DOCSLIB.ORG

Comments and Responses

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comments and Responses Chapter 5 Comments and Responses 5.1 Introduction This Chapter presents the letters of comment and public hearing testimony received during the 45-day comment period for the 10-Year Update Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The period to provide written comments extended from May 5 to 5:00 p.m. June 18, 2004. Three public hearings were held on June 1, 3, and 8, 2004. Comment letters and testimony were received from State, Regional, and Special District Agencies, as well as interest groups and local citizens. Responses in each subsection (e.g. 5.2 et seq.) precede the public comments that are associated with that subsection. The comment letters are divided by the following categories: • 5.2 Government Agencies • 5.3 Interest Groups • 5.4 Citizen Comments – Alternatives and Land Use Designations • 5.5 Citizen Comments – SEPA and Environmental Issues • 5.6 Public Hearing Comments Distinct comments are numbered in the margins with responses corresponding to the numbered comment. Comments that state an opinion or preference are acknowledged with a response that indicates the comment is noted and forwarded to the appropriate decision makers. Comments that ask questions, request clarifications or corrections, or are related to the DEIS analysis are provided a response which explains the EIS approach, or offers corrections, or provides other appropriate replies. Letters received after 5:00 p.m. June 18, 2004 are not included in the FEIS responses to comments. These letters were reviewed for any potential DEIS corrections. A list of late letters is provided in Appendix II-A of this FEIS. Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan 5-1 December 13, 2005 10-Year Update FEIS Snohomish County Comments and Responses 5.2 Government Agencies This section of Chapter 5 responds to comments made by State, Regional, Tribal, and Local Agency Governments regarding the DEIS. 5.2.1 State, Regional, Tribal Table 5.1-1 lists State, Regional, and Tribal Agencies that prepared comments addressing the DEIS. The agency letters appear following the responses to comments. Table 5.1-1 State, Regional, and Tribal Agencies with Comments FEIS# Log # Commenter Date 1 111 Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (Dave 6/17/04 Andersen, AICP) 2 162 Department of Fish and Wildlife (Daniel E. Penttila) 6/17/04 3 112 Puget Sound Regional Council (Norman A. Abbott, AICP) 6/18/04 4 30 The Tulalip Tribes (Stanley G. Jones & Stokes Sr.) 5/7/04 5.2.1.1 FEIS Letter 1: Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Response to Comment 1: Deliberative and Comprehensive Review of Potential UGA Expansion Your comments are noted and forwarded to the appropriate decision makers. Please note that the County developed criteria to evaluate each potential Urban Growth Area (UGA) expansion and infill proposal as described in FEIS Chapter 2. Response to Comment 2: Location and Sequencing of UGA Expansions Your comments are noted and forwarded to the appropriate decision makers. The Planning Commission Recommended Plan (“Recommended Plan”) focuses primarily on infill of UGAs at 6.6 square miles, and less upon expansion at 4.3 square miles. The County Council FEIS Map List (“Council Map List”) proposes 6.7 square miles of infill and 7.7 square miles of UGA expansion. The UGA expansion areas tend to be proposed in Rural/Urban Transition Areas (RUTAs). An analysis of the ability to provide infrastructure and services was part of the evaluation described in Response to Comment 1. Please also see FEIS Chapter 2. Response to Comment 3: UGA Expansions into Resource Lands and Critical Areas DEIS section 3.1 Natural Environment addressed a range of critical area topics and included mitigation measures some of which advised limiting UGA boundaries to avoid high value critical areas such as Little Bear Creek basin, various floodplain, and geologic hazard areas. Similarly Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan 5-3 December 13, 2005 10-Year Update FEIS Snohomish County Comments and Responses DEIS Section 3.2.2 Relationship to Plans and Policies addressed issues related to natural resource land conversions. Please note that the County developed criteria to evaluate each potential Urban Growth Area (UGA) expansion and infill proposal as described in FEIS Chapter 2, including effect upon critical areas and natural resource lands. A table showing how the Recommended Plan and Council Map List incorporate DEIS mitigation measures, regarding avoidance of environmentally sensitive areas in UGA expansion areas, is provided in FEIS Chapter 2, Table 2.3-3. On the whole, the Recommended Plan and Council Map List have a lower growth level and UGA expansion level, and their effects upon critical areas would be less than Alternative 3, although there are individual locations that have greater or lesser impacts. The effects of the Recommended Plan and Council Map List on designated resource lands is found in the Land Use and Relationship to Plans and Policies sections of the FEIS. Both the Recommended Plan and Council Map List would reduce potential impacts to resource lands in comparison to DEIS Alternative 3. Alternative 3 proposed over 30 acres of reclassification of Riverway Commercial Farmland along the Arlington UGA near the Stillaguamish River. The Council Map List would convert about 11 acres, less than Alternative 3 and greater than the Recommended Plan (approx. 5 acres). The Recommended Plan would actually increase Riverway Commercial Farmland south of Snohomish and result in a net gain for this category. Both increase Urban Horticulture within the Arlington UGA, although this is not a resource land of long-term commercial significance. Based on mineral lands mapping available in 2003, the DEIS projected that Alternatives 2 and 3 could intrude, to differing degrees, into mapped mineral lands (bedrock and sand and gravel) near the Southwest, Sultan, and Stanwood UGAs. As of the 2003 timeline, the mineral lands mapping excluded cities, National Forests, Tribal Trust lands, lands in the 100-year flood plain, shorelines, Chinook/bull trout corridors, UGA boundaries, parks and trails, and agricultural lands. Between 2003 and April 2005, additional criteria for mapping included the elimination of (1) any land where rural residential densities are greater than 0.15 dwellings per acre (average 6.67 acre lots), and (2) the removal of all land with an R-5 zoning or land use designation, except where a landowner has specifically requested inclusion and the property otherwise meets all designation criteria. As a result, a new proposed Mineral Lands Resources Overlay map has been developed as part of the Recommended Plan. With the proposed overlay map, neither the Recommended Plan nor the Council Map List UGA boundaries extend into the proposed Mineral Lands Resources Overlay. This is also true for the DEIS Alternatives. The net result is that none of the studied alternatives would intrude into the proposed Mineral Lands Resources Overlay. None of the studied alternatives intrudes into designated forestlands. Response to Comment 4: Use of Fiscal and Environmental Costs Please note that the County developed criteria to evaluate each potential Urban Growth Area (UGA) expansion and infill proposal as described in FEIS Chapter 2 including effect upon critical and natural resource lands and capital costs. Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan 5-4 December 13, 2005 10-Year Update FEIS Snohomish County Comments and Responses Response to Comment 5: Infill and Intensification of Existing Urban Areas In general, a greater focus on infill would lead to more concentration of population and employment in current urban areas, less land consumption, and ability to more efficiently provide public services and capital facilities. Approaches that promote further growth inside current UGAs would take advantage of existing infrastructure, and reduce the need for additional roadways to serve areas within expanded UGAs. A greater focus on UGA expansion would tend to allow for greater land consumption, conversion of rural lands, and greater need to expand public services and capital facilities. The various approaches tested different levels of population growth and UGA infill and expansion levels. Forecast populations are within the range of State Office of Financial Management (OFM) forecasts. Opportunities for infill and intensification were studied in more detail in developing the Recommended Plan and Council Map List, which mix and match several concepts of the DEIS Alternatives. Under the Recommended Plan, total Urban Growth Area expansion (4.3 square miles) would be intermediate to expansions proposed under Alternatives 2 (2.4 square miles) and 3 (11.5 square miles). Under the Council Map List, total Urban Growth Area expansion (7.7 square miles) would be intermediate to expansions proposed under Alternatives 2 and 3, but closer to Alternative 3, and greater than under the Recommended Plan. Infill for both the Recommended Plan (6.6 square miles) and Council Map List (6.7 square miles) would be similar to but slightly greater than the Alternative 3 infill proposal (6 square miles). Infill is proposed principally in the Southwest UGA under Alternatives 2, 3, the Recommended Plan and the Council Map List, with some infill included in other selected UGAs (e.g. Stanwood, Marysville, etc.). Response to Comment 6: Transportation and Capital Facilities Impacts As noted in your comment and the DEIS, all three alternatives in the DEIS have substantial projected revenue shortfalls with respect to transportation-facility needs. One of the challenges in developing a recommended plan is balancing projected revenues with the significant costs of accommodating projected population and employment growth, including the provision of adequate transportation facilities, while still maintaining desired level-of-service standards. The Recommended Plan includes recommended measures to balance revenues, costs, and land use, and have been considered by the County Council in its deliberations. Please see FEIS Chapters 2 and 3. Response to Comment 7: Land Use Impacts on State Transportation Facilities GMA only requires an evaluation of the impacts on the State system.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Comments to Paine Field Airport; They Have Been Noted
    SnohoniLt 1) • 17’ 1 J ,4$~ic~ Comments Countvkitport u amer len ~F Environtuental Assessinen~ ~~S4LW, LOft. 9~t7f NSCtEwJ cn~, cc~c i2~k ~u u~ COMMENTS: A~ 4o~i-c ~M ~—Tw*~ C Ia Dave Waggoner Cayla Morgan Director Environmental Protection Spedalist Snohomish County Airport Seattle Airports District Office Comments to 3220 100th Street Southwest or Federal Aviation Administration Everett, Washington 98204 1601 Lind Avenue, SW Barnard Dunkelberg >? Company Email. [email protected] Renton, Washington 98057-3356 BridgeNet International Email. [email protected] Synergy Consultants Gibson Traffic Consultants Thank You! D.1 Response to Comment Dear Jeanne and George Dalton: Thank you for your comments to Paine Field Airport; they have been noted. D.2 -Original Message— From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 5:40 PM To: Waggoner, Dave; Dolan, Bill; Ryk Dunkelberg; Ryan Hayes Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Roland. J.McKee@faa . gov Subject: Fw: Paine Field review Cayla Morgan Environmental Protection Specialist Seattle Airports District Office Federal Aviation Administration 425—227—2653 Forwarded by Cayla Morgan/ANM/FAA on 01/20/2010 04:38 PM I > From: I I > I > IStephen Dana <[email protected]> > > I To: I > I > Cayla Morgan/ANM/FAA@FAA I > > Date: I > > 101/20/2010 03:22 PM > > Subject: I > > IPaine Field review > D.3 January 19, 2010 Cayla Morgan Environmental Protection Specialist Seattle Airport District Office, FAA 1601 Lind Ave SW Renton, WA 98057 Ms. Morgan, The matter of commercial air service at Paine field is up for environmental review before your office in the coming weeks.
