No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 2671 1� CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 2671 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ENDORSING THE GREEN RIVER VALLEY TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS WHEREAS, significant increases in population and employment in and around the Green River Valley are expected over the next 15 years, as quantified by the adopted PSCOG Year 2000 Population and Employment Forecasts; and WHEREAS, the existing Valley Transportation System is not capable of accommodating the traffic generated by the growing popula- tion and commercial development; and WHEREAS, an extensive list of needed road improvement projects has been identified over the past several years by the various Green River Valley jurisidictions, by their consultants, and by other ad-hoc groups such as the South King County Roads Task Force; and WHEREAS, the Green River Valley Transportation Action Plan (GRVTAP) is a multi-jurisdictional identification implementation and financing plan for these road improvement projects in and around the Green River Valley; and WHEREAS, the GRVTAP was developed by the Puget Sound Council of Governments in cooperation with the cities of Renton, Kent, Auburn, Tukwila, King County and the Washington State Department of Transporta- tion; NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: -1- RESOLUTION NO. 2671 V IT SECTION I: The Renton Council endorses the GRVTAP recommenda- tions dated January, 1987 and respectfully requests the King Subregional Council to adopt the Transportation Plan. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 23rd day of February , 1987 . Maxine E. Motor, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 23rd day of February 1987 . Thomas W. Trimm, Mayor Pro tem Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warre City Attorney I -2- ' ego%ryio.vA5 7 1 1 GREEN RIVER VALLEY TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN 1 JANUARY 1987 p�C�OC� Puget Sound Council of Governments Grand Central on the Park 216 First Avenue South • Seattle,WA98104 Phone(206)464-7090 PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS , 1 Councilmember Jeanette Williams, Seattle, President Mayor Robert Mizukami, Fife, Vice President Curtis R. Smelser, Executive Director Jerry Dinndorf, Director, Subregional Services Division This report was prepared under the policy guidance of the 1 King Subregional Council ' s Committee on Transportation, Growth and Development. QUEEN R,IVF�t VAr r.FY ' 'TRANSPOR'I'AT'I ON ACI'I ON PLAN Puget Sound Council of Governments ' Washington State Department of Transportation Hing County City of Hent ' City of Benton City of Auburn City of Tukwila ' January , 1987 II 1 I ISI GREEN RIVER VALLEY TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN ABSTRACT ' REPORT TITLE: Green River Valle- Transportation Action Plat, ' PROJECT MANAGER: Robert Bernstein SUBJECT: Development of a plan for funding and implementing road improvement projects in the ' Green River Valley . DATE: Januar-, 1987 1 SOURCE OF COPIES : Puget Sound Council of Governments Information Center 216 First Avenue South ' Seattle , Washington 98104 ( 206 ) 469-7532 ' ABSTRACT: The Green River Valley Transportation Agtlon Plan ( GPVTAP; is a multi-jurisdictional 7` implementation; and financing plan for roal--- improvement projects in the Green I:i•.er Valley . The GRVTAP was developed by the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSC9G ) in cooperation with the cities of Renton , Kent , ' Auburn , Tukwila , king County , and the Washington State Department of Transportati ,. (WSDOT ) . The GRVTAP effort included two ' steps : 1 ) a valley--wide traffic analysis , and 2 ) the development of a unified multi- jurisdictional implementation/financing pig:. . The main purpose of the traffic analysis wn s ' to ensure that the various road improvement projects identified by the participating .jurisdictions will work effectively- with on( ' another . Development of the implementation: plan included a financial analysis that looked at the availability- of funding from ' all existing and potential sources . FUNDING: Preparation of this report was financed in part by appropriations from member ,jurisdictions of the Puget Sound Council of Governments ; and grants from the U.S . Department of Transportation , Federal Hinhwa, ' Administration , and the Washington State Department of Transportation . I GREEN RIVER VALLEY TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOREWORD ' The Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG ) is a voluntar-: organization of local governments in King , Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish counties , created to provide a forum for regional ' decision-making . The primary goals of the PSCOG are to seek solutions to problems that cross jurisdictional boundaries. . PSCOG membership currently includes 49 cities and towns , three ' Indian tribes , and the four counties . The PSCOG' s business �_- couducted by local elected officials representing the memt)er agencies . ' As the designated Metropolitan Planning Organizatic;r: for the four-county region , the PSCOG is responsible for conducting an on-going regional transportation planning process resulting in ' regional plans , policieE, and programs to guide development of th<- transportation system to meet future demand. The Green River Valley Transportation Action Plan was included ir7 the FS' 86 Work Program for the King Subregional Council a part of an element entitled "Special Transportation Proje-ct�; . The purpose of this work program element was to allcw th( ' Subregional Council , in cooperation with member local governments , to address rr:aJor transportation issues that are important to the implementation of the King Subregior:al ' Transportat-ion Plan . GREEN RIVER VALLEY TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS I . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II . THE ACTION PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ' III . TRAFFIC ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 ' IV . FINANCIAL ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 GREEN RIVER VALLEY TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN TABLE OF FIGURES 1 . GRVTAP Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 ' 2 . GRVTAP Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ' TABLE OF TABLES ' 1 . Valley Program : Highest Priority Projects . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 . Valley Program : High Priority Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3 . Valley Program : Other Priority Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ' 4 . Valley Program : Summar of Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ' 5 . Bing County Local Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ' 6 . Hent Local Projects . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ' 7 . Renton Local Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ' 8 . Auburn Local Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9 . Tukwila Local Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ' 10 . Extraordinary Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 GREEN RIVER VALLEY TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN I . INTRODUCTION The Green River Valley Transportation Acticr_ Plan (GRVTAP) is ' a multi-jurisdictional implementation and financing plan for road improvement projects in the Green River Valley (see Figure 1 ) . Most of the road improvement projects included in the GRVTAP have been identifiedover the past several years by the various Green River Valley jurisdictions, by their consultants, by the State , and by other ad-hoc groups such as the South King County Roads Task Force. ' The GRVTAP was developed by the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) in cooperation with the cities of Renton, ' Kent, Auburn, Tukwila, King County, and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) . Plan development was directed by the Valley Transportation Committee (VTC) , whose membership includes elected officials and high-level staff from ' each of the participating jurisdictions and agencies : Renton ' Councilmember Nancy Mathews Richard Houghton , Public Works Director Kent Councilmember Jim White Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director Auburn Councilmember Patrick Burns Frank Currie, Public Works Director Tukwila Councilmember Mabel Harris Ross Earnst, City Engineer King County Kathleen Drew, Assistant to Councilmember Gary Grant ' Don LaBelle , Public Works Director Bill Hoffman, Chief Transportation Planner ' WSDOT Jerry Schutz, Corridor Develpoment Engineer 1 1 � • ER �. ` tt. F 1 • y. ,� /.•:.WIN: - , �.. I �/tom-� / , - �J. _ •.1 ,yy...• , f "L, 7 ' Tk fJ�C•` GRVTAP STUDY AREA FIG. 1 , I z ' The GRVTAP effort included tFro steps : 1 ) a valley-wide traffic analysis , and 2 ) the development, of a unified multi- jurisdictional implementation/financing plan ( i . e . , "Action Plan" ) . Findings and conclusions of the traffic analysis and the financial analysis can be found in sections III and IV of this ' report. The traffic analysis and financial analysis are documented in detail under separate cover in the GRVTAP Technical Appendix . ' The main purpose of the traffic analysis was to ensure that the various road improvement projects identified by the participating jurisdictions work effectively with one another . ' The traffic analysis also analyzed how the valley road improvements would affect (and be affected by) I-5 and the SR-509 extension alternatives currently being considered by King County ' and WSDOT. Development of the implementation/financing plan included a detailed financial analysis , the purpose of which was to identify ' federal , state , local , public and private funding sources , and to evaluate the potential of each of these sources . A parallel activity was the categorization and prioritization of the ' identified road improvement projects . Project priorities were compared to funding availability to identify funding shortfalls , and strategies for making up the shortfalls were developed. The ' project priorities and funding strategies form the Action Plan. 3 I� GREEN RIVER VALLEY TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN t II . THE ACTION PLAN The Green River Valley Transportation Action Plan has two main elements : 1 ) a prioritized program of road improvement projects , ' and 2 ) a set of recommendations that would expedite the funding and implementation of the projects . Both elements of the Action Plan are described in this section of the report. ' PROJECT PRIORITIES ' Each of the recommendations contained in this report :relate directly or indirectly to all or parts of a program of road improvement projects identified by the five Green River Valley ' jurisdictions through the Valley Transportation Committee. The map in Figure 2 shows all of these projects . After compiling the list of projects and cost estimates for each, the Valley Transportation Committee prioritized the list, as shown in Tables 1 - 10 . Projects were first grouped into two categories : those of valley-wide importance and those of localized impact and importance. The Valley Transportation Committee then prioritized the projects of valley-wide importance ( i .e . , the "Valley- Program" ) ValleyProgram" ) by determining which projects were "highest" priority (Table 1 ) and which were "high" priority (Table 2 ) . Table 3 contains the other Valley Program projects , and Table 4 summarizes the total costs of the projects in each of the priority categories . Each jurisdiction prioritized its own local projects , using the same three priority levels (Tables 5-9 ) . After reviewing the financial analysis (see Section IV of this report ) , the Valley Transportation Committee identified a list of "Extraordinary" projects-- so-called because they are priority projects whose implementation will require extraordinary interjurisdictional cooperation and extra-ordinary funding sources . The Extraordinary Projects are listed in Table 10 . Table 10 also contains an initial estimate of the availability of public funds for each Extraordinary Project , as well as estimates of the private sector contributions that could be obtained given current local funding strategies . 4 1 _ GREEN RIVER VALLEY �' TRANSPORTATION I ACTION PLAN: \ VALLEY PROGRAM ® 1 ' Highest Priority Projects 43 O——■High Priority Projects 5.a nnunOthe r Projects )46 47 se SD 1,/11 I JD 56 40 ` t6 \ 5 45 ,9 .� ,v 11 ,, 1 �I 55 7 42 1 13 -. I 4 5° J' S ,c J, tC 1 72 P � 29 K31 35 ' ——— JC r' SOJ. J7 i f -d' --� 2D .