King County Metro Long Range Plan Public Transportation Concept Development and Evaluation by King County Metro Transit

KING COUNTY METRO

LONG RANGE PLAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION REPORT

January 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation

Table of Contents 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................... 1 1.1 1.2

Conceptual Service Networks ........................................................................... 1 Performance Metrics ........................................................................................ 2

BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 3

PURPOSE ................................................................................................................... 5

OUTREACH ................................................................................................................ 5 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11

EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS ....................................................................... 14 5.1

Methodology................................................................................................. 16 Growth Forecasts........................................................................................... 18 Conceptual Service Network Development ..................................................... 19 Integration with other Transit Providers ......................................................... 27 Capital Investments ....................................................................................... 27 Performance Metrics ...................................................................................... 28 Conceptual Service Network Modeling ........................................................... 30 Components and Use of the Ridership Model ................................................ 30 Travel Demand .............................................................................................. 31

OUTCOMES OF CONCEPT EVALUATION ................................................................... 33 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6

Existing Conditions and Planning Context ...................................................... 14

CONCEPTUAL SERVICE NETWORK DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE METRICS..... 16 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9

Strategic Engagement Plan .............................................................................. 5 Stakeholder Interviews ..................................................................................... 6 Visioning ......................................................................................................... 7 Coordination with Sound Transit ................................................................... 10 Community Advisory Group (CAG) ................................................................. 11 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) .............................................................. 11 Regional Transit Committee (RTC) .................................................................. 12 Open Houses ................................................................................................. 12 Local and Regional Meetings ......................................................................... 12 Surveys .......................................................................................................... 12 Online Information ........................................................................................ 14

Access to Transit ............................................................................................ 35 Transit Connections ....................................................................................... 65 Transit Use and Efficiency .............................................................................. 81 Influence of Capital Improvements............................................................... 102 Integration with Light Rail ........................................................................... 102 Customer Experience ................................................................................... 104

NEXT STEPS ........................................................................................................... 124

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation

List of Tables Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. Table 10. Table 11. Table 12. Table 13. Table 14. Table 15. Table 16 Table 17. Table 18. Table 19. Table 20. Table 21. Table 22. Table 23. Table 24. Table 25.

Table 26.

Table 27.

Table 28.

General Characteristics of Service Categories in Conceptual Service Networks ..... 17 Conceptual Service Network Framework............................................................ 21 Performance Metrics for Conceptual Service Networks Evaluation ...................... 29 Average Jobs Accessible in 30 minutes via Conceptual Service Networks ............ 66 Average Population Accessible in 30 minutes via Conceptual Service Networks .. 66 Average Jobs Accessible in 30 minutes from Regional Growth Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MIC) via Conceptual Service Networks ........... 67 Average Population Accessible in 30 minutes from Regional Growth Centers (RGC) and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MIC) via Conceptual Service Networks .... 68 Average Population Accessible in 30 minutes during the Peak Period from Colleges or Universities via Conceptual Service Networks ................................................. 69 Percent of Population with at least 30,000 jobs accessible within 30 minutes via Conceptual Service Networks ............................................................................ 70 Percent of Population with at least 30,000 people within 30 minutes via Conceptual Service Networks ............................................................................ 70 Ridership During the Peak Period ...................................................................... 81 Daily Ridership ................................................................................................. 82 Changes in Transit Trips in Regional Growth Centers (RGC) and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MIC)............................................................. 85 Transit Trip Volumes Across Screenlines ............................................................ 87 Peak Transit Mode Share .................................................................................. 87 Daily Transit Mode Share .................................................................................. 87 Changes in Transit Mode Share in Regional Growth Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MIC)............................................................. 93 Projected Transit Mode Share in Regional Growth Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MIC)............................................................. 94 2015 Budget Costs for Coach Operations.......................................................... 95 Economic Efficiency Performance ...................................................................... 96 Environmental Efficiency Performance ............................................................... 97 Impacts of Assumed Capital Investments on Performance of Conceptual Service Networks ....................................................................................................... 103 Average Jobs Accessible within 30 minutes ..................................................... 103 Sample Trip Pairs to Downtown Seattle Utilizing Link Light Rail........................ 103 Peak Period Forecast 2040 Travel Time Averages between Regional Growth Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MIC): Frequent Service Emphasis Network......................................................................................................... 109 Peak Period Forecast 2040 Travel Time Averages between Regional Growth Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MIC): Express Service Emphasis Network......................................................................................................... 111 Peak Period Forecast 2040 Travel Time Averages between Regional Growth Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MIC): Local Service Emphasis Network......................................................................................................... 113 Peak Period Forecast 2040 Travel Time Averages between Regional Growth Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MIC): Auto Travel Times ........... 115

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation Table 29.

Table 30.

Table 31. Table 32.

Midday Forecast 2040 Travel Time Averages between Regional Growth Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MIC): Frequent Service Emphasis Network......................................................................................................... 117 Midday Forecast 2040 Travel Time Averages between Regional Growth Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MIC): Express Service Emphasis Network......................................................................................................... 119 Midday Forecast 2040 Travel Time Averages between Regional Growth Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MIC): Local Service Emphasis Network .. 121 Midday Forecast 2040 Travel Time Averages between Regional Growth Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MIC): Auto Times ................................. 123

List of Figures Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Figure 10. Figure 11. Figure 12. Figure 13. Figure 14. Figure 15. Figure 16. Figure 17. Figure 18. Figure 19. Figure 20. Figure 21. Figure 22. Figure 23. Figure 24. Figure 25. Figure 26. Figure 27. Figure 28.

Service Distribution in Existing and Conceptual Service Networks ....................... 20 Frequent Service Emphasis Network .................................................................. 22 Express Service Emphasis Network .................................................................... 24 Local Service Emphasis Network........................................................................ 26 LRPTP Modeling Process ................................................................................... 32 King County Quadrants .................................................................................... 34 Population Proximity to Service: Frequent Service Emphasis Network.................. 36 Employment Proximity to Service: Frequent Service Emphasis Network ............... 37 Population Proximity to Service: Express Service Emphasis Network .................... 38 Employment Proximity to Service: Express Service Emphasis Network ................. 39 Population Proximity to Service: Local Service Emphasis Network ....................... 40 Employment Proximity to Service: Local Service Emphasis Network .................... 41 Population Proximity to Service: Baseline 2040 Network .................................... 42 Employment Proximity to Service: Baseline 2040 Network ................................. 43 Population below Poverty Level Proximity to Service: Frequent Emphasis Service Network........................................................................................................... 44 Minority Population Proximity to Service: Frequent Service Emphasis Network .... 45 Population Above the Age of 65 Proximity to Service: Frequent Service Emphasis Network........................................................................................................... 46 Persons with Disabilities Proximity to Service: Frequent Service Emphasis Network........................................................................................................... 47 Population below Poverty Level Proximity to Service: Express Service Emphasis Network........................................................................................................... 48 Minority Population Proximity to Service: Express Service Emphasis Network ...... 49 Population Above the Age of 65 Proximity to Service: Express Service Emphasis Network........................................................................................................... 50 Persons with Disabilities Proximity to Service: Express Service Emphasis Network 51 Population below Poverty Level Proximity to Service: Local Service Emphasis Network........................................................................................................... 52 Minority Population Proximity to Service: Local Service Emphasis Network.......... 53 Population Above the Age of 65 Proximity to Service: Local Service Emphasis Network........................................................................................................... 54 Persons with Disabilities Proximity to Service: Local Service Emphasis Network.... 55 Proximity to Service: Countywide ...................................................................... 56 Proximity to Service: Northeast Quadrant .......................................................... 57

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

iii

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation Figure 29. Figure 30. Figure 31. Figure 32. Figure 33. Figure 34. Figure 35. Figure 36. Figure 37. Figure 38. Figure 39. Figure 40. Figure 41. Figure 42. Figure 43. Figure 44. Figure 45. Figure 46. Figure 47. Figure 48. Figure 49. Figure 50. Figure 51. Figure 52. Figure 53. Figure 54. Figure 55. Figure 56. Figure 57. Figure 58. Figure 59. Figure 60. Figure 61. Figure 62.

Proximity to Service: Northwest Quadrant ......................................................... 58 Proximity to Service: Southeast Quadrant .......................................................... 59 Proximity to Service: Southwest Quadrant ......................................................... 60 Non-Motorized Access to Transit ...................................................................... 61 Change in Walk Access Share from Existing Peak Period: Frequent Service Emphasis Network............................................................................................ 62 Change in Walk Access Share from Existing Peak Period: Express Service Emphasis Network........................................................................................................... 63 Change in Walk Access Share from Existing Peak Period: Local Service Emphasis Network........................................................................................................... 64 Jobs Accessible within 30 Minutes – Peak Period: Frequent Service Emphasis Network – ........................................................................................................ 71 Jobs Accessible within 30 Minutes – Peak Period: Express Service Emphasis Network........................................................................................................... 72 Jobs Accessible within 30 Minutes – Peak Period: Local Service Emphasis Network........................................................................................................... 73 Population Accessible within 30 Minutes – Midday Period: Frequent Service Emphasis Network............................................................................................ 74 Population Accessible within 30 Minutes – Midday Period: Express Service Emphasis Network............................................................................................ 75 Population Accessible within 30 Minutes – Midday Period: Local Service Emphasis Network........................................................................................................... 76 Ratio of 30 Minute Jobs Accessibility to Population Density – Frequent Network 77 Ratio of 30 Minute Jobs Accessibility to Population Density – Express Network ... 78 Ratio of 30 Minute Jobs Accessibility to Population Density – Local Network ...... 79 Percent Change in Transit Trips Compared to Existing – Peak Period Trips........... 83 Percent Change in Transit Trips Compared to Existing – Daily Trips..................... 84 Screenlines for Ridership Analysis ...................................................................... 86 Percent Change in Transit Mode Share Compared to Existing – Peak Period Trips .............................................................................................. 88 Percent Change in Transit Mode Split –All Day Trips .......................................... 89 Percent Change in Transit Trips All Day: Frequent Service Emphasis Network ...... 90 Percent Change in Transit Trips All Day: Express Service Emphasis Network ........ 91 Percent Change in Transit Trips All Day: Local Service Emphasis Network............ 92 Amount of Transit Service Provided at 9pm as Compared to 6pm ...................... 97 Ratio of Trips in Night To Peak .......................................................................... 98 Ratio of Trips in Night To Peak Comparison: Express Service Emphasis Network.. 99 Ratio of Trips in Night To Peak Comparison: Local Service Emphasis Network ... 100 Variation in Transit Service Hours by Time of Day ............................................ 101 Northeast Quadrant – Example Trips ............................................................... 105 Northwest Quadrant – Example Trips .............................................................. 106 Southeast Quadrant – Example Trips ............................................................... 107 Southwest Quadrant – Example Trips .............................................................. 108 Concept Development Process ........................................................................ 125

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY King County Metro Transit (Metro) is in the process of developing a Long Range Public Transportation Plan (LRPTP). This plan will help guide expansion of Metro’s bus service in King County as the region’s population and employment grow through 2040. The plan will present a vision for Metro’s future transit system and include the policy direction to implement that vision. The planned 2040 Metro service network will be one of the primary components of the LRPTP. This network will identify the planned location and type of transit services in various areas of King County based upon anticipated population and job growth. In addition to the service network, the LRPTP will describe the capital facilities needed to support those services and the financial requirements for building the system. The LRPTP will describe how Metro’s service will evolve and help serve future regional growth. A key feature of the planned service network will be its integration with services provided by the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit). Developed in close coordination with Sound Transit, the planned service network will be designed to ensure that Metro’s future bus service is integrated with existing and planned expansions of the Link light rail and Sounder commuter rail systems as well as modifications to the regional express bus service. Development of the planned service network began with the creation of three separate and distinct conceptual transit service networks for King County. Transit demands and needs vary significantly from place to place due to the various land uses, population densities, and roadway networks in King County. In response to these differences, the conceptual service networks comprised three different service categories: frequent, express, and local. Each network included a combination of the three service categories in different proportions but had a strong emphasis on one category. The evaluation and comparison of the networks to each other demonstrated the tradeoffs associated with different service and capital investments and helped identify locations throughout the county where each service category performed the best. This report summarizes the process used to develop and analyze the three conceptual service networks. It contains an overview of the public outreach process employed to gather input from different individuals and groups throughout King County, which includes the participation of a Community Advisory Group and a jurisdiction-based Technical Advisory Group. The report describes the components and characteristics of the conceptual service networks along with the performance metrics used to evaluate them. Finally, the results of the evaluation are detailed and key findings noted.

1.1 CONCEPTUAL SERVICE NETWORKS The three conceptual service networks evaluated in this process include: x

Concept 1: The Frequent Service Emphasis network provides frequent, all-day service, with longer walk distances between corridors that have transit service. It requires more transfers, because there is less point-to-point service between origins and

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation destinations, and relies heavily on the light rail system. This type of network is most effective in higher density areas with all-day riders. Riders usually walk, cycle, or transfer from other transit to access service in this type of network. This concept included capital improvements that focused on improving the speed and reliability of the transit system. x

Concept 2: The Express Service Emphasis network focuses on connecting large population and employment centers with all-day, limited stop service. Riders generally access this service from park-and-ride lots or by transfers from local service. Service is provided along major corridors, allowing for a wide network of connections between centers. This network primarily serves riders that travel long distances between centers. The capital improvements identified for this concept focus on improving access to and from the regional high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane system as well as expanding the existing park-and-ride system.

Concept 3: The Local Service Emphasis network distributes service to a large number of corridors. Because local service is provided at lower frequencies, it can be provided on more roadways. With more corridors served, walking distances to access transit are shorter. This also allows for service in more neighborhoods, including lower density areas. This network best serves riders with recurring trips and requires planning if transfers are required. Riders generally walk to access transit or they may drive during peak periods. No new capital investments were assumed for the Local Service Emphasis network.

1.2 PERFORMANCE METRICS The performance metrics used to evaluate the conceptual service networks measured access to transit, transit connections, and use and efficiency of the networks. They included:

Proximity to transit for the general population, employment centers, low-income populations, minority populations, and persons with disabilities

How riders access transit

Accessibility to people and jobs via transit

Total bus and train ridership

Mode split

Economic efficiency

Environmental efficiency

Variation of transit service throughout the day

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation

2 BACKGROUND We live in a mobile society. Getting from here to there is critical to all aspects of our lives. Home, work, recreation, shopping, education, health care—we need to move from one place to another to reach these destinations and engage in various activities. Transportation affects everyone’s quality of life and economic vitality and public transit plays an essential role in the structure and success of King County’s transportation network. King County is growing fast and it is time to lay the foundation for a public transportation system that moves people more efficiently. By 2040, the region’s population will grow by 40 percent but there is projected to be only about a 6 percent increase in roadway lane miles. The regional growth and transportation plans rely on transit serving a larger share of the total travel demand in King County. Transit will be important to maximize the transportation infrastructure already in place and ensure the region keeps moving. As travel demand increases, transit is an important part of ensuring that people of all abilities can continue to affordably get where they want to go in a reasonable amount of time. King County Metro Transit (Metro) is the largest transit agency in the region today with 77 percent of the transit boardings. Along with Metro, other transit agencies in the area are also planning for growth. Sound Transit, the region’s high-capacity transit provider, is expanding its network of light rail, commuter rail, and regional express buses. As Sound Transit’s system grows, an expanded, well-integrated bus network will be critical to maximizing those investments. Even with the expansion of Sound Transit’s light rail network, Metro’s buses are expected to have over 50 percent of the transit boardings in 2040. In response to the anticipated countywide growth, Metro is undertaking development of a Long Range Public Transportation Plan (LRPTP). Begun in September 2014, the plan will present a vision for Metro’s future transit system, including the service network, the facilities and technology needed to support those services, and the financial requirements for building the system. The LRPTP will reflect four key themes: x

Connections: How public transportation will connect people to jobs, education, communities, services, shopping, and more

Accountability: Measurable objectives to make sure public transportation investments add economic, social, and environmental value

Partnerships: How Metro will work with other transit agencies, the Washington State Department of Transportation, local cities, and the private sector to develop an integrated transportation system that delivers the greatest value to the public

Economic Growth: How public transportation will expand the region’s capacity to move people, goods, and services in order to advance the economy, keep cities healthy, and maintain the region’s quality of life

The LRPTP will be developed in the following four phases: Discovery, Alternatives, Draft Long Range Plan for Public Transportation, and Final Long Range Plan for Public Transportation. The first and second phases have been completed. The entire process is expected to conclude by July 2016.

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation Discovery, September 2014 – May 2015: During this phase, cities, community groups, businesses, transit riders, and travelers of all types provided input to Metro about their goals and needs for public transportation through 2040. Agencies and local jurisdictions were educated about the planning process and invited to join the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Similarly, key stakeholders were briefed about the planning process and invited to join the Community Advisory Group (CAG). Community representatives and the public were notified about the project and informed that information was available through Metro’s website and the print media. Metro hosted three visioning events in which the public was invited to participate in facilitated discussions and listen to presentations about the future of transit in the region. Alternatives, June – September 2015: In the alternatives phase, Metro developed three conceptual service networks for public transportation service and capital investments in King County. These distinct concepts illustrated different scenarios for countywide distribution of future transit service and the tradeoffs associated with the different allocations. Agencies and local jurisdictions were asked to provide input to Metro regarding their plans for future growth to ensure that transit service in those areas was considered as part of the development of the concepts. CAG members were asked to identify their priorities for future transit service, which were also integrated into the development of the concepts. Both the TAC and the CAG were asked to provide feedback regarding development of performance metrics, which were used to compare the three networks. Once the conceptual service networks were developed, each was separately coded into a regional traffic model. The model outputs provided information on how the networks performed in comparison to one another using the performance metrics. Metro presented the networks and the performance metrics results to the public at open houses and on the project website. Public feedback was solicited at open houses, as well as via online surveys. TAC members were asked to evaluate the networks to identify which aspects of service were projected to most effectively meet their communities’ future transit needs. CAG members were also asked to respond to the networks as well as establish a feedback loop for their neighbors, organizations, and communities to provide input. Draft Long Range Plan for Public Transportation, September – March 2016: After receiving and evaluating the feedback and responses to the three conceptual service networks and input about capital investments, Metro will develop a draft Long Range Plan for Public Transportation (LRPTP) for public review and evaluation. The draft LRPTP will include a draft service network that incorporates the most appropriate and highest performing types of service for the various land uses, densities, and regions throughout King County. The draft service network will reflect the Sound Transit investments included in their draft ST3 System Plan, scheduled for release in February 2016. The capital investments needed to enhance and support the draft service network will also be identified. The draft LRPTP will include a financial strategy that identifies the costs associated with operation of the future service network, funding of supporting capital facilities, and an assessment of Metro’s financial capacity from existing and potential new funding sources. Draft policy language that directs implementation of the LRPTP will be included.

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation In fall 2015, Metro will solicit feedback from the TAC and CAG on the development of the draft service network, as well as other components of the draft LRPTP. The draft plan is scheduled for release in Spring 2016. Final Long Range Plan for Public Transportation, March – July 2016: Once Metro receives feedback on the draft LRPTP, it will be refined and finalized for transmittal to the King County Council. The final ST3 System Plan, scheduled for adoption in June 2016, will be incorporated into the future service network. The King County Council will manage the final LRPTP through the legislative adoption process. The final LRPTP is scheduled for transmittal to the Council in July 2016.

3 PURPOSE One of the primary components of the LRPTP will be the planned 2040 Metro service network. This network will include the location and type of transit services to be distributed throughout King County based upon anticipated future population and job growth. The LRPTP will also describe the capital facilities needed to support the planned service network. This planned network will be used as a guide to implement changes to Metro’s system as growth occurs throughout King County. Over the past 12 months, Metro has worked with other transit providers, the Washington State Department of Transportation, cities, and the public to explore three conceptual service networks and the capital investments necessary to support them. The networks were developed in close coordination with Sound Transit to ensure that Metro’s future bus service is integrated with planned expansions of the Link light rail and Sounder commuter rail systems as well as modifications to regional express bus service. Metro also evaluated current trends influencing transportation, such as car and ride sharing, as well as the economic benefits of transit to King County. This report summarizes the process used to develop and analyze the three conceptual service networks.

4 OUTREACH Public outreach has been a significant component of the planning process to date. From the beginning, Metro has engaged a wide range of individuals and groups in the process through a variety of means to ensure that the concerns of people throughout the county were heard. Outreach efforts are further detailed below.

4.1 STRATEGIC ENGAGEMENT PLAN At the beginning of the planning process, Metro developed a Strategic Engagement Plan (SEP) to guide public outreach efforts through final King County Council adoption of the LRPTP. The SEP outlined the goals and objectives of the public outreach process, identified key milestones in the planning process, and described public engagement tactics. The SEP outlined a three-pronged approach to engaging the public and key stakeholders in the LRPTP’s development process, with a focus on establishing community and governmental advisory groups, stakeholder coordination, and public engagement. Specific outreach activities described in the SEP included: Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation x

Community and governmental advisory groups: This activity involves establishing two

advisory groups to guide the planning process and provide input from key organizations, local residents, and local jurisdictions. The first is the CAG, which consists of residents and organizational representatives from all parts of the county, and selected through an open application process. Applications to join the group were advertised on the project website, at the projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first open houses, and through social media. The CAG will provide input on the LRPTP through the entire development process and will also provide guidance on public engagement strategies as the plan progresses. The second is the Interagency and Local Jurisdictions Advisory Committee (subsequently renamed the Technical Advisory Committee or TAC). Members of this committee will include agency representatives, city council members, city managers, and suburban civic organizations in King County. This group will also provide input on the LRPTP through its completion, and vote on a recommendation for the final document.

Stakeholder coordination: This activity includes close coordination with and regular updates to standing transportation committees and organizations to brief members about the planning process, direct them to opportunities for public input, and request them to report back on how stakeholder feedback was considered by the technical team. These committees include the King County Council Ad Hoc Committee; King County Transit Advisory Commission; King County Council Transportation, Economy and Environment Committee; King County Council Regional Transit Committee; Transit Operators Committee; Puget Sound Regional Council Transportation Policy Board; Puget Sound Regional Council Special Needs Transportation Committee; Eastside Transportation Partnership; SeaShore Transportation Forum; and the South County Area Transportation Board. Another component of this coordination is interviews with key stakeholders to brief them on the project and gather input on their transit needs and priorities, provide information about opportunities to share feedback, and learn how they want to be engaged through the planning process. At key milestones, Metro will solicit input from community organizations such as the Transportation Choices Coalition, King County Mobility Coalition, and the West Seattle Transportation Coalition, through a community group survey.

