20-163.00 Affinity at Mirabeau: Voluntary Mitigation Agreement Contract No. 20-163
VOLUNTARY MITIGATION AGREEMENT-Affinity at Mirabeau
Affinity at Mirabeau,LLC
This Voluntary Mitigation Agreement ("Agreement")is entered into between Affinity at Mirabeau, LLC,
its successors and assigns ("Developer"), a Washington limited liability company, having offices at 120
West Cataldo Avenue, Suite 100 Spokane,WA 99201 (c/o Inland Group),and the City of Spokane Valley
("City"),a municipal corporation of the State of Washington,hereinafter jointly referred to as"Parties":
RECITALS
1. This Agreement is entered into by the Parties pursuant to RCW 82.02.020, to provide a voluntary
financial contribution toward future transportation improvements that mitigate 43 PM Peak Hour Trips
generated from the proposed development in the Developer's master plan for the Affinity at Mirabeau
•
senior adult housing community in the Mirabeau Subarea of Spokane Valley.
2. Developer is the owner/developer of certain real property generally located in the Mirabeau Park area
northeast of the intersection of Mirabeau Parkway and the proposed Carlisle Avenue(parcels 45104.9114
&45113.9175)as shown on Exhibit B(herein collectively referred to as"Property").
3. Developer is proposing 170 apartments for senior adult housing(the"Project")on the Property.
4. The Property and Project are located in area subject to the Mirabeau Infill Area as identified in SVMC
21.20.040(C)(3).
5. The Property and Project have been included in the Mirabeau Subarea Study Update completed in
December,2019(the"Study").The Study is attached to this document as Exhibit"A".
6.The Study has identified that the Property and Project will contribute to congestion along the Mirabeau
Parkway, Indiana Avenue,Trent Avenue,and Pines Road Corridors requiring traffic mitigation to achieve
transportation concurrency.
7. Pursuant to the Study,the Developer's required contribution to mitigate intersection congestion
associated with the Property and Project is$23,994 based on a cost per PM Peak Hour trip of$558.
8. Pursuant to SVMC 21.20.040(C)(3)and RCW 82.02.020,the City has the authority to allow a
payment to mitigate a direct impact that has been identified as a consequence of a proposed development.
Through the Study,the City has identified seven intersection deficiencies that arose as a direct result from
development in the Mirabeau Subarea,including the Project. The Parties have agreed that the mitigation
identified herein is reasonably necessary to mitigate the direct impacts from the Project.
9.To mitigate the direct impacts of the development of the Property upon the affected corridors as
identified in the Study,the Parties are voluntarily entering into this Agreement pursuant to RCW
82.02.020.
AGREEMENT
NOW,THEREFORE,in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein,the
Developer and the City agree as follows:
1.Voluntary Agreement.This Agreement,including all attached documents,is a voluntary mitigation
agreement pursuant to RCW 82.02.020,the Mirabeau Infill Development regulations,SVMC
Contract No. 20-163
21.20.040(C),and RCW 43.21C.229. The Developer's contribution is proportional to the impacts created
by the Developer's proposed development within the Study area. In the event of a material breach by the
Developer of this Agreement,which is not cured within 60 days of written notice of breach,all of the
City's obligations under this Agreement terminate,except as may otherwise be provided herein. In the
event this Agreement terminates due to a judicial finding of invalidity,material breach,or otherwise,the
City shall immediately refund the Developer for any mitigation payments unused by the City and the
City's obligations under this Agreement shall terminate.
2. Projects. The Study identifies intersection improvement projects at seven locations as identified below
to mitigate impacts from future development and maintain acceptable LOS. Specific project details and
estimates are discussed in the Study. Modifications or additions to the above referenced projects may be
made by the City based on future traffic patterns or unforeseen circumstances at no additional cost to the
Developer.
• Pines Rd/Indiana Ave • Sullivan Rd/Mission Ave
• Pines Rd/I-90 EB Ramps • Pines Rd/Sprague Ave
• Pines Rd/Mission Ave • Argonne Rd/Trent Ave
• Mirabeau Pkwy/Mansfield Ave
3.(A)Mitieation Contribution.The Developer agrees to pay$558 per PM peak hour trip as a reasonable
and proportionate amount to mitigate future traffic impacts resulting directly from development by the
Developer. This contribution shall fully satisfy traffic mitigation up to the total allotted 43 PM peak hour
trips as determined pursuant to applicable TGDLs at the time of development. Although the Study
identified the 1,973 PM peak hour trips allocable to the area, the Developer shall only be responsible for
the actual total number of PM peak hour trips from the Project. Any additional development or trips shall
be subject to additional mitigation. This Agreement covers the allocation of 43 PM peak hour trips and
associated mitigation costs per PM peak hour trip.
4. Payment. The Developer agrees to pay all of the above identified voluntary mitigation fees prior to
issuance of the building permit.Payment for Affinity at Mirabeau impacts shall be paid within 30 days after
receiving notice from the City.
5. Compliance with RCW 82.02.020. Payment collected by the City shall be held in a mitigation fee
reserve account and may only be expended towards the projects identified in the Study or as amended by
the City. The City shall be entitled to reimbursement from the mitigation fee reserve account for any funds
it may expend for the capital improvement identified in the study prior to the collection of the fees. The
mitigation fee payment shall be expended by the City within five years from the date of payment by the
Developer. Any funds in the mitigation fee reserve account not expended within the five year period
identified above shall be refunded by the City with interest as provided in RCW 82.02.020.
6. Source of Impact Fees.The City is authorized to collect impact fees pursuant to chapter 43.21 C RCW,
chapter 21.20 SVMC,including SVMC 21.20.040(C),and chapter 22.20 SVMC.The impact fees collected
from this agreement shall be used for capital improvements namely, the seven intersections identified in
the Mirabeau Subarea Study,which are directly impacted by the proposed development.
7.Concurrencv: In accordance with the City's currently adopted concurrency standards and pursuant to
chapter 36.70A RCW, the PM peak hour trips mitigated herein shall be considered to have satisfied
concurrency for the development of the Property.
Contract No. 20-163
8. Notice. All communications, notices or demands of any kind which a party under this Agreement is
required or desires to give to any other party shall be in writing and be either:
(a)Delivered personally;
(b)Sent by facsimile transmission with an additional copy mailed first class; or
(c)Deposited in the U.S.mail,certified mail postage prepaid,return receipt requested and
addressed as follows:
If to the City: City of Spokane Valley
10210 East Sprague Avenue
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Phone: (509)720-5000
Attn: City Engineer
If to the Developer: Affinity at Mirabeau,LLC
do Robert Ketner
Inland Group
120 W.Cataldo Ave.,Suite 100
Spokane,WA 99201
9. Successors.This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the successors and the
assigns of the Parties.
10.Governing Law.This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
Washington. Venue shall be in Spokane County,State of Washington.All disputes arising under or
related to this Agreement that cannot be resolved through informal discussion and negotiations shall be
resolved by litigation filed in the Superior Court for Spokane County,unless otherwise required by
applicable federal or state law.
11. Modifications. No modification or amendment of this Agreement shall be valid until the same is
reduced to writing and executed with the same formalities as the present Agreement.
12.Waiver.No officer,employee,agent or otherwise of the City has the power,right or authority to
waive any of the conditions or provisions to this Agreement.No waiver or any breach of this Agreement
shall be held to be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach.
13.Representation.This Agreement forms a fully integrated agreement between the Parties.No other
understandings,oral or otherwise,regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to exist
or to bind any of the Parties hereto.All Parties have read and understand all of the Agreement,and now
state that no representation,promise or agreement not expressed in the Agreement has been made to
induce any Party to execute the same.
Contract No. 20-163
14. Authority. Both Parties to this Agreement represent and certify that they have full authority and
power to enter into and carry out this Agreement. The persons signing this Agreement represent that they
have authority to act for and bind their respective principals.
Executed this Z lit day of 41/✓ , [ye'jr}'7 Z
DEVELOP
By: Its: it-S
Name:
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)ss.
County of Spokane �
On this_day of 3 it 27 2021 before me,the undersigned a Notary Public in and
for the State of Washington,duly commissioned and sworn,personally a pear id boiven. bit via tips)"
to me known to be the A40,Alietr of -t h a Af•r.•`,etx.in , LL e—
,the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged the
instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of the corporation, for the uses and purposes therein
mentioned,and on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year in this certificate above
written.
NOTAR PUBLIC,in and for the State of Washington,residing at 5p t
My commission expires: l 13 I 11-q �� . IE
INT :9
• N07. azo• •.
Printed Name = : A�
�y s •
'.� ;182423
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY: /4� ii ist tN```\
Mark Calhoun,City Manager
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk Office of e ttorney
EXHIBIT B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A parcel of land situate in a portion of the North half of the Southeast quarter and the South half
of the South half of the Northeast quarter of Section 10 and a portion of Government Lot 4 in
Section 11, all in Township 25 North, Range 44 East, W.M., in the City of Spokane Valley,
County of Spokane, State of Washington,more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at the Northeast corner of the Southeast quarter of said Section 10;
thence South 00'00' 19" East along the East line of said Section 10, 151.98 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING;
thence North 67'15' 19" West, 690.73 feet;
thence Westerly along a tangent curve to the left having a radius of 574.00 feet,through a central
angle of Z 34' 00", an arc distance of 25.71 feet;
thence North 22"44'41" East, 345.28 feet to a point on the Southern right of way line of the
Inland Empire Paper Railroad;
thence South 67'30' 17" East along said right of way line, 572.16 feet to a point on the West line
of said Government Lot 4 in Section 11;
thence South 00 18' 13" West along the said West line of Government Lot 4, 5.40 feet;
thence South 67"30' 17" East along the said Southern right of way line of the Inland Empire
Paper Railroad, 161.77 feet;
thence South 2244'41" West, 342.91 feet;
thence North 67'15' 19" West, 19.55 feet to the point of beginning.
Said parcel contains 5.83 acres,more or less.
