Loading...
RES2728 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 2728 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A TRAFFIC MITIGATION PLAN AS A SEPA POLICY AND THE CH2M HILL STUDY AS AN INTERIM DOCUMENT WHEREAS the area bounded by I-405, State Route 167, SW 43rd Street and the east city limits of Renton is commonly known as the Renton Valley, and WHEREAS the Renton Valley is zoned for office, commercial and industrial uses, and WHEREAS the projected office, industrial and commercial businesses in the Renton Valley are expected to employ a substantial number of people in the future, and WHEREAS the transportation system was believed to be inadequate to support the projected business and employees, and WHEREAS the City Council of the City of Renton commissioned CH2M Hill to analyze the future traffic and transportation needs in the Renton Valley, and WHEREAS CH2M Hillroduced a study,y, the Valley Transportation ortation Improvements Study, which outlined the transportation deficiencies in the Renton Valley and proposed certain improvements and alternative financing mechanisms, and WHEREAS the City Council of the City of Renton adopted the Valley Transportation Improvements Program as an interim report at its regular meeting. of July 21, 1986, and 1 i RESOLUTION NO. 2728 WHEREAS the city staff and property owners have been meeting regularly to discuss the improvements discussed in the Valley Transportation Improvements Program report, and WHEREAS the Environmental Review Committee has been using the Valley Transportation Improvements Program report as a guide to determine mitigation requirements of new developments in the Renton Valley, NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I: The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects. SECTION II: Commercial development in the Renton Valley has created a compelling need for transportation improvements which must be met to avoid environmental degradation. SECTION III: The policy of requiring all new development to mitigate the negative effects of its traffic and to fund such traffic improvements by joint public and private sharing is adopted as a policy of the City of Renton under the State Environmental Policy Act. SECTION IV: It shall be a SEPA policy of the City of Renton that all new development in the Renton Valley shall participate in the cost of constructing certain improvements as defined in the Valley Transportation Improvements Program report, as finally adopted. The interim policy based on the CH2M Hill study shall be an interim SEPA policy until the final policy is adopted. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 27th day of June, 1988 . 2 ;! RESOLUTION NO. 2728 Maxine E. Motor, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 27th day of June, 1988 . Z"& QL4�nA , Earl Clymer, May Approved as to form: Lawrence J. War en, City Attorney 3 Technical Report v 4.10 �- z 1ML 0+1 f0 SEP1coo,- YTransportationValle Improvements Program t OWHILL July 1, 1986 ' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ' This study was undertaken to assist the City of Renton in preparation of the Valley Transportation Improvements Pro- gram (VTIP) . The study area is bounded by I7405 , the Bur- lington Northern Railroad, SW 43rd Street, and the East Valley Freeway (SR 167) (Figure 1) . ' To achieve the above objective, the city is undertaking a phased study effort leading to implementation of a financing mechanism to offset the development impacts in the study area and its vicinity. The first phase of the study effort develops the technical baseline information for estimating the probable traffic impacts of proposed development and the level of financial effort to reasonably offset those impacts ' and serve the proposed developed. The second and subsequent phases will serve to formulate an action plan for the imple- mentation of the financing program for the study area. The ' action plan is anticipated to include detailed financial, legislative, and community involvement/information elements. ' This report presents findings and recommendations for the first phase of the study effort and addresses the following study topics: 1. Facility Analysis 2 . Improvements Program 3. Funding the Program -�✓ ' ' 4. Considerations for Implementation The emphasis for this effort is confirmation of the techni- cal basis for determination of project costs. FACILITY ANALYSIS o The study area is comprised of three basic land ' uses: industrial/warehouse, office, and commercial (Figure 2) . to In accordance with the year 2000 land use scenario developed by city staff, the study area is esti- mated to generate a future total of 150,000 daily vehicle trips. o Existing trips account for 60,000 daily vehicle ' trips of the total daily traffic. o Regional trips passing through the study area com- prise 37, 500 vehicle trips per day over and above ' the total traffic generated within the study area. S-1 1 o Trips from new developments in the study area are estimated to account for 90, 000 of the total fu- ture (year 2000) daily trips. o Intrastudy area trips account for 5 percent of the traffic distribution pattern. Trips to the area east of the study area amount to 16 percent of the total. The balance of traffic is fairly evenly split (25 to 27 percent) to the north, south, and west. o A 2-hour peak factor of 20 percent was derived from local data to be applied to the daily traffic volume (Figure 3) . o Peak 2-hour LOS E capacity was used to assess sys- tem requirements. This approach is commonly done for regional transportation planning in the Puget Sound area. o Basic work previously accomplished by city staff proved to be reasonably consistent with findings in this study. o TSM opportunities are limited in scope because of the character of the area development. An esti-, mated 10 percent reduction (15,000) in daily ve- hicle trips is an aggressive goal, but one worth striving for. ' o Longacres Raceway was determined by city staff to be a nonconflicting peak-period traffic generator; therefore, traffic from Longacres is not included 1 in the study peak hour results. IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM ' o Committed projects are Lind Avenue SW (SW 16th to SW Grady Way) and Oakesdale Avenue SW (SW 16th to ' Monster Road) . These projects are assumed to be completed by 1990 . o Roadway unit costs (1985) were derived for a new two-lane roadway and factored up for other multi- ple lane sections on the basis of relative improve- ment width (IW) . Cost figures for signalization, a new interchange at SR 167 and SW 27th Street, a ' grade separation at SW 27th over the railroad tracks, and the extension of Oakesdale north of I-405 were generated separately. S-2 i o A 125 percent factor is included in the roadway unit costs to reflect design/construction engi- neering, contract administration, and other 1 project-related contingency costs. o The above unit costs include provision of ameni- ties and other streetside improvements typically included in the analysis of site development costs as part of the overall economic feasibility to develop land in the study area. For new development in areas currently unserved by streets, city ordinance requires that new develop- ments provide off-site improvements including 1 dedication of right-of-way, construction of the roadway prism, and associated amenities. Costs i for these improvements are, therefore, excluded from calculation of the impact assessment fee. 1 o The total program cost (1985) for the study area is estimated at $33, 573,000 and is functionally prioritized as follows in decreasing priority (Figure 4) : - ' (1) Committed and funded projects $ 6,000 ,000 (2) Areawide access projects (a) Projects within the study area $9, 344, 500 1 (b) Projects outside the study area $8, 743, 000 (3) Circulation-related projects $6, 606, 500 ' (4) Local access projects $2 , 879,000 o Right-of-way costs (inclusive above) are estimated at $13, 900, 000 for all projects and $8, 700, 000 for projects only within the study area. This assumes existing roadways have a 60-foot right-of-way and excludes the possibility of dedicated right-of-way ' for new alignments. FUNDING THE PROGRAM o The following trip generation impact fees are cal- culated on the basis of information developed in this first phase of the study: ' S-3 Estimated Impact Cost Fee Scenario ($000) ($) - Full Program (Year 2000) 33,573 373 Burden on Development - Less Committed Projects 27,573 306 - Less Projects Required 4 ' by Development Ordinances 22,582 251 ' - Less Public Share 16,937 188 o Review of the city CIP suggests that 25 percent of ' the unfunded portion of the total program cost amounting to $5, 650, 000 could be funded by public sources accessible to the city. Detailed assess- ment of the implications on city policy is a high priority consideration during subsequent phases leading to implementation of the program. o The remaining unfunded portion of the proposed program ($16, 937, 000) would require a trip genera- tion impact fee of $188 per vehicle trip. This 1 assumes constant 1985 dollars. A "total systems impact fee" of $197 is recommended to provide the basis for incentives to reduce the congestion on arterials with V/C in excess of 1 . 