CENTRAL AND EAST CORRIDORS - TheLensNews › ... › 201410_STCentralEastHCT_CorridorReport_… ·...

HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY

CENTRAL AND EAST CORRIDORS

SEPTEMBER 2014 CORRIDOR REPORT:I-405 BUS RAPID TRANSIT

Sound Transit Central/East

High-Capacity Transit Corridor Study

Corridor Report:

I-405 Bus Rapid Transit Corridor

September 2014

HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR STUDY

I-405 Bus Rapid Transit Corridor

Sound Transit Central/East High‐Capacity Transit Corridor Study

Corridor Report: I‐405 Corridor iii September 2014

CONTENTS

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................ v

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1

2 PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................................................. 1

3 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 4 3.1 Previous Analysis ..................................................................................................... 4

3.1.1 Sound Move ................................................................................................ 4 3.1.2 Sound Transit Long Range Plan ................................................................... 4 3.1.3 Sound Transit 2 Plan ................................................................................... 4 3.1.4 I‐405 Corridor Master Plan ......................................................................... 4 3.1.5 Bus Rapid Transit Studies ............................................................................ 5

3.2 Travel Markets ........................................................................................................ 6 3.2.1 Downtown Renton Travel Markets ............................................................. 6 3.2.2 West Bellevue Travel Markets .................................................................... 8 3.2.3 Totem Lake Travel Markets ........................................................................ 9 3.2.4 Bothell / Canyon Park County Travel Markets .......................................... 10 3.2.5 City of Lynnwood Travel Markets ............................................................. 11

4 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................. 12

5 INITIAL SCREENING EVALUATION ............................................................................... 13

6 LEVEL 1 EVALUATION ................................................................................................. 14

7 LEVEL 2 EVALUATION ................................................................................................. 22 7.1 Description of Alternatives ................................................................................... 23

7.1.1 Alternative A2: Full I‐405 Corridor Master Plan with Bus Rapid Transit in Express Toll Lanes ..................................................................... 23

7.1.2 Alternative A3: Phased Implementation of I‐405 Corridor Master Plan with Bus Rapid Transit in Express Toll Lanes .................................... 26

7.2 Key Findings by Performance Measure ................................................................ 26 7.2.1 Travel Time ................................................................................................ 28 7.2.2 Ridership ................................................................................................... 30 7.2.3 Capital Costs .............................................................................................. 31 7.2.4 Cost‐effectiveness ..................................................................................... 33 7.2.5 Reliability ................................................................................................... 33 7.2.6 Station Area Assessment .......................................................................... 33

8 RISKS AND UNKNOWNS ............................................................................................. 34

9 NEXT STEPS ................................................................................................................ 35


iv Corridor Report: I‐405 Corridor September 2014

10 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 35

Tables

ES‐1 Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 2

1 Key Travel Patterns in the I‐405 BRT Study Area ................................................................ 6

2 Future Travel Markets for Trips to and from the Downtown Renton ................................ 7

3 Future Travel Markets for Trips to and from West Bellevue .............................................. 8

4 Future Travel Markets for Trips to and from Totem Lake .................................................. 9

5 Future Travel Markets for Trips to and from Canyon Park ............................................... 11

6 Future Travel Markets for Trips to and from City of Lynnwood ....................................... 12

7 Goals and Screening Questions ........................................................................................ 13

8 Screening Results .............................................................................................................. 16

9 Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 25

10 PM Peak Transit Travel Times (in Minutes) from Bellevue Transit Center ....................... 29

11 Daily Riders by Alternative ................................................................................................ 30

12 Cost by Alternative ............................................................................................................ 32

Exhibits

ES‐1 Level 2 Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 3

ES‐2 Service Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 4

ES‐3 Evaluation Summary for I‐405 BRT Corridor Alternatives .................................................. 6

1 Sound Transit HCT Studies .................................................................................................. 2

2 Long List of Alternative Concepts ..................................................................................... 15

3 Level 1 Alternatives ........................................................................................................... 17

4 I‐405 BRT Service Concepts ............................................................................................... 19

5 Level 2 Alternatives ........................................................................................................... 24

6 Level 2 Evaluation Summary ............................................................................................. 27


Corridor Report: I‐405 Corridor v September 2014

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

BRT bus rapid transit

Central/East HCT Corridor Study Central/East High‐Capacity Transit Corridor Study

CTR Commute Trip Reduction

HCT high‐capacity transit

HOV high‐occupancy toll

HOT I‐405 Interstate 405

I‐405 Corridor I‐405 Bus Rapid Transit Corridor

I‐5 Interstate 5

O&M operations and maintenance

mph miles per hour

PSRC Puget Sound Regional Council

Sea‐Tac Airport Seattle‐Tacoma International Airport

SOV single‐occupancy vehicle

SR State Route

TOD transit‐oriented development

UW University of Washington

WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation

Sound Transit East/Central High‐Capacity Transit Corridor Study

Corridor Report: I‐405 Corridor ES‐1 September 2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Central/East High‐Capacity Transit (HCT) Corridor Study (HCT Corridor Study) is one of five HCT corridor planning studies Sound Transit has conducted to accomplish the following: 1) support the Sound Transit Board of Directors in decisions about the Sound Transit Long‐Range Plan update and 2) inform choices for the next phase of the regional HCT system plan’s development. The study area for the HCT Corridor Study spans from Lynnwood at the north to Renton at the south, from Ballard at the west and Issaquah at the east. This study area encompasses major sections of Interstate 405 (I‐405) and portions of State Route (SR) 520 and Interstate 90 (I‐90), which are the primary routes serving the cities inside the study area. The study explored opportunities for improving transit connections within the following five corridors:

University District‐Kirkland‐Redmond

Ballard to University District

Eastside Rail Corridor

I‐405 Bus Rapid Transit

Kirkland‐Bellevue‐Issaquah

This report summarizes the process used to identify and evaluate high‐capacity transit (HCT) system improvements specifically for the Interstate 405 (I‐405) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Corridor. The results of the study will be used by Sound Transit staff and board members as they update Sound Transit’s Long‐Range Plan; as well as develop a potential future system expansion program and inform future decisions regarding mode and alternative for those corridors where HCT is identified to move forward.

The I‐405 Corridor is a critical link connecting major population and employment centers on the Eastside. The freeway is congested during many parts of the day, which provides a good incentive to use the high‐occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, either as a carpooler, vanpooler, or bus rider. The HOV lanes serve the corridor bus routes; however, the HOV lanes often perform unreliably during peak hours when HOV volumes are high. Washington State Department of Transportation’s (WSDOT’s) planned Express Toll Lane system is anticipated to provide more reliable transit travel times throughout the day.

I‐405 serves a growing market for transit and other regional travel on the Eastside. The travel market analysis documents the strength of Downtown Bellevue as the central core of the I‐405 Corridor. Bellevue also serves as a hub for connections to and from Downtown Seattle and communities to the east, such as Redmond and Issaquah. Most trips along the I‐405 Corridor are only a few miles in length, and few traverse the entire corridor length of 30 miles. These travel patterns indicate that an I‐405 BRT system might need different improvements in specific segments of the corridor, since different markets are being served. The central part of the corridor, from Kirkland south to Renton, is the most heavily traveled segment and serves a relatively well defined market area. At the ends of the corridor (e.g., north of State Route (SR) 522 and south of Renton), the travel markets are more dispersed.


ES‐2 Corridor Report: I‐405 Corridor September 2014

As part of the I‐405 Corridor Master Plan (WSDOT, 2002), BRT was recommended as the preferred HCT system due to its flexibility to meet the varying needs of travel markets along the 30‐mile corridor. Elements of the BRT concept has been partially implemented, with Sound Transit contributing to fund the HOV direct access ramps at NE 6th Street in Bellevue and fully funding the NE 128th Street HOV direct access ramps and freeway stations in Totem Lake. Sound Transit also funded the I‐405 bus flyer stop and pedestrian overcrossing at SR 527 in Bothell. In addition, Sound Transit has implemented several transit center projects along the corridor.

In September 2013, Sound Transit completed a report that documented the existing and forecasted future land use, transportation, environmental, and transit service conditions within the I‐405 Corridor. The report (Sound Transit, 2013) included a purpose statement that summarized the needs in this corridor that could be served by BRT service. The report and purpose statement were used as a basis for developing a long list of corridor options to be considered by the Sound Transit.

Sound Transit screened all options against the project’s purpose statement to discern which options best meet the transit needs in the corridor. A total of three representative alternatives, with three design options, were advanced into the Level 1 Evaluation following a workshop in October 2013. These alternatives were compared against one another in relation to 15 performance measures, all related to Sound Transit’s Long‐Range Plan goals. More detailed information about the Level 1 Evaluation is available in the I‐405 Bus Rapid Transit Level 1 Evaluation Report (Sound Transit, 2014a). Another workshop held in January 2014 advanced 2 representative alternatives with 3 design options into a more robust Level 2 Evaluation. These Level 2 alternatives are illustrated in Exhibit ES‐1.

Two levels of the I‐405 Corridor Master Plan were considered in this study: full build‐out and phased build‐out. Phased build‐out assumes that only those I‐405 BRT projects that are currently funded or have been identified as “next priority projects” by WSDOT are constructed. Three service concepts were considered, as shown in Exhibit ES‐2. The alternatives studied in the Level 2 evaluation are combinations of the two I‐405 Corridor Master Plan build‐out options and the three service concepts, as summarized in Table ES‐1. For a map, see Exhibit ES‐1.

