Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Res 2114 - DOCUMENT: 2025 Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP)
Adopted by Resolution 111111111111111 2 4 1 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN About the Local Road Safety Plan The Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) provides a roadmap for Tukwila to prioritize investments that support the City's goal of eliminating serious injuries and fatalities on Tukwila streets. Overview Vision Zero Goal Tukwila's goal is to eliminate all serious injury and fatal crashes by 2044 with a 50% reduction by 2034 and a reevaluation of progress being made every four to five years. Connection to Tukwila's Transportation Element (TE) & Background Report The City of Tukwila has recently adopted an updated Transportation Element (TE) and Background Report. One of the five goals of these long-range planning documents is safety (defined on the right). The Safe System Approach The Safe System Approach considers safety for all road users in the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of transportation facilities. The Safe System Approach encompasses more than just government actions, and applies the following principals: • Eliminate deaths • Responsibility and serious injuries is shared • Support safe road use • Strengthen all parts • Reduce large • Safety is proactive crash forces The Safe System approach is grounded in the belief that death and serious injuries on Tukwila's streets are preventable. The approach considers how the transportation system in its entirety can be improved to eliminate serious and fatal crashes. To learn more, visit the USDOT FHWA's website: FHWA Zero Deaths and Safe System. Provide a safe transportation system and placemaking to emphasize Tukwila as a welcoming place, particularly for historically marginalized and vulnerable populations. The LRSP builds on the TE and Background Report, as safety is a critical piece of an effective transportation system. The LRSP outlines a path forward to increase safety on Tukwila's street network. The plan takes a proactive approach to alleviate key safety concerns and address conflicts before they arise. CITY oFrVxm/uA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN ° ° � ° NNN�N�N�N��N NN��� Rpproach �������������������� ��Q—~~ �� Conversations with Tukwila staff, stakeholders, and the community provided essential input to the development of the LRSP. Community and stakeholder engagement continues to be vital to the success of the LRSP, reflecting diverse community perspectives and building trust to serve as the foundation for the plan. The City ofTukwila conducted these key phases ofengagement: Phase 1: Listening and Learning Between the online vvobnnapand in -person events aapart nfthe TEupdate and LRSPdevelopment process, there were about 20Ocomments related tnsafety issues, areas nf concern, aswell asspecific ideas for improvement. Phase 2: Key Stakeholder Feedback Using community input from Phase lthe LRSPteam identified adraft High Injury Network (H|N)which highlights areas with higher rates ofserious crashes and common factors that contribute tnthem. From there, the Advisory Committee reviewed and provided feedback, including confirmation that the H|Nlocations identified through the engagement process were the highest priority areas tofocus on. Phase 3: Safety Comments Map ���� �mm� R crosswalk —preferably one with 0a0D|Og lights and bU12UM'8%tiVMted--oUE Marginal Way somewhere between S112thand S115th would help pedestrians tOnavigate tOpublic transportation when roads are busy. 0 ` . �� TOP ISSUES: ~ n� People wv' '' � ~ � eremost concerned abmoc Theon|inesurveyandwebnnap � invited participants to'pin ' comments tospecific locations of concern bytravel mode. The mebnmapcollected S0safety comments intotal. Nearly half ofall comments concerned biking safety, and athird were related towalking, rolling, urcrossing safety nncity streets. Accounting for upvotos'the following categories make upthe majority ofsafety comments: Biking Walking Driving °° AU'Og sidewalk O88s EwnnDH'Dghihe cOOOeCt'ODQ Transit safety IDEAS & SUGGESTIONS Desired connections Difficult to bike areas mm Desire for more lighting 'Improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities around and between key amenities like S0uth:8Ute[Mail, Tukwila Sounder Station, and the Interurban Trail, and Ul Seattle via [ Marginal Way. � ^ Reduced vehicle speeds Vnmain roads like 4ZDdAve S. @stAve G.and QVuthCent8[Parkway ' Improved sidewalks V[shoulders for walking. . cycling � Rob Desire for more siUomo|Au V Desire for more transit CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Data -driven Approach The data analysis considers the number of crashes, breakdown by mode and severity, and primary crash factors and movements preceding the crashes. The data -driven process for the LRSP process includes: Key Crash Trends The Tukwila LRSP includes an analysis of WSDOT crash data from 2018 to 2022 on all local roadways within city boundaries to better understand road safety performance. The infographic below summarizes key Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI) crash trends using various metrics, including by mode, circumstance, type of movement, and time of day. Mode -based Trends Percent of All Collisions -j Percent of HSI 66% 4% Movement -based Trends Other.. Top Circumstances Going Straight Turning Going Wrong Way Other Circumstance -based Trends Top Circumstances Under the Influence Driver Distraction/ Inattention Speeding Fail to Yield/Did not Grant Right -of -Way- 9 Time -based Trends Daylight Other 444 LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN '404k„,44 4'44* \qv 4,44444444444-4 ,4"444`, 44 4%4444 4,44 4;44 4444, 42,4444 444444 :44% 4'14-4444- 444,4,4 sok•40444,4' 59 ot 0nfiufarti:shtin,evszcni:eari:orcu)sad i° users occur onCaof Tukwila's streets Where Collisions Occur of fatalities and serious injuries involving bicycle and pedestrians occur an f Tukwila's streets \t\ 4k44 Noosa''h tawAt*S'' 4,44,44*4,4.4`t444,,ak: „44,*44,4,N,44444k4L44,* 4t4444,, 4444444,444444k Lake ‘,A7,-sl-nlIgt All Modes Bicycle and —Pedestrian Modes 4f'k „ 44, 444e`,.‘,4;c4,4 '44W,4144,4,44 , 444444 ,„ s',artAAVAANW CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Data Collection • Vulnerable Road User HIN • Inclusion on Overall HIN • Key factors influencing crash likelihood • Potential for funding • Overlap with Transportation Element projects • Possibility of leveraging other adjacent projects • Total KSI • Equity Analysis • Proximity to Vulnerable Road User Connectivity to trail network Tukwila School District priorities for walking routes and access to school Tukwila International Blvd (S 152nd St to S 144th St) S 144th St (Military Rd to Tukwila International Blvd) Andover Park W (Strander Blvd to Tukwila Pkwy) S 180th St (Sperry Dr to Interurban Trail) Interurban Ave (140th St to 144th St) E Marginal Way S (N City Limits to S Boeing Access Rd) Southcenter Blvd (61st Ave S to 66th Ave S) S Ryan Way (Martin Luther King Jr Way to 51st Ave S) Klickitat Dr (53rd Ave S to Southcenter Pkwy) 42nd Ave S (Southcenter Blvd to S 150th St) /deU,1,41 • 04,,t 'kVA 4,347,000 580,000 923,000 806,000 1,484,000 6,917,000 198,000 305,000 582,000 188,000 ovitio.lotoissAvo oko ,jt on Draft Priority Project Type 41.111, LRSP I. LOCAL ROAD SAFETY Tukwila's goal is to eliminate all serious injury and fatal crashes by 2044 with a 50% reduction by 2034 and a reevaluation of progress being made every four to five years. Successful implementation of this LRSP will require: AProven Safety Solutions Utilizing a list of proven safety solutions, both engineering, and non -engineering, that can be implemented to improve transportation facilities. pOversight and Accountability Forming a task force of City staff, residents, outside agencies, and key other stakeholders who will help maintain sustained focus and success in implementing projects and actions identified in the LRSP. Trust and Communication Communicating regularly with stakeholders and community members to build trust and support for the City's safety goals. Scan the RR code to view the full Local Road Safety Plan or visit URL Placeholder 6 Funding Staying up-to-date on relevant grant opportunities and proactively pursue grant funding for the most competitive projects as match funding is available. Phasing and Sequencing Committing to ongoing long-term investment from the City, with different areas of focus over different time horizons (near -term, mid-term, and long-term). Regular Updates to the Plan Updating and tracking the LRSP every other year to identify crash trends, qualify for additional grant opportunities, and assess whether new direction is needed as conditions within the City and region change. / Identifying Targets and W Measure Performance Tracking targets and actions set in the plan to measure safety outcomes and investments, and track performance every other year. For every action or strategy, responsible parties and anticipated timeline are identified. Several actions are identified as ongoing, indicating that they are actions already underway in the City and anticipated to continue through continued investment. fTY Cif T&JK`v IL A: LCrc AC R AD AF .TV' FxL.AN Executive Summary 2 Table of Contents 8 List of Figures 10 List of Tables 11 Acknowledgements 12 Index of Key Terms 13 Chapter 1: Introduction 14 Safe System Approach 15 Tukwila Profile 17 Local Planning Context: Safety 21 Comprehensive Plan Update 2024 21 Tukwila Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 21 Completed Safety Improvement Projects 22 Demographics 22 Chapter 2: Outreach 25 In -Person Engagement 25 In -Person Outreach 25 Online Survey and Interactive Mapping Outreach 26 Tukwila LRSP Task Force 28 Chapter 3: Safety Data Analysis 29 King County 29 Tukwila 30 Identification of Key KSI Crash Trends 33 Factors Influencing Crash Likelihood 36 Chapter 4: Assessment of Results 39 Project Prioritization Framework 39 Project Prioritization Results 42 8 fTY Cif T&JK" A LCr AC R AD AF .TV' FxL.AN Chapter 5: Safe System Implementation 44 Safe System Action Plan 44 Proven Safety Countermeasures 49 Implementation Strategies 50 Ongoing Evaluation 53 Appendix A: Tukwila Population Characteristics 55 Appendix B: Transportation Element Safety Policies 58 Appendix C: Equitable Transportation Community (ETC) Explorer Tool 59 Appendix D: Online Engagement Results 60 Outreach Overview 60 In -person events 60 Online Input 61 Outreach Materials 66 Appendix E: Existing Crash Data Analysis 72 Appendix F: Crash Likelihood Mapping 80 Appendix G: Project Prioritization 89 Prioritization Process 89 Intersections 91 Segments and Corridors 94 Appendix H: Countermeasure Toolbox 97 Appendix I: Final Prioritized Projects 98 fTY Cif T&JK`v IL A: LCrc AC R AD AF .TV' FxL.AN Figure 1. Key Steps in the LRSP Planning Process 15 Figure 2. City of Tukwila Boundary 19 Figure 3. City of Tukwila Key Destinations 20 Figure 4. Top Quartile of Underserved Communities in Tukwila 24 Figure 5. Focus Group at Riverton Park United Methodist Church 25 Figure 6. Safety Comments and Project Ideas 27 Figure 7. King County Fatalities 30 Figure 8. Total Crash Summary by Year and Injury Type 31 Figure 9. KSI Crash Summary by Year and Mode 31 Figure 10. Heatmap of All Crashes 32 Figure 11. KSI Crash Metrics 33 Figure 12. All Modes and Vulnerable Road Users High Injury Network 34 Figure 13. Prioritization Process Overview 39 Figure 14. Results of Prioritization Ranking Activity 40 Figure 15 Final Priority Project Locations 42 Figure 17. What You'll See in the Countermeasure Toolbox 50 Figure 19. Focus Group at Riverton Park United Methodist Church 60 10 fTY Cif T&JK`v IL A: LCrc AC R AD AF .TV' FxL.AN Table 1. Key Crash Trends 35 Table 2. Crash Risk Factors 37 Table 3. Quantitative Prioritization Criteria and Weights 41 Table 4. Safe System Action Plan Recommended Actions 45 Table 5. Implementation Departments and Funding Resources 49 Table 6. Safety Funding Sources 52 Table 8. Initial Safety Report Card 54 TFc T&JK`v AF.TV' FFLAI`Y! Thank you to elected officials, Tukwila staff, community members, and the LRSP Task Force who were engaged throughout the planning process for both in -person and online outreach events. Your input was invaluable in creating a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) that reflects the needs of the Tukwila community. Electe *. ffici Is Thomas McLeod, Mayor Tosh Sharp, Council President Mohamed Abdi, Councilmember Armen Papyan, Councilmember Jovita McConnell, Councilmember Dennis Martinez, Councilmember Hannah Hedrick, Councilmember L SP • visory o ittee Dave Degroot, City of Tukwila Street Department Superintendent Jo Anderson, City of Tukwila Inclusion and Engagement Manager Christopher Andre, City of Tukwila Sustainable Transportation Outreach Coordinator Eric Lund, Deputy Chief, Police Department Bill Devlin, Traffic Sergeant Norm Golden, Division Chief of Emergency Management, Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority Suzie Kelley, Transportation Director, Tukwila School District Gurman Kaur, Co -Traffic Safety Manager, Target Zero King County Tu it tff Cyndy Knighton, Senior Program Manager (Transportation) Fe r . eers onsult nt Te • Toole esi n onsul •;n Te Taylor Whitaker, RSP1 Emily Alice Allhart, AICP Chris Breiland, PE Sydney Weisman, AICP Allison Phillips, MSCRP Adam Russell, RSP1 Ryan O'Hara, PE 12 CITY OF TEJEWILA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY F)LAN BUILD Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Grant Program (USDOT) CRF Crash Reduction Factor DUI Driving Under the Influence FHWA Federal Highway Administration HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers KSI Killed or Severe Injury crashes LRSP Local Roadway Safety Plan NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration PCF Primary Crash Factor PDO Property Damage Only Crashes PHB Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon RRFB Rectangular Rapid -Flashing Beacon SS4A Safe Streets for All Program (USDOT) USDOT United States Department of Transportation WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Chapter 1: Introduction From 2018 through 2022 an average of 16 people were seriously injured and 4 people lost their lives each year in traffic -related crashes in Tukwila. The Tukwila LRSP (Local Road Safety Plan) implements a Safe System Approach to proactively reduce and ultimately prevent transportation -related fatalities and serious injuries. Tukwila's goal is to eliminate all serious injury and fatal crashes by 2044 with a 50% reduction by 2034 and a reevaluation of progress made every 2-3 years. The LRSP serves as a blueprint for Tukwila to achieve this ambitious goal through prioritized investment in infrastructure, education, emergency services, enforcement, and shared awareness. Figure 1 outlines the key steps in the LRSP development process. 14 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Figure 1. Key Steps in the LRSP Planning Process Existing Conditions Common Crash Factors Community Input Advisory Group Input Equity Common Road Network Factors High Injury Network (HIN) Equity Impact Analysis New Policies Implementation Strategies Current plans, policies, and guidelines ~ ME � Performance measures and goals Safe Approach ���n�� System "������������on ��~ n-�- Priority Projects Sn|utionsToo|kb Final Plan FHWA, WSDOT, and the City of Tukwila share a goal to systematically reduce fatal and serious injury crashes through the Safe System Approach, which considers safety for all road users in the planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance oftransportation facilities. The Safe System Approach encompasses more than just government actions, and applies the following 15 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • Eliminate deaths and serious injuries: While no crashes are desirable, eliminating crashes that result in fatalities and serious injuries is a priority. • Support safe road use: Road users inevitably make mistakes that lead to crashes, and the transportation system and vehicles can be designed and operated to reduce injury outcomes from those errors. A forgiving system accommodates reasonable and predictable human limitations and behavior (such as diligence, perception, and attention). Roads developed in this manner and that serve as "self - enforcing and self -explaining roads" make it less likely for human errors to occur, and when errors do occur, they result in fewer fatal and serious injury crashes. Source: FHWA SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH • Reduce large crash forces: Road users have limits for tolerating crash forces before death or serious injury occurs. Therefore, it is important to adopt designs and operational elements that account for and reduce crash speeds and improve impact angles to be within survivable limits. • Responsibility is shared: Eliminating fatal and serious injury crashes requires that all stakeholders (transportation system designers, managers, road users, vehicle manufacturers, policymakers, etc.) work together. The intent is to identify and address elements of road safety over which a given stakeholder has influence. • Strengthen all parts: All parts of the transportation system are strengthened to reinforce each other so that if one part fails, the other parts still protect road users. In this way, redundancy is provided for elements that make up the Safe System. 16 fTY Cif T&JK`v IL A: LCrc AC R AD AF.TV' PLAN • Safety is proactive: Proactive (systemic safety) approaches address context, contributing factors, and crash types to help reduce the potential or likelihood for fatal and serious injury crashes. r 1 Centered at the crossroads of rivers, trails, highways, and railroads, Tukwila is a suburban city in King County with 12 unique neighborhoods. In 2020, Tukwila had an estimated population of 20,265 residents. Age ranges for residents is relatively balanced, with an estimated median age of 36 years, 12% are 65 years or older and 21% are under 18 years old.' The age of Tukwila residents skews slightly younger than that of King County as a whole. Tukwila's population is diverse in multiple aspects, namely in terms of race, ethnicity, spoken languages, and educational attainment.' The three most common racial identities represented in Tukwila are White, Asian, and Black constituting 31%, 26%, and 21% of the city's overall population, respectively.' In Tukwila, 7.5% of occupied housing units have no vehicle available to them. This rate is lower than the King County value of 10.5% for the same metric.2 However, in Tukwila there is a higher rate of reliance on cars, trucks, or vans as transportation to work. 79% of workers 16 years and over in Tukwila use a car, truck, or van as a means of transportation to work. This rate is over 10% higher than the same rate for King County.3 Tukwila has a wide range of popular destinations, including the regional Southcenter shopping area, the Starfire soccer complex, and several park spaces with multiple trails, shown in Fi ure 3. Notably, the Tukwila Community Center along the Duwamish River hosts a variety of activities and resources for seniors, adults, teens, and young children, including fitness, recreation, and wellness programs, as well as a preschool. These destinations can influence higher rates of walking, biking, and riding transit in the surrounding areas as well as pulling in regional traffic that may be unfamiliar with the City. Although not located within city boundaries, the Seattle- 12016-2020 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey Office. Table S0101 https://www.census.gov 2 2016-2020 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey Office. Table S2504 https://www.census.gov 3 2016-2020 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey Office. Table 50801 https://www.census.gov Note: ACS data was used for consistency among data sources within the Tukwila Profile section and Appendix A. The Decennial Census has limited data on population characteristics other than the population sum. To present a wide range of population characteristics with a consistent source, all data in the Transportation Background Report uses ACS 2020 5-year estimates. 17 fTY Cif T&JK`v IL A: LCrc AC R AD AF .TV' FxL.AN Tacoma International Airport is located just west of Tukwila in the City of SeaTac. Given the close proximity to the major airport, the Tukwila coordinates with SeaTac, the Port of Seattle, and WSDOT to address planned projects near the airport. See for more information on the population characteristics of the City of Tukwila. 18 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Figure 2. City of Tukwila Boundary s 13Qth St d c 3 , 19 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Figure 3. City of Tukwila Key Destinations Public Services & Agencies eit School Parks Mt Trail Sites 1) Tukwila Community Center V Transit Facilities MIR Libraries wry Tukwila Post Office 14 Shopping Centers (lp Foster Golf Links Attractions ; a�..° StarFre Sports Complex + Airport 20 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Local Planning Context: Safety In recent years, Tukwila's efforts to improve safety have been visible through a range of plans and infrastructure projects. This LRSP builds upon those prior efforts to both tackle safety explicitly and enhance safety through mode shift goals. Comprehensive Plan Update 2024 As part of the Comprehensive Plan Update, the city updated the Transportation Element (TE) of the plan, including a detailed Background Report. The updated TE lists safety as one of its five overarching goals. Provide a safe transportation system and placemaking to emphasize Tukwila as a welcoming place, particularly for historically marginalized and vulnerable populations. The TE reinforces Tukwila's goal to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries on city streets through a series of guiding policies included in Appendix B. The TE team engaged with people who live, work, and visit Tukwila through community events, pop -ups, focus groups, survey questions, and an interactive map. These tools probed community members with questions about transportation in Tukwila, and many of the comments from these events related back to transportation safety and were incorporated into this LRSP. Tukwila Capital Improvement Program (CIP) The Tukwila CIP outlines a financial planning model for funding capital projects in the city. Many of the CIP projects involve safety improvements, traffic calming, and Safe Routes to School improvements. The CIP project list is adopted biannually as part of the City's 2-year budget cycle and also may be adjusted annually to reflect available capital funding, project schedule changes, and updated needs and priorities. 21 fTY Cif T&JK`v IL A: Loc AC R AD AF .TV' FxL.AN fete Sfety 1 rove ent Projects Tukwila historically invests transportation facility safety improvements. The following projects provide examples of safety investments in Tukwila in the past 10 years: - Roadway Projects o West Valley Highway and Longacres Way o Andover Park West o Various speed cushion installations/Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program o S 144th Street Project: Tukwila Int'I Blvd to 42nd Avenue S - Non -motorized and Transit Projects o Tukwila Transit Center o Green River Trail Connection (Ped Bridge to Christensen Road) o Queue jump/Transit Signal Priority improvements at key locations - Intersection, Signal, and ITS Projects o West Valley Highway HAWK Signal o Various School Zone Crossings and Signage o Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons at various locations including Tukwila Int'I. Blvd near Abu Bakr Islamic Center, S 144th Street/46th Avenue S The Safe System Approach emphasizes equity considerations to analyze and improve roadway safety. City departments routinely orient their efforts to ensure equitable outcomes in Tukwila, and it was important that this emphasis be reflected in transportation decisions. There are many ways to measure the effects of equity considerations on transportation policy. This LRSP leverages the TE analysis to be consistent with decisions about prioritizing transportation investments. The LRSP also utilizes the USDOT Equitable Transportation Community (ETC) Explorer Tool; see en ix C for additional information. TUI Wft t, UIVDE • SE • VED C • MMUNITIES The Tukwila LRSP planning process identified underserved communities based on data that commonly point to having fewer transportation options and attempts to advance equity by 22 TFc T&JK`v L .AR AD AF.TV' FFLAI`Y! prioritizing projects that benefit these communities. The project lists in both the LRSP and TE incorporate underserved communities' location data in the prioritization process. Figure displays the top quartile of underserved communities in the City of Tukwila, based on the following metrics: Age, Income, Race, Limited English Proficiency, and Disability. 2 CITY OF TUKWILA 1 LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Figure 4. Top Quartile of Underserved Communities in Tukwila 2tli St gig Top Quartile of Underserved Communities Source: Tukwila Transportation Element, Fehr & Peers, 2024. 