The URL can be used to link to this page

FWCP Chap 03 Transportation_201302271049492169CHAPTER THREE - TRANSPORTATION 3.0 INTRODUCTION The Transportation chapter of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) establishes the framework for providing a transportation system (facilities and services) and focuses on actions needed to create and manage the transportation infrastructure and services. The GMA (RCW 36.70A.020[3]) "...encourages efficient multi -modal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans." In addition, the act outlines guidelines for the preparation of the transportation plan, which is a mandatory element of the plan. Specifically, these guidelines (RCW 36.70A.070[6]) include: • The land use assumptions used in the plan; Facility and service needs, including: • An inventory of existing facilities; • Level of service standards for all facilities and services; • An action plan for bringing system deficits up to standard; • Forecasts of future traffic growth; and • Identification of system expansion and transportation system management needs. • A financing plan which includes: • A comparison of funding needs vs. available resources; • A six -year financing strategy; and • An assessment of how funding deficits will be managed. • Intergovernmental coordination efforts; • A demand management strategy; and • A concurrency management strategy. This transportation plan is consistent with GMA requirements in terms of the general policy direction and that it includes all components required in a GMA compliant plan. This plan is also consistent with the direction provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Plan as outlined in Vision 2020 and the FWCP Land Use chapter. As discussed in Vision 2020, this plan proposes a more diverse, multi -modal transportation system by encouraging viable alternatives to the single occupant vehicle, including car and van pooling, non -motorized vehicles, and improved public transit which allows integration for a possible future High Capacity Transit system. The FWCP also includes a land use chapter that is supportive of this vision and the region's transportation future. It encourages densities and intensities in locations that support a more diverse, multi -modal transportation system. FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Finally, this transportation plan conforms to the Countywide Planning Policies (CWPPs) for King County as adopted in 1992 and amended in 1994. These policies include Framework policies FW 18-20 and Transportation Polices T 1-T23. In essence, these policies encourage development of a High Capacity Transit System, Public Transit, High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV), Transportation Demand Management and Systems Management options, Non -Motorized Travel, and regional coordination and cooperation. The policies also discuss the importance of level of service standards as they relate to financing and concurrency management strategies. Background The process of providing a transportation system involves numerous agencies at the local, state, and national levels. The cycle of providing a system involves planning, change approval, funding, implementing, operating, monitoring, and administering the elements of the system. Some components are provided by other agencies, such as METRO, Sound Transit, and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT); the City can only influence their efforts and system components. The Transportation chapter, including the administrative procedures developed from it, guides the provision of facilities. Until recently, the cycle of planning and providing facilities could be summarized as shown in Figure III-1 (page 3). Through a combination of national and state legislation, as well as regional planning efforts, the process has been changing in recent years. Physical and economic limitations of continued expansion of the highway system and other factors such as environmental issues have been key factors in the shift. Figure III-2 (page 4) reflects the process as it might be viewed today. Areas of Required Action The City has direct influence over certain aspects of the transportation system and indirect influence over others. Table III-1 (page 5) provides a structure for understanding these areas of responsibility. It also reflects the organization of the remainder of the chapter for the Transportation plan. The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) certify the transportation chapters of local comprehensive plans. Certification is based upon conformity with state legislation concerning transportation chapters and consistency of the City's plan with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, which has become known as Vision 2020. Conformity focuses on five requirements for the Transportation chapter: Revised 2003 III-2 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Figure III-1 Historical Transportation Infrastructure The Planning - Implementation Cycle Land Use Plan Transportation Plan Transportation Improvement Program Regional, State & Federal Funding Application Process Funding Implementation Process -IMMEMEMMEMEMEEMEN� j Design ' Right -of -Way Bidding Construction [-operation Revised 2003 III-3 FWCP - Chapter Three, Transportation Figure III-2 Current Multi -Modal Transportation Systems Planning, Implementation, & Management ....................... •................... Land Use Vision Federal Legislation Existing Conditions State Legislation LOS Standards Regional Policies Transportation Plan Facilities Services Region/State Local Transportation I I ( Regional Systems, Improvement Program Policies, Agreements, Etc. Transportation System Management Funding IMPLEMENTATION Local Regional Streets & Roads Transit System Transit Amenities ; HighwayslHOV System TOM Programs TDM Programs Non -Motorized Non -Motorized OPERATION MONITORING Revised 2003 III-4 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Table III-1 Transportation Plan Chapter Subsection Section Facility/Service Example of City Activities 3.0 Introduction N/A 3.1 Streets and Roadways Provision, maintenance, and better use of streets. 3.2 Transportation System Geometric and signalization improvements, access management, Management capacity enhancements. 3.3 Non -Motorized Transportation Sidewalks, bike trails, transit access, ways between/within neighborhoods. 3.4 Transportation Demand Alternate modes (carpool, vanpool, transit), parking policies, CTR Management legislation. 3.5 Local and Regional Transit Buses, provision for stops, etc. in design standards, land uses, corridors, transit centers. 3.6 HOV Facilities HOV lanes, transit signal priority, park & ride lots/transit centers. 3.7 Aviation Design guidelines for heliports; Influence regional airport efforts. 3.8 Freight and Goods Develop local standards and truck routes; SR 167-99 planning. 3.9 Marine Plan and accommodate ancillary needs of Port of Tacoma Financing (improvement districts, impact fees, grants). 3.10 Implementation Strategies Implementation (prioritization and programming). Monitoring (traffic counts, accident records, plan comparison). • Consistency with the Land Use chapter • Identification of facility and service needs • A financial plan to support the transportation plan • An intergovernmental coordination plan • Development of Transportation Demand Management strategies Existing Conditions The following sections provide a summary of Federal Way's existing transportation characteristics. This information was developed during the preparation of the 1993 Community Profile report. Who Travels Where and Why? Travel patterns in the Federal Way planning area are shown on Map III-1 (maps are located at the end of the chapter and were revised in 2007 as part of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendments). • About 57 percent of person trips originating each day in Federal Way are completed within the City and the immediate area. • One in three trips originating in the City are destined to points along the Seattle/ Tacoma high capacity transit corridor. • Nearly 75 percent of Federal Way travel is focused on the residence, either as the point of origin or destination. Revised 2003 III-5 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation How Do People Travel? • As in much of suburban King County, the Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) is the dominant mode of long distance travel. Nearly 8 out of 10 work trips occur by this mode. • Between 15 and 20 percent of all work trips are made by HOVs. Of these, less than three percent are by transit. • The average occupancy of vehicles is similar to the suburban Seattle average at 1.2 people per vehicle. Raising the average occupancy would reduce congestion. • Most area employers (68 percent of those responding to a City survey) reported that bus service exists within one block of their work place. • Biking and walking modes are used for about seven percent of all trips. The value is somewhat lower for work trips. What Role Do Park & Ride Lots Play? Park and ride facilities are in high demand in Federal Way, as throughout the region. Of today's four lots, with a total of 2,500 spaces, three of the four are filled on the average weekday. Increased bus service at the Twin Lakes lot may result in greater use. Adding a lot at SR99 at South 276th Street will increase area capacity by about 650 stalls. However, Metro studies have identified the need to double the present supply by 2010. • Utilization of the existing park & ride lots (at South 272" d, South 32011,, South 348lb, and Twin Lakes) is a mix of regional traffic. Federal Way users range from a low of 13 percent at the Twin Lakes Park and Ride lot to a high of 60 percent in the South 348th Street facility. Are There Areas Needing Increased Transit Service? • Areas outside Federal Way which generate or attract city trips and which are not heavily serviced by transit include: The Kent Valley (Renton, Kent, Auburn, and Puyallup) Tacoma • Rainier Valley — Duwamish South Are There Existing Street Deficiencies? • Congested intersections are located predominately in the City Center area and along Highway 99. East/west routes that experience high levels of demand include South 320th Street and South 348th Street. Congestion occurs not only in the morning and evening commute times, but also during midday, everyday of the week in retail areas. Revised 2003 III-6 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation • Traffic accidents cost travelers in the City over $39 million per year, based on 1999 collision data. Most accidents are congestion related. Federal Way's Subarea Roles In establishing a future direction for the City's transportation system, it is vital not only to understand existing characteristics of travel, but also the nature of land uses which generate travel. Subareas of the City are readily identifiable. They range from mixed -use centers along the I-5 corridor to residential areas that developed with widely varied land use patterns. Following is a summary of the present characteristics in the subareas of the City. Western Residential Area The Western Residential Area consists primarily of suburban type dwelling units. Over half of all residential dwellings in the study area are in this area. While transit is provided to the area, the development patterns have been designed to accommodate the auto and not transit. The steady progression of residential development in the western areas of the City has resulted in a mix of middle and upper income residences. Dwelling unit density is around three to five units per acre. This density does not readily support transit service, nor does the existing street pattern (cul-de-sacs and few through roads). For example, the Twin Lakes area was designed with serpentine, discontinuous streets and cul-de-sacs that make it difficult for transit penetration and pedestrian connectivity. In general, there are too few streets; the arterial streets are used for nearly all traffic circulation, and there is a strong need for more east/west corridors. The present street pattern focuses east/west trips from the Western Residential Area into the business core. This, combined with the north/south commute patterns, (predominantly to work centers along the I-5 and SR-99 corridors) and business district generated commercial and retail trips, results in high congestion in the business district, especially during the evening commutes. Commercial Core Area The primary commercial areas lie west of I-5 and east of about 1 Itn Place South. This includes SeaTac Mall retail, SR 99 corridor, and office uses in the West Campus area. About 11,000 job opportunities attract Federal Way and regional trips to this area. Consumers and clients of core area businesses also contribute to the travel patterns of the area. While the Western Residential Area contains the highest concentration of housing, the Core Area witnesses the greatest traffic demand. Today's 77,000 evening peak hour trips to and from the area are expected to increase to nearly 116,000 trips by 2015. Compounding the problems associated with the attractiveness of the area, trips beginning Revised 2003 III-7 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation and ending in the Western Residential Area are funneled through this area by the limited system of east/west arterial streets, principally South 320`h and South 348th as these connect to I-5. There is a need for improved circulation, fewer commute trips to help reduce peak period congestion, improved transit and access to transit, and a means to improve goods and services circulation both internally and to the regional transportation networks. East of 1-5 Area The lowest level of development in and about the City falls east of I-5, within Federal Way's Potential Annexation Area (PAA). This presents the possibility of large increases in travel demand in the future. As this development occurs, it will be imperative to the success of the overall vision that supportive development and transportation patterns be encouraged. In other words, there is a need for a sufficient grid of more interconnecting streets. Regional Perspective Vision 2020, developed in the early 1990s, was updated in 1995 by PSRC as its Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). The objective is to assure compliance with federal and state legislation that has been enacted since the original adoption of the metropolitan plan. Key strategies of Vision 2020 include: 0 Creation of a regional system of central places framed by open space. • Investment in a variety of mobility and demand management options to support the central places. 0 Maintaining economic opportunity while managing growth. 0 Conservation of environmental resources. • Early mitigation of adverse effects of concentrating development. • Monitoring and updating of Vision 2020. The MTP is the product of the current planning efforts. It is coordinated and managed by PSRC and: • Identifies the transportation system of regional significance. • Determines modal performance expectations. Documents needed improvements under Vision 2020, incorporating local level growth management plans, financial needs, and a regional congestion management system. Revised 2003 III-8 FWCP - Chapter Three, Transportation A structure for monitoring progress towards the achievement of the plan and improvement to mobility issues is being designed. The City's role in this process has already been established through the involvement of key staff and elected officials at the regional and state levels. Coordination and planning with PSRC, WSDOT, METRO, King County, and the Sound Transit principally is an on -going local effort. The City is well positioned to capitalize on its close proximity to the Ports of Tacoma and Seattle, and the SeaTac Airport. It is important to maintain efficient access and to support the viability of these international transportation facilities. Service Providers Table III-2 lists key service providers in the region, and their primary functions with which the City maintains contacts through the planning process. Pertinent information on the impacts of their programs is noted in the text of the plan. Table III-2 Key Service Providers Service Providers Primary Functions State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) State Highways, Park & Ride lots, HOV lanes METRO Transit, Park & Ride, CTR Coordination Sound Transit High Capacity Regional Transit Pierce Transit Transit, Park & Ride, CTR Coordination Pierce County Connecting Roadways & Traffic and Land Use Change Impacts King County Connecting Roadways, Traffic Control Devices Maintenance, & Traffic and Land Use Change Impacts Private Utilities Puget Sound Energy, US West, and TCI for Utilities on ROW Lakehaven Utility District I Utilities Within Right of Way Fire District Fire Hydrants in Right of Way Neighboring Cities Tacoma, Des Moines, Kent, Auburn, Pacific, Algona, Edgewood, Milton, and Fife for Traffic and Land Use Change Impacts. Connecting Roadways Summary of Major Needs hi summary, Federal Way has defined its role through the end of the 20th Century and into the 2 1 " Century as one supporting the regional direction; becoming an urban center and developing the appropriate combination of transportation services and facilities to support the inherent development pattern of the proposed land use plan. The following major needs or improvements are related to transportation in Federal Way: • Assure Port and SeaTac Airport access. • Assure free moving intra- and interstate highways. This provides free moving people, freight, and goods to maintain economic viability of the region. Revised 2003 III-9 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation • Provide a transportation system that supports the City's Land Use Plan. • Provide for additional arterial streets and interconnecting streets in both business and residential areas to reduce congestion and reliance on the few existing arterials. • Provide additional east/west arterials or other ways to relieve east/west travel congestion. • Improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities with better access between cul-de-sacs, neighborhoods, to transit corridors and centers, and within business areas. • Provide alternatives to SOVs to reduce their use, relieve congestion on streets (especially in peak hours), and provide more rapid movement of people, goods, and services on streets. This may include helicopter, rail, increased transit, park and ride lots, car and vanpools, telecommuting, and information highway products. • Provide transportation system management techniques to improve mobility. This may include impact fees to build better transportation facilities, parking fees to reduce SOV use, subsidies for bus passes, car and vanpool use, free business area shuttle buses, and land use regulations that support transportation system improvements. • Provide a transportation system that protects and enhances the environment and quality of life. • Provide the funding needed to maintain existing infrastructure and implement needed transportation system improvements. • Provide cooperative transportation solutions that are inter jurisdictionally coordinated to meet local and regional needs. Transportation Goals & Policies Goal TG1 Maintain mobility for residents and businesses through a balanced, integrated system of transportation alternatives that: a. Meets local and regional needs through inter jurisdictionally coordinated and integrated systems. b. Reduces auto dependency, especially SO use. C. Supports the land use vision and plan. Revised 2003 III-10 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation d. Protects and enhances the environment and quality of life. e. Provides acceptable levels of service for each transportation mode that is also commensurate with their planned levels of funding. Policies TPl Integrate land use and transportation plan decisions to support the land use vision and plan. TP2 Implement federal, state, and countywide planning policies. TP3 Provide integrated, multiple travel options to residents and workers, especially those with disabilities that are also effective alternatives to the SOV. TP4 Give priority to transit and supportive needs. TP5 Protect neighborhoods from traffic impacts. TP6 Give priority to transportation alternatives that improve mobility in terms of people and goods moved for the least cost. TP7 Establish mobility levels of service appropriate for the alternatives and location. TP8 Provide funding necessary for transportation needs at the appropriate levels of service. 3.1 STREETS AND ROADWAYS hi Federal Way, the predominant mode of travel will likely remain the private automobile. It is clear that major expansion of the highway system with the intent of expanding capacity for the single occupant auto will less frequently meet federal, state, and regional policies. Modifications to the transportation system that are likely to receive funding are those that will promote the increased movement of people and goods as opposed to vehicles. Alternatives that move people rapidly to their destinations must be provided as congestion grows and driving time increases for users of single -occupant vehicles. The future transportation system will be reprioritized to promote HOVs, trains, buses, carpools, and vanpools along existing rights -of -way, and to incorporate high capacity transit if it becomes available to Federal Way. As part of adoption of its transportation plan, in 1995, the City accomplished the following: Revised 2003 III-11 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation • Adopted Functional Classification of Streets • Adopted Access Management Classification • Adopted Street Standards • Adopted Level of Service (LOS) Standards • Prioritized list of street and roadway improvements that support the Land Use Plan • Adopted Financing Plan In addition, in October 2001 the City hired a consultant to prepare a Traffic Impact Fee and Concurrency Management System. Existing Conditions An extensive inventory of the existing roadway system in Federal Way was reported in the City's 1993 Community Profile. The following excerpts on existing conditions are taken from that document. Street and Highway System Federal Way is served by a network of publicly maintained streets and highways connecting local communities and urban centers in the Puget Sound region, as shown in Map III-2. There are two major freeways in the Federal Way planning area: • Interstate S (I--S) is five lanes north of South 320th Street and four lanes south of South 320th Street, with a posted speed limit of 60 mph. This freeway serves as the main north/south freeway for regional travel in western Washington. • State Route 18 (SR 18) is two lanes in each direction, with a posted speed limit of 60 mph. This freeway acts as an east/west alternative to I-90, connecting to I-90 east of Issaquah and serving the communities of Auburn, eastern Kent, Covington, and Maple Valley. These freeways have been classified by WSDOT as Highways of Statewide Significance, a connotation used for urban freeways and rural arterials in prioritizing transportation funding. Primary roadways in the Federal Way planning area include: • Pacific Highway South (SR 99) • Military Road South • 1st Avenue South • 2l't Avenue SW • South 272" d Street • South 288th Street Revised 2003 III-12 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation • South SW 312th Street • South 320th Street/Peasley Canyon Road • South 336th Street • South 348th Street/Campus Drive SW • SR 509 (Dash Point Road) • Enchanted Parkway (SR 161) • South SW 356th Street These roadways serve major activity centers within Federal Way, including commercial activities in the South 320th Street corridor between Pacific Highway South (SR 99) and I-5 (the City Center), commercial developments along Pacific Highway South, at South 348th Street and Enchanted Parkway South, and several smaller commercial centers located within various residential areas. The roadway system also serves concentrations of office uses located within the City Center, West Campus, and the Weyerhaeuser Headquarters/East Campus area. The roadway system within the City connects to the surrounding regional transportation network, which provides access to other major activity centers including Seattle, SeaTac Airport, Tacoma, the Port of Tacoma, Kent, and Auburn. Traffic Signal Locations Map III-3 shows the locations of signalized intersections within the Federal Way planning area. Currently, signals are maintained and operated by the City under a contract with King County. The ability to coordinate signals along congested minor and principal arterials is important to achieve the maximum capacity of a given facility. South 320th Street currently has 13 signalized intersections that are irregularly spaced and, in some cases, spaced too close to each other. Coordination of the signal system on South 320th Street was implemented in 1993, from I-5 to lst Avenue South, together with the coordination of signals on SR 99 from South 288th to South 324th Street. In addition, coordination of the signal system along SR 99 from South 336th Street to South 356th Street and along South 348"' Street from I-5 to 1st Avenue South was implemented in 1995. Signals were coordinated on SW Campus Drive and 21st Avenue SW in 1998. Benefits of signal coordination are quantified in Section 3.2, under Signalization Improvements. Traffic Volumes The 2000 average weekday traffic volumes on selected arterials are shown on Map III-4. The roadway with the highest daily traffic volume is I-5. This facility carried nearly 171,000 vehicles on an average weekday in 2000 (WSDOT, 2000). Historical growth on I- 5 has fluctuated in recent years in the Federal Way vicinity. Between 1985 and 1990, the average daily traffic increased at an average annual rate of 5.3 percent. However, from 1992 to 2000, the average daily traffic increased at an average annual rate of one percent. Revised 2003 III-13 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Federal Way's busiest arterial, South 3201h Street between I-5 and SR 99, carries approximately 60,000 vehicles per day. On South 320`h Street, average weekday traffic has grown at an annual rate of one percent since 1992. Other arterial roadways with significant daily traffic are portions of Pacific Highway South and South 348t' Street, carrying 42,000 and 59,000 vehicles per day, respectively. Forecasts of Future Travel Travel can be described in terms of the purpose of the trip and the trip beginning and end points. Federal Way exhibits a wide variety of travel purposes. Trips range from children walking to school to adults commuting. Not all of these trips are typically analyzed in transportation planning, although emphasis is increasing for non -motorized trips and transportation management systems. To assist in categorizing trips, the area of interest was divided into Transportation Analysis Zones, or TAZ. This structure allows a link between travel data and land use data. Estimates of the number of households and employees were made for each TAZ. These land use estimates were then translated into traffic demand on major arterials using a computer modeling process. The model was used to estimate existing and future traffic volumes within the Federal Way planning area. The model can also be used to estimate demands for various modes of travel, including auto, carpool, and transit. There is a fairly consistent relationship between the number of trips produced each day and the density of residential dwelling units. Depending on the density of the area and other factors, it is possible to forecast the total number of trips produced in an area. In a similar fashion, employment densities can be used to forecast person trips attracted to an area. Each parcel of land generates traffic based on its type of use and intensity of development. The evening peak hour is a modeling standard, since it usually is when the highest demand occurs. Future Travel Demand The community visioning process explored a series of future (2010) land use intensities and configurations. Concepts of future development that would accomplish regional and City goals were explored. The concepts were then turned into estimates of travel demand and the necessary transportation improvements were identified. Through the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process, a recommended alternative was identified, which includes significant improvements to the existing street system, along with other transportation demand management and transit actions. In general, between 1990 and 2010, an increase in total person trips of approximately 40 percent is predicted. Revised 2003 III-14 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation City Action Areas for Transportation Plan Adoption Functional Classification of Streets Public streets are classified according to their functions related to mobility and land access. These functional classifications help facilitate planning for access and circulation, standardization of road designs, and provision of a hierarchy for roadway funding. The classification system is typically shown in map form, which can be used by planners and developers alike to determine improvements and program needs. The types of functional classifications for Federal Way are described below. Freeway — A multi -lane, high speed, high capacity roadway intended exclusively for motorized traffic with all access controlled by interchanges and road crossings separated by bridges. Principal Arterial — A roadway connecting major community centers and facilities, often constructed with partial limitations on access and minimum direct access to abutting land uses. Minor Arterial — A roadway connecting centers and facilities within the community and serving some through traffic while providing greater access to abutting properties. Collector — A roadway connecting two or more neighborhoods or commercial areas, while also providing a high degree of property access within a localized area. Collectors have been separated into principal and minor designations according to the degree of travel between areas and the expected traffic volumes. Local Street — All other roadways not otherwise classified, providing direct access to abutting land uses and serving as feeders to facilities with higher functional classifications. Designation of roadway functional classification is an integral part of managing street use and land development. In Washington, as in most states, classification of streets is necessary for receipt of state and federal highway funds. Inconsistent or misdesignation of functional class (usually in the form of under -classification) can lead