HomeMy WebLinkAboutTIC 2018-11-13 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETCity of Tukwila
Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee
❖ Thomas McLeod, Chair
❖ De'Sean Quinn
❖ Zak Idan
AGENDA
Distribution:
T. McLeod
D. Quinn
Z.Idan
V. Seal
D. Robertson
Mayor Ekberg
D. Cline
R. Bianchi
L. Humphrey
H. Hash
H. Ponnekanti
G. Labanara
B. Still
R. Turpin
A. Youn
Clerk File Copy
2 Extra
Place pkt pdf on Z:\Trans &
Infra Agendas
e-mail cover to: A. Le,
C. O'Flaherty, A. Youn,
D. Almberg, B. Saxton,
S. Norris, L. Humphrey, T.
McLeod
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2018 — 5:30 PM
HAZELNUT CONFERENCE ROOM
(EAST ENTRANCE OF CITY HALL)
Item
Recommended Action
Page
1. PRESENTATIONS
2. BUSINESS AGENDA
a) S 140th Street/TIB Crosswalk
a) Discussion Only
Update
b) 2017 Overlay and Repair Program
b) Forward to 11/19/18 Regular
Pg. 1
Project Completion and Acceptance
Consent Agenda
c) Baker Boulevard Non -Motorized Improvements Project
c) Forward to 11/19/18 Regular
Pg. 5
Project Completion and Acceptance
Consent Agenda
d) Strander Boulevard Extension Phase 3
d) Forward to 11/19/18 Regular
Pg. 9
Project Update and Value Engineering Consultant Approval
Consent Agenda
e) Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
e) Forward to 11/26/18 C.O.W.
Pg. 25
Resolution for Adoption
and 12/3/18 Regular
3. SCATBd/RTC
f) • SCATBd September 18, 2018 Meeting Summary
f) Information Only
Pg. 39
• SCATBd October 16, 2018 Meeting Agenda
4. MISCELLANEOUS
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Future Agendas:
Next Scheduled Meeting: Tuesday, November 26, 2018
tThe City of Tukwila strives to accommodate individuals with disabilities
Please contact the Public Works Department at 206-433-0179 for assistance.
its f T it
Public Works Department - Henry Hash, Director
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
FROM: Henry Hash, Public Works Director Ad -
BY: Scott Bates, Traffic Engineering Coordinator
CC: Mayor Ekberg
DATE: November 9, 2018
SUBJECT: 2017 Overlay and Repair Program
Project No. 91710401, Contract No. 17-141
Project Completion and Acceptance
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
ISSUE
Accept the construction contract with ICON Materials as complete and authorize release of performance
bond.
BACKGROUND
The Notice to Proceed for Contract No. 17-141 with ICON Materials, Inc. of Pacific, Washington was
issued on August 14, 2017 for the 2017 Overlay and Repair Project. This overlay project provided hot
mix asphalt paving at five locations throughout the City and a portion of the parking lot at Fort Dent
Park. The street improvements included: pavement grinding; asphalt paving; removing and replacing
concrete curbs; gutters; sidewalks and ADA ramps; adjusting surface utilities to grade; and installing
roadway channelization.
ANALYSIS
Construction was physically completed on October 27, 2017. The budget for the 2017 Overlay &
Repair construction was $692,413.05 for Schedule "A" and "B" (Fort Dent). This included a 5%
contingency, which was not utilized. No change orders were executed. A performance bond is being
held for the retainage. In late 2017, after the paving weather window closed, it became apparent
cosmetic pavement warranty work was needed at Fort Dent and this work was recently completed in
2018.
Construction Contract Amount
Under -runs
Total Amount Paid
$659,441.00
(96,278.62)
$ 563,162.38
RECOMMENDATION
Council is being asked to formally accept and authorize the release of the performance bond, subject to
standard claim and lien release procedures, for the 2017 Overlay and Repair Project with ICON
Materials, in the final amount of $563,162.38 and consider this item on the Consent Agenda at the
November 19, 2018 Regular Meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Notice of Completion Contract No. 17-141
W:1PW Eng1PROJECTSA- RW & RS ProjectsVAnnual Overlay & Repair Programs12017 Overlay & Repair Program(9170401)1Construction\Contractor\Close Out to TC1Docs to TIClinto memo 2017 Overlay Closeout gl.docx
1
Date: 10-9-2018
Original
❑ Revised #
NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT
Contractor's UBI Number: 601 006 854
Name & sMailing Address of Public Agency
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188
UBI Number: 91-6001519
Assigned to:
Date Assigned:
Department Use Only;
Notice is hereby given relative to the completion of contract or project described below
Project Name
2017 Annual Overlay Program 917104401
Contract Number
17-141
Job Order Contracting
• Yes VNo
Description of Work Done/Include Jobsite Address(es)
Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Overlay at the following locations: S.128th St, S.133rd St, S.130th St, S.143rd
St, 45th Ave s and Ft dent park.
Federally funded transportation project? ❑ Yes LyJ No (if yes, provide Contract Bond Statement below)
Contractor's Name
ICON
E-mail Address
mark.eichelberger@iconmatemj
Affidavit ID*
771616
Contractor Address
1508 Valentine Ave SE Pacific, WA 98047
Te
206-575-3200
ephone #
If Retainage is not withheld, please select one of the following
Retainage Bond
and
List Surety's Name & Bond Number.
bond (valid for federally funded transportation projects)
j♦ Contract/Payment
Name: Fidelity and deposit Company of Maryland Bond Number: 9262708
Date Contract Awarded
8-7-17
Date Work Commenced
8-14-2017
Date Work Completed
10-4-2018
Date Work Accepted
Were Subcontracters used on this project? If so, please complete Addendum A. [1�Yes ❑ No
Affidavit ID* - No L&I release will be granted until all affidavits are listed.
Contract Amount
Additions (+ )
Reductions (- )
Sub -Total
Sales Tax Rate n/a rule 171
(If various rates apply, please send a breakdown)
Sales Tax Amount
Comments:'
659,441.00
$ 96,278.62
$ 563,162.38
$
TOTAL $ 563.162.38
Liquidated Damages $ 0.00
NOTE: These two totals must be e
9
Amount Disbursed $ 563,162.38
Amount Retained $ 0.00
ual
TOTAL $ 563,162.38
Note: The Disbursing Officer must submit this completed notice immediately after acceptance of the work done under this contract.
NO PAYMENT SHALL BE MADE FROM RETAINED FUNDS until receipt of all release certificates.
Submitting Form: Please submit the completed form by email to all three agencies below.
Contact Name: Diane Jaber
Email Address: Diane.jaber@tukwilawa.gov
"somaDepartment of Revenue
�Public Works Section
(360) 704-5650
PWC@dor.wa.gov
Washington State Department of
Labor & Industries
Contract Release
(655) 545-8163, option # 4
ContractRelease@LNI. WA.GOV
Title: Fiscal Specialist
Phone Number: 206-433-1871
Employment Security
Department
Registration, Inquiry,
Standards & Coordination
Unit
(360) 902-9450
publicworks@esd.wa.gov
REV 31 0020e (10/26/15) F215-038-000 10-2014
Addendum A: Please List all Subcontractors and Sub -tiers Below
This addendum can be submitted in other formats.
Provide known affidavits at this time. No L&I release will be granted until all affidavits are listed.
Subcontractor's Name:
UBI Number: (Required)
Affidavit ID*
Northwest concrete cutting
603 572 428
751318
0-CO Concrete Construction
603 560 682
752635
Pacwest grinding
603 493 970
753276
Bilbrey Construction
603 002 155
752792
Apply -a -line
600 553 941
776714
Moby's 24hr street sweeping
603 358 194
752391
Cascade Utility adjusting
603 407 046
751324
For tax assistance or to request this document in an alternate format, please call 1-800-647-7706. Teletype (TTY) users may use the
Washington Relay Service by calling 711.
REV 31 0020e Addendum (10/26/15) F215-038-000 10-2014
3
4
City of Tukwila
Public Works Department - Henry Hash, Director
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
FROM: Henry Hash, Public Works Director ///I
BY: Scott Bates, Traffic Engineering Coordinator
CC: Mayor Ekberg
DATE: November 9, 2018
SUBJECT: Baker Boulevard Non -Motorized Improvements Project
Project No. 91610409, Contract No. 17-128
Project Completion and Acceptance
ISSUE
Accept the construction contract with Road Construction Northwest, Inc. as complete and authorize
release of retainage.
BACKGROUND
Baker Boulevard Non -Motorized Improvements included bike lanes and a road diet on Baker Boulevard
from Andover Park West to Christensen Road. Reconstruction of the sidewalk access ramps at the
intersection of Andover Park East/Baker Blvd was part of the City's Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) Program and was included with this project for cost savings.
The Notice to Proceed for Contract Number 17-128 with Road Construction Northwest of Renton, WA
was issued on August 28, 2017 and construction was physically completed on July 2, 2018. The last
remaining Affidavit of Wages Paid was received on July 17, 2018.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The Baker Boulevard Non -Motorized Improvements' budget was $882,000, which included a 10%
contingency and was funded with a $1 million grant from King County Department of Natural Resources
and Parks and the City's ADA Improvement Program. Minor overruns and underruns on quanties for
traffic control, utility conflict resolution and landscape restoration resulted in a 3.7% increase to the
original contracted amount. Retainage is being held by the City in the amount of $41,409.89.
Contract
Construction Contract Amount (N/A — Rule 171) $ 799,143.00
Unit Price Overruns/Underruns 29,055.09
Total Contract Amount $ 828,198,09
RECOMMENDATION
Council is being asked to formally accept the Baker Boulevard Non -Motorized Improvement Project
with Road Construction Northwest, Inc. in the amount of $828,198.09 as complete, and authorize the
release of retainage subject to standard claim and lien release procedures, and to consider this item on
the Consent Agenda at the November 19, 2018 Regular Council Meeting.