00 (year 2000) . ' o Incentive programs are recommended to offset the congested roadways (those exceeding the 2-hour 1 LOS E roadway capacity) . TSM, less intense devel- opment of parcels, and other such measures are encouraged. ' CONSIDERATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION ' Successful implementation of the program is dependent upon, among others, detailed consideration of factors in three key areas. These factors are provided to serve as a basis for preparing a work scope for subsequent study phases. ' o Study Area Market Factors ' - Accounting for the marketability of land burdened with the impact fee. - Sensitivity modeling to test the economic ' feasibility of developing a range of impact fees for land to be developed within the � ' S-4 1 study area. Site development costs would be compared to the revenue-generating capability 1 of the parcel. o Funding Factors 1 - Reliability and permanence Diversification of the funding basis ' - Equitability in distribution of costs to benefits 1 o PolicyFactors - Competing interests for limited city resources Changes to legislation to maximize use of 1 innovative financing measures - Consideration of land use and transportation policies outside the study area 1 1 1 1 ' S-5 I 1 CONTENTS i Page Executive Summary S-1 Introduction and Purpose 1 Facility Analysis 3 ' Improvement Program 10 ' Program Funding 17 Considerations for Implementation 19 ' Appendix A. Trip Generation by Parcel Appendix B. Trip Distribution Appendix C. Basic Roadway Cost Per 1,000 Linear Feet iAppendix D. Funding Sources fl i ' TABLES Page 1 Trip Generation Rates 4 2 Trip Distribution 5 3 Roadway Capacity (2 Hours at LOS E) 6 ' 4 Roadway Costs (1985) 10 5 Functional Project Priorities 14 ' 6 Estimated Incremental Total System Impact Cost 15 ' 7 Example Comparison of "Impact Fee" Assessment 19 8A Funding Sources 22 ' 8B Funding Source Opportunities 24 FIGURES 1 Study Area ' 2 Parcel Level Land Use and Trip Generation (Year 2000) ' 3 Traffic Characteristics (Year 2000) 4 Recommended Transportation Improvements Program ' (Year 2000) 1 II RENTON VALLEY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS STUDY ' INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The overall purpose of the Renton Valley Transportation Im- provements Study is to develop a functional list of program categories and individual transportation projects to accom- modate future development within the valley and to recommend ' funding programs to implement the projects. The valley study area is defined as south of I-405, east of the Burlington Northern Railroad, north of SW 43rd Street, ' and west of SR 167 (Figure 1) . The area includes approxi- mately 1 , 200 acres of land; approximately 50 percent of the land is currently undeveloped. Full development is expected to occur by year 2000. The City of Renton has initiated a phased approach to define the transportation needs, costs, and financing and implemen- tation strategies to cope with the development anticipated to be generated within the study area. ' The purpose of the first phase is to provide the technical confirmation of baseline information and data necessary to define the project needs and costs, and to address possible ' financing mechanisms. The first phase of the study is divided into four basic elements: o Facility analysis: trip generation, distribution, and assignment; capacity, level-of-service, and volume-capacity ratios; roadway needs and traffic system management strategies o Improvements program: development of typical unit cost estimates and functional program priorities of improvements o Funding the Program: a description of various potential funding sources with particular emphasis on trip generation fees o Considerations for implementation, including study area market factors, funding, and policy factors ' The second phase of the study approach is anticipated to consist of defining in further detail the most equitable and effective mechanism(s) to implement the proposed improve- ments program. Integral to this phase will be due consid- eration of public input and the implications to city legislative and procedural policies. 1 Study Objective The primary study objective for the first phase is to review ' and confirm previous study efforts by City of Renton staff. These efforts led to the determination of an "impact fee" ' based on vehicular trip generation to be applied to a spe- cifically defined study area. Secondary objectives include the consideration of possible funding sources, TSM and ride- sharing measures, and the preparation of camera-ready pres- entation material. Study Assumptions A number of guidelines, criteria, and assumptions were pro- vided by City of Renton staff to guide the study effort. These included, among others: ' 1 . The study area is defined as noted in Figure 1 . Bound- ary facilities were excluded from the study area. ' 2 . Improvements outside the study area to be considered are limited to extension of Oakesdale to SR 900 and ' East Valley Highway, Lind Avenue to East Valley High- way, and SW 43rd along the study area southerly boundary. 3 . The emphasis of the traffic analysis is to "scale" roadway facilities rather than a detailed traffic oper- ational analysis or related system needs study. ' 4. Consistent with the "scaling" emphasis, unit roadway costs are appropriate for estimating improvement costs. ' The use of a 125-percent factor to hard construction costs is considered appropriate and reflects an esti- mate of engineering, administration, and contingencies. 5. Costs are for 1985. No escalation factors are to be applied for future-year conditions. For estimating right-of-way costs, $5 per square foot was assumed. 6. The proposed new interchange on SR 167 at SW 27th Street is conceptual at this time. Feasible implemen- tation is subject to a variety of factors, including ' WSDOT approval procedures. 7. The basis for the assumed year 2000 land use is mapped ' and tabular information provided by the City of Renton. 8. The basis for the assumed year 2000 roadway network is ' mapped information provided by the City of Renton. 9. The basis for assumed trip generation rates is the ITE Trip Generation (latest edition) . Per-acre rates are 2 to be used. The generation rates are to reflect vehic- ular traffic in lieu of person-trip activity. ' 10 . For roadway system needs analysis, the p.m. peak 2-hour capacity at LOS E was used. This is consistent with technical procedures and assumptions used in the re- . ' gional transportation planning process for the Puget Sound area. . ' 11 . Regional traffic affecting the study was based upon readily available information. This included use of the city traffic model and PSCOG data. 12 . Longacres Raceway is assumed to be a special purpose, nonpeak-period generator and therefore excluded from the analysis of peak hour trip generation for the study area. 13 . TSM measures are to be considered in concept only. ' Detailed programs and improvements are the subject of subsequent study phases leading to implementation of the Valley Transportation Improvements Program. 14. City_ policy restricts Lind and SW 43rd to five lanes and Oakesdale to seven lanes. ' FACILITY ANALYSIS Trip Generation ' Background data on the study area land uses was generated by city staff. The area was then divided into parcels based on ' land use and ownership patterns (Figure 2) and acreage for each parcel was estimated using available mapping. The in- formation produced was reviewed and resulted in updating acreage estimates for four of the parcels. ' Trip generation rates for land use types were based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation 1 Report (third edition) . The trip rate per acre was used to estimate daily trips to take advantage of the land use data provided by the city in this form. Although not used in calculating the trip generation impact fee, a site-specific ' rate was developed for Longacres since it is a special gen- erator. Following review, trip rates were updated as appro- priate. Table 1 shows the trip generation rates and land ' use types. . 3 �, 1 ' Table 1 TRIP GENERATION RATES Daily Vehicle Trip Rate ' Per Acre Per 1 ,000 gsf Land Use Type of Site (building) Industrial/Warehouse 60 5.5 Office 150 15.0 Commercial 600 60 . 0 ' Longacres Racetrack 50 NA Trip generation rates based on acreage are less reliable than those based on building square footage or number of employees . This is because large variations in floor area ratios can result from the construction of large buildings on relatively small parcels and vice versa. The acreage approach was determined appropriate since a significant por- tion of the valley is undeveloped raw land; the scale of future development is not known at this time. The trip generation rates were applied on a parcel-by-parcel basis to estimate total trips generated. The study area ' will generate approximately 150,000 daily vehicle trips at full development. The individual parcel estimates are shown in Appendix A. The existing developed portions of the study ' area generate approximately 60,000 vehicle trips per day or about 40 percent of the trips at full development. Trip Distribution Background data on trip distribution used in previous work in the area were collected and reviewed. The two major ' sources of information used in the studylincluded: the traffic model used for citywide planning and a recent im- pact analysis study for a project in this study area. Estimates for the BCS building were for a specific site near the north end of the study area and were considered inade- quate to address the overall study area. ' The City of Renton traffic model defines the study area as a single zone. Trip distribution information from the model .for that zone was readily extracted from the traffic model.- The estimated general trip distribution is shown in Table 2. ' 1Prepared by Wilsey and Ham. City of Renton Phase 1 Trans- portation Study. January 1984. 2Popp, William E. Traffic Impact Study For BCS. 1985. 4 I ' Table 2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION ' Percent Intrastudy Area Trips 5 South 26 East 16 North 28 West 25 These directions refer to trips as they leave the study ' area. A trip leaving the study area northbound on Lind Ave- nue may actually turn eastbound on Grady Way. At the study area boundary, the trip would be considered a "north" trip. The specific facility distribution (south on SR 167, east on ' Grady Way, west on South 180th, and so on) is shown in Appendix B. ' Regional Trips Regional or through trips were estimated based on the city- wide traffic model. Estimated study area trips were sub- tracted from the total trips on each street at the study area boundary. The remaining trips (after removing the study area trips) are considered to represent the regional or through trips. The number of regional trips passing ' through the area is estimated at 37,500 per day in the year 2000. This includes traffic using SW 43rd Street. Trip Assignment Previously generated trip assignment background material was ' used to help estimate daily traffic volumes at full develop- ment. However, it was determined that the available assign- ments were insufficient to estimate year 2000 traffic volumes for all of the study area roadways. This necessitated com- bining the trip generation and trip distribution from previ- ous tasks to estimate study-area-generated year 2000 daily ' traffic volumes. Internally generated trips were combined with regional trips to estimate total year 2000 daily traf- fic volumes on each of the study area roadways (Figure 3) . ' The roadway system used in the analysis assumes the comple- tion of a number of roadway projects within the study area: primarily, the completion of Oakesdale Avenue, and the ex- tension of SW 27th Street westerly to West Valley Highway and easterly to SR 167 including an interchange at SR 167 and a grade-separated crossing of the railroad