Swift II Bus Rapid Transit

Final Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum As approved by FTA on March 31, 2016

Prepared for

Prepared by Environmental Science Associates This page left intentionally blank. Contents

1 Introduction ...... 1 2 Project Description ...... 1 2.1 Background ...... 1 2.2 Project Location ...... 2 2.3 Description of Proposed Work ...... 2 3 Affected Environment ...... 5 3.1 Title VI Program ...... 5 3.2 Methodology ...... 6 3.3 Demographics ...... 6 3.4 Low-Income Populations ...... 7 3.5 Limited English Proficiency (LEP) ...... 8 4 Public Outreach ...... 8 5 Project Effects ...... 9 5.1 Short-term Effects ...... 9 5.2 Long-term Effects ...... 9 6 Determination ...... 10 7 References ...... 10

Tables

Table 1 Demographic Summary for Swift II BRT Project Area ...... 7

Figures

Figure 1 Project Site Map and Station Locations ...... 3

Appendices

A US Census Bureau Data

B Washington State Report Card School Data

C Public Outreach Mailer

D Public Involvement and Outreach Summary

Final Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum i March 31, 2016 This page left intentionally blank. 1 Introduction

Community Transit proposes to implement a new Swift II Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route connecting Canyon Park Park-and-Ride (P&R) and the future Seaway Transit Center near the Boeing Everett Plant. This memorandum has been prepared to document potential disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority, low income, and limited English proficiency (LEP) residents within the study area of the Swift II BRT project. Additionally, this report documents public outreach efforts intended to engage minority, low-income, and LEP populations in the project planning process in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Executive Order 13166. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) online Environmental Justice resources were used to guide this analysis. The FTA is the federal lead agency responsible for reviewing the proposal for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

2 Project Description

2.1 Background

In 2009, Community Transit started its first Swift BRT line, a 17-mile route connecting the cities of Shoreline and Everett via Highway 99, Evergreen Way, Rucker Avenue, and Pacific Avenue. Due to the fast and frequent service provided by the BRT, which guarantees service every 15 minutes1, it has become highly utilized (Davis, 2014). Presently, the BRT is Community Transit’s largest ridership line, comprising nearly 17 percent of Community Transit passengers (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2014).

For the second Swift BRT line, Community Transit is focusing on locations that have dense development and sufficient clientele to support the transit line. Community Transit chose to connect two of the Puget Sound Regional Council’s Regional Growth Centers: Bothell-Canyon Park and Boeing/ Paine Field (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2014). The proposed route would link a major employment site (Boeing Everett) with a dense regional center, encompassing urban villages and centers in Snohomish County, Mill Creek Town Center, and retail centers such as Thrasher’s Corner.

The Swift II BRT line would also intersect key roadways (SR 99, I‐5, SR 527, and I‐405), thereby creating improved transit connectivity with the original Swift line (existing on SR 99) and many of the regional express routes that provide service to Downtown Seattle, Bellevue, and other parts of the region via I-5 and I-405 (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2014).

1 Service is provided every 12 minutes during peak hours and every 20 minutes during regular hours. This averages out to service being provided approximately every 16 minutes.

Final Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum 1 March 31, 2016 2.2 Project Location

The project site is located in Snohomish County, Washington, and passes through the communities of Bothell, Mill Creek, and Everett (Figure 1). The 12.4-mile route would begin at the Canyon Park P&R and terminate at the site of the planned Seaway Transit Center, located across the street from the Boeing Everett Plant.

Figure 1 shows that, from the Canyon Park P&R, the BRT line would travel north along the Bothell/Everett Highway (State Route 527) approximately 6.2 miles until it reached 132nd Street SE. On 132nd Street SE, the BRT would head west for approximately one mile until the road becomes 128th Street SE. The BRT would then continue west on 128th Street SW for less than a mile, before turning north, at the point where the road becomes Airport Road. The BRT would continue three miles north on Airport Road until it reached W Casino Road, where it would turn east. After one half mile on W Casino Road, the BRT would turn north onto Seaway Boulevard, using the State Route 526 off-ramp. Once on Seaway Boulevard, the BRT would travel just over half a mile to reach the site of the planned Seaway Transit Center, on the south side of 75th Street SW. 2.3 Description of Proposed Work

The proposed Swift BRT – Boeing to Canyon Park Project (Project) includes construction of approximately thirty-three (34) BRT stations along the Swift II BRT corridor (see Figure 1). The station improvements will include construction of transit platforms and associated site improvements, and installation of shelters and amenities. Associated site improvements are anticipated to include installation of concrete aprons in front of the stations; modifications to existing curb, gutter, and sidewalk; modifications to existing storm drainage; utility relocations; signing and striping modifications; traffic signal improvements and modifications; and retaining wall construction at some locations.

