!

!

!

!

NE 45th St !

!

! Pend Oreille North !

!

!

! 278 (93) ! 27 (342) !

!

!

74 (43) 18 (135) !

!

! E

!

N !

! e

! Pend Oreille South v

!

A

!

! h

t 278 (100) 30 (338) ! d ! 5

R ! 2

! e 13 (76) ! 71 (60) l l !

ei ! !

Or ! !

NE 42nd St d ! !

NE

l ! y

Pen i !

a a !

E r !

W

!

N T

y !

t e ! i n

s v a !

r !

A

e

m !

v l h h !

i i

t !

n

5

G ! U 1 ! e

Wahkiakum Lane !

k ! r !

West of u ! Overpass !

B

! !

University Bridge NE Campus Pkwy !

262 (98) 33 (327) !

! !

185 (167) 107 (241) 44 (55) 23 (104) !

NE 40th St !

!

! !

!

! Brooklyn & !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! 60 (67) 29 (107) !

!

!

!

!

! E !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! Lincoln Way Pacific East !

! ! N ! !

!

!

!

!

! d ! !

!

! v

!

! l

! C University of

! 172 (229) 126 (272)

ow !

! B B!

u! li !

d

! tz

rk! ! Brooklyn & ! Rd e

e !

Washington R

! Gi ! k

! 111 (74) 36 (166)

!

l !

m ! n a

!

a! l

n! ! ! o t

Pacific West T!

!

5 r! s

a! n

!

i ! § !

¦¨ l a

! o

! !

!

!

! M !

! 15th & Pacific East M !

!

162 (175) 111 (243) !

!

! !

!

!

! ! !

106 (74) 30 (160) 183 (242) ! 146 (255) !

NE Pacific St !!!

! !

!

!!

! 141 (89) 34 (226) ! !

! E !

! LEGEND !

N 15th & Pacific West ! ! !

e ! !

v ! Hec Ed Overpass ! !

A !

! e 203 (233) 139 (246) !!! T-Wing Overpass Count Location

k !

! !!! 250 (102) 51 (370) la

t 137 (46) 38 (203) !! s !!!

a 103 (309) 197 (140) ! 100 (64) 33 (205)

E ! Bicycle

!!!! !

!

! 30 (165) 58 (95) !

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON burke-gilman trail CORRIDOR STUDY ! ! !

! N ! Hitchcock Overpass !

E ! Pa !!

! l Pedestrian

c ! P

if !

i !!!! c

175 (251) 161 (208) c ! i

! f

S !!

t ! i

!

!! c

!

! a AM (PM)

!

! Count Volume

137 (117) 61 (126) ! P

! !

!

! E

! !

!

! N

H !

J !

!

!

! ! ! !

! July 2011 !!!!!!!!!! Rainier Vista East Medical Direction Center 277 (118) 75 (353) Portage !!!!!!! Bay 120 (129) 58 (163) Burke Gilman Trail Rainier Vista West 237 (142) 71 (332) 109 (122) 49 (176)

Montlake Bridge N

NOT TO SCALE

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN COUNT VOLUMES - AM AND PM PEAK PERIODS EXISTING CONDITIONS \\fpse2\data2\2010Projects\SE10-0209_BurkeGilmanTrail_AltDesign\Graphics\Draft\GIS\MXD\fig0x_ped_bike_vols_lan.mxd FIGURE 1

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS i TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ...... 1 Part V - Trail Design ...... 41 A Note About Trees Part I - Background and Policy Guidance ...... 5 Conceptual Approaches Scope of Study Spatial Implications of Trail Design Approaches Background Recommended Approaches for Trail Segments Burke-Gilman History Trail Surface Policy Guidance Wayfinding UW Campus Master Plan - Montlake/SR 520 Bike Path Trail Landscape Lighting Part II - Study Framework ...... 13 Other Design Elements

Part III - Current Conditions ...... 17 Part VI - Intersection Design ...... 51 Trail Segments Motorized Intersections Intersections Approaches Trail Counts Recommendations Bicycle Volumes Non-Motorized Intersections Pedestrian Volumes Approaches Comparison to Previous Counts Major Non-Motorized Intersections Future Year Forecasts Traffic Control Potential Conflict Points Recommendations Minor Non-Motorized Intersections Part IV - Level of Service Evaluation ...... 33 LOS Analysis Part VII - Unit Cost Estimates and Phasing ...... 61.... Levels of Service Unit Costing Estimates SUPLOS Results Phasing Shared Use Path LOS By Segment Implementation Guidance Shared Use LOS Conclusions Pedestrian LOS Conclusions Appendices Application of SUPLOS Methodology to Analysis of A. Trail Plan Proposed Bicycle Facility Width Comparison to Other Trails

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY JULy, 2011

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This planning study for the Burke-Gilman Trail (Trail) on the University Phase III: Trail improvements north of Hec Edmundson (Hec of Washington (UW) campus reflects a growing awareness of the Ed) Bridge and west of 15th Avenue NE, including widening to increasing role the Trail plays as a regional, municipal and campus 8’ pedestrian path width and 12’ bicycle path width, and any transportation facility. Many changes have occurred on the UW campus necessary right-of-way assignment revisions at Pend Oreille Road. since the Trail opened in 1974, and significant changes are coming to the Trail in the immediate future. These include development of the Phase IV: Revisions to right-of-way assignments at Brooklyn University LINK Light Rail station at Husky Stadium, UW Montlake Avenue NE. Triangle, reconstruction of the Stadium itself, and construction of a new SR 520 Lake Washington Floating Bridge with a regional trail linking to This study acknowledges that improvements to the Trail may need Montlake Boulevard. City of Seattle plans envision a tripling of bicycle to be implemented in conjunction with projects. However, this study traffic city-wide by 2030, and the Trail is likely to remain a key linkage in recommends that a 20-foot buffer on either side of the existing Trail the system that will experience this growth. centerline be preserved to accommodate future changes to Trail width and alignment, and allow for connections to adjacent edge conditions. Changes in transportation service to the Montlake Triangle will change Where adjacent development occurs, grading within this buffer area Pend how pedestrians and bicyclists use the Trail to access a variety of should be done to create a maximum of 2% slope. Oreille Rd campus destinations, as well as serve to provide a regional multi-modal connection to many destinations in the Seattle area. Ultimately, the planning level concepts presented in this document reflect a minimum LOS of C for pedestrians (assuming pulsing The purpose of this study is to analyze current conditions on the Trail, loads) and a minimum LOS of B for bicycles. Recommended Trail define appropriate Levels Of Service (LOS) and growth projections improvements include separation of bicycle and pedestrian users, to 2030, and based on this information provide recommendations for with 8’ to 10’ pedestrian path width and 12’ to 14’ bicycle path improvements. Depending on the existing conditions adjacent to the width to accommodate anticipated growth in pedestrian and bicycle Trail, UW may choose to reduce the recommended LOS at particular volumes. The full build-out separated Trail width would be 28’ to 29’ in sections. The study acknowledges that these recommendations must congested areas between 15th Avenue NE and the Hec Ed Bridge and also take into consideration overall aesthetic and landscape values 24’ west of 15th Avenue NE and north of the Hec Ed Bridge. associated with the unique setting of the Trail and the University.

This study recommends separation of pedestrian and bicycle traffic, traffic calming and management at key intersections (including right-of- way assignment revisions at Pend Oreille Road and Brooklyn Avenue NE), and improved access and mobility. Recommendations for general phasing and prioritization of design elements are: 15th Ave NE 15th Ave University Bridge Phase I: Widening of the Trail to 10’ pedestrian path width and Rainier Vista Hec Ed Bridge 14’ bicycle path width and vertical separation of the Trail between T-Wing Overpass and Hec Ed Bridge. Work in this section of the rooklyn Ave NE Ave B rooklyn N Trail should be done in collaboration with the Montlake Triangle Improvement Project. W E Phase II: Widening of the Trail to 10’ pedestrian path width and T-Wing Overpass 14’ bicycle path width with horizontal separation (1’-wide divider) Montlake S between T-Wing Overpass and 15th Avenue NE. Work should be done in anticipation of LINK light rail patrons. Triangle Context Map University of Washington Campus & Vicinity August 2007 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY JULy, 2011

part i BACKGROUND AND policy guidance

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY PART I: BACKGROUND AND POLICY GUIDANCE 5 SCOPE OF STUDY

The scope of the University of Washington Burke-Gilman Trail Corridor PEND OREILLE Study (the Study) is to develop a conceptual plan proposal for the IMPROVEMENTS portion of the Burke-Gilman Trail (the Trail) that passes through the University of Washington’s Seattle campus from Pasadena Place NE to NE 47th Street. This study is intended to address conceptual design issues relating to both existing conditions on the Trail through the University of Washington campus, and to anticipate operational changes resulting from 1) Link Light Rail service to the University, 2) new West Campus student housing facilities; and 3) a new regional trail along a rebuilt SR-520 from the Eastside to Seattle via Montlake Boulevard NE and associated park at the Bryant Building (see Figure 1). The study is timed to coordinate with these major capital transportation projects in order to ensure the Trail is designed to be an integral element of a modern, comprehensive transportation system while also WEST CAMPUS respecting the campus’ setting and unique requirements. HOUSING The study uses traffic volume measurements and projections, as well as level of service (LOS) modeling as a foundation for a concept design that will maximize safety and efficiency for anticipated user growth, while addressing aesthetic and campus identity concerns. The University of Washington (UW) has outlined the following design objectives for this study:

• Accommodate demonstrated and forecasted growth in trail use by bicyclists and pedestrians; • Design the future Trail to accommodate the transportation function (campus and regional); BRYANT • Improve lighting and wayfinding using best practices; BUILDING N • Meet or exceed current (including proposed AASHTO) design guidelines; W • Identify and address conflict areas between user groups and E other traffic; • Reinforce the UW identity via landscape design and wayfinding; S • Develop design alternatives that incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) principles; University of Washington • Improve safety by separating bicycles and pedestrians in high Campus & Vicinity volume areas; and RAINIER VISTA / August 2007 • Evaluate multiple intersection concepts for their ability to reduce MONTLAKE TRIANGLE conflicts and bicycle speed FOR LINK STATION

UNIVERSITY OF 520 EXPANSION WASHINGTON LINK AND NEW TRAIL LIGHT RAIL STATION Figure 1. Major Development Projects Impacting the Burke-Gilman Trail

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY 6 PART I: BACKGROUND AND POLICY GUIDANCE

BACKGROUND Burke-Gilman History

Through the years, the Burke-Gilman Trail has become a cherished (SDOT/Friends of the Burke-Gilman) city and regional amenity. It serves a variety of users, including commuting bicyclists, recreational cyclists, students, pedestrians, Born as a Railroad In 1885 Judge Thomas Burke, Daniel Gilman and ten other investors runners and skaters. It is also a nationally recognized symbol of the set out to establish a Seattle-based railroad so that the then-young value of preserving abandoned rail corridors for public use. Use of the City might win a place among major West Coast transportation centers Trail has grown over the years, yet while the campus community and and reap the economic benefits of trade. Their plan was to start along transportation networks surrounding the Trail have been evolving to today’s Burke-Gilman Trail route and go north to Sumas and connect manage this growth, the Trail itself has not kept pace. There have been with the Canadian Transcontinental line. Their Seattle, Lake Shore and efforts to improve regional access to the Trail and to accommodate Eastern Railroad, though it never got past Arlington, Washington, was growing numbers of users; however, the Trail’s oldest sections a major regional line serving Puget Sound logging areas. The line was (including the segment through the UW campus) remain built to the acquired by Northern Pacific in 1913 and continued in fairly heavy use guidelines established when the Trail first opened in 1974, almost 40 until 1963. The Great Northern, Northern Pacific, and Burlington lines years ago. were merged in 1970 to become Burlington Northern Railroad. In 1971 Burlington Northern applied to abandon the line. Today, the challenges of this region’s growth and urbanization have led to a commitment to find effective and efficient means beyond From Rail to Multiple Use Trail automobiles to move people. Public perceptions of the importance of Citizens quickly recognized the non-motorized transportation and walking and bicycling for both transportation and health have driven a recreational potential in the railroad line and launched a movement to dramatic increase in the planning and implementation of bicycling and acquire the right-of-way for a public biking and walking trail. Objections walking projects in the last 30 years. Non-motorized transportation has from residents living near the proposed trail were overcome and become a central component of transit planning; Federal transportation the City of Seattle, the University of Washington and King County funding policy now requires the consideration of bicycle and pedestrian cooperated in developing the route. Short sections of the trail were access and mobility. The new Sound Transit Link station at Husky developed starting in 1974, and dedication of the original 12.1 miles of Stadium (the University of Washington Link Station), expanded UW the trail connecting Seattle’s Gas Works Park and King County’s Tracy West Campus housing, and the development of a new regional trail Owen Station in Kenmore occurred on August 19, 1978. alongside the rebuilt SR-520 along Montlake Boulevard NE will place new pressures on the Trail to accommodate commuters moving to and The trail was subsequently extended west through Seattle’s Fremont from the UW campus, within campus, and through the campus to other neighborhood to Eighth Avenue NW and later to 11th Avenue NE. destinations. When originally conceived, the Trail was a parks facility; Figure 2. Opening Day Excursion on the Seattle Lake Shore and Eastern Railroad, Planning and design continues for the Trail to reach its western today it is a vital part of a campus, local and regional transportation site of the future Burke-Gilman Trail, c. 1887. terminus at Golden Gardens Park in Ballard. network. Beyond Seattle, the Burke-Gilman Trail has served to establish the viability of rail-to-trail nationally, and is the backbone of the King County Regional Trail System. North and east of the campus, the Trail reaches through Bothell, and Woodinville to Redmond by means of the Sammamish River Trail, and continues south to Issaquah via the East Lake Sammamish Trail. Future connections will link the trail network to Snoqualmie Pass in what is collectively known as the Sound to Mountains Trail.

Source: Burke-Gilman Trail History, http://www.cityofseattle.net/transportation/burkegilmantrailhistory.htm

JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY PART I: BACKGROUND AND POLICY GUIDANCE 7

Policy Guidance

The Burke-Gilman Trail has been referenced many times in UW, local Enhance the Campus and low impact development (LID). The Trail is a key circulation and regional planning efforts over the years. This section summarizes • The Campus Master Plan should create an aesthetic quality infrastructure feature within campus and between the UW and the the planning and design policies relevant to the Trail and how the Trail appropriate to the campus as a whole and to specific areas, rest of the region. Consequently, its improvement and maintenance supports these polices. conserving and improving existing buildings, open spaces, supports efficiency, flexibility and accessibility for UW, the City and the and views on campus, and looking for opportunities to create region. additional open spaces. UW Campus Master Plan (2003) The UW Campus Master Plan guides all conservation and development Provide Accessibility Transportation and Circulation Objectives on campus, including zoning, design and development standards, • The Campus Master Plan should ensure access to and within The Campus Master Plan’s transportation and circulation objectives transportation and circulation. The plan is required by the 1998 City- the campus, maximizing and promoting non-motorized require the UW to “ensure access to and within the campus by University Agreement which continues the Major Institution Overlay vehicular travel, emphasizing pedestrian routes for all all modes of transportation, maximizing non-vehicular travel and district that assigns certain planning and development decisions from pedestrians, and promoting the design of environments to be encouraging a safe and pleasant environment for pedestrians and the City of Seattle (the City) to the UW. The Campus Master Plan has usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the bicyclists.” The UW’s specific objectives include: the following goals to support the UW’s mission: need for special arrangements or adaptations. • Improve the pedestrian experience on campus; Respect Stature Promote Safety • Increase access for pedestrians and bicyclists, both to and • The Campus Master Plan should honor the status of the • The Campus Master Plan should help create a safe and healthy within the campus; campus as a national treasure, a work of art, and a triumph of environment, with personal and workplace safety considerations • Minimize conflicts between pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles; environmental design, enriching life with a harmonious marriage integral to planning and design of circulation elements, • Improve public transportation with the goal of minimizing of space, form and participation. buildings, and open spaces. vehicle trips to campus and related parking requirements; provide safe, convenient access for pedestrians to and from Ensure Stewardship Respect the Environment public transportation; • The Campus Master Plan should ensure good stewardship • The Campus Master Plan should value the environment • Minimize the amount of new parking facilities while still of the existing campus, maintaining and protecting the value and strive to promote the conservation of natural resources providing parking for the variety of users on campus, including of the University’s physical resources and character, history, and goals of the Growth Management Act and Shoreline the disabled, with the least impact on the campus and the architecture and open space. Changes to the campus should Management Act. surrounding street system with particular care to street systems improve and enhance, rather than detract from, the value and that are contiguous with residential neighborhoods; quality of the campus. Encourage Efficiency • Maintain the cap of 12,300 parking stalls; • The Campus Master Plan should encourage efficiency and • Locate, landscape, and screen parking to prevent detracting The Campus Master Plan identifies and encourages preservation of economy in University operations, with advantageous locations from the overall quality of the campus environment while promoting safety and security; and historic resources and open space. for facilities and advantageous adjacencies of uses. • Clearly identify entries into campus and improve signage around campus. Provide Facilities Value the Community • The Campus Master Plan should provide for the facility and • The Campus Master Plan should recognize the importance of infrastructure needs of the next decade. the surrounding communities and strive to achieve compatible working relationships with these communities to improve the Maximize Flexibility quality of life and public benefits for all in the vicinity. • The Campus Master Plan should provide the maximum amount of flexibility in order to best accommodate future growth and The Trail supports all of these goals. As an early example of a rails-to- take advantage of unforeseen opportunities. trails project, the Trail itself is a national treasure. Because it passes through many sections of the campus with differing landscape design styles, the Trail’s design can support a cohesive campus identity. The Trail’s design also provides opportunities for conserving the environment and demonstrating the UW’s commitment to sustainability

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY 8 PART I: BACKGROUND AND POLICY GUIDANCE

• Light Stevens Way and Columbia Road to 2.0 foot candles (fc) General Circulation Policies (20 LUX). The Campus Master Plan’s General Circulation Policies include general • At high-use pedestrian entrances to the campus, provide design policies specific to pedestrian and bicycle facilities. As will be gateway features that announce entrance. At these and high discussed later in this Study, while the Trail meets many of these design volume internal crossings, provide appropriate signage and guidelines in some fashion, increased use of the Trail and growth on maps. campus and beyond have pushed it to, and in some places above, • Provide covered pathways by openings or walkways through its capacity. Anticipated future growth will only exacerbate the Trail’s buildings or colonnades on buildings. decreasing ability to meet both campus and regional transportation • Provide enhanced pedestrian linkages across 15th Avenue NE needs. UW’s investment in a thoughtful redesign of the Trail now will into the University District at NE 45th Street, NE 43rd, NE 41st allow it to provide improved service to the UW population and the Street and NE 40th Street, especially at light rail stations and region for the foreseeable future. through the Hospital and Health Sciences complex and in the vicinity of the University Bridge and Campus Parkway. Pedestrian Pathways • Directly connect campus pedestrian routes to major external Bicycle Pathways routes to facilitate commuting by walking. • Directly connect campus bicycle routes to external routes to • Generally align to serve origins and destinations as directly as facilitate commuting by bike, particularly in the vicinity of the possible. University Bridge/Campus Parkway. • Facilitate finding one’s way around campus by providing sight • Place and sign pathways so as to avoid conflicts with lines to destinations, intermediate places, and major landmarks pedestrian circulation. Restrict circulation in most dense from which a person can comprehend their relative location. pedestrian areas within the Central Campus. • Establish pathway widths adequate for unimpeded passage • Work with City to establish external routes and improve during peak pedestrian volumes. Widths must be a minimum interfaces/continuity with internal routes. Figure 3. Mixed traffic conditions on Burke-Gilman Trail at Hec Edmundson Bridge of 6 feet wide and unobstructed with appurtenances, whether • Establish bike routes on vehicular and service roads where sidewalks are along streets or separated. possible, rather than on pedestrian pathways. • Minimize conflicts with vehicles, service, and bicycles. Separate • Pursue additional bicycle routes to, and possible through and as much as feasible. into, the heart of Central Campus if ways can be found to avoid • All major pedestrian pathways will be well lighted to promote pedestrian-bicycle conflicts. after-dark pedestrian travel on those paths. • Dedicated bike lanes should be established on the uphill grades • Surfaces should be nonslip, especially when wet; they should of vehicular roadways (specifically at Pend Oreille Road and also drain well. 40th). • Accommodate changing pedestrian circulation needs resulting from light rail entrance locations and related volume increases. Secure, covered bicycle storage will be provided with each new • Wherever possible, provide accessible grades. building project. Locate near entrances so as not to conflict with • Where different travel modes intersect, incorporate design pedestrian access. If bicycle lockers are included, place as out of elements which provide clear distinction of right-of-way: sight as possible (while still providing access) to avoid conflict with the -- Continue UW crosswalk marking standard on major landscape or buildings. roadways—scored, tinted concrete paving tiles with reflective white markers on the side. -- Where driveways and service roads intersect with major roadways, maintain constant sidewalk elevation, providing driveway apron to bring vehicles up to sidewalk level. -- Pedestrian walks within service roads should be well marked. -- Provide texture distinction.

JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY PART I: BACKGROUND AND POLICY GUIDANCE 9

Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) Urban UW Campus Master Plan (2003) – Transportation Trails and Bikeways System Management Plan The City of Seattle views multi-purpose trails as both a transportation and a recreational amenity. The City addresses the role of trails in a number of different policy arenas, including the Bicycle Master Plan The Transportation Management Plan is an integral element of the Walking and the creation of the Urban Trails and Bikeways System. The Urban 2003 Campus Master Plan. It spells out specific actions and strategies Pedestrian transportation is the largest single way that students Trails and Bikeways System was originally adopted as the “Urban Trails designed to guide implementation of the Campus Master Plan’s commute to and from campus and has the lowest negative impact. The System” in SDOT’s 2005 Transportation Strategic Plan. There are four transportation vision and goals. The Transportation Management University of Washington has pedestrian paths throughout the campus. major goals for the system: Plan was last updated in 2003. It summarized existing bicycling and Connectivity is in place through the local street network to access pedestrian conditions and listed the following needed improvements: campus from multiple locations with sidewalks on nearly all streets. • Facilitate bicycling as a viable transportation choice; • Afford citizens the opportunity to experience the City’s unique Bicycling Possible Pedestrian Improvements: scenic and natural amenities; The University of Washington currently supplies bicyclists with • Coordinate with the City to identify improvements to the local • Provide access to healthful recreational activities; and multiple locations for securing and storing their bicycles on campus. pedestrian network, such as filling in gaps within the network, • Link major parks and open spaces with Seattle neighborhoods. The University has the largest inventory of bike lockers in the nation. changing signal timing to establish pedestrian priority over Clothes lockers and showers are available at some campus locations vehicles, improving lighting, etc. for students, staff, and faculty. Bike lockers can be rented for a small • Work with City and community groups to adequately maintain City of Seattle Bicycle Master Plan fee on a quarterly basis; many have a waiting list. pedestrian network. Adopted in 2007, the Bicycle Master Plan provides specific policy • Designate and improve on-campus pedestrian commuting corridors. guidance and direction for accommodating the growing demand for Bicycle routes such as the Burke-Gilman Trail and the University Bridge • Establish expectations for not blocking pedestrian pathways safe bicycle access throughout the City. The plan’s two primary goals provide bike access to campus. The Trail provides excellent access to are ambitious: and enforce compliance. West, South and East Campus. • Improve maintenance on-campus pedestrian facilities. • Work with transit agencies to improve pathways, transit stops, • Goal 1: Increase use of bicycling in Seattle for all trip purposes. Possible Bicycle Improvements: Triple the amount of bicycling in Seattle between 2007 and and pedestrian amenities for transit services. • Improve interfaces between off-campus bike network, the Trail, • Require a pedestrian circulation plan with all new campus and 2017. and Central Campus. • Goal 2: Improve safety of bicyclists throughout Seattle. Reduce off-campus development to assure pedestrian accessibility and • Provide additional covered, secured bike storage at high use barrier removal. the rate of bicycle crashes by one third between 2007 and locations. 2017. • Consider rain protection for new pathways. • Program covered or secured bicycle parking into each new • Identify and propose improvements to the local pedestrian building. network. The City will work with the University to review The plan seeks to add 38 to 58 additional miles to the system by 2017, • Provide additional clothes storage and shower facilities. proposed improvements, such as filling in gaps in the which would expand the Urban Trails and Bikeways System by almost • Coordinate with the City on bicycle detection at signals along pedestrian network, optimizing signal timing, improving lighting, one-third. the primary bicycle corridors accessing campus. and enhancing pathways/sidewalks (either by widening or a • Encourage local transit agencies to accommodate the demand regular maintenance program). for bike use on transit. • Designate and improve priority pedestrian commuting corridors • Implement a bike/pedestrian safety program. This could include • Increase pedestrian safety through the use of better lighting selling discounted helmets and fluorescent vests and providing and innovative roadway designs (such as raised crossings, curb a map of high traffic accident locations. extensions, and advanced warning signage). • Coordinate with the City to create bicycle connectivity through • Increase marketing of walking as an alternative mode. the street network, particularly along the University Bridge, Montlake Bridge, north to Ravenna Park, and west over I-5. • Coordinate with the City to enhance corridors identified in the UW Campus Master Plan for use by bicycles

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY 10 PART I: BACKGROUND AND POLICY GUIDANCE

Sound Transit University Link The University Link is a 3.15 mile extension of the light rail system that will run in twin-bored tunnels from Downtown Seattle north to the University of Washington. It will have stations at Capitol Hill and on the University of Washington campus at Husky Stadium. (An additional light rail station to serve University area will be located at Brooklyn Ave NE between NE 43rd and NE 45th Streets, to be implemented as part of the “North Link” project.) The University Link will serve the three largest urban centers in the state of Washington – Downtown Seattle, Capitol Hill and the University District. By 2030, the University Link line alone is projected to add 70,000 boardings a day to the light rail system.

The underground University of Washington Link Station will provide regional access to the UW campus, UW Medical Center, nearby sports venues and surrounding neighborhoods. The entrance will be located adjacent to Husky Stadium. By the year 2030, it is estimated that approximately 27,000 riders will be using this station1.

Sound Transit’s current plans for the station include a bridge over Montlake Boulevard NE and the Montlake Triangle which will connect the station and the Trail at a location on the upper campus side of the Trail. Sound Transit, the UW, and WSDOT are currently developing an alternative design that would land the bridge on Montlake Triangle. A land bridge over NE Pacific Place would allow bicyclists and pedestrians to safely cross over the street to reach the Trail and campus separated from vehicular traffic flows.

1. UW to Sound Transit Pedestrian Connection Project EIS Addendum, January 2011

JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY part ii study framework

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY PART II: STUDY FRAMEWORK 13 study FRAMEWORK

The UW prepared a technical paper entitled ‘Proposed Bike Path was selected to reflect the perceived needs and user growth issues Facilities on UW Campus Associated with Light Rail at Montlake and facing the UW as Trail manager. Previously collected traffic counts were Proposed Bike Path Facilities on UW Campus SR 520 Regional Bike Path,’ dated 8/28/10 (see inset at right). The also included in the analysis. Associated with Light Rail at Montlake and SR 520 paper addresses Sound Transit’s determination that the new University of Washington Link Station would not impact the Trail’s function Impacts and conflict areas arising from projected growth were Regional Bike Path – 8/28/10 because the “Pedestrian LOS” calculated using the method from the identified, including impacts on: Highway Capacity Manual indicated that it would operate adequately. • Intersection design - both street & non-motorized intersections Prior to this Study, UW Transportation Services prepared a technical The paper provided a qualitative proposal for how the Trail should be • LOS – efficiency for pedestrians and bicyclists paper describing potential implications on trail use and conflict created changed based on expected volumes at different locations along the • Conflicts - areas requiring specific design attention by the new University of Washington Link Station, the rebuilt SR-520 Trail. The paper’s conclusion was that the trail width required could be floating bridge and the construction of a new SR-520 trail to Montlake up to 42 feet based on existing methods of analysis. This Study was (Technical Paper). The Technical Paper estimated that these projects conducted to provide a new method of analysis based on shared use Trail Concept Design would increase volumes and congestion for bicyclists and pedestrians Trail configurations, intersection designs, and Trail design elements trail behaviors and level of service analysis. on the Trail between the Hitchcock Bridge and the Hec Edmundson were then explored to address the identified impacts and conflicts and Bridge, with somewhat more modest impacts north and west of provide the desired LOS. The UW’s goals and policies described in Part As the manager of the portion of the Trail that runs through the campus, this zone. The forecasted volumes were projected to fundamentally I of this Study informed the conceptual design with specific attention UW is responsible for the Trail’s maintenance and how it serves impact the Trail’s planned and traditional function. The Technical to: internal campus circulation. The UW also wishes to accommodate Paper asserts that existing design guidelines, including AASHTO and this segment of the Trail’s function as part of the larger regional the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Design • Preserving the Trail’s function as a major circulation path for transportation network. Past efforts to quantify the Trail’s growth and to Manual were not developed for facilities experiencing the high volumes intra-campus trips; of a university campus trail with the Burke-Gilman Trail’s transportation assign responsibilities for its improvement have not had the benefit of • Preserving and strengthening the Trail’s contribution to the UW characteristics. significant study or have looked at the Trail only through the prism of a campus identity; single project. This Study considers cumulative impacts. • Enhancing the Trail’s function as a major regional transportation facility that will serve not only as a commuter trail, but also The Technical Paper recommended separating pedestrian and bicycle The purpose of this Study is to apply new assessment tools to as a collector and distributor of trips from the University of uses on the Trail between Hitchcock Bridge and the Hec Edmundson determine a trail width and develop a conceptual design. This will Washington Link Station; and Bridge, and proposed the conceptual trail widths and design standards enable the portion of the Trail within the UW campus to accommodate • Incorporating best practices for LID, wayfinding and described in the table below: accessibility to ensure the Trail remains a safe and desirable the new travel patterns and higher user volumes that will result from Crushed gravel Add’l Clearance Total Trail width Median shoulders (each side, lighting Note the multiple major transportation and housing projects taking place corridor for all users. (each side) Width BG Trail only) ? across the area. Since the Trail is more than a transportation corridor, 10’- 10’-12’ 0’ 0-2’ variable No Existing the conceptual designs in this Study take into account the Trail’s Recommendations were developed for each segment and intersection 16’ contribution to the UW campus identity. The designs include elements along the Trail in order to address the specific impacts, constraints and 14’ 0’ 2’ 3’ 24’ No 10’ for 8’ for Up to 2’ (of ped path, BG Up to 3’ Yes to enhance this contribution, as well as approaches to embed the conflicts unique to each location. bikes Peds 4’ Trail only) 32’ Trail within the existing campus context. This Study will inform UW’s 10’ 12’ for Up to 2’ (of ped path, BG Up to for 3’ Yes bikes 4’ Trail only) 36’ decisions with respect to the Trail’s improvement and management peds over time. Costing Estimate 12’ 14’ for Up to 2’ (of ped path, BG Up to for 3’ Yes A rough costing estimate was developed for the overall concept bikes 4’ Trail only) 42’ design. peds

Evaluation of Current Conditions The Study begins with an evaluation of current conditions. This evaluation includes field observations, a video traffic count conducted Phasing in October 2010 and a Level of Service (LOS) analysis. Projected Lastly, recommendations were developed with respect to phasing the project in a way that would maximize benefits and allow the Trail to growth in the Trail’s use was estimated using the most current and appropriate methodologies. LOS assessments were conducted using incrementally accommodate increased growth in use as adjacent major development projects are completed. a refined LOS model designed specifically for urban trails. This model

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY JULy, 2011

part iiI current conditions

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY PART III: CURRENT CONDITIONS 17 CURRENT CONDITIONS

While most of the trail network in King County has comparable levels of bicycle use, the UW section of the Burke-Gilman Trail has many more pedestrians than other sections, such that there is a relatively even mix of bicycles and pedestrians. In some cases, combined Trail user volumes approach or exceed vehicular volumes on the streets that cross the Trail.

Field observations of the Trail’s use were conducted on October 12, 2010 and March 3, 2011. Observers walked the entire UW campus section of the Trail, pausing at various locations and major intersections to observe user behavior and assess existing conditions. Whatcom Pend Oreille Rd Bridge Trail Segments The Trail has been divided into several segments for the purpose of this Study. The first segment lies between the University Bridge and Wahkiakum Bridge` 15th Avenue NE. In this area, the trail meanders in and out of proximity to the street, although there are few street crossings. The second segment extends from 15th Avenue NE to the edge of Rainier Vista/ Montlake Triangle. Most of the Trail in this area is separated from the street. The third segment comprises the portion of the Trail that travels NE Ave B rooklyn through Rainier Vista/Montlake Triangle. This area is being redeveloped NE Way University in conjunction with the new University of Washington Link Station NE 15th Ave project. The last trail segment lies between the Hec Edmundson (Hec Pl NE Pasadena

University Bridge L ane Adams Ed) Bridge and the Trail’s intersection with Pend Oreille Road (see Hec Ed Bridge Figure 4). Rainier Vista

Pasadena Place NE to 15th Avenue NE N East of Pasadena Place NE, the Trail transitions from City control to W UW control. West of the University Bridge there are a number of UW Hitchcock Bridge E buildings, however the UW facilities along this segment relate less to the Trail than along other sections of the Trail included in this Study. T-Wing Overpass S The segment of the Trail from the University Bridge to 15th Avenue NE NE Pacific St travels through West Campus. It is in this area where pedestrian activity LEGEND Montlake Blvd NE University of Washington begins to increase relative to the segment west of University Bridge. Pasadena Place NE to 15th Avenue NE Campus & Vicinity Trail width is varies from 10 to 12 feet in this area, and in this segment August 2007 the Trail does not incorporate shoulders or other facilities for runners. 15th Avenue NE to T-Wing Overpass T-Wing Overpass to Hec Ed Bridge Hec Ed Bridge to Pend Oreille Road

Figure 4. Trail Segments within the UW Campus

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY 18 PART III: CURRENT CONDITIONS

West Campus is under major redevelopment to add more student 15th Avenue NE to T-Wing Overpass housing. As noted in Part II, the new housing facilities will add nearly The intersection with 15th Avenue NE is signalized. Reconstruction of 2200 new residents to this area, some of whom will be commuting to the intersection in the 1990’s created a large waiting area on the east the main campus via the Trail. A new four-acre waterfront park near this side that has improved queuing for westbound traffic waiting for the new housing is also expected to be a destination for Trail users and signal to change. The waiting area on the west side can create conflicts resident students. This segment of the Trail is highly urbanized, with between pedestrians and bicyclists turning southbound. most of the adjacent land taken up by multi-story housing, roadways, parking and sidewalks. The lawn and vegetated slopes along the Trail The portion of the Trail between 15th Avenue NE and the Hitchcock provide a welcome respite from the buildings and concrete. Compared Bridge is fairly wide, ranging from the trail standard of 12 feet to over to other sections of the Trail through the UW campus, this segment has 16 feet in places. Landscape around the 15th Avenue NE intersection a large number of minor access trails feeding from adjacent residence consists of fields of Lavender and clusters of Witch Hazel trees that halls and other campus buildings. The Trail is modestly disjointed, provide splashes of color along the Trail’s north side adjacent to the with frequent stops required at the stop controlled intersections with Physics/Astronomy buildings. The south side of the Trail is open to Brooklyn Avenue NE and University Way NE. NE Pacific Street. There are several power poles and vaults along this edge, making expansion of the trail more challenging. The major new housing development adjacent to the Trail is Mercer Hall, where there is room on both sides of the Trail to accommodate Traveling east past the Physics Astronomy Building, the Trail climbs trail expansion; however, there are some large conifers on the south further above the road. Large evergreen shrubs and deciduous and side of the Trail and an allée of mature multi-stemmed trees along the coniferous trees screen the Trail from NE Pacific Street. An access road north side. These trees could be impacted by the Trail’s expansion, serving Kincaid and the Auditorium parallels the Trail on the opposite Figure 5. Heading east along the Mercer Hall segment of the Trail at Adams Road depending on trail configuration. There is an access road along the side. There is a narrow grass median between the Trail and the access Trail’s north edge that appears to be used infrequently. Between road that contains a large, spreading conifer. Brooklyn Avenue NE and University Way NE. The Trail passes through a small, grassy pocket park. The park contains a few picnic tables and The Trail narrows back to its original width as it moves east and is screened from the adjacent road and parking lot by large shrubs. changes alignment as it passes through the Hitchcock Bridge Between University Way NE and 15th Avenue NE, the alley along intersection and over the old railroad bridge. The bridge is not wide the Trail’s north edge appears to be little used. NE Pacific Street’s enough to accommodate an expanded trail. Pedestrians can access a north sidewalk lies close to the Trail down a short vegetated slope. bus stop and grade crossing of NE Pacific Street via stairs underneath Pedestrians use both facilities to access signals at NE Pacific. There the railroad bridge. Above, bicycle parking provided at the Hitchcock are several large conifers on the Trail’s north side. Bridge to the UW Medical Center is often at or beyond capacity, while vegetation near the bridge limits sight lines of crossing bicycle and Clusters of healthy evergreen native and ornamental shrubs pedestrian traffic, particularly for users approaching from the west. Past effectively screen portions of the Trail from adjacent uses and should the bridge, the slope to the north rises somewhat steeply to the Botany be integrated into the new landscape design where possible while greenhouses. A narrow access road runs along the top of the slope maintaining sight lines for trail users. The lower understory and ground next to the greenhouses. The slope on the Trail’s south side mounds cover are patchy and scraggly. Invasive English Ivy is the dominant slightly before dropping quite steeply to NE Pacific Street. While ground cover in many places and is climbing the trunks of some of the there are several nice, large trees on this south edge, the understory trees and shrubs. In other locations, ground cover consists of mulch, vegetation is rather scraggly. There are several informal access paths strips of lawn or dirt. and steps feeding the trail from the north (upslope) side near the greenhouses.

