HomeMy WebLinkAboutTrans 2012-10-15 Item 2B - Discussion - Residential Street Rating ProgramTO:
City of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
Mayor Haggerton
Transportation Committee
FROM Bob Giberson, Public Works Director
BY: Robin Tischmak, City Engineer
DATE: October 12, 2012
SUBJECT: Residential Street Rating Program
Background Information For CIP Page 7 - Residential Improvements
ISSUE
Provide the historical background information used to prioritize residential street improvements
that are included in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for committee discussion.
BACKGROUND
In the early 1990's Public Works engineering staff prepared a system used to rate and prioritize
all unimproved residential streets within Tukwila. The resulting data was then used to prioritize
a list of streets to be funded annually in the CIP under the Residential Improvements program.
The rating system uses a variety of decision criteria that focuses primarily on safety issues such
as: pedestrian volumes, pavement widths, vehicle volumes & speeds, accident history, and
other features. The presence of schools, parks, and other high pedestrian generating facilities
is also taken into consideration. Attached are several historical documents that show staff and
Transportation Committee efforts as well as updated construction costs.
DISCUSSION
The formula developed to provide the rating process will be presented in general terms for
committee discussion. The numerical priority ratings were used to create the initial list of streets,
but further evaluations were used to select the streets recommended for funding within the CIP.
RECOMMENDATION
Information only.
Attachments: Memorandum,Street Ratings dated 2 -4 -90
Transportation Committee Minutes dated 6 -6 -94
Information Paper dated 10 -24 -94
Priority Rating List (Page 1 only) dated 11 -15 -94
City Infrastructure Costs
Page 7, Proposed 2013 CIP
W .PW EngATHER.Rolrn TischmaMRes dentiai Street Rating Memo 10 -11 -12 docx
13
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Robin Tischmak, Assistant Engineer
From: Ron Cameron, City Engineer
Subject: Street Ratings
Project No. 90 -RS02
Date: February 4, 1990
We discussed the Annexed Street Friday, the goal of rating of streets by
August (for budget) and that TC will want it before then for TIP if
possible. This memo notes some of the key elements discussed.
All unimproved "residential streets" need to be rated; two categories:
"residential - local access" and "residential collector arterial" (RLA
and RCA). Probably one of Mark's spreadsheets can be modified, feel
free to call Mark and go visit him for questions on his work if Brian or
I can't give the direction or info you need.
First is to create the spreadsheet inventory and a large map showing
(colored) the unimproved streets. Then, start building the inventory,
identifying lengths of logical (improvement project) segments and
right -of -way widths. Then, a series of decision criteria - listed
across the spreadsheet in columns for:
average pavement width /segment
average traveled way width /segment average traffic volume
(ADT) /segment -
pavement life expectancy (years)
combine using Shorty and our counters.
three year accident total /segment
traffic speeds - estimated and radar studies
ped volumes - I'll give you the rating method
average shoulder width (widest side) /segment
columns to "check" for issues: drainage, banks, rockeries, grade,
dead end, cul de sac, etc.
priority rating using algorithm
ped path cost /foot
c /g /sw cost per foot
underground cost /foot (let's try to have full inventory cost for UG
by May for TC /UC Council UG policy consideration, actually, this
could be first number out of the inventory in February
total costs by column)
Specific spreadsheet cell data will be needed for reviews and our
putting recommendation together; final 1992 priority will be based on
safety rating, ped path costs, and street improvement costs.
I'll get the rating system algorithim for you. Choosing which projects
will be driven by ped safety considerations first, street next (ped
safety problems exceed vehicle problems on residential streets).
14
Transportation Committee
June 6, 1994
4. ResidentiLl Street Priority Two issues were discussed under this item,
though staff had grouped them together. The first was a ped path plan for the
1995 year, and the second was to choose which residential street to design this
year for construction next year. This second item had been put into the budget
as an undesignated residential street.
In 1991 staff had rated all the residential streets by priority based on things
like street pavement width, parking, shoulder width, accidents, vehicle traffic,
pedestrian usage, improvement costs per foot, and special issues. If a street
got a ped path were moved down to the bottom of the list. Citizen calls have
been tallied to drive up the priority of some streets.
The top candidates for ped paths now are Interurban from 58th to 144th; 54th
from Slade Way to S 166th; 44th Ave. S; and perhaps the north part of
Macadam Ave. S.
Staff's top street improvement candidates are 42nd and S. 124th for the new
community center; 32nd and S. 135th near the Cascade School renovation;
and S. 164th in McMicken.
