HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-08-2015 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDAThe City of Auburn Planning Commission is an eight member advisory body that provides recommendations to
the Auburn City Council on the preparation of and amendments to land use plans and related codes such as
zoning. Planning Commissioners are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council.
Actions taken by the Planning Commission are not final decisions; they are in the form of recommendations to
the City Council who must ultimately make the final decision.
SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING AND WORK SESSION
December 8, 2015
Auburn City Hall
AGENDA
SPECIAL WORK SESSION – 5:00 - 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
I. 2015 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments* (CPA15 -0001)
Staff: Jeff Dixon, Planning Services Manager
Summary: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments
Annual Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments
• P/T #1 – Auburn School District 2015-2021 Capital Facilities Plan
• P/T #2 – Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2016-2021
• P/T #3 – Federal Way School District 2016 Capital Facilities Plan
• P/T #4 – Kent School District 2015/2016 – 2020/2021 Capital Facilities Plan
• P/T #5 – City of Auburn 2016-2021 Capital Facilities Plan
II. 2015 Comprehensive Plan Elements* (CPA15 -0003)
Staff: Jeff Tate, Assistant Director of Community Development
Summary: Planning Commission and staff to discuss 2015 Comprehensive Plan update
which includes:
The Comprehensive Plan Elements can be viewed at the following link:
http://www.auburnwa.gov/doing_business/community_development/planning/comprehensive_plan/
draft_comp_plan.htm.
• Core Element (released 10/13/15)
• Land Use Element (released 10/13/15)
• Housing Element (released 10/13/15)
• Transportation Element (released 10/13/15)
• Parks & Recreation Element (released 11/10/15)
• Capital Facilities Element (released 11/10/15)
• Private Utilities Element (released 11/10/15)
The City of Auburn Planning Commission is an eight member advisory body that provides recommendations to
the Auburn City Council on the preparation of and amendments to land use plans and related codes such as
zoning. Planning Commissioners are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council.
Actions taken by the Planning Commission are not final decisions; they are in the form of recommendations to
the City Council who must ultimately make the final decision.
• Economic Development Element (released 11/10/15)
• Staff’s recommended Modifications based on public feedback
III. ADJOURNMENT
________________________________________
REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. November 4, 2015
III. PUBLIC COMMENT
Comment from the audience on any item not listed on the agenda for discussion or
public hearing.
IV. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT
Update on Planning and Development Department activities.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 2015 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments* (CPA15 -0001)
Staff: Jeff Dixon, Planning Services Manager
Annual Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments
• P/T #1 – Auburn School District 2015-2021 Capital Facilities Plan
Chair Opens the Public Hearing
Staff presents the staff report
Chair Calls for Testimony either for or against (a time limit may be set at the discretion of the
Chair on individual public testimony)
Chair closes the public testimony
Planning Commission Deliberation
Planning Commission Vote
• P/T #2 – Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2016-2021
Chair Opens the Public Hearing
Staff presents the staff report
Chair Calls for Testimony either for or against (a time limit may be set at the discretion of the
Chair on individual public testimony)
Chair closes the public testimony
Planning Commission Deliberation
Planning Commission Vote
The City of Auburn Planning Commission is an eight member advisory body that provides recommendations to
the Auburn City Council on the preparation of and amendments to land use plans and related codes such as
zoning. Planning Commissioners are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council.
Actions taken by the Planning Commission are not final decisions; they are in the form of recommendations to
the City Council who must ultimately make the final decision.
• P/T #3 – Federal Way School District 2016 Capital Facilities Plan
Chair Opens the Public Hearing
Staff presents the staff report
Chair Calls for Testimony either for or against (a time limit may be set at the discretion of the
Chair on individual public testimony)
Chair closes the public testimony
Planning Commission Deliberation
Planning Commission Vote
• P/T #4 – Kent School District 2015/2016 – 2020/2021 Capital Facilities Plan
Chair Opens the Public Hearing
Staff presents the staff report
Chair Calls for Testimony either for or against (a time limit may be set at the discretion of the
Chair on individual public testimony)
Chair closes the public testimony
Planning Commission Deliberation
Planning Commission Vote
• P/T #5 – City of Auburn 2016-2021 Capital Facilities Plan
Chair Opens the Public Hearing
Staff presents the staff report
Chair Calls for Testimony either for or against (a time limit may be set at the discretion of the
Chair on individual public testimony)
Chair closes the public testimony
Planning Commission Deliberation
Planning Commission Vote
B. 2015 Comprehensive Plan Elements* (CPA15-0003)
Staff: Jeff Tate, Assistant Director of Community Development
Summary: Staff to provide a brief introduction followed by a Public Hearing on the
2015 Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan Elements can be viewed at the following link:
http://www.auburnwa.gov/doing_business/community_development/planning/comprehensive_
plan/draft_comp_plan.htm.
1. Core Element
2. Land Use Element
3. Housing Element
4. Transportation Element
5. Parks & Recreation Element
6. Capital Facilities Element
7. Private Utilities Element
8. Economic Development Element
The City of Auburn Planning Commission is an eight member advisory body that provides recommendations to
the Auburn City Council on the preparation of and amendments to land use plans and related codes such as
zoning. Planning Commissioners are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council.
Actions taken by the Planning Commission are not final decisions; they are in the form of recommendations to
the City Council who must ultimately make the final decision.
The hearing on the above items will occur as follows:
• Chair will open the public hearing continued from the previously public hearing on
items V.B.1 thru 8. This is the opportunity for the public to provide oral input on
the Core Element and any of the other Elements (a time limit may be set at the
discretion of the Chair on individual public testimony).
• Once all members of the public have had an opportunity to speak, the Chair will
close the public hearing and will initiate Planning Commission deliberations.
• Planning Commissioners who have comments on formatting, grammar,
punctuation and other technical corrections will provide hard copies to staff at the
conclusion of the meeting. Staff will incorporate corrections into the materials that
are transmitted to City Council.
• Core Element plus staff suggested modifications developed in response to
feedback received since the time of initial transmittal
• Land Use Element plus staff suggested modifications developed in response to
feedback received since the time of initial transmittal
• Housing Element plus staff suggested modifications developed in response to
feedback received since the time of initial transmittal
• Transportation Element plus staff suggested modifications developed in response
to feedback received since the time of initial transmittal
• Parks & Recreation Element plus staff suggested modifications developed in
response to feedback received since the time of initial transmittal and the Parks,
Arts, and Recreation Open Space Plan.
• Capital Facilities Element plus staff suggested modifications developed in
response to feedback received since the time of initial transmittal plus all
functional plans referenced in this Element (e.g. Storm Drainage Plan, Sewer
Plan, Water Plan, Airport Plan, School District Capital Facilities Plans)
• Private Utilities Element plus staff suggested modifications developed in response
to feedback received since the time of initial transmittal
• Economic Development Element plus staff suggested modifications developed in
response to feedback received since the time of initial transmittal
• Appendices A thru J of the Comprehensive Plan
VI. ADJOURNMENT
* Denotes attachments included in the packet
DRAFT
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 4, 2015
MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Judi Roland called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
located on the first floor of Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA.
II. ROLL CALL/ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM
Planning Commission Members present were: Chair Judi Roland, Vice-Chair Copple,
Commissioner Mason, Commissioner Baggett, Commissioner Lee, and Commissioner
Smith.
Staff present included: Assistant City Attorney Doug Ruth; Planning Services Manager
Jeff Dixon; Urban Design Planner Lauren Flemister; Planner Alexandria Teague; Gary
Yao, Planner II; and Community Development Secretary Tina Kriss.
Members of the public present: Desiree Kmiecik of KG Investment, Bob Seaton, Jill
Moodie, Jeff and Steve Small, and Jeanette Ordonez of Futurewise.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. October 20, 2015
Commissioner Copple moved and Commissioner Lee seconded to approve the
minutes from the October 20, 2015 meeting as written.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 6-0
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT
Don Small of Small & Sons Oil Distribution Company, Auburn, Washington
Mr. Small asked if zoning map changes would be included in this process. Staff
explained that in tonight’s discussion changes to the Comprehensive Plan map would be
discussed but that the City of Auburn Zoning Map will have a proposed amendment
process starting in 2016. Mr. Small was invited to stay and listen to the presentation and
then decide whether to comment or not.
V. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT
Planning Services Manager Jeff Dixon reported that the building across from Auburn
City Hall at 30 West Main Street, also known as the Liquidation Outlet building, has been
demolished and removed.
King County has transmitted a Revised Determination of Significance and Request for
Comments on Scope of Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed location of a
new south county transfer station. At one time 28721 West Valley Highway S., Auburn
was considered but the notice specifies that this location is not a reasonable alternative.
Currently 901 C Street SW, Auburn and 35101 West Valley Highway S., Algona will be
the subject of EIS preparation by King County. The deadline for submittal of comments
is November 24, 2015.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 4, 2015
Page 2
Staff explained that King County has also issued a Determination of Significance of Non
Significance for the County’s adoption of an ordinance allowing as an interim use a
400,000 square foot auto racing garage master planning demonstration project for a
motorsports facility at Pacific Raceways.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chair Roland explained that the Public Hearing today will be continued to November 17th
and December 8, 2015, the public record will remain open but the public comment will
be closed until the next public hearing.
Planning Service Manager Jeff Dixon provided background information on the draft
Comprehensive Plan update. He explained that the Core and Transportation elements
were transmitted at the October 20th meeting, he explained the transmittals that were
also distributed to the Washington State Department of Commerce and the Puget Sound
Regional Council (PSRC) and the schedule for the remaining draft Comprehensive Plan
update elements. Staff pointed out that three public comment letters have been received
regarding the Comprehensive Plan update (distributed to the Planning Commissioners).
Public Comment #1 and Public Comment #2 recommends a revision to the
Comprehensive Plan to re-designate Environmental Park zoning to “Light Industrial”;
Public Comment #3 from PSRC provides nine comments, two referencing the Core
Element and seven referencing the Transportation Element. Staff will evaluate the
comments and prepare written responses or modifications to the documents to address
these comments. Staff expects to receive subsequent public comment letters which will
be transmitted to the Planning Commission Members in groups prior to the meeting.
Staff reviewed with the Commissioners the recommendations by Council from their
November 2, 2015 briefing on the Land Use and Housing Elements. Council
recommended expanding the vision statement to include not only those who live in the
City but also those who visit and work in the City. The second suggestion was to include
policy in the Housing Element that encourages mixed income housing for the City. Staff
will be working to incorporate those changes into the draft plan.
Chair Roland opened the Public Hearing on the Transportation and Core Elements of
the draft Comprehensive Plan update at 7:11 p.m. and invited members of the public to
come forward for public comment on the Transportation and Core Elements of the draft
Comprehensive Plan update.
Steve Small, 201 O Street NE, Auburn
Mr. Small, owner of Small and Sons Oil and Distribution Company, located at 112 3rd St
NW, Auburn, expressed that he has some concerns regarding the zoning of his property
located downtown and Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Small if there were proposed
Comprehensive Plan Map updates and if changes were made will property owners be
informed. Staff encouraged Mr. Small to stay and listen to the introduction. Staff also
invited Mr. Small to provide any public comments at the next meeting November 17,
2014 during the Public Hearing on the Land Use Elements or provide them in writing.
With no other testimony from the public, Chair Roland closed the public input portion of
the public hearing on the Transportation and Core Elements of the draft Comprehensive
Plan update at 7:14 p.m. Chair Roland invited the Commissioners to ask questions of
staff.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 4, 2015
Page 3
A. Transportation Plan
In response to a question by Commissioner Smith, Transportation Planner Pablo
Para and Traffic Engineer James Webb discussed the pedestrian safety projects and
how they are ranked and prioritized; Auburn Way South was specifically discussed.
B. Core Comprehensive Plan
Planning Services Manager Dixon explained that during tonight’s discussion the
Planning Commission will receive an introduction to the Land Use Element which
includes the Comprehensive Plan Map.
There were no additional questions from the Commission for the Public Hearing.
At 7:22 p.m. Chair Roland continued the public hearing to the November 17th, 2015
Planning Commission Public Hearing.
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Housing Element
Planner Alexandria Teague and presented the staff presentation on the public
outreach efforts of the overall plan and on the Draft Housing Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
A review of the housing conditions and trends summary was provided, staff
explained that this information assist in identifying community needs and developing
Housing Element policies.
The Commission and Staff discussed Housing Goals and Policies, Healthy Homes
and Neighborhoods and how Auburn can plan for Active Living and Healthy Eating.
A discussion was held regarding Housing Objectives and housing objective
implementation strategies to address housing diversity, condition, attainability, and
programs to serve special needs.
Staff clarified the existing and proposed policies within the Housing Element and how
the existing policies were established.
B. Land Use Element
Urban Design Planner Lauren Flemister presented the staff report on Land Use, and
Planner II, Gary Yao presented the staff report the Draft Land Use Map and of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The land use designations and designation criteria were reviewed and how the City
implements the zoning designations was discussed.
The Commission and staff discussed the conforming and non-conforming properties
in the Environmental Park (EP) zone in response to a question by Commissioner
Lee.
A discussion was held as to the process of informing land owners of any proposed
changes to zoning and land use. Planning Services Manager Jeff Dixon explained
the process to date and future outreach efforts along with the City’s requirements
and that individual notice for area-wide changes is not standard.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 4, 2015
Page 4
The Commission and staff discussed the City of Auburn gateways and how they
have been implemented into the draft Comprehensive Plan update.
The next meeting will be held November 17, 2015.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chair Roland
adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m.
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Page 1 of 7
Agenda Subject
CPA15-0001, 2015 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments –
City Initiated Plan Policy/Text Amendments
Date:
December 1, 2015
Department: Community
Development & Public Works
Attachments: See separate
policy/text amendment sections of
working binder
Budget Impact: N/A
Administrative Recommendation: Planning Commission to recommend to City Council approval
of 2015 City-Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
Background Summary:
The City of Auburn adopted amendments to its Comprehensive Plan in 1995 in response to the
Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements, as amended. Since then the Auburn
Comprehensive Plan has been amended annually.
Annual Comprehensive plan amendments can be initiated by the City of Auburn (city-initiated) and by
private citizens (privately-initiated). This year the city is initiating:
• Five policy/text amendments.
• (No map amendments are currently being processed with this year’s amendment process)
The city received three privately-initiated plan map amendments by the submittal deadline. However, the
processing of these has been postponed to allow the environmental review process to be completed, as
required. These are listed in the docket, but the applications are not included in the notebooks. These
will be considered at a future unspecified time.
This staff report and recommendation addresses Comprehensive Policy/Text (P/T) Amendments P/T # 1
through # 5. This is the only staff report associated with the annual comprehensive plan amendment
process.
In terms of process, the Comprehensive plan amendments are initially reviewed during a public hearing
process before the City of Auburn Planning Commission, who then provides a recommendation to the City
Council for final action. City Council consideration and action on the amendments generally occurs but is
not required prior to the end of the year.
Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions:
Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: Building M&O
Airport Finance Cemetery Mayor
Hearing Examiner Municipal Services Finance Parks
Human Services Planning & Dev. Fire Planning
Park Board Public Works Legal Police
Planning Comm. Other Public Works Human Resources
Action:
Committee Approval: Yes No
Council Approval: Yes No Call for Public Hearing ___/___/____
Referred to _________________________________ Until ____/___/____
Tabled ______________________________________ Until ___/___/____
Councilmember: Staff: Dixon
Meeting Date: December 8, 2015 Item Number:
Agenda Subject: CPA15-0001, 2015 Annual Comprehensive Plan
Amendments – City Initiated Plan Map Amendments & Policy/Text
Amendments
Date: December 1, 2015
Page 2 of 7
A. Findings
1. RCW 36.70A.130 (Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA)) provides for
amendments to locally adopted GMA comprehensive plans. Except in limited circumstances
provided for in State law, comprehensive plan amendments shall be considered by the city
or county legislative body no more frequently than once per year.
2. The City of Auburn established a June 5, 2015 deadline for the submittal of privately-
initiated comprehensive plan applications (map or policy/text). Notice to the public of the
filing deadline was provided on the City’s website, the Seattle Times Newspaper, and sent
to a compiled notification list in May 2015. The City received three privately-initiated plan
map amendments by the submittal deadline. However, the processing of these has been
postponed to allow the environmental review process to be completed, as required by city
and state law. These applications are listed in the docket, but the applications are not
included in the notebooks. These applications will be considered at a future unspecified
time, after the environmental review process is completed.
3. The City of Auburn received annual updates to the four school district Capital Facilities
Plans whose districts occur within the City of Auburn. These Capital Facilities Plans, as well
as the City’s Capital Facilities Plan are referenced in the current Chapter 5, Capital
Facilities, of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan and are processed as Policy/Text (P/T)
amendments. This will be incorporated into the “Capital Facilities Element” of the updated
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the school
district capital facilities plans were prepared separately by each school district acting as their
own lead agency, as allowed by state law.
5. The environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the
remaining amendment, the city Capital Facilities Plan, resulted in a Determination of Non-
Significance (DNS) issued for the City-initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments on
November 2, 2015 (City File # SEP15-0030). The comment period ended November 16,
2015 and the appeal period ended November 30, 2015. The City did not receive any
comments in response to the issuance of the Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). A
copy of the DNS and environmental checklist application is provided in the binder.
6. Auburn City Code Chapter 14.22 outlines the process for submittal of privately-initiated
amendments and the general processing of comprehensive plan amendments as follows:
“Section 14.22.100
A. The planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing on all proposed
amendments to the comprehensive plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be given
pursuant to Chapter 1.27 ACC and, at a minimum, include the following:
1. For site-specific plan map amendments:
a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not
less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing;
b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record
within a radius of 300 feet of the proposed map amendment request, not
less than 10 calendar days prior to the public hearing;
Agenda Subject: CPA15-0001, 2015 Annual Comprehensive Plan
Amendments – City Initiated Plan Map Amendments & Policy/Text
Amendments
Date: December 1, 2015
Page 3 of 7
2. For area-wide plan map amendments:
a. Notice shall be published once in the official newspaper of the city not
less than 10 calendar days prior to the date of public hearing;
b. Notice shall be mailed by first class mail to all property owners of record
within the area subject to the proposed amendment;
c. Notice shall be posted in at least two conspicuous locations in the area
subject to the proposed amendment not less than 10 calendar days prior
to the date of the public hearing.
B. Notwithstanding the above, the director may expand the minimum noticing provisions
noted above as deemed necessary.
C. Planning Commission Recommendation. The planning commission shall conduct a
public hearing on all potential comprehensive plan amendments and shall make and
forward a recommendation on each to the city council. The planning commission
shall adopt written findings and make a recommendation consistent with those
findings to the city council.
D. The city council, if it elects to amend the comprehensive plan, shall adopt written
findings and adopt said amendments by ordinance.
E. State Review. All comprehensive plan amendments considered by the planning
commission shall be forwarded for state agency review consistent with RCW
36.70A.106.
F. Any appeal of an amendment to the comprehensive plan shall be made in
accordance with Chapter 36.70A RCW. (Ord. 6172 § 1, 2008.)”
7. As provided in the City code, the Comprehensive Plan amendments are initially reviewed
during a public hearing process before the City of Auburn Planning Commission, who then
provides a recommendation to the City Council for final action. City Council consideration
and action on the amendments generally occurs, but is not required, prior to the end of the
year.
8. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the proposed comprehensive plan amendments outlined in
this agenda bill were sent to the Washington State Office of Commerce and other state
agencies as required for the state review on November 6, 2015. The Washington State
Office of Commerce acknowledged receipt by letter dated November 9, 2015. No
comments have been received from the Washington State Department of Commerce or
other state agencies as of the writing of this report. A copy of the transmittal and
acknowledgement is provided in the binder.
9. Due to the nature and limited number of policy/text changes, and the lack of private initiated
map amendments, the optional process for conducting a public open house was not
conducted as provided for in the city code.
10. The notice of public hearing was published on November 12, 2015 in the Seattle Times
which is at least 10-days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for
December 8, 2015. A copy of the request to publish is provided in the binder.
11. The following report identifies Comprehensive Plan Map Policy/Text (P/T) amendments
scheduled for the Planning Commission’s December 8, 2015 public hearing with a staff
recommendation.
Agenda Subject: CPA15-0001, 2015 Annual Comprehensive Plan
Amendments – City Initiated Plan Map Amendments & Policy/Text
Amendments
Date: December 1, 2015
Page 4 of 7
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments (File No. CPA15-0001)
(No map amendments are currently being processed with this year’s amendment process)
Comprehensive Plan Policy/Text Amendments (File No. CPA15-0001)
P/T #1
Incorporate the Auburn School District Capital Facilities Plan 2015 through 2021 into the City of
Auburn Comprehensive Plan.
Discussion
The Auburn School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital Facilities
Plan (CFP) covering from 2015-2021. The CFP was adopted by the Auburn School District
School Board of Directors on June 8, 2015 and has been subject to separate SEPA review and
a Determination of Non Significance (DNS). Information contained in the School District CFP
serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf of the school district.
The Planning Commission action is incorporation of the Auburn School District Capital Facilities
Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
The CFP includes the following:
• six–year enrollment projections
• Auburn school district level of service standards
• An inventory of existing facilities
• The district’s overall capacity of the 6-year period
• District capital construction Plan
• Impact fee calculations
A review of the Auburn School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the District
is requesting a change in the fee obligations. The net fee obligation for single-family
dwellings is proposed to be $5,330.88, an increase of $1,193.67 and the requested fee for
multiple-family dwellings is $2,625.01, a decrease of $893.16. The actual impact fee to be
established is set by ordinance by the Auburn City Council.
Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval of the Auburn School District Capital Facilities
Plan 2015 through 2021 to the City Council.
Agenda Subject: CPA15-0001, 2015 Annual Comprehensive Plan
Amendments – City Initiated Plan Map Amendments & Policy/Text
Amendments
Date: December 1, 2015
Page 5 of 7
P/T#2
Incorporate the Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan 2016-2021 into the City of
Auburn Comprehensive Plan.
Discussion
The Dieringer School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital Facilities
Plan 2016 - 2021. The CFP was adopted by the Dieringer School District Board of Directors on
June 15, 2015. The CFP has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS. Information
contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school
impact fees on behalf of the school district. The Planning Commission action is incorporation of
the School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
The CFP includes the following:
• Overview
• An inventory of existing facilities
• six–year enrollment projections
• standard of service
• Capacity projects
• Finance plan
• Impact fee calculations
A review of the Dieringer School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the
District is requesting a change in the fee obligations. The net fee obligation for single-family
dwellings is proposed to be $4,672.00, an increase of $1,402.00 and the requested fee for
multiple family dwellings is $1,518.00; a decrease of $207.00. The actual impact fee to be
established is set by ordinance by the Auburn City Council.
Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval of the Dieringer School District Capital Facilities
Plan 2016-2021 to the City Council.
P/T #3
Incorporate the Federal Way School District 2016 Capital Facilities Plan into the City of
Auburn Comprehensive Plan.
Discussion
The Federal Way School District has provided the City with its annually updated Capital
Facilities Plan 2016. The CFP was adopted by the Federal Way School District School Board
July 28, 2015. The CFP has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS. Information
contained in the School District CFP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school
impact fees on behalf of the school district. The Planning Commission action is incorporation of
the School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
The CFP includes the following:
• Introduction
• Inventory of educational facilities & non-instructional facilities
• Needs forecast, existing & new facilities
• Six–year finance plan
Agenda Subject: CPA15-0001, 2015 Annual Comprehensive Plan
Amendments – City Initiated Plan Map Amendments & Policy/Text
Amendments
Date: December 1, 2015
Page 6 of 7
• Maps of district boundaries
• Building capacities & portable locations
• Student forecast
• Capacity summaries
• Impact fee calculations
• Summary of changes from the 2015 plan
A review of the Federal Way School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the
District is requesting a change in the fee obligations. The net fee obligation for single-family
dwellings is proposed to be $2,899.00, representing a decrease of $2,275.00 and the
requested fee for multi-family dwellings is $506.00, a decrease of $1,328.00. The actual
impact fee to be established is set by ordinance by the Auburn City Council.
Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval of the Federal Way School District’s 2016
Capital Facilities Plan to the City Council
P/T #4
Incorporate the Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan 2015-2016 to 2020-2021 into the City
of Auburn Comprehensive Plan.
Discussion
The Kent School District has provided its annually updated 2015-2016 to 2020-2021 Capital
Facilities Plan. The CFP was adopted by the Kent School District School Board on July 14,
2015 and has been subject to separate SEPA review and a DNS. Information contained in the
School District CFP serves as the basis for the City’s collection of school impact fees on behalf
of the school district. The Planning Commission action is incorporation of the School District
Capital Facilities Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
The CFP includes the following:
• Executive Summary
• Six-year enrollment projection & history
• District standard of service
• Inventory, capacity & maps of existing schools
• Six-year planning & construction plan
• Portable classrooms
• Projected classroom capacity
• Finance Plan, cost basis and impact fee schedules
• Summary of changes to previous plan
A review of the Kent School District’s updated Capital Facilities Plan indicates the District is
requesting a change in the fee obligations. The net fee obligation for single-family dwellings
is proposed to be $4,990.00, representing a decrease of $496.00 and the requested fee for
multi-family dwellings is $2,163.00, a decrease of $1,215.00. The actual impact fee to be
established is set by ordinance by the Auburn City Council.
Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval of the Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan
2015-2016 to 2020-2021 to the City Council.
Agenda Subject: CPA15-0001, 2015 Annual Comprehensive Plan
Amendments – City Initiated Plan Map Amendments & Policy/Text
Amendments
Date: December 1, 2015
Page 7 of 7
CPM #5
Incorporate the City of Auburn’s 6-year Capital Facilities Plan 2016-2021, into the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
Discussion
A Capital Facilities Plan is one of the comprehensive plan elements required by the Washington
State Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A). The GMA requires that a capital facilities
plan include an inventory of existing capital facilities (showing locations and capacities), a
forecast of future needs for such capital facilities, proposed locations and capacities of new or
expanded capital facilities, and a minimum of a six-year plan to finance capital facilities with
identified sources of funding. The proposed City of Auburn 6-year Capital Facilities Plan 2016-
2021 satisfies the GMA requirements for a capital facilities element as part of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Each comprehensive plan prepared under the GMA must include a capital facilities plan
element. More specifically, RCW 36.70A.070(3) of the GMA requires the following:
“A capital facilities plan element consisting of:
(a) An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the
locations and capacities of the capital facilities;
(b) a forecast of the future needs of such capital facilities;
(c) the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities;
(d) at least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected
funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such
purposes; and
(e) a requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short
of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital
facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element
are coordinated and consistent. Park and recreation facilities shall be included in
the capital facilities plan element.”
A capital facility is defined as a structure, street or utility system improvement, or other long-
lasting major asset, including land. Capital facilities are provided for public purposes. Capital
facilities include, but are not limited to, the following: streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street
and road lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer
systems, parks and recreation facilities, and police and fire protection facilities. These capital
facilities include necessary ancillary and support facilities.
The memo dated November 10, 2014 prepared by the City’s Finance Department contained in
the three ring binder highlights the major changes in the CFP from last year. The proposed City
of Auburn 6-year Capital Facilities Plan 2016-2021 is incorporated by reference in the
Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 5, Capital Facilities. This will be incorporated into the “Capital
Facilities Element” of the updated Comprehensive Plan (GMA required periodic update).
Recommendation
Planning Commission to recommend approval of the City of Auburn’s 6-year Capital Facilities
Plan 2016-2021 to the City Council.
Page 1 of 4
Memorandum
To: Planning and Community Development
From: Finance Department, Capital Projects
Date: December 1, 2015
Re: DRAFT 6-Year Capital Facilities Plan (2016-2021)
Please find attached the final copy of our 2016-2021 Draft Capital Facilities Plan (CFP), the capital facilities
element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. For questions or additional information on the preparation of
this document, please contact Consuelo Rogel at (253) 804-5023 or crogel@auburnwa.gov. Questions
regarding specific projects contained in the document should be directed to the department managing the
project(s).
A capital facilities plan is one of the comprehensive plan elements required by Washington’s Growth
Management Act (GMA). The GMA requires that a capital facilities plan include an inventory of existing
capital facilities (showing locations and capacities), a forecast of future needs for such capital facilities,
proposed locations and capacities of new or expanded capital facilities, and a minimum of a six-year plan to
finance capital facilities with identified sources of funding. The attached CFP satisfies the GMA requirement
for a Capital Facilities Element as part of the Comprehensive Plan.