    [Show full text]
  • SOUND TRANSIT MOTION NO. M99-75 Mukilteo Memorandum Of
    SOUND TRANSIT MOTION NO. M99-75 Mukilteo Memorandum of Understanding Relating to the Federal Surplus Action of the Mukilteo Tank Farm Parcel BACKGROUND AND COMMENTS Meeting: Date: Type of Action: Staff Contact: Phone: Board of Directors 10/28/99 Discussion/Possible Action Paul Price 398-5111 Barry Hennelly 689-4925 ACTION: Motion No. M99-75 would authorize the Executive Director to execute a Memorandum of Understanding establishing cooperation between Sound Transit, Port of Everett, City of Mukilteo, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and City of Everett for the acquisition of the Mukilteo Tank Farm property from the United States Air Force through the Department of Defense surplus property process. BACKGROUND: Sound Move calls for Sounder commuter rail to serve the City of Mukilteo as part of the Everett-to­ Seattle project. This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) allows Sound Transit to participate in a process whereby the federal government will surplus property (the Mukilteo Tank Farm) to the Port of Everett, WSDOT Ferries, Sound Transit and cities of Mukilteo and Everett. The Port of Everett is the lead applicant. The Mukilteo tank farm is a former fuel tank farm site, covering approximately 22 acres of the City of Mukilteo's waterfront. This property is adjacent to Sounder's preferred Mukilteo station location. The property would be used to provide land for beneficial public uses on Mukilteo's waterfront. Sound Transit would be allocated a portion of land sufficient to support Sounder Commuter Rail needs at the Mukilteo Station. Opportunities identified for consideration by the parties of this MOU may include: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Sound Transit Climate Risk Reduction Project, F T a Report Number 0075
    Sound Transit Climate Risk Reduction Project SEPTEMBER 2013 FTA Report No. 0075 Federal Transit Administration PREPARED BY Lara Whitely Binder, Ingrid Tohver The Climate Impacts Group College of the Environment University of Washington Amy Shatzkin Sound Transit Amy K. Snover The Climate Impacts Group College of the Environment University of Washington COVER PHOTO Photo courtesy of Sound Transit, © 2008 DISCLAIMER This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products of manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. Sound Transit Climate Risk Reduction Project SEPTEMBER 2013 FTA Report No. 0075 PREPARED BY Lara Whitely Binder, Ingrid Tohver The Climate Impacts Group College of the Environment University of Washington Amy Shatzkin Sound Transit Amy K. Snover The Climate Impacts Group College of the Environment University of Washington SPONSORED BY Federal Transit Administration Office of Budget and Policy U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 AVAILABLE ONLINE http://www.fta.dot.gov/research Metric Conversion Table SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL LENGTH in inches 25.4 millimeters mm ft feet 0.305 meters m yd yards 0.914 meters m mi miles 1.61 kilometers km VOLUME fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL gal gallons 3.785 liter L ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3 MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg megagrams T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 Mg (or “t”) (or “metric ton”) TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o 5 (F-32)/9 o F Fahrenheit Celsius C or (F-32)/1.8 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION ii REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No.
    [Show full text]
  • Going to Boeing
    MUKILTEO 128TH ST 128TH 99 124TH ST 124TH D t f Swi R E K I N A T L E R R E U D R V R E K A L E R 35TH AVE 35TH T L N I B E C R E V L I S 116TH ST 116TH S N A H 115TH AVE 2ND A T R R B O A U R I P 19TH AVE ST 112TH O L 8 I N 110TH ST 110TH MUKILTEO SPEEDWAY MUKILTEO 4TH AVE 4TH T E Modification Center Modification EVERGREEN WAY EVERGREEN B Pointe Harbour (includes times) (includes Boeing Everett Boeing L 952 V Boeing D D 2 7 12 17 29 17 12 7 2 R R 12 Everett Transit Everett E M M A transit Public I EVERETT MALL WAY MALL EVERETT Connecting Routes: Connecting I R 100TH ST 100TH R 12 FIELD A P P 100TH MALL STATION MALL L 100TH ST 100TH O - R PAINE HOLLY DR HOLLY L L 12 T E R 27TH AVE 27TH D 7THAVE W Everett Mall Everett O Bomarc Gate E-77 Gate N L F 8 94TH ST 94TH Bicycle Bomarc M E G 12 92ND ST 92ND 40-201 Blvd