The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutKing County/COR Regional Trail Discussion #2 (10/24/2017) Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan Update Renton/King County Regional Trail Discussion #2 October 24, 2017 9:00 am to 11:00 am Renton City Hall, 5th Floor, Conference Room 511 Meeting Summary Participants King County Parks Kevin Brown, Director, Parks and Recreation Division Jean White, Government Relations Administrator, DNRP/Parks, Capital Planning and Land Management Sujata Goel, Government Relations Administrator Tri Ong, Capital Project Manager – Parks Engineer, PE Mike Ullmer, Project/Program Manager Jason Rich, Capital Project Manager City of Renton Vicki Grover, Transportation Planning & Programming Manager Jim Seitz, Transportation Systems Director Kelly Beymer, Community Services Administrator Leslie Betlach, Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director Angie Mathias, Long Range Planning Manager Cailin Hunsaker, Parks & Golf Course Director Consultant Connie Reckord, MacLeod Reckord (MR) David Saxen, MacLeod Reckord (MR) Aaron Gooze, Fehr and Peers (FP) Purpose The purpose of this meeting was to reconvene with King County representatives to discuss and resolve preferred routing for the (Eastside Rail Corridor, Lake to Sound, and Cedar River) regional trails through the City of Renton, identify the most likely facility type for each of the corridors identified in the route, discuss strategies for implementation, and provide an update on the status of the Civic Core planning effort. This is the second of two planned meetings, and is expected to result in decisions that will be carried forward in the final recommendations presented in the Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan Update. 2 Discussion INTRODUCTION AND RECAP  After introductions, MacLeod Reckord provided an overview of what had been discussed and decided in the first meeting, held on September 22, 2017. Some discussion ensued regarding the schedule for review/approval and adoption of the Civic Core Plan and the importance of resolving solutions that would be consistent for both planning efforts. Currently the three regional trails do not connect and stop at or near the downtown core area.  MacLeod Reckord provided an explanation of the Regional Trail alignment graphics, noting the plan and sections identify two of the regional trail corridors – Lake to Sound Trail and Eastside Rail Corridor. The network shows connection to the existing Cedar River Trail but no extension of the Cedar River Trail was proposed.  The graphics also show alternative alignments, but without corresponding sections illustrating proposed facility types along those routes, the rationale being that the range of possible options was so great as to be difficult to determine the best facility type for the entire corridor (e.g.: was the alternative route a short‐term or long‐term option; would this be an interim route or the final route; what would the funding source be; what other likely development scenarios along the route would impact facility design; etc.)  The trail alignments include sections defined by distinctive attributes. Each section provides one or more options representing slightly different trail locations or optional facility types. See the boards (attached) for additional information on challenges and benefits of each option. LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL  SECTION 1 – The western segment extending from the planned end of trail near Naches Ave SW to Hardie Ave SW. The recommended alignment is on the south side of the rail lines, with options to locate the trail high on the embankment (same elevation at the tracks and between the main and spur lines), or low on the embankment (removing the spur line). An optional alignment on the north side of the mainline is described. Major points of discussion among the group: o Whether the spur could in fact be vacated (need to coordinate with BNSF); understanding the volume/frequency of use of spur line; whether Rabanco still uses this line; and whether property acquisition (south) is possible if spur line cannot be vacated. o All options (n/s, high/low) may need to be put forth to BNSF for discussion, and will be included as a record of the process (appendix items). o The new BNSF contact may be more receptive to discussion of a joint use of corridor. There was a recommendation to convene a meeting with local BNSF representative(s); King County would be the lead). A multi‐jurisdictional approach may be more effective with an appeal to changing community needs – more non‐motorized connectivity and increased rail/trail development nationwide. o Businesses in this corridor include an auto dealership, a strip mall, light industrial, a county health building, and office buildings. Security will continue to be a concern as there are transients. King County indicated there may be a possibility of an easement acquisition if businesses are willing. 