Table ES-1. Alternatives

I-405 Corridor Master Plan

Service Concept

Trunk-and-Branch Single Route Serving North Renton

Full Build-out A2a A2b A2c

Phased Build-out A3a A3b



Exhibit ES-1. Level 2 Alternatives



Exhibit ES-2. Service Alternatives



The Level 2 Evaluation relied on a more detailed conceptual design of the representative alternatives and robust evaluation against a set of 16 performance measures. The key findings of the Level 2 Evaluation are provided below and summarized in Exhibit ES‐3; more detailed information is available in the I‐405 Bus Rapid Transit Level 2 Evaluation Report (Sound Transit, 2014b).

Travel Time: Alternative A2a travel times would be generally shorter than existing travel times with a few exceptions. Substantial travel time savings are observed to the Seattle‐Tacoma International Airport (SeaTac Airport) than with current Sound Transit Express service or future light rail transit (LRT) service (East Link to Central Link). This is due to travel in the proposed express toll lanes as well as a more direct route compared to light rail. Travel on Alternative A2b (single route) would be generally about 10 minutes longer than the direct routes for destinations requiring a transfer. This is a combination of two factors: the transfer time and the backtracking between the Interstate 5 (I‐5) interchange and Lynnwood Transit Center (as compared with the direct branch route to Everett). Alternative A2c would reach SeaTac, Tukwila, and Kent approximately 10 minutes faster than Alternative A2a by traveling along I‐405 rather than through Downtown Renton. Alternative A3a would take roughly 5 minutes longer than Alternative A2a to reach Lynnwood and Everett. Alternative A3a would have minor travel time increases over Alternative A2a, and Alternative A3b would compound the travel time effects of a single route and a less efficient network to provide the longest travel times among the alternatives.

Ridership: Alternative A2 design options would have higher ridership than the Alternative A3 options, due to more efficient operations and shorter travel times. Alternative A2 efficiencies are gained through more convenient access points which would allow buses to operate in the express toll lanes for longer distances. Fewer direct access ramps and in‐line stations would be provided and NE 85th Street in Kirkland, and Newport Hills Park‐and‐Ride would not be served. Of the Alternative A2 design options, the single route (A2b) would have the fewest projected boardings. Alternative A2c would have higher ridership primarily due to the travel time savings between SR 167 and Renton Landing, where buses would travel along I‐405 rather than through Downtown Renton. Alternative A2a would attract the highest ridership, because it serves more destinations directly, resulting in fewer transfers and shorter travel times. Alternative A3b would have the lowest ridership among the alternatives, because it requires more riders to transfer.



Exhibit ES-3. Evaluation Summary for I-405 BRT Corridor Alternatives



Reliability: Full build‐out of the I‐405 Corridor Master Plan is expected to provide better reliability than phased build‐out due to the completion of the Express Toll Lane system and improved BRT station and HOV/transit access. The single route alternatives are expected to offer better reliability than the trunk‐and‐branch alternatives, because there is less travel on local arterials in mixed traffic. However, connecting bus routes would need to travel on the local arterials. Alternative A2b (single route on full build‐out) is expected to provide the highest reliability; Alternatives A2a, A2c, and A3b are expected to provide moderate reliability; and Alternative A3a (trunk‐and‐branch on phased build‐out) is expected to provide the lowest reliability. There is a risk that the express toll lanes will not operate at WSDOT’s goal of 45‐mph speeds at least 90 percent of the time, which would affect reliability of the BRT system.

Costs: The I‐405 Corridor Master Plan includes projects that would benefit transit, HOV, and single‐occupant vehicle (SOV) users. The conceptual capital costs estimated for this effort represent only the incremental costs to implement BRT in the corridor, not the cost of the full I‐405 Corridor Master Plan. All three design options of Alternative A2 are expected to have capital costs of $1,280 to $1,670 million, approximately $140 to $170 million of which is right‐of‐way cost. Alternative A3, phased implementation of the Master Plan, includes fewer improvements, with an estimated capital cost of $680 to $920 million, approximately $25 million of which is right‐of‐way cost.

Operations and Maintenance Costs: The trunk‐and‐branch alternatives would have higher operations and maintenance costs than the single route alternatives due to the increased length of the routes. Alternative A2a is expected to be highest at between $42 and $46 million per year. Alternatives A2c and A3a would be slightly less at between $39 and $43 million and between $38 and $42 million per year, respectively. The single route alternatives, A2b and A3b, are expected to have annual operations and maintenance costs of between $22 and $26 million.

Cost‐effectiveness: The conceptual capital cost of the alternatives and the potential travel market are the main factors behind the cost effectiveness results. Alternative A2 options would be less cost‐effective than the Alternative A3 options. Alternative A2c would be the least cost‐effective, while Alternatives A3a and A3b would be the most cost‐effective.

Station Area Assessment. Most of the representative stations would serve existing park‐and‐rides, transit centers, or freeway stations along I‐405 or I‐5. Generally, most proposed stations have low to moderate development potential due to their location directly adjacent to the freeway, which bisects the transit walkshed and hampers multi‐modal access and connectivity to the station. The exceptions to these findings are found at Bellevue Transit Center, Renton Landing, and Renton Transit Center. Other notable station areas included Kingsgate Park‐and‐Ride in Kirkland, which is adjacent to, but not directly located within, the Totem Lake urban center. Locally adopted plans envision



remaking the existing Totem Lake suburban retail into a mixed‐use, walkable urban district. All station locations are conceptual only.

Overall the main differentiators within the I‐405 Corridor were travel time savings and ridership (trunk‐and‐branch alternatives performing better than single route alternatives), cost (Alternative A3 as lowest capital cost), and operations and maintenance costs (where trunk‐and‐branch alternatives show higher costs than single route).


Corridor Report: I‐405 Corridor 1 September 2014

1 INTRODUCTION

The Central/East High‐Capacity Transit (HCT) Study is one of five HCT corridor planning studies Sound Transit has conducted to accomplish the following: 1) support the Sound Transit Board of Directors in decisions about the Sound Transit Long‐Range Plan update and 2) inform choices for a potential next phase of the regional HCT system plan’s development. The study area for the Central/East HCT Study (Exhibit 1) spans from Lynnwood at the north to Renton at the south, from Ballard at the west and Issaquah at the east. This study area encompasses major sections of Interstate 405 (I‐405) and portions of State Route (SR) 520 and Interstate 90 (I‐90), which are the primary routes serving the cities inside the study area. The study explored opportunities for improving transit connections within the following five corridors:

University District‐Kirkland‐Redmond

Ballard to University District

Eastside Rail Corridor

I‐405 Bus Rapid Transit

Kirkland‐Bellevue‐Issaquah

This report summarizes the process used to identify and evaluate HCT system improvements specifically for the Interstate 405 (I‐405) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Corridor (I‐405 Corridor) and key findings from that evaluation. This I‐405 BRT Corridor Report evaluates alternatives with the potential to improve regional transit connections between many of the larger communities on the Eastside – Bellevue, Renton, Kirkland, and Bothell – and extends to Lynnwood at the north end. This report also measures the performance of these improvements, such as ridership and mobility benefits, environmental effects and benefits, transit costs and cost‐effectiveness, and consistency with regional and local plans. Similar documents have been prepared for the four other corridors included in the list above, as well as other corridors within Seattle (Ballard to Downtown, Downtown to West Seattle), to the north (Lynnwood to Everett), and to the south (vicinity of Burien, SeaTac, and Tukwila; Federal Way to Tacoma). The study results will help inform the ST Board as they work to update the agency’s Long‐Range Plan and as they make the future decisions regarding mode, alternative, and implementation of HCT.

2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

The I‐405 Corridor is a critical link connecting major population and employment centers on the Eastside. The freeway is congested during many parts of the day, providing a good incentive to use the high‐occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, either as a carpooler, vanpooler, or bus rider. The HOV lanes serve the corridor bus routes; however, the HOV lanes often perform unreliably during peak hours when HOV volumes are high. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has planned an Express Toll Lanes system, which is expected to provide more reliable transit travel times throughout the day.


2 Corridor Report: I‐405 Corridor September 2014

Exhibit 1. Sound Transit HCT Studies



I‐405 serves a growing market for transit and other regional travel on the Eastside. The travel market analysis documents the strength of Downtown Bellevue as the central core of the I‐405 Corridor. Bellevue also serves as a hub for connections to and from Downtown Seattle and communities to the east, such as Redmond and Issaquah. Most trips along the I‐405 Corridor are only a few miles in length, and few traverse the entire corridor length. These travel patterns indicate that an I‐405 BRT system might need different improvements in different segments of the corridor, since different markets are being served. The central part of the corridor, from Kirkland south to Renton, is the most heavily traveled segment and serves a relatively well defined market area. At the ends of the corridor (e.g., north of SR 522 and south of Renton), the travel markets are more dispersed.

As part of the I‐405 Corridor Master Plan (WSDOT, 2002), BRT was recommended as the preferred HCT system due to its flexibility to meet the varying travel markets along the 30‐mile corridor. The BRT concept has been partially implemented, with Sound Transit contributing to funding the HOV direct access ramps at NE 6th Street in Bellevue and fully funding the NE 128th Street HOV direct access ramps and inline stations in Totem Lake. Sound Transit also funded the I‐405 bus flyer stop and pedestrian overcrossing at SR 527 in Bothell. In addition, Sound Transit has implemented several transit center projects along the corridor.

Following are several issues that affect implementing a BRT system along the I‐405 Corridor:

WSDOT’s Conversion of HOV lanes to Express Toll Lanes: This would affect access to the priority lanes and operations of direct access ramps. Access would be more restricted because vehicles could only enter and exit the express toll lanes at certain locations.

Access to transit service: Several transit centers/park‐and‐rides are located off of the corridor and would require routing buses on local streets, which would increase travel time.

Travel Market: The travel market analysis demonstrated that transit markets vary along I‐405. There is a core demand between Kirkland and Renton, with Downtown Bellevue as the key destination. The markets tend to disperse to the north and south of the corridor. These varying demand patterns would need to be reflected in the BRT design in terms of access points and station configuration.

