HomeMy WebLinkAbout1127RESOLUTION NO. j!;}.}
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, regarding
transportation, endorsing and accepting certain
recommendations and findings of the Green River
Valley Transportation Action Plan.
WHEREAS, significant increases in population and
employment in and around the Green River Valley are expected over
the next 15 years, as quantified by the Puget Sound Council of
Government Year 2000 Population and Employment Forecast; and
WHEREAS, the existing Valley transportation system is not
capable of accommodating the traffic generated by the growing
population and commercial development; and
WHEREAS, an extensive list of needed road improvement
projects has been identified over the past several years by the
City of Kent and other Green River Valley jurisdictions, by
consultants, and by other ad hoc groups such as the South King
County Roads Task Force; and
WHEREAS, the Green River Valley Transportation Action
Plan (GRVTAP) is a multijurisdictional implementation and
financing plan for these road improvement projects in and around
the Green River Valley; and
WHEREAS, the GRVTAP was developed by the Puget Sound
Council of Governments in cooperation with the cities of Kent,
Renton, Auburn, Tukwila, King County and the Washington State
Department of Transportation; and
WHEREAS, the GRVTAP is being considered for acceptance
and endorsement by the councils of the other four Valley
jurisdictions and by the King Subregional Council; NOW THEREFORE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Kent City Council accepts the findings
and conclusions of the Green River Valley Transportation Action
Plan Traffic and Financial Analysis.
Section 2. The Kent City Council endorses the Green
River Valley Transportation Action Plan recommendations, and
directs staff to take steps necessary to ensure the implementation
of the recommendations, including but not limited to, the
preparation of an action plan for the City of Kent projects that
are included within the Green River Valley Transportation Action
Plan.
Passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington this _12_ day of , --}eh/1.--(A a-{1198 7. .
Concurred in by the Mayor of the City of Kent, this ~
day of 1 ~-)Azt,J , 1987. (j ;;;Y~L/;J/
,~dirL
ATTEST:
~~MES W. WHITE, MAYOR PRO TEM
~1Y-t~ c;L (~~
BRENDA JACOB , DEPUTY CITY CLERK
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
Resolution No. 1/ J--.1 , passed by the City Council of the City of
Kent, Washington, the 17 day of \::.,.feJvzutM-<-{, 1987.
J
DJ2-~-L;-~
BRENDA JACOB , DEPUTY CITY CLERK
04530-160
- 2 -
JANUARY 198 7
Puget Sound Council of Governments
Grand Central on the Park
216 First Avenue South • Seattle, WA 98104
Phone (206) 464-7090
PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
Councilmember Jeanette Williams, Seattle, President
Mayor Robert Mizukami, Fife, Vice President
Curtis R. Smelser, Executive Director
Jerry Dinndorf, Director, Subregional Services Division
This report was prepared under the policy guidance of the
King Subregional Council's Committee on Transportation,
Growth and Development.
GREEN RIVER V~
"r.RANS~::R'TATION ACTION PL.AN
Puget Sound Council of Governments
Washington State Department of Transportation
King County
City of Kent
City of Renton
City of Auburn
City of Tukwila
.January, 1987
GRRRN RIVRR VALLRY TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN
REPORT TITLE:
PROJECT MANAGER:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
SOURCE OF COPIES:
ABSTRACT:
FUNDING:
ABSTRACT
Green Ri Yer Valley 1ran!".por tat ion Action T'lr,:
Robert Bern~:teiiJ
De,·elopru~n~ of a plan for funding and
imp~ementing road im;-,rc.Yement pY'o.iect.s 1n thEe
Green Ri ·,:er \'al J e~
Ja!luar:•;, 19Hi
?u.E!f t Sound Counc i 1 of Go' ernmen t!".
Information Cent<>r
216 First AYenue SoL:tL
Seattle, ~ashin~ton 98104
(206: H..J-1~3:::
The Green R~\·er \~alle:)· Trar;Ef_)ortatir)r .. !l~c't_r ,.-
Plan (GI'\.T:\1', is a mulL.c-jur~E.:Jic1ior.:lJ
imrderr·er.tat.c.r. an.J f.ina:tcin::r plan fcii rc-<:,
imp2·o,·emc;:i r~rc,, e _'t s in the Green T:i ·:er
\-aJ 1 P\. The ·-;F:\ T \I >-.·as deYel op"-'d b:: tilf
Pu::r< t SCiunr; r_ o·,n::_ 11 nf G,,,·ernment.s ( PSC >G! :; r:
C'(lf•l'~'--:·cd.i()n 1:jth th'c-> cities of Renton, Et-:.:,
/\ u 1. u ; · r 1 , T u k 1, j l a , h i n !..:': C o u n 1_ y , a n .i t h f
\\ a s ! 1 i n g 1 o n S t a t e llt p: n t m "" n t o f T r a n ~. p o r t 3. t i . :.
( h S I J ' : T ) . T h , · G R \ ·1 , \ P e f f o r' t i n c 1 u d e d t 1,· o
~tPJ>:-.: 1) a ,-R]le~·-•,.idt-> traffic ana.lysis, {! c'
2) th<· dt->':eluprrwnt of a unified multi-
j u I· i s cl 1 ,_. l i on a l i m p l em e n t a t i or, I f ~ nan c i n .! p ~ :. ;
T 1 1 <' rr: :i i n p u r p < , ,_ c o "' t h e t r a f f i r a n a = ;.· -:; i ~ ; . ; . :--
1 u ensure that the \·aric•U!-. ro:;.c 1 i:np:·c,,·cmf·J:t
p:<J,iP,·i:-~ id~·rdifit>d b:-· the p.l.rticipa:inc:
.i u 1 i s d ~ ,. t i <, n s 1: i l l ,_. < 'r h effect i "'e l ~-" i i l. :; . ,
3.TH>thf~r. De,e1oprr.eni of the imr,lemenl:lt ic r.
I,) a n ] rlC' 1 u d ,,. d a f :i n a r 1 r :i a 1 an r~ 1 :; s 1 s t h ::1 ·
1c(JLPd at the a\·ailatJJl~:~ of funcin_c fro~
a ] l f· x j ~. t. i n .12: and p' t en t i a 1 s n u I· c e ~ .
T' r 1' I . n r a 1 i r ' r. ( ' f t h i s r e p o r t ,_. a s f ~ r 1 :;. r _ c t • , : 1 :1
part L~-appropriations from member
.iurisdirtic•n'-·. of the Pugpt Sound Council C>f'
Ct>\E'rtlnlf-•nt~; and grants from the L'.S.
l J ( • p a r t m 1• n t of T ran~-p < 1 r t. R l i on , Fed£· r a 1 H i '-" h ' .....
\ d m i r1 i s t r a t i (J n , and t h e \\-:1 s h i n g ton S t a t e
flt·p:1r trn1·nt of T1·artSJ>t•J·tat ion.
GRRRN RIVRR VALLRY TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN
FORRWORD
The Puget Sound Council of GoYernme:nt.:; (1-'SCU',) is a ':olu:·Jt.i;'.
organization c•f local governmen~s in hing, Eitsapl Pierc·e and
Snohomish count1es1 created to pro\·ide a forur.1 fo: re::;ior.al
d e r i s i o n - m a l. i n g . i' h e J.' r i m a r y g o a 1 ~; o f t h e P S C l C a r e ~ o s '? E:i~
solution~: to problE·ms that cro~,s jurisdic1 ionnl bounda:·ie'.
