HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council Workshop - Agenda - 07/05/2006 ENT
SUMMARY� AGENDA
Mayor Suzette Cooke Councilmembers Deborah Ranniger, President;
Tim Clark, Ron Harmon, Bob O'Brien, Debbie Raplee, Les Thomas,
Elizabeth Watson
JUL 5,2006
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
5:30 P.M.
Item Description Speaker Time
1. Transportation Master PlarL Larry Blanchard 40 min
2. Metro King County Interlocal Agreement
for Waste Water Treatment Larry Blanchard 20 min
COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
7:00 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
2. ROLL CALL
3. CHANGES TO AGENDA
A. FROM COUNCIL,ADMINISTRATION,OR STAFF
B. FROM THE PUBLIC—Citizens may request that an item be added to the agenda at this time. Please stand or
raise your hand to be recognized by the Mayor.
4. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
A. Public Recognition
B. Community Events
C. Employee of the Month
D. Parks and Recreation Month
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
6. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes of Previous Meeting—Approve
B. Payment of Bills—Approve
C. Clearwire US LLC,Lease Agreement—Authorize
D. Puget Sound Energy Easement,277th and Green River Road—Authorize
E. King County Office of Emergency Management Grant for CERT Training Materials—Accept and Authorize
F. King County Office of Emergency Management Grant for CERT Training Courses—Accept and Authorize
G. Wireless Data Network Access in Police Patrol Vehicles—Authorize
H. Resolution Ratifying Amendments to Countywide Planning Policies—Adopt
I. PBX Telephone System Maintenance Contract—Authorize
J. Adesa Marshalling Yard Bill of Sale—Accept
7. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Kent Events Center Feasibility Study
B. Consulting Contract with Brailsford&Dunlavey
CO m �_ p cD (D
A� S U, (D p UQ UQ cn
C N, _.
n (D CJQ
_ CrD 0- -
co QCD (DD > n . O o v <
w (D OT ? Z.
ID
w p C a n ^ 3 n G
•
1 yc r If,(�D
Co O C O
3O � na MMEL
C� 77- 3 � �
� < rD mom' � (D m < M -u
' 77 Vim (°, �
o c
(D � - p C
rt
+ C (D (D >_
< a
w v n b� � O gyp = w
N ul
O l l O
a, L. c Q. Cn n
0tA
(D 00 0 3 O w n
o N Cn s (D W
C r* D � � �- •
> N Z
x Q (°CD
z 3
C
0 1 (D
z It�
g ° a. CM 3 ° �'W' Ca-M 3 3 so0oNoo Qoo D. rt
53
CD < m
as o � �� � 5�,�
w Wvcn � � � , vwAr a = Onw � � -• - _ �
S 3 ^* 3 —mrm
a c'
r —
o 3y a3 a - my ° M � ° S� sin � � C �L) N ° (D �
S _ A �. �i 3 n Q Q 77< v O f -� N � 3 D N
w = � O sC' n0aa y QaG 3 �y y (�D ° (mC �D ° 3. r® _� � � ID
S n �' (D
CD (D = r < CD
`(p C9 Q A S ?3 CD ° (D v
� � F) r� � sv < a � v cD3F2 ( �-° 3 � n � c � - �7 � ro
c :D 3 ° �. 'D3 CD macro �- ° = < l
< ID
3 CD s
CD o�
rD
�
a - t
� !
- �- �_
� '�
t� � C
d
GAO
m �
0 � 3
� y
�.
(0000,��
70
O U)
O 00
.�.r a •— Cll (� O
co E M 0O r-,
_ _ Cll _ _
N .= CU N CU O C: O
O L-
_ U 'E co
CV •U) " O •� U N }'
.O � 0 � a)= � � � C:
7 L 0 o N � �-
O 4-1Cll cn O
OC a�
E •moo •� � � � U o � > �
CV C: O
_ }, CB C: O +� 0) CO
N �
p
� O c:
._
-0 p 4 C6
O CM O
70 p o
C: N �- 00
.. 0
I Fw W O
c� 4-0
4� co
� o
Co 4�Q 0 co 00 O 00
_0
O E
>
0
�_ 0 0
*4,0,
70 ^C:
W
E
E c:
� O .o
_0 (n
(n o
Q •— _ L
4-j
4-0
4-0
0
%M C: > M
O .� o 4 �
t� cn C: C:
_ m m a�
O .� 4-- , UIm �
0 0
�w C: C:
O C: C: �
13 CD +� m m_ � U U U a) O 0
0 m 4-� 0
v U) .0 U
O �
cn
0 E
�. U) C6
co C: E
aC: 0 0
C: u,
m 2)
_
0 O c6 � 4-0
� U �
� ��
O -o 4-0 >
:3 o
H c ° E
c �
= U `�
o
_ C
0
C: +�
Q Q 0 -M U
v v � � U
E Q cn
•C
4-j
� a C: O
� o E E I -�
s' 4-- U) N U — 4) O
E cl O co M . .� c� 7 U
E >% a � � cm -
O tt CZ O a) c6 N
U c5 o � > � a
O !E O o 0 O
a) O a) U
_ ° � � C: a) o � � �
.� � 4- � � � � � c
o ,—
O -4-j CM > 7
CID 0
o
•� + }, •�
4 4-5M " N O O
= vp L '� � � C: O
O .�.,
cn E U O >,
O
� o c/) U V N Q
4-0
•§ U
O cn
O .- �
= Cll O •O
E E
0
40 4-0
4-0
-+ _0 N A.-i
Q •> 4U)
c�
0 4-0
M C:
> 0
c E � �
-- U O �- � O
. C: N'� N �
U a) -0 CCU C
D C 0 M
0
4 O
O -� o
4$ _
_ _
O p
V u z •� c� o
c
O a) Qa
LO LL � ++ ENV °
N N O QE U
N p N
N
M -0 >+.a a)
L 'aC/)
� o � � = aM -00
•� � � N •� M (nUM
N � M 0 MJCL
Q. to6- a. .� N 'S (n = .N
O ++
= O .m - = O U � 0m0
ow 0
= UE �, M UE Oc ;n e �
O L �.+ _ L �..+
RiC Ep � a 0 � 0 = � 0
- !Q N
r-+ > r- 0 > a) 4 C L
N 0 = O 6 0 •= m *wXca0O
S N cater M � Cr Etna) a �
N � . . W � C . . W CLZL � �
O U mL L.tm L iEQ ° > Q
E E N �
� U L �U V L � .
>+ (D tea) Q toLO asp � U � 0 = 0
ca to E N cnp to ai4) 0 > O
° W UO WN UW H12M a
f- N
0 0 0 0 ^ N
W t' 00 lD O O p(000,��
Ln
(A Lf) In lD mLA ull C% iA-
m
M M Lf) M O Ln
U �
C
F-0
O
+"� N � OO M O N �
0 rlj
� M M ,�-1 � � ,N Ibc)-
N O� I-O M �O I� C� N
ON 4fr err tfr -b+ '
Q 0 O
o t- M � o 0 0 C
d" M re) C) 4-;)- Eft
N bIr 1& 414)- Id:p- -blr '
C � O OC � N m 00 00
O
O ('Y) 00 O M N N
0 � N rl ,--i EPr
P% � O) O� 0� M Ln CO U!
O
O 00 N 00 CD O OC O C
C 0 CD
r-i Lq LLQ O LLq O
■_ O 0 M N N O O O
�-
ca � � o oo0) o0) > o
V
CL -6 N N NCL) N w O N y w
cm4-1 41 w i � L. � }+
a a
s
0
�M .�aI/ 4' Y a
uli to L. L. m >
cd 3 c i w v
0
■� Y Y E E
W 'O
�■ E Z
oc a
Q 0
(00000�
> >1 O
—
X
.p Cll Cll •� � (�
70 o
CO
�
C) >
_ � U 5 o 0 m
E +� -C- cn
• Cll �- 4 Cll
OC)
_0 -0 CU
CU U m
O L
O CO U O j OU •� CU
U Cn s- U Cn 4-a C6
V 70 � U ='-' U 0
}, c� O UZ o
x Cn Q� >� ' CIS
p a) U oO OU
uj � O Cn
U •— U _Q O CZ
� � � � c: _ O
p >, Cll p 0 C= 0) p (�
X u -1--1 � C6 N C6 > ( U
x to O- > C) C= O a) U
L (D O � O •� O C) 7
C E Cll > O
�- U O L O E p Cll
0 � � � o � � � CnZ2
� � o
U � �
o �n :N
� � O N ♦a
U = co -
y owl `n o o a o
� O
cm� N Q � U
_0 cn U O cz 0- _0 N
0)
U
U) CZ 0 4-1 > OQ 0
4-1 p Q U O Q
0 C: ._ N U X U L
O � C6 N cn
Q-o E N Cll
E— O � cn C-_ U
=3 Cll U) O L — Cll
U co E
O o 0 0 Con U
x O N Q Q 4-1 Co Cll Cll
uj •U) Oo � o L �
U Co
N O N O
X O > � o Cll U
w � � U oo 0 � � O �
m > U Eo '- o � '� o
O � wLL0 � � � � ° z (3
v
(000�
U .>
4-1
O
cn o 0 2
0
H
_ ° ox 0- (1) a)
� U
LLI L = C: °' U o
4 N }' O t_n
M O OU m
_ 70 +J CCS
�. -0 U > C3)
4-1 7FD
_ Q) o0 < 0 0_ 72 0 �e 70 0�
V
U(00,0�
o4-1 a�
M
o °n � o
4� oo — E OO
4� co a) a� -0
SC � '04 —J (n = o
C: _ C)
00 O � '�
N -i-a
}' M a) O
o � = o -0 U
L. Z 'L a) p 00 —
4m E cm u) = — _
w •�
0) � a, •� � � Ma�
0
0 — X
p o p = W 4-1 4-10 p
3: .-, U m p
_ a) CZ
4-� O O
E p cn = o to
s
�- P—
F i
Ar
suev__
i
_ <a
N
2
a ro
-, cc
�� l�l �� � �t a���0 MWIVN1-4101l IMMI
r.
•2
MINNOW
IWO
i ° Q (A
A N >�
O =
s
to 0 +a
0 u ac E4010
LLJ 0 a,
i
V u m > ZCL
O _
m ca o
LL
CL
tA ,E
LA Cp
>% r
' �-+ CJ — ',CL E
;r
V1 •�
IMMMMME 4—
cc O _
o a a a o '- O �' '� �`-' O
N
b= CL
FEZ-
Q3
w
Zo
nn
O -.. �.. -_6000m Y 4
y °
�R o
!1 �°° ° �$ s AV
R m G W
�0
- oOL00 ap o rf a iD4T R D Cb
i 0 O RR L") ° 8 - go p
Cb
OU
_Z S W911 IWO O W o0 0
'Ocala
�� ® y oft
doa �ldD mm f 00 0 �m a oa ear a
0q9 .._� a oo
1,
cliD 8 000 Poo-ompO aoR O 00MO R
OPOM cc to
ID
np !v 0 D w O SAY tin
n i P E_
L-7 e O
a
ID
0! B 8 ®
oo
STV Zia
o
$ to
e S
Q MIS
Cc
L4 9-
jwjy�aw
Q CL
o ° U v
L) 05 05 LL ell) C)
rJ �
a
i�
0
i
- _ 4 tlqJ ff
H 1i•
y
1
c
cdi $ p 6 J
TP
Cl
iz
Ah
1. 2
Ny a� jTT o.
Y d 41 y C 6 P ° C Q
a2 5 z .a U V •x.
Jml � llll C]0
c � CD
N L
O
•L LA
ca
ZA
O
- � L
— — o IA > .-
s u O O � _ _ > LPL
._
_ s u O
O Q cn V CL Ln V
ARP
\> \> \> E CZ
&1-2
=
CD
o-■� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
,C (N' N N (N N 00 U') cfi ti N
V
L
0
LL
LO
w
v
i.. >
LL. O cn
� ca cc U) � o �
06
t/� L v Q W c) 0O
V �cn a) UO � O 00
+z Q
Y 11-2
v�
a�
I--
� v
�c jn Fo G N m w w
3 Y X y E a E E�E E E E E '"r E i
� 8 E�,cE=�, L �� ;� n
� 3aoo N — o
aWIGG 1 �1 =1Go1G uLi }
-.---_ --9S AV UV --- nY w
3S�VH4t 3S�V8t{h z
ti Z
Y
co r' 65 Z
I �
Ll
� N
w
co
3S^V 4ZL -
do ```�,,,,�gg -Tj
�d w 0
^VbOt ^VbOL
O23
P\S
N �
ro ` y0��
LN HS N
N N
N
.. $ (n �nV08
w N
Z N��
S^V?ll b �
w
74 Av S N
--1 w m
ik
.� W at as
Y S AV!89
C0 _
t9
- ! N
SAV
k I
4
66?1Sclq
1-
S
66 21S f J `
W
m
_3
o o d cd k
CD
_3 o a v > Z
K U 'c c m
Z o o
O U.) ECOO
3 O M M U) O N N M CM 2 -Q
OCD C a-- M Y O (O N N M M (�
L�,. to
i � m000 0111115
to opop� .�.
' r ` _ ':!
cc4ro
W
♦tom
4�
vop
M.
Q e
4�
1 a
00
Z IM—
a�
0
0
0
c�
3 -0 ' >
e �
O 9 > � ' `
r (a p � m
— 42
O I
N N 'M M LO J
o v oco NN M , U7 i
Jain I am � � 0 1111OJ ( ♦�.�,
�..+
r �r
;p
AO
ma
dO
oa
t,
I no 4
—
Y
a�
Ul 1�1 u� �o�1��t�a��� lo-VO NP-018�y11-01"] � am
0
0
4) a-
>
cl) co 0 to 0 Lo C) v) 0)
CN CN CO CO LO
to
LO
(o (o
4) Z,co
c�
.z 6
ap
CD
4w
41
Ott
-- ----------
SEEMS
IT
J— o
-
LAIN&
_0 CD
Blind 010-4.4-ple-Al"IffAll.
`0 d
0 3
a- d `
o >,a >
c
> a > >+c N �
y o o 3 O
CI) c o Q O (N O M �O m O
O m
+�+ O N N CO) J
F Q co co co c0 U -
y � a n Mam � � 0O � � � 1 �:�
1
W � ' "
/ _
d♦
a s _
�f
z
7 �
■� • it ,
R
left
Q
� O
�_ C-D
a 3
o x
a
o L > Z
K o o c O -`o
> a > ' = Y1:
c _ o
M M o Y L, O 'n O 'o � m(Q O O L. N N CO CO In J Q
N C�
MEMOS
y C toM C� 0 O CO N N M M U
apop
� ,
Q
> .
AM
MENEM
d
♦d
-
a -
MENEM
_ r
ob
SIMON
dp
o --�
o-
CD
I` s
}.- N
.Z Q
W
Y' = CD
m
O
d a
� a a > m
d0
> >
C Y O Cn — 0 o
M Cl) O N O i0 O u') O .E m
d .� L O c- N N M C) 10
�+ 3 O O
0 Doi 1110:1 � � 1
dr
40
qq
40
z
_' s
O
r
5L CID
Au
K U -c d 41
C m
m � Z o o aa)
C Y > (� d > o
O c) M t2 O to O Lo O J m
O ' O O N N M M T
7 aL 6
AdIll
e —
3 �r
7 ,
Q
a
W � �
�' CD
a
in
N L O 0
"0 O 3 w r C: - LL ra
wO U
■ ✓T C: m C /L1 C) c6 O
O
aD
-p LLJ x m
N J N N Q�77 C5 a o @ c y
C N N O N >a O _ Y Ln C N L 1 icC J E
-y m m U) a U) U) F F m ( c � 0_ � � � (n � d U C) ��
- -
0
S" q,
Occ
Q
' 1 r zLZ
S
4
I �
� ..���r
�i►�! ( y
3S"V LMM. j
`♦ ;_ G _I `
y f �I
'Ai
.AMWMM..
LAM d 3S"i9OL _ in ---- y
�
� a
�w MS"V b01. "V4 l l
U m 5
y
a f
>>b L9L bs rn`-v
O m S IV b8 \ j'�
y I �.
SA AV(jj 0
w
Y ,� SAV 8 s�
c N
IW
' 1
s vs>tt
ss as — - — --
s
0
LO
O rQCD
CJ
V V1
tv
V1 a••� V1 ,
y p LA Z n
a E
O cn
u.
� J (A
�•-+ m O F-
a� r� Z
i •— E cv Z
cn w ._ 1
O 0 E
O > O
V (A V v
W � �
r CD
cc
Cd
_ Ln U �+
a
O
e-
.
O p -,
L
■� O
s
W
4W i
,
Ul
CL
m
L _. a
•Y
L
■� z't. m
o '
4w o a
CIS
a�
cE! U � �
4w o
m �
cn
Ucn
vl c�
Lo
� �
�
� \ c�
�, O �C
4WJ
LM 2r x
■ 1 a1 Vch
LM
Lm
A
O
C .°
O
U
O
w �--�
■� U
L L
�- O
= a 13
03 05
4� m .>_ ° ._
a
i
O L O - m
4� V� u U i
+� O � � _ -
m
J a
O �-' i .
CL
L > . . ;, _
F- -� V�
A A A
o [
zo
O
-W \ c
co
� �
/4w
LO �, o
m
AV
L
�a LO
E E
� M
y ._
A(1) m ,cn O
@
(1) > _ mom
u 4J
O > w C
_ _ M L
CL
� (A �- _
fA
.� :u;
L ■�
6w ..as H ra m � � � s
O
L O
L
N � N
i
loom
4W c o
00
O EEO
V O
�p M N O
> 0CL
N ti p
L
E v �3
A
ZN
o °
- z °
O
C
_O
Q
0
O
Q
o
O
L pp "'
13-0
L
a
_ CL o
m c �
�a
0
M 0
c �
Z "
o �
4 -,7
C
2 u
t
41
Z �U V
m
U � Q co �
�1 cry
D o
d � o
O c1r) o 0 0 0
d N
L
O
c
o _ °
= O ° >, cn
0 E o
j(MD � N c
c �
L �. ° o
Q, ° o ° ° > c
o }' E
tie cn cn
� N
N -0 >
ot
Z �
O�
41 �
Z
.r
•� a � N � m � v 4 � a�i I — � �
o H c a
'012 0 0 0 ea)
Ji W 41N cww o ni.t,a, l
C 0 aim jad juawAoldw3 n`
L G
3S 3AY ZS C
3S 3AY8rt 3S 3AY ett
3S 3AV M
MIJ 35 3AV OM
r6
7i
N � AY 7S:t
3S 3AV 4Z4 w »
F
3S 3AV v
V _.3S3AV9t4
3S 3AY 9tt S 3AY 844
as
3AYZtt
3A
v ;t 3S 3AV 9M
3a N
�i 3S 3AV Yti -
r
S4S LS
N � 0
�a
Vl �
y 9J�a3y
..., bMH AMWA 1
t a
3AV E8
LVVL W7
4St�s
AMHA31WA JSTM
h — S3 V
Vp
S3Atl9�
y ON AMY11lW € a
66 as NS
a
S 3AV
co a
co
0� M S3AY S3AV8ge b
NE tEW
ti
CL
iz
a o
cn
Id am Ad mmuf M3 tom`
316 7nY fl►t
V .k
Q �G 3nrtll �
WWL
��3�ltgcc • •s ��� a
abr,.. a '. 83�YBcc
■ d o•lgt
CtD
48
10Q1ri �
OIwu...: $•��
1• :Y
53.VIk
* F
Kos
sa W
�§}y S3v
m �y
a• , � �1 ■
fIF'
■ 03 .iEom
46 on 40
on Q• [j
[ �.
lt
S s3wra sere t�1
N
N JeEwo . 1111
4� CL
c00
g 8 a OL
■- V ° T O CL 47 $ 3S 3Ad 09L !
o6
=
° _ a
L m c G
l) a 5 p = Od
N �f
�1 E d o�' W ytN pew xq rtp 177F
14rn �pl
uA axlad jueuutoi
� 3 3S 3Av69L
� c
T
•• •• 3S 3AY Z4 L
3S 3Ad en 3S 3Ad gill
CO)
� 3s
3s 3AY 0>L
• Aq rx
L � N
35 3AY 6
3AY>Zl
• A L N
N Q41
••
3S3Ad9Utij qu
••fp ••
............ S 3S3AYZLL
H 3s AYe^I 1p
• , .. . ...... • 7S 3"V 0f,1 w
ca
......... •�t�''s 3Av re'_
- ; A31'IYA 1 . Pn'
WEO
N i
■ -4. N�. I AMH A31-111A iS3M
� ... .. .......IA
S 3Ad
' ••ti• YN d
"� b� •`�, S 3Ad
r °dkL,
y S OH AWlrUn91
us
N a$ L
ils
as
S3AYt$ 4E;
sQ5A� m N 5 Ito ti,
^@O�p � S3Ad9 33AY ��L�g
y � E�gggg�b
'' �.