to poor relations with residents and the traveling public. Studies have shown that traffic volumes in excess of about 1000 vehicles per day on residential streets produce markedly increased objection on the part of local residents. Misdesignation of a street segment to a lower classification when the amount of expected traffic warrants a higher class can also result in under -design of facilities producing long-term capacity problems. Table III-3 (page 30) summarizes the typical characteristics of each functional classification. The latest functional classifications of roadways in the Federal Way planning area are shown in Map III-S. Illustrative examples of cross -sections A through Z are shown in Figure III-3 (a-b) to Figure III-4 (pages 16-29) respectively, for the street system within Federal Way. Revised 2003 III-15 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Cross Section A l — o ` 4 Lanes + HOV 3' 8' 1 6' 12' 11' 11' 11' 6' 12l 11' 12' 6' 8' 3' + Median Util. Sidewalk Planter SOdp HOV Lek Turn HOV 16' 12' Planter Sid-1k WE' Strip Median (where LT not needed) 86' 120' Cross Section B 4 Lanes + HOV + Median 8' 12' 1 11 „' 11' 1 4' 1 12' 11' 1 12' 8' Sidewalk HOV Left Turn HOV Sidewalk 12' 14' 12' Median (where LT not needed) In City Center 84' 100, Roadway Cross Section A & B ¢ate oa Fkt'waO Way FIG. III-3 (a-b) Revised 2003 III-16 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Cross Section C 4 Lanes + Bike 3' 8' 6' 5' 1 11' 11' 11' 1 6' 1 12' 1 11' 1 56' 1 8' 3' + Median util. Sidewalk Planter Bike Left Turn HOV Plarlter Sidewalk udi. Strip 16' 12' Strip Median (where LT not needed) 72' 106' Cross Section D 1 4 Lanes + Bike + Median 3' 1 12' 5' 11' 11' 11' 6' 12' 11' 5' 12' 3' util. Sidewalk Bike Left Turn BIke Sidewalk util. Strip �12' i 16' i 2' Strip Median (where LT not needed) In City Center 72' 102' Roadway Cross Section C & D C{laPl "w [Fed �O Wky FIG. III-3 (c-d) Revised 2003 III-17 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Cross Section E 4 Lanes + Median 3' 1 8'1 6' 12' 11' 11' 6' 12' 12' 6' 1 8' IT Udl, Sklewalk I Planter Left Turn Planter Sidewalk util. Strip �12' �16' 12' Strip Median (where LT not needed) 64' 98' Cross Section F � j 4 Lanes + Median 3' 12' 12' 11 11' 6' 12' 12' 12' IT Udl. Sidewalk Left Turn Sidewalk Uul. Strip 12' 16, i12' Median Strip In City Center (where LT not needed) 64' 94' Roadway Cross Section E & F ¢oan �r FGdQTmO Way FIG. III-3 (e-f Revised 2003 III-18 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation ,Ir Cross Section G - 5 Lanes + Bike 3' 8' 6' 5' 1 11' 1 11' 1 12' 1 11' 11' 5' 6' 8' 3' Util. Sidewalk Planter Bike Strip CerKerlane Bike Planter Sidewalk Utli. Strip 06' 100, Cross Section H 5 Lanes + Bike :f. 3' 1 12' 5' 1 11' 11' 12' 11' 11' 5' 12' 3' Util. Sidewalk Bike Strip Centerline Blke Sidewalk mil. Strip In City Center 66' 96, Roadway Cross Section G & H B uw qDP FktmmWray FIG. III-3 (g-h) Revised 2003 III-19 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Cross Section J 5 Lanes 3' 8' 6' 12' 1 11' 1 12' 11' 12' 6' 1 8' 3' udl. Sid--Ik Planter Centerlane Planter sidewalk util. Strip Strip 58' 92' Cross Section J o � 5 Lanes 3' 12' 12' 11' 12' 11' 12' 12' 131 uul. Sidewalk Center lane Sidewalk util. In City Center Strip strip 58' 88' Roadway Cross Section I & J ¢aster o� FIG. III-3 (i j) Revised 2003 III-20 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation ." Cross Section K 3 Lanes + Bike 3' 8' 6' 5' 11' 12' 1 11' 1 5' 6' 1 8' 3' UUI. Sidewalk Planner Bike Strip Centerlane Bike Planter Sidewalk lldl. strip 44' 78' Cross Section L j 3 Lanes + Bike 3' 1 12' S. 11' 12' 11' 5' 12' 3' LIN. Sidewalk Bike Strip Center lane Bike 51dewalk Ufil. strip In City Center 44' 74' Roadway Cross Section K & L C04PT QDff IFM(wg' Wow FIG. III-3 (k 1) Revised 2003 III-21 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation OW_�� : ' Cross Section M 3 Lanes 3' 8' 6' 12' 1 12' 12' 6' 8' 3' Util. Sidewalk Planter Strip Center Lane 'larder Sidewalk Utll. Strip 36' 70' Cross Section N gg 7 jI 3 Lanes 3' 12' B. 11' 12' 11' 8' 12' 3' + Parking lltil. Sidewalk Parking Strip Centerline Parldng Sidewalk Uril. Strip In City Center 50, 80, Roadway Cross Section M & N Q6Hry OIY Fkdwd WaW FIG. III-3 (m-n) Revised 2003 III-22 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Cross Section O 3' 1 8'i 6' 5 12' 12' 1 5' 6' 1 8' 3' 2 Lanes + Bike util. Sidewalk Plarrter Bike Strip Bike Planter Sidewalk LIM. Strip 34' 68' Cross Section P 2 Lanes + Ditch 3' 1 6' 10, 4' 12' 12' 1 4' 10, 6' 3' util. '—" Ditch Strip — Ditch li util. — , Strip IFF 32' 70' Roadway Cross Section O & P 6o4n aff INE90TEJ Wm'jV/ FIG. III-3 (ci-p) Revised 2003 III-23 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation f Cross Section Q ,kr- 2 Lanes 3' 1 12' B. 12' 12' a' 12' 3' LIM. + Parking MI. Sidewalk Parking Parking Sidewalk Strip Strip In City Center 40' 70' Cross Section R 2 Lanes 3' 6' 4' a' 12' 12' a' 4' 6' 3' + Parking Utll. n — Parking Strip Parking - n Util. Strip 40' 66' Roadway Cross Section Q & R FIG. III-3 (q-r) Revised 2003 III-24 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Almn Cross Section S �K � 2 Lanes 3' 5' 4' 8' 1 10' 10, 8' 4' 5' 3' �,. + Parking trail. s — P.,Idng Strip A Paltig - k ' Strip 36' 60' Cross Section T 2 Lanes ffio' 3' L 5' 8 2'i 12' i 12' 2' + Ditch util. a Ditch Strip — Ditch c Utll. — Strip 28' 60' Roadway Cross Section S & T ¢aan �ff FQdmQ WRY FIG. III-3 (s-t) Revised 2003 III-25 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation 1r� Cross Section U 2 Lanes 3' 5' 4' 8 8. B' 8 4 5 3 Utll. +Parking Utll. — Panting Parlring — Strip R Strip 32' 56' Cross Section V 2 Lanes ' 3' 5' 8 12' 12' 8. 5' 3- + Ditch Util. s Ditch Ditch v Util. Strip Strip 24' 56' Roadway Cross Section U & V FIG. III-3 (u-v) Revised 2003 III-26 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Cross Section W 3' 5' 4' B. 12' 8' 4' 5' 3' Util. gg; — Padting Parldng — �tll. Strip € A R ' Strip 1 Lane + Parking 28' 52' Cross Section X 2 Lanes ' 3' 5' 8' 10' i 10' + Ditch Util. n Ditch Ditch n Util. Strip ' Strip 20' 52' Roadway Cross Section W & X cce� �ff Rdmk Wky FIG. III-3 (W-X) Revised 2003 III-27 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Cross Section Y 3' 5' 10' 1 10' V 3' Infill Cul-de-sac Uei. - s Uen. Strip Strip 20' 36' Cross Section Z Cul-de-sac 45T Q T Terminus 3' 5' 3226' 32' S' 3' Utii, Center Island Utli. Strip Strip 106' Roadway Cross Section Y & Z FIG. III-3 (y-z) Revised 2003 III-28 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Path Section a' 12' a' Non -Motorized Sidewalk s Path 12' 20' Special Cross Sections �1FG9(w&d Way FIG. III-4 Revised 2003 III-29 FWCP - Chapter Three, Transportation Table III-3 Characteristics of Functional Classifications of Streets Road Classification Number of Lanes Right of Way Width Expected Daily Traffic Existing Code Posted Speed Interstate/Freewa s 4+ varies Varies 60m h 30,000+ Principal Arterial 2 to 7 68' to 124' 35-50m h 5,000+ Minor Arterial 2 to 5 68' to 106' 30-40m h 5,000-35,000 Principal Collector4 2 to 5 68' to 100' 25-35m h 5,000-25,000 Minor Collector 2 to 3 60' to 80' 25-35mph 1,000-5,000 Local Street 2 36' to 66' 25-35m h up to 1,000 General Comments 1 Limited access, state jurisdiction. 2 Connects subregional activity centers and communities. 3 Provides major movement capacity; collecting neighborhood and business traffic to higher level arterials. 4 Connections between neighborhood or commercial areas. Design consideration for trucks. 5 Channels local traffic to principal collectors or arterials. Design for buses per METRO standards. 6 Primary function is access to abutting land use. Through traffic can be discouraged by use of traffic control devices. 7 The exact cross -sections and standards for a particular street within the community will be established through the City's Development Standards. Map III-6 illustrates which cross-section would be used for each arterial and collector within the community. Since the City does not plan local street networks, the applicable street cross-section for local streets will be established through the City's development review process, which is ongoing. Access Management Classification Access management is the regulation of intersection and driveway spacing to improve the safety and preserve capacity of major streets. Roadway crash rates are heavily dependent on the spacing of turning conflicts. By reducing the number of driveways and turning movements through shared access to multiple parcels, and restricting turning movements in congested areas, the safety and efficiency of the City's streets can be maintained. Access is one of the major factors influencing functional classification. Generally, higher classifications (interstates or freeways) serve a limited access function, while lower classifications (local roads, cul-de-sac streets) serve a local access function. The State of Washington approved legislation requiring that access onto state facilities be granted by permit and that such access conform to an access management classification system (RCW 47.50). The WSDOT put into place two administrative codes. The first identifies the administrative process (including permit fees for issuing access permits on state facilities), and the second defines the access classification system (WAC 468.51 and 468.52, respectively). A summary of the access classifications from WAC 468.52 is provided in Table III-4 (page 31). The criteria used to define the classification system included functional classification, adjacent land use (existing and proposed), speeds, setting (urban or rural), and traffic volumes. The classification system was developed with assistance from the cities by the WSDOT Northwest Region planning office. The authority to permit access to state facilities lies with the state in unincorporated areas and with the cities in incorporated areas. WAC 468.51 requires that cities with permit authority adopt a classification system equal to or more restrictive than that proposed by WSDOT. WSDOT required cities to establish an appropriate access classification system Revised 2003 III-30 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation by mid 1996. All state routes within the City also needed to be classified, with the exception of SR 18 and I-5, which are limited access facilities and not subject to the access classification system. Table III-5 (page 32) illustrates the City's adopted access classification system. The primary purpose of access management is to improve safety; therefore, higher access classifications are triggered either by crash rates or lane configurations that are less safe at higher volumes. Similarly, access spacing standards are the most restrictive for turning movements with the highest potential for accidents. Map III-7 indicates WSDOT's access classification on state highways in Federal Way. Map III-8 indicates the access classifications within the City. These access standards would be implemented as part of review of land development, as an element of street improvement projects, and to ameliorate locations with high crash rates as a part of traffic safety maintenance. Street Standards As the transportation system evolves, periodic review of the FWCP, changes to the subdivision code, and street standards are necessary. Street standards within city code convey the vision of the FWCP in greater detail. Similar to the classification map, they guide the development process activities. For example, components of the subdivision code can require certain types of street standards (e.g. widths, parking, etc.) to support designated transit compatible development. Street design standards show preferred cross sections for each arterial and street segment in the City. Table III-4 Washington State Access Classification System Chapter 468.52 WAC (7-14-94) Typical Minimum Posted Planned Planned Private Class Functional Characteristics Speed Intersection Median Connection (MPH) Spacing* Treatment Spacing* High speed/volume, long trips serving: interstate, Restrictive, where 1320 feet. 1 interregional, intercity travel. Service to abutting land 50 to 55 multi -lane is 1.0 mi One per parcel subordinate to service of major traffic movements. warranted. Medium to high speeds/volumes, medium to long trips Urban: 35 Restrictive, where 2 serving: interregional, intercity, intra-city travel. to 50 multi -lane is 0.5 mi 660 feet. Service to abutting land subordinate to service of Rural: 45 warranted. One per parcel. traffic movement. to 55 Moderate speeds/volumes, short trips serving: Urban: 30 Restrictive where Rural: 0.5 mi intercity, intra-city, intercommunity travel. Balance to multi -lane is Urban: 0.5 mi/ 3 between land access and mobility. Used where land Rural: 45 l: warranted. Two- less with signal 350 feet use is less than maximum build out, but development to 55 way left -turn lane progression potential is high. may be utilized. analysis. Moderate speeds/volumes, short trips serving: Urban: 30 Restrictive if Rural: 0.5 mi intercity, intra-city, intercommunity travel. Balance to 35 average daily Urban: 0.5 mi/ 4 between land access and mobility. Used where level Rural: 35 traffic volumes less with signal 250 feet of development is more intensive and major land use to 45 exceed 25,000, progression changes less likely than class 3. analysis. Low to moderate speeds, moderate to high volumes, 0.25 mi/less with 5 primarily short trips in intra-city and intra-community 25 -35 Non-restrictive signal 125 feet travel. Service of land access dominant function. progression analysis. Note: This table is for summary purposes only and is not included in the WAC. Source: WSDOT *See text of the WAC for exceptions. Revised 2003 III-31 FWCP - Chapter Three, Transportation Table III-S City of Federal Way Access Management Standards Minimum Through Access Signal Median Traffic Crossing Left- Right- Right- Classification Left -Turn Out progression Lanes Movements Turn In Turn Out Turn In Efficiency- 1 Raised 6 Only at signalized Only at signalized 330 150 150 u 40/o intersections. intersections. 2 Raised 4 330 330 330 150 150 30% Two -Way 3 Left -Turn 4 150 150* 150* 150* 150* 20% Lane Two -Way 4 Left -Turn 2 150* 150* 150* 150* 150* 10% Lane *Does not apply to Single -Family Residential uses. **Greater spacing may be required in order to minimize conflicts with queued traffic. ***If the existing efficiency is less than the standard, new traffic signals may not reduce the existing efficiency. a) Raised Medians will be required if any of the following conditions are met: 1) There are more than two through traffic lanes in each direction on the street being accessed. 2) The street being accessed has a crash rate over 10 crashes per million vehicle miles, and currently has a two-way left -turn lane. b) Two-way left -turn lanes will be required if the street being accessed has a crash rate over 10 crashes per million vehicle miles, and currently does not have a left -turn lane. Level of Service (LOS) Standards Level of Service (LOS) on a street or roadway is a qualitative description of traffic flow conditions during a specific time period. This measure considers travel conditions as perceived by motorists and passengers in terms of travel speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, delays, comfort, and convenience. Levels of service have traditionally been given letter designations from A through F, with LOS A representing ideal operating conditions, and LOS F representing "forced flow" conditions beyond capacity. According to the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), level of service is quantified differently for roadway segments as opposed to intersections. For example, on roadway segments the LOS is defined by the general spacing of cars traveling on the street and their level of interference with one another. At intersections, however, the LOS is defined by the length of delay a driver experiences in passing through the intersection or waiting to turn into or out of a side street. The definitions for each level of service and methodologies for calculating LOS are contained in the Transportation Research Board Special Report 209, Highway Capacity Manual (2000). Level of service is used by the City of Federal Way for two primary purposes: (1) to calculate the amount of transportation facilities the City needs in the future, and (2) to measure the adequacy of the public services which serve existing and proposed development. The first use of LOS is addressed in this section, in which alternative improvement scenarios are evaluated against these levels of service. The second use of LOS relates to the "concurrency" requirement of GMA, as described in Section 3.10. The two uses of LOS utilize the same basic standards and methodology, such that consistency is maintained. Revised 2003 III-32 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation LOS Standard — The City's goal is to maintain or improve upon a PM peak hour roadway LOS so that it is at least within capacity. The plan expects some change in the present patterns of travel behavior through increased use of non-SOV modes, such as walking, bicycling, transit, carpooling, and vanpooling. The LOS standard should reflect the impact of increased non-SOV modes of transportation. LOS Methodology — Within urbanized areas, most of the roadway congestion occurs at signalized intersections. However, it is not always practical to measure traffic flows at every intersection, and this type of detailed analysis does not provide a full perspective on how well the overall roadway network is performing. Due to the complex nature of traffic flows and the ability of motorists to take alternative routes for similar trips, the City of Federal Way has selected a LOS methodology that is an expansion of the traditional LOS measurements presented in the Highway Capacity Manual. The City uses the following two criteria for measuring LOS. Corridor and Roadway Segment Volume/Capacity (VIC) Ratio — The volume/capacity (v/c) ratio directly compares the volume on a roadway segment with the capacity of that segment to carry traffic volumes. The ratio, expressed in a range as shown in Table III-6, can then be used as a planning level LOS indicator. Table III-6 Planning and Operational Levels of Service Analysis Procedure A B C D E F Planning, wo 0.00 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.70 0.71 - 0.80 0.81 - 0.90 0.91 - 1.00 >1.00 OperationaI2 Delay (sec) 0.00 - 10.00 10.00 - 20.00 20.00 - 40.00 40.00 - 60.00 60.00 - 80.00 >80.00 Transportation Research Circular 212, Interim Materials on Highway Capacity. `Highway Capacity Manual (2000). The capacity of the roadway segment reflects the condition of the road (e.g. width of lanes, amount of driveway disturbances, whether there exists a left turning lane, etc.) and the type of traffic control along its length (e.g. frequent traffic signals reduce capacity). A v/c greater than 0.90 is used to identify locations for a more rigorous operational analysis. In an operational analysis, the level of service standard for planning purposes will be a v/c of 1.00, with a LOS of E, using a 120-second cycle at signalized intersections. In order to reflect an emphasis on non-SOV modes, LOS will be measured by average delay per person rather than the Highway Capacity Manual's average delay per vehicle. The City chooses this methodology to determine development impacts and mitigations. Current LOS Deficiencies — Map III-9 illustrates the 2002 PM peak hour level of service deficiencies on Federal Way's arterials. This figure indicates that Pacific Highway South (SR 99), Enchanted Parkway, and portions of South 348th Street are among the most congested corridors in Federal Way. These are the primary routes that carry commuters, shoppers, business trips, freight and goods, and other vehicles throughout the day and especially during peak periods. Revised 2003 III-33 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Future LOS Deficiencies —Map III-10 illustrates the expected 2008 PM peak hour level of service deficiencies for the "current trends" if no additional improvements are constructed. Map III-11 depicts 2008 congested streets with proposed street improvements. The current trends condition assumes that limited roadway improvements would be made on the existing street system, while the recommended plan includes significant improvements to several major and minor arterial routes. Without improvements, South 320th Street, Pacific Highway South (SR 99), Enchanted Parkway, 1 st Avenue South, and portions of South 348th Street would remain the most congested corridors in Federal Way. The recommended plan would improve conditions along all of these streets. Map III-12 depicts congested streets in 2020 if only the improvements in the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) are constructed. Map III-13 depicts congested streets if the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) improvements are constructed. LOS on State Facilities — In the 2020 Current Trends Alternative, the entire portion of 1-5 in the Federal Way planning area will experience severe peak -direction congestion in the PM peak hour. Major portions of SR 18 will be congested. Traffic Safety When considering transportation improvements, enhancements to traffic safety must be considered. Intersections with high collision rates are shown in Map III-14 and major street segments with high collision rates are shown in Map III-15. In addition, Map III-16 shows high collision severity intersections for 1997 to 1999, and May III-17 shows high collision severity corridors. The majority of crashes in Federal Way are related to congestion. Intersections with high levels of congestion create frustration for drivers who may then perform risky measures. Common manifestations of frustration include running a red traffic signal or a signalized intersection producing too small a gap at an unsignalized intersection, or speeding on local streets to make up for time lost at a congested location. Many accidents in neighborhoods are related to speeding, but also to poor sight distance at unsignalized intersections. These safety issues can be addressed by implementing the following measures: • Identify high crash rate locations on an annual basis, and identify projects to improve safety at these locations. • Implement access management measures to reduce turning conflicts in high crash rate corridors. • Enforce intersection sight distance standards to remove vision obstructions on the corners of intersections and at driveways. • Where supported by neighborhoods, install traffic calming measures in residential areas. Revised 2003 III-34 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation • Educate the public through project open houses and press releases on safety benefits of transportation projects. • Increase enforcement of traffic laws, particularly laws pertaining to behaviors that cause the most severe and highest frequency of crashes. Street and Roadway Improvement Plan Table III-7 (page 36) lists major street and roadway projects that are included in the 2020 recommended transportation plan. These projects will have the most significant impact on reducing corridor and system -wide congestion within the City. A full listing of recommended street and roadway improvements is provided in the Transportation Improvement Program, described in the "Implementation Strategies" section. The WSDOT has jurisdiction over state highways in the City. These include I-5, SR 18 (South 30" Street), SR 99 (Pacific Highway South), SR 161 (Enchanted Parkway South), and SR 509 (Dash Point Road). However, since many residents depend on these and other state facilities in the region, it is important the City consider the policies and efforts of the WSDOT. The City is responsible for the maintenance of state routes (except I-5 and SR-18 east of 16t` Avenue South) within the City limits and for the issuance of right-of-way use permits subject to WSDOT review. The state has enacted several policies to relieve the various problems facing travelers. These policies include: • Improve personal mobility (emphasizing movement of people and goods, over vehicles). • Enhance transportation to support economic opportunities. • Coordinate regional transportation planning and implementation. • Improve energy and environmental efficiency. • Promote public -private and public -public partnerships. • Improve freight and goods mobility. • Enhance transportation to support tourism. • Promote land use patterns to improve mobility. • Improve public transportation. • Enhance transportation system efficiency (i.e., management). • Improve air quality. Revised 2003 III-35 FWCP - Chapter Three, Transportation Table III-7 Major Street and Roadway Improvements # FACILITY FROM TO DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS 1 Military Rd S S 272°d S 288" Widen to five lanes - provisions for bicycles, sidewalks, illumination, landscaping,roe acquisition. Widen to three lanes - provisions for bicycles, sidewalks, 2 Military Rd S S 288th 31't S illumination, landscaping, property acquisition (incl. S 3041h to 28tn S) Widen to five lanes - provisions for bicycles, sidewalks, 3 S 356th leY S SR 161 signal modification, illumination, landscaping, property ac uisition, coordination with regional storm detention. Construct over crossing of I-5, construct new (5) lane 4 S 312th 281h S Military Rd S roadway, provisions for bicycles, sidewalks, illumination, landscaping, property acquisition. 5 S 312th Military Rd S 51st S Construct new (5) lane roadway, provisions for bicycles, sidewalks, illumination, landscaping,roe acquisition. 6 SR 99 S 272' Dash Pt Rd Construct Arterial HOV lanes, both directions. 7 SR 99 Dash Pt Rd S 312th Construct Arterial HOV lanes, both directions. 8 SR 99 S 312th S 324" Construct Arterial HOV lanes, both directions. 9 SR 99 S 324th S 3401h Construct Arterial HOV lanes, both directions. 10 Dash Pt Rd SR 99 1 et S Widen to three/four lanes. 11 S 316th 51st S W Valley Hwy Extension. 12 I-5 SR 18 SR-161 Construct collector/distributor roads beside I-5 to extend the SR-18 interchange south to SR- 161. 13 SR-161 SR 18 Military Widen to five lanes, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and illumination. 14 SW 336th Wy/ 26th Pl SW Hoyt Rd SW Widen to five lanes, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and SW 340 St illumination. 15 S 320th St SR 99 let Ave S Construct arterial HOV lanes. 16 SR 99 S 3401h S 356th Construct arterial HOV lanes. 17 S 348th SR 99 let Ave S Construct arterial HOV lanes. The City's plan has been developed in awareness of these policies and supporting programs. The City's plan is in compliance with the WSDOT's direction and vision. The transportation plan for Federal Way relies on the State in the following action areas: • HOV system completion on I-5 and other freeways. • Implementation of the State System Plan. This plan identifies, in priority order, the need for maintenance, preservation, safety, economic initiatives, environmental retrofit, and mobility (capacity) improvements. The latter may not be fully funded and may therefore affect the implementation of the following WSDOT projects: Revised 2003 III-36 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation • HOV access improvements, primarily I-5 medians. • Interchange improvements for I-5 from SR 18 to SR 161. • Improve access between 1-5 and the City Center. • Arterial HOV and other enhancements on SR 99 south from South 272"d Street to South 356th Street. • Improvements to SR 509 (Dash Point Road) between SR 99 and 21't Avenue SW. • SR 509 extension from Burien along the western and southern sections of SeaTac Airport south to I-5. • The SR 509 extension north from Tacoma to the new SR 167 connection on I-5 at Fife. This extension will likely occur in the 2015 planning horizon. To have I-5 and 509 coincident along I-5 from Fife to South 272nd would be consistent with this plan. • Continued improvements to monitoring, with possible provision of information systems regarding travel conditions. • Right-of-way acquisition for rail and the above improvements before construction. • The addition of park and ride lots and added capacity for existing ones. • SR 18 improvements east of SR 99. • Advanced vehicle identification (AVI) on SR 99 to provide transit priority. I-5 HOV Lanes — As noted in the section on transit and HOVs, a major improvement along I-5 proposed by the state is extending HOV improvements south to the Pierce County line. These changes are consistent with the assumptions included by the City in its analysis efforts, and support the concepts envisioned in the plan. WSDOT has also identified the next generation of improvements to the HOV system on I-5 (and other regional facilities). This effort will identify ways to improve HOV and transit access to the freeway (predominately along the medians of these highways). Such concepts are, again, consistent with this plan. SR 509 — Two projects will affect this facility; both outside the City of Federal Way. To the north, there is on -going planning for extension of SR 509 from Burien along the western and southern sections of SeaTac Airport to I-5. It is consistent with the concepts embodied in this plan. The Tier I EIS for the SR 509 South Extension Project has selected Alternative C as the preliminary preferred alternative. This particular alternative would join I-5 near South 210th Street, and add capacity to I-5 south to South 320th Street. The second modification to SR 509 will be south of Federal Way. SR 167's connection to Tacoma from Puyallup will be improved during the planning horizon. As part of this effort, the connection with SR 509 in Tacoma will be modified. The state has not resolved the issues related to modifying this connection. Analyses will look into the best Revised 2003 III-37 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation methods to accomplish this connection, and will likely examine how best to connect to an improved SR 509 to the north (see preceding paragraph). An option to have I-5 and 509 coincident along I-5 is consistent with this plan. Other Action Areas Sound Transit is reviewing a high capacity transit system alternative for a second phase in early 2006. The City plan identifies stations/transit centers on or near the I-5/SR-99 corridor at South 272nd Street, South 316th Street, South 336d' Street, and South 348th Street. Until light rail transit is extended to Federal Way, the transit centers would be for bus transit only. The integration of the road system for vehicles and buses with high capacity transit is incorporated into this plan. METRO and Pierce Transit provide bus and park & ride facilities to Federal Way. These are also identified and integrated into the City's plan. King County, Pierce County, Tacoma, Kent, Auburn, Algona, Pacific, Edgewood, Milton, and Des Moines presently border Federal Way or its potential annexation area. An integrated street system with these adjoining jurisdictions is incorporated into this plan. Sound Transit's approved plan includes regional bus service to connect transit centers. These could connect Federal Way with Tacoma and Lakewood to the south, with Tukwila and Seattle to the north, and to the northeast with Auburn, Kent, Renton, and Bellevue. The City is concerned about the high levels of congestion within and around each of the three interchange areas serving the City on I-5. The City will work with WSDOT and other affected agencies to assure adequate access between I-5 and the City. Projects being considered include all three interchanges and are prioritized in the following order: 1-5 / SR 18 / SR 161 "Triangle " — WSDOT teamed with the City, King County, and the City of Milton to develop alternatives to resolve several capacity and safety issues surrounding the outmoded cloverleaf interchange at I-5 and SR 18. A design study is nearing completion and two alternatives have been developed, with several similar attributes: • Direct ramp connections between I-5 south and SR 18 east • Direct ramp connections between I-5 north and SR 161 • Reduction or elimination of weaving areas • Potential ramp connections between I-5 south and South 375a' Street This project is the City's highest priority project on I-5. 