Integration within the I‐405 Corridor Master Plan: The I‐405 Corridor Master Plan has evolved over the past 10 years. Key BRT components may need to be revised to address the changing needs and development patterns over time.

Finally, examining BRT in the I‐405 Corridor needs to consider Sound Transit HCT projects such as East Link Extension that are in design and construction, as well as the interface with other potential long‐range planning efforts from Lynnwood to Everett and in the south end from Renton to Burien.



3 BACKGROUND

This section summarizes the previous analysis completed for the I‐405 Corridor, a summary of the baseline condition assessment, and the three‐step alternatives evaluation completed as part of this study.

3.1 Previous Analysis

3.1.1 Sound Move

The Sound Transit Board adopted Sound Move in 1996 (Sound Transit, 1996), and voters approved the plan the same year. Sound Move included implementation of Sounder commuter rail, Link light rail, new transit centers, park‐and‐ride facilities, and HOV direct access projects. The I‐405 Corridor was identified as an HOV expressway, defined as a continuous system of HOV lanes with either direct access ramps or flyer stops for transit and carpools. The expressway would accommodate new express bus routes running along the length of the corridor.

3.1.2 Sound Transit Long Range Plan

Sound Transit’s Regional Long‐Range Plan (Sound Transit, 2005) included BRT as a component of the potential HCT service for the region. I‐405 is identified as being a major north‐south regional travel corridor and is part of Sound Transit’s planned network of services. The 2005 Long‐Range Plan identified I‐405 as a BRT corridor. I‐405 is also identified as a corridor for regional express bus service and potential rail extension.

3.1.3 Sound Transit 2 Plan

Voters approved the Sound Transit 2 Plan ballot measure in 2008. The plan included expanding regional express bus service, commuter rail service, and light rail. Based on increasing ridership demand, Sound Transit 2 Plan provided annual operating and fleet expansion funds to increase bus service along I‐405. Sound Transit 2 Plan recognized that BRT was identified as the preferred HCT mode for I‐405 by the I‐405 Corridor Master Plan, and thus funded planning studies of potential BRT service along the I‐405 corridor, of which this report is a component. Previous studies that focused exclusively on the I‐405 Corridor are discussed in the following section. These studies include the I‐405 Corridor Master Plan as well as two BRT studies.

3.1.4 I‐405 Corridor Master Plan

BRT planning studies were carried out during the late 1990s and early 2000s in WSDOT’s I‐405 Corridor Program (WSDOT, 2002), which established the transportation master plan in the I‐405 Corridor from I‐5 in Lynnwood to Seattle‐Tacoma International Airport (Sea‐Tac Airport). This project was officially named “Interstate 405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit Projects” and was created to improve all transportation modes in the corridor. The main components recommended in the I‐405 Corridor Program were building up to two new general purpose



lanes in each direction of I‐405, a corridor‐wide BRT line, and increased local transit service. The program also aimed to reduce traffic congestion on the freeway by improving key local arterials, providing new BRT services, expanding transit centers, and adding more than 5,000 park‐and‐ride spaces. The master plan was not fully funded.

The I‐405 Corridor Program described a 20‐plus‐year vision of multi‐modal improvements to the freeway, transit systems, and arterials along the I‐405 Corridor from Tukwila to Lynnwood. The I‐405 Corridor Program envisioned a BRT system along the length of I‐405 with all‐day service and 10‐minute headways. Bus travel in the master plan envisioned HOV lanes, direct access ramps, and off‐vehicle fare collection.

BRT within the I‐405 Corridor was identified as part of the Preferred Alternative in the I‐405 Corridor Program Final Environmental Impact Statement (WSDOT, 2002), and Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration issued a Record of Decision endorsing the Preferred Alternative in 2002 (U.S. Department of Transportation et al., 2002).

The BRT concept has been partially implemented. Sound Transit contributed to funding HOV direct access ramps at NE 6th Street in Bellevue and fully funded the NE 128th Street in Totem Lake. Sound Transit also funded the I‐405 bus flyer stop and pedestrian overcrossing at SR 527 in Bothell. In addition, Sound Transit has implemented several transit center projects serving local and regional bus service along the corridor, including Lynnwood, Totem Lake, Bellevue, and Kirkland.

3.1.5 Bus Rapid Transit Studies

In 2003, WSDOT prepared a white paper on an I‐405 BRT line concept (WSDOT, 2003). This white paper described potential components of a proposed BRT line which was to be an initial step in implementing transit investments identified in the full vision of the I‐405 Master Plan.

The concept was to provide frequent, convenient, and comfortable two‐way, all‐day bus service for the communities along I‐405 between the Lynnwood Transit Center and Sea‐Tac Airport. Buses would share HOV lanes or high‐occupancy toll lanes on I‐405 and use direct access ramps and/or in‐line stops to reduce the time it takes to pick up and/or drop off passengers. Riders would access the BRT service at a limited number of locations, often at park‐and‐ride facilities or at transit centers where passengers could transfer to and from local bus routes.

A subsequent BRT study was published in 2005 (WSDOT, 2005). The purpose of this pre‐design study, conducted as part of the I‐405 Corridor Program, was to assess the potential feasibility of BRT service along the southern portion of the I‐405 Corridor (from Bellevue to Sea‐Tac Airport), and identify infrastructure improvements that would support such service.

The first part of the study focused on assessing the overall feasibility of operating BRT in the southern section of the I‐405 Corridor, building from BRT planning work completed as part of previous I‐405 Corridor Program studies. The second part of the study focused on identifying infrastructure elements and improvements along I‐405 that would be required to support BRT operations, along with planning‐level costs.



The study tested two alternative concepts for how BRT service could be provided: a single‐route concept extending from Lynnwood to Sea‐Tac Airport and a “trunk‐and‐branch” service concept with four BRT lines that extend into neighboring communities but all travel on I‐405. Modeling analysis of these two concepts suggested that the trunk‐and‐branch concept offered the greatest potential ridership.

3.2 Travel Markets

The travel market and current transit ridership is based on output from the Sound Transit Ridership Forecasting Model (Sound Transit, 2012), WSDOT’s Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) survey (WSDOT, 2012), and a regional data collection of cell phone data (AirSage, 2013). The CTR survey data are limited to individuals who work for large employers (more than 100 employees), but is helpful in understanding the market potential for employment centers.

A large dataset of origin‐destination data was obtained via real‐time location data from anonymous mobile phone records compiled by AirSage. The data were compared with the Puget Sound Regional Council’s (PSRC’s) travel demand model and household survey to cross‐check the reasonableness of the data. The key travel patterns are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Key Travel Patterns in the I-405 BRT Study Area

Origin Destination Percent of Total Trips

Woodinville, Kirkland, Bothell

Southbound to Bellevue 17

Southbound South King County 6

West Bellevue and Mercer Island

Northbound to Woodinville, Kirkland and Bothell 12

Southbound to South King County 14

Renton Northbound to Kirkland, Bothell, Woodinville, Bellevue 13

Southbound to Tukwila, Sea-Tac, Burien 13

Detailed travel market trends are described in the sections below.

3.2.1 Downtown Renton Travel Markets

Table 2 shows the distribution of total daily trips and transit trips for the Downtown Renton travel market in 2035. The largest travel markets for transit users for the Renton market are the City of Seattle (42 percent), Kent (12 percent), SeaTac (11 percent), Bellevue (6 percent), and Tukwila (13 percent). The commute trip demand shown in the CTR survey data shows strong demand for travel between Renton and Seattle, Kent, Pierce County, and east King County. According to CTR data, the City of Kent is the largest travel market for commute trips from Renton at 14 percent. When all person trips are considered, the largest travel markets are the Tukwila and Renton (57 percent), City of Kent (12 percent) and the City of Seattle (13 percent).



Looking at Renton as a whole, approximately 21 percent of person trips from Renton travel north, potentially using the I‐405 corridor.

Table 2. Future Travel Markets for Trips to and from the Downtown Renton

Major Market by Districts

Transit Trips Commute Trips Total Daily Trips

Daily Trips Share Daily Trips Share Daily Trips Share

North North Snohomish County 50 0% 200 0% 800 1%

South Snohomish County 100 1% 1,000 2% 1,400 1%

South

Burien 310 2% 1,400 3% 3,200 2%

Tukwila and Renton 1,680 13% 15,400 35% 77,800 57%

SeaTac and Des Moines 1,450 11% 1,200 3% 4,400 3%

Federal Way 240 2% 1,600 4% 1,600 1%

Kent 1,550 12% 6,000 14% 11,600 9%

East

Far East King County 40 0% 2600 6% 2,800 2%

Redmond – Downtown 0 0% 0 0% 200 0%

Redmond – Overlake 10 0% 0 0% 400 0%

Issaquah 40 0% 200 0% 600 0%

Kirkland, Bothell, Woodinville and Kenmore

70 1% 600 1% 600 0%

East Bellevue 490 4% 1,400 3% 3,200 2%


250 2% 800 2% 2,200 2%

Central

Seattle Central Business District

2,010 15% 1,200 3% 8,200 6%

Ballard/Fremont/Wallingford 280 2% 200 0% 600 0%

University Community 300 2% 0 0% 400 0%

Rest of Seattle 2,990 23% 3,200 7% 10,200 7%

Region Pierce County 1,270 10% 6400 15% 5,800 4%

Rest of Region 50 0% 200 0% 400 0%

Total 13,180 100% 43,600 100% 136,400 100%



3.2.2 West Bellevue Travel Markets

Table 3 shows the distribution of total daily trips and transit trips for the City of Bellevue west of I‐405.1 The largest travel markets for transit users for this market are Seattle (41 percent), East Bellevue (15 percent), Issaquah (5 percent), and Renton (6 percent). When all person trips are considered, the largest travel markets are East Bellevue (18 percent), City of Seattle (10 percent), Kirkland/Bothell/Woodinville (6 percent) and Snohomish County (5 percent). Far eastern King County also makes up approximately 7 percent of the total daily person trips going to and from West Bellevue. The transit markets are much more heavily concentrated on Seattle and other well‐served transit markets, while the daily person trips are more dispersed throughout the Eastside. The strong travel market between Bellevue and Issaquah shows up in the total daily trips but much less in daily transit trips.

