Full Text
7 May 2010 Local Transit Study FINAL REPORT ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page i Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Table of Contents Page Executive Summary 1 Major Findings 1 Recommended Strategies 4 Report Overview 6 1. Introduction 7 2. Relevant Studies and Plans Review 8 3. Analysis of Market Areas 10 4. Travel Demand Analysis 12 5. Evaluation Framework Methodology 14 6. Service Evaluation and Performance Monitoring 17 Chapter 1. Introduction 1-1 1.1 Project Goals 1-1 1.2 Project Overview 1-1 Community and Regional Transit Market Needs 1-1 Multi-Modal Corridor Development 1-2 Service Evaluation and Performance Monitoring 1-3 Transit Supportive Best Practices 1-3 Chapter 2. Relevant Studies Review 2-1 2.1 City of Redmond Overview 2-1 Redmond Comprehensive Plan 2-1 Redmond Transportation Master Plan 2-3 Multi-Modal 2-9 Redmond Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Plan 2-14 2.2 Regional Transit Service Overview 2-18 King County Metro Services 2-21 Sound Transit Regional Service 2-36 Community Transit Services 2-37 Chapter 3. Market Potential 3-1 3.1 Redmond Neighborhoods and Districts 3-1 Residential Districts 3-1 Commercial/Industrial and Mixed-Use Districts 3-6 Downtown and Redmond Town Center 3-7 3.2 Transit Demographics Characteristics 3-11 U.S. Census and PSRC Data Analysis 3-11 Redmond Neighborhoods Characteristics 3-12 Transit Market Potential Summary 3-17 Chapter 4. Travel Demand 4-1 4.1 Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ) 4-1 4.2 Forecasts Results and Regional Trends 4-2 Regional Trends, All Trip Types and Mode Splits 4-2 ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page ii Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Redmond Trips Forecasts by Trip Types 4-5 Public Transit Trip Forecasts 4-6 Forecasts by Trip Type and Mode Split 4-7 4.3 Significant OD Pairs by Trip Category 4-16 Home-Based Trips by Mode Split Group 4-16 Non-Home Based Trips by Mode Split Group 4-17 Summary of Forecasts by Redmond Market Areas 4-20 Chapter 5. Service Evaluation Framework 5-1 5.1 Transportation Master Plan Objectives 5-1 Issues with this Approach 5-2 5.2 Multi-Layered Evaluation Approach 5-3 Multi-Layer Correlation 5-4 1. Market Demand vs. Transit Service Levels 5-4 2. Market Demand vs. Multimodal Corridors 5-8 3. Market Demand vs. TMP 5-16 4. Transit Service Levels vs. Multimodal Corridors 5-20 5. Transit Service Levels vs. TMP Objectives 5-21 6. Multimodal Corridors vs. TMP Objectives 5-23 Chapter 6. Methodology and Analysis 6-1 6.1 Evaluation Framework Summary 6-1 6.2 Service Evaluation and Performance Monitoring Summary 6-2 Phase 1 – Multimodal Network Connectivity and Demand 6-2 Phase 2 – Transit LOS Objectives and Service Gaps 6-3 Phase 3 – Measure Corridor Investment Impacts 6-7 6.3 Preliminary Corridor Investment Results 6-8 Analysis Findings 6-10 6.4 Performance Monitoring 6-11 Performance Standards 6-11 Performance Monitoring 6-11 Chapter 7. Recommendations and Implementation Actions 7-1 7.1 General Recommendations 7-1 7.2 Transit Performance Standards 7-1 1. Multimodal Corridor Standards 7-1 2. Local and Regional Priority Connection 7-2 3. Access to Transit 7-3 4. Transit Ridership 7-3 5. Other Standards for Further Consideration 7-4 7.3 Implementation Actions to Achieve LOS Targets 7-5 Short-Term Implementation Actions 7-5 Longer-Term Implementation Actions 7-7 Redmond’s Ongoing Activities 7-8 ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page iii Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. List of Tables Page Table 1, Multimodal Corridors Demand Intensity Evaluation 18 Table 2: Redmond Commute Mode Split 2-5 Table 3: Average Distance Traveled by Mode Share 2-5 Table 4: Local Transit Connectivity Measures 2-6 Table 5: Local Priority Connections 2-6 Table 6: Park and Ride Lots in Redmond 2-8 Table 7: Redmond Multi-Modal Corridors 2-11 Table 8: CTR Employment Sites by Redmond Neighborhood 2-14 Table 9: Regional Transit Services in Redmond - Weekday 2-18 Table 10: Regional Transit Services in Redmond - Weekend 2-19 Table 11: Local Service Routes in Redmond 2-20 Table 12: Regional Service Routes in Redmond 2-20 Table 13: Express Service Routes in Redmond 2-21 Table 14: Destinations Reached with Transit by Service Frequency in the AM Peak 2-23 Table 15: Metro Eastside Subarea Performance Thresholds 2-24 Table 16: Redmond Route Performance Summary (Off-Peak Period) 2-25 Table 17: Redmond Route Performance Summary (Peak 2-26 Table 18: Planned Investments in Core Service Connections in Redmond 2-28 Table 19: Transit Market Potential Analysis by Redmond Mixed-Use Area 3-13 Table 20: Trip Forecasts for All Trip Types by Mode Split Group 4-3 Table 21: Redmond Trips Forecast by Trip Type 4-5 Table 22: Transit Trips Forecast with Redmond Origin and/or Destination 4-6 Table 23: Home-Based Work and College Trip Forecasts by Mode Split Group 4-7 Table 24: Home-Based Non-Work Trips Forecast by Mode Split Group 4-9 Table 25: Non-Home Based Work Trips Forecast by Mode Split Group 4-12 Table 26: Non-Home Based Other Trips Forecast by Mode Split Group 4-14 Table 27: Daily Trips to Downtown Redmond and South Overlake, All Modes, Year 2030 4-17 Table 28: Redmond Neighborhoods Trip Generation Thresholds 4-20 Table 29: Significant OD Travel Pairs to/from Redmond Neighborhoods (Year 2030) 4-21 Table 30: Regional Transit LOS Measures 5-1 Table 31: Local Transit Connectivity Measures 5-1 Table 32: 2022 Local Transit LOS 5-2 Table 33: Local Market Demand – Neighborhood Connection Priorities 5-5 Table 34: Local Market Demand versus Transit Service Levels 5-6 Table 35: Sub-regional Market Demand – Connectivity with Adjacent Cities 5-7 Table 36: Local Connections Assignments to Multi-Modal Corridors 5-9 Table 37: Sub-Regional Connections Assignments to Multi-Modal Corridors 5-13 Table 38: Local and Subregional Connectivity and Intensity Scoring by Corridor 5-18 Table 39: Multimodal Corridor Demand vs. Existing Transit Service Levels 5-22 Table 40: Potential LOS Targets by Multimodal Corridor Priority 5-23 Table 41: Existing Transit LOS Indicators and Targets by Local 6-6 Table 42: 148th Avenue Corridor Improvements 6-8 Table 43: Redmond Way Corridor Improvements 6-8 Table 44: 156th Avenue Corridor Improvements 6-9 Table 45: 166th Avenue Corridor Improvements 6-9 Table 46: Four-Corridor Combined Improvement 6-10 ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page iv Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. List of Figures Page Figure 1, Multimodal Corridor Network and Metro’ Transit Network 16 Figure 2, Multimodal Corridors Local Demand Intensity 19 Figure 3, Multimodal Corridors Sub-regional Demand Intensity 20 Figure 4: Local and Subregional Demand Intensity by Multimodal Corridor 21 Figure 5: City of Redmond Transportation Network 2-12 Figure 6: City of Redmond Land Use 2-13 Figure 7: Regional Transit Service Network by Service Category 2-30 Figure 8: Transit Service Connections – Peak Period 2-31 Figure 9: Transit Service Connections – Midday Period 2-32 Figure 10: Transit Service Connections – Weekend 2-33 Figure 11: Average Weekday Boardings in Redmond 2-34 Figure 12: Metro’s Core Service Connections 2-35 Figure 13: RapidRide and East Link 2-38 Figure 14: Redmond Neighborhood and Mixed-Use Areas 3-10 Figure 15: 2006-2030 Forecast of All Redmond Trips by Travel Mode 4-4 Figure 16: 2006-2030 Forecast of Trips with Origin or Destination in Redmond 4-5 Figure 17: 2006-2030 Forecast of Transit Trips with Origin and Destination in Redmond 4-6 Figure 18: 2006-2030 Forecast of Home-Based Work Trips in Redmond by Mode 4-8 Figure 19: 2006-2030 Forecast of Home-Based Non-Work Trips in Redmond by Mode 4-11 Figure 20: 2006-2030 Forecast of Non-Home Based Work Trips in Redmond by Mode 4-13 Figure 21: 2006-2030 Forecast of Non-Home Based Other Trips in Redmond by Mode 4-15 Figure 22: Daily Trips to/from Downtown Redmond, All Modes, Year 2030 4-18 Figure 23: Daily Trips to/from South Overlake, All Modes, Year 2030 4-19 Figure 24: Key Information Layers 5-3 Figure 25: Local Connectivity and Demand by Multimodal Corridor 5-11 Figure 26: Subregional Connectivity and Demand by Multimodal Corridor 5-15 Figure 27: Multimodal Corridor Objectives and Market Demand Conceptual Graphic 5-17 Figure 28: Local and Subregional Demand Intensity by Multimodal Corridor 5-19 Figure 29: Evaluation Framework and Performance Monitoring Flow Chart 6-1 ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page ES-1 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Executive Summary Major Findings 1. Redmond’s density supports transit investment. In terms of combined population and employment density, Redmond is #2 in the region with a combined resident and jobs population of 8,308 per square mile, in between Seattle’s 13,112 and Kirkland 7,852 people and jobs per square mile (see Section 3.2). This high level of concentration supports continued investment in transit infrastructure and service at levels appropriate to serve this density. 2. There is significant travel demand between Eastside communities and Redmond neighborhoods. This study has found that there is a significant amount of connectivity and demand between Redmond neighborhoods and other neighborhoods within the Eastside. a) Overlake and Downtown are significant destinations for the Eastside An analysis of the multi-modal market demand in the Service Evaluation Framework (Chapter 5) has found that the Overlake Neighborhood and Downtown Redmond are major local and sub-regional destinations (Section 5.1.2, table 32, page 5-5). There is significant multimodal market demand for connections between these neighborhoods and other neighborhoods in Redmond and most communities in East King County. This finding indicates that there is significant demand for improved local and sub-regional transit connections to Overlake and Downtown. The improvement could include a connection between Overlake and Downtown Redmond by extending Link light rail. While it was beyond the scope of this study to evaluate such a possibility, the travel market that was identified through the study is significant enough to warrant a thorough analysis of the local and regional mobility benefits that could be derived by such an extension. In addition, intra Eastside demand to these two urban centers is significantly larger than demand between these two neighborhoods and Seattle (Section 4.3, Figures 22 and 23, pages 4-18 and 4-19). b) There is high travel demand between Redmond neighborhoods and Bellevue and Kirkland The Service Evaluation Framework has also shown that there is a high level of multi- modal market demand between most Redmond neighborhoods and Bellevue and Kirkland (Section 5.2.1, Table 34, page 5-7). This supports improved local connections between Redmond neighborhoods and these cities, and supports the extension of light rail to provide better connections from Redmond Neighborhoods to Bellevue via Downtown Redmond. 3. There is a mismatch between potential demand and current transit service This study has found that there a significant amount of travel demand that is local, and that the demand for non-commute oriented travel is large and is expected to grow in the future. However, a significant amount of Redmond’s transit service is oriented for regional travel, and ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page ES-2 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. oriented for the commute to Seattle. This presents a potential mismatch between current transit service and where Redmond expects demand to be in the future. a) Local demand is significant and will grow in the future. The analysis of regional travel demand data included in the Transportation Master Plan shows that two-thirds of daily trips are short trips less than five miles in length, which represent a significant market for transit trips in Redmond. Currently, single occupant vehicles (SOV) and shared ride (carpool, vanpool and “fampool”) are the modes that capture most of these trips. However, short trips can be more effectively served with more direct and frequent transit service to Redmond and other nearby destinations. b) Non-work trips are predicted to grow more rapidly than work trips The PSRC travel demand model is predicting that non-work trips will grow more rapidly than work trips through 2030. Non-commute trips currently make up close to 60 percent of all trips in the region, and are expected to account for nearly 80 percent of the trip growth between 2003 and 2030. In contrast, work related trips make up about 40 percent of all trips in the region, and are predicted to grow by about 40 percent within Redmond from 2006 through 2030. (Section 4.2, Table 21, page 4-5) This means there will be a significant need for non-commute oriented transit service that will become greater as time goes on. c) Current transit service is focused on the regional commute during peak periods. Transit service in Redmond is weighted towards the peak commute, with many of Redmond’s highest ridership corridors receiving infrequent service during the non-peak periods. The majority of ridership in Redmond occurs along SR 520, 148th Avenue NE, 156th Avenue NE, Redmond Way / NE 85th Street and Old Redmond Way. However, with the exception of the ST 545 service there are no single bus routes that provide service more frequent than every 30 minutes along these corridors. Moreover, service is dramatically reduced from 26 routes during rush hour to just 8 routes serving these corridors during the midday (Section 2.2, pages 2-18 through 2-20). This pattern is true for much of the rest of the service in Redmond as well, with only a handful of routes providing service to the City during non-peak periods an on the weekends. d) Mismatch between demand and current service levels As indicated in findings a) and b) above, this study has found that a significant amount of travel demand is local, and that the demand for non-commute oriented travel is large and is expected to grow in the future. However, current service levels are significantly lower during non-peak commute periods. Therefore, there is a substantial, long-term need for frequent, direct transit service between origins and destinations within the City of Redmond that is not being met today and may not be met in the future. This presents a potential mismatch between current transit service and where Redmond expects demand to be in the future. 4. There is an opportunity to define service standards at the corridor level Redmond’s current ridership is currently concentrated in a few core service corridors, which provide a good overlap with Redmond’s Multi Modal Corridors identified in the TMP. To effectively serve local corridors, service needs to be direct, and frequent, and time competitive ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page ES-3 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. with driving alone. To effectively identify key corridors for transit investment within Redmond, a service evaluation and performance monitoring framework was developed in this study that makes the connection between high demand corridors and priority neighborhood connections within the City. This framework identifies where planned and future transit service investments are likely to meet the market potential for transit and achieve the local mobility objectives as defined by the TMP. The results of this analysis provide a springboard for updating the transit chapter and level of service (LOS) objectives in the TMP. This evaluation framework also provides a tool to monitor progress towards achieving mobility goals at the neighborhood and corridor level over time. 5. There is an opportunity to focus investments in high priority corridors that provide the most connectivity and serve the most demand The top corridors for local mobility and accessibility in Redmond are: 148th Avenue, 156th Avenue, Redmond Way, and 166th Avenue NE. Potential transit service investments on these top corridors were evaluated for their potential to improve local neighborhood connectivity. This was measured as improvements in travel time and service frequency between neighborhoods. Evaluation results show that investments in the most intensely used multi-modal corridors could improve overall neighborhood connectivity by up to 55 percent. That is travel times and service frequency could improve by up to 55 percent. Such a huge impact in neighborhood connectivity is possible, because the top corridors today enjoy relatively poor transit service and they are a critical path to almost any trip originating in the City. Thus, transit travel time improvements and service frequency improvements focusing on these corridors can have a ripple effect throughout the City and go a long way towards achieving minimum connectivity levels between neighborhoods. The evaluation found that peak period travel improvements (work and school trips) would be more pronounced on high demand origins and destinations, up to 60 percent. Midday period travel improvements (non-work trips) would be distributed across all origins and destinations, up to 60%. In other words, transit service investments in the top corridors could provide benefits to nearly all Redmond neighborhood connections. These investments can be implemented incrementally on a corridor by corridor basis, or even segment by segment (Chapter 5, pages 5-1 through 5-23). 6. There is an opportunity to simplify the route system to better serve corridors Many corridors in Redmond have several overlapping transit routes that are not optimized to serve the corridor but are instead optimized for regional travel. To better serve Redmond’s need for local service demand, regional and sub-regional routes can be used to serve local needs while serving the regional demand. There is an opportunity, by simplifying and coordinating route schedules along key corridors, to achieve evenly spaced trip intervals and high service frequencies using multiple routes along a corridor as a way to meet local transit mobility demands. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page ES-4 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Recommended Strategies Based on the major findings identified above, there are four major strategies recommended to improve transit service in Redmond, enhance multimodal corridors, match local and sub-regional connectivity needs, and develop a strong local transit market for service. These strategies include the following: 1. Investing in multimodal corridors showing the highest demand and market potential 2. Establishing transit LOS objectives for high demand corridors 3. Working with Metro to simplify the transit route system, make it more consistent and user friendly, and improve scheduling to even out anomalies and provide more evenly spaced and frequent service 4. Conducting an intense and coordinated marketing campaign to capitalize on the latent demand for transit service in the City 1. Invest in High Demand Corridors: Invest service hours in corridors of highest priority, those including high levels of local, sub-regional, and regional connectivity and travel demand intensity (Figure 2, on page ES-19): – 148th Avenue. Rapid Ride and Route 253 – 156th Avenue. Rapid Ride and Route 230 – 166th Avenue. Route 221 – Redmond Way. Routes 248 and 253 Include other high priority corridors for subregional and regional travel (Figure 3, on page ES-20): – Willows Road to Kingsgate. Routes 244 and 291 – Avondale Road. Routes 232 and 251 – Redmond-Fall City Road/228th Avenue. Route 269 Improve transit operating environment along High Demand Corridors. This includes street improvements such as curb extensions and in-lane stops, stop amenities and transit priority treatments such as queue jumps and transit signal priority. Focus pedestrian connectivity, sidewalk and streetscape improvements into these corridors. 2. Establish Transit LOS objectives for High Demand Corridors: Establish corridor investment priorities Establish LOS Targets by corridor based on: – Travel time. A standard of 1.5 times the “drive alone” time is suggested as target for transit to provide direct and fast connections between origins and destinations in the City. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page ES-5 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. – Service frequency. Every 7.5/10 minutes for peak/midday on high demand corridors. Every 10/15 minutes for peak/midday on medium demand corridors, and every 15/30 minutes for low demand corridors – Span of service. A minimum of 18 hours of service in the day and at least 13 hours at target service frequency Monitor progress of infrastructure and transit service improvements against these objectives on a yearly basis 3. Simplify the Route System: Work with Metro and Sound Transit to: Increase frequency on core all-day service routes. Invest in critical corridor connections, increase service frequency on peak and off-peak periods, and the span of service hours on both weekday and weekends Develop a more predictable system for the user. Follow corridors from end to end, provide even headways, bi-directional service, and eliminate mid-route layovers Reduce the number of routes operating in the peak only and peak direction of travel. Emphasize all-day service routes, frequency and service hours throughout the day Reduce overlap and competition with Sound Transit in the peaks in favor of higher levels of service along critical corridors. Consider shortening routes that provide limited commute trips in the peak to feed Sound Transit at critical locations, and reinvest service hours in local travel corridors (e.g. Routes 266 and 268) 4. Conduct an Intense and Coordinated Marketing Campaign: Transportation Fair events Local signage and wayfinding at major stops Local website (e.g. Existing R-TRIP partnership website) ORCA card strategies and subsidies in coordination with local businesses and employers Encouraging development of “smart phone” applications to make transit information more portable like UW’s “one bus away” app for the iPhone (currently in development for other smart phone platforms1) Other creative solutions developed in partnership with neighborhoods, employers and Redmond TMA. 1 http://onebusaway.org/where/android.html ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page ES-6 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Report Overview The goal of this project was to develop a planning and policy document that contained guiding principles and implementation steps to strengthen local transit demand and service supply in Redmond. The document will allow Redmond to focus transit service investments within the city’s transportation network to support the multi-modal objectives set forth in the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and promote local mobility. The report is organized in seven chapters: Chapter 1, Introduction: identifies project goals, develops understanding of project and defines overall approach. Chapter 2, Relevant Studies and Plans Review: summarizes relevant information from Redmond’s Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Master Plan, and Commute Trip Reduction Plan. It also reviews King County Metro and Sound Transit services and long- range plans. Chapter 3, Analysis of Market Areas: identifies Redmond’s market areas and summarizes the land use, and transportation characteristics of each. Also, it discusses the transit use propensity of neighborhood areas based on a detailed mapping of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of Redmond neighborhoods. Chapter 4, Travel Demand Analysis: develops a complete profile of travel demand by transportation mode between Redmond neighborhoods and between Redmond and the rest of the region. Also, it identifies market areas with transit demand potential and unmet mobility needs. Chapter 5, Evaluation Framework Methodology: discusses the conceptual approach to develop an evaluation framework that integrates market demand information with transit service levels, the network of multimodal corridors, and TMP established service standards and goals. Chapter 6, Service Evaluation and Performance Monitoring: utilizes the evaluation framework to conduct a sensitivity analysis and prioritize transit service investments on multimodal corridors (on a segment by segment basis), and to measure improvements on neighborhood connectivity against TMP goals. Also, it proposes a revision to existing performance monitoring indicators to ensure service standard goals are met over time. Chapter 7, Recommendations and Implementation Actions: presents a list of policy recommendations and implementation actions to collaborate with regional transit service providers and make the local transit plan a reality on the street. The final product is an evaluation methodology that allows Redmond to evaluate market demand, identify preferred multi-modal corridors for local connectivity, define transit service investment priorities, and establish transit service targets according to corridor demand and neighborhood connectivity levels. The evaluation methodology allows the City to collaborate and negotiate with King County Metro to ensure that multi-modal corridors get adequate levels of service in accordance to their market demand and local connectivity potential. Additional study products include: A summary of Transit Supportive Best Practices to develop local transit markets A complete GIS analysis of U.S. Census demographic attributes of Redmond’s residents ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page ES-7 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1. Introduction Project Goals The overall intent is to develop a methodology and a document to assist the City and Metro with changes to the transit service network and investments in service hours in the future. Specific project goals are to: Identify opportunities to strengthen and develop the local transit network, Define local transit markets, Develop a methodology to measure local transit demand, Lay out the tactics to re-design transit service to meet local transit needs Project Understanding and Approach The City of Redmond’s vision and planning for the future aims to create a place with vibrant, retail, office, service, and recreational opportunities concentrated in two urban centers – Downtown Redmond and Overlake. Redmond is defined today by a strong downtown that concentrates most retail, services, and cultural activities, and by a group of residential and mixed-use industrial/residential areas around the center. Geography and topography determine, to a great extent, the street structure of the city and the boundaries between residential neighborhoods, industrial areas, and retail districts. The result is a radial city with a clear inner-ring that includes downtown and residential and mixed-use areas around it. Downtown effectively functions as the center of Redmond, its major crossroads, and its geographic center. It is both a regional destination and an access point to the region at large for Redmond neighborhoods. Overlake is the major high-tech industrial center of Redmond and the region. It is also one of Redmond’s two locations designated for residential and employment growth (in addition to downtown). The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) has adopted a centers-based policy toward transportation system development that has been reflected in the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) by designing policies and strategies that will ensure good access to and circulation within downtown Redmond and Overlake, and that will support the intensification of both as mixed-use centers. It is the position of both the Redmond City Council and the Planning Commission to see the centers in Redmond connected to other regional centers by High Capacity Transit (HCT) such as RapidRide and East Link Light Rail. HCT is seen as critical tool for the future development and sustainability of both downtown Redmond and Overlake. An important mobility strategy in the Transit Master Plan (TMP) is the creation of a network of multi-modal corridors. Multimodal corridors are major transportation facilities that provide users with a variety of travel alternatives. A network of 14 multi-modal corridors was defined that will provide critical community connections and enhanced mobility options to all Redmond neighborhoods with adjacent East King County cities and communities, downtown Redmond, the Overlake Regional Center, and the regional freeway/highway network. The network of multi-modal corridors provides the city with a structure to focus its transportation priorities, guide future investments in transportation infrastructure, traffic capacity management, and promote alternative travel modes in accordance with Redmond’s community mobility goals and land use policies. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page ES-8 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Multimodal corridors provide Redmond with a critical street structure to channel local, subregional, and regional travel on public transit. Also, they provide Redmond’s neighborhoods with the greatest accessibility to transit service and the biggest benefits to local mobility from improvements in transit service levels. 2. Relevant Studies and Plans Review Regional Transit Service Characteristics Three regional transit agencies – King County Metro, Sound Transit, and Community Transit, provide general public transit service in the City of Redmond. Together they operate 30 different bus routes. These services operate on major arterial streets and multimodal corridors, providing connections to most destinations and activity centers in the region. The majority of service is provided during peak hours (commute trips) with bus routes running typically every 30 minutes. Only Sound Transit’s 545 route connecting Redmond with Seattle provides high frequency service (every 10 minutes). Midday service on weekdays is only continued on 14 different routes providing service typically every 30 minutes with the exception of ST 545 which operates every 15 minutes. Continued weekend service – Saturday and Sunday, is provided on six routes only every 30-60 minutes. On average, there are more than 9,000 boardings on the public transit system within Redmond every weekday. Most boardings occur at the Bear Creek Park & Ride, Downtown Redmond Transit Center, the Overlake Transit Center, and at key stops along the SR 520 corridor (West Lake Sammamish Parkway and NE 51st Street). Other significant boardings occur along the key corridors connecting Redmond with Kirkland and Bellevue. These include Redmond Way/NE 85th Street, Old Redmond Way, 148th Avenue NE, and 156th Avenue NE. King County Metro is the city’s most significant public transit provider. Metro bus routes provide local service to Redmond neighborhoods and single seat rides (no transfers needed) to a variety of regional destinations and activity centers in East King County – plus express bus service to Seattle. Ten routes operate all day service, with eight routes providing Saturday service and five routes operating on Sundays. The core of Metro’s system in Redmond is comprised of five bus routes providing all day weekday, Saturday, and Sunday service: Route 221 – links Education Hill and Downtown Redmond with Overlake and Bellevue, operating along 148th Avenue NE Route 230 – links Downtown Redmond with Overlake, Bellevue Crossroads, Downtown Bellevue and Kirkland, operating along 154th and 156th Avenue NE, Bellevue Way, and Lake Washington Blvd Route 245 – links Overlake with Eastgate, Bellevue Community College, Crossroads, and Kirkland, operating along 156th and 148th Avenue NE and Old Redmond Road Route 248 – links North Redmond and Downtown Redmond with Kirkland, operating via Avondale Road, Redmond Way, and NE 85th Street Route 253 – links Downtown Redmond with Overlake, Crossroads, and Downtown Bellevue via 148th and 156th Avenue NE and NE 8th Street Metro’s core services operate along a few core service corridors including: 148th Avenue NE and 156th Avenue NE, Redmond Way, Old Redmond Road, and NE 85th Street. SR 520 is also a core ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page ES-9 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. service corridor, operated by Sound Transit. As mentioned above, these are also the corridors capturing the highest number of transit trips and ridership numbers in the service area. Three Sound Transit express bus routes, ST 545, ST 564, and ST 565, connect Redmond with several other major urban centers in the Puget Sound region. ST 545 is one of the two most heavily patronized routes in Sound Transit’s regional network, reporting more than 6,500 passengers per weekday. Its success is largely due to its sustained service hours and frequent service throughout the day, to and from Redmond, serving midday and commute travel from Seattle to the OTC and downtown Redmond. King County Metro Service Plans Under Metro’s Strategic Service Plan 2007-2016 investments in public transit service include the Transit Now (voter-approved 0.1% sales tax increase) which will fund transit service increases along “Core Service Connections” and the RapidRide bus rapid transit service in five urban corridors. Core Service Connections selected for improvement in Redmond and East King County include: Redmond-Fall City/228th Avenue NE – connecting Redmond with Sammamish and Issaquah Avondale Road /Redmond Way/NE 85th Street – connecting Redmond with Kirkland 148th Avenue NE – connecting Redmond with Eastgate and Factoria SR 520 – connecting Bear Creek with Bellevue (extension of St 564/565 service) 156th Avenue NE/NE 8th St – connecting downtown Redmond with Bellevue (RapidRide BBRT service) The most significant improvement to Metro transit services in the Redmond area is the RapidRide BRT service that will connect downtown Bellevue with downtown Redmond via Bellevue Crossroads and Overlake. RapidRide is expected to start September 2011. Metro’s Core Service Connections within and around Redmond coincide with some of Redmond’s Multi-Modal Corridors, but not all. Redmond has defined a greater number of corridors that today receive limited transit service. Sound Transit Service Plans Sound Transit is also planning the expansion of the Link light rail system to Overlake. The East Link project will expand light rail from Downtown Seattle to the Eastside with nine planned new stations serving Rainier Avenue/I-90, Mercer Island, South Bellevue, Downtown Bellevue, Overlake Hospital, the Bel-Red corridor, Overlake Village, and Overlake Transit Center. The line is scheduled to be open to Bellevue by 2020 and Overlake Transit Center by 2021. In addition, Sound Transit’s voter-approved ST2 plan provides annual operating and fleet expansion funds to increase service levels, improve service frequency, expand hours of operation, and add trips to relieve overloads in several regional corridors including SR 520. Also, Sound Transit is planning to start a new service – ST 542 operating on SR 520, connecting downtown Redmond with OTC and the University of Washington district in Seattle. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page ES-10 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 3. Analysis of Market Areas The TMP analysis of mobility needs breaks down the City of Redmond into seven Transportation Management Districts (TMDs). These are further subdivided into ten residential and mixed-use neighborhoods, as listed below: Bear Creek Downtown Redmond Education Hill Grass Lawn North Redmond Overlake Sammamish Valley Southeast Redmond Viewpoint Willows/Rose Hill Transit Use Propensity Indicators Population density and employment density characteristics are known variables affecting transit use and performance. Industry research has shown that concentrations of jobs in downtown areas or CBDs attract commute trips on transit, and that concentrations of residents along urban corridors or at urban centers generate transit trips. Other variables that positively affect transit, at the community level, include household income (in particular low income households), access to automobiles (limited number of automobiles per household), transit dependant population groups such as high school-age children and seniors who don’t or can’t drive, recently arrived immigrants who, in general, have more positive attitudes toward transit, and average household size (extended families and families with children), which need service trips throughout the day or have unmet mobility needs. Residential and Employment Density PSRC population and employment projections for King County and Redmond show that the vast majority of Redmond neighborhoods are comprised primarily of single-family housing. About one-half of Redmond’s neighborhoods are low density residential (5 residents per acre or less), and the rest are medium-to-low density residential at 5 to 15 persons per acre. Low density residential neighborhoods include Bear Creek, North Redmond, Sammamish Valley, Willows/Rose Hill, and Southeast Redmond. Low-to-medium density residential neighborhoods include Education Hill, Grass Lawn, Rose Hill, and Overlake. Residential density in these neighborhoods is higher due to the presence of several multifamily residential developments. In relation to employment density, most employment in Redmond is concentrated within a few neighborhood areas or districts including Willows/Rose Hill, Sammamish Valley, Downtown Redmond, Southeast Redmond, and Overlake. The biggest concentrations of jobs per acre are found in Downtown and Overlake, which are also the two major urban centers in the city (both at about 15-20 jobs per acre, on average). Employment density in Willows/Rose Hill and Southeast Sammamish is lower at 5 to 10 jobs per acre, mostly characterized by industrial parks with large ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page ES-11 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. warehouse buildings on large lots. Sammamish Valley, in contrast, has a mix of industrial and business parks of relatively higher density (10-15 jobs per acre on average). Overlake and the high-tech business park areas wedged between SR 520 and the Bel-Red corridor have the highest employment density at 20 or more jobs per acre. The Overlake neighborhood (both north and south of NE 40th Street) has a combination of office parks and high-tech business parks on both sides of SR-520 (between 148th and 156th Avenue NE), and single family and multifamily residential areas on the east side of the 156th Avenue NE. Demographic and Socioeconomic Profile According to U.S. Census 2000 data, the average household in Redmond is comprised of two to three people. Households are larger in Education Hill with three or more people on average, and smaller in Downtown Redmond with one or two people. Redmond is a family-friendly city. 40 to 60 percent of families in Redmond have children on average. High proportions of families with children are present in Education Hill (more than 60%), Overlake and Grass Lawn. Neighborhoods with lower concentrations of families with children are Bear Creek, Downtown, Sammamish Valley, and Southeast Redmond. Minorities and recent immigrants to the US are known population groups riding transit. Redmond residents are mostly White-Caucasian than any other race, although some pockets of minority population groups are found in Grass Lawn, Overlake, Southeast Redmond, and Willows/Rose Hill (20% or more of total residents). Looking at foreign-born population arrived to the U.S. between 1990 and 2000 (the last decade recorded by the U.S. Census), Overlake has the highest concentration with 35 percent or more close to the Microsoft Campus, followed by Southeast Redmond, Willows/Rose Hill and Downtown with concentrations in the 20-35 percent range. North Redmond, Viewpoint, Bear Creek, and Education Hill are mostly white neighborhoods with lower concentrations of minority and recent immigrant populations. Median household income, poverty, and vehicle availability are also common indicators of transit usage and dependency. The majority of households in Redmond earned between $40-$80k per year (in 1999 dollars) which characterizes the transit market as mostly a “choice market.” North Redmond, North Overlake, Viewpoint, and parts of Education Hill have large concentrations of households with $80k or more income. While Bear Creek and Sammamish Valley have large pockets of households with $40k or less income. Given that Redmond households are rather middle and upper-middle income households, few people are living in poverty or less on average). Also, given Redmond households’ average size and income, most of its residents have access to an automobile. In the vast majority of neighborhoods, only five percent, or less, of households are zero-vehicle households. Commute-to-work in public transit and alternative modes to “drive alone” is influenced by the socioeconomic attributes described above. According to the U.S. Census 2000, in most Redmond neighborhoods five percent or less of the working-age population (16 years and older) is using transit for their commute trips. However, five neighborhoods – Education Hill, Sammamish Valley, South Overlake, Viewpoint, and Downtown Redmond, present higher transit commute mode shares These are neighborhoods with good accessibility to regional transit centers and frequent transit service to Seattle, Bellevue, and Kirkland. Neighborhoods with lower than average transit commute mode share include North Redmond and areas outside the city limits – Woodinville, Cottage Lake, and Redmond Ridge. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page ES-12 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 4. Travel Demand Analysis An origin-destination analysis of travel demand was conducted to understand local travel within Redmond, and travel to/from Redmond neighborhoods to other communities in the region. The analysis utilized the PSRC regional travel demand model and was developed at the TAZ level for all-day travel for years 2006 and 2030. Eleven (11) neighborhood zones were defined within Redmond (one per neighborhood). Overlake was divided in two zones – North Overlake and South Overlake, at NE 40th Street. Trips between zones were analyzed for their trip purpose (work trips and other trips) and for their travel mode (drive alone, carpool/vanpool, public transit, bicycle, and walk). Redmond OD Travel Profile Results of the analysis show that trips within Redmond zones represent a very small percentage of daily trips in the region (0.9% in year 2006). However, local travel within Redmond will increase at a much higher rate (52% between 2006 and 2030) than travel from Redmond to other communities and other communities to Redmond (39% and 38% respectively). Downtown Redmond and Overlake represent major destinations for travel within the City, and for travel from eastside cities and the Puget Sound region. Redmond neighborhood areas, in general, have a strong relationship with downtown; however, they also keep close relationships with adjacent urban areas, for example: Grass Lawn and Kirkland, North Redmond and Woodinville, and Viewpoint and Bellevue. This creates a number of origin-destination patterns and layers, and a number of trip types in Redmond that include: Regional trips: e.g. Redmond to Seattle (15 miles or more) Sub-regional trips: e.g. Redmond to Kirkland (5 to 10 miles) Local trips: e.g. Education Hill to Downtown (5 miles or less) These trips fulfill a variety of trip purposes that include: Work trips School trips Shopping, social, and recreational trips Medical and personal business trips Other trips Trips are made in several travel modes that include: private automobiles, carpool/vanpool/ “fampool”, transit, bicycles, walking, and other modes. The majority of trips in Redmond (regardless of distance and purpose) are made in private automobiles; however, the use of other travel modes grows according to the distance traveled and the purpose of each trip. For example: Carpool/Vanpool/”fampool” trips have a bigger mode split share for work trips and also for “service trips” such as shopping or medical which typically involve several family members Transit trips have a bigger mode split share for work trips (e.g. to downtown Seattle or downtown Bellevue), and for school trips (e.g. to University of Washington and Bellevue Community College) Bike and Walk have a bigger mode split share for school trips and short-distance trips such as social, recreational, and shopping trips ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page ES-13 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Transit Mode Share Trends The TMP contains a mode share analysis of existing travel behavior studies and found that single-occupancy vehicles (SOV) trips make more than 73 percent of commute trips with public transit trips capturing about five percent of commute travel only. SOV trips are smaller when accounting for all-day trips (below 45%); many more trips are made in vehicles with more than one person (high-occupancy vehicle or HOV). Transit trips are also a smaller share of all-day travel, but most importantly transit appears as the least effective mode at capturing short-distance trips (1 to 5 miles), which represent about 50 percent of all trips in Redmond. At the same time, walking and bicycling capture a higher share of trips than transit for the “1 to 2.5 mile” trip length category. The analysis of trip forecasts in the region and in Redmond specifically shows that most trips are non-work related trips for which transit gets low usage. This trip market is expected to grow at a faster rate than work related trips and, thus, it highlights a diminishing market share of travel for transit in the future, unless transit service is re-focused to serve non-work markets that have potential for conversion to transit. One such market is made of local trips – of 1 to 5 miles, which comprise the majority of non-work related trips and directly affects the mobility of Redmond communities for travel between neighborhoods, and between neighborhoods and Downtown Redmond or Overlake. As established and monitored in the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) regional transit connections are relatively well provided in Redmond, however local priority connections are more deficient. These local connections are a priority market for local transit development and this study. Public transit trips in and around Redmond will grow by about 15,000 daily trips between 2006 and 2030. Non-work trips will grow faster than work related trips, with non-work home-based trips growing by more than 100 percent. However, traditional commute trips (home-based work trips category) will still post the largest net increment of any category at about 7,000 trips (or about 50% of growth in transit trips). Public transit has historically performed better for work trips (home-based) and worse for non-home based and other trips. However PSRC forecasts show that travel on public transit within Redmond neighborhoods and between Redmond and other communities will catch up with work travel by year 2030. Home-based work trips represent about 18 percent of all trips in the region. They will increase 35 percent within Redmond with transit growing at a much faster pace (87%) than drive alone, walking, or biking. Non-home-based work trips represent about 25 percent of all trips in the region. They will grow at a faster pace within Redmond (43%) than the region with transit growing at a much faster pace (90%) than other modes. Home-based non-work trips (other trips) represent about 50 percent of all trips in the region. Within Redmond they will increase by 44 percent compared to only 40 percent in the region. Transit trips are expected to grow by 114 percent in the year 2006-2030 period Non-home-based other trips off all trips) are forecasted for the highest growth of all trip categories in the region. Trips within Redmond will increase by 53 percent compared to only 46 percent for trips in the region. Transit trips of this type are expected to grow by 76 percent throughout the forecast period. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page ES-14 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 5. Evaluation Framework Methodology Market potential and travel demand analysis results show that the propensity to use transit varies greatly across Redmond neighborhoods. Travel between Redmond neighborhoods, between neighborhoods and Redmond’s urban centers – Downtown and Overlake, and between Redmond and the region generates a complex network of trip patterns that needs to be sorted out and prioritized to identify markets where transit can be competitive with the private automobile and other modes such as carpool, vanpool, bicycle, and walk. Most travel between neighborhoods and Redmond urban centers occurs along major street corridors. These coincide with the network of multi-modal corridors established by the TMP, and the majority of transit service provided in Redmond by King County Metro operates along these corridors except for two corridors in the Sammamish Valley area and the Bear Creek area. Metro’s Core Service Connections in Redmond coincide with some of Redmond’s Multimodal Corridors, but not all. Redmond has defined a greater number of corridors that today receive limited transit service. However, two north-south corridors – 148th Avenue NE and 156th Avenue NE are primary investment corridors for King County Metro. At the same time, Metro identifies Redmond Way/Redmond-Fall City Road and Redmond Way/Avondale Road as the primary east- west corridors for transit investment in the future. Figure 1 on page ES-16, compares the footprint of the network of multimodal corridors against Metro’s bus service network. Also, many Core Service Corridors receive service from multiple routes today, providing connections to multiple destinations in the region. However, service frequencies along corridors are relatively low (typically every 30 minutes) and travel times in transit are much longer than driving. Transit is either a poor option or not an option for Redmond residents, despite the relatively high levels of service that are nominally available. For example, there are 4 to 6 different bus routes operating along 148th Avenue (between Redmond Way and SR 520) during peak times, each of them providing service every 30 minutes, or two trips per hour. Depending on the programming of trip times this results into as little as 5-minute service (if buses are evenly spaced between each other) or as much as 30-minute service (if all buses come at roughly the same time). This is a major issue for Redmond to both, establish and achieve adequate transit service levels, and to provide effective local connectivity to its residents. A comparative analysis of market demand versus transit service levels shows that there is an obvious mismatch between market demand levels and transit service opportunities for most local OD pairs in Redmond on both peak and off-peak periods. Actual headways (service frequency) and transit travel time vary widely between OD pairs of similar market demand level, but also from peak period to off-peak period within same local OD connections (i.e. Education Hill to Overlake TC). The mismatch between transit service levels and local market demand is the result of a transit system that is designed to provide regional connections between activity centers and serve mostly commuting trips in the peak period, at the expense of local circulation and service to non-work midday trips. It was found in the study that multimodal corridors provide the means to realize all neighborhood connection opportunities. The demand intensity of those connections, that is the number of local and sub-regional trips that are accommodated on the corridor, then provides the measure to sort out the relative importance of multimodal corridors in the city (some of the corridors provide for many neighborhood connections, while some only provide a few). Focusing on high intensity corridors is one way to prioritize investments in infrastructure, transit service and land use development in the future. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page ES-15 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Multi-Layered Evaluation Approach A critical issue in the study was then to establish a methodology to evaluate transit markets, and multi-modal corridors to define adequate levels of transit service and monitor transit service performance, utilization, and accessibility over time. This study developed an evaluation framework to prioritize markets and investments in multi-modal corridors that takes into account local and sub-regional travel needs, as well as a simplified set of indicators to monitor performance. To adequately set transit levels of service (LOS) and accomplish the TMP goals a multi-layered service evaluation approach was necessary to account for market demand, transit service levels, and multimodal corridor connectivity. The service evaluation framework was then based on four different information layers. These included: Market Demand: regional and local origin-destination travel demand markets by travel mode (drive alone, shared ride, public transit, and bike/walk) Transit Service Levels: current and planned transit service levels for both local connections and multimodal corridors Multimodal Corridors: the network of multi-modal corridors for local connectivity as established by the TMP and revisions to the network to account for sub-regional connectivity TMP Objectives: TMP level of service objectives for regional and local connections, measured in service frequency and travel time between destinations. Six potential relationships arise from the combination of all four information layers. Each relationship helps answering critical questions and defining adequate strategies and objectives for transit service in Redmond. The six relationships and questions are as follows: 1. Market Demand vs. Transit Service Levels: Are transit service levels reaching the largest potential markets? 2. Market Demand vs. Multimodal Corridors: How directly do multimodal corridors connect the biggest potential markets? 3. Market Demand vs. TMP Objectives: How well do TMP objectives match up with travel demand markets? 4. Transit Service Levels vs. Multimodal Corridors: How well does the multimodal corridor network match up with current transit routes? 5. Transit Service Levels vs. TMP Objectives: Should the City revise the TMP objectives for transit service? 6. Multimodal Corridor vs.TMP Objectives: Should the City revise the TMP objectives of the multimodal corridor network? The evaluation of transit service levels, market demand, and TMP objectives shows that the level of transit service on multimodal corridors performs a critical role in meeting or failing TMP targets for local connectivity. Improving transit LOS at the corridor level has a direct and positive impact on local and subregional connectivity for Redmond neighborhoods in terms of reducing both travel time and service frequency (that is reducing the time on the transit vehicle and the time waiting for the bus), which are two of the most important variables affecting the attractiveness of transit as a real option for travel in the City. ---PAGE BREAK--- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! "P "P "P "P "P "P "P Overlake Education Hill SE Redmond Viewpoint Grass Lawn North Redmond Willows / Rose Hill Bear Creek English Hill Sammamish Valley Sammamish Valley 148th Ave NE NE 124th St NE Redmond Way NE 85th St NE 90th St NE 24th St NE 116th St 166th Ave NE NE 104th St Avondale Rd NE 188th Ave NE NE 40th St 148th Ave NE NE 124th St NE Redmond Way 124th Ave NE Novelty Hill Rd NE Bellevue Redmond Rd NE 85th St NE 90th St Red-Wood Rd NE NE 24th St NE 116th St 166th Ave NE NE 104th St Avondale Rd NE 188th Ave NE NE 40th St W Lake Sa mmamis h U V 520 U V 202 U V 908 U V 202 U 10 U 14 U 13 U 3b U 1 U 4 U 9 U 12 U 11b U 2a U 8 U 6a U 3a U 11c U 11a U 2b U 3c U 5 U 6b Overlake P&R Bear Creek P&R Overlake TC Northeast 116th & I-405 Rose Hill Presbyterian Church P&R Bellevue Christian Reformed Church P&R Redmond P&R Overlake P&R Bear Creek P&R Overlake TC Northeast 116th & I-405 Rose Hill Presbyterian Church P&R Bellevue Christian Reformed Church P&R Redmond P&R Figure 1 Transit Service Network and Multimodal Corridors Overlay GIS Data Source: US Census, King County GIS, Sound Transit, USGS, City of Redmond GIS, Community Transit 0 1 Miles Multimodal Corridors Regional Transit Network Trails Transit Centers "P Park & Rides Bus Stops ! ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page ES-17 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 6. Service Evaluation and Performance Monitoring The TMP establishes level of service targets for year 2022 for local connectivity based on connections between neighborhoods. These LOS standards included definition of priority connections, which were defined as providing service every 15 minutes throughout the day, for at least 18 hours in the day, and utilizing direct connections that would be competitive with private automobiles in terms of travel time (no more than 1.5 times the most direct route). Study results indicate a need to prioritize transit markets and transit investments based on the connection opportunities and demand intensity that multi-modal corridors provide. The service evaluation and performance monitoring framework that was developed in the study comprises three phases of development and seven analysis steps, as listed below: Phase 1, Multimodal Network Connectivity and Demand – Step 1: OD Travel Demand for Local and Subregional Connection – Step 2: Multimodal Corridor Network Trip Assignment – Step 3: Multimodal Corridor Network Connectivity and Demand Phase 2, Transit LOS Objectives and Service Gaps – Step 4: Transit LOS Objectives by Local and Subregional Connection – Step 5: Multimodal Corridor Transit Service Targets – Step 6: Identify Improvements to Local and Subregional Connections Phase 3, Measure Corridor Investment Impacts to Local Connections – Step 7: Sensitivity (Gap) Analysis of specific transit service investments The evaluation framework and performance monitoring system proposed not only achieved the goal of relating transit service investments on Multimodal Corridors to local and subregional connections LOS, but it also showed that investments in the highest priority corridors are able to generate the majority of the improvements in local connectivity within Redmond. Proposed transit service investments to the highest ranked multimodal corridors (See Table 1 on the next page) have the potential to improve local connections by up to 55 percent. Peak Period improvements (work and school trips) would be more pronounced on high demand corridors (up to 60%), while Midday Period improvements (non-work trips) would be distributed across the network (up to 60% also), providing benefits to all Redmond neighborhoods. Table 1 below shows the results of the seven step evaluation for each corridor in the analysis. Connection opportunities and demand intensity scoring and network assignments were developed at the local and subregional level. The figures in subsequent pages; present the results for the local and subregional demand intensity scores on map format, identifying corridors of high, medium, and low demand priority. The main findings of this analysis are: Four multimodal corridors provide the biggest local connection opportunities and travel demand – 148th Avenue, 156th Avenue, 166th Avenue, and Redmond Way (Figure 2) Six regional corridors provide the biggest subregional connection opportunities and travel demand – 148th Avenue, Redmond Way, SR-520, Avondale Road, Willows Road, and West Lake Sammamish Parkway (Figure 3) ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page ES-18 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Table 1, Multimodal Corridors Demand Intensity Evaluation 7a. Redmond Way (West of 520) 30 412 17 208 47 620 100% 10. 148th Avenue NE 28 370 13 158 41 528 97% 11b. 156th Avenue NE 13 188 12 188 25 376 94% 7b. Redmond Way (East of 520) 10 148 17 208 27 356 91% 6b. Leary Way/Bear Creek Parkway Extension 18 224 10 122 28 346 88% 4. Avondale Road 12 88 27 246 39 334 85% 13a. West Lake Sammamish Parkway N 18 224 9 88 27 312 82% 13b. West Lake Sammamish Parkway S 10 104 15 198 25 302 79% 6a. 161st Avenue NE 16 216 7 84 23 300 76% 11d. NE 51st Street 520 East 12 168 8 110 20 278 74% 21a. SR 520 (W.L.Samm - 40th) 0 0 21 254 21 254 71% 12b. NE 40th Street 520 East 3 28 13 202 16 230 68% 21b. SR 520 (40th-148th) 0 0 18 224 18 224 65% 3b. 166th Avenue NE 10 142 5 70 15 212 62% 12a. NE 40th Street 520 West 10 122 5 88 15 210 59% 21c. SR 520 (Union Hill - W.L.Samm) 0 0 15 156 15 156 56% 5. NE 90th Street 11 132 1 10 12 142 47% 17. SR-908/NE 85th St 0 0 9 142 9 142 47% 18. Willows Road 0 0 11 142 11 142 47% 2a. Red-Wood Road 7 46 8 88 15 134 44% 11c. NE 31st Street & 152nd Avenue NE 7 114 0 0 7 114 41% 14. NE 24th Street 2 40 3 60 5 100 38% 2b. 160th Avenue NE Extension 7 46 5 48 12 94 35% 19. Bel-Red Road 0 0 6 92 6 92 32% 20a. NE 124th St (West) 0 0 10 90 10 90 29% 22. Novelty Hill Road 0 0 10 84 10 84 26% 1. NE 116th Street 9 42 8 38 17 80 21% 11a. NE 51st Street 520 West 0 0 6 80 6 80 21% 16. 104th Ave 2 28 3 46 5 74 18% 8. Old Redmond Road 6 68 0 0 6 68 15% 20b. NE 124th St (East) 0 0 5 22 5 22 12% 15. 85th St 1 20 0 0 1 20 9% 3a. 172nd Avenue NE & NE 111th Street 1 4 0 0 1 4 6% 3c. 164th Avenue NE & Bear Creek Parkway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 9. 188th Avenue NE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Multimodal Corridor Connection Overall Ranking Local Connectivity Score Local Intensity Score Subregional Connectivity Score Subregional Intensity Score Overall Connectivity Score Overall Intensity Score ---PAGE BREAK--- " P " P " P " P " P " P " P Overlake Education Hill SE Redmond Viewpoint Grass Lawn North Redmond Willows / Rose Hill Sammamish Valley Sammamish Valley Bear Creek English Hill 148th Ave NE NE 124th St NE Redmond Way 124th Ave NE Novelty Hill Rd NE Bellevue Redmond Rd NE 90th St Red-Wood Rd NE NE 24th St NE 116th St 166th Ave NE NE 104th St Avondale Rd NE 188th Ave NE NE 40th St NE 51st St W Lake Sa mmamis h U V 520 U V 202 U V 908 U V 202 Overlake P&R Bear Creek P&R Overlake TC Northeast 116th & I-405 Rose Hill Presbyterian Church P&R Bellevue Christian Reformed Church P&R Redmond P&R Redmond P&R U 10 U 7a U 3b U 11b U 13a U 6a U 11d U 5 U 6b U 7b U 13b U 1 U 4 U 2a U 8 U 11c U 12a U 2b U 8 U 14 U 16 U 9 U 12b U 3a U 11a U 3c U 15 Figure 2 Multimodal Corridors Local Demand Intensity GIS Data Source: US Census, King County GIS, Sound Transit, USGS, City of Redmond GIS, Community Transit 0 1 Miles City of Redmond Multimodal Corridors High Connection Intensity Medium Connection Intensity Low Connection Intensity Other Transit Network " P Park & Rides Transit Center Trails ---PAGE BREAK--- " P " P " P " P " P " P " P Overlake Education Hill SE Redmond Viewpoint Grass Lawn North Redmond Willows / Rose Hill Sammamish Valley Sammamish Valley Bear Creek English Hill 148th Ave NE NE 124th St NE Redmond Way 124th Ave NE Novelty Hill Rd NE Bellevue Redmond Rd NE 90th St Red-Wood Rd NE NE 24th St NE 116th St 166th Ave NE NE 104th St Avondale Rd NE 188th Ave NE NE 40th St NE 51st St Red-Wood Rd NE Willows Rd NE 85th St W Lake Sa mmamis h U V 520 U V 202 U V 908 U V 202 Overlake P&R Bear Creek P&R Overlake TC Northeast 116th & I-405 Northeast 116th & I-405 Rose Hill Presbyterian Church P&R Bellevue Christian Reformed Church P&R Redmond P&R Redmond P&R U 10 U 3b U 11b U 13a U 6a U 11d U 5 U 6b U 7a U 7b U 21a U 21b U 13b U 1 U 4 U 2a U 8 U 11c U 12a U 2b U 20b U 20a U 18 U 17 U 19 U 8 U U 14 U 16 U 9 U 12b U 3a U 11a U 3c U 15 U 22 21c Figure 3 Multimodal Corridors Sub-regional Demand Intensity GIS Data Source: US Census, King County GIS, Sound Transit, USGS, City of Redmond GIS, Community Transit 0 1 Miles City of Redmond Subregional Connection High Connection Intensity Medium Connection Intensity Low Connection Intensity Transit Network " P Park & Rides Transit Center Trails ---PAGE BREAK--- " P " P " P " P " P " P " P Overlake Education Hill SE Redmond Viewpoint Grass Lawn North Redmond Willows / Rose Hill Sammamish Valley Sammamish Valley Bear Creek English Hill 148th Ave NE NE 124th St NE Redmond Way 124th Ave NE Novelty Hill Rd NE Bellevue Redmond Rd NE 90th St Red-Wood Rd NE NE 24th St NE 116th St 166th Ave NE NE 104th St Avondale Rd NE 188th Ave NE NE 40th St NE 51st St Red-Wood Rd NE Willows Rd NE 85th St W Lake Sa mmamis h U V 520 U V 202 U V 908 U V 202 Overlake P&R Bear Creek P&R Overlake TC Northeast 116th & I-405 Northeast 116th & I-405 Rose Hill Presbyterian Church P&R Bellevue Christian Reformed Church P&R Redmond P&R Redmond P&R U 10 U 3b U 11b U 13a U 6a U 11d U 5 U 6b U 7a U 7b U 21a U 21b U 13b U 1 U 4 U 2a U 8 U 11c U 12a U 2b U 20b U 20a U 18 U 17 U 19 U 8 U U 14 U 16 U 9 U 12b U 3a U 11a U 3c U 15 U 22 21c Figure 4 Local and Subregional Demand Intensity by Multimodal Corridor GIS Data Source: US Census, King County GIS, Sound Transit, USGS, City of Redmond GIS, Community Transit 0 1 Miles City of Redmond Subregional Connection High Connection Intensity Medium Connection Intensity Low Connection Intensity Transit Network " P Park & Rides Transit Center Trails ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page ES-22 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. This page left intentionally blank ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 1-1 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1 Project Goals The goal of this project was to create a planning and policy document that contained guiding principles to strengthen local transit service in Redmond and promote overall mobility options in the community. The document allows Redmond to direct transit service investments in and around the City to support the multi-modal goals set forth in the Transportation Master Plan (TMP), and promote the local mobility vision contained in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. To this end, the study focuses on four major analysis components to promote mobility and local transit service in Redmond, these include: Community and regional transit markets needs Multi-modal corridor development Service evaluation and performance monitoring Transit supportive best practices 1.2 Project Overview Community and Regional Transit Market Needs The project sought to understand what Redmond wants to be as a community and identify how transit can serve the community to reach its goals. Transit is seen as a tool to achieve specific community goals – in this case, to increase connectivity with Downtown Redmond and the region and to increase mobility throughout the community via non-SOV (single occupancy vehicle) transportation modes. The project goals are to identify opportunities to strengthen and develop the local transit network, to define local transit needs with more clarity and to lay out the tactics to address these needs. The City of Redmond is defined by a strong Downtown that concentrates most retail, services, and cultural activities, and by residential and mixed-use industrial/residential areas around it. Geography and topography determine to a great extent the street structure of the city (which in many ways resembles a hub-and-spoke structure) and the boundaries between residential neighborhoods, industrial areas, and retail districts. Downtown effectively functions as the geographic center of all Redmond neighborhood areas. The result is a radial city with a clear inner-ring that includes Downtown, and residential areas in the outer-ring. The city structure, land use, and the grid network have a bearing on the trip generation, connectivity, and travel needs that are manifested at the neighborhood-to-neighborhood, neighborhood-to-Downtown, and Downtown-to-region level. Downtown represents both a sub-regional destination and an access point to the region at large for Redmond neighborhoods. According to the Comprehensive Plan, Redmond residents expect higher quality transit services and improved infrastructure for non-motorized connections between neighborhoods and adjacent communities and between neighborhoods and Downtown. At the same time they request direct and fast transit connections with major centers in the region such as Seattle, Bellevue, and Overlake. Three regional public transit providers operate in Redmond: Sound Transit, King County Metro, and Community Transit. King County Metro is the major service provider with local bus service ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 1-2 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. connecting Downtown Redmond and Overlake with other eastside cities – Duvall, Woodinville, Kirkland, Bellevue, Sammamish, and Issaquah. It also provides commuter service to Seattle. A major goal of this study was to work with King County Metro to identify where the goals of Redmond communities overlap with Metro’s strategic service plans, to identify the common ground and develop a shared strategy moving forward, and to identify where there are gaps in Metro’s service plans that need to be closed to address Redmond’s unmet transit needs. In this sense, the study has two intentions. The first is to document the knowledge of the service area that has been gained by the city in the development of its Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Master Plan. The second is to make use of Redmond’s unique understanding of market segments and mobility needs in the community in order to guide Metro’s service plans into the future. Transit use in Redmond today is marked by a high proportion of commute trips during peak hours and low transit usage during the midday. Sound Transit and King County Metro provide extensive connections throughout the community during peak hours with many routes serving multiple regional destinations on a single ride (no transfer required) at relatively low frequencies (every 30 minutes on average). All together Metro provides a significant number of service hours in the community every day. However, there is reduced connectivity during the midday – on weekdays, and very limited connectivity during weekends (i.e. Seattle, Kirkland, and Bellevue). Thus, the main question is whether service hours could be re-distributed differently throughout the community and throughout the day so that current and future peak-hour needs are met while the midday travel market is nurtured and strengthened in the future. Multi-Modal Corridor Development Continuing the development and design of the network of multi-modal corridors – that was identified in the TMP, is a major strategy to improve mobility and reduce traffic congestion in the City. The network of multi-modal corridors provides the City with a structure with which to focus its transportation priorities, guiding future investments in transportation infrastructure, traffic capacity management, transit service improvements, and promotion of alternative travel modes in accordance with the TMP’s multi-modal goals. A network of 14 multi-modal corridors has been defined by the TMP that provides critical community connections and enhanced mobility options to all Redmond neighborhoods, and connectivity with adjacent eastside cities and communities, Downtown Redmond, the Overlake Regional Center, and the regional freeway/highway network. A significant number of additional transit service hours would be reallocated in East King County as a consequence of new funding brought by the Transit Now initiative. These service hours will be invested in Metro’s Core Service Corridors as defined in the Strategic Plan for Public Transportation 2007-2016. Most core service corridors correspond to multi-modal corridors, however not all multi-modal corridors figure in Metro’s plans for transit service investments in the near future. This study analyzed where transit service hours would be allocated and provides guidance to make sure that multi-modal corridors providing critical mobility needs – that have untapped transit potential, get their fair share of transit service hours in the future. King County Metro’s main piece of transit service investment in the near future will be the RapidRide BRT service connecting Downtown Bellevue to Downtown Redmond through NE 8th Street, Crossroads, 156th Avenue NE, Overlake and 148th Avenue NE corridor. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 1-3 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Service Evaluation and Performance Monitoring The study also analyzed needed transit service connections in Redmond and between Redmond and adjacent communities based on the analysis of Redmond market areas, origin-destination travel patterns, and existing Metro and Sound Transit services. New transit service and/or changes to existing service need to be evaluated for cost-efficiency, potential utilization, and funding opportunities, as the y become available. A service evaluation and performance monitoring framework was developed to prioritize recommendations and chart an implementation plan (short-term and long-term), requiring actions at the planning and policy level. In addition, a series of performance measures were analyzed and recommended to refine current performance measures included in the TMP to track progress on specific transit service indicators including: Service Quality – the level of service in terms of both service frequency and directness of travel. A target Transit LOS was defined based on the comparison of transit travel times versus driving times for origin-destination connections of local and regional priority Service Accessibility – the coverage or footprint of the transit network in the community by time-of-day (i.e. is service available in the AM peak, midday, PM peak, evening, and weekend), and frequency of service available Service Performance – indicators of service productivity and service consumption (i.e. ridership per capita or ridership per corridor) Transit Supportive Best Practices To support transit service development and utilization throughout the community, this study developed a summary of transit supportive practices to guide citywide planning practices and policy strategies. The product of this effort is a Best Practices Report (see Appendix A) that serve as a reference document to support and strengthen the planning practices that are being implemented by the City of Redmond today, including: Employer Partnerships and TDM Policies – to reduce the number of vehicle trips in the city that are generated in the peak period from a diverse employment base and multiple districts, while increasing local and regional transit usage Non-Motorized Transportation Networks/Infrastructure – to increase connectivity throughout the community and promote walking and bicycle riding Parking Management and Land Use Strategies – to reduce excessive supply and footprint of parking in the central area and promote higher residential density, pedestrian-oriented development, and a more vibrant street life ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 1-4 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. This page left intentionally blank ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 2-1 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Chapter 2. Relevant Studies Review 2.1 City of Redmond Overview The following paragraphs provide a summary of Redmond’s vision and policies regarding improving local transit service in the city and increasing mobility options in the community. Three major plans are reviewed: the City of Redmond Comprehensive Plan, the Transportation Master Plan, and the Commute Trip Reduction Plan. Redmond Comprehensive Plan City of Redmond Goals Redmond’s comprehensive plan establishes the following goal for its transportation system: To provide convenient, safe, and environmentally friendly transportation connections within Redmond, and between Redmond and other communities for people and goods Other goals relate to the land use and urban form opportunities and the type of built environment that the city wants for its residents in the future, which will have direct impacts on the design of the transportation system and the effectiveness of transit service. These include the following: To retain and enhance Redmond’s distinctive [residential] character and high quality of life, including an abundance of parks, open space, good schools and recreational facilities To maintain a strong and diverse economy, and to provide a business climate that retains and attracts locally owned companies as well as internationally recognized corporations To emphasize choices in housing, transportation, stores and services To support vibrant concentrations of retail, office, service, residential, and recreational activity in Downtown and Overlake Future Vision for Redmond in 2022 The desired urban environment is better articulated in the city’s vision for future year 2022: Downtown is an outstanding place to work, shop, live and recreate Old Town thrives as a focus for retail activity that attracts pedestrians Overlake has become recognized as a regional urban center The city has a strong economy and a diverse job base Residential neighborhoods are treasured for their attractiveness, friendliness, diversity, safety, and quietness Neighborhood and community parks contribute to a high quality of life Infrastructure and services have been provided to meet the needs of a growing population as well as to correct existing deficiencies There are energy efficient and environmentally sound transportation systems People spend less time traveling and more time where they want to be ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 2-2 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. This vision describes a place with vibrant retail, office, services, and recreational opportunities concentrated in a couple of districts (Downtown and Overlake); high quality residential neighborhoods that are safe, quiet and attractive; and connections to community parks and open space through a network of trails, bike facilities, and pedestrian facilities. Framework Policies To a great extent the city’s vision longs for a place in which most needs (work, school, shopping, medical, and recreation) will be satisfied within the city boundaries and thus reduce resident need for long-distance travel – allowing them to spend less time in the car or the bus, and affording them more time to make local trips in non-motorized transportation modes (walking and biking). This is also articulated in the series of framework policies that are listed below: FW-11: Plan to accommodate a future population of 65,700 people and an employment base of 106,000 jobs in the City of Redmond by the year 2022 FW-12: Promote a development pattern and urban design that enable people to readily use alternative modes of transportation, including walking, bicycling, transit, and carpools FW-22: Enhance the pedestrian ambiance of Downtown through public and private investments FW-23: Foster Old Town’s identity as a destination that has retained its historic identity and traditional Downtown character, is linked through attractive pedestrian connections to the rest of Downtown, and provides an inviting atmosphere in which to shop, stroll, or sit during the day and evening FW-24: Support the Overlake Urban Center as a focus for high technology and other employment located within a vibrant urban setting that provides opportunities to live, shop and recreate close to workplaces. Make public and private investments that reinforce the desired character and increase the attractiveness of the Overlake Urban Center as a place in which to walk, bicycle and use transit FW-25: Ensure that development and investments in the Overlake Urban Center address transportation issues of concern to both Redmond and Bellevue, help to retain the character of nearby residential neighborhoods, and enhance a green character within the area through addition of parks, street trees and landscaping as well as retention of significant trees and other natural features FW-30: Ensure that Redmond’s character as a green city with a small-town feel is protected when planning, constructing, and maintaining the transportation system. Prioritize, plan, and invest in transportation to achieve Redmond’s land use and community character objectives, while accommodating the adopted population and employment growth targets FW-31: Develop strong local transportation connections that are multi-modal, well- designed, and appropriately located for the movement of people, goods, and freight among Redmond’s Downtown, residences, shopping, employment, government, parks, and schools FW-32: Promote mobility choices by developing a range of practical transportation alternatives. Increase transportation investments that enhance the attractiveness of walking, bicycling, local and regional transit routes, and ridesharing to promote the quality of life and health of Redmond’s citizens and the environment. Address travel demand ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 2-3 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. through mobility choices, as well as through projects and programs that increase street safety and operating efficiency FW-33: Develop strategies to influence regional decisions and leverage transportation investments to support and complement Redmond’s land use, community character, and transportation objectives and to increase mobility, choice, and access between the City and the region for people, goods, and information Redmond Transportation Master Plan The Vision 2020 Growth Management Plan and the Destination 2030 Transportation Plan contain the regional growth and transportation strategies for the Puget Sound region. These plans call for concentrating future growth into urban centers and linking these centers with high capacity transit. The Countywide Planning Policies for King County expand on this strategy by outlining guidelines for the designation and development of urban centers and measures to be taken by local jurisdictions in support of a high capacity transit system. In Redmond’s Comprehensive Plan, Downtown and part of Overlake are designated as urban centers that warrant high capacity transit service between these centers and the region. It also identifies Southeast Redmond as another potential destination for high capacity transit service and a maintenance facility. The Transit Plan Local Redmond, Eastside and Regional Transit Service The TMP identifies at least six major policies and strategies for enhancing local transit service and guiding development of regional high capacity transit services. These include the following: TR-24: Identify Redmond’s transit needs through a transit planning process that considers transit services, passenger amenities and capital projects needed to provide Redmond and the Eastside with local transit service TR-25: Use transit as a way to provide for access, circulation and mobility needs in areas planned for higher density mixed-use development and for favorable pedestrian environments TR-27: Work to redevelop the Downtown Redmond Park and Ride facility as a multi-story, mixed-use transit-oriented development (TOD) that is complementary to the Downtown neighborhood. Maintain the park and ride function of this site with the current vehicle parking capacity TR-28: Develop the Redmond Downtown Transit Center with full transit center components, including timed transfers between most routes, passenger waiting areas and other amenities, and on-site route information High Capacity Transit TR-29: Participate actively and continuously in the planning and development of an efficient, timely, and effective regional high capacity transit system that is competitive with the single-occupant vehicle. Plan for the extension of high capacity transit to the eastside and to Overlake, Downtown and Southeast Redmond as part of Sound Transit Phase 2, or any successor plan TR-30: Support high capacity transit service and support facilities for Redmond that: ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 2-4 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. – Provide service to Overlake, Downtown and Southeast Redmond that is located to ensure efficient, timely, and effective service, within a high capacity transit alignment located mainly in the SR 520 freeway corridor – Locate high capacity transit stations in Overlake, Downtown and Southeast Redmond – Locate the Downtown station site near the intersection of SR 202 and SR 520 – Achieve higher bus transit service levels to and within Redmond’s two urban centers, providing connections to the high capacity transit stations Other Transportation Policies and Strategies Other major transit supportive policies contained in the plan discuss specific strategies for the planning and development of the following: Pedestrian and bicycle facilities Neighborhood traffic calming Transportation demand management Parking management plans Transit Trends and Mode Share Transit Trends The TMP analyzed ridership and revenue-hour data for Metro and Sound Transit services in Redmond from 1990 to 2003. During the period ridership grew at a modest pace, while the level of service available to the community experienced significant growth. As a result, the number of boardings per revenue hour decreased by about seven boardings per revenue hour, on average. Along major transit corridors (i.e. Redmond Way and 156th Avenue NE), increases in revenue hours did not result in noticeable ridership increases. Higher levels of ridership were found in corridors with supporting transit facilities, such as high quality stops. Also, with a similar number of stops, service routes and revenue hours, the Redmond Way corridor generated much lower ridership than 156th Avenue NE. Mode Share Analysis The TMP analyzed mode share trends for all daily trips in Redmond based on U.S. Census 2000 data, Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) surveys and the Land Use Transportation Air Quality Health (LUTAQH) study commissioned by King County in 1999. SOV trips make up more than 73 percent of the commute trips, however when all daily trips are included, the number of SOV trips is reduced dramatically to just below 45 percent. The overall share of trips made in a private vehicle remains about the same, but many more trips are made in vehicles with more than one person (HOV or high occupancy vehicle). See Table 2 and Table 3 on the next page. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 2-5 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Table 2: Redmond Commute Mode Split Mode Census 2000 Redmond 2003 CTR 2003 LUTAQH Census 2000 National Drove alone 76.2% 75.2% 73.2% 75.8% Car/vanpooled 11.3% 17.1% 11.0% 12.2% Public transit 4.2% 3.1% 4.7% 4.7% Bicycle 0.8% 0.7% 1.9% 0.4% Walked 2.8% 0.9% 7.5% 2.9% Other means 0.4% 0.0% 1.3% 0.7% Worked at home 4.3% 3.0% n/a 3.3% Source: Redmond Transportation Master Plan (Page 3-7) When looking at the average distance traveled by all trips, about two thirds (67%) of daily trips are less than five miles in length, with about one-third (30%) of trips being less than one mile in length. The SOV share of daily trips increases as the trip length increases, from 30 percent for trips shorter than one mile to more than 50 percent for trips longer than five miles (see Table 3 below). The HOV share of trips is higher for trips of one to five miles in length (e.g. local trips), and the transit share of daily trips is highest for trips longer than five miles (e.g. commute trips). Bicycle share of trips is highest for trips of one to five miles in length, and walking is highest for trips shorter than one mile in length. Table 3: Average Distance Traveled by Mode Share Mode <1 mile 1 to 2.5 miles 2.5 to 5 miles > 5 miles Total Share of All Trips SOV 30.3% 48.7% 50.0% 51.6% 44.2% HOV 35.3% 43.9% 42.1% 39.7% 39.6% Transit 3.7% 1.8% 2.4% 7.7% 4.4% Bike 0.3% 2.4% 2.4% 0.6% 1.2% Walk 30.3% 3.2% 0.3% 0.0% 10.0% Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.5% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: Redmond Transportation Master Plan (Page 3-9) Table 3 implies that transit service has been the least effective at capturing trips of one to five miles in length, which represents about one half of the local market trips. Walking and bicycle capture a larger share of trips than transit for the 1 to 2.5 miles trip length category. Regional Transit Travel Time During the TMP process, citizens of Redmond expressed a desire for transit travel between Downtown and Overlake to other urban centers in the region to be a ‘real choice’. In other words, ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 2-6 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. regional travel by transit should be a practical alternative that is not overly time-consuming relative to auto travel times. Today, transit service from Redmond to these centers is by bus, principally on regional routes provided by Sound Transit and complementary service provided by Metro. In the future, some of these connections may be provided by some sort of high capacity transit system: Bus Rapid Transit, Light Rail, and/or other. Local Transit Connectivity At the same time, Redmond residents identified better local connectivity as a priority need for personal mobility. ‘Local Connectivity’ was defined in the TMP as the level of service (LOS) for the transit connections that are possible between Redmond neighborhoods. LOS priorities for neighborhood-to-neighborhood connections were defined by establishing Local Transit Connectivity Measures based on expected route directness, frequency and service hours, as defined in Table 4 and Table 5 below. Table 4: Local Transit Connectivity Measures Level Criteria PC – Priority Connection Peak hour frequency of service 15 min). Direct connection 1.5 x most direct route). All day service 18 hours). MS – Maintain Service Level Maintain at least today’s level of service. N – No Direct Connection No direct local route connection yet. Source: Redmond Transportation Master Plan (Page 4-7) Table 5: Local Priority Connections To/From Redmond Town Center NE Redmond Overlake Transit Center Overlake Park & Ride Grass Lawn SE Redmond Willows Viewpoint Downtown PC PC PC PC MS PC MS MS Redmond TC N N N MS N N N NE Redmond N N N N N N Overlake TC PC MS MS N N Overlake P&R MS MS N N Grass Lawn MS N N SE Redmond N N Willows N Source: Redmond Transportation Master Plan (Page 4-7) ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 2-7 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Most local transit services in Redmond are provided by King County Metro, and most Metro bus routes in Redmond are segments of longer routes that connect with other Eastside cities. LOS measures for local transit in Redmond emphasize connections between Redmond neighborhoods and three major service destinations: Downtown, Redmond Town Center, and Overlake. Direct connections between neighborhoods would be facilitated by frequent priority connections to these three service destinations, which would enable convenient transfers to other Redmond neighborhoods. Transit Centers Overlake Transit Center The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) has adopted a centers-based policy toward transportation system development that has been reflected in the TMP by designing policies and strategies that will ensure good access to and circulation within Downtown Redmond and Overlake and that will support the intensification of both as mixed-use centers. It is the position of both the Redmond City Council and the Planning Commission to see the centers in Redmond connected to other regional centers by High Capacity Transit (HCT). HCT is seen as critical for future development and sustainability of both urban centers. The Overlake Center is designated as one of Redmond’s two top locations for residential growth, and is also a technology center designated for continued employment growth. Land uses in the area today are spread over both sides of SR-520 and many bus routes operate through the OTC or terminate their service in the Overlake area; however the effective level of service (frequency and travel time) that is available for local circulation is not adequate to meet the needs of Overlake residents. Regional service is focused on getting people to/from OTC; very little distribution (last mile) service is provided throughout the business area except for Microsoft’s Shuttle Connect service. Microsoft, the major employer in Overlake, started running a system of vans and shuttles that link regional transit with the front doors of Microsoft campus buildings. In addition, Microsoft runs shuttles from OTC connecting with other office park facilities in Redmond and Bellevue such as Millennium (in Bear Creek), Redmond Town Center (in Downtown Redmond), Willows/Rose Hill (in the Sammamish Valley), buildings along 148th Avenue NE and 156th Avenue NE, and Lincoln Square/City Centre in downtown Bellevue. None of these private shuttle services are available to Overlake residents or non-Microsoft affiliated businesses. Redmond Transit Center A Downtown Transportation Master Plan was prepared prior to the citywide TMP. Specific project elements in the Downtown TMP included a Downtown Transit Center that enjoyed continued support from Redmond citizens. The renewed Redmond Transit Center opened on February 9, 2008 with improved boarding areas, passenger shelters, and lighting for bus riders. Located in the heart of Downtown Redmond and walking distance to any destination in downtown2, the $7.2 million transit center was a joint project between King County Metro, Sound Transit, and the City of Redmond. The facility replaced a smaller, cramped set of bus stops originally constructed in 1978. The project also contemplated construction of a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) and Park & Ride garage on the site of the former parking lot. This has been completed and is already in operation. 2 A walk score of 95 out of 100, according to www.walkscore.com ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 2-8 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Park & Ride Lots Table 6 below lists all park and ride lots currently in operation within Redmond Table 6: Park and Ride Lots in Redmond Location Amenities Served by Routes Bear Creek P&R 7760 178th Pl NE Parking: 283 spaces Bike Lockers 216, 233, 248, 253, 268, 269, 982 Sound Transit: 545 Overlake P&R 2650 152nd Ave NE Parking: 203 spaces Bike Racks 242, 247, 249, 250, 253, 261, 269 Community Transit: 441 Overlake Transit Center 15590 NE 36th St Parking: 170 spaces Bike Lockers 221, 225, 229, 230, 232, 233, 244, 245, 247, 249, 256, 268, 269, 982 Community Transit: 441 Sound Transit: 545, 564, 565 Redmond Transit Center P&R 16160 NE 83rd Street Parking: 386 spaces Bike Lockers 221, 230, 232, 248, 250, 251, 253, 265, 266, 291, 929 Sound Transit: 545 Redmond Home Depot 17777 NE 76th St Parking: 178 spaces 216, 233, 253, 268, 269 Redmond P&R 8701 160th Avenue NE Parking: 110 spaces 230, 232, 253, 291 Sound Transit: 545 Redwood Family Church 11500 Redmond-Woodinville Road NE Parking: 10 spaces 221, 251 Source: Redmond Transportation Master Plan Downtown Traffic A Downtown Redmond peak-hour traffic study was conducted in March 2004. The study found that more than one-third (1/3) of all peak-hour traffic was “pass-through traffic” making no stops within Redmond’s Downtown district. More significantly, almost three-quarters (3/4) of this pass- through traffic made no stops within the City of Redmond. In other words, more than 25 percent of all peak-hour traffic is passing through downtown from somewhere outside Redmond to somewhere outside Redmond without stopping anywhere in the city. Pass-through traffic rises in the afternoon commute period, because of eastbound congestion on SR-520 at that time of day. Pass-through traffic occurs also, because of Redmond’s legacy of radial routes into the surrounding neighborhoods and (Avondale Road, SR-202, etc.). These radial routes converge and bring traffic through the downtown area. Another equally significant finding is the fact that nearly two-thirds (2/3) of peak-hour traffic observed either originates or stops in downtown. These vehicles are carrying downtown employees, customers and residents. By 2020 this group will represent close to three-quarters (73%) of the peak-hour traffic in downtown. In consequence, Redmond is adopting a balanced ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 2-9 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. approach to addressing the downtown street network, an approach that involves two parallel strategies: First, the City is working to provide routes for pass-through travel that is impacting but not benefiting the downtown. This includes working with WSDOT to increase capacity of SR- 520 and also extending Bear Creek Parkway to handle non-freeway traffic that goes through downtown because of the radial street network. Second, Redmond is working to improve the functionality of the downtown street network for internal circulation and access. This does not involve increasing the capacity of downtown street corridors, but rather improving the connectivity of the downtown network by, for example: – Extending 164th Avenue NE and 161st Avenue NE across the BNSF railroad corridor, – Building the Bear Creek Parkway extension (including the 161st Avenue connection) to improve connectivity between downtown and the Town Center – Converting the one-way pair (Redmond Way and Cleveland Avenue) to two-way operation – Converting key corridors from four-lane to three-lane with parking to improve multi- modal functionality and business accessibility BNSF Corridor in the Downtown Master Plan The Downtown Transportation Master Plan also included specific project elements such as the acquisition of the BNSF rail right of way. Development of this corridor would allow the city to continue the East Sammamish Parkway bike trail, which stops at SR-520 and Redmond Way and offers unique open space and park-like pedestrian amenities for connecting downtown. Multi-Modal Corridors The TMP established a network of multi-modal corridors for the City of Redmond. Multi-modal corridors are major transportation facilities that provide users with a variety of travel alternatives. The corridors facilitate direct connections between residential neighborhoods and activity centers in Redmond (i.e. commercial, industrial, recreational, and institutional centers). As such they serve both as public transit and private vehicle routes. With designation as a multi-modal overlay (a planning tool used to define how and where the city can be smarter about making capital investments), the transit component of these corridors will be strengthened and supplemented with pedestrian and bicycle improvements that allow for enhanced modal integration. Automobile needs will continue to be met, but will be balanced with the needs of the other transportation modes. Strategies for investments in the multi-modal corridors will improve various aspects of the transportation infrastructure, as well as their relationship with adjacent land uses. These two considerations are fully integrated to develop multi-modal corridors in Redmond. Transportation Infrastructure The carrying capacity of streets and roadways for increased automobile traffic is finite. Corridors are most successful in carrying the highest number of trips when they are designed to support multiple modes of transportation – cars, buses, bikes and pedestrians (see Figure 5, Redmond Transportation Network). ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 2-10 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. The success of transit, bicycling, and walking as transportation modes is determined by the quality of the facilities and proximity to the places where people travel. Short trip distances (dependent on land use densities and site layouts with good pedestrian facilities) combined with the presence of bicycling and walking facilities (linked to reliable transit routes) encourage mode shift away from motor vehicles. When all modes work in concert, people have true transportation choices. Land Use Redmond’s existing neighborhood zoning is suburban in character. The lower densities and a desire to be separated from the urban area discourage modes of transportation other than the automobile. Yet, neighborhood visions and policies contained within the Redmond Comprehensive Plan consistently call for improved bicycle, pedestrian, and transit connections to such areas. Areas of the community with moderate to high densities are more likely to support transit ridership if designed with appropriate pedestrian connections. Likewise, commercial areas, business parks and multi-use activity centers can support and should be served by all modes of transportation. The ability for such areas to support non-motorized vehicle trips depends on providing realistic quantities of free automobile parking and designing buildings with a better orientation to multi- modal corridors (see Figure 6, Land Use). Multi-Modal Corridor Benefits Travel Efficiencies Providing for more than a single transportation mode in one corridor extends the range of travel. Transit can be thought of as an extension of the walking trip; walking as an extension of the transit trip. Bicycling options are enhanced when bicycle parking facilities are provided at transit stops and Metro buses are installed with bike racks. Land Use Efficiencies Land uses that provide access to multi-modal corridors facilitate trips from a wider range of users and begin to address “place making” strategies. Neo-traditional and New Urbanism development patterns near multi-modal corridors have shown high rates of walking, bicycling, transit ridership, and social interaction compared to corridors with limited transportation options. Public Infrastructure Cost Efficiencies Development of multi-modal corridors maximizes capital expenditures versus spreading infrastructure costs over many corridors. The multi-modal corridor system recognizes strategic places where capital improvements will occur and capital dollars will be spent. Table 7 on the next page, provides the list of multimodal corridor segments established by the TMP. Figure 5 and Figure 6 on the subsequent pages show the network of multimodal corridors compared to the existing transit service network and to the existing land uses in the City, respectively. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 2-11 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Table 7: Redmond Multi-Modal Corridors Multi-modal Corridor Neighborhood Accessibility 1. NE 116th Street North Redmond, Education Hill, Sammamish Valley 2a. Red-Wood Road North Redmond, Education Hill, Sammamish Valley, Downtown 2b. 160th Avenue NE Extension Sammamish Valley, Downtown 3a. 172nd Avenue NE & NE 111th Street Education Hill 3b. 166th Avenue NE Education Hill, Downtown 3c. 164th Avenue NE & Bear Creek Parkway Downtown, Town Center 4. Avondale Road North Redmond, Education Hill, Bear Creek, Downtown 5. NE 90th Street Willows/Rose Hills, Sammamish Valley, Downtown 6a. 161st Avenue NE Downtown, Old Town 6b. Leary Way/Bear Creek Parkway Extension Downtown, Old Town 7. Redmond Way Willows/Rose Hills, Grass Lawn, Downtown 8. Old Redmond Road Grass Lawn, Downtown 9. 188th Avenue NE Southeast Redmond, Bear Creek 10. 148th Avenue NE Overlake, Grass Lawn 11a. NE 51st Street Overlake 11b. 156th Avenue NE Overlake 11c. NE 31st Street & 152nd Avenue NE Overlake 12. NE 40th Street Overlake, Viewpoint 13. West Lake Sammamish Parkway Viewpoint, Overlake, Downtown 14. NE 24th Street Overlake, Viewpoint Source: Redmond Transportation Master Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- "P "P "P "P "P "P "P Overlake Education Hill SE Redmond Viewpoint Grass Lawn North Redmond Willows / Rose Hill Sammamish Valley Sammamish Valley Bear Creek English Hill Lake Sammamish U V 520 U V 202 U V 908 U V 202 Rose Hill Presbyterian Church P&R Redmond P&R Overlake P&R Bear Creek P&R Bellevue Christian Reformed Church P&R Rose Hill Presbyterian Church P&R Redmond P&R Overlake P&R Bear Creek P&R Bellevue Christian Reformed Church P&R Overlake Transit Center Overlake Transit Center 148th Ave NE NE 124th St NE Redmond Way 124th Ave NE Novelty Hill Rd NE Bellevue Redmond Rd NE 90th St Red-Wood Rd NE NE 24th St NE 116th St 166th Ave NE NE 104th St Avondale Rd NE 188th Ave NE NE 40th St NE 51st St Willows Rd NE 85th St W Lake Sa mmamis h Pkw y 148th Ave NE NE 124th St NE Redmond Way 124th Ave NE Novelty Hill Rd NE Bellevue Redmond Rd NE 90th St Red-Wood Rd NE NE 24th St NE 116th St 166th Ave NE NE 104th St Avondale Rd NE 188th Ave NE NE 40th St NE 51st St Willows Rd NE 85th St W Lake Sa mmamis h Pkw y Figure 5 City of Redmond Transportation Network GIS Data Source: King County GIS, Sound Transit, Community Transit 0 0.5 1 Miles City of Redmond Transportation Network Transit Center "P Park-and-Ride Bus Stops Multimodal Corridors Regional Transit Trails Urban Centers Parks ---PAGE BREAK--- n n n n n n nn n n n n n n n n n 148th 124th Redmond 128th 85th Novelty Hill 154th Bellevue Redmond 24th 164th Redmond Fall City 160th Woodinville Redmond West Lake Sammamish 90th U V 520 U V 202 U V 202 U V 908 Figure 6 City of Redmond Land Use Map GIS Data Source: US Census,King County GIS, Sound Transit, USGS, City of Redmond GIS 0 1 Miles Overlake Education Hill SE Redmond Viewpoint Grass Lawn North Redmond Downtown Willows / Rose Hill Sammamish Valley Bear Creek English Hill Overlake Education Hill SE Redmond Viewpoint Grass Lawn North Redmond Downtown Willows / Rose Hill Sammamish Valley Bear Creek English Hill Land Use by Parcel City of Redmond Agricultural use Business Park Business Park no structure Duplex Hotel, motel Industrial Industrial Park Industrial use without building Institutional Institutional with no structure Manufacturing/Industrial Park Mobile Home Multifamily (3 or more units) Office Parks or Open Space Retail Right of way Single Family Parking or Open Space No data Utilities Utility with no structure Regional Transit Network ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 2-14 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Redmond Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Plan The table below identifies all employment sites by neighborhood that are CTR-affected and the overall number of employees that commute to each neighborhood. Table 8: CTR Employment Sites by Redmond Neighborhood *Neighborhoods that are not included lack major CTR employers. Neighborhoods* CTR Employers Number Of Employees Downtown AT&T Wireless City of Redmond Lake Washington School District Microsoft 2,400 employees Overlake Compass Group CompuCom/Excell Data Eddie Bauer Inc. Group Health Cooperative Honeywell Microsoft Nintendo of America Sakson and Taylor Siemens Business Services 43,500 employees Bear Creek Golder Associates Microsoft Univar 2,400 employees Southeast Redmond Benchmark Electronics City of Redmond Concur Technology, Inc. Genie Industries IDD Aerospace Microvision TTM Technologies United Parcel Service 4,300 employees Willows/Rose Hill Aerojet General Corporation AREVA T&D, Inc. Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems AT&T Wireless Comcast of Washington Crane Medtronic Emergency Response Systems Microsoft Overlake Christian Church Quantum Radio Frame Networks Solutions IQ Volt Computer Engineering Services Vacation Ownership 4,600 employees ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 2-15 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Transit Strategies Redmond multi-modal corridors should have at least one all-day transit route that provides a connection to one activity center in Redmond. Planned CTR strategies include: Local service along corridors will be frequent during most of the day – at least one route with 15 minutes service frequency to major activity centers Transit stops will be identifiable, well-designed, and properly sited. Amenities should include benches, shelters, route information, bike racks, and be well-illuminated Route design allows connections between activity centers (within Redmond, to/from Kirkland and Bellevue, and regionally to/from Seattle) and offers time competitive connections Generally, transit service connecting destinations within Redmond represents the greatest deficiency. There are no all-day routes that link all worksite clusters Transit Services The City of Redmond continues to work collaboratively and proactively with King County Metro Transit and Sound Transit to identify and implement increased and more efficient transit service as part of the Transit Now and ST2 Regional Transit planning efforts. Bus Rapid Transit planning and infrastructure improvements are planned along the 148th Avenue NE and 156th Avenue NE corridors as part of King County Metro’s RapidRide. In addition, potential service and transit efficiency proposals are being explored as part of the Transit Now process. The City, through its Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), has allocated funding for expanding local shuttle service, extending to areas outside Willows/Rose Hill and Southeast Redmond, with a renewed emphasis on the Overlake area. Redmond remains committed to working with King County Metro to identify potential new routes and partnership opportunities to add new transit service and corridor bus operations improvements. In addition, the TIP provides funding for development of new TDM initiatives including a last mile/first mile program providing origin- destination links to transit centers/stations. Transit Facilities The City has also allocated funding through the TIP to provide capital facilities such as transit shelters, pedestrian walkways, and connections to transit. The TIP also provides opportunities for seed funding to employers in Redmond to partner with local and regional transit agencies to provide new or enhanced infrastructure that supports transit use (e.g. transit shelters, concrete pads, benches, etc.). Bicycle Strategies The City of Redmond has specific programs to support the use of the bicycling infrastructure along multi-modal corridors. Planned CTR strategies for corridors include the following: Highly identifiable primary features will provide for travel throughout the corridor – either via paved bicycle paths or designated on-street bicycle lanes All barriers to bicycle travel will be removed. Roadways will be easy to cross. Narrow sections of facilities will be improved to meet transportation standards ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 2-16 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Secure bicycle parking will be provided at transit stops, businesses, and other destinations Wayfinding signage identifying bicycling connections will be provided at gateways to various parts of the community Bicycle and Sidewalk Facilities The City is committed to enhancing bicycle and sidewalk facilities through its Capital Investment Program and has an ongoing sidewalk maintenance program to enhance pedestrian safety and fill in missing-link sidewalk segments. The City has offered and will continue to offer matching funds for providing bicycle lockers at transit centers. Redmond will keep working proactively to identify opportunities to partner with private sector employers and developers to help address gaps in the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Pedestrian Strategies Most multi-modal corridors have ‘Pedestrian Tolerant’ facilities located throughout. Planned strategies for improvement of the walking environment aim at making corridors to be ‘Pedestrian Supportive’ environments, as defined in the TMP. The City’s Transportation Master Plan contains four classifications of pedestrian walking environments. Each is described below. Pedestrian Place Destinations: These are districts of limited extent, with mixed-use land development, moderate to high densities, good transit service, great streets, and extensive pedestrian accommodation in the form of sidewalks, crosswalks, and other facilities. Pedestrian Supportive Environments: These include well-designed residential and commercial neighborhoods, employment centers, parks, schools and recreational areas. Pedestrian Supportive Environments are safe for walking where sidewalks are continuous and buffered from streets, wide enough for passing and walking side by side, and where good street crossings have been provided. Land uses are either dense enough to both generate and attract utilitarian walking trips of reasonably short (half mile or less), or are the sort that will attract recreational walkers and joggers. Buildings, not parking lots, face streets. Pedestrian Tolerant Environments: These are areas and corridors where walking is technically safe (there are continuous sidewalks and some kind of reasonable safe street crossings), but the land use patterns are such that little walking activity is likely to be generated. These include arterial street corridors, remote or rural streets and certain light industrial or warehousing areas. Such places only attract limited amounts of utilitarian walking, and will not appeal to recreational walkers or strollers. Tolerant environments provide pedestrian facilities, but include a very minimal amount of accommodation. Pedestrian Intolerant Environments: This is a polite term for pedestrian hostile areas where walking is unsafe and unattractive. Examples include freeway corridors, certain industrial or extraction land uses and/or dominance by automobile traffic and auto- oriented land uses. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 2-17 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Parking Strategies A downtown parking study was completed in 2008. The study offered recommendations and suggestions on how parking supply and demand can be better balanced and managed in Downtown Redmond. In addition to studying parking pricing, other trip reduction practices are being implemented in this effort. Marketing & Incentives The City of Redmond and King County will continue to work together to implement R-TRIP, a program that helps fund Redmond employer commute trip reduction efforts. R-TRIP is the award-winning program that rewards commuters and residents for choosing an alternative to driving alone. R-TRIP offers personalized trip assistance, incentives, and resources to help change the way commuters and residents get around. Through R-TRIP, the City has been very successful in forming partnerships with local businesses to provide effective alternatives to SOV use. Employers with two or more employees are eligible to apply for grants to implement new or enhanced commute trip reduction programs such as: Vanpool subsidies of $50 or more per employee per month Fully-subsidized transit passes Incentives of at least $20 per employee per month to carpool, walk, or bike to work Bike racks, lockers, and free bike helmets Priority parking for carpools and other parking incentives Van sharing programs Subsidized custom bus service and shuttles Greater Redmond Transportation Management Association The Greater Redmond Transportation Management Association (GRTMA) is a private, non-profit corporation that has also served as a key partner in marketing and outreach for the various alternate commute incentive programs in Redmond. The GRTMA supports its employer and developer members with creative and innovative marketing and promotional campaigns to assist and educate commuters about commute-to-work alternatives. Assistance includes promotions and marketing; help in surveying, plan writing, grant development, program development, transportation needs analysis and advocacy; parking management studies; and effectiveness evaluation, measurement and tracking. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 2-18 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 2.2 Regional Transit Service Overview King County Metro, Sound Transit, and Community Transit are the three agencies that provide general public transit service in the City of Redmond – together they operate 30 different bus routes. As illustrated in Figure 7 to Figure 10 at the end of this section, these services operate on most of Redmond’s major arterial streets and provide connections to most destinations in the region. Table 9 and Table 10 below summarize service frequencies and operating characteristics for each of these services. Table 9: Regional Transit Services in Redmond - Weekday As shown in Table 9 above, most bus routes in Redmond provide service during the peak time only, with only a handful of routes providing all-day service (AM peak, midday, and PM peak) on weekdays. The most typical service frequency provided is 30-minute in both peak-hour and midday periods. AM Peak Midday PM Peak Evening Night 216 Redmond-Sammamish-Issaquah-Bellevue-Mercer Island-Seattle 30 30 221 Redmond-Overlake-Bellevue 30 30 30-60 1 trip 225 Overlake-Bellevue-Seattle 3 trips 3 trips 229 Overlake-Bellevue-Seattle 30 30 230 Redmond-Overlake-Bellevue-Kirkland 30 30 30 30-60 232A Redmond-Overlake-Bellevue 30 30 232B Duvall-Redmond-Overlake-Bellevue 30 30 233 Redmond-Overlake-Bellevue 30 30 30 60 242 Seattle-Overlake 15-30 30 244 Kenmore-Kingsgate-Overlake 30 30 245 Kirkland-Overlake-Bellevue 30 30 30 30 60 247 Overlake-Bellevue-Renton-Kent 3 trips 3 trips 248 Redmond-Kirkland 30 30 30 30 30-60 249 Overlake-Bellevue 30 60 30 250 Redmond-Seattle 30 30 251 Bothell-Woodinville-Redmond 30 60 30 253 Bellevue-Overlake-Redmond 30 30 30 30-60 60 256 Seattle-Bellevue-Redmond 30 30 261 Overlake-Bellevue-Seattle 30 30 265 Redmond-Seattle 15-20 15-20 266 Redmond-Seattle 20 20 268 Redmond-Seattle 30 30 269 Overlake-Redmond-Sammamish-Issaquah 20-30 4 trips 20-30 2 trips 291 Redmond-Kingsgate 30 30 441 2 trips 2 trips 545 Redmond-Seattle 8-10 15 8-10 30-60 564 Puyallup-Federal Way-Kent-Renton-Bellevue-Overlake 8-30 30 15-30 30-60 565 Federal Way-Kent-Renton-Bellevue-Overlake 8-30 30 15-30 30-60 60 929 Redmond-Duvall-Carnation-Fall City 2 trips 120 2 trips 2 trips 982 Redmond-Seattle 1 trip 1 trip Route Description (First location listed is AM origin) Weekday ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 2-19 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Table 10: Regional Transit Services in Redmond - Weekend Table 10 above, shows that only a handful of routes continue their service over the weekend with service frequencies every 30 minutes on daytime Saturday and every 60 minutes on daytime Sunday. Transit Service in the TMP The Redmond Transportation Master Plan categorized transit service in three distinctive service types: local, regional, and express. These are shown on Table 11, Table 12, and Table 13, and Figure 7 (on page 2-30); service types were defined as follows: Local: a local service route has many stops within Redmond and offers connections to other services every few blocks Regional: a regional route connects Redmond with at least two other municipalities, while offering local service to popular Redmond destinations Express: an express route connects Redmond with at least one other urban center before connecting with Seattle Daytime Evening Night Daytime Evening Night 216 Redmond-Sammamish-Issaquah-Bellevue-Mercer Island-Seattle 221 Redmond-Overlake-Bellevue 30 60 60 60 225 Overlake-Bellevue-Seattle 229 Overlake-Bellevue-Seattle 230 Redmond-Overlake-Bellevue-Kirkland 30-60 30-60 60 60 232A Redmond-Overlake-Bellevue 232B Duvall-Redmond-Overlake-Bellevue 233 Redmond-Overlake-Bellevue 60 242 Seattle-Overlake 244 Kenmore-Kingsgate-Overlake 245 Kirkland-Overlake-Bellevue 30 30 60 30-60 60 60 247 Overlake-Bellevue-Renton-Kent 248 Redmond-Kirkland 30 30-60 30 30-60 249 Overlake-Bellevue 60 250 Redmond-Seattle 251 Bothell-Woodinville-Redmond 60 253 Bellevue-Overlake-Redmond 30-60 30-60 60 60 60 60 256 Seattle-Bellevue-Redmond 261 Overlake-Bellevue-Seattle 265 Redmond-Seattle 266 Redmond-Seattle 268 Redmond-Seattle 269 Overlake-Redmond-Sammamish-Issaquah 291 Redmond-Kingsgate 441 545 Redmond-Seattle 30 30-60 30 30-60 564 Puyallup-Federal Way-Kent-Renton-Bellevue-Overlake 565 Federal Way-Kent-Renton-Bellevue-Overlake 929 Redmond-Duvall-Carnation-Fall City 982 Redmond-Seattle Route Description (First location listed is AM origin) Sunday Saturday ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 2-20 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Table 11: Local Service Routes in Redmond Route Description (First location listed is AM origin) Weekday Peak Directional Peak Bidirectional Midday Bidirectional 221 Redmond-Overlake-Bellevue Yes Yes 230 Redmond-Overlake-Bellevue-Kirkland Yes Yes 248 Redmond-Kirkland Yes Yes 249 Overlake-Bellevue Yes Yes 251 Bothell-Woodinville-Redmond Yes Yes 253 Bellevue-Overlake-Redmond Yes Yes 291 Redmond-Kingsgate Yes 232A Redmond-Overlake-Bellevue Yes Local bus routes are characterized by all-day service (peak and midday) in two directions – to Redmond and from Redmond – to adjacent Eastside Communities. Some local routes also provide regional service such as Metro lines 221, 230, and 251. Table 12: Regional Service Routes in Redmond Route Description (First location listed is AM origin) Weekday Peak Directional Peak Bidirection al Midday Bidirection al 233 Redmond-Overlake-Bellevue Yes Yes 244 Kenmore-Kingsgate-Overlake Yes 245 Kirkland-Overlake-Bellevue Yes Yes 247 Overlake-Bellevue-Renton-Kent Yes 269 Overlake-Redmond-Sammamish-Issaquah Yes Yes 929 Redmond-Duvall-Carnation-Fall City Yes Yes 232B Duvall-Redmond-Overlake-Bellevue Yes Regional bus routes comprise a group of both all-day service in two directions (peak and midday) and peak-only service in one direction (commute direction only). ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 2-21 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Table 13: Express Service Routes in Redmond Route Description (First location listed is AM origin) Weekday Peak Directional Peak Bidirectional Midday Bidirectional 216 Redmond-Sammamish-Issaquah-Seattle Yes 225 Overlake-Bellevue-Seattle Yes 229 Overlake-Bellevue-Seattle Yes 242 Seattle-Overlake Yes 250 Redmond-Seattle Yes 256 Seattle-Bellevue-Redmond Yes 261 Overlake-Bellevue-Seattle Yes 265 Redmond-Seattle Yes 266 Redmond-Seattle Yes 268 Redmond-Seattle Yes 441 Yes 545 Redmond-Seattle Yes Yes 564 Federal Way-Kent-Renton-Bellevue-Overlake Yes Yes 565 Federal Way-Kent-Renton-Bellevue-Overlake Yes Yes 982 Redmond-Seattle Yes Express bus routes are comprised mostly of peak-only services in the commute direction (one direction only) with the exception of Sound Transit routes, which operate all day in both directions. As shown on Figure 7 (on page 2-30) local service routes provide connections throughout Redmond neighborhoods such as Education Hill, Downtown, and Overlake, and parts of Willows/Rose Hill, Sammamish Valley, Grass Lawn, and Southeast Redmond. Regional routes provide service to farther communities such as Sammamish, Duvall, Woodinville, Kenmore/Bothell, and Eastgate. While Express bus routes provide connections mostly to Seattle. King County Metro Services Metro’s 40/40/20 Rule In 2002 King County adopted the Six-Year Transit Development Plan for 2002 to 2007. As part of this plan, each of the three Metro service subareas was designated to receive a share of new service hours as follows: East 40 percent, South 40 percent, and West 20 percent (the “40/40/20allocation”). Currently, approximately 64 percent of Metro’s service hours are allocated to serve the West Subarea that includes Seattle, Shoreline and Lake Forest Park, which comprises about 35 percent of the county’s population. The other two subareas share the remaining 36 percent of ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 2-22 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. service hours. Seattle has a greater share of service per capita primarily for historical and ridership performance reasons. When Metro was formed it absorbed the established Seattle Transit, which had an extensive route system and frequent service. Prior to Metro’s formation there was meager transit service in the suburbs. Since the entire county contributes to Metro transit, there is a desire in the East and South subareas to gradually improve the level of transit service to get closer to the higher baseline for service that Seattle enjoys. The 40/40/20 policy, which addresses only new service added to the system, is intended to achieve a more even balance of service hours per capita between subareas over time3. Service Characteristics Operating 26 routes serving Redmond, King County Metro is the city’s most significant public transportation provider. As highlighted in the tables above, Metro bus routes provide local service to Redmond neighborhoods and one-seat rides to a variety of regional destinations throughout East King County – plus express bus service to Seattle. Ten routes operate all day service, with eight routes providing Saturday service and only five routes operating on Sundays. The core of the Metro system in Redmond is comprised of four local routes and one regional route, providing all day weekday, Saturday, and Sunday service: Route 221 – links Education Hill and Downtown Redmond with Overlake and Bellevue, operating along 148th Avenue NE Route 230 – links Downtown Redmond with Overlake, Bellevue Crossroads, Downtown Bellevue and Kirkland, operating along 154th and 156th Avenue NE, Bellevue Way, and Lake Washington Blvd Route 248 – links North Redmond and Downtown Redmond with Kirkland, operating via Avondale Road, Redmond Way, and NE 85th Street Route 253 – links Downtown Redmond with Overlake, Crossroads, and Downtown Bellevue via 148th and 156th Avenue NE and NE 8th Street Route 245 – links Overlake with Eastgate, Bellevue Community College, Crossroads, and Kirkland, operating along 156th and 148th Avenue NE and Old Redmond Road Table 14 in the next page summarizes the many one-seat connections that are possible with current public transit services in Redmond. Bus routes have been sorted by service frequency in the AM peak and by service type – whether it is peak-only in the commute direction only “peak directional), peak-only in both directions (peak bidirectional), or peak and midday both directions (all-day bidirectional). Figure 8, Figure 9, and Figure 10 at the end of this section show the extent of King County Metro services during the peak, midday, and weekend periods. During peaks, most destinations in the region are reached on routes operating at 30-minute frequencies. For midday 30-minute frequency routes, destinations reached with Metro’s transit network are reduced to Seattle, Downtown Kirkland, Downtown Bellevue, Bellevue Crossroads, Overlake, and Eastgate. During weekends, destinations reached with transit are further reduced to the major corridors connecting Redmond to Downtown Kirkland, Overlake, Bellevue Crossroads, and Eastgate. These corridors include Redmond Way, Old Redmond Way, 148th Avenue NE, and 156th Avenue NE. 3 http://seattletransitblog.com/2007/06/06/metros-404020-rule/ ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 2-23 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Table 14: Destinations Reached with Transit by Service Frequency in the AM Peak Transit Route # Redmond TC Bear Creek PR Overlake TC Overlake PR Seattle‐Downtown Seattle‐Other Bellevue TC Crossroads Mall Bellevue CC Kirkland TC Totem Lake Sammamish/Issaquah Woodinville PR Duvall Bothell Kenmore AM Peak Frequency 545 & & & & 10 242 ¦ ¦ ¦ 20 269 > > > > 20 564 & & 20 250 ¦ ¦ ¦ 25 265 ¦ ¦ 25 216 ¦ ¦ ¦ 30 221 & & & 30 229 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ 30 230 & & & & & & 30 233 & & & 30 244 ¦ ¦ ¦ 30 245 & & & & 30 248 & & & 30 249 & & & 30 251 & & & 30 253 & & & & 30 291 > > 30 565 & & 30 256 ¦ ¦ 35 261 ¦ ¦ ¦ 35 266 ¦ ¦ 35 268 ¦ ¦ 35 232 A > > > 40 232 B ¦ ¦ 40 982 ¦ ¦ 1 trip 929 & & & 2 trips 441 ¦ ¦ ¦ 2 trips 225 ¦ ¦ ¦ 3 Trips 247 ¦ ¦ ¦ 3 trips All day Bidirectional & Peak Bidirectional > Peak Directional ¦ ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 2-24 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Service Performance Metro divides its service area into three service subareas: East, South, and West County. Redmond is located in the East County Subarea. Metro tracks performance of its bus services by subarea only, generating a performance report that tracks every service route by time of day operation: Peak, Off-Peak, and Night. These are defined as follows: Peak – AM peak and PM peak route operations for a typical weekday Off-Peak – midday operations for a typical weekday and weekend operations Night – evening and night services for a typical weekday Four major performance indicators are used to track performance on each bus service, as defined below: Riders per Revenue Hour: tracks passenger boardings per service hour; thus a useful indicator of productivity. Fare Revenue to Operating Expense Ratio: tracks the proportion of operating expenses that is recovered from fares paid by customers; thus the more passengers boarding the route, the more revenue. This correlates with Riders per Revenue Hour. Passenger Miles per Revenue Hour: passenger miles is the product of all passengers times the average trip length of all passengers; thus tracking the distance traveled by all passengers. Then, passenger miles per revenue hour tracks the distance traveled per service hour and acts as an indicator of service consumption. Passenger Miles per Platform Miles: platform miles are the miles traveled by each bus operating a route and includes in service and/or deadheading buses. Passenger miles per platform miles is a measure of mobility improvement by comparing miles traveled per passenger by total vehicle miles traveled. Table 15: Metro Eastside Subarea Performance Thresholds Performance Thresholds 2005 – 2007 (revised using Fall 2005 route data) Performance Thresholds Time Period Rides per Revenue Hour Fare Revenue / Op. Expense Pass. Miles / Revenue Hour Pass. Miles / Platform Miles Strong Peak 39.8 23% 421 12.4 Off-Peak 30.2 18% 159 8.7 Night 29.7 12% 186 7.2 Minimum Peak 12.9 6% 44 2.4 Off-Peak 10.3 3% 38 2.1 Night 8.3 3% 37 2.2 Source: King County Metro 2007 Route Performance Report ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 2-25 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. These performance indicators are combined using standard deviations to produce a ranking index and individual performance thresholds, as shown in Table 15 above. Performance thresholds are set for three years to allow comparison of route performance year over year. Performance thresholds for 2005 – 2007, the most recent evaluation period, are based on subarea performance by time period in 2005. A strong performance is defined as one standard deviation above the mean [gray] A minimum performance is defined as one standard deviation below the mean [black] Eastside Subarea performance thresholds in Table 15 above show that Peak period performance is stronger than Off-Peak period performance, on average. More passengers per revenue hour, a higher revenue ratio, more passenger miles per revenue hour, and more passenger miles per platform hour are accrued on the AM and PM peaks than during the midday. To a great extent, this is a reflection of Metro operating a higher number of routes and service hours (frequency) during the Peak and much less in the midday, and not an issue of lack of demand. In contrast Off-Peak performance thresholds in the South and West Subareas are much closer and sometimes higher than the Peak, because there are more routes and service hours devoted to all-day routes and Off-Peak service than in the East Subarea. 