexation areas reveals a sporadic and often disconnected sidewalk system. Several of the newer residential developments have sidewalks, but many of the older residential areas and arterial streets are missing large segments of sidewalk, resulting in a poor pedestrian environment. Trail Network Auburn’s developing trail network provides local and regional connections for recreational use, commuting and travel in general. Currently the only regional trails that have been developed include the Interurban and portions of the Green River and White River Trails. The Lakeland Hills Trail provides residents in the neighborhood a connection to Sunset Park. Figure 3-1 summarizes the existing pedestrian infrastructure within the Auburn city limits. SCHOOL ACCESSIBILITY School safety is a major concern for parents, students, the school districts, and the City alike. The Auburn School District, working with an advisory committee, has established a safe walking area for each elementary and middle school based on the presence of sidewalks, walking paths, and safe neighborhood streets, as well as the availability of safe street crossings and the traffic conditions in the surrounding neighborhoods. All routes within the safe walking areas are designated as ‘Safe Routes to School’. Occasionally, individual schools will notify parents and students of preferred walking routes within each area. Recently, several safety improvements have been made to Safe Walking Routes throughout Auburn. Olympic Middle School now has a non-motorized path on H Street SE adjacent to the school, flashing beacons on 17th Street SE and 21st Street SE, as well as new crosswalks at several locations. These improvements were made possible by a Safe Routes to School grant. The City has also been steadily working on placing flashing beacons on Safe Walking Routes for public schools in Auburn. The flashing beacons have been funded through a combination of grant programs and City resources. Despite the progress that has been made over the past several years, there are still areas of need. The following issues and needs were identified to enhance and improve the safety for school children in and around the school safe walking areas. Cascade Middle School The crossing at M Street NE and 24th Street NE experiences heavy traffic. The City and school district are working to increase the safety of this crossing near the school. Dick Scobee Elementary School The “River Bend” or “River View” neighborhood has indirect access to the school as pedestrians must exit the neighborhood to the east via Riverview Drive, the opposite direction of the school. Furthermore, heavy vehicular traffic on 22nd Street NE makes it unsafe to cross M Street NE at that intersection. The School District is exploring ways to improve access and make the neighborhood part of the school’s safe walking area. One possible solution would be to obtain an easement and construct a pedestrian path from the neighborhood to 14th Street NE. Pedestrian improvements are also needed along K Street NE from Harvey Road NE to 14th Street NE. Pioneer Elementary School K Street SE, located behind the school, has poor drainage. During the rainy season, an area between the school building and the road Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-4 floods, blocking the school entrance with water. This area is part of the designated safe walking area, and the flooding prohibits 50 to 75 students from accessing their walking route to and from school on rainy days. Terminal Park Elementary School There is a natural tendency for kids to walk from Terminal Park Elementary to Holy Family School and Olympic Middle School. A pedestrian trail that connects these three schools would provide a direct route for pedestrians. Evergreen Heights Elementary School The area around Evergreen Heights Elementary School, including S. 316th Street, 56th Avenue S., and 51st Avenue S., has incomplete pedestrian facilities. In addition, residents have noted that South 316th Street needs improved speed enforcement. Hazelwood Elementary School Sections of SE 304th Street near Hazelwood Elementary School are missing sidewalks. Lea Hill Elementary School There is a need for sidewalks along 124th Ave Ave SE north of SE 310th Street, and along SE 312th St in vicinity of 124th Ave SE. Mountain View High School There is a need for sidewalks along 124th Ave SE where missing near school, especially between SE 288th St and SE 304th St, and along 132nd Ave SE between SE 288th St and SE 299th St. Auburn will continue to work with the Auburn School District, and other school districts within its limits and potential annexation areas to improve school walk routes. Riverside High School & Ilalko Elementary While they are not within the Safe Walking Route areas, students on the north side of the White River attend both Riverside High School and Ilalko Elementary. The completion of a White River/A Street SE pedestrian crossing would greatly benefit student at these two schools. Currently, the closest route to reach these two schools requires children to walk north to 41st/Ellingson Road. ACCESSIBLE ROUTES OF TRAVEL The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that all new public, commercial and institutional developments meet ADA standards. Furthermore, existing public buildings, public outdoor facilities, and public rights-of-way shall be retrofitted to achieve accessibility. An accessible route of travel is designated to accommodate the needs of many different people, including those who are blind, using wheelchairs, pushing a stroller or cart, or injured. The law requires that municipalities have a transition plan in place to address ADA issues. The City of Auburn details the ADA design specifications in the Auburn Engineering Design Standards manual. Safe Walking Route to School Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-5 SITE DESIGN Pedestrian conditions should be evaluated at the earliest stage of new development. The zone between the development and the public right-of-way needs to contribute to pedestrian network connectivity and continuity. In addition to the public right-ofway, the interior of the site ought to be examined for suitable pedestrian circulation. Wherever possible, walkways should be placed along the most direct routes to connect buildings, parking, bus stops, and other attractions. In some cases, walking trails that link residential streets to collectors or arterials can provide a more direct pedestrian connection than travel along the sidewalk network, particularly in neighborhoods without a street grid system. FUTURE SYSTEM This section describes the City’s vision for the future pedestrian system and identifies programs and initiatives that will enable it to achieve this vision. DOWNTOWN The downtown is historically the social heart of the community, a place for people to interact. It is considered one of the primary pedestrian-oriented areas in the City. Important existing pedestrian downtown linkages include connections from W Main Street to the transit hub and commuter rail station, and between W Main Street and the Auburn Regional Medical Center. The Downtown Plan, a special area plan adopted in 2001 as part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, anticipates high pedestrian oriented developments in this area, particularly around the Auburn Transit Center. The Downtown Plan also identifies W Main Street, A Street SW, Division Street, and the alley south of Main Street as high priority pedestrian corridors. In addition, several recently West Main Street, Downtown Auburn ADA Standards The ADA has several requirements to help ensure ease of access for all non-motorized travelers, including those in wheelchairs and motorized scooters. Some of these requirements are as follows. In most cases, a minimum 3-foot wide clear zone must be provided along a route with obstacles. Railings should be between 34” and 38”. If children are the primary users of a facility, a 2nd set of handrails, no taller than 28”, should be installed. Generally, grades along an accessible route walking path should not exceed 1:20 or 5%. Ramp slopes should not exceed 1:12 or 8.33% in new facilities. If a designated accessible route has a grade greater than 5%, it is considered a ramp and must have handrails and landings. Source: ADA and Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) Guidelines, http://www.accessboard.gov, 2004. *Note these standards change regularly and should be confirmed before applying them to a site design. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-6 completed projects have helped improve non-motorized access to the downtown and transit station, including the West Main Street Streetscape project, completed in 2007, and the A Street SE Pedestrian Improvement project, designed to improve ADA access under the railroad bridge just north of 6th Street SE and completed in 2009. A Downtown Circulation planning process is also underway. This effort will provide guidance for further enhancement of the pedestrian and bicycling environment in downtown Auburn. The Sound Transit commuter rail station and transit hub have created demand for new mixed-use development, including retail and living spaces. The City is committed to focusing new commercial and residential development within walking distance of the transit hub and has been working on partnerships to bring several mixed-use developments to the downtown core. These development provide an opportunity to establish pedestrian friendly design, streetscape improvements (including street furniture), and improved street crossings along streets exterior to, and within the development. In order to create a foundation for the anticipated downtown revitalization, it is vital to have a pedestrian network that extends beyond the downtown in place. COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS Auburn has several commercial corridors, most notably Auburn Way North and South, that are frequently traveled by pedestrians. While most of these areas have sidewalks, there is the opportunity to enhance the pedestrian environment. For instance, pedestrian crossing issues arise because pedestrians often cross at unsignalized locations rather than walking to the nearest signalized crossing. This dynamic is partially attributable to the location of bus stops in relation to employment centers. Hence, efforts should be made to locate bus stops so commuters crossing to the opposite side of the road are dropped off and picked up near a signalized intersection. Likewise, the City should encourage major employers to locate near transit routes and stops. Furthermore, pedestrian connections from residential areas to commercial corridors can be enhanced through site design policies that encourage more direct non-motorized connections to major retail locations. Future planning along commercial corridors should also include amenities such as landscaping adjacent to the sidewalk, improved pedestrian crossings, and enhanced bus stops at high use locations. RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS Investment in Auburn’s neighborhoods is an essential component of providing a comprehensive and functional pedestrian network. As noted in the needs assessment, sidewalk conditions vary throughout the City. This plan acknowledges the need to retrofit the pedestrian network in many areas of the City and incorporate pedestrian facilities into new development. Financial mechanisms to help accomplish this goal are described later in this chapter. LEA HILL AND WEST HILL AREAS The Lea Hill and West Hill areas were annexed into the City of Auburn in 2008. Because these areas were developed largely under a county rural standard, many of the streets are lacking pedestrian facilities, resulting in a disconnected pedestrian system that has both safety and quality of life repercussions. A sidewalk inventory was conducted in Lea Hill and West Hill in 2008 to identify gaps in the sidewalk network and help the City prioritize areas for targeted Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-7 investment. Refer to Figure 3-1 to view existing sidewalks. HIGH PRIORITY PEDESTRIAN CORRIDORS Figure 3-2 identifies High Priority Pedestrian Corridors that are currently lacking a complete sidewalk system. Some of the corridors have sidewalks on one side or for portions of the corridor. Others are missing sidewalks altogether. These High Priority Pedestrian Corridors were selected based on the following criteria: pedestrian volumes; proximity to schools, parks, transit routes and commercial areas; and where missing gaps can be completed. The High Priority Pedestrian Corridors are roadway corridors where the City intends to target investment in pedestrian facilities. The City’s current half street policy requires sidewalk to be installed by developers whenever significant improvements are made to a property. This has proven to be an effective means of building out the sidewalk network. However, it is a slow process because it it relies on new development or redevelopment to occur, making it difficult to complete whole corridors. By programming specific pedestrian corridors for investment, the City can leverage grant dollars and other resources to more strategically complete gaps in key pedestrian corridors. The High Priority Pedestrian Corridors identified in Figure 3-2 should be reviewed regularly for inclusion in the City’s Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program and for grant funding opportunities. AUBURN PARKS, RECREATION & OPEN SPACE PLAN 2005 The Auburn Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan identifies specific projects for the development of local and regional trails. The Auburn-Pacific trail will provide a multi-use path that improves access from the White River to downtown. A planned pedestrian crossing, under the BNSF railroad tracks just north of the White River Bridge, will improve the regional trail system by providing a connection to the City of Pacific. Funding is still needed for the White River Trail connection connection to A Street SE and the north Auburn section of the Green River Trail. Private development may help fund a portion of the two-mile segment of the Green River Trail. Planning efforts are also focused on the Mill Creek Corridor/Auburn Environmental Park and southeast trails. This park project will introduce residents to the ecosystem along the creek. More detail on all of these efforts can be found in the Trails chapter of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. An important component of Auburn’s trail system includes trailheads. Trailheads should be inviting to users and provide amenities such as parking, bicycle racks, information Auburn Multi-Use Trail Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-8 kiosks, restroom facilities, water fountains, trash receptacles, and seating facilities. Trailheads should be constructed and improved as Auburn’s trail system further develops. See Figure 3-4 for existing and proposed trails and trailhead locations. FUNDING MECHANISMS Sidewalk Improvement Program The City of Auburn developed the Sidewalk Improvement Program in 2004 to repair existing sidewalks and complete missing links in the sidewalk network. These funds are essential for promoting non-motorized travel and can be used to leverage other funding sources, such as state and federal grants. Auburn has identified three principal areas in which sidewalk improvements should be prioritized: corridors that provide access to and within the downtown, school zones, and parks. Additional criteria for priority access improvement could include, but are not limited to, areas with high concentrations of senior citizens or disabled citizens, citizens, areas with high volumes of pedestrian-transit interaction, and areas where property owners are willing to financially participate in the construction of sidewalk improvements through a local improvement district (LID). The selection of future sidewalk improvements relies on a hierarchy of existing conditions. The call-out box lists some key conditions that will be considered when prioritizing projects. “Save Our Streets” Program In November 2004, Auburn residents approved Proposition 1, “Save Our Street” Program, which creates a dedicated local street fund. This money will be set aside for repair and maintenance of local roadways. In addition, priority will be given to improving street crossings that are identified as safe walking routes to schools or are near essential public facilities. Projects under this program may also include enhanced pedestrian and bicycle facilities on or near roadways under repair. “Arterial Streets” Program With the success of the “Save Our Streets” Program for residential streets, the City is reviewing the potential of implementing a similar program for arterial streets. Pedestrian amenities and safety improvements would be included in many of the arterial improvement projects funded by such a program. Local Improvement Districts Local Improvement Districts (LID) enable city investment in a specified area by leveraging city funds with contributions from property owners in the district. LID’s use limited city resources to improve neighborhood quality and can be used to finance new sidewalks. Sidewalks will be prioritized: Where hazardous conditions are present; On school walk routes; Where extensive improvements are needed in a single neighborhood; Along streets with curb and gutter; Along Downtown pedestrian corridors; Where curb ramps are missing; and Where they will complete a missing link in a pedestrian network. Where property owners are willing to financially participate in the construction of sidewalk improvements through an LID. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-9 SAFETY EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT Awareness of pedestrian safety issues should be promoted through educational programs and enforcement efforts. This combination helps reinforce key safety issues such as safe pedestrian crossings and speeding. The City will proactively work to identify problem areas and issues. The following list contains examples of some techniques that can be employed in these efforts. Establishing non-motorized travel information kiosks at key City destinations (e.g. Main Street, Supermall, Emerald Downs, trails). Displaying educational information in City publications, on the website, and on TV. Developing wayfinding signage to direct pedestrians and bicyclists. Partnering with the School District to teach children safe walking and biking behaviors. Launching public information campaigns for problematic locations and partnering with the Police Department to provide enforcement. Increasing driver awareness of vehicle speeds through the presence of radar speed signs and photo enforcement in school zones. Enforcing pedestrian, bicyclist, and driver infractions, and posting signage to reinforce this priority. 3.2 Bicycle Travel Bicycle facilities are an important component of Auburn’s transportation and recreational infrastructure. Bicycling provides a clean, non-motorized form of transportation and allows citizens to maintain a healthy lifestyle. It also helps improve traffic congestion and air quality by providing an alternative to driving. Increasingly, bicycle commuting is becoming a more popular alternative, and the City must take steps to provide a more functional and attractive network for commute cyclists, in addition to recreational cyclists. NEEDS ASSESSMENT EXISTING CONDITIONS The topography in many parts of Auburn is flat and conducive to cycling for a range of skill levels. Areas along the Green and White Rivers provide recreational opportunities for multi-use trails that support bicyclists, pedestrians and equestrians. The Interurban Trail is part of a major north-south regional trail system. The Green River trail is also an extension of a north-south regional trail. Therefore, Auburn has a good network of existing or planned north-south recreational trails. However, there are few existing crosstown connections and new connections onto the West Hill and Lea Hill are needed. Recreational and commuter cyclists travel along the Interurban Trail to areas north and south of Auburn. Cyclists also frequently ride along S 277th to the east side of Green River Road, and down along the Green River to 8th Street NE, or down R Street NE to SE Auburn Black Diamond Road. SE Auburn Black Diamond Road and SE Green Valley Road are popular routes for accessing areas east of Auburn. However, these roads are characterized by dangerous cycling conditions and are not suitable for inexperienced cyclists. Also, once in Auburn, there is no clear direction for traveling within and through the City. Bicycle lanes are extremely limited on city arterials and collectors, making it difficult both for regional and local riders to navigate for any reasonable distance through the City. Limited bicycle storage is also a hindrance to cyclists. Figure 3-3 identifies existing trails and bike lanes in the City. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-10 Table 3-1 Existing Bicycle Facilities Facility Potential Primary Users Mileage within City Limits Hard-surface Trail Bicyclists Pedestrians 28.5 miles Soft-surface Trail Equestrians Off-road Cyclists Pedestrians 2.17 miles On-street Bike Lane Bicyclists 7 miles BICYCLE FACILITY CLASSIFICATION The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has developed classifications for bicycle facilities and parking. Bicycle classification is based on the design and exclusiveness of use. Class I multi-use trails that allow bicycles include the Interurban, White River, and Green River Trails. Some Class II bicycle lanes are located at: S 277th Street, between the West Valley Hwy and B Street NW; 22nd Street NE between I and M Streets NE; 12th and 17th Street SE between A Street SE and Auburn Way; S 21st Street SE between A Street SE and R Street SE; 29th Street SE/Riverwalk Drive SE between A St. SE and 28th St. SE; and Terrace Drive. Bike parking facilities are classified by length of use: long term, medium term, and short term. The longer bikes are to be stored, the more durable the facility’s design must be. Bike storage facilities are located at only a few locations throughout the City. These include the transit center, which provides 12 bike rack spaces and eight spots in the lockers. Table 3-1 lists existing bicycle facilities; Figure 3-3 identifies facility locations. IMPROVEMENT NEEDS Cyclists desire safe routes that make connections throughout the City and to regional points of interests. The existing facilities fall short of creating a bicycle network in Auburn. They are isolated from one another. If unfamiliar with the terrain and/or unskilled, cyclists may find it difficult to bike through Auburn. Bicycle Facility Classification Separate Facility (Class I) – A nonmotorized facility, paved or unpaved, that is physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open space or barrier. It is sometimes referred to as a Bicycle Path, Bike Trail, Nonmotorized Trail, Multi-purpose Trail or some combination thereof. Bike Lane (Class II) – A portion of a roadway that is designated by striping, signing, and pavement markings for preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists. Typically these lanes are located outside of the vehicle travel lane. Bike Route (Class III) – A segment of road designated by the jurisdiction with appropriate directional and informational markers, but without striping, signing and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists. Bike Friendly (Class IV) – A roadway not designated by directional and informational markers, striping, signing, or pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists, but containing appropriate bicyclefriendly design standards such as wide curb lanes and bicycle safe drain grates. Source: Engineering Design Standards Manual, City of Auburn Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-11 The City plans to build out the bicycle network and provide better east-west connections. Upgrading bicycle facilities on city streets is an important component of this plan. Auburn shall make greater efforts in the future to encourage bicycle use, particularly for commuting purposes, as a form of transportation demand management (TDM). One mechanism of doing so is to encourage major employers to locate near trails and bicycle routes, and to provide facilities conducive to bicycling to work. Also, the City needs to take a more aggressive role in programming implementation of the future bicycle network identified in this chapter, ensuring that eventually all residents of and employees in Auburn feel comfortable commuting on bike. In addition, Auburn should seek outlets, including the City’s website, to provide up-to-date information on bicycling options within the City and to regional destinations. The Commute Trip Reduction ((CTR) program provides a formal mechanism for encouraging these practices and is required by state law for employers with 100 or more employees arriving at a single location during the AM peak. Auburn’s CTR program calls out bicycle storage facilities, lockers, changing areas, and showers as measures employers can take to meet CTR goals. In addition, Auburn can use the SEPA process to encourage development of these facilities at the time of new development or tenant improvements. The Downtown Plan also discusses the need for improving bicycle facilities in the area. Onstreet bicycle facilities will be sought in association with planned roadway improvements. In addition, the City should investigate providing bicycle storage and other amenities on city owned properties. FUTURE TRAVEL The future bicycle network includes corridors for regional , recreational , and cross-town connections. The regional corridors will provide connections to the Valley communities as well other areas of King and Pierce Counties. Local biking groups have identified the Interurban Trail and Green River Trail as important regional connections. Other planned regional connections will link Auburn to attractions around the Puget Sound Region including Mount Rainer, the Port of Tacoma, and the Cities of Seattle and Woodinville. The Green and White River corridors are multi-functional, providing recreational opportunities for regional and local bicycle trips. Therefore, the City has prioritized the completion of both these trail systems. Also, Auburn will seek to enhance portions of City trail systems whenever possible, by providing amenities for non-motorized travelers such as rest areas, as well as safety improvements including warning signage and grade separated trails. Additional cross-town connections that complete the bicycle network will consist of local trails and onroad facilities linking Auburn's neighborhoods. The Work is Easier when Shared Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-12 The bicycle routes identified for future development link to existing multi-use trails and bike lanes. The R Street corridor from Auburn Black Diamond Road to 12th Street SW will provide a north-south connection between the Terminal Park neighborhood and other future bicycle lanes linking to the downtown and North Auburn. A future connection between Auburn Black Diamond Road and Auburn Way S is also proposed. The future Bonneville Power Trail will be a separated, hard surfaced trail crossing the Lea Hill area and connecting to the Interurban Trail and West Hill via on-street bicycle facilities. Numerous other on-street bicycle facilities and trails are planned. They are all identified in Figure 3-4, found at the end of this chapter. The selection of bike facility projects will be based upon safety, route continuity and connectivity issues. In addition to new bicycle corridors, spot safety improvements are an important component of the City’s future bicycle network. Improvements are needed at 15th Street SW and the Interurban Trail and C Street SW and Ellingson. In addition, safe access to downtown Auburn and onto West Hill and Lea Hill are a priority for the City. Typical bicycle route improvements along a Class I facility include purchasing the rightof-way, designing the trail, and constructing the trail and trailhead. For a Class II pathway, improvements include striping lanes, installing warning and directional signage, and painting bike symbols on the pavement. As this plan is updated in the future, emphasis should continue to be placed on developing a safe and convenient bicycling environment for both recreational and commuter cyclists of all experience levels. 3.3 Equestrian Travel Auburn citizens have a long history of supporting the planning and development of equestrian facilities. The City intends to increase its network of soft-surface, multi-use trails in more rural locations with appropriate facilities suitable for for equestrian use. NEEDS ASSESSMENT EXISTING CONDITIONS Auburn’s equestrian trail system is quite limited. The Parks Department currently manages a two-mile, soft-surface trail, along the White River at Roegner and Game Farm Wilderness Parks. Otherwise, there are no formal equestrian trails in Auburn. Horse owners do have informal access to the soft-surface path adjacent to the Interurban trail, as well as large open spaces in the rural area just south of the White River and east of Kersey Way in southeast Auburn. To reach the open areas, many ride along the edge of roads such as 53rd and 56th Streets SE. These are narrow roads with gravel shoulders. Drainage swales run parallel to many portions of these roads, and while conditions vary, typically there is a narrow unpaved shoulder or grassed area alongside the road where horses can walk. Table 3-2 Existing Equestrian Facilities Facility Potential Primary Users Within Auburn City Limits Within Auburn PAA Softsurface Trail Equestrians Off-road Cyclists Pedestrians 2.17 miles 2 miles + Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-13 IMPROVEMENT NEEDS The lack of equestrian trail miles in the City and connectivity to regional equestrian facilities are two areas that need improvement. As indicated by Table 3-3, there are currently two-miles of formal equestrian trails in the City. This is a barrier to most equestrians, particularly those bringing horses via trailer. In order to become a more equestrian friendly community, Auburn must undertake planning initiatives to expand the current network and link to regional trails. Auburn, as a regionally designated Urban Center, is becoming increasingly urbanized. As the City continues to urbanize, it will seek opportunities to include equestrian planning in its infrastructure improvements. Special consideration for equestrian facilities should be given to southeast Auburn and the Lea Hill potential annexation area as both have existing equestrian communities. Loop trail development is one strategy that can be employed to increase the length of equestrian trails in Auburn. Loop trails can be linked to existing linear facilities, thereby increasing network miles. Opportunities to expand the equestrian trail system should be considered in all future infrastructure planning and development. Features such as busy arterial streets, steep slopes and narrow bridges are barriers to equestrian travel. Hence, equestrian trail planning should go hand in hand with other planning activities the City is undertaking. When planning equestrian trails, other facilities such as trailer parking and directional signage must be accommodated. FUTURE SYSTEM The southeast Auburn area, south of the White (Stuck) River and east of Kersey Way, should be designated as an Equestrian District. Future development in this area should be consistent with that designation. Southeast Auburn is particularly suitable as an Equestrian District because it contains a City watershed, shorelines of statewide significance, and numerous critical areas. Equestrian trails may be situated near some of these features, whereas more intense development may be unsuitable. Equestrian trails may also be appropriate for parts of Lea Hill, and should be evaluated as the area annexes into the City. When locating equestrian trails along rural roads, it may be appropriate to maximize trail potential by constructing a wider shoulder able to accommodate equestrian travel on one side of the road. Members of the equestrian community in Auburn have emphasized the desire for a trail connection between Roegner Park and southeast Auburn. One potential alignment would be along a route roughly parallel to Kersey Way and 53rd Street SE. The Parks Plan identifies this future trail as the Williams Trail. Potential obstacles include critical area impacts and right-of-way acquisition. The topography along Kersey Way includes steep hillsides and large drainage swales. As trail planning progresses to a more detailed level, other alignments should be evaluated. The equestrian routes identified for future development are concentrated along the White River, the Green River, and in the properties in southeast Auburn that are owned by public and semi-public organizations. These routes are identified as soft-surface, multi-use trails that are suitable for riding and walking. Construction costs and the extent of clearing needed are much Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-14 less for soft-surface trails than for paved trails. Some of the soft-surface trails are proposed to occur in conjunction with a paved trail. Summaries of trails that are appropriate for equestrian use are listed in Table 3-3. Design specifications for equestrian trails will be incorporated into the Auburn Engineering Design Standards manual. 3.4 Future Nonmotorized System Auburn’s future non-motorized system consists of an interconnected network of sidewalks, bike lanes, multi-use trails, and equestrian paths. The list of proposed projects in Table 3-3 is developed for planning purposes. Figure 3-4 identifies the location of the trail projects identified in Table 3-3 and maps the future trail and bicycle network. This network will provide regional, recreational and citywide connections for a variety of non-motorized modes. The completed portions of the Interurban and Green River Trails connect pedestrians, cyclists, and equestrians to areas north and south of Auburn, while the White River Trail provides for east-west travel. Additional bike lanes through town and completion of the paved trail network will guide cyclists safely to points of interests and through congested areas of the City. The establishment of an equestrian district and trails in the southeast portion of the City permits more opportunities for equestrian travel in scenic areas. Pedestrians will be able to travel more safely and comfortably with the completion of the sidewalk network, new crossings and street lighting, increased driver awareness, and better street design near schools and frequently traveled pedestrian locations. The addition of the BNSF undercrossing, just north of the White River and west of A Street SE, will provide safe passage for pedestrians. A new trail connection along C Street SW will provide pedestrians and cyclists with a safer connection to downtown and the Transit Center. PROMOTING HEALTHY COMMUNITIES The City of Auburn envisions a transportation system that will help promote healthy community principles by coordinating land use, the non-motorized transportation system, and transit in a manner that encourages walking and bicycling. The Puget Sound Regional Council has identified several elements, which contribute to the desirability of walking, bicycling, and transit use.1 Concentrating complementary uses such as restaurants, retail and grocery stores proximate to residences and employment. Linking neighborhoods by connecting streets, sidewalks, and trails. Designing for safe and welcoming pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 1 Vision 2040 Update Issue Paper on Health: What’s Health Got to Do with Growth Management, Economic Development and Transportation?, Puget Sound Regional Council, Dec. 2, 2004. White River Trail Multi-Use Path Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-15 Enhancing transit opportunities and nonmotorized connections to transit facilities. Reducing and mitigating the effects of parking. These principles, many of which can be promoted by thoughtful transportation systems planning, encourage healthier communities by increasing physical activity and decreasing air pollution caused by vehicle emissions. Auburn has historically planned for a transportation system that incorporates many healthy community principles, such as transit facility planning and regional trail planning. In addition, the Downtown Plan calls for a mixed-use, high density, pedestrian oriented downtown. In the future, Auburn shall continue to promote these principles through long-range planning efforts, capital facility improvements, development review, and community activities involving active lifestyle elements. IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS The City has developed policies and identified funding strategies that will help implement the future non-motorized network. They can be found in Chapters 5 and 6 of this plan. The planning direction outlined in this chapter shall be used as the foundation for implementing the non-motorized policies and securing funding. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-16 Table 3-3 Future Trail and Bicycle Facility Projects Trail Name Description Potential Users Skinner-Road/3rd Avenue This trail, located within the City of Pacific, will provide connections for users west of the BNSF railroad to the White River Trail, the Supermall and downtown Auburn via the C Street trail. Bicyclists Pedestrians Green River Trail This paved trail will be part of a regional recreational corridor. King County is the lead administrator of the project but will work in collaboration with the City for the portion of the trail in Auburn. The trail alignment will extend along the west bank of the Green River from S 277tth St., south to Brannan and Dykstra Parks. It will then cross at the Dykstra Park bridge over to the east bank before crossing back to the west bank at the Green River beach access. A parallel trail on the east side of the Green River will exist between S 277th St. and Dykstra Park, also providing a a connection to Green River Road. Two bridges are proposed; one south of the new S 277th St. and one for the Green River beach access. The trail will end at Auburn Narrows. There may be some technical difficulties aligning the trail on the east side of the river from S. 277th Street to the 8th Street NE Bridge. Safety issues will have to be studied further and adequately addressed during implementation of the trail. Bicyclists Equestrians Pedestrians Mill Creek Path This looped recreational path spurs off the Interurban Trail and will go through the Auburn Environmental Park. Off-road Cyclists Pedestrians Equestrians, possibly White River Trail The White River Trail runs along the south side of the White River from Roegner Park to the eastern edge of Game Farm Park. Future extensions of the trail are planned from A Street SE to Roegner Park, across the White River via the future BNSF Railroad underpass, on the south side of the river within the City of Pacific, and from Game Farm Wilderness Park to southeast Auburn along the White River. Bicyclists Equestrians Off-road Cyclists Pedestrians Williams Trail These recreational trails are intended to use public or quasi-public lands, including utility corridors. A variety of loop trails may be possible within this large area. Bicyclists Equestrians Off-road Cyclists Pedestrians Bonneville Power Trail This east-west trail will extend from Lea Hill to potentially I Street, where it will connect to West Hill via the 37th Street NW street ROW. There are topographical and environmental challenges that will need to be addressed during the design phase. Bicyclists Pedestrians Equestrians Academy Trail The portion of Academy Drive from SR 164 to Green Valley Road is permanently closed to vehicle traffic. However, it has the potential to be re-opened as a multi-use recreational trail. Bicyclists Pedestrians Equestrians Lakeland Hills Trail This trail connects the growing Lakeland development with Mill Pond Drive and Oravetz Road. It is unique in Auburn because it passes directly through a residential neighborhood. A significant portion of the trail is already built; future connections will allow residents to travel from Oravetz Road to Lake Tapps Parkway and Sunset Park. Pedestrians *Refer to Figure 3-4 for the location of future trail projects. Sources: City of Auburn, King County nm nm nm nm nm nmmn mn nm nm nm nm nm nm nmnm nmnm nm nm nm nm nm nmnmnm nm nm nmnm nm nm nm 37th Way 132nd Ave 37th St 304th St 316th St 316th St 56th Ave 56th Ave 284th Pl 37th St 124th Avct 296th St 304th Way 56th Pl 28 8th St 284th St 37th St 112th Pl 284th St 37th Pl 132nd Ave 296th Pl 112th Ave 296th St 288th St 304th St 112th Ave 124th Ave Auburn Ave Auburn Way 321st St Peasley Canyon Rd Military Rd 1st Ave 17t h St Main St 312th St Jovita Blvd 8th St Stew art Rd Tapps Hwy Ellingson Rd Milwaukee Blvd Pacific Ave 3rd Ave 8th St 12th St 9th St 182nd Ave 51st Ave 272nd St 320th St Valley Hwy Dieringer Hwy Valley Hwy 15th St 277th St Valley Hwy Green River Rd 15th St Harvey Rd 331st St 210th Ave 24th St 342nd St 8th St Lake Holm Rd R St 94th Pl 214th Ave 16th St 307th Pl 122nd Ave 46th Pl 105th Pl Kersey Way M St Lea Hill Rd 104th Ave 55th Ave A St A St C St UV164 UV167 UV18 UV516 UV167 Existing Sidewalks nm Schools Parks 1/4 Mile from School 1/2 Mile from School 0 0.5 City Limits Miles ° Auburn Transportation Plan Existing Sidewalks Figure 3-1 Sources: City of Auburn, King County nm nm nm nm nm nmmn mn nm nm nm nm nm nm nmnm nmnm nm nm nm nm nm nmnmnm nm nm nmnm nm nm nm 37th Way 132nd Ave 37th St 304th St 316th St 316th St 56th Ave 56th Ave 284th Pl 37th St 124th Avct 296th St 304th Way 56th Pl 28 8th St 284th St 37th St 112th Pl 284th St 37th Pl 132nd Ave 296th Pl 112th Ave 296th St 288th St 304th St 112th Ave 124th Ave Auburn Ave Auburn Way 321st St Peasley Canyon Rd Military Rd 1st Ave 17t h St Main St 312th St Jovita Blvd 8th St Stew art Rd Tapps Hwy Ellingson Rd Milwaukee Blvd Pacific Ave 3rd Ave 8th St 12th St 9th St 182nd Ave 51st Ave 272nd St 320th St Valley Hwy Dieringer Hwy Valley Hwy 15th St 277th St Valley Hwy Green River Rd 15th St Harvey Rd 331st St 210th Ave 24th St 342nd St 8th St Lake Holm Rd R St 94th Pl 214th Ave 16th St 307th Pl 122nd Ave 46th Pl 105th Pl Kersey Way M St Lea Hill Rd 104th Ave 55th Ave A St A St C St UV164 UV167 UV18 UV516 UV167 Priority* Pedestrian Corridor Existing Sidewalks nm Schools Parks 1/4 Mile from School 1/2 Mile from School City Limits 0 0.5 Miles ° Auburn Transportation Plan Future Priority Sidewalk Corridors *Priority for Funding Figure 3-2 Sources: City of Auburn, King County Interurban White River Trail UV516 UV164 UV18 UV167 2nd St O St 2 2nd St 3rd St 6th St 29th St 1st Ave 1st St A St Academy Dr Hemlock St 116th Ave 32nd St 116th Ave Pacific Ave 321st St Harvey Rd D St 118th Ave 316th St Howard Rd 272nd St 30th St E St 280th St 292nd St Kersey Way 304th Way 62nd St 296th St 1 7th St 320th St 284 th St 12th St F St 37th St 300th St 12th S t 105th Pl 16th St 9th St 4th St 56th Ave 21st St Terrace Dr 210th Ave 29th St R St 15th St Oravetz Rd 15th St 8th St 37th St Ellingson Rd 8th St Lea Hill Rd Peasley Canyon Rd C St I St Mount View Dr 51st Ave Lakeland Hills Way Sumner Tapps Hwy 124th Ave Auburn Way Ma in St A St 277th S t G ST SW Dogwood St 182nd Ave Riverview Dr Mill Pond Dr Boundary Blvd M St 104th Ave 72nd Ave C St 55th Ave 285th St Valley Hwy 132nd Ave 304 th St C St Emerald Downs Dr Evergreen Way M St 112th Ave Green River Rd B St Valley Hwy H St nm Schools Parks City Limits Bike Routes (Class 2 or 3) Multi-Use Trails (Class 1) 0 0.5 0.5 Miles ° Auburn Transportation Plan Existing Bicycle Facilities and Multi-Use Trails Figure 3-3 Sources: City of Auburn, King County !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( Interurban White River Trail UV516 UV164 UV18 UV167 2nd St O St 22nd St 3rd St 6th St 29th St 1st Ave 1 st St A St Academy Dr Hemlock St 116th Ave 14th St 32nd St 116th Ave Pacific Ave 321st St Harvey Rd D St 118th Ave 316th St Howard Rd 272nd St 30th St E St 280th St 292nd St Kersey Way 304th Way 62nd St 296t h St 17 th St 320th St 284 th St 12th St F St 37th St 300th St 12th S t 105th Pl 16th St 9th St 4th St 56th Ave 21st St Terrace Dr 210th Ave 29th St R St 15th St Oravetz Rd 15th St 8th St 37th St Ellingson Rd 8th St Lea Hill Rd Peasley Canyon Rd C St I St Mount View Dr 51st Ave Su mner Tapps Hwy 124th Ave Auburn Way Ma in St A St 277th S t G ST SW Dogwood St 182nd Ave R St Rive rvi ew Dr Mill Pond Dr Boundary Blv d M St 104th Ave 72nd Ave C St 55th Ave 285 th St Valley Hwy 132nd Ave 304th St C St Emerald Downs Dr Evergreen Way M St 112th Ave Green River Rd B St Valley Hwy H St nm Schools Parks City Limits !( Existing Trailhead !( Future Future Trailhead Bike Routes (Class 2 or 3) Multi-Use Trails (Class 1) Future Bike Route (Class 2 or 3) Future Multi-0 0.5 Use Trail (Class 1) Miles ° Auburn Transportation Plan Future Bicycle Facilities and Multi-Use Trails Figure 3-4 UV18 UV164 A St E St 3rd St 6th St 1st St F St 2nd St 8th St 4th St Main St G ST SW Auburn Way R St C St M St H St Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 4. Transit Page 4-1 Auburn Transit Center CHAPTER 4. TRANSIT Transit service is a key component of Auburn’s transportation system, improving mobility within the City and providing connections to the employment and commercial centers of western Washington. Unlike the street and non-motorized systems, Auburn does not directly administer transit service. Rather, the City works with the following regional and county transit agencies to coordinate service in Auburn: Sound Transit, Metro Transit, and Pierce Transit. These agencies are publicly funded and are responsible for providing transit service within their jurisdictions. Today, Auburn is served by local and regional bus, as well as a commuter rail line that runs between Seattle and Tacoma. However, transit in the area has a long and interesting history. In the early part of the twentieth century, Puget Sound Traction, Light and Power linked Auburn to Seattle via a fast electric interurban line until progress on Highway 99 and the rise of automobile use ultimately doomed the system. Seattle-Tacoma interurban rail service ended on December 30, 1928. After World War II, policymakers and planners made several unsuccessful efforts to recreate a regional transit system to address suburban sprawl and growing traffic congestion. That changed in 1972, when voters approved the creation of Metro Transit, an all-bus system now operated by King County. In 1979, Pierce Transit was formed when voters passed a 0.3 percent sales tax to fund public transportation. In 1995, voters in King, Snohomish, and Pierce Counties rejected a $6.7 billion Regional Transit Authority (RTA) proposal for light rail, standard-gauge commuter rail, and express buses. However, a smaller “Sound Transit” plan, valued at $3.9 billion, won approval on November 5, 1996. On September 18, 2000, almost 72 years after interurban cars stopped running, the first Sound Transit ‘Sounder’ commuter trains rolled between Seattle, Auburn and Tacoma – reinstating an important regional rail link. Today Auburn is also served by an extensive local bus system operated by Metro Transit. It is also connected to Seattle, Bellevue, and Pierce County by Sound Transit Express bus service. 4.1 NEEDS ASSESSMENT EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICES The following section provides a brief summary of the public transportation services offered in Auburn. Existing transit service for the Auburn area is identified in Figure 4-1. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 4. Transit Page 4-2 Metro Transit Hybrid Articulated Bus Courtesy: Metro Transit METRO AND PIERCE TRANSIT BUS SERVICES Metro Transit provides local bus services linking destinations within the community and providing a regional connection at the downtown Auburn Transit Center and the Auburn 15th Street NW Park-and-Ride. Metro Transit offers the following services in Auburn. Route 152 runs weekday peak hour service between the Auburn Transit Center, the 15th Street NW Park-and-Ride, Star Lake Park-and-Ride (I-5/S 272nd Street) and downtown Seattle. Route 154 provides weekday service between the Auburn Transit Center, the Auburn 15th Street NW Park-and-Ride, the Kent Transit Center, Boeing in Kent, the Tukwila Park-and-Ride, Boeing Field and Development Center, and the Federal Center South in Seattle. Route 164 provides important local service between Kent and Green River Community College. Route 180 provides service daily between southeast Auburn, Auburn Station, and and Kent Station/Transit Center, meeting the MT 150, with service to and from Seattle, at Kent Station. Until the early evening hours, Route 180 also serves Sea-Tac Airport and the Burien Transit Center. Route 181 provides weekday/weekend service between the Twin Lakes Park-and-Ride, Sea-Tac Mall, Federal Way Transit Center, the Supermall, Auburn Transit Center, and Green River Community College. Route 915 provides weekday peak hour service, scheduled to meet the Sounder Commuter Rail trains at Auburn Station, as well as weekday midday service between the Auburn Transit Center and Enumclaw via Auburn Way South and SR 164. Route 917, operated by DART, provides weekday and Saturday service between Lakeland Hills, A Street SE, 41st Street SE, Algona, the Supermall, the Social Security Administration, the General Services Administration (GSA), and the Auburn Transit Center. The route offers Dial-ARide (limited variable route) service in portions of Lakeland Hills and Algona. Community Shuttle – Routes 919 & 910 910 Route 919 is a DART route, which beginning in February 2010 will operate fixed route service every 60 minutes between I Street NE/40th Street and Les Gove Campus between approximately 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekdays. Route 910 is also a DART route and beginning in February 2010, will function as a community shuttle circulator service with the Route 919. The 910 will be timed to meet the 919 at the Auburn Transit Station and provide service between downtown Auburn and the Supermall/YMCA on 15th Street SW. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 4. Transit Page 4-3 DART Vehicle Courtesy: City of Kent Route 497 is a route operated by Pierce Transit in partnership with the City of Auburn, Sound Transit, and Metro Transit. It operates peak hour service between Sunset Park in Lakeland Hills and the Auburn Transit Station. The 497 is a commuter oriented route, but is open to all. In the future, the City hopes to expand the 497 to all day service to provide more comprehensive transit service to the Lakeland Hills area. ACCESS ACCESS Transportation is a paratransit service, providing door-to-door, shared-ride van transportation within most of King County. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires curb-to-curb paratransit service as a safety net for persons whose disabilities prevent use of accessible non-commuter, fixed route bus service. Complementary paratransit service is intended to offer a comparable level of service to that provided by regular bus service. Paratransit service is not required nor intended to meet all the transportation needs of persons with disabilities, but rather, to provide public transportation in a more specialized form. VANPOOL SERVICES Metro Transit and Pierce Transit sponsor vanpool services that serve residents and employees in Auburn. Vanpool is a sharedride service that provides group transport for commuters with proximate origins and destinations. Vanpool is a popular and flexible service that provides commuters with an alternative to driving alone and fixed-route transit service. Currently, Pierce County sponsors eight vanpools either beginning or ending in Auburn; Metro Transit sponsors several as well. Vanpool will undoubtedly continue to be an important strategy for mitigating peak hour congestion throughout Auburn and the region. TRANSIT FACILITIES Metro Transit owns and operates several transit facilities, including the Auburn 15th Street NW Park-and-Ride with approximately 358 surface parking stalls. Metro also operates into the Auburn Transit Center in downtown Auburn. Additionally, the system maintains approximately 180 other bus stops in the community, 17 of which contain passenger shelters. COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION (CTR) Under state law, the City is required to administer a Commute Trip Reduction program for all employers in Auburn with at least 100 employees arriving during the peak morning commute hours. The City of Auburn contracts with Metro Transit to provide CTR support services for the CTR affected local employers. Currently, there are 11 CTR employers in Auburn with a total of 5,500 employees. The agency assists employers in complying with state law by providing rideshare support and a host of other incentives aimed at reducing single occupant vehicle travel. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 4. Transit Page 4-4 Sounder Train Courtesy: Sound Transit Sound Transit Regional Express Bus Courtesy: Sound Transit SOUND TRANSIT Sound Transit provides limited stop, regional transit services linking Auburn to major regional destinations in King and Pierce Counties. The agency offers two types of service, Sounder commuter rail and regional express bus. SOUNDER COMMUTER RAIL Sound Transit operates the Sounder commuter rail service on the Tacoma – Seattle routing via the BNSF Railway. Sound Transit provides weekday peak hour trips northbound to Seattle in the AM and southbound from Seattle to Tacoma in the PM. Additional special event service to and from Seattle and the Emerald Downs racetrack in Auburn is offered on weekends. Currently, seven trains operate northbound to Seattle in the morning peak and return southbound during the PM peak. Two trains operate southbound to Tacoma in the morning and northbound in the early evening. REGIONAL EXPRESS BUS SERVICE Route 564/565 offers daily weekday, limited stop service between the Federal Way Transit Center (565 only), the South Hill Transit Center (564 only), the South Hill Park & Ride (564 only), the Sumner Station (564 only), the Auburn Transit Center, the Kent Transit Center, the Renton Transit Center, the Bellevue Transit Center, and the Overlake Transit Center. TRANSIT FACILITIES Sound Transit owns and operates the Auburn Transit Center located at 1st Street SW and A Street SW. This full service multi-modal facility provides parking for 365 vehicles in a 6-story parking garage and 113 stalls in a surface parking lot. The facility currently handles approximately 450 daily bus trips (117 Sound Transit trips; 333 Metro Transit trips). Daily, 1,200 passengers board buses at the facility, and 900 passengers disembark. Daily commuter train boardings currently average about 400 passengers. 