MAKING BETTER CONNECTIONS Shoreline Shared-Use Mobility Study

Prepared for the City of Shoreline May 2021

Pascale Chamberland, Dale Markey-Crimp, and Dorian Pacheco Daniel J. Evans School of Public Policy and Governance University of

MAKING BETTER CONNECTIONS

Shoreline Shared-Use Mobility Study

Prepared by:

Pascale Chamberland Dale Markey-Crimp Dorian Pacheco

Submitted to:

Adrienne Quinn, J.D., M.Div. University of Washington Daniel J. Evans School of Public Policy & Governance

Nora Daley-Peng Senior Transportation Planner, City of Shoreline

Shoreline, Washington May 2021

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Pascale Chamberland is originally from Québec City, Canada and moved to Washington State with her family in 2000. After working in the financial technology industry for several years, she enrolled at the Evans School to pursue a public service career that would allow her to make her community more sustainable, equitable, and livable. Since starting her MPA, she has interned at The Nature Conservancy and taken classes focusing on environmental policy, transportation, and data analysis. After graduation, she hopes to work in local government using data to identify and champion solutions that allow people to thrive while reducing our impact on the environment. When not studying or working, she enjoys cooking with her wife, running, and bouldering.

Dale Markey-Crimp hails originally from the Northeast, and most recently from Oakland, California, where she spent the previous decade working in K-12 education training and leadership development. She came to the Evans School to transition to a career in local government management. Since then, Dale has interned with the King County Auditor’s Office, developing a passion for the work that sits at the intersection of budgeting, performance management, and strategic planning. Following graduation, she hopes to pursue a career in city management and administration. Outside of school, she enjoys hiking and jogging with her partner and pup, cooking new recipes inspired by the region’s bounty, and wheel throwing ceramics.

Dorian Pacheco is first-generation, Mexican-Taiwanese-American from City Terrace, East . She moved to the Pacific Northwest in 2013 and worked in the nonprofit sector with and for immigrant and refugee communities. She came to the Evans School to pursue a career in public service with an emphasis on creating more just and equitable communities, policies, and institutions. While at the Evans School, Dorian interned at the Department of Transportation and developed a keen interest in transportation planning and program evaluation. She will continue to work on evaluative, equity-focused, and project-based work after graduation. In her free time, she enjoys hiking with her partner, painting, and hanging out with her cat Bow Wow.

Making Better Connections | 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank our partners from the City of Shoreline for the opportunity to work on this project and their outstanding support and encouragement throughout this process. Thank you especially to Nora Daley-Peng, our project liaison and manager, whose energy and collaborative spirit was instrumental to the success of this study. Thank you also to Catherine Lander, whose keen attention to detail, invaluable insight, and positivity helped us craft and hone this project. Last but not least, thank you to Nytasha Walters for her support and expertise.

To Fehr and Peers consultants Kendra Breiland, Sarah Saviskas, and Tinotenda Jonga, for their partnership and resource-sharing, as well as providing connections to many transportation planners during our interview process.

To Professor Adrienne Quinn, J.D., M.Div. at the Evans School for Public Policy and Governance, for her mentorship, encouragement, and helpful feedback. In addition, we thank our entire capstone seminar for their support and peer review of our work.

To Professor Qing Shen at the College of Built Environments for his guidance, encouragement, and transportation expertise on shared-use mobility.

To all of the practitioners and professionals who generously shared their expertise. In no particular order, thank you to representatives from: City of Seattle, City of Kirkland, City of Auburn, City of Oakland, City of Bellevue, City of Tacoma, City of Redwood, City of Bothell, City of Tigard, and .

Finally, to all of our friends, family, and mentors for their unwavering support throughout this final project and throughout our last two years at the Evans School.

Making Better Connections | 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GLOSSARY 10 KEY TERMS 10 ADDITIONAL TERMS 10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 13 PROJECT INTRODUCTION 13 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 13 RESEARCH METHODS 14 MOBILITY HUB ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 NEXT STEPS 17

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 18 1.1 CITY OF SHORELINE 18 Updating the Transportation Master Plan 18 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 19 Research Questions 19 Research Process 19

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODS 21 2.1 OVERVIEW 21 Data Collection Plan & Timeline 22 2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW 23 Literature Types and Gathering Process 23 Literature Search Criteria and Coding Mechanism 23 2.3 INTERVIEWS 24 Selection Method 24 Interview Process and Analysis 25 2.4 CASE STUDIES 25 2.5 COMMUNITY SURVEY 26 Selection Method 26 Survey Process and Analysis 26 2.6 MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS 27 2.7 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 30 Literature Review 30 Interviews 30

Making Better Connections | 4

Case Studies 31 Community Survey 31 Multi-Criteria Analysis 31

CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW 32 3.1 OVERVIEW 32 3.2 SHARED-USE MOBILITY TRENDS AND PREVALENCE 32 Micromobility Trends 33 Mobility Hubs 36 3.3 MOBILITY HUB DESIGN 36 Mobility Hub Features 37 Mobility Hub Typology 38 Equity & Accessibility 40 3.4 MOBILITY HUB SITING 43 3.5 MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT 44 Determining Measures of Success 45 Leveraging Pilots to Test Viability 45 Cross-Agency & Cross-Sector Collaboration 45 3.6 CONCLUSION 46

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS & FINDINGS 47 4.1 OVERVIEW 47 4.2 INTERVIEWS 47 Land Use 49 Public Transit Networks 51 Capital Infrastructure 52 Addressing Community Needs 53 4.3 CASE STUDIES 54 Seattle, Washington 56 Cleveland, Ohio 57 Los Angeles, California 59 Munich, Germany 61 4.4 COMMUNITY SURVEY 62 Results 63 Limitations 68 4.5 CONCLUSION 68

CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS 70 5.1 OVERVIEW 70 5.2 MOBILITY HUB CRITERIA 70

Making Better Connections | 5

Considering Equitable Distribution of Mobility Hubs 71 Proximity To Existing Or Projected Transit 72 Walkability 73 Bikeability 74 Destinations 76 Density 77 5.3 MOBILITY HUB SITING 78 Identifying Potential Mobility Hub Locations 78 Summary of Mobility Hub Siting Results 80 Mobility Hub Siting Analysis 83 Aurora Village Transit Center 83 Shoreline North/185th Station 84 North City Business District 85 Ridgecrest Business District 86 Shoreline South/148th Station 87 15th Ave NE & NE 145th St 89 148th St Non-Motorized Bridge 89 Shoreline Place 91 Shoreline Community College 93 Richmond Beach Road/4-Corners 94 Aurora Ave N & N 185th St 95 Shoreline Park & Ride 95 Siting Recommendations 96 5.4 MOBILITY HUB DESIGN 99 Design Principles 99 Design By Typology 102 Regional Mobility Hubs 103 Central Mobility Hubs 105 Neighborhood Hubs 107 Design Recommendations 111 5.5 CONCLUSION 112

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION & NEXT STEPS 113 6.1 OVERVIEW 113 6.2 POTENTIAL RISKS 113 6.3 NEXT STEPS 113 Relationship 113 Transportation Master Plan Update 114 6.4 CONCLUSION 115

REFERENCES 116

APPENDICES 122

Making Better Connections | 6

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL 122 Communications 122 Interview Script and Questions for Peer Cities 123 APPENDIX B: COMMUNITY SURVEY QUESTIONS 126 APPENDIX C: BIKESHARE CASE STUDIES 130 Vancouver, British Columbia 130 , 131

Making Better Connections | 7

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The Evolution of City of Seattle's Bike Share Programs...... 33 Figure 2. Jump Bike by Uber (Uber, n.d.)...... 34 Figure 3. Link Scooter by Superpedestrian (Superpedestrian, n.d.)...... 34 Figure 4. Shared Micromobility Ridership Growth from 2010-2019 (NACTO, 2019)...... 35 Figure 5. S-Pod by Segway (Segway, n.d.)...... 35 Figure 6. Mobility Hub Definition...... 36 Figure 7. Features and Amenities to Promote Equity and Accessibility at Mobility Hubs...... 41 Figure 8. Feature Benefits for Disadvantaged Population Groups (SANDAG, 2017)...... 42 Figure 9. Example: Munich Mobility Stations...... 43 Figure 10. LA’s Mobility Hub Typology and Recommended Amenities by Type (2016)...... 60 Figure 11. A neighborhood mobility hub in Munich (Smarter Together EU, 2018)...... 62 Figure 12. Results of Survey Question about Transportation Topics Important to Residents. .... 64 Figure 13. Results of Survey Question About Barriers to Using Modes Other Than Driving. .... 64 Figure 14. Results to Survey Question about Mobility Hub Features and Amenities...... 65 Figure 15. Results to Survey Question about Support for Mobility Hubs Overall...... 66 Figure 16. Results to Survey Question about Support for Mobility Hubs by Neighborhood...... 67 Figure 17. Results to Survey Question about Predicted Frequency of Use of Mobility Hubs. .... 67 Figure 18. Summary of Mobility Hub Criteria...... 71 Figure 19. City of Shoreline Transit Network (King County Metro, n.d.-b)...... 73 Figure 20. City of Shoreline Bike Plan (City of Shoreline, 2020)...... 75 Figure 21. Map of Potential Mobility Hubs...... 79 Figure 22. Overview of Mobility Hub Criteria with Categorical Scales...... 80 Figure 23. Aurora Village Transit Center Map (King County Metro, n.d.-a)...... 83 Figure 24. Concept for 185th St Station (City of Shoreline, 2021). .... 85 Figure 25. Conceptual Rendering of 3rd Ave NE Woonerf (City of Shoreline, 2017)...... 88 Figure 26. 3rd Ave NE Woonerf Circulation Diagram (City of Shoreline, 2017)...... 88 Figure 27. Conceptual Rendering of 148th St Bridge (City of Shoreline, 2021)...... 90 Figure 28. Engineer’s Design of 148th Street Non-Motorized Bridge (City of Shoreline, 2021).91 Figure 29. Site Plan for Redevelopment of Shoreline Place (MGP, 2019)...... 92 Figure 30. Mobility hub locations color-coded by hub typology...... 98 Figure 31. Features and Amenities to Promote Equity and Accessibility at Mobility Hubs...... 100 Figure 32. Bellevue Solar-Powered Stop Sign (ITE Washington, 2019)...... 101 Figure 33. Solar-powered device charging stations (Sol-Up, 2019)...... 101 Figure 34. Solar-Powered EV Charging Stations in California (CleanTechnica, 2021)...... 102 Figure 35. City of Shoreline rendering of 3rd Avenue Woonerf...... 104 Figure 36. Merlone Geier Partners rendering of future Shoreline Place (2019)...... 106 Figure 37. Stop on Richmond Beach Rd & 8th Ave (Google Maps Street View, n.d.)...... 108 Figure 38. Richmond Beach Rd/4-Corners Mock-Up...... 110

Making Better Connections | 8

TABLE OF TABLES

Table 1. Overview of Data Collection Methods...... 22 Table 2. List of Peer Cities and Innovative Cities...... 25 Table 3. Summary of Criteria Evaluation Methods...... 28 Table 4. Mobility Hub Features, Design, and Key Needs Addressed...... 37 Table 5. User Needs by Mobility Hub Type...... 39 Table 6. Locations and Conditions for Success by Mobility Mode...... 44 Table 7. Population and Transportation Systems of Interviewed Peer Cities...... 48 Table 8. Population and Transportation Systems of Interviewed Innovative Cities...... 48 Table 9. Promising Practices for Land Use from Interviews...... 50 Table 10. Promising Practices for Public Transit Networks from Interviews...... 52 Table 11. Promising Practices for Capital Infrastructure from Interviews...... 53 Table 12. Promising Practices to Learn about Community Needs from Interviews...... 54 Table 13. Population and Transportation Systems of Case Study Cities...... 55 Table 14. Promising Practices from Seattle’s Shared-Use Mobility Pilots...... 57 Table 15. Promising Practices from Cleveland’s Shared Micromobility Program...... 59 Table 16. Promising Practices from LA’s Implementation of Mobility Hubs...... 61 Table 17. Promising Practices from Munich’s Connected Shared-Use Mobility System...... 62 Table 18. Multi-Criteria Analysis for Mobility Hub Siting...... 82 Table 19. Mobility Hub Locations By Typology...... 96 Table 20. Overview of Recommended Features and Amenities by Mobility Hub Typology. ... 111

Making Better Connections | 9

GLOSSARY

KEY TERMS The concepts of shared-use mobility and mobility hubs are central to this report. Through our review of literature from industry groups and transportation agencies, we found that there were many ways to define these terms. To establish a common understanding for our readers, we offer the definitions that we settled on for the purposes of our study below.

❖ Shared-used mobility: As defined by the Shared-Use Mobility Center, shared-use mobility refers to “transportation services and resources that are shared among users, either concurrently or one after another” (Shared Use Mobility Center, n.d.). It encompasses a wide range of modes including public transit, bikesharing, scooter sharing, , rides on demand, , carpooling, and vanpooling. In our research, we found that “shared-use mobility” and “shared mobility” were often used interchangeably. For consistency, we used “shared-use mobility” throughout this report.

❖ Mobility hubs: For this report, we used the Seattle Department of Transportation’s definition of mobility hubs as “places of connectivity where different modes of transportation such as walking, biking, ride-sharing, and public transit, come together seamlessly at concentrations of employment, housing, shopping, and/or recreation” (Seattle Department of Transportation, 2016).

ADDITIONAL TERMS The following transportation terms also come up in our report. It is not critical for readers to understand each of these terms prior to reading the report; we offer this list as a glossary of terms to reference as needed.

❖ Access shed: The area around a destination that can generally be traveled using a given mode of transportation such as walking or biking.

❖ Amenity zone: The area between the curb of the street and the sidewalk where amenities such as benches and lights can be placed and trees can be planted. Also known as the "furniture zone.”

❖ Bikeshare: A service that supports the shared use of and “e-bikes” (electric- bicycles). Shared bikes can be either dockless or docked, and bikeshare can be offered by private operators or by public agencies.

❖ : Travelers coordinating to drive together on similar car trips in order to save on fuel and vehicle operating costs.

Making Better Connections | 10

❖ Carshare: A service that enables the shared use of cars.

❖ Complete Streets: Streets designed and operated to enable safe use and support mobility for all users. Those include people of all ages and abilities, regardless of whether they are traveling as drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, or public transportation riders. The City enacted a Complete Streets Ordinance in 2016.

❖ First mile/last mile: Refers to the challenge faced by public transit agencies and city transportation departments to get people to and from bus stops and transit stations.

❖ High-capacity transit: Public transit that runs frequently and can serve a high volume of passengers. This includes light rail, train, and bus (BRT).

❖ Kiss-and-ride: Spaces at transit stations designated for people in vehicles to drop off and pick up transit passengers.

❖ Micromobility: The use of small, lightweight devices to get around at no more than 30 miles per hour. Micromobility devices include bicycles, scooters, and ; can be electrical or not; and can be shared or privately owned.

❖ Microtransit: Similar to shared Ubers or Lyfts but on a larger scale, microtransit is a shuttle service that passengers can hail on their phones. This service can be either private or public, such as King County Metro’s Shared Van Pilot Program.

❖ Mixed-use zoning/planning: The use of land for multiple purposes; for example, mixing together developments that serve residential, commercial, and entertainment needs.

❖ Multimodal: Using or providing multiple modes of transportation such as walking, biking, driving, and public transit.

❖ : A parking lot or parking structure available near public transit stations to allow riders to drive to the station and park before riding public transit.

❖ Ridesharing: “Ridesharing” is an umbrella term that encompasses adding passengers to an existing trip in order to gain efficiencies and save costs. It includes carpooling and vanpooling. Similar to ridesourcing, a mobile app can be used to help match drivers and passengers to share a ride; but unlike ridesourcing, drivers are typically only compensated enough to cover the additional cost of sharing a ride. There is not a profit incentive for drivers to make trips they would not otherwise have made.

❖ Ridesourcing: Travelers use a mobile app to find a driver in a personal vehicle, such as Uber or Lyft, willing to take them to their destination for a given price.

❖ Scootershare: Like bikeshare, scootershare is a service that supports the shared use of scooters, primarily “e-scooters” (electric scooters).

Making Better Connections | 11

❖ Subarea: For this report, “subarea” refers to the small areas approximately ½ mile around the upcoming 148th and 185th light rail stations.

❖ : Groups of commuters (often co-workers) that share a ride at a scale larger than carpool. are often run by public transit agencies and employers.

❖ Walkability: Measures of whether people feel that it is safe, comfortable, appealing, and convenient to walk typically impacted by the natural and built environment. In the context of this report, walkability generally refers to peoples’ ability to walk for transportation, though measures can also account for walking for recreation and health.

Making Better Connections | 12

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PROJECT INTRODUCTION Shoreline, located just north of Seattle, has a rapidly changing economy, population, and built environment. Shoreline currently relies on car-centric transportation infrastructure to support demands, though public transit options include local and regional bus services provided by King County Metro Transit, Snohomish County , and Sound Transit. Shoreline is currently in the process of updating its Transportation Master Plan (TMP) through collaboration between City staff, Fehr & Peers consultants, the Planning Commission, City Council, and the public. The purpose of the TMP is to provide a framework to guide transportation priorities and investments for the next 20 years. Key considerations include: ● Two light rail stations are opening in Shoreline in 2024. ● The Puget Sound Regional Council predicts that light rail expansion will further drive population growth and diversity across Shoreline. ● The City has adopted and is gradually implementing a Complete Streets ordinance that prioritizes integrated, multimodal travel across the city. ● Shoreline residents are interested in traveling to destinations within the city without using personal vehicles, namely cars. ● Transportation technology, including shared micromobility services, is rapidly evolving.

In order to maximize the use of the upcoming light rail and to assist residents of Shoreline in car- light and car-free lifestyles, the City is interested in creating “mobility hubs'' in strategic locations across Shoreline. The City is particularly interested in how these hubs can be integrated into rezoned mixed-use development surrounding the new light rail stations and connect residents to neighborhood-based commercial services. The City is also interested in better understanding the range of features and services offered at mobility hubs and how these might differ given community needs and the surrounding environment.

The City engaged us –– Pascale Chamberland, Dale Markey-Crimp, and Dorian Pacheco –– as University of Washington Master of Public Administration (MPA) student consultants via the Evans School Consulting Lab to further research how shared-use mobility hubs can support movement in and through Shoreline.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS To better understand mobility hubs and the investments that the City should make under their new TMP, we engaged in exploratory research to answer the following research question:

What mobility hub infrastructure should the City of Shoreline develop as it seeks to decrease personal vehicle use and connect more residents to shared-use transportation options?

Executive Summary | 13

In order to answer this research question, we identified two sub-questions that explore narrower aspects of mobility hub design such as their siting, features, and amenities. Thus, our research also explored the following questions:

● What criteria should be used to determine the siting of new mobility hubs? ● What criteria should be used to determine the features and amenities of each proposed mobility hub?

RESEARCH METHODS Our project used the following methods to answer our research questions: 1. A literature review to determine industry standards and trends, such as key definitions for shared-use mobility and mobility hubs, a review of best practices, a review of innovative practices, and implementation guidelines and considerations. 2. A series of interviews with peer and innovative cities across the West Coast to learn how these cities have approached shared-use mobility challenges and promising practices they have found throughout their experiences. 3. A series of case studies of cities that already have successful shared-use mobility programs to understand implementation guidelines and considerations, criteria for siting, innovative practices, and established best practices. 4. A community survey distributed by the City which measured attitudes and perceptions around mobility hubs as well as the features and amenities most important to community members. 5. A multi-criteria analysis in which we combined the information and data collected to identify suitable mobility hub locations across Shoreline and recommend features and amenities to provide at these locations.

MOBILITY HUB ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS We synthesized our research and analysis to establish criteria for evaluating mobility hubs, identify and prioritize locations in Shoreline, and recommend basic design principles to promote equity and accessibility.

Criteria for Hub Suitability In our research, we did not find any cities with a documented set of criteria used to select and evaluate mobility hub locations. Rather than endeavoring to design and implement a network of mobility hubs, most cities we studied co-located a mobility hub to expand shared-use mobility options at a major transit station. These cities did not necessarily integrate the hub –– or multiple hubs –– into their overall transit network the way that Shoreline envisions. Therefore, we identified siting commonalities between existing mobility hubs and used promising practices from our literature review, interviews, and case studies to craft a more holistic set of criteria that takes into account the built environment, transportation networks, and accessibility:

Executive Summary | 14

● Proximity to transit: the types of existing or projected transit within a ¼ mile of a proposed mobility hub ● Walkability: pedestrian safety and mobility within a ¼ mile of a proposed hub ● Bikeability: accessibility to a proposed hub on any light-weight device on wheels ● Destinations: the number of points of interest within a ¼ mile of a proposed hub ● Density: the number of people currently residing (or expected to reside) in Census blocks within a ¼ of a proposed hub

In addition to the five criteria above, we recommend that the City consider the geographic distribution of the network of mobility hubs to promote transit equity and accessibility for all community members across Shoreline. We chose not to make geographic distribution its own criterion as it cannot be applied to a single location; instead, it requires that planners and policymakers evaluate the entire mobility hub network to ensure that everyone has the same access to transportation.

Mobility Hub Siting and Order of Implementation We applied our criteria to twelve proposed mobility hub locations in Shoreline. While we determined that all twelve sites were suitable for mobility hubs, we categorized each location into one of three types of mobility hubs (as detailed in the figure below) to help the City prioritize using resources on locations with the highest transit traffic.

Regional Central Neighborhood Phase One: Pilots Phase Two: Build Out Phase Three: Complete the Network

● Shoreline South/148th ● Shoreline Place ● North City Business District Station ● Aurora Ave N & N ● Ridgecrest Business District ● Shoreline North/185th 185th St ● 15th Ave NE & NE 145th St Station ● Shoreline Park & Ride ● 148th St Non-Motorized ● Aurora Village Transit ● Shoreline Community Bridge Center College ● Richmond Beach Road/ 4- Corners

As the City continues to prioritize transit-oriented development and community need, additional hubs will likely become feasible.

Mobility Hub Design We recommend that Shoreline use mobility hub typologies to inform what features and amenities should be available at each location. ● Regional hubs should have the most features and amenities, as they will support the largest quantity of people from within and outside of Shoreline.

Executive Summary | 15

● Central hubs will connect to key locations in Shoreline and should have sufficient amenities to support commuting, leisure, and recreation at and around hubs. ● Neighborhood hubs are the smallest type of mobility hubs and should focus on simple, pedestrian-friendly, and comfortable amenities for local communities.

Finally, all hubs should adhere to basic design principles that ensure not only physical access for seniors and people with disabilities, but also facilitate transit access and affordability for low- income people.

In the following table, we recommend basic features and amenities for each type of mobility hub.

Typology Features and Amenities

Regional Hubs ● Covered bus stops with real-time arrival and departure information ● Bus zones Example: Shoreline ● Benches, garbage and recycling cans South/148th Station ● parking and secure bike lockers ● Scootershare and bikeshare pick-up/drop-off zones ● Well-marked sidewalks, pedestrian signals ● Rideshare pick-up/drop-off zones and kiss-and-ride ● EV charging stations ● Pedestrian-scale lighting ● Universal wayfinding signs ● Greenspace or retail/residential integration ● Carshare ● WiFi & cell phone charging stations

Central Hubs ● Covered bus stops with real-time arrival and departure information ● Benches, garbage and recycling cans Example: Shoreline ● Bicycle parking (lockers for long-term, racks in front of cafes and retail) Place ● Scootershare and bikeshare pick-up/drop-off zones ● Well-marked sidewalks, pedestrian signals ● Rideshare pick-up/drop-off zones and kiss-and-ride ● EV charging stations ● Pedestrian-scale lighting ● Universal wayfinding signs ● Greenspace or retail/residential integration

Neighborhood Hubs ● Covered bus stops ● Benches Example: Richmond ● Pedestrian-scale lighting Beach/4-Corners ● Universal wayfinding signs ● Bike parking (racks with the potential for lockers) ● Scootershare and bikeshare pick-up/drop-off zones ● Community art ● Crosswalk improvements

Executive Summary | 16

NEXT STEPS The City’s immediate next steps should center relationship building and updating its upcoming TMP to include mobility hub planning and policies.

Relationship Building ● The City should continue to conduct City-led outreach and also identify community partners such as community-based organizations to conduct extensive and targeted community outreach throughout the siting, planning, and implementation of each mobility hub to ensure that mobility hubs not only meet community needs, but create locations of interest, pride, and community gathering. ● The City should work proactively with regional transit agencies to advocate for and incentivize development of shared-use mobility infrastructure to ensure that any new additions to the transportation network are aligned with the TMP. ● The City should lean into its partnership with private developers such as Merlone Geier to incorporate many of the design features of a central mobility hub into their plans for the redevelopment of Shoreline Place, reducing the City’s investment and transforming the entire area to support car-free travel.

Transportation Master Plan Update ● As Shoreline continues with its TMP update, planners and policymakers should consider developing a land use code for mobility hubs. A comprehensive mobility hub policy should include criteria for site selection and evaluation as well as design standards that detail minimum features and amenities. ● Given the forecasted growth and changes to the built environment, the City should create a program to operationalize the multi-criteria mobility hub suitability matrix, allowing staff to add and test new potential locations and to modify existing ratings as additional information becomes available. ● When planning for mobility hubs in the TMP, the City should plan to use pilot programs to determine, monitor, and adjust which components make mobility hubs most successful in Shoreline before implementing them more widely. ● While mobility hubs are just one element within the Transportation Master Plan, the City should not expect residents to start using hubs just because they exist. We recommend that the City continue to prioritize improving, enhancing, or creating bike and pedestrian infrastructure – complete sidewalks, separate and protected bike lanes, and pedestrian- scale lighting – around proposed hub areas. Without this improved infrastructure, community members may not change their travel behaviors or attitudes, instead continuing to use personal vehicles.