24 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Chapter 2: Outreach Conversations with Tukwila staff, stakeholders, and the community provided essential input toward development of the LRSP. Community engagement continues to be vital to the success of the Figure 5. Focus Group at Riverton Park LRSP, reflecting diverse community perspectives and building trust to serve as the foundation for the plan. This chapter highlights what we heard from the community and key stakeholders, such as: - In -person tabling and focus groups - Tukwila LRSP Task Force - Online Engagement In -Person Engagement In -person engagement related to safety was conducted as part of the TE outreach series and leveraged with the LRSP. In -Person Outreach The TE outreach series had both in -person tabling events as well as targeted focus groups. During the in -person events (tabling and focus groups), the project team captured a total of 128 public comments and ideas related to the city's transportation system. The safety -related project ideas derived from in -person TE engagement are included in Figure 6. United Methodist Church Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023. 25 CITY opTuxvvu4 I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Online Survey and InteractiveMappingCJ/�U�each / An online survey asked the public toweigh in on draft goals and their preferred modes of transportation and demographics. Of approximately 46 responses to the optional question above, 19 referenced safety concerns in the city. Aninteractive map was also promoted forcommunhvmembeotosharelocation-specific transportation comments. Safety dominated 50 of the 67 map comments. Figure 6 displays the locations of safety -related comments added to the interactive map as well as specific safety ideas identified during in -person engagement. See Appendix Dfor more information onTE outreach and engagement. 26 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Figure 6. Safety Comments and Project Ideas 4 44' '4kR‘ ts II crosswalk —preferably one with warning lights and button - activated —on E mar g nal Way somewhere between 5112th and 5115th would help pedestrians to \‘4, navigate to public transportation k when roads are busy. Safety Comment/Project Idea • Walking/Rolling/Crossing Transit • Driving/Parking Biking Project Idea for Roadway Segmen Biking Driving/Parking Walking/Rolling/Crossing Project Idea for Area Biking Lighting Walking/Rolling/Crossing Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024 S 160th St 441 ..;,") Oesir d'^-;• % more Vritt,t,t , t t4t. t, 4 • 'tttkt, 27 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN To /��SP ToSk Flrr An LRSPTask Force was convened to include representatives from the Streets Department, Inclusion and Engagement team, Sustainable Transportation, Puget Sound Regional Fire Department, Police Department Tukwila School District, and the King County Target Zero Task Force. The group met three times over the course of developing this plan. The first meeting introduced the group to the Safe System Approach, the High Injury Network, and existing crash data trends; the second gave the group anopportunity toprovide input oneprioritization process for key locations; while the third meeting gave the group the opportunity to provide input onproject locationsandsolutions.Mennbecsofthisgroupvvereengagedthroughoutthe plan's process to gather feedback, expand outreach representation, and ask questions that informed the plan development. CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Chapter 3: Safety Data Analysis The LRSP's development was informed by data, including crash records, as well as input from city staff and the public. Crash records on roadways in Tukwila from 2018 to 2022 are the primary resource for the LRSP. The data -driven process and the following section describe this process in the LRSP: • Examination of Existing Conditions: Overview of 2018-2022 crash summaries and safety statistics. • Identification of Crash Trends: Review of crash statistics to evaluate when, where, and why crashes occur and who is involved. • Development of High Injury Network: Flagging corridors where there are higher rates of injury related to crashes. • Development of Factors Influencing Crash Likelihood: Identification of factors related to the most prevalent crash types and contexts. • Mapping Crash Likelihood Locations: Overlay factors influencing crash likelihood with the street network in Tukwila. King County Traffic fatality trends on all roads in King County have increased' over the last five years (2018-2022), as shown in Figure 7. 4 https://wtsc.wa.gov/dashboards/fatalities-dashboard/ HAT fS A €BSI CRASH 29 T c T&JK`v L c.AE- AD AFETY F8LAI`Y! Fiure 7. ins Count Fatalities 168 100 80 80 ,0 40 0 0 011 1f11. CO 201, 2:018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Source: Washington State Traffic Safety Commission Crash Data, 2014-2023. From 2018 to 2022, there were 3,852 crashes on Tukwila streets, 97 (2.5%) of which were crashes in which someone was killed or seriously injured (KSI). Of the 97 KSI crashes, 22% involved a pedestrian or bicyclist. Pedestrians and bicyclists are overrepresented in KSI crashes and generally experience higher risk of fatal and serious injuries than motorists. Fi ure displays total crashes summarized by year and resulting injury. Fi ure ' displays the KSI crashes summarized by year and mode. Similar to King County, Tukwila saw a general trend of increasing KSI crashes over the past five years. Fii ure 1 maps the total crashes within the city.5 See Appendix E for additional heatmaps of crashes by mode. 5 Note: Crashes along the following highways were not included in the analysis: I-5, 1-405, SR-518, SR-599, SR-99. 30 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Figure 8. Total Crash Summary by Year and Injury Type 1000 900 800 700 0 800 (3 b 0 0 400 0 F- 300 20C) 100 0 2018 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024, WSDOT. 2019 2020 2( 0 Injury gm KS PDO 0 Unknown Figure 9. KSI Crash Summary by Year and Mode 30 25 cn (1) _C w 20 0 15 cr) Tj 1 0 4-6 5 0 vvrAlrim Eghtod,ftw, wtmgtin 441ww„ 2018 2019 2020 Ork1"411P' Akat 2022 2021 2022 0 Vehicle KSI Bicycle KSI 0 Pedestrian KSI m Motorcycle KSI Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024. 31 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Figure 10. Heatmap of All Crashes • KSI Crashes All Crashes 2018-2022 ISparse Dense Source: 2018-2022 WSDOT Data, Fehr & Peers, 2024. Note: Crashes along the following highways were removed from analysis: I-5, I-405, SR-518, SR-599, SR-99. 32 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Identification of Key KSI Crash Trends Understanding key crash trends in Tukwila is critical to addressing recurring safety concerns as well as preemptively addressing expected safety concerns. Figure 11 outlines some recurring KSI crash types. Note that some crashes can involve multiple types in a single event. Figure 11. KSI Crash Metrics Mode -based Trends Percent of All Collisions Percent of HSI 14% Move rten°bsed Trends Top Circumstances oing ight Turning ing g Way lr umstance-bt Top Circumstances Under the Influence hoer Distraction/ Inattention Speeding geld/A)id not fight -rat -Way Time -based Trends Daylight d Trends Other A High Injury Network (HIN) was developed to understand what corridors present the highest risk of injury resulting from a crash. A HIN identifies stretches of roadway where the highest concentration of crashes, weighted by fatal and serious injuries, occur on the transportation network. Tukwila's HIN shows that 59% of all KSI crashes occurred on only 6% of city streets. A Vulnerable Road User HIN was also developed, focusing on pedestrians and bicyclists. Pedestrians and bicyclists especially experience fatal and serious injury crashes at a higher rate compared to vehicles and motorcycles. The Vulnerable Road User HIN shows that 76% of all Vulnerable Road User KSI crashes occurred on just 3% of city streets. The results of the analysis are mapped in Figure 12. 33 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Figure 12. All Modes and Vulnerable Road Users High Injury Network All Modes bicycle and Pedestrian Modes 590 iofnJufatalitiesnesinvolviendng searalltous road users occur oncOof 4 Tukwila's streets pbOf of fatalities and serious a�s�1 injuries involving bicycle m4� and pedestrians occur on Ca„ of Tukwila's streets Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024. S 144th Inkier Edo All Modes Bicycle and Pedestrian Modes 34 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Table 1 summarizes several patterns that appear in Tukwila's crash history over the five-year period from 2018-2022. Table 1. Key Crash Trends Key Trends Mode -Based Trends Vehicle -Vehicle crashes were involved in 96% of crashes an f KSI Circumstance -Based Trends Crash Type Trends Intersection Relationship Trends All -Modes Location- ; Based Trends Pedestrians were involved in 1.5% of crashes and 18% of KSIs. Bicyclists were involved in 0.6%© of crashes and 4% of KSIs. Motorcyclists were involved in 1.4% of crashes and 12% KSIs. About 15% of KSIs were under the Influence of alcohol or drugs. About 12% of KSIs were related to distracted driving/inattention. Almost 11% of KSIs were related to speeding. About 9% of KSIs were related to failure to yield/not granting right of way to other vehicles or non -motorists. 47% of crashes are classified as entering at angle or rear end. Fixed object crashes account for 15% of all crashes and 24% of KSI crashes. 39% of all crashes occur at an intersection and are intersection related. About 58% of KSIs occur on arterial streets. About 37% of KSIs occur on streets adjacent to commercial zoning. About 24% of KSIs occur at signalized arterial intersections. About 24% of KSIs crashes occur near transit stops. About 27% of KSI crashes occur on collector streets. Vulnerable Road User About 27% of pedestrian crashes occur within 1/4 mile of Tukwila schools. Location -Based Trends About 96% of all bike crashes occur outside of bike lanes. About 34% of all pedestrian crashes occur on collector streets. About 47% of pedestrian crashes were in the dark, when streetlights were on. About 17% of pedestrian crashes occur at mid -block locations (not at an intersection) on 25mph Streets. Source: WSDOT Crash Data 2018-2022; Fehr & Peers, 2024. 35 fTY Cif T&JK`v IL A: LCrc AC R AD AF .TV' FxL.AN 1 To identify factors influencing crash occurrences and severity, a comprehensive analysis encompassing five years of crash data from 2018 to 2022 was conducted utilizing land use and roadway information. By merging road and intersection features with crash data, relationships can be identified between contextual factors (such as street data) and the likelihood of certain crash types. This analysis aimed to identify contributing factors and discern emerging trends. The identified factors were categorized based on their potential to cause KSI crashes, as well as those involving Vulnerable Road Users (VRUs) e.g., bicyclists, motorcyclists, and pedestrians. Crash data was joined spatially in GIS to nearby contextual data, which include the following variables: Streets, including number of lanes, posted speed limit, and functional classification Signalized intersections and traffic beacons Land use zoning Driveways Education facilities and school traffic zones Sidewalks Bicycle facilities Locations of parks Proximity to intersections The crash data was then mapped in ArcGIS. Each crash was assigned to the nearest intersection within 250 feet of a major street or 75 feet of a minor street, or nearest roadway segment if no intersection was within range. Land use and roadway characteristics that stood out as indicators for where more severe conflicts (and potentially crashes) could occur are identified Tale 2 and mapped in en ix F. The factors were utilized and evaluated for their presence on the street's roadway network. Roadways were categorized based on the number of factors present at a segment. en ix displays the crash likelihood factors along Tukwila's street network. These maps were used as an input to identify priority project locations where there is overlap among the crash likelihood factors. 36 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Table 2. Crash Risk Factors Arterials (minor or principal) Commercial Land Use Transit Stops K-12 Schools Collectors All All All All All Roadways classified as Arterial account for 68% of all crashes and 58% of KSI crashes but only constitute 23% of Tukwila' roadway network. They also account for 91% of bike crashes and 49% of pedestrian crashes. The city's street dataset classifies arterials as either minor or principal. This factor includes both classifications. 1 Additionally, it is important to note that principal arterials typically have higher speed limits greater than 35 mph as f.Well. Roadways within 70 feet of a I The city's zoning parcel zones as 'Commercial' account for 37% of KSI crashes and 41% of all crashes but only makes up 13% of Tukwila's city limits. 25% of KSI crashes and all crashes occur within 150 feet of a transit stop. Transit stops are on a limited set of streets within the City of Tukwila. 13% of KSI crashes and 10% of all crashes occur within a quarter mile of a school. Additionally, 27% of pedestrian crashes are also accounted for within this buffer. 20% of all crashes and 27% of KSI crashes occur along streets classified as collectors in Tukwila. classification consists of nineteen categories of which six categories correspond to commercial land uses (Residential Commercial Center, Regional Commercial Mixed Use, Regional Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial Center, Commercial Light Industrial, Commercial Corridor) KSI crashes occurred within 150 feet of 56 transit stops out of the 374 total transit stops within the City limits. Schools account for higher pedestrian and vehicle volumes especially during start / stop times. There are seven schools within the city limits (Cascade View Elementary, Thorndyke Elementary, Tukwila Elementary, Impact Puget Sound Elementary, Showalter Middle School, Foster Senior High School, Raisbeck Aviation High School) Collectors make up 17% of the city's road network. 37 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Factor 'Mode Crash,informatiop Contextual Information Traffic Signals on Arterials No Bike Facility All Signalized intersections on Arterials experience]796ofall crashes and 2496ofKS| crashes. 96%ofbike crashes occur nn roads where no bicycle facility is available. 68out of7Straffic signals are onarterials and are typically at major intersections within |the cit' �AUsigna|sa|ong | ' arterials were selected. The Gt/sbike network includes bike lanes and sharnowstreet markings. Only 4% of streets in Tukwila include a bike lane. K8idb|mckLocations on Pedestrian 1796ofall pedestrian crashes / 25 mph roads occur midb|ock(not at intersections) on roads with a | _speed limit of25n_ph. | Source: WSDOT Crash Data 2018-2022; Fehr & Peers, 2024. 38 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Chapter 4: Assessment of Results The following section identifies preliminary priority locations, screens and evaluates the locations to establish priority locations, and establishes approaches to address safety concerns at each priority location. Project Prioritization Framework The overall project prioritization process includes quantitative and qualitative steps that reflect the priorities established at the second Task Force workshop,6 shown in Figure 13. Figure 13. Prioritization Process Overview • Vulnerable Road User HIN • Inclusion on Overall HIN • Total KSI • Equity Analysis • Proximity to Vulnerable Road User • Key factors influencing crash likelihood • Potential for funding • Overlap with Transportation Element projects • Possibility of leveraging other adjacent projects • Quick -build feasibility • Connectivity to trail network • Tukwila School District priorities for walking routes and access to school During the Task Force workshop, participants ranked proposed prioritization metrics in order of importance. Figure 14 shows the results of this ranking activity, prioritizing the High Injury Network and KSI crashes. 6 August 20, 2024 39 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Figure 14. Results of Prioritization Ranking Activity 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th Presence on the Vulnerable Rood User HIN Number of kalled or sericuslyo injured crashes Presence on the overall HIN Number of total crashes Proximity to transit stop Erauity index score Number of public comments regarding safety Following the ranking activity, the Task Force participants' discussion highlighted the importance of additional criteria such as school walking routes, access to school bus stops, connectivity to the trail network, and the ability to leverage adjacent projects. These additional criteria are included in the qualitative step for prioritization. Table 3 shows the weights given to the quantitative metrics listed above to prioritize intersections, segments, and corridors.' See Appendix G for more information on prioritization outputs. ' Note that total crashes are not included as a prioritization factor because it may take away from the more severe killed and serious injury (KSI) crashes. 40 CITY OF TUKWILA 1 LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Table 3. Quantitative Prioritization Criteria and Weights Inclusion on Vulnerable Road User HIN KSI Crashes (Crash Density) Inclusion on overall HIN Equity Index Score Proximity to Vulnerable Road User Destinations such as transit stops, schools, and parks Source: Toole Design, 2025 3 points - complete overlap on HIN 2 points - more than half overlap I on HIN 1 points - less than half overlap on HIN 0points - not onHIN 3 points - Highest 2 points - Middle 1 points - Lowest 0 points - No KSI Crashes 3 points — On 0 points Off 3 points - Highest Score 2 points - Middle 1 points - Lowest Score 0 points - No value Based on the counts of the nearby destinations, located within 1/2 -mile of high -capacity transit stations and within 1/4 mile of schools and parks.8 3 points - more than three destinations 2 points - two 1 points -one 0 points -none 130% 25% 25% 10% 10% I HIN factor is a 0, 1, 2, or 3-pt factor (depending on how much a segment overlaps) City of Tukwila project lengths are typically </= 2,500 linear feet and 2,500 feet is the length of the longest blocks in Southcenter "Yes or no" based on overlap with HIN By score percentile 1/4-mile radius used to focus project location priorities on areas closest to these destinations. 8 For schools and typical King County Metro bus stops, the project team recommends staying with 1/4 mile to focus on improvements immediately at or near the school campus and bus stops. Expanding that would cover most of the city and negate some of the prioritization. 41 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Project Prioritization Results Following the selection of prioritization criteria and weights, preliminary priority locations were evaluated to determine if the city could identify a project to address specific crashes recorded for each location. For this task, the city evaluated each location to determine what, if any, recently completed, underway, or planned city projects aligned with high scoring locations. For locations that did not include any planned projects, solutions were identified. The resulting set of draft project locations were then evaluated for feasibility, such as inclusion on the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), potential for funding, and the possibility of leveraging other adjacent or ongoing projects. The city's prioritization steps provide a rigorous yet flexible approach to advancing corridor safety projects. Figure 15 and Table 4 show the top priority projects, while Appendix I shows the final prioritized projects and information. Based on the assessment framework, Tukwila identified the following: 1. LRSP Identified Projects: New high priority projects identified as part of this plan. 2. TE Identified Projects: High priority projects identified in the plan with a corresponding TE project. Table 4: Project Extents and Estimated Costs Project ID LRSP Identified Projects Tukwila International Boulevard (S 152nd St to S 144th St) S 144th St (Military Rd to Tukwila International Blvd) 3 Andover Park W (Strander Blvd to Tukwila Pkwy) 4 5 $ 4,347,000 $ 580,000„ $ 923,000 5 180th Street (Sperry Drive to Interurban Trail) Interurban Avenue (140th Street to 144th Street) TE Identified Project1° 6 E Marginal WyS (Northern City Limits to S Boeing Access Rd) 7 i Southcenter Blvd (61 st Ave S to 66th Ave S) 8 S Ryan W (Martin Luther King Jr Way to 51 st Ave S) 9 Klickitat Dr (53rd Ave S to Southcenter Pkwy) v LL 10 42nd Ave S (Southcenter Blvd to S 150th St) Source: Toole Design, 2025 $ 806,000 $ 1,484,000 $ 6,917,000 $ 198,000 $ 305,000 $ 582000 $ 188,000 9 The overall cost opinions are intended to be general and used only for planning purposes. 1° The TE Identified project costs only include the additional safety elements. Refer to the TE for the baseline project cost information. 42 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Figure 15 Final Priority Project Locations Source: Fehr & Peers and Toole Design, 2025 W1,1,fwbm Draft Priority Project Type mm. LRSP TE/LRSP Overlap 43 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Chapter 5: Safe System Implementation This section presents safety countermeasures and strategies covering the Safe System Approach elements that address the identified crash trends in Tukwila. This section also builds upon the work Tukwila has already done to prioritize safer roadway design through efforts such as project implementation, grant applications, maintenance activities, and adoption of planning documents that identify priorities and future projects. The focus on the Safe System Approach, along with the emphasis on equity, helps to provide alignment with the LRSP vision and goals, and sets Tukwila up for success in recognition of emerging safety best practices. Safe System Action Plan To supplement the TE, Tukwila has identified LRSP strategies to advance its safety goals into policies, programs, and operations. The safety action plan, outlined in Table 4, is a collection of strategies and actions that compile best practices from communities across North America and beyond. The safety action plan is designed to set a high bar against which the City of Tukwila's Local Road Safety Plan can be measured. These strategies and actions align and feed into the recently updated TE policies. The TE reinforces Tukwila's goal to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries on city streets. Table 4 provides a list of recommended actions that Tukwila can undertake centered around the six elements of Washington State's Safe System Approach:' Safer Road Users, Safer Land Use, Safer Vehicles, Safer Speeds, Safer Roads, and Post -Crash Care. SAFER ROAD USERS 11 "Design Manual, Chapter 321 Safety Analysis." 2024. WSDOT. September 1, 2024. https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/m22-01/321.pdf. SAFER LAND USE SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH 44 Table 5. Safe System Action Plan Recommended Actions • Medium Sho 2 „2, 00 2 mmm E E ZZO _c 1- O igt O 1 '. ua--• itt 100 ii-b z O 00400C 0 X) 81.0 -0 Ol E E E E E a6 • o 0 = o zzaizz 0 0 !00 In_ z _C rg0 20 00 6., 00 mm E E 00 z z ! -6 it1,11219.-0. 8fog8f8..8 0 a, O 0 E E Z Z 225 E 00 u E m• 2 , a, • Y 41,m ,55 Lc 1 .,03 r% • B 0-P.`a'.4 g ,,,,) -,2-1 ,., '-`' - 14-8-2 E E til ‘a, -F, ' -. o5 i 2 121 2§ CI 1 g n Po F s217--, —2 P- = a) 270- 6▪ 33---02 .0E2 W 0—$1 To '1 E LE:5 -0, <, •13 Pd K 8-,8 ,,,ta, ,, r, Ic.... IFVF lz.5.9- 0 6 0 76 ...o- ur -30.3 11'a Ii 2FEi' e1,2-0, E' 5. E 1..32.0.1589 2 -n 'A l11 5is5 01 .,,, 7, 909553 .,, :a E 'En1 litIHHmg,-s30E, 2-E.28%tg 9.8 d; 2) ,1 Ezo,,m ...= L., V, 6 n. 3 ..G '3 E E - 5-1!!!' 07 1, c-r- IF LC LO 1 Ln 9, 1j, '-':' E E , E E 7- JE 4 Es I 'Es 0 lo .22 -o -t 215 a, o 2" i 2 2' 2 .2" 2- 1 I 5 E I 1 I .2 1 , ( a, ' 6 '1. c, 2 0 5, I ''''' :i ...2 I I 5 , . ,• 5 c E .2 1 , o 25 I al 5 .• 4-, 0 0 , E .• 1 il -0 1 -0 saes!" peat! JeJeS ,asn puei laws nd midblock on E s i0 iE .2 a rn E sapiyafl Jain spaads Ja;es 0 0 )\ 2 § a. i \\ Lc aw u©J3 #od . November 8, 2017. "Low -Stress Bicycling and Netw CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Table 6. Implementation Departments and Funding Resources Acronyms Departments DCD OSPI PW TBD TDM TIF WASPC WDOE WSDOH WSDOT WSHCA WTSC Source: Toole Design, 2025. Department of Community Development Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Public Works Department Transportation Benefit District Transportation Demand Management Transportation Impact Fee Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs Washington Department of Ecology Washington State Department of Health Washington State Department of Transportation Washington State Health Care Authority Washington Traffic Safety Commission Proven Safety Countermeasures Engineering countermeasures are physical, infrastructure -based improvements to make roadways safer by design. Engineering countermeasures help address the Safe Roads and Safe Speeds elements of the Safe System Approach. These countermeasures can be applied to address safety concerns on the High Injury Network as well as at intersections and corridors that contain elements that increase crash likelihood, even if the location does not have a current history of crashes. 