MULTIMODAL ACCESSIBILITY PLANLYNNWOOD TRANSIT CENTER

APPENDICES

Appendix A

Existing Transit Services

Existing Transit Services Transit provides an efficient and vital component of the multimodal network. The Lynnwood Link Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) states:

• Every weekday, 232 buses travel southbound on I-5 from Snohomish County to Seattle carry more than 200,000 people to their jobs or schools.

• On I-5 at Northgate a single high-occupancy vehicle lane carries 43 percent of person trips during peak hours in the peak direction.

• I-5 travel times in the HOV lanes have increased about 20 minutes between Everett and Seattle between 2011-2014.

• Crowded buses within the corridor indicate greater demand for transit and a greater number of people are standing for 65 minute or longer trips.

The primary transit agencies serving the Lynnwood Transit Center are Community Transit and Sound Transit. Although King County Metro does not serve the Lynnwood Transit Center directly, Metro provides important connections at nearby park-and-rides and transit centers for passengers traveling from Lynnwood to major regional destinations via Community Transit and Sound Transit service.

Nearly 500 buses pass through the Lynnwood Transit Center per day, providing quick and efficient service to many parts of the region, including downtown Seattle (36 minutes), downtown Bellevue (46 minutes), and the Seattle Tacoma Airport (79 minutes) as seen in Table 1.

Table 1. Existing Transit Travel Times – AM Peak Period (minutes) Origin From Lynnwood To Lynnwood

Northgate 52 70

University of Washington 37 32

Capitol Hill 48 60

Downtown Seattle 36 41

Sea- Tac Airport 79 93

Downtown Bellevue 46 58 Overlake 71 78

Source: Scheduled transit travel times from King County Metro Trip Planner, http://metro.kingcounty.gov/

The Lynnwood Transit Center provides service from 4:20 AM to 11:00 PM on weekdays with typical headways of 15-30 minutes on each route serving the transit center during peak and midday hours and 30-40 minute headways in the evening as seen in 2. On weekends, headways are typically 60 minutes.

Quality of service as identified in Table 2 is defined as follows:

Headway based Transit Quality of Service

Average headway 10-15 minutes

Average headway 15-30 minutes

Average headway 30 minutes or greater

Table 2. Existing Bus Routes that Serve the Lynnwood Transit Center Route Agency Service Area Weekday Schedule (with headways) Headway

Based Quality of

Service

115 CT Aurora Village, Edmonds, Lynnwood, Alderwood, Swamp Creek, Ash Way, Mill Creek, Mariner 5:15 am to 10:00 pm (every 30 minutes)

116 CT Edmonds, Lynnwood, Alderwood, Swamp Creek, Ash Way, Mill Creek, Silver Firs 5:30 am to 10:30 pm (every 30 minutes)

120 CT Lynnwood, Canyon Park 5:30 am to 9:45 pm (every 30 minutes)

130 CT Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Aurora Village, Edmonds 5:30 am to 10:00 pm (every 30 minutes)

201 CT Lynnwood, Alderwood, Swamp Creek, Ash Way, Mill Creek, Mariner, Everett, Marysville, Smokey Point 4:45 am to 11:00 pm (every 40 minutes)

202 CT Lynnwood, Alderwood, Swamp Creek, Ash Way, Mill Creek, Mariner, Everett, Marysville, Smokey Point 5:00 am to 10:30 pm (every 40 minutes)

402 CT Downtown Seattle, Lynnwood 5:15 am to 9:00 am, 2:30 pm to 7:15 pm (every 15 minutes peak) direction)

417 CT Downtown Seattle, Lynnwood, Mukilteo 6:30 am to 9:15 am, 3:15 pm to 6:15 pm (every 30 minutes in peak direction)

421 CT Downtown Seattle, Lynnwood, Marysville 4:45 am to 8:15 am, 2:30 pm to 7:00 pm (every 30 minutes in peak direction)

422 CT Downtown Seattle, Lynnwood, Marysville, Stanwood 5:15 am to 8:00 am, 4:15 pm to 7:15 pm (every 60 minutes in peak direction)

425 CT Downtown Seattle, Lynnwood, Lake Stevens 5:30 am to 8:00 am, 3:30 pm to 6:30 pm (every 30 minutes in peak direction)

810 CT University District, Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, Mill Creek, Everett 9:15 am to 11:15 am, 6:00 pm to 7:30 pm (every 30 minutes in peak direction)

821 CT University District, Lynnwood, Marysville 5:30 am to 8:15 am, 3:30 pm to 6:15 pm (every 30 minutes in peak direction)

855 CT University District, Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood 5:45 am to 6:15 am, 3:00 pm to 5:30 pm (every 60 to 90 minutes in peak direction)

511 ST Downtown Seattle, Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, Ash Way 4:20 am to 9:00 am, 2:30 pm to 7:00 pm (every 20 minutes, peak period, peak direction)

512 ST Downtown Seattle, University District, Jackson Park, Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, Ash Way, Everett 5:30 am to 1:00 am (every 15 minutes, off peak direction and off peak)

535 ST Lynnwood, Alderwood, Canyon Park, UW Bothell, Totem Lake, Downtown Bellevue 4:45 am to 11:00 pm (every 30 minutes)

Source: Lynnwood Link EIS

Appendix B

Strategy List (2035 Baseline and LMAP)

Lynnwood Transit Center Multimodal Accessibility Plan (LMAP) ‐ Potential Strategies

ID Project Description Ped Bike Auto Transit 2035 Baseline Projects

Source

A1 Poplar Way Extension Bridge (Poplar Way ‐ 33rd Ave W) New elevated through road across I‐5.  x x x x City

A2 42nd Street (Alderwood Mall Blvd. ‐ 194th St SW) New through street . Includes signal at 196th St and Alderwood Mall Boulevard. x x x City

A4 40th Ave W Crossing of I‐5 New connection between 40th Ave W & Larch Way. x x x City

A5 194th St Extension (40th Ave W ‐ 33rd Ave W) Part of completing the City Center street grid. x x x City

A6 Traffic Signal ‐ 194th/48th Ave New Traffic Signal x x City

A7 Traffic Signal ‐ 194th/36th Ave New Traffic Signal x x x City

A8 44th Ave/I‐5 Interchange Complete full interchange x WSDOT

A9 200th St/50th Ave W Improvement Signal modification x x x x ST EIS

A10 200th St/48th Ave W Improvement Add EB and SB right turn pockets x x x ST EIS

A11 204th St/52nd Ave W Improvement Add signal or roundabout x x x City

A12 200th St/44th Ave W Improvement Add double NB left turn lane and extend EB right turn pocket x x x ST EIS

B1Scriber Creek Trail Redevelopment (Transit Center to Wilcox Park)

Multi‐use trail extension from Lynnwood Transit Center to Wilcox Park at 196th St (1.5 miles). Address flooding/culvert issue, re‐pave trail, lighting, wayfinding signs. x x City

B3 48th Ave Sharrow/Bicycle Lane (200th St SW ‐ 194th St SW)Restripe to add sharrows SB and bicycle lane NB. Sharrows in both directions from 194th to 182nd Pl SW x x Bike2Health

B4 52nd Ave W Bicycle Connection (212th St SW ‐ 208th St SW)Add bicycle lanes to connect to existing facilities to the north and south. This is a key route to cross I‐5 and access the Interurban Trail/Transit Center from the south. x x Bike2Health