Executive Summary | 17

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 CITY OF SHORELINE Shoreline is located just north of the City of Seattle. This small but sprawling city consists of fourteen neighborhoods over 12 square miles. The city is bisected by the I-5 interstate and connected by Highway 99 via Aurora Ave N and major arterial roads such as N 175th St and 15th Ave NE. Transportation infrastructure is largely car-centric, though public transit includes local and regional bus services provided by King County Metro Transit, Snohomish County Community Transit, and Sound Transit. In addition, Sound Transit will be opening two new stops in Shoreline in 2024 via the upcoming North/185th Station and South/148th Station.

As the City plans improvements and updates to the transportation system, it must be proactive to support Shoreline’s rapidly changing built environment, population, and economy. Shoreline’s current population is just above 57,000 and is projected to grow substantially in the next 20 years. In particular, in the subareas around the two upcoming light rail stations, the population is expected to increase by 1.5% to 2.5% annually (City of Shoreline, 2015; City of Shoreline, 2016). The population of Shoreline is also increasingly diverse. Currently, the population consists of 69% White residents, 6.2% Black residents, 0.7% Native residents, 15.7% Asian residents, and 8% Hispanic/Latinx residents , 26.7% of residents have indicated that they speak a language other than English at home, and 21% of residents are foreign-born (U.S. Census Bureau).

Updating the Transportation Master Plan The City is currently in the process of updating its Transportation Master Plan (TMP) through collaboration between City staff, Fehr & Peers consultants, the Planning Commission, City Council, and the public. The TMP aims to provide a framework to guide transportation priorities and investments for the next 20 years. Key considerations include: ● Two light rail stations are opening in Shoreline in 2024. ● The Puget Sound Regional Council predicts that Light rail expansion will further drive population growth and diversity. ● Shoreline has adopted and is gradually implementing a Complete Streets ordinance that prioritizes integrated, multimodal travel across the city. ● Shoreline residents are interested in traveling to destinations within the city without using personal vehicles, namely cars. ● Transportation technology, including shared micromobility services, is rapidly evolving.

While facing these changes, the City is determined to maintain the quality of life of its residents. To that end, the City Council has committed to making significant financial investments in transportation infrastructure and urban planning efforts.

Chapter 1: Introduction | 18

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City is interested in creating “mobility hubs'' in strategic locations across Shoreline to assist people with completing trips without using personal cars. The hubs would provide centralized points throughout Shoreline where residents and visitors could readily access micromobility services in addition to and rideshare. The City is particularly interested in how these hubs can be integrated into rezoned mixed-use development surrounding the upcoming light rail stations and connect residents to neighborhood-based commercial services. The City is also interested in better understanding the range of features and services offered at mobility hubs and how these might differ given community needs and the surrounding environment. This interest assumes that hubs will offer some standard and some differentiated services based on location and transit patterns.

The City engaged us as University of Washington Master of Public Administration (MPA) student consultants via the Evans School Consulting Lab to further research on how shared-use mobility hubs can support movement in and through Shoreline without increasing dependence on personal automobiles.

Research Questions To better understand mobility hubs and the investments that the City should make under their new TMP, our project specifically seeks to answer the following research questions: ● What mobility hub infrastructure should the City of Shoreline develop as it seeks to decrease personal vehicle use and connect more residents to shared-use transportation options? ○ What criteria should be used to determine the siting of new mobility hubs? ○ What criteria should be used to determine the features and amenities of each proposed mobility hub?

Research Process To answer these questions, our research process includes the following methods of data gathering and analysis: 1. A literature review to determine industry standards and trends, such as key definitions for shared-use mobility and mobility hubs, a review of best practices, a review of innovative practices, and implementation guidelines and considerations. 2. A series of interviews with peer and innovative cities across the West Coast to learn how these cities have approached shared-use mobility challenges and promising practices they have found throughout their experiences. 3. A series of case studies of cities that already have successful shared-use mobility programs to understand implementation guidelines and considerations, criteria for siting, innovative practices, and established best practices.

Chapter 1: Introduction | 19

4. A community survey distributed by the City which measured attitudes and perceptions around mobility hubs as well as the features and amenities most important to community members. 5. A multi-criteria analysis in which we combined the information and data collected to identify suitable mobility hub locations across Shoreline and recommend features and amenities to provide at these locations.

Chapter 1: Introduction | 20

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODS

2.1 OVERVIEW The City is interested in implementing mobility hubs across the city, which are centrally located areas at confluences of employment, transportation, housing, and recreation where people can use various transportation modes. To better understand mobility hubs and the investments that the City should make under their new TMP, we engaged in exploratory research to answer the following research question:

What mobility hub infrastructure should the City of Shoreline develop as it seeks to decrease personal vehicle use and connect more residents to shared-use transportation options?

To answer this research question, we identified two sub-questions that explore narrower aspects of mobility hub design such as their siting, features, and amenities:

● What criteria should be used to determine the siting of new mobility hubs? ● What criteria should be used to determine the features and amenities of each proposed mobility hub?

As discussed in this chapter, our project uses the following methods to answer our research questions: 1. A literature review to determine industry standards and trends, such as key definitions for shared-use mobility and mobility hubs, a review of best practices, a review of innovative practices, and implementation guidelines and considerations. 2. A series of interviews with peer and innovative cities across the West Coast to learn how these cities have approached shared-use mobility challenges and promising practices they have found throughout their experiences. 3. A series of case studies on cities that already have successful shared-use mobility programs to understand implementation guidelines and considerations, criteria for siting, innovative practices, and established best practices. 4. A community survey distributed by the City which measured attitudes and perceptions around mobility hubs as well as the features and amenities most important to community members. 5. A multi-criteria analysis in which we combined the information and data collected to identify locations and recommend features and amenities to provide at mobility hubs.

Table 1 provides further detail on our research methodology, such as our learning objectives and the information we gained from each method.

Chapter 2: Research Methods | 21

Table 1. Overview of Data Collection Methods. Method Description Objectives

Literature Findings from academic literature ● Build expertise Review and grey literature and toolkits from ● Identify industry standards, transportation-focused trends, and terminology organizations. ● Identify criteria for siting

Interviews with Semi-structured interviews with ● Identify implementation Peer Cities and transportation professionals in peer guidelines and considerations Innovative Cities cities at various stages of planning ● Uncover innovative/promising and implementing shared-use practices mobility programs. ● Identify criteria for siting

Case studies Review of materials by and about ● Build on our learning from the shared-use mobility and/or literature review mobility hub practices of innovative ● Identify criteria for siting and cities that have fully implemented design programs. ● Identify implementation considerations

Community Includes three questions we ● Identify whether mobility hubs Survey authored, which measure resident are important to current attitudes and perceptions towards community members mobility hubs as well as the features ● Identify features and amenities and amenities most important to most important to current them. Surveys were conducted in community members Shoreline’s Tier 1 languages, which ● Identify attitudes and are English, Spanish, and Mandarin. perceptions of transportation infrastructure in Shoreline

Multi-criteria Analysis of data on existing and ● Identify which locations are Analysis planned transit, bike and pedestrian most suitable for a mobility hub infrastructure, destinations, and ● Identify the potential volume of population density. travel through mobility hub locations and current gaps to inform features and amenities

Data Collection Plan & Timeline In order to ensure that our methods enabled us to answer our primary and supporting research questions, we aligned each data source to our research questions. Our two supporting questions were initially answered by our literature review conducted in January 2021 and the interviews and case studies completed in February 2021. We built upon this initial research with an analysis of the community survey to determine whether mobility hubs are more or less desired in certain

Chapter 2: Research Methods | 22

neighborhoods and to identify features and amenities that are most important to the Shoreline community. Together, these research methods allowed us to establish criteria for evaluating mobility hubs. Finally, we were able to apply these criteria in our multi-criteria analysis to answer our primary research question.

The following sections provide additional details on each research method.

2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW In our literature review, we synthesized academic research, reports, and toolkits from various private and public sector transportation organizations. Through our literature review, we sought to accomplish the following goals: ● Build a foundational understanding of shared-use mobility and mobility hubs to inform the remainder of our analysis. ● Identify any existing best practices or criteria for siting and designing mobility hubs. ● Identify additional considerations for implementing mobility hubs, particularly around equity and accessibility.

Literature Types and Gathering Process Our literature review started with resources provided by the City staff and Fehr & Peers consultants. These sources consisted primarily of reference guides and toolkits from industry experts related to micromobility, curb space management, and shared-use mobility. We added to these sources by (1) searching for key terms such as “mobility hubs,” “mobility hub siting,” and “shared-use mobility” using the University of Washington Libraries, Google, Google Scholar, and Research International Documentation (TRID) and (2) reviewing the references of documents that were of particular interest.

While shared-use mobility is a comparatively mature concept with a fairly robust research base to learn from, mobility hubs are quite new. We found that peer reviewed literature on mobility hubs was relatively sparse, and the literature that we did identify focused primarily on user perception and use of mobility hubs. We did find a rapidly growing field of knowledge on mobility hubs from innovative cities at the forefront of implementing mobility hubs. We relied extensively on reports, tools, reference guides, and other documents from these innovative cities.

Literature Search Criteria and Coding Mechanism We reviewed 40 documents and analyzed and coded them to identify the following themes: 1. Mobility Trends: This literature provides context on the current trends in the mobility landscape, industry standards and terminology, and definitions on and surrounding shared- use mobility and mobility hubs.

Chapter 2: Research Methods | 23

2. Mobility Hub Design: This literature provides information to consider while designing and planning for mobility hubs. In particular, it covers the following crucial design considerations: a. Features, Amenities, and Hub Typology: This literature explores the different services and characteristics of mobility hubs. It introduces hub typology by location and the prominence of features depending on both typology and user demand. b. Equity and Accessibility: This literature explores user needs at mobility hubs and the various areas in which equity and accessibility could be further introduced throughout mobility hub implementation. 3. Mobility Hub Siting: This literature explores what factors influence mobility and how to predict the potential of new multimodal transportation infrastructure in specific locations. 4. Monitoring and Management: This literature provides guidance on how to maximize the efficacy of resources when launching new multimodal transportation opportunities in a city, including discussion of interactive pilots, data collection, and public-private partnerships.

2.3 INTERVIEWS While our literature review provided baseline criteria for mobility hub siting and a suite of amenities and features to potentially recommend, we sought to expand on this initial knowledge and better understand how current practitioners and planners are implementing mobility hubs and shared-use mobility in their cities. We aimed to validate or refute findings from the literature, gather promising practices, and unearth lessons learned from both peer cities and other innovative cities. In these ways, we intended the interviews to provide practical and current information to support our answers to our primary research question.

Selection Method We initially selected peer cities based on four criteria: ● A city located in a metropolitan area near a major city in the United States ● A population similar to Shoreline (60,000 +/- 20,000 residents) ● Implemented or has begun implementing shared-use mobility infrastructure, or ● A similar transportation trajectory to the City of Shoreline, which entails: ○ Existing high-capacity transit (e.g., light rail, train, or BRT infrastructure), or ○ Upcoming high-capacity transit (e.g., light rail, train, or BRT integration)

However, after sharing this initial list with City staff and consultants from Fehr & Peers, they recommended adding several cities that we have labeled innovative cities. These cities exhibit the following characteristics: ● Larger in population than Shoreline (100,000+ residents) ● Have already implemented and are continuing to iterate upon shared-use mobility infrastructure

Chapter 2: Research Methods | 24

Using the criteria above for peer and innovative cities, we interviewed the cities outlined in Table 2 below.

Table 2. List of Peer Cities and Innovative Cities. Peer Cities Innovative Cities

● Auburn, Washington ● Bellevue, Washington ● Bothell, Washington ● Oakland, California ● Kirkland, Washington ● Tacoma, Washington ● Redwood City, California ● Tigard,

Interview Process and Analysis We conducted semi-structured interviews with the Senior Transportation Planner or planning staff in charge of shared-use mobility or mobility hubs in each city and asked for additional recommendations to further saturate our sample and build out our case study pool. This format allowed us to gather different perspectives on the same general questions regarding shared-use mobility infrastructure, mobility hub siting and design, and approaches to implementation.

Each interview was conducted by at least two team members, recorded for accuracy, and simultaneously transcribed. Our interview outreach script and questions can be found in Appendix A: Interview Protocol. The semi-structured format allowed us to capture common themes and identify promising practices while also remaining flexible to frame particular questions to fit the individual city’s past, current, or future plans.

2.4 CASE STUDIES From our literature review and interviews, we were able to isolate six case studies that pertained directly to shared-use mobility and mobility hub design and implementation. We highlighted these case studies to document how a number of cities have implemented mobility hubs, as well as what they have learned, challenges they have found throughout their experiences, as well as best practices and considerations for future management. We completed case studies on the following cities and mobility hub aspects. ● Seattle, Washington: bikeshare and the evolution of shared-use mobility hub vehicles ● Cleveland, Ohio: bikeshare and scootershare with attention to safety and equity ● Los Angeles, California: mobility hub typology ● Munich, Germany: carshare integration with mobility hubs ● Vancouver, British Columbia: mobility hub amenities and features ● Lyon, France: bikeshare membership model and mobility hub redevelopment

Chapter 2: Research Methods | 25

After completing the case studies, we concluded that the lessons from Vancouver, British Columbia and Lyon, France did not provide meaningful insights to answer our current research questions. As such, we did not include those two cities in the Case Studies section of Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings. Instead, our summary of those cases can be found in Appendix C: Bikeshare Case Studies.

All of the cities we focused on for case studies could be considered innovative cities under our interview criteria below, but given their comparative size and time limitations, we did not pursue any interview with these cities with the exception of Seattle. We chose to take the time to interview Seattle, because as Shoreline’s immediate neighbor, it is a massive source of economic and demographic change in Shoreline and can serve as a potential partner and mentor as Shoreline pursues its evolving shared-use mobility goals.

2.5 COMMUNITY SURVEY The TMP Community Survey was conducted in February 2021 and sought to understand community members’ current and future travel plans as well as their perceptions about Shoreline’s existing and planned transportation systems. Our team had the opportunity to incorporate three questions into this survey, which aimed to measure peoples’ perceptions towards mobility hubs as well as which features and amenities they value most. Ultimately, the community survey was used to inform what features and amenities should be available at Shoreline’s proposed mobility hubs.

Selection Method The TMP Community Survey was mailed to every address in the city via a newsletter with a QR code to take the survey online. In addition, the survey was heavily promoted through newsletters, flyers, and media campaigns by both City staff and partner organizations. While the survey was available to the entire service population of Shoreline, the survey was ultimately administered via voluntary response sampling, as only community members who were willing and able to participate in the survey self-selected and submitted responses.

Survey Process and Analysis The survey was designed in collaboration with the City of Shoreline and Fehr and Peers. The full survey is available in Appendix B: Community Survey Questions, and the questions that our team created to capture information for this study are questions 11 through 13. Through this process, we captured community perceptions of current transportation infrastructure and their relative interests and priorities for future transportation projects through a series of multiple-choice questions designed to be completed in under ten minutes.

Chapter 2: Research Methods | 26

The City administered the survey online through SurveyMonkey. In addition, translations were made available in both Spanish and Mandarin, which are the two most commonly spoken languages in Shoreline other than English. The survey was promoted and administered in the month of February 2021, after which the survey was closed in order to aggregate and analyze results. Survey analysis focused on assessing the number and percentage of responses for each multiple-choice question, two of which were formatted as Likert scale questions.

2.6 MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS In order to answer our primary research question about where to locate mobility hubs, we performed a spatial analysis to identify areas most suitable for mobility hubs. Using the information gathered in the previous stages of our project, we established criteria for siting and designing mobility hubs: proximity to transit, walkability, bikeability, destinations, and density. We then selected data sources and methods to enable us to compare mobility hub options across these criteria.

On the next page, Table 3 provides a description of the method of measurement, data sources, and categorical scales used to evaluate each criterion in our multi-criteria analysis.

Chapter 2: Research Methods | 27

Table 3. Summary of Criteria Evaluation Methods. Criterion Data & Measurement Method Scale

Proximity to We used maps of the City’s public transit network We categorized the type of public transit as follows: transit projected through year 2040. We also considered ● High-capacity transit: includes any type of public transportation that ongoing plans and projects such as the subarea at higher speeds, has reduced stops, and carries a high volume plans for the light rail stations, design concepts for of passengers, such as light rail and bus-rapid transit. pedestrian bridges and shared-use lanes, and ● Frequent transit: includes buses that service a stop every 10-15 information from local transit providers such as minutes during peak hours. King County Metro to determine transit routes and ● Local transit: includes buses that service a stop every 30 minutes or frequency. less.

As many of the locations host multiple routes, multiple categories could apply to a single location.

Walkability We used maps from the City that reflect existing We used this information to categorize the walkability of a location as sidewalks and roadways, Walk Score, and Google follows: Street View to closely examine existing pedestrian ● Highly Walkable: Streets, sidewalks, and trail provide uninterrupted infrastructure. Our visual review took into account pedestrian travel in accordance with the City’s Complete Streets streets, sidewalks, footpaths, traffic controls such as ordinance. There is pedestrian-scale lighting and sufficient traffic stop signs, crosswalks, and traffic lights, as well as controls to support safe crossings, and the Walk Score is at least 70.1 any areas in which there are gaps in continuity or ● Moderately Walkable: Streets and sidewalks are mostly complete but connectivity through spatial analysis of Shoreline’s have some gaps. There are sufficient traffic controls such as stop built environment. In addition, we also used maps lights, crosswalks, and traffic lights to support safe crossings at that reflect ongoing or future infrastructure intersections. There is lighting present at streets and sidewalks, improvements, materials from plans and projects although not all of it is pedestrian-scale. such as the subarea plans for the light rail stations, ● Not Walkable: Pedestrians cannot safely access the right of way due and design concepts for pedestrian bridges and to missing or narrow sidewalks. There are also missing intersections, shared-use lanes such as the Trail Along the Rail to crosswalks, or traffic controls, in addition to limited to no pedestrian- consider upcoming pedestrian infrastructure. scale lighting.

1 Walk Score is a private company that has a publicly available walkability index for any location in the U.S. We set the threshold for a highly walkable area at a Walk Score of 70 based on the current walkability of Shoreline’s City Hall, given that this location was established to support high public access.

Chapter 2: Research Methods | 28

Criterion Data & Measurement Method Scale

Bikeability We studied maps of Shoreline’s completed bike We used this information to categorize the bikeability of a location as network as of September 2018, considered ongoing follows: and planned bike projects such as the Trail Along ● Highly Bikeable: Bike lanes are separate from the road creating a low the Rail, and reviewed the surrounding area using stress bike environment that is comfortable and convenient for riders Google Street View to identify other potential of all ages and abilities. Bike routes connect both north to south and challenges and/or supporting infrastructure for east to west, and there are no steep hills or the hills are easy to avoid. bicyclists. ● Moderately Bikeable: Facilities and infrastructure are mostly complete but there are some gaps. Some routes may only be safe for experienced bike commuters. ● Not Bikeable: The 3-mile bike access shed has very limited bike infrastructure and few routes that are safe even for experienced bike commuters. There may also be steep hills that are hard to avoid when traveling to or through the location.

Destinations We used Google Maps to perform a visual scan of We categorized destinations as follows: the area within approximately a ¼ mile of the ● Many: There are many destinations that will attract people from proposed hub location. We counted all places of across the city or several large destinations of various uses that will shopping, recreation, and education but gave more bring in visitors and employees from across the region. weight to destinations that bring in many visitors ● Some: There are several small destinations that mostly serve people and employees from around the city and region and living in the neighborhood or there are a few bigger destinations that to locations that had destinations supporting a bring in visitors and employees from across the region. variety of users. ● Few: There are fewer than 5 destinations that are relatively small neighborhood destinations.

Density We used heat maps produced by the US Census Balancing information on current and expected population, we categorized Bureau that demonstrate density per square mile the population density of each hub location. We established thresholds based on the population within each Census Block relative to the overall density of Shoreline as follows: to evaluate the population density in the ¼ mile ● High density: Over 80,000 people per square mile area surrounding a potential hub location. We also ● Medium density: Between 5,001 and 80,000 people per square mile considered published plans — 145th and 185th ● Low density: Less than 5,000 people per square mile subarea plans and Shoreline Place redevelopment — for areas where residential density is expected to grow considerably in the next decade.

Chapter 2: Research Methods | 29

2.7 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY Although we designed and implemented the study carefully to lend credibility to the results, there were limitations in our research and analysis due to limited time and resources. The main limitations of our research study are outlined in the following subsections.

Literature Review Our literature review was not a systematic review of all materials on the topic. We started with documents provided to us by City staff and Fehr & Peers consultants and had limited time to identify and review additional literature. As a result, the literature we reviewed may not be completely representative of the existing knowledge on shared-use mobility and mobility hubs. In addition, although academic research on more traditional forms of shared-use mobility such as buses, carpooling, and light rail was abundant, shared-use micromobility and mobility hubs are much more nascent concepts. We were forced to rely almost exclusively on grey literature when exploring these more nascent fields.

Interviews We defined criteria to identify peer cities of similar size and similar transportation context to select cities to interview. We intended that these similarities would mean that most lessons learned could then be applied to Shoreline’s unique but similar context. However, as every city is unique, we carefully considered each recommendation in its individual context to determine whether it could be applied to Shoreline.

Through our literature review, our discussions with City staff and Fehr & Peers consultants, and our interviews with cities, we identified and interviewed additional cities that did not fit into our initial peer city criteria but could provide useful insights on shared-use mobility and mobility hubs. Our selection of cities impacted the types of conversations and themes that were uncovered in our interviews. For example, we sought out cities that have been leaders in centering equity in their shared-use mobility programs as this was an area of learning that we were particularly interested in for this study; this interest is reflected in the dominance of equity considerations in the results of our interviews.

Lastly, while we designed our interview questions deductively, stemming from our literature review and consultation with our client, we could not ask all possible questions regarding shared- use mobility and mobility hubs as we limited our interviews to one hour to be respectful of the time of the transportation planners and engineers we interviewed.

Chapter 2: Research Methods | 30

Case Studies While the cities we chose for case studies have already implemented mobility hubs and shared- use mobility, they vary widely from Shoreline in terms of transportation infrastructure, the built environment, city planning and policies, and cultural attitudes towards transit. As such, the takeaways we derived from our case studies may not be as relevant for Shoreline given the extensive differences.

Community Survey The community survey was not administered using a random sampling method. Respondents were able to self-select into the survey, which may result in skewed and biased data as respondents who self-select are more likely to have stronger opinions than those who did not participate. In addition, the survey was available in ten languages, though most materials were available in English, Spanish, and Mandarin only. Community members who did not speak English, Spanish, or Mandarin may have found the survey and additional materials more difficult to access. Finally, people with difficulty using or accessing technology and people with limiting schedules may have also been excluded from the survey due to time constraints and the digital divide2. Given these limitations, we cannot assume that the results of the survey are representative of everyone in the community. Instead, we use the results as an indication of the perspective and interests of residents who are particularly interested and involved in the City’s ongoing efforts on transportation infrastructure.

Multi-Criteria Analysis As described earlier in the Multi-Criteria Analysis section of this chapter, we used several sources of data to evaluate proposed mobility hub locations. A significant limitation in our analysis was that we had to balance the current state of Shoreline’s built environment with ongoing City plans for redevelopment and changes. Though we believe that balancing several sources of information added to the relevance of our results, we had to make subjective judgements in order to assess potential mobility hub locations along the proposed criteria. Ultimately, the City will need to update this analysis as new developments and changes continue to take place.

One other shortcoming of our multi-criteria analysis was the inability to find transit ridership data from a single source. Since there were differences in the measurement, type, and timing of ridership data throughout parts of the city served by different transit agencies, we were unable to use a precise quantitative comparison of current and future transit ridership at potential mobility hubs. Nonetheless, we do feel that the data available was enough to confidently rank transit ridership on a qualitative scale.

2 The “digital divide” refers to various underserved and marginalized groups – including people who are poor or low-income, people experiencing homelessness, and the elderly – that have limited or no access to the Internet (Stanford, n.d.)

Chapter 2: Research Methods | 31

CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1 OVERVIEW In this chapter, we present the results of our review of literature related to shared-use mobility and mobility hub design. As detailed in Chapter 2: Research Methods, the goal of this first stage was to synthesize the current body of knowledge related to mobility hubs and shared-use mobility in one place in order to establish a shared understanding of what mobility hubs are, where they are most effective, and what general features and amenities they can possess. In the next chapter, Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings, we narrowed and refined this foundation in order to produce a concise set of siting criteria and design recommendations that fit Shoreline’s unique demographics and built environments.

This chapter is organized into four sections summarizing the literature we reviewed on each of the following themes: ● Shared-use mobility trends and prevalence ● Mobility hub design ● Mobility hub siting ● Equity and accessibility

3.2 SHARED-USE MOBILITY TRENDS AND PREVALENCE The Shared-Use Mobility Center broadly defines shared-use mobility as, “transportation services and resources that are shared among users, either concurrently or one after another” (Shared Use Mobility Center, n.d.). These forms of transportation can include, “public transit; micromobility (bikesharing, scooter sharing); automobile-based modes (carsharing, rides on demand, and microtransit); and commute-based modes or ridesharing (carpooling and vanpooling)” (Shared Use Mobility Center, n.d.).