1-5 / South 320th Street — The City is leading a design study starting in 2003 to develop alternatives to improve access between I-5 and the City Center. The existing interchange has been identified by WSDOT as a High Accident Location and is at capacity now. Failure to resolve these issues could be a deterrent to planned development in the City Center. This project is the City's second highest priority project on I-5. Revised 2003 III-38 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation I-5 / South 272"d Street — As an outgrowth of Sound Transit's plans to improve transit access between I-5 and Park and Ride Lots near South 272" d Street, WSDOT, Sound Transit, King County, and the cities of Kent and Federal Way have been involved in design analyses to resolve short- and long-term capacity problems at this interchange. Transportation Goals & Policies It is proposed that the City adopt the following goals and policies with respect to transportation facility improvements that allow it to maintain options into the future, especially with respect to transit enhancements. This may result in a conservative approach to highway improvements that might slow the rate of progress in the area of non-SOV mode use. Goal TG2 Provide a safe, efficient, convenient, and financially sustainable transportation system with sufficient capacity to move people, goods, and services at an acceptable level of service. The City shall develop and adopt policies for the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and preservation of new and existing facilities. Policies Policies that affect streets and roadways are divided into five categories: General, Functional, Safety, Multimodal, and Community/Aesthetic. General TP9 Identify and implement changes to the transportation system that reduces reliance on the single occupant vehicle. Support state, regional, and local visions and policies. TP10 Protect existing and acquire future right-of-way consistent with functional classification cross-section (transit, rail, bike, and pedestrian) needs. Require developments to dedicate right-of-way as needed for development commensurate with the impacts of the development. At a minimum, setback limits shall be used to assure that buildings are not placed within the right-of-way requirements for planned transportation facilities. Right-of-way dedication shall be commensurate with a development's impact to the existing and planned transportation system. TP11 Coordinate street and roadway improvement programs with appropriate state, regional, and local agencies. TP12 Maintain the transportation forecasting model for use in impact analysis, capital facilities planning, and monitoring of the plan. Revised 2003 III-39 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation TP13 The maintenance and preservation of existing streets, roadways, and related infrastructure shall take precedence over major street improvement projects that enhance system capacity. Functional TP14 Provide access between major development areas identified in the recommended alternative, while improving business access and protecting City neighborhoods. TP15 Specify an appropriate arterial LOS which balances the economic, ecological, accessibility, and livability needs of City residents, consumers, employers, and employees. TP16 The City's LOS standard shall be E. This is defined herein as a volume/capacity ratio less than 1.00 in accordance with Highway Capacity Manual (2000) operational analysis procedures. At signalized intersections, the analysis shall be conducted using a 120-second cycle length and level of service E is defined as less than 80 seconds of delay per vehicle. Where transit or HOV facilities are provided, the LOS shall be measured by average delay and volume/capacity ratio per person rather than per vehicle. This standard shall be used to identify concurrency needs and mitigation of development impacts. For long-range transportation planning and concurrency analysis, a volume/capacity ratio of 0.90 or greater will be used to identify locations for the more detailed operational analysis. TP17 Expand arterial capacity by constructing channelization improvements at intersections when they are an alternative to creating new lanes along a roadway corridor. TP18 Determine street classifications by balancing travel needs with changing right-of- way uses and neighborhood character. TP19 Limit single -occupant vehicle capacity increases to those required to maintain the existing LOS, either by providing new streets or by widening existing streets. Maintain existing and preserve future street connections vital to system integrity. TP20 Take advantage of opportunities to open new road connections to create route alternatives, especially in areas with few access choices. TP21 Enhance traffic circulation and access with closer spacing of through streets, unless geographical constraints do not permit. Limit the area to be served by a single access point commensurate with planned density. Safety TP22 Develop access management standards to minimize the number of curb cuts on arterials to improve pedestrian and vehicle safety. Revised 2003 III40 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation TP23 Minimize through traffic on residential streets by maximizing through travel opportunities on arterial and collector streets. TP24 Consider safety first in the design of intersection improvements. TP25 Allow improvements to traffic flow only where they contribute to traffic and pedestrian safety, high capacity transit and HOV system enhancements, and reduce air pollution. TP26 Employ traffic calming measures in neighborhoods (where feasible) where traffic volumes and speeds on local streets consistently exceed reasonable levels. TP27 Prohibit parking on arterial and collector streets, except on low volume business district streets in the City Center when neither safety nor transit operations would be compromised. TP28 Improve safety on residential streets by: a. Reducing street widths while maintaining on -street parking. b. Increasing separation between sidewalks and streets. c. Reducing design speeds to discourage speeding. d. Limiting the length of straight streets to discourage speeding. e. Discouraging the use of four -legged intersections. Multimodal TP29 Reduce reliance on the single occupant auto by prioritizing and implementing supportive local -level transit, HOV, and non -motorized improvements. TP30 Identify and plan for multi -modal freeway, arterial, and collector street improvements which ensure more efficient use of existing roads and enhancement of HOV, transit, and related non -motorized operations. TP31 Integrate the traffic circulation network with high capacity transit, HOV, bicycle, and pedestrian networks with consideration to regional system needs, including air and port facilities. TP32 Structure the City's improvement program to strategically place increments of public and private investment that complement the multi -modal vision of the plan. This should include "matching" improvements to supplement the efforts by other agencies to provide HOV and transit facilities. TP33 Acquire rights -of -way for high capacity transit whenever possible in advance of their need, and make accommodations for any improvements, whether public or private, to provide for future high capacity transit needs without major redevelopment (e.g., locate structures so they would not need to be altered to accommodate future high capacity transit facilities). Revised 2003 11141 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Community/Aesthetic TP34 Design arterials to fit with the planned character of areas they pass through. TP35 Minimize visual distraction to drivers on arterials. TP36 Make arterial travel a pleasing visual experience in order to reduce driver frustration and speed. TP37 Keep through traffic to state routes and arterials. Discourage the use of local or neighborhood streets for through movements (unless part of an overall process of creating a street grid). TP38 Include sufficient area in rights -of -way for bike lanes, sidewalks, and landscaped medians to provide separation from motorized traffic as funds allow. Use landscaped medians to separate opposing traffic when safety and aesthetic purposes dictate the need. 3.2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT (TSM) Transportation Systems Management (TSM) focuses on maximizing use of the existing systems travel capacity. The concept was first originated in the mid-1970s by the U.S. Department of Transportation. Since that time, it has been applied by a host of different ways in cities and metropolitan areas around the country. More recently, the 1991 Federal Transportation Act (ISTEA) expanded the vision of TSM introducing the term Congestion Management Systems (CMS). The terms CMS and TSM are synonymous in this document. Again, the focus of TSM is to identify ways to manage the transportation system (usually streets and highways, from a local agency perspective) to maximize the carrying capacity of existing facilities. TSM activities can include new construction, but they typically modify an existing facility. TSM options can be grouped into the following categories: • Geometric Improvements • Access Management • Signalization Improvements • Capacity Enhancements These groupings cover a host of alternative actions. Not all are appropriate for a city to undertake. The more popular and successful ones are listed in Table III-8, TSM Strategies Applicable to Federal Way (page 43). Revised 2003 11142 FWCP - Chapter Three, Transportation Table III-8 TSM Strategies Applicable to Federal Way Strategy Low or None High Geometric Improvements -Channelization ✓ -Bus Turnouts ✓ -Exclusive Turn Lanes ✓ -Intersection Widening Signalization Improvements -New Signals ✓ -Signal Removal ✓ -Coordination ✓ -Timing/Phasing Optimization ✓ -Monitoring ✓ Access Management -Turn Prohibitions ✓ -Access Management ✓ -Driveway Restrictions/Removal ✓ -Signing `/ Capacity Enhancements -Arterial Frontage Roads ✓ -Railroad Over -Crossings ✓ -Intersection Grade Separation ✓ Geometric Improvements The term Geometric Improvements refers to projects intended to "re -shape" the physical layout of roads. Through reported problems and periodic monitoring (see section on Monitoring which follows), isolated improvements can be defined which will improve the operation of traffic and increase safety. Such improvements are under the City's control. While there are national and state level guidelines, the City's adopted design standards guide the design of these improvements. Sometimes called Spot Improvements, their low cost and net increase in efficiency make them particularly popular. Signalization Improvements Signalization improvements include traffic signal installation or removal, and operational strategies. Historically, the City has relied on other agencies to service its traffic signals. The county has maintained some signals under contract to the City, while the state has operated those on certain state routes. This has produced a fragmented approach to traffic control. Recognizing this, the City recently initiated a central computer system to control key intersections in the City Center. This program consolidated all signals under King County -contracted maintenance and operation. Only signals at I-5 off -ramps remain under WSDOT jurisdiction, although signal timing is maintained by the City to provide signal coordination. Revised 2003 11143 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Traffic along South 320th Street, South 348th Street, and SR 99 benefit from coordination and improvement to signal timing and phasing. A decrease in delay of up to 29 percent was measured in an earlier study. The cost of such improvements has been rapidly recovered by this reduction in delay to drivers. Air quality is also enhanced due to fewer unnecessary stops. In addition, transit reliability has increased. Coordinated signal systems require periodic attention to maintain their efficiency because traffic conditions change over time. While Federal Way is not directly operating the signal systems, it has focused on hiring traffic personnel in the Public Works Department who have experience in this area and can manage the contracted work. Monitoring of the system is another activity that the City controls directly. Whether or not the City operates the signals, a monitoring and reporting program should be set up. This would include the gathering of traffic information, its processing, and the reporting of the results in a systematic fashion. Changes in operating conditions should be reported to responsible officials on a regular basis and should be used as part of the prioritization process in making local improvements (see the section on Implementation Strategies). The City has developed a master plan to provide signal communications, coordination, and monitoring as shown in Map III-3. Access Management Access Management is another means to manage traffic flow efficiency. These measures can be instituted by the City on its facilities. Further, WSDOT encourages the City to manage access to state routes in the City, often by use of controls and restrictions. (See the Roads and Streets section for access management category designations.) Controls and restrictions are often placed where recurrent safety problems have been noted. Signing, which is a form of traffic control, is important to the motoring public. One component often overlooked is directional or informational signing. Another reminds travelers of regulations. Since a number of jurisdictions operate roads in and about Federal Way, a comprehensive effort to coordinate signing would be useful in placing street improvements. Such a system would route motorists and other travelers to the most appropriate route (see section on Intelligent Traveler Systems). Capacity Enhancements Capacity enhancements typically include road widening. They are construction oriented (as opposed to operational), and are often constructed to assure an existing road segment operates as efficiently as nearby segments. For example, traffic monitoring might indicate a section of freeway carries more local, short trips than long distance, through trips. By adding a parallel frontage road, the freeway might operate more efficiently. Another example might consist of two heavily used streets being grade separated at their intersection point to accommodate flow. Intersections such as South 320th Street at SR Revised 2003 11144 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation 99, South 348th Street at SR 161, and South 348th Street at SR 99 may be considered for such improvements in future planning cycles. Capacity enhancements typically are higher in cost than other TSM strategies. Funding from outside sources is limited. Therefore, such projects must be carefully justified. Advanced Technology and TSM Applications of new technology can also be categorized as TSM measures. Originally called Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems and now known as Intelligent Traveler Systems, they are being rapidly developed for all modes of travel. Key to many of them is improved traveler information. As described further below, their application holds great merit for managing congestion, improving safety, and informing travelers of multiple travel options. An Intelligent Traveler Systems Plan was recently prepared for the State of Washington. Directed by WSDOT, it established a framework for implementation of a variety of ITS options. Table III-9 (page 46) lists the main categories of ITS application, their relative applicability in Federal Way, and the degree of impact each might have on the City's vision and plan. TSM Projects The following projects have been identified under the City's TSM program. Traffic Signal Coordination Signal Coordination on SR 99 S South 288`h to South 356`h. Complete signal coordination along major arterial sections. Completed July 1996. Retimed 2001. Signal Coordination on South 348`h S I-5 to P South. Complete signal coordination along major arterial sections. Completed December 1995. Retimed 1998. • Signal Coordination on South 320`h S I-5 to P South. Completed July 1996 Retimed 2002. • Signal Coordination on SW Campus Drive. Completed December 1998. 0 Signal Coordination on 21" Avenue SW. Completed December 1998. 0 Signal Coordination on SR161 (Enchanted Parkway). Completed December 1998. Revised 2003 11145 FWCP - Chapter Three, Transportation Table III-9 Intelligent Traveler Systems (ITS) Applications in Federal Way ITS CATEGORY EXAMPLE APPLICATION AREA DEGREE OF CITY CONTROL IMPACT TO VISION Public Transit Monitoring of Transit Operations Automatic Fare Payment �I Dynamic Ridesharing ✓ HOV Lanes & Parking 71 71 ✓ Priority Treatment 71 71 ✓ HOV-Signal Priority 71 71 HOV-Automated Highways 4 4 ✓ Employer -Based TDM Initiatives 4 71 Vehicle Guidance & Control �I Road Use Pricing Ferry Management N/A N/A Traveler Information Traveler Information Databases 4 71 Trip Planning (Pre -trip) N 71 Trip Guidance En Route N 4 Vehicle Monitoring & Warning Systems �I y Traffic Management Incident Detection & Management ✓ Traffic Network Monitoring 71 71 Communication Systems 4 4 ✓ Traffic Control Systems 71 71 Construction Management 4 4 Freight & Fleet Management Route Planning & Scheduling �I Vehicle & Cargo Monitoring �I Regulatory Support 71 Internodal Port Transfers N/A N/A Other Services Emergency Service System Mgt. 71 4 Enforcement Services 71 4 Traveler Safety/Security 4 4 Air Quality Monitoring & Pricing N 4 71- High/Positive 4- Somewhat/Possibly N- Low/Questionable ✓- Pursue Revised 2003 III-46 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Traffic Signalization • South 312`h @ 8`h Avenue South. Place traffic signal to manage changing traffic conditions. • 21" Avenue SW @ SW 325`h. Place traffic signal to manage changing traffic conditions. Completed April 1998. • SW Dash Point Road @ 8`h Avenue SW Install left turn lane and traffic signal. • SW Dash Point Road @ 21" Avenue SW. Install right turn lane, traffic signal, illuminate intersection. Completed April 1998. 0 SW 340`h Street @ 35`h Avenue SW. Signalization and school crossing illumination. Completed December 1996 • SR 99 @ South 330`h Street. Signalize. Completed January 2001. Intersection Improvements (Channelization, Geometrics, etc.) 0 South 336`h Street: 13`h Avenue South —18`h Avenue South, Right Turn Lane @ SR 99. Construct eastbound right turn lane and westbound left -turn lane. • South 356`h Street Right Turn Lane @ SR 99. 150-foot right turn lane. Completed. • Continuing Minor Traffic Improvements. Place signal revisions and other traffic controls at various locations to manage the dynamics of short-term changes in traffic conditions. • SW Campus Drive @ 6`h Avenue SW. Install new traffic signal and left turn storage lanes. Completed. South 320`h @ SR 99. Redesign intersection to accommodate changing traffic patterns. Completed July 2001. • SW 340`h @ Hoyt Road SW. Construct left turn lanes and signalize. Completed March 2000. 0 South 336`h @ 20`h Avenue South. Add left turn lanes to accommodate changing traffic demand. • South 288`h @ 20`h South. Add left turn lanes to accommodate changing traffic demand. Revised 2003 11147 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Transportation Goals & Policies Goal TG3 Extend the functional life of the existing transportation system and increase its safe, efficient operation through application of TSM strategies. Policies TP39 Continue to implement traffic signal coordination projects as the primary component of a TSM program. As funds permit, monitoring of traffic operations will be carried out to assure efficient timing of traffic signals. TP40 The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, developed at the federal level, will be employed in the design and placement of traffic controls. TP41 Public comments and requests will supplement routine traffic monitoring to identify and correct traffic control needs, as well as other noted system deficiencies. TP42 Arterial HOV improvements will be constructed along key corridors to improve flow and encourage use of these more efficient modes. TP43 Minor capital projects, placing spot (localized) traffic improvements, will be carried out to extend the capacity of system components. TP44 Capacity enhancements will be made where other, lower cost improvements will not correct deficiencies. They will be carefully justified to compete for limited funds. TP45 Employers will be encouraged to institute complementing TSM actions to those under -taken by the City. This will create consistency and understanding, thereby improving travel conditions. TP46 Intelligent Traveler System options will be monitored by staff, who will periodically recommend additional ITS-TSM options. TP47 Access Management, placing restrictions on left turns across major arterial streets, will be used to reduce crash rates and extend capacity of major arterials. TP48 As technology permits, and the City's HOV system is implemented, opportunities will be sought to modify the signal coordination strategies to provide priority to HOW Revised 2003 11148 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation TP49 Incident response timing plans should be developed for parallel arterials to accommodate diversion of traffic from freeways caused by lane closures. 3.3 NON -MOTORIZED MODES The two most popular modes of non -motorized transportation are walking and bicycling. Walking constitutes the greatest percentage of personal travel. Unfortunately, short trips (under one mile) are usually not counted in urban travel statistics. We make at least as many short trips as longer trips by motorized vehicles. When travel by younger generations is considered, the importance and magnitude of short trips can be better appreciated. As pointed out in a recent State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development report, the popularity of bicycling has increased in the US since the 1970s. A 1991 survey found that 1.67 percent of Americans and 2.9 percent of people in the Western states commuted to work by bike in October 1990. The Census Work Trip data for Federal Way reported slightly less than one percent bicycle use and about two percent walking for work trips in 1990.' The 2000 Census reports that in 1999, approximately 1.3 percent of workers 16 years and over walked to work. Table III-10 summarizes the trip purposes reported in 1990 as part of the National Personal Transportation Study. Table III-10 Purposes of Walking and Biking Trips PURPOSE WALK BIKE Work 11% 10% Shopping 18% 10% School/Church 20% 14% Social/Recreational 34% 55% Other 17% 1 1 % Table III-10 indicates that U.S. citizens may not have discovered the bicycle as a commute vehicle, and that opportunities for walking to work are limited. It is possible that the location of jobs relative to homes and the lack of connections between major travel points contribute to this. Can this change? One needs only look to other nations to find examples of bicycle use, especially to access other modes of transportation. In Germany, for example 43 percent of arrivals at rail stations are by bike. A 15 percent figure is common in Japan. Your Community's Transportation System, Department of Community Development, State of Washington, Olympia, WA, April 1993. Revised 2003 11149 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Nationally, 54 percent of the population lives within five miles of their work place. There is a tremendous opportunity for people to walk or bike if we provide safe, direct pedestrian, and bicycle facilities. Safety is another area of concern for pedestrians and cyclists. The WSDOT reports that the vast majority of pedestrians killed or injured are struck while crossing the roadway, most often at intersections. Nearly half of all bicycle/automobile accidents occur at intersections. The state is monitoring pedestrian and bicycle accidents as performance measures of the service objectives. Funding is no less an issue with non -motorized facilities than road and transit services. The ability of the City of Federal Way to provide non -motorized facilities is limited by funding sources and competing program needs. The extent of this constraint becomes apparent when the estimated $300,000 cost to provide needed wheelchair ramps for transportation -disadvantaged persons in Federal Way is compared to the recent annual budget amount of $30,000. Walking and biking do not appear to play a major role in satisfying urban travel needs at present. This will not occur until we provide a safe network for pedestrians and bicyclists and develop a system that is oriented towards pedestrians and bicyclists. Walking and bicycle ways are a potential means of providing increased accessibility for the full range of citizens; including young, old, and transportation -disadvantaged. A safe network of non -motorized facilities will provide the opportunity for recreational and commuter users to reduce their dependence on automobiles. State & Regional Coordination Issues On the federal and state level, coordination, planning, and implementation of non - motorized facilities has gained significant support as an alternative mode of transportation. The 1990 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) emphasizes the benefits of non -motorized modes of travel and provides a revenue resource for funding planning and implementation activities. The State of Washington has developed service objectives for bicycle and pedestrian transportation systems primarily to increase use and improve safety. The state has also defined the non - motorized systems in terms of state-owned and state -interest. The state-owned system refers to state highways, interstates, ferries, and Amtrak. "State -interest facilities are local, regional, or statewide facilities that are vital to the statewide economy and the mobility ofpeople and goods. " On a regional level, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (PSRC 1995, MTP-3), identifies major issues to be addressed by the plan including: • Identify performance based strategies; • Develop criteria for identifying regionally significant projects; • Establish funding levels and financially constrained plans; Revised 2003 III-50 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation • Develop better standards; • Ensure consistency in planning among local jurisdictions; • Establish priorities for funding; and, • Involve the public and provide coordination. To provide regional guidance and coordination, the MTP calls for a significant increase in facilities that support pedestrian and bicycle travel. The three components of the MTP strategy include development of a regional network of non -motorized transportation facilities, development of local networks for non -motorized travel, and development of a transit network that is fully accessible to pedestrians and bicyclists. These strategies are consistent with and incorporated into the non -motorized section of this chapter of the FWCP. To develop a facility plan and strategies for non -motorized modes of travel, attention to the perceived needs of regional and local users will help create a viable system. Table III -I I lists common problems related to the use of non -motorized travel and options to improve these uses. Table III-H Non -Motorized User Problems and Solutions Problem Solution Alternatives Lack of Facilities, Route Complete system elements and gaps. Discontinuities Review and condition new development. Trip Too Long Interconnect developments and cul-de-sacs with trails. Create closer opportunities (jobs housing balance). Bike Security Add storage facilities at destination and on transit. Clothing/Cleanliness Add showers, changing areas, and restrooms. Personal Security Assure lighting, wider facilities, motorist compliance with laws. Re -time signals. Where appropriate, separate from vehicles. Unaware of System Designate (sign) routes. Public education, advertising, provide maps. Pedestrian System Background Walking supports many trip purposes. Significant foot traffic occurs in areas with concentrations of children and high population densities, such as downtown and retail Revised 2003 III-51 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation centers. Also, as the American population ages, higher numbers of elderly, who no longer can drive or who choose walking for exercise, are using walkways (sidewalks, paths, and trails). Planning for walkways requires an understanding of the patterns of foot traffic and a decision on which trips can be appropriately supported through investment by the public sector. For example, a community such as Federal Way, much of which has been built with neighborhood streets, may find it can only afford to place sidewalks along major streets. For financial reasons, it may be necessary to accommodate foot and bicycle traffic on residential streets within the neighborhood, but provides pedestrian separation from traffic on busier streets through the placement of sidewalks. Pedestrian facilities were inventoried and are shown in Map III-18. This inventory has recently been revised. Several arterial streets do not have sidewalks or have sidewalks that are substandard. In 1993, the city adopted a policy that makes the city responsible for maintaining sidewalks. A program to construct missing segments of sidewalk, or to construct sidewalks only within certain arterial classification, should be considered. Pedestrian Improvement Options Street lighting, hand/guardrails, directional signing, wheelchair ramps, and traffic signal crossing indications are some of the amenities which may be required as part of a pedestrian system. Many existing facilities in Federal Way do not have these amenities and inhibit safe pedestrian improvement and access to transit. The actual provision of these amenities is usually assured through the adoption of design and construction standards, which are applied to new or significantly reconstructed facilities, such as streets, subdivisions, public, and commercial buildings. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires designs that provide access for the mobility impaired, and that are required for all facilities affording public access. This act also requires the retrofitting of buildings and their access for the mobility impaired. This applies to the need to place ramps at all crosswalks and intersections on City streets. There are also many older areas of Federal Way that have no sidewalks and pedestrian amenities, the lack of which tends to impair safe pedestrian movement. An assessment of needed pedestrian amenities and the condition of existing sidewalks should be carried out to prioritize, fund, and construct a functional pedestrian system. Education and Training The public, especially grade school children, should be educated on pedestrian safety. Programs such as "Ped-Bee" (Bellevue, Kirkland) teach children traffic and pedestrian safety. As the American public grows older, it will be increasingly necessary to consider their needs. A recent study by the Center for Applied Research reports that 20 to 40 percent of the elderly who do not drive depend upon walking for their travel needs. The report also points to the fact that traffic signals may fail to take the slow walking speed of these individuals into consideration. The Federal Highway Administration is presently considering the study's findings. While there is no immediate action required by the City, it is likely that municipalities such as Federal Way will be prompted to give more explicit consideration to the walking needs of the elderly in the future. Revised 2003 III-52 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation A strategic objective for Federal Way's pedestrian system should be as follows: Short Term Strategy. Improve safety and complement the transit system, making it more accessible. It is necessary to attend to the safety needs of pedestrians, correcting locations having high crash rates, and making ADA required ramp improvements. Connections to the transit system can also be made to provide a missing link in what could be a "seamless" public transit system. In extending the pedestrian system to provide access to the transit system, transit amenities such as bus shelters should also be provided. Mid Term Strategy. Provide extensions to the walkway system. Logical, safe, and convenient connections to parks, schools, neighborhoods, retail areas, transit, and other points of attraction should be considered. The major interim extension of the network should provide connections to and within neighborhood and business centers. This will support the neighborhood area and concepts imbedded in the plan vision. A network of walkways and trails on roadways should be integrated into the Parks Comprehensive Plan and its trail system to provide for the needs of both recreation and commuter uses. • Long Term Strategy. Focus public and private investment in the City Center. At present, the pedestrian system does not contribute to the identity of the downtown. The future system must link commercial establishments, public open space, and public buildings with transportation facilities. Pedestrian facility development is supported by zoning regulations and development review in the form of the City's design guidelines, to make sure pedestrian access is accounted for and is consistent with this plan. Through a collective vision for the denser core area, this can become an attractive feature for Federal Way. Without it, the resulting pedestrian environment will remain forbidding. Bicycle System Background The Federal Way Bicycle Advisory Committee (FWBAC), Federal Way's citizen advocacy group of bicycling enthusiasts, wishes to see Federal Way become one of the best cities for non -motorized modes of travel. Their goals are to make available to the citizens an interconnected network of bike facilities for commute, utilitarian, and recreational users. Incorporated by this reference to the FWCP is the "City of Federal Way Bicycle Plan," May 1994, which is intended to act as a guide for policy makers when making or planning for needed bicycle improvements in the greater Federal Way area. The following summarizes key recommendations and gives some examples of possible programs: Revised 2003 III-53 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Staffing. PSRC's MTP acknowledges that communities with dedicated bicycle planners are more likely to have extensive programs for pedestrians and bicyclists, a well -developed facility plan, and design standards for bicycle facilities. A Bike Planner is recommended to facilitate and implement non - motorized programs. This planner could also implement other components of the transportation plan such as TDM, grants, and the TIP. Education and Training. The public needs to be made aware of alternatives to the single occupancy vehicle (SOV) and that bicycles have equal rights to cars on the road. Volunteers and FWBAC members could assist with education programs promoting safety and rules of the road for bicyclists. Programs for grade school children would be beneficial. Users could learn from "Bicycle Buddies." Programs such as "Safety Town" and bicycle rodeos teach children traffic and bicycle safety. • Promotion. Bicycles should be promoted as an alternative means of transportation for commuting and for recreation. Publications could have bike - riding tips. Maps of bike routes need to be published. Nationally, 54 percent of all people work within five miles of work. Safe and direct bike rides on trails or routes could increase the use of bicycles as a commuting alternative. • Enforcement. Cars and bicyclists that disobey the rules of the road make the roads less safe for everyone. Greater enforcement would be beneficial. • Plan. The adoption of a Non -Motorized Facilities Plan developed with the FWCP will provide a classification of the types and locations of bike trails and routes to provide an interconnected network of facilities to meet the needs of Federal Way. • Standards. The adoption of design standards for bicycle facilities will ensure that the safety and quality standards of the community are met. This includes trail widths, pavement markings, signs, bike racks, and lighting for both public and private facilities. Safety can be enhanced by identifying how intersections and driveways are designed and what kinds of catch basin lids and pavement markings are to be used. WSDOT and AASHTO have developed design standards for bicycle facilities. Facilities. The TIP provides a prioritized listing of non -motorized improvements. These are shown in Table 111-12 (page 55). A small CIP category should be identified for improvements to non -motorized modes of travel, such as replacing catch basin grates that are not bike safe, constructing small improvements such as minor discontinuities of bike facilities and to install signs and pavement markings. Major capital improvements for streets should incorporate non -motorized facilities. Additionally, prioritized projects just for bicyclists will also help provide continuity for the principal bike facilities shown on the Non -Motorized Facilities Plan and provide a basis to compete for available funding sources. Revised 2003 III-54 FWCP - Chapter Three, Transportation Building owners and employers should be encouraged to provide bicycle parking, bicycle security, showers, and lockers. Transit agencies also should be encouraged to provide bicycle parking, security, and a means of transporting bicycles so they can be used at trip destinations. Table 111--12 TIP Non -Motorized Improvements LOCATION IMPROVEMENT COST YEAR BPA Trail Phase II: lst Ave S to SW Campus Dr (Completed) Trail Development $0.631 Million 1995 Military Road: I-5 North to I-5 South Shoulder Improvement $1.176 Million 2006+ S 312th St: Dash Pt Rd to I' Ave S Shoulder Improvement $0.308 Million 2002 Weyerhaeuser Way S 320th St to S 349th St Shoulder Improvement $0.652 Million 2002 BPA Trail Phase III: SW Campus Dr to SW 3561h St. (Completed) Trail Development $1.947 Million 2001 BPA Trail Phase IV: SW 356th St to City Limits Trail Development $1.230 Million 2004+ 1" Ave S: S 292nd St to S 312th St Shoulder Improvement $0.282 Million 2004+ 9th Ave S: S 333`d St to S 348th St Widen for Bike Lanes $2. Million 2004+ • Funding. Reliable on -going funding is needed to accommodate the state, regional, and local goals in providing and supporting non -motorized modes of transportation. Grants are one source to pursue. The following is a list of national grant sources that indicates the level of interest in bicycling as transportation. • National Highway System (NHS) • Surface Transportation Project (STP) • Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program • Federal Lands • Scenic Byways Program • National Recreational Trails • Federal Transit Title III Bicycle Improvement Options In competing for limited funding sources, it is essential that this section's recommendations, like the pedestrian/walkway system, be programmed for implementation in a logical fashion. The following are the criteria proposed for establishing the prioritized order of improvements. They are listed in their recommended order of precedence. Maintenance and operations. Maintenance of trails, signs, etc. Regular sweeping of trails. Safety Improvements: • Replace catch basin grates that are not bicycle safe. • Remove hazards and minor discontinuities of trails. • Striping and pavement markings for bike trail delineation. • Signs Revised 2003 III-55 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation 2. Public and private development or redevelopment. • Off -road developments • Schools • Parks • Subdivisions 3. Roadway construction or reconstruction. Include bike facilities as apart of all projects as funding allows. 4. Bike facility construction projects that provide access to: • Transit • Parks • Neighborhood centers • Libraries • Work sites • Churches • Schools 5. Completion of sections of the regional trail system (when identified by PSRC). 6. Creation of a commuter biking system. 7. Creation of a recreational biking system. Non -Motorized Facilities Plan To assist the City in identifying important facilities for non -motorized modes of travel, as well as provide guidance for the location of improvements in the non -motorized plan, a facility plan has been developed. Consistency and coordination with regional and other adjacent agency plans and projects will ensure a seamless system of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Pierce County, Tacoma, and King County have to some degree identified important facilities. The Pierce County and Tacoma plan identify important bicycle connections at SW Hoyt Road, SW Dash Point Road and SW 356th Street. These connections are also identified on the Federal Way Plan. The closest regionally significant non -motorized facility to Federal Way is the Interurban Trail. Access east/ west to the Interurban Trail from Federal Way is provided on shared facilities on South 320th Street, South 288th Street, and South 272"a Street. The Federal Way Bicycle Facilities Plan is shown in Map 111-19. The state, region (PSRC), and King County have identified improvements to non - motorized facilities to enhance non -motorized transportation. The FWBAC also identified improvements needed to accommodate non -motorized facilities. Improvements identified by FWBAC will be considered along with the Federal Way and Regional Transportation Improvement Programs. Revised 2003 III-56 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation This plan illustrates the proposed system of designated bicycle facilities for the City. The complete system will be composed of three types of non -motorized facilities, classified as follows: Class I facilities are separate trails, operating in their own rights of way. Class 2 facilities are signed bike routes that operate jointly with roadways. Class 3 facilities are shared road facilities. Under this plan, the common element will be shared road facilities. Where there is sufficient right-of-way, cyclists can be allowed to share the road with motorized vehicles. No signing or striping will be placed on these facilities. Another common element of the bicycle system will be a network of bike routes and bike lanes. Routes will be established where there is sufficient on -street width to accommodate cyclists in traffic. To maintain continuity and guide travelers, the system will be designed with distinctive markers, possibly designed in a citywide competition. Where the needs of the cyclist warrant, Class 2 bike lanes can be installed using approved pavement marking techniques and signing. A limited number of Class 1 bike trails separated from vehicles will be provided through the plan. Key among these facilities will be a cross-town trail along the BPA Power Line right-of-way, between 11t` Place South at South 324t' Street and SW 356t' Street at about 16t' Avenue SW. This facility will provide a non -motorized link between residential neighborhoods, the Aquatic Center, Panther Lake, and commercial/retail areas, including SeaTac Mall. Transportation Goals & Policies Non -motorized transportation facilities will be increasingly important to the City in meeting the travel needs of its residents and workers and to reduce our dependence on automobiles. The pedestrian and bicycle systems can be implemented through a prioritized series of improvements to complement the transit, and HOV systems as well as create a key link to business, cultural, recreational, and residential elements that are a part of the FWCP Vision. Goal TG4 Enhance community livability and transportation by providing a connected system ofpedestrian and bicycle ways that is integrated into a coordinated regional network. Policies TP50 Provide sidewalks on both sides of all arterial streets as funding allows. Revised 2003 III-57 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation TP51 Provide a one -mile grid of bicycle facilities connecting major activity centers, recreational facilities, and schools. TP52 Incorporate pedestrian and bicycle features as design elements in the City Center as reflected in the FWCP Vision and City Center Street Design Guidelines. TP53 Ensure that City facilities and amenities are ADA compatible. TP54 Work to extend the existing system of sidewalks, bikeways, and equestrian ways in the city to provide safe access to public transit, neighborhood and business centers, parks, schools, public facilities, and other recreational attractions. TP55 Work with other agencies, particularly relating to regionally significant facilities, to pursue funding for pedestrian and bicycle amenities. TP56 Inform and educate the public on safety and use of non -motorized facilities. TP57 Ensure non -motorized facilities are safe and well maintained. Actions 1. Work with high capacity transit agencies to ensure such non -motorized travel amenities as shelters, benches, bicycle racks, lighting, and information kiosks are incorporated in the design and improvement of transit facilities. 2. Establish a funding program that prioritizes the most critical non -motorized improvements first, while realizing opportunities for property owners, neighborhoods, or business groups to create portions of the system through public - private partnerships. 3. Facilitate the School District's designation of a system of safe school walking routes, and, where possible, make capital budget decisions that support such a system. 4. Emphasize the enforcement of laws that reduce pedestrian, cyclist, and vehicle conflict. 5. Improve public awareness of the laws that protect pedestrians and cyclists and of non -motorized facility locations. 6. Include maintenance of non -motorized facilities in the City's on -going transportation services program. 7. Acquire access paths between existing developments, cul-de-sacs, public facilities, business areas, and transit followed by trail construction to improve non -motorized circulation. Require the same for all new developments or redevelopments. Revised 2003 III-58 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation 3.4 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) Several pieces of recent legislation have led the City into the realm of Transportation Demand Management (TDM). These include the State GMA, Commute Trip Reduction Act (CTRA), and federal level requirements under both TEA-21 and Clean Air Act Amendments as reflected in the State Implementation Plan. The GMA cites the need for a variety of "management actions;" including the requirement that the transportation chapter of each plan include an identification of system expansion needs and transportation system management (TSM) needs to meet current and future demands. The act goes on to note: After adoption of the Comprehensive Plan ...local jurisdictions must adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, unless transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development. These strategies may include ... demand management and other transportation systems management strategies (emphasis added). The purpose of the following section is to provide recommendations on the appropriate approach to TDM for a suburban city such as Federal Way. Since the preponderance of employment is currently outside the City, there can only be limited influence on traffic congestion within Federal Way by travel management through TDM. Options must be selected accordingly. Table III-13 (page 60) stratifies various TDM alternatives by their functional grouping and potential effectiveness, implementation difficulties, and expected cost effectiveness. Fortunately, several of the more effective options are within the purview of the City. PSRC's Vision 2020 identified five basic strategies that overlap with those presented in Table III-13. These strategies are: ■ Telecommuting ■ Parking Pricing and Subsidy Removal ■ Compressed Work Week ■ Employer -Based Management ■ Parking Supply Strategies PSRC also recognizes that the following issues must be addressed to support successful TDM implementation in the region: ■ Lack of data on effectiveness ■ Emerging technological and social shifts ■ Lack of regional coordination ■ Need for TDM strategies to address non -commute trips ■ Lack of funding flexibility to finance TDM investments ■ Lack of alternatives to single occupant vehicle (SOV) travel ■ Lack of public support Revised 2003 III-59 FWCP - Chapter Three, Transportation While TDM actions are aimed at reducing travel demand or, at least, shifting it to more opportune travel times, several focus on consolidating person trips to fewer vehicles. The City views HOV and transit use as key to reducing travel demand. As discussed in later sections, provision of on -street and off-street HOV facilities and controls will support this strategy. For example, arterial HOV lanes will complement the regional system. Similarly, traffic signal priority and preferential parking, access, and egress for HOV will further bolster the program. Table 111--13 Evaluation of TDM Strategies Who Pays Evaluation Criteria for Incremental Transportation Demand Potential Effectiveness Implementation Difficulties Cost o Management (TDM) Strategies PUBLIC MODE SUPPORT MEASURES Public Education and Promotion Increases the effectiveness ofother None Low -medium ✓ ✓ ✓ strate ies a to 3% Area -wide Ride matching 0.1-3.6% VMT reduction None Low ✓ ✓ Services Transit Services Up to 2.5% VMT reduction Ongoing competition for Medium -high ✓ ✓ ✓ public funds Up to 8.3% commute VMT High fares compared to Vanpool Service reduction transit; finding riders & Medium ✓ ✓ drivers Transit and Vanpool Fares Up to 2.5% regional VMT Competition for public funds; Medium ✓ ✓ ✓ reduction equity concerns Non -Motorized Modes 0-2% regional VMT Minimal for low cost actions; Low -high ✓ ✓ ✓ reduction great for high cost actions HOV Facilities Up to 1.5% VMT reduction & High cost; public acceptance g p p Medium -high g ✓ .2% trip reduction Park and Ride Lots 0-0.5% VMT reduction None I Medium -high ✓ EMPLOYER BASED TDM MEASURES Monetary Incentives 8-18% trip reduction at site Tax implications for some Low -medium ✓ subsidies Alternative Work Schedules As much as a 1 % regional Employee or management Low ✓ VMT reduction reluctance Commute Support Programs 0.1-2.0% regional VMT None Low ✓ reduction Guaranteed Ride Home Unknown Liability concerns of Low ✓ ✓ employers Parking Management 20-30% site reduction in SOV Employee opposition Low to revenue ✓ ✓ trips producing Facility Amenities Minimal alone Space; local zoning Low to revenue ✓ requirements producing Revised 2003 III-60 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Who Pays Evaluation Criteria for Incremental Q Transportation Demand Potential Effectiveness Implementation Difficulties Cost o Management (TDM) Strategies Transportation Management 6-7% commute trip I Funding and political support Low -medium ✓ ✓ Associations reduction* required *These results are from pre CTR experiences. A broader range of effectiveness would be expected in the presence of CTR legislation. PRICING STRATEGIES 4-10% regional VMT Public resistance; legislative Revenue Gasoline Tax Increases reduction action; travel alternatives producing ✓ required regional VMT Public resistance; legislative Revenue VMT Tax reduction reduction action; travel alternatives producing ✓ required Public and political Congestion Pricing Up to 5% regional VMT resistance; travel alternatives Revenue ✓ reduction required; technical and producing enforcement difficulties 1-5% regional VMT and trip Legislative action; negative Revenue Parking Tax reduction public sentiment opposition producing ✓ ✓ from private sector TELECOMMUNICATIONS STRATEGIES Telecommuting Up to 10% commute VMT prevailing corporate culture Low ✓ reduction Advanced Telecommunications Moderate to high Untested, unproven concepts Low -high ✓ ✓ LAND USE STRATEGIES Development Impact Mitigation Varies with mitigation Landowner and developer Low to ✓ ✓ requirements resistance medium Mixed Land Use/Jobs Housing VMT reductions up to 10% Public resistance; slow rate of Low to ✓ ✓ ✓ Balance effective change medium Transit -Oriented and Pedestrian Increase in transit, bike, and Requires design review; Medium to ✓ ✓ ✓ Friendly Design pedestrian trips developer resistance high VMT reductions of up to 10% Public and developer Medium to ✓ Residential Density Increases per household resistance to required high densities Employment Center Density SOV work trip reductions of Large increase in density Medium to ✓ ✓ Increases up to 50% often required to realize high significant change 1 to 5% region -wide VMT Local council action required; Parking Management reduction public/retailer resistance; Low ✓ ✓ enforcement issues Unknown; probably reflects Requires policy changes, Low to On -Site Amenities effectiveness of mixed use public, and private inertia are medium ✓ development barriers POLICY & REGULATORY STRATEGIES .1 - 4% regional VMT Legislative action required; Trip Reduction Ordinances reduction resistance to expanded Low -medium ✓ ✓ ✓ regulation Restrict Access to Facilities and 2o . reduction 8-10/o VMT Political will to face public Low to high ✓ Activity Centers opposition Revised 2003 III-61 FWCP - Chapter Three, Transportation Who Pays Evaluation Criteria for Incremental Q Transportation Demand Potential Effectiveness Implementation Difficulties Cost o Management (TDM) Strategies Support New Institutional Unknown Require strong advocacy, Low to high ✓ Arrangements public, & private support Increase HOV lanes to 3+ Possible 1.5% reduction Legislative action needed; Low ✓ public resistance Parking Restrictions 1-5% trip reduction Public, developer resistance Low ✓ Effectiveness of TDM Alternatives Recently, WSDOT conducted a study of the effectiveness of alternative TDM strategies. This work was carried out for the National Association of Regional Councils and provides interesting conclusions. The study looked into both the cost of TDM strategies and the potential reduction in vehicle miles traveled (and air pollution) resulting from the efforts. Interestingly, this work identifies the least and the most effective strategies, which are summarized in Table 111--13 (page 60). The researchers noted that land use planning and related strategies are also potentially highly cost-effective. Commute Trip Reduction Act The Commute Trip Reduction Act was passed by the State Legislature in 1991 and revised in 1997. It is also a part of the State Clean Air Act. The intention of the law is to improve air quality, reduce traffic congestion, and decease fuel consumption. It focuses attention on larger employers with the intent of reaching concentrations of workers who might use shared -ride and non -motorized modes to travel to and from work. Working from 1992, or employer's survey year data, as the base year, employers are encouraged to reduce SOV use and vehicle miles of travel (VMT) by 15 percent in the first two years, 20 percent in four years, 25 percent in six years and 35 percent in 12 years. In 1992 the baseline characteristics were established for South King County (including Federal Way) at an 85 percent share to SOV's and an average trip length of 9.3 miles. In 1993, Federal Way adopted an ordinance consistent with the CTR guidelines. In adopting the ordinance, the City agreed to file an annual report on the program and to accept advice from METRO on alternative strategies that local employers might be encouraged to use in meeting the goals. The City also agreed to conduct a review of its parking requirements as part of the process and to play an active role in the regional process. It is the City's intent to also set an example for other employers through the establishment of CTR programs among its employees. In 1999, Federal Way revised the 1993 ordinance to be consistent with the state CTR guidelines. Revised 2003 III-62 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Based on recent (2001) surveys of Federal Way Employers, the actual percentage of drive alone trips was 77.94 percent. The round trip VMT in Federal Way was reduced by 1,830,538 miles. The over-all mode split results from the 1995 and 2001 surveys are shown in Table III-14. Similar to the issues stated in the MTP, reasons for driving alone included convenience and a lack of alternatives. Table III-14 Federal Way Mode Split Survey Results MODE MODE SPLIT 1995 2001 SOV (Single Occupant Vehicle) 86% 77.94% Carpool 04% 12.70% Vanpool 01% 1.78% Bus/Transit 01% 0.96% Compressed Work Week n/a 3.67% Bicycle n/a 0.31% Walk 10% 0.37% Telecommute 01% 1.24% Other 03% 1.02% Recommendations Based upon the above, the following recommendations are made: 1. Encourage voluntary expansion of the CTR Program to employers of less than 100 employees. The encouragement by employers may be as diverse as subsidized bus passes, car pool space priority, bike racks, shower facilities, van pools, car pool information access, telecommuting, variable work hours, etc. 2. Encourage the formation and expansion of area -wide ride -sharing programs. Such programs operate with little direct cost to the City and are highly cost-effective. 3. Facilitate the creation of Park and Ride facilities and transit centers to supplement the regional system, either directly through acquisition of property or indirectly through development conditions where employer vans are required to shuttle employees to Park and Ride facilities or transit centers. 4. Facilitate enhancements to the HOV System. This may include the acquisition of property for HOV lanes, construction of arterial HOV lanes on City arterials and State highways, and priority treatments for buses at traffic signals. At the very least, opportunities to support improved access to the State system of HOV lanes should be identified and supported. Revised 2003 III-63 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation 5. Increase density of land uses and encourage a mix of uses to locate near bus routes, park and ride lots, and transit centers through the adoption of the FWCP and its supporting zoning. This policy is vital to the creation of a regional bus and rail system and will also be an effective way to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution. 6. Encourage mini transit centers in the City Center, neighborhood shopping areas, and multifamily nodes, together with enhanced pedestrian and bicycle access and security. 7. Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to bus routes and transit centers. This can be a requirement of subdivision, development, and redevelopment. The City may need to acquire easements and construct trail connections. Development incentives could be granted for providing such amenities that are pedestrian, bike, and transit friendly. 