� �F
s.
-:�r
��,
� T.
� ;
Jl
x �Y� _
� 4
��
�" �
� t
, .
B r �.
i.t- ��£
\ s �.�
- _ s'�.
���.
G-
1 ;�`; -
_ '-. _ .. ...jY. ....
,_ ri...
�"
�- .'��..
• } } � �Y.
= �.- Yv
>.�� .�.
.. _..... ..-- � :sal: u .
_..,_ y _ �
��:.
F �.�, yi'1+I.
S" a
� � k � �
s,`
.J _. _ _
�. _ ._ it
y.� ,y - _
1 �. ...
��• � ' Via^ _
W W
�y� 4 4 _ � wit
- � , F �
4 � w:�� iC
r
•_ CL
M
3 s `
_ s3nYoet
v °b Zvi 'O
:
J _ `y' W oru aq rof Lwn �yPy
aajasiad Wawrtoldw3 cdt'
M d 3S IAV V9t
N c
L
3s 3nY zs t
3S 3AV Sri 3s. Y 9rL
Q
M
v 3S 3AV rrt
3S 3AV art
T�
L w
U alp
� 3S hYZEt
N
3S MY eZt
-v 3AV>tl
N
O m �
N �?
3s 9u S3nY9u
_. �
� 3s 3AYtu
y 3s
E
3hY B6 t
�� stir �;3rtvvti
w
Ocw i0owl
N
V v.
a AZ MA ISY3 �
J
3AV f9 rn
IIP s 7 s 3 ^
3nvac,j
19t `
L -
m S 3AV
Y �
oy� f S 3AV
y S aH AMMI11IN E a
___ Ii33b
66 ffjs
N s3AVW 4 Ei
a
,eO�P S3hY9 S3hY9 �{Ep
LwRO�E VIEW 0
z
a
=r
.r t
y
- R
o
L
4W
L
m
® V
M
to, o
� a
m
No t.
"A' 1 -
4w CL a:
■� o 0
L
�_ 0 4
m
L tu :i
L
4W _ � °� 70
c
L 0 o
4W Q Fa0
L
L
L
u
0
�A
cn
a
c
c
u
�.;: ��
� �_� �
}�
�i.
" ���£�'
,.��
;,� ;-,-
.,:
�.
°�`
z.:t>",.
��
<4
�, ,
� .
,:::
�•
- K'.. ._
- ��.
§�w
3� �
_ ... _ �f'
,� Y�
tj
1 � - .. � ,
a _
. _ �,
e;
� �;'
�`'
�.:
�:':
N�: _ _
m. "�
r=.
.�
��'•. 'v �' ;� �
� ��
,� ��
..;
:,d
�.
N
J[ C c
E b E d N E w 3S 3AV OBL ', ..
♦� d � a E �.N
� a y
.N 3 2 2 �,
tL 04 aw ■w rep w. �Pi
o ajne jad tuauufo/du,g
V"t
g
�
R i
c 3S 3AV ZS L
3S 3AV 9vt 3S 3AV 8vt
i 3S 3AV ttt
V 3S 31V Ott
76 m
N
`�,p ®massaai■saajwA®�®®is®ssi rNga.,i�l,�
Q ■ss��vsr'wawa`�Yx4�gsa�■ �at�(t=ifr
r
r
3AV tZt
I - 35 3AV tZt
-..-.
IS 3AV 91
SaAV 9Lt
g
:4s 3AVZt
�P
3S 3AW O t
,J,� I
a � 3nYtOt }__.._SlS2t�
Fi
r
- j a
N
µut nMnvn iswa
3AY Ml1k33 Wes
S3AV91 N3Abt
I
r tenet
S 3AV v9
N N
d� TA
y
in Oy �g S 3Ab
.0
Ag
N �
Mill
S 3AV/!Z .. .... 0
S3AV9 S3AV `� :Jill y$
MARN EW D3�$ e
w_a L
9
-yon,
Y 4'.
9
.� CL
.�.+ p
� (n
.. L .i
a� L
L.
Ul
o •_ .� V �,
U = o
i = = o W
V L L a_ � 4) V
V — Q 4i m L. '
ca �, — L �i = o
Lm �— H- 4W E V
•_ *,
V —
' 4-0
ct 'o >
= a i 4w o
0
� a
A A
R ` u
1
A
�cA
O[
C
s � u
. 4
9vatn. �
Y
of h'
p
F
0^
L
L
s
� V �
O
m
Z W
•w �'
L m
�A i O L
4� 4w 4 m
4w ce ,E
1■■I o V
i m W
�$ ,W i G�
0 0 E
I= a% co
E _ E .;.
A A A
z
rye
gyp.
r'
i�5
lit
1"
s �+
S
,- a
_ w N O O Coco R' qe M N
rl r� rl rl
O
ce
o
0
/1 O += cu
C)
O Y cn v
-C O o
O) (D }' c L
cu + a)
a) >
O cB m O
c0
C: C
a) � � (a
cn a) 0)
V U) _
a) o
L O 0) w — _0 cn L +r O1 c
D C c6
U D cn E cn j
a) E C E Q. a) p
�/ c E 0°0 U coon c N cu
i o 0
a) cn o c°a o
d' c a) — co c, 12
° a a o
cn 0 0O v� ° cn a) CO c �
c (n cn c c c 0 p N
CL O C cm O O O L a) .0
�_ :,-, N cB U U
— cn C U E cn
U N ca N �'' fu O -a
L O 4 L a) cn
U L U O U > cu 7tf cu
ca cn N O Ucu
O O ( N UO cn cu O
a) U ca L c O
CU
a) + L
L +_ a) a)
° cn Q. LO C > a)
L
M Ucn
-a (D ° ° ° ° a� a�
° > >
� O E O _0 cn a) � :
o> c Q. -aCL > c v Q > >
L a) -a E -0 ° a) ca o 0
_ a
e'
lC
L
City of Kent
Transportation Master Plan
Transit Existing Conditions
�.tui III,
(4
Facpress }
Prepared by:
hvison Nygaard
consulting associates
917 SW Oak Street,Suite 312,Portland,OR 97205-2806
503-228-2152 Phone 502-228-2320 FAX
June 2006
Transit Existing Conditions
Table of Contents
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan....................................................................... 1
Introduction.....................................................................................................................1
Summary of Public Transportation Needs, Barriers, Gaps and Issues....................1
Demographics and Local Environment..........................................................................2
Land Use and Transportation Policy............................................................................... 2
Current and Proposed Services and Service Needs ........................................................ 3
Transit Facilities, Access and Information..................................................................... 5
CommunityProfile..........................................................................................................6
PopulationGrowth.......................................................................................................... 9
AgeDistribution............................................................................................................ 10
Poverty.......................................................................................................................... 10
CarOwnership.............................................................................................................. 10
Disabilities.................................................................................................................... 11
HomeOwnership.......................................................................................................... 11
Major Employers in Kent.............................................................................................. 11
Journeyto Work............................................................................................................ 12
Existing Transit Services.............................................................................................15
Fixed-Route Service...................................................................................................... 15
Relationship to Land Use.......................................................................................... 17
Levelof Service........................................................................................................22
Description of Routes ............................................................................................... 26
CurrentRidership..................................................................................................... 32
Kent Shopper Shuttles (DART 914 and 916)............................................................... 35
ACCESS Transportation Service.................................................................................. 36
Fares.............................................................................................................................. 37
KingCounty Metro ................................................................................................... 37
Special or Reduced Fares......................................................................................... 39
ACCESS Transportation Services............................................................................ 40
SoundTransit............................................................................................................40
Multi Agency Pass Programs....................................................................................41
TransitPerformance.....................................................................................................42
Metro Performance Measures.......................................................................................43
Transit Existing Conditions
Riders per Revenue Hour..........................................................................................43
Fare Revenue to Operating Expense Ratio...............................................................43
Passenger Miles per Revenue Hour..........................................................................44
Passenger Miles per Platform Mile..........................................................................44
Route Effectiveness Rating........................................................................................44
Sound Transit Express Bus Performance Measures .....................................................44
KentRoute Performance............................................................................................... 46
Proposed Service Changes..........................................................................................51
King County Metro Short Term Service Improvements............................................... 51
Long-Range Transit Improvements.............................................................................. 52
King County Metro TransitNow............................................................................... 53
SoundTransit 2......................................................................................................... 55
Stop and Station Facilities...........................................................................................57
KentTransit Center....................................................................................................... 57
StopAmenities.............................................................................................................. 57
KentPark and Rides...................................................................................................... 61
Land Use and Market Assessment..............................................................................63
Land Use and Parking Policies..................................................................................... 63
TransitEfficient Land Use........................................................................................ 63
Concurrency Management........................................................................................ 63
ParkingPolicies........................................................................................................ 64
2005 Downtown Strategic Plan................................................................................ 65
Transit Stakeholder Interviews..................................................................................... 66
Public Transportation Household Survey..................................................................... 69
TravelCharacteristics............................................................................................... 72
Barriersto Transit Use.............................................................................................. 79
BusStop Access........................................................................................................ 79
Suggestions for Improving Transit............................................................................... 80
Roleof Transit........................................................................................................... 83
Familiarity with Bus System Fares and Public Information .................................... 84
Transportation Issues in Kent................................................................................... 85
Support for Tax and Fee Increase............................................................................ 86
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page ii
Transit Existing Conditions
Table of Figures
Figure 1. Population/Employment Density Map............................................................ 8
Figure 2. Transit System Map...................................................................................... 18
Figure 3. Peak-Only Service Map................................................................................ 19
Figure 4. Midday Service Map..................................................................................... 20
Figure 5. Evening and Sunday Service Map................................................................ 21
Figure 6. 30-Minute Midday Service Map...................................................................25
Figure7. Boardings by Stop......................................................................................... 33
Figure 8. South King County Metro Service Improvements........................................ 55
Figure 9. Bus Stop Amenities Map.............................................................................. 60
Figure 10. Mode of Travel for Work or School......................................................... 72
Figure 11. Mode of Travel for Personal Trips............................................................ 73
Figure 12. Work Destinations Outside of Kent.......................................................... 74
Figure 13. Travel Mode to Transit............................................................................. 76
Figure 14. Frequency of Transit Use.......................................................................... 78
Figure 15. Opinions on Transit Improvements .......................................................... 82
Figure16. Role of Transit.......................................................................................... 83
Figure 17. Familiarity with Transit............................................................................ 84
Figure 18. Biggest Transportation Issue in Next Five Years..................................... 85
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page ill
Transit Existing Conditions
Table of Tables
Table 1. Service Categories .......................................................................................... 3
Table 2. City of Kent Population Change 2000-2020................................................. 10
Table 3. Top Employers in Kent................................................................................. 12
Table 4. Comparison of Mode Split............................................................................ 14
Table 6. Service Levels...............................................................................................23
Table 7. Ridership by Route ....................................................................................... 34
Table 8. King County Bus Fares................................................................................. 39
Table 9. Reduced Fares for Seniors/Individuals with Disability (Metro Only)........ 39
Table 10. Sound Transit Express Bus Fares .................................................................41
Table 11. Sound Transit Express Bus Monthly PugetPass........................................... 41
Table 12. Sounder Commuter Rail Fares......................................................................41
Table 13. Sounder Commuter Rail Monthly Passes.....................................................41
Table 14. PugetPass Fare Types ...................................................................................42
Table 15. ST Productivity Performance Standards.......................................................46
Table 16. Metro Kent Service Ridership ......................................................................47
Table 17. Metro Route Performance Analyses.............................................................49
Table 18. ST Kent Route Performance Analysis.......................................................... 50
Table 19. Park and Ride Lots Serving the City of Kent............................................... 62
Table 20. Telephone Survey Respondents.................................................................... 71
Table 21. "Other"Cities Traveled To........................................................................... 75
Table22. Top Five Routes............................................................................................ 77
Table 23. Use of Transit in Kent................................................................................... 79
Table 24. Support for Tax and Fee Increase................................................................. 86
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page iv
Transit Existing Conditions
INTRODUCTION
This report provides a summary of existing public transit services and conditions
in the City of Kent. It includes an examination of current and future needs for
public transportation, a review of current and planned public transportation
services, identification of barriers to the use of transit, and identification of major
public transportation issues and needs to be addressed in the next phase of the
process, recommendations development.
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates ascertained public transportation needs,
gaps in service, and resident use of and attitudes toward public transportation
via: a random household telephone survey; interviews with local stakeholders
focused on major employers, transit users and policy makers; and an analysis of
available demographic and transit performance data. Barriers to public
transportation use were examined both in terms of:
1) Individual's inability to access public transportation, knowledge of
existing services and/or hesitancy to use available services; and
2) Limitations to the use of public transportation from the built
environment resulting from local regulations and policies as well as
existing development patterns resulting from market influences.
This report identifies key issues related to public transportation service and
access to be addressed in the City of Kent Transportation Master Plan and the
related Transit Master Plan. Key issues identified in this report will be discussed
with staff, stakeholder and City Council members. Specific recommendations
will be developed following those discussions.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION NEEDS, BARRIERS,
GAPS AND ISSUES
This section provides a brief summary of public transportation needs,barriers,
gaps and issues identified in this Existing Conditions Report. In recent years
population growth and demographic changes have increased demand on all
transportation systems in the City of Kent, including public transportation.
However, marginal increases in new public transportation service have
prevented transit from capturing an increasing percentage of travel demand.
Stakeholder interviews and survey results identify a need for improved transit
service, access and information. Current land use patterns and development in
'Pedestrian access to transit is addressed in even greater detail in the Pedestrian and Bicycle component of
the Transportation Master Plan.
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 1
Transit Existing Conditions
the City have also created physical barriers to transit use. There are a number of
short-and long-term transit service initiatives that will impact service in Kent
and the share of regional service allocation.
These issues and others are summarized in this section and discussed in more
detail in this report. A more detailed assessment of pedestrian access issues is
provided in a concurrent Pedestrian and Bicycle Element of the Kent
Transportation Master Plan.
Demographics and Local Environment
Many of Kent's most pressing transportation issues are a result of the City's
economic success and residential growth in recent years. This growth, combined
with recent annexations, has made Kent one of the largest cities in the Puget
Sound region.
Kent demographics are largely in line with other communities in South King
County and with state average. According to the household survey, more than
80 percent of Kent residents drive alone to work or school. This is slightly higher
than the drive alone rates from the 2000 US Census. For survey respondents,
carpooling is the most common alternative to driving alone for both work/school
commute trips (8 percent) and non-commute trips (14 percent). Fixed route
transit is the second most common alternative to driving alone (6 percent).
Land Use and Transportation Policy
Suburban land use patterns, including ample free parking in commercial areas,
discontinuous street patterns in residential areas and gaps in the pedestrian
system, make it difficult to deliver effective transit service outside of primary
arterial streets and the downtown. Transit performs best where population and
employment densities are high. The largest concentration of jobs in the City is in
the manufacturing and industrial area between the Valley Freeway and West
Valley Highway and James Street and the northern City Limits (SW 43rd Street).
Transit accessibility from these sites varies based on the proximity to major
north-south transit carrying streets, such as the West Valley Highway. Business
stakeholders would like to see better transit circulation within this district. The
City of Kent has several pockets of high-density residential development,
including several multi-family developments in the downtown area, the Lakes
At Kent, and to the southeast on Kent-Kangley Road. These areas are served via
primary and secondary arterial streets,but in few cases does transit penetrate
residential or commercial developments.
The City of Kent has actively pursed policies that encourage mixed-use
development, the integration of transit facilities in new development and
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 2
Transit Existing Conditions
lowered minimum parking requirements; all critical factors in reducing SOV
trips and encouraging transit use. Coordinating long-range land use planning
with future transit investment is difficult for cities under the jurisdiction of a
regional service provider. The next phase of this process will focus on improving
this relationship.
Current and Proposed Services and Service Needs
Transit service is delivered to Kent residents through bus and commuter rail
services that include:
• Regional Routes-These services cross King County subarea(Seattle or
East County) and/or King County lines-connecting the City of Kent with
other regional destinations within King, Snohomish, and Pierce Counties
(note: routes to Seattle are considered regional routes).
• South County Routes-These services provide connectivity between the
City of Kent and other South King County communities, such as Renton,
Auburn, Tukwila, Des Moines, Covington, Federal Way.
• Local Routes-These routes exclusively serve the City of Kent-
connecting Kent neighborhoods to each other and with downtown Kent
and/or with major employment sites.
Table 1. Service Categories
Regional Services South County Routes Local Routes
Metro Bus Routes: 158, 159, Metro Bus Routes: 150, 153, Kent Shopper Shuttle
160, 162,163, 167, 173, 174, 154, 164, 166, 168, 169, 183, (Metro DART)914, 916, 918
175, 190, 191, 192, 194, 197, 247, 941
i
941, 952 (Boeing Shuttle-
Everett)
I �
Sound Transit Express: 564,
565, 574
j Sounder Commuter Rail j
The majority of transit investment in Kent is in regional services that connect
Kent to neighboring communities and to downtown Seattle via express, limited-
stop or local service (see Table 1). The household survey and stakeholder
outreach indicate that Kent's resident commute travel patterns do not match the
transit service being provided. Two-thirds of respondents commuting outside of
Kent do not travel to Seattle, which is the focal point for most transit serving the
community. Survey respondents suggested the need for more frequent and
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 3
Transit Existing Conditions
direct service to east King County, south to Tacoma, and to the East Valley and
Sea-Tac. Downtown Seattle will continue to merit more service because
disincentives to driving are much higher than suburban sites,but increases in
traffic congestion and parking costs in other parts of the Metro area make transit
an attractive travel option.
