Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA99-176 ",-MIS, _ CITY J3F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner;Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator March 7, 2000 • • Mr. Michael Smith Purcell Smith Adams 4211 —200th Street NW,#202 Lynnwood,WA 98036 • ' SUBJECT: ' 1999 Transporation Element and CFP Amendments Project No. LUA-99-176,ECF,CPA Dear Mr. Smith: This letter is to inform you that the comment and appeal periods have ended for the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non-Significance for the above-referenced project. • No appeals were filed on the ERC determination. This decision is final. If you have any questions,please feel free to contact me at(425)430-6581. For the Environmental Review Committee, 0.&14 (/).- Donald Erickson }��P • Project Manager • • FINAL 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 • • :: This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer <:<::<:•:: <<<::•::«<:<<;:>:<>::>:•«:<::«::«<::«<:;::<>«:::;:::::::;:;< :AFIBAViT t3F€SEiR1f .. . On the to) day of Febw.saddti , 2000, I deposited in the mails of the United States,. a sealed envelope containing cAt, act-evwx katirrvt S documents. This information was sent to: • Department of Ecology KC Dept.of Development&Environmental Services KC Wastewater Treatment Division City of Kent Washington Department of Fisheries City of Newcastle Department of Natural Resources Lincoln Property Company WA Department of Transportation Seattle Public Utilities Duwamish Indian Tribe Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Puget Sound Energy US Army Corp.of Engineers (Signature of Sender) 50..Vw.11t- (C. S-cc...e t' STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that. 14 taAtk 9 e ti signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act fore uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated `. 1�v ?�iat� MARILYN KAMCHEFF CHEFF 1 Notary Public and for the State of ghington NOTARY PUBLIC Notary (Print) RILYN ItAMCHEFF • e STATE OF WASHINGTON My appointmer 3N§NZMEN -Cvomfis;-6,20 0 COMMISSION EXPIRES DUNE 2g, 2003 Project Name: 11611 —111UASpo rtdiUrn tlernevit and CFI') nyal t W C d Project Number: L.Uf'P. qq. I-I(o, NOTARYI.DOC i d CITY Yi i RENTON . .,�,>.., j 1 NA 4 '` Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator February 17, 2000 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia,WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC)on February 15,2000: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE 1999 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT AND CFP AMENDMENTS LUA-99-176,ECF,CPA City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA)to the 1999 Transportation Element(Plan)and to the 1999 Transportation Capital Facilities Plan of the Capital Facilities Plan Element. The Transportation Element's Summary has been expanded to explain that it coordinates transportation projects with other relevant projects in other jurisdictions and the region. A number of individual policies have been revised and a new policy on access management added. The changes to the Capital Facilities Plan Element include numerous edits updating the old 1995-2000 Plan to a new 2000-2005 Plan. New transportation system improvements have been listed for this time period along with their anticipated total project costs. One of these includes a proposed HOV transit corridor on Shattuck Ave. So.through the City's South Burnett neighborhood and would include an underpass or overpass across the BNSFRR right-of-way in the northwest corner of this neighborhood. A similar transit corridor is proposed for Strander Boulevard to be implemented in conjunction with the Renton/Tukwila commuter rail station. • Location: Citywide. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, March 06,2000.Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from'the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)- 430-6510. If you have questions, please call me at(425)430-6581. For the Environmental Review Committ C:=1)Donalickson Project Manager • cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Larry Fisher, Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources Don Hurter, Department of Transportation , Eric Swenson, Seattle Public Utilities Duwamish Tribal Office Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Joe Jainga, Puget Sound Energy agencyltr' 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 Ial This nanar r•.nntains CO.;recvclnri matarial 90°-rv.0,..,.^.•,ram, %y ritSt CITY F RENTON .. . Planning/Building/Public Works Department I Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator February 17, 2000 TO: Parties of Record SUBJECT: 1999 Transporation Element and CFP Amendments Project No. LUA-99-176,ECF,CPA Dear Resident: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to inform you that they have completed their review of the environmental impacts of the above-referenced project. The Committee, on February 15, 2000, decided that this project will be issued a Determination of Non- Significance (DNS). The City of Renton ERC has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made by the ERC under the authority of Section 4-6-6, Renton Municipal Code, after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information, on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, March 06, 2000. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call meat(425)430-6581. For the Environmental Review Commi e, Jr. ' Dona on Project Manager dnsletter 1055 South�� Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 6R1 This oaoer contains 50%recycled material.20%oost consumer • CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM Date: February 17, 2000 To: Robert Mahn/Transportation Systems ' From Donald Erickson/EDNSP Division ti-t)co Subject: 1999 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT AND CFP AMENDMENTS Project No. LUA-99-176,ECF,CPA This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to inform you that • they have completed their review of the environmental impacts of the above-referenced project. The Committee, on February 15, 2000, decided that your project will be issued a Determination of Non- Significance. The City of Renton ERC has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made by the ERC under the authority of Section 4-6-6, Renton Municipal Code, after review of a completed'environmental checklist and other information, on file with the lead agency. This information is'available to the public on request. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, March 06, 2000L Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. If you have any questions, please contact me at 430-6581. dnsmemo , p; CITY F RENTON ..tL Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator February 17, 2000 • TO: Parties of Record • SUBJECT: 1999 Transporation Element and CFP Amendments Project No. LUA-99-176,ECF,CPA Dear Resident:. This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to inform you that they have completed their review of the environmental impacts of the above-referenced project. The Committee, on February 15; 2000, decided that this project will.be issued 'a Determination of Non Significance (DNS). The.City of Renton ERC,has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment.'. An Environmental Impact Statement'(EIS) is not required;under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c).'. This'decision was made by the ERC under the authority of Section.4-6-6, Renton Municipal.Code, after review of a completed environmental checklist and other'information, on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request.. ' Appeals of the environmental'determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, March 06, 2000. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton,'1055 South Grady Way, Renton, ,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed 'by , City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-1.1 B. Additional information regarding the.appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. . ' If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above; please call me at(425)430-6581. For the Environmental Review Commi e, ' • Dona • on Project Manager • dnsletter 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 ' .,: This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer . ' • • ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION' • POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION I PROJECT NAME: 1999 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT AND CFP AMENDMENTS I PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-as-176.ECF.CPA I ' City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendments(CPA)to the 1999 Transportation Element(Plan)and to the 1999 Transportation Capital Facilities Plan of the Capital Facilities Plan,Element.1 The Transportation Element's Summery has been expanded to explain that it coordinates transportation projects with other relevant projects In other jurisdictions and the region.A number of Individual policies have been revised and a new policy on access management added.The changes to the Capital Facilities Plan Element Include numerous edits updating the old 1995-2000 Plan to a new 2000-2005 Plan: New I transportation system Improvements have been listed for this time period along with their anticipated total project costs.One of these Includes a proposed HOV transit corridor on Shattuck Ave.So.through the City's South Burnes neighborhood'end would Include an underpass or overpass across the BNSFRR right-of-way In the northwest corner of this neighborhood. A similar transit corridor Is proposed for Strander Boulevard to be Implemented in conjunction with the Renton/Tukwila commuter rag'station. LocaUom City Wide. ' THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RC)(E HAS DETERMINED , THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ' I ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed In writing on or before 5:00 PM,March 06,2000. 1 Appeals must ha filed In writing together witthe required$75.00 application fee with:Hearing Examiner,City of Renton,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 90055. Appeals to the Examiner ere governed by City of Renton Municipal Codo Section 4-41B.Additional Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)430-6510. ' 1 • I 1 I ' 1 I • 1 1 • 1 I I I 1I , CERTIFICATION , I, tU .� l� hereby.certify that .i copies of the above document w re posted by me in cons icuous places on or nearby 41 0/' errs or z D ,/ Signed: ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me,a Nortary Public, in;and for the State of Washington residing in }<�,(t f3.- ,on the• l rt-' day of �.�~J 26 e o ' AMre 4C � MARILY c' dKHE FF ®TARYNUBLlC `�� l as' STATE OF UU�ASHI(�GTON COMMISSION EXPIRES' p JUNE 28,2003 IIRARILYN KAMCHEFF MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES:6-29-03 • I IJP- AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Charlotte Ann Kassens first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the . SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 a daily newspaper published seven (7)times a week. Said newspaper is a legal NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months . DETERMINATION prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County RENTON,WASHINGTON Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the The Environmental Review_Committee (ERC)has issued a Determination of Non- State of Washington for King County. Significance for the following project under The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County the authority of the Renton Municipal Journal not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers Code. (andpP g Y 1999 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a I AND CFP AMENDMENTS - I LUA-99-176,ECF,CPA Comprehensive Plan Amendments(CPA) 1999 Transportation Element&CFP Amendments 1 to the 1999 Transportation Capital Facilities Plan of the Capital Facilities Pfan Element. Location:Citywide. as published on: 2/21/00 ! Appeals of the environmental determina-° F tion must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM,March 06,2000.Appeals must be The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$40.25, I filed in writing together with the required charged to Acct. No. 8051067. $75.00 application fee with: Hearing C Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals Legal Number 7229 to the Examiner are governed by City of - , Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8711 B.1 Additional information regarding the appeal ' process may be obtained.from the Renton --- --- — --- —------— --- —— — — — r — — — City Clerk's Office,(425)-430-6510. — — — — —— I,Publication Date: February 21,2000 Legal Cler , S ounty 'ourn ' ' Published in the South County Journal February 21,2000.7229 Subscribed and sworn before me on this o'er day of'7,c..a 0, , 2000 @@@@@9m a ppp, • ., o ,1,.._ .�a • ;Q 6 fj r mot.,,o ` Lc'�,�411�"^ TiA'•-• / �'/4 , i'° GG �� rn �-�� o Notary Public of the State of Washington ':.-a p&-2 L �� cs;' a residing in Renton s`P;•. o•- -4.- King County, Washington 'lie/ R. /GSosp@,00a NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. 1999 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT AND CFP AMENDMENTS LUA-99-176,ECF,CPA Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA)to the 1999 Transportation Capital Facilities Plan of the Capital Facilities Plan Element. Location: Citywide. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, March 06, 2000. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. Publication Date: February 21,2000 Account No. 51067 dnspub • STAFF City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE February 15,2000 Project Name 1999 Transportation Element Amendments to Comprehensive Plan Applicant Lee Haro,Transportation Division,P/B/PWs Department, City of Renton File Number LUA-99-176, CPA,ECF Project Manager Don Erickson Project Description City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA) to the 1999 Transportation Element (Plan) and to the 1999 Transportation Capital Facilities Plan of the Capital Facilities Plan Element. The Transportation Element's Summary has been expanded to explain that it coordinates transportation projects with other relevant projects in other jurisdictions and the region. A number of'individual policies have been revised and a new policy on access management added. j The changes to the Capital Facilities Plan Element include numerous edits updating the old 1995-2000 Plan to a new 2000- 2005 Plan. New transportation system improvements have been listed for this time period along with their anticipated total project costs. One of these includes a proposed HOV transit corridor in central Renton connecting the Park&Ride on SW Grady to the Transit Center on Burnett and points north. A similar transit corridor is proposed for Strander Boulevard to be implemented in conjunction with the Renton/Tukwila commuter rail station. Project Location City-wide Exist. Bldg.Area gsf Not Applicable(NA) Proposed New Bldg.Area gsf NA Site Area NA Total Building Area gsf NA RECOMMENDATION Staff Recommend that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-significance for this proposed non-project action noting that specific projects identified in the Transportation Element and Capital Facilities Plan will have to comply with SEPA at the project scale. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the.proposal, staff recommend that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED. X Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 da A..eal Period. Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period with Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period followed Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. by a 14 day Appeal Period. • 99 Trans.Element ERC reprt.doc " City'ofRenton EDNSP Department E nental Review Committee Staff Report 1999 Transportation Element and Capital Facilities Plan Comp Plan Amendments LUA-99-176,CPA,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF FEBRUARY 15,2000 Page2 of 2 Advisory Notes to Applicant: • The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only,they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development? As noted above this is anon-projectaction that will have no direct environmental impacts and, in fact,many of the proposed transportation improvements identified in the 1999 Transportation Element and Capital Facilities Plan amendments are intended to mitigate transportation impacts and are funded in plait by the City's transportation mitigation fee. These identified projects will have to comply with SEPA at the project level. D. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable,these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. _X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. i Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. 99 Trans.Element ERC reprt.doc to • City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: P oAXCt. COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 3, 2000 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-176,ECF,CPA DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 20, 2000 APPLICANT: City of Renton/Transportation Systems Division PROJECT MANAGER: Donald Erickson PROJECT TITLE: 1999 Transportation Element Amendments WORK ORDER NO: 78635 LOCATION: City Wide SITE AREA: N/A I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA)to the 1999 Transportation Element(Plan) and to the 1999 Transportation Capital Facilities Plan of the Capital Facilities Plan Element. The Transportation Element's Summary has been expanded to explain that it coordinates transportation projects with other relevant projects in other jurisdictions and the region. A number of individual policies have been revised and a new policy on access management added. The changes to the Capital Facilities Plan Element include numerous edits updating the old 1995-2000 Plan to a new 2000-2005 Plan. New transportation system improvements have been listed for this time period along with their anticipated total project costs. One of these includes a proposed HOV transit corridor on Shattuck Ave. So. through the City's South Burnett neighborhood and would include an underpass or overpass across the BNSFRR right-of-way in the northwest corner of this neighborhood. A similar transit corridor is proposed for Strander Boulevard to be implemented in conjunction with the Renton/Tukwila commuter rail station. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation • Environmental Health Public Services • Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet jjo B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. _q e Z. 2. ?_c1— . Signature of Director or Afuthbrized Representative Date Rre iti nn Rev.10/93 411111 • City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL. & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: � juK.LJA/ COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 3, 2000 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-176,ECF,CPA DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 20,2000 APPLICANT: City of Renton/Transportation Systems Division PROJECT MANAGER:I Donald Erickson PROJECT TITLE: 1999 Transportation Element Amendments WORK ORDER NO: 78635 LOCATION: City Wide SITE AREA: N/A I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA)to the 1999 Transportation Element(Plan) and to the 1999 Transportation Capital Facilities Plan of the Capital Facilities Plan Element.The Transportation Element's Summary has been expanded to explain that it coordinates transportation projects with other relevant projects in other jurisdictions and the region. A number of individual policies have been revised and a new policy on access management added. The changes to the Capital Facilities Plan Element include numerous edits updating the old 1995-2000 Plan to a new 2000-2005 Plan. New transportation system improvements have been listed for this time period along with their anticipated total project costs. One of these includes a proposed HOV transit corridor on Shattuck Ave.So.through the City's South Burnett neighborhood and would include an underpass or overpass across the BNSFRR right-of-way in the northwest corner of this neighborhood. A similar transit corridor is proposed for Strander Boulevard to be implemented in conjunction with the Renton/Tukwila commuter rail station. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing I Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services I Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet �SpeCI C vUJ e its tit.)r c( f—eq,lt,,y, ,sh_ U1 B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS II C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS NWe have,reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or area re a ditional information i ed d to erly assess this proposal. 243 r" Signature ector or A ed Representative Date City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public,Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Twe e.1V (ate COMMENTS DUE:cFE-BRUARY 3;"2000 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-176,ECF,CPA DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 20,2000 APPLICANT: City of Renton/Transportation Systems Division PROJECT MANAGER: Donald Erickson Rril9 PROJECT TITLE: 1999 Transportation Element Amendments WORK ORDER NO: 78635 �-�- LOCATION: City Wide JAN2 g 9Q0f� SITE AREA: N/A I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A f�rr ,,����.\\yy``le , , e--,``r,r SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendments(CPA)to the 1999 Tr�g Pirt�trorIbmertt(man) and to the 1999 Transportation Capital Facilities Plan of the Capital Facilities Plan Element. The Transportation Element's Summary has been expanded to explain that it coordinates transportation projects with other relevant projects in other jurisdictions and the region. A number of individual policies have been revised and a new policy on access management added. The changes to the Capital Facilities Plan Element include numerous edits updating the old 1995-2000 Plan to a new 2000-2005 Plan. New transportation system improvements have been listed for this time period along with their anticipated total project costs. One of these includes a proposed HOV transit corridor,on Shattuck Ave.So.through the City's South Burnett neighborhood and would include an underpass or overpass across the BNSFRR right-of-way in.the northwest corner of this;neighborhood. A similar transit corridor is proposed for Strander Boulevard to be implemented in conjunction with the Renton/Tukwila commuter rail station. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment; 10,000 Feet �JJ 14,000 Feet /V� B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS / We have re jiewed this applicatio ith particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas whe p additional infommati needed to properly assess this proposal. a4/14.Le. --/./ 0 6. Sign: e of Director or Authorized Rey esentative Date Pm din Rev.10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: pkaAn R -Ule,,) -1 l V' COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 3, 2000 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-176,ECF,CPA DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 20,2000 APPLICANT: City of RentonlTransportation Systems Division PROJECT MANAGER: Donald Erickson PROJECT TITLE: 1999 Transportation Element Amendments WORK ORDER NO: 78635 coy.OF REN'EP'oq LOCATION: City Wide SITE AREA: N/A I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A B 02 2000 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendments(CPA)to the 1999 Trq p�I��qq t Plan) and to the 1999 Transportation Capital Facilities Plan of the Capital Facilities Plan Element. The Transportatiio� Li bfR ry has been expanded to explain that it coordinates transportation projects with other relevant projects in other jurisdictions and the region. A number of individual policies have been revised and a new policy on access management added. The changes to the Capital Facilities.Plan Element include numerous edits updating the old 1995-2000 Plan to a new 2000-2005 Plan. New transportation system improvements have been listed for this time period along with their anticipated total project costs. One of these includes a proposed HOV transit corridor on Shattuck Ave.So.through the City's South Burnett neighborhood and would include an underpass or overpass across the BNSFRR right-of-way in the northwest corner of this.neighborhood. A similar transit corridor is proposed for Strander Boulevard to be implemented in conjunction with the RentonlTukwila commuter rail station. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare - Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities _ Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS 10o G2;M144-ev We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. GI',/Gr 273/© Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Rnufinn Rev_10/93 r_ I r • ' ____ _ City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: a,U COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 3, 2000 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-176,ECF,CPA DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 20,2000 APPLICANT: City of Renterportation Systems Division PROJECT MANAGER: Donald Erickson ..--- PROJECT TITLE: 1999 Transportation Element Amendments WORK ORDER NO: 78635 • LOCATION: City Wide SITE AREA: N/A I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendments(CPA)to the 1999 Transportation Element(Plan) and to the 1999 Transportation Capital Facilities Plan of the Capital Facilities Plan Element. The Transportation Element's Summary has been expanded to explain that it coordinates transportation projects with other relevant projects in other jurisdictions and the region. A number of individual policies have been revised and a new policy on access management added. The changes to the Capital Facilities Plan Element include numerous edits updating the old 1995-2000 Plan to a new 2000-2005 Plan. New transportation system improvements have been listed for this time period along with their anticipated total project costs. One of these includes a proposed HOV transit corridor on Shattuck Ave.So.through the City's South Burnett neighborhood and would include an underpass or overpass across the BNSFRR right-of-way in the northwest corner of this neighborhood. A similar transit corridor is proposed for Strander Boulevard to be implemented in conjunction with the Renton/Tukwila commuter rail station. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare - , Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services _ Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation - Airport Environment ' 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 72U ram- R cAe ct 7&1 .�&./1;31. "f _ 2 7 ' 2V C/lefr7r: B. POLICY-RELATED-CO/ e?MENTS L C �a `� /7� /C little Ta / Tl- ��,Cc� G0 . Lack_...ri-Aej1;74—, c��cU .r� G 4.. ithtQc. !y� cr/r e • ����v��i° —Le „.3 ,ism 9 �2� ��.- /?��-ri T /t7r;4 ,.e vi i A c�/> f' • , ILt 42/11 . - tip= eo9 •e/ "----- i /. - -- i I!'_ _ .a _ ,_ • ` t Yd. ,/ / U 1 /!, id__••/.T. Alr /,/i/! C. CQDE-RELATED COMMENTS' ,� l�/L frt.40 't- *Fr7 • AI d -CP • - /l ej 412,0,1 fMQ.� a 4 caj , 6 ia2../a.n. 4, ' i , "/(?, 91(..) ar? cc-ns tti a -Li.. _e Qaot/2 "17We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we'have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to property assess this proposal. A,a 771) SignatDirector, or Authorized Reprove Date /02, Routing 1 Rev.10/93 City of R'b....;.. Department of Planning/Building/Public ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 1iV gpO#5 COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 3, 2000 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-176,ECF,CPA DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 2 .��pop�p0 QEVELOPMLN► SERVICES APPLICANT: City of Renton/Transportation Systems Division PROJECT MANAGER: Donald Erickson CITY QF RFtiTOR9 PROJECT TITLE: 1999 Transportation Element Amendments WORK ORDER NO: 78635 JAN 21 2000 LOCATION: City Wide SITE AREA: N/A BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A ECFNif n SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendments(CPA)to the 1999 Transportation Element(Plan) and to the 1999 Transportation Capital Facilities Plan of the Capital Facilities Plan Element. The Transportation Element's Summary has been expanded to explain that it coordinates transportation projects with other relevant projects in other jurisdictions and the region. A number of individual policies have been revised and a new policy on access management added. The changes to the Capital Facilities Plan Element include numerous edits updating the old 1995-2000 Plan to a new 2000-2005 Plan. New transportation system improvements have been listed for this time period along with their anticipated total project costs. One of these includes a proposed HOV transit corridor on Shattuck Ave.So.through the City's South Burnett neighborhood and would include an underpass or overpass across the BNSFRR right-of-way in the northwest corner of this neighborhood. A similar transit corridor is proposed for Strander Boulevard to be implemented in conjunction with the Renton/Tukwila commuter rail station. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS ;Jo e.ovLf 44 f,(,7 We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. 1)ji(4a ./iC4 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date , Routing Rev.10/93 • City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 54 Le_ COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 3, 2000 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-176,ECF,CPA DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 2RM-OPMENT SERVICES +Cl l Y 06-RENTON APPLICANT: City of Renton/Transportation Systems Division PROJECT MANAGER: Donald Erickson PROJECT TITLE: 1999 Transportation Element Amendments WORK ORDER NO: 78635 JAN 21 2000 LOCATION: City Wide LlilECEIVED SITE AREA: N/A BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendments(CPA)to the 1999 Transportation Element(Plan) and to,the 1999 Transportation Capital Facilities Plan of the Capital Facilities Plan Element. The Transportation Element's Summary has been expanded to explain that it coordinates transportation projects with other relevant projects in other jurisdictions and the region. A number of individual policies have been revised and a new policy on access management added. The changes to the Capital Facilities Plan Element include numerous edits updating the old 1995-2000 Plan to a new 2000-2005 Plan. New transportation system improvements have been listed for this time period along with their anticipated total project costs. One of these includes a proposed HOV transit corridor on Shattuck Ave. So.through the City's South Burnett neighborhood and would include an underpass or overpass across the BNSFRR right-of-way in the northwest corner of this neighborhood. A similar transit corridor is proposed for Strander Boulevard to be implemented in conjunction with the Renton/Tukwila commuter rail station. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing _ Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation _. Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS/ IUD Go(T/l►1/1-2 Wl - We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional inf rmation is needed to properly assess this proposal. taV 1/2 /0C) Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Routina Rev.10/93 r1 I City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: CoAmc\-- tv S-E '\RceJ3 COMMENTS DUE: FEBRUARY 3, 2000 APPLICATION NO: LUA-99-176,ECF,CPA DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 20,2000 APPLICANT: City of Renton/Transportation Systems Division PROJECT MANAGER: Donald PfiligrOPMENT SERVICES t:ITYOERENTON PROJECT TITLE: 1999 Transportation Element Amendments WORK ORDER NO: 78635 LOCATION: City Wide JAN 21 MU SITE AREA: N/A I BUILDING AREA(gross): N/A RECEIVED SUMMARY.OF PROPOSAL: City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendments(CPA)to the 1999 Transportation Element(Plan) and to the 1999 Transportation Capital Facilities Plan of the Capital Facilities Plan Element. The Transportation Element's Summary has been expanded to explain that it coordinates transportation projects with other relevant projects in other jurisdictions and the region. A number of individual policies have been revised and a new policy on access management added. The changes to the Capital Facilities Plan Element include numerous edits updating the old 1995-2000 Plan to a new 2000-2005 Plan. New transportation system improvements have been listed for this time period along with their anticipated total project costs. One of these includes a proposed HOV transit corridor on Shattuck Ave.So.through the City's South Burnett neighborhood and would include an underpass or overpass across the BNSFRR right-of-way in the northwest corner of this neighborhood. A similar transit corridor is proposed for Strander Boulevard to be implemented in conjunction with the Renton/Tukwila commuter rail station. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the : Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics L _ Water Light/Glare - Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use _ Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS fr/a IVG5 C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS ,t16 We have viewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas w re additional information is eeded to properly assess this proposal. pv • nature of Dir tor or Au orized epre ntative Date Routina Rev.10/93 — -a• y > 'ti� �� - - Environmental Documents that - -- Evaluato the Proposed Protect: Final and Supplemental EIS for Renton's 1995 Comp Plan and Zoning Code. � • Development Regulations TT° Used For Project Mitigation: NA Proposed Mitigation Measures: Not applicable_for this non-project action NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Donald Erickson,AICP, Project Manager, Development Services Division,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on February 3,2000. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail,contact DATE: January 20,2000 the Project Manager.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-t76,ECF,CPA APPLICATION NAME: 1999 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT AND CFP AMENDMENTS CONTACT PERSON: DON ERICKSON (425)430-6581 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA) to the 1999 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION , Transportation Element(Plan)and to the 1999 Transportation Capital Facilities Plan of the Capital Facilities Plan Element. The Transportation Element's Summary has been expanded to explain that It coordinates transportation projects with other relevant projects in other jurisdictions and the region.A number of individual policies have been revised and a new policy on access management added. The changes to the Capital Facilities Plan Element include numerous edits updating the old 1995-2000 Plan to a new 2000-2005 Plan.New transportation system Improvements have been listed for this time period along with their anticipated total project costs.One of these Includes'a proposed HOV transit corridor on Shattuck Ave.So.through the Citys South Burnett neighborhood and would Include an underpass or overpass across the BNSFRR right-of-way N the northwest corner of this neighborhood. A similar transit corridor is proposed for Strander Boulevard to be Implemented in conjunction with the Rentonf7ukwla commuter ral station. PROJECT LOCATION: CITY WIDE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS,M):As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental Impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project.Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS(M)process to give notice that a DNS-M Is likely to be Issued.Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are Integrated into a single comment period.There will be no comment period following the Issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated(DNS-M).A 14-day appeal period will follow the Issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: December 15,1999 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: January 20,2000 ' PermitslReview Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review Other Permits which may be required: Subsequent project level reviews and permits as required. Requested Studies: Transportation Analysis • Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing scheduled for Renton Planning In Renton Council Chambers at a date to be announced.Planning Commission hearings are held on the 7th floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 Grady Way South and typically begins at 7:00 PM. . CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Analytical process Project consistency refers to whether a project is consistent with adopted and applicable development regulations,or in thew absence,comprehensive plan policies.RCW 38.70B.110(2)(g)provides that the Notice of Application(NOA)Include a statement of the preliminary determination of a project's consistency with the type of land use,level of development, infrastructure,and character of development if one has been made at the time of notice.At a minimum,every NOA shall Include a determination of the project's consistency with the zoning,comprehensive plan and development regulations. Land Uso: Proposals would update Renton's 1995 Comprehensive Plan and identified improvements will be evaluated for land use compatibility at both the policy and project levels. • { r NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION.Eoe r!• NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION.bcc CERTIFICATION I, '1;7940 , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted by me in 5 cons ' uous places on• or nearby the described property of a • • • • Signe • ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me, a Nortary Public, and for the State of • Washington residing ll „a,�y�� , on the 2- '- day o •' too 0 4 MARILYN KAMCHEFF '1 NOTARY PUBLIC 7� ,fit cAte JU 4 STATE OF WASHINGTON d COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 29,2003 MARILYN KAMCHEFF MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES:6-29-03 • _'Y O '��NT�� NOTICE OF APPLICATION . AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DATE: January 20,2000 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-99-176,ECF,CPA APPLICATION NAME: 1999 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT AND CFP AMENDMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA) to the 1999 Transportation Element(Plan)and to the 1999 Transportation Capital Facilities Plan of the Capital Facilities Plan Element. The Transportation Element's Summary has been expanded to explain that it coordinates transportation(projects with other relevant projects in other jurisdictions and the region. A number of individual policies have been revised and a new policy on access management added. The changes to the Capital Facilities Plan Element include numerous edits updating the old 1995-2000 Plan to a new 2000-2005 Plan. New transportation system improvements have been listed for this time period along with their anticipated total project costs. One of these includes a proposed HOV transit corridor on Shattuck Ave.So.through the City's South Burnett neighborhood and would include an underpass or overpass across the BNSFRR right-of-way in the northwest corner of this neighborhood. A similar transit corridor is proposed for Strander Boulevard to be implemented in conjunction with the Renton/Tukwila commuter rail station. PROJECT LOCATION: CITY WIDE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS,M): As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS(M)process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: December 15,1999 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: January 20,2000 S `,/ Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review Other Permits which may be required: Subsequent project level reviews and permits as required. Requested Studies: Transportation Analysis Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing scheduled for Renton Planning in Renton Council Chambers at a date to be announced. Planning Commission hearings are held on the 7th floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 Grady Way South and typically begins at 7:00 PM. . CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Analytical process Project consistency refers to whether a project is consistent with adopted and applicable development regulations,or in their absence,comprehensive plan policies. RCW 36.70B.110(2)(g)provides that the Notice of Application(NOA)include a statement of the preliminary determination of a project's consistency with the type of land use,level of development, infrastructure,and character of development if one has been made at the time of notice. At a minimum,every NOA shall include a determination of the project's consistency with the zoning,comprehensive plan and development regulations. Land Use: Proposals would update Renton's 1995 Comprehensive Plan and identified improvements will be evaluated for land use compatibility at both the policy and project levels. � I NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION.doc ,,. Environmental Documents that Etaluate the Proposed Project: Final and Supplemental EIS for Renton's 1995 Comp Plan and Zoning Code. Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: NA Proposed Mitigation Measures: Not applicable for this non-project action Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Donald Erickson, AICP, Project Manager, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on February 3,2000. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail,contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: DON ERICKSON (425)430-6581 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION • • • • • 7 NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION.doc ��; :>3. EVt .. ... . .. .... + :.: :• :•`:'::::::::::::::2:::::::'':::;;::i::s :':::::: :;;;:::;+:;:; :::;:;;:::::::::::::::::::x::;;:;::::::;:+•'.::�i:::::::i::i:::::::i::i::....... rot. �` • • �::::::::.:::::4::•i:•yw:::::::.:�:::::::::::::.�:::::::::::i:•}}i;::::::::::. : :::::i :.i: �: :::::. ::} .i .. : .iiiiv;: ,.1W,,.,. r•..ay.P....r �4�i}}(.��....iy'.�,,`{{..v:ayx�.33.:,�.�ay��`.•x4.�.dd.}'^_1{.::::::::::::: • • ute:;:::.fi;thefe:;t$nnor�Than;nt►s:;I��at;;o.W,.nar�;:,t�sse:attact :ori:add(tiortel: natar)ied;Master.Appitastkitaar.each iwoar. .: PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: • NAME: 1999 Amendments to Transportation See Below Element of the Comprehensive Plan PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: ADDRESS: City-wide CITY: ZIP: KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): Not Applicable TELEPHONE NUMBER: EXISTING LAND USE(S): Not li....................... .. Applicable e PROPOSED LAND USES: NAME: City of Renton Transportation Systems Division Not Applicable COMPANY(if applicable): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Not Applicable ADDRESS: City Hall , 5th Fl oor PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): 1005 South Grady Wav Not Applicable CITY: Renton, WA ZIP: 98055 EXISTING ZONING: • Not Applicable TELEPHONE NUMBER: • PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): No t Applicable li cable SITE AREA (SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE): NAME: Robert Mahn, Transportation Systems City-wide COMPANY(if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: Not Applicable ADDRESS: City Hall , 5th Floor IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? 1005 South Grady Way Not Applicable CITY: Renton, WA ZIP` 98055 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE.AREA?. _ ;_ TELEPHONE NUMBER: NOt' Appl i cabl e ('425) 430-7322 4, a h,.. t> f necessar. <:::<: ::<::::::<::::;«:>::::»»�:<::: > � ......:...........:;:.................. .. 1 .::: > CA1.R' :..�:i1E> F PRCIPERT`'f :Att : h ` i «..�.�.�t..>tf..rt . . :.;;:.;;::::.;;:.;:.:;:.:.;:.;;:.:.::;:;:::;.:.LEA..... ..11rS. . ....................:............................................t...................... ........................................................................ . :::.......:::::::::......::: :. .......... • Not Applicable • • -.<• y> a ff:>will<:: : r:.f t f : <:::>:>:>:<:»::>::»:»:>:»:>:>:» >::>;: :::<:: :::»:::<:::::>::>::>::><::<::::<::::::::::»»:<:�. es t. at.a . ... .....G.. . :.:sty..................•de#....�m.....e....�e�............................................... /ANNEXATION $ SUBDIVISION: ✓COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT(Text)$ N/A • _ REZONE $ _ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT• $ _ SPECIAL PERMIT $ _ SHORT PLAT $ _TEMPORARY PERMIT $ _TENTATIVE PLAT $ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ _ PRELIMINARY PLAT $ SITE PLAN APPROVAL $ _ — FINAL PLAT 5 GRADE & FILL PERMIT $ •• (NO. CU. YDS: ) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ _VARIANCE $ (FROM SECTION: ) _ PRELIMINARY _WAIVER $ _ FINAL _WETLAND PERMIT $ _ ROUTINE VEGETATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ _ BINDING SITE PLAN $ . SHORELINE REVIEWS: _ SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ _ CONDITIONAL USE $ _VARIANCE $ _ EXEMPTION $No Charge ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ REVISION $ • I, (Print Name) N/'A , declare that I am (please check one)_the owner of the property involved in this application,_the authorized representative to act for the property owner (please attach proof of authorization), and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. / E E 1-10911-0 P1 anning & Programming ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public,in and for the State of residing at Supervisor (Name of Owner/Representative) , on the day of 19 (Si nature of 0 ner/Representative) (Signature of Notary Public) ha. ..s�c.t..t*..t ..�. ....�tn l. . . :::::.�::.::::::. ::. .:. .:.:.