B5 Bike Share StationsInstall bike share stations at major employers and activity centers to encourage multimodal travel. Potential sites are Edmonds CC, Transit Center, Convention Center, Alderwood Mall. x x x x LMAP

B6 Bike lockers at SWIFT stops Install secure bike lockers along SWIFT stops to encourage multimodal travel. x x LMAP

B7Interurban Trail Connection Improvement at 195th Pl SW Cul‐de‐sac

Add lighting & wayfinding signage where trail crosses under Alderwood Mall Blvd. to improves trail access environment. x x LMAP

B8 200th St Bicycle Facility (SR 99 ‐ 64th Ave W)  Add bicycle lanes. Provides a connection to Edmonds Community College. x x Bike2Health

B9 Bicycle Facility on 212th St SW/Bowdoin (61st Pl ‐ 9th Ave S) Bicycle facility TBD through Bike2Health Program. x x Bike2Health

B10Bicycle Facility ‐ 9th Ave S (220th‐Dayton), Dayton St  (9th Ave ‐ Ferry Terminal) Bicycle facility TBD through Bike2Health Program. Provides connection to Ferry Terminal x x Bike2Health

B11Bicycle Facility ‐ 76th Ave W/80th St SW (Olympic View Drive to 220th ST SW) Bicycle facility TBD through Bike2Health Program. x x Bike2Health

B12 Bicycle Facility ‐ 80th St SW/228th St SW Bicycle facility TBD through Bike2Health Program. x x Bike2Health

B13 Bicycle Facility ‐ 56th Ave W  (236th St ‐ 220th St), 220th St Bicycle Facility ‐ 56th Aveand on 220th St east to 52nd Ave W x x Bike2Health

B15 Bicycle Wayfinding Signage Install directional wayfinding signage to major employment  and activity centers x x x City/ Bike2Health

B16 Center to Sound Trail (North Scriber Creek Trail Extension) Extend trail from Scriber Creek Trail/Wilcox Park north to SR99 and beyond. x x City

B17 36th Ave W (196th St SW – 184th Pl SW)  Provide bike routing and facilities (TBD) x City

B18 Larch Way / 204th St SW Provide bike routing and facilities (TBD) x City

B19 204th St Facility (44th Ave ‐ Poplar Way) Provide bike routing and facilities  (TBD) x LMAP

B20At‐grade crossing on Cedar Valley Rd/201st Pl & 201st Pl Greenway

Construct an at‐grade mid‐block crossing on Ceder Valley Rd. Designate and sign a Greenway route from the crossing west to Group Health. x x LMAP

B21 44th Ave W Bicycle Facility W (204th St SW ‐ 212th St SW)Provide bicycle routing and facilities on the 44th Ave W. Consider a multiuse path on the east side to access the Interurban Trail.  x x LMAP

Other Modes that Benefit

ID Project Description Ped Bike Auto Transit 2035 Baseline Projects

SourceOther Modes that Benefit

LU1 Right of Way Preservation OrdinanceImplement ordinance to preserve certain right‐of‐way so as to not preclude future street extensions when the City is ready. x x x x LMAP

LU2Encourage increased density of residential growth farther west of 44th Ave

Reallocate/rezone growth west of 44th Ave, which is closer to LTC. Existing zoning assumed LRT station to be farther east towards Convention Center. x x x LMAP

LU3Encourage new development in the City Center to include pedestrian pathways 

Zoning policy to include pedestrian pathways through development to allow for smaller block sizes and more direct pedestrian routes. x x x LMAP

O1 Park‐and‐Ride Mobile AppDevelop mobile app that displays park‐and‐ride occupancy in real time or by time of day. App would also display travel time to the station using other modes such as transit. x x LMAP

P1 Interurban Trail Improvements near Station Improved lighting, better separation between peds & bicyclists, better landscaping x x LMAP

P2Traffic Signal Timing for Pedestrian Crossings (Adaptive time‐of‐day)

Adjust traffic signal timing to decrease pedestrian wait times to cross key intersections. Potentially accomplished through shorter cycle length when feasible. x x LMAP

P3A Promenade Connection (198th St/38th Ave W) Walkway extension of 198th Street and 38th Ave. Signalized crossing of 196th. x x City

P3B Promenade Connection (38th Ave) Extend walkway between 196th and 194th x x City

P4 Mid‐block ‐ New 46th St (200th St SW ‐ 194th St SW)New through street. Includes pedestrian walkway from 194th to 200th St. This new street can also serve as improved transit access to LTC.   x x x LMAP

P5 Mid‐block ‐ private streets Ensure during re‐development of super blocks that there are private, mid‐block walkways x x LMAP

P6 48th Ave Reconstruction (Transit Station ‐ 196th St SW)Reconstruct road for wider sidewalks to handle people transfering from 196th SWIFT to LTC. Upgrade sharrows to bicycle lanes. Similar design to 40th Ave x x LMAP

P8 44th Ave/I‐5 Underpass Improved lighting, better landscaping, improve walking environment. x xCommunity outreach

P9Upgrade Sidewalks on Existing City Center Roads to Design Standards Ensure current Center City roadways have sidewalks that meet the City's design standards x x LMAP

P10 200th St Widen Sidewalks (50th Ave W ‐ 44th Ave W) Widen sidewalks on 200th to accommodate increased pedestrian traffic x x LMAP

P11 196th St Sidewalk Upgrade (SR 99 to 48th Ave W) Replace asphalt pathway with full sidewalk x x City‐Comp Plan

P13 198th St Promenade (40th Ave W  ‐ 44th Ave W) Elevate to Promenade St design standards. Include signals at 40th and 44th x x x x City

P14Poplar Way Non‐motorized Improvements (196th St SW ‐ 204th St SW)  County could consider constructing sidewalks and bicycle facilities.  x x

P15 44th Ave W Pedestrian Zone (200th ‐ 194th St) 

Concepts includes a linear park/multi‐modal section on the west side of 44th Ave to connect the Transit Center to the Civic Campus along the 44th Ave corridor. The 44th  Ave corridor is an opportunity for placemaking and project display showing the future life of City Center. x

TOD Technical Advisory Group

T1 196th St Widening (I‐5 to 48th) Add BAT lanes, landscape median, sidewalks x x x City

T2 SWIFT on 196th St New frequent east‐west transit route on 196th. x x x xCommunity 

Transit

T4 196th St SWIFT reroute to LTC Re‐route 196th St SWIFT service to stop at LTC station for easier transfer to LINK.  x x LMAP

T5 Transit Signal Priority Routes Implement Transit Signal Priority at key locations to improve bus reliability. x LMAP

T6 Expand Customer Service at LTC Expanded customer service facilities (Ride Store, lost & found, etc.).   x x xCommunity 

Transit

Appendix C

Performance Measures Development • Working Paper #1 – Performance Measures • Working Paper #2 – Recommended GHG Performance Measure and

Methodology • Performance Measure Framework

July 6, 2016 1 ICF Resources, Fehr & Peers

Working Paper #1

Lynnwood Transit Center Multimodal Accessibility Plan: Performance Measures Introduction WSDOT is currently leading the Lynnwood Transit Center Multimodal Accessibility Plan (LMAP), an effort to improve transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access to the site of a planned Link light rail station. WSDOT received funding through the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP2) to test SHRP2 performance measurement guidance on the LMAP. Most of the SHRP2 guidance focuses on corridor-level assessments, and this project provides an opportunity for WSDOT to develop a standard set of measures that it can apply in station area planning projects, as well as measures that it can use to compare the benefits of station area plans to more conventional corridor-level or system-level projects, and to offer feedback to SHRP2 based on its findings. This memorandum summarizes the performance measures that we propose to use in the LMAP.