P S C 0 ':; me m l1 e r s h i p c u r r en i l :'' i n c l u de s 4 9 c i t i e s and to h. r 1 s I t h ,. r c
Indi-u, tribes, and the four counties. Thr· f'~1COG':3 b·..:sinr~~s
cor,<.:uc:ted by local electPd officials rerresE·nting the rr;em1 c.
a~tflC'lE'S,
As the designated !"letroy;olitan Plarmir..>r CJ:--:::ar.iz;:;.ti. L for tr,;c·
four-co u n t. y r c.~ i ,J r; , t. h c P S C C G i s l' e s I o 11 ~ i o l e f' 1 r c D n duct in g a :1
on -g o i n g r c .ft. i r 11; ~-; 1 t r ·a 11 ~-p r , r t at i c n p 1 a tJI , i n £: pro c e s s. r e ~-u : ~ i n £! , r 1
r~c!:: ~onal pla::~ 1 p d i~ie!-an.~ programs to guide dE'velopmer.t of t),,
transpor·tali:J.: ~:;.·st':'rr: tr, meet future den,ar,d.
Th~~ Grf~eL P.:i'.·c=-r \'alley Tra!lSJ)Ortation . .\ctior; Plan t...·~1.~. lnc.2u·: '1 :
:r. thr· f.Y ff: v.·,.Jrk I'rogran: fur t_hc 1\ing Subre~ional CoUI~c~l s·-
part c,f an elemer:t er.titl(-d "Sp•,cial Transporta•.i:m Pr._J_ir·.·t".
T t. r · p u r p ~' ~-e c f t h i s ..-o r k rr o '-2: r a m e l e n: e n t ._. a !'-t o : 1 ~ J c ~. t L •
Subrert,ior:a1 Council, in cr.operation \.:ith mf·mb""r lc•ca:
~overnments, trJ add?·e~,E-. rr.a.i<JI. trsnsp·:r~_a~ i'-)JJ is'---.~J~,:~ t1J;-.t o.r:
i m p ,, r t a r : t t o t h < · i rL p ] e m t-· ; 1 t H. t i •J n o f t ! 1 t · E i n g S · 1 t r 0 .~ :: o r . <1 l
T r a n c; Jl c:· : · t ·'i 1 i un l' l :: r •
GRBBN RIVBR VALLBY TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN
TABLB OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1
I I. THB ACTION PLAN ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 4
III. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 19
IV. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 22
GRRRN RIVRR VALLRY TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN
TABLR OF FIGURRS
1. GRVTAP Study Area .................................. 2
2. GRVTAP Projects .................................... 5
TABLR OF TABLRS
1. Valley Program: Highest Priority Projects .......... 6
2. Valley Program: High Priority Projects ............. ?
3. Valley Program: Other Priority Projects ............ 8
4. Valley Program: Summary of Costs ................... 9
5. King County Local Projects ........................ 10
6. Kent Local Projects ............................... 11
7. Renton Local Projects ............................. 12
8. Auburn Local Projects ............................. 13
9. Tukwila Local Projects ...........•....•...•....... 14
10. Ritraordinary Projects .......................•... 15
GRBBM RlVBR VALLBY TRAMBPORTATIOM ACTIOM PLAM
I. IIITRODUCTIOM
The Green River Valley Transportation Acticr: Plan ( GRVTAP) is
a aulti-jurisdictional implementation and financing plan for road
improvement projects in the Green River Valley (see Figure 1).
Most of the road improvement projects included in the GRVTAP have
been identified over the past several years by the various Green
River Valley jurisdictions, by their consultants, by the State,
and by other ad-hoc groups such as the South King County Roads
Task Force.
The GRVTAP was developed by the Puget Sound Council of
Governments (PSCOG) in cooperation with the cities of Renton,
Kent, Auburn, Tukwila, King County, and the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT). Plan development was
directed by the Valley Transportation Committee (VTC), whose
membership includes elected officials and high-level staff from
each of the participating jurisdictions and agencies:
Renton
Councilmember Nancy Mathews
Richard Houghton, Public Works Director
Kent
Councilmember Jim White
Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director
A~~U.!:Jl
Councilmember Patrick Burns
Frank Currie, Public Works Director
Tu._k ~j .1 a
Councilmember Mabel Harris
Ross Earnst, City Engineer
;K :i,pg 9 Q.U~ t.:Y
Kathleen Drew, Assistant to Councilmember Gary Grant
Don LaBelle, Public Works Director
Bill Hoffman, Chief Transportation Planner
WS_QQT
Jerry Schutz, Corridor Develpoment Engineer
l
•
I
. .
•.
.-;c ,.--;:::; (?'; (("": , ,r,-.;
:.....-' ..._ I I
~I
'"""-', -~~"j;i~ ---'~~~------~ ... '~__"'
i --~
GRVT AP STUDY AREA FIG. 1
2
The GRVTAP effort included two steps: 1) a valley-wide traffic
analysis, and 2) the development of a unified multi-
jurisdictional implementation/financing plan (i.e., "Action
Plan"). Findings and conclusions of the traffic analysis and the
financial analysis can be found in sections III and IV of this
report. The traffic analysis and financial analysis are
documented in detail under separate cover in the GRVTAP Technical
Appendix.
The main purpose of the traffic analysis was to ensure that
the various road improvement projects identified by the
participating jurisdictions work effectively with one another.
The traffic analysis also analyzed how the valley road
improvements would affect (and be affected by) I-5 and the SR-509
extension alternatives currently being considered by King County
and WSDOT.
Development of the implementation/financing plan included a
detailed financial analysis, the purpose of which was to identify
federal, state, local, public and private funding sources, and to
evaluate the potential of each of these sources. A parallel
activity was the categorization and prioritization of the
identified road improvement projects. Project priorities were
compared to funding availability to identify funding shortfalls,
and strategies for making up the shortfalls were developed. The
project priorities and funding strategies form the Action Plan.
3
GRBBM RIVBR VALLBY TRAMBPORTATIOM ACTIOM PLAM
II. TBB ACTIOM PLAM
The Green River Valley Transportation Action Plan has two main
elements: 1) a prioritized program of road improvement projects,
and 2) a set of recommendations that would expedite the funding
and implementation of the projects. Both elements of the Action
Plan are described in this section of the report.
PROJBCT PRIORITIBB
Each of the recommendations contained in this report relate
directly or indirectly to all or parts of a program of road
improvement projects identified by the five Green River Valley
jurisdictions through the Valley Transportation Committee. The
map in Figure 2 shows all of these projects. After compiling the
list of projects and cost estimates for each, the Valley
Transportation Committee prioritized the list, as shown in
Tables 1 -10. Projects were first grouped into two categories:
those of valley-wide importance and those of localized impact and
importance. The Valley Transportation Committee then prioritized
the projects of valley-wide importance (i.e., the "Valley
Program'') by determining which projects were "highest" priority
(Table 1) and which were "high" priority (Table 2). Table 3
contains the other Valley Program projects, and Table 4
summarizes the total costs of the projects in each of the
priority categories. Each jurisdiction prioritized its own local
projects, using the same three priority levels (Tables 5-9).