49 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY P A toolbox of engineering countermeasures is included in Appendix H. These countermeasures can serve as a menu of options to help address crash likelihood factors and crash trends identified in Chapter 3: Safety Data Analysis. Figure 17 outlines what information is included in the toolbox. Most of the countermeasures have been identified by FHWA as "Proven Safety Countermeasures" and can be advantageous for use in Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funding applications. There are also many effective safety countermeasures beyond those listed in FHWA, several of which are included in the toolbox. Figure 16. What You'll See in the Countermeasure Toolbox Count? rmsassareWon ci& TINeASORE tountenneastnente Implementation Strategies Rumble Strips Rwnbie ems. create nate and Oration inside tihe• veleble that alert o diver os they timesthe center or edge One. often this alert to strong enough to get the attention Ma distracted iJtedQf ay driver,winos, qutddymake a =nee die steering action to return to theroadway safety numb/eh-Kw also alert dwh n s to the lane &nee when concetlons such res train, log; snorer, or dust reduce driver visOblitty. Cost $ mrr CPR IS 96 theroefeeento herormetten Defining projects, actions, countermeasures, and strategies is important, but a coordinated implementation process is a critical step in the LRSP process. Considerations for successful implementation to meet SS4A grant requirements include the following: Countermeasure €3escripbon Oversight and Accountability — After LRSP adoption, form an advisory committee force made up of stakeholders (such as Public Works and representatives from police, fire, schools) and community members who will help maintain sustained focus and success implementing projects and actions identified in the LRSP. Such a committee would meet regularly to discuss delivery of projects, status of action items, and provide general support to advancing LRSP implementation. Coordination and Partnerships — Provide regular updates on action plan progress and coordinating with agency partners (see Responsible Parties column in Table 4). Regular communication with agency partners helps create sustained support, creates opportunities to 50 CITY iF TUKw6L ! L(E0 a RCIIAD SAFETY EL bundle safety projects or initiatives with other related ongoing efforts, and facilitates LRSP implementation. Co unification — Continued communication with stakeholders and community members through the Task Force and regular community outreach builds trust and support for the city's safety goals. These can be completed through strategies such as communication across diverse channels, publication of factsheets on action plan progress, and regular public conversation on the topic of safety. asin an Seuencing To see meaningful progress in road safety performance, sustained commitment and investment is needed: • Short-term implementation efforts may focus on successful completion of ongoing safety efforts and lower -cost improvements that can be constructed within three years. • Medium -term implementation goals may target larger and more comprehensive safety infrastructure projects and more complex programmatic efforts that require extensive cross -department collaboration. • Long-term implementation goals may focus on initiating significant shifts in the city's approach to planning and design incorporating the Safe System Approach. Fun in Funding can be a major hurdle to LRSP implementation. Staying up to date on relevant grant opportunities and proactively pursuing grant funding for the most competitive projects can help overcome funding hurdles. Tukwila can take advantage of a variety of regional, state, and federal funding sources to finance safety project planning, design, and construction. Funding (including required matches) and resources generally must be available from the city to provide a successful grant application. See Tale for potential safety funding resources to consider. 51 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Table 7. Safety Funding Sources Funding Source Purpose Federal Sources Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program I Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Grant Program The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is a flexible program that provides communities with resources to address a wide range of unique community development needs. Communities often use CDBG funds to construct and repair streets and sidewalks. The Safe Streets & Roads for All (SS4A) grant program is a new Federal grant program established by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law centered around the USDOT's National Roadway Safety Strategy and its goal of zero deaths and serious injuries on America's roadways. It will provide $5 billion in grant funding over 5 years to implement safety projects The Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Grant Program provides grants for surface transportation infrastructure projects with significant local or regional impact. The BUILD program can fund the surface transportation infrastructure elements of a project that may also include housing, employment opportunities, and economic development strategies. The Active Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program (ATIIP), funded by FHWA, will award planning and design grants and Active Transportation construction grants for eligible applicants to develop plans for active Infrastructure Investment Program (ATIIP) transportation networks and spines. A goal of both types of ATIIP grants is to integrate active transportation facilities with transit services, where available, to improve access to public transportation. State Sources Urban Sidewalk Program (USP) Urban Arterial Program (UAP) Active Transportation Program (ATP) Complete Streets Program (CSP) Pedestrian and Bicycle Program The Urban Sidewalk Program (USP), run by the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB), is for counties with urban unincorporated areas and cities with a population greater than 5,000 and funds sidewalk projects. Financed by the TIB, the Urban Arterial Program (UAP) funds projects in one of the following bands: Safety, Commercial Growth and Development, Mobility, and Physical Condition. Financed by the TIB, the Active Transportation Program (ATP) provides funding to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety, enhanced pedestrian and cyclist mobility and connectivity, or improve the condition of existing facilities. Financed by the TIB, the Complete Streets Program is a funding opportunity for cities and counties that have an adopted complete streets ordinance. WSDOT offers funding to improve the transportation system to enhance safety and mobility for people who choose to walk or bike. The purpose of the program is to eliminate pedestrian and bicyclist fatal and serious injury traffic crashes increase the availability of connected j 52 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Funding Source Safe Routes to School Program (SRTS) Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Local and Regional Sources Transportation Impact Fees (TIF) Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024 pedestrian and bicycle facilities that provide low traffic stress and serve all ages and abilities, and increase the number of people that choose to walk and bike for transportation. The purpose of the Safe Routes to Schools Program (SRTS) offered by WSDOT is to improve safety and mobility for children by enabling and encouraging them to walk and bicycle to school. Funding from this program is for projects within two -miles of primary, middle, and high schools (K-12). The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) focuses on infrastructure projects with nationally recognized crash reduction factors (CRFs). Local HSIP projects must be identified on the basis of crash experience, crash potential, crash rate, or other data -supported means. Tukwila has an adopted transportation impact fee (TIF) program to facilitate transportation and promote economic well-being within the City. TIF funds are for capacity projects but can include safety elements. TIF funds can only be spent on projects identified in the current TIF rate study. Ongoing Evaluation Ongoing safety program evaluation is necessary to track goal progress and can be a useful tool in future decision -making related to safety investments and required for future grant funding and tracking. Target performance measures recommended for ongoing (every two to three years) tracking are: Reduction in average annual crashes Reduction in average annual KSI crashes Reduction in average annual KSI crashes involving vulnerable road users Reduction in average annual KSI crashes on High Injury Network Update the LRSP Regularly: Update the LRSP every other year to incorporate tracked safety metrics. New approaches may be necessary as safety conditions within the city and region change over time. Stakeholder Engagement: To supplement quantitative performance measures, input from diverse partners is valuable in adapting the city's safety priorities as projects and programs are rolled out and safety conditions change. 53 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN The target performance measures will be evaluated and reported with the bi-annual Safety Report Card. The Safety Report Card will highlight successes and identify areas in need of additional attention and resources. The initial Safety Report Card is shown in Table 8. The table includes performance measures documented for 2018-2022. Safety Report Cards in future LRSP updates will include a comparison of previous and current metrics to evaluate how the performance measures track toward the safety goal. Table 8. Initial Safety Report Card perfor ance easure 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Avera e 2027 2029 KSI crashes 1,10 Ratio of KSI/All Crashes I 1.2% KSI crashes involving vulnerable road users (bike/ped/motorcycle) KSI crashes on all modes HIN Update the LRSP Regularly Stakeholder Engagement 1,24 23 18 Update the LRSP every other year. 22 19.4 2.7 2.6 4 i 6.6 13 Update the stakeholder group every year on performance and tracking metrics. Source: 2018-2022 WSDOT Data, Fehr & Peers, 2024. 11.4 54 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Appendix A: Tukwila Population Characteristics `Note: American Community Survey 5-year estimates (2020) were used for consistency across demographic statistics presented under the Demographics section of the document as well as Appendix A. The Decennial Census asks fewer questions than the ACS and there are limited statistics that can be pulled from the Decennial Census aside from total population. To present more information on population characteristics and to maintain consistency, all data was sourced from the 2020 ACS 5-year estimates Table Al. Total Population (B01003) Total 20,265 Source: 2016-2020 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey Office. Table A2. Median Age By Sex (B01002) Male Female Source: 2016-2020 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey Office. 55 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Table A3. Age (B01001) Total: Under 5 Years 5 To 9 Years 10 To 14 Years 15 To 17 Years 18 And 19 Years 20 Years 21 Years 22 To 24 Years 25 To 29 Years 30 To 34 Years 35 To 39 Years 40 To 44 Years 45 To 49 Years 50 To 54 Years 55 To 59 Years 60 And 61 Years 62 To 64 Years 65 And 66 Years 67 To 69 Years 70 To 74 Years 75To79Years 80 To 84 Years 85 Years And Over I. 20,265 1,077 1,318 618 5.3% 479 1 2.4% t 153 j 0.8% 250 I 1.2% 881 4.3% 2,094 10.3% 1,644 8.1% 1,810 8.9% 1,553 7.7% 1,361 6.7% 1,097 5.4% '. 534 12.6% 529 430 349 637 1225 s 1.1% 219 Source: 2016-2020 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey Office. 56 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Table A4. Race (B02001) Estimate Percent I White Alone 6,234 L. 30.8% , Black or African American Alone 4,157 20.5% American Indian and Alaska Native Alone 1671 0.3% Asian Alone 5,320 I 26.3% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone 444 2.2% Some Other Race Alone 2,697 I 13.3% -f- Two or More Races: 1,346 I 6.6% Two Races Including Some Other Race 180 : 0.9% I Two Races Excluding Some Other Race, and Three or More Races 1,166 i 5.8% Source: 2016-2020 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey Office. Table A5. Place of Birth By Nativity and Citizenship Status (B05002) Estimate Percent I Native: j 11,828 _ 58.4% Born Outside The United States: 406 2.0% Puerto Rico 0 0.0% U.S. Island Areas 117 0.6% Born Abroad Of American Parent(S) 289 1.4% Foreign Born: 8,437 41.6% Naturalized U.S. Citizen 4,547 22.4% Europe 373 1.8% Asia 2,295 11.3% Africa 1,370 6.8% Oceania 154 0.8% Latin America 328 1.6% Northern America 27 0.1% Not A U.S. Citizen 3,890 [ 19.2% Europe 103 0.5% Asia 1,869 9.2% Africa 446 2.2% Oceania 45 0.2% 1 „ Latin America 1,424 7.0% Northern America 1. 3 0.0% Source: 2016-2020 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey Office. 57 CITY 0F TUK 6LA ! L(E0 R( 0 SAFETY EL T 2.1. Balance travel efficiency, safety, and quality -of -life by exploring context -sensitive roadway design strategies (including appropriate vehicle lane widths, traffic calming measures, landscaping, and buffers separating vehicle traffic from other modes of travel). T 2.2. Invest in transportation projects and programs that address safety issues systematically impacting historically marginalized and vulnerable populations. T 2.3. Design streets to safely accommodate a range of motorized and non -motorized travel modes such that it is comfortable and safe to access destinations without a vehicle. T 2.4. Design intersections and sidewalks to promote pedestrian safety and foster walking (or using a bicycle, wheelchair or mobility device, scooter, or stroller) as a viable mode of transportation. T 2.5. Meet or exceed standards for pedestrian facilities, such as sidewalks and crosswalks to encourage residents and visitors to walk or roll for transportation, recreation, and improved health. T 2.6. Prioritize preserving and maintaining existing transportation facilities to avoid costly replacements and to meet public safety objectives in a cost-effective manner. T 2.7. Work with school officials and school community members to promote Safe Routes to School projects and programs and require safe routes to school improvements — such as sidewalks and crosswalks — as new development occurs along designated school walk routes. T 2.8. Partner with transit agencies to improve safety and cleanliness in and around transit stops and stations to encourage ridership. T 2.9. Set posted speed limits to prioritize the safety of all roadway users with specific consideration given to the severity of potential conflicts (i.e., amount of potential kinetic energy transfer) between vulnerable road users (e.g., people walking, biking) and motor vehicles. T 2.10. Seek to minimize conflicts between non -motorized modes and freight vehicles. T 2.11. Provide well -maintained facilities. Coordinate with the Washington State Department of Transportation to keep state facilities in Tukwila free of debris. T 2.12. Prioritize emergency vehicle routes and access to hospitals and trauma care centers. T 2.13. Integrate the Safe System Approach into City design guidance, standards and related policies, and project development processes and be consistent with industry best practice. T 2.14. Implement safety improvements prioritized based on the occurrence of fatal and serious injury crashes, the City's High Injury Network, and/or the presence of systemic characteristics that invoke a fatal or serious injury crash. T 2.15. Secure funding for implementing safety strategies and long-term maintenance of improvements. T 2.16. Strive to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries through a Safe System Approach. 5 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Appendix C: Equitable Transportation Community (ETC) Explorer Tool The Equitable Transportation Community (ETC) Explorer is one social index tool that measures equity by designated census tracts with a significant concentration of disadvantaged populations from a transportation lens. It is one of the demographic "lenses" used by this plan to inform engagement and solutions. ETC Explorer utilizes census data to explore the burden communities experience because of underinvestment in transportation. It measures the burden these communities experience using Climate Change, Energy, Health, Legacy Pollution, Transportation, Water and Wastewater, and Workforce Development.' Figure Al shows disadvantaged census tracts within Tukwila, identified by the ETC Explorer. Seventy-five percent of Tukwila residents live in these disadvantaged census tracts. Figure Al. USDOT ETC Explorer Disadvantaged Census Tracts in Tukwila um USDOT Equitable, Tiansportatioa Corn nity (ETC) Explorer tt " To start use sale Total ISmuEailnn llvin 'cleevad Prolmct Area dit. 76k [Ti 57. 8 k 0cadvan9,3R r 76% 9 L�vetall Rlsadvanlage Cooponant Scares = Percenilln Ranked • Cl.ste Risk ELIMOM-@er..entil ekksaro.an,a �r�=�.�a oted 1 https://screeningtool.geoplatform.gov/en/methodology#9.9/47.3924/-122.1527 59 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Appendix D: Online Engagement Results Outreach Overview As a first step to get the word out, the project team posted and distributed handouts (fact sheets, flyers, and posters) throughout the City and contacted community partners. Fact sheets, flyers, and posters detailed insight into the TE Update and provided a link to a survey and webmap requesting community input. English versions of the fact sheet, flyer, and poster are available in the following section. The shared project material was available in Spanish, Vietnamese, Somali, and English. The locations where the project team shared fact sheets, flyers, and posters included: Tukwila Community Center, Healthpoint Tukwila, Riverton Church, Abu Bakr Islamic Center of Washington, Saint Thomas Parish, Global to Local/Spice Bridge, Tukwila Library, Tukwila Village (senior housing), Saar's Super Saver Foods, Vietnamese Martyrs Parish, Somali Health Organization and Starfire Complex. In -person events The in -person events hosted in April 2023 and May 2023 are listed below. Tabling events: • Tukwila Community Center ■ Tukwila Library ■ Tukwila Elementary School ■ Saar's Super Saver Foods Focus groups: Riverton Park United Methodist Church Foster High School Figure 17. Focus Group at Riverton Park United Methodist Church Source: Fehr & Peers. 2023 During the in -person events (tabling and focus groups), the project team captured a total of 128 public comments and ideas related to the City's transportation system. Nearly one-third of comments captured focused on transit. Of the transit comments, many related to safety concerns while using public transit. Of the comments 60 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN that highlighted issues with driving, about 40 % specified a concern regarding cost or access. Lastly, approximately 1596 of [Ornrnent5 pointed out walking and biking needs. From the in - person outreach efforts, there was overall support for the draft goals with anemphasis onsafety and active transportation. z The C���k�lawe�� hosted project infomationrelated to the TE, including an incentivized' online survey and aninteractive vvebnnap/FU��ume*29tosolicit feedback from the Tukwila residents and visitors. Responses were collected during April and May 2023.The online survey had questions about the draft goals and transportation experiences, while the vvebrnap sought input on potential needs and improvements in specific locations, such as missing bicycle/pedestrianconnections, high -stress crossings, challenging intersections, or near -miss � locations. Based onthe undetandingthat Tukwila isadiverse community, all p items were available in Spanish, Vietnamese, Somali,Somali,and English. In addition, the Google Translate option was available for all the other languages. ' City ofTukwila. Transportation Element Update. httpc//wwvv.tuk"vi|awa.gov/departments/pub|ic+work*t/anspnrtatinn/tmnspnrtatinne|ement'wpdate/ 33umeyparticipationmmsincentivizedvviththechancetovvina$lSOVisagiftcard. 6 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Figure A2. Online Webmap Hil[ .sru`tt3H Hirsh Gaeta Natural'. Source: Fehr & Peers. 2023 SAT' i,`ao-t,itA r Y=Rrluretri ti. Flkerktaakkkkaral Park Legend I ha, Hnissue with walking,rim?!Iri2„or{rc:,`"sisli have an issue with biking here e an issue with clrivi n a'iJarkPI Ig e .an issue r1th riding €.r e net here king route here About 80 unique respondents completed the survey and provided feedback on the draft goals in addition to the 67 comments that were added to the interactive webmap. The location -based comments pointed out the lack of bicycle and sidewalk connectivity. Several comments identified abrupt ends of bike lanes on busy streets, including Southcenter Boulevard, and other streets in the vicinity of Southcenter Mall. Similarly, respondents also noted challenges in the Southcenter Mall area for pedestrian connections. Additionally, respondents identified the Tukwila Community Center as an area of interest for sidewalk connections and transit access. Specifically for transit, several respondents revealed that the available transit routes do not reach all City neighborhoods, particularly the Metro Flex system. On the citywide scale, the community generally needs east -west connections via varying modes of transportation. Driving speed is also a citywide concern. A number of comments pointed out areas where traffic moves faster than the speed limit due to the underutilization of streets. 62 CITY 0F TUK 6L I LC3 'A RCIIAD SAFETY EL The project team documented a list of all proposed ideas from the community on improving transportation in Tukwila and these that have been used in developing project recommendations for the Transportation Element. The respondents' information on demographics and primary mode of travel is provided in Fi ure A3. To draw in participation, the Tukwila communications team posted social media messages on the City's Facebook page. Furthermore, the project team hosted several in -person events described in the previous section to engage with the Tukwila community and direct them to the developed online tools. Respondent data was reviewed and compared to the 2016-2023 census, where the three most common racial identities represented in Tukwila are White, Asian, and Black constituting 31 percent, 26 percent, and 21 percent of the City's overall population, respectively. Additionally, 18 percent of Tukwila residents identify as "Hispanic or Latino," as shown in Figure 3. Figure 3 esnen be o a ics 6 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Race White Black or African American American Indian and Alaska Native ■ Asian ■ Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander kt Prefer not to answer Lv Other Primary language spoken at home ■ English ■ Spanish Somali 6 Swahili Vietnamese Other Tukwila Demographics Source: Fehr & Peers. 2023 Efg Vehicle ■ Public Transit Bike Walk Scooter Other Primary mode of travel • White M Black or African American • Asian • Hispanic or Latino Other: American Indian and Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 64 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN As shown in Figure A4, there was overall support for the draft goals with an emphasis on safety and equity. Anecdotal comments from respondents related to transit safety included: "The stigma surrounding public transit affects my personal experiences with transit. Often the stigma seems to be reinforced as truth when you use transit." Figure A4. Online Input on Draft Transportation Goals 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Number of Respon Equity Source: Fehr & Peers. 2023 Safety Connectivity Adaptability Climate Justice Strongly Agree Agree e Neutral Disagree Multiple comments on transit east -west connectivity and access to the Tukwila Community Center and Allentown neighborhood in general were noted. The respondents highlighted the associated limitations for cyclists and transit riders. They pointed out the need for the City to focus investments on encouraging other travel options besides driving. One suggested protected bike infrastructure along Tukwila International Boulevard, Southcenter Boulevard, Andover, Interurban, and around the Tukwila Community Center as a way to improve connectivity and address related safety concerns. 