WSDOT issues extensive guidance and information on performance measurement through documents like its Gray Notebook, its quarterly performance and accountability report, the Corridor Capacity Report, and the Practical Design guidance, which details a process for developing performance measures based on needs identified by stakeholders. Practical Design differentiates between baseline performance measures, which are quantitative and which speak to the core needs of the project, and contextual performance measures, which can be qualitative or quantitative, and which may speak to needs that are not directly addressed by the project. Planners should be able to set targets for baseline measures, while it may not be possible to set targets for contextual measures.

The overarching need for the LMAP is to maximize ridership at Lynnwood Transit Center, and transit ridership is a key baseline measure. Sound Transit projects 17,900 average weekday boardings at Lynnwood Transit Center,1 which will require significant improvements in transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access given that the area is currently very auto-oriented and that there are only 2,300 parking spaces planned for the transit center.2 Sound Transit’s projections serve as our target for ridership, and we propose to include additional baseline measures that capture land use and access to the transit center by different modes in order to capture how the strategies included in the plan affect ridership.

At the initial LMAP workshops, stakeholders outlined many need statements that served as our basis for identifying potential performance measures. We identified a set of potential baseline measures that address key needs and that can be quantitatively linked to ridership. These include:

• Station-area measures that capture the factors that determine ridership (i.e., land use and access by different travel modes), and will help stakeholders understand how well different projects and plan alternatives support the goal of increasing ridership.

1 Sound Transit, Lynnwood Link Extension Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter 3: Transportation Impacts and Mitigation, p. 3-24, http://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/projects/north_hct/lynnwoodeis/ch3.pdf. 2 Ibid. p. 3-46.

July 6, 2016 2 ICF Resources, Fehr & Peers

• Regional measures that assess how changes in ridership will affect travel along the Interstate 5 corridor connecting Lynnwood to Seattle, and which can be used to compare the overall impact of the LMAP to other projects.

We also identified contextual measures that addressed community needs identified by stakeholders, but are either not quantifiable or are not directly related to ridership. Since baseline measures require extensive data collection and analysis, this memo focuses primarily on defining baseline measures, identifying data sources, and discussing key issues with these measures. We list potential contextual measures in the final section of the memo.

How baseline measures will be applied We will quantify baseline measures for three different scenarios:

• Current conditions. • Future conditions under the Lynnwood EIS: the EIS is a “first cut” at examining future conditions

in the Lynnwood Link station area; the Lynnwood Multimodal Access Plan is intended to refine and improve upon the land use scenario and transportation improvements included in the plan, including expanding the area of study. The EIS scenario serves as a “future baseline” against which to measure the performance of the Lynnwood Multimodal Access Plan.

• Future conditions under the Lynnwood Multimodal Access Plan.

We will also use the baseline station area measures to assess different strategies that are included in the LMAP. We will quantify the impacts of strategies on these measures where there is sufficient data to do so; in other cases we may estimate impacts or describe the direction of change due to a strategy.

Ridership is the only performance measure for which we will set a target. We will use the other baseline station area measures in our ridership estimates, and specify whether they should increase or decrease to support the ridership target. Though WSDOT’s Practical Design framework emphasizes that targets should be set for baseline measures, we consider all the measures listed below to be baseline measures because they will be quantitatively linked to the ridership target.

There is also the potential for WSDOT or stakeholders to track measures over time and readjust performance targets. We will identify data sources that can be used in tracking performance on an ongoing basis. Many of the recommended performance measures draw upon detailed, up-to-date local data and relatively labor-intensive analysis, and it may require a high level of effort to track them over time. If there is limited capacity to track performance measures on an ongoing basis, we may recommend using regularly-updated third-party data sources, including public data sets (e.g., the EPA Smart Location Database, General Transit Feed Specification Data, county assessor’s data, Link ridership data) or private sources (e.g., Dun and Bradstreet land use data, Remix data from Community Transit) to track trends over time.

Recommended baseline measures Table 1 below summarizes our recommended station area and regional baseline measures, including definitions and data sources, categorized according to the baseline needs identified for the LMAP. We generally recommend including one performance measure in each category, but in some categories we recommend multiple measures. The following section contains more information about each recommended measure, including information on why we chose it and on other measures considered.

July 6, 2016 3 ICF Resources, Fehr & Peers

Table 1: Recommended baseline performance measures

Category Measure definition Data sources (current) Data sources (future EIS Reference) Data sources (future LMAP) Station area measures Ridership Average weekday Link boardings at

Lynnwood Transit Center Ridership: boardings on non-local Community Transit and Sound Transit buses

Ridership: Link ridership forecasts in EIS

Ridership: revised Link ridership forecasts based on land use and access measures (see below) and other local data

Land use Number of jobs and housing units located within a half-mile (network distance) of the station

Jobs and housing units: Local land use data (from the city and/or MPO)

Jobs and housing units: EIS land use forecasts (constrained)

Jobs and housing units: Land use forecasts in the LMAP (from unconstrained city and/or MPO forecasts)

Bicycle access

Average level of traffic stress3 on key bicycle routes within 3 miles (a 15-minute ride) of the station

Level of traffic stress: local street network data Key bicycle routes: based on LSBP and updated to reflect stakeholder feedback

Level of traffic stress: local street network data and EIS analysis of transportation impacts and improvements (funded routes) Key bicycle routes: based on LSBP and updated to reflect stakeholder feedback

Level of traffic stress: local street network data plus additional strategies included in the LMAP Key bicycle routes: based on LSBP and updated to reflect stakeholder feedback

Pedestrian access

Average intersection density within a 15-minute walk of the station

Pedestrian network: local street network data

Pedestrian network: local street network data, updated with ped improvements from the EIS

Pedestrian network: local street network data, updated based on LMAP strategies

Pedestrian access

Percent of blocks within a 15-minute walk of the station that have adequate pedestrian facilities4

Pedestrian network: local street network data (no new survey)

Pedestrian network: local street network data, updated with pedestrian improvements from the EIS

Pedestrian network: local street network data, updated based on LMAP strategies

Transit access

Number of people, jobs, and college students located within a 15-minute bus ride from the station

Bus stops: Community Transit GIS data Current average transit speeds: Community Transit data People and jobs: Local land use data/Census data College students: Edmonds CC enrollment

Bus stops: Community Transit GIS data for future service, supplemented with new stops in EIS Average transit speeds: Community Transit data, adjusted based on EIS strategies People and jobs: EIS land use forecasts College students: Edmonds CC enrollment, adjusted for growth

Bus stops: Community Transit GIS data for future service, supplemented with new stops in LMAP Average transit speeds: Community Transit data, adjusted based on LMAP strategies People and jobs: Land use forecasts in the LMAP College students: Edmonds CC enrollment, adjusted for growth

3 Stress factors include traffic speed, street width, number of vehicle lanes, functional classification, traffic volume, intersection control, bike lane width, and the presence of on-street parking 4 “Adequate” refers to streets with 12’ sidewalks on both sides of streets that match Streetscape Design Standards (where applicable).