Based on the station site evaluation currently being completed, station sites will include fifteen (15) station pairs, a single northbound station at 220th Street SE, a single station with extended platform at Canyon Park Park & Ride, and two station shelters with amenities at the proposed Seaway Transit Center. A southbound drop-only platform on 17th Avenue SE in Canyon Park is also proposed. The project will include the relocation and/or modification of some existing local stops adjacent to the stations. It is estimated that 18 existing local stops will be modified and/or relocated.

Final Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum 2 March 31, 2016 Figure 1 Project Site Map and Station Locations

Final Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum 3 March 31, 2016 The Swift II BRT project will also include project elements to improve safety and reliability to transit service within the congested travel corridor, and to improve connectivity between the stations and surrounding neighborhoods. To provide improved transit reliability, reduced travel time, and improved safety for Swift operation, roadway improvements are proposed at three locations within the corridor: 128th Street SW/SE at I-5, northbound SR 527 at 164th Street SE, and southbound SR 527 at SR 524/208th Street SE.

The 128th Street transit Improvements at I-5 will include construction of a westbound business access and transit (BAT) lane on the north-side of 128th Street SE from 3rd Avenue SE to approximately 100 feet west of the northbound ramp intersection at I-5, and construction of an eastbound right-turn lane on the south-side of 128th Street SW from approximately 50 feet east of 4th Avenue W to approximately 100 feet beyond the southbound ramp intersection at I-5. The additional eastbound lane allows the existing eastbound outside travel lane to become a transit/right-turn only lane approaching the southbound I-5 ramp.

The westbound BAT lane on 128th Street SE is expected to alleviate westbound congestion for Swift on SR 96/128th Street SE east of I-5.

The westbound improvements are expected to provide an estimated 3.5 minute travel time savings for Swift in the morning peak and an estimated 5.0 minute travel time savings in the afternoon peak period. The eastbound transit and right-turn lane on 128th Street SW is expected to only provide modest transit travel time savings but deliver a higher reliability for peak period transit trips through the interchange area. Without lane improvements, this interchange has a high degree of unpredictability, with transit travel times through the 128th interchange area ranging between 1 to 13 minutes.

The SR 527 northbound transit queue bypass improvements at 164th Street SE will include intersection modifications and construction of an 800-foot BAT lane, extending the existing right- turn pocket south of 164th Street SE by 550-feet. The SR 527 southbound transit queue bypass at SR 524/208th Street SE will include intersection modifications and construction of a BAT lane through the SR 524 intersection approximately 400-feet south of the intersection. These roadway improvements will include roadway widening, curb and gutter, sidewalk, retaining walls, traffic signal modifications and relocations, traffic island modifications, storm drainage installation and modifications, and utility relocations.

To improve connectivity between the Swift II BRT stations and surrounding neighborhoods, new pedestrian facility connections and improvements to existing pedestrian facilities are proposed at five (5) locations within the corridor. These improved connections include the installation of new sidewalk to complete gaps in existing pedestrian facilities at the following locations:

• along 196th Street SE east of the stations on SR 527 at 196th Street SE; • along 10th Drive SE and 129th Street SE east of the stations on 128th Street SE/SR 96 at Elgin Way; • along 134th Street SW and 4th Avenue W just southwest of the stations on 128th Street SW at 4th Avenue W; and

Final Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum 4 March 31, 2016 • along Marino Avenue and Center Road northwest of the stations on Airport Road at SR 99.

Improvements to existing ADA ramps are also proposed in these areas and at Beverly Park Road and 112th Street SW east of the stations on Airport Road at 112th Street SW.

3 Affected Environment

3.1 Title VI Program

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that “No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” As a recipient of federal funding through the FTA, Community Transit is required to have a program outlining compliance with Title VI. The current program, approved by the Board in May 2013, meets FTA objectives by promoting actions that:

• Ensure that the level and quality of transportation service is provided without regard to race, color or national origin. • Identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse effects of programs and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. • Promote the full and fair participation of all affected (Title VI) populations in transportation decision making. • Prevent the denial, reduction or delay in benefits related to programs and activities that benefit minority populations or low-income populations. • Ensure meaningful access to programs and activities by persons with limited English proficiency.