tracks near 5 ' Longacre s . If these projects are not completed as antici- pated, significant changes from those assumed in the traffic ' distribution within the study area would be expected. The change in distribution would significantly increase antici- pated traffic volume on Lind Avenue and on SW 43rd. Volume-to-Capacity Ratios (V/C) A 2-hour analysis at level of service (LOS) E was used as ' the basis for determining roadway needs. The 2-hour capac- ity at LOS E was estimated for various general roadway con- figurations as shown in Table 3 . The estimates assume that major intersections are signalized. ' Table 3 ROADWAY CAPACITY (2 HOURS AT LOS E) ' Roadway Lanes 2-Hour Capacity Two lanes 2, 800 Three lanesa 3, 600 ' Four lanes 5 , 040 Five lanes 5 , 840 Six lanes 7 ,560 ' Seven lanesa 8 ,360 ' aIncludes a two-way left-turn lane. ' Roadway capacity was based upon an annual saturation flow of 1800 vehicles per hour (vph) . Four phased intersections were also assumed, resulting in a through lane capacity of 700 vph per lane and 200 vph for a left turn lane. The mul- tiple lane roadway capacities were calculated assuming a 10 percent peak hour factor, and a 10 percent reduction fac- tor for lane utilization. Roadway volumes were based upon ' estimates of weekday traffic volumes for each link in the roadway network. ' The 2-hour traffic volumes for the study area were estimated based on existing traffic counts on Lind Avenue. There are currently two traffic peaks: an a.m. peak from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and a p.m. peak from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. Approximately ' 19 percent of the daily traffic occurs in the a.m. peak; 20 .4 percent occurs in the p.m. peak. For analysis pur- poses, a peak period factor of 20 percent was used to esti- mate traffic volumes and volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. The year 2000 daily traffic forecasts were converted to 2- hour volumes by applying the peak period factor (0. 20) . ' 6 These volumes were compared with the estimated capacity for the study area roadways. The V/C ratios for the street sys- tem are shown in Figure 3. The majority .of the roadways will operate at an acceptable ' LOS over the 2-hour peak period at full development. The exceptions are on roadways that serve as major through routes as well as serving study area trips : SW 43rd Street, portions of Oakesdale Avenue, and portions of SW 27th ' Street. Southwest 43rd Street carries the highest volumes of through trips in the study area. Construction of a road- way in the 192nd/196th corridor south of the study area may ' divert a significant number of through trips, which would result in an improved LOS in the SW 43rd corridor. Roadway Needs The city provided background material on roadway needs for the study area, including policy-based maximum numbers of ' lanes for Oakesdale Avenue (seven lanes) , Lind Avenue (five lanes) , SW 43rd Street (five lanes) , and SW 27th Street (five lanes) . These limitations were taken into considera- tion when the roadway system needs were evaluated. In general , major roadways within the study area (serving ' regional traffic as well as study area traffic) will require five travel lanes while those roadways that essentially serve the study area traffic require three lanes. Figure 4 shows the recommended roadway and lane designations. ' There are relatively few differences between the roadway recommendations of this study and the original work done by ' the city. In general, the changes are to reduce the roadway width in some corridors from five lanes to three lanes (Ray- mond Avenue, SW 16th Street, Longview Avenue, and portions of SW 41st Street) . Traffic forecasts for the year 2000 ' indicate that three lanes should be adequate to accommodate future travel demand in these corridors. ' Transportation System Management (TSM) Strategies The trip generation rates used in analyzing the study area ' are based on surveys that were generally taken in relatively low density areas . As such, they exhibit relatively low mode split characteristics (peak hour transit mode split of 2 percent or less) and low average car occupancy (peak hour ACO of 1 . 2 or less) . Recent studies by Metro/Commuter Pool suggest an ACO as low as 1 .12 in the study area. The char- acteristics of the study area (minimal transit service and ' abundant free parking) are likely to result in a similar mode split and ACO. 7 ' TSM strategies yield the best results in areas with the high densities needed to support excellent transit service and a limited parking supply. The Seattle CBD is an obvious exam- ple. However, both mid-density and rapidly developing sub- urban areas can also profit from TSM measures, particularly ridesharing and HOV facility measures. In fact, rapidly 1 developing areas that are still in the process of construct- ing the roadway network are ideal for implementation of HOV facilities because these treatments can be more readily in- cluded in the original construction. The existence of such facilities in turn encourages both ridesharing participation and effectiveness and so ultimately enhances transit effec- tiveness and efficiency. The 2-hour level of service within the study area is ex- pected to be reasonably good at full development (year 2000) . However, major roadways that provide access to the study area may experience "severe traffic congestion for 6 or more hours daily, in the year 2000. "1 Any strategies ' that result in a reduction in the number of daily automobile trips to the study area would have a citywide benefit as well. For a givenarcel development, the two main methods of re- ducing the vehicle trip generation is to increase the tran- sit mode split and to increase the average car occupancy. ' Because of the land use character of the study area, incen- tives need to be provided to encourage the shift in travel behavior. ' The types of incentives can be broken into two categories: physical improvements (high-occupancy vehicle lanes, im- proved transit service) , and behavioral incentives (transit pass subsidies, preferential carpool and vanpool parking, and information services) . The physical improvements re- quire active support from Metro and the Washington State ' Department of Transportation (WSDOT) . WSDOT will be widen- ing I-405 in the Renton and Tukwila area to provide a high- occupancy vehicle lane. This will provide a travel time savings for HOVs. Other projects being considered by WSDOT ' and the city are adding HOV lanes to SR 167 and SW 43rd Street. By the year 2000 these improvements would provide a significant time savings for HOVs. To be significant, time ' savings should be in the order-of-magnitude of 5 minutes or more for the total trip duration. ' Additional incentives will be necessary to change individual behavioral patterns from single occupant vehicles to transit, carpools, and vanpools. The city and valley developers need 1 Wilsey and Ham. City of Renton Phase I Transportation ' Study. January 1984 . Page 1. ' 8 to work together and with other resources such as Metro Transit to provide those incentives. The following incen- tives should be encouraged to be provided by all employers III ' and developers in the valley: o A minimum of 20 percent of the onsite parking ' spaces should be set aside for carpools and van- pools. These spaces should be located close to building entrances and exits. II ' o A 50 percent (approximately $15 per month) tran- sit, vanpool, or carpool subsidy should be pro- vided for employees who choose to use these ' methods to commute to work. o Ridesharing information and transit schedules should be prominently displayed in building lobbies. o A rideshare coordinator should be designated by ' all employers with over 200 employees. These in- dividuals should coordinate with an individual as- signed by the city or Metro to integrate the study ' area effort into the areawide South County program. ' o Consideration could be given to creating a Trans- portation Management Association (TMA) along the lines of the TMA in Bellevue, Washington. The TMA ' should be formed with membership including the city, employers, and developers. The typical goal of a TMA is to mitigate collective traffic impacts and provide the essential mobilization and follow- through required to assure the success of TSM incentives. The association could also be struc- tured to be eligible for state and federal funding. Experience suggests that 10 percent could be a reasonable maximum reduction in total daily vehicle trips resulting ' from successful implementation of a TSM-type program. This would reduce total trips generated by the study area from 150, 000 to 135, 000. The level of service on streets within the study area may improve; however, major facilities sur- rounding the area may not receive significant benefits . In order to improve operating conditions on SW 43rd, a success- ful citywide program in cooperation with Kent, Tukwila, and King County will be necessary. 9 1 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM iRoadway Unit Costs Unit costs were developed by CH2M HILL for basic roadway 1 sections on a per-1 , 000-lineal-foot basis. Costs were de- veloped for two-, three-, four-, five-, six-, and seven-lane roadways. The basic elements in the cost estimates are: ' o Clearing and grubbing o Utility adjustments o Grading and drainage o Paving and surfacing o Lighting, fencing, and traffic control o Roadside improvements Contingencies and related supplemental costs to raw con- struction costs were not included in the basic unit costs. A factor of 125 percent was subsequently applied to adjust the costs for these items. Costs for traffic signals, over- crossings, and freeway ramps were estimated separately. Table 4 summarizes estimated costs by number of lanes. The basic unit costs and estimated quantities for various road- way widths are shown in Appendix C. Table 4 ROADWAY COSTS (1985 dollars) Item Cost a,b ' Two-lane roadway $306 ,000 per 1 ,000 linear feet Three-lane roadway $389,000 per 1 ,000 linear feet Four-lane roadway $474,000 per 1 ,000 linear feet Five-lane roadway $557,000 per 1 ,000 linear feet Six-lane roadway $640,000 per 1 ,000 linear feet Seven-lane roadway $722, 000 per 1 ,000 linear feet Traffic signals $100 ,000 each Bridge $70 per square foot of bridge deck aRoadway items include a 125 percent factor for contingen- cies. For new roadway construction, reconstruction costs _ handled on a case by case basis. bDetails provided in Project Technical Memorandum under sep- arate cover. Other roadway costs are based on comparison ' to 2-lane roadway. . Note: Costs for a 1-lane widening are estimated at $105 , 000 per 1 ,000 lf. 10 - 5 For estimating purposes, a right-of-way way (ROW) cost o f $ per square foot was used. This cost reflects prior localized city experience. The roadway improvements within the right-of-way are included in the basic unit costs (sidewalks, street lighting, street- ' scape, curb, gutter, paving) . Developer costs for onsite improvements (onsite circulation, drainage, parking lots and walkways, landscaping) are not included in these costs. In i presenting the calculated impact fees, it should be noted that many of the amenities (sidewalks, landscaping) and, where appropriate, right-of-way costs are typically consid- ered by developers as site development costs. Committed and Funded Projects ' There are two major projects within the study area that are currently funded: o Lind Avenue SW (SW 16th Street to SW Grady Way) . Widen the existing Lind Avenue bridge over I-405 to a four-lane structure. This is a city-WSDOT 1 joint project, funded primarily by WSDOT. o Oakesdale Avenue SW (SW 16th Street to Monster Road) ; construct a new four- or five-lane roadway. 