Past the greenhouses, the Trail approaches the T-Wing Overpass Figure 6. Just past the T-Wing Overpass looking east intersection and Bloedel Hall. The approaches from the feeder trails

JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY PART III: CURRENT CONDITIONS 19

to both the overpass and the Trail are quite awkward, narrow, and, end right at the Trail’s edge. These conditions create conflicts and slow in some instances, not universally accessible. A more formal access traffic on the Trail. trail feeds transit users, bicycles, and pedestrians from the west end of the Montlake Triangle and accompanying transit stops to the The Hec Edmundson Bridge is a key access point for regional bicycle Trail. The Trail’s vertical clearance under the T-Wing Overpass is less traffic crossing Montlake Boulevard NE. As noted above, southbound than ten feet, which is under the minimums recommended for trail bicyclists use the bridge to access SR 520 and the Lake Washington development in state and federal trail design guidelines. This area of Loop route in order to avoid waiting for signals at NE Pacific Street’s at- campus is dominated by conifers interspersed with a few madrones grade crossings. The bridge itself is difficult to use, with steep grades and deciduous trees. and a very narrow turnback onto a ramp. The bridge intersection also sees large volumes of pedestrian crossing traffic accessing the T-Wing Overpass to Hec Ed Bridge sport fields and IMA. Yet even with these constraints, the location The intersection of Rainier Vista/Montlake Triangle and the Trail is the is a common meeting point for group rides on the Trail. It is also key feature of this segment. This area is a major crossroads in the anticipated to be a focus point for bicyclists accessing the University Regional Trail network for bicyclists seeking access to “Bike and Ride” of Washington Link Station. The intersection of the Trail with the Hec service on SR-520 or continuing on the Lake Washington Loop south Ed Bridge needs to be further analyzed in the context of meeting the along Lake Washington Boulevard through the Arboretum, as well as goals of continued crossing access for campus users crossing the Trail, to Montlake Playground, Interlaken and locations further north. It is Trail users and long-term transportation needs in the corridor. A grade- also one of several major bicycle access points to campus within the separated option would be part of this analysis. UW-managed section. Bicyclists heading north from the Montlake Bridge will often cross Montlake Boulevard NE at the intersection with Past the Hec Edmundson Bridge, the Trail maintains a generally Figure 7. The Trail’s current configuration within Rainier Vista/Montlake Triangle NE Pacific Place in order to reach the Montlake Triangle. They then uniform character to Pend Oreille Road although its width varies. pass through the Triangle on a wide concrete access path and make There is a section near the Whatcom Lane Bridge that is over 16 feet an at-grade crossing of NE Pacific Place to enter campus and meet up wide, while other sections remain at their original 12-foot width. The with the Trail. (This route will be replaced by the proposed bridge to the west edge slopes steeply up to the main campus, while the east edge University of Washington Link Station.) Bicyclists heading south from drops steeply to Montlake Boulevard NE. Clusters of mature conifers campus to the Montlake Bridge appear to take more varied routes, with and deciduous trees dot the slopes. The trees provide a fairly effective some heading through Montlake Triangle while others cross at the Hec screen between the Trail and Montlake Boulevard NE, although this Edmundson Bridge instead. screen could be improved. The main campus is visible through the vegetation on the Trail’s west side, but the steep slope on this side Since the Rainier Vista/Montlake Triangle is undergoing a major provides an effective sense of separation. As elsewhere along the Trail, redesign concurrent with the University of Washington Link Station’s invasive plants have overtaken the understory. In addition to English development, the Trail’s existing conditions in this location are less ivy, Himalayan blackberries are predominant throughout this section. relevant. The Trail’s design in this section will need to respond to the area’s overall future design. The segment of the Trail just before Pend Oreille Road passes through a very wet area. While the Trail itself doesn’t appear to suffer from Hec Ed Bridge to Pend Oreille Road flooding or ill effects from groundwater seeps, the west slope contains The segment of the trail north of Rainier Vista/Montlake Triangle several seeps, some of which flow regularly during the wet season. At past the Hec Ed Bridge has long been considered one of the most present, the runoff is directed through a series of culverts and ditches congested areas of the regional trail network due to the large number into a storm drain. of students, transit commuters and recreational pedestrians that must share the 12-foot wide trail with large numbers of fitness and The Trail transitions back to City management north of Pend Oreille Figure 8. The Trail between Rainier Vista/Montlake Triangle and Pend Oreille Road commuting bicyclists. While the number of crossings is limited in this Road at NE 47th Street. At this point the Trail transitions back to user area due to the steep slopes west of the Trail, the crossings are heavily volumes and characteristics associated with other regional trails in King used and have poor sight lines due to dense vegetation and stairs that County.

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY 20 PART III: CURRENT CONDITIONS

Intersections Brooklyn Avenue NE The portion of the Trail running through campus includes the following Trail user volumes at the intersection appear to be at or near the level of major intersections: University Bridge, Adams Lane, Brooklyn Avenue the crossing motor vehicles on Brooklyn Avenue NE. The street crosses NE, 15th Avenue NE, Hitchcock Bridge, T-Wing Overpass, Rainier the trail at a slight grade. Vegetation along the trail creates constrained Vista/Montlake Triangle, Hec Edmundson, Wahkiakum Lane, Whatcom sight lines and lighting is set on high standards that create shadowing Lane and Pend Oreille Road. Several intersections involve a bridge effects during the dark. This crossing is close to many student that serves as an overpass relative to the Trail; in these intersections, a apartments and residence halls. Traffic on the Trail is managed by stop road or path passes over the Trail and does not involve direct contact signs; motorized traffic on Brooklyn Avenue NE is not constrained between Trail users and motorized vehicles or bicycles/pedestrians by any traffic control devices except advisory/warning signs at the using the crossing route. However, feeder trails in the area of these crossing itself. overpasses also impact the trail similar to intersections.

University Bridge The Trail passes underneath University Bridge. Bicyclists crossing the bridge from the south access the Trail by turning east onto the curving ramp that leads to NE 40th Street. Eastbound riders would then travel Figure 10. Adams Lane. Another small drive, Adams Road, is visible in background east to Brooklyn Ave NE in order to access the Trail eastbound at the mid-block crossing on Brooklyn Ave NE; westbound riders would travel west on NE 40th Street to the ramp at the recently reconfigured intersection of NE 40th Street and 7th Avenue NE. Pedestrians coming down from the bridge could descend via a ramp along the NE 40th Street bridge abutment and walking south to the Trail via one of several sidewalks or parking lot drives around Henderson Hall. Cyclists wishing to access the bridge to travel south would leave the Trail at the NE 40th Street and 7th Avenue NE intersection and along the upper portion of NE 40th Street, while pedestrians may use a path and stairway closer to the bridge itself.

Adams Lane A small road that serves as a driveway leading to parking and service south of the trail between Stevens Court and Mercer, student housing buildings. Currently this location has relatively low vehicular and pedestrian volumes crossing the trail; however it may become a more significant crossing when planned work at Mercer is completed. Subsequent planning and design for projects in this area should apply Figure 9. University Bridge Figure 11. Brooklyn Avenue NE the recommended implementation guidelines in this report (see Part VII, Phasing) to ensure that intersection design principles presented in this report remain viable.

JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY PART III: CURRENT CONDITIONS 21

University Way NE The Trail crosses University Way at a signalized arterial. Trail users cross University Way NE on the north crosswalk using curb ramps that were widened to accommodate use across the Trail’s full width. This intersection is the centerpoint of a two block stretch of trail that distributes pedestrian trips to a variety of destinations; both adjacent blocks provide a number of decision points and access paths for users. Neither block includes shoulders or a running path in the Trail’s design.

15th Avenue NE The 15th Avenue NE intersection has been improved in recent years to accommodate waiting Trail users on the east side of the intersection heading west. There is no paired facility on the west side of the crosswalk. Trail users tend to merge and weave in the existing crosswalk to avoid traffic moving both in their direction and traffic which is approaching. The intersection is adjacent to busy transit stops. 15th Avenue NE is the main access route to South Campus and Figure 12. University Way NE Figure 14. Eastbound approach to Hitchcock Bridge with limited sight lines the south side of Health Sciences. The lack of a queuing area on the west side of the intersection creates conflicts between east-west travel and north-south travel.

Hitchcock Bridge The Hitchcock Bridge is a key access point linking the UW central campus to south campus. Bicycle parking on the bridge is frequently at or beyond capacity, and sight lines approaching the intersection from the west are obscured by vegetation, a change in trail routing and the structure of the Hitchcock Bridge itself. Pedestrians use the bridge to cross over NE Pacific Street and then descend steps under the Trail to reach a transit stop on the street.

T-Wing Overpass Like the Hitchcock Bridge, the T-Wing Overpass links the UW central campus to south campus. However, unlike at the Hitchcock Bridge, users cross over the Trail rather than crossing at grade. Trail users access the bridge via paths on either side of the Bridge. The paths are narrow and marginally accessible to individuals using mobility devices. Figure 13. 15th Avenue NE Figure 15. T-Wing Overpass As mentioned earlier, the bridge has less than 10 feet of vertical clearance above the Trail, which is less than that prescribed by state and federal trail design guidelines (10-foot minimum).

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY 22 PART III: CURRENT CONDITIONS

Rainier Vista/Montlake Triangle The Trail intersects gravel pathways on the west and east sides of the Rainier Vista corridor. The Trail narrows where the it crosses the Rainier Vista access road using one of the old railroad bridges. Bicycle users of the Trail wishing to turn here are forced by the tight angles to slow down and make wide turns onto the gravel paths. Further complicating this movement is intersecting bicycle and pedestrian traffic connecting other bicycle routes from Montlake and Lake Washington and commuters from bus stops along SR 520.

Hec Edmundson Bridge The intersection of the Trail with the pedestrian route to Hec Edmundson Pavilion will remain one of the most heavily used Trail crossings on campus. At present, steps lead from the bridge up to the main campus, connecting the Intramural Activities Building, Hec Edmundson Pavilion and Husky Figure 16. Looking west at the intersection of the Trail and Rainier Vista corridor Figure 18. The stairs at Wahkiakum Lane Bridge Stadium to the main campus. These steps end within one-foot of the Trail’s edge in an area where sight lines are limited by vegetation.

As previously discussed, bicyclists use this bridge extensively in order to access SR-520 and the Lake Washington Loop in order to avoid crossing Montlake Boulevard NE at grade. This creates conflict with pedestrians crossing the Trail as well as with other Trail users since these bicyclists must turn off the Trail, negotiate a steep descent of the bridge and make a tight, very slow speed 180 degree turn onto a ramp on the south side of the bridge. Trail traffic is governed by yield signs at this intersection. This intersection needs to be reconfigured to address the existing and continued congestion and conflicts as previously stated. A grade-separated option would be part of this analysis. Figure 17. Hec Edmundson Bridge (east end) Figure 19. Pend Oreille Road Wahkiakum and Whatcom Lane Bridges North of the Hec Edmundson Bridge, the Wahkiakum and Pend Oreille Road Whatcom Lane Bridges connect commuter parking lots north The Trail crossing at Pend Oreille Road is controlled by stop signs of the UW athletic facilities with the main campus. While sight facing Trail traffic and is marked with a regular crosswalk. Observed lines are better at these intersections than those at the Hec bicyclist compliance with the stop signs is relatively low, as street Edmundson Bridge, there is an unmet need for better bicycle traffic tends to be metered by the signals at 25th Avenue NE near the access up the stairs – currently bicyclists must push their intersection. Pend Oreille Road has a slight grade, creating some sight bikes up a worn footpath adjacent to the stairs. Trail traffic is line issues for both motorists and trail users. governed by yield signs at this intersection.

JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY PART III: CURRENT CONDITIONS 23

!

!

!

!

NE 45th St !

!

! Pend Oreille North !

!

!

! 278 (93) ! 27 (342) !

!

!

74 (43) 18 (135) !

!

! E

!

N !

! e

! Trail Counts Pend Oreille South v !

A

!

! h

t A video count of pedestrian and bicycle volumes was taken on a sunny 278 (100) 30 (338) ! d ! 5

R ! 2

! e 13 (76) ! 71 (60) l l day, on October 12, 2010, at thirteen locations between 7:00AM and !

ei ! !

Or !

6:00PM (see Figure 20) and analyzed by Fehr & Peers. !

NE 42nd St d ! !

NE

l ! y

Pen i !

a a !

E r !

W

!

N T

y !

t e !

i n In addition to trail volumes, where applicable, counts were obtained for s v ! a

r !

A

e

m !

v l h !

i i

t !

bicycles and pedestrians crossing the trail at grade or using ramps or n

5

G ! U 1 ! e

Wahkiakum Lane ! k !

stairs to access the trail. The overall findings from the traffic count are r !

West of u ! Overpass !

B ! as follows: ! University Bridge NE Campus Pkwy !

262 (98) 33 (327) !

! !

185 (167) 107 (241) 44 (55) 23 (104) !

NE 40th St !

!

! !

!

! Brooklyn & !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! 60 (67) 29 (107) !

!

!

!

!

! E !

!

• The AM peak hour for combined pedestrian and bicycle traffic ! !

!

!

!

!

! Lincoln Way Pacific East !

! ! N ! !

!

!

!

!

! d ! !

!

! v

!

is between 7:45 – 8:45 AM; the PM peak is between 5:00 – 6:00 ! l

! C University of

! 172 (229) 126 (272)

ow !

! B B!

u! li !

d

! tz

rk! ! Brooklyn & ! Rd e

e ! Washington R

!

Gi ! k

! 111 (74) 36 (166)

PM. !

l !

m ! n a

!

a! l

n! ! ! o t

Pacific West T!

!

5 r! s

a! n

!

i ! § !

¦¨ l a

! o

! • Bicycle volumes show clear peaks in the AM and PM period, !

!

!

! M !

! 15th & Pacific East M !

!

162 (175) 111 (243) !

!

! !

!

!

! ! while pedestrian volumes are more evenly distributed, with !

106 (74) 30 (160) 183 (242) ! 146 (255) !

NE Pacific St !!!

! !

!

small peaks from 12:00 – 1:00 PM and 5:00 – 6:00 PM. !!

! 141 (89) 34 (226) ! !

! E !

! LEGEND !

N 15th & Pacific West ! ! !

e !

• AM bicycle volumes are generally highest heading into and !

v ! Hec Ed Overpass ! !

A !

! e 203 (233) 139 (246) !!! T-Wing Overpass Count Location

through campus from the north, and peak near the access point k ! ! !!! 250 (102) 51 (370) la

t 137 (46) 38 (203) !! s !!!

a 103 (309) 197 (140) ! 100 (64) 33 (205)

for the Montlake Bridge. Volumes are also high approaching E ! Bicycle

!!!! !

!

! 30 (165) 58 (95) ! !

! !

! N ! from the west. They significantly decrease heading north from Hitchcock Overpass !

E ! Pa !!

! l Pedestrian

c ! P

if !

i !!!! c

the Montlake Bridge. 175 (251) 161 (208) c ! i

! f

S !!

t ! i

!

!! c

!

! a AM (PM)

!

! Count Volume

137 (117) 61 (126) ! P

!

• PM bicycle volumes show the opposite trend, with the highest !

!

! E

! !

!

! N

H !

J !

!

!

! ! ! ! !

volumes heading both north and west away from campus. !!!!!!!!!! Rainier Vista East Medical Direction • Pedestrian volumes on the trail fluctuate between count Center 277 (118) 75 (353) Portage !!!!!!! Burke Gilman Trail locations, signifying a large number of short trips made using Bay 120 (129) 58 (163) Rainier Vista West the trail. Overall, the highest pedestrian volumes are seen in the 237 (142) 71 (332) areas near the trail intersection with 15th Avenue NE, and at the 109 (122) 49 (176) Hec Ed and Wahkiakum Lane Bridges. Montlake Bridge N • Based on volumes of crossing traffic, the locations with the highest amount of potential bike and pedestrian conflicts are NOT TO SCALE the Hitchcock Bridge, Hec Ed Bridge, and Wahkiakum Lane Bridge. 1000

Figure 21 outlines the average overall bicycle and pedestrian trail BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN COUNT VOLUMES - volumes at each hour throughout the day, while Table 2 shows volumes 0 2010 AM AND PM PEAK PERIODS EXISTING CONDITIONS by location for the PM peak period. Bike Ped Bike Ped Bike Ped Bike Ped Bike Ped Bike Ped Bike Ped \\fpse2\data2\2010Projects\SE10-0209_BurkeGilmanTrail_AltDesign\Graphics\Draft\GIS\MXD\fig0x_ped_bike_vols_lan.mxd FIGURE 1

West of Hitchcock Rainier University Bridge 15th Avenue Bridge Vista Corridor Hec Ed Wahkiakum Pend Oreille

Figure 20. Trail count location and volumes with graph of counts, 2010 (PM peak hour). Top graphic lists through volumes (not crossing/turning) at peak hour. Bar chart reflects same numbers but also includes crossing/turning volumes at each respective point.

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY JULy, 2011 SVR Design February 9, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY Page 5 of 7 24 PART III: CURRENT CONDITIONS � �

TABLE�1.��PEAK�PERIOD�BURKE�GILMAN�TRAIL�AND�CROSSING�VOLUMES�AT�EACH� OBSERVED�LOCATION�(OCTOBER�12,�2010)� counts were reported in the UW’s 2010 technical paper, “Proposed Trail�Approach� Crossing�Approach� Potential� Key�Cycling� Bicycle Volumes Bike Path Facilities on UW Campus Associated with Light Rail at There are clear AM and PM peaks in bicycle volume in the study area Cross� Access/� Montlake and SR 520 Regional Bike Path.” Table 1 compares these Bicyclists�Pedestrians Bicyclists Pedestrians (see Figure 21 below). These trends are likely due to the high use of Conflict� Destination� prior observations for the PM peak period with the findings from this bikes commuting in the AM and PM periods. Between 10:00 AM and Location� Area[a]� Location[b]� study’s October 2010 count. For the comparison, the bidirectional 2010 West�of�University� 2:00 PM the bicycle volume is flat at around 105 cyclists per hour, or 408� 174� � � �� trail volume counts were merged (e.g. the two directions were added Bridge� less than half the peak volume. Brooklyn�&�Pacific� together) into a single number for bicyclists and a single number for 418� 234� 13� 21� �� West� pedestrians for each observation point, to be consistent with data from The highest volume of cyclists on the trail occurs in the AM peak Brooklyn�&�Pacific� �� the previous studies. 501� 240� 8� 20� hour entering the study area from the north, heading south. Based on East� count volumes between survey sites, it appears that these cyclists are 15th�&�Pacific�West� 479� 249� 21� 100� �� Bicycle volumes from the 2010 survey are higher at all locations than in heading to the UW Medical Center and the turnoff for the Montlake 15th�&�Pacific�East� 497� 315� 11� 70� � �

� previous studies. Average peak PM bicycle volume increased by 137% � Bridge, rather than turning into campus During the PM peak hour, this 459� 243� 82� 301� � from the 1999 to the 2010 counts, with increases of almost 200% at Hitchcock�Overpass�Bridge trend is generally reversed, with a high volume of cyclists leaving the T�Wing�Overpass�(on� the outer survey locations West of University Bridge and North of Pend �� study area heading north. trail�east�of� 449� 260� 49� 99� Oreille. The higher volumes at the peripheral survey sites suggest an overpass)� increased use of the Trail for commuting to and through campus. The Rainier�Vista�West� 474� 298� 40� 48� � � University reported an increase of 10,000 students and employees Pedestrian Volumes Rainier�Vista�East� 471� 292� 106� 44� �� during this time period. As seen in Figure 21, pedestrian volumes were generally flat during the Hec�Ed�Overpass�Bridge 472� 269� 70� 820� � � survey, with the exception of higher volumes in the PM peak hour. Trail Wahkiakum�Lane� 425� 159� 4� 600� �� volumes varied from one observation point to the next (see Table 1), Pedestrian volumes show both decreases and increases from earlier Overpass�Bridge indicating that pedestrians primarily make use of the trail for short trips studies, depending on location. These disparate results may reflect the Pend�Oreille�South� 438� 136� 6� 81� � � in and around campus, rather than using the trail as a through path to impact of special events on campus pedestrian volumes, or may simply Pend�Oreille�North� 435� 178� 7� 24� � � locations beyond campus. show that pedestrian volumes vary widely on a daily basis. During the [a]��Potential crossRconflict areas are trail locations where more than 200 bicycle or 2010SVR Designsurvey, a career fair led to higher than normal volumes at the pedestrian users crossed or accessed the trail during the PM Peak Hour. The highest overall trail pedestrian volumes were recorded around HecFebruary Edmundson 9, 2011 and Wahkiakum Lane Bridges. It is not known if any [b] Key access points are locations where the highest numbers of cyclists accessing or leaving Page 4 of 7 the trail were observed. 15th Avenue and at the Hec Edmundson Bridge. The 15th Avenue special circumstances or events affected the counts in 1999 or 2008. area provides access to destinations near the south campus. The �� Average Hourly Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail Table 1. October 12, 2010 PM Peak Hour Burke-Gilman Trail Crossing Volumes at Hec Edmundson Bridge is a key pedestrian link to University sports Each Observed location facilities and large parking areas east of Montlake Boulevard. Due to Volumes at Each Survey Site a career fair on campus, pedestrian volumes at the Hec Edmundson 400 Note: The Trail approach combines the users making a through movement and Bridge were higher than they are likely to be under normal conditions. 350 those turning right or left off of the Trail at each observation point. Likewise, the It is recommended that counts be conducted at regular intervals using 300 crossing approach includes users proceeding across both lanes of the Trail and 250 those making a left or right turn onto the Trail at each observation point. this Study’s methodology in order to more accurately determine normal 200 volumes of pedestrians crossing at this location. 150 Bicycles 100 Pedestrians 50 Comparison to Previous Counts 0 7:00�AM 8:00�AM 9:00�AM 10:00�AM 11:00�AM Between October 12th and 14th, 1999, peak hour pedestrian and 12:00�PM 1:00�PM 2:00�PM 3:00�PM 4:00�PM 5:00�PM bicyclist counts were made at eight locations on the Trail for the UW

Campus Master Plan. On September 30, 2008, Sound Transit counted Average Hourly Bicycle and Pedestrian Volume Survey Hour bicycle and pedestrian volumes on the Trail at the Rainier Vista Trestle, � as cited in the report “Pedestrian Report: University of Washington FigureFigure�2.�Average�Bicycle�and�Pedestrian�Volumes,� 21. Average Bicycle and PedestrianBurke�Gilman�Trail,� Volumes, Burke-GilmanOctober�12,�2010.�� Trail, Station Pedestrian and Bicycle Evaluation” by Grijalva Engineering, October 12, 2010. December 2008, prepared for Sound Transit. The results of both traffic

JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY PART III: CURRENT CONDITIONS 25

TABLE 1. BURKE GILMAN TRAIL STUDY AREA HOUSEHOLD AND POPULATION GROWTH

2010 2010 2030 2030 Annual HH Annual Average Future Year Forecasts Households Employment Households Employment Growth Employment Annual Growth Growth Future Background Cycle Growth 8738 5961 10925 8257 1.1% 1.6% 1.3% In order to understand the background growth in bicycle volumes due Source: City of Seattle Travel Demand Model, Fehr & Peers 2011 to land use changes and overall increases in local cycling rates, two Table 2. Burke-Gilman Trail Study Area Household and Population Growth methods were employed. First, using the City of Seattle Travel Demand Model, local land use changes were evaluated between now and 2030. This background growth, which is around 1.3%, was supplemented by data on bicycle volume growth rates on both the Trail and other areas of Seattle.

