The URL can be used to link to this page

Resolution 22-012 Rate Study CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 22-012 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE RATE STUDY FOR LIBERTY LAKE,THE SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE RATE STUDY FOR SPOKANE COUNTY,AND THE SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR IMPACT FEE COST PER TRIP BY SEGMENT; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO, WHEREAS,the City of Spokane Valley(City)adopted a Comprehensive Plan establishing the intent to utilize available funding sources to pay for capital improvements necessary as a result of new growth within the City, including use of impact fees for new developments to pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve such growth; and WHEREAS,the Comprehensive Plan contains a complete description of the existing level of service for transportation facilities and the impacts for future growth on that level of service; and WHEREAS,the City Council desires to ensure that those transportation facilities necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use, or shortly thereafter, without decreasing current service levels below established minimum standards for the City; and WHEREAS, on December 15, 2020, the City of Spokane Valley adopted Chapter 22.100 SVMC to establish and collect transportation impact fees as provided by adopted impact fee rate studies and the Master Fee Schedule; and WHEREAS, on December 15, 2020,the City of Spokane Valley adopted the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study to establish the rates in the Master Fee Schedule; and WHEREAS,on March 29,2022,the City of Spokane Valley adopted the Addendum to South Barker Corridor TIF Rate Studies with ITE 1 Edition Trip Generation Rates South Barker Road to establish the rates in the Master Fee Schedule; and WHEREAS, in January, 2022, the City completed the transportation impact fee rate studies for the South Barker Road for the transportation analysis zones (TAZ)in adjacent jurisdictions based upon the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study, identifying the transportation impact fee rates for the South Barker Corridor; and WHEREAS, the adoption set forth below is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County,Washington, as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Resolution is to adopt the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Liberty Lake,the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Spokane County,and the South Barker Corridor Impact Fee Cost Per Trip by Segment Analysis to provide a reference to identify traffic impacts and resultant mitigation for added traffic related to developments in adjacent jurisdictions. Resolution 22-012 Adopting South Barker Corridor Rate Studies Page 1 of 3 Section 2. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to the Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan,Chapter 22.100 SVMC was adopted enabling the collection of impact fees as assessed in impact fee rate studies based on traffic studies. B. Compliance with RCW 82.02.050-.110, WAC 365-196-850, and Chapter 22.100 SVMC 1. The proposed adoption of the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Liberty Lake, the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Spokane County, and the South Barker Corridor Impact Fee Cost Per Trip by Segment Analysis establishes the recommended mitigation fee for added development vehicular trips and enables assessment of impact fees in adjacent jurisdictions with supporting interlocal agreements in accordance with the requirements of RCW 82.02.050-.110 and pursuant to Chapter 22.100 SVMC. 2. The proposed fees are for public street and road system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development, do not exceed the proportionate share of the costs of system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development, and will be used for system improvements that will reasonably benefit the new development within the South Barker Corridor, as identified in the Rate Studies and the underlying study. 3. The Comprehensive Plan contains a complete description of the existing level of service for transportation facilities and the impacts for future growth on that level of service. The City has conducted a comprehensive study and plan of traffic growth and necessary system improvements to support such growth for the Mirabeau and North Pines Road Subareas. Chapters 5 and 10 of the Comprehensive Plan identify use of impact fees as a funding source for necessary improvements. Section 3. Study Adoption. The City Council hereby adopts the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Liberty Lake,the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Spokane County,and the South Barker Corridor Impact Fee Cost Per Trip by Segment Analysis. The South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Liberty Lake is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A". The South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Spokane County is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit"B". The South Barker Corridor Impact Fee Cost Per Trip by Segment Analysis is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit"C". The South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Liberty Lake, the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Spokane County, and the South Barker Corridor Impact Fee Cost Per Trip by Segment Analysis are incorporated by reference herein and incorporated in Chapter 22.100 SVMC as provided therein. Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Resolution shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption. Resolution 22-012 Adopting South Barker Corridor Rate Studies Page 2 of 3 Adopted this 14'h day of June,2022. City of Spokane Valley \AC:-.14> Pam Haley,Mayo #: 2 r istine Bainbridge, City Clerk_ Approved as to Form: o ice( tle City A"rney Resolution 22-012 Adopting South Barker Corridor Rate Studies Page 3 of 3 Exhibit A South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study For Liberty Lake Prepared for: City of Spokane Valley, Washington Updated January 2022 Feria4PeEas Table of Contents Introduction 1 Study Area 2 Methodology 4 Project List 5 Travel Growth 6 Comparison to Liberty Lake Adopted Impact Fee 8 Cost Allocation 8 Existing Transportation Deficiencies 9 Fair-Share Cost 9 Impact Fee Schedule 12 Trip Generation 12 Pass-By Trip Adjustment 12 Schedule of Rates 12 Appendices Appendix A—Expanded Impact Fee Schedule Appendix B—South Barker Corridor Study List of Figures Figure 1: Transportation Analysis Zones Included South Barker Corridor Study Fair-Share Analysis 3 Figure 2. Impact Fee Methodology 4 Figure 3. Impact Fee Cost Allocation 9 List of Tables Table 1. South Barker Corridor Project List and Cost Estimates(cant, on next page) 5 Table 2.Growth in Study Area PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips(2015-2040) 7 Table 3. Percent of 2040 Traffic on Barker Road Attributable to Study Area 10 Table 4. Cost Per PM Peak Hour Trip Calculations 10 Table 5, Impact Fee Schedule 13 Table 6. Expanded Impact Fee Schedule.. •••14 This page intentionally left blank, Introduction This report documents the methods, assumptions,and findings of a transportation impact fee (TIE) rate study for the South Barker Corridor in Spokane Valley specifically for development near the corridor in Liberty Lake.A TIF Rate Study for development withing Spokane Valley that impacts traffic was adopted by City of Spokane Valley City Council on December 15, 2020.The need for a TIF is identified in the South Barker Corridor Study(Feb 2020,adopted by the City of Spokane Valley City Council on December• 15, 2020),which documented the growth along the corridor, projected how that growth will degrade traffic operations along Barker Road, and identified several transportation capacity projects to support growth and ensure adequate level of service through the year 2040.That study identified the needed future improvements along the corridor, completed project cost estimates, and included a fair share cost analysis to separate project costs between growth in Liberty Lake and growth from other parts of the region. Without improvements on this corridor the residents and businesses in Liberty Lake near Barker Road will experience the traffic impacts on South Barker Road as part of their daily travel. This TIF rate study builds on the South Barker Corridor Study and Identifies a Growth Management Act (GMA) compliant impact fee rate schedule per development unit.The City of Spokane Valley understands that it cannot impose a GMA impact fee on another community, but the State Environmental Policy Act requires that all projects disclose traffic congestion impacts that result from implementation of the project and to identify feasible mitigation to reduce the significance of the impact.Therefore,this TIF rate study was prepared to calculate the fair share mitigation fee for Barker Road improvements that are required to support development in Liberty Lake.This TIF rate study uses the same methodology as the as the Rate Study prepared for Spokane Valley development that was adopted by City of Spokane Valley City Council on December 15,2020; a similar TIF rate study has also been prepared for development in Spokane County. By using a consistent methodology, development in any jurisdiction along the Barker Road corridor can be assured they are paying their fair share for future capacity improvements. It is our understanding that some developers may not agree with the GMA-based impact fee identified in this report.Therefore,we have identified an alternative method to address the documented significant traffic operations impacts of development in Liberty Lake on Barker Road. Under this alternative methodology, a detailed traffic study would be required to track all trips generated by planned development that would use different sections of the Barker Road corridor and pay their fair share to the roadway and intersection improvements to meet Spokane Valleys LOS standard. A review of several sample projects indicates that this alternative analysis method generally results in a higher mitigation fee for developers and has substantial costs to hire a traffic engineer to prepare the study.Therefore,the City of Spokane Valley considers payment of the GMA-based fee to be a solid approach to promote development and economic activity in Liberty Lake but also ensure that Spokane Valley residents and development are not left with a disproportionate share of the cost to accommodate traffic and traffic- related impacts coming from Liberty Lake. 1 South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Liberty Lake Updated January 2022 Study Area The South Barker Corridor extends along Barker Road from Mission Avenue to the south city limits of Spokane Valley.The South Barker Corridor Study defined the impact fee area for the South Barker Corridor as shown in Figure 1, Figure 1 shows the portions of Spokane Valley, Liberty Lake, and unincorporated Spokane County near the South Barker Corridor where development would have the greatest impact on traffic in the corridor,The area was defined using a select zone analysis from the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) regional travel demand model to quantify the impact of the transportation analysis zones(TAZs) near the corridor. Combined,this area is expected to contribute between 45%and 52%of future traffic on South Barker Road (depending on the segment of Barker Road). It should be noted that development in the Northeast Industrial Area (north of the Spokane River) also contributes to traffic on the Barker Road corridor north of 1-90.A separate Planned Action Ordinance to assess SEPA mitigation fees far projects on Barker Road north of 1-90 was previously prepared for the Northeast Industrial Area, Fair share fees are currently being collected from development in the PAO to fund traffic mitigation projects on Barker Road north of 1-90 based on a fair share analysis performed as part of that project.The financial contributions from the Northeast Industrial Area are accounted for in this TIE rate study. The South Barker Corridor TIF rate for Liberty Lake provided in this study would apply to any new development in the Liberty Lake TAZs identified in the South Barker Corridor Study,which is the area shaded in green on Figure 1.This includes the following TAZs:442,447, and 448 and is generally the area west of Harvard Road and Liberty Lake Road.This area will be referred to in this report as the South Barker Corridor Liberty Lake T1F area. Based on the analysis provided in the South Barker Corridor Study, future development in the South Barker Corridor Liberty Lake TIE area is expected to contribute between 16%and 18%of future traffic on the South Barker Corridor between Mission Avenue and Appleway Avenue- depending on the segment of the corridor. 2 �� Figure 1: Transportation Analysis Zones Included South Barker•Corridor Study Fair-Share Analysis 3 South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Liberty Lake Updated January 2022 Metho.' ology The impact fee for the South Barker Corridor is based on the fair share of transportation improvement costs that may be charged to new development in the area. Revised Code of Washington Section 82.02,050 authorizes cities planning under the GMA to impose impact fees for system improvements that are reasonably required to support and mitigate the impacts of new development. Fees may not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of improvements and cannot be used to fund existing deficiencies. Understanding that Spokane Valley cannot implement impact fees in Liberty Lake, this study is intended to demonstrate the impact of development in Liberty Lake on the South Barker Corridor and quantify the fair share fees to mitigate Liberty Lake's impacts using the same methodology that was applied to development in Spokane Valley. Figure 2. Impact Fee The following key points summarize the process for developing the impact fee Methodology structure (refer to Figure 2): Projects and costs • The South Barker Corridor Study identified a list of future projects to identified (from the South Barker Corridor Study) address unacceptable levels of service and estimated costs along Barker Road that will be needed to support future growth through the j year 2040. Eligible project costs • The South Barker Corridor Study also accounted for any existing identified (from South deficiency(intersections/roadway segments that do not meet current Barker Corridor Study) level of service standards) by deducting the costs of those deficiencies from the total project cost. • The South Barker Corridor Study next assigned the fair share of each Fair share of each project to southeast Spokane project's cost to Liberty Lake and other nearby areas as mapped in Valley identified (South Figure 1. Barker Corridor Study) • The forecast growth in PM peak hour vehicle trips in relevant portion of Liberty Lake was estimated by converting the forecast land use growth in the SRTC regional travel demand model using the institute Forecast growth in PM of Transportation Engineers (ITE)Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. peak hour vehicle trips in southeast Spokane Valley • A cost per PM peak hour vehicle trip was calculated by dividing the fair share cost of each project by the growth in vehicle trips from this area of Liberty Lake. • Lastly, a land use-based fee schedule was developed using the cost Growth cost allocation (cost per PM peak hour per PM peak hour vehicle trip calculated above.Trip rates for multiple vehicle trip) land use categories were estimated using vehicle trip generation rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 106 Edition. Using the ITE Trip Generation Manual will provide consistency between a project trip Impact Fee Schedule generation letter or traffic impact study and the impact fee rate. grit 4 The following sections describe in detail these elements that that are integral to the final impact fee schedule. Project List The South Barker Corridor Study, completed in July 2019, updated in February 2020, and adopted by the City of Spokane Valley on December 15,2020 pursuant to Ordinance No.20-026, included an analysis of traffic demand through the year 2040 to identify traffic improvement projects on the segment of Barker Road between Mission Avenue and the south City limits of Spokane Valley.That study identified a total of eight projects that will be needed by 2040 to accommodate future growth and maintain level of service standards(i.e.,avoid significant and unavoidable transportation impacts).Those projects, and costs in 2020 dollars, are shown in Table 1.Three of the projects include improvements to the Barker Road/I-90 interchange that will primarily be the responsibility of the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT).At this time,there are no anticipated costs to the City of Spokane Valley(COSV) for these projects.Therefore,the five projects