ATTACHMENT
Notice of Completion, Contract #17-128
W:1PW Eng1PROJECTSIA- RW & RS Projects Baker Blvd Non -Motorized (91610409)1Construction\Closeout to TIC\Info Memo_2018 Baker NM Closeout 110918 gl.docx 5
Date: 7-9-2018
g Original
❑ Revised #
NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT
Contractor's UBI Number: 602-286-010
Name & Mailing Address of Public Agency
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188
UBI Number:
Department Use Only
Assigned to:
Date Assigned:
Notice is hereby given relative to the completion of contract or project described below
Project Name
Baker Non -Motorized improvement project 91610409
Contract Number
17-128
Job Order Contracting
❑ Yes IlifNo
Description of Work Done/Include Jobsite Address(es)
Construction of new curbing, gutters, decorative sidewalks, storm improvements, illumination, ADA
improvements and rechannelization of Baker Blvd. Job site: 120 Christensen rd Tukwila, WA 98188
Federally funded transportation project? ❑ Yes WI No (if yes, provide Contract Bond Statement below)
Contractor's Name
E-mail Address
Affidavit ID*
Road Construction Northwest
matt@rcnw.com
851566
Contractor Address
Te
ephone #
PO Box 2228, Renton, WA 98056
425-777-7321
If Retainage is not withheld, please select one of the following and List Surety's Name & Bond Number.
❑ Retainage Bond
• Contract/Payment bond (valid for federally funded transportation projects)
Name: Bond Number:
Date Contract Awarded
Date Work Commenced
Date Work Completed
Date Work Accepted
7-17-2017
8-16-2017
7-2-2018
Were Subcontracters used on this project? If so, please complete Addendum A. [Yes ❑ No
Affidavit ID* - No L&I release will be granted until all affidavits are listed.
Contract Amount
Additions (+ )
Reductions (- )
Sub -Total
Sales Tax Rate n/a rule 171
(If various rates apply, please send a breakdown)
Sales Tax Amount
;, "
Comments:
TOTAL
799,143.00
$ 29,380.09
$ 828,523.09
$ 828.523.09
Liquidated Damages $ 0.00
NOTE: These two totals must be e
9
Amount Disbursed $ 828,523.09
Amount Retained $ 0.00
ual
TOTAL $ 828,523.09
Note: The Disbursing Officer must submit this completed notice immediately after acceptance of the work done under this contract.
NO PAYMENT SHALL BE MADE FROM RETAINED FUNDS until receipt of all release certificates.
Submitting Form: Please submit the completed form by email to all three agencies below.
Contact Name:
Email Address:
Diane Jaber
Diane.jaber@tukwilawa.gov
raDepartment of Revenue
filiC„, Public Works Section
(360) 704-5650
PWC@dor.wa.gov
Washington State Department of
Labor & Industries
Contract Release
(855) 545-8163, option # 4
ContractRelease@LN I. WA.GOV
Title: Fiscal Specialist
Phone Number: 206-433-1871
,, Employment Security
Department
Registration, Inquiry,
Standards & Coordination
Unit
(360) 902-9450
pu bl i cworks@esd.wa.gov
REV 31 0020e (10/26/15) F215-038-000 10-2014
6
Addendum A: Please List all Subcontractors and Sub -tiers Below
This addendum can be submitted in other formats.
Provide known affidavits at this time. No L&I release will be granted until all affidavits are listed.
Subcontractor's Name:
UBI Number: (Required)
Affidavit ID*
OMA construction
601872128
857931
West Coast Signal
603149602
853581
Best Parking Lot Services
601901928
797971
Salinas sawing and drilling
604717158
802099
American Survey
603226051
852070
Stripe rite
601048084
797031
Icon Materials
601006854
852283
Northwest flagging
603556549
873713
Westcoast Landscaping
601227266
810755
Four Seasons Concrete
603492142
855338
Ventilation Power cleaning
578089188
753149
For tax assistance or to request this document in an alternate format, please call 1-800-647-7706. Teletype (TTY) users may use the
Washington Relay Service by calling 711.
REV 31 0020e Addendum (10/26/15) F215-038-000 10-2014
8
City of Tukwila
Public Works Department - Henry Hash, Director
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
FROM: Henry Hash, Public Works Director ,i!//_
BY: Steve Carstens, PE, Senior Program Manager
CC: Mayor Ekberg
DATE: November 9, 2018
SUBJECT: Strander Boulevard Extension Phase 3
Project No. 98610403
Project Update and Value Engineering Consultant Approval
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
ISSUE
Update on the Strander Blvd Extension Phase 3 Project and approve Value Engineering consultant contract.
BACKGROUND
The City of Renton completed Phase 1 of the Strander Boulevard/SW 27th Street (Oakesdale Avenue to Naches
Avenue) in 2008 and Phase 2 (Naches Avenue to the new Tukwila Station/Sounder Commuter Rail Station
parking lot, between BNSF and UPRR) in 2014. Phase 3 is being led by the City of Tukwila. Tukwila received
Federal grant funding for the preliminary engineering and right-of-way phases and is proceeding with the design
process as part of the preliminary engineering phase.
DISCUSSION
In May 2018, Berger ABAM (Berger) provided the City with the 30% plans for review and an updated cost
estimate of the total project costs. Since May 2018, the consultant and staff have been focused on addressing the
comments on the 30% plans and continuing utility coordination.
A Value Engineering Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was advertised and three consultants responded on
November 1, 2018 and will be interviewed for a forthcoming consultant contract. Due to time constraints, we are
asking approval for the Value Engineering consultant contract in a not to exceed amount of $75,000.
FISCAL IMPACT Amount Expended to date $1,509,677
Current Funding and Expenditures
Budget Actuals Proposed
CIP Budget $5,628,000
WSDOT Discretionary Funding (additional) 500,000
Berger Abam Design Contract $4,147,328
Berger Abam Early Start 2016 313,853
BP/Olympic Pipeline Design 630,000
UPRR Design 25,000
Staff and Miscellaneous Expenses 72,934 $ 60,000
Berger Abam Design Supplement 166,000
Value Engineering Study (Approx.) 75,000
Sprint Engineering Costs 20,000
Subtotal $6,128,000 $5,189,115 $321,000
Subtotal (Actuals plus Proposed) $5,510,115
Current Discretionary Funds and Project Balance $617,885
W:\PW Eng\PROJECTS\A- RW & RS Projects\Strander Extension (98610403)\01_Preliminary Engineering\20181113 TIC update (003) gl.docx
9
Page 2
Strander Blvd Phase 3
November 9, 2018
Total Project Cost (Design, RW, and Construction)
Subtract Project Costs with Secured Funding
Funding Gap (unsecured)
$83,781,626
(18,963,961)
($64,817,665)
It should be noted, staff anticipates that there may be additional design supplements in the future related to the
outcome of the Value Engineering study as Berger may need to modify the Strander Blvd Phase 3 design. There
also may be additional utility relocation design fees.
There is an additional $500,000 in WSDOT discretionary funds that were provided to the City in June 2017. These
funds can be used for any phase of the project and staff is electing to use them in the Preliminary Engineering
(design) phase.
Project Timeline
2018 (September -December)
2019 (January — March)
2019 (May)
2019 (October)
2020 (October)
2020 (Jan) to 2029 (Dec)
Funding Timeline
2019 (September)
2020 (January)
2030 (January)
Continue utility coordination and address 30% design comments
Perform Value Engineering (VE) study
Complete revised 30% plans incorporating VE changes
Complete right-of-way phase
Complete final plans, specifications, and estimate. Project ready to go out to bid
Project required to be under construction during this time period and completed
by December 2029.
If the project is not under construction by September 2019, FASTLANE's $5
million must be relinquished to funding source. Note, there is no direct transfer of
funding from these organizations to the City for the construction phase, so the
funds would be 'unobligated' and not made available to the City after this date.
City would need to provide an additional $5 million for construction costs/funding
gap.
If the project is not under construction by January 2020, FMSIB's $5 million must
be relinquished to funding source. Note, there is no direct transfer of funding from
these organizations to the City for the construction phase, so the funds would be
'unobligated' and not made available to the City after this date. City would need
to provide an additional $5 million for construction costs/funding gap.
If the project is not constructed/completed by January 2030, all federal funds
used for design and right-of-way must be returned to federal funding source
($5,646,750).
RECOMMENDATION
Council is being asked to authorize the Mayor to approve the Value Engineering consultant contract for the
Strander Boulevard Phase 3 Project with a not to exceed amount of $75,000 and consider this item on the
Consent Agenda at the November 19, 2018 Regular Meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
• 2017 CIP, pg. 13 and Draft 2019 CIP pg. 10
• Current estimate
W:\PW Eng\PROJECTS\A- RW & RS Projects\Strander Extension (98610403)\01_Preliminary Engineering\20181113 TIC update (003) gl.docx 10
CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY
PROJECT:
DESCRIPTION:
JUSTIFICATION:
STATUS:
MAINT. IMPACT:
COMMENT:
2017 to 2022
Strander Blvd Extension Phase 3 Project No. 98610403
Design and construct arterial improvements for a new roadway extending Strander Blvd/SW 27th St
from West Valley Highway to Oaksdale Ave in the City of Renton.
East/west capacity between 1-405 and S 180 St is needed to serve Tukwila and Renton access.
Project segregated into three phases. Phase I extended Stander Blvd/SW 27th St from Oaksdale Ave to
Naches Ave SW. Phase!! constructed a 2 lane road from Naches to the Sounder Train's Tukwila Longacres
Station's parking lot. Paid Renton $1 m for Phase! & II. Phase III will construct the undercrossing of the
UPRR and complete the 4 lane roadway from West Valley Hwy in Tukwila to Naches Ave SW in Renton.
New street.
Project partners include the City of Renton, Boeing, WSDOT, FMSIB, Sound Transit, Metro, Amtrak, and
BNSF and UP Railroads. Funds in 2015-16 are for updated cost estimates and grant applications.
STP (PSRC), FAST Lane, and TIGER grants were submitted in 2016.
FINANCIAL
(in $000's)
Through Estimated
2015 2016 2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
BEYOND TOTAL
EXPENSES
Design
58
440
2,500
2,000
4,998
Land (R/W)
104
450
1,000
1,554
Wetland Mitigation
50
500
550
Const. Mgmt.
2,800
2,000
4,800
Construction
15,000
12,200
27,200
TOTAL EXPENSES
162
440
3,000
3,000
18,300
14,200
0
0
0
39,102
FUND SOURCES
Awarded STP Grant
2,551
2,595
5,146
Proposed TIGER Grant
7,900
5,894
13,794
Proposed State TIB Grant
2,500
2,500
5,000
Proposed FMSIB Grant
2,500
2,500
5,000
Proposed STP Grant
5,000
3,000
8,000
City Oper. Revenue 162
440
449
405
400
306
0
0
0
2,162
TOTAL SOURCES 162
440
3,000
3,000
18,300
14,200
0
0
0
33,956
2017 - 2022 Capital Improvement Program
13
11
PROJECT:
DESCRIPTION:
JUSTIFICATION:
STATUS:
MAINT. IMPACT:
COMMENT:
CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY
2019 to 2024
Strander Blvd Extension Phase 3 Project No. 98610403
Design and construct arterial improvements for a new roadway extending Strander Blvd/SW 27th St
from West Valley Highway to Naches Ave SW in the City of Renton.