Land Use Evaluation 1999 Campus Master 2008 Sound Transit 2010 Fehr & Peers Survey 1999 ‐ 2010 Average Survey Survey * Annual Growth Rate To assist in understanding future growth in bicycle volume on the Trail Location Bicyclists Pedestrians Bicyclists Pedestrians Bicyclists Pedestrians Bicyclists Pedestrians in the study area, the expected land use changes surrounding the Trail W of University 139 256 408 174 10.3% ‐3.4% in the study area were examined. While the University of Washington BridgeTABLE 2. FUTURE BGT BICYCLE VOLUMES, PM PEAK HOUR campus surrounds the immediate study area, bicycle volumes on the W of 15th 223 462 500 349 7.6% ‐2.5% Hitchcock Bridge Trail are also affected by growth in the number of households and 220 426 2016 PM Peak 2030 PM541 Peak 544 8.5% 2.2% T‐Wing Overpass 498 359 employment in the surrounding neighborhoods as the corridor is used 2010 PM Peak Hour Cyclists Hour Cyclists 260 277 351 313 508 323 6.3% 1.4% for both recreation and commuting. LocationRainier Vista Trestle Hour Cyclists (High Estimate) (High Estimate) Hec Ed Bridge 245 434 542 1089 7.5% 8.7% In January 2011, a report that was prepared by the University of WWahkiakum of Univ. Bridge Lane 195408 145 579 1,309429 759 7.4% 16.2% S of Pend Oreille 222 370 6.5% ‐4.7% Washington’s Department of Urban Design and Planning was published 444 217 WN of Pend15th Oreille 150500 241 709 1,604442 202 10.3% ‐1.6% 1 by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) . This report reviewed AVERAGE 207 326 351 313 479 446 7.9% 2.9% best practices and count methodology for bicycle planning, with a Hitchcock Bridge 541 767 1,735 Table 3. Burke-Gilman Trail Bicycle and Pedestrian Volumes From 1999, 2008, and 2010 counts Figure 22. Data camera used in October 12, focus on the Puget Sound Region. As part of this they conducted a COMMENTS: The percentages presented in the earlier report should have been updated based on a 2/22 *T ‐2008Wing OverpassSound Transit survey498 data from December706 2008 Grijalva1,597 Engineering report 2010 trail count literature review of the main variables identified as affecting bicycling. memo, but in any case, these are growth percentages to use Rainier Vista Trestle 508 721 1,629 To understand changes in land use in the study area corridor, this study Hec Ed Bridge 542 769 1,738 evaluated the growth in the number of households and employment from 2010 to 2030 based on the City of Seattle Travel Demand Model Wahkiakum Lane 429 609 1,376 within approximately one-half mile of the trail (see Table 2). The length S of Pend Oreille of the study segment was approximately six miles. The western 444 630 1,424 boundary was located 3 miles west of Rainier Vista at approximately N of Pend Oreille 442 627 1,418 1st Avenue NW. The eastern boundary was located 3 miles north/ northeast of Rainier Vista at approximately NE 60th Street. Increased Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011 density and development is expected to increase the number of cyclists on the Trail in the study area.

1. “Bicycle Planning, Best Practices and Count Methodology.” University of Washington Department of Urban Design & Planning - Transportation Planning Studio, Puget Sound Regional Council, April 2011.

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY JULy, 2011

TABLE 1. BURKE GILMAN TRAIL STUDY AREA HOUSEHOLD AND POPULATION GROWTH

2010 2010 2030 2030 Annual HH Annual Average Households Employment Households Employment Growth Employment Annual Growth Growth 8738 5961 10925 8257 1.1% 1.6% 1.3% Source: City of Seattle Travel Demand Model, Fehr & Peers 2011

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY 26 PART III: CURRENT CONDITIONS

TABLE 2. FUTURE BGT BICYCLE VOLUMES, PM PEAK HOUR For the purpose of this study, the Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) 2016 PM Peak 2030 PM Peak in the Seattle travel demand model that relate to this Trail corridor 2010 PM Peak Hour Cyclists Hour Cyclists were selected. Using the selected TAZs, the number of households and employment in 2010 was compared with the number projected for Location Hour Cyclists (High Estimate) (High Estimate) 2030. W of Univ. Bridge 408 579 1,309 While the background growth in cycling and walking as seen in Table 4 W of 15th 500 709 1,604 and Table 5 is limited, it is not expected that this rate of growth will stay Hitchcock Bridge 541 low into the future. The benefits from having more diversity and density 767 1,735 of land uses adjacent to the Trail will spur more cycling and walking T‐Wing Overpass 498 706 1,597 as more origin and destination locations are sited adjacent to the Trail. This will further be increased by neighborhood design elements that Rainier Vista Trestle 508 721 1,629 make cycling and walking more attractive options for local residents Hec Ed Bridge 542 769 1,738 and employees. Wahkiakum Lane 429 609 1,376

Local Bicycle Volume Growth Rates S of Pend Oreille 444 630 1,424 A low growth estimate, consistent with background growth data, would likely understate the background growth in cycling. A report by the N of Pend Oreille 442 627 1,418 PSRC cited bicycle trail survey data from the Trail that volumes grew by 4.7% annually from 1985 to 2000. Additionally the portion of trips for Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011 commuting or shopping grew from 6% in 1985 to 38% in 2000.2 Study Table 4. Future Burke-Gilman Trail Bicycle Volumes, PM Peak Hour area counts on the Trail discussed in the previous section (obtained TABLE 3. FUTURE BGT PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES, PM PEAK HOUR in 2010) show an overall annual increase of 7.9% based on counts obtained in 1999 for the Campus Master Plan. 2030 PM Peak 2010 PM Peak 2016 PM Peak Hour The same PSRC report cites bicycle counts in downtown Seattle Location Hour Pedestrians Hour Pedestrians Pedestrians showing an average annual growth rate of 5.8% from 1992 to 2000. More recent counts in downtown Seattle showed an annual increase of W of Univ. Bridge 174 185 212 7.2% from 2007 to 2009.3 W of 15th 349 370 426

Estimation of Background Bicycle Volume Growth Rate Hitchcock Bridge 544 577 664 While study area growth in households and employment is expected to be relatively minor from 2010 to 2030, recent bicycle survey results T‐Wing Overpass 359 381 438 show much higher regional growth in cycling rates. The central issue in Rainier Vista Trestle 323 343 394 forecasting future growth is whether or not recent increases in cycling rates are sustainable. Based on improvements identified in the Seattle Hec Ed Bridge 1,089 1,156 1,329

Bicycle Master Plan, including extension of the Burke-Gilman Trail, Wahkiakum Lane 759 806 926 increased cycling amenities are expected to encourage higher rates of S of Pend Oreille 217 230 265

N of Pend Oreille 202 214 246 2. “Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Implementation Strategy,” Puget Sound Regional Council, 2003. http://www.psrc.org/assets/1983/bikestrategy.pdf Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011 3. Bicycle Information, Seattle Department of Transportation. http://www.seattle.gov/ transportation/bikeinfo.htm Table 5. Future Burke-Gilman Trail Pedestrian Volumes, PM Peak Hour

JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY

TABLE 4. UW LINK STATION PM PEAK PATRONS

2016 PM Peak 2016 PM Peak 2030 PM Peak 2030 PM Peak

Pedestrians Cyclists Pedestrians Cyclists Total Number of 3,782 946 4,760 1,190 Patrons Patrons Traveling to 2,496 625 3,427 857 UW LINK Station Patrons Traveling 1,286 321 1,333 333 from UW LINK

Source: Grijalva Engineering, 2008

TABLE 3. FUTURE BGT PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES, PM PEAK HOUR

2030 PM Peak 2010 PM Peak 2016 PM Peak Hour Location Hour Pedestrians Hour Pedestrians Pedestrians

W of Univ. Bridge 174 185 212

W of 15th 349 370 426

Hitchcock Bridge 544 577 664

T‐Wing Overpass 359 381 438

Rainier Vista Trestle 323 343 394

Hec Ed Bridge 1,089 1,156 1,329

Wahkiakum Lane 759 806 926

S of Pend Oreille 217 230 265

N of Pend Oreille 202 214 246

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY PART III: CURRENT CONDITIONS 27

TABLE 4. UW LINK STATION PM PEAK PATRONS cycling. Additionally as the cost of driving (parking, fuel, etc.) further 2016 PM Peak 2016 PM Peak 2030 PM Peak 2030 PM Peak increase, cycling may be an even more attractive option for the future. Pedestrians Cyclists Pedestrians Cyclists

One issue that may hamper growth on the Trail in the study area is the Total Number of 3,782 946 4,760 1,190 effective capacity of the trail. Assuming mode separation (creating a Patrons Patrons Traveling to 2,496 625 3,427 857 separate pathway for pedestrians), the Trail in the study is expected UW LINK Station to contain adequate capacity to accommodate future cycle growth. Patrons Traveling 1,286 321 1,333 333 However, if such user separation is not created, growth in cycle from UW LINK volumes on the Trail may be limited by user-perceived trail congestion and its associated delay. Source: Grijalva Engineering, 2008 Table 6. UW LINK Station PM Peak Hour Patrons Based on the above information, we anticipate an annual growth rate background growth in cycle volume to be 4.5% on the low end, and 6.0% on the high end. Recent counts show higher rates of increase in cycle volume, however it is our estimation that a slightly lower rate is TABLE 5. 2016 LINK BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRIPS more likely to occur over the next 6-20 years.

2016 PM Peak 2016 PM Peak 2016 PM Peak 2016 PM Peak Using this rate, the expected 2016 and 2030 PM Peak Hour Cycle Pedestrian Trips Pedestrian Trips Bicycle Trips to Bicycle Trips volumes are presented in Table 4, using the higher estimate. As these Location to Station from Station Station from Station estimates are based on October counts, these forecasted numbers estimate an average level of demand which is traditionally below the W of Univ. Bridge 25 13 6 3 summer peak volumes. W of 15th 25 13 6 3

Future Background Growth – Pedestrians Hitchcock Bridge 200 103 50 26 Background growth in pedestrians is expected to be much more locally-driven than cycling, and to grow at a lower rate. The Seattle T‐Wing Overpass 275 141 69 35 model predicts household and employment growth immediately Rainier Vista Trestle 0 0 0 0 surrounding the Trail in the study area as 0.8% between current rates and 2030. Related recent technical studies estimating background Hec Ed Bridge 50 26 13 6 pedestrian volumes on the Trail for U-link construction assumed a Wahkiakum Lane 50 26 13 6 background growth rate of 1%.4,5 S of Pend Oreille 50 26 13 6 Based on the growth factor used elsewhere, coupled with the small N of Pend Oreille 50 26 13 6 forecasted change in local land use, this report assumes a 1% annual pedestrian growth rate to the 2010 counts. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011

Growth Related to the University Link Transit Station Table 7. 2016 LINK Bicycle and Pedestrian Trips (PM Peak Hour) In addition to the background growth in the PM peak hour cyclists and pedestrians on the Trail, the opening of the University LINK light

4. “Pedestrian Report: University of Washington Station Pedestrian and Bicycle Evaluation,” Grijalva Engineering, December 2008. 5. “Draft University of Washington Station Access Study,” Jahns Engineering, May TABLE 6. 2030 LINK BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRIPS 2009. 2030 PM Peak 2030 PM Peak 2030 PM Peak 2030 PM Peak Pedestrian Trips Pedestrian Trips Bicycle Trips to Bicycle Trips UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY JULy, 2011 Location to Station from Station Station from Station

W of Univ. Bridge 34 13 9 3

W of 15th 34 13 9 3

Hitchcock Bridge 274 107 69 27

T‐Wing Overpass 377 147 94 37

Rainier Vista Trestle 0 0 0 0

Hec Ed Bridge 69 27 17 7

Wahkiakum Lane 69 27 17 7

S of Pend Oreille 69 27 17 7

N of Pend Oreille 69 27 17 7

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011

TABLE 5. 2016 LINK BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRIPS

2016 PM Peak 2016 PM Peak 2016 PM Peak 2016 PM Peak Pedestrian Trips Pedestrian Trips Bicycle Trips to Bicycle Trips Location to Station from Station Station from Station

W of Univ. Bridge 25 13 6 3

W of 15th 25 13 6 3

Hitchcock Bridge 200 103 50 26

T‐Wing Overpass 275 141 69 35

Rainier Vista Trestle 0 0 0 0

Hec Ed Bridge 50 26 13 6

Wahkiakum Lane 50 26 13 6

S of Pend Oreille 50 26 13 6

N of Pend Oreille 50 26 13 6

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY 28 PART III: CURRENT CONDITIONS TABLE 6. 2030 LINK BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRIPS

2030 PM Peak 2030 PM Peak 2030 PM Peak 2030 PM Peak Pedestrian Trips Pedestrian Trips Bicycle Trips to Bicycle Trips Location to Station from Station Station from Station

rail station near the University of Washington stadium is expected W of Univ. Bridge 34 13 9 3

to substantially increase bicycle and pedestrian volumes on certain W of 15th 34 13 9 3 segments of the Trail in the study area. Pedestrian and bicycle volumes for 2016 and 2030 were contained in the “University of Washington Hitchcock Bridge 274 107 69 27 Station Pedestrian and Bicycle Evaluation” document, created in T‐Wing Overpass 377 147 94 37 December 2008 by Grijalva Engineering. This document assumed that 80% of station patrons in the PM peak hour would be on foot and 20% Rainier Vista Trestle 0 0 0 0 would be on bicycle. The trip distributions were subsequently updated Hec Ed Bridge 69 27 17 7 by Heffron Transportation in a December 2010 EIS Addendum that reflected an updated pedestrian connection project. For the purpose Wahkiakum Lane 69 27 17 7 of this study, the 80%/20% split was used; however, this split will depend largely on facility and operating characteristics supporting S of Pend Oreille 69 27 17 7 bicycle access to LINK Light Rail. The projections assume that in 2016 N of Pend Oreille 69 27 17 7 the UW LINK Station is the northern system terminus and that in 2030 the Northgate LINK Station is the northern terminus. In the 2016 PM Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011 peak hour, 66% of overall patrons are expected to be travelling to the Table 8. 2030 LINK Bicycle and Pedestrian Trips (PM Peak Hour) station with 34% travelling from the station. In 2030 during the PM peak hour, 72% of patrons are expected to be travelling to the station 2016 Background Volume 2016 Transit Station 2016 Total Projected with 28% travelling from the station. Table 6 presents the total number (High Estimate) Volume Volume of forecasted PM Peak patrons at the UW LINK station. Location Bicyclists Pedestrians Bicyclists Pedestrians Bicyclists Pedestrians

579 185 9 38 588 223 Pedestrian Distribution W of University Bridge The distribution of pedestrian trips in the area was revised from the W of 15th 709 370 9 38 718 408 original analysis and the update is contained within the December Hitchcock Bridge 767 577 76 303 843 880 T‐Wing Overpass 706 381 104 416 810 797 2010 EIS Addendum. 2% of total station patrons are expected to use Rainier Vista Trestle 721 343 0 0 721 343 the Trail north of the Rainier Vista area. Additionally, 11% of station Hec Ed Bridge 769 1,156 19 76 788 1,232 patrons are expected to use the Trail west of Rainier Vista at the T-Wing Wahkiakum Lane 609 806 19 76 628 882 Overpass with 8% continuing on to the Hitchcock Overpass before S of Pend Oreille 630 230 19 76 649 306 leaving the trail. N of Pend Oreille 627 214 19 76 646 290 Table 9. Future Burke-Gilman Trail Bicycle and Pedestrian Volumes for 2016 (PM Peak Hour) PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Bicycle Distribution 2030 Background Volume 2030 Transit Station 2030 Total Projected The Heffron Transportation report did not directly address bicycle (High Estimate) Volume Volume distribution; however it is assumed for the purpose of this study that their revisions around Rainier Vista for pedestrian flows will match Location Bicyclists Pedestrians Bicyclists Pedestrians Bicyclists Pedestrians those for bicycle volumes. West of Hitchcock Overpass it is assumed 1,309 212 12 48 1,321 260 W of University Bridge that 1% of station patrons will continue on the Trail out of the study W of 15th 1,604 426 12 48 1,616 474 area. Hitchcock Bridge 1,735 664 95 381 1,830 1,045 T‐Wing Overpass 1,597 438 131 524 1,728 962 Results Rainier Vista Trestle 1,629 394 0 0 1,629 394 Based on the above results, the main impact to the Trail during the PM Hec Ed Bridge 1,738 1,329 24 95 1,762 1,424 Wahkiakum Lane 1,376 926 24 95 1,400 1,021 peak hour is expected near the Hitchcock Bridge and T-Wing Overpass S of Pend Oreille 1,424 265 24 95 1,448 360 with the greatest impact being from the additional pedestrian volume. N of Pend Oreille 1,418 245 24 95 1,442 340 As discussed in the Shared-Use Path Level of Service section, trail Table 10. Future Burke-Gilman Trail Bicycle and Pedestrian Volumes for 2030 (PM Peak Hour) PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES

JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY PART III: CURRENT CONDITIONS 29

!

!

!

!

NE 45th St !

!

! Pend Oreille North ! !

!

!

!

144 492 !

!

!

58 150 !

!

! E

!

N !

! e LOS is highly influenced by the number of pedestrians on the trail, as Pend Oreille South ! v

!

! A

!

! these users slow cyclist and necessitate more passing movements by 154 486 d th ! 5

R !