• � ,.. .......A.....AAb.;::.;;�s�::.::.::.cA�p:.s.:::::c,��-:�:::.:>c�:. :::»�u-�::>::>:::�t�.��l::>::. ::::::�)�«:::>::::>::::>::::>::>:: :>f > 'SN > .................:...�::::.�::::::.:::.:.�:747'A�.:P.�:STA:...:..::.::R....:..:.:..:...D.:::::.:.....t��....:.::...:.....:..:.:.....:...:............:.................... MASTERAP.DOC REVISED 8/9-7 . Transportation Element— 1999 Amendments Project Narrative This project proposes amendments: 1) to the definitions of Principal, Minor, and Collector Arterials to reflect the latest State and federal accept functional classification definitions; 2) to the 20-year (1995-2015) list of improvements in the Arterial and HOV Plans to reflect the City of Renton's adopted 2000-2005 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and to reflect new information regarding State, regional and other local jurisdictions' transportation plans; 3) to the Finance Chapter to reflect the City's 2000-2005 Six-Year TIP; 4) to the Freight Chapter to include the Freight Action Strategy (FAST), a plan to improve freight movement within the region; and 5) to the Intergovernmental Coordination chapter to reflect new information _regarding coordination activities with State, regional and King County agencies. Also included are associated housekeeping amendments to the text, figures and tables throughout the Transportation Element. The proposal also includes housekeeping amendments to the text, figures, and tables throughout the Transportation Capital Facilities Plan to reflect the proceeding proposed amendments to the Transportation Element. • H:Trans/planning/rlm/compplan/transportation element • CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: December 15, 1999 TO: Rebecca Lind FROM: Sandra Subject: Comprehensive Plan — 1999 Amendments Attached are the 1999 amendments to the Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan and the 1999 amendments to the Transportation Capital Facilities Plan of the Capital Facilities Element. The 1999 amendments update the Transportation element to reflect: 1) the latest State and Federal definitions for arterial roadway functional classifications; 2) a revised list of 20 year (1995-2015) arterial and HOV improvements; 3) the City's adopted 2000-2005 Six-Year TIP; 4) the Freight Chapter to include the regional Freight Action Strategy for improving the movement of freight; 5) new information regarding coordination activities with State, regional and King County agencies; and 6) associated housekeeping amendments to the text, figures and tables throughout the Transportation Element. The 1999 amendments also update the Transportation Capital Facilities Plan of the Capital Facilities Element to reflect the preceding amendments to the Transportation Elements. As you requested, twelve (12) copies of the 1999 amendments are being provided for your use. As agreed, marked up copies of the figures and several tables to be amended have been included at this time, with the final revised figures and tables to be forwarded to you by the middle of January 2000 at the latest. Twelve copies of the Master Use Application and Environmental Checklist for these amendments were provided to Don Ericson on December 14, 1999. Please contact Bob Maim at ext. 7322 with any questions regarding the 1999 amendments. Thank you for overseeing the process for adoption of the Transportation element amendments and their incorporation into the Comprehensive Plan after adoption.' Attachments Cc: Gregg Zimmerman Lee Haro H:Trans/planning/rlm/compplan/rebecca , E ELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON City Of Renton DEC 151999 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 011C PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals ;with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal(and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know"or "does not apply': Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this'checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to!determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant,"and "property or site"should be read as "proposal," "proposer,"and "affected geographic area,"respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: City of Renton Comp Plan 1999 Transportation Element Amendments and 1999 Amendments to the Transportation Capital Facilities Plan of the Capital Facilities Plan Element December 10, 1999 Page 2 2. Name of applicant: Sandra Meyer,Administrator, Transportation Division Planning/Building/Public Works Department City of Renton 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Address: do Transportation Division, P/B/PW Dept. City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Contact Person: Lee Haro, (425)430-7217 4. Date checklist prepared: December 10, 1999 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton, Department of Planning/Building/Public Works - Development Services Division 6. Proposed timing or schedule(including phasing, if applicable): Adoption of amendments is anticipated in summer, 2000 pending SEPA compliance. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Both elements will be updated annually. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. FEIS on the 1995 Comprehensive Plan of the City of Renton 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No knowledge of pending governmental approvals. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Council approval will be required for this non-project action. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. The subject proposal involves amendments to the Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan by amending the following: December 10, 1999 Page 3 1. Definitions of Principal, Minor, and Collector Arterials to reflect the latest state and federal definitions of functional classifications; 2. The 20-year(1995-2015) list of improvements in the Arterial and HOV plans to reflect the City of Renton's adopted 2000-2005 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and to reflect new information regarding state, regional and other local jurisdictions'transportation plans; 3. The finance Chapter to include the Freight Action Strategy(FAST), a plan to improve freight movement within the region; 4. The Intergovernmental Coordination chapter to reflect new information regarding coordination activities with state, regional and King County agencies; and, 5. The text,figures, and tables throughout this element as associated "housekeeping"changes. The subject proposal also involves"housekeeping"amendments to the text, figures, and tables throughout the Transportation Capital Facilities Plan of the Capital Facilities Plan Element to reflect the preceeding proposed amendments to the Transportation Element. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Proposed amendments will apply citywide within the City of Renton, Washington. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other Not applicable for this non-project legislative action. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) Not applicable for this non-project legislative action. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Not applicable for this non-project legislative action. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Not applicable for this non-project legislative action. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Not applicable for this non-proiect legislative action. December 10, 1999 Page 4 f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No construction is proposed as a result of this non-project proposal. g. About what percent of the site will be covered'with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? No construction is proposed as a result of this non-project proposal. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: No construction is proposed as a result of this non-project proposal. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Le., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. No construction is proposed as a result of this non-project proposal. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Not applicable for this non-project legislative action. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Not applicable for this non-project legislative action. 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. No construction is proposed as a result of this non-project proposal. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No construction is proposed as a result of this non-project proposal. December 10, 1999 Page 5 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. No construction is proposed as a result of this non-proiect proposal. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No construction is proposed as a result of this non-project proposal. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. This is a non-project action. No development is proposed as a result of this proposal. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. This is a non-project action. No development is proposed as a result of this proposal. b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. This is a non-project action. No development is proposed as a result of this proposal. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage;industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s),are expected to serve. No construction is proposed as a result of this non-project proposal. c. Water Runoff(including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. No construction and therefore runoff is proposed as a result of this non-project proposal. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. December 10, 1999 Page 6 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Not applicable since this is a non-project legislative action that will not result in any development that would not otherwise occur and is covered by SEPA. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: NA deciduous tree:alder, maple, aspen, other NA evergreen tree:fir, cedar,pine, other NA shrubs NA , grass NA pasture NA crop or grain NA wet soil plants:cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other NA water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other NA other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? No construction and therefore no vegetation will be removed as a result of this non-project proposal. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not applicable. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Not applicable. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds:hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other Not applicable Mammals:deer, bear, elk, beaver, other Not applicable Fish:bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other Not applicable December 10, 1999 Page 7 b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No construction is proposed as a result of this non-project proposal. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain No construction is proposed as a result of this non-project proposal. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Not applicable since this is a non-project action. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. None will be used since this is a non-project action. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. This is a non-project action. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None. This is a non-project action. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. This is a non-project action. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None. This is a non-project action. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example:traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Not applicable since this is a non-project action December 10, 1999 Page 8 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Not applicable since this is a non-project action 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None. This is a non-project action. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Not applicable since this is a non-project action. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. This is a non-project legislative action. c. Describe any structures on the site. Not applicable since this is a non-project action. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. This is a non-project legislative action. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Not applicable. Citywide applicability. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Not applicable. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Not applicable. Citywide applicability. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Not applicable. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Not applicable. December 10, 1999 Page 9 k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The subject non-project action will update the City's Transportation Element and the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plan to ensure compatibility with other sections including land use and other elements. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if;any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. The proposed amendments are a non-project action and do not contain specific elements that could result in changes to the housing component. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be l eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas;what is the principal exterior building material(s)proposed. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Not applicable. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Not applicable. This is a non-project action. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not applicable. This is a non-project action. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Not applicable. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Not applicable. December 10, 1999 Page 10 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Not applicable. This is a non-project action. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Not applicable. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Not applicable. This is a non-project action. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Not applicable. This non-project action applies citywide. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Not applicable. This non-project action applies citywide. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Not applicable. This non-project action applies citywide. December 10, 1999 Page 11 d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? Not applicable. This non-project action applies citywide. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Not applicable. This non-project action applies citywide. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. This is a non-project action that will not result in the addition or elimination of vehicular trips. Subsequent development may have impacts on vehicle trips but will most likely go through environmental review unless exempt under SEPA. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Not applicable 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. This is a non-project action that will not have any public service impacts. Subsequent development may have impacts but will most likely go through environmental review unless exempt under SEPA. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Not applicable. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Not applicable. Non-project action applies citywide. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on, the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Not applicable. Non-project action applies citywide. December 10, 1999 Page 12 C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non- significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: /4,0 Name Printed: �f= /hie° Date: 12-1/V f December 10, 1999 Page 13 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (These sheets should only be used for actions involving'decisions on policies, plans and programs. You do not need to fill out these sheets for project actions.) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster,rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? This is a non-project action. Potential transportation improvements addressed in these amendments could possibly increase impervious surfaces and possibly impact surface water runoff. Likewise, increased traffic from identified future road improvements might increase noise above their current levels. These issues will be addressed at the project level for specific roadway improvements when the most appropriate mitigation measures can be addressed. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Not applicable for this non-project action. Subsequent development as a result of the proposed amendments would have to go through environmental review unless SEPA exempt. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? As a legislative non-project action the current proposal will not directly affect plants, animals, fish or marine life. Future transportation improvements identified in these amendments will go through their own environmental reviews where such impacts, if any, can be fully identified and addressed. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Not applicable. Mitigation would be prepared at the project level for specific projects identified. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The non-proiect action will have no impact on enerqv or natural resources. Future projects identified will go through their own environmental reviews where such impacts, if any, can be fully identified and addressed. December 10, 1999 Page 14 Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Not applicable. See above comments. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The subject non-project proposal will not directly impact or use environmentally sensitive areas. Future transportation improvements will go through their own environmental reviews where such impacts, if any, can be fully identified and addressed. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Not applicable. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? This proposed non-project action will not directly affect land and shoreline use. Future transportation improvements may impact land and shoreline use. Such impacts will be more appropriately identified and addressed at the project level. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Not applicable at this non-project level. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? This non-project action will not directly affect transportation demands or public services or utilities. Future transportation improvements will go through their own environmental reviews where such impacts, if any, can be fully identified and addressed. Public costs associated with maintaining these improvements are addressed in the Transportation CFP, the Transportation TIP, and the City's annual operating budget. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Not Applicable. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. No conflicts with local, state or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment are known to exist with the subject non-project proposal. December 10, 1999 Page 15 SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non- significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: . 6 AkieD Date: I 1 ` I i . I � ' CITY OF RENTON TRANSPC, mTION ELEMENT Updated 12/1/99,and again 12/7/99 Pl.AN`i1;.:.G MY OF RENTON DEC 15 1999 RECEIVED II. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GOALS 1. Contribute to a balanced multi-modal transportation system through reasonable, planned, economically feasible arterial improvements that enhance HOV and transit operations, support adopted land use plans, protect or improve business access and protect Renton's neighborhoods. 2. Maximize the use of transit in Renton by providing step by step transit improvements to produce regionally linked and locally oriented transit services and facilities needed to serve travel demand generated by Renton residents and businesses. 3. Increase the person-carrying capacity of the Renton arterial system by the construction of improvements and the implementation of actions that facilitate the flow of HOVs into, out of, and through Renton. 4. Maintain, enhance, and increase pedestrian and bicycle travel by providing both safe and convenient routes and storage for the commuting and recreating public. 5. Encourage and facilitate the reduction of commute and other trips made via single occupant vehicles. 6. Create efficiently functioning air transportation facilities which are responsibly integrated with the City's transportation system and land use pattern. 7. Maintain and improve truck and freight rail access to Renton industrial areas, and to integrate freight transportation needs into Renton's multi-modal transportation system. 8. Develop a funding and implementation program for needed transportation improvements supporting adopted land use policies, that distributes transportation costs equitably between public agencies and private development. 9. Attain and maintain regional air and water quality standards within the City of Renton and to comply with regional, state, and Federal air and water quality standards. II-1 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPO_ _TION ELEMENT Updated 12/1/99,and again 12/7/99 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUMMARY II-6 Policies II-6 Growth Management Act Requirements II-7 Transportation Element Development Process II-8 Aftefial$Street Network II-9 Objectives and Policies II-9 Inventory of Existing Streets II-10 Existing Street Classifications II-12 Traffic Volumes and Forecasts II-12 Traditional Level of Service (LOS) II-26 New Level of Service (LOS) Policy 11-27 Arterial Plan II-30 Transit II-34 Objectives and Policies II-34 Existing Transit Service II-35 Future Regional Accessibility I1-38 Transit Plan II-38 Transit Usage and Mode Split II-41 Level of Service II-42 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) II-46 Objectives and Policies II-46 Existing HOV Facilities II-47 HOV Plan II-47 Ridesharing and Mode Split II-49 Level of Service II-50 Non-Motorized Transportation II-53 Objectives II-53 Policies II-54 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities • II-55 Neighborhood and Regional Access II-57 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Plan II-57 Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction (TDM/CTR) II-62 Objectives and Policies II-62 Existing Parking Supply and Demand II-63 Parking Policy Review II-64 Employers' Mode Split II-64 TDM/CTR Programs I1-65 Parking Management Ordinance II-65 II-2 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPOIWITION ELEMENT Updated 12/1/99,and again 12/7/99 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Airport II-65 Objectives II-65 Policies II-66 Airport Facilities II-67 Airport Activities II-67 Airport Master Plan II-67 Airport Master Plan Implementation 11-69 Freight II-69 Objectives II-69 Policies II-70 ' Truck Routes II-70 Inventory of Local Rail System Facilities and Users II-72 Regional Accessibility II-73 Financing and Implementation II-73 Objectives and Policies II-74 Transportation Program Costs II-74 Inventory of Funding Sources II-75 Funding Program II-78 Funding Assessment II-84 Mitigation Process II-86 Concurrency Management System II-87 Environmental and Natural Resources II-90 Objectives and Policies II-90 Non-attainment Areas II-91 Severity of Violations II-92 Implementation Plan 1I-92 Intergovernmental Coordination 1I-93 Current Coordination Activities II-93 Objectives and Policies II-95 Impacts on Adjacent Jurisdictions II-96 Impacts on Regional Transportation Plan II-96 Strategies to Address Inconsistencies II-96 Ongoing Transportation Plan Work II-96 Bibliography II-101 II-3 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPOkrAfION ELEMENT Updated 12/1/99,and again 12/7/99 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Existing Street/Highway System Figure 1-2 Arterial System Characteristics Figure 1-3 Arterial System Functional Classifications Figure 1-4 Road Segments Used in Travel Pattern Analysis Figure 1-5 1990 Daily Traffic Volumes Figure 1-6 2010 Daily Traffic Volumes Figure 1-7 1990 PM Peak Hour Intersection Total Entering Volumes Figure 1-8 1990 Average Daily Traffic Volume Per Lane Figure 1-9 1990 PM Peak Hour Intersection Entering Volume Per Approach Lane Figure 1-10 Renton Arterial Plan Figure 1-11 Arterial Plan Improvements Figure 2-1 Existing Transit Service Figure 2-2 Regional Transit System Figure 2 3 Service Concept for Renton Figure 2-42=3 Renton Transit Plan Figure 3-1 Renton HOV Plan Figure 4-1 Existing Non-Motorized Facilities Figure 4-2 Proposed Non-Motorized Facilities Figure 7-1 Truck Routes Figure 8 1 Renton Transportation Benefit Zones II-4 CITY OF RENTON TRANSP(nti ATION ELEMENT Updated 12/1/99,and again 12/7/99 TABLE OF TABLES Table 1.1 Total Daily Person Trips Table 1.2 1990 Daily Travel Patterns of Traffic on Selected Road Segments Table 1.3 2010 Daily Travel Patterns of Traffic on Selected Road Segments Table 1.4 Renton Arterial Plan Table 2.1 Daily Transit Trips Table 3.1 Daily Auto Passenger Trips Table 4.1 Master Trail Plan Proposed Non-motorized Facilities Table 4.2 Proposed Bicycle Routes Table 5.1 Central Subarea Parking Summary Table 8.1 20-Year (1995-2015) Transportation Program Cost Table 8.2 Source of Transportation Funds Table 8.3 City of Renton Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program(TIP)_1995 2000-2005 II-5 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPOk I A f ION ELEMENT Updated 12/1/99,and again 12/7/99 Summary: Th: City e f Rent, T. rt,ti, Elm n+ stent, itw VLSI N 2020 Et ad ted vz. c.vz,v Huai. uuvY��.� , e e e i 1990.The Transportation Element of Renton's Comprehensive Plan serves several purposes. In addition to meeting the state Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements for a transportation element, it assists the City in coordinating transportation planning with land use planning and adequately serving existing and future residential and employment growth. The Transportation Element, sometimes called a Transportation Plan, also provides direction on coordinating the development of a multi-modal system, which is a system that accomodates various modes of transportation. Finally, the transportation element coordinates transportation projects with other relevant projects in adjacent jurisdictions and the region. This coordination is an important element in creating an effective system and in competing for transportation funding. The GMA provides a framework for land use planning and development regulation. The GMA requires required the City of Renton to adopt a comprehensive plan (generalized coordinated land use policy)_ The comprehensive plan is to include a plan for each of the following elements: land use; housing; utilities; capital facilities; and transportation. The GMA further mandates that the transportation element be concurrent with the land use element to the extent that development is not to occur without a commitment to meet transportation demands resulting from such development. Following adoption of the comprehensive plan, the City of Renton has to enact development regulations that are consistent with, and help implement, the adopted Comprehenisve Plan (and Transportation Element). The schedule for implementation of the GMA calls for the counties and cities mandated to plan under element by July 1, 1994. Following adoption of the comprehensive plan, the City of Renton has until December 31, 1994 to enact development regulations that arc consistent with, and help The goal of the Renton Transportation Element is to provide "a balanced multi-modal transportation system which will support land use patterns, and adequately serve existing and future residential and employment growth within the City." (A multi-modal system is defined as one which provides various choices of transportation for the public such as automobiles, buses, rail, transit, bicycles, walking.) The main objective guiding the development of the Transportation Element was is to be consistent with the City of Renton omprehensive Plan Policies, ., the State's grew-Growth management-Management legislatienAct, county-wide planning policies and eemCommute trip Trip -gin-Reduction (CTR) legislation. Another key objective of the Transportation Element is to "coordinate land use and transportation planning". This is a requirement of the State's Growth Management Act. The Transportation Element must also be coordinated with the Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) VISION 2020 (the adopted long-range growth and transportation strategy for the Central Puget Sound area -- King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish counties). II-6 � I li � CITY OF RENTON TRANSPG=.:NATION ELEMENT Updated 12/1/99,and again 12/7/99 A companion regional document is the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), also produced by the PSRC, which specifically addresses regional transportation and how jurisdictional transportation plans fit within the regional context. This City of Renton Transportation Element is consistent with GMA, VISION 2020, and the MTP. As noted above, tThe overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to create a desirable land use pattern and serve the land uses with the transportation system. This Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan comprises a set of framework transportation policies to support Renton's land use vision and a more detailed and technical plan for implementation of the framework policies. The Transportation Element encompasses several chapters, including AfterialsStreet Network, Transit, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV), a-Non-Motorized Transportation, a-Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction (TDM/CTR), Airport, Freight, Financing and Implementation, Air QualityEnvironment and Sensitive Areas, and Intergovernmental Coordination. Some of the policies apply to specific chapters; the policies compiled below apply to all of the chapters. Policies Policy T-1. Land use plans and regulations flexible work hours and sub-area planning such should be used to guide development of a as supporting increased density.) comprehensive transportation -element for the City. Policy T-2. Transportation improvements should support land use plans. Policy T-3. Transportation plans should be phased concurrently with growth. Policy T-4. Adequate transportation facilities 50 and services should be in place at the time of occupancy or an adopted strategy must be in place to provide those facilities within six years of the approval of new development. Policy T-5. Land use and transportation plans should be consistent so that land use and adjacent transportation facilities are compatible with each other. Land use assumptions should be used in estimating travel demand. Policy T-6. Land use patterns which support transit and non-motorized should be promoted. Policy T-7. The disruptive impacts of traffic related to centers and employment areas should be reduced. (In this context, disruptive impacts are primarily traffic. They could be minimized through techniques, such as transportation management programs implemented through cooperative agreements at the work place, II-7 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPOxrATION ELEMENT Updated 12/1/99,and again 12/7/99 Increased land use densities and a balance of increase congestion on streets as people circle land use mixes in an urban setting will result in and hunt for available spaces. Too much fewer and shorter vehicle trips. As people parking is an inefficient use of land and can begin to live closer to employment and deter transit use. A proper balance needs to be shopping, they will no longer need to drive to achieved between parking supply and demand. these facilities and they will be able to link Satellite parking and shuttle services and trips, resulting in fewer vehicle trips. collective structured parking are potential methods for increasing the parking supply. In addition to the Transportation-Land Use Note: Any references in this document to interaction, another issue that pervades many of downtown (Central Business District) parking the chapters of the Transportation Element is restrictions and/or removal apply only to that of parking. The location and supply of commuter/employee parking and not to parking is an integral part of the local business patron/customer parking. transportation system. Inadequate parking can Growth Management Act Requirements The Growth Management Act(GMA) specifies the following minimum requirements for information that is to be included in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan: 1. Land use assumptions used in estimating travel; 2. Facilities and services needs, including: a. An inventory of air, water, and land transportation facilities and services, including transit ftliffnuerntsrouting, to define existing capital facilities and travel levels as a basis for future planning; . b. Level of service standards for the transportation system to serve as a gauge to judge performance of the system. These standards should be regionally coordinated7, and adopted LOS policy and/or standards for state facilities shall be stated in local transportation plans. c. Specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance any facilities or services that are below an established level of service standard; d. Forecasts of traffic for at least ten years based on the adopted land use plan to provide information on the location, timing and capacity needs of future growth; e. Identification of system expansion needs and transportation system management needs to meet current and future demands; 3. Demand Management Strategies 4. Finance, including: a. An analysis of funding capability to judge needs against probable funding resources; b. A multi-year financing plan based on the needs identified in the comprehensive plan, the appropriate parts of which shall serve as the basis for the six-year street, road, or transit program required by RCW 35.77.010 for cities; II-8 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT c. If probable funding falls short of meeting identified needs, a discussion of how additional funding will be raised, or how land use assumptions will be reassessed to ensure that level of service standards will be met; 5. Intergovernmental coordination efforts, including an assessment of the impacts of the transportation plan and land use assumptions on the transportation systems of adjacent jurisdictions. Transportation Element Development Process The GMA else-requires the Transportation Element to address certain key sub-elements as outlined above. Ten sub-elements (chapters) consistent with the GMA were identified for the Transportation Element, including: ArtcrialStreet Network, Transit, HOV, Non-motorized, Commute Trip Reduction/Transportation Demand Management(CTR/TDM), Airport, Freight, Financial, Air QualityEnvironment and Sensitive Areas, and Intergovernmental Coordination. A preliminary Transportation Element was prepared, and was included in the FEIS for the Land Use Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan (released January 29, 1993). In order to meet the July 1, 1994, deadline for adoption of Renton's Comprehensive Plan, a two-phase approach was used for development of the Transportation Element. The two phases comprise 1) development of the Interim Transportation Plan. (adopted December 20, 1993), and 2) the preparation of the Transportation Element described in this document. In Phase 1, transportation plans, policies, and analyses prepared for the FEIS for the Land Use Element, and the adopted Interim Land Use Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, were supplemented and combined with available existing plans, policies, and analyses to meet GMA requirements, and to produce the Interim Transportation Plan. The Interim Transportation Plan was referenced in the Land Use Element FEIS and adopted by reference. More detail and refinements were prepared in Phase 2 to complete the Transportation Element described in this document, which will serves as the Transportation Element of Renton's Comprehensive Plan. After tThe Comprehensive Plan(and Transportation Element) was adopted on February 20, 1995.7 Subsequent transportation planning work Element; and, 2) and enactment of development regulations that are consistent with, and help implement, the adopted Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Element have resulted in amendments (December 8, 1997 and July 27, 1998) to the Comprehensive Plan (and this Transportation Element). Further transportation planning work by the City has resulted in additional amendments which are incorporated in this Transportation Element.. ARTERIALS-STREET NETWORK Traffic generated by employment centers, regional pass-through traffic using local streets and truck traffic all contribute to congestion and reduced accessibility within the City. In resolving traffic flow problems, a number of choices will need to be made. In some cases, increasing traffic flows only increases congestion on local streets or impacts pedestrians, yet if traffic flows are reduced accessibility can be compromised. Alternately, if the local street system is efficient and not congested it will attract increased regional traffic. II-9 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT The "mil-objectives and policies in the Street Network chapter are intended to reduce the amount of traffic that has neither an origin nor destination in the City while at the same time providing reasonable levels of traffic flow and accessibility on the local street system. These objectives and policies also address issues related to the street network as a system, the physical design of individual roadways, traffic flow, traffic operations control. The Arterial Street Network Chapter contains a detailed review of the City's arterial street system— including existing functional classifications as well as a description of the City's Arterial Plan. The Arterial Street Network Chapter also contains definitions of the Level of Service criteria used to judge performance of the system. (The service levels were developed in conjunction with King County adopted Level-of-Service Framework Policies and other local jurisdictions.) Objectives The Arterial Street Network Chapter is based on the following objectives: T-A: Create a comprehensive street system that provides reasonable vehicular circulation throughout the City. T-B: Eliminate disruptions which reduce the safety and reasonable functioning of the local transportation system. Policies individual roadways, traffic flow, and traffic operations control. Policy T-8. Each street in the City should be Community Design policies and Open Space and assigned a functional classification based on Parks policies in the Land Use Element.Z factors including traffic volumes, type of service provided, land use, and preservation of existing Policy T 11. Create incentives encouraging neighborhoods. • developers to use alternatives to on street or on cite parking. (Relocated to TDM/CTR chapter) Policy T-9. Streets and pedestrian paths in residential neighborhoods should be arranged as Policy T4211. aintain a level of an interconnecting network and should connect service level should be developed for the street other st- _ts _ their usethat serves local traffic and facilitates pedestrian circulation. , Policy T-10. Street standards should continue to , be developed for eachbased on functional classification,in the Transportation 't" ct' o e"t nd (e) promotes Comprehensive Plan land use objectives, that: maximizes HOV/transit/non-motorized facility needs. LThese mobility by emphasizing transit and HOV street standards should be coordinated with the improvements: is coordinated with level of service II-10 I UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT standards of adjacent jurisdictions; and meets State requirements under GMA and concurrency. Policy T4312. Maximize traffic flow on{people end-pods}and accessibility en-to arterial roads while protecting local/neighborhood roads from increased traffic volumes. Policy T-1413. Provide a balance between protecting neighborhoods from increased through traffic anddnwhile maintaining accessibility to neighborhoods. Policy T4514. The effects of regional traffic con gestion .,.,.a o erfl w onto the local ninitnize&Proactively work with the State and neighboring jurisdictions to provide capacity on regional transportation systems and to reduce regional traffic on local streets. Policy T4615. Strategies-Develop strategies to reduce adverse traffic impacts on local areas. (Areas of the City which require this type of intervention should be identified and addressed through the sub-area planning process, neighborhood plans or traffic 27 mitigation programs which are implemented through development review.1 'The North Renton Policy T-16. Access management, such as restricting left turns and excessive use of driveways, should be coordinated with design standards and land use in order to enhance public safety and preserve traffic carrying capacity. (Also see related policies in the HOV, Transit, Non-motorized and Freight SSectienChapters.) Inventory of Existing Streets The existing (1998) street/highway system serving Renton is shown in Figure 1-1. The system includes two freeways: I-405 and SR=167 (the "Valley Freeway"). I-405 provides connections to the Eastside and II-11 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Snohomish County to the north, and to I-5 and the Sea-Tac Airport area to the south. The Valley Freeway extends south from I-405 to Kent, Auburn and Puyallup. In addition to the freeways, Renton is served by several other state highways, including SR-900 (Sunset Boulevard on the east side of Renton and Martin Luther King Junior Way on the west side), SR-169 (Maple Valley Highway), SR-515 (Benson Highway), and SR-167 (Rainier Avenue). Each of these state highways are integral elements of Renton's internal arterial system. In addition, SR-900 provides external connections to Issaquah on the east and to the Boeing Field area and I-5 on the west. SR-169 connects Renton to SR-18 and southeast King County, SR-515 provides the main arterial connection to the unincorporated Soos Creek area, and the Rainier Avenue section of SR-167 connects Renton with south Seattle. The six state routes, I-405, SR-167 (Valley Freeway), SR-900, SR-169, SR-515 and SR-167 (Rainier Avenue), converge in central Renton within a half mile radius of each other. This close proximity makes for a complex traffic flow, as regional and local trips interact within a relatively short distance. II-12 • • • �. S i . ?ilia,• •, ljihi J ril% • —r r Q • rI1A f - ; •'% it, , — -1.i IP AM nun 4400' .....11-1. .\\ / I I 1 I ' . ! idfs'' il _____________._ ..-:111h x•—• • pi p kst, • .ci-—.:Zri: 1 '• • • di , A. ::k:: ■ 011iianfilahmui tc. . i ' iJ16 ..... .. .... RAIL 'Ay is U(la' 9�"74 mg xi:i,::::.u,{xsx.{ rpp.+��st....9 3.1 #' irr. a aiiy' jpp1' . .---:i•^Y:..r•.•.tx`tyy`z'e'730.`• -,1.•ff,,i:t , friesJa,•,� �iki- x_ ': .:400S {{fi • {•:x :s1 qd _ R i. y mi■ ':©cam ■ y• :#i,:.y� .�s,,,:+ 'fi {f•^•Y:yS+£�:•':v r A ••1 �� Ym.,p1:> •p-p� `°° ,,^. :.y,,{•:.• :`�`4"aye' /'• �:•r::..4 f I/— �1�It1 '�/�%1 p ��l pp>i'<4• �°°° �• '. i• ,s,: { .•, c.:.7/yy J( • 1� • . 11r) 4 ��� Z' o qoa �j,� i•siilC3mo , '',�•;'C•''•``Yyi':. �'yM17.'.t�''•x'4'+,. Ski: , i_sirgbA,--- I 11111111111 it, iz ��� ► Y �$y$�Jj}�C�'����$.. fom°°mp°„d� r}�C4.���4{��f yv�.'�. `•;ft<�yy:Vo_� mull- _-�� • ,7 I ti .'r1 eariam I>L1jA Y .. 3^/�,y .©. # 4;::Y r{'J.:Y{7;. :•,' ��� a' 1 r: .v:..••;. � +oa '�C '+ittt+Y f;•�'{'C'•'�.'.. �immi' Y��ail:AM • i !!tilt• iii:..!"ci:�i: act -.+'.:i •S`#: �,-;"i ''.44 • .s� Y irii 1� •, r .. t..r... •r tea.:- �=-- .i:x '.a. a. >"�'� f..?�.. �y'b - - ;1...,,., ,fey' ✓� .•y: v:•.••. t� •� 0000700:;; •#',^• ' 1 ma .21 1...t.... t. ``�—G� .IfdS yy. 44•.;, ' ' $�� E1 Iy:f;'y:3Y,•;y�,i"fo®9;.'y^•:.':. ,,'•�:" 1, — E:iiii:tii::::?�'• Y:r•:?°�� ���'+:'.., ffi�17Ri37E9E�B:ka83Yo �, •...,�•t., y:.�•.: '.:2a;'•'�; '�r�r:112":113 ���1�� ' f,...• ak pA•/ yip�ii'1':I.;.....;:.:j:1� �/ 1:1't!:1'1 t!1!,'t e F'S:!:iA�17.QG. .mmom����� .. t,1�:* ,o,.,.t:,::7iti:•1: :al:' :ti7'•'..r ii:li 1){1:0•0Y} M%r;£{Qa„'.---4..4 ir.,,, ,... aY ,.8`q"� '•:••••� �i{.. :i :/ 9:ebd"' it fi{l .Il: L',>.�i fifir r ._ter a dac9"a�eaeea �'' e� {:. iry,;.: 1 49 .2 ;...t' it.• !•' :. i:1 {�qnt..7{t.i..t ny a•:;k0:::+.. :0. •al@'� ,f- nca �• � is i��)i?iii!?!!i::{!:!EE!!iEE'Siiiil y4'{i? iE?i ?!iitil?t ti!lli { .#rt4<>.%fy;`t:, €t _,,.�""j:.mae ®� :• w ....�}. ..t.f ti...l .7i1,atltl.4 .p .,bar• . .* [ ,r:14'44 �g� -` �•••as. '°>` =� . .„,„ii iiii '•tiiif:• i„„:•lil 0,{^ i::!..:f{{i?I.11h .Te:: w>:$:h>., n: _F 0, � '°'.'&�9�1Y p� .<:,.a:tzt veti, :.,./.77s 3: ! :E E?i!iiiiiia?iitl?..b):;,7 rli;). ..t..::rl il ,r•`'"'-,. 7me7�m�� �tO.' s"�'t�s'i' S: `�j•, t ii!a?:.i?if ::iit l. .:� � i� mm"- Y.^....r:`�:�'�?xC :: :^?i?r..t..i!i.i .;...i {: t iii iti• )• � i„ ie.v 3��� ��ti x::'=r•.#:_s..� ti. as r?�� `�t '7i .:„,:.fii. ••:Iri`l:t.c) 7�,H.c 7 t iii,,i ! ...4.•..•dams ` ,y?-t :::':•. — �•:: r`.,,•'.!1r'tt.:.7�1'!I:�i!. !! '.1il it ty _ �0ta ..w•0,i ',,q'• �6� .4llq �XR_V ' ..iiti�:':�;^'�Y�:i:;..iiti 1 i.t•..! l!llli'°!lt h `•�S :t: ...• °rl,;? e r =—s :l :N7..s °:{i!ii?ii::ii:;ii€?f^it?ii{ G!:�.i{i! ;?)iti?!3 '#x J1"'o: � �� l 2 < •I�� �� :i.`,:hV • 'i:3c:1 ':lEiti•{ s. ;tl:•i• �� '..7 � Bx/s�i `as5.. - .4. ,� !:ii:a:�iii;:E?:,,..{{.�:•a:l..•{'t:3•t� 11111111�� l��` ���': •�7��� ����ikLt':''t�cY••'Zi 111i11:?�'{?'iittl?/i'i `itil{E!7!ti�t)!l7 111111111111111 ` � #a. • /!`:!•1{:;i;liiilEil.l?�F?,ia .1;;.:j � � 1111��� '►' &a�i� '��t3'• `�'•In: 4�y cis r iti ) tti..l ii.. }i!iit7•:r •:f }::s•'' i7 Y''` a'%vtlY�.\ .+ 14 y ti�liiEit?:jf:r•, ;e :t i3 v 1 `.� 6'� ` :F.;•$♦ .t:li:t:t..'):::1:.::t,'I7', t' t)tt4,,�,1 111� �� I`Z•bl.,•,,•{`Y:k:},>•�HyW{, \i:.:{ yYy;{r,::::: �{S/,::,y X�,y.{�. .?1tt:itt;t:7:it•t••I:li !•Rt�1 �'° ■SII� �.,�� !,t�y,^ •:3sf..