Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPeer Review Comment and Status of Response Form_Transpo - TENW COMMENTS (2) Longacres Master Plan Project EIS PEER REVIEW COMMENT AND STATUS OF RESPONSE FORM Deliverable: Peer Review of Transportation Reports Reviewed: February 24, 2026 Peer Review Team Member: Kassi Leingang/Mike Swenson Comment Response Provided: Comments Due: Comment Response Accepted: Item # Reviewer Report Reviewed Page Line(s) Review Comment Level of Comment1 Status of Response Explanation 1 Transpo Longacres Campus Master Plan DEIS TTA (Nov 2025, TENW) - - See minor redline comments in PDF. 2 ADDRESSED See separate Excel SS for comments 2 City General The City issued its Comp Plan in 2024 with an unfinished version of the Transportation Element and Appendix D. The revised TE and Appendix D was issued in Sept. 2025 and revisions occurred regarding the growth rates and background projects assumed. The project’s TIA should be consistent with the latest version and note it accordingly in the TIA and EIS. 2 ADDRESSED The revised TE and Appendix D were reviewed and confirmed to be consistent with the draft TE and Appendix D. The growth rates used in the EIS analysis are appropriate. 3 Transpo 1 Alternative (No Action) – make clear that No Action is not a previously approved land use for the site. It represents a lesser density alternative allowed within existing zoning. 3 ADDRESSED Text has been updated. 4 Transpo 1 Since noting Alternative 3 is allowed under existing zoning, clarify if the others would require a zoning modification 3 ADDRESSED Text has been updated. 5 Transpo 7 The non-motorized discussion is very broad. Provide additional details to the non-motorized section of the report to support the mode split assumptions made later in the report for the trip 1 ADDRESSED Text and figures have been updated. generation of the Alternatives. Suggest a table to highlight adjacent roadways that would be utilized to connect to transit facilities in the area. Consider including a map of the Interurban Trail showing its relationship to the site. 6 Transpo 7 The transit discussion is very broad. Provide additional details to the transit section of the report to support the mode split assumptions made later in the report for the trip generation of the Alternatives. Details to consider include: service days/periods, headways during the weekday peak periods, distances to stops, etc. 1 ADDRESSED Text figure has been updated (with table) and figure has been added to appendix. 7 Transpo 8 Expand review to include severity and collision types at study intersections including review of non-motorized collisions. 2 ADDRESSED Tables have been added and text has been updated. 8 City 12 Planned improvement projects included in analysis should only include funded and planned projects for both Renton and Tukwila. Please include funding and timeframe and update included projects accordingly. 2 ADDRESSED Text has been updated. 9 Transpo 16 Confirm this list is representative of all pipeline projects to be included and provide a statement as appropriate. 1 ADDRESSED Text has been updated. 10 City 16 Please identify funding status and timing of construction. Only those funded projects within the horizon year should be included in the analysis. For instance, the traffic signal identified at Oakesdale/41st is not funded and therefore should not be assumed. 1 ADDRESSED Text has been updated to identify funding status per the 2025-2030 TIP or other relevant documents. 11 City 16 All traffic signals should be adaptive signal control for 2040 baseline and build conditions. Please include this assumption. 2 ADDRESSED Text and analysis have been updated to assume that all traffic signals are adaptive control for future 2040 conditions. 12 Transpo 18 Suggest including the change from existing operations in text following table for the locations shown to operate below standard. 2 ADDRESSED Text has been updated. 13 Transpo 19 Consider change in title of section – This section does not provide any “Impacts of the Alternatives”, rather it provides an overview of primarily common alternative assumptions. 3 ADDRESSED Text has been updated. 14 City 21 Please use 2019 data for trip distribution instead of 2022 data to reflect non-covid condition. 2 ADDRESSED Trip distribution assumptions were checked versus 2022 data and confirmed to be appropriate. No changes to proposed distribution. 15 Transpo 22 Mode Split discussion within trip generation - Please provide source per use rather than generally in a list for all uses. The list does not convey which source applies to which land use. 1 ADDRESSED Text has been updated. 16 Transpo 22 Mode Split discussion within trip generation - ITE data should only be assumed when demonstrated no local data is available. If using ITE infill data, demonstrate that ITE's infill is appropriate for the site. 1 ADDRESSED Text has been updated. 