These transportation options are defined by an individual’s ability to share them, which can take place in various ways (Marsden et al., 2019): ● Individuals can use publicly available modes of transportation at different times through options such as bikeshare and carshare, which allow a user to rent or borrow for a specific amount of time. ● Individuals can share trips at the same time by increasing the number of people per vehicle. A trip can be shared concurrently through forms of high-capacity transit such as bus and light rail but can also take place through the use of automobiles in the form of carpool and vanpool. ● Sharing can happen between individuals that know each other or strangers and can involve giving access at no cost or selling access for a profit.

Chapter 3: Literature Review | 32

Currently, popular forms of shared-use mobility include carshare, bikeshare, scootershare, carpool, vanpool, and longstanding forms of public transit such as bus and light rail.

Micromobility Trends Shared-use mobility is a rapidly evolving (See: Figure 1 for an example) field marked by its use of new technologies oftentimes implemented by transportation agencies through pilot projects and public-private partnerships.

Figure 1. The Evolution of City of Seattle's Bike Share Programs. The City of Seattle was one of the first cities in the United States to implement shared-use micromobility options on a large scale. Seattle’s use of shared-use mobility options has reflected rapidly evolving technological changes through their use of pilot projects. The city transitioned from a pilot project that involved docked bicycles in 2017, to dockless, free- floating electric bicycles in 2019, to a pilot project involving three electric scooter companies in 2020 (SDOT, 2020).

The image below shows dockless Lime Bikes parked in Seattle (SDOT, 2020).

In just the last five years, shared-use mobility has evolved rapidly, particularly around forms of micromobility and microtransit. Docked, pedaled bicycles were popularized in urban areas across the United States in 2017 (NACTO, 2018). By the next year, these bicycles became mostly obsolete and were largely replaced by docked electric bicycles in 2018 (NACTO, 2018). Technology shifted quickly again, and today, dockless, free-floating electric bikes such as the Jump Bike by Uber (See: Figure 2 below) are increasingly popular in urban areas.

Chapter 3: Literature Review | 33

Figure 2. Jump Bike by Uber (Uber, n.d.).

Dockless electric scooters such as those by Link in Figure 3 are also growing in popularity. However, literature shows that there is little crossover between e-bike and e-scooter users. Findings suggest that e-bikes are typically used for first mile/last mile connections and to commute to specific points of interest, while e-scooters are typically used by younger people for leisure activities and shorter-distance travel (Bielinski and Wazna, 2020).

Figure 3. Link Scooter by Superpedestrian (Superpedestrian, n.d.).

While dockless electric scooters are the newest form of shared-use mobility currently being implemented, their rate of use following initial implementation is far higher than those of electric bicycles. The high rates of use and adoption of electric scooters does not imply that scooters are better than bicycles, but rather illustrates the growing interest, usage, and importance of shared- use mobility more holistically. The following graph in Figure 4 from the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) shows how ridership of shared-use mobility options have rapidly grown.

Chapter 3: Literature Review | 34

Figure 4. Shared Micromobility Ridership Growth from 2010-2019 (NACTO, 2019).

Current trends show that while electric bicycles and electric scooters are growing forms of shared-use transportation, technology surrounding shared-use mobility continues to evolve. There are a variety of new developments such as the Segway S-Pod in Figure 5, which may be a more inclusive shared-use mobility option for people with disabilities compared to bikes or scooters.

Figure 5. S-Pod by Segway (Segway, n.d.).

Chapter 3: Literature Review | 35

While trends and technologies surrounding shared-use mobility are rapidly changing and evolving, they continue to strive to meet the same goal: to reduce the need to own a personal vehicle. This goal is accomplished through several strategies which include establishing shared- use mobility options as first mile/last mile transportation connections, as supplements and connections to light rail and bus services, and as forms of transportation that can be used in dense and mixed-use areas (Shared Use Mobility Center, 2019).

Mobility Hubs Another strategy to support shared-use mobility that several cities are adopting is the creation of “mobility hubs.” While definitions for mobility hubs may vary, transportation organizations and professionals agree on two crucial components: a mobility hub is located at a centralized geographic location and enables multiple modes of transportation (Seattle Department of Transportation, 2016; Shared Use Mobility Center, 2016; Urban Design LA, 2016).

Figure 6. Mobility Hub Definition. For this project, we are using a concise and easy-to-understand definition provided by the Seattle Department of Transportation, which is that mobility hubs are, “places of connectivity where different modes of transportation such as walking, biking, ride- sharing, and public transit, come together seamlessly at concentrations of employment, housing, shopping, and/or recreation” (Seattle Department of Transportation, 2016).

Mobility hubs have been implemented widely, from Lyon and Munich as global examples, to Cleveland and Los Angeles as national examples, to Seattle, Oakland, and Bellevue as more regionally specific examples (Bell, 2019; Miramontes et. al, 2017; Anderson et. al, 2017; Shared Use Mobility Center, 2017; Shared Use Mobility Center, 2018; City of Bellevue, 2018). In the Case Studies section of Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings, we provide more details about how several of these cities implemented shared-use mobility programs and mobility hubs. It must also be noted that researchers, professionals, and government officials do not all use the term “mobility hub,” but also use similar terminology such as “mobility centers,” “transit centers,” and more to describe these geographic locations (Miramontes et al., 2017).

3.3 MOBILITY HUB DESIGN Mobility hub design varies based on the hub’s location (residential, commercial, transit center), population density, popular and available travel modes, and alternative space demands. Mobility hubs are most often formed at existing transit centers due to a transit agency or city’s desire to promote non-car connections; however, the resources and amenities recommended are dependent on other factors such as neighborhood density, average trip length, the prevalence of car ownership, and curbspace design and safety.

Chapter 3: Literature Review | 36

Mobility Hub Features In providing a confluence of transit modalities, mobility hubs can offer a range of services. The most common services identified in the literature review are enumerated below in Table 4. Each of these features serves a particular purpose for the community and user, and different hubs might have all or just a handful of these features depending on location and user demand.

Table 4. Mobility Hub Features, Design, and Key Needs Addressed. Feature Design Key Needs Addressed

Bicycle & Scooter Connections

Bikeshare and A continuously available fleet of Convenient and predictable access to first scootershare bicycles and scooters (Limebike, mile/last mile micromobility options. services JUMP, etc.).

Bikeshare and A row of docking stations from Predictable pick-up and drop-off zones for scootershare which bikes can be rented or rented vehicles. parking/docking returned OR a painted rectangle indicating location to park dockless Reduced obstruction of pedestrian bicycles and scooters to improve walkways. pedestrian and other vehicle mobility. Increased safety for all pedestrians, especially pedestrians who have a disability.

Secure bicycle A row of 5-20 rentable lockers that Safe, largely multi-hour or all-day storage lockers can be secured with a code or for bicycles. personal lock. Encourages bicycle owners to use both bicycles and public transit modes.

Vehicle Connections

Rideshare pick- A portion of curbspace reserved for Facilitates smooth transition to/from up/drop-off zones rideshare passenger hailing, pick- rideshare to other transportation modes. up/drop-off, and driver waiting. Decreases congestion by providing particular zones for pick-up and drop-off.

Carshare services Available one-way and round-trip Facilitates smooth transition from public vehicles (Gig Car, Zipcar). transit to shared vehicle options.

Decreases individual car ownership by providing vehicles that can be shared.

Personal vehicle Single and multi-hour parking Provides space for car-reliant users that live parking spaces for personal vehicles. further from the hub to keep their vehicle while using transit alternatives.

Chapter 3: Literature Review | 37

Feature Design Key Needs Addressed

Bus Infrastructure

Bus loading/ Reserved zones for bus pick- Facilitates smooth transition to/from buses unloading zones up/drop-off. to other transportation modes.

Bus layover zones Areas for buses to wait and Ensures multiple buses and service coordinate with other transit providers can unload and load passengers, connections, such as other buses or while remaining on schedule. light rail.

Bus shelters Covered seating and standing areas Provides safe and accessible shelters for in proximity to bus transit users waiting to make their next loading/unloading zones. connections.

Mobility Hub Typology When approaching the design of a shared-use mobility hub, planners consider the preexisting transit infrastructure and user demands in that particular area. While most documents focused only on major mobility hubs adjacent to major transit connections (i.e., light rail or stations), some outlined a range of hub typologies to support different parts of the city. Several cities including Los Angeles, CA and Vancouver, B.C. have separated their hubs into three general categories (Urban Design Studio, 2016; Aono, 2019). ● Neighborhood: smaller, ancillary stations found in low-density neighborhoods that offer a few basic amenities including wayfinding, bikesharing, and bike parking. ● Central: medium-scale station located where more than one bus line stops. These hubs offer additional amenities including carshare and ridesharing services and may expand beyond a single location within an intersection or ½ block radius. ● Regional: large-scale station at areas such as major bus terminals and light and commuter rail stations. Regional hubs offer the most amenities, including secure bike parking, bus layover zones, and shelters.

Establishing multiple typologies or hub tiers in order to determine the design and features of individual hubs can lead to more strategic use of resources, as literature also suggests that user groups and their relative needs will vary depending on the type of hub (Bell, 2019). For example, parking options and EV charging stations are more important at central and regional hubs than neighborhood hubs, as neighborhood hubs are used more frequently by people who are less likely to own personal vehicles (Bell, 2019).

The following table provides a summary of each type of mobility hub along with the minimum features required to meet the needs of people moving through that type of hub.

Chapter 3: Literature Review | 38

Table 5. User Needs by Mobility Hub Type. Minimum Features to Meet User Hub Type Description Needs

Neighborhood Neighborhood hubs are the smallest ● Overhead weather protection and most basic type of mobility hubs ● Enhanced waiting areas and are typically located near or at bus ● Specific information about stops. Despite their small size, they are location, transit connections, and used most frequently by residents. In nearby points of interest particular, these hubs are used most frequently by people who are low- income, seniors, people with disabilities, and people who do not own personal vehicles.

Central Central hubs connect to regional hubs ● Parking spaces or “park and and city centers. These locations are rides” used frequently by both residents and ● EV charging stations commuters but experience less traffic ● Overhead weather protection from tourists and travelers than ● Enhanced waiting areas regional hubs. Infrastructure at these ● Bike parking and lockers hubs should include features and ● Bikeshare and scootershare pick- amenities that will support heavy up/drop-off zones resident and commuter use by ● Specific information about providing parking spaces and location, transit connections, and opportunities for multimodal nearby points of interest connections. ● Nearby food and shopping options

Regional Regional hubs not only serve as key ● Pedestrian infrastructure to points for transportation and support high foot traffic commuting, but also as sites for leisure ● Diverse micromobility and and recreation. These hubs have the microtransit options such as most diverse groups of users such as bikeshare and scootershare commuters, local residents, and ● Specific information about tourists and experience frequent use as location, transit connections, and well as high levels of foot traffic. nearby points of interest These hubs should offer the most ● Bike parking and lockers features and amenities. ● Bikeshare and scootershare pick- up/drop-off zones ● Overhead weather protection ● Enhanced waiting areas ● Nearby food and shopping options

Chapter 3: Literature Review | 39

Equity & Accessibility There are a number of ways in which mobility hubs have been made more equitable and accessible in their planning, designs, and implementation. For the purposes of our analysis, we defined equity as ensuring that every community member has the same opportunity to use the transit system. Transportation agencies, researchers, and local governments have conducted community outreach and participatory research to engage residents in the planning process in order to promote equity (San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), 2017; Bell, 2019; Aono, 2019). However, it is unclear to what extent the general public’s desires, interests, and perspectives – particularly those from marginalized and underrepresented communities – have been incorporated into the typical decision-making process. The absence of community engagement and community involvement in the decision-making process is most evident when examining where and how mobility hubs have been sited, as findings show that mobility hubs are less available in low-income communities despite low rates of personal automobile ownership and shared-use mobility options in these geographical locations (SANDAG, 2017). In addition, there is little information available on the extent to which mobility hubs lead to gentrification and displacement.

The majority of the available literature on equity and accessibility at mobility hubs focuses on design. Most notably, language accessibility is an extremely important consideration at mobility hubs, as linguistic and cultural barriers may prevent people from using various forms of transportation available at hubs, understanding signage, and using apps to pay for shared services and (SANDAG, 2017; Bell, 2019; SDOT, 2017). Language accessibility not only applies to people who have limited English proficiency, but also seniors, people with disabilities, and people with visual impairments, as wayfinding, universal signage, and real-time travel information with large and easy-to-read symbols and text are of notable importance to visual accessibility for each of these groups (SANDAG, 2017; Bell, 2019).

Another area in which equity and accessibility considerations tend to appear is with payment structures and technology. More specifically, reduced and discounted fares are typically made available for low-income individuals (SANDAG, 2017; SDOT, 2017). In addition, fare payment options are made available in various formats to include people who do not have smartphones and bank accounts (SANDAG, 2017; SDOT, 2017).

Literature also suggests that mobility hubs can be made more accessible and equitable by attending to basic user needs rather than diversifying the modes of transportation at each hub (Bell, 2019). Based on this information, we have identified a number of features and amenities for mobility hubs that would promote equity and accessibility for various user groups including seniors, people with disabilities, low-income individuals, and immigrant, refugee, and Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) communities in the following figure.

Chapter 3: Literature Review | 40

Figure 7. Features and Amenities to Promote Equity and Accessibility at Mobility Hubs. ● Tactical supports to provide guidance and information ● Barrier-free access points to stops and platforms ● Overhead weather protection ● Enhanced waiting areas with plentiful seating ● Universal signage and wayfinding ● Real-time travel information ● accessibility ● Shuttle and/or vanpool services ● Reduced and discounted fare options ● Fare payment options that do not require smartphones or bank accounts ● Multiple language options on signage, smartphone apps, and travel information ● Separate bike and pedestrian lanes

In addition to these components, mobility hubs should also feature pathways that have limited obstruction from the activity and storage of shared-use mobility options such as bikes and scooters, which interfere with the walkability of mobility hubs for pedestrians with limited mobility such as people with disabilities, seniors, and people with visual impairments (Aono, 2019; Bell, 2019).

An analysis of mobility hub features that further includes details on fare payment options, community engagement, language accessibility, and design components from SANDAG is available in Figure 8. SANDAG’s assessments provide important considerations for our research question on what features and amenities mobility hubs should have. As the figure indicates, the most effective design elements to promote access for seniors, minorities, and low-income groups are dedicated transit lanes, signal prioritization, pedestrian facilities, and enhanced waiting areas.

Chapter 3: Literature Review | 41

Figure 8. Feature Benefits for Disadvantaged Population Groups (SANDAG, 2017).

Chapter 3: Literature Review | 42

3.4 MOBILITY HUB SITING Through our literature review, we did not find any cities with a documented set of criteria used to select and evaluate mobility hub locations. Instead, we found cities primarily co-located mobility hubs at pre-existing high-capacity transit stops (Aono, 2019; Gray, 2017; ITF, 2017; Marsden et al., 2019; Miramontes et al., 2017; Seattle Department of Transportation, 2015; Shared Use Mobility Center, 2016; WGI, Inc., 2019). These cities implemented mobility hubs to expand shared-use mobility options at major transit stations but did not necessarily integrate the hub –– or multiple hubs –– into their overall transit network. However, we observed that many active mobility hubs shared the following siting commonalities in addition to being located near high- capacity transit: ● Walkable areas accessible without a car and where significant foot traffic makes the hubs more visible (Aono, 2019; Miramontes et al., 2017) ● Densely populated areas with both employment opportunities and housing to create enough demand for shared-use mobility services and discourage driving (Aono, 2019; Ewing & Cervero, 2010; Miramontes et al., 2017)

The following figure provides an example from the City of Munich that illustrates the importance of placing shared-use mobility infrastructure in walkable areas.

Figure 9. Example: Munich Mobility Stations. Munich, Germany implemented a pilot of Mobility Stations, multimodal mobility hubs, in 2014 (Miramontes et al., 2017). Two years into the pilot, the city conducted a survey evaluating the perception and use of the Mobility Stations to determine whether to continue investing in Mobility Stations, and if so, in what form. The survey found: ● The majority of users got to and from the Mobility Stations by foot or on public transit. ● In deciding whether to use the Mobility Stations, proximity was very important. For carshare users, 73% went to the Mobility Station because it offered the closest vehicle. ● About 1 in 3 survey respondents found the Mobility Stations by chance while walking.

These results emphasize the importance of mobility hubs being located in walkable areas as connections to public transit.

Chapter 3: Literature Review | 43

While proximity to transit, walkability, and density represent the conditions for the highest priority mobility hubs, the City of Bremen in Germany –– with almost 20 years of experience providing mobility hubs –– discovered it was important to create a network of mobility hubs that reaches beyond those high priority areas (Gray, 2017). There are many people that live and work outside of these high-density, high transit-service areas, and they are more likely to change their travel behavior to use shared-use mobility options if a hub is located conveniently close to home and work (Gray, 2017; Miramontes et al., 2017). Also recognizing the importance of proximity to people, the UK-based Commission on Travel Demand’s report on shared-use mobility recommends establishing mobility hubs at major new housing developments (Marsden et al., 2019).

The Shared-Use Mobility Center provides additional rules of thumb indicating where different shared-use modes of transportation are likely to flourish; these are summarized in the following table (Shared Use Mobility Center, 2016).

Table 6. Locations and Conditions for Success by Mobility Mode. Mode Where is it likely to succeed?

Bikeshare ● Mixed-use neighborhoods ● Near transit facilitating first mile/last mile connections ● High pedestrian traffic

Traditional carshare ● Dense neighborhoods ● Low auto-ownership ● High quality transit

One-way carshare ● Large cities with limited or priced parking ● Near transit facilitating first mile/last mile connection

Ridesourcing ● Walkable neighborhood ● Moderate to high density area

Private shuttles ● Near high-capacity transit facilitating first mile/last mile connections addressing a “bottleneck” in existing public transit

3.5 MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT Given the diversity in urban contexts, the literature is clear about the need for transportation agencies and departments to have a clear vision, measures of success, and a plan for monitoring the implementation of any mobility solution. Additionally, given the confluence of services and vehicles that will potentially be available at each hub, cities should consider the role of public-

Chapter 3: Literature Review | 44

private partnerships in achieving their goals and maximizing public access to a multi-modal transit network.

Determining Measures of Success A clear vision and measures of success will enable a city or transportation agency to determine whether or not the mobility solution –– whether it be a change to curbspace, the implementation of a new fleet of e-bikes, or the creation of a mobility hub –– meets the desired needs. While it may be expeditious to implement with only a general long-term goal to support a car-light lifestyle, the Institute of Transportation Engineers recommends setting short-term and long-term outcomes across six dimensions: mobility, livability, accessibility, safety, efficiency, and economic vitality (Mitman et al., 2018). The agency should determine metrics by which to measure each of these outcomes. Establishing and tracking metrics that align with a city’s overall transportation plan will ensure that resources are not invested year-over-year in a project that does not support the overall vision for transit.

Leveraging Pilots to Test Viability One approach to management and monitoring that arose in the literature was piloting. A pilot allows the city or transportation agency to test a new concept without large-scale investment. Many cities have conducted pilots to determine the way that curbspace changes impact congestion, the user experience for dockless bikes and scooters, and the viability of carsharing (Shared Use Mobility Center, 2015). Running a mobility hub pilot by building out a hub at a high-capacity transit center and observing usage, surveying users, and making small modifications can support a city in optimizing its design and making more strategic investments in the eventual mobility hub network.

Cross-Agency & Cross-Sector Collaboration The necessity of collaborative partnerships arose as a third theme in the literature on implementation and management. The most efficacious locations for mobility hubs occur at a confluence of transit and mobility options; often these different transit options are offered by different agencies and companies (i.e., Sound Transit Link, Lime bikeshare, and King County Metro bus). Effective coordination and collaboration between these different entities will dictate the success or failure of any attempt to provide shared-use mobility options.

Additionally, intentional partnerships with private sector companies to supply micromobility fleets can ease the costs and risks that cities incur. Private companies are often testing new markets and can be leveraged as the “canary in the coal mine” to identify future hub locations (Feigon et al., 2018). Cities can contract with private companies to ensure that services are provided not only broadly, but to specific hard-to-reach markets or previously underserved communities; these are often the communities most in need of first mile/last mile connections to established higher-capacity transit lines.

Chapter 3: Literature Review | 45

3.6 CONCLUSION Through our literature review, we learned that the universe of shared-use micromobility is continually growing and evolving. Given our research questions, we focused our literature review on shared-use mobility hubs. Our key takeaways were: ● Cities should focus on creating the capital infrastructure to support an ever-evolving multimodal transit network. Infrastructure to support multimodal transit should be integrated into the overall transit network and will be most successful when co-located at pre-existing high-capacity transit stations. ● Cities can consider different types of hubs that match the transit demand at a particular location. This hub typology can provide a blueprint for hub design and scale. ● Cities should pilot hubs in most trafficked areas initially to observe real human behaviors and make adjustments before building out an entire network. ● Working with private developers and micromobility operators can support cost-sharing and quickly get vehicles and amenities launched. ● Most importantly, the city should design with access and equity in mind. Mobility hubs should have design elements that focus on pedestrian accessibility and lighting as well as ADA accessibility. In addition, all modes of transit should feature low-tech and affordable fare-payment structures.

In our upcoming chapter, we sought to determine which concepts from the literature have been tested by cities worldwide, as well as peer and innovative cities on the West Coast.

Chapter 3: Literature Review | 46

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

4.1 OVERVIEW In this chapter, we present the results of our interviews, case studies, and the community survey. We use our findings from the analysis in this chapter in order to answer our preliminary research questions in Chapter 5: Recommendations.

● What criteria should be used to determine the siting of new mobility hubs? ● What criteria should be used to determine the features and amenities of each proposed mobility hub?

The chapter contains three sections. First, we discuss the themes and promising practices that were uncovered through our interviews with peer cities and innovative cities. The eight cities that we interviewed were at various stages in their planning for shared-use mobility programs and mobility hubs, but none of the cities we talked to had fully implemented programs. In the next section, we outline case studies examining the programs, challenges, and innovative practices of four cities that are further along in implementing shared-use mobility than Shoreline and most of the cities that we interviewed. Finally, we summarize the results of the Transportation Master Plan Community Survey to identify mobility hub features that should be prioritized based on community needs and desires.

4.2 INTERVIEWS We conducted eight qualitative interviews with city transportation planners and professionals from across the West Coast to better understand how mobility hubs are being implemented, how barriers and obstacles have been overcome, and discover emerging best practices. Our team interviewed peer cities that were similar to Shoreline in terms of size and transportation infrastructure in addition to a number of innovative cities whose transportation networks and populations are considerably larger. The selection method for peer and innovative cities and methodology for this qualitative analysis are available in Chapter 2: Research Methods and the interview questions are available in Appendix A: Interview Protocols.

In the following tables, we provide a brief summary of the cities that we interviewed. Table 7 lists peer cities with similar population size and transportation systems as Shoreline. We included Shoreline in that table for comparison. The table after that, Table 8, lists the innovative cities that we spoke with.

Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings | 47

Table 7. Population and Transportation Systems of Interviewed Peer Cities. Population Peer Cities Transit Network Overview Estimates

Shoreline, WA 56,300 King County Metro, Sound Transit, and Community Transit provide bus services. Sound Transit will provide light rail service starting in 2024.

Auburn, WA 80,100 King County Metro and provide bus, vanpool, and ACCESS services. Sound Transit provides the Sounder commuter train.

Bothell, WA 45,700 King County Metro, Sound Transit, and Community Transit provide bus services. Community Transit and Metro also provide vanpool.

Kirkland, WA 89,500 King County Metro and Sound Transit provide bus services. Metro also runs a vanpool pilot which runs between Kirkland and Kenmore.

Redwood City, CA 85,800 Caltrain connects to downtown; SamTrans provides bus services.

Tigard, OR 53,000 TriMet’s buses and Westside Express Service (WES) commuter rail run through the city and connect at the Tigard Transit Center.

Table 8. Population and Transportation Systems of Interviewed Innovative Cities. Population Innovative Cities Transit Network Overview Estimates

Bellevue, WA 144,400 King County Metro provides bus and vanpool services. Sound Transit provides bus services and will provide light rail service by 2023.

Oakland, CA 425,000 Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) light rail connects Oakland to surrounding cities across the Bay Area region. Alameda County (AC) runs buses throughout the city.

Tacoma, WA 213,000 Pierce Transit provides bus, vanpool, shuttle, and services. Sound Transit provides commuter train and bus service connecting Tacoma to the broader region to the north.

Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings | 48

We identified themes across interviews using inductive and open coding, which combined themes that emerged from our prior data collection and analysis with themes that emerged from interview notes and transcripts. We then examined the relationships between themes and selected those that provided the most valuable insights for implementing mobility hubs in Shoreline.

We identified four primary themes through our analysis and determined a number of best practices related to each theme based on information collected through interviews. The following themes are discussed in this section: 1. Land use: The use of land to support human activities. Land use planning refers to requiring or incentivizing land use development that support the city’s social and environmental goals. 2. Public transit networks: Pre-existing or projected bus, light rail, and train lines that connect the community to essential jobs, destinations, and homes. 3. Capital infrastructure: The long-lasting physical components that make up the built environment such as streets, sidewalks, , and lighting systems. 4. Addressing community needs: The concept of planning with the community’s desires, values, and preferences in mind.