After reviewing the financial analysis (see Section IV of this
report), the Valley Transportation Committee identified a list of
"Extraordinary" projects--so-called because they are priority
projects whose implementation will require extraordinary
interjurisdictional cooperation and extra-ordinary funding
sources. The Extraordinary Projects are listed in Table 10.
Table 10 also contains an initial estimate of the availability of
public funds for each Extraordinary Project, as well as estimates
of the private sector contributions that could be obtained given
current local funding strategies.
4
GREEN RIVER VALLEY
TRANSPORTATION
ACTION PLAN:
VALLEY PROGRAM
• -H•ghest Priority Projects
Q-••High Priority Projects
......... other Projects
/
I
I
l !
/
I
,.
..
~ i 3• 37 -~-+--
'
\ I •~> ,.
'--._
.'1 • ----B .......
( ,' ~,.
\
GRVTAP PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
5
FIG. 2
MAP
KEY PROJECT
COST
(1000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
lA
lB.
lC
lD
IE
lF
2A
2B
2C
2D
2E
3
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
king
King
Kent
Kent
Kent
WSDOT
King
Auburn
King
Kent
WSDOT
Kent
Tukwila
WSDOT
WSDOT
WSDOT
.,..SDOT
Auburn
Auburn
Kent
Kent
Kent
King
King
King
Reo ton
Renton
Tukwila
Tukwila
192/196 CORRIDOR
S 192/196, SR-515 -140 SE lrealign,widenl
S 192/196, SR-167 -SR-515 (new)
S 192/196, W Valley -SR-167 (new,widenl
S 196/200, Orillia -W Valley (new,widenl
S 200 Connector, Orillia -I-5 (newl
I-5/S 200 Connector/SR-509 interchange lnew)
2 7 7 CORR JDOR
SE 277, SR-167-83 S [Auburn Wy ~] (widen)
SE 277, Auburn Wy N [83 S] -Green River (widen)
SE 277 Ext, Green River -SR-18 (new)
SE 27i Ext, Green River -SR-516 (new)
SR-18/SE 277 Ext interchange (new)
W VALLEY/180 INTERSECTION
.,.. Valley/S 180th (intersection improvements)
W Valley/S 180th (intersection improvements)
1-405/SR-515 interchange (new)
SR-167/S~ 43 [S 180) interchange (add ramps)
SR-164 [R St), SR-164/SR-18 interchange (new)
SR-18, Green River -SR-516 (widen)
12 SE/BNRR OveTxinl/15 IV, A II -C IV
Harvey, Auburn Wy - 8 NE (widen)
E Valley, S 180 -S 192 (widenl
S 228, Russell -Military (new)
W Valley/5 212 (intersection improvements)
Carr, Talbot -108 SE (widen)
SE 208, 116 SE-132 SE (widen)
SE 256, 116 SE-132 SE (widen)
Oakesdale, SW 28 -Sunset (new)
S.,.. 27, W Valley-SR-167 (new)
Southcenter Blvd, T-Line -Grady (realign)
W Valley, Strander -1-405 (widen)
VALLEY PROGRAM:
HIGHEST PRIORITY PROJECTS
(NOT IN PRIORITY ORDER)
6
Total
14,100
14,900
119,290
14,040
13,000
110,000
13,092
13,166
114,250
18.454
15,000
1600
S1,i88
110,000
15,000
SB,OOO
lb,Ol!O
12,500
1Bi4
12,640
li,B34
1350
S2,823
12,636
1846
116,500
18,000
Si,655
$600
1163,938
TABLE 1
I
MAP
KEY PROJECT
COST
(1000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 WSDOT
21 '-'SDOT
22 \\'SDOT
23 WSDOT
24 WSDOT
25 Auburn
26 Auburn
29 Kent
30 Kent
31 lient
32 Kent
33 Kent
3~ Kent
35 .Kent
36 King
3i King
38 King
39 Renton
40 Renton
41 Renton
42 Renton
4 3 Renton
44 Renton
45 Tuk,..ila
46 Tuk,..ila
47 Tub.J la
48 Tukwila
49 Kent
49 J(Ing
iV r:!!..rr ~,~ r72
~ ~'~-..:=;::./-=--
I-5/S 178 interchange (newl
SR-167/SW 27 interchange (new)
SR-167/S 192 interchange (new)
W Valley, 29 NW -S 277 (widen)
W Valley, SR-18 -15 NW (widen)
Oravetz, A SE-R SE (widen)
Kersey, R SE -SCL (widen)
W Valley, S 180 -S 212 (widen)
W Valley, S 212 -S 238 (widen)
W Valley/S 196, S 228 (reconstruct intersections)
W Valley/James (intersection improvements)
80S (Lind S~]. S 180-E Valley (ne'"')
SE 240, 108 SE-116 SE (widen)
S 224, SR-515 -SR-167 (new,widen)
SE 277, W Valley-SR-167 (widen)
SE 240, 116 SE-132 SE (widen)
140 SE, Pipeline -SR-169 (widen)
SE Puget, Edmonds -SR-169 (new)
SE Puget, Jones -Edmonds (widen)
Edmonds, SR-169 -NE 3 (new)
SW 43 (S 180]/E Valley (intersection improvements)
Park N, Bronson N -Garden N (reconstruct)
Lk WA Blvd, Park-1-405 (reconstruct)
Tukwila Pkwy Ext, T-Line -W Valley (new)
Interurban, 1-5 -NCL (widen)
ln1erurban, I-405 -1-5 (widen)
51 S, S 180 -S 200 (widen)
SE 256, SR-516-116 SE (widPn)
SE 256, SR-516 -116 SE (widen)
VALLEY PROGRAM:
HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS
(NOT IN PRIORITY ORDER)
7
Total
110,000
17,000
15.00l
18,000
16,00()
11,650
11,7£~
17,100
14.720
S~00
$300
$600
$1,320
17,750
11.155
$2.469
$3,618
110,000
1960
14,000
1230
I 7, OOC.•
14,8GL
16,854
$2,070
14,593
I 1. 85 3
1408
14~2
1112,407
TABLE 2
MAP
KEY
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Kent
King
Tukwila
Tukwila
Tukwila
Tuk'-'ila
Tukwila
Tukwila
Renton
Renton
Renton
PROJECT
SE 240/104 SE !intersection i•provements)
SE 128, 138 SE -156 SE (intersection i•provementsl
Tukw1la Pkwy, W Valley -SW 16 (new)
s 188 Connector (ne~o;)
s 180, RR Overxing (nel-')
Minkler, W Valley -Oakesdale (nel-')
s 154, 53 s -CL (ne~o;)
Gateway Dr, SR-181 -SR-900 (new)
s 2. Main s -Rainier s (reconstruct)
Rainier s (i SR-167 (widen)
Lk WA Blvd, NE 44 -NCL (widen)
Total
VALLEY PROGRAM: OTHER PROJECTS
(NOT IN PRIORITY ORDER)
8
COST
(1000)
1100
1819
li,OOO
15,250
17,000
17,00::!