In its program, Community Transit acknowledges that it serves a larger than proportionate share of minority residents in its Snohomish County service district. As such, changes to the agency’s bus and paratransit service network could disproportionately impact those minority populations. The plan outlines specific actions the agency has taken and will continue to take to reach out to those groups when service and fare changes are proposed so they have an equal opportunity to comment.

Community Transit provides an opportunity for customers to file complaints about discrimination by the agency or its staff at www.communitytransit.org/nondiscrimination. While the Title VI policy directs specific actions for complaints about discrimination based on race, color or national origin, Community Transit investigates and takes seriously complaints about any form of discrimination, not just limited to Title VI categories.

Final Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum 5 March 31, 2016 3.2 Methodology

To determine whether an environmental justice population exists within the study area, two sources were used to gather demographic data for this analysis:

1) US Census Bureau, 2010 Census and 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) Data (2006 – 2010 average), serve as the primary data sources for this analysis. The EPA’s EJView online mapping tool was used to generate Census 2010 Summary Reports and ACS Summary Reports (Appendix A). These data are at the census block level, from census blocks within a 0.5 mile radius of the project alignment, and provide a summary of representative populations in the project vicinity which includes ethnicity, income, and languages spoken.

2) Washington State Report Card online database (a program of the Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction), serves as the secondary source of data for this analysis (Appendix B). School enrollment data from the nearest elementary schools was gathered and used to verify US Census and ACS data. Elementary schools who’s attendance boundaries are within approximately 0.5 miles of the project alignment include:

• Fairmount Elementary 11401 Beverly Park Rd., Everett (approximately .22 mile from Project Site) • Odyssey Elementary, 13025 17th Ave. W, Everett (approximately .17 mile from Project Site) • Woodside Elementary, 17000 23rd Ave. SE, Bothell (approximately .48 mile from Project Site) • Crystal Springs Elementary, 21615 9th Ave. SE, Bothell (approximately .35 mile from Project Site) • Silver Lake Elementary, 12815 Bothell-Everett Hwy., Everett (approximately .3 mile from Project Site)

Combined, the area covered by the US Census Bureau data and elementary school attendance boundaries comprises the environmental justice study area. 3.3 Demographics

Table 1 summarizes the “Population by Race” 2010 Census Data, reported at the census block level for the area within 0.5 mile of the centerline of the project. Table 1 also gives the minority student enrollment within the project study area from the Washington State Report Card data. According to the data gathered, the percentage of students enrolled in each minority race category is greater than the percentage of minorities within the associated US Census race category. This difference is likely attributed to the difference in the school attendance boundaries and the study area boundaries, as well as the fact that some students from outside of the attendance area boundaries attend these schools.

Final Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum 6 March 31, 2016 Table 1 Demographic Summary for Swift II BRT Project Area

US Census Bureau data for WA State Report Card data for Swift II BRT Swift II BRT

Total Population 46,953 3318 Minority Population by Race (%)1 Hispanic2 14% 24% Black 4% 6% American Indian 1% 0 Asian 13% 16% Pacific Islander 1% 1% Limited English Proficiency 3 21% 23% (%) Low-Income (%) 17% 47% NOTE: All demographic data is collected at the census block or block group level, within 0.5-mile of the project site. Source: US Census Bureau. 1 The total population also includes a small percentage of people who reported their race as “Two or More Races.” 2 The US Census Bureau reports the Hispanic population as a separate and distinct category and may include other races. Consequently, the population numbers may be double-counted within other reported races. 3 Reported in Census data as speaks English "less than well."

Individual property and business owners, renters, and/or employees at station locations have not been interviewed to determine race and/or income level of individuals that may be most directly affected by the project. Obtaining such information through interviews or surveys can be intrusive. Based on visual reconnaissance of the project corridor, one station location is adjacent to a property that may be owned, employ, or serve specific minority populations. John K. Hong Taxes is adjacent to the northbound/westbound station at 132nd Street SE/Elgin Way. 3.4 Low-Income Populations

Low-income status is determined by the poverty threshold, which is set annually by US Department of Health and Human Services. The 2015 poverty level for a 4-person household is $24,250. The 2010 ACS data shows that approximately seventeen percent of households in the Census block groups within the study area are reported as being low-income (Table 1).