3 o The option showing the trail between the main line and spur line was determined most undesirable, as it would require numerous acute approaches to rail crossings and would be well inside the set back/clearance zone defined by BNSF for both the main and spur lines.  SECTION 2 – The middle‐west segment located between Hardie Ave SW and Rainier Ave S. Recommended alignment is on the south side of the rail lines, again with options high on the embankment or low on the embankment. Optional north side of mainline was also considered. Major points of discussion included: o Show all options (n/s, high/low) when in discussion with BNSF; Hardie Ave crossing can be at grade; Rainier Ave S crossing would be better above grade.  SECTION 3 – The middle east segment located between Rainier Ave S and Burnett Ave S. Recommended alignment is on the south side with options high on the embankment or located in the Houser Way ROW as a shared street. Major points of discussion included: o High bank is preferred to maintain continuity to the west, especially if BNSF has approved high bank alignment further west. The Houser Way ROW shared street could be an inexpensive interim (or long term) solution. o A Woonerf concept was well received by the North Riverside Drive residents along the Cedar River Trail and may also be well received here.  SECTION 4 – The Houser Street corridor Recommended alignment is on the south side of the street, changing from shared use path to pedestrian/protected bike lanes configuration due to significant reduction in available space. Major points of discussion include: o North vs. south for non‐motorized improvements will be an issue questioned by businesses along this segment and will require further evaluation of north vs south with pros/cons; state rationale for choice. o Some noted observations – south side leads directly to Cedar River Trail connection and Tonkin Park is on the south side. o There are concerns about the NACTO minimal width (8’) shown for a 2‐way protected bike lane; consider leaving a 6’ walk and dedicating 10’ (with lighting/amenities in this zone) for bikes. o There was considerable discussion and a variety of opinions about how and whether to delineate/separate uses to include providing a visual only barrier between pedestrians and bikes; providing no distinction between bikes and pedestrian users making it less like a bike facility; creating mixing zones at intersections; and providing some type of vertical separation between bikes and the rail. o A second option might include elimination of parking/vehicular. Eliminating parking would need to be promoted by characterizing options for a more ‘interesting and attractive’ street. o The high crown of the street will impact the street cross section, curbs and drainage as the rail segment is higher than the finish floor elevation of the adjacent businesses. The current section as shown is not possible. o Options for a connection to the Cedar River Trail were discussed and will be further evaluated in the conceptual study for the intersections of the regional trails (in the main body of the Trails Plan). 4 EAST SIDE RAIL CORRIDOR  SECTION 1 – N 6th Street to Park Avenue N The recommended solution is unclear and dependent upon further discussions with Boeing and having a better understanding of future road widening efforts. Major points of discussion include: o Limited space requires either construction outside existing ROW onto Boeing property through acquisition or easements, or rechannelization of existing roadway to accommodate a side path. o If the trail is located outside the existing ROW high level discussions will be required between the City and Boeing and in the future may involve the mayor and other regional leaders to include King County. Renton will coordinate with King County regarding this approach. o Accommodating a facility inside the existing ROW is likely a non‐starter, as City has plans for lane expansion of Logan through this segment. Note: the existing ROW width will not accommodate the lane expansion without additional ROW acquisition.  