Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD 4855Amends ORD 4498 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 4855 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE 2000 AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S 1995 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MAPS AND DATA IN CONJUNCTION THEREWITH. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Renton has heretofore adopted and filed a "Comprehensive Plan" and the City Council of Renton has implemented and amended said "Comprehensive Plan" from time to time, together with the adoption of various codes, reports and records; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has heretofore duly recommended to the City Council, from time to time, certain amendments to the City's "Comprehensive Plan;" and WHEREAS, the City of Renton, pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management Act, has been required to review its "Comprehensive Plan;" and WHEREAS, the City has held a pubhc hearing on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has made certain findings and recommendations to the City Council, including making finding pursuant to Title IV Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9-020.G, Review Criteria for Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Adoption Process; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly determined after due consideration of the testimony and evidence before it that it is advisable and appropriate to amend and modify the City's "Comprehensive Plan;" and WHEREAS, such modification and elements for the "Comprehensive Plan" being in the best interest and for the pubhc benefit; 1 ORDINANCE NO. 4855 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The above findings and recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects. SECTION II. The "Comprehensive Plan," maps, data and reports in support of the "Comprehensive Plan" are hereby modified, amended and adopted as said "Comprehensive Plan" consisting of the following elements: Land Use and Land Use Map and Land Use Element text, as shown on the attached Exhibits A, B, and C, and incorporated herein as if fully set forth. SECTION III. The Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Adrninistrator is hereby authorized and directed to make the necessary changes on said City's "Comprehensive Plan" and the maps in conjunction therewith to evidence the aforementioned 2000 amendments. SECTION IV. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to file this ordinance as provided by law, and a complete copy of said document likewise being on file with the office of the City Clerk of the City of Renton. SECTION V. This ordinance shah be effective upon its passage, approval and five days after publication. 2 ORDINANCE NO. 4855 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this I4trday of August 2000. <->vJ APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 14thday of Marilyn Ji~Petejsen, City Clerk August _, 2000. Jesse fanner. Mayor Approvech^o form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Pubhcation: 8/18/2000 (Summary) ORD.868:S72/00:ma. 3 ORDINANCE NO. 4855 EXHIBIT A 4 Revised 8/7/00 ORDINANCE NO. 4855 EXHIBIT A LAND USE ELEMENT POLICIES AND TEXT The Land Use Element policies and text are amended to read as follows. Policies not listed remain unchanged. RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY INFILL DISTRICT LU-69. Residential Multi-family Infill designation should not be expanded. Land within the districts should be used to meet multi-family housing needs. Existing Residential Multi-family Infill designations have the highest priority for development or redevelopment with multi-family uses. Expansion of these designations is limited to properties meeting the following criteria: a. Properties under consideration shall take access from a principal arterial, minor arterial, or collector. Direct access shall not be through a less intense land use designation. b. Properties under consideration must abut the existing RM-I land use designation on at least two (2) sides and be on the same side of the principal arterial, minor arterial, or collector serving it; and, c. Any such expansion of the RM-I land use designation should not bisect or truncate another contiguous land use district. CENTERS Summary: Centers are intended to provide a cohesive district allowing a wide range of commercial and residential activities which provide needed goods and services and serve as a visual and physical focal point for the surrounding residential areas. Five types of Centers are envisioned: 1. Center Downtown is characterized by the Downtown and its surrounding residential neighborhoods. These are existing urban environments expected to redevelop as destination shopping areas providing neighborhood, citywide, and subregional services and mixed use residential areas. Center Downtown residential development is expected to support urban scale multi-family projects at the highest densities allowed in the City. These projects are expected to incorporate mixed uses including retail, office, and service uses which support transit and create a new synergism of public and private sector activities. In the surrounding residential areas, infill urban scale townhouse and multi-family developments are anticipated. Site planning and infrastructure will promote a pedestrian scale environment and amenities. 2. Center Village is characterized by areas of the City that provide an opportunity for redevelopment as close- in urban mixed use residential and commercial areas which are pedestrian oriented. These areas are anticipated to provide medium to high-density residential development and a wide range of commercial activities serving citywide and sub-regional markets. Center Villages typically are developed within an existing suburban land use pattern where opportunities exist to modify the development pattern to accommodate more growth within the existing urban areas by providing for compact urban development, transit orientation, pedestrian circulation, and a community focal point organized around an urban village concept. 3. Center Suburban is characterized by suburban scale two-story development supporting a medium intensity of activity serving multiple neighborhoods. Development within these Centers is supported by site planning oriented to automobile access and circulation along an arterial treated with a boulevard features or park landscaping. 4. Center Neighborhood is characterized by suburban scale single story development supporting less intensive land use than the Center Suburban and serving primarily the surrounding neighborhood. 1 Revised 8/7/00 5. Center Office-Residential provides for large-scale office, retail and/or multi-family projects developed through a master plan incorporating significant site amenities and/or gateway features. 6. Center Institution provides clusters of medical or educational uses, which serve the surrounding community. Policies Applicable to All Centers General Policies Policy LU-82 Promote the clustering of Center uses and discourage the development of strip commercial areas. Policy LU-83 Phase implementation of development regulations within Centers to support economically feasible development in the short term but also provide a transition to achieve new development consistent with long term land use objectives. Strategy LU-83.1 Revise development regulations within the Center Downtown to implement the Comprehensive Plan Vision within 5 years. Strategy LU-83.2 Revise development regulations within the Center Village to implement the Comprehensive Plan Vision within 2 years. Strategy LU-83.3. Revise development regulations within the Center Suburban to fully implement the Comprehensive Plan Vision within 2 years. Policy LU-84. RESERVED Policy LU-85. Prioritize Downtown and Center Village for infrastructure improvements. Policy LU-86. Identify Centers as gateways into the City or neighborhoods. Policy LU-87. Develop Centers to provide community focus for their surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LU-88. Maintain unique and independent centers by defining boundaries which create a transition to and protection for surrounding land uses. ' ^ Policy LU-89. Create Centers which support a citywide transit system and encourage pedestrian access. Policy LU-90. Centers should incorporate transit stops within them. Locational Criteria Policy LU-91. Designate Center boundaries according to the following criteria: a. The boundary should coincide with a major change in land use type or intensity. b. Boundaries should consider topography and natural features such as ravines, hills, and significant stands of trees. c. Boundaries should occur along public rights-of-way including streets or utility easements, or at rear property lines where justified by the existing land use pattern. Boundary lines should not be drawn through the interior of parcels. d. As a maximum distance, the boundary should be drawn within a walkable distance from one or two focal points, which may be defined by intersections, transit stops, or shopping centers. Policy LU-92. Designate Centers in locations with the following characteristics: a. A nucleus of existing multi-use development. b. Potential for redevelopment, or vacant land to encourage significant concentration of development. c. Principal gateways to the City as defined in the Community Design Section of the Land Use Element. d. Center locations should be located on major transit and transportation routes. e. Center locations should be served by the City's arterial street system. 2 Revised 8/7/00 Policy LU-93. Designate transitional land uses which surround the Center to provide buffers to the less intensive uses. Policy LU-94. Change adopted boundaries only in the following circumstances: a. The original mapping failed to consider a major natural feature or significant land use which would make implementation of the boundary illogical. b. The amount of land within a Center is inadequate to allow development of the range and intensity of uses envisioned for the Center. Policy LU-95. Maximize the use of existing urban services and facilities by promoting redevelopment of existing commercial areas with commercial and residential mixed use development. Policy LU-96. RESERVED Mix and Intensity of Uses Objective LU-Q: Encourage a wide range and combination of uses, developed at sufficient intensity to maximize efficient use of land, support transit use, and create a viable district. Policy LU-97. Encourage new office and commercial development which is more intensive than the older office and commercial development in existing Centers in order to create more compact and efficient Centers. Policy LU-98. Allow stand alone residential development of various types and urban densities in portions of Centers not conducive to commercial development. Policy LU-99. Allow residential uses throughout Centers as part of mixed use developments, Consider bonus incentives for housing types compatible with commercial uses or lower density residential. Policy LU-100. Include uses which are compatible with each other within mixed use developments; for example, office and certain retail uses with residential, office, and retail. Policy LU-101. Locate and design commercial uses within a residential mixed use development in a manner which preserves privacy and quiet for residents. Site and Building Design '<) Policy LU-102. Modify existing commercial and residential uses which are adjacent to or within new proposed development to implement the new Center land use vision as much as possible through alterations in parking lot design, landscapes, signage, and site plan alterations as redevelopment opportunities occur. Policy LU-103. Consolidate signage for mixed use development on one structure. Policy LU 104. Locate signage to reduce light and glare impacts to the residential users. Focal Points Policy LU-105. Develop at least one major focal point within each Center which defines the core of the Center and is visually distinctive. Policy LU-106. Design focal points to include a combination of public areas such as parks or plazas, architectural features such as towers, outstanding building design, transit stops, or outdoor eating area. These features should be connected to pedestrian pathways if possible. Policy LU-107. Evaluate existing intersections of arterial roadways for opportunities to create focal points. Circulation and Parking Policy LU-108. Consolidate access to existing streets and provide internal vehicular circulation which supports shared access. Policy LU-109. Provide vehicular access to the site should be from a principal arterial street and minimize the number of access points minimized. Policy LU-110. Locate parking for residential uses in the mixed use developments to minimize disruption of pedestrian or auto access to the retail component of the project. 3 Revised 8/7/00 Policy LU-111. Connect residential uses to other uses in the Center through design features such as pedestrian access, shared parking areas, and common open spaces. Policy LU-112. RESERVED Buffers Objective LU-R: Create a buffer at the boundary of Centers to protect adjacent less intensive land uses from the impacts of urban activities within the Center. Policy LU-113. Create buffers using a combination of: a. Less intensive or transitional land uses b. Open space (not parking lots) c. Structural elements d. Landscape features e. Fencing f. Other features which meet the spirit and intent of these policies Center Neighborhood Objective LU-S. Create Center Neighborhoods which include commercial, light industrial, and residential uses and serve the basic, ongoing needs of the population in adjacent and surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LU-114. Promote the clustering of neighborhood serving commercial uses and discourage the development of strip commercial areas. Policy LU-115. Adequate retail goods and services should be provided at Center Neighborhoods to encourage residents to shop locally for daily goods rather than drive to regional centers. Policy LU-116. While mixes of uses are allowed in the Center, commercial and office uses are the preferred uses for this area. Policy LU-117. New garden style multi-family development should be discouraged. \ Policy LU-118. Limit office use to one to two stories in height. Center Suburban Objective LU-T: Create Center Suburban Designation including commercial, and residential uses with site planning oriented to automobile access and circulation. Policy LU-118.1. Implement the Center Suburban Designation through CS, RM-C, CN or RM-N zoning. Policy LU-118.2. Serve the basic, on-going needs of the population in adjacent and surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LU-118.3. Provide a medium intensity of development organized around a landscaped arterial boulevard with boulevard features and/or park like landscaping. Policy LU 118.4. Design parking lots to include pedestrian connections to store entries. Policy LU-118.5. Design parking lots to include both perimeter and interior landscaping to reduce the visual effects of expanses of impervious surface. Policy LU-118.6 Promote the clustering of neighborhood serving commercial uses. 4 Revised 8/7/00 Policy LU-118.7 Provide adequate retail goods and services within Center Suburban Designations to encourage residents to shop locally for daily goods rather than drive to other shopping areas. Policy LU-118.8 Prohibit new garden style multi-family development with surface parking. Townhouse development which includes parking within structures is the preferred form of multi-family development. Policy LU-118.9 Limit office uses to two stories in height. Center Village Objective LU-T.a: Develop Center Villages characterized by intense urban development supported by site