The following projects have been added, removed or revised from the previous year’s CFP (2015-2020)
due to the creation of new projects, completion of projects or changes in project titles and/or priorities:
Water, Sewer, Storm Utilities
Additions
• Intertie Booster Pump Station Improvements (Water, page 105)
• Algona Well 1 Decommissioning (Water, page 106)
• Annual Distribution System Improvements Program (Water, page 107)
• F Street SE Non-Motorized Improvements (Water, page 122 & Sewer, page 142)
• M Street SE Storm Improvements (Water, page 123 & Sewer, page 143)
• Reservoir Repair and Replacements (Water, page 124)
• Pipeline Asset Management Study (Water, page 125)
• 2015 Sewer Repair and Replacement (Sewer, page 134)
• Manhole Ring and Cover Replacement (Sewer, page 135)
Page 2 of 4
Water, Sewer, Storm Utilities
Additions (continued)
• Siphon Assessment (Sewer, page 137)
• Pump Station Condition Assessment (Sewer, page 138)
• Large Diameter Pipe Assessment (Sewer, page 139)
• Inflow and Infiltration Study (Sewer, page 140)
• Vegetation Sorting Facility (Storm, page 161)
• West Hill Annexation Area Drainage Improvements (Storm, page 165)
• 30th Street NE Area Flooding Phase1B (Storm, page 166)
• Annual Citywide Storm Pipeline and Replacement (Storm, page 167)
• 23rd Street SE Storm Improvement (Storm, page 168)
Deletions
• Well 1 Improvements (Water)
• Well 4 Power & Chlorination (Water)
• Lakeland Hills Reservoir 5 Improvements (Water)
• Comprehensive Plan (Water)
• Valley AC Main Replace (Water)
• BNSF Utility Crossing (Water, Sewer & Storm)
• SCADA Upgrades (Water)
• Auburn Way South Flooding Improvements Phase 2 (Water, Sewer & Storm)
• Auburn Way South –Dogwood to Fir (Water)
• Auburn Way South –Fir to Hemlock (Water)
• Bypass at 2nd and G Street SE (Storm)
• Howard Road Improvement (Storm)
• M & O Storm Drainage Improvements (Storm)
• 30th Street NE Area Flooding –Phase 1 (Storm)
• Composting Facility (Storm)
• Annexation Area Small Storm Improvement (Storm)
Transportation Projects (see TIP for further details)
Additions
• AWS Improvements (Hemlock to Academy Dr. SE) (page 33)
• C Street SW & 15th Street SW Intersection Improvements (page 41)
Page 3 of 4
• 124th Avenue SE & SE 248th Street Intersection Safety Imp. (page 47)
• A Street SE & Lakeland Hills Way SE Int.Safety and Capacity Imp. (page 51)
• Stewart Road (Lake Tapps Parkway Corridor) (page 66)
• M Street SE & 29th Street SE Intersection Safety Improvements (page 68)
• R Street SE & 21st Street SE Intersection Safety Improvements (page 70)
• Riverwalk Drive SE Non-Motorized Improvements (page 72)
• Downtown Transit Center Access Improvements (page 76)
Deletions
• 8th Street NE & SE 104th Street Intersection Improvements
• Auburn Way South and M Street SE Intersection Improvements
• A Street SE Non-Motorized and Access Improvements
• BNSF 3rd Rail Expansion Roadway Improvements
• South 277th Wetland Mitigation
• 37th St NW & B St NW Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements
• A Street NE Pedestrian Improvements
• Interurban Trailhead Improvements
Parks, Arts & Recreation Projects
Deletions
• Fenster Levee Setback, Phase 2B
Community Improvements / General Municipal Buildings
Additions
• Council Chamber Remodel (page 202)
• Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (page 209)
• Purchase of King County Public Health Building (page 216)
Deletions
• M&O Small Equipment and Tool Storage Building
• 8th Street NE & C Street NW ITS Improvements
• Les Gove Campus Master Plan
• Main Street Streetscape Urban Design
• City Downtown Public Parking Lot Reconfiguration
Page 4 of 4
Airport
Additions
• West Helicopter Parking Pads, Facilities and Access Road (page 229)
• Runway 16/34 Seal Coat (page 230)
Deletions
• South T-Hangar Row 3 Enclosure
• Obstruction Survey for NexGen/GPS Approach
• Wildlife Hazard Assessment
• General Repair & Maintenance
Memorandum
To: Planning Commission Members
From: Jeff Tate, Assistant Director of Community Development Services
Date: December 1, 2015
Re: City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan – Transmittal of Suggested Modifications
On October 13, 2015 and November 10, 2015 Community Development staff transmitted to the
Planning Commission a draft Comprehensive Plan that is comprised of a Core Comprehensive Plan and 7
implementing volumes. Documents were transmitted as follows:
Document Transmittal Date
Core Plan October 13, 2015
Volume 1 – Land Use Element October 13, 2015
Volume 2 – Housing Element October 13, 2015
Volume 3 – Capital Facilities Element November 10, 2015
Volume 4 – Utilities Element November 10, 2015
Volume 5 – Transportation Element October 13, 2015
Volume 6 – Economic Development Element November 10, 2015
Volume 7 – Parks and Rec Element November 10, 2015
Going back to the middle of July there have been several efforts to engage the community and seek
feedback on both the early versions of draft documents as well as the official final staff draft that was
transmitted and released on October 13, 2015. Attachment 5 provides a chronological list of outreach
efforts (excluding all of the legally mandated minimum public notification requirements, e.g. notices for
meetings and hearings that are published in the newspaper, on the webpage, and posted in established
locations).
As of December 1, 2015 the City has received feedback in the form of letters that have been submitted,
individual Councilmembers during City Council Study Session, and the web-based portal “Talk Auburn”.
Some of the feedback is very general while other comments are quite specific. Staff has evaluated all of
the feedback received thus far and has developed a number of suggested modifications for Planning
Commission consideration. Suggested modifications are described under cover of this memo and are
organized according to each document. Staff is providing these suggested modifications under cover of
this memo in order to avoid transmitting the entire set of materials. Each suggested modification
provides a description of the document that it is located within, the page number of the document, and
the source of the comment.
1
ATTACHMENT 1 – SUGGESTED
MODIFICATIONS TO THE CORE PLAN
AND MAP
2
Page # Source Description Suggested Modification
New
page in
between
8 and 9
Puget Sound
Regional Council
Comment #3
Add a new section that
describes how the City of
Auburn Comprehensive
Plan fits into the regional
planning initiatives and
PSRC’s Vision 2040. Vision
2040 has been formally
endorsed by the City of
Auburn through
participation by City Council
and Mayor.
Regional Context
Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan advances
a sustainable approach to growth and
future development. We have
incorporated a systems approach to
planning and decision-making that is
rooted in our stated values. These values
seek to create a community that has a
healthy environment; a strong and
diverse economy; a variety of
transportation options; and safe,
affordable and healthy housing. And
while we define the community we
create we do so within the context of our
surrounding communities and within a
larger region.
VISION 2040 provides a broader vision
for the Puget Sound region that
emphasizes the need to plan, think, and
act in a manner that is consistent with
regional goals and objectives. Regional
planning begins with establishing
population and growth targets that are
divided amongst the various cities and
counties. The growth targets outlined in
Auburn’s Plan are consistent with the
VISION 2040 targets and the land supply
is adequate to meet the demand.
VISION 2040 also sets forth priorities in
many areas that are bigger than one
jurisdiction and span the entire region.
These include protecting the
environment and ecosystems, providing
adequate affordable housing to a variety
of income levels and households,
conserving water and addressing
climate change, implementing
sustainable development practices,
3
reducing traffic congestion and
protecting air quality, creating great
communities, and promoting transit-
oriented development. Auburn’s Plan
embraces the ideals of VISION 2040 and
includes policies, directives, actions, and
measures to ensure that we are doing
our part to achieve these regional
objectives.
18 Councilmember
Wagner
Add language to the vision
that expands its scope to
people who visit and work
in Auburn
In 2035 Auburn is a city of connected and
cherished places, from a vibrant downtown
to quiet open spaces and everything in
between, where a community of healthy,
diverse, and engaged people live, work,
visit, and thrive
26 Puget Sound
Regional Council
Comment #5
Include climate change as
part of the sustainability
value
Modify third bullet under:
What it means:
The City will have developed and
implemented action plans that identify
and achieve sustainability and climate
change goals and objectives.
28 Puget Sound
Regional Council
Comment #5
Emphasize energy
efficiency within buildings
Modify Goal 7:
7.Sustainability: Land use activities and
developments incorporate low impact
development, energy efficient buildings,
crime prevention through environmental
design, and other sustainable development
practices.
30-33 Staff District maps Insert District Map
Rather than provide a separate map for
each district, provide one citywide map
that shows all districts. Remove the
“(Insert Map)” placeholder that follows
each district description and place a
citywide map at the end of the district
descriptions. The draft map is shown on
page 8 of this memo.
30 Puget Sound
Regional Council
Comment #5
Emphasize downtown
Auburn’s role as a Regional
Growth Center
Modify Description of Downtown Auburn:
Downtown Auburn: Downtown Auburn is
characterized by a traditional Main Street
that is bisected by major corridors such as
M Street, Auburn Way, Auburn Avenue,
Division Street, C Street, and the
Interurban Trail. It is comprised of a mix of
new and old commercial buildings and
uses, several civic buildings and uses, a
regional transit center, a regional medical
center, and Auburn High School.
4
Downtown Auburn is identified in VISION
2040 as a Regional Growth Center that
includes a region serving transit station. It
is a goal of both VISION 2040 and this Plan
to promote employment and population
growth within downtown. Downtown
Auburn offers immense opportunity for a
walkable, mixed-use center with easy
access to Sound Transit. There are several
public spaces that are interspersed
throughout downtown that can be used for
celebrations, events, and displays.
33 Puget Sound
Regional Council
Comment #5
Emphasize downtown
Auburn’s role as a Regional
Growth Center
Add New Policy:
#. Support and promote efforts that create
or expand population and employment
opportunities within downtown Auburn.
33 Puget Sound
Regional Council
Comment #5
Emphasize energy and
water conservation
Modify Policy 8:
Implement measures to promote buildings
that conserve energy and water and that
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
34 Puget Sound
Regional Council
Comment #5
Establish specific
population and
employment targets for
downtown
New Short Term Action:
#. Identify specific population and
employment targets for downtown Auburn
and its designation as a Regional Growth
Center.
36 Puget Sound
Regional Council
Comment #5
Emphasize energy and
water conservation
Modify Goal 6:
6.Environment: Housing is integrated
into the natural environment and built to
conserve energy and water.
36 Councilmember
Peloza
Identify veterans as a
population to support
Modify Goal 7:
Sustainable: Adequate and dispersed
housing is provided to seniors, veterans
the disabled, low income, and all other
individuals and families.
37 Councilmember
DaCorsi
Recognize the importance
of mixed-income housing
Add New Policy:
#. Promote and incentivize mixed-income
residential communities.
42 Puget Sound
Regional Council
Comment #5
Include climate change and
conservation as part of the
capital facilities planning
priorities
Modify Policy 10:
10.Sustainable development practices
will be incorporated into capital facility
project design and construction. The
City will support and implement efforts to
promote climate action objectives by
using low impact development
techniques, energy and water
conservation measures, and reducing
5
greenhouse gas emissions.
48 Puget Sound
Regional Council
Comment #5
Include climate change and
conservation as part of the
transportation planning
priorities
Modify Policy 6:
6.Increase coordination and integration
of land-use and transportation planning
to reduce traffic congestion and
emissions, and protect the natural
environment.
53 Puget Sound
Regional Council
Comment #5
Include climate change and
conservation as part of the
parks and recreation
planning priorities
Add New Policy:
Identify and implement measures that
reduce emissions and conserve energy
and water at all park facilities.
55
(Map)
Staff 1)Blue area changed to
“Institutional” because
of existing use.
2)One parcel of a
subdivision was left out
of the “Residential
Transition” designation
(shown in orange)
See Map Change #1
Additional explanation provided at 12/8/15
meeting
55
(Map)
Staff 1)Designate parcels
owned by Bonnevile
Power Administration,
Tacoma Water, and PSE
as “Open Space” (all of
the areas shown in
green) and designate
PSE substation as
“Institutional” (large
blue area)
2)Designate condo parcel
as “Residential
Transition” (shown in
orange)
See Map Change #2
Additional explanation provided at 12/8/15
meeting
55
(Map)
Steve Smalls 1)Red area is changed
from “Single Family” to
“Heavy Commercial”
and two small blue
areas located
immediately north
changed to
“Institutional”
See Map Change #3
Additional explanation provided at 12/8/15
meeting
55
(Map)
Staff 1)Update “Residential
Transition Overlay”
boundary (shown in
cross hatch)
2)“Residential Transition
Overlay” removed
because existing land
See Map Change #4
Additional explanation provided at 12/8/15
meeting
6
use is open space.
55
(Map)
Steve Smalls 1)Change land use
designation from “DUC”
to “Light Industrial” and
change land use
designation from
“Neighborhood
Commercial” to “Heavy
Industrial”
See Map Change #5
Additional explanation provided at 12/8/15
meeting
55
(Map)
Staff 1)New “Neighborhood
Commercial Overlay”
(shown in cross hatch)
near 29th Street SE and
R Street SE.
See Map Change #6
Additional explanation provided at 12/8/15
meeting
7
51ST
AVE
S
S 277TH ST
C
S
T
S
W
8TH ST NE
K
E
R
S
E
Y
W
A
Y
S
E
H
A
R
V
E
Y
R
D
N
E
E MAIN ST
A
ST
SE
29TH ST SE
E
AS
T
VALLE
Y
HW
Y
E
B
S
T
N
W
15TH ST NW
R IVERWAL K DRSE
T
ERRACE
D
R
NW
WMAIN ST
S 316TH ST
3 7TH ST NE
WEST
VALLEYHWYN
SE 304TH ST
L
A
K
E
T
A
P
PSPKWYSE
4TH ST SE
I
S
T
N
E
SE 312TH ST
B OUNDARY BLVD SW
15TH ST SW
SE 320TH ST
37TH S T N W
3 21ST ST S
LEAHILL R D S E15TH ST NE
41ST S T S E
DST
NE
P
E
A
S
L
E
Y
C
A
N
Y
O
N
RD
S
AU
B
U
R
N
W
A
Y
S
WESTVALLEYHWYS
AUBURN
WAY
N
A
ST
NE
L
A
K
E
L
A
N
D
H
I
L
L
S
W
A
Y
S
E
132ND
AVE
SE
124TH
AVE
SE
R
S
T
S
E
M
S
T
S
E
M
S
T
N
E
C
S
T
N
W
112TH
AVE
SE
ORAVETZRDSE
DST
NW
EMERALD
DOWNS
D
R
NW
104THAVE
SE
THEOUTLETCOLLECTION
MUCKLESHOOTCASINO
TS167
TS167
TS18
TS18
PLATEAU
NORTHAUBURN
SE AUBURN
LAKELAND
SOUTHAUBURN
LEA HILLWESTHILL
Special Planning Areas - Districts Date: 11/30/2015
Map ID: 4705/
0 ¼½¾1MiUrban CenterNorth Auburn
SE Auburn
South Auburn
West Hill
Plateau
Lea Hill
Lakeland
DOWNTOWN
8
•
•
1)
2)
9
•
•
•
•
1)
2)
10
•
•
1)
11
•
•
1)
2)
12
•
•
•
1)
13
•
•
1)
14
ATTACHMENT 2 – SUGGESTED
MODIFICATIONS TO THE LAND USE
ELEMENT
15
Page # Source Description Suggested Modification
3 Puget Sound
Regional Council
Comment #5
General Residential Land
Use Policies
Modify Policy LU-1
Add new sub item
New Policy LU-1 (x) Promote the use of
energy and water conservation measures.
10 Puget Sound
Regional Council
Comment #5
General Commercial Land
Use Policies
Add New Policy
New Policy LU-XX Promote the use of
energy and water conservation measures.
10 Steve Smalls
Comment #7
General Commercial Land
Use Policies
Add New Policy
New Policy LU-XX Ensure that legally
established existing uses that may not
conform with the underlying zone, but that
are compatible with their surrouding uses,
are allowed t continue to evolve and operate
without being classified as a “non-
conforming use.”
11 Steve Smalls
Comment #7
Downtown Urban Center
(DUC) Policies
Modify Policy LU-43
Modified Policy LU-43 Encourage a broad
mix of uses within the Downtown area. A
wide range of consumer- oriented goods and
services are compatible within this
designation since creating an attractive
shopping environment is a primary
emphasis. Permitted uses include retail
trade, offices, personal services, eating and
drinking establishments, financial
institutions, governmental offices, and
similar uses. Legally established existing
uses that do not fit within the range of
desired new uses continue to be a valuable
part of the downtown economy and
character and should be allowed to evolve
and operate in a manner that resembles
listed permitted uses.
11 Puget Sound
Regional Council
Comment #5
Downtown Urban Center
(DUC) Policies
Add New Policy
New Policy LU-XX As a designated VISION
2040 Regional Growth Center that contains a
transit station, land use policies and
regulations should encourage population
and employment growth.
16 Puget Sound
Regional Council
Comment #5
Industrial Land Use Policies
Add New Policy
New Policy LU-XX Promote the use of
energy and water conservation measures.
19 Puget Sound
Regional Council
Comment #5
Public and Institutional Land
Use Policies
Add New Policy
New Policy LU-XX Promote the use of
energy and water conservation measures.
23 Puget Sound
Regional Council
Comment #5
Potential Annexation Area
Rename Title of Section
Urban Growth Area and Potential
Annexation Area
23 Puget Sound
Regional Council
Potential Annexation Area
Modify Designation Criteria
Potential Annexation Areas are jointly
developed by cities and the County in which
16
Comment #5 they are located. They are based upon
countywide growth projections that are
divided between all of the urban growth
areas within the respective County. UGA’s
and PAA’s are distinguished from each other
by whether they have been assigned to a
City or not. UGA’s have been identified but
have not been assigned to a City. PAA’s are
UGA’s that have been assigned to a specific
City.
23 Puget Sound
Regional Council
Comment #5
Potential Annexation Area
Add Implementing
Designation
Implementing Designations
Urban Growth Area (UGA)
Potential Annexation Area (PAA)
23 Puget Sound
Regional Council
Comment #5
Potential Annexation Area
Add New Policy
New Policy LU-XX Work with King and Pierce
County, as well as nearby cities, to
redesignate UGA’s into PAA’s.
23 Puget Sound
Regional Council
Comment #5
Potential Annexation Area
Add New Policy
New Policy LU-XX Develop strategies and
agreements for the review of development
and provision of utilities within PAA’s that
have yet to be annexed.
23 Puget Sound
Regional Council
Comment #5
Potential Annexation Area
Add New Policy
New Policy LU-XX Prior to annexation,
develop strategies and agreements that
address the orderly transition of areas into
the City such as transfer of permit authority,
infrastructure financing, financing of fire and
police services, and interim development
regulations.
32 Staff Add Districts Map Insert Map 1.1 as page 32
Draft map provided on page 8 of this memo.
It is the same districts map that is included in
the Core Comprehensive Plan.
32 Staff Add Special Planning Areas,
Impression Corridors, and
Gateways Map
Insert Map 1.2 as page 33
Draft map provided on page 18 of
this memo.
17
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
51ST
AVE
S
S 277TH ST
C
S
T
S
W
8TH ST NE
K
E
R
S
E
Y
W
A
Y
S
E
P
E
A
S
L
E
Y
C
A
N
Y
O
N
RD
S
H
A
R
V
E
Y
R
D
N
E
E MAIN ST
A
ST
SE
29TH ST SE
E
AST
VALLE
Y
HW
Y
E
B
S
T
N
W
15TH ST NW
RIVERWAL K DRSE
T
ERRACE
D
R
NW
WMAIN ST
S 316TH ST
37TH ST NE
WEST
VALLEYHWYN
SE 304TH ST
L
A
K
E
T
A
P
PSPKWYSE
4TH ST SE
I
S
T
N
E
SE 312TH ST
B OUNDARY BLVD SW
15TH ST SW
SE 320TH ST
37TH S T N W
LEAHILL R D S E15TH ST NE
3 21ST ST S
41ST S T S E
DST
NE
AU
B
U
R
N
W
A
Y
S
WESTVALLEYHWYS
AUBURN
WAY
N
A
ST
NE
L
A
K
E
L
A
N
D
H
I
L
L
S
W
A
Y
S
E
132ND
AVE
SE
124TH
AVE
SE
R
S
T
S
E
M
S
T
S
E
M
S
T
N
E
C
S
T
N
W
112TH
AVE
SE
ORAVETZRDSE
DST
NW
EMERALD
DOWNS
D
R
NW
104THAVE
SE
TS167
TS167
TS18
TS18
Special Planning Areas
Date: 11/30/2015
Map ID: 4704/
0 ¼½¾1Mi
Sub-Areas, Impression Corridors, Gateways
#*Gateways
Impression Corridors
Identified Areas
Adopted Areas
Designated Areas
Mary Olsen Farm
Auburn Golf Course
Emerald Downs
Auburn High School
Green River CollegeLes Gove Campus
GSA/Boeing
Airport
West Auburn
AEP
Pike St NE
8th St NE
15th St SW / C St SW/ West Valley HWY N Aub
u
r
n
W
a
y
S
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
M
S
t
S
E
A St SE
BNSF Rail Yard
SE 312th St/ 124th Ave
Auburn Black Diamond Rd SE
NW Auburn Manufacturing Village
Auburn Way N Corridor
Lakeview
Stuck River Road
Mount Rainier Vista
Lakeland Hills
Lakeland Hills South
Academy
Downtown
Northeast Auburn
Auburn North Business Area
Whi
t
e
R
i
v
e
r
In
t
e
r
u
r
b
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
Mi
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
Gre
e
n
R
i
v
e
r
18
ATTACHMENT 3 – SUGGESTED
MODIFICATIONS TO THE HOUSING
ELEMENT
19
Page # Source Description Suggested Modification
5 Housing
Development
Consortium
Comment #4
Establish a policy that
reinforces the positive
relationship between
affordable housing near
transit and the reduction of
emissions, promoting active
lifestyles, and local
economy.
New Policy H-3 (X):
X. Invest in transportation improvements
that will create safe neighborhoods for
walking, biking, and connecting to transit.
6 Councilmember
Wales
Include “transitional
housing” in the list of
needed attention
Modify Policy H-17:
Policy H-17 Allow manufactured housing
parks, transitional housing, and multifamily
housing in appropriately zoned but limited
areas.
7 Housing
Development
Consortium
Comment #4
Establish a policy that
incentivizes landlords to
repair buildings and esnure
affordability of existing
housing stock.
New Policy H-21 (X):
X. Support additional healthy housing and
preservation strategies, such as property tax
exemptions to preserve affordable housing
opportunities and utilizing community
health workers to offer property owners and
residents the education and resources
needed to maintain housing.
7 Councilmember
Peloza
Identify veterans as a
population to support
Modify Policy H-26:
Policy H-26 Work in partnership with King
and Pierce Counties and other cities to
address the countywide need for housing
affordable to households with moderate,
low and very‐low incomes, including those
with special needs and our veterans.
7 Housing
Development
Consortium
Comment #4
Strengthen policies for the
identification of funding
mechanisms that can be
used to develop affordable
housing.
New Policy H-26 (X):
X. Act as a County leader in the exploration
and implementation of new funding
mechanisms and strategies to develop
housing affordable at 30% AMI and below
across King County and throughout South
King County.
8 Housing
Development
Consortium
Comment #4
Establish a policy that
supports the use of
development incentives as a
means for encouraging the
development of below
market rate housing.
New Policy H-XX:
Policy H-XX Explore the use of density
bonuses, parking reductions, multi-family tax
exemptions, fee waivers and exemptions,
and permit expediting to encourage the
development of housing affordable at below
market-rate.
8 Housing
Development
Consortium
Comment #4
Establish a policy that
encourages further
development of affordable
housing opportunities when
public funds are used to
help support a project.
New Policy H-XX:
Policy H-XX Where practical, ensure that
housing created or preserved using local
public resources or by regulation benefits
low-income households and retains its
affordability over time.
20
8 Councilmember
Peloza
Identify veterans as a
population to support
Modify Policy H-31:
Policy H-31 Encourage and support human
and health service organizations that offer
programs and facilities for people with
special needs. Support programs in
particular that help people to remain within
the community, including those that are
veterans, disabled, seniors, single parent
households, and the homeless.
8 Councilmember
Peloza
Identify veterans as a
population to support
Modify Policy H-33:
Policy H-33 Continue to ensure that funding
becomes available to support youth,
veterans, and social services in Auburn.
8 Councilmember
Wales
Include “transitional
housing” in the list of
needed attention
Modify Policy H-35:
Policy H-35 Provide opportunities for
transitional housing, assisted living and
retirement communities.
9 Housing
Development
Consortium
Comment #4
Strengthen the policy
language for seeking
regional solutions for
homelessness.
New Policy H-XX:
Policy H-XX Work with other jurisdictions
and health and social service organizations
to implement a coordinated, regional
approach to homelessness.
9 Housing
Development
Consortium
Comment #4
Establish policy language
that reinforces the need for
the City to support other
entities that help provide
affordable housing.
New Policy H-XX:
Policy H-XX Support nonprofit organizations
during all stages of siting and project
planning and when applying for county,
state, and federal funding.
21
ATTACHMENT 4 – SUGGESTED
MODIFICATIONS TO THE CAPITAL
FACILITIES ELEMENT
22
Page # Source Description Suggested Modification
9 Puget Sound
Regional Council
Comment #5
Reinforce the importance
of energy and water
conservation, preservation
of natural areas, and
reductions in emissions for
public buildings.
New Policy CF-XX
CF-XX Public and institutional facilities
should incorporate practices that reduce
energy consumption, reduce the emission
of greenhouse gases, conserve water, and
that preserve native vegetation.
23
ATTACHMENT 5 – PUBLIC OUTREACH
July 14 – staff presentation to Auburn Noon Lions
July 18 – citywide email is sent out announcing public workshops
July 18 – citywide postcard mailer is sent out announcing public workshops; also dropped at
local grocery stores, all city facilities (e.g. parks, golf course), YMCA, etc.
July 21 – staff presentation to Auburn Senior Center Advisory Board
August 5 – staff presentation to Rotary
August 6 – Lakeland Community Center workshop
August 7 – Mayor’s weekly email update announcing workshops
August 11 – Auburn Library workshop
August 12 – staff presentation to Soroptimist
August 13 – Wesley Homes workshop
August 18 – Valley Counseling workshop
August 20 – staff presentation to Kiwanis
August 31 – citywide email is sent out requesting comment on the Plan
October 13 – webpage is updated with the Core Plan and Volumes 1, 2 and 5 and all appendices
October 13 – “Talk Auburn” web based commenting portal is launched so that the public may
submit comments
October 13 – transmit Core Plan and Volumes 1, 2 and 5 to PSRC and State Department of
Commerce
October 20 – citywide email is sent out requesting comment on the Plan
October 26 – City Council Study Session
October 20 – Planning Commission meeting
November 1 – citywide email is sent out requesting comment on the Plan
November 2 – City Council Study Session
November 4 – Planning Commission meeting/hearing
November 9 – City Council Study Session
November 10 – webpage is updated with Volumes 3, 4, 6 and 7
November 10 – transmit Volumes 3, 4, 6 and 7 to PSRC and State Department of Commerce
November 19 – citywide email is sent out requesting comment on the Plan
November 23 – City Council Study Session
December 8 – Planning Commission meeting/hearing
24
Page 1 of 3
Memorandum
To: Planning Commission
From: James Webb, PE, PTOE
CC: Pablo Para, PE, PTOE
Date: November 30, 2015
Re: Summary of Changes to the Comprehensive Transportation Plan
This memo summarizes the changes made to the Comprehensive Transportation Plan since it was
presented to the Planning Commission at the October 20, 2015 meeting. The changes have been made in
response to feedback received from City Council members at the November 2, 2015 Council meeting, and
from King County Metro Transit and the Puget Sound Regional Council. Table 1 summarizes the
comments received, the changes made to the document in response to each comment, and the location of
the changes in the document.
Table 1. Comment and Response Summary
Commenter Question/Comment Response Location
Osborne Add language about King County Metro
Alternative Service concepts
Text added 4-10
KC Metro
Transit
Refer to DART as Demand Area
Response Transit
Text updated 4-2
KC Metro
Transit
The Route 154 no longer operates as far
south as Auburn
Text removed 4-1
PSRC VISION 2040 contains policies (MPP-
DP-7, MPP-T-12) that encourage local
jurisdictions to prioritize infrastructure
funding, including transportation and
capital facility investments, to support the
development of regional growth centers.
The city is encouraged to include
compatible policy language and
supportive infrastructure investments
where appropriate.
Policy "Funding-09" was added to
Chapter 5, and text was added to
Chapter 6 to discuss this topic.
5-6, 6-9
Page 2 of 3
PSRC The plan discusses several future non-
motorized and Safe Routes to Schools
investments. The city should consolidate
the list of transportation investments and
include these types of projects in the
comprehensive 20-year transportation
list.
Language added to show that non-
capacity project (including non-motorized
projects) are included in the TIP and the
ADA transition plan and are described in
Chapter 3, Non-Motorized
Transportation.
2-15
PSRC In its functional classification, the city has
designated street subcategories of
“urban” and “rustic” collectors and local
residential streets, which reflect differing
standards and ability to accommodate
non-motorized facilities. The map of the
street classifications doesn’t provide
detail on which streets are classified as
“urban” or “rustic.” The city should
consider mapping this street
classification or providing a description of
where these facilities are located.
The text already identifies that these
street classifications are tied to the
underlying zoning. The legend on Map 3-
2 was updated to show rustic collectors.
Map 2-1
PSRC The plan notes that a sidewalk inventory
was developed in 2005 and updated in
2008 to account for recent annexations.
The inventory should be updated to
depict current conditions, particularly
given that the plan mentions several
recent non-motorized improvements.
More information about developing
inventories can be found in the
Department of Commerce transportation
guidebook, Chapter 4C.
Text added to show that the inventory is
updated on an regular and ongoing
basis.
3-2
PSRC As called for in VISION 2040 (DP-Action-
18), the city should include mode split
goals for the regional growth center.
PSRC recently produced additional
guidance about setting mode split goals
that the city may find helpful in this work.
Mode split goals for the Regional Growth
Center were identified, and text added.
2-29, 2-30
Page 3 of 3
PSRC Policy Funding-08 calls for reassessing
the land use element if funding is
insufficient to maintain adopted level of
service standards. There are several
additional reassessment strategies
beyond revising the land use element
that the city could consider in event of a
funding shortfall. The WAC (365-196-
430) also recommends considering
additional funding for improvements,
adjusting level of service standards,
revisiting identified needs, and utilization
of transportation demand management
strategies.
With concurrence from the Planning
Commission and City Council the LOS
standards were revised as necessary in
recognition of the fact that a number of
these facilities are built-out.
2-10, 2-20, 2-
26
PSRC The city is commended for including in
the plan a 20-year list of transportation
projects, along with general discussion of
financing approaches. The plan should
include more detail on the multiyear
financing plan for needed transportation
improvements, including an analysis of
probable funding adequacy for projects
and programs identified in the
transportation element for the planning
period. Further guidance on how to
address the financial analysis in your
plan can be found in RCW 36.70A.070,
WAC 365‐196‐430, and the Department
of Commerce transportation guidebook.