Mirabeau Subarea
Traffic Study Update
Prepared for:
City of Spokane Valley, Washington
December 2019
DN1 9-0631
FEHO' PEERS
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Previous Study Findings 1
Update to Expand Subarea 1
Traffic Analysis 4
Level of Service Standards 4
Methodology 5
Existing Traffic Level of Service 7
Year 2040 Traffic Level of Service 8
Project Cost Estimates 10
Updated Project Unit Costs 10
Project Cost Estimates 11
Fair Share&Cost Per Trip Analysis 13
Fair Share Analysis 13
Cost Per Trip 15
Conclusions 17
Appendices
Appendix A - Existing Conditions Synchro Reports
Appendix B - Existing Conditions Optimized Synchro Reports
Appendix C - Future Conditions Synchro Reports
Appendix D - Future Conditions with Mitigations Synchro Reports
Appendix E—Project Cost Estimate Spreadsheets
List of Figures
Figure 1: Study Area 2
Figure 2: Existing and Future Lane Configurations Traffic Controls, and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 6
List of Tables
Table 1: Projects identified in 2016 Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study 3
Table 2: Level of service description and delay thresholds at intersections 5
Table 3: Existing (2019) PM peak hour level of service 7
Table 4: Existing (2019) PM peak hour LOS with signal timing adjustments 8
Table 5: 2040 PM peak hour LOS with signal timing optimized 8
Table 6: Potential project to improve 2040 PM peak hour LOS 9
Table 7: Potential project at Argonne Rd./Trent Ave.to improve 2040 PM peak hour LOS 9
Table 8: Unit costs 10
Table 9: Cost estimate of potential projects to improve future LOS 11
Table 10: Subarea share of future PM peak hour traffic at deficient intersections 13
Table 11: Subareas' share of total improvement costs 14
Table 12: PM peak hour trip generation calculation 15
Table 13: Voluntary Traffic Mitigation Fees for Developers to Meet SEPA Obligation 17
This page intentionally left blank.
Introduction
The City of Spokane Valley commissioned the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study in 2016 that identified
existing transportation level of service (LOS) deficiencies and future transportation improvements to
support existing and planned growth in the Subarea. Based on the traffic forecasts, future traffic impacts
and potential mitigation projects, a fair share analysis was used to estimate a cost per PM peak hour
vehicle trip that developers in the Subarea would pay to meet their obligation under SEPA. The City will
use these fees to offset the cost of transportation improvement projects directly impacted by
development in the Subarea.The Mirabeau Subarea is mapped in Figure 1 and covers most of the area
between Pines Road and Sullivan Road and 1-90 and the Spokane River in north central Spokane Valley.
Previous Study Findings
The 2016 Mirabeau Traffic Study identified five intersections in or around the Mirabeau Subarea that are
forecast to have LOS deficiencies by 2040.These intersections are shown in Table 1, including the 2015
and 2040 PM peak hour LOS and delay. For each intersection, a project was identified to address the
future LOS deficiency, including a cost estimate for each project. A fair share percent was also estimated
that represents the portion of future traffic that would pass through the location generated by the
Mirabeau Subarea. This proportion is based on a select link analysis using the Spokane Regional
Transportation Council (SRTC) regional travel demand model. Based on the estimated project costs, fair
share analysis, and future traffic generated by development in the Subarea, a cost per PM peak hour
vehicle trip of$323.75 was calculated and assessed to developments in the area to pay for the future
transportation improvement projects identified in the Study.
Update to Expand Subarea
In 2019, the City commissioned an update to the Mirabeau Traffic Study.This report provides a summary
of the update, including an updated cost analysis and findings.The main purpose of this Study is to
update the fair share cost per PM peak hour vehicle trip from the original traffic study as well as expand
the geographic area by which transportation impact fees will be collected to account for new
developments planned for the area south of 1-90. Instead of changing the boundaries of the previously
established Mirabeau Subarea to accommodate the expanded area, a second Subarea was established
directly adjacent to the Mirabeau Subarea.The second Subarea is referred to as the North Pines Road
Subarea and is mapped in Figure 1.The North Pines Road Subarea is around Pines Road roughly between
Sprague Avenue and Trent Avenue and University Road and Adams Road excluding the Mirabeau
Subarea.
Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update 1
to- \ L,_ '
CU
nclg fa CI- I giol' .
rt co
c To H !� N ce M co '�.. ,
y co i
MCO
T� c . c- I fD co co
M 2 ��o co
O 9 , •
\l' v P21 uenglfS N —
w
w N
_ m p sseJ6oi N
�� T — n I
Q
` .o PN swn9 N
f i, i N _ I �
.9 �'� Pa sw ‘-.4 o
ePV N I M 1 co �M
1 4 i
M to l (� Q PH 3saglN" , l�
Y M M _.
.J i t t U M
\-,
1 w PH uaa�6�an3 N •
1 M'. .C�
-
5 PHJaweWN; 1il-- _
- ,ha. ry�""
1/3
p MCO
f)`--J w ?; �' co
Cc La
w m Q z PH Pleub00W N co M L r- —
i *dye;• W w M a � VI
A
IV
u,Lj
____rn _< rn a
"' M , c C
M m
1 0 ro
tic �P2!•sauld wnw 1 c_•a
�—\N I. �Q w N N M W j t
- M -`ml
M
I
_. p } �. ��.--_re" ilL PH lasIPM09 N
\\\ pr M
1 �',. 1
i,
I .N ,N. 1M. R ' M LL< ----1,-.cv,-,
�M
- i
IE ' L I dI '
o D
m .- a PH llpianluf N > j a
N c
lL 'd 2• Q I w O.-.....fl _ E
ci O ch
as0 L,, • .07) w N PH slle3 N r-`o w QC/ M-
- Q
o - `.., d PH PIeJaH N -0Jjrt
( _CT c rn P2!11lup00/N N _
-`` w Pa Z d C w co
PH
1; 0 • • N P2!isnool N O
_III ` coO
1 N P2{.Uepny�•N c�
� ti v rn Pa auuoCuy,N rn M y� �oQp
s. L BI NI , � N �� co -M / � 2
Table 1: Projects identified in 2016 Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study
Mirabeau
Project 2015 2040 2040 LOS Subarea Mirabeau
Description of Cost
with Proportion Subarea Fair
(Intersection) LOS LOS Improv. Improvement Estimate of Future Share Cost
Traffic
Pines Rd/ D E D Add westbound left-turn $896,000 18% $161,000
Indiana Ave lane; retime traffic signal
Add eastbound left-turn
lane and northbound
Pines Rd/I-90 E F D right-turn pocket $753,000 18% $135,000
EB Ramps (extending
back to Nora Ave);retime
traffic signal
Add southbound right-
turn lane
(extending back to the I-
90 off-ramp);
reconfigure lane
Pines Rd/ assignments on Mission $457,000 16% $73,000
Mission Ave E F D Ave to include eastbound
dual-left and a
through-right lane and
westbound left,
through,and right turn
lane;retime traffic signal
Mirabeau Add traffic signal,add
Pkwy/ B F C new 180 foot southbound $874,000 38% $332,000
Mansfield Ave through-right lane
Reconfigure eastbound to
Sullivan Rd/ include a left and
Mission Ave D E B through-right lane;retime $61,000 4% $2,500
signal
Source:Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study(June 2016).
Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update 3
Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update
December, 2019
Traffic Analysis
In the previous study,traffic analysis was performed for 21 intersections in and around the Mirabeau
Subarea,with five of those locations identified as having traffic level of service (LOS) deficiencies by Year
2040. No updates to that analysis were performed as part of this study and the COSV still plans to
implement those five projects(listed in Table 1) over time as fees are collected. However, as part of
expanding the traffic analysis to include the North Pines Road Subarea as part of this study,three
additional signalized intersections were identified to evaluate existing (2019) and future (2040)traffic LOS.
These include:
1. Pines Road/Broadway
2. Pines Road/Sprague Avenue
3. Evergreen Road/Sprague Avenue
Level of Service Standards
City of Spokane Valley Level of Service Standards
The City of Spokane Valley uses level of service(LOS)to describe and evaluate traffic operations along
major arterial corridors and intersections within the City. Levels range from LOS A to LOS F, which
encompass a range of congestion types from uninterrupted traffic(LOS A) to highly-congested conditions
(LOS F).The description and intersection delay thresholds of each LOS category are described in Table 2.
These are based on the Highway Capacity Manual,which is the methodology used by Spokane Valley. The
LOS for signalized intersections is measured by the average delay per vehicle entering the intersection
from all approaches, while the LOS for unsignalized intersections is measured by the average delay per
vehicle on the approach with the highest average delay. Spokane Valley also applies Corridor LOS to
evaluate major arterial corridors in the City.Average daily traffic (ADT) volume thresholds are used to
measure average LOS conditions along the length of the entire corridor. Corridor LOS acknowledges that
some intersections may experience greater congestion than the corridor as a whole. Sprague Avenue and
Pines Road are both major arterials where corridor-level LOS can be applied.
The LOS standards used by Spokane Valley are defined in the Comprehensive Plan as follows:
• LOS D at the corridor level for major arterial corridors:
o Argonne/Mullan between the town of Millwood and Appleway Boulevard
o Pines Road between Trent Avenue and 8th Avenue
o Evergreen Road between Indiana Avenue and 8th Avenue
o Sullivan Road between Wellesley Avenue and 8th Avenue
o Sprague Avenue/Appleway Boulevard between Fancher Road and Sullivan Road
• LOS D for signalized intersections not on major arterial corridors
• LOS E for unsignalized intersections (LOS F acceptable if peak hour traffic signal warrant is
unmet)
4
Table 2: Level of service description and delay thresholds at intersections
Level of Signalized Unsignalized
Description Intersection Delay Intersection Delay
Service
(seconds) (seconds)
A Free-flowing conditions. 0-10 0-10
B Stable operating conditions. 10-20 10-15
C Stable operating conditions, but individual motorists are 20-35 15-25
affected by the interaction with other motorists.
D High density of motorists, but stable flow. 35-55 25-35
E Near-capacity operations,with speeds reduced to a low but 55-80 35-50
uniform speed.
F Over-capacity conditions with long delays. > 80 >50
Source:Highway Capacity Manual 2016,Transportation Research Board
WSDOT LOS Standards
WSDOT also uses LOS thresholds for State Highways.The LOS standard for State Highways in Urban Areas
(including the Study Area) is LOS D for signalized intersections and LOS E for unsignalized intersections.
Within the Study Area WSDOT's LOS standards are also considered for intersections along Pines Road,
which is State Route 27.
Methodology
Traffic Analysis
Synchro software (version 9)was used to evaluate PM peak hour LOS at the three signalized intersections
included in this Update. Synchro settings were set consistent with WSDOT Synchro &SimTraffic Protocol
(Aug 2018) and City of Spokane Valley standards. LOS was measured using the Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM) 2010 methodology within Synchro.