identified in the South Barker Corridor Study for which COSV would be responsible for funding total approximately$1 8.8 million in 2020 dollars(note: these costs have been updated from the cost estimates in the South Barker Corridor Study to account for construction cost inflation and/or more detailed cost estimates by COSV). Table 1. South Barker Corridor Project List and Cost Estimates (cont. on next page) COSY Cost Project Description Program Agency Estimate(2020 Responsible dollars) Constructed in 2020 -90 Eastbound Ramp/ Reconstruct intersection with single- Barker Road Interchange lane roundabout and two eastbound. Horizon 2040 WSDOT N/A Interim Improvements approach lanes; realign east leg of Plan(#12) Broadway -90 Westbound Ramp) Reconstruct intersection with single- 1 Barlcer Road Interchange lane roundabout and two southbound Horizon 2040 WSDOT N/A Interim Improvements approach lanes;convert Barker/Boone Plan(#12) to right-in/right-out Near-Term(2021-2024) Sprague/Barker Reconstruct intersection with single- 2021-2026 Intersection COW $2,139,000 lane roundabout TIP(#28) Improvements Mid-Term(2025-2030) Replace Barker Rd.Bridge,widen to 4- 90/Barker Road lanes from Boone Ave.to Broadway; Interchange Long-Term reconstruct both intersections to 2-lane Horizon 2040 WSDQT Not anticipated Improvements roundabout;reconstruct Barker/I-90 Plan(#12) at this time WB ramp Intersection to six-leg roundabout with Boone Avenue 5 South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Liberty Lake Updated January 2022 Agency COSV Cost Project Description Program Responsible Estimate(2020 dollars) Barker Road Widen and improve to 5-lane urban 2021-2026 Improvement Project-- COSV $6,501,000 Appleway to 1-90 section;roundabout @ Broadway TIP(#44) Barker Road Widen and improve to S-lane urban 2021-2026 Improvement Project— COSV $3,196,000 section TIP(#61) Mission to 1-90 Long-Term(2031-2040) Barker Road Reconstruct and widen north of Improvement Project— Sprague to 3-lane urban section,and 2019-2024 COSV $3,500,000 Appleway to South City south of Sprague to 2-lane urban TIP(#20) Limits section 4th Avenue/Barker 8e 8th Reconstruct 4th Ave,and 8th Ave. Avenue/13arlcer intersections with single-lane 2019 2029 COSV $3,500,000 Intersection TIP(#21) Improvements roundabouts TOTAL $18,786,000 Source:South Barker Corridor Study(February 2020).Costs were updates to 2020 dollars based on the COSV 2021-2026 TIP for all projects except Barker Road Improvement Project—Mission to 1-90.Cost for that project was updated using construction Inflation rates. Note:Horizon 2040:SRTC Long Range Transportation Plan;TIP:City of Spokane Valley Transportation Improvement Plan. Travel Growth Determining the growth in travel demand caused by new development is a key requirement for a TIF program. In nearly every TIF program across Washington and the country,the total eligible cost of building new transportation capacity is divided by the total growth in trips to determine a cost per trip.All developments pay the same cost per trip, but larger developments that generate more trips pay a higher total fee than smaller developments. In this way,the cost to provide the new transportation infrastructure is fairly apportioned to new development. Moreover, in setting the boundary for the TIF, a select zone analysis was performed to validate that all the areas within the TIF area contributed a meaningful amount of total traffic to Barker Road between Mission Avenue and Appleway Avenue (in this case, each of the three Liberty Lake TAZs contribute at least five percent).The amount of traffic varies somewhat based on which segment of Barker Road is evaluated and which TAZ the project resides in, but in all cases each of the three identified TAZs within the TIF area contribute a similar proportion of the total Liberty Lake traffic along the corridor. For the South Barker Corridor Liberty Lake TIE,the future growth in PM peak hour vehicle trips was estimated using the change in land use in the study area from the 2015 and 2040 SRTC regional travel demand model as well as trip rates from the 1TE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition,The SRTC travel demand model includes 11 land use categories:two residential and nine non-residential categories. For each land use in the SRTC model, an associated ITE trip rate was identified.Total PM peak hour vehicle 6 i1 trips within the study area were calculated by multiplying the PM peak hour trip rate identified by ITE by the forecast growth (from 2015 to 2040) in dwelling units, employees, or hotel rooms,depending on the land use.Table 2 summarizes the calculation. Table 2. Growth in Study Area PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips (2015-2040) ITE Average Growth In SRTC Land Use(LU) 2015-2040 Unit of ITE Code ITE Description Trip Rate t Trips (LU LU Growth Measure growth x (PM peak hr.) trip rate) Single Family Dwelling Single-Family Detached 353 210 0.99 349 Residential Units Housing Multi-Family 1,576 Dwelling 220 Multifamily Housing 0.56 883 Residential Units (Low-Rise) Hotel/Motel 75 Rooms 310 Hotel 0.60 45 Agriculture, Forestry, Mining, Industrial, 1,002 Employees 110 General Light Industrial 0.49 449 Manufacturing, Wholesale Retail Trade(Non- Central Business 196 Employees 820 Shopping Center 1.62 318 District) Services and Offices 939 Employees 710 General Office Building 0.40 376 Finance, insurance, and Real Estate 0 Employees N/A N/A N/A 0 Services(FIRES) Medical 0 Employees N/A N/A N/A a Retail Trade(CBD) 0 Employees N/A N/A N/A 0 Education Employees 0 Employees N/A N/A N/A 0 University Employees 0 Employees N/A N/A N/A 0 Total Growth in PM Peak Hour Trips 2,4612 L ITE Trip Generation Manual,10`h Edition;average trip rate of adjacent street traffic 4-6 PM was used for all land uses given growth will occur among developments of various sizes. 2.Estimated growth in trips differ from the findings in the South Barker Corridor Study because estimates in this study are based on the ITE trip generation rates as opposed to trip growth outputs of the SRTC regional travel demand model. Using this methodology, it is forecast that the South Barker Corridor Liberty Lake TIF area would generate about 2,461 new PM peak hour vehicle trips by 2040.This total PM peak hour vehicle trip is one of the key foundations of calculating the TIF rate. Note:the trip growth by 2040 differs from the trip growth estimated in the South Barker Corridor Study as the estimate in this report is based on ITE trip rates derived from forecast land use growth,while for the South Barker Corridor Study trip generation was 7 South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Liberty Lake Updated January 2022 pulled directly from the SRTC regional travel demand model. ITE Trip rates were used to develop the TIF rate since this is the most common method used when traffic impact analysis and trip generation letters are prepared,This conversion of trips is necessary in order to develop costs per unit of development as opposed to cost per trip. It should also be noted that the conversion based on ITE trip rates results in a higher number of estimated trips and ultimately lower per-trip fees than the land use conversion method used in the South Barker Corridor Study. Comparison to Liberty Lake Adopted Impact Fee it should be noted that Liberty Lake adopted a transportation impact fee to assess developments within Liberty Lake for various transportation improvement projects in Liberty Lake,which is documented in a report titled: Harvard Road Mitigation Plan Update 2013.Similar to the methodology used in this study, that report also used ITE trip generation rates as a basis for estimating peak hour trips from planned development.The future land use(and traffic forecasts)from that study assume full build-out based on current zoning and historic development patterns,while this report is based on a 2040 horizon year for land use growth and associated traffic growth as forecast in the SRTC Regional Travel Demand Model.The Harvard Road Mitigation Plan Update 2073 forecasts over 8,000 new PM peak hour trips for the area that overlaps with the Barker Road Corridor Liberty Lake TIF area. Using the methodology described above, this rate study forecasts 2,461 new PM peak hour trips between 2015 and 2040 in the Barker Road Corridor Liberty Lake TIF area, Most of the discrepancy between these two numbers is likely due to the fact that the SRTC Travel Demand Model does not forecast full build out in Liberty Lake west of Harvard Road by 2040.As of 2013,that study established a impact fee of$762.53 per peak hour trip to pay for transportation projects in Liberty Lake that will mitigate the impact of development (the study also notes that the rate should be updated every two years), Cost Allocation Two steps were used to allocate costs per PM peak hour trip,see Figure 3. First,the TIF methodology must separate the share of project costs that address existing deficiencies from the share of project costs that add transportation capacity and serve new growth. Second, resulting growth-related improvement costs are then further separated to identify the share of growth related to land development in Barker Road Corridor Liberty Lake TIF area. It should be noted that dedicated funding from external sources (state/regional grants, other mitigation payments, etc.) is considered in the impact fee eligible costs, if the dedicated funding exceeds the share of costs caused by growth outside of the TIF areas.This is currently not the case, thus non-City funding sources were not excluded from the total eligible project cost. 8 /� Figure 3. Impact Fee Cost Allocation Projott List STEPS I SI1IIIv1 0 w 4' Future Growth LxIstInu Delictency '01it tvl ftt 0 Liberty Lake COSV TIF Share CountyTlF Share NB Industrial Outside TIF Areas TIF Share Area PAa I,t'.IJ 63.7Ial 1,1 M rfuK Inl.g NI 4, Flljlble Impact Fee Other Funds Needed r r t.l,l un i Existing Transportation Deficiencies An existing conditions analysis was conducted as part of the South Barker Corridor Study, which identified existing level of service deficiencies at the Barker Road and 1-90 intersections. A deficiency at an intersection is defined as a level of service rating of E or lower at a signalized intersection or level of service F at an unsignalized intersection as established in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan. Since the three projects at the Barker Road and 1-90 interchange are expected to be funded by WSDOT,the cost of these projects was not included in the total project cost for the South Barker Corridor, No other locations along the corridor were identified as having an existing deficiency.Therefore, no costs were deducted from the total project cost on account of an existing deficiency. Fair-Share Cost With deficiencies accounted for, all the remaining project costs are related to supporting new growth in trips that will be funded by COSV. However, not all the growth comes from development in the South Barker Corridor Liberty Lake T1F area—there is a portion of growth that comes from Spokane Valley and other surrounding jurisdictions.To ensure that the costs assessed to development as part of the TIF are fair and proportional to the impact, a fair share percentage was used.The South Barker Corridor Study identified the percentage of traffic growth in three different segments of the South Barker Corridor that are expected to be attributable to development in the South Barker Corridor Liberty Lake TIF area.This was done using a select zone analysis in the 2040 SRTC travel demand model.The percentage ranges from less than 5%in the south end of the corridor to 18%in the north end of the corridor as shown in Table 3. Given less than 5% of traffic south of Appleway Avenue is generated by trips from the Liberty Lake the cost of projects in that segment of the corridor were excluded from the fee. 9 South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rale Study for Liberty Lake Updated January 2022 Table 3. Percent of 2040 Traffic on Barker Road Attributable to Study Area Segment of Barker Road Liberty Lake(TIF Area)' North of 1-90 18% 1-90 to Appleway Avenue 16% South of Appleway Avenue 2% Source:South Barker Corridor Study The fair share percentages were multiplied by the eligible cost of each project in the corridor to get the cost of growth-related transportation improvements on the South Barker Corridor that is expected to be attributable to development in the South Barker Corridor Liberty Lake TIF area.This equates to $1,606,440. This cost was divided by the forecast new PM peak hour trips generated by new development in this area (2,461)to arrive at a cost per new PM peak hour vehicle trip of$653. Table 4. Cost Per PM Peak Hour Trip Calculations Cost to Address Cost Project Project Cost Existing Eligible TIF Area Fair Attributable to J (to COSV) Project Cost Share Percent Deficiencies Study Area 1-90 Eastbound Ramp/ Barker Road Interchange N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Interim Improvements 1-90 Westbound Ramp/ Barker Road Interchange N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A interim Improvements Sprague/Barker $2,139,000 $0 $1,790,000 N/A $0 Intersection Improvements I-90/Barker Road Not None None Interchange Long-Term anticipated at $0 anticipated at N/A anticipated at Improvements this time this time this time Barker Road Improvement $6,501,000 $0 $6,501,000 16%, $1,04,160 Project—Appleway to 1-90 Barker Road Improvement $3 146000 $0 $3,146,000 18% $566,280 Project—Mission to 1-90 Barker Road Improvement Project—Appleway to $3,500,000 $0 $3,500,000 N/A $0 South City Limits 4th Avenue/Barker&8th Avenue/Barker Intersection $3,500,000 $0 $3,500,000 N/A $0 Improvements 1SUBTOTAL $18,786,000 $0 $18,786,000 Varies $1,606,440 PM Peak Trips 2,461 Cost Per PM Peak Trip $653 TI10 I When taking all the above calculations into consideration, the South Barker Corridor Liberty Lake TIF would contribute up to nine percent of the total $18.8 million eligible cost of the improvement projects on the South Barker Corridor. City matching funds, regional funds, new grants,TIFs from Spokane Valley development,fees collected from the Northeast Industrial Area PAO,and other sources would provide the remaining 91 percent of the total project costs. 11 South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Liberty Lake Updated January 2022 Impact Fee Schedule The impact fee schedule was developed by adjusting the cost per PM peak hour vehicle trip to reflect differences in trip-making characteristics for the general land use types forecast in the SRTC regional travel demand model.The fee schedule is a table where fees are represented as dollars per unit for each land use category which makes it easier for developers to calculate their impact fee rates,Table 5 shows the various components of the fee schedule. Trip Generation Trip generation rates for each land use type in the PM peak hour were derived from average trip rates for selected land uses of the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10rr' Edition to ensure consistent and repeatable calculations across all land uses. Pass-By Trip Adjustment The ITE trip generation rates represent total vehicles entering and leaving a development. For certain land uses(e.g., retail, convenience stores, etc.), a substantial amount of the motorized travel is already passing by the property and merely turns into and out of the driveway.These pass-by trips do not add trips to the surrounding street system and therefore are subtracted out prior to calculating the impact fee,The resulting trips are considered "new"trips and are therefore subject to the impact fee calculation.The pass- by trip percentages are taken from the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition (2017). Schedule of Rates The proposed impact fee rates are shown in Table 5. An expanded table of land uses is provided in Table 6 in Appendix A. In the fee schedule,fees are shown as dollars per unit of development for various land use categories.The impact fee program is flexible in that if a use does not fit into one of the ITE land use categories listed,an impact fee can be calculated based on the development's projected net PM peak hour vehicle trip generation (accounting for pass-by trips) and multiplied by the cost per PM peak hour trip of$653 as shown in Table 5. Projects with land uses not in Table 5 or Table 6 shall prepare a trip generation and distribution letter and will be responsible for a fee based on $653 per PM peak hour vehicle trip. G12 Table 5. Impact Fee Schedule South Barker norrldorilherty Lake Transportation impact Fee Rate Schedule 11 Adjusted Trips ,, Impact Fee Per Unit° GN 1TE Code 1TE Lnnrl.Use Category pM'f?enk Vehicle Peachy per Unit of Trip Rote % Mensl�re' $653,per PM Peak Vehicle Trip , 210 Single Family&Duplex 0.94 0% 0.94 $614 per dwelling unit 220 Multi-Family(Low-Rise)-Not Close to Rail Transit 0,51 0% 0,51 $333 per dwelling unit 310 Hotel(3 or More Levels) 0.59 0% 0.59 $385 per room 520 Elementary School 0.16 0% 0.16000 $104.44 per student 5 630 Medical Clinic 0.00369 0% 0.00369 $241 per s.ft 710 General Office 0.00144 0% 0.00144 _ $0.94 per s ft 820 Shop.ing Center 00034 29% 0.00241 $1.58 er sq ft I ITE Trip Generation Manual(11th Edition);4-6 PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation Rates for the Adjacent Street Traffic(weekday 4-6PM);This worksheet represents only the generalized land uses In the SRTC regional travel demand model and is NOT all-Inclusive;see Table 6 for a wider variety of uses;Projects with land uses not In Table 5 or 6 will be responsible for a fee based on$653 per PM peak hour trip. 2 Pass by rates were updated based on the Pass-By Data and Rate Tables/2021 Pass-By Tables for ITETripGen Appendices,11th Edition 3 PM peak trip rate excluding passby trips sq ft=square feet,room=available hotel/motel room 5 ITE also includes an employment-based trip rate which may be used if approved by Spokane Valley 13 cs i �, � 7»e `L1 rcdl.i1.x .. �• x - (t rioNe IIii.