Table 3. Future Travel Markets for Trips to and from West Bellevue




North North Snohomish County 390 2% 2,000 2% 2,800 1%


South

Burien 290 2% 800 1% 600 0%

Tukwila and Renton 1,180 6% 9200 9% 9,800 4%

SeaTac and Des Moines 420 2% 1000 1% 1,200 0%

Federal Way 150 1% 800 1% 600 0%

Kent 320 2% 1800 2% 1,400 1%

East


Redmond – Downtown 180 1% 800 1% 3,200 1%

Redmond – Overlake 130 1% 1,000 1% 5,400 2%

Issaquah 890 5% 1000 1% 2,400 1%


1,360 7% 8600 9% 16,000 6%

East Bellevue 2,880 15% 14000 14% 45,800 18%


960 5% 13400 14% 104,800 42%

1 Includes Mercer Island



Table 3. Future Travel Markets for Trips to and from West Bellevue




Central


1,690 9% 5,200 5% 10,600 4%

Ballard/Fremont/Wallingford 1,340 7% 3000 3% 2,400 1%

University Community 690 4% 1000 1% 1,600 1%

Rest of Seattle 3,970 21% 10,200 11% 7,800 3%

Region Pierce County 230 1% 3000 3% 3,400 1%

Rest of Region 120 1% 600 1% 600 0%

Total 18,900 100% 97,000 100% 249,200 100%

3.2.3 Totem Lake Travel Markets

Table 4 shows the distribution of total daily trips and transit trips for the Totem Lake travel market in 2035. The largest travel markets for transit users for the Totem Lake market are Seattle (76 percent) and Bellevue (4 percent). Snohomish County as a whole makes up approximately 12 percent of the current transit market with routes that run down I‐405. Transit travel patterns are much more focused on Seattle compared to total daily trips, which are more dispersed throughout the Eastside.

Table 4. Future Travel Markets for Trips to and from Totem Lake






South

Burien 0 0% 0 0% 200 0%

Tukwila and Renton 10 1% 600 2% 1,000 1%

SeaTac and Des Moines 0 0% 0 0% 600 0%

Federal Way 0 0% 200 1% 200 0%

Kent 10 1% 200 1% 400 0%



Table 4. Future Travel Markets for Trips to and from Totem Lake




East


Redmond – Downtown 30 2% 400 1% 3,400 3%

Redmond – Overlake 20 2% 200 1% 2,400 2%

Issaquah 0 0% 200 1% 400 0%


340 27% 9200 29% 71,800 55%

East Bellevue 110 9% 1200 4% 7,800 6%


120 10% 800 2% 6,400 5%

Central


130 10% 600 2% 3,400 3%



Rest of Seattle 200 16% 1,200 4% 2,200 2%


Rest of Region 0 0% 0 0% 200 0%

Total 1,250 100% 32,200 100% 129,800 100%

3.2.4 Bothell / Canyon Park County Travel Markets

Table 5 shows the distribution of total daily trips and transit trips for the Canyon Park travel market. The largest travel markets for transit users for the Canyon Park market are Seattle (72 percent), southern Snohomish County and Lynnwood (12 percent), and City of Bellevue (4 percent). Commute trips to and from Canyon Park in 2035 are largest between Snohomish County (over 75 percent). The large share of Snohomish County trips are reflective of the large draw that Boeing’s Everett Plant has on travel in northern King County and southern Snohomish County. Total daily trips are focused on the nearby communities of Kirkland, Bothell, Woodinville, and Kenmore, while Seattle trips only represent 3 percent of the daily trip total. Trips from Canyon Park to south King County are 4 percent of the total, which is consistent with the findings of the I‐405 Master Plan, showing few people generally travel the entire length of I‐405.



Table 5. Future Travel Markets for Trips to and from Canyon Park






South

Burien 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Tukwila and Renton 30 1% 0 0% 400 0%

SeaTac and Des Moines 20 0% 0 0% 600 1%

Federal Way 10 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Kent 10 0% 0 0% 200 0%

East



Redmond – Overlake 70 1% 0 0% 800 1%

Issaquah 10 0% 0 0% 200 0%


140 3% 2,000 16% 36,400 34%

East Bellevue 40 1% 0 0% 1,800 2%


160 3% 0 0% 1,600 1%

Central


1,590 34% 0 0% 1,600 1%



Rest of Seattle 1,270 27% 400 3% 2,000 2%

Region Pierce County 10 0% 0 0% 400 0%

Rest of Region 10 0% 0 0% 200 0%

Total 4,690 100% 12,200 100% 107,400 100%

3.2.5 City of Lynnwood Travel Markets

Table 6 shows the distribution of total daily trips and transit trips in 2035 for the City of Lynnwood. The largest travel markets for transit users for the City of Lynnwood are Seattle (59 percent) and Snohomish County (32 percent). Commute trips to and from Lynnwood are largest within Snohomish County (82 percent), City of Kirkland (6 percent) and Seattle at 7 percent. The large share of Snohomish County trips are reflective of the large draw that Boeing’s Everett



Plant has on travel in southern Snohomish County. As with the Canyon Park findings, few of the daily trips travel the length on I‐405 to the south King County communities.

Table 6. Future Travel Markets for Trips to and from City of Lynnwood




North North Snohomish County 4,020 11% 10,800 13% 28,400 6%

South Snohomish County 7,480 21% 57,600 69% 354,000 80%

South

Burien 50 0% 200 0% 200 0%

Tukwila and Renton 170 0% 200 0% 1,000 0%

SeaTac and Des Moines 120 0% 0 0% 1,200 0%

Federal Way 100 0% 0 0% 200 0%

Kent 70 0% 200 0% 600 0%

East



Redmond – Overlake 120 0% 0 0% 1,000 0%

Issaquah 20 0% 0 0% 400 0%


700 2% 5200 6% 17,800 4%

East Bellevue 250 1% 400 0% 2,000 0%


580 2% 400 0% 1,600 0%

Central


7,280 20% 800 1% 7,800 2%

Ballard/Fremont/Wallingford 940 3% 1200 1% 3,200 1%

University Community 4,120 11% 200 0% 1,800 0%

Rest of Seattle 9,070 25% 4,000 5% 13,600 3%


Rest of Region 440 1% 600 1% 600 0%

Total 35,940 100% 84,000 100% 440,600 100%

4 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The HCT system improvements evaluated in each corridor study were developed through a process that first identified potential transit markets, service levels, ridership, operating issues, and performance in the I‐405 Corridor. Using this information, alternatives were then developed with the intent to achieve Sound Transit’s goals to accomplish the following:



Provide a transportation system that facilitates long‐term mobility.

Enhance communities and protect the environment.

Contribute to the region’s economic vitality.

Strengthen communities’ access to and use of the regional transit network.

Develop a system that is financially feasible.

Once the alternatives were developed conceptually, they were evaluated using a three‐tiered decision‐making framework to determine how well they performed against the above stated goals and objectives. The framework consisted of a first tier (“Screening”) to remove alternatives that did not address the corridor’s identified problem statement, and the second and third tiers (Level 1 Evaluation and Level 2 Evaluation, respectively) that evaluated a smaller set of alternatives against the goals and objectives. Key factors of evaluation included aspects of ridership, travel time savings, costs and cost/benefit factors, transit‐oriented development (TOD) potential and environmental effects.

5 INITIAL SCREENING EVALUATION

A range of alternative and mode options addressing the primary transportation and land use issues and opportunities in the corridor were identified through a workshop setting among members of the technical project team and Sound Transit. BRT was the mode considered for this corridor based on direction in the ST2 Plan which identified the corridors to be studied for future high capacity transit. In the I‐405 corridor, the focus was on planning for BRT, the preferred long‐term high capacity transit technology identified in WSDOT’s I‐405 Corridor Program Master Plan. Other considerations for this corridor were the transit and roadway improvements identified in WSDOT’s I‐405 Master Plan.

The initial set of options was then screened based on a series of screening questions (see Table 7). The screening questions were developed in response to Sound Transit’s Long‐Range Plan goals. Generally, if the mode would not meet the objective of each screening question, then it was not forwarded for further evaluation.

Table 7. Goals and Screening Questions

Goals Screening Questions

Goal 1: Provide a Transportation System that Facilitates Long-Term Mobility

Question 1: Would the concept provide high-capacity transit service, defined as “a system of public transportation services within an urbanized region operating principally on exclusive rights of way, and the supporting services and facilities necessary to implement such a system…”?

Goal 2: Enhance Communities and Protect the Environment

Question 2: Could the concept avoid or minimize significant impacts to known designated critically sensitive environmental and/or parks or 4(f) resources where another prudent and feasible alternative has been identified? [NOTE: This would be limited to known parks that are 4(f) and other resources identified by local jurisdictions as highly critical environmental features.]



Table 7. Goals and Screening Questions

Goals Screening Questions

Goal 3: Contribute to the Region’s Economic Vitality

Question 3: Would the concept connect designated or proposed regional centers, designated urban villages, or other locally- or regionally-identified areas for targeted growth?

Question 4: Would the concept serve the region’s employment and residential centers, including areas of future targeted economic growth, as evidenced in adopted local and regional plans?