17 Transpo 23 For clarity of assignment and review purposes, please include all driveways in the figures to 1 ADDRESSED Detailed trip assignment figures for the demonstrate all trips assigned to/from the site even if not a study intersection for evaluation. Additionally, overall distribution pattern appears reasonable; however, local assignment of 10% via the BNSF tunnel seems underrepresented. Does this consider location of residential on the west side of the project site, directly adjacent to this connection? This connection provides quick access to 405 shown to be 30% with an overall 40% to/from the direction. City staff is seeking input from Tukwila on the current distribution assumption. City of Renton staff will provide further direction regarding this comment. internal intersections and driveways are now included in Appendix G. No changes were made to the distribution assumptions for Alternatives 1/2/3 and Alternatives 1A/2A/3A since it is assumed that vehicular access under these 2 scenarios to/from Longacres Way will be limited. A third access scenario (Alt 1B, 2B, 3B) is also now included that assumes no access to/from Longacres Way (west of the BNSF railroad) and the Longacres Campus site. 18 Transpo 23 Roundabout methodology - Identify the basis of the operational methodology assumed for the roundabout and explain rationale for differing from WSDOT's Sidra Policy. Applies to all roundabout analysis. 2 ADDRESSED Text has been updated. 19 Transpo 24 It is noted that “Channelization, intersection control, signal phasing, and site access assumptions for the 2040 With Alternative 1 analysis was assumed to be the same for all three EIS Alternatives as discussed previously.” Are these parameters also consistent with the Baseline condition? Please clarify text. 2 ADDRESSED Text has been updated. 20 Transpo 28 Expand discussion of transit impacts. While a capacity analysis is not presented, please provide a connectivity analysis to adjacent stops. 1 ADDRESSED Text has been updated. 21 Transpo 41 General comments for signal warrants – Why is alternative 3 not considered? Warrant 3 appears to only potentially be applicable to Alternative 3. Per MUTCD, Warrant 3 specifies the following condition applies: This signal warrant should be applied only in unusual cases, such as office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial complexes, or high-occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time. Given the mixed use nature of the project for Alternatives 1 and 2, this warrant does not appear to apply. Please re-evaluate using warrants 1 and 2 or clarify how warrant 3 is applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. 2 ADDRESSED Alternative 3 has been added to the signal warrant analysis. A discussion of Warrants 1 and 2 is also now included. 22 City 41 General comments for signal warrants – Include collision history in warrant review – particularly at the intersections of 34th/Oakesdale and 41st/Oakesdale. 2 ADDRESSED A discussion regarding the crash history warrant has been added. 23 Transpo 41 Location 18 – This is a planned improvement that was assumed as signalized in the Baseline and 1 ADDRESSED Analysis has been updated Alternative analyses presented in the previous sections. This warrant should be reviewed before assuming future signalization. to assume stop-control (unsignalized) for future conditions and signal discussed as planned improvement. 24 Transpo 41 Locations 7,17,30,31 – These are either site access intersections or locations being considered for mitigation. If assumed in primary alternative analysis as signalized, that warrant should be included at that time or initially assumed as unsignalized and the warrant review included in the mitigation section when being considered. 1 ADDRESSED Analysis/text have been updated to assume stop control (unsignalized) and signalization as potential mitigation. 25 Transpo 43 Trip assignment - Overall distribution pattern appears reasonable; however, local assignment of 10% via the BNSF tunnel seems underrepresented. Does this consider location of residential on the west side of the project site, directly adjacent to this connection? Also, this connection provides quick access for outbound WB 405 trips shown to be 30% with an overall 40% outbound from this connection. Confirm this has also been reviewed and approved by Tukwila staff. 1 ADDRESSED No changes were made to distribution since City was in agreement with general distribution assumptions and limited number of trips expected to use Longacres Way if access is provided via Longacres Way. An additional alternative was added to the EIS analysis that assumes no access to Longacres Way (Alternatives 1B, 2B, 3B). 26 Transpo 50 Include overall phasing plan of the development to support timing of mitigation measures being triggered. A triggers review or plan to identify timing should be included in the mitigation section, including the two-way expansion of the roadway between the Longacres Campus site and the Tukwila Station. 