2

! e 76 87 l ! l

cyclists. Based on future background growth estimation, the addition of i !

! re !

O !

E ! the UW LINK light rail station is expected to have potential impacts at NE 42 ! nd St d

N

n !

l !

y e i !

a

the following locations: P a !

E r !

W

T !

N !

y !

e n

it !

v a s !

r

A

m ! e l

i !

• The UW LINK station will more than double the number iv th !

G !

n 5 !

1 e

U Wahkiakum Lane !

of pedestrians on the Trail at the T-Wing Overpass. The k ! r !

West of u ! Bridge !

B !

background pedestrian volume is expected to be 438 !

University Bridge NE Campus Pkwy !

152 464 ! !

pedestrians, and the light rail station will add 524 pedestrians !

243 345 78 148 !

!

NE ! 40th St

! !

! Brooklyn & ! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

! !

during the PM peak. !

! 117 ! ! 77

!

!

! E !

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

! Paci c East !

! Lincoln Way

! N !

! ! !

!

! !

! d

!

• At the Hitchcock Bridge, the LINK station will add 381 ! !

! v

!

! C l

! 331

! 389

o University of !

! w

B!

d B

u! lit !

r! z !

k ! Brooklyn & ! R

R

pedestrians by 2030, or an increase of 57% over 2030 baseline e ! d e

! Washington Gi !

! 85 179

l! k

m! ! n !

a!

a

n! ! ! o l

Paci c West T!

! t

5 r!

a! s

forecasts. !

§ i !

¦¨ l! n

! a

! !

! o

!

! !

! 15th & Paci c East M

!

!

254 !

348 M

!

! !

• On the north end of the study area, near Pend Oreille, the UW ! !

! !

!

!

85 173 !

! 350 365 !

NE Pacific St !

LINK light rail station will increase the volume of pedestrians by ! ! !

!

!

! 101` 243 !

E !

! !

! LEGEND N !

approximately 36% in 2030. 15th & Paci c West ! !

e !

! !

v ! Hec Ed Bridge

! !

! A !

!

!

e 337 352 ! T-Wing Overpass Count Location

! !

k !

!

! 157

a 531 !

l ! !

t 55 219 !

s !

!

507 234 !

a ! 80 224

!

! Bicycle !

E !

!

!

! 244 136 !

!

Potential Conflict Points N !

E ! !

Hitchcock Bridge !

l !

P !

! ! Pedestrian

a ! P

!

Trail segments and intersections with a high volume of pedestrians and c ! !

if ! c

! i

i !

406 321 c ! f

!

S ! i !

! c !

t !

!

bicycles are the locations most likely to be conflict points. There are ! a PM

! Count Volume !

174 159 ! P

!

!

! !

! ! E

!

H !

! N

J !

!

! !

! ! numerous locations where bicyclists and pedestrians cross the Trail ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Rainier Vista East Direction at grade. Conflict can be both physical conflict – users running into Medical Center 167 501 Portage ! ! ! ! ! ! ! one another – or, more commonly, it can be the perception or threat of Bay 137 173 Burke Gilman Trail conflict. For pedestrians, the presence of faster moving traffic alone Rainier Vista West 201 471 represents conflict, while to the bicyclist, it can be the potential for 130 187 pedestrians’ unanticipated movements. Runners next to walkers, dogs Montlake Bridge N on long leashes – all represent either a real or perceived conflict. The volume of users on the Trail affects the perception of conflict and the NOT TO SCALE 2000 ability to avoid it by reducing the room available to take action (turn, stop, slow) when a potential conflict presents itself.

1000 BURKE GILMAN TRAIL 2016 FORECASTED PM PEAK HOUR Speed is also a factor. For pedestrians facing a bicyclist approaching PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE VOLUME WITH MONTLAKE 2016 or overtaking them, the faster the rider, the less time the pedestrians LINK VOLUMES (HIGH ESTIMATE) has to react. This situation is exacerbated if the bicyclist is moving 0 FIGURE2010 1 at a speed consistent with or slower than other riders, but faster than the pedestrian, so that the pedestrian must take into account Bike Ped Bike Ped Bike Ped Bike Ped Bike Ped Bike Ped Bike Ped multiple potential conflicts when deciding upon evasive action. For bicyclists, the bicyclist’s own speed is an additional factor influencing the bicyclist’s ability to perceive and avoid conflict. The faster the speed, the less time is available to detect an obstacle, decide how to West of Hitchcock Rainier respond (change direction, apply brakes) and execute the maneuver. University Bridge 15th Avenue Bridge Vista Corridor Hec Ed Wahkiakum Pend Oreille Figure 23. Trail count location and volumes with graph of projected traffic counts, 2016 (PM peak hour). Top graphic lists projected through volumes (not crossing/turning) at peak hour, including both background growth and LINK generated traffic. Bar chart reflects same numbers but also includes crossing/turning volumes at each respective point.

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY 30 PART III: CURRENT CONDITIONS

!

!

!

!

NE 45th St !

!

! Pend Oreille North ! !

!

!

!

315 1,104 !

!

!

121 191 !

!

! E

!

N !

! e The intersections with poor sight lines and limited maneuvering space Pend Oreille South ! v

!

! A

!

! reduce this “margin of error” even further. th 338 1,091 d ! 5

R !

2

! e 142 119 l ! l

i !

! re !

O !

As identified in Table 3, the locations with the highest pedestrian E ! NE ! 42nd St d

N

n !

l !

y e i !

a crossing volumes were at the Hec Edmundson and Wahkiakum Lane P a !

E r !

W

T !

N !

y ! e n

Bridges. Additionally a large number of pedestrians were observed it !

v a s !

r

A

m ! e l

i !

crossing at the Hitchcock Bridge near UW south campus. iv th !

G !

n 5 !

1 e

U Wahkiakum Lane !

k ! r !

West of u ! Bridge !

B !

As a result, management of potential and existing areas of conflict is a !

University Bridge NE Campus Pkwy !

331 1,055 !

! !

point of emphasis in Part V: Trail Design. The strategy is to provide both 545 776 136 154 !

!

NE ! 40th St

! !

! Brooklyn & ! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! 144 ! ! 116

!

!

! E !

predictability in user movement and to improve potential conflict areas ! !

!

! !

! !

!

! Paci c East !

! Lincoln Way

! N !

! ! !

!

!

!

! d ! !

!

! v

!

through a combination of a more formal traffic management system, !

C l

! 743

! 875

o University of !

! w

B!

d B

u! lit !

r! z !

k ! Brooklyn & ! R

R

e ! d e

! Washington Gi !

! 125 216

separation of uses in high conflict areas, and design of intersections to l! k

m! ! n !

a!

a

n! ! ! o l

Paci c West T! ! t

5 r!

a! s

§ i! !

¦¨ l! n

! a

! !

passively control speed and improve user safety. ! o

!

! !

! 15th & Paci c East M

!

!

570 !

782 M

!

! !

! !

! !

!

!

125 209 !

! 785 821 !

NE Pacific St !

! !

!

!

!

! 143 289 !

E !

! !

! LEGEND N !

15th & Paci c West !

!

e !

! !

v ! Hec Ed Bridge

! !

! A !

!

!

e 756 792 ! T-Wing Overpass Count Location

! !

k !

!

! 344

a 1,193 !

l ! !

t 90 261 !

s !

! 1,085 486 !

a ! 147 277

!

! Bicycle !

E !

!

!

! 578 263 !

!

N !

E ! !

Hitchcock Bridge !

l !

P !

! ! Pedestrian

a ! P

!

c ! !

if ! c

! i

i !

874 694 c ! f

!

S ! i !

! c !

t !

!

! a PM

! Count Volume !

417 260 ! P

!

!

! !

! ! E

!

H !

! N

J !

!

!

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Rainier Vista East Direction Medical Center 378 1,132 Portage ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Bay 157 199 Burke Gilman Trail Rainier Vista West 455 1,065 149 215

Montlake Bridge N NOT TO SCALE 2000

1000 BURKE GILMAN TRAIL 2030 FORECASTED PM PEAK HOUR2030

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE VOLUME WITH MONTLAKE2016 LINK VOLUMES (HIGH ESTIMATE) 0 FIGURE2010 2 Bike Ped Bike Ped Bike Ped Bike Ped Bike Ped Bike Ped Bike Ped

West of Hitchcock Rainier University Bridge 15th Avenue Bridge Vista Corridor Hec Ed Wahkiakum Pend Orielle Figure 24. Trail count location and volumes with graph of projected traffic counts, 2030 (PM peak hour). Top graphic lists projected through volumes (not crossing/turning) at peak hour, including both background growth and LINK generated traffic. Bar chart reflects same numbers but also includes crossing/turning volumes at each respective point.

JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY part iV level of service evaluation

F: Failing - Trail significantly diminishes the experience for at least one, and most likely for all user groups. It does not effectively serve most bicyclists; significant user conflicts should be expected.

Results SUPLOS was calculated for two segments on the Burke Gilman Trail in the study area. Due to the nature of the project area, long segments with no crossing points were not exclusively available for analysis. However, two segments were chosen with end points at busy intersections,UNIVERSITY OFand WASHINGTON conditions BonUR theKE-GI TrailLMAN in TRAI betweenL CORRIDOR these STUDYpoints were analyzed. PART IV: LEVEL OF SERVICE EVALUATION 33

The first area is a ¼ mile long segment between the Wahkiakum and Hec Ed Overpasses. There are a limited number of trail access points in this corridor. The second segment is 1/3 mile in length between 15th Avenue and Rainier Vista. This area has multiple access Level of service EVALUATION and crossing points.

Based on counts taken October 12, 2010, the study team calculated Further, the results showed that cyclists’ LOS was most affected by trail level of service (LOS) for two trail segments on the Burke-Gilman sharing a trail with slower users, with pedestrians having the most Overall Overall LOS Score LOS Grade Time LOS LOS without without Trail using the Federal Highways Administration’s Shared-Use Path negative impact. Segment Period Score Grade Pedestrians Pedestrians Level of Service Calculator (SUPLOS). This LOS evaluation method 15th Avenue to AM 1.89 F 4.17 A analyzes segments, but not intersections. The segments received poor and failing grades by this method when analyzed as shared trails; Levels of Service Rainier Vista PM 1.8 F 4.18 A The SUPLOS model uses six level of service categories with the letters however, these segments received excellent grades when analyzed Hec AM 2.84 D 4.37 A as bicycle only trails. This suggests that a key potential service A to F indicating best to worst. In general, grades A-C are considered Edmundson improvement for the trail is to separate the trail by user modes. acceptable levels of service. Overpass to Wahkiakum PM 1.77 F 4.41 A A: Excellent - Trail has optimum conditions for individual bicyclists and Lane Overpass LOS Analysis retains ample space to absorb more users of all modes, while providing Table 3. Burke Gilman Trail Level of Service Based on October 12, 2010 Counts In 2006, the Federal Highway Administration, recognizing the increase a high-quality user experience. Some newly built trails will provide Table 11. Burke-Gilman Trail Level of Service Based on October 12, 2010 Counts. and popularity in off-street shared use paths, created the SUPLOS grade-A service until they have been discovered or until their ridership calculator. This tool allows for a quantitative evaluation of current trail builds up to projected levels. performance, as well as potential improvements. The tool also provides Discussion guidance on the number of additional users a trail can accommodate B: Good - Trail has good bicycling conditions, and retains significant The segment SUPLOS shows a poor or failing grade for the analyzed trail segments. To before trail conditions degrade. Prior to the creation of this tool, there room to absorb more users, while maintaining an ability to provide a further understand the basis for this evaluation, the SUPLOS was calculated without was no consistent method for evaluating shared trail performance. high-quality user experience. including the pedestrian volumes. Based on this method, the Trail receives an A rating for both segments. Thus, it is the high volume of pedestrians sharing the same trail with The SUPLOS tool was developed from the perspective of cyclists. It C: Fair - Trail has at least minimum width to meet current demand cyclists that leads to a poor SUPLOS. is designed principally to evaluate bicycle mobility and to minimize and to provide basic service to bicyclists. A modest level of additional conflicts and evasive maneuvers so that cyclists can maintain a capacity is available for bicyclists and skaters; however more The obvious recommendation from this method of analysis is that, where possible, a constant speed. However, the tool’s findings and recommended pedestrians, runners, or other slow-moving users will begin to diminish parallel trail should be constructed to accommodate pedestrians. However, this method improvements will likely improve the trail condition for all users. The LOS for bicyclists. did not evaluate the high volume of crossing traffic at intersections. Furthermore, even if tool evaluates performance along segments of 1/4 mile or longer, but parallel trails are constructed, intersection points are still key conflict points between does not evaluate intersections. Thus, it does not factor in travel time D: Poor - Trail is nearing its functional capacity given its width, volume, or intersection-related delay, such as signals or stop signs at grade and mode split. Peak period travel speeds are likely to be reduced by crossings. Additionally, the tool is not calibrated for trails wider than levels of crowding. The addition of more users of any mode will result 20 feet due to a lack of trails wider than 20 feet available for testing; in significant service degradation. Some bicyclists and skaters are likely however, the model will provide a result for widths greater than 20 to adjust their experience expectations or to avoid peak-period use. feet. A final note about the tool’s performance related to centerlines. According to user surveys and observations, centerlines cause cyclists F: Failing - Trail significantly diminishes the experience for at least one, to feel constrained, so the addition of a centerline triggers the need for and most likely for all user groups. It does not effectively serve most greater width to provide the same LOS. bicyclists; significant user conflicts should be expected.

The SUPLOS tool’s creators found that the primary factors influencing cyclists’ perceived LOS are: SUPLOS Results • Path width As discussed above, using the SUPLOS model for calculating level of • Number of active passes (encountering other trail users trail service for both bicycle and pedestrian use is difficult to correlate travelling in the same direction and overtaking them) to actual performance. For the purpose of this study we recommend a • Number of meetings with users travelling in the opposite minimum pedestrian LOS of C and a minimum LOS of B for bicycles. direction The two different categories are based on the anticipated steady • Presence of a striped centerline growth of pedestrians through this area at 1% and a larger growth rate,

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY 34 PART IV: LEVEL OF SERVICE EVALUATION

relative to that of pedestrians, in number of bicycle users, influenced Width Assumed Overall LOS Overall LOS Bike-only LOS Bike-only LOS Segment by numerous factors including new connections created by nearby (ft) Score Grade Score Grade projects, such as SR 520. Wahkiakum Lane 16.0 2.23 E 4.19 A N (PM) SUPLOS was calculated for two segments on the Trail in the study Hec Ed - Rainier 13.5 1.55 F 3.93 B area. Due to the nature of the study area, long segments with no Vista West (PM) crossing points were not exclusively available for analysis. However, T-Wing Overpass 13.5 1.67 F 3.98 B two segments were chosen with end points at busy intersections, and Area (PM) conditions on the trail in between these points were analyzed. Hitchcock Bridge 13.0 2.25 E 4.00 B West (PM) The first segment was the 1/3 mile long segment between 15th Avenue Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011 and Rainier Vista/Montlake Triangle. This area has multiple access and Table 12. 2010 PM Peak Hour LOS, Burke-Gilman Trail, Background Volume Only crossing points. The second was the ¼ mile long segment between the Wahkiakum and Hec Edmundson Bridges. There are a limited number Width Assumed Overall LOS Overall LOS Bike-only LOS Bike-only LOS of trail access points in this corridor. Segment (ft) Score Grade Score Grade Wahkiakum Lane The segment SUPLOS showed a poor or failing grade for the analyzed 16.0 2.08 E 4.19 A trail segments as shared trails. As shown in Table 11, the segment N (PM) Hec Ed - Rainier between 15th Avenue NE and Rainier Vista/Montlake Triangle received 13.5 1.54 F 3.93 B an F for both AM and PM peak periods. The peak period is the hour Vista West (PM) T-Wing Overpass surrounding the AM or PM fifteen minute period with the highest traffic 13.5 1.28 F 3.92 B Area (PM) volumes. The segment between the Hec Edmundson Bridge and the Hitchcock Bridge Wahkiakum Lane Bridge, received a D for the AM period and an F for 13.0 1.63 F 3.99 B West (PM) the PM period. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011 Table 13. 2016 PM Peak Hour LOS, Burke-Gilman Trail, Background Volume Plus Montlake LINK Patrons The SUPLOS was then recalculated using bicycle volumes only. As a bicycle only trail, both segments analyzed received an A for all time periods. These results suggest that the Trail as currently configured Width Assumed Overall LOS Overall LOS Bike-only LOS Bike-only LOS Segment is sufficient to serve bicyclists but is not configured to adequately (ft) Score Grade Score Grade serve both bicyclists and pedestrians. The SUPLOS model is Wahkiakum Lane 16.0 1.79 F 3.80 B sensitive to trail width, allowing for sensitivity testing of various width N (PM) scenarios. However, due to future volumes of trail users related to both Hec Ed - Rainier 13.5 1.12 F 3.44 C background growth and LINK users, there is a point where either Trail Vista West (PM) traffic is separated, or the Trail must be expanded to impractical widths T-Wing Overpass 13.5 1.27 F 3.65 B to mitigate user conflict and maintain the Trail’s transportation function. Area (PM) Hitchcock Bridge 13.0 1.30 F 3.56 B West (PM) Shared Use Path LOS By Segment Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011 The Shared Use Path LOS (SUPLOS) Calculation tool is designed and Table 14. 2030 PM Peak Hour LOS, Burke-Gilman Trail, Background Volume Only calibrated for analyzing trail segments of one-quarter mile in length or longer with no major access points. However, to better understand operating conditions along various segments of the Trail, it is used in this section for an approximate measure of user-perceived LOS and delay for segment comparison purposes.

JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY PART IV: LEVEL OF SERVICE EVALUATION 35

The results in this section compare delay and LOS in 2016 and 2030 for Width Assumed Overall LOS Overall LOS Bike-only LOS Bike-only LOS Segment four segments of the Trail, with and without the Montlake LINK Station (ft) Score Grade Score Grade (see Tables 12-15). Such analysis allows for a comparison of delay Wahkiakum Lane N 16.0 1.66 F 3.79 B based on expected levels of background growth and the potential (PM) impact of additional bicycle and pedestrian trips to and from the LINK Hec Ed - Rainier 13.5 1.06 F 3.29 C station. It uses ridership and patron distribution developed by Sound Vista West (PM) Transit, and updated by Heffron Transportation. T-Wing Overpass 13.5 0.00 F 3.32 C Area (PM) The results of this analysis indicate that in all scenarios, the combined Hitchcock Bridge 13.0 1.16 F 3.55 B bicycle and pedestrian volumes on the Trail lead to LOS E or F in West (PM) the four study corridors. In all scenarios, there is a large benefit Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011 seen from separating bicycle and pedestrian trail users. However, in Table 15. 2030 PM Peak Hour LOS, Burke-Gilman Trail, Background Volume Plus Montlake LINK Patrons 2030 conditions with the Montlake Link Station, two segments still experience LOS C during the PM peak hour. A further analysis of these Pedestrian- segments indicates that expanding the bicycle-only trail width to 15 Pedestrian-only Bike-only LOS Bike-only LOS Pedestrian Trail only LOS Bike Trail Width LOS Grade with Grade without Grade with feet will result in LOS B operations. Width (ft) Grade without (ft) Separation Separation Separation Separation The largest increase in delay seen as a result of the additional LINK 6 F F - - - patrons is at the T-Wing Overpass in both 2016 and 2030. 8 F C - - - 10 F B 10 F - - - - 12 F B Shared Use LOS Conclusions - - - 14 F B Looking at the various LOS evaluations of existing Trail width (Tables - - - 16 - A 12-15), it is apparent that separation of bike/wheeled and pedestrian Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011 uses will accommodate planned and forecast growth in trail use Table 16. 2016 PM Peak Hour LOS, Burke-Gilman Trail, Background Volume Plus Montlake Link Patrons through 2030. Without separation, both pedestrian and bicycle level of service fail at those areas (15th Avenue NE to Hec Ed Bridge) with the highest volumes of users. It is difficult to compare pedestrian and Pedestrian- Pedestrian-only Bike-only LOS Bike-only LOS bicycle level of service directly, as the methodologies involved in both Pedestrian Trail only LOS Bike Trail Width LOS Grade with Grade without Grade with Width (ft) Grade without (ft) differ (as do the peak daily travel times), but both models reflect the Separation Separation Separation impact of increased demands on the trail from new transit service, Separation growth on the UW campus, and general forecast growth in bicycling 6 F F - - - activity throughout the City of Seattle. 8 F D - - - 10 F C 10 F - The combination of pedestrians and bicyclists at even the current - - - 12 F C volumes at higher volume segments cause the LOS on the current - - - 14 F B 12-foot wide trail to fail. Separating the pedestrians and bicyclists - - - 16 - B will improve LOS. While the existing 14-foot wide Trail would provide Source: Fehr & Peers, 2011 a good to excellent for bicyclists without pedestrian traffic, results Table 17. 2030 PM Peak Hour LOS, Burke-Gilman Trail, Background Volume Plus Montlake Link Patrons from the LOS analysis show that a separate 10-foot wide parallel trail constructed to accommodate pedestrians, would provide an adequate Level of Service through 2030 for both pedestrians and bicyclists. Development of a 14-foot separated bicycle track will allow for

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY 36 PART IV: LEVEL OF SERVICE EVALUATION

continued anticipated growth in wheeled Trail use, while the separate 12 feet returns a value at the low end of LOS B with some sections pedestrian track will not only be able to accommodate the anticipated functioning at C. Fourteen feet reflects a value of LOS B, while LOS A 18’ LOS A growth in pedestrian users but will also be able to manage the potential requires development of a bicycle facility at a somewhat unrealistic 15- 17’ user conflicts arising from crossing to the University of Washington Link 18-foot width.