Seaway & St 75th 5TH AVE 5TH L Activity Center H Flight N1 Rd Casino & Rd Airport K Future of Future J CASINO RD CASINO 40-41 K 40-202 12 3 Casino Rd & Airport Rd Airport & Rd Casino J I shuttle Boeing 526 5 84TH ST 84TH Seaway Blvd & Fluke & Blvd Seaway I 12 , 8 3, to Swift N2 526 Connection: A N6 BEVERLYLN 12 80TH ST 80TH Gate E-68 Gate H BOEING 70 8 B D N 40-04 W7 40-02 N7 Visitor Lobby Gate E-67 Gate t f Swi N8 40-88 E1 G 8 N3 N4 N5 C 280 7 5T via routes L 76TH ST 76TH L H ST SW 75TH ST 75TH C 94th St & Airport Rd Airport & St 94th From F S 277 40-92 B I to 8 to Swift E D V 3 Mukilteo 40-87 E Connection: 48TH 40-10 Airport Rd & 94th St 94th & Rd Airport R PERIMETER RD PERIMETER M E 247 W6 D S 40-56 40-58 40-86 - 40-03 40-01 40-05
    [Show full text]
  • This City of Ours
    THIS CITY OF OURS By J. WILLIS SAYRE For the illustrations used in this book the author expresses grateful acknowledgment to Mrs. Vivian M. Carkeek, Charles A. Thorndike and R. M. Kinnear. Copyright, 1936 by J. W. SAYRE rot &?+ *$$&&*? *• I^JJMJWW' 1 - *- \£*- ; * M: . * *>. f* j*^* */ ^ *** - • CHIEF SEATTLE Leader of his people both in peace and war, always a friend to the whites; as an orator, the Daniel Webster of his race. Note this excerpt, seldom surpassed in beauty of thought and diction, from his address to Governor Stevens: Why should I mourn at the untimely fate of my people? Tribe follows tribe, and nation follows nation, like the waves of the sea. It is the order of nature and regret is useless. Your time of decay may be distant — but it will surely come, for even the White Man whose God walked and talked with him as friend with friend cannot be exempt from the common destiny. We may be brothers after all. Let the White Man be just and deal kindly with my people, for the dead are not powerless. Dead — I say? There is no death. Only a change of worlds. CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE 1. BELIEVE IT OR NOT! 1 2. THE ROMANCE OF THE WATERFRONT . 5 3. HOW OUR RAILROADS GREW 11 4. FROM HORSE CARS TO MOTOR BUSES . 16 5. HOW SEATTLE USED TO SEE—AND KEEP WARM 21 6. INDOOR ENTERTAINMENTS 26 7. PLAYING FOOTBALL IN PIONEER PLACE . 29 8. STRANGE "IFS" IN SEATTLE'S HISTORY . 34 9. HISTORICAL POINTS IN FIRST AVENUE . 41 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Mukilteo Multimodal Ferry Terminal
    Mukilteo Multimodal Ferry Terminal Application for the 2013 TIGER Discretionary Grants Program Submitted to: U.S. Department of Transportation TIGER Discretionary Grants Program Submitted by: Washington State Department of Transportation 310 Maple Park Avenue SE PO Box 47300 Olympia, WA 98504-7300 May 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………….….1 I. Project Description………………………………………………………………………………..…..2 II. Project Parties…………………………………………………………………………………….….6 III. Grant Funds and Sources/Uses of Project Funds…………………………………………………...7 IV. Selection Criteria………………………………………………………………………………...…..8 A. Long-Term Outcomes…………………………………………………………………….....…..8 i. State of Good Repair……………………………………………………………………8 ii. Economic Competitiveness………………………………………………………...…..10 iii. Livability………………………………………………………………………….……14 iv. Environmental Sustainability……………………………………………………..….…16 v. Safety………………………………………………………………………………..…17 vi. Project Readiness………………………………………………………………….…...19 B. Innovation……………………………………………………………………………………..24 C. Partnership………………………………………………………………………………….…25 D. Results of Benefit-Cost Analysis……………………………………………………………......27 V. Other Environmental Reviews and Approvals…………………………………………………...…29 VI. Federal Wage Rate Certification…………………………………………………………….............29 APPENDICES Appendix A: Signed Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B: Washington State Ferries System Map Appendix C: Letters of Support Appendix D-1: Benefit-Cost Analysis Summary Appendix D-2: Benefit-Cost Analysis Details Appendix E: Diagram
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix E Detailed Case Studies
    Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations APPENDIX E DETAILED CASE STUDIES Revised Final Report 2011 Page E-1 Detailed Case Studies Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations TABLE OF CONTENTS Case Study Summary ............................................................................................................................... E-3 Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) .............................................................................................................. E-7 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) ........................................... E-21 Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) ................................................................ E-33 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) ..................................................................... E-41 Metro-North Railroad ............................................................................................................................. E-57 New Jersey Transit (NJT) ....................................................................................................................... E-67 OC Transpo .............................................................................................................................................. E-81 Regional Transit District Denver (RTD) ............................................................................................... E-93 Sound Transit ........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • SR 525: I-5 to Mukilteo Ferry Terminal This Nine-Mile Long North-South Corridor Is Located Southwest of Everett in Snohomish County
    Corridor Sketch Summary Printed at: 5:35 PM 8/8/2017 WSDOT's Corridor Sketch Initiative is a collaborative planning process with agency partners to identify performance gaps and select high-level strategies to address them on the 304 corridors statewide. This Corridor Sketch Summary acts as an executive summary for one corridor. Please review the User Guide for Corridor Sketch Summaries prior to using information on this corridor: SR 525: I-5 to Mukilteo Ferry Terminal This nine-mile long north-south corridor is located southwest of Everett in Snohomish County. This segment of State Route 525 runs between the Interstate 5/I-405 interchange adjacent to the city of Lynnwood and north to the Mukilteo Ferry Terminal. The corridor travels through the city of Mukilteo and is commonly referred to as the Mukilteo Speedway. The character of the corridor is predominantly suburban with lower-density residential, with single-family homes being the primary land use. Other land uses on the corridor include industrial and commercial. The Snohomish County airport at Paine Field, a major employment site and home to Boeing’s Everett plant, is located just to the east of SR 525. A concentration of industrial and commercial land use is located at the south end of Paine Field. Other commercial activity is located around SR 99 and around Alderwood Mall near I-5. The corridor is elevated over the BNSF railroad just south of the Mukilteo Ferry Terminal. Vegetation is mostly scattered hardwoods and landscaping along the rolling terrain. Current Function SR 525 connects communities on Whidbey Island with Snohomish County via the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry.
    [Show full text]
  • Edmonds and Mukilteo Stations Parking and Access Improvements
    June 2019 Frequently Asked Questions Why doesn’t Sounder run more often? Will Sound Transit add trains at additional times? The Sounder north line makes four weekday roundtrips between Everett and Seattle, and also serves select special events on weekends. People often ask why Sounder doesn’t run all day and every weekend, similar to light rail. The reason is that the railroad tracks Sounder uses are owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and are heavily used by freight trains as well as Amtrak. At this time, Sound Transit does not have the ability to add additional trips on this busy corridor. However, Sound Transit is extending Link light rail north to Everett along the I-5 corridor, which will provide frequent, all-day service. Construction for Lynnwood Link is beginning in 2019, and service will open in 2024 with four new stations in Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood. Learn more at www.soundtransit.org/LLE. Planning for Everett Link will begin in 2020. Can I take a weekend special event train if I’m not going to a game? Yes! Sound Transit runs trains to many weekend day games when the Mariners, Sounders FC or Seahawks are in town. You don’t have to attend the game to ride the train – take the opportunity to explore Seattle for a few hours! Go to www.soundtransit.org/calendar to see when weekend trains are running. The calendar will tell you what time the train leaves Edmonds and Mukilteo stations, and when it will return (generally 35 minutes after the game ends).
