CENTRAL AND EAST CORRIDORS

HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT STUDY CENTRAL AND EAST CORRIDORS SEPTEMBER 2014 CORRIDOR REPORT: KIRKLAND-BELLEVUE-ISSAQUAH

HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR STUDY Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor Sound Transit Central/East High-Capacity Transit Corridor Study Corridor Report: Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah

CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS... v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... ES-1 1 INTRODUCTION... 1 2 PROBLEM STATEMENT... 1 3 BACKGROUND... 3 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... 4 3.1.5 Transportation 2040... 5 3.1.6 East Link Final EIS... 5 3.1.7 City of Kirkland s Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element... 5 3.1.8 Cross Kirkland Corridor Master Plan... 6 3.1.9 City of Bellevue s Transit Plan... 6 3.1.10 Eastgate/I-90 Land Use and Transportation Study... 6 3.1.11 Central Issaquah Plan... 6 3.1.12 I-90 Corridor Study: Bellevue to North Bend... 6 3.1.13 I-90 Tolling Project EIS... 7 3.1.14 I-405 Corridor Master Plan... 7 3.2 Travel Markets... 7 3.2.1 City of Kirkland Travel Markets... 8 3.2.2 West Bellevue/Downtown Bellevue Travel Markets... 9 3.3 City of Issaquah Travel Markets... 10 4 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES... 11 5 INITIAL SCREENING EVALUATION... 12 6 LEVEL 1 EVALUATION... 13 7 LEVEL 2 EVALUATION... 20 7.1 Description of Alternatives... 21 7.1.1 A Alternatives: via Downtown Bellevue... 23 7.1.2 B Alternatives: via South Bellevue and Downtown Bellevue... 23 7.1.3 C Alternatives: via Wilburton... 24 7.1.4 Extensions to Issaquah Highlands... 25 7.2 Level 2 Evaluation Key Findings by Performance Measure... 25 7.2.1 Travel Time... 25 7.2.2 Ridership... 26 Corridor Report: Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor iii

7.2.3 Natural Environment... 26 7.2.4 Built Environment... 28 7.2.5 Station Area Assessment... 28 7.2.6 Transit Access... 29 7.2.7 Capital Costs and Construction Challenges... 30 7.2.8 Cost-Effectiveness... 30 8 RISKS AND UNKNOWNS... 31 9 CONCLUSION... 33 10 REFERENCES... 33 Tables 1 Future Travel Markets for Trips To and From the City Of Kirkland... 8 2 Future Travel Markets for Trips To and From Bellevue... 9 3 Future Travel Markets for Trips To and From Issaquah... 10 4 Goals and Screening Questions... 12 5 Screening Results Kirkland, Bellevue, Issaquah Corridor... 16 Exhibits ES-1 Level 2 Evaluation Alternatives... 3 ES-2 Evaluation Summary for Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor Alternatives... 1 1 Sound Transit HCT Studies... 2 2 Alternative Concepts (1 of 2, Bellevue to Kirkland)... 14 3 Alternative Concepts (2 of 2, Issaquah to Bellevue)... 15 4 Level 1 Evaluation Alternatives... 18 5 Level 2 Evaluation Alternatives... 22 6 Level 2 Evaluation Results... 27 iv Corridor Report: Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Sound Transit Central/East High-Capacity Transit Corridor Study BRT bus rapid transit Central/East HCT Corridor Study Central/East High-Capacity Transit (HCT) Corridor Study CTR Commute Trip Reduction EIS environmental impact statement ETL express toll lane FTA Federal Transit Administration HCT high-capacity transit HOT high-occupancy and toll HOV high-occupancy vehicle I-405 Interstate 405 I-5 Interstate 5 I-90 Interstate 90 LRT light rail transit O&M operations and maintenance PSRC Puget Sound Regional Council ROD Record of Decision Sea-Tac Airport Seattle-Tacoma International Airport SR State Route TOD transit-oriented development WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation Corridor Report: Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah 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 Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah 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 where HCT is identified to move forward. Kirkland, Bellevue, and Issaquah are major population centers on the Eastside. Currently transit connections from Kirkland to Issaquah are made at the Bellevue Transit Center. Sound Transit s East Link Extension, will connect Downtown Seattle with Bellevue, Overlake, and Redmond. Future HCT investments in the Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor could provide transit connections between existing travel markets that are reliable despite future congestion on the major freeways of Interstate 405 (I-405) and Interstate 90 (I-90). 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 Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor. The 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 developing a long list of corridor options (15) to be considered by Sound Transit. Each corridor option connected Kirkland-Bellevue- Issaquah 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 15 options against the project s purpose statement to discern which options best meet the transit needs in the corridor. A total of nine representative alternatives Corridor Report: Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor ES-1