�r (twit. JFF e Table 6. Expanded Impact Fee Schedule South Barker Corridor Liberty Lake Trarcperta f iori fnrpocf Fr•e Pate Schedule r pPlPrtrk Adjusted I( R r,te I Impact Fee perUnft'p Veirfclr 1'andUseGraup ITEcodti fTFiorrd�Use cntegvey 7rf,, prissy%' Taps per Unit j Pt of Measurer i $653 per PMPeak Veblcle Trip 210 ,Single Family&Duplex 0.94 0% 0.9,1 $614 per dwelling unit Residential 220 Multi-Fam)l (Low-Rhe)-Hot Close to Rail Transit 0.51 0% 0.51 $333 •et dwelling unit 310 Hotel(3 or More Levels) 0.59 0% 0,59 $305 per room Services 492 Health Club 0.00345 6% 0.00345 $2.25 par sq It 912 Bank 0.02101 35% 0.01366 $0.91 er •ft 520 Elementary School 0.16 0% 0.16000 S104.44 per students Institution 522 Middle School 0.15 0% 0.15600 $97,91 per students 525 Hlt h School 0.14 0% 0.14000 $91.38 per student s 975 Drinking Establishment 0.01136 43% 0,00640 $4,23 per sq ft Restaurant 934 Fast.Food Restaurant(with drive-thin) 0,03303 55% 0.01486 $9.70 par sq ft 937 Coffee She•with Drive-Thru 0.03899 09% 0.00429 $2.80 er s•ft 820 Shopping Center 0.0034 29% 0.00241 $1.58 per sq It Retail 041 Automobile Sales-Used/New 0.00375 0% 0.00375 $2A5 per sq It 945 Convenience Store/Gas Sta lion-GFA(4-5.5k) 22,76 66% 7.74 55,051 •er purr 110 Light Industry/High Technology 0.00065 0% 0.00065 $042 per sq ft 140 Manufacturing 0.00074 0% 0.00074 $0.46 per sal ft hxluslrial 150 Warehousing 0.00018 0% 0.00010 $0.12 per sgft 151 Mini-Storage 0.000i5 0% 0.00015 $0,10 •er ft 710 GeneralOfflce 0.00144 0% 0,00144 $004 per sgft. Office 720 Medical Oflice/Clinic 0.00393 0% 0.00393 $2.57 persgft 750 Office Park 0.0013 0% 0.00130 $0.85 per It I HE Trip Generation Manual(11th Edition).4.6 PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation Rates for the Adjacent Street Traffic(weekday 4.6PM);This worksheet represents only the most common uses in southeast Spokane Valley and Is NOT all-inclusive;Projects with lend men not hi Table 5 or 6 will be responsible for a tea based on$653 per PM peak hour trip. 2 Pass try rates were updated based an the Pass40y Data and Rate Tables/2021 Pass-By Tables for lTETrlpGen Appendices,11th Edition 'PIA peak trip rale excluding passbytdps 'I sq It=square feet,pump=vehicle hieing posillan(VFA),room=available hotel mom s 1TE also Includes an employmenl-based trip late width may be used if approved by Spokane Valley FEHR/S' PEERS Appendix B - South 3arker Corrich-Dir SibuftaiLy FEHRk PEERS 4. .......'. rsti.i .a_14 1 .e -n'' u C..:r �.~v'Av� yri 4,„,: t R -,'t•f,,ax!•^• ` ' " .wry — . .?- "�. A+?-.t r iA.�' . + . lai a— d �...'C 4� ,fie, `� �a :'' :, '4. • ,1 `pi ` .41 ' '`ter ':t SM. itd'�.4 ,) .rf,e 4 .3, t � `V,r i,'i ';i. _�L�^:y',T�. a 3ispl�r��40,_ 1] ,�'4' -�.-�' # 4'0•.! ''l+n `r 'ks°$ . ' w 4A +� J �. a4 «si 41. • y 3.' 'r,.'I.. + a,,0.s, r a �. { ..L,�"„Ab 'Fc rt rt f, a 44+ '�- '� �.` a � E y4 �.. � ��+c �•.",S ...-_� � �'`` � ,.ram v� •,yi Ir. .. yr- , t .4-,- r-` r + � ►+..-"--� 1 �.3.A W�i ,_� F '. +' 4 n- 1� ii b ti�,.., r '.fr .;.1' .- .#. i -_ -,-�;. , f ,,7_,,$� -,.er • - 'r i', , ,.!V+:`"..a'ay'..y . (., ..c ' r 1�p ''i ;r'C at -4r' i•N.r. ,f't�� .. ' �S �LsY, .s.'. - ',�i'.+i'3 , %� ' rly ,�rS"1 i K •�`� e. s tom. . ;-+r +.Ji�:'� " �"'s, , e ',,�`-;:�. + s+ ,7}-.. . `ram_ice 'A,, �V.R�wb ;T ry N 1. c1.1. ,:` ,,, r. yr.tott 4 + \111" .' - '. N. W'.''-1. � �1 - \ ... �F'�stA�'� ,.., ,,", 1. low t 'svorligt.::,.... -� ' ".�k 4 '- s - ci r " 1r Stilt .„yI�:- -..-.a• yt T _ c. ^�,;.- ' ;'i L_ , iji i ir.: mi + iL,... ....4.01.mie..A. '•f•4:1: r-.. y �� - - • + i t • * , 4t h • r t 1 I; � � , SOUTH BARKER F _ _ , • ry 4 t �� #4 . . CORRIDORSTUDY ., f.,... , _• r ,D 0 • ___.. Nal- . ,H ' , : F E H R ''' PEERS S iYiokan'ems' FINAL REPORT I UPDATED FEBRUARY 2020 a�i . Contents Introduction 3 Methods&Assumptions 5 Existing Conditions 9 1-90 Interchange interim Improvements Summary&Findings 13 2040 Analysis& Findings 15 2040 Recommendations 23 Implementation 26 Conclusions 32 List of Figures Figure 1.Study Area Intersections 4 Figure 2: Level of service description and delay thresholds at intersections 8 Figure 3. Existing conditions traffic volumes and lane configurations 10 Figure 4. Existing conditions level of service and delay. 11 Figure 5. Existing AM peak hour queue lengths at the Barker Road/I-90 Interchange 12 Figure 6. Existing PM peak hour queue lengths at the Barker Road/I-90 interchange 12 Figure 7. Barker Road/I-90 Interchange Interim Concept proposed by WSDOT 13 Figure 8. Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp intersection—revised Interim Concept 14 Figure 9. Year 2028 SimTraffic LOS results under the "hook ramp" concept at the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp 15 Figure 10, 2040 conditions traffic volumes and lane configurations 16 Figure 11. 2040 Barker Rd/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection concept(same as Barker Road IJR preferred alternative) 18 Figure 12. 2040 Barker Rd/I-90 westbound ramp intersection concept (modified from Barker Road IJR preferred alternative) 18 Figure 13. 2040 conditions level of service and delay. 19 Figure 14. Volume-to-capacity ratio in 2040 for Barker Road/1-90 interchange roundabouts, 19 Figure 15.Volume-to-capacity ratio, LOS and/or delay in 2040 with mitigations. 20 Figure 16. Pros and cons of a roundabout versus a traffic signal at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection. 21 Figure 17. Diverging roundabout concept. 22 Figure 18. 2040 volume-to-capacity ratio and 95%queue with a single-lane diverging roundabout. 22 Figure 19. Pros and cons of a two-lane versus three-lane configuration south of Appleway 25 Figure 20. South Barker Road projects and cost estimates to be implemented through year 2040. 26 Figure 21.Transportation analysis zones by jurisdiction included in the fair-share cost analysis, 28 Figure 22. Percent of 2040 Barker Road traffic generated by jurisdiction. 29 Figure 23. Fair-share cost by jurisdiction and project 30 Figure 24. Cost per PM peak hour trip from new development (2015-2040) In Spokane Valley 31 Figure 25. Cost per PM peak hour trip from new development(2015-2040) by jurisdiction. 32 SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report INTRODUCTION This report presents the findings and recommended improvements of the South Barker Corridor Study. The purpose of the South Barker Corridor Study is to analyze traffic demands through year 2040 and Identify potential traffic improvement projects on the segment of Barker Road between Mission Avenue and the South City Limits in Spokane Valley,Washington.The study includes planning-level cost estimates of Improvements and an estimate of the proportion of traffic along segments of the corridor from adjacent jurisdictions (Liberty Lake and Spokane County)to assist in developing potential mitigation fee payments for the new development that Is occurring In this part of the Spokane region. In addition, this study analyzed traffic operations at the Barker Road/1-90 interchange under the WSDOT interim concept (year 2020) and long-term concept (by year 2040)to verify that the proposed Interchange improvements will operate adequately and serve the planned growth in Spokane Valley and the surrounding area. Based on the analysis, guidance is provided to WSDOT on the City of Spokane Valley's preferred interim and long- term improvements for the 1-90 interchange. Study Area The study area includes the Barker Road corridor between Mission Avenue and the South City Limits on the east side of Spokane Valley.The following 10 intersections along Barker Road were included in the study and mapped in Figure 1. 1. Barker Road/Mission Avenue 2. Barker Road/Boone Avenue 3. Barker Road/1-90 westbound ramp/Cataldo Avenue 4. Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp S. Barker Road/Broadway(east) 6. Barker Road/Broadway (west) 7. Barker Road/Appleway Avenue 8. Barker Road/Sprague Avenue 9. Barker Road/4th Avenue 10. Barker Road/8th Avenue City of Spokane Valley 3 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY yB 2/7/20 Updated Report Figure 1.Study Area Intersections Mission. AO `4 Maxwell Av ti Sinto Av C F Sharp Av Boone Av 8 0 ,Q'o .Av Broadway Broadway Av Alkl Av !tv [owte4 sv p�erra I roe h .]F lJ' Sprague Av Av 3rd AV 4th Av 0 8th Av + v c, 901 Av 10th Av 12 City of Spokane Valley 4 ! Page SOUTI-I BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY vU 2/7/20 Updated Report METHODS &ASSUMPTIONS The following methods and assumptions were applied to forecast traffic and analyze traffic operations as part of this Study. Land Use Assumptions Traffic volumes at each of the study intersections were estimated using the current version of the SRTC 2015 and 2040 regional travel demand models,which was last updated in December 2017. Fehr& Peers received a copy of the SRTC travel demand model on January 9, 2018. Land use assumptions were reviewed by the project technical advisory committee (TAC)on May 17, 2018 which is comprised of staff representing Spokane Valley,Liberty Lake,Spokane County,WSDOT and SRTC.The TAC approved the land use assumptions on June 1, 2018 with three comments, including providing a comparison to what is assumed In the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, incorporating impacts of new grade schools, and future land use forecasts in Liberty Lake-all of which are addressed below. Detailed land use data assumed in the model is provided In the following appendices: • Appendix A — Includes a summary of the forecast 2015-2040 change in dwelling units and employees by transportation analysis zone (TAZ) near the Study Area. • Appendix B—Includes a summary of the difference in assumed land use for the TAZs around Barker Road and 1-90 between the 2015 travel demand model used for the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update (prepared in 2016) and the current 2015 SRTC travel demand model used for this study. New Grade Schools in addition to the regional travel demand model, traffic forecasts also accounted for several new grade schools planned in the vicinity by 2021.These schools are not specifically accounted for in the model and include: • A new elementary school at Long Road and Mission Avenue in Spokane Valley(opens 2018) • A new middle school at Harvest Parkway and Mission Avenue in Liberty Lake(opens 2019) • A new high school near Sprague Avenue and Henry Road in Spokane County(opens 2021) It was determined through analysis of existing and future school location and enrollment zone boundaries as well as traffic studies completed for each school that the impact to traffic volume on Barker Road in the study area from the new elementary and middle school would result in a net neutral change. It was also determined that the primary impact from the new high school will be a shift in some traffic currently making a southbound right at the Barker Road/Appleway intersection to instead make a southbound through at that intersection and a southbound left at the Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection.The inverse movements at the two intersections'were also adjusted. In the southbound direction,80 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 17 vehicles in the PM peak hour were assumed to shift from making a southbound right at Barker Road/Appleway to making a southbound left at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue. In the northbound direction 37 vehicles In the AM peak hour and 19 vehicles in the PM peak hour were assumed to shift from making an eastbound left at Barker Road/Appleway to making.a westbound right at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue and northbound through at Barker Road/Appleway. For example,at Barker Road and Appleway Avenue southbound right turns were reduced and southbound through movements were increased by the same margin.Similarly,eastbound left turns were also reduced with northbound through movements increased by the same margin. City of Spokane Valley 5 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v0 2/7/20 Updated Report Liberty Lake Land Use Forecasts During the analysis stage,the City of Liberty Lake was in the process of updating their land use forecasts for 2040 as part of their Land Quantity Analysis. Land uses are expected to be different from the forecasts assumed In the current SRTC travel demand model, particularly in the Riverside District, Given this information was not yet available at the time of analysis,the 2015 and 2040 land use assumed for Liberty Lake In the current SRTC travel demand model was used. Assumptions regarding the future roadway network In Liberty Lake are explained below. Roadway Network Assumptions The SRTC travel demand model was also updated to account for several recent changes to the assumed 2040 roadway network as well as minor changes to the 2015 model to ensure recent projects were reflected.These changes are based on feedback provided by the project's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC),which included the City of Spokane Valley,WSDOT,Spokane County,and Liberty Lake.The changes to the network include the following. 2015 Model Changes: • Chapman Road was connected from 32nd Avenue to Barker Road just south of 12th Avenue to reflect existing conditions • The centroid connector at transportation analysis zone (TAZ) 369 was moved to load to 4th Ave and 8th Ave instead of Barker Road,which better reflects where the driveways in the area load onto the roadway network • The centrold connector at TAZ 392 was moved to load to 4th Ave instead of Barker Road • The centroid connector at TAZ 327 was moved to load onto Indiana Avenue (instead of the Intersection of Barker Road/Indiana Avenue) • A second centroid connector at TAZ 327 connecting to Mission Avenue was deleted to match the 2040 model 2040 Model Changes: • Same changes made to the 2015 model • Indiana Avenue was connected through from Barker Road to Harvard Road • Instead of a new 1-90 Interchange at Henry Road (as Is currently in the 2040 model), Henry Road was connected from Appleway Avenue to Mission Avenue via an overpass of 1-90, but with no 1-90 interchange;the current partial interchange at Appleway Avenue was retained • The preferred alternative for the Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation project was assumed for the Intersection of Barker Road/Trent Avenue • The south leg of the Flora Road/Trent Avenue intersection across the BNSF railroad track is assumed to close (consistent with the preferred alternative for the Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation project) • A new link was added between Flora Road and Barker Road north of Euclid Avenue and south of Trent Avenue (to reflect the Garland Avenue connection assumed In the Northeast Industrial Area PAO) • The centroid connector from TAZ 600 Is assumed to be more heavily weighted toward Barker Road (reflecting the development potential in the Northeast Industrial Area assumed as part of the Northeast Industrial Area PAO) • Barker Road was assumed to be 5 lanes from Mission Avenue to 1-90 (to reflect planned mitigations in the SEIS to the Comprehensive Plan for the Northeast Industrial Area PAO) City of Spokane Valley 6 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY va 2/7/20 Updated Report It should be noted that the following planned improvements are already assumed in the current SRTC travel demand model; • The Barker Road/I-90 Interchange would be reconfigured to a standard diamond interchange with two-lane roundabouts plus slip ramps for right-turn movements at both ramps (as reflected In 1-90/Barker Rd Interchange Justification Report) • Barker Road between 1-90 and Appleway Avenue would be widened to five lanes as Identified in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) • A new northbound lane would be added on Harvard Road across 1-90 Traffic Forecast Methodology Near-Term Traffic Forecasts An annual growth rate of 3.0% along Barker Road was used for near-term traffic forecasts through year 2020 (based on historic growth) and an annual growth rate of both 2.0% and 3.0%were used for traffic growth on Barker Road between year 2020 and 2028 to capture an upper and lower range of potential growth. 