Existing (2019) Traffic Volumes
Existing intersection turn movement counts were collected between 4 PM and 6 PM on Thursday,
September 19th, 2019.The existing (and future) PM peak hour volumes are shown in Figure 2.
Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update 5
re - ---)------'"------- --'---------_,--- ------- --------
are V
d IX i
'f E Boone Ave 2� ° le
,
i ir
°'I �iz m_.__
— z '- Z I a z i i
— 5 E,Cataldo Ave '- -------_,..--
I
I z _ z t c
1cc
I: L
4 Tz F C
I
E Valleywey.A�e
( z
Spokane 1
E Main Ave I —f Valley a ""---
1 -,
— .---E
JBue Av • -- —
sP ---
• Sprag
— —__��_. Abandoned RR - 7
- 0 — *
tt T E 4th/kw
7 P - - I I I E 5th AT
1.Pines/Broadway 2.Pines/Sprague 3.S Evergreen Rd/Sprague
rn
oV inoo inoin
N h N T
o 76(85) C.1 CD c 173(195) m 215(240)
� r 275(280) N CO g N 837(1,005) •/ 873(980)
41L 123(130) 41L -140(160) 4L 0 127(145)
pr. i[''2
187(205) Ili. 216(240)-,I 1 TI. 166(185) - I1T%
315(320)_,► v rn 801(960)7=2; R;g 830(1,005)—~i A
101(110) 93(120)-'4' ,-a 95(110)-N' �!-
isl N.—r 0
M N s—N O
CO c-a
Existing PM(2040 PM)Volumes
Figure 2
Existing and 2040 Lane Configurations
Traffic Controls, and PM Peak Hour
Traffic Volumes
Future Year (2040) Traffic Volumes
Traffic volumes at each of the study intersections were forecast using the current version of the SRTC 2015
and 2040 regional travel demand models,which was last updated in December 2017.After review of the
land use forecasts in the model with City staff, no adjustments were made to the existing or future land
use assumptions or transportation network in the model. Instead of using the traffic forecasts directly
from the 2040 travel demand model, 2040 volumes were estimated using an industry standard approach
known as the difference method. Under the difference method,the difference in traffic volumes between
the 2015 and 2040 models were added to observed counts at each of the study area intersections to
arrive at a 2040 forecast traffic.This method reduces model error by relying as much as possible on
observed data rather than model output data. Note:the difference in traffic volumes between the 2015
and 2040 model were multiplied by 0.84 to account for growth in traffic that occurred between 2015 and
2018(21 years/25 years = 0.84). Post processing to account for model anomalies was also applied to
arrive at the final 2040 traffic forecasts. Forecast traffic volumes in Year 2040 are also shown in Figure 2.
Existing Traffic Level of Service
Table 3 shows the existing PM peak hour LOS using the methodology described above for the three
intersections analyzed. Under existing conditions, both the Pines Road/Broadway and Pines Road/Sprague
Avenue intersections operate at LOS E, exceeding the COSV and WSDOT intersection LOS D threshold. It
should be noted that the Pines Road/Sprague Avenue intersection is just on the cusp of LOS D and LOS E
during the PM peak hour.Additionally, both Pines Road and Sprague Avenue are major arterials through
these intersections and it should be noted that for these corridors the 2016 Comprehensive Plan directs
the LOS threshold to be measured by using corridor-wide LOS.While the Comprehensive Plan
acknowledges that individual intersections may exceed the LOS D threshold using this method (as long as
the corridor-wide average is at or below LOS D),the corridor-level LOS was not a primary consideration in
this case and was not analyzed as part of this study.
Table 3: Existing (2019) PM peak hour level of service
Intersection Control Delay(sec) LOS
Pines Rd/Broadway Signal 62 E
Pines Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 56 E
Evergreen Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 51 D
Source:Fehr&Peers
Improving Existing Level of Service
The most cost-effective way to improve the existing LOS at the Pines Road/Broadway intersection would
be to make signal timing adjustments.Table 4 shows what the existing PM peak hour LOS would be if the
signal timing splits were optimized and cycle length maintained in order to preserve coordination
between signals along the corridor. Right-turn-on-red movements were factored into the analysis.
Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update 7
Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update
December, 2019
Optimizing the signal splits would improve the Pines Road/Broadway intersection to LOS D, but would
have little to no effect at the other two intersections.
Table 4: Existing (2019) PM peak hour LOS with signal timing adjustments
Intersection Control Delay(sec) LOS
Pines Rd/Broadway Signal 48 D
Pines Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 56 E
Evergreen Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 48 D
Source:Fehr&Peers
Year 204o Traffic Level of Service
Table 5 shows the estimated PM peak hour LOS in 2040 for the three intersections analyzed, based on
traffic growth from the SRTC regional travel demand model.The 2040 delay and LOS presented in Table 5
assumes the same cycle length for the signals, but assumes the signal splits would be optimized over time
to account for changing traffic patterns.The results show that in 2040 the Pines Road/Sprague
intersection would continue to operate at LOS E, but would degrade by an average of 8 seconds per
vehicle from existing conditions, and would exceed WSDOT and COSV intersection LOS threshold. Again,
it should be noted that City of Spokane Valley uses corridor-level LOS methodology to measure LOS for
both the Pines Road and Sprague Avenue corridors. Corridor-level LOS was not measured in 2040 as part
of this analysis, but in consultation with City staff it was determined that addressing congestion at Pines
Road and Sprague Avenue in the future was desired to reduce delay, improve corridor-wide LOS for both
Sprague Avenue and Pines Road, and to mitigate potential congestion related safety issues.
Table 5: 2040 PM peak hour LOS with signal timing optimized
Intersection Control Delay(sec) LOS
Pines Rd/Broadway Signal 49 D
Pines Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 64 E
Evergreen Rd/Sprague Ave Signal 52 D
Source:Fehr&Peers
Improving 2040 Level of Service
Using an iterative approach and accounting for land use constraints, a project was identified to improve
the delay at the Pines Road/Sprague Avenue intersection in 2040.A description of the project and the
improvements to LOS and delay is shown in Table 6.This project would reduce the 2040 delay by about 9
seconds and bring the LOS from an E to a D (just on the cusp of a D/E). It should be noted that while this
intersection is not specifically required to meet LOS D threshold per Spokane Valley standards (instead the
8 jj
Pines Road and Sprague Avenue corridors are required to meet corridor-wide average LOS D threshold),
improving the average vehicle delay at this intersection will ensure that WSDOT LOS standards are met
and would contribute toward ensuring the Pines and Sprague corridors do not exceed LOS D corridor-
wide in 2040.
Table 6: Potential project to improve 2040 PM peak hour LOS
Intersection Description of Improvement Delay(sec) with LOS with
Improvement Improvement
• Add a southbound right-turn-only lane;
• Convert the existing southbound through-right
Pines Rd/Sprague Ave 54.6
lane to a through only lane; D
• Add a second eastbound left-turn-only lane.
Source:Fehr&Peers
Argonne Road &Trent Avenue Intersection
The intersection of Argonne Road &Trent Avenue is near the North Pines Road Subarea, and while traffic
analysis at that intersection was not performed as part of this study,this intersection was identified in the
2016 Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan as a location that would exceed COSV and WSDOT LOS
thresholds.As part of the Comprehensive Plan, a project was identified to address the poor LOS in the
future, as described in Table 7. Given that development in both the Mirabeau and North Pines Road
Subareas would increase traffic at this intersection,this project was also included as part of the fair-share
cost analysis for both Subareas. Note that while the improvement at Argonne Road &Trent Avenue would
improve the LOS compared to a "do nothing" alternative,this intersection would not meet either WSDOT
or COSV LOS thresholds. Land use constraints related to the BNSF railroad overpass and the narrow street
cross section in Millwood limit options related to adding roadway capacity to Argonne Road. Because this
improvement would add capacity and reduce delay, the cost can be factored into impact fees per the
Washington State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA), despite not reducing LOS to within the City or State
thresholds.
Table 7: Potential project at Argonne Rd./ Trent Ave. to improve 2040 PM peak hour LOS
Delay w/o LOS w/o Delay with LOS with
Intersection Description of Improvement
Improvement Improvement Improvement Improvement
Argonne Rd/ • Add a second westbound 109 F 96 F
Trent Ave left-turn lane.
Source:Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan(Dec 2016),Appendix A.
Mira beau Subarea Traffic Study Update 9
Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update
December, 2019
Project Cost Estimates
This section includes updated cost estimates, including methodology, for the five projects identified in
previous plans as well as the cost estimates for two projects identified in this study at both the Pines Road
&Sprague Avenue and Argonne Road &Trent Avenue intersections.
Updated Project Unit Costs
Unit costs for roadway construction were identified in the 2016 traffic study. In collaboration with City
staff,these costs were updated based on construction costs from recently completed transportation
projects in Spokane Valley.Where recent costs were not available, unit costs were updated based on
inflation from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) National Highway Cost Index.' Costs to
account for drainage and traffic control were also added.Table 8 summarizes the unit costs that were
used to develop project cost estimates.
Table 8: Unit costs
Element Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost(2019$)
Hard Costs
Roadway Demolition Demolition and removal of old roadway Square Yard $15
Curb Demolition Demolition and removal of old curb/gutter Linear foot $16
Sidewalk Demolition Demolition and removal of old sidewalk Square Yard $20
Signal Demolition Demo and removal of old traffic signal eqpt. Each mast arm $6,000
Excavation Excavation,grading,fill,earthwork Cubic Yard $35
Road Section Construction of new roadway surface Square Yard $60
Curb Construction of new curb/gutter Linear foot $45
Sidewalk Construction of new sidewalks Square Yard $80
Curb Ramps Construction of new curb ramps Each $4,000
Traffic Signal Construction of new traffic signal Each new system $480,000
Other Costs
Right-of-way Cost of acquiring right-of-way Square Foot $12
Mobilization Cost to get a construction crew engaged 10%of"hard"costs above
Drainage Cost to provide proper stormwater drainage 20%of applicable"hard"costs above
Traffic Control Cost to manage traffic during construction 15%of"hard"costs above
Contingency Cost contingency for unexpected drainage/ utility/ 30%of"hard"costs above
earthwork conflicts;WSDOT coordination
Engineering Cost to design and permit the project 20%of"hard"costs above
Source:City of Spokane Valley,Fehr&Peers,FHWA National Highway Cost Index.