Allan thought S. 164th needed a ped path, but maybe not the whole street
improvement, since it has low traffic and pedestrian volumes. He also thought
it could be a problem to underground, since some of the residents on the
street are in Sea Tac, not Tukwila. He also wasn't thrilled about staffs plans
to put in curbs, gutters, sidewalks and undergrounding on the north side of S.
124th near the new center, as well as on the west side and on 42nd Ave. S. He
thought maybe overlaying the north side would be adequate. Joe was
interested in a street in Ryan Way, since we haven't done anything there.
Allan asked about the low rating for S. 144th between Pac Highway and
Military.
In the end, the committee asked for separate rating sheets for ped paths and
street improvements, and for options on the S. 124th project and S.164th
project. Reschedule.
15
C i t y of T u k w i l a
I N F O R M A T I O N PAPER
Department: PUBLIC WORKS
Date: October 24, 1994
Subject: Residential Streets
BACKGROUND
For Mayor's Office Only
Mayor
City Admin
Filed
X For Your Information
Response Requested
Immediate Response
Residential Street ratings were presented to Transportation Committee on
June 6 with the recommendation for the next streets being considered for
improvement to be: 32 Ave S, S 124 St, 42 Ave S, and S 164 St. 32nd,
124th, and 42nd are streets in residential areas with adjacent public
development (schools and community center). Committee requested
dividing the list to show ped path and street improvement candidates and
to consider one side improvements on 124th and 42nd.
Residential streets were discussed as an added item 8 at the July 5
meeting with S 130 St being asked for further study.
The two lists, one showing streets as if no ped path had been added for
a full street improvement selection and the second list for ped paths
were presented. S 130 St, 37 Ave S, 34 Ave S, and 53 Ave S were
requested for further evaluation (updating counts and information) and
to return.
The count and field information was updated and returned to the
September 19 meeting. The recommended full improvement list included
the three affected by the school and city development (32nd and
124th -42nd) as well as five prioritized at the meeting from the list of
the highest 14. The five prioritized at the meeting were:
32 (132 -137)
53 Ave S (137 -144) combined with Macadam (144 -150)
37 Ave S (Pac Hwy -144)
S 140 St (Military -Pac Hwy)
with 34 Ave S (140 -144) for 1995 Ped Path and additional ped path
candidates requested for October consideration.
ACTION TAKEN
Further evaluation has been made and additional ped paths would be:
34 Ave S (140 -130) based on rating and requests
S 122 St (42 -51) based on rating and requests
33 Ave S (140 -144) based on rating and requests.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended to:
1. authorize PS &E for 32nd at Cascade School for 1995 construction,
2. authorize a design report for 53 Ave S (137 -144) and Macadam
(144 -150) for 1996 construction,
3. authorize Ped Path PS &E for 34 Ave S and S 122 St for 1995
construction with the Overlay program.
16
ANNEXED STREET RATING SHEET
1.) SIMPLE
2.) MODRATE
3.) DIFFICULT
4.) VERY DIFFICULT
11 -15 -94
File: P: \Projects \st_old2.wks
STREET
1 50 PL S
2 42 AVE S
C>3 42 AVE S
4 S 130 PL
5 MACADAM RD
6 40 AVE S
7 42 AVE S
8 51 AVE S
9 42 AVE S
10 42 AVE S
11 53 AVE S
12 MACADAM RD
13 51 AVE S
14 42 AVE S
15 S 150 ST
16 50 PL S
17 37 AVE S
18 S 115 ST
19 MACADAM RD
20 MACADAM RD
21 MACADAM RD
22 42 AVE S
23 34 AVE S
24 56 AVE S
25 S 144 ST
26 S 144 ST
27 S 140 ST
28 S 146 ST
29 35 AVE S
30 S 135 ST
31 44 AVE S
32 32 AVE S
33 S 158 ST
34 S 146 ST
35 52 AVE S
36 S 130 ST
37 S 122 ST