8. While bicycle, pedestrian, and bus transit services and facilities may be desirable for other reasons; they should not be looked on as highly cost-effective strategies to the exclusion of those actions listed above. Transportation Goals & Policies Through TDM options, the City can maximize the effectiveness of the public investment dollar. Many jurisdictions are finding non -construction, or management actions, critical to the overall achievement of congestion management and protection of neighborhoods. As such, the TDM goals for Federal Way can be expressed as follows. Goal TG5- a. Employ and promote the application of non -construction, and transit/HOV construction actions to preserve and enhance mobility and assist in achievement of the land use vision. b. Develop methods to successfully measure and achieve the following HOV & Transit mode split-levels by the year 2010: • 15 percent of all daily trips over one mile in length; 0 30 percent of all work trips; and • 40 percent of trips between major activity centers. c. Assist all CTR affected and voluntary employers in the Federal Way planning area to achieve the Commute Trip Reduction Act travel reduction goals. d. Ensure that all members of the community, including those with transportation disadvantages, have viable travel options or alternatives. Revised 2003 III-64 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation e. Use transportation demand management to help achieve an appropriate arterial level of service that balances the economic, ecological, accessibility, and livability needs of the City s residents, consumers, employers, and employees. Policies TP58 Support the achievement of City and regional mode split goals through encouragement of local and regional work at home and transportation coordination programs such as ride matching services and vanpools. TP59 Support other transportation demand management programs that can be shown to be cost-effective in achieving plan goals, while allowing residents and employers discretion to choose the methods they wish to employ. TP60 Develop an arterial street HOV system and related enhancement, which complements the regional freeway HOV system, through the following actions: • Place emphasis on the development of HOV and transit priority improvements; especially those requiring minimal cost or construction. These improvements should pace the extension of the regional system and minimize the gap between traveler needs and system capacity. • Establish an urban traffic control system that gives priority to buses and HOW • Establish policy that when arterials require more than four through lanes to maintain the adopted LOS, additional travel lanes will be for HOW As HOV lanes reach the adopted LOS standard, increase the vehicle occupancy requirements for their use (e.g. increase from two or more to three or more occupants). LOS will then be calculated by the average delay per person. TP61 Provide improved operational efficiency to the City's transportation system and support regional monitoring programs through regular, structured reporting, monitoring, and performance evaluation. TP62 Modify the development review process by: Incorporating revised impact analysis procedures that comply with GMA concurrency and other requirements. The revisions need to include revised Level of Service standards. Streamlining it to the extent possible to minimize private development costs. Where developments are consistent with this plan, they should be allowed to proceed by mitigating site impacts; developing appropriate components of the HOV, transit, non -motorized and motorized chapters; Revised 2003 III-65 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation and participating in an equitable citywide improvement funding or mitigation payment program. • Incorporating requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. • Requiring explicit consideration of pedestrian and bicycle circulation, as well as parking and general circulation needs. TP63 Adopt a flexible level of service standard which employs a measurement factor that accommodates demand management to help balance likely levels of growth, with opportunities to create a multi -modal transportation system. TP64 Encourage non -motorized improvements which minimize the need for residents to use motorized modes by providing: 1) access to activity centers; 2) linkage to transit, park & ride lots, and school bus networks; 3) completion of planned pedestrian/jogging or bicycle trails; and 4) designating a network of streets that can safely and efficiently accommodate bicycles. TP65 Enhance a non -motorized system by the following actions: • In instances where the citywide system of bike lanes, trails, and sidewalks crosses or abuts new development or redevelopment, consider requiring the developer to mitigate the impact of the development on the City's transportation system by constructing bike lanes, trails, and sidewalks that interface with the existing system. • Coordinate development of the non -motorized system with surrounding jurisdictions and regional system extensions. • Extend the existing system of City sidewalks to all streets. TP66 Recognize that TDM requires coordination, and work with regional representative and other adjacent communities to develop coordinated TDM strategies. 3.5 LOCAL AND REGIONAL TRANSIT Public transit service is provided to area residents by a combination of fixed -route, express, dial -a -ride, and subscription bus services. King County METRO serves the City directly, while Pierce Transit buses provide connections from the Park and Ride lot on I-5 at South 320`h to Tacoma and Puyallup. Sound Transit serves the Federal Way and Star Lake Park and Ride lots with regional express buses between SeaTac and Tacoma, and between Federal Way and Bellevue. Amenities supporting transit patronage include Park and Ride lots and waiting -area shelters. The Federal Way School District and King County's Multi -Service Center also provide special, local area bus services. Revised 2003 III-66 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Locally and nationally, public transit services, ranging from local buses to regional rail, are witnessing increased attention. Despite declining transit ridership in the late 1980s and early 90s, these services are being viewed at the regional, state, and federal levels as essential to meet public travel needs. Many people with low incomes or special mobility needs depend on transit. The City of Federal Way supports the provision of viable transit services as a component in a multimodal transportation system. Coupled with car pooling and van pooling, improved transit service is viewed by the City of Federal Way as essential to providing area residents with mobility options in the future. Unlike road services however, the City is constrained by state law and federal regulations in its ability to provide these alternatives. The City's involvement with the provision of transit services is indirect —through such efforts as supportive land use planning (to generate sufficient transit patronage) and roadway design features (to accommodate transit and other high occupancy vehicles). The City's planning process has focused on development of a transit -supportive environment, including improved pedestrian and bicycle access to transit. Public Works projects anticipate enhanced regular route, local bus service, and the possible implementation of a regional light rail system. Expansion of regional transit and HOV systems is critical to the achievement of Vision 2020, which guides the regional Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Federal Way's vision, which includes a City Center with surrounding commercial and residential land uses, is enhanced by both an improved regional bus system and a rail system. Local circulation routes will also be essential. The Federal Way plan has been structured with primary emphasis on locations that can become transit centers. In the interim, transit centers will be focused at Park and Ride lots. Existing Conditions An extensive inventory of existing transit services in and about Federal Way was reported in the City's 1993 Community Profile. The following excerpts on existing conditions are taken from that document. Map III-20 indicates Federal Way's existing regular, express, and Dial -A -Ride route locations, as well as its park and ride lot locations and planned bus routes. There are 24 regular and express service routes that provide nearly 250 bus trips to, within, and through Federal Way each day. In total, about 3,000 to 3,500 person trips are made by regular, express, and Dial -A -Ride service each day. About one percent of all daily (and three percent of peak hour) Federal Way trips are made by transit, which is comparable to other suburban areas. The majority of service is provided to park and ride facilities where more than half of Federal Way's transit riders access transit. Routes into the neighborhoods of the City are Revised 2003 III-67 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation oriented to the higher density areas where there is lower auto ownership and greater reliance on transit. Under a demonstration project, METRO instituted Dial -A -Ride Transit (DART) service to portions of the City in 1992. Today, DART service follows a semi -fixed routing with service provided to patrons who do not live or work on fixed routes. Is transit service available today? In a 1991 survey by Federal Way, the answer seemed to be a resounding "No." Distributed to approximately 30,000 residents, nearly 2,000 responded, many of who (87 percent) were auto drivers. When asked for reasons why they did not use transit, the following responses were received: • Auto required for work/personal errands — 47% • Buses do not go to destination — 33% • Auto saves time — 30% • Bus schedules are not convenient — 29% • Bus stops too far away — 23% • Parking is free/low cost at work — 23% • Transfers are inconvenient — 20% However, in another survey, among 75 employers of varying size, nearly 75 percent indicated that service is available within one block of their establishment. Local Transit Service Development Most transit service to and from Federal Way is oriented toward downtown Seattle. Historic, radial expansion of the system from the downtown is one reason for this. More significant is that density, congestion, and parking costs have kept transit competitive in the downtown Seattle market. It was not prudent for METRO to expand service for the growing suburban market where there was little congestion and parking was abundantly available. However, suburban -to - suburban travel demand and local congestion have increased the need to reevaluate and begin planning for cross-town service. The potential for improvement was corroborated by comparing auto and transit travel times. The 1996-2001 METRO Six Year Plan accommodates these changes in customer needs by setting policies that would shift layout of the system to multiple Hubs and Spokes focused on transit centers with rapid service between centers. This provides radial local service to take customers to a city center. Thus, citizens would be able to catch express service to such destinations as Auburn, Puyallup, Tacoma, and Seattle. In addition, the 1996 voter approval of Sound Transit's Sound Move Initiative provides greater means to serve emerging travel patterns. Revised 2003 III-68 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Other Factors Affecting Transit Use While transit routes exist within Federal Way neighborhoods, the existing street layout, with its many cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets, is not always conducive to transit use. Buses cannot run along every residential street. They usually operate on collector and arterial streets, thus residents often have to walk several blocks to reach a route. Research has shown that when potential patrons have to walk over 3 miles, many will not use transit. Because of the distance between residences and bus stops, and frequent express -type service to Park and Ride lots, many transit users travel to the three Federal Way lots near I-5. However, these lots are nearly always at capacity. Efforts to expand their capacity by both METRO and WSDOT have been hampered by the relatively high cost of land to provide for expansion. Despite high land costs, WSDOT recently constructed a new 600- space Park and Ride lot at 21st SW at SW 344th Street, and Metro plans to construct another Park and Ride lot at Pacific Highway South and South 276th Street. Sound Transit is proposing a City Center Transit Center with an up to 1200 stall parking structure, connecting to an HOV direct access ramp to I-5 via South 312th Street. In considering future land use and transportation alternatives for the City, a balance must be sought between creating transit compatible land uses and providing system access from park and ride facilities and stations. Dial -a -Ride Transit (DART) As noted above, this service was introduced by METRO in 1992 and is being evaluated for its potential as a component of future transit service in suburban communities such as Federal Way. Dial -A -Ride service is demand activated by the users. Users originally phoned in and van service was provided within two hours. Unlike regular route service, only the area being served was defined, not the routes. The service has since been modified to operate with semi -fixed routes, which due in part to greater schedule reliability, has dramatically increased ridership. Should ridership continue to improve, regular fixed route service may soon be attainable. Paratransit Service In addition to the service program for general-purpose travel, METRO has embarked on a significant program to improve services for persons who cannot use regular route bus service. This program has been developed to meet the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. It provides high quality public transportation service to eligible customers. People with limited resources who are either 65 or older or who have disabilities may qualify for Paratransit. Called ACCESS Transportation, Paratransit service currently provides door-to-door transportation Monday through Friday for 25 cents. Monthly and annual pass stickers are available as well. Key elements to METRO's Paratransit Plan are the provision of: • Supplemental service in Western King County within 12 miles on either side of regular route service; Revised 2003 III-69 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Next -day reservations up to 14 days in advance, with trips scheduled seven days a week; Fares held to the same level as one -zone regular bus fares; and Scheduled service to be the same as the near -by, regular routes. Federal Way is within a METRO service area from 5 a.m. to 2 a.m. Regional Transit Improvements The METRO Six Year Plan is consistent with the regional public transportation concepts embodied in Sound Transit's plan for longer range rail and bus improvements. It provides a first step toward building an integrated system of expanded services and capital facilities. Now that a regional transportation system has been approved by voters, Federal Way's land use and transportation plans accommodate its impacts and implications. The City's Role Supporting activities by the City, either under the shorter range METRO Plan or the Regional Transit Plan (RTP), would include preferential traffic signal treatment for regional (express) buses, and cooperation with WSDOT in improving access to the state highways in the area. The land use plan will support both the regional and local transit systems through configuration of land uses and allowable densities. Historically, most of Federal Way was developed at five units to the acre or less. The land use chapter of the FWCP includes higher densities in the City Center and along the SR-99 corridor. A threshold in transit planning seeks 15 to 20 dwelling units per acre to support HCT systems. The results of such intensification are shown in Figure III-5 (page 72), which depicts the ability of differing development densities to generate higher transit mode splits. The primary area supporting HCT will be concentrated along Highway 99 north and south of South 320th Street. The City Center will be located northeast of the intersection of these two arterial roadways. Higher density residential areas will be located in the City Center core and frame, increasing in intensity in areas surrounding transit centers or major transfer points such as Park and Rides. Improvement Priorities Metro (King County Metropolitan Services) has identified transit service improvements in south King County in their draft six -year plan. These improvements are depicted in Table III-15 (page 71). Revised 2003 III-70 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Table 111--1 S METRO Improvement Plan Projects in Federal Way Target Service Level Category Route/Description Peak/Midday/Evening Transit Service 187 Neighborhood service between Federal Way Hub and SW Federal Way. 30/30/60 177 Peak direction express service - Federal Way Hub to Seattle CBD. Sat/Sun 30/60 181 East -west local service between the Federal Way, Auburn, and Green River 36 trips/day Community College Hubs; continuing through Kent East Hill to Lake 30/30/60 Meridian P&R and Kent Hub. Sat/Sun 30/60 183 East -west local service between Federal Way and Kent includes stops in 30/30/60 Camelot, Star Lake P&R, and Kent West Hill. Sat/Sun 60/60 188 Add service to 2 1 ' Avenue SW. 30/30/60 903 Revise to connect to Pierce Transit Route 61 serving Northeast Tacoma. Sat/Sun 60/60 194 Two way express service connecting Federal Way Hub, SeaTac Hub, and 30/30/30 Seattle CBD, includes stops at Star Lake and Kent -Des Moines P&R's. Sat/Sun 30/30 Transit Hub Park & Federal Way transit hub with passenger and bus layover facilities; New 600-stall Twin Lakes P&R lot; Expand Star Ride Lake P&R by approximately 500 stalls, either on the surface to the north of the existing lot, or by the construction of a parking structure on the existing site. Speed & Reliability Currentspeed and reliability study underway on SR 99 from Boeing Access Road to South Federal Way P&R. Non -motorized Collaborate with local jurisdictions in the planning and design of bicycle and pedestrian access improvements (e.g., Access bike lanes, curb cuts, gutters, sidewalks, and rail crossing improvements). Revised 2003 III-71 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Figure III-S DAILY RANGE OF TRANSIT USE Land Use Intensity LOW - HIGH vs. Transit Demand High Capacity Transit Supportable 6% - 16%* LEGEND m ° — (15-20 Dwelling Units.per Acre.) o u< Varying Levels of Bus Service Supportable 4-- 3% - 6% * Note: This level of transit use only attainable with High (0 (A-5 Dweffi � - Capacity Transit Station in place Bus Service Not Readily Supportable 1 % - 3% g.,o. $t:o;&',::'. t, onw G Zone Density Revised 2003 III-72 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation To support expanded regional transit, a more extensive feeder bus system will be needed. METRO and Pierce Transit have worked with the City in developing concepts for improved transit service in and about the City in the future to support the FWCP land use vision. Key features include: Expanded Bus Route Coverage — Existing Peak Hour Transit Service and potential new bus routes are depicted on Maps III-20, III-21, and III-22, respectively. Improved Regular Route Bus Service — Buses would run every 15-30 minutes, linking neighborhoods, Green River Community College, Valley employers, and other south county cities. Transfers to Pierce County buses would also be made easier. Dial -A -Ride Service — This on -call service would be modified as needed to complement regular route service. New technology would help provide a more flexible set of services, penetrating neighborhoods where regular buses are prohibited. Paratransit services would also expand door-to-door service for people with disabilities. Transit Main Streets — Selected travel corridors would be designed to combine frequent bus service with neighborhoods and City Center shops or services. Comfort, safety, as well as bicycle and pedestrian access would be emphasized along these corridors. Transit Priority — As with regional express routes, special lanes and signals could allow local buses, as well as vanpools and car pools, to by-pass congestion. Areas under consideration, through regionally funded studies, include SR 99, South 348th, and South 320th Streets. Diamond lanes for HOVs, including buses, would be completed along SR 99, and South 348th Street. Traveler Information Systems — Through the application of high-tech communications systems, METRO has already begun installing devices to track the location of vehicles and to provide the traveling public with real-time information on system options. These systems will be enhanced under a comprehensive system of transit, HCT, HOV, and freeway monitoring. As described later in the plan, it is anticipated that a vastly improved traveler information system will make both the local and regional transit system more attractive to local residents. Six -Year Plan Implementation — In 1996, METRO appointed several citizens in South King County to recommend improvements in transit service to implement the Six -Year Plan. This group met for over a year and has recommended the development of a grid pattern of local service routes and consolidating commuter routes to Seattle, and increasing the frequency of routes connecting to other communities. The first phase was implemented in September 1997, and modified the following routes: • Route 181 was rerouted to South 336th Street, 20th Avenue South and South 324th Street, instead of Weyerhaeuser Way South and South 320th Street. Frequencies were increased to 30 minutes midday. Revised 2003 III-73 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation • Route 902 was replaced with a new Route 183 from the Federal Way Transit Center to the Kent Transit Center via the Star Lake Park & Ride. Overlapping portions of Route 192 were deleted. • Route 903 was rerouted to lst Avenue South and South 320th Street from South 356th Street and 20th Avenue South between West Campus and the Federal Way Transit Center, providing all -day service to 1st Avenue South. • Route 194 was rerouted to 9th Avenue South from Pacific Highway South, providing all -day service to several CTR affected employers. The second phase of improvements would restructure routes in the remainder of Federal Way and was implemented in June 1998. A sample route structure is shown in Maps III- 20 and 21. The ultimate conceptual plan is shown in Map III-22. Sound Transit Improvements — Express bus service is provided between Tacoma and Seattle, and another route connects Federal Way with Auburn, Kent, Renton, and Bellevue. The voter -approved Sound Move Initiative will also provide improvements to the Federal Way Transit Center and the Star Lake Park & Ride. At both locations, direct access roadways will be constructed from the Park & Rides to the HOV lanes on 1-5. Plans for extending light -rail between SeaTac and Tacoma will also be reviewed. Federal Way Transit Center Location — The Federal Way Transit Center is currently located at the Federal Way Park & Ride. At the time of adoption, the City Center chapter of the FWCP proposed a new location at South 316th Street and 20th Avenue South. The primary driver for this location was the assumption that light -rail between Seattle and Tacoma would follow SR 99. Since adoption of the plan, conditions have changed and discussion of alternate locations has emerged. Sound Transit's Sound Move Initiative allocated $4 Million for the construction of a new Transit Center, in coordination with the enhancement and/or relocation of the existing Transit Center and direct access ramps. The Transit Center is considered by the City as a major anchor to the urban center designation in the Vision 2020 plan adopted by the PSRC. The location of the Transit Center should be surrounded by property that has potential to redevelop into transit - supportive uses, thus assisting to ensure both the success of the Transit Center itself and the economic vitality of the City Center. Based on thee considerations, the Transit Center and any associated capital facilities (such as park and ride facilities) should be located as closely as possible to the geographic center of the City Center. This point is located at the intersection of 20th Avenue South and the proposed South 318th Street. In no case should the Transit Center be located east of 23rd Avenue South, as the proximity to I-5 would limit redevelopment to transit -supportive land uses. As a result of analysis of 10 potential sites, the preferred site for this Transit Center was selected as the southwest corner of South 316th Street and 23rd Avenue South, as it balanced proximity to I-5 and to the geographic center of the City Center. Revised 2003 III-74 FWCP - Chapter Three, Transportation The Result of Transit Expansion The net result expected from placement of improved transit locally and in the region is meaningful improvement to mode split (the percentage use of each mode). The predicted (and present) values are as shown in Table III-16. While not large in magnitude, with only a 13 percent share of trips by transit and other HOVs in 2010, one must view the impacts during peak periods and along congested travel corridors in assessing the implications. It is possible, after the turn of the century, that: One in every four Federal Way Work trips will be by HOV and transit modes; • One in every three Regional Daily trips will be by these modes; and, • Over 50 percent of all work trips to urban centers such as Federal Way will be by HCT and HOV. Table III-] 6 Work Trips and Mode Split Estimates Mode Current 2010 Federal Way Region Federal Way Region Work Trips Daily Trips Daily Trips Work Trips Daily Trips Daily Trips Drive Alone 79% 86% 72% 70-74% 81-85% 62-68% CarNan Pool 14% 8% 15% 18-20% 8-10% 16-18% Transit 3% 1% 6% 4-5% 2-3% 8-10% Other 4% 5% 7% 4-5% 5-6% 8-10% Guiding the Process To strategically position itself in the regional transit funding process, Federal Way's plan has been prepared to integrate with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, METRO'S Six Year Plan and the RTP. Road improvements that have been identified will focus service to the transit centers or Park and Ride lots and support access to the regional system or provide an increment of capacity that would relieve congestion and air pollution. To foster achievement of the transit vision, a series of supportive actions are necessary. The land use distributions should take advantage of opportunities to increase densities in a transit friendly fashion. In the core area, street planning would, in many cases, provide exclusive access routes to transit centers as the area increases in density. A staged implementation of service in the City Center will be required. This can be accomplished by creating incentives for developers and through investment of public dollars to protect options and provide logical increments of service. The provision of transit corridors, improved traffic circulation, and improved non -motorized access to transit will also be necessary. Revised 2003 III-75 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Key interim and long-term improvements must continue to focus on transit service to transit centers and Park and Ride lots. As the City moves toward 2010, strategically located lots, with bus, bike, and pedestrian access will be necessary. Complementing this, the City can look to the land use development process and the rising interest of employers to provide "self -managed" travel options. The City will encourage transit -oriented land use patterns, especially along intensified corridors. The state's Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) legislation will also guide these efforts. Transit extension into many of the City's neighborhoods will not be possible due to the configuration of the existing street network. However, opportunities do exist to connect neighborhood collector streets. Such extensions into neighborhoods will require strengthening of roads or their structural failure will be rapid. Most routes will remain on major streets where traffic flow improvements can be made to expedite service. Enhancements to transit (HCT and HOV) flow will become increasingly popular as signal preemption techniques are perfected. Several of these systems are being tested at present. The likely sequence of the longer -term development and travel events is shown in Section 3.6. Transportation Goals & Policies Goal TG6- a. Prepare and provide for an enhanced, high capacity transit system, maintaining area residents' mobility and travel options. b. Foster phased improvements that expand transit services in time to meet the demand for these services. Policies TP67 Promote the creation and use of a regional transit system that provides a cost- effective alternative mode of travel to the single occupant auto, and assists the region in attaining air quality standards. This system should be extended to the City on a timely basis and be preceded by phased implementation of increased levels of local and regional bus and HOV services which maximize accessibility to regional jobs and maintains Federal Way as a regional activity center. TP68 Identify and promote development of a local level transit system that complements the regional system while meeting the travel needs of City residents, consumers, employers, and employees. This system should provide convenient connections from city neighborhood activity centers to the regional transportation system. Revised 2003 III-76 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation TP69 The target levels of mode split (share) to transit and HOV's for planning purposes should be: • 15 percent of all daily person trips; • 30 percent of all daily work trips; and • 40 percent of all work trips between major activity centers. TP70 The regional and local transit systems should be designed to meet the requirements of the elderly and disabled (as prescribed by the ADA) and should take advantage of technological advances in transportation reflected in Advanced Public Transit Systems (e.g., traveler information, system monitoring, performance monitoring, etc.). TP71 The City will continue to cooperate with regional and local transit providers to develop facilities that make transit a more attractive option (e.g., bus shelters, rapid intermodal connections, frequent all day service, safe and attractive facilities). TP72 The development of successful transit commuter options (e.g., subscription buses, special commuter services, local shuttles) should be supported by the City. TP73 Through subarea planning, with the cooperation of transit service providers, work to make transit part of each neighborhood through appropriate design, service types, and public involvement. TP74 Enhance the viability of regional and local transit service by establishing design standards for streets that move transit, pedestrian, and cyclists in the City Center. TP75 Preserve right-of-way for transit facilities as development applications are reviewed and permitted. TP76 Create an incentive program that rewards development that establishes densities supportive of the adopted regional transit plan. TP77 Encourage the use of incentives to stimulate transit, car, and van pool use. 3.6 HIGH -OCCUPANCY VEHICLE FACILITIES A Regional Freeway High -Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) System Plan, or core HOV system, has been designated for the freeway system in the region. The HOV system includes using the middle lanes of I-5 south from Seattle through Federal Way to Tacoma, including possible direct access to the South 272"d and South 320th Street transit centers along I-5. Revised 2003 III-77 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation HOV facilities are viewed at the regional, state, and federal levels as essential to meet public service needs. Also, HOV facilities may provide vital accessibility to developing urban centers in the Puget Sound Region. This core HOV system is currently under study (WSDOT Puget Sound Region Pre -Design Studies) to identify direct access locations that will enhance the HOV system and improve transit and non -transit HOV travel times. HOV System The legislature has, in the past, committed to completing the WSDOT core freeway HOV lane system. The Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) Vision 2020 (the Metropolitan Transportation Plan) includes completion of the Core HOV system as the cornerstone to promoting HOV travel in the region. Features will include ramp meters and queue bypass lanes, as well as integration of Intelligent Vehicle Highway System (IVHS) features such as dynamic signing, radio information, and advanced vehicle detection. Emphasis will be placed on providing improved access routes from large employers and where congestion exists today. Generally, HOV lanes will be added to existing facilities, but where there is sufficient capacity to allow conversion of general-purpose lanes, this will afford a cost effective alternative. At the regional level, the HOV system will be available to a mix of vehicles. The occupancy level will be varied to maintain at least an average peak hour operating speed of 45 mph. As demand increases and speed is lowered below this threshold, the level may be varied, for example, from two or more people per vehicle to three or more. WSDOT created the Office of Urban Mobility (now the Planning and Policy Office) to coordinate long range and emerging transportation planning issues between WSDOT, PSRC, and its member jurisdictions. Among its projects will be the evaluation of alternative HOV treatments to provide the most effective combination of facilities to maximize speeds and reliability of bus service. Regional planning has applied HOV planning on a local scale. The King County Arterial HOV plan, August 1993, identifies I-5, SR 99 (Pacific Highway), South/SW 320th Street, and South 348th Street as potential corridors for implementation of HOV and transit priority treatments. The plan specifically identifies: • Proposed (median) HOV lanes on I-5 extended from SR 516 to Pierce County • Freeway Access study on SR 18 • HOV Corridor and Access Study at South 272°d Street • HOV lanes on South 348th and access improvements to I-5 • HOV Corridor Studies on South/SW 320th Street and SR 99 • Intersection Improvements on South/SW 320th at 1st Avenue South and 21st Avenue SW • New or improved park and rides and a transit center within the City Sound Transit will construct direct access HOV connections at South 272nd Street and South 320th Street. WSDOT agrees to the need of HOV lanes with automatic vehicle identification (AVI) to provide priority to transit vehicles on SR 99 north of South 356t1i Street and includes them in their system plan. Revised 2003 III-78 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation The Future HOV System HOV enhancements within the Federal Way planning area will consist of signal priority treatments, exclusive lanes, increased park and ride opportunities, and other improvements to be identified as demand increases. These latter improvements can include separate (preferential) access lanes or roadways. This means utilizing HOV lanes on highways and arterial streets wherever practical, if transit and car pool movements can be enhanced, and optimizing the occupancy rate to move the most people possible. TIP Improvements Improvements in the City's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to support the HOV system are identified in Table III-] 7 (page 80). Many of these HOV facility needs will need to be provided by outside agencies, including Sound Transit, WSDOT, and METRO. Federal Way is working closely with these agencies to implement these improvements over the next several years. Transportation Goals & Policies Goals TG7- a. Place high priority on development of HOV and transit priority lanes. b. Develop arterial HOV lanes on bus routes with priority for transit at traffic signals. c. Work with the transit agencies, WSDOT and King County, in applying for funding for HOV improvements that complement transit and non -transit HOV facilities and park and rides within Federal Way. d. Work with WSDOT to complete the Core HOV system on I-S as planned. 