' https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/nhcci/ptl.cfm
10
Project Cost Estimates
Table 9 shows the cost estimates for seven potential projects in the study area where LOS would degrade
to unacceptable levels in the future.This includes updated costs for the five projects identified in the
previous(2016) Mirabeau Traffic Study to account for construction cost inflation, plus the additional
projects at Pines Road &Sprague Avenue intersection identified in this Update and the potential project
at Argonne Road &Trent Avenue identified in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan (2016). Details for
how these costs were estimated is provided in Appendix E.All cost estimates are in 2019 dollars.
Table 9: Cost estimate of potential projects to improve future LOS
Non- 2016 Cost
Applicable
Project Description Cost Estimate Applicable Estimates
Costs Costs (2016 dollars)
Pines Rd/ Add westbound left-turn lane;
Indiana Ave retime traffic signal $1,500,000 $0 $1,500,000 $896,000
Pines Rd/I-90 Add eastbound left-turn lane and
EB Ramps northbound right-turn pocket
(extending back to Nora Ave); $1,119,000 $0 $1,119,000 $753,000
retime traffic signal
Pines Rd/ Reconfigure lane assignments on
Mission Ave Mission Ave to include eastbound
Phase 1 dual-left and a through-right lane
and westbound left,through,and $588,000 $508,620 $79,380
right turn lane;retime and $457,000
upgrade traffic signal
Pines Rd/ Add southbound right-turn lane
Mission Ave (extending back to the 1-90 off- $812,000 $0 $812,000
Phase 2 ramp);
Mirabeau Add traffic signal,add new 180
Pkwy/ foot southbound through-right $1,215,000 $0 $1,215,000 $874,000
Mansfield Ave lane
Sullivan Rd/ Reconfigure eastbound to include
Mission Ave a left and through-right lane; $94,000 $0 $94,000 $61,000
retime signal
Add a southbound right-turn-only
Pines Rd/ lane;convert the existing
Sprague Ave southbound through-right lane to $818,000 $82,000 $737,000 NEW
a through-only lane;add a second
eastbound left-turn-only lane.
Argonne Rd/ Add a second westbound left-turn
Trent Ave lane. $753,600 $229,200 $524,400 NEW
Source:Fehr&Peers,City of Spokane Valley.
Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update 11
Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update
December, 2019
It should be noted that the improvements at Pines Road & Mission Avenue have been split into two
phases as the City is planning to implement a portion of this project (Phase 1) in 2020.Additionally, about
86%of funding for this project is from non-City funds (that portion is funded by a Surface Transportation
Block Grant) and thus cannot be included as part of the fair-share cost analysis. All other projects are
assumed to be funded entirely by City general funds(which include mitigation fee payments from
development).
Secondly,the full cost of improvements at the Pines Road &Sprague Avenue intersection cannot be
applied to the impact fee because there is a LOS deficiency at this intersection under existing conditions.
To account for this,the portion of traffic that if removed from the system today would effectively reduce
the LOS at this intersection from an "E"to a "D"was estimated in Synchro. The result was about 10%of
existing traffic.This means that if traffic volumes were 10% lower at this intersection under existing
conditions,the intersection would meet the LOS D threshold.Therefore, 10% of the total cost of the
potential improvement project at Pines Road &Sprague Avenue was deducted from the total cost to
arrive at the applicable cost as shown in Table 9.
Similarly,the full cost of improvements at the Argonne Road &Trent Avenue intersection cannot be
applied to the impact fee because there is an existing LOS deficiency at this intersection.To account for
this,the cost of a restriping and signal modification project which would bring the intersection to a LOS D
under existing conditions was estimated.The project was recommended as part of the North Argonne
Road/North Mullan Road Corridor Retiming project.2 The estimated cost of this project ($229,000)was
deducted from cost of the longer term project to arrive at the applicable cost as shown in Table 9.
2 Fehr&Peers.Technical Memorandum.N Argonne Road/N Mullan Road Corridor Retiming.July 25, 2019. Project#
SE18-0621.
„,roi
12
Fair Share & Cost Per Trip Analysis
Fair Share Analysis
A common way for a development project to mitigate its traffic impact is through a fair-share financial
contribution toward a transportation system project that would improve LOS to meet City standards.The
Subarea's fair-share financial contribution is determined by how much traffic the Subarea is expected to
contribute to each of the deficient intersections under future conditions(see Table 9). In other words,
what percentage of 2040 traffic through a deficient intersection is caused by new development within the
Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea?
The SRTC regional travel model was used to determine the percentage of traffic generated by future
development within the two Subareas.The travel model has a tool called a "select zone analysis"that can
track the traffic generated by different areas throughout the city.The select zone analysis was set to
identify the traffic generated by Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subarea development separate from any
other traffic generated by development in the region.The results of the select zone analysis were
analyzed for each of the seven deficient intersections identified in Table 9.Table 10 shows the results of
the select zone analysis.This reflects the same portion of traffic from the Mirabeau Subarea through the
five deficient intersections identified from the previous (2016) study.
Table 10: Subarea share of future PM peak hour traffic at deficient intersections
Mirabeau Subarea North Pines Road Subarea Combined Portion
Intersection Portion of Future Traffic Portion of Future Traffic of Future Traffic
from two Subareas
Pines Rd/Indiana Ave 18% 42% 60%
Pines Rd/1-90 EB Ramps 18% 48% 66%
Pines Rd/Mission Ave 4% 53% 57%
Mirabeau Pkwy/Mansfield Ave 38% 5% 43%
Sullivan Rd/Mission Ave 4% 9% 13%
Pines Rd/Sprague Ave 6% 19% 25%
Argonne Rd/Trent Ave 10% 7% 17%
Source:Fehr&Peers,SRTC Regional Travel Demand Model(last updated December,2017).
The results in Table 10 show that at some intersections,the majority of future traffic is generated by the
two Subareas combined,while at other locations,the majority of future traffic is generated by locations
outside the two Subareas. For example, at the Pines Road & I-90 Eastbound Ramps, 18% of future traffic
will be generated by land uses in the Mirabeau Subarea and 48%will be generated by land uses in the
North Pines Road Subarea. Combined,the two Subareas will generate about 66% of the future traffic
Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update 13
Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update
December, 2019
passing through the intersection during the PM peak hour. In contrast, about 10% of future traffic at
Argonne Road &Trent Avenue intersection will be generated by land uses in the Mirabeau Subarea and
7%will be generated by land uses in the North Pines Road Subarea.Combined the two Subareas will
generate about 17% of the future traffic passing through the intersection during the PM peak hour, while
land uses outside the Subarea will generate about 83%of future traffic passing through the intersection.
The results in Table 10 were used to determine the two Subareas'financial share of the total project
improvements by multiplying the total improvement cost by the proportion of traffic generated by new
development in the two Subareas.The result of this calculation is the fair-share cost of each project to the
Subarea and is shown in Table 11.This shows that the total fair-share cost of all seven projects adds up to
$1,079,000 for the Mirabeau Subarea and $1,708,000 for the North Pines Road Subarea.A two percent
administrative fee was added to each Subarea cost to cover the cost of administering the program,
including future updates to this study.Thus,the total fair share cost of improvements, including the
administrative fee, equals $1,101,000 for the Mirabeau Subarea and $1,742,000 for the North Pines Road
Subarea.
Table 11: Subareas' share of total improvement costs
Mirabeau
Applicable Mirabeau North Pines Road North Pines
Subarea
Intersection Portion of Total Subarea Portion Subarea Portion Road Subarea
Project Cost of Future Traffic UPDATED Fair- of Future Traffic Fair-Share Cost
Share Cost
Pines Rd/Indiana
Ave $1,500,000 18% $270,000 42% $628,000
Pines Rd/1-90 EB
Ramps $1,119,000 18% $201,000 48% $532,000
Pines Rd/Mission
Ave $891,000 4% $143,000 53% $476,000
Mirabeau Pkwy/ $1,215,000 38% $462,000 5% $64,000
Mansfield Ave
Sullivan Rd/ $94,000 4% $3,700 9% $8,200
Mission Ave
Pines Rd/
Sprague Ave $737,000 6% $48,000 19% $137,000
Argonne Rd/ $524,000 10% $51,000 7% $38,000
Trent Ave
Total Fair-Share N/A N/A $1,079,000 N/A $1,708,000
Cost
Total Fair-Share
Cost with 2%
Administrative N/A N/A $1,101,000 N/A $1,742,000
Fee
r.
Cost Per Trip
Given both Subareas' share of the total project costs as identified in Table 11,the cost per PM peak hour
trip could be updated for the Mirabeau Subarea and calculated for the North Pines Road Subarea by
applying the same methodology as the previous study.The same amount of future land use growth in
Mirabeau through Year 2040 assumed in the previous study was applied (but with updated project costs
and updated trip rates) as shown in Table 12.This calculation might seem counterintuitive because there
has been growth in the Mirabeau Subarea between 2016 and today. However, since this study did not re-
calculate the proportion of traffic growth associated with the remaining development potential in the
Mirabeau Subarea,the original total increase in trip generation was assumed.This is a common
assumption used when updating impact/mitigation fees and helps to keep the fees relatively stable and
predictable over time.
For the North Pines Road Subarea, the difference between the land use assumed in the 2040 SRTC
Regional Travel Demand Model and the 2015 model was used. PM peak hour trip generation was
estimated with standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)trip generation rates.Table 12
summarizes the land use growth and resulting trip generation rates for both Subareas.This is the same
trip generation approach used in the original Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study, except with updated rates
based on the current(2017) ITE Trip Generation Manual.
Table 12: PM peak hour trip generation calculation
PM Peak Hour Mirabeau Mirabeau North Pines Road North Pines Road
Land Use Subarea Units of Subarea PM Subarea Units of Subarea PM Peak
Trip Rate
Development Peak Hour Trips Development Hour Trips
Single Family 0.99 65 dwelling units 65 78 dwelling units 78
Residential
Multi Family 0.56 979 dwelling units 549 157 dwelling units 88
Residential
Retail 3.81 63,890 square feet 244 69,750 square feet 266
Office 0.40 2,561 employees 1,025 259 employees 104
Hotel 0.60 150 rooms 90 0 rooms 0
Medical 0.85 0 employees 0 371 employees 316
School 0.17 0 employees 0 18 employees 4
Industrial 0.49 0 employees 0 79 employees 39
Total Fair-Share N/A N/A 1,973 N/A 895
Cost
Source:Trip generation:ITE(2017);Mirabeau Subarea land use growth:Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study(2016);North Pines Subarea
land use growth:SRTC Regional Travel Demand Model(last updated December,2017).
Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update 15
Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update
December, 2019
Based on the results from Table 11 and Table 12 the cost per PM peak hour for each Subarea are as
follows:
Mirabeau Subarea (UPDATED):
$1,101,000 (Subarea's share of total project costs)/ 1,973 (Subarea PM peak hour trip generation from
growth) = $ 558 per PM peak hour trip.
This compares to $323.75 per PM peak hour trip from the 2016 study.The cost per trip went up because
of higher construction costs, the two additional improvement projects(at Pines Road &Sprague Avenue
and Argonne Road &Trent Avenue), and slightly lower assumed trip rates based on the updated trip
generation manual (which reduced forecast new trips generated by development from 2,176 in the
previous study to 1,973).
North Pines Road Subarea:
$1,742,000(Subarea's share of total project costs)/895 (Subarea PM peak hour trip generation from
growth) = $ 1,946 per PM peak hour trip
Vested Trips
There are still existing "vested"trips from the prior"Pines-Mansfield Development Agreement"that was
established by Spokane County.While the transportation improvement projects identified as part of the
Pines-Mansfield Development Agreement have largely been constructed, Spokane Valley is open to
counting the vested trips as a credit against this new transportation improvement program. Based on data
supplied by the City of Spokane Valley in October 2019,there were 816 PM peak hour vested trips
outstanding amongst the land owners in the Subarea.These trips have a value of$303.36 per trip,which
works out to a total value of$247,542. Developers can apply the value of their unused vested PM peak
hour trips as a credit to the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Mitigation Program until they have no vested trips
remaining.
16 ,�
Conclusions
This report provided an update to the Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study previously performed in 2016.The
main purpose of this study was to update the projects costs, based primarily on inflation, and to expand
the geographic area paying the traffic LOS impact mitigation fee as planned new developments will add a
substantial amount of new traffic to the area. Instead of expanding the Mirabeau Subarea, a new Subarea
called the North Pines Road Subarea was defined.As part of this analysis, the existing and future traffic
LOS conditions at three new intersections in and around the two Subareas was performed.As shown in
the previous study and this update, in the future, traffic LOS is expected to degrade within the study area
as the Mirabeau Subarea, North Pines Road Subarea, and the rest of Spokane Valley and the region
continue to grow.This report identified the necessary traffic mitigation measures to improve congestion
and meet Spokane Valley's LOS standards. Most of the congestion relief projects are on the Pines Road
corridor with a separate improvement at Argonne Road &Trent Avenue and a minor improvement at the
Sullivan Road & Mission Avenue intersection.
A fair-share calculation was developed to identify the Mirabeau Subarea and North Pines Road Subarea
landowner's share of future traffic impacts and mitigation costs. If landowners agree to implement future
traffic congestion improvement projects through a mitigation contribution up to the amount shown in
Table 13,then they will meet their SEPA obligations to mitigate traffic congestion impacts. After making
this mitigation payment(which is subject to a credit from the existing Pines-Mansfield Development
Agreement),the developer will not have to conduct another traffic study, outside of a site access and
circulation study,which may be required by Spokane Valley to ensure safe access for all modes into and
within the development site.
Table 13: Voluntary Traffic Mitigation Fees for Developers to Meet SEPA Obligation
Subarea Cost per PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip
Mirabeau Subarea $ 558
North Pines Road Subarea $1,946
Mirabeau Subarea Traffic Study Update 17
Appendix A - Existing Conditions
Synchro Reports
FEHR PEERS
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
2052: Pines & Broadway 10/08/2019
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 'I I 11 1 ¶ +I+ 1 +1
Traffic Volume(veh/h) 187 315 101 123 275 76 53 805 54 87 1070 177
Future Volume(veh/h) 187 315 101 123 275 76 53 805 54 87 1070 177
Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1750
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 195 328 93 128 286 68 55 839 50 91 1115 167
Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
Cap.veh/h 255 350 99 197 348 83 204 1356 81 112 1080 161
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.27 0.27 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.13 0.43 0.43 0.07 0.38 0.38
SatFlow, veh/h 1650 1292 366 1634 1339 318 1634 3125 186 1650 2866 428
Grp Volume(v),veh/h 195 0 421 128 0 354 55 438 451 91 639 643
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1650 0 1659 1634 0 1658 1634 1630 1681 1650 1646 1648
Q Serve(g_s),s 11.0 0.0 32.2 7.4 0.0 26.1 4.0 27.0 27.0 7.1 49.0 49.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 11.0 0.0 32.2 7.4 0.0 26.1 4.0 27.0 27.0 7.1 49.0 49.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.26
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 255 0 450 197 0 430 204 707 730 112 620 621
V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.00 0.94 0.65 0.00 0.82 0.27 0.62 0.62 0.81 1.03 1.03
Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 255 0 472 241 0 497 204 707 730 203 620 621
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.91 0.00 0.91 0.62 0.62 0.62 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 35.7 0.0 46.3 35.5 0.0 45.3 51.5 28.5 28.5 59.7 40.5 40.5
Incr Delay(d2).s/veh 12.8 0.0 25.8 4.0 0.0 8.7 0.4 2.5 2.5 12.8 44.0 45.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.1 0.0 18.0 3.5 0.0 13.0 1.8 12.7 13.0 3.6 29.8 30.1
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 48.5 0.0 72.1 39.5 0.0 54.0 51.9 31.0 30.9 72.6 84.5 85.9
LnGrp LOS D E D D D C C E F F
Approach Vol,veh/h 616 482 944 1373
Approach Delay, s/veh 64.6 50.2 32.2 84.4
Approach LOS E D C F
Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 21.3 54.0 16.0 38.7 13.8 61.4 14.5 40.2
Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting(Gmax), s 11.0 49.0 11.0 39.0 16.0 44.0 13.0 37.0
Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 6.0 51.0 13.0 28.1 9.1 29.0 9.4 34.2
Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.1 3.6 0.1 1.0
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 61.6
HCM 2010 LOS E
COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
2053: Pines & Sprague 10/08/2019
f -* c k" 4\ t t * • 4/
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations j ++1 'I +14+ h +I 14+
Traffic Volume(veh/h) 216 801 93 140 837 173 135 421 77 280 600 291
Future Volume(veh/h) 216 801 93 140 837 173 135 421 77 280 600 291
Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99
Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1750
Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 225 834 82 146 872 147 141 439 64 292 625 231
Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1
Cap,veh/h 241 1190 116 171 933 156 292 797 116 317 686 253
Arrive On Green 0.15 0.27 0.27 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.18 0.28 0.28 0.19 0.29 0.29
SatFlow,veh/h 1650 4381 429 1650 4074 683 1634 2856 414 1650 2345 866
Grp Volume(v),veh/h 225 599 317 146 674 345 141 249 254 292 438 418
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1650 1577 1656 1650 1577 1604 1634 1630 1640 1650 1646 1565
Q Serve(g_s),s 17.5 22.2 22.4 11.3 27.2 27.5 10.1 16.9 17.1 22.6 33.4 33.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c).s 17.5 22.2 22.4 11.3 27.2 27.5 10.1 16.9 17.1 22.6 33.4 33.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.55
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 241 857 450 171 722 367 292 455 458 317 481 458
V/C Ratio(X) 0.93 0.70 0.70 0.85 0.93 0.94 0.48 0.55 0.55 0.92 0.91 0.91
Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 241 857 450 241 728 370 292 455 458 355 557 530
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.27 0.27 0.27
Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 54.9 42.6 42.6 57.3 49.1 49.2 48.0 39.9 40.0 51.6 44.4 44.4
Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 37.5 2.3 4.5 11.1 12.1 21.1 1.2 4.7 4.8 10.2 8.6 9.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 10.5 9.9 10.8 5.7 13.1 14.3 4.6 8.2 8.4 11.2 16.4 15.7
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 92.4 44.9 47.1 68.4 61,3 70.4 49.2 44.6 44.7 61.8 52.9 53.4
LnGrp LOS F D D E E E D D D E D D
Approach Vol,veh/h 1141 1165 644 1148
Approach Delay,s/veh 54.9 64.9 45.7 55.4
Approach LOS D E D E
Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 28.2 43.0 24.0 34.8 30.0 41.3 18.5 40.3
Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting(Gmax), s 17.0 44.0 19.0 30.0 28.0 33.0 19.0 30.0
Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 12.1 35.5 19.5 29.5 24.6 19.1 13.3 24.4
Green Ext Time(p_c),s 1.2 2.6 0.0 0.3 0.4 2.2 0.2 2.6
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 56.4
HCM 2010 LOS E
COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
3028: S Evergreen Rd & Sprague 10/08/2019
f -♦ - 7 r 4- k- 4\ t 1 4/
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 1 +ft. 19 ++ 'I ti 'I +I
Traffic Volume(veh/h) 166 830 95 127 873 215 113 421 101 175 648 190
Future Volume(veh/h) 166 830 95 127 873 215 113 421 101 175 648 190
Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14
Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750
Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 173 865 82 132 909 173 118 439 82 182 675 168
Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cap,veh/h 196 1761 166 157 1506 285 141 661 123 203 721 179
Arrive On Green 0.12 0.40 0.40 0.10 0.38 0.38 0.09 0.24 0.24 0.12 0.28 0.28
SatFlow,veh/h 1650 4393 415 1650 3993 757 1650 2771 514 1650 2612 650
Grp Volume(v),veh/h 173 620 327 132 717 365 118 260 261 182 425 418
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1650 1577 1654 1650 1577 159E 1650 1646 1639 1650 1646 1616
Q Serve(g_s),s 13.4 19.1 19.2 10.2 23.8 24.0 9.2 18.5 18.8 14.1 32,8 32.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.4 19.1 19.2 10.2 23.8 24.0 9.2 18.5 18.8 14.1 32.8 32.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.47 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.40
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 196 1264 663 157 1189 602 141 393 391 203 454 446
V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.49 0.49 0.84 0.60 0.61 0.84 0.66 0.67 0.90 0.94 0.94
Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 203 1264 663 203 1189 602 203 462 460 203 462 454
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 56.4 29.0 29.1 57.9 32.6 32.7 58.5 44.7 44.8 56.2 45.9 46.0
Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 20.1 0.7 1.4 20.9 2.2 4.4 17.8 2.7 2.9 36.1 26.4 26.9
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 7.2 8.4 9.0 5.6 10.7 11.3 4.9 8.7 8.8 8.5 18.2 18.0
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.5 29.7 30.4 78.7 34.9 37.1 76.4 47.5 47.8 92.3 72.3 72.9
LnGrp LOS E C C E C D E D D F E E
Approach Vol,veh/h 1120 1214 639 1025
Approach Delay,s/veh 37.2 40.3 52.9 76.1
Approach LOS D D D E
Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 19.4 54.0 15.1 41.4 16.4 57.1 20.0 36.5
Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.5
Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 16.0 43.0 16.0 36.5 16.0 43.0 16.0 36.5
Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 15.4 26.0 11.2 34.8 12.2 21.2 16.1 20.8
Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 12.1 0.1 1.0 0.1 14.4 0.0 5.4
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 50.6
HCM 2010 LOS D
COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Page 3
Appendix B - Existing Conditions
Optimized Synchro Reports
FEHR'' PEERS
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
2052: Pines & Broadway 10/08/2019
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 1 'I I Ili II* ) 11).