1 This project is funded through an LID and with city funds. These projects are expected to be completed by 1990. Project Descriptions The project descriptions and estimated cost in 1985 dollars follow. All projects (except traffic signals) include curb, gutter, sidewalk, drainage, streetscape, and street light- ing. The figures exclude right-of-way costs. Figure 4 shows the study area improvement projects. 1 o Oakesdale Avenue SW/East Valley Road to Empire Way) . Construct a new five-lane roadway or widen existing roadways from SW 43rd Street south to East Valley Road and from 31st Avenue SW north to ' Empire Way. The estimated cost for the project within the study area is $2 , 450 , 500. For that portion of the project outside the study area, the City of Renton estimates a cost of $13, 549, 500 . The portion from Grady Way to Monster Road is cur- rently funded by LID with design underway. ' o Lind Avenue SW (East Valley Road to 16th Ave- nue SW) . Widen the existing roadway to five lanes ' 11 north of SW 41st and construct a new five-lane roadway south of SW 43rd. The estimated cost is 1 $1, 646, 000. o SW 27th Street (West Valley Highway to SR 167) . Construct a new four- to five-lane roadway west of Oakesdale Avenue and widen the existing roadway east of Oakesdale. The project includes the in- cremental additional cost for an earth-retained ' approach fill and bridges over the railroad tracks east of West Valley Highway. Also included is a new interchange at SR 167 . The estimated cost is $6 , 894 ,000. 1 o SW 16th Street (Longacres to Lind Avenue SW) . Reconstruct and widen the existing roadway to ' three lanes. The estimated cost is $1 ,517 ,000. o SW 34th Street (Longview Avenue to Oakesdale) . Construct a new three-lane roadway. The estimated cost is $389 ,000 .. o SW 41st Street (Longview Avenue to Lind Avenue) . Construct a new three-lane roadway east of Oakes- dale and restripe the existing roadway between Oakesdale Avenue and Lind Avenue for three lanes. ' The estimated cost is $400, 000 . o SW 19th Street (Oakesdale Avenue to Lind Avenue) . Construct a new three-lane roadway. The estimated ' cost is $700 ,000. o SW 43rd (SR 167 interchange) . Construct a new ' southbound-to-eastbound off-ramp. The estimated cost is $525,000, based on the BCS study for the city. ' o Traffic signals (various locations) . Install new traffic signals at approximately 20 locations . See Figure 4 . The estimated cost is $2 ,000, 000 . o Raymond Avenue SW (SW 19th Street to SW 34th Street) . Construct a new three-lane roadway. Special construction costs required to cross the City of Seattle waterline at approximately SW 23rd Street are excluded. The estimated cost is $1, 790,000 . o Longview Avenue SW (SW 27th Street to SW 41st Street) . Construct a new three-lane roadway. The estimated cost is $1,712, 000. ' 1Popp, William E. Traffic Impact Study for BCS. 1986. 12 The total program cost for the above facility improvements in 1985 dollars is estimated to be $33 ,573 , 000 . ' Project Priorities ' Project priorities were developed on a functional category basis in which five types of improvements were identified: ' o Committed funded projects--those improvements that are currently funded 1 0 Areawide access-- (A) projects within the study area that will directly improve access to the area as a whole and (B) projects located outside the study area but improve access to the area 1 o Circulation improvements--projects that will sig- nificantly improve circulation within the study area o Local access improvements--projects that provide minor circulation improvement Individual projects were placed in the appropriate cate- gories in order to identify general priorities. Discussions 1 with city staff led to the conclusion that it could be highly speculative to identify an order or timeline of de- velopment within the study area. Consequently, it was de- termined inappropriate to prioritize individual projects within the functional categories. In general, those projects that will improve areawide access ' or provide significant circulation benefits within the area should be constructed first. Major projects that fall into these categories would be SW 27th Street and Oakesdale Ave- nue SW between Grady Way and SW 31st Street. The projects shown in Table 5 are listed by group; there is no implied project-specific priority within each group. However, it is recommended that those projects requiring right-of-way acquisition be given highest priority within each group, especially Group 2. For Group 3 projects, the highest priority facilities should be those that serve to complete the network within the study area. Second priority improvements should be those that serve to operationally move traffic more efficiently such as signals, signal coordination, TSM, and other measures. The last priority should be those improvements that add lane ' capacity. 13 Tab 1 le 5 FUNCTIONAL PROJECT PRIORITIES Group Project 1--Committed/ Lind Avenue SW--SW 16th Street to Grady Way Funded Oakesdale Avenue SW--SW 16th Street to Monster Road 2--Areawide Access A.) Projects within Study Area SW 27th Street--West Valley to SR 167 IOakesdale Avenue SW--SW 34th Street to SW 16th Street B.) Projects outside Study Area Oakesdale Avenue SW--Monster Road to Empire Way (SR 900) 1 Oakesdale Avenue SW--SW 43rd Street to East Valley Road Lind Avenue SW--SW 43rd Street to East Valley Road SW 43rd Street--Interchange ramp 3--Circulation Lind Avenue SW--SW 16th Street to SW 43rd Street SW 16th Street--Monster Road to Lind Avenue SW Longview Avenue SW--SW 27th Street to SW 41st Street SW 41st Street--Longview Avenue to Lind Avenue Traffic Signals--Various locations ' 4--Local Access SW 34th Street--Longview Avenue to Oakesdale Avenue SW 19th Street--Oakesdale Avenue to Lind Avenue Raymond Avenue SW--SW 19th Street to SW 34th Street It is recognized that there will be some specific projects and project elements that overlap each of the priority groups and suggested priorities within each group. The most 1 typical situation will be one where an "early comer" to a large undeveloped parcel accelerates the need for roadway access. This situation will require a mechanism to reduce ' the trip generation fee if the improvements are indeed pro- vided by the developer, and to assess a "latecomer" charge to subsequent developers serviced by the roadway. In the latter case the development costs for the serviced site would otherwise be a "windfall. " In terms of project cost (1985 dollars) , the breakdown is as follows: Group 1 $ 6 , 000, 000 Group 2A 9, 344,500 ' Group 2B 8 , 743 ,000 Group 3 6,606,500 Group 4 2 , 879 , 000 ' Total $33 ,573 ,000 14 III , Total System Impact Costs The preceding program costs were derived using current city policy regarding arterial lane configuration. If, instead, the goal of maintaining for all study area roadways a 2-hour LOS E or better is determined to govern the basis for as- . sessing impact fees, the cost of improvements to several facilities with V/C of 1.00 or more would have to be added to the program costs. The result would be considered a "total systems impact cost" for new development. Specifi- cally, the additional improvements noted in Table 6 would be required. The new development is estimated to generate 90, 000 vehicle trips by the year 2000 . These trips collec- tively would be assessed the burden of both the "program" and the "systems" cost. Table 6 ESTIMATED INCREMENTAL TOTAL SYSTEM IMPACT COSTS Estimated Lanes Cost of Improv. Proposed Additional Roadway Limits Length or a Lanes(s) (> 1.00 V/C) (node) (feet) Existing Required ($ x 1,000) ' Oakesdale SW 16th 1,300 5 5(5.4) 0 SW 19th (Proposed) SW 43rd West Valley 3,000 5 6(5.7) 366.0 Oakesdale (Existing) (Existin ) g ' Oakesdale 2,100 5 5(5.2) 0.0 Lind (Existing) (Existing) ' Lind 1,000 5 7(6.7) 244.8 East Valley (Existing) (Existing) ' East Valley 500 5 9(9.4) 189.2 SR 167 (Existing) (Existing) TOTAL 800.0 �I aTo reduce V/C to less than 1.00. ' bBased upon roadway costs estimated by CH2M HILL including 125 percent factor for contingencies. Assumes upgrade of existing signals is included in contingency. Costs of additional lane calculated as follows: ' o One-lane addition = 40 percent of two-lane roadway cost = $122,400/1,000 lin ft. o Two-lane addition = 80 percent of two-lane roadway cost = $244,800/1,000 lin ft. o Four-lane addition = 80 percent of four-lane roadway cost = $379,200/1,000 lin ft. Reduction factors reflect estimate to account for amenities and other items basic to referenced roadway costs. ' 15 Regional traffic using the congested facilities is provided optional routes outside the study area. SW 43rd, for exam- ple,, without any further development in the study area, will require five to six lanes. Providing new routes such as SW 192nd to 1-5 and upgrading other routes such as I-405 will serve to reduce regional traffic and thereby improve the 2-hour V/C for LOS E. Aggressive promotion and support of TSM measures to reduce ' overall vehicle trips in the study area should include: a. Linking TSM measures and incentives for study area developers to specific projects or other traffic improvements b. Stressing, through the South County Transportation ' Task Force, the need to increase usage of ride- sharing and transit throughout the South County area One method to deal with the overtaxed facilities on a total system basis is to add the additional