� D6 7° 20 \ ?C i 1 � D 1 f 6 e 'X _ / y]6 _ GRVTAP PROJECT PRIORITIZATION FIG. 2 ' S MAP COST KEY PROJECT ($000) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 192/196 CORRIDOR , IA king S 192/196, SR-515 - 140 SE (realign,widen) $4,100 IB King S 192/196, SR-167 - SR-515 (new) $4,900 1C Kent S 192/196, W Valley - SR-167 (new,widen) $19,290 1D Kent S 196/200, Orillia - W Valley (new,widen) $4,040 IE Kent S 200 Connector, Orillia - I-5 (new) (3,000 1F WSDOT I-5/S 200 Connector/SR-509 interchange (new) $10,000 , 277 CORRIDOR 2A King SE 277, SR-167 - 83 S [Auburn Wy N] (widen) $3,092 2B Auburn SE 277, Auburn Wy N [83 S] - Green River (widen) $3,166 2C King SE 277 Ext, Green River - SR-18 (new) $14 ,250 2D Kent SE 277 Ext, Green River - SR-516 (new) $8,454 2E WSDOT SR-18/SE 277 Ext interchange (new) $5,000 W VALLEY/180 INTERSECTION ' 3 Kent W Valley/S 180th (intersection improvements) f600 3 Tukwila W Valley/S 180th (intersection improvements) 51 ,788 4 WSDOT I-405/SR-515 interchange (new) $10,000 ' 5 WSDOT SR-167/SW 43 [S 180] interchange (add ramps) $5,000 6 WSDOT SR-164 [R St] , SR-164/SR-18 interchange (new) $8,000 7 WSDOT SR-18, Green River - SR-516 (widen) !61000 8 Auburn12 SE/BNSE/BK" Overzing/16 2W, A 61 - C tW $2,500 ' 9 Auburn Harvey, Auburn Wy - 8 NE (widen) $874 10 Kent E Valley, S 180 - S 192 (widen) 52,640 ' 11 Kent S 228, Russell - Military (new) $7,834 12 Kent W Valley/S 212 (intersection improvements) $350 King 13 Kin Carr Talbot - 108 SE (widen) $2,823 14 King SE 208, 116 SE - 132 SE (widen) $2,636 15 Hing SE 256, 116 SE - 132 SE (widen) $846 , 16 Renton Oakesdale, SW 28 - Sunset (new) $16,500 17 Renton SW 27, W Valley - SR-167 (new) $8,000 18 Tukwila Southcenter Blvd, T L ine - Grady (realign) $7,655 ' 19 Tukwila W Valley, Strander - I-405 (widen) 5600 Total $163,938 ' VALLEY PROGRAM: ' HIGHEST PRIORITY PROJECTS TABLE 1 (NOT IN PRIORITY ORDER) 6 ' I 1 MAP COST KEY PROJECT ($000) ) 7------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20 WSDOT I-5/S 178 interchange (new) $10,000 21 WSDOT SR-167/SW 27 interchange (new) $7,000 22 WSDOT SR-167/S 192 interchange (new) $5,000 23 WSDOT W Valley, 29 NW - S 277 (widen) $8,000 24 WSDOT W Valley, SR-18 - 15 NW (widen) $61000 ' 25 Auburn Oravetz, A SE - R SE (widen) $1 ,650 26 Auburn Kersey, R SE - SCL (widen) (1 ,765 29 Kent W Valley, S 180 - S 212 (widen) $7, 100 30 Kent W Valley, S 212 - S 238 (widen) $4 ,720 31 Kent W Valley/S 196, S 228 (reconstruct intersections) 1700 32 Kent W Valley/James (intersection improvements) $300 33 Kent 80 S (Lind SW] , S 180 - E Valley (new) $600 ' 34 Kent SE 240, 108 SE - 116 SE (widen) $1 , 320 35 Kent S 224, SR-515 - SR-167 (new,widen) (7,750 36 King SE 277, W Valley - SR-167 (widen) $1 ,155 ' 37 King SE 240, 116 SE - 132 SE (widen) $2,469 38 King 140 SE, Pipeline - SR-169 (widen) $3,618 39 Renton SE Puget, Edmonds - SR-169 (new) $10,000 40 Renton SE Puget, Jones - Edmonds (widen) $960 41 Renton Edmonds, SR-169 - NE 3 (new) $4 ,000 42 Renton SW 43 IS 180]/E Valley (intersection improvements) $230 43 Renton Park N, Bronson N - Garden N (reconstruct) $7,000 44 Renton Lk WA Blvd, Park - 1-405 (reconstruct) $4,800 1 45 Tukwila Tukwila Pkwy Ext, T--Line - W Valley (new) $6,854 46 Tukwila Interurban, I-5 - NCL (widen) (2,070 47 Tuk�,31a Interurban, 1-405 - 1-5 (widen) $4 ,593 48 Tukwila 57 S, S 180 - S 200 (widen) $1 ,853 ' 49 Kent SE 256, SR-516 - 116 SE (widen) $408 49 King SE 256, SR-516 - 116 SE (widen) $442 ' Total $112,407 DD ALLEY PROGRAM: E 2 ✓� v HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS TABL (NOT IN PRIORITY ORDER) MAP COST ' KEY PROJECT ($000) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 50 Hent SE 240/104 SE (intersection improvements) $100 ' 51 King SE 128, 138 SE - 156 SE (intersection improvements) $819 52 Tukwila Tukwila Pkwy, W Valley - SW 16 (new) $7,000 ' 53 Tukwila S 188 Connector (new) $5,250 54 Tukwila S 180, RR Overxing (new) $7,000 55 Tukwila Minkler, W Valley - Oakesdale (new) $7,000 ' 56 Tukwila S 154, 53 S - CL (new) $318 57 Tukwila Gateway Dr, SR-181 - SR-900 (new) $2,831 58 Renton S 2, Main S - Rainier S (reconstruct) $100 59 Renton Rainier S 4( SR-167 (widen) $600 60 Renton Lk WA Blvd, NE 44 - NCL (widen) $500 Total $31 ,518 L 1 VALLEY PROGRAM: OTHER PROJECTS O � TABLE 3 (NOT IN PRIORITY ORDER) 8 1 1 t 1 SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES ( $ millions ) ------------------------------------------------------•--------- ' VALLEY PROGRAM 1 Highest Priority Projects $163 . 9 High Priority Projects $112 . 4 Other Projects $31 . 5 ' Total $307 . 9 1 LOCAL PROJECTS King County $6 . 6 ' Kent $5 . 1 Renton $13 . 3 Auburn $35 . 8 1 Tukwila ---$18_7- Total $79 . 5 1 i 1 ' r1 SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES TABLE 4 MULLIONS) 9 COST HIGHEST PRIORITY PROJECTS ( $000 ) ' SE 256/132 SE ( intersection improvements ) $189 SE 128-Sunset , 144 SE - I-405 ( signal interconnect) $40 HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS , Lea Hill , SE 312 - SE 320 ( shoulders ) $230 Elliot Bridge , 149 SE - 154 P1 SE (replace ) $3 , 796 , 116 SE , SE 176 - SE 192 (widen) $1 , 597- Peasley Canyon , 51 S Auburn WCL ( shoulders ) $239 OTHER PROJECTS , S 277 Bridge @ 59 S ( improve) $76 ' 42 S , S 212 - S 216 (widen) $191 SE 304 Wy, 104 SE - 108 SE (widen) $224 Total $6 , 582 ' ��0� KING COUNTY LOCAL PROJECTS TABLE 5 i 10 ' 1 1 1 COST HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS ( $000 ) 1 64 S , S 212 - S 240 (new) $2 , 800 72 S , S 180 - S 228 (new ) $ 1 , 225 1 OTHER PROJECTS N Central , James - Smith (widen ) $780 SR-516 , 4 S - Central (widen ) $330 Total $5 , 135 1 1 1 KENT LOCAL PROJECTS TABLE 6 I 1 11 COST ' HIGHEST PRIORITY PROJECTS ( $000 ) SW 16 , Lind - Oakesdale (widen) $2 , 200 SW 16 , Oakesdale - Monster (widen) $770 SW Grady, Rainier - Lind (widen ) $250 HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS N 1 , Park - Burnett (reconstruct) $700 , Park , Bronson - N 4 ( reconstruct) $60 Logan , Airport Wy - S 2 (reconstruct ) $600 S 7 , Shattuck - Smithers (new) $220 OTHER PROJECTS Raymond, SW 19 - SW 34 (new) $2 , 500 ' RR Xings , city wide $527 Street Overlays , city wide $600 , SW 19 , Lind - Oakesdale (new) $400 Longview, SW 27 - SW 41 (new) $1 , 200 SW 34 , Longview - Oakesdale (new) $400 Lk WA Blvd, NE 44 - NCL (widen ) $600 , Mill , S 2 - S 6 (reconstruct ) $500 Edmonds , NE 4 - Sunset (widen ) $1 , 800 Total $13 , 327 0C oV RENTON LOCAL PROJECTS TABLE 7 ' 12 SII COST AUBURN LOCAL PROJECTS ($000 ) -------------------------------------------------------------- HIGHE Y PROJECTS ' B NW, 30 NW - 3'7 NW (widen) $500 I NE, 14 NE - Harvey (widen) $350 I NE, 22 NE - 30 NE (widen ) $700 I NE, 30 NE - 35 NE (widen) $150 C SW, Ellingson - 15 SW (widen) $1 , 925 15 NW, W Valley - S 316 (new) $3 , 300 29 NW, B NW - M NW (widen ) $1 ,000 ' M NW, 15 NW - 29 NW (widen) $1 , 100 H NW, 15 NW - S 277 (new) $6 ,650 H NW, Main - 15 NW (widen) $3 , 200 B NW, Main- 15 NW (new) $2 , 200 8-9 NE, B NW - Harvey (new) $1 , 200 I NE, 35 NE - S 277 (new) $2 , 500 HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS ' 37 NE, A NE - M NE (widen) $870 3 SW, C SW - A SE (widen) $450 R SE, Oravetz - 29 SE (widen) $760 ' F SE, 17 SE - 19 SE (widen) $280 F SE, 25 SE - 29 SE (widen) $400 M NE, Main - 8 NE (widen ) $932 M SE, 29 SE - 37 SE (widen ) $486 37 NE, Auburn Wy - I NE (widen) $88 ' OTHER PROJECTS Mountain View, W Valley - WCL (shoulder) $358 ' Auburn Av, Auburn Wy N - Main (widen ) $740 Auburn Wy N, Auburn Av - Main (widen ) $800 H SE, 17 SE - 21 SE (widen ) $297 Clay NW, SR-18 - 15 NW (new) $4 , 300 ' M SE, Main - 29 SE ( improve) $220 Total $35 , 756 D(7C©c- AUBURN LOCAL PROJECTS TABLE 8 13 , HIGHEST PRIORITY PROJECTS (COST $000 ) Minkler , Andover Pk W - Southcenter Pkwy (new) $3 , 569 ' Southcenter Blvd , T-Line - 62 S (widen ) $844 S 168 , Andover Pk W - Southcenter Pkwy (new) $2 , 846 ' T-Line Bridge @ I-405 (widen) $2 , 000 HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS ' Southcenter Pkwy, I-5 - Minkler (widen ) $2 , 540 Interurban/SR-599 (ramps , signals ) $431 ' Strander/Andover Pk W ( intersection improvements ) $90 Macadam, Southcenter Pkwy - S 144 ( improve) $1 , 392 Longacres Wy, SR-181 - CL ( improve ) $401 ' Tukwila Pkwy/Andover Pk E ( signal ) $149 S 180 , 57 S - Andover Pk W (widen ) $115 S 180/Andover Pk W ( intersection improvements ) $80 OTHER PROJECTS S 133 - S 148 , 42 S - Interurban ( improve ) $859 ' Christensen e T-Line ( improve ) $280 Strander, Andover Pk W - Green River (widen) $493 58 S , Strander - S 168 ( improve ) $1 , 582 , S 168 , Andover Pk W - Andover Pk E ( improve ) $328 Minkler, Andover Pk W - Andover Pk E ( improve ) $651' Total $18 , 650 FD ��(-n) TUKWILA LOCAL PROJECTS TABLE 9 i ' 14 1 Mote: 'Ibis table compares road protect oast estimates with rough estimates of the availability of funding through 2000. For any of the projects, the actual requirements for additional fording (i.e., funding beyond what was estimated to be available) could be as low an the minimum shortfall sham in the table, or as Kish as the entire project oat. 7be Estimate of ' wdent of the actual shortfall will be dependent on a saber of factors, Funding whenth including project design and the actual availability of funding � e Shortfall Estimate of project is scheduled for oonstruction. (= million) Available --------------- Agency high min Funding ' MAP (project ---------------- KEY PROJECT coat) Public Private --------------------------------------•----------------------------------------- 192/196 CORRIDOR ' IA King S 192/196, SR-515 - 140 BE $4.1 $1.0 50% 25% 1B King S 192/196, SR-167 - SR-515 $4.9 $2.5 25% 25% 1C Kent S 192/196, W Valley - SR-167 $19.3 $7.7 10% 50% ID Kent S 196/200, Orillia - W Valley $4.0 $1.6 10% 50% IE Kent S 200 Connector, Orillia - I-5 $3.0 $2.3 0% 25% 1F WSDOT I-5/S 200 Conn/SR-509 interchange [ s see below] ------------------------------------------- 277 CORRIDOR 2A King BE 277, SR-167 - Auburn Wy N $3.1 $2.3 10% 15% ' 2B Auburn BE 277, Auburn Wy N - Green River $3.2 $1.4 30% 25% 2C King BE 277 Ext, Green River - SR-18 $14.3 $10.7 10% 15% 2D Kent BE 277 Ext, Green River - SR-516 $8.5 $3.4 10% 50% 2E WSDOT SR-18/SE 277 Ext interchange [ st see below) W VALLEY/180 INTERSECTION 3 Kent--W-Valley/S-180 $0.6 $0.2 10% 50% 3 Tukwila W Valley/S 180 $1.8 $1.6 10% ------------------------------------•------------------------------------------- ' 224/228 CORRIDOR 11 Kent S 228, Russell - Military $7.8 $3.1 10% 50% 35 Kent S 224, SR-515 - SR-167 $7.8 $3.1 10% 50% ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' OAKESDALE 16 Renton Oakesdale, SW 28 - SW 16 $5.5 (f0.0) 10% 90% 16 Renton Oakesdale, SW 16 - Sunset $11.0 $8.3 25% ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' STRANDER EXTENSION 17 Renton SW 27, W Valley - SR-167 $8.0 $6_4 -20% ----------- -------- ------ --------- SOUTHCENTER BLVD 18 Tukwila Southcenter Blvd, T-Line - Grady $7.7 $6. 1 20% PUGET-EDMONDS 39 Renton SE Puget, Edmonds - SR-169 $10.0 $9.0 10% 40 Renton BE Puget, Jones - Edmonds $1.0 $0.9 10% 41 Renton Edmonds, SR-169 - NE 3 -$4_0 $3.6 10% ---- --------------------------- FREEWAY INTERCHANGES 1F s WSDOT 1-5/S 200 Conn/SR-509 (Kent) $10.0 $0.0 100% 2Ess WSDOT SR-18/SE 277 Ext (King) $5.0 $4.5 10% I 4 WSDOT I-405/SR-515 (Renton) $10.0 $10.0 5 WSDOT SR-167/SW 43 (Renton) $5.0 $0.0 100% 6 WSDOT SR-18/SR-164 (Auburn) $8.0 $0.0 50% 50% 7 WSDOT SR-18/S 312 (King) $6.0 $0.0 100% ' 20 WSDOT 1-5/S 178 (Tukwila) $10.0 $10.0 21 WSDOT SR-167/SW 27 (Renton) $7.0 $7.0 22 WSDOT SR-167/S 192 (Kent) $5.0 $5.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local Jurisdiction Total $129.4 $75.2 13% 28% WSDOT Total $66.0 $36.5 38% 7% EXTRAORDINARY PROJECTS (ESTIMATED COST, FUNDING AVAILABILITY TABLE 10 ' AND SHORTFALL THRU 2000) ' 15 � I RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations were developed and endorsed by the Valley Transportation Committee (VTC) as a whole. The recommendations fall into three main categories : 1 ) general recommendations , 2 ) recommended actions related to the ' legislative process , and 3 ) recommended actions related to specific projects and groups of projects . The recommendations listed below suggest a range of potential approaches and solutions to a range of technical and financial needs and , problems . Some of the recommendations are broadly applicable , while others are narrowly focused. It was not the intention of the VTC to imply that all of the recommendations can be applied , anywhere under any circumstances . A. General Recommendations 1 . The Valley Transportation Committee recommends that King , County and the cities of Kent, Renton, Auburn and Tukwila endorse the Green River Valley Transportation Action Plan and ' its project priority lists ( see Figure 2 and Tables 1 - 10 ) and its traffic and financial findings and conclusions . 2 . A "marketing strategy, " aimed at publicizing , selling and implementing the GRVTAP recommendations , should be developed and put into action. 3 . A permanent committee should be created to coordinate the , planning , financing and construction of Valley transportation projects , and to lobby for needed legislative changes . Due to ' the increasing dependence on private sector funding for transportation improvements , such a group should include private sector representatives . , 4 . The PSCOG and WSDOT should undertake a freeway operations study of I-5 , I-405 and SR-167 , in order to evaluate the ability of the freeway system and its interchanges to accommodate future traffic demand, and to determine the operational feasibility of the various interchange improvement projects included in the GRVTAP. ' 5 . In order to maximize the people-carrying capacity of the road system, an assessment of the potential for HOV (high occupancy vehicle ) facilities should be included in the planning and design of all GRVTAP projects . HOV projects for which matching funds may be available from Metro should be identified. , B . Recommended Actions : Legislative 1 . Support an increase in the State Motor Fuel Tax. 2 . Support creation of a Multi-Agency Arterial Program (MAP) . Use the Extraordinary Projects as the Green River Valley' s 16 IIS I Ilist of MAP projects , and make the legislature aware of the need for funding for these projects . ' 3 . Support proposed Transportation Benefit District legislation and the creation of a transportation benefit district program funded by the motor fuel tax . 