1318
12,831
1100
1600
1500
---------
131,5lb
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES ($ millions)
VALLEY PROGRAM
Highest Priority Projects
High Priority Projects
Other Projects
LOCAL PROJECTS
King County
Kent
Renton
Auburn
Tukwila
Total
Total
SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES
($MILLIONS)
9
$163.9
$112.4
$31.5
$307.9
$6.6
$5. 1
$13.3
$35.8
$18.7
$79.5
TABLE 4
•
I
HIGHEST PRIORITY PROJECTS
SE 256/132 SE (intersection improvements)
SE 128-Sunset, 144 SE -I-405 (signal interconnect)
HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS
Lea Hill, SE 312 -SE 320 (shoulders)
Elliot Bridge, 149 SE -154 Pl SE (replace)
116 SE, SE 176 -SE 192 (widen)
Peasley Canyon, 51 S -Auburn WCL (shoulders)
OTHER PROJECTS
S 277 Bridge@ 59 S (improve)
42 S, S 212 -S 216 (widen)
SE 304 Wy, 104 SE -108 SE (widen)
Total
KING COUNTY LOCAL PROJECTS
10
COST
($000)
$189
$40
$230
$3,796
$1,597
$239
$76
$191
$22-1
$6,582
TABLE 5
HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS
64 S, S 212 -S 240 (new)
72 S, S 180 -S 228 (new)
OTHER PROJECTS
N Central, James -Smith (widen)
SR-516, 4 S -Central (widen)
KENT LOCAL PROJECTS
11
Total
COST
($000)
$2,800
$1,225
$780
$330
$5,135
TABLE 6
HIGHEST PRIORITY PROJECTS
SW 16, Lind -Oakesdale (widen)
SW 16, Oakesdale -Monster (widen)
SW Grady, Rainier -Lind (widen)
HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS
N 1, Park-Burnett (reconstruct)
Park, Bronson - N 4 (reconstruct)
Logan, Airport Wy -S 2 (reconstruct)
S 7, Shattuck -Smithers (new)
OTHER PROJECTS
Raymond, SW 19 -SW 34 (new)
RR Xings, city wide
Street Overlays, city wide
SW 19, Lind -Oakesdale (new)
Longview, SW 27 -SW 41 (new)
SW 34, Longview -Oakesdale (new)
Lk WA Blvd, NE 44 -NCL (widen)
Mill, S 2 -S 6 (reconstruct)
Edmonds, NE 4 -Sunset (widen)
RENTON LOCAL PROJECTS
12
COST
($000)
$2,200
$770
$250
$700
$60
$600
$220
$2,500
$527
$600
$400
$1,200
$400
$600
$500
$1,800
Total $13,327
TABLE 7
AUBURN LOCAL PROJECTS
HIGHEST PRIORITY PROJECTS
B ~W, 30 NW -37 NW (widen)
I NE, 14 NE -Harvey (widen)
I NE, 22 NE -30 NE (widen)
I NE, 30 NE -35 NE (widen)
C SW, Ellingson -15 SW (widen)
15 NW, W Valley -S 316 (new)
29 NW, B NW - M NW (widen)
M NW, 15 NW -29 NW (widen)
H NW, 15 NW -S 277 (new)
H NW, Main -15 NW (widen)
B NW, Main -15 NW (new)
8-9 NE, B NW -Harvey (new)
I NE, 35 NE -S 277 (new)
HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS
37 NE, A NE - M NE (widen)
3 SW, C SW - A SE (widen)
R SE, Oravetz -29 SE (widen)
F SE, 17 SE -19 SE (widen)
F SE, 25 SE -29 SE (widen)
M NE, Main - 8 NE (widen)
M SE, 29 SE -37 SE (widen)
37 NE, Auburn Wy - I NE (widen)
OTHER PROJECTS
Mountain View, W Valley -WCL (shoulder)
Auburn Av, Auburn Wy N -Main (widen)
Auburn Wy N, Auburn Av -Main (widen)
H SE, 17 SE -21 SE (widen)
Clay NW, SR-18 -15 NW (new)
M SE, Main -29 SE (improve)
AUBURN LOCAL PROJECTS
COST
($000)
$500
$350
$700
$150
$1,925
$3,300
$1,000
$1,100
$6,650
$3,200
$2,200
$1,200
$2,500
$870
$450
$760
$280
$400
$932
$486
$88
$358
$740
$800
$297
$4,300
$220
Total $35,756
TABLE 8
HIGHEST PRIORITY PROJECTS
Minkler, Andover Pk W -Southcenter Pkwy (new)
Southcenter Blvd, T-Line -62 S (widen)
S 168, Andover Pk W -Southcenter Pkwy (new)
T-Line Bridge @ I-405 (widen)
HIGH PRIORITY PROJECTS
Southcenter Pkwy, I-5 -Minkler (widen)
Interurban/SR-599 (ramps,signals)
Strander/Andover Pk W (intersection improvements)
Macadam, Southcenter Pkwy -S 144 (improve)
Longacres Wy, SR-181 -CL (improve)
Tukwila Pkwy/Andover Pk E (signal)
S 180, 57 S -Andover Pk W (widen)
S 180/Andover Pk W (intersection improvements)
OTHER PROJECTS
S 133 -S 148, 42 S -Interurban (improve)
Christensen@ T-Line (improve)
Strander, Andover Pk W -Green River (widen)
58 S, Strander -S 168 (improve)
S 168, Andover Pk W -Andover Pk E (improve)
Minkler, Andover Pk W -Andover Pk E (improve)
COST
($000)
$3,569
$844
$2,846
$2,000
$2,540
$431
$90
$1,392
$401
$149
$115
$80
$859
$280
$493
$1,582
$328
$651
Total $18,650
TUKWILA LOCAL PROJECTS TABLE 9
14
Not.e: 'lbia tAbl~ ~ J"CCIK! p-oject. ocat ..t.t.~ with !'OUCh
•tt.t.. of tbe availab1lit7 of f..ntinc tbroullh 2000. For M\7 of tbe
project.a, tbe act\&1 requirt!IDent.a for additional fundinl (i.~., f\ftiina
be)'Onel ..nat -.s eat~ted t.o be availabl~) oould be u low u tA~ ai.niaao
8hort.fa.ll ahown in tbe tAbl~, or u b~ u tbe .,tire p-oject. ooet. 'lbe
at.ent of ~ act\&1 llhort.fa.ll will be dependl!nt on a ....t>er of fect.ora,
incl\.dina: project deeisn and ~ act\&1 availabilit7 of fundinl ._, the
project b acbeduled for construction.
MAP
KEY
1A
18
1C
1D
lE
lF
2A
2B
2C
2D
Kin&
Kin.11:
Kent
Kent
Kent.
