CENTRAL AND EAST CORRIDORS

HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY CENTRAL AND EAST CORRIDORS SEPTEMBER 2014 CORRIDOR REPORT: UNIVERSITY DISTRICT-KIRKLAND-REDMOND

HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR STUDY University District-Kirkland-Redmond Corridor Sound Transit Central/East High-Capacity Transit Corridor Study Corridor Report: University District-Kirkland-Redmond

CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS... V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 1 1 INTRODUCTION... 1 2 PROBLEM STATEMENT... 3 3 BACKGROUND... 4 3.1 Previous Analysis... 4 3.1.1 Sound Move... 4 3.1.2 Sound Transit Long Range Plan... 4 3.1.3 Sound Transit 2 Plan... 4 3.1.4 Vision 2040... 5 3.1.5 Transportation 2040... 5 3.1.6 SR 520 High Capacity Transit Plan... 5 3.1.7 SR 520 with Light Rail Transit Technical Memorandum... 5 3.1.8 ESSB 6392: High Capacity Transit Planning and Financing Findings and Recommendations Report... 6 3.1.9 University Area Transportation Action Strategy... 6 3.1.10 City of Kirkland s Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element... 6 3.1.11 Cross Kirkland Corridor Master Plan... 7 3.1.12 City of Bellevue s Transit Plan... 7 3.1.13 City of Bellevue s Bel Red Subarea Plan... 7 3.1.14 City of Redmond s Comprehensive Plan Transit System Plan... 7 3.2 Travel Markets... 8 3.3 City of Kirkland Travel Markets... 8 3.4 University District Travel Markets... 9 3.5 City of Redmond Travel Markets... 10 4 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES... 11 5 INITIAL SCREENING EVALUATION... 12 6 LEVEL 1 EVALUATION... 17 7 LEVEL 2 EVALUATION... 23 7.1 Description of Alternatives... 24 7.1.1 A Alternatives: Serving University District, South Kirkland, and Totem Lake via I 405... 24 7.1.2 B Alternatives: Serving University District, South Kirkland, and Totem Lake via ERC... 27 7.1.3 C Alternatives: Serving University District, Redmond... 27 7.1.4 Serving the University District... 28 Corridor Report: University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor iii

7.2 Key Findings by Performance Measure... 29 7.2.1 Travel Time... 29 7.2.2 Ridership... 31 7.2.3 Environment... 31 7.2.4 Capital Costs and Construction Challenges... 31 7.2.5 Station Area Assessment... 33 7.2.6 Cost Effectiveness... 34 8 RISKS AND UNKNOWNS... 35 9 CONCLUSION... 35 10 REFERENCES... 36 Tables 1 Future Travel Markets for Trips to and from the City of Kirkland... 8 2 Future Travel Markets for Trips to and from the University District... 9 3 Future Travel Markets for trips to and from the City of Redmond... 11 4 Goals and Screening Questions... 12 5 Screening Results... 15 Exhibits ES 1 Level 2 Alternatives... 3 ES 2 Evaluation Summary for University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor Alternatives... 5 1 Sound Transit HCT Studies... 2 2 Screening Options... 14 3 Level 1 Alternatives... 19 4 Level 2 Alternatives... 25 5 Level 2 Evaluation Summary... 30 iv Corridor Report: University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Sound Transit Central/East High Capacity Transit Corridor Study BRT bus rapid transit CTR Commute Trip Reduction ERC Eastside Rail Corridor FTA Federal Transit Administration HCT high capacity transit HCT Corridor Study Central/East High Capacity Transit Corridor Study HOT high occupancy toll HOV high occupancy vehicle I 405 Interstate 405 I 5 Interstate 5 I 90 Interstate 90 LRT light rail transit mph miles per hour PSRC Puget Sound Regional Council SR State Route TOD transit oriented development UKR University District Kirkland Redmond WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation Corridor Report: University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Central/East High Capacity Transit (HCT) Corridor Study (HCT Corridor Study) is one of five HCT corridor planning studies Sound Transit has conducted to accomplish the following: 1) support the Sound Transit Board of Directors in decisions about the Sound Transit Long Range Plan update and 2) inform choices for the next phase of the regional HCT system plan s development. The study area for the HCT Corridor Study spans from Lynnwood at the north to Renton at the south, from Ballard at the west and Issaquah at the east. This study area encompasses major sections of Interstate 405 (I 405) and portions of State Route (SR) 520 and Interstate 90 (I 90), which are the primary routes serving the cities inside the study area. The study explored opportunities for improving transit connections within the following five corridors: University District Kirkland Redmond Ballard to University District Eastside Rail Corridor I 405 Bus Rapid Transit Kirkland Bellevue Issaquah This report summarizes the process used to identify and evaluate high capacity transit (HCT) system improvements specifically for the University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor. The results of the study will be used by Sound Transit staff and board members as they update Sound Transit s Long Range Plan, as well as develop a potential future system expansion program and inform future decisions regarding mode, and alternative, and where HCT is identified to move forward. The University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor, including State Route 520 (SR 520) and Interstate 405 (I 405), is a link connecting the major population and employment centers of the Puget Sound region on either side of Lake Washington. SR 520 and I 405 are currently two highvolume transit and overall traffic corridors. In September 2013, Sound Transit completed a report that documented the existing and forecasted future land use, transportation, environmental, and transit service conditions within the University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor. This report (Sound Transit, 2013) included a purpose statement that summarized the needs in this corridor that could be served by HCT service. The report and purpose statement were used as a basis for the development of a long list of corridor options (25) to be considered by Sound Transit. Each corridor option connected the University District Kirkland Redmond via light rail transit or bus rapid transit and included at grade with tunnel and elevated elements where topography or other engineering related constraints existed. Sound Transit screened all 25 corridor options against the project s purpose statement to discern which options best meet the transit needs in the corridor. A total of 7 representative alternatives and 3 design options were advanced into the Level 1 Evaluation following a Corridor Report: University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor ES 1