East/west capacity between 1-405 and S 180 St is needed to serve Tukwila and Renton access.
Project segregated into three phases. Phase I extended Stander Blvd/SW 27th St from Oaksdale Ave to
Naches Ave SW. Phase II constructed a 2 lane road from Naches to the Sounder Train's Tukwila Longacres
Station's parking lot. Paid Renton $1 m for Phase I & II. Phase III will construct the undercrossing of the
UPRR and complete the 4 lane roadway from West Valley Hwy in Tukwila to Naches Ave SW in Renton.
New street.
Project partners include the City of Renton, Boeing, WSDOT, FMSIB, Sound Transit, Metro, Amtrak, and
BNSF and UP Railroads. Funds in 2015-16 are for updated cost estimates and grant applications.
STP (PSRC), FAST Lane, and TIGER grants were submitted in 2016.
FINANCIAL
(in $000's)
Through Estimated
2017 2018 2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
BEYOND TOTAL
EXPENSES
Design
359
3,269
2,000
5,628
Land(R/W)
104
1,720
1,824
Wetland Mitigation
50
500
550
Const. Mgmt.
2,000
2,000
4,000
Construction
35,889
35,889
71,778
TOTAL EXPENSES
463
3,319
3,720
38,389
37,889
0
0
0
0
83,780
FUND SOURCES
Awarded STP Grant
1,946
3,200
5,146
Proposed STP Grant
4,760
4,760
Awarded Fastlane Grant
2,500
2,500
5,000
Awarded FMSIB Grant
2,500
2,500
5,000
Proposed Build America
25,000
25,000
Proposed State TIB Grant
12,000
12,000
Proposed State/Federal
8,389
16,129
24,518
City Oper. Revenue 463
1,373
520
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,356
TOTAL SOURCES 463
1,373
3,720
38,389
37,889
0
0
0
0
83,780
Project Location
��H
� ��` _
x
.^
-� I_j4 I I F Ian
W v / �
�
1-
BR
fWcwOn
La
unwnn Or
a+sL'�31
Tnl_ Or
l-F�JY
4
I'-""'
Y
.IP
n
P
'..
,
$ II � 100 i^,q�.
f�/���
m�wY
I "1uo
of
I,'mw
rv�womiwvm ,., mmauw°
i r" GI
2019 - 2024 Capital Improvement Program
10
12
1 of 12
Item
No.
Schedule A
Desc
Quantity
Std. Item
No.
Item Description
Unit
Unit
Cost
Schedule A
Dose
Cost
Schedule B
Dose
Cost
Schedule C
Dose
Cost
Total
All Schedules
MOBILIZATION
1
1 I 0001 (MOBILIZATION
15.0%
$8,681,105
$0
$0
$8,681,105
$8,681,105
$0
$0
$8,681,105
PREPARATION
2
1
0035
CLEARING AND GRUBBING
L.S.
$ 70,200
$ 70,200
$ -
$ -
$ 70,200
3
3
0047
REMOVING MANHOLE
EACH
$ 1,050
$ 3,150
$ -
$ -
$ 3,150
4
42
0049
REMOVING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE
EACH
$ 980
$ 41,160
$ -
$ -
$ 41,160
5
1
0050
REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES AND OBSTRUCTIONS
L.S.
$ 144,000
$ 144,000
$ -
$ -
$ 144,000
6
955
0100
REMOVING CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK
S.Y.
$ 80
$ 76,400
$ -
$ -
$ 76,400
7
2,363
0108
REMOVING CEMENT CONC. CURB AND GUTTER
L.F.
$ 21
$ 49,623
$ -
$ -
$ 49,623
8
898
0110
REMOVING CEMENT CONC. CURB
L.F.
$ 7
$ 6,286
$ -
$ -
$ 6,286
9
6,600
0120
REMOVING ASPHALT CONC. PAVEMENT
S.Y.
$ 12
$ 79,200
$ -
$ -
$ 79,200
10
703
0130
REMOVING ASPHALT CONC. SIDEWALK
S.Y.
$ 8
$ 5,624
$ -
$ -
$ 5,624
11
98
0150
REMOVING TRAFFIC ISLAND
S.Y.
$ 78
$ 7,644
$ -
$ -
$ 7,644
12
136
0170
REMOVING GUARDRAIL
L.F.
$ 11
$ 1,496
$ -
$ -
$ 1,496
13
4
0182
REMOVING GUARDRAIL ANCHOR
EACH
$ 322
$ 1,288
$ -
$ -
$ 1,288
14
3,832
0187
REMOVING PAINT LINE
L.F.
$ 1
$ 4,982
$ -
$ -
$ 4,982
15
16
0199
REMOVING PAINTED TRAFFIC MARKING
EACH
$ 116
$ 1,856
$ -
$ -
$ 1,856
16
796
0203
REMOVING PAINTED CROSSWALK LINE
S.F.
$ 6
$ 4,378
$ -
$ -
$ 4,378
17
4
0208
REMOVING RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER
HUND
$ 185
$ 740
$ -
$ -
$ 740
18
3,292
0220
REMOVING CHAIN LINK FENCE
L.F.
$ 13
$ 42,796
$ -
$ -
$ 42,796
19
1
0254
REMOVING SOLDIER PILE SHAFT OBSTRUCTIONS
EST.
$ 7,350
$ 7,350
$ -
$ -
$ 7,350
20
1
0256
REMOVING SHAFT OBSTRUCTIONS
EST.
$ 859,095
$ 859,095
$ -
$ -
$ 859,095
PREPARATION
$1,407,268
$0
$0
$1,407,268
GRADING
21
12,650
0310
ROADWAY EXCAVATION INCL. HAUL
C.Y.
$ 17.00
$ 215,050.00
$ -
$ -
$ 215,050.00
22
9,315
0421
GRAVEL BORROW INCL. HAUL
C.Y.
$ 11.00
$ 102,465.00
$ -
$ -
$ 102,465.00
23
9,315
0470
EMBANKMENT COMPACTION
C.Y.
$ 2.00
$ 18,630.00
$ -
$ -
$ 18,630.00
GRADING
$ 336,145.00
$ -
$ -
$ 336,145.00
\\fwfs1.abam.com\Projects_FW\FederalWay\2018W18.0085\00\Engineering\Cost Estimate\Ott Sakai Review\Cost Estimate_Ott Sakai Comparison_Enabled_rlf.xlsx 7/9/2018
13
2 of 12
Item
No.
Schedule A
Desc
Quantity
Std. Item
No.
Item Description
Unit
Unit
Cost
Schedule A
Dose
Cost
Schedule B
Dose
Cost
Schedule C
Dose
Cost
Total
All Schedules
GRADING - UPRR SHOOFLY
24
6,321
XX-01
SUBBALLAST
TON
$ 21
$ 132,741
$ -
$ -
$ 132,741
25
345
XX-02
TEMPORARY SURCHARGE WALL BLOCK
EACH
$ 30
$ 10,350
$ -
$ -
$ 10,350
26
15,368
XX-35
GRAVEL BORROW INCL. HAUL SURCHARGE
TON
$ 23
$ 353,464
$ -
$ -
$ 353,464
27
33,322
0431
GRAVEL BORROW INCL. HAUL
TON
$ 23
$ 766,406
$ -
$ -
$ 766,406
28
7,415
1086
QUARRY SPALLS
TON
$ 16
$ 118,640
$ -
$ -
$ 118,640
29
120
XX-24
LIGHT WEIGHT FILL
CY
$ 150
$ 18,000
$ -
$ -
$ 18,000
30
1,100
XX-33
TEMPORARY SHOOFLY WALL
EACH
$ 30
$ 33,000
$ -
$ -
$ 33,000
31
15
XX-29
4 FT DIAM PRIMARY SHAFT
LF
$ 720
$ 10,800
$ -
$ -
$ 10,800
32
16
XX-30
4 FT DIAM SECONDARY SHAFT
LF
$ 450
$ 7,200
$ -
$ -
$ 7,200
GRADING-UPRR SHOOFLY
$ 1,450,601.00
$ -
$ -
$ 1,450,601.00
\\fwfs1.abam.com\Projects_FW\FederalWay\2018W18.0085\00\Engineering\Cost Estimate\Ott Sakai Review\Cost Estimate_Ott Sakai Comparison_Enabled_rlf.xlsx 7/9/2018
14
3 of 12
Schedule A
Schedule A
Schedule B
Schedule C
Total
Std. Item
Item
Desc
No.
Unit
Dose
Dose
Dose
All Schedules
No.
Quantity
Item Description
Unit
Cost
Cost
Cost
Cost
DRAINAGE
31
14,745
7005
STRUCTURE EXCAVATIONCLASSB
C.Y.
$ 17
$ 250,665
$ -
$ -
$ 250,665
32
3
1063
COMBINATION INLET
EACH
$ 1,410
$ 4,230
$ -
$ -
$ 4,230
33
10
1075
HEAVY LOOSE RIPRAP
TON
$ 70
$ 700
$ -
$ -
$ 700
34
1,792
1161
UNDERDRAIN PIPE 8 IN. DIAM.
L.F.
$ 12
$ 21,504
$ -
$ -
$ 21,504
35
1,848
3016
HIGH -DENSITY POLYETHYLENE (HDPE) PIPE 12 IN. DIAM.
L.F.
$ 32
$ 59,136
$ -
$ -
$ 59,136
36
29
3017
HIGH -DENSITY POLYETHYLENE (HDPE) PIPE 18 IN. DIAM.
L.F.
$ 38
$ 1,102
$ -
$ -
$ 1,102
37
835
3018
HIGH -DENSITY POLYETHYLENE (HDPE) PIPE 24 IN. DIAM.
L.F.
$ 263
$ 219,605
$ -
$ -
$ 219,605
38
36
3091
CATCH BASIN TYPE 1
EACH
$ 1,653
$ 59,508
$ -
$ -
$ 59,508
39
13
3105
CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 48 IN. DIAM.
EACH
$ 3,760
$ 48,880
$ -
$ -
$ 48,880
40
1
3107
CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 72 IN. DIAM.
EACH
$ 5,763
$ 5,763
$ -
$ -
$ 5,763
41
1
3109
CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 60 IN. DIAM.
EACH
$ 4,975
$ 4,975
$ -
$ -
$ 4,975
42
788
3869
DUCTILE IRON PIPE FOR WATER MAIN 12 IN. DIAM.