Station and rerouted ST Express and Metro Transit bus service that an 16’ LOS increase trail width alone cannot accommodate. The application of the appropriate Level of Service Standard will occur A in the formal design process of each specific segment. As the standard 15’ reflects peak hour conditions, it would be prudent to preserve sufficient B 14’ TWO-WAY BIKE FACILITY Pedestrian LOS Conclusions right of way to accommodate the highest likely potential future user 14’ The 6-10-foot pedestrian width was analyzed using the Highway condition, even if the full width of the trail is not initially developed. Capacity Manual formula for pedestrian level of service on Assuming eventual development of a path with LOS B bicycles and 13’ B uninterrupted walkway segments for the exclusive use of pedestrians. LOS C for pedestrians, a right of way width of 40 feet should be 12’ TWO-WAY BIKE FACILITY 12’ Projected pedestrian volumes for the 2030 PM peak hour were preserved to allow for future growth in user demand, allowing facility selected for analysis since all major development projects are expected resilience and flexibility beyond 2030. 11’ to be completed by that date, including an extension of the University Link north to Northgate. Using the forecasted 2030 PM peak hour 10’ TWO-WAY BIKE FACILITY Pedestrian LOS values are not as sensitive to localized changes in 10’ pedestrian volumes, widths are predicted to function at Level of Service C volumes – the current methodology returns LOS E or F for widths less C A. However, if severe platooning (users travelling at a consistent speed than 8 feet. As in the UW Study from August 2010, we recommend a 9’ in a clump) is factored into the equation, the LOS for a 10-foot wide pedestrian track width of 10 feet and bicycle track width of 14 feet in D trail in congested areas would be calculated as Level C. Special events the highest volume areas of the Trail, specifically that between 15th 8’ on or near the Trail, such as football games and mass participation Avenue NE and the Hec Ed Bridge. We recommend that Trail segments D 7’ events, will also reduce LOS. Consequently, additional measures would west of 15th Avenue NE and north of the Hec Ed Bridge have a need to be considered to meter or otherwise control the exceptional E E minimum pedestrian track width of 8 feet and minimum bicycle track 6’ flows of pedestrians on event days. width of 12 feet. F 5’ F WIDTH OF 2-WAY CYCLE FACILITY WIDTH OF 2-WAY

Application of SUPLOS Methodology to Analysis of 4’ Proposed Bicycle Facility Width 3’ Using the SUPLOS model, the accompanying graph (see Figure 25) 2’ was developed to show how a separated bicycle facility would perform at different locations along the Trail corridor with different proposed 1’ widths. Utilizing modeled forecasts of bicycle traffic for peak hour in 2030, the graph shows how increased volumes of bicycle traffic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 would require additional width to mitigate the effects of additional user BROOKLYN 15TH HITCH- T-WING RV WEST RV EAST HEC ED WAHKIA- PEND COCK BRIDGE KUM LANE OREILLE conflict. LOCATION

The results of the analysis correspond closely to the findings and Figure 25. 2030 Shared Use Path Level of Service Findings for Trail Locations on UW Campus (Bicycle Results by 2-Way Path Width) recommendations of the University’s study “Proposed Bike Facilities on UW Campus Associated with Light Rail at Montlake and SR 520 Regional Bike Path” (August 2010; see Part II, Page 13 inset box). Assuming a trail profile that separates pedestrian and bicycle traffic, LOS C is achieved with a 10 foot wide two way bicycle facility, while

JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY PART IV: LEVEL OF SERVICE EVALUATION 37

Comparison To Other Trails - Width Trail widths in other areas Washington and around the country usually reflect the design guidelines that were used by the managing jurisdiction at the time the trail was developed. Many of the early trails in this region, including the Interurban Trail, Burke-Gilman Trail, and Sammamish River Trail were developed following AASHTO Guidelines for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. Over time, both AASHTO and local agencies have widened the recommended cross sections for new trails in response to the impacts of growth on older trails. While older trails were generally developed with a 10-12-foot paved width, more recent projects have been built with widths of 14 feet and, in some cases, 16 feet. Note that these cross sections do not include the additional width of unpaved shoulders or separated pedestrian/ equestrian tracks.

For example, over the years, the Sammamish River Trail has been expanded from 10 feet to 14 feet wide near the downtown Redmond core and parallel pedestrian paths have been developed on the other side of the river to passively separate uses. The relatively new SR- 520 Trail was built to a base 14-foot width, with expansion in areas of pronounced grade. As part of many improvements to existing trails, including the Sammamish River Trail, attempts are made to manage trail access points either by limiting the number of access points or by designing access points to accommodate the perceived conflict arising from turning movements, acceleration and braking, the tendency of all users to gather at particular rest locations, and so on.

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY 38 PART IV: LEVEL OF SERVICE EVALUATION

JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY part V trail design

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY PART V: TRAIL DESIGN 41 Trail design

As discussed in Part IV, it is recommended that the Burke-Gilman Trail be developed as a separated trail with a 12-14-foot wide bicycle track and an 8-10-foot wide pedestrian track in order to achieve desired LOS performance. Part V explores various conceptual design options for the Trail’s uninterrupted segments. The Trail’s evolution represents an opportunity to enhance the UW identity and further the UW’s commitment to LID.

Part V also includes a suggested palette of design elements to integrate the Trail with the overall UW identity, improve safety and wayfinding and incorporate LID elements. Intersection design is Figure 26. Brygge Broen (Wharf Bridge) split mode bicycle / pedestrian bridge in addressed in Part VI. There are areas of the trail that under current Copenhagen, Denmark. traffic patterns can remain shared (between Hec Ed and Pend Oreille); however, with projected growth these sections should be separated by 2030.

A Note About Trees Many segments of the Trail corridor through the UW Campus have existing trees of various sizes and significance that could be impacted by Trail improvements described in this document. As the next phase of design progresses, an arborist should conduct a tree evaluation and designation as described in the Campus Tree Care Plan. Based upon this assessment, the final alignment width and design should carefully consider and appropriately mitigate impacts to extraordinary, exemplary, or significant trees. Designers should also consider the merits of existing tree groves. Figure 27. Low volume trail (above) and trail bridge with separate areas for bicycles and pedestrians. Conceptual Approaches Street separation of bicycles and pedestrians within a multi-use trail has not been recently attempted in the Seattle area; and earlier attempts to separate with painted “use zones” have not proven particularly effective such as is seen at the Greenlake Trail in north Seattle. Here, the trail is divided into painted zones – one for pedestrians that is two-way, and the other a one-way bike/wheels zone. The path is wide open to cross traffic, and compliance with the indicated zones is considered sporadic. Figures 26, 27, and 28 illustrate application of separated trail design principles in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Rather than use paint to separate areas on the same paved surface, Figure 28. Low volume trail (above) and trail bridge with separate areas for bicycles alternative means of creating separate tracks for wheeled uses and for and pedestrians. pedestrians were considered. Two basic approaches were considered:

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY 42 PART V: TRAIL DESIGN

vertically separating the two tracks and laterally separating the two tracks. Earlier studies of the Trail have suggested adopting the vertical separation approach.

Five different conceptual cross sections were explored. Per AASHTO 6” curb design practice (and in locations where feasible), all sections include or slope 2-foot wide soft shoulder on either side of the Trail. For bicycle tracks, separation a 2-foot shoulder is considered a normal clear zone for obstructions. It also serves as a pull-off area. On the pedestrian side of the Trail, a 2-foot gravel shoulder reduces perceived conflicts between runners 2’ 8’ - 10’ 12 - 14’ 2’ and bicyclists by providing a more attractive surface to draw runners shoulder pedestrian cyclist shoulder off the main pedestrian trail.­­ Each conceptual section includes some type of separation between bicycle and pedestrian areas of the Trail. Section 1: Vertical separation of bicycles and pedestrians While this separation is shown as a curb or narrow band in these Preferred option for high volume and conflict areas sections in order to minimize the overall Trail footprint, this separation could be wider in some areas and include a sloped median, as appropriate for conditions in specific areas of the Trail.

Section 1 vertically separates pedestrians on an adjacent track to the north and west of and 6-inches above the wheeled track. This option allows for improved pedestrian safety and more closely follows the predominate topography of the trail. One advantage to this approach is that it more easily allows for the development of traffic “tables” (raised areas) at key intersection and conflict areas. Wheeled traffic would travel up a 5-percent ramp into the intersection area, which would be further distinguished from the normal trail track with different paving 6” curb material. Pedestrians would maintain the same grade on the path and in the intersection. The presence of a curb keeps bikes in their portion of the path to a greater extent than with a flat trail with a “rumble” divider. Pedestrians walking adjacent to the bike section have a greater 2’ 12’ - 14’ 8’ - 10’ 2’ confidence that conflict is minimized, thus improving the performance shoulder cyclist pedestrian shoulder of the facility in both practical and LOS contexts. It is important that lighting on the Trail be improved on all sections with vertical separation, Section 2: Vertical separation with pedestrian facilities on south and east side of Trail to mitigate potential night lighting tripping hazards. Eliminated due to increased potential for user conflict at intersections

Section 2 also vertically separates uses, but places pedestrian uses on the south and east side of the bicycle track. While it has the same advantages as Section 1, Section 2 has a greater potential to create user conflicts at intersections, as pedestrians will be making turns from multiple locations, increasing the number of direct conflict points within the intersection and making corrective maneuvers on the part of bicyclists harder to anticipate and execute.

JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY PART V: TRAIL DESIGN 43

Section 3 includes two elevated pedestrian tracks that split users by travel direction. The disadvantage to this approach is that it limits the Trail’s ability to handle the larger pedestrian volumes generated 6” curb 6” curb by special events. This section would also require pedestrians and bicyclists to look for conflicts from multiple directions. 2’ 5’ 12’ - 14’ 5’ 2’ Section 4 keeps all users at the same grade, but laterally separate uses shoulder pedestrian cyclist pedestrian shoulder with a 1-foot granite paver strip, rails or other low vertical elements. The advantage to this approach is that while it may require more space, Section 3: Vertical separation with split pedestrian facilities it may be less costly to develop. It also has more flexibility where there Eliminated due to constrained ability to manage larger pedestrian volumes are a number of informal or low volume side access paths on both sides of the trail. This option also provides management flexibility for special events. It does not provide the same level of security for pedestrians, but can accommodate a more complex traffic pattern.

Like Section 4, Section 5 keeps all users at the same grade but uses a rain garden to separate the pedestrian and bicycle tracks. While such a design feature can do much to mitigate the impacts of increased surface runoff (depending upon the paving material used), such an approach is more costly and requires more space. Section 5 may require more space than Section 4 and would likely be more costly.

Section 1, basic vertical separation, and Section 4, basic lateral 2’ 8’ - 10’ 1’ 12’ - 14’ 2’ separation, were selected for further concept development due to shoulder pedestrian divider cyclist shoulder the fact that they have the smallest footprint of the options explored. Because of its greater flexibility in integrating with different intersection Section 4: Lateral separation design options, Section 1 was selected for use in higher volume areas Preferred cross section for constrained space and locations with lower volume and less potential for user conflict where conflicts are more likely to occur. Section 4 was selected for use in areas with less available space and for locations which have lower traffic volume and less potential for user conflicts. Section 5 may also be appropriate in certain locations along the Trail where sufficient width exists, but it was not explored further at this time.

The two sections selected for further development rely on different types of separation to maintain an acceptable level of service. The vertical separation physically prevents most cyclists from encroaching onto the pedestrian track – the choice of surface material can further encourage proper bicycle use by providing a smoother, more “bicycle friendly” asphalt surface on the cycle track while providing a rougher 2’ 8’ - 10’ varies 12’ - 14’ 2’ but very walkable pervious concrete surface on the pedestrian track. shoulder pedestrian rain garden cyclist shoulder Additionally, signage can reinforce the operational regulations for these (3’-4’ MIN) heavily utilized sections of the Trail. The ultimate selection of section Section 5: Lateral separation with LID drainage as median. type will occur in the formal design process for each Trail segment. Possible option in some segments along the Trail, but not explored further in this Study

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY 44 PART V: TRAIL DESIGN

This typical existing cross section for the Trail shows some of Spatial Implications of Trail Design Approaches the features that define it today: The existing Trail is defined by a relatively small asphalt band and • relatively small asphalt band • treed edges treed edges with sight lines to the adjacent roads. Expanding the Trail • sight lines to the adjacent roads to improve service will impact both the Trail and the areas adjacent to it. At the level of this study, we conducted diagram-level testing of several sectional relationships between the trail and the surrounding landscape. This is meant to provide a menu of options for refinement in future design processes. Five different design approaches were explored for implementing the new trail design within the landscape. Typical Existing Condition Approach 1 takes the straightforward approach of widening the Trail and steepening the adjacent slopes. In addition to there being few places along the Trail with sufficient space to accommodate this approach, Approach 1 has several disadvantages. The extensive regrading of adjacent slopes will result in the removal of more trees Implications: and adjacent vegetation than any other approach. The new, steeper • revegetating slopes slope will also provide the least sense of “spatial enclosure”, i.e., the • most trees likely cut down sense that the Trail is its own unique environment that feels separated • weak, inconsistent spatial enclosure* from the busy streets that flank it. This is because the steep slopes will • sight lines maintained to adjacent roads maintain sight lines to the adjacent streets, particularly during the many • few places with enough space to accomplish this years it will take for the revegetated slopes to leaf out. arrangement

Since horizontal space is constrained in many places along the Trail, the remaining approaches employ retaining walls to manage Trail expansion. The approaches using retaining walls will require less Approach 1: Widen + Steepen regrading and will, consequently, have the ability to retain more existing trees and other vegetation. Using retaining walls, however, may be more expensive than steepening the slope in some locations. An additional concern with all approaches using retaining walls is the risk of graffiti and the resulting increase in maintenance costs. This concern should be considered in each location and addressed by revegetating Implications: • maintains some trees and vegetation in front of the wall and/or developing a maintenance plan. • biking and walking through the canopy • stronger, inconsistent spatial enclosure* Approach 2 uses an outboard retaining wall between the Trail and • cost implications the adjacent roadway. This approach has the advantage of screening • screens roadways from view roadways from view. The wall could potentially present a blank, • a blank, unattractive wall would present a poor face to unattractive face to the public along the road; however this could the public be overcome by revegetating the slope in front of the wall or using a surface treatment on the wall to provide visual interest. Approach 3 * Spatial enclosure refers to the overall visual effect of vegetation, walls and other landscape elements to create a distinct, adds a mound to Approach 2 in order to provide more screening from separated space, defined by strong vertical edges and an the road and to provide a consistent feature to reinforce the sense of Approach 2: Outboard Wall overhead canopy. We’ve evaluated both the strength of the the Trail as a unique location. Adding the mound would increase costs, enclosure and the consistency of treatment from side to side however. across the trail corridor.

JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY PART V: TRAIL DESIGN 45

Implications: Rather than employing an outboard wall, Approach 4 uses a wall • maintain trees and vegetation outboard of the wall placed inboard of the Trail. This approach would maintain the greatest • strong, consistent spatial enclosure* amount of existing vegetation on the slope between the Trail and the • cost implications road. The inboard wall could also include seating and lighting for the • screens roadways from view Trail. The disadvantage with this approach is that, as in Approach • inboard wall could be used for lighting and/or seating • a blank, unattractive wall would present a poor face to 1, Approach 4 will not provide a strong sense of spatial enclosure the public because it will maintain sight lines to the roadway.

Approach 5 adds an outboard mound to Approach 4. Where space and existing vegetation allow for this approach, it provides many Approach 3: Outboard Wall + Mound advantages. As in Approach 4, the inboard wall can be used for seating and lighting. The outboard mound provides visual interest and a consistent spatial enclosure that screens the trail from the road. Like Approach 3, Approach 5 would be more expensive due to the inclusion of both a retaining wall and a mound; however, the added contribution to the experience of the Trail as a unique feature of campus could make Implications: it worthwhile. • maintains most outboard trees and vegetation • inboard wall could be used for lighting and/or seating • cost implications Recommended Approaches for Trail Segments • weak, inconsistent spatial enclosure* The following section describes a recommended section and spatial approaches for each trail segment.

Pasadena Place NE to 15th Avenue Segment This segment entails development of a laterally separated trail from 15th Avenue NE to Pasadena Place NE. Along the Mercer Hall corridor, Approach 4: Inboard Wall the large conifers on the south side of the trail and the allée of mature multi-stemmed trees along the north side should be preserved, if possible. Adding a retaining wall along the north side of the trail would provide greater width for the trail while minimizing impacts to the adjacent slope. The access road along the trail’s north edge appears to Implications: be little used, and conflicts with the expansion of the trail. Narrowing or • maintains some trees and vegetation rerouting the roadway may be possible and would allow more options • strong, inconsistent spatial enclosure* in expansion of the Trail. • cost implications • screens roadways from view 15th Avenue to T-Wing Overpass Segment • inboard wall could be used for lighting and/or seating At Hitchcock Bridge, the development of the wider profile will require modification or replacement of the existing railroad trestle/bridge, while maintaining and improving pedestrian access to the bus stop on Pacific * Spatial enclosure refers to the overall visual effect of vegetation, below. walls and other landscape elements to create a distinct, separated space, defined by strong vertical edges and an overhead canopy. We’ve evaluated both the strength of the Approach 5: Inboard Wall + Outboard Mound enclosure and the consistency of treatment from side to side across the trail corridor.

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY 46 PART V: TRAIL DESIGN

6” curb

T-Wing Overpass to Hec Ed Bridge Segment The development of a wider, separated trail in the area of Rainier Vista and the Montlake Triangle will involve the addition of retaining 2’ 10’ 14’ 2’ walls both along NE Pacific Street and along the Trail on the Montlake shoulder pedestrian cyclist shoulder Boulevard NE side of the University of Washington campus. Northeast of Montlake Triangle, retaining wall development can occur on either side of the Trail, and can serve to assist in the development of better sight lines on the Trail’s major pedestrian crossings.