Public engagement: This activity involves engaging with the public throughout the

planning process to inform them of the LRPTP process, gather initial input, receive feedback on preliminary recommendations, and respond to comments on the final plan before it is submitted to the King County Council. The public will have multiple opportunities to provide input. These include:

o o

CAG meetings open to the public with public comment periods In-person and online open houses with public comment opportunities at key milestones Online forums and surveys throughout the project duration Interactive and regularly updated website

4.2 Stakeholder Interviews In early 2015, Metro contacted a broad cross-section of stakeholders to gather feedback on their public engagement strategy and collect information about the public value of transit, future needs, and long-term goals for public transportation. As part of this process, Metro 6

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation interviewed 18 community representatives from county and local government, businesses, social service providers, and transit advocates. The interviews lasted approximately 1 hour each. Several key themes emerged through the course of the interviews including: x

Regional partnership transparency and accountability

Social and geographic equity and innovation in service delivery

Capital investments and service delivery

Future funding and revenue

4.3 VISIONING One of the first steps in the planning process was to hear from the community about their vision for the future of transit service in King County. To facilitate this process, Metro held three visioning sessions in different areas of the county. The visioning process began on March 31, 2015 with a Long Range Plan Visioning Event at the Seattle Central Library. This event included a panel of local and regional experts and visionaries including Jarrett Walker, author of Human Transit; Rebecca SaldaĂąa, Executive Director, Puget Sound Sage; and Mark Hallenbeck, Director, Washington State Transportation Center, University of Washington. The discussion was moderated by Rita Brogan, Washington State Transportation Commissioner. Panelists discussed their vision for public transportation in our region and answered questions from each break-out session group. Approximately 200 people attended this event. The two other visioning events were held in May 2015 and were similar in scope to the first. One event was held on May 18 at Federal Way City Hall and the other was on May 19 at Bellevue College. At both events, attendees had an opportunity to talk with Metro staff and provide comments regarding their vision for future transit service in King County. Each event included a panel discussion in which participants representing various agencies throughout the region presented their respective agencyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s vision for future transit in King County and answered questions from attendees. The panel at the Federal Way event included: x

Darin Stavish, Pierce Transit

Monica Whitman, Senior Transportation Planner, City of Kent

Shefali Ranganathan, Transportation Choices Coalition

Eric Chipps, Sound Transit

Facilitator: Jeanne Acutanza, Transpo Group

At the Bellevue event, the panel included: x

Franz Loewnherz, Senior Transportation Planner, City of Bellevue

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner, City of Issaquah

Shefali Ranganathan, Transportation Choices Coalition

Karen Kitsis, Sound Transit

Facilitator: Jeanne Acutanza, Transpo Group

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation Approximately 70 people attended the two visioning events in Federal Way and Bellevue. All three visioning events included an opportunity for attendees to participate in facilitated break-out sessions that focused on six topics. Comments generally addressed: x

Equity and access: o

o o

All people should be treated equally through all of Metro’s operations— accessibility, service, and fare enforcement. Transit is needed throughout the county to reach destinations from all origins. Connections should be provided between neighborhoods and urban centers as well as local access (movement between suburban cities). Growth should be focused where transit can be easily accessed.

Access to transit for persons with disabilities should be ensured.

Educators and institutions:

Many students could be transit riders. Metro should work with institutions’ transit coordinators to initiate customization programs and incorporate technologies. Transit service in the University District should be reallocated to better serve the changing transit network. Transit service should integrate with bicycle/pedestrian networks and bicycle storage. Integrated technology should be developed that can help riders choose what type of transportation mode to take, i.e., tell the rider the cost/benefit of different modes. Private and public partnerships should be developed to improve information sharing. A transit culture should be encouraged in young people earlier.

Business and economy: o

o o

Metro should do more to get ORCA cards into riders’ hands via better promotions, more places to purchase them, and lower costs.

ORCA cards can serve as an equalizer because it improves access to transit. Access to transit translates to access to jobs, education, and other opportunities.

Ease of getting an ORCA pass can be an issue—keep it simple and make it possible to purchase ORCA cards at more stops. Overcrowded buses is an important issue that can reduce the transit attraction for business commuters. Span of transit service can be barrier for shift workers who need to rely on transit. Priority should be given to providing more buses in downtown Seattle (Third Avenue). Real-time arrival information should be provided, including delays. Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation

High-quality transit is critical for businesses that want to attract employees.

First- and last-mile connections to and from job centers is a priority.

Innovation and technology: o

How technology can make transit greener and faster should be investigated.

Passenger information could be improved in the following ways:

Consistency and good data

Information on disruptions/delays

Real-time parking information

Real-time arrival information

Options should be available for ORCA cards to be used in other ways.

Cashless and offǦboard fare payment should be instituted.

Audio information, such as stop notifications and card reader responses, should be improved. Metro should work with social service organizations to get ‘technology’ information into the hands of those without telephones or computers. The ability for vehicles to move through a corridor, such as interconnected transit signal priority, should be improved. Alternative services—last mile, low-density areas—should be enhanced to help riders connect to fixed route service.

Integrating transit modes: o

Integration should focus on how transit agencies work together as Sound Transit expands and the region grows.

Metro and Sound Transit should have a single-fare structure.

First/last mile issues should be addressed.

Car share, vanpool, etc. should be integrated with transit.

A long-range strategy for planning should be created.

Trip planning

The bus network at the University of Washington should be modified with opening of Link light rail. Stations should be designed to make it easier to transfer between rail and bus.

Future policies and funding: o

Transit is important to growth.

Transit planning should intersect with jurisdictional comprehensive planning.

Metro should communicate benefits and cost of transit.

There is resistance to raising taxes.

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation

The equity issues associated with additional tolling should be addressed.

Metro should diversify its revenue sources.

Exemptions for low-income persons should be provided.

Raising fares will discourage ridership.

Ideas for generating additional revenue include:

Increase parking taxes

Employee hour tax

Charging for parking at park-and-ride lots

Income tax

Advertising

Payment by vehicle miles traveled

4.4 COORDINATION WITH SOUND TRANSIT An important component of the LRPTP development has been coordination with Sound Transit. Sound Transit provides high-capacity transit service in the Puget Sound region in the form of light rail (Link), commuter rail (Sounder), and express bus (ST Express). In 2014, Sound Transit adopted an update to its Long Range Plan. The Sound Transit Long Range Plan outlines the agency’s vision for high-capacity transit within its service areas in King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. Sound Transit began all-day Link light rail service in King County in 2009 and is currently in the process of expanding it north to Lynnwood in Snohomish County, east to Redmond, and south to Kent/Des Moines. Funding for these expansions is voter approved and this phase of expansion will be complete and operational by 2023. Sounder commuter rail service is provided during the morning and evening peak periods from the city of Everett in Snohomish County (North Sounder) and from the city of Tacoma in Pierce County (South Sounder) to downtown Seattle. Each Sounder line has several intermediate stops; however, North Sounder has no intermediate stops in King County. Peak only and all-day ST Express service is provided throughout Sound Transit’s service area. Sound Transit began development of their ST3 System Plan ballot measure in 2015. This measure will identify the type and location of additional transit projects and service that will be provided throughout Sound Transit’s service area. It is expected that this measure will be voted upon in November 2016. Both the currently funded service as well as future service have the potential to overlap with that provided by Metro. Throughout development of the LRPTP, Metro has been coordinating with Sound Transit to identify opportunities for service integration among the various transit modes and to minimize unnecessary duplication. This included developing the three conceptual service networks and ensuring consistency in model input assumptions. Because they were developed at the same time, the processes for creation of the ST3 System Plan and the LRPTP have influenced each other. The final ST3 System Plan will be established prior to completion of the LRPTP; therefore, the final service network will reflect integration with Sound Transit’s anticipated future network through 2040. 10

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation To date, Sound Transit and Metro have also coordinated their outreach efforts with applicable jurisdictions and communities. When Metro staff met with cities to learn about their future land use plans and transit needs, Sound Transit staff attended and assisted. Sound Transit staff also participated in Metro’s early visioning events at the beginning of the planning process. In June 2015, Metro was a partner agency at four Sound Transitsponsored public outreach events throughout King County. Set up with an open house format, the events were designed to allow attendees to provide input into Metro’s LRPTP process as well as development of Sound Transit’s ST3 measure. Metro presented the three conceptual service networks as well as some initial results regarding their performance and invited feedback from the public. Attendees were asked to identify locations where they thought the different service types or concepts provided the most favorable service. Input was gathered via surveys, conversations with Metro staff, and “dot” exercises that allowed participants to identify the amount and type of preferred service throughout the county. The open houses were held: x

June 16 and 25, Union Station in Seattle

June 23, Marriott Hotel in Redmond

June 25, King County Aquatic Center in Federal Way

Approximately 260 people attended the four open houses.

4.5 COMMUNITY ADVISORY GROUP (CAG) The CAG was established in February 2015 and comprised King County residents with an interest in public transportation. CAG members reflected the diversity of the region and represented an extensive diversity of opinions and viewpoints about how Metro’s transit services should grow and change in the coming years. CAG members worked closely with Metro to identify transit and mobility needs, review the conceptual service networks, and make key recommendations that will be incorporated into the final LRPTP. The CAG met in March, April, June, and August 2015.

4.6 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) The TAC comprised technical staff from local jurisdictions and transit agencies. Representing key stakeholder groups, members participated in meetings and workshops, shared how each community or agency is planning for growth and transit, and reviewed and provided feedback on the development and analysis of plan alternatives. All cities in King County and partner transit agencies in the region (Community Transit, Pierce Transit, and Sound Transit) were invited to designate a staff person to join the TAC. The TAC met as a large group in February, March, April, June, and August 2015. Metro staff also met with smaller groups within the TAC in April and July to have targeted conversations about specific geographic areas. Discussion topics included existing transit needs in various cities, as well as those anticipated to serve future growth.

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation

4.7 REGIONAL TRANSIT COMMITTEE (RTC) The King County Council functions through the work of its standing committees and regional committees, which scrutinize proposed legislation for consideration by the full Council. The Regional Transit Committee (RTC) consists of King County Council members, as well as representatives from cities throughout the county. The RTC reviews and makes recommendations to the King County Council on countywide policies for public transportation services operated by King County. In addition to regular updates and briefings throughout 2015, the RTC held three workshops at which members provided input into the development of the conceptual service networks and performance metrics.

4.8 OPEN HOUSES One of the primary means of providing information to the public and receiving feedback was through open houses. The open houses were held in June 2015 in partnership with Sound Transit. At these open houses, Metro presented the three conceptual service networks as well as the results of the performance analysis to the public for feedback, which will be used in the development of the final service network.

4.9 LOCAL AND REGIONAL MEETINGS Throughout the planning process, Metro attended numerous local and regional meetings. This outreach effort reached diverse audiences, including city councils, committees and commissions, regional boards and committees convened by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), the Sound Cities Association, and the three King County Transportation subarea boards (SeaShore, Eastside Transportation Partnership, and South County Area Transportation Board). Updates were provided to interested groups, including the Downtown Seattle Association, the North King County Mobility Coalition, Greater Federal Way Chamber of Commerce, Snoqualmie Valley, One America and the Municipal League of King County.

4.10 SURVEYS Metro hosted online surveys on its website as another mechanism to gain input from the public regarding development of the LRPTP. In the discovery phase, the survey asked participants about the types of public transportation used, destinations accessed via transit and other modes, opinions about the usefulness of public transportation, and their future vision of transit in the region. More than 2,600 community members responded to the survey, which was held from February to March 2015. Respondents were from 38 of the 39 cities in King County. Key results of the survey include: x The top ten destinations for respondents using public transportation are Seattle, SeaTac, Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Shoreline, Renton, Burien, Issaquah and Federal Way. The majority of the answers were the same when respondents were asked about their destinations using other forms of transportation, with Woodinville and Bothell replacing Burien and Federal Way in the top ten. x The survey asked about the types of public transportation used by respondents. Metro bus was the highest utilized type, with 91 percent of respondents saying that they use it. Additional transit type utilization included: o 53% Sound Transit Link light rail 12

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation

o 42% Sound Transit bus o 40% Washington State Ferry o 19% Seattle streetcar o 15% King County Water Taxi o 9% Community Transit bus o 9% Sounder Train o 5% I do not use public transportation o 3% Pierce Transit bus When asked about how well public transportation gets respondents where they want to go, more than 80 percent of respondents identified that it is good (“I can get to most places I want to go”) or adequate (“I can access some places I want to go”). 4 percent identified that it is excellent (“I can get everywhere I want to go”) and 12 percent identified it as poor (“I cannot access the places I want to go”). The top ten responses describing how public transit should improve were: 1. Extend light rail 2. Improved bus frequency 3. Grade-separated or lane-separated transit 4. More off-peak service 5. More reliable service 6. Connection between multiple modes of transit 7. Affordable fares 8. More routes/buses 9. Better service to outlying communities 10. More east-west connections The survey asked respondents to imagine transit in several different ways. A sample of their responses to each of these imagine statements is described below: o “I imagine a public transportation system so convenient I could _____ .” rely on it, live without a car, not need a schedule, get to where I’m trying to go. o I imagine being able to ____ because our public transportation system is ____ . save money because transit is affordable, be more efficient because transit is fast, accessible and everywhere. o I imagine a public transportation system so efficient that ____ . you don’t need a schedule, transit is as fast as driving. o I imagine a bus ride that is ____ . clean, comfortable, efficient and convenient. o I imagine my children using public transportation to ____ . get to school, activities, explore their community..

During the alternatives phase, a survey was held from June 4 to August 9, 2015. Survey questions focused on gathering participants’ feedback on the three conceptual service networks, including what was liked or disliked about them, as well as priorities for capital facility investments that can improve transit speed, reliability, passenger facilities, and parkand-rides. Over 6,000 people participated in the survey, approximately 50 percent of which were from parts of the county outside the City of Seattle. x Survey respondents were asked how they would like to be able to use public transportation. More than 82 percent indicated they would like to use it to get to work and approximately 78 percent indicated they would like to use it to get to entertainment or sporting events. Other options that received a high number of Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation

responses include to go to parks or cultural destinations (61%), for shopping trips (54%), and to get to medical services (43%). The morning and evening commute periods were identified as the time of day when most respondents would like to be able to use public transportation (>80% for each period). 67 percent of respondents indicated that they would like to use public transportation on weekends during the day. Other options that received a high number of responses include weekends at night (51%) and middle of the weekday (47%). When asked about capital investments and provided with selection options, respondents identified the following priorities: o “Improvements to arterials” was ranked highest by respondents who live in west and east King County and second highest for those south King County. o “Additional Park & Rides” was ranked highest by respondents in south King County, second highest by those in east King County and lowest by those in west King County. o “Improvement for bicycle and pedestrians” and “new technologies” were ranked lowest by south and east King County respondents. o “New roadways exclusive to buses and trains” was the second most highest ranked by respondents in west King County and most often ranked 2nd or 3rd by east and south King County respondents, respectively.

4.11 ONLINE INFORMATION Metro hosted a project website throughout the planning process. Designed to evolve as the project progressed through the various phases, the website included information about the planning process, opportunities for involvement, and times and locations for upcoming meetings. The three conceptual service networks and information about the performance analysis were posted on the website for public viewing and comment. The website also hosted a comment page and served as the portal for participating in surveys. The website had more than 8,300 unique page views during the visioning phase of outreach from January to May 2015 and resulted in 21 email comments and 2,903 survey responses. The website was updated for the Alternatives phase of outreach from June to December 2015. During this time it had more than 12,300 unique page views and resulted in 26 email comments and 6,116 survey responses.

5 EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS 5.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PLANNING CONTEXT As part of the discovery phase, Metro developed an Existing Conditions and Planning Context report. This report provided a comprehensive overview of Metro’s services, capital facilities, and financial environment. It detailed existing population and employment distribution throughout the county and described the expected ways that these distributions will change within the planning horizon (2040). Current ridership, proximity to transit, demographic distributions, and transit mobility were also outlined. This report served as the basis for development of the conceptual service networks and identification of the capital facilities assumed to support them.

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation PSRC provided data showing how population and jobs are currently distributed throughout King County. Metro used these data, as well as more detailed geographic information system (GIS) data, to analyze proximity and access to the existing transit network. Census information was also used to evaluate proximity to transit for historically disadvantaged populations including low-income people, minorities, youth, and seniors. The PSRC land use forecasts for population and employment within King County in 2040 provided the foundation for development of the conceptual service networks. These distributions are based upon the comprehensive plans of King County jurisdictions, which identify the type and location for future growth within their respective boundaries. The data within these plans are consolidated by PSRC to depict how and where growth is expected to occur countywide. The PSRC forecasts are regularly used by jurisdictions and agencies throughout the county for developing transportation forecasts. These forecasts identified varying concentrations of growth throughout King County, which were used by Metro as one factor for locating different types of transit service for the conceptual service networks. Once the conceptual service networks were developed, the forecasts were used to measure potential proximity and access to transit for households and jobs. Transit accessibility, or the number of destinations people can reach by transit, was evaluated for the current network by analyzing the number of jobs that are accessible in the AM peak and midday periods within a 30-minute transit trip. Transit accessibility was found to be the highest in downtown Seattle and the nearby neighborhoods of Wallingford, the University District, and portions of West Seattle; and in downtown Bellevue, Eastgate, and Factoria. Portions of south King County, including downtown Renton, the Kent Valley, and Southcenter also have higher levels of jobs accessibility via transit. Outside of downtown Seattle, the areas with the highest transit mobility to employment tend to connect at least two major employment areas via transit. For example, Factoria and Eastgate have 30-minute transit access to downtown Seattle and downtown Bellevue. A similar analysis was performed for automobile accessibility. A comparison of the two analyses showed that automobile accessibility is greater throughout King County with only central Seattle having a comparable level of automobile and transit accessibility. The same two evaluations were performed using the existing network and future land use forecasts. Future transit accessibility remains highest for areas around downtown Seattle, the University District, portions of West Seattle, downtown Bellevue, Eastgate, and Factoria; automobile accessibility remains high throughout King County, even with higher levels of congestion under 2040 conditions. The areas forecasted to experience the largest percentage growth in jobs accessible within 30 minutes on transit are Burien, SeaTac, Auburn, Federal Way, and Totem Lake in Kirkland. This is partially due to the large percentage of employment growth forecasted for these areas, much of which is accessible by the current transit routes. In several Seattle neighborhoods, the net change in jobs accessible via transit is greater than the net change accessible via automobile due in part to growth in auto congestion. In several Eastside cities, including Kirkland/Totem Lake, downtown Redmond, Renton, and Bellevue, the opposite is true.

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation Metro used PSRC’s 2014 Household Travel Survey to identify how riders throughout King County currently access transit. The overwhelming majority (91 percent) of riders access transit by walking or cycling, with the strongest concentrations in the densely populated areas of Seattle, Bellevue, Redmond, Kent, and SeaTac. As density decreases, access to transit via automobile increases. The Existing Conditions and Planning Context report included an analysis of several financial and environmental efficiency measures associated with operation of the current system. Ridership by platform hour and platform mile by service type was evaluated. Service type classified routes as either those that serve the Seattle core and those that do not1. Costs per boarding were analyzed for each service category, by time of day, and by service type. Greenhouse gas emissions per passenger mile by mode were also evaluated.

6 CONCEPTUAL SERVICE NETWORK DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE METRICS 6.1 METHODOLOGY During the alternatives phase of the planning process, three distinct conceptual transit service networks were developed for King County. Because Metro serves such a large and diverse area, the transit demands and needs vary throughout the county. To address these different needs, the conceptual service networks comprised three different service categories: frequent, express, and local. These services were allocated in different proportions for each conceptual service network to compare the change to key performance metrics. Table 1 summarizes the general characteristics of these three service categories.

The “Metro Service Guidelines Task Force Report and Recommendations” dated October 2015 includes a recommendation to change the names of these categories to Urban and Suburban, respectively.

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation Table 1. General Characteristics of Service Categories in Conceptual Service Networks Service Category Characteristic

Service Frequency

Where Best Used

Frequent

Express

Every 10-15 minutes

Every 15-30 minutes

Long dense corridors Serve multiple trip types

Between centers of high transit demand (urban centers)

x x

Design Characteristics

Integration with Sound Transit

Mile route spacing ¼-mile to ½mile stop spacing Grid orientation

x x x x

Bus connections with light rail and commuter rail are frequent

Longer distance corridors Limited stops (1-2 miles) Direct all-day connections Higher speed corridors Requires planning to connect to bus from light rail and commuter rail

Local & Alternative Service x Every 30-60 minutes or as defined by the type of alternative service x

x x x x x

Low density or hard to serve neighborhoods Last mile/first mile connections ½-mile route spacing ¼-mile to ½-mile stop spacing Direct connections Alternative on demand connections Requires planning to connect to bus from light rail and commuter rail

In addition to the three service categories that provide fixed-route service, Metro is planning for alternative service in King County. Alternative transportation service brings transit to parts of King County that do not have the infrastructure, density, or land use to support traditional fixed-route bus service. In these areas, alternative transportation services may be a better match for community transportation needs and more cost effective. Alternative transportation services are developed to address the needs of a specific community and can be provided in various ways. Metro collaborates with stakeholders to design the appropriate services and partners with communities to market them. Current examples of alternative transportation services include: x

Community shuttle: Community shuttles are primarily designed to meet all-day travel needs with common destination points. Service is provided with a smaller vehicle (6 to 15 passengers) in a fixed and flexible service area. A strong community partner provides resources and marketing to assist with promotion of this type of service.

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation x

Community hub: A community hub is a local transportation center that gives people access to transportation resources such as community vans, bicycles, and travel information. The service focuses primarily on organized travel needs, with a central community focal point. Metro would provide vehicles for community use and a community partner would provide the location, transportation information, and scheduling. This type of service allows for flexibility for both regularly scheduled and one-time trips. Flexible rideshare: Flexible rideshare allows for participants to share rides via use of mobile phone and web-based applications. Participants set meeting spots that are unique to rider needs. This allows for dispersed origins and target destinations. Metro could provide vehicles for this service or privately owned vehicles could be used.

In addition to these current alternative services, King County researched other ways transit service could be provided. Transportation Network Companies (TNCs), such as Uber or Lyft, are a growing part of the transportation industry. TNCs provide prearranged transportation services for compensation using an online-enabled application or platform to connect drivers using their personal vehicles with passengers. This type of “shared mobility” can serve as a complement to transit by providing first and last mile services to riders to areas that are not efficiently served by transit. Microtransit, which is privately operated, has a high degree of flexibility in their scheduling and operating practices. Similar to TNCs, microtransit can provide service in less dense areas for which fixed route transit is not the most efficient. Partnerships with TNC and microtransit agencies can be an effective way to expand the reach of Metro’s transit service.