L.F.
$ 60
$ 47,280
$ -
$ -
$ 47,280
43
226
3872
DUCTILE IRON PIPE FOR WATER MAIN 18 IN. DIAM.
L.F.
$ 410
$ 92,660
$ -
$ -
$ 92,660
44
13
3874
DUCTILE IRON PIPE FOR WATER MAIN 24 IN. DIAM.
L.F.
$ 92
$ 1,196
$ -
$ -
$ 1,196
45
70
XX-04
36" DIAM. CMP CULVERT PIPE
L.F.
$ 45
$ 3,150
$ -
$ -
$ 3,150
46
1
XX-14
GROUNDWATERPUMP
L.S.
$ 150,000
$ 150,000
$ -
$ -
$ 150,000
47
1
XX-15
EXPAND EXISTING PUMP STATION
L.S.
$ 500,000
$ 500,000
$ -
$ -
$ 500,000
48
1
XX-19
UPGRADE DETENTION POND
L.S.
$ 100,000
$ 100,000
$ -
$ -
$ 100,000
49
1
XX-37
SOUND TRANSIT STORM
L.S.
$ 30,000
$ 30,000
$ -
$ -
$ 30,000
DRAINAGE
$ 1,600,354
$ -
$ -
$ 1,600,354
SANITARY SEWER
50
379
3767
PVC SANITARY SEWER PIPE 8 IN. DIAM.
L.F.
40
$ 15,160
$ 15,160
51
1
XX-20
RELOCATE 36" SEWER
L.S.
$ 1,066,000
$ 1,066,000
$ 1,066,000
SANITARY SEWER
$ 1,081,160
$ 1,081,160
WATER LINES
52
3
3850
MOVING EXISTING HYDRANTS
EACH
$ 2,500
$ 7,500
$ -
$ -
$ 7,500
53
3
3852
RECONNECTING EXISTING HYDRANTS
EACH
$ 1,850
$ 5,550
$ -
$ -
$ 5,550
SUBTOTAL
$ 13,050
$ -
$ -
$ 13,050
54
1
TAX
8.80%
$ 1,148
$ -
$ -
$ 1,148
\\fwfs1.abam.com\Projects_FW\FederalWay\2018W18.0085\00\Engineering\Cost Estimate\Ott Sakai Review\Cost Estimate_Ott Sakai Comparison_Enabled_rlf.xlsx 7/9/2018
15
4 of 12
Item
No.
Schedule A
Desc
Quantity
Std. Item
No.
Item Description
Unit
Unit
Cost
Schedule A
Dose
Cost
Schedule B
Dose
Cost
Schedule C
Dose
Cost
Total
All Schedules
WATERLINES
$ 14,198
$ -
$ -
$ 14,198
STRUCTURE
55
160
4049
SHAFT - 36 IN. DIAMETER
L.F.
$ 200
$ 32,000
$ -
$ -
$ 32,000
56
460
4053
FURNISHING SOLDIER PILE
L.F.
$ 250
$ 115,000
$ -
$ -
$ 115,000
57
3,380
4149
ST. REINF. BAR FOR BRIDGE
LB.
$ 1
$ 4,056
$ -
$ -
$ 4,056
58
61,250
4150
ST. REINF. BAR FOR RETAINING WALL
LB.
$ 1
$ 73,500
$ -
$ -
$ 73,500
59
20
4322
CONC. CLASS 4000 FOR BRIDGE
C.Y.
$ 400
$ 8,000
$ -
$ -
$ 8,000
60
310
4139
CONC. CLASS 4000 FOR RETAINING WALL
C.Y.
$ 400
$ 124,000
$ -
$ -
$ 124,000
61
1,710
4202
CONC. CLASS 4000 FOR SECANT CAP & STEM WALL
C.Y.
$ 400
$ 684,000
$ -
$ -
$ 684,000
62
60
4202
CONC. CLASS 4000 FOR WALL IMPROVEMENTS
C.Y.
$ 400
$ 24,000
$ -
$ -
$ 24,000
63
38,270
4204
CONC. CLASS 4000W FOR SEAL
C.Y.
$ 169
$ 6,466,108
$ -
$ -
$ 6,466,108
64
2,370
4299
LAGGING
S.F.
$ 45
$ 106,650
$ -
$ -
$ 106,650
\\fwfs1.abam.com\Projects_FW\FederalWay\2018W18.0085\00\Engineering\Cost Estimate\Ott Sakai Review\Cost Estimate_Ott Sakai Comparison_Enabled_rlf.xlsx 7/9/2018
16
5 of 12
Item
No.
Schedule A
Desc
Quantity
Std. Item
No.
Item Description
Unit
Unit
Cost
Schedule A
Dose
Cost
Schedule B
Dose
Cost
Schedule C
Dose
Cost
Total
All Schedules
65
1
4300
SUPERSTRUCTURE
L.S.
$ 681,056
$ 681,056
$ -
$ -
$ 681,056
66
90
4338
EXPANSION JOINT SYSTEM COMPRESSION SEAL - SUPERSTR.
L.F.
$ 125
$ 11,250
$ -
$ -
$ 11,250
67
110
4456
SCARIFYING CONC. SURFACE
S.Y.
$ 114
$ 12,540
$ -
$ -
$ 12,540
68
16
4483
PERMANENT GROUND ANCHOR
EACH
$ 5,000
$ 80,000
$ -
$ -
$ 80,000
69
16
4484
PERMANENT GROUND ANCHOR PERFORMANCE TEST
EACH
$ 2,000
$ 32,000
$ -
$ -
$ 32,000
70
1
4485
PERMANENT GROUND ANCHOR VERIFICATION TEST
L.S.
$ 10,000
$ 10,000
$ -
$ -
$ 10,000
71
87,710
7006
STRUCTURE EXCAVATION CLASS B INCL. HAUL
C.Y.
$ 24
$ 2,105,040
$ -
$ -
$ 2,105,040
72
78,190
7008
SHORING OR EXTRA EXCAVATION CLASS B
S.F.
$ 10
$ 781,900
$ -
$ -
$ 781,900
73
240
5656
BRIDGE APPROACH SLAB
S.Y.
$ 500
$ 120,000
$ -
$ -
$ 120,000
74
1
XX-21
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
L.S.
$ 283,206
$ 283,206
$ -
$ -
$ 283,206
75
950
XX-22
WALL FASCIA
CY
$ 1,150
$ 1,092,622
$ -
$ -
$ 1,092,622
76
188,880
XX-23
ST. REINFORCED FOR WALL FASCIA
LB
$ 1
$ 226,656
$ -
$ -
$ 226,656
77
1
XX-25
SHOOFLY BRIDGE
L.S.
$ 660,591
$ 660,591
$ -
$ -
$ 660,591
78
341,640
XX-27
ST. REINFORCED FOR SECANT CAP AND WALL
LB
$ 1
$ 409,968
$ -
$ -
$ 409,968
79
8,190
XX-28
ST. REINFORCED FOR WALL IMPROVEMENTS
LB
$ 1
$ 9,828
$ -
$ -
$ 9,828
80
12,130
XX-29
4 FT DIAM PRIMARY SHAFT
LF
$ 784
$ 9,506,807
$ -
$ -
$ 9,506,807
81
12,130
XX-30
4 FT DIAM SECONDARY SHAFT
LF
$ 514
$ 6,231,707
$ -
$ -
$ 6,231,707
82
66
4160
QA SHAFT TEST
EACH
$ 2,000
$ 132,000
$ -
$ -
$ 132,000
83
1
XX-36
TEMPORARY STRUTS
L.S.
$ 569,944
$ 569,944
$ -
$ -
$ 569,944
STRUCTURE
$ 30,594,430
$ -
$ -
$ 30,594,430
STRUCTURE - BNSF ROW
84
7,540
4006
STRUCTURE EXCAVATION CLASS A INCL. HAUL
C.Y.
$ 24
$ 180,960
$ -
$ -
$ 180,960
85
1
4013
SHORING OR EXTRA EXCAVATION CL. A
L.S.
$ 41,290
$ 41,290
$ -
$ -
$ 41,290
86
70
XX-18
PERVIOUS STRUCTURE BACKFILL
CY
$ 30
$ 2,100
$ -
$ -
$ 2,100
87
1
4085
FURNISHING AND DRIVING STEEL TEST PILE
EACH
$ 21,000
$ 21,000
$ -
$ -
$ 21,000
88
2,768
4090
FURNISHING ST. PILING
L.F.
$ 100
$ 276,800
$ -
$ -
$ 276,800
89
32
4095
DRIVING ST. PILE
EACH
$ 4,000
$ 128,000
$ -
$ -
$ 128,000
90
50
4202
CONC. CLASS 4000 FOR WALL IMPROVEMENTS
C.Y.
$ 400
$ 20,000
$ -
$ -
$ 20,000
91
1,940
4204
CONC. CLASS 4000W FOR SEAL
C.Y.
$ 155
$ 301,610
$ -
$ -
$ 301,610
92
80
4456
SCARIFYING CONC. SURFACE
S.Y.
$ 114
$ 9,120
$ -
$ -
$ 9,120
93
12
4483
PERMANENT GROUND ANCHOR
EACH
$ 5,000
$ 60,000
$ -
$ -
$ 60,000
94
12
4484
PERMANENT GROUND ANCHOR PERFORMANCE TEST
EACH
$ 2,000
$ 24,000
$ -
$ -
$ 24,000
95
32
8376
FURNISHING STEEL PILE TIP OR SHOE
EACH
$ 2,500
$ 80,000
$ -
$ -
$ 80,000
\\fwfs1.abam.com\Projects_FW\FederalWay\2018W18.0085\00\Engineering\Cost Estimate\Ott Sakai Review\Cost Estimate_Ott Sakai Comparison_Enabled_rlf.xlsx 7/9/2018
17
6 of 12
Item
No.
Schedule A
Desc
Quantity
Std. Item
No.
Item Description
Unit
Unit
Cost
Schedule A
Dose
Cost
Schedule B
Dose
Cost
Schedule C
Dose
Cost
Total
All Schedules
96
51,330
4149
ST. REINF. BAR FOR BRIDGE
LB.
$ 1
$ 61,596
$ -
$ -
$ 61,596
97
6,100
XX-28
ST. REINFORCED FOR WALL IMPROVEMENTS
LB
$ 1
$ 7,320
$ -
$ -
$ 7,320
98
260
4322
CONC. CLASS 4000 FOR BRIDGE
C.Y.