57 percent of revenue hours were dedicated to Peak service in the East compared to 48 percent in the South and 41 percent in the West Subareas. Table 16 below provides a route-by-route performance summary for the Off-Peak and for each route operating in Redmond. Figures reflect year 2007 performance and thus some new route changes are not reflected, such as Route 221. Table 16: Redmond Route Performance Summary (Off-Peak Period) Route Origin/Destination Rides per Revenue Hour Fare Revenue / Op. Expense Pass. Miles / Revenue Hour Pass. Miles / Platform Miles 253 Bear Creek PR to Bellevue TC 50.5 24% 151 10.8 230 Redmond PR to Kingsgate PR 42.1 17% 160 9.0 245 Kirkland to Factoria via OTC 33.2 14% 157 9.3 255 Overlake TC to Seattle 32.5 13% 326 13.8 222 Overlake TC to Factoria 21.3 10% 85 4.8 233 Beat Creek PR to Bellevue TC 19.4 9% 100 6.2 249 Overlake TC to Bellevue 13.1 6% 68 4.0 251 Bothell to Redmond PR 9.8 5% 66 3.2 921 Eastgate P&R 9.5 5% 49 2.8 220 Redmond PR to Bellevue TC 8.2 5% 51 2.9 Eastside Average 23.4 11% 115 6.3 Strong Performance Threshold 30.2 18% 159 8.7 Minimum Performance Threshold 10.3 3% 38 2.1 Source: King County Metro 2007 Route Performance Report Table 17 in the next page provides a route-by-route performance summary for the Peak and for each route operating in Redmond. Figures reflect year 2007 performance as well. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 2-26 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Table 17: Redmond Route Performance Summary (Peak Period) Route Origin/Destination Rides per Revenue Hour Fare Revenue / Op. Expense Pass. Miles / Revenue Hour Pass. Miles / Platform Miles 229 Overlake TC to Eastgate PR 68.1 32% 653 19.8 253 Bear Creek PR to Bellevue TC 47.9 28% 161 10.5 230 Redmond PR to Kingsgate PR 47.7 25% 160 8.5 225 Overlake TC to Eastgate PR 44.9 26% 462 14.4 255 Overlake TC to Seattle 44.8 28% 422 16.8 245 Kirkland to Factoria via OTC 41.8 24% 172 10.3 268 Bear Creek PR to Seattle 36.1 16% 478 11.1 261 Overlake PR to Seattle 35.8 19% 280 10.2 216 Bear Creek PR to Seattle 33.3 16% 567 15.6 266 Redmond PR to Seattle 28.6 12% 295 8.1 265 Redmond PR to Seattle 26.6 12% 283 7.0 233 Beat Creek PR to Bellevue TC 25.8 14% 114 6.7 250 Redmond PR to Seattle 23.7 12% 238 6.6 222 Overlake TC to Factoria 21.4 13% 78 4.8 232 Duvall to Bellevue 19.3 8% 152 4.4 644 Kenmore to Overlake 17.0 6% 174 4.4 249 Overlake TC to Bellevue 15.5 9% 58 2.9 251 Bothell to Redmond PR 13.7 8% 88 3.9 247 Overlake TC to Renton/Kent 12.5 5% 93 2.6 269 Overlake TC to Sammamish 12.4 5% 100 3.8 291 Redmond to Kingsgate PR 11.4 n/a 40 3.4 220 Redmond PR to Bellevue TC 8.8 5% 36 1.8 929 Fall City to Redmond 3.1 2% 37 1.1 Eastside Average 30.6 15% 257 7.8 Strong Performance Threshold 39.8 23% 421 12.4 Minimum Performance Threshold 12.9 6% 44 2.4 Source: King County Metro 2007 Route Performance Report Table 16 and Table 17 show that most Redmond routes surpass the minimum standards on both the Peak and Off-Peak period, with some routes exceeding the ‘Strong’ threshold. These include Routes 230 (Redmond PR to Kingsgate PR), 245 (Kirkland to Factoria via OTC), 253 (Bear Creek PR to Bellevue TC), and 255 (Overlake TC to Seattle) during both Peak and Off-Peak periods; and Routes 225 (Overlake TC to Eastgate PR) and 229 (Overlake TC to Eastgate PR) in the Peak period. Only Routes 247 (Overlake TC to Renton/Kent), 269 (Overlake TC to Sammamish), 220 (Redmond PR to Bellevue TC), and 929 (Fall City to Redmond) operating during Peak hours; and Off-Peak service on Route 251 (Bothell to Redmond PR) and 921 (Eastgate PR) failed to reach the minimum thresholds. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 2-27 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Conclusions These performance figures show that Metro bus routes operating in Redmond either meet or exceed East County performance thresholds on both peak and off-peak periods. Also, routes operating all-day bidirectional along major corridors connecting Redmond with the region show the highest ridership and performance standards. All together, this indicates the potential for higher transit use throughout the day if higher service frequency was provided along these urban corridors. King County Metro Transit Strategic Service Plan 2007-2016 Metro’s Vision and Goals King County Metro Transit (Metro) services have been evolving since the 1990’s with the advent of Sound Transit regional express bus services Metro continues to provide many regional connections and peak-period express services to major urban centers [complementing the Sound Transit express bus service network] Metro’s focus for new bus service is to improve connections to/between activity centers in the county Metro’s emphasis is to invest in frequency and span-of-service on high ridership routes and consolidating parallel or redundant services [developing and strengthening new and existing transit corridors] Transit Now Improvements to Metro’s public transit service in the strategic plan include the services described in the Transit Now voter initiative (a voter-approved 0.1% sales tax increase), which would fund increases in transit service by up to 800,000 annual hours by year 2016. New service hours would be spent as follows: Transit Now service initiatives Local service partnership contributions Added hours to maintain reliable schedules (up to 1/3 of new service hours) The Transit Now initiatives include the following: More service (greater frequency or span of service) on “Core Service Connections” Implementation of RapidRide bus rapid transit service in five corridors A service partnership program to leverage investments in transit service or street improvements that would benefit transit speed and reliability New or improved service in rapidly developing areas Expanded service area for Access paratransit service Improved ridesharing services and vanpool program capacity ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 2-28 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Future Service Investments in the Eastside and Redmond RapidRide BRT The most significant improvement to Metro services that is being planned for the Redmond area is the establishment of a RapidRide service between Bellevue and Redmond via Crossroads and Overlake (See Figure 13). This system is intended to improve customer travel experience by combining new service, supporting capital equipment and facilities, and improving traffic operations to reduce travel times by 10-30%. The following are key features of the future RapidRide system: High frequency operation (target of 10 minutes or less during most hours of weekday operation) Faster, more reliable trip times through exclusive, HOV or Business Access and Transit (BAT) travel lanes, and/or priority at intersections through transit signal priority and queue jumps Improved shelter waiting areas with real-time information at major stops Low emission hybrid diesel-electric buses Branded buses and facilities with a unique look and feel RapidRide implementation will occur in two phases. The first phase will establish the final route, street, and facility improvements required for service implementation. The second phase will consider potential restructuring of other Metro bus routes in conjunction with the start-up of RapidRide. Core Service Connections Table 18 below and Figure 12 (on page 2-35), show the Core Service Connections selected for transit service improvement in the strategic plan that operate in and around Redmond corridors. Table 18: Planned Investments in Core Service Connections in Redmond Activity Centers Corridor 2016 Target Frequency Peak Midday & Saturday Evening & Sunday Level 3 Improvements: more than 15,000 annual hours Issaquah to Redmond 228th Avenue SE, NE Sammamish 30 30-60 60 Kirkland to Redmond Avondale Road NE, NE 85th Street 30 30 30 Level 2 Improvements: 5,000 – 15,000 annual hours Bellevue to Bear Creek Overlake 15 15-60 60 Redmond to Eastgate/Factoria 148th Avenue, Crossroads Mall, BCC, Eastgate 15 15 30 Level 1 Improvements: 5,000 annual hours or less No level 1 improvements planned n/a n/a n/a Other Core Corridors Bellevue to Redmond Crossroads, Overlake 15 15 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 2-29 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Core Service Connections served by Sound Transit Redmond to Kirkland NE 85th Street 30 30 60 Redmond to Seattle SR 520 10-15 30 30 Source: King County Metro Strategic Plan for Public Transportation 2007-2016 Service Improvement Outlook from Metro Service Planning Metro staff members suggest that several service expansions might be appropriate, in accordance with the strategic plan, if resources become available. These include more frequent service and longer operating hours on core service connections, as identified below: Route 221 – Redmond to Eastgate/Factoria via Overlake along 148th Avenue NE (replaced 220 and 921) Route 245 – Kirkland to Eastgate/Factoria via Overlake along 156th Avenue NE Route 248 – Redmond to Kirkland, along Avondale Way, Redmond Way and NE 85th Street (replaced ST 540) Route 253 – Redmond to Bellevue via Overlake Village along NE 8th Street and 148th Avenue NE (future RapidRide corridor) This also includes increased service coverage in North Redmond and Southeast Redmond: Route 251 – Bothell to Redmond via Woodinville and Cottage Lake Route 268 – Southeast Redmond to Seattle via Bear Creek Park & Ride Route 269 – Overlake to Issaquah via Bear Creek Park & Ride and Sammamish Figure 11 (on page 2-34), shows average all-day boardings per weekday by each stop in the system. It includes boardings for both King County Metro and Sound Transit services. There are more than 9,000 boardings within Redmond every weekday, on average. Most boardings occur at the Bear Creek Park & Ride, Downtown Redmond Transit Center, the Overlake Transit Center, and at key stops along the SR 520 corridor (West Lake Sammamish Parkway and NE 51st Street). Most other boardings occur along the key corridors connecting Redmond with Kirkland and Bellevue throughout the day and the weekend. These include Redmond Way/NE 85th Street, Old Redmond Way, 148th Avenue NE, and 156th Avenue NE. Other relevant corridors outside the city include NE 8th Street and Bellevue Way in Bellevue and Lake Washington Boulevard and 124th Avenue NE in Kirkland. Other relevant transit centers include Eastgate, Downtown Bellevue, South Kirkland Park & Ride, Downtown Kirkland, and Kingsgate Park & Ride. In essence, most transit ridership and usage is found along a handful of bus routes – including ST 545, MT 245, and MT 253, that provide service throughout the day and the weekend along key regional corridors, including SR 520, 148th Avenue, Redmond Way/NE 8th Street, and 156th Avenue NE. ---PAGE BREAK--- "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P Bellevue Redmond Kirkland Sammamish Medina Mercer Island Clyde Hill Woodinville Lake Sammamish Lake Washington Overlake Education Hill SE Redmond Viewpoint Grass Lawn North Redmond Downtown Bear Creek Willows / Rose Hill Sammamish Valley English Hill 405 90 405 405 U V 520 U V 202 U V 908 148TH AVE NE NE 124TH ST 124TH AVE NE 108TH AVE SE 112TH AVE NE 156TH AVE SE 148TH AVE SE 3RD ST NE 85TH ST NE 104TH ST BELLEVUE WAY NE NE 24TH ST NE 8TH ST AVONDALE RD NE NE 112TH ST 104TH AVE SE 172ND AVE NE NE 60TH ST LAKE HILLS BLVD 112TH AVE SE 84TH AVE NE MARKET ST NE 90TH ST 132ND AVE NE NE 133RD ST SE 8TH ST SE 24TH ST 100TH AVE NE NE 128TH ST NE 80TH ST SE 26TH ST MAIN ST NE 76TH ST 123RD AVE SE 100TH AVE NE NE 40TH ST AVONDALE RD NE 164TH AVE NE Figure 7 Regional Transit Service Network by Service Category GIS Data Source: King County GIS, Sound Transit, Community Transit 0 1 2 Miles Transit Service Network by Service Category Express Service Regional Service Local Service Regional Transit Network Streets Transit Center "P Park-and-Ride King County Parks City of Redmond ---PAGE BREAK--- 565 "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P Bellevue Redmond Kirkland Sammamish Medina Mercer Island Clyde Hill Woodinville Lake Sammamish Lake Washington Overlake Education Hill SE Redmond Viewpoint Grass Lawn North Redmond Bear Creek Willows / Rose Hill Sammamish Valley English Hill 405 90 405 405 U V 520 U V 202 U V 908 148TH AVE NE NE 124TH ST 124TH AVE NE 108TH AVE SE 112TH AVE NE 156TH AVE SE 148TH AVE SE 3RD ST NE 85TH ST NE 104TH ST BELLEVUE WAY NE NE 24TH ST NE 8TH ST AVONDALE RD NE NE 112TH ST 104TH AVE SE 172ND AVE NE NE 60TH ST LAKE HILLS BLVD 112TH AVE SE 84TH AVE NE MARKET ST NE 90TH ST 132ND AVE NE NE 133RD ST SE 8TH ST SE 24TH ST 100TH AVE NE NE 128TH ST NE 80TH ST SE 26TH ST MAIN ST NE 76TH ST 123RD AVE SE 100TH AVE NE NE 40TH ST AVONDALE RD NE 164TH AVE NE U 225 U 247 U 929 U 247 U 411 U 545U 242U 266U 268U 982 U 225 U 545 U 564U 565 U 221 U 221 U 265 U 250 U 216 U 229 U 261 U 232 U 249 U 291 U 245 U 251 U 269 U 230 U 248 U 230 U 230 U 232 U 232 U 251 U 232U 248 U 644 U 249 U 253U 261 U 230 U 225 U 269 U 216 U 244 Figure 8 Transit Service Connections - Peak GIS Data Source: King County GIS, Sound Transit, Community Transit 0 1 2 Miles Peak Service Frequency 16 - 30 min 15 min or less 31 - 60 min 60 min ore more Regional Transit Network Streets Transit Center "P Park-and-Ride King County Parks City of Redmond ---PAGE BREAK--- "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P Bellevue Redmond Kirkland Sammamish Medina Mercer Island Clyde Hill Woodinville Lake Sammamish Lake Washington Overlake Education Hill SE Redmond Viewpoint Grass Lawn North Redmond Bear Creek Willows / Rose Hill Sammamish Valley English Hill 405 90 405 405 U V 520 U V 202 U V 908 148TH AVE NE NE 124TH ST 124TH AVE NE 108TH AVE SE 112TH AVE NE 156TH AVE SE 148TH AVE SE 3RD ST NE 85TH ST NE 104TH ST BELLEVUE WAY NE NE 24TH ST NE 8TH ST AVONDALE RD NE NE 112TH ST 104TH AVE SE 172ND AVE NE NE 60TH ST LAKE HILLS BLVD 112TH AVE SE 84TH AVE NE MARKET ST NE 90TH ST 132ND AVE NE NE 133RD ST SE 8TH ST SE 24TH ST 100TH AVE NE NE 128TH ST NE 80TH ST SE 26TH ST MAIN ST NE 76TH ST 123RD AVE SE 100TH AVE NE NE 40TH ST AVONDALE RD NE 164TH AVE NE U 225 U 247 U 929 U 225 U 545 U 545 U 564U 565 U 221 U 221 U 265 U 250 U 216 U 229 U 256 U 261 U 232 U 249 U 291 U 242 U 245 U 251 U 230 U 248 U 230 U 230 U 232 U 251 U 248 U 644 U 249 U 253U 261 U 230 U 225 U 269 U 216 U 244 U 266U 268U 982 U 441 U 249 Figure 9 Transit Service Connections - Midday GIS Data Source: King County GIS, Sound Transit, Community Transit 0 1 2 Miles 16 - 30 min 15 min or less Midday Service Frequency 31 - 60 min 1 hr or more Transit Center "P Park-and-Ride King County Parks City of Redmond No Midday Service Regional Transit Network Streets ---PAGE BREAK--- "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P Bellevue Redmond Kirkland Sammamish Medina Mercer Island Clyde Hill Woodinville Lake Sammamish Lake Washington Overlake Education Hill SE Redmond Viewpoint Grass Lawn North Redmond Bear Creek Willows / Rose Hill Sammamish Valley English Hill 405 90 405 405 U V 520 U V 202 U V 908 148TH AVE NE NE 124TH ST 124TH AVE NE 108TH AVE SE 112TH AVE NE 156TH AVE SE 148TH AVE SE 3RD ST NE 85TH ST NE 104TH ST BELLEVUE WAY NE NE 24TH ST NE 8TH ST AVONDALE RD NE NE 112TH ST 104TH AVE SE 172ND AVE NE NE 60TH ST LAKE HILLS BLVD 112TH AVE SE 84TH AVE NE MARKET ST NE 90TH ST 132ND AVE NE SE 8TH ST SE 24TH ST 100TH AVE NE NE 128TH ST NE 80TH ST SE 26TH ST MAIN ST NE 76TH ST 123RD AVE SE 100TH AVE NE NE 40TH ST AVONDALE RD NE 164TH AVE NE U 225 U 247 U 929 U 247 U 545 U 545 U 564U 565 U 221 U 221 U 265 U 250 U 216 U 229 U 256 U 261 U 232 U 249 U 291 U 242 U 245 U 251 U 269 U 230 U 248 U 230 U 230 U 232 U 251 U 248 U 644 U 249 U 253U 261 U 230 U 225 U 269 U 216 U 244 U 266U 268U 982 U 441 U 249 U 256 U 249 Figure10 Transit Service Connections - Weekend GIS Data Source: King County GIS, Sound Transit, Community Transit 0 1 2 Miles 16 - 30 min 15 min or less Weekend Service Frequency 31 - 60 min 1 hr or more Transit Center "P Park-and-Ride King County Parks City of Redmond No weekend service Regional Transit Network Streets ---PAGE BREAK--- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P Bellevue Redmond Kirkland Sammamish Clyde Hill Mercer Island Medina Woodinville Overlake Education Hill SE Redmond Viewpoint Grass Lawn North Redmond Bear Creek Willows / Rose Hill Sammamish Valley English Hill U V 520 U V 202 U V 908 U V 520 405 90 405 405 U V 202 148TH AVE NE NE 124TH ST 124TH AVE NE 108TH AVE SE 156TH AVE SE 148TH AVE SE 3RD ST NE 85TH ST NE 104TH ST BELLEVUE WAY NE NE 24TH ST NE 8TH ST AVONDALE RD NE 104TH AVE SE LAKE HILLS BLVD 112TH AVE SE MARKET ST NE 90TH ST 132ND AVE NE SE 24TH ST 100TH AVE NE NE 128TH ST SE 26TH ST 123RD AVE SE 100TH AVE NE NE 40TH ST AVONDALE RD NE 164TH AVE NE Figure11 Average Weekday Boardings GIS Data Source: King County GIS, Sound Transit, Community Transit 0 1 2 Miles Daily Boardings By Stop Transit Center "P Park-and-Ride Daily Boardings 3,001 or more 2,001 to 3,000 1,001 to 2,000 501 to 1,000 500 or less Regional Transit Network Streets King County Parks ! 100 or less ! 101 to 500 ! 501 to 1,000 ! 1,001 to 2,000 ! 2,001 or more By Route serving Redmond ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 2-35 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Figure 12: Metro’s Core Service Connections Source: King County Metro Strategic Plan for Public Transportation 2007-2016 ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 2-36 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Sound Transit Regional Service Sound Transit Services Three Sound Transit express bus routes, ST 545, ST 564, and ST 565, connect Redmond with several other major urban centers in the Puget Sound region. ST 545 is one of the two most heavily patronized routes in Sound Transit’s regional network, reporting more than one million annual passengers in 2008 and more than 6,500 passengers per weekday. Its success is largely due to its sustained service hours and frequent service throughout the day in both-directions, serving midday and commute travel from Seattle to the Overlake Transit Center (OTC) and Downtown Redmond, and all day travel from Redmond to Seattle. This said, weekend ridership on ST 545 is much lower – at about the system’s average for Saturday and Sunday. ST 564 and ST 565 operate as a pair, linking Auburn with Bellevue and the Overlake Transit Center. ST 565 also serves South Hill in Puyallup. Both routes began serving Overlake in September 2005 when service was extended from the Bellevue Transit Center, today providing service every 15 minutes between OTC and Downtown Bellevue during rush hour periods. During 2008, about 490 people per day got on or off these two routes inside Redmond. No weekend service is offered on ST 564 or ST 565. Sound Transit Regional Service Plan (ST2) East Link Light Rail Under ST2, Link light rail will be extended from North Seattle into Snohomish County, across Lake Washington into Bellevue and Overlake, and south of SeaTac International Airport to Federal Way. ST2 adds approximately 36 miles of new light rail and proposes a future in which someone can ride a light rail train to a job or appointment from OTC in Redmond west to Bellevue, Downtown Seattle and the SeaTac Airport or to the University of Washington and on to Northgate and It will take 20 minutes to travel on a light rail train from Downtown Bellevue to the International District Station and nearby Qwest and Safeco fields, and another 15 minutes from Overlake Transit Center to Downtown Bellevue; a total of 35 minutes from OTC to the International District Station. The East Link project will expand light rail from Downtown Seattle to the Eastside with nine planned new stations serving Rainier Avenue/I-90, Mercer Island, South Bellevue, Downtown Bellevue, Overlake Hospital, the Bel-Red corridor, Overlake Village, and Overlake Transit Center. The line is scheduled to be open to Bellevue by 2020 and Overlake Transit Center by 2021. There are also plans to extend the line to Downtown Redmond in the future (not funded construction yet) with two stations at Se Redmond and Downtown Redmond. East Link will connect to the Link light rail system between Downtown Seattle and SeaTac Airport. Figure 13 at the end of this section highlights the proposed Link routing between Bellevue and Redmond. ST Express Regional Bus Improvements The ST2 Plan rapidly improves ST Express bus service in the highest-need corridors. Specifically, ST2 provides annual operating and fleet expansion funds to increase service levels, improve service frequency, expand hours of operation, and add trips to relieve overloads in the following corridors: I-5, Everett to Seattle and Tacoma to Seattle I-90, Issaquah to Bellevue and Seattle ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 2-37 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. I-405, Everett to Bellevue and Renton to Bellevue SR 167, Puyallup, Sumner, Auburn, Kent, Tukwila and Renton to Bellevue SR 522, Woodinville and Bothell to Seattle It also includes new routes in the SR 520 corridor to further develop bus rapid transit (BRT) connecting Redmond, Bellevue, the University of Washington and Downtown Seattle, taking advantage of transit speed and reliability improvements programmed as part of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Project. In conjunction with King County Metro Transit bus services in the SR 520 corridor, Sound Transit will restructure ST Express services to improve overall service reliability and frequencies to at least every 15 minutes in both directions all day long on weekdays. Sound Transit will also improve passenger amenities such as real-time next bus arrival information at stations. High service levels, streamlined transit facilities, and congestion management will result in a fast, reliable, and high-capacity BRT system in the corridor. As part of this improvement, a new ST 542 BRT route is planned to connect Downtown Redmond and the University District in Seattle via SR 520. Beginning in 2009, ST2 is including a sufficient number of buses and operating funds to provide a total of 100,000 annual platform hours above Sound Move planned levels. ST2 will continue this service expansion on I-5, I-405, SR 520, SR 522, SR 167, and I-90 through the 15-year life of the plan. Eastside Rail Corridor Partnership The ST2 Plan also sets aside funds that may be used in connection with rail passenger development and associated work that may be undertaken by other local governments and public agencies for long-term passenger rail service on an existing BNSF line. This rail line, portions of which BNSF intends to abandon and which the Port of Seattle is purchasing through the federal rail-banking process, stretches from the City of Snohomish to the City of Renton, east of Lake Washington. It also includes a 7-mile spur connecting Woodinville with Downtown Redmond. The State of Washington has directed Sound Transit and the PSRC to complete a feasibility study of potential passenger rail on this corridor. In addition, other parties in the region have expressed an interest in passenger rail service on this line. Community Transit Services Route 441, which links the Edmonds Park-and-Ride with the Overlake Transit Center and the Overlake Park-and-Ride is Community Transit’s only service operating inside Redmond. It operates two trips from Snohomish County to Redmond in the morning, with two return trips in the afternoon. No changes have been identified in this line under Community Transit’s 2008-2013 Transit Development Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P Bellevue Redmond Kirkland Sammamish Medina Mercer Island Clyde Hill Woodinville Lake Sammamish Lake Washington Overlake Education Hill SE Redmond Viewpoint Grass Lawn North Redmond Bear Creek Willows / Rose Hill Sammamish Valley English Hill 405 90 405 405 U V 520 U V 202 U V 908 148TH AVE NE NE 124TH ST 124TH AVE NE 108TH AVE SE 112TH AVE NE 156TH AVE SE 148TH AVE SE 3RD ST NE 85TH ST NE 104TH ST BELLEVUE WAY NE NE 24TH ST NE 8TH ST AVONDALE RD NE 104TH AVE SE LAKE HILLS BLVD 112TH AVE SE 84TH AVE NE MARKET ST NE 90TH ST 132ND AVE NE SE 24TH ST 100TH AVE NE NE 128TH ST NE 80TH ST SE 26TH ST MAIN ST 123RD AVE SE 100TH AVE NE NE 40TH ST AVONDALE RD NE 164TH AVE NE Figure 13 RapidRide and East Link GIS Data Source: King County GIS, Sound Transit, Community Transit 0 1 2 Miles Bellevue-Redmond RapidRide Future High Capacity Transit Investment Sound Transit East Link Bus Service to Redmond Regional Transit Network Streets Transit Center "P Park-and-Ride King County Parks City of Redmond Sound Transit / Community Transit ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 3-1 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Chapter 3. Market Potential Analysis The following chapter reviews background information from the Comprehensive Plan, the Transportation Management Plan, U.S. Census 2000 information at the block group level, and PSRC population and employment projections at the TAZ level to develop an understanding of mobility needs, market characteristics and transit potential within Redmond communities and between Redmond and other Eastside communities. 3.1 Redmond Neighborhoods and Districts The TMP breaks down the City of Redmond into seven Transportation Management Districts (TMDs) (see Redmond Comprehensive Plan page 9-5), which are further subdivided into ten neighborhoods plus an additional neighborhood - English Hill, within the City’s potential annexation area (see Redmond Comprehensive Plan page 13-4). Figure 14 on page 3-10, presents the ten neighborhood areas utilized in this analysis. Residential Districts There are six residential neighborhoods and communities according to the Comp Plan: Education Hill Grass Lawn North Redmond Overlake Viewpoint Southeast Redmond Education Hill Education Hill has a significant number of K-12 schools, hence the name. The neighborhood is mostly low-to-medium density residential with several multi-family developments. Residents would like to see more direct transit connections with Downtown to facilitate travel for its diverse population groups (seniors and youth). While there are some steep slopes, residents would also like to preserve existing trails and create bike and pedestrian connections to Downtown. Transit Service Improvements Three corridors are identified for transit service improvements and potential new service, these include the following: Red-Wood Road Corridor: This is an important connection to provide service from Education Hill to Downtown Redmond, as well as cross-town service to the Overlake area. Transit service should be all day bi-directional. 166th Ave NE Corridor: The current bus route that connects Education Hill with downtown is infrequent and circuitous. A priority for the residents is the provision of multi- modal connections to downtown – in particular enhanced transit service. A routing change was proposed that would strengthen the ridership market for teenagers and seniors (current Metro Route 221). 172nd Ave NE & NE 111th St Corridor: Same as 166th Ave NE Corridor above. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 3-2 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Grass Lawn The Grass Lawn neighborhood has a significant mix of densities ranging from 4-30 units per acre, with the higher densities near transit access. As reported in the Comp Plan, residents cherish the walkability and friendliness of the area. Residents would like to see a variety of travel choices, alternative modes of transportation, and forms of technology-advanced transportation. This would include opportunities for walking and biking to parks, downtown, other neighborhoods, and other cities in the region. For example, the closest commercial areas of regional scale are in Downtown Redmond and Kirkland, but still two miles from residences. This encourages driving, as most people will only walk one-quarter to one-half of a mile to a bus stop for shopping trips. Grass Lawn is considered in regional plans for increased bus service and other transit investment. The Comp Plan itself specifically calls for the following transportation-related improvements: Links to other major transit hubs and shopping districts Bus pull-outs on arterials, dedicated bus lanes, improved transit service, transit shelters, pedestrian walkways, and bikeways Bike lanes, sidewalks, turn lanes, landscaped medians, street trees to manage traffic flow and visual quality on 132nd Avenue NE Non-motorized connections to Grass Lawn Park, especially from the north Neighborhood connection on 141st Avenue NE and NE 77th Street to future resource site on NE 80th Street and Redmond Way Transit Service Improvements Two corridors are identified for transit improvements, these include: Redmond Way: Redmond Way is not considered a multi-modal corridor; therefore no bike lanes are planned for this street. However, rebuilt and retro-fitted ADA ramps will be installed on Redmond Way at the intersections of 132nd and 139th Avenue NE and also at the intersection of Redmond Way and 140th Avenue NE. This is part of a 1.3-mile transit enhancement project, which runs from 132nd to 140th Avenue NE on Redmond Way in both Redmond and Kirkland. Construction has begun and is expected to be complete near the end of 2007 or early in 2008. Old Redmond Road: The existing bus connections provide local and regional travel. The corridor has direct connections to downtown as well. Connections to other activity centers in Redmond will be a priority in the future. North Redmond As with other Redmond neighborhoods, North Redmond has a number of slopes and many environmentally sensitive areas. Here, King County obligates an average of seven units per acre. The area is low density residential, with larger lots and rural character in parts. The Comp Plan calls for local connector streets that consider motorized and non-motorized transportation. It also suggests local and regional trails for equestrians, pedestrians, and cyclists that connect to open space, parks, schools, stables, and other recreation areas. These could be located on or near the following streets: ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 3-3 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. NE 116th Street NE 124th Street Redmond-Woodinville Road Avondale Road 172nd Avenue NE Transit Service Improvements The main corridor serving North Redmond is NE 116th Street which connects Avondale Road with Red-Wood Road. NE 116th Street: This is an important corridor to connect service from Education Hill to Avondale Road. The existing bus service is infrequent and is not time competitive with the automobile. This corridor could benefit from a bi-directional circulator that also uses the 166th Avenue NE and Avondale Road corridors and connects with Red-Wood Road. Avondale Corner (Avondale Road & NE 116th Street): The area is zoned for neighborhood commercial and residential densities of 6 to 12 dwellings per acre. The rest of the corridor is zoned R-4 and R-5 Single Family Urban which allow densities of 4-6 dwellings per acre; typically not supportive of transit ridership. Overlake Overlake is the home of many high-tech corporate campuses, including the Microsoft Corporation, shopping opportunities, and residential areas. There is an extensive trail system in the area that includes both equestrian and multi-use trails. Overlake is also a Regional Urban Center, as designated by PSRC. For 2012, the target development capacity in the center is 15.4 million square foot of retail, offices, and R&D organizations. While Overlake is well located and has good mobility, pedestrian walkways, bikeways, and frequent transit service, design improvements to SR 520 are needed to overcome the disconnect and isolation that SR 520 creates between West Overlake and East Overlake. One such improvement is the 36th Street bridge over SR 520 that is currently under construction which will provide much needed connectivity between residential neighborhoods and additional circulation between business areas on both sides of SR 520. The Comp Plan calls for improved alternative transportation modes as well as increased recreational opportunities. Specifically, Comp Plan Policies TR-17 to TR-19 mandate that Redmond maintain an agreement with Bellevue to fund shared transportation facilities, formalized in some instrument that represents both cities. The Overlake urban center is the third biggest employment area in the state and competitive with downtown Seattle in number of jobs. Topography, street connectivity, and traffic congestion during rush hour are major issues. The area doubles in size during the day because of Microsoft and related industries. Most employers in the area complain about the lack of good transit accessibility. Residents of the area are concerned about the lack of transit connections with local destinations such as schools, shopping, medical, and recreational. The following is a list of transportation-related improvements suggested in the Comp Plan: Transit service and facility improvements Bicycle and pedestrian network/infrastructure improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 3-4 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Implement and enforce the Green Streets policy Urban design and development density guidelines Traffic management strategies Parking policy and demand management strategies Transit Service Improvements Five corridors are identified for transit service improvements and potential new service: NE 31st Street & 152nd Avenue NE: The corridor has local and regional transit connections. Many King County Metro bus routes stop at the Overlake Park and Ride, however direct connections to Redmond’s activity centers in downtown are limited. The desired character for this corridor is to bring retail storefronts closer to the street; make the area hospitable for transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists; and improve streetscapes to reflect the green character of Redmond through street trees and landscaping. NE 40th Street: The corridor west of 156th Avenue NE has local and regional transit connections, but direct connections to Redmond’s activity centers are limited. A route east of 156th Avenue NE providing a more frequent connection with downtown is needed. Entrances to higher density or major multi-family residential developments offer opportunities to create pedestrian supportive street-crossings and high quality transit stops. NE 51st Street Corridor: The west segment of this corridor provides local and regional bus connections with frequent connections to downtown. The east side of the corridor (between 156th Avenue and West Lake Sammamish) does not receive any service despite having direct accessibility to residential areas and providing a direct path to downtown via West Lake Sammamish. 148th Avenue NE Corridor: Bus service in this corridor is important to Redmond and Bellevue. 148th Avenue NE is the city limit between Bellevue and Redmond. The corridor has local and regional connections to many destinations in both Redmond and Bellevue. The land use plan encourages the creation of convenience and service businesses at certain locations to provide more opportunities for people to walk or bicycle to a nearby destination for lunch or errands. 148th Avenue NE Corridor (south of SR 520): The shopping area centered on 148th Avenue south of SR 520 is currently auto-oriented and is envisioned to be redeveloped over time with retail storefronts closer to the street and improved streetscapes that reflect the green character of Redmond, making the area more hospitable to transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists. 156th Avenue NE Corridor: The corridor has local and regional bus connections and is the main route through the Overlake employment area. All Metro routes in the corridor stop at the Overlake Transit Center. However, direct connections to Redmond’s activity centers during the day are limited. Southeast Redmond This neighborhood has many land-extensive commercial areas, office parks, R&D organizations, and manufacturing businesses. The Comp Plan calls for the promotion of transit, biking, walking, and transportation modes other than SOV use. For the Gateway Design District, it calls for a ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 3-5 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. pedestrian and biking network, as well as bus pull-outs and shelters. For establishing a transition from urban to rural and for connection to a proposed eight-acre park, a pedestrian and biking trail is also suggested. The Comp Plan calls for site plans to incorporate transit access and provide a circulation network of roads, sidewalks, trails, and bikeways. Individual building architecture should be transit and pedestrian supportive. Regarding a facility for regional rapid transit system, the Comp Plan calls for the designation of a 10 to 15 acres parcel as the Transit Station and Park & Ride. Union Hill is an ideal corridor for this facility. In any case, the rapid transit system is expected to connect Seattle and Overlake regional centers with residential areas and employment centers in Downtown Redmond and Southeast Redmond. Transit Service Improvements Redmond-Fall City Road: High-frequency transit service should be extended along Redmond-Fall City Road and north through the Southeast Redmond neighborhood as more intense land uses are developed. Urban design improvements are needed to contribute to high quality business and residential neighborhoods. This can be accomplished via investment in street trees, landscaping, and facilities that support safe and convenient access for bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit riders. Viewpoint The Viewpoint neighborhood is located east of Overlake and it is characterized by its views of Lake Sammamish and forested slopes. The neighborhood is mostly low density residential although it has a mix of single family and multi-family housing units. The neighborhood is isolated from the rest of Redmond due to topography. Residents of Viewpoint gravitate towards Downtown Redmond and Education Hill but also to Bellevue and Crossroads. Although very close, it is difficult to get to Overlake due to topography and traffic congestion from commute travel to high-tech employment centers (i.e. Microsoft Corporation Overlake campus). Transit Service Improvements Two corridors are identified for transit service improvement and potential new service: West Lake Sammamish Parkway: The existing bus connections provide direct travel to downtown. The service is infrequent and there is market potential for residents who want to access other activity centers. Even though transit would serve primarily a residential area of 3 to 4 dwellings per acre, some pockets of existing transit ridership exist such as Idylwood Park, which is a popular local destination. NE 24th Street: The corridor has local and regional transit service. Direct connections to Downtown Redmond are provided around 148th Avenue and 156th Avenue. More direct connections are provided to Bellevue. The land use along the eastern portion of the corridor is primarily residential neighborhoods of 3 to 6 dwellings per acre, typically not supportive of transit ridership. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 3-6 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Commercial/Industrial and Mixed-Use Districts There are three commercial and industrial and mixed-use neighborhoods (or districts) identified in the Comprehensive Plan, besides Downtown Redmond, these include: Bear Creek Sammamish Valley Willows/Rose Hill Bear Creek Bear Creek is a low-to-medium density residential neighborhood that is rural in parts but with increased densities on the Avondale Corridor. Among Redmond neighborhoods, it is the one with the lowest median income per household and it also has more industrial land than the rest. Outdoor recreation, especially equestrian activities, is important to Bear Creek residents who would like a system of trails for horses, pedestrians, bikes, and hikers alike. The Comp Plan calls for developers to pay for transportation mitigations and other demand management programs such as transit subsidies and ride-sharing. The Comp Plan also suggests park and rides/pools to emphasize transit and ride-sharing and specifically identifies SR 202, Redmond-Fall City Road, and Novelty Hill Road as ideal locations for park and pool lots. Transit Service Improvements Improved transit service and frequency is needed along Novelty Hill Road and Union Hill Road to connect with Downtown Redmond, the Avondale corridor, and Bear Creek Park & Ride. Sammamish Valley The Sammamish Valley is primarily an agricultural, manufacturing and recreational area – with some multifamily housing in the south end, and with many forested slopes. There is no mention of transportation issues specific to this neighborhood in the Comp Plan. Transit Service Improvements NE 90th Street: Bus service in this corridor provides regional travel today. This corridor is on the fringe of Downtown Redmond and would be best served as part of a bi- directional circulator using the Willows Road and NE 161st Avenue NE corridors. Some areas of the corridor are tolerant to pedestrians, but most are intolerant (as defined in the TMP). Pedestrian supportive nodes, including safe crossing opportunities, should be developed near transit stops. Entrances to major developments and business parks along the corridor offer opportunities to create pedestrian supportive crossings and high quality transit stops. Willows Road: no mentions to improvements to transit service along this corridor were found in the Comp Plan. Willows Road provides accessibility to both Willows/Rose Hill and Sammamish Valley residents, business and recreational areas. Willows/Rose Hill The Comp Plan highlights pedestrian safety, street lighting, and traffic management issues in this neighborhood. Due to proximity, it also suggests that Redmond works with Kirkland to improve ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 3-7 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. transportation facilities and plan comprehensively for the area. Better pedestrian safety and opportunities to walk to neighborhood parks, Downtown Redmond, and other nearby locations is desired by residents – specifically improvements to 132nd Avenue NE for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. New streets in the Northeast Rose Hill subarea must adhere to Rustic Green Streets standards, which includes pedestrian walkways. Street lighting should be enhanced to avoid pedestrian and car conflicts. Attention is recommended to traffic calming and traffic management along the following streets: 142nd Avenue Redmond Way 132nd Avenue NE NE 100th Street Transit Service Improvements No specific corridor was identified for improved transit service in the Comp Plan, however 132nd Avenue NE is the only corridor providing neighborhood accessibility that may be suitable for transit. Downtown and Redmond Town Center Redmond’s Downtown has an attractive mix of offices, stores, services, and residential developments. A significant share of homes is moderately priced, while the many people living downtown create a sense of vibrancy. Downtown Redmond is today a major shopping and services center, as well as a major employment center and regional transit hub. The Comp Plan envisions downtown Redmond in the future as a place where visitors park in garages and can walk or take transit to their destination, a place where pedestrian and bike access is emphasized, and although there will be continued reliance on vehicular travel, future investments will be made to improve walking, biking, and riding transit. These investments will aim to do the following: Limit parking demand and congestion Form bike connections to the Sammamish River Trail, downtown destinations, and other regional transportation corridors Install bike racks, bike lanes, and related signage Provide incentives to employees who work in downtown to lead by example in walking, biking, carpooling, or using transit. Downtown Redmond currently has good transit service; however, the city wants to reserve the opportunity for high capacity transit. Future planning efforts shall consider the following projects: Support direct connections of SR 520 HOV lanes to future transit centers outside downtown Include trails to Marymoor Park across SR 520 Encourage TOD in the Town Square area Redevelop the Redmond Park & Ride site into a TOD (already completed) ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 3-8 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Transit Service Improvements Downtown Transit Center Construction of the new Redmond Downtown Transit Center on NE 83rd Street began in April 2007 on the site of the old bus transfer facility. The transit center and park and ride are already open. A TOD development on the site of the old park and ride lot is almost complete. This project is a joint effort by the King County Department of Transportation, the City of Redmond, and Sound Transit. Bear Creek Parkway Extension The Bear Creek Parkway Extension is the first project to come out of the City's Downtown Transportation Master Plan. The extension is a significant component of the downtown vision. Features such as on-street parking, 14-foot wide sidewalks, street trees, pedestrian-scale lighting, and a pedestrian plaza will create an environment that not only supports but encourages pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit. The project will provide a critical street connection and by-pass through downtown, and reduce traffic congestion along the Redmond Way/Cleveland Street couplet. Redmond Way and Cleveland Street will be able to operate in both directions and better serve more land uses and transportation modes including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic. NE 83rd Street The redesign of NE 83rd Street will improve the intersections at 160th Avenue and at 161st Avenue NE in the northern section of downtown. In addition, King County Metro and Sound Transit are working with the city on the redevelopment of the transit center along NE 83rd Street between 161st Avenue and 164th Avenue NE. 160th Avenue NE Extension A new roadway is proposed as a two-lane collector arterial running parallel to the Red- Wood Road that accommodates cars, trucks, and buses and relieving congestion along this road. The new roadway connection will be built to multi-modal standards. 