3.7 AVIATION Another vital link in the fabric of area transportation is the aviation system. As pointed out in the Community Profile, this extends beyond regional aviation to local issues surrounding flights over portions of the City ("overflights") and local helicopter activity. Revised 2003 III-79 FWCP - Chapter Three, Transportation Table III-17 TIP HOV Improvements Federal Way Location Improvement Cost Year S 3481h I-5 to SR 99 HOV/Signal Coordination $6.9 Million 1995 Completed 21st and SW 3441h Park & Ride $8.8 Million 2001 Completed Regional CIP SR 99/SW 336th Transit Center Unknown 2010+ City Center, S 316th @ 23rd S Transit Center $38 Million 2005 SR 99/S 272°d Park & Ride $12.7 Million 2004 SR 161/S 356th Transit Center Park & Ride $13.1 Million 2010+ SR 99, S 272 d to Dash Pt HOV Lanes $20.2 Million 2006 SR 99, Dash Pt to 3121h HOV Lanes $13.9 Million 2008 SR 99, S 312th to S 324th HOV Lanes $7.2 Million 2003 SR 99, S 324'to S 340th HOV Lanes $24.0 Million 2004 SR 99, S 340th to S 356th HOV Lanes $18.6 Million 2010+ S 272"d @ 1-5 In -Line Station $25 Million 2007 S 317th @ I-5 Direct HOV Access $27 Million 2005 S 3201h St: SR 99 - let Ave S HOV Lanes $15 Million 2010+ S 348th St: SR 99 - let Ave S HOV Lanes $12 Million 2010+ S 272"d St: SR 99 - Military Rd S HOV Lanes $7 Million 2007 At the regional level, there has been recurrent debate over the issue of maintaining SeaTac as the regional facility or establishing a new airport. The City recognizes the economic benefits of its proximity to the airport, as well as the liability to Federal Way's quality of life which air traffic can produce. The City will continue to insist upon maintaining the quality of life expected by area residents. Local Level Opportunities Federal Way experiences a relatively high level of helicopter overflights today, due in part to its proximity to Boeing Field and also to the routine use of I-5 as a flight corridor in order to minimize noise. Map III-23 shows 12 landing areas in Federal Way currently used by helicopters. The City is the base for 12 helicopter operators. Together, these operators field a combined fleet of 38 rotorcraft. This fleet serves the following types of purposes: 1) Business Operations, associated with corporate activity and air taxi services; 2) Emergency Services, including activity associated with St. Francis Hospital, the Federal Way Fire Department, and King County Police; 3) Law Enforcement (primarily King County Police); 4) Government Flights, which are primarily military helicopters from Fort Lewis south of Tacoma; and 5) Disaster Mitigation. Revised 2003 III-80 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation The planning and siting of helicopter facilities has been divided into emergency and commercial uses and facilities. Potential roles of heliports and a process for selecting prospective sites in Federal Way have been identified. Given potential roles and siting considerations, the discussion of possible courses of action can be pursued within the community. Potential roles for heliports in Federal Way would add disaster mitigation to business, emergency service, and law enforcement activities. Planning efforts are currently underway between Seattle and King County to incorporate helicopters and designated landing facilities into the region's emergency preparedness planning. Public heliports in Federal Way would be a key link in a regional disaster mitigation system. Potential improvements to existing heliport operations were identified in the heliport planning process. They include improved safety, better utilization of emergency response resources, and increased reliability of helicopter operations. Safety can be improved: on the ground (through improved, properly designed surfaces and fencing of the landing area), and in the air (through proper identification and illumination). Reliability would be increased through placement of modern equipment that would improve the safety of poor weather operations. The practice of providing standby fire protection support, which now occurs for transfer of St. Francis Hospital patients, could be eliminated. The Heliport Master Plan (HMP) of June 1994, by Ketchum and Company, is used as a guide for goals and policies that decision makers may use in the implementation of heliport facilities in the City of Federal Way's Transportation Comprehensive Plan. This plan identifies key elements that should be considered as part of the next phase and the public discussion on options to pursue. It advocates that the following questions be evaluated in making the decision: Economic — When will the development for emergency and commercial uses of heliports be justified? Environmental — What will the noise effects be and will mitigation measures be sufficient to meet community interests? Operational — Does the facility work in terms of air operations and routine maintenance? And, does the area accommodate the physical needs of such flights? Finally, in selecting candidate sites, a sequential process of narrowing alternatives would be employed. Fifteen large zones would be evaluated, initially using general criteria. Then, the "short listed" zones would be further screened for specific sites capable of sup- porting a heliport facility. The HMP provides an in depth site selection matrix and is provided for use in this decision -making. The result of a preliminary evaluation in the HMP is shown in Map III-24. The Heliport Master Plan recommends the following: • The City should appoint a representative to the Puget Sound Heliport System Plan (PSHSP) Advisory Committee, which is investigating a system of heliports. Revised 2003 III-81 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation • St. Francis Hospital should consider an emergency heliport on its property for a trial period. • The Federal Way Fire Department should eliminate its policy of attending each ambulance/helicopter transfer at Weyerhaeuser. • Appropriate agencies should establish an EMS -only heliport. • Identify primary medical helicopter transfer points by a Global Positioning System (GPS) points and on Airlift Northwest helicopter navigational computers. • The City should develop a heliport ordinance/code section consistent with the PSHSP and Puget Sound Helicopter Emergency Lifesaver Plan (PS/HELP). • The City of Federal Way should participate in the PS/HELP. Transportation Goals & Policies Goal TG8- a. Support the area's economy by assuring residents and area employers access to a full range of travel modes, including intercity airport facilities, while maintaining the quality of life reflected in the plan vision. b. Provide guided opportunities for the improvement of heliport facilities and services in and around the City. Policies TP78 Continue to represent the community in matters pertaining to the regional airport(s). TP79 Promote extension of fixed guide way facilities to the regional airport as an effective means of resolving congestion problems that affect City residents and businesses. TP80 Finalize and adopt guidelines for short range, local area rotorcraft facility installation and use. These will be designed to minimize noise and safety risks and recognizing the jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administration. Revised 2003 III-82 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation 3.8 FREIGHT AND GOODS Transportation related decisions could have a significant impact on freight and goods movement, affecting the economic competitiveness of local and regional businesses. When freight and goods movement was confined mostly to rail on separate right-of-way, there was not a great need to include freight and goods in urban planning processes. That situation has changed. Today, even at the local level, our dependence on trucks for deliveries has been heightened. Industry's adoption of "just -in -time" inventory systems and increasingly popular overnight small parcel services, as limited examples, have increased demand for limited roadway space. Combined with increased urban (commuter) congestion, trucks are not able to perform their role in the economy as efficiently as they did a decade ago. The general approach to transportation planning has failed to systematically consider freight and goods movement needs. Recent state and national legislation, encouraging such an approach, recognizes that local government has long played a role in managing this component of our transportation system. At the local level, development standards assure the provision of adequate on -site facilities such as loading docks; the width, frequency, and location of driveways; the turning radius at intersections for curbs; and pavement standards to carry trucks and bus loads. Other government actions include restriction of over -sized vehicles on roads and bridges that cannot support their weight or size, and the designation of truck routes. Similar activities can be found at the regional and state levels. Local Level Needs/Opportunities Federal Way displays a unique set of circumstances with respect to freight and goods movement. An understanding of its history, as well as current issues and projects, can contribute to adoption of appropriate long term policies and action strategies. While extensive truck and rail oriented development has not taken place in Federal Way, freight and goods movement, primarily by trucks passing through the City, has obviously had its impacts. Situated between the major urban centers of Tacoma and Seattle, the Federal Way planning area has been influenced by four major arterials. Military Road, the original arterial through the area, still displays the benefits of a design aimed at accommodating heavier freight and goods vehicles. Its concrete road sections no longer carry large numbers of pass -through truck traffic. It now provides local access for truck deliveries to established neighborhoods. Until the interstate system was developed in the 1960s and 70s, Highway 99 served as the truck route through the area. Today SR 99 provides a distribution function, mostly for Revised 2003 III-83 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation delivery purposes, but also affording access to such regional facilities as the US Postal facility just west of Pacific Highway near South 336`h Street. Along its southern sections, crossing into Pierce County, truck drivers find an alternate route to a congested I-5. Today, the major roadways for freight and goods movement into and through the area are provided by I-5 and, to a lesser extent, SR 18. As the regional economy has grown, the volume of truck traffic along these highways has increased. Today, the highest concentration of regional truck traffic passes through Federal Way's section of the I-5 corridor. As pointed out in the following sections, the volume of this traffic influences congestion as well as economic competitiveness. Map III-25 depicts the City's truck route plan, including existing and proposed truck routes. Regional Activities Trucking centers in Federal Way include the Evergreen Center, which has SR 99, SR 18, and SR 161 on three of its sides, and Ernie's Center on SR 99 at South 330t' Street. These facilities cater to this important segment of our economy, the movement of freight and goods. Looking toward the future, several regional road projects may affect freight and goods movement through the area. Improvements along I-5, which will make truck traffic more efficient, include truck -climbing lanes in the Southcenter area. At present, there are major points of delay for peak hour traffic. Trucks arriving on I-5 and on SR 18 just east of I-5 from I-405 have problems, since they are not able to approach the hill climb at posted speed and delay other travelers, many of whom are headed to Federal Way. Perhaps one of the most significant improvements proposed in the region's Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), is the improved connection of SR 167 with 1-5 at Fife and into the Port of Tacoma. The current industrial development in the area of the Port masks the growing importance of the Green River Valley, both as a transportation corridor and as a generator of freight and goods movement. Increasing accessibility to the SR 167 corridor will provide an alternate route for truck based freight and goods movement. Hill climbs from the valley floor, either along I-5 or SR 18, might be avoided, relieving capacity problems along these facilities. SR 509 is being studied for consideration of an extension, tying back to I-5 at South 210th Street. This route will open an alternate route to the Port of Seattle's international freight facilities, as well as to provide access to the airport industrial complex. To the extent that this new route's design considers impacts to I-5, SR 99, and local street system in Federal Way, it provides great benefit to Federal Way. Other long range actions that will affect freight and goods movement in this north/south corridor include Intelligent Traveler Service (ITS) —with improved (truck) vehicle identification, and commuter rail service in the Green River Valley. ITS features (described in greater detail under Demand Management) will be incorporated into the "high tech," I-5 corridor being designed under the state DOT'S Venture Program. Advanced communication systems will allow better detection of slow -downs, accidents, Revised 2003 III-84 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation and even hazardous vehicles moving through Federal Way, which certainly affect the City's local residents traveling these regional facilities. To the extent that Commuter Rail service in the Valley can avoid impacting freight and goods movement, it is viewed as a positive step in the direction of providing high capacity transit to the south end of the region. Care must be taken to avoid forcing a shift in cargo carrying capacity from rail to truck in the south county corridor. Highway commuter needs warrant keeping this "traffic" on rails. Consistent with the requirements set at the federal level, PSRC and WSDOT are focusing increased efforts towards understanding freight and goods movement and identifying solutions to problems faced by local, regional, state, and international shippers. Using studies by the Port of Seattle and WSDOT, PSRC and the Economic Development Council have established a Freight Mobility Roundtable. The Roundtable brings together key carriers, producers, and consumers, as well as nationally recognized consultants on the topic. This effort is seen as setting the pace for other areas around the country. The Roundtable efforts will be linked with a series of other efforts by the Regional Council, including: • Building a commodities flow database; • Identifying current and future problem areas that inhibit or restrict the effective movement of freight and goods; • Recommending road, intermodal, and other system improvements to address these problems, while meeting federal and state Clean Air Act strictures; and • Developing planning guidelines for use at the local level. The benefits of supporting these regional activities will be maintenance of accessibility for City residents and businesses. Local Needs Within the City, continued growth of local truck traffic can be anticipated. Densification of the urban core, along SR 99 and South 320th, as well as the South 348th corridor, will lead to increased numbers of trucks along primary arterials. Street design standards and road classifications adopted under this plan will assure that new and rehabilitated facilities are built to appropriate standards. Where pavement, bridge, and neighborhood traffic management systems, or planned land uses indicate that roadways cannot handle truck traffic, designated truck routes will be adopted to protect existing investments and assure continued quality of life. With the enhancement of neighborhood centers, truck deliveries may increase as consumer activity shifts to these areas. While localized neighborhood intrusion is unlikely, isolated cases can be managed using traffic calming techniques. Revised 2003 III-85 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation To accomplish effective planning and management of freight and goods movement in the area, traffic monitoring (volume counts) will include vehicle classification, allowing the patterns of use to be better understood. Another technique that can be employed to assure adequate consideration of truck needs is the involvement of those industries and businesses generating the traffic in roundtable discussions, such as the regional activities described above. Transportation Goals and Objectives Freight and goods movement is recognized as a vital link in the chain of local and regional economies. Yet, the characteristics of larger vehicles (trucks in the case of Federal Way) can produce significant impacts to area mobility, livability, and infrastructure. With these factors in mind, the City adopts the following goals and strategies. Goal TG9- Improve movement offreight and goods throughout the region and within the City, while maintaining quality of life, realizing the vision of our comprehensive plan, and minimizing undue impacts to City infrastructure. Objectives and Strategies • Cooperate with state and regional agencies in identifying freight and goods movement needs of area employers. • Provide or encourage improvements that enhance the movement of goods and services to businesses in the greater Federal Way area. • Encourage interests to view Federal Way as a viable resource area for ancillary freight and goods activity, drawing upon its excellent location along the I-5 Corridor, other state routes, and proximity to air and port facilities. • Establish revised code requirements and a designated truck route system that accommodates the needs of both the private sector and residents. • Discourage the use of road facilities by vehicles carrying hazardous materials and those with weight, size, or other characteristics that would be injurious to people and property in the City. • Adopt revised code provisions which acknowledge the characteristics of modern trucks and provide a balance between movement needs and quality of life. • Support regional transportation projects that are appropriately designed and will preserve the capacity of I-5 and state routes. Revised 2003 III-86 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation • Involve major generators of area freight and goods movement in discussions to identify their needs and priorities as part of improvement programming. 3.9 MARINE The City of Federal Way has no marine facilities to be addressed in the plan. However, its proximity to the Port of Tacoma and the support role it can provide to its facilities is recognized and the following goals and objectives are proposed. Transportation Goals and Objectives Goal TG10- To foster the development of the local economy for Federal Way residents and employers as may be possible through access to regional marine facilities. Objectives • Encourage the planning and construction of improved regional highway, rail, and marine facilities in the area of the Port of Tacoma. • Coordinate with local business organizations, and provide feedback on international and regional transportation issues and on transport needs and opportunities related to all modes of transportation. • Encourage international relationships; such as our sister -city relationship with Hachinohe, to foster marine related trade. 3.10 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES Provision of transportation facilities and services requires the timing of new projects to meet the needs of the community. At the same time, existing facilities must be maintained and the public's investment protected, maximizing the life of the infrastructure. The purpose of this section is to describe various strategies available to the City to implement the preferred transportation and land use plan. The preferred plan proposes a balanced investment among modes of travel, increasing the commitment to travel by transit, ridesharing, bicyclists, and pedestrians. This strategy may create somewhat higher levels of roadway congestion near transit centers, but will provide more travel options for those who choose to use other modes of travel. Growth management requires an implementation program which earmarks sufficient financial Revised 2003 III-87 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation resources, while putting into place a Concurrency Management System to regulate the pace and scale of new growth within the community. The implementation plan for Federal Way focuses on the next six -year time period within which to forecast needs and to identify reliable options for transportation funding. In reality, the City's implementation program began in 1990 at incorporation. During the past 12 years, several major transportation improvements have been completed or will soon be operational. While these improvements have occurred, the actual City growth rate has been lower than projected, thus creating fewer impacts on the transportation system. Since the City also has modest growth expectations over the next six years, the proposed transportation improvement program for 2003-2008 is expected to maintain concurrency on the arterial system. At present, the City's transportation system is provided by a variety of agencies. The City operates, improves, and maintains most of the streets and roadways, although the State operates I-5 and SR 18, east of SR 161. Private development may construct various local street improvements, which then become the property of the public and must be maintained by the City. The City is also responsible for the management of the transportation system, which includes the setting of standards for design, maintenance and operations, and review and approval of modifications. Transportation Improvement Program The TIP counts on strong coordination with other agencies to help finance needed improvements on the state highway system, facilities in adjacent jurisdictions, along with expanded transit services provided by Metro. Map III-26 shows, and Table III-18 (page 89) lists, the City's TIP for 2003 to 2008, as of June 2002. Map III-27A, Map III-27B, and Table III-19 (page 91) depict the City's 2009- 2020 CIP for City and regional projects that will be required beyond the six -year planning horizon in the TIP. Most of the projects listed in the table have been identified throughout the planning process and reflect differing degrees of evaluation. They provide a usable estimate of transportation needs for matching broad estimates of forecast revenues. For programming purposes, these projects have been prioritized using the methodology below. Project Prioritization Prioritization is part of the process associated with implementing projects in the order most needed. It is a tactical effort to determine the sequence of events to meet strategic goals, as summarized in the TIP. To determine the sequence of improvements in the City's TIP, several factors had to be balanced. These included consideration as to when improvements would be needed, the City's ability to compete for funds, as well as providing improvements across motorized and non -motorized projects. Nine factors used to rank projects are shown as follows (page 95). Revised 2003 III-88 FWCP - Chapter Three, Transportation Table 111--18 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) - 2003 to 2008 Map Capital Project List Previous Year 2001 Costs in $ Thousands 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 TOTAL ID" Location Description Years 1 SR99: S 312" St - S 324"' St Add HOV lanes, install raised median 6,644 4,500 11,144 2 SR 99: S 324"' St - S 340"' St Add HOV lanes, left -turn lanes on 324', 2nd NB left- 4,000 4,650 4,650 13,300 turn lane @ 336 , install raised median 3 S 312"' St @ 14"' Ave S Install signal 30 150 180 4 S 336"' St @ Weyerhaeuser Wy S Install roundabout 125 524 649 5 S 288"' St @ SR 99 Add left -turn lanes on S 288"' St @ SR 99 & 18'b Ave 250 1,475 1,725 S, interconnect to Military Rd 6 S 312"' St @ 8" Ave S Install signal 35 195 230 Add HOV lanes, 2 SB left -turn lane @ 288 , install 7 SR 99: S 284' St - SR 509 raised median, signal @ SR 509 @ Redondo Wy S 963 1,500 4,779 2,390 9,632 w/interconnect to I Vh PI S 8 S 348"' St: 9"' Ave S - SR 99 Add HOV lanes, 2nd NB left -turn lane on SR 99, 1,000 2,096 3,096 install raised median, underground utilities 9 SW 312"` St: I" Ave S - SR 99 Widen to 5 lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, illumination 1,000 5,000 6,000 10 S 320'b St @ 1"Ave S Add HOV lanes, install raised median, underground 750 2,010 2,760 utilities, illumination 11 S 356' St: l' Ave S SR 99 Widen to 5 lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, illumination 4,203 4,202 8,405 12 S 320"' St: 8"' Ave S - SR 99 Add HOV lanes, install raised median, underground 619 1,000 4,572 6,191 utilities, illumination 13 SR 18 @ SR 161 Add EB, WB right -turn lanes, 3' left -turn lane, 3,335 3,335 nWB add 3` lane on SR 161 SB to 352 S 336`" St @ 9"' Ave S Signal modification 100 100 :t4 10 Ave SW/SW 344 St: SW Campus Dr Extend Extend 3-lane collectors, sidewalks, street lights 1,000 6,900 7,900 Ave SW 16 S 348"' St @ I" Ave S Add WB, SB right -turn lanes, 2" EB, WB left -turn 360 1,440 1,800 lanes 17 S 336' St @ la` Wy S Add WB right -turn lanes, signal modifications, 420 420 extend SB left -turn lane * 18 21 s` Ave SW: SW 356"' St - 22ud Ave SW Extend 2-lane collector, signal modifications 750 750 19 S 320'b St @ 20'b Ave S Add 2°d left -turn lanes EB, WB 1,358 1,358 20 1" Ave S: S 320"' St- S 330"' St Install raised median, improve access at 328"' 346 1,382 1,728 *21 S 336"St: 18" Ave S - I-5 Widen to 3 lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, street lights, 200 1,000 1,200 SB left -turn lane & signal @ 20 22 S 312" St @ I-5 Design study to construct new interchange, extend 500 500 312 St from 28 Ave S to MilitaryRd S Revised 2003 III-89 FWCP - Chapter Three, Transportation Map ID" Capital Project List Location Description Previous Years Year 2001 Costs in $ Thousands 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 TOTAL 23 SR 99: SR 509 - S 312" St Add HOV lanes, install raised median 1,260 1,000 10,340 12,600 