costs shown in Table 6 to the proposed system cost of $33, 573, 000. This would bring the total system impact cost to some $34 ,373 ,000 , an increase of some 2 percent. Developers could then be pro- vided the incentive to contribute to reducing the overall ' development impacts on the "over-congested" facilities. The use of incentives is preferred to penalties since in- centives would provide the city with the option to use the ' generated additional fees to resolve areawide traffic issues that affect the study area; for example, the 192nd extension that would reduce traffic volumes on SW 43rd. It is recommended that the higher trip generation impact fee be considered an "unmitigated" condition. The lower fee ' should likewise be considered the "mitigated" assessment. To the extent that a developer contributes to reduce the vehicular trip generation for any new development or re- development parcel, the developer will be credited with an equivalent reduction in the impact fee with the lower fee being the least amount assessed. For example, a new devel- opment would receive a credit of approximately $9 each vehicle trip reduced from that assigned to the parcel. The reduction can be obtained through a number of methods in- cluding, among others: ' 1 . Reducing the intensity of development assumed for the parcel ' 2 . Contributing to a ridesharing program 16 I 3 . Contributing to, or including, physical improvements for the subject parcel that promote TSM actions The overall objective is to provide a basic and realistically achievable transportation infrastructure to serve the study ' area by the year 2000 . PROGRAM FUNDING Trip Generation Fees Various funding sources were identified as potential sources ' for financing the improvement program. The City of Renton has identified trip generation fees as the primary source of funding for the program. Trip generation fees will be levied on all new development within the study area to pay for the improvement program. The "impact fee" will be im- posed based on the number of daily trips anticipated to be . generated by a proposed development. The assessment of costs to support the program improvements of $33,573 ,000 previously outlined can occur with the fol- lowing four basic scenarios. Total new development vehicu- lar trips are estimated to be 90 ,000. Scenario 1 . Total support for the program by all new de- ' velopment in the study area. This amounts to assessing each of the 90 ,000 vehicular trips estimated to be generated by the new develop- ment. This equals approximately $373 per new vehicle trip. Scenario 2 . Recognition of currently committed projects ($6 , 000,000) and those improvements required by city development ordinances ($4 ,991 ,000) reduces the program to $22, 582 ,000 . If fully assessed to new development, the unfunded proposed program amounts to approximately $251 per vehicle trip. ' Scenario 3 . Review of the city CIP suggests that the city could assume responsibility for as much as 25 percent of the above unfunded program. ' This would amount to some $5,650,000 over the next 15 to 20 years. This level of partici- pation assumes optimum timing of the projects to take maximum opportunity of available local, federal, and state funding sources. For the "unfunded" portion of the program this would result in a trip generation impact fee of $188 per new vehicle trip to the study area. 17 This scenario requires the detailed assess- ment of various policy implications in order to commit the city to the suggested level of participation in the program. This scenario would commit city, federal, and state re- sources to meeting the study area-specific transportation needs. This would require ' assessment of citywide budget priorities both with the Department of Public Works and in ' "competition" with other city departmental services and needs. A clear definition of the ability to commit resources available to the city to the study area will be an impor- tant element leading to a successful program. As such, this effort should be given high priority for consideration in subsequent ' study phases leading to the ultimate imple- mentation of a trip generation impact fee program for the study area. ' Scenario 4 . To address the total system impact costs would require increasing each of the above fees by 2 percent to account for facilities ' with elements operating with V/C in excess of 1 . 00 . The per-trip fees would be $382 for Scenario 1 , $260 for Scenario 2 , and $197 for Scenario 3 . Right-of-way costs can be added to each of the above scenar- ios should detailed assessment of city policy determine the ' need for inclusion in the impact fee program. Total ROW costs are estimated to be $13, 900,000. ROW costs for those projects considered to be in the study area are estimated to amount to $8, 700, 000. Distributing these costs to the esti- mated 90 ,000 new vehicle trips would amount to an additional $154 per trip and $97 per trip, respectively, for total ROW ' and ROW requirements within the study area. The costs assume right-of-way is currently not dedicated along new roadway alignments. These costs exclude those new roadways required to be provided under current city development ' ordinances. The impact fee is assessed to address the overall needs of ' the transportation system serving the study area. The im- pact fees are to be assessed to each parcel on the basis of the year 2000 land use noted in Figure 2 . To the extent ' that parcel (s) are developed in a way to reduce the inten- sity of development, promote TSM options, or agree to pro- vide right-of-way or streetside amenities, the resulting impact fee would be considered to be an equitable assignment of financial impact cost. 18 i ' CONSIDERATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION ' Study Area Market Factors The ability of local landowners to finance the planned transportation improvements is critical to the success of ' any impact-fee-type program. Road improvements within this study area are planned to be funded by a trip generation impact fee based on land use within the study area of ware- housing, office, and commercial uses. The trip generation fee is assigned to each of these land uses and is based on normal traffic-generating capacity of each type of develop- ment normally locating in designated land use areas. As an example, assuming a 100,000-gsf building, each new develop- ment within the study area would pay a one-time trip genera- tion fee as outlined in Table 7. ' Table 7 EXAMPLE COMPARISON OF "IMPACT FEE" ASSESSMENT Daily Impact 1 Trip Rate Daily Fee Cost Cost per Building Per 1,000 Vehicle @ $188 gsf of a Parcel Use Size (gsf) gsf Trips Per Trip Building ' Commercial 100,000 60.0 6,000 $1,128,000 $ 11.28 Office 100,000 15.0 1,500 $ 282,000 $ 2.82 ' Warehouse 100,000 5.5 550 $ 103,400 $ 1.03 aOne-time assessment for funding Scenario 3. Capitalize over life of ' parcel development and compare to revenue potential. Basic Approach. The following approach is suggested as a ' test of ability of these specific land uses to generate suf- ficient revenues to pay the trip generation fee and to de- termine if the fee allocations to the designated land uses are reasonable. The. trip generation fee would be tested to see if it may: ' 1 . Act as a deterrent inhibiting future growth within the study area '. 2. Place an undue burden on a particular land use, making that land use infeasible within the market area A residual analysis can be used to evaluate development costs and income production capabilities of the three types of uses considered: warehouse, commercial, and office. ' 19 A model capable of testing the sensitivity of the individual land uses to the proposed funding plan is proposed as a fur- ther refinement of this study effort. The model can provide ' a mechanism to test the ability of the individual land use types to support the program or to determine the additional level of funding required for project construction. Development Costs. Development costs could then be deter- mined on a square-foot value for each of these types of land ' use for both actual construction and normal siting costs within the valley area. A separate analysis of the trip generation fee would be required to determine the marginal ' cost differences between normal site preparation require- ments and the additional costs imposed on development over and above normal site development within the study area. The analysis of the marginal cost increases could be ex- tended to each of the various land uses. The marginal cost could then be added to normal development and land base costs within the study area for each of the individual land uses. Financial Feasibility. As a test of financial feasibility of the trip generation impact fee on the various land uses , an additional residual analysis of lease fees required to support the required capital and land costs plus the marginal addition of the trip generation fee should be completed. The required lease income analysis would be compared against actual lease rates found within the local market place. This comparison would provide an indication of the ability of the various land uses to absorb the one-time trip genera- tion fee proposed as a means of project funding. A final consideration should assess the impact of the pro- posed fee schedule. This phase could either confirm the program or identify the need to rethink the program. If further analysis of the program is required, the methodology ' described above could be used as a sensitivity test. Funding Factors ' In developing the detailed mechanisms to fund the total pro- gram or system impact costs, several factors need to be con- sidered and incorporated: ' 1 . Clearly communicate that the trip generation fees are for the study area systems rather than a specific proj- ect (s) . Failure to do so would complicate the process and create near unresolvable disputes as to the basis for cost-sharing in a given facility. ' 2. Strive to diversify the spectrum of resources (local, state, and federal) to distribute the cost burden. 