Goal 4: Strengthen Communities’ Access to and Use of the Regional Transit Network

Question 5: Does the concept connect to existing or planned future Sound Transit HCT service as documented in ST2?

Question 6: Given what is known as of October 2013, is there potential for the concept to be designed so as to avoid:

a. Adding trains to the existing downtown transit tunnel

b. Adding substantial numbers of new riders to the planned University Link station which could overload the station platforms

c. Impacting East Link operations and headways

Goal 5: Develop a System that is Financially Feasible

Question 7: Is it feasible for the concept (mode, corridor) to be constructed to HCT standards, given the known topographic, geometric, and other engineering-related constraints of the corridor and within reasonable costs for expected benefits?

Question 8: Could the concept be constructed in a manner so as to avoid substantial regulatory hurdles and/or avoid or mitigate substantial impacts to the natural environment and/or the built environment?

A screening workshop was held in October 2013. The objectives of the workshop were to: (1) review the corridor and mode options being screened and (2) identify the alternatives and modes to advance into the Level 1 Evaluation process. Exhibit 2 illustrates the alternative concepts developed for the screen. Table 8 summarizes the results of this screening workshop.

6 LEVEL 1 EVALUATION

The Level 1 Evaluation refined the alternatives that were advanced based on the Initial Screening results. These corridors provided a range of representative alternatives that included various combinations of BRT running in at‐grade profiles. For the BRT alternatives, there are three levels of investment relating to the degree of exclusivity of the BRT running ways:

High ‐ Entirely BRT‐exclusive running ways

Medium ‐ More than 50 percent in either exclusive and/or toll/high‐occupancy vehicle [HOV] lanes

Low ‐ Less than 50 percent in exclusive, and/or toll/HOV lanes

Three alternatives were considered in the Level 1 Evaluation, as well as three design options. The alternatives considered in the Level 1 analysis are illustrated in Exhibit 3 and described below:



Exhibit 2. Long List of Alternative Concepts



Table 8 Screening Results I-405 Corridor

Screening Workshop For Level 1 Evaluation

Exhibit 2 Representative Alternative/Mode Advanced for Further

Evaluation? Level 1 Alternatives

(Exhibit 3)

A‐1, B‐1, B‐8, C‐2, C‐4, C‐8, D‐1

BRT on I‐405

Yes. Three levels of BRT on I‐405 were advanced for Level 1 Evaluation. High‐end BRT,

Medium‐end BRT, and Low‐end BRT.

A1, A2, and A3

A‐2, A‐3, A‐4, A‐5, B‐2, B‐3, B‐5, B‐6, B‐7, C‐1, C‐9, C‐10, D‐3, D‐4, D‐5

I‐405 Master Plan Improvements with BRT

Yes. Improvements related to the I‐405 Master Plan were

advanced and combined within each of the three levels of BRT

on I‐405.

A1, A2, and A3

B‐4 Shoulder bus lane SB on the west side of I‐405 from SR 522 to NE

160th Street Yes, as part of Low‐end BRT A3

C‐5 BRT on Bellevue Way

No based on Screening Question #1. Routing would require diversion from I‐405 along surface streets with

potential potential effects to travel time reliability

N/A

D‐6 In‐Line Station at Park Avenue and

interchange at Beacon Way S

No based on Screening Questions #4 and 5. Routing would not provide direct

access to downtown Renton. Beacon Way interchange not part of I‐405 Master Plan and

would require costly reconstruction of freeway.

N/A



Exhibit 3. Level 1 Alternatives



Alternative A1: BRT along Guideway: Alternative A1 would be a separated guideway running parallel to I‐405. The guideway would serve transit only. In‐line stations would be constructed at Canyon Park Park‐and‐Ride, Brickyard Park‐and‐Ride, Kingsgate Park‐and‐Ride, NE 85th Street in Kirkland, Bellevue Transit Center, Newport Hills Park‐and‐Ride, and Renton Landing. Buses would transition to I‐5 to reach Lynnwood Transit Center and Ash Way Park‐and‐Ride to the north, and would use local arterials to reach Renton Transit Center to the south.

Alternative A2: Full I‐405 Corridor Master Plan with BRT in Express Toll Lanes: Alternative A2 would include BRT travel on the I‐405 dual Express Toll Lanes, which would be constructed as part of the I‐405 Corridor Master Plan. This alternative assumes construction of the entire I‐405 Corridor Master Plan would be funded by WSDOT, including key projects such as freeway‐to‐freeway HOV ramps between I‐405 and I‐5 in Lynnwood, direct access at SR 522, and an in‐line station at Newport Hills Park‐and‐Ride. Direct access ramps would be constructed at Brickyard Park‐and‐Ride, 240th Street SE to serve UW Bothell, NE 85th Street in Kirkland, and North 8th Street in Renton to serve Renton Landing. Alternative A2 has three design options—the physical improvements are the same within the alternative, but the BRT service concepts vary.

Alternative A2 Design Option A: Trunk‐and‐Branch Service: Alternative A2 Design Option A would utilize a “trunk‐and‐branch” service concept with four BRT lines that would stretch into neighboring communities but all travel on I‐405 through the core of the alternative. This concept is shown in Exhibit 4. There would be four BRT lines: Kenmore‐Tukwila, Lynnwood‐SeaTac, Everett‐Bellevue, and Woodinville‐Kent. Each line was assumed to have 20‐minute headways throughout the day, resulting in 5‐ to 7‐minute headways along the trunk of the corridor between Kirkland and Renton for both peak and off‐peak time periods.

Alternative A2 Design Option B: Single Route Service: Alternative A2 Design Option B would utilize a “single route” service concept with one BRT line that would stretch from Lynnwood to SeaTac, as shown in Exhibit 4. The single route was assumed to have 10‐minute headways throughout the day for both peak and off‐peak time periods.

Alternative A2 Design Option C: North Renton: Alternative A2 Design Option C is a slight modification to the trunk‐and‐branch system used in Alternative A2 Design Option A. Instead of traveling through Downtown Renton, buses would use the direct access at North 8th Street to serve Renton Landing and then reenter the highway as shown in Exhibit 4. Each line was assumed to have 20‐minute headways throughout the day, resulting in 5‐ to 7‐minute headways along the trunk of the corridor between Kirkland and Renton. This option provides improved speed and travel time because it operates on I‐405 but does not serve the Renton Transit Center and South Renton park‐and‐ride.



Exhibit 4. I-405 BRT Service Concepts



Alternative A3: Partial I‐405 Corridor Master Plan with BRT in Express Toll Lanes: Alternative A3 would also include BRT travel on the I‐405 dual Express Toll Lanes. However, instead of assuming the full I‐405 Corridor Master Plan is completed, this alternative assumes that only those projects that are currently funded or have been identified as “next priority projects” by WSDOT are constructed. Key projects include direct access ramps at SR 522 and at North 8th Street to serve Renton Landing. Alternative A3 is assumed to operate with the trunk‐and‐branch system described in Alternative A2a. However, Newport Hills Park‐and‐Ride and NE 85th Street in Kirkland would not be served since the necessary infrastructure improvements have not been identified as “next priority projects” by WSDOT.

The Level 1 analysis and evaluation considered 15 performance measures, listed below:

Provide a Transportation System that Facilitates Long‐Term Mobility

1. Travel time 2. Travel market potential 3. Amount of exclusive runningway

Enhance Communities and Protect the Environment

1. Potential effects on parks and open space 2. Potential effect on wetlands 3. Potential effect on existing transportation systems 4. Potential effects on right‐of‐way/properties

Contribute to the Region’s Economic Vitality

1. Access to activity centers 2. Supporting land uses

Strengthen Communities’ Access to and Use of the Regional Transit Network

1. Connectivity to transit (bus/rail) and multi‐modal networks 2. Disproportionate potential effects on minority or low‐income communities

Develop a System that is Financially Feasible

1. Conceptual capital costs 2. Potential utility conflicts 3. Construction challenges 4. Availability of land to construct a maintenance facility

A summary comparison is provided below for only those performance measures that showed substantial differences between the alternatives.

The Level 1 Evaluation found similarities among the alternatives on many of the performance measures, including potential effect on existing transportation systems, access to activity centers, potential effect to minority or low‐income communities, and availability of land to



construct a maintenance facility. While other measures had slightly different ratings—including supporting land uses and connectivity to transit and multi‐modal networks—these were not substantial differentiators. While there was some variation in travel market potential among the alternatives, the potential was generally similar among the alternatives. Although the differences were relatively minor, Alternative A2a (trunk‐and‐branch service in conjunction with the full I‐405 Corridor Master Plan) was expected to have the greatest travel market potential followed by the separated guideway of Alternative A1.

The most substantial differentiators between the alternatives contrasted BRT travel on a separated guideway (Alternative A1) to BRT travel in the Express Toll Lanes (Alternatives A2 and A3). The guideway would be a major new structure running nearly 30 miles in length. Effects associated with such a substantial structure include potential effects to parks, open space, wetlands, right‐of‐way, and properties. Alternative A1 would also have substantial construction challenges and potential utility conflicts given the constrained nature of the existing I‐405 right‐of‐way. In contrast, Alternatives A2 and A3 would be implemented mostly within the existing I‐405 right‐of‐way, and any associated potential effects have already been disclosed and accounted for as part of WSDOT’s I‐405 Corridor Master Plan.