24 S 324U' St @ SR 99 Widen to add EB, WB left -turn lanes 1,000 1,000 2,000 25 S 304'h St @ 28 h Ave S Add NB right -turn lane, signal 360 360 26 S 344'h St: SR 99 - 16'h Ave S Add two-way left -turn lane, signals at SR 99 and 16" Ave S 1,152 1,152 27 S 320"' St @ I-5 amdp2Id left -turn lane, 3` right -turn lane on SB off 1,176 1,176 28 S 356"' St: SR 99 - SR 161 Widen to 5 lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, illumination 5,472 5,472 Subtotal Capital Projects 12,084 12,994 1 13,904 1 14,213 1 17,071 16,397 18,500 105,163 MAP ID Non -Motorized Capital Project List Location Description Previous Years Year 2001 Costs in $ Thousands 2003 2004 2005 2006 1 2007 2008 TOTAL S 314'" St: 20`" Ave S - 23`d Ave S Install sidewalks, street lights, signal @ 23`d 30 180 60 340 610 431 Weyerhaeuser Wy S: S 323`d St - S 336 h A Pave shoulders 653 653 1 s` Ave S: S 292nd St - S 312'h St Shoulder improvements 653 653 IF-S--btotal Non -Motorized Capital Projects 1130 180 60 340 0 1 1,306 0 1,916 TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECT COSTS IF-12,114 F13,174 1 13,964 1 14,553 1 17,071 1 17,703 1 18,500 1 107,079 Delete from the TIP to derive Arterial Street Improvement Plan (ASIP) " Map ID number does not correlate to any priority ranking of projects Revised 2003 III-90 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Table III-19 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) — 2009 to 2020 Project Number Map ID Project Description 2000 Cost Cumulative Totals CAPITAL PROJECT LIST 96-04 1 S 352"d St: SR 99 — SR 161: Extend 3-lane principal collector, signal at SR 99 4,066,000 4,066,000 92-21 2 S 336d' St: 18d' Ave S — Weyerhaeuser Way S: Widen to 3 lanes 1,200,000 5,266,000 95-17 3 SR 99: S 340 St — S 356 St: Construct HOV lanes, add WB right -turn lane, 2° SB left -turn lane @ 348 12,096,000 17,362,000 95-02 4 S 312d' St: 23 Id Ave S — 28' Ave S: Widen to 5 lanes 2,856,000 20,218,000 02-01 5 S 320 St @ I-5: Add HOV lanes on S 320 St 4,104,000 24,322,000 98-25 6 S 348d' St: I" Ave S — 9' Ave S: Add HOV lanes 5,174,000 29,496,000 98-08 7 S 320d' St: I" Ave S — 8d' Ave S: Add HOV lanes 5,174,000 34,670,000 01-02 8 S 316TH At @ 20 Ave S: Signal modifications 100,000 34,770,000 98-05 9 S 324"' St: SR 99 — 23 Id Ave S: Widen to 5 lanes, add Yd WB left -turn lane @ SR 99 2,200,000 36,970,000 93-09 10 1" Ave S: S 366 St — SR 99: Extend 2-lane road 3,328,000 40,298,000 01-05 11 SR 99 @ S 312d' St: Add NB 2°d left -turn lanes 1,680,000 41,978,000 94-24 12 14 Ave S: S 312 St — S 316 St: Ring Road extension 4,066,000 46,044,000 93-08 13 S 316d' St: SR 99 — 1l' PI S: ring Road extension 6,160,000 52,204,000 95-03 14 S 312d' St: 28" Ave S — Military Rd: Extend 5-lane arterial, interchange @ I-5 23,894,000 76,098,000 92-20 15 SW 320 St @ 47 Ave SW: Signalize 180,000 76,278,000 02-04 16 SR 18 @ SR 161: Add 3`1 SB thru lane, 3`d SB left -turn lane, 2°d NB right -turn lane 1,080,000 77,358,000 92-23 17 S 304 St: SR 99 — 28 Ave S: Widen to 3 lanes 2,376,000 79,734,000 92-14 18 Military Rd S: S Star Lk Rd — S 288' St: Widen to 5 lanes 5,280,000 85,014,000 98-01 19 S 304d` St @ SR 99: Add left -turn lanes on 304' 432,000 85,446,000 99-06 20 SR 99 @ S 336 St: Add 2° EB and SB left lane, widen 336 W 5 lanes to 20 1h 761,000 86,207,000 00-12 21 S 308d' St: 14" Ave S 18' Ave S: widen to 3 lanes 1,173,000 87,380,000 00-08 22 SW 336 St/Campus Dr @ 21' Ave SW: Add 2° LT lanes EB, WB, NB, and SB; add WB right -turn lane 1,680,000 89,060,000 98-15 23 Military Rd S: S 288' St — I-5 (S): Widen to 5 lanes 14,280,000 103,340,000 00-09 24 SW 320 St: 21" Ave SW — 26 Ave SW: Signal modifications and interconnect 100,000 103,440,000 97-01 25 SW Cam us Dr & SW 340d' St: 10'b Ave SW— Hoyt Rd SW: Signal coordination 210,000 103,650,000 00-02 26 S 312d' St 28'Ave S: Add SB riot -turn lane 120,000 103,770,000 98-34 27 SW 320 St @ 2I't Ave SW: Add 2" WB left -turn lane 720,000 104,490,000 98-32 28 13d' P1 S: S 330d' St — S 336"' St: Extend 3 lane collector 3,024,000 107,514,000 98-17 29 S Star Lk Rd: S 272° St — Military Rd S: Widen to 3 lanes 1,280,000 108,794,000 98-23 30 47d' Ave SW: SR 509 — SW 320d' St: Widen to 3 lanes 1,600,000 110,394,000 93-07c 31 2V Ave SW: SW 344d' St— SW 356d' St: Widen to 5 lanes 1,875,000 112,269,000 98-13 32 SW 344ffi St & 35th Ave SW: 21" Ave SW — SW 340 St: Bike lanes, sidewalks 2,620,000 114,889,000 94-10 33 SR 509: I't Ave S — SR 99: Widen to 3 lanes 8,000,000 122,889,000 94-11 34 S 308 St: 5h Pl S — 8h Ave S: Extend 2-lane street 1,440,000 124,329,000 98-18 35 28d' Ave S/S 317d' St: S 304d' St — 23" Ave S: Widen to 3 lanes 4,200,000 128,529,000 98-57 36 SR 509: 30`" Ave SW — 47d' Ave SW: Widen to 3 lanes 6,400,000 1 134,929,000 98-58 37 SR 509: 47 Ave SW — West City Limits: Widen to 3 lanes 6,400,000 1 141,329,000 Revised 2003 III-91 FWCP - Chapter Three, Transportation Project Number Map ID Project Description 2000 Cost Cumulative Totals 00-10 38 SW 330"' St @ I" Ave S: Signal modifications, extend NB left -turn lane 250,000 141,579,000 98-24 39 Hoyt Rd SW: SW 320 St- SW 340"' St: Widen to 3 lanes 7,200,000 148,779,000 92-22 40 ls' Ave S: S 348"` St - S 356"' St: Widen to 5 lanes 1,584,000 150,363,000 98-39 41 ls' Ave S: SW 301s' St - SW 312 St: Widen to 3 lanes 3,600,000 153,963,000 98-21 42 S 333`d St: 8t" Ave S - 13' PI S: Extend 3 lane street 4,752,000 158,715,000 94-17 43 SR 509: Ft Ave S - 21 ' Ave SW: Widen to 3 lanes 7,200,000 165,915,000 94-22 44 S 336"' St: 9"' Ave S - 13th Ave S: Widen to 5 lanes 1,152,000 167,067,000 95-07 45 S 288 St: SR 99 - Military Rd S: Widen to 5 lanes 1,540,000 168,607,000 98-19 46 S 308'h St: 8'h Ave S - 14' Ave S: Install curb, gutter, sidewalks 1584,000 170,191,000 98-26 47 S 320"' St @ 5"' Ave S: Signalization 200,000 170,391,000 98-29 48 SW 320 St @ I 1h Ave SW: Signalization 180,000 170,571,000 98-28 49 SW 320"' St @ 7"' Ave SW: Signalization 180,000 170,751,000 98-30 50 10 Ave SW @ SW 334 St: Signalization 180,000 170,931,000 98-07 51 SW 336"' Wy & SW 340' St: 26' Ave SW - Hoyt Rd SW: Widen to 5 lanes 4,840,000 175,771,000 98-20 52 S 312"' St: I" Ave S - 14"' Ave S: Widen to 5 lanes 5,082,000 180,853,000 00-15 53 SW Cam us Dr @ 19th Ave SW: Modify signal, increase curb return radius 200,000 181,053,000 93-12 54 SR 509 @ 47"' Ave SW: Add turn lanes, realign SR 509 1,100,000 182,153,000 98-31 55 SW 356 St @ 13 Wy SW/14 Ave SW: Signalization 180,000 182,333,000 98-27 56 V Wy S @ S 333`d St: Signalization 180,000 182,513,000 00-07 57 S 348th St @ 9 Ave S: Add 2 nd SB left-tum lane 360,000 182,873,000 01-03 58 SR 509 @ 26' PI SW: Add WB left -turn lane 420,000 183,293,000 00-16 59 SR 99 @ Spring Valley Montessori School: Add NB left -turn lane 750,000 184,043,000 92-11 60 SW Campus Dr: V Ave S - 10 Ave SW: Widen lanes/sidewalk 1,540,000 185,583,000 93-07a 61 2 1 � Ave SW: SW 312" St- SW 320"' St: Widen to 5 lanes 2,200,000 187,783,000 98-14 62 S 288 St: Military Rd S - I-5: Widen to 5 lanes 1,400,000 189,183,000 II SUBTOTAL w noppr189,183,000 NON -MOTORIZED CAPITAL PROJECT LIST AL 98-40 63 BPA Trail Phase IV: SW 3561h St- City Limits 960,000 960,000 98-39 64 9h Ave S: S 333 rd St - S 348 St: Widen for bike lanes 3,072,000 4,032,000 98-42 65 1 S Park & Ride Trail: SR 99 @ 352°d - S 348" @ 9"': Extend trail 720,000 4,752,000 IISUBTOTAL 4,752,000 TOTAL CITY EXPENDITURES 193,935,000 REGIONAL CIP PROJECT LIST 94-09 1 SR 99: S 272" d St - S 284"' St: Add HOV lanes 9,632,000 9,632,000 01-07 2 S 272 nd St @ I-5: Add 2° EB left -turn lane, WB right -turn lane 6,702,000 16,334,000 Revised 2003 III-92 FWCP - Chapter Three, Transportation Project Number Map ID Project Description 2000 Cost Cumulative Totals 00-21 3 I-5: S 320"' St - SR 18: Add HOV lanes 40,000,000 56,334,000 00-19 4 I-5: SR 18 - SR 99: Add HOV lanes 60,000,000 116,334,000 02-05 5 5 1 � Ave S @ S 316'b St: Sig2alize 180,000 116,514,000 02-06 6 S 321s` St @ 44 Ave S/46 PI S: Signalize 180,000 116,694,000 98-47 7 SR 18 WB ramps @ Weyerhaeuser Wy S: Signalize 400,000 117,094,000 94-20 8 Park & Ride and Transit Center: SR 99 vicinity S 272 Id St 10,440,080 127,534,080 94-19 9 Park & Ride and Transit Center: SR 161 vicinity S 356 St 10,440,080 137,974,160 02-07 10 S 272" St 42"d Ave S: Signalize 180,000 138,154,160 02-08 11 51� Ave S S 296"' St: Signalize 180,000 138,334,160 95-3lb 12 Military Rd S: S 272n1 St - S star Lk Rd: Widen to 5 lanes 5,544,000 143,878,160 94-18 13 City Center Transit Center 44,000,000 187,878,160 98-44 14 S 320"' St: I-5 - Peasley Canyon Rd: Add HOV lanes 4,032,000 191,910,160 98-49 15 SR 99 @ S 279 St: reconfigure intersection, signalize 1,260,000 193,170,160 98-50 16 S 288"' St 5155 Ave S: Add WB left -turn lane 360,000 193,530,160 95-18 17 SR 18: W Valle H - Weyerhaeuser Wy S: WB truck climb lane 10,000,000 203,530,160 94-03 18 1-5 @ SR 161: Construct interchange & reconfigure SR 18 interchange 150,000,000 353,530,160 00-24 19 SR 18: SR 161 - SR 167: Add HOV lanes 50,000,000 403,530,160 98-43a 20 Military Rd @ S 272"d St: Add SB and EB right -turn lanes 432,000 403,962,160 01-06 21 S 360"` St @ 28"` Ave S: Add left -turn lanes, signalize 1,440,000 405,402,160 98-46 22 S 272° St: SR 99 - Military Rd S: Add HOV lanes 5,040,000 410,442,160 94-04 23 S 336"` Transit Center (S 336" @ SR 99) 6,464,426 416,906,586 00-22 24 SR 161: Milton Rd S - Military Rd S: Widen to 5 lanes 25,872,000 442,778,586 95-05 25 S 312 St: Military Rd - 5 1 " Ave S: Extend 5 lane arterial with bike lanes, sidewalks 13,920,000 456,698,586 95-24 26 S 272nd St @ S Star Lk Rd: construct left -turn lane 720,000 457,418,586 95-3la 27 Military Rd S: S 260th St - S 272 St: Widen to 5 lanes 8,078,000 465,496,586 95-26 28 S 320"` St @ Military Rd S: Add EB, WB right -turn lanes 432,000 465,928,586 95-28 29 S 316"` St Extension to W Valley Hwy: Widen to 5 lanes 18,000,000 483,928,586 98-55 30 S 360 St: SR 161 - 32"d Ave S: Widen to 3 lanes 4,080,000 488,008,586 98-20 31 Military Rd S: S 320"` St - SR 18: Widen to 3 lanes 6,000,000 494,008,586 95-21 32 Military Rd S: 3 1 " Ave S - S 320 St: Widen to 3 lanes 6,720,000 500,728,586 98-60 33 Military Rd S: SR 18 - S 360'h St: Widen to 3 lanes 11,520,000 512,248,586 98-61 34 Military Rd S: S 360'h St - SR 161: Widen to 3 lanes 11,520,000 523,768,586 98-62 35 32" Ave South: Military Rd S - S 320 St: Extend 3 lane collector 10,560,000 534,328,586 98-51 36 16'b Ave S: S 272" St - SR 99: Widen to 3 lanes 2,400,000 536,728,586 98-48 37 S 272° St: Military Rd S - Lake Fenwick Rd S: Widen to 5 lanes 4,200,000 540,928,586 98-53 38 28"' Ave S/S 349' St: Weyerhaeuser Wy S - S 360'h St: Widen to 3 lanes 5,940,000 546,868,586 98-52 39 5 V Ave S/S 321" St: S 288 St - S Peasley Canyon Rd: Widen to 3 lanes 15,360,000 562,228,586 96-04 40 S 3215` St @ Peasley Canyon Rd: Add left -turn lane 216,000 562,444,586 98 45 41 Peasle Canyon Rd: S 321' St- W Valle Hwy: Widen to 5 lanes 9,504,000 571,948,586 98-43b 42 S 272° St @ Military Rd S: Add 2" EB, NB left -turn lane 750,000 572,698,586 98-50 43 S 288"' St: I-5 - 51s` Ave S: Widen to 5 lanes 4,368,000 577,066,586 95-54 44 S 328 St/38 Ave S/S 334 St/33` PI S: Military Rd S - Weyerhaeuser Wy S: Widen to 3 lanes 6,144,000 583,210,586 SUBTOTAL REGIONAL CIP LIST IL 583,210,586 Revised 2003 III-93 FWCP - Chapter Three, Transportation Project Map 2000 Cumulative Number ID Project Description Cost Totals REGIONAL NON -MOTORIZED PRIORITY PROJECT LIST i 00-25 45 BPA Trail: Military Rd - 5 1 " Ave S 2,400,000 2,400,000 00-26 46 BPA Trail: I-5 - Militaa Rd 2,800,000 5,200,000 95-31 47 Military Rd S: S 272° St - I-5 352,000 5,552,000 95-32 48 Military Rd S: 3 V Ave S - SR 161 4,864,000 10,416,000 95-33 49 S 320 St: I-5 - W Valley Hwy 1,536,000 11,952,000 SUBTOTAL REGIONAL NON -MOTORIZED CIP LIST 11,952,000 TOTAL REGIONAL EXPENDITURES 595,162,586 GRAND TOTAL 789,097,586 Note: Projects identified in the bond issue. These projects were selected to address safety and congestion in various areas of the City for a total of $7.5 million. Delete from the TIP to derive Arterial Street Improvement Plan (ASIP). Note: 1) Projects which are planned to be completed between 2003 to 2010 and beyond are estimated in 2003 dollars. 2) Annual programs are inflated at 3% per year. Project costs estimated in 2001 as follows: 1. Widening in City Center or on state highways = $70/SF 2. Widening in other commercial zones or King County = $60/SF 3. Widening elsewhere = $50/SF 4. Shoulder widening = $10/SF 5. Structures = $100/SF Revised 2003 III-94 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Factors Used in Prioritization of Improvements Transportation Effectiveness 1. Concurrency requirement 2. Corridor Congestion relief (volume/capacity) 3. Enhanced Safety Alternative Modes 4. Transit HOV Supportive 5. Non -Motorized Supportive Environmental 6. Air quality improvement Implementation 7. Cost Effectiveness 8. Ease of Implementation 9. Community Support A project was given a rating for each factor on a scale of 0 to 5. The ratings were then summed across all of the factors to produce a total "score" for each project. Projects were prioritized in order of highest to lowest score. Plan Highlights The projects and programs listed in Tables III-18 and III-19 represent a broad range of multi -modal transportation improvements. Key system investment features include the following: • Transportation System Management improvements along key arterials, including installation of new traffic signals at needed locations. • Several miles of roadway improvements. • New collector extensions on new alignments. • Regional HOV lanes along I-5, SR 99, South 320t1i Street, and South 348th Street. • Transit centers at the City Center and on SR-99 at South 336th, South 272"d, and South 356th Street. • Expansion of local and regional transit service, according to METRO's six -year plan and Sound Transit's Sound Move Initiative. • Non -motorized investments for pedestrians and bicycles along identified corridors. Revised 2003 III-95 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation • Substantial funding for ongoing road maintenance and annual programs, including overlays, bridge replacements, minor capital improvements, and neighborhood safety. Maintenance and Operations Planned expenditures of $6,859,177 for the proposed transportation investment program will be for 2002 maintenance, operations, and annual programs within the City. Maintenance of the existing system is critical to the success of the FWCP and the ability of the City to accommodate increases in jobs and housing. The maintenance of the existing network, along with low-cost traffic management actions, will improve the system's ability to move people and goods without making significant changes to the overall travel patterns or physical dimension of the streets. While several roadway capacity expansions are being proposed, most of the City's future street network is already in place. It will carry much higher volumes of traffic, which will contribute to increasing maintenance requirements, which are included in the above total maintenance and operation costs. Financing The purpose of a transportation financing strategy is to develop an adequate and equitable funding program to implement transportation improvements in a timely manner. Without adequate funding the transportation plan cannot be implemented in an efficient and cost- effective manner. Furthermore, the inability to fund transportation projects could result in unacceptable levels of congestion and roadway safety. The financing program recognizes various user groups, including traffic from existing and future City of Federal Way development, and regional or sub -regional traffic. Funding sources are not fixed and require annual review and reprogramming. Where non - City funds are sought, the City's projects may be competing for limited funds. Without attention to financing requirements, the operation, maintenance, and expansion of the transportation system will not occur in a timely fashion. Funding Needs Given that the City has only been incorporated since 1990, there is not a long history of financial expenditure that can be reviewed. The needs forecast through the planning process call for $288,900,000 in total funding needs, plus $595,162,000 for non -City projects, as listed in Table 111-18. Funding Strategy Already implemented in Federal Way is a portion of its funding of long term transportation improvements under this plan. The following improvements, begun in 1990, have been or will be completed: Revised 2003 III-96 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation • South 348th Street, SR 161 to SR 99 — Completed • SR 161, South 348th to I-5 Overpass — Completed • 16th Avenue South, SR 99 to South 348th Street — Completed • South 356th Street, 21st Avenue SW to 1st Avenue South — Completed • South 320th Street Corridor Signal Interconnect, I-5 to lst Avenue — Completed • SR 99 Corridor Signal Interconnect, 288th to 356th — Completed • South 348th Corridor Signal Interconnect, SR 18 to 1st Avenue South — Completed • BPA Trail Phases 1, 2, and 3, 11th Place South to 356th Street — Completed • Numerous traffic signal installations and upgrades In addition, in 1995, the City passed a $7.5 million Street/Traffic Bond to construct 10 improvement projects (see TIP list, Table III-18, for remaining projects). The projects are funded by a utility tax in the amount of 1.37 percent for construction and 0.28 percent for maintenance and operations over the 10-year life of the bonds. These projects, when combined with the City's commitments over the next six years, will help maintain an acceptable level of transportation mobility for residents and businesses. The City aggressively pursues federal and state funding sources for arterial street projects in order to maximize the use of City funds to maintain City streets and fund improvements to streets that would not fare well in grant -funding selection criteria. For the purposes of identifying funding sources in compliance with GMA requirements, the following strategies are used. • Surface Transportation Program grants would be used to fund 86.5 percent of the cost of projects that improve multi -modal mobility on arterial streets. State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) funding would be used to provide the remaining 13.5 percent of the cost of projects. • Hazard Elimination Program grants would be used to fund safety improvement projects up to the maximum grant amount of $400,000. The City would fund the remainder of the cost of the project, or ten percent, whichever is greater. • Transportation Enhancement Program grants would be used to fund 80 percent of the cost of non -motorized capital projects. The City would fund the remaining 20 percent. • State TIB grants would be used to fund 80 percent of the cost of the remaining arterial street projects. The City would fund the remaining 20 percent. • Street projects on collectors would be funded by the City or adjacent development. • Local street improvements would be funded by development. Based on these criteria, the TIP would be funded as follows: Revised 2003 III-97 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation • Surface Transportation Program (Statewide and Regional): $31,741,500 • Hazard Elimination Program: $600,000 • Transportation Enhancement Program: $1,648,500 • Transportation Improvement Board: $19,525,200 • City funds: $1,751,900 The City would be able to fund this level of improvements over the six -year period. Funding Sources Funding sources for operation and expansion of the City's transportation system fall into several categories. Some sources consist of reliable annual funds, others are periodic, such as grants, and some are available options. The use, availability, and applicability of these various sources are not always at the discretion of the City. Most sources have limitations imposed by either the enabling legislation or City policy. The following two categories of funds are available to fund the TIP: 1. Existing Annual Sources: The City has control over the establishment and programming of a variety of funding sources enabled by state legislation. Currently the City utilizes the following options: City General Funds: The general fund was established to provide services typically offered by local governments, and derives its funding primarily from local tax sources. The general fund provided $861,227 to the street fund in 2001. State Motor Fuel Tax: The Street Fund was established to account for the receipt and disbursement of state levied unrestricted motor vehicle fuel taxes which must be accounted for in a separate fund: $1,190,457 was received in 2001. Restricted State Fuel Tax: The Arterial Street Fund was established by state law to account for the use of state shared fuel tax revenues dedicated for this purpose: $547,250 was received in 2001. Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET): This revenue source was removed in the aftermath of Initiative 695. Vehicle Registration Fee: A vehicle registration fee was approved in 1993 by the State Legislature to address transportation needs within growing communities. The 2001 amount received was $690,231. Transportation Development Charges (SEPA Mitigation): The City is assessing traffic impact mitigation for new development as a part of SEPA review. The mitigation amount is based upon the percentage of traffic, directly attributable to the new development that uses the facility that is the subject of each needed City improvement project. That percentage is then multiplied by the cost of that improvement project. The resulting amount is the portion of the cost of each improvement that is to be paid by the owner of the new development. The City collected $704,777 in 2001. Revised 2003 III-98 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Other Minor Services: These include Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) revenues and street use permit fees. 2. Other Periodic or Available Sources: Additional funding will be generated through other sources. Some are currently utilized; others may be used in the future. Funding also is derived from outside sources (State, Federal, County, Metro) and often requires application. Transportation Equity Act (TEA-21): This is a federal program designed to improve the transportation system that helps air quality and relieves congestion. The City has been awarded $6,564,000 towards projects in the current TIP. This equals an average of $1,094,000 per year. State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB,) Fund: This is a statewide transportation fund available to local agencies for roadway improvements. The City has been awarded $13,828,000 towards projects in the current TIP. This equals an average of $2,305,000 per year. Bond Issue: A written promise to pay a specified sum of money at a specified future date. Bonds are typically used for long-term debts and to pay for specific capital expenditures. The City has financed bond measures for transportation projects as well as increasing the City's overlay program by $800,000 for the next 10 years. Traffic Impact Fees: A traffic impact fee ordinance can be established to provide regulatory mitigation. The fee could take into account such elements as the benefits or impacts of developments in various subareas of the City, impacts at key locations, projects that promote alternative transportation, buses, car, and van pools, etc., and development incentives for increased public facilities investments, especially in areas such as the City Center. Traffic impact fees would be based upon actual direct impact of new development on the transportation system. In October 2001, the City hired a consultant to prepare a Traffic Impact Fee and Concurrency Management System. Recently, the City has been very successful at obtaining grant funding. The six -year TIP is fully funded through the year 2004. A key reason for this success was the ability to provide more than the minimum requirement of local matching funds. Additional local revenues would help in assuring critical projects are funded. Concurrency The transportation chapter of the GMA (RCW 36.70A) requires each city and county planning under GMA requirements to incorporate a Concurrency Management System (CMS) into their comprehensive plan. A CMS is a policy to determine whether adequate public facilities are available to serve new developments. In this manner, concurrency balances the transportation investment program with land use changes envisioned by the City over the next several years. Revised 2003 III-99 FWCP - Chapter Three, Transportation Legislative Requirement The transportation element section of the Washington State GMA reads: "Local jurisdictions must adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a transportation facility to decline below standards adopted in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, unless transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with development (RCW 36.70A. 0 70). " The phrase "concurrent with development" means that public infrastructure improvements and strategies required to service land development be in place, or financially planned for, within six years of development. In Washington State, the transportation CMS's must include all arterials and transit routes; but may include other transportation services and facilities. Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS) are exempt from concurrency requirements, but local agencies are required to identify their comprehensive plan's impacts on the HSS network. In Federal Way, the HSS network consists of 1-5 and SR 18 east of I-5. These impacts are quantified in Table 111-20: Table III-20 Federal Way Comprehensive Plan's Impacts to Highways of Statewide Significance — 2000 to 2020 Highway I-5 I-5 1-5 I-5 SR 18 Segment f South North o Street 272 North of South 320 Street North of SR 18 South of SR 18 East of I-5 Increasein 459 476 357 137 750 Hourly Volumes However, it should also be recognized that City streets act as an overflow conduit for the HSS network due to the failure of the state to provide adequate capacity on the HSS network. A sample of these impacts is quantified in Table 111-21. Table III-21 Impacts to City Streets From State's Failure to Provide Adequate Capacity on Highways of Statewide Significance in 2020 Roadway SR 99 SR 99 SR 99 SR 99 SR 161 Segment North City North of South South of South South City South City Limits 320`h Street 324th Street Limits Limits Increasein 1020 391 431 1252 323 Hourly Volumes Revised 2003 III-100 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation A comparison of these tables indicates that the City's streets generally would be more impacted by regional traffic than the planned growth would impact the HSS network. Concurrency Management The application of concurrency for transportation assures that improvements and programs for accommodating planned growth are provided as development permits are issued. The concurrency strategy balances three primary factors: available financial resources, acceptable transportation system performance conditions, and the community's long-range vision for land use and transportation. The City has identified probable financial capabilities, anticipated system performance conditions (level -of -service), and has proposed a roster of transportation investments and programs that implement the FWCP. The FWCP presents an allocation of estimated available transportation resources matched to planned improvements, which are scheduled over the planning period. With the general estimates of costs, revenues, and timing for construction, as required by the GMA, the plan predicts the acceptance of development permits that are consistent with its policies. The GMA requires that a contingency plan be outlined in case the City should fail to obtain the resources anticipated to make the necessary transportation improvements to maintain the adopted LOS standards. This analysis is sometimes termed "plan -level concurrency." Strategies for maintaining or rectifying adopted LOS standards in the event of a budget shortfall include the following: • Increase the level of funding commitments in subsequent years; • Review and adjust the City's overall land use vision to lower the overall transportation demand; • Reprioritize improvements to address system capacity needs as the highest priority; and • Modify (i.e., lower) the LOS standard to match available resources. Modifying the LOS standard cannot be recommended because safety problems usually result from increased congestion and adversely impact air quality and transit operations where HOV facilities do not exist. The adopted LOS standard accounts for HOVs and transit by basing it on average delay per person rather than delay per vehicle. Reprioritizing improvements to address capacity would result in a lack of funding for safety and non -motorized transportation. This would be inconsistent with adopted goals and policies to encourage non -motorized transportation and maintain roadway safety. Revised 2003 III-101 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Lowering transportation demand to match available capacity would restrict the City's ability to function as an urban center consistent with county and regional plans. Furthermore, the City has little ability to reduce traffic through the City caused by growth in neighboring jurisdictions or overflow from congested freeways. Therefore, improvement in funding for transportation appears to be the most realistic alternative. Of the previously listed funding sources for transportation, there are some that the City can control and some that the City can influence. The City can control the general fund, SEPA mitigation, bond issues, and traffic impact fees. These local funding sources can be used to leverage grants at the state (TIB) and federal (TEA-21) levels. State and federal increases in funding are increasingly difficult to obtain; therefore, in order to be competitive for grant funding, local funding becomes increasingly important. Bond issues can be successful but must have a funding source themselves, either property or utility taxes. In order to be successful, bond issues must have a list of projects to be funded, voter support, and a time line for completion. The projects to be funded must consider voters' concerns about who benefits from the projects and what impacts the projects may have. For example, if a project is perceived as benefiting residents of another city or the business community to the exclusion of Federal Way residents, the bond measure may fail. Finally, the impermanence of bond issue funding complicates the City's ability to effectively plan for large projects, which due to their size, may have to be phased. If a multi -year multi -phase project was not funded consistently, the