In June 2006 service changes will be implemented by King County Metro Transit
(Metro) to provide direct service between Kent and Sea-Tac Airport. Other
planned South King County service changes being implemented at the same time
will primarily reallocate service from poorly performing routes to enhance
performance on Metro's core service between Kent and Seattle. These changes
bring little new service to the City of Kent.
Metro's service allocation policies state that 40 percent of new service hours will
be allocated to South County. The remaining service hours are split 40 percent
for East County and 20 percent for Seattle. There is no policy that guarantees
specific subarea cities will receive an equitable share of new service.
Additionally, Seattle bound services are charge completely against the
originating subarea, even if local service stops are provided within the City of
Seattle. This system disadvantages cities located off major transit corridors (i.e.,
I-5 and Pacific Highway) and makes it difficult to develop local circulation
systems.
Survey respondents and stakeholders identified several major categories of
service improvement. They are, in priority order:
• Improved service frequency on existing routes (particularly on Sounder).
Approximately 57 percent of respondents agreed that they would be more
likely to ride the bus or train if service was offered every 15 minutes;
• New local routes. Respondents were particularly interested in new east-
west cross town service in Kent and connecting to adjacent communities
and demand centers to the west(i.e., Highline CC and Sea-Tac);
• Improved service on regional route. A high number of Kent commuters
travel to employment centers other than Seattle;however transit service to
cities such as Bellevue and Tacoma is slow and infrequent compared with
Seattle bound service.
• Faster travel times. About 45 percent of respondents would be more
likely to take the bus or train if travel time to their destination was no
more than 30 percent longer via the bus;
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 4
Transit Existing Conditions
• Better route and schedule information. Approximately 25 percent of
survey respondents indicated that they did not know how to access
information needed to use the transit systems.
• Better accessibility to bus stops. Almost half of respondents (49 percent)
stated they would be more likely to ride the bus or train if there was a stop
near their home. The safety of the walk to the stop, or lack of sidewalks in
many areas of Kent, also presented accessibility issues for some
respondents.
The household survey and stakeholder discussions indicate that service
frequency and span enhancements to Sounder Commuter Rail are by far the
most desired transit improvements among Kent residents. The Sound Transit 2
initiative would expand service levels during peak, off-peak and weekend
periods if it passes at the polls. Improved Sounder Commuter Rail service to
Seattle could allow Metro to reallocate Seattle bound bus service to provide other
desired services, such as cross-valley (east-west) connections or regional service
to other markets.
Transit Facilities, Access and Information
Stop and station facilities provide an important element of a transit patron's
riding experience. Metro and Sound Transit are primarily responsible for
developing and providing stop and station facilities in Kent. Summary findings
about facilities include:
• The Kent Transit Center, in downtown Kent, is a modern facility with the
capacity to accommodate current and future services as well as additional
park and rides. Internal improvements to information and pedestrian
circulation are needed to facilitate transfer activity;
• Eight other park and ride facilities are available to Kent residents ranging
from 15 to over 700 stalls each;
• Most Kent area park and rides have significant excess capacity. The Des
Moines park and ride is the most heavily utilized operating at a peak
occupancy of 96 percent on weekdays;
• Approximately 475 Metro bus stops in the City of Kent meet the
requirements for shelter placement (minimum 25 boardings per day). Of
these, approximately 25 do not currently have shelters.
• Safety at the transit centers and bus stops was mentioned by stakeholders
and survey respondents as a concern and should be reviewed to ensure
lighting and other safety measures are adequate.
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 5
Transit Existing Conditions
Most transit trips require additional travel to and from the bus stop or transit
station. Walking is typically the most common access mode, although according
to the survey a high percentage of Kent transit users drive to a park and ride
location or the Kent Transit Center to access transit. Key findings related to
transit access include:
• Numerous segments of major transit-carrying streets in Kent- many of
which are multi-lane arterials- lack safe, signalized pedestrian crossings
at or near transit stops;
• Sidewalk and street connectivity to transit-carrying streets is poor in some
areas such as Kent's East Hill and the Lakes at Kent;
• Almost half(49 percent) of household survey respondents said they
would be more likely to ride the bus or train if there was a stop near their
home. This indicates that transit penetration of residential areas is poor
and walk distance is a major barrier to transit use.
• Penetration of the Kent industrial district (north of downtown) was
identified as a barrier to transit use. This is reflected in low ridership on
major arterials that run closest to large employers in the industrial area.
• Limited service hours provided by the 918 circulator (industrial area) are
also an issues since many businesses in that district operate around the
clock.
Limited public information about public transportation is a barrier to increased
use of existing services. About 25 percent of survey respondents indicated that
they did not know how to access information needed to use the transit systems.
Specifically, people cited the need for:
• Better transit service and schedule information at the local level (i.e.,
localized brochures, separate DART/Shopper Shuttle information
materials, mode distribution sites for Metro and Sound Transit
information);
• Improved service, transfer and schedule information at all stops;
• Improved signage at the Kent Transit Center to direct customers to the
correct route services and facilitate efficient transfers; and
• Better and more available non-English language materials.
COMMUNITY PROFILE
The City of Kent is located between Seattle and Tacoma along the Interstate 5 (I-5)
corridor. The City has the sixth largest concentration of jobs and residents in the
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 6
Transit Existing Conditions
region, according to the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). Kent is one of
the older cities in the Puget Sound region growing from an agricultural
community, into a major industrial center for warehouse, customer service and
distribution companies. The City of Kent has grown at a rapid pace over the last
three decades, and has become one of the largest economic and residential
communities in South King County.,
The largest concentration of jobs in the City is located in the manufacturing and
industrial area between the Valley Freeway and the West Valley Highway and
James Street and SW 43rd Street. The City of Kent has small pockets of high-
density residential development, including several multi-family developments in
the downtown area, the Lakes At Kent, and to the southeast on Kent-Kangley
Road.
Figure 1 shows the current distribution of population and employment in the
City of Kent. Research has shown that land use density (population and
employment) are by far the two most crucial factors in determining ridership
demand in a transit corridor or service area. Density information is presented
with the use of a bi-chromatic density map that illustrates combined employment
and population density by planning zone (K-Zone) to illustrate the relationship
between land use and transit demand. Population(or Household) densities are
displayed using four gradations of blue. Similarly, employment densities are
shown via shades of yellow. When combined, gradations of green indicate the
intensity of combined population and employment activity.
http://www.psrc.org/projects/growth/toolkit/kent.htm
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 7
� H
C� o
tll J `o r m
C 0H � mQ
LL y a w
u,
C
c N (D m
m
E a �
lL 46V FML Mcl r�ol ua� �p`l
0 ajoe jad luaw foldw3
Q
E �.
LU
0 3S 3AV Z91,y.+ 39 3AV 94t 3S 3AV 96L
77
N 3S 3AV bbt
0 N 3S 3AV On ' N
�
w W
� � y
� N
3s V Z6t
41 F-
h
3S 3AV bZt N _
fw N� F 3AV bZL
N N
O �
h
3S 3AV 9tl w
3S 3AV 9tt S 3AV 91t
3s3AVZtt
a
3S 3A 9Ot
$ b� 3s 3AV so L N
b�3S 3AV v% 9ts
S au.Log1V1 g y
S 3AV ba
L '9t as
a
N m c^y N3tby
A37WA I y
N
3AV EB
rn
93AV 9L t- N3A b S3A b
�n co rn L9t
N /91 aS
fp _N
AMH A3TIVA 1S3M
V1 N
N �
s
rN d
d a
ul�
co Ob, yu1� S 3AV 91
H 76
co
W
!A
s(18 AaVLIIIW ry �gs
la
ye�SSE
S 66 at 8 a aS 9-1
Pof*a��
S3AV
co
N N
S3AV9 S3AV9
9 OH
N
MARINE VIEW a E
Transit Existing Conditions
Recognizing the potential of Kent's historic downtown, the City participated in a
countywide process facilitated by PSRC to designate the downtown as a regional
growth center. The City has oriented mixed-use development and high density
housing around the downtown core, and surrounding areas. The majority of
housing in Kent is single family (between six and eight units per acre) and is
located east of downtown.3
Downtown Kent has seen major investment in recent years, spurred in part by
the introduction of Sounder Commuter Rail service at the Kent Transit Center.
Kent Station is now one of the busiest stops on the Sounder line and extensive
commercial development around the Kent Transit Center reflects the importance
of transit in building a vital downtown. Kent residents surveyed by PSRC and
through this process have stressed repeatedly the desire for more frequent
service on the Sounder commuter rail line to support their transportation needs
and to achieve the vision for the downtown area.4
Population Growth
The City of Kent has grown rapidly in the last thirty years, increasing in
population by 125 percent between 1970 and 1990, and by another 109 percent
between 1990 and 2000. According to the City, much of this growth can be
attributed to the annexation of unincorporated areas surrounding Kent. The City
of Kent has already grown by 6 percent between the 2000 US Census and the
recent population estimates developed in 2005. The City is projected to grow by
another 15 percent between 2000 and 2020 from 79,524 to 93,937.1 Table 2 shows
real and projected population change between 2000-2020.
3 2002 Regional Growth Centers Report,Kent Puget Sound Regional Council
http://www.psrc.org/projects/growth/toolkit/kent.htm
4 http://www.psrc.org/projects/growth/toolkit/kent.htm
5 City of Kent,Kent Community Profile,Chapter 2,p. 1-2
http://www.ci.kent.wa.us/planning/longrangesection/compplanupdate/index.asp
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 9
Transit Existing Conditions
Table 2. City of Kent Population Change 2000-2020
2000Population Population Estimated Percent Percent
. -
00
2020 between between
000 002000-2020
79,524 84,920 93,937 6% 15
Source:City of Kent Community Profile,Puget Sound Regional Council,State of Washington Office of Financial
Management.
Age Distribution
National statistics show a direct correlation between the percentage of seniors
(age 65 and up) and demand for transit, particularly for paratransit and shopper
shuttle services. About 7 percent of Kent's population is 65 years of age or
greater, lower than the state average of 11 percent. As mentioned in the
community profile, much of the senior population in the City is concentrated in
the downtown area. This aids effective transit service and was a primary reason
for implementing DART shuttle services in the downtown area. The popularity
of this service along with high use by wheelchair passengers has created on time
performance issues for the Kent Shopper Shuttle (914/916), as discussed in
subsequent sections of this report.
Poverty
Poverty is another indicator of demand for public transit, as lower income
individuals are more likely to use transit for commute and personal trips than
those who don't face income barriers. This is typically amplified in suburban
communities where there are few disincentives to owning a private automobile.
The City of Kent has about the same level of people living below poverty (12
percent) as the state average (11 percent), and is comparable to cities
surrounding it(Renton and Federal Way). Ensuring transit is available and
service levels are high in areas where there are concentrations of low-income
housing and multi-family rental properties is the most critical means for
ensuring transit access for low-income residents.
Car Ownership
Car ownership can be an indicator of income and poverty, particularly in rural
and suburban areas where car travel is more essential than urban centers. The
number of homeowners and renters within the City of Kent is evenly split;
however, the levels of car ownership among these two groups is very different.
Almost half (46 percent) of homeowners within the City of Kent own two or
more vehicles, versus 29 percent of renters who own two or more vehicles. Half
of renters have only one vehicle available, versus 26 percent of homeowners.
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 10
Transit Existing Conditions
More than double the percentage of renters (13 percent) do not have any vehicle
available, compared to homeowners (2 percent). Again, this suggests that areas
with high concentrations of renters are likely to have higher demand for public
transit services.
Disabilities
Persons with disabilities that are unable to operate a personal vehicle are often
forced to be reliant on public transit services for their mobility needs. About 22
percent of the City of Kent's population is defined as disabled according to the
2000 US Census, which is almost the same percentage as the state average of 20
percent. The US Census defines disability as "a long-lasting physical, mental, or
emotional condition that makes it difficult for a person to do normal activities".6
The percentage of residents citing a disability is important to monitor as it is an
indicator of the demand for fixed route, and paratransit in particular.
Home Ownership
Census data shows that there is an even distribution of Kent residents who own
and rent their homes. The pattern of development in the City of Kent is typical
of many growing communities, with denser multi-family developments, which
are more likely to be rentals, concentrated close to downtown and low-density
single-family housing located further from downtown. Most newer residential
development is concentrated in subdivisions, many of which have street patterns
that make transit access difficult. The City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map indicates several mixed-use zones;these areas typically have good
proximity to transit. The City, throughout its Comprehensive Plan, emphasizes
mixed-use development and its role in reducing future traffic demand.
However, the majority of new owner-occupied housing units remain single-
family residences.
Major Employers in Kent
Major employers in the City of Kent include: the Boeing Company (5,300), Kent
School District(3,165), the City of Kent(802), and REI (689), as shown in Table 3.
Although the majority of the City of Kent's current employment is in
manufacturing, in the future the greatest employment growth is projected to
occur in the service and retail sectors, according to the City's Comprehensive Plan.
'The U.S.Census Definition of a Disability is: A long-lasting physical, mental,or emotional condition.This
condition can make it difficult for a person to do activities such as walking,climbing stairs,dressing, bathing,
learning,or remembering.This condition can also impede a person from being able to go outside the home
alone or to work at a job or business.
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 11
Transit Existing Conditions
Major employers in the City of Kent with 100 or more full-time employees are
required to participate in the Washington State Commute Trip Reduction (CTR)
program. There are currently 35 employers or worksites in the City of Kent
participating in the CTR program. These employers or worksites are required to
provide the City with annual reports and survey their employees every two
years to determine progress towards meeting the CTR goals.
Table 3. Top Employers in Kent
Company Employees Type of Business
The Boeing 5,300 Space research
Company
Kent School District 3,165 School district
City Of Kent 802 City government
R.E.I. 689 Outdoor equipment
Sysco Food 680 Food service
Services Of Seattle distributor
Inc
Mikron Industries 600 Mfg vinyl extrusions
King County 630 Courthouse-
Regional Justice detention facility
Center
Alaska Distributors 500 Beverage
(Coming in 2006) distribution
Oberto Sausage 447 Spec meat
Company sales/mfg
Patient Accounting 439 Process medical
Service Center Llc accounts
Source:City of Kent
Journey to Work
According to the 2000 Census about 73 percent of respondents in the City of Kent
drive alone, 15 percent carpool, and 12 percent carpool with more than two
people. Kent's commute trip mode split(percentage of residents who drive
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 12
Transit Existing Conditions
alone, take transit,bike, and walk) is comparable to the State of Washington and
neighboring cities, like Auburn and Federal Way. The City of Kent had a slightly
higher percentage of residents who carpool (15 percent) than the state average
(13 percent). In the household survey analysis discussed later in this report there
is a more detailed description of commute patterns for Kent residents.
Table 4 shows the comparison of mode split between Kent and neighboring
cities as well as the state average.
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 13
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
M 0 0 O N M O
f� O
C a rn
L
'a R
O M M •-- N M O C0 O) �
O M W O O N c
CO N f- N N (0 O
IM LO N N M
O.
.V N
(n C
A
� I I IL
\
W \ \ \ \ ~
O O O O O o O O
O O O\ O\ O O O
� - (0 O Cl) 00
U r
a
m
L
tO N N It (0 O 0)
M ' 1- LO
LoN -
M �t
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
M LO B — M — M O
I- — O
• O M W to 0 — M N
O I- M O w O � N
07 CO 0) LO In M
cM N O
00000000
• M M In �- M � � O
Cl
• M N aD O) 0) O m
Ml-t I� O M m M f-
O � N N t� N O
• O ti CO C0 a) O) O �
O co n
f+ N N
N
d
O
O
C
O
N
L C
10 0
CL �+
E r v
O 0 E
CL 0 �
m o Y d a E a d
d 0 a V V CD Y u w o
0 L L r O N
m
Transit Existing Conditions
EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICES
King County Metro Transit and Sound Transit serve the City of Kent with fixed
route transit service. Metro operates the local Dial-A-Ride (DART 914 and 916),
through a funding agreement with the City of Kent, and a contract with non-
profit service provider Hopelink. Metro's Access Transportation Services offers
demand responsive service to those residents that are eligible under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The following sections describe existing
transit service in the City of Kent.
Fixed-Route Service
This section profiles existing fixed route services operating in or through the City
of Kent. Route services generally fall into three primary categories:
Regional Routes-These services cross Metro subarea (Seattle or East County)
and/or King County lines- connecting the City of Kent with other regional
destinations within King, Snohomish, and Pierce Counties (note: routes to Seattle
are considered regional routes).
South County Routes-These services provide connectivity between the City of
Kent and other South King County communities, such as Renton, Auburn,
Tukwila, Des Moines, Covington, Federal Way.
Local Routes-these routes exclusively serve the City of Kent-connecting Kent
neighborhoods to each other and with downtown Kent and/or with major
employment sites.
Table 5 details the Metro Transit and Sound Transit routes that serve these three
service categories. A more detailed description of these routes and service levels
follows later in the report.
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 15
Transit Existing Conditions
Table 5. Service Categories
RoutesRegional Services South County Routes Local
Metro Bus Routes: 158, 159, Metro Bus Routes: 150, 153, Kent Shopper Shuttle (Metro
160, 162,163, 167, 173, 174, 154, 164, 166, 168, 169, 183, DART)914, 916, 918
175, 190, 191, 192, 194, 197, 247, 941
941, 952 (Boeing Shuttle-
Everett)
Sound Transit Express: 564,
565, 574
Sounder Commuter Rail
The following figures highlight the fixed-route bus service in the City of Kent.
Figure 2 details the Metro routes serving Kent. The following sections provide
detailed descriptions of each route. The majority of the routes operating in Kent
are peak-only services oriented towards commuters, particularly those bound for
Seattle.
Figure 3 isolates the services that are only available during these peak commute
times. Figure 4 presents those routes that provide midday service and Figure 5
shows the services that operate on evenings and Sundays. Figures 3 through 5
illustrate the coverage provided by time of day/day of week. A one-quarter mile
buffer is shown for each route operating during the particular time period.
Transit service is considered within reasonable walking distance if within one-
quarter mile of a trip origin or destination. Total coverage is the greatest during
the weekday peak and midday periods. Residential areas northeast of Lake
Meridian and north of North Meridian Park, along with the industrial area along
84th Avenue have peak-only service. The Downtown shopper shuttles provide
additional midday coverage in downtown and along Meeker Street to the west.
Evening and Sunday service is limited to the major corridors with a loss of
service in East Hill (east of 104th Street).
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 16
Transit Existing Conditions
Relationship to Land Use
When reviewing these figures there are sections of the City with moderate to
high population or employment densities, where we expect transit demand to be
high, that have little to no transit coverage. Particularly for residential
developments, there are several sections of the City of Kent that should be noted:
• The Lakes at Kent development south of Russell Road/2281h Street at 54th
Avenue is identified as a high population density zone but is not directly
served by transit. This area is characterized by a concentration of high-
density multi-family units.