2040 Traffic Forecasts 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.The difference In traffic volumes between the 2015 and 2040 models are 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 will be multiplied by 0.88 to account for growth in traffic that occurred between 2015 and 2018(22 years/25 years=0.88). Existing traffic data was collected during the AM and PM peak hour on Thursday, May 24th 2018 at all study intersections(see Figure 1)except Barker Road/Boone Avenue and Barker Roadie Avenue.Existing traffic volumes at Barker Road/Boone Avenue are based on counts collected on Tuesday, February 14th, 2007 and existing volumes at Barker Road/8rh Avenue are based on counts collected on Wednesday, February 14, 2018. Estimating AM Peak Volumes The regional travel demand model forecasts PM peak hour turn movements, but only forecasts 3-hour AM peak turn movements at each intersection. Therefore, the inverse of PM peak hour traffic growth multiplied by 80% was used to estimate AM peak hour traffic growth, This is consistent with research published in National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 365'and in observed peak hour traffic count data collected in Spokane Valley. For example, 80% of growth in PM peak volumes for southbound right turn movements at each intersection were applied to eastbound left movements to get the AM peak traffic forecast. 2 Martin,W., N.McGuckin.Travel Estimating Techniques for Urban Planning. NCFIRP Report 365. National Academy Press,Washington, D.C., 1998. City of Spokane Valley 7 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY va 2/7/20 Updated Report Level of Service Standards Spokane Valley LOS 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 Figure 2. These are based on the Highway Capacity Manual,which is the methodology used by Spokane Valley.The LOS for signalized intersections and roundabouts 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. Figure 2:Level of service description and delay thresholds at Intersections Level Signalized Unsignalized of Description Intersection Intersection Service Delay(seconds) Delay(seconds) A Free-flowing conditions. 0-10 0-10 8 Stable operating conditions. 10-20 10-15 Stable operating conditions, but Individual motorists 20-35 15-25 are 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 SS 80 35 50 • low but uniform speed. F Over-capacity conditions with long delays. >80 >50 Source:Highway Capacity Manual 2016, Transportation Research Board The LOS standards used by Spokane Valley are defined in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: • LOS D 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) WSDOT LOS Standards WSDOT also uses LOS thresholds for State Highways.The LOS standard for State Highways in Urban Areas Is LOS D.Within the Study Area this would apply to the Barker Road/I-90 interchange. This LOS standard applies to roadway segments and signalized and stop controlled intersections. City of Spokane Valley Wage SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v0 2/7/20 Updated Report Per WSDOT's recommended guidance, the primary measure of effectiveness (MOE) for roundabout analysis is not LOS, but the overall intersection and approach volume to capacity (v/c) ratios. WSDOT recommends that v/c ratios not exceed 0.85-0.9 for any approach or the entire intersection, which typically corresponds to LOS D. Traffic Analysis Methodology In order to analyze traffic operations, including LOS, v/c ratios and/or impacts of queuing, the following traffic engineering software was used In accordance with WSDOT Traffic Analysis policies and protocol': • Synchro-Synchro software (version 9,2)was be used to evaluate AM and PM peak hour LOS at most signalized and stop controlled intersections. LOS was measured using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 methodology within Synchro. All settings were set to be consistent with WSDOT Synchro Protocol.The observed intersection peak hour factor averaged for all approaches was used for the existing conditions analysis and near-term traffic analysis.A PHF of 1.0 was used for the 2040 analysis. A saturation flow rate of 1,775 vehicles per lane per hour was assumed in order to be consistent with City of Spokane Valley practice along the Barker Road corridor. • Sidra -Sidra software (version 7.0) was used to analyze the AM and PM peak hour v/c ratios for intersections with a roundabout configuration. All settings were set to be consistent with WSDOT's Sidra Policy Settings (WSDOT,April 2018). • SimTraffic—SlmTraffic software was used to analyze the AM and PM peak hour traffic operational performance for closely spaced intersections in order to capture the impacts to traffic delay of queuing. This includes the intersections with Barker Road/Cataldo Avenue and Barker Road/I-90 under the single-lane roundabout configuration proposed by WSDOT as an Interim solution. All settings were set to be consistent with WSDOT SimTraffic Protocol with the same PHF and saturation flow rate used in the Synchro analysis. SirnTraffic was not used to analyze operations with two-lane roundabouts.Sidra software was used in those instances. EXISTING CONDITIONS Within the 1.6 mile segment of Barker Road between Mission Avenue and the south Spokane Valley City limits there are four signalized intersections. These are located where Barker Road crosses Mission Avenue, Cataldo Avenue/1-90 westbound ramp, 1-90 eastbound ramp and Appleway Avenue. There is a four-way stop at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue. All other intersection are controlled by side-street stop signs.The segment of Barker Road north of Boone Avenue is a three lane street with bike lanes,curb and gutter and 5-foot sidewalks on both sides. South of Boone Avenue Barker Road is a two-lane street without curb,gutter,storm drain or sidewalks.South of Appleway there is an asphalt paved multiuse trail on the west side of the street that extends to Chapman Road in unincorporated Spokane County. Existing peak hour traffic volumes and lane configurations at the ten study intersections are shown In Figure B. 3 www.wsdot.wa.gov/Design/Trafflc/Analysis/ City of Spokane Valley 9 Page E C o p O 2. E T ,(ao)OB IfaY)LTO a, �i;"( (l}( pv •- t_ 4J 12 ,.' (Za5)08Z +7.- } +p--(sae)co m C M O m 44 '�faoz)se4 ° it fi , 114 (ll a c c v Q 61'11 ti 41 o to ` U I�,H U 4 N 0 0 Ilie)r1zcz ff� m (au) —><' E-1- of Ws)as-- sn,e. - al W iSZZ)E54 r`rl r�n {04)Bl m ,- J�I J �y er M vrv� m r 11 10 LL 5 m aj ea a a) t o o CD i v 61 E Q v !!q VZ y �' � (Ztl 4E • G O lots)YYY A ,�(4)a .-3 P' ,p-.Vi BLE = x u 7 mo • q '�10l)s {$9 IVBVJ 885 1a (tO s� ,�, > lt) rC . ��4 �lp]ppp • xk cn • ��4 N �I-- CN av1 m p.,l • aul m m I9)VZ '�r 0 N (aa4)OY r'� • Lu F" (L0Y)m _,'� m tav ees"1' m OK)(9Z)4t ' c�r. to 4" ui MPIp .—I © , o a �! IP+ ' f...*�{4 4)ZLB 1 m w d (EU)zit ${ . 4:4 fLl�G '41 q, 'i" n,•r a) eii clj (52)0Z I 1 •••a 'lr tl•n(as)15 I F o (9Y)o 'T • (o46)ozY---s �6P it WO oe�. 6.. 'm UN col-rya m E?" kW.tot— E i• y w In)Yol V s, F foal)VLL ;"' a 0)L 'e'�' (OM SB- �' m I.- a n 93 v s e W L ' b W s11141n ryd Nr:.¢l•I cn ,�j 1 S A 1 +d Hsi:rlga.I Pd .I '044r.litdAI r� �` !4 ra a 3 2 c1:7,4)ID ,1 nIFd7xN 4 i 1 5 i L.. t t 6II+n i.l0d Il t...Ally Y �i gg w .} PI I j v 1111rnrllr Mt rH01d Yr" lilI,n- .r m tN e Pr,,r;r.rr.:1`I j a $ rJ}j F . 5 NI Z v of 0?I DOW Ild 00 COO 11Onito,nd0 0$llorkm ild A590 kn 111 z ,,. t f 4114,..*It 1 +� tgtyi xmi®0184 eerri.ln 1; N f,tp.rnlurl ad rL R4lo11011d 0 I 6NnNi�,198d jP Fr,:11441 sl ' 4�' rC�1� awal.au 'P" �� r 11' SL5;ai41 ' I G. U. rf �t ce h L Nlrnn 0l Ci �' u1�7'Aa el...r.L, erg 4I SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY va 2/7/20 Updated Report Intersection Level of Service The AM and PM peak hour level of service (LOS) at the 10 study area intersections are summarized in Figure 4. The intersections between Boone Avenue and Broadway were analyzed using SimTraffic to account for the impact of queuing given the close spacing of intersections as well as the split signal phasing currently used at the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp. Al! other intersections were analyzed using Synchro. Figure 4.Existing conditions level of service and delay. AM Peak PM Peak Side Street Software Intersection Control Delay LOS Delay LOS Stop (all HCM Approach 2010) Barker/Mission Signal 12 B 13 B Synchro Barker/Boone Side-Street Stop >100 F 64 F EB SimTraffic Barker/I-90 Westbound Signal 57 E 29 C SimTrafflc Ramp/Cataldo Barker/I-90 Eastbound Signal 57 E 103 F SimTraffic Ramp Barker/Broadway(N) Side-Street Stop >100 F >100 F WB SimTraffic Barker/Broadway(S) Side-Street Stop 60 F 43 E EB SimTraffic Barker/Appleway Signal 21 C 30 C Synchro Barker/Sprague All-Way Stop 26 D 49 E Synchro Barker/4th Side-Street Stop 16 C 17 C EB Synchro Barker/8th Side-Street Stop 23 C 23 C EB Synchro Source: Fehr&Peers, 2018 Results show that under existing conditions, the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp/Cataldo Avenue intersection operates at LOS E In the AM peak hour and the Barker Road/1-90 eastbound ramp intersection operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour.Thus, both intersections of Barker Road/I-90 do not currently meet WSDOT LOS standards. Additionally, the queue along Barker Road from the two 1-90 Intersections impacts the LOS at both Barker Road/Boone Avenue and the two Barker Road/Broadway Intersections, causing all three intersections to operate at LOS F during either the AM or PM peak hours or both.Additionally the Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection is operating at LOS E during the PM peak hour. This intersection has been identified by COSV as a location in need of improvement to address existing congestion and multimodal operations.Results of the existing conditions traffic analysis show this intersection is Just two additional seconds of delay from operating at LOS F. A small increase In traffic is likely cause this intersection to operate at LOS F without improvements. The existing average and maximum queue lengths at the Barker Road/I-90 interchange during the AM peak hour are shown in Figure 5 and In the PM peak hour are shown In Figure 6. In the AM peak hour a long queue forms in the southbound direction at the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp intersection. In the PM peak hour a long queue forms in the eastbound direction at the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection. It should be noted the distance between the gore point in the eastbound direction of 1-90 City of Spokane Valley 11 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report and the Barker Road intersection is about 1,700 feet and the average queue on this segment during the PM peak hour is 1,200 feet and the maximum queue is 1,500 feet. Figure 5.Existing AM peak hour queue lengths at the Barker Road/I-90 interchange Maximum Intersection Direction Average Queue Queue(feet) (feet) EB 60 120 Barker/ I-90 NB 300 510 westbound/Cataldo SB 730 1,200 WB 100 170 EB 150 260 Barker/I-90 eastbound NB 160 170 SB 170 260 Source:Fehr& Peers, 2018 Figure 6.Existing PM peak hour queue lengths at the Barker Road/I-90 interchange Maximum Average Intersection Direction Queue(feet) Queue (feet) EB 70 120 Barker/ I-90 NB 190 340 westbound/Cataldo 5B 420 630 WB 100 160 EB 1,200 1,500 Barker/I-90 eastbound NB 160 180 SB 440 630 Source:Fehr& Peers, 2018 Corridor Level of Service The existing corridor level of service within the study area is LOS D derived from average daily traffic(ADT) on each roadway segment and weighted by the segment's length. Based on the posted speed and number of lanes, the LOS D threshold for the corridor is 13,800 ADT (as defined in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual), and the length-average ADT-to-LOS ID volume threshold ratio is 0.83. As long as the ratio is less than or equal to 1.00,the corridor is defined as operating at LOS D or better even though some intersections may experience greater congestion than LOS D. City of Spokane Valley 12 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY va 2/7/20 Updated Report 1-90 INTERCHANGE INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY & FINDINGS The Barker Road/I-90 Interchange Is currently operating at LOS F or worse at one or both interchange intersections In both the AM and PM peak hour,thus failing WSDOT LOS standards.WSDOT has proposed an interim solution that Includes single-lane roundabouts at each ramp intersection until the long-term concept proposed in the 2014 IJR can be implemented. Traffic analysis was performed for the intersections between Barker Road/Boone Avenue and Barker Road/Broadway, Including both ramps of the Barker Road/I-90 interchange in years 2020,2023,and 2028.The analysis was performed to determine how well and for how long a single-lane roundabouts as depicted in Figure 7 would operate acceptably at the two intersections. Figure 7.Barker Road/I-90 Interchange Interim Concept proposed by WSDOT -4 ", I •was 1, "• , 1 rirl i 41 - -r' ram_- �2 . i ,1,'h. , ail,, + I0,-•` . . -t '; ,I I 1. ' .I - -'IF � ✓ �� ;r, I A. r I T 1•YJ , I..i." . 1, . �.. I P. I' 4l1 1 't' 1 -- ` ' •1 f Fr 1 ti " . 1 a 4y1 al i' A 1 1 _ � � • + - .. Single Lana ioundabou,` ,1' i{1,►11 1 1{ �t S.Sc f Irtliti 1 All �i{t9lt`4'�' ! {ti of It °i;1 I71 H 1 ti Ill t�? p.a 1 \ , r' 1; t! •ti�tihll 1�; ;� ^� 1 g11r1 ri 11;\\ 1 lIt., i1 l �T4oCIW� p .a f, , ,L 'stand W "', 44Vi4svmSsti i �, L I , ; k ;tti,it [ r Source: WSDOT A subsequent revision to this Interim concept, shown In Figure 8, shifted the northern single-lane roundabout to the existing Cataldo Avenue/Barker Road/I-90 Westbound intersection, maintaining the existing "hook ramp" configuration. According to the best available Information at this time regarding long-term plans for the interchange and replacement of the Barker Road Bridge, the advantage of this configuration,as compared to the tight diamond configuration(shown in Figure 7 and originally proposed as the interim solution) Is that the proposed location of the Barker Road/westbound ramp Intersection is City of Spokane Valley 13 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report farther from 1-90 than what is proposed with a tight diamond configuration.This would allow WSDOT to convert a single-lane roundabout at this location to a two-lane roundabout in the future when the Barker Road Bridge over 1-90 is replaced without necessitating lowering the elevation of the 1-90 travel lanes in order to achieve the required clearance under the bridge. Figure 8,Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp intersection—revised Interim Concept i ter: 'Li , r ' N. l': •l,'y., . _ �, i rr 8.1 i „. BOONE 'AVE llile Ulf It." a ��" „ i• a ..fib T14,01"lef • 1 r.""n-n. 1 any r• - i 41 rk4'+ {.S i s, Source: WSDOT A summary of the key findings of this traffic analysis are presented below: • A single lane roundabout will operate acceptably at Barker/1-90 Interchange in 2020 with: o A 2nd southbound approach lane at the westbound ramp — This can be implemented through restriping and curb modification within the existing ROW. o A 2"d eastbound approach lane at the eastbound ramp • The eastbound ramp intersection will drop below LOS D sometime between 2023 and 2028 o Main constraint: sometime between 2023 and 2028 the northbound traffic demand across the bridge will exceed the physical capacity of the bridge (1,000-1,100 vph) • Regardless of the configuration (either what is shown in Figure 7 or Figure 8) westbound ramp will operate at an acceptable LOS by 2028 because the eastbound roundabout will effectively "meter" northbound traffic so that there will be gaps for the heavy southbound traffic to enter Figure 9 summarizes the LOS results based on SimTraffic. It should also be noted that Sidra analysis was also performed for both intersections in years 2020,2023 and 2028 with results showing that the*ratio would exceed the 0.85-0.9 threshold for both intersections sometime between 2023 and 2028, with the eastbound ramp failing sooner. However, unlike the Sidra results,SimTraffic showed that the eastbound ramp intersection would effectively "meter" traffic entering the westbound ramp intersection resulting In acceptable LOS at that Intersection through 2028. City of Spokane Valley 14 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report Figure 9.Year 2028 SimTraffic LOS results under the"hook ramp"concept at the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp Intersection Control AM Peak PM Peak Delay LOS Delay LOS Barker/Boone Side-Street Stop 66 E 30 D Barker/Cataldo/I-90 westbound ramp Roundabout 40 D 17 B Barker/I-90 eastbound ramp Roundabout 84 F 88 F Barker/Broadway Side-Street Stop 107 F 218 F Source: Fehr&Peers, 2018 The results of this analysis demonstrate that the interim solution (modified with a second approach lane at one leg of each intersection and revised to maintain the existing location "hook ramp"configuration at Barker Road/Cataldo Avenue/1-90 westbound ramp Intersection) for the Barker Road/I-90 interchange would last about 5-10 years before falling below WSDOT LOS standards. Given this, it is recommended that the City of Spokane Valley work with WSDOTto secure funding within 5-10 years to replace the Barker Road Bridge over 1-90 with a four-lane bridge. 