Revisions were made to Chapter 6,
Financing, to show the funding forecasts
for each of the funding sources available
for future projects.
Chapter 6
The final document is anticipated to be adopted at the December 14, 2015 Special City Council meeting.
Comprehensive
Transportation Plan
Adopted by Ordinance No. XXXX
December 14, 2015
Table of Contents
Page
Chapter 1 Introduction 1 - 1
1.1 Purpose 1 - 1
1.2 How the City Uses the Plan 1 - 2
1.3 Regional Coordination 1 - 4
1.4 Accomplishments Since the Last Plan 1 - 7
1.5 Plan Organization 1 – 9
1.6 Staff Resources 1 - 10
Chapter 2 The Street System 2 - 1
2.1 Existing Street System 2 - 1
2.2 Street Standards and Levels-of-Service 2 - 8
2.3 Future Street System 2 - 13
Chapter 3 Non-Motorized Transportation 3 - 1
3.1 Pedestrian Travel 3 - 1
3.2 Bicycle Travel 3 - 9
3.3 Equestrian Travel 3 - 12
3.4 Future Non-Motorized System 3 - 14
Chapter 4 Transit 4 - 1
4.1 Needs Assessment 4 - 1
4.2 Transit User Needs 4 - 5
4.3 Transit System Recommendations 4 - 10
Chapter 5 Policies 5 - 1
5.1 Coordination, Planning and Implementation 5 – 2
5.2 Street System 5 – 10
5.3 Non-Motorized System 5 – 15
5.4 Transit System 5 – 19
5.5 Air Transportation 5 – 20
Chapter 6 Funding 6 - 1
6.1 Financial Planning and Programming 6 - 1
6.2 Funding Sources 6 - 2
6.3 Revenue Shortfall Contingency 6 - 8
6.4 Funding Strategies, Project Prioritization 6 – 8
Chapter 7 Monitoring and Evaluation 7 - 1
7.1 Annual Updates 7 - 1
7.2 Multi-Year Updates 7 - 2
List of Maps and Figures
Page
Map 1-1 Adjacent Jurisdictions 1 - 6
Figure 1-1 Transportation Program Staff Resources 1 – 10
Map 2-1 Functional Roadway Classifications *
Map 2-2 Average Daily Traffic Volumes (2013) *
Map 2-3 Truck Route Map *
Map 2-4 Freight Route Classification Map
Map 2-5 Auburn LOS Corridors *
Figure 2-1 Population, Housing and Job Growth (2000 - 2035) 2 - 13
Map 2-6 Transportation Improvement Projects *
Map 2-7 Intelligent Transportation Systems *
Map 3-1 Existing Sidewalks and Future Priority Sidewalk Corridors *
Map 3-2 Existing and Future Bicycle Facilities and Multi-Use Trails *
Map 3-3 Bicycle Corridors and Connectors *
Map 4-1 Auburn Transit Routes and MIT Shuttle Route *
Map 4-2 Auburn Transit Routes and Transit Dependent Areas *
*Map located following the chapter corresponding to the Map number.
List of Tables
Page
Table 1-1 Transportation Improvements Completed Since 2009 1 - 8
Table 2-1 Existing (2014) Corridor Levels of Service 2 - 10
Table 2-2 2022 Capacity Projects 2 – 16
Table 2-3 2022 Corridor Levels of Service 2 - 19
Table 2-4 2035 Capacity Projects 2 – 22
Table 2-5 2035 Corridor Levels of Service 2 – 25
Table 2-6 Regional Growth Center Mode Split Goals 2 – 29
Table 3-1 Existing Equestrian Facilities 3 - 13
Table 3-2 Future Trail Projects 3 - 14
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. The primary purpose of the
transportation system is to support the
movement of people and goods within the City
and connect the City to the broader region. Secondarily, it influences patterns of growth,
development and economic activity by providing access to adjacent land uses. Planning for the
development and maintenance of the transportation system is a critical activity promoting the
efficient movement of people and goods, ensuring emergency access, and optimizing the role
transportation plays in attaining other community objectives.
1.1 PURPOSE
The Comprehensive Transportation Plan is the framework for transportation planning in Auburn.
It functions as the overarching guide for changes to the transportation system. The Plan evaluates
the existing system by identifying key assets and improvement needs. These findings are then
incorporated into a needs assessment, which guides the future of the transportation system.
This Plan is multi-modal, addressing multiple forms of transportation in Auburn including the
street network, non-motorized travel, and transit. Evaluating all modes enables the City to address
its future transportation needs in a comprehensive and balanced manner.
VISION
The Comprehensive Transportation Plan reflects the current and future needs 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 efficient, uncomplicated, and welcoming to visitors; and
Provide a balanced, multi-modal transportation system that addresses both local and regional
needs.
Auburn Station
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction Page 1- 2
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 Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Auburn fulfills this mandate by adopting the Comprehensive Transportation Plan as the
Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. In order to be GMA compliant, the
Comprehensive Transportation Plan must:
Inventory the existing transportation system in order to identify existing capital facilities and
travel levels as a basis for future planning;
Identify level-of-service (LOS) standards for all arterials, transit routes, and state-owned
facilities as a gauge for evaluating system performance;
Specify actions and requirements for bringing into compliance locally owned transportation
facilities or services that are below an established level-of-service standard;
Determine existing deficiencies of the system;
Use land use assumptions to estimate future travel, including impacts to state-owned facilities;
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 2035. It updates and expands the 2009
Comprehensive 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.
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A system-wide, multi-modal needs assessment was conducted throughout plan development to
ascertain which aspects of Auburn’s existing transportation system work well and which ones
need improvement. An evaluation of potential solutions and investment priorities was also
conducted as part of this process. The end result is that Auburn has a more thorough
understanding of system deficiencies, how best to address these deficiencies, and direction for
expanding the system in a sustainable manner.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Public outreach is an important component of the ongoing needs assessment process. During
2014 the City held a number of community meetings through the Imagine Auburn visioning
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction Page 1- 3
process. The meetings included discussions of capital investments in transportation infrastructure
and other transportation related issues which have been incorporated into this document.
As part of the adoption process, the Plan is also reviewed by the City of Auburn Planning
Commission, including a hearing where members of the public are provided the opportunity to
provide input on the plan, and is then reviewed and adopted by the City Council.
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. 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. Auburn ensures that future development will not cause the system’s
performance to fall below the adopted LOS standard 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, is a financial planning tool used to implement the list of transportation improvement
projects identified in the Transportation Plan. It is a six-year plan which is reviewed and updated
annually by the City Council to reflect changes to project priorities and funding circumstances.
The first three years of the plan are fiscally constrained. Traffic impact fees on new development
are determined by the cost of the capacity projects included in the TIP.
The Capital Facilities Plan is also an annually adopted six-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.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction Page 1- 4
1.3 REGIONAL COORDINATION
In addition to being influenced by factors within the City, 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, new
capacity projects, and competing demands for transit services. 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 agencies and
transit providers, are responsible for a major share of the transportation facilities serving Auburn.
W ASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has jurisdiction over three major
routes connecting Auburn to the region: SR-167, SR-18, and SR-164 (Auburn Way South).
Auburn coordinates with WSDOT 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. Auburn
Station also serves as a hub and transfer station for local transit service provided by King County
Metro Transit and Pierce 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 Metro Strategic Plan for Public Transportation 2011-2021 and in Metro’s Long
Range Public Transportation Plan now under development and expected to be completed in 2016.
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.
Auburn partners with King County Metro Transit on the 497 bus route, which provides peak
hour service from Lakeland Hills to the Auburn Station. Auburn and King County Metro Transit
hope to continue this relationship and develop future partnerships to expand transit service in
Auburn.
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 located inside
the City limits. King County Road Services has a number of programs and plans in place that
regulate development and other activities affecting their roadway network.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction Page 1- 5
PIERCE COUNTY
Auburn partners with Pierce Transit on the 497 bus route, which provides peak hour service from
Lakeland Hills to the Auburn Station. Auburn and Pierce Transit hope to continue this
relationship and develop future partnerships to expand transit service in Auburn.
Auburn also participates in The Regional Access Mobility Partnership (RAMP), a regional
coalition comprised of both public and private sector interests dedicated to improving mobility in
the South Puget Sound and Washington State.
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 to provide a variety of mobility
options and establish LOS standards that emphasize the efficient movement of people and not
just vehicles. The Countywide Planning Policies are also important because they provide direction
for planning and development of potential annexation areas.
P UGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL
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, 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 single occupant vehicles. 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 is required to be consistent with PSRC’s regional planning efforts.
ADJACENT CITIES
The City recognizes the importance of coordinated and strong inter-jurisdictional 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 Auburn. 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. Most recently, Auburn has
completed coordination with Kent on the annexation of the S 277th Street from Auburn Way
North to the Green River into the City of Auburn to allow the widening of S 277th Street
between Auburn Way N and L Street NE.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction Page 1- 6
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
The City of Federal Way is located west of
Auburn. Several roadways, most notably SR 18,
connect Auburn and Federal Way. Auburn and
Federal Way regularly coordinate on both
motorized and non-motorized roadway
improvements affecting both jurisdictions.
CITES OF SUMNER/ALGONA/ PACIFIC/BONNEY
LAKE
The City partners with its southern neighbors in
many respects, including street system planning,
transit planning, and regional trail planning.
Auburn is also working with Sumner, Pacific and
Algona on roadway improvement projects,
including the recent preservation of Boundary
Boulevard in partnership with Algona, and
financial support of Pacific’s project to widen
Stewart Road to the west of the White River. 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 (MIT) 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
SR-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 vehicle 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 has developed their own Comprehensive Land Use Plan. In addition, a
Transportation Plan and a Tribal Transportation Improvement Program have been created to
identify transportation needs and plan for the next seven generations. One theme that is emerging
from this effort is the need to build a well-connected internal roadway system on the reservation.
Currently, Auburn Way South is the primary route for drivers and pedestrians traveling within the
reservation. This extensive internal network will increase transportation efficiency and most
importantly improve safety along the Auburn Way South corridor. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
and the City of Auburn have created a partnership to provide safety improvements along Auburn
Map 1-1 Adjacent Jurisdictions
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction Page 1- 7
Way South. These improvements are currently under construction and are anticipated to be
complete in the Spring of 2017.
During July 2015, the State Legislature passed a transportation package which included a $15
million project to construct a new off-ramp from eastbound SR-18 to SR-164. At this time the
scope and alignment of this new connection are not know, however, the City will be working with
the MIT and WSDOT in the design process.
1.4 Accomplishments Since the Last Plan
Since 2009, the City has completed numerous transportation improvements, with an emphasis on
providing new road capacity, improving pedestrian and bicycle safety, preservation of existing
infrastructure, and providing better access to regional transit services including commuter rail.
Table 1-1 shows the key projects completed since the 2009 plan. The completed projects list
includes the grade separation of M Street SE and the A Street NW corridor, which provides a
parallel connection to Auburn Way N between downtown Auburn and S 272nd Street.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction Page 1- 8
Table 1-1. Transportation Improvements Completed Since 2009
# Project Name Location Type of
Improvement
1 M Street SE Underpass M St SE (3rd SE to 8th SE) Roadway
2 A Street Corridor NW New Road (3rd NW to 14th NW) Roadway
3 ITS Improvements, Phase B S 277th to City Hall Signal and ITS
4 8th Street NE and R Street 8th St NE & R St NE Signal & ITS
5 A Street SE Pedestrian Improvements A St SE (3rd St SE to 6th St SE) Non-Motorized
6 37th Street SE and R Street SE Pedestrian
Connector
37th St SE (Olympic to R St SE) Non-Motorized
7 SE 316th Place Traffic Calming Improvements SE 316th Place (112th to 116th) Safety
8 Terrace Drive Re-channelization Terrace Dr. NW (15th to W St)
Safety
9 2009 Sidewalk Improvements Citywide Non-Motorized
10 2009 Citywide Arterial Pavement Patching Citywide Preservation
11 Citywide Guardrail Improvements Citywide Safety
12 F Street SE and 4th Street SE Traffic Signal F St SE & 4th St SE Intersection, Safety
13 West Valley Highway Improvements WVH, W Main St to SR-18 Roadway
14 Citywide School Zone Flashing Beacons Citywide Safety
15 2010 Local Street Preservation Citywide Preservation
16 South Auburn ITS Improvements C St SW, A St SE Signal and ITS
17 S Division Street Main St to 3rd St SE/SW Roadway
18 8th Street NE Re-channelization M St NE to 104th Roadway
19 2010 Traffic Signal Improvements Citywide Signal & ITS
20 Auburn Way South & M St Improvement’s AWS & M St SE Intersection, Safety
21 2011 Local Street Preservation Citywide Preservation
22 8th and 104th Signal Improvements 8th St NE & 104th Ave SE Intersection, Safety
23 2011 Citywide Sidewalk Improvements Citywide Non-motorized
24 Auburn Way South Phase 1 – Dogwood to Fir Roadway
25 Auburn Way South Phase 2 – Fir to Hemlock Roadway
26 Lea Hill Safe Routes to School 116th Ave SE, SE 312th St Safety
27 2011 Local Street Reconstruction Citywide Preservation
28 2012 Local Street Preservation Citywide Preservation
29 15th and WVH SW Repairs 15th St SW & WVH Signal & ITS
30 Traffic Signal Battery Backup Improvements BNSF Grade Crossings Signal & ITS
31 Citywide Traffic Signal Safety Improvements Citywide Signal & ITS, Safety
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction Page 1- 9
# Project Name Location Type of
Improvement
32 2013 Local Street Preservation Citywide Preservation
33 West Valley Highway Preservation WVH, 15th NW to 37th NW Preservation
34 8th Street NE ITS Improvements 8th St NE (M St to 104th Ave SE) Signal & ITS
35 2013 Sidewalk Repairs Citywide Non-Motorized
36 2013 Arterial Pavement Patching Citywide Preservation
37 37th and B Street Pre-Signal 37th St NW & B St NW Signal & ITS, Safety
38 29th and A SE Repairs 29th & A St SE Signal & ITS
39 E Main Signal Pole Replacement E Main St & Auburn Way Signal & ITS
40 East Valley Hwy Overlay Peirce County Limits Preservation
41 2013 Arterial Crackseal Citywide Preservation
42 2014 Traffic Signal Improvements Citywide Preservation
43 2014 Local Street Improvements Citywide Preservation
44 2014 Citywide Arterial Pavement Preservation Citywide Preservation
45 2014 Citywide Arterial Crackseal Citywide Preservation
46 R Street SE Bicycle Lanes 17th St SE to White River Non-Motorized
47 B Street NW Bicycle Lanes 3rd St NW to 30th St NW Non-Motorized
48 Terrace Drive NW Bicycle Lanes 15th St NW to W St NW Non-Motorized
49 Dogwood Street SE Bicycle Lanes 21st St SE to Skyway Lane Non-Motorized
50 West Valley Highway Bicycle Lanes Main St to SR-18 Non-Motorized
51 14th Street NW Bicycle Lanes B St NW to A St NE Non-Motorized
52 116th Avenue SE Bicycle Lanes SE 304th St to SE 312th St Non-Motorized
53 124th Avenue SE Bicycle Lanes SE 316th St to SE 320th St Non-Motorized
54 132nd Avenue SE Bicycle Lanes SE 304th St to SE 312th St Non-Motorized
55 M Street SE Bicycle Lanes 4th St SE to 8th St SE Non-Motorized
56 Evergreen Way SE* New Roadway Roadway
57 I Street NE* New Roadway Roadway
* These projects were constructed by others as part of private development projects
1.5 Plan Organization
The following three chapters are organized according to the three primary transportation modes
in Auburn: the s treet system (Chapter 2), the n on -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.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 1. Introduction Page 1- 10
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.
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 Community
Development & Public Works (CDPW) Department is the implementation lead. The CDPW
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 1-1 identifies the basic organization of the CPDW
Department.
Figure 1-1 Transportation Program Staff Resources (2015)
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 1
Chapter 2.
THE STREET SYSTEM
The City is served by an extensive street network, which
includes highways, arterials, collectors, and local streets.
The Auburn transportation system is designed to
accommodate all modes of travel. This chapter describes
the network and how well it serves the City both existing
and future.
2.1 Existing Street System
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
The street system functions as a network. Functional classification is the hierarchy by which streets and
highways are defined according to the character of service they provide. There are three main classes
of streets in Auburn: arterials, collectors, and local streets. Existing street classifications are shown in
Map 2-1. All streets have been classified using the Federal Functional Classification system guidelines.
No significant changes have been made to the classification of City streets from the previous
Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
The Auburn Engineering Design Standards identifies design standards for each type of City street, in
conformance with WSDOT and AASHTO standards.
From a planning perspective, acknowledgment and proper designation of functional classifications
allows for the preservation of right-of-way for future transportation corridors, 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. Proper designation is crucial to the planning effort; as development occurs, accommodation for
the appropriate transportation corridors should be incorporated into development plans.
STATE HIGHWAYS
SR-18 – connects I-5 to I-90 through Auburn. Within the City limits, SR-18 has interchanges with SR-
167, West Valley Highway, C Street, SR-164/Auburn Way S, Auburn Black Diamond Road, and SE
304th Street providing access to downtown Auburn and Lea Hill. It is classified as both a Highway of
Statewide Significance (HSS) and a National Highway System (NHS) route for the entire corridor
segment. SR-18 is a full control limited access highway, allowing access only at interchanges within the
City limits.
SR-167 - also known as the Valley Freeway, serves as an alternative to I-5, connecting South King and
north Pierce counties to the I-405 corridor to the north. SR-167 is designated as both HSS and NHS.
Within the City limits, SR-167 has interchanges with SR-18, S 277th Street, 15th Street NW, and 15th
Street SW. SR-167 is a full control limited access highway, allowing access only at interchanges within
the City limits.
Auburn Way S at M Street SE
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 2
SR-164 - is a 15-mile roadway corridor beginning at the SR-18 interchange with Auburn Way S. The
corridor is aligned southeast through the City, connecting with the Muckleshoot Tribal Reservation
and White River Amphitheater, and unincorporated King County before terminating in the City of
Enumclaw at its junction with SR-410. SR-164 is a City street which is part of a State Highway. It is
classified as an urban minor arterial by WSDOT, and also a HSS. The City of Auburn classifies is as a
principal arterial. SR-164 does not have the same access restrictions as found on SR-18 and SR-167.
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 connect with
the freeway system. Design emphasis is placed on providing movement for both inter- and intra-city
traffic. As such, these facilities typically carry the highest traffic volumes, experience the longest vehicle
trips, and have the highest speed limits of all City streets.
Direct access to adjacent land uses is permitted, although these streets are most likely to have limited
access, in an effort to enhance safety along these corridors, and increase capacity for through vehicles.
These arterials are the framework street system for the City and usually extend beyond the City limits,
connecting with neighboring jurisdictions. They are typically constructed to accommodate five-lanes of
traffic with speed limits of 30 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 service. Typically, on-street bicycle facilities are not appropriate for Principal Arterials and
bicyclists are accommodated on adjacent separated trails or on parallel bicycle routes. 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 with slightly less 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 bicycle lanes, as appropriate.
COLLECTORS
Collectors are a step below arterials in the City classification system. There are three types of collectors
in Auburn.
Urban Residential Collectors are used to connect local streets and residential neighborhoods to
community activity centers and minor and principal arterials. Urban Residential Collectors are typically
constructed to accommodate two travel lanes with medians and turn pockets at intersections or two
travel lanes with bicycle lanes. The posted speed limit is generally 30 mph and the design year ADT is
2,500 to 10,000 vehicles per day. Urban Residential Collectors have sidewalks and may be utilized for
some transit service, including dial-a-ride transit and paratransit services.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 3
Rustic Residential Collectors are routes located in
areas with less intensive land uses associated with
the Residential Conservancy land-use designation.
They carry traffic between local and arterial streets.
Rustic Residential Collectors 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. Rustic Residential Collectors
do not have sidewalks and generally do not carry
transit services except for paratransit and possibly
dial-a-ride-transit. The design year ADT is 1,000 to 5,000 vehicles per day.
Non-Residential Collectors provide intra-community access by connecting non-residential areas
such as industrial and commercial areas to minor and principal arterials. They may serve neighborhood
traffic 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 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.
Urban Local Residential Streets provide access to abutting residential parcels. They offer the lowest
level of mobility among all street classifications. The street is designed to conduct traffic between
dwelling units and higher order streets. As the lowest order street in the hierarchy, the street usually
carries 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. Urban Local Residential
Streets have sidewalks to accommodate pedestrians. Bicyclists may travel either on the sidewalk or
within the travel lane depending on their level of comfort. Transit service is generally limited to dial-a-
ride transit and paratransit.
Rustic Local Residential Streets serve areas associated with the Residential Conservancy zoning
designation. They provide access to adjacent land and distributing traffic to and from the arterials,
residential collectors, rustic, and local streets. Rustic Local Residential Streets 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 Rustic Local Residential Streets do not have sidewalks, pedestrians walk
Residential Collector, Urban
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 4
along the shoulder of the road. Transit service is very infrequent and most likely limited to paratransit
and possibly dial-a-ride-transit.
Local Non-Residential Streets provide direct access to higher order classification streets and serve
primarily industrial and manufacturing land uses. They offer a lower level of mobility and
accommodate heavy vehicle traffic. Typically they have two travel lanes with a speed limit of 25 mph
and the design year ADT is 400 to 1,200 vehicles per day. Local Non-Residential Streets have
sidewalks to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists may travel on the shoulder of the road (Class IV
bicycle facility), although bicycle travel may not be as comfortable as on Local Residential Streets due
to a greater frequency of trucks and other heavy vehicles. Transit service is generally limited to dial-a-
ride transit and paratransit.
Private Streets can 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 and
immediately adjacent properties. Private streets at a minimum are built to the same design and
construction standards as a local residential street.
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 during 2013. Map 2-2 shows the
existing average weekday daily traffic volumes on City arterials.
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. Between 25 and 30 percent of all vehicle trips on
the Auburn street system begin and end outside the City. 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. Typically, the higher the classification of roadway, the higher the posted
speed limit. Except for school zones which are posted at 20 mph when children are present, speed
limits in the City range from 25 mph (typically for local roads) to 45 mph on some principal arterials.
The City routinely monitors corridors to ensure appropriate speed limits are in place. Unless otherwise
posted the statutory legal speed limit in the City is 25 mph.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 5
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SIGNS
Traffic signals, signs, and pavement markings are used to inform road users, thereby increasing the
effective use of the roadway by moving traffic more efficiently and safely. The City uses the Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) as guidance for design, construction, and placement of
these design elements 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.
RAIL
The Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) have rail lines
running through Auburn. The UP line runs north-south, to the east of the Interurban Trail. BNSF has
a double-track, federally designated, high-speed railroad line running north-south. BNSF and Sound
Transit are planning to add a third track to this north-south line by 2016. This third track is being
installed to handle increased commuter rail traffic and freight traffic. The BNSF Stampede Pass line
runs east-west through downtown Auburn, entering Auburn at the east end of town near Auburn-
Black Diamond Road and merging with the north-south line just south of the Auburn Station.
In addition, BNSF operates a rail yard between A Street SE and C Street SW, south of SR-18. In the
future, this area may develop as a multi-modal rail yard, prompting the need to mitigate increased truck
traffic through capacity improvements. BNSF also has plans to increase traffic on the Stampede Pass
line, the east-west rail line running through Auburn. To accommodate this increase the City recently
completed the grade separation of M Street SE. Both the BNSF north-south line and the Stampede
Pass line are handling an increase in rail freight traffic. BNSF handles a number of unit (solid) coal
trains traveling to terminals in northwest Washington state as well as unit oil trains carrying crude oil to
northwest Washington state refineries. While loaded coal and oil trains are usually handled on the
.north-south line, some of these empty trains return east to Wyoming or North Dakota via the
Stampede Pass line.
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.
TRUCK
The City has designated truck routes for through freight movement in an effort to maximize the
efficiency of and protect the roadway infrastructure. Current City of Auburn truck routes are shown in
Map 2-3. 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.
In addition, the Washington State Freight and Goods Transportation System (FGTS) is used to
classify roadways, freight railroads and waterways according to the annual freight tonnage they carry as
directed by RCW 47.05.021. Map 2-4 shows the 2013 classifications of City streets. The FGTS is
primarily used to establish funding eligibility for Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB)
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 6
grants, fulfill federal reporting requirements, support transportation planning process, and plan for
pavement needs and upgrades. The FGTS classifies roadways using the following categories:
T1: more than 10 million tons per year
T2: 4 million to 10 million tons per year
T3: 300,000 to 4 million tons per year
T4: 100,000 to 300,000 tons per year
T5: at least 20,000 tons in 60 days and less than 100,000 tons per year
Truck freight tonnage values are derived from actual or estimated truck traffic counts and converted
into average weights by truck type.
The City expects that the majority of regional truck trips will take place on state highways. However,
recognizing that trips through the City are sometimes necessary, Auburn has designated a network of
north-south and east-west corridors as truck routes, which are built to truck standards. In addition, the
City has designated future truck routes, which will be designed and constructed to accommodate truck
traffic, as opportunities arise. FMSIB has expressed an interest in these first and last mile connectors
which provide access between these classified freight facilities and port, rail yard, distribution centers
and truck terminals.
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 are 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. To implement this policy, the City will collaborate with
local businesses to improve freight access, while maintaining the roadway infrastructure, whenever
possible. This may include adopting City Code and updating the Auburn Engineering Design and
Construction Standards in a manner that favors these priorities. However, in a limited number of key
locations, trucks may be prohibited due to existing design elements which do not support trucks,
protecting sensitive areas such as downtown and residential neighborhoods, and to extend pavement
life.
SAFETY
The City places the highest priority on providing a
safe transportation system for all travel modes.
Continual efforts are made to make changes to the
street system in a manner that improves safety and
decreases the likelihood and severity of collisions.
Pedestrian crossings and other non-motorized
safety issues are discussed in the following chapters.
At grade railroad crossings, emergency response
needs and collisions related to the street system are
discussed below.
At Grade Railroad Crossings
Truck Traffic Using S 277th Street
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 7
At grade railroad crossings create conflict points between vehicles and non-motorized road users and
rail traffic. Auburn has several at grade railroad crossings: the Union Pacific tracks cross 44th St NW,
37th Street NW, 29th Street NW, West Main Street, and 15th Street SW. The BNSF tracks cross 37th
Street NW, 29th Street NW, 3rd Street NW, W Main Street, and 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, the project to grade separate M Street SE at the BNSF
Stampede Pass tracks by lowering M Street SE under the railroad overpass was completed during 2013.
Recent upgrades include the construction of a pre-signal where 37th Street NW crosses the BNSF
tracks, to stop westbound vehicles on 37th Street NW to the west of the grade crossing in advance of
the traffic signal at B Street NE. The pre-signal will prevent vehicles from stopping on the crossing.
BNSF is currently constructing a third rail mainline between Seattle and Auburn to improve service
and reliability for passenger rail. The new mainline is located on the west-side of the existing tracks.
The third mainline will reduce vehicle storage for westbound vehicles on W Main Street and 3rd Street
NW between the tracks and traffic signals with C Street NW. The City is working with BNSF to
upgrade the crossings to provide additional time to clear vehicles and pedestrians from these crossings
before the gates come down.
Impacts at the remaining grade crossings are anticipated to worsen in the future due to increased
vehicle demands at the crossings, combined with increased rail traffic, resulting in more frequent, and
longer duration, closures.
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, generally include Principal
Arterials, bridges and major evacuation routes.
In addition, the City works to provide a street
network that will ensure multiple alternate routes for
emergency vehicles. Fire and police response
vehicles are equipped with traffic signal controls
that enable emergency vehicles to secure safe and rapid passage along 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.
COLLISIONS
The City collects and reviews collision data to identify intersection and roadway locations where
potential hazards exist. Potential safety problems are identified using the Safety Priority Index System
(SPIS) methodology, an effective problem identification tool for evaluating locations with higher
BNSF Freight Train at West Main Street
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 8
collision histories. The SPIS score for a location considers three years of data and considers frequency,
collision rate, and severity.
If a hazard is identified, corrective measures can then be identified and implemented as appropriate.
While the City relies primarily on its own data, collision data from other sources, including neighboring
jurisdictions and the State, is utilized whenever available.
2.2 Street Standards and Levels-of-Service
The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires the City to establish service levels for the street
network and to provide a means for correcting deficiencies and meeting future needs. Transportation
professionals use the term ‘level-of-service’ (LOS) to measure the operational performance of a
transportation facility, such as a street corridor or intersection. This measure considers perception by
motorists and passengers in terms of speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions and
delays, comfort, and convenience.
The City currently uses a single-mode LOS system based upon vehicular travel. In the future, a multi-
modal system which includes transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists should be developed and adopted.
The currently adopted LOS methodology gives letter designations from ‘A’ through ‘F’, with LOS A
representing the best operating conditions, and LOS F representing the worst. LOS can be quantified
in different terms, depending on the transportation facility. Definitions for each level-of-service and
the methodologies for calculating the level-of-service for various facilities are contained in the Highway
Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000). The City most commonly uses corridor level-of-
service for accessing facilities. Generally, this is considered the most comprehensive way to determine
vehicular traffic impacts. The following descriptions provide some guidance for interpreting the
meaning of each LOS letter for corridor LOS on city streets.
LOS A describes primarily free-flow operations at average travel speeds, usually about 90 percent
of the free-flow speed (FFS) 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.