were advanced into the Level 1 Evaluation following a workshop in October 2013. For the Level 1 Evaluation, the nine alternatives were compared against one another in relation to 15 identified performance measures, all related to Sound Transit s Long-Range Plan goals. More detailed information about the Level 1 Evaluation is available in the Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Level 1 Evaluation Report (Sound Transit, 2014). Another workshop held in January 2014 advanced six representative alternatives and two design options 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 Evaluation 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 Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Level 2 Evaluation Report (Sound Transit, 2014). ES-2 Corridor Report: Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor

Exhibit ES-1: Level 2 Evaluation Alternatives Corridor Report: Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor ES-3

Exhibit ES-2: Evaluation Summary for Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor Alternatives ES-4 Corridor Report: Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor

Travel Market Potential: Ridership in the Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor ranged between 6,000 and 7,000 riders per day for the lowest-performing alternative to 9,000 to 11,000 riders per day for the highest-performing alternative. Ridership was influenced by total travel time and transit service connections. Generally, ridership was highest for alternatives that remained in exclusive or semi-exclusive right-of-way, which allowed transit vehicles to travel at higher speeds and be more reliable than alternatives operating in mixed traffic. However, notably one bus rapid transit (BRT) alternative (Alternative B1) that operated partially in semi-exclusive right-of-way and partially in mixed traffic had comparable projected ridership as the light rail transit (LRT) alternatives operating in fully exclusive right-of-way, because it provided the most direct connection with the East Link system at the South Bellevue Park-and-Ride. Because the highest travel market from Issaquah is Downtown Seattle, these findings show that the more direct link to light rail connecting with downtown provided high benefits. Both BRT and LRT extensions to the Issaquah Highlands could add up to 2,000 more riders per day to any of the alternatives to which they are connected. Reliability: The LRT alternatives achieve the highest level of reliability due to the provision of an exclusive guideway for operations. Alternative C2 would operate in a mix of exclusive busway and managed lanes and achieves the highest reliability among BRT alternatives, while other BRT options that include mixed traffic operations would experience comparatively greater travel time variability. Environmental Effects: Alternative A2a runs almost exclusively on existing freeway infrastructure and would have the fewest environmental effects. Alternatives B1 and B2 also have few environmental effects as they travel in existing right-of-way. Alternatives that require new exclusive guideways, especially those that travel along Richards Road near sensitive wetlands, are anticipated to have greater potential environmental effects. Existing Transportation System: Based on the amount of travel in mixed traffic, the BRT alternatives on I-90 and Bellevue Way score the lowest, while the LRT and BRT alternatives east of I-405 that are all in their own right-of-way and would have little or no effect on traffic operations. Alternatives C1 and C3 would restrict right-in/right-out access along some arterials (Richards Road and Lake Hills Connector) due to medianrunning LRT guideways. Development Potential: Among possible station areas along the corridor, Downtown Bellevue and Totem Lake exhibit the highest development potential based on the amount and location of land readily available for development, as well as the prevalence of zoning that is conducive to transit-oriented development. Alternative B2 serves both locations and is the highest performing alternative by this measure, along with the LRT extension to Issaquah Highlands (Alternative A1a), which also scores high in development potential. Regional Connectivity: Alternatives A2a, B1, and B2 all score the highest in regional connectivity due to providing direct service to Bellevue Transit Center, a major East King Corridor Report: Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor ES-5