The common thread across these four themes is accessibility. In our conversations, transportation planners and engineers talked about how shared-use mobility options and mobility hubs can provide access to more social and economic opportunities through connections to public transit. We heard that access for cyclists and pedestrians was central to decisions about what shared-use mobility options to provide and where, and we learned that cities are pursuing various strategies to ensure their outreach efforts are accessible to more members of their community.

The following subsections provide a discussion of each of the four themes. Each subsection concludes with a list of promising practices that we uncovered through our conversations with peer and innovative cities.

Land Use The crucial relationship between land use — the spatial distribution and types of activities supported — and shared-use mobility came up repeatedly throughout our interviews. There is a two-way relationship: land use influences transportation, and transportation influences land use. In some cases, cities that were already highly built out had limited options for available and affordable land where they could site shared-use mobility infrastructure. In general, though, most cities concentrated shared-use mobility infrastructure downtown or in the center of highly developed, high-density, and mixed-use neighborhoods.

As our region rapidly grows, transportation goals are influencing development patterns. Many cities appear to be encouraging development around mobility hubs and transit centers to grow

Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings | 49

potential ridership. Rapid development or redevelopment around mobility hubs provides an opportunity to create a more walkable and bikeable network by requiring developers to build street extensions and sidewalks.

Rather than providing mobility hubs to influence where people are going, cities appear to be largely providing sustainable mobility options to support peoples’ existing travel patterns. While this may be an efficient way to achieve overall health and environmental improvement, this approach generally fails to address any of the gaps in the existing public transportation system, which can potentially exacerbate existing inequities in transportation access. Our interviews uncovered two main ways to provide shared-use mobility options in areas with limited options. ● If there are free-floating shared scooters or bikes in the city, cities can incentivize operators to maintain a certain percentage of the fleet in areas that are underserved by the existing transportation system. ● Shuttles can offer on-demand rides for people who are not near existing fixed transit routes.

In some cities, the sprawling and car-centric design of residential areas appeared to greatly limit the potential of shared-use mobility, especially active mobility and micromobility options that are best for relatively short commutes. One interview respondent discussed the importance of planning and zoning for more employment opportunities and more dense residential development as part of their pursuit of shared-use mobility.

Cities with more concentrated, mixed-use development typically saw more opportunity in pursuing shared-use mobility in the short term. However, greater density also comes with challenges to manage curbspace and parking around mobility hubs. In one case, we heard that the park & ride around a mobility hub did not have enough space to accommodate all of the commuters that would like to drive to and park at the station. In another case, we heard that a large park & ride, while utilized, detracted from the potential of the mobility hub to become a welcoming place that would attract new residential and retail uses.

In the following table, we summarized promising practices for land use derived from our interviews.

Table 9. Promising Practices for Land Use from Interviews. Promising Practice Description

Site hubs where people Site mobility hubs where many people live and work and at popular are and want to go shopping, entertainment, and community-building destinations to provide a convenient and sustainable choice of transportation.

Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings | 50

Promising Practice Description

Encourage development Supportive land use – particularly more housing and mixed-use that increases density development – allows shared-use mobility to serve more people and connectivity more efficiently. Affordable housing development around mobility hubs ensures that people with limited incomes benefit from the access to social and economic opportunity provided by mobility hubs.

Right-size car Limit car parking and instead prioritize active and shared-use infrastructure around modes of transportation to make mobility hubs safer and more mobility hubs comfortable locations that encourage community building and attract retail and residential development.

Public Transit Networks Planners and engineers in every interview spoke to the essential nature of public transportation networks in the siting and design of shared-use mobility hubs. Public transportation, used interchangeably with public transit, includes bus lines, commuter rail lines, and light rail that connect travelers with essential services, jobs, destinations and residences. Public transit is viewed by planners as the “backbone” of the overall transportation system, and planning for micromobility and shared-use transportation options stems from key transit centers or connections.

First and foremost, all cities interviewed agreed that public transit stops and centers dictated the siting of mobility hubs in their varied forms. Pre-existing places where individuals are already engaging in travel on shared-use modes such as buses, trains, and carpool are the most likely locations for early adopters of new shared-use travel modes such as bikeshare, carshare, and scootershare. Additionally, public transit stops are places where individuals are most likely to transition to another mode of travel such as a personal car or bike or continue to their destination on foot.

Public transit, especially existing transit and what entity owns the land, influences hub design and amenities. For example, if King County owns the land for a proposed hub, the design for that space will be dictated by County guidelines and design ordinances. Therefore, robust partnerships between the city, county, and public transit agencies dictates design potential for mobility hubs.

In the following table, we summarized promising practices for public transit networks derived from our interviews.

Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings | 51

Table 10. Promising Practices for Public Transit Networks from Interviews. Promising Practice Description

Co-locate hubs at places Build hubs at places where shared-use mobility is already of pre-existing or happening (bus, train, and light rail stations) to promote the early planned public transit adoption of single occupancy vehicle alternatives.

Build robust Public transit agencies often own the land directly surrounding their partnerships with public services. Partner closely with these agencies to co-design hubs to transit agencies to ensure that specific community needs can be met within the partner in hub design agency’s design ordinances.

Capital Infrastructure Capital infrastructure is the backbone of any city. It includes long-term, extremely valuable assets such as streets, sidewalks, buildings, and lighting systems. Nearly every interview respondent addressed the importance of capital infrastructure when discussing mobility hub implementation and features. The three most commonly discussed features were pedestrian infrastructure, bicycle infrastructure, and lighting systems.

Cities emphasized the importance of dedicated pedestrian lanes as well as safe crosswalks, sidewalks, and intersections to not only support pedestrian safety but to promote pedestrian mobility in general. While some cities already had sufficient pedestrian infrastructure to support movement at and around mobility hubs, others had to invest in capital projects to close gaps in existing sidewalks, create dedicated lanes for pedestrians, and install safe crosswalks and intersections.

Cities also emphasized the importance of bicycle infrastructure or dedicated lanes for bicycles and other forms of micromobility that included shared-use mobility options such as electric scooters. Interview respondents who spoke about dedicated lanes for bicycles and other forms of shared-use mobility emphasized their importance not only on streets, such as covered or protected bike lanes, but also at and through mobility hubs. Dedicated lanes for bicycles and other forms of micromobility were reported to increase safety for pedestrians, motorists, and other cyclists in addition to decreasing congestion on walkways and pathways. Most importantly, many cities reported that they are planning for separate bicycle and pedestrian lanes to support activity further. Separated lanes improve mobility for all users of these lanes and further promote safety, particularly for groups such as the elderly and people with disabilities who are moving through mobility hubs and cannot quickly move out of the way of fast-moving bikes, scooters, and other forms of mobility.

Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings | 52

Nearly every city is planning to expand pedestrian-scale lighting at and near mobility hubs, which illuminate sidewalks and not just the street. Most interview respondents reported that their implementation of additional pedestrian-scale lighting was in response to community needs, and further supported the use of shared-use mobility services, mobility hubs, pedestrian activity, and general use of the right of way. Pedestrian-scale lighting is also an important safety consideration due to the higher visibility of people using sidewalks and other pedestrian lanes.

In the following table, we summarized promising practices for capital infrastructure derived from our interviews.

Table 11. Promising Practices for Capital Infrastructure from Interviews. Promising Practice Description

Separate lanes for Create and maintain separate lanes for pedestrians and people cyclists and pedestrians who are using forms of micromobility such as bicycles and scooters to promote safety, reduce congestion on lanes and pathways, and facilitate mobility through and around hubs.

Provide pedestrian- Install lighting that properly illuminates sidewalks to promote scale lighting at and safety through higher visibility and respond to community around hubs needs.

Addressing Community Needs Interviewees commonly addressed the importance of fitting mobility options to the unique needs and interests of the community surrounding or passing through the hub. Community needs arose in considering the siting, design, and amenities of a hub. The concept of planning with the community’s desires, values, and preferences in mind, however, was approached differently by the various agencies with whom we spoke.

Cities generally had two different philosophies in addressing community needs. Proactive cities worked with community representatives from across the city to determine priority locations for hubs and related services, as well as how the infrastructure surrounding those hubs met the needs of the community in which the hubs were located. These cities sought to design mobility hubs that were not only places where transit modes intersected but also community gathering spots and points of community pride. The prioritization of community needs and desires led to some hubs being located in spots that might have otherwise been deprioritized due to lower transit volume.

Many more cities engaged community members only during design and pilot phases. Community needs were determined through feedback regarding micromobility pilots near transit.

Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings | 53

Additionally, community needs were addressed in situations where the private market was not necessarily serving particular communities due to perceptions of lower demand or concerns about vandalism.

Cities engaged in community needs assessments in two main ways – through direct city-to- resident outreach or through partnerships with community-based organizations (CBOs). Some cities leverage both in their efforts to more effectively understand the diverse needs of different racial, ethnic, and linguistic groups.

In the following table, we summarized promising practices for conducting outreach and learning about community needs derived from our interviews.

Table 12. Promising Practices to Learn about Community Needs from Interviews. Promising Practice Description

Direct outreach through Traditional survey techniques tend to oversample white, upper- representative surveys income, and older residents. With the advent of online surveys, and focus groups internet access becomes another barrier to representative survey results. Direct engagement with representatives from historically marginalized or hard-to-reach communities provides more representative perspectives.

Partner with CBOs One way to ensure the voices and perspectives of historically marginalized or hard-to-reach populations is to contract with local community-based organizations with strong ties to these populations. CBOs can plan and organize focus groups themselves or community events for government officials to attend.

Collaborate with Determine hub locations and hub amenities in collaboration with community in the siting community members. Outreach can take place via focus groups or and design process CBO-led design events.

Pilot programs Establish a single project location and monitor it for user behavior and engagement, adapt to test new features, and survey users to solicit user opinions.

4.3 CASE STUDIES This section provides an overview on how several cities have implemented shared-use mobility and mobility hubs, examines the challenges they have addressed, and highlights best practices for mobility hub implementation and management. As described in more detail in Chapter 2: Research Methods, we chose case studies both within and outside of the United States based on

Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings | 54

our literature review, data collected during interviews with peer and innovative cities, and implementation and management considerations that the City wished to examine based on their objectives for mobility hubs such as equity, accessibility, and connectivity.

The following table provides a brief overview of the population and transit network for each of the case studies included in this section. We included Shoreline at the top of that table for comparison.

Table 13. Population and Transportation Systems of Case Study Cities. City Population Estimates Transit Network Overview

Shoreline, WA 56,300 in city King County Metro, Sound Transit, and Community Transit provide bus services. Sound Transit will provide light rail service starting in 2024.

Seattle, Washington 747,000 in city Includes King County Metro, Sound 3.5 million in metro area Transit, Community Transit, Washington State , and Amtrak for bus, light rail, train, streetcar, , and services.

Cleveland, Ohio 385,000 in city High-capacity transit includes heavy 2.1 million in metro area rail, light rail, and BRT provided by the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority. Cleveland also has bus service and a free trolley.

Los Angeles, 3.96 million in city Well known for its extensive road California 12.5 million in metro area system, Los Angeles County Metropolitan (LACMTA) operates bus, light rail, and subway services carrying 1.2 million passengers daily.

Munich, Germany 1.5 million in city S-Bahn (commuter rail), U-Bahn 6 million in metro area (intracity subway), street-level , and buses average around 1 million passengers daily. Extensive carshare and bikeshare support first mile/last mile mobility.

Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings | 55

In addition to the four case studies outlined in this section, we also examined the shared-use mobility programs of Vancouver, Canada and Lyon, France. As our findings from these two cities revolved largely around their bikeshare programs and relied on high population density, we did not end up using the results to inform our mobility hub recommendations. Refer to Appendix C: Bikeshare Case Studies for our case studies on Vancouver and Lyon.

The following subsections provide an overview of promising practices from each case study.

Seattle, Washington As Shoreline’s neighbor to the south, Seattle’s rapidly growing population and economy have affected Shoreline’s own population and economic growth in addition to the demand for transportation between the two cities. Seattle’s existing mobility hubs have been planned by prioritizing proximity to transit and transit centers to ensure that users have access to frequent services and more seamless transitions between modes of transportation. Most notably, however, Seattle has engaged in a variety of shared-use mobility programs that the City of Shoreline can learn from as it begins to implement mobility hubs.

Shared-Use Mobility Pilots: Seattle’s use of pilot programs highlights the rapid evolution of technology and growing usage of shared-use options that include bikeshare and scootershare. Seattle’s shared-use mobility pilot projects included docked bicycles in 2017, dockless free- floating electric bicycles in 2019, and electric scooters in 2020 (SDOT, 2020). Seattle’s shared- use mobility pilots are not exclusive to mobility hubs, and while the expansion of shared-use mobility options has helped foster connectivity, they have also created challenges related to curbspace management such as parking for dockless vehicles and pedestrian access on streets and sidewalks. In addition, Seattle is currently experiencing a tension between helmet safety – particularly with their three electric scooter pilots – and enforcement, which disproportionately impacts people who are experiencing homelessness and Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities (Baruchman, 2021). Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) is also investing in creating more accessible infrastructure by creating more ADA curb ramps and ensuring that sightlines are clear in order to promote visibility and ensure safety for everyone using streets and sidewalks.

Overall, implementing shared-use micromobility in Seattle has not been without its challenges and it has been far from a linear process, but the city’s continued efforts have yielded some promising results. In Seattle, in 2019, people used bikeshare to take 2.2 million rides and covered 2.5 million miles (Davis, 2020). Although the disruption of COVID-19 has made it difficult to evaluate the success of micromobility offerings after 2019, there is reason to hope that the introduction of e-scooters in the city will lead to even more shared rides in the future.

Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings | 56

In the following table, we outlined several promising practices from Seattle’s shared-use mobility pilots.

Table 14. Promising Practices from Seattle’s Shared-Use Mobility Pilots. Promising Practice Description

Designate where people Curbspace management is essential to ensuring pedestrian and can use and park shared cyclist safety and access at and through mobility hubs. Set clear bikes and scooters guidelines for where people can ride shared bikes and scooters and where they should be parked to avoid obstructions.

Provide accessible Accessible infrastructure such as ADA ramps are essential for infrastructure ensuring that people with disabilities and people with limited mobility can access mobility hubs, but also public space and the right of way more generally. While many individuals may be unable to use bikes and scooters due to physical limitations, having accessible infrastructure like curb ramps and clear sightlines will accommodate upcoming and innovative shared-use mobility options with “chair” designs like the Segway S-Pod and ensure that people are able to navigate through and around hubs safely.

Run pilot programs to Collaborate with private operators and use to test out which shared- figure out what works use mobility options work well for the City and the community. As and what does not micromobility technology and the industry continues to evolve quickly, pilot programs allow cities to see if they can benefit from shared micromobility without investing making significant infrastructure investments or committing to specific shared micromobility operator(s).

Cleveland, Ohio As the City of Shoreline contemplates permitting micromobility operators to provide another shared-use mobility option for its residents, employees, and visitors, it can learn from the experience of Cleveland, Ohio. In 2018, e-scooters came to Cleveland uninvited and without warning and were quickly removed from the streets due to safety concerns (Metzger, 2019). After hitting the brakes, the city pursued legislation and permitting requirements to ensure that shared micromobility options could safely and equitably serve the community members.

Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings | 57

Safety: Cleveland established an ordinance which provided “The goal of legislation regulations to encourage shared scooters and bikes to be used regulating this new industry and parked safely. The regulations included: a speed limit of 15 is to ensure that there are mph, a prohibition of riding on streets with a speed limit greater rules and a process for shared than 35 mph, and a requirement for devices to be parked upright mobility devices operating in and out of the way of pedestrians (Higgs, 2019). While scooters the City of Cleveland. and bikes can be parked anywhere in the amenity zone,3 Sensible regulation aims to Cleveland also designated preferred parking zones and required make this mode of operators to provide users incentives for parking in those zones transportation safer and more (Cleveland City Planning Commission, n.d.). Cleveland also efficient for all sharing the pursued an interesting policy to lower the risk of people riding road.” e-scooters in more dangerous, low visibility conditions: setting ––Mayor Frank G. Jackson hours of operation for e-scooters from 5 AM to 9 PM (Mcknight, 2019) (Cleveland City Planning Commission, n.d.).

Though it is still too soon to tell whether these requirements actually improved safety Cleveland, establishing more strict regulations to start seemed to help gain buy-in from politicians and community members. In Cleveland, the hours of operation and speed limit of e-scooters were initially more limited, allowing use from 7 AM to 7 PM and speeds up to 12 miles per hour, then were relaxed after the success of the 6-month pilot (Higgs, 2020).

Equity & Access: To promote access, the City of Cleveland required all of the vendors to demonstrate how they would serve people with limited income, people without a credit card, and people without a smartphone as part of the permitting process (Bike Cleveland, n.d.). As a result, many of the operators offer a steep discount for residents with limited income. In particular, Bird scootershare provides a promising model to encourage regular, affordable use of its e-scooters by allowing anyone receiving state or federal assistance to pay $5 a month for unlimited 30-minute rides.

A year after removing all e-scooters from the city, with these safety and accessibility requirements in place, Cleveland invited select shared-use micromobility operators for a 6-month pilot program. Today, Cleveland has 5 operators offering a range of micromobility services: e- scooters, pedal bikes, and pedal-less e-bikes equipped with helmets (Cleveland City Planning Commission, n.d.).

In the following table, we outlined several promising practices from Cleveland’s implementation of bikeshare and scootershare.

3 The amenity zone is the area between the curb of the street and the sidewalk where amenities such as benches and lights can be placed, and trees can be planted.

Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings | 58

Table 15. Promising Practices from Cleveland’s Shared Micromobility Program. Promising Practice Description

Define rules and Set clear rules for the use of shared-use micromobility devices to regulations to promote ensure community members that safety is a priority. Start with safety relatively strict rules, learning from other cities, then collect data and community feedback to relax rules over time, if deemed appropriate.

Require private If working with private micromobility operators, use contracts or operators to provide permit applications that require operators to provide solutions that offerings that promote promote access for people with limited incomes and people without access credit cards or cell phones.

Los Angeles, California Los Angeles is perhaps best known in the transportation industry for its traffic congestion and urban sprawl. As the second largest city in the United States by population, Los Angeles routinely ranks as one of the worst cities to drive in due to massive traffic congestion. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) has worked tirelessly to get people out of cars and onto buses, carpool, light rail, subways, and micromobility devices that will reduce congestion. Mobility hubs are one tool that LACMTA is leveraging to make public transit more accessible, feasible, and attractive for residents and visitors alike. As the City of Shoreline considers how to design mobility hubs based on the characteristics of different sites, Los Angeles provides a model that could easily be adopted despite the differences in the scale of the two cities.

Mobility Hub Typology: Understanding the inherent differences in the built environment across such a sprawling city, the City of Los Angeles has created a three-tiered typology model. This model seeks to balance the needs of transit users with the built environment, sorting hubs into three general categories: Regional, Central, and Neighborhood. Within these categories, the City stipulates vital, recommended, or optional amenities and services. ● Regional hubs are the largest scale hubs, located in a densely populated urban area or near major regional transit centers, where multiple transportation providers connect. These hubs offer the most services and amenities to serve the broadest possible need, including secure bike parking and bus layover shelters. In Los Angeles, these hubs can be as large as an acre, with amenities and services spread out over an intersection. ● Central hubs are located at typical transit stops that are slightly larger than one . They offer many amenities but have the most leeway for personalization based on user

Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings | 59

needs. Features are often spread throughout the surrounding intersection to provide space for competing bus pick up and drop off. ● Neighborhood hubs are smaller ancillary stations meant to connect lower-density neighborhoods to higher-density areas. They co-locate a few basic amenities such as wayfinding and bikeshare with a bus stop. These amenities are visible from the transit stop, generally within a half block.

Figure 10, created by Urban Design LA, outlines the different features as they relate to the different mobility hub typologies. The largest regional hubs, at the confluence of multiple major transit options, have the highest demand potential and therefore the most “vital” features. Conversely, neighborhood hubs have the greatest opportunity for customization. Central hubs, even with their decreased transit traffic, still have the potential for high and consistent demand, necessitating a large number of “vital” features.

Figure 10. LA’s Mobility Hub Typology and Recommended Amenities by Type (2016).

In the following table, we outlined several promising practices from Los Angeles’ implementation of mobility hubs.

Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings | 60

Table 16. Promising Practices from LA’s Implementation of Mobility Hubs. Promising Practice Description

Define mobility hub Use mobility hub typologies to simplify the design of mobility typologies to inform the hubs. Maximize infrastructure investments and create a well- design of hubs in connected network of hubs throughout the city by having hubs with different locations few features and amenities throughout neighborhoods and hubs with more mobility options at central and regional locations.

Adapt mobility hubs to Mobility hubs should be more than places where transit options the needs and wants of come together. Customize the design of mobility hubs to address the community the diverse needs of different communities.

Munich, Germany As the third-largest and most densely populated city in Germany, Munich has been host to a number of innovations in public transportation. Munich hosts regional diesel/electric rail, metropolitan area commuter rail (S-Bahn), city-wide subway and light rail (U-Bahn), a street- level tram network, and an extensive bus system, averaging just under 1 million daily passengers across these modes. Munich declared its center city a “green zone” in 2008, which restricts car travel in this area to only the most environmentally-friendly vehicles. This has dramatically decreased the number of cars in the city center and incentivized the use of public transit, authorized carshare vehicles, and micromobility options. The City of Shoreline can learn from Munich’s carshare partnerships, which has led individuals, even those who own private vehicles, to travel differently within the city.

Integrated carshare partnerships: Carshare programs first began in Munich in 1992 and were located near rail stations. Since then, the market has grown and there are currently more than eight different carshare operators across the city. Munich views carshare as part of the public transportation infrastructure and recognizes the unique role that cars play in how people move. These programs are both “docked” in assigned parking spots proximate to stations, and free- floating. While this proliferation of carshare is not entirely seamless, the city has partnered with one operator, DriveNow, to provide integrated trip planning across modes. Individuals with an MVG IsarCard, Munich’s OrcaCard equivalent, can use the card to board trains and buses, as well as to reserve and unlock DriveNow carshare vehicles. This seamless integration coupled with DriveNow “Green Zone'' access and prioritized parking at mobility hubs supports widespread carshare use, even among individuals with their own personal vehicles.

Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings | 61

Figure 11. A neighborhood mobility hub in Munich (Smarter Together EU, 2018).

In the following table, we outlined several promising practices from Munich’s extensive shared- use mobility system.

Table 17. Promising Practices from Munich’s Connected Shared-Use Mobility System. Promising Practice Description

Co-locate shared-use Co-locate shared-use mobility options to facilitate seamless mobility options transitions from one mode to another. For example, place carshare or bikeshare parking near the entrance of a transit station.

Partner with private Work with private companies offering shared-use mobility options operators such as carshare to reduce upfront costs and leverage innovative new technologies.

Provide carshare options Provide a variety of shared-use mobility options including carshare to reduce personal vehicle ownership. Convincing people to reduce personal car use with shared car use is often easier than trying to replace personal car use with bus, bike, or scooter use.

4.4 COMMUNITY SURVEY In order to better understand the community’s perspective on mobility hubs, we added three questions to the City’s TMP Community Survey, which was administered online during the month of February by Fehr & Peers. This section provides an overview of the survey results, analysis of the questions most pertinent to mobility hubs, and a review of the limitations of the survey and our analysis. The survey indicates that there is community interest in mobility hubs;

Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings | 62

however, overriding concerns for the lack of complete sidewalks and pedestrian and cyclist safety would likely prevent many interested individuals from using facilities if they were immediately constructed.

Four hundred and ninety-nine (499) respondents completed the survey. The majority of respondents stated that they reside within Shoreline; all neighborhoods were represented with nearly 40% of survey respondents living in either the Meridian Park, Richmond Beach, or Echo Lake neighborhoods. Less than 8% of respondents reported living outside of Shoreline.

We used the results of the community survey to validate or challenge our assessment of potential mobility hub sites. In addition, we used survey responses to determine which mobility hub features and amenities would be most attractive to residents, employers, and visitors.

Results Overall, the survey revealed the community’s wholesale reliance on car travel –– both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic –– for trips to work, school, and errands throughout the city. However, 86% (431) of respondents expressed interest in being able to travel to locations throughout the city by foot, bike, or other micromobility option that currently does not seem possible without a car. The most preferred destinations were shops/grocery stores/errands (21%), restaurants/cafés/bars (19%), and the future light rail station (14%).

When asked which three transportation topics were most important, 64% of respondents chose safety as one of their greatest concerns (See: Figure 12). The emphasis on safety is also reflected in the following question, which asks respondents which issues they encounter that prevent them from using modes other than driving. Over 61% of respondents reported that lack of existing sidewalks or discomfort with existing sidewalks was one of their greatest barriers to using other modes of transportation (See: Figure 13). These responses align with both the City’s and our team’s assessment about existing gaps in connectivity and continuity of pedestrian infrastructure such as sidewalks. Based on these results, we closely examined where capital improvements should be made at proposed mobility hub locations in order to better promote better safety and mobility in the right of way for current and future residents.

Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings | 63

Figure 12. Results of Survey Question about Transportation Topics Important to Residents.

Figure 13. Results of Survey Question About Barriers to Using Modes Other Than Driving.