FFS 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 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 the number of vehicles may cause
substantial increases in delay and decreases in travel speed. LOS D may be due to poor
progression through the signalized intersections along a corridor, inappropriate signal timing, high
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 9
traffic volumes, 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, close signal
spacing, 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 GMA. If development causes a facility to degrade below a defined LOS standard,
concurrency requires that the development make improvement to restore operations to the LOS
standard or better, 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 (typically addressed through the payment of the truck
impact fee); 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 Map 2-5, 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.
While the City uses a weekday PM peak hour based LOS system, weekday AM peak hour LOS impacts
may be required to be analyzed in situations where unique conditions are likely to result in a LOS
deficiency during the weekday AM peak hour.
Table 2-1 identifies Auburn’s LOS Standards, as well as the 2014 corridor LOS. As indicated in the
table, LOS was calculated for many of Auburn’s street corridors using traffic count data collected
during 2014.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 10
Table 2-1 Corridor Level of Service – Existing 2014 Weekday PM Peak Hour
ID Corridor From To
LOS
Standard*
2014 LOS
NB/EB SB/WB
1 Auburn Way N 15th St NES 277thStE CC
2 Auburn Way N E Main St 15th St NE E D D
3 Auburn Way S E Main StM St SEF CD
4 Auburn Way S M St SE Academy Dr. SE D B C
5 M St/Harvey Auburn Way NE Main StE DD
6 M St/Harvey E Main St Auburn Way S E D C
8 37th St NE/NW West Valley Hwy Auburn Way NE CC
9 15th St NE/NW West Valley Hwy Auburn Way N F** D D
10 Auburn Ave/A St 6th St SEE Valley Access RdD BC
11 Main St West Valley Hwy R St D D D
12 15th St SW West Valley Hwy C St SWE DD
13 C St SW EllingsonRd SR-18 D B C
14 West Valley Hwy 37thSt NE15th St NEE BC
15 S 277th St Frontage Rd L St NE E C C
16 R St SE/Kersey Way Howard RdLake Tapps PkwyD BB
17 Lake Tapps Pkwy East Valley Hwy Kersey Way SE D C C
18 A St NW/B St NW 3rd St NWS 277th StD CB
19 8th St NE/Lea Hill Rd Harvey Rd 124th Ave SE E C B
22 SE 312th St/132nd Ave SE 124th Ave SESR-18D BB
25 105th Pl SE/SE 320th St Lea Hill Rd 124th Ave SE D A C
26 Lakeland Hills Way SE Lake Tapps Pkwy A St SEE DC
27 29th St SE/Riverwalk Dr. A St SE Auburn Way S D D C
31 3rd St SW/Cross St C St Auburn Way SF FE
33 41st St SE/Ellingson Rd A St SE C St SE F F F
35 West Valley Hwy 15th St NW15thSt SWE DE
* 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.
** Total travel time in the eastbound direction cannot exceed 1,000 seconds for this corridor to meet LOS
standards.
As shown in the table, each of the corridor segments currently meets LOS standards adopted by the
City as part of this plan. The LOS standards for several corridors have been revised downwards in
recognition that a number of corridors are considered to be built out by the City due to Rigth-of-Way
constraints, impact to existing development, and project costs. For example, eastbound Cross Street
and both eastbound and westbound 41st Street SE, all of which currently operate at LOS F. The poor
operations on these segments can be attributed to their short length, closely spaced signalized
intersections, and limited storage lengths, combined with high volumes of turning traffic.
In the majority of cases it is the traffic operations at the intersections along a corridor which limit the
capacity of the corridor, rather than the capacity of the roadway segments between intersections. This
is especially true along corridors with closely spaced intersections, such as Cross Street and 41st Street
SE, and corridors where two principal arterial roads intersect, such as Auburn Way S and M Street SE.
Along other corridors where the number of intersections is limited and the distances between them are
greater, the corridor LOS may not identify a bottleneck at one or more of the intersections along the
overall corridor. An example of this is along the Kersey Way corridor, where the overall corridor
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 11
operates at LOS B, but the intersection with 29th Street SE operates at LOS D, with the highest delays
and longest vehicle queue associated with southbound traffic on Kersey Way.
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 a LOS D standard 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 a LOS D standard.
LAND USE/TRANSPORTATION RELATIONSHIP
Land use and the transportation system are intertwined, each influencing the development of the
other. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate how the future transportation system can be improved to
best support both existing and proposed land-uses.
In 2003 Auburn was designated as a Regional Growth Center by the Puget Sound Regional Council as
part of the Vision 2040 plan. Designated regional growth centers are identified for housing and
employment growth, as well as being eligible for regional transportation funding.
A broad overview of Auburn’s Comprehensive Plan land use map’s more intensive land use
designations shows industrial (light and heavy) designations in the west side of the valley floor portion
of the City, extensive commercial development (light and heavy) located along Auburn Way N,
Auburn Way S, and A Street SE, and sizable heavy commercial designated areas near the SR-18 and
15th Street SW interchange (The Outlet Collection) and between 15th Street NW and 37th Street NW
(Emerald Downs). Downtown Auburn is near the geographic center of the City, located generally 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 generally exists along the east side of the valley floor and the
surrounding hillsides of West Hill, Lea Hill, and Lakeland Hills. A major land use activity in Lea Hill to
the east includes the Green River College located on SE 320th Street.
As with many cities in South King and North 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 traffic generated by these industrial uses directed towards the State Highway System.
Another key feature in the Comprehensive Plan 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
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 12
of The Outlet Collection. The Outlet Collection attracts customers on a regional basis and impacts use
of the State Highway System, even more than the downtown, or the commercial development along
Auburn Way and A Street SE. The same can also be said for Auburn Way N to the north of
downtown which serves as an auto mall, which attracts both local and regional traffic.
Downtown Auburn contains a mix of land-uses including residential, commercial and industrial uses.
Commercial uses in the Downtown are focused along Main Street, Auburn Way and A Street SE and
tend to serve more local needs. Historically, this commercial development has served predominantly
local needs. However, the presence of the Auburn Station, Multi Care, City Hall, and recent and
proposed new development projects, combined with regulations and policies that encourage transit
oriented developments, downtown commercial development will serve a broader range of needs in the
future. Downtown Auburn also has the Cities most robust non-motorized infrastructure, including
both extensive pedestrian and bicycle facilities. This provides the opportunity for both residents and
employees to rely on proximate transit services at the Auburn Station, combined with a robust non-
motorized transportation system for a portion of their transportation needs. The goal of this plan is to
continue to grow and expand the non-motorized transportation system to provide the same
transportation choices throughout the City.
The City’s Comprehensive Plan land use map focuses residential development in the eastern portion of
the valley and in the West Hill, Lea Hill, and the Lakeland Hills area. Access to the State Highway
System in Lea Hill is limited to SR-18 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 compre-
hensive plan designations in that area, and continued growth of Green River College. 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 outside 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 within the city limits. Year 2013 average
daily traffic (ADT) volumes along SR-164 range from a low of 21,700 near the eastern city boundary
up to 35,900 along Auburn Way South near SR-18. These volumes are forecast to continue to increase
over the next 20 years. However, the growth is limited by the capacity of the roadway.
The State Highway System also impacts the City’s local street system. A “pass-through” traffic pattern
results in significant traffic volume increases on the local arterial street system. For example, many of
Auburn’s weekday 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
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 13
Figure 2-1. Population, Housing, and Job Growth
FOR CITY OF AUBURN 2000 – 2035
1 – Population and housing data for 2000 and 2010 taken from US Census.
2 – Population and housing projection for 2025 and 2035 from City of Auburn.
3 – Covered employment data and estimates derived from PSRC.
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
2000201020252035
Population Housing Units Jobs
City’s land use plan, such as at SR-164 at the eastern City limit. The City may implement measures that
encourage local traffic movements and discourage pass-through trips.
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 2035, with the population reaching approximately 95,000
residents, as shown in Figure 2-1. 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.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 14
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
Boeing, the Outlet Collection, Emerald Downs, Muckleshoot Casino, and White River Amphitheater.
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.
In order to address the growing traffic volumes and congestion levels on city streets, traffic operations
were evaluated for a near term horizon year of 2022 and a long term horizon year of 2035. This
approach was taken to help identify which improvement projects need to be included in the
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to accommodate short term growth, vs. those longer
term projects which are needed to accommodate additional growth forecast to occur between 2022
and 2035.
FUTURE 2022 CONDITIONS
City Projects
The current TIP, adopted during 2015, identifies programmed projects for the years 2016 to 2021.
Therefore, the analysis of 2022 traffic operations includes City projects which would increase capacity
along both roadway segments and at intersections which are anticipated to be constructed by 2022.
The included projects are listed in Table 2-2 and illustrated on Map 2-6. This includes a project
programmed in the TIP that is not included in the travel demand model: a new crossing of the BNSF
Rail yard between SR-18 and 41st Street SE (TIP #12). This is discussed in more detail in the Future
System Recommendations section of this chapter and may be included in future updates to this plan.
The TIP also includes non-capacity projects such as non-motorized and preservation projects. The
City’s ADA transition plan also identifies non-motorized improvements. In addition, non-motorized
improvement projects are discussed in Chapter 3, Non-Motorized Transportation.
Regional Transportation Projects
In addition to the City of Auburn projects identified above, a number of regional transportation
projects are planned to be completed, predominantly WSDOT projects planned for the freeway
system. However, none of these projects are anticipated to be completed by 2022.
Additional Projects
In addition to the projects identified in Map 2-6, four intersections outside of the City were identified
as potential level-of-service concerns during the plan development. 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:
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 15
51st Avenue S/S 316th Street (King County)
S 321st Street/46th Place (King County)
S 321st Street/Peasley Canyon Road (King County)
West Valley Hwy/Peasley Canyon Rd (WSDOT)
As mitigation for an adjacent development project located within the City of Auburn, the eastbound
stop-controlled S 316th Street approach to 51st Avenue S is being widened to provide separate left-
and right-turn lanes. This improvement was required to mitigate a development related impact to LOS
at this intersection. The same development project also identified a traffic operations impact at the S
321st Street intersection with 46th Place S. As mitigation for that impact the development dedicated
ROW to the City to allow the 46th Place S approach to S 321st Street to be realigned to the east to
create two offset “T” intersections. This project is included in the City of Auburn TIP (TIP #9) and
included in Table 2-2 below.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 16
Table 2-2. Future Capacity Projects and Cost Estimates – 2022
Map
No.
Location
(corridor and segment) Description Total Cost
(2015 dollars)
City Projects Included in the 2022 Analysis
1 Auburn Way S
Dogwood St SE to Fir St SE
U-Turns, pedestrian improvements,
and access control $1.75M
2 I Street NE Corridor
45th St NE to S 277th St Construct 5 lane arterial $6.75M
3 S 277th Street
AWN to Green River Bridge
Widen to 5 lanes total and install a
Class 1 trail $8.3M
4 A Street NW Phase 2
W. Main St to 3rd St NW Construct multi-lane arterial $3.15M
5 F Street SE
4th St SE to Auburn Way S
Pedestrian, Bicycle and Vehicular
Access Improvements $2.5M
6 M Street NE
E Main St to 4th St NE Widen to 4 lanes $1.5M
7 8th Street NE
Pike St NE to R St NE
Add EB lane to south side of 8th
Street NE $1.45M
8 49th Street NE
Auburn Way N to I St NE
Construct multi-lane arterial
connection $3.35M
9 46th Place S Realignment
S 321st St and 46th Pl S
Realign 46th Place S to the east to
create two new T intersections $825K
10 124th Ave SE Corridor
SE 318th St to SE 312th St Widen to 4 lanes and bike lanes $4M
11
SE 320th Street
116th Ave SE to 122nd Ave
SE
Roundabout, Bike lanes, and safety
improvements $4.64M
12
Auburn Way S
Muckleshoot Plaza to
Dogwood St SE
Additional turn lanes and vehicle
storage, access control, and non-
motorized improvements.
$2.9M
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 17
City Projects Included in the 2022 Analysis (Continued)
13
W Valley Highway
Improvements
15th St NW to W Main St
Roadway widening, re-
channelization, non-motorized
improvements and ITS upgrades
$3.7M
14 W Main Street
W Valley Hwy to Interurban Trail
Re-channelization, non-motorized
improvements, ITS upgrades $4.45M
15 Auburn Way S
Fir St SE to Hemlock St SE
Widen to 5-lanes, signalize
Hemlock St SE $4.6M
16 M Street SE Corridor
8th St SE to Auburn Way S. Construct multi-lane corridor $6.7M
17 Lea Hill Road Segment 1
R St NE to 105th Pl SE
Widen to 2 lanes each direction
including widening of the Green
River Bridge. Includes bike lanes
and sidewalks.
$13M
18 Lea Hill Road Segment 2
105th Pl SE to 112th Ave SE
Widen corridor to include 2
eastbound lanes, bike lanes and
sidewalks.
$12M
19 Lea Hill Road Segment 3
112th Ave SE to 124th Ave SE
Widen corridor to include 2
eastbound lanes, bike lanes and
sidewalks.
$4M
20 W Valley Highway
SR-18 to 15th St SW
Re-channelization, non-motorized
improvements, ITS upgrades $3M
21 R Street SE
17th St SE to M St SE
Construct a new roadway
connection $10M
22 M Street SE at 12th Street SE Install a new traffic signal $625K
23 M Street SE at 29th Street SE Install a new traffic signal $450K
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 18
City Projects Included in the 2022 Analysis (Continued)
24 124th Avenue SE at SE 284th
Street Safety and capacity improvements $700K
25
Lake Tapps Parkway
Lakeland Hills Way to E Valley
Hwy
Add ITS system $1M
26 29th Street SE at R street SE Increase intersection capacity $1.8M
27 A Street SE at 37th Street SE
Install a traffic signal and
southbound u-turn for future
access management
$935K
28 I Street NE at 22nd Street NE Construct a new roundabout $1.4M
Subtotal for City Projects $109M
Non-City Projects included in the 2022 Analysis
51st Avenue
S 288th Street Add signal
2022 LEVELS OF SERVICE
Weekday PM peak hour levels of service were calculated for 2022 conditions using the same
methodology used to calculate the 2014 levels of service shown previously. The same corridors were
analyzed in both cases. The 2022 levels of service account for the growth forecast to occur between
2014 and 2022 and the capacity improvement projects identified above. The 2022 levels of service are
shown in Table 2-3. Is should be noted that without the projects shown in Table 2-2, the traffic
operations presented in Table 2-3 would be significantly worse, with a number of corridors operating
below adopted LOS standards.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 19
Table 2-3. Corridor LOS – Future 2022 Weekday PM Peak Hour
ID Corridor From To
LOS
Standard*
2022 LOS
EB/NB SB/WB
1 Auburn Way N 15th St NES 277th StE C D
2 Auburn Way N E Main St 15thSt NE E D D
3 Auburn Way S E Main StM St SEF C E
4 Auburn Way S M St SE Academy Dr. SE D C C
5 M St/Harvey Rd Auburn Way NE Main StE D D
6 M St/Harvey Rd E Main St Auburn Way S E D D
8 37th St NE/NW West Valley Hwy Auburn Way NE C C
9 15th St NE/NW West Valley Hwy Auburn Way N F** D D
10 Auburn Ave/A St 6th St SEE Valley Access RdD C C
11 Main St West Valley Hwy R St D C D
12 15th St SW West Valley Hwy C St SWE D D
13 C St SW EllingsonRd SR-18 D B D
14 West Valley Hwy 37th St NE15thSt NEE B C
15 S 277th St Frontage Rd L St NE E C C
16 R St SE/Kersey Way Howard RdLake Tapps PkwyD B C
17 Lake Tapps Pkwy East Valley Hwy Kersey Way SE D C C
18 A St NW/B St NW 3rd St NWS 277th StD C B
19 8th St NE/Lea Hill Rd Harvey Rd 124th Ave SE E C B
22 SE 312th St/132nd Ave SE 124th Ave SESR-18D B B
25 105th Pl SE/SE 320th St Lea Hill Rd 124th Ave SE D B B
26 Lakeland Hills Way SE Lake Tapps Pkwy A St SEE D D
27 29th St SE/Riverwalk Dr. A St SE Auburn Way S D C C
31 3rd St SW/Cross St C St Auburn Way SF E E
33 41st St SE/Ellingson Rd A St SE C St SE F F F
35 West Valley Hwy 15th St NW15th St SWE D C
* Corridor segments within Downtown Auburn may operate at LOS E in accordance with the Auburn Downtown Plan. All
other arterial and collector corridors must operate at LOS D or better, unless otherwise indicated.
** Total travel time in the eastbound direction cannot exceed 1,000 seconds for this corridor to meet LOS standards.
As shown in the table, all of the evaluated corridors would meet the revised LOS standards in 2022
with the inclusion of the improvements identified above. However, the following segments are
forecast to operate at LOS F in 2022:
Southbound Auburn Way S between E Main St and M St SE;
Eastbound 41st Street SE between A St SE and C St SW; and
Westbound 41st Street SE between A St SE and C St SW.
In order to improve traffic operations along these corridor segments additional improvements beyond
those already included in this analysis are required. A review of the segment of Auburn Way S between
E Main St and M St SE shows that traffic operations through the SR-18 interchange and at the
intersection with M St SE cause the overall corridor segment to degrade to LOS E. The interchange
area is constrained by the existing SR-18 overpass, the configuration of the SR-18 on- and off-ramps,
and the close spacing of the ramp intersections which provide limited vehicle storage. As a result the
ability to increase capacity along this section of the corridor is limited. It is possible that the
construction of the new eastbound off-ramp from SR-18 to SR-164 in the vicinity of the Muckleshoot
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 20
Casino could draw traffic away from this area; however the scope of this project has not yet been
determined so it was not accounted for in this analysis. It may also be appropriate, as with certain
other corridor sections, for the City to consider changing the LOS standard for this corridor to reflect
that the existing corridor is built-out and further improvements are neither desirable nor cost effective.
Similar circumstances exist for Corridor #33, 41st Street SE/Ellingson Road. This corridor is forecast
to operate at LOS F in both the eastbound and westbound directions in 2022. This corridor is
constrained by the BNSF bridge, the close spacing of the C Street SW and A Street SE signalized
intersections, and the limited storage space between the two intersections. Providing additional
capacity would likely require the BNSF bridge to be reconstructed, an expensive proposition, with a
limited increase in capacity. It is possible that other capacity projects may reduce traffic volumes on
this by constructing additional capacity on alternate routes. These include the crossing of the BNSF
rail yard to the north which would provide another east-west connection across southern Auburn, and
the completion of the improvements to Stewart Road to the south, including the replacement of the
White River bridge, which would provide additional capacity between SR-167 and the Lakeland Hills
area. The BNSF rail yard crossing project is included as project #12 in the TIP, however construction
is shown beyond 2021, so this project was not included in the analysis of 2022 conditions. Completion
of the Stewart Road capacity improvements are being planned by the Cities of Sumner and Pacific.
The City of Auburn supports these improvements, and has programmed the project in the TIP as
project #73, which will provide the City of Pacific with some funds to support construction of their
portion of the project. Construction of these improvements is not anticipated until beyond 2022, so
this was not accounted for in this analysis. Another potential option could be to revise the LOS
standard for this corridor to reflect that the existing corridor is built-out and further improvements
may not be cost effective.
The transportation system can be compared to a three legged stool in terms of the improvement
strategies which are available to reduce congestion. The three options are to construct improvements
to add capacity, make better use of the existing infrastructure which is available, and to manage
demand. The analysis presented above accounts for the construction of additional capacity, and
making better use of the available capacity through expansion of ITS infrastructure and the
optimization of signal timing. The analysis does not account for demand management strategies which
could result in improvements to traffic operations through the use:
Road Pricing
Parking Management and Parking Pricing
Car Sharing
Pay-as-You-Drive Insurance
Ridesharing and HOV Lanes
Transit Incentives
Transit and non-motorized Improvements
Telework, compressed work week, off-peak schedule
Many of these solutions have been implemented at the state level, with additional consideration being
given to expanding the options which are currently in use.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 21
Decisions need to be made regarding how these three potential congestion management tools are
balanced to provide the most cost effective solutions. It is unlikely that the City will be able to
implement all of the capacity projects documented above by 2022 due to the cost of the project
portfolio being in excess of available funding. Therefore, the focus should be on the most cost
effective projects which reduce congestion at locations where it is a recurrent problem, and improving
the efficiency of the existing system. Transportation system management and transportation demand
management are included in the future system recommendations section at the end of this chapter.
FUTURE 2035 CONDITIONS
City Projects
In addition to the projects identified above which were included in the 2022 analysis, a number of
additional projects were included in the analysis of 2035 conditions. These additional projects include
those which are included in the TIP but which are not anticipated to be constructed until beyond 2022,
and the longer term projects included in the previous Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The
included projects are listed in Table 2-4 and illustrated on Map 2-6.
This includes a project programmed in the TIP that is not included in the model: the crossing of the
BNSF Rail yard. This is discussed in more detail in the Future System Recommendations section of
this chapter and will likely be included in future model runs and updates to this plan.
Regional Transportation Projects
In addition to the City of Auburn projects identified above, a number of regional transportation
projects were included in the development of the forecast volumes. These are predominantly WSDOT
projects planned for the freeway system. Table 2-4 summarizes the included projects, along with
planning level cost estimates.
Additional Projects
Another future project with significant area-wide impacts is the addition of the Auburn Bypass
connecting SR-18 to SR-164. A draft Bypass Feasibility Report (September 2009) was prepared in
partnership with WSDOT, the City of Auburn, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and other regional
partners. While a preferred alternative for the bypass has not yet been developed, the Washington State
Legislature included funding in the 2015 transportation budget for the design and construction of this
new connection. It is anticipated that the new roadway will include an eastbound off-ramp from SR-18
to SR-164 in the vicinity of the Muckleshoot Casino, no additional details regarding the project have
been determined. Therefore, this was not accounted for in the traffic forecasts. The impacts of this
project will be identified and mitigated as part of the process to determine the ultimate alignment. The
project will be included in future updates of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 22
Table 2-4. Future Capacity Projects and Cost Estimates – 2035
Map
No.
Location
(corridor and segment) Description Total Cost
(2015 dollars)
Additional City Projects Included in the 2035 Analysis
29 SR-164
Hemlock St SE to Academy Dr SE
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.
$61M
30 R Street Bypass
M St SE to SR-18 Construct a new bypass road $6.2M
31 SE 304th Street
112th Avenue SE
Add signal and NB left turn lane.
Include sidewalks and bike lanes
both sides.
$1.3M
32
124th Ave SE & SE 320th St
Intersection Improvements
SE 318th St to SE 320th St
Construct intersection
improvements at the entrance to
Green River College.
$1.85M
33 A Street Loop
A St SW to A St SE
Add one-way (EB) road with
unsignalized free right turn at A
Street SE. Include sidewalks both
sides of new road.
$1.7M
34 SE 284th/SE 288th St
124th Ave SE to 132nd Ave SE
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.
$7.7M
35 51st Avenue
S 296th S
Provide protected SB left turn
phase and signal and SB left turn
lane; Include bike lanes and
sidewalks on all legs
$1.4M
36 D Street NW
37th Street NW to 44th Street NW Construct 4 lane arterial $6M
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 23
Subtotal for City Projects $87M
Additional City Projects NOT Accounted for in the 2035 Analysis
35 51st Avenue
S 296th S
Provide protected SB left turn
phase and signal and SB left turn
lane; Include bike lanes and
sidewalks on all legs
$1.4M
37 BNSF Yard Grade Separation
TBD Construct road across BNSF yard $32M
38 Auburn Way S Bypass
Riverwalk Dr to SR-18 at R St SE
Construct an Auburn Way S
Bypass between Riverwalk Dr
and R St SE with new connection
to SR-18
$60M
Non-City Projects included in the 2035 Analysis
SR-167
I-405 to SR-509
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.
SR-18 at SR-167
Complete ramp from EB SR-18 to SB SR-167 and eliminate
SR-18 access from West Valley Highway near Peasley
Canyon.
SR-167
15th Street NW to 8th Street E Add HOV lane each direction
Stewart Road
SR-167 to East Valley Highway
Widen to 2 lanes each direction and center turn lane in the
Cities of Sumner and Pacific. Includes widening of the White
River bridge.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 24
2035 LEVELS OF SERVICE
Weekday PM peak hour levels of service were calculated for 2035 conditions using the same
methodology used to calculate both the 2014 and 2022 levels of service. The 2035 levels of service
account for the growth forecast to occur by 2035 and the capacity improvement projects identified
above. The 2035 levels of service are shown in Table 2-5. As shown in the table, all of the evaluated
corridors would meet the revised LOS standards in 2035 with the inclusion of the improvements
identified above. However, the following additional corridor segments would operate at LOS E or F in
2035:
Southbound Auburn Way N between S 277th St and 15th St NE;
Southbound Auburn Way S between E Main St and M St SE;
Northbound M St between E Main St and Auburn Way S;
Eastbound 37th St between W Valley Hwy and Auburn Way N;
Westbound 15th St SW between W Valley Hwy and C St SW;
Southbound Lakeland Hill Way SE between Lake Tapps Pkwy and A St SE;
Eastbound 3rd St SW/Cross St between C St and Auburn Way S;
Westbound 3rd St SW/Cross St between C St and Auburn Way S; and
Westbound 41st Street SE between A St SE and C St SE.
In addition, there are two locations where corridors would operate at improvement levels of service in
2035 relative to 2022 conditions:
Eastbound 41st Street SE between A St SE and C St SE, which would improve from LOS F to
LOS E, the result of the improvements identified above, combined with the planned
improvements to the Stewart Road corridor and SR-167 which would attract traffic currently
using the 41st Street SE/Ellingson Road corridor to access A Street/East Valley Highway to
the south.
Southbound West Valley Highway between 15th Street NW and 15th Street SW, which would
improve from LOS D to LOS C. This is also likely to improvements to SR-167, which would
reduce the use of West Valley Highway as a parallel bypass route.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 25
Table 2-5. Corridor Levels of Service - Future 2035 Weekday PM Peak Hour
ID Corridor From To
LOS
Standard*
2035 LOS
NB/EB SB/WB
1 Auburn Way N 15th St NES 277th StED E
2 Auburn Way N E Main St 15thSt NE E D D
3 Auburn Way S E Main StM St SEFC F
4 Auburn Way S M St SE Academy Dr.SE D D C
5 M St/Harvey Rd Auburn Way NE Main StED E
6 M St E Main St Auburn Way S E E D
8 37th St NE/NW West Valley Hwy Auburn Way NEE C
9 15th St NE/NW West Valley Hwy Auburn Way N F** E E
10 Auburn Ave/A St 6th St SEE Valley Access RdDC C
11 Main St West Valley Hwy R St D D D
12 15th St SW West Valley Hwy C St SWED E
13 C St SW EllingsonRd SR-18 D C D
14 West Valley Hwy 37th St NE15thSt NEEB C
15 S 277th St Frontage Rd L St NE E E C
16 R St SE/Kersey Way Howard RdLake Tapps PkwyDB C
17 Lake Tapps Pkwy East Valley Hwy Kersey Way SE D C C
18 A St NW/B St NW 3rd St NWS 277th StDC C
19 8th St NE/Lea Hill Rd Harvey Rd 124th Ave SE E C B
22 SE 312th St/132nd Ave SE 124th Ave SESR-18DB B
25 105th Pl SE/SE 320th St Lea Hill Rd 124th Ave SE D C C
26 Lakeland Hills Way SE Lake Tapps Pkwy A St SEED E
27 29th St SE/Riverwalk Dr. A St SE Auburn Way S D C C
31 3rd St SW/Cross St C St Auburn Way SFF F
33 41st St SE/Ellingson Rd A St SE C St SE F E F
35 West Valley Hwy 15th St NW15th St SWEC C
* Corridor segments within Downtown Auburn may operate at LOS E in accordance with the Auburn Downtown Plan. All
other arterial and collector corridors must operate at LOS D or better, unless otherwise indicated.
** Total travel time in the eastbound direction cannot exceed 1,000 seconds for this corridor to meet LOS standards.
To improve traffic operations along the corridor segments which are forecast to operate at LOS E and
F in 2035, additional improvements beyond those already included in this analysis are required.
However, it may not be cost effective to construct the additional capacity needed along all of these
corridor segments. It may, however, be possible to improve traffic operations at key intersections
along these corridors to reduce congestions.
The City, and the broader region, will need to identify strategies and adopt policies, including
transportation demand management, transportation system management, and public-private
partnerships, to be able to manage congestion while reaching projected growth targets.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 26
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 Map 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;
3. Work collaboratively with WSDOT and other partner agencies to implement roadway
improvements to the regional highway network; and
4. Work to implement TSM, TDM and non-motorized improvements.
DOWNTOWN CIRCULATION PLAN
Auburn’s Downtown is undergoing considerable growth and transition to a higher density, mixed-use
town center. Major redevelopment, including the Trek Building and Merrill Gardens mixed-use
projects is occurring to the south of Main Street.
The transformation of downtown Auburn will include many changes to the public right-of-way and
streetscape. The Downtown Circulation Plan will 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 traverse
the downtown, so accommodation for high traffic volumes 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 evaluating the
use of 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 bottleneck for Auburn drivers, especially with additional development in the Lakeland Hills PUD and
the Pierce County cities to the south. The close spacing of these two intersections, coupled with the
West Main Street, Downtown Auburn
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 27
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 SW corridors, and an evaluation of the
BNSF rail yard crossing projects discussed below.
BNSF RAIL YARD CROSSING
The City has identified the need for a new east/west grade separated crossing of the BNSF rail yard
between C Street SW and A Street NE.
There are a variety of criteria that the City will consider to determine the alignment of the crossing,
including potential development of the BNSF property as a multi-modal rail yard, commercial
development on Auburn Way S and A Street SE, re-development of the GSA property, funding
feasibility, neighborhood impacts, transportation impacts, and engineering feasibility. The crossing
project was not accounted for in the 2035 traffic model. Therefore, it is difficult to access the specific
impacts of the crossing project. However, it is anticipated that the project could significantly improve
east-west mobility in southern Auburn, relieving the existing bottlenecks at 3rd Street SE and 41st
Street SE, by providing an additional alternative for the residential neighborhoods to the east of the rail
yard to connect with the commercial and retail land-uses and SR-167 to the west of the yard. One
potential impact of the crossing project, depending on the alignment selected, could be an increase in
traffic through the Terminal Park neighborhood.