38 S 139 ST
39 S 150 ST
40 S 152 ST
41 54 AVE S
42 53 AVE S
43 S 164 ST
44 S 126 ST
FROM
S 130 PL
S 156 ST
S 139 ST
50 PL S
S 144 ST
E MARGINAL WY
40 AVE S
S 144 ST
S 150 ST
S 144 ST
S 137 ST
42 AVE S
S 151 ST
S 154 ST
42 AVE S
S 124 ST
S 144 ST
E. MARGINAL WY
S 144 ST
S 147 ST
S 138 ST
S 124 ST
S 140 ST
S 130 PL
MILTRY RD
51 AVE S
MILTRY RD
MILTRY RD
S 137 ST
MILTRY RD
S 116 ST
S 137 ST
MILTRY RD
PAC HWY S
S 137 ST
PAC HWY S
42 AVE S
PAC HWY S
PAC HWY S
PAC HWY S
SLADE WY
52 AVE S
51 AVE S
34 AVE S
NO ROCKERY, FAIRLY FLAT
51ST AVE S, SOME ROCKERY, GRADE DIF
56 PLACE 8, ROCKERIES, RETAINING WA
51ST AND MACADAM RD, -LARGE RETAININ
STREET IMPROVEMENT RATINGS
TO
FD 41 LIMITS
S 158 ST
S 144 ST
57 AVE S
S 138 ST
42 AVE S
S 139 ST
S 151 ST
S 154 ST
S 150 ST
S 144 ST
48 AVE S
S 154 ST
S 156 ST
END OF ROAD
S 130 PL
PAC HWY S
42 AVE S
S 147 ST
S 150 ST
48 AVE S
INTERURBAN
S 130 ST
INTERURBAN
PAC HWY S
53 AVE S
PAC HWY S
PAC HWY S
S 132 ST
37 AVE S
S 122 ST
S 130 ST
42 AVE S
46 AVE S
53 AVE S
42 AVE S
51 PL S
42 AVE S
42 AVE S
42 AVE S
S 166 ST
S 137 ST
42 AVE S
E MARGINAL WY
-OF -WAY
AV TR AV AV AVG
LENGTH PV WY SH SH ADT PED AV PRIORITY
(FT) WD WD RT LT VOL V /DY SP RATING
1,150 24 22 2 2 7,500 50 45 120.89
788 20 20 4 4 5,000 10 45 109.27
1,675 22 20 3 4 5,000 500 35 88.93
2,140 18 18 0 1 2,500 5 35 81.37
2,285 28 20 5 3 4,000 200 35 74.83
1,820 22 20 3 4 7,000 50 35 72.29
1,650 22 20 3 4 7,000 50 35 70.56
2,371 20 20 4 2 2,500 10 40 64.31
1,020 20 20 4 4 5,000 100 35 60.07
2,035 20 20 4 5 5,000 100 35 58.13
2,097 24 20 5 3 1,691 200 35 54.76
1,750 28 22 3 4 3,000 100 35 52.49
890 20 20 4 0 2,500 10 40 51.86
788 20 20 4 6 5,000 10 45 51.12
2,132 18 18 3 2 1,555 500 25 48.06
1,275 24 20 6 6 7,500 50 35 45.53
3,665 24 20 3 4 1,500 100 30 45.31
1,625 20 20 5 5 2,500 50 35 41.57
1,000 22 20 4 6 3,000 500 40 41.14
900 28 20 5 3 2,250 100 35 37.63
600 28 20 5 3 2,500 200 35 37.08
1,340 24 22 5 4 8,582 50 25 33.69
3,310 24 20 3 3 750 100 25 30.65
1,785 22 22 4 4 2,764 50 25 29.58
1,615 34 20 6 5 6,790 250 25 29.30
650 32 20 8 4 7,000 1000 35 28.27
2,360 24 20 5 4 1,950 500 25 26.78
1,085 22 20 5 4 1,375 500 30 26.10
1,675 22 20 2 2 500 50 25 23.65
2,080 24 20 4 4 1,000 50 25 23.65
2,250 24 22 0 0 250 50 25 23.58
1,665 30 10 0 5 1,000 1000 20 23.55
1,665 20 20 5 4 700 50 30 21.71
1,623 20 20 6 4 1,000 200 25 20.77
620 20 20 4 4 3,000 100 20 20.50
2,130 28 20 4 6 1,797 100 25 20.22
2,020 28 22 2 3 500 20 25 20.16
625 24 20 5 2 1,000 2 30 19.80
1,437 18 18 3 4 700 5 25 19.40
1,688 20 20 2 4 750 5 25 19.37
1,236 17 15 0 0 350 5 20 19.18
435 18 18 2 3 1,500 100 20 18.65
2,050 20 20 5 5 850 25 25 18.59
1,345 24 20 5 5 250 50 35 18.51
BRIDGE OVER I -5
1998 CIP PROJECT
1997 CIP PROJECT
UNDER I -5; BETWEEN RIVER & RR
STEEP SIDE SLOPES; EXPENSIVE
1998 CIP PROJECT
1997 CIP PROJECT
STEEP SIDE SLOPES; EXPENSIVE
DESIGNED; UNDER CONSTRUCTION
DESIGNED; UNDER CONSTRUCTION
* CANDIDATE
STEEP SIDE SLOPES; EXPENSIVE
STEEP SIDE SLOPES; EXPENSIVE
1998 CIP PROJECT
* CANDIDATE
CODIGA FARM; FEW HOMES
* CANDIDATE
FEW HOMES; NEXT TO RIVER
* CANDIDATE
* CANDIDATE
STEEP SIDE SLOPES; EXPENSIVE
* CANDIDATE
* CANDIDATE
* CANDIDATE
* CANDIDATE
BRIDGE OVER I -5
* CANDIDATE
* CANDIDATE
* CANDIDATE
* CANDIDATE
* CANDIDATE
* CANDIDATE
* CANDIDATE
* CANDIDATE
* CANDIDATE
* CANDIDATE
* CANDIDATE
* CANDIDATE
* CANDIDATE
* CANDIDATE
NARROW ROAD NEXT TO I -5
* CANDIDATE
* CANDIDATE; SOUTH SIDE SEATAC
* CANDIDATE
17
All Cities Are
Affected, Regardless
of Size or Location
• All cities, regardless of size, identify infrastructure as
a key to economic development. Good infrastructure
shows confidence in our cities and signals the business
community to invest in Washington.