2040 ANALYSIS &FINDINGS Traffic analysis of the Barker Corridor intersections was performed with the assumption that several already planned transportation projects would be implemented.This includes: • Barker Road from Mission Avenue to Appleway would be widened to five lanes (through a combination of several projects). • The Barker Road/1-90 interchange would be reconfigured into two-lane roundabouts at each ramp intersection similar to the Barker Road UR preferred alternative, with some modifications(as described below),including adding Boone Avenue into the westbound ramp roundabout and preserving the existing hook ramp configuration for the westbound ramp. • The east leg of Broadway would be realigned with the west leg of Broadway at Barker Road. These changes would effectively consolidate the Barker Road/Boone Avenue intersection with the Barker Road/1-90 westbound ramp/Cataldo Avenue intersection and consolidate the two Broadway intersections Into one. Consolidation of these intersection means under 2040 conditions there would be eight study intersections instead of ten.Traffic volumes and lane configurations assumed in 2040 at each of the study intersections are shown in Figure 10. City of Spokane Valley 15 I P a g e VI c4 C g 9 a • Q O *�' OL @ s✓(0(()ad y o a- (se)se - (4! Nei)SEC to 4 1�,p.� (00l)0Z1 V ciTh. _U e� n..1 .•..r M (SLOSH. ' O V O vtr '4 No6)OSC g..� csidYisZ • Ve.03 CD CD f Ol O.) -' q C4,N r� _ (0s10(( _g� 3 f . (aef s> Ik ,J� 4siIs ru,�- ,�100()4L o O q'A ! +—(NOSES yq g 4..� (OM SOb 0. �6�pes isiy�oor +. iii' '-00)0L 8 • (@()s o�,4� (5L6)00L n ...1 V Q 10001 ,yg. f `1 .i tt+}}y` p , r}r R) (OLS)0dE 4 (OaL)O@ Tlllf Ns)OE 1 • L onnosv , 6`.G (v(a)szt—`-. g-ag C° (oWsal'4" c e (O()5 \i�ao$ Iry 30E0E63 cf`nu, (00)01 ntar. A d r4,04; 1? st ' a I 6 GT ' (09L)S91 ... (5)5! E. (9)S 4 a Ia g +—(@aa)OE '; +-(ag°s96 V-...N .)-.(sae)50@ 2 ✓1\ �(59!)OZI M • v_(� 'r(S()a • 4� (00( T 'i� m }� H 03 f m (St OL )1 -E (04)or *1 m (9L)S (966)O(S—. Go^m M (sa 4'I)S)9-; .I'io.�, + I— (Sag)oSL-{. g+i<r.f. '' (9C()961—" i.Yte '1 (sal so ' t.q.n (5E)0C y. 411:oga Fb w o 030.:r car I Mn.1ri1• 8 I 47, 3! F :L V' I Lif..l(I41 II (p! I a 4.4Na t g El. y 3 a 116,+5 Y. 66 1 3 y ow134n11A 4 Q ,,aul.„4, ,. of i 1,Ilnmr.Tpl FN.d t yI s ",vf!q II il:ncrrrtn q 1 a 15 TTT ,If Oa6a Ed lla0lkrr lfc 'S °Searles hdi 4 00 oar.m 1.1 h g )d L A. M •1656.14. llnnorwi _ 4 3 al.,arlti 116.rw.pM rl r....�..�,.nJ ' a,Y..,,.....aA ID -rn 4 sX PAI SIf:m1l ,�' .4�- f�a x Y.w..,t • W I i,1 •1.,...,.. ^�� ell. l a•t. SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY va 2/7/20 Updated Report Barker Road/I-90 Interchange Configuration A conceptual layout In 2040 of the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection is shown in Figure 11 and a conceptual layout of the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp intersection Is shown in Figure 12.The configuration of the Barker Road/1-90 eastbound ramp Intersection would be largely the same as the Barker Road IJR preferred alternative, including a roundabout with two circulating lanes and two eastbound approach lanes on the 1-90 off-ramp. However,the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp intersection was modified from the Barker Road IJR preferred alternative in order to preserve the "hook ramp" configuration at the same location as today, with Cataldo Avenue on the east leg. Reasons for this change were to satisfy City of Spokane Valley and WSDOT's desire to shift the interim solution to a location that better accommodates long-term reconstruction of the interchange, as well as City of Spokane Valley's desire to find a solution with the least impact to private property, Converting the 1-90 westbound ramp to a diamond interchange would have either required Cataldo Avenue to be rerouted through private property to Boone Avenue or the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp intersection to be moved closer to 1-90.The original IJR preferred alternative would also have necessitated lowering 1-90 in order to achieve adequate clearance under the Barker Road Bridge. Preserving the hook ramp negates both of these potential issues. While the bridge will still need to be replaced to achieve adequate clearance,the proposed configuration would allow sufficient approach length to achieve adequate clearance without the need of lowering 1-90. In addition,the east and west leg of Boone Avenue was added to the westbound ramp roundabout in order to preserve full movement on Boone Avenue and reduce the potential Impacts of loss of access or additional ROW needed to provide access near the existing Boone Avenue Intersection,These modifications result In a roundabout with six legs.Without this configuration Boone Avenue would be too close to the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp roundabout to safely operate with full movements. It should be noted that the concepts shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12 are schematic in nature and the exact diameter of a future roundabout would need to be determined through a more detailed engineering study.The assumed length of the roundabout diameter does not affect the Sidra outputs. City of Spokane Valley 17 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY vo 2/7/20 Updated Report Figure 11.2040 Barker Rd/I-90 eastbound ramp Intersection concept(same as Barker Road IJR preferred alternative) 117 ..,., + I + I lu Imo- II 'arm Source:Fehr& Peers, 2018 Figure 12.2040 Barker Rd/I-90 westbound ramp Intersection concept(modified from Barker Road IJR preferred alternative) �N Klithe Kean t I 1 + I JJ I dI; ` tni eco \, Vel tw, to � you �r' I I I I I t K.nw Source: Fehr&Peers, 2018 City of Spokane Valley 18 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY va 2/7/20 Updated Report Intersection Level of Service Findings The AM and PM peak hour level of service (LOS) findings at the eight study area intersections are summarized in Figure 13,The 1-90 Intersections were analyzed using Sidra.The more relevant measure of effectiveness for these intersections per WSDOT policy is v/c ratio,which is shown in Figure 14. All other Intersections were analyzed using Synchro. Figure 13.2040 conditions level of service and delay. AM Peak PM Peak Software(all Intersection Control Delay LOS Delay LOS HCM 2010) Barker/Mission Signal 20 B 25 C Synchro Barker/I-90 WB Roundabout 17 B 13 B Sidra Ramp/Cataldo/Boone Barker/I-90 EB Ramp Roundabout 9 A 12 B Sidra Barker/Broadway Side-Street Stop 71(EB) F >300(EB) F Synchro Barker/Appleway Signal 30 C 46 D Synchro Barker/Sprague All-Way Stop 132 (NB) M >300(SB) F Synchro Barker/4th Side-Street Stop 22 33 D Synchro Barker/8th Side-Street Stop 17 C 33 D Synchro Source: Fehr& Peers,2018 Figure 14.Volume-to-capacity ratio In 2040 for Barker Road/I-90 Interchange roundabouts. AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Control 95 95% Software (all v/c Queue v/c Queue HCM 2010) Barker/I-90 WB 110 ft. Roundabout 0.69 240 ft. 0.54 Sidra Ramp/Cataldo/Boone (SB) (NB) ft Barker/I-90 EB Ramp Roundabout 0.47 �NB' 0.70 150 ft. Sidra Source:Fehr&Peers,2018 Results presented In Figure 14 show that under existing 2040 conditions,the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection and the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp/Cataldo Avenue/Boone Avenue intersection as laid out in Figure nand Figure 12,respectively,would operate acceptably.The v/c ratio would be meet the WSDOT threshold of 0.85-0.90 for both Intersection in both the AM and PM peak hour. Results presented in Figure 13 show that the Barker Road/Sprague intersection(which had poor LOS under existing conditions) would operate at LOS F In both the AM and PM peak hour without improvements. City of Spokane Valley 19 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY va 2/7/20 Updated Report Additionally,the Barker Road/Broadway Intersection would operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hour and would meet the peak hour signal warrant in the PM peak hour,thus failing the City of Spokane LOS threshold in 2040. Analysis shows that the Barker Road/4th Avenue and Barker Road/8th Avenue intersection will with acceptable LOS through 2040 under the existing configurations with side street stop control. These intersections would also operate acceptably with a signal or roundabout although the forecasts do not indicate that either intersection would meet the peak hour signal warrant in 2040. Mitigation Measures • Barker Road/Sprague Avenue - Traffic operations at the Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection were analyzed in Sidra assuming a single-lane roundabout concept and in Synchro assuming a traffic signal with left turn lanes and protected left-turn signal timing for all approaches. Results,shown in Figure 15, demonstrate that a single-lane roundabout or a traffic signal with protected left-turn lanes would result In acceptable traffic operations at this intersection in 2040. Figure 16 summarizes the pros and cons of implementing a traffic signal as compared to a roundabout at this Intersection.The primary differences in a traffic signal versus a roundabout relate to traffic safety,cost, right-of-way impact, impervious surface and landscaping opportunities. While this study recommends a roundabout at this intersection primarily due to the safety benefits,the City will undertake a separate and more detailed design study as part of implementation to determine the ultimate future Intersection configuration. Figure 15.Volume-to-capacity ratio,LOS and/or delay In 2040 with mitigations. AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Control Software v/c LOS I Delay v/c LOS Delay Barker/Sprague Roundabout 0.52 A - 0.59 A - Sidra Barker/Sprague Signal - C 34 - D 36 Synchro Source:Fehr&Peers,2018 City of Spokane Valley 20 I P a g e SOUTI-I BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY vB 2/7/20 Updated Report Figure 16.Pros and cons of a roundabout versus a traffic signal at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection. Factors Roundabout versus Traffic Signal Traffic Safety The primary benefit of a roundabout over a traffic signal is related to traffic safety. Research provided by WSUOT shows that on average single-lane roundabouts result in 75%fewer injury crashes and 90%fewer fatalities than signalized intersections. Roundabouts mitigate the risk of moderate-to- high-speed broadside crashes commonly caused by a driver running the red light at a traffic signal. Capital Cost On average the capital cost of constructing a roundabout is higher than the capital cost of constructing a signalized intersection, but this can vary from location to location. Operations& Long-term operations and maintenance costs associated with a Maintenance Cost roundabout are typically lower than those associated with a traffic signal (about$5,000 to$10,000 per year based on COSV research), often enough to offset the higher capital cost of a roundabout over the life of the project. Right-Of-Way Impact On average,the right-of-way(ROW) impact of a roundabout can be greater than a traffic signal, but varies depending on the location and number of turn lanes.At the Barker/Sprague location the area of ROW impact would be similar with a roundabout or a signal and neither would impact existing structures. Impervious Surface A roundabout could result in more impervious surface than a traffic signal depending on whether the center island is landscaped or hardscaped. Art&Landscape Roundabouts typically have more opportunity for landscaping Opportunities or art (primarily because of the center island)than traffic signals. Noise &Air Pollution Roundabouts typically result in less air pollution and noise than a traffic signal due to less idling and fewer hard accelerations. • Barker Road/Broadway — Additionally, a two-lane roundabout at the Barker Road/Broadway intersection would result in acceptable operations in year 2040. A traffic signal is not advised at this location due to the proximity of this intersection to the planned roundabout at the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp and the potential for queue splllback onto the 1-90 roundabout. An acceptable alternative to a roundabout would be to convert this intersection to right-in/right- out/left-In only configuration. However, this type of intersection configuration would result in some degree of inconvenience for drivers trying to make a left-turn from either leg of Broadway to Barker Road as they would have go out of direction to make that movement. If there is substantial commercial development along the Broadway corridor in the future, the lack of left- out movement could be a major impact to the viability of retail businesses. However, if the Broadway corridor has similar land uses as today (or other lower trip generating uses like offices or apartments),the lack of outbound left-turns would be less of an impact. City of Spokane Valley 27 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY vi;2/7/20 Updated Report Diverging Roundabout Concept Given the high volume of northbound left turns from Barker Road onto 1-90 westbound (700 in the AM peak),WSDOT suggested that a"diverging roundabout" concept be tested to see if the interchange could operate effectively with single-lane roundabouts. A diverging roundabout is a diverging diamond Interchange with roundabouts instead of signalized "crossover" Intersections—see an example in Figure 17, The advantage of this concept is it eliminates all turning vehicle conflicts.The only point of conflict is where through traffic must cross over to the other side of the road. A diverging diamond interchange works best in situations where there are high volumes of vehicles turning off or onto the highway and not a lot of through movement on the road crossing the highway. Figure 17.diverging roundabout concept. 1110 Image source:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms5Tv2 IPME Sidra software was used to test the diverging roundabout concept in 2040 with one circulating lane at both the eastbound and westbound 1-90 ramp Intersections with Barker Road. Results are shown in Figure 15 and Illustrate this configuration would meet WSDOT standards during three of the four conditions tested. This configuration would result in unacceptable operations at the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp in the PM peak hour due to the high volume of northbound and southbound through movements. The primary other disadvantage of this configuration is it would require a diamond interchange, which means the hook ramp would have to be removed and Cataldo Avenue would have to be rerouted to Boone Avenue.It should be noted, however,that a diverging roundabout interchange would likely meet WSDOT LOS standards if the roundabouts were dual-lane and there was a four-lane bridge over 1-90(although this configuration was not specifically analyzed). Figure 18.2040 volume-to-capacity ratio and 95%queue with a single-lane diverging roundabout. AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Control - Software v/c 95%Q v/c 95%Q Barlcer/I-90 WB Roundabout 0.49 80 feet 0.93 590 feet Sidra Barker/I-90 EB Roundabout 0.65 120 feet 0.52 110 feet Sidra Source:Fehr& Peers, 2018 City of Spokane Valley 22 ' Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY va 2/7/20 Updated Report 2040 RECOMMENDATIONS Recommended transportation improvements for the Barker Road corridor are organized by two distinct segments of the corridor, the section between Mission Avenue and Appieway Avenue and the section between Appleway Avenue and the south City limits. Mission Avenue to Appieway Avenue The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan identifies a five-lane urban section for Barker Road between Mission Avenue and Appleway Avenue.The segment between 1-90 and Appleway Avenue is also identified in the Spokane Valley six-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) as a five-lane arterial. Furthermore the segment between Mission Avenue and 1-90 is identified in the in the Northeast Industrial Area Planned Action Ordinance (PAO), which is in the process of being adopted as a supplement to the Spokane Comprehensive Plan EIS. WSDOT has allocated funding in 2019 and 2020 for implementing an Interim improvement to the Barker Road/I-90 interchange until a longer-term solution can be implemented as identified in the SRTC Horizon 2040 Plan and 1-90/Barker Road IJR. Based on these previously planned projects and findings of the traffic operations analysis presented in the previous section of this report,the following projects are recommended for Barker Road north of Appleway Avenue. + Barker Road/I-90 Interchange Interim Improvements—It is recommended that WSDOT convert the 1-90 eastbound and westbound ramp intersections with Barker Road to single-lane roundabouts as an interim measure to Improve traffic operations and safety