4 . Work for designation of one of the cross-valley corridor projects ( 192nd/196th , 277th, or 224th/228th) as a state highway and for state funding of construction. 5 . If King County 2000 proposes a transportation bond issue , work to ensure that the Extraordinary Projects are among the projects to be funded. C. Recommended Actions : Project-Related 1 . Based on the results of the recommended freeway operations study (Recommendation A. 4 . ) , work with the WSDOT and the PSCOG ' to have the proposed new freeway interchanges and interchange improvements ( see Table 10) put into the State's plan and funded . ' 2 . The interchange projects will cost a total of $66 million, of which $36 . 5 million is currently unfunded. Because little of the nearly $30 million shortfall is likely to be made up ' through federal and state grants (unless a MAP is created) or local general taxes , efforts should be made to make up as much of the shortfall as possible with revenues raised from the ' properties within the Valley. 3 . Because the GRVTAP traffic analysis indicates that a higher private share can be justified, Kent should consider the feasibility of increasing the share of costs borne by the private sector for the S 192/196 , S 224/228 , and S 277th Corridors . Also , King County should consider methods for augmenting mitigation payments with additional private contributions for its segments of these corridors . ' 4 . Even with additional mitigation-derived private sector contributions , there will still be some significant funding shortfalls for Green River Valley projects . For this reason , consideration should be given to expanding the private role to ' include all properties , including those that are already developed. Possible techniques include city bond issues , formation of area-wide improvement districts , and the creation of a Road Service District or a Transportation Benefit ' District ( if the latter is approved by the legislature ) for the Green River Valley as a whole. ' 5 . The use of city bond issues should be considered for funding projects that are not in the Valley, such as Puget-Edmonds in Renton and the S 200th Connector in Kent ( see Figure 2 and ' Tables 1 and 2 ) . Bond funds should also be considered for 1 17 supplementing private sector funds obtained through mitigation ' payments or through a Green River Valley RSD/TBD. 6 . Area-wide improvement districts , such as Local Improvement , Districts (LID' S ) should be considered if a Green River Valley RSD/TBD is not created. 7 . Because the segments of S 277th Corridor east of the Green River are expensive and not well-suited to the private funding mechanisms discussed for the Valley, consideration should be , given to making them the Valley jurisdictions' (as a united group) top priorities for MAP and for Bing County 2000 , in the event that either of those programs is created. Consideration should also be given to including areas adjacent to such segments in a Green River Valley RSD/TBD. r r � 18 ' GREEN RIVER VALLEY TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN ' III . TRAFFIC ANALYSIS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FINDINGS The findings of the GRVTAP traffic analysis were based not ' only on the results of the analyses done for GRVTAP, but also on the results of previous studies conducted by PSCOG, by the Valley jurisdictions and by their consultants . rLand Use o The two overriding factors affecting future traffic conditions ' on the Green River Valley road system are i ) the employment growth in the north half of the Valley (Kent and north ) , and ii ) the doubling of population on the Soos Creek Plateau. ' Cross-Valley Arterials ' o Cross-valley arterials north of Kent are needed to carry Plateau residents to Valley jobs . o Cross-valley arterial connections to I-5 are needed primarily ' to carry I-5 traffic to/from Valley employment centers . o The provision of cross-valley arterial connections to carry traffic from the Plateau to I-5 (north of Kent ) is also important . ' Valley Arterial Grid o There will be extremely heavy traffic volumes on the Valley' s internal arterial grid; additional links in that grid are needed to adequately handle future traffic . 192nd/196th Corridor ' o The proposed 192nd/196th Corridor will not serve as a reliever of I-405 ; traffic related to Valley employment will create too much congestion for 192nd/196th to be attractive as an I- 405 alternate . o The east end of the 192nd/196th Corridor provides Plateau- Valley access , while the west end of the Corridor serves local access traffic and provides I-5 - Valley access ( it carries little through traffic ) . I 19 Freeway System , o There will be heavy volumes of Valley-related traffic using all of the I-5 interchanges between SR-516 and Southcenter. The operation of individual interchanges must be assessed within the context of overall freeway system operation; reducing or limiting traffic volumes at one interchange just puts additional pressure on others . o As with I-5 SR-167 interchanges will carry heavy volumes of traffic enroute to/from Valley employment centers. ' o A high proportion of SR-167 and I-405 ( through Renton) traffic is travelling to/from the Valley or the Plateau. o Additional interchanges on SR-167 and I-405 will relieve the pressure that heavy future traffic demand will exert on existing interchanges . Hent-Kangley, 272nd/277th Corridor , o Travel demand to/from the Lake Meridian/South Soos creek area is oriented mainly SE-NW, with a large proportion of the travel directed to jobs in the north half of the Valley; Kent-Kangley ' Road (SR-516 ) provides a direct route for this travel . o Future traffic volumes on Kent-Kangley will be excessive ; ' alternate routes are severely limited. o The northerly alternative for the 277th extension would serve , mainly as a by-pass for the Kent-Kangley bottleneck at 104th/256th . o The southerly alternative for the 277th extension would ' function as a true cross-valley arterial . o The southerly alternative for the 277th extension would be used , primarily as an access route to Auburn, to SR-167 , and to north-south Valley arterials , as well as to I-5 . Auburn ' o A substantial proportion of the traffic travelling between Auburn and I-5 is oriented to/from the north ; Peasley Canyon Road serves as a short-cut for this traffic , and its volume nearly doubles by 2000. The NW 15th connection will provide some relief, but Year 2000 Peasley Canyon volumes will still be ' substantially higher than today' s volume . o The proposed SR-18/"R" Street interchange in Auburn would provide relief to the SR-18/SR-167/SR-181 and SR-18/"C" Street , interchanges , and would help balance traffic volumes on the Auburn street network . 