161st Avenue NE Corridor This corridor has local and regional transit routes, most of which are accessing the Redmond Transit Center. Critical to the downtown transit-oriented district, this corridor will be extended to Leary Way (as part of the Bear Creek Parkway Extension) to offer better connections from regional routes on SR 520. Today the corridor serves the Town Square district, Redmond Transit Center, Bella Bottega shopping center, and other downtown destinations such as the Municipal Campus, the post office, and the Redmond Library. Town Square is designated as a TOD district, envisioned to include mid-rise buildings that accommodate housing and employment in high quality environments. 164th Avenue NE & Bear Creek Parkway Corridor When the 164th Avenue NE corridor is connected with downtown, across the BNSF tracks, it will allow for frequent transit service and a potential route for a downtown circulator ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 3-9 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. service. Continuation of 164th Avenue NE north of the BNSF tracks would help provide access to additional transit-oriented developments in Downtown Redmond. Avondale Road Corridor The current bus service in the corridor is infrequent and does not offer many local connections. This corridor could be combined with NE 116th Avenue and 166th Avenue NE to offer bidirectional circulator service. Entrances to higher density residential developments offer opportunities to create pedestrian supportive crossings and high quality transit stops. Redmond Way Corridor Connections in this corridor have local and regional destinations. Most service in the corridor is bound for the Redmond Transit Center and the Bear Creek Park & Ride. Future transit service should also provide connections from activity centers in other areas of Redmond. The Comp Plan calls for identifying a second transit oriented development district in the eastern portion of the downtown, as part of planning for high capacity transit. The Redmond Way corridor would provide key access for this district. ---PAGE BREAK--- " P " P " P " P " P " P " P 148th Ave NE NE 124th St NE Redmond Way 124th Ave NE Novelty Hill Rd NE Bellevue Redmond Rd NE 90th St Red-Wood Rd NE NE 24th St NE 116th St Avondale Rd NE NE 40th St Red-Wood Rd NE Willows Rd NE 85th St W Lake Sa mmamis h U V 520 U V 202 U V 908 U V 202 U V 202 Overlake P&R Bear Creek P&R Overlake TC Northeast 116th & I-405 Northeast 116th & I-405 Rose Hill Presbyterian Church P&R Overlake P&R Rose Hill Presbyterian Church P&R Bellevue Christian Reformed Church P&R Redmond P&R Redmond P&R Lake Sammamish n n n n n n nn n n n n n n n n n Overlake Education Hill SE Redmond Viewpoint Grass Lawn North Redmond Willows / Rose Hill Sammamish Valley Bear Creek English Hill Downtown (Redmond Transit Center) Downtown (Redmond Town Center) Overlake Education Hill SE Redmond Viewpoint Grass Lawn North Redmond Willows / Rose Hill Sammamish Valley Bear Creek English Hill Downtown (Redmond Transit Center) Downtown (Redmond Town Center) Figure 14 Redmond Neighborhood and Mixed-Use Areas GIS Data Source: US Census, King County GIS, Sound Transit, USGS, City of Redmond GIS, Community Transit 0 1 Miles Neighborhood Boundary " P Park & Rides Transit Center Trails ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 3-11 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 3.2 Transit Demographics Characteristics U.S. Census and PSRC Data Analysis A GIS mapping analysis of secondary data sources was conducted to complement the neighborhood profiles gleaned from the Comp Plan and the TMP, and to develop a complete understanding of market characteristics and transit market potential. The analysis was prepared from U.S. Census 2000 (block group level) data and from PSRC population and employment projections for King County (TAZ level). Thirteen key demographic and socioeconomic characteristics (or transit market potential indicators) that are known to affect transit use and performance were analyzed, these included: Population and Employment Projections (PSRC TAZ data) 1. Residential density: dense population areas are commonly known to have a positive correlation with transit use 2. Employment density: dense employment areas such as Downtown Seattle and or Central Business Districts (CBD) also have a positive correlation with transit use Redmond Combined Population and Employment Density Redmond is a medium sized town of about 50,000 residents4, but it is also a major regional employment center, with nearly 90,000 jobs5. To provide a clearer picture of the combined employment and residential density, population data provided by the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) have been combined with employment data provided by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) to calculate Redmond’s combined employment and residential density. When employment and residential density are combined, Redmond is second in the region, with a combined population of 8,370 jobs/residents per square mile. The top five cities with the highest combined residential and employment densities in the PSRC region are: – Seattle = 12,834 job/residents per square mile – Redmond = 8,370 job/residents per square mile – Kirkland = 7,652 job/residents per square mile – Bellevue = 7,574 job/residents per square mile – Tukwila = 7,326 job/residents per square mile Demographic Characteristics by Market Area (US Census 2000) 3. Average household size: large households are indicators of families, or extended families, and ultimately population density 4. Families with children: presence of families with children is an indicator of mobility needs that require a chauffeur or independent means such as transit or bikes 5. High-School population: indicates presence of persons with mobility needs and limited access to automobiles 4 2009 Employment – http://psrc.org/data/employment/covered-emp 5 2009 Population – http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/popden/default.asp (Item 4) ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 3-12 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 6. Senior population: typically an indicator of transit dependent population; many seniors don’t have access to a car or can’t use a car for medical reasons. However an increasing number of seniors today are drivers as well. 7. Minority population: minority populations are typically indicators of poverty and/or immigrant status, both groups have higher propensity to use transit because of need or cultural acceptation of transit 8. Foreign-born population arrived between 1990-2000: recently arrived immigrants have in general positive attitudes towards transit. Given that Microsoft employs tens of thousands of people in Redmond that come from all over the world, this is an important indicator of potential transit use. 9. Median household income: household income is inversely correlated with transit use, the higher the income the lower the use of transit 10. Population in poverty: poverty or low income status is positively correlated with transit use, and a typical indicator of transit dependency 11. Zero-vehicle households: a commonly used indicator of accessibility to automobiles 12. Commute-to-work in public transit: indicates primary commute mode of workers in the household 13. Commute-to-work in non SOV modes: same as above A detail analysis and mapping of all indicators listed above is included in Appendix B at the end of this report. Redmond Neighborhoods Characteristics Table 19 on the next pages, summarizes the analysis of transit market characteristics by Redmond neighborhood. As seen before, the vast majority of Redmond neighborhoods do not possess high concentrations of demographic and socioeconomic indicators typically correlated with transit use. Most neighborhood areas are relatively low density residential, have relatively low concentration of minorities and foreign-born populations, have middle-to-high median income, have more than one vehicle available, and generate relatively low rates of public transit use and non-SOV modes for commute trips. However there are some noticeable exceptions and transit market potential pockets along its major arterial corridors. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 3-13 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Table 19: Transit Market Potential Analysis by Redmond Mixed-Use Area Commercial and Mixed-Use Areas Transit Market Characteristics Downtown Redmond - Downtown Redmond on average was medium-to-low density residential. However that is rapidly changing with new multi-family developments being built in downtown. - Along with Sammamish Valley, Downtown has the lowest household size of 1-2 persons. Correspondingly, only 20-40% of families have children. Also, very few households have high school age children. The percent of seniors is also very small. - In terms of minorities, 10-20% identifies a race other than White/Caucasian; 5-20% of the population is immigrants having arrived in the last ten years. - The majority of residents are middle-income earners in the $40-60K range (in $1999), few are within poverty status. - In relation to transportation modes, very few do not have a car and very few use transit. - In summary, Downtown Redmond’s population does not have a high propensity to use transit, as it appears to be comprised mostly of singles and families without children households. However, the mix-used character, good pedestrian environment, and concentration of commercial and employment destinations make Downtown a major destination for transit from other areas, and a major access point to transit connections with the region. Bear Creek - Bear Creek is very low density residential. The average household size is 2-3 people. Accordingly, only 20-40% of families have children, and very few have children in high school. However, the proportion of senior is relatively high at 20-30%. - There are a fair number of minorities in Bear Creek; 10-20% of residents identify a race other than White/Caucasian. Similarly, a fair number are immigrants having arrived in the last ten years - Regarding median household income, the majority earn $40K or less. This statistic, along with that of Sammamish Valley, is the lowest score in the city. Nevertheless, very few in Bear Creek have poverty status. - In relation to transportation modes, very few households do not own a car and consequently very few commute on transit. Also there is very limited transit service available in the area. - All these factors combined indicate that there is some potential for transit use in the Bear Creek area. Despite being relatively low density and comprised mostly of small size households with access to cars, there is a significant amount of minorities, recently arrived immigrants, and seniors that could use transit if more service was provided, as the area develops in the future. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 3-14 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Commercial and Mixed-Use Areas Transit Market Characteristics Sammamish Valley - Sammamish Valley is very low density residential. Along with Downtown, it has the lowest average household size (1-2 persons); however about 20-40% of families have children, although a very small percent are in high school age. Very few residents in the Sammamish Valley neighborhood are seniors. Most seniors live west of the Sammamish River Trail - In terms of minorities, 10-20% identifies a race other than White/Caucasian; 5-20% of the population is foreign-born having arrived in the last ten years. - In the western portion, $40K or less is the median household income. Along with Bear Creek, this is the lowest in the city. Conversely, in the eastern portion, the median income is a bit higher at $40-60K. Very few people have poverty status. - In terms of transportation, 15% or more are carless households west of the Sammamish River Trail – this is the highest statistic for the city. East of the Sammamish River Trail, the range is lower at 5-10%. Few commuters use transit on average. Transit service is very limited in the area. - By and large the Sammamish Valley has some potential to use transit, due to its senior population on the west side and its immigrant population on the east side of the trail. Willows/Rose Hill - Willows/Rose Hill is low density residential. The average household size is 2-3 people. Accordingly, 20-40% of families have children, although a small percentage is in high school age. A very low number of residents are seniors. - In the northern portion, 10-20% of residents are minorities, while 20-30% are minorities in the southern portion. Regarding immigrants, in the north 5-20% of the population are foreign-born having arrived in the last ten years. In the south, the statistic is higher 20- 35% of the population. - The median income is in the middle range at $40-60K. Accordingly, in the northern portion very few people have poverty status; while in the south only a few people have poverty status. - With regard to transportation, very few households are carless households and very few commuters use transit. However these indicators show that there is potential for transit use, particularly along Redmond Way/NE 85th Street, if more frequent service and/or better accessibility to service was available ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 3-15 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Residential Areas Transit Market Characteristics Education Hill - The majority of Education Hill is low density residential. There is one small pocket of mid-range density in the southwest part, which represents the highest density in the city. - The average household size is 2-3 people with two pockets in the 3 or more persons range in the northwest and mid-east sections. These two pockets represent the highest household sizes in the city. Accordingly, in the majority of places 40-60% of families have children. In the northeast corner, 60% or more have children – this area represents the highest in the city. - A high number of children are high school age in the central section and north section of the neighborhood. Seniors are in general very few except for one senior housing pocket in the center of the neighborhood. - There are a fair number of minorities in Education Hill; 10-20% of residents identify a race other than White/Caucasian. Similarly, a fair number are immigrants having arrived in the last ten years - The median household income is in the middle to upper-middle income range at $40- 60K to $60-80K. In the northern portion, very few people have poverty status, while in the southern portion a fair number (10-15%) have poverty status. - In relation to transportation modes, very few do not have a car and very few use transit. - All these factors combined indicate a moderate to high potential for transit use in the neighborhood given the relatively higher residential density, the number of high school kids, minorities, and immigrants. More direct and frequent connections with Redmond will certainly help to boost transit use. Grass Lawn - The majority of Grass Lawn is low density residential. The average household size is 2- 3 people. About half the families (40-60%) have children, and a relatively high number are of high school age. There is also a relatively high number of Senior residents (10%) - In terms of minorities, 10-20% identifies a race other than White/Caucasian; 5-20% of the population is immigrants having arrived in the last ten years. - The median household income is in the middle to upper-middle income range at $40- 60K to $60-80K, few within poverty status. - Regarding transportation modes, few to very few households do not own a car. Accordingly, very few use transit. - However, these indicators show that there is relatively high potential for transit use, particularly along Redmond Way/NE 85th Street and 148th Avenue, if more frequent service and/or better accessibility to service were available. North Redmond - North Redmond is very low density residential. The average household size is 2-3 people. Accordingly, 20-40% of families have children with a relatively high number of them in high school age. A very low number of residents are seniors. - In terms of minorities, 10-20% identifies a race other than White/Caucasian; 5-20% of the population is immigrants having arrived in the last ten years. - In relation to median income, $80K or more is the average; this neighborhood represents the highest in the city. - Correspondingly, very few people have poverty status; very few households are zero- vehicle households, and very few commuters use transit. - Given the low density residential (mostly single family housing), high income status and high car ownership rates, this neighborhood shows low potential for transit use. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 3-16 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Residential Areas Transit Market Characteristics Overlake - Overlake has two sections (north and south) and generally has a mix of demographic distributions and land use. - In relation to residential densities, the north section of Overlake (where most residents live) is low to medium density residential. The south section is very low density and mostly dominated by business/industrial centers. - The average household size is 2-3 people (north section). Families with children are a majority (40-60%), with a relatively high number of children in high school. There are very few seniors. - In terms of minorities, 10-20% identifies a race other than White/Caucasian. In most places, 5-20% of the population is immigrants having arrived in the last ten years. However, in a pocket along 156th Avenue and 40th Street (around Microsoft), 35% or more are immigrants having arrived in the last ten years. This statistic represents the highest in the city. - Median household income is relatively high, ranging from $40-60K (south portion), $60- 80K (north portion), and a pocket of $80K or more towards Lake Sammamish. Not surprisingly, very few people have poverty status in the north section and a few (5-10%) have poverty status in the south section. - Very few households are zero-vehicle households in the north section. However, 15% or more are zero-vehicle households in the south section. This statistic represents the highest in the city – along with that of Sammamish Valley. - Still, few commuters use transit, but a relatively high number uses modes alternative to the automobile for their commute travel – particularly in the south portion of Overlake. - Therefore, the potential for transit use is relatively high in Overlake due to relatively high population densities, a significant number of high school children, a significant number of recently arrived immigrants, and presence of households in poverty and without access to cars in the south portion of the neighborhood. Also, Overlake is a major regional employment destination and an important transit hub for the region, offering good transit connections to regional destinations. Southeast Redmond - Southeast Redmond is very low density residential. The average household size is 2-3 people. Accordingly, 20-40% of families have children. But, a relatively low number of children are in high school age. - There are concentrations of senior population along Redmond-Fall City Road - Regarding minorities, 20-30% identifies a race other than White/Caucasian. This statistic is the highest in the city. 20-35% of residents are recent foreign-born arrivals. - The median income is in the $40-60K range; few people have poverty status. - In terms of transportation, very few households are carless households and very few commuters use transit. - However, the statistics show a moderate to high potential for transit use given the presence of seniors, minorities, and recent immigrants. In particular along Redmond-Fall City Road where there are many multi-family housing developments. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 3-17 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Residential Areas Transit Market Characteristics Viewpoint - Viewpoint has low to medium density residential. The average household size is relatively high (2-3 people). Accordingly, 40-60% of families have children and a moderate amount of them are in high school age. Also, there is a moderate amount of seniors in the neighborhood (10-20%). - In terms of minorities, 10-20% identifies a race other than White/Caucasian. In most places, 5-20% of the population is immigrants having arrived in the last ten years. - Median income in Viewpoint is one of the highest in the City at $80K or more. Not surprisingly, very few people have poverty status, and very few households do not own a car. - Despite high income levels in the area, a moderate amount of commuters use transit 10%). This may be explained by the proximity to OTC, which offers frequent transit connections with the region, especially Seattle. - In summary, the Viewpoint neighborhood has some potential for transit use given its proximity to good transit service, but also due to a moderate presence of transit dependent populations (high school children, seniors, minorities, and immigrants). Transit Market Potential Summary From the analysis above, most Redmond neighborhoods have moderate residential density levels (about 15 persons per acre on average, by PSRC 2005 TAZ projections); however pockets of higher density – in the form of multi-family apartment buildings, abound in Downtown, Overlake, Education Hill, and portions of Avondale Road. Employment density is mostly concentrated in and around Downtown Redmond and the Overlake High-Tech Industrial Center, and along the SR 520 and Bel-Red Corridor. Redmond has a variety of population groups that include people from all ages and races. Families with children are a majority in Redmond and can be found mostly in the neighborhoods that are north, south and west of downtown (i.e. Education Hill, Grass Lawn, and Viewpoint). One person households, families with no children, and seniors are mostly found within and around the Downtown Redmond and Overlake urban centers. Most households in Redmond are middle income ($40k - $80k in 1999 dollars) and upper-middle income ($80k plus) households. Upper-middle income households are found in neighborhoods with a majority of families with children, they are larger in size, and have access to automobiles. Recently arrived immigrants are found mostly around Downtown Redmond, Overlake and along corridors and areas with multi-family apartment buildings, for example: along Avondale Road, Redmond Way, 148th Avenue, 156th Avenue, and Redmond-Fall City Road. Given these attributes a higher propensity to use transit, and therefore a significant transit potential exists around Downtown Redmond, Overlake, and along major corridors in the City such as 148th Avenue NE, 156th Avenue NE, Redmond Way, Avondale Road, and Redmond-Fall City Road. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 3-18 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. This page left intentionally blank ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 4-1 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Chapter 4. Travel Demand Analysis To complement the analysis of potential transit markets, travel demand forecasts were compiled for the Redmond Local Transit Study. The Puget Sound Regional Council’s (PSRC) model was used to obtain daily travel information for the base year 2006 and future conditions year 2030. The model provided daily travel forecasts for the following trip types: Work trips and school/college trips with a home origin or destination (Home-Based Work and College) All other trips with a home origin or destination (Home-Based Non-Work) Work trips and school/college trips that do not have a home origin or destination (Non- Home Based Other-to-Work and Work-to-Other) All other trips that do not have a home origin or destination (Non-Home Based Other-to- Other) For each of these trip types, mode split trip tables were created for: Drive Alone, Shared Ride, Public Transit, Bike, and Walk modes. A total of 20 trip tables were produced for each year 2006 and year 2030. The PSRC trips tables were converted to the Bellevue-Kirkland-Redmond (BKR) zone system and read into the BKR model. Trip tables were then aggregated into 23 districts that included zones within Redmond, zones outside Redmond, and zones for the rest of the region. 4.1 Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ) Zones within Redmond Eleven (11) neighborhood zones were defined within Redmond - one per Redmond community. The Overlake neighborhood was split in two zones at N 40th Street: North Overlake and South Overlake. Bear Creek Downtown Redmond Education Hill Grass Lawn North Redmond North Overlake Sammamish Valley South Overlake Southeast Redmond Viewpoint Willows/Rose Hill Zones outside Redmond Ten (10) zones were defined for communities around Redmond including Seattle: Bellevue East of I-405 (Bellevue Crossroads and Bellevue Community College) ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 4-2 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Bellevue West of I-405 (downtown Bellevue) Bothell, Kenmore, Juanita Eastgate, South of I-90 areas Issaquah, Sammamish Redmond Ridge, Duvall Renton Rest of Kirkland (downtown Kirkland, Totem Lake) Seattle Woodinville, Cottage Lake Rest of the Region Two zones were defined for the rest of the region: Rest of King County (mostly South King County) Rest of the Region (mostly Snohomish County) Trip Tables The resulting trip tables by trip type and mode were reduced to four mode split groups to facilitate the analysis as follows: SOV – including all drive alone trips Shared Ride – including carpool and vanpool trips Transit – including public transit trips Bike/Walk – including bicycle and walking trips 4.2 Forecasts Results and Regional Trends Regional Trends, All Trip Types and Mode Splits Trip results are broken down for trips within Redmond and trips between Redmond and outside communities. Table 20 below shows that, Redmond trips represent a very small percentage of total trips within the region. In 2030, these trips will account for just 4 percent of the total for the region (a net increase of 200,000 trips). Between 2006 and 2030, local travel within Redmond will increase by 52 percent. Travel from Redmond to other communities will increase by 39 percent, while travel from other communities to Redmond will increase by 38 percent. In comparison, overall travel within the region will increase by almost 5 million trips a day, a difference of 40 percent. These forecasts suggest that local travel within Redmond will grow more rapidly than travel in the region as a whole, as local travel will increase by 52 percent, while overall travel will only increase by 40 percent. In Redmond, SOV use will increase by 51 percent and shared ride use will increase by 49 percent. While transit use will grow by 142 percent and biking/walking will increase by 54 percent. From Redmond to other communities, SOV use will increase by 36 percent, shared ride by 39 percent, transit by 79 percent, and biking/walking by 42 percent. From other communities to ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 4-3 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Redmond, SOV and shared ride use will increase by 35 percent each, transit by 90 percent, and biking/walking by 47 percent. For the entire region, SOV use will increase by 37 percent, shared ride by 39 percent, transit use by 73 percent, and bike/walk by 48 percent. These forecasts show that transit will be the fastest growing mode in Redmond and the region, however the absolute number of trips utilizing this mode will remain small (about 4% of all trips). Table 20: Trip Forecasts for All Trip Types by Mode Split Group All Trips 2006 SOV Shared Ride Transit Bike/Walk Subtotal Redmond Trips 288,551 164,671 15,122 22,074 490,418 Redmond to Redmond 62,382 41,702 2,051 15,704 121,840 Redmond to Other 150,866 78,428 7,379 4,026 240,698 Other to Redmond 75,303 44,541 5,693 2,345 127,881 Other to Other 6,383,478 4,804,762 367,906 912,341 12,468,487 Subtotal 6,672,029 4,969,432 383,029 934,415 12,958,905 All Trips 2030 SOV Shared Ride Transit Bike/Walk Subtotal Redmond Trips 401,134 231,278 29,037 33,395 694,844 Redmond to Redmond 94,274 62,044 4,969 24,231 185,518 Redmond to Other 205,229 109,303 13,234 5,713 333,480 Other to Redmond 101,631 59,931 10,834 3,451 175,846 Other to Other 8,739,681 6,661,960 632,889 1,352,138 17,386,668 Subtotal 9,140,815 6,893,238 661,927 1,385,533 18,081,512 Net Increase 2006–2030 SOV Shared Ride Transit Bike/Walk Subtotal Redmond Trips 112,583 66,607 13,915 11,321 204,426 Redmond to Redmond 31,891 20,342 2,918 8,527 63,679 Redmond to Other 54,364 30,875 5,856 1,688 92,782 Other to Redmond 26,328 15,390 5,141 1,106 47,966 Other to Other 2,356,203 1,857,198 264,983 439,797 4,918,182 Subtotal 2,468,786 1,923,806 278,898 451,118 5,122,607 Relative Growth 2006–2030 SOV Shared Ride Transit Bike/Walk Subtotal Redmond Trips 39% 40% 92% 51% 42% Redmond to Redmond 51% 49% 142% 54% 52% Redmond to Other 36% 39% 79% 42% 39% Other to Redmond 35% 35% 90% 47% 38% Other to Other 37% 39% 72% 48% 39% Subtotal 37% 39% 73% 48% 40% ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 4-4 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Figure 15: 2006-2030 Forecast of All Redmond Trips by Travel Mode Figure 15 above compares the forecasts for trips with and origin or destination in Redmond by travel mode. Although transit will grow much faster than any other mode, the overall number of trips will remain small. The biggest net increases will be recorded in the SOV and Shared Ride categories, in particular for trips going from Redmond to other communities and vice-versa. The number of Redmond to Redmond trips will also grow significantly on SOV and Shared Ride. These trips are mostly local trips and perhaps represent a significant market potential for transit trips in the future. 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 SOV Shared Ride Transit Bike/Walk Year 2006 All Trips by Mode Group Other to Redmond Redmond to Other Redmond to Redmond 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 SOV Shared Ride Transit Bike/Walk Year 2030 All Trips by Mode Group Other to Redmond Redmond to Other Redmond to Redmond ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 4-5 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Redmond Trips Forecasts by Trip Types As mentioned above, trips in Redmond will grow by more than 200,000 between 2006 and 2030. Traditional commute trips (Home-Based Work category) will grow slower than any other category (35%) for a net increment of about 44,000 trips (or about 20% of growth in the 2006-2030 period). Table 21 below shows that the biggest growth will be in the “Non-Home Based Work” and “Home- Based Other” trip categories, which will represent 71 percent of all growth. These trips will be mostly short local trips and /or trips between Redmond and adjacent communities, and represent a significant market for transit, if more direct and frequent service were available on local streets. Table 21: Redmond Trips Forecast by Trip Type Trip Purpose/Type Year 2006 Year 2030 2006-2030 Growth Relative Growth Percentage of Growth Work Trips 269,130 373,873 104,743 39% 51% Home-based 126,974 170,832 43,858 35% 21% Non-home based 142,156 203,041 60,885 43% 30% Other Trips 221,288 320,971 99,683 45% 49% Home-based 192,911 277,691 84,780 44% 41% Non-home based 28,378 43,280 14,903 53% 7% Total 490,418 694,844 204,426 42% 100% PSRC Regional Model, daily trips within Redmond zones, Redmond to other communities and other communities to Redmond. Figure 16: 2006-2030 Forecast of Trips with Origin or Destination in Redmond 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 Home‐based Work Non‐home based Work Home‐based Other Non‐home based Other All Trips to/from Redmond ‐ 2006‐2030 Forecast 2006 Trips 2006‐2030 Increase ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 4-6 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Public Transit Trip Forecasts Public transit trips in Redmond are forecasted to grow by about 14,000 trips between 2006 and 2030. Traditional commute trips (Home-Based Work category) will grow by about 90 percent for a net increment of over 6,000 trips; close to 50 percent of new trips in the period. Table 22 below shows that transit trips growth in the “Non-Home Based Work” and “Home-Based Other” trip categories will grow faster than home-based work trips, however they will only add about 40 percent of new trips in transit. As compared with 71 percent of new trips in Table 21 above, this indicates a diminishing market share for transit if improvements to the system are not made in the future to better serve local demand. Table 22: Transit Trips Forecast with Redmond Origin and/or Destination Trip Purpose/Type Year 2006 Year 2030 2006-2030 Growth Relative Growth Percentage of Growth Work Trips 9,136 17,142 8,006 88% 58% Home-based 7,368 13,788 6,420 87% 46% Non-home based 1,768 3,355 1,587 90% 11% Other Trips 5,987 11,895 5,908 99% 42% Home-based 3,569 7,639 4,070 114% 29% Non-home based 2,418 4,257 1,838 76% 13% Total 15,122 29,037 13,915 92% 100% PSRC Regional Model, daily trips within Redmond zones, Redmond to other communities and other communities to Redmond. Figure 17: 2006-2030 Forecast of Transit Trips with Origin and Destination in Redmond 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 Home‐based Work Non‐home based Work Home‐based Other Non‐home based Other Transit Trips to/from Redmond ‐ 2006‐2030 Forecast 2006 Trips 2006‐2030 Increase ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 4-7 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Forecasts by Trip Type and Mode Split Home-Based Work and College Trips Home-based work trips will increase by about 44,000 trips in Redmond (a 35% increase). Redmond to Redmond trips will increase by about 5,000 trips (a 41% increase). Trips from Redmond to other communities will increase by 32 percent, while trips from other communities to Redmond will increase by 41 percent. For the entire region, home-based work trips will increase by 38 percent. Transit trips are forecasted to grow at a faster pace than all other modes. However transit trips will remain a small proportion of all trips of Redmond Trips in 2030). Table 23: Home-Based Work and College Trip Forecasts by Mode Split Group Home-Based Work + College Trips 2006 SOV Share Ride Transit Bike/Walk Subtotal Redmond Trips 107,930 9,546 7,368 2,130 126,974 Redmond to Redmond 9,137 677 943 1,154 11,911 Redmond to Other 76,893 6,909 3,510 756 88,068 Other to Redmond 21,900 1,961 2,914 220 26,995 Other to Other 1,694,129 159,946 190,236 117,229 2,161,539 Subtotal 1,802,058 169,492 197,603 119,359 2,288,513 Home-Based Work + College Trips 2030 SOV Share Ride Transit Bike/Walk Subtotal Redmond Trips 141,109 13,002 13,788 2,934 170,832 Redmond to Redmond 12,463 950 1,807 1,628 16,847 Redmond to Other 99,598 9,222 6,199 959 115,978 Other to Redmond 29,048 2,829 5,782 347 38,007 Other to Other 2,250,360 223,484 334,190 175,706 2,983,740 Subtotal 2,391,469 236,485 347,977 178,640 3,154,572 Net Increase 2006–2030 SOV Share Ride Transit Bike/Walk Subtotal Redmond Trips 33,179 3,455 6,420 804 43,858 Redmond to Redmond 3,326 273 863 474 4,936 Redmond to Other 22,705 2,314 2,689 203 27,910 Other to Redmond 7,148 869 2,868 127 11,012 Other to Other 556,231 63,538 143,954 58,477 822,201 Subtotal 589,410 66,993 150,374 59,281 866,059 ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 4-8 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Percent Growth 2006–2030 SOV Share Ride Transit Bike/Walk Subtotal Redmond Trips 31% 36% 87% 38% 35% Redmond to Redmond 36% 40% 92% 41% 41% Redmond to Other 30% 33% 77% 27% 32% Other to Redmond 33% 44% 98% 58% 41% Other to Other 33% 40% 76% 50% 38% Subtotal 33% 40% 76% 50% 38% Figure 18 below compares the forecasts for home-based work trips (commute trips) with an origin and destination in Redmond. Although SOV trips will grow at a much slower pace than other modes, they will remain the largest travel mode for trips within Redmond neighborhoods and in particular trips between Redmond and other regional destinations. Figure 18: 2006-2030 Forecast of Home-Based Work Trips in Redmond by Mode 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 SOV Shared Ride Transit Bike/Walk Year 2006 Home Based Work Trips Other to Redmond Redmond to Other Redmond to Redmond ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 4-9 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Home-Based Non-Work Trips Home-based non-work trips will increase by 44 percent (84,000 trips) in Redmond for a total of close to 300,000 trips. Trips within Redmond will increase by 51 percent (28,000 trips). Trips from Redmond to other communities will increase by 45 percent (42,000), while trips from other communities to Redmond will increase by 33 percent (14,000 trips). Transit trips will be the fastest growing mode in Redmond (114%). However, they will remain a small share of all trips (close to 8,000 trips); about 3 percent of home-based non-work trips (see Table 24 below). Figure 19 on the next page, compares forecasts for home-based non-work (or other) trips in Redmond by travel mode. Trips in the SOV and share ride mode category will remain the largest number of trips, in particular for trips between Redmond and other communities in East King County. This is potentially a major market for transit in the future, if faster, more direct, and more frequent service was provided for trips other than commute trips (midday period). Table 24: Home-Based Non-Work Trips Forecast by Mode Split Group Home-Based Non-Work Trips 2006 SOV Share Ride Transit Bike/Walk Subtotal Redmond Trips 95,838 85,362 3,569 8,142 192,911 Redmond to Redmond 28,399 20,797 557 5,256 55,008 Redmond to Other 44,227 47,066 1,764 2,008 95,065 Other to Redmond 23,211 17,499 1,248 879 42,838 Other to Other 2,685,727 2,990,590 105,673 442,643 6,224,633 Subtotal 2,781,565 3,075,952 109,242 450,785 6,417,544 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 SOV Shared Ride Transit Bike/Walk Year 2030 Home Based Work Trips Other to Redmond Redmond to Other Redmond to Redmond ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 4-10 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Home-Based Non-Work Trips 2030 SOV Share Ride Transit Bike/Walk Subtotal Redmond Trips 139,546 118,379 7,639 12,127 277,691 Redmond to Redmond 43,483 29,879 1,832 8,001 83,195 Redmond to Other 64,876 66,286 3,463 2,895 137,521 Other to Redmond 31,187 22,215 2,344 1,230 56,975 Other to Other 3,737,731 4,147,632 178,065 646,337 8,709,765 Subtotal 3,877,277 4,266,011 185,704 658,464 8,987,456 Net Increase 2006–2030 SOV Share Ride Transit Bike/Walk Subtotal Redmond Trips 43,708 33,017 4,070 3,984 84,780 Redmond to Redmond 15,084 9,082 1,275 2,745 28,186 Redmond to Other 20,649 19,220 1,699 888 42,456 Other to Redmond 7,975 4,715 1,096 351 14,137 Other to Other 1,052,004 1,157,042 72,392 203,694 2,485,132 Subtotal 1,095,712 1,190,059 76,462 207,679 2,569,912 Percent Growth 2006–2030 SOV Share Ride Transit Bike/Walk Subtotal Redmond Trips 46% 39% 114% 49% 44% Redmond to Redmond 53% 44% 229% 52% 51% Redmond to Other 47% 41% 96% 44% 45% Other to Redmond 34% 27% 88% 40% 33% Other to Other 39% 39% 69% 46% 40% Subtotal 39% 39% 70% 46% 40% ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 4-11 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Figure 19: 2006-2030 Forecast of Home-Based Non-Work Trips in Redmond by Mode Non-Home Based Other-to-Work and Work-to-Other Trips Table 25 below shows that non-home based work trips (other to work and work to other) will grow by 43 percent for a total of 200,000 trips in Redmond. Redmond to Redmond trips will increase by about 24,000, a difference of 52 percent. Trips from Redmond to other cities and trips from other cities to Redmond will increase by 38 percent (about 36,000 trips). Transit trips within this category will grow faster in Redmond than the region as a whole, but will also remain a small number of trips (about 3,500 in year 2030) and market share (about 2% of all trips). 