$ 400
$ 104,000
$ -
$ -
$ 104,000
99
7,460
7006
STRUCTURE EXCAVATION CLASS B INCL. HAUL
C.Y.
$ 24
$ 179,040
$ -
$ -
$ 179,040
100
750
7008
SHORING OR EXTRA EXCAVATION CLASS B
S.F.
$ 10
$ 7,500
$ -
$ -
$ 7,500
101
330
XX-29
4 FT DIAM PRIMARY SHAFT
LF
$ 720
$ 237,600
$ -
$ -
$ 237,600
102
330
XX-30
4 FT DIAM SECONDARY SHAFT
LF
$ 450
$ 148,500
$ -
$ -
$ 148,500
103
2
4160
QA SHAFT TEST
EACH
$ 2,000
$ 4,000
$ -
$ -
$ 4,000
STRUCTURE - BNSF ROW
$ 1,894,436
$ -
$ -
$ 1,894,436
STRUCTURE - UPRR ROW
104
13,120
7006
STRUCTURE EXCAVATION CLASS B INCL. HAUL
C.Y.
$ 24
$ 314,880
$ -
$ -
$ 314,880
105
10,890
7008
SHORING OR EXTRA EXCAVATION CLASS B
S.F.
$ 10
$ 108,900
$ -
$ -
$ 108,900
106
50
4087
CONSTRUCTING 6 FT. DIAM SHAFT
L.F.
$ 1,600
$ 80,000
$ -
$ -
$ 80,000
107
15,710
4149
ST. REINF. BAR FOR BRIDGE
LB.
$ 1
$ 18,852
$ -
$ -
$ 18,852
\\fwfs1.abam.com\Projects_FW\FederalWay\2018W18.0085\00\Engineering\Cost Estimate\Ott Sakai Review\Cost Estimate_Ott Sakai Comparison_Enabled_rlf.xlsx 7/9/2018
18
7 of 12
Item
No.
Schedule A
Desc
Quantity
Std. Item
No.
Item Description
Unit
Unit
Cost
Schedule A
Dose
Cost
Schedule B
Dose
Cost
Schedule C
Dose
Cost
Total
All Schedules
108
5,110
4204
CONC. CLASS 4000W FOR SEAL
C.Y.
$ 194
$ 989,718
$ -
$ -
$ 989,718
109
80
4322
CONC. CLASS 4000 FOR BRIDGE
C.Y.
$ 400
$ 32,000
$ -
$ -
$ 32,000
110
1
4300
SUPERSTRUCTURE
L.S.
$ 619,129
$ 619,129
$ -
$ -
$ 619,129
111
1
4468
CLEANING AND PAINTING
L.S.
$ 76,000
$ 76,000
$ -
$ -
$ 76,000
112
1
7037
STRUCTURE SURVEYING
L.S.
$ 15,000
$ 15,000
$ -
$ -
$ 15,000
113
2,210
XX-29
4 FT DIAM PRIMARY SHAFT
LF
$ 793
$ 1,751,789
$ -
$ -
$ 1,751,789
114
2,210
XX-30
4 FT DIAM SECONDARY SHAFT
LF
$ 523
$ 1,155,089
$ -
$ -
$ 1,155,089
115
170
XX-32
DAMPPROOFING
S.Y.
$ 35
$ 5,950
$ -
$ -
$ 5,950
116
120
XX-34
WATERPROOFING
L.F.
$ 30
$ 3,600
$ -
$ -
$ 3,600
117
9
4160
QA SHAFT TEST
EACH
$ 2,000
$ 18,000
$ -
$ -
$ 18,000
STRUCTURE-UPRRROW
$ 5,188,907
$ -
$ -
$ 5,188,907
SURFACING
118
15,571
5040
PERMEABLE BALLAST
TON
28
$ 435,988
$ 435,988
119
7,175
5100
CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE
TON
23
$ 165,025
$ 165,025
SURFACING
$ 601,013
$ 601,013
HOT MIX ASPHALT
120 1 8,000 I 5767 IHMA CL. 1/2 IN. PG I TON I $ 84
$ 672,000
$ -
$ -
$ 672,000
HOT MIX ASPHALT
$ 672,000
$ -
$ -
$ 672,000
EROSION CONTROL AND ROADSIDE PLANTING
121
4
6409
TOPSOIL TYPE C
ACRE
$ 38,000
$ 152,000
$ -
$ -
$ 152,000
122
16,200
6419
SEEDING AND FERTILIZING BY HAND
S.Y.
$ 1
$ 19,440
$ -
$ -
$ 19,440
123
1
6488
EROSION CONTROL AND WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION
L.S.
$ 100,000
$ 100,000
$ -
$ -
$ 100,000
EROSION CONTROL AND ROADSIDE PLANTING
$ 271,440
$ -
$ -
$ 271,440
TRAFFIC
124
6,476
6700
CEMENT CONC. TRAFFIC CURB AND GUTTER
L.F.
$ 52
$ 336,752
$ -
$ -
$ 336,752
125
622
6701
CEMENT CONC. TRAFFIC CURB
L.F.
$ 36
$ 22,392
$ -
$ -
$ 22,392
126
134
6707
CEMENT CONC. PEDESTRIAN CURB
L.F.
$ 39
$ 5,226
$ -
$ -
$ 5,226
127
607
6727
EXTRUDED CURB
L.F.
$ 17
$ 10,319
$ -
$ -
$ 10,319
128
375
6748
BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 1 - 8 FT. LONG POST
L.F.
$ 27
$ 10,125
$ -
$ -
$ 10,125
129
2
6760
BEAM GUARDRAIL TRANSITION SECTION TYPE
EACH
$ 4,066
$ 8,132
$ -
$ -
$ 8,132
\\fwfs1.abam.com\Projects_FW\FederalWay\2018W18.0085\00\Engineering\Cost Estimate\Ott Sakai Review\Cost Estimate_Ott Sakai Comparison_Enabled_rlf.xlsx 7/9/2018
19
8 of 12
Item
No.
Schedule A
Desc
Quantity
Std. Item
No.
Item Description
Unit
Unit
Cost
Schedule A
Dose
Cost
Schedule B
Dose
Cost
Schedule C
Dose
Cost
Total
All Schedules
130
6
6766
BEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 10
EACH
$ 1,000
$ 6,000
$ -
$ -
$ 6,000
131
15,430
6806
PAINT LINE
L.F.
$ 2
$ 23,145
$ -
$ -
$ 23,145
132
967
6827
PAINTED WIDE LANE LINE
L.F.
$ 0
$ 338
$ -
$ -
$ 338
133
26
6833
PLASTIC TRAFFIC ARROW
EACH
$ 255
$ 6,630
$ -
$ -
$ 6,630
134
950
6857
PLASTIC CROSSWALK LINE
S.F.
$ 14
$ 13,300
$ -
$ -
$ 13,300
135
279
6859
PLASTIC STOP LINE
L.F.
$ 10
$ 2,790
$ -
$ -
$ 2,790
136
1
6890
PERMANENT SIGNING
L.S.
$ 7,500
$ 7,500
$ -
$ -
$ 7,500
137
1
6904
ILLUMINATION SYSTEM
L.S.
$ 150,000
$ 150,000
$ -
$ -
$ 150,000
138
1
6912
TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM
L.S.
$ 893,268
$ 893,268
$ -
$ -
$ 893,268
139
105
6915
CASING
L.F.
$ 100
$ 10,500
$ -
$ -
$ 10,500
140
55
6917
DIRECTIONAL BORING
L.F.
$ 88
$ 4,840
$ -
$ -
$ 4,840
141
1
6971
PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL
L.S.
$ 40,000
$ 40,000
$ -
$ -
$ 40,000
142
4
7442
PERMANENT IMPACT ATTENUATOR
EACH
$ 28,575
$ 114,300
$ -
$ -
$ 114,300
143
1
XX-08
PEDESTRIAN CONTROL AND PROTECTION
L.S.
$ 50,000
$ 50,000
$ -
$ -
$ 50,000
TRAFFIC
$ 1,715,557
$ -
$ -
$ 1,715,557
\\fwfs1.abam.com\Projects_FW\FederalWay\2018W18.0085\00\Engineering\Cost Estimate\Ott Sakai Review\Cost Estimate_Ott Sakai Comparison_Enabled_rlf.xlsx 7/9/2018
20
9 of 12
Schedule A
Schedule A
Schedule B
Schedule C
Total
Std. Item
Item
Desc
No.
Unit
Dose
Dose
Dose
All Schedules
No.
Quantity
Item Description
Unit
Cost
Cost
Cost
Cost
OTHER ITEMS
144
434
1945
PEDESTRIAN HANDRAIL
L.F.
$ 200
$ 86,800
$ -
$ -
$ 86,800
145
34
3110
LOCKING SOLID METAL COVER AND FRAME FOR CATCH BASIN
EACH
$ 1,075
$ 36,550
$ -
$ -
$ 36,550
146
1
7003
TYPE B PROGRESS SCHEDULE
L.S.
$ 5,000
$ 5,000
$ -
$ -
$ 5,000
147
1
7037
STRUCTURE SURVEYING
L.S.
$ 25,000
$ 25,000
$ -
$ -
$ 25,000
148
1
7038
ROADWAY SURVEYING
L.S.
$ 10,000
$ 10,000
$ -
$ -
$ 10,000
149
6
7041
BOLLARD TYPE
EACH
$ 825
$ 4,950
$ -
$ -
$ 4,950
150
2,330
7055
CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK
S.Y.
$ 46
$ 107,180
$ -
$ -
$ 107,180
151
5
7058
CEMENT CONC. CURB RAMP TYPE
EACH
$ 4,650
$ 23,250
$ -
$ -
$ 23,250
152
157
7059
CEMENT CONC. DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE TYPE
S.Y.
$ 104
$ 16,328
$ -
$ -
$ 16,328
153
990
7060
ASPHALT CONC. SIDEWALK
S.Y.
$ 83
$ 82,170
$ -
$ -
$ 82,170
154
1,035
7083
CHAIN LINK FENCE TYPE 3
L.F.
$ 17
$ 17,078
$ -
$ -
$ 17,078
155
3
7103
DOUBLE 14 FT. COATED CHAIN LINK GATE
EACH
$ 1,600
$ 4,800
$ -
$ -
$ 4,800
156
1
7350
CLEANING EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE
L.S.
$ 6,000
$ 6,000
$ -
$ -
$ 6,000
157
11
7360
MANHOLE 48 IN. DIAM. TYPE
EACH
$ 3,740
$ 41,140
$ -
$ -
$ 41,140
158
2
7364
MANHOLE 60 IN. DIAM. TYPE
EACH
$ 5,300
$ 10,600
$ -
$ -
$ 10,600
159
1
7480
ROADSIDE CLEANUP
EST.