4.2 Transit User Needs DEMOGRAPHICS People use public transportation for two reasons: because they have to ride or because they choose to ride. Carrying the choice rider, such as commuters, often has the greatest positive impact on the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 4. Transit Page 4-5 transportation system by helping control peak hour traffic demand. But providing a “safety net” of adequate transportation to those who absolutely depend on it is, arguably, public transportation’s most important role. There are a number of ways to identify “transit dependency” but the most effective way is to identify locations with high concentrations of residents who have no vehicle available in their household. An examination of the most recent year 2000 Census data available from the Bureau of the Census shows that some areas of Auburn have a surprisingly high number of households with no vehicle available. As a comparison baseline, 9 percent of Auburn households have no vehicle available; this percentage is consistent with that of King County (9 percent) and slightly higher than that of Pierce County (8 percent). For the purpose of this analysis, block groups with significant concentrations of residential development in which over 12 percent of households have no vehicle available are considered transit dependent areas. There are eleven census block groups in Auburn in which over 12 percent of households have no vehicle available, nine of which have significant concentrations of residential development and are therefore identified as transit dependent areas. It is also notable that four of the nine block groups with large concentrations of residential development have at least 20 percent of households with no vehicle available. The nine block groups comprising the transit dependent areas had a total of 3,698 households in 2000, 771 (21 percent) of which had no vehicle available. Figure 4-2 shows the transit dependent areas and overlays the existing transit service in order to identify if adequate transit service is available to these highly transit dependent neighborhoods. Comparing the neighborhoods in question to the transit route structure, it is apparent that the vast majority of Auburn’s most transit dependent population lives within ¼ miles of a fixed route bus – the distance standard most often identified by the transit industry as a reasonable walking distance to transit. An exception to that rule is the area near Dogwood Street SE north of Auburn Way South where many of the transit dependent residents are located more than ¼ mile from fixed route bus service. In the future, it will be critical to ensure these areas continue to be well covered by transit service, both in terms of route and schedule coverage. SERVICE COVERAGE Generally speaking, local transit service coverage in Auburn is well planned and well operated. Nonetheless, there are some areas of the community that do not have adequate local service coverage, as well as some highly important regional bus links and commuter rail services that have yet to be completed. LOCAL BUS SERVICE Several of Auburn’s most populated neighborhoods are deficient in local bus service, including West Hill, Lakeland Hills during the non-peak hours, and parts of east and north Auburn. This is problematic, for choice riders because it indicates a missed opportunity to alleviate demand on the street system and for transit dependent riders because those populations have inadequate transportation options. The least served residential area of Auburn is West Hill, an area with approximately 5,000 residents and no transit service. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 4. Transit Page 4-6 Lakeland Hills, a planned residential community with approximately 3,800 homes has peak hour service to downtown Auburn but is lacking in all day service. Lea Hill, a predominantly residential community on Auburn’s east hill does have two transit routes, but still, a large percentage of the neighborhood is not within walking distance of a transit route. In 2009, a license plate survey of the Auburn Transit Station garage indicated a substantial number of Lea Hill residents utilize the transit services at Auburn Station. This suggests that a commuter oriented shuttle serving Lea Hill, similar to the shuttle implemented in Lakeland Hills, would be very successful. Additionally, residential areas of east Auburn, east of M Street NE and south of 8th Street NE, and parts of northeast Auburn, east of I Street NE, are also located more than ¼ mile from fixed route bus service. Hence, it is inordinately difficult for residents of these areas to use transit, both for local trips and for connecting to regional routes via the Auburn Transit Center. The design of King County Metro’s local bus routes in Auburn should be reviewed in relation to future changes in Sound Transit’s Sounder commuter rail and regional express bus services to identify opportunities and priorities for productive improvements to transit coverage, frequency, and hours of operation. Figure 4-3 highlights areas of the Auburn community with minimal transit service. REGIONAL BUS SERVICE The most important unmet regional transit need is for all day, express bus service to and from Tacoma and Seattle. While the original Sound Transit Regional Express Bus Service Plan contained a direct link between Auburn and Tacoma, the connection was dropped from Sound Transit’s later service plans. Likewise, despite limited peak hour commuter rail being available to and from Seattle, a midday commuter rail connection is, according to Sound Transit, only likely in the distant future. Instituting a reliable, allday bus connection to and from Seattle will also encourage increased commuter rail ridership by providing a midday transit option as a safety net for those with daytime business in Tacoma or Seattle. Instituting express bus service to and from Seattle and Tacoma will also provide an unmet regional transit opportunity for people who work in Auburn and who live north of Auburn. The availability of all-day regional bus service to and from Tacoma and Seattle on regular headways will also help meet the shift time requirements of major Auburn employers whose shift times are currently not compatible with Sounder commuter rail arrival times. In summary, the future availability of all-day, direct express bus connections between Tacoma and Seattle, Washington’s two largest cities, with stops at the stations served by Sounder commuter rail, should be a top priority. SOUNDER COMMUTER RAIL Sounder Commuter Rail, a highly popular and attractive service, operates bidirectionally in the peak periods, although a.m. southbound service is minimal. The current orientation of morning commuter rail service predominantly northbound to Seattle provides limited opportunity for most of the employees of South King County businesses to access their work sites via commuter rail. INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL Auburn is an ideal location for a future stop on the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor, which runs from Vancouver, BC to Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 4. Transit Page 4-7 Auburn YMCA -Major trip generator Eugene, OR. WSDOT is currently evaluating and seeking funding for the proposed expansion of existing intercity rail service, which would provide an alternative to air travel and interstate highway travel. When that occurs, Auburn would be an ideal location for an interim stop between Seattle and Tacoma. Auburn is centrally located in South King County at the intersection of SR 18 and SR 167. Auburn has existing urban rail station with a parking garage and can offer and interstate passengers a convenient boarding point. The Auburn Station currently serves over 2,500 bus passengers and 900 commuter rail passengers and is centrally located within 10 miles of 500,000 people. MAJOR TRIP GENERATORS A major transit trip generator is a location which has the potential to generate a significant number of transit trips. Included are major employers, major shopping destinations, and community activity centers. Figure 4-3 shows the area’s major transit trip generators. Among the trip generators that are currently not served by transit are the Safeway Distribution Center, UPS on C Street NW and ADESA on 37th Street NW. Emerald Downs receives transit service only via a private shuttle connection at the Auburn 15th Street NW Park-and-Ride. SCHEDULES The scheduling of transit service is often as important as route alignment and coverage in determining the success of the service. SCHEDULING TO SUCCESSFULLY SERVE EMPLOYERS One of the most overlooked aspects of transit system design is scheduled transit arrival times versus major employer shift times. While a transit system can physically serve the front door of a work site, its actual scheduled arrival times will often determine if anyone rides the system. It is not the intention of this effort to conduct an exhaustive employer shift time analysis of the community. However, an example of the challenge can be found in examining one of Auburn’s major employers, the Boeing Company. While the company’s primary morning shift time arrival occurs at 6 AM, the earliest southbound Sounder train from Seattle, arrives in Auburn at 6:36 AM. Likewise, the first run of the day for the Metro Route 181 from Federal Way and Lea Hill arrive near Boeing at approximately 6 AM, making it difficult for employees to meet the shift time. The lack of transit schedule synchronization with key employers in a community can also negatively impact other opportunities. The City of Auburn in partnership with Metro Transit was the first agency in Puget Sound to create the concept of ‘Van Share’, a specialized transit service in which vanpools carry employees to their employer’s front door from regional transit centers. Where the schedules work, such as in providing a direct link between Boeing’s Renton facilities and the Tukwila Sounder Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 4. Transit Page 4-8 commuter rail station, the concept has been highly successful. On the other end of the trip, the Van Share concept can be successfully implemented to transport employees between their homes and the Transit Station, saving capacity on the roadway and at the Transit Center parking facilities. Due to the fact that Auburn’s major employer shift times frequently don’t match Sounder and bus transit arrival times, Van Share has not yet achieved its promise in Auburn. To maximize the investment in public transit service in Auburn, it is recommended that both Sound Transit and Metro Transit conduct a thorough evaluation of their schedules with a focus on improving service to major employers in the Auburn area and in south King County in general. SERVICE FREQUENCY A second consideration in scheduling service is ensuring that enough service is available to meet the demand. Metro Transit Route 181 between Federal Way and Green River College has experienced a a sharp increase in ridership in recent years. It now carries a healthy 518,000 riders per year. It is notable that ridership and productivity (rides per service hour) particularly increased on Route 181 following a set of changes in September 2003 that focused on more direct routing, expanded evening service, and improving Saturday service frequency to every 30 minutes. Sound Transit Route 565 has also benefited from an investment in additional service hours. A 45 percent increase in service hours on the route between 2002 and 2004 was mirrored by a 79 percent increase in ridership during the same period. Although absolute ridership is an important measure of effectiveness, the load factor by trip and time of day is a more accurate indicator of the need for additional service and therefore, should be examined prior implementation of any service changes. Sounder Commuter Rail has also been immensely popular, indicating that increased service is supported by the ridership demand. Each morning, Sounder already carries the equivalent of a lane of traffic on SR 167 or I-5, emphasizing the importance of expanding the service. The Auburn Station in particular is a highly successful component of the Sounder service. Total boardings at the Auburn Transit Center average over 400 riders per day on the first three morning trains, exceeding initial ridership expectations and making Auburn one of the busiest stations on the Sounder route. URBAN DESIGN The design of the build environment has direct implications on the quality and availability of transit service. Urban design can either encourage or inhibit the provision of local transit service. Some inhibitors to providing neighborhood service include inadequate street geometry and construction, lack of a satisfactory location for a terminal at the end of the route, absence of a street grid that could be used to turn around a bus, and the absence of a connected sidewalk network. Ideally, new residential developments should be laid out with future transit route alignments in mind and supporting transit facilities. Likewise, retrofits of the existing street network should accommodate transit design considerations. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 4. Transit Page 4-9 IMPROVING LOCAL SERVICE Over the past year, City staff, elected officials, and Metro Transit have conducted multiple meetings with the local community regarding the need for changes to local transit service. Among the most consistent themes repeated in those meeting has been the desire for improved connections from residential areas to shopping and services, especially for seniors. Many residents of Auburn have inadequate access to shopping and essential services, such as medical care. In many cases, this is attributable to lack of fixed-route bus service within a ¼ mile walking distance or inadequate schedule frequency. Although Metro Transit provides some specialized transportation services for the disabled through its ACCESS service, the vast majority of people do not qualify for paratransit services, yet are disinclined to use standard bus service for a number of reasons. Auburn and Metro Transit have partnered through the Transit Now initiative to implement a community shuttle circulator service, scheduled to begin in 2010. The shuttle will link major commercial and activity areas. Initially, the service will run on one hour headways due to funding limitations. As the service becomes more popular, increasing the service frequency may become more feasible. FACILITIES Two types of transit facility improvements stand out as important needs: commuter parking and passenger shelter upgrades. Parking needs at the Auburn Transit Center have reached a critical state. A 2009 review of the parking garage and surface parking lot revealed that on a typical weekday, general purpose parking spots were at 100% capacity. In addition, neighborhoods near the transit station, particularly those bordering West Main Street, have experienced a significant increase in commuter on-street parking, making it difficult for residents to find parking during the day and early evening. Building the infrastructure to accommodate the commuter parking demand is an essential component of making transit an attractive commute option for choice riders. In order to do so, early planning is essential to identifying the future demand and acquiring needed land. A 2009 review of the parking garage and surface parking lot revealed that on a typical weekday, general purpose parking spots were at 100% capacity. In addition, neighborhoods near the transit station, particularly those bordering West Main Street, have experienced a significant increase in commuter on-street parking, making it difficult for residents to find parking during the day and early evening. Currently, several transit stops in Auburn that meet Metro’s boarding standards for needing passenger shelters do not have shelters. These locations include: 41st Street SE and A Street SE F Street SE and Cedar Drive 17th Street SE and B Street SE 37th Street SE and D Street SE E. Main Street and H Street SE 2nd Street SE and A Street SE 2nd Street SE and B Street SE 9th Street NE and Auburn Way N 15th Street NE and D Street NE Auburn Way N and 28th Street NE Auburn Way N and 22nd Street NE F Street SE and 25th Street SE 15th Street SW and O Street SW Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 4. Transit Page 4-10 Metro Transit should work towards providing shelters at the locations identified above, as well as other stops that meet the threshold for passenger boardings. Also, a new stop is required at A Street NE and 10th Street NE due to the recent re-routing of a Metro Transit route. This stop serves local employers and residents, including SHAG (Senior Housing Assistant Group). Future planning of changes to fixed-route services in Auburn should be accompanied by an inventory of transit passenger facilities to identify and prioritize potential improvements to shelters, benches, pads, bus zones, and customer information. Pedestrian improvements around existing or planned transit stops, including enhanced crosswalks and pedestrian refuges, should also be examined by the City. The placement of bus stops is driven by a variety of criteria including transit system operating and design standards, professional engineering field evaluation, and public input. Integrating pedestrian improvements in that process will require both procedural and programmatic changes. While painting crosswalks is a low cost, relatively quick opportunity that could be instituted quickly if identified as part of the field evaluation, building medians or signals for pedestrian refuge is a longerterm prospect and requires engineering and additional funding. 