July 6, 2016 4 ICF Resources, Fehr & Peers

Auto access

Number of intersections within a mile of the station exceeding city LOS standard during PM peak period

Current LOS: City Synchro network Future LOS: Lynnwood Link Extension EIS; future City Synchro network5

Future LOS: Lynnwood LMAP strategies affecting intersection LOS6

Auto access

Number of transit riders arriving by vehicle per station area parking stall

Current occupancy : Community Transit; Sound Transit counts

Future occupancy: Lynnwood Link Extension EIS

Future occupancy: Lynnwood LMAP strategies affecting ridesharing

Regional measures Mode Split Vehicle trips reduced due to transit N/A Lynnwood ridership (from EIS),

multiplied by mode shift factor (from PSRC, WSDOT, or research)

Lynnwood ridership (from LMAP analysis), multiplied by mode shift factor (from PSRC, WSDOT, or research)

GHG and pollution

Greenhouse gas and pollutant emissions reduced due to transit

N/A VMT reduced7, multiplied by speed-based emission factors (from PSRC)

VMT reduced8, multiplied by PSRC emission factors (from PSRC)

5 Need to examine geographic extent of available data. 6 May be a qualitative assessment (e.g. higher, lower) depending on data availability. 7 Lynnwood ridership (from EIS), multiplied by average transit trip length (from Sound Transit) and mode shift factor (from PSRC, WSDOT, or research) 8 VMT: Lynnwood ridership (from LMAP analysis), multiplied by average transit trip length (from Sound Transit) and mode shift factor (from PSRC, WSDOT, or research)

July 6, 2016 5 ICF Resources, Fehr & Peers

Discussion of baseline measures This section describes our recommended performance measures in each category in more detail, including a discussion of why the measure is important, our rationale for selecting the recommended measure, information on other measure considered, and any remaining questions that we need to resolve in order to apply the measure.

Ridership The overall goal of the LMAP is to support high levels of transit ridership at the Lynnwood Link station. Sound Transit projects that many more people will take transit from Lynnwood than will be able to access the station by car given the limited number of parking spaces. In order to realize this vision, people need to be able to travel to the station by transit, bike, and foot.

Ridership, which we propose to define as the average weekday transit boardings at the Lynnwood Link station to be consistent with the Lynnwood Link Extension EIS, is the primary performance measure we will use in the LMAP, and the other baseline performance measures are all related to ridership. The five categories of station area baseline measures listed below—land use, bicycle access, pedestrian access, transit access, and auto access—will help us estimate ridership under the LMAP and understand the extent to which different strategies help increase ridership. The three categories of regional baseline measures—mode split, vehicle miles traveled, and greenhouse gas / pollutant emissions—estimate the regional benefits of ridership at Lynnwood station.

Land use Our recommended land use measure, number of jobs and housing units located within a half-mile (network distance) of the station, captures the number of jobs and homes located within a half-mile via the street network (roughly a ten-minute walk) of the transit center. Research shows that people who work and live near transit are significantly more likely to use it, so locating ample jobs and housing near the Lynnwood Transit Center is crucial to making sure that ridership goals are met. We recommend focusing on land uses within a half-mile buffer because development within walking distance, which is generally defined as a half-mile, has the strongest impact on ridership. Using a half-mile is consistent with general practice in analyses of the relationship between land use and transit ridership, including Sound Transit’s TOD analyses.9 We plan on using jobs and housing forecasts available through the LMAP or accompanying documents such as the Lynnwood City Center plan to capture the impact of the LMAP on this measure.

Other measures considered There was discussion of including broader “trip generators” (colleges, medical facilities) in this metric. We recommend a simpler measure (number of jobs and housing units located within a half-mile of the station) that focuses on jobs and housing units for several reasons:

• The recommended measure is generally consistent with how other sources measure the TOD environment, based on data that is broadly available. Data is not available for some trip generators (e.g., number of hospital beds, students at K-12 schools), and though data is available on the number of students at nearby Edmonds Community College, which

9 Sound Transit’s System Access Issue Paper from its Regional Transit Long-Range Plan update refers to a TOD analysis that assessed housing and employment within a half-mile of the Lynnwood Link station.

July 6, 2016 6 ICF Resources, Fehr & Peers

stakeholders have mentioned as an important trip generator, the college is well outside the half-mile buffer.

• To a certain extent, the trip generators of interest to stakeholders will be captured in job counts under the recommended metric.

• It will be complex to develop and analyze a measure that captures and weights all of the relevant trip generators, especially if WSDOT’s intention is to apply this metric to other station areas that have different trip generators or do not have as detailed of data available as there is for Lynnwood Transit Center.

Bicycle Access Bicycle access measures examine whether bicyclists can safely and conveniently reach the Lynnwood Transit Center, which determines whether they are likely to ride to transit. Our recommended measure, average level of traffic stress on key bicycle routes within 3 miles (a 15 minute ride) of the station, builds off of recent work to define a level of traffic stress measure for bicycle routes,10 which provides an objective, comprehensive, and universally applicable measure of the suitability of a facility for bicycling based on vehicle speeds, street width, the number of traffic lanes, functional classification, traffic volume, intersection control, bike lane width, and the presence of on-street parking. Figure 1 below summarizes guidelines for level of traffic stress.

Figure 1: Level of Traffic Stress Guidelines11

It can be labor-intensive to collect the necessary data (including traffic volumes and detailed information on the physical configuration of streets) and work with stakeholders to define key routes to the station. If data is not available, we will propose a simplified way of measuring level of traffic stress.

We propose to use a three-mile buffer as a basis for analyzing bicycle access. This is based on FTA policy, which allows for transit funding to be used for bicycle and pedestrian improvements within three miles of the station. Three miles is also roughly equivalent to the average length of a bicycle trip.

10 Mineta Transportation Institute, Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity, http://transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/1005-low-stress-bicycling-network-connectivity.pdf. 11 Fehr and Peers, Level of Traffic Stress, http://asap.fehrandpeers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/MMLOS-Tool-Level-of-Traffic-Stress.pdf, adapted from Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity.

July 6, 2016 7 ICF Resources, Fehr & Peers

Remaining questions In order to apply this measure, we will need to work with stakeholders to define the key bicycle routes serving the station. The Lynnwood Sidewalk and Bicycle Plan (LSBP), does identify priority bicycle routes in the station area, but since the LSBP predates planning for the Lynnwood Link Station it does not include many of the important bicycle access improvements recommended by stakeholders.

Other measures considered We considered an alternative measure, percent of the proposed LBSP bicycle network within 3 miles of the station that is complete, that was designed to be consistent with the LSBP. However, since the LSBP predates planning for the Lynnwood Link Station it does not include many important bicycle connections that have been identified by stakeholders during the planning process. This measure will not be as applicable in other station areas where there is not a bicycle plan in place.

Some stakeholders also suggested using traffic volumes on streets with bike routes as a bicycle access measure. Our recommended measure considers traffic volumes, which are a factor in bicycle level of stress, while also capturing the quality of bicycle facilities, so it will be more sensitive to the bicycle improvements included in the plan. Traffic volumes are a consideration in bicycle level of stress.

When defining a bicycle access measure, we also faced questions about what to use as a buffer distance. We settled on 3 miles because it is generally consistent with FTA and WSDOT guidance. We examined several alternative buffer distances:

• Some sources12 assume that the average length of a bicycle trip is two miles. • According to PSRC’s Regional Travel Study, the average length of a bicycle trip in the greater

Seattle region is 3.7 miles. • According to the National Household Travel Survey, the average length of a utilitarian bicycle

trip is 2.3 miles. • Sound Transit’s Bicycle Policy1 focuses on bicycle improvements within a half-mile of a station.