County activity node. Alternatives that required a transfer to provide a connection to the Bellevue Transit Center generally scored lower. These alternatives also serve major transit centers and/or park-and-rides at Eastgate, Issaquah, and Totem Lake (or Kingsgate). Preliminary Design Cost Estimate: Conceptual capital costs vary substantially across alternatives and are based on two main factors: construction costs and right-of-way acquisition. LRT construction costs are higher than BRT costs; tunnels are most expensive to construct, followed by elevated guideway, then at-grade. The right-of-way costs for the C alternatives are more than five times more than those for the A and B alternatives, reflecting the added cost of needed right-of-way for exclusive guideways compared with the BRT alternatives that rely on the existing and planned managed lanes on I-90 and I-405. Complexity: Alternatives that run primarily in existing right-of-way would be the least complex to construct. Constructing LRT in I-90 right-of-way would require construction staging and traffic control, especially near the I-90 and Front Street/East Lake Sammamish Parkway interchange where the guideway would cross over I-90 on structure to reach the north side of I-90, while surface LRT and BRT alternatives along Richards Road would have traffic effects during construction. All of the alternatives that use the Eastside Rail Corridor have the risk of possible effects to a major King County sewer line. In addition, station construction at the East Link Hospital Station may be difficult due to constrained right-of-way and could affect Lake Bellevue and the surrounding groundwater levels. Cost Effectiveness: Given the anticipated level of demand and prevailing density and land uses along the corridor, BRT along the Eastside Rail Corridor and Bellevue Way SE (Alternative B1) may provide an improved level of service at substantially lower cost. In general, BRT alternatives are more cost-effective as compared with LRT alternatives due to generally lower annualized costs, because the higher capital costs for LRT alternatives are only offset slightly by the lower annual operations and maintenance costs for LRT versus BRT. Overall, the main differentiators within the Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor were reliability (LRT alternatives were more reliable than the BRT alternatives that operate in mixed traffic), environmental effects (those alternatives on Richards Road are located near sensitive wetlands and are anticipated have greater potential environmental effects), and cost (LRT alternatives had higher construction costs than BRT alternatives). BRT serving the South Bellevue Park-and- Ride served as many daily riders as the LRT alternatives, and all alternatives performed fairly well in terms of development potential. BRT serving the South Bellevue Park-and-Ride, plus the extension to Issaquah Highlands, performed best in relation to cost-effectiveness because it achieved higher ridership numbers at a lower capital cost than LRT alternatives. ES-6 Corridor Report: Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor

1 INTRODUCTION The Central/East High-Capacity Transit (HCT) Corridor Study (Central/East 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 Corridor 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 Ballard-University District Eastside Rail Corridor I-405 Bus Rapid Transit Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah This report summarizes the process used to identify and evaluate HCT system improvements specifically for the Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor and key findings from that evaluation. This Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor Report evaluates conceptual alternatives with the potential to improve regional transit connections between Issaquah and Kirkland. The analysis is built on very early conceptual design concepts and planning-level cost estimates. 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 and Downtown to West Seattle), to the north (Lynnwood to Everett), and to the south (Burien, SeaTac, Tukwila and Renton, and Federal Way to Tacoma). The study results will help inform the ST Board as they work to update the agency s Long-Range Plan and as they make future decisions regarding mode, alternative, and implementation of HCT. 2 PROBLEM STATEMENT Kirkland, Bellevue, and Issaquah are major population centers on the Eastside with existing express bus service. Neither Kirkland nor Issaquah has planned HCT connections to the major employment destinations of Bellevue and Seattle. Sound Transit s East Link, a future light rail extension, will connect Downtown Seattle with Bellevue and Redmond. Future HCT investments in the Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor could provide transit connections between existing travel markets that are reliable despite future congestion on the major freeways of I-405 and I- 90. Information central to HCT investments in this corridor is as follows: Corridor Report: Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor 1

Exhibit 1. Sound Transit HCT Studies 2 Corridor Report: Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor

Sound Transit Central/East High Capacity Transit Corridor Study According to the 2010 U.S. Census, over 200,000 people lived in Kirkland, Bellevue, and Issaquah (total) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Employment in the area is also high. The City of Bellevue is reported to have more people working in the city (approximately 140,000) than living in it. Travel data from Washington State Department of Transportation s (WSDOT s) Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) survey (2012), Puget Sound Regional Council s (PSRC s) Travel Demand Forecast Model (2010), and Sound Transit s Ridership Forecasting Model (2013), all provide strong evidence that commuters are traveling within the corridor (for example, from Issaquah to Bellevue) and beyond. Specifically, the largest Issaquah travel markets are between Seattle (70 percent), Bellevue (15 percent), and Redmond (5 percent). Kirkland s largest travel markets are Seattle (35 percent), Bellevue (20 percent), Redmond (10 percent), and south Snohomish County (10 percent). Three highways I 90, I 405, and SR 520 connect these main travel markets. Major regional bus routes connecting the main travel markets use these highways, such as Sound Transit s Route 556, which connects Issaquah to Downtown Bellevue and the University District community. Arterial connections between Issaquah, Bellevue, and Kirkland are capacity constrained. Transit ridership from Issaquah is expected to increase by almost 70 percent by 2035, putting further strain on key transit routes that currently serve transit centers and park and rides that are full today. I 90, I 405, and SR 520 are experiencing congestion in existing peak period traffic. In 2023, East Link will provide reliable transit travel times between Overlake/Redmond, Bellevue, and Seattle. Even with future planned improvements on these highways, as well as the arterial connections, these highways will remain congested during the peak periods. As a result, without further investments in transportation infrastructure, not only will automobile speeds decrease, but also bus speeds serving the corridor s employment and population areas will decrease and reliability will be negatively affected. HCT in the corridor could provide more reliable transit connections between the Puget Sound region s major population and employment centers. I 405 bus rapid transit (BRT), which is currently being studied as part of this Central/East HCT Corridor Study, could connect Kirkland with Bellevue and other areas along I 405, but it would not serve Kirkland s other travel markets. A new Kirkland Bellevue Issaquah HCT corridor service could link these areas together and, if connected to East Link, expand the corridor s markets to also serve Redmond and Seattle. 3 BACKGROUND This section summarizes the previous analysis completed for the Kirkland Bellevue Issaquah Corridor and the baseline condition assessment, including highlights from the corridor s travel market assessment. Corridor Report: Kirkland Bellevue Issaquah Corridor 3

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 Long Range Vision (Sound Transit, 1996b) for transit improvements in the Puget Sound area. In May 1996, the Sound Transit Board approved both Sound Move and the Long Range Vision. 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. For the Eastside, Sound Move included Sound Transit Express bus service, transit centers, park-and-ride facilities, and high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) direct access ramps. 3.1.2 Sound Transit Long Range Plan The Sound Transit Board adopted an updated long-range plan, known as the Regional Transit Long-Range Plan (Sound Transit, 2005), in July 2005. This plan represents Sound Transit s goals, policies, and strategies to guide the long-term development of the HCT system. It guides 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 a potential rail corridor between Kirkland and Issaquah, via Bellevue. 3.1.3 Sound Transit 2 Plan Sound Transit s Sound Transit 2 Plan (Sound Transit, 2008) is a package of transportation improvements that extends the regional transit network. The Sound Transit 2 Plan was approved by voters in November 2008. It includes funding for planning studies to evaluate potential future high capacity transit expansion. The corridor between Kirkland and Issaquah via Bellevue was identified and funded for study. 3.1.4 Vision 2040 Vision 2040 (PSRC, 2009) is PSRC s long-range growth management, environmental, economic, and transportation strategy adopted in 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 into types of places defined as regional geographies, with different shares of population and employment growth. Bellevue is established as a regionally significant metropolitan city that is expected to absorb the greatest amount of population and employment growth by 2040; Bellevue also includes a regional growth center, Downtown Bellevue, which is a focal point for accommodating population and employment growth. Kirkland is classified as a core city that serves as a major employment and transportation hub within King County and includes a regional growth center at Totem Lake. Issaquah is defined as a larger city with local and regional transportation significance that is expected to develop more important subregional mixed-use centers over time. Issaquah is currently in the process of becoming a regional growth center. 4 Corridor Report: Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor

3.1.5 Transportation 2040 Transportation 2040 (PSRC, 2010) 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. Transportation 2040 considers different types of 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 include tolling, targeted roadway expansion, transit service improvements, carpool programs, HOV lanes, and bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Transportation 2040 considers future HCT along I-405 and I-90 corridors encompassing Kirkland, Bellevue, and Issaquah. 3.1.6 East Link Final EIS East Link Extension, scheduled to open in 2023, will expand light rail service from Downtown Seattle to the Eastside with stations in Mercer Island, South Bellevue, Downtown Bellevue, Bel- Red, and the Overlake area in Redmond. The Record of Decision (ROD) for East Link (Federal Transit Administration [FTA], 2011) approved the eventual full build-out of the Preferred Alternative, which includes a connection into Downtown Redmond. However, as the voterapproved ST2 does not provide funding for constructing the portion of East Link in Redmond (Segment E), Sound Transit has deferred building Segment E until funding is secured. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS; Sound Transit, 2011) examined project route and station alternatives and identified environmental effects of building and operating a light rail line between Downtown Seattle and Downtown Redmond. All route alternatives considered in the Final EIS, including the Preferred Alternative identified by Sound Transit, allow for future HCT between Issaquah, Bellevue, and Kirkland in accordance with the Sound Transit long-range plan (see page 6-3 of Final EIS). The Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor would provide connections to the East Link light rail extension. 3.1.7 City of Kirkland s Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element The City of Kirkland s comprehensive plan transportation element 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 (City of Kirkland, 1995). 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 supported 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 128th Street in part because it has a location adjacent to the Totem Lake Greenway Station and the Kingsgate Park-and-Ride. Corridor Report: Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor 5

3.1.8 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. As of July 2014 construction on an interim trail using crushed gravel has begun, and is expected to be complete by the end of 2014. 3.1.9 City of Bellevue s Transit Plan Bellevue s transit plan (City of Bellevue, 2003) recommends improved public transit service to and within Bellevue, the capital improvements to support the recommended transit services, and a review of and recommendations concerning the transit-supportive policies in the City's comprehensive plan. 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 the recommended plan. These transit hubs provide "anchors" for the system of improvements recommended in the plan. 3.1.10 Eastgate/I-90 Land Use and Transportation Study The City of Bellevue s Eastgate/I-90 land use and transportation study was adopted in 2012 (City of Bellevue, 2012), and it evaluates land use and transportation conditions, policies, and regulations in the Eastgate/I-90 commercial corridor. The study is intended to guide growth and improve economic vitality and character along the city s I-90 corridor over the next 20 years. Key to the study s vision is establishing higher density, mixed-use development at I-90/142nd Avenue NE to form a transit-oriented, high-activity hub with enhanced pedestrian connectivity between the area and Bellevue College. This study describes a proposed vision for the area, with a potential station location identified for future HCT along I-90. 3.1.11 Central Issaquah Plan The Central Issaquah plan adopted by the City of Issaquah in 2013 is a guiding document for transitioning the area immediately adjacent to I-90 from a collection of suburban strip malls and office parks into a pedestrian-oriented urban area with a diverse mix of uses. Significant housing and employment population increases over the next 20 years will likely spur future redevelopment because most anticipated growth is expected to be directed to Central Issaquah. Issaquah is currently in the process of becoming a regional growth center. 3.1.12 I-90 Corridor Study: Bellevue to North Bend In 2012, WSDOT completed the I-90 Corridor Study (WSDOT, 2012), which prioritizes system preservation, maintenance, safety, and mobility improvements necessary to meet existing and future transportation needs along the 26-mile corridor within the next 20 years. The study advanced 12 improvement projects for further consideration that combine transportation 6 Corridor Report: Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor

demand management programs with targeted capacity expansion projects where considered prudent. The study assumed that right-of-way would be preserved along the freeway for possible future HCT expansion, as long as transit infrastructure does not preclude future WSDOT corridor improvements. 3.1.13 I-90 Tolling Project EIS WSDOT is preparing an EIS for the I-90 Tolling Project EIS that will consider the effects of introducing tolls to the I-90 corridor between Interstate 5 (I-5) in Seattle and I-405 in Bellevue, subject to approval by the Federal Highway Administration and authorization by the State Legislature. Tolling is anticipated to help manage travel demand along the congested Cross- Lake Washington Corridor and raise revenue for the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program. 3.1.14 I-405 Corridor Master Plan BRT planning studies were carried out during the late 1990s and early 2000s in WSDOT s I-405 Corridor Program, which established the transportation master plan in the I-405 corridor from I-5 in Lynnwood to the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac Airport). This project was officially named the Interstate 405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit Projects and was created to improve all transportation modes in the corridor. As part of a 20+ year vision of multi-modal improvements to the freeway, transit systems, and arterials along the I-405 corridor, the I-405 Corridor Program recommended a suite of improvements, including up to two new general purpose lanes in each direction of I-405, a corridor-wide BRT line with all-day service and 10-minute headways, and increased local transit service (WSDOT, 2002). The program also aimed to reduce traffic congestion on the freeway by improving key local arterials, providing new BRT service, expanding transit centers, and adding over 5,000 park-andride spaces. Bus travel in the master plan envisioned use of HOV lanes, direct access ramps, and off-vehicle fare collection. The Master Plan was to be funded incrementally. 3.2 Travel Markets The travel market and current transit ridership information is based on output from the Sound Transit Ridership Forecasting Model (Sound Transit, 2013), WSDOT s Commute Trip Reduction CTR survey (WSDOT, 2012) and regional travel pattern data collected via cellular telephone data (AirSage, 2013). The CTR survey data are limited to individuals who work for large employers (more than 100 employees), but they are helpful in understanding the market potential for employment centers. The share of total daily trips was collected via cellular telephone data collection techniques and was compared with PSRC s travel demand model and household survey to cross-check the reasonableness of the data. As users traverse the region, their cellular telephones are constantly connecting with cellular telephone towers to establish their locations. These connections can be tied to specific cellular telephone towers and provide a data point for a location of the cellular telephone 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. Corridor Report: Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor 7

3.2.1 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 Travel Demand Forecast Model for 2035 (PSRC, 2010). Seattle and Bellevue each represent more than 50 percent of the total transit market for Kirkland, with the next largest market being Redmond and far eastern King County each more than 10 percent. When all person trips are considered, the largest travel markets are similar, but the share of trips to Seattle tends to be lower than the overall transit demand. 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% Redmond (Overlake) 50 2% 200 1% 2,800 3% East Issaquah 40 1% 200 1% 600 1% Kirkland, Bothell, Woodinville and Kenmore 580 21% 5,200 23% 46,400 46% East Bellevue 300 11% 1,400 6% 9,600 10% Central West Bellevue and Mercer Island Seattle Central Business District Ballard, Fremont, and Wallingford 490 18% 800 4% 9,000 9% 220 8% 600 3% 4,400 4% 70 3% 400 2% 800 1% University District 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% 8 Corridor Report: Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor

3.2.2 West Bellevue/Downtown Bellevue Travel Markets Table 2 shows the distribution of total daily trips and transit trips for the city of Bellevue west of I-405 (including Mercer Island) as forecasted by the PSRC Travel Demand Forecast Model for 2035 (PSRC, 2010). The largest travel markets for transit users for this market are Seattle (41 percent), East Bellevue (15 percent), Issaquah (7 percent), and Renton (6 percent). When all person trips are considered, the largest travel markets are East Bellevue (18 percent), Seattle (10 percent), Kirkland/Bothell/Woodinville (6 percent), and Snohomish County (5 percent). Far eastern King County also makes up approximately 7 percent of the total daily person trips going to and from West Bellevue. The transit markets are much more heavily concentrated on Seattle and other well-served transit markets, while the daily person trips are more dispersed throughout the Eastside. The strong travel market between Bellevue and Issaquah shows up in the total daily trips but much less in daily transit trips. Considering either the commute trips or total daily person trips, the largest travel markets are Seattle, East Bellevue, and several other communities including Kirkland, Issaquah, Redmond, Renton, and East King County. Table 2. Future Travel Markets for Trips to and from Bellevue Transit Trips Commute Trips Total Daily Trips Major Market by Districts Daily Trips Share Daily Trips Share Daily Trips Share North North Snohomish County 390 2% 2,000 2% 2,800 1% South Snohomish County 940 5% 9,800 10% 11,200 4% Burien 290 2% 800 1% 600 0% Tukwila and Renton 1,180 6% 9,200 9% 9,800 4% South SeaTac and Des Moines 420 2% 1,000 1% 1,200 0% Federal Way 150 1% 800 1% 600 0% Kent 320 2% 1,800 2% 1,400 1% Far East King County 770 4% 9,800 10% 17,600 7% Redmond (Downtown) 180 1% 800 1% 3,200 1% Redmond (Overlake) 130 1% 1,000 1% 5,400 2% East Issaquah 890 5% 1,000 1% 2,400 1% Kirkland, Bothell, Woodinville and Kenmore 1,360 7% 8,600 9% 16,000 6% East Bellevue 2,880 15% 14,000 14% 45,800 18% West Bellevue and Mercer Island 960 5% 13,400 14% 104,800 42% Corridor Report: Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor 9