AUBURN BYPASS
Another future project with significant area-wide impacts is the addition of the Auburn Bypass
connecting SR-18 to SR-164. A draft Bypass Feasibility Report (September 2009) was prepared in
partnership with WSDOT, the City of Auburn, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and other regional
partners. While a preferred alternative for the bypass has not yet been developed, the Washington State
Legislature included funding in the 2015 transportation budget for the design and construction of this
new connection. It is anticipated that the new roadway will include an eastbound off-ramp from SR-18
to SR-164 in the vicinity of the Muckleshoot Casino, no additional details regarding the project have
been determined. Therefore, this was not accounted for in the traffic forecasts. The impacts of this
project will be identified and mitigated as part of the process to determine the ultimate alignment. The
project will be included in future updates of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT
Transportation system management (TSM) techniques, which make more efficient use of the existing
transportation facilities, can reduce the need for costly system capacity expansion projects. These
techniques can also be used to improve LOS when travel corridors reach adopted LOS standards.
TSM techniques used by the City include:
Re-channelization/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 existing street
network. Of the various TSM strategies available, the City continues to invest in and expand its ITS
infrastructure as a cost effective means of increasing system capacity. The ITS system enables the City
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 28
to change traffic signals in real-time, thereby accommodating unexpected increases in traffic or traffic
obstacles such as event related traffic and collisions. For example, ITS has proven to be a useful tool in
helping to manage 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 Map 2-7 and detailed in the ITS policies included in
Chapter 5.
In addition to TSM strategies, the City strives to provide viable alternatives for travelers, to ensure
freedom of choice among several transportation modes, including transit, biking and walking as
alternatives to the automobile. The City will prioritize the development of pedestrian-friendly
environments such as bicycle routes and pedestrian paths as the non-motorized system expands.
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
Reducing congestion includes strategies to reduce demands on the transportation system. The State of
Washington emphasized the importance of transportation demand management (TDM) by adopting a
Commute Trip Reduction law. That law requires all major employers, with over 100 employees
arriving between the hours of 6:00 and 9:00 AM, to develop programs and strategies to reduce the
number of commuter automobile trips made by their employees. Transportation demand management
reduces demand on the street system. 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, and has identified mode split goals for the Regional Growth Center. The goals were
developed in consideration of the current mode splits for the Auburn Regional Growth Center, the
current mode splits for all of the designated Regional Growth Centers, and the 2040 mode split targets
identified by PSRC for all of the designated Regional Growth Centers. The existing and 2035 mode
split goals for the Auburn Regional Growth Center are summarized in Table 2-6.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 29
Table 2-6. Regional Growth Center Mode Split Goals
Mode 2010 Existing 2035
SOV 81% 56%
HOV 8% 8%
Transit 6% 27%
Bike 2% 4%
Walk 3% 5%
The mode split goals for the Regional Growth Center reflect the desire to significantly reduce
automobile travel as a share of work trips, with the most significant increase in the share of trips by
transit. The reduction in the vehicle mode split will be the result of the right mix of land-use changes,
transportation investments, and roadway pricing tools. Additionally, factors such as shifting
demographic trends, preferences, and technology may contribute to mode shifts above and beyond the
identified goals.
STREET MAINTENANCE & REHABILITATION
The City is responsible for maintaining the physical structure of the roadway system. However,
pavement maintenance is expensive, and adequate funding is generally not available. Recognizing this
dilemma, Auburn residents approved Proposition 1, the “Save Our Streets” (SOS) Program, in
November 2004. The SOS program created a dedicated local street fund for repair, rehabilitation, and
maintenance of local roadways from property tax revenues. In 2013, after the original programs tax
increases ended, the City Council modified the funding source for this program to be from sales tax on
construction.
The City has created a similar program to fund the repair and maintenance of arterials and collector
streets. The program is funded through a one percent utility tax. While the available funding through
this program is limited, which makes prioritizing projects challenging, the City has been able to
maximize the value of the available funds by using them to leverage grant funds, enabling significantly
more arterial and collector street repair and maintenance to be completed.
Local Residential Street Before SOS Rebuild Local Residential Street After SOS Rebuild
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 2. The Street System Page 2- 30
NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS
Transportation systems and facilities can impact adjacent neighborhoods. Potential impacts result from
increased traffic resulting from drivers seeking alternate routes to congested arterials, in an effort to
save time. These impacts can include higher vehicle speeds resulting in potential safety concerns, and
associated air and noise pollution. Neighborhoods throughout the City are concerned with these traffic
impacts and want to discourage 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 impact
neighborhoods. The traffic calming program is a community-based program with the goal of
identifying potential problems and development of solutions to help mitigate these impacts. 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.
")V
")V
")V
")V
")V
")V
")V
")V
!(!(
!(
!(
!.!.!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!.!.!.
!.
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!.
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!.!.")
XW
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!.
XW
!(
!(
!.
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
XW
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
")!(
!(
!(
!(
!.
!(
!(
XW
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
XW
!(
!.
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
XW
TS18
TS18
TS167
TS167
A ST SE
B ST NW
AUBURN WAY S
C ST SW
I ST NE
M ST SE
AUBURN WAY N
R ST SE
124TH AVE SE
132ND AVE SE
E M A I N S T
WEST
VALLEY
HWY
N
SE 304TH ST
S 277TH ST
C ST NW
15TH ST SW
2ND ST E
STUCK RIVER DR S E
W MAIN ST
15TH ST NW
LAKE T A P P S P K W Y S E
4 1 S T S T S E
29TH ST SE
SE 312TH ST
51ST AVE S
K
ER
SEYWAYSE
SE 288TH ST
8T H ST N E
37TH ST NW
LAKEL
A
N
D
H
I
L
L
S
W
A
Y
S
E
ORAVETZRDSE
25TH ST SE
EAST BLVD
D ST SE
110TH AVE SE
4TH ST SE
104THAVE
SE
I
S
T
N
W
WESTVALLEYHWYS
SE 299TH ST
N ST NE
W ST NW
O ST NE
S 287TH ST
56TH AVE S
SCENIC
D
R
S
E
118TH AVE SE
SE 320TH ST
SE 316TH ST
AUBURN-BLACKDIAMOND RD SE
D ST NE
112TH AVE SE
ACADEMYDRSE
P
E
A
S
L
E
Y
C
A
N
Y
O
N
RDS
K ST SE
E
A
S
T
VA
L
L
E
Y
H
W
Y
E
4TH ST SW
8 T H S T S E
M ST NE
JOHNREDDINGTONRDNE
B ST SE
FOSTER AVE SE
47THST S E
56TH ST SE
RIV E R DRSE
S 305TH ST
57THPLS
SE290TH ST
130TH AVE SE
35T H W A Y S E
R ST
NW
26TH ST SE
B ST NE SE 323RD PL
1 7 T H S T S E
3 6 T H S T S E
5 0 T H S T N E
6 4 T H S T S E
V ST NW
A S T E
SE304TH W AY
1 0 8 T H A VESE
22ND ST SE
42ND ST NW
S 292ND ST
SE 282ND ST
SE295TH ST
5 1 S T S T S E
SE 286TH ST
V CT SE
32ND ST SE
7 2 N D S T S E
42ND ST NE
2ND ST SE
PEARL AVE SE
6 2 N D S T S E
SE 307TH PL
S 324TH ST
65TH ST SE
T H E
T H E
O U T L E T
O U T L E T
C O L L E C T I O N
C O L L E C T I O N
Auburn Transportation Plan
Map ID: 4589Printed On: 10/8/2015
°0 1
Miles
City of Auburn
")V Future Variable Message
!(City Signal
XW PED S ignal
")County Signal
!.WSDOT
ITS Copper
ITS Fiber
Future ITS Corridor
Intelligent Transportation Systems
Map 2-7
Source: City of Auburn GIS Department
È !o
25
3
5
13 18
19
14
8
21
6
10
20
9
4
12 1
1117
15
7
2
2
6
9
2
3
2
4
2
6
2
7
38
3 7
29
34
3
36
30
33
3
2
3
5
62
16
31
2
TS18
TS18
TS167
TS167
C ST SW
STUCK RIVER DR S E
B ST NW
41 S T S T S E
C ST NW
EAST BLVD
I
S
T
N
W
AUBURN WAY S
A ST SE
S 287TH ST
118TH AVE SE
51ST AVE S
CLAY ST NW
A ST NW
D ST NE
2ND ST E
144TH
AVE
SE
K
E
R
S
E
Y
W
A
Y
S
E
P
E
A
S
L
E
Y
C
A
N
Y
O
N
RDS
JOHNREDDINGTONRDNE
124TH AVE SE
H ST SE
G S
T
S
E
140TH AVE SE
FOSTER AVE SE
M
S
T
S
E
47THST S E
56TH AVE S
U
S
T
N
W
5
5
T
H
A
V
E
S
ORAVETZ RD SE
EMERALD DOWNS DR NW
3 2 1 S T S T S
ACADEMYDRSE
S 277TH ST
15TH ST SW
SE 301ST ST
S E 2 8 7THST
HICRESTDRNW
I ST NE
V ST NW
L ST SE
AS T E
21ST ST NE
S 318TH ST
25TH ST SE
H ST NE
LAKETAPPSPKWY SE
E ST NE
PIKE ST NW
36 T H S T S E
AUBURN-BLACK DIAMOND RDSE
R ST SE
42ND ST NW
8TH ST N E
16TH ST NE
4TH ST SW
SE 282ND ST
SE 312TH ST
D ST SE
SE 288TH ST
1 0 8 T H AVESE
SE 326TH PL
SE 295TH ST
20TH ST SE
5 1 S T S T S E
42ND ST NE
C
S
T
S
E
SE 304TH ST
Z ST SE
O ST SW
56TH ST SE
37T H ST N E
L ST NE
S K Y W A Y L N S E
PEARL AVE SE
4TH ST NE
112TH AVE SE
6TH ST SE
S 302ND PL
S 324TH ST
F ST NW
G PL SE V CT SE
AUBURN
W
A
Y
S
B ST NW
A
ST
SE
KERSEYWAYSE
A ST SE
R ST
SE
LAKE TA P P S P K W Y S E
I ST NE
51ST AVE S
SE 312TH ST
S 277TH ST
T H E
T H E
O U T L E T
O U T L E T
C O L L E C T I O N
C O L L E C T I O N
Auburn Transportation Plan
Map ID: 4682Printed On: 10/26/2015
°0 1
Miles
2022 City Improvements
2035 City Improvements
Not in Analysis
City of Auburn Transportation Improvement Projects
Map 2-6
Source: City of Auburn GIS Department
")10
")4
")16
")18
")1
")13
")11
")35
")17
")19
")27
")2
6
")9
")12
")8
")14
")25
")15
")3
")23
")5
")22
")6
")2
")33
")31
TS18
TS18
TS167
TS167
A ST SE
B ST NW
AUBURN WAY S
C ST SW
I ST NE
M ST SE
AUBURN WAY N
124TH AVE SE
R ST SE
132ND AVE SE
E M A I N S T
WEST
VALLEYHWYN
SE 304TH ST
S 277TH ST
C ST NW
15TH ST SW
2ND ST E
STUCK RIVER DR S E
W MAIN ST
15TH ST NW
LAKE T A P P S P K W Y S E
4 1 S T S T S E
29TH ST SE
SE 312TH ST
51ST AVE S
K
ER
SEYWAYSE
SE 288TH ST
8T H ST N E
37TH ST NW
ORAVETZRDSE
25TH ST SE
EAST BLVD
SE 320TH ST
D ST SE
110TH AVE SE
4TH ST SE
104THAVE
SE
I
S
T
N
W
SE 299TH ST
N ST NE
W ST NW
O
S
T
N
E
37TH ST NE
S 287TH ST
56TH AVE S
SCENIC
D
R
S
E
118TH AVE SE
SE 316TH ST
3 2 1 S T S T S
AUBURN-BLACKDIAMOND RD SE
D ST NE
112TH AVE SE
ACADEMYDRSE
K ST SE
E
A
S
T
VA
L
L
E
Y
H
W
Y
E
4TH ST SW
7TH ST SE
6 7 T H S T SE
L
ST
SE
C ST SE
JOHNREDDINGTONRDNE
B ST SE
FOSTER AVE SE
52ND AVE S
47THST S E
56TH ST SE
57THPLS
SE290TH ST
130TH AVE SE
35T H W A Y S E
R ST
NW
26TH ST SE
B
STNE SE 323RD PL
1 7 T H S T S E
3 6 T H S T S E
50TH S T N E
6 4 T H S T S E
V ST NW
A S T E
SE304TH W AY
1 0 8 T H A VESE
31ST ST SE
22ND ST SE
E ST NE
42ND ST NW
S 292ND ST
SE 282ND ST
SE295TH ST
5 1 S T S T S E
SE 286TH ST
V CT SE
7 2 N D S T S E
42ND ST NE
2ND ST SE
PEARL AVE SE
SE 307TH PL
K ST NE
5 7 T H D R S E
S 324TH ST
F
S
T
N
E
5
6T
H
A
V
E
S
6 4 T H S T S E
SE 282ND ST
O
STNE
R
S
T
S
E
A ST SE
M U C K L E S H O O TMUCKLESHOOTCASINOCASINO
T H E
T H E
O U T L E T
O U T L E T
C O L L E C T I O N
C O L L E C T I O N
Auburn Transportation Plan
Map ID: 4603Printed On: 10/8/2015
°0 1
Miles
Corridor Sections
City of Auburn
Auburn L OS Corridors
Map 2-5
Source: City of Auburn GIS Department
TS18
TS18
TS167
TS167
A ST SE
AUBURN WAY S
B ST NW
C ST SW
I ST NE
M ST SE
AUBURN WAY N
R ST SE
124TH AVE SE
132ND AVE SE
E M A I N S T
WEST
VALLEY
HWY
N
SE 304TH ST
S 277TH ST
C ST NW
15TH ST SW
2ND ST E
STUCK RIVER DR S E
W MAIN ST
15TH ST NW
LAKE T A P P S P K W Y S E
4 1 ST S T S E
29TH ST SE
SE 312TH ST
51ST AVE S
K
ER
SEYWAYSE
SE 288TH ST
8T H ST N E
37TH ST NW
LAKEL
A
N
D
H
I
L
L
S
W
A
Y
S
E
ORAVETZRDSE
25TH ST SE
EAST BLVD
SE 320TH ST
D ST SE
110TH AVE SE
4TH ST SE
104THAVE
SE
I
S
T
N
W
WESTVALLEYHWYS
SE 299TH ST
N ST NE
W ST NW
O ST NE
S 287TH ST
56TH AVE S
SCENICD
R
S
E
118TH AVE SE
SE 316TH ST
AUBURN-BLACKDIAMOND RD SE
D ST NE
112TH AVE SE
P
E
A
S
L
E
Y
C
A
N
Y
O
N
RDS
K ST SE
E
A
S
T
VA
L
L
E
Y
H
W
Y
E
4TH ST SW
8 T H S T S E
M ST NE
JOHNREDDINGTONRDNE
B ST SE
FOSTER AVE SE
47THST S E
56TH ST SE
RIV E R DRSE
S 305TH ST
57THPLS
SE290TH ST
130TH AVE SE
35T H W A Y S E
R ST
NW
26TH ST SE
B ST NE SE 323RD PL
1 7 T H S T S E
3 6 T H S T S E
5 0 T H S T N E
6 4 T H S T S E
V ST NW
A S T E
SE304TH W AY
1 0 8 T H A VESE
22ND ST SE
42ND ST NW
S 292ND ST
SE 282ND ST
SE295TH ST
SE 286TH ST
V CT SE
32ND ST SE
42ND ST NE
2ND ST SE
7 3 R D S T S E
PEARL AVE SE
6 2 N D S T S E
SE 307TH PL
S 324TH ST
65TH ST SE
A ST SE
T H E
T H E
O U T L E T
O U T L E T
C O L L E C T I O N
C O L L E C T I O N
Auburn Transportation Plan
Map ID: 4588Printed On: 10/6/2015
°0 1
Miles
City of Auburn
T1 (Over 10,000)
T2 (4,000 - 10,000)
T3 (300 - 4,000)
T4 (100 - 300)
T5 (Over 20 in 60 Days)
Freight Routes Classification MapClass T-1 to T-5Annual Tons (in thousands)
Map 2-4
Source: City of Auburn GIS Department
TS18
TS18
TS167
TS167
A ST SE
AUBURN WAY S
B ST NW
C ST SW
I ST NE
M ST SE
AUBURN WAY N
R ST SE
124TH AVE SE
132ND AVE SE
E M A I N S T
WEST
VALLEY
HWY
N
SE 304TH ST
S 277TH ST
C ST NW
15TH ST SW
2ND ST E
STUCK RIVER DR S E
W MAIN ST
15TH ST NW
LAKE T A P P S P K W Y S E
4 1 ST S T S E
29TH ST SE
SE 312TH ST
51ST AVE S
K
ER
SEYWAYSE
SE 288TH ST
8T H ST N E
37TH ST NW
LAKEL
A
N
D
H
I
L
L
S
W
A
Y
S
E
ORAVETZRDSE
25TH ST SE
EAST BLVD
SE 320TH ST
D ST SE
110TH AVE SE
4TH ST SE
104THAVE
SE
I
S
T
N
W
WESTVALLEYHWYS
SE 299TH ST
N ST NE
W ST NW
O ST NE
S 287TH ST
56TH AVE S
SCENICD
R
S
E
118TH AVE SE
SE 316TH ST
AUBURN-BLACKDIAMOND RD SE
D ST NE
112TH AVE SE
P
E
A
S
L
E
Y
C
A
N
Y
O
N
RDS
K ST SE
E
A
S
T
VA
L
L
E
Y
H
W
Y
E
4TH ST SW
8 T H S T S E
M ST NE
JOHNREDDINGTONRDNE
B ST SE
FOSTER AVE SE
47THST S E
56TH ST SE
RIV E R DRSE
S 305TH ST
57THPLS
SE290TH ST
130TH AVE SE
35T H W A Y S E
R ST
NW
26TH ST SE
B ST NE SE 323RD PL
1 7 T H S T S E
3 6 T H S T S E
5 0 T H S T N E
6 4 T H S T S E
V ST NW
A S T E
SE304TH W AY
1 0 8 T H A VESE
22ND ST SE
42ND ST NW
S 292ND ST
SE 282ND ST
SE295TH ST
SE 286TH ST
V CT SE
32ND ST SE
42ND ST NE
2ND ST SE
7 3 R D S T S E
PEARL AVE SE
6 2 N D S T S E
SE 307TH PL
S 324TH ST
65TH ST SE
A ST SE
T H E
T H E
O U T L E T
O U T L E T
C O L L E C T I O N
C O L L E C T I O N
Auburn Transportation Plan
Map ID: 4681Printed On: 10/6/2015
°0 1
Miles
Truck Routes
Map 2-3
Source: City of Auburn GIS Department
Priorit y 2 WSDOT
Parks
City of Au bu rn
Priorit y 1
Cu rren t Lo cal Tr uck Rou te s
Futu re Local Truc k Rou te
Cu rren t T hro ugh Tru ck Rout e
Futu re Thr ough Tr uck Rou te
Cu rren t Lo cal Tr uck Rou te
Futu re Local Truc k Rou te
.-
21,700
.-13,300
.-32,300
.-4,800
.-10,400
.-6,800
.-5,600
.-28,200
.-2,000.-8,900
.-1
0
,
2
0
0
.-13,600
.-7,700
.-23,100
.-22,200
.-
17,600
.-4,400
.-8,300
.-7,400
.-5,6 00
.-3,700
.-
35,900
.-6,200
.-10,700
.-8,800
.-7,300
.-5,300
.-6
,
0
0
0
.-31,000
.-23,000
.-1,200
.-8,500
.-4,100
.-16,100
.-5,400
.-2,700
.-16,900
.-3,4 00
.-9,700
.-17,800
.-11,100
.-12,500
.-9,400
.-21,800
.-4,600
.-25,400
.-
16,600
.-28,900
.-6,400.-4,900
.-9,300
.-3,200
.-4 ,3 0 0
.-22,500
.-1,600 .-18,400
.-8,200
.-7,900
.-8,600
.-17,200
.-8,100
.-18,100.-24,000
.-24,800
.-1 6,7 0 0
.-21,900
.-6,500
.-18,000
.-1,700
.-1 5 ,3 0 0
.-900
.-7
,
1
0
0
.-4,600
.-7,700
.-21,700
.-21,900
.-6,200
.-4,100
.-5,300
.-8,300
.-
10,200
.-4,400
.-4,600
.-4,400
.-10,400
.-2,700
.-7,400
.-3,700
.-4,800
.-13,600
.-21,800
.-1,600
TS18
TS18
TS167
TS167
A ST SE
AUBURN
W
AYS
B ST NW
C ST SW
I ST NE
M ST SE
AUBURNWAYN
R
S
T
S
E
124TH AVE SE
132ND AVE SE
E M A I N S TWESTVALLEYHWYN
SE 304TH ST
S 277TH ST
C ST NW
15TH ST SW
2ND ST E
STUCK RIVER DR S E
WMAIN ST
LAKETAPP S P K W Y S E
4 1 ST S T S E
29TH ST SE
51ST AVE S
K
ER
SEYWAYSE
SE 288TH ST
8T H ST N E
37TH ST NW
25TH ST SE
EAST BLVD
SE 320TH ST
D ST SE
110TH AVE SE
104THAVESE
I
S
T
N
W
SE 299TH ST
N ST NE
W ST NW
S 287TH ST
56TH AVE S
SCENICD
R
S
E
3 2 1ST ST S
118TH AVE SE
SE 316TH ST
112TH
AVE
SE
ACADEMYDRSE
P
E
A
S
L
E
Y
C
A
N
Y
O
N
RDS
4TH ST NE
E
A
S
T
VA
L
L
E
Y
H
W
Y
E
4TH ST SW
7 TH ST SE
6 7 T H S T SE
L ST SE
T ST SE
M ST NE
JOHNREDDINGTONRDNE
G ST SE
FOSTER AVE SE
SE 310TH ST
47THST S E
RIV E R DRSE
57THPLS
SE290TH ST
130TH AVE SE
35T H W A Y S E
R ST
NW
26TH ST SE
SE 323RD PL
1 7 T H S T S E
6 4 T H S T S E
50T H S T S E
V ST NW
A S T E
21ST S T N E
1 0 8 T H A VESE
31ST ST SE
22ND ST SE
E ST NE
S 292ND ST
SE 282ND ST
D ST SW
V ST SE
SE 286TH ST42ND ST NE
7 3 R D S T S E
PEARL AVE SE
S 303RD PL
K ST NE
S 324TH ST
43RD ST NE
SE 293RD ST
A ST SE
108THAVE
SE
6 4 T H S T S E
104TH AVE SE
D ST SE
T H E
T H E
O U T L E T
O U T L E T
C O L L E C T I O N
C O L L E C T I O N
Auburn Transportation Plan
Map ID: 4592Printed On: 10/6/2015
°0 1
Miles
Parks
City of Auburn
100-999
1,000-9,999
10,000+
Average Daily Traffic Volumes (2013)
Map 2-2
Source: City of Auburn GIS Department
TS18
TS18
TS16
7
TS16
7
A ST SE
B ST NW
AUB
U
R
N
W
A
Y
S
C ST SW
I ST NE
M ST SE
AUBURN WAY N
R ST SE
124TH AVE SE
132ND AVE SE
E
M
A
I
N
S
T
WESTVALLEYHWYN
SE
3
0
4
T
H
S
T
S
2
7
7T
H
S
T
C ST NW
15
T
H
S
T
S
W
2N
D
S
T
E
STUCK
RIVER
DR
S
E
W MA
I
N
S
T
15
TH
S
T
N
W
LAKE
T
A
P
P
S
P
K
W
Y
S
E
4
1
S
T
S
T
S
E
29T
H
S
T
S
E
SE
3
1
2
T
H
S
T
51ST AVE S
K E R S E Y W AYSE
SE
2
8
8
TH
S
T
8T
H
S
T
N
E
37
T
H
ST
N
W
L A K E L A N D H I L L S W A Y S E
O
R
A
VETZR
D
S
E
25
T
H
S
T
S
E
EAST BLVD
D ST SE
110TH AVE SE
4T
H
ST
S
E
104THAVESE
I ST NW
WESTVALLEYHWYS
SE
299TH
ST
N ST NE
W ST NW
O ST NE
S
2
8
7
T
H
ST
56TH AVE S
SCENIC D R S E118TH AVE SE
SE
3
2
0
T
H
S
T
AUBURN-BLACKDIAMOND
RD
SE
D ST NE
112TH AVE SE
ACADEMYDRSE
P EA S L E Y C A N YO N R D S
K ST SE
EAST VALLEY HW Y E
4TH
ST
SW
8T
H
S
T
S
E
M ST NEJOHNREDDINGTON
R
D
N
E
B ST SE
FOSTER AVE SE
47TH
ST
SE
56TH
ST
SE
R
I
V
E
R
D
R
SE
S
3
0
5
T
H S
T
57THPLS
SE
290TH
ST
130TH AVE SE
35T
H
W
A
Y
S
E
R ST NW
26
T
H
ST
S
E
B ST NE
SE
3
2
3
R
D
P
L
1
7
T
H
S
T
S
E
3
6
T
H
S
T
S
E
5
0
T
H
S
T
N
E
6
4
T
H
S
T
S
E
V ST NW
A
S
T
E
SE304
T
H
W
A
Y
1
0
8
T
H
A
V
ESE
22N
D
ST
S
E
42
N
D
S
T
N
W
S
2
9
2
N
D
S
T
SE
2
8
2
N
D
S
T
S E 295TH
ST
5
1
S
T
S
T
S
E
SE
2
8
6T
H
S
T
V CT SE
32
N
D
S
T
SE
7
2
N
D
S
T
S
E
42
N
D
S
T
N
E
2N
D
S
T
S
E
PEARL AVE SE
6
2
N
D
S
T
S
E
SE
3
07
T
H
P
L
S
3
2
4
T
H
S
T
65
T
H
S
T SE
SE
3
15
T
H
P
L
TH
E
TH
E
OU
T
L
E
T
OU
T
L
E
T
CO
L
L
E
C
T
I
O
N
CO
L
L
E
C
T
I
O
N
Au
b
u
r
n
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
Ma
p
I
D
:
4
6
0
9
Pr
i
n
t
e
d
O
n
:
1
1
/
2
4
/
2
0
1
5
°01
Mi
l
e
s
Ci
t
y
o
f
A
u
b
u
r
n
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
Pr
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
Fu
t
u
r
e
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
Mi
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
Fu
t
u
r
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
Fu
t
u
r
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
No
n
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
Fu
t
u
r
e
N
o
n
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
Ru
s
t
i
c
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
Lo
c
a
l
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
Fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
C
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Ma
p
2
-
1
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
A
u
b
u
r
n
G
I
S
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
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. 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 prioritized the automobile as the primary travel mode. A side effect of
this process has been the erosion of conditions favorable to non-motorized travel. This chapter
seeks to redress the balance by enhancing conditions in which non-motorized modes are a realistic
and attractive travel option.
Planning and developing a strong non-motorized network supports several state and national acts
including Washington’s Growth Management Act, Commute Trip Reduction Act, the federal Clean
Air Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), MAP 21 (Federal Surface Transportation Bill)
and its successors. Supporting the non-motorized system helps ensure compliance with these
initiatives and the healthy community principles espoused by PSRC through Vision 2040. It also
increases funding opportunities for City projects. Improving the non-motorized system also helps
address the findings of the citywide Health Impact Assessment process which recommended that
the City improve sidewalk connectivity, improve the pedestrian environment, eliminate natural and
man-made mobility barriers for pedestrian and bicyclists, improve transit access, improve traffic
safety, pedestrian safety and personal security.
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 a Regional Growth Center, the City encourages transportation planning that emerges from a
clear land-use plan based on a community vision and the values expressed in Imagine Auburn. 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.
Riding on the Interurban Trail
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-2
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Auburn has many assets, which contribute to a
welcoming pedestrian environment, most notably a
pedestrian-scaled downtown and an extensive
network of trails. The 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, some of the older sections of sidewalks need repair or replacement.
Since adoption of the 2009 Transportation Plan, there have been sidewalk, ADA and lighting
improvements to Main Street, S Division Street Promenade, City Hall Plaza and Plaza Park and
behind the shops on East Main Street. New growth in the downtown core has or will result in the
development of multi - story residential and office buildings and senior housing, helping renew the
pedestrian infrastructure and creating a need for continued effort to maintain and improve the
sidewalk system. In addition, the 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. The city has an annual
sidewalk repair program which focuses on ADA improvements, responding to complaints,
repairing identified hazards, and improving areas with high pedestrian use.
Commercial development outside the downtown exists primarily along arterials and is dominated
by strip development and auto-oriented businesses. Although sidewalks are provided on most
arterials, pedestrians may feel exposed to the traffic. Surface parking lots border the sidewalks, and
driveways interrupt the continuity of the sidewalk system. The heavy volumes of vehicular traffic
and wide streets along arterials, such as Auburn Way, pose a barrier for pedestrians walking along
or crossing the roadway.
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 where a large scale
annexation into the City took place in 2007. The inventory is continuously updated based on aerial
photography and GIS data as improvements are completed. The inventory identifies sidewalks in
the City, and rated their condition. This inventory continues to serve as a guide to help the City
identify problem areas and program improvements according to prioritization guidelines, outlined
later in this chapter.
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
New Pedestrian Crossing at Green River
College on S 320th Street
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-3
yards, or into the street. In newer neighborhoods such as Lakeland Hills, sidewalks built to the city
standards applicable at the time of their construction are provided on both sides of the street.