planning and infrastructure, which provides a pedestrian scale environment. Policy LU- 118.10. Apply the Center Village Designation to areas with an existing suburban and auto- oriented land use pattern which due to location, access to arterial roadways, land value, land, and infrastructure availability and proximity to existing residential neighborhoods are candidate locations for a higher density mixed use type of development. Policy LU-118.11. Implement the Center Village Designation using multiple zoning designations including R-10, R-14, CS, CV, RM-C, RM-U, and RM-T (proposed Residential- Townhouse). Strategy 118.11.1: Evaluate commercial and residential development standards in the Center Village and replace zoning designations or re-zone properties as needed within a 2 year phasing to comply with the vision for a Center Village designation. Strategy 118.11.2: Prepare a Highlands Re-Development Plan which functions as a sub-area plan to further refine the land use concept for and implement the Center Village land use concepts. Phasing of the Highlands Redevelopment plan is expected to occur over a 5-10 year period. Strategy 118.11.3: Areas east of Edmonds and north of Sunset currently zoned RM-C are to remain in residential use. The area north of 12th St currently zoned R-10 is to remain in residential use. Policy LU-118.12. Allow residential density ranging from 10 to 60 dwelling units per acre in the Center Village Designation. Policy LU-118.13. Encourage mixed use structures and projects. Policy LU-118.14. Orient site and building design primarily toward pedestrians and people to maximize pedestrian activity and minimize automobile use for circulation within the Center. Policy LU-118.15. Accommodate parking within a parking structure. Where structured parking is infeasible, parking should be located in the back or the side of the primary structure. Discourage parking lots between structures and street rights-of-way. Policy LU-118.16. Use alley access where alleys currently exists. Encourage designation of new alleys in redevelopment projects. Policy LU-118.17. Encourage shared parking to use urban land efficiency. Policy LU-118.18. Develop design guidelines to provide direction on site design, building design, landscape treatments, and parking and circulation components of new development projects. Policy LU-118.19. Encourage uses in Center Villages which serve a sub-regional or citywide market as well as the surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LU-119. Encourage more urban style design and intensity of development (e.g.; building height, bulk, landscaping, parking) within Center Villages than with land uses outside the Center. Policy LU-120. Promote the clustering of community commercial uses and discourage the development of strip commercial areas. 5 Revised 8/7/00 Policy LU-121. Residential development within Center Villages is intended to be urban scale, stacked, flat and/or townhouse development with structured parking. Policy LU-122. Prohibit new garden style multi-family development. Policy LU-123. Provide community scale office and service uses. 6 ORDINANCE NO. 4855 EXHIBIT B 5 ORDINANCE NO. 4855 EXHIBIT B TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT POLICIES AND TEXT The Transportation Element policies and text are amended to read as follows. Policies not listed remain unchanged. EXHIBIT B\ CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Updated 12/1/99, and again 12/7/9-9 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 regionaUy 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 efticiendy functioning ah 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 ah and water quality standards within the City of Renton and to comply with regional, state, and Federal air and water quality standards. n-i CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Updated 12/1/99, and again 12/7/99 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Summary H-6 Policies H-7 Growth Management Act Requirements IT8 Transportation Element Development Process II-9 Street Network H-9 Objectives H-10 Policies n-10 Inventory of Existing Streets 11-11 Street System Characteristics 11-13 Existing Street Functional Classifications 11-13 Traffic Volumes and Forecasts 11-14 Traditional Level of Service (LOS) 11-29 New LOS Policy 11-30 Level Of Service (LOS) Standard 11-32 Arterial Plan H-33 Transit 11-39 Objectives n-39 Policies H-39 Existing Transit Service 11-40 Future Regional Accessibility 11-43 Transit Plan H-43 Transit Usage and Mode Split H-45 Level of Service 11-46 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) H-50 Objectives H-50 Policies R-50 Existing HOV Facilities 11-51 HOV Plan H-51 Ridesharing and Mode Split H-54 Level of Service H-55 Non-Motorized Transportation 11-58 Objectives H-58 Policies H-59 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 11-60 Neighborhood and Regional Access 11-62 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Plan 11-62 Transportation Demand Management/ Commute Trip Reduction (TDM/CTR) 11-67 Objectives R-67 Policies H-67 Existing Parking Supply and Demand 11-68 II-2 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Updated 12/1/99, and again 12/7/99 Parking Policy Review 11-69 Employers' Mode Split H-69 TDM/CTR Programs H-69 Parking Management Regulations 11-70 Airport H-70 Objectives U-70 Policies Ll-71 Airport Facilities 11-71 Airport Activities 11-72 Airport Master Plan Relevant Documents H-72 Airport Master Plan Implementation : 11-74 Freight 11-74 Objectives 11-74 Policies H-74 Truck Routes 11-75 Inventory of Local Rail System Facilities and Users 11-77 Regional Accessibility H-78 Financing and Implementation LI-79 Objectives 11-80 Policies II-80 Transportation Program Costs LI-80 Inventory of Funding Sources 11-81 Funding Program 11-84 Funding Assessment H-90 Mitigation Process 11-92 Concurrency Management System 11-95 Environmental and Natural Resources 11-96 Objectives 11-96 Policies 11-96 Air Quality — Non-attainment Areas U-96 Ah Quality — Severity of Violations 11-98 Air Quality — Implementation Plan U-98 Improving Water Quality 11-99 Intergovernmental Coordination 11-99 Current Coordination Activities 11-99 Objectives 11-101 Policies n-101 Impacts on Adjacent Jurisdictions H-101 Impacts on Regional Transportation Plan 11-102 Strategies to Address Inconsistencies 11-102 Ongoing Transportation Plan Work 11-102 Bibliography 11-107 II-3 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION 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 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 n-4 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION 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-motorfzed 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) 2000-2005 II-5 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Updated 12/1/99, and again 12/7/99 SUMMARY 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 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 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 is to be consistent with the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Policies, the State's Growth Management Act, county-wide planning policies and Commute Trip 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). 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, the 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 (Comprehensive Plan Introduction, page 12) and a more detailed and technical plan for implementation of the framework policies. The Transportation Element encompasses several chapters, including Street Network, Transit, High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV), Non-Motorized Transportation, Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction (TDM/CTR), Airport, Freight, n-6 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Updated 12/1/99, and again 12/7/99 Financing and Implementation, Environmental and Natural Resources, and Intergovernmental Coordination. Some of the policies apply to specific chapters; the policies compiled below apply to all of the chapters. Policies Policy T-l. Land use plans and regulations should be used to guide development of a transportation element for the City. Policy T-2. Transportation improvements should support land use plans. Policy T-3. Transportation plans should be phased concurrendy with growth. Policy T-4. Adequate transportation facilities 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 capacity/forecast assumptions used in capacity/forecast model 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, flexible work hours and sub- area planning such as supporting increased density.) 50 Increased land use densities and a balance of land use mixes in an urban setting will result in fewer and shorter vehicle trips. As people begin to live closer to employment and shopping, they will no longer need to drive to these facilities and they will be able to link trips, resulting in fewer vehicle trips. In addition to the Transportation-Land Use interaction, another issue that pervades many of the chapters of the Transportation Element is that of parking. The location and supply of parking is an integral part of the local transportation system. Inadequate parking can increase congestion on streets as people circle n-7 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Updated 12/1/99, and again 12/7/99 and hunt for available spaces. 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. Satellite parking and shutde services and collective structured parking are potential methods for increasing the parking supply. Note: Any references in this document to downtown (Central Business District) parking restrictions and/or removal apply only to commuter/employee parking and not to business patron/customer parking. 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, mcluding: a. An inventory of ah, water, and land transportation facilities and services, including transit routing, 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 regionaUy coordinated, and adopted LOS policy and/or standards for state facilities shaU be stated in local transportation plans. c. Specific actions and requirements for bringing into compliance any fatilities 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 shah serve as the basis for the six-year street, road, or transit program required by RCW 35.77.010 for cities; c. If probable funding faUs short of meeting identified needs, a discussion of how additional fnnrling wiU be raised, or how land use assumptions wiU be reassessed to ensure that level of service standards wiU 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. II-8 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Transportation Element Development Process The GMA 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: Street Network, Transit, HOV, Non-motorized, Commute Trip Reduction/ Transportation Demand Management (CTR/TDM), Airport, Freight, Financial, Environmental and Natural Resources, 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 comprised 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, pohcies, 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 serves as the Transportation Element of Renton's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan (and Transportation Element) was adopted on February 20, 1995. Subsequent transportation planning work 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 the 1999 amendments which are incorporated in this Transportation Element. STREET NETWORK Traffic generated by employment centers, regional pass-through traffic using local streets and track 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. The 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 Street Network Chapter contains a detailed review of the City's street system - including existing functional classifications as well as a description of the City's Arterial Plan. The Street Network Chapter also contains definitions of the Level of Service criteria used to judge performance of the system. (The n-9 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT service levels were developed in conjunction with King County adopted Level-of-Service Framework Policies and other local jurisdictions.) Objectives The 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. Pohcies Policy T-8. Each street in the City should be assigned a functional classification based on factors including traffic volumes, type of service provided, land use, and preservation of neighborhoods. Policy T-9. Streets and pedestrian paths in residential neighborhoods should be arranged as an interconnecting network that serves local traffic and facilitates pedestrian circulation. Policy T-10. Street standards should continue to be based on functional classification, land use objectives, HOV/transit/non-motorized facility needs. (The street standards should be coordinated with the Community Design policies and Open Space and Parks policies in the Land Use Element.) Policy T-13. Provide a balance between protecting neighborhoods from increased through traffic while maintaining access to neighborhoods. Policy T-14. Proactively work with the State and neighboring jurisdictions to provide capacity on regional transportation systems and to reduce regional traffic on local streets. 27 Policy T-ll. Maintain a level of service that: maximizes mobility by emphasizing transit and HOV improvements; is coordinated with level of service standards of adjacent jurisdictions; and meets State requirements under GMA and concurrency. Policy T-12. Maximize traffic flow on and accessibility to arterial roads while protecting local/neighborhood roads from increased traffic volumes. Policy T-15. 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 II-10 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT planning process, neighborhood plans or traffic mitigation programs which are implemented through development review.) driveways, should be coordinated with design standards and land use in order to enhance public safety and preserve traffic carrying capacity. Policy T-16. Access management, such as restricting left turns and excessive use of (Also see related policies in the HOV, Transit, Non-motorized and Freight Chapters.) Inventory of Existing Streets The existing (1998) street/highway system serving Renton is shown in Figure 1-1. The system includes two freeways: 1-405 and SR-167 (the "Valley Freeway"). 1-405 provides connections to the Eastside and Snohomish County to the north, and to 1-5 and the Sea-Tac Airport area to the south. The Valley Freeway extends south from 1-405 to Kent, Auburn and PuyaUup. 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 1-5 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, 1-405, 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 proxirnity makes for a complex traffic flow, as regional and local trips interact within a relatively short distance. ii-u Figure 1-1 ; 11-12 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Other key arterials that tie together the Renton street system include Grady Way and S.W. 43^ 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 3E^ 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 hi) to define appropriate street design standards. The arterial street functional classifications specified by the City of Renton include "Principal Arterial," "Minor Arterial," and "Collector Arterial" classifications. The adopted classifications in Renton, andthe surrounding annexation areas of unincorporated King County, and on several roadways in adjacent City of Newcasde are shown in Figure 1-3. "Principal Arterials" are streets and highways that connect major intra-city activity centers, have prirnahiy 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. 3rd / 4* 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. 7* 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. 