Another method for determining income level is to review the number of students participating in the free or reduced-price meals program. To qualify for this school program, a family of four must earn $44,863 or less annually, as set by the 2015 USDA Income Eligibility Guidelines. The Mukilteo, Everett, and Northshore School Districts reported that 46.7 percent of students attending schools identified as being in the project study area participated in the free or reduced-price meals program. The disparity between the Census data and the school program data is likely due to the income threshold for eligibility in the school program being almost twice that of the 2015 poverty level, resulting in a greater number of qualifying families.

Final Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum 7 March 31, 2016 3.5 Limited English Proficiency (LEP)

In order to understand the languages spoken within the project study area, the “Limited English Proficiency Population” 2010 Census is examined. The data reveals that 21 percent of the population within the study area speaks English “less than well” (Table 1). The Mukilteo, Everett, and Northshore School Districts report that twenty-three (23) percent of students attending schools identified as being within the project study area are transitional bilingual.

Where demographic data indicates that at least five percent of the population speaks English less than well, it is general practice to provide equal access to project information in the spoken language. Equal access provisions may include posting webpage notices in the appropriate language(s); printing and distributing translated project brochures, meeting invitations, and newsletters in the appropriate languages(s); or providing a translator or interpreter services upon request.

Community Transit performed an analysis to determine the languages spoken within their service area. The analysis, as described in Community Transit’s Title VI Program 2013-2016, determined that the most significant population of limited English persons spoke Spanish. Other languages spoken include Korean, Vietnamese, Chinese (Mandarin), Tagalog, and Russian. Community Transit uses the Language Line to serve limited-English speaking persons. The availability of this free service is promoted through a translated block of text in Spanish, Korean, and, when possible, Russian, Chinese and Vietnamese. Advertisement of the Language Line availability is posted in the bus schedule books, bus interior cards, Title VI Notification to the Public, system change materials, the Transportation Options booklet, bus stop schedule posters, and on the Community Transit website.

Existing Swift BRT riders pay before boarding the bus. Riders buy their tickets in advance, with cash or credit card, at ticket vending machines located at each station. The machines have instruction screens in English, Spanish and Chinese.

4 Public Outreach

Public outreach efforts have included a series of meetings with project stakeholders, several of which were open to the public. Public presentations about the project by Community Transit staff have been given to:

• Community Transit Board of Directors (9/4/14 and 4/2/15) • Mill Creek City council (9/9/14) • Snohomish County Committee for Improved Transportation (9/23/14) • King County Seashore Transportation Forum (11/7/14) • Puget Sound Regional Council Regional Traffic Operations Committee(4/2/15) • Bothell City Council (4/21/15) • Mill Creek City Council (5/26/15)

Final Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum 8 March 31, 2016 • Everett City Council (5/27/15)

In addition, three open houses to specifically present the project and answer question from the public were held in the Cities of Bothell (6/22/15), Everett (6/23/15), and Mill Creek (6/24/15). These open house locations were chosen based on their proximity to existing transit services as well as by the new Swift II line. There were 23,711 flyers announcing the meetings dates and times mailed out to all households and businesses within 0.25-mile of the project alignment, posted on existing Community Transit bus routes, and on the Community Transit website. The flyer is shown in Appendix C. Translation services were available for each of these meetings; however, no translation services were requested. A summary of Community Transit’s public outreach efforts to date is shown in Appendix D.

5 Project Effects

5.1 Short-term Effects

Minor negative effects during construction would be minimized through implementation of proposed mitigation measures and best management practices. Temporary construction impacts on air quality, noise, and transportation would be minimal and do not warrant additional mitigation (Casseday Consulting, 2015). Access to all properties would be maintained during construction. School and existing transit services would also be maintained throughout the project. Due to the short-term nature and locations of project effects, none would create or contribute to a disproportionately high and adverse environmental effect on the populations addressed through this analysis. 5.2 Long-term Effects

The project will have long-term effects from the acquisition of frontage strips from three properties to widen the road right-of-way in order to accommodate business access and transit (BAT) lanes. The project will also require the acquisition of easements on 10 properties for the new stations as well as the BAT lanes. Station locations have been chosen based on distance between stops, traffic patterns, and the proximity to population centers. The station locations have been chosen prior to determining existing ownership or property values.