20 , SR-509 Bzteneion o SR-509 will carry little Valley traffic; however the SR-509 extension alternatives do provide some benefit in that they siphon some non-Valley traffic off of I-5 south of the congested Valley-access interchanges . Valley-Hastside Arterial Connections ' o Neither the Edmonds Avenue nor the 156th SE extensions north of SR-169 provide an attractive alternate route for I-405 traffic (neither is an effective substitute for the politically ' infeasible 140th segment of 'the "Poor Man's I-605" ) . Edmonds provides only local access , and 156th is too far east , requiring a two-mile detour for traffic travelling to/from 138th SE and Coal Creek Parkway. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS 1 . Overall projected traffic flows will virtually flood all major arterials , freeways and interchanges in and around the Valley and on the west side of the! Plateau (north of Kent ) . 2 . The number of I-5 , I-405 and SR-167 interchanges serving north Valley employment centers should be maximized in order to ' better handle the high proportion and heavy volume of traffic enroute to/from the Valley„ 3 . All of the proposed cross-valley arterials are needed to carry traffic from the residential areas on the Plateau to the employment centers in the 'Valley (even if all are built , they will be overloaded) . 4 . The density of the arterial grid serving the employment centers in the north half of the Valley should be maximized ' (all of the proposed east-west and north-south arterial segments are needed, but even if all are built , there will still be congestion ) . 5 . Although the pressure exerted by future traffic volumes will not be as intense in Auburn as in the north half of the Valley, all of the Auburn projects will be needed to handle ' traffic growth . 6 . In order to increase the person-carrying capacity of the Valley road system, consider HOV improvements in the planning and design of all Valley road projects . ' 7 . Solutions to future traffic and transportation problems must be sought in land use management , as well as in road construction and in management of the transportation system. I 21 GREEN RIVER VALLEY TRANSPOR?ATION ACTION PLAN , IV. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION Implementation of the projects recommended in the Green River ' Valley Transportation Action Plan is dependent on the availability of adequate funding . Although other obstacles must also be overcome, the projects will not be completed unless there is enough money to pay for them. The financial analysis element , of the Green River Valley Transportation Action Plan identifies potential funding sources , assesses the amount of funding potentially available from these sources, and provides a set of findings and conclusions that can be used by the Green River Valley jurisdictions in making funding decisions . FINANCIAL ANALYSIS FINDINGS : FUNDING SOURCES , The financial analysis findings are drawn from a detailed , review and assessment of each of the major funding source categories identified. This detailed analysis is published under separate cover in the GRVTAP Technical Appendix. The Technical , Appendix also includes a review of current local funding strategies and proposed state legislation. Federal Programs o Past federal grants for transportation total $21 . 1 million to the four Valley cities and $29 million to King County. o The federal role in funding local transportation projects is declining, but grants from the Federal Aid Urban System, Bridge ' Replacement , and Federal Aid Safety Programs are expected to remain available . Funding for these three programs is expected to remain at about current levels . o A conservative estimate of federal grants for the Valley cities ' totals $10 . 8 million. King County is estimated to receive $21 .9 million from these sources for projects throughout the , unincorporated area. o An optimistic estimate of federal grants for the Valley cities totals $14 . 2 million. King County is estimated to receive ' $27 . 7 million from these sources for projects throughout the unincorporated area. o Federal grants are likely to be spread among a large number of , projects . 22 III o Only the Federal Aid Urban System (FAUS ) program appears applicable to the Extraordinary Projects . Given the small amount available from FAUS , the program should not be expected to fund a large share of the Extraordinary Projects . E State Programs : Urban Arterial Program o The urban arterial program is the major source of state grants for, Green River Valley projects . Past urban arterial grants total $36 million to the four Valley cities for 59 projects and $14 . 2 million to King County for 48 projects throughout the unincorporated area. o The program is running out of money. Without a funding increase , only $20 million in urban arterial grants will be ' available state-wide during the next biennium and none thereafter. o A conservative estimate assumes no new funding and no urban arterial grants for the Action Plan projects . o An optimistic estimate assumes a penny per gallon of additional fuel tax funding and grants of $15 . 2 million for the Valley cities and $6 million for King County (for projects throughout the unincorporated area ) . ' o Additional urban arterial grants are likely to be spread over a number of projects . Grants to King County will be used for projects throughout the unincorporated areas , not just projects ' in the GRVTAP area. o The Extraordinary Projects are eligible , but it is unlikely that urban arterial grants will cover more than a small share of their costs . The program has rarely funded the construction of new arterial corridors . State Programs : Public Works Trust Fund and CBSB o The Public Works Trust Fund and the Community Economic ' Revitalization Board (CERB) make loans for public infrastructure , including transportation projects . I o Public Works Trust Fund loans have only been available for a year . It is hard to judge the program' s potential for financing transportation projects in the Valley. ' o The conservative estimate assumes no loans will be available for Action Plan projects . o The optimistic estimate assumes $2 . 2 million in loans will be available for city transportation projects and $12 . 7 million for King County transportation projects throughout the unincorporated area. . 