6.2 GROWTH FORECASTS King County is expected to grow by 360,000 people and 560,000 jobs in the next 25 years. The 2040 Regional Transportation Plan, prepared by PSRC and known as Transportation 2040 (T2040), identifies expansion to transit service as a significant and essential component in meeting the future transportation demands resulting from this growth. All of the transit agencies in the central Puget Sound region, including Metro, are expected to increase their services. New households and jobs are expected to be distributed throughout all of the cities, as well as the unincorporated areas, in King County. Each jurisdiction is expected to accommodate a designated amount of population and employment growth and these jurisdictions identify how and where this growth will occur through their comprehensive plans. Prior to development of the conceptual service networks, Metro met with TAC members to review their jurisdictions’ comprehensive plans and discuss the future transit needs of cities. In addition to population and employment forecasts, T2040 also identifies multiple capital improvements to the regional transportation network. Using the funding strategy outlined in the plan, T2040 lists projects that are expected to be constructed within the planning horizon, including several that will improve transit service.

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation

6.3 CONCEPTUAL SERVICE NETWORK DEVELOPMENT Each conceptual service network included a strong emphasis on one service category. The networks were developed in this manner to compare them to each other, demonstrate the tradeoffs associated with different service and capital investments, and highlight locations where each service category performed the best. Figure 1 shows the distribution of service for each conceptual service network as well as the existing network. To accommodate the population and employment growth forecast for King County as outlined in T2040, the three conceptual service networks were developed with the assumption that Metro will need to increase service hours in 2040 by 65 percent above 2015 levels. Metro identified headways, travel speed, and span of daily service for each service category. These assumptions and operational inputs were used to calculate the average daily trips per route, daily hours per mile per route, and daily revenue hours. Table 2 details the framework for each of the service categories and the resulting distribution of hours among the three conceptual service networks.

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

33%

53%

14%

Existing

Frequent Service

25%

70%

Frequent Emphasis Network

)LJXUH 6HUYLFH 'LVWULEXWLRQ LQ Existing and Conceptual Service Networks

Express Service

50% 25%

25%

60%

15% 25%

Local Emphasis Network

Local Service (includes Alternative Services)

Express Emphasis Network

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation Table 2. Conceptual Service Network Framework Conceptual Service Networks Headway (minutes)

Daily Revenue Hours3

Operation Inputs

Service OffService Category Peak Peak Night Speed Hours

Average Stop Spacing2

Frequent

1/2 mile

9,085

3,245

4,323

Express

1-1/2 miles

1,688

7,528

2,986

1,896

Local

1/4 mile

3,245

7,787

2,652

14,017

8,871

Frequent Express Local Service Service Service Emphasis Emphasis Emphasis Existing

1 Express service assumes two-way service all day with a small percentage of hours assumed as peak-direction express service. Revenue hours of peak-direction express include the deadhead mileage. ST Express hours (a total of 1,039) were incorporated into each concept to demonstrate a fully integrated transit network. 2 Within regional growth centers, stop spacing was reduced to match up transfers to points such as Sounder/Link light rail stations or other activity centers. 3 Daily revenue hours are assumed for weekdays only.

Using the “budget” of daily revenue hours, Metro identified the most appropriate service categories along corridors throughout King County based upon the planned location and densities of future adjoining land uses, the type of roadway, and planned capital improvements. The different allocations of service categories within each conceptual service network resulted in three distinct ideas about how Metro could distribute service. Characteristics of each network are described below.

Concept 1: Frequent Service Emphasis Network (Figure 2) x

70 percent of the hours were allocated to frequent service distributed throughout the county on arterials surrounded by a relatively high density of residential and commercial uses. In areas with a dense arterial street grid, frequent service was spaced on corridors approximately ½ mile to 1 mile apart.

25 percent of the budgeted hours were allocated to local service corridors with lower development densities to fill in some of the areas not served by the frequent service.

5 percent of hours were allocated to express service to provide connections between growth centers as well as to cities located in the Snoqualmie Valley and southeast King County.

This network provides frequent, all-day service, with longer walk distances between corridors that have transit service. Because there is less point-to-point service between origins and destinations, more transfers are required. However, the frequency of service minimizes the time needed to transfer between routes, thereby making it easier to take advantage of the entire transit network. It also relies on a strong integration with the light rail system. This network is most effective in higher density areas with all-day riders. Riders usually walk, cycle, or transfer from other transit to access service in this type of network.

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

)LJXUH FREQUENT 6(59,&( EMPHASIS NETWORK 104

Service Continues into Snohomish County

522

BOTHELL

LAKE FOREST PARK

522 KENMORE

5 SHORELINE

WOODINVILLE

523

405

SE RV I CE DISTRIBUTION

DUVALL

203

25% KIRKLAND

Green Lake

70% REDMOND YARROW POINT

HUNTS POINT

Lake Union

CARNATION

520

202

CLYDE HILL MEDINA

SEATTLE

BELLEVUE

Lake Sammamish

SAMMAMISH

Lake Washington BEAUX ARTS

MERCER ISLAND

SNOQUALMIE

NEWCASTLE ISSAQUAH

202 900

405 BURIEN

99 NORTH BEND

509 TUKWILA

518

NORMANDY PARK

169

SEATAC

181

VASHON ISLAND

RENTON

900

KENT

515

DES MOINES

516 COVINGTON

MAPLE VALLEY

167 Not to scale

LEGEND

169

509 AUBURN

BLACK DIAMOND

FEDERAL WAY

Frequent Route Express Route Local Route (includes alternative services)

Existing & Future Link Light Rail (approved and funded)

ALGONA

MILTON

PACIFIC

In Planning/Planned Light Rail 164

Sounder Commuter Rail

Service Continues into Pierce County

Activity Center in Metro Service Guidelines

Service Description: Frequent Service: Buses every 10 to 15 minutes/4 to 6 trips per hour; 20 hours per day Express Service: Buses every 15 to 30 minutes/2 to 4 trips per hour; 15 hours per day

Local Service (includes alternative services): Buses every 30 to 60 minutes/1 to 2 trips per hour; 18 hours per day

ENUMCLAW

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation

Concept 2: Express Service Emphasis Network (Figure 3) x

50 percent of the budgeted hours were allocated to express service. Express service routes have a 1-mile to 2-mile stop spacing with underlying local service that has shorter stop spacing.

This network focuses on connecting large population and employment centers with all-day, limited stop service.

Riders generally access this service from park-and-ride lots or by transfers from local service. Service is provided along major corridors, allowing for a wide network of connections between centers.

This network primarily serves riders that travel long distances between centers.

Local service is provided for shorter trips and frequent service was provided on a few arterials. Both local and frequent service were allocated 25 percent of the budgeted hours.

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

)LJXUH EXPRESS 6(59,&( EMPHASIS NETWORK 104

Service Continues into Snohomish County

522

BOTHELL

LAKE FOREST PARK

522 KENMORE

5 SHORELINE

WOODINVILLE

523

405

SE RV I CE DISTRIBUTION

DUVALL

203

25% KIRKLAND

50%

Green Lake

25%

REDMOND YARROW POINT

HUNTS POINT

Lake Union

CARNATION

520

202

CLYDE HILL MEDINA

SEATTLE

BELLEVUE

Lake Sammamish

SAMMAMISH

Lake Washington BEAUX ARTS

MERCER ISLAND

NEWCASTLE

SNOQUALMIE ISSAQUAH

202 900

405 BURIEN

99 NORTH BEND

509

RENTON

900 TUKWILA

518

169

NORMANDY PARK

SEATAC

181

VASHON ISLAND

DES MOINES

KENT

515

516 COVINGTON

MAPLE VALLEY

167 Not to scale

LEGEND

169

509 AUBURN

BLACK DIAMOND

FEDERAL WAY

Frequent Route Express Route Local Route (includes alternative services)

Existing & Future Link Light Rail (approved and funded)

ALGONA

MILTON

PACIFIC

In Planning/Planned Light Rail 164

Sounder Commuter Rail

Service Continues into Pierce County

Activity Center in Metro Service Guidelines

Service Description: Frequent Service: Buses every 10 to 15 minutes/4 to 6 trips per hour; 20 hours per day Express Service: Buses every 15 to 30 minutes/2 to 4 trips per hour; 15 hours per day

Local Service (includes alternative services): Buses every 30 to 60 minutes/1 to 2 trips per hour; 18 hours per day

ENUMCLAW

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation

Concept 3: Local Service Emphasis Network (Figure 4) x

60 percent of the budgeted hours were allocated to local service. The primary feature of this network is the spread of service to a large number of corridors. Because local service is provided at lower frequencies, it can be provided on more roadways.

With more corridors served, walking distances to access transit are shorter. This also allows for service in more neighborhoods, including lower density areas.

25 percent of the budgeted hours were allocated to frequent service along highcapacity transit corridors, such as highways or major arterials.

15 percent of the budgeted hours were allocated to express service to connect employment centers as well as outlying cities in southeast King County and the Snoqualmie Valley. This network best serves riders with recurring trips and requires planning if transfers are required. Riders generally walk to access transit or they may drive during peak periods.

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

)LJXUH LOCAL 6(59,&( EMPHASIS NETWORK 104

Service Continues into Snohomish County LAKE FOREST PARK

BOTHELL

522

522 KENMORE

5 SHORELINE

WOODINVILLE

523

405

SE RV I CE DISTRIBUTION

DUVALL

203

15% 25% KIRKLAND

Green Lake

60%

REDMOND

Lake Union

CARNATION

YARROW POINT

HUNTS POINT

520

202

CLYDE HILL MEDINA

SEATTLE

BELLEVUE

SAMMAMISH

Lake Sammamish

Lake Washington BEAUX ARTS

MERCER ISLAND

SNOQUALMIE

NEWCASTLE ISSAQUAH

202 900

405 BURIEN

99 NORTH BEND

509 TUKWILA

518

NORMANDY PARK

RENTON

900

169

SEATAC

VASHON ISLAND

181

DES MOINES

KENT

515

516 COVINGTON

MAPLE VALLEY

167 Not to scale

LEGEND

169

509 AUBURN

BLACK DIAMOND

FEDERAL WAY

Frequent Route Express Route Local Route (includes alternative services)

Existing & Future Link Light Rail (approved and funded)

ALGONA

MILTON

PACIFIC

In Planning/Planned Light Rail 164

Sounder Commuter Rail

Service Continues into Pierce County

Activity Center in Metro Service Guidelines

Service Description: Frequent Service: Buses every 10 to 15 minutes/4 to 6 trips per hour; 20 hours per day Express Service: Buses every 15 to 30 minutes/2 to 4 trips per hour; 15 hours per day

Local Service (includes alternative services): Buses every 30 to 60 minutes/1 to 2 trips per hour; 18 hours per day

ENUMCLAW

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation

6.4 INTEGRATION WITH OTHER TRANSIT PROVIDERS The conceptual service networks were all integrated with Sound Transit service. Sound Transit currently provides light rail service in King County from Sea-Tac airport to downtown Seattle. Voter-approved expansions in King County are planned to Shoreline, Redmond, and Federal Way. Sounder commuter rail service is expected to continue serving the existing stations. Sound Transit will also continue to provide regional express bus service although some existing service is expected to be discontinued because it will duplicate light rail service. These existing and planned services were incorporated into the conceptual service networks. In an effort to minimize potential overlap of bus service between Metro service and Sound Transitâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s regional express routes, the conceptual service networks were designed to assume a certain level of regional express service. Corridors that merit express service were identified in each of the concepts; however, the service provider was not identified at this stage. Service providers for these corridors will be designated in the final LRPTP. At the time the conceptual service networks were developed, Sound Transit was in the process of developing their ST3 System Plan. The ST3 System Plan will identify the next phase of regional transit investments, including expansions or changes to the Link light rail system, Sounder commuter rail, and regional express bus service. The ST3 System Plan is scheduled to be placed on the November 2016 ballot for voter consideration. As the final service network is developed, the ST3 System Plan will be integrated into it. Community Transit provides bus service within Snohomish County to the north as well as commuter bus service to large cities in King County. Pierce Transit provides bus service in Pierce County to the south. Both agencies have several routes that terminate at transit centers in King County, providing access to Metroâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s network at those locations. Coordination with both agencies was also a part of the conceptual network development, in part through their participation on the TAC. Similar to Metro, Community Transit and Pierce Transit are planning for modifications to their networks in response to expansion and changes to Sound Transit service.

6.5 CAPITAL INVESTMENTS In addition to the service components, capital investments that were complimentary to each service category emphasis were assumed in developing the conceptual service networks. This helped to illustrate the impacts of various capital improvements on the operation of the networks. Capital investments included in each service network are: x

Frequent Service Emphasis network: Key features of frequent service are fast and reliable service. Therefore, the capital improvements included for this network focused on improving the speed and reliability of the transit system.

Express Service Emphasis network: Because express service is provided on higher speed

corridors over long distances, the capital improvements identified for this network focused on improving access to and from the regional HOV lane system. Additionally, express service is designed to provide point-to-point connections between centers, with limited stops. This service often serves park-and-ride facilities, particularly in less densely populated areas. To address this aspect of service, this network also included a major expansion of the existing park-and-ride system.

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation x

Local Service Emphasis network: The primary focus of this concept was increasing

proximity to service rather than an emphasis on improving travel speed. In order to test the full range of options, and because the local service emphasis would benefit the least from park and ride and speed and reliability investments, no new capital investments were assumed for this network.

6.6 PERFORMANCE METRICS The three conceptual service networks were designed to illustrate the tradeoffs associated with a strong emphasis on one category of service. Because of the various features of the service categories, the different types and densities of land uses, and the planned roadway network, it was anticipated that the networks would perform differently throughout King County. Metro developed several performance metrics to compare the networks. Based upon the goals, objectives, and strategies outlined in the King County Metro Transit Strategic Plan for Public Transportation, the performance metrics were used to evaluate the networks across three broad categories: Access to Transit, Transit Connections, and Transit Use and Efficiency. The performance metrics evaluated: x

Proximity to transit for the general population, employment, low-income populations, minority populations, and persons with disabilities

How riders access transit

Accessibility to people and jobs via transit

Total bus and train ridership

Mode split

Economic efficiency

Environmental efficiency

Variation of transit service throughout the day

Table 3 outlines the performance metrics used to evaluate the networks.

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation Table 3. Performance Metrics for Conceptual Service Networks Evaluation Topic

What It Measures

Performance Metrics Population within:

How close are transit stops to where people live

x ¼-mile walk (~5 minutes) of any transit stop x ½-mile walk (~10 minutes) of frequent transit stops (<15-minute service, all day) and Link stations x ½-mile walk (~10 minutes) of express transit stop and Link light rail stations Jobs within:

How close are transit stops to where people work

Access to Transit

How close are transit stops to where low-income and minority populations and persons with disabilities live1

How people get to transit stops (car, walking, bicycle, etc.)

Percentage of people accessing transit by motorized vehicle

Transit Population with 30-minute access to Connections jobs and school via transit

Transit Use and Efficiency

Population and jobs accessible by transit within a 30-minute transit commute

Total transit ridership by bus and rail

x Total ridership and ridership increase by bus and rail x Ridership across screenlines

Percent of trips by transit

Mode split change

Economic and environmental efficiency measures

Variation of transit service throughout the day

x x x x x

Operating cost/boarding Boardings/hour Operating cost/hour BTU/passenger mile Greenhouse gas emissions—gross and emissions/passenger mile

x Ratio of trips provided in the 9 pm hour compared to the trips provided in the 6 pm hour x Distribution of transit service hours throughout daily service period

1 Forecasts for distribution of low-income and minority populations and persons with disabilities in 2040 were not available for this analysis. Population distribution is based upon the 2013 American Community Survey Data.

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation

6.7 CONCEPTUAL SERVICE NETWORK MODELING Once the conceptual service networks were developed, they were coded into a GIS-based travel demand model. The primary purpose of the modeling process was to compare the performance of the conceptual service networks using the performance metrics. The main feature of the model is its ability to calculate transit travel times based upon factors such as the roadway network, projected congestion, and anticipated travel speeds. Because the layout and service distribution of the three conceptual service networks differed and the base factors generally remained the same, the changes in modeled ridership, jobs accessibility, travel times and proximity can be attributed to the differences in the conceptual networks.

6.8 COMPONENTS AND USE OF THE RIDERSHIP MODEL The LRPTP model is based upon Sound Transit’s ridership model for the Puget Sound region, which has been accepted by the Federal Transit Administration for use in regional transit planning. The Sound Transit model serves as a good foundation of the LRPTP ridership forecasting for the following reasons: x

It is based on regional (PSRC) land use and transportation network assumptions.

It is the same tool that is being used for the Sound Transit Long Range Plan update and ST3 System planning.

It produces the most accurate ridership results compared to other available tools.

The LRPTP model is known as a “pivot” model. Pivot models work by adjusting existing transit ridership data up or down based upon known relationships between ridership and key factors that influence people’s choice of mode. For the LRPTP model, the existing data points were increased proportionate to the amount of projected growth in 2040. In addition to the factors that influence mode choice, the LRPTP model includes assumptions about future land use distributions as well as the use, size, and distribution of park-and-ride facilities. Factors and assumptions in the model include, but are not limited to: x

Future land uses: Uses PSRC forecasts for distribution of households and jobs in 2040

Transit fares: Assumed to follow inflation

Level of roadway congestion: Based on PSRC estimates for peak and off-peak travel times and congestion

Tolls: Systemwide tolling on all limited-access freeways

Park-and-ride facilities: All existing Metro and Sound Transit park-and-ride facilities were assumed, as well as those funded by ST2

Parking costs: Assumed 1.5 percent annual growth rate in parking costs

Transit (bus or train) travel times: Vary based upon service type due to roadways selected and density of stops

Number of transfers: Assumes impacts on ridership for trips that include transfers

Transfer wait times: Based upon the headways for the service category; assumes impacts on ridership for trips that have longer transfer wait times Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation x

Transit wait times: Based on frequency of service, with shorter wait times for more frequent service

Roadway network: Includes all improvements assumed in the T2040 constrained plan

When using the model to compare the conceptual service networks, most of the abovelisted factors and assumptions remained the same. However, to understand the impacts of capital improvements, some changes to these factors and assumptions were made for the Frequent and Express service emphases. These changes include: x

Frequent Service Emphasis network: The capital improvements included for this network focused on improving the speed and reliability of the transit system, primarily on routes with frequent, all-day service. The majority of the capital improvements focused on transit priority treatments such as transit signal priority, queue jump lanes, and/or business access and transit lanes. Two additional major access improvements, a new crossing of the Ship Canal near 15th Avenue NW and a new transit tunnel through downtown Seattle, were also included.

Express Service Emphasis network: The capital improvements identified for this

network focused on improving access to and from the regional HOV lane system and on a major expansion of the park-and-ride system. Direct access ramp projects were included on I-405 (largely based on the Washington State Department of Transportation I-405 Corridor Program Master Plan) as well as limited locations on the SODO Busway, West Seattle Freeway, I-5, and SR 167. The number of park-andride stalls at government-owned facilities was assumed to double from just over 20,500 today to approximately 41,000. For modeling purposes only, these new parking spaces were assumed to be located at existing park-and-ride lots that have high usage (greater than 70 percent) and at the new facilities proposed by Sound Transit as part of the Link light rail extension projects.

The model was run with the capital changes turned “on” and “off” to better assess the impacts of these capital improvements for the associated networks.

6.9 TRAVEL DEMAND Countywide travel demand is a significant aspect of the model. Travel demand represents the collective desire for people to move throughout the county by any mode. Travel demand is determined by the size, density, and location of different types of land uses. Residential land uses are “origins” and land uses that represent employment are “destinations.” Employment land uses “pull” or attract travelers from residential areas. The strength of the destination’s pull results from a combination of its location relative to the origin and the number and density of jobs. The travel demand is calculated from each origin to each destination, thereby creating the total travel demand for the county. For modeling purposes, origins and destinations are calculated by traffic analysis zones (TAZs). The TAZs vary in size, future population, employment, and densities2. There are 545 TAZs in King County and a total of 953 TAZs in the LRPTP model.

Although the TAZs vary in size, the densities within each one is calculated in the same way. For both population and employment, the density is calculated per square mile of the individual TAZ.

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation The factors and assumptions within the model influence how people travel, including the route taken and their mode choice. Modification of any of the factors or assumptions will result in different travel patterns to varying degrees, based upon the extent and type of modification. The model also predicts if a trip includes multiple modes, such as a drive to a park-and-ride with a transfer to a bus. Because the land use assumptions are consistent for all three conceptual service networks, the initial countywide travel demand is the same for all of them. The mix of transit service types that comprise the different concepts, as well as any capital improvements, result in different transit demands, which is subsequently reflected in the results of performance metrics, including ridership, accessibility to jobs, and mode split. These results will help Metro develop the draft and final service network concept, with the intent of creating a network that best meets the countywide travel demand. Figure 5 summarizes the ridership modeling process. Figure 5. LRPTP Modeling Process

(Density of a TAZ = Population or employment of TAZ/Area of TAZ (in square miles). Therefore, a TAZ that has 1,000 households in 10 square miles has the same density as a TAZ with 2,000 households in 20 square miles. 32

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation

7 OUTCOMES OF CONCEPT EVALUATION Using the performance metric results shown in Table 3, Metro compared the three conceptual service networks. The networks were compared for the county as a whole, as well as by subareas of the county defined by four quadrants as shown in Figure 6. The performance metrics were categorized into three general topics: Access to Transit, Transit Connections, and Transit Use and Efficiency. The performance of the Frequent and Express networks was evaluated with the previously described capital improvements turned “on” and “off” to better assess their influence. In addition to the conceptual service networks, several of the metrics were used to evaluate the performance of the existing network in the future. This network is named Baseline 2040. As with the conceptual service networks, 2040 population and employment projections were used in the Baseline 2040 network. This network assumes distribution of service in a similar manner to current conditions. It includes funded ST2 elements and involves truncation of some ST Express routes in north, east, and south King County with minor truncation of a few Metro routes. Additional service hours were added so that the Baseline 2040 network would match the size of the conceptual service networks. Most of the additional service hours were added to Metro routes in the form of reduced headways for a collection of routes, but only a minor number of Metro routes were restructured for light rail integration, or restructured to provide different frequent and local routes compared to the existing network. Because Metro does not currently provide express service as it is defined for the conceptual service networks, express service in the Baseline 2040 network is defined as Sound Transit Express service only. Where comparisons to the existing network service or performance are made in this report, they are based upon the Spring 2014 configuration and operation of the network with no modifications.