Traffic Volume(veh/h) 187 315 101 123 275 76 53 805 54 87 1070 177
Future Volume(veh/h) 187 315 101 123 275 76 53 805 54 87 1070 177
Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99
Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1750
Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 195 328 93 128 286 69 55 839 50 91 1115 164
Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
Cap.veh/h 244 350 99 178 310 75 98 1393 83 112 1305 191
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.27 0.27 0.06 0.23 0.23 0.06 0.45 0.45 0.07 0.45 0.45
SatFlow,veh/h 1650 1292 366 1634 1335 322 1634 3125 186 1650 2875 422
Grp Volume(v),veh/h 195 0 421 128 0 355 55 438 451 91 637 642
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1650 0 1659 1634 0 1657 1634 1630 1681 1650 1646 1651
Q Serve(g_s),s 11.4 0.0 32.2 7.8 0.0 27.2 4.3 26.4 26.5 7.1 44.8 45.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 11.4 0.0 32.2 7.8 0.0 27.2 4.3 26.4 26.5 7.1 44.8 45.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.26
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 244 0 450 178 0 385 98 726 749 112 747 749
V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.00 0.94 0.72 0.00 0.92 0.56 0.60 0.60 0.81 0.85 0.86
Avail Cap(c a),veh/h 244 0 472 178 0 408 98 726 749 178 747 749
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.91 0.00 0.91 0.63 0.63 0.63 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 35.1 0.0 46.3 38.4 0.0 48.7 59.5 27.3 27.3 59.8 31.6 31.7
Incr Delay(d2), s/veh 16.7 0.0 25.8 11.9 0.0 23.7 4.6 2.3 2.3 14.0 11.8 12.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 6.3 0.0 18.0 4.1 0.0 15.0 2.0 12.4 12.8 3.7 22.8 23.0
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 51.9 0.0 72.1 50.3 0.0 72.4 64.1 29.6 29.6 73.8 43.5 43.8
LnGrp LOS D E D E E C C E D D
Approach Vol,veh/h 616 483 944 1370
Approach Delay,s/veh 65.7 66.5 31.6 45.6
Approach LOS E E NM C DIEM
Timer 1 2 3 4 5
Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 12.8 64.0 18.0 35.2 13.8 62.9 13.0 40.2
Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 111111111111111111111111.111
Max Green Setting(Gmax), s 6.0 59.0 13.0 32.0 14.0 51.0 8.0 37.0
Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 6.3 47.2 13.4 29.2 9.1 28.5 9.8 34.2
Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 4.8 0.0 1.0 0.1 4.0 0.0 1.0
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 48.3
HCM 2010 LOS D
COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
2053: Pines & Sprague 10/08/2019
-'4' c ♦- 4\ T P ► 1 d
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 5 ++1 11 ++1 'I +1 '5 +1+
Traffic Volume(veh/h) 216 801 93 140 837 173 135 421 77 280 600 291
Future Volume(veh/h) 216 801 93 140 837 173 135 421 77 280 600 291
Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99
Parking Bus.Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1750
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 225 834 81 146 872 147 141 439 63 292 625 231
Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1
Cap,veh/h 248 1249 121 170 970 163 269 766 109 315 688 254
Arrive On Green 0.15 0.28 0.28 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.16 0.27 0.27 0.19 0.29 0.29
Sat Flow,veh/h 1650 4387 424 1650 4074 683 1634 2862 408 1650 2345 866
Grp Volume(v),veh/h 225 599 316 146 674 345 141 249 253 292 438 418
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1650 1577 1657 1650 1577 1604 1634 1630 1641 1650 1646 1565
Q Serve(g_s),s 17.4 21.8 21.9 11.3 26.9 27.2 10.3 17.2 17.4 22.6 33.4 33.4
Cycle 0 Clear(g_c),s 17.4 21.8 21.9 11.3 26.9 27.2 10.3 17.2 17.4 22.6 33.4 33.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.55
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 248 898 472 170 751 382 269 436 439 315 483 459
V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.67 0.67 0.86 0.90 0.90 0.52 0.57 0.58 0.93 0.91 0.91
Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 254 898 472 228 800 407 269 436 439 330 570 542
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.45 0.45 0.45
Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 54.4 41.0 41.1 57.3 48.0 48.1 49.6 41.2 41.2 51.7 44.2 44.3
'nor Delay(d2), s/veh 30.8 1.7 3.3 12.6 7.5 14.0 1.9 5.3 5.4 17.6 12.6 13.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 10.1 9.7 10.5 5.7 12.5 13.5 4.8 8.4 8.5 11.8 16.8 16.1
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 85.2 42.8 44.4 70.0 55.5 62.1 51.5 46.5 46.7 69.3 56.8 57.5
LnGrp LOS F D D E E E D D D E E E
Approach Vol,veh/h 1140 1165 643 1148
Approach Delay,s/veh 51.6 59.3 47.7 60.3
Approach LOS D E D E
Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc).s 26.4 43.2 24.5 35.9 29.8 39.8 18.4 42.0
Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 12.0 45.0 20.0 33.0 26.0 31.0 18.0 35.0
Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 12.3 35.4 19.4 29.2 24.6 19.4 13.3 23.9
Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 2.7 0.1 1.8 0.2 2.1 0.2 4.0
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 55.6
HCM 2010 LOS E
COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
3028: S Evergreen Rd & Sprague 10/08/2019
t -"ir Tr ~ k- I P 4/
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 11 4411+ '1 +ft+ ) +T4 'I +I
Traffic Volume(veh/h) 166 830 95 127 873 215 113 421 101 175 648 190
Future Volume(veh/h) 166 830 95 127 873 215 113 421 101 175 648 190
Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14
Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus,Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750
Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 173 865 83 132 909 176 118 439 82 182 675 166
Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cap,veh/h 197 1696 162 158 1443 278 140 695 129 206 761 187
Arrive On Green 0.12 0.39 0.39 0.10 0.36 0.36 0.09 0.25 0.25 0.12 0.29 0.29
SatFlow, veh/h 1650 4387 419 1650 3980 767 1650 2771 514 1650 2619 644
Grp Volume(v),veh/h 173 621 327 132 719 366 118 260 261 182 424 417
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1650 1577 1653 1650 1577 1594 1650 1646 1639 1650 1646 1617
Q Serve(g_s),s 13.4 19.5 19.7 10.2 24.5 24.7 9.2 18.2 18.5 14.1 32.0 32.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.4 19.5 19.7 10.2 24.5 24.7 9.2 18.2 18.5 14.1 32.0 32.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.48 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.40
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 197 1219 639 158 1143 578 140 413 411 206 478 470
V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.51 0.51 0.84 0.63 0.63 0.84 0.63 0.64 0.88 0.89 0.89
Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 228 1219 639 241 1143 578 165 456 454 241 532 522
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay(d),s/veh . 56.3 30.5 30.5 57.8 34.2 34.3 58.6 43.3 43.4 55.9 44.1 44.1
Incr Delay(d2),s/veh 16.3 0.8 1.5 14.0 2.6 5.1 27.1 2.4 2.5 26.8 15.4 15.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 7.0 8.7 9.3 5.3 11.1 11.7 5.3 8.6 8.6 8.0 16.5 16.4
LnGrp Delay(d).s/veh 72.6 31.3 32.0 71.8 36.8 39.4 85.7 45.7 46.0 82.7 59.5 59.9
LnGrp LOS E C C E D D F D D F E E
Approach Vol,veh/h 1121 1217 639 1023
Approach Delay,s/veh 37.9 41.4 53.2 63.8
Approach LOS D D D E
Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 19.5 52.1 15.1 43.3 16.4 55.2 20.2 38.1
Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.5
Max Green Setting(Gmax), s 18.0 38.5 13.0 42.0 19.0 37.5 19.0 36.0
Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 15.4 26.7 11.2 34.1 12.2 21.7 16.1 20.5
Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.1 9.1 0.1 3.7 0.2 11.4 0.2 5.4
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 48.0
HCM 2010 LOS D
COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Page 3
Appendix C - Future Conditions
Synchro Reports
FEHR ' PEERS
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
2052: Pines & Broadway 10/08/2019
t c t t \* 1 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 5 i+ ) T IS 1 . '1 ft
Traffic Volume(veh/h) 205 320 110 130 280 85 55 895 55 90 1190 190
Future Volume(veh/h) 205 320 110 130 280 85 55 895 55 90 1190 190
Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99
Parking Bus.Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/ln 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1750
Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 205 320 97 130 280 73 55 895 50 90 1190 174
Adj No.of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
Cap,veh/h 239 347 105 171 298 78 68 1417 79 111 1373 200
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.27 0.27 0.05 0.23 0.23 0.04 0.45 0.45 0.07 0.48 0.48
SatFlow,veh/h 1650 1270 385 1634 1311 342 1634 3138 175 1650 2879 419
Grp Volume(v),veh/h 205 0 417 130 0 353 55 465 480 90 678 686
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1650 0 1655 1634 0 1653 1634 1630 1683 1650 1646 1652
Q Serve(g_s),s 12.1 0.0 31.8 7.0 0.0 27.3 4.3 28.4 28.4 7.0 47.7 48.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.1 0.0 31.8 7.0 0.0 27.3 4.3 28.4 28.4 7.0 47.7 48.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.23 1.00 0.21 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.25
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 239 0 453 171 0 376 68 736 760 111 785 788