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 SOV Shared Ride Transit Bike/Walk Year 2006 Home Based Non‐Work Trips Otherto Redmond Redmond to Other Redmond to Redmond 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 SOV Shared Ride Transit Bike/Walk Year 2030 Home Based Non‐Work Trips Other to Redmond Redmond to Other Redmond to Redmond ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 4-12 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Table 25: Non-Home Based Work Trips Forecast by Mode Split Group Non-Home Based Work Trips 2006 SOV Share Ride Transit Bike/Walk Subtotal Redmond Trips 71,529 58,874 1,768 9,986 142,156 Redmond to Redmond 21,122 17,196 250 7,874 46,442 Redmond to Other 25,494 20,974 882 1,171 48,521 Other to Redmond 24,913 20,704 636 940 47,193 Other to Other 1,598,567 1,322,958 23,285 306,461 3,251,271 Subtotal 1,670,096 1,381,831 25,053 316,447 3,393,428 Non-Home Based Work Trips 2030 SOV Share Ride Transit Bike/Walk Subtotal Redmond Trips 100,898 83,702 3,355 15,087 203,041 Redmond to Redmond 32,006 26,065 577 11,989 70,637 Redmond to Other 34,917 28,992 1,568 1,718 67,195 Other to Redmond 33,975 28,645 1,209 1,380 65,209 Other to Other 2,168,144 1,812,180 39,798 460,863 4,480,984 Subtotal 2,269,043 1,895,881 43,152 475,949 4,684,025 Net Increase 2006–2030 SOV Share Ride Transit Bike/Walk Subtotal Redmond Trips 29,370 24,828 1,587 5,101 60,885 Redmond to Redmond 10,884 8,869 328 4,114 24,195 Redmond to Other 9,423 8,018 686 547 18,674 Other to Redmond 9,063 7,941 573 440 18,016 Other to Other 569,577 489,222 16,512 154,402 1,229,713 Subtotal 598,947 514,050 18,099 159,502 1,290,598 Percent Growth 2006–2030 SOV Share Ride Transit Bike/Walk Subtotal Redmond Trips 41% 42% 90% 51% 43% Redmond to Redmond 52% 52% 131% 52% 52% Redmond to Other 37% 38% 78% 47% 38% Other to Redmond 36% 38% 90% 47% 38% Other to Other 36% 37% 71% 50% 38% Subtotal 36% 37% 72% 50% 38% ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 4-13 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Figure 20: 2006-2030 Forecast of Non-Home Based Work Trips in Redmond by Mode Figure 20 above compares the forecasts for non-home based work trips in Redmond by mode of travel. Similarly to home-based non-work trips, the SOV and share ride mode category will remain the largest number of trips, for all trips within Redmond and between Redmond and other communities in East King County. This is a major market for transit in the future, if faster, more direct, and more frequent service was provided on local streets and corridors. 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 SOV Shared Ride Transit Bike/Walk Year 2006 Non‐Home Based Work Trips Other to Redmond Redmond to Other Redmond to Redmond 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 SOV Shared Ride Transit Bike/Walk Year 2030 Non‐Home Based Work Trips Other to Redmond Redmond to Other Redmond to Redmond ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 4-14 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Non-Home Based Other-to-Other Trips Non-home based other trips are forecast to have the highest percentage growth for all categories of trips within Redmond However they represent a small proportion of all trips. Table 26: Non-Home Based Other Trips Forecast by Mode Split Group Non-Home Based Other Trips 2006 SOV Share Ride Transit Bike/Walk Subtotal Redmond Trips 13,255 10,889 2,418 1,816 28,378 Redmond to Redmond 3,725 3,032 302 1,420 8,479 Redmond to Other 4,251 3,480 1,223 91 9,044 Other to Redmond 5,278 4,377 894 305 10,854 Other to Other 405,055 331,268 48,712 46,009 831,043 Subtotal 418,309 342,157 51,130 47,825 859,421 Non-Home Based Other Trips 2030 SOV Share Ride Transit Bike/Walk Subtotal Redmond Trips 19,581 16,195 4,257 3,248 43,280 Redmond to Redmond 6,322 5,150 754 2,614 14,839 Redmond to Other 5,838 4,803 2,004 141 12,786 Other to Redmond 7,421 6,242 1,499 494 15,655 Other to Other 583,446 478,665 80,837 69,232 1,212,179 Subtotal 603,027 494,860 85,093 72,480 1,255,460 Net Increase 2006-2030 SOV Share Ride Transit Bike/Walk Subtotal Redmond Trips 6,326 5,306 1,838 1,432 14,903 Redmond to Redmond 2,597 2,118 452 1,194 6,361 Redmond to Other 1,587 1,323 781 50 3,742 Other to Redmond 2,142 1,866 605 188 4,801 Other to Other 178,391 147,397 32,124 23,223 381,136 Subtotal 184,717 152,704 33,963 24,655 396,039 Percent Growth 2006-2030 SOV Share Ride Transit Bike/Walk Subtotal Redmond Trips 48% 49% 76% 79% 53% Redmond to Redmond 70% 70% 150% 84% 75% Redmond to Other 37% 38% 64% 55% 41% Other to Redmond 41% 43% 68% 62% 44% Other to Other 44% 44% 66% 50% 46% Subtotal 44% 45% 66% 52% 46% ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 4-15 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Figure 21: 2006-2030 Forecast of Non-Home Based Other Trips in Redmond by Mode 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 SOV Shared Ride Transit Bike/Walk Year 2006 Non‐Home Based Other Trips Other to Redmond Redmond to Other Redmond to Redmond 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 SOV Shared Ride Transit Bike/Walk Year 2030 Non‐Home Based Other Trips Other to Redmond Redmond to Other Redmond to Redmond ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 4-16 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Summary Public transit has historically performed better for work trips (home-based) and worse for non- home based and other trips. However PSRC forecasts show that non-home based and other travel on public transit within Redmond neighborhoods and between Redmond and other communities will catch up with work travel by year 2030. Home-based work trips represent about 18 percent of all trips in the region. They will increase 35 percent within Redmond with transit growing at a much faster pace (87%) than drive alone, walking, or biking. Non-home-based work trips represent about 25 percent of all trips in the region. They will grow at a faster pace within Redmond (43%) than the region with transit growing at a much faster pace (90%) than other modes. Home-based non-work trips (other trips) represent about 50 percent of all trips in the region. Within Redmond they will increase by 44 percent compared to only 40 percent in the region. Transit trips are expected to grow by 114 percent in the year 2006-2030 period Non-home-based other trips off all trips) are forecasted for the highest growth of all trip categories in the region. Trips within Redmond will increase by 53 percent compared to only 46 percent for trips in the region. Transit trips of this type are expected to grow by 76 percent throughout the forecast period. 4.3 Significant OD Pairs by Trip Category The following section highlights the most significant origin-destination pairs for both home-based and non-home based trips within Redmond, from Redmond to other communities, and from other communities to Redmond. The relative number of trips is expected to grow 2006 and 2030 for every origin-destination pair; the most significant origin-destination pairs are expected to remain the same in year 2030. These are described in the paragraphs below. Home-Based Trips by Mode Split Group Major OD Pairs for Work and College Trips (Commute Trips) Within Redmond, the most significant destinations for home-based work trips are South Overlake and Downtown Redmond. Travelers come from many different origins within the city and the rest of the region to these employment centers. Workers who are traveling from Redmond to other destinations in the region are traveling most often to Kirkland, Seattle, and Bellevue (both west and east of I-405). These workers are coming from many different neighborhoods in the City, especially Education Hill, North Overlake, Viewpoint, Grass Lawn, Willows/Rose Hill, and Downtown Redmond (see Table 27, Figure 22 and Figure 23 on the next pages). Major OD Pairs for Other Trips (Midday Trips) Home-based other trips are produced by and attracted to a wide variety of City areas. The largest attraction areas within Redmond include South Overlake, Downtown Redmond, Education Hill, Viewpoint, Willows/Rose Hill, and North Overlake. The areas that Redmond residents travel most often to outside of the city are Bellevue and Kirkland. Travelers from outside the city come to Redmond from a wide variety of locations, including Bellevue, Issaquah, Sammamish, Woodinville, Cottage Lake, Kirkland, and other locations within the region. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 4-17 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Table 27: Daily Trips to Downtown Redmond and South Overlake, All Modes, Year 2030 Source: PSRC trips tables converted to the Bellevue-Kirkland-Redmond (BKR) zone system and read into the BKR model Non-Home Based Trips by Mode Split Group Major OD Pairs for Work Trips (Commute Trips) The largest producers and generators of non-home based work trips are South Overlake and Downtown Redmond. Many of these trips are intra-zonal. For example, there is a very large amount of travel within the South Overlake neighborhood. The most common non-home based work trips from Redmond to other cities are to Bellevue, Kirkland, and Seattle. The greatest numbers of travelers coming to Redmond (for other to work or work to other purposes) come from Bellevue, Kirkland, and Seattle. Major OD Pairs for Other Trips (Midday Trips) Within Redmond, the greatest amount of non-home based other trips occurs between South Overlake, North Overlake, and Downtown Redmond. From Redmond to other communities, Bellevue, Kirkland, and Seattle receive the most trips. Most of these trips come from South Overlake and North Overlake. The Redmond neighborhoods that receive the most trips from outside the city are South Overlake, Downtown Redmond, Southeast Redmond, and Education Hill. These trips (other to other trip purpose) most often come from Bellevue, Issaquah, Sammamish, Woodinville, Cottage Lake, and Kirkland. Zone of Origin Trips Produced Percent Zone of Origin Trips Produced Percent Education Hill 6,013 8.8% Bellevue E of I-405 21,923 17.6% Rest of the Region 5,235 7.7% Rest of King County 9,535 7.7% Rest of Kirkland 4,887 7.2% Rest of the Region 9,452 7.6% Rest of King County 4,577 6.7% Seattle 7,192 5.8% Bellevue E of I-405 4,572 6.7% North Overlake 6,872 5.5% Issaquah, Sammamish 3,296 4.8% Bellevue W of I-405 6,049 4.9% Woodinville, Cottage Lake 3,190 4.7% Issaquah, Sammamish 5,673 4.6% Bothell, Kenmore, Juanita 2,859 4.2% Rest of Kirkland 5,163 4.2% Seattle 2,791 4.1% Bothell, Kenmore, Juanita 3,684 3.0% Sammamish Vally 2,791 4.1% View Point 2,879 2.3% South Overlake 2,345 3.4% Eastgate, S of I-90 areas 2,717 2.2% North Overlake 2,122 3.1% Woodinville, Cottage Lake 2,713 2.2% Southeast Redmond 2,108 3.1% Education Hill 2,499 2.0% Bellevue W of I-405 2,107 3.1% Redmond City Center 2,345 1.9% Grass Lawn 1,844 2.7% Grass Lawn 2,325 1.9% Redmond Ridge, Duvall 1,839 2.7% Southeast Redmond 1,921 1.5% Willows 1,695 2.5% Redmond Ridge, Duvall 1,782 1.4% Eastgate, S of I-90 areas 645 0.9% Renton 1,488 1.2% View Point 553 0.8% Willows 1,394 1.1% Bear Creek 531 0.8% Sammamish Vally 666 0.5% Renton 382 0.6% Bear Creek 443 0.4% North Redmond 139 0.2% North Redmond 90 0.1% Total 68,209 100.0% Total 124,276 100.0% Downtown Redmond South Overlake ---PAGE BREAK--- East Bellevue Rest of Kirkland Downtown Bellevue Issaquah, Sammamish Bothell, Kenmore, Juanita Woodinville, Cottage Lake Seattle Education Hill Southeast Redmond Rest of King County Sammamish Valley South Overlake North Overlake Downtown Redmond Rest of the Region 6,013 4,887 4,572 3,190 4,577 3,296 2,859 2,791 2,345 2,108 2,791 2,122 2,107 5,235 405 520 405 405 90 90 520 202 Figure 22 Daily Trips to/from Downtown Redmond, All Modes, Year 2030 GIS Data Source: PSRC Regional Travel Demand Model 2006-2030 0 1 2 Miles Transit Routes TAZ Areas Highways and Principal Roads ---PAGE BREAK--- Eastgate 3,684 5,673 7,192 2,713 2,717 9,535 6,049 9,452 2,499 5,163 2,345 21,923 2,325 2,879 6,872 East Bellevue Rest of Kirkland Downtown Bellevue Issaquah, Sammamish Bothell, Kenmore, Juanita Woodinville, Cottage Lake Seattle Education Hill Rest of King County South Overlake North Overlake Downtown Redmond Rest of the Region Grass Lawn Viewpoint 405 520 405 405 90 90 202 Figure 23 Daily Trips to/from South Overlake, All Modes, Year 2030 GIS Data Source: PSRC Regional Travel Demand Model 2006-2030 0 1 2 Miles Transit Routes TAZ Areas Highways and Principal Roads ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 4-20 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Summary of Forecasts by Redmond Market Areas Trip production and attraction matrices were developed for year 2006 and year 2030 for all travel modes – SOV, shared ride, public transit, walk, and bicycle, and for all trip purposes – work trips (home based and non-home based), and other trips (home based and non-home based). Table 29 on the next page) summarizes trips produced and attracted by each Redmond neighborhood and mixed-use district by purpose and mode for year 2030. The top five significant destinations are listed only for each neighborhood and trip type. As noted before, neighborhoods producing and attracting most trips include: Downtown Redmond, South Overlake, North Overlake, Southeast Redmond, Willows/Rose Hill, Education Hill, and Grass Lawn. Neighborhoods generating and attracting the least trips include: North Redmond, Sammamish Valley, and Bear Creek. Public Transit trips are typically more regional in nature and present a similar pattern to SOV trips. Main destinations for work trips (home based and non-home based) include Seattle, Downtown Bellevue, East Bellevue, and Kirkland. Main destinations for Other Trips (home based and non-home based) include Bellevue, Kirkland, and Downtown Redmond. Walking and Bicycling trips are typically more local in nature and differ from SOV and transit trips. Main destinations for work trips in these modes also include Downtown Redmond, Southeast Redmond, and South Overlake. However, other trips have a wider variety of destinations based on proximity to other communities and activity centers. For example, Bike/Walk trips from Willows/Rose Hill go mainly to Kirkland, Education Hill, and Downtown Redmond; while Bike/Walk trips from Education Hill go mainly to Education Hill, Downtown Redmond, Sammamish Valley, and Willows/Rose Hill. Table 28 below, presents the thresholds defined to perform this analysis. Significant trip volumes were defined as those above the 85 percentile of values for each category. Table 28: Redmond Neighborhoods Trip Generation Thresholds Thresholds & Trip Volume Range Work Trips Other Trips Home Based Non Home Based Home Based Non Home Based Drive Alone 300-1,800 600-7,900 600-3,700 300-1,700 Shared Ride 100-200 400-6,400 400-2,800 100-1,400 Public Transit 50-600 50-200 50-300 50-150 Bike/Walk 50-300 50-4,900 50-900 50-1,000 Notes: 1. Trip volume range is defined between minimum threshold (85%) and maximum value in the series of values for each category 2. First five destinations for each travel mode and trip type are selected from range in values defined above 3. A minimum threshold of trips was defined for each mode to limit range in values when 85 percentile was too low or close to zero. 4. The minimum threshold was defined as follows: 300 trips for drive alone; 100 trip for shared ride; and 50 trips for transit and bike/walk ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 4-21 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Table 29: Significant OD Travel Pairs to/from Redmond Neighborhoods (Year 2030) Neighborhood Work Trips Other Trips Home Based Non Home Based Home Based Non Home Based Education Hill Drive Alone: Seattle, East Bellevue, South Overlake, Kirkland, Downtown Bellevue Drive Alone: Education Hill, Redmond City Center Drive Alone: Redmond City Center, Education Hill, East Bellevue, South Overlake, Kirkland Drive Alone: Below threshold Shared Ride: Seattle Shared Ride: Education Hill, Redmond City Center Shared Ride: Redmond City Center, Education Hill, East Bellevue, South Overlake, Kirkland Shared Ride: Below threshold Public Transit: Seattle, East Bellevue, Downtown Bellevue, South Overlake, Kirkland Public Transit: Below threshold Public Transit: South Overlake, East Bellevue, Downtown Bellevue, Southeast Redmond, North Overlake Public Transit: Below threshold Bike/Walk: Redmond City Center, Education Hill Bike/Walk: Education Hill, Redmond City Center, Willows Bike/Walk: Education Hill, Redmond City Center, Sammamish Valley, Willows, Southeast Redmond Bike/Walk: Below threshold Grass Lawn Drive Alone: Seattle, East Bellevue, South Overlake, Downtown Bellevue, Kirkland Drive Alone: Below threshold Drive Alone: East Bellevue, Kirkland, South Overlake, Grass Lawn, Redmond City Center Drive Alone: Below threshold Shared Ride: Below threshold Shared Ride: Below threshold Shared Ride: East Bellevue, Kirkland, South Overlake, Grass Lawn, Redmond City Center Shared Ride: Below threshold Public Transit: Seattle, East Bellevue, South Overlake, Downtown Bellevue, Kirkland Public Transit: Below threshold Public Transit: South Overlake, East Bellevue, Downtown Bellevue, Kirkland, North Overlake Public Transit: East Bellevue Bike/Walk: South Overlake Bike/Walk: Grass Lawn, Redmond City Center, Kirkland Bike/Walk: Grass Lawn, Redmond City Center, Kirkland, South Overlake, North Overlake Bike/Walk: Below threshold ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 4-22 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Table 29 (Cont.): Significant OD Travel Pairs to/from Redmond Neighborhoods (Year 2030) Neighborhood Work Trips Other Trips Home Based Non Home Based Home Based Non Home Based Downtown Redmond Drive Alone: Seattle, East Bellevue, South Overlake Drive Alone: Redmond City Center, Kirkland, East Bellevue, South Overlake, Education Hill Drive Alone: Redmond City Center, East Bellevue Drive Alone: Below threshold Shared Ride: Below threshold Shared Ride: Redmond City Center, Kirkland, East Bellevue, South Overlake, Seattle Shared Ride: Redmond City Center, East Bellevue Shared Ride: Below threshold Public Transit: Seattle, East Bellevue, South Overlake, Downtown Bellevue Public Transit: South Overlake, East Bellevue, Downtown Bellevue, Seattle Public Transit: South Overlake, East Bellevue Public Transit: East Bellevue, South Overlake, Kirkland, Downtown Bellevue Bike/Walk: Redmond City Center Bike/Walk: Redmond City Center, Sammamish Valley, Education Hill, Southeast Redmond, Grass Lawn Bike/Walk: Redmond City Center, Education Hill, Sammamish Valley Bike/Walk: Redmond City Center Willows/Rose Hill Drive Alone: Seattle, East Bellevue, South Overlake, Kirkland, Downtown Bellevue Drive Alone: Kirkland, Willows Drive Alone: Kirkland, Willows, East Bellevue, Redmond City Center, South Overlake Drive Alone: Below threshold Shared Ride: Below threshold Shared Ride: Kirkland, Willows Shared Ride: Kirkland, Willows, East Bellevue, Redmond City Center, Downtown Bellevue Shared Ride: Below threshold Public Transit: Seattle, East Bellevue, South Overlake, Downtown Bellevue, Kirkland Public Transit: Below threshold Public Transit: South Overlake, Downtown Bellevue, East Bellevue, Kirkland Public Transit: Below threshold Bike/Walk: Willows, Kirkland Bike/Walk: Willows, Kirkland, Education Hill Bike/Walk: Willows, Kirkland, Education Hill, Redmond City Center Bike/Walk: Below threshold Sammamish Valley Drive Alone: Below threshold Drive Alone: Redmond City Center Drive Alone: Redmond City Center Drive Alone: Below threshold Shared Ride: Below threshold Shared Ride: Redmond City Center Shared Ride: Below threshold Shared Ride: Below threshold Public Transit: Seattle Public Transit: Below threshold Public Transit: Below threshold Public Transit: Below threshold Bike/Walk: Below threshold Bike/Walk: Redmond City Center, Sammamish Valley Bike/Walk: Redmond City Center Bike/Walk: Below threshold ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 4-23 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Table 29 (Cont.): Significant OD Travel Pairs to/from Redmond Neighborhoods (Year 2030) Neighborhood Work Trips Other Trips Home Based Non Home Based Home Based Non Home Based North Redmond Drive Alone: Below threshold Drive Alone: Below threshold Drive Alone: Below threshold Drive Alone: Below threshold Shared Ride: Below threshold Shared Ride: Below threshold Shared Ride: Below threshold Shared Ride: Below threshold Public Transit: Below threshold Public Transit: Below threshold Public Transit: Below threshold Public Transit: Below threshold Bike/Walk: Below threshold Bike/Walk: Below threshold Bike/Walk: Below threshold Bike/Walk: Below threshold Bear Creek Drive Alone: Below threshold Drive Alone: Below threshold Drive Alone: Below threshold Drive Alone: Below threshold Shared Ride: Below threshold Shared Ride: Below threshold Shared Ride: Below threshold Shared Ride: Below threshold Public Transit: Below threshold Public Transit: Below threshold Public Transit: Below threshold Public Transit: Below threshold Bike/Walk: Below threshold Bike/Walk: Below threshold Bike/Walk: Bear Creek Bike/Walk: Below threshold SE Redmond Drive Alone: South Overlake, Seattle, East Bellevue Drive Alone: Southeast Redmond, East Bellevue, Issaquah and Sammamish, Redmond City Center, South Overlake Drive Alone: Southeast Redmond, East Bellevue Drive Alone: Below threshold Shared Ride: Below threshold Shared Ride: Southeast Redmond, East Bellevue, Issaquah and Sammamish, Redmond City Center, South Overlake Shared Ride: Southeast Redmond Shared Ride: Below threshold Public Transit: Seattle, South Overlake, East Bellevue Public Transit: South Overlake Public Transit: South Overlake Public Transit: East Bellevue, Redmond City Center Bike/Walk: Southeast Redmond Bike/Walk: Southeast Redmond, Redmond City Center, South Overlake Bike/Walk: Southeast Redmond Bike/Walk: Below threshold ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 4-24 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Table 29 (Cont.): Significant OD Travel Pairs to/from Redmond Neighborhoods (Year 2030) Neighborhood Work Trips Other Trips Home Based Non Home Based Home Based Non Home Based Viewpoint Drive Alone: Seattle, South Overlake, East Bellevue, Downtown Bellevue, Rest of King County Drive Alone: East Bellevue Drive Alone: East Bellevue, South Overlake, Viewpoint, Downtown Bellevue Drive Alone: Below threshold Shared Ride: Below threshold Shared Ride: East Bellevue Shared Ride: East Bellevue, South Overlake, Viewpoint, Downtown Bellevue Shared Ride: Below threshold Public Transit: Seattle, South Overlake, East Bellevue, Downtown Bellevue Public Transit: Below threshold Public Transit: Downtown Bellevue, East Bellevue, North Overlake Public Transit: Below threshold Bike/Walk: Below threshold Bike/Walk: Viewpoint, East Bellevue Bike/Walk: Viewpoint, East Bellevue, South Overlake Bike/Walk: Below threshold North Overlake Drive Alone: Seattle, South Overlake, East Bellevue, Downtown Bellevue, Kirkland Drive Alone: South Overlake, East Bellevue, North Overlake Drive Alone: South Overlake, East Bellevue, North Overlake, Redmond City Center, Downtown Bellevue Drive Alone: South Overlake, East Bellevue, North Overlake Shared Ride: Below threshold Shared Ride: South Overlake, East Bellevue, North Overlake Shared Ride: South Overlake, East Bellevue, North Overlake, Redmond City Center, Downtown Bellevue Shared Ride: South Overlake, East Bellevue, North Overlake, Downtown Bellevue, Kirkland Public Transit: Seattle, East Bellevue, South Overlake, Downtown Bellevue Public Transit: Below threshold Public Transit: East Bellevue, South Overlake, Downtown Bellevue Public Transit: East Bellevue Bike/Walk: South Overlake, North Overlake Bike/Walk: South Overlake, North Overlake, East Bellevue, Redmond City Center Bike/Walk: South Overlake, North Overlake, Redmond City Center, East Bellevue, Grass Lawn Bike/Walk: South Overlake, North Overlake, East Bellevue South Overlake Drive Alone: Below threshold Drive Alone: South Overlake, East Bellevue, Seattle, Downtown Bellevue, North Overlake Drive Alone: South Overlake Drive Alone: South Overlake, East Bellevue, North Overlake, Downtown Bellevue, Kirkland Shared Ride: Below threshold Shared Ride: South Overlake, East Bellevue, Seattle, Downtown Bellevue, North Overlake Shared Ride: South Overlake Shared Ride: South Overlake, East Bellevue, North Overlake, Downtown Bellevue, Seattle Public Transit: Seattle Public Transit: Downtown Bellevue, East Bellevue, Seattle Public Transit: Below threshold Public Transit: East Bellevue, Downtown Bellevue Bike/Walk: South Overlake Bike/Walk: South Overlake, East Bellevue, North Overlake, Downtown Bellevue Bike/Walk: South Overlake Bike/Walk: South Overlake, North Overlake, East Bellevue ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 5-1 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Chapter 5. Service Evaluation Framework 5.1 Transportation Master Plan Objectives The Transportation Master Plan (TMP) established regional and local transit levels of service (LOS) targets. Page 4-6 in the TMP discusses regional transit travel time as a means to provide Redmond residents with a “real choice” to travel from the two major urban centers in the City – Downtown and Overlake to other activity centers in the region identified as: downtown Seattle, downtown Bellevue, the University District, and downtown Kirkland. Regional transit LOS measures are presented in Table 30 below. Table 30: Regional Transit LOS Measures To/From Downtown Redmond (Redmond Transit Center) Overlake (NE 40th Transit Center) Downtown Seattle Peak frequency: 5 minutes Travel time: 30 minutes Peak frequency: 5 minutes Travel time: 25 minutes Bellevue Transit Center Peak frequency: 10 minutes Travel time: 15 minutes Peak frequency: 15 minutes Travel time: 15 minutes University District - Seattle Peak frequency: 5 minutes Travel time: 30 minutes Peak frequency: 15 minutes Travel time: 25 minutes Downtown Kirkland Peak frequency: 30 minutes Travel time: 15 minutes Peak frequency: 30 minutes Travel time: 20 minutes Source: Redmond TMP, page 4-6 The TMP also established Local Transit Connectivity priorities to improve Redmond residents’ mobility needs. Redmond’s local transit LOS measures emphasize connections between Redmond neighborhoods and three major local destinations – downtown, Redmond Town Center, and Overlake. Page 4-7 in the TMP establishes local transit connectivity measures and standards for neighborhood-to-neighborhood connections, as illustrated in Table 31 and Table 32 below. Table 31: Local Transit Connectivity Measures Level Criteria PC – Priority Connection Peak hour frequency of service 15 min). Direct connection 1.5 x most direct route). All day service 18 hours). MS – Maintain Service Level Maintain at least today’s level of service. N – No Direct Connection No direct local route connection yet. Source: Redmond TMP, page 4-7 Table 32 below summarizes local transit connectivity measures and standards for neighborhood- to-neighborhood connections in Redmond. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 5-2 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Table 32: 2022 Local Transit LOS Standards To/From Redmond Town Center NE Redmond Overlake Transit Center Overlake Park & Ride Grass Lawn SE Redmond Willows Viewpoint Downtown PC PC PC PC MS PC MS MS Redmond TC N N N MS N N N NE Redmond N N N N N N Overlake TC PC MS MS N N Overlake P&R MS MS N N Grass Lawn MS N N SE Redmond N N Willows N Source: Redmond TMP, page 4-7 The TMP’s conceptual plan is that direct connections between neighborhoods are facilitated by frequent service to the three major local destinations – Downtown, Redmond Town Center, and Overlake, which would enable convenient transfers to other Redmond neighborhoods. In other words, downtown Redmond, Redmond Town Center, and Overlake are thought to become transit accessibility centers not only for regional connections but also for local connections. Issues with this Approach Based on the knowledge of markets and travel demand gained in the previous chapters, this approach presents a few barriers to move forward in the development of a local transit service strategy for the City. Mainly, the current TMP objectives do not help in identifying levels of service along the transit corridors that provide local connectivity, and they do not prioritize corridors according to their level of connectivity and demand intensity in relation to either neighborhood travel or regional travel. Ideally the TMP objectives should be clarified and strengthened to provide guidance on: The local and subregional connections with greater market demand The multimodal corridors that provide connections to major local and subregional markets The level of service needed on multimodal corridors to address local and subregional demand The level of service needed to adequately serve local connections ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 5-3 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 5.2 Multi-Layered Evaluation Approach The crux of the problem is that defining levels of service by local Priority Connection does not necessarily guarantee adequate service levels on multimodal corridors, and it does not allow setting priorities for transportation investments among multimodal corridors. To adequately set TMP objectives and accomplish these goals a multi-layered service evaluation approach is necessary to account for market demand, transit service levels, and multimodal corridor connectivity. The service evaluation framework is then based on four different information layers. These include: Market Demand: regional and local origin-destination travel demand markets by travel mode (drive alone, shared ride, public transit, and bike/walk) Transit Service Levels: current and planned transit service levels for both local connections and multimodal corridors Multimodal Corridors: the network of multi-modal corridors for local connectivity as established by the TMP and revisions to the network to account for sub-regional connectivity TMP Objectives: TMP level of service objectives for regional and local connections, measured in service frequency and travel time between destinations. Figure 24: Key Information Layers Multimodal Corridors TMP Objectives Market Demand Transit Service Levels ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 5-4 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Multi-Layer Correlation Six potential relationships arise from the combination of all four information layers. Each relationship helps answering critical questions and defining adequate strategies and objectives for transit service in Redmond. The six relationships and questions are as follows: 1. Market Demand vs. Transit Service Levels: – Are transit service levels reaching the largest potential markets? 2. Market Demand vs. Multimodal Corridors: – How directly do multimodal corridors connect the biggest potential markets? 3. Market Demand vs. TMP Objectives: – How well do TMP objectives match up with travel demand markets? 4. Transit Service Levels vs. Multimodal Corridors: – How well does the multimodal corridor network match up with current transit routes? 5. Transit Service Levels vs. TMP Objectives: – Should the City revise the TMP objectives for transit service? 6. Multimodal Corridor vs.TMP Objectives: – Should the City revise the TMP objectives of the multimodal corridor network? A detailed analysis of the six possible relationships and answers to these critical questions are provided in the sections that follow. 1. Market Demand vs. Transit Service Levels Are transit service levels reaching the largest potential markets? Based on year 2030 travel demand forecasts (PSRC and BKR transportation models), regional and local origin-destination travel demand markets were identified by travel mode (drive alone, shared ride, public transit, and bike/walk) for all trip types. Two OD patterns were selected for further analysis: Local Markets: Redmond-to-Redmond daily travel (all trip types) Sub-Regional Market: Redmond-to-Other daily travel (all trip types) Local Markets Market Demand for Local Connections Utilizing model results by travel mode, the intensity of travel demand by mode was measured between Redmond neighborhoods. A scoring methodology was utilized to compare demand levels by mode and account for local OD connections that show the greatest degree of multimodality6. Redmond-to-Redmond travel on each mode was categorized by low, medium, and high level according to the range of OD volumes. A score of 1, 3, and 5 was assigned to 6 This to counterbalance mode split model results which show very little net growth (from year 2006 to year 2030) on alternative travel modes (both in Redmond and the region) and excessive predominance of driving alone, and to better correlate with Redmond’s TMP Multi-Modal Corridor Network objectives. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 5-5 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. each OD pair by mode respectively. Table 33 below presents the results of this analysis for all four modes combined (scores for each mode were added up with equal weight; a straight sum). A “red” highlight represents OD pairs with high level of demand on all modes A “yellow” highlight represents OD pairs with medium level of demand across modes A “green” highlight represents OD pairs with low level of demand across modes Table 33: Local Market Demand – Neighborhood Connection Priorities Summary of Findings There are high demand levels for internal circulation within most Redmond neighborhoods on all travel modes. The only exceptions are Bear Creek and North Redmond which have very little development and thus little trip making (based on current TAZ definitions) Market demand for travel between Redmond neighborhoods or Transportation Management Districts (TMDs) is highest between Downtown, Overlake and older, more consolidated neighborhoods such as Grass Lawn and Education Hill Both Willows/Sammamish Valley and SE Redmond show high demand levels for their connection to Downtown, Education Hill, and the Overlake Commercial Core. Transit LOS for Local Connections Table 34 on the next page, shows the transit service levels that are provided between Redmond neighborhoods for a selected number of OD pairs. This table is an updated version of the table included in the TMP in Chapter 5C, page 5C-9, identifying bus route number, service frequency, and travel time between destinations. This information has been coded in each cell as shown here. A full table for all areas is provided in Appendix C (at the end of this document). Neighborhood Connection ID Downtown Redmond Redmond Town Center Education Hill Overlake TC Overlake CC Grass Lawn Bear Creek Willows/ Sammamish Viewpoint SE Redmond North Redmond Downtown Redmond 18 18 20 20 20 18 12 18 14 20 6 Redmond Town Center 18 20 20 20 18 12 18 14 20 6 Education Hill 16 14 18 12 10 18 6 20 4 Overlake TC 16 20 20 4 14 14 12 4 Overlake CC 16 20 10 16 20 20 6 Grass Lawn 16 4 12 8 12 4 Bear Creek 12 6 4 12 4 Willows/ Sammamish Valley 18 6 14 4 Viewpoint 16 14 4 SE Redmond 16 4 North Redmond 6 Route # - Travel Time 545 15 230 14 545 15 232 15 # of Trips (frequency) ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 5-6 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. In this version, cells have been highlighted “red,” “yellow,” and “green” to match market demand levels shown in Table 33 for each local OD pair7. Table 34: Local Market Demand versus Transit Service Levels Summary of Findings There is an obvious mismatch between market demand levels and transit service opportunities for most local OD pairs in Redmond on both peak and off-peak periods Nominal headways (service frequency) and transit travel time vary widely between OD pairs of similar market demand level, but also from peak period to off-peak period within same local OD connections (i.e. Education Hill to Overlake TC) 7 Transit service has been calculated utilizing the Transit Trip Planner tool from Google Maps for trips between 7:00 - 7:30 a.m. for the peak period, and between 12:30 – 1:00 p.m. for the off-peak/midday period. Every zone has been given a major street intersection that is central to each zone to calculate point-to-point travel time, bus route number, and number of trips provided. All available trips have been listed to calculate nominal frequencies by local OD pair based on the number of trips available and not on published timetables. Trips that were up to two minutes apart from another trip were tossed out, as these were considered to be the same time given on-time performance and reliability issues and thus a single trip opportunity for users. 3. Education Hill 4. Overlake Transit Center 5. Overlake Commercial Core 6. Grass Lawn 7. Bear Creek 8. Willows/ Sammamish Valley 9. Viewpoint (NE 104th St & 166th Ave NE) (NE 40th St & 156th Ave NE) (NE 24th St & 152nd Ave NE) (Old Redmond Rd & 148th Ave NE) (Avondale Road & NE 95th St) (Willows Rd NE & NE 90th Ave) (180th Ave NE & W Lake Sammamish) 1. Downtown Redmond 221 10 545 15 230 19 265 13 232 9 291 7 250 16 (NE 85th St & 160th Ave NE) 230 14 253 19 266 12 545 15 265 13 232 15 221 10 545 16 230 19 253 9 248 18 253 7 230-249 25 230 13 253 22 221 13 253-249 42 545 16 2. Redmond Town Center 221 12 545 23 253 26 253 15 248 13 253 10 250 20 (NE 76th St & 166th Ave NE) 545 23 545-230 31 232 9 545 23 545 23 221 12 545 24 253 28 253 16 248 10 253 11 253-249 49 545 24 248-233 30 3. Education Hill 221 24 221 36 221 14 232-221 18 253-221 28 221-250 35 (NE 104th St & 166th Ave NE) 221 18 221 36 221 12 221-248 35 221-253 36 249-221 51 4. Overlake Transit Center 269 11 245 10 248-233 27 244 17 249 6 (NE 40th St & 156th Ave NE) 242 8 221 13 232 24 233 11 245 12 245 10 233-248 21 253 24 249 7 233 11 221 12 Peak Off-Peak Off-Peak Peak Transit Levels of Service to/from Redmond Neighborhoods Time Period Peak Off-Peak Peak Off-Peak ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 5-7 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. The mismatch between transit service levels and local market demand are the result of a system that is designed to provide regional connections between activity centers and serve mostly commuting trips in the peak period, at the expense of local circulation and service to non-work midday trips Sub-Regional Markets Market Demand for Sub-Regional Connections Building on the OD travel demand calculation methodology utilized for the Local Markets (see Table 33), the intensity of travel demand by mode was measured between Redmond and Other destinations in the region (mostly connections with adjacent cities and communities at the sub- regional level) not including Seattle which has a high level of service via SR 520 on ST 545. Table 35 below presents market demand results for sub-regional connections for all travel modes using the same scoring methodology and color scheme described previously in Table 33. Table 35: Sub-regional Market Demand – Connectivity with Adjacent Cities Summary of Findings There are high levels of travel demand between Downtown Redmond and most cities and communities in East King County, including: Bellevue, Kirkland, Sammamish, Redmond Ridge, Woodinville, Cottage Lake, and Bothell There are also high levels of travel demand between these communities and South Overlake (Overlake Commercial Core and Microsoft) There are high levels of travel demand for connections to Kirkland and Bellevue from Education Hill, SE Redmond, Grass Lawn, and North Overlake There is very low travel demand between Redmond neighborhoods and communities south of the I-90 freeway Subregional Connections Kirkland Bellevue West of I-405 Bellevue East of I-405 Eastgate & S of I-90 areas Issaquah & Sammamish Redmond Ridge & Duvall Woodinville & Cottage Lake Bothell, Kenmore & Juanita Downtown Redmond 20 18 20 8 18 16 20 16 Willows/ Sammamish Valley 20 14 20 4 10 6 14 16 North Redmond 6 4 4 4 4 4 8 4 Education Hill 20 14 20 4 12 14 18 14 Bear Creek 4 6 10 4 10 6 4 4 SE Redmond 16 14 20 6 18 10 12 10 View Point 12 14 20 6 8 4 4 4 North Overlake 20 20 20 12 12 6 12 10 South Overlake 20 20 20 18 18 14 18 18 Grass Lawn 20 16 20 6 10 4 10 12 ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 5-8 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 2. Market Demand vs. Multimodal Corridors How directly do multimodal corridors connect the biggest potential markets? Local connections between Redmond neighborhoods and sub-regional connections between Redmond neighborhoods and other cities and communities in East King County are made via major arterial streets and collector streets. Most of these streets have been designated as multimodal corridors in the TMP. Therefore, the link between travel demand markets at the local and sub-regional level is provided by the network of multimodal corridors. Corridor segments (connection travel paths) are then utilized to measure the number of connection opportunities and the demand intensity of those connections to sort out the relative importance of multimodal corridors in the city and to prioritize investments in infrastructure and land use development. Their relative importance is also used to prioritize transit level of service (LOS) investments. Local Markets Multi-Modal Corridor Assignment Table 36, on the next page, identifies the multi-modal corridor segments likely utilized for local connections between Redmond neighborhoods. In many cases a single set of multi-modal corridor segments exist to travel from “Neighborhood A” to “Neighborhood However, on a significant number of cases more than one travel path alternative is available. Also, in a few cases, the most direct connection is provided through minor arterial street segments not included in the TMP’s Multi-Modal Corridor Network. These segments have been included (and highlighted in “red”), as they represent a direct path and potentially a significant demand connection. The included segments are: NE 51st Street (from 156th Ave NE to West Lake Sammamish Pkwy.) NE 85th Street (from 166th Ave NE to 160th Ave NE in downtown Redmond) NE 104th Street (from Red-Wood Road to Avondale Road in Education Hill) Connectivity and Demand Intensity by Corridor Two steps are required to calculate connectivity and demand intensity by corridor. These include: 1. Corridor Connectivity: multimodal corridor segments are counted for the number of times they provide a neighborhood connection to estimate the number of connection opportunities they provide in the network. 2. Demand Intensity: multimodal corridor segments in each OD pair (neighborhood-to- neighborhood connection) is multiplied by the overall travel demand score calculated in the previous sections from travel demand modeling results aggregated by mode. Figure 25 on page 5-11, shows the resulting connectivity and demand intensity score by multimodal corridor segment for local travel demand between Redmond neighborhoods. A three color category has been utilized to show those corridors that present high, medium, and low demand intensity levels. Four local multimodal corridors stand out from this analysis as priority corridors, these include: 148th Avenue NE, 156th Avenue NE, Redmond Way, and 166th Avenue NE. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 5-9 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Table 36: Local Connections Assignments to Multi-Modal Corridors 1. Downtown Redmond (NE 85th St & 160th Ave NE) 2. Redmond Town Center (NE 76th St & 166th Ave NE) 3. Education Hill (NE 104th St & 166th Ave NE) 4. Overlake Transit Center (NE 40th St & 156th Ave NE) 5. Overlake Commercial Core (NE 24th St & 152nd Ave NE) 6. Grass Lawn (Old Redmond Rd & 148th Ave NE) 7. Bear Creek (Avondale Rd NE & NE 95th St) 8. Willows/ Sammamish Valley (Willows Rd NE & NE 90th Ave) 9. Viewpoint (180th Ave NE & W Lake Sammamish Pkwy NE) 10. SE Redmond (NE 68th St & 185th Ave NE) 11. North Redmond (NE 116th St & 172nd Ave NE) 1. Downtown Redmond 1. 