As noted in Part III, to the northeast of the Rainier Vista area, the Trail’s south or southeast slope contains several clusters of large trees and shrubs that should be preserved if possible. Due to the existing vegetation and steep slopes alongside the trail, this area should use the narrowest recommended section. In addition, separating the gravel pervious regular porous gravel pedestrian and bicycle trails and/or using retaining walls along this concrete concrete asphalt segment could enable preservation of these trees and maximize the Section 6: Grade-Separated Section possible trail width.

Hec Ed Bridge to Pend Oreille Road Segment Retaining wall development could occur on either side of the Trail in this segment, allowing a wider section and improved sight lines especially at the Trail’s major pedestrian crossings, including crossings at the Hec Edmundson, Hitchcock and Wahkiakum Bridges.

Pend Oreille Road to NE 47th Street North of Pend Oreille Road, the Trail should transition to match the existing width, with selected traffic control devices incorporated into the area near the intersection. 2’ 8’ - 10’ 1’ 12’ - 14’ 2’ Trail Surface shoulder pedestrian divider cyclist shoulder Currently, the Trail is paved with asphalt, the most common surface used for paving trails. Asphalt has the advantage of providing a smooth surface at reasonable cost; however, asphalt is subject to more frequent maintenance as the surface degrades and tree roots heave it up. Concrete is a longer lasting material, but has higher initial costs. Standard asphalt and concrete are both impermeable requiring management of surface runoff. Based on current City of Seattle code, reconstruction of the trail would require storm drainage mitigation.

In recent years, permeable versions of both asphalt and concrete gravel pervious textured at- porous gravel have been developed that are highly suitable for trail applications. concrete grade divider asphalt Permeable asphalt has a distinct advantage over traditional asphalt in Section 7: Texture-Separated Section

JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY PART V: TRAIL DESIGN 47

that it reduces puddling and winter freeze-over, both of which are spill There is a risk that applying so many wayfinding schemes to the hazards for cyclists. While permeable concrete surfaces are considered Trail will be confusing and unsightly, resulting in complicated signs somewhat too rough for general cycling, they are appropriate for that require so much attention from the Trail user that safety is pedestrian paths. The difference in paving material can also serve to compromised. Since the priority use for the Trail within the UW campus reinforce the Trail’s separated pedestrian and bicycle tracks. Where is to enable movement around campus, it is recommended that the Trail’s uses are laterally separated, a 1-foot wide strip paved with a wayfinding system prioritize UW wayfinding practices and protocols. material different in size and texture from both the pedestrian and the While city, regional, and transit wayfinding schemes should be bicycle tracks is recommended, such as granite or pavers. Crushed accommodated where appropriate, they should be incorporated in a limestone is commonly used for trail shoulders is recommended for the manner that minimizes signage clutter and confusion. For example, shoulders in this location as well. signs at Rainier Vista/Montlake Triangle and Hec Edmundson Bridge to direct users to Husky Stadium could include an additional logo for the Wayfinding University of Washington Link Station. The 14-foot wide bicycle track would include a painted centerline to channel bicycle traffic. While centerlines divide and can thus constrain Trail Landscape wheeled movement and LOS on a trail, LOS will not be affected if The Trail is not only a transportation facility, it is also a beloved linear the Trail is wide enough to allow passing without forcing bicycles landscape. The Trail currently knits the campus together by reflecting into the oncoming bicycle path of travel. The recommended 14-foot the adjacent campus landscape along the Trail’s sections while also wide bicycle track for the Trail is wide enough to allow for a dashed maintaining its own unique identity. The Trail’s contribution to the UW centerline. Dashed centerlines reinforce the desired direction of travel campus identity can be further reinforced through the improved Trail’s while also permitting overtaking in the opposing lane if necessary, landscape design. similar to two lane rural roads. It is also possible to use other pavement markings consistent with MUTCD practice to channelize turning One of the landscape design’s key functions will be to reinforce the movements, reinforce stop signs and other traffic control devices if so sense of quiet disconnect from the surrounding urban infrastructures desired. Such markings are consistent with, but not required by current that is already discernible along the existing corridor. The forest state and federal design guidelines for trails. Additional symbols and along the segment between Hec Edmundson Bridge and Pend tactile warning strips at intersections are also used to reinforce traffic Oreille is particularly effective in creating both vertical edges and calming design elements. an overhead canopy that gives users the sense of escape from the city that traditional urban college campuses have provided. Careful attention to grading approaches, preservation of important existing Since the Trail is both an intra-campus and a regional transportation trees, minimizing disturbance to adjacent areas and the appropriate facility, the Trail’s wayfinding system should integrate with University, placement of retaining walls will allow for a landscape design that City and regional wayfinding systems. The UW campus portion of the incorporates trees, shrubs and ground covers in fairly close proximity Trail is currently covered by multiple wayfinding systems, a situation to the Trail. As noted under Part III, much of the understory and ground that is likely to continue in the future. These wayfinding systems cover along the Trail is overrun by invasive plants. The UW should use include the UW campus wayfinding system, the City of Seattle’s the Trail expansion as an opportunity to remove invasive plants and bicycle wayfinding system and regional trail signage defined by the replace them with more appropriate native and ornamental species. Puget Sound Regional Council that is implemented at the municipal level. In addition, wayfinding signage associated with Sound Transit The landscape design should be tailored to reflect the character of Figure 29. Current wayfinding on trail west of University Bridge and King County Metro will be a part of the new University of each campus area along the Trail and should integrate with the planting Washington Link Station. palette and design approach for the major development projects which will intersect with the Trail, including the Rainier Vista/Montlake Triangle project and the Pend Oreille Intersection project. Where trail widths

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY 48 PART V: TRAIL DESIGN

allow, LID features may be incorporated within a median between light and shadows may make it difficult for users to see path direction, pedestrians and bicyclists. Adding additional plants and revegetating edges, surface conditions and obstacles, including other bicyclists and the slopes adjacent to the Trail will help reduce slope erosion and pedestrians; this may reduce the perception of safety for all users. In manage stormwater flowing across the Trail and down to the roadway. short, current lighting conditions on the Trail may create safety issues in However, care should be taken that plantings do not create unsafe some areas for bicyclists and pedestrians, which is critically important conditions for trail users; planting design should adhere to Crime given its 24-hour-a-day use. Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles. Luminaires, standards and horizontal and vertical clearances from At intersections, the Trail’s landscape design should transition from the Trail should follow recommendations for pedestrian use, including creating a sense of enclosure to a more open design that allows for AASHTO and CPTED standards, since this user population has the increased visibility and signals the need for a more careful awareness greater need for lighting. of one’s surroundings. Not only will this create safer intersection conditions for all users, it will also provide yet another cue for trail users Trail lighting recommendations include: that the nodal “mixing zones” are to be negotiated in a more cautious manner than the rest of the corridor. Planting designs should consider • Install fixed source lighting at the pedestrian scale per AASHTO national and local standards on sight triangles, and should maintain guidelines; appropriate sight lines between Trail and intersecting roads and • Install or improve pedestrian scale lighting as new Trail pathways. See Part VI for further discussion on intersection design. segments are developed • Where special security problems exist, such as underpasses, tunnels or nighttime security issues, higher illumination levels Lighting should be considered (AASHTO); Regional trails in the Puget Sound traditionally have not been • Design should be consistent with UW luminaires and standards; lighted facilities; such trails have traditionally been seen as parks • Consider use of lighting at intersections as a highlight feature to facilities rather than transportation facilities. As such, they have been draw attention to high activity areas (i.e. pavement LEDs); considered “open” from dawn to dusk, and, accordingly were not • Consider incorporating art into lighting as an element to reinforce the UW campus identity; and lit. Such an approach also was an acknowledgement that lighting Figure 30. Existing high mount luminaire on Burke-Gilman Trail (left). Newer • Coordinate lighting installation with sections installed by the the facility would represent acceptance of the facility as an all-hours pedestrian scale light on ramp near Burke-Gilman Trail (right). City of Seattle. transportation facility. Use of the trail both generally and specifically at the UW occurs around the clock, and as such should include Implementation of improved lighting may also represent an opportunity design elements that provide a safe environment for users during to expand the network of security kiosks and telephones to a greater all anticipated hours of operation and all seasons. The Trail on the number of locations along the trail. UW campus is a vital corridor for campus residents, employees, and students, and users should be provided with a level lighting and security consistent with other campus locations. Other Design Elements Other design elements can also be used to reinforce the Trail’s role as In recent years, trail segments in urban areas are being developed an identifiable piece of the UW campus’ identity, such as materials, with lighting, acknowledging that these facilities serve populations benches and other fixtures. Temporary banners and kiosks can be used travelling at night and in the early morning, as well as during low-light to tie the Trail into special events on campus. Student art and other daytime hours in the winter months. While the UW campus portion products from the UW’s various programs could be displayed to further of the Trail has some formal lighting, much of it is set on high posts express the Trail’s integration with the rest of the campus. which do not provide sufficient light for the Trail’s pedestrian and bicycle scale activities. The Trail has low levels of lighting and areas of shadowing. Like sections of the Trail in other parts of Seattle, low

JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY part Vi intersection design

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY PART VI: INTERSECTION DESIGN 51 INTERSECTION DESIGN

Trail intersections are key points of conflict under both the current Trail configuration and if the pedestrian and bicycle users are separated. These include intersections with roadways where bicyclists and pedestrians will encounter crossing vehicles, as well as non-motorized intersections along the Trail. Figure 31 identifies the Trail locations within the study area observed to have a high volume of cross-traffic. Whatcom It is assumed that as Trail use grows, conflicts at intersections will also Pend Oreille Rd Bridge increase. Note that there are other minor intersections along the Trail that were not observed as part of this study.

Intersection design for trails traditionally has not entailed the inclusion Wahkiakum Bridge of particularly technical or complicated designs, as most trails do not have the volumes or speed to make such active control useful or effective. In the case of the Burke-Gilman Trail, volumes and turning movements do reach levels where the active management of these movements (and intersections) has practical design value. rooklyn Ave NE Ave B rooklyn

University Way NE Way University There are two basic types of intersections along the Trail on the UW campus. The first is represented by trail crossings of public streets and 15th Ave NE 15th Ave Pasadena Pl NE Pasadena campus roads used by motor vehicles. Several of these (15th Avenue University Bridge L ane Adams NE, University Way) are already managed by traffic signals, while those Rainier Vista Hec Ed Bridge with lower volumes (Brooklyn Ave NE, Pend Oreille Road) are stop-sign controlled for Trail users. Several low-volume vehicular crossings that consist of smallN roads, service drives, or driveways (e.g. Adams Lane) are marked with a crosswalk and Yield sign for Trail users. W Hitchcock Bridge The second type ofE intersection is that where non-motorized traffic LEGEND accesses or crosses the Trail. Some of these intersections are T-Wing Overpass S horizontally separated travel NE Pacific St essentially feeding pedestrian traffic only (Whatcom, Wahkiakum) while other crossings (e.g. Hec Ed, Rainier Vista) can involve large numbers Montlake Blvd NE Uniofv ebothrsit pedestriansy of Washing and bicyclistston entering or crossing the Trail. vertically separated travel Campus & Vicinity transition August 2007 major intersection minor intersection mixing area

Figure 31. Conceptual Design Elements for the Burke-Gilman Trail Figure 32. Use of speed table on trail, Copenhagen, Denmark

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY 52 PART VI: INTERSECTION DESIGN

The design approach taken in this study is to identify specific types of conflicts to be managed in the proposed Trail design, and select a facility type and design that best meets these challenges while maintaining the UW’s vision of the Trail.

As discussed in the current conditions section, sight lines represent a significant issue to be managed in intersection design, along with the effects of a wide range of user speed on the Trail. Combined, the limited sight lines and speed of bike traffic forces bicyclists and pedestrians to react quickly at intersections.

Sight lines can be managed through a review of Trail alignment (Brooklyn Ave NE, Hitchcock Bridge) and landscape treatment (Hec Ed, Figure 33. University Way Figure 34. T-Wing Overpass Whatcom, Wahkiakum).

This study proposes an aggressive approach to controlling speed at major intersection crossings of the Trail, in a manner similar to on- street traffic calming installations at crosswalks near schools and other pedestrian destinations. Motorized Intersections Approaches Tabling Figure 35. 15th Avenue NE Figure 36. Pend Oreille Drive The primary device used to control motorized traffic speed at key Trail intersections involves “tabling”, or raising the level of the road to the higher level of the Trail. In essence, this creates a “speed hump” for motorized traffic. While this requires more design and construction effort, the design can increase compliance with posted speeds and also focus bicyclists’ attention on the crossing itself. Different pavement textures would be used to define the approach (transition zone) and the crossing (Mixing zone). This technique is applicable to both lateral and vertical separation designs.

Signage Another easily added element is the more comprehensive adoption of traffic control devices that meet the specifications set out in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The selection of signs that meet the design specifications of this document (and Figure 37. Brooklyn Avenue Figure 38. Access path intersection to T-Wing Overpass

JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY PART VI: INTERSECTION DESIGN 53

placement according to the guidelines established in both the MUTCD and the AASHTO Guide) adds predictability and easier interpretation of expected conditions and regulations on the Trail. The disadvantage of signage as the primary control of intersections is that they are difficult to enforce in the Trail environment.

Grade Separation with On-Street Traffic A more frequently seen grade separation on trails involves a grade separation over or under a street with motorized traffic. On most rail- trails (and the Burke-Gilman Trail is certainly not an exception) much of this infrastructure is remnant from previous railroad operations. Trestles, bridges, tunnels and culvert crossings are seen on most regional trails in Washington State. Figure 39. Hitchcock Bridge stair access to bus stop Figure 40. Hitchcock Bridge Occasionally, a trail manager will consider adding a grade separation over roads in lieu of a signalized or stop-controlled crossing at grade. New grade separations can be expensive, and can have visual and security impacts. To develop a grade separation with 16-foot clearance for motorized traffic at a ridable grade, each approach can extend over 320 feet, with an overall length approaching 700 feet at a AASHTO compliant grade of 5%. Such a structure can create a significant visual impact, and the inclusion of a grade can reduce the utility of the facility to less-advanced bicyclists.

While pedestrians may have reservations about using underpasses, cycling organizations tend to prefer them to climbing over a street. Underpasses require only going 10-12 feet beneath the street, while overpasses require 16 feet as a minimum. By routing bicyclists through Figure 41. Eastbound approach with limited sight distance at Hitchcock Bridge Figure 42. Hec Edmundson intersection an underpass, the riders gain momentum before climbing away from the intersection, maintaining a steady speed with little additional effort. Climbing bicyclists, on the other hand, tend to slow considerably as grades get longer and steeper – cyclists riding slowly (uphill) have a more difficult time riding in a straight line than those moving faster on level or descending terrain, and accordingly require more lateral space to minimize potential conflict.

Right-of-Way Assignments As trails have grown in popularity and user volumes, traditional means of managing traffic at street intersections are being reviewed. Trails crossing streets have typically had stop signs facing trail users, without consideration of relative volumes of traffic. More recently, trails with higher volumes of traffic than the streets they cross have reversed the right-of-way, turning the stop signs towards the route with the least Figure 43. Stairs at Wahkiakum Lane Bridge Figure 44. Manson Road periodically operates with only one lane

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY 54 PART VI: INTERSECTION DESIGN

traffic, even if that is a street used by motor vehicles. This reversal of University Way NE Intersection right-of-way is being implemented on the King County section of the This intersection is already functioning relatively well. Current signals Trail in Lake Forest park as part of a larger trail upgrade project. controlling crossing should be maintained. The Trail’s visibility within the intersection should be improved through enhanced pavement color Within the UW section of the Trail, the intersection with Brooklyn (green) and markings. Avenue NE has been considered for a reassignment of right-of way, while the respective Trail and motor vehicle volumes at Pend Oreille 15th Avenue NE Intersection Road are also getting closer to one another. A reassignment of right-of- The at-grade crossing already slows bicycle traffic at a busy, signalized way involves not only changes to traffic signing, but also consideration intersection with ample queuing space on the east side of the of improvements in crosswalk markings, lighting and possibly tabling of intersection. Similar queuing space on the west side of the intersection the road crossing to further emphasize the change in operations. would improve flow and is recommended. As at the University Way NE intersection, current signalization should be maintained and Trail At street intersections with lower daily traffic volumes, tabled crossings visibility improved through enhanced pavement color (green) and for both pedestrians and bikes are recommended. With or without markings. We propose modifications to the crosswalks at 15th Ave tabled crossings, growth in use associated with the Trail will demand NE to establish a green pavement area for bikes parallel with the Figure 46. Hec Edmundson bridge crossing increased attention to sight lines, making pedestrians and bicyclists traditionally marked crosswalk more conspicuous and perhaps consideration of placing the right-of- way in the direction of the Trail at crossings with low motor vehicle volumes. At intersections with higher daily traffic volumes, signalization and enhanced pavement marking is recommended.

Recommendations Recommendations for specific areas are as follows.

Brooklyn Avenue NE Intersection The Trail crossing at Brooklyn Avenue NE is characterized by low motorized traffic volumes compared with University Way NE and 15th Avenue NE to the east. This study recommends a tabled crossing Figure 47. Hec Edmundson intersection requires careful monitoring by users at this location, reflecting that the primary movement of traffic at this intersection is on the Trail and not on the street. Current traffic management through signage does not appear to be as effective as desired in managing cross traffic. We propose further traffic counts at this location to determine if this location would be a good candidate for right-of-way reassignment in favor of Trail traffic over on-street traffic. Note that during construction of the Brooklyn light rail station (2013-2019), Brooklyn Avenue NE will be closed from 43rd Street to 45th Street. Automobile volumes are likely to decrease substantially during the construction phase, and right-of-way assignment should be monitored and adjusted as necessary.

Figure 45. Proposed tabled intersection on vertically separated cross section Figure 48. Tight turns can be difficult to make at east end of Hec Edmundson bridge

JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY PART VI: INTERSECTION DESIGN 55

Pend Oreille Road Intersection Grade Separation Currently, bicyclists and pedestrians crossing this at-grade intersection An alternative frequently considered at at-grade crossings with must stop for Pend Oreille traffic. Pend Oreille Road has a slight grade, high traffic volumes is development of a grade-separated condition which creates some sight line issues for both motorists and Trail users. utilizing either a trail overpass or culvert underpass. As discussed A four-way stop-controlled condition was analyzed in support of this in the section on Vehicular Intersections above, development of study. such separated facilities can be both expensive and have visual and other environmental impacts on the surrounding area. In the case of The question being researched was whether or not right-of-way at the Pend Oreille, either an elevated or depressed structure would have Trail’s intersection with Pend Oreille Road should be changed in the to contend with consistently wet vegetated areas/soils near the face of growing Trail user volumes relative to the number of cars on the intersection, as well as integrate a challenging topographic condition road. Using the Trail volumes counted in October, two simulations were at the site for the roadway. An overpass would require development modeled to assess the impact of various possible changes in traffic of a structure close to 700 feet long and up to 25 feet tall in order to management at this location. accommodate transit and other service vehicles on Pend Oreille Road.