65 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Outreach Materials City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan The Transportation Element the tst re Comprehensive Plan is a plan that will serve the community's current and tutur: needs and establish Tu wila'stransportation c oals and policies for the next 20 years. Specifically, the TRRRSPOPIRTIRR ELEIIIEfT will: Establish new goals and policies to guide City decision -making • Improve safety, equity, accessibility, reliability, and connectivity for all road users and goods movement • Develop a prioritized list of transportation projects and a Local Road Safety Plan • Make recommendations on how to fund improvements. Project Timeline: This is YOUR Plan! Discuss goals Share ideas enperiences Help us identify challenges, provide input on needs, and refine draft goals and priorities tiers Element You should PRLLT!CIPRTE REMISE: ▪ The City needs help making decisions related to transportation ▪ We need your input on current challenges and ideas about how to improve the transportation network fall 2013 } ale draft programs re sent to and project lists Council and I Present draft olicies, t Transportation Element programs, and projects 1 update for Council adoption 66 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Share:y.6.w thoughts c ry transportation 'in T kwila in our online survey a nd interactive mep. • 67 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan Transportation The City of Tukwila is launching a plan to improue transportation ouer the newt 20 years. We need your help to identify issues and opportunities to help people move around the city. The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan will serve the community's current and future needs and establish Tukwila's transportation goals and policies for the next 20 years. What you think matters! It's important to make your voice heard to help the City make transportation decisions. cfT Share your ideas in our survey and interactiue map! We want to hear from you! Find us in person at one of our tabling events listed on our website, or use our online form to share your thoughts. 68 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN N 40 O fa 4- o 7 U L Y C10 41 N N 0 0 N-ci c0. U N 0 10 N Q ansportation Element Goals O o E •- E CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PUBLIC [DGRGEIT1[DT "The stigma surrounding p transit affects mg personal eaperienoes with transit. Often the stigma seems to. be reinforced as radii when you use Misr' The City of Tukwila website hosted project information related to the Transportation Element, including an online survey and an interactive webmap to solicit feedback from Tukwila residents and visitors.The project team hosted several in -person events to engage with the Tukwila community and direct them to the developed online tools. The online survey asked about the draft goals and general transportation experiences, while the webmap asked for input on potential needs and improvements in specific locations. Vehicle Public Transit "Please nraka it aasrer'ro tuiiN around Tukwila by providing sideWi llr andlor physical separation tram vehicles. A walkable area is mare universally accessible than Wgrrin g a trehrcle, II Alst cuts dnwn on pollution and has healthier outcomes Tor a community:" Hew uhd of pub en During the in -person events (tabling and focus groups), the project team captured a total of 128 public comments and ideas related to the City's transportation system. Nearly one-third of comments captured focused on transit. Of the. transit comments, many related to safety concerns while using public transit. Did we he Approximately 15 % of comments pointed out walking and biking needs. you c fir ctly?What, did ru i Nkattti Idea ukridarss@tafesle belt Idoml„ri#L as-iitrkh'us ] worald-tlke h'ec:a5,8"trx- Ccrncerreiiab ut,Pn,Persona(safety ithila. ttid�Y+ ittrjrr}sns 64,009h0r41 reatry 19icathrz trzhsPc,rta! 'tick, inarar+'a�rs1iuppp- 9rttnr' v.muld tl toaek pacas bytrreyc:lrx b bike faeW[itibs'brtl o dooii t 'Cr'3i'?(a3pa In thk; lriewalknat'wePIt pF nit metra&i La�tkin{g ptades. rnd abruptly,TYx:Iud hore: and other vLrw t5,avtNicenter MaII hen e4iakd ikt would Dr Isom `aYe'9 dlnti degtyfl 1 end The key themes noted from community input included: Transit safety, reliability, and amenities Expanding the bicycle network Filling sidewalk daps Casts associated with driving for your trap 3 ideas The roe ki nre packing Bpi on= kry rsahstructihy r garages and mairltainira �rar rrrg ther+Batnent ntiza iraatf (..�„ bike lanes), 70 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN WHAT DO YOU THIIIH ABOUT THESE themesHere are key public outr ach. Did we hear you correctly? TRADSPORTATIOD COmmEATS? Vote your top 5 ideas! INTERNATIONAL AIR .. RT ' , TRANSIT 22 Better security and enforcement at TlB Station. 23 Want better transit connections between light rail and Southcenter. 24 Want to get to more places From the Tukwila Sounder Station and have more frequent trips COmfEDTs Want to bike to Seattle via East Marginal Way S. VOTES rT It's hard to bike to Boeing Field, -'• Georgetown, and SODO. 7 1 10 11 It's uncomfortable to bike on Southcenter Boulevard. Want better connections to bike to McMioken via 51stAve S. Southcenter Mall is difficult to access by bike. Want to bike to Renton. IIIEHICIE Want slower cars on 42nd Ave 5. More parking near Tukwila International Boulevard Station. Want slower cars on 51stAve S. Want slower cars on Southcenter Parkway. WALH/ROLL The intersection of E Marginal Way and S 112th St feels uncomfortable for pedestrians. 12 Want more sidewalks in L Allentown. •l 13 Sidewalks missing along Macadam Rd S. 14 Sidewalks missing along 40th Ave S. Hard to walk or Tukwila 14 Irrtemakongl Blvd wi€h,Garsi parked on sidewalks. Its uncomfortable towalk or 16 bike across 1-5 on the S 144th St bridge. 17 Sidewalks missing on S 160th St. 18 It's hard to walk between Southcenter Mall, Tukwila Sounder Station; and the Interurban Trail. try It's hard to walk to and around •7 Tukwila Pond Park. OTHER +sty More lighting in Ryan Hill. 21 Clean up Green River Trail / Interurban Trail, 71 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Appendix E: Existing Crash Data Analysis In addition to reviewing the total number of crashes, the study team compiled information on crashes specific to vulnerable road users. There are higher rates of injury and KSI crashes where bicyclists or pedestrians are involved in a crash with a vehicle. In Tukwila, there were 23 vehicle - bicycle crashes resulting in four KSI crashes (approximately 17%) from 2018-2022. Figure A6 displays vehicle -bicycle crashes summarized by year and resulting injury. Figure A7 maps the vehicle -bicycle crashes within the City. Figure A6. Vehicle -Bicycle Crash Summary by Year and Injury Type 9 8 7 6 4 3 2 0 2018 2019 2020 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024 2021 0 njury • KS]; 0 PDO 0 Unknown 2022 72 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Figure A7. Bicycle Crashes by Severity Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024 73 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN In Tukwila, there were 59 vehicle -pedestrian crashes resulting in 17 KSI crashes, 29% of all pedestrian -involved crashes, from 2018-2022. 11 of the 17 vehicle -pedestrian crashes resulting in a KSI occurred in 2019 and 2020. Figure A8 displays vehicle -pedestrian crashes summarized by year and resulting injury. Figure A9 maps the vehicle -pedestrian crashes within the City using a heatmap, with KSI crashes identified with a red dot. Figure A8. Vehicle -Pedestrian Crash Summary by Year and Injury Type 16 14 1 8 6 4 2 2018 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024 20 2021 KS1 1 PDO © Unknown 2022 74 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Figure A9. Pedestrian Crashes by Severity Pedestrian Crashes 2018-2022 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN From 2018-2O22inTukwila, there were 3,71/crashes that only involved vehicles. These crashes resulted in 64 KS|s, approximately 2Y6oftotal crashes. In 2UZ2,there were 18 KS|s resulting from vehicle -only crashes. This is the highest number of KS| crashes of the five-year period. Figure A10 displays the vehicle -vehicle crashes summarized b«year and resulting injury. Figure Al 1 maps the vehicle -vehicle crashes within the City using a heatrnap,vvith KS| crashes identified with ared dot. Figure A10. Vehicle -Vehicle Crash Summary by Year and Injury Type 800 700 600 S0O 400 300 200 100 2018 2019 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024 2020 O|njury N0KI1 E0PDO OUnknown 2021 2022 76 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Figure All. Vehicle Crashes by Severity Vehicle Crashes 2018-2022 • PD0 • Injury Unknown • Vehicle KSI Crashes Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024 77 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN From 2018-2022 in Tukwila, there were 53 crashes that involved motorcycles. 12 of these crashes (Z2%)resulted ina KS|.Half ofthe 1ZKS|crashes occurred during ZO3Uand 2O21.Figure Al2 displays the vehic|e'motorcycle crashes summarized bvyear and resulting injury. Figure A13 maps the vehicle -motorcycle crashes within the City using a heatnnap,vvith KS| crashes identified with ared dot. Figure Al2. Vehicle- Motorcycle Crash Summary by Year and Injury Type 16 14 l2 10 8 6 4 2 O 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024 O|njury NNKS| 0PD0 OUnknovvn 78 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Figure A13. Motorcycle Crashes by Severity Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024 79 CITY iF TUK 6L I LC3 'A RCIIAD SAFETY EL The crash potential factors, outlined in Table 2, represent a list of street network attributes that were found to present higher rates of crashes. These attributes were identified at other locations on the city's street network. Identifying where these attributes are also present where no current crash history exists allows the city to understand areas that could be at risk for future crashes. This step in the evaluation process bridges the historical trends to risk -based systemic analysis. Roadways were categorized based on the number of risk factors present at a segment, whether they have a history of crashes or not. Fii ure 14 thru Fi ure 21 map out each of the eight crash potential factors along Tukwila's street network. These maps were used as an input to identify priority project locations where there is overlap among the crash potential factors. 80 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Figure A14. Arterial Streets With Crash Potential Factors S 112 rt • tt" Arterial Streets KS I CrashesArtenal Streets thtt Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024 S 75i,t St S 124th St 301I, St tht 311551 h hhk,thkh thhth tht*tShhtl" CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Figure A15. Streets Adjacent to Commercial Land Use With Crash Potential Factors • KSI Crashes' Commercial Land Use Commercial Land Use Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024 S 11sth s 24€h S[ s 14'h'St ,SteUi;.`tmkS4 160th SI BakeBlvd 82 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Figure A16. Streets Adjacent to Transit Stops With Crash Potential Factors • KSI Crashes Near Transit Stops Transit Stops Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024 J V,ces,, S 1240) SI 44Ih St 83 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Figure A17. Streets within a Quarter Mile of Schools With Crash Potential Factors * KS] Ci ashes. Near Schools Quarter Mile Near Schools S r14thrStili'' ,`• It 's•Sk Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Figure A18. Collector Streets With Crash Potential Factors • KSI Crashes: Collector Streets Collector Streets Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Figure A19. Signalized Arterial Intersections With Crash Potential Factors Tt Near Traffic Signals iir c, ,g s 144th S i G9 ,Cii; tS) , ^2 ti 35 10, Bakei Blvd. ,t1 - 2 q : Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Figure A20. Streets Without Bike Facilities With Crash Potential Factors . KSI Crashes: Bicycle on No Bike Lane Streets with no bike lane Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024 87 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Figure A21. Mid -Block on 25mph Streets With Crash Potential Factors S 112In SI • KSI Crashes Pedestrian on Mid!)lock Facihties Mdblock 25mph Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024 Sk:11, st CITY 0F TUK 6L . I LC3 'A RCIIAD SAFETY EL Following the ranking activity discussed in Chapter 4, the Task Force participants' discussion highlighted the importance of additional criteria such as school walking routes, access to school bus stops, connectivity to trail network, and the ability to leverage adjacent projects. These additional criteria are included in the qualitative step for prioritization. Weights were given to the quantitative metrics listed to prioritize both intersections, segments, and corridors. Prioritiz tion Proc ss The prioritization process was rooted in a quantitative geospatial analysis informed by factor selection and weights determined through coordination with City of Tukwila and the LRSP Task Force. Streets were considered at the block level and were segmented further for blocks longer than 2,500 feet, given the smaller scale of most safety projects in the city. Highways and on -off -ramps were excluded. Intersections were generated at the intersection of street segments, with similar exclusions for highway intersections. Street segments and intersection points were then joined to the relevant data sets described in Tale 3. For the Vulnerable Road User (VRU) HIN, an overlap percentage was calculated based on how much of a segment is covered by that network. The extent of the overlap informed the scoring calculation of how many points a segment receives from that factor. For the overall HIN, a segment received only a "yes" or "no" if it had an overlap exceeding 60% with that network. Points were assigned following the below table, for example 3 points for "yes" and 0 points for "no" on the HIN, and 0, 1, 2, or 3 points for the VRU HIN overlap. Segments and intersection points were joined to the point data of KSI crashes between 2018 and 2022. Crashes within 250 feet of segments were joined to segments, and within 50 feet of intersections were joined to intersections. Of all segments with KSI crashes, percentiles were calculated for the segments receiving the top third -highest number of KSI crashes (33.3% of segments with the most KSI crashes). Segments and intersections were joined with data from the Equity Index Score. If a street segment was on the border of, or intersected, two areas with different scores, it received the 89 CITY iF TUK 6L I LC3 'A RCIIAD SAFETY EL score of the area with which it overlapped the most. For all segment intersections, percentiles of resulting scores were generated. Points were assigned according to the scoring table to the top third, middle third, and lowest third percentile groups. Local destinations data, which included schools, parks, and transit stops, were derived from King County Metro, Tukwila School District, and city data. Segments and intersections were joined to the destination locations by buffered distances: half -mile from high -capacity transit stations (Tukwila International Boulevard Station), quarter -mile from bus stops, schools, and parks. Percentiles were generated for segments and intersections based on the total counts of destinations close to them. Points were assigned according to the scoring table to the top third, middle third, and lowest third percentile groups. For each factor, once a set number of points was calculated, that point value was multiplied by the corresponding weight listed in the below table. The weighted scores were then summed to create a total score out of 3.0. 90 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Fi ure,*22 and Fi ure A,23 below show the top 30 highest -scoring intersections in Tukwila using the quantitative prioritization framework. It includes intersections of highway ramps and local streets. Note that some prioritized intersections, such as SouthcenterBoulevan] at| 5 North on -ramp and Macadam Road South may bemanually aggregated due to their close proximity. However, they are currently listed separately in the table. 91 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Figure A22. Map showing intersection prioritization outputs Tukwila Intersection Prioritization Legend Priortized Intersections (Highest 30) • Highest Sooring Higher Scoring High Scoring C s Tukwila Oily Limit TOLE DESIGN CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Interurban Ave S West Valley Hwy Sperry Dr Strander Blvd 34th Ln S Table A6. Prioritized Intersections Road rsecting Roadway Score Overall Rank including ties) Tukwila International Blvd S 144th St 42nd Ave 5 53rd Ave 5 Tukwila International Blvd 1-405 Ramp 61st Ave S 62ndAve Su 65th Ave 5 SW Grady Way S 143rd St S 180th St S 148th St 37th Ave S Southcenter Blvd 1-5 Ramp S 150th St 1-5 Ramp Southcenter Blvd Southcenter Blvd Southcenter Blvd Southcenter Blvd S 180th St Andover Park W S 144th St S 144th St Tukwila International S 146th St Blvd Southcenter Blvd ; Macadam Rd S 1-405 Ramp Southcenter Blvd 52nd Ave S S 152nd St Southcenter Blvd 42nd Ave S 42ndAveS 66th Ave S Andover Park W Andover Park W Andover Park W 5 143rd PI Interurban Ave S S 140th St S 144th St Southcenter Blvd Baker Blvd Tukwila Pkwy Southcenter Mall Interurban Ave S 58th Ave S Interurban Ave S 2.955 2.750 2.683 2.683 2.455 2.450 1 2 3 2.450 1 6 1..n2q 393 2.393 2.329 2.329 2.329 2.329 8 8 10 2.250 115 2.250 15 2.205 1 2.200 2.183 2.143 2.079 124 2.079 24 2.079 24 2.079 ! 24 2.079 2.079 Interurban Ave S 2.079 24 93 CITY iF TUK 6L I LC3 'A RCIIAD SAFETY EL Fi ure 23 and TaIe 7 below describe the segments and short corridors of prioritized roadway segments, representing the highest 75 scoring segments. Where contiguous segments made a short corridor, the highest -scoring segment on that corridor is recorded. The top 75 segments result in a list of 24 segments or short corridors due to the presence of continuous segments. 94 CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN Figure A23. Map showing roadway segment prioritization outputs Tukwila Roadway Segment Prioritization Legend. Prioritized Roadway Segments (Highest 75) Highest Scoring Higher Scoring High. Siiiibring 1 mi TOOLE DESIGN CITY OF TUKWILA I LOCAL ROAD SAFETY P m Table A7. Prioritized Segments and Corridors Roadway Name Tukwila International Blvd | Southcenter Blvd S144thSt S1stAvc Military Road S/westerncity limit S1S2ndSt West Valley Hwy Highest Score Corridor Rank,'by Highest Score (including ties), | 2.885 Z ^ 2.872 Corporate DrN � 2.803 4 1-405 Ramp Southcenter Blvd Tukwila SR 599 International Blvd SR 518 eastbound Boeing Access Rd Airport Way S limitEastern city S 151st St 1-405 2.733 S _ 2.698 6 2.175 O |'5onram @0ftsouth of ramp K|ickitatDr Airport Way northbound ramp 1.651 1.636 ll 13 East Marginal Way Northern city 400 feet south of 1.619 13 limits I northern city limit 14 15 International Blvd S Ryan Way Martin Luther King 47th Ave S 1.448 18 i Jr Way S International Blvd 96 CITY iF TUK 6L I LC3 'A RCIIAD SAFETY EL 97 COUNTERMEASURES TOOLBOX 41,1*..4 **- c- 0 0 ) 0 I ) c- CO CD W c _C - W- 2 a) -0- 7 lan) c D C > L- D 0 W ro O _c T)..- s_ c a a) .(n- ' 2 L° o o c ._ .'ro— cCa) al +-+ (1) _C 73 (:3 (f) • (7) -0 03 2 O 11) -0 D C > _C - -0 •-' '5) V.) ) u) D 4--, C CY) .., (1) 4-, 0) W co c i..)_ _a C y— 4— a) o 1,',' c .,.7. a ou"" E „co c • w cr T 4-, D L co M . (1) U •,.7_ L) 6) C (7) • C C 001.; 1>c .=0 -0 Ln w r -0 o 4-, .Lna)-0 0-0ww(-0 _c z a) a) C u) rp (-) H in a 1.11 ro D ul 0 0 0 a) -o What Ybu' Rumb e Strios Eu 2 7 (-) a) 0 r0 —„, 'Z'• a) c coE M (11 CD >1 0.) — C -0 E 7:5 C) .5 2 0 _c a-) Li >, co c a C>aD ) 0b- 0>i5'L- i TI}C_C mG3) 4 r;2' CW -C m° lo 4(2 CX -C 4-' a) , - CD 0) _1 CO a) I-L Lri- (73 — (1) co (f).. >, '-• C (D r r u-0_2 (i) 46 1+- co 4-, ,- 0 co -C .---,1- • — 4-, E c co u) co a) u E (f) H 0 c 0 E D _ a.) .-E • cp (-) •- •_7 c Do ro ,-, 1_9 ----;n7 =-ED .47_,b- 2 Eo'-' „la) -c,,_ .2)c) 0>a.) co -D (f) _0 0 L,- --'S -CI •-'ai- (-)2 0 a - c —I @ -ci (I) 5 a -1 0 -c,-- 4 c ---- >., 0)0 , 0 . 0 L._ ._ .. r(, , cy) ._ ._ 0 -co u., c c c 4_, 0 4-r a) — o E ) , 0 -a '5 co 2 0 0 -0 _ 4- -C3 :5 Qn; (->o D'C >, .(-5 u a c ,?;) '-=- >' c<) E' 0 co . co c o -c) -0 E co Li) , Li) c ci'73 D a 2 0 0 a) D ° u > r - — z.c0n3(00u)U+_,U0)r0u-)+,-0 a) -) f) co L) 0 u 0 X CD —0 C— Intersection Median Barrier Roundabout Create or Increase Clear Zone e Management .7) -o 0 -o (13 0 Lu2 a o tti a D a) in W w a a3 C u_ 0 Median Guardrail 425 0 c -2 T3 a 0 CD • - w E CU T5 (13 (n 0 a) a) a TI) u-) Cl T T1 T l' '7' 1' T T 2 ) -...._ D -0 CD U C co C 4-, c7:3 0 _C 4-. • - 0 0-) C O 4-, (J >, N a3 • E D L 0 o 1 0 o -0 a) +-, 0 u co u 0-') c O a) c co o a • -.7. _C . - 4--, c 5 c w co .0 c5) 2 11-1 0) > (r) ,-_-, C ,_ -0 W c C U 'E c0 L 1) .0 ) (1.) Z D To Q.) 76 V2 -',_ a)H c '- c)-) au cu-c, E D 0 4-, 0-) c .a3_ W D (7) (J) _I _ H _1 _I H Paint and Plastic Median Paint and Plastic Mini Circle Intersection -0 20 Raised Crosswalk Raised Intersection co Raised Me Remove Obstructions For Sightlines 0 o 0 o -0 coco _1 Ln CU W CD 0 4- 0 CD CU CC CC 17 'I' 1". 1" 1' T. 1' 1" I 1 1' T. 1" T T 1 1" T. T. ;3- a) c 0 co _c x • a o m c cu a) _Y a) x 2 iT) b] 0 a) a.) 7:5 .> -0 ED C D -5) 0.- CD W D u) 0 a3 CL >, D T5 ._ C7) X t72 4-, > 0) 0) 11.1 a .+-, u-) > c ,_. ._ ....Y CU ) a To >, c u 5 u) E c 2 0-) 0c H - c o m •ji 0.) 0 a C7) x .c) 0 0-) u „ N (0 -oe ..,,c c 2 0-) ca) 7 ul >, >) >1 W CU 6 ° u 0 u _Y X 49-,"-° 920-X • ro E0-- En En EC-) .CIT] X Q.) ,- (0 _C LU U_ 0 (f) Z a cf) H T. l' T. 1' T. l' T. l' 1' I 1" 'I' 1" 1' T Extend Green Time For Bikes Bicycles May Use Full Lane Sign I TERSECT1ONS 5 ROADWAYS 0 0 0 0 cO 'ZL T O • E . 0 W O Er2 WLfl 4-, CD c a _c c 0 _C w H 0) (13 C Ca (1) 4-, (f) 4- a) r3 o c 0) a.) (6'.)W 0) -o c -oc x o-) o-W o_ co a r D 2 D (f) Fluorescent .47 (13 C (1) co 0 _c 0 E T T 1 T T T T Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection H a 0) o.4- 7 13C -0 a) c 1E IE v) ul ro ca x ,_ o _c wwu0a0a l'T T T T T 0 Lu a c E _c (3 _C 7 0) LI/ 7 7 a ri) D CC T 1 (1) 0 (0_. 0) a 3 C 9 CO _C (f a a) -_(T) Add Sidewalk Protected Left Turns CY) -C3c .0 a3 -o cc 0 4-, _C 0) cr _Q 2 U) CU LU 0 (0 0 w ro (1) T.) cn Education _TD (0 (1) C 42 0E ro 0 oc a) 4-) u) ro a a 4_, 0 0 I.1.1 CL a) f) C C - 0 C5) 'rT) oE co 0 (0 C e Routes to School Lfl -2 (0 -0 u) C a) 0 CL 4->j) (0 0 3 a) 0 N L7) 0 0 -E _o _c z T T T TIT T -0 ro (0 C 0) .(7) CU -0 0) 03 T T T T T T (0 (f) c 2 0) U -0 CO in a C -a 4-0 c (// a) CO (A O L.) a W 0 0 CL u-) -0 W>1 (1) g 0-) CL c(f) 3003(0 C ln D (13 0 C 4E3' 2 o T Extended Time Pushbutton co (13 0 0 MO 5 STRIPING CO a C rt3 Curve Advance Lr) a) To 0 N 0 01 0) 2 _c 0) (0 _c w w -0 o a) 0 0)0) -0 U C co co a) (22 .c 0.) a3 c a) „ c w E .c () (T) (0 CL CL ential Streets 01 a) a) E a) >(‚) c w 0) a • - 0 Lu • v) (13 -0 D c 0 w 0 CU -E a) a) em LLJ -0 _C W W a) • a a CT) z T T T T T T T T -0 o (13 (0 0) (0 (f) U (D a.) 0 a (1) C a c ro 0)0) _I a T T T T Pedestrian Detection .25 r 2 E 76 0:3 c a 7i 0 _Q 2 2 a) a) cu o> E 4-0 cn a) a) a a a D T T -) Widen Sidewalk Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon elzt CM c CD -0 i7) r(([5) C 0 O rc3 c a) .0) (1) O w E 2 au-) T T F a co 0 To cu 7 (7) _c 9 -c, 0 _C E 0 4- >-) (47°' a :To a) ul 4-, a) -0 c 4-; c (f) o _c 0 u a) 4..), _c Q) 4- 4- 0 (15 -C3 E c '7) c, c •.= o (13 0 c 5 w u) -0 o u-) . _ '(1-5 Q) a) 03 Oa -Q ci.) b u .5 a) - , c ._ CY C) a) . C 2 in (Tn o 0 ,_. o‘-' c „-, ) c..- ro w .— p, -be- .,..J o rT3 0 E E cu 4 CI) C w 2 4- t) cy) t) ()-, 72 F, 15 Lr) TD, a) 0 Lii o.:45 0 m 0 .00 0 U) co c- ,a) co c- • — CO (f) UID CO 111 . ,...c.) x w o i C I < a o 1 , CD (1) _.. ,- C C) i a3 4- R3 U) C5) CO I rt3 c ..,,,, 1 . u . C -0 . 45 -cy?..) 5- 45 • _(,) .5 . Li] 2 ai cu o ro 9_) as as . .2 D T . o c ru . c . < •,-.7) co ,_ . 4-0 E 4`-') a) . c 0 .—u _ _C C a) sr5 > E c)-) .- 0-) c in . u) .-0 c . c1:3 G.) +-J (..) L) .4-7, 4E, :4:1 . .H4- ln(1) =(-) el .til (f) . -o F CD •02 BiKe De-_ecton L.J X O ' -0 I C - ' 0 4-Y 1 0 1 O cy) 01 i 4 C -C • (.7., t I CT/ al s .:, ._ ., .., .., .., .., u") (i▪ ) .' 1-- — LI- s' a) >1 (7) 0 0 ui u-j - 1._ .1.) ..: c a ,42 0 c o 0 4-. W Cl.) T., 0 _C O —_,_, (,12 C .' • c =) D 3 U•) a) c 0 , .., w E (1) u a) . 4E (I) L-r2 ' - > C 5) 0 rj3 7 (13 W a r° Ti; b a3 ' -• ... 0 " -0 . 7) ° ui-r)u, , .., 4-, 4-, (D — to D ,_ U U) .., -0 _0 w E - ..: in D D 0 o _ t D 0) ., 4t. a) C . Q..) -' • - D L- rn . © _c s_ c (1) rn -0 — Q) .., o w E c > u CD w .o D 4-, s' w E =- E -0 u cu g 2 o 0 a 493 0 1' J,.• (1:5 0 2 73) t u 1:3 u) . LJ BiKe Lane o-) • w - (L) CI) 2 -o To 'Fp' cu • (13 c >, "5_0-)a)15-6r0 *(-7) c (-0 E a) o co-0 • a) u _cw>rou 0-) a •_ u) w c vj • ro C L) •a) u r, c • c (0 _ow o 1) 4(j), > — co -0 0") C (-) • 4-, c ro '3) 0-) .5 -0 'a-) (DUWDR3> ,- (/) - c o Q) E 4-' u_a) 2 43' >, q_ > 0 -0 a 0 (13 W uQ w c u • t CD IE. C > Q) CI) U 2 > ri •_(01, 'T) -o 3 0-) ffi-Q ()• 0' 0 (f) 0 u o -be- —1 0 Ln 0 -73 .(..z.) 0' 0 00 (f) E Cr) CN -be- o (r) r:3.1LJ CO D. 0 70— >CU C ▪ c •(.7) 0 n3 (1) a 1) c C _c c u cy) 0 (c-3 o (-) c E ro v) — .0 o Ea 41.') (13 .13 4-7, .4-7, a 0) c (113 V2 a) a) 0 c u En_ c) 4E' 492 • c — (T) c c 0 , -5., n3 .0 0-) co • s- _c v) 4E • 0 0 (-r) G.) 0 c 4-,u") E 0> _CL o (1) T5 - • mac c 4-cEmm-c)c c (ID o w o a o-) V) -0 c = • — c.) ro >, a) c 0 0 -0 0 co - oat ng Ira ns t t. iiir 6 0 . _ (...) ea (13 (1) 4-' 0 t 1 C i.f_) -C) C) . .0 •8 > . -...,.., a...) . o 0 . u E a) . +- —1 0 -.j . Lr) . 0 U c o E -47, 0 0 - c 4- .0 . C ,.4- o 112 s o 4-1 C . - Ln -0 C D. -0 47, . C ca . in CI a) 0) 0 . c --, . 0) rt3 D- LP n . O CO . - 0 0 . ..4_- , Q.) D • c (I) . -b9- (.....) cr) CD ▪ (r) `- • - . El? (13 2 'cr) T ra ▪ CI) 10 0 • 4-, < la (T) U . 0) -0 0 0 a) _c w F 0 N - X Separa-_ed BiKeway 0 c wa) o 0) _C !.-12 .0 ci 2 co E 72 a) • c C _c CO — _1 • - r 6 o a _c ▪ c t c C C 0 5-(134E'E a) a) • — m CT) ro c * - _C -C T.3 E w > u ' • (-0 1:5 .2 0 kEi • E > 0-) c 04 • �co `4- D co C Q -nwc0 1fl R3 (1) CU -a W a) u c (• 1.) (00 • 45 u.) Ln 0 CD 0 CD ** C (DUct-,-; (1)ro ; D (0 W O > 0 T3 LE 7(13 -05 -0 CL 4- G.) • - (I) L- lf) .- 2 •- — 4--, 4_, L4L-) < 4(-4 _ ;-a) in ro CD w ro '- C _0 (f) E 750)2(100 1:5 — (73 ii-) CD CU CU 'TV c.3. C in- 0 cu > -0 4-J > .3 Q) u - `-ro .7-) o 2 .L) •,-, i-r) a • 4--• -c u a) -0 q- CU ri .._,) -. C) -0(1) DCI) a) ,9 .