4.3 Transit System Recommendations This section contains the recommendations derived from the transit needs assessment, as discussed in the first part of this chapter. Recommendations are organized according to the lead agency that would likely implement them, with the understanding that implementation of any major system improvement will require the collaboration of many agencies. METRO TRANSIT Metro Transit initiated the Auburn-Kent project in Fall 2005; the project was completed in 2006. The purpose of the project was to work with a Sounding Board, local jurisdictions, and stakeholders to develop a set of recommendations for changes changes to bus service and facilities in the Auburn-Kent area that could be implemented in the future as new resources become available or through the redirection of existing resources. The project was an opportunity for the City and Metro Transit to work together to identify strategies for implementing the recommendations in this Plan. Implement transit service from Auburn’s West Hill to the downtown, most likely routing down 51st Ave S and collecting passengers. Implement additional transit service, particularly geared towards commuters and targeting areas outside of the walking distance of existing transit services on Lea Hill. Examine service coverage in the Dogwood Street SE area to enhance access for the transit dependent. Conduct a thorough evaluation of transit schedules; improve service to major employers in the Auburn area. Expand the Route 152 to all-day, dualdirection service between Auburn and Seattle. Install passenger shelters at stops where boardings meet Metro Transit’s standard for requiring passenger shelters. Work with the City to enhance security and reduced vandalism. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 4. Transit Page 4-11 Add a new stop, including a possible shelter, at A St. NE and 10th St. NE. Work with the City to create additional parking near the Auburn Transit Center to serve Metro Transit riders. Work with the City and Sound Transit to develop strategies that improve regional connections between Auburn and other communities. PIERCE TRANSIT Consider expanding the hours of service on Route 497 to improve service to Lakeland Hills. SOUND TRANSIT Conduct a thorough evaluation of transit schedules; improve bus and rail service to major employers in the Auburn area. Institute all-day, express bus service to and from Tacoma and Seattle, with regular stops along the Sounder rail line. Work with the City and Metro Transit to develop strategies that improve regional connections between Auburn and other communities. Immediately begin working with the City in partnership to create additional parking near the Auburn Transit Center, as specified in ST 2, the most recent recent voter approved regional transit package. CITY OF AUBURN Work with the PSRC, WSDOT, Metro, Pierce, and Sound Transit to develop strategies that improve regional connections between Auburn and other communities. Immediately begin working with Sound Transit and Metro Transit in partnership to create additional parking near the Auburn Transit Center. Institute a program to enhance pedestrian access to transit stops. Institute a process and seek grant funding to enhance accessibility to Metro Transit stops such as wheelchair landing pads and wheelchair ramps adjacent to accessible bus stop locations. Sources: City of Auburn, King County Metro, King County 132nd Ave 37th Way 284th Pl 37th St 316th St 316th St 56th Ave 56th Ave 37th St 124th Avct 296 th St 304th Way 56th Pl 28 8th St 284th St 37th St 284th St 37th Pl 296th Pl 112th Ave 296th St 112th Pl 288th S t 304th St 112th Ave 124th Ave Military Rd C St Auburn Way Kersey Way 307th Pl Peasley Canyon Rd 1st Ave 17th St Main St 312th St Valley Hwy Stewart Rd Tapps Hwy Ellingson Rd R St Pacific Ave 3rd Ave 8th St 12th St 321st St 9th St 182nd Ave 51st Ave 105th Pl 272nd St 320th St Jovita Blvd Valley Hwy Dieringer Hwy 15th St Valley Hwy Green River Rd 15th St Harvey Rd 342nd St 210th Ave 24th St 331st St 8th St Lake Holm Rd 94th Pl 214th Ave R St 122nd Ave 277th St 46th Pl 16th St M St 104th Ave 55th Ave A St A St UV164 UV18 UV167 K180 K919 K914 K180 K914 K183 K164 K952 K919 K564 K565 K565 K159 K164 K168K158 K181 K564 K952 K152 K181 K564 K181 K181 K915 K152 K164 K180 K564 K917 K564K565 K565 K565 K917 K915 K159 K180 919 910 497 910 497 919 Transit Station Station Surface 113 Garage 365 SR 18/Auburn-Black Diamond Rd 26 Spaces Peasley Canyon Rd/West Valley Hwy 54 Spaces Lake Meridian P&R 172 Spaces Auburn P&R 358 Spaces Æa Park & Ride !! Bus Stop Bus Route Commuter Rail nm Schools Airport City Limits School Super Mall Parks Urban Center 0 0.5 Miles ° Auburn Transportation Plan Existing Transit Serving Auburn Figure 4-1 Sources: City of Auburn, King County Metro, King County 132nd Ave 124th Ave 37th Way 37th St 316th St 56th Ave 56th Ave 284th Pl 37th St 124th Avct 2 96th St 304th Way 56th Pl 288th St 284th St 284th S t 37th Pl 296th Pl 112th Ave 296th St 112th Pl 288th St 304th St 112th Ave Military Rd C St Kersey Way 307th Pl Peasley Canyon R d 1st Ave 17th St Main St 312th St Valley Hwy Stewar t Rd Tapps Hwy Ellingson Rd R St Pacific Ave 3rd Ave 8th St 12th S t 321st St 9th St 182nd Ave 51st Ave 105th Pl 272nd St 320th St Jovit a Blvd Valley Hwy Dieringer Hwy 15th St Valley Hwy Green River Rd 15th St Harvey Rd 342nd St 210th Ave 24th St 331s t St 8t h St Lake Holm Rd 94th Pl 214th Ave R St 122nd Ave 277th St 46th Pl 16th St M St 104th Ave 55th Ave A St A St 516 167 18 164 180 919 914 180 914 183 164 565 181 919 159 164 158 564 952 152 154 181 565 181 181 181 915 152 180 564 564 564 154 154 917 565 180 564 952 565 917 915 159 919 910 497 919 910 497 Lake Meridian P&R 172 Spaces Auburn P&R 358 Spaces SR 18/Auburn-Black Diamond Rd 26 Spaces Peasley Canyon Rd/West Valley Hwy 54 Spaces Park & Ride Bus Stop Bus Route Commuter Rail Schools Airport Transit Dependent Areas School Super Mall Parks City Limits 0 0.5 Miles Auburn Transportation Plan Transit Dependent Areas Figure 4-2 Sources: City of Auburn, King County Metro, King County !! !! !! !! !! Æa Æa Æa ÆaÆa !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!!!!!! !! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !! !!!! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !!!!!!!! !! !! !! !!!! !! !! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!!!! !! !!!! !!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!! !! !!!! !! !!!! !! !!!! !! !!!!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!! !! !! !! !!!! !! !! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!!!!!!! !! !!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_^_ ^_ 288th S t 296th Pl 124th Ave 304th St 112th Ave 37th Way 316th St 316th St 37th St 37th St 296 th St 56th Pl 28 8th St 284th St 56th Ave 56th Ave 284th Pl 124th Avct 304th Way 37th Pl 37th St 284th St 112th Ave 296th St 132nd Ave 112th Pl Pacific Ave 8th St Lake Holm Rd R St M St 104th Ave 55th Ave A St 307th Pl A St C St Auburn Way 105th Pl 46th Pl Peasley Canyon Rd Military Rd 214th Ave 17th St Main St 312th St 1st Ave Stew art Rd Tapps Hwy Ellingson Rd Kersey Way 8th St 12th St 9th St 182nd Ave 331st St 51st Ave 272nd St 320th St Valley Hwy Jovita Blvd Valley Hwy 16th St 3rd Ave Valley Hwy Green River Rd 15th St 321st St 277th St Dieringer Hwy 342nd St Harvey Rd 94th Pl 210th Ave 24th St 122nd Ave UV516 UV167 UV164 UV167 UV18 Transit Station Surface 113 Garage 365 SR 18/Auburn-Black Diamond Rd 26 Spaces Auburn P&R 358 Spaces Peasley Canyon Rd/West Valley Hwy 54 Spaces 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1314 15 1 2 ^_ Major Trip Generators 1/4 Mile Buffer Æa Park & Ride Commuter Rail Bus Route City Limits School Urban Center Parks 0 0.5 Miles ° Auburn Transportation Plan Transit and Major Trip Generators Figure 4-3 Auburn Regional Medical Center Auburn High School Auburn Riverside High School West Auburn High School YMCA Supermall Les Gove Community Campus SHAG (Senior Housing Assistant Group) Auburn City Hall Green River Community College Boeing /SSA /GSA Safeway Distribution Center UPS Supply Chain Solutions ADESA 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Muckleshoot Casino Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 5. Policies Page 5-1 CHAPTER 5. POLICIES Transportation objectives and policies establish the framework for realizing the City’s vision of its transportation system. Policies provide guidance for the City, other governmental entities and private developers, enabling the City to achieve its goal of providing adequate public infrastructure to support its needs and priorities in accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The policy framework presented below is a guideline, which the City will use to evaluate individual projects and address its infrastructure needs. The objectives and policies are organized according to five broad headings. The first heading, Coordination, Planning and Implementation, addresses the system comprehensively, detailing policies that pertain to the planning and implementation of the system as a whole. The subsequent four headings list policies specific to the following systems: Street system, Non-motorized system, Transit system, and Air Air transportation. The analysis of the transportation system, as well as any individual proposals, shall consider all modes of transportation and all methods of efficiently managing the network. 5.1 Coordination, Planning and Implementation OBJECTIVE: COORDINATION To be consistent with regional plans and the plans of neighboring cities, to encourage partnerships, and not to unreasonably preclude an adjacent jurisdiction from implementing its planned improvements. POLICIES: TR-1: Coordinate transportation operations, planning and improvements with other transportation authorities and governmental entities (cities, counties, tribes, state, federal) to address transportation issues. These include: Improvement of the state highway network through strong advocacy with state officials, both elected and staff, for improvements to state highways and interchanges; Improvements to roadways connecting Auburn to the surrounding region, including SR 167, SR 18, SR 181/West Valley Hwy, SR 164, and S 277th Street; Public Public Art on West Main Street Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 5. Policies Page 5-2 Improved access to the Interstate 5 corridor and regional employment centers; Transit connections to the Regional Growth Centers; Establishing the Auburn Station as a center for multi-modal transportation connections to proposed future intercity rail service; Strong advocacy with US congressional members to provide funding to mitigate transportation problems connected to interstate commerce; and Proactively pursuing forums to coordinate transportation project priorities among other governmental entities, including proposed future intercity rail service. OBJECTIVE: LONG-RANGE PLANNING & PROGRAMMING To continue to plan for the future of the multimodal transportation system through longrange planning, programmatic planning, and financial planning, in compliance with the Growth Management Act. POLICIES: TR-2: The Comprehensive Transportation Plan shall be evaluated and amended annually to ensure it is technically accurate, consistent with state, regional, and other local plans, and in keeping with the City's vision of the future transportation system. TR-3: The Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) shall be updated annually to reevaluate project priorities, develop a plan to fund capital improvement projects, and ensure consistency between project priorities and financing plans. Project evaluation criteria shall foster economic development, maximize utilization of city financing to match transportation grants, promote safety, integrate planning of other projects requiring disturbance of pavements, promote mobility, and optimize the utilization of existing infrastructure. OBJECTIVE: SAFETY To provide a transportation system that is safe for all users. POLICIES: TR-4: Safety shall be prioritized over driving convenience. TR-5: Use net revenues from photo enforcement operations to fund safety related projects. TR-6: Recognize the potential effects of hazards on transportation facilities and incorporate such considerations into the planning and design of transportation projects, where feasible. OBJECTIVE: CONNECTIVITY To provide a highly interconnected network of streets and trails for ease and variety of travel. POLICIES: TR-7: An efficient transportation system seeks to spread vehicle movements over a series of planned streets. The goal of the system is to encourage connectivity while preventing unacceptably high traffic volumes on any one street. Ample alternatives should exist to accommodate access for emergency vehicles. For these reasons the City will continue to plan a series of collectors and arterials designed to national standards to provide efficient service to the community. TR-8: Encourage the use of trails and other connections that provide ease of travel within and between neighborhoods, Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 5. Policies Page 5-3 community activity centers, and transit services. Development patterns that block direct pedestrian access are discouraged. Ample alternatives should exist to accommodate non-motorized transportation on arterials, collectors, and local roads. OBJECTIVE: COMPLETE STREETS Ensure Auburn’s transportation system is designed to enable comprehensive, integrated, safe access for users of all ages and abilities including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, transit riders and operators, and truck operators. POLICIES: TR-9: Plan for and develop a balanced transportation system, which provides safe access and connectivity to transportation facilities for users of all ages and abilities including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, transit users and operators, and truck operators. TR-10: Plan for, design, and construct all transportation projects, whether City led or development driven, to provide appropriate accommodation for bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, except in situations where the establishment of such facilities would be contrary to public health and safety or the cost would be excessively disproportionate to the need. TR-11: Ensure the transportation system meets the requirements outlined in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). TR-12: The Auburn Engineering Design Standards is the primary vehicle for executing the Complete Streets Objective and should include standards for each roadway classification to guide implementation. TR-13: Context and flexibility in balancing user needs shall be considered in the design of all projects and if necessary, a deviation from the Auburn Engineering Design Standards may be granted to ensure the Complete Streets Objective and supporting policies are achieved. OBJECTIVE: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Minimize the environmental impacts of all new transportation projects and transportation related improvements. POLICIES: TR-14: Thoroughly evaluate the impacts of all transportation projects and apply appropriate mitigation measures in conformance with SEPA, the Critical Areas Ordinance, and other city, county, state, and federal regulations. TR-15: Identify and consider the environmental impacts of transportation projects at the earliest possible time to ensure planning and decisions reflect environmental values, to avoid delays later in the process, and to reduce or avoid potential problems that may adversely impact the environment and project outcome. Helping those with Special Needs Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 5. Policies Page 5-4 TR-16: Incorporate green technology and sustainability practices into transportation improvements whenever feasible. TR-17: Support efforts to improve air quality throughout the Auburn area and develop a transportation system compatible with the goals of the Federal and State Clean Air Acts. TR-18: Require air quality studies of future major development to assess impacts created by site generated traffic. OBJECTIVE: LEVEL-OFSERVICE (LOS) THRESHOLD To ensure that new development does not degrade transportation facilities to below LOS standards. POLICIES: TR-19: New development shall not be allowed when the impacts of the new development on the transportation system degrades the LOS to below the adopted LOS standard, unless the condition is remedied concurrent with the development as described in Chapter 2. TR-20: The term "below level-of-service" shall apply to situations where traffic attributed to a development likely results in any of the following. a. An unacceptable increase in hazard or an unacceptable decrease in safety on a roadway. b. An accelerated deterioration of the street pavement condition or the proposed regular use of a street not designated as a truck route for truck movements that can reasonably result in accelerated deterioration of the street pavement. c. An unacceptable impact on geometric design conditions at an intersection where two truck routes meet on the City arterial and collector network. d. An increase in congestion which constitutes an unacceptable adverse environmental impact under the State Environmental Policy Act. e. A reduction in any of the three (3) LOS standards below. 1. Arterial and Collector Corridor LOS: The level-of-service standard for each arterial and collector corridor is “D”, unless otherwise specified in Chapter 2 of this plan. The City may require a developer to examine a shorter or longer corridor segment than is specified in Chapter 2, to ensure a project's total LOS impacts are evaluated. 2. Signalized/Roundabout Intersection LOS: The City may require a developer to examine individual signalized or roundabout intersections for LOS impacts to ensure a project's total LOS impacts are evaluated. 