workshop in October 2013. For the Level 1 Evaluation, the 7 alternatives were compared against one another in relation to 15 performance measures, all related to Sound Transit s longrange plan goals. More detailed information about the Level 1 analysis is available in the University District Kirkland Redmond Level 1 Evaluation Report (Sound Transit, 2014a). Another workshop held in January 2014 advanced 5 representative alternatives and 1 design option into a more robust Level 2 Evaluation. The Level 2 Evaluation relied on a more detailed conceptual design of the representative alternatives and robust evaluation against a set of 16 performance measures. These Level 2 alternatives are illustrated in Exhibit ES 1. The key findings of the Level 2 Evaluation are provided below and summarized in Exhibit ES 2. More detailed information is available in the University District Kirkland Redmond Level 2 Evaluation Report (Sound Transit, June 2014b). Ridership: The main findings related to ridership are: There are small differences in ridership between the LRT and BRT alternatives connecting Totem Lake to South Kirkland and the University District (Alternatives A1, B2a, and B2b) because both BRT and LRT run on either exclusive right of way or managed lanes along the Eastside Rail Corridor (ERC) and on I 405. Additionally, both LRT and BRT for these alternatives have similar travel speeds along SR 520. The alternatives that connect the University District with Redmond have a higher ridership potential, especially Alternative C2, which is an LRT service from Downtown Redmond, sharing East Link track, and serving the Bel Red Corridor, South Kirkland, and the University of Washington and University District. The LRT alternatives that connect to Redmond (Alternatives C2 and C2a) generally attract higher ridership than the BRT alternatives (Alternative C1) along this route. This is because the LRT alternatives have lower travel times due to a higher proportion of exclusive guideways. Reliability: The average travel speeds for alternatives connecting Totem Lake to the University District are higher than for the alternatives that connect Downtown Redmond to the University District (38 to 39 mph versus 28 to 35 mph). However, the projected population growth along the alternatives connecting to Downtown Redmond yields higher ridership. Environmental Effects: The LRT alternatives have much greater potential for environmental effects along SR 520 on Lake Washington especially on the west side of Lake Washington and accessing the University District. ES 2 Corridor Report: University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor

Exhibit ES-1. Level 2 Alternatives Corridor Report: University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor ES 3

Exhibit ES-2. Evaluation Summary for University District-Kirkland-Redmond Corridor Alternatives Corridor Report: University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor ES 5

Cost Effectiveness: The capital costs for the LRT alternatives are at least five times greater than for the BRT alternatives. The primary reasons for these large differences is that unlike the BRT alternatives, the LRT alternatives would have new, exclusive guideways, including a widened SR 520 floating bridge superstructure and added pontoons, a new bridge across the Montlake Cut, and tunnels in the University District. Alternative C2 Refinements: Alternative C2 was assessed to determine how travel time, ridership, and construction costs would change if only one of the two stations in the University District were used for connections to University Link. The comparison results were as follows: With both transfers offered: travel time between Redmond and the University is 28 minutes, ridership is 20,000 boardings per day, and constructions are $2.1 to $2.9 billion. With only one connection offered at the University District Station: travel time would be reduced by about 30 seconds, ridership would be reduced by about 3,500 boardings per day, and construction costs would be reduced by about $30 to $50 million. With only one connection offered at the University of Washington Station: travel time would be reduced by about 2 minutes, ridership would be reduced by about 2,500 boardings per day, and construction costs would be reduced by about $300 to $400 million. In addition, offering only one transfer opportunity at Husky Stadium would preclude the opportunity for LRT service in the University District to connect to Ballard. The results above show substantially lower ridership if only one connection opportunity is provided. The University of Washington Station is much closer to most student buildings and the medical facilities. The University District Station is in the retail/commercial business area, which includes a substantial residential community and provides a connection to a possible future Ballard University District HCT Corridor. In the University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor, transit ridership forecasting indicated that the highest two station access boarding volumes occur at the University District and University of Washington Stations. These two stations attract nearly the same boardings and together account for roughly 40 percent of the total boardings for the University District Kirkland Redmond alternatives. Overall the HCT alternatives were assessed to see what impact they had on East Link s ridership. This ranged from no effect to moderate effect depending on the alternative and its ultimate destination. ES 6 Corridor Report: University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor

1 INTRODUCTION The Central/East High Capacity Transit (HCT) Corridor Study (HCT Corridor Study) is one of five HCT corridor planning studies Sound Transit has conducted to accomplish the following: 1) support the Sound Transit Board of Directors in decisions about the Sound Transit Long Range Plan update, and 2) inform choices for the next phase of the regional HCT system plan s development. The study area for the Central/East HCT Study (Exhibit 1) spans from Lynnwood at the north to Renton at the south, from Ballard at the west and Issaquah at the east. This study area encompasses major sections of Interstate 405 (I 405) and portions of State Route (SR) 520 and Interstate 90 (I 90), which are the primary routes serving the cities inside the study area. The study explored opportunities for improving transit connections within the following five corridors: University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor Ballard to University District Corridor Eastside Rail Corridor I 405 Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Kirkland Bellevue Issaquah Corridor This report summarizes the process used to identify and evaluate HCT system improvements specifically for the University District Kirkland Redmond University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor, and key findings from that evaluation. The University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor Report identifies improvements with the potential to improve regional transit connections between the University District, Kirkland, and Redmond. It also measures the performance of these improvements such as ridership and mobility benefits, environmental effects and benefits, transit costs and cost effectiveness, and consistency with regional and local plans. Similar documents have been prepared for the four other corridors included in the list above, as well as other corridors within Seattle (Ballard to Downtown, Downtown to West Seattle), to the north (Lynnwood to Everett), and to the south (vicinity of Burien, SeaTac, Tukwila and Renton; Federal Way to Tacoma). The study results will inform the future decisions for the update to the Sound Transit Long Range Plan. Corridor Report: University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor 1

Exhibit 1. Sound Transit HCT Studies 2 Corridor Report: University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor

2 PROBLEM STATEMENT The Redmond Kirkland U District corridor, including SR 520 and I 405, is a critical link connecting the major population and employment centers of the Puget Sound region on either side of Lake Washington. SR 520 and I 405 are currently two of the highest volume transit and overall traffic corridors in the region. The following has been identified regarding the baseline conditions for the Redmond Kirkland University District Corridor: The regional growth centers within the study area are designated areas of highintensity residential and employment development. Regional growth centers serve as a primary framework for regional transportation and economic development planning. These areas are to be served by regional high capacity transit, rail, major highways, and other transportation services. Major investments for transportation and other services and facilities are targeted for these locations. A strong travel demand exists between the regional growth centers within the study corridor. There is a strong east west transit market between Redmond and Seattle and north south transit market between Bellevue and Kirkland. Several regional growth centers, including Redmond, Overlake, Bellevue, and the University District, are served by the SR 520 freeway. Most of the City of Kirkland and the Totem Lake growth center are served by the I 405 freeway corridor. SR 520, I 405, and others major roadways are congested. SR 520 and I 405 are congested affecting travel access between the regional growth centers, and the opportunity to provide transit service. Traffic capacities on major roads within the study area are at or above 90 percent during peak traffic periods. Current transit service must operate within these congested freeways and roadways. Improved transit service between the regional growth centers can be used to increase ridership. Ridership is affected by the quality of existing transit service connecting these centers. The transit ridership between Overlake and the U District is relatively high because of the quality of transit service provided. There is an opportunity as evidenced by the commute data that shows that strong markets between Totem Lake and Overlake could be served with improved transit service. Washington State Department of Transportation s (WSDOT s) SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program (WSDOT, 2011) and the I 405 Corridor Master Plan (WSDOT, 2002) has the potential to provide transit and roadway improvements along the corridors. Current transit service and capital improvements in these corridors will need to be reviewed and opportunities explored. Although the SR 520 Bridge Replacement project allows for expansion to accommodate bus only lanes or light rail transit (LRT), access between these facilities and the growth centers and transit markets would need to be planned and developed. Corridor Report: University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor 3

Right of way limitations and topography influence the possible solutions. Right of way on major roadways is constrained so opportunities to add exclusive transit infrastructure is limited. There are some topographic and/or man made features that affect the ability to develop cost effective transit connections between regional growth centers including the elevated plateau running north to south in the east portion of Kirkland to west of downtown Redmond, down to SR 520. 3 BACKGROUND This section summarizes the previous analysis completed within the University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor and a summary of the baseline condition assessment, including highlights from the corridor s travel market assessment. 3.1 Previous Analysis 3.1.1 Sound Move Sound Move (Sound Transit, 1996a) was a program to implement the first phase of Sound Transit s Regional Transit Long Range Vision (Sound Transit, 1996b) for high capacity transit improvements in the Puget Sound area. In May 1996, the Sound Transit Board approved both Sound Move and the Regional Transit Long Range Transit Vision. In order to implement Sound Move, voters approved an increase in local taxes to fund the proposed transit system. In November 1996, voters in Sound Transit s district (King, Snohomish, and Pierce Counties) approved Sound Move. 3.1.2 Sound Transit Long Range Plan The Sound Transit Board adopted an updated long range plan in July 2005, known as the Regional Transit Long Range Plan (Sound Transit, 2005). The Regional Transit Long Range Plan represents Sound Transit s goals, policies, and strategies to guide the long term development of the HCT system. It is intended to guide how the Sound Transit system can best address the region s mobility needs and support growth management objectives, and is intended to be implemented in a series of phases. This plan identified transit connections between Redmond, Kirkland, and the University District. 3.1.3 Sound Transit 2 Plan The Sound Transit 2 Plan (Sound Transit, 2008) is a package of transportation improvements for a second round of funding and implementation that extend the regional HCT transit network. The Sound Transit 2 Plan was approved by voters in November 2008. It includes funding for planning studies for potential future HCT transit expansions. In order to advance completion of further expansions of the system beyond the Sound Transit 2 Plan, funding was included for a series of planning studies. The corridor between Redmond, Kirkland, and the University District was identified for study. 4 Corridor Report: University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor

3.1.4 Vision 2040 Vision 2040 is Puget Sound Regional Council s (PSRC s) long range growth management, environmental, economic, and transportation strategy adopted in 2008 (PSRC, 2008). The regional growth strategy set forth in Vision 2040 provides specific guidance for the distribution of future population and employment growth through the year 2040. The plan s emphasis on the development of centers throughout the region is at the heart of Vision 2040 s approach to growth management. Regional growth centers are envisioned as major focal points of higherdensity population and employment, served with efficient multimodal transportation infrastructure and services. Consequently, regionally significant centers should receive priority in regional and local investments in the infrastructure and services that are critical for supporting growth. The University District, Totem Lake in Kirkland, Downtown Bellevue, Downtown Redmond, and Overlake in Redmond are all designated regional growth centers. 3.1.5 Transportation 2040 Transportation 2040 (PSRC, 2010a) is PSRC s regional transportation plan adopted in 2010 that considers the actions necessary for the region to meet its long term mobility needs given the future land use policy and growth management strategy assumptions established in Vision 2040. Several action alternatives were considered that included different transportation investments to improve system efficiency and/or expand system capacity, while supporting regional goals for growth management and environmental protection. Investment and management strategies included tolling, targeted roadway expansion, transit service improvements, carpool programs, HOV lanes, and bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Among other investments, the preferred alternative includes more transit service than any of the other alternatives, including a new HCT investment project along the I 405 and SR 520 corridors connecting the University District, Redmond, and Kirkland. 3.1.6 SR 520 High Capacity Transit Plan The State Route 520 High Capacity Transit Plan (WSDOT et al., 2008), prepared by WSDOT, Sound Transit, King County Metro, and the University of Washington, outlines a strategy for meeting the demand for cross lake Washington travel with an incremental implementation of bus rapid transit (BRT) service that connects employment, residential areas, and activity centers on both sides of Lake Washington. 3.1.7 SR 520 with Light Rail Transit Technical Memorandum The SR 520 with Light Rail Transit Technical Memorandum (WSDOT, 2010) provides a high level identification of the effects of implementing light rail in place of the HOV/transit lane that is currently included in the SR 520 bridge design. This memorandum found that the long range cross lake transit market could be adequately served by a combination of bus/brt service along the SR 520 corridor and a light rail system on I 90. It also found that transit demand along the SR 520 corridor may eventually warrant significant alteration to the system, and that the new bridge design and HOV/transit improvements within the SR 520 project anticipate and support Corridor Report: University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor 5

future HCT. The memorandum also concluded that refinements to the SR 520 project bridge design have reduced the need for future structural modifications to accommodate LRT in the future. However, challenges would remain, including environmental issues such as construction on Foster Island and crossing the Montlake Cut, as well as costs to add flanker pontoons, widen the west approach, potentially redesign and reconstruct the Evergreen Point Station, and provide a crossing of the Montlake Cut. 3.1.8 ESSB 6392: High Capacity Transit Planning and Financing Findings and Recommendations Report As directed by the Engrossed Senate Substitute Bill 6392, WSDOT convened a transit technical coordination team from October to December 2010 to make recommendations on HCT planning and financing for the SR 520 corridor. Workgroup members included representatives from Washington State Department of Transportation, King County Metro, Sound Transit, University of Washington, and the City of Seattle. The final report (WSDOT et al., 2010) includes recommendations for HCT planning and financing, including a recommendation to evaluate how expected changes in transit demand due to tolling, construction, and completion of the SR 520 program will affect the phasing and implementation of transit improvements, and an examination of the long term demand for and feasibility of light rail and other HCT technologies along the SR 520 corridor. 3.1.9 University Area Transportation Action Strategy In 2008, the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) developed the University Area Transportation Action Strategy (SDOT, 2008) to identify a set of transportation improvements in response to the specific needs of the area. The Action Strategy includes 47 individual projects in the University of Washington area. While many of the projects have been carried over from the 2002 University Area Transportation Action Strategy plan, the Action Strategy also took a new look at existing and future transportation needs. Projects include bicycle, pedestrian, transit, roadway, and trail improvements. 3.1.10 City of Kirkland s Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element The City of Kirkland s Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element (2009) seeks to develop and maintain a balanced multi modal transportation system that supports the city s land use plan and integrates with the regional transportation system. Kirkland s vision for transportation promotes the movement of people throughout the city and region by expanding opportunities to use transit, ridesharing, and non motorized facilities. Policies support regional transit planning and promote input to the appropriate regional bodies to ensure that the locations of HCT routes and stations are consistent with Kirkland s land use and transportation plans. The Land Use Element and the Totem Lake Neighborhood Plan (City of Kirkland, 2011) support creation of a transit center in Totem Lake and a compact commercial district in the northeast quadrant of the interchange with I 405 and NE 124th Street. 6 Corridor Report: University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor

3.1.11 Cross Kirkland Corridor Master Plan The Cross Kirkland Corridor Master Plan was adopted in June 2014. It focuses on the 5.75 mile segment of the Eastside Rail Corridor purchased by the City of Kirkland in 2012. The plan addresses access point locations, amenity types and locations, road crossings, and how to accommodate both a paved trail and potential transit. Construction on an interim trail using crushed gravel has begun, and is expected to be complete by the end of 2014. 3.1.12 City of Bellevue s Transit Plan The Bellevue Transit Plan (City of Bellevue, 2003) recommends improved public transit service to and within Bellevue, including the capital improvements to support the recommended transit services, and a review of and recommendations concerning the transit supportive policies in the City of Bellevue Comprehensive Plan (2006a and b). The recommended transit service improvements in this plan include enhancements to local transit service within Bellevue, as well as improved transit service to major Eastside and regional destinations. Key destinations within Bellevue (Downtown Bellevue, Eastgate/Bellevue College, Factoria, Crossroads, and Overlake) would be served better with implementation of the recommended plan. These transit hubs provide "anchors" for the system of improvements recommended in the plan. 3.1.13 City of Bellevue s Bel Red Subarea Plan The vision of the Bel Red Subarea Plan (City of Bellevue, 2010) embraces the East Link Extension light rail route and plans for development nodes to maximize the potential to create transitoriented, mixed use neighborhoods, and to greatly increase ridership and performance of the light rail system. Light rail stations in the vicinity of Overlake Hospital Medical Center, 122nd Avenue NE, 130th Avenue NE, and at 152nd Avenue NE in Redmond s Overlake area would allow for about three quarters of future Bel Red residents and employees to have convenient, walkable access to the stations. The plan also recommends reallocating feeder bus service to connect other city neighborhoods with the Bel Red light rail stations and providing a park andride facility in the vicinity of the 130th Avenue station to enhance local access to the system. 3.1.14 City of Redmond s Comprehensive Plan Transit System Plan The City of Redmond s Transit System Plan (2013), a component of its Transportation Master Plan, prioritizes investments to increase transit use. The plan acknowledges that future changes to the transit network will be required to adapt to East Link. Implementation strategies will focus on building a strong backbone of regional service along the future light rail corridor and improving local and regional connections to Redmond s urban centers and future light rail stations. The plan recognizes that once East Link reaches Overlake in 2023, the Overlake light rail station will be a major access point and bus transit interconnections will be critical for travelers from Downtown Redmond, southeast Redmond, and adjacent neighborhoods. Corridor Report: University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor 7

3.2 Travel Markets The travel market and current transit ridership is based on output from the Sound Transit Ridership Forecasting Model (Sound Transit, 2012), WSDOT s Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) survey (WSDOT, 2012), and a regional data collection of cell phone data (AirSage, 2013). The CTR survey data are limited to individuals who work for large employers (more than 100 employees), but these data are helpful in understanding the market potential for employment centers. The share of total daily trips was collected via cell phone data collection techniques and was compared with PSRC s Regional Travel Demand Model (PSRC, 2010b) and household survey (PSRC, 2010c) to cross check the reasonableness of the data. As cell phone users traverse the region, their phones are constantly communicating with cell phone towers to check for new data and to establish location. These checks can be tied to specific cell phone towers and provide a data point for locating a cell phone at various points in time. These time points can establish overall trip making patterns without distinguishing any specifics about mode of access or trip purpose. 3.3 City of Kirkland Travel Markets Table 1 shows the distribution of total daily trips and transit trips for the City of Kirkland travel market as forecasted by the PSRC Regional Travel Demand Model for 2035 (PSRC, 2010b). East King County accounts for 71 percent of the total transit market for the City of Kirkland. Table 1. Future Travel Markets for Trips to and from the City of Kirkland Transit Trips Commute Trips Total Daily Trips Major Market by Districts Daily Trips Share Daily Trips Share Daily Trips Share North North Snohomish County 10 0% 1,400 6% 1,600 2% South Snohomish County 70 3% 5,600 25% 8,400 8% Burien 0 0% 200 1% 200 0% Tukwila and Renton 10 0% 800 4% 1,200 1% South SeaTac and Des Moines 0 0% 0 0% 600 1% Federal Way 0 0% 200 1% 200 0% Kent 10 0% 400 2% 400 0% Far East King County 390 14% 3200 14% 5,800 6% Redmond Downtown 120 4% 200 1% 3,400 3% East Redmond Overlake 50 2% 200 1% 2,800 3% Issaquah 40 1% 200 1% 600 1% Kirkland, Bothell, Woodinville and Kenmore 580 21% 5200 23% 46,400 46% 8 Corridor Report: University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor

Table 1. Future Travel Markets for Trips to and from the City of Kirkland Transit Trips Commute Trips Total Daily Trips Major Market by Districts Daily Trips Share Daily Trips Share Daily Trips Share East Bellevue 300 11% 1400 6% 9,600 10% West Bellevue and Mercer Island Seattle Central Business District 490 18% 800 4% 9,000 9% 220 8% 600 3% 4,400 4% Central Ballard/Fremont/Wallingford 70 3% 400 2% 800 1% University Community 140 5% 0 0% 800 1% Rest of Seattle 240 9% 1,400 6% 2,200 2% Region Pierce County 0 0% 600 3% 1,200 1% Rest of Region 0 0% 0 0% 200 0% Total 2,740 100% 22,800 100% 99,800 100% 3.4 University District Travel Markets Table 2 shows the distribution of total daily trips and transit trips for the University District as forecasted by the PSRC Regional Travel Demand Model for 2035 (PSRC, 2010b). Approximately 70 percent of transit users in the University District travel to or from the City of Seattle. Within this transit market, Ballard accounts for approximately 11 percent of the total transit users. Ballard and the University District are connected by Route 44, which has 10 to 15 minute headways all day along Market/45th Street. The largest travel markets for all person trips are also within the City of Seattle and make up almost two thirds of all person trips. Table 2. Future Travel Markets for Trips to and from the University District Transit Trips Commute Trips Total Daily Trips Major Market by Districts Daily Trips Share Daily Trips Share Daily Trips Share North North Snohomish County 2,640 4% 1,800 2% 2,800 1% South Snohomish County 5,420 8% 11,600 13% 13,200 5% Burien 440 1% 1000 1% 1,400 1% Tukwila and Renton 940 1% 2400 3% 3,000 1% South SeaTac and Des Moines 800 1% 1200 1% 1,600 1% Federal Way 400 1% 800 1% 1,000 0% Kent 880 1% 1400 2% 1,400 1% Corridor Report: University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor 9