SECTION 2 – Park Ave N to Garden Ave N Recommended side path on west side, where adequate room exists without requiring acquisition or making changes to existing roadway channelization. Major points of discussion include: o Logan/Park is already a level F intersection. o Existing bike lanes on both sides of roadway could be eliminated with the addition of side path on west side; question asked how bikes would access the landing from the ERC – crossings would have to occur at Garden Ave N or Park Avenue N; it was suggested that additional roadway width captured from dropping bike lanes could go to boulevard planting. CIVIC CORE PROJECT There was some discussion about the proposals being considered for the Civic Core Project (“Burnett Trail” segment), with acknowledgement that there would be coordination on final recommendations between the two projects. Discussion included: o Burnett Trail connecting at Houser Way. o Burnett Trail as the link to the relocated South Renton Transit Center o Burnett Trail extending north to the Cedar River Trail and crossing at Logan Avenue to the Lake Washington Loop Trail. PRODUCT FOR FINAL REPORT  Lake to Sound Trail Plan – show all discussed recommended alignments; redline alignment as currently shown, green line low bank, yellow line north side to make options clear. Show cross sections reflecting these options. Identify options that seem viable at this stage.  Eastside Rail Corridor – show connections through the Civic Core planning area, with reference to that planning effort.  Show alternative alignments on the plan so as not to eliminate them from consideration if preferred alignments cannot be achieved.  State pros/cons of all options.  These exhibits, including meeting notes, will be a standalone in the report appendix. 5 Next Steps:  City/King County will continue to plan for discussions with BNSF and Boeing.  Plans will be coordinated with those being developed for the Civic Core project.  Cross sections will be further developed to reflect the additional options discussed for the segments noted above. These cross sections and revised plans will be included in the appendix of the final report. 11/22/2017 Spur removal may be required due to acute angle crossing Potential access point for north side alternative Alternate alignment track crossing Phase 1 terminus at Naches Avenue Preferred Phase 2 alignment Minimal bank here Major bank here Bridge or at-grade crossing of Hardie Ave (potential access point) Alternate alignment on north side of main line Shared Use Raodway along Houser Way Shared Use Path within BNSF ROW Two-way bicycle facility next to existing sidewalk on south or north side of Houser Way Proposed Burnett Avenue Trail Shared use path or shared roadway east of Mill Ave Cedar River Trail connection Constrained location Constrained location due to spur Street crossings Regional trail intersection Bridge over Rainier Ave Bridge or at-grade crossing of Shattuck Ave At-grade crossing at Shattuck Ave for north side alternative (potential access point) 1"=100'1/2 Mile1/4 Mile1/8 Mile0 1 2 3 4 Preferred Alignment North Alignment South Alignment LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT 11/22/2017 Regional trail intersection (Burnett Avenue Trail) Alternates Existing Logan Avenue Trail Terminus of existing Logan Avenue Trail Proposed ERC terminus 1"=100'1/2 Mile1/4 Mile1/8 Mile0 EASTSIDE RAIL CORRIDOR CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT 1 2 Preferred Alignment REGIONAL TRAIL ALTERNATIVES 11/27/2017 EXISTING Shared Use Path • Proximity of trail to main line conflicts with BNSF’s guidelines (min. 30’ from track centerline) • Retains spur line • Pinch points between main line and spur line allow 12’ to 13’ for development • Requires crossing the spur line at an acute angle (or track removal at east end) • Retaining walls required • Barrier fence both sides of trail • No trail crossing of main line • Requires three new or retrofitted bridges • No access points between the Naches Ave connec- tion and Burnett Ave Shared Use Path • Proximity of trail to main line conflicts with BNSF’s guidelines (min. 30’ from track centerline) • High bank alignment until Shattuck Ave • Retains spur line • Requires crossing the main line • Wider and flatter grade at west end of segment • Barrier fence south side of trail • Requires at least one new or retrofitted bridge • Possible access points at SW 5th Place (north side), Hardie Avenue, and Shattuck Avenue. HIGH BANK RAIL WITH TRAIL HIGH BANK RAIL WITH TRAIL, NORTH SIDE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL - SECTION 1 LOW BANK RAIL WITH TRAIL Shared Use Path • Requires removal of spur line • May be able to meet BNSF min. 30’ setback from main line • No trail crossing of main line • Barrier fence on north side of trail • Less