20 1 ' Assess the reliability and permanence of these resources to best meet the area traffic needs in a timely manner. ' 3. Local private resources considered should include the proposed trip generation fee as a systems impact cost, as well as other private financing including site de- i , velopment costs required by city ordinance (s) , late- comer costs, provision or dedication of right-of-way, and the consideration of present worth for system ele- ments accelerated in the undeveloped parcels. ' 4. Consider the earliest opportunity to assess (or credit) fees: during the subdivision process, the building permit process, and the occupancy permit process. I 5. Develop methods to monitor and enforce fair and equi- table compliance for private developments to mitigate their share of the study area traffic impacts. Table 8A lists a wide range of resources accessible by the city for use in funding the proposed program. Appendix D summarizes each of the funding sources. As with all public funding, the integrity of the program is subject to changes ' in legislation at all levels. Consequently, some funding sources are typically more reliable than others to serve as the primary or secondary source of financing. The table is '!I not intended to be all inclusive but rather to serve as the basis for further detailed consideration during subsequent study phases leading to implementation. To assist in that effort an initial assessment is provided as to the applica- bility or suitability of each resource as a primary, second- ary (e.g. , matching) , and possible funding sources. Also noted is the status of those sources that are available but not previously used, and those that would require potential changes to legislation or development of new enabling legislation. ' For locally controlled resources as a primary source, the B&O tax or property-tax-based CIP offer a high degree of applicability as a primary resource. Tax increment financ- ing has possible applications but would not be well suited as a primary funding source. Funding projects cooperatively with local cities, WSDOT, and county agencies typically ' occurs on a project specific basis and is therefore not suitable as a primary source for implementing the program. Both the state and federal level funding sources are typi- cally project specific and do not lend well to the program- matic aspects as outlined in this report. Traditionally, the UAB and FAUS funds have provided the most reliable re- sources for transportation projects as a primary source. The Block Grant program is unique in that it can serve as a local match to other federal programs, as was done by King r 21 r �� ' Table 8A FUNDING SOURCES Probability of Applicability: 1 High ' 2 Medium 3 Low Applicability as Funding Source ' Funding Resource Primary Secondary Possible Status Local Sources A. City: 1. R/E excise tax 2 1 2. State Motor Fuel Tax (Gas Tax) 1 2 3. CIP financed by B&O tax or property taxa 1 2 4. Local optional sales ' tax 2 1 5. Local optional gas tax 2 1 * 6. Councilmanic bonds 2 1 7. Revenue based "street ' utility" program 2 1 ** 8. Tax increment financing b 3 2 1 ** 9. Joint funding with local cities & counties 2 1 3 ' 10. TSM program (Metro, WSDOT, etc.) 2 1 B. Private: 1. LID procedures 1 2 2. System impact fees 1 2 3. R/W dedication 1 2 4. Ordinance development ' requirement(s) 1 2 5. Railway Co. participation 1 21 3 State Sources ' A. UAB 1 2 B. Public Works Trust Fund 2 1 C. Block grant(s) 2 1 D. CERB 3 2 1 E. "Oil Rebate" programs 3 2 1 F. Special grants (R&D, etc.) 3 2 1 G. Railroad crossing grants 2 1 ' Federal Sources A. FASP 2 1 B. FAUS program 1 2 C. Direct programs (EDA, etc.) 3 2 1 D. Research programs 3 2 1 aSuch as being done in Bellevue and Redmond. bWould require repeal of the 106 percent "lid" on property tax. Status: * = Available but not used by City. ** = Requires changed, or enabling, legislation. 22 County for development of the Interurban Bike Trail along the westerly perimeter of the study area. For the most part the other state resources serve best as a matching resource. The federal emphasis to put more responsibility at the local level is evident in the lack of direct funding resources and the unreliability of those sources except on a project- specific basis. Table 8B depicts a summation of the Group 1 through 4 proj- ects and the range of resources that apply. Through the use of a computer spreadsheet process, assumptions were made as to a possible allocation of financing responsibility for ' each proposed project. Both committed projects (Priority Group 1) and those required by city development ordinances were first allocated. The remaining program was subjected to a "what if?" approach to arrive at a public share of 25P ercent (Scenario 3) of the unfunded program. Table 7A was used as a guide for establishing realistic allocations for state and federal participation as part of the public share of the program (some $5,650 ,000) . The allocation should be considered only as one possibility. Its primary benefit is to provide a technical basis and procedure for further detailed consideration in subsequent study phase (s) ' leading to implementation. Policy Factors Successful implementation of the Valley Transportation Im- provements Program will rely heavily on satisfying a variety ' of policy-based tests and undertaking the necessary steps to optimize use of available or innovative funding resources. The contents of this report provide the factual basis to assess a variety of political and legislative issues in sub- sequent phases of an implementation plan. The city should aggressively determine a reasonable and pru- dent level for its financial commitment to the program, given the wide variety of interests. For the most part, the reliable and permanent city resources are limited and there- fore subject to competing interests by community interests, social and legal pressures, and by the operating require- ments of departments other than Public Works. Resources at the state and federal level are available to the city but are less reliable as a permanent funding source. Successful use of these resources is dependent upon solid planning such that optimal timing of project needs and funding availability can be matched. To supplement current city resources, the city needs to assess its legal authority ' to maximize use of current legislated funding sources and to seek changes to existing legislation or seek new legislation ' 23 ' eaO O N N � N Q� d OD m iO0 O O O m M41 N Em � l) L L^ OOOOOOM 000000 V1 0Ln OO Ln e•i OO) O00 000M C m O� M O� M ON o O al O� M 4T M N . 01 n o o N 0 w coo o o O ' •'1 rl 01 M N L4 4 M .-•4 .-� v U1 DW '+ 0 0 0 0 0 v 00000 Ln o 0 v o 0 o o o r ^+ n U '•4 4T 4p .U)-i N N C to a o+ q U O D U U U U C C L ro Ln U1 U) Ln Uf Ln Ln M M M m o to o u -4 m x aw E W c c H w y HOE; Z t 1n - fn U1 1n Lf) fn 4n U1 U) E M M M z F-1 O 4T 4D v r r co M 4a U) U1 4Q 40 go 1p m r 'o V' Oo40 4Dm0) Or .-4 .401 C� "! - N My MM m .0 OC 00000 .0 .•+ .-4000 O 00 00 .0 O ; r-I W 4) � a EZ:) w "+ ' O 0 POaaa In W aaaaa U u U w• (f� •i N N N ry ti N M M M M M N N N N N N v M M M M M Ea . M z ' H Q Oro! U1 v U1 a 000 t0 v m CY U1 U1 -0 v Ut W r o n ON 0 0 0 to O� U1 F-� �a • ry . M o aO o N CO M N . • v o ID n a o • co U1 y'1 0 . CO ro a) 0 01 r N M O T 0 •-1 N N N U1 O ID 4D 4n M M N 1n N M M V v M M co w H O O U1 M 1 v 1D N 10 N .-/ N N N U1 U1 Aj ., U) 0 w ami O 4> 4J 4J L w 4J 4.) 41 M A b N ro ro E > a) ai a+ W O �.+ a.4 N w > '0 L > 'p ro G 'O O1 r v y O 0) v 14 (n U) C m U) O UI 44 H N M UI 01 .•4 N M v V 41 O) O) ro 41 d 41 TJ E 'O d N N X E C Ul y X X C C X m333 0 Oa 33333 m ro N •.1 m y ro It—4 10 ro •.1 rd to)X W ulOvlEv) ti yv) v) v) cnrao uaw ro� O Oar aaO � to 6 41 X H U X aro+ i a O Q A 4t�i C aro+ A 41 ro ar 4n V1 .-4 W1--4 H V) 'OLLtL w LLL oro v ro ro w w aJ L O) J-4 41 a) 4.)a.i N w (a U) a W mw (a1 M tD 01 r 10 4) 10 01 n v .-4 mw w U) 4D > N N O v v .1 .-1 N ••-1 U) N N N M v w U N '0 01 4) w E U) 33333 O 333333 Q) ix m -.1 aaQ � O Oato E Wv1 En cn fn E fn V) W to U) W 3 a O a rn iz 4.4 4+ 44 y 4! $4 001 O�1 W 0 Aj 4J 41 z 4) C v) U) 4n W > W N a 41 w 4 X X C N M v .Oi M ro .1 O a vii vii cam n 1 24 v SII to N N M O ro cn s+ (n rh N to N tT+� 000 LnLr) 0000 00 n 00 d' G rt o0o rN 0 Om oo vo e•ill ro •� M c d e N ry O • to d N C �0 a a� ro m •-t ro fo ON O u •x a to w x xw E ' v � > Z C m m E m fnr) O H Sa .•i ' E 4 M 1(1 l() n 1• N 7 li N \ 00 O coo 00 4, GQ > 2 41 co N �i u 41 r-•I 4.) E +J z A to •, ' 0 0 0 u u m u u u u u y FI U W•14 V 7 N V' Q eT rf to ro e a 0 w U x W ro tU - m O ut r r IO O ut n N O rn to ., m o N D Ln o s- OD co , o SII � E NO mfr co r- OD co O G •0 O O N 14 N r'1 $4 y U N w d C +i b+ G d ro C to V 60 nra v .ti •.1i u >, C N N rf fid' u to (a •+ 333 33 u m Ci Li N as toNy En O rp to .11 a E A 4 u aGi 4 ) t0 n ) H E W N ro cw n 41 'w LN L 4 O C W .-OI N rz 1-4N N N N m -4 $4 > O fY V1 to N V) to to N O W 4J rd O o to H >, O w M 4J ' a+ aJ .-4 v0s to �E CJ tU N 'O to U Z vI 41 41 y 3 m to w p 41 A N .-t Q O W .-1� to 1 7+ e w 4.) o LO vii of a O E C9 -V A� u 25 I� 1 to capture innovative funding mechanisms. The "Trip Genera- tion Impact Fee" is only one of a variety of possible inno- vative funding sources. Last, the detailed planning assessment of city policy must be made to consider direct and indirect or post-defacto effects of the impact fee program on the study area and sur- rounding vicinity. These considerations should include both those areas within city jurisdiction and those in the South County area. Tradeoffs in land use policy and transporta- tion requirements need to be carefully assessed in this con- text. Issues such as annexations on the Soos Creek Plateau, rezoning of land to higher intensive use, upgrading of re- gional transit and ridesharing programs, and development of new arterials (e.g. , South 192nd/196th, South 277th, and others) all serve to influence the study area and its long- term viability. 1 26 '- S f +• ,vzT- �� ".j'ygy�,�,��,�'.�;y � �uw' +. .,-.""�°'�`�°`„IS ,s'��:''..a,1 ., �.p k O mdw 414 Z s ,;. �. �zv � trR � `=h "`` .gkt x `i.�F..�r'bz°' i �'+' ! GS a� �{� �!'' ,a�,q•-z..' � �c f�� s € *�. b \�f � �� `:v r'.' "G6l'vr�l�s�r � � �Y�'�.f�t'`•13��a �,- ,xy ,� f�y ' C R - "4'#'°c..•. � ,� A k.�;: �i4i 1 r � r 1 1 � +' E �'4' ,+�j' T ,Q, .._��, '(iip .r a} 4 i D _. �...Y'i' ��" " �s `' `',� i; .i�:;7• i �% -� t i - "" ic_ a 0A,110 pjD ``.i�aµ ,�3�' b 'r j� ... ° etrf :• '��1/. -F, N\\\ ', -�j _ -"�.. °',. ,_ - 'r m « ' �f tc xs�,s 1 OF a -.` `l., fa-,tib' ��L eV' �J� .r/�`.,+t'�°�. -�>- ,f z*t •i'S 3 �^- < � a� � .. ._ - �b INTERSTATE �..� �>' _ `i',,r '� }1 fn ' �. pd 't (A � �J .,q�F:•e+?�,. �xbY�1.s` "��'�+ �i -T Fv4'% :; r a;b 3 +eP$e` _ .:�1 d ,""~ �..: ��,_ - � ,� r lei• i Thr i "sr-, mr :..,�.} i ii§-{/ � a. +rs r' } lit- S.W. S W 16TH STREET1.l D f'Pz,t-sw, •t -�,aA 5 -.FyZ�f5 '� �' !�. + ,-"� "� ��Cw { n�i Y -.�,:.. .,,,�.,.., t1�y C,,r'�,�,r e•x4raaa.s�.ilk t w# �'l'..'- .;'.a 'I� L;. f $ _ "b f,:�,�' ' s"i`•'i .5c�` Kv P. a-.c.