The sidewalk survey of the Lea Hill and West Hill annexation areas revealed 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 an inconsistent pedestrian environment. Map 3-1 illustrates the existing and proposed
sidewalk network within the City.
Trail Network
Auburn’s developing trail network provides local and regional connections for both recreational use
and commuting. 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 network provides
connections to neighborhood parks, community center, and to the City of Sumner via a tunnel
under the BNSF railway. Map 3-2 illustrates the existing and proposed trail network within the City.
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.
Since the last major update of the comprehensive plan the following Safe Walking Routes
improvements have been made throughout Auburn;
School Zone Flashing Beacons were installed at all elementary and middle schools.
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Warning Beacons were installed at the existing crosswalk at E St
NE and 4th St NE for Washington Elementary.
A new crosswalk with warning signage and ADA pedestrian ramps was installed at K St SE
& 23rd St SE for Pioneer Elementary. This also improved drainage on the street.
Rainier Middle School received improved crosswalks, signage, and ADA pedestrian ramps
along 116th Ave SE.
Lea Hill Elementary received 600 feet of sidewalk, curb and gutter, and ADA pedestrian
ramps on the south side of SE 312th Street as well as pedestrian push buttons and
countdown pedestrian signal heads at the intersection of SE 312th Street and 124th Ave SE.
The new Auburn High School created all new sidewalk and crosswalks with bulb outs on
both East Main Street and 4th Street NE.
New crosswalks with warning signage, ADA pedestrian ramps, and curb bulb outs were
added at Terminal Park Elementary.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-4
New curb, gutter, ADA pedestrian ramps and pavement was constructed on H St SE
between 17th and 21st St SE for Olympic Middle School.
Some of these improvements were made possible by a Safe Routes to School grant. 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 needs were identified to enhance and improve the safety for school children in and
around the school safe walking areas.
Pioneer Elementary School
Curb & gutter, sidewalks and ADA ramps along K St SE between 21st St SE and 25th St SE.
Cascade Middle School
The crossing at M Street NE and 24th Street NE experiences heavy traffic. The City and school
district continue to cooperate to increase the safety of this crossing near the school.
Dick Scobee Elementary School
The City will continue to coordinate with the School District in exploring ways to improve access
to surrounding neighborhoods to increase the school’s designated safe walking area.
Terminal Park Elementary School
Curb gutter, sidewalks, and ADA ramps along B St SE between 12th St SE and 17th St SE.
Evergreen Heights Elementary School
Curb, gutter, sidewalks, and roadway improvements
along S 316th between 51st Ave S and the eastern
boundary of the school. This includes access and
circulation improvements to the school and
intersection improvements at 56th Ave S.
Hazelwood Elementary School
Sidewalk and ADA curb ramp improvements along
SE 304th Street between 112th Ave SE and 116th
Ave SE and along 118th Ave SE from SE 304th to
the north.
Lea Hill Elementary School
Sidewalks and ADA ramps along both sides of
124th Ave SE between SE 304th St and SE 312th
St.
Mountain View High School
Sidewalks along 124th Ave SE between SE 284th St and SE 304th St, and along 132nd Ave SE
between SE 288th St and SE 299th St.
Riverside High School & Ilalko Elementary
Safe Walking Route to School
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-5
Pedestrian crossing of A Street SE and the BNSF Railway would greatly benefit students at these
two schools. A 2015 study identified a preferred crossing alternative for future development.
Lakeland Hills Elementary
Encouraging increased walking and biking to this school would provide the greatest benefit for
easing traffic congestion and safety concerns. Additionally an onsite parking and access redesign
would further reduce school pick up and drop off related congestion.
Chinook Elementary
Sidewalks along Auburn Way South between Hemlock St SE and Academy Dr SE. Additionally
intersection improvements have been identified to reduce conflicts and improve circulation for
buses.
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 is in the
process of completing that plan and ADA design specifications can be found in the Auburn
Engineering Design Standards manual.
Site Design
Pedestrian conditions should be evaluated at the earliest stage of new development. The zone
between the development and the public right-of-way needs to contribute to pedestrian network
connectivity and continuity. In addition to the public right-of-way, the interior of the site ought to
be examined for suitable pedestrian circulation, and how the two are connected. 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, specifically those with cul-de-sacs.
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 Multicare Auburn 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 Station. The
Downtown Plan also identifies W Main Street, A Street SW, Division Street, and the alley south of
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-6
Main Street as high priority pedestrian corridors. In addition, several recently completed projects
have helped improve non-motorized access to the downtown and transit station, including the City
Hall Plaza and Plaza Park project completed in 2010, the Division Street Promenade Project
completed in 2012 and the A Street NW Extension project, opened in June 2013.
Auburn Station has created demand for new mixed-use development, including commercial and
residential elements. The City is committed to focusing new commercial and residential
development adjacent to the Auburn Station and has been working on partnerships to bring several
mixed-use developments to Downtown. These developments include pedestrian friendly design and
streetscape improvements.
A vital pedestrian network that extends beyond downtown is a key element in the revitalization of
the downtown core.
Commercial Corridors
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.
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 by providing additional protected crossings,
making improvements to lighting, completing remaining sidewalk gaps and eliminating ADA
accessibility barriers. For instance, pedestrian crossing issues arise because pedestrians often cross at
uncontrolled or mid-block 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.
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.
High Priority Pedestrian Corridors
Map 3-1 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.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-7
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
constructed by developers whenever significant improvements are made to a property. This has
proven to be an effective means of building out the sidewalk network. However, it is a slow process
because it relies on new development or
redevelopment to occur, making it difficult to
complete whole corridors. By programming
specific pedestrian corridors for investment, the
City can leverage grant dollars and other
resources to more strategically complete gaps in
key pedestrian corridors.
The High Priority Pedestrian Corridors
identified in Map 3-1 are regularly reviewed for
inclusion in the City’s Six-Year Transportation
Improvement Program and for grant funding
opportunities.
NON‐MOTORIZED TRAILS
The Auburn Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan is currently being updated and will identify
specific projects for the development of local and regional trails. Thus far the long term list
includes:
The Auburn-Pacific Trail provides a multi-use path that improves access from the White River to
the Interurban Trail. A planned pedestrian crossing, under the BNSF railroad tracks just north of
the BNSF Stuck River Bridge (over the White River), will improve the regional trail system by
providing a connection between the City of Pacific and Auburn’s White River Trail connection to A
Street SE.
Funding is still needed for the Auburn section of the Green River Trail. Planning efforts are also
focused on the Auburn Environmental Park and connecting the park to the Interurban Trail. This
unique park project shows residents the diversity of the ecosystem along the Mill Creek corridor.
Additional trail planning is underway for connecting the Fenster Natural Park to the Green Valley
Road area.
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 kiosks, restroom facilities,
water fountains, trash receptacles, and seating facilities. Trailheads should be constructed and
improved as Auburn’s trail system further develops. See Map 3-2 for existing and proposed trails
and trailhead locations.
FUNDING MECHANISMS
Sidewalk Improvement Program
The City of Auburn has an Annual Citywide Sidewalk Repair and Improvement Program to repair
damaged sidewalks, tripping hazards, and to complete small missing links in the sidewalk network.
Auburn Multi-Use Trail
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-8
These funds are essential for promoting non-motorized travel and can be used to leverage other
funding sources, such as state and federal grants or other city capital projects.
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 with a focus
on addressing potential hazards and areas of known complaints. Additional criteria for priority
access improvement could include, but are not limited to, areas with high concentrations of senior
citizens or disabled citizens, areas with high volumes of pedestrian-transit interaction, areas where
private improvements such as trees have damage the public infrastructure and areas where property
owners are willing to financially participate in the construction of sidewalk improvements through a
local improvement district (LID). In considering projects, staff also review existing street deferral
agreements to determine if the improvements previously allowed to be deferred are now needed
and should be completed by the private party.
“Save Our Streets” Program
In November 2004, Auburn residents approved
Proposition 1, “Save Our Street” Program, which
created a dedicated local street fund. This money
was set aside for repair and maintenance of local
roadways which can sometimes also include
sidewalk repair and rebuild. In 2013, the city
council modified the funding source for this
program to be from Construction Sales Tax
revenues and no longer from property taxes.
“Arterial Preservation” Program
The City also currently implements the annual
arterial street preservation program funded by a
1% utility tax. Pedestrian, ADA, and safety
improvements are included in many of the arterial
improvement projects funded by this 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.
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.
Maintaining non-motorized travel information kiosks at key City destinations (e.g. Main Street, Outlet
Collection, Emerald Downs, trails).
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
Displaying educational information in City publications, on the website, and on TV.
Maintaining and expanding 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 where
appropriate.
Enforcing pedestrian, bicyclist, and driver infractions.
3.2 Bicycle Travel
Bicycle facilities are an important component of Auburn’s transportation and recreational
infrastructure. Bicycling provides an environmentally friendly travel mode and helps 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 the Auburn Valley 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
accommodate bicyclists, pedestrians and equestrians. The Interurban Trail is part of a major north-
south regional trail system. The Green River trail is also an extension of a north-south regional trail.
Therefore, Auburn has a good network of existing or planned north-south recreational trails.
However, there are few existing cross-town connections and new connections onto the West Hill
and Lea Hill are needed.
Cross-town bike connections to the West Hill and Lea Hill areas of Auburn are more challenging
due to steep topography. Yet investing in these connections is important because a significant
number of Auburn residents live in these areas. Building these connections would improve bicycle
access to regional transit, local employment the regional trail system, and to downtown Auburn.
Recreational and commuter cyclists travel along the Interurban Trail to areas north and south of
Auburn. Cyclists also frequently ride along S 277th Street 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 challenging cycling
conditions and are not suitable for inexperienced cyclists. Once in Auburn, there is especially a need
to increase the number of east-west bicycle facilities. Investing in trail connections to improve
bicycle access in these areas should also be a priority.
Bicycle lanes are 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. Map 3-2 identifies existing and planned trails and bike facilities in the City.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-10
Auburn Bicycle Task Force
In March 2010, the city formed the City of Auburn Bicycle Task Force. It was intended that the
Bicycle Task Force would further refine the City’s goals and policies for its bicycle transportation
system. The Task Force was comprised of a broad cross section of community members and
interested parties that were charged to develop recommendations on bicycle facilities, issues and
opportunities centered on the following three principles:
Connections – for example, how do bicycle riders get from the north end to the south end
of the City or from Lakeland to Lea Hill?
Recreation Opportunities – for example, how does the City further build and capitalize
on a bicycle network to support and enhance the recreation options for its citizens?
Economic Development – for example, how does the City capitalize on the Interurban
Trail as a conduit of customers for existing and new businesses?
Bike Improvements Completed and Planned in the Near - Term Future
The work of the task force has informed and guided city decisions on future bike lane and trail
improvements and connections. Its work is directly reflected in improvements already made as well
as the future bike lanes and trail improvements shown in Map 3-2.
Since 2009 bike lanes have been added to 124th Ave SE, and SE 320th Street near Green River
College on Lea Hill, a new bike lane connection has been created by the construction of the new A
Street NW corridor. Bikes lanes have been added as part of the new M Street SE BNSF underpass
project and sharrows (share the road with bike symbols) have been added to East Main Street.
Bike lanes are part of the new planned West Main Street project and the F Street SE project
includes development of a Bicycle Boulevard and Bike Share Program.
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.
Existing Class I multi-use trails in the City
include S 277th St, Interurban Trail, White River
Trail, and Green River Trails.
Class II bicycle lanes added since the last major
update include;
Terrace Drive NW (15th to W St)
A ST NW/B ST NW (3rd to 30th)
14th St NW (A NW to A NE)
R St SE (17th to White River)
M St SE (3rd to 8th)
116th Ave SE (SE 304th to SE 312th)
Bicycle Facility Classification
Separate Facility (Class I) – A non-
motorized two-way paved facility, that is
physically separated from motorized
vehicular traffic by an open space or
barrier.
Bike Lane (Class II) – An exclusive on
street one way lane for bicyclists
delineated with signing and striping
Shared Lanes (Class III) – A lane shared
by vehicles and bicycles. Wider lanes that
may be delineated with shared use
markings and signage.
Bicycle Boulevard– A bicycle focused
roadway designated with enhanced
signage and special pavement markings
and bicycle-friendly design standards
such as wide curb lanes and bicycle safe
drain grates. Typically designed to
connect key bicycle destinations.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-11
Class III shared facilities were tested on R St NE/SE, Auburn Black Diamond Road and E Main
St. They were well received by the cycling community and continue to be maintained. Shared
facilities will continue to be implemented on other appropriate roadways.
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.
Long term bike storage facilities are available at Auburn Station. The City currently provides short
term bike storage throughout the downtown core.
Improvement Needs
Cyclists desire safe routes that make connections throughout the City and to regional points of
interests. The existing facilities while being continuously improved still fall short of creating a well-
connected bicycle network in Auburn. The City plans to build out the bicycle network shown in
Map 3-2 and provide better east-west connections. Upgrading bicycle facilities on city streets is a
very 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 ensure that bike lanes and trails which serve major employers are prioritized. The City needs to
take a more aggressive role in programming implementation of the future bicycle network identified
in this chapter, ensuring that eventually all residents of and employees in Auburn feel comfortable
commuting on bike. In addition, Auburn should seek outlets, including the City’s website, to
provide up-to-date information on bicycling options within the City and to regional destinations.
The Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program provides a formal mechanism for encouraging these
practices and is required by state law for employers with 100 or more employees arriving at a single
location during the AM peak. Auburn’s CTR program calls out bicycle storage facilities, lockers,
changing areas, and showers as measures employers can take to meet CTR goals. In addition,
Auburn can use the SEPA process to encourage development of these facilities at the time of new
development or tenant improvements.
The Downtown Plan also discusses the need for improving bicycle facilities in the area. On-street
bicycle facilities will be sought in association with planned roadway improvements. In addition, the
City should investigate providing bicycle storage and other amenities on City owned properties.
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.
The Work is Easier when Shared
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-12
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. As shown in Map 3-2, the bicycle routes
identified for future development will consist of a mix of interconnected local trails and on- street
bike facilities linking Auburn's neighborhoods.
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. This new bike
route is planned from Lea Hill through Isaac Evans and Dykstra Park to connect to downtown
Auburn via the new A Street NW corridor. Numerous other on-street bicycle facilities and trails are
planned.
The selection of bike facility projects will be based upon safety, route continuity and connectivity.
In addition to new bicycle corridors, spot safety improvements are an important component of the
City’s future bicycle network. Improvements including flashing beacons have already been made at
the Interurban Trail crossing of 15th Street SW and are planned at the Interurban Trail crossing of
West Main Street and C Street SW and Ellingson. In addition, safe access to downtown Auburn and
onto West Hill, Lea Hill and Lakeland are a priority for the City.
Typical bicycle route improvements along a Class I facility include purchasing the right-of-way,
designing the trail, and constructing the trail and trailhead. For a Class II pathway, improvements
include striping lanes, installing warning and directional signage, and painting bike symbols on the
pavement. For a roadway where bikes will share the lane with vehicles it may include the installation
of shared use markings and signage.
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 rustic
locations with appropriate facilities suitable for equestrian use.
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Auburn’s equestrian trail system is quite limited. The Parks Department currently manages a two-
mile, soft-surface trail, along the White River at Roegner and Game Farm Wilderness Parks.
Otherwise, there are no formal equestrian trails in Auburn.
Horse owners do have informal access to the soft-surface path adjacent to the Interurban trail, as
well as large open spaces in the rustic 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
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-13
portions of these roads, and while conditions vary, typically there is a narrow unpaved shoulder or
grassed area alongside the road where horses can walk.
IMPROVEMENT NEEDS
The lack of equestrian trail miles in the City and connectivity to regional equestrian facilities are two
areas that need improvement. As indicated by Table 3-1, 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.
Auburn, as a regional growth center, has elected to become 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 Lea Hill 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 should 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. When
locating equestrian trails along rustic 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
Table 3-1 Existing Equestrian Facilities
Facility Potential
Primary Users
Within
Auburn
City Limits
Soft-
surface
Trail
Equestrians
Off-road Cyclists
Pedestrians
2.17 miles
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-14
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. These routes are identified as soft-surface,
multi-use trails that are suitable for riding and walking but do not meet the requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. Construction costs and the extent of clearing needed are much less
for soft-surface trails than for paved trails. Some of the soft-surface trails are proposed to occur in
conjunction with a paved trail. Summaries of trails that are appropriate for equestrian use are listed
in Table 3-2. Design specifications for equestrian trails will be incorporated into the Auburn
Engineering Design Standards manual.
3.4 Future Non-motorized System
Auburn’s future non-motorized system consists of an interconnected network of sidewalks, bike
lanes, multi-use trails, and equestrian paths. The list of proposed projects in Table 3-2 is developed
for planning purposes. Map 3-2 identifies the location of the trail projects identified in Table 3-2
and maps the future trail and bicycle network.
Table 3-2 Future Trail Projects
Trail
Name Description Potential
Users
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.
277th St., south to Brannan Park. From Brannan Park, the trail will then run south along M
Street SE to 22nd Street NE, where it will turn east towards Dykstra Park. It will then cross
the river at the Dykstra foot bridge to the east bank of the river. It will then parallel Green
River Road and 104th Ave SE. Once across Lea Hill Road SE the trail will follow 104th PL. SE
to the dead end. From the dead end the trail will follow the wooded bluff until it reaches a
point opposite of Fenster Nature Park. At the alignment of 2nd St. SE the trail will cross at a
future bridge location to the west side of the river and into Fenster Nature Park. The trail will
continue south through the park and into the King County owned Auburn Narrows area where
it will end near the intersection of Auburn Black Diamond Rd. and Green Valley Road.
Bicyclists
Equestrians
Pedestrians
Auburn
Environment
al Park Loop
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 Wilderness 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
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-15
Trail
Name Description Potential
Users
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 Dykstra Park Street, where it will connect to
downtown Auburn and West Hill via an existing and planned series of bike lanes. 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 currently closed due to
slope failures. However, it has the potential to be re-opened as a multi-use recreational trail.
Bicyclists
Pedestrians
Equestrians
Lakeland
Hills Trail
This trail serves the Lakeland community and links Sunset Park and Dorothy Bothell Park via a
meandering sidewalk path along Lakeland Hills Way SE.
Pedestrians
This network will provide local and regional 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 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 upgrades and expansion of the
sidewalk network, new crossings and street lighting, and better street design near schools and
frequently traveled pedestrian locations. The addition of a 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 Auburn Station.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-16
PROMOTING HEALTHY COMMUNITIES
The City of Auburn envisions a transportation system that will help promote healthy community
principles by coordinating land use, the non-motorized transportation system, and transit in a
manner that encourages walking and bicycling. The Puget Sound Regional Council has identified
several elements, which contribute to the desirability of walking, bicycling, and transit use.1
Concentrating complementary uses such as restaurants, retail and grocery stores proximate to
residences and employment.
Linking neighborhoods by connecting streets, sidewalks, and trails.
Designing for safe and welcoming pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Enhancing transit opportunities and non-motorized connections to transit facilities.
Reducing and mitigating the effects of parking.
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.
Improving the non-motorized system also helps address the findings of the citywide Health Impact
Assessment process which recommended that the City improve sidewalk connectivity, improve the
pedestrian environment, eliminate natural and man-made mobility barriers for pedestrian and
bicyclists, improve transit access, improve traffic safety, pedestrian safety and personal security.
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.
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, December 2nd, 2004.
White River Trail
Multi-Use Path
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 3. Non-Motorized Transportation Page 3-17
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, consecutively, 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.
TS18
TS18
TS167
TS167
A ST SE
AUBURN WAY S
B ST NW
C ST SW
I ST NE
M ST SE
AUBURN WAY N
R ST SE
124TH AVE SE
132ND AVE SE
E M A I N S T
WEST
VALLEY
HWY
N
SE 304TH ST
S 277TH ST
C ST NW
15TH ST SW
2ND ST E
STUCK RIVER DR S E
W MAIN ST
15TH ST NW
LAKE T A P P S P K W Y S E
4 1 ST S T S E
29TH ST SE
SE 312TH ST
51ST AVE S
K
ER
SEYWAYSE
SE 288TH ST
8T H ST N E
37TH ST NW
LAKEL
A
N
D
H
I
L
L
S
W
A
Y
S
E
ORAVETZRDSE
25TH ST SE
EAST BLVD
SE 320TH ST
D ST SE
110TH AVE SE
4TH ST SE
104THAVE
SE
I
S
T
N
W
WESTVALLEYHWYS
SE 299TH ST
N ST NE
W ST NW
O ST NE
S 287TH ST
56TH AVE S
SCENICD
R
S
E
118TH AVE SE
SE 316TH ST
AUBURN-BLACKDIAMOND RD SE
D ST NE
112TH AVE SE
P
E
A
S
L
E
Y
C
A
N
Y
O
N
RDS
K ST SE
E
A
S
T
VA
L
L
E
Y
H
W
Y
E
4TH ST SW
8 T H S T S E
M ST NE
JOHNREDDINGTONRDNE
B ST SE
FOSTER AVE SE
47THST S E
56TH ST SE
RIV E R DRSE
S 305TH ST
57THPLS
SE290TH ST
130TH AVE SE
35T H W A Y S E
R ST
NW
26TH ST SE
B ST NE SE 323RD PL
1 7 T H S T S E
3 6 T H S T S E
5 0 T H S T N E
6 4 T H S T S E
V ST NW
A S T E
SE304TH W AY
1 0 8 T H A VESE
22ND ST SE
42ND ST NW
S 292ND ST
SE 282ND ST
SE295TH ST
SE 286TH ST
V CT SE
32ND ST SE
42ND ST NE
2ND ST SE
7 3 R D S T S E
PEARL AVE SE
6 2 N D S T S E
SE 307TH PL
S 324TH ST
65TH ST SE
A ST SE
T H E
T H E
O U T L E T
O U T L E T
C O L L E C T I O N
C O L L E C T I O N
Auburn Transportation Plan
Map ID: 4604Printed On: 10/6/2015
°0 1
Miles
Existing Trailheads
Future Trailheads
Bike Facility
Future Bike Facility
Trail
Future Trail
Parks
City of Auburn
Existing and Future Bicycle Facilities and Multi-Use Trails
Map 3-2
Source: City of Auburn GIS Department
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
5
5
5
5
5 5
5
5
5
5
5
5
55
5
5 5
5
5 5
5
5
5
5 5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
TS18
TS18
TS167
TS167
A ST SE
B ST NW
AUBURN WAY S
C ST SW
I ST NE
M ST SE
AUBURN WAY N
R ST SE
124TH AVE SE
132ND AVE SE
E MA IN S T
WEST
VALLEY
HWY
N
SE 304TH ST
C ST NW
15TH ST SW
2ND ST E
STUCK RIVER DR S E
W MAIN ST
15TH ST NW
LAK E T A P P S P K W Y S E
4 1 ST S T S E
29TH ST SE
SE 312TH ST
51ST AVE S
K
E
RSEYWAYSE
SE 288TH ST
8T H ST N E
37TH ST NW
LA
KE
L
A
N
D
H
I
L
L
S
W
A
Y
S
E
ORAVETZRDSE
25TH ST SE
EAST BLVD
5
5
T
H
A
V
E
S
SE 320TH ST
D ST SE
110TH AVE SE
4TH ST SE
104THAVE
SE
I
ST
NW
WESTVALLEYHWYS
SE 299TH ST
N ST NE
W ST NW
O ST NE
S 277TH ST
S 287TH ST
56TH AVE S
SCENIC
D
R
S
E
118TH AVE SE
SE 316TH ST
AUBURN-BLACKDIAMOND RD SE
D ST NE
112TH AVE SE
P
E
A
S
L
E
Y
C
A
N
Y
O
N
RDS
K ST SE
E
A
S
T
VA
L
L
E
Y
H
W
Y
E
4TH ST SW
8 T H S T S E
M ST NE
JOHNREDDINGTONRDNE
B ST SE
FOSTER AVE SE
47THST S E
56TH ST SE
RIV E R DRSE
S 305TH ST
SE290TH ST
130TH AVE SE
35T H W A Y S E
R ST
NW
26TH ST SE
B ST NE SE 323RD PL
1 7 T H S T S E
3 6 T H S T S E
5 0 T H S T N E
6 4 T H S T S E
V ST NW
A S T E
1 0 8 T H A VESE
22ND ST SE
42ND ST NW
SE 282ND ST
SE295TH ST
SE 286TH ST
32ND ST SE
2ND ST SE
7 3 R D S T S E
PEARL AVE SE
6 2 N D S T S E
SE 307TH PL
S 324TH ST
65TH ST SE
43RD ST NE
A ST SE
108THAVE
SE
104TH AVE SE
T H E
T H E
O U T L E T
O U T L E T
C O L L E C T I O N
C O L L E C T I O N
Auburn Transportation Plan
Map ID: 4587Printed On: 10/6/2015
°0 1
Miles
Priority Future Pedestrian Corridor
Existing Sidewalks
5 Education Facilities
Parks
1/4 Mile from School
1/2 Mile from School
City of Auburn
Recently Completed
^_Protected Crosswalks
Existing Sidewalks and Future Priority S id ewalk Corridors
Map 3-1
Source: City of Auburn GIS Department
5
55
5
5
5
5
5
5
55
5
5
5
5
5 5
5
5
5
5 5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
INTERURBAN TRAIL
MAIN ST CONNEC TOR
A/B
STREET C
ORR
IDOR
124TH AVE SE CORRIDOR
GREEN RIVER ROAD CORRIDOR
LEA HILL CONNECTOR
STE WART/L AKE TA PPS CONNECTOR
SOUTH AUBURN M STREET SE CORRIDOR
WEST VALLEY CORRIDOR
A
S
T
S
E
A
N
D
L
A
K
E
L
A
N
D
H
I
L
L
S
C
O
R
R
I
D
O
R
NORTH 37TH ST NW AND WEST HILL CONNECTOR
NORTH AUBURN R STREET NE / I STREET NE CORRIDOR
RIVERWALK-AUBURN WAY S-ENUMCLAW CONNECTOR
KERSEY W
AY / LA
KE T
APPS C
O
R
RID
O
R
C STREET TRAIL AND 15TH ST SW CORRIDOR
TS18
TS18
TS167
TS167
A ST SE
AUBURNWAYS
B ST NW
C ST SW
I
ST
NE
M ST SE
AUBURN WAY N
R ST SE
124TH AVE SE
132ND AVE SE
E MA IN S T
WEST
VALLEY
HWY
N
SE 304TH ST
S 277TH ST
C ST NW
15TH ST SW
2ND ST E
STUCK RIVER DR S E
W MAIN ST
15TH ST NW
LAKE T A P P S P K W Y S E
4 1 ST S T S E
29TH ST SE
SE 312TH ST
51ST AVE S
KERSEYWAYSE
SE 288TH ST
8T H ST N E
ORAVETZRDSE
25TH ST SE
EAST BLVD
SE 320TH ST
D ST SE
110TH AVE SE
4TH ST SE
104TH AVE SE
I
S
T
N
W
WESTVALLEYHWYS
SE 299TH ST
N ST NE
W ST NW
O
STNE
37TH ST NE
S 287TH ST
56TH AVE S
SCENICD
R
S
E
118TH AVE SE
SE 316TH ST
AUBURN-BLACKDIAMOND RD SE
D ST NE
112TH AVE SE
ACADEMYDRSE
P
E
A
S
L
E
Y
C
A
N
Y
O
N
RDS
E
A
S
T
VA
L
L
E
Y
H
W
Y
E
4TH ST SW
8TH ST SE
C ST SE
M ST NE
JOHNREDDINGTONRDNE
H ST SE
B ST SE
FOSTER AVE SE
47THST S E
56TH ST SE
S 305TH ST
57THPLS
130TH AVE SE
35T H W A Y S E
R ST
NW
B
STNE SE 323RD PL
17TH ST SE
5 0 T H S T N E
6 4 T H S T S E
V ST NW
21ST S T N E
1 0 8 T H A VESE
23R D ST S E
36 T H S T S E
42ND ST NW
S 292ND ST
SE 282ND ST
O ST SE
5 1 S T S T S E
SE 286TH ST
7 2 N D S T S E
2ND ST SE
PEARL AVE SE
6 2 N D S T S E
SE 307TH PL
J ST NE
K
S
T
N
E
5 7 T H D R S E
S 324TH ST
FIR
ST SE
43RD ST NE
A ST SE
M U C K L E S H O O TMUCKLESHOOTCASINOCASINOTHE
T H E
O U T L E T
O U T L E T
C O L L E C T I O N
C O L L E C T I O N
K E N TKENT
P I E R C EPIERCECOUNTYCOUNTY
K I N GKINGCOUNT YCOUNTY
P A C I F I CPACIFIC
S U M N E RSUMNER
E D G E W O O DEDGEWOOD
A L G O N AALGONA
F STREET / LES GOVE CORRIDOR
AUBURN BLACK DIAMOND/GREEN VALLEY ROAD CONNECTOR
Downhill
B.P.A Pow er li ne R ight of Way
B .P .A P o w e rli n e R i g h t o f W a y
B .P .A P o w e r li n e R i g h t o f W a y
VALENTINE
T oToFlami n g F l a m i n g G e y s e rGeyser @
EMERALDDOWNS
AUBURNDOWNTOWN
SUPERMALL
YMCA
LES GOVE
H
ill
AUBURNGOLFCOURSEBRANNAN PARK
MARYOLSONPARK
LAKELAND HILLSCOMMERCIALAREA
Only
T oToKen tKent
@
T oToKen tKent
@
T oToKen tKent
@
@
T oToKen tKent&&S e a t t l eSeattle
@
@T oToFeder a l F e d e r a l W a yWay
@
T oToFeder a l F e d e r a l W a yWay
@
T oToFeder a l F e d e r a l W a yWay
@
T oToEdgew o o dEdgewood
@
T oToMilt o nMilton
@
T o T o T a c o m aTacoma
@
T oToSumn e rSumner&&P u y a l l u pPuyallup
@
T oToSumn e rSumner&&B o n n e yBonneyLakeLake
@
T oToBonn e yBonneyLakeLake
@
T oToEnumc l a wEnumclaw
T oToBlac kBlackDiamon dDiamond @
T oToPacif i cPacificRaceway sRaceways
@
GRCC
GAMEFARMPARK
MUCKLESHOOTCASINO
PACIFICRACEWAYS
INTERURBAN TRAIL
INTERURBAN TRAIL
T oToKen tKent
@
Recommended U p h ill R o u t e
AUBURNENVIRONMENTALPARK
Auburn Transportation Plan
Map ID: 4593Printed On: 10/6/2015
°0 1
Miles
Connectors
Corridors
Interurban Trail
City of Auburn
Bicycle Corridors and Connectors
Map 3-3
Source: City of Auburn GIS Department
Focus Area
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 1
Auburn Station
Metro Transit Hybrid Articulated Bus
Courtesy: Metro Transit
CHAPTER 4
TRANSIT
Transit service is a key component of Auburn’s
transportation system, providing mobility within the
City and access to and from the City. Unlike the
street and non-motorized systems, Auburn does not
directly administer transit service. Rather, the City
works with local transit agencies to coordinate
service in Auburn. The transit agencies are publicly
funded and are responsible for providing transit
service within their service boundaries.