Table 2. Future Travel Markets for Trips to and from Bellevue Transit Trips Commute Trips Total Daily Trips Major Market by Districts Seattle Central Business District Daily Trips Share Daily Trips Share Daily Trips Share 1,690 9% 5,200 5% 10,600 4% Central Ballard, Fremont, and Wallingford 1,340 7% 3000 3% 2,400 1% University District 690 4% 1,000 1% 1,600 1% Rest of Seattle 3,970 21% 10,200 11% 7,800 3% Region Pierce County 230 1% 3,000 3% 3,400 1% Rest of Region 120 1% 600 1% 600 0% 3.3 City of Issaquah Travel Markets Total 18,900 100% 97,000 100% 249,200 100% Table 3 shows the distribution of total daily trips and transit trips for the city of Issaquah travel market as forecasted by the PSRC Travel Demand Forecast Model for 2035 (PSRC, 2010). As shown in Table 3, the largest travel markets in 2035 for transit users for the Issaquah market are the city of Seattle (70 percent), Bellevue (15 percent), and Redmond (2 percent). These same trends are evident in the 2013 CTR data. The single largest market for Issaquah transit trips is the Seattle Central Business District. The commute trip demand shown in the CTR survey data shows strong demand for travel between Seattle, Bellevue, and Issaquah as well but also highlights the strength of high-tech employment in the city of Redmond. According to existing CTR data, the city of Redmond is the largest travel market for commute trips from Issaquah at 16 percent. By 2035, this is forecasted to switch to a more focused employment growth in the surrounding communities on the east side of Redmond and Issaquah including Sammamish. Table 3. Future Travel Markets for Trips to and from Issaquah Transit Trips Commute Trips Total Daily Trips Major Market by Districts Daily Trips Share Daily Trips Share Daily Trips Share North North Snohomish County 20 0% 600 1% 1,200 1% South Snohomish County 30 0% 2,600 6% 2,800 2% Burien 20 0% 400 1% 400 0% Tukwila and Renton 120 1% 4,000 9% 6,000 3% South SeaTac and Des Moines 130 2% 200 0% 800 0% Federal Way 20 0% 400 1% 400 0% Kent 30 0% 2000 4% 1,800 1% 10 Corridor Report: Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor

Table 3. Future Travel Markets for Trips to and from Issaquah Transit Trips Commute Trips Total Daily Trips Major Market by Districts Daily Trips Share Daily Trips Share Daily Trips Share Far East King County 320 4% 20,800 46% 60,600 35% Redmond (Downtown) 40 0% 200 0% 1,200 1% Redmond (Overlake) 210 2% 200 0% 1,800 1% East Issaquah 70 1% 4,000 9% 62,800 37% Kirkland, Bothell, Woodinville and Kenmore 90 1% 1,000 2% 1,800 1% East Bellevue 440 5% 2,600 6% 13,400 8% Central West Bellevue and Mercer Island Seattle Central Business District Ballard, Fremont, and Wallingford 960 11% 1,200 3% 5,800 3% 3,410 40% 1,000 2% 5,400 3% 420 5% 200 0% 600 0% University District 360 4% 0 0% 400 0% Rest of Seattle 1,730 20% 1,400 3% 1,800 1% Region Pierce County 60 1% 2,200 5% 2,800 2% Rest of Region 20 0% 0 0% 200 0% Total 8,500 100% 45,000 100% 172,000 100% When all person trips are considered, the largest travel markets are the Bellevue, eastern King County, Seattle, Redmond, and Kirkland. The lower share of person trips to Seattle is reflective of the shorter travel distance of nonwork trips. The eastern King County market is noted as Issaquah is a capture area for commuters driving from points east of Issaaquah (that is, Sammamish, Snoqualmie, and North Bend) and transferring to transit to complete their trip to areas such as Bellevue or downtown Seattle. 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 accomplish the following: Provide a transportation system that facilitates long-term mobility Corridor Report: Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor 11