(2 E > c O ._E 7) - tr) *u-)- 13 '15 i ' (T) • (-9. . 8 CY 0 (f) z a 8 2 =' • in 15 (') (,-:, 2 in 0 0 0 m 113 2 4-c 7 3 .15 C > ' 0 a a o ( 1) 0 °-.) c -6 r° a ° Cr) hr) a) c E u Eti_ a) 00 E 0 -0 be - a) f) ii3 J cu 73 w - c CD T..,_ 0 I-r) Ln 0. _ ---, — m -- - in '47, H.- b .5 4-, (13 ro 0 .1-,_ _- ro D 0 Ln 0 Lip CC U _I X D c Shared Sidewa LJ CC ParKing BLffe CC a) L c O 0 co) E rp,0 0 0 a) a o f�U N O c CU -Q c U E d 0 -0 .0 0 �0 U c� � Q -be- —I 0 -c ,c +-o c+- a) in 0 (D 0 a � o w T5 C -0 ra ro w 0 _c (1) E 1), 9(5 (d)) a) § (0 . 0..) 0) _c _C 4-6 - in , c a D ._ .2" oc P - to ul O co E -"(1)0V)(13 U ) c — -0 00 EL' tri 0 >,:r ' t -'.) 6 O _-_; m -Q lo r-)>, u • c (o in E 0 lb :D 4=, 0 G) 0) 0 4-, --' (1) (f) ----) 0 0 _ • 't▪ o_ s U E 0, Cr) 0:3 (I) >,._ - (° (a c 2 o -o E ° cu • L' a)Lo - "-D _- c -, 2 '•72 ow ® 4- ." 77-, ln M Q) a) E E 1E -,1 (f) Ln — . 7 o o ,-40 H b . c LT) H_- _o w V 70: -Q E U) (f) co • — > CD 00 cr) (- CD co 1 LE (1) T..) _C . `b a) (1a) co `- cu • = o (1) >, 0 _C (1) 4-c (o to , (3.) 4, 0-) E> 4 u a) -o 492 -0 a) _6_, >, n E ti 7) - (1:3 c 0 W U 2 =2- .- - _c •5 „, .r c- .„ c 0) .0 - 4-, 4-, C — 73 0 CD u (1) q-d r L- r) o P cu 0 ,_ 5 -+C_, _C _c ,-- -0 V) C 4E; IA Li Cu) D ,-, ,,,s-- i n co 2 0 w-- 0 >--, - c > ., •,_ cs, a) (..) if) ._ CD ',.7 C -0 42 0 _cW 0) -0 .0 4- c' - >1 113 t'n (.0 To 2 ro (c3 2? 43 2 cc') n u-9 (Di u > 13 .:: 7-1 _c Li) c ,, 6 a) , o_ (.) a) a p — ▪ 4-, '70 +-, - M m cLn 4_, 4-,u >,., 0 CD c'Tj , CD 0 +7, — • - 4_, U _Q -' = E - 4- (.)-) E .-5 D (C) .-8 a -c.,.,0 al 0 a u 5 O L4i1 .0 in in T.) (-1;) C4 O (-0 c 4-9 7 0-) c- CD -o 0 0 a) u 70: Way Stop Control 70: in a) _I 6 _1 -0 CY) - C >0 . 5 0 0) (7) c — < 172) >, ro .13 v) 5 0 0 0 C C v) :(.7) 0 3 L._ co cx in 8 7L13, 0- c ._ 2 < ,>, ',-; 0 0 •,,= u) 0 U r 0 C i - ?; ) C U I -t '- 0 • ° , . . . . 47, ,4C2 W 0 . I f I (f) t' (.) (0 0 4—' z , 1. ci) E w Q) tf) C a.) '- V) 112 (f) 0 . _ _C 75 .0 42 a) a.) (.0 4—, ., c 4—, > c.) u-) D -0 c .c 2 Li; a) a.) w D w a .tn: (DE) S) 73G) -g ._ - -0 r w 4, E Tj 4 - , 0 —0- 0) c u _., 0- 0 D 015,-)_C(00C C LT-) *7, 0 U 0 6_ (13 N o in 0 cri- 0 u 2 0 -' 72 .-E -0 0 6_ u (1) b • Lio>,c0 2 a' 0 >tp 73 E a 1• (-2 C TO 2 a Ct3 ID (r) (i) 0 01 u-) _Q 0 U _I C 0 CD a.) C : 0 • : 70: G) co a cf) (r) 0 c7) 0)•c •c LE, 0 .0o 7 (ll E E 71, • m rt3 (7) G) 0 Q4- u (r) c < • Cl) 92 co 0-) C c aa) c o ro -c E a) (-) 2 4- E () c 4d E -a r u -00w < E O (13 0) • 0_ L- ra (1.) > co 0 E E) 5 4- (1:3 v) o ci) a) 6 (a) c • a ci) • (i) • a) u1 0 - 00 • U a (1) E. cr) (Z..)UJ D • > o c ra - 0 ea -2 • 0) 0 (f) 0 JE e:79- 0 -be —.1 0 0 (f- ) 0 a 70: INTERSECTIONS & ROADWAYS (1) E ED co -0 CD > C- O 0 ) U CU _Ca r-, En_ a) ro 4 D 0 CI) b a5 (1) o-) •(.7) c 0 4— -0 -0 C3) (73 > CY) (1) CI) -0 Q) -0 (7) C G.) 04(78 G.) CL) 4-, • - C -0 c (3 C *- — (13 (1) (LT) (1) CD WL .• ‹,(1"4-• 0_9 a3> O2 >1L) _„ co (13 2 a 2 a) a -0 co '03 0 -0 02 • a3 N 0 (15 Fp' '45 2 •E Co-0o) (02 a) ▪ c -c 13 -0 17 o> u) L.. -c 2 E Li-q > • 0 ) O c CD -0 1,9 a' (13 • 73 E - 1) _8 a) 3 (73 L_ >, O (f) E >) u _c (f) #_Jc (c) ▪ co 4-- o 1E 4- 4_, ._ C 2 0 a E 0 C tri CO (r3 CD w > C • u) • C c a ro > ▪ a '7- 5 4-, _ )- o -0 • Ein (13 C3 4-, CO :3 CO 31 0 V) e (T) -k-, (1) 0 ( i )... SI-) a C c D 0 76 E c )». a C -0 a) .,L) f, u-) a) c0) 4— '-d- W _C 0 W ° * — >, -C M cy) (1) -0 0 !- a3 4' (12 V) a cu 0 0 c *;=. • L7_ D C (1) 4E' > 0 (1) CD 0 > .- _V D 0 0 4,CU ui 'L-_ (D a) c • - 2 .v) 4-' 4— C C (47d I) c w 2 C 0 . _ 0 -0 -0 • 7_ (0ro a) -- u co W -0 -•', , 0 G) c L 0- a 0 L'"7 - E 3 o(L) o_ 0) }-, —, (1) > E 0 a 0 Ci 2 a) o t_., 03 0 (1) U CO 07-13 C5) E. E a -) _c a3 4, D Q_ -.F.:, c c 0 >, C •E +-T 0-) W (i) 0) & 4-7 M 0_, -,y, 00- ( 0 C > ▪ z a .0 a (7) as cc_ ci) - t) 4--. :- 2 Z c H c0) D 7 E LI ),, _c 0-))4 c c)C 1E .._) • 8 -c-, c )._ c .- _c _c rD 0 >,)-) 5 (I) 0 • - . D .:1-, .4-, fl 0 Cr' a n3 C) C -0 C 5 w(D c ro c c 0 0 > .. o • u a (f) 4-, (-0 E 46 , 0 Cir 2:- -› > a) <-.0 Z CD go, oo gul 4— * — U 0 U Vedian Ba 70: cU -o co 0 70: -a c ro 1/2 in >, . co cu To t El ._) u co 4— (i) a) >1 c _C co 73 -0 CO E so -c 2 • - —s_ 4_, • __L,) .5 2 (1) in 4-, 0 > o a) wul .,,,u -c .0 0 0 > U 0 0 D)-05 CD U -bq- UJINO * 71 • co -69- o O 0 0 D 44} -..i 0 a -0 a a) O T.) '- in -c a) >, o (1) 4--, n3 i_n M Ln (i) 0 a Ln 0 -0 U _1 Barrier in the cente CI) 4-' >) 0.) _C C .4j 0 17: D c - , c 0-„c ro m CD G.) 7-__ a.) CI) Cll E - ° 0 (i) W -0 (05- .., c _C 2 E4—, (--) 2 (T) 2 cD ° '• 1,5' 0 IQ-) =.-' 13 CO . a) c .0 0 5 mro ._7., 0 0Pn a) _0`1 E 2 G.) c 0 C- L) r4,-- , ,_ 2._> .a) U ▪ 0 >, (D> 0 u Nt 0 . f 75 6 , a5 - a) •- 0, cu 0 22 0 > G) -C ul CD LO a.- -2 a) c _c -2 •=, 4_i cf) (i) D 0 03 D o o 7 'cirb b 0-) '6 U _J Roundabout C 4. a) n3 a) a) U) U c C C () a) c0 i U O > C C = O U _Q Q ro .2 U `N a O EL) Q tea) in • 1- O) 4i C C _C n _Q a) a) U C V O ro • CD r +-, 1 O O U ZS • r cn cO L +� O7 C a) C O U +-, cO C E D -- C C. n3 E- c O 4--' 4--' - +, 3 in w • p-) `t A C C a) 0 U f0 T3 C N i a) >, 0 O upJ C O O 4- C C O U+ U a) (D Q) p u+ 3 w O >, Q i - O ,- O m -Q N© O O O N C3 U O >>i O M C D: O - CO C _Q o ) u d o O o O 1- N C• O Z7 }- ' ' N C ▪ U +\_., . jNt a) � acl- 4-, a) D -0 (I) a)-0 0 0 0 .O U a) 3 C N vi U E z • t C U N a) O Q_ in in U LO Q z3 ▪ > N. + C � J 0 (.!) • N (0 _C O CO C+ C _C U p • 0 Q U 4- Q C a) '' a) v- }' D C C CO O +� in > p N O CO 0 i3 • co > C ,- ap) in O . RS Q +� o a Q © cO Toro u tO H Q,_ in O O Q_ U J O 0 0 �- O 0 O `_ �5 G D N 18 O .0 G f co O -_ 0 0.-0 o->CC 11 m a0 1 4) U > LL. O CO .c_ co a o �,0 ul • 0 ca 9 11 9 U o i O 0 C O @ -C-9 Q 8 O O :al 0 D _ n O ac_ocuo .) -0 a O c)'G 0-' 9 - o c 9 o a)) a) > CO _C '-v) G CD90u, • a0- �lj 9 U G �� O N y CL 7, _Roc))_.), ' 0 9) 0 N > 'C 0 +o - s (a a r U G C N') J U > 1 u) 0) CG 0 L •E u 0 a) ED CD (f) U 0 C— CC co 70: 70: c in 6 (-0 0 C • LT) 0 0 = D D > QcY)(13 Li-- .0 : ELI) 0 .0 a) > 0 -0 D in 4-' -0 C Lr) t 0.) CZ u) 0 Q) +-, - o_ 0_ -0 • - (.6 w CU V) , > 2 o 6_ — o.)— -0 49 - — c U CY ° D VI 0 r-N14-'20° 0 0 U E L., r in 0 (L 0 -69- 0 cumou ) ti) -4)- --.1 0 CO ra l= lf) -a 0.) u-) 4-' C C (1) 0) 0 0 -o 0- - C ro .-, 0 U 2 .c — c a) a) D a) u) u) — u C31 in " " TO D cn a) a) 22 (1) 4, ,_ -0 0 U (0 a) >, c _c a) ,, -0 _C •N C • Ln D C) 4-, '- 0a 0 o 0 — C OD -C CU -E W 4--' 2 a) c w E c> m a c a) L- C 0) CD 0-) >. (0(-) 1---c') a To `47) ro -0 ) u (1.) 4-, 0 L._ U) U) (0 C 0) (1.) — 2 .,_, o (I) Ti) D ,), 0_ (- - 0 nj 0 .L- 0 C (-3 ° ui. a r • '- (C) 0 To *4-7, a) 05 C D _C (o r.__> cu"- 0 L. a) 2 (L) CU 0 co E _c _c cn 4] 4--) u) ,u) 0) ._ c c 17) - 0 u) .,..) E 4-, 4-, CO (0 (..) 0 C 0 4-7, (0',90Tca) a) — E „., -,-) cu - . , 0 a) c 0) > >, 0 D .0 (0 (13 a) _Y clac)U0W a 4-(r- (I) (0 .= _C) 4--i 4-, in Lr) 0 —0 U coo F (f) 111 0 7 0-) c--0• 11 H .7 E (i CD 70: _a ne Narrowing 70: in >, 0 co , Ti- a) O a) 0 3 > w u-) +-, 0) V) -0 c ro (.) c _o > 4J- . _ D cl) 4 73 -e3 Q) 0 _c 't > ›Cli cb c ,L) CY 0 ° g E• c +..) .> " 0 ..) E CD v) -0 - (I) -a c ;/2 w '- CD (D (1) 7 2 a c .0 4--. 'IF., .— F5 4- V) *--i CD 2 a 0 x .=(7) D 4 • 2 , 4-, in (1) > U 0-) 0) 0 E (:)-) 2 c • ‘- .0 O cu )31- u Z = C 7,- 17.), (1) C Us' O co ‘44- 0 4-) _1 0 u-) • _C .(/) -0 W a) 45 arr CU Cr) 4-, 0 " (13 0 0) u v-)- D 41Q C 7:5 (1) TD _Q>) > 0) >) ▪ cu c . 4CD- 1(13) §0(Da • „ CO u-) C *E > 2 2 ri ,f) c 0 a (21 E E ._ _0 ) CD -0 0 CD L CD 3 • — E -0 U) a_ > 6_ O 0 ,u cu 4_. TA O 4, ,- -, , 0 CD Oa U _C 0 E RS 4-, U a c 0) 5 2 • M c o (75 (..)- 4- 0 a) U D . _ 4-, -- ut Lj 73 .4'Z -0 + -, '•-• 2.)_ m u) (0 .3 Q) o 3 o a 2 0 in oc) -Q z 0 TO a 0 •5- 44.-_' m c CY C) r-- 4— • -k.) > .--3 CD (f) rt3 c 0 0 D c t7) a P in — _c a) = n3 c GY 'E) 2 0 _f,) .a.) u Ln 4— . .- 7 V o c Q) • -(13 _C w C n th C1) `u • a) _0 p -C Q) 4-, a) > • > CO -Q o 0) .17) ,= cp TD_ a 5 4_, (i) > o o E 0 CD c E 0 (2 c O u (0 492 P_) u (-T3' E a) 0 < ro aU i < Li ID 43 F c -1) 0 04 Y_ 0 C: 0 M 0 > ) 0 o cu ,c m 41304 o / / / / O 0 L —0 G) � O 0 ED O u -o m v• 0 0 J 69 69- 0 ƒ —1 0 Ln 0 V X D C an CC ntersecion Y -o vr) 0 U Y U) co a O_ > O Q (1) motorists. in G N INTERSECTIONS El ROADWAYS -0 co (f) CD C7) b.) Raised vedan 4- 0 0) 0 W >, ._ _Q a) E 5._ D ,.. E (>) 42 (7) 2 0 w '-' - D 'EC Ocoul-ji-0 CO co .4-7, ,, , ,- ln 0 CD '45 Li-) W 0 -1-, w _C cu > 0 -' -0 W F-) c 0 u 'ci, a) u co 0-) 0 in_ 4-t D- o 4-, 4-, C N L- in (A • D -0 E • E(0 c (0 C 0 2 c (% -0 (13 c CO .-Q c (0.) a.) •,.7) a) a) ,._ o +-, 0 no a3 D •- 0-) •• Q) .1_., • 4E) w ,-' E 00 D(0Q.,L)o c.;.-, 4(7) 7.Ew`nn3 En° a -o 5 ',4= > 4- .- a) (15 -ffw 2 .c " 1- • - •-) V) Z m 0 0 0 2 a cL) nu) ul E a t CD 0 ----k_.' n3 _C c _CD '— 0 (I) X -C) .+7, . co c .4=. a (1) a..) -bet ---1 0 Z- C.L°Cr0(1)(13_Q 0 4 D -0 0 -0 r L ID_ c cu a) o c 4- 0 _c) (.) a) a wcEm , s->, 7, .42 E . a) co 0cil (I) ro o o a < -4S, E a a u U a) -0 7 a) 7 0 4Fjo .cT5 E _c a 4-, . 2 6 4- -1-' >) . 0C 4-(13 C 0 (3 L_ 2 0- .— =, 0 L7_ (,) Ln c CO -C) 4—, r c.) 4- (1) 0 •-• C3 0 > (15 CD • .-(72 . 6 :__,(5 E —2- • E)c > 0 0) 0 WW2 o 0 a o --,„ 0 a) Ln - -b9- 0 .--)z--2 (13 • c 0 .z.-, .., c -0 0 TO (3 T5 Wo0c in . (71 Ln CO w D 92 (1 ) 2 U (0 E VI S12/NS14/R08 0 0 c .0 U ' (t) En_ CD CD I c- 0 — CD u U CD C C.) 0 U >, .0) W TO _C +-, (0 U4-' 92 a co W = C +_, 03 D co 4-, 0 v)- (0 r Li To -0 '+'-.' > -C 2 .7 ) -o) *44 _ co >) 0 r- .2 O , — -0 u) +-, .‘Z in • — (1) _'7,, (..) '2 T- + -, ('3 _t_ — 0 '7 u) _Q cu -- C --.0- — C- D -b9- -be- • - o o C C C15 OW C 1_ 0 4=, s- , 0 4-' 0 0) 4-' c C C ti2 `E '—' (1) +-, --i Ln 0 U 2'.) a) in co _C 4-) .47; C Q) ro 4-, -0 E _c c c co W • �wc C 0 0 E .0) ‘,.; if) OU c rc) (I) Ecx E -0 c c 41 -E 3 Lt' 0 (.7) _c u-) c 2 TC3 .0 1E (-5 4-) (L) -a _c > • 0 , u D C w Eto c)— r 0 TA- a if) c E 172 o (..) 4-) -C • C c (r) (15 C _▪ J (4) (0 C 3 *-6 0 c c o 4-z 0 o a) 49:0 4_, c,-) c El o-) o a3 • E u (-0 0 • c,.., _„ w 0 77-5 O6- (75 C > c) al a3 E 4) 45 7-) > E -0 = --C) 0 > a) o D (.0 a E (1.) 0 (I) (73 o c Ell Ell co a 4- a c w (0 0 (JD(JD - _c E >a) 61) To o •al — t r-0 OD p • (1) CD r .-1) ▪ -0 c (3) 0 (1) 0.) 6 a) _c .,T, L Road Die-: 0 0 Q) Oa 0) 0 (J) 00 E C15 b9 -be- 0 0 cf- ) 0 CC CO S-Jaig n-zen Crossw 70: -CD co Ln a (f) 70: -0 a) c -E cv 0-) N (.) 0 C (13 - m (0 -0 (-0 4_, 2 u c ▪ (I) a) coCC c 6 LE, 4E; m c _c , .- 0 u, .0 ro a a. in (71- 4__; CD C- G.- ) ll > (2. a; 2 a 73 Li) ,a) ro • (0m 0 ,a _C ,+- ro C 0 .° W - 47, f'ro a.)E wo -c c .o o m c 0)T-3 C (-) w • 0 W (.7) 3)) T1) 0 • > W 0 (1) 0 (73 4-, a 4-, < .E 0 .0 a -c .3 a) ._(,) • CY o o • 0 u E cu o -ice- -.1 0 '3 a) m --Q (J • — 0 CY 0 4--, Lf) 0 0 u E cu (f) (r) a -0 0 F a) co 0 a) —cp 70: 1-11 C 0 _0 (u > 0 > 2 -0 (13 -2 a c L(3' 0) (Co) E _C _CD U) 9 so Lc1) '6 (-S 4j 4j .-- ro > • - a >1 6 -U) 0 C 2 ) 0 W V) -3 a E -o T3) "(2 (r) 4- uicca47'L,c (1) (15 ro 0 C 0 a — 5 0 - (0 CT a 4=,"6 -0 -C3 Ln ft3) '= a CD _0 v) 00 4-, 0) C LO C CO 4-, c •5 _ F_ (0 a C , C5) (0 C „' a 4-, 0) (7) ti c.) -0 c ca) Ty) 17; (5 0 t-r) c _Q C 0 co n (A c -0 0) >, CL) a) ) c _ (7) T o _ „a) a (13 c (13 CO (0 (1) -u > -C 3 a-) ea -C) u • CY 0 (f) o JE a) -be- --I 0 0 a) c5") _Ta 0 c ._ ,_ --, o a) a) T -0 CU (73 u u) T<' ._ (1) •E 7) cu 2 5 § x ; ul s. (:)-- S E) 6 (..) u-, ro if0) -m 0 6 ti;_,- 2 0 (Din (01 E uov) c2 u) ,- ,=-,- To 2 To a) -0 a >, w 73 mu CO (73 w . (0 3 7) C C _c C a (CDC 713 0-) 0 C *17.4 (t3 E .4, n c _ a) -C '45 (0 i0 ul 1- -, 2 -2 Fr) cc3).E. 4 (Co 0 4-, ca 0 v) ()) 6 u Q Ei -a al 1E w = c c o c et) >(I) 7 co TD E 0 - 2a) um 37) a -c a) 71 >, D Li2- CU E ul_ >C1) 0.) 4) 0 a) 1._ .1_, c .= _c(f) 6 E 4-0 a) c in (0 ro n ---' a E ro -C "4-=; 0_ u) 0 >.:4-0 ,,,C ui a 0 4-' G.) >C) -1--, :5 (1) (0 CD o -c § 0 2? c (0 0 4g2 L(' 0 .1_, 0 s__ 2 0 12) -' .775 75a 7ci, ro in — CD u s- r _c 4_, > (D ..I-, C -0 73 (3) in (1) roC -C4-' Oa ZUW ..,0a 31 4 52(13 -02( i )§ aa)E( ' - 7003 4 _4 -- - '° - 02m (u .c c E (0 > oul U) 4 al > CO C '' CD 4-+ 0 0 a) 4-, 0 Q) ' Ti- m NJ a) 0 7 1--, cum 4-0 -c 5 :-65- ca) .5 5 Q 0a bEwm''' (13 ,4= > 0 (f) 0 0 0 X CU 0 0. CO n-_ersection _ignm_ing CC LJ CD b 0-) co Ct3> > • (f) (f) u u 0 < u CC LJ CD c O 6 7-, 1- u a) 8 w 0 E) 01 cu (I) D .c --,,._ .'- .o 2 D (7) c a) (0 ._ :3is 5 E) '-c, -,-, c O < -' .1_1, (I) (I3 C . > 0 C .- = ..-; C ._o .2 .,-, _ 0 , -5 4- 0 C W(i) ln '47.J CD +-, in 0 $.,7 --,CL) -s-CY) .0- ° C '— a3 c a) 0 C — " 4-' to (0 0 *- ro ▪ u C a) in .— -0 0 ) (0 - 00 Vi -b9- Cf) - Z co 0) (.15 d-) U 0-) (ICU Wu) S -.S (I) C > 0 C '473 ,...._o 2 u Ln (f) 0 —9co ._ 1— a u _c = (0 (• T) u • — c a) Oc n P c o (-0 U 0 > 2 .L7) mccE E o o (T5 Er u (o • ci a) • 4-, 0) > -,c c 0 -- — La 0 CT) „ C C r o >7( (I) O > Lo r c\I (f) ,„L- a5 LE c c C • ra -I-' in e- c • ro > (LL (r) • E > Fcy (L) —„ > a) -0 -0 > W > aoo Li) 0 70) C (33. ("3) 0 " 7:3 0 "Ea, C • kJ C.- -Cc CD GC) U kk-Ck tkckk:k • CL) •(Lk (>1) 0) , LL CO ' ay CD C) DC1)(1) 0: • CD 0 a u 0 33• )7 U) 103-0 > 0) -5 .9 (I) ,a) a; () 0 O 2 0 '03 0- 33: c45 CD E • 0 ( u)• 92 O _C co • 13 co u)(1) a(.), 03 Li) • o? • 0) 19c. • 03 -5 (9 5(LE' 'LE CO "° • 777 77 -o L L7) (f) 0 0 (- O o ED N ) co co 22 ED u u cx LJ CD o - >, .,. ui __, 0 '0-) 0 ._, — -0 -(T..) ro al D 4-) W 4- --- P (i) ( If)W4—z. U 4--, 00 a) (o (1) u L_. W D a 'E T) in <0 ._ L c C CD D L '' 0 7 .- W U 0 _Q ir) (1) 7) in > _ v) 7 . ro 0 .53 C 4-,+-, Q) (0 TT) -0- c D 4---' Cn rj) 2 G.) - 0 kli 0 M C > T) ro . r•I. n3 'L-_: IA CO a 45 b w (1) a) — C >1 W (c) 4-, 7 ▪ = 0 . O _Cr° fl cji ° C u") ,._N =0 4-40 _En‘.4 0- 0 1(;) *TT) u m o C -c c a) c < _,_c_, ci) > N (0in -4-S P, 0 (I) cf) CO -o co I I 1 6= LJ 11 bs de vanagemen-: u 6= LJ tI tin 0 c (1) • M 49 > ro CD c 2 • a (3.) u -• CMM• E ro cy) 0 17; C • 0 9.) a) (0 49,-) (-43) -0 u ro -C c -0 (1) a c -0 Ln E a a = E0 8 -o v) .4 u c 5 (15 " L- u a) v) o a a 4FE'3 2 0) 9, 49 2 (r) 0-) CD E.) (1) -0 0 • a ,c2 *7-) -a5 o — ti"; TO _0 in 0 _o CD 5 o 0-) c ct) (1) u u 7 (an) (Z2 C rh" 0 E c ro" 2 a) .7_ a) a) .? E a) _• c (0 ;:ic-3 0-) _ 0 0 1-2 a 4-J C (t) U CD a 'Cr) &_ S- 4- C _c) L• o (-0 CC 0 ra • I () o M a (0 u9- G) 0• -0 u E in • an )fl , • V) ID E -0 c0)0 (-0 L) . (7) 4='' in 4—; _Q r-l-n (73 cf) (f) ,• (72 ro 0 U 0- .00) mpact At-_enuato 6= LJ 1^- CD 6= LJ 1^- CD 4-, 7 6 5 -0 c” _c ru Lr; ._q o ro 1E 7:1) E EELn(c) -8 0 0 — ,„_,. c 76 0 rn . ,1" ,,, >., G.) c c -0 m in m E 7 -0 0 0 8 1E m 2), a) q- -0 >c) r)cl) (oLf2 2 lc 4-, c 1E Ca c ° :=7., (1) 2 () 4_,) 0 LL 0 -0 4-) a, u 0.) o i: in 0) 0 -' c _C to M 70 r .(4) M 4-' E) _C 4--, M 0 0 • U) G) D -ro 0 ID . - .-5 (.0 • ro 0 li) 2 492 a) _o c _c 01 -01- 0 -01- co -0 L_ vi To -,o_ 0 L) 4- ID E -0 a) :5 ti M (1) h (DU 2 t; ." u) E a t a) D w o E (1- ) (i) E 0 5 (L) 3.-- o U a _i 0 C • cu o -0 co a) 1-2 4= o a) E 4-, • U G) 0-) c o E o m .5 2 c a M a 1,2 13 o C ra (.) a) 0 .3 a) CY o o • 0 01 01 cu o o 01 (i) (r) a mt Reducion -0 m a Vedian Guardr 0 U § \ > • j *- 0 / > - / § (0 -Cu /' • o E w o in a) \ -o a)• $ F Q § LE $ / u 0 CI) 13 — • I-3 ) __0 CD o. 0-) 0 F (-n a) c(II (f) 0 a_ = ct) CD (f) (1) 0) co -0 U 0 cii) CD sc (f) ' C a) 0 CO co CD i.A-, -I-' a• 0—•G.) j _c a) <.) E (`1Et u) n 0 CO x. C co i_'" cc) (6 -0 ± co -c E -_(cli c .-'b ic 10 in (1) Lij 0 (0 2 b Q) x E >, 73 —0- ;4= TD co Q) c) > 0 E. _c ,_, 0 a ' w b o D 42 0 C Li— 0.) CD U ai CD 4- U a; 0) 0 L'o E 24° ° U (1) 2 4-0 C -be C '.- " 0 4-' rt3 in 0 0-) 0 To 0 (13 0 c -.7.) (0(0 (1) 4->. U >1 — in ; > 0 < TO 5 (1) TD +7, r 0 QNJ� U Li Red _ g nt Ca cx L.V cx L.V o _c o 00 -0 92 6 c 0)-c II:" C t' (.7, E > (-D , , 0 ai -3 _0 0 c _o c (0 To TD -C C w !a) .Lr) u (7.) (7) a) 4- • - (_) 0m 4- _C Cl3 ;L-E (7) > E3 -c, (,) o ("3 > a) 4_ w cp o _c (-n o w ,- -o 4- 0-) 4- C (1:3 0 E .493 E2 - 3 G) a 0 m (r) E c 0 _c -- 0 0) c 0J4t- 0 _c .+7; 0") (E) w = a " a) E p wo.cD24? C < :CY .0 c0 E (3) C =, .15 o in 5 2 a a) 6 D _C . 4-0 cr) U _C C s- a ovui •o ro (13 _ w fe 3 0-) " 0 • — a) (1) C)-) 0 C0 0 ro 0-' — r _CD 0 u) To u„ _c 0 • C3) 8 L_W C3) a a CUJ E .•+7, •-c Ey) •— „ 0).4-, w 0-) in 0 C c _0 4-, 0") ir) D-Dc,2.)v) _0 -0 [12 a.) r a cn .7 o D 0 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Add Sidewa ALA b e PLsn BLtton Upgrade -0 0 ai — u cU c > ro u 00 -0 _c 0 c • ro (1) C .1 -0 C u U W (I) • - C• a) u E 0 = LT-) >w <c) (f) _aa) _ow < 0 0 (1) Q TO W 0 (r) _T) _c - -2 C .(7) -C co co 0 (3 1 c- cuorocc.) c3).(0 .(• 7)cjC r1:3 a 'n 4E3' L5 in in O a _o c0 co 4-, (A .(T5- in- 6 •S (-) 0 To 4- E < -c c WO c Lai)) (-J C .c1) *7) 0oo 2 o c mo (-0 R) - (1.) c -Q CU in 0 E _C 0 a .0 • • - a 2 LE .517 x 0 D. C 0 4-, r1) c) 4- ea ro t w in • CD O CU u V ,E a) in -C • in u ,_c-3 c (A ._() .5 • - W W 17 a mc o 0 L.: c cu (D o -.1---'0 , o O (° Ul >, -c) E • x in ro 0 o -E., a U C a) E w >, u) in u) .,-, u) ,, tu u) •in v) (T5 0 .,... cu c O 0 CD -0 U CD 'C-) 49 03 CY) c 0 C C 7, • 0 0 ,., -0 sa_ • a U X >, CD CD OUQ - V-) !1-.) 2 a 4 0 c u c c ci, (0 • M t -..........., a.) M 0 (A 4:_, 03 -• 0 'C • ..._ no •LT-) .N _c a) v) L.) O To 4-' C- C • 0 M.) b E u) w .5_ -e5 D 0 in 45 m C 5 C(7) _Y O ▪ (r) w__— 7- v) 6 O 0.) E) C in LT) 0_ 2 L- 0 2 ra 2 o cc <atl'ou a) u u _i Lu ,) ..,. a PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES U) 0 ( 0 CD > X III -Q u Q E o •E 0 j b \ c/w / co o o (I)§ CI) 2 m ao Q £ 2 % E7/ e To o / in 2 0 E § //E 2D§ £ g 2 § \ d GCE 42» 2 ƒ§ƒ 2 £ CD (-0 w o 0 o w o / •g i (-51@ CT (0> / / ®o � / w o U 0 o E / § / g a' / \ 0.) � \ @ E cow a) - % \ / 0 © 0 \ _ •/ 0 c 9 ( \ i » 2 0 o ® f o 1 / 4 § w G E In 3 a) • w @ - g-E69= E62-° /70a> in E m o 9 2 2 \//��2 m\-\\/ 7 § \ % E w \ D 77 \ a \ 4 a o < _C / \ Audible Pu m: cp c 0 -0 u) H cU a) _E a.) 0 U .Z) > cf, (r) op 2 u CU 4- CD (73 = u u) -0 ca) _c > c = 4-c o • - co o-) E c c c c _ M CTS 0 TO V) E __ c 2 cy) .(7) -0 .c .2 c o 5 m u 0- 4S a) 0 22 Ln V) -0 CD 45 c -oa5 0_ C 0 m - L7-) C cr) D o in U C -0 • C ro >, 4-, 2 .7) (13 _ ?)_ cu *,zLtD -00 O a LL° ta2-, Lc -0 < (7' '4=' .17) E 'LT) r • 0 _c _c . *E +-+ C .0 •LT-) F3 CLE c O c (1) ro >1 '5 c , -0 o . s- 3. U▪ ) a C in *- 4- -0 (1) ("0 CD (13 (1) ® in a 4-; > 0 U 0 `C, v) a • E _ 0 5-, o , -0 E To. c " a) u-) c u) 2 ,-(13 o co 0 CO -Q o 0 o u z co 0 4) --I 0 (f) 0 a LJ LLA Landscape BLffe -Q c— .co 0 0 CD U —0 cp CD (D co CI) CD .7) (1) 0 -• 0 ro 0 '- `1) E c o (.0 U • C *i= C (1) (c) c 4-, TJ Q.) -0 cy) CU Q) c a • — CD " c (T) 11) (i) cY) — c *0 •- - a • ro • 20 a o Lr' EL'LE °-.) o Q) 0 7 03 7,5 > ,woom 1- > (-5) 6) .c CS) C " -C3 • a C ▪ a o c u(0 Lfl." • cn u _c C (r) roD u C3 C3) CU c To 4-, c 0 _c ,C cu g u, — c • 0 c ro -0 c (1) 0 CD • in 45 a (8 c O (1) in (1) (° 0 CO TE (1) _C m c E 0) a — >- 1 4- 0 Ln -C 0 C (73 C 0 ▪ LrY3 .c u) 4_, 4-, 47, U G.) (i) • 7:3 CU < • .0 E D PHB rests in 0 E 4-- 0 Pedes-Jian Detection co u) CD -0 0 - c— CD co co 8) Pedestrian Reca _C (13 D v) co W (-0 2 O np _▪ C C o_ a) o u) c C 2 _ o u, O E c a) ro • 0).,__(-0 ul c (Ucu -0 W _C 0-3 2 E 4- .0 a 4-c c a) a _c w _C (C) cp ▪ c E4- Ln In '4= cu (o c • --9. 0) a) 4-, • • (7) nj -b- e- O • (c3 >, (I) _C *473 C 0 (f) (1) -C (-) •41,- .- • (15 — • 2 0 0 Lrs c a)D0a) 0 vs c cu 46 ro v) — ® C L- a) D _4-, • - E a) -0 a) a) 0 D > Q) co _C 4-, (7) > > WA isn' .-C(i). :55 -c c .-> c 4(T3' _TD * C CY) . (0 E (3) 0 U LC) a 0 TD .4-:' a3 (D o L5 Cirj >) O -0 s• a) . c ,_ CO > w (1) u)C a) -C 4-4 4-, C • #., as us co CY) z•c C CZ 4-- -, ._, as (0co CD cu/ >cl) wv) '-) cuc Lou cu> *4-7, 0 2 -Caw 4-:Dc . 0_)_> (73C ,42" U 0 c cn 2 2 4?1 _0)0 ra gb: a) 7 c 2 a E cu cc li)(0 (0 _c cc O cu .75 2 u-) a cu" 0.2 CY C) LT) • •Z ln -0 r 0• 0 - 2 c c 0 0 -be- Li) 0 2 c in co > O CD I-• 47; w E a) a) • E a Wden S.dewak 0 co _CD u 0 -0 0D a) (13 a) o_ 4-,) o (1) r 0 0- Ln > o o co c o C 4-, ti- O > E • -▪ 0 = .7) • .5 a a) _c • •- c • o c .7) co .5 _c c (1) (7) u a) -2 _0 (0 c c 0 C3 C (0 11) -c(0 u.) -0 -0 (13 (1) 0 CD 17j -0 cD C s- > > ro Cu a) 6 a) o 92 2 (2 E 2 t o) 2 t • 4-, CC a) 0) c 7.1 co 1-1- c (0 • c T) < CO -0 • LL C - 121 c O U -C 03 CY) ‘4 EL co as CO CY) (D C (1:3 ▪ U) CU 92 73 < a otorists of a C5 _c _c N 0) (I) CD to I O 4-, • 0 -a -05 0 c (.7) -0 > m 0 _ O a C Lt) • 13 -0 -0 a) c (i) a .- k_ C CD 10 _c a _y -0 U (C) C -Q O 0 -0 - 0) w -CD .0 • (7) -C C ("0 C -0 (I) 0 E 0 O 0 >, 4-, = (0 5 U) ,a) O- M 4-, C 0 *(7) E • L(f; u c > >, c _o a_ ,41)(pc 0)(f) c.r) a >a) o 2 a 1:3 E .a) 0 Q) ea a) 0) 0 (f) o JE CD CN 0 0 -be- —I 0 (f) 4_J (r) 0 m 0 (i) (JD 0 CC co F o •E cp --o a) a) COE) > C- 0 0 < N 0 c w 0 _o'c5 c (A _c c • — _c (1) •c:" w E c ' E to i Q) 0 D E o ,_ > NJ c ,-- D 4- rio 2 7 . (1E; a) 2 o a) E w >(1) E -c, Da' u t- >, E a) a) E w f„ 0 in 0.) . E co _ RI m -5 .c. . _o 0 73 I_E E -0,5 -oc E, .ci 7,)0 0 c O E -0 uw *c m a) C> t co > E .7). . .,, w c E (Dr° m (u >, 3 a) < 17-; - < Q) a) a) (1) Li_ 4-, „ Cl.) Z" _C r -' _C _C a) in ▪ ui -0 a" co a3 0 4- a -0 co '(r) W . _E 2? 2 w ., o_ E - if) E m 4-, ru -0 _CD 4-4a) '0 2 4--,(1) -C D c 0 1._ >1 W. (73 > V) (.) ti) •••=, V) (-1) 'CD I r) tj a) c a) c c > >,Q) c,2 o m .0 cD, .-c 0.) u) 1 .47, -0--,) 4- U , w • a U 0 46- :=, ,_ '-' a) a) To — a) To To c -' m c a) „, • (.(3 4-, %.14 ,4-- (13 0 a *.5 S- -(c13) 4E' Ln . LT1 _C n 0 ..) . 0 c -C if-) 46 a) CD a) _C CD > ® 4-' > • - s- 5.-- 0 4`--,' 0 0 .E -0 -- , Paa-- _3g'- 7- 0) _,2 to CO W 42 CO - To a) E ‘I- -C 4-- -69 0 c (I) CD 4- (7 —(13C0 O W In WU '- '- a) (f) (I) 0 CC • l_ c U _I 0 - up up co w cl) 2 0.1 L:_, c w (...) C . Li 13 E (i))0)E`no,92, co 0 c2 u .- ,, 0 U-C) 'Cl3 COC) --- ° - ,CD >-• i-=--- E =.0 c .4-7, -0 ( 1 3 -0 4a CI) .0 • -a- -3 0 0) ° =c a) v_i_ 4_ a) , CD a ro n) -6 --) -0 = ._. •- E 0 0 x — n3c 1 1 1 < ri, 0) .N a ICI-) INC) (f co • — I 3 ) ,CD . CD -0 C •(-7) (1) cf) X 11 1 U = :5 § 0-) >, - ‘,7; o v< (13 co > C 7.13 0 -Eft (i) D w a) -C3 -C3 • 0) E c CD 2 (f) 0 a o c 4-w -Fp -5 a in (a vi u co (o cr• i- -C3 a o • a-) zi 00 .-Q 0_ • — • 0 U CO ..., a) •-..,.... a) (f) -0 o 0 a) a, a c , L ,_, 0 O o a) 2, -b9- —1 0 (r) E ra -a) 34-7, 13 -0 0 0 TD n a) E a) n3 E _c 4_3 w 0 Lf) (I) u u 0 CC c u c — CO CO U 21 Pedes-zrian Sc irniiir C) CD 0 > Ln 0—) _ cr) F CD I F— CY) CU ro _c O a u 0 E G)G) 0ajC U C 0 -0 4-3c 0- 00 • >) 112 CD o o0)c cuu L(I2 .0 n > (f) ' (0 -0 IA _• Q - E HO +-+ TO • (L) ti) E a) -o o G.) CO " ro to 4_ c ro E c • 7 E a 409- • 0 4(12 • wro c c0D • CO 0) 0 r:43 _0 C C 1E .2u -Si 8 U 0 0 (f) X CU i -0 1 C i -- , 0 i 0) (1) +-, C ._, _C) _..Y (.) I CD „... • c o 0 . CUC ro >, 0 ‘..._ (:3 'u 0 E Q) 4-, v) in W W -0 u) m 0 4-, --, c _c _C' -k-, (13 . CD in • -C _u-• . ,._0C(73 .., o co ,-,-- U in : W U CD >, 4-, • co - (- 1) ...) v) . 0 CD _C a a § '6 u 0170 : c > c ul a) c S._ Ln (.....) • LT1 . -(3 n3 U 0 a) a .-Ln •_E -0 : .., : in E co •- a.) CO -0 O -E w rj co in E O w CD . 0) 0 M ) '3' -o 0 • § M C L..) E 05 },0 4-, 4-• z C (0 Lo 0 o u a_ c .., in > ci. • - Cn50C . (7] : 4-; (r) 0 (I) .-E -0 0 Cir : > • 0 a U _I I 0 a Pro ec_ed LeT_Turns un-ors-red movements should / V /0 @ 2 2 n / £ N Co , / ® @ E N.g / g = 73 % E m 9\ 2 m>/ ./ /\ \ 0/ N o D 4 m » 7 J %/® a D %3\Dy— c>£E E Q >) 9 7 s E & 4 00° 0£)\/§ 7 0 » 0 E § /�///\//\� E E E E 2 Q E G 2 9 2§ m£% 2 e m E E /\/©e®202E / f \ /f \ c E / / ® Q _c o ® ® ° c2 0)& t §/� / E�2—Em 4.7, § '�.� m o E \ / E E E > ƒ \ > 2 / / 0 //E_cm EzE$=£ 0 y4�§�2.2c -0 0 — e > - / 0'§ f / > / T3c(0 »EE=£ / o -C _ — 2 § Q.0 / w °� 2/ N c E% n@ a $ @ / o'-'�.7 q m E % 7 / » ± $ - / '4 / ? 0Ln m 4 • \ \ a./ E / \ \ j > 0 \ \ 0 m: c Snor_en Cycle eng C- rn 01 L 4) CD C L ® // / � \ \ O e w" ) u @ (-0&E •2 w 4 0(D c k m/// 0) g 0 o % . g.= 0 � m 7 / ° ) $ Q -0 .7 @ o .g \ 9 ./ w ® e \ o a)° \ m -0 roc > al / » o § © 2 m 0 E _ — £ ° / / / q / \ 6 / C w%,-ƒ 22¢±>G� �� E_ w o w e= 2%\ƒ 2\ t 0 U/ 7/�$2\,_- / \ 0 2 \ ( ° 0 ° 'E C G ®E y To = = 0 �•- co m E m ®o E \ Q % 7 = \ w o> .e 0 E a oo w.z (.)co 2 / / °° 7 £ o a @ a 2 o 2 o o g % o > / E \ / U 0 §0 CO 0 % \ a ro 0 W r > Q) E c CO (CI CD 47., C C.) " C 715 "E CL) 4-, E c (-0 To ,c o •0-) (J) (1) _C (1) 0 C.) C 0) 0 - (1) C a > > a) a (D To (-0 _c C • - (f) C CI) CO 0 C U -0- 0 ° (I) a) _c(1) .) a 4-, ro u 4-4, "- 0 a.) w - _c 5.= U a 4-, a < (13 ro (1i a) > -0 • > a) a) a o 1) ',4(0 .L- cu w a Q) G) _0 _C -0 c f, ro 0 0 0) 4- C D(43 -Q L- c w a) a -a v; .(-L? a) o ((1)) c o o 5 L_ c au Lt C n3 rn (1) c -0 (.) • - — E -c a c C5) r1 5 C (1) Cy) „ LE cp ° > -- cu > H > u") 4--, V) >1 0 0 (D :g 75 >' (3 am • u) c 2 wii) -.)) 0C- c.” > a ro E 1) ti; E om (1) ° ) coc U c- > T: (c)) a) *fd c - o CD CD 4-, . 4-, 0 C--- S .4=Hj) r in • -C 7:3 " C in (1) ° § ( a .)) 2> 25 , , ,D . (--. 0 0 - 0 0 c a) 0., Ld, 0_ a - u.) .,.,] —co p_ U ED.-- o E 0 0 (7) 4 cT3 0 2 C LT) a ra in E D 17 D Lo LQI 1) -0 C (I) CD ----_, a w 8 (0(,) _c 00 o 0-) ro a) (5:3 C as ) a W ° 2 E 1 tE cDE E (20 4_,o_t4c/i _c-a7 a) .i-, ui >-' C u > 4-S,m t, *-L74 a.) (3) Q.) 0 0 G) L- C U LE a 0 •= r U a ._'7 co 0 46, U) 4- -6-, Mt& 41, X D. 0 Advance S:op Bar jII co U) bpgrade Signa (r) -0 W (13 > c 0 w cn _ C CO 2 E cY) ' V- o c 4- 73 ro CL) u L._ _C r- CO CO U .70 76 .0 - 0 46 • o 0 o u) w .,_, .2 c L__ 4- w c, o cu D TO 73 ,r) 10-3 (0 . o — Cn0 • Q • a C CO • LT-) 4-, Co > • (1) 4-, a E o c -0 > (1) a _c (j) c 0 . .-...) .8 O c if) 7 0.) m a) ro c LL) ° co m E - o 0 tn 0 C) In .— U E EL a VD (0 a 0 _Q (41 CD 0 0 :-7Z. N in To u- ) • U CO 2 -be- -,J 0 Li) -0 a) 0 co -C) To tf C U v) > 0 (1) 0 CC • 4-, < 0 (j/13 -4-S 17 U _1 2 (0 ro u 0 0 2 0(8_ 0 c ) o coc3), (ID (7)ND 0 (1) 0 0 -0 (• .., c ._ ci-)) t))_ -.i c3) al 14= m a) 2 (f) (JD a a) cc, cu 4- cu 0 U _i u c c- co ._ > v.) -o op < a) — co CD -o 0-) c WC ._ CD • E c 4-, C 92 t ?-1 D c M 0 Li_ (r) LE (-) (1) .5 1— 2 > co > .