Though stakeholders requested consistency with Sound Transit’s policies, we believe that this is too small of a buffer given average bicycle trip lengths.

Pedestrian Access Pedestrian access measures examine whether people can safely and conveniently walk to the Lynnwood Transit Center. People who live near the station will be more likely to use transit if they can easily walk to the station. Since everyone is a pedestrian for part of their trip, whether they walk to the station from their parked car, their locked bike, or the nearest bus stop, creating a pedestrian-accessible station will help all Link riders stay safe.

Because pedestrian access touches on so many issues of importance to the LMAP, we have proposed to include two pedestrian access measures:

• Average intersection density within a fifteen-minute walk (about 0.6 miles) of the station: This is a very commonly-used measure to assess the pedestrian environment that captures how directly pedestrians can access their destinations. Research has showed that this measure is closely correlated with how frequently people walk. It captures strategies that reconfigure the

12 For example, see http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/case9.pdf.

July 6, 2016 8 ICF Resources, Fehr & Peers

street grid or build new trails (several of which are included in the LMAP), but it does not capture the many strategies that aim to improve existing streets, so we propose to accompany it with the measure below.

• Percent of blocks within a 15 minute walk of the station that have adequate pedestrian facilities: This measure complements in the intersection density measure by capturing improvements to existing streets. We define “adequate facilities” as either:

o Streets that are included in and meet the designated standards in the Lynnwood City Center Streetscape Plan

o Streets that are not included in the Streetscape Plan, but meet the Plan’s sidewalk width standards for Streetscape Type 2 (12’ sidewalks on both sides) and intersection standards for Prominent Intersections (crosswalks at all intersection crossings).

This measure is consistent with local standards, but may not be as applicable in other station areas that do not have pedestrian standards in place. We will test its applicability to other station areas through our work on the LMAP.

We use a half-mile buffer for all pedestrian measures in order to be consistent with the general practice of defining “walking distance” as a half-mile. Sound Transit’s System Access Issue Paper13 consistently uses a quarter-mile buffer as a basis for assessing the pedestrian environment in station areas. Though stakeholders requested consistency with Sound Transit’s policies, we feel that this is too tight of a buffer, and Sound Transit does note alternative approaches that consider pedestrian facilities within a half-mile.

Other measures considered We considered an alternative measure to capture pedestrian intersection safety, percent of Intersections with safe crossings within one half-mile of the station. This measure would use Fehr and Peers’ XWalk+ tool, which identifies crosswalk treatments based on traffic volumes/speeds and the physical configuration of streets. While this measure looks in more detail at intersection safety, it is more data-intensive, and does not capture sidewalk widths or other important aspects of the pedestrian environment. We chose to omit it to keep the overall number of pedestrian access measures manageable.

We also examined several measures that capture the effects of urban design on pedestrian travel, such as tree coverage or the aesthetic quality of buildings fronting on streets. However, there is not much research linking these design characteristics to pedestrian activity. Furthermore, design measures would require significant effort to analyze without providing much useful information about performance. Collecting baseline data for these measures would be very labor-intensive, since we would need to review aerial or street-view imagery for all blocks in the station area, but we would only be able to guess at future conditions by assuming that any redevelopment would follow the Streetscape Design Standards. Below we include several measures related to design as potential contextual measures.

Transit Access Local transit enables people who live outside of bicycling and walking distance from the transit center to connect to Link without driving. Our recommended measure, number of people, jobs, and college students located within a 15-minute bus ride from the station, reflects the emphasis on both removing

13 http://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/projects/LRPupdate/201410_SystemAccessIssuePaper.pdf.

July 6, 2016 9 ICF Resources, Fehr & Peers

choke points on local bus routes serving the station and increasing the number of people who can access the station via a brief local transit trip. Our choice of a 15-minute transit access shed reflects the emphasis on removing transit delay points near the station. Many transit riders will take longer trips to the station, but focusing on the area within 15 minutes of the station will best capture the impacts of the transit-related strategies.

The 15 minute shed includes time for people to walk to a bus stop and wait for the bus. It accounts for both frequency of service and geographic coverage, so we don’t need to focus only on ‘frequent transit service’ routes. When calculating the number of people served, the model weights the totals based on the number of 5 minute increments that meet the criteria. For example, at the extreme, a bus service with 60 minute headways would only meet the criteria for 1 out of every 12 time periods, so the person count would be factored down by 1/12.

Other measures considered We examined variants on the recommended measure, but they all dealt with similar indicators of transit travel time accessibility to people.

Auto Access Automobile access to transit stations is an important factor influencing ridership, particularly in suburban areas like Lynnwood. However, the Lynnwood Link Station will have a limited number of parking spaces, and WSDOT’s goal is to encourage access by foot bicycle, transit, and carpooling, which drove us to examine measures that provide a more nuanced view of auto access instead of simply assuming that more access is better. Our two recommended measures are:

• Number of intersections within a mile of the station exceeding the city level of service (LOS) standard during the PM peak period. Intersection LOS is a commonly-used measure of vehicle delay in transportation plans and environmental studies. The purpose of using it here is to understand potential impacts of the bicycle and pedestrian strategies on auto drivers in the station area (e.g., roadway narrowing for bike lanes). This measure also captures delay for buses traveling to the station. We anticipate using LOS data from previous planning efforts in our analysis and qualitatively adjusting results based on the projects included in the LMAP; we do not plan to conduct extensive new analysis of traffic performance.

• Number of transit riders arriving by vehicle per station area parking stall. This measure looks at the average occupancy for vehicles parked at the station. Higher results mean that more people are carpooling or ridesharing to the station instead of driving alone.

Other measures considered We considered using number of parking spaces in the station area as an auto access measure. The number of parking spaces provided would have a direct impact on transit ridership; however in Lynnwood the planned number of parking spaces at the station is fixed. Therefore, this measure would have minimal value for the evaluation. Note that parking space availability may be very relevant in other station area studies.

Mode Split If Sound Transit’s ridership projections for the Lynnwood Link Extension are met, it will help to reduce the number of vehicles traveling between Lynnwood and Seattle. Addressing mode split captures this impact. We propose to measure mode split in terms of vehicle trips reduced due to transit, which we will

July 6, 2016 10 ICF Resources, Fehr & Peers

calculate by multiplying Link ridership by the percentage of riders who would otherwise drive along I-5. This measure will capture the impacts of increased Link ridership at the Lynnwood Transit Center well, and is consistent with the corridor-level VMT and emissions measures discussed below.

Other performance measures considered We looked at one alternative measure, percentage of PM peak period trips along I-5 between Lynnwood and Seattle that are made by vehicle/transit. This is a conventional measure of mode split and is consistent with the data presented in WSDOT’s Corridor Capacity analysis. However, since the I-5 corridor carries so much traffic from all over the region, increased Link ridership will likely only have a minor impact on this measure. The recommended measure will better capture the benefits of Link and is more consistent with the emissions measures discussed below.