Today, Auburn is served by local and regional bus,
as well as a commuter rail line that runs between
Seattle and Tacoma/Lakewood.
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 Map 4-1 at the end of this
section.
KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT
Bus Service
Metro Transit provides local bus services linking destinations within the community and
providing regional connections to the Auburn Station and the 15th Street NW Park-and-Ride.
Metro Transit offers the following services in Auburn:
Route 164 provides regional service between Kent,
Auburn and the Green River College. It connects
with the Route 181 at Green River College.
Route 180 provides service daily between southeast
Auburn, Auburn Station, and Kent Station,
connecting to Route 150, with service to Seattle.
Route 180 also serves Sea-Tac Airport and the
Burien Transit Center.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 2
DART Vehicle
Courtesy: City of Kent
Route 181 provides daily service between the Twin Lakes Park-and-Ride, Sea-Tac Mall, Federal
Way Transit Center, the Outlet Collection, Auburn Station, and Green River College.
Route 186 provides weekday peak hour service between the Auburn Station and Enumclaw via
Auburn Way South. The service is scheduled to meet Sounder Commuter Rail trains at the
Auburn Station.
Route 915 provides weekday midday service and some weekend service between the Auburn
Station and Enumclaw via Auburn Way South. The route also includes a small portion of
Demand Area Responsive Transit (DART) service with limited, variable routing in response to
rider requests.
Route 917 provides weekday and Saturday service between A Street SE, 41st Street SE, Algona,
the Outlet Collection, and the Auburn Station. Peak hour weekday service is also provided
between the Auburn Station and the Social Security Administration and the General Services
Administration (GSA). The route offers DART service (limited variable route) in portions of
Pacific.
Route 952 is a weekday AM and PM peak hour route specifically designed to serve the Boeing
Everett facility. It operates from the 15th Street NW Park and Ride to the Boeing Everett Plant.
Route 910 is a DART route which was inaugurated in October 2010 in a partnership between
Auburn and King County Metro Transit, and functions as a community shuttle circulator service.
The route provides weekday and Saturday service between north central Auburn, the I Street NE
corridor, downtown Auburn and the Outlet Collection/YMCA on 15th Street SW.
Due to financially driven cuts by Metro Transit, Route 919 was recently discontinued. This was a
community focused route, which operated fixed route and some DART between downtown
Auburn, the Library, Senior Center, Les Gove Park and southeast Auburn in the Dogwood area
where it interchanged with the Muckleshoot Tribal Shuttle. Although service to the area is still
available on the Routes 186 and 915, Route 919 operated during the off-peak hours filling gaps in
the service offered by the Routes 186 and 915. Metro also discontinued the Route 152 to and
from Seattle. Former Route 152 passengers must now use the Sounder train or the Route 190
which they can access at the Star Lake Park and Ride.
ACCESS
ACCESS Transportation is a King County Metro
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 for persons whose
disabilities prevent use of accessible non-commuter,
fixed route bus service. This service is intended to
offer a comparable level of service to that provided
by regular bus service.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 3
Sounder Train
Courtesy: Sound Transit
Sound Transit Regional Express Bus
Courtesy: Sound Transit
Vanpool Services
Metro Transit sponsors vanpool services that serve residents and employees in Auburn. Vanpool
is a shared-ride service that provides group transport for commuters with proximate origins and
destinations. Vanpool is a popular and flexible service that provides commuters with an
alternative to driving alone and fixed-route transit service. Vanpool will continue to be an
important strategy for mitigating peak period congestion throughout Auburn and the region.
Metro Transit Facilities
Metro Transit owns and operates the Auburn 15th Street NW Park-and-Ride with 244 surface
parking stalls. Metro also operates into the Auburn Station managed by Sound Transit.
Additionally, Metro maintains approximately 177 other bus stops in Auburn, 42 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 10 CTR employers in Auburn with a total of
5,500 employees. Metro Transit assists employers in complying with state law by providing
rideshare support and a host of other incentives aimed at reducing single occupant vehicle travel.
PIERCE TRANSIT
Route 497 is operated by Pierce Transit in partnership
with the City of Auburn, and King County Metro Transit.
It operates peak hour weekday service between Lakeland
Hills and the Auburn Station. As a morning and evening
service meeting Sounder trains the 497 is a commuter -
oriented route, but is open to all riders. In the future, the
City hopes to expand the Route 497 to serve all peak
hour Sounder trips. Because Route 497 primarily serves
Sounder passengers and because it significantly reduces
the demand for commuter parking at the Auburn Station
parking garage managed by Sound Transit the city is
seeking financial participation from Sound Transit in
operating this route and making this a permanent route.
Vanpool Services are provided by Pierce Transit similar
to those offered by King County Metro Transit.
SOUND TRANSIT
Sound Transit is the regional transit provider for Puget
Sound. It provides limited stop, transit services linking
Auburn to major regional destinations in King and Pierce
Counties. The agency offers both Sounder commuter rail
and regional express bus services in Auburn.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 4
Sounder Commuter Rail
Sound Transit operates the Sounder commuter rail service on the Lakewood-Tacoma – Seattle
route via the BNSF Railway. Sound Transit provides weekday peak hour trips northbound to
Seattle in the AM and southbound from Seattle to Tacoma -Lakewood in the PM. Reverse
direction trips are also provided in each peak hour with mid-day service being planned for future
years. Some connections are available between south line Sounder trains which terminate in
Seattle and north line Sounder trains from Everett to Seattle. Additional special event service to
and from Seattle for Mariners, Seahawks and Sounders games and the Emerald Downs racetrack
in Auburn is offered on some weekends.
Currently, eight trains operate northbound to Seattle in the morning peak and return southbound
during the PM peak. Two trains operate southbound to Tacoma/Lakewood in the morning and
northbound to Seattle in the early evening. In September 2016 a new round-trip between
Lakewood and Seattle will be added. The new round-trip will leave Lakewood for Seattle in the
late morning and return from Seattle to Lakewood in the early afternoon.
Regional Express Bus Service
Route 566/567 offers daily weekday, limited stop service between the Auburn Station the Kent
Station, the Renton Transit Center, the Bellevue Transit Center, and the Overlake Transit Center.
Route 577/578 offers daily limited stop service between Puyallup, Sumner, Auburn, Federal Way
and Seattle. The 577 provides service between the Federal Way Transit Center and Seattle during
the peak periods when the Sounder trains is in operation. The 578 provides service between
Puyallup and Seattle during the off-peak hours when train service is not currently provided.
Transit Facilities
Sound Transit owns and operates the Auburn Station located in downtown Auburn. This full
service multi-modal facility provides parking for a total of 633 vehicles in a 6-story parking garage
and a surface parking lot. The facility currently handles approximately 470 daily bus trips.
Approximately 3,000 passengers ride bus service to/from the station on a daily basis. Boardings
at Auburn on Sounder commuter rail are 1,300 per day. The facility draws numerous transit riders
from outside Auburn including many from outside the Sound Transit taxing District, the
geographic area where residents contribute tax revenue to fund Sound Transit.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 5
4.2 Transit User Needs
DEMOGRAPHICS
People use public transportation for two reasons: because they have to ride or because they
choose to ride. Carrying the choice rider, such as commuters, often has the greatest positive
impact on the transportation system by helping control peak hour traffic demand. But providing a
“safety net” of adequate transportation to those who absolutely depend on it is, arguably, public
transportation’s most important role.
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. This remains the most recent information available with the level of
detail necessary to identify needs on a block level. 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. Map 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.
Even so there are some areas of the community that do not have adequate local service coverage,
as well as some important regional bus links and commuter rail services that have yet to be fully
developed.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 6
Auburn YMCA - Major trip generator
Local Bus Service
Some of Auburn’s most populated neighborhoods are deficient in local bus service, including the
West Hill, Lakeland Hills during the non-peak hours, and parts of east and north Auburn. The
least served residential area of Auburn is West Hill, an area with approximately 5,000 residents
with no transit service. Lakeland Hills, a planned residential community with approximately 3,800
homes has peak hour service to downtown Auburn but lacks all day service. Lea Hill, a
predominantly residential community on Auburn’s east hill, does have two transit routes, which
predominantly serve Green River College, leaving a large portion of the residents unable to walk
to a transit route. In 2014, a license plate survey of the Auburn Station garage indicated a
substantial number of Lea Hill residents utilize transit service at Auburn Station. This suggests
that a commuter oriented shuttle serving Lea Hill, similar to the Route 497 shuttle implemented
in Lakeland Hills, could be 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. It is difficult for these areas to access transit, both for local and regional trips.
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.
Regional Bus Service
The most important unmet regional transit need is for all day, express bus and commuter rail
service between Auburn, Tacoma/Lakewood and Seattle. While the original Sound Transit Regional
Express Bus Service Plan contained a direct link between Auburn and Tacoma/Lakewood, the
connection was discontinued in Sound Transit’s later service plans.
Sounder Commuter Rail
Sounder Commuter Rail, a highly popular and
attractive service, operates bi-directionally in the
peak periods. Most of the trips are operated in the
peak direction; northbound during the weekday
AM peak and southbound during the weekday
PM peak. No midday, evening or weekend regular
service is currently provided. These services are
needed as is additional capacity on some of the
currently most popular runs.
Intercity Passenger Rail
Auburn is an ideal location for a future stop on
the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor, which runs
from Vancouver, BC to Eugene, OR. A former
intercity passenger rail stop and Amtrak city, Auburn is centrally located in South King County at
the intersection of SR-18 and SR-167 and is a 10 minute drive from I-5. The Auburn Station is
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 7
the only facility in King or Pierce County with direct freeway access and currently serves over
3,000 bus passengers and 1,300 commuter rail passengers and is centrally located within 10 miles
of 500,000 people. Amtrak should implement more intercity rail stations in the high density and
traffic congested areas of Puget Sound such as at Auburn Station. A new Auburn stop would
have great ridership benefits since it is at a station with available overnight parking and is in close
proximity to hundreds of thousands of potential new customers. Furthermore the projected
schedule impacts of a stop in Auburn could be largely absorbed in the overall route schedule.
TRANSIT SCHEDULING
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
business, 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 with over 6,000 employees. The company’s primary
morning shift time arrival occurs at 6 AM, the earliest southbound Sounder train from Seattle,
arrives in Auburn at 6:41 AM. 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 first runs of the Route 917 which serve the nearby GSA and SSA offices arrive
after the Boeing shift time as well. None of the existing bus routes stop close enough to the
Boeing facility to allow employees to walk to the facility. This shows how it would be beneficial to
coordinate with major employers to offer alternate transit options that can meet various shift
times such as dedicated Vanpools or Vanshares.
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 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 Auburn Station parking
facilities.
Due to the fact that Auburn’s major employer shift times sometimes don’t match Sounder and
regional bus transit arrival times, Van Share has not yet achieved its full potential in Auburn.
However as Sounder and bus service to the Auburn Station increase this option may become
more viable for major employers in Auburn.
To maximize the investment in public transit service in Auburn, it is recommended that both
Sound Transit and Metro Transit conduct an evaluation of their schedules with a focus on
improving service to major employers in the Auburn area.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 8
Transit Capacity
A second consideration in scheduling service is ensuring that enough service is available to meet
the demand.
Sounder Commuter Rail has also been immensely popular, indicating that increased service is
supported by the ridership demand. Daily Sounder boardings at south end stations total around
6,000 riders, the equivalent of a lane of traffic on SR 167 or I-5, emphasizing the importance of
expanding Sounder service.
The Auburn Station is a highly successful component of the Sounder service. Total rail boardings
at the Auburn Station today average over 1,300 riders per day making Auburn one of the busiest
stations on the Sounder route.
URBAN DESIGN
The design of the build environment has direct implications on the quality and availability of
transit service. Urban design can either encourage or inhibit the provision of local transit service.
Some inhibitors to providing neighborhood service include inadequate street geometry and
construction, lack of a satisfactory location for a terminal at the end of the route, absence of a
street grid that could be used to turn around a bus, and the absence of a connected sidewalk
network. Ideally, new residential developments should be laid out with future transit route
alignments in mind and supporting transit facilities. Likewise, retrofits of the existing street
network should accommodate transit design considerations
IMPROVING LOCAL SERVICE
Preserving the Route 910
Since 2010 Auburn and Metro Transit have partnered through the Transit Now initiative to
implement community shuttle circulator service. The Route 910 shuttle serves Northeast Auburn
commercial and activity areas. The service has become steadily more popular, doubling in
productivity since its inception. This partnership route between, Auburn and King County Metro
has now been extended until 2020.
Add Service to Replace the Terminated Route 919
Currently, a planned expansion of service to the Metro Route 915 is expected to begin in March
2016. This will increase service to hourly, midday on some of the alignment of the former Route
919. The city should continue to look for opportunities to improve service along the route of the
former 919.
Preserve and Expand Commuter Connection Bus Routes
Auburn should work with Pierce Transit, Metro Transit and Sound Transit to preserve the Route
497 and add service to the Route to meet all existing and future Sounder trains while
encouraging Sound Transit to fund a portion of the Route 497.
Auburn should explore the concept with Metro Transit and Sound Transit of adding a new
commuter bus/van service to Sounder from Lea Hill and the west hill of Auburn and encourage
Sound Transit to fund a portion of the routes. Similar to the Route 497, these routes would be
timed to meet Sounder trains and operate on a direct route and express schedule after leaving the
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 9
Lea Hill or west hill areas. These potential services are particularly relevant given Metro Transit’s
recent focus on the expanded use of Alternative Service concepts for covering areas which cannot
support the use of a traditional fixed route bus but which are still in need of public transportation.
TRANSIT FACILITIES
One type of transit facility improvement stands out as the most important ongoing need: parking.
Comparing the number of current Sounder daily boardings (1,300) to the available number of
parking stalls at the Auburn Station (633) and the number of passengers who transfer daily from
bus to Sounder (approximately 150) shows there is a lack of parking for Sounder at the Auburn
Station. Additional train trips are currently being planned, including three new round trips, and
these will attract more ridership (and result in more parking needs) in downtown Auburn.
Although there is always a desire to have as many people as possible access commuter rail without
parking, the reality of the service is that it is usually used by customers who want to start and end
their day with a direct, fast trip to and from the station. Only the Route 497 is specifically
designed to link commuters to Sounder. It accounts for the majority of transfers between bus
service and rail service. Given the strength of the demand for Sounder and the location of many
of its users, other lifestyle choices (bike, pedestrian or TOD) will also not be sufficient to
ultimately negate the continued demand for more parking.
So, for the foreseeable future, parking will be a continuing challenge at the Auburn Station and
even more will be needed as three more Sounder roundtrips are added, as scheduled in 2016 and
2017.
Building the infrastructure to accommodate commuter parking demand is an essential component
of making transit an attractive option for commuters. In order to do so, action is essential to
clearly identify the future demand and acquire the land needed to build the parking. The plans
created in ST2 and ST3 (ST2 is the Sound Transit Plan approved by voters during 2008, ST3 is a
proposed ballot measure for voters to consider in 2016) to build parking should be followed. If
this is not done, neighborhoods within walking distance of Auburn Station, particularly those
bordering W Main Street, will experience an increase in on-street commuter parking, making it
difficult for residents to find parking during the day and early evening. To combat this issue, the
City has established a restricted parking zone for residents to the west of C Street NW, however
the problem may begin in other locations. Sound Transit should also examine the usage of the
Auburn Station garage by people who live outside the Sound Transit Taxing District. The agency
should consider requiring those users to pay to park in the Auburn Station garage. In a 2014
survey of the vehicles parked at the Auburn facility over 90 vehicles (15 percent of the parking
supply) were registered at addresses outside the Sound Transit Taxing District.
King County Metro Transit is responsible for installing new and maintaining existing bus shelters
in Auburn. Both the City and agency should continue to prioritize potential improvements to
shelters, benches, pads, bus zones, customer information and pedestrian access. Currently, about
20 Metro bus stops that meet warrants for the installation of shelters have not received them yet
and City staff is focused on working with Metro to accomplish that installation.
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
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 10
by a variety of criteria including transit system operating and design standards, professional engi-
neering field evaluation, and public input.
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 by lead agency, with
the understanding that implementation of any major system improvement will require the
collaboration of many agencies.
KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT
Maintain the operation of the Route 910 in partnership with Metro Transit. Explore partnering
with Metro Transit and the Muckleshoot Indian tribe to create a new route combining the best
features of the former Route 919 and the MIT tribal shuttle to provide better transit service to the
city and the Reservation.
Work with Metro Transit to create new, limited stop AM and PM peak transit services designed
for commuters from Lea Hill and west hill to and from the downtown Auburn Station.
Conduct an evaluation of transit schedules; improve service to major employers.
Work with Metro Transit to add service to the Route 497 to meet more Sounder trains.
Explore, assist and encourage the implementation of commuter Vanpool and Van Share linking
Boeing to the Auburn Station. To meet Sounder and Regional bus routes.
Work with Sound Transit and Metro Transit to create additional parking at or near the Auburn
Station.
PIERCE TRANSIT
Work with Pierce Transit to add service to the Route 497 to meet more Sounder trains.
SOUND TRANSIT
Work with Sound Transit to add service to the Route 497 to meet more Sounder trains and fund
a portion of the Route.
Work with Sound Transit to add new commuter bus service to the Sounder from Lea Hill and
West Hill and fund a portion of the routes.
Institute midday Sounder service to and from Tacoma/Lakewood and Seattle and plan for
evening and weekend service in the near future.
Address the loss of existing parking at the Auburn Station due to the use of the overcrowded
Sounder parking facility by Sounder riders who live outside the Sound Transit taxing district and
pay nothing for the facility.
Begin working with the City of Auburn to create additional parking near the Auburn Station, as
specified in ST2 and included in ST3, which is scheduled to be on the November 2016 ballot.
CITY OF AUBURN
Continue the operation of the Route 910 in partnership with Metro Transit.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 4. Transit Page 4- 11
Explore partnering with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe to create a new route combining the best
features of the former Route 919 and the MIT tribal shuttle to provide better transit service to the
City and the Reservation.
Work with Metro Transit and Sound Transit to create a new, limited stop AM and PM peak
transit service for commuters from Lea Hill and west hill to and from the Auburn Station.
Work with Pierce Transit and Metro Transit to add service to the Route 497 to meet more
Sounder trains and encourage Sound Transit to fund a portion of the Route 497 to continue the
route in service for multiple years beyond 2016.
Work with Sound Transit to address the loss of existing parking at the Auburn Station due to the
use of the overcrowded Sounder parking facility by Sounder riders who live outside the Sound
Transit taxing district and pay nothing for the facility.
Begin working with Sound Transit and Metro Transit in partnership to create additional
commuter parking at or near the Auburn Station.
^_
TS18
TS18
TS167
TS167
A ST SE
AUBURN WAY S
B ST NW
C ST SW
I ST NE
M ST SE
AUBURN WAY N
R ST SE
124TH AVE SE
132ND AVE SE
E M A I N S T
WEST
VALLEY
HWY
N
SE 304TH ST
S 277TH ST
C ST NW
15TH ST SW
2ND ST E
STUCK RIVER DR S E
W MAIN ST
15TH ST NW
LAKE T A P P S P K W Y S E
4 1 S T S T S E
29TH ST SE
SE 312TH ST
51ST AVE S
K
E
R
SEYWAYSE
SE 288TH ST
8T H ST N E
37TH ST NW
LAKEL
A
N
D
H
I
L
L
S
W
A
Y
S
E
ORAVETZRDSE
25TH ST SE
EAST BLVD
SE 320TH ST
D ST SE
110TH AVE SE
4TH ST SE
104THAVE
SE
I
S
T
N
W
WESTVALLEYHWYS
SE 299TH ST
N ST NE
W ST NW
O ST NE
S 287TH ST
56TH AVE S
SCENIC
D
R
S
E
118TH AVE SE
SE 316TH ST
AUBURN-BLACKDIAMOND RD SE
D ST NE
112TH AVE SE
ACADEMYDRSE
P
E
A
S
L
E
Y
C
A
N
Y
O
N
RDS
K ST SE
E
A
S
T
VA
L
L
E
Y
H
W
Y
E
4TH ST SW
8 T H S T S E
M ST NE
JOHNREDDINGTONRDNE
B ST SE
FOSTER AVE SE
47THST S E
56TH ST SE
RIV E R DRSE
S 305TH ST
57THPLS
SE290TH ST
130TH AVE SE
35T H W A Y S E
R ST
NW
26TH ST SE
B ST NE SE 323RD PL
1 7 T H S T S E
5 0 T H S T N E
6 4 T H S T S E
V ST NW
A S T E
SE304TH W AY
1 0 8 T H A VESE
22ND ST SE
36 T H S T S E
42ND ST NW
S 292ND ST
SE 282ND ST
O ST SE
SE295TH ST
5 1 S T S T S E
SE 286TH ST
V CT SE
7 2 N D S T S E
42ND ST NE
2ND ST SE
PEARL AVE SE
6 2 N D S T S E
SE 307TH PL
S 324TH ST
65TH ST SE
T H E
T H E
O U T L E T
O U T L E T
C O L L E C T I O N
C O L L E C T I O N
Auburn Transportation Plan
Map ID: 4510Printed On: 10/6/2015
°0 1
Miles
^_Auburn Transit Station
Park & Ride
City of Auburn
Metro Transit Routes
Pierce Transit Routes
Sound Transit Routes
Muckleshoot Shuttle Routes
Auburn Transit Routes and MIT Shuttle Route
Map 4-1
Source: City of Auburn GIS Department
")164
")181
")181
")910
")180
")952
")566
")566
")578
")181
")917
")180
")497
")917
")578
")497
")186/915
")910
")MITShuttle
^_
TS18
TS18
TS167
TS167
A ST SE
B ST NW
AUBURN WAY S
C ST SW
I ST NE
M ST SE
AUBURN WAY N
124TH AVE SE
R ST SE
132ND AVE SE
E M A I N S T
WEST
VALLEY
HWY
N
SE 304TH ST
S 277TH ST
C ST NW
15TH ST SW
2ND ST E
STUCK RIVER DR S E
W MAIN ST
15TH ST NW
LAKE T A P P S P K W Y S E
4 1 S T S T S E
29TH ST SE
SE 312TH ST
51ST AVE S
K
ER
SEYWAYSE
SE 288TH ST
8T H ST N E
37TH ST NW
LAKE
L
A
N
D
H
I
L
L
S
W
A
Y
S
E
ORAVETZRDSE
25TH ST SE
EAST BLVD
SE 320TH ST
D ST SE
110TH AVE SE
4TH ST SE
104THAVE
SE
I
S
T
N
W
WESTVALLEYHWYS
SE 299TH ST
N ST NE
W ST NW
O ST NE
S 287TH ST
56TH AVE S
SCENICD
R
S
E
118TH AVE SE
SE 316TH ST
AUBURN-BLACKDIAMOND RD SE
3 2 1 S T S T S
D
ST
NE
112TH AVE SE
ACADEMYDRSE
K ST SE
E
A
S
T
VA
L
L
E
Y
H
W
Y
E
4TH ST SW
7TH ST SE
C ST SE
M ST NE
JOHNREDDINGTONRDNE
B ST SE
FOSTER AVE SE
52ND AVE S
47THST S E
56TH ST SE
57THPLS
SE290TH ST
130TH AVE SE
35T H W A Y S E
R ST
NW
26TH ST SE
B ST NE SE 323RD PL
1 7 T H S T S E
3 6 T H S T S E
50TH S T N E
6 4 T H S T S E
V ST NW
A S T E
SE304TH W AY
1 0 8 T H A VESE
22ND ST SE
G ST NE
42ND ST NW
S 292ND ST
SE 282ND ST
SE295TH ST
5 1 S T S T S E
SE 286TH ST
V CT SE
32ND ST SE
7 2 N D S T S E
42ND ST NE
2ND ST SE
PEARL AVE SE
6 2 N D S T S E
SE 307TH PL
S 324TH ST
65TH ST SE
SE 282ND ST
A ST SE
R
S
T
S
E
5
6T
H
A
V
E
S
M U C K L E S H O O TMUCKLESHOOTCASINOCASINO
T H E
T H E
O U T L E T
O U T L E T
C O L L E C T I O N
C O L L E C T I O N
Auburn Transportation Plan
Map ID: 4684Printed On: 10/8/2015
°0 1
Miles
^_Auburn Transit Station
Park & Ride
City of Auburn
Transit Dependent Areas
Metro Transit Routes
Pierce Transit Routes
Sound Transit Routes
Muckleshoot Shuttle Routes
Auburn Transit Routes and Transit Dependent Areas
Map 4-2
Source: City of Auburn GIS Department
")164
")181
")181
")910
")180
")952
")566
")566
")578
")181
")917
")180
")497
")917
")578
")497
")186/915
")910
")MITShuttle
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 in accordance with the City’s Comprehensive
Plan. The policy framework presented below is a guideline, which the City will use to evaluate
individual projects and address its infrastructure needs.
The objectives and policies are organized according to five broad headings. The first heading,
Coordination, Planning and Implementation, addresses the system comprehensively, detailing policies that
pertain to the planning and implementation of the system as a whole. The subsequent four
headings list policies specific to the following systems: Street system, Non-motorized system, Transit
system, and Air transportation. The analysis of the transportation system, as well as any individual
proposals, shall consider all modes of transportation and all methods of efficiently managing the
network.
Public Art on West Main Street
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 2
GOAL
To plan, expand, and improve the transportation system in cooperation and
coordination with adjacent and regional jurisdictions to ensure concurrency
compliance with the growth management act, and to provide a safe and
efficent multimodal system that meets the community needs and facilitates
the land use plan.
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.
Coord-01: 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;
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.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 3
OBJECTIVE: LONG-RANGE PLANNING & PROGRAMMING
To continue to plan for the future of the multi-modal transportation system through long-range
planning, programmatic planning, and financial planning, in compliance with the Growth
Management Act.
Plan-01: 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.
Plan-02: 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.
Safety-01: A safe and efficient transportation system shall be prioritized over driving convenience.
Safety-02: Utilize education to increase awareness of existing traffic laws and safety issues,
especially as they relate to pedestrians and bicyclists.
Safety-03: Engage the community in transportation issues through public involvement and
partnerships with organizations such as the Auburn School District.
Safety-04: Identify areas with persistent traffic violations and address these violations, in part,
through Police Department enforcement.
Safety-05: Emphasize enforcement of the "rules of the road" for pedestrians, bicyclists and
motorists whose actions endanger others. Conduct enforcement in a manner that reinforces the
messages found in non-motorized education & safety programs.
Safety-06: 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.
Connect-01: 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.
Connect-02: Encourage the use of trails and other connections that provide ease of travel within
and between neighborhoods, 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.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 4
OBJECTIVE: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Minimize the environmental impacts of all new transportation projects and transportation related
improvements.
Environ-01: 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.
Environ-02: 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.
Environ-03: Incorporate Low Impact Development (LID), green technology, and sustainability
practices into transportation improvements as primary alternatives whenever feasible.
Environ-04: 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.
Environ-05: Require air quality studies of future major development to assess impacts created by
site generated traffic.
OBJECTIVE: LEVEL-OF-SERVICE (LOS) THRESHOLD
To ensure that new development does not degrade transportation facilities to below LOS
standards.
LOS-01: New development shall not be allowed when the impacts of the new development on the
transportation system degrades the LOS to below the adopted LOS standard, unless the impacts are
mitigated concurrent with the development as described in Chapter 2.
LOS-02: The term "below level-of-service" shall apply to situations where traffic attributed to a
development likely results in any of the following.
An unacceptable increase in hazard or an unacceptable decrease in safety at an intersection
or on a roadway segment.
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.
An increase in queuing that causes blocking of adjacent land uses or intersections.
A reduction in any of the four (4) LOS standards below.
1. Arterial and Collector Corridor LOS: The level-of-service standard for each arterial and collector
corridor is “D”, unless otherwise specified in Chapter 2 of this plan. The City may require a
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 5
development or redevelopment to examine a shorter or longer corridor segment than is specified in
Chapter 2, to ensure a project's total LOS impacts are evaluated.
2. Signalized Intersection LOS: The level-of-service standard for signalized intersections is “D”,
with the following exceptions; for signalized intersections of two Arterial roads the level-of-service
standard during the AM and PM peak periods is “E” for a maximum duration of 30 minutes and
for signalized intersections of two Principal Arterial roads the level-of-service standard during the
AM and PM peak periods is “E” for a maximum duration of 60 minutes. The City may require a
development or redevelopment to examine individual signalized or roundabout intersections for
LOS impacts to ensure a project's total LOS impacts are evaluated.