until funding for a longer-term solution can be secured, Roundabouts would be implemented at the same locations as the ramp terminal intersections are located today.As part of this project,a second southbound approach lane should be added on Barker Road at the westbound ramp.This can be implemented through restriping and curb modification within the existing ROW. Additionally, a second eastbound approach lane should be added to the eastbound 1-90 off-ramp. WSDOT will also realign the east leg of Broadway to match the location of the existing west leg. Traffic analysis shows that this solution will operate effectively for about 5-10 years. Thus, It is recommended that WSDOT and City of Spokane Valley work to secure funding for a longer-term solution within the next 5 to 10 years. • Barker Road/I-90 Interchange Long-Term Improvements — It is recommended that WSDOT convert the 1-90 eastbound and westbound ramp intersections with Barker Road to two-lane roundabouts as a longer-term solution to improve traffic operations through 2040. Consistent with recommendations from the 2014 IJR, this would include two eastbound approach lanes at the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection and an expansion of the roundabout to include two circulating lanes.However,unlike the 2014 IJR,it is recommended that westbound hook ramp be preserved and the roundabout at the westbound ramp be implemented as a six-leg Intersection with Cataldo and Boone Avenue(this would also require that the interim roundabout be widened to include two circulating lanes).This project would include replacement of the Barker Road Bridge over i-90 with a four-lane bridge including a multiuse trail or sidewalk on both sides to wide enough to allow for safe circulation of bicyclists and pedestrians. • Barker Road —Mission Avenue to Boone Avenue Widening— It is recommended that Spokane Valley widen this segment of Barker Road to a five-lane urban section. This project has been identified in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Industrial Area PAO, It is recommended that this project be implemented at the same time as (or shortly after) the long term improvements are made to the Barker Road/I-90 Interchange. City of Spokane Valley 23 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report • Barker Road—1-90 to Appleway Avenue Widening-It Is recommended that Spokane Valley widen this segment of Barker Road to a five-lane urban section. This project is identified in the 2019- 2024 TIP. It is recommended that this project be implemented at the same time as the long term improvements are made to the Barker Road/I-90 Interchange. Given that traffic analysis also shows the Barker Road/Broadway intersection will need improvement by 2040, it is also recommended that either a two-lane roundabout at Barker Road/Broadway be implemented as part of this project or the intersection be converted to prevent left-out movements.A roundabout at Broadway was included in the TIP. ApplewayAvenue to South City Limits As identified in the traffic operations analysis,the South Barker corridor will operate acceptably in 2040 with either single-lane roundabouts or traffic signals at the major Intersections (Sprague Ave,4th Ave, 8th Ave).4 The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and TIP identify a three-lane urban roadway section between Appleway and the southern city limit. This roadway would consist of one travel lane in each direction, a two-way left-turn lane, a sidewalk, and the existing multi-use trail. Traffic signal control at the major Intersections is entirely consistent with the three-lane cross section, since left-turn lanes approaching the intersections would be required.This configuration is very common In Spokane Valley. However,single-lane roundabouts do not require a turn-lane at the major intersections and this configuration could be pursued with a narrower cross-section with just two travel lanes in each direction. While It is true that traffic signals (with widening at the major intersections) could also be accommodated with a two-lane segment, this configuration is less common In the Valley (existing two- lane roads with traffic signals often do not have turn lanes at major intersections, which reduces the capacity of the street). Based on this finding, Spokane Valley may wish to consider a two-lane cross section for all or a portion of the South Barker Road corridor. Figure 19 illustrates a few pros and cons of the three-lane versus two- lane configuration. For purposes of this study, the cost estimates assume the full three-lane buildout to capture the higher potential cost,which would lead to a cost savings If the two-lane design is ultimately selected. 4 Note that In the near-term (next 5-6 years), only the intersection at Barker Rd/Sprague Ave will likely warrant a traffic signal or roundabout to address poor traffic LOS, However, as development increases in the future it Is not unlikely that the intersections at 4th Ave and gth Ave will eventually need to be upgraded from their current side- street stop control.As of now,it does not appear that these Intersections will require upgrades prior to 2040, but that could change if a larger use(e.g.,apartment,church)is permitted along one of these streets, City of Spokane Valley 24 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report Figure 19.Pros and cons of a two-lane versus three-lane configuration south of Appieway. Option Pros Cons Two-lane • 33 percent less paved area; results in • No mid-block left-turn lane;may configuration lower up-front costs and lower long- require a median to prohibit left- term maintenance costs turns at larger developments or a • Less impervious surface reduces short widened section to stormwater conveyance and accommodate a turn lane treatment costs • Retrofitting a turn lane could be • More space within the right-of-way costly if a parcel Is rezoned at a for wider sidewalks or landscaped later date for a more intensive area use Three-lane • Once this configuration is in place, • Higher cost to build and maintain configuration there is no need to retrofit the road • More impervious surface and to accommodate left-turns at larger water runoff developments • Less opportunity for landscaping • Better accommodates more trip- intensive land uses like multifamily residential Source:Fehr&Peers,2018 Given these pros and cons, along with the potential for rezoning of the land north of Sprague Avenue to more dense residential,the following projects are recommended: • Barker Road/Sprague Avenue Intersection Improvements—Implement a single-lane roundabout at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection to improve traffic operations and safety.This project should be prioritized for this segment and can be implemented prior to making corridor-wide improvements. A roundabout is recommended over a traffic signal at this intersection because roundabouts tend to have lower numbers of serious traffic collisions and they cost less to maintain in the long-run compared to traffic signals. In addition,with all the other roundabouts being built by WSDOT farther north on the corridor, roundabouts will be a common and consistent traffic control device on Barker Road. • Barker Road —Appleway Avenue to Sprague Avenue Widening — Implement a three-lane cross section between Appleway and Sprague Avenue; consider extending the existing northbound right-turn lane at Appleway approximately 200 feet south to Laberry Drive and converting this to a northbound through-right lane when Barker Road is widened north of Appleway. • Barker Road—Sprague Avenue to South City Limits Improvements—Implement a two-lane cross section south of Sprague Avenue. In the design, set the multi-use trail and sidewalk in a position that could ultimately accommodate a three-lane cross section. Build two lanes of a potential three-lane configuration where one side of the street will have a final curb and gutter and the other side of the street will have a shoulder and swale for drainage. In this way, the street can more-easily be widened if It Is ever necessary to accommodate a mid-block turn lane, but most of the corridor will benefit from the narrower cross-section. Given the current single-family zoning and the generally smaller parcels south of Sprague, It seems that this area is less likely to see pressure for rezoning and the two-lane cross section will operate well in the future. • 4th Avenue and 8th Avenue Intersection Improvements - Phase the construction of Barker Road to include single-lane roundabouts at Ott` Avenue and Bth Avenue along with the two-lane configuration. City of Spokane Valley 25 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY va 2/7/20 Updated Report IMPLEMENTATION The recommended transportation improvements can be summarized Into a total of eight projects along the South Barker Road Corridor. A list of these projects, along with a brief description, timeframe for Implementation, and estimated cost in 2018 dollars for the portion Spokane Valley would be responsible for are shown in Figure 20.Reference to the program and project number from previous plans,documents or the City's TIP is also identified. Figure 20.South Barker Road projects and cost estimates to be implemented through year 2040. Program Agency COSV y Project Description (Project#) Responsible Cost Estimate (2018 $$) IMMEDIATE(2019-2020) 1-90 Eastbound Ramp! Reconstruct intersection with Barker Road single-lane roundabout and two Horizon 2040 WSDOT N/A Interchange Interim eastbound approach lanes; Plan(#12) Improvements realign east leg of Broadway 1-90 Westbound Ramp! Reconstruct intersection with Barker Road single-lane roundabout and two Horizon 2040 Interchange Interim southbound approach lanes; Plan(#12) WSDOT N/A Improvements convert Barker/Boone to right- in/right-out _ NEAR TERM(2021-2024) - Sprague/Barker Reconstruct intersection with 2019-2024 Intersection single-lane roundabout TIP(#15) COSV $1,517,000 Improvements - MID TERM (2026.2030) _ - Replace Barker Road Bridge and widen to 4-lanes from Boone Avenue to Broadway; I.90/Barker Road reconstruct both intersections Horizon 2040 Not anticipated at interchange Long-Term to 2-lane roundabout; Plan(#12) WSDOT this time Improvements reconstruct Barkerll-90 westbound ramp intersection to six-leg roundabout with Boone Avenue Barker Road Widen and improve to 5-lane 2019-2024 Improvement Project-- urban section;roundabout @ TIP(#22) COSV $6,477,000 Appleway to 1-90 Broadway Barker Road Widen and improve to 5-lane NE Industrial Improvement Project- urban section Area PAO COSV $2,950,000 Mission to 1-90 (Phase 2) LONG TERM(2031.2040) Barker Road Reconstruct and widen north of Improvement Project-- Sprague to 3-lane urban 2019-2024 COSY $2,854,000 Appleway to South City section,and south of Sprague TIP(#20) Limits to 2-lane urban section. 4,1,Avenue/Barker&8tn Reconstruct 4th Avenue and 81 AvenueiBarker Avenue intersections with 2019 2024 COSV $3,000,000 Intersection single-lane roundabouts TIP(#21) Improvements 1. Costs do not include WSDOT's portion City of Spokane Valley 26 I P a g e 1 I SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY va 2/7/20 Updated Report Source:Fehr&Peers;City of Spokane Valley. Cost estimates are primarily derived from the City of Spokane Valley 2019-2024 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Exceptions Include the cost of the Barker Road improvement Project—Mission to I-90, which Is derived from the estimate provided in the Northeast Industrial Area PAO and adjusted for 2018 dollars and the 4rr' Avenue/Barker & 8th Avenue/Barker intersection improvements, which assume a cost of $1.5 million per intersection comparable to the cost estimate for the Sprague/Barker intersection Improvements. Projects are divided into four distinct timeframes: immediate (by 2020), near-term (3-6 years), mid-term (by 2030)and long-term(2040).The timing of implementation is based on a combination of traffic analysis findings of when the project is needed to meet LOS criteria,time for project development and anticipated availability of funding. Fair Share Analysis and Potential Funding In order to offset the costs of the future Infrastructure projects that will be needed to achieve acceptable muitimodal operations in the Barker Road Corridor, one option would be for Spokane Valley to collect traffic impact mitigation fees based on a fair-share analysis. Fees could be collected from developments in Spokane Valley around the Barker Road corridor, as well as from neighboring jurisdictions, Including Liberty Lake and Spokane County where development Is expected to generate traffic that will utilize the corridor, generate/exacerbate traffic impacts, and benefit from the future roadway widening projects. The fair-share financial contribution Is determined by how much traffic each jurisdiction Is expected to contribute in 2040 to locations in the Barker Road corridor where future transportation improvement projects were identified. The same regional travel demand model used to forecast 2040 traffic was used to estimate the percent of traffic through various segments of Barker Road generated by a portion of each jurisdiction. This was done by using a tool in the model called a "select zone analysis." The select zone analysis was set to Identify the traffic generated by the area in each jurisdiction where development is expected to have the greatest traffic impact on the South Barker Road corridor and thus where a development fee could be reasonably assessed.This includes the portion of Spokane Valley south of the Spokane River and east of Flora Road,the area of unincorporated Spokane County immediately south and east of the Spokane Valley City limits and the City of Liberty Lake west of Harvard Road as shown in Figure 21. Please note that the Northeast Industrial Area (north of the Spokane River) was excluded from this analysis as the City is already utilizing a Planned Action Ordinance to assess fair-share fees for projects on Barker Road north of 1-90. City of Spokane Valley 27 I P a g e Jam 0b L C�b—�, oy mF �ti / - iY ,e•- �- . f a k, — • - — _ __._, f~—I- _ % m 2_ ` tiE 1g II ELNeesleyAue`'r=1 m=.. AtttiPKFz `z----__ - � J i z y s- C 2 _ 04 one �' �'�'CC i .E-Man _ -j'�� =_Kaser -_--� $�r(reir. �' - _ ',a- .ngd ,off _ �73 u,_—;p S Barker Corridor I - W e: :"z p. r- �Mliwood N� P . ,Miratieau:._ z�l E EuclidiAte z 0 / o y. i z�� - - z... -�1 -- .Q. 1 I�be Indiana Poe ? m eR�.- a! �E lndlana �, ci 327u lakeY 448 :�f m '° — _ CD z 325 ,c rc, hso ` - 447 - A' z a- z_= a - z 388 = 281 q • c^� -Z-c o - p •a- — - o—. - z - -�— �y C4unfry Vest. o -cr, z �o �F=y�-;a a i .�§- 'Spokanem , 9 .- '2,'' 442 p z m>2 �rAve--m z =- ~ 1 =Valle m _. I .,�- _ --- 91 . - 1 G: 1� _valley:. z a.— SP a8ue�'Avs SpragueAv - z -"- -z -Sprague nu _ 38_ , ;c .. e��. -- ` $Wdbe•A --�-�- - 9 4th.A+e _ - E'CoaC Dr - 92 ;•._>r -- .. E 3rd A++e a N ---Y—� "••.A----.Abend ed RR-__ — _ _ r I _ ,;f • _.6 = -" r., = g � E Sth Aus. �,E 6Eh-•Ave _ i niy �R rc`_ C `c- N= t, - E 12th Atie p 444 a °-'x -i<, 'FLi,• b y.- _m -Er— r .,_ a' E'I Bth A+,e. -__ i+ ' �., .4 �` ^=1- .0 E,__e.1 - _3y .c CL ez iY — - tL-.. 1 • -- • _ Q. • �_�_�Q K` �� e rn r`c m �mal - O �c -r� . I _;- ri�- •4. -a 3=a _ 1= E-24triA�e-�R=e _„. e,„: `'f — odd �x 9Cu, _..ro ;- --=: ..� 5 -� i ,. - _ fit- \-— cr:� �- . �,- 11 --mac' ag2a__ •r io o __I1-32nd Ave �' ,, y Q `—� i .• • ,a i i "• — ' • E 44th Ala. X c N5 ea a .— , R u 42—c,—rnrr `� 3 • South Barker Road Travel Shed •.