12* 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 prirnarily 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. n-13 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 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) 1993 Arterial, HOV and transit plans; 3) 1993 Renton mode split assumptions; and, 4) refinements to the City of Renton transportation model. The following is a summary of the 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 thne-of-day characteristics, and as a result, very different impacts on the road system. 11-14 Figure 1-2 11-15 Amended 07mm UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 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 refinement and updating travel demand and traffic patterns based on new information on regional and local land use and traffic volumes that is anticipated to become available in 2000. 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 overaU 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 (1-405 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 4* 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 (1-405 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%). AU 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 overaU level and pattern of utilization of the Renton street/highway system, 1990 and 2010 daUy two-way traffic volumes were compiled (see Figures 1-5 and 1-6). The 2010 volumes reflect a freeway/arterial network comprised of facilities existing in 1994 and the foUowing arterial and HOV 11-17 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TABLE 1.1 2010 TOTAL DAILY PERSON TRIPS RENTON TOTAL CENTRAL SUBAREA RENTON VALLEY (CITY LIMITS ONLY) BLACK RIVER * SKYWAY * S.E. RENTON * KENNYDALE HIGHLANDS * 1990 TOTAL TRIPS 2010 TOTAL TRIPS** 574,460 871,120 136,500 202,630 60,920 149,760 48,070 59,800 74,930 81,070 152,030 207,420 188,120 292,250 INTERNAL TRIPS TRIPS To / FROM: 240,940 (28%) 18,620 (9%) 7,490 (5%) 1,350 (2%) 7,260 (9%) 20,270 (10%) 64,180 (22%) 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 / S.E. King County 10,600 (1%) 2,550 (1%) 2,370 (2%) 700 (1%) 390 (0%) 2,230 (1%) 2,360 ( 1%) 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. SeattleAV. 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 11-18 Figure 1-4 Road Segments Used in Travel Pattern Analysis Legend Location Number ^^T)^ Analysis Districts •« City Limit ' 11-19 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 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. 1-405 1-405 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% 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 W 79% 75% 65% 77% 50% 30% 82% 33% 62% 88% 74% 56% W "Through Traffic" is defined as traffic that has neither origin nor destination in Renton. 11-20 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 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. 1-405 1-405 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 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 W 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. 11-21 Figure 1-5 11-22 Figure 1-6 H-23 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT improvements which were assumed in 1994 to be implemented 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 2nd Street to Sunset Boulevard • Widen Main Avenue South - South Grady Way to South 2nd Street • Revise South 2nd Street Alignment - Rainier Avenue South to Main Avenue South • Replace Lake Washington Boulevard / May Creek Bridge • New Oakesdale Avenue Southwest arterial - Southwest 16* to Southwest 27* 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 1-405 - SR-167 to Sunset Boulevard • Add HOV lanes on 1-5 - 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 . FuU 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 1-405 • HOV lanes or intersection queue jump on Park Drive N.E. -1-405 to Sunset Boulevard • HOV lanes or intersection queue jump on N.E. 3rd / N.E. 4* Street -1-405 to Monroe Avenue Northeast • HOV lanes or intersection queue jump on Rainier Avenue/Airport Way/Logan Avenue - SR- 900 to North 6* Street • HOV lanes or intersection queue jump on Carr Road / S .E. 176*/Petrovitsky Road - SR-167 to 140* Avenue Southeast High-volume arterial corridors in 1990 included Rainier Avenue and Airport Way, each with over 30,000 vehicles per day (vpd), and Renton Avenue Extension, North Park Drive-Sunset Boulevard Northeast, Northeast 3rd Street/4* Street, Talbot Road South, Southwest 43rd Street and South Grady Way-Main . Avenue South, each carrying over 20,000 vpd. 11-24 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 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 - 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 30,000 vpd are listed below: Talbot Road South (north of South Puget Drive) South Grady Way Airport Way - Logan Avenue NE 3~ Street - N.E. 4~ Street North 4~ Street North Park Drive - NE Sunset Boulevard nd Sunset Boulevard North (west of 1-405) South 2 Street - Bronson Way East Valley Road (south of SW 43" Street) 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 1-405 and over 180,000 on SR-167 (Valley Freeway) through Renton. The forecasted 1-405 volumes are equivalent to current volumes on 1-5 at the Ship Canal Bridge, where 1-5 has eight mainline lanes plus four reversible roadway lanes (as compared to the two lanes plus an HOV lane in each direction on 1-405). The 1-405 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 streets and neighborhood livability. Intersection Volumes The overaU functioning of an arterial system is controUed 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 iUustrated by compUing total entering volumes. In 1990, the highest peak hour entering volumes (see Figure 1-7) occurred at the South Gradv 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 magnimde as the increases in daily traffic volumes. Intersections aU 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. 11-25 Figure 1-7 11-26 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT The highest forecasted 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 3" Street / Sunset Boulevard North (7,960) South Grady Way / Rainier Avenue South (7,960) Sunset Boulevard/ Bronson Way/ SR-169 (7,050) Talbot Road South / South 43" Street (6,430) Interurban (West Valley Hwy.)/ S.W. Grady Way (6,220) Benson Road South / South Carr Road (6,230) Talbot Road South / South Grady Way (5,960) Benson Road South (SR-515) / S.E. 208" (6,050) SR-169 / Northbound 1-405 (5,420) Benson Road South (SR-515) / S.E. 192" (5,000) South 43" Street / Northbound SR-167 (5,900) Rainier Avenue South / South 7" Street (5,780) S.W. 43^ Street / East Valley Road (5,620) S.W. 43" Street / West Valley Hwy. (5,460) Rainier Avenue South / Airport Way/ Renton Avenue Extension (6,250) North 4" Street / Park Avenue N. (5,380) 140* Avenue S.E./Petrovitsky Road SE (5,130) N.E. 4ffi Street / Monroe Avenue N.E. (5,070) 140* Place S.E. / SR-169 (5,920) 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): o Maple Valley Highway o Northeast 3" Street (immediately east of 1-405) o Houser Way o Sunset Boulevard North (immediately north of Bronson) o Talbot Road South (south of South Grady Way) o Benson Road South (south of South Grady Way) o South Carr Road - South 43" Street o South Grady Way (immediately east of Rainier Avenue South) nd o Ramier Avenue South (several segments between South 2~ 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 1-405 and South Grady Way (14,175). 11-27 Figure 1-8 11-28 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 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): o Rainier Avenue • Grady Way £east of Lind) o Maple Valley Highway • Northeast 3~ Street-Northeast 4~ Street nd o Airport Way • South 2 Street - Bronson Way o Duvall Avenue (north of Sunset Boulevard) 8 108~ Avenue (south of Petrovitsky) o Northeast Sunset Boulevard • South 180* Street-South 43~ Street- South o 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. Five 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 43~ Street interchange, including the intersection with the highest entering volume per lane in Renton (Southwest 43L/northbound SR-167 ramps: 750 vphpl). Other intersections with high 1990 p.m. peak hour per-lane entering volumes include North 3~7Sunset (715), Airport/Logan (675), Sunset/Bronson/ SR-169 (615), and Renton Village/Talbot and South 7*7Shattuck 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) Currentiy the national approach for defining LOS uses the traditional Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 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, 11-29 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 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 primarily focused toward improving roadway capacity for single occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel. However, because of traffic congestion in the 1-405 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. City of Renton and King County policies) that the traditional LOS approach is not consistent with federal (TEA-21) and State (GMA and CTR) 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 LOS policy is based on three premises: o Level of Service (LOS) in Renton is primarily controlled by regional travel demands that must be solved by regional policies and plans; o It is neither economically nor envkonmentahy sound to try to accommodate all desired single occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel; and o The decision-makers for the region must provide alternatives to SOV travel. 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: o Allow reasonable development to occur; o Encourage a regionahy-linked, locally-oriented, dynamic transportation system; o Meet requirements of the Growth Management Act and King County's adopted Level-of-Service Framework Policies; o Require developers to pay a fair share of transportation costs; and o Provide Renton flexibility to adjust its LOS policy if the region decides to lower regional LOS 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 serve as credit toward meeting multi-modal goals of Renton and the region. 11-30 Figure 1-9 n-3i Amended 07/27/98- UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 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: • 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, intra-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 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 was necessitated because the only forecast data available from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) was for this particular year. 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-mimites from the City in all directions SOV HOV ' 2 times Transit (includes access time) LOS Index 18 miles 21 miles 10 miles 49 11-32 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 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 to 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 (includes access time) LOS 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 requhements 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 currency 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 This 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 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 Newcastie 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, Kent and Newcasde proposed improvements are included in the list in Table 1.4 due to then influence on the Renton arterial system. (These improvements have been compiled from the Tukwila, Kent and Newcastie Transportation Improvement Programs and the King County Transportation Plan: Annual Transportation Needs Report.) n-33 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 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. 11-34 Figure 1-10 11-35 Amended 07/27/Q& UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 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) 2. Houser Way Relocated - Sunset Boulevard to North 8& Street (Completed) 3. Sunset BoulevardVHouser Way Connection (Completed) 4. CBD Transportation improvements: Bronson Way - South 2^ Street to Sunset Boulevard Main Avenue South - Grady Way to South 3rd Street (Completed) South. 2^ Street - Rainier Avenue to Main Avenue South, Phase 1 (Revised Scope) CBD Streetscape 5. Lake Washington Boulevard / May Creek Bridge (Completed) 6. Monster Road Bridge (Completed) 7. Oakesdale Avenue Southwest, Phase 1A - Southwest 16^ to Southwest 27" (Completed) Oakesdale Avenue Southwest, Phase IB - Southwest 19th to Southwest 27* 8. Northeast 3^ Street - Sunset Boulevard to Monterey Drive Northeast (Completed) 9. South Grady Way - Rainier Avenue to Talbot Road South (SR 515) 10. Lind Avenue Southwest - Southwest 16^ to Southwest 43^ Street 11. Southwest 16^ Street Oakesdale Avenue Southwest to Lind Avenue Southwest (Completed) 12. Oakesdale Avenue Southwest - Southwest 27* Stteet to Southwest 31st Street (Moved from 2015) 13. Duvall Avenue Northeast - Sunset Boulevard to Renton City Limits (Moved from 2015) 14. Oakesdale Avenue Southwest - Monster Road to SR-900 (Moved from Post 20-Year) 15. Strander Boulevard - SR-181 to Oakesdale Avenue Southwest (Also included with Tukwila) 16. Grady Way / Rainier Avenue (Moved from Post 20-Year) arterial widening new arterial grade separation arterial widening arterial widening safety improvements street improvements bridge replacement bridge replacement new arterial arterial widening arterial widening arterial improvements arterial widening arterial widening new arterial arterial widening arterial widening new arterial grade separation 2010 to 2015 IMPROVEMENTS 17. South 2nd Street Rainier Avenue to Main Avenue South, Phase 2 (Revised Scope) 18. Puget Drive Southeast - Jones Place Southeast to Edmonds Avenue Southeast 19. SR-167 / East Valley Road 20. Benson Road - South 26* Stteet to South 31st Street (Added) safety improvements arterial widening new off-ramp arterial widening POST 20-YEAR IMPROVEMENTS 21. North 4^ Street - Logan Avenue to Sunset Boulevard 22. Talbot Road - Southwest 43^ to Renton City Limits revise street network arterial widening OTHER JURISDICTION IMPROVEMENTS TUKWILA: 23. Grady Way / Southcenter Boulevard /1-405 Ramps (Completed) 24. Interurban Avenue - Grady Way to Southcenter Boulevard (Completed) 25. South 180^ Street - SR-181 to Oakesdale Avenue Southwest (Revised scope) Strander Boulevard - SR-181 to Oakesdale Avenue Southwest (Also included with Renton) arterial and ramp realignment arterial widening railroad grade separation new arterial KENT: 11-36 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 26. Lind Avenue Southwest - Southwest 43^ Street to East Valley Road 27. South 19254 /South 196^ Street - East Valley Road to Orillia Road South NEWCASTLE: 28 Coal Creek Parkway - Southeast 69th to Renton City Limits (Moved from King County) 29. Southeast 6^16^ Street - 112m Avenue Southeast to 129th Avenue Southeast (Added) KING COUNTY: 30. South 19224 Street - SR-515 to 140$ Avenue Southeast 31. South 192^ Street/South 200& Street - East Valley Road/SR 167 to SR 515 32. 116^ Avenue Southeast - Renton City Limits to South 192^4 Street 33. 140^ Avenue Southeast - SR-169 to Southeast 192?