If the averages of the estimated Level 1 conceptual capital cost ranges are considered, then the cost for Alternative A1 was projected to be almost three times the cost of Alternative A3 and 30 percent higher than the cost of Alternative A2. Because Alternative A1 would be a new major structure it would require substantial right‐way beyond I‐405 right‐of‐way limits. Right‐of‐way costs added further to the differential, with costs that were more than triple and more than 20 times those right‐of‐way costs for Alternatives A2 and A3, respectively. The costs for Alternatives A2 and A3 represent the incremental cost to implement BRT in the corridor. These alternatives may present an opportunity for cost‐sharing with WSDOT. In contrast, because the separated guideway is not a WSDOT project, the cost would be borne solely by Sound Transit. By the same token, sole ownership of the guideway facility would give Sound Transit exclusive runningway and control over operations, which would allow 60‐mph speeds. WSDOT plans to use pricing to achieve 45‐mph speeds at least 90 percent of the time in the shared Express Toll Lane facility. Alternative A1 would provide better reliability and travel time performance than the BRT alternatives operating within the Express Toll Lane system; however, the cost would be high and there would be substantial effects on adjacent property and the environment.

Based on the Level 1 Evaluation findings, the following alternatives were carried forward into the Level 2 Evaluation:

Alternative A2, Full I‐405 Corridor Master Plan with BRT in Express Toll Lanes

Design Option A, Trunk‐and‐Branch Service

Design Option B, Single Route Service

Design Option C, Serving North Renton

Alternative A3, Phased I‐405 Corridor Master Plan with BRT in Express Toll Lanes

Design Option A, Trunk‐and‐Branch Service



Alternative A1 was not advanced into the Level 2 Evaluation because of its poor performance in the areas of capital costs, right‐of‐way effects that require substantial property acquisitions, and other potential effects to parks, wetlands and streams. In comparison, A1 achieved only minor benefits compared with Alternatives A2 and A3 in relation to the potential travel market and travel time performance measures. For these reasons A1 did not advance to the Level 2 Evaluation.

7 LEVEL 2 EVALUATION

The Level 2 Evaluation considered 19 performance measures that were meant to supplement the analysis already conducted in the Level 1 Evaluation. Some of these measures were carried forward from Level 1 Evaluation for refinements (for example, travel time, ridership and cost), while others were new.

The Level 2 measures are listed below, organized by Sound Transit Long‐Range Plan Update goal:

Provide a Transportation System that Facilitates Long‐Term Mobility

1. Travel time 2. Ridership

Enhance Communities and Protect the Environment

1. Potential effect on streams 2. Potential vibration effects 3. Potential noise effects 4. Potential visual effects 5. Potential effects on traffic operation 6. Potential access and parking effects

Contribute to the Region’s Economic Vitality

1. Development potential 2. Access to transit‐oriented development (TOD) 3. Potential effects on right‐of‐way/ properties

Strengthen Communities’ Access to and Use of the Regional Transit Network

1. Connectivity to regional and local transit (bus/rail) networks 2. Ability to connect to downtown transit

Develop a System that is Financially Feasible

1. Conceptual capital costs 2. Operations and maintenance costs 3. Construction challenges 4. Potential conflicts with major utilities 5. Cost per new project rider 6. Availability of land to construct a maintenance facility



The key findings of the Level 2 Evaluation are presented in Section 7.2.

7.1 Description of Alternatives

WSDOT developed the transportation master plan for the I‐405 Corridor in the early 2000s (WSDOT, 2002). The I‐405 Corridor Master Plan includes a variety of projects, including new general purpose and Express Toll Lanes2 in each direction of I‐405. By 2035, it is assumed that I‐405 would be widened to accommodate an Express Toll Lane system throughout the corridor. The Express Toll Lane system would serve transit, HOVs, and single‐occupant vehicles (SOVs) that “buy in” to the Express Toll Lane system via electronic tolling. This transportation system is the foundation on which the I‐405 Corridor HCT alternatives would operate.

For the I‐405 Corridor, the final alternatives are all assumed to be BRT operating in the Express Toll Lanes along I‐405. The alternatives considered for the I‐405 Corridor are shown in Exhibit 5. All Alternative A design options serve the same markets of Lynnwood, Kirkland, Bellevue, and Renton along I‐405. Note that Alternative A1 was not carried forward into the final evaluation step; additional information may be found in Section 5, Background, of this report.

Two levels of the I‐405 Corridor Master Plan were considered in this study: full build‐out and phased build‐out. Phased build‐out assumes that only those I‐405 BRT projects that are currently funded or have been identified as “next priority projects” by WSDOT are constructed. A complete discussion of the differences between the two levels of completion may be found in Section 5, Background.

The three service concepts from the Level 1 Evaluation (and illustrated as Exhibit 4) were carried into the Level 2 Evaluation. The five alternatives are combinations of the two I‐405 Corridor Master Plan build‐out options and the three service concepts. These are described in detail in the following sections, and briefly summarized in Table 9.

7.1.1 Alternative A2: Full I‐405 Corridor Master Plan with Bus Rapid Transit in Express Toll Lanes

Alternative A2 would include BRT travel on the I‐405 dual Express Toll Lanes, which would be constructed throughout the corridor as part of the I‐405 Corridor Master Plan (WSDOT, 2002). The Express Toll Lane system is assumed to operate at 45 miles per hour (mph).3 This alternative assumes construction of the entire I‐405 Corridor Master Plan, including key projects such as freeway‐to‐freeway HOV ramps between I‐405 and Interstate 5 (I‐5) in Lynnwood, direct access at SR 522, and in‐line stations at Canyon Park Park‐and‐Ride and Newport Hills Park‐and‐Ride. Direct access ramps would be constructed at Brickyard Park‐and‐

2 There would be two Express Toll Lanes in each direction separated from the general purpose lanes by a buffer.

3 WSDOT aims to maintain speeds of at least 45 mph in the ETL system at least 90 percent of the time. To be conservative in the analysis, 45 mph speeds were assumed during the peak period, and 52 mph speeds were assumed during the off‐peak period when congestion is reduced.



Exhibit 5. Level 2 Alternatives



Ride, 240th Street SE to serve University of Washington (UW) Bothell, NE 85th Street in Kirkland, and North 8th Street in Renton to serve Renton Landing.

Table 9. Alternatives

I-405 Corridor Master Plan

Service Concept

Trunk-and-Branch Single Route Serving North 8th Street in

Renton

Full Build-out A2a A2b A2c

Phased Build-out A3a A3b

Alternative A2 has three design options—the physical improvements are the same within the alternative, but the BRT service concepts vary. These design options are described in the following sections. The southern termini of these options are located beyond the study area boundaries. The Central/East and South King project teams are coordinating with one another, because both studies are considering new HCT service in SeaTac and Tukwila.

Design Option A2a: Trunk‐and‐Branch Service

Design Option A2a would utilize a “trunk‐and‐branch” service concept with four Sound Transit‐operated BRT lines that extend into neighboring communities, but all would travel on I‐405 through the core of the alternative. This concept is shown in Exhibit 4.

Four potential BRT lines have been identified: Kenmore‐Tukwila, Lynnwood‐SeaTac, Everett‐Bellevue, and Woodinville‐Kent. These are preliminary pairings that could be explored further in subsequent planning phases. Each line is assumed to have 20‐minute headways throughout the day, resulting in 5‐ to 7‐minute headways along the trunk of the corridor between Kirkland and Renton.

Design Option A2b: Single Route Service

Design Option A2b would utilize a “single route” service concept, with one Sound Transit‐ BRT line that would operate between the Lynnwood Transit Center and the Sea‐Tac Airport, as shown in Exhibit 4. The single route was assumed to have 10‐minute headways throughout the day, striking a balance between the longer headways on the branches and the shorter headways on the trunk of Alternative A2a.

Design Option A2c: Serving North 8th Street in Renton

Design Option A2c is a slight modification to the trunk‐and‐branch system used in Design Option A2a. Instead of traveling through Downtown Renton, buses would use a direct access interchange at North 8th Street to serve Renton Landing and then re‐enter I‐405 to operate in the express toll lanes rather than on city streets in mixed traffic. This option provides improved speed and reliability but affects access in Renton, as shown in Exhibit 4. Each line is assumed to have 20‐minute headways throughout the day, resulting in 5‐ to 7‐minute headways along the trunk of the corridor between Kirkland and Renton.



7.1.2 Alternative A3: Phased Implementation of I‐405 Corridor Master Plan with Bus Rapid Transit in Express Toll Lanes

Alternative A3 assumes BRT travel on the I‐405 Express Toll Lanes. However, this alternative assumes that only those I‐405 BRT projects that are currently funded or have been identified as “next priority projects” by WSDOT are constructed. For example, the second Express Toll Lane north of SR 522 is not currently funded. Therefore, Alternative A3 would include two Express Toll Lanes in each direction south of SR 522 and one Express Toll Lane in each direction north of SR 522. Other key projects include HOV direct connector ramps from northbound SR 167 to northbound I‐405 and direct access ramps at SR 522 and at North 8th Street to serve Renton Landing. The following projects that are included in Alternative A2 would not be included in Alternative A3:

I‐5/I‐405 direct HOV ramps in Lynnwood

In‐line station at SR 527/Canyon Park Park‐and‐Ride in Bothell

Direct access ramps at 240th Street SE in Bothell

Direct access ramps at NE 160th Street/Brickyard Park‐and‐Ride in Bothell

Direct access ramps at NE 80th/85th Streets in Kirkland

In‐line station at Newport Hills Park‐and‐Ride

Due to the planned entry and exit points of the Express Toll Lanes and the station access types and locations, buses would not be able to use the Express Toll Lanes north of Brickyard Park‐and‐Ride. As described below, Alternative A3 has two design options; the physical improvements are the same within the alternative, but the BRT service concepts vary.

Design Option A3a: Trunk‐and‐Branch Service

Alternative A3a is assumed to operate with the trunk‐and‐branch system described in Design Option A2a. However, the Newport Hills Park‐and‐Ride and NE 85th Street in Kirkland would not be served due to lack of access.