Responding to what they wanted to see at mobility hubs, people made it clear that they want mobility hubs to be safe and comfortable community spaces, not just areas where they can find transportation options (See: Figure 14). We grouped the responses into three categories of mobility features and amenities: ● Amenities & Community Services: Four of the top five desired items are amenities and community services. The item that had the most interest was additional lighting. People also wanted mobility hubs to feature greenspace, free public Wi-Fi, and wayfinding

Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings | 64

signs. Other responses also included requests for seating, shelter, trashcans, phone charging stations, restrooms, shops, and restaurants nearby. ● Car and Parking Infrastructure: With almost 200 responses, the most requested car feature among the options was space for ride-hailing such as pick-up and drop-off zones. There were additional comments about the need for adequate parking for personal vehicles and kiss-and-ride space. ● Bike and Scooter Infrastructure: The survey also revealed substantial support for providing bike infrastructure. About one-third of respondents indicated interest in bike racks and bike lockers at mobility hubs, and one-quarter were interested in shared bike and scooter options. Bike repair stations, however, were the least popular item among the responses.

Through freeform comments, some respondents noted that the success of mobility hubs would depend on connectivity for bicyclists and pedestrians and availability of high-quality, high- frequency public transit. Some respondents also indicated that they would be interested in seeing different features and amenities depending on the location of the mobility hub.

Figure 14. Results to Survey Question about Mobility Hub Features and Amenities.

Respondents were also asked to what extent they felt that mobility hubs would benefit their neighborhood. Overall, half of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that it would be a benefit (See: Figure 15). We are encouraged to see that less than 20% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that mobility hubs could benefit their neighborhood. However, a third of people either did not know or felt neutral about the benefit of mobility hubs. We are not surprised by this result considering mobility hubs are likely a new concept to many of the

Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings | 65

respondents and they did not have much information about how, where, and when mobility hubs would be available to them. As the City’s vision and plans for shared-use mobility and mobility hubs evolves and solidifies, the City should continue to work closely with the community to ensure mobility hubs meet the needs and desires of community members and address barriers to their success.

Figure 15. Results to Survey Question about Support for Mobility Hubs Overall.

In order to compare potential mobility hub locations, we hoped to determine whether some neighborhoods expressed more interest in mobility hubs than others (See: Figure 16). Based on the answers from the eight neighborhoods with over 20 responses, it appears as though there may be different perceptions about the benefit of mobility hubs in different parts of the city. For example, over 60% of people in Parkwood agree or strongly agree that mobility hubs would be beneficial and none of the respondents strongly disagree, whereas in Richmond Highlands closer to 40% of people agreed or strongly agreed and almost 20% strongly disagreed.

With relatively few respondents in many of the neighborhoods and the risk of self-selection bias4, we have opted not to use these results in our analysis of potential mobility hub locations in this study. However, moving forward, it may be beneficial for the City to pursue additional research to determine to what extent attitudes towards mobility hubs differ between neighborhoods, whether these differences are significant, and what the underlying reasons for differences in attitude are.

4 Self-selection bias can occur when people choose whether to respond to a survey. If the people who choose to answer the survey are different from the people who do not, then the results of the survey are not representative of the whole population of interest.

Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings | 66

Figure 16. Results to Survey Question about Support for Mobility Hubs by Neighborhood.

The final question about mobility hubs asked people to predict how often they expected they would use a mobility hub. Slightly more than one third of respondents said they would use it once per week or more (See: Figure 17). We find it interesting that one in two respondents think that mobility hubs would be beneficial but only one in three expect to use it at least once a week. It appears that many people have a positive outlook on mobility hubs even if they do not expect to use them regularly. This supports the idea that people see mobility hubs as community assets beyond providing transportation options to them as individuals.

Figure 17. Results to Survey Question about Predicted Frequency of Use of Mobility Hubs.

Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings | 67

Limitations While we already introduced the limitations of the survey methodology in Chapter 2: Research Methods, this section goes into more detail about data limitations following the reception and analysis of survey results. The following limitations create additional biases in the data: ● Sample size and response rate: 499 people completed the TMP Community Survey. While this sample size may be considered large, it reflects less than 1% of Shoreline’s total population. In addition, respondents did not answer every question, which creates non-response bias. Non-response bias has the potential to interfere with our assessment of survey responses because it is unclear whether responses were omitted due to strong or absent attitudes about the subject matter or confusion about how questions were worded. ● Survey response demographics: In addition to the equity considerations discussed in Chapter 2: Research Methods which detail how surveys may not capture vulnerable populations due to time, linguistic, and technological constraints, no respondents actually took the TMP survey in Spanish or Mandarin. As such, the survey may not truly represent marginalized communities’ attitudes and perceptions of Shoreline’s transportation network, despite that many of these groups depend on public transportation the most.

4.5 CONCLUSION Through our case studies and interviews, we confirmed many of the findings from our literature review about siting, design, and implementation of mobility hubs. We used the lessons about where cities located mobility hubs to define mobility hub criteria in the next chapter. In particular, through every interview and every case study, we found that the location of major public transit stops informed the location of other shared-use mobility options and that a strong public transit network was crucial to the success of mobility hubs. For mobility hubs to encourage a robust intermodal transportation system, though, public transit is not enough. Sidewalks, bike lanes, and all-user paths must provide safe and comfortable access to mobility hubs for pedestrians and people on bicycles, scooters, rollerblades, , and more. Finally, we learned that the phrase “if you build it, they will come” does not apply to mobility hubs; mobility hubs must be located where people already want to go. Locations with significant housing, employment, and other destinations are more likely to attract people. Overall, mobility hubs must be accessible by public transit, walking, and biking and must be in places where people live or want to go.

An issue that came up repeatedly in our interviews was the need for pedestrian-scale lighting, and the importance of lighting in Shoreline was confirmed by the community survey as this was the item that the most respondents were interested in seeing at mobility hubs. Overall, though, our analysis revealed limited consensus about what features and amenities to provide at mobility hubs. We learned that each mobility hub should be customized to the unique needs and wants of the community. One way for a city to efficiently accomplish this is to adopt a mobility hub

Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings | 68

typology framework, which defines a set of minimum required features and amenities to provide at mobility hubs based on size and allows for customization above and beyond that. Cities can work with the community to incorporate their needs into the design of the hub by conducting direct outreach and partnering with community-based organizations throughout the process. The results of the community survey confirmed that the City should continue to work closely with the community to implement mobility hubs; while more respondents felt mobility hubs could benefit their neighborhoods than not, there were a lot of people that were uncertain. The City may be able to turn many of the uncertain community members into supporters of mobility hubs in Shoreline through smart partnerships and designing mobility hubs to be community assets for all.

Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings | 69

CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 OVERVIEW In this chapter, we provide recommendations for establishing mobility hubs in Shoreline. Leveraging the information we gathered in Chapter 3: Literature Review and Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings, we answer our preliminary research questions in the next section of this chapter:

● What criteria should be used to determine the siting of new mobility hubs? ● What criteria should be used to determine the features and amenities of each proposed mobility hub?

After establishing siting and design criteria, we answer our primary research question:

What mobility hub infrastructure should the City of Shoreline develop as it seeks to decrease personal vehicle use and connect more residents to shared-use transportation options?

We apply our proposed criteria to select and compare potential locations for mobility hubs and provide recommendations for how locations should be prioritized. We then provide recommendations for what features and amenities should be available at mobility hubs, outlining general design principles and providing examples for three mobility hubs of varying sizes.

5.2 MOBILITY HUB CRITERIA We created a set of five criteria and an overarching equity consideration to assess the feasibility of mobility hub locations in Shoreline based on data collected and analyzed from the literature review, case studies, and interviews. Through our research, we did not find any cities with a documented set of criteria used to select and evaluate mobility hub locations. Rather than endeavoring to design and implement a network of mobility hubs, most cities co-located a pilot hub to expand shared-use mobility options at a pre-existing major transit station. These cities did not necessarily integrate the hub –– or multiple hubs –– into their overall transit network the way that Shoreline envisions. Therefore, we identified siting commonalities between existing mobility hubs and used promising practices from our literature review, interviews, and case studies to craft a holistic set of criteria that takes into account the built environment, transportation networks, and accessibility. By adopting criteria to plan for and build out a system of mobility hubs, the City of Shoreline is at the forefront of creating a more comprehensive and connected multimodal network.

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 70

Figure 18. Summary of Mobility Hub Criteria. ● Proximity to transit: the types of existing or projected transit within a ¼ mile of a proposed hub ● Walkability: pedestrian safety and mobility within a ¼ of a proposed hub ● Bikeability: accessibility to a proposed hub on any light-weight device on wheels with a maximum assisted speed of 28 miles per hour ● Destinations: the number of points of interest within a ¼ mile of a proposed hub ● Density: the number of people per square, extrapolated from Census blocks within ¼ mile of a proposed mobility hub.

In the following subsections, we explain what each criterion is and why we selected it. In Chapter 2: Research Methods, we provide additional details about how each criterion is measured in our multi-criteria analysis in the next section of this chapter.

Considering Equitable Distribution of Mobility Hubs In addition to the five criteria discussed in this chapter, the City should determine an approach that ensures the equitable distribution of hubs throughout the city. As a public agency committed to serving all residents and visitors to Shoreline, the City must not simply consider demand as measured by proximity to transit and popular destinations but also equitable access to multimodal travel options. While equity considerations can often be equated with fairness, for our purposes we define equitable access to transit as ensuring that every community member has the same opportunity to use the transit system. We understand that there are different barriers to transit for different people and populations due to financial resources, time, knowledge, language, and ability.

It is difficult to determine whether a singular hub is “equitable” or “inequitable” based on its geographical location alone. However, a hub could be considered to make the hub network more or less equitable based on the location and distribution of pre-existing hubs and other shared-use transportation infrastructure. To date, the City has used a number of measures –– median income by census block, race and ethnicity, language spoken at home, and age –– to create equity maps. However, both research and interviews recommended that these maps not be a replacement for direct engagement with communities, ideally in partnership with community-based organizations that have pre-existing relationships with vulnerable communities (SANDAG, 2017). Based on these limitations and considerations, we chose not to use equitable distribution as its own criterion for siting. We did, however, consider distribution of hubs across the city in our initial selection of possible locations. Equity will also be used as a criterion for considering mobility hub design in the Mobility Hub Design section of this chapter due to the emphasis placed on equity through mobility hub accessibility throughout our literature review and interviews.

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 71

Proximity To Existing Or Projected Transit This is a categorical criterion that examines the proximity of a proposed hub to different types of existing or future transit. For this criterion, we are defining proximity as a hub within a ¼ mile of a transit stop, which is an industry standard in transportation planning used to determine the average distance that people are willing to walk to transit stops and hubs. We derived this criterion from our literature review and interviews with peer cities, both of which emphasized the importance of transit options within walking distance to successful mobility hubs. The types of transit categories we considered for the purposes of this analysis are: ● High-capacity transit: includes any type of public transportation that travels at higher speeds, has reduced stops, and carries a high volume of passengers. High-capacity transit in Shoreline currently includes bus-rapid transit but will also include the incoming light rail stations opening in 2024. ● Frequent transit: includes buses that service a stop every 10 to 15 minutes during peak hours. In Shoreline, frequent transit currently includes buses operated by Metro Transit, Sound Transit, and Community Transit. ● Local transit: includes buses that service a stop every 30 minutes or less. In Shoreline, local transit currently includes buses operated by Metro Transit, Sound Transit, and Community Transit.

As detailed in Chapter 2: Research Methods, we used plans for Shoreline’s projected public transit network to determine the proximity to public transit of each location. In particular, we referred to Shoreline’s public transit network projected through year 2040 as shown in the following figure.

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 72

Figure 19. City of Shoreline Transit Network (King County Metro, n.d.-b).

Walkability This criterion measures the relative ease through which a pedestrian can move through streets and sidewalks. Our assessment of walkability includes the right of way in addition to other aspects of the built environment meant to facilitate pedestrian movement such as traffic controls. Through our literature review and interviews, we found that many travelers get to mobility hubs and transit stops on foot. Walkability is crucial to supporting multimodal connections while minimizing congestion, encouraging sustainable first mile/last mile modes of transportation, and creating a space that can support the community beyond just a parking lot.

In our multi-criteria analysis, we evaluated walkability by examining the built environment and Walk Score5 of each proposed mobility hub location and the ¼ mile around it. Based on these factors, we ranked each hub using the following categorical scale: ● Highly Walkable: Streets, sidewalks, and trails provide uninterrupted pedestrian travel in accordance with the City’s Complete Streets ordinance. There is pedestrian-scale lighting

5 Walk Score is a private company that has a publicly available walkability index for any location in the U.S.

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 73

and sufficient traffic controls to support safe crossings. The Walk Score of the proposed area is at least 70, which reflects the current walkability of Shoreline’s City Hall.6 ● Moderately Walkable: Streets and sidewalks are mostly complete but have some gaps. There are sufficient traffic controls such as stop lights, crosswalks, and traffic lights to support safe crossings at intersections. There is lighting present at streets and sidewalks, although not all of it is pedestrian-scale. ● Not Walkable: Pedestrians cannot safely access the right of way due to missing or narrow sidewalks. There are also missing intersections, crosswalks, or traffic controls, in addition to limited to no pedestrian-scale lighting.

As detailed in Chapter 2: Research Methods, we evaluated walkability using maps from the City that reflect existing and planned pedestrian infrastructure, Walk Score, and Google Street View to closely examine existing pedestrian infrastructure.

Bikeability Although we call this criterion “bikeability” for convenience, we use it to assess comfortable access to the mobility hub on any light-weight device on wheels with a maximum assisted speed of 28 miles per hour. That includes not just bikes but scooters, rollerblades, wheelchairs, Segway’s, and and includes both manual and electric options. We created this criterion primarily as a result of our interviews and case studies, which emphasized the importance of being able to safely use forms of mobility such as bikes and scooters on streets, sidewalks, and pathways. The importance of bikeability was also featured in our literature review and the community survey.

In our multi-criteria analysis, we evaluated the bikeability of the area within a 3-mile radius of each hub.7 Our evaluation took into account not just the availability of existing and planned bike facilities but also the type of bike facilities and the speed and size of the nearby road to estimate cyclists’ level of traffic stress (LTS). We also considered the presence and steepness of hills. Based on these factors, we ranked each hub on a 3-step categorical scale defined below: ● Highly Bikeable: The access shed is a highly-connected, low stress bike environment. There are (or will be) bike facilities that connect both north to south and east to west. In addition to on-street bike lanes, there are (or will be) at least one option that is separated from the road making biking a comfortable and convenient option for riders of all ages and all abilities. There are no steep hills or the hills are easy to avoid.

6 While other areas in Shoreline have a higher Walk Score, we are using City Hall to establish the minimum Walk Score of an area with high walkability within Shoreline specifically, given that this location was established to support high public access. 7 We use a 3-mile bike access shed for this analysis following guidance from the Federal Transit Administration for biking distance to public transit (FTA, 2011). We propose that people will be willing to travel a similar distance to mobility hubs as these will often be used as a connection point to other transportation options including public transit

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 74

● Moderately Bikeable: The access shed has (or will have) some bike facilities that connect to the hub. However, there may be some significant hills or gaps in bike infrastructure that make it difficult to access the hub, and most or all of the bike infrastructure may be on-street making it uncomfortable for cyclists with less experience. ● Not Bikeable: The 3-mile bike access shed is a high stress bike environment. It has limited or no bike facilities connected to the mobility hub. There may be significant hills around the hub, and there are few routes that are safe even for experienced bike commuters.

As detailed in Chapter 2: Research Methods, we evaluated bikeability considering existing and planned bike infrastructure, hills, and road conditions. In particular, we used the following map of Shoreline’s completed bike network as of September 2018 (See: Figure 20) to assess existing infrastructure.

Figure 20. City of Shoreline Bike Plan (City of Shoreline, 2020).

The results of this criterion impact both the feasibility of a location for a mobility hub and the proposed design of the mobility hub. For example, a location that is not bikeable may offer less potential as a mobility hub than other more bike accessible parts of Shoreline. However, we do not completely discount these locations. If possible, the City should consider investing in additional bike lanes or paths to support the mobility hub. If access by bike (and other wheeled

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 75

mobility options) is highly limited by hills or other conditions that are hard or impossible for the City to address, then this should be reflected in the mobility hubs’ design through less emphasis on features to support biking such as bike racks and bike storage boxes.

Destinations Through this criterion, we consider where people want to go in Shoreline. Besides home, work, and public transportation stations, there are other places around the city that people would like to travel to through active and shared-use mobility given more supportive infrastructure. Our interviews and case studies indicated that mobility hubs sited near places of shopping, recreation, and education could serve as end-of-trip community-building locations, not just connection points to other modes of transportation. Other destinations near mobility hubs can also make intermodal shared-use mobility more appealing as the destinations facilitate trip-chaining, which would allow a commuter to pick up a package at the post office or get takeout at a restaurant near the light rail station on their way home, for example.

In our multi-criteria analysis, we measured this criterion by identifying what destinations are available within a ¼ mile radius, which is approximately a short 5-minute walk from the hub. We included all locations that are open to the public such as parks, post offices, grocery stores, shopping centers, schools, restaurants, and churches. We also considered potential future destinations in areas that the City has recently rezoned or slated for redevelopment, such as Shoreline Place. While the exact number of future destinations in these areas is yet unknown, we attempted to factor in change and growth based on existing plans from developers and the City. However, we recognized that the number of destinations does not tell the full story. Some destinations will bring many more people to a mobility hub than others. For example, a corner store may provide a convenient pit stop for people on their way home from work, but it will not attract as many travelers as the Shoreline Farmers Market or Shoreline Community College. In our assessment, we balanced the quantity, size, and variety of destinations to compare how much destinations will draw travelers to mobility hubs using the following scale: ● Many: There are many destinations that will attract people from across the city or several large destinations of various uses that will bring in visitors and employees from across the region. ● Some: There are several small destinations that mostly serve people living in the neighborhood or there are a few bigger destinations that bring in visitors and employees from across the city and region. ● Few: There are fewer than five destinations that are relatively small neighborhood destinations.

As detailed in Chapter 2: Research Methods, we used Google Maps to approximate the number and size of destinations in the ¼ mile radius of the proposed hub location.

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 76

Density This criterion indicates places where many people live by estimating the number of people per square mile as determined by Census block data. Nearly all of our research methods –– literature review, case studies, and interviews –– indicated that places with greater residential density, such as apartment buildings and mixed-use residential and commercial developments, will offer greater demand for transit services. These locations usually have less readily available free parking and are often built in proximity to pre-existing bus stops or other high-capacity transit. Our evaluation uses the most recent American Community Survey (ACS) data estimating the number of people residing per square mile as extrapolated from the residential density of each Census block, as well as the projected density of the two station subarea plans at the planned light rail stations and Shoreline Place. We averaged the available density data within ¼ mile of the proposed mobility hub location. Based on these factors, we rank each hub location on a 3- step categorical scale. The categories are defined as follows: ● High density: Over 80,000 people per square mile as estimated by Census block data. ● Medium density: Between 5,001 and 80,000 people per square mile as estimated by Census block data. ● Low density: Less than 5,000 people per square mile as estimated by Census block data.

These ranges are specific to Shoreline, which has a much less dense population than Seattle to the south. If applied to other cities, many more places would qualify as medium density. However, given Shoreline’s current residential density, this scale accurately delineates between pockets of more dense and sparse housing. Additionally, given that the Census focuses on measuring households, not places of business, this criterion is limited to measuring residential density. The criterion above, destinations, seeks to account for potential demand in places where people work or recreate.

As detailed in Chapter 2: Research Methods, we evaluated density considering both existing residential density using data from the US Census Bureau and projected population using information about development plans and zoning changes in the city.

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 77

5.3 MOBILITY HUB SITING In this section, we apply the five criteria outlined above –– proximity to transit, walkability, bikeability, destinations, and density –– to potential mobility hub locations around the city. We initially identified potential mobility hub locations based on pre-existing and planned high- capacity transit and significant destinations across the city. We begin by discussing the potential locations, followed by an analysis of how each one performs against the siting criteria. Our siting analysis for each proposed mobility hub location takes into account current zoning laws, destinations, and aspects of the built environment such as pedestrian and . In addition, we consider projected changes to each location from confirmed or in-progress projects such as subarea and redevelopment plans.

Identifying Potential Mobility Hub Locations We used promising practices from our research to identify locations to analyze as potential mobility hubs in our multi-criteria analysis. As the literature, case studies, and interviews all strongly pointed to the importance of siting mobility hubs near public transit to facilitate connections, our first requirement was that all locations should be at or very near a transit stop (existing or planned). We then narrowed our list of transit stops to those (1) near popular shopping, recreation, or educational destinations and/or (2) in areas where many people do or will live. Based on these requirements, we selected twelve potential mobility hub locations distributed across the city with at least two locations considered in each quadrant (See: Figure 21 on the next page). This geographic distribution supports more equitable access to vital infrastructure, especially for low-income communities that may benefit most from more shared- use mobility options.

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 78

Figure 21. Map of Potential Mobility Hubs.

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 79

Summary of Mobility Hub Siting Results In order to determine the suitability of the twelve proposed mobility hub locations, we evaluated the locations across our criteria. Figure 22 provides a summary of the criteria as applied in our analysis. Additional information on how criteria are derived and measured are available in the Mobility Hub Criteria section of this chapter and Chapter 2: Research Methods.

Figure 22. Overview of Mobility Hub Criteria with Categorical Scales. Proximity to Existing or Projected Transit A categorical criterion for types of existing or projected transit within a ¼ mile of a proposed mobility hub. ● High-capacity transit: includes any type of public transportation that travels at higher speeds, has reduced stops, and carries a high volume of passengers such as light rail and bus-rapid transit. ● Frequent transit: includes buses that service a stop every 10-15 minutes during peak hours. ● Local transit: includes buses that service a stop every 30 minutes or less.

Walkability A categorical scale that measures pedestrian safety and mobility within a ¼ of a proposed mobility hub. ● Highly Walkable: Streets, sidewalks, and trails are complete, and support safe crossings and high activity. ● Moderately Walkable: Streets and sidewalks are mostly complete but there are some gaps. ● Not Walkable: There is too much missing or insufficient infrastructure to walk safely.

Bikeability A categorical scale that measures accessibility to the proposed hub on any light-weight device on wheels with a maximum assisted speed of 28 miles per hour. ● Highly Bikeable: Bike lanes are separate from the road creating a low stress bike environment that is comfortable and convenient for riders of all ages and abilities. Bike routes connect both north to south and east to west, and there are no steep hills or the hills are easy to avoid. ● Moderately Bikeable: Facilities and infrastructure are mostly complete but there are some gaps. Some routes may only be safe for experienced bike commuters. ● Not Bikeable: The 3-mile bike access shed has large hills, limited bike facilities, and few routes that are safe even for experienced bike commuters.

Destinations A categorical scale that measures the number of points of interest within a ¼ mile of a proposed mobility hub. ● Many: There are many destinations that will attract people from across the City of Shoreline or several large destinations of various uses that will bring in visitors and employees from across the region. ● Some: There are several small destinations that mostly serve people living in the neighborhood or there are a few bigger destinations that bring in visitors and employees from across the region. ● Few: There are fewer than 5 destinations that are relatively small neighborhood destinations.

Density A categorical scale that measures the number of residing or expected to reside in the Census blocks within ¼ mile of a proposed mobility. ● High density: Over 80,000 people per square mile. ● Medium density: Between 5,001 and 80,000 people per square mile. ● Low density: Less than 5,000 people per square mile.

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 80

We developed the matrix in Table 18 to serve as a form of visual analysis where proposed hubs are assessed individually across criteria and compared to one another. Each cell is shaded from red (least suitable) to green (most suitable) to indicate the relative suitability of each location across each criterion. Legend: Least Suitable Most Suitable

In the following section (See: Mobility Hub Siting Analysis), we provide a detailed assessment of each proposed hub.

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 81

Table 18. Multi-Criteria Analysis for Mobility Hub Siting. Proposed Hub Location Transit Walkability Bikeability Destinations Density

Aurora Village Transit high-capacity, moderately walkable highly bikeable many current: medium Center frequent, & local expected: medium Shoreline North/185th Station high-capacity & local moderately walkable moderately many current: medium bikeable expected: high North City Business District local highly walkable not bikeable many current: medium expected: medium Ridgecrest Business District local moderately walkable moderately some current: low bikeable expected: medium Shoreline South/148th Station high-capacity, moderately to highly moderately to some current: high frequent, & local walkable highly bikeable expected: high 15th Ave NE & NE 145th St high-capacity, moderately walkable not bikeable many current: low frequent, & local expected: high 148th St Non-Motorized high-capacity, moderately walkable not bikeable few current: low Bridge frequent, & local expected: medium

Shoreline Place high-capacity, moderately to highly moderately many current: medium frequent, & local walkable bikeable expected: high Shoreline Community College frequent & local not walkable to not bikeable some current: medium moderately walkable expected: medium Richmond Beach Rd/4- frequent & local not walkable to moderately some current: low Corners moderately walkable bikeable expected: low

Aurora Ave N & N 185th St high-capacity & highly walkable moderately many current: medium frequent bikeable expected: medium

Shoreline Park & Ride high-capacity & highly walkable highly bikeable few current: medium frequent expected: high

Legend: Least Suitable Most Suitable

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 82

Mobility Hub Siting Analysis In the following subsections, we discuss each of the twelve proposed locations and detail our assessment of them based on our mobility hub criteria. To provide context, each subsection starts with a visual indicator of our assessment of that location across our five criteria as summarized and compared in the matrix above (See: Table 18).