•.:. ,,: *V `S :t::E it{ii7i7i;!7iI1fL lllliE rSf� '�1�117� � ti3 r^e;`g>"k% ^?:(Q:.yd�Y ��pppp9"i Do.....::-.E...;i �. •�"�...,ii l: .li?i}Cli:El:t. t °iitii.iri t.• J�r ,ti�r ��J.1��I p'4ky% v1�5�. :: :r5, aC.:,•s',•a'h .::. i: , Ving� ..ti?iii{i?t!ii:.^.iEt!•liil`ilryli ii?iltf ► I9.40111 '► , ttt . ':.51,L; .'{f.�"; < :ysE<it,11: '3:n:+st•-x';4 ':z x>'#i' : RI 41 ' °:.t. ) :1,.:73si1 f.7 1 �/� rl'� i°<,:i �� '.. S YY�r�`s.r r _I.s L...: :•1. tltf•i:..3•.i,;t tirIV�,S�• .. ,� ;,:,..i<�? t. `.�fi.:......` 3F: marl.� tap;:3!i iiiiigi;iiiii7Eiiitlit:iiiifitlithi :)l•riiU .rIf— J /RII :.11 •''•fit' F l 4. .b ' iiii: 1::.::i!{i:iili:::5t.i::t:t::a:•:•tT:lli !t'7 1' '` " Ell `. © \'` •t' i (�� ✓ ���� /. O C )i:.:tij:.:i;iii iii:!i:;:,:llt:::,ttiii!,l:i:t.t 11 r''' � /!, ��l:ti ii!?i::?t .:.ti:::ie1,1i:);f.{::•:!:it.t,. ..irePr. - i 41111111111111111111111111 . ��-L�IJ � V . tii7 '�t?liiii?...i.. {••ii::.l:'•:.:liii, t�r_.�r' ' ,;:I at tE a i` ,1 ■ , ,d j?i::;i;!tiii{.1•itii:: 7^{I.;7;•;.i �—na� 11� ��, %(' a' tt7; ,:.I::)tit m..:,.71 ..-== r .. a . C'd ')f?iiiEiiiii(„A.1ca{:f!:;11;i,r1 ... ..�u�,..11 '' /�<�' � ;N tri ••.tiai;ii::::.:� 1ii .= li1.1� n,---.:-- R�✓4� A. allIMPI ■■ . UPDATED 12/1/1999: 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Other key arterials that tie together the Renton street system include Grady Way and S.W. 43rd Street in the Renton Valley area, Talbot Road and Puget Drive in southeast Renton, Park Drive, Logan Avenue, and Airport Way in Central Renton, and 3Ld Street—/4 -Street, Duvall Avenue, Union Avenue, and Edmonds Avenue, in north and east Renton. These arterials along with numerous other arterial streets link commercial, industrial, residential neighborhoods to the freeways and state highways. Within neighborhoods, local access streets provide internal circulation and connections to the arterials. Street System Characteristics Physical and traffic control characteristics of the Renton street system, including the location of traffic signals and one-way streets, and the number of lanes on arterial street segments, are shown in Figure 1-2. Existing Street Functional Classifications The purpose of functional classifications is threefold: i) to identify appropriate uses for Renton streets, ii) to establish eligibility for road improvement funding from various sources, and iii) to define appropriate street design standards. The arterial street functional classifications specified by the City of Renton include "Principal Arterial," "Minor Arterial," and "Collector" classifications. The 1995 adopted classifications in Renton., adand-the surrounding annexation areas of unincorporated King County, and on several roadways in adjacent City of Newcastle are shown in Figure 1-3. "Principal Arterials" are streets and highways that connect major intra-city activity centers, have primairly high traffic volumes which travel at relatively fast vehicle speeds, and therefore, there is less emphasis on land use access. Grady Way in south central Renton and N.E. 3`d/4th Street in east Renton are examples of principal arterials. "Minor Arterials" are streets that provide links between principal arterials and collector arterials, and carry moderately high traffic volumes at less vehicle speed than on principal arterials. These arterials also connect intra-city activity centers with some emphasis on land use access. S.W. 7th Street in west central Renton and Union Avenue in northeast Renton are examples of minor arterials. "Collector Arterials" are streets that distribute traffic between principal and minor arterials and local access streets. Collector arterials include streets that provide major traffic circulation with more emphasis on land use access within commercial and industrial areas, and residential neighborhoods. East Valley Road in southwest Renton and N.E. 12th Street in northeast Renton are examples.of collector arterials. Local access streets include all public streets not classified as principal, minor, or collector arterials. Local access streets primarily provide direct access to abutting land uses and are to'be designed to discourage use by through traffic. These streets are identified by default on Figure 1-3 and are not listed in the legend. Proposed classifications for commercial, industrial, and neighborhood access streets will be evaluated during ongoing transportation planning work. I I streets and highways that are to be used primarily for fast or heavy traffic. "Community Arterials" II-14 UPDATED 12/1/1999: 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT , , Traffic Volumes and Forecasts Existing (1990) and forecasted 2010 traffic volumes were analyzed in the Transportation Section of the Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Environmental Impact Statement. After adoption of the Interim Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, an updated traffic analysis was conducted (in 1994) to reflect: 1) land use modifications resulting during adoption of the Interim Land Use Element; 2)the latest1993 Arterial, HOV and transit plans; 3)new 1993 Renton mode split assumptions; and, 4) refinements to the City of Renton transportation model. The following is a summary of that-updatedthe 1994 analysis. Because Renton has major concentrations of employment as well as major retail centers and residential areas, total daily traffic and peak period commuter traffic (enroute to/from Renton area jobs) were both assessed as part of the traffic volume analysis. Commuter traffic and other traffic (e.g., retail-related) have very different orientation and time-of-day characteristics, and as a result, very different impacts on the road system. II-15 Figure 1-2 ' • EL:-..-- z ---=�'=.. yy: L1 I t_. : = . Z--=-= , ..0. iii, S kgizi) �'• k '4 -- - sib' `. 1-0 Pah -"1"---='.-:-.-=.ni--nr:.1._ ..i-a-.TE4A1Pi. in LOP --..:.-....;*_- ... .-___-,-- ---..4.4:141.1.. Artiu-ezg,iwritit Ill A ' -------- --::::—.7----- -------.---k-i--4,-,22.1E-Etatt--.27.,.-:.-..,, . MIL.I7417:3, L . iii.-,----.-wfii--...----:-....-17-„1-1111-2412-41-:::17,_41:r'''-1-.7:7.52:4-7-tr tri-r—= ill itt''.' .:1,..„,41111-114446.--:.„4„ ih '::::::-._---:----;::....-_:--- --..,:::::..:.:.Z4. .f.. Illlt► —. ,- ... - ; m �.«,. ISsTosoto 17 Nlima.z.......'":... n::=:::::::;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;" Ir....-....--:-...:::::.\ Mill:.:::,....................... .... ::::::::::::::::::::::1 , I acm ;04, ..„,„%rliTaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.:\ .111=11.126uVil - "1-1 . -t,,A..•,4%,,Irs. :mi., ......7:72...p.::......,:::::::,:‘ \\tile.E..,,,watitii E.1.97 mal • !EN. .... Row_ �iiii== �" lid a '` � �; '•_ afair6...zraim ---1 .. r :--. ,1. ..�:--_•f#,,,,... L• a::: ....:•-:: vw, Rpm mii.,,..;.selillitrov ... ----- Eviimuli 5 41 Br :E4411111 si - ; . . - - ,�,,., SCC Crt d ............................: .--.: --444ra—tp, reattowwiri.:::. :: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::iv-orf, . ......... ..... \: ::.. w.:t:. fe�ap. p gee•- _::.......::::::::.-.......•� fr,...� lInserc , :: ‘,... .\... momImmo-Pt ": ...e®1 • - :1i ..................., `,.; 2 12 • �� f'�o �w :. �g, IE .,§:iiigig: � . � �' 22 , ., 1 ..... it., „, ..al : 1 . ,„, : •! i z i F, '.--.,„;!_:<, .„. .,.;-‘,::::::::7.:-.Allii.,1,31,.._ • ::::::::::: .....„4.. ..., ... .... . . „ .-. . , , _.,:o. '''.: Ili . .. .......,"„...= , 4 pd.21 41161167:1111111Fsimi:311"21 31,0 1111711 . tittZ4PNI v • 2';: 'iiii ... . z Ill \i-:;:%41111M 111121 ‘111),..W3trie I , .i. 4 . )i.y i 1,F .,,,,,,, ,. ,:::::::... ,. :.:bT...Pi. " I1 , _ _ : ::: ' 1Nen ate/' � s. ; 1 • ir -- z. 1iI . , 3 11i 1 c. Arterial System Characteristics 1" 1 .11 1 - ( _ Leg en, d > Signalized I - 1 Intcrscccion • •Transportation ` 4 2 ' Number Z Plan - of Lanes c 1 •A2 _ _ City Limic — - - Urban Growth. = `Boundary nl J 4— ' t • 4e1," -,4y )1e).2 d ri) : . Lrlpnlag t,,�_ "a • yr' - ' 1 - 6....ovigineptut 1 1 zt Rigs UC ^-k � ? .,'�[� l 1Si .�I l is r a, . ia --IIlrRDilw Animq 1 >oao F MI 1 Imo► U�J N➢m ovi 62 s%coca Vo.p6443Nvya.wn`•st ® J 1{` 1 c.ie prfr_ ;� S �~ I-w PI Ianoilo I JIPNBYuM•+P'I•+T84tiCNY+w7�iW0YWNLVII'tl'9t t,l1' `14,,,� !*� 1l IJaal i to d furl 4141841{NW^vND.16 e691,0 9r'1'U r ., �� 1 td 0R 1nymPP04YI8t�+"SM41110gM8yV„P'tHDI �:::': �.,y�,o M9"+V•11PtoVrO 4 Pen k 4.3 Y1OU 11 NI{M9 DI 1;..:::I + 3.. P^�A M11W0PPa40440Uu1PAt113111906419MS 1C • •�:j:T�i.�.f t iii ' Nll!114P 91nog4 ft1W81w11 Yi y129tiPetlt0gR1,'U :;';r' �{� iii „p,„,,S4is NW MS 0.0 P4Y4Yy1 t1.37A 1::.'::.'� AtaaVPW14PWA11PA1+134WYTN9rMs'TI 1� ar� �5 � L �'-II �� 7 .uoult s olauopound [G 491Me a Ms•4/m44.0�7 MS WIggi+0YI vl ff' • -. 1 .... III i tUNIASI R ♦ 1664 4 IS 141194111 NvlWOrz w I 4M 4.064 VMS 4416•441•11•VS'99 : I .e t 111‘115§ if:::: ' g swirl WagF 0111rVAP 116441141/19 .,.. ..... J• !_ •I . a1001A1wP.M 4 p.m 14Y.1 M14°U WI Y4W.7 MS 19....' �� �M1� �4 El*Alfa Aiwa 12Pta34 sort waii wog rim un11/4w3N 19 �j F1i ♦�tr_1. ( 1 r..vt1.d nl.wvim6.6w.0 s NOC N 19 c 1'j .T qw,14P1mh1mu3ti.1,5555l"UAW H49tQ./Mtroi4141.'19 ,,� rSj- 'Q' '� 1�1� E• w �r �J,,,�,a m a4j1 • ! ' >8WC3N4P•Ia40198EN111p6SNwY11410P3 VS . ....••• II.� 1` m11`4 18 4210.4117N Y 9A71 / w� 1 II• 3N3t'(YyYO [Y'°' WY{eSNtf'T ,�'�. rit,V 1 .�III0\ _ .��� I 111. :: L3N343Nry wlwigh �I M -l�J+f�' �d K.I :•��! 18 NCz3N43N PAS Prime un113N..9 w•ParN as �\ lam . :::.. .': �JfASSWO441.474118inIPPWWY1W11491AS 16 f ;AV, D.42. W 'n�p1i 1 © ::•::�....... ,,�1■7 + ` �1t . L5 s .'�?t13+ 4 gcuol,ry,olo:Uoo � �■IJJ!!> �� � 'l t:....i'A:.. 1t!'q�A�' ry+y��{/�� ' �P�1 J.M1nd1N41Bwc1Y.IJeMvt�t Le Q' �I pA om: fil 1. .: '•... �� / Ij 1 7..# M8�Wol %=wow SyVWn...6618N9IM1 vs �' .._. �... ��. 5©_�a� ` �. I', • _!},•'- \ 3e�wlel.rYne4Y1NY3N4w7ti>1v1b•+•YID� }ft:: I�����m�,.....,...„•,...„, :.. MI 011Y1134MS•4991 149064618326MS xY ,,. ..-. ......., . o .. m '/ .......-......•- IIWa PW+oN4COF^It�+�113N DrI1 V1u1aYrrj1 DY ti ..,,� • / � .. `..�9 ... ,D�iill_w...:_ ot[�a.� 1. .r" ..a....•...•.+••.w• for 41j•rY 11+d4p1640CN DY . 1y 11. r \��; �� ✓a=0. \\' r V1A�Plw:t+�I•J141141ot311�07t�va>au lt1 WWI tP64414S09-111101J Yi NCt9N MN 11i+W Ile WC3N 19 r '' . YFV+1LSNw p.1044rq 7N+1OV 3N�•Y rpml.m.p7 l:Y III (u��1 � • `-. ......••. ""::::18• J ,gyp 7f%V 4101 el31 W1Pi11494 Is 410i31 ltI 414114P 44P10109404431010.06 v w 3' �• In1 - _, 111 /RJ��� � 'Q Y149>ZL471 y1140Yt 1••V>rV 4t6U11 MN Zn 9t1 >Q Y1fd 3N4tOrI Wp1J3N PNe14mue 7Y ■ - • �'1 11JV•w 1••••••• � 0�.�� ,•O 1r4101 71 4 1/PU2111°1,31MY441ICr a . 01 .9 + umw rQ. I�,� 1:t m� ''"':'•PIV++0N4 y13Ngi N Y1101 ,1849NDS 1t1I©:11. 1/Pit17147149C1711rr19/WI941f'Ks w w 1 '���"- m .... 9a1PdN�t114YNu1WN>rY P1101r ■ �I� +•�, A r'm ....M /7<11•Y409141D1Mt40i wail W/Mr++1961114191SS III • N'41144104NLY4M4901649N VC - r 4: • 1yp.......•••• IOZI1°(Y �'� '449C17/41S419r3111W3ir114661 W I 1 01 4Y.T 0,416 I41,wl 1 ■ _� S'� "•• O'4M AP 06 19 N, OA1MLVw1!IPA1 x1 1 s O ©..m.Jt11:0. �l1p+it/..... 710W4141471 W 41014W 112014 L 1ST 4VIYN4AIM4`P10510WN 51Y 1wMg•W 1IPM DC w..,� ■■� �y �, 11•a174e 41491184A41i1SS64S8 49WI=1416211'6ii •1 up 4 L m uw T st Ohm m ( 10 � 8 Y I 8 YU J18PL1It L3' .e�IIT se p�` 11111.4161141loslas4y w1419T14W 21 21 1. w.1.m 4 41.105575H 06 •r _ ` 1f 4YYtL4Y14tir3i 1wt181�•1141WI xir �. • 1 M 1 1111001 UV ■ Il:i O!{"�•Ofl!9.�• ;� 7iLV15/11 131L1140111+1.1 A08 Y gloi6 448'4%1MIPS1004V3199/164IS DC O ? 1�V- m©•�� _• 1114KI81 III >,. u >. �P_�1>IIII '0 n. ����_ 1 v PP14B Y1.111nd urn Yi NY811d41/16 ' �"4••■4nwRp7I 1[.Mi'r... A hi�' ..mom,,. >a ld4N[4y4t3iL11wV 11Pri17t h/r114N['RI WWII A1P 411O1498'+01WMYm4 4•Y 1Pm11439t ® ::C>YL+•.• O !- f �, 18 inn if14PfVENA4PC3/1tutist so/41911JI ti ww 4 uw wads 8 a �(�mlO+B111u �i w, • If PM 4 P1 v1ti1 PI71maims�1y AYt Tu .19141 48 D.141101, uoii� 2i171 w1 DC 8 a / 19IAl - • iH`4.d.r.o 4YU0904444114.1114414USW 21 L: ''� `391►0�1rrgfil��� �I.�1 �gO' •.. �� . ,\ BotK'J VJ0ao°U°7 ..' gtpouylcDlil1 -- n . pc97 mV':1I .4 - ' m.....•....•.. ; gi. �1 i\®il: 1 y4uf7/4N!1(nl.w4w7/�•Y410U►114•m ����yJC7' "'t yf' Ms+W•PwW II Abr....Igo:t w. : :,,,; �= -�, tit •t 1 7[I ammo! 1 1NQm+IW 11a 1w.w1'ISIMP 1C •6tra `•i::....•••. �,..1.,: l 1149I1ng§a!4y!wsniml213sWP911Y11 %Mg11oNnIS4VYM61u4 15116$Mtn 21 pK7'tl t3E m F �:::� ' '. ..1}..\t��,�: �0._ rdll_ Lw{4ft leP114�+•1 WI 11 Mt 7i 7Ir 0PAY109N.4 n141iiiPIM will 1i w1Yw18 P411611 6 f' 1:. .... ." D•:.•Iti, Otg \•I.E...{Il�.{, { .1 . ' i40►i71•191JMM•9iYY14+198rYa461Ti1 NJYA114ma+Pell'•VurYCul4JN4M11r'10H6J'MtH161 j�11 �pC FI:"''I:I' "i1: �� 11 =`3i \r'� 11111g111 �•1V1 PI1w'+1.14 ,e 11 186411 49St J31H41ti >'MI461t atl 'Sor14NJ w.14I%WINP•IQt•t1 6 lT • �; I ' t12'. lL 4 m'tijl'i �.�.:f i i,:.: , ,�.` �. 4laJW!11�114fOr1111W1W1 i4M11P'I91t ti m 4 v+"two.' MI I I •\1:.1.:.7. I.. rIi 11.114l* \/M`a tlllll\i f V NPV a s xT o 0 O f f .I 1.14 :If . 4a+DnD•ITM11a1MVw•#'7111W114618/mr NMV1WdNMY.WO'11111+1vYNNDl I 1. 1:22.-.11••••••" ' •' _ ■ Its IIh. I,41:i- i :41 f 1 NIII I ■ 1 NVYPPC4g1try1au111' J18wMI D1 II - .It1 III, �' 1 f. f f f i'I...t 1 • •u 7oa[ e,,yANN11„t1.VuPPCm414Pi1 7I LQ. � >» ��il i:i:I:,'I�"'I'I{ 1 V. k�il-1r 1?. •1.°I[Y 1H JA1JPuOB4r11411I7P41J0H11411••Y1iPlNN..y,w1ry x� 1 • \ •,,:q ). 1:.ii II t . u4114m1n343NN49116 Vdu141H1 law 1 ` ma.,N 1 �I 1r m 1 ,FitII 7N�1Y9uowP34N'rY4rdwW aWw1 gg 3g4� ZZ ` -''' VJJ t k J ] E• 1 ( 34PS14414 DI ••••moat _ O t{' +1 t { 1.I--i F,.(G 619414••1mwf4a9g14P14441 wog SSIW4ie1f38WI14011SISb8101 1a1P1dN4NAM114u41V1e'JNINYIWddDI lA"� , ' ' { �y LyV •Iq•lArawa4w1141onii Dos Iris AIPur34N711P4remou 1/4YIN141 PI24'A B '. I plli 1 1`/k t}? r 'Il f1/�I �l N'�-� •11I an0,34t+•�•Ve WSii.1wsw114.2 WI41w141,•d11/N9ci76/YQ+w9 N•01301 v 4 ,4m WI _ m• , tY' a 4 [ 1 I! �. 11w .2.4.1ftri .IM fY� 94.131 tom 9236%V MCI Dos • N V1FT P'1 NIHS H W0 4PNIid RN 1 �� �4� •t• .� ..11J 11�I If;,[+� J, X� 1 t ryJ� F�' AJ•• �a1np NPN1/4un14N'�J V.H JaA PIN 1 1 r� *A nl l® � 11;1 1,� .a m"1`t 14�, t,-T l 11AtIM nu es al•wo f4WO7IAMPA ld.N 01.*11101 111ma4P1r13 of N11N8141•+�Yw14. 1 41 • 'S' f D ��0yy�f II I T j 1D•r/�•9.7.Y•9.Y4 NR41.u.1u.7w4.wa cut as 1 J.MYWY.le 4MMAP01 w0Y 0..y uPIY•t I'�1 �ISQ'' I11$''r i 7! / 1;itJt � } P1&.,Hg 4141JNP'1446141490411640 9a MPAMPI3s'01. N4a gP1o,�N4 v u1 wog 4 A 1p�M�11e . 7777 ��/ II t�II l pp r it la{{.. w11 q•4.1•ga sisaghpumwry Irvyt 4m'h.°I+wun1 UT 1849NW 4M Y.d1N m1Y411p1vy011.11ism 47o'T Y 'y pg n l�r�� 'tfli rl'7 111 St1`- J. 4 " ��4.11��14tird1P711071 4py 140•1wr'N'T01 H P•1114,4646•.Y uw uw1//,11.M IO 111g1 '°I' I a �1� 1„��cHf 19�� I{ '1' •t ��l x�1h`lx 1 T �t1 A11.1au.114sDr114U�V+1d11r0t10 D01 I*.VuU0'14/MY/in6.wi«Atmd4Y'i 1f�"1 `i .as':Y J I H' �Jell.i•. �I11 � 1 ,. �F 11,;.� 1 I�.t li 1 kh t111.1auv114Puud tpuoaylldlouud 0.:,e , 'r E1}tlk�i,' 1bF. .t 1 / (51 Jyuno3 7uix • uoluau jo LID .• s II (till,: qi h JI � ) r MI fi1,^a UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Travel Demand and Traffic Patterns Travel demand into and out of Renton for existing (1990) and future (2010) conditions was analyzed by compiling the estimated number of daily trips made within Renton and between Renton and 13 other general areas in the region. Traffic patterns were illustrated by selecting key road segments and estimating the proportion of traffic on each that is traveling to/from the areas defined for the travel demand analysis. The 1990 traffic volumes are presented in conjunction with the 2010 traffic volumes to provide comparison and to underscore the expected change in future traffic volumes. Ongoing transportation planning work will include continued refinement and updating travel demand and traffic patterns as new information on regional and local land use and traffic volumes become available. Daily Travel Demand The origins and destinations of the trips that enter and leave Renton on a typical day in 1990 and 2010 were compiled in order to illustrate overall travel volumes and geographical travel patterns (see Table 1.1). In 2010, there will be 871,000 daily trips generated in Renton, a 52% increase from 1990. Of these trips, 28%'are internal (i.e., both origin and destination in Renton). Another 25% of Renton daily trips travel to/from southwest King County (Tukwila, Kent, Auburn, SeaTac, and Federal Way), and 11% travel to Soos Creek, 17% to Seattle, and 12% to the Eastside. Traffic Patterns 1990 and 2010 traffic patterns were assessed by estimating the origins and destinations of daily traffic on the major arterials and freeways entering Renton shown in Figure 1-4. The origins and destinations are compiled in Tables 1.2 and 1.3. 1990 (see Table 1.2). On the freeways (I-405 and the Valley Freeway) 20-25% of the traffic at the Renton City Limits is traveling to/from Renton. Arterials carrying a high proportion of Renton traffic include Sunset Boulevard (70%) and Benson Highway (67%). Arterials carrying a moderate proportion of Renton traffic include Maple Valley Highway (50%), Grady Way (38%), and Northeast 4th Street(44%) and Rainier Avenue (35%). Several arterials carry only a small proportion of Renton traffic, including ML King Way (18%) and Southwest 43rd Street(12%). 2010 (see Table 1.3). On the freeways (I-405 and the Valley Freeway);at the'Renton City Limits,under 30% of the forecasted traffic is traveling to/from Renton. The only arterial carrying a high proportion of Renton traffic was Benson Hwy (98%). All of the other arterials analyzed were forecasted to carry Renton •traffic proportions of 30% -45%. Traffic Volumes Arterial Traffic Volumes In order to show the overall level and pattern of utilization of the Renton street/highway system, 1990 and 2010 daily two-way traffic volumes were compiled (see Figures 1-5 and 1-6). (Note: The 2010 volumes reflect a freeway/arterial network comprised of existing facilities existing in 1994 planned for implementation by 2010 in the Arterial and IIOV Plans as described in Sections 1.7 and 3.3 respectively.) - II-18 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TABLE 1.1 2010 TOTAL DAILY PERSON TRIPS RENTON TOTAL CENTRAL SUBAREA RENTON VALLEY BLACK RIVER* SKYWAY* S.E. RENTON* KENNYDALE (CITY LIMITS ONLY) HIGHLANDS* 1990 TOTAL TRIPS 574,460 136,500 60,920 48,070 74,930 152,030 188,120 2010 TOTAL TRIPS** 871,120 202,630 149,760 59,800 81,070 207,420 292,250 INTERNAL TRIPS 240,940 (28%) 18,620 (9%) 7,490 (5%) 1,350 (2%) 7,260 (9%) 20,270 (10%) 64,180 (22%) TRIPS To/FROM: Central Subarea -- -- 8,460 (6%) 6,010 (10%) 8,690 (11%) 17,360 (8%) 23,950 (8%) Renton Valley -- 8,460 (4%) -- 3,390 (6%) 3,160 (4%) 13,110 (6%) 8,110 (3%) Black River -- 6,010 (3%) 3,390 (2%) -- 2,650 (3%) 4,370 (2%) 4,020 (1%) Skyway - 8,690 (4%) 3,160 (2%) 2,650 (4%) -- 2,760 (1%) 4,160 (1%) S.E. Renton -- 17,360 (9%) 13,110 (9%) 4,370 (7%) 2,760 (3%) -- 11,580 (4%) Kennydale/Highlands -- 23,950 (12%) 8,110 (5%) 4,020 (7%) 4,160 (5%) 11,580 (6%) -- Tukwila Valley 49,390 (6%) 10,110 (5%) 10,660 (7%) 4,040 (7%) 3,330 (4%) 10,540 (5%) 10,710 (4%) SeaTac-Burien 67,710 (8%) 15,270 (8%) 14,930 (10%) 5,570 (9%) 3,870 (5%) 13,250 (6%) 14,820 (5%) Kent 72,430 (8%) 12,480 (6%) 18,410 (12%) 4,250 (7%) 2,770 (3%) 24,360 (12%) 10,160 (3%) N. Soos Creek Plateau 88,890 (10%) 14,900 (7%) 13,850 (9%) 3,600 (6%) 2,030 (3%) 37,150 (18%) 17,360 (6%) Auburn/Federal Way 24,450 (3%) 6,620 (3%) 7,160 (5%) 2,300 (4%) 1,020 (1%) 3,860 (2%) 4,490 (2%) S. Soos Creek Plateau/ 10,600 (1%) 2,550 (1%) 2,370 (2%) 700 (1%) 390 (0%) 2,230 (1%) 2,360 ( 1%) S.E. King County Pierce County 43,370 (5%) 10,220 (5%) 11,310 (8%) 3,480 (6%) 1,960 (2%) 6,790 (3%) 9,610 (3%) Kitsap County 4,890 (1%) 1,010 (0%) 900 (1%) 340 (1%) 300 (0%) 580 (0%) 1,760 (1%) S.Seattle/W. Seattle 72,300 (8%) 14,520 (7%) 11,180 (7%) 5,750 (10%) 14,890 (18%) 10,640 (5%) 15,320 (5%) Seattle/Shoreline 74,560 (9%) 10,780 (5%) 6,080 (4%) 4,090 (7%) 16,580 (20%) 13,660 (7%) 23,370 (8%) Bellevue/Mercer Island 59,390 (7%) 8,660 (4%) 2,690 (2%) 1,350 (2%) 2,300 (3%) 6,700 (3%) 37,620 (13%) Northshore/E.King County 46,630 (5%) 9,150 (5%) 4,490 (3%) 1,660 (3%) 1,630 (2%) 6,380 (3%) 23,320 ( 8%) Snohomish County 14,570 (2%) 3,250 (2%) 1,980 (1%) 870 (1%) 1,350 (2%) 1,760 (1%) 5,360 ( 2%) * Includes potential annexation areas Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10 ** Based on April, 1994 trip generation estimate using applicable activity density factors II-19 Figure 1-4 I, r74 4 `a fay iiti�rr�-� ni II kiler..re.ji 0 / M I 111,4 . mei.:(7-1- (7 „ 4,,,frelk 4_ --_ .I-Alie/ii ..oz-,--.:7,-14-, ( IF Oral 1 � NIPI 1111 L, 6/int 1-104 1{5 I OR) , pie■ \'' _=., ± r� r.-p. L-1 „, I ,,.._ v., -fit � ��- ` • 1■ r' i�'� II 1 ,;.=i, --'..C-'14+---1'.'4.-.' -.:71:;*-.---1--4.7 . .,..lii., Wil,,,,..9q0 di l'' • I��iig:unk 1 1, � .: 4,......-,40,.i. ._:, :,.. .., ,D,: • . mv.-..,„„, ,..,....,,..,-- . „,,,,...3, Ahrurili IP— ti ii1=====k ' .-''--- it: rAill,r,44=--..bitrima, . lui IN iii ftivirii.;.fisr..cis-:" Nr...._. ....!.. IIIP ,' at, 1111 " • • l\ j(D , eln!pp -NEilli � i40•111411714filif %4111 lailkilt, AM? I= `- . .,usamsEa, \ a \ 1r--. .., ,,,I.,,,,L_.r.sapla 111:1 \\iiIIIIIIILT4IPIEW IIIII ___-_, I 0. odar—ot.....m.5 Lidiir: _voinFA IV '' , ttp• Iwo . . il -- )voilip., ,__. .74,0,, -1111innii% . 11.:10A I ■► : • I i "MI I.- -) L : Iv�� .;„ dp--4. iiii virkoto IL. v'o k, ,,,,. , . , kill ni, iv ir I j ;lleIIi! itp I.I.I„ flP -.S I,I,,WV.IIIlII.liC tA,ritl„i,i„il ♦ 44, .4.. A... .I as, -1 p(rim --N I 47' - \ZS tt*Liwil c• low Tro-- vimii.t4\ gr.. . . . . 1 i Md almI fi 11F-6 Niri 1 1 V, z%f,-i z . •. I r MV iI fht I • 1 m ,Road Segments Used in 5 P' • Travel Pattern Analysis •I4 Legend 11 ,7 I ro Nun bcr 0 Transportation ■ I leM Nail `� .04 g i Anal sis Districts 9 ..�1 ,City Unlit` Plan f. 1it, � - jr- 1. 0 I ��i - II- p I 1 I 1 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TABLE 1.2 1990 DAILY TRAVEL PATTERNS OF TRAFFIC ON SELECTED ROAD SEGMENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. I-405 I-405 Rainier SR-167 SR-169 SR-900 SR-900 SR-515 Grady 43rd Oakesdale 4th n/44th e/SR181 n/Airport s/43rd w/140th w/138th , w/68th n/176th e/SR181 w/W Valley S/43rd e/138th Daily Traffic 115,500 119,700 19,400 75,300 29,000 10,000 17,700 23,000 22,500 32,100 , 9,400 24,300 %Traffic to or from: Renton • 21% 25% 35% 23% 50% 70% 18% 67% 38% 12% 26% 44% , , Renton Valley 5% 1% 1% 8% -- --- 7% 2% 21% 4% 18% 2% l S.E.Renton 1% 7% 4% 2% 2% 1% 4% 22% 7% 9% 1% --- Central Renton 5% 10% 12% 9% 17% 16% 4% 31% 10% --- 4% 19% N.E.Renton 9% 7% 17% 4% 31% 52% 3% 12% -- --- 2% 24% Renton Lake Washington 1% 1% --- — 1% 2% -- --- -- --- -- — Through Traffic(a) 79% 75% 65% 77% 50% 30% 82% 33% 62% 88% 74% 56% (a) "Through Traffic" is defined as traffic that has neither origin nor destination in Renton. II-21 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TABLE 1.3 2010 DAILY TRAVEL PATTERNS OF TRAFFIC ON SELECTED ROAD SEGMENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. ' 9. 10. 11. 12. I-405 I-405 Rainier SR-167 SR-169 SR-900 SR-900 SR-515 Grady 43rd Oakesdale 4th n/44th e/SR181 n/Airport s/43rd w/140th w/138th w/68th n/176th e/SR181 w/W Valley S/43rd a/138th Daily Traffic 212,600 214,400 38,300 177,900 56,900 21,600 24,500 30,800 28,300 36,600 18,900 32,000 %Traffic to or from: Renton 28% . 30% 40% , 29% , 39% 41% _ 36% 98% 45% 37% 38% 34% Renton Valley 9% 1% 2% 12% -- 1% 14% 6% 33% 19% 32% 4% S.E.Renton 7% 15% 7% 4% 4% 4% 9% 77% 8% 15% 1% 3% Central Renton 5% 9% 21% 10% 19% 11% 8% 11% 3% 2% 4% 14% N.E.Renton 6% 4% 11% 2% 15% 23% 5% 4% 1% 1% 1% 13% Renton Lake Washington 1% . 1% --- -- _ 1% 1% --- --- . -- -- — --- Through Traffic(a) 72% 70% 60% 71% 61% 59% 64% 2% 55% 63% 62% 66% (a) "Through Traffic" is defined as traffic that has neither origin nor destination in Renton. II-22 • Figure 1-S i�"Y -.f hs y b �,... t--r. . 1`1 .r E,cV- 1 ii/ ' " k40 t , •. ,yr I p �I iI .r r �Ef ..: iii. di, r - i,Nl•1z•.;wk.,;,N-:;,„;'. ?' ., . t,t�. '•cry ` 7 J 4 - ._e. ..::.:i:,• t '!o_C°•°a h1:_ ! g•el 7 7t 1".., S riPiiggi ■1 � t-"�_ t. � r�� r t �c� s�{-��'� ,ems�_. ' ` ».: Ew .... --11l-aA9 1i1k•,1. /10.N'1_„k 1A Mt.:T I , yc+ ?d k Y f iti.4_..,,..„ , ::_ 1F1,EPa1ih11i1l-(7C=a.O.rar ... ii=3=iii' ::47: -C , -fi`�"-ray:-.iy-` �[ii�/ ' = Is. m a.F,gt.--_li-. .1.,...vi,bi_r i,t 1.*F. .Mm•1.1,,\.1aN i._.A f..1 qi,,.oP r44ja4ml-i:n:i:y:ak:.i:1"r.t ffotti..i .,i „4. ��1.r� om' - —t.=='.pia..; *. o ±_- _ _ t �t vd�''_ a , ''+. MIY:III.....„I::11J �. � � ffi7 .... ..�. : ::: st•tr,�j 7, i;t 1rU! ll lr DA •`.iµ:i'?t J--:_• 4 M- L1 " ::: ;tt '° Uf1,IR.ik71RM111111t III 1: r( 1J YIYY IY!:`:-: ......_..-. ptS an IR 51211111 kl -4 1 1 ): i.1\iiiiiii lir.211 1 kg4H.". .::.::..:.......:..- ify a IN .::::....7.............77.7:=.(.1.5 1::;;;::!:j.. :;.:1 - .1110„. .14.1..mem. latgaq. 1..E.5,; '.%.7.idfira ri.5:-::::=46Le.44pF;;.4.Aitt:'L."g141f0t A,:17. 7.........PCIT:. !: '...H.-r w •: -_=.._• ••- liEibligggingigibg Eti '_►- Liqi ..'_=? �� --"� ::ii ::: �:=: _ af , t j ::e..... ' -fi nYYtur � p ;�w;...:.:� �;_ » • -.».a � fi 1 . - _..... . : :1 ? ..` � f � �§11(A :±: - ::_ • T. \It.. '44-1. ' 1 . r . 44114.404.'„bia;iceitaK.-----Ittrigiill i Lin -::!..:7'.:.;;;77.:"1:=—::7:7,:.:::-::: :''''' ,". .::-........:::::::::::,7: 1144VAL..":::.:METLIZ-ini.,...,... . -,. "- h)'4:41"031=.:•A'&11,141i::....: :•-...i..,,,.dA.0 ir- —1-----.7.:E::!:.:-:::::ii:i2E:iirii:::,,,,..„ -..:7:impirgir.:÷74.__7.... �:W i ft#1 ._....... .._... ..�=•i�•::w::::::•w��i-:iii CI 1:11:4:: ::-.......:r.i.!...h.111!.........F:X.41472: ":N.K....==.4•• :.:::..6•Iii.r:.••-•ii;\,,, a i • 4t 1 -�'u._ ''''''..,1i r:r!...i 4:„ .f- 1.,;�wl..„-:iei...•-Ein:i•:t w .w1-::i YitlJMYi i .,iE„,l„e. .l.!..."=i...,.. -o ::kw:,::.:::.-.l.-7,-.....e.1u.,,f\NVk ,.o i••w••..•.„.• ^•-x ill " - 'El gl il MINK:::temesI/Iw/t:l1t1YY11Y _ _• •ii:::•-••• •• i« Yi] .�YIIMI/IIYIMIMIIIIYIIIYIIIYIIY ® :-:^: _••_':.:...) • III • i 712.--...]:;;;I .iiiiiiiiiii ..:=:::: :El 1 iliTj..- ::"..::: iirki I ',Avail; r r .s 0 gilimii::. igli 1i:i11Y:.i1R1......ry......_ -'�iiit:. i. • 1' 1.91 i • '.. NIE NI in IL • . 4- -. i.. ..).ii i::iii .`M�...re J IYItI•NIINIttt •tiii11gl1i :chi:)......».ice... �� . ........... .. -.... ...... .. °µ°°°: -°ii:€° [ilia € •:1 I990 Daily is VoI r •; :�--•�.- 1, ..,.. �„s � ....._. � -•- ail Traff V •olumes., . illiii) - A ...;..............i • ::: = ::t Daily'I�afita j "� Transportation • 1 eL ........ ::::::::::::� City Limit — — Plan t"III L .i. •""-""' ::::::::::::� '""I Urban Growth mown " 23 Boundary • ,1 k .• .te CI Limr1i dh.•1 • • ...in.-:. ::•!;iiii}l....ill �?�?iiii ..:is_iiii:ii ii.:..... 1 I =QM i: :::•°f'j3ij i' :: :};•}'••iiii' s}: ? / ' :}isuiiiiiii � X• .:F:•l;i3F.1 i..:i.1° M� f;nil::::!';iiii..... f .3..: ' ; a7}s F' .�... �iii}i?�l;}lEE}ii?jii�a'�:,::: i• �.; i}' iiii••etii.{.�yt Al,3 (� g " :'iiii' =s a }it : t iii. :.' - ... '�(ys.:. .e: ihau,,.°0:i ,.sZr. F )' s•• �,`i ._:.•iiii;. ,e., .. 2 w �. ; iiii. },.�:,,::: ;t::: t.•L...tJ':' t iiii:.. o h3}}:.: :iii...i aa••• � s_ ... - iiii •�� ��,: ps...!•!i.• SF:. �` r '� i}{ iiii.. .•iiii=_}}E_' ,:t... ii) }.it.... �FMI •,iiii.• !•!••ifs S.ii.•t: l • ►.� kg Q..1114. y 1 }: t is t O :t :,: :ii}::?iiii?'.. ) O s: •i. .�^ s•:;•t•^iiii s � ! iiii:�• .iFi..s iiii �...}}::::•ii:FF::::..;i;..i I.i•...•1...'.:'•�` s:: i };�.iiii •' ��r• ..�... :iiii:{ii:i•}..i•::;.s..:•j•!'i.:il.}i::i•�!iiii.•!iiii;!{ ! � t ti! ,s: f {s....:...:... .s.1.....s.:: ::{.;..s IIII1LO iiiC����ii':' ;•iiii• s::....i.. 7..t::....i: C�1 :s::::ts :» i :t::?iFi}{iF7i::ii'i•Ejs.�Fi 7..;..i.}i:•i° .s=iiii .. i ",.. a}:r:}:. .. }}}s:..i ••••'iiii {iii', j "' i3i:::}:• ::1.::}i n s _ a .................................... p:mi.:.iiii its}si}i?..f..,�?ii31ii €iiii.'.�...-•iiii}..........................................iiir }. :•: iiii i{Ftiii:: :s uil} ': :;!iF:ijiii r i �/ i: ::. tlf� kll::a�s��}:• s. ..i........lt.....i...f.:.s...t... S?!}••iiii...;3 slfii:tiitllE .. l -_ l$ ;•iiii..: � t'•� � ::}::s:i: iiii BE sits:}::}: •:F:•::::•:::•::i1:::::i•:g: i 'i`{iiii iiii°it::i i?}FF' ::t};: _.. • 0 ;.1�_•• IM M 1. . ;{:F ..{:1""1",1"14:i}. .. : i •iiiiiiiiiiiii..;iiii. �F �P��l�� a t...ssi}}:. :, _ iiii..... 3l .::.r:s : ::::;i..:si}}{Fli{t}iF }ii:{iil: i t. ti• ::iiii Fii........ii....i..::7... ;i...i..;.. :.»-` J ..s •••••• ;.•iiii.:• .O i ��.- }••••::: glifjt}••.#.: FFii3i}?S{fil:si;l:?:•{iiii :'/{iiii: 3ii3t:i•l1'°HI., "sc �� -aQr iii , ... ; .. } ;iiii..; iiii; t. ,q i:s.. };., A BiRR i'} i {}:F:: : :: pO 1 1 •:f i •.iiii : F�tEaf} � ,,�y i '(••'iiii••'t i•i:i:i:. �s•••: j•^:•s.. - - — - :" :a::.: •i :aj::iiii IF ..ii1 '! � 111114TILIMMIr /9 K. p, i.:ii.:;s iiiiA .0 t :FSiISf. • :i ..... tliFiiB WI :St:}:::}}......::7:I {} iiii! .S :i• SF} NE ~-i.: -•titA ... • _. 1 ......................... ii:;}:!•!:•t:::;:ii iiii . 0 p-t V VI' }• iiiii. ii ::::. iiii;.;{{:- {:i { gyp :i•!F!i{}!i{i{{F}}}fiFi{!{ii}••F ::}:i!!ii•{liiilii•:iiiii{F:.' 0 o 00 M S_t� : a iil::s:s rn- L� Aid# m ;=iiii...;i•::t..jj .... t•:iiF:...t.s;. �� 0 V g, 'Ll `� .{{ Wp f isF{ii.l.:.j}}:{.i,l...ss:• ...:i{ i!iFijil :!jii!{:.:Flii•i13. -1-4��� ' /� N 0 +` = -... 0 Miltl .,:,:... iiii : ..;iiii::::... ... C� a F a ^ 1'. .. _ :: � p iiii::: , j j:.._ i:::.a: :} _ ::s::utt 7.:..t.M •••{iiii{: : ..3{.F::Fit{!{..:"..... .•.}SS;F• {{{}:•:{l=iiiiS jiii}F1iii iiii i .g V W .. Limn:. r� ,E•:•...... :s:.. �,.._.. - ' I _-'.'yl _` iih.:: i ,iiii• j iiii •/1 b', �• \`HAY (/:� .......:i..: :t••• }..iiii • !I I FIiiiiiiii.. :I::;:7.:....iiii}ii}}:.}•Fttt' t.•...; •. ��I-" "mii ::7::i:i ; �. : .iiii.:::,• i:..,t:.}!!iiii::.:..:::liiiF.:::::. gi ,All •_�• p- ]=;. - _ _� iiii:::•' } !u ? ....7..5• /:F{iilFi{{{f::t..:7s:{ lliil::::3::t:} :s::i}{{}} ii✓y'H..c f 1 � ll:t:: : t...t }• s 1 i' :i{}s{i}{F... ✓, j..::::o:e:.. `. ,; :ties:;t si 7: s•• r IW ['I :: d {:;:: ',, 1SpttUmfti .f:i:::::t:::::it '•i:. ! iiii:ills..:::::: Mil sili±Eiii{ .. ::. }:: :.. —tom' :Mr :.,Ist � iiii _iiii = • .:::.. ...;.—iiii= ��ik.� row MI iitt:}:: � �1i.- Riga 'I. W � .::r....... l}::::::::: °{iiii: iiii _}}__ '�.,,�, r ' j ,.., !ill i _ :: .r.. ,: J i ill i � ���ai�m iiia�® _ .� 1:_ =_i= ii. '. - �oftr- 4 :i°�d I[I���7`il j i�fJ•FTi.I iIF(I�—WIN- 7W:4'js:::• ��.�Htlttlttt °r ,�d��-R:s•A...,- - {iiii }i•i . ai t • - r�-/ O t t ` �_ =i. _ }}!ii{ see:::tirr::a s:• r ry ,,, wi i. .1F 3 {�' v "q :gt �A 1 Mitt it� - ?iii •. 34 y J II{I i�!Iti1i �3i -iiiiitvt:sr:i:!!::••:•; wnHV... :: ` ` � t=.':;t�irk+' :r.• _ 1 i i r. _.._ t$YJB.! ,ry ♦ fit_ _ :}i}•t }� i l C s 7}} i.__.i t» s a.: RLL'ttitf ! f�r,� aila. 'h: s. ifi ir•.'ii:` :{ •} • ' i�G����H °' I 3rtlr.i•vvri' lilC�Y. I}j�ii i �s} -�i •,, ���1�► Y \:F{E= `- P :F e 1 a .r ,, 1tI{ tii'Tf� #tCj.},, ��i�t'I.'`,irt,i aoli....F.•_;iiii:: .i„r:11:. ::«: ...;..� �' h61: .tiiiii' \; iWEI�...• rj zr[ir -,J t.:71., iiiiIr ;i�a(i1'i >j�Ii'.k.�,}? 7 (1 s '�... _ �;r':ii .4ffi'�� 171. 7 ..s; _iiii! ••m�tl t ...•'i'. il li 1rii�:111:-:i.litr' f �i1,.11. I F�'�'IIIli����i11i1�i'F �aa.Ifrii37}:tL•u::li{ii:.:r.• ""..::iiF}}. �••}....tIIIg:m: � lF.�' i �� e s s•' •• - • 1 �T t i II##+ }}1r, i : .9"". ��3i.. A}}t7 {iiii Siii i{!h. 3tilia:.3i;{7.,t ram+ —I.. :..::::t um::: 7:::m I tt { , i ^�rf iiii :: _1l '7 Y 1119 i-I1.11 1.1 llj�Ji fIr#,,.};tali:}:}.. ter°.. ... Fi{}i. 7} 1� t : _ - -i r ., Jy 4 il iiii.k t. Fr { G .�; .,..,,;r• S t•f••uii}iti1....(}1••�ffi)Fll:s •tu}; iiii �_ . 'a ..�i� i 7 � i. '^ iiii :: � � ':"' ':�' ��- 'f 177r^�,i ,Pt!ii (iiii,! u i0 �gr)iilj' k U � ...r:{at.t� ...t:i...7... ...e.: aii{}t}{i{•i: �° �'l?1 I ;tTSi :Ten.. s} r.::a FI j jsa::::}.... -— _ w li r tt Y R _ _.. ..ry:.�r]'D► - .. iiii_I 7� � j t1 krri.Cr I�i if}: +}�I'fls rlli}J itl'1{i, fp. Fli{{}{{{il:sat..... t Ad ?v ;.s .. _ -1 1 i l .k. b.. ,�}}F[�', •iiii{tR, s si;...}....s•u:js::.: � .r-•�" �•t i I.(�,h i 1 A,� Y fitl .. : .::4 .. 7:: -@.A'� ":: fJ fi c tr 7 f r tJ i T i I I f it j'kf 1 1, is .. 'RC�ftlOf:. �'r t$�� '... a E .� ... _ - i 5 tii krt 1 i ;itr+I 1 ! jI 1 rG I f• r.::: �s 3f r : ri {'.f ! iI FF{kII�Liriirclignoliii ' _ ... ::t :�7�- y .. � ,ril' +{iiii+l.:�1frytiiii;} "ja,;iiii; �v,fi��4GJ rJ[i f�'Jtl l �'� iiiiVVV ',rt. `e( ►' iiii......... ,, +. ... I I ..a>�ttl:tttttttttt .. ::: ::}}•i...i}. s s..iiii.. •iiii} tr3f ' 1 Y m.i I {I �I i„H ��I�il tiF} r �ftlifyMtiti::. ��•iE,i I •..:::::s .i....km:: .. a,:i lI'f�Jk�J�4+� A -t�{J'�fll��lk�`i•i� I( } I�+ } II ..cta _ mit S .. • - ;�,It� �1if+ -i{ >i itl k`i �f {�}• .J}Ffi 'iFi•.::'.i iiii^' �� :i ...........A {{iiiFFi{{:: • . 1 J f 1 f i ( k � �� F•i lFiFii....} :..}:::AAY:RS13'�j�glJ ::_ F� tli Pit zl, r�k. . 11�,sr�ir�,i��,:�ih i���1{[ri�,���,3' �U1���1�1��1�� .. �` 11 ::c {q• �t1 1 t ,, r .i�#}i *1 } I i: asF. :ji7::::i -i :}•7• iiii.. r+ •{ } f i It} iiii I"Ifit I w_''l i�rl` L�t�lr.ro.. (fFry,,�1,+�+jJ 1./.r �� • '1t1�` �./ r � :t:s::i: :,l::t:..s:::71F 'gig _ 6:F} yt zfJF: ;Fd}f1 '�i= _,Ir'I �. / Ij( @may : 1' •'7}ii{i}.. :f.:;„„:„:„:,„;;:FF}{ .giiir{ iiii' — iiii '?iiii' .{{iiii y r I J i( f Iirin{t{�I �111 : lAt ,' fe f• :11 .: •7:•:�:;i.. :s..i-rs = ?::iiii :i F try+4.:.I fi rixI�G f , } �� „ "'/1-. �,f iiii 1� :.}is i F{:a:...:.:.. = ...t t •...an:. • `r ikn'rji j SIll tit� Y: t ,1", ��� sa- i{ri :}}!ti!•!{{. iFiFii��} _ - _ s:::::::... J 1M s.°mi 1.i {f �.• t • ���� iiii• :jtjj7:•• v •"1:":"Ii!. f i•It:hiaia..... - •- - .,,,-{� t � ■■ � _ :•� _•� �• �� i iiii_»...t._....j..wA7i, o ._. �1'�II'Frljj 7 : - }:: :.. =:;iiii:.= - = =:_: Ei{{':�lT„;}-� ':,�. � I�.'�� 'f♦�,,/- (114:•;1 • ! !E� Fii'i3s�3!'3isf� � '!!i;sr :sss{la_}fi=�ilF3�......:{{iiii. -sa......_ :;.•iiii_ :iiii_ _ �?,$� fL } ly .1 : ����,�' • _ ..iiii. .:__.•:�••:-»-::»•_ •. —— ..3:'I1 t-v' r h J •s tTa r ► }:j/ i iiii t iiii::- ` :it ris iiii-ii •si sc :7EE__!ea(ees —•rr '�; t 1 1 ,� ALI i i3i:. ::� •':iiii; ,��rr�� ias Li}:! t'i ii_:.:::::�.. .. _ ►'• ����� - - r .... i•__..:. E=iiii ......L......., iiii •> f .. ,t , .+,.f 1 ���� ���� 'Ei_ _fi r.::j:}:-: + _ , r71:;• i`i aT if•-•HifJl, .« �r,',�� i� All n u:.j:t•• :i:. V .- j,t,r ] F 1, :p..;.;......: r iiii '1 c ti:tiia}.+;k �•,i ? 4 :':•�i •r �' ���� jaw�� �.•►1 lls IP Alkali= INN II' "- mot....=, Ill MN IIMI ;' `I� ' . '� •1 .. .ati... / , f:}€iiii ■. , �� ^^'L: ii� pi: / �' UPDATED 12/1/1999: 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT and the following arterial and HOV improvements planned for implementation by 2010. Arterial improvements: • Widen Park Avenue North - Bronson Way to North 10" Street • Relocate Houser Way- Sunset Boulevard to North 8"Street • Sunset Boulevard / Relocated Houser Way grade separation. • Widen Bronson Way - South 2'Street to Sunset Boulevard • Widen Main Avenue South- South Grady Way to South 2"Street • Revise South 2`d Street Alignment- Rainier Avenue South to Main Avenue South • Replace Lake Washington Boulevard/ May Creek Bridge • New Oakesdale Avenue Southwest arterial - Southwest 16th to Southwest 27th Street • Replace Monster Road Bridge • Widen Northeast 3rd Street- Sunset Boulevard to Monterey Drive • South Grady Way Spot Improvements - Rainier Avenue South to Talbot Road South (SR-515) HOV improvements: • Add HOV lanes on SR-167 - SR-18 to South Grady Way • Complete HOV lanes on I-405 - SR-167 to Sunset Boulevard • Add HOV lanes on I-5 - Seattle CBD to Tacoma • Half or full HOV interchange at I-405/Benson Road or Talbot Road (SR-515) and HOV lanes on SR-515 or Benson Road South from the new HOV interchange to Puget Drive • Full HOV interchange at SR-167/S.W. 27"Street and HOV lanes on S.W. 27'Street from SR- 167 to Oakesdale Avenue Southwest • HOV lanes or intersection queue jump on SR-169 - Sunset Boulevard to East City limits • HOV lanes or intersection queue jump on Sunset Boulevard - Bronson Way to I-405 • HOV lanes or intersection queue jump on Park Drive N.E. - I-405 to Sunset Boulevard • HOV lanes or intersection queue jump on N.E. 3rd / N.E. 4" Street- I-405 to Monroe Avenue Northeast • HOV lanes or intersection queue jump on Rainier Avenue/Airport Way/Logan Avenue - SR- 900 to North 6th Street • HOV lanes or intersection queue jump on Carr Road / S.E. 176h/Petrovitsky Road - SR-167 to 140th Avenue Southeast High-volume arterial corridors in 1990 included Rainier Avenue and Airport Way, each with over 30,000 vehicles per day (vpd)di and Renton Avenue Extension, North Park Drive-Sunset Boulevard Northeast, Northeast 3-Street-/4-Street, Talbot Road South, Southwest 43-Street and South Grady Way-Main Avenue South, each carrying over 20,000 vpd. The forecasted 2010 volumes showed significant increases over 1990 volumes. On major arterial corridors, volumes were forecasted to increase on the order of 40% - 100% over the 20-year period. The highest-volume arterial corridor in 2010 is Rainier Avenue, with forecasted daily volumes of 38,000 - II-25 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 1 58,000 through Renton. Maple Valley Highway (SR169) also has forecasted volumes in excess of 50,000 vpd. Other high-volume arterials with forecasted volumes in excess of 30,0001vpd are listed below: Talbot Road South (north of South Puget Drive) South Grady Way Airport Way - Logan Avenue NE 3`a Street 4 N.E. 4`''Street North 4 'Street North Park Drive - NE Sunset Boulevard Sunset Boulevard North(west of I-405) South 2-Street- Bronson Way East Valley Road (south of SW 43ra Street) th West Valley Highway (SR-181) S/SW 43—Street- South Carr Road- S.E. 176—Street- Petrovitsky Road Traffic volumes on the freeway system were also forecasted to increase dramatically by 2010, with daily volumes of over 200,000 on most segments of I-405 and over 180,000 on SR-167 (Valley Freeway) through Renton. The forecasted I-405 volumes are equivalent to current volumes on I-5 at the Ship Canal Bridge, where I-5 has eight mainline lanes plus four reversible roadway lanes (as compared to the two lanes plus an HOV lane in each direction on I-405). The I-405 Corridor is vital for regional connections between Renton and other Puget Sound cities and for the economic vitality of the city. At the same time, the traffic that overflows out of the corridor will severely impact the city's strep is and neighborhood livability. Intersection Volumes The overall functioning of an arterial system is controlled by the operation of its intersections. The relative and comparative use of Renton intersections during the most critical period of the day (i.e., the p.m. peak hour) was illustrated by compiling total entering volumes. i In 1990, the highest peak hour entering volumes (see Figure 1-7) occurred at the South Grady Way/Rainier Avenue South intersection(6,210). Two intersections carried volumes over 5,000: North 3—/Sunset (5,720) and,Airport/Rainier (5,490). Six other intersections had entering volumes of 4,000-5,000 (three of these were on Rainier Avenue South), and nine others had volumes over 3,000. Increases over 1990 entering volumes were on the same order of magnitude as,the increases in daily traffic volumes. Intersections all over the city were forecasted to experience significant increases in entering volume. In 1990, four of the 130 Renton intersections analyzed had peak hour entering volumes over 5,000, and a total of 27 intersections had entering volumes over 3,000. For 2010, 60 intersections had forecasted peak hour entering volumes in excess of 3,000, including 16 intersections with entering volumes over 5,000. In the Renton sphere of influence outside the current city limits, there were an additional 15 intersections with forecasted peak hour entering volumes over 3,000, of which three exceeded 5,000. II-26 Figure 1-7 -- V Rill 1114 ,_ 2.4. .a) Wik/• .H 1.MMrP ! - .- L- - .� j ......... _ .. 101 7 1111 � �Yt� �w �1111 ibli...: ta: • d "�1"~�.wi.; Liviiiik ,, 40.7.-t ,.....__:---_.: . '-7.---' 7:- Raim 4 .... 1. 1.E., HT!.n'l k ... ji 1 . , .�. 4et. • -� iE2i0a 'r..0 as ' "l.... . ■ _ ° er ,��_� \; ■ii III : _ all 4Ikwiw JIIE=2,t :.l ' k :: :sett 4117,214iii 4,111 siiiii;figjr.!eitt4th-gEk ::.L...._...: lifi: otorisszs Hp _14,41-plipnfrelpiimpw' kwat 2550T ' ' __, --"IiimplaiMM:s A.411, • - i•X'aiititt", 2290 0::-..4=1 II 1 = .1 ......ibvI. _., 4triteWo.,elnagami —-----.........'''''''''''''''''''''''''...-E g I II "i'O.::k.._ .:...:._gill •: - altill 1 '--„110 ...-............-.::: : ii .. . .. :�:::�`� : . „jam ■ c : ; ;;; ......._.. ,,_.4.i & i; t56H IflIIIIYII IIIM R!1!Y : :.'. k ,,,,,, 1 WI 111 ...... „-sue—fie ........ .i4 1117 ` �" ,Wife�v—.astait' , :14.--.„ - .::\AO/ ' Insert Ig Mir 2540 2290� kl.,` i/ ° w ✓'� � fllxiillisit±itilf:; ... Mir *IV� •-;�� \ iiiJ MI.�� xua:,,,,,,nuwu"���®;:i tm� iviiiiii.:7....:114:\:.:Liiii..714::::: .„.......rd.,13. L .,■lr� �:, ,. .... ��,.. � � � ��iiii _ M �: , ,, :., iiis; • iicniia-"�iiaiiwii:2��� � � _ ... � .. II ���- � .��..�...._...... , 12tdSt '�� /2...-.. - , l��► .1 ,Atr) ;;,,, :l .,,.1 ,. ..620.22.,m.„..7,11.i. .. 1,y 9�°:.rF 1111111 _lan , „1,/1 ,' to- ili ., le Ati '. ilill i'LL. i L :,:::::.....:::i r.--- • illrailll i Mist. 1990 PM Peak Hour Intersection M -. 1-T:::,....7o. Total Entering Volume Illin E' u Legend I 1 g . [,� g Intersection 611111111,iTdt Boundary aorri E rii-1 ill 1 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT The highestaforecasted 2010 peak hour intersection volume was just under,8,000 entering vehicles at both the North 3-/ Sunset Boulevard North and the South Grady Way / Rainier Avenue South intersections. The high-volume intersections (peak entering volume over 5,000) in 2010 are listed below: North 31:`Street/ Sunset Boulevard North (7,960) South 43`a Street/ Northbound SR-167 (5,900) South Grady Way / Rainier Avenue South(7,960) Rainier Avenue South/ South 7` Street(5,780) Sunset Boulevard/ Bronson Way/ SR-169 (7,050) S.W. 43`a Street;/ East Valley Road (5,620) Talbot Road South/ South 431d Street(6,430) S.W. 43`a Street/ West Valley Hwy. (5,460) Interurban(West Valley Hwy.)/ Rainier Avenue South/ Airport Way/ S.W. Grady Way (6,220) Renton Avenue Extension (6,250) Benson Road South/ South Carr Road (6,230) North 4-Street/ Park Avenue N. (5,380) th Talbot Road South / South Grady Way (5,960) 140-Avenue S.E./Petrovitsky Road SE (5,130) Benson Road South (SR-515) / S.E. 208` (6,050) N.E. 4-Street/'Monroe Avenue N.E. (5,070) SR-169 / Northbound I-405 (5,420) 140` Place S.E. / SR-169 (5,920) Benson Road South (SR-515) / S.E. 192�a(5,000) Traffic Operations Arterial Service Levels In order to evaluate traffic operations and congestion on the Renton arterial system, the daily traffic volume per travel lane was computed for each arterial segment. This information, which compares traffic volume to roadway capacity, was used to identify the arterial segments on which traffic is congested. 1990 and 2010 daily traffic volume per travel lane were compiled for arterial segments carrying more than 5,000 vehicles per day per travel lane (vpdpl). Evaluation of the daily-traffic-per-lane data was guided by two basic characteristics of urban arterials: 1) a typical urban arterial can carry 700-800 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) and maintain uncongested traffic operating conditions, and 2) a typical peak hour traffic volume on an urban arterial will be about 9% of the daily volume. Combining these two traffic characteristics yields an indicator of the level of congestion in terms of daily traffic per lane with an upper range of 7,000-8,500 vpdpl. In 1990, a number of arterial segments in Renton carried traffic volumes in the 7,000-8,500 vpdpl range (see Figure 1-8): • Maple Valle Highway • Northeast 3L Street(immediately east of I-405) • Houser Way • Sunset Boulevard North (immediately north of Bronson)' • Talbot Road South (south of South Grady Way) • Benson Road South (south of South Grady Way) • South Carr Road- South 43`a Street • South Grady Way (immediately east of Rainier Avenue South) • Rainier Avenue South (several segments between South 2na Street and South Grady Way) Only two short segments had 1990 volumes greater than 8,500 vpdpl: Sunset Boulevard North, north of Bronson (12,500) and Rainier Avenue South between I-405 and South Grady Way (14,175). II-28 • • • . • ,,,,,,C^"',�:: •,3,,, 7 ' �� .:Y:. pjI s . 1G, i,•n;.,�.�•r : . ,•:: •i'b:4[jf,S(" i}l;{�.; .. ,...., \+":J£r: '}ti .„,...„ :„.`.0E`: L1(L� .. ,� ..r, v:'i lx. :i:: .yi.,Y -.r;} �L•:r:. l, • /R-J j .yytp .:. r ;-. yy}. o am owl ....+,;,. 7� ,. i'i`: ).:�.. kT .fG _ .p:;.,.�,...,� • n,, .„ t• :.• • .- . .th b1II1 ' '?ljh>•.}t,' F''_}'eiim M• .a ``•�c' -';f :�t^2'9 '` :. `.r..4l _.:011 • 14 I. illupyrzT A ip a*,; c1. Frr y. 14 . .?/,is:'}r.•i:: `•7AS<:'• sk9' • .•i. rf) • r. f R•�' - 6I �o■ E s^'hY : .r�rr s:t• ,ay... tu,,,,•,,,,,,,,_gr •,... .....4te. ... ..' ''''' ,a.•. r•}+� :' +3 ;`' 11�'1 U ��� '`v.x �/,4;YL:' 4} •{{:} ;:?i ON ��'•}4 i�.,';�:7,.:.•$i,`.iC�?�'S�{�<' .4�� � � hx^ Sf.:•:.�, ` V 1Imp r PaNi � I i —: :.��.Y lyL�et� `,4..:.0n,.1!.....,•9::ah ), y¢,.4 ' t-,: a , `Kph Q iiir ny V al. h� yn n.}'• �1t�"l ,:} '+�91 wdM� 'X;��• .T `• S. • ..4.3 t" ,� l�' .g3 9- .. is VA' `f `. ":} t3+7R1 :tY. `+:'tf, R.YR+t `�;ft}�k J${ } y : ,• •• Eti. or 1, t P�i�'`: ::'r.:;t'r'.#ti{ ax,i ''ytf�':. ^::i`•. ( : a+' 11 f F.1 00 V •�. y N /� L`0 xb K r} tt . +. ,Q ..ryt. � TYy.vi;t • C.�...;: . ' t J^' -h..:: f Sg :' i tl1a v.?Y:.. ,Y,la►,!::: :. .'t,):.' ,p(� Q F ra 01 I N+' .` S��tto Y.aF,'S ,G i3i ppyt yY .. .,S•, ...:Y':..r. ./ ts.. ..,Lr' K 'Y�t'- r.��� r.� • L' +!:�:` ,1. r;'� n T"t� F fi f.>i�y.TSR •' }:�.F' `' p.. 9�i 0 ,"_I .„,•,,evot:„„),;,we.,.1.7.4y.144 g ..• e i'. .tea?asw> .e-.- = &tg„,;:.,...•..i ••3.z '. g;':; sY2 •.9 .. 0 O j• • ak;t'y',t:%yrf '��• r _ W•.'E+ ,r,.;F ...K••.`.:�`�.: ti , Y 9:iliac:Q N:.,.#i:.::..::,.p.&2260:4-. *. , t.,...-Vms*.,-,k,,,,,,,v. 104 : 4 ,, ,,,,.___.v. .. -..' 4:' a t+e45:.•L reEk.iNCik F/;:,,tfYroS:R.,..•..`.'f,. y v: NI � }�,, '•i*:. r Tt _l^'"..-.��+:II' �ddr1:f4.'uW�a .-:✓" ,,qh _.•},r ck,.";....„i,...,,5 ,r " • ••.. "•x' �5[�F r' ',h 't!r':•i'$')/.•r^, gad b^ .{y r powC :}' 'fig ✓�IY_� iii ,,a t,..j .'$ n Xti' <Jfk a.:'s'vsfe; ''' }:$::W::6>;�, .;j,�`��� a �.. z"•S�:`x:: ,•ApN ,`�,{ � �a :sM1v�;,S;i}'•.'�83532�18P2"��6•r:•:,•C`t'+£•N • � `+s^ 'g�`�' Y s �o� Y i rx :mama '.7. ?z. 'S3 :.��`µ,a`,�p�o . ,.•. ..•Lye t 7"'ri i tJ I t{�yy,•,�ta0-•:'..:{ g9; E ME•in88O " /� •\ )':: �. : •;'Y, :-. W �I n, / §�.j v"J.� }J t dE kt 1 rJ l K:•••} lif!, {, ' ppW�'Fg9W,��'rkY}Y.-+��lecm .M.,.: pu.- < Y •} ;'• •J +t••:a.. • I • • 11 •144 I i { 44 i,a* -11 i t�kill.€E d.r4 I.t,y : '''.`: r'kkliW o-# ?::,,`., y�?' A Dzq^ ... :`- , `' tic 'i�� �r rT ( `�rt�f, L f r �.L �. art�.i,q Ek r(aai: fvt, ''r9:l:s yY.:..•.•:: � ,a.Kt;'� :•, `i' ,�': f a F t .tI' ��1. (�F r.. ,Y� : C< t'Y\• t q��2/ EJQ " :' �2"T '�� :ll 7 M }I J i?.�.Oil (. i i i G if- ki) .. . s,`^°. ✓•'�{+y..';,::.{'•,.•'Vt• ,K. ,'Q I . •; o _ + .: `?. < t fl Efrr:r L t J f� T{ I+�.I'+,II tl*(rI (�I(iiI[(�i[i .117� .rsr "y'�.