Right-of-Way Simulations Grade separation might be a workable option if the vertical shift in In the first simulation for both the AM and PM peak periods, it was travel routes could be shared by both the road and trail. Considering assumed that bicyclists will obey the stop sign most of the time. The the impact to wet areas, sight lines (diminished vertical crest sight resulting additional vehicle delays and queues were not excessive, lines) and the impact to casual trail users of a long 5% grade, it is our indicating that an all-way stop condition would work adequately from a recommendation in the short-term not to pursue grade separation traffic operations standpoint, so long as most or all cyclists stop at the at this location, but rather focus attention on management of user stop sign. behavior through traffic control devices as described above. As Trail volumes increase in proportion to traffic on Pend Oreille Road, A second simulation was run in which cyclists stopped 50 percent of consideration should then be given to development of a grade- the time. Under this scenario, westbound vehicle queues would not separated crossing at this location. Specifically, we recommend: directly interfere with the nearby Pend Oreille Road/25th Avenue NE intersection; however, the 95th percentile eastbound queue length Recommendations would be about 630 feet. This queue would not back up to the pay booth but would be close to the booth many times over the day, Short-Term potentially impacting operations near Padelford Parking Garage. The • Slight tabling of the intersection, consistent with paving and average eastbound vehicle delay would be about 100 seconds. ramping practice envisioned in other transition and mixing zones on the Trail; This location is approaching the pedestrian peak hour volume warrant • Improvement of sight lines through thinning and pruning of (190 pedestrians in the peak hour) as well as the four-hour warrant (100 vegetation on the vehicular approaches to the Trail crossing; and pedestrians in any four hours) for changing right-of-way assignment • Reversal of right-of-way assignment to favor the Trail upon in favor of Trail users at stop-controlled intersections. It is also close meeting the peak hour warrants for pedestrians and other to the peak hour vehicle volume warrant for change, which will be met vehicles as described above. when the bicycle volume on the highest approach surpasses 400. It is currently at 338. There are other components to both the peak hour Long-Term and pedestrian signal warrants, but for the purposes of this analysis, it • Develop a grade-separated crossing of Pend Oreille Road to appears that the University should continue to monitor the volumes and both reduce conflict with motor vehicles and to preserve the give consideration to a stop controlled condition for Pend Oreille Road quality of the Pend Oreille Road / 25th Avenue NE intersection. when bicycle volumes generally match vehicle volumes.

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY 56 PART VI: INTERSECTION DESIGN

In Denver, the 10-foot wide Mary Carter Greenway attracted a multitude Non-motorized INTERSECTIONS of users from families with toddlers to high-speed cyclists. The conflicts between varying users led to diminished trail enjoyment and The majority of the intersections along the UW segment of the Trail safety. When separating bicycle and pedestrian facilities did not resolve are non-motorized. These intersections create unique hazards of their conflicts at key intersections, bicycle roundabouts were installed at the diminished trail enjoyment and safety. The ultimate solution was to provide separate own. Without the need to worry about running into vehicles, both most congested intersections. The roundabouts successfully slowed facilities but this approach did not resolve the issue of conflicts at key intersections. The solution was to construct a pair of bicycle roundabouts at the most congested bicyclists and pedestrians may be less attuned to crossing traffic. Trail bicycle traffic, allowing for observed safe pedestrian crossings. intersections that slowed bicycle traffic, allowing for safe pedestrian crossings. conditions, such as vegetation obscuring sight lines, may enhance this lack of attention. An FHWA bulletin on roundabout treatments for shared-use paths There are currently no definitive guidelines on constructing bicycle roundabouts. The notes that such facilities are constructed for the same reason they FHWA guide notes that designers should consider that speed reduction will likely have are built on roadways: improved safety and traffic flow. As with the most direct influence on the choice of the overall size and geometry of a roundabout Approaches roundabouts on roadways, fewer conflicts occur on shared-use paths due to the relationship between speed and curvature. A minimum width of 6 feet for the path is recommended and an outside diameter of around 50-65 feet. Several options exist to improve intersection design, including: tabling, that include roundabouts versus traditional intersections. There are signage, roundabouts, grade separation, grade separation with traffic, currently no definitive guidelines on constructing bicycle roundabouts. right-of-way assignments; and diamonds. The FHWA guide notes that designers should consider that speed Fehr & Peers has recently designed several new roundabouts for the UC Davis campus. reduction will likely have the most direct influence on the choice of Experience there has shown that roundabouts without vertical deflection elements do not Tabling work. UC Davis uses a variety of barrier elements, depending on the need for emergency the overall size and geometry of a roundabout due to the relationship vehicles to use the pathway. The primary device used to control motorized traffic speed at key Trail between speed and curvature, with a tighter turn requiring slower user intersections involves “tabling”, or raising the level of the cycle track speeds. A minimum width of 6 feet is recommended for the roundabout FigureProject 49.‐Area Bicycle Roundabouts Roundabout at UC Davis. Image courtesy of Fehr & Peers. to the higher level of the pedestrian way. In essence, this creates a path with an outside diameter of about 50-65 feet. “speed hump” for bicycle traffic. While this requires more design and construction effort, the design can increase compliance with posted Fehr & Peers has recently designed several bicycle roundabouts on the Trail Volume Crossing Volume speeds and also focus bicyclists’ attention on the crossing itself. UC Davis campus. They have found that roundabouts without vertical Roundabout Location Bicycles Pedestrians Bicycles Pedestrians Suitability Different pavement textures would be used to define the approach deflection elements do not work. UC Davis uses a variety of barrier Brooklyn & Pacific W 265 227 9 150 No (transition zone) and the crossing (mixing zone). This technique is elements, depending on the need for emergency vehicles to use the applicable to both lateral and vertical separation designs. pathway. 15th & Pacific W 305 227 7 114 No Hitchcock Overpass 286 224 59 394 No Roundabouts Grade Separation Rainier Vista W 324 121 31 39 Yes In this study, we evaluate and asses the use of roundabout intersection Grade separation is often used in non-motorized environments to Rainier Vista E 384 215 106 49 Yes design for locations where trails cross trails, particularly in the context allow a trail to gain elevation by turning back over itself – to a degree, Hec Edmundson of the redesigned Rainier Vista crossing and at Hec Ed Bridge. See the proposed concept for connecting the University of Washington Overpass 293 289 41 685 Potentially Table 18 for results of this analysis. LINK station to the Trail does this, although the primary reason for Wahkiakum Lane Overpass 281 135 4 578 Potentially the separation is to reduce conflict between users on both facilities. Roundabouts have been added to bike- and pedestrian-only paths at However this solution can be costly, and in most cases takes more TableTable 18. 4. Bicycle Bicycle and and Pedestrian Pedestrian Volumes Volumes at at High-Volume High-Volume Intersections Intersection from from October,October 12, 20102010 Counts counts. University of California (UC) campuses at Davis and Santa Barbara and space to implement than other at-grade solutions. at Stanford University (see Figure 49). They have been also added on public trails in Denver, Anchorage, Minneapolis, and Cape Cod. The Diamonds Table 4 identifies the Trail locations within the study area observed to have a high volume of cross-traffic. The two locations where the Trail crosses Brooklyn and 15th are shared use paths at UC Davis contain more than a dozen roundabouts, Diamond Interchanges (or “ramped interchanges”) are used at trail some dating back to the 1970s. They were constructed because of not suitable for roundabouts. There is insufficient right-of-way and these intersections crossings with high volumes of trail traffic that is departing from abut at grade street crossings which prevent a steady flow in and out of a roundabout. heavy bicycle and pedestrian traffic during class change times at key one trail and transitioning to another. As opposed to intersection or These at-grade crossings already slow down bicycle traffic. At the Hitchcock Overpass, intersections. roundabout crossings, ramped intersections gradually move traffic off a high volume and/or high speed trail and gradually move it with minimal conflict to other trail traffic. Once on the ramp, the geometric

JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY PART VI: INTERSECTION DESIGN 57

of the ramp (width, curves, grade, surface) can be adjusted to gradually shadowing. This technique would apply on both sections with vertical reduce the speed of the user before making a turn onto the other trail. as well as lateral separation.

While such a design involves more space and material to develop, it is The design of the conflict areas would also address issues of improving possible in the context of the Trail to allow gradual movements without sight lines, creating defensible space, and improved landscape control, significant impact to pedestrians. At the Rainier Vista intersection, while street intersection design would focus on increased visibility of pedestrians should not have to cross a ramp in order to access or both the Trail and Trail users. move along either direction of the Trail, so long as the pedestrian way remains on the campus side of the Trail. Traffic Control Other alternatives involve bicyclists braking and adjusting their path of Current local trail management practice treats trails as recreational travel in order to negotiate a 90 degree or sharper turn – this creates facilities that don’t include major traffic control devices except at conflict for following traffic, for on-coming traffic, and for users on the roadway crossings. Recently, both local and regional practices have far side of the turn. Using a ramp with a gently curving path of travel, moved towards integration of incrementally more (regimented) control, groups of bicyclists departing the Trail will be passively encouraged by particularly in the use of centerlines and in consistent use of traffic the design to form up in lines rather than move through the corner as a control devices consistent with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control tightly bunched group. Devices (MUTCD). This study recommends increased use of MUTCD traffic control devices, including pavement markings, standard format Transition Zones traffic control signs, and continued adherence to nationally accepted As these various Trail profiles come to intersections, we are proposing design guidelines for trails. two clear zones that will be defined through a combination of texture, lighting, elevation, signage and other changes. These are the “transition zones,” which are primarily for riders to understand that they are Recommendations Recommendations for specific areas are as follows. coming near to a conflict zone where there will be pedestrians, and “mixing zones” where pedestrians and cyclists will be occupying T-Wing Overpass the same space which deserves higher levels of attention and care. Vertical clearance under the existing overpass should be increased in At roadway crossings, clear signage and striping will guide all users conjunction with grading changes on adjacent projects to meet current across the intersection. We are proposing the use of this transition zone design guidelines (10 feet). Access paths on both sides of the overpass treatment at identified major intersections (both motorized and trail) on should be realigned and expanded to include a wider turning apron to the Trail corridor on campus. accommodate turning movements prior to entering the Trail. The east access path should be regraded to meet accessibility requirements. Major Non-Motorized Intersections The fundamental concept of separating pedestrians and bicyclists is Hitchcock Bridge to allow passive forms of speed control at key intersections, which in At the Hitchcock Bridge, there is insufficient available space for bicycle this corridor are represented by intersections of the Trail at Hitchcock parking and the Trail abuts an elevated crossing structure, making Bridge to UWMC, the East and West Rainier Vista crossings, Hec roundabout construction difficult without reconstructing the trestle. Edmundson Bridge, and crossing of the Trail at Whatcom Bridge and Other recommendations include: Wahkiakum Bridge. By having the pedestrian track 6 inches higher than the wheeled track, it is feasible to ramp the wheeled traffic into an • Maintain and improve access to bus stops • Identify opportunities for development under Trail and trestle intersection zone as a gentle form of speed hump, or more precisely as • Realignment and sight line improvement a tabled crossing. Different paving materials would be used to define • Need for bike parking capacity expansion the conflict area, and lighting levels would be increased to minimize

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY 58 PART VI: INTERSECTION DESIGN

Rainier Vista a substantial number of trees would have to be removed and the site East Based on our analysis, we recommend a pedestrian travel alignment has potential grading issues. One leg of the intersection would be fed • Bridge Approach – expand width of access ramp to allow easier across Rainier Vista that would route pedestrians up and across the by the existing steps to upper campus – as at Hec Edmundson, these bicycle turning movements. Rainier Vista view corridor and bicycle trail under a proposed land steps would require additional setback from either a roundabout or • Consider development of a separated cycle track along bridge spanning Pacific Place (the currently proposed pedestrian other type of intersection. It is also recommended that a bike wheel Montlake towards University Village and Seattle Children’s alignment). This alternate Trail alignment has several advantages over tray be installed parallel to the steps at both locations so that users Hospital to the north, and to the SR 520 trail, Link light rail, and transit facilities to the south. This would potentially lower bicycle the currently proposed alignment: don’t have to carry their bikes up the steps. While a tabled intersection traffic volumes on the Trail. (similar to roundabouts) is not yet justified at either location by user • Incorporates the Rainier Vista view corridor into the pedestrian volumes, it is recommended that conflict area paving be installed. The At Hec Edmundson Bridge, further site evaluations would need to route of the Trail – providing an expansive view along Rainier installation of a tables intersection is not recommended at these sites. Vista rather than the underside of the land bridge; be made to determine the feasibility of installing a roundabout. Open • Reduces the overall length of the pedestrian travel route – Hec Edmundson Bridge space is limited and there may not be adequate space to construct the necessary entry and exit paths into the roundabout. We recommend a approximately twenty feet shorter than the currently proposed The crossing from campus to Hec Edmundson Pavilion and other design incorporating the tabling and transition zone elements utilized route under the land bridge; sports and athletic facilities on the lower campus has long been elsewhere in this study. • Reduces the overall grade change of the pedestrian travel route regarded as one of the most hazardous locations along the UW

– would climb 6.6 feet to pass over the view corridor instead of campus portion of the Trail. As discussed in Part III, existing conditions descending 9 feet to pass under the land bridge; include extremely limited stopping sight distance for bicyclists having • Eliminates a potentially intimidating pedestrian underpass at the Minor Non-Motorized Intersections to react to pedestrians stepping off the stairs towards the Pavilion or land bridge; and In addition to the major non-motorized intersections, there are crossing the Trail from the Hec Ed Bridge heading to upper campus. • Reduces potential conflicts from the proposed right-angle numerous small trails that connect less formal or heavily traveled paths intersections between the pedestrian and bicycle trails and the While much of this is due to the fact that landscaping blocks sight lines, to the Trail. It may not be possible or desirable to table many of these currently proposed access trails up to the Rainier Vista view the steps leading up the hill from the Trail land immediately adjacent to minor intersections but other improvements can be made. The Trail’s corridor. the Trail surface itself, placing pedestrians into traffic when they have design should seek to consolidate minor trails and accommodate barely finished negotiating the steps, without adequate space and time anticipated turning movements on and off the Trail to these feeder The alternate alignment for the pedestrian travel route should avoid the to observe and react to crossing trail traffic. trails. critical root zone of significant trees located at edges of the corridor. We suggest the following actions to improve conflict management at It may not be possible to treat each minor intersection with Although, sufficient space does exist to fit in roundabouts at this location: improvements as described above. However, traffic control intersection locations east and west of the Rainier Vista Trestle, this improvements such as signage and traffic calming striping should be study recommends diamond interchanges with traffic control devices. West included in improvement designs. Such treatments would slow through-traffic by cyclists and ease • Step setback – leave greater room for a landing at the base of the stairs. potential conflicts between cyclists heading to/from the Montlake A number of these minor trails are located along the Trail segment • Install a bike wheel tray parallel to the steps east of the Trail. Bridge and future light rail station. Construction of roundabouts would between Adams Lane and Brooklyn Ave NE. The proposed need to take into consideration the existing landscape and design General development in this area may lead to an increase in conflicts due considerations at the Rainier Vista area, and impacts from removal of • Reconstruct the existing east stairs further to the west to allow to additional users accessing the trail through minor connections. trees would be too great. for adequate landing area; the width of Mason Road should be Development plans should attempt to consolidate Trail access and adjusted in coordination with the stair reconstruction. pathway intersections, providing fewer and distinct points of access Wahkiakum & Whatcom Bridges • Install a tabled intersection at the Trail crossing. with appropriate design for users entering or crossing the Trail. A roundabout might be physically possible at the Wahkiakum Bridge • Modification of existing bridge to improve sight lines. but additional study would be required to determine feasibility. Current • Improve overall and pedestrian scale lighting. volumes and composition of traffic do not strongly indicate a need for roundabout development at this time. While there is adequate space,

JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY part Vii unit cost estimates and phasing

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY PART VII: UNIT COST ESTIMATES AND PHASING 61 Cost Estimate

A general cost estimate was prepared by SvR for implementation of the UW Burke-Gilman Trail Conceptual Design. The total probable Phase I Phase III The Trail Evaluation of the Trail’s existing conditions and the SUPLOS Based on the LOS analysis and the high volumes of crossing traffic, construction cost estimate is $5.1 million. analysis strongly indicate that the area of greatest Trail volume, Phase III would focus on the northernmost segment of the Trail from crossing volumes and potential conflict is the segment from the T-Wing the Hec Edmundson Bridge to Pend Oreille Road. We anticipate further This cost estimate figure includes the following categories: Overpass to the Hec Edmundson Bridge. The configuration of Rainier design development of the Pend Oreille entrance to the campus, and mobilization, temporary protection measures, demolition, site Vista/Montlake Triangle relative to the Trail will be dramatically modified recommend conducting a study of a revised right-of-way plan favoring preparation, utility relocation and removal, earthwork, storm drainage, as part of the development of the University of Washington Link Light Trail traffic. This can be recorded using video technology employed in lighting, ROW improvements, existing trestle bridge replacement, Rail Station and Montlake Triangle/Husky Stadium improvements. The this study combined with placement of temporary traffic controls. paving, signage, furnishings, and landscaping. It also includes a 25% increase in pedestrian traffic volume from the light rail will immediately contingency. The following items are not included: soft costs and impact the Trail’s LOS in this segment. Phase III should also include development of the Trail segment between design; general conditions; taxes and overhead; Montlake Triangle/ 15th Avenue NE and the University Bridge, following the current Trail Rainier Vista improvements; temporary traffic control; temporary Trail On the Rainier Vista/Montlake Triangle segment of the Trail, the Hec alignment. As design development for the West Campus Housing detour; and rebuilt pathway connections except at Hec Ed and the Edmundson Bridge should be completed to coincide with the opening project continues, opportunities should be taken to consolidate the north/east edge of UW Montlake Triangle improvements. of light rail service and construction of the Montlake Triangle land minor access paths to the Trail, and add transition/mixing zones at the bridge to Rainier Vista. Such development will include areas north of remaining consolidated crossing locations. Rainier Vista and include improvements to pedestrian access (stairs, ramps, mixing and transition zones) at Hec Edmundson Bridge. Trail areas west of the University Bridge and north of Pend Oreille Road PHASING Replacement of the bridge itself may be the topic of a separate design are intended to transition back to existing Trail geometry. These areas study, although the development of improved access to the bridge is should be developed with improvements by others (e.g. City of Seattle) Improvements to the Burke-Gilman Trail should be phased to ensure intended to be consistent with eventual design alternatives. to complement new UW trail geometry. it is ready to handle the increase in traffic from adjacent major development projects as those projects come online. Where possible, Trail development, or at least preparation for Trail development, should Phase II Phase IV also be coordinated with adjacent projects. For example, the Mercer The Trail segment from Rainier Vista/Montlake Triangle to 15th Avenue Phase IV should also (as at Pend Oreille Road) include analysis of Hall redevelopment project is currently in the design phase. While NE will also see a substantial increase in pedestrian traffic from the changing the right-of-way for the crossing of Brooklyn Ave NE – the improving the segment of the Trail which passes through this area is a new Link station. Consequently, this segment of the Trail should be proposed design incorporates a raised crossing, and anticipates lower priority, certain preliminary activities, such as ensuring sufficient completed in Phase II. For purposes of this Study, it is assumed eventual reversal of right-of-way assignments at this location. land is set aside to expand the Trail and that landscape treatments on that the Trail can be redeveloped independently of potential HOV the Mercer Hall parcel reflect the Trail’s planned improvements, could lane development (with requisite retaining walls adjacent to the Trail) occur now. along NE Pacific Boulevard. Acceleration of the timetable for HOV development should be linked to advancement of the schedule for Implementation Guidance The recommended phasing approach below is based on current the western segment of Phase I, taking into account the technical challenges of modification to or reconstruction of the existing Trail understanding of the schedules for the adjacent projects which will Although planning may be implemented in phases, in conjunction with trestle at Hitchcock Bridge. drive increased Trail use. Phasing for the Trail’s development should be adjacent development, we recommend a 20-foot buffer on either side adjusted as needed to coordinate with these other project schedules. of the existing Trail centerline alignment be established. This buffer is intended to preserve areas adjacent to the Trail from structures, utilities, and permanent vegetation that may complicate future Trail development. The buffer should provide for design changes in Trail alignment, accommodation of existing trees and/or utility structures, and space for connections to existing or planned edge conditions.

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL CORRIDOR STUDY 62 PART VII: UNIT COST ESTIMATES AND PHASING

JULy, 2011 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON | SvR DESIGN COMPANY APPENDICES a. TRAIL Plan