Table 2. Future Travel Markets for Trips to and from the University District Transit Trips Commute Trips Total Daily Trips Major Market by Districts Daily Trips Share Daily Trips Share Daily Trips Share Far East King County 1,360 2% 3000 3% 3,400 1% Redmond Downtown 220 0% 200 0% 600 0% Redmond Overlake 420 1% 200 0% 800 0% East Issaquah 360 1% 200 0% 400 0% Kirkland, Bothell, Woodinville and Kenmore 2,610 4% 2600 3% 3,600 1% East Bellevue 2,210 3% 1800 2% 3,600 1% West Bellevue and Mercer Island Seattle Central Business District 1,140 2% 2200 2% 4,400 2% 7,470 11% 10,000 11% 51,800 20% Central Ballard/Fremont/Wallingford 7,390 11% 11800 13% 34,400 13% University Community 4,380 6% 4000 4% 47,000 18% Rest of Seattle 27,150 40% 31,600 35% 84,200 32% Region Pierce County 1,350 2% 2600 3% 3,600 1% Rest of Region 1,040 2% 800 1% 800 0% Total 68,620 100% 91,200 100% 263,000 100% 3.5 City of Redmond Travel Markets Table 3 shows the distribution of total daily trips and transit trips for the City of Redmond travel market as forecasted by the PSRC Regional Travel Demand Model for 2035 (PSRC, 2010b). Almost half of the transit users traveling to and from Redmond and Overlake are coming from Seattle. Bellevue and Kirkland make up a large portion of East King County s total transit market of 37 percent. East King County also makes up the largest share of total daily trips (85 percent), with the City of Bellevue and Kirkland/Bothell/Woodinville, accounting for about 20 percent of that total travel market. East King County includes places like North Bend, Snoqualmie, and Sammamish. The lower share of total daily trips to Seattle is reflective of the shorter nature of nonwork trips. 10 Corridor Report: University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor

Table 3. Future Travel Markets for Trips to and from the City of Redmond Transit Trips Commute Trips Total Daily Trips Major Market by Districts Daily Trips Share Daily Trips Share Daily Trips Share North North Snohomish County 110 2% 3,000 5% 2,600 2% South Snohomish County 290 5% 12,000 19% 10,400 7% Burien 60 1% 200 0% 200 0% Tukwila and Renton 60 1% 2000 3% 1,600 1% South SeaTac and Des Moines 50 1% 200 0% 600 0% Federal Way 70 1% 400 1% 400 0% Kent 40 1% 800 1% 600 0% Far East King County 520 9% 20800 33% 49,200 31% Redmond Downtown 130 2% 2,600 4% 40,800 26% Redmond Overlake 70 1% 800 1% 8,800 6% East Issaquah 210 3% 600 1% 1,200 1% Kirkland, Bothell, Woodinville and Kenmore 330 5% 7400 12% 13,200 8% East Bellevue 770 13% 4600 7% 14,200 9% West Bellevue and Mercer Island Seattle Central Business District 270 4% 1800 3% 5,600 4% 640 11% 1,200 2% 3,400 2% Central Ballard/Fremont/Wallingford 440 7% 1000 2% 800 1% University Community 420 7% 200 0% 600 0% Rest of Seattle 1,450 24% 2,800 4% 2,200 1% Region Pierce County 110 2% 1400 2% 2,400 2% Rest of Region 40 1% 200 0% 400 0% Total 6,080 100% 64,000 100% 159,200 100% 4 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The HCT system improvements evaluated in each of the corridor studies were developed through a process that first identified corridor issues and needs, refined a problem statement for the study area, and revisited the goals and objectives from Sound Transit s 2005 Long Range Plan. With this baseline information, alternatives were then developed with the intent to address the corridor issues and needs and achieve Sound Transit s goals to: Corridor Report: University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor 11

Provide a transportation system that facilitates long term mobility Enhance communities and protect the environment Contribute to the region s economic vitality Strengthen communities access to and use of the regional transit network Develop a system that is financially feasible Once the alternatives were developed conceptually, they were evaluated using a three tiered decision making framework to determine how well they performed against the above stated goals and objectives. The framework consisted of a first tier ( Screening ) to identify and advance those alternatives that address the corridor s identified problem statement, and the second and third tiers (Level 1 Evaluation and Level 2 Evaluation respectively) that evaluated a smaller set of alternatives against the goals and objectives. Key factors of evaluation included aspects of ridership, travel time savings, costs and cost/benefit factors, transit oriented development potential and environmental effects. 5 INITIAL SCREENING EVALUATION A range of alternatives and mode options for the University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor were identified. SR 520, I 405 and several north south arterials were initially identified, along with two mode options: BRT and LRT. Each concept strove for exclusive or semi exclusive rightof way where feasible and included at grade with elevated and tunnel elements where topographic or other engineering related constraints existed. The initial set of options was then screened based on a review of the mode options in relation to a set of screening questions (Table 4). The screening questions were developed in response to Sound Transit s long range planning goals. Generally, if the mode met the objective of each screening question, it was forwarded for further evaluation. Table 4. Goals and Screening Questions Goals Goal 1: Provide a Transportation System that Facilitates Long- Term Mobility Goal 2: Enhance Communities and Protect the Environment Goal 3: Contribute to the Region s Economic Vitality Screening Questions Question 1: Would the concept provide HCT service, defined as a system of public transportation services within an urbanized region operating principally on exclusive rights of way, and the supporting services and facilities necessary to implement such a system? Question 2: Could the concept avoid or minimize significant impacts on known designated critically sensitive environmental and/or parks or Section 4(f) resources where another prudent and feasible alternative has been identified? [Note: This would be limited to known parks that are Section 4(f) and other resources identified by local jurisdictions as highly critical environmental features.] Question 3: Would the concept connect designated or proposed regional centers, designated urban villages, or other locally or regionally identified areas for targeted growth? Question 4: Would the concept serve the region s employment and residential centers, including areas of future targeted economic growth, as evidenced in adopted local and regional plans? 12 Corridor Report: University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor

Table 4. Goals and Screening Questions Goals Goal 4: Strengthen Communities Access to and Use of the Regional Transit Network Goal 5: Develop a System that is Financially Feasible Screening Questions Question 5: Does the concept connect to existing or planned future Sound Transit HCT service as documented in ST2? Question 6: Given what is known as of October 2013, is there potential for the concept to be designed so as to avoid: a. Adding trains to the existing Downtown transit tunnel b. Adding substantial numbers of new riders to the planned University Link Station, which could overload the station platforms c. Impacting East Link operations and headways Question 7: Is it feasible for the concept (mode, corridor) to be constructed to HCT standards, given the known topographic, geometric, and other engineering-related constraints of the corridor and within reasonable costs for expected benefits? Question 8: Could the concept be constructed in a manner so as to avoid substantial regulatory hurdles and/or avoid or mitigate substantial impacts on the natural environment and/or the built environment? Most evaluation conducted at this level was qualitative in nature, relying on professional knowledge and understanding of the study area along with GIS information and data gathered through the development of Baseline Corridor Reports. A screening workshop was held in October 2013. The objectives of the workshop were to (1) review the corridor and mode options being screened; and (2) identify the alternatives and modes that should be forwarded into the Level 1 Evaluation process. Exhibit 2 illustrates the alternative concepts developed for the screen. Table 5 summarizes the results of this screening workshop. Corridor Report: University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor 13

Exhibit 2. Screening Options 14 Corridor Report: University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor

Table 5. Screening Results University District-Kirkland-Redmond Corridor Screening Workshop Screening Alternative (Exhibits 2 and 3) Alternative/Mode Advanced for Further Evaluation? For Level 1 Evaluation Level 1 Alternative Name (Exhibit 4) A-1 124th Street/120th Avenue/Market/Central Way (BRT, LRT) No based on Screening Questions #1, #2, #3 and #4, #7, #8. This concept would not connect regional centers. The geometric constraints would limit the ability to provide cost-effective HCT service without substantial effects to the built environment. N/A A-2 I-405 (BRT, LRT) Yes, BRT advanced. A1 A-3 124th Avenue/85th Street/Central Way (BRT, LRT) No based on Screening Questions #1, #2, #7, #8. The geometric constraints would limit the ability to provide cost-effective HCT service without substantial effects to the built environment. N/A A-4 ERC (BRT, LRT) Yes, BRT and LRT advanced. B1, B2 B-1 Willows Road/NE 124th Street (BRT, LRT) No based on Screening Questions #1, #2, #7, #8. The geometric constraints would limit the ability to provide cost-effective HCT service without substantial effects to the built environment. N/A B-2 SR 908/124th Avenue NE (BRT, LRT) No based on Screening Questions #1, #2, #7, #8. The geometric constraints would limit the ability to provide cost-effective HCT service without substantial effects to the built environment. N/A B-3 SR 908/I-405 (BRT, LRT) C-1 SR 908 (BRT, LRT) No based on Screening Questions #1, #2, #7, #8. The geometric constraints would limit the ability to provide cost-effective HCT service without substantial effects to the built environment. No based on Screening Questions #1, #2, #7, #8. The geometric constraints would limit the ability to provide cost-effective HCT service without substantial effects to the built environment. N/A N/A D-1 Central Way/Lake Washington Boulevard/SR 520 (BRT, LRT) No based on Screening Questions #1, #2, #7, #8. The geometric constraints would limit the ability to provide cost-effective HCT service without substantial effects to the built environment. N/A D-2 Kirkland Way/108th Avenue NE/SR 520 (BRT, LRT) No based on Screening Questions #1, #2, #7, #8. The geometric constraints would limit the ability to provide cost-effective HCT service without substantial effects to the built environment. N/A D-3 ERC/SR 520 (BRT, LRT) Yes, BRT and LRT advanced. B1, B2 Corridor Report: University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor 15