^ Street Coal Creek Parkway - Southeast 72^ Street to Renton City Limits (Moved to Newcastle) 34. Elliott Bridge - Jones Road to SR-169 (Added) 35. East Corridor Study - SR-169 to Northeast Fourth Street (Added) new arterial new arterial arterial widening arterial widening new arterial new arterial arterial widening arterial widening arterial widening bridge replacement arterial widening 11-37 Figure 1-11 n-38 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 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. In the fiiture, 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 a regional high-capacity transit system serves Renton. T-E: Develop a transit system that conveniently connects 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. TRANSIT Policies Policy T-17. The City should work with other jurisdictions in the greater metropolitan area toward providing frequent, coordinated and comprehensive bus service and transit facilities in all residential and employment areas. Policy T-22. Park-and-ride facilities should be located out of the downtown and feed into the downtown transit center. Policy T-21. Parking areas serving the downtown transit center should be encouraged in parking structures. Policy T-18. Local and regional transit service and facilities should be planned and improved in cooperation with the regional transit authority. Policy T-23. Development of a regional network using new technology to move people and goods should be supported. Policy T-19. The City should take an active role in working with the regional transit agency in planning and locating public transit facilities. Policy T-24. Assure development of transit service connecting Renton to a regional rail network. Policy T-20. A multi-modal transit center in downtown Renton should be promoted as part of a regional high capacity transit system. Policy T-25. Criteria should be developed to locate park-and-ride lots serving residential areas. 11-39 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 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 through 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 currendy provided by the King County Transit Division (Metro), the agency responsible for transit service in King County. 28 Fixed-Route Service The City of Renton as of 1995 was served by 21 different King County 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) 11-40 Figure 2-1 n-4i Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 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. King County 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 Unking Renton and Des Moines direcdy. Two of the seven routes (143, 912) provide peak hour service between Renton and South and Southeast King County (Maple VaUey, Enumclaw). Bus service is provided seven days a week on a route (240) that originates at Clyde HiU, serves BeUevue, Renton and Southcenter. An additional route (340) aUows 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 1-405 corridor from Renton through Newport HiUs, BeUevue, Kirkland, and BotheU, as weU as Kenmore, Lake Forest Park, BaUinger Terrace, and Aurora ViUage. There are two remaining King County Transit bus routes serving Renton. The first is a peak hour route (247) which originates in Redmond, serves the Overtake and Eastgate areas in BeUevue, uses the M05 corridor to downtown Renton, and continues on to the Green River VaUey of Renton and Kent. The final route (280) provides regional late evening service (past 1:00 am) on weekdays, connecting Renton, downtown Seattle and BeUevue. Custom Bus Service King County Transit as of 1995 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 King County Transit 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, 11-42 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT also located in unincorporated 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 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. 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 Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) approved a 10-year plan, Sound Move, which is illustrated in 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 Sound Transit Plan includes the following regional improvements: light rail transit, commuter rail transit, HOV expressway development, regional express bus service, and community connection improvements. Sound Transit improvements which will directly serve Renton include HOV access improvements, express bus service, and local connection irnprovements. In addition, cornmuter rail running between Seattle and Tacoma will stop at a station serving Renton and Tukwila, sited adjacent to the Boeing Longacres property. 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 Sound Transit, with three routes serving Renton. These routes will connect Renton with BeUevue, Tukwila, Sea-Tac, Kent, Auburn, PuyaUup, and Tacoma. To ensure quick access to the Downtown Renton Transit Center, the Sound Move plan identified dhect access HOV ramps on 1-405 at Park Drive N.E. and in the vicinity of Grady Way, Benson Road South, and Talbot Road South. Before contracting any HOV direct access improvements, Sound Transit wiU evaluate alternative irnprovements to benefit transit speed, reliabUity, and access. 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 faculties 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, an element of the regional system is the Seattle-Tacoma commuter rail line. Access to Renton wiU be provided by a station located on the Renton-Tukwila border between Longacres Way and Strander Boulevard. This station wiU additionaUy be served by local, and possibly regional, bus transit, mcluding fast connections to the Downtown Renton Transit Center. 11-43 Figure Z-Z Regional Transit System Transportation Plan 11-44 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 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 Sound Transit 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 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. Regional transit service will be provided by the previously described Sound Transit 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 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 regional 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 of Renton's transit mode splits are based on Renton's planned 2010 land use and assume that Renton is served by commuter rail in 1997 and light rail by 2015. This 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 surnmarizes 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 significantiy 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 11-45 Amended 07/27/9& UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 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. 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 nip 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 gready increase the competitiveness of transit compared to SOV travel. Achieving this goal has guided the plamiing 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. 11-46 Figure 2-3 n-47 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TABLE 2.1 DAILY TRANSIT TRIPS (TRANSIT MODE SPLIT: % PERSON-TRUPS ON TRANSIT) RENTON TOTAL KENNYDALE (CITY LIMITS ONLY) CENTRAL SUBAREA RENTON VALLEY BLACK RIVER * SKYWAY * S.E. RENTON * 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 ' r-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. 11-48 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 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. 11-49 Amended 07/-27/9& UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 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 rather 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 severe traffic congestion on Renton and regional street and highway networks. T-I: Provide facilities to support attainment of Commute Trip Reduction and other Growth Management goals within the City. Pohcies 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 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 facihties (lanes, bypass, etc.) should be provided on the congested 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, standards and criteria should be established for usage (volume, capacity, LOS), physical and geometric characteristics, appropriate locations, time-of-day of operation, HOV facility type, etc. Policy T-31. A vehicle occupancy monitoring and HOV system evaluation program should be established. 11-50 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Policies, Policy T-6 which by this reference is incorporated in the HOV section.) (Also see related policies in the TDM/CTR Section and see King County Countywide Planning Existing HOV Facilities The City currently has freeway HOV facilities along Interstate 405 and SR-167. Freeway on-ramp queue jumps are also provided at the interchange of 1-405 and SR-167 and at four other 1-405 interchanges serving Renton. Interstate 405 has inside (median) HOV lanes, both northbound and southbound, from the 1-5 interchange and continuing to the north Renton city limit and beyond. These lanes are defined as HOV, allowing 2 or more persons in a vehicle to travel in that lane. These lanes are in effect 24 hours per day. Inside HOV lanes, both northbound and southbound, exist on SR-167 between the south Renton city limits and SR-405. The HOV facility is designated for 2+ occupant vehicles. A queue jump lane is provided at the following interchange ramps in Renton: the northbound SR-167 to northbound 1-405 ramp; the I-405/SR-169 (Maple VaUey) southbound on-ramp; the I-405/N.E. Park Drive northbound and southbound on-ramps; the I-405/N.E. 30* northbound on-ramp; and, the I-405/N.E. 44* southbound on-ramp. Each of the queue jump lanes has a 2+ designation. HOV Plan HOV lane improvements on SR-167 and 1-405 (recendy completed by the Washington State DOT) provide the freeway HOV system through Renton.HOV lanes are under construction on SR-167 between Kent and Auburn (SR-167 HOV lanes are completed between 1-405 and Kent). Additional regional HOV facilities (i.e., on 1-5) must be implemented by the State Department of Transportation in order to provide regional HOV service to the 1-405 corridor. To-date HOV lanes have been completed on 1-5 between the Seattle CBD and Kent. The City has identified arterial HOV corridors based on the policies listed previously. 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 faculties 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: o Rainier Avenue / Airport Way o SR-169 (Maple VaUey Highway) o Park Drive North / N.E. Sunset Boulevard o N.E. 3^ Street / N E. 4th Street o Sunset Boulevard - Bronson Way to 1-405 (completed) o SR-515 or Benson Road o Carr Road / S.E. 176th Street / Petrovitsky Road o S.W. 27& Street The Renton HOV Plan also proposes HOV fachities on the foUowing corridors in King County: o SR-900 (east of Renton) o 140^ Avenue S.E. o S.E. 192M Street 11-51 Figure 3-1 Map Index of HOV Improvements Add HOV Lanes 1. SR 167 (Completed) 2. 1-405 (Completed) 3. 1-5 (Not Shown) Improvement Limits 1-405 to South city limit SR 167 to North city limit Seattle CBD to Tacoma Not To Scale Construct New HOV Interchange 4. I-405/Benson Rd or SR 515 (By 2010) 5. I-405/ParkDr or N. 8th St. (By 2010) 6. SR167/SW27thSt(By20lO) 7. I-405/NE 44th St (By 2010) 8. 1-405/ Lind Ave (By 2010) half or full interchange half interchange half interchange full interchange half interchange Arterial HOV Lanes or Intersection Queue Jump 9. SR 169 10. Sunset Blvd (Completed) 11. Park Dr/Sunset Blvd 12. NE 3rd St/NE 4th St 13. Rainier Ave/Airport Way 14. SW 27th St 15. SR 515 or Benson Rd 16. Carr Rd/SE 176th St/Petroyitsky Bang County Corridors 17. SR 900 (not shown) 18. 140th Ave SE 19. S 192nd Street Transit Corridor 20. Shattuck, Rainier, or other streets under evaluation/S 3rd/Burnett/ Logan/N 6th Sunset Blvd to East city limit Bronson Way to 1-405 Garden Ave to East city limit Sunset Blvd to East city limit SR 900 to Logan Ave SR 167 to Oakesdale Ave Interchange to South city limit SR 167 to 140th Ave SE 1-5 to SE 129th St SE 192nd to SR 169 Kent to 116th Ave SE Grady Way to Park Ave Renton HOV Plan Legend City Limit Renton Planning Area HOV-Only Interchange i S Freeway HOV Lanes 2010 Arterial HOV Treatments Post 2015 Treatment Transportation Plan 11-52 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Additionally, the following corridors are being considered as potential locations for HOV facilities: • Rainier Avenue South from 1-405 to S. 2nd Street • Grady Way from Lind Avenue S.W. to Main Avenue South • Old Benson Road from Petrovitsky Road S.E. to Main Avenue South • Shattuck Avenue South from South 7* Street to South 2nd Street Lind Avenue S.W. from S.W. Grady Way to S.W. 7* Street Hardie Avenue S.W. from S.W. 7* Street to Sunset Boulevard S.W. (SR-900) 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 RoadVS.E. 176~ 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 VaUey Highway/Interurban Avenue). Regarding DuvaU Avenue N.E., 140- Avenue S.E. and nd S.E. 192~~ Street, Renton wiU coordinate with King County on the feasibility of HOV faculties on these arterial corridors. In addition to arterial HOV improvements, construction of direct access HOV interchange ramps to provide connections to the 1-405 HOV lane system is planned at N.E. 44* Street, N.E. Park Drive or N. 8* Street, at Lind Avenue S.W., in the vicinity of Benson Road or Talbot (SR-515), and on the SR-167 system at S.W. 27th Street. These ramps wiU provide vital HOV access, and enable efficient transit movements in the City to support regional and local transit service consistent with the objectives and policies described in the Transit Chapter of this Transportation Element. The HOV Plan also includes a transit corridor in Central Renton: S. 3rd/Burneu7 Logan/N. 6th comprise the northern portion of the corridor and in the southern portion South Grady Way, Shattuck Avenue S., Rainier Avenue, Lind Avenue, Hardie Avenue and Main Avenue South are under consideration to complete the corridor. (Other potential north-south streets south of S. 4* Street, i.e. Burnett Avenue, WiUiams Avenue and WeUs Avenue are not under consideration as a result of the City's decision, in response to significant public input, to locate the southern portion of the transit corridor outside of the South Renton residential area.) A north-south transit corridor is an important element of a transit plan that supports Renton's policies to: 1) encourage local and regional transit agencies to provide a high level of transit service to the Downtown Renton Transit Center by improving transit travel time, accessibUity and rehabUity; and, 2) provide an attractive and effective alternative mode of transportation to the single occupant vehicle that contributes to a reduction in traffic congestion and air poUution in Renton's Urban Center. The transit corridor is planned to be implemented by 2010. Also, the Strander Boulevard improvement identified in the Arterial Plan, Table 1.4, wiU serve transit vehicles as weU as SOV and HOV traffic and is planned for implementation coordinated with the Renton/Tukwila commuter rah station. Several of the above HOV/transit improvements are being considered for funding under the regional Sound Transit plan approved by voters. Under this regional high capacity transit plan, Renton is designated to be served by the regional express bus system. Sound Transit wiU evaluate if there are capital facilities that could be constructed in Renton which would improve reliability and travel time for transit and HOV movement sufficient to warrant Sound Transit's investment. In its preliminary evaluations, Sound Transit has identified the Central Renton north-south transit corridor irnprovements and HOV interchange improvements at Lind Avenue, Benson Road, Park Avenue and N. 8* Street as warranting further evaluation. Extensive technical and public processes wiU be undertaken before a final decision is made. 11-53 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON 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 2015 on portions of the following arterial corridors: o Sunset Boulevard - Park Drive to east City limit (improvement #11) o N.E. 4& Street - Monroe Avenue N.E. to east City limit (improvement #12); and, o SR-515 or Benson Road - Puget Drive to south City limit (improvement #15). However, these improvements 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 irnprovements 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 plarining work will include further analysis of the freeway interchange and arterial corridor HOV improvements identified in the HOV plan to verify physical, operational and financial 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 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 3vll, 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 overaU 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) wiU decline from 63% in 1990 to 60% in 2010, due largely to the forecasted increase in transit mode spht. 