All right-of-way and easement acquisitions would include a rigorous process that includes appraisals to set fair market value and would be completed in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 (as amended). The property acquisitions would not be disproportionally borne by any low-income, minority or LEP population.

Significant adverse long-term impacts are not anticipated as the project will not displace or relocate any homes or businesses and will not change existing or planned land use patterns.

Final Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum 9 March 31, 2016 Benefits of the project include improved transit service throughout the corridor. While improvements to transit service has the potential to benefit everyone in the project area, low- income persons that may rely solely on public transportation represent an environmental justice population that would specifically benefit from the project. Although it is speculative, individual business owners at or near station locations may benefit from the potential increase in transit users near their business, which could result in increased patronage.

6 Determination

The majority of the adverse effects associated with this project are from construction and would be minor and temporary in nature. Long-term project effects would mainly be from right-of-way and easement acquisition. No minority, low-income populations, nor Environmental Justice Communities have been identified to be adversely affected by this project as determined above. Therefore, this project has met the provisions of Executive Orders 12898 and 13166, as they are supported by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

7 References

Casseday Consulting. 2015. Swift II BRT Project Draft Transportation Study. Prepared for Community Transit, September 2015.

Community Transit. 2013. Community Transit Title VI Program 2013-2016. Approved May 2, 2013.

Federal Register. 2015. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service Child Nutrition Programs—Income Eligibility Guidelines. Accessed August 2015 at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-03-31/pdf/2015-07358.pdf.

Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI). 2014. Washington State Report Card. Accessible at: http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/SideBySide.aspx?schoolId=1&OrgTypeId=1&reportLevel=S tate&orgLinkId

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014. EJView accessible at: http://epamap14.epa.gov/ejmap/entry.html. Accessed on: May 23, 2014.

Final Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum 10 March 31, 2016 Appendix A

US Census Bureau Data

Final Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum March 31, 2016 This page left intentionally blank. EJView Census 2010 Summary Report

Location: Study Area: Summary Census 2010 Population Population Density (per sq. mile) Minority Population % Minority Households Housing Units Land Area (m2) % Land Area Water Area (m2) % Water Area

Population by Race Number Percent Total Population Reporting One Race White Black American Indian Asian Pacific Islander Some Other Race Population Reporting Two or More Races Total Hispanic Population Total Non-Hispanic Population White Alone Black Alone American Indian Alone Non-Hispanic Asian Alone Pacific Islander Alone Other Race Alone Two or More Races Alone

Population by Sex Number Percent Male Female

Population by Age Number Percent Age 0-4 Age 0-17 Age 18+ Age 65+

Households by Tenure Number Percent Total Owner Occupied Renter Occupied

Data Note: Detail may not sum to totals dues to rounding. Hispanic population can be of any race. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 Summary File 1. EJView ACS Summary Report

Location: Study Area: Summary of ACS Estimates 2006 - 2010 Population Population Density (per sq. mile) Minority Population % Minority Households Housing Units Housing Units Built Before 1950 Per Capita Income Land Area (sq. miles) (Source: SF1) % Land Area Water Area (sq. miles) (Source: SF1) % Water Area 2006 - 2010 Percent MOE (±) ACS Estimates Population by Race Total Population Reporting One Race White Black American Indian Asian Pacific Islander Some Other Race Population Reporting Two or More Races Total Hispanic Population Total Non-Hispanic Population White Alone Black Alone American Indian Alone Non-Hispanic Asian Alone Pacific Islander Alone Other Race Alone Two or More Races Alone Population by Sex Male Female Population by Age Age 0-4 Age 0-17 Age 18+ Age 65+

Data Note: Detail may not sum to totals dues to rounding. Hispanic population can be of any race. N/A means not available. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS) 2006 - 2010. EJView ACS Summary Report

Location: Study Area: 2006 - 2010 Percent MOE (±) ACS Estimates Population 25+ by Educational Attainment Total Less than 9th Grade 9th - 12th Grade, No Diploma High School Graduate Some College, No Degree Associate Degree Bachelor's Degree or more POPULATION AGE 5+ YEARS BY ABILITY TO SPEAK ENGLISH Total Speak only English Non-English at Home1+2+3+4 1Speak English "very well" 2Speak English "well" 3Speak English "not well" 4Speak English "not at all" 3+4Speak English "less than well" 2+3+4Speak English "less than very well" POPULATION AGE 5+ YEARS BY LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME Total Speak only English Non-English Speaking Population by Place of Birth for the Foreig n-Born Total Europe Asia Africa Oceania Americas Households by Household Income in 1999 Household Income Base < $15,000 $15,000 - $25,000 $25,000 - $50,000 $50,000 - $75,000 $75,000 + Occupied Housing Units by Tenure Total Owner Occupied Renter Occupied

