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 Washington 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 Los Angeles. 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 Seattle 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 King County Metro. 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 Building 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 Lyon, France 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