V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.00 0.92 0.76 0.00 0.94 0.81 0.63 0.63 0.81 0.86 0.87
Avail Cap(c a),veh/h 239 0 458 171 0 382 68 736 760 165 785 788
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.91 0.00 0.91 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 35.8 0.0 45.9 42.2 0.0 49.3 61.8 27.3 27.3 59.8 30.2 30.4
lncr Delay(d2),s/veh 25.5 0.0 23.8 16.3 0.0 28.8 30.8 2.3 2.2 16.9 12.1 12.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 7.2 0.0 17.5 2.3 0.0 15.5 2.5 13.2 13.7 3.7 24.1 24.7
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 61.3 0.0 69.7 58.5 0.0 78.1 92.5 29.6 29.5 76.8 42.4 43.0
LnGrp LOS E E E E F C C E D D
Approach Vol,veh/h 622 483 1000 1454
Approach Delay,s/veh 66.9 72.8 33.0 44.8
Approach LOS E E C D
Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 10.4 67.0 18.0 34.6 13.7 63.7 12.0 40.6
Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting(Gmax), s 5.0 62.0 13.0 30.0 13.0 54.0 7.0 36.0
Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 6.3 50.3 14.1 29.3 9.0 30.4 9.0 33.8
Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 4.4 0.0 0.8
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 49.2
HCM 2010 LOS D
COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
2053: Pines & Sprague 10/08/2019
f - C k- 4111 T r' \. 4T 4/
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations j +ft+ ) VI 19 +1) '1 ti
Traffic Volume(veh/h) 240 960 120 160 1005 195 155 470 90 310 670 325
Future Volume(veh/h) 240 960 120 160 1005 195 155 470 90 310 670 325
Number 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99
Parking Bus.Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1750
Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 240 960 104 160 1005 166 155 470 74 310 670 257
Adj No,of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1
Cap,veh/h 241 1219 132 183 1006 166 228 760 119 305 729 280
Arrive On Green 0.15 0.28 0.28 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.27 0.27 0.18 0.31 0.31
SatFlow.veh/h 1650 4335 468 1650 4086 673 1634 2823 442 1650 2318 889
Grp Volume(v),veh/h 240 698 366 160 775 396 155 270 274 310 476 451
Grp Sat Flow(s).veh/h/In 1650 1577 1649 1650 1577 1606 1634 1630 1635 1650 1646 1562
Q Serve(g_s),s 18.9 26.5 26.7 12.4 31.9 32.0 11.7 18.9 19.1 24.0 36.2 36.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c).s 18.9 26.5 26.7 12.4 31.9 32.0 11.7 18.9 19.1 24.0 36.2 36.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.28 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.57
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 241 887 464 183 776 395 228 439 440 305 518 491
V/C Ratio(X) 1.00 0.79 0.79 0.87 1.00 1.00 0.68 0.62 0.62 1.02 0.92 0.92
Avail Cap(c a),veh/h 241 887 464 203 776 395 228 439 440 305 582 553
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.34 0.34 0.34
Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 55.5 43.1 43.2 56.9 49.0 49.0 53.2 41.6 41.7 53.0 43.0 43.0
lncr Delay(d2).s/veh 53.8 4.3 8.1 18.7 23.6 33.9 8.0 6.3 6.5 34.7 10.5 11.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 12.2 12.1 13.2 6.6 16.4 17.9 5.8 9.3 9.4 13.9 18.0 17.2
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 109.2 47.5 51.3 75.5 72.6 82.9 61.2 48.0 48.2 87.8 53.5 54.0
LnGrp LOS F D D E E F E D D F D D
Approach Vol,veh/h 1304 1331 699 1237
Approach Delay,s/veh 59.9 76.0 51.0 62.3
Approach LOS E E D E
Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 23.1 45.9 24.0 37.0 29.0 40.0 19.4 41.6
Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 13.0 46.0 19.0 32.0 24.0 35.0 16.0 35.0
Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 13.7 38.2 20.9 34.0 26.0 21.1 14.4 28.7
Green Ext Time(p_c). s 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.1 3.2
Inter
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 63.9
HCM 2010 LOS E
COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
3028: S Evergreen Rd & Sprague 10/08/2019
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations j 44+1 "1 ++1 9 +1 '1 +1+
Traffic Volume(veh/h) 185 1005 110 145 980 240 130 470 115 195 720 215
Future Volume(veh/h) 185 1005 110 145 980 240 130 470 115 195 720 215
Number 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14
Initial Q(Qb).veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus.Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 185 1005 95 145 980 192 130 470 92 195 720 185
Adj No.of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cap,veh/h 209 1569 148 169 1323 259 152 731 142 218 792 204
Arrive On Green 0.13 0.36 0.36 0.10 0.33 0.33 0.09 0.27 0.27 0.13 0.31 0.31
Sat Flow, veh/h 1650 4393 414 1650 3970 776 1650 2747 534 1650 2593 666
Grp Volume(v),veh/h 185 721 379 145 778 394 130 280 282 195 457 448
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1650 1577 1654 1650 1577 1592 1650 1646 1636 1650 1646 1613
Q Serve(g_s),s 14.3 24.8 24.9 11.2 28.4 28.5 10.1 19.6 19.8 15.1 34.7 34.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c).s 14.3 24.8 24.9 11.2 28.4 28.5 10.1 19.6 19.8 15.1 34.7 34.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.49 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.41
Lane Grp Cap(c).veh/h 209 1126 591 169 1051 531 152 438 435 218 503 493
V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.64 0.64 0.86 0.74 0.74 0.85 0.64 0.65 0.89 0.91 0.91
Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 228 1126 591 198 1051 531 165 470 467 228 533 522
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 55.9 34.8 34.9 57.4 38.4 38.4 58.1 42.2 42.3 55.5 43.4 43.4
Incr Delay(d2).s/veh 18.3 1.5 2.8 25.8 4.6 8.9 31.0 2.7 2.8 32.2 18.9 19.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 7.6 11.0 11.8 6.3 13.0 13.8 5.9 9.2 9.3 8.8 18.4 18.1
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 74.1 36.3 37.7 83.2 43.0 47.3 89.2 44.9 45.1 87.8 62.3 62.7
LnGrp LOS E D D F D D F D D F E E
Approach Vol,veh/h 1285 1317 692 1100
Approach Delay,s/veh 42.2 48.7 53.3 67.0
Approach LOS D D D E
Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc),s 20.4 48.3 16.0 45.2 17.3 51.4 21.2 40.1
Change Period(Y+Rc),s 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 38.4 13.0 42.1 15.6 40.8 18.0 37.1
Max Q Clear Time(g_c+I1),s 16.3 30.5 12.1 36.7 13.2 26.9 17.1 21.8
Green Ext Time(p_c),s 0.1 6.8 0.0 3.0 0.1 11.1 0.1 5.8
Intersection Summa
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 52.1
HCM 2010 LOS D
COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Page 3
Appendix D - Future Conditions with
Mitigations Synchro Reports
FEHRtPEERS
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary
2053: Pines & Sprague 10/22/2019
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations VI +ft* 19 +44* 'I t.i. ) 44 r
Traffic Volume(veh/h) 240 960 120 160 1005 195 155 470 90 310 670 325
Future Volume(veh/h) 240 960 120 160 1005 195 155 470 90 310 670 325
Number , ` _ 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Initial Q(Qb),veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus.Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Adj Sat Flow,veh/h/In 1733 1733 1750 1733 1733 1750 1716 1716 1750 1733 1733 1733
Adj Flow Rate,veh/h 240 960 104 160 1005 166 155 470 74 310 670 257
Adj No.of Lanes 2 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 1
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Veh,% 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1
Cap,veh/h 292 1120 121 184 1140 188 398 772 121 334 765 336
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.26 0.26 0.11 0.28 0.28 0.24 0.27 0.27 0.20 0.23 0.23
SatFlow.veh/h 3201 4334 468 1650 4087 674 1634 2823 442 1650 3292 1446
Grp Volume(v),veh/h 240 698 366 160 775 396 155 270 274 310 670 257
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1601 1577 1649 1650 1577 1607 1634 1630 1635 1650 1646 1446
Q Serve(g_s),s 9.6 27.4 27.5 12.4 30.5 30.7 10.3 18.8 19.0 24.0 25.5 21.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c),s 9.6 27.4 27.5 12.4 30.5 30.7 10.3 18.8 19.0 24.0 25.5 21.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.28 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 292 815 426 184 880 448 398 446 447 334 765 336
V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.39 0.61 0.61 0.93 0.88 0.76
Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 296 849 444 228 995 507 398 446 447 368 886 389
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.34 0.34 0.34
Uniform Delay(d),s/veh 58.0 45.9 45.9 56.8 44.8 44.8 41.1 41.1 41.2 50.9 48.1 46.6
lncr Delay(d2).s/veh 15.3 7.7 13.9 15.0 5.0 9.4 0.6 6.0 6.1 12.8 5.2 5.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.9 12.8 14.2 6.4 14.0 14.8 4.7 9.2 9.4 12.1 12.2 9.2
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 73.3 53.6 59.8 71.8 49.8 54.2 41.7 47.2 47.4 63.7 53.3 52.3
LnGrp LOS E D E E D D D D D E D D
Approach Vol.veh/h 1304 1331 699 1237
Approach Delay.s/veh 59.0 53.8 46.0 55.7
Approach LOS E D D E iimi
Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . I
Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
imainiemilionsminimigil
Phs Duration(G+Y+Rc),s 36.7 35.2 16.9 41.3 31.3 40.5 19.5 38.6
Change Period(Y+Rc),s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Max Green Setting(Gmax),s 22.0 35.0 12.0 41.0 29.0 28.0 18.0 35.0
Max Q Clear Time(g_c+11),s 12.3 27.5 11.6 32.7 26.0 21.0 14.4 29.5 1111111111111111111111.