> -0 .4a) a) •,-, m a) ,7; _c > co u 1:3 so a) u (-0 U C 0) >, D -C > ---.,' ._M ;CY 0 in (111 D C5)Er0§0 (DCI) •E c 4:5 (D 0 0 U E 0Dc8W-C-3E0 0 c c.) v) ,_ > C •— -0 (00) a) co c 0 co _c 0 (1)t 2 CY) 7 now'— mc0 (-) a E (-0(3 E o • (1) (f) OD U (f) EID O 0 > N (1) F 0 C— O *L CD co CO C7) ED F E co cr) > co —0 I 4- C O 0 Ie2 '47-, o 0 -0 w (1) rt, w > _c (0 •,7_ ,... 0 0 -0 (13 _c'- c c 2 L.7 0) L_ to 0) w "c3 ,45— • — c -0- u O (1) > Lr) • o -0 .3 a) 73W '4---,a) ocu 2 co0.)'• 0_ -Q _c c __ 0 ,92 5 a) ri o-) c 0 L ra -0 0 0 co 0 ,_ W c 0 •-•., Q) 0 L- > D (1) C nj 10' C 1. 0 0 > CO D > w 0 u E cu _C U 0 -o c (L) . - CO A-, -C 0 _C C (730 coC -F-,ui o 2 70 >, E a 5 >(7 0_ 0-3 > 4-, O Ci3 O C a ca E hq L(f) 0 _c a > '-F-; ro co (I) op a 03 0 -C3 _1 C (J) 0 a3 L'" Ci) a) 4-, c > • E 2 c o a _ct L.) •E ,zum a(1) ro c -0 o .20)roc roo #jcuo 1Q) 5 2) .E E 0-) (.0 0 c 0C o 0 tc5 • t) oEw c < V2 (15 y_ > g -0 0 Tu .c_C • < C E C • Q) c (,) g.) ° 2 _Q • — C •-• 7, in 0 a CY) LE 0 C *(-7) Ln 4- 0 • = ro �nfornnation c- c- o o ED E Pained Cente co 0 I CD Res.dentia .3 a) .0 • 00 Li) 0 0 UJ u E 0. -be- (1) a) 3:j _C c = —0- -a (rj_ _a 492 402 •• LT) cn -0E ru (135cl) > _c > -0 W U) -0 -0 > c _0 co 0 5.- W — _„(1) ca c(i) C D E 0 0 in 0 a) C C) 4_0 3 4_,a30 75:Eco a) -0 cn a) in 1.1.10(DC) _J c a) ro -(T) E o') ro C y- gj r, U CD 0.) 6 0) • 0 in 77 co •i7) Lu -L2 -0 CD a) .(7) > , 0,) c _C CD _c - • -0 _o CY) C C 0 cm 0 (7-) • .2 o o >, in _c 0 _J c (0a CU E 0 < o Ln -so M u 00 (f) o u E co 0 (r) z0 — (r) 0 DI • E >, o c • - SIGNING Er STRIPING L) -0 c- ED E D co 0 C (-no Speed ------eedbacK Sig c-D I ) CID -o •0) 0 0) CD 0_ -0 • — C > c 2 -S3 2 3 o -rs u 0 >) _Q Cll a) >1 0 4_ _„ • ro C (f) (13 CU CU -0 CD -• 0 > a) *E C 2 0 0 .E a a Lan) • c _c o C 0 CD CI) U ro -C '(7.)Q U LD -0 0 CD • 4— - >, 0 a) -= > 0 a3 Ln0 -0 • < a -• CI• CI) E <4, necessary. Lf) 0 -0 Q) ° .0 • 00 0 0 C..) 0 X CU C 0 Li= 0 • u c (-0 c a) 4 u o M a -• 0 • in • (1) CO • • • '= • w 4-) n -C • E u a, .- c ▪ C )4f CU CU _C ▪ U) • -• 0 ▪ '- 0 u) cc a 0-) ffi-Q • _c 0' 0 O (f) -c o (.6 -o 0 -r_ a (-0 CD a 1_j Lr) Ci) 0 a) C CD ._ 0 in _ CY) )( +-, 44-4 -) C CD LE (-) . - CD a -2 W in 8 45 0 E -0 a) o a) +-. E D +..,0 2 _0 (0 ▪ C1.▪ ) ._ . 0-) (i) co ro a) (I) RI n — 0) ro '- 7'-` -0 -0 5 O 2, tz) -, .°2 a' 0 c 0 0 c 0-)— >, C u 0 4; C V) 4-+ C .' C 'r-o- 0 --'(0 +-, a) u ._, E 4- E u a, w 8 t) w ,) a) C -C V) V) al -' cu 2 2 ) ro 3 IL) b 4_ r ci) Ln -, co > x (A ci) E a—w oc ") •-• . . , . ' ' ' o L- E (0 C C w 0 C (0 -(1) in .--' CD (I) '- x in cu •c a) 8 O 73 -0 -0 0 a) ,> c c 0 1- < • E c (T) p ffi-Q 0' 0 (f) o u E Cr) 0 o Cf) (J) Lip 0 cc c)-) c- • I ) CD o-) (1) CD 0 (f) co L.) C) 0 D I co E > Q-cU D U) 4-; w r Icjo) — ±I2 1E (>) c 0 a 2 F.,' (75 u) > 22 ,•_ •— > 0-) (U u Or ,.-_. C(DrOC -• 0 .+7, r.) -0 Q) +-, Q) 4•-_-,' -0 c ea -0 .-- C) o TD ..-.2 .8 ro (...) > in w in P-) 4 2 .4-, CY 0 o •—„., 0 0 77•--, -....,.., a.) (f) -k-:-, 4--'' _C > 0 0 4., C . -1--' CB u E _c 0 c a) N 0 :4------.' N be- .-_.i 0 a C C rO U) U • _ C >, cr) 0).MS=2 •C ul •C 0 0) E >) cY) • 0-) 4a1 Li) 0 CC D a) D — a) c (1) E .,-S a) -0 > c rt5 c co a '7) • cY) c c o u t • C v) >1 2 za a • >, a C 1-T 3 c cu 6 -0 CY) a o C c 5 . 03 (9 *+7, C —0 0 (.) C Ln_ • - C , CC 13 • - 41, C 4 - - c CO -0 Y. .8 CY 0 0 0-) o 0 o (f) o z Cr] (i) Li) 0 Upgrade S-irip.ng • • cln (• -0 X w U 11" 0") c (7) 0-) CY) (7) .c E g)) 45 To u L I) (-7)) O _c a c E c 0-) D *L7) Ill — cur) > W OD g a- u-) c c 0 .7) a, oE c ‘- .— o E ro c2 • o 4?;) 0 _• (:) > (7) • C .5 75 C -0 CY) (7). a a) D O E 0 *Z-5 ro op _0 E Lo .4E_ or°• a 0-) ea CY 0 (f) JE 0 o cn - o z 12 Ln 0 CC OU u •0) 0 (1) (I) 00 r13 U C —C CD w 0 (-0 C C — R3 —(DO • L- C1 (1) D = -0 tri E Ln ,t7-) 0 > SIGNING 8 ST0P|NG (f) cD (f) CD CD -0 E CD O.) C-7) C- cU r c -0 0 rt3 (ll _C;) c ro cll 0 4J c 0) 'LT) m 0 -0 - (.1:3 (1) tri 0 c a 49 o_ -c) 4- TO C 0 CD a) cu -0 CL) CD . > 4E' 6:2 8 .3 a) M --Q —(-2 • Gi CY o O • 0 • E O cf) *—j5 z (r) ▪ 0-) C c (f) .7) • cr) tn' .c 2 a) (7) a) 2 Do >WE O u " • -• 0 c El? a) c ▪ TD- LE c • (_) ,a) 0 (TJa ui .7) _c 4-0 4- mc § E Lc5 CI) C u C • ro _c cc c 0 co 0 a) (- O ._ l) U m m O >0 U O 0_ Eco n e a 2 6 > • 42 o®± \203 J c (I) \ 0 % a © m >c Q . £ 0 = 0 f 0 C / W 2 / i o Oa o e @ a ± cc Q @ \ % 2 0 Q 0 / / e22m u a -= w \ CD - \ 2 / } & Q.) w a ,2 / C e \ &QQ\ 3 measure Non -Engineering Counte m / / -O / °\M\ (.r) U 0 0 \ a \ \ / > § • /ƒƒ Co o e I m e w e 2s\E22/ E _.N e ro-0 2 yJ /2 § co 0 § @ m t 02 / E D.e co® m.- m E _ (.1-1:3' E • \ / \ c.)cL) 0 0 2 c •C = m 0-\ / / / ° 9 2 0 0 M > a o % o Q.9 7 /2—a2u u » o/ 2-Q-0 �E 2 2 0 2 /E 2 2 / E E % 3 0 v, u .g E_E Non -Engineering Countermeasure En: .o w _0 cu0 (r) c > a E ° ro C(• -6 O C (13 • al -0 • a a) 0 () a • 0-) a -Y ro -0 0 CU a w w (.0 • = cy) _C c o w C • C CO 0 C a 2 o-) measure Non -Engineering Co 4/15' 0 0 r 4— in _ CD (2 4-, 46 (0 (0 +, 0 * — .47, cii -a c c c oro c0") we) uro .s_.E D co a in CL 2 0-) c 0-Eo .c w > -o .2 (.0 J• o c _c > 0 E 0 m ' in . in (0 (...) _(;) . 0 C c.) a o 4-, (0 O > " CO (..) '4----. 0 E -,_„ >) u in #6 0w (-0 , .— ur— D +-, co . >, +-, C3) c -0 -Cij) 22 E _c O ru y- a 0 >: C _C Ul Li- r — 0 -a C 0 L- D (0 CD C a C ''' 0 . 5 t.; - — 2 u,(13 4- -6 2 w >, 0 6 _c) , L_, c c co 7 0 - )r C (0 0-) a E c cu _c -0 > C lr) co (-r) 4-, ui 4_, a) CD Non -Engineering Co C= 1=1LLJ rz„)LJ LLA Lu C= 1=1LLJ rz„) CC LU Lu LI o L F — CD U • E u C- D - (f) F 0 0 44. in- >) 6 di 49," 1 n3 a c (f) 8 -0 ,,_ 0 _u ro .,,,= E - a ui 0 x 2 o) o>, c -0 0- aa " -0 -0 0 c 7 m (a G.) s-- Q) 0 C 0) a3 in > a) C • in ro CC)) ul- 0-)C) cu>' 0- IDE 2 7in 0 DW __:: Li c w -0 o c m w • -,- Ln o T.) o 4-' m > CO 7Q)C--Cr° 0_ -0 L._ • - o C .4Li) 6 cu c >) 0 ,-, >7) >, ,- 7 a) sa,....— 4—i a) D (0 _C al (0 5 73 '432 C "E 0 0 .-7, 0 0 in .c c 0:3 • w 7 co in c° E (-0 C cll C 4 CD D Q) --J [T2 Ci") ._ t (0++ ' -(-) 4 (LI L-- * V2 (04—. 6 4—— • — s-- , Q) ..„..s-' ._ 0 E o L) 1/) '17) (73 (13 cr) 1) > as cr) +-+ U 5 L- L- (1) .E72 () -ED u (L) x (75 a " 2 in- ° (.5 4-, 0.) > c . (73 0 C D Co (DOD*- 0 0 0 .3)in cr) — . C >CD U) c — -0 C.) a in 2 r_, -2 0 C W CO E -a a) Z 0 u) a3 CT3 5 rt3 a) (D w 0 -0 > a J U 0- (13 > -0 (a p tj .417' rES —1(1) (13() • —L) 2 .;.+- -8 (A (0 E 0-0 >, 0 4- E >, a 8 E " w-c U) c 0 c o m -0 (0 a) -0 U) 4—, C C C O W EEC 0(`) E 4-+ 0 (1.) _Q 0-0 • ‘_ — • - a) w E E n W L- _y u — ( - E 0 Non -Engineering Countermeasure measure Non -Engineering Counte 0 0 0 (f) 0 ) u) O 0 ED ( co cf) SRTS) p rc)g r Lri _c0 .46 U V) in La (.11 492 0 O (• LA) a _c cr) a .= cu _Q c R3 4) LflCJ w a (D Cllu-) CC3 _C 1. -c) 4- - CD uj o 4._• (Dw 4— • 1— p in -0 r) O -0 a3 c a co (- 7..) O *- O -C CU E > < Non -Engineering Cou U) cn CD C.) Non -Engineering Counte -0 0 o (f) C- ED O 0C- _CD C- N 7 • CD 0 Z u) CD U u) -0 ?0 • — -0 ) co (I) -0 -0 0 Dcc) (r; '- 2 >1 Li2 • 0 0 — +-, D = CD ..), (0 0 4F:3' 3 il .5 o E La) 0 .5_ 0-) >,.(3.5 0 E o •E '-:a.) c Q) (0 u) 6) ( 0 .u..E - r°4-, >, 4- -C) o ® (r) U (.) 4- u-) C.) C :- lb a C . 0 . ° 1) -1_7'.. C , a as o E 03 u - •C N 4-, 4 t ° E 12 '— u-) •- 4- a) a) TA- 4-, (I) o w a v) D a) -0 (D O D -C CI) (DC- Pc O 7 b -0 $ N ,C U > - (f) 9 4cU CT) 0 u C 0 ,— CO -C S2 a O. u 0-0 G.) • Ti (6. CD a5 E c (-'6 E (L) C• T) a- ) 0 c > Non -Engineering Countermeasure Non -Engineering Co -o a) 7P_ 46 c c o 2 cn (13 ▪ 2 a) 0 2 u)+-, ,-, a) .-, (c) -0 r _0 a cu- a, u) cu - L5 u C 'LT) . 0 a u 0 a) 4--, a) .-6 .°1 ' 5 4,--0' (.0 2 _..) :5_, t 0 .--, co ,c To c 'a ',.- (2 w 4--. a) G) 4(2 4-+(75/ (13 "E VI E Ln 2 C W+-' c 2 (3 a) * o 42 ,c1) ?),,'`D -c).< t -c ,) a3 o a .1-, 4-' --) (i) 4-' _Y a) 0 C 40 a _C E c o Li_ u) .,, 0 Ec2 ,o u) (1) ro ' 1E ro ®\ ul 0 L'. ' 4-'- .T) 4,'Y-1 0-) •(-11) _y c ,-, ,- a) a ,T, 0— - ° 0 ro 43-- .2 0gi) 4-, C - 4,-(5 92 -0 40 .5.. 8 >, c u .(,T, 1-' w 0 E `-(3„., o c 1- (1) i . D cu -C-5 a 7; -0 - • E ° q-c) 42" Ec' cu a 45 cl, c -0 •- 0) CU 0) C 1(5, W 0-) rEmin -Ct ..5> -0 4--' _C -0 CL) C r 0 6 _aF_ — Ul (0 W C 4- measure Non -Engineering Counte X CU C : 0 : CITY iF TUK 6L I LC3 'A RCIIAD SAFETY EL 98 LRSP Project # Tukwila International Boulevard CS 152" d St to S '144th St Project Narrative EXTENT TOTAL PROJECT COST OPINION JURISDICTION LAND USE CONTEXT CROSS SECTION SPEED LIMIT AADT CRASH PATTERNS PRIORTIZATION SCORING Crash History Addressed North of S 152nd St and south of S 144th St $4,347,000 City of Tukwila Commercial, institutional, and medium -density residential Two travel lanes in each direction, with a center turn lane and intermittent landscaped median 35 MPH 13,000 143 crashes within the corridor between 2018 and 2022, including seven fatal or severe injury (KSI) crashes The highest-ranking segment in this corridor is the southernmost block, north of 152nd St, which has a score of 2.93 (3.0 is the highest possible score). This segment has the highest score in the city. The following crash types resulted in KSI crashes and are listed in order of prevalence: - Pedestrian: Any crash involving a pedestrian. Pedestrian crashes along Tukwila International Boulevard included two crashes where a vehicle traveling straight struck a pedestrian, and one where a vehicle turning right struck a pedestrian. - Angle: Angle crashes involve a driver hitting another drive at an angle, or the "Angle (T)" WSDOT crash classification.' - Fixed object: Any crash where one driver strikes a fixed object, usually at the side of the road. - From opposite direction — Head-on: A crash occurring where vehicles traveling in opposite directions hit each other directly. Proposed Countermeasures A series of countermeasures were selected for Tukwila International Boulevard to address the most severe and common crash types. The countermeasures include corridor -wide measures and spot improvements at specific locations. The list below is not inclusive of proposed systemic, citywide countermeasures such as lane marking visibility improvements and high -visibility crosswalks. Proposed Tukwila International Blvd cross section Corridor Improvements • Extended landscaped median between S 152" d and S 150th Streets, S 150th and S 148th Streets, and S 148th and S 146th Streets. The landscaped median is proposed, in part, as access management, to limit left turn movements into driveways along the corridor. • Corridor access management is proposed along the corridor at key driveways to reduce conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists, and may be accomplished by closing or restricting access to those driveways. • A road diet to one lane in each direction, with a separated bike lane along the corridor extent, is recommended. If a road diet is implemented, it should be applied further north of the project extent to S 140th Street. Left turn lanes will remain in the center at intersections. Proposed cost ranges in the below table reflect use of a concrete barrier, but bikeway separation materials may include materials such as flex posts and/or landscaping. o A road diet, and accompanying separated bike lane, is a longer -term solution that may be applied to the project pending safety efficacy of other countermeasures. Additional 1 https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/NHFP-crash-data-dictionary.pdf countermeasures and study applied to surrounding streets such as 42nd Ave S may be necessary to calm cut -through traffic. Spot Improvements • Raised pedestrian refuge islands allow for two -stage pedestrian crossings in the middle of long blocks, improving accessibility along the corridor. They are proposed at the following midblock locations: o Between S 150th and S 148th o Between S 148th and S 146th • Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) are proposed at the below locations. At each intersection, high visibility marked crosswalks with curb ramps should be added on each corner of the intersection to facilitate east -west crossings. o S 150th St o Between S 150th St and S 148th St o S 148th St o Between S 148th St and S 146th St o S 146th St o Between S 146th St and S 144th St • Curb Extensions are proposed for the side street crossings to reduce the crossing distance for pedestrians. There is already a curb extension on the west side of S 150th St. Curb extensions are not proposed for crossing Tukwila International Boulevard, because those would conflict with the proposed bike lanes. Curb extensions are recommended at the following locations. If a corridor -wide lane reconfiguration is not advanced, curb extensions at these and additional locations may be used to narrow lanes and reduce turning speeds at intersections. o The east side of 5 150th St o Both sides of 5 148th St o Both sides of 5 146th St • Floating Bus Islands are proposed for the four existing bus stop locations on the corridor to enable the separated bike lanes to route behind the bus stop. These would require coordination with and concurrence of King County Metro. Cost Approximate planning level costs for each countermeasure are included below. These reflect individual costs and do not include contingencies or other costs. The final page of this document provides a more detailed preliminary opinion of probable construction cost for the entire proposed project. Syst $ Low — typically $5,000 or less $$ Medium —typically $5,000 to $100,000 $$$ Moderate — typically $100,000 to $300,000 $$$$ High — typically $300,000 to $999,999 $$$$$ Highest — typically $1,000,000 or more IC High Visibility Crosswalks Systemic/Spot 45% Active ode Facilities Separated Bicycle Lanes Floating Bus Islands Crossings; and Signals Raised Refuge Islands Curb Extensions and Ramps Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) Corridor Spot Spot Spot Spot 45% Not available 32% Not available 69% $$ $$ $$$ Other Road Di Access Control (via median) Landscaped Medians Road/Lane Diet Corridor Corridor Corridor 35% 35% 19-47% Total Project Cost CO vd (S 152nd S 0 CO a) Local Road Sa E as co LL o_ 7 a co • cL cis -2 co co 17) .02 • cn= w • -o _o co 6 'co • CL Floating Bus Island Corridor -Wide Countermeasures: Separated Bike Lane Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Ryan O'Hara, PE, Toole City of Tukwila Prepared By: Design Local Road Safety Plan LRSP Project # 1: Tukwila International Blvd (S 152nd St to S 144th St) Project Length 2800 FT Date: 3/17/2025 0.5 Miles DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Mobilization (10%) 1 LS $ 140,000 $ 140,000 Stormwater (15%) 1 LS $ 210,000 $ 210,000 Maintenance of Traffic (10%) 1 LS $ 140,000 $ 140,000 Site Preparation, Clearing and Grubbing (5%) 1 LS $ 70,000 $ 70,000 Separated Bike Lane - With Concrete Barrier 0.5 MI $ 610,000 $ 330,000 Landscaped Median Island3 0.3 MI $ 1,180,000 $ 300,000 Raised Pedestrian Refuge Island 2 EA $ 10,000 $ 20,000 Curb Return (Extension) and Ramp 12 EA $ 10,000 $ 120,000 Curb Ramp 6 EA $ 5,200 $ 32,000 Floating Bus Island 4 EA $ 51,000 $ 210,000 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (Solar) 6 EA $ 60,000 $ 360,000 Subtotal Contingency (50%) Total Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Preliminary Engineering (25%) Construction Management (25%) 1,932,000 966,000 2,898,000 724,500 724,500 Total Project Cost $ 4,347,000 General Assumptions and Exclusions: 1. Stormwater costs are assumed to be 15% of the Construction Cost Subtotal. 2. Unit prices were developed from projects in western Washington in the past 5 years. 3. Landscaped Median Island does not include landscaping cost. Disclaimer: Opinions of probable costs were developed by identifying major pay items and establishing rough quantities to determine a rough order of magnitude cost. Additional pay items have been assigned approximate lump sum prices based on a percentage of the anticipated construction cost. Planning -level cost opinions include a 50% contingency to cover items that are undefined or are typically unknown early in the planning phase of a project. Unit costs are based on 2025 dollars and were assigned based on historical cost data from historical bid item data from final design projects in western Washington in the last 5 years. Cost opinions do not include: public outreach, funding planning, or client manaement services, easement and right-of-way acquisition; permitting; surveying, geotechnical investigation, environmental documentation, special site remediation, escalation, or the cost for ongoing maintenance, lighting, landscaping, stormwater quality and control, or utility relocation. The overall cost opinions are intended to be general and used only for planning purposes. Toole Design Group, LLC makes no guarantees or warranties regarding the cost estimate herein. Construction costs will vary based on the ultimate project scope, actual site conditions and constraints, schedule, and economic conditions at the time of construction. LRSP Project #2: S 144th St (Military Rd to Tukwila International Blvd Project Narrative EXTENT TOTAL PROJECT COST OPINION JURISDICTION LAND USE CONTEXT CROSS SECTION SPEED LIMIT AADT CRASH PATTERNS PRIORTIZATION SCORING Crash History Addressed Military Rd to Tukwila International Blvd $580,000 City of Tukwila Commercial and medium -density residential One travel lane in each direction, one striped bike lane in each direction, with a center turn lane between 37th Ave S and Tukwila International Blvd 30 MPH Unknown 44 crashes within the corridor between 2018 and 2022, including three fatal or severe injury (KSI) crashes The highest scoring segment in this corridor received a 2.87 out of a maximum of 3.00. This segment of S 144th St saw three KSI crashes between 2018 and 2022. The collision factors for those were: Pedestrian (2): Any crash involving a pedestrian. The pedestrian crash on S 144th was a vehicle striking a pedestrian while traveling straight. Fixed object: Any crash where one driver strikes a fixed object, usually at the side of the road. Proposed Countermeasures A series of countermeasures were selected for S 144th St to address the most severe and common crash types. In particular, many countermeasures focus on improving pedestrian connectivity along the street and creating safer crossings to the nearby residential buildings and commercial destinations. They also support access to the park at the corner of 37th Ave S. The countermeasures include spot improvements at specific locations along the corridor. The list below is not inclusive of proposed systemic, citywide countermeasures such as lane marking visibility improvements and high -visibility crosswalks. Countermeasures were selected to address pedestrian collisions by creating new and more visible crossings that connect the destinations on this corridor (apartment buildings, Cascade View Community Park, local grocery and retail stores) and to calm vehicle speeds through medians and curb extensions. Proposed S 144th St cross section, including pedestrian refuge (center) Spot Improvements Made with Streetmix • Sidewalk improvements, including rebuilding the sidewalk, gutter, and curb at The Samara Apartments 3434 S 144th Street where there is currently a large driveway at the east entrance. Limiting the extent of area the driveway that crosses the sidewalk would reduce pedestrian exposure to drivers using the driveway of that apartment complex and improve the predictability of pedestrian -driver interactions. • Installation of two new mid -block crossings would improve pedestrian access and connectivity across the long block in the middle of the corridor. Each would include a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) to alert cross -traffic of pedestrians crossing here. These are proposed at: o 34th Ln S o Between 37th Ave S and Tukwila International Blvd, at the parking lot entrance • A raised pedestrian refuge island would be placed at two locations to allow a two -stage crossing for pedestrians and further calm traffic. o 37th Ave S, on the western leg o At the proposed midblock crossing between 37th Ave S and Tukwila International Blvd • Curb extensions are proposed at the intersection of 37th Ave S and S 144th St, to reduce crossing distances and calm turning vehicles. Cost Approximate planning level costs for each countermeasure are included below. These reflect individual costs and do not include contingencies or other costs. The final page of this document provides a more detailed preliminary opinion of probable construction cost for the entire proposed project. $ Low — typically $5,000 or less $$ Medium — typically $5,000 to $100,000 $$$ Moderate — typically $100,000 to $300,000 $$$$ High — typically $300,000 to $999,999 $$$$$ Highest — typically $1,000,000 or more High Visibility Crosswalks Systemic/Spot 45% Crossings and Signals Raised Refuge Islands Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) Curb Extensions and Ramps Spot Spot Spot 32% 69% Not available $$ Other Road Desig Rebuild Sidewalk Curb and Gutter Spot Not available $$ Total Cost $$$$ co co CD La5 -o CT (7) CN Local Road S cts co 0) a. -o co or) a) L1.1 -0 a) - u) cT3 0 ct idor-Wide Countermeasures: a) Ao- 'Cs ea c LLJ 4,7; (1.) as Ca 'Cs f2 c (3) < CC CL 0 Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost City of Tukwila Local Road Safety Plan LRSP Project #2: S 144th St (Military Rd to Tukwila International Blvd) Project Length 1200 FT Prepared By: Design Ryan O'Hara, PE, Toole Date: 3/17/2025 0.2 Miles TREATMENT QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST Mobilization (5%) 1 LS $ 9,900 $ 9,900 Stormwater (15%) 1 LS $ 29,700 $ 29,700 Maintenance of Traffic (5%) 1 LS $ 9,900 $ 9,900 Site Preparation, Clearing and Grubbing (5%) 1 LS $ 9,900 $ 9,900 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (Solar) 2 EA $ 60,000 $ 120,000 Curb Return (Extension) and Ramp 4 EA $ 10,000 $ 40,000 Rebuild Sidewalk Curb and Gutter 60 LF $ 300 $ 18,000 Landscaped Median Islands 2 EA $ 10,000 $ 20,000 Subtotal Contingency (50%) Total Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Preliminary Engineering (25%) Construction Management (25%) 257,400 128,700 386,100 96,525 96,525 Total Project Cost 580,000 General Assumptions and Exclusions: 1. Stormwater costs are assumed to be 15% of the Construction Cost Subtotal. 2. Unit prices were developed from projects in western Washington in the past 5 years. 3. Landscaped Median Island does not include landscaping cost. Disclaimer: Opinions of probable costs were developed by identifying major pay items and establishing rough quantities to determine a rough order of magnitude cost. Additional pay items have been assigned approximate lump sum prices based on a percentage of the anticipated construction cost. Planning -level cost opinions include a 50% contingency to cover items that are undefined or are typically unknown early in the planning phase of a project. Unit costs are based on 2025 dollars and were assigned based on historical cost data from historical bid item data from final design projects in western Washington in the last 5 years. Cost opinions do not include: public outreach, funding planning, or client manaement services, easement and right-of-way acquisition; permitting; surveying, geotechnical investigation, environmental documentation, special site remediation, escalation, or the cost for ongoing maintenance, lighting, landscaping, stormwater quality and control, or utility relocation. The overall cost opinions are intended to be general and used only for planning purposes. Toole Design Group, LLC makes no guarantees or warranties regarding the cost estimate herein. Construction costs will vary based on the ultimate project scope, actual site conditions and constraints, schedule, and economic conditions at the time of construction. LRSP Project Andover Park Project Narrative EXTENT TOTAL PROJECT COST OPINION JURISDICTION LAND USE CONTEXT CROSS SECTION SPEED LIMIT AADT CRASH PATTERNS PRIORTIZATION SCORING Crash History Addressed Strander Blvd to Tukwila Pk North of Strander Blvd, south of Tukwila Pkwy $923,000 City of Tukwila Commercial, retail and parking Two travel lanes in each direction, with a center turn lane and intermittent landscaped median 30 MPH 14,000 74 crashes between 2018 and 2022, two of which were fatal or severe injury (KSI) crashes The highest scoring segment in this corridor received a 2.8 out of a maximum of 3.00. This corridor experienced 74 crashes between 2018 and 2022. This portion of Andover Park W experienced two KSI crashes between 2018 and 2022. The collision factors for those were: - Angle Crash: Angle crashes involve a driver hitting another vehicle at an angle, or the "Angle (T)" WSDOT crash classification.' - From opposite direction, left turn: A collision where one driver is traveling straight and the other driver is turning left. This may occur where a driver is attempting to turn into a driveway or side street. Along Andover Park W, half of crashes were related to an intersection, and 35% took place at driveways. Proposed Countermeasures Countermeasures selected seek to address turning -related collisions by enhancing intersections and managing locations of turning conflicts. The countermeasures include corridor -wide measures and spot improvements at specific locations. The list below is not inclusive of proposed systemic, citywide countermeasures such as lane marking visibility improvements and high -visibility crosswalks. Countermeasures also build upon transit needs on the corridor and improve pedestrian access from the street to nearby retail destinations. They also address the long block lengths (over 1,000 feet) between controlled crossings. Proposed Andover Park W cross-section Corridor Improvements • Driveway access management along the corridor would reduce conflicts by limiting left turns out of all parking lot driveways via extended center median, below. For most driveways, this would reinforce and formalize existing signed limitations. Where not existing currently, new signage would be added. To increase compliance, the intersection of Baker Blvd should be evaluated to allow (with signage) U-turns, reducing the need for left turns from driveways. o Access management countermeasures will need to be evaluated to ensure changes do not disrupt access needs of Fire Department and Emergency Medical Services (EMS), particularly to bypass traffic via the median. This also applies to the below countermeasure. 