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 VaUey, 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 spht typicaUy 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). n-54 Amended 07/27/98- UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 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. n-55 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TABLE 3.1 2010 DAILY HOV PERSON-TRIPS and (HOV MODE SPLIT: % PERSON-TRIPS IN 2+ HOVS) RENTON TOTAL (CITY LIMITS ONLY) CENTRAL SUBAREA RENTON VALLEY BLACK RIVER* SKYWAY * S.E. RENTON * KENNYDALE/ 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%) INTERNAL TRIPS 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. 11-56 Amended 07/27/9& UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 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 Trips Renton Total 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. 11-57 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 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. OveraU, pedestrian faculties throughout the City are intended to be upgraded. 2. More faculties 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 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 pedestrian envhonment. Objectives The Non-Motorized Chapter is based on the foUowing objectives: T-J: Improve the non-motorized transportation system for both internal circulation and linkages to regional travel. T-K: Develop and maintain comprehensive trahs systems which provide non-motorized access throughout the City, rmxinhzes 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) 30 11-58 Amended 07/27*98- UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 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 and employment areas of the City. Policy T-33. Pedestrian and bicycle movement across principal arterial intersections should be enhanced. Policy T-34. Obstructions and conflicts with pedestrian movement should be nhnimized on sidewalks, paths and other pedestrian areas. Policy T-35. Convenient and safe pedestrian and bicycle access should be provided to and at the downtown transit center and all transit stops. Policy T-36. Bicycle storage facilities and parking should be encouraged within development projects, in commercial areas and in parks. Policy T-37. Streets and pedestrian paths in residential neighborhoods should be arranged as an interconnecting network and should connect to other streets. Policy T-38. Ensure that new pedestrian facilities are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and work toward upgrading existing facilities to improve accessibility. (Also see related policies in the Open Space Section of the Land Use Element.) The following transportation-related pohcies 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. 11-59 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 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 Faculties The City's existing (1994) non-motorized transportation system is comprised primarily of roadside sidewalk. Pedestrians have the exclusive use of sidewalks within business districts 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 existmg code was enacted, and as a result, numerous roadways are currendy 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. Except within business districts, cyclists may use existing sidewalks, provided that they yield the right- of-way to pedestrians. As of 1994, Renton has a combined bicycle/pedestrian facility along Garden Avenue North (North 6& Street to North 8^ Street) and North 8& Street (Garden Avenue North to Houser Way), and striped bicycle lanes on Southwest 16& Street (Oakesdale Avenue Southwest to Longacres Drive). 35 n-6o Figure 4-1 Existing Non-Motorized Facilities (1994) Legend City Limit ' . Renton ,„„,.»„ I Planning Area 10. Cedar River/Urban Industrial Zone 11. Rainier Ave 12. Green River Trail 13. Intraurban Trail 14. Garden Ave/N 8th St Pedestrian Facilities 20. Cedar River Trail 11-61 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 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. Currendy, 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 VaUey Highway (SR-169), Puget Drive, and Talbot Road South. These roadways do not currendy provide safe non-motorized mobhity through Renton. InstaUation 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 coUector 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 generaUy 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 instaUed 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 Trahs. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Plan The City, per the Comprehensive Walk Program, wLU construct sidewalks/walkways at "missing locations." In some areas, sidewalks wiU be constructed along each side of the street. Because of physical constraints such as sideslopes and roadway grades, or rninimal expected pedestrian usage, some locations will have pedestrian/cyclist faculties constructed on only one side of the street. InstaUation of the faculties detaUed in the City of Renton Comprehensive Walk Program Preliminary Engineering Report wiU be constructed as part of the prioritized sidewalk installation program. Additional non- motorized facilities wiU be constructed in conjunction with roadway improvement projects and as part of the Transit Improvement Program. Current annexation area roadways without sidewalks wiU be added to the Comprehensive Walk Program after annexation into the City. Sidewalk irnprovements on roadways could be improved through local improvement district (LED) and capital improvement projects (CIP). n-62 Amended 07mm UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 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 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 mitiaUy identified as important bicycle transportation elements. Further review by the City of Renton, in cooperation with citizen groups, will be necessary to determine which of the projects listed in Table 4.2 are selected for development. King County is pursuing development of bicycle facilities outside of the Renton city hmits. Four routes leading into Renton have been identified in the King County Non-motorized Plan: • 116th Avenue Southeast (Ekhnonds Avenue Southeast) (Southeast Petrovitsky Road to South 157& Street) • 140 Place/Avenue Southeast (Southeast 1923d- Street to Southeast Renton-Maple Valley Road) • State Route 900 (138& Avenue Southeast (Duvall Avenue Northeast) to Southeast 823d- Street) • Coal Creek Parkway Southeast (Southeast 723d 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. 31 11-63 Figure 4-2 11-64 Table 4.1 Proposed Non-motorized Facilities No. 1 Facility Name I R7W I Settine 1 True . 1 Duvall Ave-Coal Creek Plow Sh R 1 Re? 2 Sunset Blvd (east) Sh R 1 Re? 3 Sunset Bv-oass (NE 12tfa SO Sh R 1 Nbd 4. Norrhridze Route Sh R 1 Sub- 5 Airoott Perimeter Road Sh R Res 6 Sunset Blvd (west) Sh R Rez 7 SW7th St Sh . R Nbd 8 Pueet Dr Sh R Sub 9 Talbot Rd Sh R Sub 10 Enroirc Trail Sh R Res 11 SW 16ch St Sh R Sub 12 SW27th St Sh R - Sub 13 SW <3rd St/Pctrovitsfcv Rd Sh R Rez 14 Benson Rd Sh ' R Rez 15 Fairwood Route Sh R Rez 16 Aberdeen Ave Sh R Sub 17 Edmonds Ave Sh R "Sub 18 SE 31st St/S 168th St Sh R Sub 18 116th Ave SE Sh R Rez 20 Renton/Newoorr Hills Route Sh R Rez 21 Monroe Connector Sh R Sub 22 Hardie Aye/Tavlor Ave i Existing Sh R Sub 23 Monster Rd Sh R- 1 Res 24 NE4tfa St Sh R 1 - Rez 25 Park Ave/Bronson Connector • Sh R 1 Sub 30 Lake Washinzton Blvd (Completed) Sh R Rez 31 Union Ave Sh/Ex R/OS Rez 32 Devil's Elbow Sh R Sub 33 Cedar River/Urban Kamral Trail (Completed) ' Ex OS Sub 34 Burnett Ave. Sh R - Sub 35 Lake Younes Trail Ex E Rez 36 • Cascade Trail Ex E Sub 37 Soos Creek Trail Ex OS Rez 38 P-l Channel Ex E Nbd 39" Green River Trail 'Existing Ex E Rez 40 Interurban Trail Ex E Res 41 Rainier Ave •.Existing Sh R Res 42 Garden Ave/N 8th St/Houser Way |Exisring Sh/Ex R/E Rez 43 Garden Ave/N 6th St/Bronson Wav Sh R Sub 50 Cedar River/Urban Industrial Trail .Existing. Ex OS Sub 51 South Lake Connector Ex OS Sub 52 Mav Creek Trail • Ex - — G —-_ Sab 53 Honcv Creek Trail Ex OS Sub 54 Historic Pacific Coast Trail Ex OS • Nbd 55 Kennvdale Creek Tnfl -Ex G ' . Nbd 56 CMar Crest Trail Ex OS Sub 57 Union Trail Sh/Ex R/E Rez 58 Black River Trail Sh/Ex R/OS Sub 59 Pueet Power/Sunset Trail Ex G/E Nbd 60 Bonneville Trail Ex OS Nbd 61 Emoire Ridee Trail Ex G Nbd 62 Sorihzbrook Valley Trail Ex OS Rez 63 Grant Creek Trail Ex OS Sub 64 Panther Creek Trail Ex OS Sub 65 Sorinebroofc Wetlands Trail Ex OS Sub Ex - Exclusive E - Easement Nbd - Neighborhood Sh - Shared G - Greenbclt Reg - Regional OS - Open Spaces Sub - Subarea R - Roadway 11-65 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TABLE 4.2 PROPOSED BICYCLE ROUTES No. Facility Name Route 3 Sunset Bypass Route Northeast 1731 Street (Duvall Avenue Northeast to Union Avenue Northeast) Union Avenue Northeast (Northeast 1731 Street to Northeast 1231 Street) Northeast 1231 Street or NE 10th Street (Union Avenue Northeast to Edmonds Avenue Northeast) (b / til Edmonds Avenue Northeast (Northeast 12 ' 10 Street to Northeast Park Drive) Northeast Park Drive (Edmonds Avenue Northeast to Lake Washington Boulevard North) 21 Monroe Avenue Northeast Monroe Avenue Northeast (Northeast 431 Street to Northeast 1231 Street) 1 Duvall Avenue Northeast Duvall Avenue Northeast (Northeast 1031 Street to Northeast 2431 Street) 30 Lake Washington Boulevard * (Lk Washington Loop Route) Lake Washington Boulevard (Northeast 4431 Street to Northeast Park Drive) (Completed) 42 Garden * (Lk Washington Loop Route) Houser Way North (Lake Washington Boulevard to North 831 Street) Garden Avenue North (North 631 Street to Bronson Way) 43 Central Renton Connection (Lk Washington Loop Route) Garden Avenue/North 6th Street to Airport Permieter Road (Various routes under consideration). 34 Burnett Burnett Avenue South (Cedar River Trail to Southwest 731 Street) 5 Airport (Lk Washington Loop Route) Airport Perimeter Road corridor (Logan Avenue North to Rainier Avenue) Rainier Avenue North (Airport Perimeter Road to Northwest 32t Street) 22 Hardie/Rainier Bypass Northwest 3^ (Rainier Avenue North to Hardie Avenue Northwest) Hardie Avenue (Northwest 3^ Street to Southwest 731 Street) 7 Southwest 731 Southwest 731 Street (Burnett to Oakesdale) 11 Southwest 16" (Completed) Lind Avenue Southwest (Southwest 731 Street to Southwest 1631 Street) Southwest 1631 Street (Lind Avenue Southwest to Oakesdale Road) 14 8 35 Southeast Area Main Avenue (Bronson Way ta Benson Road South) Benson Road South (Main Avenue South to Southeast 16831 Street) Puget Drive Southeast (Benson Road South to Edmonds Avenue Southeast) Lake Youngs Waterline Q3dmonds Avenue Southeast to Tiffany Park) Edmonds Avenue Southeast (Puget Drive Southeast to South 15731 Street) * Identified in the 6-Year (1995-2000) Transportation Improvement Programs. H-66 Amended 07/27/98- UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 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 significandy less cosdy 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 ManagementyCommute Trip Reduction Chapter also are based on these findings. Objectives The Transportation Demand Management/Commute Trip Reduction Chapter is based on the fohowing 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. Pohcies This Chapter of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains City pohcies concerning Transportation Demand Management and Commute Trip Reduction (including support for ride sharing and management of parking supply). Policy T-39. 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 mininiized through techniques, such as transportation management programs implemented through cooperative agreements at the work place, flexible work hours and subarea planning.) Policy T-40. Appropriate parking ratios should be developed which take into account existing parking supply, land use intensity and transit and ride-sharing goals. Policy T-41. Alternatives to on-street or on-site parking should be explored. Policy T-42. Criteria should be developed to locate park-and-ride lots serving residential areas. Policy T-43. The construction of parking structures should be encouraged. Policy T-44. Parking ratios should be reduced as transit services are increased and an adequate level of pubhc transit can be demonstrated. Policy T-45. Transportation demand management measures should be implemented at residential and retail developments, as well as at the workplace. Policy T-46. Encourage employers affected by Commute Trip Reduction laws to implement n-67 Amended 07/27/9& UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT measures that support reductions in SOV travel and vehicle miles traveled. Policy T-47. Site design and layout for all types of development should incorporate transportation demand management measures such as convenient priority parking places for HOVs, and convenient, direct pedestrian access from residential, commercial, and other facilities to transit stops/stations. Also see related policies in the HOV section. Existing ParMng 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 % Off-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. Source: Central Subarea Transportation Plan, Existing Conditions, draft, January 1994 Strategy T-47.1 Downtown (Central Business District) parking restrictions and/or removal resulting from TDM/CTR policies shall apply to commuter/employee parking, not to business patron/customer parkmg. n-68 Amended 07/27-/9& UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Ongoing transportation planning work will include a city-wide parking study, if needed for the refinement 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 completed a review of local parking policies and ordinances as they relate to employers and major worksites and revisions necessary to comply with commute trip reduction goals and guidelines. Maximum parking ratios have been established, and the existing minimums modified in the City's development standards, to create a range of appropriate allowable parking ratios. Additional revisions have been made to support HOV, transit, and non-motorized usage and access. 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 irnplementation 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 then 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 cornmute 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 ckcumstances and procedures for employer appeals of CTR program administrative decisions. The Plan also states the City'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. 11-69 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 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 requhements. Parking Management Regulations Parking regulations are specified in Section 4.4.080 of the Renton Municipal Code. The regulations include requhements for new construction of parking including landscaping, screening, layout, paving, markings, and wheel stops. They also include requirements for size and amount of parking according to the land use activity involved. 