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

Figure 6. KING COUNTY QUADRANTS

S W A re a S E A re a

L ak e F ores t P ark

K enm ore B o th e ll

S h o r e lin e

W o o d in v ille

N W A re a

522 203

N E A re a

D u v a ll

K ir k la n d

R edm ond S e a ttle

520

C a r n a tio n

C ly d e H ill H u n ts P o in t Yarrow P o in t

N W A r ea

B e lle v u e

Me d in a B eau x A r ts

N E A rea S a m m a m is h

202

Me r c e r Is la n d N e wc a s tle 509

Is s a q u a h

S n o q u a lm ie

Tu k wila

90 405

599

N o r th B end

R e n to n

B u r ie n 518

No rm an dy P ark Va s h o n Is la n d

S eaTac

167

Des Mo in e s

SW A r ea

K ent

516

C o v in g to n

Ma p le Va lle y

SE A r e a F ederal Wa y

A uburn

B la c k D ia m o n d

A lg o n a Milto n

P a c ific 169

164

0 Mile s

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation

7.1 ACCESS TO TRANSIT The Access to Transit metrics measured proximity to transit and travel mode used to access transit. Using the stop spacing described in Table 2, proximity to transit was analyzed for all households, jobs, low-income populations, minority populations, and persons with disabilities. The PSRC T2040 projected distributions were used to analyze proximity to households and jobs. Because the future distribution of different demographic populations is unknown, the 2013 American Community Survey Data were used to evaluate proximity to low-income populations, minority populations, and persons with disabilities. The proximity analysis was performed in three ways: x

Proximity to frequent service: Measured the number of people or jobs Â˝ mile from transit stops with service every 15 minutes or better, including all Link stations

Proximity to express service: Measured the number of people or jobs Â˝ mile from transit stops with limited stop service, including all Link stations

Proximity to all service: Measured the number of people or jobs Âź mile from any transit stop, including all Link stations

Figures 7 through 14 show the proximity to service for the Baseline 2040 network and each service emphasis for future households and jobs. Additionally, Figures 15 through 26 show the proximity to service for low-income populations, minority populations, persons age 65 and older, and persons with disabilities for the conceptual service networks. Figures 27 through 31 summarize this information by quadrant as well as countywide. In addition to the proximity analysis, the mode by which riders travel to transit stops was evaluated as part of the Access to Transit metrics. This analysis measured whether riders accessed transit by automobile or via nonmotorized means (walk or bicycle). Figure 32 summarizes this information and Figures 33, 34, and 35 show the degree to which access to transit is projected to change over existing patterns.

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

)LJXUH 3RSXODWLRQ 3UR[LPLW\ WR 6HUYLFH Frequent 6HUYLFH Emphasis Network Lake Forest Park

Shoreline

Bothell

Frequent Service Express Service

Woodinville

All Service

522

Kenmore

Future Population Density

203

1,000 5,000 7,500 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 50,000 300,000

Duvall

Kirkland

Redmond 520

Yarrow Point Hunts Point

Seattle

Carnation

Medina Clyde Hill

Bellevue

Sammamish

Beaux Arts

"5 ! #

Mercer Island

202

90 " ! #

Issaquah

Newcastle

Snoqualmie

509

North Bend

599

Burien 518

405 " ! #

Tukwila

Renton

SeaTac 169

Normandy Park 164

Des Moines Vashon Island

Enumclaw

Kent

Seattle

516

Covington

167

Maple Valley

Burien Auburn Federal Way

Black Diamond

Vashon Island

Algona Pacific Milton 169

Frequent Service = ½ Mile from Frequent Transit Stops and Link Stations Express Service = ½ Mile from Express Transit Stops and Link Stations All Service = ¼ Mile from any Transit Stop

0 Miles

164

)LJXUH (PSOR\PHQW 3UR[LPLW\ WR 6HUYLFH )UHTXHQW 6HUYLFH (PSKDVLV 1HWZRUN

Frequent Service Express Service

Lake Forest Park

Shoreline

Bothell

Woodinville

All Service

522

Kenmore

Future Employment Density

203

200 2,000 8,000 20,000 40,000 80,000 140,000 280,000 900,000

Duvall

Kirkland

Redmond 520

Yarrow Point Hunts Point

Seattle

Carnation

Medina Clyde Hill

Bellevue

Sammamish

Beaux Arts

"5 ! #

Mercer Island

202

90 " ! #

Issaquah

Newcastle

Snoqualmie

509

North Bend

599

Burien 518

405 " ! #

Tukwila

Renton

SeaTac 169

Normandy Park 164

Des Moines Vashon Island

Enumclaw

Kent

Seattle

516

Covington

167

Maple Valley

Burien Auburn Federal Way

Black Diamond

Vashon Island

Algona Pacific Milton 169

Frequent Service = Â˝ Mile from Frequent Transit Stops and Link Stations Express Service = Â˝ Mile from Express Transit Stops and Link Stations All Service = Âź Mile from any Transit Stop

0 Miles

164

)LJXUH 3RSXODWLRQ 3UR[LPLW\ WR 6HUYLFH ([SUHVV 6HUYLFH (PSKDVLV 1HWZRUN Lake Forest Park

Shoreline

Bothell

Frequent Service Express Service

Woodinville

All Service

522

Kenmore

Future Population Density

203

1,000 5,000 7,500 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 50,000 300,000

Duvall

Kirkland

Redmond 520

Yarrow Point Hunts Point

Seattle

Carnation

Medina Clyde Hill

Bellevue

Sammamish

Beaux Arts

"5 ! #

Mercer Island

202

90 " ! #

Issaquah

Newcastle

Snoqualmie

509

North Bend

599

Burien 518

405 " ! #

Tukwila

Renton

SeaTac 169

Normandy Park 164

Enumclaw

Des Moines Vashon Island

Kent

Seattle

516

Covington

167

Maple Valley

Burien Auburn Federal Way

Black Diamond

Vashon Island

Algona Pacific Milton 169

Frequent Service = ½ Mile from Frequent Transit Stops and Link Stations Express Service = ½ Mile from Express Transit Stops and Link Stations All Service = ¼ Mile from any Transit Stop

0 Miles

164

)LJXUH (PSOR\PHQW 3UR[LPLW\ WR 6HUYLFH ([SUHVV 6HUYLFH (PSKDVLV 1HWZRUN

Frequent Service Express Service

Lake Forest Park

Shoreline

Bothell

Woodinville

All Service

522

Kenmore

Future Employment Density 200 2,000 8,000 20,000 40,000 80,000 140,000 280,000 900,000

203

Duvall

Kirkland

Redmond 520

Yarrow Point Hunts Point

Seattle

Carnation

Medina Clyde Hill

Bellevue

Sammamish

Beaux Arts

"5 ! #

Mercer Island

202

90 " ! #

Issaquah

Newcastle

Snoqualmie

509

North Bend

599

Burien 518

405 " ! #

Tukwila

Renton

SeaTac 169

Normandy Park 164

Des Moines Vashon Island

Enumclaw

Kent

Seattle

516

Covington

167

Maple Valley

Burien Auburn Federal Way

Black Diamond

Vashon Island

Algona Pacific Milton 169

Frequent Service = ½ Mile from Frequent Transit Stops and Link Stations Express Service = ½ Mile from Express Transit Stops and Link Stations All Service = ¼ Mile from any Transit Stop

0 Miles

164

)LJXUH 3RSXODWLRQ 3UR[LPLW\ WR 6HUYLFH /RFDO 6HUYLFH (PSKDVLV 1HWZRUN

Frequent Service Express Service

Lake Forest Park

Shoreline

Bothell

Woodinville

All Service

522

Kenmore

Future Population Density

203

1,000 5,000 7,500 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 50,000 300,000

Duvall

Kirkland

Redmond 520

Yarrow Point Hunts Point

Seattle

Carnation

Medina Clyde Hill

Bellevue

Sammamish

Beaux Arts

"5 ! #

Mercer Island

202

90 " ! #

Issaquah

Newcastle

Snoqualmie

509

North Bend

599

Burien 518

405 " ! #

Tukwila

Renton

SeaTac 169

Normandy Park 164

Des Moines Vashon Island

Enumclaw

Kent

Seattle

516

Covington

167

Maple Valley

Burien Auburn Federal Way

Black Diamond

Vashon Island

Algona Pacific Milton 169

Frequent Service = ½ Mile from Frequent Transit Stops and Link Stations Express Service = ½ Mile from Express Transit Stops and Link Stations All Service = ¼ Mile from any Transit Stop

0 Miles

164

)LJXUH (PSOR\PHQW 3UR[LPLW\ WR 6HUYLFH /RFDO 6HUYLFH (PSKDVLV 1HWZRUN

Frequent Service Express Service

Lake Forest Park

Shoreline

Bothell

Woodinville

All Service

522

Kenmore

Future Employment Density 200 2,000 8,000 20,000 40,000 80,000 140,000 280,000 900,000

203

Duvall

Kirkland

Redmond 520

Yarrow Point Hunts Point

Seattle

Carnation

Medina Clyde Hill

Bellevue

Sammamish

Beaux Arts

"5 ! #

Mercer Island

202

90 " ! #

Issaquah

Newcastle

Snoqualmie

509

North Bend

599

Burien 518

405 " ! #

Tukwila

Renton

SeaTac 169

Normandy Park 164

Des Moines Vashon Island

Enumclaw

Kent

Seattle

516

Covington

167

Maple Valley

Burien Auburn Federal Way

Black Diamond

Vashon Island

Algona Pacific Milton 169

Frequent Service = ½ Mile from Frequent Transit Stops and Link Stations Express Service = ½ Mile from Express Transit Stops and Link Stations All Service = ¼ Mile from any Transit Stop

0 Miles

164

Figure 13. Population Proximity to Service: Baseline 2040 Network

Frequent Service Express Service

Bothell

Lake Forest Park

Shoreline

Woodinville

All Service

522

Future Population Density

203

Kenmore

1,000 5,000 7,500 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 50,000 300,000

Duvall Kirkland

Redmond Seattle

520

Yarrow Point Hunts Point Clyde Hill

Carnation

Medina Bellevue

" ! #5

Sammamish

Beaux Arts Mercer Island

202

Newcastle

90 " ! #

Issaquah

Snoqualmie

509

Renton

599

Burien 518

Normandy Park

North Bend

405 " ! #

Tukwila SeaTac

169

164

Des Moines

Vashon Island

Enumclaw

Kent

Seattl

516

Covington

167

Maple Valley

Burie Auburn

Federal Way

Black Diamond

Vashon Island

Algona Pacific

Milton

169

Frequent Service = ½ Mile from Frequent Transit Stops and Link Stations Express Service = ½ Mile from Express Transit Stops and Link Stations All Service = ¼ Mile from any Transit Stop

0 Miles

164

)LJXUH (PSOR\PHQW 3UR[LPLW\ WR 6HUYLFH %DVHOLQH 1HWZRUN Bothell

Lake Forest Park

Shoreline

Frequent Service Express Service

Woodinville

All Service

522

Kenmore

Future Employment Density 200 2,000 8,000 20,000 40,000 80,000 140,000 280,000 900,000

203

Duvall Kirkland

Redmond Seattle

520

Yarrow Point Hunts Point Clyde Hill

Carnation

Medina Bellevue

! " #5

Sammamish

Beaux Arts Mercer Island

202

Newcastle

90 ! " #

Issaquah

Snoqualmie

509

Renton

599

Burien 518

Normandy Park

North Bend

405 " ! #

Tukwila

SeaTac

169

164

Des Moines

Vashon Island

Enumclaw

Kent

Seattl

516

Covington

167

Maple Valley

Burie Auburn

Federal Way

Black Diamond

Vashon Island

Algona Pacific

Milton

169

Frequent Service = ½ Mile from Frequent Transit Stops and Link Stations Express Service = ½ Mile from Express Transit Stops and Link Stations All Service = ¼ Mile from any Transit Stop

0 Miles

164

)LJXUH 3RSXODWLRQ EHORZ 3RYHUW\ /HYHO 3UR[LPLW\ WR 6HUYLFH )UHTXHQW (PSKDVLV 6HUYLFH 1HWZRUN Frequent Service

Lake Forest Park

Shoreline

Woodinville

Bothell

Express Service

522

Kenmore

All Service

203

% Below Poverty

Duvall

0% - 5%

Kirkland

6% - 15% 16% - 25%

Redmond Seattle

26% - 40% 41% - 75%

520

Yarrow Point Hunts Point

Carnation

Medina Clyde Hill

Bellevue

Sammamish

Beaux Arts

" ! # 5

202

Newcastle

" ! #

Mercer Island

509

Snoqualmie

Issaquah

" ! #

405

North Bend

Burien 518

Tukwila

Renton

SeaTac

Normandy Park

169

Des Moines

164

Enumclaw

Vashon Island

Kent 516

Covington

167

Maple Valley

Seattle Burien

Auburn

Federal Way

Black Diamond

Normandy Park

Algona

Vashon Island

Pacific Milton

169

Frequent Service = 1/2 Mile from Frequent Transit Stops and Link Stations Express Service = 1/2 Mile from Express Transit Stops and Link Stations All Service = 1/4 Mile from any Transit Stop *Population Distribution is based upon 2013 ACS Data

0 Miles

164

Federal Way

)LJXUH 0LQRULW\ 3RSXODWLRQ 3UR[LPLW\ WR 6HUYLFH )UHTXHQW 6HUYLFH (PSKDVLV 1HWZRUN

Woodinville Bothell Lake Forest Park Kenmore

Shoreline

Frequent Service Express Service

522

All Service

203

% Minority

Duvall

2% - 15%

Kirkland

16% - 30% 31% - 45%

Redmond Seattle

46% - 60% 61% - 92%

520

Yarrow Point Hunts Point

Carnation

Medina Clyde Hill

Bellevue

Sammamish

Beaux Arts

" ! # 5

202

Newcastle

" ! #

Mercer Island

509

Snoqualmie

Issaquah

" ! #

405

North Bend

Burien 518

Tukwila

Renton

SeaTac

Normandy Park

169

Des Moines

164

Enumclaw

Vashon Island

Kent 516

Covington

167

Maple Valley

Seattle Burien

Auburn

Federal Way

Black Diamond

Normandy Park

Algona

Vashon Island

Pacific Milton

169

0 Miles

164

Federal Way

Figure 17. Population Above the Age of 65 Proximity to Service: Frequent Service Emphasis Network Frequent Service

Lake Forest Park

Shoreline

Woodinville

Bothell

Express Service

522

Kenmore

All Service

203

% 65 and Older

Duvall

0% - 5%

Kirkland

6% - 10% 11% - 15%

Redmond Seattle

16% - 20% 21% - 40%

520

Yarrow Point Hunts Point

Carnation

Medina Clyde Hill

Bellevue

Sammamish

Beaux Arts

" ! # 5

202

Newcastle

" ! #

Mercer Island

509

Snoqualmie

Issaquah

" ! #

405

North Bend

Burien 518

Tukwila

Renton

SeaTac

Normandy Park

169

Des Moines

164

Enumclaw

Vashon Island

Kent 516

Covington

167

Maple Valley

Seattle Burien

Auburn

Federal Way

Black Diamond

Normandy Park

Algona

Vashon Island

Pacific Milton

169

0 Miles

164

Federal Way

Figure 18. Persons with Disabilities Proximity to Service: Frequent Service Emphasis Network Frequent Service

Lake Forest Park

Shoreline

Woodinville

Bothell

Express Service

522

Kenmore

All Service

203

% Persons With a Disability

Duvall

2.0% - 3.0%

Kirkland

3.1% - 6.0% 6.1% - 10.0%

Redmond Seattle

10.1% - 15.0% 15.1% - 32.7%

520

Yarrow Point Hunts Point

Carnation

Medina Clyde Hill

Bellevue

Sammamish

Beaux Arts

" ! # 5

202

Newcastle

" ! #

Mercer Island

509

Snoqualmie

Issaquah

" ! #

405

North Bend

Burien 518

Tukwila

Renton

SeaTac

Normandy Park

169

Des Moines

164

Enumclaw

Vashon Island

Kent 516

Covington

167

Maple Valley

Seattle Burien

Auburn

Federal Way

Black Diamond

Normandy Park

Algona

Vashon Island

Pacific Milton

169

0 Miles

164

Federal Way

Figure 19. Population below Poverty Level Proximity to Service: Express Service Emphasis Network Frequent Service Lake Forest Park

Shoreline

Express Service

Woodinville

Bothell

522

Kenmore

All Service

203

% Below Poverty

Duvall

0% - 5% Kirkland

6% - 15% 16% - 25% Redmond

Seattle

26% - 40% 41% - 75%

520

Yarrow Point Hunts Point

Carnation

Medina Clyde Hill

Bellevue

Sammamish

Beaux Arts 5

202

Newcastle Mercer Island

509

Snoqualmie

Issaquah

405

North Bend

Burien 518

Tukwila

Renton

SeaTac

Normandy Park

169

Des Moines

164

Enumclaw

Vashon Island

Kent 516

Covington

167

Maple Valley

Seattle Burien

Auburn

Federal Way

Black Diamond

Normandy Park

Algona

Vashon Island

Pacific Milton

169

164

Federal Way

Figure 20. Minority Population Proximity to Service: Express Service Emphasis Network Lake Forest Park

Shoreline

Frequent Service Express Service

Woodinville

Bothell

522

Kenmore

All Service

203

% Minority

Duvall

2% - 15% Kirkland

16% - 30% 31% - 45% Redmond

Seattle

46% - 60% 61% - 92%

520

Yarrow Point Hunts Point

Carnation

Medina Clyde Hill

Bellevue

Sammamish

Beaux Arts 5

202

Newcastle Mercer Island

509

Snoqualmie

Issaquah

405

North Bend

Burien 518

Tukwila

Renton

SeaTac

Normandy Park

169

Des Moines

164

Enumclaw

Vashon Island

Kent 516

Covington

167

Maple Valley

Seattle Burien

Auburn

Federal Way

Black Diamond

Normandy Park

Algona

Vashon Island

Pacific Milton

169

164

Federal Way

Figure 21. Population Above the Age of 65 Proximity to Service: Express Service Emphasis Network Lake Forest Park

Shoreline

Frequent Service Express Service

Woodinville

Bothell

522

Kenmore

All Service

203

65 & Older

Duvall

0% - 5% Kirkland

6% - 10% 11% - 15% Redmond

Seattle

16% - 20% 21% - 40%

520

Yarrow Point Hunts Point

Carnation

Medina Clyde Hill

Bellevue

Sammamish

Beaux Arts 5

202

Newcastle Mercer Island

509

Snoqualmie

Issaquah

405

North Bend

Burien 518

Tukwila

Renton

SeaTac

Normandy Park

169

Des Moines

164

Enumclaw

Vashon Island

Kent 516

Covington

167

Maple Valley

Seattle Burien

Auburn

Federal Way

Black Diamond

Normandy Park

Algona

Vashon Island

Pacific Milton

169

164

Federal Way

Figure 22. Persons with Disabilities Proximity to Service: Express Service Emphasis Network Lake Forest Park

Shoreline

Frequent Service

Woodinville

Bothell

Express Service

522

Kenmore

All Service

203

% Persons With a Disability

Duvall

2% - 6%

Kirkland

7% - 9% 10% - 13%

Redmond Seattle

14% - 18% 19% - 33%

520

Yarrow Point Hunts Point

Carnation

Medina Clyde Hill

Bellevue

Sammamish

Beaux Arts 5

202

Newcastle

Snoqualmie

Issaquah

Mercer Island

509

405

North Bend

Burien 518

Tukwila

Renton

SeaTac

Normandy Park

169

Des Moines

164

Enumclaw

Vashon Island

Kent 516

Covington

167

Maple Valley

Seattle Burien

Auburn

Federal Way

Black Diamond

Normandy Park

Algona

Vashon Island

Pacific Milton

169

164

Federal Way

Figure 23. Population below Poverty Level Proximity to Service: Local Service Emphasis Network Frequent Service

Lake Forest Park

Shoreline

Woodinville

Bothell

Express Service

522

Kenmore

All Service

203

% Below Poverty

Duvall

0% - 5%

Kirkland

6% - 15% 16% - 25%

Redmond Seattle

26% - 40% 41% - 75%

520

Yarrow Point Hunts Point

Carnation

Medina Clyde Hill

Bellevue

Sammamish

Beaux Arts

" ! # 5

202

Newcastle

" ! #

Mercer Island

509

Snoqualmie

Issaquah

" ! #

405

North Bend

Burien 518

Tukwila

Renton

SeaTac

Normandy Park

169

Des Moines

164

Enumclaw

Vashon Island

Kent 516

Covington

167

Maple Valley

Seattle Burien

Auburn

Federal Way

Black Diamond

Normandy Park

Algona

Vashon Island

Pacific Milton

169

0 Miles

164

Federal Way

Figure 24. Minority Population Proximity to Service: Local Service Emphasis Network Frequent Service

Lake Forest Park

Shoreline

Woodinville

Bothell

Express Service

522

Kenmore

All Service

203

% Minority

Duvall

2% - 15%

Kirkland

16% - 30% 31% - 45%

Redmond Seattle

46% - 60% 61% - 92%

520

Yarrow Point Hunts Point

Carnation

Medina Clyde Hill

Bellevue

Sammamish

Beaux Arts

" ! # 5

202

Newcastle

" ! #

Mercer Island

509

Snoqualmie

Issaquah

" ! #

405

North Bend

Burien 518

Tukwila

Renton

SeaTac

Normandy Park

169

Des Moines

164

Enumclaw

Vashon Island

Kent 516

Covington

167

Maple Valley

Seattle Burien

Auburn

Federal Way

Black Diamond

Normandy Park

Algona

Vashon Island

Pacific Milton

169

0 Miles

164

Federal Way

Figure 25. Population Above the Age of 65 Proximity to Service: Local Service Emphasis Network Frequent Service

Lake Forest Park

Shoreline

Woodinville

Bothell

Express Service

522

Kenmore

All Service

203

% 65 and Older

Duvall

0% - 5%

Kirkland

6% - 10% 11% - 15%

Redmond Seattle

16% - 20% 21% - 40%

520

Yarrow Point Hunts Point

Carnation

Medina Clyde Hill

Bellevue

Sammamish

Beaux Arts

" ! # 5

202

Newcastle

" ! #

Mercer Island

509

Snoqualmie

Issaquah

" ! #

405

North Bend

Burien 518

Tukwila

Renton

SeaTac

Normandy Park

169

Des Moines

164

Enumclaw

Vashon Island

Kent 516

Covington

167

Maple Valley

Seattle Burien

Auburn

Federal Way

Black Diamond

Normandy Park

Algona

Vashon Island

Pacific Milton

169

0 Miles

164

Federal Way

Figure 26. Persons with Disabilities Proximity to Service: Local Service Emphasis Network Frequent Service