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) and Criteria Pollutant Emissions By helping shift trips from driving to transit, the LMAP will reduce GHG and criteria pollutant emissions, contributing toward meeting both the state’s climate action goals and regional air quality goals. Measuring the impact of the LMAP on emissions will help WSDOT understand how station area planning strategies compare to other emissions reduction measures. Our recommended measure, GHG and criteria pollutant emissions reduced due to transit, is consistent with the GHG-related measure in WSDOT’s Handbook for Corridor Capacity Evaluation.14 We will measure the following pollutants:

• Greenhouse gases (in terms of carbon dioxide, or CO2) • Carbon monoxide (CO) • Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) • Nitrous oxides (NOx) • Volatile organic compounds (VOC)

We will estimate reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by multiplying the number of vehicle trips due to transit by the average trip length. We will then apply emission factors from Puget Sound Regional Council, which is responsible for analyzing transportation-related emissions in the Seattle region, to convert VMT reduced to emissions reductions. We may update some of the statewide assumptions in WSDOT’s methodology regarding transit trip lengths or the percentage of transit trips that reduce a vehicle trip with regionally-specific data if available.

Potential contextual performance measures Table 2 shows potential contextual performance measures that could be applied in the multimodal accessibility analysis for Lynnwood. These measures capture needs or issues that are not considered ‘baseline’ but are important to consider in the Lynnwood study area. The contextual performance measures are important to help understand tradeoffs that may exist between alternatives and to understand the benefits of an alternative beyond its ability to resolve the baseline needs. The contextual measures will be measured qualitatively during the evaluation process as a check to make sure that community values are being satisfied by the LMAP.

14 http://wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/graynotebook/CCR14_methodology.pdf

July 6, 2016 11 ICF Resources, Fehr & Peers

Performance measure category

Contextual need or issue Possible Measures

• • Safety • High-conflict locations for

bikes/pedestrians/transit near station

• Safety along Scriber Creek and Interurban trails

• Does the strategy reduce the potential for conflicts and crashes in the station area?

• Does the strategy include measures to protect trail users from crime?

Environmental Justice

• Existing Affordable housing development near station

• Viability of existing businesses serving local population

•

• Does the strategy improve access between the station and areas with high concentrations of disadvantaged populations?

• Does the strategy include policies, land uses or programs that support local small businesses ?

• • Social / Community

• Downtown encourages urban living (mix of uses, compact development)

• Does the strategy mix residential, commercial, and retail uses?

Urban Design • Surrounding streets are uncomfortable and uninteresting for walking

• Does the strategy improve visual quality or tree coverage or add amenities such as street furniture and public space?

• • Economic development

• Support for market-rate development

• Does the strategy improve the market for development in the station area?

• Environmental • Impacts to wetlands

• Flood risk due to limited stormwater management (Scriber Creek focus)15

• Does the strategy improve or preserve wetlands?

• Does the strategy include elements to manage runoff?

Implementa-tion

• Ability to leverage WSDOT and other agency resources

•

• Is the strategy funded or supported by multiple agency partners?

•

15 Maximize green stormwater management options (i.e., Low Impact Development and Green Infrastructure) that support existing and provide additional community values and natural resource benefits (e.g., place making, flood reduction, wetland enhancement/restoration, esthetics, outdoor recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, environmental education, etc.)

August 8, 2016 1 ICF Resources, Fehr & Peers

Working Paper #2

Lynnwood Transit Center Multimodal Accessibility Plan: Recommended GHG Performance Measure and Methodology

Introduction WSDOT is currently leading the Lynnwood Transit Center Multimodal Accessibility Plan (LMAP), an effort to improve transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access to the site of a planned Link light rail station. WSDOT received funding through the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP2) to test SHRP2 performance measurement guidance on the LMAP. A key challenge for this project is to assess the impact of the LMAP, which, by making it easier for people to reach transit, will increase the number of Link boardings at the transit center, dislplacing vehicle trips and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. WSDOT anticipates working on more station area planning efforts in the Seattle region and across the state to maximize transit ridership at stations where parking is in short supply and to ensure that all transit riders can safely and conveniently reach stations. Developing robust GHG performance measures for the LMAP will help WSDOT establish a process for comparing GHG reductions from station area planning efforts to more conventional corridor-level or system-level projects, and to offer feedback to SHRP2 based on its findings.

Recommended GHG measure and methodology Based on a review of WSDOT and SHRP guidance, as well as other resources on GHG emissions and performance measurement, we recommend that WSDOT measure the GHG impacts of the LMAP in terms of the emissions avoided due to transit. This measure is used in WSDOT’s annual Corridor Capacity Report (CCR), which presents a variety of performance measures for urban commute corridors.1 We adapted the measure from the CCR, which is focused on analyzing current corridor-level data to the LMAP, where we are estimating the future impact of a station-area plan on corridor-level travel. This measure should be calculated as:

Emissions avoided due to transit = transit ridership * mode shift factor * trip length * emissions factor

Table 1 summarizes the variables used in this equation, including their definition, value (in cases where the value is currently available), and data source.

1 https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Accountability/Congestion/2015.htm

August 8, 2016 2 ICF Resources, Fehr & Peers

Table 1: GHG-related variables, definitions, and data sources

Variable Definition (and value) Data source Notes Transit ridership

Average weekday transit boardings at the Lynnwood Link station

LMAP In a separate memo discussing the broader set of performance measures we will use in this project, we outline how we will estimate transit ridership based on the land uses and transportation network surrounding the station.

Mode shift factor

The ratio of transit passenger miles to displaced private auto miles (0.47)

APTA, Recommended Practice for Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transit2

Section 6.5 of this document summarizes methods to calculate the mode shift factor. Figure 16 presents default factors by transit service area type and population:

• Small (<500k people): 0.34 • Medium (500k-1.25m people): 0.42 • Large (>1.25m people): 0.47 • Large Suburban (>1.25m people): 0.44

We recommend using the default value for large urban areas in the LMAP.

Trip length

Average transit trip length, in miles

Link data If Link data are not available, one alternative would be to use the average transit trip length for the Greater Seattle Region from PSRC’s travel surveys (8.66 miles).

Emissions factor

Light duty vehicle emissions, in pounds CO2 per mile (0.6526 lb/mi.)

PSRC Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality calculator

We will work with PSRC to obtain factors for 2035, which is the year Link service to Lynnwood will begin.

How we developed the recommended measure We arrived at the measure and methodology described above by reviewing guidance from SHRP2 and WSDOT, as well as other resources on performance measurement and GHG emissions, and discussing our findings with WSDOT staff. This section summarizes our process.

We began by reviewing several resources on performance measurement and GHG analysis in order to understand key considerations in selecting GHG performance measures. These included:

• The SHRP2 report Performance Measurement Framework for Highway Capacity Decision Making,3 which outlines a systematic approach for assessing the impacts of capacity-increasing projects on travel, the environment, economics, communities, and costs.

• The SHRP2 report Incorporating Greenhouse Gas Emissions into the Collaborative Decision-Making Process,4 which explores how GHG emissions can be integrated into transportation decision-making.

• WSDOT’s annual Corridor Capacity Report, which evaluates greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other performance measures for urban commute corridors, provides a framework for assessing performance.5

2 http://www.apta.com/resources/hottopics/sustainability/Documents/Quantifying-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-APTA-Recommended-Practices.pdf 3 http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/shrp2_S2-C02-RR.pdf 4 http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/SHRP2_S2-C09-RR-1.pdf 5 https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Accountability/Congestion/2015.htm

August 8, 2016 3 ICF Resources, Fehr & Peers

• FHWA’s A Performance-Based Approach to Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Transportation Planning, which discusses selecting GHG performance measures and applying these measures in performance-based planning.6

• FHWA’s Handbook for Estimating Transportation Greenhouse Gases for Integration into the Planning Process, which describes possible approaches, data sources, and step-by-step procedures for analyzing GHG emissions.7

None of the SHRP2 and FHWA resources identified a specific GHG performance measure tailored to analyzing the impact of station-area access on corridor-level GHG emissions, as we seek to do for the LMAP. However, the Corridor Capacity Report, as well as other state and regional resources from WSDOT and the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC, which is responsible for air quality attainment in the Seattle Region), provide a strong framework for analyzing performance and include several potential GHG emissions measures. The SHRP2 and FHWA resources do identify several factors to consider when selecting measures—including both technical (e.g., scope of emissions, data availability, emissions baseline) and process-based (e.g., supporting goals and policies, stakeholder involvement) considerations—that can provide a basis for choosing and refining one of the WSDOT GHG measures.