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 ahcraft services, manufacturing support, flight framing 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 fohowing objectives: T-Q: Promote and develop local ah transportation facilities in a responsible and efficient manner and recognize, the Renton Municipal Airport as a unique, valuable and long-standing pubhc 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 ahcraft 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. H-70 Amended 07/27/9& UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 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 fohowing policies were developed for this Transportation Element: Policy T-48. Support the land base and Policy T-50. Current airport land use strategy, seaplane base activities. Acknowledge that there which requires the Boeing Company to vacate are certain costs to the community associated the west side of the airport upon the expiration with the existence of the Renton Municipal of their lease in 2010, should be continued. Airport, such as noise generation, but recognize polky T 51 Promote ^ relocatioil of that these costs have historically been accepted industrial and office uses that do not require by the community in exchange for the economic accesg tQ ^ways and the runway, to err- and transportation-related benefits and the civic airport sites prestige that are also associated with the airport. Policy T-52. The Renton Municipal Airport Policy T-49. Promote and develop airport provides the only publicly-owned seaplane facilities and services for all wheeled and float- ^ ±& ^ ^ tlierefore; ±e northera equipped ancraft, owners, pilots, and shoreline of the airport should be restricted to passengers in a manner that maximizes safety, seaplane access, efficiency and opportunity for use. The following policies were derived from the Renton Airport Master Plan: o A balanced mix of aviation should be served. Future proportions of based general aviation should not be aUowed to vary significandy from current fleet mix. The basing capacity for light General Aviation aircraft should be maintained at about 260 aircraft. The number of based business ahcraft 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. o The City's airport ownership should not extend east across the Cedar River. o The use of space at the airport should be maximized. Wherever possible, land uses should be condensed. o Airport leases that need runway access should have priority. (The airport flighthne is a hmited 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. o 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 generaUy on the east by the Cedar River, on the west by the Rainier Avenue, and on the north by Lake Washington. (See Figure 1.5) The Airport consists of approximately 170 acres. It is oblong in shape, 11-71 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 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 (REEL) 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 WiU 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. Airport Activities The Renton Airport serves general aviation demand generated by Renton, as weU as by other communities generaUy within a 30-minute driving time (e.g., BeUevue to the north, Issaquah to the east, Kent to the south, and Seattle to the northwest). The concept of "general aviation" includes aU aviation uses except commercial airline and military operations. Consequendy, nearly aU of the aviation operations at Renton Airport are those of general aviation, including the flights of the transport-class ahcraft produced by the adjacent Boeing plant. General aviation uses are both personal and revenue- producing, the latter category mcluding business, charter, and flight instruction. The seaplane base provides faculties only for smaU 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 avahable at the Airport include ahcraft maintenance and service, fuel, flight instruction, ahcraft charter and rental, and ahcraft storage, both hangared and open. Fixed base operators (FBO's), which are aviation-oriented businesses offering a variety of services and products to ahcraft owners and operators, provide these services to the aviation public. Airport Master Plan 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 jointiy 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 facUities 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 requhements, airport layout plans and land use plans, development staging and costs, financial plans, and an envkonmental impact assessment report. Every few years the Airport Master Plan is updated as necessary to reflect progress and changes from the original Master Plan. 11-72 Amended 07/27/9& UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 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 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) 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 toning" 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 mimmums are limited by high terrain west of the field. (Status: MLS system has been canceled) 8. Unrestricted auto access to the ahcraft 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 ahcraft parking spaces. (Status: unchanged) 11. The envhonmental impacts of new development are minimal for the airport. (Status: to be re- evaluated) 12. The most adverse envhonmental 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 WiU Roger- WUey Post Memorial Seaplane Base be adopted as presented in the Master Plan Report. (Status: unchanged) 11-73 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 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) The 1988 Master Plan Update did not clearly delineate findings and recornmendations. Instead, recommendations for policy considerations were identified (see 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 fohowing objectives: T-R: Maintain existing freight rail service to commercial and industrial sites. 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. Pohcies Policy T-53. Heavy through truck traffic should be limited to designated truck routes in order to reduce its disruptive impacts. (In this context, "disruptive impacts" refers to nuisances, particularly noise and parking, associated with heavy trucks. In addition, the intent of the policies is to niinimize the physical impact of heavy trucks on city streets.) Policy T-54. Design transportation facilities in a manner that compliments railroads. n-74 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Policy T-55. Locate spur tracks to provide a minimum number of street crossings and serve a maximum number of sites. Policy T-56. Support strategies to minimize adverse impacts of railroad operations on adjacent residential property. ^ ^ Policy T-57. Support railroad crossing improvements that minimize maintenance and protect the street surface. Policy T-58. Where warranted, provide protective devices, such as barriers and warning signals on at-grade crossings. Policy T-59. 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 Tmck 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. n-75 Figure 7-1 11-76 Amended 07/27/98- UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 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 currendy available to several industrial and commercial areas of the City. Existing rail lines bordering the City of Renton include the Union Pacific (UPRR) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Raihoad (BNSF) main line tracks between Seattle and Tacoma. Within the City of Renton, the BNSF 18th Subdivision Branch Line connects Renton and the east side of Lake Washington to the BNSF main line. The 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 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 BNSF main line. A single spur track with several branch lines serves the Renton VaUey industrial area (southwest Renton). Another single spur track from the BNSF main line serves the Container Corporation of America plant, located north of 1-405 in the Earlington industrial area. Use of these spur lines is intermittent, usuaUy on an as-needed basis with no particular set time or frequency. The BNSF 18th Subdivision Branch Line splits from the 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 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 WoodinviUe 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 n-77 Amended 07/27/9& UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT The infrequent use of the BNSF main line spur tracks and the 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 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 VaUey industrial area (southwest Renton) is dhectly connected to the regional system via the S.W. 43^ Street/SR-167 (VaUey Freeway) interchange and the SR-181 (West VaUey 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 dhect access to SR-167 and to 1-405 (via the SR-181/1-405 and SR-167/I-405 interchanges). Truck access to the North Renton industrial area (north of downtown Renton and west of 1-405) from 1-405 is provided via the designated truck route on Park Avenue North. Another truck route to 1-405 and SR-167 from the North Renton industrial area is via North 6& Street, Airport Way and Rainier Avenue. Truck and industrial traffic access from 1-405 to the King County waste transfer station and maintenance shops east of 1-405 is provided via the Sunset and Maple VaUey (SR-169) interchanges and N.E. 3^ Street-N.E. 4& Street. The Stoneway Sand and Gravel complex, also east of 1-405, generates industrial traffic that uses the Maple VaUey Highway to access 1-405. Arterial improvement projects in the Transportation Plan wiU 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 raU freight service in Renton. The Regional Transit Plan (Sound Move), approved by voters in 1996, wiU provide commuter raU service beginning in the year 2000. Plans caU for commuter rah trains to use the BNSF main line, with a stop at the new Renton/TukwUa (Longacres) station located just south of I- 405. Freight Action Strategy (FAST) Corridor The Freight Action Strategy (FAST) corridor, and the projects which comprise FAST, evolved over several years. Beginning in 1994, the Freight Mobility Roundabout — a jointly-sponsored effort of the Puget Sound Regional Countil and the public/private Economic Development Council of Seattle and King County — made a sustained commitment to freight mobility within and through the northwest gateway region which ties the regional (and national) economy to the Pacific Rim. Roundabout participants include shippers and carriers representing aU freight mobility modes: marine, rail, truck, air, and intermodal. Other participants are public agencies at aU levels: local governments (including the City of Renton), the three ports of Seattle, Tacoma and Everett, WSDOT and the State Transportation Commission, and federal agencies (FHWA, FTA). Late in 1994 the United States Department of Transportation together with the Roundabout, the WSDOT, and the Puget Sound Regional Countil established FAST Corridor. E-78 Amended 07/27/9S UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 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. . 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 rriainline. Also planned is the grade separation of the BNSF and UPRR mainlines at South 180th Street in Tukwila (S.W. 43rd Street in Renton). These improvements are a constructive first step towards improving rail freight travel along the western boundary of the City of Renton and associated freight rail travel passing through Renton. FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION The Financing and Implementation Chapter outiines 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 oudined in previous discussion of the transportation plan. The Financing and Implementation Chapter includes: o Goals, objectives and policies relating to financing and implementation of the transportation plan. o Information on current revenue sources and future revenues. o Assessment of Renton's 20-year (1995 to 2015) and 2010 transportation needs and funding capability. o Assessment of Renton's Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) with regard to transportation irnprovements and programs identified in this document. o Strategies and actions for financing and irnplementing the transportation plan over the next 15 to 20 years. o Identifying future ongoing work needed to finance and implement the transportation plan. 11-79 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Objectives The Financing and Implementation Chapter is based on the following objectives: T-U: Pursue adequate funding for transportation improvements from all potential sources in an efficient and equitable manner. T-V: Develop a staging and implementation plan that expedites transportation system improvement projects that i) improve HOV flow, ii) improve transit service, hi) improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities and iv) provide neighborhood protection against the impacts of through traffic. Policies Policy T-60. To support economic development, growth related traffic irnprovements should be funded by a combination of impact fees charged to new development and business license fees. Policy T-61. Coordinate equitable public/private partnerships to help pay for transportation improvements. Policy T-62. Pursue federal, state and local sources of funding (e.g. loans, matching funds) for transportation improvements. Transportation Program Costs Policy T-63. Establish a mechanism to provide multi-jurisdictional cooperation to fund transportation improvements. This could include establishing joint and/or coordinated transportation mitigation systems with other jurisdictions. Policy T-64. Create a fimding mechanism that can be applied across boundaries to address the impact of growth outside the city limits on the City's transportation system. To determme transportation financing 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 rehabihtation 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 Stteet Network, HOV, Transit and Non-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 responsibihty under joint projects with WSDOT and other local jurisdictions) in 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. n-8o Amended 01127m UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 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 (m 1999 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. 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 then costs. Inventory of Funding Sources Having established a 20-year transportation funding level of $134 million, an annual funding level of $6.7 inhlion 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. Currendy 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. n-8i Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TABLE 8.1 RENTON 20-YEAR TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES Arterial Plan: = $ 55,699,000 * HOV Plan: = $ 33,090,000 Transit Plan: = $ 15,000,000 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: = $ 52,550,000 * HOV Plan: = $ 33,090,000 Transit Plan: = $ 11,250,000 Non-motorized Plan: = $ 3,000,000 Annual Programs: = $ 19,200,000 Total 2010 Cost = $ 119,090,000 * Central Business District Component = $13,000,000 n-82 Amended 07/27/9& UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 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 milhon 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 fiiture annual funding level. Examples of federal grants include the Surface Transportation Program (STP), Congestion Management Air Quality (CMAQ), and Enhancement which are awarded regionaUy by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and bridge replacement, road safety and railroad crossing improvement programs adrninistered by WSDOT. State grants include those provided by the Transportation Partnership Program (TPP) and the Arterial Improvement Program (ATP) which are administered by the Transportation Improvement Board. Developer mitigation revenue is obtained by the City of Renton through an assessment on development city-wide, based on the number of dahy 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 developer mitigation is not a reliable (or stable) source of transportation funds (as requhed by GMA). The hregularity of private development projects and thus uneven flow of mitigation revenue contribute to the unreliability of developer mitigation. It should also be noted that in addition to a mitigation fee, private development approval wiU be conditioned on site-specific improvements to ensure that on-site and adjacent off-site transportation facility impacts are mitigated. Local Improvement Districts (LCDs) 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 requhed in order to 11-83 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 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. 