Aurora Village Transit Center

As its name suggests, Aurora Village Transit Center is host Figure 23. Aurora Village Transit to all forms of transit considered in this evaluation: high- Center Map (King County Metro, capacity, frequent, and local. With 12 bus bays, the Transit n.d.-a). Center is the northernmost terminus of the King County Metro’s RapidRide E-Line, currently the southernmost terminus for Snohomish County’s and hosts a number of local bus lines depicted in Figure 23. The Transit Center is moderately walkable with complete sidewalks and pedestrian signals; however, walkability could be improved by better marked crosswalks. Its proximity to the Trail and marked bike lanes, as well as BikeLink secured bike lockers makes Aurora Village Transit Center highly bikeable. It is close to many destinations, including Echo Lake and Echo Lake Park and nearby shopping, restaurants, and healthcare facilities. This area is medium-density with some condominiums, but mostly residential single-family homes.

This location is promising as a regional hub because it hosts high-capacity transit coming into Shoreline from across the broader region. It is also close to a popular park and two major retailers and employers: Costco and Home Depot. The

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 83

City could consider locating the mobility hub across the street from the Transit Center on City-owned park land.

Shoreline North/185th Station

This proposed hub is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of 5th Ave NE and 185th St and will be across the street from the Shoreline North/185th Station. This location currently has local transit via the 348 and 347 King County Metro buses and will feature high- capacity transit via incoming light rail. We have categorized this hub as moderately walkable and moderately bikeable. While the N 195th St pedestrian bridge and the upcoming Trail Along the Rail project8 both facilitate pedestrian and cyclist access, there are current gaps in pedestrian infrastructure such as sidewalks and pedestrian-scale lighting, and the current Walk Score for this area is 61. However, these improvements are likely to be addressed during the construction of the light rail station. Bicycle infrastructure is currently limited in the surrounding ¼ mile as bike lanes and sharrows are missing in some areas, particularly along 185th St. Finally, this area will have many nearby destinations and high density following the ease of access promoted by the light rail station in addition to the recent rezoning of the area for mixed-use development.

Overall, this location is highly suitable for a regional mobility hub based on its proximity to high-capacity transit and local buses, its connectivity to current and future destinations, and the relative density of the surrounding area. The Trail Along the Rail will provide significant improvements to support pedestrian and shared-use mobility that are currently lacking in this area. This area should also feature pedestrian-scale lighting in addition to infrastructure improvements such as lanes, pathways, walkways, and sidewalks to further support use of this potential mobility hub.

8 The “Trail Along the Rail” project is a planned shared-use path which will run parallel to the light rail from N 145th St to NE 195th St (City of Shoreline, 2020).

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 84

Figure 24. Sound Transit Concept for 185th St Light Rail Station (City of Shoreline, 2021).

North City Business District

The location on 15th Ave NE and NE 177th St is in the heart of the North City business district. This location currently has local transit via the 347 and 348 King County Metro bus routes and will connect for northbound trips to the future Shoreline North/185th Station. This area is highly walkable: it has wide sidewalks, traffic controls such as crosswalks, marked intersections, and stop lights and has a Walk Score of 72. However, since 15th Ave NE is an arterial road featuring quickly moving traffic, additional pedestrian-scale lighting will be crucial to support safety at a future hub in this location. The bicycle infrastructure is limited at and around this intersection, as the bike lane on 15th Ave NE ends just before NE 175th St and there are only sharrows on 10th Ave NE from north to south. Consequently, we have categorized this area as not bikeable due to overwhelming safety concerns created by limited and missing bicycle infrastructure. There are many destinations within a ¼ mile of this location providing opportunities for employment,

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 85

shopping, and recreation. Finally, we categorized this area as medium density in accordance with available Census block data; while the City undertook a plan for mixed-use development in North City in 2001, City plans do not indicate further development in the near-term.

This area is a great option for a neighborhood mobility hub because of its location within this mixed-use residential and commercial area and its proximity to the Shoreline North/185th Station. However, the City will need to make significant improvements in infrastructure to support shared-use mobility on streets, sidewalks, and curbspaces before implementing a mobility hub.

Ridgecrest Business District

This proposed hub is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of 5th Ave NE and NE 165th St, in the heart of the Ridgecrest business district. This location is also situated between the North and South light rail stations, and currently has local transit via the 373 and 347 Metro bus routes. This proposed hub will connect southbound to the Shoreline South/148th Station. While this intersection has sidewalks and traffic controls such as marked crosswalks and stop lights, the surrounding ¼ mile has sidewalk gaps, narrow sidewalks, and is largely missing pedestrian-scale lighting. While the sidewalks near the intersection are wide enough to support pedestrian activity, they narrow away from the intersection and do not provide enough space to support pedestrian and shared-use mobility. In addition, the Walk Score for this area is 49 due to its car-dependency. As such, we have categorized this hub site as only moderately walkable –– the City should consider investing in improving pedestrian infrastructure in this area before implementing a mobility hub. This site is also moderately bikeable, as there is a short bike lane on 5th Ave NE which connects to NE 155th Ave, an area where there are complete bike lanes running east to west. However, there are some gaps in bicycle infrastructure in this area as the bike lane on 5th Ave NE disappears after NE 175th Ave, and there is no bike lane on NE 165th St. There are several small destinations near this intersection such as brew pubs and year-round food trucks. There is also an adult family home and a senior living center, so accessibility for more vulnerable groups such as seniors, people with disabilities, and pedestrians are especially important for any potential new developments in this area. Finally, this location currently has low housing density; however, it has been recently rezoned for mixed-use development with a

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 86

40-foot limit. Although the area will become relatively dense in the future, significant redevelopment has not yet taken place.

This area is a great option for a neighborhood mobility hub because of its location at the heart of a business district and connectivity to the Shoreline South/148th Station. However, the City will need to make significant improvements in infrastructure to support shared-use mobility on streets, sidewalks, and curbspaces before implementing a mobility hub. In addition, the City should consider additional features and amenities such as paratransit and vanpool connectivity to the hub, wide sidewalks, separate pedestrian and cyclist lanes, and other design components that facilitate ADA accessibility to support seniors, people with disabilities, and pedestrians due to this location’s proximity to an adult family home and senior living center.

Shoreline South/148th Station

This proposed hub location at 3rd Ave NE and NE 149th St is immediately north of the upcoming Shoreline South/148th Station. The City plans to extend 3rd Avenue between NE 149th Street and NE 51st Street in order to create a pedestrian-friendly roadway similar to Bell Street and Pike Place Market in Seattle (City of Shoreline, 2019). This site currently has local transit via the 64 and 330 King County Metro bus routes and frequent transit via the 65 King County Metro bus routes. It will also feature high-capacity transit at the upcoming Shoreline South/148th Station. The site is currently moderately walkable: it has sidewalks with some gaps in connectivity and a low Walk Score of 48, but this area will become highly walkable as improvements to 3rd Ave are made in accordance with the conceptual renderings available in Figures 25 and 26. This area is also currently moderately bikeable as there are existing bike lanes with gaps in connectivity but will become highly bikeable once a shared-use path and the 148th St pedestrian bridge are constructed. There are currently some destinations, and more are expected to be developed in the future given that the area was recently rezoned for mixed-use development. Finally, based on Census tract data, this area is classified as highly dense, and even more density is expected following site improvements and the arrival of the light rail station.

This location is highly suitable for a regional mobility hub based on its proximity to high- capacity transit and local buses, its connectivity to current and future destinations, and the

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 87

relative density of the surrounding area. The Trail Along the Rail and 148th St pedestrian bridge will provide significant improvements to support pedestrian and shared-use mobility.

Figure 25. Conceptual Rendering of 3rd Ave NE Woonerf (City of Shoreline, 2017).

Figure 26. 3rd Ave NE Woonerf Circulation Diagram (City of Shoreline, 2017).

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 88

15th Ave NE & NE 145th St

The intersection of 15th Ave NE and NE 145th St has frequent and local bus service from the King County Metro’s 348, 347, 373, 64, 65, and 73 all within eyesight from the intersection. In the future, this site will also have high-capacity transit in proximity via the upcoming SR 522/145th line by Sound Transit. As a large, busy intersection with fast-moving traffic, it is only moderately walkable; sidewalks are wide at the intersection but narrow as pedestrians move away in different directions. This area is not bikeable. Sidewalks do not remain large enough to support shared pedestrian and bike traffic, and there are no bike lanes within ¼ mile of the intersection. Sharing the road with fast-moving cars is unsafe in this area. There are many destinations in this area, including shopping, groceries, restaurants, and gyms. Residential density is currently low; however, this area has been upzoned for mixed-use residential development up to 70 feet. This could lead to increased density and a higher residential density rating in the future.

This is a promising location for a neighborhood hub because of its access to a large amount of local and frequent transit and locally frequented shops and restaurants. Similar to the possible hub at 1st Ave NE and N 148th St, this hub is also situated within land that has been upzoned for new more densely populated mixed-use development. This location’s proximity to the Shoreline South/148th Station and the accompanying mobility hub there means the City should consider this hub for later implementation after the initial regional hub has been established.

148th St Non-Motorized Bridge

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 89

This proposed mobility hub will be located west of the 148th St Non-Motorized Bridge, which will allow people to cross over the I-5 Interstate. The intersection of 148th St and 1st Avenue NE is the current location of several houses of worship and the future location of the bike and pedestrian bridge to the Shoreline South/148th Station. It is proximate to frequent and local bus service along 145th St and somewhat close to the new Shoreline South/148th Station. After 2024, this area will also have high-capacity transit via the light rail in proximity. Currently, this area is not bikeable and only moderately walkable. Narrow streets, missing sidewalks, and lack of lighting preference driving over other forms of transportation. This area has recently been upzoned with a land use policy that allows mixed-use residential development up to 70 and 45 feet on the west and east west and eastside of the intersection respectively. If the City leverages this opportunity to encourage developers to build more accessible infrastructure, the bikeability and walkability of this location may increase in the future. Additionally, while the current residential density in this area is low, given the projections for development around this station, we have assessed the future density as medium for the purposes of this report.

This location is promising as a neighborhood hub. It will be situated within a new mixed-use residential development on the west side of I-5. However, given the proximity of this hub to the Shoreline South/148th Station and its hub, the City should consider whether there will be enough demand for a second neighborhood hub so close to the regional hub.

Figure 27. Conceptual Rendering of 148th St Bridge (City of Shoreline, 2021).

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 90

Figure 28. Engineer’s Design of 148th Street Non-Motorized Bridge (City of Shoreline, 2021).

Shoreline Place

This proposed hub location near the intersection of Westminster Way N and N 155th St is a shopping mall featuring Central Market, the Salvation Army Family Thrift Store, and Marshalls department store. It is also the location of the Shoreline Farmers Market from June through October. The area is served by both local transit via King County Metro bus route 330 and high- capacity transit via the RapidRide E-Line. King County Metro plans to offer additional frequent bus service to and from the Shoreline South/148th Station (King County Metro, n.d.-b). Accessible from the Interurban Trail, this is a relatively walkable area; and at 86, it has the highest Walk Score of any of the locations we considered. Nonetheless, we do not categorize this location as unequivocally highly walkable because there are significant gaps in the pedestrian network that greatly limit walkability for nearby residents to the south and southwest of the hub. Dayton Ave N and Westminster Way N are both missing sidewalks in part or in full. The large parking lot at the shopping mall does not have sidewalks, signage, or lighting to facilitate high- volume foot traffic. Connectivity by bike (or other lightweight wheeled vehicles) is very similar

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 91

to pedestrian access. The Interurban Trail provides a safe all-user option, but there are gaps coming from other parts of the bike shed. We consider this location slightly less bikeable than walkable because the bike lane on 155th is too narrow beside fast-moving car traffic to be suitable for most riders.

There are already many shopping and dining destinations near this location, and there are many more planned. In the next decade, Shoreline Place is being redeveloped into a major mixed-use redevelopment as shown in the site plan available in Figure 29. Designed to feature green space and facilitate access to transit, the new development will provide tens of thousands of square feet of retail space and almost 1,400 new apartment buildings (MGP, 2019). Considering this redevelopment and pre-existing housing clusters around the location, we categorize this location as having medium to high population density.

The major mixed-use development plans for this location makes it a great option for a central mobility hub because it will provide more destinations, increase density, and allow opportunity for the City to work proactively with the developers to build the mobility hub and accessibility into the growing area.

Figure 29. Site Plan for Redevelopment of Shoreline Place (MGP, 2019).

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 92

Shoreline Community College

We considered a potential mobility hub at the King County Metro bus stop at Shoreline Community College. People can travel to and from the community college via several local and frequent public transit lines including routes 331, 330, 304, 345, and 5. Unfortunately, people cannot comfortably roll or walk there. The roads around the college — NW Innis Arden Way, Greenwood Ave N, and Carlyle Hall Rd NW — have limited sidewalks and very little space for cyclists. We categorize this location somewhere between not walkable and moderately walkable only because there is good pedestrian infrastructure to support walking within the campus. While there is not a large number of destinations around this location, we categorize this mobility hub as having some destinations, as the Community College also hosts a number of restaurants on campus and nearby. In addition, Shoreline Community College attracts a large volume of people from across the City and the region. There are approximately 6,000 students enrolled each quarter and over 500 staff and faculty (Shoreline Community College, 2019). Finally, this location has relatively typical density for the City as areas of high-density housing to the east and north are mixed in with open space and low-density residential areas.

The high volume of traffic near this proposed location makes Shoreline Community College a good candidate for a central mobility hub. However, as it is not as easily accessible by wheels or by foot, we do not recommend it as a top priority. With the current surrounding infrastructure, a mobility hub should primarily provide features and amenities that promote transit accessibility and carsharing. To support the success and impact of a mobility hub here, the City should continue to invest in bike and pedestrian connectivity to the Community College.

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 93

Richmond Beach Road/4-Corners

At the intersection of Richmond Beach Rd and 8th Ave NW, this proposed mobility hub is in the heart of the 4-Corners commercial area and is the westmost location that we considered in our analysis. This area is served by King County Metro local transit routes 304 and 348 and will be served by a frequent bus to the Shoreline North/185th Station. The area has a Walk Score of 53 and the major streets surrounding the proposed location mostly have sidewalks. However, most streets only have sidewalks on one side, which are relatively narrow with some hard-to-avoid gaps. Balancing these factors, we consider this to be between not walkable and moderately walkable. We categorize the location’s bikeability slightly more generously because there are bike lanes coming both from the west and the north that can increase connectivity for residents living in the northwest part of the city. Though not separated from the road, the bike lanes on NW Richmond Beach Road and 8th Ave NW are wide enough for most riders that are comfortable with bike commuting. While Richmond Village Shopping Center provides a number of retail and dining locations, these are relatively small destinations that are most likely to be used by people in the neighborhood. Placing a mobility hub near these destinations can facilitate trip chaining but is unlikely to create new traffic into the area. The shopping center is mostly surrounded by low and medium density housing.

This location does not fare as well as others we reviewed across our criteria. However, this location does provide significant value for the surrounding neighborhoods. Based on its location and potential to connect residents in northwest Shoreline to the rest of the city, a complete network of mobility hubs should eventually include a neighborhood hub at this location.

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 94

Aurora Ave N & N 185th St

Behind Spiro's Pizza & Pasta, at the intersection of Aurora Ave N and N 185th St, this proposed location is surrounded by shops and is near the Interurban Trail. In addition to the Spiro’s, there are many destinations nearby including Fred Meyer, Baskin-Robbins, a temple, and the Shoreline Historical Museum. The retail strip is surrounded by medium-density housing, mostly single-family homes and the occasional apartment building. The bus stops beside the proposed location provide high-capacity and frequent transit including the RapidRide E-Line and the 301 and 348 buses. People can also walk and bike to this location on the Interurban Trail. With wide pedestrian sidewalks on both Aurora and 185th, the Walk Score is 79. In addition, the bike lane on 185th can connect people to the future Shoreline North/185th Station and the Trail Along the Rail from this location. Unfortunately, 185th headed west from this intersection has no bike lanes, and the bike lane headed east from this location is narrow alongside car traffic. The City should continue to pursue projects on the 185th Street corridor that would make this mobility hub more accessible to riders of various levels of comfort and experience (Witt et al., 2020).

This location is promising as a central hub because it already has many retail and entertainment destinations and is accessible by transit, bike, and on foot. Another consideration that makes this location an expedient option is that the City already owns a parcel of land that could be used for the mobility hub (Witt et al., 2020). Its potential as a place of leisure and community building, though, may be subdued by its position beside a busy and loud intersection.

Shoreline Park & Ride

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 95

The Shoreline Park & Ride off N 192nd St near Aurora Ave N hosts frequent and high-capacity transit including the King County Metro 301 and 373 buses and the RapidRide E-Line. This area is highly walkable with a Walk Score of 72 with complete sidewalks, sufficient lighting, and well-marked and signaled crosswalks. The Park & Ride is also highly bikeable; while Aurora itself is not cyclist friendly, the nearby Interurban Trail provides a safe and separated bike path. Additionally, the Park & Ride already has BikeLink bike lockers, providing secure and affordable long-term bike parking. This area has few destinations. However, it is situated in a medium-density neighborhood close to Echo Lake apartment buildings; and this location has recently been proposed for transit-oriented higher density development.

This location is a promising central hub because it is located next to a number of apartment buildings and co-located at a high-capacity transit stop with pre-existing bike facilities. The City would have to work with King County Metro to negotiate the design of additional amenities. Currently, this is not a location that is particularly close to restaurants or other destinations. One additional consideration is this hub’s proximity to another hub just a few blocks south at N 185th Street and Aurora Ave N. Choosing to locate two hubs so close together may decrease the overall geographical spread of hubs and decrease the system’s equitable distribution.

Siting Recommendations All proposed locations examined throughout this analysis are ultimately suitable for mobility hubs, though some will take longer to implement than others due to capital infrastructure needs and redevelopment. The hubs can be sorted into three typology categories — regional, central, and neighborhood — to better determine the baseline level of features and amenities at the hub. Table 19 presents the twelve hubs sorted into types. These categories are largely dictated by the frequency of high-capacity transit and housing density in the ¼ mile around the location.

Table 19. Mobility Hub Locations By Typology. Regional Central Neighborhood Phase One: Pilots Phase Two: Build Out Phase Three: Complete the Network

● Shoreline ● Shoreline Place ● North City Business District South/148th Station ● Aurora Ave N & N ● Ridgecrest Business District ● Shoreline 185th St ● 15th Ave NE & NE 145th St North/185th Station ● Shoreline Park & Ride ● 148th St Non-Motorized Bridge ● Aurora Village ● Shoreline Community ● Richmond Beach Road/ 4- Transit Center College Corners

We believe that hub typology should be used to help determine the order of priority. Regional and central hubs should be implemented before neighborhood hubs not only to establish a mobility hub network, but also because the proposed locations for neighborhood hubs require extensive capital infrastructure investments. That being said, we recommend that the City

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 96

prioritize implementing mobility hubs where redevelopment is already taking place –– such as the light rail stations, Aurora Village Transit Center, and Shoreline Place –– to capitalize on existing investments and relationships with developers and transportation agencies.

The first phase includes the two light rail stations and the Aurora Village Transit Center. However, Shoreline Place is also under development and should be prioritized in quick succession as a central mobility hub. While some mobility hubs may be ready to implement before others, we expect that the overall process of implementing mobility hubs across Shoreline will take over a decade to complete. After implementing central mobility hubs, the last phase will be focused on completing the hub network by establishing neighborhood hubs. We recommend that the City conduct one or more pilot programs at the neighborhood hubs listed in Phase 3 before fully implementing hubs at all neighborhood locations in order to field resident needs and desires, address political considerations, and ensure equitable geographical distribution of mobility hubs throughout Shoreline.

Figure 30, on the next page, indicates mobility hub typology and implementation order by color: regional mobility hubs are shaded blue, central mobility hubs are shaded orange, and neighborhood mobility hubs are shaded green. If the City were to adopt our recommendation, the first hubs would be built in the Northeast and Southeast quadrants, then expanding to the Southwest and the Northwest quadrants with the central mobility hubs. Lastly, neighborhood mobility hubs would increase the network across the city.

Regardless of the approach that the City chooses to pursue to implement mobility hubs, we recommend that the City continue to invest in capital projects to improve safety, connectivity, and access for pedestrians and cyclists.

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 97

Figure 30. Mobility hub locations color-coded by hub typology.

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 98

5.4 MOBILITY HUB DESIGN In this section, we apply lessons from our literature review, case studies, and interviews and input from the community survey to recommend what features and amenities should be available at mobility hubs in Shoreline. In the previous section, we assessed which mobility hubs are likely to support the most commuters. However, in order to promote mobility around the whole city, we suggest that — based on our initial selection criteria — all of the locations that we evaluated could ultimately be suitable for mobility hubs. Rather than excluding locations with lower potential traffic for mobility hubs, the City should adopt a design typology to tailor hub features and amenities based on the expected volume and usage of the mobility hub.

We begin this section by describing design principles applicable for all mobility hubs across the city. Next, we describe the proposed design for three specific mobility hub locations, one of each mobility hub typology: ● Regional: Shoreline South/148th Station ● Central: Shoreline Place ● Neighborhood: Richmond Beach Road/4-Corners

These examples can serve as templates for the design of mobility hubs in other locations with the same typology. Importantly, we think of these designs not as final products, but rather as starting points and inspiration as the City works with the community to make these mobility hubs into reality.

Design Principles All hub design should be considered through the lens of three principles—equity, accessibility, and sustainability. Considerations for equity and accessibility will ensure that all residents are able to take advantage of and benefit from this public infrastructure investment. Considerations for sustainability will ensure that hub design is economically efficient and environmentally conscious, promoting both short-term feasibility and long-term viability.

Equity and Accessibility Equity and accessibility should be at the crux of design principles for each mobility hub, regardless of its typology or geographic location. Data collected throughout our literature review and interviews with peer and innovative cities emphasized that community engagement must take place before, during, and after mobility hub siting and design processes to ensure that residents, particularly those from vulnerable and marginalized communities, have their needs met. While there are a number of features and amenities that promote accessibility for various groups, mobility hub design should still begin with public outreach and engagement with an emphasis on targeted outreach to nearby residents, Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities, low-income individuals, people with disabilities, seniors, immigrants and

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 99

refugees, and people with limited English proficiency as detailed in Chapter 3: Literature Review and the Interviews section of Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings. Although the City has already conducted a TMP Community Survey, we recommend that the City engage in targeted outreach for each mobility hub, as they will have different users with different needs depending on geographical location and mobility hub typology.

“Mobility hubs shouldn’t be a top down process….they should be thought of as community assets and amenities, and something a community should point to with pride, rather than something that was imposed on them.” – Transportation Planner Interviewee

In addition to designing and implementing mobility hub features and amenities through community engagement and outreach, the City should also consider establishing a number of design requirements that ensure basic hub accessibility as detailed in Chapter 3: Literature Review. An overview of features and amenities that promote equity and accessibility at mobility hubs is available in the figure below.

Figure 31. Features and Amenities to Promote Equity and Accessibility at Mobility Hubs. ❖ Tactical supports to provide guidance and information ❖ Barrier-free access points to stops and platforms ❖ Overhead weather protection ❖ Enhanced waiting areas with plentiful seating ❖ Universal signage and wayfinding ❖ Real-time travel information ❖ Wheelchair accessibility ❖ Shuttle and/or vanpool services ❖ Reduced and discounted fare options ❖ Fare payment options that do not require smartphones or bank accounts ❖ Multiple language options on signage, smartphone apps, and travel information ❖ Separate bike and pedestrian lanes

Sustainable Infrastructure Today’s transportation projects seek not only to maximize economic investments but also to minimize environmental impact when possible. The infrastructure that cities build today will shape the communities of tomorrow. While the literature on sustainable infrastructure tends to focus on large-scale redevelopment, cities should take advantage of incremental investments that mitigate negative impacts on the environment. This project presents many opportunities for incremental investments in green or sustainable infrastructure, the most easily implementable of which is solar-powered signage and charging stations. Figures 32, 33, and 34 below illustrate some examples of the way that solar power may easily be incorporated into hub design.

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 100

Figure 32. Bellevue Solar-Powered Stop Sign (ITE Washington, 2019).

Figure 33. Solar-powered device charging stations (Sol-Up, 2019).

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 101

Figure 34. Solar-Powered EV Charging Stations in California (CleanTechnica, 2021).

To enable these investments in smart and sustainable infrastructure, the City should consider partnerships with private developers and providers that might mitigate these costs. Data from our literature review, case studies, and interviews with peer and innovative cities indicate that public- private partnerships enable cities to make short-term investments in new, greener technologies. Private developers may already have access to more cost-effective solar and wind technology. Additionally, public-private partnerships can bring fleets of micromobility vehicles to the public much more quickly and affordably than a city would be able to on its own.

Design By Typology Our design approach leverages the three-tiered hub typology introduced in the Los Angeles case study (see the Case Studies section of Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings for more information). We have designated each potential hub introduced in the previous section as either a regional, central, or neighborhood hub. Dividing hubs into these three tiers ensures that the amenities available at a hub correspond with the diversity and quantity of traffic through the hub; however, it also leaves room for personalization by members of the surrounding community. In the following sections, we list each hub designated within a particular typology. We then choose one hub within each tier to illustrate the design and amenities that should be offered at a mobility hub of that type and scale.