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 remove alternatives that did not 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 (TOD) potential and environmental effects. 5 INITIAL SCREENING EVALUATION A range of alternative and mode options for the Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor were identified. I-90 and several north-south arterials were initially identified, along with two mode options: bus rapid transit (BRT) and light rail transit (LRT). Each concept strove for exclusive or semi-exclusive right-of-way where feasible and included at-grade, or elevated elements to address topographic or other engineering-related constraints. 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 would not meet the objective of each screening question, it was not 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 high capacity transit 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 to known designated critically sensitive environmental and/or parks or 4(f) resources where another prudent and feasible alternative has been identified? [NOTE: This would be limited to known parks that are 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: Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah 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 to the natural environment and/or the built environment? Screening was conducted in October 2013. The objectives of this process were to: (1) review the corridor and mode options being screened and (2) identify the alternatives and modes to advance into the Level 1 Evaluation process. Exhibits 2 and 3 illustrate the alternative concepts developed for the screen. Table 5 summarizes the results. 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) 6 LEVEL 1 EVALUATION The Level 1 Evaluation refined the alternatives that were advanced based on the Initial Screening results. These corridors provided 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) Corridor Report: Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor 13

Exhibit 2: Alternative Concepts (1 of 2, Bellevue to Kirkland) 14 Corridor Report: Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor

Exhibit 3: Alternative Concepts (2 of 2, Issaquah to Bellevue) Corridor Report: Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor 15

Table 5 Screening Results Kirkland, Bellevue, Issaquah Corridor Option No. Alternative/Mode Advanced for Further Evaluation? A-1 148th Avenue SE/BRT A-2 148th Avenue SE/LRT No, based on Screening Questions 1 and 7. This alternative would run mostly on arterials and it would be difficult to provide HCT service. No, based on Screening Questions 1 and 7. This alternative would run mostly on arterials and it would be difficult to provide HCT service. A-3 Richards Road/LRT Yes, and Richards Road/BRT was also advanced. A-4 I-405 connection/brt A-5 East of I-405/LRT Yes and two levels of BRT (medium and high) were suggested for evaluation in Level 1. Yes but a modification to connect into downtown Bellevue was also advanced. A-6 A-7 Through Downtown Bellevue Option 1/BRT Through Downtown Bellevue Option 2/BRT Yes No, based on Screening Questions 1 and 7. This alternative would run mostly on arterials and it would be difficult to provide HCT service. A-8 South Bellevue Station/LRT No, based on Screening Questions 2, 7, and 8. Construction of LRT on an elevated structure through Mercer Slough would entail environmental, permitting and engineering issues. B-1 To Issaquah Highlands/BRT Yes B-2 To Issaquah Highlands/LRT Yes B-3 B-4 BRT Connection to Central Issaquah LRT From Central Issaquah/LRT Yes Yes B-5 I-90/BRT Yes B-6 I-90/LRT Yes B-7 Newport Way/BRT No, based on Screening Questions 3 and 7. A representative alternative on I-90 was identified as this would have less environmental impacts and faster travel time. Six alternatives were considered in the Level 1 Evaluation, as well as three design options. These are described below: Alternative A1: LRT via I 90 to East Link (East Main Station area) to Eastside Rail Corridor Design Option a: LRT Extension from Issaquah Transit Center to Issaquah Highlands Alternative A2: BRT in Exclusive Busway 16 Corridor Report: Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor

Design Option a: BRT in Managed Lanes (Managed lanes are strategies to maximize highway productivity by using a combination of operation and design improvements.) Alternative B1: BRT in Exclusive Busway via I-90 to Bellevue Way to Eastside Rail Corridor Design Option a: BRT extension in Mixed-Traffic from Issaquah Transit Center to Issaquah Highlands Alternative C1: LRT via Richards Road Alternative C2: Combination/Managed Lanes BRT via Richards Road Alternative C3: LRT via I-405 to Eastside Rail Corridor The alternatives considered in the Level 1 Evaluation are illustrated in Exhibit 4. 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 runningway Enhance Communities and Protect the Environment 1. Potential effects on parks and open space 2. Potential effects on wetlands 3. Potential effects 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 multi-modal 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 Corridor Report: Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor 17

Exhibit 4: Level 1 Evaluation Alternatives 18 Corridor Report: Kirkland-Bellevue-Issaquah Corridor