WSDOT
Kin.ll:
Auburn
King
Kent
PROJECT
192/196 CORRIDOR
s 192/196, SR-515 -140 SE
s 192/196, SR-167 -SR-515
s 192/196, W Valley -SR-167
s 196/200, Orillia -W Valley
s 200 Connector, Orillia -I-5
I-5/S 200 Conn/SR-509 interchan,ie
277 CORRIDOR
SE 277, SR-167 -Auburn Wy N
SE 277, Auburn Wy N -Green River
SE 277 Ext., Green River -SR-18
SE 277 Ext, Green River -SR-516
Eatimate of
Fund in&
Shortfall
(I million)
hiah ain
(project.
coat)
t4. 1 11.0
14.9 12.5
119.3 17.7
14.0 11.6
13.0 12.3
[ • •ee below]
13.1 12.3
13.2 11.4
114.3 110.7
18.5 13.4
Estimate of
Available
Aaency
Funding
Public Private
50" 25%
25" 25"
10" 50"
10% 50"
0" 25X
10% 15"
30" 2 5%
10" 15"
10" 50"
2E WSDOT SR-18/SE 277 Ext. int.erchan&e [ •• Bee below)
W VALLEY/180 INTERSECTION
3 Kent W Valley/S 180
3 Tukwila W Valley/S 180
11
35
16
16
17
224/228 CORRIDOR
Kent S 228, Ruaaell -Military
Kent S 224, SR-515-SR-167
OAKESDALE
Renton Oakesdale, SW 28 -Sw 16
Renton Oakesdale, Sw 16 -Sunset.
STRANDER EXTENSION
Renton SW 27, W Valley-SR-167
SOUTHCENTER BLVD
18 Tukwila Southcenter Blvd, T-Line -Grady
39
40
41
IF • 2EU
4
5
6
7
20
21
22
PUGET-EDMONDS
Renton SE Pu&et, Edmonds -SR-169
Renton SE Pu&et, Jones -Edmonds
Renton Edmonds, Sk-169 -NE 3
FREEwAY INTERCHANGES
WSDOT 1-5/S 200 Conn/SR-509 (Kent)
WSDOT SR-18/SE 277 Ext (King)
WSDOT I-405/SR-515 (Renton)
WSDOT SR-167/SW 43 (Renton)
WSDOT SR-18/SR-164 (Auburn)
WSDOT SR-18/S 312 (King)
WSDOT I-5/S 178 I Tukwila)
WSDOT SR-167/SW 27 !Renton)
WSDOT SR-167/S 192 (Kent)
10.6
11.8
17.8
17.8
15.5
Sll. 0
18.0
17.7
110.0
11.0
14.0
110.0
15.0
110.0
15.0
18.0
16.0
110.0
17.0
15.0
10.2
11.6
13.1
13.1
( 10.0 I
18.3
16.4
16. 1
19.0
10.9
13.6
10.0
14.5
110.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
110.0
17.0
15.0
10%
1 ox
20"
20%
100"
100"
50%
100%
sox
50%
50%
90%
10"
10%
10%
10'X
50"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Local Juriadiction Total 1129.4 175.2
WSDOT Total 166.0 136.5
EXTRAORDINARY PROJECTS
(ESTIMATED COST, FUNDING AVAILABILITY
AND SHORTFALL THRU 2000)
15
1 3" 28%
38% a
TABLE 10
BBCOMKBIIDATIOIIS
The following recommendations were developed and endorsed by
the Valley Transportation Committee (VTC) as a whole. The
recommendations fall into three main categories: 1) general
recommendations, 2) recommended actions related to the
legislative process, and 3) recommended actions related to
specific projects and groups of projects. The recommendations
listed below suggest a range of potential approaches and
solutions to a range of technical and financial needs and
problems. Some of the recommendations are broadly applicable,
while others are narrowly focused. It was not the intention of
the VTC to imply that all of the recommendations can be applied
anywhere under any circumstances.
A. General Becoaaendations
1. The Valley Transportation Committee recommends that King
County and the cities of Kent, Renton, Auburn and Tukwila
endorse the Green River Valley Transportation Action Plan and
its project priority lists (see Figure 2 and Tables 1 -10)
and its traffic and financial findings and conclusions.
2. A "marketing strategy," aimed at publicizing, selling and
implementing the GRVTAP recommendations, should be developed
and put into action.
3. A permanent committee should be created to coordinate the
planning, financing and construction of Valley transportation
projects, and to lobby for needed legislative changes. Due to
the increasing dependence on private sector funding for
transportation improvements, such a group should include
private sector representatives.
4. The PSCOG and WSDOT should undertake a freeway operations
~tudy of I-5, 1-405 and SR-167, in order to evaluate the
ability of the freeway system and its interchanges to
accommodate future traffic demand, and to determine the
operational feasibility of the various interchange improvement
projects included in the GRVTAP.
5. In order to maximize the people-carrying capacity of the road
system, an assessment of the potential for HOV (high occupancy
vehicle) facilities should be included in the planning and
design of all GRVTAP projects. HOV projects for which
matching funds may be available from Metro should be
identified.
B. Becoaaended Actions: Le.islative
1. Support an increase in the State Motor Fuel Tax.
2. Support creation of a Multi-Agency Arterial Program (MAP).
Use the Extraordinary Projects as the Green River Valley's
16
list of MAP projects, and make the legislature aware of the
need for funding for these projects.
3. Support proposed Transportation Benefit District legislation
and the creation of a transportation benefit district program
funded by the motor fuel tax.
4. Work for designation of one of the cross-valley corridor
projects (192nd/196th, 277th, or 224th/228th) as a state
highway and for state funding of construction.
5. If King County 2000 proposes a transportation bond issue, work
to ensure that the Extraordinary Projects are among the
projects to be funded.
C. Hecoaaended Actions: Project-Related
1. Based on the results of the recommended freeway operations
study (Recommendation A.4. ), work with the WSDOT and the PSCOG
to have the proposed new freeway interchanges and interchange
improvements (see Table 10) put into the State's plan and
funded.
2. The interchange projects will cost a total of $66 million, of
which $36.5 million is currently unfunded. Because little of
the nearly $30 million shortfall is likely to be made up
through federal and state grants (unless a MAP is created) or
local general taxes, efforts should be made to make up as much
of the shortfall as possible with revenues raised from the
properties within the Valley.
3. Because the GRVTAP traffic analysis indicates that a higher
private share can be justified, Kent should consider the
feasibility of increasing the share of costs borne by the
private sector for the S 192/196, S 224/228, and S 277th
Corridors. Also, King County should consider methods for
augmenting mitigation payments with additional private
contributions for its segments of these corridors.
4. Even with additional mitigation-derived private sector
contributions, there will still be some significant funding
shortfalls for Green River Valley projects. For this reason,
consideration should be given to expanding the private role to
include all properties, including those that are already
developed. Possible techniques include city bond issues,
formation of area-wide improvement districts, and the creation
of a Road Service District or a Transportation Benefit
District (if the latter is approved by the legislature) for
the Green River Valley as a whole.
5. The use of city bond issues should be considered for fundin~
projects that are not in the Valley, such as Puget-Edmonds 1n
Renton and the S 200th Connector in Kent (see Figure 2 and
Tables 1 and 2). Bond funds should also be considered for
17
•
supplementing private sector funds obtained through mitigation
payments or through a Green River Valley RSD/TBD.
6. Area-wide improvement districts, such as Local Improvement
Districts (LID's) should be considered if a Green River Valley
RSD/TBD is not created.