1 https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/NHFP-crash-data-dictionary.pdf • Extending the landscaped center median at key locations would limit left turns off Andover Park W into parking lots, reducing conflicts with opposite direction traffic. • A road diet would create space for bus lanes along this corridor, serving the regional bus stops at Baker Blvd and Andover Park W. The lane reconfiguration would reduce Andover Park by one vehicle travel lane in each direction. Spot Improvements • Signal timing revision for westbound left turns to protected -only left turn phasing, from existing protected/permissive phasing, at the intersection of Andover Park and Tukwila Parkway would reduce conflicts between people crossing and traffic turning left. • Installation of two new mid -block crossings would improve pedestrian access and connectivity along Andover Park's long blocks. Each would include a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) to alert cross -traffic of pedestrians crossing here. They would also utilize the extended landscaped median as pedestrian refuges to facilitate two -stage crossings. These are proposed at: o Westfield Southcenter driveway south of Firestone building, north of Strander Blvd o Park West shopping center driveway, north of Baker Blvd • Curb extensions are proposed at the southern midblock crossing location, adjacent to the Firestone building, to calm turning traffic speeds and improve visibility at the driveway. Cost Approximate planning level costs for each countermeasure are included below. These reflect individual costs and do not include contingencies or other costs. The final page of this document provides a more detailed preliminary opinion of probable construction cost for the entire proposed project. $ Low — typically $5,000 or less $$ Medium — typically $5,000 to $100,000 $$$ Moderate — typically $100,000 to $300,000 $$$$ High — typically $300,000 to $999,999 $$$$$ Highest — typically $1,000,000 or more Systemic High Visibility Crosswalks Corridor Access Management Systemic/Spot Systemic 45% 25-31 $$ Crossings and Signals Raised Refuge Islands Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) Curb Extensions Protected Left Phase Signal Conversion Spot Spot Spot Spot 32% 69% Not available $$ 33% $$ Other Road Design Access Control (via asphalt or mountable median) Landscaped Median Island Extension Bus Lanes Corridor Corridor Corridor 35% $$ 35% $$ Not available $$$ Total Cost $$$$ -o co -o co CD CD 0 #3: Andover Pa a) >•• co -o CD CD -Wide Countermeasures: 0 Protected Bike Lane Landscaped Median iveway Access Management Shared Use ›- 0 f) CO 4,4 '44"11V7P1, VAMASIZaASIOS*0, NV.Ft* APPOitrft, IR-vg,"v4<- LRSP Project #4: S 18Oth Street (Sperry Drive to Interurban Trail) Project Narrative EXTENT TOTAL PROJECT COST OPINION JURISDICTION LAND USE CONTEXT CROSS SECTION SPEED LIMIT AADT CRASH PATTERNS PRIORTIZATION SCORING Sperry Dr to Interurban Trail $806,000 City of Tukwila Commercial and retail Two travel lanes in each direction, with a center turn lane. At Valley Hwy, eastbound 180th gains a dedicated right turn lane. 35 MPH 15,000 This segment of 180th experienced 76 crashes between 2018 and 2022, including three KSI crashes. All KSI crashes involved vulnerable road users (bicyclists and pedestrians). The highest scoring segment in this corridor received a 2.73 out of a maximum of 3.00, in part due to high scores from vulnerable road user crashes and proximity to destinations. Crash History Addressed This portion of S 180`h Street experienced three KSI crashes between 2018 and 2022. The collision factors for those were: - Pedestrian -involved collision (2): Any collision involving a driver striking a pedestrian. - Bicyclist -involved collision: Any collision involving a driver striking a bicyclist. Other prevalent crash types included angle crashes, rear end crashes, and sideswipe. The majority of crashes (88%) were related to intersections. Proposed Countermeasures Countermeasures proposed for S 180`h Street focus on addressing vulnerable road user needs in the short corridor. As 180`h connects two regional trails, the Green River Trail on the east and Interurban Trail on the east, a connection is proposed to reduce pedestrian and bicyclist exposure to traffic. Future coordination with the City of Renton to the east of the project extents could improve access by connecting to a third trail about 500 feet to the east, the Springbrook Trail. The list below is not inclusive of proposed systemic, citywide countermeasures such as lane marking visibility improvements and high -visibility crosswalks. Proposed 5 180th Street cross section, looking east Corridor Improvements • A shared use path is proposed along a portion of this corridor, between W Valley Hwy and 200 feet west of the Interurban Trail to improve safety of both and bicyclists along this corridor. The path would connect the two trail access points. The path is recommended for the northern side of the street, widening the sidewalk south, utilizing right-of-way from reduced lane widths along that segment. Wayfinding signs would support connections between the Green River and Interurban Trails. o Lane width reductions should be evaluated for feasibility given freight truck volumes along this segment. Spot Improvements • "No turn on red" restrictions are proposed for southbound and westbound approaches to Sperry Dr, as a method of reducing conflicts between turning drivers and pedestrians and bicyclists crossing Sperry or 180t' to access the Green River Trail and the proposed shared use path. o "No turn on red" restrictions are also proposed for the west approach of the intersection of W Valley Highway, to limit conflicts between shared use path users and turning vehicles. • Rebuilding of curb returns to reduce the curb radii would slow turning vehicle speeds and improve pedestrian safety and motor vehicle safety along the corridor at these locations: o W Valley Hwy o 71St Avenue S o 72'Avenue S Cost Approximate planning level costs for each countermeasure are included below. These reflect individual costs and do not include contingencies or other costs. The final page of this document provides a more detailed preliminary opinion of probable construction cost for the entire proposed project. $ Low — typically $5,000 or less $$ Medium —typically $5,000 to $100,000 $$$ Moderate — typically $100,000 to $300,000 $$$$ High — typically $300,000 to $999,999 $$$$$ Highest — typically $1,000,000 or more High Visibility Crosswalks No Turn on Red Restriction Active Transportation >' Shared Use Path Systemic/Spot Spot Corridor 45% Not available 25% (bike crashes) Total Cost CD L a) Local Road S O O co 0) co L N co E a N (0 CY m m m -0 c O m N 0) c0 K 1 -Wide Countermeasures: O 0 Shared Use Path 0 cc i 4 Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost City of Tukwila Local Road Safety Plan LRSP #4: S 180th ST (Sperry Dr to Interurban Tr) Project Length 1000 FT Prepared By: Ryan O'Hara, PE, Toole Design Date: 3/17/2025 0.2 Miles TREATMENT QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST Mobilization (5%) 1 LS $ 14,000 $ 14,000 Stormwater (15%) 1 LS $ 42,000 $ 42,000 Maintenance of Traffic (5%) 1 LS $ 14,000 $ 14,000 Site Preparation, Clearing and Grubbing (5%) 1 LS $ 14,000 $ 14,000 Shared -Use Path 0.2 MI $ 1,100,000 $ 220,000 Rebuild Curb Return 3 EA $ 10,000 $ 30,000 Wayfinding Sign 6 EA $ 500 $ 3,000 Sign, Traffic, Pole Mounted 3 EA $ 400 $ 1,200 Remove Paint Striping 4000 LF $ 2 $ 8,000 Paint Line, 4 In Stripe 2000 LF $ 4 $ 8,000 Remove Traffic Arrow 10 EA $ 200 $ 2,000 Plastic Traffic Arrow 10 EA $ 200 $ 2,000 Subtotal Contingency (50%) Total Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Preliminary Engineering (25%) Construction Management (25%) 358,200 179,100 537,300 134,325 134,325 Total Project Cost $ 806,000 General Assumptions and Exclusions: 1. Stormwater costs are assumed to be 15% of the Construction Cost Subtotal. 2. Unit prices were developed from projects in western Washington in the past 5 years. Disclaimer: Opinions of probable costs were developed by identifying major pay items and establishing rough quantities to determine a rough order of magnitude cost. Additional pay items have been assigned approximate lump sum prices based on a percentage of the anticipated construction cost. Planning -level cost opinions include a 50% contingency to cover items that are undefined or are typically unknown early in the planning phase of a project. Unit costs are based on 2025 dollars and were assigned based on historical cost data from historical bid item data from final design projects in western Washington in the last 5 years. Cost opinions do not include: public outreach, funding planning, or client manaement services, easement and right-of-way acquisition; permitting; surveying, geotechnical investigation, environmental documentation, special site remediation, escalation, or the cost for ongoing maintenance, lighting, landscaping, stormwater quality and control, or utility relocation. The overall cost opinions are intended to be general and used only for planning purposes. Toole Design Group, LLC makes no guarantees or warranties regarding the cost estimate herein. Construction costs will vary based on the ultimate project scope, actual site conditions and constraints, schedule, and economic conditions at the time of construction. LRSP Project #5: Interurban Avenue Project Narrative EXTENT TOTAL PROJECT COST OPINION JURISDICTION LAND USE CONTEXT CROSS SECTION SPEED LIMIT AADT CRASH PATTERNS PRIORTIZATION SCORING 40th Street to 144th Street 140th St to 144th St $1,484,000 City of Tukwila Office, commercial, institutional, and residential Two travel lanes in each direction, with a center turn lane 35 MPH 17,000 23 crashes within the corridor between 2018 and 2022, including three fatal or severe injury (KSI) crashes The highest -scoring segment of this corridor was 2.7 out of 3.0. Interurban Ave scored highly on vulnerable road user crashes and proximity to destinations. Crash History Addressed The following crash types resulted in KSI crashes: - Pedestrian: Any crash involving a pedestrian. - Angle: Angle crashes involve a driver hitting another motor vehicle at an angle, or the "Angle (T)" WSDOT crash classification.1 - From opposite direction — Head-on: A crash occurring where vehicles traveling in opposite directions hit each other directly. Proposed Countermeasures A series of countermeasures were selected for Interurban Ave to address the most severe and common crash types. Key interventions address pedestrian connectivity and the high instance of angle crashes from driveways of local businesses and minor street intersections. They also support users of the Green River Trail in this corridor, which runs along the eastern side of Interurban Avenue from Interstate 5 to 58th Ave S. The countermeasures include corridor -wide measures and spot improvements at specific locations. The list below is not inclusive of proposed systemic, citywide countermeasures such as lane marking visibility improvements and high -visibility crosswalks. Proposed cross section of Interurban Ave S, looking north Corridor Improvements Made with Streetmix • Two segments of landscaped median would extend the treatment present from south of this corridor's extent into this commercial and retail area. The median would limit turning conflicts by limiting left turns into some driveways, restricting conditions that create some angle crashes. Further study may be required to determine regarding if allowing u-turns at signalized intersections may be necessary to accommodate travel pattern changes. The median would be added at these locations: o Between 57th Ave S and S 141' PI o Between 141st PI S and S 143rd St 1 https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/NHFP-crash-data-dictionary.pdf o Extending south beyond 143rd St, connecting to the existing median Spot Improvements • A new pedestrian crossing at S 140th St would reduce the long distances between marked crossings for pedestrians. Utilizing the proposed landscaped median, the crossing would have a raised refuge to allow pedestrians to cross in two stages. There would be a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) installed at this location to control cross -traffic along Interurban Ave S and allow pedestrians to cross. • Trail wayfinding and green conflict striping is proposed for the intersection of Interurban Ave and 58th Ave. Conflict striping at the driveway of the Riverside Casino can make drivers more alert to the presence of people walking and bicycling along the trail. Further, wayfinding signage can reinforce for users that the trail runs along Interurban Ave at this location, and that south of the intersection it turns east towards the river. Cost Approximate planning level costs for each countermeasure are included below. These reflect individual costs and do not include contingencies or other costs. The final page of this document provides a more detailed preliminary opinion of probable construction cost for the entire proposed project. Syste $ Low — typically $5,000 or less $$ Medium — typically $5,000 to $100,000 $$$ Moderate — typically $100,000 to $300,000 $$$$ High — typically $300,000 to $999,999 $$$$$ Highest — typically $1,000,000 or more iic High Visibility Crosswalks Active Mod+ Facilities Green Conflict Striping Crossings and ignals Raised Refuge Islands Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Signal Systemic/Spot Spot Spot Spot 45% Not available 32% 69% Other Road Desi n Landscaped Medians Corridor 35% Total Cost $$$$$ 0 erurban Ave S (S LC) ID 0CD a) -cD co CD 0 Corridor -Wide Countermeasures: iv Landscaped Median Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost City of Tukwila Local Road Safety Plan LRSP #5: Interurban Ave S (S 140th St to S 144th St) Project Length 2400 FT Ryan O'Hara, PE, Prepared By: Toole Design Date: 3/17/2025 0.5 Miles TREATMENT QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST Mobilization (5%) 1 LS $ 26,000 $ 26,000 Stormwater (15%) 1 LS $ 76,000 $ 76,000 Maintenance of Traffic (5%) 1 LS $ 26,000 $ 26,000 Site Preparation, Clearing and Grubbing (5%) 1 LS $ 26,000 $ 26,000 Landscaped Median Island3 0.3 MI $ 1,174,000 $ 353,000 Raised Pedestrian Refuge Island 1 EA $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Hawk Signal 1 EA $ 131,000 $ 131,000 Curb Ramp 2 EA $ 5,200 $ 10,400 Trail Wayfinding Signs 2 EA $ 500 $ 1,000 Subtotal Contingency (50%) Total Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Preliminary Engineering (25%) Construction Management (25%) $ 659,400 $ 329,700 $ 989,100 $ 247,275 $ 247,275 Total Project Cost 1,484,000 General Assumptions and Exclusions: 1. Stormwater costs are assumed to be 15% of the Construction Cost Subtotal. 2. Unit prices were developed from projects in western Washington in the past 5 years. 3. Landscaped Median Island does not include landscaping cost. Disclaimer: Opinions of probable costs were developed by identifying major pay items and establishing rough quantities to determine a rough order of magnitude cost. Additional pay items have been assigned approximate lump sum prices based on a percentage of the anticipated construction cost. Planning -level cost opinions include a 35% contingency to cover items that are undefined or are typically unknown early in the planning phase of a project. Unit costs are based on 2025 dollars and were assigned based on historical cost data from historical bid item data from final design projects in western Washington in the last 5 years. Cost opinions do not include: easement and right-of-way acquisition; permitting, inspection, or construction management; engineering, surveying, geotechnical investigation, environmental documentation, special site remediation, escalation, or the cost for ongoing maintenance, lighting, landscaping, stormwater quality and control, traffic control, or utility relocation. The overall cost opinions are intended to be general and used only for planning purposes. Toole Design Group, LLC makes no guarantees or warranties regarding the cost estimate herein. Construction costs will vary based on the ultimate project scope, actual site conditions and constraints, schedule, and economic conditions at the time of construction. TE/LRSP Overlap Project #6: E Marginal Way S (Northern City Limits to S Boeing Access Rd) Project Narrative EXTENT TOTAL PROJECT COST OPINION (ADDITIONAL SAFETY TREATMENTS) JURISDICTION LAND USE CONTEXT CROSS SECTION CRASH PATTERNS SPEED LIMIT AADT PRIORTIZATION SCORING Crash History Addressed '14,44444*,"1004 ONAMKtat 4..06444(bi Ore Northern City Limits to S Boeing Access Rd $6,917,000 City of Tukwila Industrial Two travel lanes in each direction 77 crashes within this corridor between 2018 and 2022, including five fatal or severe injury (KSI) crashes 35 MPH 12,000 The highest scoring segment in this corridor received a 1.62 out of a maximum of 3.00. Five KSI crashes occurred on this extent between 2018 and 2022. The collision factors for those were: - Fixed Object: A crash involving a vehicle striking a stationary object outside of the roadway. For this crash, the object was recorded as a signal pole. - Rear -end: Crashes involving two drivers traveling in the same direction, as one driver strikes the car in front. - Sideswipe: Crashes involving two drivers traveling in the same direction, with one driver striking the vehicle next to them. - Rollover: A crash in which a vehicle tips onto its side or roof due to a destabilizing force such as sliding or roadway departure. This KSI crash involved a motorcycle. Along this segment of E Marginal Way S, 58% of crashes were related to intersection conditions. Proposed Countermeasures The Tukwila Transportation Element (TE) proposes an extension of a shared use path throughout this corridor. Additional countermeasures are recommended to address crashes relating to speeding and roadway departures (fixed object, rollover) as well as angle and pedestrian crashes at intersections. Today, a shared use path runs from the Museum of Flight south to S Norfolk Street on the east side of E Marginal Way S. Extension of this path north by widening the sidewalk will expand the low -stress bicycle network through its connection to the Green River Trail further south via painted bike lanes on Marginal Way beyond the corridor limits. It would also support connections to a proposed Sound Transit Link light rail station location at Boeing Access Road. The countermeasures include corridor -wide measures and spot improvements at specific locations. The list below is not inclusive of proposed systemic, citywide countermeasures such as lane marking visibility improvements and high -visibility crosswalks. E Marginal Way proposed cross section, looking south Corridor Improvements Made with Streetmix • The sidewalk to the east side of E Marginal Way would be widened to become a shared use path as described in the Tukwila TE. This project would extend the shared use path from the Museum of Flight to the northern city limits. • A lane reconfiguration would reduce E Marginal Way S from two to one general purpose lanes in each direction. • The reconfiguration would create additional space for a bus lane along the corridor. Further study of LOS impacts and coordination with King County Metro should be considered to determine feasibility of this lane configuration. Conversion of general purpose lanes to bus lanes would limit potential conflicts for sideswipe and angle crashes for drivers. Spot Improvements Raised refuge islands are recommended at three locations to facilitate two -stage crossings, calm traffic by occupying the center lane, and better separate crossing pedestrians from vehicle traffic. Feasibility and placement of the islands should be coordinated with local stakeholders due to large-scale aviation transportation along the corridor. • Between S 96th Place and Norfolk Street • 8123 E Marginal Way • South of 81' Place Additionally, Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) are proposed at the below locations. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons may also be considered given At each intersection, high visibility marked crosswalks with curb ramps should be added on each corner of the intersection to facilitate east -west crossings. • Between S 96th Place and Norfolk Street • 8123 E Marginal Way Cost Approximate planning level costs for each countermeasure are included below. These reflect individual costs and do not include contingencies or other costs. The final page of this document provides a more detailed preliminary opinion of probable construction cost for the entire proposed project. $ Low — typically $5,000 or less $$ Medium —typically $5,000 to $100,000 $$$ Moderate — typically $100,000 to $300,000 $$$$ High — typically $300,000 to $999,999 $$$$$ Highest — typically $1,000,000 or more High Visibility Crosswalks ive ode Fa Shared Use Path Systemic/Spot Corridor 45% 25% (vehicle- $$$$$ bicycle) Crossings and Signals Raised Refuge Islands Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) Spot Spot 32% 69% $$ $$$ Other Road Design Bus Lanes Corridor Not available $$ Total Project Cost $$$$$ 0 co cr) 7755 E Ma (I) It a) 0 0 co a) 0) cs) >, m co a) lif) 0 c CC E a) 5 -o 0) u) _c . a ,T3 0) (, 0 ix cc E dor-Wide Countermeasures: _c its o_ a) (I) >,0) C 2 0 -0 (13 (i) _C = 0 CO CO Ct Existing Traffic Signal Existing Shared Use Path Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Prepared By: Ryan O'Hara, PE, City of Tukwila Toole Design Local Road Safety Plan Date: 4/2/2025 TE Overlap Project #6: E Marginal Way Northern City Limit to S Boeing Access Rd) The project costs identified below only include the additional safety elements. Refer to the TE for the baseline project cost information. Project Length 10000 FT 1.9 Miles TREATMENT QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST Mobilization (10%) 1 LS $ 220,000 $ 220,000 Stormwater (15%) 1 LS $ 330,000 $ 330,000 Maintenance of Traffic (10%) 1 LS $ 220,000 $ 220,000 Site Preparation, Clearing and Grubbing (5%) 1 LS $ 110,000 $ 110,000 Shared -Use Path 1.5 MI $ 1,100,000 $ 1,650,000 Bus Only Lane 1.9 MI $ 170,000 $ 323,000 High Visibility Crosswalks 12 EA $ 4,200 $ 50,400 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (Solar) 2 EA $ 60,000 $ 120,000 Curb Ramp 4 EA $ 5,200 $ 20,800 Raised Pedestrian Refuge Island 3 EA $ 10,000 $ 30,000 Lump Sump Item Costs Total of Unit Items Subtotal Contingency (50%) Total Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Preliminary Engineering (25%) Construction Management (25%) $ 880,000 $ 2,194,200 $ 3,074,200 $ 1,537,100 $ 4,611,300 $ 1,152,825 $ 1,152,825 Total Project Cost 6,917,000 General Assumptions and Exclusions: 1. Stormwater costs are assumed to be 15% of the Construction Cost Subtotal. 2. Unit prices were developed from projects in western Washington in the past 5 years. Disclaimer: Opinions of probable costs were developed by identifying major pay items and establishing rough quantities to determine a rough order of magnitude cost. Additional pay items have been assigned approximate lump sum prices based on a percentage of the anticipated construction cost. Planning -level cost opinions include a 50% contingency to cover items that are undefined or are typically unknown early in the planning phase of a project. Unit costs are based on 2025 dollars and were assigned based on historical cost data from historical bid item data from final design projects in western Washington in the last 5 years. Cost opinions do not include: public outreach, funding planning, or client manaement services, easement and right-of-way acquisition; permitting; surveying, geotechnical investigation, environmental documentation, special site remediation, escalation, or the cost for ongoing maintenance, lighting, landscaping, stormwater quality and control, or utility relocation. The overall cost opinions are intended to be general and used only for planning purposes. Toole Design Group, LLC makes no guarantees or warranties regarding the cost estimate herein. Construction costs will vary based on the ultimate project scope, actual site conditions and constraints, schedule, and economic conditions at the time of construction. TE/LRSP Overlap Project #7: Southcenter Blvd 61st Ave S to 66th Ave S Project Narrative EXTENT TOTAL PROJECT COST OPINION (ADDITIONAL SAFETY TREATMENTS) JURISDICTION LAND USE CONTEXT CROSS SECTION CRASH PATTERNS SPEED LIMIT AADT PRIORTIZATION SCORING Crash History Addressed lubk41°P 61st Ave 5 to 66th Ave 5 $198,000 City of Tukwila Light commercial, open space, institutional Two travel lanes in each direction with a center turn lane 93 crashes within this corridor between 2018 and 2022, including two fatal or severe injury (KSI) crashes 35 MPH 33,000 The highest scoring segment in this corridor received a 2.2 out of a maximum of 3.00. Two KSI crashes occurred on this extent between 2018 and 2022. The collision factors for those were: - Angle: Angle crashes involve a motorist hitting another motorist at an angle, or the "Angle (T)" WSDOT crash classification.' 