Design Option A3b: Single Route Service

Alternative A3b was added following the Level 1 Evaluations to test a single route alternative that experiences a phased build‐out of the Master Plan that support BRT. Alternative A3b is assumed to operate with the single route system described in Design Option A2b. However, the Newport Hills Park‐and‐Ride and NE 85th Street in Kirkland would not be served due to lack of access.

7.2 Key Findings by Performance Measure

The key findings of the Level 2 Evaluation are provided below and summarized in Exhibit 6; more detailed information is available in the I‐405 Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Level 2 Evaluation Report (Sound Transit, 2014b). The key findings pertain to only those performance measures that showed substantial differences between the alternatives.



Exhibit 6. Level 2 Evaluation Summary



All five alternatives share performance similarities since they all travel on I‐405. Right‐of‐way related property impacts have already been disclosed and accounted for as part of WSDOT’s I‐405 Corridor Master Plan (WSDOT, 2002). Therefore acquisition impacts were considered to have an equal rating between alternatives in the Level 2 evaluation. None of the alternatives would cause potential effects on streams, parks, or wetlands or affect land uses sensitive to noise, vibration, or visual effects beyond what has already been disclosed by WSDOT. Likewise, there would be no appreciable differences in construction challenges or utility conflicts among the alternatives. None of the alternatives would adversely affect traffic operations, access, or parking. Availability of land and ease of access to a new maintenance facility is not of concern at this time for any of the alternatives in the I‐405 Corridor because there are potential sites available in numerous parts of the corridor. Design Option A2c would have slightly inferior connectivity to transit than the other alternatives, although it would have travel time benefits.

Of the three Alternative A2 design options, which have higher annualized costs than the Alternative A3 options, Design Option A2a (trunk‐and‐branch service) would have the highest ridership; this is because Alternative A2a would provide direct service to the most markets, reducing the need for transfers and providing shorter travel times for many riders. However, on a cost‐effective basis, Alternative A2a and A2b are equivalent given the lower O&M cost of the single route option (Design Option A2b).

Alternatives A3a and A3b would have the lowest ridership among the alternatives. The lower ridership would result from increased travel time through the northern end of the corridor, where buses would travel in the general purpose lanes rather than the Express Toll Lanes due to the types of station access provided. However, the projected annual costs (including construction, right‐of‐way, operations and maintenance) for Alternative A3 are roughly one‐third lower than those for Alternative A2, so Alternative A3 would be more efficient in terms of cost‐effectiveness.

7.2.1 Travel Time

Travel times were calculated using Sound Transit’s travel demand model. Table 10 summarizes PM peak transit travel times from Bellevue Transit Center to various destinations (i.e., in the peak direction). Travel in the off‐peak direction may take longer for some destinations because transfers to and from connecting routes are not as convenient.



Table 10. PM Peak Transit Travel Times (in Minutes) from Bellevue Transit Center

Destinations Existing (2014)

2035 Alternatives

A2a – Full Build-out

Trunk-and- Branch

A2b – Full Build-out

Single Route

A2c – Full Build-out Serving

North 8th Street in Renton

A3a – Phased

Build-out Trunk-and-

Branch

A3b – Phased

Build-out Single Route

Everett 52 to 64 62 to 76 80 to 98 62 to 76 67 to 82 85 to 104

Lynnwood 48 to 58 40 to 49 40 to 49 40 to 49 45 to 55 45 to 55

Kenmore 38 to 46 34 to 42 42- to 51 34 to 42 34 to 42 42 to 51

Woodinville 23 to 29 25 to 30 33- to 41 25 to 30 25 to 31 33 to 40

Renton Landing

21 to 25 15 to 19 15 to 19 15 to 19 15 to 18 15 to 18

Renton Transit Center

23 to 29 22 to 27 22 to 27 31 to 37 22 to 27 22 to 27

Sea-Tac Airport

51 to 63 36 to 44 46 to 56 27 to 33 36 to 44 48 to 59

Southcenter 49 to 59 35 to 43 35 to 43 26 to 31 37 to 45 37 to 45

Tukwila Sounder

46 to 56 33 to 41 33 to 41 23 to 29 35 to 43 35 to 43

Kent 37 to 45 41 to 50 49 to 60 32 to 39 41 to 50 49 to 60

Note: Ranges of +/- 10 percent are provided.

Alternative A2a travel times would be generally shorter than existing travel times with a few exceptions4:

The existing Route 532 between Everett and Bellevue would provide shorter travel times than BRT because it travels on a more direct route by not detouring through the UW Bothell campus.

The existing Route 567 would provide shorter travel times to Kent because it travels on I‐405 rather than on city streets through Downtown Renton, as is the case with Alternative A2a.

The existing travel time to Woodinville would be slightly lower than the future year (2035) Alternative A2a, although the difference is minor.

Travel to SeaTac would be substantially shorter under Alternative A2a than the existing Route 560, which travels on arterials through Downtown Bellevue and Downtown Renton. The I‐405 BRT would also have shorter travel times to Sea‐Tac Airport than traveling the route via

4 Existing travel times were determined using February‐June 2014 Sound Transit and King County Metro schedules. Transfers were assumed to take 9 minutes to provide consistency with the travel model methodology.



East Link/Central Link. BRT would provide substantial time savings from Bellevue Transit Center to Southcenter and Tukwila Sounder, which currently requires a bus transfer at Renton Transit Center and travels on more arterials.

Travel on Alternative A2b (single route) would be generally about 10 minutes longer than the direct routes for destinations requiring a transfer. Lynnwood and Tukwila would have the same travel times as Alternative A2a, while SeaTac would take about 10 minutes longer because the bus would travel along Tukwila arterials rather than I‐405. Travel to Everett would be most affected, with an additional 20 minutes of travel time compared with Alternative A2a. This is a combination of two factors: the transfer time and the backtracking between the I‐5 interchange and Lynnwood Transit Center (as compared with the direct branch route to Everett).

Alternative A2c would reach SeaTac, Tukwila, and Kent approximately 10 minutes faster than Alternative A2a by traveling along I‐405 rather than through Downtown Renton. Alternative A3a would take roughly 5 minutes longer than Alternative A2a to reach Lynnwood and Everett because north of Brickyard Park‐and‐Ride, the buses would travel in the general purpose lanes, rather than the Express Toll Lanes, with a direct ramp connection to the I‐5 HOV lanes. Travel to all other destinations would be essentially equivalent.

Alternative A3a would have minor travel time increases over its full build‐out counterpart, Alternative A2a, caused by access differences being offset by the time saved not serving the NE 85th Street (Kirkland) and Newport Hills Park‐and‐Rides.

Alternative A3b would compound the travel time effects of a single route and a less efficient network to provide the longest travel times among the alternatives. However, travel under Alternative A3b would be similar to existing travel times for about two‐thirds of the destinations shown in Table 10.

7.2.2 Ridership

As shown in Table 11, the Alternative A2 design options would have higher ridership than the Alternative A3 options, which would result in longer travel times. Fewer direct access ramps and in‐line stations would be provided and NE 85th Street in Kirkland, and Newport Hills Park‐and‐Ride would not be served. Of the Alternative A2 design options, the single route (A2b) would have the fewest boardings, although the number of riders is higher than Alternative A2c.

Table 11. Daily Riders by Alternative

Alternatives

A2a A2b A2c A3a A3b

Daily riders 20,000 to 25,000

17,000 to 21,000

19,000 to 23,000

17,000 to 20,000

14,000 to 17,000

Notes: The unconstrained transit demand estimated by the Sound Transit travel demand model would not exceed the capacity of the BRT system. Ranges of +/-10 percent are provided.



Alternative A2c would have higher ridership primarily due to the travel time savings between SR 167 and Renton Landing, where buses would travel along I‐405 rather than through Downtown Renton. Alternative A2a would attract the highest ridership because it serves more destinations directly, resulting in fewer transfers and shorter travel times. Alternative A3b would have the lowest ridership among the alternatives, because it has a less efficient network for BRT operations and uses the single route service, requiring more riders to transfer.

It should be noted that the headway assumptions for Design Option A2b are slightly different from the other alternatives. The trunk‐and‐branch alternatives (A2a, A2c, and A3a) would have 20‐minute headways on each branch, which results in 5‐ to 7‐minute headways between UW Bothell and Renton Transit Center. The single route alternatives (A2b and A3b) would have 10‐minute headways throughout the corridor, resulting in more frequent buses north of UW Bothell and south of Renton Transit Center, but slightly less frequent buses on the trunk of the corridor.

Bellevue Transit Center would have the most boardings because Bellevue is the employment center and main transit hub of the corridor. Design Options A2b and A3b generally would have fewer station boardings because they require transfers from markets off the corridor and serve fewer stations. The exception is Lynnwood Transit Center (and to a lesser extent, the Canyon Park Park‐and‐Ride), where a substantial number of transfers would occur. A similar effect would occur at Renton Landing under Design Option A2c because Renton Transit Center is not served. Under Alternatives A3a and A3b, the NE 85th Street Park‐and‐Ride and Newport Hills Park‐and‐Ride would not be served; a moderate increase results at Kingsgate Park‐and‐Ride, with no discernible effect related to not serving the Newport Hills Park‐and‐Ride.

This evaluation could also inform decisions regarding phasing of the station improvements. Of the stations with opportunities to improve access (e.g., new in‐line stations or direct ramps), ridership projections indicate that the greatest ridership gains could be achieved with these improvements: North 8th Street direct access and NE 85th Street direct access, followed by the Brickyard Park‐and‐Ride direct access. Canyon Park Park‐and‐Ride, UW Bothell, and Newport Hills Park‐and‐Ride would offer a smaller ridership benefit. Serving the UW Bothell station also would have travel time implications that could affect overall ridership. Accessing UW Bothell would require more travel on arterials and, therefore, more time than the other stations.