Lake Forest Park

Shoreline

Woodinville

Bothell

Express Service

522

Kenmore

All Service

203

% Persons With a Disability

Duvall

2.0% - 3.0%

Kirkland

3.1% - 6.0% 6.1% - 10.0%

Redmond Seattle

10.1% - 15.0% 15.1% - 32.7%

520

Yarrow Point Hunts Point

Carnation

Medina Clyde Hill

Bellevue

Sammamish

Beaux Arts

" ! # 5

202

Newcastle

" ! #

Mercer Island

509

Snoqualmie

Issaquah

" ! #

405

North Bend

Burien 518

Tukwila

Renton

SeaTac

Normandy Park

169

Des Moines

164

Enumclaw

Vashon Island

Kent 516

Covington

167

Maple Valley

Seattle Burien

Auburn

Federal Way

Black Diamond

Normandy Park

Algona

Vashon Island

Pacific Milton

169

0 Miles

164

Federal Way

)LJXUH 3UR[LPLW\ WR 6HUYLFH &RXQW\ZLGH

Countywide DEMOGRAPHIC

Service Every 15 Minutes or Better

Service with Limited Stops

All Service

Total Population 71%

Frequent Emphasis Network

Express Emphasis Network

51%

Local Emphasis Network

53%

Baseline 2040

26%

71%

32%

53%

19%

20%

40%

68%

50%

51%

68%

26%

60%

80%

100%

50%

63%

32%

78%

63%

70%

20%

40%

78%

70%

60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Total Employment Frequent Emphasis Network

87%

Express Emphasis Network

70%

87%

45%

70%

69%

Local Emphasis Network

52%

69%

43%

Baseline 2040 0%

20%

52%

27%

43%

40%

60%

45%

80%

100%

40%

77%

76%

76% 87%

87%

27%

20%

77%

82% 60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

82% 60%

80%

100%

Low Income Frequent Emphasis Network

83%

28%

63%

Express Emphasis Network

56%

63%

34%

64%

20%

40%

60%

75%

56%

64%

Local Emphasis Network

80%

100%

20%

75%

34% 40%

81%

93%

93% 60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Minority Frequent Emphasis Network

73%

22%

71%

73%

22%

51%

Express Emphasis Network

47%

51%

20%

40%

54%

65% 47%

54%

Local Emphasis Network

71%

65%

26% 60%

80%

100%

20%

85% 40%

26%

60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

85%

60%

80%

100%

80%

100%

Persons with Disabilities 66%

Frequent Emphasis Network

21%

65%

66%

21%

46%

Express Emphasis Network

43% 46%

20%

40%

60% 43%

47%

Local Emphasis Network

65%

60%

27% 47%

60%

80%

100%

20%

77% 40%

27%

60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

77%

60%

Age - 65 and Over 65%

Frequent Emphasis Network

20%

65%

46%

Express Emphasis Network

47%

Local Emphasis Network 0%

20%

40%

43%

46%

26%

47% 60%

80%

100%

Frequent Service = 1/2 Mile from Frequent Transit Stops and Link Stations Express Service = 1/2 Mile from Express Transit Stops and Link Stations All Service = 1/4 Mile from any Transit Stop

67%

20%

67%

63%

43%

63%

26% 40%

81% 60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

81% 60%

80%

100%

)LJXUH 3UR[LPLW\ WR 6HUYLFH 1RUWKHDVW 4XDGUDQW

Northeast DEMOGRAPHIC

Service Every 15 Minutes or Better

Service with Limited Stops

All Service

Total Population 41%

Frequent Emphasis Network

51%

16% 41%

16%

25%

Express Emphasis Network

31%

48%

25%

31%

27%

Local Emphasis Network

64% 24%

13% 0%

48%

24% 27%

Baseline 2040

51%

20%

64%

8% 40%

60%

80%

100%

13%

52%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

52%

60%

80%

100%

Total Employment Frequent Emphasis Network

74%

27%

74%

48%

Express Emphasis Network

49% 35% 0%

20%

47%

72%

35%

82%

72%

35%

82%

49%

Baseline 2040

74%

47% 48%

Local Emphasis Network

27%

22% 40%

35%

60%

80%

100%

20%

67% 40%

22%

60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

67%

60%

80%

100%

80%

100%

80%

100%

80%

100%

Low Income Frequent Emphasis Network

48% 32%

Express Emphasis Network

20%

60%

80%

100%

20%

58%

52%

35%

29%

34% 40%

58%

18%

35%

32%

34%

Local Emphasis Network

18%

48%

52%

71%

29% 40%

71% 60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

60%

Minority 43%

Frequent Emphasis Network

52%

14% 43%

14%

27%

Express Emphasis Network

29%

47%

27%

29%

28%

Local Emphasis Network 0%

20%

52%

47%

21% 40%

28%

60%

80%

100%

20%

66% 40%

21%

60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

66%

60%

Persons with Disabilities 43%

Frequent Emphasis Network

52%

15% 43%

15%

27%

Express Emphasis Network

30%

47%

27%

30%

28%

Local Emphasis Network 0%

20%

52%

47%

24% 40%

28%

60%

80%

100%

20%

67% 40%

24%

60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

67%

60%

Age - 65 and Over 43%

Frequent Emphasis Network

43%

25%

Express Emphasis Network

20%

60%

80%

100%

Frequent Service = 1/2 Mile from Frequent Transit Stops and Link Stations Express Service = 1/2 Mile from Express Transit Stops and Link Stations All Service = 1/4 Mile from any Transit Stop

20%

52%

70%

26% 40%

55%

52%

30%

26%

30% 40%

55%

14%

30%

25%

30%

Local Emphasis Network

14%

60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

60%

70% 80%

100%

)LJXUH 3UR[LPLW\ WR 6HUYLFH 1RUWKZHVW 4XDGUDQW

Northwest DEMOGRAPHIC

Service Every 15 Minutes or Better

Service with Limited Stops

All Service

Total Population 89%

Frequent Emphasis Network

80%

33%

89%

33%

72%

Express Emphasis Network

65%

72%

73%

Local Emphasis Network

32% 0%

76%

65%

76%

38%

90%

38%

90%

73%

Baseline 2040

80%

11%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

32%

83%

20%

40%

60%

11%

80%

100%

20%

40%

83%

60%

80%

100%

Total Employment Frequent Emphasis Network

93%

56%

93%

82%

Express Emphasis Network

82%

92%

60%

53% 40%

85%

60%

82%

20%

85%

77%

Local Emphasis Network

85%

77%

82%

Baseline 2040

85%

56%

92%

37% 53%

60%

80%

100%

20%

87% 40%

37%

60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

87%

60%

80%

100%

Low Income Frequent Emphasis Network

96%

Express Emphasis Network

84%

Local Emphasis Network

96% 84%

20%

40%

60%

80%

40%

71%

43% 100%

20%

83%

43%

40%

86%

71%

83%

83% 0%

40%

83% 97%

97% 60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Minority Frequent Emphasis Network

92%

33%

81%

92%

33%

78%

Express Emphasis Network

67%

78%

20%

40%

79%

76%

67%

79%

Local Emphasis Network

81%

60%

76%

35% 80%

100%

20%

95% 40%

35%

60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

95%

60%

80%

100%

Persons with Disabilities 82%

Frequent Emphasis Network

31%

75%

82%

31%

73%

Express Emphasis Network

58%

73%

20%

71%

58%

37%

Local Emphasis Network

75%

71%

35% 40%

37%

60%

80%

100%

20%

87% 40%

35%

60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

87%

60%

80%

100%

Age - 65 and Over Frequent Emphasis Network

79%

27%

68%

Express Emphasis Network

30%

62%

20%

40%

60%

69%

55%

62% 0%

73%

55%

68%

Local Emphasis Network

73%

27%

80%

100%

Frequent Service = 1/2 Mile from Frequent Transit Stops and Link Stations Express Service = 1/2 Mile from Express Transit Stops and Link Stations All Service = 1/4 Mile from any Transit Stop

20%

69%

30% 40%

88%

88% 60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

)LJXUH 3UR[LPLW\ WR 6HUYLFH 6RXWKHDVW 4XDGUDQW

Southeast DEMOGRAPHIC

Service Every 15 Minutes or Better

Service with Limited Stops

All Service

Total Population 34%

Frequent Emphasis Network

45%

14% 34%

14%

24%

Express Emphasis Network

20%

38%

24%

20%

24%

Local Emphasis Network

54% 17%

6% 0%

38%

17% 24%

Baseline 2040

45%

54%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

44% 20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

44%

60%

80%

100%

60%

80%

100%

80%

100%

60%

80%

100%

60%

80%

100%

60%

80%

100%

Total Employment Frequent Emphasis Network

61%

26%

59%

61%

26%

45%

Express Emphasis Network

30%

49%

45%

30%

35%

Local Emphasis Network

63% 27%

20% 0%

49%

27% 35%

Baseline 2040

59%

63%

48%

20%

40%

20%

60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

48%

Low Income Frequent Emphasis Network

50% 31%

Express Emphasis Network

20%

60%

80%

100%

56%

50%

25%

16%

31% 40%

56%

13%

25%

31%

Local Emphasis Network

13%

50%

67%

16% 20%

40%

50%

67%

60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

60%

Minority Frequent Emphasis Network

43%

51%

11% 43%

11%

25%

Express Emphasis Network

42%

21% 25%

21%

27%

Local Emphasis Network 0%

20%

51%

42%

62%

14% 40%

27%

60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

14%

60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

62%

Persons with Disabilities 37%

Frequent Emphasis Network

43%

11% 37%

11%

22%

Express Emphasis Network

36%

21% 22%

21%

24%

Local Emphasis Network 0%

20%

43%

36%

53%

14% 40%

24%

60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

14%

60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

53%

Age - 65 and Over 33%

Frequent Emphasis Network

22%

Express Emphasis Network

24%

Local Emphasis Network 0%

20%

33%

12%

22%

19%

14%

24% 40%

60%

80%

100%

Frequent Service = 1/2 Mile from Frequent Transit Stops and Link Stations Express Service = 1/2 Mile from Express Transit Stops and Link Stations All Service = 1/4 Mile from any Transit Stop

44% 37%

40%

37%

55%

14% 20%

44%

55%

60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

)LJXUH 3UR[LPLW\ WR 6HUYLFH 6RXWKZHVW 4XDGUDQW

Southwest DEMOGRAPHIC

Service Every 15 Minutes or Better

Service with Limited Stops

All Service

Total Population 63%

Frequent Emphasis Network

66%

17%

63%

17%

39%

Express Emphasis Network

35%

58%

39%

40%

Local Emphasis Network

20% 0%

35%

58%

23%

72%

23%

72%

40%

Baseline 2040

66%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

20%

59% 20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

59%

60%

80%

100%

80%

100%

80%

100%

80%

100%

80%

100%

Total Employment Frequent Emphasis Network

76%

26%

72%

76%

26%

57%

Express Emphasis Network

43%

57%

48%

Local Emphasis Network

37% 0%

20%

62% 43%

62%

33%

74%

33%

74%

48%

Baseline 2040

72%

58%

3% 40%

37%

60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

58%

60%

Low Income Frequent Emphasis Network

70%

39%

Express Emphasis Network

40%

Local Emphasis Network 0%

20%

35%

39%

60%

80%

100%

20%

68%

62%

35%

16%

40%

68%

11%

62%

16% 40%

79% 60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

79% 60%

Minority Frequent Emphasis Network

66%

63%

12%

66%

12%

35%

Express Emphasis Network

56%

31% 35%

31%

38%

Local Emphasis Network 0%

20%

63%

56%

74%

14% 40%

38%

60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

14%

60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

74%

60%

Persons with Disabilities 64%

Frequent Emphasis Network

62%

11%

64%

11%

34%

Express Emphasis Network

31%

53%

34%

31%

36%

Local Emphasis Network 0%

20%

62%

53%

16% 40%

36%

60%

80%

100%

20%

71% 40%

16%

60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

71%

60%

Age - 65 and Over 62%

Frequent Emphasis Network

62%

36%

Express Emphasis Network

20%

36% 40%

60%

80%

100%

Frequent Service = 1/2 Mile from Frequent Transit Stops and Link Stations Express Service = 1/2 Mile from Express Transit Stops and Link Stations All Service = 1/4 Mile from any Transit Stop

20%

58%

74%

17% 40%

65%

58%

30%

17% 0%

65%

12%

30%

36%

Local Emphasis Network

12%

60%

80%

100%

20%

40%

60%

74% 80%

100%

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation Figure 32. Non-Motorized Access to Transit

Percentage of People Accessing Transit by Walking (Peak Period Trips) Frequent Service Emphasis Network

83% NE Area

Express Service Emphasis Network

79% 80% 94% 93% 93%

NW Area

Local Service Emphasis Network

85% SW Area

82% 83% 84%

SE Area

80% 82% 86%

Total Average

83% 84% 70%

75%

80%

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

85%

90%

95%

100%

Lake Lake Kenmore Forest Kenmore Forest Park Park

Shoreline Shoreline

Bothell Bothell

Woodinville Woodinville 522

)LJXUH Change in Walk Access Share from Existing Peak Period )UHTXHQW 6HUYLFH (PSKDVLV 1HWZRUN

Change in Walk Access Share

203

Duvall Duvall

-10% -5% 0% 10% 25% >25%

Kirkland Kirkland

Redmond Redmond Seattle Seattle

520

Yarrow Yarrow Point Point Hunts Hunts Point Point

Carnation Carnation

CClyde lyde HHill ill Medina Medina Beaux Beaux Arts Arts

Bellevue Bellevue

Sammamish Sammamish

Mercer Mercer Island Island

202

Issaquah Issaquah 90

Newcastle Newcastle 509

Snoqualmie Snoqualmie

405

North North Bend Bend

599

Renton Renton

Burien Burien Tukwila Tukwila

518

SeaTac SeaTac

Normandy Normandy Park Park

Vashon Island

Seattle Seattle

167

Des Des Moines Moines

Kent Kent

516

Burien Burien Covington Covington

Maple Maple Valley Valley Normandy Normandy Park Park

Auburn Auburn Federal Federal Way Way

Vashon Vashon Island Island

Black Black Diamond Diamond 18

Algona Algona

Milton Milton

169

Pacific Pacific

164 169

Miles

Enumclaw Enumclaw

Federal Federal Way Way

L ake B othell F ores t K enm ore P ark

S horeline

Woodinville 522

)LJXUH Change in Walk Access Share from Existing Peak Period ([SUHVV 6HUYLFH (PSKDVLV 1HWZRUN

Change in Walk Access Share

203

Duvall

-10% -5% 0% 10% 25% >25%

K irk land

R edm ond S eattle

520

Y arrow P oint H unts P oint

C arnation

C lyde H ill Medina B eaux A rts

B ellevue

S am m am is h

5 202

Merc er Is land Is s aquah Newc as tle 509

S noqualm ie

405

North B end

599

R enton

B urien Tuk wila

518

S eaTac

Norm andy P ark

Vas hon Is land

S eattle

167

Des Moines

K ent

516

B urien C ovington

Maple Valley Norm andy P ark

A uburn F ederal Way

A lgona

Milton

169

P ac ific

164 169

0 Mile s

Vas hon Is land

B lac k Diam ond

E num c law

F ederal Way

L ake B othell F ores t K enm ore P ark

S horeline

Woodinville 522

)LJXUH Change in Walk Access Share from Existing Peak Period /RFDO 6HUYLFH (PSKDVLV 1HWZRUN

C hange in Walk A c c es s S h are

203

Duvall

-10% -5% 0% 10% 25% >25%

K irk land

R edm ond S eattle

520

Y arrow P oint H unts P oint

C arnation

C lyde H ill Medina B eaux A rts

B ellevue

S am m am is h

5 202

Merc er Is land Is s aquah Newc as tle 509

S noqualm ie

405

North B end

599

R enton

B urien Tuk wila

518

S eaTac

Norm andy P ark

Vas hon Is land

S eattle

167

Des Moines

K ent

516

B urien C ovington

Maple Valley Norm andy P ark

A uburn F ederal Way

A lgona

Milton

169

P ac ific

164 169

0 Mile s

Vas hon Is land

B lac k Diam ond

E num c law

F ederal Way

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation Key findings of Access to Transit analysis: x

Proximity to all service for households and each demographic population is greatest for the Local Service Emphasis network in each quadrant and countywide. This is due to the wide dispersion of low frequency local service on multiple corridors.

Proximity to frequent service for all households and jobs was greatest as part of the Frequent Service Emphasis network. Similarly, proximity to limited stop service for all households and jobs was greatest as part of the Express Service Emphasis network.

An overwhelming majority of riders would access service in all three networks during the peak period by walking and biking, ranging from 79 percent in the northeast quadrant as part of the Express Service Emphasis network to 94 percent in the northwest quadrant as part of the Frequent Service Emphasis network.

7.2 TRANSIT CONNECTIONS The Transit Connections metric evaluated the ability for riders to access jobs, education, and number of people via transit. The purpose of this analysis was to demonstrate how well each of the conceptual networks connected people to the opportunities that surround them. To get a more complete picture, Metro analyzed both the average number of jobs and the average number of residents that an individual could get to within 30 minutes on transit. This was done at the TAZ level in order to get a sense of where residents could get to many jobs and which job centers were well connected to the residents of King County. Metro also summarized this in the four quadrants and countywide. Tables 4 and 5 show the result of these analyses. Metro also performed this analysis at key centers across the county. Tables 6 and 7 display these calculations for all the regional growth and manufacturing and industrial centers. Table 8 shows the average population within a 30 minute transit trip for all colleges or universities in King County. Figures 36 through 41 show the accessibility to jobs for each conceptual service network in both the peak and midday periods. A similar accessibility analysis was performed to determine the percentage of the population with at least 30,000 jobs or people accessible within a 30-minute transit trip3, the results of which are shown in Tables 9 and 10. This analysis was performed for each quadrant as well as countywide. The Transit Connections calculations included estimated travel time to reach the transit stop, initial wait time, and transfer wait time (if applicable) averaged over the peak and midday periods. To identify areas where future population densities were high but estimated job accessibility was low, a geospatial analysis evaluated the ratios between the two factors. The ratio of jobs accessible in 30 minutes to the population density was mapped by evaluating TAZs with a population density threshold of 7,500 people per square mile (the estimated threshold for transit-supportive density). Figures 42-44, show the results of this analysis for the three conceptual networks.

30,000 was used as a threshold as it represented an upper bound of the average jobs accessibility within the Seattle-area

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation Table 4. Average Jobs Accessible in 30 minutes via Conceptual Service Networks Peak Period

Midday

Baseline 2040

Frequent Service Emphasis Network

Express Service Emphasis Network

Local Service Emphasis Network

Frequent Service Emphasis Network

Express Service Emphasis Network

Local Service Emphasis Network

NE Area

23,000

42,000

35,000

32,000

40,000

27,000

28,000

NW Area

105,000

207,000

210,000

186,000

201,000

166,000

175,000

SW Area

12,000

20,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

13,000

SE Area

9,000

14,000

15,000

13,000

12,000

10,000

Countywide Average

56,000

91,000

88,000

79,000

87,000

70,000

73,000

Quadrant

Table 5. Average Population Accessible in 30 minutes via Conceptual Service Networks Peak Period

Midday

Frequent Service Emphasis Network

Express Service Emphasis Network

Local Service Emphasis Network

Frequent Service Emphasis Network

Express Service Emphasis Network

Local Service Emphasis Network

NE Area

28,000

24,000

23,000

27,000

20,000

21,000

NW Area

162,000

154,000

145,000

159,000

123,000

133,000

SW Area

26,000

22,000

24,000

20,000

22,000

SE Area

22,000

20,000

18,000

Countywide Average

72,000

67,000

64,000

70,000

54,000

59,000

Quadrant

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation Table 6. Average Jobs Accessible in 30 minutes from Regional Growth Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MIC) via Conceptual Service Networks Midday

Peak Period

Baseline 2040

Frequent Service Emphasis Network

Express Service Emphasis Network

Local Service Emphasis Network

Frequent Service Emphasis Network

Express Service Emphasis Network

Local Service Emphasis Network

Auburn

9,000

42,000

43,000

45,000

39,000

37,000

21,000

Bellevue

125,000

309,000

300,000

228,000

286,000

167,000

190,000

Burien

16,000

148,000

23,000

62,000

37,000

20,000

23,000

Federal Way

21,000

39,000

48,000

41,000

39,000

22,000

36,000

Kent

13,000

65,000

50,000

53,000

63,000

43,000

30,000

Kirkland Totem Lake

20,000

29,000

15,000

33,000

23,000

16,000

29,000

Redmond Downtown

79,000

184,000

175,000

165,000

183,000

173,000

143,000

RedmondOverlake

123,000

216,000

167,000

170,000

198,000

167,000

Renton

47,000

96,000

158,000

82,000

68,000

82,000

57,000

SeaTac

36,000

44,000

41,000

39,000

41,000

38,000

39,000

Seattle Downtown

375,000

483,000

550,000

480,000

479,000

456,000

442,000

Seattle First Hill/Capitol Hill

366,000

450,000

467,000

432,000

439,000

417,000

403,000

Seattle Northgate

45,000

174,000

150,000

180,000

195,000

146,000

194,000

Seattle South Lake Union

356,000

452,000

518,000

409,000

459,000

431,000

375,000

Seattle University Community

133,000

424,000

377,000

376,000

410,000

313,000

323,000

Seattle Uptown

312,000

405,000

485,000

434,000

447,000

379,000

393,000

Tukwila

31,000

77,000

55,000

42,000

69,000

55,000

35,000

Issaquah

25,000

33,000

49,000

41,000

32,000

30,000

Kent MIC

26,000

23,000

13,000

20,000

24,000

11,000

15,000

North Tukwila MIC

12,000

18,000

9,000

10,000

20,000

9,000

11,000

Duwamish MIC

148,000

161,000

217,000

181,000

151,000

161,000

180,000

BallardInterbay MIC

72,000

172,000

304,000

214,000

172,000

213,000

215,000

RGC/MIC

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation Table 7. Average Population Accessible in 30 minutes from Regional Growth Centers (RGC) and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MIC) via Conceptual Service Networks Peak Period