�o�,M•'r..•;•; i'%:Y ;3+>�?.'.f•�4��.��; 'may � +•taM- •coH,am;, � 3£ •,' -An {. � I J'U,:�,;1� ,a i �kr{I �$Iji'f�Tjl I cillc�iI J-ri}-�{H.��'... ,b':'',+''''g t fir Asq•:.'.i Da!i rN.:: ; °(} ) .0,: `:'• • +c; i.,• i 1� r , } �Jtf aIrt',1 .i N .,'f(� 1fl�i�1,�.}#I .�e.L�}..����a.�' H�thr•: <`'t', • c2_SY' _ : �� �,�' >• t¢� ' .., �-+' '-=a I k�• (.i I•t I.I f r r '�{(fr r, 'Ya7: S'•tj'. L'.C}2ny¢{,;'r S,: i ,°s t'Y 1: '...�':.t`, ::3 ( r ; t{ I }I ,}., ( ,•0 I i i r l}' . ' 1 '4' 2 s gop rm�•pT� t _,�p .: . • ..: ..T `,.,....• .py.�' ._, A.`:i'y v •'r �, ��'..! I Lkl• I fG,, S�� (Ill.�1.CF( iii.I��,1�',Y�'J '0 t•f.�� ham' kT R2.`ooccN t-`"�v.� �E . � � L�_ 06'�'.��..''t..• .".�..�GVG��i�'��Ui'' .\`:'.SI ``_ �:`. :s.,y'4� f r pI r 141 t I. I li 9 i.... . °<Y:`.'mot'41,s 9 'd aa �• — � a ,emu ti^: :y{ i 'lfd'I 4 '1.FI t ,}�'I 114r�71 }fi`fiiltill.u1 I+ —n' ,„1,4,i€.. "1e= 3 .�, �{ > 'G° Q „... � e _ F t� i•- I r77 Y k( Fa;Jk��k itl�rl 41t4.i r i,.p _ yy s. •._ IBB' '7 , .�'-: �. - c�` ' z.. s: ,-•l r.it.l }ir i-o il''Ftii41,141 k i I�! 1l-i 11 :•.:t• 1 ifaifi ••',G 4 a r'.: ''.1. 1' -'k J •l �' �:' t ri{ it I Ili ( Ii ' ✓ ` r;. t �� ,�Fa 7<• it3 t�b.h..s. y� .., ,{n�,n+.. '�.'�Y'i1.At:,l}�=I.�r]7'J'�' �`= /'1 {ff .,,�6:� :y i" r•Y.L3 T{e � 4 •4'.' •5`�•'Y:.':;3..'�.>`S:#:• �7 - ;4l` it:t l�,r1•,4.I�l�[ k tyr• . iC t.� "1111" '.^•L',,;': ' 5}r ht rt b+t} `.}?:...:'.,. f( :r 1, �: 1 =� :r's'<'.. ��T4 �',t .? v,� 4suyT > �';1� Imo r «..,n.Ye:1....•�wj c''t.i} I { T.�.y; } ;: y h$k §•. i::bbly5� Y 'S.• « :tY ;iri rllll-ill tr `} r ylj I+1 "lisli --- ::r y 9';'." l: 59 '' ''' y 1V, .:. '°�3 $�: .•,. ,;� ?''�y,^.y' y '>ate?. .�.: r I �r�.�r; ''#,�h��fr�}t�1������ �{ �, Fa' {Fr. hx}� :�.Fh� ut> ' xr... •,.�h.;.- co;:<t'.raE Y 1'1'1 . '•� f : c :• '�'`it`a }•::':.t;] ',T, :•t' �'•.�4. ', w�' !: ) tF d -I t f.v (p�1l li i J�(rr�1'j}r�I Y�r by �. < v ^�U" .. ,� 3 4' 4 :{• • ,,,r }.. t 4 liT �fiit *,.t�lsr' ; Al '1 "1'' 1''•F'e'ra•+r. �©.'.'Y'•' Lj •F: } C Zc• ;r.•";i•}:`•^` f f {[ ' { a ,3,.^• :{t ySy, y v�9 s..: f y J� 3 ., .t .i :�;��1 J( t t,`Ir }(1{�+it}I ll,� '.�i` ��' �}i•• :i':7LU�t 'L2• Y • .'' 1�ii{ .}rl�(tr Kai, '' [,✓7 r 111J'or- ' ','1■ _' / :Si •, . .:s• .hy �_+ h. .. 'Y g:VAR :; ^ 1 ;� J Frfh a,j�l$�f 4(.ly .('f.fr^fi E1.1.4 ' �� --� , {•T' kf T)f. r iS,.t`'S.{47-- �', ''F''.ray.v f'o•:r...sr,: • xk �ry�,x."' � Gl i{� d �■ \tihX2>.}.• '•'t.. .;'' '4n {. ,r0. ,� S F°Sr.�r. ��# r , flJtt{ jI(+ti arc ill� �7� E;, x..3Sz f • t? 00 `#e t^t•a "I y r('..1lG..,'1• }YJr r / /i!I ?,{<•" f2: 3k 4 E.; Trc r ':r a.• .. r•: • i ,.✓'Tti �G s� IS�iIP i'�t�� ^�■.RI���,, s}:: t ` .\ - - s�th • 'YY Y't r �'. iF t.�yt.r}re .I.N\4 _, ,r t.=,:y<,,�/>8�y;. ` ... s„� UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Forecasted 2010 daily traffic volume per travel lane also was computed for Renton arterials. In 2010, most arterial corridors in Renton were forecasted to be carrying more than 5,000 vehicles per day per travel lane (vpdpl). In addition, the forecasted volumes on the following arterial corridors exceeded 8,500 vpdpl (by contrast, in 1990 only two short arterial segments had volumes greater than 8,500 vpdpl): • Rainier Avenue • Grady Way feast of Lind) • Maple Valley Highway • Northeast 3L Street-Northeast 4` Street • Airport Way • South 2nd Street- Bronson Way th • Duvall Avenue (north of Sunset Boulevard) • 108—Avenue (south of'iPetrovitsky) th • Northeast Sunset Boulevard • South 180—Street-South 43u1 Street- South • Renton Avenue Extension Carr Road -South 176` Street Intersection Service Levels • In order to evaluate traffic operations and capacity deficiencies at intersections, the p.m. peak hour entering volume per approach lane (vphpl) was computed for each intersection,on the Renton arterial system. Although these computations are not based on the detailed lane configuration, traffic signal timing, and turn/through volumes used to determine intersection level of service, the more general entering-volume-per-approach-lane information can be used to determine where intersection congestion is likely to occur and to compare conditions on various parts of the arterial system. Congestion problems typically can begin to occur when entering volume reaches 500 vphpl. Intersections with entering volumes of 600-700 vphpl are likely to experience congestion, and where entering volumes exceed 700 vphpl, capacity is likely to be exceeded and congestion can be severe. In 1990, there were 14 Renton intersections with entering volumes over 500 vphpl (see Figure 1-9). Of these, six were 600-700 vphpl, and three were over 700 vphpl. F Tde of the intersections with high peak hour entering volumes were on Rainier Avenue, including South 3—Street/Southwest Sunset Boulevard (705 vphpl), Grady Way (620 vphpl), and South 7` Street, South 4` Place, and Airport Way. Two of the intersections were on Main Street(Grady/Benson and South 3—Street/Houser), and two were at the SR- 167/Southwest 431 Street interchange, including the intersection with the highest entering volume per lane in Renton(Southwest 43ra/northbound SR-167 ramps:d750 vphpl). Other intersections with high 1990 p.m. peak hour per-lane entering volumes include North 3—/Sunset(715), Airport/Logan (675), Sunset/Bronson/ SR-169 (615), and Renton Village/Talbot and South 7`'/Shattuck Avenue South (610 each). 2010 forecasted peak hour entering volumes per approach lane exceeded 500 vphpl at 58 of the 130 Renton intersections analyzed. Of these, 19 intersections exceeded 700 vphpl and eight exceeded 900 vphpl. In the sphere of influence, forecasted entering volumes exceeded 500 vphpl at another 20 intersections, including 12 over 700 vphpl and two over 900. Ongoing transportation planning work will include updating forecasted roadway capacity on arterials and at arterial intersections as new information on regional and local transportation plans become available. Traditional Level of Service (LOS) Currently the national approach for defining LOS uses the traditional Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 19851994): This LOS concept quantifies a motorist's degree of comfort as they travel through an intersection or along a roadway segment. The degree of comfort includes such factors as travel time, amount of stopped delay at intersections, impedance caused by other vehicles and safety. Six levels of service are defined using letter designations -- A, B, C, II-30 UPDATED 12/1/1999: 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT D, E and F, with a LOS A representing the best operation conditions and LOS F the worst. LOS B represents stable flow with somewhat less comfort and convenience than does LOS A. At LOS C, comfort and convenience declines noticeably. At LOS D, speed and freedom to maneuver are restricted. At LOS E, speeds are low. Flow is relatively uniform flow, but there is little freedom to maneuver. In the past,,the City of Renton policy was geared primarily focused toward improving roadway capacity; with feeds a for single occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel. However, because of traffic congestion in the I- 405 and SR 167 corridors, traffic is overflowing off of these facilities onto congested arterials and diverting through Renton neighborhood streets. Trying to solve the problem solely through building facilities to improve roadway capacity only attracts more traffic onto Renton's streets. There is growing recognition(i.e. recent City of Renton and King County policies) that the traditional LOS approach is not consistent with federal (1STEA D and State (GMA and CTRA) legislation which encourage multi-modal transportation solutions. The GMA encourages innovative approaches to level of service. NEW LOS POLICY In recognition of the regional nature of the traffic problems faced by Renton and the basic impossibility of building enough roadway capacity to alleviate traffic congestion, the City of Renton has revised its LOS policy to emphasize the movement of people, not just vehicles. The new revised LOS policy is based on three premises: • Level of Service (LOS) in Renton is primarily controlled by regional travel demands that must be solved by regional policies and plans; • It is neither economically nor environmentally sound to try to accommodate all desired single occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel; and • The decision-makers for the region must provide alternatives to SOV travel. The new revised LOS policy is based on travel time contours which in turn are based on auto, transit, HOV, non-motorized, and transportation demand management/commute trip reduction measures. The new LOS policy is designed to achieve several objectives: • Allow reasonable development to occur; • Encourage a regionally-linked, locally-oriented, dynamic transportation system; • Meet requirements of the Growth Management Act and King County's adopted Level-of-Service Framework Policies; • Require developers to pay a fair share of transportation costs; and • If the region decides to lower regional LOS by not providing regional facilities, then Provide Renton flexibility will to adjust its LOS policy if the region decides to lower regional LOS by not providing regional facilitiesaeem{lingly. The City of Renton LOS standards will be used to evaluate Renton city-wide transportation plans. The auto, HOV and transit measures will be based on travel times and distance and will be the primary 11-3 1 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT indicators for concurrency. The non-motorized and TDM measures will serve as credit toward meeting multi-modal goals of Renton and the region. II-32 . • ii I . . : . Kii;.. .-- $N,,,,,.- .-...,_ ,,,„.....„ ;:.,....,,..„,.cai. 4,,,,,,,.....,„,. ; ::.: .. -!I, , _, ,, ' ... :;.0.-,,w-,,,:.. ,,,.: -,.....,,.‘". ' iroralpc„ ,,,,m,,,,, iii.... . .al :ie.., 0 1...1 . - dill 7.111111 14A/, ,4 ..;-____.~11 ', .,,,E .. , .1-`4 ' u■■ �il� / I i '�� I .IIMIN a , 12,:ini . ti . ..11 .., , . . ga.. ... . II III IR/ 4.-....P.---- . i-Si= ... • s ''hil Pi N.:::-6....1 Mr, E ., 1 01 • ' ef 8 ��I...«...�•�L G ..:�1111 ��ir�..rLi]IIiii - 1 X' 0 ' •E 6iL Y 4 i ji ' .. .__ • •1• °[fi•\.• i' i�b c , ' ; ate �� g n1 ql. Ii?Fiiiii:' e". :.f- �:. �::if..: '''''� Air �' Fi '✓ a ;; ifit y� i:r:?�'iii 3?iii ? :: �`i??? i �5. lid '.-i j � �...F s: ?? 11 E..ls?°?::?F.rts.:ciiF. ��`/'� W . d s.. jp... .:+�kitiiiiiilimim4 .i:}1i iEi.:i31:i?iii3ii Ei �/��/��y • ►7• � ..fl9 'a :LS '• ii=� r �.� li 1/tf ,�T1�l� ,,M�:•' t� ��{�!!^''t[t7�Kti1! p ' 'lril -J11 �1 r _l`. ''� v_ r;.:si ...,y-�ii•'•' ffait �11 tairritm '' C:=:::y r:i::••• ..1:?::ii 1 .. „.., �llll■1111■� +• I.I.tW �� tlm8B® ••?•.7•:=•....I;;::::i:::::•:i• : • 1 1 o am { i ' ��dA� v.111::1E_€: if"i' ?:::::::::i .. ,E:��� ati_ c.,. � ��s .1•41 'fir.' 'e °a r'/ ` iii im:0 1•:_. iix'......... �' t.'vT:11 aH?iii i:: R: Ciei `� ••:=111P:• J":.-.' r:::::s:r::i� ,•— ESN - r �Lm I`..-. r' : iti• ��� /n5EEI. :Ei?MITE. •:SM..t !MIN ' 1 p ®_ :'Ova ' iv i i si 9?si. • 093}401411111711111 \=:k• :•ii i'rr g2=.. _::" '. a I I Mra —• ""ww�iw ��:??:::::..tnrmi®• lig1 :F�'tG;ti,iL``i i' 3331ifj`: t#k =: / sn� ' 3lll tt012n"Vi . uuut"®":r:::iiiiiia3i di. ij.101EN•MMP;r����i,: ari 1 x ;:• ... — ,v, •••ter.••. 1 } �gygp tlykt1 Sg12 e! :..1 ii41:: 1/914" n ,• w a.an :.r.. r— ;j 11,.,:i Ea.,ItI, I ...., NH .:��, �j 9. i•� 'k;••iE`v�Y sue. uae+ Ra'. , hMnr.'�tte6� i• " .i••' 3 ~ai.. L .} t , I '�dl ia11j �F B °�.. xo ::::: ®•.amm Yl.eae.a�m, -"�'':?ff:s _ �cu� 53P .1 "1" t f 1}`�b'r't1�1.f F: ',1 1 r.:ass:iii?iii 134) i��, °:i33?3ii•�wK_�.. -iii ,r . r'i it it 1��1.I.#;}`{�}�ya1y�'k'i I1f 01,11P1 .l I i �. 1 _ i �� ����g••,_�'• „��Eia � .r°lii.' ?1'-j:-: _�t:' e� - A , J, F} i 1 . .. ::..•s. •ter •• �. .itS •••. •..s':: :a:. 1 � s smmi� "}: w�Fi. •�issEiEE3is.....i:? 'f°'� -- '' ,F•:.h,ir,a1ii?Til hii iniEr11t11 I{'i i 1:,. lii� ::a4: `oi:` ;1 :-- ..aa ,5.=i:fi�i• _ d 7 IT`�1 ar 1 i +1 i ,T 1 :t I i•.. ` i iris =..;.•. � j1311 � i + ,�Lb ......... - i3?' si i�. " • :' •:3ff?t , ; �• i i}IT cri(({{ , 1 6 .s ��� � ••i•fi3?3?i:: ita:. _ _ S.- • ti i ,�1 - . : !i e 1 .._E i ,.oY: �_tt g t .E Ltli :i:. ii• r: "..=i. •f�It{ -Iii 111111111111r •' , , •• 4P"8 3_'ma". i : :: • T1„t11r5I 11 r i, . ulluuuliill : -*t � � .. .E � 1 :.::?••: M.•'�� _ ... ?? tt :........" ��� t}1�i�h � ■ 11111�■ y �:'... .:i? ==.::S��I:i's�: :... 'i°. . :? • t , Etill. A ' I•1,1 111 111111♦. .i: •'iii• .i.••.. i;'=::,.. i's'F• !ii"==•??i3 mid*t it{b .I y 1 I ■ /�/i:: a ?.r... . Hs �..i?:: i i?..iii.? • El, �1jt,,; t.;t 1tl;4.i,4r 1 ill 1111■ :::12,414 ~t'•_ _ - .:••..•. --- M up ?^ 1 _ .'. :::iiii .iiiip ,hills=iHi'ii;EiiiL• FE?=ii t ,#i+- tiT-. q at t .�ii Ih,E�ive.2 , it. I l, :i -...,,,;,,::b... ..._..-: ....................3sia-. i �� b r f��lj}i I C1i � � i�11 ��� ,��t 'rr-f. � � � .i:iii 1 i � • .. .-z.si+c:L Yo'V�3b., i ,. . .. ..i ..i .i - - s7'11 ,T I t i 1t i i4t + i ...•+.r�... : � 1.1 Lf.•`•. ' }i�, Zvi, JtfR.f111;� 11-it,,�(l iil,,T 71 i� I1S,`li "r �p :.? mpi ,1 I}F,i' al-�+ ,�l'`1,Tw�}}r}}i,lfi}rhT III1 lit i t 1��1 :`'!11 ` i. �►ir���,_�� ""-' •L , I. 3 a'a4t' 1 ..1 I t , t1 ,li 1 'MIN= ...-ten 2 tl/ � .���r.t� ' '�11Y 4�G4F ( 1 {�(FIa 7`t;, YI I.f'I ,_ __ •' lit .41r■ J ■.� / ' t`( r ig�iif«Iii4'.411"*CIF±1Ji p(`'1, ��� S _Hui , 1' Jl „,r.:�,r::i;.14,14.a1}t tfrtitla=:,I'1'ltfav, .a�.T.■�z_II ` r' k ..„) 1 .. li 4,.F.- .t7•.k �'31t.t.,,t W 1 iiF' I ♦ 1. 1 v I : �' r.t ;, ` i� �=_r11►.�■.■il� era��i �� . UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT The new Renton LOS standards have been refined to provide a system for;use in evaluating transportation plans. This process included the following: ' I • Determination of existing travel times within the City of Renton; • Calibration of the City of Renton traffic model to reflect existing SOV, HOV travel times; • Determination of future SOV and HOV travel time contours for the;adopted Land Use (described in the Land Use Element) using the calibrated traffic model; • Development of transit travel times using indicators of transit access, intca-Renton travel time to regional system, and regional travel time; • Development of a city-wide LOS travel time standard (index) using existing travel time data; • Development of transit and HOV mode splits; • Development of twenty-year LOS standards using the existing travel time index as the standard; • Testing transportation plans using LOS policy and future standards;) • Selecting a plan that meets established standards. Other elements of the LOS policy implementation process include: • Defining procedures for planning and regulatory applications; • Monitoring the area to re-validate transportation plans; • Adjusting transportation plans as needed to meet standards and/or address other environmental/coordination issues; • Providing flexibility to modify the LOS standards over time (if needed). The latter elements of LOS implementation will be further refined as part of ongoing transportation planning work . LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARD City-wide 2010 level of service standards have been developed for the City of Renton. Establishing LOS standards for 2010 Is-was necessitated because the only forecast data available from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) was for this particular year. I The following demonstrates how the new LOS policy was used to arrive at a 2010 LOS standard. A 1990 LOS travel time index was determined for the City by establishing the sum of the average 30- minute travel distance for SOV, HOV and Transit as follows: 1990 Average PM peak travel distance in 30-minutes from the City in all directions SOV HOV 2 times Transit j I LOS (includes access time) Index 18 miles 21 miles 10 miles 49 II-34 _ UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT The 1990 LOS index is the basis for the 2010 standard. The average'SOV 30-minute travel distance is forecast to decrease by 2010. SOV improvements alone will not maintain the 1990 LOS standard in 2010. A combination of HOV and/or transit improvements will need to be implemented to raise the HOV and/or transit equivalents t9 maintain the 2010 LOS standard. With the 1990 LOS index as a base, the City-wide 2010 LOS standard was determined as follows: 2010 Average PM peak travel distance in 30-minutes from the City in all directions SOV HOV 2 times Transit LOS (includes access time) Standard 14 miles 21 miles 14 miles 49 The improvements in the Transportation Plan Arterial, HOV and Transit Sub-Elements that are designated for Renton have been tested against the above LOS standard to ensure that the Transportation Plan meets 2010 demands for traffic growth/land use development. Development can be allowed under GMA concurrency requirements as HOV and transit improvements are effective in maintaining the LOS standard whereas SOV improvements will do little to improve SOV travel distance. Additional information describing establishment of the 1990 LOS index and 2010 LOS standard is provided in the City of Renton Level of Service Documentation. Ongoing transportation planning work will include continued refinement and updating of the LOS standard to reflect new information on regional and local transportation plans and level of service, particularly the Congestion Relief Policy currently being considered for adoption by the Washington Transportation Commission. This work will also include testing the improvements proposed in the Arterial, Transit and HOV Plans against Renton's updated LOS standard. Arterial Plan The ArtcrialThis Street Network Chapter includes an Arterial Plan developed to make reasonable SOV improvements in the City of Renton over the next 20 years (1995 to 2015). (As discussed later in the Financing and Implementation Chapter, a 20-year, 1995 to 2015, financing plan has been assumed to fund transportation needs.) These arterial/freeway improvements are intended to enhance multi-modal corridor capacity on the Renton arterial system, and/or to provide new arterial and freeway connections as necessary to support the multi-modal concept. Also, the improvements comprised by the Arterial Plan have been identified through the land use and transportation planning process as improvements that protect or improve neighborhoods, improve safety, improve business access, and are economically feasible. The Renton Arterial Plan is shown in Figure 1-10. The improvements included in the Arterial Plan are listed in Table 1.4 and shown in Figure 1-11. The Arterial Plan (Figure 1-10) includes segments of several King County and City of Newcastle arterials. The list of arterial improvements includes several proposed King County improvements within the sphere of influence of Renton's Land Use Element. Also, several Tukwila,,and-Kent and Newcastle proposed improvements are included in the list in Table 1.4 due to their influence on the Renton Valley arterial system. (These improvements have been compiled from the Tukwila,and-Kent and Newcastle Transportation Improvement Programs and the King County Transportation Plan: Annual Transportation Needs Report.) H-35 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT The 2010 improvements listed on Table 1.4 are the arterial/freeway mitigation measures for the Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. These improvements, along with the Transit Plan and HOV improvements identified later in this document, provide a transportation plan that will meet the 2010 level of service standard and will be concurrent with land use development envisioned by 2010. ' I II-36 ••' •- •','....*••:'-...1''..,'.;.•••.:••-.' - .-....•••• ,...-• • . . • • , . '' • ' .• ..:, ....,',:.•;..--,.• ••••• •. .-. . . . . ... Ji ir f _ ., • i 1•31 .irallek • -- — - --4, ... ..4P ., 4,4 . 1 4 ., _.......,,,,.... •. -- 'g'41ib, h. • • .0.._ 4 lig•23: • 1 NJ .‘‘*-41/11#, • • • A -m • „1--.) z , o Ow 641 I' iii*F 1j 0 1.4 • • . PR — a IIII NE :1111 • 1)..t.::::: fej 45"0-.:,!.=,; 4milmour NINE' "4:11F f‘....q. . ... ..........!..... g;•4 . I I I I 1 / .... ::: .. ......&wiz! antum . c.::::: . I / s., I . : ' aim_ NIIIIIi r . A(owl ..61,..' - GA. L . ch "+- eu. --I iMIL,;:i: )04 ch ~ 74 * - , 11 1: 74iligWll r : .:..7...:..;.!.T.:.:.411 ii, ez.ttli li.ii-V--., . 9/I i ilk i, ...A r /7).i) 01 10 . 73 116.. "11—....1......... ,,,, ...... 14. cv OP' ipl:".; Erfa= 1163::::,:::: p....,.,. ::"At14,* ..EIMI II 4 bn .e.../ _. ...10 . ....1 •••• US ..o --,,igr Wenn :i• , . ,..• .____..::iil,iiii. • •.. .g I 1 • ii ..::: :::: U 0 8 L'a 6-3 cs c i. pi • angi , C fir-io .,.........„..: .. .11.....11., :::.,:, :. ..::::::.ii.....................!:„:: .... ,...... 0/ ..: ..,.1:., .,.,..: o4 '. F = • 'gig ,firtennetk Mt....! 1 pEr 1/.:: Alpiltrril ....... aralko = g 'i• i':..::: ...::.i•beiMilkeit, litiiraZpi ,.... i :...."?...• 1/4) 4.GILIMErPle. ...1 111110UM N1111111111a1 t: : •••••-c laikhortampti_ _emu:. )laeffaVagshi •....................;;;i: . .::14,(4W,Mila IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII kr .... .: _.•Timer ... cautt. .,,IL .... 0 .;;...............„........... niiimill • .. , ...„,..,„....._ . ,, , .. , R .. ,'11::..- QiiiW.:. "\-itput.. :...o:111:. ••:1•••: t • ___,......A.:.. ---- .. arig541_,. .. 4M.afgrae 't I .."' "1" •-•:-:---- '''."--•••.-"" .4 •.• P mil ) _ '4.--ittaikvalgalei• ....., •.•:•• A ::: MIegitl. 01_0-... .---.....7... ._. . '• ::,-,........,..'•..1:::pi:i:iiiiff,„,„:milt:, .....,,,,,.. --------N--k ,....„-.--- ..• ..... _ ,..,,.. - -...„.,-- ••=••••, ,..„..,,,,.„,...„,,.. ...t UlIP.are."141rtiZtElliVib .... ..........MEM=--.E.H!!i**4 :1 ..:..Ommimill 4L -, - . im •:.. 00114:1FSEgilia:' iii\L=3:gragl :pi;'.4-2.-:.:::::"::-. • ••• soirir, ''. '.• ' 4 r:4111..:.:1:2. r...3):?,..,, N, ,.. !iii ..... ....,-5.DA, ••••....... 1..._..-----...,„ •,,,,,.... ii::: . ......., iimiliiii „L. r pr!,••\•q 11111...,4----, 111; p, g• ., ii.....i....II.. 643:11:CrraluiwirgA rim itrizOiltat .....- irie...0e., 1:041.... •"---......li.%NV, .1.1“--01,.$-•$ -.1111 ''::?-:'d " 1 'u ..-9 =-" taiir --""""*\ . V 1.,-4 n it p 4 [ r4fi•rif:rI'll;YrItt-PNI:15.1bill:ilr,!/[r.. 1.1;4;744jELICrel•••_1-1 sH f 5 fl ".11 algi : : .5..::S5 4. I a:•:••ve• ...„, in: ., , :.:: • 1 4;;;.• ; . -i• 1,.*-4,1, 1.•,-,41,14... ii li i , opi 1 ,••• ______,.:. I • ,„,,,„.4.. .,:„ :: ‘44:::::: ..3.,- •#"!----:, -lir tIll i 10'ifi"V 11:1,111.t i r:- r:II IN 1 It im - -iiii * BREEH.1„.iiin 4 • •• - : A 4,t,i1-:•ilit4.,:j11,:i fl 5f9-;,1 0,11 h]i.;.Ai 1,1) ''/ ; , rel el , 1 1 ----.;"':::1........1 115 moo ium:44 fla '.1.23.:2.pil- finf---.-:-...4k ..:1.:E1-1'.. ''''----1-"Ti 1544'••• •L.,,,',,...4 r.11441V4+:1 1•i 1',.r I f ir I' e 4 ig i 1 ....._..,../ 1..1....:: 011oi"7 •••I 0.... .--..Z.41 .:411.7:•:- ...: .‘., 411d11•411'illtithli NI t:‘E i I'''V ' I ' I i l• Iii air: :::•::::.• catc•O ' itiaa, riaggit.in !.!L''4ii ti......1:::. ---------- '12'..',,AT:1-11-4,11011.fr i. • ', ''. i'i• • • 1 If. • ... , Milk 4/11114111;Ai.111 r: 'g* ' . 1 1 ill °' •-ifigkinktia-mg - ,„tt-ift,,..., "iiii" ::natal"-321- *:':...iiii iiii '41',4--t.drfiiiNg 1, Pr ° 1 i li .. r Aim • 4-0 1 fitit'.14. k81,1' .1 1 : II 5 h• al11111111111111111MM "OA 4ur :...-:- - . ...:::.............. „„ ..: ....... .........I . t I,E f..1+ rc4}4 ut i .1 1 'IV 1111111111111111111 411,a ...i. a ilr•Y „ ...i. ::-••••.-cii:::.!11;;;;;...il .. j • „...t 40,0J ..../'rill Are, sii 111111.11r7Fiesf .:,. . • • Ili if 1 3 ..... •• 1. . lid 4• gg d, , ti:341'9 gl :111gfil il."I 1 t P folif Mill /111111111. A -.1 filiiiii*IT.rtl h-,,„,,- hill i IP"I Ar°1111111111 ralaZDA.• -riiiiiiiiiiix ri,t 1 :::::::..*:.:::':-The.......1.!.... : : •:;61 ::::::::::!!..i:. lg.. 4,±4,1:ivipjpr.itiiii ft ril I i ' r zeiviiiirivimmviriikli .:.:-Ii. .: , ' ... m„,.. lirl,4ti,: ;141 A ni MUM • i. 3 333 3 ••••if........t 7N i 6 411fraftr.,44.fil 1441-1, "ii'ti tiT . 1 ., dif.....2,111111,.It/imp/4P %till; :Hiiiii 1%;:il . (1) Lr..21..,.:' gil?, I : fr,„.„0„...3;,111„,,,„0„,....1„, 1.1 7 ‘.::..: -0 ttt : b., \, Aro i 4i.j3• ,-,4 Y.- 1 I / - - `F;AVIC.:711. , .41": 11 40 1.1:1•11..1 i„9",5,1,+;.51' ',. .. , leuemorp..._ ,'.'!..'-fir',14 :47,11-:r1. ,:t*'-ir,111r11111144 t'libilil ybliti, 5 ) fr-rliii .1.1 74y z...1., mmil 0 .,..,,I,,,ii,i41,-,ip,,,L,,,fil,J.,,,,,,,A,,,„ 1,... 4,40_4' '''It4 4 • .,••., '`• "' %MI, il.r.P4T,111-•ftirritIlr.iirl'''• '.4''''F'tt'...1.;it-.5tb/It'-'2117.113 ill,'' A:wiz— /1 pa Ar „,.. ...r'1'r,-,:.r.,1•....'..<.:,l' -r,-,:,,..'4-'• rIt.:1 boi --ii,-.;-,-.r.:•.1,-..-.:;,14,:.4._;.,,,510.1,,,,-..riti-iff,i,„,iiigitr,,r4e., /=......t..r.........„4:::P.sif ,.', 1 ii.,AgiorAy *--,. h, DI AMINNINIMI ............ .,. - ...........,...on. ,.., . ..•........, #....,,,...,00-10k....„,/--\\- - \ —1 • ".,.....? ,..,..44(z...\T.,J•rjr _ ,..-„,....., 2161,-- its....., _........ ...... r, ay sil, ., .................. • • ,,,,:.,:,4.r. ..:i•q.1.-.....116.'16 1''''•'1111 *ISE . MIMI • • • • -•••• • • UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TABLE 1.4 RENTON ARTERIAL PLAN 2010 IMPROVEMENTS 1. Park Avenue North-Bronson Way North to North 10 Street (Completed) arterial wid ' g 2. Houser Way Relocated-Sunset Boulevard to North 8t'Street (Completed) new ar rial 3. Sunset Boulevard/Houser Way Connection (Completed) grade separ tion 4. CBD Transportation improvements: Bronson Way - South 2nd Street to Sunset Boulevard arterial widening Main Avenue South - Grady Way to South 3`a Street (Completed) arterial wid • g South 2T'a Street - Rainier Avenue to Main Avenue South, Phase 1 safe im rove ents (Revised Scope) CBD Streetscape street improvements 5. Lake Washington Boulevard/May Creek Bridge (Completed) bridge replace ent 6. Monster Road Bridge (Completed) bridge replace ent 7. Oakesdale Avenue Southwest. Phase l A - Southwest 16 'to Southwest 27`h new . r•rial (Completed) Oakesdale Avenue Southwest, Phase 1B-Southwest 19th to Southwest 27th arterial with int 8. Northeast 3rd Street-Sunset Boulevard to Monterey Drive Northeast arterial wih's's g (Completed) 9. South Grady Way-Rainier Avenue to Talbot Road South(SR 515) arterial improve ents 10. Lind Avenue Southwest- Southwest 10 to Southwest 43ra Street arterial with.' g 11. Southwest 16 Street-Oakesdale Avenue Southwest to Lind Avenue Southwest arterial with ' g (Completed) 12. Oakesdale Avenue Southwest-Southwest 27th Street to Southwest 31St Street new arr•rial (Moved from 2015) Southwest 16t Street Commuter Rail Station Access (Replaced by Strander •• Blvd. 13. Duvall Avenue Northeast-Sunset Boulevard to Renton City Limits (Moved arterial wid:! .n• from 2015) 14. Oakesdale Avenue Southwest - Monster Road to SR-900 (Moved from Post arterial wid: 20-Year) 15. Strander Boulevard-SR-181 to Oakesdale Avenue Southwest (Also included new ar •rial with Tukwila) 16. Grady Way/Rainier Avenue (Moved from Post 20-Year) trade seIar.+tion 2010 to 2015 IMPROVEMENTS 17. South 2nd Street Rainier Avenue to Main Avenue South, Phase 2 (Revised safe t .im rove ents Scope) 18. Puget Drive Southeast-Jones Place Southeast to Edmonds Avenue Southeast arterial wid g 19. SR-167/East Valley Road new off- am 20. Benson Road-South 26th Street to South 31"Street (Added) arterial wid in POST 20-YEAR IMPROVEMENTS 21. North 4th Street- Logan Avenue to Sunset Boulevard revise street net ork 22. Talbot Road - Southwest 43rd to Renton City Limits arterial wid nin OTHER JURISDICTION IMPROVEMENTS TUKwILA: 23. Grady Way/Southcenter Boulevard/I-405 Ramps (Completed), , arterial and ramp realig ent 24. Interurban Avenue-Grady Way to Southcenter Boulevard (Completed) arterial wid ' g 25. -South 180 Street - SR-181 to Oakesdale Avenue Southwest(Southwest 4-3rd afterial-wideniw.railroad ade Street in Renton) (Revised scope) se ar tion II-38 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT ? Strander Boulevard- SR-181 to Oakesdale Avenue Southwest(Post 2015) (Also new artrial included with Renton) KENT: 26. Lind Avenue Southwest-Southwest 43�d Street to East Valley Road new . 1-rial 27. South 1921d/South 1961 Street-East Valley Road to Orillia Road South new . rrial NEWCASTLE: 28 Coal Creek Parkway-Southeast 69th to Renton City Limits(Moved from King arterial with in County) 29. Southeast 68t/64th Street- 112t Avenue Southeast to 129th Avenue Southeast arterial wit! in (Added) KING COUNTY: 30. South 1920.Street-SR-515 to 140th Avenue Southeast new rial 31. South 192 I Street/South 204 Street-East Valley Road/SR 167 to SR 515 new rial 32. 116t'Avenue Southeast-Renton City Limits to South 192nd Street arterial wid ' g 33. 140th Avenue Southeast-SR-169 to Southeast 192nd Street arterial wid ' g Coal Creek Parkway-Southeast 72nd Street to Renton City Limits (Moved to arterial widening Newcastle) 34. Elliott Bridge-Jones Road to SR-169 (Added) bride re lace ent 35. East Corridor Study-SR-169 to Northeast Fourth Street (Added) arterial wid in • II-39 . F igure 1-11. . ....,. - - • _ _ , • -;,,--,,,,,A ' lir ,., 0 Pilif.elf,: :I.:,;"Yr, . k?r, 15.,V,:, , • 1 _ • . .Altz.---,•:,:•-„, •••••,,-,-....--• • 1,44CA-`1.r:,.,;":,`..s.,....::1 . 6".47:74.it'S 1 t iljilril e • V 4- stIR + NA•-•,,f,----hr.-...71--:',..,„•_-.•-•:-. ::;•,...-1•,..,-, . IA ;',-;-:"KF,',F:j .•71•7'.t-^T„::' ''.. gbh'44:21i.;;:-.5:::'.,'•,!!",'•,,;:.'.'i-.:. ,..V.:*"---.‘i--f 0- 4 paa10111111Clii • .1,,.`,.,.C'..-..:0...e:.1'...Cr.i.:..'':..."':', .sl -e. ',,,,..•.:•• 1 - . t-V:9.,-;;;;r':'"::.:.-:::-..r.,':::,-......:,IF • ----,-z..- -,,., ,,A1 -..., -4.",-,•'.,',":? ..`:-..V..;!,•-;:'...:*:,,••••- ''...,-:•••717:,''-': 41.:•%,"( ._. gm . . .• : '74,:',,-x•,-........--,....,?44:::;774,..‹-:Vic-,:.7 •..:;C''''‘,T.,' ---',,,IAMIE i s lull g kiis • __••=4,...„,„,,,,,•,..• .,, ::„.2, ..:,...,...,.,,_ . ..,..,,,. :.......:....,y.q.„.„ 0 ..,4_,.i.,7,,,::,./•;•1:-,,..,-`,.g:;.-'11-•:••:',.;;;;•‘...,..'=_‘,:.•'',7.7,i'.,:'.:.*:'..:.:'t.....:„.'• A-- ....-'.,--.....1%- ,_,= 1 k , h• ''``,.f.;-•:;•:;.„:`,;•:..•-•: ;•-;,:,..::,';',.,;-:-.',,,l':',....,:::;:-c-i:4:.;,.,•;:.•:Y.-„:.'',:t••::- 1•I'l.---1 Ill 1 h• '...:.•.-i-f--:',.:'"•::..':.:-.>.''......‘"=11.1k ik i I h t.:•:: Ili 414111.`"'41*t ' 11k '`'.1.'-`1'''-'1.; '''--`-1,-1-...:-.w's;',,•-• •::-• ,-..:.:'4::•'•`=••- *''-''' •.„.!• 4-•,..,`••.-_-,..:,,, w in limb .,,',;:::';1_,-;i- ' Noc To Seale 1111111. -‘ '.-1::: iir.;:t:,-1,::;:---1 Illitiff Itirapil I milli .4 ::,,,-;.,.....,:.,-.1,i::04!,..„ pill amr_CD iiii2iiiii l•-ws‘ z735.:..--Agi;i3c,Irt:.,!-; 111113 3, 'woo- NN ....,-N poit..„.„„,,..,;\ ,,........,...„,_,,,„.., 2:P tii% TAU,. :-.17,:p',:g7.,:"/;:j ..n. Edell' I 'ITU Opp PP' I 4 • • ..or sa, Att .-3-'7-. .- * womupil ggrtinguip ,,,, 1 ')\112 ftv.'111 illaaligirl=li '1':' -'''':''. \I AllikWe411-mier • .3 z.. .)40,4;;Aniziali , A% • ag__L,2 . Rm.- °kr- 11 ii n . . la.--E-NouIminniEra noir g ra 'rum iiie....:-,.. .....,,4 ifigor Wi .. , IkWirP AIIIIWEE11.11 oh . e '.t.liil --m-ilfi 1 - maireAvvallopa , ui,J11 • moq ri) MHO... C 4'-a -41.-E4k FE an fit 1.• R - Kfi -7-Llialoilillill aill -- iw4111 illir '''• 06.--,... 1111%,,InsomiLisizzr....-ti,igi pis 4k_ ELM . ,, . 7. 4,,t .iiiiiiimitai RIMS!et4072 t 9 ff. I III 1. , 1 ine„Illintinnmi pro t ••..,-..--,-,20L z"-----"•ftikeregilivaiillifi al oreibb. •1:40. ittehopita, l'it7'N Y /11116:#43111/r1.111121V11111 © .' ..r. - i 4 Lola . i 7.c* L. \ immomPatiro' t 'II ; 4,, NA ..., ',Wrid,01"04. -' • ' —-'-'\ •N IL int ,,_ NI MI 1113 •,7 - .:I .‘••444, 111WANinal,,,.-.1-11(111s AN. 4,,, ,,, is Elf all In IMF C..)4.:„,.•-----'- .r.‘ ..s. vim ... ,,,.„.....,, ...... _Aler Mlep III 111,11111:11•06 11 liki 1 ,Fi.l. -'--- '''--' ,..f.' -- 1-4.1Alai 1 '''il • I Nie . (CLX..! ..- )111 kw 0 es mei Kirin . AilkOILI ., .:111 IPA d'fanc_ir Yfia. f 4, • i I 7P.1161"Eill AULI I I I Nati " eat a C41. 41 1 I 0.., ...In :r..1.1 4 auk N i 49 ,....W41• -y- _ : - ii , so••1 imi EN SW III Wfi Ill r LUIV/I 3 __,,„_1.. - .. ..,.. .. l• • .40, IF7/7.2 ...,211. 1 =Zan 1m ' w... J minim= . W 3 I • -----.. Eel MI NU IMF 11E1 NI MI 1 - I 4. I/ ii I e‘l 112 0 • )..] I - I • CA 4%.ill le . ,' I Andlis, . . illk-w . i •Irligig _ . Arterial Plan Improvements • I I air EN • „- 1 Legend • 1 mm- Ili n L.,- By 2010 mig 1 By 2015 ii•Niii . Transportation • = • Post 2015 3000°°X .• 41.10.211 •- 8:04611 City Limit _____ _____ ifidimir. _m€1A I Urban Growth • . pm•. ____Th as Boundary 4_ .. ......, a . i ,• ..• ... .,e- it:-.4. Wreldie o k maio • . UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Included in Table 1.4 are arterial improvements that have been identified for the intervening years between 2010 and 2015 and beyond 2015. These improvements will also be needed to support future land use and neighborhood and business goals and improve safety. The 2010 to 2015 arterial improvements and the 2010 improvements comprise the 20-Year Renton Arterial Plan. Ongoing transportation planning work will include testing the amended list of 20-year(1995-2015)arterial improvements in Table 1.4,including those noted as completed, against the LOS standard. TRANSIT In the future, fewer new roads will be built to handle increased traffic. The challenge will be to better manage the existing transportation system and reduce traffic demand by encouraging the use of alternatives to single occupant vehicles. One of the most important of these alternatives is public transportation, or "transit." The Renton transit system, defined in this Transit Chapter of the Transportation Element, must provide attractive, convenient service for the local and regional travel needs of Renton businesses and residents. Objectives The Transit Chapter is based on the following objectives: T-C: Encourage the development and use of alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles. T-D: Ensure that the-a regional high-capacity transit system is extended toserves Renton. T-E: Develop a transit circa ation'diGtribution system that provides attractive, conveniently connectiens between-the regional high-capacity transit system and local Renton residential areas, activity centers, and employment centers to the transit center. T-F: Develop a local transit system that provides attractive, convenient service for intra-Renton travel. Policies Policy T-17. The City should work with other Policy T-21. Parking for the transit system jurisdictions in the greater metropolitan area toward providing frequent, coordinated and Parking comprehensive bus service and transit facilities in areas serving the downtown transit center should all residential and employment areas. be ncouraged in parking structures. Policy T-18. Local and regional transit service and facilities should be planned and improved in Policy T-22. Park-and-ride facilities should be cooperation with the regional transit authority. located out of the downtown and feed into the downtown transit center. Policy T-19. The City should take an active role in working with the regional transit agency in Policy T-23. Development of a regional network planning and locating public transit facilities. using new technology to move people and goods should be supported. Policy T-20. The establishment of t A multi- modal transit center in downtown Renton should Policy T-24. Eneeue-Assure development of be promoted as part of a regional high capacity transit service connecting Renton to transit system. a regional rail network. II-41 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Policy T-25. Criteria should be developed to locate park-and-ride lots serving residential areas. Also see related policies in: TDM/CTR Section; Land Use Element/Community Design Section; and, Downtown Element. The Residential and Centers policies of the land use plan also support transit by-eneexragingthrough establishment of residential densities and a mix of residential and commercial uses in Centers which can support public transportation. ; , Specific treatment of the routes and stops for a transit system in downtown Renton would be addressed in the Downtown Plan. However, it is expected that such stops would serve commercial activity centers which would compliment the commercial and residential activities envisioned in the Centers and Residential policies of the land use plan. Parking for the future transit system is encouraged outside of the downtown to discourage increased traffic congestion. Criteria should be developed to guide establishment of park-and-ride lots serving residential areas and to intercept through traffic. Parking to serve the downtown stops of a transit system is to be held to a minimum, to conserve land resources and minimize congestion. Existing Transit Service Bus service in Renton is currently provided by the.King County Metro the agency responsible for transit service in King County. 28 Fixed-Route Service The City of Renton is-eur-rentlyas of 1995 was served by 21 different Metro Transit bus routes (see Figure 2- 1). Seven of the routes provide service from Renton neighborhoods into downtown Seattle. Two of the routes (106, 107) provide local service during weekdays, evenings, and weekends to Kennydale, the Highlands and downtown Renton. Three of the seven routes (111,114, 147), which provide express service between Renton and downtown Seattle, operate only during the weekdays. These routes serve unincorporated King County, east of the Renton city limits, the Renton Highlands and downtown Renton. The remaining two routes (145, 148) II-42 • 1b EaitMvo• • 40*11111 IN k • 1FS 444,-tiqiiiiikv • • , AiTimay 911 • i • Il 11Iifilinvvri 1 L ,,,_,41„t,,, (116,t4•44.,,_., ___,_ . • wilt . i ..E.00 ,..._ ; tt • rill► ;I �� `C NotToSale f �Illlh �,,�11111 �t1r., ■al mPMl.YVi_.. 1:�11iu111►A/- g - 11111111gm: aw/4 ji \, .fit' . ... f. ,-� �/,,.-�.� ` ris �s�a1:'� �•1..; ,tiii , \! ` `r kCa:n:onl 67 m �L1 1 wl 1'1 � lus `lu t rNara.3 � * miltC I Y. !is ' t rffj � \12,r,„NtRIViiiN: 1.62 Hil 13 ..p-I-Vit‘l : Ett E3 , —, ..„_!.....:. likel 4 . . niiir -,,_, =PIN 141 "ng 4d"t1.1 • r i• a "....---444hil 121711M1h,N 10— . i•4L1.111 NW/ - . Idi/*CIS M Rill . I . -_,.. . it fegtft' r r ✓j 1 \ . - ■I�JjIIl -tuns0 ��► L 1 1���~ \lik, . I�i� r li zso' t� 1 � i� 1�ria 1 �11 V •� �If��.1�1� -WEV �� ass �.�-� �1 ��. .. mil 11 • 3 . 1 ... • rii.--__.„-iiit • ill\ ire : F 41 .4k, . , ; ice i� le �IrrF �, >n 4\14:: .�• �`V. 1ss �l\ililaillifI . ............, , .: Y limn _ fit ey./T1 pomiffw_h---A----u. _.%.4.4.11. • , . _ . 7 .- -,-21 I t sksk_zat 4.774t,. • .,,.. kr gig id. le .... -...i.k. • ip .. •• . . .:.,., as .I • ■1 . :, ,...,: . INN .. 1 n I '-wil: 1 . Existing Tran. . .. 1:• .-.. • ,..;,, , sit Servic e. '�> . i. .24, • 1. !my .. u , • . , • ;._. —' Peek Period Service . .7-77:!i!:..,!;`,.,19.2 . LT `'� All Day Service • -,. ': • maps ® _ --�I�i� I TratISPO tat it .t. q af. r� tyLimit • `,,`^1.--r—H. • 1 . 1 1 t �.'0►1 114( Urban Growth Bounduy anoam Park and Ride / c UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT originate in the Fairwood area of unincorporated King County southeast of the Renton city limits. Both of these routes provide weekday express peak hour peak direction service only. One route (109) provides weekday peak hour peak direction transit service from downtown Seattle to the Renton Boeing plant. Another bus route (108) provides service from Renton to the Duwamish/Boeing Industrial area of south Seattle. One route (163) originates in Kent and serves Renton's Talbot Hill neighborhood and downtown Renton. Seven routes operate between Renton and other points in South King County,;the Eastside, North Seattle, and North King County. One of the routes (155) operates local shuttle service between downtown Renton, Fairwood, and Southcenter Mall in neighboring Tukwila. Metro Transit provides weekday service on a route (167) originating in Auburn and Kent, serving Renton and terminating at the University of Washington in North Seattle. This route operates peak hours in the peak direction of travel. Another bus route (169) serving Renton and South King County operates seven days a week as a shuttle between the South Renton Park-and-Ride lot and the Kent Park-and-Ride lot. This route is through-routed with another South King County line serving Highline Community College' in Des Moines, thereby linking Renton and Des Moines directly. Two of the seven routes (143, 912) provide peak hour service between Renton and South and Southeast King County (Maple Valley, Enumclaw). Bus service is provided seven days a week on a route (240) that originates at Clyde Hill, serves Bellevue, Renton and Southcenter. An additional route (340) allows access from Renton to many locations throughout the county on a seven-day a week basis. This route originates in Burien, serves Tukwila, Renton, the I-405 corridor from Renton through Newport Hills, Bellevue, Kirkland, and Bothell, as well as Kenmore, Lake Forest Park, Ballinger Terrace, and Aurora Village. There are two remaining Metro bus routes serving Renton. The first is a peak hour route (247) which originates in Redmond, serves the Overlake and Eastgate areas in'Bellevue, uses the I-405 corridor to downtown Renton, and continues on to the Green River Valley of Renton,and Kent. The final route (280) provides regional late evening service (past 1:00 am) on weekdays, connecting Renton, downtown Seattle and Bellevue. Custom Bus Service • Metro Transit as of 1995 operates operated two custom bus routes serving Renton. These routes operate one trip in the peak hour in the peak direction serving areas with significant employment density. Renton custom bus service includes routes i) originating at the Renton Boeing plant and serving the Boeing plant in Everett, ii) originating at the Kent Park-and-Ride lot, serving the Renton Boeing plant and terminating at the Everett Boeing plant. Park-and-Ride Facilities Renton has one dedicated transit park-and-ride lot facility within the city limits: the South Renton Park-and- Ride lot located at South Grady Way and Shattuck Avenue South. This park-and-ride lot has 370 spaces and, as of June 1992, is used at 100% capacity. There are four interim park-and-ride lots in the Renton planning area which are leased by Metro for commuter parking. One of the lots is in downtown Renton, at the First Baptist Church at Southwest Sunset Boulevard and Hardie Avenue Southwest. It has 21 spaces and is used at;19% capacity. Another lot located in the Renton Highlands at Saint Matthew's Lutheran Church on Northeast 16th Street and Edmonds Avenue Northeast has 146 spaces and is at 29% capacity. A third lot is located at;the East Renton Shopping Center at Southeast 128th Street and 164th Avenue Southeast, east of the Renton City limits in unincorporated King County. This lot has 21 spaces and is at 29% capacity. The fourth leased lot, also located in unincorporated II-44 UPDATED 12/1/1999: 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT King County, is at the Nativity Lutheran Church at 140th Avenue Southeast and Southeast 177th Street. This lot has 25 spaces and is at 60% capacity. In addition, an employee-only park-and-ride lot was recently completed (March 1993) by the Boeing Company at Park Avenue North and Garden Avenue North, north of downtown Renton. This lot has a capacity of 300 spaces and is at 100% capacity. The future of this park-and-ride capcity is in question pending re-development plans in the area. As this lot is relatively new, a utilization rate is not available. FUTURE REGIONAL ACCESSIBILITY The long range transit and rideshare service concept for the King County Transit Division(Metro) service area is described in the Long Range Policy Framework for Public Transportation (adopted October, 1993). This "Framework Plan" updates Metro's 1981 Comprehensive Plan. The Framework establishes policies that will guide future planning and development efforts, and it identifies possible policy implementation strategies. More specific near term transit improvements are outlined in the King County Transit Division's Six-Year Transit Development Plan for 1996-2001 (December 1995). On May 31, 1996 the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) approved a 10-year plan, Sound Move, which is illustrated in fie-Figure 2-2: The Ten-Year Regional Transit System Plan. Voters approved a funding package to implement the plan on November 5, 1996. The approved RTA Plan includes the following regional improvements: light rail transit, commuter rail transit, HOV expressway development, regional express bus service, and community connection improvements. RTA improvements which will directly serve Renton include HOV access improvements, express bus service, and local connection improvements. In addition, commuter rail running between Seattle and Tacoma will stop at a station serving Renton and Tukwila, sited either ncaradjacent to the Boeing Longacres propertysite or SW 43 Street. Efficient transit connections will be provided between the Downtown Renton Transit Center and the Commuter Rail Station. Regional express bus service will be added by the RTA, with three routes serving Renton. These routes will connect Renton with Bellevue, Tukwila, Sea-Tac, Kent, Auburn, Puyallup, and Tacoma. To ensure quick access to the Downtown Renton Transit Center, the RTA will also construct direct access HOV ramps on I- 405 at Park Drive N.E. and in the vicinity of Grady Way, Benson Road South, and Talbot Road South. Transit Plan Transit improvements are needed to provide the facilities and services necessary to support and encourage increased transit use and provide an alternative to single occupancy vehicle travel. The transit facilities and services comprised by the Transit Chapter of the Transportation Element include the transit-related transportation mitigation measures identified by the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Final EIS. These mitigation measures are needed to provide adequate access between the regional transit system and Renton residential and employment areas, and to provide an attractive transit alternative for travel within Renton. As described in the previous section (Section 2.3), an element of the regional system is the Seattle-Tacoma commuter rail line. Access to Renton will be provided by a station located on the Renton-Tukwila border at between either SW 1611'Street (Longacres Way)and Strander Boulevard or SW 43 'Street. This station will additionally be served by local and regional bus transit, including fast connections to the Downtown Renton Transit Center. The Downtown Renton Transit Center will be the hub of transit service in Renton. The Transit Center will be served by regional and local service provided by the RTA and the King County Transit Division (Metro), and will act as both a destination and a major transfer center. The Downtown Renton Transit Center will be II-45 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT a "T" shaped facility located between South Second and South Third Streets on Burnett Avenue South and on a new connection between Logan Avenue South and Burnett Avenue South. The facility will be carefully integrated with other planned developments in the downtown area. II-46 Figure 2-2 . • : � ° •S•our>rove • •*� verett - , 1 ram;' • • • •ii n • fake ' 4• //,/ . ''.. . •.