-i 7 L O i t! . E S W.19TH STREET s oDI'S W.21ST STREET c 01 �.: ' m ' S.VU.23ao STREET � i E�� ^ JE 3rj . Ca 27THSTREET , i - s N-1 S W 29TH STREET5'r r t f < a C31ST STREET BIZ Z rsj y`p 'x .wr Y .,* 1,U ` �19j J kr .. € Z S.W.34TH STREET npg ��� F- x- ten+► a '�� �y�+, � ��r,� � � � v � 4 ,may»{ � "' +s ta•»�'szw�.0 F""^'"'."` ,�q - !� d,. �Jr ,' *✓ _ ;a + O�' - ` 3v„ } � �f�"D{� � - �� � ': :.m.z`�.:4 � ���,+a ,� ya~� x�s?ti .w _t < •a --m W.39T►+STREET s-�'►. .a-,—•�._3 { ,,,,�,,�,�« y�.��,,"� _�^-►w,..; � a �+z'`Mac 3`$+ �}"�,+ U�•.' .5:�.:.M� �d � _ �€� ¢} t °�g iP �� t' "E.., Rpm "' ,��„1 �. q�':iA4► : r � '� S.W.-41ST STREET ` n r t � a 't• s .e r � is f- Jy �e,Y°'�-j�•+.. SFS'^%I�.,� �-,w•J r..^�`,�-. dam` � ,kbYt77 R F" - � :� "� .'., � '� e a +7` �acz�"^ •*9 §`ra.°�`"°-A � +" 4 r� 'k.. "'.'n'".,T}„'"B'g S.W.43RD STREET M4 _, �a j '! `if�1'��� t +� +�� �j'�-Y �, �1 _wu-." 6} � �t• '..�.. ` -.� 7ik,r[ t'�"`� fy�. t�a�� '��'f�+ a...b40 LHrYt�..- -+ r`I" F'-' 1 # •�. _ �• •'T_,It .'S �(- A .� t :t�,� '' 3 '1 � J .+y,: .,•ysalt�F'�•..,�T ryFT^` •;N` k� J, Y x 3 F�. y 2 .� � £ ', � 1 i .f-h�`Y_ �,�y h- )a�� t ^�•' .2��`�� �' ��Lli 4a ��_ '$ FY. t ,;'Y ,� k' � '�',. a.a�e< � ���e ��� w � •�' .a ArEr`E q' r ll" m m J; Ku D *;, n.�•.«�..�."c',,.�„�Fa'°"`'.�&..�ug...��. ,xbi- ,..�` ,..�.A...�.. _`"'�"_,»... -__..�"_ �. y� __�._':��....._..� �s��� ?i.i�.�. ... '{t.,. a aufr .:.W.:.w . .-. ..a.;eco`, ,�#.`w� ra..:.a 1°:..t. k .iOi o Zn D \ =US ron ti",'' ire ► ` '`` :`r"{, ; 2 N 1X ! «� >, t , �� Z 1u;-yi ' � m 'Z. -` .. 1.: .�' �£` :_ p.., -• ,. i�• m ZI a '" ""•"' _ ..�... •ar �`tita"Sti''' a'4 � :'{ .��, - t W W'D m m( D ",t .i �,.:A y� `,,vt 4' ,.di„ $.`r''9 .� � # ,F ,'y t�i g t t+' « Y.j acr �d'' 4 ..•`,,x,; C; . �, � xVAI ' ti Nm, .. 4, . 3r,�#1�+ ' } ^�i�� rF. Iyyti;�r.. .. ,,..�"aa. =i�, Z .I t 1 r� is f 14 '4. "'4•t , ,. _. •. x ',. ik ,�� t.'t .�;{ ,{' 3 rtj°'"t. Fa-w.,•..,+° ; nt*�a ,h•y^£' `` Y f,.. ` I ', 1 .k S '.l= ._...1 1I ■y �� pp 1�n f jNt n r a�spQ' fS3"'J`,gR y r' i A � v,,,Xh =s _� l y t x ' �� ?t jt; _Iw"E"'�Sg p {f '•4+�i � �+S�V�' �,A}� N!}low o �. m "Ne:�N Ine D�toav' mrn� <` 4111 , OI p wt e)z .i oo� Z'O O' �f i mM 1 O I T D y ,,,,4, °' k . i3 f m 3 T m z }i �► s�► t,,. 0 1 ''INTERSTATE 405e #a.. � �01-41 °`� Z �� S - p •! tie' A. a-r' - r""cr-` "� t �. /� j�" •r 1r' .v O W m.m O S. 3"Srr� 1t, A .�} ✓ /� � )'o C Irl D m STRLr Z HYD ' - .. � ,��., i ��y„� �� �� � 0 i� �N O �� �- Of O i9s'i,F I n :xi+•a .l 7-7 p� - m 's� g ' 'Krv� 19TH STREET,c' may` 0� S, V i F 0 �►, 1 " ' A _ _ 1 W i 3 D' 1'e" F n „ f� z , o ST l; g4 Aft F n �.✓ `" i �� S.W.27TH STREE ''�;� �,,� Y ,�1E`�'S F •.,. "moi w N N N (nn N O s .29TH STREET c"' w c tiS.W.31STSTREET r�o4 Im \ � 6 to _. .• � �,, g' !4 Z_ Z L7 ��. i meq. T ° �4 �Ot p fff,�R o %a Z = S.W.34TH STREET a I I 4R11 f t Z D ' /�w ���' � r✓� t � < '�' N17 � � � rA�.'�7',���� w cAa��,a. 7I$'••` ' '�`�:' i�` ��;e ' ,•" is•Y '��. Q > -o--f` '-kt.>- #9 �t S.W.39TH STREETT,Z -j A! -ter. --•: .',T2 .a:---'`Ss.y,�.:. W N .tom 1 �A r�''°!''7 •t'*`![ x ' �e 1 S.W.41ST STREET ' ���" i�t�* •.+s '�.` '; ,;Ya �::..:e.;:.r i "r`��A" a "�' la,s, 7r • 4 , S.W.43RD STREET i�� �i."''i �,�° � � .�,�,. +--._ .z�=+-9 �l �♦ "`<,f�.. r t'. p...:�s+t-:�j1, � ��•��1 ' ,�', 'R�T #�' '.� °�t� �` s.l "nw{�M" 411' t Y i .Z" ;. m CD MM -`;,,�.... "�y��"`"''�t i,+{ 4a., t� z,•, t��t�,,[f g- / .yr: IPA. Z j t^ ti et. wsMt¢ ti ,r f. . Ih—'M' m -t'"'?,'- 'ih r - y x4'� ON cn Oj C w^•' #-.til r ,}ja• & � k } ! a .,_Ct,� ��: 4: !R'a T •w. 101Z Z O> m m � �,. y ��r >g R�r�s- t Yi 3$�Y��- •�. 6+�nkvL v'73t.:�� � � s ,� 5 � �� s�� om'0 O D 00 �;. c c .•sR � �'yj ` .f:� �' ^«.;a,' 'd,4„•-� r —Y!� ( � '', [ 1` .L,! X is a”qu4v � �f('w i. Yx"�. ..� t •��. 1_ .i ty, ,� ;.� `..-,-. �,������ N .. �2'� 1 T7f��y » � N •#O� ,,.�Z .�.t '_1��� '�4. - i:,�di ) H<� • "�S} ��.aTF` ', .ry D '. 'S Y�';g �sR `p ... S7 i 1 r A ' v yxi,* w" ', eft� ���� "'� y"` 1\\� i•:i`" y. A,;:.. �,(r•s .r� Z is �'� �-r�' rk� �`-� t "`: �,a7�`4 �#� � l.g V, r y •��r r e, w'yR�ey .�l.�•"-f :1fR k 1 � "�=1 ^�' ,. .�, • �� 'a 4�-„�- ,.} .. � - i_. ...ID 4 _ ` w • g ,...itdi�. i 1 C7o� �.. + 04TERSTATE�405e. c�t!n �•( t � . r 0 s eL *M�+4•- y.y,,r+�Y,.. o k a� .v r 1 f97r �s Or. � �r h yt,: ,r Vis{ V rid �n / ) , 1 6a3 " - 0 8 340 Dmu. � l �w.• °yo 9850 n` €p s �x�,�. 5,920 �. ■■ II ■ ol■1�0 46 ■■11■ ■■>t�. �0 23) �.+ f # { , M>D $ �' y ,a" ■R S W.16TH STREETry�ti;, -y a(0 55)" a■ i ( )9 t `4 0 �, F . U1� ^ ,. .. �■ �n Rc 61 `` • i. = cy� O■ «n3 N �a R> RRy-� � j75n) D�. Z■� '�'"y�y'O tll rxr 0■� bY4 3¢ "'{ F.°_T! •y*+E � ./ ��.k. j.,a �'" �-,-� -! y ^`� r. '�0■OD ;t� '^V`� �.w.i/O C"S'���� �.!}.��'s�'�Y p, , ■ r. 'r . '.,,. 'N S, � r ���. ��,,, ;,��Os.w• �� "� m■ ;'�' ��.�, `�� 4 525 � +■ 7$7 "l' y- z '7r 1 i )' = ° � S.W.19TH STREET � ' i 10d550j11�10.83511 ■1■111111111■_■ A■■■ `rP +%t�(4 ' (U.01 .+, s� '?"� '' - Ul '" .e�wcr• c ` .f -°t0 W Y, ■N ��`d t �•,�;+y .. _.. � :� '�- i,,� lex,'"; N ��a '3,480 aao o � �t. ,.,:. n m S.W.21sT STREET i V V19) ■ *' '' 3� '• ,, ^�r 'N�.. •�1�iA '-�.,�0 � z.4 �.i��� � + . �, � ,�o to t, o■- � r Cl '' �-• �SRiF, . n �' g� _ � ppm ,� ��rN a �'�+ •a�, •- . jol m' S.W.23RD STREE ■ Q { l __ f}�t •y -,;•,^ , fin `s.M ;+� ! ' ,� t f?. ?' 1 �y if{ ` i" tt. ...-,+O .-'• t �t._ O 'd ;i' 1 f�O W ��ii,,, y.,w i 171 4 ,a - •'°""'t: *".' t'!'J C.�='i"-"' •""'.q•' s u5 bx.i N■O `k ' .4z= r A V t0 :'.t w, -w tD .m^"'kx OD�V .,9..ay"�'Sa3`''�O �� •s.»ati E�...ea:�rzyr.sxa � awrtiry �'Y -� O � dre- _ o N. �'a S A �, Vit■ I��i 3 s, -. ° s at'• t ., $ !1 010 �,.` ■ - %� xa 35,65031,650 : r & ,; »a ,:. �1� °� ■ 29,710F��"�"` ~'� 26,580",,�f�t,�,S.W.27TH STREET� ams _�s</JI► g) 71 (0.84) (9.53) " 0 , it ;,, -'��,� �+ w� � � � � Via; � � I '� t ■ -n 4}� � jF. ,�+ 3 ym j y ■ 59 Tom! �� S.W.29TH STREET--" ' + ■ y��^��' Ti �_,,- s.) - .. . r t �; r. r o" ■tom x ' FI Tj ,4Y r .z Z Vs y o'a t t y ■nor mli ,7.890 , 4 830 S.W.34TH STREET "N 9 905 �G- 6 440 z rr�> .� ■■■■■■■■■■■■■� i■■■■■�■■�� a■■�r�■sii■ 7p � tr , Vis' _t z ci (o.2s , t . },yjrr� lo by ''iig �_"' r !� ,. �m�rn r E �. 9 a.w w c » ■� +c " .• -.+..,-R„G._ ,a 'INN ei ,. O10 .,. ;,'.-. t 9 a-- O , aft L t °:■N .St fA�-r /( c, k j ti 110 r „c4�m�: � 7 S W 39TH STREET t �w y x . + ■ v`` �9 ": �,. ._,,..:�,a R ++.,:.n.. w.e ^w' _+..-.-..,.... ' `,,Y.µ t ",n.__,. „ .. �' :.t<,�:'r.«s X"t ..'. '■ ''r i.. *�,m.:7Wt a! 0 1535 3 ' 41■■�1111rr11�'tl 11 925 .S.W.4 s1 STREET Jo►`illlr.� Tv , )_ _ ■■�i�}w■i■■■ (0.85) � f:0.52 7.4 �l. + .-y�.. .(0_.66) �• y ' _ �� � AA. � .'�b'� N��*r�`yg qq �'ti ,�a ��N�x•�� M P+i.p�A�1 ry� ������ ,"�y 1+4 a-2 33580 30,540 �t i� e •39 1=30� �,- 15) L'd 111(1.05) (1.34) Li MINIMUM! i1►�11► �£ S.W.43RD STREET. frE 'R v t M - 4 s 1 fk j JV rt�Tg (7 W i aq )id �NS RN •� ...,"C t' q SS"x,'?'y t .!s ..`?"` .. .y:�,. } .:$ �, r _ �.a.+.. S `"".1" � cc, N •'.ly ;, �+.....: K ) fig e a'F'� x`a1 f 1� �ryi'� (D' » gid, j 2 CO) y; 'f J�S,. ? ';,.„��r, g,.,:—•,.+» �" <.. _. r `k.+ } a: J �• i m 'S mscir R�t. e- i1 M } ► <�aF� ° t s* xy t} } ty m = mew m 1 � Z ♦.. � a°% � �q '' 's. ,r # .�$"'�",y,} ��ls�'" , �Ai4. ,1 ■ .� .»w:*7r=. h.. ^'ss \,`'4 c s ' 4 ". '.w� e" Y� _"iMFL +i ..F.:.,•$ ._. _ryryr � D � � P..v , �,4` �;' �. _ i rt"5..,g..: sa _s i�-k':e.�.jd: _:S.ts# +'*vu3'.r•Y� l '�r�r! #r<,� a.�t ,_ p.' } } D O .tq"L �'4 .,' : g P Et rs d t s " 'C •� N 'd '+ _ t'2r is rx-`•y'�` ,K.�;d a+ FS6" .�+lr�+ �,'• r.'£i(( ; _ ,,M -{r i ' E r x :.:� ,�- 1 x m a17— a m Z fir'` �:- •- . w�• �> 1"_�' .��` � � i � .....�F �. # �.�r`r s.. �a- nR-1 4 + 07 5\nl .� .-����_�`•-!/J i6 � _ '} ,� ♦ _ � .v i'.P Y7,7,Ii��{m ?„• `�, !!', R L TERSTATE405aakrOjo #. } is ay mat � 1`4 r ',,��,q•_. : ,. ��,,�•���g „IN `� '_ + ♦ c ��r •� `x' i ,',.� I+. _ ,; i 1� * �z:%r �.,,,,�J 1 A? 'L "�` a; '1 R'�'7''f' ?v 3 LANESpw7i .16TH STREET �-mf .. •_"°• 70s + `` .j •* Ira+&.%J� `s ,-31 "i , �C —1 m. * .+ , Y .- 3 LANES i 4 ; �Ds ' v O C C�' � !! `Y s 3 r O - .. ,...:;.�<;:. uJ'+'r," � •� '� .� � _"RK; 3 sµ {. „ T ..1',r`�"11°g �a� s .� Z D O pr •,A :+� a - s {' Z i`�' ` t W3;�' r , s�t'°� � i mL1i D; J . .i#,�+'- _ .` d r rtr+ `'�' m -r :F a- N� Sal O O D M * :�Hr ' -.'" ,rr•. t .. t. �r '.a.,�- s �,. m{1 i 'y NN `?'' �h ..,n*,,,,%' '•'il�a O, Z — '-1 ID $�n: _ +a aC#ar•O t' �*, ,s. 1' Y,.1"; +i x•' Y d TH RE �i ,n t�,•a.: b Z I �. Z O,y ;?/ P, , '.`' y :• yy« ' " N S. . _3 LANES.' S.W 19 R ST . •_ 5� ty! r� m' D Ort= N G r m G — m. >,C: m N Z Z n 1 D ` s� w ■� - { add –i m v m m xa w U1: IOTI s;�N, n � "'� m n •m �r rte' i '�t4 $ �,� y '�1 �...����r �� ` � �;��4 �'., ,e ;+i� �: I n n 1 t: z D Z FTi $ i� CM, ZI N Z. {i \ 7C ♦ + fD■i a &os a O _ o STR ---- — — � .�€' •� in' T � � ti `',� ..�• � , ° 1__ «`�.- ,� ��. ' � _ m -� f �'- ("'1 Z�.. ." .>; �y�� � 1 !vr { -. y■fA ■ -t �1 ��' ax ,9e� ,�- • -.� � ': a vt 64 � �,` � s %. .,•.: ,,g�Y �+ "�a r��" ��1. "* t i�-I> �t�+D i •'s` .'-T�d�� �S ,c =,� gmr ' t 5LANE S "-^ � 1t JOIN fd t 1 LANESr P, 'y � ?.�-k�`F.' �^�r`"� ;�:i` � �� �� ®�� �'� , "t�-�,r`' °g' .-z •. �.#' .Gni HIM! �s { i S W,2H STREET k Air _- t' ,.c. y"p,`!J1� \ �{' `" • �-� �"'"�-. t - � wC wrd gip,{fir"'' },' ���.,:�„�y"a�' � _ �.s r _ sS.W.3IST�STREET r - `.1M< w !1 ;r �' I�N .f1 Y - § •. �i OZ -. ' �' ;r, 5,...4, P, $ y �£ i. a. 1 '_,��, 3 LANES S.W.34TH STREET ■ , ,., ti .. 3 Z 11. ��J � a•. ., s �s--. � �� ..1°`. xis���� �"'a ,,,.,_...,_• ■ tt. �� ,�,:.....,., � '. z+i= 69 ii � -"',° �� �{� f �� kit� � _..._. ■F� � � 14� �� � �� S� �� DOZ �; ♦. - 7 :}Z "s. lz,}. : ',`" r -.1 cx -g,: i �`r.ci.4 ' v� r �,'mi ..r IT! cdYi # r `�' '� ' 1t,nt I", `,} ,k.`. ✓ ` _ t m{t4' dQ.r s S W 39TH STREET - �` �U " "-4' { 3 LANES i ,L 4 , IUJ,J.1111 ; 1 S.W.41ST STREET ! .,' ' +-+.s►±►-� 3 LANES ri S'�;��,,�,�°•�rr � :�`"� � a. Qi !{ �"� � /.+r �' '.ec .. Iii `' j ( S.W.43RD STREET ,��` .!f:!x7re f .`'� -" t`` r �:a<7"-1 _...>__i<-..-y ....y�■s'��� ,-i;:°s; �'r_,...,,' `�� .r����q i� � v ,^;t �� �. _--..._' __— :: -.. -l.i• a 4�: r '+sy `t 3� - N, r `31t. .'' "`'"+„ �/ '` -,•3 .d � w` m 142 y� �.,syr.•mNI '' ,� C D { —Me y,. 2,• b .T$h XF t1 g �a. ,C HT1 A _ � e .rfy + + k" #'�,y, �a�11 eSf E '•+ r< w .P ,r 1 �`• wy �,� � •--. • t+. 4TH mZ •'k 'S y; e q 'g" }}� a � � 3�� /wr>. i � p �Q t 4, ♦s.•[.; "^.°'" �. ! .� 's; 9 4,( 3xi+�"'� ," ' �.r` *.:�'� l�� 2'i r' f- ,. " . '�' "s� ..w.,.,f} rZ ;k`. �"lJ�i � .� Qk s F4I+e- A-z .. � k ! a ca IVO'O P' � l` rti �Mx { � s �1•»{ t��y w., „...,....;,,. ;K _ ...., .