Midday

Frequent Service Emphasis Network

Express Service Emphasis Network

Local Service Emphasis Network

Frequent Service Emphasis Network

Express Service Emphasis Network

Local Service Emphasis Network

Auburn

47,000

44,000

45,000

28,000

37,000

26,000

Bellevue

148,000

151,000

93,000

152,000

71,000

86,000

Burien

72,000

38,000

82,000

59,000

34,000

45,000

Federal Way

45,000

56,000

49,000

45,000

32,000

52,000

Kent

61,000

60,000

49,000

59,000

46,000

39,000

Kirkland Totem Lake

28,000

14,000

38,000

30,000

15,000

35,000

Redmond Downtown

90,000

98,000

82,000

90,000

80,000

62,000

Redmond-Overlake

103,000

83,000

72,000

98,000

Renton

89,000

106,000

67,000

SeaTac

24,000

27,000

Seattle Downtown

338,000

Seattle First Hill/Capitol Hill

RGC/MIC

79,000

73,000

69,000

59,000

49,000

23,000

24,000

25,000

392,000

308,000

339,000

297,000

288,000

279,000

292,000

266,000

269,000

239,000

243,000

Seattle Northgate

219,000

158,000

220,000

226,000

150,000

225,000

Seattle South Lake Union

310,000

307,000

214,000

310,000

248,000

215,000

Seattle University Community

344,000

284,000

320,000

324,000

220,000

249,000

Seattle Uptown

247,000

313,000

260,000

277,000

209,000

241,000

Tukwila

44,000

21,000

20,000

28,000

23,000

14,000

Issaquah

9,000

6,000

8,000

4,000

5,000

Kent MIC

5,000

3,000

6,000

1,000

4,000

North Tukwila

14,000

4,000

5,000

15,000

4,000

7,000

Duwamish

56,000

89,000

70,000

53,000

59,000

71,000

144,000

185,000

142,000

148,000

134,000

121,000

Ballard-Interbay

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation Table 8. Average Population Accessible in 30 minutes during the Peak Period from Colleges or Universities via Conceptual Service Networks Peak Period

Midday

Frequent Service Emphasis Network

Express Service Emphasis Network

Local Service Emphasis Network

Frequent Service Emphasis Network

Express Service Emphasis Network

Local Service Emphasis Network

256,000

284,000

201,000

252,000

210,000

179,000

Bastyr University

2,000

Bellevue College

27,000

18,000

21,000

15,000

20,000

Bellevue College-North Campus

27,000

18,000

21,000

15,000

20,000

Cascadia College

9,000

19,000

10,000

4,000

12,000

309,000

338,000

278,000

314,000

252,000

271,000

Digipen Institute of Technology

1,000

9,000

10,000

4,000

Green River College

5,000

7,000

5,000

7,000

5,000

7,000

Green River College Enumclaw Campus

9,000

Green River College Kent Campus

95,000

60,000

66,000

87,000

40,000

39,000

Highline College

25,000

44,000

20,000

22,000

31,000

15,000

Lake Washington Institute of Technology Kirkland Campus

33,000

23,000

30,000

24,000

25,000

Lake Washington Institute of Technology Redmond Campus

36,000

35,000

40,000

23,000

21,000

18,000

Lake Washington Tech CollegeDuvall

11,000

North Seattle College

21,000

58,000

65,000

23,000

32,000

23,000

Northwest University

27,000

57,000

55,000

28,000

43,000

42,000

Renton Technical College

42,000

51,000

48,000

57,000

40,000

41,000

Seattle Central College

322,000

341,000

275,000

316,000

304,000

285,000

Seattle Pacific University

84,000

125,000

96,000

86,000

59,000

103,000

Seattle University

203,000

244,000

203,000

204,000

219,000

178,000

Shoreline Community College

7,000

56,000

27,000

7,000

45,000

27,000

South Seattle College

13,000

20,000

29,000

13,000

2,000

South Seattle College Georgetown Campus

6,000

49,000

30,000

17,000

6,000

11,000

263,000

154,000

201,000

237,000

147,000

97,000

9,000

19,000

10,000

4,000

12,000

College or University Art Institute of Seattle

Cornish College of the Arts

University of Washington University of Washington-Bothell

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation Table 9. Percent of Population with at least 30,000 jobs accessible within 30 minutes via Conceptual Service Networks Peak Period

Midday

Frequent Service Emphasis Network

Express Service Emphasis Network

Local Service Emphasis Network

Frequent Service Emphasis Network

Express Service Emphasis Network

Local Service Emphasis Network

NE Area NW Area SW Area SE Area

28% 77% 19% 14%

26% 77% 15% 13%

26% 76% 15% 11%

25% 75% 16% 12%

22% 64% 11% 10%

21% 71% 8% 7%

Countywide Average

45%

43%

36%

37%

Table 10. Percent of Population with at least 30,000 people within 30 minutes via Conceptual Service Networks Peak Period

NE Area NW Area SW Area SE Area Countywide Average

Midday

Frequent Service Emphasis Network

Express Service Emphasis Network

Local Service Emphasis Network

Frequent Service Emphasis Network

Express Service Emphasis Network

Local Service Emphasis Network

28% 88% 33% 28% 54%

23% 88% 24% 21% 49%

25% 88% 28% 22% 51%

27% 88% 29% 26% 52%

23% 84% 23% 19% 48%

22% 85% 23% 17% 48%

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

L ak e B o th ell F o res t K enm o re P ark

S ho relin e

Wo o dinville 522

Jobs Accessible within 30 Minutes

Figure 36. Jobs Accessible within 30 Minutes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Peak Period: Frequent Service Emphasis Network

<10,000 30,000 40,000 80,000 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 >400,000

203

D u vall K irk lan d

R edm o n d S eattle

520

Yarro w P oin t H u n ts P oin t

C arn atio n

Medin a C ly de H ill Merc er Is lan d B eau x A rts

B ellevu e

S am m am is h

5 202

Is s aqu ah Newc as tle

S no qu alm ie

405

509

No rth B end

599

R ento n

B u rien 518

Tu kwila

S eaTac

No rm an dy P ark

S eattle

167

D es Mo in es Vas h o n Is lan d

K ent

B u rien

516

C o vin gto n

Maple Valley No rm an dy P ark

A u burn F ederal Way

A lgo n a

Milto n

169

P ac ific

164 169

0 Mile s

Vas h o n Is lan d

B lac k D iam o n d

E nu m c law

F ederal Way

L ake B othell F ores t K enm ore P ark

S horeline

Jobs Accessible within 30 Minutes

Figure 37. Jobs Accessible within 30 Minutes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Peak Period: Express Service Emphasis Network

Woodinville 522

> 10,000 30,000 40,000 80,000 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 > 400,000

203

Duvall K irk land

R edm ond S eattle

520

Y arrow P oint H unts P oint

C arnation

C lyde H ill Medina B eaux A rts

B ellevue

S am m am is h

5 202

Merc er Is land Is s aquah Newc as tle 509

S noqualm ie

405

North B end

599

R enton

B urien Tuk wila

518

S eaTac

Norm andy P ark

Vas hon Is land

S eattle

167

Des Moines

K ent

516

B urien C ovington

Maple Valley Norm andy P ark

A uburn F ederal Way

A lgona

Milton

169

P ac ific

164 169

0 Mile s

Vas hon Is land

B lac k Diam ond

E num c law

F ederal Way

L ake B othell F ores t K enm ore P ark

S horeline

Jobs Accessible within 30 Minutes

Figure 38. Jobs Accessible within 30 Minutes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Peak Period: Local Service Emphasis Network

Woodinville 522

<10,000 30,000 40,000 80,000 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 >400,000

203

Duvall K irk land

R edm ond S eattle

520

Y arrow P oint H unts P oint

C arnation

C lyde H ill Medina B eaux A rts

B ellevue

S am m am is h

5 202

Merc er Is land Is s aquah Newc as tle 509

S noqualm ie

405

North B end

599

R enton

B urien Tuk wila

518

S eaTac

Norm andy P ark

Vas hon Is land

S eattle

167

Des Moines

K ent

516

B urien C ovington

Maple Valley Norm andy P ark

A uburn F ederal Way

A lgona

Milton

169

P ac ific

164 169

0 Mile s

Vas hon Is land

B lac k Diam ond

E num c law

F ederal Way

Bothell

Lake Forest Park

Shoreline

Woodinville 522

Figure 39. Population Accessible within 30 Minutes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Midday Period: Frequent Service Emphasis Network

Kenmore

Pop u latio n Accessible with in 30 M in u tes > 10,000 20,000 40,000 80,000 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 < 500,000

203

Duvall Kirkland

Redmond Seattle

520

Yarrow Point Hunts Point

Carnation

Medina Clyde Hill

Bellevue

Sammamish

Beaux Arts Mercer Island

202

Issaquah

Newcastle

Snoqualmie

405

509

North Bend

99 599

Burien 518

Renton

Tukwila

SeaTac

Normandy Park

Seattle

167

Des Moines

Kent

Vashon Island

Burien 516

Covington

Maple Valley Normandy Park

Federal Way

Auburn

Vashon Island

Black Diamond

Algona 169

Pacific Milton

164 169

0 Miles

Enumclaw

Federal Way

Bothell

Lake Forest Park

Shoreline

Woodinville 522

Kenmore

)LJXUH Population Accessible Zithin 30 Minutes Midday Period ([SUHVV 6HUYLFH (PSKDVLV 1HWZRUN 203

Duvall Kirkland

Redmond Seattle

Population Accessible within 30 Minutes > 10,000 20,000 40,000 80,000 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 < 500,000

520

Yarrow Point Hunts Point

Carnation

Medina Clyde Hill

Bellevue

Sammamish

Beaux Arts Mercer Island

202

Issaquah

Newcastle

Snoqualmie

405

509

North Bend

99 599

Burien 518

Renton

Tukwila

SeaTac

Normandy Park

Seattle

167

Des Moines

Kent

Vashon Island

Burien 516

Covington

Maple Valley Normandy Park

Federal Way

Auburn

Vashon Island

Black Diamond

Algona 169

Pacific Milton

164 169

0 Miles

Enumclaw

Federal Way

Bothell

Lake Forest Park

Shoreline

Woodinville 522

)LJXUH Population Accessible Within 30 Minutes Midday Period /RFDO 6HUYLFH (PSKDVLV 1HWZRUN

Kenmore

203

Duvall Kirkland

Redmond Seattle

Population Accessible within 30 Minutes > 10,000 20,000 40,000 80,000 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 < 500,000

520

Yarrow Point Hunts Point

Carnation

Medina Clyde Hill

Bellevue

Sammamish

Beaux Arts Mercer Island

202

Issaquah

Newcastle

Snoqualmie

405

509

North Bend

99 599

Burien 518

Renton

Tukwila

SeaTac

Normandy Park

Seattle

167

Des Moines

Kent

Vashon Island

Burien 516

Covington

Maple Valley Normandy Park

Federal Way

Auburn

Vashon Island

Black Diamond

Algona 169

Pacific Milton

164 169

0 Miles

Enumclaw

Federal Way

)LJXUH 5DWLR RI 0LQXWH -REV $FFHVVLELOLW\ WR 3RSXODLWRQ 'HQVLW\ )UHTXHQW 6HUYLFH (PSKDVLV 1HWZRUN Lake Forest Kenmore Bothell Park

Shoreline

Woodinville Ratio of 30 Minute Jobs Accessibility to Population Density

522

High (Greater than 3:1 ratio) High-Med Low-Med Low (Lower than 1:1 ratio)

203

Duvall Kirkland

Redmond Seattle

520

Yarrow Point Hunts Point Clyde Hill Medina

Carnation

Bellevue Sammamish

Beaux Arts Mercer Island 202

Snoqualmie

Newcastle Issaquah

405 ! " #

509

90 ! " #

Burien

North Bend

Renton 599

518

Tukwila

Normandy Park SeaTac

Seattl Des Moines Vashon Island

Kent 516

"5 ! #

Covington

167

Maple Valley

Buri

Auburn Federal Way

Vashon Island

Black Diamond 18

169

Algona Milton

Pacific

164

Enumclaw 169

0 Miles

Federal

)LJXUH 5DWLR RI 0LQXWH -REV $FFHVVLELOLW\ WR 3RSXODLWRQ 'HQVLW\ ([SUHVV 6HUYLFH (PSKDVLV 1HWZRUN Lake Forest Kenmore Bothell Park

Shoreline

Woodinville Ratio of 30 Minute Jobs Accessibility to Population Density

522

High (Greater than 3:1 ratio) High-Med Low-Med Low (Lower than 1:1 ratio)

203

Duvall Kirkland

Redmond Seattle

520

Yarrow Point Hunts Point Clyde Hill Medina

Carnation

Bellevue Sammamish

Beaux Arts Mercer Island 202

Snoqualmie

Newcastle Issaquah

405 ! " #

509

90 ! " #

Burien

North Bend

Renton 599

518

Tukwila

Normandy Park SeaTac

Seattl Des Moines Vashon Island

Kent 516

"5 ! #

Covington

167

Maple Valley

Buri

Auburn Federal Way

Vashon Island

Black Diamond 18

169

Algona Milton

Pacific

164

Enumclaw 169

0 Miles

Federal

)LJXUH 5DWLR RI 0LQXWH -REV $FFHVVLELOLW\ WR 3RSXODLWRQ 'HQVLW\ /RFDO 6HUYLFH (PSKDVLV 1HWZRUN Lake Forest Kenmore Bothell Park

Shoreline

Woodinville Ratio of 30 Minute Jobs Accessibility to Population Density

522

High (Greater than 3:1 ratio) High-Med Low-Med Low (Lower than 1:1 ratio)

203

Duvall Kirkland

Redmond Seattle

520

Yarrow Point Hunts Point Clyde Hill Medina

Carnation

Bellevue Sammamish

Beaux Arts Mercer Island 202

Snoqualmie

Newcastle Issaquah

405 ! " #

509

90 ! " #

Burien

North Bend

Renton 599

518

Tukwila

Normandy Park SeaTac

Seattl Des Moines Vashon Island

Kent 516

"5 ! #

Covington

167

Maple Valley

Buri

Auburn Federal Way

Vashon Island

Black Diamond 18

169

Algona Milton

Pacific

164

Enumclaw 169

0 Miles

Federal

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation Key findings of the Transit Connections analysis:

The Express Service Emphasis network provided access to the greatest number of jobs during the peak period in both the northwest and southeast quadrants, but this number was higher in the Frequent Service Emphasis network for the northeast and southwest quadrants as well as countywide. The Frequent network provided access to the greatest number of jobs for all quadrants and countywide during the midday period.

The Frequent Service Emphasis network provided access to the greatest number of people for all quadrants and countywide during the peak and midday periods.

For all three conceptual service networks, accessibility to jobs (>100,000) during the peak and midday periods was highest in several Seattle neighborhoods (Downtown, First Hill/Capitol Hill, South Lake Union, University Community, Uptown, Duwamish MIC, and Ballard-Interbay MIC), Bellevue, and Redmond (Downtown and Overlake). Other areas of high accessibility include Burien in the Frequent Service Emphasis network and Renton in the Express Service Emphasis network, both during the peak period.

The accessible population during the peak period was highest (>100,000) in several Seattle neighborhoods (Downtown, First Hill/Capitol Hill, Northgate, South Lake Union, University Community, Uptown, and Ballard-Interbay MIC). Other areas of high accessibility to population during the peak period include Bellevue in the Frequent and Express Service Emphasis networks, Redmond-Overlake in the Frequent Service Emphasis network, and Renton in the Express Service Emphasis network.

The accessible population during the midday period was highest (>100,000) in several Seattle neighborhoods (Downtown, First Hill/Capitol Hill, Northgate, South Lake Union, University Community, Uptown, and Ballard-Interbay MIC). Bellevue demonstrated high accessibility to population during the peak period in the Frequent Service Emphasis network.

Accessibility to jobs in the regional growth centers generally followed the same patterns as those of their respective quadrants. Notable exceptions included: o Northgate and the University of Washington community located in the northwest quadrant, which have accessibility to the greatest number of jobs via the Frequent Service Emphasis network. o In the southwest quadrant, Auburn and Federal Way have accessibility to the greatest number of jobs during the peak period via the Local and Express networks, respectively. o The Kirkland/Totem Lake center located in the northeast quadrant has accessibility to the greatest number of jobs at all times via the Local Service Emphasis network. o Renton is the only regional growth center located in the southeast quadrant. (It is also located in the northeast and southwest quadrants.) Access to the greatest number of jobs is available at all times via the Express Service Emphasis network.

In all the concepts, areas in South King County with higher population densities along the I-5 and Kent Valley corridors have a lower ratio of jobs accessible to population density as compared to other areas in the county. Additionally, certain areas in the northern edge of King County also have a lower jobs accessible to population density ratio. Comparing the service emphasis, the Frequent Service Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation Emphasis network overall contains more TAZs in the Seattle area that have a higher job accessibility to population density ratio as compared to the Express and Local Service Emphasis networks. This is likely due to do historic and projected development patterns, resulting in an imbalance of jobs and housing in South King County.

7.3 TRANSIT USE AND EFFICIENCY The Transit Use and Efficiency metrics were used to evaluate how the conceptual service networks would be used by riders. Peak period and total daily transit ridership by bus and rail were calculated for the three conceptual service networks and the Baseline 2040 network by quadrant as well as countywide. These calculations are shown in Tables 11 and 12. Daily and peak period ridership was also compared to existing ridership, which is shown in Figures 45 and 46. Table 13 shows the projected ridership and the change from existing ridership for regional growth centers and manufacturing and industrial centers in the peak period and all day for each conceptual service network. To demonstrate transit travel patterns, transit trip volumes were calculated for 10 screenlines throughout the county. Figure 47 shows the location of these screenlines. Table 14 lists the volumes during the peak period and for daily trips for all three conceptual service networks. The ridership numbers include trips into and out of Snohomish and Pierce counties. Transit mode share was calculated for each network and the Baseline 2040 network during the peak period and all-day and was also compared to existing mode share. Tables 15 and 16 show the peak period and all-day transit mode share for each conceptual service network in each quadrant and countywide. Transit mode share for each conceptual service network compared to the existing network in each quadrant and countywide is shown in Figures 48 and 49. Figures 50, 51, and 52 display where these changes occur across King County. Similar analyses were performed for the regional growth centers and manufacturing and industrial centers, the results of which are shown in Tables 17 and 18. Table 11. Ridership During the Peak Period

NE Area

Existing 35,000

Peak Period Ridership Frequent Express Service Service Baseline Emphasis Emphasis 2040 Network Network 59,000 57,000 65,000

Local Service Emphasis Network 50,000

NW Area

103,000

155,000

173,000

176,000

152,000

68%

71%

48%

50%

SW Area

27,000

44,000

55,000

62,000

49,000

106%

130%

84%

63%

Quadrants

Frequent Service Emphasis Network 65%

Percent Change Express Local Service Service Emphasis Emphasis Network Network 86%

44%

Baseline 2040 69%

SE Area

15,000

22,000

28,000

32,000

25,000

93%

116%

72%

47%

County Average

157,000

245,000

273,000

290,000

240,000

74%

85%

54%

56%

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation Table 12. Daily Ridership

Quadrants

Existing

Daily Ridership Frequent Service Baseline Emphasis 2040 Network

NE Area

SE Area

109,000 272,000 90,000 50,000

194,000 379,000 140,000 73,000

219,000 539,000 211,000 107,000

208,000 492,000 200,000 101,000

172,000 431,000 169,000 85,000

78% 39% 56% 46%

101% 98% 134% 114%

91% 81% 122% 102%

58% 58% 88% 70%

County Average

446,000

672,000

918,000

853,000

731,000

51%

106%

91%

64%

NW Area SW Area

Express Service Emphasis Network

Local Service Emphasis Network

Percent Change Frequent Express Service Service Baseline Emphasis Emphasis 2040 Network Network

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

Local Service Emphasis Network

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation Figure 45. Percent Change in Transit Trips Compared to Existing â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Peak Period Trips

65% 86%

NE Area

44% 69% 68% 71%

NW Area

48% 50% 106% 130%

SW Area

84% 63% 93% 116%

SE Area

72% 47% 74%

County Average

85% 54% 56% 0%

20% 40% 60% Frequent Service Emphasis Network

80% 100% 120% Express Service Emphasis Network

Local Service Emphasis Network

Baseline 2040

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

140%

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation Figure 46. Percent Change in Transit Trips Compared to Existing â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Daily Trips

NE Area

101% 91%

58%

NW Area

78%

59%

39% SW Area

46% County Average

51% 0%

20%

40%

121%

87%

56% SE Area

99%

81%

111% 100%

68%

64% 60%

134%

91%

80%

106%

100%

120%

140%

Frequent Service Emphasis Network

Express Service Emphasis Network

Local Service Emphasis Network

Baseline 2040

160%

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

4,300

5,700 1,200 500 200 2,200 300 200

Tukwila

Issaquah

Ballard-Interbay MIC

Duwamish MIC

North Tukwila MIC

Kent MIC

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

13,800

5,800

500

1,200

5,800

1,200

2,500

19,400

16,600

9,900

28,600

Seattle Uptown

10,100

Seattle First Hill/Capitol Hill

6,200 19,700

Seattle University Community

4,200

Seattle Downtown 3,700

2,100

SeaTac

8,500 4,100

5,700

1,500

Renton

Seattle South Lake Union

2,700

Redmond- Overlake

5,300

8,200

2,900

5,200

6,700

11,100

2,600

Daily Transit Trips

Seattle Northgate

2,800 1,800

Redmond - Downtown

1,100

Kent

Totem Lake

2,200 1,200

Federal Way

Bellevue

Burien

800 3,200

Auburn

RGC/MIC

Peak Transit Trips

Existing Conditions

76%

98%

42%

130%

55%

50%

56%

66%

58%

57%

46%

115%

77%

71%

64%

54%

52%

45%

70%

114%

91%

Baseline 2040

77%

109%

105%

70%

84%

221%

72%

60%

87%

79%

84%

99%

162%

87%

90%

62%

58%

82%

189%

78%

119%

219%

Frequent Service Emphasis Network

89%

148%

112%

81%

132%

201%

74%

59%

90%

76%

85%

99%

200%

119%

86%

52%

55%

109%

217%

124%

118%

247%

Express Service Emphasis Network

89%

148%

112%

81%

64%

195%

55%

40%

60%

56%

65%

81%

131%

74%

61%

39%

32%

64%

172%

59%

89%

210%

Local Service Emphasis Network

Percent Change in Peak Period Transit Trips

70%

82%

71%

42%

78%

107%

60%

84%

110%

88%

79%

194%

83%

89%

45%

50%

73%

103%

80%

117%

152%

Baseline 2040

105%

140%

83%

60%

123%

169%

93%

98%

122%

119%

102%

101%

240%

135%

119%

91%

87%

110%

151%

121%

137%

179%

Frequent Service Emphasis Network

77%

141%

92%

73%

120%

137%

77%

76%

102%

94%

83%

82%

230%

134%

93%

60%

98%

137%

131%

109%

169%

Express Service Emphasis Network

Percent Change in Daily Transit Trips

Table 13. Changes in Transit Trips in Regional Growth Centers (RGC) and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MIC)