•...! . .. i . . . • 11 • nw :• ;. • t,; ';. • `x. orelin 0 • ;F••Bot •..• 'oodimnlle: . e • „z ;.:, . : ` .,Na, gym; • • �x ." Kirkland i •u D• • -, 1 • ' mood ,ter:' •,b • i� ' = .:.�; • ;ca1 a_. _ A. iqrcgtillWit, - d . t .Is. .I �. _ • t-', • i,-•.!.,, ..; Babe• • .'j Rei - :fi$ 1isfrid -,Soond.Transitj.s: , A .,.• •t::^ . '• n%:fr-•;'; • •'Tat•`%: •® .- .. • ` • DesMoi es Kent - :, •4,-•lectriclight != • :. rail:service:- • • -'era!W f' II • Sounder commuter: • ' i• .ij ^,urn rau service ' :: • •• Regional Express • • •. I • Sumner bus service Puyallup' -.,,.... - . kewood• •South Hill pOY Expressway Pa and O • - ' . Pont• Direct access ramp • . • or flyer stop • c• - I• Community connections , • • • Regional Transit System •• M At • ♦ •• Transportation �� Plan Je .g UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Figure 2 3 RENTON SERVICE CONCEPT II-48 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Regional transit service will be provided by the previously described RTA express bus service, as well as by select King County Transit Division(Metro) express bus routes. The local transit system will link neighborhoods and commercial centers with one another as well as to the regional transit system through connections to the Downtown Renton Transit Center. Local service will be provided through a combination of services, including buses, shuttles, and Dial-a-Ride (DART) service. In addition, interceptor park-and- ride lots should be developed close to trip origin locations, with transit service feeding the Transit Center and regional services. An illustration of Renton's 20-year transit plan is provided in€Igufe-Figure 2-3. This figure depicts planned regional and local improvements, and identifies at a conceptual level potential service types and transit routes. Specific transit service improvements and facilities identified for the next 6 years, by 2010 (to provide a level of service standard that is concurrent with future land use projections), and beyond the next 20 years to support Renton's conceptual transit plan, are described in the Renton Transit Plan Support Document as well as in the King County Transit Division's Six-Year Transit Development Plan for 1996- 2001 (December 1995) and by the RTA's Sound Move program. This Transit Plan comprises a transit system that will serve Renton over the next 20 years (1995 to 2015) as a regional destination and as a city with commercial and neighborhood centers. It should also be noted that the exclusive freeway/arterial HOV facilities included in the HOV Chapter are needed to support and encourage increased transit use by improving transit travel times (by enabling buses to bypass or avoid the traffic congestion that is forecasted for the Renton and regional road systems). Transit Usage and Mode Split The regional and local transit systems serving the Renton area in 2010 -- as modeled by Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) -- would provide only partial, incomplete service to Renton residential areas, employment centers, and commercial centers, and would provide only minimal service for internal trips and trips between Renton and south King County, which would comprise the vast majority of trips to/from Renton. The City has-updutedof Renton's transit mode splits are based on Renton's planned 2010 land use and fraralifflifig—assume that Renton is served by commuter rail in 1997 and -light rail by 2015. This updated transit mode split information was incorporated in the Renton Transportation Model and used in developing transit service and facility recommendations. Forecasts of 2010 transit ridership on the local bus, regional bus, and commuter rail services incorporated in the Renton Transit Plan are compiled in Table 2.1, which summarizes the total number of Renton trips that use transit and the transit "mode split" (i.e., the percentage of Renton trips made on transit). Although both the total number and the proportion of transit trips traveling to/from Renton in 2010 under the planned land use would be significantly higher than in 1990, transit ridership will still comprise only a minor portion of overall travel. (See Table 2.1 and Table 2.11) Major local and regional transit service improvements -- improvements that directly serve Renton -- will be needed to significantly increase the rate of transit use. With these improvements in combination with HOV improvements, 30% to 35% of the total trips forecasted by 2010 could use transit or HOV facilities on a daily basis. Ongoing transportation planning work will include continued refinement and updating of the transit mode split as new information on regional and local transit plans develops. II-49 UPDATED 12/1/1999: 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Level of Service The City of Renton has revised its LOS policy to emphasize the movement of people, not just vehicles. This new LOS policy is based on a set of multi-modal elements including auto, transit, HOV, non-motorized, and transportation demand management/commute trip reduction measures. The new LOS standards will be used to evaluate Renton city-wide transportation plans. The auto, HOV and transit measures will be based on travel time contours and will be the primary indicators for concurrency. The 2010 LOS standard has been established to greatly increase the competitiveness of transit compared to SOV travel. Achieving this goal has guided the planning and programming of the 2010 elements of the Transit Plan, which are described in the Renton Transit Plan Support Document. Information on development of the transit index of the Level of Service Standard is provided in the City of Renton Level of Service Documentation. Ongoing transportation planning work will include continued refinement and updating of the transit index. II-50 Figure 2-3 l4 r BELLEVUE • • 3l • •Rs { . ) 11 in • ,,,t 4, .:: i % • Not lb scale I, , 11 '\ g. ii a. 1 - . . S _ E . .j,i'.* I. 1z _ i - ��. -�� :i•.iHIG�LA tz R � -\t‘..—.,•1,o 51I 1.. „.,_- -*,,I....,......_. .',,"..N.,e„,,,,\ i'4i''i'p:•.t, NE -s: s 1 1 $%iTifl ,; / ' Transit - Center ( -: ?6-,--''—‘-* RENTON .. ,— -10111111 ri , ,... .... ., . .ihomitikr-4- — — = Nur II -- - -...,„„..„....---- -.- ...iv L. . . C1111'c-./ter►'_ L� ` l in OD Station % — i 1 to 4 ' RENTON vs . .... , ` ' _` • • F ._ . • VALLEY ; fir,. 1 FAIR '• OD ` 1 1 RI s$ ,• .: ten j aRenton 20-Year'Ilansit Plan-Conceptual , i 1 l • p-, — I _ I I Legend a t NEE ism Regional Commuter Rail • }.... ■ ■ ■ Potendal Future Rail Corridor "� .. an Da -• Regional Transit Routes Transportation tr. ' .......1 Local'Ilansie Routes • '. i 0 Plan Transit Hub Park 6c Ride • KENT Tl- / UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TABLE 2.1 DAILY TRANSIT TRIPS (TRANSIT MODE SPLIT: % PERSON-TRIPS ON TRANSIT) RENTON TOTAL KENNYALE CENTRAL SUBAREA RENTON VALLEY BLACK RIVER* SKYWAY* S.E.RENTON* (CITY LIMITS ONLY) HIGHLANDS 1990 TOTAL TRIPS 5,610 (1%) 1,210 (<1%) 20 (<1%) 270 (<1%) 1,420 (2%) 1,250 (<1%) 1,750 (<1%) 2010 TOTAL TRIPS 37,630 (4%) 13,630 ( 7%) 4,800 ( 3%) 2,020 ( 3%) 5,110 (6%) 6,830 ( 3%) 10,160 ( 3%) INTERNAL TRIPS 7,100 (3%) 1,170 ( 6%) 190 ( 3%) 20 ( 1%) 170 (2%) 470 ( 2%) 160 (<1%) TRIPS TO/FROM: Central Subarea -- -- 490 ( 6%) 330 ( 5%) 470 (5%) 930 ( 5%) 1,220 ( 5%) Renton Valley -- 490 ( 6%) -- 90 ( 3%) 100 (3%) 400 ( 3%) 220 ( 3%) Black River -- 330 ( 5%) 90 ( 3%) -- 60 (2%) 100 ( 2%) 80 ( 2%) Skyway -- 470 ( 5%) 100 ( 3%) 60 ( 2%) -- 60 ( 2%) 100 ( 2%) S.E.Renton -- 930 ( 5%) 400 ( 3%) 100 ( 2%) 60 (2%) -- 270 ( 2%) Kennydale/Highlands -- 1,220 ( 5%) 220 ( 3%) 80 ( 2%) 100 (2%) 270 ( 2%) -- * Includes potential annexation areas. Data Source: 1990 PSRC Regionally Adopted Forecasts 2010 PSRC Regionally Adopted Forecasts, adjusted based on Renton's proposed Comprehensive Plan. II-52 _ UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TABLE 2.11 2010 DAILY TRANSIT PERSON-TRIPS BETWEEN RENTON AND LOCATIONS EXTERNAL TO RENTON and (TRANSIT MODE SPLIT: % PERSON-TRIPS ON TRANSIT) Renton Total Person- Renton Total Transit Percent Transit Trips Trips Trips 1990 Total Trips 574,460 5,610 1 % 2010 Total Trips 871,120 37,630 4 % Internal Trips 240,940 7,100 3 % Tukwila Valley 49,390 1,680 3 % SeaTac-Burien 67,710 2,230 3 % Kent 72,430 • 2,010 3 % North Soos Creek Plateau 88,890 2,400 3 % Auburn/Federal Way 24,450 1,330 5 % South Soos Creek Plateau 10,600 310 3 % Pierce County 43,370 1,580 4 % Kitsap County 4,890 210 4 % South Seattle/West Seattle 72,300 1,950 3 % Seattle/Shoreline 74,560 12,830 17 % Bellevue/Mercer Island 59,390 2,170 4 % Northshore/East King County 46,630 1,280 3 % Snohomish County . 14,570 520 4 % Data Source: 2010 PSRC Regionally Adopted Forecasts, adjusted based on Renton's proposed Comprehensive Plan. II-53 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE (HOV) In the future, fewer new roads will be built to handle increased traffic. A major;' challenge of the Renton Transportation Element will be to better manage the existing transportation system and reduce traffic demand by encouraging the use of alternatives to single-occupant vehicles. The HOV Chapter addresses this challenge by focusing on increasing the person-carrying capacity of the system lather than the vehicular capacity. Objectives The HOV Chapter is based on the following objectives: ' T-G: Encourage the development and use of alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles. T-H: Develop HOV facilities on freeways and arterials to support and encourage ridesharing by enabling HOVs to bypass or avoid the severe traffic congestion n Renton and regional systemsstreet and highway networks. T-I: Provide facilities to support attainment of Commute Trip Reduction and other Growth Management goals within the City. Policies Policy T-26. The completion of a comprehensive system of HOV improvements and programs on state highways and regional arterials which give high-occupancy vehicles a travel time advantage over single-occupancy vehicles should be 29 supported. Policy T-27. Measures to increase the use of high occupancy vehicles should be promoted among employers located within the City. Policy T-28. A continuous network of arterial HOV facilities (lanes, bypass, etc.) should be provided on the ongested travel corridors in Renton. Policy T-29. Arterial HOV facilities should be provided on the local arterial routes that provide access to/from the regional highway system. Policy T-30. Arterial HOV system warrants, Policy T-31. A vehicle occupancy monitoring standards and criteria should be established for and HOV system evaluation program should be usage (volume, capacity, LOS), physical and established. geometric characteristics, appropriate locations, time-of-day of operation, HOV facility type, etc. (Also see related policies in the TDM/CTR Section and see King County Countywide Planning II-54 - UPDATED 12/1/1999: 12/7/99 - CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Policies, Policy T-6 which by this reference is incorporated in the HOV section.) Existing HOV Facilities The City currently has freeway HOV facilities along Interstate 405 and nor ound-SR-167. Freeway-A freeway ramp queue jumps axis also provided at the interchange of I-405 and SR-167 and at the southbound on-ramps at Bronson Way and at Park Drive N.E. Interstate 405 has inside (median) HOV lanes, both northbound and southbound, between from the I-5 interchange and , ontinuing to the north Renton city limit and beyond. These lanes are defined as HOV, requiring 2 or more persons in the vehicle to travel in that lane. These lanes are in effect 24 hours per day. freeway. Sn i 67 has . t bound NOV lane betwee.. xx� 43 to I 105. The HOV facility is designated for 24- occupant vehicles. Construction of inside HOOF 1 r SD i 67 : ntly , nderway between_Seuth Grady Way and anti} Avenue South in Kent. After completion, there will bolnside HOV lanes,-en both the inside and outside of the mound northbound and southbound, roadway rth of comet exist on SR-167 between the south Renton city limits and SR-405 and at the southbound on-ramps at Bronson Way and at Park Drive N.E. The HOV facility is designated for 2+occupant vehicles. A gQueue jump lanes are-is provided on three freeway on ramps in Renton. The SR 167/I 405 interchange the northbound SR-167 to northbound I-405 ramp. 43 fg-Streeet-intecrchange—i ach of tThe queue jump lanes has a 2+ designation. HOV Plan The freeway HOV lanes on SR-167 and I-405. Washington State DOT. The current project on I 405 will complete the interim HOV system through Renton,along that route by the end of 1991. _New HOV lanes are under construction on SR-167 between men-Kent and Auburn (SR-167 HOV lanes are eenstfuD ioncompleted between I-405 and Kent). Additional regional HOV facilities (i.e., on.I-5) must-be providedhave also been completed by the State Department of Transportation in order towhich provide adequate-regional HOV service to the I-405 corridor. The City has identified arterial HOV corridors based on the policies listed in Section 3.1previously. These corridors include many of the principal arterials through central Renton and state routes throughout the city. The Renton HOV Plan includes the provision (over the next 20 years, 1995 to 2015) of the HOV facilities shown in Figure 3-1. The Plan includes HOV facilities, in the form of HOV lanes or intersection queue jumps, in the Renton corridors listed below: • Rainier Avenue / Airport Way / Logan Avenue II-55 UPDATED 12/1/1999: 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT • SR-169 (Maple Valley Highway) • Park Drive North / N.E. Sunset Boulevard • N.E. 31:1 Street/ N.E. 4th Street • Sunset Boulevard- Bronson Way to I-405 (completed) • SR-515 or Benson Road • Carr Road/ S.E. 176th Street/ Petrovitsky Road • S.W. 27th Street The Renton HOV Plan also proposes HOV facilities on the following corridors in King County: • SR-900 (east of Renton) • 1401 Avenue S.E. • S.E. 192nd Street Additionally, HOV facilities are being considered on: • Rainier Avenue South from I-405 to S. 2'd Street • Grady Way from Lind Avenue S.W. to Main Avenue South • Shattuck Avenue South from S. 7th to S. 3`d Street • Old Benson Road from Petrovitsky Road S.E. to Main Avenue South II-56 • • ' �4i • s l, . .se . • -r Figure 3-1 .1 .r I • • Map Index of HOV Improvements `' Add HOV • t • 1. SR 16.Ea �G 't., .t 2. 1.405 •atill,••• ..... +. • �.� to f�;. .� 3. 1-S (not shown)GoM�01! SR!67 to • �� V • �. Senile CID to�Z T ` 11 11 1 1 •►.. ! et New Q(.�1_ .0..,:..9 ' (,tkG W. '• . .wr -40S g nson Rd.ore l�S.�By2010) has arfull Intetefianae • :i••I • �"�:` !/`. (Prit 201� half intetehanae �> '+ 6.•SR1167/SW 27th St.(B'�r 2010) ;Ali 4. �intert hams . .. • (�i 11 • 7.1.40SMq 44th,Si'.1By2010) foil i to an e r • 0 -- 8 T 4os/tt (l tole) 6tll�lt 4_ . I • . • erissiil' tine i. • ntersection'Queue Jum.- ' Ma1►s-r - 1~. ' I -t. Q$ SR 169 onset <l vd.to East d 1hn t •L . II' . 1 1 • 1 tOAr Suns -t lvd. .h.P . i.to,ion •• �" ' 1140: • .•unset Blvd. :*! '•.:., t0 L40S \ I.- „�• 1:4411f/t3. ' • •-41- ' '• ' - . •• 1444. N23rdSUNS4thSt *�' orate 1rdtoe1►emit ' t+ ft� Rainier Ave/Airport 1 SR Blvd.t°liasc etey limlc .� _ `M C f ` J � j r,� / : SW 27th Street • SR 167 to Oaf mole Are . C otli� 1 t��t4. SRS1SorBensonRoad • Incerchan toSouchdtylimle \ ti—y.pir. .1 <<�ti. Carr Rd/58176cfi St/Petrovialry SR 167 to40ch AreSB, : J �,c. . I _ ng County Corridors \ fL� l '� •�© " '� 1^ SR 900 tot shown) ) i-S to SE 129th Se �• • 140th Ava SL `-� ,..�'! �. S8171ttd to SR 169 ( �� r ` .,,j . S 192nd Sercet Kene to 1 l6ih Ave S8 v "' ` f����j w S`3►O .QWIt4i�•t01�► Imo' TmP ` `r . , M ! GIO Qtsd 1Y:)te ;p` • • ® �'� Renton IIOV Plan ' 'I . ii ••2;. . •1 y ((ot;,ia Legend, . Freeway HOV Lanes sa.* • • 2010 Anerial I HOV'I•earnicnrs . —S Transportation• 1 S • • Post 2015'fleatmenr unmet plan • • < 19 HOV • ..Only Interchange 0 ir.S._ Ciry Limit. . j UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT The Renton Arterial HOV Plan has been coordinated with the King County arterial HOV program. The county program identifies SR-169 (Maple Valley Highway), SR-515 (Talbot Road S./Benson Road), SR-900 (Sunset Boulevard), east and west of Renton city limits, Park Avenue N./N.E, Carr Road/S.E. 176` d Street/Petrovitsky Road and N.E. 3`/N.E. 4` Street as probable HOV corridors. Other HOV corridors that will influence travel within and around Renton include Duvall Avenue N.E., "Old" Benson Road and SR- 181 (West Valley Highway/Interurban Avenue). Regarding Duvall Avenue N.E., 1401 Avenue S.E. and S.E. 192na Street, Renton will coordinate with King County on the feasibility of HOV facilities on these arterial corridors. Renton will work with Sound Transit and King County to evaluate HOV facilities on Rainier Avenue, S. Shattuck Avenue and Grady Way. The HOV Plan also includes two-a transit corridors( Shattuck/S. 3`d/Burnett/ Logan/N. 6th in Central Renton and the S.W. 16 '' Street „ tension i., the Renton iVall y) These This facilities-facility tire-is intended to support and encourage use of planned regional'transit facilities (i.e., Downtown Renton Transit Center) and tailstatien). T4, Talbot Bu nett co«:dOr ..ould be t_ansit o ly (e.xcept for local a---ss by n ..t,borheed traffic) and is planned to be implemented by 2010. The Valley corridor may Also, the Strander Boulevard improvement indentified in the Arterial Plan, Table 1.4, will serve carpool transit vehicles as well as transit SOV and HOV trafficvehicles and is planned for implementation after 2015.coordinated with the Renton/Tukwila commuter rail impleffientationstation. In addition to arterial HOV improvements, construction of direct access HOV interchange ramps to provide connections to the I-405 HOV lane system is planned at N_E_44th Street, Park Avenue N.E,, at Lind Avenue S.W., and in the vicinity of Benson Road or Talbot(SR-SR-515) and on the SR-167 system at S.W. 27th Street. These ramps will provide vital HOV access, and enable efficient transit movements in the City to support regional and local transit service described in the Transit section FseetibnChapter-24-of this Transportation Element. It should be noted that several of the HOV treatments in the HOV Plan are planned for implementation beyond 2015. Preliminary analysis of 2010 HOV travel demand indicates that HOV facilities/treatment may not be needed by 2010 2015-and-on portions of the following arterial corridors: • Sunset Boulevard- Park Drive to east City limit(improvement#911) • N.E. 4th Street- Monroe Avenue N.E. to east City limit(improvement#1rQ12); and, • SR-515 or Benson Road - Puget Drive to south City limit(improvement#4-315). However, these improvements will-are anticipated to be needed at various time frames beyond 2015 to support Renton's level of service standard. The improvements in the Renton HOV Plan proposed by 2010, along with improvements in the Arterial Plan and Transit Plan, provide a multi-modal transportation plan that meets the 2010 level of service standard for the projected travel demand from land use development envisioned by 2010. HOV treatments on the King County corridors, if implemented by 2010, will support Renton's level of service standard. If implemented after 2010, these HOV improvements could help to maintain this level of service standard. Ongoing transportation planning work will include further analysis of the freeway interchange and arterial corridor HOV improvements identified in the HOV plan to verify physical, operational and fmancial needs and scheduling of implementation. This further study may find that the planned HOV improvements may not be feasible on one or more of the selected corridors. Therefore, ongoing work will also include the examination of additional arterial corridors for HOV u-58 - UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT treatment on an as-needed basis (without over-developing or over-using this type of transportation facility). Over-development of HOV facilities can lead to under-utilization and HOV traffic dispersion, rather than consolidation. Ridesharing and Mode split Forecasts of 2010 HOV trips and mode split.were based on an HOV vehicle occupancy of 2 or more persons, which is currently permitted in the region. As shown in Table 3.1 and Table 3.11, the number of persons traveling to/from Renton in HOVs in 2010 will be significantly higher than in 1990. Demand management and commute trip reduction measures, as well as arterial and freeway HOV improvements, will be needed to facilitate and encourage this forecasted increase in ridesharing. The 2010 Renton travel demand forecasts include 315,000 daily person-trips made in HOVs (see Table 3.1), which represents a 54% increase over the 1990 total of 205,000 daily trips in HOVs. Despite the major increase in the number of trips made in HOVs, however, the percentage increase is only slightly higher than the increase in overall travel demand, and as a result, the HOV "mode split" - i.e., the percentage of person-trips made in HOVs - does not increase. Citywide, the percentage of trips made by people driving alone in an auto (i.e., % SOV) will decline from 63% in 1990 to 60% in 2010, due largely to the forecasted increase in transit mode split. In 1990 and 2010, the HOV mode split is higher in the residential areas than in the employment areas. In the employment centers of the Central Subarea, Renton Valley, and Black River analysis districts, 30%-32% of the forecasted trips are in HOVs, while in the largely residential S.E. Renton, Skyway, and Kennydale/Highlands analysis districts, SOVs are 30%-40%. (HOV mode split typically is lower in employment areas, where there are proportionally more commute trips in the traffic stream. This is because commute trips tend to have lower average vehicle occupancies - i.e., more SOVs and fewer HOVs - than other types of trips). . Level of Service As discussed in the Arterial Chapter, the City of Renton has revised its LOS policy to emphasize the movement of people, not just vehicles. This new LOS policy is based on a set of multi-modal elements including auto, transit, HOV, non-motorized, and transportation demand management/commute trip reduction measures. These new LOS standards will be used to evaluate Renton city-wide transportation plans. The auto, HOV, and transit measures will be based on travel times and distance and will be the primary indicators for concurrency. HOV improvements along with transit improvements should show great effectiveness in improving 2010 travel times and distance. Achieving this goal will guide the planning and programming of the 2010 elements of the HOV Plan. Further information on how the HOV index of the Level of Service Standard was established is provided in the City of Renton Level of Service Support Document. 11-59 Amended 07/372•/98 _UPDATED 12/1/1999: 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TABLE 3.1 2010 DAILY HOV PERSON-TRIPS and (HOV MODE SPLIT: % PERSON-TRIPS IN 2+ HOVS) RENTON TOTAL CENTRAL SUBAREA RENTON VALLEY BLACK RIVER* SKYWAY* S.E. RENTON* KENNYDALE/ (CTTY LIMITS ONLY) HIGHLANDS* 1990 TOTAL TRIPS 204,970 (37%) 40,560 (30%) 18,760 (31%) 14,920 (31%) 25,630 (34%) 56,930 (37%) 72,500 (39%) 2010 TOTAL TRIPS 314,960 (38%) 60,590 (30%) 44,810 (30%) 18,920 (32%) 27,630 (34%) 81,020 (39%) 115,690 (40%) INTERNALTRIPS 80,540 (35%) 7,030 (38%) 1,830 (24%) 390 (29%) 3,170 (44%) 9,240 (46%) 25,180 (39%) TRIPS To/FROM: Central Subarea -- -- 1,750 (21%) 1,630 (27%) 2,180 (25%) 4,650 (27%) 6,060 (25%) Renton Valley -- 1,750 (21%) -- 730 (22%) 790 (25%) 3,600 (27%) 2,190 (27%) Black River -- 1,630 (27%) 730 (22%) -- 770 (29%) 1,300 (30%) 1,110 (28%) Skyway -- 2,180 (25%) 790 (25%) 770 (29%) -- 990 (36%) 1,420 (34%) S.E. Renton -- 4,650 (27%) 3,600 (27%) 1,300 (30%) 990 (36%) -- 4,540 (39%) Kennydale/Highlands -- 6,060 (25%) 2,190 (27%) 1,110 (28%) 1,420 (34%) 4,540 (39%) * Includes potential annexation areas Data Source: 1990 PSRC Regionally Adopted Forecasts 2010 PSRC Regionally Adopted Forecasts, adjusted based on Renton's proposed Comprehensive Plan. 11-60 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TABLE 3.11 2010 DAILY 2+ HOV PERSON-TRIPS For Trips Between Renton and Locations External to Renton and (HOV Mode Split: % Person-Trips in 2+ HOVs) Total Person-Trips Renton Total HOV Renton Total Trips HOV % 1990 Total Trips 574,460 204,970 36% 2010 Total Trips 871,120 314,960 36% Internal Trips 240,940 80,540 33% Tukwila Valley 49,390 19,180 39% SeaTac-Burien 67,710 23,460 35% Kent 72,430 22,610 31% North Soos Creek 88,890 30,950 35% Auburn/Federal Way 24,450 10,120 41% South Soos Creek 10,600 4,350 41% Pierce County 43,370 26,140 60% Kitsap County 4,890 3,970 81% South Seattle/West Seattle 72,300 22,340 31% Seattle/Shoreline 74,560 24,140 32% Bellevue/Mercer Island 59,390 24,970 42% Northshore/East King County 46,630 19,380 42% Snohomish County 14,570 8,240 57% Data Source: .1990 PSRC Regionally Adopted Forecasts 2010 PSRC Regionally Adopted Forecasts, adjusted based on Renton's proposed Comprehensive Plan. • II=61 .. UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION Non-motorized facilities consist of trails (paved or unpaved), open spaces, and designated routes which are used by pedestrians and cyclists. The non-motorized component of this plan is designed to enhance the quality of urban life in Renton, to improve walking and bicycling safety, and to support the pedestrian and bicycle transportation modes as alternatives to the use of automobiles. , ' The plan recognizes that non-motorized facilities along roadways and trails may serve multiple functions, including commuting and recreation. The off-street elements of the non-motorized transportation system are specified by the City of Renton Trails Master Plan. The on-street elements are specified in the City of Renton Comprehensive Walk Program Preliminary Engineering Report and as described later in this section. 1. Renton's existing transportation system is oriented towards accommodating cars, trucks, and buses rather than pedestrians or bicycles. The intent of these policies is to provide guidelines for reevaluating the existing system and providing a better environment for walking and bicycling. Overall, pedestrian facilities throughout the City are intended to be upgraded. 2. More facilities are also needed for bicycle storage and parking in shopping areas, employment centers and in public places. • 3. For example, a better pedestrian network can be encouraged by creating an interconnected 0 street system, developed to street standards, which include adequate walkways and street crossings. Traffic sanctuary islands and midblock crossings across busy arterials are also useful methods of improving the 30 pedestrian environment. Objectives The Non-Motorized Chapter is based on the following , objectives: T-J: Improve the non-motorized transportation system for both internal circulation and linkages to regional travel. T-K: Develop and maintain comprehensive trails systems which provide non-motorized access throughout the City, maximizes public access to open space areas, and provides increased recreational opportunities for the public. T-L: Integrate Renton's recreational and functional non-motorized transportation needs into a comprehensive trail system serving both local and regional users. (Source: City of Renton Trails Master Plan) T-M: Enhance and improve the circulation system to, from, and within the City. (Source: City of Renton Trails Master Plan) II-62 III � UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT T-N: Develop and designate appropriate pedestrian and bicycle commuter routes along existing minor arterial and collector arterial corridors. Policies The City of Renton Trails Master Plan and this chapter contain the City policies concerning non- motorized transportation elements, briefly described below, including all of the transportation-related Trails Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan policies. Policy T-32. Pedestrian and bicycle traffic should be accommodated within all residential Policy T-36. Bicycle storage facilities and and employment areas of the City. parking should be encouraged within development projects, in commercial areas and Policy T-33. Pedestrian and bicycle movement in parks. across principal arterial intersections should be enhanced. Policy T-37. Streets and pedestrian paths in residential neighborhoods should be arranged as Policy T-34. Obstructions and conflicts with an interconnecting network and should connect pedestrian movement should be minimized on to other streets. sidewalks, paths and other pedestrian areas. Policy T-38. Ensure that new pedestrian Policy T-35. Convenient and safe pedestrian facilities are compliant with the Americans with and bicycle access should be provided to and at Disabilities Act, and upgrade existing facilities the downtown transit center and all transit stops. to improve accessibility. (Also see related policies in the Open Space Section of the Land Use Element.) The following transportation-related policies were derived from the City of Renton Trails Master Plan: 1. Develop non-motorized transportation in tandem with motorized.transportation systems, recognizing issues such as safety, user diversity, and experiential diversity. 2. Provide for the trail needs of Renton residents; working population; and commuters, recognizing the diversity of needs of such groups as: adults, children, senior citizens, workers, recreational users, and the physically impaired. 3. Recognize the diversity of transportation modes and trip purposes of the following four groups: pedestrians, bicyclists,joggers/runners, and equestrians. 4. Provide foot/bicycle separation wherever possible; however, where conflict occurs, foot traffic should be given preference. 5. Provide adequate separation between non-motorized and motorized traffic to ensure safety. 6. Put major emphasis on establishing a "macro" system of trails while identifying critical missing links in the existing functional system. 7. Address "micro" level trails and fill gaps in existing trail patterns where appropriate. 8. The adopted Trails Plan shall be coordinated with and be an integral component of the City's on- going transportation planning activities. II-63 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 9. Appropriate mitigation measures will be taken to address impacts on the city's recreation and transportation infrastructure. Contributions to the City's non-motorized circulation system will help alleviate such impacts. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities The City's existing (1994) non-motorized transportation system is comprised primarily of roadside sidewalk. Pedestrians have the exclusive use of sidewalks within businessidistricts and have shared use with cyclists in other areas of the city. Although the City Code requires that sidewalks be provided on all streets, many of the public streets were constructed before the existing code was enacted, and as a result, numerous roadways are currently without sidewalks. Streets needing sidewalks include both local and arterial roadways. The January, 1992, City of Renton Comprehensive Walk Program Preliminary Engineering Report addresses the sidewalks and walkways within the City. This report identifies a priority roster to construct "missing" sidewalk/walkway sections throughout the City. The priority evaluation system is based on four sidewalk users: 1) school children, 2) elderly persons, 3) transit riders, and 4) all other users. Renton is located at the crossroads of a regional system of existing and proposed trails. Existing routes within the City include the Cedar River Trail System and a portion of the Lake Washington Loop Trail. Regional Systems with proposed access to the City include the Green'River Trail and the Interurban Trail. Figure 4-1 shows the existing (1994) non-motorized facilities within Renton and the nearby regional routes. Cyclists currently arc required to ride along the existing streets and shoulderaExcept within business districts,(City Code 10 12 12:D.1.). In other areas of the city, cyclists may use existing_sidewalks, provided that they yield the right-of-way to pedestrians. As of 1994, Renton currently has a combined bicycle/pedestrian facility along Garden Avenue North (North 6th Street to North 8th ' Street) and North 8th Street(Garden Avenue North to Houser Way), and striped bicycle lanes on ' Southwest 16t—h Street(Oakesdale Avenue Southwest to Longacres Drive). 35 II-64 a aaaaw-ra ,. 1 • •'" City of Renton tp I[i� k•• Existing _s.''°:��� Ilk �. • Non-Motorized Facilities y�:''_ kij rviiiiiG '� on711E11 Ilk ti l 1�1: 11111 L. lad ti x S 1 > +. _ t 'r f• ., k ra ���11 � .� :1*� Wit' a C �1. 1.� _.-c- • .`` trocTa Scale I' Min _ • ` 1— iimi111� `w`' ,):1-1 .7; >i ' ' .. x•4t,j. ��1l a "yr Elie'tar \`Y` l irI f V�ill—..•••. 1 Lilia-71 inm • t 1�A,) ��p�, • .1�� _Pi.=1i�`►1Yia� � iii, Ik111Ib) t1 llll 4V \f4 IVIUMP V1111E5411 c) I Vqt. ) Ling R. ,,. A 4 —� ,4. 4114/0F0,.-4-4i4 .,r�. .p 11 afp.1 III ram. 1 11 _ r ,r ``*an, 21111a i1 Vj 1 - _Isk .kr- i 1, tie Ike . J__ -, . _ _, . . .0..41 i gm, lg. ti,liN.illigh.T.A. -1 I 1 1 illil 0.1 I vAia. 4 . frr .......*. ,Vt._.. ., I ti) ' lin! 7'..I 'v nM.M44,0 k Eno' - -.. _.,--.... ... ........01.. • - • i,,,,,,,,, _. . ir , , f,1 gy -r //fit t N Wilco" 4..-R c .."1. •-:‘,---", ‘ ., . L ri I'—'1"11111 "TAINP*14-4t. - - .. r1 ='z . <'vtii nu 1, fq 01, ,I.,.-,)v, ,--.3A% ,TN?..,---: ll :1 le IA—. C err no ex an 2icii" b all,,7 ''. ". 0 . . • Bicycle Fadrdes Mixed Use Facilities •Pedestrian Fadldies • , 1.Tayyt1orAvc/Ebrdo Ave) 10. Codas River/Urban Industrial Zone 20.Cedar lUvuTran 2.Lake Ave/IbbinSt 1L Rainier Ave 3.Lake Washinema Loop 12..Gran RiverTcail 4.Southwest 166thStreet 13. IatenabaaTtar 14. Garden Ave/N8thSt , tt,1zfc CI 4. L►«h44s mill afi-Ph Gvowth aiO 1d ty el01 Ili f UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Design criteria for walkways, trails, and bikeways are contained in a variety of documents, including the City of Renton City Code and Trails Master Plan, King County Road Standards. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, and Federal Highway Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Neighborhood and Regional Access The principal non-motorized facility type linking neighborhoods within Renton and providing regional access are sidewalks or walkways. These facilities provide safe non-motorized mobility for both pedestrians and cyclists outside of business districts. Within business districts, sidewalks provide safe mobility for pedestrians. Currently, the sidewalks that exist along most of the arterials within the City provide the primary regional link as well. This "regional" access includes non-contiguous areas within Renton as well as areas outside of the City planning area. Some notable walkway deficiencies exist along sections of Maple Valley Highway (SR-169), Puget Drive, and Talbot Road South. These roadways do not currently provide safe non-motorized mobility through Renton. Installation of walkways/sidewalks has been either programmed into future transportation improvement projects, or identified in the City of Renton Comprehensive Walk Program Preliminary Engineering Report. Non-motorized neighborhood connections are made via sidewalks along arterial and collector roadways. Sidewalk connections between most neighborhoods within the City limits currently exist. In some locations, however, sidewalks are not continuous along a roadway. In potential annexation areas that are or were defined as "rural" by King County, sidewalks have generally not been constructed along either arterial or local roadways, because sidewalks are not required by rural area design standards. Most existing county roadways have either paved or gravel shoulders for use by cyclists and pedestrians. Consequently, many of the potential annexation areas do not provide protected non-motorized inter-neighborhood connection. This is not the case in Fairwood, however, where sidewalks have been installed throughout the development. Another important consideration is the bicycle route connection to regional cycling corridors. The regional corridors to which the Renton trails should connect include the Interurban, Christensen/Green River, Lake Washington Loop, Sammamish and Soos Creek Trails. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Plan The City, per the Comprehensive Walk Program, will construct sidewalks/walkways at "missing locations." In some areas, sidewalks will be constructed along each side of the street. Because of physical constraints such as sideslopes and roadway grades, or minimal expected pedestrian usage, some locations will have pedestrian/cyclist facilities constructed on only one side of the street. Installation of the facilities detailed in the City of Renton Comprehensive Walk Program Preliminary Engineering Report will be constructed as part of the prioritized sidewalk installation program. Additional non- motorized facilities will be constructed in conjunction with roadway improvement projects and as part of the Transit Improvement Program. Current annexation area roadways without sidewalks will be added to the Comprehensive Walk Program after annexation into the City. Sidewalk improvements on roadways could be improved through local improvement district(LID) and capital improvement projects (CIP). II-66 UPDATED 12/1/1999: 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT The City of Renton Trails Master Plan provides an in-depth description of proposed walking, bicycle, and mixed use trails. These proposed non-motorized facilities are shown in Figure 4-2 and listed in Table 4.1. The creation of a large number of new pedestrian only trails and paths is recommended in the Trails Master Plan. Most of these trails are several miles long and could consist of gravel or other soft paving surfaces. By nature, these types of trails are primarily used for recreational purposes, and are not 31 necessarily supportive of transportation goals. The creation of these trails would certainly supplement the City's transportation system, and their development by the Parks Department should be encouraged. Many of the planned bicycle facilities in the Trails Master Plan would be valuable transportation system components. Routes that are found to be important transportation elements could be constructed through the transportation program. Along roadways designated as bicycle routes, roadway or shoulder widening may accommodate cyclists' needs. These improvements could be added when roadway improvement projects are constructed, or implemented as individual improvement projects. Table 4.2 lists routes that have been initially identified as important bicycle transportation elements. • Garden Corridor Further review by the City of Renton, in cooperation with citizen groups, will be necessary to determine which of the other projects listed in Table 4.2 are selected for development. King County is pursuing development of bicycle facilities outside of the Renton city limits. Four routes leading into Renton have been identified in the King County Non-motorized Plan: • 116th Avenue Southeast (Edmonds Avenue Southeast) (Southeast Petrovitsky Road to South 157th Street) • 140 Place/Avenue Southeast(Southeast 192nd Street to Southeast Renton-Maple Valley Road) • State Route 900 (138th Avenue Southeast(Duvall Avenue Northeast) to Southeast 82 d Street) • Coal Creek Parkway Southeast(Southeast 72nd Place to Renton City Limits) The routes identified by the City of Renton and listed in Table 4.2 will be planned to connect with these proposed King County facilities. II-67 .., • . . . - MOM • • . 4,--•1"1% • i Til . City of Renton : , . . w. . • -- .• • . 41 • 44,, • - Proposed _. -. j11i• tztr, 1114(kly • Non-Motorized Facilities 1/14 .. , .. • • ..:-.,;-.....--...,..,.... ::-..-:. ...,, . , . --: .:,...,..,....,•:,.:2..',::,.:::.:•. :•,`C.,'.::.:::::-,.,!.:.:::/:::::`,, .?::::::::.::.7:..:::...::::.AA111 t.#1t, 11113 ilk • .„_',-.;:',,N,,.::.'1.1-..%:::::,-1:•t.:::'...:-:...-::i:s.:::..:,,••',.• '.•:.; :=1111 :ftill531, -"V:i:IL •Ns.,2:;..:%:4::'.:,,V.Z-.-\--..Q'.•.,:;•::,'.:,..,-,41::,.,.....-':::4,1=III a's;) se "'' .„..,1 l,... :•.:*:,•:...--....,,,...,..7 02.t ,•,1,;„;.:.-....*;;•.t.:.2;.....:,-...;•,? :....=.mg - 1 Air46.-A11111 Hoteella& N ill U II rIN.":::«;:.:?;::..%.'F:,',;;;:-.-1•‘'').?".4.7'7,:!ik,;.": ".j.:-.....--!..1/474; 6.--•••••• S' , . • ....''cl ASIIN,IPIHlii ''''...•*:.; 471:::;":.:fiiff.:..:4;:•:-...it:‘:,-;::: ;:,;;;:,:.;,-;*:!..:-.-AN-7. .i. ,,_ -..„,,•-::,....,,,:::::::::..„.; ::-.....--.q....:-.,,,,:i2.,t.-; qv!!!I I k .' --' ---1,-.:.\'::"";-,..:,.::'::::.i‘•-= .; ,- ispaiiart‘.....N.4 -2,----..„,.f-'1'.,--,y1,--4j'.-:,.., ..n..f....:f:.-•::::-1-:.._;.-..-1!-..::-' " Ellie ile• cinsh-0.-. , It ;a rimptaws . tokigitlitilq-:•:5:7;:4-...:2-::;-3,iw.-- :... . I a oil i •• Jtass • a )"Irelli a..Apjrzi.-Eig to - s.%141ENNI*Iimums..Ersa as • , 12.1=11115.1:111LITTAC) ill .i'•1 . . NolorSSILI 1 1111===ri. 'i I -ilirot, -t 111011e .\ ,..wvirt.. Aline,-,._::•it, „., %.,, •••Ori I .r.amil I. . •. ; • . NIIIRIIIIIIIrmilk so rim )..ailitill 1,00 _ 42,1- ".>.5.1.1.104Liniii , ,,,•10.e.ge ..,-- al irk ii ..... • •.0_1411111:Mraiani itr.. \ alit!.IiiZe, AVIV- ii igsed . " 7) ta:Ddieraiwammigs UM ___Nt11111;//43='.. .1 4 miss - . • I , I 1 • - ;.1a- - iimi ,i•Q.01hinkvilla ill,li -111k eviwitka- . . , -•v- 146, •Fr, J6,90.1"..,.i-t-, ,i ill Ss& all Tril . 116n V .s1111106 tIl - 'TP ..- --- - - Ill 111 vEike simil, ........--. ----). 1111114) -iiib I '' 4 r-N,.., . it... I rim: ...L. Ai ..Nu.- MIL, • ti:9 •1' 71111111PIINFIN Mill "i72-114*‘";lc .. •Or% • . ll • : Rik) : etz) illikli \Trilpium rAilatL4.4 . , 0;. 1.11 14 141k Iiilliti MIERIFINk(‘ 4. ‘PerAsi li -.:_ . '... P i ' T.i-A - TEiliff it• ' Pinlikr A.r."‘"—o--::-A, tr-, -iv - , - ....,-> 'AN - • ' -- . - . :,- - L t fg NM ti .,.., , . . ........,. i. ..,,,.......,- --).1111 f..ri. mil I;. li....91h.. . ., J:r ili • • , no • "Isr I • - 1,''•—.: :,:,-",i.- Z4 • . . \•. inrs lei , . ..,.. ....,,,,,..,,,:t,,,--.--,!=7.,-,:= -, •. Bicycle Facilites • • Filb:s34:1 Use Facaiti" - Pedestrian Facilities . •• • • 1. •• • IMIfocc:d.d.62..ze—kika• •1 =ado. Kw„,,...m..,*;"..,• . 19. friver=xhdiatdal2orwiTpoll 2 _.1,13,0,05,....47.1. . . 1 Op.trnik*.q..sa B ri•kba4 41.Ferwrttmd,saa • Cr.01/4 TION Poere comic' 63. Cr•ATIail Otek Took 64. Ctirok WI 66.kelnebrooltWellordilsol • ortioniNewp3d Ifir Mule 36.Com**. trIthS1 (%931113r Ittg.1112" - Vc"r6ISI V°1 it wzatorKa ot 1 MeAvC:.nnad.°' • VI:tra", clii61V1401 N.11361kRifer2P31 SI.=Tar # . I Mar wad fE46,31. tryp4 •25.PcskalkorsonCamoder 41.Roll-40A" 1 . fL.===iCeraii"CiarNeclor II-X . Upsixfc Cry Li PI 1+5 7ti i-i Gfe IV'N rtrti., 1 1 . • - . .. • . • Table 4.1 • • . . • . • -;mposid Non-motorized Facilities -- . . . .. . . . — No. Facilltv Name ' ' f—, . • I ' it/W I •Settime • l'ir..,:. .. P4•44Liss!grairearietreii..--•vertifrOrp•c•0040404=1500Bieriediti*EttntroVSES:3140444.Ftwif-ngr...V...vt 1 Dural!Ave-Coal Creek Pimp, Sli R •' • keg • - . 2 Sunset Blvd feud ' Sh R • Reit 3 • Sunset Bv-oass (NE 12th So • Sh • R Iqb1 , 4 Northridge Route Sh • R - .5 Airport Perimeter Road • . - Sh . ' • R Reg • 6 Sunset Blvd (wesd . Sh R • Reit _ 7. • SW 7th St Sh' . R Nbd • • 8 . Puget Dr . R Sub - 9 Talbot Rd • Sh R 1 • Sub 10 Empire Trail • ' • ' Sh 1 - R • Ree _ 11 SW 16th St ' t • •• - . Sh R Sub . ..12 SW 27th St • . .. Sh • .R '• Sub ' 13 SW 43rd St/Petrovitsky Rd Sh . R Reg 14• .Benson Rd . . • Sh• - R Rez _ 15 Fairwood Route. . Sh R • Reit , .. • , 16 Aberdeen Ave , • Sh • R I" Sub ,17 Edmonds Ave . Sh R I •Sub _ 18 SE 31st St/S 168th Sc Sh R Sub 18 116th Ave SE Sh R • Rez - . 20 Renton/New=Hills Route . Sh -R • 21 Monroe Connector• ' ' • • sit R • • Sub . • n Hardie Ave/Taylor Ave . • Sh R Sub . • . 23 •Monster Rd e,,....-.!•-•-• ; .• , -. — Sh . R• Reir . .. • • 'R. • I Rez . . - 24 NE 4th St . Sh' 25 Park Ave/Bronson COnnector • • sh • r R I Sub. . ...... ...4 - • • • ..w.a12. - - ,illeritaWardczTiricir -4 ".•42 ,' - . . sb Lake Washiniton Blvd ((ANif eit-e.A) • SI R • : • . 31 Union Aye : • . . Sh/Ex . R/OS P. ' , 32 bevri Elbow . . i A i. Sh R' . Sub • .. • • • 33 Cedar River/Urban Naomi Trail (tia Prlipi(glut : Ex OS Sub'• . 34 Burnett Ave. - • • -. '. •- . Sh ' R • .•Sub • • 35 Lake YOMWS Trail •• •• • ' a - E • Rez ' • 36 Cascade Trail. • ' • • • . • . Ex • • E ' Sub• • • . 37 Soot Creek Trail ' Ex • • OS ' . Rent . • 38• , P-1 Chaenel Ex • E ,, • 39' Green Rher Trail •• '•" . . • Ex ' .• •E . Reg _ 40 Interurban'Trail • ' - . Ex E Rea • 41 Balder Ave -` . • . R . . • •141 • Gaiden Aie/Nlith St/Houser War I.',-:• . --, /-":A '.. ; • Si/En R/E Reg 6, 43 , •Garden AviiIN 6th St/Bronson Way • • • •• • Sh R Sub . .: ' . 5:14•ve:5MrralZ2Ria-=OrTZfE" . . .r. . .. •SO . Cedar River/Urban Industrial Tian. . OS • „. . - • • 51'• South Lake Coritiebtor • •• • . •Ex • OS • • • Sub-: •• , • .• • 52 Mav•CreekTrail • . • Sub •53 • _ Honey Creek Trail • • .. F.x OS • , Sub • • 54 . Historic Pacific Coast Trail • • Ex '- • . . 55 Ketutydale Creek Trail - . . . Nbd ••••• • 56 Cedar Crest Trail .__. • Ex. OS ' : et 57 ' Union Trail ___• Sti/Ex ' • B/E - E • 58 Black River Trail •- • . Sh/Ex . R/OS ' Sub . . 59 Pike(Power/Sanset Trail • • . . • . Ex GlE • Nbd ' • ' .::..,. . , „ - 60 Bonneville Trail - • - Ex OS - • Nbd •: • ' '':Si..,-.:' • .... . 61• •Emoire Ridge Trail • • • Ex G Nbd ::.:::"....W•i, 62 SoringbrOok Valley Tail Ex ' OS . Reg , '':...:•:;'.. ., ' ' *.F,; -;.•.; 63 Grant Creek Trail . . Ex OS . b _ • 64 Panther Creek Trail • - • Sub a os 65. Sorinebrook Wedands Trail • OS•: Sub • ,••••• Ex-Exclusive • E-Easement . Nbd-Neighborhood • • .