Based on our research and interviews, hub amenities can be considered in seven categories: ❖ Bus infrastructure: bus shelters and bus layover zones

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 102

❖ Bicycle connections: bikesharing (and scootersharing), bike (and scooter) parking, and bike facilities (i.e., public tools and pumps) ❖ Pedestrian connections: sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals ❖ Vehicle connections: rideshare pick-up/drop-off, kiss-and-ride zones, carshare, (EV) charging stations ❖ Information and signage: wayfinding, real-time transit information, WiFi and smartphone connectivity ❖ Support and safety: local ambassadors, waiting areas (covered and uncovered), and lighting ❖ Active community uses: retail, residential, and public greenspace

Depending on the type of hub –– regional, central, or neighborhood –– different amenities are more or less necessary for the success of the hub. We recommend only the most essential amenities as required at any particular location; additional amenities should be considered and integrated based on community input and need.

Regional Mobility Hubs There are three regional hubs from our analysis above: the Shoreline North/185th Station (5th Ave NE/185th St), the Shoreline South/148th Station (3rd Ave NE Woonerf), and the Aurora Village Transit Center. Each of these locations will or currently hosts more than three high- capacity transit lines, crossing city and county lines, and each could be considered end of line stops where riders connect to regional transit lines.

Our interviews with cities indicated that mobility hub success is contingent upon strong partnerships across transit providers across the region. Given that the two light rail stations are currently under construction by Sound Transit, we believe that they provide a key opportunity for the City to partner with this transit agency to develop a regional hub model that integrates local and regional transportation needs.

Our siting analysis indicated that both potential locations are moderately to highly suitable for a hub. A review of Sound Transit’s Travel Forecast for the Lynnwood Link Extension (2017) indicates that the Shoreline South/148th Station will have a higher volume of peak hour use with greater bus, pedestrian, and bike transfers than the North Station. Given the plans for the pedestrian bridge and Woonerf along 3rd Avenue (See: Figure 35 below), the South Station will provide opportunities for both transit and recreation, and therefore high potential hub use.

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 103

Figure 35. City of Shoreline rendering of 3rd Avenue Woonerf.

Regional hubs like the 3rd Avenue Woonerf at the Shoreline South/148th Station should provide the greatest array of amenities as they will serve the most diverse collection of users. We recommend the following features and amenities: ❖ Bus infrastructure: This location is walking distance to the Shoreline South/148th Station, which hosts a number of bus lines as well as light rail connection. Given that the light rail station will accommodate buses picking up and dropping off passengers in this area, the City does not need to provide additional bus infrastructure at the 3rd Avenue Woonerf mobility hub. However, this hub should still feature waiting areas and amenities typical for bus layover zones to accommodate vehicle connections. ❖ Vehicle connections: We recommend that the City provide vehicle infrastructure at the 3rd Avenue Woonerf to supplement the kiss-and-ride loop at the light rail station such as rideshare pick-up/drop-off and kiss-and-ride waiting zones. Waiting areas should have benches, garbage and recycling cans, WiFi, and charging stations. In addition, the City should ensure that the parking garage at the light rail station provides carshare parking and electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. ❖ Bicycle connections: While this location will host a 500-car parking garage, that will not be sufficient to meet demand, requiring travelers to leverage other forms of transportation to and from the station. According to interviews, bike travel is contingent upon safe cycling conditions and secure bike parking. Much consideration has already been given to the pedestrian/bike bridge and the bikeability of the surrounding area as part of the Woonerf plan; however, without secure bike parking in the form of bike lockers, cyclists are unlikely to use this mode. We recommend that the City work with Sound Transit to install at least 30 secure bike lockers9 within the station area. The City may consider working with BikeLink, which already has eLockers at two other Shoreline locations. In

9 This recommendation is based on the current locker count at Sound Transit’s University Station (60), which sees a very high volume of cyclists, Shoreline Park & Ride (8), and Aurora Village Transit Center (12)

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 104

addition to facilities for personal bicycle use, the City should also provide a clearly marked pick-up/drop-off zone for bicycle and scootershare at regional mobility hubs. ❖ Pedestrian connections: The Woonerf itself is a largely pedestrian area with wide sidewalks. However, it will be essential to ensure that pedestrians feel safe crossing busy streets to enter the Woonerf and Station area. Wide, well-marked sidewalks and pedestrian signals are essential in this area. ❖ Information and signage: Wayfinding, real-time transit information, and WiFi and smartphone connectivity are all essential at this regional hub. Given the number of different transportation lines moving through this area, up-to-date information will be essential to facilitate connections for all travelers. ❖ Support and safety: The most important safety amenity should be lighting. Copious lighting, especially during the evening, night, and early morning hours should be prioritized at this location. Lighting was mentioned in almost every peer and innovative city interview and was the most popular amenity in the community survey. ❖ Active community uses: The Woonerf is already planned to be an active use area with public greenspace and nearby mixed-use residential development. All regional hubs should incorporate some element of greenspace to enhance user experience, making the location more than just a confluence of transit. Hook-ups for food trucks could further increase regional hub use, making it a point of community gathering and pride.

Central Mobility Hubs Central mobility hubs are located in a more urban, higher density area around more than one station or bus stop. These locations offer fewer amenities than the regional hubs but are still relatively robust depending on the needs of the surrounding community. From our proposed list in the Mobility Hub Siting section of this chapter, we identified four possible central hubs around the city: Shoreline Place, Aurora Ave N & N 185th St, the Shoreline Park & Ride, and Shoreline Community College.

Our interviews indicated that the success of central hubs relied on locating hubs in places with pre-existing pedestrian traffic. Of these places, Shoreline Place is the most widely visited location, with Central Market and the Shoreline Farmers Market bringing hundreds of visitors to the area daily. It also is currently a key redevelopment location with invested private developers who can serve as partners in hub construction (See: Figure 36).

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 105

Figure 36. Merlone Geier Partners rendering of future Shoreline Place (2019).

Our mobility hub design for Shoreline Place focuses on connecting users across this new development to the preexisting bus lines and multi-use trail. Where some hubs may be more compact, a central hub at Shoreline Place will likely span the block between the Interurban Trail and the intersection of Westminster Way N and N 155th Street. This spacing of amenities is a common practice at central hubs in order to connect multiple transit stops across a single area.

Central hubs, like Shoreline Place, offer a range of amenities depending on their scale, but the most essential are: ● Bus infrastructure: There are five different bus stops within ¼ mile from the Central Market at Shoreline Place. Each of these locations should have a sheltered bus waiting area with benches for riders, trash and recycling cans, and bus schedules posted. ● Information and signage: In addition to bus shelters, real-time arrival times should be available at each stop, and there should be additional real-time information regarding departures and arrivals outside residential and commercial units. ● Vehicle connections: A central hub with a significant number of preexisting parking spots should repurpose spaces for carshare, rideshare pick-up/drop-off zones, and EV charging stations. This will encourage more travel through the hub and surrounding commercial area, benefiting retailers. ● Bicycle connections: Additionally, excess parking should be repurposed for secure and open bike storage. Lockers will be preferred by travelers coming from further away and planning to stay for longer. We recommend at least 10 bike lockers located near Central Market or any destination that would encourage a stay longer than 20 minutes, such as a movie theater or dine-in restaurant. However, short-term open bike racks should be

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 106

installed directly outside of cafes and coffee shops, where riders can see their bikes throughout their stay. The City should work with Merlone Geier to set aside and clearly mark pick-up/drop-off zones for bicycle and scootershare around the hub.

Additionally, given the planned development in this area, we recommend that the City partners with private developers to ensure: ● Pedestrian connections: While the current plans focus on making Shoreline Place highly walkable and pedestrian friendly, the City will want to ensure that connecting sidewalks are complete, encouraging community members to walk, scooter, or bike rather than drive to the hub. Given the results of the Community Survey, elevated sidewalks are paramount to increasing pedestrian travel in Shoreline. ● Safety and support: Additionally, the City should ensure that there is sufficient pedestrian-scale lighting at bus stops, alongside new high-rise apartment buildings, and across the non-vehicular bridge to the Interurban Trail. Lighting was mentioned as a key need in the Community Survey, and the need for more lighting was reinforced through interviews with planners across the region. ● Active community uses: This location is already an active community location, home to Central Market and host to the seasonal Shoreline Farmers’ Market. It will increase in community use as the planned mixed-use development comes to fruition over the next few years. Continued partnership with Merlone Geier will ensure that Shoreline Place grows into a destination the community can call its own.

Neighborhood Hubs As the name suggests, neighborhood hubs are mobility hubs that will primarily serve to enhance the mobility of residents or employees of a neighborhood. These mobility hubs should connect people to central and regional hubs and promote a sense of community and vitality within the neighborhood. In our siting analysis, we identified five mobility hubs at the heart of Shoreline neighborhoods: North City Business District, Ridgecrest Business District, 15th Ave NE & NE 145th St, the 148th St Non-Motorized Bridge, and Richmond Beach Road/4-Corners. As a lower priority than regional and central mobility hubs, neighborhood mobility hubs may not be implemented for many years. Since the accessibility, destinations, and density of the locations may change drastically in that time, we recommend that the City reassess the suitability and need of each potential location when ready to begin implementation of the neighborhood hubs.

In this report, we use the Richmond Beach Road/4-Corners location to provide a prototype of what a neighborhood hub could look like. We chose to use the Richmond Beach Road/4-Corners location because the area is already mostly developed with no immediate plans for new development, yet it has minimal shared-use mobility features. This provided a clear starting point for us to illustrate how the area could be augmented to help people in the neighborhood get around in comfortable, healthy, and sustainable ways.

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 107

We propose centering the mobility hub around the bus stop heading east on Richmond Beach Rd, which will eventually serve an additional King County Metro frequent route to the Shoreline North/185th Station. Currently, this bus stop consists of a static sign and a bench on the sidewalk beside the shopping center parking lot (See: Figure 37).

Figure 37. Bus Stop on Richmond Beach Rd & 8th Ave (Google Maps Street View, n.d.).

Our mobility hub design for neighborhood mobility hubs focuses primarily on making key bus stops more comfortable and enjoyable places for community members by providing or enhancing the following amenities. ● Bus infrastructure: One of the highest priorities for this neighborhood hub should be to provide a shelter and additional seating at the bus stop. ● Information and signage: The bus stop should have universal wayfinding with estimated arrival times for all buses. ● Support and safety: Pedestrian-scale lighting should provide ample illumination at and around the bus stop. ● Active community uses: Ideally, a neighborhood hub would include greenspace that enhances the comfort and aesthetic appeal of the place. Unfortunately, this may not be feasible for the Richmond Beach Rd/4-Corners hub, which is space-limited and surrounded by concrete. The City can support community ownership and pride of the hub by incorporating local art around the bus shelter and bike storage.

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 108

In addition, our design focuses on improving accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists to and through this mobility hub by investing in the surrounding capital infrastructure. ● Bicycle connections: As described in the Community Survey section of Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings, many people wish they were able to travel to shops, grocery stores, and errands (21%) and restaurants, cafés, and bars (19%) in Shoreline through active modes of transportation. The City should support this activity by providing bike racks at neighborhood mobility hubs. To avoid obstructing the bus stop and sidewalk at the Richmond Beach Rd/4-Corners hub, the City should consider converting one of the parking spots behind the bus stop for bicycle parking and encourage retailers in the area to provide bike parking beside their storefronts. In addition, the City should perform targeted community outreach in the Richmond Beach Rd/4-Corners area to determine whether there is a need to provide secure bike lockers at this location. As existing and planned bike facilities do not provide a continuous route from Richmond Beach Rd to the Shoreline North/185th Station, commuters may want to ride to and park at this location to take the bus to the light rail, but they may not feel that bike racks offer adequate security to leave their bikes all day. Lastly, the design of neighborhood hubs should include space to accommodate shared-use bikes and e-scooters in the future. If and when shared-use micromobility devices are welcomed in Shoreline, the City should provide a clearly marked pick-up/drop-off zone for bikeshare and scootershare at neighborhood mobility hubs to encourage riders to place shared-use vehicles in a designated area and out of the flow of pedestrian traffic. ● Pedestrian connections: Overall, this mobility hub would greatly benefit from improvements to the pedestrian network in the neighborhood. While we encourage the City to commit to continued long-term investment in this area, for this report, we focus on two specific aspects of pedestrian connections for the Richmond Beach Rd/4-Corners location that should be prioritized for the introduction of this mobility hub. First, the traffic signals at the intersections around the mobility hub –– Richmond Beach Rd & 8th Ave NW and Richmond Beach Rd & 3rd Ave NW –– should prioritize pedestrian safety and increased foot traffic. Both intersections should have short signal cycles between 60 to 90 seconds to ensure pedestrians do not have to wait frustratingly long to cross (NACTO, n.d.). In addition, to reduce conflict between turning traffic and pedestrians, the walk signal should start 4 seconds before the car signal to provide pedestrians a head start to claim the crosswalk and gain visibility (ITE & Fleck, 2000). Second, to support commuters who may want to stop at one of the stores and restaurants near this location on their way home, we recommend adding at least one signaled crosswalk for pedestrians on Richmond Beach Rd. Currently, there is no infrastructure allowing people to cross on the long stretch of road between 8th Ave NW and 3rd Ave NW. The lack of crosswalks can either discourage people from frequenting the nearby destinations or encourage

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 109

jaywalking; two outcomes that should and could be prevented with proper investments at this mobility hub. ● Vehicle connections: Based on the current density of the neighborhood and the large parking lot surrounding this location, we do not prioritize vehicle connections in our initial design of the Richmond Beach Road/4-Corners mobility hub. However, if development leads to increased density and increased demand for shared-use mobility, there may be more competition for curbspace in the future. The City should regularly monitor the use of the mobility hub and survey community members to determine whether there is a need to add kiss-and-ride zones and carshare parking in the future.

The following figure, Figure 38, provides a draft rendering recommending where amenities could be provided at a neighborhood hub on Richmond Beach Rd/4-Corners. While our research indicates that these are necessary amenities and services at these hub locations, we are not landscape architects or designers, and therefore city planners should leverage their expertise when situating any new infrastructure.

Figure 38. Richmond Beach Rd/4-Corners Mock-Up.

Although the design of each neighborhood hub will differ based on community needs and desires and the built environment, at minimum, they should all include investments to make the bus stops easier and more enjoyable to use by a variety of community members.

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 110

Design Recommendations All proposed hub locations have pre-existing infrastructure that can be incorporated into mobility hubs, or the City is already in the process of redesigning the area. Despite the fact that mobility hub features and amenities will vary by hub type in order to support different groups and volumes of people, each hub should adhere to a set of basic design principles that ensure accessibility for all users. The figure below provides a list of features and amenities that should be available based on the type of mobility hub.

Table 20. Overview of Recommended Features and Amenities by Mobility Hub Typology. Typology Features and Amenities

Regional Hubs ● Covered bus stops with real-time arrival and departure information ● Bus layover zones Example: Shoreline ● Benches, garbage and recycling cans South/148th Station ● Bicycle parking and secure bike lockers ● Scootershare and bikeshare pick-up/drop-off zones ● Well-marked sidewalks, pedestrian signals ● Rideshare pick-up/drop-off zones and kiss-and-ride ● EV charging stations ● Pedestrian-scale lighting ● Universal wayfinding signs ● Greenspace or retail/residential integration ● Carshare ● WiFi & cell phone charging stations

Central Hubs ● Covered bus stops with real-time arrival and departure information ● Benches, garbage and recycling cans Example: Shoreline ● Bicycle parking (lockers for long-term, racks in front of retail) Place ● Scootershare and bikeshare pick-up/drop-off zones ● Well-marked sidewalks, pedestrian signals ● Rideshare pick-up/drop-off zones and kiss-and-ride ● EV charging stations ● Pedestrian-scale lighting ● Universal wayfinding signs ● Greenspace or retail/residential integration

Neighborhood Hubs ● Covered bus stops ● Benches Example: Richmond ● Pedestrian-scale lighting Beach Rd/4-Corners ● Crosswalk improvements ● Universal wayfinding signs ● Bike parking (racks with the potential for lockers) ● Scootershare and bikeshare pick-up/drop-off zones ● Greenspace and/or community art

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 111

Throughout this section, we have presented various suggestions for hub design elements – our recommendations are more general, and emphasize which elements should be included, rather than where they should be included, as we are not professional engineers, planners, or architects.

5.5 CONCLUSION In this chapter, we brought all of our research together in order to identify criteria to evaluate potential mobility hub locations: proximity to transit, walkability, bikeability, destinations, and density. In addition to these five criteria, we proposed an overarching consideration for equitable distribution of mobility hubs throughout the city to ensure access for all community members, and especially for those who rely most on public transit. We applied our criteria to select and assess twelve potential locations in Shoreline. While we believe that all of the reviewed locations could effectively contribute to a network of hubs, our evaluation revealed that some locations are more suitable than others, which led us to propose an order of priority for the City to implement mobility hub locations in a series of phases. The City should start by establishing regional transit hubs, then build out the network with central mobility hubs, and finally, complete the broader network with neighborhood hubs.

After sorting all twelve hubs into the three hub typology categories – regional, central, and neighborhood – we selected a hub from each category to model the application of our design recommendations. There are seven broad categories of features we recommend be considered for all hub locations: bus infrastructure, bicycle connections, pedestrian connections, vehicle connections, information and signage, support and safety, and active community uses. Regional hubs should host the most features and amenities. Central and neighborhood hubs should have fewer amenities and more opportunity for unique features designed and determined in partnership with community members.

Our siting and design recommendations are all superseded by the need for additional and targeted community engagement to promote equity, accessibility, and resident satisfaction at mobility hubs.

Chapter 5: Recommendations | 112

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION & NEXT STEPS

6.1 OVERVIEW Investing in shared-use mobility infrastructure does not guarantee that every resident will trade their car commute for a bike, bus or light rail trip. However, we believe that if well-implemented, mobility hubs can not only support community members in making better connections within Shoreline’s transportation network, but also with the local business community and each other. In this chapter, we conclude by providing a set of next steps that will enable the City to effectively implement mobility hubs in a way that maximizes their use and evolves with community needs and preferences.

6.2 POTENTIAL RISKS As Shoreline seeks to implement mobility hubs and invest in new shared-use mobility options, it should consider how to address the following potential risks: ● The City may not be able to evaluate the immediate impact of mobility hubs given that the City’s transit network, connectivity, and density are still transforming. If community members do not feel that they benefit from the City’s initial investments in mobility hubs, they may not support continued investment. ● According to the 2021 TMP Survey, some community members have negative perceptions towards mobility hubs in their neighborhoods. ● Fewer people are using public transit during COVID-19, which may impede support for additional shared-use mobility in the near term.

6.3 NEXT STEPS The City’s immediate next steps in pursuing mobility hubs should center relationship building and updating its upcoming TMP to include mobility hub planning and policies.

Relationship Building The City should prioritize cost-savings, cost-sharing, and community needs when planning for mobility hubs. To do so, city planners and policy-makers should leverage stakeholder engagement with Shoreline community members, transit agencies, and developers in the following ways:

The City should continue to conduct City-led outreach and also identify community partners such as community-based organizations to conduct extensive and targeted community outreach throughout the siting, planning, and implementation of each mobility hub to ensure that mobility hubs not only meet community needs, but create locations of interest, pride, and community

Chapter 6: Conclusion & Next Steps | 113

gathering. Based on the results of this outreach, the City should lead investments on the City- owned rights of way near the stations to create mobility hubs that provide desired features and amenities, as well as elements that promote equity and accessibility.

The City should work proactively with regional transit agencies to advocate for and incentivize development of shared-use mobility infrastructure to ensure that any new additions to the transportation network are aligned with the TMP.

The City should also continue to develop its partnership with private developers involved in Shoreline Place, namely Merlone Geier, which owns the property on which the former Sears building is located. Merlone Geier could incorporate many of the design features of a central mobility hub into their plans for the redevelopment, reducing the City’s investment and transforming the entire area to support car-free travel.

Transportation Master Plan Update As Shoreline continues with its TMP update, planner and policymakers should consider developing a city code for mobility hubs. A comprehensive mobility hub policy should include criteria for site selection and evaluation as well as design standards that detail minimum features and amenities.

Given the forecasted growth and changes to the built environment, the City should create a program to operationalize the multi-criteria mobility hub suitability matrix, allowing staff to add and test new potential locations and to modify existing ratings as additional information becomes available. Whenever new development is being considered or infrastructure changes are made, City staff should revisit and modify the ratings as appropriate to determine whether this changes the suitability of a location for a mobility hub.

When planning for mobility hubs in the TMP, the City should plan to use pilot programs to determine, monitor, and adjust which components make mobility hubs most successful in Shoreline before implementing them more widely. A successful mobility hub pilot program should have evaluative components that include the following: ● A series of public life observations that compare hub usage and traffic flow: ○ At different times of day (commute hours versus off-commute hours) ○ Across seasons (fall and winter versus spring and summer) ○ In different years (implementation, midpoint, and final years of the pilot) ● Interviews and surveys to collect qualitative data from communities and commuters ● Analysis of data provided by shared-use mobility providers (if any) This data should be used to update and improve upon the design of mobility hubs. While the design recommendations in this report were informed by the desires of the community members

Chapter 6: Conclusion & Next Steps | 114

expressed in Shoreline’s 2021 TMP Community Survey, we expect these preferences may change once mobility hubs are in place. Pilot programs will reveal true needs, preferences, and travel patterns as users become familiar with and use these new transportation systems.

While mobility hubs are just one element within the TMP, the City should not expect residents to start using hubs just because they exist. We recommend that the City prioritize improving, enhancing, or creating bike and pedestrian infrastructure – complete sidewalks, separate and protected bike lanes, and pedestrian-scale lighting – around proposed hub areas. Without this improved infrastructure, community members may not change their travel behaviors or attitudes, instead continuing to use personal vehicles.

6.4 CONCLUSION Shoreline is rapidly growing and changing and will continue to do so in the decades to come. The City’s Transportation Master Plan update looks towards and plans for a new future for Shoreline: one that leverages an expanded, comprehensive, and accessible multimodal transportation network that not only supports car-free and car-light lifestyles, but also community-building and a sense of place and belonging. While community needs and desires will continue to evolve –– ranging from sidewalks and pedestrian-scale lighting, to multimodal ways to get to and from the light rail stations, to having mobility hubs as places to connect to transit and with one another –– our project leaves us with this certainty: Shoreline will continue to grow into a livable and loveable city for people from all walks of life as the City plans with people, and not just places, in mind.

Chapter 6: Conclusion & Next Steps | 115

REFERENCES

Aono, S. (2019). Identifying Best Practices for Mobility Hubs (p. 72). University of British Columbia.

Baruchman, M. (2021). Racial disparities prompt calls to repeal King County’s bicycle helmet law. The Seattle Times. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/racial- disparities-prompt-calls-to-repeal-king-countys-bicycle-helmet-law/

Bieliński T, Ważna A. (2020). Electric Scooter Sharing and Bike Sharing User Behaviour and Characteristics. Sustainability. 12(22):9640. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229640

Bike Cleveland. (n.d.). Equity & Access Within Cleveland’s Mobility Options. Retrieved March 7, 2021, from https://www.bikecleveland.org/bike-cle/news/equity-access- mobility/2019/10/

City of Bellevue. (2018). City of Bellevue Smart Mobility Plan. Retrieved February 19, 2021 from https://bellevuewa.gov/sites/default/files/media/pdf_document/smart-mobility-plan- 2018.pdf

City of Seattle Office of Planning and Community Development (2020). “About Seattle.” Retrieved March 15, 2021 from https://www.seattle.gov/opcd/population-and- demographics/about-seattle#population

City of Shoreline (2015). 185th Street Station Subarea Plan (p. 3-29). Retrieved March 15, 2021 from https://www.shorelinewa.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=20061

City of Shoreline (2016). 145th Street Station Subarea Plan (p. 3-30). Retrieved March 15, 2021 from https://www.shorelinewa.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/31241/6362880799289300 00

City of Shoreline (2017). 3rd Ave NE Woonerf Concept. Retrieved March 15, 2021 from https://www.shorelinewa.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=45510

City of Shoreline (2019). “3rd Ave NE Woonerf.” Retrieved March 15, 2021 from https://www.shorelinewa.gov/government/projects-initiatives/3rd-avenue-ne-woonerf

City of Shoreline (2020). “Trail Along the Rail.” Retrieved March 15, 2021 from https://www.shorelinewa.gov/government/projects-initiatives/trail-along-the- rail#:~:textLocated%20on%20the%20east%20side,pedestrian%20bridge%20over%20I% 2D5.