23 o o Public Works Trust Fund loans will _not be available for the Extraordinary Projects . The loans cannot exceed $1 million for a single project and the program is directed at solving existing infrastructure problems , not at creating new capacity. o CERB loans have not been a source for Valley transportation , projects in the past and are not expected to play a significant role in the future o The joint CERB-WSDOT $10 million grant program to fund transportation improvements needed to support economic development should be aggressively pursued, especially if it is continued for the next biennium. ' State Programs : Rotor Fuel ?ax Distributions o The Motor Fuel Tax is a shared revenue that is distributed to ' the cities and county by a formula. It is the most flexible and reliable source of state and federal revenue for local transportation programs . ' o The County may use the $11 . 1 million it receives annually for either maintenance and operations or capital projects ' throughout the unincorporated areas . The Valley cities may use $1 . 2 million of their share for either capital or operations and maintenance , but the remaining $ . 7 million must be used for ' capital purposes . o Under the conservative estimate , which assumes a continuation of the current annual distribution, the Valley cities would , receive $24 . 7 million over the implementation period, with a minimum of $9 . 9 million for capital purposes. King County would receive $144 . 6 million. A large share of these funds will be needed for operations and maintenance. o The optimistic e8timate assumes two five-cent fuel tax increases , but no other changes . Distributions to the Valley ' cities would total $36 .8 million, with a minimum of $14 . 7 million for capital purposes . King County would receive $215 . 5 million . ' o The Motor Fuel Tax is unlikely to fund more than a limited share of the cost of the Extraordinary Projects . Annual , distributions are not large enough and a portion of the revenues will be needed for maintenance and operations as well as for smaller capital projects . Local Sources : ?axes , o City and county taxes are a traditional source of funding for , local transportation projects. Their importance has diminished over the last two or three decades as other local needs have grown , increasing the competition for general tax revenues . ' 24 IIS I o Despite the competition, all of the Valley jurisdictions continue to use a portion of their tax revenues for transportation, especially operations and maintenance . o Some actions have been taken to provide additional tax revenues for transportation. Tukwila and Kent have dedicated revenues from specific taxes to capital purposes , including transportation. Auburn has a target for contributing tax ' revenues for street capital projects . Renton intends to use taxe's as local match for federal and state grants . King County has ended the use of revenues from the road levy for non- transportation purposes . o The amount of general tax revenue that can be devoted to transportation capital projects is constrained by statutory ' limits on taxation and by the competing demands for the available revenues . ' o Local taxes are unlikely to be able to fund more than a small share of the cost of the Extraordinary Projects. Local Sources : General Obligation Bonds o General obligation bonds have been used infrequently for transportation projects by the four Valley cities . Renton and Tukwila have never used them, Kent has one small , councilmanic issue , and Auburn has two voter approved issues . The second one , for $5 million, was approved this year. o King County voters approved a $70 million bond issue for arterials in 1967 as part of Forward Thrust . The funds were used to build projects in the cities as well as the ' unincorporated portions of the county. A second, countywide bond issue for transportation may be proposed as part of "King County 2000" . ' o The four Valley cities have a total of $117 million in remaining statutory debt capacity for general purposes , including transportation. King County has over $1 billion of remaining statutory debt capacity. o Councilmanic debt is serviced from existing revenues . This makes it an unlikely candidate to fund large transportation projects . o The Extraordinary Projects could be funded with voter approved bonds . However , the bonds must receive a 60% favorable vote and transportation projects compete with other public facilities that require bond funding . 25 Study Area Sources : II LID , Contributions , Mitigation Payments o Local improvement districts (LID'S ) , direct contributions , and mitigation payments are the mechanisms currently used to obtain funding from properties within the study area. ' o Much of the funding for local transportation projects will be provided by properties within the study area. They are ' expected to fund nearly all of the cost of local streets , collector arterials , and improvements needed to mitigate the impact of specific development projects. They are also expected to provide a large share of the costs for major , arterials , including the Extraordinary Projects. o The Valley jurisdictions have based much of their use of these ' mechanisms on their authority under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) . When the property owner submits a development for review, its potential transportation impacts are identified as part of the environmental analysis . Approval ' of the development is conditioned on the owner agreeing to pay for the improvements needed to mitigate the identified impacts . o This approach to funding benefits the property owners as well , as the jurisdictions by enabling transportation improvements to be constructed in a timely manner. It would be very difficult ' to provide additional transportation capacity in the Green River Valley without funding from study area properties . Study Area Sources : RSD ' s and TBD' s ' o Road Service Districts (RSD' s ) and Transportation Benefit Districts (TBD' s ) are two techniques that could enhance the , ability of the study area to fund needed transportation projects . o RSD' s are authorized under existing legislation, though none , has been formed in King County. The TBD is part of a package of proposals that will be presented to legislature during the 1987 session. ' o In operation, RSD' s and TBD's would be much alike. Both allow the formation of a district, which can be multi-jurisdictional ' or less than jurisdiction-wide , for the purpose of constructing transportation improvements . Neither has a tax source, but both could finance improvements with voter approved general obligation bonds and LID' s . A Green River Valley RSD or TBD ' would have a statutory debt capacity of about $50 million. o They are not identical . RSD's can only be formed by counties , , though they can include land within a city. A TBD could be formed by either a city or a county. TBD' s are directed at areas of economic development such as the Green River Valley . ' RSD' s are more general purpose . 