Table 5. Screening Results University District-Kirkland-Redmond Corridor Screening Workshop Screening Alternative (Exhibits 2 and 3) Alternative/Mode Advanced for Further Evaluation? For Level 1 Evaluation Level 1 Alternative Name (Exhibit 4) D-4 I-405/SR 520 (BRT, LRT) Yes, BRT advanced. A1 E-1 East Link (LRT) Yes C2 E-2 NE 90th Street/148th Avenue NE /140th Avenue NE (BRT) No based on Screening Questions #1, #8. The geometric constraints would limit the ability to provide cost-effective HCT service. N/A E-3 SR 202/SR 520 (BRT) Yes C1 F-1 SR 520 (LRT) Yes C2 F-2 SR 520 (BRT) Yes C1 G-1 Montlake Boulevard to NE 44th Street (BRT) No based on Screening Question #3. This concept would not connect regional centers. N/A G-2 Montlake Boulevard to NE Pacific Street University Way, and NE 50th Street (BRT) Yes A1, B1, B1a G-3 Montlake Boulevard to NE Pacific Street, University Way, and NE 45th Street(BRT) There is no longer a design option to run on 45th for these alternatives, because the Ballard to U District study is assuming BRT on 50th Street, and LRT on 45th Street. N/A G-4 Montlake Boulevard to NE Pacific Street (BRT) No based on Screening Question #3. This concept would not connect regional centers. N/A G-5 Montlake Boulevard to NE 45th Street (BRT) Yes C1 G-6 Bridge over Montlake Cut (LRT) Yes B2, B2a, B2b, B2c G-7 Montlake Boulevard, tunnel to NE 45th Street No based on Screening Questions #1, #2, #7, #8. The geometric constraints would limit the ability to provide cost-effective HCT service without substantial effects to the built environment. N/A G-8 Tunnel under Montlake Cut to NE 45th Street No based on Screening Questions #1, #2, #7, #8. The geometric constraints would limit the ability to provide cost-effective HCT service without substantial effects to the built environment. N/A 16 Corridor Report: University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor

6 LEVEL 1 EVALUATION The Level 1 Evaluation refined the alternatives that were advanced based on the Initial Screening results. These corridors provide a range of representative alternatives that included various combinations of BRT or LRT running in at grade, elevated, and tunnel profiles. For the BRT alternatives, there are three levels of investment relating to the degree of exclusivity of the BRT running ways: High Entirely BRT exclusive running ways Medium More than 50 percent in either exclusive and/or toll/high occupancy vehicle [HOV] lanes) Low Less than 50 percent in exclusive, and/or toll/hov lanes) Seven alternatives were considered in the Level 1 Evaluation, as well as three design options. These are shown in Exhibit 3 and described below: Alternative A1: BRT (Medium) in managed lanes along I 405, and SR 520, and then in mixed traffic along NE Pacific Street, and 15th Avenue NE Alternative B1: BRT (High) in an exclusive bus running way along ERC, an exclusive bus running way along SR 520, and bus lanes along NE Pacific Street, and 15th Avenue NE Alternative B1 Design Option a: BRT (Medium) in an exclusive bus running way along ERC, in managed lanes along SR 520, and mixed traffic along NE Pacific and 15th Avenue NE Alternative B2: LRT along ERC, SR 520, West of Stadium to NE 45th Street Design Option B2a would be elevated along NE Pacific Street and 15th Avenue NE. Design Option B2b would be elevated along NE Pacific Street and 15th Avenue NE. Design Option B2c would be elevated across Montlake Boulevard at NE Pacific Street. The vertical alignment transitions into a tunnel under/along NE Pacific Street and continue in a tunnel towards Fremont and Ballard. Alternative C1: BRT (Low) in mixed traffic along SR 520, Montlake Boulevard NE to NE 45th Street Alternative C2: LRT Shared Track along SR 520 to West of Stadium to NE 45th Street Alternative C2 Design Option a: LRT From Hospital Station Corridor Report: University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor 17

Exhibit 3. Level 1 Alternatives Corridor Report: University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor 19

The Level 1 Evaluation considered 15 performance measures listed below: Provide a Transportation System that Facilitates Long Term Mobility 1. Travel time 2. Travel market potential 3. Amount of exclusive running way Enhance Communities and Protect the Environment 1. Potential effects on parks and open space 2. Potential effect on wetlands 3. Potential effect on existing transportation systems 4. Potential effects on right of way/properties Contribute to the Region s Economic Vitality 1. Access to activity centers 2. Supporting land uses Strengthen Communities Access to and Use of the Regional Transit Network 1. Connectivity to transit (bus/rail) and multimodal networks 2. Disproportionate effects on minority or low income communities Develop a System that is Financially Feasible 1. Capital costs 2. Potential utility conflicts 3. Construction challenges 4. Availability of land to construct a maintenance facility A summary comparison is provided below for those performance measures that showed substantial differences between the alternatives. Alternative A1 was advanced into the Level 2 Evaluation. Alternative A1 represents service between Totem Lake, South Kirkland, and the University District using the I 405 HOV express toll lanes and SR 520 HOV lanes, which attracts a moderate level of ridership, and has lower potential environmental effects and lower capital costs. Consideration should be given in the Level 2 Evaluation to moving the alternative in the University District from 15th Avenue NE to University Avenue NE because this alternative does not assume major reconstruction of the street, and University Way NE is already established as a transit street with bus bulb outs and other transit amenities. Alternate B1a was advanced into the Level 2 Evaluation. Alternative B1 would serve Totem Lake, Downtown Kirkland, South Kirkland, and the University District using the ERC and SR 520 HOV lanes; this alternative could attract a moderate level of ridership and would have lower potential environmental effects and lower capital costs. Consideration should be given in the Level 2 Evaluation to moving the alternative in the Corridor Report: University District Kirkland Redmond Corridor 21