• Some moderately dense neighborhoods (East of 104th/108th Avenues,
between 2081h and 240th Streets) only have peak service with many
residents living more than one-quarter mile from any transit route.
• The principal east side routes operate on 2401h Street and Kent Kangley
Road out to 132nd Avenue. There are pockets of dense residential and
commercial development at the center of, and around the perimeter of this
triangular route configuration.
• On the Westside,between I-5 and SR 99 and north of 260th Street, an area
with moderate residential densities and a several large multifamily units
is not served. Route 166 provides service nearby,but runs on the other
side of the interstate.
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 17
A
L 0 'acWO I ( m � C i m
o C1 t 2 2 a p
D
LL
m O a r
o g m m m G C C O
a m Ir y
N
7 m cL r= SS
� � a g
y � � 96ri paw wo wc�Aaa. �p'L
w one gad Juawd01dw3
L °
F- 3S 3AV ZSL
m 9S 3AV 96L 3S 3AV 99t
W F,
m 3S 3AV W
N
w 39 3AV OK y
m
Zi m
F N
f/J W
� N
� N
m i 3 AV Z£L
r-
m
3S 3AV 4ZL ry vl i-
fw - m� 3S 3AV VIZt
m N h
3S 3AV 9LL
3S 3AV 9tt S 3AV 9"
a
' 3 3S 3AV Ztt
3A L u, '.
as 3AV 90L
3S 3AV StS aS
F N K
m m
O �
fi
S 3AV
ffiPArH L,S
ATFIVA 1S r _
A o. 3AV CO
� m
m
' 3AV 4 n
_ N �
~ Aft
m t9t S
m L9L aS AMHA3lNAl
m S3 V
cOyu YEnm S 3AV S
gA
Oy n s
m r
N aanavinlw ygebas
w
ag•�
66 aS m g '
as
r €dab
F y s3AV
o `O pom aB�i"yy�ff
N gg
y S3AV9 S3AV9 =9 ee
09 m 3
RIN IEWO %$ i
L
J CL
a° m 0 3S 3AV O9t
/
�/� c N s=3 1 y
`•`41
n
-� m' LL lo 46!4 Paw col Nq ua. dry
O o ae Led IV
td'
3S 3AV r9t
a ,
3
da
f
-
F 3s 3nv zst
co3S 3AV 9rl
co 3S 3AV 9►/
W f _
N 3S 3AV"t
ry
3S 3AV 0" 'r
3
s
V Zf l
HI �
3s 3IlV rzl _
ry $
3S 3AV 9lt
3S 3NV 9tl _ ___-S 3AV 9tl
3S 3AV Ztt
�- 3S 3AV 90t
$ Od . 3a 3AV
ryO. 80 t
coe 3S 3AV 40t SLS NS h
N N N
s as ioeiVL 8
S 3AV 66
psi as N
zz
AMHA3TYVAIm- h
i
3AV IVH1N30 `O 3AV 69
S 3AV 9L N N 3AV 4 S 3AV 4
S ry N L
Lot
rlF
m as `7
�. � AMH A3llVn 1s3M
s anv P9
N
s
r� N
dy `
pd, �v S3AV
N �b
9
m O`LN1i�b
h S Oil AMVLIIIW
N FgS
69as
F N S3AY 9 1 Fi¢
N
A Min
�§
S3nV9 S3nY9 � H o
09 6's N
V ARINE VIEW
mol I �� m
o E a $ 39 3AV OBL
< m e °8 Nl
- C c D
C5 s p {y
�`.�
.O m' lE 46!4 Pw T01 Nq dwx �Py
ox
C 3S 3AV 09L 6
G �
3S 3AV Z9t
co 3S AV Ott 3S 3AV 86L
W r
N 3S 3AV"t
3S 3AV 041
3 �
r N
N, W
N
N
V ZCI
r #
N r
3S 3AV 9ZL
N.. r 3Atl YZt
w N
N.
3S 3AV 94
3S 3AV 94 �� S3AV 9tL
a ; 3S3AVZtt
r 3 33AV90�
3S 3ntl 90t w
9 N
3s 3AV rot stsas
r N ¢
N N
S a211affMl
N S 3AV K
N
r
_ y a
3AV IVNIN30 tO S 3AV E8 -
!} h
_- - -w, S 3AV 9L r y N 3AV b S 3AV 0
..- .
L9t
r N N ) H A3TIVA 1S3M
co
y sT i0
d NI
y Oyu �y� S 3AV 99
y l Ob1,4i3b ry -
r ' S oa AHVDIM
66as N OE� �
us n
If i i€
r coS3IVpZ g as"s
N y E�npS
P N r:..............._ y bs., ��Hill,
,e
^S� y S3AV9 S3AV9 t
CO !;� o
y
MARINE VIEW E1
g o
to C. 'C --
L m 0 O m
t O N 3 m iP
�i a N e Q 39 3AV O9l 1
E
D
w s N \\\\
r
d J a
> w�' W 4Ery paw nol uq uaA
W u N ane jed auawAoldw3 t
3S 3AV►9tca
m {
A35 3AV Z9L
v/ 3S 3AY 9►L 3S 3AV S►L
_...3S 3AV►►t
3s 3AV Ott �, ~
L N
F
N
FF 3AY Z£t
N N�
38 3AY►Zt 3AY►Zt
w N
N r 0
N h
3S 3AV 9tl 3S 3AV 9tt S 3AV 9tt
3S 3AV Z{l
y 3S 3AV 90L 9s alb v
�. 36 3AV 90 L w
N +0 N
y Sy�e 3S 3AV 40t sts as h .
s ON 109IV1
N S 3AV►6
l9{bS N f
WHA3lWAI m Pv0
N tjj 1 3AV lVWM30 S 3AV E9
' S 3AV 9t N 3AV► s ► - --,..,�-_
,{
3 N
tat
t t9t as + '
MNHA3llVA 1S3M
N S 3AV N
N _11,� N
by
N p� ����... S 3AV 99
N
-' 9 GH AwlIIM
tV _ F gb y E
N � g
efias
us m�sy�s
V~a
N S 3AY 1fL yH ab j
0� � 33AY9 S3AV9 ;���gffi
N
g-apEP
MARINE ffW Ea o
Transit Existing Conditions
Level of Service
Table 6 shows the routes serving the City of Kent, and the level of service during
peak periods, midday, early evening, late evening, Saturday, and Sunday. The
next section provides a detailed description for each route.
Frequency of service, or headway between buses, greatly affects the viability of
transit service. Low frequency of service often leads to long wait times for bus
riders and becomes a deterrent to the use of public transportation, especially for
those passengers with other travel options. Reliable bus service allows some
passengers to wait at home or work before arriving at their bus stop,but to some
degree they will still feel that the bus schedule determines their personal
schedule if the headways are large. This is especially a concern for passengers
running a short errand or if transfers are required. Figure 6 shows that there is
no midday service with 30-minute or better headways east of 108th Avenue. As
a result, transit is often not an option for travelers who need to make a trip
during the midday, commuters working non-traditional shifts, and peak hour
commuters who are concerned that there is no safety net service should they
need to travel during the midday.
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 22
Transit Existing Conditions
Table 6. Service Levels
Rout�W Destination Peak Mid Early Late Early Sat Sun
Eve Eve Morn
150 Auburn-Kent-Seattle 15 30 15 30 15 30/60 30/60
153 Kent-Renton 30 30 30
154 Auburn-Kent-Kent 2 am/
Boeing pm
runs
158 Kent-East Hill-Seattle 30
159 Kent-Timberlane- 30
Seattle
160 Kent-Glencarin- 30
Seattle
162 Kent-Seattle(PM 30
Peak)
163 Kent-East Hill-Seattle 30
164 Kent Transit Center- 30 60 60 60
Green River CC
166 Kent-Des-Moines 30 30 30 60 60 30/60 60
167 Aubum-Kent-Seattle 30
168 Kent-Timberlane 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
169 Kent-Renton 30 30 30 60 30 30/60 30/60
173* Federal Way-Boeing- 2 am/
Kent Des Moines P&R pm
run
174* Federal Way-Kent 30 30 30 30 30 30/60 30/60
Des-Moines P&R-
Sea-Tac
175* Kent Des-Moines P&R- 30
Downtown Seattle
183 Kent-Federal Way 30 60 30 60
190* Star Lake-Kent Des- 30
Moines P&R-Seattle
191* Redondo Heights 30
P&R- Kent Des-
Moines P&R-Seattle
192* Kent Des-Moines P&R- 30
Seattle
194 Federal Way-Kent Des 30 30 30
Moines P&R-Seattle
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 23
Transit Existing Conditions
Route tj- 102 Peak Mid Early Late Early S t
WV Eve Eve Morn 40
197 Twin Lakes P&R-Kent 15 60 30 15
Des Moines P&R-
Seattle
247 Overlake-Kent 30 30 30
564ST Auburn-Kent-Bellevue 15 30 15 60 15
565ST Federal Way-Kent- 30 30 30 60 30
Overlake
574ST Lakewood-Kent Des- 30 30 30 60 30
Moines P&R-Sea-Tac
Airport
914 Kent Shopper Shuttle 60 60 60
916 Kent Shopper Shuttle 60 60 60
918 Kent Boeing Shuttle 30 60
941 First Hill-Kent Des 30
Moines P&R
949 Metro Boeing Custom 1 am/
Bus (Federal Way- pm
Kent-Everett Boeing) run
952 Metro Boeing Custom 30
Bus (Auburn-Kent-
Everett Boeing)
*=These stops serve the Kent Des Moines Park and Ride
Destination Peak Mid Early Eve Late Eve Early Morn
Kent Transit 30
Center-Seattle
Seattle-Kent Transit 30
Center
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 24
L M
C D I g
m
a
n 11 V'ip
B`
V a m F o 3s 3AV oet
0
o ° d E O y ��
E m W W!4 Pw .01 aq J'an
Vaae�ed 7uauLfoidw3 3S 3AV t9l <
G� m
w+ r
3 a
C
3S 3AV ZSL
` O 3S 3AV Q*L 3S 3AV On
M 3S 3AV"IL
N
3S 3AV Oft �, ~
t ti
N h
3S ZCL
N f
39 3AV YZL v1 -
$ F 3AV VZL
N
3S 3m 9tL y
3S 31W Ott S 3AV 9LL
35 3Av su
j m 3S 3AV 90L
S y 3s 3AV 90 es L m
N
m ~�B 3S 3AV tN SLS as
N � �
s oa ioslvl
0
s 3AV be
Let aS ur r i
_ ml
6
0 P S
v -WH A3llVA 1Stl3 w PJ9
3 S m S 3AV£9
3AV ltlalN30 .- � _
tt y J
V ^
t- ----•�., N 3AV 4 S 3AV 4 ^
S 3AV 9L � _
Let
�+ f- LBL aS
m AAW-TIVA IS3µ
N
S 3Atl N
Y N�,
dyi �I
s 3AV 99
o _
b141/
Q� ON AwIlln
F 8a$
e gss�k'
a._
LS sa$
F H S3AVK ' 1.0 07 V y i
1S ; F- S3AV9 ggF-'
S 3AV 9
y 1 cry ee18
MARINE IEWD�_J-___�-- €a$ F E
Transit Existing Conditions
Description of Routes
Metro Route 130 provides daily service from Auburn, Kent, Southcenter and
downtown Seattle. Within Kent the route serves Kent Boeing, Kent Park and
Ride and the Kent Transit Center where riders can transfer to Sounder
Commuter Rail. Weekday service begins at 4:54 am and continues until 2:28 am
with peak service operating every 15 minutes, followed by midday and evening
service every 30 minutes. Saturday service is provided between the hours of 5:48
am until 2:26 am every 30 minutes, and hourly in the late evenings. Sunday
service is provided between 6:51 am and 2:28 pm every 30 minutes, and hourly
in the early evening.
Metro Route 153 provides service between Kent and Renton every 30 minutes
Monday through Friday, from 5:56 am to 6:54 pm. The major stops served are:
Kent Transit Center, East Valley Road, South Renton Park and Ride, Renton
Transit Center. Riders can connect with the Sounder at the Kent Transit Center.
Metro Route 154 provides peak only service between Auburn and Kent-Boeing
Monday through Friday, during the hours of 4:58 and 7:59 am, and again from
2:32 and 5:43 pm. Major stops served are: Federal Center South, Duwamish
Boeing, Tukwila Park and Ride, Kent-Boeing, Kent Park and Ride, Kent Transit
Center, Auburn Park and Ride, and Auburn Transit Center. Riders can transfer
to the Sounder at the Auburn Transit Center and the Kent Transit Center.
Metro Route 158 provides peak only service Monday through Friday from Lake
Meridian (132nd Avenue SE/SE 240th) to downtown Seattle. Service to Seattle
is offered every 30 minutes from 4:54 am to 8:40 am and again from 3:27 pm until
7:26 pm. Major stops served are: downtown Seattle, Kent-Des Moines Park and
Ride, Kent Transit Center, and Lake Meridian Park and Ride. Riders can connect
with the Sounder in Seattle to return to the Kent Transit Center.
Metro Route 159 provides peak AM only service, Monday through Friday,
between Kent East Hill to downtown Seattle. Route 159 provides morning
service to Seattle between the hours of 4:58 am to 6:54 am. Major stops served
are: downtown Seattle, Kent-Des Moines Park and Ride, Kent Transit Center,
Lake Meridian Park and Ride, and Timberlane.
Metro Route 160 provides peak only service Monday through Friday between
Kent East Hill and downtown Seattle. Service is offered from Kent to downtown
Seattle between the hours of 5:44 am and 7:21 am, and again in the afternoon
from 4:05 pm to 5:05 pm. Major stops served are: downtown Seattle, Tukwila
Park and Ride, Kent Boeing, and Glencarin.
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 26
Transit Existing Conditions
Metro Route 162 provides a peak only PM service every 30 minutes, Monday
through Friday, from downtown Seattle back to Kent. Service is provided from
4:20 pm to 6:27 pm, and brings commuters from downtown Seattle back to Kent
Transit Center. Major stops served are: downtown Seattle, Kent-Des Moines
Park and Ride, and Kent Transit Center.
Metro Route 163 provides peak only service every 30 minutes Monday through
Friday from Kent to downtown Seattle. Route 163 provides service from Kent
East Hill to downtown Seattle from 5:52 am to 7:19 am and again in the afternoon
from 4:00 pm to 5:31 pm. Major stops served are: downtown Seattle, SODO,
Tukwila Park and Ride, Valley Medical Center, and Kent East Hill.
Metro Route 164 provides service Monday through Friday from 5:29 am to 10:29
pm from Kent Transit Center to Green River Community College. Service is
offered every 30 minutes from 6:29 to 7:29 am, and hourly for the remaining
service hours. Connections with Sounder are available at the Kent Transit
Center. Major Stops served are: Kent Transit Center, Kent East Hill, and Green
River Community College.
Metro Route 166 provides service seven days a week between Kent and Des-
Moines. Weekday service is offered from 4:48 am to 11:09 pm every 30 minutes
throughout the day, except in the early morning and late evening when service is
offered every 60 minutes. Saturday service is provided between the hours of 6:09
am to 10:13 pm with 30-minute service throughout the day, except in the late
evening when service is every 60 minutes. Sunday service is provided hourly
between the hours of 7:44 am to 8:51 pm. Major stops served are: Marine View
Drive S, S 216th Street, Highline Community College, Midway, Kent-Des Moines
Park and Ride, Kent Transit Center. Riders can transfer to the Sounder at the
Kent Transit Center.
Metro Route 167 provides peak only service Monday through Friday from Kent
to Seattle. Service is offered every 30 minutes from 5:32 am to 8:32 am from Kent
to Seattle, and again in the afternoon from 2:46 pm to 6:34 pm. Major stops
served are: University District, SR 520 Freeway Stops, Wilburton Park and Ride,
Coal Creek Parkway Freeway Station, Newport Hills Park and Ride, Kennydale
Freeway Station, Renton Boeing, South Renton Park and Ride, Kent Transit
Center, and Auburn Park and Ride
Metro Route 168 provides daily service every 60 minutes from Kent to
Timberlane. Weekday service is provided from 4:42 am to 11:56 pm, Saturdays
from 5:33 am to 11:52 pm, and Sundays from 6:38 am to 9:04 pm. Major stops
served are: Kent Transit Center, Lake Meridian Park and Ride, and Timberlane.
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 27
Transit Existing Conditions
Metro Route 169 provides daily service every 30 minutes from Kent East Hill
and Renton, until late evening when service is offered every 60 minutes.
Weekday service is provided from 4:58 am to 11:32 pm, Saturday service is
provided from 5:54 am to 11:56 pm, and Sunday service is provided from 6:57 am
to 11:20 pm until the late evening when service is offered hourly. Major stops
served are: Renton Transit Center, South Renton Park and Ride, Valley Medical
Center, Kent East Hill, and Kent Transit Center.
Metro Route 183 provides service every Monday through Saturday from Kent to
Federal Way. Weekday service is offered from 5:22 am to 7:11 pm every 30
minutes during peak periods and hourly during the midday. On Saturday,
service is offered every 60 minutes between the hours of 9:30 am and 6:59 pm.
Major stops served are: Federal Way Transit Center, Camelot, Star Lake Park and
Ride, and Kent Transit Center.
Metro Route 247 provides peak only service every 30 minutes Monday through
Friday between Overlake and Kent. Service is provided from Kent to Overlake
from 5:41 am to 7:46 am, and during the afternoon from 3:46 pm to
6:33 pm. Major stops served are: Redmond, Overlake, Overlake Transit Center,
Overlake Park and Ride, Eastgate Park and Ride, Factoria, Newport Hills Park
and Ride, Kennydale Freeway Station, Renton Boeing, Renton, South Renton
Park and Ride, Kent, and Kent Boeing.
Sound Transit Route 564 provides express service from Auburn to Bellevue
Monday through Friday, from 5:00 am to 11:00 pm. Service is offered from Kent
Transit Center every 15 minutes during the morning and afternoon peak periods,
every 30 minutes during the midday, and hourly during the late evening. Major
stops served are: Auburn Transit Center, Auburn Commuter Rail Station, Kent
Transit Center, Renton Transit Center, Renton Boeing, Bellevue Transit Center,
and Overlake Transit Center.
Sound Transit Route 565 provides express service Monday through Friday from
Federal Way to Overlake, and travels the same route as the 564 except that it
serves Federal Way in addition to Auburn. Service is offered every 30 minutes
from the Kent Transit Center from 5:00 am to 11:00 pm, except in the late evening
when service is offered hourly. Major stops served are: Federal Way Transit
Center, Auburn Transit Center, Auburn Commuter Rail Station, Kent Transit
Center, Renton Transit Center, Renton Boeing, Bellevue Transit Center, and
Overlake Transit Center.