Data Note: Detail may not sum to totals dues to rounding. Hispanic population can be of any race. N/A means not avialable. 2006-2010 ACS 5-year Estimates: The American Community Survey (ACS) summary files provide nation-wide population and housing characteristic data at all Census summary levels down to the Block Group level. This data was collected between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2010. ACS replaces the decennial census sample data, and is not the 2010 Census population counts data. (http://www.census.gov/acs/www/#fragment-3) Margin of error (MOE): The MOE provides a measure of the uncertainty in the estimate due to sampling error in the ACS survey. Applying the MOE value yields the confidence interval for the estimate. For example, an estimate value of 50 and +/- MOE of 5 means the true value is between 45 and 55 with a 90 percenet certainty (http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/MultiyearACSAccuracyofData2010.pdf). Maximum MOE is shown for each value within study area. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS) 2006 - 2010. This page left intentionally blank. Appendix B

Washington State Report Card School Data

Final Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum March 31, 2016 This page left intentionally blank.

Appendix C

Public Outreach Mailer

Final Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum March 31, 2016 This page left intentionally blank. Learn about Community Transit’s Second Line of Swift Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Anticipated Start of Service 2018 - 2020

Dates and Locations: Monday, June 22, 2015 Tuesday, June 23, 2015 Wednesday, June 24, 2015 Bothell Everett Mill Creek Hilton Garden Inn Mariner High School (Cafeteria) Mill Creek Council Chambers 22600 Bothell Everett Hwy 200 120th Street SW 15728 Main Street Bothell, WA 98021 Everett, WA 98204 Mill Creek, WA 98012

Open House Hours: 5:30 PM to 7:30 PM Staff Presentation at 6:00 PM

Traveling between Canyon Park, Bothell and Paine Field/Boeing through Mill Creek 7100 Hardeson Road Everett, WA 98203 Appendix D

Public Involvement and Outreach Summary

Final Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum March 31, 2016 This page left intentionally blank. Draft Summary of Swift II Bus Rapid Transit Public Involvement and Outreach to Date

October 2015

Prepared for: Community Transit

Prepared by: Otak, Inc.

Contents

Introduction ...... 1

Meetings with Stakeholders ...... 1

Public Open Houses/Presentations ...... 2

Website ...... 2

Post Card Announcements ...... 2

Newspaper Announcements ...... 4

Flyers ...... 4

Public Open Houses/Presentations ...... 4

What We Heard—Summary of Comments ...... 6 Introduction Community Transit has engaged project stakeholders including agency staff, citizens, and representatives of the three communities (Everett, Mill Creek, and Bothell) where the new Swift II Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route would be developed. This report summarizes public involvement and engagement activities conducted to date. Involvement and engagement will continue throughout implementation of the Swift II system. Meetings with Stakeholders Community Transit and representatives of the project team met with a variety of stakeholders, including local and state elected officials and community leaders with jurisdiction in the project area, as well as representatives from special interest groups. Each meeting included a presentation about the project and provided the opportunity to answer questions and receive comments on the proposed Swift II alignment. Many of these meetings were open to the public. • Congresswoman Del Bene staffer Ben Barasky (6/14/14) • City of Everett Councilman Paul Roberts (8/7/14) • City of Everett Mayor Stephanson (8/12/14) • City of Everett Staff (8/14/14) • Snohomish County Executive Lovick (8/25/14) • Troy McClelland Economic Alliance (8/26/14) • City of Bothell staff (9/2/14) • City of Mill Creek staff (9/2/14) • Community Transit Board of Directors (9/4/15 and 4/2/15)* • Snohomish County Planning staff (9/5/15) • Mill Creek City Council (9/9/14 and 5/26/15)* • WSDOT Assistant Secretary Amy Scarton (9/11/14) • Snohomish County Committee for Improved Transportation (SCCIT) (9/23/14)* • Snohomish County Public Works (10/13/14) • Highway 99 Task Force Edmonds (10/20/14) • King County Seashore Transportation Forum (11/7/14)* • Washington State Transit Association (11/13/14) • Everett Transit (11/17/14) • Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) staff (12/9/14) • Congressman Rick Larson (1/16/15) • City of Everett Public Works (1/29/15) • City of Bothell staff (2/6/15) • WSDOT staff (2/9/15) • Snohomish County staff (2/18/15) 1 • Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Region 10 conference call (2/24/15) • City of Mill Creek staff (3/2/15) • King County Metro staff (3/13/15) • Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Regional Traffic Operations Committee (RTOC) (4/2/15)* • Snohomish County Councilman Klein (4/13/15) • Bothell City Council (4/21/15)* • Congresswoman Del Bene (4/24/15) • Outreach at Bike to Work station at Boeing (5/15/15) • Mill Creek City Council (5/26/15)* • Everett City Council (5/27/15)* • FTA Region 10 (6/10/15) • Employee Transportation Coordinators (ETC) Luncheon at Everett Station hosted by Everett Transit and Community Transit Commute Trip Reduction staff (6/16/15) • Boeing-Everett Transportation Fair with 204 Boeing employees attending (6/18/15) • SCCIT (7/28/15) • WSDOT Annual Conference in Vancouver (8/24/15) *Meetings open to the public.