SHRP2’s Incorporating Greenhouse Gas Emissions into the Collaborative Decision-Making Process, provides the most comprehensive discussion of GHG-related considerations, outlining 13 key questions across five different analysis steps. We worked with WSDOT staff to answer each of these questions with respect to our work on the LMAP. This exercise helped us define the GHG performance metric to be used in the analysis, as well as how this work could be useful for WSDOT.

Table 2: Answers to questions outlined in SHRP2

Question Answer Step I: Determine information needs What stakeholders should be included in GHG strategy development and evaluation?

WSDOT and its partners have already determined this through the establishment of stakeholder and internal working groups.

What is the scope of GHG emissions analysis? This includes emissions sources, modes, time frame, and geographic boundary.

Emissions sources: Our analysis focuses on tailpipe emissions for consistency with PSRC’s air quality analysis, which focus on tailpipe emissions, and do not account for other sources (fuel-cycle emissions, construction, maintenance, and operations). Modes: The focus of this project is on reducing passenger vehicle travel by increasing transit ridership, so we focus on emissions from private vehicles. WSDOT’s transit-related GHG measures include emissions from transit vehicles, but we are excluding transit emissions in our analysis because the LMAP is not a plan to increase transit service; only to ensure that service that is already planned will be well-utilized. We also elected to only assess emissions from vehicle trips displaced by Link and not to quantify emissions reduction from vehicle trips displaced by bicycle, pedestrian, or transit trips to the station. Parking at the station will be very limited, so there is limited potential for trips by other modes to displace other trips. Time frame: The Corridor Capacity Report focuses on daily (weekday) emissions for consistency with the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which is the source of the baseline ridership assumptions for the LMAP. We can easily convert

6 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/mitigation/publications/ghg_planning/ghg_planning.pdf 7 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/mitigation/publications/ghg_handbook/ghghandbook.pdf

August 8, 2016 4 ICF Resources, Fehr & Peers

Question Answer daily emissions into annual emissions by assuming 250 weekdays per year, consistent with the Corridor Capacity Report. For the initial analysis, we will quantify emissions for 2035, which is the analysis year used in the EIS. Link service to Lynnwood will begin in 2023, but the land use changes in the LMAP will likely not have much impact on travel behavior for the first decade of operation. Geographic boundary: We will not be modeling the detailed transportation impacts of the LMAP, so we will focus on the stretch of Interstate 5 that parallels the Lynnwood Link Extension, assuming that transit trips on Link will displace vehicle trips along I-5.

Step II: Define goals, measures, and resources What goals, objectives, and policies relate to GHG reduction?

Washington State has set a goal to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector, but has not developed specific targets.

What GHG-related evaluation criteria and metrics will be used?

The GHG-related measure in the Corridor Capacity Report that is most relevant to the LMAP is emissions avoided due to transit. Below we discuss some of the considerations that led us to select this measure.

What are the baseline emissions for the region or study area?

There is no baseline emissions inventory for the study corridor. The closest thing to a baseline inventory is the PSRC regional air quality analysis, but it could be challenging to align our emissions reductions estimate with the regional analysis, and the regional-scale impacts will be small. Instead of comparing the emissions to a baseline, we chose a measure that captures the reductions due to the strategy so that WSDOT can compare the impacts to other emission reduction strategies.

What is the goal or target for GHG reduction?

The state of Washington has a target to reduce overall GHG emissions to twenty-five percent below 1990 levels; there is no target that applies more specifically to this project or to the I-5 corridor.

How will GHG considerations affect funding availability and needs?

Findings from this analysis will help inform the selection of a preferred set of strategies based on the amount of GHG reductions. Findings from this analysis may also inform future WSDOT decisions about whether to invest more heavily in station area planning vs. other GHG reduction strategies (e.g., ITS, freight reduction strategies).

Step III: Define range of strategies for consideration What GHG reduction strategies should be considered?

The LMAP includes several strategies aimed at improving bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and carpool access to the Lynnwood Transit Center. Programmatic actions, such as TDM strategies, are also included. The LMAP also emphasizes land use changes (i.e., increased development near the station) to reduce VMT for trips accessing the transit center.

Are strategies and alternatives consistent with a long-range plan and/or other relevant plans that meets GHG reduction objectives?

Yes. The goal of the Lynnwood Multimodal Plan is to support the anticipated levels of ridership at the Lynnwood LINK station, which are assumed in the regional transportation plan.

Step IV: Evaluate GHG benefits and impacts of candidate strategies What calculation methods and data sources will be used to evaluate the GHG impacts of projects and strategies?

This is detailed in the Recommended GHG measure and methodology section above. We have also written a separate working paper that discusses in more detail our approach to analyzing ridership and other contributing performance measures.

What are the emissions and other impacts of a particular project, strategy, or design feature?

We will be quantifying the overall GHG impacts of the LMAP, and qualitatively assessing the impacts of the individual projects and strategies included in the plan on transit ridership. Higher transit ridership is correlated with lower GHG emissions.

Step V: Select strategies and document overall GHG benefits and impacts of alternatives What GHG-reducing strategies should be part of the plan, program, or project?

This is being determined in collaboration with WSDOT and stakeholders as we create the plan.

What are the net emissions impacts for the overall plan, program, corridor, or project alternatives considered and the selected alternative?

This will be determined during the course of the analysis.

August 8, 2016 5 ICF Resources, Fehr & Peers

This exercise led us to focus on the recommended GHG performance measure from the Corridor Capacity Report. We then worked to confirm and refine the assumptions and calculations used in the Corridor Capacity Report Methodology, focusing in particular on the mode shift factor, which represents the ratio of displaced vehicle miles to displaced transit miles. The methodology used a mode shift factor of 0.62 based on data provided by King County Metro, but WSDOT staff were unable to get detailed information on how this factor was derived. We instead elected to use the mode shift factors in the APTA Recommended Practice for Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transit.8 In addition to providing better documentation than for the King County Metro factor, APTA includes mode shift factors for transit agencies serving areas with different population sizes, which will enable WSDOT to apply a consistent, more nuanced approach when working outside of Seattle and other large urban areas. Members of the consultant team have been working with King County Metro to update their mode shift factor, and the updated factor (0.46) is very close to the APTA factor for large urban areas (0.47), which helps to confirm the applicability of the APTA factors.

8 http://www.apta.com/resources/hottopics/sustainability/Documents/Quantifying-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-APTA-Recommended-Practices.pdf

Appendix D

Strategy Ratings

Lynnwood Transit Center Multimodal Accessibility Plan (LMAP) ‐ Potential Strategies

1 1 3 2 <‐‐ WEIGHT

ID Project Source Supports Land Use VisionH = within City Center.M= Adjacent to City Center.L= Outside City Center.

‐Supports Land Use Vision

Improves Access to LTC & Improves RidershipH=  Measureable Change.M= Some Change.L= Minimal Change.