- I 1 } �; 1 Q V - Transportation Analysis Zones by Jurisdiction . ?41 -o J _ -- EJ Spokane Valley TAZs 0o _ , . % gi Liberty Lake TAZS ° __ - = . m- - - Spokane County TAZs n -Y = -= _ - ` ` Figure 21 Transportation analysis zones by juristiction included in the fair-share cost analysis_ SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY va 2/7/2o Updated Report To complete this analysis,the corridor was divided into three segments: north of 1-90, between 1-90 and Appleway Avenue, and south of Appleway Avenue.The results of the fair share analysis are shown Figure 22.As an example,Figure 22 shows that by 2040 about 18%of traffic on Barker Road north of 1-90 will be generated by Liberty Lake and 4% will be generated by unincorporated Spokane County immediately south and east of Spokane Valley.South of Appleway Avenue, only about 2%of traffic on Barker Road will be generated by Liberty Lake and 35% will be generated by development in unincorporated Spokane County Immediately south and east of the Spokane Valley city limits. It should be noted that the percentages represent the percent of trip ends,since all trips have two ends. The select Ilnk analysis provides the origins and destinations by TAZ of all the PM peak hour trips traveling in each direction of Barker Road. Since each trip has both an origin and destination, half of the trip was assigned to the origin and half of the trip was assigned to the destination. For example, in the case of a trip that begins in Spokane Valley and ends in Liberty Lake half of that trip would be assigned to Spokane Valley and half to Liberty Lake, since both locations generated one end of the trip. Trips in the "other" category include traffic that has at least one trip end outside the TAZs included In the travel shed (see Figure 21). These include trips passing through the area or trips that have one end in the travel shed and one end outside of the travel shed (e.g., a trip between southeast Spokane Valley and downtown Spokane). Spokane Valley will need to use non-mitigation fee funding(grants,general funds)to cover the cost of the"other"trips since they cannot be levied on developers in the study area. Figure 22.Percent of 2040 Barker Road traffic generated by jurisdiction. Southeast Spokane Liberty Spokane Segment of Barker Road Valley Lake County Other Total North of 1-90 26% 18% 4% 52% 100% 1-90 to Appleway Avenue 19% 16% 17% 48% 100% South of Appleway Avenue 18% 2% 35% 45% 100% Source:Fehr&Peers, 2018 To estimate the fair share transportation impact mitigation fee for new development in each of the jurisdictions, the cost of each project is multiplied by the percent of traffic from that jurisdiction that is forecast to use the infrastructure. Given the relatively low volume of traffic generated by unincorporated Spokane County north of 1-90 and the relatively low volume of traffic generated by Liberty Lake south of Appleway Avenue it is recommended to exclude those jurisdictions from contributing to the cost of projects in those respective segments. It is recommended that new development in Liberty Lake be assessed a fair-share fee of 9.8% of the capital cost of infrastructure projects needed between Mission Avenue and Boone Avenue and 16% of the capital cost of infrastructure projects needed between 1-90 and Appleway Avenue.Similarly,it is recommended that new development in Spokane County within the south Barker Corridor travel shed (see Figure 21) be assessed a fair-share fee of 17%of the capital cost of infrastructure projects needed between 1-90 and Appleway Avenue and a fair share fee of 35% of the capital cost of infrastructure projects needed between Appleway Avenue and the south city limits. In addition to determining which jurisdictions use the new infrastructure, a fair share transportation Impact mitigation fee must consider "existing deficiencies." Impact fee case law clearly states that new developments cannot be charged to fix existing deficiencies to the transportation system. Based on the LOS analysis above,there are existing deficiencies at the 1-90 ramp intersections.Since WSDOT is funding City of Spokane Valley 29 I P a g e S©UTI-i BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v0 2/7/20 Updated Report the bulk of the interim Improvements at the Barker Road interchange,there is no need to take a credit at that location. When the percentages in Figure 22 are applied to the cost of the projects listed in Figure 20,the fair share cost that can be applied to new development in each jurisdiction is listed in Figure 23.The total fair share cost is estimated at about$1.57 million to Liberty Lake and$3.57 million to Spokane County. It should be noted that Spokane Valley already has an agreement with Spokane County for a number of vested developments to pay a mitigation fee for improvements on Barker Road.The agreement totals$116,411, which was subtracted from the fair-share cost (specifically the Barker Road Improvement Project — Appleway to South City Limits). Figure 23.Fair-share cost by jurisdiction and project. Total Project Spokane Spokane Segment of Barker Road Cost Valley Liberty Lake County 1-90 Eastbound Ramp/Barker Road N/A N/A N/A N/A Interchange Interim Improvements I-90 Westbound Ramp/ NIA N/A N/A N/A Barker Road Interchange Interim Improvements Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements $1,517,000 $273,000 $0 $531,000 I-90/Barker Road Interchange Long-Term Not anticipated at N/A N/A N/A Improvements this time Barker Road Improvement Project—Appleway $6,477,000 $1,230,000 $1,036,000 $1,101,000 to 1-90 Barker Road Improvement Project—Mission to $2,950,000 $767,000 $531,000 $0 1-90 Barker Road Improvement Project—Appieway $2,854,000 $514,000 $0 $999,000 minus to South City Limits $116,411 4th Avenue/Barker&8t1 Avenue/Barker $3,000,000 $540,000 $0 $1,050,000 Intersection Improvements Total $16,798,000 $3,324,000 $1,567,000 $3,565,000* Source:Fehr&Peers, 2018 *Total was reduced by$116,411 to account for the existing mitigation fee agreement between Spokane Valley and Spokane County for several vested developments in Spokane County. Typically, costs to mitigate transportation infrastructure impacts are allocated based on PM peak hour traffic generation. Using PM peak hour trips is typical, since it is the PM peak hour that typically has the most-congested traffic and trips are a way to distribute costs In a way that is proportionate to the total impact generated. In other words, larger developments that generate more trips pay proportionately more than smaller developments that generate fewer trips. To develop a per-trip fee, it necessary to estimate PM peak hour traffic that will be generated by new development in the area that will use the South Barker Road Corridor.This includes portions of Spokane Valley and unincorporated Spokane County with the Barker Road Corridor travel shed and Liberty Lake east of Harvard Road (see Figure 21). Based on the 2015 and 2040 regional travel demand model, it was found that about 5,033 new PM peak hour trips will be generated by new development in this area between 2015 and 2040.This includes 2,212 new PM peak hour trips generated by Spokane Valley, 1,888 new PM peak hour trips generated by Liberty Lake and 933 new PM peak hour trips generated by unincorporated Spokane County. To estimate a cost per PM peak hour trip, one would divide the total City of Spokane Valley 30 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY via 2/7/20 Updated Report eligible costs of Barker Road projects (project costs minus existing deficiencies) by the new PM peak hour trips forecast to be generated in the study area. As an example, Figure 24 Illustrates the cost of each capital improvement project recommended on the South Barker Road Corridor through 2040,along with the portion of the cost attributed to Spokane Valley traffic and the corresponding cost per new PM peak hour trip generated by development east of Flora Road and south of the Spokane River.The total cost of all projects (excluding WSDOT's portion) Is about $16.8 million. Using the fair-share estimate, about$3.3 million would be attributed to traffic generated by Southeast Spokane Valley. When the fair share cost is divided by the number of new PM peak hour trips expected from development in Southeast Spokane Valley between 2015 and 2040,the total cost per PM peak hour trip would be$1,503. Figure 24.Cost per PM peak hour trip from new development(2015-2040)in Spokane Valley. New PM Peak COSV Percent Portion Hour Trips Cost per Project Cost Estimate' Attributed Attributed from Nearby PM Peak (2018$$) to COSV to COSV COSV Hour Trip Development 1.90 Eastbound Ramp!Barker Road N/A N/A N/A 2,212 N/A lnterchan•e Interim Im•rovements 1.90 Westbound Ramp! Barker Road Interchange Interim N/A N/A N/A 2,212 N/A Ian•rovements Sprague/Barker Intersection $1,517,000 18% $273,000 2,212 $123 Im•rovements I.90/Barker Road Interchange Long- Not anticipated at N/A N/A 2,212 N/A Term Improvements this lime Barker Road Improvement Project- $6 477,000 19% $1,230,000 2,212 $556 A.•lewa to 1.90 Barker Road improvement Project- $2 950 000 26% $767,000 2,212 $347 Mission to 1.90 Barker Road improvement Project- $2 854 000 18% $514,000 2,212 $232 A•Ilewa to South Cit Limits 4rh AvenuelBarker&81h Avenue/Barker Intersection $3,000,000 18% $540,000 2,212 $244 Improvements Total $16,798 000 _ - $3,324,000 2,212 $1,503 Source;Fehr& Peers, 2018 Applying this same methodology to the other jurisdictions results in a total cost per new PM peak hour trip of$830 for Liberty Lake and$3,821 for the area of unincorporated Spokane County within the South Barker Road travel shed as shown in Figure 25.These fees represent potential fair-share costs that could be levied on new development to help finance projects on the South Barker Corridor. City of Spokane Valley 31 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY va 2/7/20 Updated Report Figure 25.Cost per PM peak hour trip from new development(2015-2040)by jurisdiction. Southeast Spokane Liberty Spokane Segment of Barker Road Valley Lake County North of 1-90 $347 $281 $0 1-90 to Appleway Avenue $556 $549 $1,180 South of Appleway Avenue $600 $0 $2,640 Total $1,503 $830 $3,821 Vested Trips According to data provided by Liberty Lake and Spokane County, a significant number of dwelling units forecast to be added between 2015 and 2040 have already been vested. In the three TAZs in Liberty Lake west of Harvard Road, about 1,490 of the 1,929 total new dwelling units forecast to be added between 2015 and 2040 have already been vested. In addition, a number of properties in Liberty Lake have already been vested for commercial development (about 397,853 sq. ft. across the City). While there is no mechanism to charge a mitigation fee to existing or vested trips, the number of vested trips does not detract from the fact that Barker Road is not expected to meet the City of Spokane Valley LOS standard by 2040, nor does it detract that development and growth in Liberty Lake and Spokane County contributes substantially to the traffic and congestion on Barker Road. One could recalculate a new impact fee that specifically accounts for the vested trips. However, the resulting impact fee for the unvested trips would be higher than what was calculated in this Study.This is because the total costs for the capacity expansion would be the same, but there would be fewer growth trips to spread the cost of necessary transportation improvements across. Based on a rough calculation, it's estimated the cost per PM peak hour trip for unvested growth In Liberty Lake to be approximately$1,200 to$1,300 or about 50% higher than the PM peak hour fee of$830 when vested trips are included. Therefore, Spokane Valley is suggesting that any unvested trips be assessed the fee calculated In this study as its proportionate fair-share fee. This keeps these trips from being additionally cost-burdened because of the inability to capture the costs of the vested trips. It should be noted that Spokane Valley already has an agreement with Spokane County for a number of vested developments to pay a mitigation fee for improvements on Barker Road. The agreement totals $116,411,which was subtracted from the fair-share cost for Spokane County. CONCLUSIONS This report provides a summary of recommended capital improvement projects and estimated costs on the South Barker Corridor between Mission Avenue and the south City limits to be Implemented by 2040. Projects are recommended to meet City and WSDOT LOS standards as well as to Improve multimodal mobility in preparation for future development. This report also provides analysis of a fair-share cost estimation associated with traffic generated by adjacent jurisdictions and potential development traffic impact mitigation fees as one tool to finance projects. Lastly, guidance is provided to WSDOT on the City of Spokane Valley's preferred interim and long-term alternative for the 1-90 interchange. Analysis of existing conditions shows that both intersections of the Barker Road/1-90 Interchange are not currently operating at acceptable standards and the Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection is close to City of Spokane Valley 32 f P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report failing COSV standards In the PM peak hour.Additionally,by 2040the Barker Road/Broadway intersection will fall City of Spokane Valley LOS standards.Traffic on Barker Road is expected to grow at a rate of about 1.4% per year through 2040, which will necessitate widening the corridor to five lanes between Mission Avenue and Appleway Avenue. In order to address traffic operations,traffic safety and multimodal mobility on the corridor a total of eight capital improvement projects are recommended to be implemented between now and 2040, These are listed below, organized into four different time frames for implementation based on when the project Is needed as well as other factors(including funding availability): • immediate(2019-2020) o 1-90 Eastbound Ramp/Barker Road Interim Improvements (single-lane roundabout) o 1-90 Westbound Ramp/Barker Road Interim Improvements(single-lane roundabout) • Near-Term (2021-2024) o Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection Improvements • Mid-Term (2025-2030) o 1-90/Barker Road Interchange Long-Term Improvements o Barker Road improvement Project—1-90 to Appleway Avenue (5-lane urban section) o Barker Road Improvement Project—Mission Avenue to 1-90(5-lane urban section) • Long-Term (2031-2040) o Barker Road Improvement Project—Appleway Avenue to south City Limits o 4th Avenue/Barker&8th Avenue/Barker Intersection Improvements In summary, the recommended improvements by 2040 would result in the following future condition. Barker Road would have bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the street and curb and gutter along the length of the corridor. The road would be widened to five lanes from Mission Avenue to Appleway Avenue, three lanes from Appleway Avenue to Sprague Avenue and two-lanes from Sprague Avenue to the south City limits. South of Sprague,the area between the sidewalks on either side of the street would be wide enough to accommodate a third center turn lane In the future if warranted by development.Two- lane roundabouts would be implemented at both intersection of the 1-90 interchange.The Boone Avenue intersection would be consolidated into a new six-leg roundabout with the 1-90 westbound ramp and Cataldo Avenue.The bridge over 1-90 would be widened to four lanes with wide sidewalks on both sides to accommodate both bicyclists and pedestrians.The east-leg of Broadway would be realigned to meet the west-leg and the Broadway Intersection would be converted to a roundabout or reconfigured to prevent left-out movements.New single-lane roundabouts or traffic signals would be implemented at the Sprague Avenue,Orr'Avenue and 8rr'Avenue intersections, The combined costs of the projects, excluding the portion that would be funded by WSDOT, is estimated to be about $16.8 million in 2018 dollars. A fair-share analysis of the corridor was also conducted to highlight how development in Spokane Valley, Liberty Lake, and Spokane County could help to finance these projects. By multiplying the eligible project cost with the fair-share percentage and charging that fee, it would ensure that new development in each jurisdiction is contributing funding to the project reflective of their use of/benefit from the improvement.The fair-share analysis demonstrated that traffic from Southeast Spokane Valley developments will generate fairly equal demand on the length of the corridor. Traffic from Liberty Lake is generally expected to use the section of Barker Road north of Appleway Avenue and traffic from unincorporated Spokane County will generally use the section of the City of Spokane Valley 33 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report corridor south of I-90. Therefore, it is recommended that a fee program be implemented to collect fees for projects on three distinct segments of the corridor based on the fair-share percentage: • Mission Avenue to 1-90 • 1-90 to Appleway Avenue • Appleway Avenue to south City limits It should be noted that while developer impact fees can provide an important source of funding, after negotiating with developers, elected officials, and neighboring jurisdictions,the impact fees are typically set so that they only cover a portion of project costs (typically less than 50%).Thus, Spokane Valley will need to use other financing strategies to pay for the remaining costs of the projects identified above. Other financing strategies Spokane Valley might consider include implementing a local improvement district or transportation benefit district, and applying for grants. Historically, Spokane Valley has had strong success In seeking and winning external funding, which has kept the costs of expanding transportation infrastructure relatively low for both developers and existing taxpayers compared to other cities in the region and state. City of Spokane Valley 34 P a g e Exhibit B South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study For Spokane County Prepared for: City of Spokane Valley, Washington Updated January 2022 FEHO" PEERS Table of Contents Introduction 1 Study Area 2 Methodology 4 ProjectList 5 Travel Growth 6 Cost Allocation 8 Existing Transportation Deficiencies 8 Fair-Share Cost 9 Impact Fee Schedule 11 Trip Generation 11 Pass-By Trip Adjustment 11 Schedule of Rates 11 Appendices Appendix A—Expanded Impact Fee Schedule Appendix B—South Barker Corridor Study List of Figures Figure 1: Transportation Analysis Zones Included South Barker Corridor Study Fair-Share Analysis 3 Figure 2. Impact Fee