Public Open Houses/Presentations Community Transit held three open houses to present the project and answer questions from the public. Open house meetings were held in each of the three cities where the new Swift II Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route is planned. Community Transit gave a presentation about the project at each of the public open house sessions.

Website The Community Transit website announced the public meetings and also provided contact information and an email address for people to send comments to: [email protected]

Post Card Announcements To announce the public open houses, 23,711 postcards (see next page) were mailed to residents and tenants who own, lease, or rent property within a quarter of a mile of the proposed Swift II alignment.

2 Postcards mailed to 23,711 addresses in the project area

3 Newspaper Announcements Community Transit also provided notices in the local newspapers including the Everett Herald (June 19, 2015), and the Mill Creek Beacon (June 19, 2015). On June 27, 2015, the Seattle Transit Blog (http://seattletransitblog.com/2015/06/27/swift-ii-open-house/) also posted an article about Swift II.

Flyers Flyers announcing the meetings were placed at transit stops in proximity to the proposed Swift II line. Flyers also were distributed to the three City Halls for posting (see next page).

Public Open Houses/Presentations Three open house meetings were held. Community Transit presented information about the project at all three open house sessions. Meeting locations were selected based on their proximity to existing transit services as well as the planned Swift II line.

• Monday/June 22, 2015—5:30 pm to 7:30 pm with Presentation at 6:00 Bothell – Hilton Garden Inn 22600 Bothell Everett Hwy, Bothell, WA 98021

• Tuesday/June 23, 2015—5:30 pm to 7:30 pm with Presentation at 6:00 Mariner High School – Commons/Cafeteria 200 120th Street SW, Everett, WA 98204

• Wednesday/June 24, 2015—5:30 pm to 7:30 pm with Presentation at 6:00 Mill Creek Council Chambers, Mill Creek City Hall 15728 Main Street, Mill Creek, WA 98012

4

5

What We Heard—Summary of Comments Following is a summary of questions and comments from participants in the public open house meetings:

• How was community support for SR 99 Swift? o The public has been supportive and ridership continues to grow. o The SR 99 Swift system was funded differently than the proposed Swift II. o Through implementation of the SR 99 Swift system we have learned many things that can be applied to the successful implementation of Swift II.

• What is the projected total travel time for Swift II from end to end of the route? o 40 minutes end to end.

• There are other buses along corridor. Will they use same bus pull-outs? o No, they will have separate stops. Some local service changes may occur though.

• Will there be other future BRT lines beyond Swift II? o Yes, Swift III, IV, and V are being planned; refer to Community Transit’s Long Range Transportation Plan on their website. (https://communitytransit.org/transportationdevelopmentplan/)

• The plan looks great. As a cyclist, I want to be assured that when the east side of 128th/I-5 interchange is widened, the sidewalk can handle bikes on Interurban Trail; routes I ride: 413, 415, 402 and several Metro routes.

• Provide wayfinding at stations and end points of the line. Illustrate transit connections and major destinations in maps on display at the bus stops and on the website.

• Swift doesn’t improve my connection to University of Washington – too bad.

• Trail on sidewalk between 3rd & I-5 – Interurban serves as the connector of the Interurban Trail along the frontage of the Quality Inn.

• Can anything be done to improve traffic 164th Interchange? o This is being analyzed as part of the Swift II project.

6