Serves Multiple ModesH=3+ modes.M= 2 modes. L=1 mode.

ConnectednessH= Completes missing link.M= Improves existing facility.L= No Change.

‐Improves Access to LTC & Improves Ridership‐Serves Multiple Modes‐Connectedness

Relative CostH = Lower cost.M = Low‐high cost.L = Higher cost.

Project ReadinessH= Ready to go. City has timeline/funding. M= Some or all design complete. L= Initial planning complete.

Level of ComplexityH= Simple design.M= Design needed but straight forward.L= Complex design, needs multiple entities involved.

‐Relative Cost‐Project Readiness‐Level of Complexity Weighted 

RatingWeighted Rating

LU3

Encourage new development in the City Center to include pedestrian pathways  LMAP H

H H M

H M M

16

B15 Bicycle Wayfinding Signage City/ Bike2Health H L M M H M H 15

A1Poplar Way Extension Bridge (Poplar Way ‐ 33rd Ave W) City M L H H L M M 15

A12 200th St/44th Ave W Improvement ST EIS H L M M M H H 15

B1Scriber Creek Trail Redevelopment (Transit Center to Wilcox Park) City H

H M M

M H H

15

P1Interurban Trail Improvements near Station LMAP H M M M H M H 15

P10200th St Widen Sidewalks (50th Ave W ‐ 44th Ave W) LMAP H

M M M

H M H

15

B348th Ave Sharrow/Bicycle Lane (200th St SW ‐ 194th St SW) Bike2Health H

M L H

H H H

15

A10 200th St/48th Ave W Improvement ST EIS H L M M M H H 15

B6 Bike lockers at SWIFT stops LMAP H

M M L

H M H

15

B16Center to Sound Trail (North Scriber Creek Trail Extension) City L

H M H

M L M

14

P648th Ave Reconstruction (Transit Station ‐ 196th St SW) LMAP H

M M M

L L M

14

P4Mid‐block ‐ New 46th St (200th St SW ‐ 194th St SW) LMAP H

M H H

M L M

13

T1 196th St Widening (I‐5 to 48th) City H M M M L H L 13

A242nd Street (Alderwood Mall Blvd. ‐ 194th St SW) City H M M H L M M 13

A5194th St Extension (40th Ave W ‐ 33rd Ave W) City H

M M H

L M M

13

LU1 Right of Way Preservation Ordinance LMAP H

M H L

H M M

13

LU2

Encourage increased density of residential growth farther west of 44th Ave LMAP H

H H L

H M M

13

P2Traffic Signal Timing for Pedestrian Crossings (Adaptive time‐of‐day) LMAP H

M M M

H L M

13

P3APromenade Connection (198th St/38th Ave W) City H

M M H

M M M

13

P3B Promenade Connection (38th Ave) City H M M H M M M 13

P5 Mid‐block ‐ private streets LMAP H M M M H L M 13

P9Upgrade Sidewalks on Existing City Center Roads to Design Standards LMAP H

M M M

M L M

13

P13198th St Promenade (40th Ave W  ‐ 44th Ave W) City H

M H M

M M M

13

P1544th Ave W Pedestrian Zone (200th ‐ 194th St) 

TOD Technical Advisory Group H

M L M

M L M

13

T2 SWIFT on 196th StCommunity Transit H M H M M M M 13

T5 Transit Signal Priority Routes LMAP H

M L M

H M M

13

A4 40th Ave W Crossing of I‐5 City M L H H L L L 13

B452nd Ave W Bicycle Connection (212th St SW ‐ 208th St SW) Bike2Health L

M L H

H H H

13

ImplementationEconomic Development Accessibility

Lower Rating                                                                Higher Rating

1 1 3 2 <‐‐ WEIGHT

ID Project Source Supports Land Use VisionH = within City Center.M= Adjacent to City Center.L= Outside City Center.

‐Supports Land Use Vision

Improves Access to LTC & Improves RidershipH=  Measureable Change.M= Some Change.L= Minimal Change.

Serves Multiple ModesH=3+ modes.M= 2 modes. L=1 mode.

ConnectednessH= Completes missing link.M= Improves existing facility.L= No Change.

‐Improves Access to LTC & Improves Ridership‐Serves Multiple Modes‐Connectedness

Relative CostH = Lower cost.M = Low‐high cost.L = Higher cost.

Project ReadinessH= Ready to go. City has timeline/funding. M= Some or all design complete. L= Initial planning complete.

Level of ComplexityH= Simple design.M= Design needed but straight forward.L= Complex design, needs multiple entities involved.

‐Relative Cost‐Project Readiness‐Level of Complexity Weighted 

RatingWeighted Rating

ImplementationEconomic Development Accessibility

B8200th St Bicycle Facility (SR 99 ‐ 64th Ave W)  Bike2Health L

H L H

H H H

13

B9Bicycle Facility on 212th St SW/Bowdoin (61st Pl ‐ 9th Ave S) Bike2Health L L L H H H H 13

B10

Bicycle Facility ‐ 9th Ave S (220th‐Dayton), Dayton St  (9th Ave ‐ Ferry Terminal) Bike2Health L

L L H

H H H

13

B11

Bicycle Facility ‐ 76th Ave W/80th St SW (Olympic View Drive to 220th ST SW) Bike2Health L

L L H

H H H

13

B12Bicycle Facility ‐ 80th St SW/228th St SW Bike2Health L L L H H H H 13

B13Bicycle Facility ‐ 56th Ave W  (236th St ‐ 220th St), 220th St Bike2Health L

L L H

H H H

13

T4 196th St SWIFT reroute to LTC LMAP H

H M M

H L M

13

HOV1Travel Demand Management to encourage carpool

ST/Community Outreach H

H L L

H M M

13

HOV2 Integrate ride share services  LMAP H H M L H L M 13

A9 200th St/50th Ave W Improvement ST EIS L L H M H H H 13

O1 Park‐and‐Ride Mobile App LMAP H

M M L

H L M

13

A6 Traffic Signal ‐ 194th/48th Ave City H L M M H L H 13

T6 Expand Customer Service at LTCCommunity Transit H L M L H M M 13

P8 44th Ave/I‐5 Underpass

City/Community outreach M

M M H

M H M

12

A7 Traffic Signal ‐ 194th/36th Ave City M L M M H L H 12

B7

Interurban Trail Connection Improvement at 195th Pl SW Cul‐de‐sac LMAP M

L M M

H L M

12

B2144th Ave W Bicycle Facility W (204th St SW ‐ 212th St SW) LMAP M

M M H

M L M

12

B1736th Ave W (196th St SW – 184th Pl SW)  City M L L H M M M 12

B5 Bike Share Stations LMAP H M H L L L M 11

P14

Poplar Way Non‐motorized Improvements (196th St SW ‐ 204th St SW)  L

L M H

M L M

11

B20At‐grade crossing on Cedar Valley Rd/201st Pl & 201st Pl Greenway LMAP L

M M H

H L H

11

P11196th St Sidewalk Upgrade (SR 99 to 48th Ave W) City‐Comp Plan L L M M M L M 11

B18 Larch Way / 204th St SW City L

L L H

M L M 11

A11 204th St/52nd Ave W Improvement City L L M M H M M 11

B19204th St Facility (44th Ave ‐ Poplar Way) LMAP L H L M H L M 11

A8 44th Ave/I‐5 Interchange WSDOT M L L H L L L 10

Lower Rating                                                                Higher Rating

improving communit ies s ince 1985