1 ADDRESSED General phasing plan is included in Appendix A. Timing of mitigation relative to phasing to be discussed further with City as part of the DA. 27 Transpo 50 Mitigation – general comment – Review the mitigation feasibility for all Alternatives (1-3), not only the preferred Alternative. Include a table of operations without mitigation and with mitigation for all intersections in mitigation section for all alternatives relative to Baseline operations. If mitigation is not feasible, for any intersection under any alternative, that needs to be identified in a Significant and Unavoidable Impacts section. 1 ADDRESSED Table has been added that summarizes potential mitigation for all EIS alternatives and compares to baseline operations. 28 City 50 Mitigation – general comment – any proposed signals will need to include adaptive signal control concurrent with our current corridor programing. 3 ADDRESSED Text has been updated to clarify that any proposed signals would be adaptive signal control. 29 Transpo 50 # 1 – Identify mitigation for Alternatives 1 and 3, not only preferred. If not feasible, include in a Significant and Unavoidable Impacts section. 1 ADDRESSED Mitigation Measures text has been updated. 30 Transpo 50 # 2 – Specify which Alternatives the identified mitigation applies to. 2 ADDRESSED Mitigation Measures text has been updated. 31 Transpo/ City 50 # 6 – Complete a signal warrant analysis. Include discussion of queues and impacts to adjacent intersections. This intersection operating at LOS E or F in 2040. It will experience higher crash rates and no mitigation is considered by the City to be unacceptable. Please re-evaluate mitigation options at this location. 1 ADDRESSED Signal warrant analysis at Monster Rd/Oakesdale Ave SW has been added along with a discussion about mitigation options in the mitigation section. 32 Transpo 51 # 7 – Specify which Alternatives the identified mitigation applies to. Include reference to signal warrant analysis. What happens with Alternatives 1 and 3? If not mitigated with identified improvement under other Alternatives, include in Significant and Unavoidable Impacts section. 2 ADDRESSED Mitigation Measures text has been updated. 33 Transpo/ City 51 # 12 – Demonstrate feasibility of proposed mitigation. Provide a concept as needed to support recommendation. Additionally, specify which Alternatives the identified mitigation applies to. What happens with Alternatives 1 and 3? If not mitigated with identified improvement under other 2 ADDRESSED Concept sketch has been prepared and is included in report. Significant and Unavoidable Alternatives, include in Significant and Unavoidable Impacts section. Impacts section has also been added. 34 Transpo 51 #16, 17 - Is there not a reasonable mitigation for Alternatives 1 and/or 3? 2 ADDRESSED Mitigation Measures text has been updated. 35 City 51 #17 – It is anticipated that a signal would be necessary for Alternative 1. 2 ADDRESSED Mitigation Measures text has been updated. 36 City 51 Oakesdale/41st – This warranted signal should be identified as mitigation and not a background assumption. Credit for traffic impact fees can be collected for this mitigation project. 2 ADDRESSED Analysis has been updated to assume stop-control (unsignalized) for future conditions and signal discussed as planned improvement in Mitigation Measures section. 37 Transpo/ City 52 #24, 27, 28 - Provide rationale why no mitigation is feasible and/or reasonable at these traffic signals and added delay is not significant. Capacity mitigation should be considered due to the project’s nature of trips originating/destined to- from the freeway. Specific considerations for East Valley Hwy/41st and 43rd below. • SR 167/180th – Consider adding a WBT lane at intersection along 43rd per the Comp Plan TE. This concept may need to relocate the sidewalk 1 ADDRESSED Mitigation Measures text has been updated. and planter strip but does not assume widening of the bridge. • We suggest adding a North and Southbound through lane if the WBR turn is not feasible. • Evaluate the overall north/south signal operations and feasibility of modifying signal timing to allow for concurrent phasing compared with the split phasing. • Evaluate the potential of a SBR turn lane onto 43rd (next to the gas station). 38 Transpo 54 Add a Significant and Unavoidable Impacts section. 1 ADDRESSED A Significant and Unavoidable Impacts section has been added to the report. 39 City Appendix D/General Synchro summary sheet for Oakesdale/43rd shows the incorrect channelization on the southbound leg. In 2040, the SBT should be a double left and shared right thru. Applicant should correct and reanalyze to demonstrate the impact and any proposed mitigation. 1 ADDRESSED but City is not sure where this comment came from? Analysis has been updated as requested. 40 Transpo Appendix F Detailed trip generation comments in redlines (PDF). 1 ADDRESSED Trip generation has been updated per comments and agreed upon by Transpo. 1Comment Level Codes: 1 = Critical Issue - Address; 2 = Factual Issue – Check; 3 = Editorial – Consider.