7.2.3 Capital Costs

The evaluation considered three cost measures: conceptual capital costs and conceptual operations and maintenance (O&M) costs. These costs are shown in Table 12 and discussed in more detail in the following sections.



Table 12. Cost by Alternative

Cost

Alternative

A2a A2b A2c A3a A3b

Conceptual Capital Cost

$1,300 to $1,700 million

$1,30 to $1,700 million

$1,300 to $1,700 million

$700 to $900 million

$700 to $920 million

O&M Cost $45 million $25 million $40 million $40 million $25 million

in 2013$

Conceptual Capital Costs

The I‐405 Corridor Master Plan includes projects that would benefit transit, HOV, and SOV users. The conceptual capital costs estimated here represent only the incremental costs to implement BRT in the corridor, not the cost of the full I‐405 Corridor Master Plan. All three design options of Alternative A2 are expected to have capital costs of $1.300 to $1.700 billion, approximately $150 million of which is right‐of‐way cost. Alternative A3 includes fewer improvements, with an estimated capital cost of $700 to $900 million, approximately $25 million of which is right‐of‐way cost. The following five projects are included in Alternative A2, but not Alternative A3, and represent the bulk of the cost difference:

In‐line station at SR 527/Canyon Park Park‐and‐Ride in Bothell: $247 million

Direct access ramps at 240th Street SE in Bothell: $138 million (including $25 million right‐of‐way)

Direct access ramps at NE 160th Street/Brickyard Park‐and‐Ride in Bothell: $133 million (including $35 million right‐of‐way)

Direct access ramps at NE 80th/85th Streets in Kirkland: $384 million (including $65 million right‐of‐way)

In‐line station at Newport Hills: $63 million (including $5 million right‐of‐way)

These projects are anticipated to be led by WSDOT, with varying levels of contribution from Sound Transit. The proportion of the cost to be borne by Sound Transit is unknown. The cost estimates include the full project costs; therefore, it is anticipated that Sound Transit’s share would be a portion of these costs. Section 5 presents preliminary evaluations of Sound Transit’s role in each project.

Operations and Maintenance Costs

O&M costs were estimated based on vehicle service hours and typical Sound Transit program costs. The trunk‐and‐branch alternatives would have higher O&M costs than the single route alternatives due to the increased length of the routes. Alternative A2a is expected to be highest at $45 million per year. Alternatives A2c and A3a would be slightly less at approximately $40



million. The single route alternatives, A2b and A3b, are expected to have O&M costs of $25 million.

7.2.4 Cost‐effectiveness

Costs reflect the present value conceptual level capital costs for construction, right‐of‐way, and O&M. The conceptual capital cost of the alternatives and potential ridership are the main factors behind the cost‐effectiveness results; therefore, the Alternative A2 options would be less cost‐effective than the Alternative A3 options.

7.2.5 Reliability

Travel time reliability for each alternative was also considered. Full build‐out of the I‐405 Corridor Master Plan is expected to provide better reliability than phased build‐out due to the completion of the Express Toll Lane system and improved BRT station and HOV/transit access. The single route alternatives are expected to offer better reliability than the trunk‐and‐branch alternatives, because there is less travel on local arterials. However, connecting bus routes would need to travel on the local arterials in mixed traffic. Alternative A2b (single route on full build‐out) is expected to provide the highest reliability; Alternatives A2a, A2c, and A3b are expected to provide moderate reliability; and Alternative A3a (trunk‐and‐branch on phased build‐out) is expected to provide the lowest reliability.

7.2.6 Station Area Assessment

The Level 2 Evaluation included two performance criteria that measure the suitability of mixed‐use, walkable, high‐density development at representative station areas for the purpose of supporting transit ridership. The first criterion—Access to Transit‐Oriented Development (TOD)—qualitatively examined local adopted jurisdictional development codes to determine if prevailing zoning within 0.5‐mile radius of the station is generally supportive of TOD‐compatible development. The second criterion—Development Potential—used the King County and Snohomish County Assessor’s databases to qualitatively assess the number of vacant or underutilized parcels within a half‐mile radius of the representative station.

The I‐405 BRT Corridor between Lynnwood and Renton includes 11 representative station areas, three of which are located in Snohomish County and the remainder in King County. Most of the stations would serve existing park‐and‐rides, transit centers, or freeway flyer stops along I‐405 or I‐5. Generally, the majority of proposed stations have low to moderate development potential due to their location directly adjacent to the freeway, which bisects the transit walkshed and hampers multi‐modal access and connectivity to the representative station. In addition, local zoning in these representative station areas often does not support high‐density, mixed‐use, pedestrian‐friendly development that is a hallmark of TOD. Often, these stations are surrounded by single‐family residential, highway commercial, or suburban office zones that are oriented towards the automobile and have limited potential for TOD.

The exceptions for these findings are typically found at potential stations located in regionally designated growth centers further away from the freeway, where local policies support TOD



zoning and where opportunities are provided for redeveloping underutilized commercial and industrial parcels within the transit walkshed without the presence of the freeway to constrain station access. This condition is most prominent at the Bellevue Transit Center, Renton Landing, and Renton Transit Center station areas, all of which are located in regional growth centers and received the highest scores along the corridor. Both Lynnwood Transit Center and Canyon Park Park‐and‐Ride in Canyon Park/Bothell are also located in growth centers, although the assessment revealed a larger presence of TOD‐compatible zoning around Lynnwood than Canyon Park.

Other notable representative station areas included Kingsgate Park‐and‐Ride in Kirkland, which is adjacent to, but not directly located within, the Totem Lake urban center. Locally adopted plans include redevelopment of the existing Totem Lake suburban retail into a mixed‐use, walkable urban district. Lynnwood, Kingsgate, and Canyon Park all received medium scores for TOD and development potential; however, the Lynnwood station area was evaluated as a more suitable location for development.

The I‐405 Corridor alternatives use a common subset of representative stations, with minor station area differences between each alternative. In general, alternatives performed better in the evaluation when omitting lower‐performing station areas where TOD and development potential are either unlikely to occur without major local policy changes, or are constrained by the presence of geographic and manmade barriers or non‐TOD‐compatible uses within the transit walkshed. These stations include the Newport Hills Park‐and‐Ride in Newcastle and the SR 908/Kirkland Way Park‐and‐Ride at the NE 85th Street interchange in Kirkland (omitted from the phased build‐out alternatives A3a and A3b since the necessary infrastructure projects have not been identified as “next priority projects”), as well as the Ash Way Park‐and‐Ride in Snohomish County (not included from the single route alternatives A2b and A3b).

8 RISKS AND UNKNOWNS

The analysis conducted for this evaluation is built on preliminary design concepts and planning‐level estimates. Findings are based on design assumptions that will not be verified until a higher level of design is completed. Further, some of the assumptions are based on factors that are impossible to predict at this point or are beyond Sound Transit’s control. The “risks and unknowns” section of this report is intended to document some of the key risks arising out of these factors.

Several risks were identified for this corridor, as follows:

If the express toll lanes do not operate at the 45‐mph speeds at least 90 percent ridership could be affected in two ways: (1) longer travel times and (2) poor reliability.

Implementing tolls along I‐405 could result in traffic diversion and increased congestion along local arterials, which could affect reliability for the branch portion of the trunk‐and‐branch system. As described above, longer travel times and/or poor reliability could affect ridership.



The direct access ramps planned at 240th Street SE and NE 85th Street are in constrained areas which may generate neighborhood concerns.

Extensive coordination will be required between multiple agencies on this corridor, including Sound Transit, WSDOT, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration.

9 NEXT STEPS

This corridor report summarizes the process and findings of the I‐405 BRT Corridor analysis as part of the Central/East HCT Study. This information will be used to inform Sound Transit’s Long‐Range Plan update and if appropriate, the development of the next voter funding proposal. This information would be useful as well if funding is identified to move it into project development, as a basis for a future alternatives evaluation or conceptual design phase.

10 REFERENCES

AirSage. 2013. Regional cellular telephone data.

CH2M HILL and Sound Transit. 2013. I‐405 Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Baseline Report. Central/East High‐Capacity Transit Corridor Study. October.

CH2M HILL and Sound Transit. 2014a. I‐405 Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Level 1 Evaluation Report. Central/East High‐Capacity Transit Corridor Study. May.

CH2M HILL and Sound Transit. 2014b. I‐405 Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Level 2 Evaluation Report. Central/East High‐Capacity Transit Corridor Study. May.

Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). 2009. VISION 2040: The Growth Management, Environmental, Economic, and Transportation Strategy for the Central Puget Sound Region. Adopted April 2998. Amended May 2009. Available at http://psrc.org/ projects/vision/index.htm. Seattle, Washington. December.

Sound Transit (formerly Regional Transit Authority). 1996. Sound Move—The Ten‐Year Regional Transit System Plan. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, Seattle, Washington. May.

Sound Transit. 2005. Regional Transit Long‐Range Plan. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, Seattle, Washington. July 7.

Sound Transit. 2008. Sound Transit 2: A Mass Transit Guide—The Regional Transit System Plan for Central Puget Sound. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, Seattle, Washington. July.

Sound Transit. 2013. Ridership Forecasting Model. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, Seattle, Washington. July 12.



United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration (USDOT et al.). 2002. I‐405 Corridor Program Record of Decision. Washington, DC, October.

Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2002. I‐405 Corridor Program Final Environmental Impact Statement. Olympia, Washington. June.

Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2003. Bus Rapid Transit Line Concept Ten Year Program Implementing the First Phase of the I‐405 Corridor Program Recommendations. Olympia, Washington. August.

Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2005. I‐405 South Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Pre‐Design. Olympia, Washington. June.

Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2012. Commute Trip Reduction Survey.

Date post:	06-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

CENTRAL AND EAST CORRIDORS - TheLensNews › ... › 201410_STCentralEastHCT_CorridorReport_… ·...

Documents