• Sh-Shared - G-Greenbelt Reg-Regional • OS-Open Spaces Sub-Subarea. . • • R-Roadway Existing Routes are in bold type. lik . • ntil UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TABLE 4.2 PROPOSED BICYCLE ROUTES No. Facility Name Route 3 Sunset Bypass Route Northeast 17 Street(Duvall Avenue Northeast to Union Avenue Northeast) Union Avenue Northeast(Northeast 171 Street to Northeast 121—h Street) Northeast 12th Street or NE 10th Street(Union Avenue Northeast to Edmonds Avenue Northeast) th Edmonds Avenue Northeast(Northeast 12—/10`h Street to Northeast Park Drive) Northeast Park Drive(Edmonds Avenue Northeast to Lake Washington Boulevard North) 21 Monroe Avenue Northeast Monroe Avenue Northeast(Northeast 4 h Street to Northeast 12th Street) 1 Duvall Avenue Northeast Duvall Avenue Northeast(Northeast 10th Street to Northeast 24th Street) 30 Lake Washington Boulevard* Lake Washington Boulevard(Northeast 441h—Street to Northeast Park Drive) (Lk Washington Loop Route) (Completed) 42 Garden* Houser Way North(Lake Washington Boulevard to North 8th Street) (Lk Washington Loop Route) Garden Avenue North(North 6th Street to Bronson Way) 43 Central Renton Connection Garden Avenue/North 6th Street to Airport Permieter Road(Various routes (Lk Washington Loop Route) under consideration). 34 Burnett Burnett Avenue South(Cedar River Trail to Southwest 7111 Street) 5 Airport Airport Perimeter Road corridor(Logan Avenue North to Rainier Avenue) (Lk Washington Loop Route) Rainier Avenue North(Airport Perimeter Road to Northwest 3rd Street) 22 Hardie/Rainier Bypass Northwest 3rd(Rainier Avenue North to Hardie Avenue Northwest) Hardie Avenue(Northwest 3rd Street to Southwest 7th Street) 7 Southwest 7th Southwest 7111 Street(Burnett to Oakesdale) 11 Southwest 16`t� Lind Avenue Southwest(Southwest 7 Street to Southwest 16th Street) (Completed) Southwest 161 Street(Lind Avenue Southwest to Oakesdale Road) 14 Southeast Area Main Avenue(Bronson Way to Benson Road South) Benson Road South(Main Avenue South to Southeast 168th Street) 8 Puget Drive Southeast(Benson Road South to Edmonds Avenue Southeast) 35 Lake Youngs Waterline(Edmonds Avenue Southeast to Tiffany Park) Edmonds Avenue Southeast(Puget Drive Southeast to South 1571 Street) * Identified in the prepesed-6-Year (1995-2000) Transportation Improvement Programs. I1-70 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT/ COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION (TDM/CTR) As stated in the Arterial, Transit, and HOV Chapters, a major challenge of the Renton Transportation Plan will be to better manage the existing transportation system and reduce traffic demand by encouraging the use of alternatives to single occupant vehicles. The Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction(TDM/CTR) Chapter addresses this challenge by focusing on encouraging and facilitating reductions in trip-making, dispersion of peak period travel demand throughout the day, increased transit usage, and increased ride sharing. In enacting the Washington State Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) law of 1991, and the 1997 amendments, the State Legislature found that decreasing the demand for vehicle trips is significantly less costly and at least as effective in reducing traffic congestion and its impacts as constructing new transportation facilities, such as roads and bridges, to accommodate increased traffic volumes. The legislature further found that reducing the number of commute trips to work made via single occupant cars and light trucks is an effective way of reducing automobile-related air pollution, traffic congestion and energy use. The goals, objectives and policies of the Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction Chapter also are based on these fmdings. Objectives The Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction Chapter is based on the following objectives: T-O: Encourage the development and use of alternatives to single occupancy vehicles. T-P: Promote a reasonable balance between parking supply and parking demand. Policies This Chapter of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains City policies concerning Transportation Demand Management and Commute Trip Reduction(including support for ride sharing and management of parking supply). j Policy T-3839. The disruptive impacts of traffic Policy T-4l42. Criteria should be developed to related to centers and employment areas should locate park-and-ride lots serving residential be reduced. (In this context, disruptive impacts areas. are primarily traffic. They could be minimized Policy T-4243. The construction of parking 1 through techniques, such as transportation structures should be encouraged. management programs implemented through 1 cooperative agreements at the work place, Policy T-4344. Parking ratios should be reduced 1 flexible work hours and subarea planning.) as transit services are increased and an adequate level of public transit can be demonstrated. Policy T-3940. Appropriate parking ratios should be developed which take into account Policy T-4445. Transportation demand existing parking supply, land use intensity and management measures should be implemented at transit and ride-sharing goals. residential and retail developments, as well as at the workplace. Policy T-4041. Alternatives to on-street or on- site parking should be explored. II-71 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Policy T-46. Assist and encourage employers affected by Commute Trip Reduction laws to implement measures that support reductions in Policy T-48.• Create incentives encouraging SOV travel and vehicle miles traveled. developers to use alternatives to on-street or on- site parking. Policy T-4547. Site design and layout for all types of development should incorporate Strategy T 4547.1 Downtown (Central transportation demand management measures Business District) parking restrictions and/or such as convenient priority parking places for removal resulting from Policies T 39 thru T HOVs, and convenient, direct pedestrian access 45TDM/CTR policies shall apply to from residential, commercial, and other facilities commuter/employee parking, not to business to transit stops/stations. (Sec policies in HOV patron/customer parking. Section) Also see related policies in the HOV section. Existing Parking Supply and Demand An inventory of the existing parking supply in the Central Subarea (for location see Figure 1-4 in the Arterial Chapter) was conducted in August, 1993. The inventory gathered data for both on-street and off- street spaces. Table 5.1 below summarizes the results of the inventory. The north industrial area has approximately 13,700 off-street spaces and the Grady Way commercial area has 4,300 off-street spaces, concentrating 68% of the off-street parking at the north and south ends of the Central Subarea. The CBD core in comparison has 1,045 off-street spaces, or 4% of the total. There are also 226 public off-street parking spaces within the CBD. The remaining off-street parking spaces are private or signed for use by patrons of a specific business. Additional information on this parking inventory is provided in the Central Subarea Transportation Plan, Existing Conditions draft report. Table 5.1 Central Subarea Parking Summary Spaces OOP-Street Total Number of Spaces 26,522 100% Number of Handicap Spaces * 305 1% On-Street One Hour Restrictions 202 8% Two Hour Restrictions 1,019 40% Special Restrictions 53 2% No Restrictions 1,274 50% Total Number of Spaces 2,548 100% Central Subarea Parking Spaces 29,070 * This includes 80 spaces at the Boeing plant which are assigned to employees with disabilities. II-72 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Source: Central Subarea Transportation Plan, Existing Conditions, draft, January 1994 Ongoing transportation planning work, , will include a city-wide parking study, if needed for the development refineme nt of parking policies and guidelines. Parking Policy Review As stated in the Washington State Commute Trip Reduction(CTR) law of 1991, there exists a close relationship between commuter behavior and the supply and cost of parking. As required by the CTR law, the City has prepared a CTR Plan, and will "completed a review of local parking policies and ordinances as they relate to employers and major worksites and any revisions necessary to comply with commute trip reduction goals and guidelines." above mentioned parking review. In 1992, Metro submitted an application on behalf of each of these , the study. The discussion section accompanying the parking policies in the Comprehensive Plan states that "too much parking is an inefficient use of land and can deter transit use. A proper balance needs to be achieved between parking supply and demand." Further discussion proposes that "ideas such as lowering parking ratios and establishing a maximum ratio of parking to building size could be explored." The 1994 Parking Policy Review Program recommended a series of revisions to the City's parking regulations consistent with the above ideas. The guiding objectives of this review were to: • Ensure that the supply of available parking reflects demand. Avoid oversupply of parking, while guaranteeing an adequate supply to promote business and economic growth; and, • Facilitate reductions in commute trips by promoting travel by transit, non-motorized means and carpool. Maximum parking ratios were established, and the existing minimums modified, to create a range of appropriate allowable parking ratios. Additional revisions were proposed to support HOV, transit, and non-motorized usage and access. In May 1995, the City's parking regulations were amended to reflect these recommended revisions. It is the intent of the City's parking regulations to use incentives as much as possible to create choices for developers as they evaluate how to provide parking on site. , , create choices for developers as they evaluate how to provide parking on site. II-73 II UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Employers' Mode Split The State Commute Trip Reduction law is intended to achieve a reduction of 15% by 1995, 20% by 1997, 25% by 1999, and 35% by 2005, in single occupant vehicles and/or average vehicle miles traveled for affected employers. Employers' mode split will be addressed with data being gathered and used for the implementation of the CTR law. In order to implement the State Commute Trip Reduction law,,King County was divided up into approximately a dozen CTR zones with similar employment density, population density, level of transit service, parking availability, and access to High Occupancy Vehicle facilities. ,The Puget Sound Regional Council produced base year values for 1992 for each zone using its regional transportation model. These values reflect the average rate of single occupant vehicle (SOV) trips for all employers in the zones. Most of the City of Renton is located in the South King County zone. A small piece of the City, the northernmost tip, north of May Creek, is located in the East King County zone. The base year value for single occupant vehicle trips for both the South and the East King County zone.is 85%. While this figure is not an exact mode split figure, it is representative of the degree to which employees of all employers in Renton are accessing their worksites by single occupant vehicle or using other modes. The assumption is made that the SOV rate is 85%, and the rate of trips made by other modes''is 15%. TDM/CTR Programs The City adopted a CTR Ordinance and a CTR Plan(February 1993). The ordinance outlines_the manner in which and the schedule with which employers located within the City of Renton are required to design and implement commute trip reduction programs at their worksites. The CTR Plan is a summary document that describes the City's implementation approach. As stated in the Plan, the City has contracted with Metro to perform certain activities,!including employer notification, employer assistance, and program review. The Plan summarizes the CTR goals and establishes the CTR zones mentioned above. It explains the circumstance's and procedures for employer appeals of CTR program administrative decisions. The Plan also states the Ci y's commitment to implementing a CTR program for its own employees, to complete the parking policy review mentioned above, and to report on an annual basis to the State regarding progress towards meeting CTR goals. In the past, the City, with the support of Metro, has developed Transportation Management Programs (TMP's) for new residential, commercial, and office developments. These TMP's have usually been put in place through SEPA agreements. At some point in the future, the City may;consider adopting a developer-based Transportation Demand Management ordinance (with site design and other requirements) to compliment the employer-based CTR ordinance and its employer worksite requirements. Parking Management 9rdinaneeRegulations ' ' . Parking regulations are specified in Section 4.4.080 of the Renton Municipal Code. The Code regulations includes requirements for new construction of parking including landscaping, screening, layout, paving, markings, and wheel stops. It-They also includes requirements for size and amount of parking according to the land use activity-of-the-building involved. II-74 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Ongoing transportation planning work will include refinement of criteria for locating park and ride lots serving residential areas to address factors such as the intensity of development in adjacent areas, the level of traffic congestion in the areas, proximity to arterial streets, and opportunities to buffer lots from living areas. Also standards for construction of parking garages will be reviewed to address minimization of land area and the amount of impervious surface. AIRPORT The Airport Chapter of the Renton Transportation Plan is derived from, and based on, the updated Airport Master Plan for the Renton Municipal Airport. It should be noted that Renton's airport is more than a transportation facility. It is also a vital element to Renton's commercial and industrial development and economy, through the aircraft services, manufacturing support, flight training and other airport activities it provides and the employment that these activities generate. The intent of the objectives and policies is to support increased aviation activities and appropriate mitigation of adverse impacts when possible. Objectives The Airport Chapter is based on the following objectives: T-Q: Promote and develop local air transportation facilities in a responsible and efficient manner and recognize, the Renton Municipal Airport as a unique, valuable and long-standing public transportation facility within the region. T-R: Maximize available space on the airport site for uses that require direct access to taxiways and runways such as storage and parking of aircraft and aircraft maintenance and service facilities. T-S: Continue operation of the Airport as a Landing Rights Airport, ultimately providing permanent inspection facilities to the U.S. Customs Service. Policies The Renton Airport Master Plan and This Transportation Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan contain the City policies concerning the Airport Chapter. The following policies were developed for this Transportation Element: Policy T-49. Support the land base and Policy T-50. Promote and develop airport seaplane base activities. Acknowledge that there facilities and services for all wheeled and float- are certain costs to the community associated equipped aircraft, owners, pilots, and with the existence of the Renton Municipal passengers in a manner that maximizes safety, Airport, such as noise generation, but recognize efficiency and opportunity for use. that these costs have historically been accepted Policy T-51. Current airport land use strategy, by the community in exchange for the economic which requires the Boeing Company to vacate and transportation-related benefits and the civic prestige that are also associated with the airport. II-75 UPDATED 12/1/1999: 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT the west side of the airport upon the expiration Policy T-53. The Renton Municipal Airport of their lease in 2010, should be continued. provides the only publicly-owned seaplane Policy T-52. Promote the relocation of facility in the area arid, therefore, the northern industrial and office uses that do not require shoreline of the airport should be restricted to direct access to taxiways and the runway, to off- seaplane access. airport sites. The following policies were derived from the Renton Airport Master Plan: • A balanced mix of aviation should be served. Future proportions of,based general aviation should not be allowed to vary significantly from current fleet mix. The basing capacity for light General Aviation aircraft should be maintained at about 260 aircraft. The number of based business aircraft should be kept to less than 20% of the total of non-Boeing General Aviation aircraft on the field. Leasing policy and negotiations may be a tool for implementation. • The City's airport ownership should not extend east across the Cedar River. • The use of space at the airport should be maximized. Wherever possible, land uses should be condensed. • Airport leases that need runway access should have priority. (The airport flightline is a limited resource and should not be given to uses which could operate elsewhere.) In addition, Renton is the only publicly-owned seaplane facility in the area and, therefore, seaplane access deserves a priority along the lake shore. • The Community Service Alternative response to demands for use of the Renton Municipal Airport should be the Balanced Response to maintain General Aviation basing capacity. (This option seeks to avoid the loss of general aviation parking areas on the west side apron because of lease recapture by Boeing. Boeing would take over the southeast corner of the airport, displacing non-Boeing general aviation uses to the west side of the airport.) Airport Facilities The Renton Municipal Airport has become one of the major general aviation airports in the Puget Sound area. It is owned by the City of Renton and is located in the northwest corner of the city, bounded generally on the east by the Cedar River, on the west by the Rainier Avenue, and on the north by Lake Washington. (See Figure 1.45) The Airport consists of approximately 170 acres. It is oblong in shape, and has one runway with two parallel taxiways (with concrete and blacktop surfaces and artificial drainage). The Airport is classified as a Basic Transport/Reliever airport. The runway, running southeast to northwest, is 5,379 feet long and 200 feet wide, with a 340-foot displaced threshold at the south end. It is equipped with medium intensity, runway lighting, runway end identification lighting (REIL) and precision approach path indicators (PAPI). Taxiways are lighted, and there is a rotating beacon, a windsock, and a non-directional radio beacon. The Federal Aviation Administration operates an Air Traffic Control Tower during the hours of 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. May 1 through September 30 and from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. October 1 through April 30. Approximately 150,000 landings and take-offs per year take place at the Airport, making it the third busiest airport in the State of Washington. Contiguous to the Renton Airport is the Will Rogers-Wiley Post Memorial Seaplane Base. Landings and take-offs from the water are,not recorded, but during the summer months the seaplane base is one of the busiest in the Northwest. II-76 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Airport Activities The Renton Airport serves general aviation demand generated by Renton, as well as by other communities generally within a 30-minute driving time (e.g., Bellevue to the north, Issaquah to the east, Kent to the south, and Seattle to the northwest). The concept of "general aviation" includes all aviation uses except commercial airline and military operations. Consequently, nearly all of the aviation operations at Renton Airport are those of general aviation, including the flights of the transport-class aircraft produced by the adjacent Boeing plant. General aviation uses are both personal and revenue- producing, the latter category including business, charter, and flight instruction. The seaplane base provides facilities only for small general aviation types of aircraft(both personal and revenue-producing). The past few years have shown an increase in the charter seaplane businesses utilizing the Renton Airport facilities and the seaplane base. Aircraft services available at the Airport include aircraft maintenance and service, fuel, flight instruction, aircraft charter and rental, and aircraft storage, both hangared and open. Fixed base operators (FBO's), which are aviation-oriented businesses offering a variety of services and products to aircraft owners and operators, provide these services to the aviation public. Relevant Documents: - Airport Master Plan- 1997 The Airport Master Plan for the Renton Municipal Airport was last updated in 1997 and approved by the City Council in August 1997. The update study was funded jointly by the Federal Aviation Administration, and the City of Renton to determine the existing and future role of the airport and to provide the City with information and direction in the future planning and continued development of the airport. The objective of the study was to develop a plan for providing the necessary facilities to best accommodate the aviation needs of the airport and contiguous seaplane base over the next twenty years. The study work scope consisted of inventories, forecasts of aviation demand, demand/capacity analyses, facility requirements, airport layout plans and land use plans, development staging and costs, financial plans, and an environmental impact assessment report. Every few years the Airport Master Plan is updated as necessary to reflect progress and changes from the original Master Plan. It should be recognized that the Airport Master Plan addresses aviation facilities only. The City has other off-site related responsibilities that are not addressed in detail by the Master Plan, including maintenance of waterways, land use compatibility, zoning, aviation-related restrictions on building height, etc. Other studies and planning documents that have been initiated over time relating to the growth and development of the Renton Municipal Airport include the original 1978 Master Plan and subsequent 1988 Master Plan update. The original 1978 Master Plan Findings and Recommendations are listed below. 1978 Airport Master Plan Findings 1. Renton Municipal Airport is developed almost to capacity. (Status: unchanged) II-77 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 2. Seaplane activity is accommodated on the airport and does not have its own identifiable facility. (Status: unchanged) 3. There is substantial demand for airport/seaplane base space within the region served by the airport. (Status: unchanged) 4. The ability of the Renton Municipal Airport to satisfy this demand is limited by the physical constraints of the site. (Status: to be re-evaluated) 5. The character of general aviation flying at Renton will continue its slow shift from pleasure flying to business flying over the next twenty years. (Status: unchanged) 6. Most improvements that can be made to the airport are "fine tuning" of design features to increase capacity, improve efficiency, or enhance safety. (Status: to be re-evaluated) 7. The installation of a microwave landing system (MLS) in the future is possible; however, the landing minimums are limited by high terrain west of the field. (Status: MLS system has been canceled) 8. Unrestricted auto access to the aircraft operating areas needs to be controlled. (Status: access has been restricted) 9. The use .of Boeing Apron C space for parking of additional' general aviation aircraft would increase the capacity of the field. (Status: unchanged) 10. The relocation of Taxiway A closer to the runway would gain approximately 80 aircraft parking spaces. (Status: unchanged) 11. The environmental impacts of new development are minimal for the airport. (Status: to be re- evaluated) 12. The most adverse environmental impact for the airport is associated with the jet testing facilities in Boeing Area A. (Status: to be re-evaluated) 13. The costs of development of the airport and seaplane base are approximately $1,620,000. (Status: updated) 1978 Airport Master Plan Recommendations 1. It is recommended that the improvements for the Renton,Municipal Airport and Will Roger- Wiley Post Memorial Seaplane Base be adopted as presented in the Master Plan Report. (Status: unchanged) 2. It is recommended that all short-term improvements given. in this Master Plan Study be implemented by 1982. (Status:some improvements have been made). 3. It is recommended that the Boeing Company further investigate ways to mitigate the noise associated with the engine testing facilities. (Status: ongoing) 4. It is recommended that this Master Plan be continually reviewed and updated as needed to take advantage of increased technological improvements, to confirm forecasts and to review the standards associated with airport development. (Status: ongoing) i II-78 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Eening'. The 1988 Master Plan Update did not clearly delineate findings and recommendations. Instead, recommendations for policy considerations were identified (see Section 6.1, above, and 1988 Update, page 69). Airport Master Plan Implementation The airport development and financial plan portions of the Master Plan identify the capital improvements that should be accomplished, specify when these improvements should be accomplished, and determine the economic feasibility of accomplishing the programmed improvements and developments. The schedule of developments and improvements is established in five year increments, to coincide with the five-, 10- and 20-year projections of the Master Plan. Based upon the five-year schedule of improvements and developments, Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program Funds are requested for assistance with the accomplishment of those eligible projects programmed in the Master Plan. FREIGHT The Freight Chapter of the Transportation Element addresses the needs and impacts of goods movement • and distribution in Renton. The Freight Chapter focuses on the two primary providers of freight transportation: trucking and freight rail. Objectives The Freight Chapter is based on the following objectives: T-R: Maintain existing freight rail service to commercial and industrial sites, and establish rail service T-S: Maintain truck access between Renton industrial areas and the regional highway system. T-T: Minimize the impact of truck traffic on general traffic circulation and on Renton neighborhoods. Policies Policy T-5154. Heavy through truck traffic intent of the policies is to minimize the physical should be limited to designated truck routes in impact of heavy trucks on city streets.) order to reduce its disruptive impacts. (In this Policy T-5255. Design transportation facilities context, "disruptive impacts" refers to in a manner that compliments railroads. nuisances, particularly noise and parking, Policy T-5 56. Locate spur tracks to provide a associated with heavy trucks. In addition, the minimum number of street crossings and serve a maximum number of sites. 11-79 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Policy T-5457. Minimize strategies to minimize adverse impacts of railroad operations on adjacent residential property. Policy T-5558. Design Support railroad crossings teimprovements that minimize 33 maintenance and protect the street surface. Policy T-5659. Provide Where warranted, provide protective devices, such as barriers and warning signals on at-grade crossings. Policy T-60. The City should continue to work with local, regional, State and Federal agencies to address regional freight needs and to mitigate local impacts. Truck Routes The City has a system of truck routes (see Figure 7-1). Until October, 1991, the system had been informal, comprising only advisory signs on the routes. With the City Council adoption of the Truck Route Ordinance, the truck route system became a regulatory system. Trucks weighing over 26,000 pounds gross vehicle weight are restricted to operating on one of the designated truck routes. Trucks needing to make deliveries off of the designated truck routes are required to take the most direct arterial route to/from one of the designated truck routes. When more than one delivery off the designated truck routes can be combined to limit multiple intrusions into residential neighborhoods, a truck driver has an obligation to combine those trips. The truck route ordinance does not apply to the operation of Renton School District buses on designated routes, public transit on designated routes, garbage trucks, city maintenance vehicles, and emergency vehicles. II-80 • . ' • • -, • . ... ' . m.m.EMIMIIM./ s'• I • . .. . . il ). • .(--1 ,,.. . . , .. .. p- ,. . • orai ;., r..,..,;4. ■ 1 .0 4....i • S. • g IP % • v z J . ,.,„, _ ... P. . 1 nvantrrmreMlaerzwerr.rwrr 4-/..." —...6-... *-4.mg 41(mm I ., Noillain i 11 ....4 3 I agE if I ci) AIM • , J III itlPjli°# g ..! 2 . ,,,...„, 1 , . . ._ . r littpAi - . g .. . illl Kr . 1 41 I k?7MII g V. -••z• '. as e•Y toirl (...IN.:: I •I q 1- g simmi = V i XI' 1 I . 1 h i f...,-....-.. minorm wee-F ,:. rot , ..,• Callmis ig c ........ w en .13 . E t• Er , awl --quiff ..:: 4 !..i.i „Mfg A411.' '•:.::... . . en, 1 ... 1 a i -1.7-. 1111 • . • E-, -. ma 1 h ig;.. 404 him, :•: I... ::::: ..il:::IV griligill.":!::. :... NA 1 4 .411-11C"IjIM i 1 13 . AP . 97/11 A:A0 1 Iwo, :: .1.,,;:.: ,:traimibacsioli.iilli: :::::.: • .,...••:.::: of. ....... 11qr 1,„1-- ......, -.., go.....4 ....1111111Ellaini • J ik......alismiEfFv..y.peogn i..h..11,,, roph......dA f 7/. - •-•• ••NTLtii.“1" 1 '' . . ..... a„ ...,„: . avolimait :, ....,i... i NIIIIIII.1 , ..e.:* "..*:itairaMAIVANSfial .:-. •- ri tin 4_AI- I c =NM P t• ;VI NW...::::::: .„,„......,,,tmu.i: ......„.„.....thipit,..N, ,,,,. . i Wi:I 2 ,.-,--0 4 .:,,...„ ....,wattoEini............., __ :w•tt .__ ,. suiEwa. . _ __ „„, ... ilri . • 1 3 7'-;.,'P;=H_,f.roitr.-----"riiftALiir4• . . itA 11.1: Iti,„, -717- :i,ingammer7;7.: , • , ,- , ....... .:..............",.... ..:... al.pp Mir ii,{ ty,, 11_1,1h .&.RENEErtitil lip... .4 -----...,..el:• Oting11......truanairigiliPingffmi... 7-7- i .,7;22111P 11144%, i,, 21_14,11i1,1,14 k ,i_.„,„,‘„,i,,,,,T. ,, , ,..„,„„ii,,, ,,.. . , i eq.*? :: ==.1126.,,n1.„ „11 ',,!.1_11!___11110.. ...a... ..m....i ok. 11.7.9,Priiv,v,#'4°' 11t..— ...,.....F.,--' ......„ ..... ..-.-.,... , .. 1 vf.ii: Ilivi — _ 1 ................. ._,... ,,.....:1 .... _—Ti w ii4 ,41- ' 1 I J. i ti• iiIiiiiiiiiilliiiilit RON,. Iii 1 \Torhittp.:::NIV .... 411 ,10111.10 .TICOMI kilirkliiirilibillilliilnai l„., P2„,.71.A 11;650 ...:: . . 6....7.i...:Elt 41.4•••••• .1 - Pp Pi Ow MIL 11 higil,11101111inhilippil,.. "•'_...!__•2_:.•' _--,--- 1 I raZallk ere . W...pt . auln...57.is.1.11 . tir r.• • • • n Wig di II II i iPirpi kikliiiiiiiiiRlirilliiif 2"... -- re GOP!' I.it:t ----------fattammakAimitur.N------zz ;iii 7 ., • I, .1,,,_, I. 4!,41.:1 I,/11,41.1 4 I ditir __ _..caffillailft&....fa .._...4„..•!: `160--Ifel Mang.,.:.....::::::.:::......... _______,.... ill : 1 1 I Inet' 1 ill 111 ild1110111140 ..r. iiiiumr.-=N -rt. .. a aillielaimilliff— " • =VI ig liiii 10 iidiiiiglitiv•i11111111111111108, ,110 :.;:.,is IAN. AM/MIN *•'•• • „. 11 i 1 g f r LAI odiiiiiiipliiirillgt, 1"4111110.mryy ak .,'..;:: 4 / hifildlif t,i A 0-.111 pow trAvoiiiiia ,LincrediT't.: :::;!!; :..... .....r;:::::::.;..........;.;;;.:„.........iattal- .im,siii!. m1111...1.1.11. b : Ai iihti i wit ii..,,norem ...... \ taw, .....a :. ••.: i mi::i.....mi:::i:i........ !milli . " U i.cie 4-- 44:., , • )...1-1,4 --I ; .c“ T..•i l:::::: c--. fp,..,:,:::.,,.3i!!!• !Irtil... ,44116r4 111 11 4 j 4 4 t I IAD i 11 0* OCes, !, (40 41. \.:.;;;;;;..........,.„. • ..... _____ .1JotiofflifT.11 1r . ‘11 , uni 4., 1:.74,4it-te4, ni N,,......,.,.:'e5A • m14110.11iiito. . 4 i•t ii.1 ilikil' , IN 0 Ue Mir. / \ ----_-- ,---, 'Pl111110;11111,11411 4111 vi,;;14,:.,..c.,,,,, ot ....21.4 ip ". .folv '-'--is-•-•4In i 1 M i r 1 1( Ina 4 ,....„. „„,,,,, ,,„ , ,,,,„....., ,, - IES Atp. • ../ ..,.,--;10111111111111MMIM -- Ell — ,:!;1*,iii*Ilittipilrff.,,_i," .11-...ripat- i _"IDEdirsor '1,..gri. — d .4 IbLLA!?6!"Fli.:Ily-iti-i‘'A'tIlkilti-i•lifirrimulif14,, ,A19064. .. min LIIIIIIIIMIIII -- '0•11. /Am. MI _ UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT INVENTORY OF LOCAL RAIL SYSTEM FACILITIES AND USERS The Freight Chapter of the Transportation Element recognizes the importance of maintaining rail transportation, which supports industrial and commercial land uses, and provides one component of a multi-modal transportation system. The Freight Chapter also provides guidelines to insure that existing rail lines do not impact adjacent land uses, create maintenance problems for City streets or pose safety concerns. Freight rail service is currently available to several industrial and commercial areas of the City. Existing rail lines within or bordering the City of Renton include the Union Pacific (UPRR) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (B#RRBNSF) main line tracks between Seattle and Tacoma_; ate-Within the City of Renton, the BNSFBR18th Subdivision Branch Line, which connects Renton and the east side of Lake Washington to the BNRR BNSF main line. The BNRR BNSF main line runs in a north-south direction and is located along the City of Renton's western city limits, separating Renton from the City of Tukwila. The BNRR BNSF main line is double-track, and carries a considerable volume of freight service, as well as passenger service provided by Amtrak under a trackage rights agreement. Only freight service is provided to the City of Renton from the BNRR BNSF main line. A single spur track with several branch lines serves the Renton Valley industrial area (southwest Renton). Another single spur track from the BNRR BNSF main line serves the Container Corporation of America plant, located north of I-405 in the Earlington industrial area. Use of these spur lines is intermittent, usually on,an as-needed basis with no particular set time or frequency. The BNRR BNSF 18th Subdivision Branch Line splits from the BNRR BNSF main line at the Black River Junction, and continues easterly through downtown Renton.and then northerly through the North Renton industrial area. The line continues north along the east side of Lake Washington, and connects back with the BNRR BNSF main line in Snohomish County. Freight service on this branch line is provided by two trains per day (one in each direction). Passenger excursions are made on this branch line by the Spirit of Washington Dinner Train, which makes one round trip on weekdays and two round trips on weekends between downtown Renton and Woodinville at the north end of Lake Washington. Three spur tracks off of the branch line provide freight service to the Earlington industrial area in west central Renton. Two spur tracks serve the North Renton industrial area north of downtown Renton. Freight service can occur at any time during the day. The Spirit of Washington Dinner Train leaves downtown Renton at 6:00 p.m. and returns by 10:00 p.m. with an additional afternoon run on weekends. 34 II-82 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT The infrequent use of the BNRR BNSF main line spur tracks and the BNRR BNSF branch line results in minimal disruption to vehicular traffic movement in Renton. The UPRR mainline track, located 200 to 300 feet west of the BNRR-BNSF mainline and Renton's City limits, also runs in a north-south direction. The UPRR mainline is a single track, carrying a somewhat lower level of freight only service. REGIONAL ACCESSIBILITY Trucks and Industrial Traffic Truck access from City.of Renton industrial areas to the regional highway/freeway system has the option of several alternative designated truck routes (see Figure 7-1). The Valley industrial area (southwest Renton) is directly connected to the regional system via the S.W. 431:1 Street/SR-167 (Valley Freeway) interchange and the SR-181 (West Valley Highway)/I-405 interchange. The Earlington industrial area in west central Renton is served by designated truck routes on Rainier Avenue and Grady Way, which provide direct access to SR-167 and to I-405 (via the SR-181/I-405 and SR-167/I-405 interchanges). Truck access to the North Renton industrial area (north of downtown Renton and west of I-405) from I-405 is provided via the designated truck route on Park Avenue North. Another truck route to I-405 and SR-167 from the North Renton industrial area is via North 61 Street, Airport Way and.Rainier Avenue. Truck and industrial traffic access from I-405 to the King County waste transfer station and maintenance shops east of I-405 is provided via the Sunset and Maple Valley (SR-169) interchanges and N.E. 3rd Street-N.E. 4th Street. The Stoneway Sand and Gravel complex, also east of I-405, generates industrial traffic that uses the Maple Valley Highway to access I-405. Arterial improvement projects in the Transportation Plan will enhance truck access between the industrial areas and the regional highway/freeway system. Freight and Passenger Rail Use Future land use development is not anticipated to result in a significant increase in rail freight service in Renton. , The Regional Transit Authority System Plan, approved by voters in 1996, thewill provide commuter rail service couldeginbeginning in as early as 1997. By the year 2000_, plans-Plans call for 48-commuter rail trains to.use the BNRR BNSF branch main line., with a stop at the new Renton/Tukwila (Longacres) station located just south of I-405. This includes eefami•ter tr- el ti, Freight Action Strategy (FAST) Corridor FAST Corridor is a collection of complementary grade separation and port access projects within the Everett-Seattle-Tacoma area of Washington State. Collectively, these projects will enhance the movement of freight within and through the region. Key points of the FAST Corridor projects include: • Between Everett in the north and Tacoma in the south, focus on the region's north-south rail routes and port access routes. II-83 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT • Helping to improve the State and region's transportation capacity to better meet the needs for freight and goods movements. • Implementation of a series of grade separation and port access improvements, along with some corollary improvements. These improvements will complement other freight and passenger rail improvements in the region, regional ITS efforts, and other planned highway improvements. • Continuation of the FAST Corridor Partnership, which has been functioning since 1995 and is working on determining appropriate project level solutions to regional freight mobility issues. Local freight improvement projects identified at this time include additional rail lines for both the BNSF and UPRR lines. BNSF is expected to add a third track to its mainline along the western edge of the City by the year 2001. A fourth track is expected by 2004. UPRR is also expected to add a third additional track to its mainline that runs parallel to and is in close proximity to the BNSF mainline. Also planned is the grade separation of the BNSF and UPRR mainlines at South 180th Street in Tukwila (S.W. 43`d Street in Renton). These improvements are a constructive first step towards improving rail freight travel alone the western boundary of the City of Renton and associated freight rail travel passing through Renton. FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION The Financing and Implementation Chapter outlines the strategies and actions to finance and implement the transportation improvements and programs planned as part of the City of Renton's transportation plan. Renton will meet transportation needs through arterial, transit, high occupancy vehicle, non- motorized improvements, travel demand management programs, and airport, truck and rail plans as outlined in previous discussion of the transportation plan. The Financing and Implementation Chapter includes: • Goals, objectives and policies relating to financing and implementation of the transportation plan. • Information on current revenue sources and future revenues. • Assessment of Renton's 20-year (1995 to 2015) and 2010 transportation needs and funding capability. • Assessment of Renton's proposed 1995 2000 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) with regard to transportation improvements and programs identified in this document. • Strategies and actions for financing and implementing the,transportation plan over the next 15 to 20 years. • Identifying future ongoing work needed to finance and implement the transportation plan. Objectives The Financing and Implementation Chapter is based on the following objectives: T-U: Pursue Provide adequate funding for transportation improvements from all potential sources in an efficient and equitable manner. II-84 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT T-V: Develop a staging and implementation plan that expedites transportation system improvement projects that i) improve HOV flow, ii) improve transit service, iii) improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities and iv) provide neighborhood protection against the impacts of through traffic. Policies Policy T-S760. To support economic Policy T-6063. Establish a mechanism to development, growth related traffic provide multi jurisdictional cooperation to fund improvements should be funded by a transportation improvements. This could combination of impact fees charged to new include establishing joint and/or coordinated development and business license fees. transportation mitigation systems with other jurisdictions. Policy T-6861. Coordinate equitable public/private partnerships to help pay for Policy T-6164. Create a funding mechanism transportation improvements. that can be applied across boundaries to address the impact of growth outside the city Policy T-5962. Pursue federal, state and local limits on the City's transportation system. sources of funding (e.g. loans, matching funds) for transportation improvements. TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM COSTS To determine transportation fmancing needs, a twenty-year (1995 to 2015) program (including arterial, HOV, transit and non-motorized components identified previously in this document) was established, and a planning level cost estimate prepared. Also included as an element of the 20-year funding needs are annual transportation programs, which include: transportation system rehabilitation and maintenance; traffic operations and safety projects and programs; Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction programs; neighborhood livability projects and programs; and, ongoing project development. These annual programs support and supplement the After-ialStreet Network, HOV, Transit and Non- I motorized Elements and are a necessary part of maintaining transportation level of service standards. The total cost of the 20-year transportation.plan is estimated at$134 million. The costs of the various components of this plan are summarized in Table 8.1. The costs for the arterial, HOV and non- motorized components represent Renton's costs (including Renton's share of responsibility under joint projects with WSDOT and other local jurisdictions) in 1991 1999 dollars. This cost does not include costs of transportation projects that are the responsibility of the state, King County and other cities (Tukwila and Kent). The transit costs include only local match for Renton's local feeder system improvements, ' transit center, park and ride lots, signal priority and transit amenities. I Also included on Table 8.1, is the cost summary for a 2010 transportation plan which provides a level of service standard in support of Renton's 2010 land use plan. Included are Renton's costs (in 1994 1999 I dollars) for transportation improvements identified in the Arterial and HOV plans as needed by 2010. The transit costs represent local match for improvements in support of the Transit Plan. Non-motorized costs and annual program costs are included as they support and supplement the other elements of the 2010 transportation plan. Costs are not included for State, King County, other cities, local transit or regional transit improvement projects. II-85 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT A list of the projects and programs in the 20-year and 2010 transportation plans and planning level cost estimates for each are provided in the City of Renton Transportation Mitigation Fee Support Document, Appendix A. A listing of 20-year and 2010 potential transit capital and service improvements and their costs are provided in the Renton Transit Plan Support Document. Ongoing transportation planning work will include continued refinement of the 2010 and 20-year transportation plans and their costs. Inventory of Funding Sources Having established a 20-year transportation funding level of $134 million, an annual funding level of $6.7 million can be determined. Sources of revenue to provide this annual funding need are identified on Table 8.2. The Business License Fee is an annual per capita fee assessed to all businesses within the City of Renton. Currently, 85% of the annual revenue generated from this fee is dedicated to fund transportation improvements. The Business License Fee is assumed to contribute 28% of the future annual funding level. The Vehicle License Fee is a local-option transportation financing mechanism adopted by King County. The City of Renton, as well as other municipalities, receive a portion of the revenue generated by this fee based on population. II-86 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TABLE 8.1 RENTON 20-YEAR TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES Arterial Plan: = $ 4555,699,000 * HOV Plan: = $ 33,090,000 Transit Plan: = $ 2515,000,000 I Non-motorized Plan: = $ 4,611,000 Annual Programs: = 25,600,000 Total 20-Year Cost = $ 134,000,000 RENTON 2010 TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES Arterial Plan: = $ 34,9052,550,000 * I HOV Plan: = $ 33,090,000 Transit Plan: = $ 18,711,250,000 I Non-motorized Plan: = $ 3,000,000 Annual Programs: = 19,200,000 Total 2010 Cost = $ 408,940119,090,000 * Central Business District Component = $4813,000,000 II-87 UPDATED 12/1/1999: 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TABLE 8.2 CITY OF RENTON SOURCE OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDS Annual 20-Year Business License Fee $ 1.89 million $ 37.8 million Half-Cent Gas $ 0.32 million $ 6.4 million Vehicle License Fee $ 0.35 million ' $ 7.0 million Grants $ 3.57 million $ 71.4 million Developer Mitigation $ 0.57 million * $ 11.4 million * • TOTAL FUNDS: $ 6.70 million $ 134.0 million * In addition there will be site-specific mitigation. The Half-Cent Gas Tax is a portion of the State gas tax revenue that is distributed to local jurisdictions based on population. The Half-Cent Gas Tax and the Vehicle License Fee are assumed to remain at current levels and together contribute 10% of the future annual funding level. The City of Renton has aggressively pursued federal and state grants in the past, which is assumed to continue, thus providing 53% of the future annual funding level. Examples of federal grants include the Surface Transportation Program(STP), Congestion Management Air Quality (CMAQ), and Enhancement, ,'which are awarded regionally by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and bridge replacement, road safety and railroad crossing improvement programs administered by WSDOT. State grants include those provided by the Transportation Partnership Program(TPP) and the Urban Arterial Trust Account (UATA)Improvement Program(AIP) which are administered by,the Transportation Improvement Board. Developer mitigation revenue will beis obtained by the City of Renton through an assessment on development city-wide Renton), based on the number of daily vehicle trips generated by a specific development multiplied by a fee per vehicle trip. Developer mitigation is assumed to contribute 9% of the future annual funding level. It should be noted that eveloper mitigation is not a reliable (or stable) source of transportation funds (as required by GMA). The irregularity of private development projects and thus uneven flow of mitigation revenue contribute to the',unreliability of developer mitigation. ' I 11-88 � I UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT ource. It should also be noted that in addition to a mitigation fee, private development approval will be conditioned on site-specific improvements to ensure that on-site and adjacent off-site transportation facility impacts are mitigated. Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) are formed by property owners to provide funds for the portion of the cost of improvement projects that benefit the properties. Petitions from two-thirds of the property owners of property equal to two-thirds of the assessed valuation of the LID area are required in order to form an LID. Because it cannot be determined when there will be enough petitioners to form an LID and, therefore, it is not known when an LID can be formed to make improvements, LIDs have not been included as a source of transportation funds. on participation in an LID (and payment of a traffic impact or mitigation fee). The City of Renton may The above revenue sources are projected to remain approximately the same over the next 20 years, though the percent contribution from individual sources may change. However, trends in transportation financing are becoming apparent which could affect the City of Renton's transportation revenue. The trends include: declining revenue available from several existing sources, such as the half-cent gas tax; transportation needs growing faster than available revenues; local, state and federal requirements on transportation improvements lengthening the design process and increasing cost; the undetermined, potential for new funding sources; and, the continued inability of regional agencies to address regional transportation needs. Ongoing transportation planning work will include a review and update of current revenue sources to reflect Federal, State and regional decisions regarding these revenue sources. FUNDING PROGRAM The Growth Management Act(GMA) requires "an analysis of funding capability to judge needs against probable funding resources". This includes development of a "multi-year financing plan" based on the needs identified in the transportation plan with "appropriate parts" serving as the basis for the six-year transportation program required by the RCW for cities. The following presents the City of Renton's transportation finance plan(as required for GMA) and the underlying assumptions, which are: • to provide both a 20-year and a six-year transportation improvement program • to provide a 2010 transportation plan to test against the level of service standard • establish consistency between the six-year, 20-year and 2010 programs. A 20-year transportation program(comprised of improvements discussed previously in the ArterialsStreet Network, HOV, Transit and Non-motorized Chapters and annual transportation programs) and a planning level cost estimate of$134 million(summarized on Table 8.2) have been established first. Based on the 20-year funding level of$134 million, an annual funding level of$6.7 million was determined. Having established an annual funding rate it can reasonably be assumed that if this funding level is maintained, if the facilities being funded are consistent with the 20-year plan, if transit and HOV facilities are conscientiously emphasized, and if the 2010 plan (15-year) meets the level of service standard, it should be reasonable to assume that the level of service can be maintained for the intervening years with the established funding rate. II-89 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT The above approach is necessitated because only 2010 data is available for checking level of service. Information is not available from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) for either a six-year or 20- year plan. To check the validity of the above assumptions, an existing level of service check will be made each year with the Transportation Improvement Program(TIP) submittal. This will further ensure that the level of service will be maintained within the adopted standard each year as well as for the year 2010. It is anticipated that 20-year (2000-2020) data will be available from the PSRC in 2000. An updated 20- year transportation plan and level of service check based on this data will be prepared at that time. The 2010 transportation program funding needs have been summarized on Table 8.1. The arterial and HOV cost component includes those improvements previously identified in the Arterials Street Network and HOV Chapters as needed by 2010 to provide the adopted standard level of service. Transit funding need represents Renton's local match of the cost of transit improvements to support the adopted 2010 level of service standard. The City of Renton's Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program(TIP) is part of an on-going process intrinsically linked with the development of the City's Capital Improvement Program. The Six- Year TIP is also linked with;various state and federal funding programs, end-with-regional/inter- jurisdictional planning and coordination processes, and the City's Growth Management Act Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Projects are developed and prioritized based on both specific goals to be achieved by the program and on general programming considerations. Those general programming considerations are: Planning. How a project fits with or addresses identified future transportation goals, demands, and planning processes must be evaluated on both a local and regional level. This is strongly influenced by ongoing land use decisions and by regional highway and transit system plans. Financing. Many projects are dependent on acquisition of outside grants, formation of LIDs or-and the receipt of mitigation funds. Prioritization has to take into account the peculiarities of each of the various fund sources and the probabilities of when, and how much, money will be available. Scheduling. If a project is interconnected with, or interdependent on, other projects taking place,. it I is reflected in their relative priorities. Past Commitments. The level of previous commitment made by the City in terms of resources, legislative actions or interlocal agreements also must be taken into consideration in prioritizing TIP projects. In addition to the general considerations discussed above, there are five specific project categories through which the TIP is evaluated and analyzed. They are: • Preservation of Existing Infrastructure • Multi-Modal and Transportation Demand Management • ommunity Livability and Enhancement • Economic Development 11-90 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT • Operations and Safety These categories provide a useful analysis tool and represent goals developed through an evaluation of the City's transportation program in response to input from citizens and local officials and to State and federal legislation. Taken as a whole, the five categories provide a framework for evaluating projects both individually and as part of a strategy that seeks to meet and balance the transportation needs of Renton during a time of increasing transportation demand, decreasing revenues and growing environmental concerns. Although each project can be identified with an important concern that allows it to be classified into one of the five categories, most projects are intended to address, and are developed to be compatible with, multiple goals. Preservation of the existing infrastructure is a basic need that must be met by the program. The Mayor, City Council and Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee have all addressed the importance of sustaining strong programs in this project category. The State Growth Management Act also requires jurisdictions to assess and address the funding required to maintain their existing transportation system. Multi-Modal and Transportation Demand Management(TDM) projects and programs are oriented toward "moving people" through a balanced transportation system that involves multiple modes of transportation and provides alternatives to the existing heavy reliance on the single occupant vehicle (SOV). Included are facilities that serve pedestrians, bicycles and transit cervices and carpools, and programs that promote the use of high occupancy vehicles (HOV's) and reduce the numbers of SOV's. The Federal Transportation Efficiency Act, the State and Federal Clean I Air legislation and the State Commute Trip Reduction Act have added momentum to regional efforts and placed requirements on local jurisdictions such as Renton to promote these transportation elements. ommunity livability and enhancement consists of projects that have been developed with major emphasis on addressing community quality of life issues by improving and/or protecting residential livability while providing necessary transportation system improvements.— Bicycle and pedestrian projects are included in this category. Economic development projects and programs involve transportation improvements necessitated by new private-development that is taking place. Thus, a significant sources of local funding for these projects axis projected to come from business license fees and mitigation payments and from specific access needs financed by privatepersnew developments in the City of Renton. Operations and safety projects and programs are developed through ongoing analyses of the transportation system and are directed mainly toward traffic engineering concerns such as safety and congestion. Projects are identified not only by analysis of traffic counts, accident records and geometric data, but also through review and investigation of citizen complaints and requests. The City of Renton's p£epesed '� 00adopted 2000-2005 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program includes most of the transportation improvements and programs identified in the ArtcrialsStreet Network, Transit, HOV, Non-motorized and Transportation Demand Management Chapters of this II-91 UPDATED 12/1/1999: 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Transportation Element. The projects or programs are listed in Table 8.3 Also shown in Table 8.3 are annual programs (transportation system rehabilitation and maintenance, traffic operations and safety; projects and programs, ongoing project development). The following lists the various 2000-2005 TIP projects under each of the chapters of the Transportation Element. II-92 TABLE 8.3 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2000-2005 SIX YEAR TIP Total Project Costs :: ;::::; ::; ::. :...; ':.::.;:;:::: :. ; ::>:::Pri viQ S §00,:. }.;::i: _;:. ota ! ate...... ..........:.......�CcfstS.. . ...::. �2000.:. �".Qg1..� �:•:.;•:.�OAZ:<•;,:<, :;20p3. ;;.::::2pp4:.:;:;;:.> :::>.;<><_20g5 .:• ; .•;:Tbtal.;:.:::;:::;•;:z;::.>aigosE::;ii::; : 1 Street Overlay Program 1,072,771 380,000 380,000 380,000 380,000 380,000 380,000 2,280,000 3,352,771 2 Oakesdale Ave.SW Phase 1B 68,975 564,175 4,850 0 0 0 0 569,025 638,000 3 Oakesdale Ave.SW Phase 2 363,000 2,888,500 25,000 0 0 0 0 2,913,500 3,276,500 4 I-405/NE 44th Interchange 310,000 2,010,000 2,576,000 2,360,000 12,900,000 19,344,000 0 39,190,000 39,500,000 6 Transit Program 466,095 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 1,066,095 6 Walkway Program 1,659,815 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 1,020,000 2,679,815 7 Downtown Transit Access 933,399 660,000 0 0 0 0 0 660,000 1,593,399 8 Shuttle(RUSH) 313,295 112,000 112,000 172,000 172,000 172,000 172,000 912,000 1,225,295 9 Transit Priority Signal System 42,593 675,272 0 0 0 0 0 675,272 717,865 10 SR167/SW 27th St/Strander Blvc 229,894 685,800 948,250 7,947,650 13 703,400 15,650,800 7,582,000 46,517,900 46,747,794 ii SR169 HOV-140th to SR900 0 1,415,300 1,884,700 0 0 0 0 3,300,000 3,300,000 12 Duvall Ave NE 0 20,000 80,000 250,000 100,000 1,980 000 1,320,000 3,750,000 3,750,000 13 Arterial HOV Program 165,500 683,956 17,989 240,000 15,000 441,000 300,000 1,697,945 1,863,445 14 Bridge Inspection&Repair 224,892 145,000 701,000 30,000 155,000 30,000 30,000 1,091,000 1,315,892 15 TDM Program 141,837 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000 441,837 is Loop Replacement Program 39,218 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 120,000 159,218 17 Sign Replacement Program 31,034 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 90,000 121,034 18 Light Pole Prog. 32,921 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 90,000 122,921 19 Sunset/Anacortes Ave NE 329,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 329,300 20 S.2nd Street Safety Project 20,125 238,750 0 0 0 0 0 238,750 258,875 21 Arterial Circulation Program 352,150 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 . 250,000 . 1,500,000 1,852,150 22 Project Development/Predesign 302,456 175,000 175,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,150,000 1,452,456_ 23 WSDOT Coordination Program 26,725 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 60,000 86,725 _24 1-405 HOV Direct Access 41,368 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41,368 25 City Gateways 146,771 0 55,000 0 55,000 0 55,000 165,000 311,771 26 Traffic Safety Program 200,712 ' 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 240,000 440,712 27 Traffic Efficiency Program 280,266 321,949 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 . 471,949 752,215 26 Arterial Rehab.Prog. 204,290 889,711 72,144 240,000 83,471 55,000 46,335 1,386,661 1,590,951 29 Trans Concurrency • 11,132 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 60,000 71,132 30 Missing Links Program 150,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 330,000 31 Park-Sunset HOV ' 2,000 22,000 176,000 72,000 528,000 0 0 798,000 800,000 32 RR Crossing Safety Prog. 272,053 10,000 0 0 10,000 0 0 20,000 292,053 33 Inter-agency Signal Coord. 114,085 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114,085 34 Environmental Monitoring 65,106 40,730 38,817 30,000 36,529 30,000 36,665 212,741 277,847 35 Bicycle Route Dev.Program 39,720 134,000 110,000 18,000 18,000 80,000 80,000 440,000 479,720 36 NE3rd/NE 4th Transit 2,000 0 0 224,000 290,000 1,986,000 0 2,500,000 2,502,000 37 Grady Way/167 20,000 30,000 20,000 180,000 0 0 200,000 430,000 450,000_ 38 CBD Bike&Ped.Connections 4,000 40,000 306,000 0 0 0 0 346,000 350,000 39 Lind AvSW 16th-SW 43rd 0 0 60,000 1,914,000 626,000 0 0 2,600,000 2,600,000_ 4o SW 7th St./Lind Ave SW 0 0 18,000 132,000 0 0 0 150,000 150,000 41 Benson Rd S/S 31st St 0 0 20,000 130,000 0 0 0 150,000 150,000 42 Valley Connections to West 50,000 110,000 1,100,000 0 0 0 0 1,210,000 1,260,000 43 Oakesdale Ave SW Extension 160,000 0 0 0 0 2,753,000 9,399,000 12,152,000 12,312;000 • • iNi;iii 'otar: ..............8 889 498Si<::::?.7:2:962�:1'43::::: ::9 62A•.50::ii•5>.5 : 5 :>: ; :?: : �: ..::: :r; ,. ......: , .,. ,. •• , ,•,7••; •;1, ,2 9,8 0. .;,.30,912400. .43,847;800>:: :20; +13;000132;237;743. A1;�2Z;?A1 dOM1TP1A010F/F.N97 ••, 1710699 • u-93 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT ArterialsStreet Network • Park Avenue North -Bronson Way to North 10` Street(TIP#2Completed) • Houser Way Relocation- Sunset Boulevard to North 8`'Street(TIP#3Completed) • Main Avenue South - Grady Way to South 3rd Street(Completed) • South 2nd Street- Rainier Avenue to Main Avenue South, Phase 1 (TIP #20) • Lake Washington Boulevard Bridge (TIP#12Completed) • Monster Road Bridge (TIP#13Completed) • Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Phase 1 - S.W. 16th to S.W. 27th (Completed) • Oakesdale Avenue S.W. - S.W. 4-6 19`h to S.W. 271 Street. Phase 1B (TIP#i2) • N.E. 3ra Street- Sunset Boulevard to Monterey Drive N.E. (TIP#27Completed) • Main Avenue South South 5th Street t„ Brons r Way (TIP u23) • S.W. Grady Way - Rainier Avenue to Talbot Road(TIP#4437 • Lind Avenue S.W. - S.W. 16` Street to S.W. 43-Street(TIP #4339) • Duvall Ave N.E. - Sunset Boulevard to Renton City Limits (TIP#461Z) a Puget Drivc S.E. Jones Place S.W. to Edmonds Avenue S.E. (TIP #17) • S.W. 16` Street- Oakesdale Avenue S.W. to Lind Avenue S.W.'(TI Completed) • SR 167/East Valley Road (WSDOT project) (TIP#56) • Oakesdale Avenue S.W. - S.W. 27th Street to S.W. 3151 Street, Phase 2 (TIP#3) • Oakesdale Avenue S.W. - Monster Road to SR-900 (TIP#43) • Strander Boulevard - SR-181 to Oakesdale Avenue S.W. (TIP'#10) • Grady Way / Rainier Avenue (TIP#37) It should be noted that the expenditures shown for TIP projects#7-and-#46-37 axis for studies. Included in the Six-Year TIP is the Arterial Circulation Program(TIP# 21), which will provide funding for further development of multi-modal improvements on Renton's arterials to support the Transportation Plan and comply with clean air legislation. Also included are expenditures for project development studies (TIP #22) fo Oakesdalc A v rue Exter n (T_IP u30) North 4t Street Lem for development of future TIP projects and grant applications for currently proposed and future TIP projects. The City of Tukwila's 19941999 1999 2004 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program includes three an arterial improvements previously identified in the Arterial Street Network Chapter.. These This projects-are is the: Grad.. WTa yi Southeenter Boulevard/I 405 am Interurban Avenue 'Grady Way t S. 180th Street/RR Grade Separation. for e t eeprojeets is lion.—In addition, the City of Kent'plans to extend Lind Avenue from S.W. 43rd Street to East Valley Road-at-an estimatted-comae€-$won. This project would compliment the City of Renton's TIP project The Washington State D ^ II-94 Amende98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Transit • ♦ Transit Program: transit center and facilities to support regional transit service, local transit service improvements; development of park and ride lots, transit amenities(TIP#85) • ♦ Ixtermodal Transportation ProgramDowntown Transit Access: shuttle bus system and/or dial a ridc system, park and ride lots, transit amenities (TIP #9)improvements to enhance transit accessd to Renton's Urban Center (TIP #7) • Shuttle (RUSH) Program: operation of the Renton Urban Shuttle (RUSH) bus service. • Transit.Priority Signal System: development and implementation of traffic signal programming to give priority to transit vehicles. Also, the HOV Chapter improvements identified below will be designed to enhance transit service. HOV • SR-900 HOV / Houser Way Connection (TIP#4Completed) • SR-167 / S.W. 27` Street HOV (TIP#46 • I-405 / SR-515 HOV (TIP#4324) 1-405 / N.E._ 44th Street HOV (TIP#52 ) • SR-169 HOV- Sunset Blvd. to east City Limits (TIP#11) • Park Drive N.E/Sunset Blvd. HOV (TIP#31) It should be noted that the expenditure shown for TIP#43-24 is for studiescoordination with the State and Sound Transit direct access interchange improvements. • Included in the Six-Year TIP is the Arterial HOV Program(TIP#4913), which will provide funding for further development of Renton HOV improvements identified previously in the HOV Plan(Figure 3-1), to examine additional routes and corridors for HOV facilities in Renton, and for coordination with WSDOT direct access HOV projects. Expenditures in the 1995 2000 Six Year r te above HOV The Bre son Way (TIP-,Q6- �'I-D�f�h ^Fejce#s-�I3�1�F6gFamS-t@t�I��"may=�43-b-t�i6". ..� and- . 1 Street (TIP #2 -) ects he list of s _ rte a1 a„t.. u alpv :... .ill hance a.., HOV usage. Non-Motorized • Lake Washington Boulevard Bike/Ped Improvements (TIP#14Completed) • Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Bike/Ped Improvements (TI Completed) • BD Bike and Pedestrian Connections (TIP #38) • Garden Avenue North Bikeway (TIP#41) II-95 UPDATED 12/1/1999: 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Also included in the proposed Six-Year TIP is the Walkway Program(TIP#6), which will provide funding for sidewalk and handicap curb ramp needs identified in the city of,Renton Comprehensive Walk Program Preliminary Engineering Report. , Year TIP f to gram--and e-abeve-projeets-total-$2. n.The Bicycle Route Development Program(TIP#35) will upgrade existing bicycle routes, construct missing links in the bicycle route system, and develop; evaluate, prioritize future bicycle facilities. (These projects are in addition to bicycle and pedestrian improvements, anticipated as part of arterial, HOV and transit projects and the City of Renton Trails Master Plan.) Implementation of the non-motorized element falls into three categories - walkways/sidewalk, bike facilities and.trails. Each of these components are described below. Walkways/Sidewalks Implementation. The implementation procedure's for the City's comprehensive walkway/sidewalk program is detailed in the City of Renton Comprehensive Walk Program Preliminary Engineering Report. This report identifies the sidewalk and curb ramp needs within the City. The currently identified sidewalk need is identified as 8.33 miles of walkway with an estimated cost of$1.5 million. There are approximately 250 curb ramps needed citywide. The estimated cost of ramp construction is $250,000. Funding for these programs is provided through Business License Fees at an annual rate of$70,000, per the 1995 2000 Six Ycar TIP. Bike Facilities Implementation. Bicycle facilities include lanes along roadways and signed bicycle routes. Current funding is provided for the construction of toe T ake Washington Boulevard (TIP # 4), Oakc:,dale.Avenue S.W. (TIP#34), T1 r Way (TIP 40) au G_ tee„ n venue North (TIP u4i va ua Diu �izi) bike/ped-iniffevem t . t' f these p ects total $, 68;million.segments of the Lake I Washington Loop Trail. Bicycle route designation and signing along City roadways will be provided on an as-needed basis with concurrence between the Transportation Systems Division of the Planning/ Building/Public Works Department and the Community Services Department. Project prioritization will be determined by these two departments. Funding for bicycle signing is provided through the capital improvement programs and the General Fund operating budgets of the Transportation Systems Division and Community Services Department. Signing specifically identified as part of transportation projects will be funded through the TIP. Trails Implementation. The Trails Plan is a City of Renton Community Services program that supplements and is coordinated with the Transportation Plan. Only projects that are specifically • identified as transportation facilities will be included in the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program(TIP). Trails Construction Costs. A 1990 planning level construction cost estimate was prepared for the proposed trail system by the Community Services Department. The cost estimate was calculated based upon the type of facility (paved,unpaved, boardwalk) on a per linear foot basis. The sources of the estimate were previous City projects; and those completed prior to 1990:include a 4% annual inflation rate adjustment. Finally, a 38% contingency factor was added to the cost estimate, resulting in a final estimated cost of$9,544,000. Additional information concerning the cost estimate is available in the Trails Master Plan. The Trails Master Plan contains the recommended six-year trails development program. (Note: An update of the Trails Master Plan, which will provide new information on the trails development program and cost estimates, is anticipated to be completed:in 2000.) II-96 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TDM/CTR • Transportation Demand Management Program: implement Commute Trip Reduction Act requirements, other TDM programs (TIP#15) • FUNDING ASSESSMENT A 20-year transportation program has been established having an estimated cost of $134 million. This program was the basis for determining an annual funding level of $6.7 million. Assuming this annual funding level can be maintained over the next-20 years period (1995-2015), it is reasonably certain that the 20-year transportation program can be implemented. A 2010 transportation program has also been established having an estimated cost of approximately $109 119 million.. This program addresses transportation needs to maintain Renton's level of service standard for the year 2010. Assuming an annual funding level of$6.7 million, available funding between 1995 and 2010 will total $100.5 million($6.7 million times 15 years). Comparing the 2010 program cost to potential funding results in a$8:519.0 million(or 19%) shortfall._ This implies that there is reasonably Annual reassessment of transportation needs ,eentinuation-continuing to aggressively pursue grant funding, and/or continuation of the strong rate of Growth in Renton which will generate higher developer mitigation revenue' will be needed over the intervening years in order to assume the 2010 transportation program can be achieved. The City of Renton's proposed 1995 2000-2005 Six-Year TIP includes 56 13 individual projects and programs, with a total estimated cost of$73,924,351141,127,241. Of this total cost, approximately $60 4132.2 million is to be expended over the 1995 2000-2005 six-year period. (It should be noted that for several projects and programs, expenditures over the six-year period are shown, not the total project or program cost.) The difference of about$13.58_9 million represents previous-funding7expenditures prior to year 2000. The projected revenues over the six-year period, based on the established $6.7 million annual,funding level, will total $40.2 million. The TIP identified expenditures of$6074132.2 million is $20.292.0 million more than the project revenues. Of this $20.292.0 million, approximately $57872 million represents the amount of participation anticipated by the state, Sound Transit, King County, City of Tukwila,-and City of Kent, and private sector contributions on joint projects. As previously discussed, transportation improvement expenditures of other jurisdictions have not been included when establishing the $6.7 million annual funding level. Therefore, the Six-Year TIP expenditures exceed project revenues by $44 420.0 million. In order for projects to be eligible for projected funding, they must be, by law, included in the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program(TIP). Because it is not possible to know which projects will qualify for funding, the Six-Year TIP includes a cross-section of projects to provide a list of projects that will be eligible for funding from the various revenue sources, when and if, such funds become available. The result is a Six-Year TIP which has expenditures exceeding projected revenues. II-97 UPDATED 12/1/1999: 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Several transportation improvements included in the Arterial and HOV Plans are identified as post 20- year improvements. These improvements have been identified to support land use and neighborhood and business goals and improve safety in the intervening years beyond 2015. The following is a list of these transportation ' Arterial Plan Post 20-Year Improvements T Oakcscrale-Avenue S W Monster Road to SD 900 • 4-North 4th Street- Logan Avenue to Sunset Boulevard • 4-Talbot Road South- South 43rd Street to Renton City Limit ♦ Strander Boulevard/S.W. 27t'Street Oakesdalc Avenue S.W. to SR 181 HOV Plan Post 20-Year Improvements: • N.E. 4 1 Street-Monroe Avenue N.E. to Renton City Limit • 4-Sunset Boulevard N.E. - Park Drive to Renton City Limit • Benson Road or SR-515 - Puget Drive to Renton City Limit The-estimated-tetal-plaiming-level-cest-fer-the-abeve-HOV-prejeets-is4-1-8-millienT The challenge for the future will be to secure enough funding for the City of Renton, cities of Tukwila and Kent, King County, Sound Transit and the State to implement the improvements to their respective facilities included in the Transportation Plan. However, several strategies for acquiring needed funding are evident at this time. They include: ♦ Establish inter jurisdictional funding mechanisms, such as payment of mitigation fees for the Ito address impacts of growth within adjacent jurisdictions that impacts affect the City of Renton. • Update transportation priorities annually and incorporate in the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program. • Continue to work more aggressively with adjacent cities, King County, Washington State Department of Transportation and other agencies to fund their respective improvements in the Transportation Plan, i.e., through joint projects. ♦ Continue to work with regional agencies to encourage them to find and fund regional solutions for regional transportation problems. 11-98 UPDATED 12/1/1999: 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Mitigation Process area, or zone, within the City. Development outside the e, but adjacent to it, which generates vehicle Since the interim TBZs have been established tThere are new laws and regulations that have tremendous impacts on land use, the need for new or different kinds of transportation projects and programs, and costs and funding of transportation projects. Recent examples are the Wetlands Management Ordinance, Surface Water Management Ordinance, the Clean Air Act, Commute Trip Reduction Act and the Growth Management Act. As a result, a transportation mitigation policy and process has been developed as part of the transportation plan. This mitigation policy will-serves as a framework for the city-wide mitigation payment system that ewas adopted to replace the existing TBZs ,,nd. by the City in 1996. This mitigation policy includes the City of Renton: • Developing a city-wide 2010 transportation system improvement plan (defined in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan). • Determining the cost of the city-wide 2010 transportation improvements related to new development. • Establishing a new-fee for developments' pro-rated share of the cost of the city-wide 2010 transportation improvements (in addition to site specific mitigation required by the City). This mitigation fee would be established during the SEPA review process and paid during the project development process. • Continuing the current established business license fee and percentage of the business license fee allocated for transportation purposes as has been the custom in the past. • Having the flexibility to modify the city-wide transportation plan as needed to address environmental/coordination issues. tive trip rate area) currently-in II-99 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT • bevel-Approving ef-future development-will-be conditioned upon site specific improvements to ensure that on-site and adjacent transportation facility impacts are mitigated, and the payment of etlie mitigation fee as the development's fair share contribution towards: 1) ensuring that the cumulative impacts of development can be mitigated; and 2) maintaining the City of Renton adopted level of service standard. Site specific improvements could include construction of additional traffic lanes and/or traffic signals. City-wide transportation plans, improvement costs, and development mitigation fees are to be based on the new Level of Service (LOS) Policy discussed previously under the ArterialStreet Network, Transit and HOV Chapters. MITIGATION PAYMENT SYSTEM The development mitigation fairshare cost has been determined based on the 20-year transportation improvement program cost, the developer mitigation share of the cost of the 20-year transportation program, and the city-wide total daily vehicle trip increase forecasted between 1990 and 2010. The vehicle trip rate fee resulting from the above process has been established at$75 per daily vehicle trip. The developer mitigation fee would-beis based on the total daily increase in vehicle trips generated by the specific development project multiplied by the vehicle trip rate fee. In addition to this fee, there may be site-specific improvements required by the City, such as construction or contribution towards construction of additional traffic lanes and/or traffic signals, to mitigate on-site and adjacent facility impacts. (New business development will also pay the annual per capita business license as currently required of all businesses in the City of Renton). Additional information on the determination of the mitigation trip rate fee is contained in the Renton Transportation Mitigation Fee Support Document. A development may qualify for reduction of the $75 per vehicle trip mitigation fee through certain credits for development incentives, construction of needed transportation improvements (arterial, HOV, transit), through public/private partnerships, and transportation demand management programs. Specific credits and the amount of reduction in the mitigation trip rate fee that could result from such credits will be determined on a case by case basis during the development permitting process. The Concurrency Management System provides flexibility to modify the basic trip rate fee as needed to respond to the effect that the credits may have on developer mitigation as a funding source. u-ioo UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT `i tang-Tram pow4ati^r w't eues_ II-101 Amcndcd 07 3 27 98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Concurrency Management System The Growth Management Act(GMA) describes concurrency as the situation where adequate public facilities are available when the impacts of development occur, or within a specified time thereafter. This description includes the concept of available public facilities. The GMA defines "available public facilities" as facilities or services in place, or a financial commitment in place, to provide the facilities within a specified time. For transportation, the specified time is six years from time of development. City of Renton policies which support the GMA's definition of concurrency have been identified in the Land Use Element and in this element. To address concurrency under the GMA and City of Renton policies, a concurrency policy has been developed for the City of Renton which is based on the following process: • The City.of Renton will adopt a multi-modal Transportation Plan, which will be consistent with regional plans and plans of neighboring cities. Improvements and programs of the Transportation Plan have been defined previously. • The City of Renton new-Transportation Level of Service (LOS) Policy, consistent with King County Growth Management Countywide Planning Policies, that differs from the traditional LOS for arterials, will be used to evaluate the City of Renton Transportation Plan. • If the region decides to lower regional LOS by not providing regional facilities, then Renton will adjust its LOS policy accordingly. • The Transportation Plan will include a financial component with cost estimates and funding strategy. One of the fund sources will be mitigation fees collected from developers as a condition of land use development within the City of Renton. The approval of the development will be conditioned upon the payment of this Transportation Mitigation Fee and site-specific mitigation of on-site and adjacent facility impacts. • • The City of Renton may allocate the developer funds to any of the improvement elements of the city-wide Transportation Plan in such a manner to assure that concurrency between transportation LOS and land use development is met. • The City of Renton will establish concurrency by annually testing the city-wide Transportation Plan as funded in the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program to ensure conformance with the Level of Service standard. The City of Renton will adjust the transportation improvement plan as necessary to meet the LOS standard. • Based upon the annual test of the city-wide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan, payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site sepcific mitigation, development will have met City of Renton concurrency requirements. The Concurrency Management System comprises policies, procedures, standards and criteria that allow the City of Renton to determine whether adequate public facilities are available to serve new land use development. II-102 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Details of the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation aspects of the City of Renton's Interim Concurrency Management System will be developed as part of ongoing transportation work following adoption of the Transportation Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan. AIR-AND-WATER QUALITYENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES The Air and Water QualittEnvironmental and Natural Resources Chapter was-develepeddescribes objectives, policies and strategies to help protect Renton's natural resources and Renton residents from unacceptable air and water quality impacts of the transportation system. Clean air and water are necessary for healthful living in an urban society. Objectives The Air and Water Quality Chapter is based on the following objectives: T-W: Protect and promote clean air to ensure a healthful environment. T-X: Reduce vehicular emissions by encouraging increases in carpooling, vanpooling, transit, and non-motorized transportation usage. T-Y: Ensure the long-term protection of the quality of water resources of the City of Renton. T-Z: Reduce the impact on water quality from vehicular pollutants associated with run-off from impervious transportation facility surfaces. T-AA: Preserve and protect natural resources (particularly sensitive areas and wildlife habitat). Policies Policy T-6265. Promote programs which Policy T-6866. Incorporate in transportation maintain mobile source pollutant levels at or facilities vehicular pollutant and surface water below those prescribed by the EPA, State run-off management and treatment techniques Department of Ecology, and the Puget Sound that maximize water quality. Air Pollution Control Agency. Policy T-6669. Comply with the stipulations Policy T-6366. Comply with the stipulations described in federal, state and local water described in the State Implementation Plan(SIP) quality standards and regulations. for air quality compliance. Polictv T-70. Develop transportation plans and . Policy T-6467. Promote water quality by projects to comply with City, State and federal encouraging increases in carpooling, regulations that address sensitive areas and vanpooling, transit and non-motorized wildlife habitat. transportation usage. II-103 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Also see related Policies in the Environmental Section of the Land Use Element and King County Countywide Planning Policies CA-14 and CA-15, which by this reference are incorporated in the Air and this Chapter. AIR QUALITY--Non-attainment Areas Non-attainment areas in the Puget Sound Region refer to the six criteria pollutants (carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, small particulates (PM-10), lead, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds) being at or below acceptable standards. These pollutants are released into the air from point(stationary, site- specific), non-point(stationary, large area), and mobile (vehicular: car, train, boat) sources. The State Department of Ecology (DOE) estimates that motor vehicles contribute approximately 55% of all air pollution in the Puget Sound region. The pollutants in non-attainment of state and Federal air quality guidelines in the Puget Sound Region are carbon monoxide, ozone and PM-10. Air quality non-attainment areas are defined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as areas that have pollutant levels exceeding the maximum ambient standards set forth by the agency. Air pollution is regulated by the Federal Clean Air Act of 1990 and the Clean Air Washington Act of 1991. Agency control is enforced by the EPA (Federal), Washington State Department of Ecology (state) and the local agency, Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA). Each of these agencies has established criteria pollutant standards for the Puget Sound region. Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas formed.when carbon based fuels are incompletely burned. CO emissions contribute the largest volume share of air pollutant emissions in the United States. Mobile sources are the largest contributor of carbon monoxide pollution in the Puget Sound area, accounting for 55 to 60%. The maximum allowable carbon monoxide standard for each of the three governing agencies is 9 parts per million(ppm) for an average hour during an 8-hour period and 35 ppm for a 1-hour average period. Vehicles emit various levels of CO dependent upon their operating condition. Vehicles traveling along arterials or accelerating from stops emit relatively low amounts of CO, while intersection stop delay (idling) and vehicle deceleration contribute significantly higher CO output. Intersection stop delay reduction would improve Renton's air quality. There are currently no PSAPCA carbon monoxide monitoring stations within the City of Renton. The closest station is located in downtown Bellevue. This station recorded no CO violations during 1991. Since attainment and non-attainment are regional concerns, Renton is considered within a non-attainment area for carbon monoxide pollution. The Puget Sound non-attainment area covers most of the urban area between Everett and Tacoma, and during 1991, two violations were recorded. Ozone Ozone is a pungent-smelling, colorless gas produced by chemical reactions between nitrous oxides and hydrocarbons in the presence of sunlight. Ozone generally forms downwind of the pollutant source, therefore, the concentrations are found in the foothills of the Cascades. The ozone standard is 0.12 ppm for a 24 hour concentration and attainment is defined as an average of one or less days per year in excess of this value for a three-year period. II-104 UPDATED 12/1/1999: 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Motor vehicle sources account for roughly 50% of ozone generated in the Puget Sound region. Ozone causing nitrous oxide emissions are produced by travel actions relatively opposite from carbon monoxide's. High nitrous oxide (and ultimately ozone) production is caused by acceleration and low levels are produced while idling or decelerating. Arterial travel is not a high ozone generator. As with CO, ozone levels would be reduced by continuously moving traffic, with reductions in the number of vehicle stops. Ozone violations have been most common at the Enumclaw monitoring station. For the three year period, 1989-1991, 3.8 days were in violation for an average of 1.3 days per year. During both 1989 and 1991, no violations were recorded at any of the four PSAPCA monitoring sites. Particulates Suspended particulate matter are defined as small airborne particles up to 10 microns in diameter, thus the designation PM-10. These particles are from sources such as road dust, soot, oils, and other airborne particles which can be indefinitely suspended. Particulates are point source concerns, and no violations have been recorded in Renton. Based upon national statistics, gasoline and diesel vehicles contribute approximately 15% of suspended particulate matter. AIR QUALITY-- Severity of Violations PSAPCA's 1991 Air Quality Data Summary indicates that air quality has improved over the past 10 years. The first three years of the past decade (1981-1983) had 83 days of violations (unhealthful days) within the three major cities: Everett, Seattle and Tacoma. The last three years (1989-1991) have seen only nine unhealthful days. Seattle, which had recorded 56 violations during the first period, had none during the close of the decade. Two pollutants have been listed as the violation pollutant for the worst air quality day of year for the past decade. These pollutants are CO and PM-10. Overall, the violations have lessened with time. No direct readings of conditions in Renton are possible because no.monitoring stations are located in the City. The closest monitoring stations and their highest recorded pollutant values for 1991 were as follows. The Bellevue CO monitoring station's poorest reading for an 8-hour average was 7.5 ppm, 17% below the acceptable threshold. The Ravensdale ozone monitoring station's highest reading was 0.101 ppm or 16% below the allowable maximum. Two PM-10 stations, Duwamish and Kent are nearly equidistant from Renton, therefore both were checked. The Duwamish high reading was 143 µg/m3 (5% below violation) and the Kent reading was 146 µg/m3 (3% below violation). Based upon the above information, it is not believed that Renton is in violation of any of the criteria pollutants. While the City does not have any specific non-attainment areas due to transportation related sources, the City is committed to reducing mobile source air pollution. AIR QUALITY-- Implementation Plan The City will subscribe to the plans, policies, and programs catalogued in the State Implementation Plan for air quality non-attainment areas. Transportation demand management(TDM) strategies will be encouraged, including the Commute Trip Reduction Law. Existing vehicle programs such as the winter II-105 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT oxygenated fuels and vehicle inspections will be continued, supported, and updated as requirements demand. IMPROVING WATER QUALITY The City of Renton will comply with federal, state and local plans, policies and programs for water quality. The City's Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan focuses on increasing the availability and use of HOV, transit, and non-motorized transportation modes and transportation demand management strategies. The intent of this program is to reduce vehicular traffic which will make it possible to limit the expansion of the existing roadway system and, in certain locations, limit additional impervious surfaces. This, in turn, will reduce vehicular pollutants and their effect on water quality. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION Transportation problems are not a local phenomenon. A multitude of agencies are involved in transportation planning and improvement. To become better integrated into the regional transportation system, Renton needs to strengthen its role in the region, especially in South King County, East King County and the Puget Sound area, and participate in regional forums as transportation decisions are made. This is particularly important since a disproportionate number of the vehicles on Renton's arterials are pass through traffic. Also, Renton continues to be a major regional employment center and decisions made about future transportation systems for the Puget Sound area will directly impact the future of Renton's commercial and industrial base. With the new requirements of the Growth Management Act mandating concurrency between land use and transportation planning, the kind of interjurisdictional cooperation envisioned in the policies its-has bece -become more of a reality. However, in this environment it will become increasingly important for Renton to support negotiation tools such as interlocal agreements, and participate in interjurisdictional decision making. Therefore, the City of Renton will participate in regional forums and support transportation plans that preserve the livability of our neighborhoods, maintain the economic vitality of our City, and provide for an improved environment for future generations. This will be accomplished by: • providing a multi-modal regional plan with HOV, transit and other modes serving Renton; and • providing regional financial strategies which encourage other than SOV travel. The City of Renton will-has prepared and adopted a multi-modal Transportation Plan, which leis consistent with regional plans and plans of neighboring cities. Current Coordination Activities The City of Renton has been actively involved in an ongoing dialogue with state, regional, and county agencies -- as well as adjacent jurisdictions and business and community groups in Renton -- concerning Renton's transportation planning goals and objectives. Coordination efforts underway include participation in the following primary forums. (Note: not all committees are listed.) II-106 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT State Coordination (Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)1 I-405 Multimedal-Corridor Study. The City is participating in this WSDOT study by serving on the along with representatives of affected jurisdictions adjacent to I-405. Renton elected officials serve on the study's Executive Committee and Renton staff serve on the Steering Committee and Technical Committee. The purpose of the study-eenmittee is to work with local jurisdictions to define mobility--transportation needs in the I-405 Corridor from Tukwila to Swamp Creek, and to develop transportation improvement projects for the corridor that compliment local plans, goals, and objectives. I 105 and I 5 Ramp Metering Study. The City is taking the lead role in coordinating with WSDOT on transportation forecasting model. The short range plan will be considered after the long range plan has Regional Coordination South County Area Transportation Board (SCATBd). The purpose of the group is to serve as a central forum for information-sharing, consensus-building, coordination to resolve transportation issues, and to implement transportation programs and projects that benefit the region in general and South King County area jurisdictions in particular. Voting members include King County and the cities of Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond, Burien, Covington, Des Moines, Enumclaw, Federal Way, Kent, Maple Valley, Milton, Normandy Park, Pacific, Renton, SeaTac, and Tukwila. Non-Voting members include Met-reSound Transit, Pierce Transit, the Port of Seattle, the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), the Valley Arca WSDOT,, and the State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB). Eastside Transportation Pregram-Partnership (ETP). ETP is a coalition of Eastside cities (similar to SCATBd), with representatives from Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond, Issaquah, Bothell, Mercer Island, Sanimamish, Woodinville, Newcastle, and Renton. Representatives from WSDOT, MetreSound Transit, King County, PSRC, TIB, and Snohomish County also are participants. Renton's primary affiliation and purpose for participating in the group is to coordinate Eastside and South County issues. Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). The PSRC is a regional council of governments and the local MPO and RTPO, with representatives from every agency,jurisdiction, and governing body in King County, Pierce County, Kitsap County and Snohomish County. Staff level technical committees meet regularly to discuss a wide range of transportation topics related to the region's long range growth and transportation strategy as envisioned under VISION 2020, including finance, transportation improvement programs, commute trip reduction issues, regional transportation forecast data, air quality, and other issues requiring regional coordination. Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority/Sound Transit. The City coordinates regularly with Metre-Sound Transit staff, as Metro-Sound Transit is the regional transit service provider. For long range planning, Renton and other jurisdictions are working with Sound Transit to: 1) implement Phase 1 of the Regional Transit Plan (RTP), which includes Regional Express bus service and HOV/transit exclusive interchanges and/or arterial HOV improvements in Renton: and, 2) begin planning for Phase 2 (to get underway in the near future), which may include light rail service II-107 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT to Renton. System Plan (RTP) of 1) rapid rail service to Renton by 2015, and 2)commuter rail to Renton by 1997. County Coordination King County Metro. The City is also coordinating with King County Metro in the development of local bus service plans which will complement the long range transit service concept comprised by the RTP. King County Public Works Directors. The City works as a member of this group on numerous and varied trasnportation action issues of concern to local jurisdictions including making recommendations for projects to be funded with the regional distribution of Federal transportation funds. b policies through the cr ation of the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC). Key components of Group. Utilizing the staff resources of regional and local governments, these forums and groups provide technical expertise, analysis, and input to the Liaison Group. The Liaison Group, comprised of public Level of Service Sub Group. This group is developing a county wide arterial and transit route level of countywide LOS approach. The Sub Group developed ways to 1) allow jurisdictions to set a LOS standard that suits their individual needs while remaining consistent with neighboring agencies' Data Sub Group. The Data Sub Group attempts to coordinate local modeling efforts and regional modeling efforts to ensure that there arc consistent transportation network assumptions between jurisdietiens7 Commute Trip Reduction. Another group within King County is responsible for coordinating regional and South County Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) issues in cooperation with local jurisdictions and MetfeKing County. Two Wworking groups have been established for the purpose of coordinating state-required CTR ordinance and plan development/adoption by local jurisdictions and King County. With most local jurisdictions having successfully adopted local CTR ordinances, the group is now focusing on the successful implementation of the ordinance requirements (working with affected employers) and on starting a parking review regional coordinating effort. II-108 - UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Objectives and Policies which address the need for coordination between regional and local agencies with respect to transportation planning and operation needs are presented below: Objective T- 4BB: Coordinate transportation operations, planning and improvements with other transportation authorities and municipalities. Policies Policy T-6771. A sub-regional transportation system should be designed and implemented in cooperation with neighboring jurisdictions. Policy T-6S72. WSDOT should provide funding for and construct grade-separated inside HOV lanes with direct access (or barrier- separated HOV facility) in the SR-167 corridor from Auburn to Renton and I-405 corridor, extending from Sea-Tac Airport north to Bothell. Policy T-6973. The Regional Transit Project Plan(RTP) should include regional express bus service commuter rail a to downtown Renton by 1997 and light rail rapid transit to Renton by 2015. Policy T-7974. E King County Metro) should provide park-and-ride lots in unincorporated King County to intercept pass through traffic affecting the Renton street system. Transit service to these park-and-ride lots should be frequent in order to encourage transit usage. Policy T-775. King County Metro) should provide intra-Renton bus service to serve local activity centers and employment centers, and to provide frequent, convenient access to future commuter rail stations and light rail-rapid transit stations. 11-109 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Revised 12/7/99 Also see related Policies in the Transit Section and King County Countywide Planning Policy T-6. Impacts on Adiacent Jurisdictions The City of Renton is coordinating and will continue to coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions through interlocal agreements and through appropriate regional, county, local and state forums to assure consistency between plans, and to work out acceptable and appropriate agreements regarding local plans. Impacts on Regional Transportation Plan The City of Renton has adopted a position that specifies the elements that must be included in the Regional Transit Plan(RTP) in order for the City to meet the requirements of the Growth Management Act. The City Council supports the following elements in the RTP draft-system plan: 1. A bus element in the RTP plan, with early emphasis on express bus service and TSM improvements proposed for the South County area; 2. A plan that increases local circulation transit services and feeder service connections and provides a variety of modal options; 3. Light rail service to the urban and employment centers including Renton and Tukwila by 3; 4. , be reassessed; and, 5 A plan that provides a-convenient connections within the regional bus service, local bus service, and-between the ea rrapidliaht rail line and the commuter rail system. Strategies to Address Inconsistencies Inconsistencies between Renton, the State. King County and other local jurisdictions will be addressed by interlocal agreement as specified in King County Growth Management policies. ONGOING TRANSPORTATION PLAN WORK This Transportation Element includes a number of recommendations for ongoing transportation work_ ' This additional work will include further refinement II-110 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPOR Y ii i iON ELEMENT Revised 12/7/99 of certain elements of the transportation plan and development of more-detailed strategies and programs to implement the transportation plan. The specific transportation planning tasks are summarized in this section. AfteFialsStreet Network Level of Service(LOS) Determine procedures as needed for design level application of the new LOS policy and standards. For other tasks related to Level of Service see 8.6 Concurrency later in this section. Arterial Plan Conduct further analysis of the improvements included in the Arterial Plan to verify physical, operational, and financial feasibility. The analyses will include development of conceptual plans and cost estimates, assessment of neighborhood and environmental impacts, and the development of more detailed scopes of improvement, as appropriate. Adjust the Arterial Plan, as needed, to reflect the results on this study. Re-evaluate residential, commercial, and industrial access street function definitions and classifications; Transit Regional Accessibility Update the assessment of the Regional Transportation Plan and the Regional Transit Project and their implications for Renton. Transit Plan Update and revise the Transit Plan to reflect revisions new information regarding ef-the Regional Transportation Plan and the Regional Transit Project, Conduct further analysis of the 6-year, 2010 and 20-year local feeder system transit improvements identified in the Renton Transit Plan Support Document in order to verify operational and financial feasibility. (Includes the development and incorporation of more detailed bus routing and dial-a-ride needs.) Mode Split Continue to update auto occupancies and future mode splits for the Renton Transit Plan. Revise the Transit Plan and (local service and regional components), as appropriate. Level of Service Continue to refine transit index of the 2010 LOS standard to address transit service frequency and, if needed, for design level application. II-111 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORrAriON ELEMENT Revised 12/7/99 HOV HOV Plan Continue the assessment of criteria for HOV facility planning, design, and operation. Conduct further analysis of the HOV improvements identified in the HOV Plan in order to verify physical, operational, and fmancial feasibility. Also, investigate other potential locations for HOV improvements, and define scope and cost of the proposed improvements in more detail; as appropriate. Level of Service Continue to refine the HOV index of.the 2010 LOS standards for design level application, if needed. I Non-motorized Neighborhood and Regional Access Reassess the 1992 City of Renton Comprehensive Walk Program Report, and bicycle and pedestrian access needs in light of transit service decisions. Determine additional bicycle and pedestrian facilities to that support Renton's access needs and complement the Regional Transit Plan and local transit.system. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Plan Update the routes identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Plan to reflect the reassessment of neighborhood and regional access needs (Task 1.3, above). Identify, in cooperation with other City of Renton departments and citizen groups, the facilities that could be included in the City of Renton's transportation funding program. TDM/CTR Existing Parking Supply and Demand Inventory existing city-wide on-site and off-site parking facilities to determine number of spaces and utilization, if needed during development-future review of parking policies, guidelines and�k ng-Code iencregulations. Parking Policy Review and Revisions I Region. Update and reviseContinue to review, update and/or revise Rentonjparking policies to complement other elements of the Renton Transportation Plan and to be consistent with regional parking policies. Working in regional forums , peeift propose parking regulation revisions to be worked out on a sub-regional basis-and adopted-in 1995. II-112 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORrtiiION ELEMENT Revised 12/7/99 Employer Mode Split Obtain updated information from on how Renton employers intend to meet CTR goals and, with assistance from Mi cROKing County Metro, evaluate the data and determine update city-wide employer mode split. TDM/CTR Programs Renton's CTR ordinance was adopted in February, 1993. Public and private employers have developed programs for complying with the ordinance. Annual review of these programs will be conducted to monitor progress toward meeting CTR goals. Parking Management Ordinance Continue to Reeview the City of Renton parking code regulations for revisions to complement the Renton Land Use Element and Transportation Element and to be consistent with regional and other local jurisdictional parking policies. Airport Updating-Continue to review the Airport Master Plan, is to be completed in 4-9951997, and propose revisions if needed to the. The updated plan will address' goals, objectives, airport facility survey, functional requirements, and implementation strategy items. The Update the Airport section Chapter of the Transportation Element Master-Planas needed. - Freight Inventory of Local Rail System Facilities and Users Update assessment of rail use compatibility with current land uses and FAST implementation strategies, as needed. Regional Accessibility Update-Continue to review, and update if needed, the assessment of Renton rail use with respect to implications of the Regional Transit Plan and to reflect Regional Transit Authority decisions (i.c. results Freight and Passenger Rail Use Refine Review and update the assessment of freight and passenger rail needs, as appropriate. II-113 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Revised 12/7/99 Financing and Implementation Program and Project Costs Update preliminary cost estimates for the 2010 and 20-year transportation program and for the scope of improvements determined from the continued feasibility analysis of the arterial and HOV elements. Also, update the scope and cost of transit, non-motorized and other programs included in the City of Renton's transportation funding program. Mitigation Process Adjust the city-wide developer mitigation fee structure, if needed, to reflect revisions to the financing plan resulting from further analysis of the Transportation Plan improvements and costs. Funding Program Adjust the priority of projects or programs identified under the Arterial, Transit, HOV, Non-Motorized, and TDM chapters as needed. Review the multi-year (20 years) fmancing plan and assess funding needs for the identified projects or programs. Include appropriate projects and programs in the City's 6-Year Transportation Improvement Program(TIP). Identify potential sources of additional funds, if funding from current sources is not adequate-, and to reflect federal, State, regional or local decisions regarding availability of current sources. Concurrency ontinue to review, and revise if needed, the implementation, monitoring,.and evaluation aspects of the Interim Concurrency Management System(CMS)—). co te-Coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions regarding CMS requirements and regulationsafiEl Review of the CMS will comprise of the following items: • Level of Service (LOS) policy and standards. Established parameters to determine whether transportation facilities and programs are adequate will be reviewed. Parameters should be realistic and meet the needs of the City of Renton. • Transportation Mitigation Policy and detailed transportation mitigation payment system. • Budgeting and funding process.—Lie-including procedures for monitoring the Transportation Improvement Program to demonstrate that the City of Renton can achieve and maintain LOS standards. • Development review procedures. Develop, including regulations and procedures for determining when concurrency by development is met. • Rules, regulations and ordinances that implement the concurrency requirements. • Transportation system monitoring- Ijncludeing procedures for the monitoring of transportation facilities to compare actual LOS to adopted standards. II-114 � I CITY OF RENTON TRANSPOR n i'ION ELEMENT Revised 12/7/99 • Monitoring of development to assess if probable funding will be available for transportation needs and to ensure that the Transportation Element is coordinated and consistent with the Land Use Element. • Inter jurisdictional coordination. Regulations, facilities to be provided and development actions by regional and other local jurisdictions may change which could affect the City of Renton. The City will adjust transportation plans as needed to address changes_-as= - • CMS adjustment process. Develop a pProcess to determine and implement adjustments to the CMS to reflect input from monitoring land use, the transportation system and inter jurisdictional actions. Environmental and Natural Resources Update the Air and Water Quality Chapter of the Transportation Plan based onExpand discussion in this chapter to address objectives, policies and strategies to minimize or mitigate impacts of transportation plans on Renton's environment and natural resources, including Renton's amended Sensitive Areas Regulations (anticipated to be adopted by mid-2000). Review the latest air and water quality implementation plans from local and state agencies-, and update this chapter if needed. Intergovernmental Coordination Continue to assess-hewcoordinate Renton's Transportation Element impacts with adjacent jurisdictions' transportation and land use goals, county-wide policies, regional land use and transportation plans, and statewide goals outlined in the GMA. Pursue strategies to address inconsistencies; i.e., through interlocal agreements. u-iis CITY OF RENTON TRANSPOR'i it iON ELEMENT Revised 12/7/99 BIBLIOGRAPHY Airport Master Plan Update, City of Renton, 1978,-alid 1988 and 1997. Air Quality Data for King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish counties, PSAPCA, :1991'. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. AASHTO, 1994. Clean Air Washington Act, Chapter 70.94, RCW, 1991. City Code, City of Renton, 1989. City Code Development Regulations, City of Renton, 1998 City of Renton, Central Subarea Transportation Plan, Revised Draft, 1994. City of Renton Commute Trip Reduction Ordinance and Plan, 1993. City of Renton Comprehensive Park and Open Spaces Plan, 1992. City of Renton Comprehensive Walk Program Preliminary Engineering Report, 1992. City of Renton Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, 1994, and 1997, 1998 amendments. City of Renton, Level of Service Documentation, 1994. City of Renton, Renton Transit Plan Support Document, 1994. City of Renton Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program 1995 2000-2005, 1994adopted June 21, 1999. City of Renton Trails Master Plan, 1990. City of Renton, Transportation Mitigation Fee Support Document, 1994. City of Renton Truck Route Ordinance, 1991. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, AASHTO, 1991. Growth Management Act Procedural Criteria, Chapter 365-195, WAC, 1990. Growth Management, Transportation Work Group (newsletter) Volume 3, November, 1992. King County Arterial Functional Classification Map, 1991. King County Growth Management Planning Council Countywide Planning Policies, 1992. King County Level of Service Framework Policies, 1993 King County Road Standards, 1987. King County Transportation Plan: Annual Needs Report, 1993. Long Range Policy Framework for Public Transportation, METRO, 1993 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 1988. Regional Transit Plan, egional Transit Authority, 19931997. Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 1992. Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Final Environmental Impact Statement, 1993. Transit Operations, METRO, 1993. Vision 2020, Puget Sound Council of Governments, 1990. Washington State Commute Trip Reduction Act, RCW 70.94.521-551, 1991. II-116 I I Amended 12/12/97 CITY OF RENTON CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT i✓ I=L®ate ANT PLAN''. 4 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN G 15 109 1995 2000-2005 RECEIVE® Inventory of Existing Facilities Figures 7-1 and 7-2 on the following pages indicate the degree to which Renton's transportation system is integrally linked to the regional transportation system. The first exhibit is of the cxisting 1998 street and highway system; the second is-efdepicts 1998 traffic flows on that system. In Renton perhaps more than in any other jurisdiction in the Puget Sound area,actions relating to the transportation system have local and regional implications. Level of Service Background • Currently the national approach for defining LOS uses the traditional Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board,National Research Council,-19.83.1994). This LOS concept quantifies a motorist's degree of comfort as they travel through an intersection or along a roadway segment. The degree of comfort includes such factors as travel time,amount of stopped delay at intersections,impedance caused by other vehicles,and safety. Six levels of service are defined using letter designations: A,B,C,D,E and F,with LOS A representing the best operation conditions and LOS F the worst. ' In the past the city's policy concentrated on improving roadway capacity, for single occupancy vehicle(SOV)travel. However,because of traffic congestion in the I-405 and SR 167 corridors, traffic is overflowing off of these facilities onto congested arterials and diverting through Renton neighborhood streets. Trying to solve the problem solely through building facilities to improve roadway capacity only attracts I more traffic onto Renton's streets. There is growing recognition within the Renton and King County governments that the traditional LOS approach is not consistent with federal(ISTEA)and state(GMA)legislation which encourages multi-modal transportation solutions. GMA also encourages innovative approaches to level of service. New Approach In recognition of the regional nature of the traffic problems faced by Renton and the basic impossibility of building enough roadway capacity to alleviate traffic congestion,the City of Renton is currentlyhas revising revised its LOS policy to emphasize the movement of people,not just vehicles.'The new LOS policy is based on three premises: • Level of Service(LOS)in Renton is primarily controlled by regional travel demands that must be solved by regional policies and plans; • It is neither economically nor environmentally sound to try to accommodate all desired single occupancy vehicle(SOV)travel; and ' • The decision-makers for the region must provide alternatives to SOV travel. Iv- 13 J f 1 .c i Ch """imsmums=-m""T(:44:u11%11 i 1 fri.41.1 t / / i+1,a Joe x �� , � i�ei6ii•iclgii.. FFpq�iie•tia;.ii ;•acr,, 4 -' ciiiiiliii;i i ., :lit • :i kibilkli:';••••::•::..:.:0:::•:,;6:::/..I.UridatImmilui k.. .:.,:,,u, iFv/i4 map ; ai IN `i_�--71Lt ! itta ..® ®�%: en -IN ...,.,.., ,of 47 I .iiilit tr•.•;.. �l' 11.1 �—i furl �' c. ,.a a�!C,`.„,:'a::"•. ..:,sw .,, ,:. w � �°°'""°`.`%t�1,.A`� (gp� j��p�yp-°c''o'}:�`:y;)�'Y✓G2::yr'•Y"y#s�p /.'�ytf`,�"yt;t�a•'.;: � >•� A'1� � ?ice}r:•..,v,p:3' �','°° 'rvQ►1 L y>'y: k�S w �� ` +I.�7 ,... #i' :y.,,• �',o� t'� :�:. z:•;zY•'vn.{z::z� 4}'ia;•.•. .,0 1 11 IrrJ • j„...e: x 48.m(N r\ tii ......a�'dl .ry.:•�.::..rir^.N. Y•:sa.vi� r m,�r 0 _' ?i'^`M >"•' /.r� •71 Till•T 1. v • 44 'by. 1 •dwtfy ..'4Svh::,.}'t,...., ..,�,'•1tr6 Y•'• 4��� �� ��• •.r�' r i' }�,(��qfu '!r.l�'w,p ggQp��•� =" a..C:12^k' YY Ct.j. ri . At— rr�___e'e 3 I. JT cr6Cli 9A a • '`"4 {:• .,:?,:'ifS�3Y,©•..:, :$' i>". �.I� ;,... d 1•. c'.1, 1';T;. tea . •°. 'rti:;f:'... •> • K; � J7••ihry:'• �6Ctl:} Y'v h' �''�:v+:r ';ti:4:•:.:,,,-•}i .ylp�•1��"r• .2::;:::.X:h:. :' :;; •^'dJEo'ti.. :::iQX:O'1 J.J. k V•�\ }:rv.r.' MIMI =Iiiii u1I 3'I ,I�t• ii tt.i /. �^ 0I- tYY. o':#;Sp.:•:k',h`;. >�tC iiiliall ii.F L . aL iu rii f:, �,•- ;..w t .. , ., . whcasssy• ,j.�.li.l.in. t- 1 `�`• I `.:z•;'�':'"' .en,u :car.•:s,r,.;.. 3:. � iliii.ii,':.�'.. t 796 *;%r t µ•`.r. iWH5tl8a� mate Y Cy'•l•:'', �;74.g•Y•,t''•,"j•� y .�� iki it' :i l;r:.�t4., �8 'tl } jfi r•�i!t ii 'z•<'Q;/f,v tae��`•a•o e11;�fmnm: :i}'y:'f: .,' s•.:•E� /, =MI g u i 'l F �� a0.;,3 !.i ,: Yd. au.� Y" a fe • w. p i!I'i:i,;L:i4li,i'�tiiii ilt:ak,:itsii.ii'�+iiiiiljiyiry io 1;b::i;£iy;;%k.a:,:�r7s•:!' u,`.a�L•• `S'".:.;" .r,.'::::hn'y,•.• ° m„3� .•z.!!:rY Z •2 t•ii 4 :i•,F iiiliv1;i. rt.ir,,.:Ili 1::,li?It i .; }`...,: r,.}yfi i{'"'1w.: voam®y • ey ,t'Ai• � •..i�l! p•iiiil�� i �ri �ltiii IEFi'i{{itsllF��. :",'•%,x�'�''r�:}.y? ���3�"�'�.w�e� "�• ® �bi�Szr>, :1:•.�' � •►o ,,:•l':;; ii4i1:?4 Ai i t !i.:�,.iMii`f•{ii'iu's1• F 0 . 4 I t`-snA �m it..: tgal V :�•L�ty N ift'li' }( 1 i�' 1.1 i .�. t it)i t [�r:.:�rl •Y-;- _ [# r•.cv, Qq �s :�:�h�'\•�:v. �:f'::•� :_ii .x.iil'14i t i Wi ;'l t I i'.i.)) : .;,. a .. tiz:..:.z><:: :. `talc:: �It:i i..:.(tt {{ :F i.F ! ':i :it _ pp �ex�m�� •i....p� r ``++.,x• } :.};.... r ca O ..F.l;jl2 :i•yii.�li!iln.a„,,, :rt ill•„„, 1{'' , [ •r,sx:Y �•' .• \ :*0:::.}s;# ;;¢r :F•.tri:riri:a...s t lily iFiiil r F r c• ar3' � : .... dn• r-.::i.}#.a;:: S.: },,:i ,rrr��: ::IZ,.t,itj .tii:i !r• 1 :� , � ;:.�`� s4 .::. s: >h:.: • 7s r t ,' .t•0:tt ! !' 1 rt..r :t&•.`" ,loti* "yw :. sue',::.a�l ku::• t•'4>i; :,0YN, x• f 'i17 Eiiii(r•iiliYEi'1 t i;ltc i ,;yi _v r: o �"+'' 1:1'�+.:: a >'''•2':=:_='- :;}.: ;S.SXi`�:`.''Y.•'`••3h "o,+�`. � Rl :,1�I,rt!i[c(i': i l i zi � i F t r :a--..+�.. 4� a •• •.-.•_ ...Y^.t:':' :©•�.'-;�--� `>:' � ., i .ii 't?13 i..:i.l Y .�� z:?�•'®exmf `;::. �.��• :cc®e® •r ::. ; Y , ?,r i. j�ii t f•Eili?!``i a. it�'i�jil :i:��":F? 11111 1 "' °°` 00 •]6 9I�%` .7 >Y-Ky?,,• -t '*r+i;' -a !,i;i i; j liFt / 110 N r r :.yr*v 1 i ; '; '�i•. aril l ( e� � ��J th,;ty i {;: � .... o-k•}.i�z`i.,:. •'• ��"' -''� S ' I i :yi ilr. }t�'l:��r.'i'�p' ussimmi i `. ! It. , : :a qp:: 'l-- e. AdrilI'ir1l;3�iit1�'i !iF ( �+i; '� ■ IIIIIC 7 _.:,:ox; .:t:; :•..Y: A P,ui� i :jt'.•i t i.3 .i')it t / 11, `0- e. ' • :;. .i:'.,•J"Y,`'''4'+ .2::.:f^:a` : '3t cell, iii•il:litli 1F�i. ,.:i-t.� .1 1Y ' 1111■�wt�w .•7' - vi•:•:•• :'£"'n3:'>-A::::::.::.. ... ::c;!} ::t•'•';: . try!•ti i i i'J r.:III t ■■ tar v•a ".::J.:}•:is*i {,Y:::;. .t.:.:lo, / i:i;-:1:; i. is i i �`a.I ' .;... w� ��l i?:•}• i4::Y,.,s r}'•Y.*:k :eh'r;6 .• az:'':ie 111111111111111111 d� <isr!c!!r.,tly't r;,r.,j r• its '1r a.- ;«•:..:. Y.;, wk...;<'::,;>.:d..;.,�p ,'�.. .ii f....i:Si' :f:� i..( !.a t/ � E.:•.<r;};}.Y. v.:zz#. J': .. y:•q tlt ,:Ftr..iY.l.i.•:t ..l'SiFi'Fi `7 E" It3' t 1'.:•;zc•'••y{;i:.:yK:r;<3G•: '.:M•a£,'',Y..;r; ":,kS.. ::#;. :`.:,;-L;#;i 1 ...;.rtin t llrile f�i ti:i!•t•i ••i, v "�'r :��t��'R• �� ,� r,.y iR;::'; ,:,i%' ,:,„:.\:r90....4 x....:;..::;Y,.ys,.:.,,f ioc'.`!L";<::.Y•.6. �1 b ! :i ,.t., ti,l� t. 1i i t.:ei ' ♦.4 ) �i7 tt :J s'<°he --- ..::.x:.- �� it?,i•::li;:i. i:.•,ri �u Jn�-l::r r�-u�.i{�•� �r1� �{` •!"� n � `2:' Y�,•'" �!'�; : � .m1 '17 _ ii iial:i ia:�i�i :'i.ri•tiai' i �; F [ i{ it:::l.f.,,•i 1.,. i r.i 1,'•Ft C 1 �- ` •• `!_tl' : L,: �i VD :iiiii...i i:.:i.f.. :i.i:r.,l l�°i'!i ii i_'� "' Iff " i;C;!w" V t.: S.t.irt. lil:_tri;:: lii,iilii I:�t ti � � ��• �r •00 ii..,ti irtt:i F;;'{ ,'r,F:l-I:F,:::itll'l''. ..Iwtral f �� J • •r. rar.,-.1priimiemp ,7.. . -1.,,r,. A I" Atom-a r•1t. �'C a`,i1�itS} Gila a.p."•,. 1 II •� r:■` wll I 7 i1 rr 1IMIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIarill al \ 07 Figure 7-2 , 2-Iwo • li 3ani s ,...AN crz, N 33RD STti CD 0:::) 107" AI • i2 r kizi f 0 to eep wt TN 27 ST S6 0 4 2 o NORTH , ... 0 1 4:C 7 ics? , ) . ,,,...0. ..... .. i ... .. „..A.. la 0 r 0• 4,,,, cc> „ID*"0 a ; A03 a 1 U0 01 N0. " 1 <S729111 cto 9 0 tl 6111 0 ID • 0; 0 • + tnn + ...AI:Ili ,E111 . 1 AIRPORT NAY S 0 0 0 CZ) .. . , ,. ..__,,,_,...„,, .,,, ,_. % 2.- fc) 4::,ca•Wel .-: . - • () ' • 0 ATOM OC C'l 0, -•-. 6''''' dillinilligV-1 03:) .•tii.: 0 (6- ,:„,..1 •.: . Nt.,1 . , 4. 51 Mllitiltifrii:4C'7. ''6'41'° ,... _- • @ 7- 1*•...-,. ... -. 1998 Izz' I' 4. 1::,...* 1 Rik • TRAFFIC FLOW MAP 61 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNINC/BUILDING/PUBUC WORK: .*,. ' TRANSPORTATION SYSTE1AS DIVISION 0 (4' . • . . OPERATIONS SECTION (SO li,,,,.. ' • CC) a 1 490"0 0 / 0 1 .49 7111 • • i- i.; 0 '•Trh,......1111K0 • . , . '. • ,TAII• a- % . No .0 .1- . . . . c 1. EXAMPLE 10 _ h I., 30 07 ALE: r- 60,000 VEHICLES 40 50 •LESNIDITRHAS=/)\FIERiVaCI-DEAlY TRAF OP .. _ . .. ._ OD .. • 'a •• i ... . NOTE: INTERSTATE 1404504J.JIA)Rro;tfTISZIOUATTE i.:67 F . . 1 4:3;) • .1 1 . SCALE.-405 . 1-405 SE.. ' .. . . . • • .„- .• . , , . , .....• : . • ., . .. -• . . i • ve E M 1 6%, .1 Illiell 4. CC) ,i.N.. ...to . ,, • S 11ST ST 0 .0 PUGET I (z) co•,,, : a a., • V i,,ii r•-• ;m.o...: 0 s 2 5 .. 46 ''' S 31ST ST N . a- -- . 11) arboo 0 (% .- . . 2 .,., icz . . cilictL e ff 4. • . ST c1141 ' SE MTN ST CITY OF RENTON X 0 0 0 0 ..() + () § w DEPARTMENT OF 1.1.34C wORMS V 1998- TRAFFIC FLOW MAP 7,000 NZ4' (3ZD'. (21:) 4 117=======.......... r'4111•1=1•', . § rn=r=mig::=3-- • Lad. MAI eil.! • tar. T V....i 5 Amended 12/12/97 CITY OF RENTON CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT The new LOS policy is based on travel time contours which in turn are based on auto,transit,HOV,non- motorized,and transportation demand management/commute trip reduction measures. The new LOS policy is designed to achieve several objectives: • Allow reasonable development to occur; • Encourage a regionally-linked,locally-oriented,dynamic transportation system; • Meet requirements of the Growth Management Act; • Meet the requirements of the King County Level of Service Framework Policies; • Require developers to pay a fair share of transportation costs;and • Provide flexibility for Renton to adjust its LOS policy if the region decides to lower regional LOS standards by not providing regional facilities. The City of Renton LOS standards will be used to evaluate Renton city-wide transportation plans. The auto, HOV,and transit measures will be based on travel times and distance and will be the primary indicators for concurrency. The non-motorized and TDM measures will assist in meeting multi-modal goals of Renton and the region. The Level of Service Standard Methodology The following table demonstrates how the new LOS policy will be applied.A 1990 LOS travel time index has been calculated for the City by establishing the sum of the average 30-minute travel distance for SOV,HOV and Transit as follows: Average PM peak travel distance in 30 minutes from the city in all directions SOV HOV 2 Transit LOS • (includes access time) Standard XX miles XX miles 2 times X miles=XX XX • City-wide Level of Service Standard(Years 1990 and 2010) The 1990 LOS index is the basis for the 2010 standard. The average SOV 30-minute travel distance is forecast to decrease by 2010. Therefore, SOV improvements will need to be implemented to raise the SOV equivalent or a combination of HOV and/or transit improvements will need to be implemented to raise the HOV and/or transit equivalents to maintain the LOS standard. Renton's Transportation Improvement Plan Arterial,HOV and Transit Sub-Elements have been tested against the above LOS standard to assure that the Plan meets the year 2010 standard. City-wide Level of Service Index(Year 1990): Average PM peak travel distance in 30 minutes from the city in all directions SOV HOV 2 Transit LOS (includes access time) Index 18 miles 21 miles 10-i 49A Ld-16 rf ' Amended 12/12/97 ' CITY OF RENTON CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT City-wide Level of Service Standard(Year 2010): Average PM peak travel distance in 30 minutes from the city in all directions SOV HOV 2 Transit LOS (includes access time) Standard 14 miles 21 miles 14 • 491 The City of Renton LOS standards will be used to evaluate city-wide transportation plans. The auto,HOV,and transit measures will be based on travel times and distance and will be.the primary indicators for concurrency. The non-motorized and TDM measures will serve as credit toward meeting multi-modal goals of Renton and the region. • To check the progress toward the 2010 goal,each year the city will assess the level of service as a part of its annual Transportation Improvement Plan(TIP). This assessment will further ensure that level of service is maintained for the current period as well as for 2010. Needed Capital Facilities and Funding Plan, 1995 2000-2005 The transportation 6-year facilities plan is based on achieving the desired level of service by the year 2010 through an annual program of consistent and necessary improvements and strategies. Additionally,the plan includes projects such as bridge inspections, street overlay programs,traffic signal maintenance,and safety improvements that are needed as part of the City's annual work program. Projects that promote economic development also are included,as encouraged by the GMA. See Table 7-1.on the following page for the 6-year plan. The first step in developing the 6-year funding plan was to establish a 20-year plan which included arterial, HOV and transit components. This effort resulted in a planning level cost;estimate of$134 million. The cost for arterials and HOV are total costs(or Renton's share of the cost of joint projects with WSDOT and local jurisdictions)in 1991 1999 dollars. The transit costs include only the local match for the local feeder system and intermodal stations. Having established a 20-year funding level of$134 million,an annual funding level of$6.7 million was established. With this funding level,it is reasonably certain that each year the existing level of service will improve and the desired level of service will be achieved by 2010 as long as the facilities funded each year are consistent with the 20-year plan and transit and HOV facilities are conscientiously emphasized. The funding source projections in Table 7-2 are based upon the 1994 992000-05 TIP. It was assumed that gas tax and vehicle tax revenues would continue at the current level of$0.67 million per year. Additionally,it was assumed that grant funding would be maintained at the current level,which is$3.57 million per year. Business license fees of$1.89 million per year were based on the current level of$1.80 million per year adjusted to $1.40 million per year to reflect devaluation due to inflation at 4%per year,then adjusted upward to account for employment growth forecasts.The result is a requirement of$0.57 million,per year from mitigation fees. Based on forecasts of total new vehicle trips from development,a mitigation fee of$75 per trip was established. Besides a mitigation fee payment as their fair share contribution toward mitigating cumulative impacts, developers will be required to implement site specific improvements to ensure that on-site and adjacent facility impacts are mitigated. ZY-17 • N. Table 7-1 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2000-2005 SIX YEAR TIP Total Project Costs TAP......................Pro)ezf7tue..........................CAsts................x0i9�0. :.> 1QQ1: . 1002:::.;...;:;.:::20113: 2.0.1.4:»»>:::;.::;>:2005..>»::»:: .> <TP#ar<........:'.::::.;:cQsf: : 1 Street Overlay Program 1,072,771 380,000 380,000 380,000 380,000 380,000 380,000 2,280,000 3,352,771 2 Oakesdale Ave.SW Phase 1 B 68,975 564,175 4,850 0 0 0 0 569,025 638,000 3 Oakesdale Ave.SW Phase 2 363,000 2,888,500 25,000 _ 0 0 0 0 2,913,500 3,276,500 4 1-405/NE 44th Interchange 310,000 2,010,000 2,576,000 2,360,000 12,900,000 19,344,000 0 39,190,000 39,500,000 6 Transit Program 466,095 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 ' 100,000 100,000 600,000 1,066,095 6 Walkway Program 1,659,815 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 1,020,000 2,679,815 7 Downtown Transit Access 933,399 660,000 0 0 0 0 0 660,000 1,593,399 e Shuttle(RUSH) 313,295 112,000 112,000 172,000 172,000 172,000 172,000 912,000 1,225,295 9 Transit Priority Signal System 42,593 675,272 0 0 0 0 0 675,272 717,865 to SR167/SW 27th St/Strander Blvc 229,894 685,800 948,250 7,947,650 13,703,400 15,650,800 7,582,000 46,517,900 46,747,794 tt SR169 HOV-140th to SR900 0 1,415,300 1,884,700 0 0 0 0 3,300,000 3,300,000 12 Duvall Ave NE 0 20,000 80,000 250,000 100,000 1,980,000 1,320,000 3,750,000 3,750,000 13 Arterial HOV Program 165,500 683,956 17,989 240,000 15,000 441,000 300,000 1,697,945 1,863,445 14 Bridge Inspection&Repair 224,892 145,000 701,000 30,000 155,000 30,000 30,000 1,091,000 1,315,892 15 TDM Program 141,837 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000 441,837 76 Loop Replacement Program 39,218 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 120,000 159,218 17 Sign Replacement Program 31,034 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 90,000 121,034 to Light Pole Prog. 32,921 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 90,000 122,921 is Sunset/Anacortes Ave NE 329,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 329,300 20 S.2nd Street Safety Project 20,125 238,750 0 0 0 0 0 238,750 258,875 21 Arterial Circulation Program 352,150 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 • 1,500,000 1,852,150 22 Project Development/Predesign 302,456 175,000 175,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,150,000 1,452,456 23 WSDOT Coordination Program 26,725 10,000 10,000 • 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 60,000 86,725 24 1-405 HOV Direct Access 41,368 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 41,368 2s City Gateways 146,771 0 55,000 0 55,000 0 55,000 165,000 311,771 26 Traffic Safety Program 200,712 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 240,000 440,712 27 Traffic Efficiency Program 280,266 • 321,949 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 471,949 752,215 28 Arterial Rehab.Prog. 204,290 889,711 72,144 240,000 83,471 55,000 46,335 1,386,661 1,590,951 29 Trans Concurrency • 11,132 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 60,000 71,132 ao Missing Links Program 150,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 330,000 31 Park-Sunset HOV 2,000 22,000 176,000 72,000 528,000 0 0 798,000 800,000 32 RR Crossing Safety Prog. 272,053 10,000 0 0 10,000 0 0 20,000 292,053 33 Inter-agency Signal Coord. 114,085 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114,085 • 34 Environmental Monitoring 65,106 40,730 38,817 30,000 36,529 30,000 36,665 212,741 277,8471 as Bicycle Route Dev.Program 39,720 134,000 110,000 18,000 18,000 80,000 80,000 440,000 479,720 36 NE3rd/NE 4th Transit 2,000 0 0 224,000 290,000 1,986,000 0 2,500,000 2,502,000 37 Grady Way/167 20,000 30,000 20,000 180,000 0 0 200,000 430,000 450,000 38 CBD Bike&Ped.Connections 4,000 40,000 306,000 0 0 0 0 346,000 350,000 39 Lind Av-SW 16th-SW 43rd 0 0 60,000 1,914,000 626,000 0 0 2,600,000 2,600,000 40 SW 7th St./Lind Ave SW 0 0 18,000 132,000 0 0 0 150,000 150,060 41 Benson Rd S/S 31st St 0 0 20,000 130,000 0 0 0 150,000 150,000 42 Valley Connections to West 50,000 110,000 1,100,000 0 0 0 0 1,210,000 1,260,000 43 Oakesdale Ave SW Extension 160,000 0 0 0 0 2,753,000 9,399,000 12,152,000 12,312,000 44 45 • 46 47 48 49 60 .T•:<:i•.:: .. .. ?g<:Total:56urces;�':<E:>s:::?<:::>::>:::>:;::>::.#:?:::>::8'889 9 :•:. �. �:, :: »::> >. <::<::. •. : >::g: ..; ....:. :;:>:. :,>' >::>:..41`127'241:::. 4.8:.......1.2 962143. ...9 62D 750•:::1.5259 65D . 30t)1240D..... 841800.....2064.1 000.....'132'237743::::...1.. O:wAm1912001DR F',%W 12.09/119 IV-t8 • Table 7-2 • CITY OF RENTON • PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2000 - 2005 SIX YEAR TIP • SUMMARY OF FUNDING SOURCES Period .• ':ITEM..::.. Period Total 2000 20.01 2002 2003 2004 2002- • EXPENSES: Project Development 3,352,000 807,000 557,000 647,000 447,000 447,000 447,000 Precon Eng/Admin ,13,823,462 3,409,512 3,404,700 3,382,150 1,450,100 1,705,500 471,500 R-O-W(includes Admin) 4,121,500 436,500 81,000 • 1,464,000 866,000 1,273,000 1,000 Construction Contract Fee 99,990,481 7,374,881 4,536,600 8,461,000 24,725,500 37,030,500 17,882,000 Construction Eng/Admin 8,138,300 622,250 .429,450 833,500 1,951,800 2,813,800 *1,487,500 1-1 Other • 2,812,000 312,000 612,000 • 472,000 572,000 572,000 272,000 Sub-TOTAL EXPENSES.. 132,237,743 12,962,143 9,620,750 15,259,650 30.;012,400 43;841,80.0 : 20;541 000 S SOURCES OF FUNDS: • • 1/2 Cent Gas Tax 1,920,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 Business License Fee 9,648,000 1,608,000 1,608,000 1,608,000 1,608,000 1,608,000 1,608,000 - Vehicle License Fee 2,100,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 Grants In-Hand 1,814,286 1,807,486 6,800 Mitigation In-Hand 3,310,360 830,360 580,000 750,000 600,000 550,000 L.I.D.'s Formed Other In-Hand 240,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 • Grants Proposed 8,208,800 2,567,000 3,787,800 1,290,000 564,000 Mitigation Proposed 2,084,000 176,000 40,000 579,000 289,000 500,000 500,000 • L.I.D.'s Proposed • Other Proposed • 2,725,000 1,438,750 896,250 390,000 • Undetermined 95,368,994 210,000 1,773,000 9,002,794 26,186,400 40,473,800 17,723,000 TOTAL:SOURCES: 127,419,440. 9,347,596 9,401,850 14,329,794 29;957;400., 43,841.,800. ..:.20;5414000 • C:VCPMTIFM000DMF.WB2 MVO O 1317