7. Because the segments of S 277th Corridor east of the Green
River are expensive and not well-suited to the private funding
mechanisms discussed for the Valley, consideration should be
given to making them the Valley jurisdictions' (as a united
group) top priorities for MAP and for King County 2000, in the
event that either of those programs is created. Consideration
should also be given to including areas adjacent to such
segments in a Green River Valley RSD/TBD.
18
GRBBN RIYBR YALLBY TRAMBPORTATIOM ACTIOM PLAM
III. TRAFFIC AMALYSIS
TRAFFIC AMALYSIS FIMDIMGS
The findings of the GRVTAP traffic analysis were based not
only Op the results of the analyses done for GRVTAP, but also on
the results of previous studies conducted by PSCOG, by the Valley
jurisdictions and by their consultants.
Land Use
o The two overriding factors affecting future traffic conditions
on the Green River Valley road system are i) the employment
growth in the north half of the Valley (Kent and north), and
ii) the doubling of population on the Soos Creek Plateau.
Cross-Valley Arterials
o Cross-valley arterials north of Kent are needed to carry
Plateau residents to Valley jobs.
o Cross-valley arterial connections to I-5 are needed primarily
to carry I-5 traffic to/from Valley employment centers.
o The provision of cross-valley arterial connections to carry
traffic from the Plateau to I-5 (north of Kent) is also
important.
Valley Arterial Grid
o There will be extremely heavy traffic volumes on the Valley's
internal arterial grid; additional links in that grid are
needed to adequately handle future traffic.
192nd/196th Corridor
o The proposed 192nd/196th Corridor will not serve as a reliever
of I-405; traffic related to Valley employment will create
too much congestion for 192nd/196th to be attractive as an l-
405 alternate.
o The east end of the 192nd/196th Corridor provides Plateau-
Valley access, while the west end of the Corridor serves local
access traffic and provides I-5 -Valley access (it carries
little through traffic).
19
Freewa7' 87'Btea
o There will be heavy volumes of Valley-related traffic using all
of the 1-5 interchanges between SR-516 and Southcenter. The
operation of individual interchanges must be assessed within
the context of overall freeway system operation; reducing or
limiting traffic volumes at one interchange just puts
additional pressure on others.
o As with 1-5, SR-167 interchanges will carry heavy volumes of
traffic enroute to/from Valley employment centers.
o A high proportion of SR-167 and I-405 (through Renton) traffic
is travelling to/from the Valley or the Plateau.
o Additional interchanges on SR-167 and I-405 will relieve the
pressure that heavy future traffic demand will exert on
existing interchanges.
Ient-Iangle7', ZTZnd/Z??th Corridor
o Travel demand to/from the Lake Meridian/South Soos creek area
is oriented mainly SE-NW, with a large proportion of the travel
directed to jobs in the north half of the Valley; Kent-Kangley
Road (SR-516) provides a direct route for this travel.
o Future traffic volumes on Kent-Kangley will be excessive;
alternate routes are severely limited.
o The northerly alternative for the 277th extension would serve
mainly as a by-pass for the Kent-Kangley bottleneck at
104th/256th.
o The southerly alternative for the 277th extension would
function as a true cross-valley arterial.
o The southerly alternative for the 277th extension would be used
primarily as an access route to Auburn, to SR-167, and to
north-south Valley arterials, as well as to 1-5.
Auburn
o A substantial proportion of the traffic travelling between
Auburn and I-5 is oriented to/from the north; Peasley Canyon
Road serves as a short-cut for this traffic, and its volume
nearly doubles by 2000. The NW 15th connection will provide
some relief, but Year 2000 Peasley Canyon volumes will still be
substantially higher than today's volume.
o The proposed SR-18/"R" Street interchange in Auburn would
provide relief to the SR-18/SR-167/SR-181 and SR-18/"C" Street
interchanges, and would help balance traffic volumes on the
Auburn street network.
20
BH-509 Bztension
o SR-509 will carry little Valley traffic; however the SR-509
extension alternatives do provide some benefit in that they
siphon some non-Valley traffic off of I-5 south of the
congested Valley-access interchanges.
Valle7-Bastside Arterial Connections
o Neither the Edmonds Avenue nor the 156th SE extensions north of
SR-169 provide an attractive alternate route for I-405 traffic
(neither is an effective substitute for the politically
infeasible 140th segment of the "Poor Han's I-605"). Edmonds
provides only local access, and 156th is too far east,
requiring a two-mile detour for traffic travelling to/from
138th SE and Coal Creek Parkway.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS
1. Overall projected traffic flows will virtually flood all major
arterials, freeways and interchanges in and around the Valley
and on the west side of the Plateau (north of Kent).
2. The number of I-5, I-405 and SR-167 interchanaes serving north
Valley employment centers should be maximized in order to
better handle the high proportion and heavy volume of traffic
enroute to/from the Valley.
3. All of the proposed cross-valley arterials are needed to carry
traffic from the residential areas on the Plateau to the
employment centers in the Valley (even if all are built, they
will be overloaded).
4. The density of the arterial grid serving the employment
centers in the north half of the Valley should be maximized
(all of the proposed east-west and north-south arterial
segments are needed, but even if all are built, there will
still be congestion).
5. Although the pressure exerted by future traffic volumes will
not be as intense in Auburn as in the north half of the
Valley, all of the Auburn projects will be needed to handle
traffic growth.
6. In order to increase the person-carrying capacity of the
Valley road system, consider HOV improvements in the planning
and design of all Valley road projects.
7. Solutions to future traffic and transportation problems must
be sought in land use management, as well as in road
construction and in management of the transportation system.
21
GRBBM RIYBR YALLBY TRAMBPORTATIOM ACTIOM PLAN
IV. FINAMCIAL AMALYBIB
IMTRODUCTION
Implementation of the projects recommended in the Green River
Valley Transportation Action Plan is dependent on the
availability of adequate funding. Although other obstacles must
also be overcome, the projects will not be completed unless there
is enough money to pay for them. The financial analysis element
of the Green River Valley Transportation Action Plan identifies
potential funding sources, assesses the amount of funding
potentially available from these sources, and provides a set of
findings and conclusions that can be used by the Green River
Valley jurisdictions in making funding decisions.
FINANCIAL AMALYBIB FIMDIMGB: FUMDIMG BOURCBB
The financial analysis findings are drawn from a detailed
review and assessment of each of the major funding source
categories identified. This detailed analysis is published under
separate cover in the GRVTAP Technical Appendix. The Technical
Appendix also includes a review of current local funding
strategies and proposed state legislation.
o Past federal grants for transportation total $21.1 million to
the four Valley cities and $29 million to King County.
o The federal role in funding local transportation projects is
declining, but grants from the Federal Aid Urban System, Bridge
Replacement, and Federal Aid Safety Programs are expected to
remain available. Funding for these three programs is expected
to remain at about current levels.
o A conservative estimate of federal grants for the Valley cities
totals $10.8 million. King County is estimated to receive
$21.9 million from these sources for projects throughout the
unincorporated area.
o An optimistic estimate of federal grants for the Valley cities
totals $14.2 million. King County is estimated to receive
$27.7 million from these sources for projects throughout the
unincorporated area.
o Federal grants are likely to be spread among a large number of
projects.