3. Unsignalized Intersection LOS: The levelof-service standard for these intersections, measured as if they were signalized, shall be level of service “D”. If LOS falls below the standard, analysis and mitigation may be required in a manner commensurate with the associated impacts. This may include, among other requirements, conducting a traffic signal warrant analysis and installing or financing a signal or roundabout. TR-21: Establish a multi-modal level-ofservice system in the future. TR-22: A.M. level of service may need to be analyzed in situations where specialized conditions exist that disproportionately impact a.m. traffic. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 5. Policies Page 5-5 OBJECTIVE: CONCURRENCY To ensure transportation facilities do not fall below the adopted level-of-service standard, as required by the Growth Management Act. POLICIES: TR-23: Require developers to construct or finance transportation improvements and/or implement strategies that mitigate the impacts of new development concurrent with (within 6 years of) development, as required by the Growth Management Act. TR-24: New development that lowers a facility’s level-of-service standard below the locally adopted minimum standard shall be denied, as required by the Growth Management Act. Strategies that may allow a development to proceed include, but are not limited to: Reducing the scope of a project (e.g. platting fewer lots or building less square footage); Building or financing new transportation improvements concurrent with (within 6 years of) development; Phasing/delaying a project; Requiring the development to incorporate Transportation Demand Management strategies; or Lowering level-of-service standards. TR-25: The denial of development in order to maintain concurrency may be grounds for declaring an emergency for the purpose of amending the Comprehensive Plan outside of the annual amendment cycle. TR-26: Evaluate city transportation facilities annually to determine compliance with the adopted level-of-service standards and, as necessary, amend the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) to remedy identified deficiencies. TR-27: Coordinate transportation improvements with the State, Counties, and neighboring jurisdictions to encourage through trips to occur on state facilities, reducing stress on the city street network. OBJECTIVE: FINANCE To finance the transportation systems necessary to serve new development, while ensuring the City has the capability to finance general transportation needs. POLICIES: TR-28: Require developers to construct transportation systems needed to serve new developments. TR-29: Actively pursue the formation of Local Improvement Districts (LID) to upgrade existing streets and sidewalks and construct new streets to the appropriate standard. TR-30: Improvements that serve new developments will be constructed as a part of the development process. All costs will be borne by the developer when the development is served by the proposed transportation improvements. In some instances, the City may choose to participate in this construction if improvements serve more than adjacent developments. TR-31: Revenues for street transportation improvements should primarily provide for the orderly development of the City's transportation system in compliance with the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The basic criterion for such funding should be the degree to which that project improves the overall transportation system and not the benefit that might accrue to individual properties. Where it is possible to establish a direct relationship between a needed improvement and a development, the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 5. Policies Page 5-6 development should be expected to contribute to its construction. TR-32: Encourage public/private partnerships for financing transportation projects that remedy existing and anticipated transportation problems, or that foster economic growth. TR-33: Aggressively seek and take advantage of federal, state, local, and private funding and lending sources that help implement the City's Comprehensive Transportation Plan. TR-34: Maintain a traffic impact fee system based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) guidelines, as modified by the City Council, as a means of enabling development to mitigate appropriately for associated traffic impacts. TR-35: Reassess the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan if funding for transportation facilities is insufficient to maintain adopted level-of-service standards. OBJECTIVE: QUALITY OF LIFE To improve the quality of life for Auburn residents and businesses through design of the transportation system. POLICIES: TR-36: Enhance the livability of Auburn through a variety of mechanisms, including the innovative design and construction of roadways, non-motorized facilities, and associated improvements. Apply design standards that result in attractive and functional transportation facilities. OBJECTIVE: EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT To improve transportation safety and awareness through education and enforcement. POLICIES: TR-37: Utilize education to increase awareness of existing traffic laws and safety issues, especially as they relate to pedestrians and bicyclists. TR-38: Engage the community in transportation issues through public involvement and partnerships with organizations such as the Auburn School District. TR-39: Identify areas with persistent traffic violations and address these violations, in part, through Police Department enforcement. TR-40: Develop rider information packages that inform users of commuter, transit, rail, trail, and air transportation opportunities. TR-41: Emphasize enforcement of the ""rules of the road" for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists whose actions endanger others. Conduct enforcement in a manner that reinforces the messages found in nonmotorized education & safety programs. TR-42: Utilize photo enforcement, where appropriate, to encourage safer driving practices. OBJECTIVE: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM) To efficiently operate the existing transportation system through Transportation System Management (TSM) strategies, thereby maximizing resources and reducing the need for costly system capacity expansion projects. POLICIES: TR-43: Use TSM strategies to more efficiently utilize the existing infrastructure to optimize traffic flow and relieve congestion. Examples include: Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 5. Policies Page 5-7 Moving Traffic More Effectively with Intelligent Transportation Systems Rechannalization/restriping, adding turn lanes, adding /increasing number of through lanes; Signal interconnect and optimization; Turn movement restrictions; Access Management; and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). TR-44: Support Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) implementation in coordination with Figure 2-7. Future ITS corridors will be prioritized using the following criteria. Grants, loans, or partner funding can be leveraged to expand the ITS system on a specific corridor(s). There is existing infrastructure that would make it easier and more cost efficient to implement ITS elements. The corridor(s) completes a logical segment or missing link in the citywide ITS network. Significant travel-time savings can be achieved with ITS implementation. Corridor supports other City communication and technology needs. ITS implementation would have significant safety benefits, including reducing the need for police flaggers in intersections during events. TR-45: ITS elements include but are not limited to: Operational improvements such as traffic signal coordination; Traveler information including traffic alerts and emergency notification; Incident management; and Traffic data collection. TR-46: Require development to contribute its share of ITS improvements as mitigation. TR-47: Program signal timing to encourage specific movements and the use of travel routes that are underutilized. OBJECTIVE: TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) To utilize transportation demand management strategies to lessen demand for increased street system capacity, help maintain the LOS standard, and enhance quality of life for those who use and benefit from the transportation system. POLICIES: TR-48: Encourage the use of highoccupancy vehicles (buses, carpool, and vanpool) through both private programs and under the direction of Metro and Pierce Transit. TR-49: Promote reduced employee travel during the daily peak travel periods through flexible work schedules and programs to allow employees to work part-time or fulltime or at alternate work sites closer to home. TR-50: Encourage employers to provide TDM measures in the workplace through such programs as preferential parking for high-occupancy vehicles, car sharing, Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 5. Policies Page 5-8 improved access for transit vehicles, and employee incentives for using highoccupancy vehicles. TR-51: In making funding decisions, consider transportation investments that support transportation demand management approaches by providing alternatives to single-occupant vehicles, such as transit, bikeways and pedestrian paths. TR-52: Recognize emerging TDM strategies such as tolling, variable-priced lanes, and car sharing may be effective in certain situations. TR-53: Coordinate with Metro and other jurisdictions to enhance Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) programs for CTR employers in Auburn. TR-54: Lead by example through implementation of a thorough and successful Commute-Trip Reduction (CTR) Program for City employees. OBJECTIVE: PARKING To ensure adequate coordination of parking needs with traffic and development needs. POLICIES: TR-55: On-street parking should be allowed only when consistent with the function of the street and with traffic volumes. TR-56: New developments should provide adequate off-street parking to meet their needs. TR-57: Develop and maintain regulations, which foster a balance between meeting the need for public parking and ensuring developers provide adequate parking to meet the demand generated by new development. TR-58: In certain cases, such as in the Regional Growth Center and in areas with high pedestrian and transit use, it may be appropriate to reduce the developer parking obligation to achieve other community benefits or employ innovative parking strategies such as the use of "park & walk" lots, where people could park their vehicles and walk to nearby destinations. OBJECTIVE: PARK-AND-RIDE To support development of a regional parkand ride lot system by Metro Transit, Pierce Transit, Sound Transit, and the Washington State Department of Transportation. POLICIES: TR-59: Encourage park & ride lots on sites adjacent to compatible land uses with convenient access to the Auburn Transit Station, SR 18, SR 167, and all regional transportation corridors. TR-60: Work proactively with Sound Transit, WSDOT, Metro Transit, and Pierce Transit to ensure the adequate supply of park & ride capacity in Auburn. OBJECTIVE: RIGHT-OF-WAY To retain and preserve existing right-of-way, and identify and acquire new right-of-way as needed to achieve the City's objectives. POLICIES: TR-61: The acquisition and preservation of right-of-way is a key component of maintaining a viable transportation system. Methods used to acquire and preserve rightof-way include: Requiring dedication of right-of-way as a condition of development; Purchasing right-of-way at fair market value; and Acquiring development rights and easements from property owners. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 5. Policies Page 5-9 TR-62: Preserve and protect existing rightof-way through the issuance of permits such as ROW Use permits and franchise and public way agreements, by monitoring and responding to right-of-way encroachments and safety impacts, and by limiting vacations of public right-of-way. TR-63: Vacate right-of-way only when it clearly will not be a future need or to support economic development. OBJECTIVE: MAINTENANCE AND PRESERVATION To maintain the City’s transportation system at a level that is comparable with the design standards applied to new facilities. POLICIES: TR-64: Establish programs and schedules for the level and frequency of roadway and non-motorized system maintenance. TR-65: In order to help ensure the long term preservation of the city street system, the City prohibits heavy vehicles that exceed lawful load limits for state highways from traveling on city streets, unless the City permits such travel via the issuance of a temporary haul permit that requires appropriate mitigation. TR-66: Establish standards of street repair and seek to obtain sufficient financing to attain and maintain a safe system in good condition. TR-67: Continue to implement the “Save Our Streets” program for maintenance and rehabilitation of local streets. TR-68: Create an arterial streets maintenance and rehabilitation program, including development of an implementation timeline and strategy, for arterial and collector streets in Auburn. TR-69: The City maintains the option of closing streets when freezing conditions are present to prevent frost damage. 5.2 Street System OBJECTIVE: FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION To provide an integrated street network of appropriate classes of streets designed to facilitate different types of traffic flows and access needs. POLICIES: TR-70: The city street system is made up of three classes of streets: Save Our Streets -Patching Treatment Save Our Streets -Overlay Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 5. Policies Page 5-10 Principal Arterial: 15th Street NW a. Arterials -a system of city, county, and state streets designed to move traffic to or from major traffic and activity generators. Arterials should be adequate in number, appropriately situated, and designed to accommodate moderate to high traffic volumes with a minimum of flow disruption. b. Collectors -a system of city streets that collect traffic and move it from the local street system to the arterial street system. c. Local streets -a system of city streets, which collect traffic from individual sites and conveys the traffic to the collector and arterial systems. TR-71: The Functional Roadway Classifications Map will serve as the adopted standard for identifying classified streets in the City of Auburn and the potential annexation areas. TR-72: Ensure all streets classified in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan are federally classified. TR-73: Street standards shall be developed, modified, and implemented that reflect the street classification system and function. The design and management of the street network shall seek to improve the appearance of existing street corridors. Streets are recognized as an important component of the public spaces within the City and should include, where appropriate, landscaping to enhance the appearance of city street corridors. The standards should include provisions for streetscaping. TR-74: The classification standards adopted in the Auburn Engineering Design Standards are considered the City’s minimum standards for new streets. In cases in which the City attempts to rebuild an existing street within an established right-of-way, the City Council reserves the authority to determine if additional right-of-way should be obtained in order to realize the improvement. Preservation of neighborhood continuity and cohesiveness will be respected. TR-75: The standards for residential streets may be modified in cross section to provide better relationships between the different components of the street including, but not limited to, on-street parking, the landscape strip, and the sidewalk. Among other objectives, this may be done to balance the need to provide adequate parking and buffer pedestrians from traffic. TR-76: These minimum standards do not limit or prevent developers from providing facilities that exceed the City’s standards. OBJECTIVE: ARTERIALS To provide an efficient arterial street network. POLICIES: TR-77: The City has two classes of arterials, as follows. a. Principal Arterials convey traffic along commercial or industrial activities, and provide access to freeways. They emphasize mobility and de-emphasize access to adjacent land uses. Principal arterial streets are typically constructed to accommodate five lanes of traffic. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 5. Policies Page 5-11 b. Minor Arterials convey traffic onto principal arterials from collector and local streets. They place slightly more emphasis on land access and offer a lower level of mobility than principal arterials. Minor arterial streets are typically constructed to accommodate four lanes of traffic. TR-78: Encourage King and Pierce counties to develop and implement a similar system of arterial designations within Auburn's potential annexation area. TR-79: Designate new arterials to serve developing areas concurrent with approval of such development. Arterials shall be spaced in compliance with good transportation network planning principles, and support the importance of overall system circulation. OBJECTIVE: COLLECTORS To provide an efficient collector street network, which transitions traffic from the local street network to the arterial street system. POLICIES: TR-80: The City has three classes of collectors as follows: a. Residential Collectors, Type Type I are used to connect local streets and residential neighborhoods to community activity centers and minor and principal arterials. b. Non-Residential Collectors connect nonresidential areas such as industrial and commercial areas to minor and principal arterials. c. Residential Collectors, Type II are routes that connect residential neighborhoods with less intensive land uses to activity centers, regardless of traffic volume. They are often constructed to a lesser standard than Residential Collectors, Type I and Non-Residential Collector streets. TR-81: Encourage King and Pierce counties to develop and implement a similar system of collector designations within Auburn's potential annexation area. TR-82: Designate new collectors to serve developing areas concurrent with approval of such development. Collectors shall be spaced in compliance with good transportation network planning principles, and support the importance of overall system circulation. OBJECTIVE: LOCAL STREETS To provide an effective street system for local traffic while maintaining community access. POLICIES: TR-83: The local street system is comprised of all roadway facilities not part of the higher classification system and is designed to provide direct access between abutting land uses and the collector/arterial systems. The local street types are as follows: a. Local Residential Streets, Type I serve primarily residential areas. b. Local Non-Residential Streets serve primarily industrial and manufacturing land uses. c. Local Residential Streets, Type II provide access to residential areas that tend to have less intensive land uses. d. Private Streets are privately owned by the communities they serve and are only permitted under the guidance outlined in the Private Streets Objective and supporting policies. TR-84: Access Tracts may be permitted, as long as emergency access can be guaranteed at all times. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 5. Policies Page 5-12 TR-85: The local street network shall be developed to maximize the efficiency of the transportation network in residential areas and minimize through traffic in neighborhoods. The internal local residential street network for a subdivision should be designed to discourage regional through traffic and non-residential traffic from penetrating the subdivision or adjacent subdivisions. Where possible, streets shall be planned, designed and constructed to connect to future development. When applicable, non-motorized paths shall be provided at the end of dead end streets to shorten walking distances to an adjacent arterial or public facilities including, but not limited to, schools and parks. Residential developments should be planned in a manner that minimizes the number of local street accesses to arterials and collectors. To promote efficient connectivity between areas of the community, existing stub end streets shall be linked to other streets in in new development whenever the opportunity arises and the resulting traffic volumes are not likely to exceed acceptable volumes as identified in the Auburn Engineering Design Standards. OBJECTIVE: PRIVATE STREETS To discourage the development of private streets and ensure, if they are permitted by the City, they are constructed and maintained according to City standards. POLICIES: TR-86: Private streets are discouraged, but may be permitted on a discretionary basis, as regulated by city code and the Auburn Engineering Design Standards. TR-87: If a private street is permitted, it must be built to public street standards as identified in the Auburn Engineering Design Standards and Construction Standards manuals. TR-88: Private streets must provide for emergency vehicle access and be privately maintained by an approved association or business. The City does not maintain private streets. OBJECTIVE: ACCESS MANAGEMENT To limit and provide access to the street network in a manner which improves and maintains public safety and roadway capacity. POLICIES: TR-89: Seek consolidation of access points to state highways, arterials, and collectors. This will benefit the highway and city street system, reduce interference with traffic flows on arterials, and discourage through traffic on local streets. To achieve this level of access control, the City: Adopts and supports the State’s controlled access policy on all state highway facilities; May acquire access rights along some arterials and collectors; Adopts design standards that identify access standards for each type of functional street classification; Encourages consolidation of access in developing commercial and high density residential areas through shared use of driveways and local access streets; and Will establish standards for access management, develop a planning process to work with the community and Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 5. Policies Page 5-13 implement access management solutions on arterial corridors. TR-90: Strive to prevent negative impacts to existing businesses, without compromising safety, when implementing access management. OBJECTIVE: THROUGH TRAFFIC To accommodate through traffic in the City as efficiently as possible, with a minimum of disruption to neighborhoods. POLICIES: TR-91: Continue to coordinate with the Washington State Department of Transportation to facilitate the movement of traffic through the City. TR-92: Encourage the State and Counties to develop through routes, which minimize the impact of through traffic on Auburn's residential neighborhoods. TR-93: Actively solicit action by the State and Counties to program and construct those improvements needed to serve Auburn to the state and county arterial and freeway systems. OBJECTIVE: TRAFFIC CALMING To employ traffic calming techniques to improve safety and neighborhood quality. POLICIES: TR-94: Implement the City’s traffic calming program to improve neighborhood safety and quality. TR-95: The traffic calming program shall require a technical analysis of existing conditions and appropriate treatments before actions are taken to fund and implement traffic calming measures. TR-96: The traffic calming program shall incorporate neighborhood involvement and seek community support. TR-97: New construction should incorporate traffic calming measures, as appropriate. OBJECTIVE: FREIGHT MOVEMENTS To facilitate the movements of freight and goods through Auburn with minimal adverse traffic and other environmental impacts. POLICIES: TR-98: The movement of freight and goods is recognized as an important component of Auburn’s transportation system. TR-99: The movement of freight and goods which serve largely national, state, or regional needs should take place in such a way so that the impacts on the local transportation system are minimized. These movements should take place primarily on state highways, Interstates, or on gradeseparated rail corridors in order to minimize the local impacts. TR-100: Seek public and private partners to leverage funds for freight improvement projects and associated mitigation. TR-101: Continue to work with the Freight Mobility Roundtable, FAST, FMSIB, and other local and regional groups to ensure regional needs are met, and local impacts are mitigated. TR-102: All through truck trips and the majority of local trips shall take place on designated truck routes, as identified on the truck route map, Figure 2-7, of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. This policy shall not apply to developments and uses operating under existing right-of-way use permits, traffic mitigation agreements or Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 5. Policies Page 5-14 equivalent agreements directly related to the regulation of permitted haul routes. TR-103: If the City is unable to acquire funding to maintain existing truck routes to a Pavement Condition Index Standard of 70 on a segment of roadway, that route may be restricted or closed to truck travel. TR-104: Work towards designing and constructing future truck routes, as identified on the truck route map in Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan, to sustain routine truck traffic. TR-105: Local truck trips that have origins and/or destinations in Auburn may have to sometimes use routes not designated as truck routes. The City may approve the use of alternate routes not currently designated as truck routes for truck traffic, with appropriate mitigation. Approval may be made through issuance of right-of-way use permits, traffic mitigation agreements or equivalent agreements. TR-106: Development shall be required to mitigate the impacts of construction generated truck traffic on the City’s transportation system, based on the City’s LOS standard. TR-107: Temporary haul routes for overweight or oversized vehicles shall be permitted under circumstances acceptable to the City and with appropriate mitigation. A temporary haul permit must be obtained prior to the hauling of oversized or overweight freight. TR-108: Truck traffic in residential neighborhoods shall be prohibited, except for local deliveries within said neighborhood, unless no other possible route is available, in which case mitigation may be required. OBJECTIVE: LATECOMER POLICY To enable private investors to recover a portion of improvement costs for transportation facility improvements that benefit other developments. POLICIES: TR-109: The City may enter into latecomer agreements where substantial transportation investments are made by one party that legitimately should be reimbursed by others, such as, when the infrastructure improvement will benefit a future development. Such agreements will be at the discretion of the City Council. Latecomer agreements do not apply to situations in which a property owner is required to construct improvements per an existing city code provision, such as in the case of half-street and other frontage improvements. OBJECTIVE: ROUNDABOUTS To seek air quality, safety, and capacity benefits by promoting the use of roundabouts over traffic signals. POLICIES: TR-110: Intersections controlled with roundabouts are preferred over signalized intersections whenever feasible and appropriate due to the benefits achieved with roundabouts including reduced collision rate for vehicles and pedestrians, less severe collisions, smoother traffic flow, reduced vehicle emissions and fuel consumption, lower long-term maintenance costs, and improved aesthetics. TR-111: Developments required to signalize an intersection as mitigation for a project may be required to install a roundabout instead of a traffic signal. The feasibility of acquiring the land needed for a roundabout Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 5. Policies Page 5-15 will be considered as a factor in this requirement. 5.3 Non-motorized System OBJECTIVE: PLANNING THE NON-MOTORIZED SYSTEM To plan a coordinated, interconnected network of non-motorized transportation facilities that effectively provide access to local and regional destinations, improve overall quality of life, and support healthy community and environmental principles. POLICIES: TR-112: Implement land use regulations and encourage site design that promotes nonmotorized forms of transportation. TR-113: Include the role of non-motorized transportation in all transportation planning, programming, and if suitable, capital improvement projects. TR-114: Plan for continuous non-motorized circulation routes within and between existing, new or redeveloping commercial, residential, and industrial developments. Transportation planning shall seek to allow pedestrians and bicyclists the ability to cross or avoid barriers in a manner that is safe and convenient. TR-115: Actively seek to acquire land along corridors identified for future trail development in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Auburn Parks, Recreation, & Open Space Plan 2005 and subsequent Park plans. TR-116: Schedule, plan and co-sponsor events that support recreational walking and bicycling. These events should emphasize their recreational and health values and introduce people to the transportation capabilities of bicycling and walking. TR-117: Improve and protect the nonmotorized transportation system through the establishment of level-of-service goals for non-motorized facilities. OBJECTIVE: DEVELOPING THE NON-MOTORIZED SYSTEM To build a safe, attractive, and interconnected non-motorized transportation system. POLICIES: TR-118: Develop and maintain the nonmotorized system, including bike routes, walkways and equestrian paths, to encourage significant recreational use. TR-119: Develop and maintain the nonmotorized system, including bike routes, sidewalks, and multi-use paths in a manner that promotes non-motorized travel as a viable mode of transportation. TR-120: Develop the non-motorized system to accommodate appropriate alternative forms of non-motorized transport, as well as medically necessary motorized transport. TR-121: Appropriate street furniture, lighting, signage, and landscaping should be Interurban Trail at W Main Street Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 5. Policies Page 5-16 installed along non-motorized routes to increase safety and to ensure that facilities are inviting to users. TR-122: Clearly sign and mark major nonmotorized routes to guide travelers and improve safety. TR-123: Non-motorized routes shall be constructed to accommodate emergency vehicle access and be amenable to law enforcement. TR-124: Locate and design non-motorized transportation systems so that they contribute to the safety, efficiency, enjoyment and convenience of residential neighborhoods. TR-125: The development of facilities supporting non-motorized transportation should be provided as a regular element of new construction projects. Improvements shall be secured through the development review process. TR-126: Minimize hazards and obstructions on the non-motorized transportation system by properly designing, constructing, managing, and maintaining designated routes in the system. OBJECTIVE: PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL To enhance and encourage pedestrian travel in Auburn. POLICIES: TR-127: Promote pedestrian travel within the city and connections to adjacent communities with emphasis placed on safety and on connectivity to priority destinations such as schools, parks, the downtown, and other pedestrian-oriented areas. Pedestrianoriented areas are those areas with high pedestrian traffic or potential and are identified in this plan. These areas and streets shall encourage pedestrian travel by providing enhanced pedestrian improvements or controls on motorized traffic. TR-128: Focus investments on and aggressively seek funding for the high priority pedestrian corridors, identified in Figure 3-2. TR-129: Require developers to incorporate pedestrian facilities into new development and redevelopment in conformance with the Auburn City Code. TR-130: Continue to construct new and rehabilitate existing sidewalks through a sidewalk improvement program. TR-131: Seek ways to provide pedestrian amenities such as streetlights, trees, seating areas, signage, and public art along all major pedestrian travel routes. TR-132: Work towards buffering pedestrian walkways from moving traffic, particularly in areas with high levels of pedestrian movements, such as near schools and commercial areas, and along corridors with heavy vehicular traffic. TR-133: Pedestrian crossings shall be developed at locations with significant pedestrian traffic and designed to match pedestrian desire lines. TR-134: Encourage the formation of LIDs to develop pedestrian pathways and other non-motorized amenities throughout the City. Partner with the local school districts to improve Safe Walking Routes to School. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 5. Policies Page 5-17 OBJECTIVE: BICYCLE TRAVEL To improve Auburn's bicycling network. POLICIES: TR-135: Develop programs and publications, and work with local employers to encourage citywide bicycle commuting. TR-136: Designate, develop, and maintain high priority bicycle routes, in conformance with Figure 3-4, that create an interconnected system of bike facilities for local and regional travel, including on-street bike routes, and multi-purpose trails. TR-137: During the development review process, ensure projects are consistent with the Non-motorized chapter of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan by requiring right-of-way dedications and other improvements as needed to develop the bicycle network. TR-138: Focus investments on and aggressively seek funding for the high priority future bicycle corridors, identified in Figure 3-4. TR-139: Encourage the inclusion of convenient and secure bicycle storage facilities in all large public and private developments. OBJECTIVE: EQUESTRIAN TRAVEL To improve Auburn's equestrian environment. POLICIES: TR-140: Strive to incorporate equestrian facilities into the design of trail and transportation facilities, where possible and appropriate. These efforts should be concentrated south of the White River in Auburn's southeast corner and in Lea Hill, but considered for other areas of the City. TR-141: Transportation projects, and other public and private projects, in lower-density neighborhoods should be evaluated, and where possible, planned, designed and constructed to be compatible with equestrian use. TR-142: Create an interconnected system of safe equestrian trails and provide adequate equestrian amenities adjacent to those trails. 5.4 Transit System OBJECTIVE: TRANSIT SERVICES To encourage the continued development of public transit systems and other alternatives to single occupant vehicle travel, to relieve traffic congestion, to reduce reliance on the automobile for personal transportation needs, to improve route coverage and and scheduling, and to ensure transit is a convenient and reliable mode option for both local and regional trips. TR-143: Partner with WSDOT, Metro Transit, Pierce Transit, and Sound Transit to achieve Auburn's transit and passenger rail objectives. TR-144: Work with local and regional transit agencies to serve new and existing trip generators in Auburn, such as colleges, commercial areas, and community facilities. TR-145: Encourage Sound Transit, Metro Transit, and Pierce Transit to expand transit to underserved areas of Auburn. TR-146: Partner with WSDOT, Amtrak, and Sound Transit to establish an intercity passenger rail stop at the Auburn Station. TR-147: Consider both the transit impacts and the opportunities presented by major development proposals when reviewing development under the State Environmental Policy Act. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 5. Policies Page 5-18 TR-148: Encourage the inclusion of transit facilities in new development when appropriate. TR-149: Encourage bus stops to be located at well lit areas. TR-150: Work with transit providers and regional agencies to develop a transit system that is fully accessible to pedestrians and the physically challenged, and which integrates the access, safety, and parking requirements of bicyclists. TR-151: Identify areas of concentrated transit traffic and impose design and construction standards that accommodate the unique considerations associated with bus travel, such as street geometry and pedestrian linkages. 