Metro Route 914 is the local DART shopper shuttle, which operates Monday
through Saturday from 9:00 am to 4:20 pm. Major stops served are; on the Kent
Transit Center, Kent East Hill, Lake Meridian Park and Ride, DART. Routes 914,
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 28
Transit Existing Conditions
916 and 918 are managed by Metro and operated under contract with non-profit
(provided Hopelink);the City of Kent subsidizes passenger fares to allow the
service to operate "fare free." The City of Kent designed and operated both the
914 and 916 routes for three years as a grant demonstration project, and after
great success Metro assumed operation.
Metro Route 916 is the second DART shopper shuttle, which connects with
Route 914 to provide service around Kent, but covers more of the northeastern
part of the city. Service is provided Monday through Saturday from 9:30 am to
4:27 pm. The 916 operates under the same arrangement as the Route 914.
Metro Route 918 is a DART commuter van providing service between Kent
Transit Center and Kent Boeing. The service operates weekdays every 30
minutes during commute hours from 6:30 to 8:00 am and again in the afternoon
from 4:30 to 6:00 pm. The City of Kent is currently running Route 918 through
grant funding, and is handling all promotion of the service.
Metro Route 952 is a Metro Boeing Custom Bus, which provides peak service
from Kent Transit Center to Boeing in Everett. Service is offered every 30
minutes from 4:17 am to 7:14 am and again in the afternoon from 2:35 pm to 6:18
pm. There is no midday service. Major stops served are: Auburn Park and Ride,
Kent Transit Center, Renton Boeing Lot 10, Kennydale Freeway Station, Newport
Hills Freeway Station, Wilburton Freeway Station, NE 70th Place Freeway
Station, NE 160th Freeway Station, and Boeing Everett Gate E-77.
Sound Transit Sounder Commuter Rail provides peak only service Monday
through Friday from the Kent Station stop at the Kent Transit Center to
downtown Seattle. Service is provided from Kent Station to Seattle in the
morning from 6:17 to 7:42 am, and again in the afternoon from Seattle back to
Kent Station from 4:20 to 5:40 pm. The Sounder only provides four trips daily in
each direction, and no service during the midday or late evening.
ROUTES SERVING THE KENT-DES MOINES PARK AND RIDE
Metro Route 190 provides peak only service every 30 minutes Monday through
Friday from Star Lake to Seattle, and serves the Des Moines Park and Ride.
Service is offered from 6:04 am to 8:29 am, and again in the afternoon from 3:22
pm to 6:16 pm. Major stops served are: downtown Seattle, SODO, Star Lake Park
and Ride and Redondo Heights Park and Ride.
Metro Route 191 provides peak only service every 30 minutes Monday through
Friday, from the Redondo Heights Park and Ride to Seattle. Service is offered
from 5:44 am to 8:52 am, and again in the afternoon from 3:28 pm to 7:06 pm.
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
612212006 Page 29
Transit Existing Conditions
Major Stops served on the route are: downtown Seattle, SODO Riverton Heights,
Redondo Heights Park and Ride.
Metro Route 192 provides peak only service every 30 minutes Monday through
Friday from the Kent-Des Moines Park and Ride to downtown Seattle. Service is
offered from 6:17 am to 8:22 am, and again in the afternoon from 3:31 pm to 6:13
pm. Major stops served are: Downtown Seattle, Kent-Des Moines Park and Ride,
and Star Lake Park and Ride.
Metro Route 194 provides daily service from Federal Way to Sea-Tac Airport.
Service is offered every 30 minutes from the Kent-Des Moines Park and Ride to
Sea-Tac Airport from 5:51 am to 9:45 pm weekdays, and from Sea-Tac to Kent
from 5:16 am to 10:59 pm. Saturday service is offered every 30 minutes from the
Kent-Des Moines Park and Ride to Sea-Tac from 6:14 am to 9:27 pm, and from
Sea-Tac to Kent from 6:47 am to 10:43 pm. Sunday service is offered every 30
minutes from Kent to Sea-Tac from 6:14 am to 8:01 pm and from Sea-Tac to Kent
from 6:48 am to 7:34 pm. Major stops served are: downtown Seattle, SODO, Sea-
Tac Airport, Kent-Des Moines Park and Ride, Star Lake Park and Ride, Federal
Way Transit Center, and Federal Way/S 320th Street Park and Ride.
Metro Route 197 provides service Monday through Friday between Twin Lakes
Park and Ride and downtown Seattle. Service is provided from the Kent-Des
Moines Park and Ride to Seattle every 15 minutes from 6:08 am to 8:46 am.
Service from Seattle to Kent is provided every 30 minutes from 3:00 pm to 7:00 pm
and hourly from 12:42 pm to 3:00 pm. Major stops served are: University
District, Kent-Des Moines Freeway Station, Star Lake Freeway Station, Federal
Way Transit Center, Sea-Tac Mall, and Twin Lakes Park and Ride.
Metro Route 173 provides service Monday through Friday between Federal Way
and Boeing, serving the Kent-Des Moines Park and Ride. Service is provided at
the Kent-Des Moines Park and Ride from 5:56 am to 7:22 am to Federal Way and
again in the afternoon from 3:02 to 4:45 from Federal Way South back to Kent-
Des Moines Park and Ride. Major stops served are: Federal Center South,
Duwamish Boeing, Federal Way, Sea-Tac Mall, and Federal Way/S 320th Street
Park and Ride.
Metro Route 174 provides daily service between Federal Way and downtown
Seattle, and also serves the Kent-Des Moines Park and Ride. Service is provided
weekdays every 30 minutes between 4:15 am until 4:33 am the next day. On
Saturdays, service is provided every 30 minutes from 5:15 am to 4:30 am, except
after midnight service is offered hourly. On Sundays, service is provided from
6:19 am to 4:30 am every 30 minutes,but also shifts to hourly service after
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 30
Transit Existing Conditions
Passengers can buy Metro ticket books at face value from $0.25 to $2.00, in lieu of
the cash fare. For those customers that prefer a pass, Metro sells the one, three,
or twelve month PugetPass. Tables 8 and 9 describe Metro's fare structure.
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 38
Transit Existing Conditions
Table 8. King County Metro Bus Fares
Metro Fare Type Cash Fare Per • Three-Month
PugetPass month)
Price Price PugetPass
Price
Metro Youth fare $0.50 $18.00
(age 6-17
Metro One-and Two- $1.25 $45.00 $495.00
zone Off-peak
Metro One-zone Peak $1.50 $54.00 $162.00 $594.00
Metro Two-zone Peak 1 $2.00 $72.00 1 $216.00 1 $792.00
Table 9. Reduced Fares for Seniors/ Individuals with Disability
(King County Metro Only)
Metro-onlyMetro Fare Type Cash Fare Metro-only
Per Trip RRFP* Sticker RRFP* Sticker
Reduced Fare(bus) $.25 $5.50 $66.00
Off-peak
Reduced Fare (bus) $.50 $5.50 $66.00
Peak
" Regional Reduced Fare Permit
REGIONAL DAY PASS(WEEKENDS/HOLIDAYS
Metro sells a regional day pass on weekends and holidays (when a Sunday
schedule is operated) for$2.50. The pass allows customers unlimited rides on
Metro and they can apply the pass for$1.25 toward fare payment on Community
Transit, Pierce Transit, Everett Transit, and Sound Transit. The pass is available
on all Metro buses.
Special or Reduced Fares
REDUCED FARES FOR CHILDREN
Metro allows up to four children age five and under to ride for free when
accompanied by a paying adult. Additional children must pay the youth fare.
Also, on Sundays and holidays when a Sunday schedule is operated, up to four
children age 17 and under may ride free when accompanied by any customer
paying an adult fare.
ROUTE 949 AND 952 (BOEING CUSTOM BUS) FARES
Metro charges a special fare of$2.50 or$3.00 for the Boeing custom bus
depending on whether you are traveling northbound or southbound and at
which stops you are boarding and alighting. The fare structure by direction and
stop is detailed on the website and in the route schedule.
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 39
Transit Existing Conditions
REGIONAL REDUCED FARE PERMIT
There is a multi-agency reduced fare pass available for seniors or persons with
disabilities as well as personal care attendants; the cost is $3.00 per day. The Fare
Permit entitles an individual to reduced fares on Metro Transit, Washington
State Ferries, Community Transit, Everett Transit, Intercity Transit,Jefferson
Transit, Kitsap Transit, Mason Transit, Pierce Transit, Skagit Transit and Sound
Transit. Each transit agency sets their own reduced fare structure, and a person
would have to apply for the permit.
ACCESS Transportation Services
ACCESS Transportation Service, Metro's ADA paratransit program, charges
eligible riders$0.75 for a one-way fare. Companions are also charged the $0.75
fare, but Personal Care Attendants and service animals ride free.
ACCESS Transportation also offers a monthly pass for$13.50, which is also valid
for the peak and off-peak reduced fare on regular Metro bus service (when
presented with a Regional Reduced Fare Permit).
Sound Transit
Sound Transit (ST) operates a zone fare system for both ST express routes and
the Sounder Commuter Rail. Sound Transit's fare levels are based on the
number of zones a rider travels through and fare type (adult,youth or
senior/disabled). The fare on Sound Transit Express Bus service never exceeds a
three zone adult fare. Sound Transit charges a slightly higher fare for Sounder
Commuter Rail.
ST Express buses honor the PugetPass,however riders must purchase the passes
from Metro or other partners, as Sound Transit does not sell them directly.
Passengers can purchase the Sounder Commuter Rail pass from Sound Transit,
and all ST passes are eligible for the Regional Reduced Fare Permit. Sound
Transit does offer a slight discount for the Sounder Commuter Rail Pass.
Tables 10-13 detail the fares and pass programs for Sound Transit Express Bus
and Sounder Commuter Rail.
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 40
Transit Existing Conditions
Table 10. Sound Transit Express Bus Fares
rip
One-Zone $1.50 $1.00 $0.50
Two-Zones $2.50 $1.75 $1.25
Three-Zones $3.00 $2.50 $1.50
*Requires Regional Reduced Fare Permit. Medicare cardholders are eligible to receive a permit.
Table 11. Sound Transit Express Bus Monthly PugetPass
Monthly Passes IU
•�
One-Zone $54.00 $36.00 $18.00
Two-Zones $90.00 $63.00 $45.00
Three-Zones $108.00 $90.00 $54.00
* Requires Regional Reduced Fare Permit. Medicare cardholders are eligible to receive a permit
Table 12. Sounder Commuter Rail Fares
Single Trip Adult 19-64 yr Youth 6- 18 yr Senior Citizen (65+) or Disabled*
One-Zone $2.00 $1.50 $1.00
Two-Zones $3.00 $2.25 $1.50
Three-Zones $4.00 $3.00 $2.00
Table 13. Sounder Commuter Rail Monthly Passes
One-Zone $72.00 $54.00 $36.00
Two-Zones $108.00 $81.00 $54.00
*Requires Regional Reduced Fare Permit. Medicare cardholders are eligible to receive a permit
Multi Agency Pass Programs
PUGETPASS
The PugetPass is a regional transit pass, which both Metro Transit and Sound
Transit use for their pass programs. The PugetPass is available in various pass
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 41
Transit Existing Conditions
types, and is accepted as valid fare payment on Metro, Community Transit of
Snohomish County, Pierce Transit, Everett Transit and Sound Transit service.
All three agencies sell the passes to riders, except for Sound Transit. Riders who
purchase a twelve month pass are offered a month for free,but the per trip, one
month, and three month passes are offered at face value. Table 14 describes the
fare values for the PugetPass.
Table 14. PugetPass Fare Types
One-MonthPer Trip
PugetValue PugetPass Month Pug
50¢ $18.00
750 $27.00
$1.00 $36.00 $396.00
$1.25 $45.00 $495.00
$1.50 $54.00 $162.00 $594.00
$1.75 $63.00
$2.00 $72.00 $216.00 $792.00
$2.25 $81.00
$2.50 $90.00 $990.00
$2.75 $99.00
$3.00 $108.00 $1188.00
$3.75 $135.06 $1485.00
$4.00 $144.00 $1584.00
SMART CARD
Metro Transit, Community Transit, Kitsap Transit, Pierce Transit. Everett Transit,
Washington State Ferries, and Sound Transit have worked together to plan and
implement a regional fare collection program. The "Smart Card" will enable
customers to use one fare card on multiple systems throughout the four county
Central Puget Sound area. Smart Card fare collection technology will be used to
allow linked trips between transit, ferries and rail and to greatly expand each
agency's strategic fare policy capabilities. The Central Puget Sound Regional
Fare Coordination Project began in 2003, and the Smart Card is currently being
tested (Revenue Service Beta Test), and expected to be fully operational by 2007.
TRANSIT PERFORMANCE
This section reviews performance measurement systems used by Metro Transit
and Sound Transit to monitor bus and shuttle services. Following a summary of
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 42
Transit Existing Conditions
these guidelines is a review of performance data for routes operating in the City of
Kent.
King County Metro Performance Measures
Performance measures, along with guidelines or standards, are often used to
monitor the operation of individual bus routes and to identify services requiring
special attention. Routes may be looked at for possible expansion, modification
or termination based on how they perform to specified guidelines. Metro uses
two performance categories when reviewing results against defined measures-
"below minimum" and "strong." Those "below minimum" should be evaluated
for modification, or termination if changes cannot improve performance.
Services rated as "strong" may be considered for expansion. Thresholds for
determining these two categories result in most Metro routes exhibiting
moderate performance, neither "below minimum" or "strong." The thresholds
are kept constant over several years and allow for tracking changes in individual
route operation.
As part of Metro's long range planning process, routes are analyzed by subarea
and time of day. Routes serving Kent are compared to all routes allocated to the
south planning subarea and for peak, off-peak(midday) and night operation.
Special routes, such as the DART services, are measured,but excluded from the
formal evaluation. Metro has adopted the following measures on which to base
service reviews.
Riders per Revenue Hour
Riders per revenue hour is the traditional measure of productivity. This measure
addresses both ridership and speed when gauging a service's return for a unit of
investment. Routes with many boardings and alightings at many stops tend to
perform well against this measurement. Services along high-density corridors
and/or with strong anchors at route terminations do the best against this
measure. Express or limited-stop routes tend to carry fewer passengers over
longer distances. Unless they run at capacity, travel short distances and/or travel
at high rates of speed, they may appear to under perform against this ratio. In
2004, Metro routes ranged between 6 and 93 riders per revenue hour.
Fare Revenue to Operating Expense Ratio
The percent of operating costs funded by fares, or farebox recovery, measures a
service's need for subsidy. Fare policy, including level of fares, transfer
procedures and multi-use pass discounts, determine an average fare per
boarding and the level to which fares cover costs. Systems with the same fares
for local and express routes will tend to see a high correlation between
productivity and farebox recovery measures as there are fewer opportunities for
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 43
Transit Existing Conditions
passenger turnover and fare generation. Fares based on zones, or length of trip,
will help recover a little more of the costs for long-distance travel. In 2004, Metro
route recovery ratios ranged widely between 2 percent and 55 percent.
Passenger Miles per Revenue Hour
The passenger miles per revenue hour measure captures the level to which buses
carry large numbers of passengers over long distances. This measure values
those express routes with limited number of boarding locations but carry large
numbers of passengers for great distances. The measure also values speed as the
number of revenue hours is reduced to carry these passengers over a given
distance. In 2004, Metro routes ranged between 24 and 750 passenger miles per
revenue hour.
Passenger Miles per Platform Mile
Passenger miles per platform mile is the ratio Metro currently uses to assess the
degree to which transit service contributes to the reduction of total vehicle miles
traveled. This is a system usage measure and an indication of the number of
(non-transit) vehicle miles removed from the roadways.
Route Effectiveness Rating
The route effectiveness rating provides an overall look by summarizing route
performance against the other four measures. It is defined as the sum of the
standard deviation for each of the four performance measures within a route
grouping. The effectiveness measure only indicates relative performance within
one grouping and is useful when comparing services within a given geographic
subarea and over given time of operation. For instance, a score of 3.1 in the
midday grouping for the East subarea is not the same as a score of 3.1 in the East
peak or South midday groupings.
Sound Transit Express Bus Performance Measures
Sound Transit employs ST Express Service Standards and Performance Measures to
rate the performance of individual ST Express routes and to help determine when
remedial actions may be needed. The Sound Transit Board approved these guidelines
in 1999 and Sound Transit is currently reviewing them for a possible update.
The performance rating process follows two key steps: the first step is to identify
how each route performs in terms of ridership and cost effectiveness compared
with the performance standards; the second step is a detailed evaluation of each
route that is either not performing up to standard or is performing well above
average. Continuous substandard performance for more than two years could
result in a number of potential actions including frequency reduction, service
span revision, rescheduling, route restructuring, extensive marketing efforts, or
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 44
Transit Existing Conditions
elimination. Conversely, above-average performance could result in increased
service levels or a route restructuring to provide more capacity, particularly if
ridership shows a continuing upward trend and the improvements are
affordable.
Passengers per revenue hour and passengers per one-way trip are the key
productivity measures used in the Service Standards. Farebox recovery is used
to gauge the subsidy required for each route. Performance measures are
calculated over varying time periods to satisfy internal and external reporting
requirements. Therefore, the measures are compiled on a monthly and quarterly
basis, except for the fare revenue/cost ratio, which is calculated annually.
Comparisons with the previous month, the same month for the previous year,
and with a two or three year running average are tallied to identify trends.
Sound Transit uses the average system wide performance as a comparison point
to rate individual routes. Routes categorized as "Good" exceed 125 percent of
the system average for the particular measure. "Acceptable" routes are those
falling between the system average and 125 percent of the system average.
"Marginal" routes are between 75 percent of the system average and the system
average, while "Unacceptable" routes are below 75 percent of the system
average. Routes that fall in the unacceptable category in two of the three
principle measures will be subject to a detailed analysis after two years of
operation. The overall route performance rating reflects service provided at all
times including night, Saturday and Sunday time periods. Some routes may
have acceptable performance during weekday daytime periods but their overall
rating may be reduced by low ridership and productivity at other times. Table
15 indicates the level of performance for each ST Express performance measure:
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 45
Transit Existing Conditions
Table 15. ST Productivity Performance Standards
Productivity
Standard
Passengers per Trip Passengers per
Revenue Hour
Good > 30.18 > 26.34
-----------
Satisfactory 24.14— 30.18 21.07—26.34
Marginal 18.11 —24.14 15.80—21.07
Unsatisfactory < 18.11 <15.80
In addition to the Service Standards, Sound Transit evaluates each route using
the following criteria:
• Consistency with Sound Move, Sound Transit's master plan;
• Impacts on existing and future riders with each alternative;
• Likelihood of ridership growth and improved system productivity; and
• Affordability.
Kent Route Performance
Table 16 presents the Metro routes serving the City of Kent. Recent annual
revenue hours and average daily boardings are included to show the relative
intensity of service provided and patronage by riders. Of the regular routes
operating with midday service, routes 150, 164 and 169 have the best
productivities and carry the most passengers for a given hour of service. Route
183 provides the least number of rides per hour of service. Of the peak-only
services, routes 158, 159 and 162 have the best productivities while routes 154
and 247 have the lowest. Saturday and Sunday productivities are lower for the
routes with weekend service indicating that ridership decreases are greater than
the reduction in service hours. Only Route 183 shows a sharp decrease in
weekend performance relative to that on weekdays.