$ 35,000
$ 35,000
$ -
$ -
$ 35,000
160
1
7490
TRIMMING AND CLEANUP
L.S.
$ 5,000
$ 5,000
$ -
$ -
$ 5,000
161
1
7500
FIELD OFFICE BUILDING
L.S.
$ 22,000
$ 22,000
$ -
$ -
$ 22,000
162
9,300
7530
CONSTRUCTION GEOTEXTILE FOR SEPARATION
S.Y.
$ 7
$ 65,100
$ -
$ -
$ 65,100
163
1,206
7559
GEOSYNTHETIC RETAINING WALL
S.F.
$ 15
$ 18,090
$ -
$ -
$ 18,090
164
402
7567
GRAVEL BORROW FOR STRUCTURAL EARTH WALL INCL. HAUL
C.Y.
$ 48
$ 19,296
$ -
$ -
$ 19,296
165
1
7725
REIMBURSEMENT FOR THIRD PARTY DAMAGE
EST.
$ 10,000
$ 10,000
$ -
$ -
$ 10,000
166
1
7728
MINOR CHANGE
CALC
$ 75,000
$ 75,000
$ -
$ -
$ 75,000
167
7731
STEEL COST ADJUSTMENT
CALC
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
168
1
7736
SPCC PLAN
L.S.
$ 2,000
$ 2,000
$ -
$ -
$ 2,000
169
7
9605
CONNECTION TO DRAINAGE STRUCTURE
EACH
$ 1,640
$ 11,480
$ -
$ -
$ 11,480
170
1
01-07
STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP)
L.S.
$ 20,000
$ 20,000
$ -
$ -
$ 20,000
171
1
0I-11
UTILITY POTHOLING
L.S.
$ 30,000
$ 30,000
$ -
$ -
$ 30,000
172
1
XX-05
DEWATERING SYSTEM
L.S.
$ 250,000
$ 250,000
$ -
$ -
$ 250,000
173
2
XX-06
ABANDONMENT OF MONITORING WELLS
EACH
$ 700
$ 1,400
$ -
$ -
$ 1,400
174
1
XX-09
SETTLEMENT MONITORING - SURVEY
L.S.
$ 10,000
$ 10,000
$ -
$ -
$ 10,000
175
26
XX-10
SETTLEMENT PLATES
EACH
$ 800
$ 20,800
$ -
$ -
$ 20,800
\\fwfs1.abam.com\Projects_FW\FederalWay\2018W18.0085\00\Engineering\Cost Estimate\Ott Sakai Review\Cost Estimate_Ott Sakai Comparison_Enabled_rlf.xlsx 7/9/2018
21
Item
No.
Schedule A
Desc
Quantity
Std. Item
No.
Item Description
Unit
Unit
Cost
Schedule A
Dose
Cost
Schedule B
Dose
Cost
Schedule C
Dose
Cost
Total
All Schedules
176
1
XX-11
PROJECT RED LINE DRAWINGS
L.S.
$ 2,000
$ 2,000
$ -
$ -
$ 2,000
177
1
XX-12
FIBER OPTIC RELOCATION - WEST SIDE
L.S.
$ 60,000
$ 60,000
$ -
$ -
$ 60,000
178
1
XX-13
FIBER OPTIC RELOCATION - EAST SIDE
L.S.
$ 130,000
$ 130,000
$ -
$ -
$ 130,000
179
1
XX-31
STORM BYPASS
EST.
$ 15,000
$ 15,000
$ -
$ -
$ 15,000
180
1
XX-38
RELOCATE BP GAS LINES
L.S.
$ 1,000,000
$ 1,000,000
$ -
$ -
$ 1,000,000
OTHER ITEMS
$ 2,279,012
$ -
$ -
$ 2,279,012
Subtotal -Ex. Mobe
Mobilization
Subtotal
$ 49,106,521
$ -
$ -
$ 49,106,521
$ 8,681,105
$ -
$ -
$ 8,681,105
$ 57,787,626
$ -
$ -
$ 57,787,626
10 of 12
\\fwfs1.abam.com\Projects_FW\FederalWay\2018W18.0085\00\Engineering\Cost Estimate\Ott Sakai Review\Cost Estimate_Ott Sakai Comparison_Enabled_rlf.xlsx 7/9/2018
22
11 of 12
Item
No.
Schedule A
Desc
Quantity
Std. Item
No.
Item Description
Unit
Unit
Cost
Schedule A
Dose
Cost
Schedule B
Dose
Cost
Schedule C
Dose
Cost
Total
All Schedules
Tax 0.00%
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Total Estimated Construction Cost with Mob
$ 57,787,626
$ -
$ -
$ 57,787,626
Design Contingency 5%
Market Conditions 0%
Estimated Construction Bid Cost/Budget (2018 Dollars)
Inflation Factor (3% per year for 2 years) 3%
Estimated Construction Bid Cost/Budget (2020 Dollars)
Construction Contingency/Risk 10%
Estimated Bid Amount Total
Estimated Track shift by UPRR
UPRR Flagging
UPRR Inspection
BNSF Flagging
BNSF Inspection
BP Design Costs
Estimated Total Construction Costs
$ 2,889,381
$ -
$ -
$ 2,889,381
$ -
$ -
$ 60,677,007
$ -
$ -
$ 60,677,007
$ 3,695,230
$ -
$ -
$ 3,695,230
$ 64,372,237
$ -
$ -
$ 64,372,237
$ 6,437,223.67
$ -
$ -
$ 6,437,224
$ 70,809,460
$ -
$ -
$ 70,809,460
$ 682,000
$ 682,000
$ 720,000
$ 720,000
$ 120,000
$ 120,000
$ 540,000
$ 540,000
$ 120,000
$ 120,000
$ 570,000
$ 570,000
$ 73,561,460
$ 73,561,460
\\fwfs1.abam.com\Projects_FW\FederalWay\2018W18.0085\00\Engineering\Cost Estimate\Ott Sakai Review\Cost Estimate_Ott Sakai Comparison_Enabled_rlf.xlsx 7/9/2018
23
12 of 12
Item
No.
Schedule A
Desc
Quantity
Std. Item
No.
Item Description
Unit
Unit
Cost
Schedule A
Dose
Cost
Schedule B
Dose
Cost
Schedule C
Dose
Cost
Total
All Schedules
Estimated ROW & Easement (Misc. Properties) Costs
Estimated Engineering & Permitting Costs
Estimated Owner/Agency Design Engineering Costs
Estimated Construction Admin and Inspection Costs
Estimated Total Project Costs
$ 1,720,166
$ 1,720,166
$ 3,892,500
$ 3,892,500
$ 607,500
$ 607,500
$ 4,000,000.00
$ 4,000,000
$ 83,781,626
$ 83,781,626
ROW & EASEMENTS
1
ROW Acquisition (Fast Food Restaurants)
EST.
$ 191,925
$ -
$ -
$ 191,925
1
Permanent Easements (BP, KC Sewer, outfall, fast food driveways)
EST.
$ 447,000
$ 447,000
Temporary Construction Easements (BP, KC Sewer, outfall, fast food driveways)
EST.
$ 668,241
$ 668,241
1
Estimated UPRR Perm & Temp Easements
EST.
$ 330,000
$ -
$ -
$ 330,000
1
Estimated BNSF BP & KC Sewer Easements
EST.
$ 83,000
$ -
$ -
$ 83,000
Subto al - ROW & Easements
$ 1,720,166
$ -
$ -
$ 1,720,166
\\fwfs1.abam.com\Projects_FW\FederalWay\2018W18.0085\00\Engineering\Cost Estimate\Ott Sakai Review\Cost Estimate_Ott Sakai Comparison_Enabled_rlf.xlsx 7/9/2018
24
City of Ti
Public Works Department - Henry Hash, Director
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
FROM: Henry Hash, Public Works Director // /-
BY: Cyndy Knighton, Senior Program Manager
CC: Mayor Ekberg
DATE: November 9, 2018
SUBJECT: Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
Resolution for Adoption
ISSUE
Resolution to adopt the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP).
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
BACKGROUND
In June 2005, the Transportation Committee approved a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
(NTCP). At that time, no budget was established nor was staffing provided for managing the
program. Two pilot projects, one in 2008 and one in 2017, have been completed. Since then,
interest in the City providing a robust traffic calming program has increased significantly. In 2018,
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has discussed and expressed the desire for a
fair, equitable, and objective program.
DISCUSSION
Per the direction of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, staff is presenting an
updated NTCP. Staff has formatted the NTCP to allow for ease of implementation with minimum
hurdles, especially for Level I improvements. Level I improvements are passive traffic control
treatments that can be implemented quickly and inexpensively and are often all that is needed to
address neighborhood complaints. Level II treatments are physical devices, often permanently
installed, which require more extensive design efforts and are costlier. Additionally, Level II
treatments require coordination and concurrence with the Police and Fire departments and
approval from the Council. Emergency services are included as Level II devices as they can
negatively impact response times.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Earlier this year, Public Works staff proposed a $400,000 budget for the Traffic
Calming/Residential Safety Improvement Program which is currently in the Mayor's proposed
budget for 2019-2020. The budget will be shared between traffic calming efforts and other safety
improvements in residential areas. Design of the improvements, purchasing of equipment, and
construction and installation costs will all be funded through these budgeted capital funds.
RECOMMENDATION
Council is being asked to approve the Resolution adopting the Neighborhood Traffic Calming
Program and consider this item at the November 26, 2018 Committee of the Whole and the
December 3, 2018 Regular Meeting.
ATTACHMENT
• Draft Resolution
• Draft Neighborhood Traffic Control Program
w:1pw englprojectsla- rw 8 rs projects\traffic calmingltukwila traffic calming programOnfo memo - ntcp resolution 110918 gl.docx
25
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE "CITY OF TUKWILA
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM."
WHEREAS, one of the top concerns of Tukwila community members is speeding and other
dangers associated with motor vehicles; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila desires to reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use,
alter driver behavior, and improve conditions for non -motorized street users; and
WHEREAS, the adopted Tukwila Comprehensive Plan recommends implementation of a
neighborhood traffic calming program in both the Transportation Element and the Residential
Neighborhoods Element; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to document a transparent, predictable and equitable
process for implementing effective traffic calming measures in neighborhoods throughout the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
The "City of Tukwila Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program," as evidenced in Exhibit A, is
adopted.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a
Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2018.