71%

106%

91%

62%

74%

113%

57%

69%

73%

64%

63%

169%

87%

65%

49%

45%

67%

111%

81%

86%

143%

Local Service Emphasis Network

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation

)LJXUH Screenlines for Ridership Analysis

L ak e F ores t P ark

K en m o re B oth ell

S ho reline

Screenlines

Wo od inville 522 203

D uv all

K irklan d

2 R ed m o nd

S eattle

520

C arn ation

C lyd e H ill H unts P oint Y arro w P oin t Medina B eaux A rts

B ellevue

S am m am is h

405 202

Merc er Is lan d 5

Newc as tle

509

Is s aq uah

S no qualm ie

5 Tu kwila

North B en d

R en ton

599

B urien 518

Norm an dy P ark Vas ho n Is lan d

S eaTac

D es Mo ines

167

F ed eral Way

K en t

516

C oving ton

Maple Valley

A ubu rn

B lac k D iam o nd

A lgo na Milton

P ac ific 169

164

0 Mile s

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation Table 14. Transit Trip Volumes Across Screenlines Peak Period Trips Across Screenline

Screenline ID

Frequent Service Emphasis Network

Express Service Emphasis Network

25,000

Daily Trips Across Screenline

Local Service Emphasis Network

Frequent Service Emphasis Network

Express Service Emphasis Network

Local Service Emphasis Network

25,000

24,000

76,000

74,000

73,000

3,000

9,000

65,000

64,000

62,000

219,000

216,000

211,000

14,000

15,000

14,000

52,000

54,000

51,000

44,000

47,000

43,000

160,000

166,000

155,000

3,000

2,000

7,000

5,000

19,000

18,000

30,000

29,000

84,000

82,000

83,000

1,000

3,000

6,000

7,000

6,000

16,000

Table 15. Peak Transit Mode Share Peak Transit Mode Share

Existing

Baseline 2040

Frequent Service Emphasis Network

Express Service Emphasis Network

Local Service Emphasis Network

NE Area

14%

20%

21%

17%

NW Area

25%

30%

33%

29%

SW Area

12%

18%

21%

22%

19%

SE Area

10%

14%

18%

20%

17%

County Average

14%

19%

21%

22%

19%

Existing

Baseline 2040

Frequent Service Emphasis Network

Express Service Emphasis Network

Local Service Emphasis Network

NE Area NW Area SW Area SE Area

5% 10% 5% 4%

6% 11% 6% 4%

7% 15% 9% 6%

7% 14% 9% 5%

6% 12% 7% 5%

County Average

11%

10%

Quadrant

Table 16 Daily Transit Mode Share Daily Transit Mode Share

Quadrant

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation Figure 48. Percent Change in Transit Mode Share Compared to Existing â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Peak Period Trips

44% NE Area 20% NW Area

29%

58%

31% 32%

18%

30% 73%

SW Area

58%

18%

86% 84%

SE Area

70%

14% 46%

County Average

19% 0%

28%

20%

102%

55%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Frequent Service Emphasis Network

Express Service Emphasis Network

Local Service Emphasis Network

Baseline 2040 Network

120%

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation Figure 49. Percent Change in Transit Mode Split â&#x20AC;&#x201C;All Day Trips

NE Area

42%

18% 20%

NW Area 10%

42%

24%

SW Area

County Average

14% 0%

68%

26% 20%

46%

40%

78%

64%

55%

30%

55%

42%

20% SE Area

50%

58%

60%

80%

Frequent Service Emphasis Network

Express Service Emphasis Network

Local Service Emphasis Network

Baseline 2040 Network

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

100%

L ake B othell F ores t K enm ore P ark

S horeline

Woodinville 522

)LJXUH Percent Change in Transit Trips All Day )UHTXHQW 6HUYLFH (PSKDVLV 1HWZRUN

Change in Transit Trips

0% 50% 100% 150% 200% >200%

203

Duvall K irk land

R edm ond S eattle

520

Y arrow P oint H unts P oint

C arnation

C lyde H ill Medina B eaux A rts

B ellevue

S am m am is h

5 202

Merc er Is land

405

Is s aquah 90

Newc as tle

S noqualm ie

509

North B end

599

R enton

B urien Tuk wila

518

S eaTac

Norm andy P ark

Vas hon Is land

S eattle

167

Des Moines

K ent

516

B urien C ovington

Maple Valley Norm andy P ark

A uburn F ederal Way

A lgona

Milton

169

P ac ific

164 169

0 Mile s

Vas hon Is land

B lac k Diam ond

E num c law

F ederal Way

L ake B othell F ores t K enm ore P ark

S horeline

Woodinville 522

)LJXUH Percent Change in Transit Trips All Day ([SUHVV 6HUYLFH (PSKDVLV 1HWZRUN

Change in Transit Trips

0% 50% 100% 150% 200% > 200%

203

Duvall K irk land

R edm ond S eattle

520

Y arrow P oint H unts P oint

C arnation

C lyde H ill Medina B eaux A rts

B ellevue

S am m am is h

5 202

Merc er Is land

405

Is s aquah 90

Newc as tle

S noqualm ie

509

North B end

599

R enton

B urien Tuk wila

518

S eaTac

Norm andy P ark

Vas hon Is land

S eattle

167

Des Moines

K ent

516

B urien C ovington

Maple Valley Norm andy P ark

A uburn F ederal Way

A lgona

Milton

169

P ac ific

164 169

0 Mile s

Vas hon Is land

B lac k Diam ond

E num c law

F ederal Way

L ake B othell F ores t K enm ore P ark

S horeline

Woodinville 522

)LJXUH 3HUFHQW &KDQJH LQ 7UDQVLW 7ULSV $OO 'D\ /RFDO 6HUYLFH (PSKDVLV 1HWZRUN

Change in Transit Trips

0% 50% 100% 150% 200% > 200%

203

Duvall K irk land

R edm ond S eattle

520

Y arrow P oint H unts P oint

C arnation

C lyde H ill Medina B eaux A rts

B ellevue

S am m am is h

5 202

Merc er Is land

405

Is s aquah 90

Newc as tle

S noqualm ie

509

North B end

599

R enton

B urien Tuk wila

518

S eaTac

Norm andy P ark

Vas hon Is land

S eattle

167

Des Moines

K ent

516

B urien C ovington

Maple Valley Norm andy P ark

A uburn F ederal Way

A lgona

Milton

169

P ac ific

164 169

0 Mile s

Vas hon Is land

B lac k Diam ond

E num c law

F ederal Way

24% 27% 35% 29% 34% 10% 10% 17% 11% 9% 9%

Seattle Northgate

Seattle South Lake Union

Seattle University Community

Seattle Uptown

Tukwila

Issaquah

Ballard-Interbay MIC

Duwamish MIC

North Tukwila MIC

Kent MIC

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

14%

30%

12%

13%

14%

11%

Seattle First Hill/Capitol Hill

16%

Redmond- Overlake

Seattle Downtown

17%

Redmond - Downtown

13%

11%

Totem Lake

14%

18%

Kent

SeaTac

11%

Federal Way

12%

Daily Transit Trips

Renton

25% 17%

Auburn

Burien

14%

RGC/MIC

Bellevue

Peak Transit Trips

Existing Conditions

-2%

64%

69%

44%

68%

51%

40%

94%

12%

36%

16%

44%

46%

27%

99%

23%

34%

26%

58%

125%

53%

28%

118%

23%

37%

30%

28%

67%

16%

29%

10%

23%

33%

19%

45%

28%

45%

61%

187%

52%

78%

84%

25%

13%

35%

17%

43%

47%

26%

112%

42%

36%

24%

77%

143%

86%

27%

135%

42%

39%

37%

57%

37%

13%

22%

29%

33%

16%

78%

15%

16%

-5%

44%

113%

39%

11%

113%

Percent Change in Peak Period Transit Trips Frequent Express Local Service Service Service Baseline Emphasis Emphasis Emphasis 2040 Network Network Network

-1%

31%

53%

63%

41%

12%

66%

17%

-3%

16%

39%

46%

23%

15%

60%

Baseline 2040

36%

85%

28%

23%

19%

22%

33%

65%

28%

70%

51%

28%

92%

37%

45%

28%

45%

69%

80%

51%

27%

84%

123%

17%

20%

18%

14%

23%

48%

17%

53%

38%

17%

87%

37%

29%

25%

59%

71%

57%

17%

78%

-5%

38%

-6%

11%

33%

37%

25%

54%

16%

11%

13%

36%

53%

25%

61%

Percent Change in Daily Transit Trips Frequent Express Local Service Service Service Emphasis Emphasis Emphasis Network Network Network

Table 17. Changes in Transit Mode Share in Regional Growth Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MIC)

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation

29% 34% 10% 10% 17% 11% 9% 9%

Seattle University Community

Seattle Uptown

Tukwila

Issaquah

Ballard-Interbay MIC

Duwamish MIC

North Tukwila MIC

Kent MIC

14%

35%

Seattle South Lake Union

11%

12%

13%

14%

11%

24%

11%

27%

30%

Seattle Downtown

8% 6%

Seattle Northgate

14%

SeaTac

5% 12%

Seattle First Hill/Capitol Hill

16%

17%

Redmond - Downtown 13%

11%

Totem Lake

Renton

18%

Kent

Redmond- Overlake

17% 11%

Federal Way

Bellevue

Burien

25%

Auburn

11%

17%

15%

16%

29%

15%

14%

12% 19%

38%

39%

41%

39%

35%

38%

28%

16%

21%

19%

14%

28%

25%

26%

32%

38%

40%

37%

35%

31%

23%

15%

21%

19%

14%

24%

13%

25%

32%

20%

31%

14%

RGC/MIC

Baseline 2040

14%

26%

17%

30%

18%

13%

38%

39%

41%

39%

35%

38%

30%

18%

22%

18%

14%

32%

27%

32%

33%

Express Service Emphasis Network

Frequent Service Emphasis Network

Peak Transit Mode Share

Daily Transit Mode Share

Forecast Peak Period Transit Mode Share

Existing Conditions

13%

15%

27%

14%

11%

35%

36%

35%

32%

35%

25%

15%

19%

16%

12%

26%

23%

24%

28%

30%

Local Service Emphasis Network 9%

15%

11%

19%

21%

18%

19%

17%

14%

13%

10%

14%

11%

12%

15%

14%

11%

17%

19%

16%

17%

15%

13%

10%

13%

14%

Express Service Emphasis Network

12%

16%

17%

14%

15%

14%

12%

11%

10%

13%

Local Service Emphasis Network

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

12%

14%

20%

15%

18%

16%

12%

11%

10%

14%

Baseline 2040

Frequent Service Emphasis Network

Forecast Daily Transit Mode Share

Table 18. Projected Transit Mode Share in Regional Growth Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MIC)

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation Several economic efficiency metrics were evaluated to determine the costs associated with operation of the conceptual service networks. For this calculation, the 2015 budget costs per hour associated with operating the various types of buses were used as a baseline. A mix of coach types was assumed, including 30-foot coaches, 40-foot diesel/hybrid and trolley coaches, and 60-foot diesel/hybrid, RapidRide, and trolleys. The 2015 budget costs for various coaches are shown in Table 19. Table 19. 2015 Budget Costs for Coach Operations

Type of Coach

Hourly Operation Rate (Fully Allocated)

30-foot Coach

$138.09

40-foot Diesel/Hybrid

$141.66

60-foot Diesel

$168.42

60-foot Diesel/Hybrid

$160.82

60-foot RapidRide

$160.91

40-foot Trolley

$145.09

60-foot Trolley

$171.32

Dial-A-Ride Transit (DART)

$127.26

Local and express service were assumed to operate with 40-foot diesel/hybrid coaches and 60-foot hybrid coaches, respectively. Frequent service includes the use of 60-foot trolley buses and 60-foot hybrid coaches and reflects the current mix of approximately 20 percent trolley buses and 60-foot hybrid coaches on corridors with frequent service. The assumed baseline operating costs per hour were: x

Frequent Service: $163

Express Service: $161

Local Service: $1424

Costs were kept in 2014 constant-dollar terms to facilitate a convenient comparison to current operating costs.

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation The economic efficiency measures were calculated as follows: x

Operating cost per boarding = Total operational cost for each conceptual service network/Total Metro boardings projected within that network

Boardings per service hour = Total projected Metro boardings for each conceptual service network/Daily revenue hours

Operating cost per hour = ((Frequent service hours X $163) + (Express service hours X $161) + (Local service hours X $142))/Daily revenue hours

All three networks were assumed to have 14,017 daily revenue hours. The results of the economic efficiency measures are shown in Table 20. All economic efficiency measures were evaluated on a countywide basis only. Table 20. Economic Efficiency Performance

Operating Cost/Boarding Boardings/Service Hour Operating Cost/Hour

Frequent Service Emphasis Network

Express Service Emphasis Network

Local Service Emphasis Network

$3.40

$3.70

$4.70

$158

$157

$151

The performance metrics included two environmental efficiency measures. British Thermal Units (BTUs) per passenger mile were calculated to evaluate the energy consumption associated with operation of the conceptual service networks. This number was calculated as follows: x

BTUs per passenger mile = Total BTUs expended by bus operations/passenger mile

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per passenger was also evaluated as an environmental efficiency measure. This metric compared the GHGs emitted due to bus operations to passenger miles to determine the relative impact of each conceptual service network. This number was calculated as follows: x

GHGs per passenger mile = Total pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from bus operations/passenger mile

Table 21 shows the results of the environmental efficiency measures. All environmental efficiency measures were evaluated on a countywide basis only.

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation Table 21. Environmental Efficiency Performance

Existing Network

Frequent Service Emphasis Network

Express Service Emphasis Network

Local Service Emphasis Network

BTU/Passenger Mile

3,261

3,010

3,240

4,010

GHG Emissions/ Passenger Mile

0.49

0.42

0.45

0.58

Environmental Efficiency Measure

The variation of transit service throughout the day was evaluated to provide an understanding of the availability of service at peak and non-peak times. For this metric, the amount of service provided at 9 pm was compared to the amount provided at 6 pm. Figure 53 shows the results of this analysis. Figures 54, 55, and 56 display this ratio by TAZ for each conceptual service network countywide and by quadrant. Figure 57 shows the countywide distribution of service hours throughout the day for each conceptual service network. Figure 53. Amount of Transit Service Provided at 9pm as Compared to 6pm

54% 49% 51%

NE Area

61% NW Area

56% 55% 59%

SW Area

53% 53% 52% 48% 48%

SE Area

57%

County Average

51% 52% 0%

10%

20%

FrequentNetwork Service Emphasis Frequent Emphasis Network

30%

40%

50%

ExpressNetwork Service Emphasis Express Emphasis Network

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

60%

70%

LocalNetwork Service Emphasis Local Emphasis Network

L ak e B o th ell F o res t K enm o re P ark

S ho relin e

Wo o dinville 522 203

)LJXUH Ratio of Trips in Night Wo Peak Comparison )UHTXHQW 6HUYLFH (PSKDVLV 1HWZRUN

Trip R atio

0 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

D u vall K irk lan d

R edm o n d S eattle

520

Yarro w P oin t H u n ts P oin t

C arn atio n

Medin a C ly de H ill Merc er Is lan d B eau x A rts

B ellevu e

S am m am is h

5 202

405

Is s aqu ah 90

Newc as tle

S no qu alm ie

509

No rth B end

599

R ento n

B u rien 518

Tu kwila

S eaTac

No rm an dy P ark

S eattle

167

D es Mo in es Vas h o n Is lan d

K ent

B u rien

516

C o vin gto n

Maple Valley No rm an dy P ark

A u burn F ederal Way

A lgo n a

Milto n

169

P ac ific

164 169

0 Mile s

Vas h o n Is lan d

B lac k D iam o n d

E nu m c law

F ederal Way

L ak e B o th ell F o res t K enm o re P ark

S ho relin e

Wo o dinville 522 203

)LJXUH Ratio of Trips in Night Wo Peak Comparison ([SUHVV 6HUYLFH (PSKDVLV 1HWZRUN

Trip R atio

0 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

D u vall K irk lan d

R edm o n d S eattle

520

Yarro w P oin t H u n ts P oin t

C arn atio n

Medin a C ly de H ill Merc er Is lan d B eau x A rts

B ellevu e

S am m am is h

5 202

405

Is s aqu ah 90

Newc as tle

S no qu alm ie

509

No rth B end

599

R ento n

B u rien 518

Tu kwila

S eaTac

No rm an dy P ark

S eattle

167

D es Mo in es Vas h o n Is lan d

K ent

B u rien

516

C o vin gto n

Maple Valley No rm an dy P ark

A u burn F ederal Way

A lgo n a

Milto n

169

P ac ific

164 169

0 Mile s

Vas h o n Is lan d

B lac k D iam o n d

E nu m c law

F ederal Way

L ak e B o th ell F o res t K enm o re P ark

S ho relin e

Wo o dinville 522 203

)LJXUH Ratio of Trips in Night Wo Peak Comparison /RFDO 6HUYLFH (PSKDVLV 1HWZRUN

Trip R atio

0 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

D u vall K irk lan d

R edm o n d S eattle

520

Yarro w P oin t H u n ts P oin t

C arn atio n

Medin a C ly de H ill Merc er Is lan d B eau x A rts

B ellevu e

S am m am is h

5 202

405

Is s aqu ah 90

Newc as tle

S no qu alm ie

509

No rth B end

599

R ento n

B u rien 518

Tu kwila

S eaTac

No rm an dy P ark

S eattle

167

D es Mo in es Vas h o n Is lan d

K ent

B u rien

516

C o vin gto n

Maple Valley No rm an dy P ark

A u burn F ederal Way

A lgo n a

Milto n

169

P ac ific

164 169

0 Mile s

Vas h o n Is lan d

B lac k D iam o n d

E nu m c law

F ederal Way

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation Figure 57. Variation in Transit Service Hours by Time of Day 1200

1000

Service Hours

800

600

400

200

Frequent Service Emphasis Network

Frequent Network Emphasis

Express Service Emphasis Network

Express Network Emphasis

Local Service Emphasis Network

Local Network Emphasis

Key findings of the Transit Use and Efficiency analysis: x

The Frequent Service Emphasis network and the Express Service Emphasis network resulted in the highest percentage increase in daily transit trips and transit trips during the peak period, respectively for all quadrants and countywide.

Several cities in the southwest quadrant would see increases in ridership of more than 100 percent during the peak period as well as all day in any of the conceptual service networks. These cities include Auburn, Federal Way, SeaTac, and Tukwila.

During the peak period, the Express Service Emphasis network resulted in the highest mode share shift for all quadrants and countywide, with the southeast quadrant seeing the greatest change (102 percent). The Frequent Service Emphasis network had the highest mode share shift for all quadrants and countywide for all-day trips. The highest percent changes (78 percent) was seen in the southwest quadrant.

The Frequent Service Emphasis network had the lowest operating cost per boarding and the highest boardings per hour. The operating cost per hour for this network was the highest of all three, in large part due to the high incorporation of trolley buses in the network.

The Local Service Emphasis network had the highest operating cost per boarding and the lowest boardings per hour.

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

101

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation x

The Frequent Service Emphasis network had the lowest BTU/passenger mile and GHG emissions/passenger mile and the Local Service Emphasis network had the highest for both metrics.

There was little variation among the conceptual service networks in each quadrant and countywide for the amount of transit service provided at 9 pm as compared to 6 pm. The difference between the lowest and highest percentages was 3 to 6 percentage points.

All three conceptual service networks used the highest number of service hours during the morning and evening peak periods. The difference between the midday volumes and peak period volumes was greatest for the Express Service Emphasis network and lowest for the Frequent Service Emphasis network.

7.4 INFLUENCE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS When the capital investments described Chapter 6.5 were removed from the Frequent and Express networks, the result was lower ridership than when the capital investments were included. Reduced parking capacity resulted in a ridership decrease because less space was available for riders to access the Express Service Emphasis network. The roadway improvements in the Frequent and Express networks equated to faster transit travel speeds, which increases the appeal of transit over driving and draws in more riders. Removing these improvements resulted in less total daily boardings. In addition to the changes in ridership, the removal of the roadway improvements resulted in a change in annual revenue hours needed to maintain operations of the conceptual service networks. Without the roadway improvements, buses moved slower on those corridors. Slower buses translated into additional buses needed on the route in order to maintain headways. The removal of the park-and-ride expansion did not affect annual revenue hours. Table 22 shows the results of the model runs with and without the new capital investments.

7.5 INTEGRATION WITH LIGHT RAIL Two separate metrics were used to provide overall context to the expected integration with Link light rail. The first metric measured the average job accessibility from each Link station because it serves as a proxy of the amount of bus service centered around light rail stations. Table 23 displays the results of this evaluation. The second metric incorporated a sample of trips to downtown Seattle from surrounding communities and measured the percent of those trips that used Link light rail. Nine origin points were selected within north, east, and south King County. They were chosen as origins that could use light rail to access downtown if an appropriate transfer was provided. Table 24 shows the percentage of trips to downtown Seattle that used light rail for each conceptual service network.

102

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation Table 22. Impacts of Assumed Capital Investments on Performance of Conceptual Service Networks Ridership

Annual Revenue Hours

Projected Daily Ridership without Improvements

Projected Daily Ridership with Improvements

Difference

Speed and Reliability Corridor Improvements (Frequent Service Emphasis Network)

870,700

918,000

Direct Access Ramps (Express Service Emphasis Network)

840,000

Park-and-Ride Expansion (Express Service Emphasis Network)

811,000

Type of Improvement

Percent Increase

Revenue Hours Saved by Improvements

Percent of Total Conceptual Network Revenue Hours

47,300

4.9%

228,942

5.1%

853,000

13,000

1.4%

70,840

1.5%

853,000

42,000

4.6%

Not applicable

Table 23. Average Jobs Accessible within 30 minutes Peak and Midday Averages

Link Station Average (non-Downtown stations)

Frequent Service Emphasis Network

Express Service Emphasis Network

Local Service Emphasis Network

235,000

230,000

205,000

Table 24. Sample Trip Pairs to Downtown Seattle Utilizing Link Light Rail Peak and Midday Averages Frequent Service Emphasis Network

Express Service Emphasis Network

Local Service Emphasis Network

78%

56%

Percent of Sample Trips that Utilized Link Light Rail

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

103

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation

7.6 CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE In addition to the performance metrics, Metro used several tools to demonstrate the customer experience associated with the conceptual service networks. One way included an explanation of the different travel times and modes for several sample trips. The sample trips were selected to illustrate local trips, trips between regional growth centers, and commuter trips for each quadrant. They included trips that occurred within and between quadrants and were evaluated for each network. The travel times were calculated for the peak and midday periods for transit and automobiles. The transit travel times estimated time to reach the transit stop, initial wait time, and transfer wait time (if applicable). The transit modes employed to make the trip were identified as part of the analysis. Figures 58 through 61 display the results of these sample trips. Metro developed travel time matrices to describe the automobile and transit travel times between centers, including regional growth centers and manufacturing and industrial centers. The travel times were calculated for each conceptual service network for the peak period and midday. For transit trips, the travel times were averages that include walk time, average wait time, and transfer time. Origin and destination points were based on TAZ centroids within each regional growth center. Tables 25 through 32 display these travel times.