- O;' Appendix A TRIP GENERATION BY PARCEL L ' Appendix A TRIP GENERATION ' Parcel Daily Daily Zones Acres Usage Rates Trips 1 3 Warehouse/Industrial 60 178 2 4 Office 150 581 3 4 Office 150 581 4 5 Warehouse/Industrial 60 271 5 5 Commercial 600 2 , 826 6 5 Warehouse/Industrial 60 279 7 2 Office 150 258 8 0 Warehouse/Industrial 60 28 9 33 Office Park 200 6 , 612 10 25 Office 150 3,822 ' 11 32 Office 150 4 , 812 12 27 Office 150 4,089 13 25 Office 150 3 , 762 1 14 7 Office 150 1, 085 15 12 Office 150 1 , 868 16 6 Warehouse/Industrial 60 331 17 12 Office 150 1 , 860 18 40 Warehouse/Industrial 60 2,418 19 31 Warehouse/Industrial 60 1 , 860 20 29 Office 150 4,407 ' 21 22 Office 150 3 , 300 22 173 Longacres 50 8,649 23 36 Office 150 5 , 400 1 24 48 Office 150 7,200 25 4 Commercial 600 2 , 538 26 4 Warehouse/Industrial 60 254 27 4 Warehouse/Industrial 60 254 28 4 Office 150 551 29 6 Warehouse/Industrial 60 331 30 21 Office 150 3, 168 31 13 Warehouse/Industrial 60 806 32 20 Warehouse/Industrial 60 1,200 33 14 Commercial 600 8 , 538 34 71 Warehouse/Industrial 60 4 , 270 35 71 Warehouse/Industrial 60 4 , 260 36 40 Office 150 5,927 37 10 Warehouse/Industrial 60 578 ' 38 12 Office 150 1, 791 39 25 Warehouse/Industrial 60 1 , 522 40 17 Commercial 600 10, 074 ' 41 9 Commercial 600 5, 508 42 7 Commercial 600 4, 134 43 50 Office 150 7, 533 44 44 Warehouse/Industrial 60 2,640 1 45 49 Warehouse/Industrial 60 2, 965 46 2 Office 150 311 47 21 Commercial 600 12, 528 Total 1 , 106 148, 154 A-1 Approximately 150 , 000 1 1 1 i 1 r r r r r r r r r r r Appendix B TRIP DISTRIBUTION ' Appendix B TRIP DISTRIBUTION ' Destination Percent Intrazonal 5 ' Grady Way (east) 5 I-405 (east) 10 SW 43rd (east) 15 SR 167 (south) 5 East Valley Road (south) 2 Oakesdale/80th (south) 2 West Valley Highway (south) 8 ' S 180th (west) 6 Strander Boulevard (west) 8 I-405 (west) 4 Interurban Avenue (north) 7 Monster Road (north) 2 Oakesdale (north) 10 ' Lind (north) 6 Rainier Avenue (north) 5 B-1 1 i 1 1 1 1 Appendix C ' BASIC ROADWAY COST PER 1, 000 LINEAR FEET ' Appendix C BASIC ROADWAY COST PER 1, 000 LINEAR FEET (ASSUMED UNIT COSTS) 1 New 2-lane Roadway Item Unit Unit Cost Quantities 1. Clear and grub acre $1,500 0.34 2. Utility adjustments lane 1,000 2 3. Grading and drainage - Embankment fill cu yd 8 4518 ' - Embankment compaction cu yd 1 4518 - 12-inch gravel base ton 10 3519 - 36-inch main storm drain lin ft 50 1000 - 12-inch laterals lin ft 15 80 - Catch basins each 1,300 6.7 - Manholes each 1,300 2.5 ' - Concrete curb and gutter lin ft 10 2000 4. Paving and surfacing - 4-inch ACP ton 30 580 - 4-inch ATB ton 25 580 - Tack coat ton 200 0.54 - Concrete sidewalk sq yd 12 1333.3 5. Lighting, fencing, and traffic control - Light poles, 35 feet high each 1,950 6.7 - 2-inch conduit lin ft 4 1000 Chain link fencing lin ft 8 2000 - Pavement markings lin ft 1.50 1000 ' 6. Roadside improvements acre 1,000 0.6 ' Subtotal $244,695 Engineering/Contingency (25%) 61,174 TOTAL (per 1,000 lf) $305,868 =W a Typical Section C-1 I Appendix D FUNDING SOURCES ' Appendix D FUNDING SOURCES The summary of funding sources outlined in Table 8A is not ' intended to be all inclusive; nor, does it alleviate the need to perform a detailed assessment of and the applica- bility of funding sources to the City and its program 1 objectives. City R/E Excise Tax. The City is eligible to receive one- quarter percent of the Real Estate Transfer tax for property transactions within its jurisdiction. The funds can be used on any general capital improvement. Motor Fuel Tax (Gas Tax) . Cities receive 6. 92 percent of net fuel tax receipts for general street purposes and 4 . 61 percent for new construction and repair of city streets ' and arterials (RCW 46.68. 100) . ' CIP Financed by B&O Tax or Property tax. The City has the . existing authority to establish a CIP process wherein all city departmental services compete for funding of improve- ments from a pot financed by business and occupation and/or D-1 ' property tax. The use of the property tax basis is limited to the 106 percent levy lid currently in place ' (RCW 84. 55. 010) . Local Optional Sales Tax. The City has the existing author- ' ity to exercise its option to assess up to 0. 3 percent addi- tional local sales taxes for local purposes. I Councilmanic Bonds. The City Council has the existing au- thority to sell bonds to finance capital projects within the city. The amount of bonds is limited by the bonding author- ity of the City. Street Utility (Revenue Bonds) . Uses the sewer and water public utility system' s approach to defining a street utility service area within which users are assessed a charge com- mensurate to the use of the service. This charge could off- set both capital and maintenance costs and also potentially ' be used to sell revenue bonds. Still requires state enabling legislation. For traffic systems, the charge could be based upon trip generation. Tax Increment Financing. Also referred to as Community Re- development Financing, the legislation in 1983 created the basis for earmarking future taxes on improved property for a specified period of time for the sole purpose of financing projects serving the property. D-2 ' Joint Funding Projects with Other Agencies. Projects on the perimeter of the study area are most affected. Participation from WSDOT, Tukwila, Kent, and King County are likely sources of joint projects. TSM Program Sources . These sources of funding and services are typically channeled through METRO and WSDOT. Provision of HOV lanes on SR 167 and ramps, park and ride lots, vanpool ' programs, ride matching services are typical of this source. ' Private tLocal Improvement District (LID) Procedures. Through the formation of benefit districts, bonds can be sold and costs assessed to provide municipal capital improvements to serve ' the District. The District can only generate funds to the extent that the participating properties are benefitted. System Impact Fees. The subject of the Renton Valley Im- provement Program wherein a study impact area is defined, development potential and impacts estimated, facilities costed, and a uniform trip generation fee or other mechanism ' defined to offset anticipated costs. R/W Dedication. Private developments are required in most ' permit procedures to dedicate public right-of-way for the construction of streets. Where existing streets exist, new D-3 or redeveloped properties can be required to provide addi- tional R/W to accommodate changes in the functional charac- teristics of the roadway system. Ordinance Development Requirements. The City has in place a ' variety of requirements for development of private property. The mechanism(s) for imposing the requirements are typically through the zoning, building, and occupancy permit procedures. Railway Company Participation. The Utilities and Transporta- tion Commission (UTC) has the authority to assist local agencies in providing safe crossing of operating railways. For high volume arterials, such as SW 27th, grade separation may be deemed required. As such, some level of participation of BN could be considered. State Urban Arterial Board (UAB) . A statewide bond program created ' in 1967 and supported by the state fuel tax. Funds are allo- cated on a project basis by UAB consistent with annually updated long-range plans for functionally classified arterial ' construction. Basis and authority is contained in RCW 47.26 for cities. ' Public Works Trust Fund. Established in 1985 by the legisla- ture for the repair and reconstruction of public works D-4 ' systems. Provides low-interest loans, loan guarantees, and technical assistance to local jurisdictions for municipal ' projects. Loans are 3 percent maximum interest, payable over 20 years (up to) and for 90 percent of the eligible costs. Block Grant Program. These funds are available through De- partment of Community Development and can consist of categor- ical project funding or program funding. Unlike other "pass through" federal funding, this specific source can also be ' used as the local match for other federal programs. Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) . Legislative funds in the form of a revolving loan, or possibly grant, for infrastructure improvements to attract or create local ' employment. Similar in objective to federal EDA program. Administered by a joint board of state departments and pri- vate business representatives. Can be used for a variety of ' municipal projects, including roadways. "Oil Rebate" Program (s) . These funds stem from recent court-related settlements with the large oil companies over excessive pricing during the "energy crisis" period. While not directly applicable to roadway construction, other ef- forts to improve full economy/efficiency could be eligible, ' e.g. , traffic signal coordination. D-5 Special Grants. These occur on a project-by-project basis and are available from a variety of sources, including the ' legislative Transportation Committee. Corridor design ' studies and other projects are eligible on a case-by-case basis. Railroad Crossing Grants. UTC, along with WSDOT, can provide ' state and federal funding upgrading hazardous railroad cros- sings and/or accomplishing grade separation where warranted. -i, Federal Sources Aid Safet Pro ram (FASP) . Federal funding for prof- Federal y _ ., ects with the objective of remedying unsafe roadway condi- =_ ically 90 percent. Removal of tions. Federal share is typ obstructions, improvements to intersections and railroad crossings, and other such projects are typical of those -� funded by FASP. Federal Aid Urban System (FAUS) Program. Funds became avail- - able in 1972 and are allocated to local governments on the basis of population within established urban boundaries. Federal share is typically 80 percent. Projects must typi- cally be on a regionally approved urban highway network. ' Direct Programs (Economic Development Administration-EDA) . Programs are rather few and highly competitive. EDA has D-6 provided funding in the past for Port of Seattle and other agencies in areas where use of the funds help preserve and create private sector employment and for projects that meet other specific requirements. ' Research Programs. USDOT has an. ongoing R&D program to develop innovative techniques, procedures, materials, and ' other potential opportunities for advancing highway tech- nology and maximizing the use of public funds for transpor- tation projects. For example, Federal Highway Administration ' (FHWA) , currently considers "roller compacted concrete" roadway surfaces experimental. As such, FHWA can be ap- proached on the basis of "test sections" for use of this new ' technology with financial assistance from FHWA. ' Sources ' Road Jurisdiction Study (Phase II) in RFP. State of Washing- ton Legislative Transportation Committee. March 28, 1986 . ' Redmond CIP (1986-1990) . City of Redmond. November 26, 1985. Public Works Trust Fund (Application Guidelines) . 1985. D-7 1