161st Ave/ Redmond Way 1. 166th Ave/85th St 2. 166th Ave/ Redmond Way/161st Ave 1.161st Ave/ W Lake Samm./156th Ave 2. 90th St/148th Ave 1.161st Ave/ W Lake Samm./156th Ave 2. 90th St/148th Ave 1. Redmond Way/Old Redmond Rd 2. Redmond Way/ 148th Ave 1. 161st Ave/ Redmond Way/ Avondale Rd 1. 90th St 1. 161st Ave/ West Lake Samm. Pkwy 1. 161st Ave/ Redmond Way 1. 160th Ave Ext/ Red- Wood Rd/ 116th St 2. Redmond Town Center 1. 166th Ave 1. W Lake Samm/ 51st St/ 156th Ave 2. Redmond Way/ 148th Ave 1. W Lake Samm/ 51st St/ 156th Ave 2. Redmond Way/ 148th Ave 1. Redmond Way/Old Redmond Rd 2. Redmond Way/ 148th Ave 1. Redmond Way/ Avondale Rd 1. 90th St/ 161st Ave 1. Redmond Way/ West Lake Samm. Pkwy 1. Redmond Way 1. Avondale Road/ 116th St 3. Education Hill 1. 156th Ave/ W Lake Samm/ 166th Ave 2. 148th Ave/ Redm. Way/ 166th Ave 1. 156th Ave/ W Lake Samm/ 166th Ave 2. 148th Ave/ Redm. Way/ 166th Ave 1. 166th Ave/ Redm. Way/ 148th Ave 2. 166th Ave/ Redm. Way/ Old Redm. Rd 1. Avondale Rd/ 104th St 2. Avondale Rd/ 166th Ave 1. 104th St/ 160th Ave Ext/ 90th St 2. 166th Ave/ Redm. Way/ 148th Ave 1. 166th Ave/ West Lake Samm. Pkwy 1. 166th Ave/ Redmond Way 1. 166th Ave/ 172nd Ave 4. Overlake TC 1. 156th Ave/ 152nd Ave 2. 156th Ave/ 24th St 1. 148th Ave/ 40th St 1. 156th Ave/ W Lake Samm./ Avondale Rd 2. 148th Ave/ Redm. Way/ Avondale Rd 1. 148th Ave/ 40th St 1. 40th St/ West Lake Samm. Pkwy 1. 156th Ave/ W Lake Samm./ Redm. Way 2. 148th Ave/ Redmond Way 1. 156th Ave/ W Lake Samm/ Red-Wood Rd 2. 148th Ave/ 90th St/ Red-Wood Rd 5. Overlake CC 1. 148th Ave 1. 156th Ave/ W Lake Samm./ Avondale Rd 2. 148th Ave/ Redm. Way/ Avondale Rd 1. 148th Ave 1. 24th St/ West Lake Samm Pkwy 1. 156th Ave/ W Lake Samm./ Redm. Way 2. 148th Ave/ Redmond Way 1. 156th Ave/ W Lake Samm/ Red-Wood Rd 2. 148th Ave/ 90th St/ Red-Wood Rd 6. Grass Lawn 1. 148th Ave/ Redm. Way/ Avondale Rd 2. Old Redm Rd/ Avondale Rd 1. 148th Ave 1. 148th Ave/ 40th St/ W Lake Samm Pkwy 1. Old Redmond Rd/ Redmond Way 2. 148th Ave/ Redmond Way 1. 148th Ave/ 90th St/ Red-Wood Rd 2. Old Redm Rd/ 161st Ave/ Red-Wood Rd 7. Bear Creek 1. Avondale Rd/ 161st Ave/ 90th St 2. Avondale Rd/ Redm Way/ 148th Ave 1. Avondale Rd/ West Lake Samm Pkwy 1. Avondale Rd/ Redmond Way 1. Avondale Rd/ 116th St 8. Willows/ Sammamish Valley 1. 148th Ave/ 40th St/ W Lake Samm Pkwy 1. 90th St/ 161st Ave/ Redmond Way 2. 148th Ave/ Redmond Way 1. 90th S/ 160th Ave Ext/ Red-Wood Rd 9. Viewpoint 1. West Lake Samm Pkwy/ Redmond Way 1. West Lake Samm Pkwy/ 161st Ave/ Red- Wood Rd 10. SE Redmond 1. Redmond Way/ Avondale Road/ 116th St 11. North Redmond ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- " P " P " P " P " P " P " P Overlake Education Hill SE Redmond Viewpoint Grass Lawn North Redmond Willows / Rose Hill Sammamish Valley Sammamish Valley Bear Creek English Hill 148th Ave NE NE 124th St NE Redmond Way 124th Ave NE Novelty Hill Rd NE Bellevue Redmond Rd NE 90th St Red-Wood Rd NE NE 24th St NE 116th St 166th Ave NE NE 104th St Avondale Rd NE 188th Ave NE NE 40th St NE 51st St W Lake Sa mmamis h U V 520 U V 202 U V 908 U V 202 Overlake P&R Bear Creek P&R Overlake TC Northeast 116th & I-405 Rose Hill Presbyterian Church P&R Bellevue Christian Reformed Church P&R Redmond P&R Redmond P&R U 10 U 7a U 3b U 11b U 13a U 6a U 11d U 5 U 6b U 7b U 13b U 1 U 4 U 2a U 8 U 11c U 12a U 2b U 8 U 14 U 16 U 9 U 12b U 3a U 11a U 3c U 15 Figure 25 Multimodal Corridors Local Demand Intensity GIS Data Source: US Census, King County GIS, Sound Transit, USGS, City of Redmond GIS, Community Transit 0 1 Miles City of Redmond Multimodal Corridors High Connection Intensity Medium Connection Intensity Low Connection Intensity Other Transit Network " P Park & Rides Transit Center Trails ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 5-12 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Sub-Regional Markets Multi-Modal Corridor Assignment Table 37 on the next page, identifies the multi-modal corridor segments likely utilized for sub- regional connections between Redmond neighborhoods and other cities and communities in East King County. Similar to local connections, in many cases a single set of multi-modal corridor segments exist to travel from a Redmond Neighborhood to another City. On a significant number of cases more than one travel path alternative is also available, and in many cases, the most direct connection is provided through a major arterial or state highway segment that was not included in the TMP’s Multi-Modal Corridor Network. These segments have been included, as they represent a direct path and potentially a significant subregional demand connection. The included segments are: NE 51st Street (from 156th Ave NE to West Lake Sammamish Pkwy.) NE 85th Street (from 148th Ave NE to 124th Ave NE) Willows Road (from NE 124th St to Redmond Way) Avondale Road (from NE 116th St to NE 124th St) Redmond-Woodinville Road (from NE 116th St to NE 124th St) NE 124th Street (from 124th Ave NE to Avondale Road) Bellevue-Redmond Road (from NE 40th St to NE 8th St) SR-520 (from 148th Avenue to Union Hill Road) Connectivity and Demand Intensity by Corridor Building on the same methodology, two steps are required to calculate connectivity and demand intensity by corridor at the subregional level. These include: 1. Corridor Connectivity: multimodal corridor segments are counted for the number of times they provide a connection between a Redmond neighborhood and another City to estimate the number of connection opportunities they provide in the regional network. 2. Demand Intensity: multimodal corridor segments in each OD pair (Redmond neighborhood to another City) are multiplied by the overall travel demand score calculated in the previous sections from travel demand modeling results aggregated by mode. Figure 26 on page 5-15, shows the resulting connectivity and demand intensity score by multimodal corridor segment for subregional travel demand between Redmond neighborhoods and eastside cities and communities. A three color category has been utilized to show those corridors that present high, medium, and low demand intensity levels. Six multimodal corridors stand out from this analysis as priority corridors for subregional travel, these include: 148th Avenue NE 156th Avenue NE SR-520 Redmond Way/Redmond-Fall City Road Willows Road Avondale Road ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 5-13 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Table 37: Sub-Regional Connections Assignments to Multi-Modal Corridors Subregional Connections Kirkland Bellevue West of I-405 Bellevue East of I-405 Eastgate & S of I-90 areas Issaquah & Sammamish Redmond Ridge & Duvall Woodinville & Cottage Lake Bothell, Kenmore & Juanita Downtown Redmond 1. Redmond Way/ NE 85th Street 1. SR 520 1. Redmond Way/ 148th Ave 2. W Lake Samm./ 51st St/ 156th Ave 1. SR 520 1. Redmond Way/ SR 202/ 228th Ave 1. Avondale Rd/ Novelty Hill Rd 1. Avondale Rd 1. Willows Rd/ NE 124th St Willows/ Sammamish Valley 1. NE 85th St 1. SR 520 1. 148th Ave 1. SR 520 1. Redmond Way/ SR 202/ 228th Ave 1. Redmond Way/ Avondale Rd/ Novelty Hill Rd 1. Redmond Way/ Avondale Rd 1. Willows Rd/ NE 124th St North Redmond 1. 116th St/ NE 124th St 1. 116th St/ NE 124th St/ 1-405 1. 116th St/ Red-Wood Rd/ 161st St/Leary Ext/ SR 520 1. 116th St/ NE 124th St/ 1-405 1. 116th St/ Avondale Rd/ Redmond Way/ 228th Ave 1. 116th St/ Avondale Rd/ Novelty Hill 1. 116th St/ Avondale Rd 2. 116th St/ Red-Wood Rd 1. 116th St/ NE 124th St Education Hill 1. 166th Ave/ Redmond Way/ NE 85th St 1. 166th Ave/ Redmond Way/ Leary Ext/ SR 520 1. 166th Ave/ Redm Way/ 148th Ave 2. 166th Ave/ W Lake Samm/ 156th Ave 1. 166th Ave/ Redmond Way/ Leary Ext/ SR 520 1. 166th Ave/ Redmond Way/ SR 202/ 228th Ave 1. 104th St/ Avondale Rd/ Novelty Hill Rd 1. 104th St/ Avondale Rd 2. 104th St/ Red-Wood Rd 1. 104th St/ Red-Wood Rd/ NE 124th St Bear Creek 1. Avondale Rd/ Redmond Way/ NE 85th St 1. Avondale Rd/ SR 520 1. Avondale Rd/ SR 520 1. Avondale Rd/ SR 520 1. Avondale Rd/ SR 202/ 228th Ave 1. Novelty Hill Rd 1. Avondale Rd 1. Avondale Rd/ NE 124th St/ I-405 SE Redmond 1. Redmond Way/ NE 85th Street 1. Redmond Way/ SR 520 1. Redmond Way/ SR 520 1. Redmond Way/ SR 520 1. SR 202/ 228th Ave 1. Redmond Way/ Avondale Rd/ Novelty Hill Rd 1. Redmond Way/ Avondale Rd 1. Redmond Way/ NE 85th Street/ I-405 View Point 1. NE 40th St/ SR 520/ I-405 1. NE 40th St/ Bell-Red Rd 1. NE 40th St/ Bell-Red Rd 2. W Lake Samm/ 24th St/ 156th Ave 1. NE 40th St/ 148th Ave 1. W Lake Samm/ SR 520/ SR 202/ 228th 2. West Lake Sammamish (SE) 1. W Lake Samm/ SR 520/ Avondale Rd/ Novelty Hill Rd 1. W Lake Samm/ SR 520/ Avondale Rd 2. W Lake Samm/ Leary/ Red-Wood Rd 1. NE 40th St/ SR 520/ I-405 North Overlake 1. 51st St/ W Lake Samm/ NE 85th St 2. 51st St/ 148th Ave/ NE 85th St 1. 51st St/ SR 520 1. 51st St/ 156th Ave 1. 51st St/ 148th Ave 1. 51st St/ SR 520/ SR 202/ 228th Ave 2. W Lake Samm/ SR 202/ 228th Ave 1. 51st St/ SR 520/ Avondale Rd 2. W Lake Samm/ SR 520/ Avondale Rd 1. W Lake Samm/ Leary/ Red-Wood Rd 2. W Lake Samm/ SR 520/ Avondale Rd 1. 51st St/ W Lake Samm/ Willows Rd South Overlake 1. 40th St/ SR 520/ I-405 1. Bel-Red Rd 1. Bel-Red Rd/ 156th Ave 1. Bel-Red Rd/ 148th Ave 1. 40th St/ SR 520/ SR 202/ 228th Ave 2. 156th Ave/W Lake Samm/ SR 202 1. 40th St/ SR 520/ Avondale Rd 2. 156th Ave/ W Lake Samm/ Avondale Rd 1. 40th St/ SR 520/ Avondale Rd 2. W Lake Samm/ Leary Ext/ Red-Wood 1. 40th St/ SR 520/ I-405 Grass Lawn 1. 148th Ave/ NE 85th St 1. 148th Ave/ SR 520 1. 148th Ave 1. 148th Ave 1. 148th Ave/ Redmond Way/ SR 202/ 228th Ave 1. 148th Ave/ Redmond Way/ Avondale Rd/ Novelty Hill Rd 1. 148th Ave/ Redm Way/ Avondale Rd 2. 148th Ave/ Redm Way/ Red-Wood Rd 1. 148th Ave/ NE 85th St ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! " P " P " P " P " P " P " P Overlake Education Hill SE Redmond Viewpoint Grass Lawn North Redmond Willows / Rose Hill Sammamish Valley Sammamish Valley Bear Creek English Hill 148th Ave NE NE 124th St NE Redmond Way 124th Ave NE Novelty Hill Rd NE Bellevue Redmond Rd NE 90th St Red-Wood Rd NE NE 24th St NE 116th St 166th Ave NE NE 104th St Avondale Rd NE 188th Ave NE NE 40th St NE 51st St Red-Wood Rd NE Willows Rd NE 85th St W Lake Sa mmamis h U V 520 U V 202 U V 908 U V 202 Overlake P&R Bear Creek P&R Overlake TC Northeast 116th & I-405 Northeast 116th & I-405 Rose Hill Presbyterian Church P&R Bellevue Christian Reformed Church P&R Redmond P&R Redmond P&R U 10 U 3b U 11b U 13a U 6a U 11d U 5 U 6b U 7a U 7b U 21a U 21b U 13b U 1 U 4 U 2a U 8 U 11c U 12a U 2b U 20b U 20a U 18 U 17 U 19 U 8 U U 14 U 16 U 9 U 12b U 3a U 11a U 3c U 15 U 22 21c Figure 26 Multimodal Corridors Sub-regional Demand Intensity GIS Data Source: US Census, King County GIS, Sound Transit, USGS, City of Redmond GIS, Community Transit 0 1 Miles City of Redmond Subregional Connection High Connection Intensity Medium Connection Intensity Low Connection Intensity Transit Network " P Park & Rides Transit Center Trails ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 5-16 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 3. Market Demand vs. TMP Objectives How well do TMP objectives match up with transit markets? Multimodal corridors fulfill a critical role in the relationship between transit service and market demand, as presented in the previous sections. The network of multimodal corridors as established by the TMP provides direct, fast connections between Redmond neighborhoods, and very few local origin-destination connections cannot be completed in its most direct path (or are missing) with the current network of corridors. It seems that concentrating transit service investments along critical corridors represents the most effective strategy to ensure adequate neighborhood connectivity and meet desired transit service levels for local priority connections. On the sub-regional level though there are many corridor links providing direct connection with adjacent cities and communities that have not been included in the network of multimodal corridors (i.e. Willows Road). This is not necessarily a shortcoming of the TMP or its multimodal corridor network layer. There are specific objectives and criteria by which multimodal corridors were selected. What it says rather, and as demonstrated by Figure 26, is that there are other corridors of subregional importance that need to be targeted for transit service investment and that subregional connections not necessarily will benefit from investments in the local multimodal corridor network. Parts of these corridors are within Redmond City limits and other segments are outside Redmond’s boundaries. Two strategies may be required to improve transit service levels along these corridors, these include: Spearheading negotiations with Metro and adjacent cities to achieve significant improvements in service levels that would benefit connectivity, travel time, and frequency between activity centers in the East King County subregion. Designating critical corridor segments within Redmond’s boundaries as corridors of transit investment priority that, although not part of the network of multimodal corridors, Redmond may include in the Capital Investment Plan to improve local transit connectivity and service levels throughout the city. For TMP objectives to correlate more closely with local and subregional travel demand markets they will need to be updated to include LOS by multimodal corridors. Transit service levels should not only be defined for local priority connections but also for multimodal corridors given that corridors provide the actual connection between any set of origin-destination points in the City. Transit service investments then could be prioritized by corridor connectivity and demand intensity, understanding that those corridors making the biggest number of neighborhood connections will also provide the greatest benefit if transit service levels were improved. Figure 27 on the next page, shows a conceptual diagram of market demand and multimodal corridor objectives. In essence, multimodal corridors providing the greatest number of connections are able to channel the biggest number of trips, and those trips are of various scope and intention, combining local and subregional ODs, sustained demand throughout the day (peak and midday trips), and various trip purposes (work and non-work trips). Transit service improvements on multimodal corridors with high connectivity and demand intensity will then trickle down the system improving connectivity and travel time for local and subregional trips, peak and midday trips, and work and non-work trips. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 5-17 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Figure 27: Multimodal Corridor Objectives and Market Demand Conceptual Graphic Table 38, on the next page, lists the neighborhood connectivity and demand intensity scoring results for all local and sub-regional corridors segments included in the analysis, as presented in Figure 25 and Figure 26. Corridors have been sorted out from highest to lowest combined scoring (“local intensity” plus “regional intensity”) and a percent ranking has been added to compare corridor weight. The resulting combined scoring is presented also in Figure 28 showing local and subregional corridors of high, medium, and low demand intensity and priority. The Top 10 biggest corridor segments resulting from this list constitute Redmond’s top priority connections and its travel demand markets with highest potential for transit use, including: Downtown Redmond to/from Overlake and Bellevue Downtown Redmond to/from Grass Lawn and Kirkland Downtown Redmond to/from Education Hill and Cottage Lake Downtown Redmond to/from SE Redmond and Sammamish Medium Demand Sub‐Regional Connection Medium Demand Local Connection High Demand Sub‐Regional Connection Low Demand Local Connection Multi‐Modal Corridor High Neighborhood Connectivity and Demand Intensity ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 5-18 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Table 38: Local and Subregional Connectivity and Intensity Scoring by Corridor 7a. Redmond Way (West of 520) 30 412 17 208 47 620 100% 3.1 10. 148th Avenue NE 28 370 13 158 41 528 97% 2.5 11b. 156th Avenue NE 13 188 12 188 25 376 94% 2.8 7b. Redmond Way (East of 520) 10 148 17 208 27 356 91% 4.2 6b. Leary Way/Bear Creek Parkway Extension 18 224 10 122 28 346 88% 11.5 4. Avondale Road 12 88 27 246 39 334 85% 1.8 13a. West Lake Sammamish Parkway N 18 224 9 88 27 312 82% 2.3 13b. West Lake Sammamish Parkway S 10 104 15 198 25 302 79% 1.3 6a. 161st Avenue NE 16 216 7 84 23 300 76% 5.2 11d. NE 51st Street 520 East 12 168 8 110 20 278 74% no service 21a. SR 520 (W.L.Samm - 40th) 0 0 21 254 21 254 71% 2.9 12b. NE 40th Street 520 East 3 28 13 202 16 230 68% 1.9 21b. SR 520 (40th-148th) 0 0 18 224 18 224 65% 8.3 3b. 166th Avenue NE 10 142 5 70 15 212 62% 5.8 12a. NE 40th Street 520 West 10 122 5 88 15 210 59% 2.0 21c. SR 520 (Union Hill - W.L.Samm) 0 0 15 156 15 156 56% 5.9 5. NE 90th Street 11 132 1 10 12 142 47% 3.6 17. SR-908/NE 85th St 0 0 9 142 9 142 47% 1.5 18. Willows Road 0 0 11 142 11 142 47% 2.0 2a. Red-Wood Road 7 46 8 88 15 134 44% 1.8 11c. NE 31st Street & 152nd Avenue NE 7 114 0 0 7 114 41% 4.9 14. NE 24th Street 2 40 3 60 5 100 38% 2.3 2b. 160th Avenue NE Extension 7 46 5 48 12 94 35% no service 19. Bel-Red Road 0 0 6 92 6 92 32% 3.8 20a. NE 124th St (West) 0 0 10 90 10 90 29% no service 22. Novelty Hill Road 0 0 10 84 10 84 26% 2.4 1. NE 116th Street 9 42 8 38 17 80 21% 6.9 11a. NE 51st Street 520 West 0 0 6 80 6 80 21% 3.3 16. 104th Ave 2 28 3 46 5 74 18% 3.6 8. Old Redmond Road 6 68 0 0 6 68 15% 5.0 20b. NE 124th St (East) 0 0 5 22 5 22 12% 2.0 15. 85th St 1 20 0 0 1 20 9% no service 3a. 172nd Avenue NE & NE 111th Street 1 4 0 0 1 4 6% no service 3c. 164th Avenue NE & Bear Creek Parkway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% no service 9. 188th Avenue NE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% no service Overall Intensity Score Transit Time versus Driving Time Multimodal Corridor Connection Overall Ranking Local Connectivity Score Local Intensity Score Subregional Connectivity Score Subregional Intensity Score Overall Connectivity Score ---PAGE BREAK--- " P " P " P " P " P " P " P 148th Ave NE NE 124th St NE Redmond Way 124th Ave NE Novelty Hill Rd NE Bellevue Redmond Rd NE 90th St Red-Wood Rd NE NE 24th St NE 116th St 166th Ave NE NE 104th St Avondale Rd NE 188th Ave NE NE 40th St NE 51st St Red-Wood Rd NE Willows Rd NE 85th St W Lake Sa mmamis h U V 520 U V 202 U V 908 U V 202 Overlake P&R Bear Creek P&R Overlake TC Northeast 116th & I-405 Northeast 116th & I-405 Rose Hill Presbyterian Church P&R Bellevue Christian Reformed Church P&R Redmond P&R Redmond P&R U 10 U 3b U 11b U 13a U 6a U 11d U 5 U 6b U 7a U 7b U 21a U 21b U 13b U 1 U 4 U 2a U 8 U 11c U 12a U 2b U 20b U 20a U 18 U 17 U 19 U 8 U U 14 U 16 U 9 U 12b U 3a U 11a U 3c U 15 U 22 21c Figure 28 Local and Subregional Demand Intensity by Multimodal Corridor GIS Data Source: US Census, King County GIS, Sound Transit, USGS, City of Redmond GIS, Community Transit 0 1 Miles City of Redmond Subregional Connection High Connection Intensity Medium Connection Intensity Low Connection Intensity Transit Network " P Park & Rides Transit Center Trails ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 5-20 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 4. Transit Service Levels vs. Multimodal Corridors How well does the multimodal corridor network match up with current transit routes? Figure 5 on page 2-12, compared the multimodal corridor network established by the TMP and the current transit network providing service to/from Redmond. For the most part both networks match up very closely and most local corridors are served by transit, however there are noticeable differences, as specified below: SR 520 Freeway: SR 520 is a major transit corridor for both Sound Transit and King County Metro; however it provides transit services that are regional in scope. The emphasis of multimodal corridors is to develop a network of streets that can provide mobility opportunities for bicycle, walking, transit, and auto travel. These objectives run counter to the design objectives and function of a freeway facility and so SR 520 was not included in the TMP’s multimodal corridor network. For the same reasons it was not considered in the analysis of local connections presented in Section 2. Willows Road: Willows Road is a major corridor connecting Redmond’s downtown with Totem Lake and Bothell. Land uses along this corridor are mostly open space, recreational, and industrial. Very little residential and commercial use is found in the corridor and so its degree of multimodality is less intense than other corridors in the City. It is envisioned mostly as a corridor for motor vehicles. However investments to improve public transit LOS and performance appear to be of strategic value to Redmond. Redmond Way/NE 85th Street: The Redmond Way/NE 85th Street corridor (designated as SR 908) connects Redmond with Kirkland. It is a major traffic corridor with regional significance. Land uses along the corridor – within Redmond’s boundaries, are mostly residential, and so very few opportunities for multimodal travel exist in the corridor. However investments to improve public transit LOS and performance appear to be of strategic value to Redmond. SE Redmond: the TMP defined Union Hill Road and 188th Avenue NE as multimodal corridors. These two corridors are today mostly undeveloped, in particular 188th Avenue. However they are anticipated to concentrate new residential and commercial use in the future, as well as provide critical connectivity throughout the city. There is very little transit service on Union Hill Road today and no service on 188th Avenue. However, important residential and industrial districts are connected by transit in the area, mostly via Redmond Way and 185th Avenue NE. The SR 520 Freeway was not considered in the analysis of local transit connections. Although SR 520 provides transit connections today and it will in the foreseeable future, these are mostly regional in nature (i.e. to Seattle and Bellevue). For this reason SR 520 was considered in the analysis of subregional connections only. Local connections were assigned to existing and new multimodal corridors segments to develop an understanding of neighborhood connectivity and travel demand intensity by corridor. The theory is that successful transit service (i.e. routes carrying many passengers per service hour) is always found in urban corridors mixing several markets (employment, commercial, residential, education, etc.) and population types that generate trips of various types (short and long, peak and midday). Emphasizing direct local connections from point-to-point via SR 520 bypasses the local market and reduces the number of market opportunities that can be served with multimodal corridors, ultimately reducing the effectiveness and performance of local transit services. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 5-21 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 5. Transit Service Levels vs. TMP Objectives Should the City revise the TMP objectives for transit service? Table 39 on the next page, presents the list of multimodal corridors included in the analysis with their respective Corridor Connectivity and Corridor Intensity scoring, and the existing transit service levels8 along each corridor segment. The table shows that there is a major mismatch between Multimodal Corridor Intensity scoring (or priority ranking) and the existing levels of transit service. The mismatch occurs in many dimensions, including: Driving Travel Time versus Transit Travel Time: in almost all cases the transit travel time (the time spent in the transit vehicle traveling including intermediate stops) from beginning to end of each corridor segment is more than two times larger than the driving time (the time it takes to drive in a car the same corridor segment plus five minutes of car parking and access time). In many corridors the transit travel time is more than three times larger than the driving time. Two major variables explain the difference: – Transit routes do not follow corridor segments from beginning to end and in many instances operate on parallel corridors – A transfer is required to complete a trip from beginning to end of each corridor segment involving wait times for infrequent bus services (operating every 30 minutes) Walking Time versus Transit Travel Time: in many cases transit travel times on corridor segments are so much larger than driving times that walking becomes a competitive alternative. Corridor segments are in general short in length, typically no more than two miles long, and so walking is a competitive mode if long waiting times are involved. Corridor Intensity versus Transit Service Frequency: the corridor intensity scoring shows that high priority corridors are not getting adequate transit service both in terms of travel times that are competitive with driving (at least two times the driving time), and in terms of service frequency; many of the Top 10 corridors are getting 30-minute service during the rush hour period. Given that multimodal corridors represent the most direct routes for local connections between Redmond neighborhoods and the most direct routes for connecting Redmond neighborhoods with other destinations in the sub-region, it would seem logical to allocate most service hours to multimodal corridors (i.e. frequency and span of service), as well as to re-design routes to more closely follow multimodal corridor segments to reduce travel times on transit and increase the appeal of public transit as a viable transportation mode in the City. 8 Transit service levels (travel time and service frequency) have been calculated utilizing the Transit Trip Planner tool from Google Maps for trips between 7:00 - 7:30 a.m. for the peak period, and between 12:30 – 1:00 p.m. for the off- peak/midday period. Every corridor segment has been measured from beginning to end to calculate segment travel time, bus route number, and number of trips provided. All available trips have been listed to calculate nominal frequencies based on the number of trip opportunities and not on published timetables. Trips that were up to two minutes apart from another trip were tossed out, as these were considered to be the same time given on-time performance and reliability issues and thus a single trip opportunity for users. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 5-22 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Table 39: Multimodal Corridor Demand vs. Existing Transit Service Levels 7a. Redmond Way (West of 520) 47 620 3.6 1.5 30 11 2 15 248, 253 13 2 15 248, 253 10. 148th Avenue NE 41 528 9.1 3.8 76 23 1 30 253 24 1 30 253 11b. 156th Avenue NE 25 376 3.6 1.5 30 10 3 10 245, 230, 242 10 1 30 245 7b. Redmond Way (East of 520) 27 356 3.8 1.6 32 16 1 30 269 6b. Leary Way/Bear Creek Parkway Extension 28 346 1.0 0.4 8 11 3 10 545 11 2 15 545 4. Avondale Road 39 334 6.2 2.6 52 11 2 15 232-248 14 1 30 248 13a. West Lake Sammamish Parkway N 27 312 2.2 0.9 18 5 1 30 250 0 0 0 13b. West Lake Sammamish Parkway S 25 302 6.0 2.5 50 8 1 30 250 19 1 30 249 6a. 161st Avenue NE 23 300 1.9 0.8 16 10 1 30 253 10 1 30 253 11d. NE 51st Street 520 East 20 278 1.4 0.6 12 21a. SR 520 (W.L.Samm - 40th) 21 254 2.4 1.8 36 7 5 6 545, 232 7 3 10 545, 230 12b. NE 40th Street 520 East 16 230 2.6 1.1 22 5 1 30 249 5 1 30 249 21b. SR 520 (40th-148th) 18 224 1.2 0.9 18 10 1 30 221 10 1 30 221 3b. 166th Avenue NE 15 212 5.0 2.1 42 29 1 30 221-291 30 1 30 221 12a. NE 40th Street 520 West 15 210 2.0 0.5 10 4 2 15 233, 269 4 1 30 233 21c. SR 520 (Union Hill - W.L.Samm) 15 156 1.9 1.4 28 11 2 15 233, 269 11 1 30 233 5. NE 90th Street 12 142 1.9 0.8 16 7 1 30 253 7 1 30 253 17. SR-908/NE 85th St 9 142 2.6 1.1 22 4 1 30 248 4 1 30 248 18. Willows Road 11 142 6.5 2.7 54 13 1 30 244 2a. Red-Wood Road 15 134 3.8 1.6 32 7 1 30 251 7 1 30 251 11c. NE 31st Street & 152nd Avenue NE 7 114 1.4 0.6 12 7 3 10 230, 232, 242 9 2 15 233, 245 14. NE 24th Street 5 100 6.0 2.5 50 14 2 15 249, 250 18 1 30 249 2b. 160th Avenue NE Extension 12 94 2.4 1.0 20 19. Bel-Red Road 6 92 4.8 2.0 40 18 2 15 221-249, 249 20 2 15 249-233, 249 20a. NE 124th St (West) 10 90 5.0 2.1 42 22. Novelty Hill Road 10 84 6.7 2.8 56 16 0.5 60 929 14 0.5 60 929 1. NE 116th Street 17 80 4.3 1.8 36 30 1 30 221-232 11a. NE 51st Street 520 West 6 80 1.2 0.5 10 4 3 10 245, 242, 221 5 2 15 245, 221 16. 104th Ave 5 74 5.0 2.1 42 18 1 30 221 36 1 30 221-251 8. Old Redmond Road 6 68 4.8 2.0 40 24 1 30 248 24 1 30 248 20b. NE 124th St (East) 5 22 5.0 2.1 42 10 1 30 251 10 0.5 60 251 15. 85th St 1 20 0.7 0.3 6 3a. 172nd Avenue NE & NE 111th Street 1 4 1.7 0.7 14 3c. 164th Avenue NE & Bear Creek Parkway 0 0 2.2 0.9 18 9. 188th Avenue NE 0 0 5.5 2.3 46 Multimodal Corridor Connection Transit Frequency Bus Routes Transit Travel Time # of Bus Trips Transit Frequency Bus Routes Driving Travel Time* Distance in Miles Walk Time Transit Travel Time # of Bus Trips Rush Hour Period (7:00-7:30am) Midday Period (12:30-1:00pm) Overall Connectivity Score Overall Intensity Score ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 5-23 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 6. Multimodal Corridors vs. TMP Objectives Should the City revise the TMP objectives for the multimodal corridor network? As noted in Section 3, the TMP stopped short of correlating multimodal corridors with market demand and improvements in transit service levels. This study suggests developing a method to prioritize Transit LOS investments based on corridor intensity and connectivity to account for market demand and neighborhood connections. This method would allow Redmond to guide and prioritize investments in transit service by measuring its potential benefits at the neighborhood level. An example of this method is provided in Table 40 below, which proposes Potential Transit LOS Targets by Multimodal Corridor Ranking or Investment Priority. Table 40: Potential LOS Targets by Multimodal Corridor Priority Transit Travel Time has been assumed as two times the driving time for each corridor segment. The LOS Transit Frequency has been established based on OD travel volumes per corridor segment and targeted mode splits. These calculations are presented in Appendix D on Step 5, Table 9. In all cases, expected transit mode split and bus utilization would require higher frequencies than those adopted as LOS Targets. 7a. Redmond Way (West of 520) 47 620 6 6 5 6 4 7.5 10. 148th Avenue NE 41 528 14 6 5 14 4 7.5 11b. 156th Avenue NE 25 376 6 6 5 6 4 7.5 7b. Redmond Way (East of 520) 27 356 6 6 5 6 4 7.5 6b. Leary Way/Bear Creek Parkway Extension 28 346 2 6 5 2 3 10 4. Avondale Road 39 334 10 4 7.5 10 3 10 13a. West Lake Sammamish Parkway N 27 312 4 4 7.5 4 3 10 13b. West Lake Sammamish Parkway S 25 302 9 4 7.5 9 3 10 6a. 161st Avenue NE 23 300 3 4 7.5 3 3 10 11d. NE 51st Street 520 East 20 278 3 4 7.5 3 3 10 21a. SR 520 (W.L.Samm - 40th) 21 254 4 6 5 4 4 7.5 12b. NE 40th Street 520 East 16 230 4 6 5 4 4 7.5 21b. SR 520 (40th-148th) 18 224 2 3 10 2 2 15 3b. 166th Avenue NE 15 212 8 3 10 8 2 15 12a. NE 40th Street 520 West 15 210 3 3 10 3 2 15 21c. SR 520 (Union Hill - W.L.Samm) 15 156 3 3 10 3 2 15 5. NE 90th Street 12 142 3 2 15 3 1 30 17. SR-908/NE 85th St 9 142 4 3 10 4 2 15 18. Willows Road 11 142 10 3 10 10 2 15 2a. Red-Wood Road 15 134 6 2 15 6 1 30 11c. NE 31st Street & 152nd Avenue NE 7 114 3 2 15 3 2 15 14. NE 24th Street 5 100 9 4 7.5 9 3 10 2b. 160th Avenue NE Extension 12 94 4 2 15 4 2 15 19. Bel-Red Road 6 92 8 4 7.5 8 3 10 20a. NE 124th St (West) 10 90 8 2 15 8 1 30 22. Novelty Hill Road 10 84 11 1 30 11 1 30 1. NE 116th Street 17 80 7 1 30 7 1 30 11a. NE 51st Street 520 West 6 80 2 2 15 2 1 30 16. 104th Ave 5 74 8 1 30 8 1 30 8. Old Redmond Road 6 68 8 1 30 8 1 30 20b. NE 124th St (East) 5 22 8 1 30 8 1 30 15. 85th St 1 20 2 1 30 2 1 30 3a. 172nd Avenue NE & NE 111th Street 1 4 3 1 30 3 1 30 3c. 164th Avenue NE & Bear Creek Parkway 0 0 4 1 30 4 1 30 9. 188th Avenue NE 0 0 9 1 30 9 1 30 Midday Period (12:30-1:00pm) Transit Travel Time* # of Bus Trips Transit Frequency Transit Travel Time* # of Bus Trips Transit Frequency Multimodal Corridor Connection Rush Hour Period (7:00-7:30am) Overall Connectivity Score Overall Intensity Score ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 5-24 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. This page left intentionally blank ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 6-1 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Chapter 6. Methodology and Analysis 6.1 Evaluation Framework Summary Figure 29 below shows a diagram of the methodology utilized to evaluate local transit service needs and market potential in Redmond. As mentioned in the previous section, there are four layers of information that participate in the evaluation, these are: Multimodal Corridor Network – as established by the TMP plus a few missing connections Market Demand – OD travel demand forecasts for total daily trips on year 2030 Transit Service Levels – for both Priority Connections and Multimodal Corridors TMP Transit Objectives – Target LOS for Local and Regional Priority Connections Figure 29: Evaluation Framework and Performance Monitoring Flow Chart N’hoodto N’hood Connection Path Transit LOS by Multi‐Modal Corridor Transit LOS Targets by Corridor Multimodal Corridor Network N’hoodto N’hood Demand Level Multi‐Modal Corridor Connectivity and Demand Level Transit Network LOS TAZ Travel Demand Forecasts TMP Transit LOS Objectives Transit Service Gap by Multi‐ Modal Corridor N’hood to N’hood Connection Benefits Corridor Investment Priorities Corridor LOS Improvements ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 6-2 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 6.2 Service Evaluation and Performance Monitoring Summary The service evaluation framework and performance monitoring is developed in three different phases and seven analysis steps, as specified in the sections below. Phase 1 – Multimodal Network Connectivity and Demand Step 1: OD Travel Demand by Local and Subregional Connections Origin-destination travel demand is extracted from the PSRC travel demand model (total daily trips for year 2030 at the TAZ level) and evaluated for each Redmond origin-destination pair at the local and subregional level. The model predicts an overwhelming number of drive alone and share ride trips for year 2030 and very little growth of public transit and bike/walk trips. Given that Redmond’s TMP objectives seek to reduce the number of drive alone trips and increase the number of public transit and bike/walk trips, model forecasts for each Redmond origin-destination pair were evaluated by both their travel demand volume and degree of multimodality. The method selected for this evaluation was to measure travel demand volume by mode separately and assign a 1, 3, 5 score for each mode according to whether demand volume was low, medium, or high (in percentiles 1-33%, 34-67%, and 68-100%). Scores for each local and subregional origin-destination pair were then added up (straight sum, no weights) for an overall multimodal demand score. A full version of this evaluation is included in Appendix C at the end of this report. Step 2: Multimodal Corridor Network Trip Assignment In parallel to measuring multimodal demand levels by local and subregional connection, a network assignment of trips is developed in Step 2 to identify the likely travel paths that these trips will follow when traveling from point of origin to point of destination. The TMP’s Multimodal Corridor Network is utilized as the primary network for the assignment of trips, plus a few additional segments (not included in the TMP) that were deemed critical, as listed previously on Chapter 5. Appendix C in the back of this report contains a series of six maps describing the network paths selected for each cell in the local connections matrix. Table 36 on page 5-9 and Table 37 on page 5-13, showed the network segments that were assigned to local and subregional connections respectively. Step 3: Multimodal Corridor Network Connectivity and Demand Once travel demand for local and subregional connections has been measured and trips have been assigned to the network of multimodal corridors, the level of connectivity (connection opportunities) and the intensity of demand (multimodal travel demand) that is provided by each multimodal corridor segment can be measured. Table 38 on page 5-18, presents the results of this analysis for both local demand and subregional demand, and for the combined local and subregional travel demand. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 6-3 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Phase 2 – Transit LOS Objectives and Service Gaps The second phase of analysis in the evaluation framework is to define appropriate Transit LOS objectives to evaluate service gaps with respect to local and subregional connectivity and identify corridor investment priorities to close service gaps and meet market demand. Step 4: Transit LOS Objectives by Local and Subregional Connection Existing Transit LOS Objectives The Transportation Master Plan defined a number of mobility indicators and LOS targets for year 2022 in relation to the transportation system in general and the transit system in particular for ongoing system performance monitoring. These indicators are reported periodically in the Redmond Community Indicators and include: Regional Transit Connections. Two indicators are measured – travel time and service frequency, from Downtown and from Overlake Transit Center to four destinations in the region: – Downtown Seattle – University District – Downtown Bellevue – Downtown Kirkland Local Priority Connections. Two indicators are measured – span of service (at least 18 hours a day) and peak service frequency (at least 15 minute service) for the following neighborhoods: – Downtown Redmond – Redmond Town Center – Northeast Redmond (Education Hill) – Overlake Transit Center – Overlake Park & Ride (Commercial Core) Proposed Transit LOS Objectives The service evaluation analysis conducted in Chapter 5 of this report shows that multimodal corridors perform a critical role in meeting or failing transit LOS targets given that local and subregional connections are made possible by the network of arterials and major streets in the City. In other words, travel time, service frequency, and span of service available between connections are the result of nominal levels of service along one or more bus route that travels within or parallel to one or several multimodal corridor segments. Therefore, improving transit LOS at the corridor segment level will have a direct impact on the LOS of local and subregional connections. The goal of establishing Transit LOS targets for local and subregional connections is to improve the transit connection between point of origin and point of destination, so that transit becomes a real choice. There is one single aspect that defines whether transit is attractive or competitive with driving and that is travel time. Transit travel time is however comprised of two elements: ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 6-4 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. In-vehicle travel time: this is the bus travel time from origin to destination including stops and dwelling time Out-of-vehicle waiting time: this is the waiting time between bus trips where if service frequency is low (long headways) waiting is long and if frequency is high (short headways) waiting is short Typically transit will take longer to travel than private automobiles, so longer in-vehicle travel times are expected. More than 1.5 times the driving time is considered excessive (TMP standard) and would only occur if bus routes are deviating from the main path or corridor. Adding out-of- vehicle wait times to this calculation will result in transit travel times of more than 1.5 times the driving time. However, more than two times the driving time9 is also considered excessive and would sway people to choose Drive Alone for the trip and not Transit. The suggested approach is to adopt a Transit LOS Target of 2.0 times the driving time for local and subregional connections. This would allow for flexibility to achieve the target by improving either the bus travel time through re-alignment of bus routes or travel speed improvements in the corridor, or by improving the service frequency and reducing the wait time, or by a combination of improvements in both travel time and waiting time. Step 5: Multimodal Corridor Transit Service Targets Table 39 on page 5-22, presents current transit levels of service (travel time and frequency) for each multimodal corridor segment included in the analysis. It also compares existing transit LOS with driving time and walking time, as well as with the multimodal demand intensity score calculated in Phase 1. As it was discussed, there is significant disagreement between the level of connectivity and demand of corridor segments and the existing transit LOS. The thesis proposed here is that target improvements in travel time and service frequency should be defined at the corridor segment level given that corridor improvements will result in measurable local and subregional connection improvements. Three criteria are proposed for defining transit LOS targets at the corridor segment level, these include: Corridor connectivity and demand intensity score/ranking Transit travel time (1.5 times the auto driving time) Service Frequency (based on travel demand and expected transit mode split) Table 40 on page 5-23, presents potential corridor by corridor Transit LOS Targets based on demand levels and transit mode split targets for the peak and midday period for both local and subregional demand. The analysis of travel demand by corridor segment shows that even modest increases in transit mode split at the local and subregional level can justify the service frequencies proposed in Table 40. A full analysis of local and subregional transit mode split targets is included in Appendix C, at the end of this report. Step 6: Identify Local and Subregional Connection Improvement/Gap The next step in the process is defining the baseline gap in transit service levels by local and subregional connections, and measuring the impact of corridor segments LOS improvements 9 A 5-minute auto access time is added to the driving time to account for walking to/from a parked vehicle and for parking the vehicle. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 6-5 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. (travel time and service frequency) on local and subregional LOS. There are two sub-steps involved in this process: Defining appropriate service standards by local and subregional connection OD pair Measuring the existing gap in transit service level for each connection OD pair Table 33 on page 5-5, developed a scoring methodology to measure multimodal market demand by local and subregional connection. The result of this analysis was a categorization of local and subregional connections into connections of high, medium, and low multimodal market demand (red, yellow, and green shading respectively), as presented in Figure 25 on page 5-11. As discussed in Step 4, the suggested transit LOS target for local and subregional connections is to provide a Transit Travel Time to Auto Driving Time ratio of 2.0 or less with the understanding that the maximum threshold for transit to be an attractive and competitive mode to the automobile is no more than two times the auto driving time. The ratio is defined as: Transit travel time / Auto driving time 2.0 Where: Transit travel time = In-vehicle travel time + out-of-vehicle waiting time – In-vehicle travel time = 1.5 * auto driving time – Out-of-vehicle waiting time = 0.5 * the service headway Auto driving time = driving time + auto access time (5 minutes) In relation to Transit Travel time, it is easy to estimate the auto driving time and in-vehicle travel time from any online trip planner tool, however estimating the frequency is more difficult given that travel from origin to destination may involve more than one corridor and likely more than one bus route. Thus, service headways or frequencies have been established as standards only, and for the purpose of being able to measure the service gap, based on multimodal market demand, where: High demand connections = 7.5 minutes in the peak; 10 minutes in the midday Medium demand connections = 10 minutes in the peak; 15 minutes in the midday Low demand connections = 15 minutes in the peak; 30 minutes in the midday Table 41 on the next page shows the existing transit levels of service indicators and transit to driving ratio for a sample of Redmond local connections by peak and midday period. As observed in the table, most connections have existing transit LOS that put them over the 2.0 threshold for the transit travel time to auto driving time ratio. Failing connections have been shaded in red color. A full version of the table is provided in Appendix C at the end of this report. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 6-6 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Table 41: Existing Transit LOS Indicators and Targets by Local Connection 3. Education Hill 4. Overlake Transit Center 5. Overlake Commercial Core 6. Grass Lawn 7. Bear Creek 8. Willows/ Sammamish Valley 9. Viewpoint (NE 104th St & 166th Ave NE) (NE 40th St & 156th Ave NE) (NE 24th St & 152nd Ave NE) (Old Redmond Rd & 148th Ave NE) (Avondale Road & NE 95th St) (Willows Rd NE & NE 90th Ave) (180th Ave NE & W Lake Sammamish) 1. Downtown Redmond Transit Travel Time 10.0 14.0 19.0 12.0 9.0 7.0 16.0 (NE 85th St & 160th Ave NE) Transit Frequency 30.0 7.5 15.0 10.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Time + Wait 25.0 17.8 26.5 17.0 24.0 22.0 31.0 Driving Time 10.0 14.0 14.0 9.0 12.0 7.0 13.0 Transit to Driving 2.5 1.3 1.9 1.9 2.0 3.1 2.4 Transit Travel Time 10.0 13.0 19.0 9.0 18.0 7.0 25.0 Transit Frequency 30.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 30.0 30.0 15.0 Time + Wait 25.0 18.0 26.5 16.5 33.0 22.0 32.5 Driving Time 10.0 14.0 14.0 9.0 12.0 7.0 13.0 Transit to Driving 2.5 1.3 1.9 1.8 2.8 3.1 2.5 2. Redmond Town Center Transit Travel Time 12.0 23.0 26.0 15.0 9.0 10.0 20.0 (NE 76th St & 166th Ave NE) Transit Frequency 30.0 7.5 15.0 30.0 15.0 30.0 30.0 Time + Wait 27.0 26.8 33.5 30.0 16.5 25.0 35.0 Driving Time 11.0 11.0 12.0 9.0 10.0 9.0 11.0 Transit to Driving 2.5 2.4 2.8 3.3 1.7 2.8 3.2 Transit Travel Time 12.0 24.0 28.0 16.0 10.0 11.0 49.0 Transit Frequency 30.0 10.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Time + Wait 27.0 29.0 43.0 31.0 25.0 26.0 64.0 Driving Time 11.0 11.0 12.0 9.0 10.0 9.0 11.0 Transit to Driving 2.5 2.6 3.6 3.4 2.5 2.9 5.8 3. Education Hill Transit Travel Time 24.0 36.0 14.0 18.0 28.0 35.0 (NE 104th St & 166th Ave NE) Transit Frequency 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Time + Wait 39.0 51.0 29.0 33.0 43.0 50.0 Driving Time 17.0 18.0 14.0 10.0 11.0 17.0 Transit to Driving 2.3 2.8 2.1 3.3 3.9 2.9 Transit Travel Time 18.0 36.0 12.0 35.0 36.0 51.0 Transit Frequency 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Time + Wait 33.0 51.0 27.0 50.0 51.0 66.0 Driving Time 17.0 18.0 14.0 10.0 11.0 17.0 Transit to Driving 1.9 2.8 1.9 5.0 4.6 3.9 4. Overlake Transit Center Transit Travel Time 8.0 10.0 24.0 17.0 6.0 (NE 40th St & 156th Ave NE) Transit Frequency 10.0 15.0 15.0 30.0 30.0 Time + Wait 13.0 17.5 31.5 32.0 21.0 Driving Time 8.0 10.0 11.0 13.0 10.0 Transit to Driving 1.6 1.8 2.9 2.5 2.1 Transit Travel Time 11.0 10.0 21.0 24.0 7.0 Transit Frequency 15.0 15.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Time + Wait 18.5 17.5 36.0 39.0 22.0 Driving Time 8.0 10.0 11.0 13.0 10.0 Transit to Driving 2.3 1.8 3.3 3.0 2.2 5. Overlake Commercial Core Transit Travel Time 13.0 35.0 19.0 13.0 (NE 24th St & 152nd Ave NE) Transit Frequency 15.0 15.0 30.0 15.0 Time + Wait 20.5 42.5 34.0 20.5 Driving Time 11.0 12.0 13.0 11.0 Transit to Driving 1.9 3.5 2.6 1.9 Transit Travel Time 16.0 34.0 22.0 13.0 Transit Frequency 15.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Time + Wait 23.5 49.0 37.0 28.0 Driving Time 11.0 12.0 13.0 11.0 Transit to Driving 2.1 4.1 2.8 2.5 Off-Peak Peak Off-Peak Peak Transit Levels of Service to/from Redmond Neighborhoods Time Period Peak Off-Peak Peak Indicators and LOS Targets Off-Peak Off-Peak Peak ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 6-7 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Phase 3 – Measure Corridor Investment Impacts Step 7: Sensitivity Analysis of Multimodal Corridor Transit Service Investments The evaluation framework and transit LOS standards described in the previous two phases are utilized to analyze the impacts of corridor transit service investment on the performance of local and subregional connections. The methodology utilized to measure the impacts of transit service investments on multimodal corridors is an iterative process (see Figure 29) that includes three sub-steps: Measure the gap between existing transit service levels and target service levels (for local and subregional connections). The gap is measured in percentage terms and based on two indicators: – Transit Travel Time: existing versus target – Transit Frequency: existing versus target Select travel time and service frequency improvements by corridor segment. Where improvements are chosen based on: – Market demand intensity – Transit mode split targets Measure the improvement on transit service levels towards closing the gap. – LOS improvements on multimodal corridors are related back to local and subregional connections via the network assignment process utilized in Step 2 – Updated service levels are compared against LOS targets – The updated LOS gap is measured in percentage terms. This represents the total improvement to local and subregional connections of service investments in the selected corridor segments. The improvement can be measured as: Global improvement: all local and subregional connections By demand level: improvement to high demand, medium demand, and low demand connections A full version of all seven steps included in the Evaluation Framework and Performance Monitoring can be found in Appendices C, D, and E at the end of this report. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 6-8 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 6.3 Preliminary Corridor Investment Results The following section provides examples of the sensitivity analysis and corridor investment impacts described in the previous section. Table 39 on page 5-22, showed multimodal corridor segments ranked by demand intensity scoring and compared to existing transit service levels along each segment. Transit service investment in the highest ranking corridors should in theory provide the greatest improvements to local and subregional connections, given that these corridors are providing the biggest number of connection opportunities, and that they are connecting the highest demand travel markets. Transit Service Improvements on the 148th Avenue Corridor The table below summarizes the Transit LOS investments evaluated on the 148th Avenue Corridor and the percent improvement that these investments generate on Redmond local connections. The results of the sensitivity analysis show that transit service investments on the 148th Avenue Corridor can improve connections by up to 25 percent. Table 42: 148th Avenue Corridor Improvements Transit Service Indicators Level of Service Investment Local Connection Improvements Percent Improvement Transit Travel Time 1.5 * Driving Time Overall Improvement 25% Peak Frequency 7.5 Minutes High Demand 28% Midday Frequency 10 Minutes Medium Demand 26% Low Demand 20% Proposal: Metro’s proposed RapidRide service in combination with Route 253 would operate similar service levels along this corridor. The results of this evaluation show that RapidRide has the potential to significantly improve connections for Redmond neighborhoods. Transit Service Improvements on the Redmond Way Corridor Table 43 below shows that transit service investments on the Redmond Way Corridor can improve local connections by up to 14 percent. Table 43: Redmond Way Corridor Improvements Transit Service Indicators Level of Service Investment Local Connection Improvements Percent Improvement Transit Travel Time 1.5 * Driving Time Overall Improvement 14% Peak Frequency 7.5 Minutes High Demand 17% Midday Frequency 10 Minutes Medium Demand 15% Low Demand 9% ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 6-9 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Proposal: A service increase on Route 248 alone and/or the re-alignment of Route 253 once RapidRide is implemented could help achieve this level of service on Redmond Way from 148th Avenue to Avondale Road. Route 253 can also be re-aligned east of SR 520 to provide all day service to SE Redmond residential and industrial districts. Transit Service Improvements on the 156th Avenue Corridor Table 44 below shows that transit service investments on the 156th Avenue Corridor can improve connections by up to 10 percent. Table 44: 156th Avenue Corridor Improvements Transit Service Indicators Level of Service Investment Local Connection Improvements Percent Improvement Transit Travel Time 1.5 * Driving Time Overall Improvement 10% Peak Frequency 10 Minutes High Demand 8% Midday Frequency 15 Minutes Medium Demand 12% Low Demand 14% Proposal: Route 230 could be re-aligned to follow a direct path via 156th Avenue, 51st Street, West Lake Sammamish and Leary Way towards Redmond Town Center and the Redmond Transit Center. This would allow better service accessibility to the Overlake neighborhood and a direct travel path between Redmond’s main destinations. Route 230 is in essence two routes that are interlined, one serving Kirkland and Bellevue, the other Redmond and Bellevue. The Redmond- Bellevue piece can be re-designed to serve Redmond more appropriately and at higher service levels via the 156th Avenue Corridor. Transit Service Improvements on the 166th Avenue Corridor Table 45 below shows that transit service investments on the 166th Avenue Corridor can improve connections by up to 10 percent. Table 45: 166th Avenue Corridor Improvements Transit Service Indicators Level of Service Investment Local Connection Improvements Percent Improvement Transit Travel Time 1.5 * Driving Time Overall Improvement 10% Peak Frequency 10 Minutes High Demand 14% Midday Frequency 15 Minutes Medium Demand 5% Low Demand 10% Proposal: A service increase in Route 221 could achieve this service level and potential improvement. The route alignment can also be revised to operate a more direct path between downtown and Overlake via West Lake Sammamish Parkway, 51st Street, and 156th Avenue. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 6-10 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Transit Service Improvements on Selected Corridors It is possible that transit service investments be implemented in packages that improve travel time and service frequencies on more than one corridor segment. Table 46 below summarizes the percent improvement that transit service investments on all four corridors segments analyzed above would generate on Redmond local connections. Proposed transit service investments have the potential to improve connections by up to 55 percent. Peak Period improvements (work and school trips) would be more pronounced on high demand corridors (up to 60%), while Midday Period improvements (non-work trips) would be distributed across the board (up to 60% also), providing benefits to all Redmond neighborhoods. Table 46: Four-Corridor Combined Improvement Local Connection Improvements Percent Improvement Peak Period Improvement Midday Period Improvement Overall Improvement 55% High Demand 61% 60% 62% Medium Demand 53% 49% 57% Low Demand 50% 39% 61% Analysis Findings The major finding of this analysis is that the evaluation framework and performance monitoring system proposed not only seems to be achieving its goal of relating transit service investments on Multimodal Corridors to local and subregional connections LOS, but also investments in the highest ranked corridors are able to generate the majority of the improvements in local connectivity within Redmond. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 6-11 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 6.4 Performance Monitoring Performance Standards The seven step process included in the evaluation framework also provides the means to monitor performance over time for both multimodal corridors and neighborhood connections. In essence, the sensitivity analysis described above is not only a way to evaluate potential improvements from transit service investments toward closing the gap in neighborhood connectivity objectives, but also a way to monitor performance of transit investments in multimodal corridors. Two categories of indicators and standards are proposed to monitor transit service performance, these include: Level of service indicators and standards to monitor transit service performance in meeting neighborhood connectivity objectives, these include: – Corridor level of service standards: this includes travel time, service frequency, and span of service indicators – Neighborhood level of service standards: this combines level of service indicators to develop a “transit to driving travel time ratio” that summarizes the attractiveness of transit as an option for local travel Transit service standards to monitor service quality and effectiveness city wide and at the multimodal corridor level. These include : – Service accessibility: mostly accessibility to transit from residential and commercial land uses, and pedestrian accessibility indicators – Service effectiveness: mostly transit ridership at the corridor and citywide level – Service quality: mostly service reliability indicators such as on-time performance, headway maintenance, and service quality indicators such as passenger loading These standards are described in more detail in the next chapter, Recommendations and Implementation Actions. Performance Monitoring As mentioned earlier, the intention of the monitoring performance is to track progress toward the suggested corridor LOS and neighborhood connectivity objectives. The recommendation is to coordinate this performance monitoring effort with the performance monitoring system that is used by the City to track implementation of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP). The TMP system tracks multimodal objectives and concurrency standards through an Annual Mobility Report Card and a Five Year Transportation Status Report. Most indicators proposed herein can be tracked against their standards on an annual basis and the standards updated every five years in concurrency with the five year status report. The City will use these reports to provide accurate information to the public about the City’s progress implementation of the TMP and the current condition of the transportation system, as it does today. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 6-12 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. This page left intentionally blank ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 7-1 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. Chapter 7. Recommendations and Implementation Actions 7.1 General Recommendations As discussed throughout the evaluation framework and performance monitoring sections, the major shift with respect to the TMP is to focus more closely on the performance of multimodal corridors as the means to improve transit service levels in Redmond. The suggested approach is to develop a system to prioritize transit service investments on multimodal corridors and to evaluate their impact on local and subregional connectivity. The analysis findings point out that to develop a transit system that can effectively attract a larger number of local trips and trips between Redmond and other communities in the region the following actions are recommended: Revise the Transportation Master Plan objectives for transit service to include standards and targets for the multimodal corridor network based on market demand and level of connectivity to Redmond neighborhoods for local and subregional travel Revise the network of multimodal corridors to include missing connections in the City that have transit potential, and also to include corridors that although lacking in multimodal qualities provide significant transit potential for connections between Redmond and other communities in the region. Use multimodal corridors’ market demand and connectivity levels to identify LOS investment priorities Measure the potential impact of multimodal network improvements in meeting Transit LOS targets at the neighborhood level Identify short-term and long-term actions to achieve Transit LOS targets and close gaps Guide planned increases and future increases in transit service levels from regional transit agencies based on multimodal corridor network investment results and objectives 7.2 Transit Performance Standards Suggested updates to the existing transit performance standards and monitoring system (Redmond Community Indicators) aim mostly at including Transit LOS standards for the multimodal corridor network, as discussed in the sections herein. Recommended transit performance standards for ongoing monitoring include: 1. Multimodal Corridor Standards There are three key indicators for measuring service on multimodal corridors, these include travel time, service frequency, and span of service. Travel Time: refers to bus travel time along each corridor segment. There are two potential ways of improving bus travel time: – Travel Speed on Corridor: improving bus speeds and traffic in general throughout the corridor via signal timing, signal priority treatments, lane channelization, and/or other physical improvements. – Route Alignment: improving bus speeds through re-alignment of bus routes to follow multimodal corridor alignments more closely and/or take the most direct travel path. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 7-2 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. As indicated in the TMP, the target travel time is established as 1.5 times the driving time (or the most direct travel path) Service Frequency: refers to the nominal frequency on the corridor segment, which can be provided by one route or a combination of two routes operating staggered headways (or coordinated trip schedules). Service frequency along the corridor will be determined by two variables: – Market Demand Intensity: the level of travel demand on all modes and for all trips during the peak period and/or midday period – Transit Mode Split Targets: potential transit mode split for trips originating in Redmond and having Redmond as a destination during peak period and/or midday period The target service frequency is set according to potential transit mode split, projected ridership per trip and bus trips necessary to carry the projected demand. The suggested corridor standards are: – High demand corridors: targeted for 7.5-minute frequency during the peak period and 10-minute frequency during the midday. – Medium demand corridors: targeted for 10-minute frequency on the peak and 15- minute on the midday. – Low demand corridors: targeted for 15-minute on the peak and 30-minute on the midday. Span of Service: refers to the span of hours in which service is available or in operation along the corridor (this can be provided by one or two routes operating coordinated schedules). Two aspects need to be distinguished with regards to span of service – Core Service Hours: typically including the peak-hour period (6:00 - 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 – 7:00 p.m.) and the midday period (9:00 am – 4:00 pm) – Shoulder Hours: typically including the hours when service is starting and closing, before 6:00 am and after 7:00 pm. The TMP span of service target is established at 18 hours of service. As discussed above however, service frequency during shoulder hours will likely be lower than during core service hours, so an important clarification in the span of service target is to define a span of hours in which service would operate at target frequencies. Target frequencies should be in operation for at least a span of 13 or 14 hours (the core service hours). 2. Local and Regional Priority Connection Standards Local and subregional connection standards are based on TMP standard definitions for Local Priority Connections and Regional Connections, which included travel time, service frequency, and span of service. As discussed in this report, the recommendation is to combine travel time and service frequency (out-of-vehicle waiting time) to measure a ratio between Transit Travel Time and Driving Time. Transit to Driving Ratio: refers to the ratio between the travel time on transit versus the travel time on a private automobile. Two variables are included in the calculation of transit travel time, as discussed previously: – Bus Travel Time: established as 1.5 times the driving time, it measures travel time in the transit vehicle or in-vehicle travel time ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 7-3 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. – Waiting Time: established as 0.5 times the service headway or interval, it measures the average waiting time experienced by users before they get on transit The Transit to Driving Ratio provides a target for increasing bus speed and modifying route alignments to provide local and subregional connections through the most direct travel path. It also provides a target for increasing service frequencies to reduce waiting times and provide connections that are competitive with the automobile. The target Transit to Driving Ratio has been established at 2.0 (driving time includes the actual driving time plus 5 minutes for access and parking). 3. Access to Transit Access to Transit has been established in the TMP with the purpose of measuring the percentage of dwelling units located within a one-quarter mile of a transit stop (this measure is updated every five years). Two significant issues are not measured by this indicator: accessibility to transit by time of day or day of week, and actual pedestrian accessibility. Transit Accessibility: in general it is impacted by the availability of service throughout the day. Transit service in Redmond varies greatly by time of day (peak or midday or evening), and by day of week (weekday versus weekend). Thus introducing a time dimension to transit accessibility will likely produce very different results than just measuring access to stops that may or may not have service. In this regard, a measure of accessibility to transit frequency would also provide a more detailed account of who gets service and who does not. For example: how many dwelling units are located within a one –quarter mile of a transit stop with 15-minute service? Pedestrian Accessibility: it is impacted by the presence of sidewalks, street crossings, and bus stops. A more accurate measure of transit accessibility should take into account pedestrian connections that are possible (e.g. a sidewalk exists) in the City, in particular from neighborhoods to main transit corridors. Also topography plays a crucial role in determining accessibility to transit stops, the grade or slope of sidewalks could diminish the reach of bus stops to less than a one-quarter mile Given that this measure is updated every five years, it is recommended that some analysis refinement via GIS is incorporated into this measure to better account for transit accessibility in Redmond. 4. Transit Ridership The TMP also includes monitoring of transit ridership (average weekday boardings) for King County Metro and Sound Transit services in Redmond. There were more than 9,000 boardings originating from bus stops within Redmond according to King County Metro (Fall 2008 APC data for Metro and Sound Transit services combined). The TMP established transit ridership targets for year 2022 that have been either already met in 2008 or where based on route level ridership including routes that no longer exist (i.e. ST 540). Given the change in focus to multimodal corridors Transit LOS proposed in this study, it would be recommendable to change this performance indicator to also monitor ridership on a corridor-by- corridor segment basis to measure whether proposed improvements in transit service translate into ridership growth and more transit trips at the corridor level. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 7-4 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 5. Other Standards for Further Consideration The measures below are considered to be of less importance for Redmond today, but they may be useful indicators for service quality monitoring in the near future, in particular to monitor multimodal corridors performance. 5a. Service Reliability (On-Time Performance) Whereas service frequency describes the scheduled elapsed time between transit vehicles operating on a corridor, service reliability describes the degree to which the schedule is achieved or the on-time performance of service. Typically on-time performance is tracked by whether buses are arriving early, on-time or late at critical points in the route (time points), and is specified as a range of 0 to 5 minutes, where: If buses show up more than five minutes after its schedule it is considered late If buses show up one second or more before its schedule it is considered early This system encourages drivers to show up at timepoints within 5 minutes after the scheduled time. Typically the standard for early is more stringent because it is assumed users can wait a minute or two extra to catch the bus (if buses are late), but if the bus shows up earlier than expected then it will be gone and users will have to wait an entire headway (15 or 30 minutes in Redmond’s case). Setting up a percent of bus trips to be on-time as a standard would be recommendable to maintain a standard of reliability and service quality for users along Redmond corridors. An example used in the Seattle UVTN performance monitoring includes the following: More than 60 percent of bus routes are less than one minute late 90 percent of bus routes are less than three minutes late Less than 3 percent of bus routes are over five minutes late 5b. Headway Reliability (Frequency Maintenance) At low and medium frequencies – every 15 minutes or more, establishing a standard for service reliability (on-time performance) is usually sufficient to maintain a relatively even headway or time interval between bus trips. However, at higher frequencies such as the standards suggested for High Demand corridors for peak and midday, and the standards defined for Medium Demand corridors during peak periods, establishing a headway reliability standard can help ensuring a minimum headway maintenance and service quality standard for transit operations along Redmond’s multimodal corridors. At higher frequencies, the differences in travel time and deviation from schedule that happen naturally between bus trips, on a daily basis, due to traffic conditions and demand conditions get magnified and manifest as bus clustering or “bunching” on the street. The goal of a headway reliability standard is to provide a measure to manage bus operations on the street, so that buses are spaced evenly and maintain a homogeneous headway. Maintaining even headways help in meeting corridor demand, reducing passenger overloads and more effectively utilizing bus seating capacities. An example of this standard used at the San Diego MTS and Denver RTD establishes an average headway maintenance goal of 85 percent for every hour of operation, in both directions of travel, for frequent urban services. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 7-5 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 5c. Passenger Loading (Overcrowding) This is an important measure that provides insight into a range of issues affecting transit, including: Passenger comfort, both in terms of finding a seat and crowding levels on the vehicle. The need from the transit operator’s perspective to increase service frequency or vehicle size to improve passenger comfort. The risk of “pass-ups,” where a transit vehicle bypasses waiting passengers because it is too full. Many agencies measure loading in terms of a “load factor,” defined as the ratio between the number of passengers and the number of seats. A measure of percentage of vehicle capacity capacity) is suggested as a way to provide a more level means of comparison between different vehicle-types (small buses and long articulated buses) serving different needs and markets. The capacity of a transit vehicle describes the number of passengers (seated and standing) that can safely and comfortably travel on the vehicle. It generally also reflects the operational needs of the vehicle such as passenger circulation (within the vehicle and boarding and alighting). Since the vehicle capacity includes the passengers who can stand safely, the standard is defined as 100 percent of this capacity. If loads are greater than 100 percent of vehicle capacity, this is considered deficient in the Overcrowding measure. 7.3 Implementation Actions to Achieve LOS Targets Short-Term Implementation Actions Actions that can be implemented in the short term include several modifications to the existing transit service network provided by Metro that would help both Metro and Redmond achieve their goals of respectively increasing ridership and productivity, and improve service levels to local travel within Redmond and subregional travel to/from Redmond to other communities in East King County. Potential service modifications for discussion with Metro include: 1. Invest in Highest Demand Corridors: Prioritize transit service frequency investments on the 148th Avenue, 156th Avenue, 166th Avenue, and Redmond Way corridors, as discussed in the sensitivity analysis of corridor investments: – 148th Avenue: Increase the nominal service frequency on the 148th Avenue Corridor via scheduling changes to Routes 221 and 253 to operate a combined 15-minute frequency, or via changes to the alignment of Route 221 to travel more directly between the Overlake Commercial Core and downtown Redmond, or via introduction of RapidRide service – 156th Avenue: Increase the frequency of service on the 156th Avenue Corridor to connect Bellevue Crossroads with downtown Redmond via service increases to Route 230. Review alignment of Route 230 to stay on 156th Avenue and eliminate off-route deviations. Consider splitting route from Kirkland-Bellevue leg of Route 230 at the Bellevue Transit Center or at Crossroads. Coordinate schedules with RapidRide service in the future to operate a higher level of frequency along the 156th Avenue ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 7-6 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. corridor. Consider re-alignment of Route 230 via 51st Street, West Lake Sammamish and Leary Way to downtown Redmond to serve the Overlake neighborhood. – 166th Avenue: Increase the frequency of service on Route 221 along 166th Avenue and re-align the route to provide a direct connection between Education Hill and Redmond Town Center. Include Route 253 in the solution to provide bi-directional connections between the Redmond Transit Center and the Town Center. – Redmond Way: Increase the nominal service frequency on the Redmond Way corridor via scheduling adjustments of Routes 248 and 253. Consider re-alignment of Route 253 along Redmond Way from 148th Avenue to downtown or as an alternative consider re-alignment of Route 221. 2. Provide All-Day Service on Priority Corridors: Modify network to provide all-day service along other high-priority transit corridors. There were three corridors identified as high-priority transit corridors during the evaluation framework and performance monitoring analysis – of subregional connections, that were not included in the network of multimodal corridors. These include: – Willows Road to Kingsgate: recommendations for this corridor include reviewing schedules of Routes 244 and 291 to provide a combined 15-minute service on the peaks between Kingsgate P&R and downtown Redmond – Avondale Road: increase service on Route 232 to operate bi-directionally throughout the day between downtown Redmond and Cottage Lake and Duvall. Consider eliminating Route 251 and re-investing service hours on Route 232 – Redmond-Fall City: increase service on Route 269 to operate bi-directionally throughout the day between Overlake TC and Sammamish/Issaquah via downtown Redmond. Extend Route 253 to serve SE Redmond residential and industrial districts via Redmond-Fall City Road. 3. Simplify the route system, make it more consistent and user friendly: Simplify route system in general and reduce the number of scheduling exceptions: – Increase service frequency to the core all-day routes. Invest service on the “flagship” routes in the area instead of distributing hours over a larger number of routes. This will make the system more reliable and predictable to the user. People prefer frequency over coverage and walking towards the corridor with higher frequency (or trip opportunities). A system that operates many routes at low frequency (every 30 minutes) is more confusing than a system that operates a reduced number of routes at high frequency (15 minutes or better). The core all-day routes group in the system is comprised of: KCM Routes 221, 230, 245, 248, and 253, and RapidRide in the near future ST 545, and ST 542 in the near future – Develop a more predictable system for the user. In general, routes do not stay on one single corridor and change direction frequently before reaching local destinations. For example, Route 221 travels from Education Hill to Overlake, but does not serve Redmond Town Center which is the major destination for local trips between Education Hill and downtown Redmond. The route also switches over SR 520 from 148th Avenue to 156th Avenue and back just to serve OTC, but it does not serve the Overlake P&R. It could stay on 156th Avenue and come back on 24th Street to serve ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 7-7 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. both OTC and Overlake P&R and also the 148th Avenue corridor south of the Commercial Core. This would allow more direct access to OTC from both north and south and faster travel for everyone coming from Redmond to Bellevue City College. – Reduce number of routes operating in the peak only. Too many routes operate during the peak only (26) and only six are available throughout the day. More midday service could be afforded by eliminating peak only routes operating a limited number of trips to distant destinations. This would reduce single rides (no transfer required) throughout the region, but would concentrate service along high priority corridors and keep the most critical connections only. It would also concentrate transfers at major destination centers. For example: Route 232 from Duvall could be shortened at the Redmond Transit Center and its service hours allocated to a wider span of service between Cottage Lake/Duvall and Redmond. Route 233 from Bear Creek to Bellevue could be re-designed to serve downtown Redmond and Bellevue or eliminated to avoid duplication with ST 564/565 when it gets extended to Redmond (new ST 566 route). – Reduce overlap and competition with Sound Transit. This is particularly true for KCM Routes 268, 232/233, and 266. Route 268 completely duplicates ST 545, except for the local stops in Redmond. Route 268 riders are all ST 545 riders that take the express version of ST 545 when they get to Bear Creek at the right time Route 233 can be phased out once ST extends its 564/565 service to Redmond Route 266 operates a very limited number of trips that are complimentary to ST 545. A frequent local route operating on 148th Avenue could feed into ST 545 at OTC and provide better and faster service to Seattle to residents and employers along 148th Avenue. – Peak only service on peak direction of travel. This is particularly harmful for local services like Route 269. Given that Redmond-Sammamish is one market showing potential demand and gaps in service, the current trend of increasing service hours on Route 269 to operate bi-directionally throughout the day should be continued. Route 232 discussed above is another example of this type of service that should be corrected. Longer-Term Implementation Actions The general long-term strategy to improve transit service levels in Redmond, augment ridership and improve utilization of the system is based on five major implementation components or tactics: 1. Investing service hours in high priority corridors with high levels of neighborhood connectivity and demand intensity 2. Simplifying the design of the system to strengthen corridors and reduce the number of scheduling exceptions 3. Establishing new Transit LOS Targets for high priority corridors 4. Improving infrastructure along these corridors to improve transit speed and service reliability and enhance pedestrian access, including among other strategies: ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 7-8 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. – Street operation improvements: improve the transit operating environment along high demand corridors, including street improvements such as curb extensions and in- lane stops, stop amenities and transit priority treatments such as queue jumps and transit signal priority (see Appendix A, Best Practices Report for a full list of recommended transit priority treatments) – Pedestrian improvements: improve pedestrian connectivity throughout the City and in particular along high demand corridors. Focus on sidewalk completion and streetscape improvements that add pedestrian comfort and safety (see Appendix A, Best Practices Report for a list of recommended pedestrian treatments along transit corridors) 5. Implementing a strong and coordinated marketing information campaign between Redmond and Metro to capitalize on the latent demand for transit that exists in the City, including among other strategies: – Transportation Fair events: organizing and hosting regular transportation fair events to keep residents informed and increase awareness of viable transit options and new transit service options – Local signage and wayfinding at major bus stops: including bus schedules, regional destinations, and neighborhood wayfinding maps showing local landmarks and destinations and pedestrian/bicycle networks – Local website and/or calling center: including a Redmond specific trip planner tool or live calling center attendant to help users and prospective users learn the system and plan their trips (e.g. existing R-Trip partnership website) – ORCA Card strategies and subsidies: including revisiting marketing strategies and economic incentives with local partnerships with the advent of the ORCA Card to promote transit use in the City – Smart phone applications: promoting development of software applications for smart phones (windows based and non-windows based) to facilitate the use of the transit system, similar to Next Bus displays10, Google Transit displays, or Avego dynamic ridesharing displays. Redmond’s Ongoing Activities Employee Partnerships The City of Redmond has developed one of the most effective TDM programs in the County that includes transit benefits, carpool/vanpool benefits, and bicycle benefits to all commuters going to work in the city. Redmond has implemented a very successful vanpool program (79 vanpools in 2008) developed almost exclusively through partnerships with many of the major employers that have located in the city (which include among others ATT, Honeywell, Microsoft, and Nintendo), and in partnership with King County Metro. Non-motorized Transit Access & Market Potential Transit use in Redmond neighborhoods greatly depends on the quality and availability of non- motorized access to transit service and transit corridors, especially pedestrian accessibility. Redmond is currently building and expanding the network of sidewalks with the goal of expanding 10 www.nextbus.com I maps.google.com I www.avego.com ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 7-9 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. the walking shed around transit stops and providing connectivity and accessibility between communities. The city is spending $1 million per year on sidewalk completion. The sidewalk network is today complete in all Redmond urban centers and multi-modal corridors – carrying higher traffic volumes and higher speed traffic. Next in the program is to develop sidewalks along multi-modal corridors connecting to other community centers and along school routes. The city also has some funds for bus shelter upgrades and has been seeking more investment in bus stops and shelters from Metro. There are major topography barriers and challenges to connect sidewalks and communities with transit stops along multi-modal corridors. The community, however, wants improvements for getting to transit stops (completing missing links in the street network) and for waiting areas (shelters and signage). Finally, improving the bicycle infrastructure is also important. Bicycle connections to transit are a missing infrastructural link. The bicycle-to-transit connection needs to be improved via parking for bikes at key points, bus stations and centers, and via improved routes for bicycles to access transit. Redmond’s topography and street network create natural barriers between districts and neighborhoods. The bicycle is potentially a critical tool to overcome these barriers and provide the last-mile connection between neighborhoods and transit. The extensive network of trails and multi-modal corridors offer a rich network to provide connections between bikes and transit for commuting trips and other purpose trips. Parking Management and Land Use Strategies Managing parking supply via adoption of maximum parking standards, elimination of parking standards, and/or parking pricing at high demand districts such as Downtown Redmond is a critical planning tool to manage traffic congestion, ensure accessibility to businesses, and add vibrancy to Downtown and the Old Town districts. Densification in Downtown Redmond and/or along selected multi-modal corridors is also a major strategy in support of transit. Both availability of ample free parking and low residential densities are two major factors explaining poor transit usage across communities and cities in the country. Conversely, developing high density residential and mixed-use corridors, and managing parking through parking and zoning requirements, not only supports transit usage by making transit more accessible to more people, but also makes transit more efficient and attractive as compared to the automobile. ---PAGE BREAK--- L o c a l T r a n s i t S t u d y F i n a l R e p o r t C I T Y O F R E D M O N D Page 7-10 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. This page left intentionally blank