full benefits of the project may not be realized. Under state law, counties may authorize a local option gas tax up to 10 percent of the state gas tax. In King County, it is estimated that if passed, a local gas tax of 2.3 cents per gallon would generate $836,000 per year for Federal Way, if distributed per capita under existing state law. However, until the county acts on such a proposal, it is unknown how funds would be distributed. General fund revenue is generally not used much for transportation purposes because many voters believe that gas tax revenues should be adequate for funding transportation needs. It is also generally unpopular to have street projects compete against human services, parks, police, etc. SEPA mitigation is used extensively and is effective for mitigation of incremental impacts, but is cumbersome to administer when addressing cumulative impacts. As currently practiced in Federal Way, it is unfair to large developments in that no mitigation is assessed for projects that generate less than 10 peak hour trips (e.g. a nine -lot single-family plat). It also funds a relatively small percentage of a total project's cost because existing traffic is included in the calculation of a development's "fair share" of the project, even if the project would not be necessary if there were no new developments. Hence, existing property owners and residents still subsidize projects to accommodate new growth, but only larger developments pay mitigation, so small developments are subsidized even more. A transportation impact fee (TIF) addresses the disadvantages of other local funding sources. It can be assessed to all developments based on new vehicular trips for roadway Revised 2003 III-102 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation capacity, transit trips for transit improvements, and non -motorized trips for non - motorized improvements. It does not compete against other City services. It pays only for improvements needed to accommodate new development, and funding follows the pace of growth. It does not require City residents or property owners to subsidize projects for new growth. It treats new development fairly, regardless of size. It also lends simplicity and predictability to the development community because developers know what mitigation expenses will be. It would simplify development review because lengthy impact analyses would only be required for the largest developments, thus reducing costs for medium-sized developments. The increased cost to small developments, particularly developments small enough to not trigger SEPA mitigation under the City's existing procedures, are easily outweighed by the afore -mentioned advantages of a TIF. Regular updating of the FWCP and Transportation chapter will afford opportunities for the City to modify the LOS standard or to secure other funding sources necessary to implement the capital improvements needed to maintain the adopted level of service standard. Concurrency Testing State law requires that a concurrency "test" be applied to all development proposals as a condition of granting a development permit. A concurrency test compares a proposed development's need for public facilities and services to the "capacity" of the facilities and services that are available to meet demand. Other questions that need to be addressed are at what point in the development process does concurrency apply, what types of development permits are subject to the concurrency test, and should fees be charged for concurrency testing to cover staff and administrative costs associated with the testing. Federal Way's approach is to implement transportation improvements and programs that it can afford to finance. These improvements and programs are based upon the FWCP, which includes a level -of -service standard for the transportation system. The primary purpose of the Concurrency Management Program is to allocate available resources based on the timing and location of development, and to assess mitigation fees based upon each new development's share of the improvements that are planned in the subarea within which it is located. Level -of -Service measures the outcome of and progress toward the planned growth rate. Concurrency Management and SEPA While concurrency requirements are similar in many ways to the requirements of the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA), there are some important differences, as follows: • Concurrency requirements are more demanding; if they are not met, denial of the project is mandated. Revised 2003 III-103 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation • Concurrency is based on a Level -of Service (LOS) standard; SEPA has no specific standard as its basis. • Concurrency requirements only apply to capacity issues; SEPA requirements apply to all environmental impacts of a project, including transportation safety. • Concurrency has timing rights related to development; SEPA does not. Therefore, concurrency does not replace SEPA, but rather becomes an integral part of a comprehensive program that relates private and public commitments to improving the entire transportation system. SEPA will focus primarily on site impacts that could result in additional transportation requirements in specific instances (particularly access to the site or impacts in the immediate vicinity that could not have been anticipated in the overall transportation investment strategy for the system). Concurrency conclusions in the FWCP do not excuse projects from SEPA review. However, they do address major system infrastructure issues that must be properly administered under both SEPA and the GMA. Monitoring The cycle of managing transportation facilities and services has recently been expanded. Emphasis is now being placed on monitoring the transportation system to assure that the community's vision, as reflected in the FWCP, is being met. In addition, all projects that are complex in nature or involve significant capital expenditures have a value engineering study performed in order to select the most cost effect alternative. As a part of the project implementation phase, all projects are required to be reviewed and approved by the City Council at the 30 percent, 85 percent, and 100 percent design phases. In the past, transportation planning merely forecasted expected growth in demand and sought ways to provide the needed capacity. Today, federal and state level legislation place requirements (and authority) on the PSRC to monitor aspects of the transportation land use process. For example, federal congestion management systems require a regional performance monitoring system. PSRC is currently developing such a monitoring system that is expected to provide key information on the achievement of plan goals and objectives. Within this context, Federal Way may be called upon to monitor local actions including: • Project Implementation (versus planned improvement program) • Program Status and Implementation (e.g., CTR programs) • Policy Adoption (versus those called for in the plan) • Motorized and Non -motorized Traffic Volumes and Vehicle Occupancy on local facilities (versus that forecast by the City plan) Revised 2003 III-104 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation • Land Use Development Approvals or Density Patterns (vs. plan -anticipated growth) • Parking data such as pricing, policies, and management Concurrency management requires the City to monitor the progress of transportation improvements against the impacts of growth occurring within the community. This test will be crucial in measuring the ongoing performance of the FWCP over the coming years. Transportation Goals and Policies Goal TG11 Develop and implement funding mechanisms to: a. Leverage state and federal funds for transportation improvements. b. Meet GMA's concurrency requirements. c. Provide consistent, fair, and predictable assessment of sufficient mitigation fees for development consistent with SEPA. d. Assure that adequate transportation infrastructure is provided to accommodate forecast growth. Policies TP81 Prioritize transportation projects considering concurrency, safety, support for non-SOV modes, environmental impacts, and cost effectiveness. TP82 Assure cost-effective maintenance of transportation facilities under the City's jurisdiction. TP83 Utilize the City's traffic signal system for data collection to monitor consistency with concurrency requirements. TP84 Develop a concurrency ordinance by 2002 as required by the GMA consistent with the City's adopted LOS standard. TP85 Develop a transportation impact fee by 2002 to simplify development review, assess mitigation fees consistently and fairly, improve the City's ability to leverage grant funding for transportation funding, and provide adequate infrastructure to accommodate new growth. Revised 2003 III-105 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation TP86 Adopt interlocal agreements with neighboring jurisdictions to identify methods to assure consistency between comprehensive plans, and adopt fair and consistent means of addressing the impacts of growth and development between jurisdictions without undue administrative burdens. Summary of Implementation Goals and Policies for Transportation Careful management is recognized as the key to fruition of the FWCP's vision. The transportation system has multiple users and multiple funding sources. The implementation plan for Federal Way focuses on the next six years within which to forecast needs and to identify reliable options for transportation funding. The actions needed during this period take into account transportation investments the City has undertaken since incorporation, combined with realistic expectations of growth. The City currently conducts value engineering on large construction projects and should continue to do so. All construction projects will be presented before the City Council at increments of 30 percent, 85 percent, and 100 percent for review and approval. In emphasizing multiple modes of travel, it is recognized that resources will have to be spread and balanced among modes. In achieving this goal, the City should undertake various strategies to implement its transportation plan by 2020. The near term efforts should focus on projects to: 1) mitigate safety problems; 2) preserve and protect the existing infrastructure; 3) expand multiple modes of travel and assure access for the transportation disadvantaged; 4) mitigate localized traffic congestion problems; and 5) expand the system for new growth. These actions are expected to maintain reasonable levels of service on the arterial highway system during this period. Investment Focus • Emphasize early investment in lower cost Transportation Systems Management actions aimed at improving the performance of the existing street system. Actions will include intersection spot improvements, new and coordinated traffic signals, and neighborhood traffic management. • Identify and preserve necessary rights -of -way at the earliest opportunity. • Work with transit providers to promote expanded local and regional bus services and to encourage a transit supported land use pattern. • Expand current park and ride facilities and develop support programs to encourage use by Federal Way residents. 0 Create a street network within the City Center that includes a by-pass circulation route for through traffic and express transit. Revised 2003 III-106 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation • Develop and apply clear development standards to obtain necessary infrastructure changes as property develops. • Improve the pedestrian environment citywide, with special focus along SR 99 and within the City Center. Focus on safe and efficient pedestrian facilities and improve the ability of pedestrians to safely travel throughout the community. Implementation Process • Work closely with adjacent local agencies and preferably; prepare interlocal agreements (especially WSDOT and Metro) to formally establish commitments for coordinated transportation planning and implementation. • Develop a comprehensive Transportation Investment Strategy using a two -stage approach. The first stage should be an updated six -year TIP, the second stage being a long-range comparison of transportation needs and revenues through 2020 and beyond. • Work towards obtaining new funding sources that: have the greatest local control for utilization on the most pressing local transportation needs; have the least strings attached; minimize staff time for obtaining and reporting on the use of the funds; are received on a regular (such as quarterly) basis; are predictable; inflation adjusted; and can be counted on for long term financial project planning. • Formally establish a process for prioritizing, designing, financing, and monitoring the completion of transportation system projects and programs. Identify clear departmental roles and responsibilities. • Monitor the status of the transportation system so that progress towards the plan's vision can be assured and improvements are in place in time to meet forecast demands. • Develop a Concurrency Management Strategy for the City that facilitates the full integration of the programming and administration of transportation improvements, services, and programs with the FWCP. • Assure that transportation system improvements are programmed to be available for use within six years of development permit approval if level of service is forecast to be exceeded within the subarea of the permit. • Monitor and make adjustments as needed to transportation level -of -service standards and approach based on growth rates, comprehensive plan amendments, and financing for projects. • Integrate a transportation impact program within the development mitigation structure. Revised 2003 III-107 FWCP — Chapter Three, Transportation Work with the regional bus providers to promote a transit -supported land use pattern. • Program projects to: 1) mitigate safety problems; 2) preserve and protect the existing infrastructure; 3) expand multiple modes of travel and assure access for the transportation disadvantaged; 4) mitigate localized traffic congestion problems; and 5) expand the system for new growth. Revised 2003 III-108 Map III-1 City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan 0 2 Existing Significant Streets and Highways Puget Sound Povxry ate. .� �• � a Transportation Element P' t City Limits Potential Annexation Area pP Q �..-� S. 3121h `♦` 6.3201h , r ��- ♦ W fp ♦ W ` O S ♦ N ¢ 1 NSH REPl11Y 61th 33 t ST w ` dl � ` O ammaayannr�♦� 3r E h T w r S. 36 h ST ' Scale: • 1 �' .. 0 1 Mile N J � ,... ♦ FU P N 3 'fir �c `♦ Q CIiY OFed k Feral Way MAP III-2 Map reprinted 1012006/data2/tabitham/cpmaps/trsignif.aml City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Existing and Planned ' Traffic Signals Puget Sound P. ty a� � ON Transportation Element P� j �•� Federal Way City Limits ,�, LL s I ! Potential Annexation Area ♦O ' W Existing Traffic Signal Communication Line . 3121h r►t 1 Proposed Traffic Signal I ! Communication Line �'� s.3201h ,.,+. y • Existing Traffic Signal N. o Planned Traffic Signal N NSHORE y �♦ g a 18) Fire Signal Existing Pedestrian Signal . ` o b cemmecende 3 E `' •I ' ' / S. 36 h ST ♦ ' Scale: 0 1 Mile N 10 � ♦ OF P u ' -.% Federal Way MAP III-3 Map reprinted 10/2005 /data2/tabitham/cpmapsflrsig.aml City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan 2000 Traffic Volumes Element City Limits m Potential Annexation Area Average Weekday Traffic Scale: 0 1 Mile Cm of Federal Way MAP III-4 1012006 City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Functional Classification of Existing and Planned Paarty Streets and Highways Puget Sound , Transportation Element r ¢- m -- `� i �•� Federal Way City Limits s Potential Annexation Area /' pP Q Freeway ray Principal Arterial ®,� Minor Arterial ♦ swa ,sT �� /S/ Principal Collector °�♦� lu N ` Minor Collector _ o = � p d ♦ ��r `♦`♦ x O ��m Bey `♦ �'sffrr LU •' ' 3 s J a ♦ W v Scale: 0 1 Mile S � N ♦ E� , 3 r• crrr of Federal Way MAP III-5 _ Map reprinted 10/2005 /data2/tabitham/cpmaps/trexclass2004.am1 City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Q y I� Planned Street Sections PW Puget Sound a I Transportation Element lv V .�' T — ,�•��I — _.1 c6 I j `,/ Federal Way City Limits / ' Potential Annexation Area i Roadway Section: s.r T A-4lanes +HOV B - 4 lanes + HOV (City Center) OP I > C-4lanes +Bike D - 4 lanes + Bike (City Center) ` j E - 4 lanes L i \ F- 4lanes (City Center) G-5lanes +Bike H - 5 lanes + Bike (City Center) 1- 5 lanes N �`� a J - 5 lanes (City Center) TH N REPVC`I'tY �� o K-3lanes +Bike i 0 L - 3 lanes + Bike (City Center) M - 3 lanes j O I ♦ N - 3 lanes + Parking (City Center) S.348th T O-2lanes+Bike ay E �� '�� —"�_ /'I } ¢ P - 2lanes + Ditch (Low Density) O - 2 lanes + Parking (City Center) �V R - 2 lanes +parking (Commercial/Industrial) S - 2lanes + Parking (Single Family) T - 2 lanes + Ditch (Low Density) �� —Scale— 1 Inch equals 4,000 Feet o ''' Vederal Way ;% MAP III-6 NOTE: This map is intended for use as a graphical representation only. The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy Map reprlmed 10/06/data2nabeham/cpmapvlrpl6t20044m1 City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan v 2 State Access Management Classifications Puget Sound a.� .1 c Transportation Element r t ®`®m® Federal Way City �� LL B a Potential Annexation Area �' W W {� > Limited Access . 312M Class 4 `.` S. 320th ♦ `♦ rlj W N y a 18 HSHOREPK`1'tY G eth cammuwanda ♦ IN dev `♦` T _ r da } 3r E ♦ > .40* 0 t 8.358h ST Scale: ♦ Q 0 1 Mile F N % P �. k Federal Way MAP III-7 Map reprinted 10/2006/data2ftabitham/cpmaps/trwsamc.aml City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan City Access Management 2 Classifications Puget Sound Povxry ate. � Transportation Element P� Federal Way City Limits Potential Annexation Area r• �- OOV Class 1 d oP -- Class 2 Class 3 e a .320th ♦ Class 4 NSHOREPI'N'tY �♦ ' ammannr� 3r E ♦� �r n r• ♦ �� ' V ' Scale: ♦ 0 1 Mile ` N OF Federal Way MAP III-8 Map reprinted 1012006/data2/tabitham/cpmaps/tramc.aml City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan 0 2 2002 Congested Streets & Highways Puget Sound Povxry ate. �• r � a Transportation Element P• t Federal Way City Limits Potential Annexation Area r Congested Streets 5.3121h � �' Congested Intersections � I _ `♦` 6.3201h r ♦ W W `♦ 2 O � U N y NSHOREPI"NY ♦ G 18 Bth ST Nib At" � e ♦ cammeaysnerr',,, `♦` a h T O 3rd WE ♦� - �� a S. 36 h ST Scale: 0 1 Mile N �ze�, ♦ U� Q' l h� ♦ k Federal Way MAP III-9 Map reprinted 1012006/data2/tabitham/cpmaps/troong02.amI City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan 2008 Congestion 2 with Existing Streets " and Highways Puget Sound Povxry ate. �• r � a Transportation Element P• t Federal Way City Limits Potential Annexation Area r Congested Streets 5.3121h � �' Congested Intersections � I _ `♦` 6.3201h r ♦ W �♦ O N y NSHOREPI"NY ♦ G 18 Bth ST � e ♦ `♦` ` h O cammeaysnerr,,,, 3rd E ♦� >,U ^ �40 r ' a t 8.36 h ST Scale: 0 1 Mile N �ze�, ♦ U� P l h� ♦ k Federal Way MAP III-10 Map reprinted 1012006/data2ftabitham/cpmaps/trcongoa.aml City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan 2008 Congestion with 2 Proposed Street and " Highway Improvements Puget Sound vx Poty ate. .� �• r � a Transportation Element P' t Federal Way City Limits slay ! ! Potential Annexation Area r _ Congested Streets 5.3121h � �' • Congested Intersections � I _ `♦` 6.3201h r ��- ♦ ♦ N W fp ` O S ♦ N NSHOREPK�Y ¢ 18) N� 8th ♦ cammeaysnerr',,, 3rd `♦` E ` ♦� .34 h T r O > a t >W �� ' 8.36 h ST Scale: •`'�„ N 0 1 Mile �♦ QQ. tiF Federal Way MAP III-11 Map reprinted 1012006/data2ftabitham/cpmapsitrcg08imp.aml City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan 2020 Congestion with 2 2008 Street & Highway ' Improvements Puget Sound Povxty ate. .� � � Transportation Element P' t Federal Way City Limits Potential Annexation Area r Congested Streets 5.3121h � �' Congested Intersections o � I _ 'o `♦` 6.3201h r ��- ♦ N fp ♦ W ` O S ♦ N NSHOREPK�Y ¢ 18) 61h ` dl ♦ `♦ ` 1A O b cammsnerr',,, Bay ♦ 3rd WE ♦� >LL1 •� .�- ,r ' a t S. 36 h ST ' Scale: • �♦ ��• 0 1 Mile N �.,10ZO 3 tiF `♦� h� 7Oo � r� ' ♦ -� a cm ofed.i� � k Feral Way MAP III-12 Map reprinted 1012006/data2/tabitham/cpmaps/troong202O.amI City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan 0 2 2020 Congestion with 2020 Improvements Puget Sound Povxry ate. .� �• r � a Transportation Element P' t City Limits Potential Annexation Area r _ Congested Streets 5.3121h � �' • Congested Intersections � I _ `♦` 6.3201h r ♦ N fp ♦ W ` O S ♦ N � po NSHOREPK�Y ¢ d 18) N� 6th ST ♦ cammeasnerr',,, `♦` y 3rd E ` ♦� .34 h T r O > a t >W •� ' 8.36 h ST ' Scale: • �♦ ��• 0 1 Mile N �.,10ZO 3 A Federal Way MAP III-13 Map reprinted 1012006/data2/tabitham/cpmaps/tr2020.am1 City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan High Collision rate 2 Intersections " (1997 -1999) Puget Sound Povxty ate. .� �• r � a Transportation Element P' t Federal Way City Limits Potential Annexation Area 5`-`�0 �� Q W r• d' d oP 1.0-2.5/M EV* s . ® @�. S. 3121h � tL' a 2.5-5.0/M EV Ilk,a A > 5.0/M EV �® 6.3201h r ��. m rb *Million entering vehicles � W ` O S ♦ N ¢ 18) NSHOREPK�Y N� 8th ♦ `♦` ` O cammeaysnerr',,, 3rd E ♦� . 34 h T >,U r •� ' a t S. 36 h ST ' Scale: ♦ �♦ �• 0 1 Mile N �., ♦10ZO 3 � ♦ P Federal Way MAP III-14 Map reprinted 1012006/data2/tabitham/cpmaps/tnccr.am1 City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan 0 2 High Collision Rate Corridors (1997-1999) Puget Sound Povxry ate. .� �• � Transportation Element P' t Federal Way City Limits Potential Annexation Area 5 - 10/mvm* s �d 3121 '� 6• 10 - 25/mvm ! 25 - 50/mvm �a� 6.3=h - r'''t- > 50/mvm ♦ < *million vehicle miles ♦ 2 � 0 i3 ♦ N NSHOREPK�Y a 18) N� � a � ♦ `♦ a 94 h i O t b cammsnerr',,, Bay 3rd E ♦` . �� a S. 36 h ST ' Scale: • 0 1 Mile �, ♦10ZO 3 Federal Way MAP III-15 Map reprinted 1012006/data2ttabitham/cpmapsAraccid.aml City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan 0 2 High Collision Severity Intersections (1997-1999) Puget Sound Povxry ate. .� �• r � a Transportation Element P' t Federal Way City Limits Potential Annexation Area Q W a oP $25,000-50,000/MEV" � S. 3121h � tL' $50,000-100,000/M EV Na A >$100,000/MEV �a 6.3201h ,.r�. rb *Million entering vehicles � W W ` O S ♦ N ¢ 18) NSHOREPK�Y N� 8th ♦ `♦` ` O cammeaysnerr',,, 3rd E ♦� . 34 h T �il r •� am ' a t S. 36 h ST ' Scale: ♦ �♦ �• 0 1 Mile N �., ♦10ZO 3 Federal Way MAP III-16 Map reprinted 1012006/data2/tabitham/cpmaps/tnccs.aml City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan 0 2 High Collision Severity Corridors Puget Sound Povxry ate. .� �• r � a Transportation Element P' t Federal Way City Limits aa�s d I Potential Annexation Area �11 P $250,000-500,000/MVM* OP� 3121h +c a _ $500,000-1,000,000/MVM I - /*N/ >$1,000,000/MVM a �♦ 6.3201h r f. m w *Million Vehicle Miles � W ` O S ♦ N NSHOREPK�Y ¢ 18) NS ` dl ♦ `♦ ` 94 h O t b cammsnerr',,, 3rd WE ♦` . •� S. 36 h ST ' Scale: • �♦ �•• 0 1 Mile N -"-,-Federal Way MAP III-17 Map reprinted 1012006/data2/tabitham/cpmaps/tnccsc.aml City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Sidewalk Inventory on Major Streets " (2002) Puget Sound Povxry ate. .� � Transportation Element P Federal Way City Limits Potential Annexation Area r• W No Sidewalks OP 9d -- S. 3121h tL' ,� Sidewalks on one side I - of street Ilk,♦ r''- Sidewalks on both sides ®� of street `♦ 2 � O U ♦ N y NSHOREPI"NY ♦ G S a 18) N� ST e � � a `` Vb L cammsnerr,,,, 3rd E ♦� >W �� ' �am ' � a t ' Scale: • �♦ �•• 0 1 Mile N �., ♦10ZO 3 A Federal Way MAP III-18 Map reprinted 1012006 /data2/tab1tham/cpmaps/trsw.am1 Gft-� a1 Federal Way Camprehersive Plan Bicycle Facilities Plan t r Ira mpor! lmtMrnonl f � f - Federal Way City Limits I ~V —Z N, # IPoten h al ArIn ecati-on Aarea • • r� Class 1 (Sepwata Tall) Class 2 (M arkad Olke Lanas) J r—L It Glass 3 (Bike Route) 1 1 Ilk . { r ~- * gyp,, '� ale• t 1 Mile IV- 46 j Li 7 Federal Way MAP �II- ;�, Y� M QII�d 7 G�OGb .a•I/ City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Star Lake All Day Transit Service Park & Ride °D z 183,194,ST574 na / ''� Transportation Element Puget Sound . � rt r -3 Federal Way City Limits Potential Annexation Area 4+ Buses/Hour KY,IL �•�'® IDa 2 to 3 Buses/Hour S. 3121h T ^00' 1 Bus/Hour Federal Wav `. 1 $ 1 187 �q1s Ride l Park &Ride 8.320rh `♦� r �' 174.181.183. 187.188.194, ♦ �. 87 m 181 194 901.903. PT402.PT500 �♦ °r S 903 ST565,ST574 �♦ a PT Y N� S��6th S 18 o� er- M 94 �0 0 to Twin Lakes p Park &Ride m th , d m� m 3rd 188 61 188 ST Scale: S Federal Wa N 0 1 Mlle Park & Ride 194� " • `4�° 3 P r2 `♦ � `♦ i h^4 cm of Federal Way MAP III-20 � L ' N Map reprinted 1012006 /data2/tabitham/cpmaps/trapark.aml City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan 74 Star Lake 1ss Park &Ride 180 Peak Hour Transit Service 179 152.183.190. a 177 191.192,194, iai ST574 ^^ 44 Transportation Element 1s1 s? Puget Sound ' =="� y �� maw ®°®.® Federal Way City Limits Potential Annexation Area 8+ Buses/Hour 6 4 to 7 Buses/Hour UY W 2 to 3 Buses/Hour a 901 901 a Federal Wav Park & Ride 1 Bus/Hour 178 g 18 174.175.176. ' ns 17 17188 ( / 77.178.181. ♦ s. 188.187.188. ♦� ns 176 194 197 na sQ 17 194.197.901. 903.PT402.PT500 ST565,ST574 ♦ 17 •♦ ,ea 0 'm W n ,ee 8 N �c1 ,e, �� KW61 ♦ i.7 _--I4M 18) , lei � 9 176 04 5 Twin Lakes ' ob Park & Ride , 188,178,179 < tas wt ' er F Scale: S Federal Way 0 ®IIE Park &Ride �♦ 194,196,197, a �♦�♦ 4z • _kFederal Way MAP III-21 Map reprinted 10/2005/data2ttabitham/cpmapsArppark.aml City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan 2 � � N Proposed Transit Routes Puget Sound Povxry ate. � Transportation Element P- Federal Way City Limits Bays d ! Potential Annexation Area Proposed Transit Routes ♦ o� N ' N ♦ ¢ d 1 NSH REPK`/'tV � o By 3rd E ♦ ' J �- n Scale: /-�\ 0 1 Mile N % 10 ♦ P tiFh� ♦�♦ cm of -� Federal Way MAP III-22 Map reprinted 1012006/data2/tabitham/cpmaps/trptr.aml Lfes . 99 Kent City of Federal Way Puget Sound " Moin s S272nd aA Comprehensive Plan s 10 fd ��a Star PoBve y Lake Helicopter Landing Areas S 288th St Transportation Element s Dumas Federal Legend: Bay Way Q rtRd Federal Way City Limits yr S 304th St Easter 99 Steel Dollof Lake + Potential Annexation Area 5 Lake Lake r O Fly Wright Company Landing Area 09 312th St th St Federal way © Fly Wright Company Landing Area SWDa� O Mirro P.A.A. SW320thSt W32othSt Lake S 32 h St © 335th St Medical Transfer Point ti° Federal Q 0 Fire Station #6 (Emergency) A a way y x S 324th St No N © 272nd St. Parkand Ride (Emergency) y � L a a rt �a 0 Thomas Jefferson High (Emergency) re Pkw Carry G 336thSt © Or 18 1 O Twin Lakes Golf Course (Emergency) L---- 0 Federal Way High School (Emergency) �� T om a � r Co > - 0 Woodmont Elementary (Emergency) G S 348th St c9 Lake Geneva QD Weyerhaeuser Corporate Landing Area a ss SW356t St Federal Green Gables Elementary (Emergency) w CO way P.A.A. ® Fire Station #3 (Emergency) 09 � o �3 © > _ _ — J 6 L Five Mile Scale: � N Lake 0 0.5 1 \ °, h °e�. Miles 0 /eG Trout F— Map Reformatted: October, 2006. Source: City of Federal Way, King Coun � Lake 81 P 1cifir \ 61 A Federal Way MAP 111-23 Milton Ede o Note: This map is intended for use as a graphical representation only. The City Federal Way to its 09 of makes no warranty as accuracy. 161 es 99 Kent City of Federal Way Puget Sound Moin s S 272nd St Comprehensive Plan s �d1 fd Poverty �, Star Lake Recommended Bay c) heliport Siting Areas LY a S 288th St m s Transportation Element Dumas Bay Federal a a Way Irt yr S 304th St o� 5� 99 a' DollofLake Le end: 9 LaSStteel Lakeer 09 SW 312th S St iv Federal Federal Way City Limits Q�e SWDa� Mirro Lake a P.A.A. — Potential Annexation Area L SW 320th St do Federal W 320th St S 32 th St Q _ O Site Number A way y ` x S 324th St a O � h N a a'P Most Compatible for Heliport Developme rth.,. /� SW Cam . Sth St 1 c pr rn i 18 I T oma co r 1 m� v m S 348th St 'vs ° Lake 1 Geneva 99 I SW 356t St Federal w Way 1 09 P.A.A. J �� ry�dr > Five a Mile Scale: e° h �a N Lake 0 0.5 1 O Miles °fj. �eGy Trout I— Map Reformatted: October, 2006. Source: City of Federal Way, King Coun Lake 81 P 3ifir urr or 61 Federal Way MAP 111-24 Milton Ede Note: This map is intended for use as a graphical representation only. 09 o The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy. 161 City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Through Truck 2 �. Route Plan Puget Sound Povxry ate. ■ � �• _ J a Transportation Element P' t LL Federal Way City Limits �. Potential Annexation Area W Existing Truck Routes 3121h Proposed Additional Truck Route ` 6.3201h ST �- 3 2 o� N NSH REPKNY N� Bth 6' .�0 � coRmeay�aa `�` < . 34 h T am O 3rd E S. 36 h ST p ` — �k J n Scale: •` NN 0 1 Mile ' Cm OF Federal Way MAP III-25 Map reprinted 1012006/data2/tabitham/cpmaps/truck.aml City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan 0 2 2003-2008 Transportation Improvement Plan Puget Sound Povxry ate. .� �• r � a •�.r r Transportation Element P' t Federal Way City Limits slay ! ! ® Potential Annexation Area • r` r 0� W r Street Improvement Projects Non Motorized Projects .` �' • Intersection Improvement 8.3201h ® Q ,. h+. Project 18 Map Identification Number ♦ W ♦ 2 � O ♦ N � po NSHOREPI'v'tY O ®� ' $, N� 6th � q I `. ffi © 34 h b cammsnerr',,, 3rd E �� . �W •� ' 2 a t S. 36 h ST ' Scale: •� �„ 0 1 Mile �'�� ♦ 10 3 e ♦ FO P N cm of �.� Federal Way MAP III-26 Map reprinted 1012006/data2/tabitham/cpmaps/tr6tip.aml City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan 0 2 2009-2020 Capital Improvement Plan Puget Sound Povxry ate. .1 1 � ,.� Transportation Element P' t Federal Way City Limits 41. ! ® Potential Annexation Area _ r�a r 17 � Street Improvement Projects ® • 3121h � '�' Non Motorized Projects ♦ /�7) -♦ ® i 1 ® 1 11 Signal Communications 4 ♦. 1 s.320t ® Project ®o 7 w 4 4 w Intersection Improvement ♦.♦ ®� Project N ♦� s a_ 18) 18 Map Identification Number NSHOREPK`NY r✓ Btlr ® 2 � ` cammeaysnerr,,,' ♦� T � � o ' ^ 5.36 ST ' ' ru Scale: 0 1 Mile N ' �.. 6 b 2� cm of Federal Way MAP III-27A Map reprinted 1012006 /data2/tabitham/cpmapsdrl Otlp.aml City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan 2003-2020 Regional Capital Improvement Plan Puget Sound P. q ate. 1 1 �• •�.r r a Transportation Element P• � v5 Federal Way City Limits Potential Annexation Area oP Street Improvement Projects �d S. 3121h Non Motorized Improvement @� 1 Projects Ilk,a �♦ 6.3=h ' ��- a Intersection Improvement Project `♦�♦ o s © 1 A Transit Station Project N NSHOREPKNY �♦ g� sm < 1 17 18 18 Map Identification Number q cammsnerr',,, `♦` day . 34 h Tam 1 y 3rd WE ♦� !W •' S. 36 h ST 9 44 O Scale: 0 1 Mile N h� ♦ I �. cm or Federal Way MAP III-27B Map reprinted 1012006/data2ttabitham/cpmaps/trrcip2004.am1