    [Show full text]
  • Bus Transit Operational Efficiency Resulting from Passenger Boardings at Park-And-Ride Facilities August 2016 6
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ADA Notice For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in alternate TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE formats. For alternate format information, contact the Forms Management Unit TR0003 (REV 10/98) at (916) 445-1233, TTY 711, or write to Records and Forms Management, 1120 N Street, MS-89, Sacramento, CA 95814. 1. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION NUMBER 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER CA16-2888 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE Bus Transit Operational Efficiency Resulting from Passenger Boardings at Park-and-Ride Facilities August 2016 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE 7. AUTHOR 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO. John S. Niles, M.S. and J.M. Pogodzinski, Ph.D. MTI Report 12-60 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NUMBER Mineta Transportation Institute College of Business 3762 San José State University 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER San José, CA 95192-0219 65A0499 TO 1.1.7 12. SPONSORING AGENCY AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED California Department of Transportation Final Report Division of Research, Innovation and Systems Information (DRISI) MS-83, PO Box 942873 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE Sacramento, CA 94273-0001 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 16. ABSTRACT In order to save time and money by not driving to an ultimate destination, some urban commuters drive themselves a few miles to specially designated parking lots built for transit customers and located where trains or buses stop. The focus of this paper is the effect Park-and-Ride (P&R) lots have on the efficiency of bus transit as measured in five bus transit systems in the western U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Title 17B SHORELINE MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS Chapters
    Title 17B SHORELINE MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS Chapters: 17B.04 Statement of Purpose 17B.08 Definitions 17B.12 Shoreline Designations 17B.13 Procedures 17B.16 Permitted Uses 17B.18 Shoreline Modification Regulations 17B.20 Bulk Regulations 17B.25 Design Standards 17B.52 Critical Areas Regulations (Within the Two-Hundred-Foot Shoreline Jurisdiction) 17B.52A Geologic Sensitive Area Regulations 17B.52B Wetland Regulations 17B.52C Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 17B.52D Flood Hazard Areas 17B.56 Off-Street Parking 17B.58 Landscaping 17B.64 Conditional Uses and Variances 17B.68 Nonconforming Uses, Buildings and Lots 17B.72 Administration 17B.80 Signs 17B.84 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) 1 Chapter 17B.04 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE Sections: 17B.04.010 Purpose. 17B.04.020 Adoption authority. 17B.04.030 Applicability. 17B.04.010 Purpose. A. The city finds that the shorelines of the state are among the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources and that there is great concern throughout the state relating to their utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation. Ever increasing pressures of additional uses are being placed on the shorelines, necessitating increased coordination in the management and development of the shorelines of the state. The city further finds that much of the shorelines in Mukilteo are in private ownership and that unrestricted construction on the privately owned or publicly owned lands is not in the best public interest. Therefore, coordinated planning is necessary in order to protect the public interest associated with shorelines while, at the same time, recognizing and protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest.
    [Show full text]
  • County Hires New Human Services Director
    Friday, June 6, 2008 www.snoco.org County hires new human services director In this issue: Following a national search, Snohomish County Executive County hires new Aaron Reardon has selected Kenneth Stark as the new county human services human services director. director Stark currently is the director of Gov. Chris Gregoire’s Flying Heritage Mental Health Transformation Project and has a long history Collection opens at Paine Field of work in human-services-related fields. He will start his new position on June 23. Sound Transit launches commuter rail “Ken Stark has an impressive employment record in the field service from Mukilteo of human services so it’s with great anticipation that we make him our new director,” Reardon said. “We believe he County cleanup at Mariner deemed a will fulfill the goals we set before him and transform a success department that is becoming more and more crucial to Snohomish County residents.” Help your County serve you better Since 1975, Stark has worked in the private and public sector, mostly overseeing or administering alcohol- and substance-abuse programs, including programs in King County and the Washington Department of Social and Health How are we Services (DSHS). doing? Gregoire called Stark “a dynamic visionary leader” when she asked him in 2005 to retool delivery of the state's mental Did you know that you health care system. can track how well the County is meeting its performance goals? “Ken has built an impressive career on the principle of identifying and implementing effective treatment strategies," The SnoStat system she said. “He has been a staunch supporter of quality tracks how well the improvements and evidence-based decision making – exactly County is delivering what our mental-health-delivery system needs.” services, the costs of those services, and the efficiency and Stark will lead the county’s Human Services Department, effectiveness of which includes divisions offering community mental health, service delivery.
    [Show full text]