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Christy O'Flaherty, MMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Verna Seal, Council President
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Resolution Number:
Rachel B. Turpin, City Attorney
Attachment: Exhibit A — City of Tukwila Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
W:\Word Processing \Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program 10-19-18
LH:bjs
Page 1 of 1
26
EXHIBIT �F
CITY OF TUKWILA
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC
CALMING PROGRAM
Adopted December 3, 2018
By Resolution No. XXXX
27
Table of Contents
OBJECTIVES 1
PROCESS STEPS 1
INITIATING A REQUEST 1
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION 2
SOLUTION ALTERNATIVES 2
No Action 2
Level I 3
Level II 3
PROCESS FOR QUALIFYING FOR LEVEL II TREATMENTS 3
PLAN DEVELOPMENT 3
PROJECT FUNDING . 4
PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 4
EVALUATION 4
REMOVAL 5
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS OF TYPES OF STREETS
APPENDIX B: LEVEL I POSSIBLE TREATMENTS
APPENDIX C: PRIORITY RANKING WORKSHEET
28
Introduction
Traffic conditions on residential streets greatly affect neighborhood livability. Speeding and
unnecessary through -traffic in neighborhoods create safety hazards on residential streets. The City
of Tukwila Public Works Department has developed a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
(NTCP) to guide City staff and inform residents about the procedures for implementing traffic
calming on residential streets and collector streets.
The NTCP is designed for local residential streets and collector arterials only. The NTCP does not
apply to local or arterial streets in commercial areas or to streets classified as principal or minor
arterials.
As defined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), traffic calming is the application of
measures which can be taken which reduces the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alters driver
behavior and improves conditions for non -motorized street users. The City's NTCP outlines a
process for staff and residents to carry out a traffic calming program. It provides a way to
objectively prioritize traffic calming requests. These procedures incorporate prioritization,
planning, evaluation, implementation, and maintenance of the traffic -calming devices in
residential areas. It also combines the four E's -- Education, Engineering, Enforcement and
Emergency Services.
Objectives
The primary goal of the City's NTCP is to improve the livability of the local streets and residential
collectors. The City has identified the following objectives:
• Provide alternative solutions to reduce vehicular speeds and accidents on residential streets.
• Endorse safe and pleasant conditions for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and residents of
neighborhood streets.
• Provide a means for a collaborative working relationship between City staff and
neighborhood residents in development of traffic calming measures.
• Discourage use of residential streets for cut -through vehicular traffic.
Process Steps
Initiating a Request
Request for traffic calming assistance can come from a resident's association or from concerned
individuals. Requests can be made in writing by clearly stating the problem and location,
accompanied with completed application which is provided by the City. The request can be made
by either mailing or emailing the request to the Public Works Department. The request must
include a contact name, address, phone number and email.
1
29
Staff will then acknowledge the completed application in writing to the resident's association or
to the contact person listed in the application. An application fee could be implemented in the
future to offset some of the costs involved.
Preliminary Evaluation
Each street in the community is a part of the larger roadway network that connects residents to
each other, work, schools, goods, services and the countless destinations to which drivers and
pedestrians travel daily. Common issues within neighborhoods include speeding, traffic volumes,
and the utilization of neighborhood streets as a cut -through route, among others. In order to ensure
that traffic calming concerns are addressed in an equitable manner, staff must assess the situation
by reviewing the request and determining if the area qualifies for treatment using set criteria. The
primary purpose of a preliminary evaluation is to determine whether the speeding or accident
situation is significant enough to warrant further study. At this stage, staff collects data to analyze
it to determine whether:
• The roadway is eligible for traffic calming treatment.
o Only residential streets classified as collector arterial or local access are eligible.
• City recorded data supports the problem identified in the application.
o Speeding: Traffic counts are taken to determine if 15% of the motorists travel at 5
mph or more above the posted speed limit. This is also referred to as the 85th
percentile speed being at or above 5 mph over the speed limit.
o Volume: Traffic counts also collect the number of daily vehicles on a street. This
information is used to determine the best type of solution and is used to rank project
priorities.
o Traffic Accidents: The number of accidents for over a three-year period is collected
and studied. The Public Works Director may elect to address any safety issues
discovered outside of the NTCP process.
If the analysis confirms that a traffic problem exists based upon the above criteria, the Public
Works Department will conduct a traffic calming study as explained in the following sections and
staff calculates the priority score for the street segment using the Priority Worksheet in Appendix
C.
A written response back to the contact person with the findings of the preliminary evaluation is
generally provided within 60 calendar days of the request.
Solution Alternatives
The solution alternatives are defined into three levels.
No Action
After data collection and analysis is complete, any location not meeting the above criteria will be
determined to not be eligible for any NTCP assistance. Staff will inform the applicant in writing
that their request does not meet the City criteria for action and the request will be closed.
2
30
Level I
The first level improvement for traffic calming that should be considered are passive traffic control
treatments, known as Level I. Level I improvements are less restrictive measures, and do not
require a neighborhood vote. The improvements used in Level I include: trimming bushes to allow
better sight distance; pavement markings and striping; increased police enforcement; traffic speed
display signs; neighborhood awareness campaigns; and education. This reduces the need for
installing physical devices on every local street.
If a marked crosswalk is recommended for installation where ADA-compliant ramps do not
currently exist, the improvement will be automatically treated as a Level II solution.
Level E
Level II improvements should be considered only after Level I treatments have been in place for
a minimum of 6 months and data collection and analysis indicate the problem(s) has not been
resolved, or as determined by the Public Works Director. Level II improvements focus on physical
devices such as speed cushions, traffic circles, and chicanes to calm traffic. These solution
alternatives are much costlier than Level I and are generally permanent. Therefore, a more detailed
evaluation is required and approval by key departments and impacted area residents is required
before the implementation. The detailed evaluation includes as follows:
• The speed, volume and accident history collected during the preliminary evaluation.
• Collect new traffic speed and volume data and accident history for the past three
consecutive years.
• Other factors such as proximity to schools, parks and other pedestrian generators, lack of
sidewalks, accessibility, presence of bicycle facilities, and other roadway characteristics.
• Identify users of the affected streets.
• Identify traffic and major pedestrian generators, such as schools, parks and shopping
centers.
• Analyze street use with respect to street classification.
• Document any other relative factors.
Process for Qualifying for Level II Treatments
If the traffic problem(s) has not resolved with Level I treatments, an impact area is established by
staff. The impact area includes the location requesting treatment as well as other streets in the
immediate area that could be impacted by Level II treatment installation.
Plan Development
Once an area has been selected for a traffic -calming project, steps need to be taken to determine
solutions. The applications are prioritized based on the scores. The highest-ranking applications
will be given priority in moving forward into Plan Development, as funding allows.
Since Level I solutions are simpler in scope, the solution formulation process can usually be
handled by staff. Public meetings are not usually required, although some type of public
communication is beneficial and recommended.
3
31
Level II improvements require a more comprehensive plan development due to the higher cost and
impact of the actions taken. A public meeting with all affected property owners may be held, as
determined by the Public Works Director. The initial public meeting will:
• Discuss the steps to develop a traffic -calming plan.
• Gather additional information regarding traffic problems and related neighborhood needs.
A ballot may be sent to each property owner in the impacted area where they are asked to vote to
indicate support of the NTCP plan. The implementation plan must receive at least 70% approval
of all property owners on the impacted street in order to proceed. In addition to the community
support, the approval of the following public officials is required:
• City Police and Fire Departments
• City Council
Once the necessary level of support is documented, projects may be funded and constructed
according to their prioritization and as available staffing and budget permits.
In cases where a Level II request does not receive sufficient support, the project is dropped from
the list and the next highest ranked project can go through the same process. Residents in an area
where a project has been dropped are able to resubmit their request for the following program year.
Project Funding
The number of traffic -calming projects undertaken each year depends on the City's budget and
staffing availability.
In some cases, landscaping, maintenance and necessary easement dedication may be the
responsibility of the residents or the homeowner's association. If this is the case, an agreement
must be signed between the City and residents before the project is implemented.
Project Design and Construction
Once traffic -calming treatments have been determined, the City's staff or a consultant develops
the detailed plan, based on the study and the residents' input. The traffic calming device will be
installed.
In some situation, a test installation may be warranted to assure that the device is both effective
and truly desired by the community. In this case, within three to twelve months after installation,
staff evaluates how well the test installation performed in terms of the defined problems.
Evaluation
An evaluation shall be conducted between six months to one year after the implementation of any
permanent traffic calming devices. Speed, volume and collision data is collected and compared
4
32
with the data collected before the installation of the traffic -calming device. The data collection
should be done at approximately the same time of year as the original data collection.
Removal
If the impacted neighborhood is dissatisfied with the outcome of the implementation, a petition
may be submitted to modify or remove the traffic calming device. The petition must be signed by
over 70% of the property owners within the impacted area. If the property owners vote to remove
the traffic calming device(s), they must also pay the cost of removal and fixing the roadway to the
City's standard. If the Public Works Director determines that the traffic calming devices have
resulted in an unacceptable safety condition, the removal of the devices will be done at the City's
cost.
5
33
Appendices
34
Appendix A: Definitions of types of streets
The City's Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan defines the street functional
classifications. For the sake of this program, only residential local streets and collector arterials
are eligible for NTCP treatments. Streets in commercial areas or which are classified as principal
or minor arterials are not eligible for treatments under this program. Traffic calming on principal
and minor arterials is very different than on residential streets, requiring substantial design,
permitting, environmental approval, and budget in order to construct. These calming projects are
developed into standalone capital improvement projects.
Local streets (typical speed limit 25 mph) serve local circulation needs for motor vehicles,
bicycles, and pedestrian traffic and provide access to residences and some businesses. Local
streets are not intended to carry significant volumes of through traffic. Sixty to 80 percent of
the roadway network is considered local streets.
Collector arterials (typical speed limit 30-35 mph) are typically streets that provide access
between local service streets or from local streets to thorough -fares. Collectors often carry
some through traffic. Collectors in residential areas are eligible for NTCP treatments whereas
collectors in commercial areas are not. Five to 10 percent of the roadway network is classified
as collector arterials.
Minor arterials (typical speed limit 30-40 mph) are streets which are typically wider and
may have more lanes than collectors which connect the smaller arterial streets to destinations
or to the regional roadway network. Minor arterials carry a large percentage of through traffic
as well as traffic from the local area. Ten to 20 percent of the streets in network are minor
arterials.