5.5 Air Transportation OBJECTIVE: AIR TRANSPORTATION To provide an efficient municipal airport, serving light general aviation aircraft, as an integral part of the City’s transportation system. POLICIES: TR-152: Continue to develop the Auburn Municipal Airport in accordance with the Airport Master Plan. TR-153: The airport shall be managed as a general aviation facility; the use of jet aircrafts and helicopters that create noise and land use conflicts shall be evaluated, in conformance with FAA regulations. TR-154: The siting of new airport facilities shall consider neighborhood impacts such as increased noise generated from the use of those facilities. TR-155: Use of the airport by nonconventional aircraft such as ultra lights shall be discouraged, in conformance with FAA regulations. TR-156: The City’s zoning ordinance and other appropriate regulatory measures shall enforce the airport clear zones as regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The impact of development on air safety shall be assessed through SEPA review, and appropriate mitigation measures shall be required by the City. TR-157: Minimize or eliminate the potentially adverse effects of light and glare on the operation of the Auburn Airport. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 6. Funding Page 6-1 CHAPTER 6. FUNDING The ability to finance the transportation system is critical to the implementation of this plan and the success of the future transportation system. Funding is needed to realize the capital improvements and maintenance activities outlined in this plan. This chapter details the financial planning tools and funding mechanisms available to accomplish these improvements. 6.1 Financial Planning and Programming The City reassesses its financial plan annually in order to ensure programmed transportation improvements are financially feasible and prioritized in accordance with funding availability. The Transportation Improvement Program and Capital Facilities Plan are the two financial planning documents the City uses to identify its financial strategy for implementing transportation improvements. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The City adopts a six-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) annually, which lists programmed transportation improvements on the arterial and collector systems, including intersection and nonmotorized improvements. Transportation needs are identified by examining the latest information concerning safety and accident history, growth trends, the traffic model, traffic studies, and the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The TIP adoption process also includes a revenue forecast and analysis of available funding. Projects are then prioritized according to a number of factors including safety, capacity needs, access needs, and the likelihood of securing funding. The first three years of the TIP must be financially constrained, so project programming is often limited due to funding limitations. The TIP is an important tool for identifying funding needs and developing a financial plan for project implementation. It also feeds into the Capital Facilities Plan. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN The Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is the Comprehensive Plan element, which identifies the financial plan for implementing all capital improvements in Auburn. Transportation improvements are included in the Capital Facilities Plan, which is amended annually. The Capital Facilities Plan enables the City to fulfill the GMA requirement of having a multiyear financing plan based on identified transportation needs. It also enables the City to make informed decisions about its investment of public dollars and make timely Auburn City Hall Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 6. Funding Page 6-2 decisions about maintaining levels-of-service in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan standards. 6.2 Funding Sources The City uses a combination of public and private funding sources to implement transportation improvements in Auburn, both for maintenance activities and capital improvements. GENERAL TAX REVENUES The City receives tax revenues from a variety of state, regional, and local sources including the real estate excise tax, sales tax, and the motor vehicle fuel tax. Despite these revenues, the City has numerous maintenance and capital improvement needs that cannot be met by existing tax revenues alone. Recognizing the need to raise additional revenues for the local street system, Auburn residents approved the ‘Save Our Streets’ (SOS) program in 2004, and in doing so, created a funding program to help rehabilitate Auburn’s residential streets. With the success of the ‘Save Our Streets’ program, the City intends to pursue a program that will help fund arterial and collector street maintenance. The City does have an Arterial Street Fund; however, these funds have proven inadequate in addressing all the maintenance and capital needs of the arterial system. GRANTS The City has an active grant program and continually seeks grants, both private and public, to improve Auburn’s transportation system. The following is a list of some of the grants the City has historically applied for and will likely apply for again in the future. FEDERALLY FUNDED PROGRAMS The Transportation Enhancements Program funds projects designed to strengthen the cultural, aesthetic, and environmental aspects of the inter-modal transportation system. The program provides for the implementation of a variety of nontraditional projects, including the restoration of historic transportation facilities, the construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, landscaping and scenic beautification, and the mitigation of water pollution from highway runoff. The Surface Transportation Program (STP) provides flexible funding that may be used by states and localities for projects on any public road, non-motorized improvements, bridge projects, and transit capital projects. The Safety Program is a federal program targeted at reducing accident rates at intersections and along corridors, particularly at those locations with higher than average fatality and injury rates. The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program is a federally funded program administered through PSRC. CMAQ funds projects and programs in air quality non-attainment and maintenance areas, which reduce transportation related emissions. In addition to the aforementioned programs, the federal government has an annual appropriations bill. Auburn may apply through the offices of Washington senators and congressional members for funding for specific projects. This funding source has historically been a successful means of financing some of the City’s more expensive capital improvement projects. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 6. Funding Page 6-3 FEDERAL LEGISLATION In August 2005, the federal government reauthorized SAFETEA-LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users), a $286.5 billion, six-year transportation bill that will provide funding for many of the federal grant programs discussed above, as well as several new funding programs. The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act also dedicates funding to numerous programs, many of which can be used to help finance the City’s programmed transportation improvement projects. STATE FUNDED PROGRAMS The Safe Routes to Schools Program is a state and federally funded program that aims to protect children from traffic related deaths and injuries and promotes a healthy lifestyle by encouraging bicycling and walking to school. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Grant is a state funded program that funds nonmotorized safety improvements. The Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) administers annual grant programs that fund roadway and non-motorized projects that improve safety, mobility, capacity, and promote economic development. The TIB offers several programs, each of which emphasizes different funding criteria. The Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) is a state funded program that provides low-cost financing for public facility improvements that are required for private development. LOANS There are several low-interest loans available to municipalities, such as the Public Works Trust Fund Loan. These loans can be strategically employed to leverage grant funding by providing a local match, enabling the City to compete for funding for public infrastructure projects. In addition, the City has the option of issuing bonds for public infrastructure projects. PRIVATE SECTOR CONTRIBUTIONS TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES The City has an established traffic impact fee system based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) guidelines, as adjusted by the City Council. The fee system estimates the amount of traffic each development is likely to create, based on the land use and size. Traffic impact fees compensate the City for the impact new development is expected to have on the City street system. In turn, the City uses the revenues to expand the street network through system-wide capacity improvements. FACILITY CONTRIBUTIONS In lieu of traffic impact fees, a developer can improve a facility in a manner commensurate with the traffic impact the development is projected to generate. These contributions do not relieve developers of their obligation to provide half street improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk, drainage, and street paving adjacent to their developing property. FUNDING PARTNERSHIPS The City has successfully formed several funding partnerships, which have enabled it to leverage its resources in implementing transportation improvements. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 6. Funding Page 6-4 LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS Local Improvement Districts (LID) enable city investment in a specified area by leveraging city funds with contributions from property owners in the district. In essence, LID’s are a means of using limited city resources to improve neighborhood quality through improvement of streets, sidewalks, and other features of the roadway. FAST (FREIGHT ACTION STRATEGY TEAM) FAST is an innovative partnership composed of transportation agencies, ports, cities, economic development organizations, trucking, rail, and business interests. One of FAST’s primary objectives is to obtain funding for projects that improve freight mobility. FAST helped fund the S 277th Street Grade Separation and the 3rd Street SW Grade Separation. FAST is also working on securing funds to help implement the M Street Grade Separation project. FMSIB (FREIGHT MOBILITY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT BOARD) The mission of the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB) is to create a comprehensive and coordinated state program to facilitate freight movement to local, national, and international markets. FMSIB is also charged with lessening the impact of freight movements on local communities. FMSIB obtains funding directly from legislative appropriations and has committed funds to the M Street Grade Separation project. FUTURE FINANCING POSSIBILITIES As the transportation system evolves, so will the range of financing options available to the City. In general, the financing options currently available under state law fall short of meeting current and anticipated transportation improvement needs. Hence, the City will continue to seek fair and sustainable strategies for funding the maintenance activities and capital improvements needed to preserve the City’s transportation network. Among other strategies, the implementation of a street utility may be employed to fund many of the City’s transportation needs. STREET UTILITY A street utility would be used similarly to how how sewer and water utility fees are now collected. A monthly or annual fee would be charged to residents and businesses in Auburn, for example via a flat fee or through a pro-rated fee based on anticipated usage. The implementation of a street utility would require a change in state law. The street utility system is one in which all residents and businesses would pay their fair share of funding street maintenance and repair. If eventually implemented, a street utility would undoubtedly be combined with a suite of other financing strategies the City currently employs. 6.3 Funding Strategies and Project Prioritization The City uses a variety of criteria to prioritize transportation projects, including safety, mobility, and overall community benefit. In addition, the City also considers the availability of funding and the ability to leverage city dollars to raise addition funds. For example, grants are often available for specific types of capital investments, whereas they are more limited for maintenance and and preservation. Hence, the City often needs to budget for maintenance through tax revenues. Capital improvements may be financially secured through a combination of Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 6. Funding Page 6-5 public and private investment. Hence, project prioritization for capital improvements is often partially dependent on the ability to secure outside funding. Likewise, maintenance and preservation is highly dependent on the limited tax revenues available to the City. In the future, the City will need to continue lobbying for its share of federal, state, and county tax revenues, seek creative avenues for securing private investment dollars and grant funds, and potentially implement new funding strategies such as tolling and street utility fees. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 7. Monitoring and Evaluation Page 7-1 CHAPTER 7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION The Comprehensive Transportation Plan, a long-range plan with the horizon year 2030, anticipates the needs and conditions of the future transportation system, enabling the City to aptly plan for its current and future needs. Nonetheless, the transportation network is dynamic, constantly evolving due to circumstances beyond the scope and influence of this plan. Hence, regular updates are necessary to ensure the Plan remains current and relevant. 7.1 Annual Updates The Comprehensive Transportation Plan will be amended annually as part of the City’s regular Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle, which ensures proposed changes go through a public review process before the amended plan is adopted by the City Council at the end of the calendar year. In preparation for the annual amendment cycle, the City will review the plan and propose updates as needed. These proposed updates may be due to shifts in in City priorities, the availability of new information, or the relevance of certain plan components. REEVALUATION The annual reevaluation process provides an opportunity for the City to evaluate progress made in implementing the Plan, as well as identify new needs that have arisen since the previous update. The City will look at its street, non-motorized and transit systems, and assess whether the Plan adequately addresses the implementation strategies necessary to ensure the transportation infrastructure continues to grow in line with the City’s objectives. As part of this process, the City will review its future projects list and update the Capital Facilities Plan as appropriate. It will also review and update the Policies and Funding chapters, in order to remain consistent with the City’s vision and current with potential funding strategies. TECHNICAL INFORMATION The Comprehensive Transportation Plan contains a range of technical data, much of which informs other elements of the Plan. As part of the annual amendment cycle, technical information, such as traffic volumes, current level-of-service, roadway classifications, and transit route and ridership information will be updated. This new information will inform much of the evaluative process, enabling the City to quantify system changes over a period of time and make apt decisions in planning the future system. Auburn Time Transit Center Clock Comprehensive Transportation Plan Chapter 7. Monitoring and Evaluation Page 7-2 MODEL UPDATES The City’s traffic model shall be updated on a regular basis, every few years, as new land use, employment, and housing data becomes available. Model updates are important as they ensure the City has an accurate understanding of how land use patterns, employment, and other factors impact future transportation conditions, enabling the City Council to make informed policy decisions. The model also provides an understanding of the impacts associated with different projects, allowing the City to devise a revised list of future projects to improve capacity and safety, as well as achieve other priorities. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY The annual evaluation process is an opportunity to ensure the Comprehensive Transportation Plan is consistent with other elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, including the land use element, economic development element, Auburn Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan, and the Capital Facilities Plan. Hence, as part of the annual amendment cycle, the City will ensure these plan components are consistent with and supportive of each other. 7.2 Multi-Year Updates Although the City will go through a formal process of updating the Comprehensive Transportation Plan annually, a more exhaustive process is periodically necessary. Hence, a thorough rewrite of the Plan shall be conducted every five to eight years. This endeavor will include a broad public outreach effort with input from neighboring jurisdictions, state and regional agencies, and Auburn residents and businesses. Much like the process for the 2005 and 2009 updates, it will present an opportunity to holistically examine the current transportation system and lay the framework for development of the future system.