22
o Only the Federal Aid Urban System (FAUS) program appears
applicable to the Extraordinary Projects. Given the small
amount available from FAUS, the program should not be expected
to fund a large share of the Extraordinary Projects.
State Proaraas: Urban Arterial Proaraa
o The urban arterial program is the major source of state grants
for,Green River Valley projects. Past urban arterial grants
total $36 million to the four Valley cities for 59 projects and
$14.2 million to King County for 48 projects throughout the
unincorporated area.
o The program is running out of money. Without a funding
increase, only $20 million in urban arterial grants will be
available state-wide during the next biennium and none
thereafter.
o A conservative estimate assumes no new funding and no urban
arterial grants for the Action Plan projects.
o An optimistic estimate assumes a penny per gallon of additional
fuel tax funding and grants of $15.2 million for the Valley
cities and $6 million for King County (for projects throughout
the unincorporated area).
o Additional urban arterial grants are likely to be spread over a
number of projects. Grants to King County will be used for
projects throughout the unincorporated areas, not just projects
in the GRVTAP area.
o The Extraordinary Projects are eligible, but it is unlikely
that urban arterial grants will cover more than a small share
of their costs. The program has rarely funded the construction
of new arterial corridors.
State Prograas: Public Works Trust Fund and CBRB
o The Public Works Trust Fund and the Community Economic
Revitalization Board (CERB) make loans for public
infrastructure, including transportation projects.
o Public Works Trust Fund loans have only been available for a
year. It is hard to judge the program's potential for financing
transportation projects in the Valley.
o The conservative estimate assumes no loans will be available
for Action Plan projects.
o The optimistic estimate assumes $2.2 million in loans will be
available for city transportation projects and $12.7 million
for King County transportation projects throughout the
unincorporated area ..
23
o Public Works Trust Fund loans will not be available for the
Extraordinary Projects. The loans cannot exceed $1 million for
a single project and the program is directed at solving
existing infrastructure problems, not at creating new capacity.
o CERB loans have not been a source for Valley transportation
projects in the past and are not expected to play a significant
role in the future
o The joint CERB-WSDOT $10 million grant program to fund
transportation improvements needed to support economic
development should be aggressively pursued, especially if it is
continued for the next biennium.
State Pro•raas: Motor Fuel Tai Distributioas
o The Motor Fuel Tax is a shared revenue that is distributed to
the cities and county by a formula. It is the most flexible
and reliable source of state and federal revenue for local
transportation programs.
o The County may use the $11.1 million it receives annually for
either maintenance and operations or capital projects
throughout the unincorporated areas. The Valley cities may use
$1.2 million of their share for either capital or operations
and maintenance, but the remaining $.7 million must be used for
capital purposes.
o Under the conservative estimate, which assumes a continuation
of the current annual distribution, the Valley cities would
receive $24.7 million over the implementation period, with a
minimum of $9.9 million for capital purposes. King County
would receive $144.6 million. A large share of these funds
will be needed for operations and maintenance.
o The optimistic estimate assumes two five-cent fuel tax
increases, but no other changes. Distributions to the Valley
cities would total $36.8 million, with a minimum of $14.7
million for capital purposes. King County would receive $215.5
million.
o The Motor Fuel Tax is unlikely to fund more than a limited
share of the cost of the Extraordinary Projects. Annual
distributions are not large enough and a portion of the
revenues will be needed for maintenance and operations as well
as for smaller capital projects.
Local Sources: Tazes
o City and county taxes are a traditional source of funding for
local transportation projects. Their importance has diminished
over the last two or three decades as other local needs have
grown, increasing the competition for general tax revenues.
24
o Despite the competition, all of the Valley jurisdictions
continue to use a portion of their tax revenues for
transportation, especially operations and maintenance.
o Some actions have been taken to provide additional tax revenues
for transportation. Tukwila and Kent have dedicated revenues
from specific taxes to capital purposes, including
transportation. Auburn has a target for contributing tax
revenues for street capital projects. Renton intends to use
taxes as local match for federal and state grants. King County
has ended the use of revenues from the road levy for non-
transportation purposes.
o The amount of general tax revenue that can be devoted to
transportation capital projects is constrained by statutory
limits on taxation and by the competing demands for the
available revenues.
o Local taxes are unlikely to be able to fund more than a small
share of the cost of the Extraordinary Projects.
Local Sources: General Obli.ation Bonds
o General obligation bonds have been used infrequently for
transportation projects by the four Valley cities. Renton and
Tukwila have never used them, Kent has one small, councilmanic
issue, and Auburn has two voter approved issues. The second
one, for $5 million, was approved this year.
o King County voters approved a $70 million bond issue for
arterials in 1967 as part of Forward Thrust. The funds were
used to build projects in the cities as well as the
unincorporated portions of the county. A second, countywide
bond issue for transportation may be proposed as part of "King
County 2000".
o The four Valley cities have a total of $117 million in
remaining statutory debt capacity for general purposes,
including transportation. King County has over $1 billion of
remaining statutory debt capacity.
o Councilmanic debt is serviced from existing revenues. This
makes it an unlikely candidate to fund large transportation
projects.
o The Extraordinary Projects could be funded with voter approved
bonds. However, the bonds must receive a 60% favorable vote
and transportation projects compete with other public
facilities that require bond funding.
25
•
Stud7 Area Sources:
LID, Contribution•, Biti•ation Pa7aeats
o Local improvement districts (LID's), direct contributions, and
mitigation payments are the mechanisms currently used to obtain
funding from properties within the study area.
o Much of the funding for local transportation projects will be
proyided by properties within the study area. They are
expected to fund nearly all of the cost of local streets,
collector arterials, and improvements needed to mitigate the
impact of specific development projects. They are also
expected to provide a large share of the costs for major
arterials, including the Extraordinary Projects.
o The Valley jurisdictions have based much of their use of these
mechanisms on their authority under the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA). When the property owner submits a
development for review, its potential transportation impacts
are identified as part of the environmental analysis. Approval
of the development is conditioned on the owner agreeing to pay
for the improvements needed to mitigate the identified impacts.
o This approach to funding benefits the property owners as well
as the jurisdictions by enabling transportation improvements to
be constructed in a timely manner. It would be very difficult
to provide additional transportation capacity in the Green
River Valley without funding from study area properties.
Stud7 Area Sources: RSD's and TBD's
o Road Service Districts (RSD's) and Transportation Benefit
Districts (TBD's) are two techniques that could enhance the
ability of the study area to fund needed transportation
projects.
o RSD's are authorized under existing legislation, though none
has been formed in King County. The TBD is part of a package
of proposals that will be presented to legislature during the
1987 session.
o In operation, RSD's and TBD's would be much alike. Both allow
the formation of a district, which can be multi-jurisdictional
or less than jurisdiction-wide, for the purpose of constructing
transportation improvements. Neither has a tax source, but
both could finance improvements with voter approved general
obligation bonds and LID's. A Green River Valley RSD or TBD
would have a statutory debt capacity of about $50 million.
o They are not identical. RSD's can only be formed by counties,
though they can include land within a city. A TBD could be
formed by either a city or a county. TBD's are directed at
areas of economic development such as the Green River Valley.