Principal arterials (typical speed limit 35-50 mph) are major streets and highways that
provide regional connections between major destinations. Speeds are higher, access and
traffic control favors providing fast and smooth movement on the arterial over the lower
classified streets. Five to 10 percent of a roadway network is classified as principal arterials.
35
593rd Sr
LEGEND
Roadway Classification
Freeway
mat Principal
- Minor
[7:1 City of Tukwila
Potential Annexation Area
NOT TO SCALE
�5Ih41h St �.Y
klrr 61vr1
5!.ran •i. i Si
Longaci<s Way
0
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION
36
Appendix B: Level I Possible Treatments
Educating the Community
Educating the community on traffic issues is an important first step in addressing the residents'
concerns. Most of the time, the residents do not acknowledge that the majority of people who
speed in neighborhood streets are the local residents; therefore, educating them about speeding
and their driving behaviors can improve driving habits.
Neighborhood Awareness Campaign
In the neighborhood awareness campaign, residents should be given partnership in solving
speeding problem in their neighborhood. This is done by allowing residents to go out in their local
streets, using radar equipment, and monitor speeding vehicles. Residents should be trained to use
the radar equipment and should be given instruction in collecting data. These volunteers may
record license plates and a description of speeding vehicles. The vehicle's registered owner may
receive a letter from the City, informing the owner of the observed violation and encourage them
or drivers of their vehicles to drive at or below the posted speed limit. However, no formal
violations or fines can issued.
Pavement Markings, Speeding Limit Signs and Vegetation Trimming
Improvement can be made by simply marking the pavement, installing speed limit signs at more
visible locations, or trimming bushes for a better visibility; this will allow drivers to be aware of
the speed limit of the local streets. Pavement marking and signing may include signs for residential
zone designation, speed limit, lane and edge striping, and other similar treatments.
Police Enforcement
Increased traffic enforcement encourages drivers to change their driving behaviors through citing
violators for speeding. The Police Department should be given the information of the data
collected of the location. This information helps the officer to determine the time of day of the
speeding mostly occurs.
Radar Speed Feedback Signs or Trailer Deployment
Use of a Radar Speed Feedback Signs or a portable Speed Trailer can heighten the drivers'
awareness of their traveling speed and is useful in driver education. Sometimes deploying the
Radar Feedback devices result in allowing the concerned neighborhood to see that actual speeds
may not be as high as what had been perceived.
37
Appendix C: Priority Ranking Worksheet
Location:
Date:
Staff Name:
Category
Data
Score
Accidents:
Five points for each recorded accident over the past three years. Three
additional points will be added for each accident with a recorded injury.
Volume:
Average weekday traffic volume divided by 100, rounded up to the
nearest whole number. Maximum of 7 points possible.
Speed:
Five points for every mph greater than 5mph above the posted speed or
(85th percentile speed - posted speed limit - 5) x 5 points.
Sidewalks:
Five points if there is not a continuous sidewalk on one side of
residential streets or both sides of collectors.
Pedestrian Generators:
Five points for every K-12 school on and 2 points for school property
within 500 ft of the subject street. Three points for other major
pedestrian generator on the subject street. Major pedestrian generators
may include parks, community centers, senior housing, or other uses
with significant pedestrian traffic.
Total Points:
38
SOUTH COUNTY AREA TRANSPORTATION BOARD (SCATBD)
September Meeting Summary —Tuesday, September 18, 2018
Introductions & Approval of meeting summary — August SCATBd meeting minutes approved.
ii. Reports and Communications —
• Vice Chair Johnson asked that a Seattle Times article about car subscriptions be distributed to
the membership.
• Cynthia Foley, Regional Transit Committee: May act on strategic plan report on Metro's
performance.
• Councilmember Kwon: Airport hosting public meetings on the Strategic Airport Master Plan and
is accepting public comments both at meetings and online.
• National League of Cities: Accepting applications for federal advocacy committee.
iii. Reema Griffith, Executive Director, WA Transportation Commission - Road Usage Charge Pilot
Program — The Road Usage Charge is a leading idea nationally for toolbox of transportation funding.
Gas tax won't be able to fund future transportation needs. CA and WA currently have the highest
gas taxes in the nation. Only 8 cents of the 49.4 cents of gas tax levied currently is available for new
projects, remainder pays for debt and previous bonds to fund projects. By 2027, 70% of state gas
tax revenues will go to debt service payments. The fuel efficiency bar continues to rise. Current
federal CAFE standards: 54.5MPG by 2025. Projections show that car mpg standards will increase
faster. Auto manufacturers are setting the pace and Volvo, GM, Toyota, Ford and Tesla all have
plans for electric and hydrogen vehicles — non -gas engines will yield lower gas tax revenues. 45%
decline in gas tax revenue is expected by 2035. Road usage charge a potential solution rather than
paying by the gallon of gas. WA is not alone but along with West Consortium is testing, researching
and enacting road usage charge programs. Eight states are conducting research, four are testing
and one has a legislatively -enacted program (Oregon).
Since 2012, the WA Transportation Commission has led RUC work with a 25 member steering
committee comprised of diverse stakeholders including three commissions, eight legislators. Costs
to administer the system could be 2-8% of overhead but will vary if WA is alone vs. national or with
other state implementation. Another cost reduction if billing for charges could be paired with
phone or other utility companies. Assuming that there will be two systems (gas and Road Usage)
while debt is being paid off and Road Usage Charge begins, that consumers will pay one but not
both systems simultaneously. Why not just keep increasing the gas tax? We would have to raise the
gas tax by 1.5 cents per gallon, per year on all vehicles from 2019-43 to equal the net revenue from
a RUC of 2.4 cents per mile. This would not address growing needs for improvements or
maintenance. The transportation revenue line currently associated with all of this growth in Seattle
is flat- big red flag indicating people making other less gas using transportation options. RUC would
increase, tax for cars with lower mpg but costs to operate those cars would still be higher as gas
costs are greater. RUC enables funding sustainability & policy harmonization. Out of state drivers
can be captured. Small pool of people being included in the pilot program.
39
Pilot program: Mileage reporting options include a mileage permit (log), odometer reading,
application with smartphone, plug in device with GPS, and a plug in device without GPS. Pilot
participants — 30% odometer reading; 34% plug in device with GPS and 15% chose smartphone
application. Only 1% chose the mileage permit. Pilot uses private sector provider to do the billing
and technical work (DrivesNY or eMovis). Private companies collecting driving information may not
be desirable to consumers. Pilot produces drivers scoring on breaking, cornering and driving
behavior. 2,000 people participating that reflect the state's distribution of drivers: 78% use gas
vehicles, 8% use hybrid, and 4% use electric vehicles.
Questions: Notion is that you will pay either one or another system, not both. You would get a
refund for or a credit. That is happening at an automated basis in the pilot.
Q: Age demographic? Yes. Can send that information out.
Q: How can you determine how much will be shared with local jurisdictions? Legislature could set
forth a distribution as they do now with the gas tax. Some cities are asking that the actual miles
traveled is used by jurisdiction vs. an allocation.
Q: In-between state travel, we may be able to do something as we do with ORCA — putting the
burden on the agencies or state vs. the consumer to distribute the allocation issue. Our state
constitution has the 18th amendment — couldn't use gas tax dollars for anything except roads. This is
an opportunity to revisit this. Parking lot for all of these issues ultimately local funding distributions
will be addressed. Ultimately that is a political fight.
Q: Will this system include congestion pricing? And is this socially just / equitably just? On the
pricing pilot is not looking at pricing mechanism. Depends on if legislature wants to enable equitable
pricing — they could. RUC is not a congestion pricing tool — not a tolling tool but legislature could
make that work on certain corridors but only would work if everyone is using a GPS enabled system
so we can capture where you are driving. (PSRC): Transportation Futures work did value equity
pricing was a high priority for those that participants. We heard that loud and clear.
Q: Privacy issues. Be careful of the technology side — insurance company gets info on driving
behavior and then increases rates. We recognize that there are a lot of privacy issues associated
with data. There are safeguards on other large data sources like ORCA data for example.
Q: Thank you for presentation. Change is hard for the public, certain members. Public perception
issue of being tracked. Is anyone collecting data on being tracked? Smoothness of this
implementation will be based on the public's willingness to be tracked. Looming, legal fight as the
larger discussion is ongoing about government's role as to how much data should be collected /
protections.
Q: WA second largest gas tax in the nation. Last year's survey showed that 58% surved didn't want
it. And 59% said govn't didn't do a good job with transportation. 2,000 RUC participants will take
three surveys as part of the process. At the end we will go out with another statewide survey. The
initial survey was used as a baseline.
Q: Goal of finding a new way to collect revenue for roads seems to be in conflict with another larger
goal to get people to drive less. How would this be sustainable in the long run if people get out of
their cars, and stop driving? No huge shifts in rural areas but shifts in urban areas with autonomous
vehicles and other transit shifts. Future transportation paradigms would have to involve to a fleet
taxation system vs. an individual system.
40
iv. SCATBd 2019 Legislative Agenda — Distribute 2018 agenda for members to review.
Ask each SCATBd member city to share their legislative agendas.
v. Public Comment — No public comment was received.
Meeting adjourned 10:30 a.m.
41
SOUTH COUNTY AREA TRANSPORTATION BOARD (SCATBd)
MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday October 16, 2018
9:00 — 10:30 a.m.
SeaTac City Hall
4800 South 188th Street
SeaTac
1.
Open Meeting
(Breakfast provided by the City of Burien *)
• Introductions
• Approve September SCATBd Meeting Summary
Action
9:00 a.m.
2.
Reports and Communications
• Chair or Vice Chair
• Participant Updates (from RTC and Other Regional
Committees)
Report and
Discussion
9:05 a.m.
3.
E-Bikes — Policy, Use & Trends
Barbara Chamberlin,
WSDOT Active Transportation Division Director
Report and
Discussion
9:15 a.m.
4.
Metro Rapid Ride Program Update
Hannah McIntosh,
KC Metro, Rapid Ride Program Director
Discussion
9:55 a.m.
5.
• Public Comment
• Next SCATBd Meeting: Tuesday, November 20, 2018
➢ Breakfast will be provided by the City of
Tukwila*
Discussion
10:25 a.m.
*(Thank you to the City of Burien for bringing treats with absences expected for a variety
of cities at this meeting. Beginning in November, the order for bringing treats will revert
to the Cities of Tukwila, Algona, Auburn, Black Diamond then Covington — skipping
Burien — and following in alphabetical order thereafter.)
Link to the 2018 SCATBd Library of Materials: 2018 SCATBd Meeting Materials
42