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 requhed by the RCW for cities. The fohowing 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 Street Network, HOV, Transit and Non-motorized Chapters and aimual transportation programs) and a planning level cost estimate of $134 million (surnmarized 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 deterrnined. 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. 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. H-84 Amended 07/2im UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 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 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 intrinsicaUy 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, 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 LLDs or 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 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: o Preservation of Existing Inff astracture o Multi-Modal and Transportation Demand Management o Community Livability and Enhancement o Economic Development o 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 individuahy 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. 11-85 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 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 requhed 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 transit and carpools, and programs that promote the use of high occupancy vehicles (HOVs) and reduce the numbers of SOVs. The Federal Transportation Efficiency Act, the State and Federal Clean Air legislation and the State Cornmute Trip Reduction Act have added momentum to regional efforts and placed requhements on local jurisdictions such as Renton to promote these transportation elements. Community livability and enhancement consists of projects that have been developed with major emphasis on addressing community quality of life issues by irnproving 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 development that is taking place. Thus, a significant source of local funding for these projects is projected to come from mitigation payments and from specific access needs financed by new development in the City of Renton. Operations and safety projects and programs are developed through ongoing analyses of the transportation system and are dhected 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 adopted 2000-2005 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program includes most of the transportation improvements and programs identified in the Street Network, Transit, HOV, Non- motorized and Transportation Demand Management Chapters of this Transportation Element. The projects or programs are listed in Table 8.3 Also shown in Table 8.3 are annual programs (transportation system rehabhitation 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. n-86 TABLE 8.3 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 2000 -2005 SIX YEAR TIP Total Project Costs TIP •:•":::::•:':•'•:•'*: : £_tpfcti3$e:<:U<: ;:": -.V:*i:.-. Previous ;;:s;;;-:ifesf^:;S;::-: ! :2b00; 'v?: 2001 :' 2004!:* 2do5::::::- Period Total Total Cost 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 Proqram 466,095 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 1,066,095 6 Walkway Proqram 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 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 11 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 Bridqe Inspection & Repair 224,892 145,000 701,000 30,000 155,000 30,000 30,000 1,091,000 1,315,892 15 TDM Proqram 141,837 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000 441,837 16 Loop Replacement Proqram 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 Llqht Pole Proq. 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 Proqram 26,725 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 60,000 86,725 24 M05 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 Proqram 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 30 Missing Links Proqram 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 Crosslnq Safety Proq. 272,053 10,000 0 0 10,000 0 0 20,000 292,053 33 Inter-aqency 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 * i — CBD Bike & Ped. Connections 4,000 40,000 306,000 0 0 0 0 346,000 350,000 39 Lind Av-SW 1 Gth - 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 0 150,000 150,000 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 - Total Sources xi: 8^89,498.; 12 962113 :m9;620,750i S:1S,259,650: :::3o;oi2i40o: i 543,841 ;800> ; :;20;54l;ooo: • :13?.237,743 141,127,241 CMPWTF\OTtORAF.VVB2 11-87 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Street Network o Park Avenue North - Bronson Way to North 10* Street^ (Completed) o Houser Way Relocation - Sunset Boulevard to North 8~ Street (Completed) o Main Avenue South - Grady Way to South 3rd Street (Completed) • South 2nd Street - Rainier Avenue to Main Avenue South, Phase 1 (TIP #20) o Lake Washington Boulevard Bridge (Completed) o Monster Road Bridge (Completed) • Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Phase 1 - S.W. 16th to S.W. 27m (Completed) o Oakesdale Avenue S.W. - S.W. 19* to S.W. 27* Street, Phase IB (TIP #2) o N.E. 3s5 Street - Sunset Boulevard to Monterey Drive N.E. (Completed) o S.W. Grady Way - Rainier Avenue to Talbot Road. (TIP #37) o Lind Avenue S.W. - S.W. 16* Street to S.W. 43" Street (TIP #39) o Duvall Ave N.E. - Sunset Boulevard to Renton City Limits (TIP #12) o S.W. 16s Street - Oakesdale Avenue S.W. to Lind Avenue S.W. (Completed) . Oakesdale Avenue S. W. - S. W. 27* Street to S. W. 31st 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 project #37 is for studies. Included in the Six-Year TIP is the Arterial Chculation 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 stadies (TIP #22) for development of future TIP projects and grant applications for currendy proposed and future TIP projects. The City of Tukwila's 1999-2004 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program includes an arterial improvement previously identified in the Street Network Chapter. This project is the S. 180& Street/RR Grade Separation. In addition, the City of Kent plans to extend Lind Avenue from S.W. 43E^ Street to East VaUey Road. This project would compliment the City of Renton's TIP project #39. Transit • Transit Program: transit center and facUities to support regional transit service, local transit service improvements; development of park and ride lots, transit amenities (TIP #5) • Downtown Transit Access: 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 prograrnniing to give priority to transit vehicles. n-88 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Also, the HOV Chapter improvements identified below will be designed to enhance transit service. HOV o SR-900 HOV / Houser Way Connection (Completed) o SR-167 / S. W. 27* Street HOV (TIP #10) o 1-405 / SR-515 HOV (TIP #24) 1-405 / N.E. 44th Street HOV (TIP #4) • 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 #24 is for coordination with the State and Sound Transit direct access interchange improvements. Included in the Six-Year TIP is the Arterial HOV Program (TIP #13), which will provide funding for further development of Renton HOV improvements identified previously in the HOV Plan (Figure 3-1), to exarrhne additional routes and corridors for HOV facilities in Renton, and for coordmation with direct access HOV projects. Non-Motorized o Lake Wasliington Boulevard Bike/Ped Improvements (Completed) o Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Bike/Ped Improvements (Completed) o CBD Bike and Pedestrian Connections (TIP #38) 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. 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 irnprovements, 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 facUities and traUs. Each of these components are described below. Walkways/Sidewalks Implementation. The implementation procedures for the City's comprehensive walkway/sidewalk program is detaUed 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. Funcling for these programs is provided through Business License Fees. Bike Facilities Implementation. Bicycle facUities include lanes along roadways and signed bicycle routes. Current fimding is provided for the construction of segments of the Lake Washington Loop Trail. Bicycle route designation and signing along City roadways wiU be provided on an as-needed basis with concurrence between the Transportation Systems Division of the Planning/ Building/Public Works 11-89 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 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 specificaUy identified as part of transportation projects wiU be funded through the TIP. TraUs 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 specificaUy identified as transportation facilities wiU be included in the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). TraUs Construction Costs. A 1990 planning level construction cost estimate was prepared for the proposed trad system by the Community Services Department. The cost estimate was calculated based upon the type of facUity (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 concermng the cost estimate is avaUable in the TraUs Master Plan. The TraUs Master Plan contains the recommended six-year traUs development program. (Note: An update of the TraUs Master Plan, which wiU provide new information on the trails development program and cost estimates, is anticipated to be completed in 2000.) TDM/CTR o Transportation Demand Management Program: implement Commute Trip Reduction Act requhements, other TDM programs (TP #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 miUion. Assuming this annual funding level can be maintained over the 20 year 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 $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, avaUable funding between 1995 and 2010 wiU total $100.5 mUlion ($6.7 million times 15 years). Comparing the 2010 program cost to potential funding results in a $19.0 million (or 19%) shortfaU. Annual reassessment of transportation needs , continuing to aggressively pursue grant funding, and/or continuation of the strong rate of growth in Renton which wiU generate higher developer mitigation revenuewUl be needed over the intervening years in order to assume the 2010 transportation program can be achieved. The City of Renton's proposed 2000-2005 Six-Year TIP includes 43 individual projects and programs, with a total estimated cost of $141,127,241. Of this total cost, approximately $132.2 miUion is to be expended over the 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 $8.9 miUion represents expenditures prior to year 2000. n-90 Amended 07/27/9S UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT The projected revenues over the six-year period, based on the established $6.7 million annual funding level, will total $40.2 miUion. The TIP identified expenditures of $132.2 million is $92.0 million more than the project revenues. Of this $92.0 million, approximately $72 million represents the amount of participation anticipated by the state, Sound Transit, King County, City of Tukwila, 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 miUion annual funding level. Therefore, the Six-Year TIP expenditures exceed project revenues by $20.0 miUion. 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 wUl 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 expenditores exceeding projected revenues. 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 fohowing is a list of these transportation improvements. Arterial Plan Post 20-Year Improvements • North 4& Street - Logan Avenue to Sunset Boulevard • Talbot Road South - South 43^ Street to Renton City Limit HOV Plan Post 20-Year Improvements: • N.E. 4& Street - Monroe Avenue N.E. to Renton City Limit - Sunset Boulevard N.E. - Park Drive to Renton City Limit • Benson Road or SR-515 - Puget Drive to Renton City Limit The chaUenge for the future wiU be to secure enough funding for the City of Renton, cities of TukwUa 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 to address impacts of growth within adjacent jurisdictions that affect the City of Renton. • Update transportation priorities annuaUy 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. 11-91 Amended 07mm UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT • Continue to work with regional agencies to encourage them to find and fund regional solutions for regional transportation problems. Mitigation Process There 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 Wedands 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 serves as a framework for the city-wide mitigation payment system that was adopted 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 fee for developments' pro-rated share of the cost of the city-wide 2010 transportation improvements (in addition to site specific mitigation requhed 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 environmentahcoordination issues. • Approving future development conditioned upon site specific improvements to ensure that on-site and adjacent transportation facility impacts are mitigated, and the payment of the mitigation fee as the development's fan 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 Street 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. 11-92 Amended 07/27/98- UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT The developer mitigation fee is 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 credits may have on developer mitigation as a funding source. n-93 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT FIGURE 8-1 Existing Transportation Benefit Zones 11-94 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 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 fohowing process: o 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. o The City of Renton Transportation Level of Service (LOS) Policy, consistent with King County Growth Management Countywide Planning Pohcies, that differs from the traditional LOS for arterials, will be used to evaluate the City of Renton Transportation Plan. o If the region decides to lower regional LOS by not providing regional facilities, then Renton will adjust its LOS policy accordingly. o 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. o 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. o The City of Renton will establish concurrency by annuaUy 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. n-95 Amended 01121198 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Implementation, monitoring, and evaluation aspects of the City of Renton's Concurrency Management System will be reviewed as part of ongoing transportation work. ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES The Environmental and Natural Resources Chapter describes objectives, policies and strategies to help protect Renton's natural resources and Renton residents from unacceptable ah and water quality impacts of the transportation system. Clean ah and water are necessary for healmful living in an urban society. Objectives T-W: Protect and promote clean air to ensure a heahnful 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 critical areas and wildlife habitat). Pohcies Policy T-65. Promote programs which rmintain mobile source pollutant levels at or below those prescribed by the EPA, State Department of Ecology, and the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. Policy T-66. Comply with the stipulations described in the State Implementation Plan (SEP) for air quality compliance. Policy T-67. Promote water quality by encouraging increases in carpooling, vanpooling, transit and non-motorized transportation usage. Policy T-68. Incorporate in transportation facilities vehicular pollutant and surface water run-off management and treatment techniques that maximize water quality. Policy T-69. Comply with the stipulations described in federal, state and local water quahty standards and regulations. Policty T-70. Develop transportation plans and projects to comply with City, State and federal regulations that address critical areas and wildlife habitat. 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 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 ah from point (stationary, site- n-96 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 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 Ah Act of 1990 and the Clean Ah 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 miUion (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 BeUevue. 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 poUution. 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-smeUing, colorless gas produced by chemical reactions between nitrous oxides and hydrocarbons in the presence of sunlight. Ozone generaUy forms downwind of the poUutant 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. 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. 11-97 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 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 unhealthfiil 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 ah quality day of year for the past decade. These pollutants are CO and PM-10. OveraU, 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 poUutant values for 1991 were as foUows. The BeUevue 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 aUowable maximum. Two PM-10 stations, Duwanhsh and Kent are nearly equidistant from Renton, therefore both were checked. The Duwamish high reading was 143 /tg/m3 (5% below violation) and the Kent reading was 146 /ig/m3 (3% below violation). Based upon the above information, it is not believed that Renton is in violation of any of the criteria poUutants. While the City does not have any specific non-attainment areas due to transportation related sources, the City is cornmitted to reducing mobile source ah poUution. AIR QUALITY - Implementation Plan The City wUl subscribe to the plans, policies, and programs catalogued in the State Implementation Plan for ah quality non-attainment areas. Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies will be encouraged, mcluding the Cornmute Trip Reduction Law. Existing vehicle programs such as the winter oxygenated fuels and vehicle inspections wiU be continued, supported, and updated as requirements demand. Ongoing transportation planning work wiU include the review of the latest information from state and local agencies regarding air quality non-attainment areas, severity of violations and implementation plans. n-98 Amended 07/?™"- UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 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 directiy impact the future of Renton's commercial and industrial base. With requhements of the Growth Management Act mandating concurrency between land use and transportation planning, the kind of interjurisdictional cooperation envisioned in the policies has 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: o providing a multi-modal regional plan with HOV, transit and other modes serving Renton; and o providing regional financial strategies which encourage other than SOV travel. The City of Renton has prepared and adopted a multi-modal Transportation Plan, which is consistent with regional plans and plans of neighboring cities. Current Coordmation 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 fohowing primary forums. (Note: not all committees are listed.) State Coordination (Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)] 1-405 Corridor Study. The City is participating in this WSDOT study along with representatives of affected jurisdictions adjacent to 1-405. 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 is to work with local jurisdictions to define transportation needs in the 1-405 Corridor from n-99 Amended 07/27/98 UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Tukwila to Swamp Creek, and to develop transportation improvement projects for the corridor that compliment local plans, goals, and objectives. 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 Sound Transit, Pierce Transit, the Port of Seattle, the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), WSDOT, and the State Transportation Improvement Board (TE8). Eastside Transportation Partnership (ETP). ETP is a coalition of Eastside cities (similar to SCATBd), with representatives from BeUevue, Kirkland, Redmond, Issaquah, BotheU, Mercer Island, Sammamish, WoodinviUe, Newcastle, and Renton. Representatives from WSDOT, Sound 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 countil 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, ah quality, and other issues requiring regional coordination. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority/Sound Transit. The City coordinates regularly with Sound Transit staff, as 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 (Sound Move), 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, which may include light rail service to Renton. County Coordmation King County Metro. The City is also coordinating with King County Transit (Metro) in the development of local bus service plans which wUl complement the Sound Transit regional transit service concept. King County Public Works Directors. The City works as a member of this group on numerous and varied transportation action issues of concern to local jurisdictions including making recommendations for projects to be funded with the regional distribution of Federal transportation funds. 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 King County. Working 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 successfuUy adopted local CTR ordinances, the group is now focusing on the n-ioo Atmai%^mmm UPDATED 12/1/1999; 12/7/99; 3/9/2000 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT successful implementation of the ordinance requirements (working with affected employers) and on starting a parking review regional coordinating effort. Objectives 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-BB: Coordinate transportation operations, planning and improvements with other transportation authorities and municipalities. Pohcies Policy T-71. A sub-regional transportation system should be designed and implemented in cooperation with neighboring jurisdictions. Policy T-72. WSDOT should provide ftmding 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 1-405 corridor, extending from Sea-Tac Airport north to BotheU. Policy T-73. The Regional Transit Plan (RTP) should include regional express bus service to downtown Renton and light rail transit to Renton. Policy T-74. 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-75. King County Transit (Metro) should provide intra-Renton bus service to serve local activity centers and employment centers, and to provide frequent, convenient access to future cornmuter raU stations and light rah transit stations. Also see related Policies in the Transit Section and King County Countywide Planning Policy T-6. Impacts on Adjacent Jurisdictions The City of Renton is coordinating and wiU 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. 11-101 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Revised 12/7/99 Impacts on Regional Transportation Plan The City of Renton has adopted a position that specifies the elements that must be included in a regional transit plan in order for the City to meet the requirements of the Growth Management Act. The City Council supports the fohowing elements in the voter-approved regional system plan (Sound Move): 1. A bus element, 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 urban and employment centers including Renton; 4. A plan that provides convenient connections within the regional bus service, local bus service, and between the light rail line and the commuter rail system. Strategies to Address Inconsistencies Inconsistencies between Renton, the State, King County, Sound Transit, 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 refinement 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. Street 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 Transit Plan (Sound Move) and its implications for Renton. H-102 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Revised 12/7/99 Transit Plan Update and revise Renton's Transit Plan to reflect new information regarding the Regional Transportation Plan (Sound Move). 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 Renton's LOS standard to address transit service frequency and, it needed, for design level application. 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 financial 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 Renton's LOS standards for design level application, if needed. 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 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. 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 Existmg 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 future review of parking policies, guidelines and regulations. 11-103 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Revised 12/7/99 Parking Policy Review and Revisions Continue to review, update and/or revise Renton parking policies to complement other elements of the Renton Transportation Plan and to be consistent with regional parking policies. Working in regional forums propose parking regulation revisions to be worked out on a sub-regional basis. Employer Mode Split Obtain updated information on how Renton employers intend to meet CTR goals and, with assistance from King County, evaluate the data and 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 review the City of Renton parking 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 Cbntinue to review the Airport Master Plan, completed in 1997, and propose revisions if needed to the goals, objectives, airport facility survey, functional requirements, and implementation strategy items. Update the Airport Chapter of the Transportation Element as 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 Continue to review, and update if needed, the assessment of Renton rail use with respect to implications of the Regional Transit Plan (Sound Move) and to reflect Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) decisions. Freight and Passenger Rail Use Review and update the assessment of freight and passenger rail needs, as appropriate. Financing and Implementation 11-104 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Revised 12/7/99 Program and Project Costs Update the cost of the 10-year and 20-year transportation programs, and the scope and cost 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 structare, if needed, to reflect revisions to the financing 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) financing 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 Continue to review, and revise if needed, the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation aspects ol Concurrency Management System (CMS). Coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions regarding CMS requhements and regulations. Review of the CMS will comprise of the fohowing items: o 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, including procedures for monitoring the Transportation Improvement Program to demonstrate that the City of Renton can achieve and maintain LOS standards. Development review procedures, including regulations and procedures for determining when concurrency by development is met. Rules, regulations and ordinances that implement the concurrency requirements. Transportation system monitoring, including procedures for the monitoring of transportation facilities to compare actual LOS to adopted standards. Monitoring of development to assess if probable fimding 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. 11-105 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Revised 12/7/99 o Process 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 Expand 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 ah and water quality implementation plans from local and state agencies, and update this chapter if needed. Intergovernmental Coordmation Continue to coordinate Renton's Transportation Element 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. 11-106 CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Revised 12/7/99 BIBLIOGRAPHY Airport Master Plan Update, City of Renton, 1978, 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 2000-2005, adopted 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, Sound Transit, 1997. Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Draft Environmental Impaa 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. 11-107 ORDINANCE NO. 4855 EXHIBIT C 6 ORDINANCE NO. 4855 EXHIBIT C COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENTS Amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to change the designations of the following properties. A. Change Residential Options to Center Village and Center Suburban to Center Village for 130.17 acres at NE Sunset Blvd, Glenwood, Harrington, to NE 16th St. as shown on the following map. Application 00-M-3. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 00-M-3 CS to CV & RO to CV Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning ED/N/SP U. Naget 31 July 2000 New Land Use Designation Boundary 0 650 1,300 5??58?5?3?SS? 1:7,800 B. Change Residential Planned Neighborhood to Residential Options for 20 acres within the La Pianta properties NE 3rd St. and Edmonds Ave. as shown on the following map. Application OO-M-4. Comprehensive Plan Amendment OO-M-4 RPNtoRO C. Change Residential Options, .53 acres, to Convenience Commercial and Residential Multi-Family - Infill .92 acres to Convenience Commercial NE 3rd St. and Edmonds as shown on the following map. Application OO-M-4. Comprehensive Plan Amendment OO-M-4 RM-IandROtoCC D. Change Residential Options to Employment Area Industrial 7.5 acres south of NE 3rd St. as shown on the following map. Application OO-M-5. Comprehensive Plan Amendment OO-M-5 RO to EAI New Land Use Designation Boundary Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning ED/N/SP U. Nagel 31 My 2000 0 300 600 1:3600 E. Change Employment Area-Commercial to Residential Multi-family Infill for 17.54 acres and Employment Area-Office for 8.47 acres along the south side of SR-900, from approximately the 7600 block to Thomas Avenue SW as shown on the following map. Application OO-M-6. Comprehensive Plan Amendment OO-M-6 EAC and EAO to RM-I F. Change the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to reflect the changes specified in sections A., B.; C, and D., and E., as shown on the following map exhibit. City Of Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map e Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning ED/N/SP U. Nagel 3 August 2000 i i RR ma CD rzTj a WM CC RS im cs m] EAC EZ3 RPN CZJ RO ["£21 CN • EAI dD EAV EE] RM-I H COR nm EAO EH CV