City of Shoreline. (2020, February). Bicycle Plan | City of Shoreline. https://www.shorelinewa.gov/government/departments/public-works/transportation- planning/bicycle-plan

References | 116

City of Shoreline. (2021). 148th Street Non-Motorized Bridge. Retrieved March 14, 2021 from https://www.shorelinewa.gov/government/projects-initiatives/148th-street-pedestrian- bicycle-bridge

CleanTechnica (2021). Electrify America rolls out 30 solar-powered EV charging stations in rural California--And they’re free to use. Retrieved April 10, 2021, from https://cleantechnica.com/2021/02/08/electrify-america-rolls-out-30-solar-powered-ev- charging-stations-in-rural-california-and-theyre-free/

Cleveland City Planning Commission. (n.d.). Scooter and Bike Share Basics. Retrieved March 7, 2021, from https://planning.clevelandohio.gov/dockless/index.php

Davis, S. (2020). 2.2 Million rides on bike share last year! SDOT Blog. https://sdotblog.seattle.gov/2020/04/16/2-2-million-rides-on-bike-share-last-year/

Emissions stickers for driving in France. (2017). ETA. https://www.eta.co.uk/2017/09/13/emissions-stickers-for-driving-in-french-cities/

Ewing, R. & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the Built Environment, Journal of the American Planning Association, 76:3, 265-294, DOI: 10.1080/01944361003766766

Feigon, S., Murphy, C. & McAdam, T. (2018). Private transit: Existing services and emerging directions. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington D.C. https://doi.org/10.17226/25020.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). (2011). Final Policy Statement on the Eligibility of Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Under Federal Transit Law. Federal Register. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2011/08/19/2011-21273/final-policy- statement-on-the-eligibility-of-pedestrian-and-bicycle-improvements-under-federal

Gateway to the city | Lyon Part-Dieu. (n.d.). Retrieved March 9, 2021, from https://www.lyon- partdieu.com/en/mobility/gateway-to-the-city/

Google Maps Street View. (n.d.). Google Maps. Retrieved March 26, 2021, from https://www.google.com/maps/@47.7650702,- 122.3656739,3a,75y,134.41h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sk1qaA- sqoYRRab7fPyRQeQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels- pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dk1qaA- sqoYRRab7fPyRQeQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D10 0%26yaw%3D145.54135%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

Gray, L. (2017). Build Your Own Mobility Hub: 7 Lessons for Cities from Bremen, Germany. Shared-Use Mobility Center. https://sharedusemobilitycenter.org/build-your-own- mobility-hub-7-lessons-for-cities-from-bremen-germany/

References | 117

Higgs, R. (2019). Will electric scooters make a comeback in Cleveland? City Council introduces regulations governing vendors, rider safety—Cleveland.com. https://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/2019/04/will-electric-scooters-make-a-comeback-in- cleveland-city-council-introduces-regulations-governing-vendors-rider-safety.html

Higgs, R. (2020). Rentable scooters returning to Cleveland with a bit more speed and later hours for operation—Cleveland.com. https://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/2020/06/rentable- scooters-returning-to-cleveland-with-a-bit-more-speed-and-later-hours-for-operation.html

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) & Fleck, J. (2000). Pedestrian Head Start Signal Timing. Compendium of Papers. Institute of Transportation Engineers 2000 District 6 Annual Meeting Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). https://trid.trb.org/view/671384

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Washington. (September 2019). 2019-2020 ITE Washington Section Newsletter. Retrieved April 10, 2021 from https://wa-ite.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/09/20190904-Sept_Oct-Newsletter.pdf

International Transport Forum. (2017), "Transition to Shared Mobility: How large cities can deliver inclusive transport services", International Transport Forum Policy Papers, No. 33, OECD Publishing, , https://doi- org.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/10.1787/b1d47e43-en.

JCDecaux and Greater Lyon unveil the new e-Vélo’v service. (2020, January 22). JCDecaux. https://www.jcdecaux.com/press-releases/jcdecaux-and-greater-lyon-unveil-new-e-velov- service

King County Metro. (n.d.-a). Aurora Village Transit Center | Locations. Retrieved March 14, 2021 from https://kingcounty.gov/depts/transportation/metro/schedules- maps/maps/boarding/aurora-village-tc.aspx

King County Metro. (n.d.-b). Service Map | Long Range Transit Plan. Retrieved March 14, 2021, from http://www.kcmetrovision.org/plan/service-map/#

Lyon Population 2021 (Demographics, Maps, Graphs). (n.d.). Retrieved March 9, 2021, from https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/lyon-population

Marsden, G., Anable, J., Bray, J., Seagriff, E., & Spurling, N. (2019). Shared mobility – where now, where next? Second report of the Commission on Travel Demand (p. 40). Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions. creds.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/CREDS- Shared-mobility-comm-report-WEB.pdf

Mcknight, T. (2019). City of Cleveland Issues Shared Mobility Permit to Wheels – Straight from City Hall. https://clecityhall.com/2019/09/24/city-of-cleveland-issues-shared-mobility- permit-to-wheels/

References | 118

Merlone Geier Partners (MGP). (2019). Home—Shoreline Place. https://www.shorelineplace.com/

Metzger, S. (2019). Cities in eastern Cuyahoga County asking for feedback on e-scooters. Wkyc.Com. Retrieved March 7, 2021, from https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/local/cuyahoga-county/eastern-cuyahoga-county- escooter-feedback/95-32d518ea-7eb2-48e7-912c-2d4e6bcb0ffb

Miramontes, M., Pfertner, M., Rayaprolu, H. S., Schreiner, M., & Wulfhorst, G. (2017). Impacts of a multimodal mobility service on travel behavior and preferences: User insights from Munich’s first Mobility Station. Transportation, 44(6), 1325–1342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-017-9806-y

Mitman, M.F., Davis, S., Armet, I.B. & Knopf, E. (2018). Curbspace management practitioner's guide. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Retrieved February 19, 2021 from https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/complete-streets/curbside-management- resources/

Mobi Bikes (n.d.). “Offers.” Retrieved March 15, 2021 from https://www.mobibikes.ca/en/offers-subscription

National Association of City Transportation Officials. (2018). Shared Micromobility in the U.S.: 2018. Retrieved February 19, 2021 from https://nacto.org/shared-micromobility-2018/

National Association of City Transportation Officials. (2019). Shared Micromobility in the U.S.: 2019. Retrieved February 19, 2021 from https://nacto.org/shared-micromobility-2019/

National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). (n.d.). Urban Street Design: Signal Cycle Lengths. Retrieved March 26, 2021, from https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/intersection-design- elements/traffic-signals/signal-cycle-lengths/

Raux, C., Zoubir, A., & Geyik, M. (2017). Who are bike sharing schemes members and do they travel differently? The case of Lyon’s “Velo’v” scheme. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 106, 350–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.10.010

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), (2017). Equity Considerations. Retrieved February 19, 2021 from https://sdforward.com/docs/default-source/default-document- library/equity-considerations-memo_12-15-17_final.pdf?sfvrsn=c0d0f965_0

Seattle Department of Transportation. (2016). Mobility innovations forum. SDOT Blog. Retrieved January 29, 2021 from https://sdotblog.seattle.gov/2016/11/15/sdot-mobility- innovations-first-forum-on-mobility-hubs/

References | 119

Seattle Department of Transportation. (2020). “Bike Share.” Retrieved February 19, 2021 from http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/bike- program/bike-share

Segway. (2020). “Segway S-Pod (Concept).” Retrieved February 19, 2021 from https://www.segway.com/segway-s-pod/

Shared Use Mobility Center. (2016). Shared Mobility Action Plan: Los Angeles. Retrieved January 30, 2021 from https://sharedusemobilitycenter.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/10/SUMC_TWINCITIES_Web_Final.pdf

Shared Use Mobility Center. (n.d.). “What Is Shared Mobility?” Retrieved February 19, 2021 from https://sharedusemobilitycenter.org/what-is-shared-mobility/

Shoreline Community College. (2019). Quick Facts. https://www.shoreline.edu/about- shoreline/facts.aspx

Smart City Projects in Lyon. (2017, July 20). Safe and Smart City. https://safesmart.city/en/smart-city-lyon/

SmarterTogetherEU. (n.d.) “8-E Mobility Stations: Munich E-Mobility” Retrieved March 10, 2021 from https://www.smarter-together.eu/projects/8-e-mobility-stations

Sol-Up. (2019). Solar stations on college campuses in step with changing times. Retrieved April 10 from https://www.solup.com/solar-powered-charging-stations-college-campuses-step- changing-times/

Superpedestrian. (n.d.). Our scooters. Retrieved February 19, 2021 from https://www.superpedestrian.com/en

The Rhône Riverbank. (2012, September 23). Land8. https://land8.com/the-rhone-riverbank/

Transport in Lyon. (2020, July). This Is Lyon. https://thisislyon.fr/tips-and-advice/transports-in- lyon/

Uber. (n.d.). Bikes. Retrieved February 19, 2021 from https://www.uber.com/us/en/ride/uber- bike/

Urban Design Studio (2016). Mobility hubs: A reader’s guide. Retrieved February 20, 2021 from http://www.urbandesignla.com/resources/docs/MobilityHubsReadersGuide/hi/MobilityH ubsReadersGuide.pdf

Vélo’v. (n.d.). Retrieved March 9, 2021, from https://velov.grandlyon.com/en/offers/groups/list#603560

References | 120

Viriyincy, Oran (n.d.). The Seattle . Retrieved March 15, 2021 from https://seattletransitmap.com/view/

WGI, Inc. (2019). “Mobility Hubs: Technology’s New Take on Transit-Oriented Development.” Retrieved January 30, 2021 from https://wginc.com/mobility-hubs-technologys-new- take-on-transit-oriented-development

Witt, R., Walters, N., Daley-Peng, N., Redinger, M., Dedinsky, K., Juhnke, T., & Lander, C. (2020). 185th Street Multimodal Corridor Strategy (p. 210).

References | 121

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Communications

Purpose Message

Invitation to Hi there [], interview Thank you, [City of Shoreline connection], for the introduction. As [City of Shoreline connection] mentioned, we’re a graduate consultant team from the Evans School at the University Washington currently working with the City of Shoreline to identify potential locations for shared-use “mobility hubs” around the city intended to promote and support first- mile/last-mile connections to transit. While we’re using the phrase “mobility hubs”, these locations can really be thought of as any area where there is a confluence of modes--like walking, biking, and bus or light rail.

As part of our research, we’re reaching out to “peer cities” across the region that have sought to implement shared-use mobility infrastructure. You’ve been recommended as someone who has valuable insight to share.

We’re conducting short interviews over Zoom or phone until Friday, February 26th. We expect these conversations to be between 45-60 minutes. You can schedule a time that works for your schedule by following this link. This will send you a calendar hold, and we’ll send confirmation via email soon after.

We’re so looking forward to talking with you and learning more about how [] has pursued shared-use mobility and transit hubs. Thank you in advance!

All the best, Dale, Dorian and Pascale

Interview Hi there [], confirmation Thank you again for sharing your valuable time and insights with us as we work on this project. We’re looking forward to our conversation on []. The zoom link that we will use should have been shared with you in the google calendar hold for our time.

In case it is helpful, we are including a copy of the questions we’ve

Appendices | 122

prepared for our time below. There is no need to prepare anything ahead of time, but we know that many people like time to read over and process or procure additional resources.

Looking forward to speaking with you soon.

All the best, Dale, Dorian and Pascale

Interview Questions 1. Could you tell us a bit about your city’s vision for shared-use mobility and the progress you’ve made so far towards that vision? 2. When your city was planning for new shared-use mobility infrastructure, what were its main goals and priorities? 3. How has your city picked locations for mobility hubs? Was there specific criteria used to determine where shared-use mobility infrastructure should go? 4. How did you decide what features and amenities should be available at each location? 5. How are you thinking about allocating curbspace? For example, parking for dockless bikes and scooters, pedestrian activity, and pick-up/drop-off zones. 6. How are you promoting safety at these locations? 7. To what extent did you consider the usage needs and barriers of particular populations when siting and designing locations with shared-use mobility options? 8. How did you involve your residents in the decision-making process? 9. What do you wish your city had done differently in your design/implementation process? 10. What do you think your city has done particularly well in your design/implementation process? 11. Are there any cities that you think we should reach out to or that you think would serve as a useful case study for innovation in this area? 12. Besides all you shared above, are there any other important questions about this topic that you think we should consider but haven’t asked you yet?

Interview Script and Questions for Peer Cities Hi, [ ]! I’m [], and my teammate [ ] is here too. We are part of a team of graduate students from the University of Washington Evans School of Public Policy & Governance. We are working as consultants with Nora Daley-Peng, the Senior Transportation Planner for the City of Shoreline,

Appendices | 123

WA, to develop criteria for designing, siting, and implementing shared-use mobility infrastructure across the city of Shoreline to coincide with the opening of two new light rail stations in 2024. In particular, the city is interested in creating mobility hubs in key locations across the city to provide first-mile/last-mile connections to high-capacity transit (high speed bus, light rail, train) and reduce dependence on single occupancy vehicles for trips around the city.

Part of our research is conducting interviews with a number of peer cities who are similar in size to Shoreline, with recent or upcoming access to light rail, train, or BRT. Your insight will provide critical insight into our research of the literature on shared-use mobility and mobility hubs. You’ve been recommended as someone who could tell us more about [city’s] shared-use transit options; we’re excited to learn from you. In this interview, we hope to cover a few major topics, including [city’s] vision for shared-use mobility, location siting, design and amenities, and accessibility, as well as any policies and plans to promote shared-use mobility overall.

Our default will be to make everything we collect through these interviews confidential and not tied to any single identifiable individual. For future analysis, we hope to record the interview, and we affirm that we will destroy the recording upon the completion of this project. May we record it?

As you will share useful information with us, may we quote or refer to your sayings in our report? ⮚ [If not, drop it.] ⮚ [If yes] affirm that you will follow up after the interview to make explicit to them the quote you would like to use.

During the interview, we invite you to ask us to clarify anything that doesn’t make sense. You may also let us know if you prefer to not answer a question by simply saying you prefer to pass on that question.

Are there any questions can we answer for you before we get started?

Great, let’s jump to the interview questions.

1. How does shared-use mobility infrastructure fit into [city name]’s transportation system and vision? ● We are defining mobility hubs as places of connectivity where different modes of transportation such as walking, biking, ride-sharing, and public transit, come together seamlessly at concentrations of employment, housing, shopping, and/ or recreation. Are you planning to implement mobility hubs in your city?

Appendices | 124

2. When your City was planning for new shared-use mobility infrastructure, what were its main goals and priorities? 3. What criteria did you develop to determine where shared-use mobility infrastructure should go? ● If not addressed: Have you planned for shared-use mobility near light-rail stations? ● Follow-up, if yes: How does the shared-use infrastructure near light rail differ from infrastructure in other parts of the city? 4. How did you decide what features and amenities should be available at each location? 5. How are you thinking about allocating curbspace? For example, parking for dockless vehicles, pedestrian activity, and pick-up/drop-off zones. 6. How are you promoting safety at these locations? 7. To what extent did you consider the usage needs and barriers of particular populations when siting and designing locations with shared-use mobility options? ● If asked, explicitly name low-income individuals, communities of color, individuals with disabilities and elderly people 8. How did you involve your residents in the decision-making process? ● If not addressed, how have you engaged with marginalized communities? 9. What do you wish [your city] had done differently? 10. What do you think [your city] has done particularly well? 11. Given that we’ve covered a lot of ground and from our questions you likely have a good understanding of what we’re researching, who else do you think we should reach out to in order to have a better understanding of the development mobility hubs? ● If yes, ask “Do you know someone at [city name] that we could reach out to as we learn more about [city name]?” 12. Are there any cities that you think would serve as a useful case study for innovation in this area? 13. Besides all you shared above, are there any other important questions about this topic that you think we should consider but haven’t asked you yet?

Appendices | 125

APPENDIX B: COMMUNITY SURVEY QUESTIONS The full survey is available below. Questions 11, 12, and 13 on the topic of mobility hubs were specifically added for this study.

CITY OF SHORELINE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN SURVEY

Please take this short survey so we can better understand your travel needs and desires for the future. It will take approximately 10 minutes.

WHAT IS A TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN? The City of Shoreline’s Transportation Master Plan (TMP) guides how to invest in transportation over the next 20 years to better serve the community’s mobility needs.

*1. What neighborhood do you live in? (Not sure? Refer to the Neighborhood Map) o Richmond Beach o The Highlands o Hillwood o Westminster Triangle o Innis Arden o Parkwood o Richmond Highlands o Briarcrest o Echo Lake o I live in Seattle o Meridian Park o I live in Lake Forest Park o Ballinger o I live in Mountlake Terrace o North City o I live in Edmonds o Ridgecrest o I live in Lynnwood o Highland Terrace o Other: TRAVEL BEFORE COVID-19

2. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, how did you travel to work or school on most days? (select one) o Drive Alone o Bicycle o Carpool o Walking o Ridehail/Taxi o Telecommute o Transit, including walking, biking, or o N/A - retired or not working driving to a transit stop 3. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, how did you travel for most errands? (select one)

o Drive Alone o Bicycle o Carpool o Walking o Ridehail/Taxi o N/A - retired or not working o Transit, including walking, biking, or driving to a transit stop

Appendices | 126

TRAVEL DURING COVID-19

4. How do you currently travel to work or school (on most days)? (select one)

o Drive Alone o Bicycle o Carpool o Walking o Ridehail/Taxi o Telecommute o Transit, including walking, biking, or o N/A - retired or not working driving to a transit stop

5. How do you currently travel for most errands? (select one)

o Drive Alone o Bicycle o Carpool o Walking o Ridehail/Taxi o N/A - retired or not working o Transit, including walking, biking, or driving to a transit stop

TRAVEL AFTER COVID-19

6. After COVID-19 is no longer a threat, how do you expect to travel to work or school (on most days)? (select one) o Drive Alone o Bicycle o Carpool o Walking o Ridehail/Taxi o Telecommute o Transit, including walking, biking, or o N/A - retired or not working driving to a transit stop 7. After COVID-19 is no longer a threat, how do you expect to travel for most errands? (select one) o Drive Alone o Bicycle o Carpool o Walking o Ridehail/Taxi o N/A - retired or not working o Transit, including walking, biking, or driving to a transit stop

Appendices | 127

TRANSPORTATION ISSUES & OPPORTUNITIES

8. Where do you wish you could travel to in Shoreline without using a car that currently does not seem like an option? (check all that apply) For example, you currently drive your kids to school but wish you could walk with them. • Work • School • Shops/Grocery Store/Errands • Restaurant/Cafe/Bar • Activity Centers (gym, movies, community center) • Park/Trail • Bus Stop/Future Light Rail • Medical Center • Other (please specify):

9. What issues do you encounter today that prevent you from using other modes than driving? (check all that apply) • Lack of sidewalks or uncomfortable using existing sidewalks • Lack of crosswalks • Lack of bike facilities or uncomfortable using existing bike facilities (bike lanes, bike routes, etc.) • Lack of shared mobility options (e.g., bikeshare, scootershare, etc.) • No transit near my origins/destinations • Long wait times for transit • Transit is unreliable • No transit at the time of day I need it • Lack of carpool options • Things outside City control (e.g. rain, distance to destination, etc.) • None of the above, I don’t drive. • Other (please specify):

10. What 3 transportation topics are most important to you? • Safety • Equity (e.g. services/infrastructure are available to those who need it most) • Connectivity (i.e. no gaps in sidewalks, bike lanes, etc.) • Proximity (i.e., I can get everywhere I need within a short walk/bike ride/drive/transit trip) • Travel time • Aesthetics and sense of place • Health and wellness • Sustainability • Affordability • Other (please specify):

Appendices | 128

MOBILITY HUBS

11. The City is interested in creating “mobility hubs” in strategic locations across Shoreline, which would assist people with completing trips without using personal automobiles. The hubs would provide a centralized point where to catch a bus/light rail, wait for an Uber/Lyft, pick up a shared bike/scooter, pick up a Zipcar, etc. Which of the following would you be interested in seeing at these hubs? (check all that apply) • Bike racks • Bike lockers • Bike repair station • Bikeshare and scootershare options like Lime Bike and LINK scooters • Parking spots for car-share options like Zipcar • Pick-up/drop-off zones for ride-hailing options like Uber and Lyft • Electric vehicle charging stations • Free public Wi-Fi • Public art • Greenspace • Wayfinding signs • Additional lighting • Drinking fountain • Other (please specify):

12. To what extent do you agree with the following statement? A mobility hub would benefit my neighborhood.

o Strongly disagree o Disagree o I don’t know/Neutral o Agree o Strongly agree

13. If the City creates a mobility hub with some of the items mentioned in Question 11 in your neighborhood, how often would you use this hub? (select one) o Almost every day o At least once per week o At least once per month o Rarely (less than once per month) o Never

Appendices | 129

APPENDIX C: BIKESHARE CASE STUDIES We conducted case studies on Vancouver, Canada and Lyon, France. Both of these cities implemented bikeshare programs in different ways. Although we concluded that the lessons learned from these cities were not immediately applicable for Shoreline as it seeks to implement mobility hubs, the findings may be of interest for other shared-use mobility projects moving forward.

The following table provides an overview of the population and transit network of the two case study cities presented in this appendix. City Population Estimates Transit Network Overview

Vancouver, British 675,000 in city Largest transit provider is TransLink. Columbia 2.5 million in metro area Network includes automated rapid- transit trains, electric , public bikeshare, door-to-door paratransit, and ferries.

Lyon, France 495,000 in city Public transit includes 4 metro (high- 2.2 million in metro area speed rail) lines, 6 tram lines, 2 lines, and over 1,000 buses with 6,500 bus stops. City also has a bikeshare program and several carshare providers.

Vancouver, British Columbia Vancouver is well-known for its innovative and long-range transportation planning, which currently includes automated rapid-transit trains, a comprehensive and wide-reaching electric bus fleet, a paratransit system, and a publicly-owned bikeshare company. Shoreline can learn from Vancouver’s efforts to address rapid changes in transportation technology. In addition, Shoreline can learn from Vancouver’s public bikeshare system as Shoreline considers shared-use micromobility options at and around mobility hubs.

Public bikeshare: Vancouver has a public bikeshare company called , which is sponsored by the telecommunications company Shaw. The city’s ownership and agency of bikeshare have facilitated expanding Mobi stations throughout the city in order to meet rising public demand. Mobi is increasingly popular, as there are currently 184 Mobi stations throughout Vancouver with more coming. Vancouver’s bikeshare system also comes with helmets to promote safety in accessible ways. However, there are various limitations to Mobi’s accessibility. First, rides can only be purchased through a smartphone, which limits accessibility to people without cell phones and bank accounts. Second, rides are cost-prohibitive for many groups including low-income people – Mobi rides can be purchased for $25 for one month of an unlimited number of 30-

Appendices | 130

minute rides, or $12 for a 24-hour pass (Mobi, n.d.). Last, Mobi bikes are not electric, which may disincentivize many groups of users. While public bikeshare offers Vancouver agency in the distribution of shared-use mobility vehicles and stations it also affects the city’s flexibility to experiment with other forms of share-use micromobility such as electric bikes and scooters.

Lessons learned from Vancouver: ● Public bikeshare provides transportation planners and city officials more agency to meet public demands and circumvents tensions and conflicts of interests that appear to be common in public-private partnerships. For example, many cities have had difficulties working with and incentivizing privately-owned shared-use mobility operators when attempting to distribute bikes and scooters more equitably, including geographic locations where people of color and low-income people are concentrated. ● However, public bikeshare offers less flexibility than public-private partnerships for addressing and experimenting with the rapidly changing technology surrounding shared- use mobility and transportation.

Lyon, France To accommodate a population of 27,000 per square mile in the city, the city of Lyon has invested in providing an extensive multimodal public transportation network with convenient and affordable alternatives to using and storing a personal car (Lyon Population 2021, n.d.; Transport in Lyon, 2020). Lyon has complemented its public transit with bikeshare, carshare, and scootershare programs and policies that prioritize non-motorized and shared-use modes of mobility. Shoreline can learn from Lyon’s experimentation, the success of its membership-based bikeshare program, and its willingness to repeatedly invest in multimodal transportation centers (Car Sharing, n.d.; Emissions stickers, 2017; JCDecaux, 2020; The Rhône Riverbank, 2012).

Smart City Innovation: As a Smart City, Lyon is constantly pursuing experimental projects to better use data and technology to connect people (Smart City Projects in Lyon, 2017). Many of these projects center around smart mobility including ongoing efforts to create a multimodal mapping and forecasting tool and to develop solar-powered carsharing.

Bikesharing: Velo’v bikeshare was launched in 2005 as a Smart City project (Raux et al., 2017). The bikeshare is financed and operated by an advertising agency and offers a very low-cost annual membership. The regular cost is €31 per year10 and membership fees are even lower for young people and people with limited incomes (Vélo’v, n.d.). Members can ride up to 45 minutes per day without additional cost. This affordable membership model attracts many members and supports regular ridership to influence peoples’ travel routines. In Lyon, bikeshare

10 Equivalent to approximately 37 United States dollars in April 2021.

Appendices | 131

is successfully being used for all sorts of trips including commuting and first-mile/last-mile connections (Raux et al., 2017).

Lyon’s Velo’v bikeshare usage and infrastructure statistics (JCDecaux, 2020)

Velo’v members can also pay €7 per month11 to rent a rechargeable, removable battery to plug in to the electric-enabled bikes (Vélo’v, n.d.). This option provides the benefits of electrification without requiring significant infrastructure investments and logistical planning to continuously recharge the bikes.

Continuous improvement: At the center of Lyon’s public transit network, the Gare Part-Dieu metro rail station connects with buses, tram lines, bikeshare, electric scootershare, and parking lots (Gateway to the City, n.d.). With almost 500,000 daily commuters prior to COVID-19, this station is an outstanding example of a multimodal mobility hub. However, it did not come without significant investments. The railway station initially opened in 1983, then was redeveloped in 1995 and again in 2001 to accommodate more modes of public transportation.

Lessons learned from Lyon: ● Different payment models can encourage different usage patterns. When pursuing new shared-use mobility programs, Shoreline should consider providing affordable monthly or annual memberships to encourage regular use and to ensure it is accessible to individuals with limited incomes. ● Building mobility hubs is an iterative process. If Shoreline is prepared to redevelop to support new transportation infrastructure and innovations, the mobility hubs can go far beyond their initial potential.

11 Equivalent to approximately 8.50 United States dollars in April 2021.

Appendices | 132