RSD's are more general purpose.
26
o RSD's and TBD's, if approved by the legislature, could be used
to fund a major share of the Extraordinary Projects.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS FINDINGS:
TRANSPORTATION MKBDB AMD CURBBNT FUNDING STRATKGIBS
o The Green River Valley jurisdictions all have transportation
funding strategies that draw on a mixture of sources--local
taxes, federal and state grants, motor fuel tax, and taxes on
property within the Valley.
o Total Green River Valley transportation project needs are over
$380 million.
o There are a number of priority projects that cannot be funded
and built by individual jurisdictions using currently available
funding sources. The construction of these "Extraordinary"
projects (see Table 10) is of concern to the entire Green River
Valley and can only be accomplished through joint action of the
Valley cities, King County, and the State.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS
The financial analysis conclusions were based on a comparison
of financial analysis findings and the cost estimates for the
specific projects included in the GRVTAP priority array (see
Tables 1-10).
Transportation Meeds
1. Slightly more than half of the total identified transportation
project needs, $195 million, is needed for eight
"Extraordinary Pro;iects" and nine freeway interchange
projects. Exclusive of the interchanges, the Extraordinary
Projects located within the Green River Valley itself are
estimated to cost $97.1 million.
2. Each of the Valley cities and King County have funding
strategies that draw on a mixture of sources--local taxes,
federal and state grants, motor fuel tax, and taxes on
property within the Valley.
3. The Green River Valley jurisdictions' existing transportation
funding strategies will be able to fund most of the identified
transportation needs. However, they will leave a shortfall of
$112 million for the Extraordinary Projects, including the
freeway interchanges. Exclusive of the interchanges, the
Extraordinary Projects located within the Green River Valley
itself will have a shortfall of $48.7 million.
4. Unless this shortfall is reduced, many of the projects that
are needed to support the growth of the Green River Valley
27
will be delayed--in some cases until beyond the end of the
century.
Fundina Strateaies
5. The interchange projects will cost a total of $66 million, of
which $36.5 million is currently unfunded. Little of this
shortfall is likely to be made up through federal and state
grants (unless a MAP is created). Local general taxes can
als~ make up only a small share of the needed funds. The
costs for some of the projects will have to be shared by the
local jurisdictions and the private sector.
6. The GRVTAP traffic analysis (i.e., the trip distribution
estimates) indicates that a higher private share of costs for
the S 192/196, S 224/228 and S 277th Corridors can be
justified.
7. Even with additional mitigation-derived private sector
contributions, there will still be some significant funding
shortfalls for Green River Valley projects.
8. A Road Service District (RSD) or Transportation Benefit
District (TBD) for the Valley would have a statutory debt
capacity of about $50 million. In addition, LID's could be
formed. A TBD or RSD could serve as a powerful tool for
permitting the private sector to help insure that the
construction of the Extraordinary Projects (which are
essential to the private sector) can proceed in a timely
manner.
9. City bond issues also hold potential. They have not been used
much in the past, but they could be especially useful for
funding the project segments that are not in the Valley.
These include Puget-Edmonds in Renton (total cost $15 million,
shortfall $13.5 million) and the S 200th Connector in Kent
(total cost $3 million, shortfall $2.3 million). Bond funds
could also be used to contribute a share of the cost for
projects that are mostly funded through mitigation payments or
through a Green River Valley RSD/TBD.
10. Area-wide improvement districts are difficult to form, but
may be applicable in places. The Tukwila Central Business
District (CBDl is one location that might be able to use an
area-wide LID to fund some of the Extraordinary Projects.
11. The segments of S 277th to the east of the Green River Valley
may be especially difficult to fund. They are expensive and
not well-suited to the private funding mechanisms discussed
for the Valley.
28
PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
KING SUBREGION
Algona
CoLin. Sue Langley
Auburn
Mayor Bob Roegner
Beaux Arts Village
Coun. Robin Stefan
Bellevue
Mayor Cary Bozeman
Coun. Nan Campbell
Bothell
Coun. Walt Wojcik
Clyde Hill
Coun. Roger Shaeffer
Des Moines
Mayor Pat DeBlasio
Duvall
Coun. Paul Reddick
Coun. Ruth Subert
El)umclaw
Coun. Gaye Veenhuizen
Issaquah
Coun. Darlene McHenry
Kent
Coun. Jon Johnson
King County
County Exec. Tim Hill
Coun. Gary Grant.
Coun. Audrey Gruger
Coun. Bruce Laing
Coun. Lois North
Coun. Bill Reams
Kirkland
Mayor Doris Cooper
Lake Forest Park
Mayor Dick Rainforth
Mercer Island
Coun. Verne Lewis
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
Exec. Director Virginia Cross
Normandy Park
Coun. Norm Strange
North Bend
Mayor Obe Healea
Redmond
Mayor Doreen Marchione
Coun. Margaret Doman
Renton
Coun. Kathy Keolker
Seattle
Mayor Charles Royer
Coun. George Benson
Coun. Virginia Galle
Coun. Jeanette Williams
Snoqualmie
Coun. Darwin Sukut
Tukwila
Coun. Mabel Harris
Coun, Doris Phelps
KITSAP SUBREGION
Bremerton
Mayor Gene Lobe
Coun. Spencer Horning
Coun. Mary Lou Long
Kitsap County
Comm. Ray Aardal
Comm. John Horsley
Comm. Bill Mahan
Port Orchard
Mayor Jay Weatherill
Poulsbo
Mayor Richard Mitchusson
Coun. Chris Endresen
Suquamish Tribe
John Bagley
Winslow
Mayor Alice Tawresey
PIERCE SUBREGION
Bonney Lake
Coun. Robert Hawkins
Buckley
Mayor Eugene Robertson
DuPont
Mayor Pola Andre
Fife
Mayor Robert Mizukami
Fin:rest
Mayor Larry Cavanaugh
Gig Harbor
Coun. Jim Ryan
Milton
Coun. Dianne Simmons
Pierce County
County Exec. Joe Stortini
Coun. Charles Gorden
Coun. Bill Stoner
Puyallup
Coun. Ken Martin
Steilacoom
Coun. Peter Pedone
Sumner
Coun. Pearl Mance
Tacoma
Mayor Doug Sutl'!erland
Coun. Ruth McEIIiott
Coun. Tom Stenger
SNOHOMISH SUBREGION
Arlington
Mayor John C. Larson
Edmonds
Mayor Larry Naughten
Everett
Coun. Ed Morrow
Coun. Connie Niva
Lake Stevens
Mayor Richard Toyer
Lynnwood
Mayor M. J. Hrdlicka
Marysville
Coun. Rita Matheny
Mill Creek
Coun. Linda Blumenstein
Monroe
Mayor Gordon Tjerne
Mountlake Terrace
Mayor Lois Anderson
Mukilteo
Mayor Emory Cole
Snohomish
Mayor Ann Averill
Snohomish County
County Exec. Willis Tucker
Coun. Bruce Agnew
Coun. Brian Corcoran
Stanwood
Coun. Robert Lunn
The Tulalip Tribes
Chair, Stanley Jones, Sr.
Woodway
Mayor Jeannette Wood
--=