1 https://wsdotwagovisites/default/files/2022-01/NHFP-crash-data-dictionary.pdf - Bicycle -involved: Any crash involving a bicyclist. The contributing factor recorded for this crash was the failure of the motorist to yield proper right-of-way to the bicyclist. Along this segment of Southcenter Blvd, 84% of crashes were related to intersection conditions. Proposed Countermeasures Recommended countermeasures along Southcenter Blvd seek to better separate active transportation users from vehicle traffic in the corridor, and to reduce conflicts from turning vehicles. The below countermeasures include and build upon the planned project, a shared -use path that connects to the Green River Trail to the east of the corridor. The Green River Trail is also expected to connect to the forthcoming Lake to Sound Trail, which will connect to the broader Regional Trail Network. The countermeasures include corridor -wide measures and spot improvements at specific locations. The list below is not inclusive of proposed systemic, citywide countermeasures such as lane marking visibility improvements and high -visibility crosswalks. Southcenter Blvd Cross section of Southcenter Blvd, facing east Corridor Improvements Made with Street mix • The TE project proposes a lane reconfiguration, which would reduce the roadway to one lane in each direction with a left turn lane. • Per the TE project plans, the reduction in vehicle travel lanes would create space for a shared use path on the northern side of Southcenter Blvd, connecting users to the Green River Trail. Spot Improvements • In addition to the TE project, a raised pedestrian refuge island is proposed at the intersection of 62nd Ave S and Southcenter Blvd. The island would support the existing Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon and crossing at that location, allowing two -stage crossings to access the King County Metro bus stop on the southern side of the roadway. It also facilitates connections to the sidewalk crossing the 1-405 via the 61st Ave S overpass. Cost Approximate planning level costs for each countermeasure are included below. These reflect individual costs and do not include contingencies or other costs. The final page of this document provides a more detailed preliminary opinion of probable construction cost for the entire proposed project. $ Low — typically $5,000 or less $$ Medium —typically $5,000 to $100,000 $$$ Moderate — typically $100,000 to $300,000 $$$$ High — typically $300,000 to $999,999 $$$$$ Highest — typically $1,000,000 or more High Visibility Crosswalks Active Mode Facilities Shared Use Path Crossings and Sign Raised Refuge Islands °the Road Design Road/Lane Diets Systemic/Spot Corridor Spot Corridor 45% 25% (vehicle - bicycle) 32% 19-47% $$ Total Project Cost $$$$$ - cu EL) 0 o 61st Ave S > 0 w 1- E > 0 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons Raised Refuge Islands CD 0 -o. Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost City of Tukwila Local Road Safety Plan TE Project #7: Southcenter Blvd (61st Ave S to 66 Ave S) The project costs identified below only include the additional safety elements. Refer to the TE for the baseline project cost information. Project Length 3200 FT Ryan O'Hara, PE, Prepared By: Toole Design Date: 4/2/2025 0.6 Miles DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Mobilization (10%) 1 LS $ 6,280 $ 6,280 Stormwater (15%) 1 LS $ 9,420 $ 9,420 Maintenance of Traffic (10%) 1 LS $ 6,280 $ 6,280 Site Preparation, Clearing and Grubbing (5%) 1 LS $ 3,140 $ 3,140 Raised Pedestrian Refuge Island 1 EA $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Pavement Markings 9 EA $ 4,000 $ 36,000 High Visibility Crosswalks 4 EA $ 4,200 $ 16,800 Subtotal Contingency (50%) Total Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Preliminary Engineering (25%) Construction Management (25%) 87,920 43,960 131,880 32,970 32,970 Total Project Cost 198,000 General Assumptions and Exclusions: 1. Additional Safety Treatments to 10% Plan by Parametrix 10/07/2024. 2. Stormwater costs are assumed to be 15% of the Construction Cost Subtotal. 3. Unit prices were developed from projects in western Washington in the past 5 years. Disclaimer: Opinions of probable costs were developed by identifying major pay items and establishing rough quantities to determine a rough order of magnitude cost. Additional pay items have been assigned approximate lump sum prices based on a percentage of the anticipated construction cost. Planning -level cost opinions include a 50% contingency to cover items that are undefined or are typically unknown early in the planning phase of a project. Unit costs are based on 2025 dollars and were assigned based on historical cost data from historical bid item data from final design projects in western Washington in the last 5 years. Cost opinions do not include: public outreach, funding planning, or client manaement services, easement and right-of-way acquisition; permitting; surveying, geotechnical investigation, environmental documentation, special site remediation, escalation, or the cost for ongoing maintenance, lighting, landscaping, stormwater quality and control, or utility relocation. The overall cost opinions are intended to be general and used only for planning purposes. Toole Design Group, LLC makes no guarantees or warranties regarding the cost estimate herein. Construction costs will vary based on the ultimate project scope, actual site conditions and constraints, schedule, and economic conditions at the time of construction. TE/LRSP Project #8: S Ryan Way (Martin Luther King Jr Project Narrative EXTENT TOTAL PROJECT COST OPINION (ADDITIONAL SAFETY TREATMENTS) JURISDICTION LAND USE CONTEXT CROSS SECTION CRASH PATTERNS SPEED LIMIT AADT PRIORTIZATION SCORING Crash History Addressed St Ave S Martin Luther King, Jr Way 5 to 515t Ave S $305,000 City of Tukwila Industrial, low -density residential Two travel lanes in each direction 79 crashes between 2018 and 2022, including three fatal or severe injury (KSI) crashes 35 MPH Unavailable The highest scoring segment in this corridor received a 1.45 out of a maximum of 3.00. Three KSI crashes occurred on this extent between 2018 and 2022. The collision factors for those were: - Fixed Object: A crash involving a vehicle striking a stationary object outside of the roadway. For this crash, the object was recorded as a tree or stump. - Sideswipe, Opposite Direction: A crash involving two drivers traveling in opposite directions, with one vehicle striking the other on its side. - Head -On: A crash involving two drivers colliding directly while traveling in opposite directions. Along this segment of S Ryan Way, 54% of crashes were related to intersection conditions. Proposed Countermeasures Recommended countermeasures reflect the planned Transportation Element (TE) project at these extents. An additional crossing is proposed at the intersection of S Ryan Way and S 107th St/47th Ave S. Two of the three KSI collisions recorded between 2018 and 2022 occurred at the curve in the roadway near that intersection. The list below is not inclusive of proposed systemic, citywide countermeasures such as lane marking visibility improvements and high -visibility crosswalks. Cross section of S Ryan Way, looking east, from west of 47th Ave S Corridor Improvements • Under the TE project, lane reconfiguration would reduce Ryan Way from two to one lane in each direction, with the roadway center composed of a combination of concrete center median and center two-way left turn lane. At 47th Ave S (southern intersection, downhill), a center merging area is proposed to facilitate left turns from expected traffic from a development slated in that area. o As part of the reconfiguration, a realignment of 47th Ave S (northern intersection, uphill) is proposed such that the street intersects with S Ryan Way in a perpendicular manner with improved sight lines. • The TE project proposes improved sidewalk along the north side of the corridor, near 47th Ave S. Improved curb ramps at intersections are also proposed. • Per the TE project, the reduction in vehicle travel lanes would create space for a protected bike lane along the corridor, connecting to the existing striped bike lane that runs north -south on 51st Ave. • The TE project proposes a center median for S Ryan Way from S 107th St to the eastern end of the corridor. For this extent, the median replaces the center turn lane. Spot Improvements • A Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon is recommended for the intersection of S 107th St/47th Ave S with Ryan Way. This crossing would allow more comfortable pedestrian crossings within the corridor: the only marked north -south crossings are at either terminus of the extent, one half - mile apart. Further, this curve is where two of the three KSI crashes occurred. • Enhanced delineation for horizontal curves, such as chevron signing, is recommended at the steep curve at 47th Ave S and the curve approaching 51st Ave S from the west. • Street lighting improvements are proposed at intersections along the corridor to improve visibility. Lighting is particularly recommended at: o East of Martin Luther King, Jr Way S o Approaching 47th Ave S (northern intersection) from the east and west o At the Beacon Ave S underpass Cost Approximate planning level costs for each countermeasure are included below. These reflect individual costs and do not include contingencies or other costs. The final page of this document provides a more detailed preliminary opinion of probable construction cost for the entire proposed project. $ Low — typically $5,000 or less $$ Medium —typically $5,000 to $100,000 $$$ Moderate — typically $100,000 to $300,000 $$$$ High — typically $300,000 to $999,999 $$$$$ Highest — typically $1,000,000 or more High Visibility Crosswalks Active ode Facilities Separated Bicycle Lanes Crossings and Signal Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) Other Road Design Road/Lane Diet Horizontal Curve Delineation Systemic/Spot Corridor Spot Corridor Spot 45% 45% 69% 19-47% 25% $$ $$ Total Project Cost $$$ o 51st Ave S co a) 0 Lu H E 0 -0 (I) 0 co a) co E3) (I) co 5_ co c`f) co c a) co —6 Ce eation for Horizontal Curves Enhanced De CD 0 00 rovements: Planned TE Im Planned Protected Bike Lanes Planned Landscaped Median Planned Road Diet oletilAttAst,tk, '''11V4Attit. , „Lk, at 4tctiett. Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Ryan O'Hara, PE, City of Tukwila Prepared By: Toole Design Local Road Safety Plan Date: 4/2/2025 TE Project #8: S Ryan Way (MLK Jr Way S to 51st Ave S) The project costs identified below only include the additional safety elements. Refer to the TE for the baseline project cost information. Project Length 3200 FT 0.6 Miles DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Mobilization (10%) 1 LS $ 9,700 $ 9,700 Stormwater (15%) 1 LS $ 14,500 $ 14,500 Maintenance of Traffic (10%) 1 LS $ 9,700 $ 9,700 Site Preparation, Clearing and Grubbing (5%) 1 LS $ 4,900 $ 4,900 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (Solar) 1 EA $ 60,000 $ 60,000 Bicycle Box 1 EA $ 500 $ 500 High Visibility Crosswalks 5 EA $ 4,200 $ 21,000 Enhanced Delineation for Horizontal Curves and Signage 3 EA $ 5,000 $ 15,000 Subtotal Contingency (50%) Total Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Preliminary Engineering (25%) Construction Management (25%) 135,300 67,650 202,950 50,738 50,738 Total Project Cost 305,000 General Assumptions and Exclusions: 1. Additional Safety Treatements to 10% Plan by KPG PSOMAS June 2024. 2. Stormwater costs are assumed to be 15% of the Construction Cost Subtotal. 3. Unit prices were developed from projects in western Washington in the past 5 years. Disclaimer: Opinions of probable costs were developed by identifying major pay items and establishing rough quantities to determine a rough order of magnitude cost. Additional pay items have been assigned approximate lump sum prices based on a percentage of the anticipated construction cost. Planning -level cost opinions include a 50% contingency to cover items that are undefined or are typically unknown early in the planning phase of a project. Unit costs are based on 2025 dollars and were assigned based on historical cost data from historical bid item data from final design projects in western Washington in the last 5 years. Cost opinions do not include: public outreach, funding planning, or client manaement services, easement and right-of-way acquisition; permitting; surveying, geotechnical investigation, environmental documentation, special site remediation, escalation, or the cost for ongoing maintenance, lighting, landscaping, stormwater quality and control, or utility relocation. The overall cost opinions are intended to be general and used only for planning purposes. Toole Design Group, LLC makes no guarantees or warranties regarding the cost estimate herein. Construction costs will vary based on the ultimate project scope, actual site conditions and constraints, schedule, and economic conditions at the time of construction. TE/LRSP Project #9: Klickitat Dr (53rd Ave S to Southcenter Pk Project Narrative EXTENT TOTAL PROJECT COST OPINION (ADDITIONAL SAFETY TREATMENTS) JURISDICTION LAND USE CONTEXT CROSS SECTION SPEED LIMIT AADT CRASH PATTERNS PRIORTIZATION SCORING 53rd Ave S to Southcenter Pkwy $582,000 City of Tukwila Residential, open space One lane in each direction, with a center left turn lane. Expands to two lanes in each direction south of the 1-5 S on - ramp. A shared -use path parallels the roadway to the south. 30 MPH 15,000 68 crashes within this corridor between 2018 and 2022, including one fatal or severe injury (KSI) crash The highest scoring segment in this corridor received a 1.7 out of a maximum of 3.00. Crash History Addressed One KSI crash occurred on this extent between 2018 and 2022. The collision factor for that crash was: - Angle: Angle crashes involve a driver hitting another driver at an angle, or the "Angle (T)" WSDOT crash classification.' Along this segment of Klickitat Dr, 83% of crashes were related to intersection conditions. Proposed Countermeasures Proposed improvements along this extent of Klickitat Dr build upon the Transportation Element (TE) project, which proposes enhancements to the existing multimodal path to the south of the roadway. The path, which begins at 53' Ave S, connects the neighborhood to the west of the 1-5 to commercial and retail destinations east of the 1-5. Further, the roadway features several severe curves, which introduces opportunities for sideswipe crashes when combined with freeway off -ramp merges. The countermeasures include corridor -wide measures and spot improvements at specific locations. The list below is not inclusive of proposed systemic, citywide countermeasures such as lane marking visibility improvements and high -visibility crosswalks. Corridor Improvements • Installation of profiled thermoplastic pavement markings is recommended to maintain visibility of lanes through the curving conditions of this corridor and increase driver attentiveness. Spot Improvements • At the intersection with 53rd Ave S, a conversion of the current permissive/protected left -turn signal to a protected -only left -turn signal is recommended to reduce conflicts between turning vehicles and pedestrians and bicyclists using the shared use path. • At the same location, gateway treatments can be applied to improve visibility of the path: pavement markings may be applied to mark the beginning of the trail and delineate bollards, as well as signage denoting "No Motor Vehicles." Existing bollard spacing and materials should be inspected to determine if it may pose a risk to bicyclists. 1 https://wsdot,wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/NHFP-crash-data-dictionary.pdf • Example highlighting presence of biking and walking traffic crossing at entrance to shared use path. Signs denoting "No Motor Vehicles" are also recommended. Cost Approximate planning level costs for each countermeasure are included below. These reflect individual costs and do not include contingencies or other costs. The final page of this document provides a more detailed preliminary opinion of probable construction cost for the entire proposed project. $ Low — typically $5,000 or less $$ Medium —typically $5,000 to $100,000 $$$ Moderate — typically $100,000 to $300,000 $$$$ High — typically $300,000 to $999,999 $$$$$ Highest — typically $1,000,000 or more High Visibility Crosswalks Systemic/Spot 45% Crossings and Signals Protected Left Turn Signal Other Road D High Visibility Thermoplastic Pavement Markings Spot Corridor 28% 10% $$ $$$ Total Project Cost $$$$ 0 a) 53rd Ave S to Southce a) 0 w i— or -Wide Countermeasures: ce) a) ■ ■ ■ Non Profiled Thermoplastic / Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost City of Tukwila Local Road Safety Plan TE Project #9: Klickitat Dr (53rd Ave S to Southcenter Pkwy) The project costs identified below only include the additional safety elements. Refer to the TE for the baseline project cost information. Project Length 2000 FT Ryan O'Hara, PE, Prepared By: Toole Design Date: 4/2/2025 0.4 Miles DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Mobilization (10%) 1 LS $ 18,500 $ 18,500 Stormwater (15%) 1 LS $ 27,700 $ 27,700 Maintenance of Traffic (10%) 1 LS $ 18,500 $ 18,500 Site Preparation, Clearing and Grubbing (5%) 1 LS $ 9,300 $ 9,300 Profiled Thermoplastic Markings 8000 LF $ 20 $ 160,000 Signal Timing / Phasing Changes 1 LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Trailhead Modifications 1 LS $ 10,000 $ 10,000 High Visibility Crosswalks 1 EA $ 4,200 $ 4,200 Sign, Traffic, Post Mounted 1 EA $ 150 $ 150 Subtotal Contingency (50%) Total Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Preliminary Engineering (25%) Construction Management (25%) 258,400 129,200 387,600 96,900 96,900 Total Project Cost 582,000 General Assumptions and Exclusions: 1. Stormwater costs are assumed to be 15% of the Construction Cost Subtotal. 2. Unit prices were developed from projects in western Washington in the past 5 years. Disclaimer: Opinions of probable costs were developed by identifying major pay items and establishing rough quantities to determine a rough order of magnitude cost. Additional pay items have been assigned approximate lump sum prices based on a percentage of the anticipated construction cost. Planning -level cost opinions include a 50% contingency to cover items that are undefined or are typically unknown early in the planning phase of a project. Unit costs are based on 2025 dollars and were assigned based on historical cost data from historical bid item data from final design projects in western Washington in the last 5 years. Cost opinions do not include: public outreach, funding planning, or client manaement services, easement and right-of-way acquisition; permitting; surveying, geotechnical investigation, environmental documentation, special site remediation, escalation, or the cost for ongoing maintenance, lighting, landscaping, stormwater quality and control, or utility relocation. The overall cost opinions are intended to be general and used only for planning purposes. Toole Design Group, LLC makes no guarantees or warranties regarding the cost estimate herein. Construction costs will vary based on the ultimate project scope, actual site conditions and constraints, schedule, and economic conditions at the time of construction. TE/LRSP Overlap Project #10: 42nd Ave S (Southcenter Blvd to S Project Narrative EXTENT TOTAL PROJECT COST OPINION (ADDITIONAL SAFETY TREATMENTS) JURISDICTION LAND USE CONTEXT CROSS SECTION SPEED LIMIT AADT CRASH PATTERNS PRIORTIZATION SCORING Crash History Addressed 4,44,14. Southcenter Blvd to S 150th St $188,000 City of Tukwila Residential One lane in each direction, with a dedicated left turn lane at Southcenter Blvd 30 MPH Unknown 25 crashes within this corridor between 2018 and 2022, including one fatal or severe injury (KSI) crash The highest scoring segment in this corridor received a 2.19 out of a maximum of 3.00. This segment of 42nd Ave S saw one KSI crash between 2018 and 2022. The collision factor for that collision was: - Angle crash: Angle crashes involve a driver hitting another drive at an angle, or the "Angle (T)" WSDOT crash classification.' 1 https://wsdotwagovisites/default/files/2022-01/NHFP-crash-datardictionary.pdf Proposed Countermeasures A series of countermeasures were selected for 42"d Ave S to build upon a planned Transportation Element project in this extent. The TE includes a traffic -calmed bikeway between S 150`h Street and Southcenter Blvd, which this recommendation expands to a separated bikeway concept. The bikeway supports a connection to the facility on Southcenter Blvd north towards Thorndyke Elementary School and the surrounding neighborhood. The separated bike lane was selected to separate bicyclists from vehicular traffic and reduce speeds at turns to eliminate severe angle crashes near intersections. The proposed countermeasure for this site is not inclusive of proposed systemic, citywide countermeasures such as lane marking visibility improvements and high -visibility crosswalks. 42nd Ave (Btwn 150th and 151st St) Proposed 42'd Ave S cross section, between S 150r" St and S 151" St, looking north 42nd Ave (Btwn 151st St and Southcent... Proposed 42'd Ave S cross section, between S 151" St and Southcenter Blvd, looking north Corridor Improvements • A separated bicycle lane is proposed for 42nd Ave S on this corridor. The bike lane would be placed adjacent to the curb, separated from traffic via a plastic flex posts. Due to the narrowing of the roadway north of S 151" St, the separated lane would function as a shared lane on the west side of the roadway for one block. The eastern side of the roadway (see cross sections, above), would be continuous. o As the lanes are reconfigured to accommodate the bikeway, it is recommended that curb radii at the north leg of Southcenter Blvd, S 1515` St, and S 152nd St, be reduced from 30' to 15' or less to slow turning drivers. Cost Approximate planning level costs for each countermeasure are included below. These reflect individual costs and do not include contingencies or other costs. The final page of this document provides a more detailed preliminary opinion of probable construction cost for the entire proposed project. $ Low — typically $5,000 or less $$ Medium —typically $5,000 to $100,000 $$$ Moderate — typically $100,000 to $300,000 $$$$ High — typically $300,000 to $999,999 $$$$$ Highest — typically $1,000,000 or more Systemic High Visibility Crosswalks Systemic/Spot 45% Active Mode Facllitl Separated Bicycle Lanes Corridor 45% Total Project Cost 0 0 42nd Ave S 0Tk > 0 w 1 -Wide Countermeasures: Separated Bike Lane Shared Bike Lane 4 Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost City of Tukwila Local Road Safety Plan TE Overlap 10: 42nd Ave S (Southcenter Blvd to S 150th St) The project costs identified below only include the additional safety elements. Refer to the TE for the baseline project cost information. Project Length 1000 FT Ryan O'Hara, PE, Prepared By: Toole Design Date: 4/2/2025 0.2 Miles TREATMENT QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE COST Mobilization (10%) 1 LS $ 6,700 $ 6,700 Maintenance of Traffic (10%) 1 LS $ 6,700 $ 6,700 Site Preparation, Clearing and Grubbing (5%) 1 LS $ 3,300 $ 3,300 Separated Bike Lane - Flex Posts 0.2 MI $ 282,000 $ 56,400 High Visibility Crosswalks 2 EA $ 4,200 $ 8,400 Remove Paint Striping 1000 LF $ 2 $ 2,000 Subtotal Contingency (50%) Total Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Preliminary Engineering (25%) Construction Management (25%) $ 83,500 $ 41,750 $ 125,250 $ 31,313 $ 31,313 Total Project Cost 188,000 General Assumptions and Exclusions: 1. Stormwater costs are assumed to be 15% of the Construction Cost Subtotal. 2. Unit prices were developed from projects in western Washington in the past 5 years. Disclaimer: Opinions of probable costs were developed by identifying major pay items and establishing rough quantities to determine a rough order of magnitude cost. Additional pay items have been assigned approximate lump sum prices based on a percentage of the anticipated construction cost. Planning -level cost opinions include a 50% contingency to cover items that are undefined or are typically unknown early in the planning phase of a project. Unit costs are based on 2025 dollars and were assigned based on historical cost data from historical bid item data from final design projects in western Washington in the last 5 years. Cost opinions do not include: public outreach, funding planning, or client manaement services, easement and right-of-way acquisition; permitting; surveying, geotechnical investigation, environmental documentation, special site remediation, escalation, or the cost for ongoing maintenance, lighting, landscaping, stormwater quality and control, or utility relocation. The overall cost opinions are intended to be general and used only for planning purposes. Toole Design Group, LLC makes no guarantees or warranties regarding the cost estimate herein. Construction costs will vary based on the ultimate project scope, actual site conditions and constraints, schedule, and economic conditions at the time of construction.