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 46
N to
N m v
p 00 (0 cM
O N N d m
W a
r G N
3 �
VG CA Ln O N U� pl:
_ (7 N co co co N cc) R
O
C I- a
' �7[ F-
LU O M O O N M N CO CO N 00 a0 O M
N
W CO N O O a0 r- O � I-- M O
N N N N M N N
C
OCD rn
eM M
N �
O.
t
�a N OMO CO co � N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1- M
CA W O 1-- M to N O M M W W N 0 f,- O
QLn It N N r— 0 It 0 CO N
'O° Ln N
CZ 0
CO 0 CO
co M T
T
b
O
Q. L O O CD O O O
3 O O O O CD
CA
O CM Ln 101 M r °
N M
� 3 �
Q Ln M W M 0 M ti LO W f- M M 0 W O O
V P- c0 Cn W N M N N r- M N O M P- O N °
m 8 r- c0 M M 't M M N ct N O r- 't M
d � d� CO CO Cl) N � CO q O c0 O C CM Ln N
� N T
m
r x
3
a a N
O ao � Ln
L
M c
z O O M h
d O O M m y
Y Y Y "a y
O N d a m a n. a a M is n. m CU ti
Q ca m ca m cc cc m M M Q Q M m m m
C Ln 'a 'a "a "a 'a 'a 'a O iri Ln Ln v U v a
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y .Y .Y Y 7
Y21
N N N aai aa)i N N M m ami .m 'a N N N N a
cd o 0 n. o o3: �: 3: 3: g
r
109
Y o
CD
O O M It O O O N M co r- co CA (M I- It c0 N
Ln In Ln In In CO CO CO CO (O CO O w � N
04 CF) 0) v] U f0
Transit Existing Conditions
The Metro route performance evaluation for routes serving Kent and the Kent-Des
Moines Park and Ride are presented in Table 17. Performance data above the
"strong" threshold for each time period are lightly shaded and those categorized as
"below minimum" are shaded dark. These data are from the 2004 Annual Route
Performance Report—South Planning Subarea (July 2005). The results show a similar
trend with Routes 153 and 154 under performing relative to other peak services with
Routes 150 and 169 performing well during peak, midday and at nighttime periods.
Route 162 only operates during peak periods and is the best performing service
during commute times.
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 48
Transit Existing Conditions
Table 17. King County Metro Route Performance Analyses
RouteFare
Rides per Revenue Passenger Passenger
Operatingevenue per Miles per M11 Effective-
Revenue Platform
Hour ess
Peak Service
"Strong"Threshold 45.1 30% ,596 15.2 3.3
"Below Minimum"Threshold "
162 40.7 25% 763 16.45 4.7
150 42.9 31% 451 18.07 4.5
158 38.6 25% 706 17.37 4.4
159 36.5 22% 599 14.6 2.7
169 47.5 30°% 196 10.24 1.9
164 42.9 29% 174 7.94 0.8
168 42.9 23% 168 6.39 -0.3
163 29 18% 362 8.78 -0.9
160 27.5 16% 394 9.08 -1.1
166 33 21% 141 6.62 -1.6
183 30.9 20% 132 -2.3
167 23.4 '. 381 8.53 -2.8
153 21.2 18% :
154 19.8 •' 201 4 •
Offpeak Service
"Strong"Threshold 44.4 25% 1334 116.0 13.5
"Below Minimum"Threshold 20.3 10% 62 3.4
150 43.9 227. 552 26.19 15.6 __
164 53.2 27% 202 10.67 12.4
169 47.3 25% 201 11.29 1.9
168 44.8 19% _ 200 8.92 6.6
166 133.6 17% 145 7.1 -1.2
183 124.1 12% 130 6.47 -2.7
Night Service _
"Strong"Threshold 30.4 15% 266 10.4 3.4
"Below Minimum"Threshold : : 8% 60 2,6 -3
150 24.5 12% 343 13.4 3.Z
169 355 15% 162 6.94 3.0
164 ]25.5 11% 117 4.64 -0.7
168 26.6 10% 118 4.26 -0.8
166 24.7 11% 93 3.53 -1.4
Exception Routes-Peak
918 112.5 120 11.35
916 119.4 174 15.73
Exception Routes-Offpeak
914 116.6 68 15.35
916 115.0 174 15.87
Source:Metro 2004 Annual Route Performance Report
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 49
Transit Existing Conditions
The Sound Transit 2006 Service Improvement Plan (SIP) reviews route-level
performance using the previously defined standards along with other assessments.
Table 18 highlights the performance of the three express routes serving Kent. The
Performance Rank is the relative ranking between the 18 weekday and 12 weekend
ranked routes. The SIP acknowledges the unsatisfactory performance of Route 564
on an overall basis. It highlights the role of Route 564 in providing additional peak
service and capacity when combined with Route 565 and that ridership has been
steadily growing. The Sound Transit 2006 service changes include the extension of
Route 564 south of Auburn to South Hill Mall (replacing service currently provided
by Route 585) and the SIP suggests these changes should raise the unsatisfactory
performance to the marginal level. In response to Route 574's low productivity, late
morning service was reduced from every 30 minutes to every 60 minutes in June
2005.
Table 18. Sound Transit Kent Route Performance Analysis
Performance Overall Weekday Saturday Sunday
Measure
Route 564
Passengers/Day 236
Passengers/Trip 23.18 Marginal 23.18
Passengers/Rev Hr 10.53 Unsatisfactory 10.53
Performance Rank 13 14
Route 565
Passengers/Day 1,716
Passengers/Trip 26.81 Satisfactory 26.81
Passengers/Rev 21.83 Satisfactory 21.83
Performance 7 8
Route 574
Passengers/Day 1,327 1,165 999
Passengers/Trip 19.3 Marginal 19.73 19.55 16.86
Passengers/Rev 14.04 Unsatisfactory 14.49 13.91 11.98
Performance 15 14 8 8
Source:Sound Transit 2006 Service Implementation Plan,April 5,2006
Performance measures based on 2'd quarter 2005 Data
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 50
Transit Existing Conditions
PROPOSED SERVICE CHANGES
King County Metro Short Term Service Improvements
As of spring 2006, Metro is completing an extensive review of South County services,
resulting in several service changes. Public outreach was sought during this process,
including public open-house meetings,household mailings and resident surveys.
The South County Sounding Board Committee, which included Kent residents,
participated in the development and finalization of service changes. Due to budget
constraints, a very limited number of new service hours were available for new
service in all of South King County. Kent's allocation of new service was minimal
and left a number of needs and issues raised by the Sounding Board unaddressed.
Several of the following proposed service changes involve the reallocation of service
hours from poorly performing services to meet high priority transit needs. The
following service changes effecting Kent will be implemented in South County:
Route 150-Due to increased congestion between Kent and Auburn, and taking
into consideration that only 10 percent of Route 150 ridership uses this portion of
the route, Metro has proposed to cut this portion of the route to provide faster
service. All trips will begin and end at the Kent Transit Center. Metro proposes
to replace lost service on Route 150 and 151 between Auburn and Kent with
Route 180. Metro also plans to increase service every 15 minutes between 5:00
am and 7:00 pm on weekdays and between 8:00 am and 7:00 pm on Saturdays.
Evening and Sunday service frequencies would not change. Service would allow
riders to travel from Kent to Seattle earlier, arriving between 5:25 am and 6:15 am
on Sundays. Arrival and departure times in Kent would be standardized so that
bus schedules are more consistent throughout the day. Improved reliability:
trips on Route 150 would begin and end at Kent Transit Center and would be
easier to keep on schedule because the route would be shorter.9
Route 167-Metro is proposing to discontinue Route 167 service to the Kent
Transit Center and to Auburn Park and Ride due to low ridership. Alternative
service between Auburn, Kent, and Renton Transit Center is available every 15 to
30 minutes on weekdays on Sound Transit ST Express routes 564 and 565. Metro
would reschedule Route 167 to make good connections with ST Route 564 or 565
at Renton Transit Center. This makes travel to destinations such as the
University of Washington more difficult for Kent residents, forcing additional
transfers and longer travel times.
'King County Journal,www.kingcountyjoumal.com,Meetings Set on Change to Metro Transit Routes, 1-24-06,
Dean A.Radford;http://transit.metrokc.gov/up/archives/jan06/sl-06-150.html
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 51
Transit Existing Conditions
Route 180-This is a proposed new route, which would replace service currently
being provided on Routes 150 and 151 between Auburn and Kent Transit Center.
The new Route 180 will provide direct service between Auburn and Sea-Tac
Airport, as well as linking Auburn and Kent.
Route 154- Metro is proposing to expand the currently limited service to three
morning and afternoon trips between Tukwila Station and Federal Center South,
and one morning and one afternoon trip between Auburn and Federal Center
South when Sounder is not operating. Although these changes will offer more
trips and faster service, a major disadvantage is that the change would require
Kent riders to take the Sounder to Tukwila Station to access Route 154 service.
Route 161-This is a proposed new route that will consolidate routes 160 and 163
into a single new route. Route 161 would consolidate and replace the weekday
commuter service on existing routes 160 and 163. Route 161 will provide six
morning and six afternoon trips on weekdays, which is more service than is
currently provided individually on routes 160 and 163. When the Sounder is
running, Route 161 will provide four morning and four afternoon trips between
North Meridian Park and the Tukwila Sounder Station. When Sounder trains are
not operating Route 161 would operate two morning trips and two afternoon
trips between North Meridian Park/Glencarin and the Tukwila Park and Ride,
scheduled to connect with frequent service on Route 150. A major disadvantage
is that this proposed route will require transfers for all trips. Riders would need
to transfer at either Tukwila Station or Tukwila Park and Ride for connecting
service to and from Seattle.
Long-Range Transit Improvements
There are a number of long-range transit plans and unfunded initiatives that will
impact how public transportation is delivered in South King County and in the City
of Kent in the future. Sound Transit Phase II and King County Metro's TransitNow
initiative could have considerable impacts on the quality of public transportation
services available to Kent residents. However, the regional focus of these initiatives
may put resources needed for local and South County service improvements in
direct competition with expensive high capacity services that meet interregional
travel needs and focus investment in a more limited number of corridors.
As mentioned, voter initiatives and economic downturn in recent years have limited
Metro's ability to fund new services; as a result Metro's 2006 South County service
changes (described above) allocate a limited number of new operating resources
(revenue hours) for South County improvements. Therefore, there were a number of
service improvements identified during the process that Metro was unable to fund.
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 52
Transit Existing Conditions
The South County Sounding Board prioritized these unfunded services and released
the following list of services to be considered as new funding becomes available.
Other public transportation initiatives critical to future transit growth in Kent
include:
King County Metro TransitNow
TransitNow is a four-point initiative announced by King County Metro in April 2006.
The initiative is intended to develop transit services that will attract"21 million more
annual rides within ten years', helping the region keep pace with employment and
population growth. TransitNow funding would come from a one-tenth of one
percent sales tax measure that would need to be approved by voters in King County.
The initiative's four-point strategy includes:
• The development of a "bus rapid transit" (BRT) system (RapidRide) that
would provide frequent all-day service and faster travel times on five key
travel corridors: three in Seattle; one connecting Bellevue and Redmond; and
one serving SeaTac, Des Moines and Federal Way.
• Improvements to current services, including the enhancement of 35 major
Metro routes with the highest ridership with the goal of providing more
frequent two-way, all-day service between key cities and neighborhoods.
• Provide new service in growing areas. The primary intent would be to
develop new peak and midday service for residential areas in East and South
King County that are not currently served.
• Develop service partnerships with major employers and cities, with the goal
of leveraging additional funding to add new service in rapidly expanding
employment centers.
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 53
Transit Existing Conditions
How DOES TRANSITNOw SERVE KENT
The map in Figure 8 illustrates service improvements proposed for South King
County under the TransitNow initiative.
• RapidRide BRT proposed to operate on Pacific Highway would only benefit a
limited number of Kent residents living on the City's Westside and/or those
accessing transit via park and ride lots in Des Moines or other communities.
The siting of stop locations will further impact the relevance of this high
frequency bus line to Kent residents.
• A new east-west route connecting Kent to Des Moines and Sea-Tac would
provide new service that has been identified by Kent stakeholders as a critical
service gap.
• Kent would receive span and frequency improvements on key north-south
services to Renton, Seattle and Sea-Tac. East-west connections would
improve with new frequency improvements to Maple Valley and Covington
service and frequency and span improvements on Kent-Kangley/124th.
If TransitNow is funded, it will help to meet some critical transit needs in Kent.
However, the high level of proposed investment in Pacific Highway BRT service
could mean that Kent will receive a disproportionately small benefit from a South
County service investment.
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 54
Transit Existing Conditions
Figure 8. South King County Metro Service Improvements
A new full-time.direct
core route will connect `
Auburn,Kent,Sealac,
and Burien to Improve Tuer us
access to employment s Rant-
sites in the airport area. ewl«n
Ku.m vats ! seaTac t { i
Local service between
Kent Station and y °:;
K.m
Covington WHO be i
upgraded to a core
connection and extend-
ed to Map
le Valley. y� coylnpton
x VOW
>b
East-west core connec-
tions;will be improved ! wnv ® AuetKn
to operate more fre- «"
quently and/or over ruaan.
longer haws of
operation. �.,.
va�Rlo
Rids SetvKe Sounder Commuter Current Meeo Routes
Span Imgpvemenq O pad L,ne end
�— Frequoncy lmproremenls SUImn as T,a—1 Canler
Frequency and Span Lm4 Light Rd V,oan King County
_... Improremenb Lme 8 Slal-
Route Exft u ns
Sound Transit 2
Sound Transit has worked extensively with the public and communities throughout
the Puget Sound region to set the priorities for Sound Transit 2 (ST2), which is the
next set of public transit investments to improve and increase the service that Sound
Transit offers today. ST2 outlines priority projects that would increasing service for
Link Light Rail, Sounder Commuter Rail and ST express bus services. In addition
Sound Transit proposes in ST2 to improve supporting facilities at the most utilized
ST transit centers and park and ride lots. Sound Transit conducted extensive public
outreach for ST2, from late 2004 through early 2006. A public vote on the ST2 plan
could be scheduled as early as Fall 2006.
ST2 service proposals impacting Kent include:
S1 Link LRT: Extension from South 200th Street to Kent-Des Moines Road
(South King County): The project would extend LRT from Sea-Tac Airport
further into South King County. Sound Transit proposes to extend Link LRT
service south for a distance of 2.4 miles from South 200th Station along Highway
99 to a station located adjacent to Highline Community College. This project
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 55
Transit Existing Conditions
could provide a new Park and ride opportunity for Kent residents traveling
north.
S9-Express Bus: HOV Access Ramps on SR 167 at Smith Street: Sound Transit
is proposing to build HOV access ramps from SR 167 to Smith Street in Kent to
improve speed and reliability of express bus service to the Kent Transit Center.
The purpose of the project is to provide alternative routing for buses traveling
between SR 167 and Kent Transit Center in order to improve their speed and
reliability. Sound Transit currently operates ST Express routes 564 and 565,
through the City of Kent via SR 516, 4th Avenue and Central Avenue. As part of
ST2, a new route operating between Pierce County and Seattle would provide
access to Kent Transit Center. With construction of potential HOV access ramps,
these routes would no longer travel on SR 516 or Central Avenue. There will also
be possible use of new ramps by toll traffic from WSDOT's funded pilot project
that converts SR 167 HOV lanes to High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes. This
project will provide speed and reliability improvement for ST, as well as express
Metro routes operating between SR 167 and Kent Transit Center. ST Express
buses would use James Street and Smith Street to travel between the proposed SR
167. HOV direct access ramps will provide faster service to Kent Transit Center.
Due to their proximity to the other structures, construction of the HOV access
ramps will require re-construction of SR 167 bridges at Meeker and James Streets,
and re-configuration of the SR 167 ramps at SR 516.
S11-Express Bus:New Bus Route Serving All Sounder Stations (Kent Station at
the Kent Transit Center) between Tacoma Dome and King Street during Off-Peak
Periods: Sound Transit proposes to create a new ST Express route connecting
Tacoma with downtown Seattle. The route will serve as a "shadow" for Sounder
rail service during periods when Sounder is not operating. The route will serve
Sounder stations in Pierce and South King Counties. The purpose of the project is
to provide direct express bus service that complements Sounder service between
Tacoma and downtown Seattle. The new route will provide direct (no transfer)
ST Express service between Tacoma and Seattle during periods when Sounder is
not operating. The route will serve Tacoma Dome Station as well as Sounder
stations in Puyallup, Sumner, Auburn, Kent, and Tukwila.
S12- Express Bus Transit Signal Priority (TSP) on SR 516: Sound Transit is
proposing an express bus TSP to improve speed and reliability for buses
operating between Kent Transit Center and SR 167. The project would construct
an HOV queue bypass lane on the SR 167 northbound off-ramp to SR 516 to allow
right-turning (eastbound) transit and HOV vehicles to bypass congestion at the
intersection. Transit Signal Priority will be installed at nine locations in
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 56
Transit Existing Conditions
downtown Kent to facilitate the movement of transit vehicles. This project will
improve transit speed and reliability for ST Express routes operating in the City
of Kent between SR 167 and Kent Transit Center.
S24-Sounder:Expanded Service Levels during Peak,Off-Peak and Weekend
Periods,and Related Track and Signal Improvements between Lakewood and
Seattle:Sound Transit is proposing to expand Seattle-Tacoma-Lakewood Sounder
service beyond the level provided in Sound Move. This is a high priority
improvement for Kent residents.
Service improvements on Sounder may allow King County Metro to consider
scaling back commute oriented bus services operate in parallel with the
commuter rail. This could provide a future opportunity for reinvestment of
critical South County operating resources to meet cross Valley and other
important underserved markets.
STOP AND STATION FACILITIES
Kent Transit Center
In June of 2005 King County Metro moved the Kent Transit Center at West James
Street, to Sound Transit's Kent Station at 301 Railroad Avenue North(between West
James Street and West Smith Street). The Kent Transit Center was designed to be a
multi-modal transfer station for Sound Transit's express routes in Kent as well as the
Sounder Commuter Rail and Metro routes serving the City of Kent. The Kent Transit
Center increased parking capacity at the park and ride to 994 spaces (surface and
garage), as well as improving passenger amenities at the station such as bus shelters,
lighting, sidewalks,bicycle racks and lockers, as well as rider information. The new
Kent Transit Center is also more centrally located for riders to access key
destinations such as: the Regional Justice Center, the Kent Library, and downtown
businesses. Significant retail development is already open immediately west of the
tracks adjacent to the new commuter rail station. Additional retail development is
under construction and residential units are also planned to complete a vital mixed-
use downtown district.
Stop Amenities
King County Metro is responsible for bus shelters and has specific criteria for which
Metro routes merit a shelter. The minimum number of daily passenger boardings to
qualify for shelter placement in a zone is 25. Stops meeting this first cut are further
prioritized based on ridership(highest ridership zones) and ease of construction or
Right-Of-Way (ROW) availability. Additional shelters may be sited at stops with
special needs such as large concentration of elderly, proximity to health facilities, etc.