3. Two-Way and All-Way Stop Controlled Intersection LOS: The level-of-service standard for two-
way stop controlled and all-way stop controlled intersections, is “D”. If LOS falls below the
standard, analysis and mitigation may be required in a manner commensurate with the associated
impacts. This may include, among other requirements, conducting a traffic signal warrant analysis
and installing or financing a signal or roundabout.
4. Roundabout Intersection LOS: The level-of-service standard for roundabout controlled
intersections is “D”. The City may require a development or redevelopment to examine to examine
roundabout intersections for LOS impacts to ensure a project’s total LOS impacts are evaluated.
LOS-03: Establish a multi-modal level-of-service system in the future.
LOS-04: PM level of service is the city standard. AM level of service may need to be analyzed in
situations where specialized conditions exist that disproportionately impact AM traffic.
OBJECTIVE: CONCURRENCY
To ensure transportation facilities do not fall below the adopted level-of-service standard, as
required by the Growth Management Act.
GMA-01: Require developments to construct or finance transportation improvements and/or
implement strategies that mitigate the impacts of new development concurrent with (within 6 years
of) development, as required by the Growth Management Act.
GMA-02: 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.
GMA-03: 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.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 6
GMA-04: 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.
GMA-05: 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.
Funding-01: Require developments or redevelopments to construct transportation infrastructure
systems needed to serve new developments.
Funding-02: Actively pursue the formation of Local Improvement Districts (LID) to upgrade
existing streets and sidewalks and construct new streets to the appropriate standard.
Funding-03: 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.
Funding-04: Revenues for street transportation improvements should primarily provide for the
orderly development of the City's transportation system in compliance with the Comprehensive
Transportation Plan. The basic criterion for such funding should be the degree to which that project
improves the overall transportation system and not the benefit that might accrue to individual
properties. Where it is possible to establish a direct relationship between a needed improvement
and a development, the development should be expected to contribute to its construction.
Funding-05: Encourage public/private partnerships for financing transportation projects that
remedy existing and anticipated transportation problems, or that foster economic growth.
Funding-06: Aggressively seek and take advantage of federal, state, local, and private funding and
lending sources that help implement the City's Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
Funding-07: 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.
Funding-08: Reassess the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan if funding for
transportation facilities is insufficient to maintain adopted level-of-service standards.
Funding-09: Prioritize funding for projects supporting infrastructure and economic development
within the designated regional growth center .
OBJECTIVE: QUALITY OF LIFE
To improve the quality of life for Auburn residents and businesses through design of the
transportation system.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 7
Moving Traffic More Effectively with
Intelligent Transportation Systems
QOL-01: 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: 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.
TSM-01: Use TSM strategies to more efficiently
utilize the existing infrastructure to optimize traffic flow and relieve congestion. Examples include:
Re-channelization/restriping, adding turn lanes, adding /increasing number of through lanes
Signal interconnect and optimization;
Turn movement restrictions;
Access Management; and
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).
TSM-02: Support Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) implementation in coordination with
Map 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.
TSM-03: 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.
TSM-04: Require development to contribute its share of ITS improvements as mitigation.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 8
TSM-05: 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.
TDM-01: Encourage the use of high-occupancy vehicles (buses, carpool, and vanpool) through
both private programs and under the direction of Metro and Pierce Transit.
TDM-02: Promote reduced employee travel during the daily peak travel periods through flexible
work schedules and programs to allow employees to work part-time or full-time or at alternate
work sites closer to home.
TDM-03: Encourage employers to provide TDM measures in the workplace through such
programs as preferential parking for high-occupancy vehicles, car sharing, improved access for
transit vehicles, and employee incentives for using high-occupancy vehicles.
TDM-04: 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.
TDM-05: Recognize emerging TDM strategies such as tolling, variable-priced lanes, and car sharing
may be effective in certain situations.
TDM-06: Coordinate with Metro and other jurisdictions to enhance Commute Trip Reduction
(CTR) programs for CTR employers in Auburn.
TDM-07: 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 and
support development of a regional park-and ride lot system by Metro Transit, Pierce Transit,
Sound Transit, and the Washington State Department of Transportation.
Parking-01: On-street parking should be allowed only when consistent with the function of the
street and with traffic volumes.
Parking-02: New developments should provide adequate off-street parking to meet their needs.
Parking-03: 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.
Parking-04: 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.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 9
Parking-05: The City shall evaluate new residential subdivisions with constrained space for
driveways, utility services, street lights, street trees, and fire hydrants and the resultant impact on the
provision of adequate on-street parking. Where appropriate, the City shall require the subdivision to
provide dispersed locations of on-street parking (or street accessible parking) to meet their needs in
addition to the zoning code required off-street parking.
Parking-06: Encourage park & ride lots on sites adjacent to compatible land uses with convenient
access to the Auburn Station, SR 18, SR 167, and all regional transportation corridors.
Parking-07: 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.
ROW-01: The acquisition and preservation of right-of-way is a key component of maintaining a
viable transportation system. Methods used to acquire and preserve right-of-way include:
Requiring dedication of right-of-way as a condition of development;
Purchasing right-of-way at fair market value; and
Acquiring development rights and easements from property owners.
ROW-02: Preserve and protect existing right-of-way through the issuance of permits such as ROW
Use permits and franchise and public way agreements, by monitoring and responding to right-of-
way encroachments and safety impacts, and by limiting vacations of public right-of-way.
ROW-03: 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.
Prsrv-01: Establish programs and schedules for the level and frequency of roadway and non-
motorized system maintenance.
Prsrv-02: In order to help ensure the long term preservation of the city street system, the City shall
prohibit non-local trip heavy vehicles from traveling on city streets , unless the City permits such
travel via the issuance of a temporary haul permit that requires appropriate mitigation.
Prsrv-03: Establish standards of street repair and seek to obtain sufficient financing to attain and
maintain a safe system in good condition.
Prsrv-04: Continue to implement the “Save Our Streets” program for maintenance and
rehabilitation of local streets.
Prsrv-05: Continue to implement the arterial/collector streets maintenance and rehabilitation
program.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 10
Prsrv-06: Develop and implement operations and maintenance procedures to ensure ongoing
effectiveness of LID infrastructure.
Prsrv-07: In order to help ensure the long term preservation of the city street system, the City may
prohibit trenching or cutting into newly constructed or newly overlaid pavements for a period of 5
years. Overlays of up to the full roadway width of affected pavement surface should be required as
mitigation in the event cuts into new pavements cannot be avoided.
Prsrv-08: City shall notify and coordinate with all private and public utilities within the City limits
when planning to complete pavement overlay’s or reconstruction.
5.2 Street System
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.
Street-01: 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.
Street-02: 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.
Save Our Streets - Patching Treatment
Save Our Streets - Overlay
Helping those with Special Needs
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 11
Principal Arterial: 15th Street NW
Street-03: Ensure the transportation system meets the requirements outlined in the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).
Street-04: 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.
Street-05: 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: STREET NETWORK
To provide an integrated street network of appropriate classes of streets designed to facilitate
different types of traffic flows and access needs.
Street-06: The city street system shall be made up of three classes of streets:
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.
Collectors - a system of city streets that collect traffic and move it from the local street
system to the arterial street system.
Local streets - a system of city streets, which collect traffic from individual sites and conveys
the traffic to the collector and arterial systems.
Street-07: The Functional Roadway Classifications Map shall serve as the adopted standard for
identifying classified streets in the City of Auburn and the potential annexation areas.
Street-08: Ensure all eligible streets classified in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan are
federally classified.
Street-09: 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.
Street-10: 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.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 12
Preservation of neighborhood continuity and cohesiveness will be respected.
Street-11: 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.
Street-12: These minimum standards do not limit or prevent developers from providing facilities
that exceed the City’s standards.
Street-13: Encourage King and Pierce counties to develop and implement a similar system of
arterial designations within Auburn's potential annexation area.
Street-14: 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.
Street-15: Encourage King and Pierce counties to develop and implement a similar system of
collector designations within Auburn's potential annexation area.
Street-16: 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.
Street-17: Access Tracts may be permitted, as long as emergency access can be guaranteed at all
times.
Street-18: The local street network shall be developed to maximize the efficiency of the
transportation network in residential areas and minimize through traffic in neighborhoods.
The internal local residential street network for a subdivision should be designed to
discourage regional through traffic and non-residential traffic from penetrating the
subdivision or adjacent subdivisions.
Where possible, streets shall be planned, designed and constructed to connect to future
development.
When applicable, non-motorized paths shall be provided at the end of dead end streets to
shorten walking distances to an adjacent arterial or public facilities including, but not limited
to, schools and parks.
Residential developments should be planned in a manner that minimizes the number of local
street accesses to arterials and collectors.
To promote efficient connectivity between areas of the community, existing stub end streets
shall be linked to other streets in new development whenever the opportunity arises and the
resulting traffic volumes are not likely to exceed acceptable volumes as identified in the
Auburn Engineering Design Standards.
OBJECTIVE: PRIVATE STREETS
To discourage the development of private streets and ensure, if they are permitted by the City,
they are constructed and maintained according to City standards.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 13
Street-19: Private streets are discouraged, but may be permitted on a discretionary basis, as
regulated by city code and the Auburn Engineering Design Standards.
Street-20: 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.
Street-21: 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.
Street-22: Seek consolidation of access points to state highways, arterials, and collectors. This will
benefit the highway and city street system, reduce interference with traffic flows on arterials, and
discourage through traffic on local streets. To achieve this level of access control, the City:
Adopts and supports the State’s controlled access policy on all state highway facilities;
May acquire access rights along some arterials and collectors;
Adopts design standards that identify access standards for each type of functional street
classification;
Encourages consolidation of access in developing commercial and high density residential
areas through shared use of driveways and local access streets; and
Will establish standards for access management, develop a planning process to work with the
community and implement access management solutions on arterial corridors.
Street-23: 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.
Street-24: Continue to coordinate with the Washington State Department of Transportation to
facilitate the movement of traffic through the City.
Street-25: Encourage the State and Counties to develop through routes, which minimize the impact
of through traffic on Auburn's residential neighborhoods.
Street-26: 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.
Street-27: Implement the City’s traffic calming program to improve neighborhood safety and
quality.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 14
Street-28: 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.
Street-29: The traffic calming program shall incorporate neighborhood involvement and seek
community support.
Street-30: 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.
Freight-01: The movement of freight and goods is recognized as an important component of
Auburn’s transportation system.
Freight-02: The movement of freight and goods which serve largely national, state, or regional
needs should take place in such a way so that the impacts on the local transportation system are
minimized. These movements should take place primarily on state highways, Interstates, or on
grade-separated rail corridors in order to minimize the local impacts.
Freight-03: Seek public and private partners to leverage funds for freight improvement projects and
associated mitigation.
Freight-04: 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.
Freight-05: All through truck trips and the majority of local trips shall take place on designated
truck routes, as identified on the truck route map, Map 2-3, of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
This policy shall not apply to developments and uses operating under existing right-of-way use
permits, traffic mitigation agreements or equivalent agreements directly related to the regulation of
permitted haul routes.
Freight-06: 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.
Freight-07: 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.
Freight-08: 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.
Freight-09: 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.
Freight-10: 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.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 15
Freight-11: 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.
LC-01: 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.
RB-01: 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.
RB-02: Developments required to signalize an intersection as mitigation for a project may be
required to install a roundabout instead of a traffic signal. The feasibility of acquiring the land
needed for a roundabout will be considered as a factor in this requirement.
5.3 Non-motorized System
OBJECTIVE: PLANNING THE NON-MOTORIZED SYSTEM
To plan a coordinated, interconnected network of non-motorized transportation facilities that
effectively provide access to local and regional destinations, improve overall quality of life, and
support healthy community and environmental principles.
NM-01: Implement land use regulations and encourage site design that promotes non-motorized
forms of transportation.
NM-02: Include the role of non-motorized transportation in all transportation planning,
programming, and if suitable, capital improvement projects.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 16
NM-03: 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.
NM-04: 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.
NM-05: 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.
NM-06: Improve and protect the non-motorized transportation system through the establishment
of level-of-service goals for non-motorized facilities.
OBJECTIVE: DEVELOPING THE NON-MOTORIZED SYSTEM
To build a safe, attractive, and inter-connected non-motorized transportation system.
NM-06: Develop and maintain the non-motorized system, including bike routes, walkways and
equestrian paths, to encourage significant recreational use.
NM-07: Develop and maintain the non-motorized system, including bike routes, sidewalks, and
multi-use paths in a manner that promotes non-motorized travel as a viable mode of transportation.
NM-08: Develop the non-motorized system to accommodate appropriate alternative forms of non-
motorized transport, as well as medically necessary motorized transport.
NM-09: Appropriate street furniture, lighting, signage, and landscaping should be installed along
non-motorized routes to increase safety and to ensure that facilities are inviting to users.
NM-10: Clearly sign and mark major non-motorized routes to guide travelers and improve safety.
Interurban Trail at W Main Street
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 17
NM-11: Non-motorized routes shall be constructed to accommodate emergency vehicle access and
be amenable to law enforcement.
NM-12: Locate and design non-motorized transportation systems so that they contribute to the
safety, efficiency, enjoyment and convenience of residential neighborhoods.
NM-13: 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.
NM-14: 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.
Ped-01: Promote pedestrian travel within the city and connections to adjacent communities with
emphasis placed on safety and on connectivity to priority destinations such as schools, parks, the
downtown, and other pedestrian-oriented areas. Pedestrian-oriented areas are those areas with high
pedestrian traffic or potential and are identified in this plan. These areas and streets shall encourage
pedestrian travel by providing enhanced pedestrian improvements or controls on motorized traffic.
Ped-02: Focus investments on and aggressively seek funding for the high priority pedestrian
corridors, identified in Map 3-2.
Ped-03: Require developers to incorporate pedestrian facilities into new development and
redevelopment in conformance with the Auburn City Code.
Ped-04: Continue to construct new and rehabilitate existing sidewalks through a sidewalk
improvement program.
Ped-05: Seek ways to provide pedestrian amenities such as streetlights, trees, seating areas, signage,
and public art along all major pedestrian travel routes.
Ped-06: 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.
Ped-07: Pedestrian crossings shall be developed at locations with significant pedestrian traffic and
designed to match pedestrian desire lines.
Ped-08: Encourage the formation of LIDs to develop pedestrian pathways and other non-
motorized amenities throughout the City. Partner with the local school districts to improve Safe
Walking Routes to School.
OBJECTIVE: BICYCLE TRAVEL
To improve Auburn's bicycling network.
Bike-01: Develop programs and publications, and work with local employers to encourage citywide
bicycle commuting.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 18
Bike-02: Designate, develop, and maintain high priority bicycle routes, in conformance with Map 3-
4, that create an interconnected system of bike facilities for local and regional travel, including on-
street bike routes, and multi-purpose trails.
Bike-03: 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.
Bike-04: Focus investments on and aggressively seek funding for the high priority future bicycle
corridors, identified in Map 3-4 and corridors and connectors, as applicable, specified in Map 3-5.
Bike-05: Encourage the inclusion of convenient and secure bicycle storage facilities in all large
public and private developments.
Bike-06: Continue to develop and implement Sharrows and associated Share the Road signage in
residential and some non-residential areas of City.
Bike-07: Continue installation of bike lanes in parts of City where there is existing/adequate right-
of-way.
Bike-08: Develop an Auburn specific bicycle signage program to highlight corridors, connectors
and in-city/out of city destinations.
Bike-09: Make improvements to existing Interurban Trail – signage, pavement conditions,
vegetation maintenance, grade crossings, and upgrades to user facilities at Main Street crossing.
Bike-10: Develop a capital improvement program project with cost estimate for the design and
construction of bicycle/pedestrian bridge at southern terminus of M St. west of existing Stuck River
Vehicle Bridge.
Bike-11: Develop a capital improvement program project with cost estimate for the design and
construction of innovative and safe pedestrian/bicycle crossing at M St./Auburn Way South
intersection.
Bike-12: Install one or more bike boxes through a pilot program approach to test effectiveness and
public response. Focus pilot program efforts at key intersections such as the West Main Street and
C Street intersection, the M Street and Auburn Way South intersection and the Ellingson Road and
A Street intersection.
Bike-13: Continue to install bicycle/pedestrian crossing warning systems along Interurban Trail at
all crossing locations consisting of S 277th Street, 37th Street NW, and W Main Street.
Bike-14: Develop and maintain an official Auburn Bicycling Guide Map.
Bike-15: In coordination with the City Council, Mayor’s Office, Auburn Area Chamber of
Commerce, Auburn Tourism Board and appropriate City departments develop strategies and
actions for the implementation of the bicycle oriented economic development recommendations of
the Auburn Bicycle Task Force.
OBJECTIVE: EQUESTRIAN TRAVEL
To improve Auburn's equestrian environment.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 19
Eq-01: 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.
Eq-02: 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.
Eq-03: Create an interconnected system of safe equestrian trails and provide adequate equestrian
amenities adjacent to those trails.
5.4 Transit System
OBJECTIVE: TRANSIT SERVICES
To encourage the continued development of public transit systems and other alternatives to
single occupant vehicle travel, to relieve traffic congestion, to reduce reliance on the automobile
for personal transportation needs, to improve route coverage and scheduling, and to ensure
transit is a convenient and reliable mode option for both local and regional trips.
Transit-01: Partner with WSDOT, Metro Transit, Pierce Transit, Sound Transit, Muckleshoot
Indian Tribe, and private businesses to achieve Auburn's transit and passenger rail objectives.
Transit-02: Work with local and regional transit agencies to serve new and existing trip generators
in Auburn, such as colleges, commercial areas, and community facilities.
Transit-03: Encourage Sound Transit, Metro Transit, and Pierce Transit to expand transit to
underserved areas of Auburn.
Transit-04: Partner with WSDOT, Amtrak, and Sound Transit to establish an intercity passenger
rail stop at the Auburn Station.
Transit-05: Consider both the transit impacts and the opportunities presented by major
development proposals when reviewing development under the State Environmental Policy Act.
Transit-06: Encourage the inclusion of transit facilities in new development when appropriate.
Transit-07: Encourage bus stops to be located at well-lit and accessible areas.
Transit-08: 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.
Transit-09: 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.
Transit-10: Work with transit providers to create new commuter – oriented transit routes and
maintain existing commuter routes linked with Sounder commuter rail.
Transit-11: Develop rider information packages that inform users of commuter, transit, rail, trail,
and air transportation opportunities.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 5. Policies Page 5- 20
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.
Air-01: Continue to develop the Auburn Municipal Airport in accordance with the Airport Master
Plan.
Air-02: 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.
Air-03: The siting of new airport facilities shall consider neighborhood impacts such as increased
noise generated from the use of those facilities.
Air-04: Use of the airport by non-conventional aircraft such as ultra lights shall be discouraged, in
conformance with FAA regulations.
Air-05: 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.
Air-06: 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 maintenance and enhancement of the transportation system is critical to
the implementation of this plan and the success of the future transportation system. This chapter
details the financial planning tools and funding mechanisms available to accomplish these goals.
6.1 Financial Planning and Programming
The City updates its financial plan annually in order to ensure programmed transportation
improvements are financially feasible and prioritized in accordance with available funds. 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 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a six year plan which lists programmed
transportation improvements in the following categories: roadway improvement projects,
intersection improvement projects, non-motorized and transit projects, preliminary engineering
and miscellaneous projects, and preservation projects. 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 City
adopts a six-year Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) annually, including 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.
Auburn City Hall
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 6. Funding Page 6- 2
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 decisions about maintaining levels-of-service in accordance with
the Comprehensive Plan standards. The 2016-2035 Transportation Plan capacity projects are
forecast to cost approximately $196 million. The revenue sources proposed to be used by the City
of Auburn for these transportation improvements are described below. Forecasts are based on
current funding levels for City funds and based on past trends for grants and partnerships.
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 (REET), sales tax, and the motor vehicle fuel tax (MVFT). 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 for specific funding from property taxes,
and in doing so, created a funding program to help rehabilitate Auburn’s residential streets. In
2013, the City Council modified the funding source for the program to be from Construction
Sales Tax instead of property taxes.
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.
In addition, the City has also created an Arterial Street Preservation Program to preserve and
rehabilitate the pavement on these classes of streets. The program is funded through a one
percent utility tax which was adopted by City Council during 2008.
2016 – 2035 Forecast:
REET: $6,000,000
Sales Tax: $32,000,000 (Local Roads Fund)
MVFT: $10,700,000
Utility Tax: $40,000,000 (Arterial Roads Fund)
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 6. Funding Page 6- 3
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 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) replaced the Transportation
Enhancement (TE) Activities with the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP). The original
TE activities remain eligible for TE funds that were previously apportioned until the TE funds are
obligated, rescinded, or lapse. MAP-21 funds projects designed to strengthen the cultural,
aesthetic, and environmental aspects of the inter-modal transportation system. The program
provides for the implementation of a variety of non-traditional projects, including the restoration
of historic transportation facilities, the construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities,
landscaping and scenic beautification, and the mitigation of water pollution from highway runoff.
The Surface Transportation Program (STP) provides flexible funding that may be used by
states and localities for projects on any public road, non-motorized improvements, bridge
projects, and transit capital projects.
The Safety Program is a federal program targeted at reducing accident rates at intersections and
along corridors, particularly at those locations with higher than average fatality and injury rates.
Funds come from the Highway Safety Improvement (HSIP) Program included in MAP-21. HSIP
requires that states program and spend safety funds according to their Strategic Highway Safety
Plan. Washington State's plan is called Target Zero.
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.
FEDERAL LEGISLATION
President Obama signed MAP-21 (P.L. 112-141) into law on July 6, 2012. This major
transportation law provided $105 billion for the nation's surface transportation programs over a
two-year period. MAP-21 replaced the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which was enacted in 2005 with an expiration
date of 2009. Congress had passed nine short-term extensions to SAFETEA-LU before finally
agreeing the two-year MAP-21 almost three years later. After a series of extensions, MAP21 is
now set to expire October 29, 2015. Efforts are currently underway in Congress to reauthorize the
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21).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.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 6. Funding Page 6- 4
STATE FUNDED PROGRAMS
The Safe Routes to Schools Program is a state and federally funded program that aims to
protect children from traffic related deaths and injuries and promotes a healthy lifestyle by
encouraging bicycling and walking to school.
The Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Grant is a state funded program that funds non-motorized
safety improvements.
The Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) administers annual grant programs that fund
roadway and non-motorized projects that improve safety, mobility, capacity, and promote
economic development. The TIB offers several programs, each of which emphasizes different
funding criteria.
The Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) is a state funded program that
provides low-cost financing for public facility improvements. Public entities are eligible to apply
for and receive loans and grants for public facilities linked to economic development outcomes
such as private business investment and job creation. CERB also finances site-specific studies and
plans.
2016-2035 Forecast:
Federal Grants: $60,000,000
State Grants: $30,000,000
LOANS
Low-interest loans are also available to municipalities. For example the Washington State
Department of Commerce Public Works Board offers low-interest loans (PWTF) for local
governments to finance public infrastructure construction and rehabilitation. Eligible projects
must improve public health and safety, respond to environmental issues, promote economic
development, or upgrade system performance. Roads, streets and bridges are eligible for these
loans. The 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.
2016-2035 Forecast:
PWTFL: No PWTF loans are included in the forecast.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 6. Funding Page 6- 5
PRIVATE SECTOR CONTRIBUTIONS
The City has an established traffic impact fee system based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers
(ITE) guidelines, as amended by the City Council. The fee system estimates the amount of traffic
each development is anticipated to create, based on the land use type and size. Traffic impact fees
compensate the City for the capacity improvements needed to accommodate the new trips
generated by new development. In turn, the City uses the revenues to expand the street network
through the capacity projects included in the TIP. The fees are based on the costs of the capacity
project included in the TIP and forecast growth throughout the City. The fees are updated
annually following the adoption of the TIP by City Council. Payment of the impact fee does not
relieve developers of their codified obligation to construct half-street improvements, nor the need
to mitigate project impacts identified through the SEPA process, which may include the
construction of an identified TIP project (and a credit for the impact fee contribution towards
that project).
The City also charges a truck impact fee for certain land-use types which are associated with
significant truck traffic generation, such as commercial and industrial uses. These fees are used to
address impacts on the City’s truck routes and other truck-related infrastructure.
2016-2035 Forecast:
Traffic Impact Fees: $20,000,000
Development Improvements: $15,000,000
FUNDING PARTNERSHIPS
The City has successfully formed several funding partnerships, which have enabled it to leverage
its resources in implementing transportation improvements.
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE (MIT)
The City anticipates continuing to partner with MIT on funding projects of mutual benefit
through out the City. A recent partnership project is Auburn Way South (Dogwood to Hemlock).
The City expects MIT to be a major funding partner on the Auburn Way South Bypass project
and also to participate in the remainder of the (SR-164) Auburn Way South Corridor
improvement projects.
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (WSDOT)
The City anticipates continuing to partner with WSDOT on funding projects involving the State
Routes through the City. Recent appropriations by the state legislature budgeted $15 million for
the Auburn Way South Bypass project for the East Bound Off-Ramp.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 6. Funding Page 6- 6
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
Local Improvement Districts (LID) enable city investment in a specified area by leveraging city
funds, when available, 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, the 3rd Street SW Grade Separation, and the M Street Underpass
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
contributed funds to the 3rd Street SW Grade Separation, the S 277th Street Grade Separation
and the M Street Underpass projects.
2016-2035 Forecast:
MIT: $15,000,000
WSDOT: $20,000,000
LID: No LID funds are included in the forecast.
FAST: No future FAST funding is included in the forecast.
FMSIB: No FMSIB funds are included in the forecast.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 6. Funding Page 6- 7
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.
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT
In 1987, the State Legislature created Transportation Benefit Districts (TBDs) as an option for
local governments to fund transportation improvements. Chapter 36.73 of the Revised Code of
Washington provides for the establishment of TBD by cities and counties to levy and impose
various taxes and fees to generate revenues to support transportation improvements within the
district. A TBD is a quasi-municipal corporation and independent taxing district created for the
sole purpose of acquiring, constructing, improving, providing, and funding transportation
improvements within the district. In 2005 and 2007, the Legislature amended the TBD statute to
expand its uses and revenue authority, including the ability to authorize a $20 annual vehicle
license fee (VLF), and up to an additional $80 of VLF, if approved by voters within the district.
The state legislature provided local governments with these tools because inflation has eroded the
local share of gas tax and a series of statewide ballot initiatives passed over the last 12 years have
eliminated other traditional sources of funding for local transportation needs.
The City of Auburn created a TBD in 2011. The TBD is currently considering the implementation
of the $20 annual vehicle fee, possible local sales tax increase and how the revenue raised could be
best used to achieve the goals of the TBD.
2016-2035 Forecast: (If Authorized)
TBD: $16,000,000
STREET UTILITY
A street utility would be used similarly to how sewer and water utility fees are now collected. A
monthly or annual fee would be charged to residents and businesses in Auburn, for example via a
flat fee or through a pro-rated fee based on anticipated usage.
The implementation of a street utility would require a change in state law. The street utility system
is one in which all residents and businesses would pay their fair share of funding street
maintenance and repair. If implemented, a street utility would undoubtedly be combined with the
suite of other financing strategies the City currently employs.
2016-2035 Forecast: (If Authorized)
Street Utility: $5-9 Million per year
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 6. Funding Page 6- 8
6.3 Revenue Shortfall Contingency
Revenue forecasts for City funds are considered to be relatively secured. Other revenue such as
grants and partnership funding can be slightly more unpredictable. While all the revenue currently
forecast above does fully fund the transportation plan improvements, if shortfalls arise the City
will have to take one or more of the following actions to maintain compliance with GMA
concurrency requirements;
Supplant the projected budget shortfall with other existing City funds.
Enact new sources of revenue.
Revise Land Use Plan to reduce development capacity and resultant need for additional
transportation improvements.
Lower the LOS Standard sufficiently to reduce the need for additional transportation
improvements.
Impose restriction (moratorium) on further development with impacts to areas not meeting
LOS standards until current LOS standard is met.
6.4 Funding Strategies, 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/preservation. Hence, the City often needs to budget for maintenance/preservation
through tax revenues. Capital improvements may be financially secured through a combination of
public and private investment. Hence, project prioritization for capital improvements is often
partially dependent on the ability to secure outside funding. Likewise, maintenance and
preservation is highly dependent on the limited tax revenues available to the City. In the future,
the City will need to continue lobbying for its share of federal, state, and county tax revenues, seek
creative avenues for securing private investment dollars and grant funds, and potentially
implement new funding strategies such as tolling and street utility fees.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 7. Monitoring and Evaluation Page 7- 1
CHAPTER 7.
MONITORING AND
EVALUATION
The Comprehensive Transportation Plan, a long-
range plan with the horizon year 2035, predicts
the needs and conditions of the future
transportation system, enabling the City to
anticipate its 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 can 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 changes to City priorities, the
availability of new information, or the relevance of certain plan components.
RE-EVALUATION
The annual re-evaluation process provides an opportunity for the City to identify progress made
in implementing the Plan, as well as identify new needs that have arisen since the previous update.
The update will consider the 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 Transportation
Improvement Program and 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, existing levels-of-service, roadway classifications, and transit
route and ridership information will be updated as appropriate. Updated information will inform
Auburn Time
Auburn Station Clock
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Chapter 7. Monitoring and Evaluation Page 7- 2
much of the evaluation process, enabling the City to quantify system changes over time and make
appropriate decisions in planning the future system.
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,
Transportation Improvement Program, and 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
The City has the opportunity to preform annual updates to the Comprehensive Transportation
Plan on an as needed basis to account for significant changes which have occurred during the
previous year. 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 2009 update, it will present an opportunity
to holistically examine the current transportation system and lay the framework for development
of the future system.