26 ' 1 o RSD' s and TBD's , if approved by the legislature, could be used ' to fund a major share of the Extraordinary Projects . FINANCIAL ANALYSIS FINDINGS : TRANSPORTATION NEEDS AND CURRENT FUNDING STRATEGIES o The Green River Valley jurisdictions all have transportation ' funding strategies that draw on a mixture of sources-- local taxes , federal and state grants , motor fuel tax , and taxes on property within the Valley. o Total Green River Valley transportation project needs are over $380 million . ' o There are a number of priority projects that cannot be funded and built by individual jurisdictions using currently available funding sources . The construction of these "Extraordinary" ' projects (see Table 10) is of concern to the entire Green River Valley and can only be accomplished through joint action of the Valley cities , King County, and the State. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS ' The financial analysis conclusions were based on a comparison of financial analysis findings and the cost estimates for the specific projects included in the GRVTAP priority array ( see ' Tables 1 - 10 ) . Transportation Needs ' 1 . Slightly more than half of the total identified transportation project needs , $195 million, is needed for eight "Extraordinary Pro?ects" and nine freeway interchange projects . Exclusive of the interchanges, the Extraordinary Projects located within the Green River Valley itself are estimated to cost $97 . 1 million. 2 . Each of the Valley cities and King County have funding strategies that draw on a mixture of sources-- local taxes , federal and state grants ,, motor fuel tax , and taxes on ' property within the Valley. 3 . The Green River Valley jurisdictions ' existing transportation ' funding strategies will be able to fund most of the identified transportation needs . However, they will leave a shortfall of $112 million for the Extraordinary Projects , including the freeway interchanges . Exclusive of the interchanges , the ' Extraordinary Projects located within the Green River Valley itself will have a shortfall of $48 . 7 million. 4 . Unless this shortfall is reduced, many of the projects that are needed to support the growth of the Green River Valley 27 will be delayed-- in some cases until beyond the end of the century. Funding Strategies ' 5 . The interchange projects will cost a total of $66 million, of ' which $36 . 5 million is currently unfunded. Little of this shortfall is likely to be made up through federal and state grants (unless a MAP is created) . Local general taxes can ' also make up only a small share of the needed funds . The costs for some of the projects will have to be shared by the local jurisdictions and the private sector. 6 . The GRVTAP traffic analysis ( i .e . , the trip distribution ' estimates ) indicates that a higher private share of costs for the S 192/196 , S 224/228 and S 277th Corridors can be ' justified. 7 . Even with additional mitigation-derived private sector , contributions , there will still be some significant funding shortfalls for Green River Valley projects . 8 . A Road Service District (RSD) or Transportation Benefit ' District (TBD) for the Valley would have a statutory debt capacity of about $50 million. In addition, LID' s could be formed. A TBD or RSD could serve as a powerful tool for ' permitting the private sector to help insure that the construction of the Extraordinary Projects (which are essential to the private sector) can proceed in a timely ' manner. 9 . City bond issues also hold potential . They have not been used much in the past , but they could be especially useful for ' funding the project segments that are not in the Valley. These include Puget-Edmonds in Renton ( total cost $15 million, shortfall $13 . 5 million) and the S 200th Connector in Kent ' ( total cost $3 million, shortfall $2 . 3 million ) . Bond funds could also be used to contribute a share of the cost for projects that are mostly funded through mitigation payments or through a Green River Valley RSD/TBD. 10 . Area-wide improvement districts are difficult to form, but may be applicable in places . The Tukwila Central Business District (CBD) is one location that might be able to use an area-wide LID to fund some of the Extraordinary Projects . 11 . The segments of S 277th to the east of the Green River Valley ' may be especially difficult to fund. They are expensive and not well-suited to the private funding mechanisms discussed for the Valley. ' 28 PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS KING SUBREGION Seattle Steilacoom Mayor Charles Royer Coun.Peter Pedone Algona Coun.George Benson ' Coun.Sue Langley Coun. Virginia Galle Sumner Auburn Coun,Jeanette Williams Coun.Pearl Mance Mayor Bob Roegner Snoqualmis Tacoma Beaux Arts Village Coun,Darwin Sukut Mayor Doug Sutherland Coun,Robin Stefan Coun,Ruth Mc:Elliott Tukwila Coun.Tom Stenger Bellevue Coun.Mabel Harris Mayor Cary Bozeman Coun,Doris Phelps Coun. Nan Campbell SNOHOMISH SUBREGION KITSAP SUBREGION Arlington Bothell Mayor John C. Larson Coun.Walt Wojcik Bremerton Mayor Gene Lobe Edmonds Clyde Hill Coun.Spencer Horning Mayor Larry Naughten Coun.Roger Shaeffer Coun, Mary Lou Long Everett ' Des Moines Kitsap County Coun. Ed Morrow Mayor Pat DeBlasio Comm.Ray Aardal Coun.Connie Niva Comm.John Horsley Duvall Comm.BN Mahan Lake Stevens Coun. Paul Reddick Mayor Richard Toyer Coun.Ruth Subert Port Orchard Mayor Jay Weatherill Lynnwood Enumclaw Mayor M.J.Hrdlicka Coun.Gaye Veenhuizen Poulsbo Mayor Richard Mitchusson Marysville Issaquah Coun.Chris Endresen Coun.Rita Matheny Coun.Darlene McHenry Suquamish Tribe Mill Creek Kent John Bagley Coun. Linda Blumenstein Coun.Jon Johnson Winslow Monroe King County Mayor Alice Tawresey Mayor Gordon Tjerne County Exec,Tim Hill Coun.Gary Grant Mountlake Terrace Coun.Audrey Gruger PIERCE SUBREGION Mayor Lois Anderson Coun, Bruce Laing Bonney Lake Coun. Lois North Coun,[Robert Hawkins Mukilteo Coun.Bill Reams Mayor Ernory Cole Buckley Kirkland Mayor Eugene Robertson Snohomish Mayor Doris Cooper Mayor Ann Averill DuPont ' Lake Forest Park Mayor Pole Andre Snohomish County Mayor Dick Rainforth County Exec.Willis Tucker Fife Coun.Bruce Agnew Mercer Island Mayor Robert Mizukami Coun.Brian Corcoran Coun,Verne Lewis Fircrest Stanwood Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Mayor Larry Cavanaugh Coun,Robert Lunn Exec.Director Virginia Cross Gig Harbor The Tulalip Tribes Normandy Park Coun,Jim Ryan Chair,Staniey Jones,Sr. 'I Coun.Norm Strange Milt Dn Woodway North Bend Coun. Dianne Simmons Mayor Jeannette Wood Mayor Obe Healea Pierce County Redmond County Exec.Joe Stortini Mayor Doreen Marchione Coun.Charles Gorden Coun,Margaret Doman Coun.Bill Stoner r' Renton Puyallup ICoun.Kathy Keolker Coun, Ken Martin