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 57
Transit Existing Conditions
All approved and built shelters include benches and litter receptacles, which are
attached to the adjacent concrete pad or sidewalk.
Metro has worked with property owners to install building canopies, awnings,
leaning rails, benches and/or pedestrian scaled lighting to provide a pleasant waiting
environment and weather protection in lieu of the mounted standard shelter units.
These agreements are usually in areas where population density is high, and the
standard Metro bus shelter may not be the best means of providing a waiting
environment acceptable to both passengers and adjacent properties.
Metro notes in its standards that lighting for bus shelters is increasing in importance,
not only for customer comfort but also as a security issue, particularly at night.
Metro has used several methods to improve lighting at bus shelters including:
increasing the wattage of adjacent street lights, installing a directed flood light to an
existing utility pole, installing pedestrian level light poles, and providing interior
shelter illumination by hard wired or solar powered lighting.
Metro maintains a list of requests for shelters, which are received from riders,
operators,businesses, other transit agencies or jurisdictions. According to an
October 2005 Metro memo, approximately 475 bus stops currently meet ridership
criteria to site a shelter. Figure 9 highlights the roughly 20 stops in Kent that have in
excess of 25 daily boards but do not have a shelter. Based on the Ridership Criteria
and/or the Six Year Plan or Partnerships program, Metro has nine shelter projects
planned for Kent stops during 2006 and 2007. Another 18 stops will be scoped out
for potential 2008 projects. The 2006/2007 planned projects are at:
• E James Street/Central Avenue North;
• Se Kent-Kangley Rd/ 111 Av Southeast;
• Central Avenue South/ E Meeker Street;
• W James Street/Washington Avenue North;
• 4th Avenue North/W Smith Street;
• W James Street/4th Avenue North;
• Kent Kangley Rd/111th Avenue Southeast;
• Rainier Avenue South/S 3rd PI; and
• Martin L King Jr. Way/S Holly Street.
The minimum number of daily passenger boardings to qualify for a standalone
bench placement at a stop is 15. Additionally, the bench location must be in a public
ROW and be located a minimum of three feet from the curb when adjacent to a lane
of travel and cannot block the accessible landing area of the bus stop. Additional
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 58
Transit Existing Conditions
prioritization criteria would be the same as those for shelters Metro does not usually
place litter receptacles with benches.
Currently, there is only one standalone bench maintained by Metro in Kent. The
agency is proposing benches at:
• West James Street/Washington Avenue North;
• Central Avenue South/South 266th Street;
• Central Avenue North/East Meeker Street;
• Central Avenue South/South 262nd Street; and
• 68th Avenue South/South 196th Street.
In addition, the following intersections are under investigation for possible
standalone bench placement:
• 104th Avenue South East/South East 240th Street;
• Central Avenue South/East Meeker Street;
• South East 240th Street/ 102nd Avenue South East;
• West Meeker Street/64th Avenue South; and
• Pacific Highway South/South 260th Street
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 59
O N ^ 01 10 4
w OQ
m a a n
o
LL m - c ■ o
0 8 7p
M - W tlB.;{ �IzA
1l7 ane gad jusudoldw3
O 3 �
7 � �
(f U.
N C
fl. Q 3S 3AV ZS t
3S 3AV 86t 4.0 3S 3AV 84t
N N o
M 3S 3AV"t
W -3S 3AV 04t
6 N
w W
w
J1 N
N
w AV ZEt
w F
3S 3AV 4Zt N o
c� 3AV bZt
w w N
w m
N
3S 3AV%t W
';.., S 3AV 9 t t
a
3S 3AV Ztt
N 3S a S a
o 3S 3AV iM w
r w
ww ti�S 3S 3AV 00 S6S
m
O N
S ON lOBlbl N w m
O
S 3AV fib
f
A
v A3llVA1
w
3AV CO
N
w
w
L9t
y tBt aS AMH A3llVA 1S3M N
S 3AV S
w b
OyHlL�b N
oa AbVllliW w 8
N a�Esss°
N
66 aS ai
N m S3AVcb
W =3�sayp
m w "s�a� •
N
J
3�P S 3AV 9 S3AV9 aoFBs e
5 N QE,
os w �x-2o_
Transit Existing Conditions
Kent Park and Rides
Metro and Sound Transit provide transit patrons with nine park and rides, with
varying levels of transit service and parking capacity.
The Kent Transit Center has the greatest parking capacity of the Kent park and rides,
with 994 spaces (garage and surface lot, see Table 19). The Kent Transit Center is the
primary transfer point for Metro and Sound Transit bus routes, as well as Sounder
Commuter Rail. The Kent Transit Center garage is open weekdays from 5:00 am to
2:30 am, and weekends and holidays from 6:30 am to 2:30 am. The surface parking
lot currently operates at higher capacity than the garage, in part due to delays
associated with exiting the garage after a train unloads. The eventual displacement
of surface lot parking will increase the occupancy of the Kent Transit Center garage.
The Kent Transit Center Park and Ride has bicycle lockers on site available for transit
patrons.
The Kent/James Street and Star Lake Park and Ride also have considerable parking
capacity at 715 and 540 spaces respectively. Star Lake has one of the highest
occupancy rates of the park and ride facilities in Kent at 83 percent. The James Street
Park and Ride also has bicycle lockers on site available for transit patrons.
The Kent-Des Moines Park and Ride has 370 parking spaces available for transit
patrons, and serves both Metro and Sound Transit routes. The Kent-Des Moines
Park and Ride is popular and, according to Metro, is at or above 90 percent capacity
by 9:00 am weekdays. Lake Meridian Park and Ride has 172 spaces, and is served by
Metro.
Kent United Methodist Church, Kent Covenant Church,Valley View Christian
Church, and St. Columbia's Episcopal Church make their lots available for limited
parking Monday through Saturday. The lots average around twenty spaces, and
serve the Metro express routes, DART, and some intercity service.
Table 19 details the Kent park and rides capacity, utilization and routes served.
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 611
Transit Existing Conditions
Table 19. Park and Ride Lots Serving the City of Kent
Park and Ride Lot Parking Spaces Utilization (2005) Routes Served
Kent Transit Center** Metro:150, 153, 154, 158,
301 Railroad Ave N 159, 162, 164, 166, 167, 168,
169, 183, 952
P&R Garage 869 36%,DART: 914, 916, 918
Sound Transit: 564, 565
Surface Lot 125 91% Sounder Commuter Rail
Kent/James St P&R** 713 34% Metro: 150, 154, 158, 159,
902 W James St, N. Lincoln Ave/W. 162, 166,
James St DART: 918
Star Lake P&R 540 83% Metro: 152, 183, 190, 192,
27015 26th Ave S 1-5/272nd St 194, 197, 941
Sound Transit: 574
Kent-Des Moines P&R* 370 960/O Metro: 158, 159, 162, 166,
23405 Military Rd S 1-5/Kent-Des 173, 175, 192, 194, 197, 941,
Moines Rd 949
Sound Transit: 574
Lake Meridian P&R 172 27%Metro: 158, 159, 168,
26805 132nd Ave SE/SE 272nd St DART: 914
Kent United Methodist Church 23 13%Metro: 163,
SE 248th St/ 110th Ave SE DART: 914
Kent Covenant Church 20 25%Metro: 158,
12010 SE 240th St DART:914 916
Valley View Christian Church 20 5% Metro: 168,
124th Ave SE/SE 256th St DART: 914
St.Columba's Episcopal Church 15 20%Metro: 183, 192
26715 Military Rd S
Source: Source:PSRC 2005 P&R Data,and King County Metro.
*Lot is filled to or above 90%by 9:00 am on weekdays.
**Bike Lockers on site
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 62
Transit Existing Conditions
LAND USE AND MARKET ASSESSMENT
Land Use and Parking Policies
A city's land use and planning policies can serve to encourage or discourage the use
of transit, dictating the impact of transit investment in vehicle trip reduction. In
assessing existing service and possible service improvements it is important to see
how the City of Kent's current policies impact transit use in the City. The City of
Kent has implemented several strategies to encourage transit, which are reviewed in
this section. However, in many areas land use patterns, street design issues and low
residential densities have prohibited public transportation from having a more
meaningful role in vehicle trip reduction.
Transit Efficient Land Use
Every transit trip has a pedestrian trip on one or both ends. Safe and inviting street
design and good pedestrian connectivity is critical to building transit ridership.
Encouraging uses to "mix" can help to reduce auto trips by putting complementary
uses within a short distance of one another. Another benefit of mixed-use
development is that it creates strong transit markets by providing a variety of
demands for travel throughout the day at a single site. Through its Comprehensive
Plan, the City of Kent has emphasized mixed-use development as a priority; "Mixed-
use development shall be encouraged in designated areas within the planning area
(UG-5)". The City of Kent throughout the plan details the kind of mixed-use
development, including transit, that they would like to see for retail, office and
residential uses. Transit Oriented Development(TOD) can promote not only a
diverse and vibrant mixed-use zone but makes transit viable. Goal LU-4 in the City's
Comprehensive plan details the importance of developing and funding transportation
in mixed-use corridors. The City, in the map for the Comprehensive plan, details
that it has developed several mixed-use corridors served well by transit; two in
particular are: the Mixed-Use Zone at SE 250/Hwy 515 southeast of downtown
(urban center) on the map, and the Mixed-Use zone at SR 167/Meeker Street directly
west of the downtown(urban center) on the map.
Concurrency Management
The Washington Growth Management Act(GMA) requires that adequate street
capacity is provided concurrently with development to handle the increased traffic
projected to result from growth and development in the city and region. The City of
Kent Municipal Code Section 12.11 deals with Concurrency Management at the local
level.
Section 12.11 requires that there is sufficient capacity remaining on a public facility to
meet the level of service standards for the impacts of existing development and
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 63
Transit Existing Conditions
impacts of a proposed new development and that new development. Most relevant
to the transit element of this plan are available mitigation measures, which allow
applicants to establish Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to
reduce single occupant vehicle trips generated by a project. Although mitigation
proposals require documentation and the City retains the right to receive
documentation of effectiveness, it can be difficult to measure TDM effectiveness and
its role in vehicle trip reduction; this is particularly true for residential developments.
Accepted mitigation proposals that do not meet achieved results can adversely
impact roadway level of service and be detrimental to the transportation system.
Proposals for improving Concurrency Management policies will be addressed in the
next phase of this study.
Parking Policies
The City of Kent has enacted progressive policies related to parking, intended to
reduce minimum parking requirements as a means to encourage transit and reduce
the single occupancy vehicle in the downtown area. The City gives the Planning
Director the authority to waive or modify minimum parking requirements; to
impose additional off-street parking requirements in unique circumstances; and to
allow for flexibility and innovation in design.
Some examples of specific Kent City Code,,parking provisions which allow for the
reduction of parking requirements include:
15.05.040- 2a.Allows parking reductions for multi-family and low income
elderly units
15.05.040- 2b.The requirement of one (1) space per dwelling unit may be
reduced to no less than one (1) space for every two (2) dwelling units plus
employee parking as determined by the planning director
15.05.040- B. Reductions for Mixed-Use or Joint-Use Developments subject to
the approval of the Planning Director
15.05.040- G. Transit and Rideshare provisions- the planning director may
reduce the minimum number of off-street parking stalls for businesses which
have a commute trip reduction program filed with the city.
These provisions allow developers to build less parking, saving costs and increasing
useable square footage, when developing in areas where good transit service allows
residents or employees to travel without a private vehicle.
10 15.05.040 Parking standards for specific activities
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 64
Transit Existing Conditions
2005 Downtown Strategic Plan
The City of Kent's 2005 Downtown Strategic Plan discusses the City's goal to
concentrate growth in the downtown core and to facilitate public transportation as a
means to reduce dependency on the automobile. The Plan envisions downtown
Kent as a pedestrian-oriented business, shopping and residential destination,
accessible by multiple transportation modes (including pedestrian,bicycle, and
transit). The Plan suggests new levels of service standards for all modes, designed to
facilitate a more balanced downtown transportation system. The Plan also assumes
there will be traffic impacts due to the development recommended in the Plan, and
that it will impact streets and intersections around the study area. The Plan
recommends improvements, such as increased commuter rail service, improved
transit circulation, better pedestrian and bicycle connections, and housing
development close to jobs that will help mitigate the probable adverse
environmental impacts on traffic levels and service in and near downtown.
The City states in the Plan that, unless the adverse impacts of growth in overall
traffic can be mitigated, the City's level-of service (LOS) thresholds will be exceeded,
and more severe congestion and delay will result. The City of Kent is also
considering traffic mitigation measures such as creation of turning lanes along 4th
Avenue South, Smith Street,James Street, and Central Avenue. It could also include
improvements to promote transit use (such as park and ride lots in the East Hill area,
increased transit service and incentive programs for Valley Floor employers).,,
Throughout the Downtown Strategic Plan, the focus of the redevelopment of the
downtown area is to make it pedestrian friendly, with a transit focus, and to reduce
the dominance of the single occupancy vehicle.
" City of Kent Downtown Strategic Action Plan,p.6-23,
http://www.ci.kent.wa.us/planning/longrangesection/dsap/Adopted/D SAP.pdf
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 65
Transit Existing Conditions
Transit Stakeholder Interviews
Project team staff spoke with major employers, politicians, business owners, and
community representatives in the City of Kent to gather their feedback on the major
transit issues, needs and gaps in service. Most employers as well as other
stakeholders stated there were deficiencies in bus service offered in Kent.
Critical needed improvements cited were:
• Increase Frequency-There is a need for more frequent service throughout the
system, but particularly on Sounder commuter rail. Business representatives,
commuters and seniors alike echoed this sentiment.
• Limit Transfers- Business representatives and commuters repeatedly stated
that too many transfers are required on current routes to reach final
destination.
• Decrease Travel Time-Many commuters and business representatives
commented that travel times are too long on the bus.
• Decrease Transfer Waiting Time- Stakeholders commented that the transfer
waiting times are too long for seniors and, in addition to long waiting times,
seating is not available at many stops which makes waiting even more
difficult for seniors.
• Increase Service Span-Limited hours of service is a barrier for some
potential customers, particularly shift workers in the industrial area.
• Add Bus Shelters- Stakeholders expressed a need for more Metro shelters for
senior and disabled riders to comfortably wait for their bus, as well as be
protected from the weather. Two stops in particular that were mentioned
were Harrison House and Senior Center)
• Improve East West Service- Stakeholders generally agreed that service
between Seattle and Kent was good, but that transit was not a viable option
for east-west travel in South County.
• Decrease Travel Time to South and Pierce County- The travel time on South
and Pierce County routes (2.5 hours to Tacoma) are too long to be a viable
travel option, according to several stakeholders
• Maintain Enumclaw/Maple Valley Service- Several stakeholders commented
on this specific proposal discussed during the Metro service restructuring
process that to reduce service to/from Enumclaw and Maple Valley was not
acceptable.
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 66
Transit Existing Conditions
• Increase Auburn Service-More service to and from Auburn is needed,
according to stakeholders.
• Reduce Travel Time on Route 150- Stakeholders expressed a desire to see the
travel time on Route 150 reduced and suggested eliminating stops at
Southcenter.
• Improve Information for Immigrant/Low-Income Populations-Immigrant
populations in the City are not well served by current service (stop location),
and information provided (not enough translations). Stakeholders believe
Metro should increase bus stops around immigrant housing, as well as
improving information distributed in other languages.
• Promote Bike Use- Increasing the bicycle carrying capacity on buses was a
need cited by some stakeholders.
• Increase Service in Industrial Area-Several business representatives in the
industrial section of Kent commented that the current Metro routes do not
serve their employees. They would like to see service oriented towards their
worksites, as currently many of the stops are too far a walk from the actual
worksite. In addition, Metro does not serve many industrial shift schedules
and creates an additional barrier for employee use of transit to the worksite.
• Employee Parking- Many stakeholders commented that parking was
plentiful at most worksites, which is another barrier to transit use.
• Extend Service Hours-Business Representatives and other stakeholders
commented that service hours need to be extended to serve more people. In
particular, in the industrial section of Kent, the swing shift ends after Metro
routes have stopped running. Also, there is an issue at many worksites with
day shifts that begin before 5:00 am when there is no transit service available.
• Improve Pedestrian Access- Many stakeholders commented on the poor
pedestrian access to bus stops in the areas outside of the downtown core.
• More Sidewalks- Some newer residential areas do not have sidewalks, so
walking to the bus stop is very dangerous. Riders are often required to walk
along busy arterials to access a route, which is a barrier for most people in
using transit.
• Safety-Several stakeholders expressed safety concerns at bus stops and park
and rides. Stakeholders mentioned improving safety or the perception of
safety at bus stops, and park and rides, particularly at night (i.e., Smith at
night feels dangerous).
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 67
Transit Existing Conditions
• Increase Parking at Park and Ride's- Lack of parking at the park and rides in
Kent was an issue for some stakeholders, and increasing parking was a need
that was expressed to address the problem.
Specific service improvements cited for the Kent Shopper Shuttle (DART 914/916)
were:
• Expand Service Area- Many Stakeholders felt that the Shopper Shuttle had
potential to achieve more ridership if it would expand the area it served.
Business representatives in the manufacturing sector commented that the
shuttles primarily serve the downtown area and do not meet the needs of
their employees; particularly in providing connections from Kent Transit
Center to their worksite, at enough frequency to serve employees needs.
• Better Serve Senior Housing- Some Stakeholders expressed a need to better
serve senior housing facilities, although they did not specifically state which
ones. As the shuttle is a Dial-A-Ride (DART) service so seniors can request
specific pick up and drop off location based on demand, the DART may not
be able to accommodate all service requests. Further, Stakeholders may have
been requesting expanded service on the scheduled runs the 914/916 make,
and to serve newer senior facilities and not just the downtown core.
• Provide more Senior Shopping Service-Metro, the City of Kent, and
Hopelink have added a shadow vehicle to meet capacity constraints in the
downtown, and to address some of the senior demand for shopping service in
downtown Kent. Although Metro is aware of demand, they are not planning
on expanding service at this point but rather using the third vehicle to relieve
demand in the downtown.
• Promote Kent Shopper Shuttle - Several Stakeholders expressed a desire to
see more of the general public use the Kent Shopper Shuttles than the current
ridership. There is a perception according to Stakeholders, that the service is
available only to seniors and the disabled and not to the general public.
• Add Bus Stop at Great Wall Mall- Some Stakeholders requested the Kent
Shopper Shuttle add a stop at the Great Wall Mall.
• Increase Medical Stops- Although the Shopper Shuttle is a Dial-A-Ride,
which riders can request specific destinations, several Stakeholders expressed
a need for the shuttle to serve more medical facilities although they did not
specifically state which ones.
Many Stakeholders commented on the excitement created by the introduction of
Sounder service at Kent Station. While the Kent Station stop on the Sounder has
been one of the most successful from a ridership standpoint, many Stakeholders felt
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 68
Transit Existing Conditions
that the service had not met its potential. Some of the issues and needs identified by
stakeholders include:
• Increase Frequency-Trains are not frequent enough to serve needs,
particularly for those with off-peak travel needs. Additionally, the lack of
evening and midday service provides no "safety net" for commuters who
need to get home at off-peak times.