104

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

)LJXUH 1RUWKHDVW 4XDGUDQW ([DPSOH 7ULSV LEGEND

NE QUADRANT

Frequent Route

EXAMPLE TRIPS

Express Route

Local Route

Link Light Rail

Sounder Commuter Train

*Includes transfer

Frequent Emphasis 6HUYLFH Network SE 40th St/86th Ave SE, Mercer Island to SE 16th St/148th Ave SE, Bellevue

Hwy 202/Snoqualmie Parkway, Snoqualmie to NE 40th St/156th Ave NE, Redmond Travel Time*

Travel Time*

Redmond Transit Center to Seattle Center Travel Time*

AM Peak: 48-52 min

AM Peak: 84-90 min

AM Peak: 50-54 min

Auto: 18-24 min

Auto: 33-44 min

Auto: 32-43 min

SE 40th St/86th Ave SE, Mercer Island to SE 16th St/148th Ave SE, Bellevue

Hwy 202/Snoqualmie Parkway, Snoqualmie to NE 40th St/156th Ave NE, Redmond

Redmond Transit Center to Seattle Center

Travel Time*

Midday: 54-59 min

Midday: 90-96 min

Midday: 50-54 min

Auto: 11-15 min

Auto: 18-24 min

Auto: 29-40 min

Travel Time*

Express Emphasis 6HUYLFH Network SE 40th St/86th Ave SE, Mercer Island to SE 16th St/148th Ave SE, Bellevue Travel Time*

Hwy 202/Snoqualmie Parkway, Snoqualmie to NE 40th St/156th Ave NE, Redmond Travel Time*

Redmond Transit Center to Seattle Center Travel Time*

AM Peak: 56-60 min

AM Peak: 64-70 min

AM Peak: 50-54 min

Auto: 18-24 min

Auto: 33-44 min

Auto: 32-43 min

SE 40th St/86th Ave SE, Mercer Island to SE 16th St/148th Ave SE, Bellevue

Hwy 202/Snoqualmie Parkway, Snoqualmie to NE 40th St/156th Ave NE, Redmond

Redmond Transit Center to Seattle Center Travel Time*

Travel Time*

Midday: 66-70 min

Midday: 70-76 min

Midday: 56-60 min

Auto: 11-15 min

Auto: 18-24 min

Auto: 29-40 min

Local Emphasis 6HUYLFH Network SE 40th St/86th Ave SE, Mercer Island to SE 16th St/148th Ave SE, Bellevue Travel Time*

Hwy 202/Snoqualmie Parkway, Snoqualmie to NE 40th St/156th Ave NE, Redmond Travel Time*

Redmond Transit Center to Seattle Center Travel Time*

AM Peak: 56-60 min

AM Peak: 74-80 min

AM Peak: 52-56 min

Auto: 18-24 min

Auto: 33-44 min

Auto: 32-43 min

SE 40th St/86th Ave SE, Mercer Island to SE 16th St/148th Ave SE, Bellevue

Hwy 202/Snoqualmie Parkway, Snoqualmie to NE 40th St/156th Ave NE, Redmond

Redmond Transit Center to Seattle Center

Travel Time*

Midday: 66-70 min

Midday: 86-92 min

Midday: 52-56 min

Auto: 11-15 min

Auto: 18-24 min

Auto: 29-40 min

Travel Time*

)LJXUH 1RUWKZHVW 4XDGUDQW ([DPSOH 7ULSV LEGEND

NW QUADRANT

Frequent Route

Express Route

Local Route

Link Light Rail

EXAMPLE TRIPS

Sounder Commuter Train

*Includes transfer

Frequent Emphasis 6HUYLFH Network N 130th St/Greenwood Ave N, Seattle to NW 64th St/8th Ave NW, Seattle

NE 125th St/Lake City Way, Seattle to Fremont Ave N/N 34th St, Seattle

University District to Totem Lake Travel Time*

Travel Time*

AM Peak: 25-28 min

AM Peak: 33-36 min

AM Peak: 53-57 min

Auto: 12-15 min

Auto:18-25 min

Auto: 30-41 min

N 130th St/Greenwood Ave N, Seattle to NW 64th St/8th Ave NW, Seattle

NE 125th St/Lake City Way, Seattle to Fremont Ave N/N 34th St, Seattle

University District to Totem Lake

Travel Time*

Midday: 25-28 min

Midday: 33-36 min

Midday: 58-62 min

Auto: 11-15 min

Auto: 18-24 min

Auto: 29-40 min

Travel Time*

Express Emphasis 6HUYLFH Network N 130th St/Greenwood Ave N, Seattle to NW 64th St/8th Ave NW, Seattle

NE 125th St/Lake City Way, Seattle to Fremont Ave N/N 34th St, Seattle Travel Time*

University District to Totem Lake Travel Time*

Travel Time*

AM Peak: 34-38 min

AM Peak: 28-31 min

AM Peak: 53-57 min

Auto: 12-15 min

Auto: 18-25 min

Auto: 30-41 min

N 130th St/Greenwood Ave N, Seattle to NW 64th St/8th Ave NW, Seattle

NE 125th St/Lake City Way, Seattle to Fremont Ave N/N 34th St, Seattle

University District to Totem Lake

Travel Time*

Midday: 40-44 min

Midday: 33-37 min

Midday: 58-62 min

Auto: 11-15 min

Auto: 18-24 min

Auto: 29-40 min

Local Emphasis 6HUYLFH Network N 130th St/Greenwood Ave N, Seattle to NW 64th St/8th Ave NW, Seattle

NE 125th St/Lake City Way, Seattle to Fremont Ave N/N 34th St, Seattle Travel Time*

University District to Totem Lake Travel Time*

Travel Time*

AM Peak: 28-32 min

AM Peak: 35-38 min

AM Peak: 53-57 min

Auto: 12-15 min

Auto: 18-25 min

Auto: 30-41 min

N 130th St/Greenwood Ave N, Seattle to NW 64th St/8th Ave NW, Seattle

NE 125th St/Lake City Way, Seattle to Fremont Ave N/N 34th St, Seattle

University District to Totem Lake Travel Time*

Travel Time*

Midday: 34-38 min

Midday: 35-38 min

Midday: 58-62 min

Auto: 11-15 min

Auto: 18-24 min

Auto: 29-40 min

)LJXUH 6RXWKHDVW 4XDGUDQW ([DPSOH 7ULSV LEGEND

SE QUADRANT

Frequent Route

EXAMPLE TRIPS

Express Route

Local Route

Link Light Rail

Sounder Commuter Train

*Includes transfer

Frequent Emphasis 6HUYLFH Network Gossard St/Griffin Ave, Enumclaw to SE Wax Rd/SE 272nd St, Covington

SR 516/SR 169, Maple Valley to Green River Community College Travel Time*

Travel Time*

Black Diamond to Bellevue Transit Center Travel Time*

AM Peak: 90-96 min

AM Peak: 78-86 min

AM Peak: 80-86 min

Auto: 30-40 min

Auto: 28-38 min

Auto: 48-65 min

Gossard St/Griffin Ave, Enumclaw to SE Wax Rd/SE 272nd St, Covington

SR 516/SR 169, Maple Valley to Green River Community College Travel Time*

Travel Time*

Black Diamond to Bellevue Transit Center Travel Time*

Midday: 100-106 min

Midday: 87-95 min

Midday: 90-96 min

Auto: 29-39 min

Auto: 28-38 min

Auto: 46-62 min

Express Emphasis 6HUYLFH Network Gossard St/Griffin Ave, Enumclaw to SE Wax Rd/SE 272nd St, Covington

SR 516/SR 169, Maple Valley to Green River Community College Travel Time

Travel Time*

Black Diamond to Bellevue Transit Center Travel Time*

AM Peak: 54-58 min

AM Peak: 85-90 min

AM Peak:70-76 min

Auto: 30-40 min

Auto: 28-38 min

Auto: 48-65 min

Gossard St/Griffin Ave, Enumclaw to SE Wax Rd/SE 272nd St, Covington

SR 516/SR 169, Maple Valley to Green River Community College

Black Diamond to Bellevue Transit Center

Travel Time

Travel Time*

Midday: 60-65 min

Midday: 92-97 min

Midday: 82-88 min

Auto: 29-39 min

Auto; 28-38 min

Auto: 46-62 min

Local Emphasis 6HUYLFH Network Gossard St/Griffin Ave, Enumclaw to SE Wax Rd/SE 272nd St, Covington

SR 516/SR 169, Maple Valley to Green River Community College Travel Time*

Travel Time

Black Diamond to Bellevue Transit Center Travel Time*

AM Peak: 115-120 min

AM Peak: 60-65 min

AM Peak: 90-96 min

Auto: 30-40 min

Auto: 28-38 min

Auto: 48-65 min

Gossard St/Griffin Ave, Enumclaw to SE Wax Rd/SE 272nd St, Covington

SR 516/SR 169, Maple Valley to Green River Community College Travel Time*

Black Diamond to Bellevue Transit Center

Travel Time

Travel Time*

Midday: 125-130 min

Midday: 60-65 min

Midday:100-106 min

Auto: 29-39 min

Auto: 28-38 min

Auto: 46-62 min

)LJXUH 6RXWKZHVW 4XDGUDQW ([DPSOH 7ULSV LEGEND

SW QUADRANT

Frequent Route

Express Route

Local Route

Link Light Rail

EXAMPLE TRIPS

Sounder Commuter Train

*Includes transfer

Frequent Emphasis 6HUYLFH Network Ambaum Blvd SW/SW 130th St, Burien to 46th Ave S/S 144th St, Tukwila

Auburn City Hall to Renton Transit Center

Travel Time*

Kent East Hill to Seattle CBD Travel Time*

Travel Time*

AM Peak: 40-44 min

AM Peak: 58-62 min

AM Peak: 68-74 min

Auto: 11-14 min

Auto: 28-38 min

Auto: 56-76 min

Ambaum Blvd SW/SW 130th St, Burien to 46th Ave S/S 144th St, Tukwila

Auburn City Hall to Renton Transit Center

Travel Time*

Kent East Hill to Seattle CBD Travel Time*

Travel Time*

Midday: 40-44 min

Midday: 62-66 min

Midday: 72-76 min

Auto: 11-15 min

Auto: 25-34 min

Auto: 51-69 min

Express Emphasis 6HUYLFH Network Ambaum Blvd SW/SW 130th St, Burien to 46th Ave S/S 144th St, Tukwila Travel Time*

Auburn City Hall to Renton Transit Center

Kent East Hill to Seattle CBD

Travel Time

Travel Time*

AM Peak: 40-44 min

AM Peak: 60-65 min

Auto: 11-14 min

Auto: 28-38 min

Auto: 56-76 min

Ambaum Blvd SW/SW 130th St, Burien to 46th Ave S/S 144th St, Tukwila Travel Time*

Auburn City Hall to Renton Transit Center

Kent East Hill to Seattle CBD

Travel Time

Travel Time*

Midday: 52-56 min

Midday: 48-52 min

Midday: 65-69 min

Auto: 11-15 min

Auto: 25-34 min

Auto: 51-69 min

Local Emphasis 6HUYLFH Network Ambaum Blvd SW/SW 130th St, Burien to 46th Ave S/S 144th St, Tukwila Travel Time*

Auburn City Hall to Renton Transit Center

Kent East Hill to Seattle CBD Travel Time*

Travel Time

AM Peak: 48-52 min

AM Peak: 40-44 min

AM Peak: 70-76 min

Auto: 11-14 min

Auto: 28-38 min

Auto: 56-76 min

Ambaum Blvd SW/SW 130th St, Burien to 46th Ave S/S 144th St, Tukwila Travel Time*

Auburn City Hall to Renton Transit Center Travel Time

Kent East Hill to Seattle CBD Travel Time*

Midday: 52-56 min

Midday: 48-52 min

Midday: 74-79 min

Auto: 11-15 min

Auto: 25-34 min

Auto: 51-69 min

>100

SeaTac

Burien

Auburn

Bellevue

Kent Downtown

Redmond-Overlake

Redmond Downtown

Renton

Issaquah

Ballard-Interbay MIC

Duwamish MIC

North Tukwila MIC

Kent MIC 88

100

>100

100

>100

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

109

*Travel times are averages for the peak period and include walk time, average wait time and transfer time. Origin and destination points are based on TAZ centroid within each RGC. While the minimum time between each point may be less, the average takes into account the frequency of service.

>100

Tukwila

Totem Lake

Seattle CBD

Federal Way

First Hill/Capitol Hill

Northgate

University Community

Uptown Queen Anne

South Lake Union

Uptown Queen Anne

First Hill/Capitol Hill

South Lake Union

Seattle CBD

Tukwila

Federal Way

Totem Lake

SeaTac

University Community

Burien 76

Auburn

Bellevue

Kent Downtown

>100

Redmond-Overlake

Redmond Downtown

Renton

Issaquah

Ballard-Interbay MIC

Duwamish MIC

North Tukwila MIC

Northgate

RGC/MIC

Table 25. Peak Period Forecast 2040 Travel Time Averages between Regional Growth Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MIC): Frequent Service Emphasis Network

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation

Kent MIC

17 56 82 55 43 59 99 33 71 45 39 45 58 37 52 73

>100

First Hill/Capitol Hill

Seattle CBD

Tukwila

Federal Way

Totem Lake

SeaTac

Burien

Auburn

Bellevue

Kent Downtown

Redmond-Overlake

Redmond Downtown

Renton

Issaquah

Ballard-Interbay MIC

Duwamish MIC

North Tukwila MIC

Kent MIC

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

28 15

Northgate

University Community

Uptown Queen Anne

First Hill/Capitol Hill

Seattle CBD

South Lake Union

Tukwila

Federal Way

>100

Totem Lake

>100

SeaTac

Burien 64

>100

Auburn

Bellevue

Kent Downtown

Redmond-Overlake

Redmond Downtown

Renton

>100

100

Issaquah

>100

Ballard-Interbay MIC

100

Duwamish MIC

University Community

South Lake Union

>100

North Tukwila MIC

Northgate

RGC/MIC

Table 26. Peak Period Forecast 2040 Travel Time Averages between Regional Growth Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MIC): Express Service Emphasis Network

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation

111

>100

Kent MIC

15 17 54 75 56 55 67 83 37 72 53 37 54 70 41 58 83 86

First Hill/Capitol Hill

Seattle CBD

Tukwila

Federal Way

Totem Lake

SeaTac

Burien

Auburn

Bellevue

Kent Downtown

Redmond-Overlake

Redmond Downtown

Renton

Issaquah

Ballard-Interbay MIC

Duwamish MIC

North Tukwila MIC

Kent MIC

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

Northgate

University Community

Uptown Queen Anne

Uptown Queen Anne 19

First Hill/Capitol Hill

Seattle CBD

Tukwila

South Lake Union

Federal Way 78

>100

Totem Lake

>100

SeaTac

>100

Burien

>100

Auburn

Bellevue

Kent Downtown

Redmond-Overlake

Redmond Downtown

Renton

>100

Issaquah

University Community

Ballard-Interbay MIC

South Lake Union

100

Duwamish MIC

>100

North Tukwila MIC

Northgate

RGC/MIC

Table 27. Peak Period Forecast 2040 Travel Time Averages between Regional Growth Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MIC): Local Service Emphasis Network

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation

113

>100

Kent MIC

27 28 44 63 39 48 44 69 32 58 35 38 48 46 29 39 44 55

First Hill/Capitol Hill

Seattle CBD

Tukwila

Federal Way

Totem Lake

SeaTac

Burien

Auburn

Bellevue

Kent Downtown

Redmond-Overlake

Redmond Downtown

Renton

Issaquah

Ballard-Interbay MIC

Duwamish MIC

North Tukwila MIC

Kent MIC

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

University Community Northgate

Uptown Queen Anne

First Hill/Capitol Hill

Seattle CBD

South Lake Union

Tukwila

Federal Way

Totem Lake

SeaTac

Burien 23

Auburn

Bellevue

Kent Downtown

Redmond-Overlake

Redmond Downtown

Renton

Issaquah

Ballard-Interbay MIC

Duwamish MIC

University Community

South Lake Union

North Tukwila MIC

Northgate

RGC/MIC

Table 28. Peak Period Forecast 2040 Travel Time Averages between Regional Growth Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MIC): Auto Travel Times

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation

115

Kent MIC

>100

First Hill/Capitol Hill

Seattle CBD

Tukwila

Federal Way

Totem Lake

SeaTac

Burien

Auburn

Bellevue

Redmond-Overlake

Redmond Downtown

Renton

Issaquah

Ballard-Interbay MIC

Duwamish MIC

North Tukwila MIC

Kent MIC

>100

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

Kent Downtown

Northgate

University Community

Uptown Queen Anne

Uptown Queen Anne 15

First Hill/Capitol Hill

Seattle CBD

Tukwila

South Lake Union

>100

Federal Way 71

>100

Totem Lake

>100

SeaTac

>100

Burien

>100

Auburn

Bellevue

>100

Kent Downtown

>100

Redmond-Overlake

>100

Redmond Downtown

Renton

>100

Issaquah

University Community

>100

Ballard-Interbay MIC

South Lake Union

>100

Duwamish MIC

117

>100

North Tukwila MIC

Northgate

RGC/MIC

Table 29. Midday Forecast 2040 Travel Time Averages between Regional Growth Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MIC): Frequent Service Emphasis Network

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation

>100

Kent MIC

>100

First Hill/Capitol Hill

Seattle CBD

Tukwila

Federal Way

Totem Lake

SeaTac

Burien

Auburn

Bellevue

Kent Downtown

Redmond-Overlake

Redmond Downtown

Renton

Issaquah

Ballard-Interbay MIC

Duwamish MIC

North Tukwila MIC

Kent MIC

>100

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

Northgate

University Community

Uptown Queen Anne

First Hill/Capitol Hill

Seattle CBD

South Lake Union

Tukwila

>100

Federal Way

>100

Totem Lake

>99

>100

SeaTac

>100

Burien 64

>100

>99

>100

Auburn

Bellevue

>100

Kent Downtown

>100

Redmond-Overlake

>100

Redmond Downtown

Renton

>99

>100

Issaquah

>99

Ballard-Interbay MIC

>99

Duwamish MIC

University Community

South Lake Union

119

>99

North Tukwila MIC

Northgate

RGC/MIC

Table 30. Midday Forecast 2040 Travel Time Averages between Regional Growth Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MIC): Express Service Emphasis Network

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation

>99

Kent MIC

>100

First Hill/Capitol Hill

Seattle CBD

Tukwila

Federal Way

Totem Lake

SeaTac

Burien

Auburn

Bellevue

Kent Downtown

Redmond-Overlake

Redmond Downtown

Renton

Issaquah

Ballard-Interbay MIC

Duwamish MIC

North Tukwila MIC

Kent MIC

>100

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

Northgate

University Community

Uptown Queen Anne

First Hill/Capitol Hill

Seattle CBD

South Lake Union

Tukwila

>100

Federal Way

>100

Totem Lake

>100

SeaTac

>100

Burien 89

>100

Auburn

Bellevue

>100

Kent Downtown

>100

Redmond-Overlake

>100

Redmond Downtown

Renton

>100

Issaquah

100

Ballard-Interbay MIC

>100

Duwamish MIC

University Community

South Lake Union

121

>100

North Tukwila MIC

Northgate

RGC/MIC

Table 31. Midday Forecast 2040 Travel Time Averages between Regional Growth Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MIC): Local Service Emphasis Network

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation

>100

Kent MIC

First Hill/Capitol Hill

Seattle CBD

Tukwila

Federal Way

Totem Lake

SeaTac

Burien

Auburn

Bellevue

Kent Downtown

Redmond-Overlake

Redmond Downtown

Renton

Issaquah

Ballard-Interbay MIC

Duwamish MIC

North Tukwila MIC

Kent MIC

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

Uptown Queen Anne

Northgate

University Community

Uptown Queen Anne

First Hill/Capitol Hill

Seattle CBD

South Lake Union

Tukwila

Federal Way

Totem Lake

SeaTac

Burien 22

Auburn

Bellevue

Kent Downtown

Redmond-Overlake

Redmond Downtown

Renton

Issaquah

Ballard-Interbay MIC

Duwamish MIC

University Community

South Lake Union

123

North Tukwila MIC

Northgate

RGC/MIC

Table 32. Midday Forecast 2040 Travel Time Averages between Regional Growth Centers and Manufacturing/Industrial Centers (MIC): Auto Times

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation

Kent MIC

King County Metro Long Range Plan for Public Transportation

8 NEXT STEPS Using the data derived through the concept evaluation process, input from the CAG and TAC, and feedback from the public, Metro will develop a draft service concept to include in the draft LRPTP. The draft service concept will blend the three conceptual service networks into a single network tailored to meet local needs. It will identify the appropriate types of service for the various areas of King County, based in part on the evaluation results for each quadrant as well as feedback received directly from jurisdictions about their future local transportation needs. The service and capital investments included in Sound Transitâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s draft ST3 System Plan, scheduled for approval in February 2016, will be included in the draft service concept. Figure 62 displays this process. As part of the ongoing integration effort between King County and Sound Transit, the draft service concept will reflect how Metro service will serve the Link light rail system. The draft LRPTP is scheduled for release in March 2016.

124

Final Concept Development and Evaluation Report January 4, 2016

)LJXUH &RQFHSW 'HYHORSPHQW 3URFHVV

System and Capital Plans Concept Development Overarching Themes Economic Growth

Partnership

Connections

Accountability

Initial Concepts

Date Complete

Express Emphasis Network

Local Emphasis Network

Outcome: High level comparison between concepts that are integrated with planned Sound Transit service

Draft Preliminary Concept

Refine ridership estimates Refine Sound Transit integration Evaluate access for low income & minority populations

possible blend of initial concepts

Refine transit network by service family Analyze transit mobility & mode share Refine capital facility needs

Compare with adopted King County policies & programs

Analyze geographic coverage of network

Quarter 4 2015

Outcome: Test and refine preferred concept with planned Sound Transit Service

Draft Final Concept

Quarter 1 2016

Outcome: Service, capital, financing, & phasing elements of plan completed, fully integrated with Sound Transit plans.

Increasing level of detail

Evaluate access to households & jobs

Develop high, medium, & low funding scenarios for implementation

Continued coordination with Sound Transit

Quarter 3 2015

Frequent Emphasis Network