grading • Some retaining walls may be required • At-grade road crossings in three locations • Abandoned spurs could serve as access points be- tween the Naches Avenue connection and Burnett Avenue 100’ ROW Approx. Clearance required for train Main Line Spur Line 16’ Wide Trail 16’ Wide Trail 16’ Wide Trail REGIONAL TRAIL ALTERNATIVES 11/27/2017 LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL - SECTION 2 Shared Use Path • Proximity of trail to main line conflicts with BNSF’s guidelines (min. 30’ from track centerline) • Significant fill or structure required • Possible encroachment on adjacent property • Barrier fence on north side of trail • Bridges at same elevation as trail Shared Use Path • Moderate fill or structure required • Barrier rail/fence both sides of trail (structure de- pendent) • Less grading but potentially more structure • May be able to meet BNSF min. 30’ setback from main line • Bridges may need to be higher than trail elevation to meet clearance requirements (Hardie Ave and Rainier Ave) EXISTING HIGH BANK RAIL WITH TRAIL LOW BANK RAIL WITH TRAIL HIGH BANK RAIL WITH TRAIL, NORTH SIDE 16’ Wide Trail 16’ Wide Trail 16’ Wide Trail Shared Use Path • Proximity of trail to main line conflicts with BNSF’s guidelines (min. 30’ from track centerline) • High bank alignment until Shattuck Ave • Significant fill or structure required • Retains spur line • Requires crossing the main line • Wider and flatter grade at west end of segment • Barrier fence south side of trail • Requires at least one new or retrofitted bridge • Possible access points at SW 5th Place (north side), Hardie Avenue, and Shattuck Avenue. 100’ ROW Approx. Clearance required for train REGIONAL TRAIL ALTERNATIVES 11/27/2017 55’ ROW Approx. clearance required for train 25’ ROW LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL - SECTION 3 Shared Use Path • Proximity of trail to main line conflicts with BNSF’s guidelines (min. 30’ from track centerline) • Makes use of existing maintenance of way road within BNSF right of way • Retains current function of Houser Way • Minimal grading • Barrier fence on north side of trail • Proximity to Main Line more problematic for BNSF Shared Street • Requires “Shared Street” treatment of Houser Way • Impacts access for 2-3 property owners • Minimal grading • No barrier fence required • Meets BNSF min. 30’ setback from main line EXISTING HIGH BANK RAIL WITH TRAIL AT-GRADE TRAIL 16’ Wide Trail 16’ Wide Trail REGIONAL TRAIL ALTERNATIVES 11/27/2017 50’ ROW LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL - SECTION 4 EXISTING TRAIL WITH SEPARATED MODES, SOUTH SIDE TRAIL WITH SEPARATED MODES, NORTH SIDE 8’ Bike Approx. clearance required for train Shared Use Path - Separated Modes • Remove parking from the south side of Houser Way • Minimal buffer between trail envelope and trail • Maintain building access along sidewalk • Provide a two-way bicycle facility adjacent to the pe- destrian walkway/sidewalk • Separate bicycle and pedestrian traffic through pav- ing materials, a yellow tactile strip and/or a grade change • Separate the bike lanes and railroad tracks with some type of barrier, such as delineators, a curb or plant- ers, but provide locations where pedestrians can cross Houser Way freely • Intersections will require bicycle signals Shared Use Path - Separated Modes • Remove parking from the north side of Houser Way • Allows 2’ buffer between trail envelope and trail • Maintain building access along sidewalk • Provide a two-way bicycle facility adjacent to the pe- destrian walkway/sidewalk • Separate bicycle and pedestrian traffic through pav- ing materials, a yellow tactile strip and/or a grade change • Separate the bike lanes and railroad tracks with some type of barrier, such as delineators, a curb or plant- ers, but provide locations where pedestrians can cross Houser Way freely • Intersections will require bicycle signals 8’ Walk 8’ Bike8’ Walk Side Path • Requires acquisition or easement from Boeing • Potential coordination with Boeing’s trail • No change to Logan Ave travel lanes, turn lane or east side sidewalk Side Path • Entirely within the Logan Ave ROW • No impact to adjacent properties • Eliminates turn lane • No change to east side sidewalk EXISTING OUTSIDE CITY ROW WITHIN CITY ROW REGIONAL TRAIL ALTERNATIVES 11/27/2017 56’ ROW EASTSIDE RAIL CORRIDOR TRAIL - SECTION 1 16’ Wide Trail 16’ Wide Trail REGIONAL TRAIL ALTERNATIVES 11/27/2017 130’ ROW EASTSIDE RAIL CORRIDOR TRAIL - SECTION 2 EXISTING PROPOSED Side Path • No property acquisition required • Requires no change to travel lanes • Existing bike lanes remain 16’ Wide Trail