Green Ext Time(p_c),s 2.1 2.7 0.3 3.6 0.4 1.7 0.2 2.9
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 54.6
HCM 2010 LOS D
COSV Network 5:00 pm 06/20/2019 Baseline Synchro 9 Report
Page 2
Appendix E - Project Cost Estimate
Spreadsheets
FEHRkPEERS
Pines Road&Indiana Ave-600'EB Lane Addition,
Partial SW Corner Island Removal,Full Island Pines Road&1-90 EB Ramps-EB 450'Lane Addition
Relocation and NB 75'Lane Addition
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
Roadway Demo 400 Sq Yard $ 15 $ 6,000 0 Sq Yard $ 15 $ -
Curb Demo 900 LF $ 16 $ 14,400 75 LF $ 16 $ 1,200
Sidewalk Demo 333 Sq Yard $ 20 $ 6,660 42 Sq Yard $ 20 $ 840
Signal Demo 2 Each $ 6,000 $ 12,000 1 Each $ 6,000 $ 6,000
Excavation 400 Cubic Yard $ 35 $ 14,000 233 Cubic Yard $ 35 $ 8,155
Road Section 800 Sq Yard $ 60 $ 48,000 1,059 Sq Yard $ 60 $ 63,540
Curb 900 LF $ 45 $ 40,500 75 LF $ 45 $ 3,375
Sidewalk 700 Sq Yard $ 80 $ 56,000 42 Sq Yard $ 80 $ 3,360
Curb Ramps 6 Each $ 4,000 $ 24,000 0 Each $ 4,000 $ -
Traffic Signal 1 Each $ 480,000 $ 480,000 1 Each $ 480,000 $ 480,000
ROW 1 11,000 Sq Foot $ 12 $ 132,000 1,200 Sq Foot $ 12 $ 14,400
Subtotal $ 701,560 Subtotal $ 566,470
10%Mobilization $ 70,156 10%Mobilization $ 56,647
20%Drainage $ 140,312 20%Drainage $ 113,294
15%Traffic Control $ 105,234 15%Traffic Control $ 84,971
30%Contingency $ 210,468 30%Contingency $ 169,941
20%Engineering $ 140,312 20%Engineering $ 113,294
Total I $ 1,500,042 I Total I $ 1,119,017
11000 Sq Ft ROW 1200 Sq Ft ROW
*About half of the ROW is WSDOT,using standard"over
the fence"price for land
Assumes new signal pole and longer mast arm with 1-90 Assumes reallignment of intersection to south.Move
off ramp island relocation south.Relocate signal SE corner ped head.Assumes all ROW for NBR lane
controller.New pole at Pines/Indiana.Reconstruct both would need to be purchased,but no cost to aquire off-
right turn islands.Assumes ROW cost for additional lane ramp widening space.ADA ramps look new.No
on south side of road. replacement assumed.
Mirabeau Pkwy and Mansfield Ave-Signalize and Sullivan Road and Mission Ave-Restripe and partially
SB 175'Lane Addition remove curb
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
Roadway Demo 0 Sq Yard $ 15 $ - 20 Sq Yard $ 15 $ 300
Curb Demo 175 LF $ 16 $ 2,800 40 LF $ 16 $ 640
Sidewalk Demo 97 Sq Yard $ 20 $ 1,940 0 Sq Yard $ 20 $ -
Signal Demo 0 Each $ 6,000 $ - 0 Each $ 6,000 $ -
Excavation 0 Cubic Yard $ 35 $ - 0 Cubic Yard $ 35 $ -
Road Section 233 Sq Yard $ 60 $ 13,980 20 Sq Yard $ 60 $ 1,200
Curb 300 LF $ 45 $ 13,500 80 LF $ 45 $ 3,600
Sidewalk 250 Sq Yard $ 80 $ 20,000 200 Sq Yard $ 80 $ 16,000
Curb Ramps 4 Each $ 4,000 $ 16,000 2 Each $ 4,000 $ 8,000
Traffic Signal 1.25 Each $480,000 $ 600,000 0.05 Each $ 480,000 $ 24,000
ROW 2,700 Sq Foot $ 12 $ 32,400 0 Sq Foot $ 12 $ -
Subtotal $ 668,220 Subtotal $ 53,740
10%Mobilization $ 66,822 10%Mobilization $ 5,374
20%Drainage $ 13,644 20%Drainage $ -
15%Traffic Control $ 100,233 15%Traffic Control $ 8,061
30%Contingency $ 200,466 30%Contingency $ 16,122
20%Engineering $ 133,644 20%Engineering $ 10,748
Total I $ 1,215,429 I Total I $ 94,045
2700 Sq Ft ROW
3 ramps will need to be made ADA compliant.Risk:
Assumes all new ramps to meet current ADA. Might need to relocate pole and mast arm on NE
Assumes new fiber to be installed back to Pines. corner to meet ADA clearance.This is not assumed in
the cost.
Pines and Sprague-Add 250'SBR and 325'EBL Argonne&Trent-300'WBL turn add
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
Roadway Demo 460 Sq Yard $ 15 $ 6,900 0 Sq Yard $ 15 $ -
Curb Demo 1,215 LF $ 16 $ 19,440 850 LF $ 16 $ 13,600
Sidewalk Demo 433 Sq Yard $ 20 $ 8,667 100 Sq Yard $ 20 $ 2,000
Signal Demo 2 Each $ 6,000 $ 12,000 2 Each $ 6,000 $ 12,000
Excavation 200 Cubic Yard $ 35 $ 6,983 208 Cubic Yard $ 35 $ 7,296
Road Section 566 Sq Yard $ 60 $ 33,933 933 Sq Yard $ 60 $ 56,000
Curb 1,215 LF $ 45 $ 54,675 850 LF $ 45 $ 38,250
Sidewalk 520 Sq Yard $ 80 $ 41,600 67 Sq Yard $ 80 $ 5,333
Curb Ramps 2 Each $ 4,000 $ 8,000 3 Each $ 4,000 $ 12,000
Traffic Signal 0.5 Each $480,000 $ 240,000 0.5 Each $480,000 $ 240,000
ROW 5,175 Sq Foot $ 12 $ 62,100 0 Sq Foot $ 12 $ -
Subtotal $ 432,198 Subtotal $ 386,479
10%Mobilization $ 43,220 10%Mobilization $ 38,648
20%Drainage $ - 20%Drainage $ 77,296
15%Traffic Control $ 64,830 15%Traffic Control $ 57,972
30%Contingency $ 129,659 30%Contingency $ 115,944
20%Engineering $ 86,440 20%Engineering $ 77,296
Total I $ 818,446 I Total I $ 753,634
6200 Sq Ft ROW
Assumes northwest curb along Sprague would Assumes south curb along Trent Avenue would
be moved 4 feet north along with restriping to be moved 12'south for 300'plus 150'taper on
narrow outside lanes for second EBR.Assumes both sides of Argonne to accommodate a
northwest curb along Pines would be moved second WBL.Both signal poles on the south
west 12 feet to accommodate SBR.Two new side would be replaced along with the right turn
signals on northwest and southeast corners. island on the SW corner.
Pines&Mission Phase 2-Southbound Right Turn Lane Addition
Engineers Estimate Trim
Prepay CIP No. Date
Prepareddby-Adamam Jackson 3/5/2018 00Valle3r.
Item No. Bid Item Qty Unit Unit Price Est.Cost Use
100 MOBILIZATION @ 10% 1 L.S. $ 45,042 $ 45,042
101 CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING 1 L.S. $ 15,000 $ 15,000
102 SPCC PLAN 1 L.S. $ 5,000 $ 5,000
103 PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 L.S. $ 50,000 $ 50,000
104 PUBLIC LIAISION REPRESENTATIVE 1 L.S. $ 5,000 $ 5,000
105 EROSION CONTROL 1 L.S. $ 5,000 $ 5,000
106 PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN 1344 HR. $ 4 $ 5,376
107 REMOVE CEMENT CONCRETE CURB 350 L.F. $ 15 $ 5,250
108 SAWCUT ASPHALT PAVEMENT 750 L.F.-in $ 5 $ 3,750
109 ROADWAY EXCAV.INCL.HAUL(assumes 16"depth) 400 C.Y. $ 30 $ 12,000
110 CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE,8 IN.DEPTH 778 S.Y. $ 25 $ 19,444
111 JOINT/CRACK SEALANT AT HMA JOINTS 500 L.F. $ 3 $ 1,500
112 HMA CL 1/2"PG 70-28 0.50 FT.DEPTH 130 C.Y. $ 50 $ 6,481
113 CEMENT CONCRETE TRAFFIC CURB,TYPE B 350 L.F. $ 45 $ 15,750
114 CONRETE RETAINING WALL AT BACK OF SIDEWALK 1089 SF $ 50 $ 54,450
115 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB RAMP PERPENDICULAR TYPE A 1 EACH $ 2,500 $ 2,500
116 CEMENT CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN CURB 20 L.F. $ 30 $ 600
117 TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS 0 L.S. $ 250,000 $ __-
118 REMOVE EXISTING STRIPING 0 L.F. $ 3.00 $
119 PLASTIC CROSSWALK LINE 390 S.F. $ 18 $ 7,020
120 PLASTIC LINE 300 L.F. $ 4 $ 1,200
121 PLASTIC WIDE LINE 300 L.F. $ 12 $ 3,600
122 PLASTIC TRAFFIC ARROW 3 EACH $ 300 $ 900
123 PLASTIC STOP LINE 20 L.F. $ 30 $ 600
124 LANDSCAPE RESTORATION 1 L.S. $ 30,000 $ 30,000
125 STORMWATER SWALE AND ROW IN LIMITED ACCESS AREA 1 L.S. $ 100,000 $ 100,000
126 UTILITY RELCOATION(POLES AND BOXES) 1 LS $ 100,000 $ 100,000
ITEMS:Total $ 495,464
Contingency 15% $ 74,320
Inflation Adjustment Factor @ 2 years 3% $ 30,174
Construction Subtotal $ 599,958
PE Engineering 20% $ 119,992
CN Engineering 10% $ 59,996
ROW(excl.WSDOT) 1 L.S. $ 32,000.00 $ 32,000
Estimated Project Cost $ 811,945
E Trent Road/N Argonne
Road Proposed Layout Improvements to Address Existing LOS Deficiency
Cost Estimate
Unit Unit Cost Qty Cost
1 Install of Ground Sign EA $ 270.00 4 $ 1,080
2 Remove Striping(Grind) LF $ 0.50 800 $ 400
3 Thermoplastic Arrow EA $ 475.00 7 $ 3,325
4 Thermoplastic Lane Line LF $ 3.50 1100 $ 3,850
5 Thermoplastic Stop Bar LF $ 20.00 80 $ 1,600
6 Thermoplastic Traffic Letter EA $ 175.00 4 $ 700
7 Traffic Signal Modification EA $480,000.00 0.25 $ 120,000
Construction Subtotal $ 130,955
Design (20%) $ 26,190
Traffic Control (15%) $ 19,640
Mobilization (10%) $ 13,100
Contingency (30%) $ 39,290
Total $ 229,200