• Expand Service South/East of Kent-The current northbound-southbound
service to Seattle does not serve Kent residents who need to travel to South or
East County. Although a number of Kent residents work in Seattle, there are
many that work in Tacoma and Pierce County locations as well.
• Expand Peak Service South of Seattle-The current northbound service from
Kent to Seattle, does not serve the employees that are commuting from Seattle
to Kent. There is a need for expanded peak southbound service from Seattle
to Kent, as well as from Everett to Kent.
• Increase Feeders at Kent Transit Center-There is not enough feeder service
to and from the Kent Transit Center to access the Sounder. Stakeholders
would like to see feeder service increased at the Kent Transit Center to better
serve the Sounder schedules.
• Expand Sounder Schedule-The current Sounder schedules which are limited
to peak am/pm commute hours, do not meet the needs of many retail, service
and multi-shift manufacturing businesses, according to Stakeholders.
• Sounder Too Expensive-Some Stakeholders commented that the Sounder
was too expensive, particularly for lower wage employees.
Public Transportation Household Survey
On February 23, 2006, Strategic Consulting&Research, under the direction of
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, conducted a random public household
telephone survey to assess Kent residents' use of and opinions about public
transportation. A copy of the survey instrument is available in Appendix A.
Survey respondents were questioned about their:
• Household demographics;
• Commutes to work and/or school;
• Current use of transit within Kent and the region;
• Suggestions for improving transit within Kent; and
• Opinions on public transportation.
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 69
Transit Existing Conditions
A total of 401 households participated in the telephone survey, providing a sample
of Kent households valid at the 95 percent confidence level with a+/-5 percent
margin of error. Efforts were made to distribute calls geographically across the City
of Kent and to sample an equitable number of male and female respondents. Table
20 details the demographics of survey respondents.
The following are key findings from the general public telephone survey:
• More than 80 percent of Kent residents drive alone to work or school;
• Carpooling is the most common alternative to driving alone for both
work/school commute trips (8 percent) and non-commute trips (14 percent).
Fixed route transit is the second most common alternative to driving alone (6
percent);
• Two-thirds of respondents commuting outside of Kent do not travel to Seattle,
which is the focal point for most transit serving the community;
• Out of the 30 percent of survey respondents who said they use transit, the
majority only use it a few times a year;
• Slightly more than half of transit users walk to their transit stop;
• Approximately 57 percent of respondents agreed that they would be more
likely to ride the bus or train if service was offered every 15 minutes.
Respondents are sensitive to frequency, indicating that improvements in this
area could positively impact ridership;
• Almost half (49 percent) of respondents said they would be more likely to ride
the bus or train if there was a stop near their home;
• About 45 percent of respondents would be more likely to take the bus or train
if travel time to their destination was no more than 30 percent longer via the
bus, showing that travel time is an important consideration for potential
riders and that many non-riders view the travel time difference between
transit and drive alone as considerable;
• More than 75 percent of respondents believe that the purpose of transit is to
get people out of their cars and to provide transportation for those who don't
have other alternatives. This indicates that residents recognize both the social
service and congestion mitigation purpose of public transit;
• While many respondents knew where to get information about bus and rail
service, there is a substantial gap (25 percent) in knowledge about where to
access information needed to use the transit systems;
• Congestion is the major transportation issue facing Kent in the next five years,
according to the majority of respondents; and
• Over 61 percent of respondents said they would support some increases in
taxes or fees to fix the transportation system.
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 70
Transit Existing Conditions
Top responses for needed transit service improvements include:
• More frequent service on bus as well as Sounder commuter rail services;
• Reduce travel time; and
• Improve safety at stops, stations, and Park and rides.
Table 20.Telephone Survey Respondents
RespondentsNumber of
Total Survey Sample 1 401 1 00%
11
Kent Zip Code (Cross Streets)
98030 (SE Kent, Kangley Rd/108 AVE SE) 120 30%
98031 (SE 220th PL/Benson RD SE) 88 22%
98032 (56th CT S/Lakeside BLVD W) 86 21%
98042 (170th AVE SE/SE 268th ST.) 107 27%
Households
HH with children under 18 1 155 1 39%
HH 60 and over 128 32%
HH with adults over 18 but under 60 118 29%
Male 201 50%
Female 200 50%
AutomobileOwnership
HH with no operational vehicles 15 4%
HH with one operational vehicles 106 26%
HH with two operational vehicles 168 42%
HH with three or more operational vehicles 112 28%
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 71
Transit Existing Conditions
Travel Characteristics
TRAVEL MODE
Respondents were asked how they travel to work or school. Figure 10 shows the
majority (80 percent) drives alone to reach work or school. Carpool was the largest
alternative commute mode, with 8 percent of respondents identifying it as their
primary commute mode. About 6 percent of respondents use fixed-route bus
service, and the remaining 6 percent walk, vanpool, take the train, or are dropped off
to reach their final destination.
Figure 10. Mode of Travel for Work or School
Commute Rail Paratransit
Train 0.4%
Fixed Route Bus 0.8% Walk
6.2% 2.3%
Vanpool
2.3%
Carpool/ Ride
with someone
7.7%
Dropped Off
0.8%
Drive alone
79.5%
N=207
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006
Page 72
Transit Existing Conditions
MODE OF TRAVEL FOR PERSONAL TRIPS
Respondents were also asked to describe how they made personal trips such as
shopping or medical appointments. Again, most respondents (81 percent) stated
they drive to make personal trips. However, 14 percent said they carpool or share a
ride for personal trips, which is more than those that carpool for work or school (8
percent). Only 2 percent of respondents said they took fixed-route transit to make
personal trips. Figure 11 provides details on travel modes for personal trips.
Figure 11. Mode of Travel for Personal Trips
Fixed Route Bus Paratransit Walk
2% 1% 1% Bike
Vanpool .50%
.50%
Carpool
14%
Dropped Off
1%
Drive Alone
81%
N= 323
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 73
Transit Existing Conditions
DESTINATIONS
Over half of commuters surveyed travel to workplaces outside of Kent (66 percent);
over a third of respondents (34 percent) work within the City of Kent. It is important
to note that just over half of the 401 respondents answered this question, in part
because not all respondents are regular commuters.
Of the 66 percent of respondents that commute to workplaces outside of Kent, about
a third are traveling to Seattle for work (34 percent). Figure 12 details the
destinations for respondents who work outside of the City of Kent
Figure 12. Work Destinations Outside of Kent
Other(Specify) r a� li
� I I .�_ ip Seattle
31% P a' .. 34/o o
'
.;
w.tll!ail'IlilplPlelppllllAl'si1pU;p1'
Tacoma
5% � f Auburn
W %
., 1 0%
Renton
14%
Federal Way Bellevue
2% 4%
N=171
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006
Page 74
Transit Existing Conditions
In addition to Seattle, respondents also cited surrounding communities such as
Renton (14 percent) and Auburn (10 percent) as top commute destinations. More
than a third of respondents (31 percent) stated "other" for their commute destination.
The "other' cities were diverse, and too numerous to list, so the top eight cities were
selected to represent a sample of commute destinations as Table 21 details.
Table 21. "Other" Cities Traveled To
Cities Percent of
Commuters
Tukwila 5%
SeaTac 4%
Covington 3%
Des Moines 2%
Redmond 2%
Kirkland 2%
Burien 1%
Fort Lewis 1%
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 75
Transit Existing Conditions
TRAVEL MODE TO TRANSIT
Respondents who used transit were asked their travel mode to reach transit;just
over half of transit users (52 percent) said they walk to the bus. About 37 percent of
respondents said they drive alone to the park and ride. A small number of
respondents said they are dropped off at the park and ride (7 percent), carpool (3
percent), or bike (1 percent) to their transit connection. Figure 13 details respondents
travel mode to transit.
Figure 13. Travel Mode to Transit
Get dropped off
at stop or Park&
Ride
7%
Carpool to Park
& Ride
3%
Drive alone to Walk
Park& Ride 52%
37%
fir :
Bike
1%
N=104
USE OF SOUNDER COMMUTER RAIL
The majority of survey respondents stated they have not ridden Sounder Commuter
Rail in the last year (91 percent). As discussed later in the survey analysis, when
respondents were asked for suggestions about improving transit in Kent, many
focused on improvements to Sounder service. Some of those suggestions were:
increasing frequency of Sounder to offer more hours of service, expanding service to
weekend days, and offering new service to other communities. The most pervasive
comment was that Sounder service was not frequent enough to meet respondents
travel needs.
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 76
Transit Existing Conditions
USE OF TRANSIT IN KENT
Bus transit is the more commonly used transit mode; 31 percent of respondents
indicated they had ridden a Metro or Sound Transit bus in the last year. Of those
respondents, almost a quarter said they used Metro Route 150. The second most
used Metro route was 162; tied for the third most used route were Metro Routes 158,
159,160 and 168. Only 12 percent of those respondents who rode a bus in the last
year,have used a DART shopper shuttle. Table 22 shows the top routes cited by
survey respondents.
Table 22.Top Five Routes
Percent of
Metro Route Responses
Route 150 23%
Auburn-Kent Seattle
Route 162 14%
Kent-Seattle
(PM Peak-Only).—
Route 158 9%
Kent-East Hill-Seattle
(Peak Only)
Route 159 9%
Kent-Timberlane-Seattle
(Peak Only)
Route 160 9%
Kent-Glencarin-Seattle
(Peak Only)
Route 168 9%
Kent-Timberlane
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 77
Transit Existing Conditions
FREQUENCY OF TRANSIT USE
Of the subset of respondents who had used transit in the last year, most were not
frequent riders. About 46 percent of respondents indicated that they use transit just
a few times a year; 19 percent use transit five or more times a week; and 14 percent
use transit 2-4 times a week. The remainder use transit a few times a month or less.
Figure 14 shows the frequency of transit use by respondents.
Figure 14. Frequency of Transit Use
5 or more times
per week
19%
A few times per
year
2-4 Times/Week 46%
14%
2-4 Times/ -
Month
11%
About 1 Time/
Month
10%
N= 104
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006
Page 78
Transit Existing Conditions
Barriers to Transit Use
Respondents were asked to share their opinion on why they do not use the bus and
the majority said they prefer to drive alone (43 percent of responses). Multiple
responses were allowed and the question received 500 responses. The top five
reasons for not using the bus are described in Table 23.
Table 23. Use of Transit in Kent
. . Five Reasons for not using bus
I prefer to drive alone 43%
The bus does not go where I want to go 6%
No bus stop near my home 6%
Travel Time on bus is too long 5%
It is inconvenient to wait at bus/train stop 5%
Other reasons respondents cited for not using the bus were:
• Bus is not frequent enough, wait times too long;
• Bus is unreliable or does not come on time;
• Need car for work or errands during the day;
• Bus or bus stop is unsafe; and
• Lack of a proximate stop.
Respondents commented several times that travel times on the bus are too long, and
the bus does not meet their travel needs (i.e. not early or late enough), as reasons
they choose to drive alone. Safety also seems to be a concern for some respondents,
both on the bus and at the stop. Safety at the park and ride lots for people and
vehicles is also a concern. Several respondents commented that they only use the
bus for commute purposes, so they only used it at peak travel times and would not
use it to travel around Kent.
As a follow up question to why they do not use the bus, respondents were also asked
where it was they wanted to go that the bus does not serve. The responses were
varied but several respondents cited Boeing and Sea-Tac Airport. Both places have
bus service,but travel times may be too long or service isn't frequent enough to meet
the needs of respondents traveling to these destinations.
Bus Stop Access
As very few respondents identified bus stop access as a barrier to using transit, the
survey was not able to identify perceived impediments to stop access (no sidewalk,
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 79
Transit Existing Conditions
busy streets, etc.). This does not indicate that these issues do not exist, simply that
they were not primary reasons that respondents did not use transit.
Suggestions for Improving Transit
Respondents were asked which bus routes they would like to have more service.
Sounder Commuter Rail was also included as an option and was the most common
choice; one fifth of respondents (20 percent) said they would like to have more
service on the Sounder. This response was supported by other questions where
respondents indicated they would like to see the frequency of Sounder service
increased and schedule expanded to serve more stops. Respondents also requested
more service on:
• Route 150, which provides daily service every 15 minutes from Auburn to
Seattle, and serves Kent;
• Route 159, which provides peak am service between East Hill and downtown
Seattle;
• Route 160, which provides peak am/pm service between East Hill and
downtown Seattle;
• Route 164, providing 30 minute service weekdays between Kent and Green
River Community College; and
• Route 168, which provides hourly service seven days a week between Kent
and Timberlane.
Respondents were asked how transit could be improved in the City of Kent. The 480
responses received varied greatly; the choices receiving the largest percentage of
total responses were:
• Improving the frequency of service (11 percent);
• New local routes (7 percent);
• Better route and schedule information (3 percent); and
• Better accessibility to the bus stop (3 percent).
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006
Page 80
Transit Existing Conditions
Of the 12 percent who cited "other" in their response to suggestions for
improvements, many responses cited safety as a concern;on the bus, at park and
rides, and at bus stops. Although the numbers may not represent a meaningful
sample, the issue of safety was mentioned by respondents in answers to other survey
questions. Safety concerns, real or perceived, appear to influence some residents'
willingness to use public transit. A small number of respondents suggested
improving schedules or the information provided to the public to be more "user
friendly".
TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS IMPACT ON BEHAVIOR
Respondents were asked five questions to measure their opinions on transit in Kent,
and how their travel behavior might be influenced if certain improvements were
made. Approximately 57 percent of respondents agreed that they would be more
likely to ride the bus or train if service was offered every 15 minutes. Respondents
are sensitive to frequency and indicated that improvements in this area could
positively impact ridership. About 45 percent of respondents indicated they would
be more likely to take the bus or train if travel time to their destination was no more
than 30 percent longer via the bus, while only 26 percent disagreed with this
statement. This shows that travel time is an important consideration for potential
riders and that many non-riders view the travel time difference between transit and
drive alone as an issue.
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 81
Transit Existing Conditions
Respondents' proximity to bus or train stops also influences their travel choices, as
almost half(49 percent) said they would be more likely to ride the bus or train if
there was a stop near their home. Although safety was mentioned throughout the
survey as a concern, when asked whether they would be more likely to ride the bus
if it was safer to walk to and from the station there was almost a tie between those
that were neutral on the statement (34 percent), or strongly agreed (33 percent) with
the statement. Improving safety at the stops or stations, seems important to many
respondents and could have an influence on whether residents are willing to switch
from driving alone to using transit. The majority of respondents were neutral on
whether a shelter for the bus or train station would influence whether they rode the
bus. Figure 15 provides more detail on respondents' opinions on transit
improvements.
Figure 15. Opinions on Transit Improvements
would ride the bus or train if the
travel time was no more than 30
percent longer than driving
I would ride the bus or train if service
was every 15 minutes
■Strongly Disagree
I would ride the bus or train if there ❑Disagree
was a stop near my house?
Nuetral
❑Agree
Strongly Agree
I would ride bus or train if it was the
station or stop was safer �
I would ride bus or train if there was a
shelter
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percent Responding
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006
Page 82
Transit Existing Conditions
Role of Transit
In a follow up set of questions respondents were asked their opinions about the
purpose of public transit so as to better understand their perceptions about why
transit exists and its primary customer markets. As Figure 16 shows, a little more
than three quarters of respondents (80 percent)believe that the purpose of public
transportation is to provide transportation for those who do not have cars or cannot
drive. This indicates that many residents view transit as a social service, designed to
provide transportation for those who don't have other alternatives. Just slightly
fewer respondents (75 percent)believe the purpose of public transportation is to get
people out of their cars. This typically indicates recognition of transit as an
alternative for commute travel, designed to reduce roadway congestion and negative
environmental factors associated with driving alone. Neither of these responses is
more appropriate, they simply gauge public attitudes toward transit. Relatively high
positive response to both statements indicates that Kent residents largely recognize
the dual mission of pubic transit.
In looking more closely at the responses to both statements by the subgroups of
transit users and automobile users, it appears that the level of support for both
statements was slightly higher among the transit user group.
Figure 16. Role of Transit
The purpose of
public
transportation is to
provide transit for
those who do not
have cars or cannot
drive
■Strongly Disagree
®Disagree
■Nuetral
D Agree
®Strongly Agree
Public
Transportation
should get people
out of their cars
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Percent Responding
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6122/2006 Page 83
Transit Existing Conditions
Familiarity with Bus System Fares and Public Information
Two-thirds of the respondents (66 percent)believed that riding the bus is cheaper
than driving. For most, the cost differential is not large enough to influence travel
habits; the majority of survey respondents drive alone to work, school, and for
personal trips.
Approximately 60 percent of respondents said they were familiar with how to access
bus and rail schedule information, although some respondents seem to think the
schedules could be made more accessible or easier to read, particularly for newer
users of the system. A quarter of respondents (25 percent) strongly disagreed with
this statement, indicating that there is a real need for better public information. (See
Figure 17.)
Figure 17. Familiarity with Transit
Riding the bus or
train is cheaper
than driving
■Strongly Disagree
m Disagree
ONuetral
OAgree
®Strongly Agree
I know how to
access bus and rail
schedule
information
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percent Responding
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006
Page 84
Transit Existing Conditions
Transportation Issues in Kent
The most prominent transportation issue for respondents is congestion;61 percent
stated congestion is the biggest issue facing Kent in the next five years. In general,
transportation issues related to driving seem to be the major concern of respondents,
with road conditions (12 percent) and freeway access (3 percent) also registering
with survey takers. Approximately,9 percent of respondents felt there was
insufficient public transit. The 8 percent of respondents who cited "other" listed
various responses for what was the greatest transportation issue in the next five
years,but several mentioned the rapid growth in Kent and in particular residential
development as a transportation need that needs to be addressed with public transit.
A few respondents also mentioned the traffic delays due to the trains and suggested
tunneling the tracks to decrease congestion. About 2 percent of respondents
mentioned improving bike paths and sidewalks. Figure 18 provides detail on
respondents' opinions on the biggest transportation issue facing Kent in the next five
years.
Figure 18. Biggest Transportation Issue in Next Five Years
More or better bike
paths
1% Don't Know
5%
Other
More or better 8%
sidewalks — r
1%
v, {
Not enough public
transit
9%
Freeway Access—,
3%
Congestion
61%
Road Conditions
12%
N= 401
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/22/2006 Page 85
i
Transit Existing Conditions
Support for Tax and Fee Increase
Respondents were asked whether they would support some increase in taxes or fees
to improve the transportation system. The majority of respondents (61 percent) said
the transportation system should be fixed and they would support some increase in
taxes or fees to enable the improvements. A little more than a third said they would
not support taxes or fees, and they understood that would mean the system would
continue to have problems. Table 24 provides detail on public support for
increasing fees to support improvements to the transportation system.
Table 24. Support for Tax and Fee Increase
The Transportation System should
be fixed, even if it means some 61%
increases in taxes or fees
Taxes and fees should not be
increased, even if it means the 35%
transportation system will continue
to have problems
Don't Know 4%
City of Kent Transportation Master Plan
6/2 212 0 0 6
Page 86