• Newly incorporated and annexed cities need major
infrastructure investments to meet urban standards.
• Larger economic centers need major infrastructure
improvements to accommodate new economic
growth, density, affordable housing, congestion relief,
and freight mobility - requiring a level of investment
that local resources alone cannot meet.
• Smaller communities lack economies of scale,
and often struggle to provide utility services at an
affordable rate.
• In a 2008 AWC State of the Cities research document,
65 percent of city officials indicate that state
and federal mandates contribute to a city's need
for sewer /waste water new construction and
improvements.
Mandates continue to double
and triple infrastructure costs
CIS
Mandate
1971 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
1971 Shoreline Management Act (SMA)
1972 Clean Water Act (includes wetlands regulations)
1973 Endangered Species Act
1974 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
1987 Clean Water Act Amendments - National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits
(NPDES)
1990 Growth Management Act (GMA)
1990 NPDES Phase I
1995 Critical Areas
1996 SDWA Amendments
1998 ESA - Proposed listing for Chinook Salmon in
Puget Sound basins
1999 NPDES Phase II
2007 DOE issues Phase II permits
Water Use Efficiency Rule
2008 Puget Sound Partnership
Climate Action Team Strategies
rri • Transportation
CD • Green Buildings
▪ • SEPA
• Beyond Waste
Typical City Infrastructure Costs Today
City streets are more than pavement.
$300,000/
Landscaping
$250,000/
mile + ADA
compliance
• Street - $6,000,000 /mile
— . $1,000,000 /mile
$700,000 /mile +
Phase II monitoring
0 e
° $450,000
Illumination/
Signalization
• • _ 1
ii■ ' - LIGHTING �~ SIDEWALK
EASEMENT SIDEWALK PLANTING
PARKING
$1;500,000 /mile
0000
•••• STORM
DRAINAGE
ELECTRICAL
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
$4,500,000 /mile 4
RIGHT OF WAY
ELECTRICAL
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Purchase R.O.W. $1,300,000 /mile
Plus ongoing maintenance, preservation and operating costs.
18
CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY
2013 to 2018
PROJECT: Residential Improvements Project No. Varies
DESCRIPTION: Select, design and construct residential streets and /or water and /or sewer projects.
JUSTIFICATION: Neighborhood revitalization by improving residential streets. Program is project oriented to specific
residential streets that require quick design and construction.
STATUS: 53rd Ave S (137 -144), 37th Ave S (135- Tuk Intl Blvd), and S 132nd St (Tuk Int'I Blvd - Military Road)
are prioritized future candidates.
MAINT. IMPACT: Reduce maintenance.
COMMENT:
FINANCIAL Through Estimated
2011 2012 2013
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 BEYOND TOTAL
EXPENSES
Design
700
700
Land (R/W)
0
Const. Mgmt.
210
210
Construction
1,400
1,400
TOTAL EXPENSES
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,310
2,310
FUND SOURCES
Awarded Grant
0
Proposed Grant
0
Motor Vehicle Tax
0
Mitigation Expected
0
City Oper. Revenue
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,310
2,310
TOTAL SOURCES
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,310
2,310
2013 - 2018 Capital Improvement Program
7
19