Methodology 4 Figure 3. Impact Fee Cost Allocation 8 List of Tables Table 1, South Barker Corridor Project List and Cost Estimates (cont. on next page) 5 Table 2.Growth in Study Area PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips (2015-2040) 7 Table 3. Percent of 2040 Traffic on Barker Road Attributable to Study Area 9 Table 4. Cost Per PM Peak Hour Trip Calculations 10 Table 5. Impact Fee Schedule 12 Table 6, Expanded Impact Fee Schedule 13 This page intentionally left blank. Introduction This report documents the methods, assumptions, and findings of a transportation impact fee(TIE) rate study for the South Barker Corridor in Spokane Valley specifically for development in unincorporated Spokane County south of the corridor.A TIF Rate Study for development withing Spokane Valley that impacts traffic was adopted by City of Spokane Valley City Council on December 15,2020,The need for a TIF is identified in the South Barker Corridor Study(Feb 2020, adopted by the City of Spokane Valley City Council on December 15, 2020),which documented the growth along the corridor, projected how that growth will degrade traffic operations along Barker Road, and identified several transportation capacity projects to support growth and ensure adequate level of service through the year 2040.That study identified the needed future improvements along the corridor, completed project cost estimates, and included a fair share cost analysis to separate project costs between growth in unincorporated Spokane County south of the corridor and growth from other parts of the region.Without improvements on this corridor,the residents and businesses in this area of Spokane County will experience the traffic impacts on South Barker Road as part of their daily travel, This TIF rate study builds on the South Barker Corridor Study and identifies a Growth Management Act (GMA) compliant impact fee rate schedule per development unit.The City of Spokane Valley understands that it cannot impose a GMA impact fee on another community, but the State Environmental Policy Act requires that all projects disclose traffic congestion impacts that result from implementation of the project and to identify feasible mitigation to reduce the significance of the impact,Therefore,this TIF rate study was prepared to calculate the fair share mitigation fee for Barker Road improvements that are required to support development in unincorporated Spokane County.This TIF rate study uses the same methodology as the as the Rate Study prepared for Spokane Valley development that was adopted by City of Spokane Valley City Council on December 15, 2020; a similar TIF rate study has also been prepared for development in Liberty Lake, By using a consistent methodology, development in any jurisdiction along the Barker Road corridor can be assured they are paying their fair share for future capacity improvements. It is our understanding that some developers may not agree with the GMA-based impact fee identified in this report.Therefore,we have identified an alternative method to address the documented significant traffic operations impacts of development in unincorporated Spokane County on Barker Road. Under this alternative methodology,a detailed traffic study would be required to track all trips generated by planned development that would use different sections of the Barker Road corridor and pay their fair share to the roadway and intersection improvements to meet Spokane Valley's LOS standard.A review of several sample projects indicates that this alternative analysis method generally results in a higher mitigation fee for developers and has substantial costs to hire a traffic engineer to prepare the study.Therefore,the City of Spokane Valley considers payment of the GMA-based fee to be a solid approach to promote development and economic activity in unincorporated Spokane County but also ensure that Spokane Valley residents and development are not left with a disproportionate share of the cost to accommodate traffic and traffic-related impacts coming from unincorporated Spokane County. South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Spokane County Updated January 2022 Study Area The South Barker Corridor extends along Barker Road from Mission Avenue to the south city limits of Spokane Valley. The South Barker Corridor Study defined the impact fee area for the South Barker Corridor as shown in Figure 1, Figure 1 shows the portions of Spokane Valley, Liberty Lake, and unincorporated Spokane County near the South Barker Corridor where development would have the greatest impact on traffic in the corridor,The area was defined using a select zone analysis from the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) regional travel demand model to quantify the impact of the transportation analysis zones (TAZs) near the corridor. Combined,this area is expected to contribute between 45%and 52%of future traffic on South Barker Road (depending on the segment of Barker Road). It should be noted that development in the Northeast Industrial Area (north of the Spokane River)also contributes to traffic on the Barker Road corridor north of I-90.A separate Planned Action Ordinance to assess SEPA mitigation fees for projects on Barker Road north of 1-90 was previously prepared for the Northeast Industrial Area. Fair share fees are currently being collected from development in the PAO to fund traffic mitigation projects on Barker Road north of 1-90 based on a fair share analysis performed as part of that project.The financial contributions from the Northeast Industrial Area are accounted for in this TIF rate study. The South Barker Corridor TIF rate for Spokane County provided in this study would apply to any new development in the Spokane County TAZs identified in the South Barker Corridor Study,which is the area shaded in blue on Figure 1.This includes the following TAZs: 390, 393,443, 575, 576,and 586,' This area will be referred to in this report as the South Barker Corridor Spokane County TIF area. Based on the analysis provided in the South Barker Corridor Study,future development in the South Barker Corridor Spokane County TIF area is expected to contribute between 17%and 35%of future traffic on the South Barker Corridor south of I-90- depending on the segment of the corridor. r Note that TAZ 444 was Included in the South Barker Corridor Study as a Spokane County TAZ that would impact the corridor.However,in preparing this study and reviewing the data,there is relatively little growth forecasted for this TAZ and traffic also does not rely on Barker Road as much as the other TAZs.Therefore,for the purposes of setting the rate for this study,TAZ 444 was excluded from the TIF area, • 2 i� Figure 1:• Transportation Analysis Zones included South Barker Corridor Study Fair-Share Analysis • South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study For Spokane County Updated January 2022 Methodology The impact fee for the South Barker Corridor is based on the fair share of transportation improvement costs that may be charged to new development in the area. Revised Code of Washington Section 82.02.050 authorizes cities planning under the GMA to impose impact fees for system improvements that are reasonably required to support and mitigate the impacts of new development. Fees may not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of improvements and cannot be used to fund existing deficiencies. Understanding that Spokane Valley cannot implement impact fees in Spokane County,this study is intended to demonstrate the impact of development in unincorporated Spokane County on the South Barker Corridor and quantify the fair share fees to mitigate Spokane County's development impacts using the same methodology that was applied to Figure 2, Impact Fee development in Spokane Valley. Methodology The following key points summarize the process for developing the impact fee Projects and costs structure(refer to Figure 2); identified (from the South Barker Corridor Study) • The South Barker Corridor Study identified a list of future projects to address unacceptable levels of service and estimated costs along Barker �. Road that will be needed to support future growth through the year 2040. Eligible project costs • The South Barker Corridor Study also accounted for any existing deficiency identified (from South (intersections/roadway segments that do not meet current level of service Barker Corridor Study) standards) and committed outside funding sources by deducting the costs of those deficiencies/external funds from the total project cost. Fair share of each project • The South Barker Corridor Study next assigned the fair share of each to southeast Spokane project's costs to unincorporated Spokane County and other nearby areas Valley identified (South as mapped in Figure 1. Barker Corridor Study) • The forecast growth in PM peak hour vehicle trips in Spokane County was i estimated by converting the forecast land use growth in the SRTC regional travel demand model using the Institute of Transportation Forecast growth in PM peals hour vehicle trips in Engineers(ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. southeast Spokane Valley • A cost per PM peak hour vehicle trip was calculated by dividing the fair share cost of each project by the growth in vehicle trips from unincorporated Spokane County. Growth cost allocation • Lastly, a land use-based fee schedule was developed using the cost per (cost per PM peak hour PM peak hour vehicle trip calculated above.Trip rates for multiple land vehicle trip) use categories were estimated using vehicle trip generation rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Using the ITE Trip Generation Manual will provide consistency between a project trip Impact Fee Schedule generation letter or traffic impact study and the impact fee rate. 4 �� The following sections describe in detail these elements that that are integral to the final impact fee schedule. Project List The South Barker Corridor Study, completed in July 2019 and updated in February 2020, and adopted by the City of Spokane Valley on December 15,2020 pursuant to Ordinance No. 20-026, included an analysis of traffic demand through the year 2040 to identify traffic improvement projects on the segment of Barker Road between. Mission Avenue and the south City limits of Spokane Valley.That study identified a total of eight projects that will be needed by 2040 to accommodate future growth and maintain level of service standards(i.e., avoid significant and unavoidable transportation impacts).Those projects, and costs in 2020 dollars, are shown in Table 1.Three of the projects include improvements to the Barker Road/I-90 interchange that will primarily be the responsibility of the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT).At this time,there are no anticipated costs to the City of Spokane Valley(COSV) for these projects.Therefore, the five projects identified in the South Barker Corridor Study for which COSV would be responsible for funding total approximately$18.8 million in 2020 dollars(note:these costs have been updated from the cost estimates in the South Barker Corridor Study to account for construction cost inflation and/or more detailed cost estimates by COSV). Table 1. South Barker Corridor Project List and Cost Estimates (cont. on next page) COSY Cost Project Description Program Agency Estimate(2020 Responsible dollars) Constructed in 2020 -90 Eastbound Ramp/ Reconstruct Intersection with single- 1 Bari�er Road Interchange lane roundabout and two eastbound Horizon 2040 WSDOT N/A Interim Improvements approach lanes; realign east leg of Plan(#12) Broadway -90 Westbound Ramp/ Reconstruct intersection with single- 1 Barlcer Road Interchange lane roundabout and two southbound Horizon 2040 WSDOT N/A Interim Improvements approach lanes;convert Barker/Boone Plan(#12) to right-in/right-out Near-Term(2021-2024) Sprague/Barker Reconstruct intersection with single- 2021-2026 Intersection lane roundabout TIP(#28) COSV $2,139,000 Improvements Mid- Term (2025-2030) Replace Barker Rd. Bridge,widen to 4- I-90/13ar1<er Road lanes from Boone Ave.to Broadway; Interchange Long-Term reconstruct both intersections to 2-lane Horizon 2040 WSDOT Not anticipated Improvementschange roundabout;reconstruct Barker/1-90 Plan(#12) at this time WB ramp intersection to six-leg roundabout with Boone Avenue 5 South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Spokane County Updated January 2022 Agency COSV Cost 'Project Description Program Responsible estimate(2020 dollars) Barker Road Widen and improve to 5-lane urban 2021-2026 Improvement Project— COSY $6,501,000 section; roundabout @ Broadway TIP(#44) Appleway to 1-90 Barker Road Widen and improve to 5-lane urban 2021-2026 Improvement Project-- COSV $3,146,000 Mission to 1-90 section TIP(461) Long-Term (2031-2040) Barker Road Reconstruct and widen north of Improvement Project— Sprague to 3-lane urban section,and 2019-2024 COSY $3,500,000 Appleway to South City south of Sprague to 2-lane urban TIP(#20) Limits section 4th Avenue/Barker&8th Reconstruct 4th Ave.and Sth Ave. Avenue/Barker 2019-2024 Intersections with single-lane COSV $3,500,000 TIP #2 Intersection roundabouts ( 1) Improvements TOTAL $18,786,000 Source:South Barker Corridor Study(February 2020).Costs were updates to 2020 dollars based on the COW 2021-2026 TIP for all projects except Barker Road Improvement Project—Mission to 1-90.Cost for that project was updated using construction inflation rates. Note:Horizon 2040:SRTC Long Range Transportation Plan;TIP:City of Spokane Valley Transportation Improvement Plan. Travel Growth Determining the growth in travel demand caused by new development is a key requirement for a TIF program. In nearly every TIF program across Washington and the country,the total eligible costs of building new transportation capacity is divided by the total growth in trips to determine a cost per trip.All developments pay the same cost per trip, but larger developments that generate more trips pay a higher total fee than smaller developments. In this way,the cost to provide the new transportation infrastructure is fairly apportioned to new development. Moreover, in setting the boundary for the TIF,a select zone analysis was performed to validate that all the areas within the TIF area contributed a meaningful amount of total traffic to Barker Road relative to the amount of growth expected.The amount of traffic varies somewhat based on which segment of Barker Road is evaluated and which TAZ the project resides in, but in all cases each of the seven identified TAZs within the TIF area contribute a similar proportion of the total Spokane County traffic along the corridor relative to the amount of growth expected in the respective TAZ. For the South Barker Corridor Spokane County TIF,the future growth in PM peak hour vehicle trips was estimated using the change in land use in the study area from the 2015 and 2040 SRTC regional travel demand model as well as trip rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition.The SRTC travel demand model includes 11 land use categories:two residential and nine non-residential categories. For each land use in the SRTC model, an associated ITE trip rate was identified.Total PM peak hour vehicle I. 6 trips within the study area were calculated by multiplying the PM peak hour trip rate identified by ITE by the forecast growth (from 2015 to 2040) in dwelling units, employees, or hotel rooms, depending on the land use.Table 2 summarizes the calculation, Table 2. Growth in Study Area PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips (2015-2040) ITE Average Growth in SRTC Land Use(LU) 2015-2040 Unit of ITE Code ITE Description Trip Rate ' Trips (LU LU Growth Measure (PM peak hr.) growth x trip rate) Single Family Dwelling Single-Family Detached 1,085 Residential 1,096 Units 210 Housing 0.99,I Multi-Family 0 Dwelling N/A N/A N/A 0 Residential Units Hotel/Motel 0 Rooms N/A N/A N/A 0 Agriculture,Forestry, Mining,industrial' 0 Employees N/A N/A N/A 0 Manufacturing, Wholesale Retail Trade(Non- Central Business 9 Employees 820 Shopping Center 1.62 15 District) Services and Offices 17 Employees 710 General Office Building 0.40 7 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 2 Employees 710 General Office Building 0.40 Services(FIRES) Medical 0 Employees N/A N/A N/A 0 Retail Trade(CBD) 0 Employees N/A N/A N/A 0 Education Employees 0 Employees N/A N/A N/A 0 University Employees 0 Employees N/A N/A N/A 0 Total Growth in PM Peak Hour Trips 1,1077 1.ITE Trip Generation Manual,10''Edition;average trip rate of adjacent street traffic 4-6 PM was used for all land uses given growth will occur among developments of various sizes. 2.Estimated growth in trips differ from the findings in the South Barker Corridor Study because estimates In this study are based on the ITE trip generation rates as opposed to trip growth outputs of the SRTC regional travel demand model. Using this methodology, it is forecast that the South Barker Corridor Spokane County TIF area would generate about 1,107 new PM peak hour vehicle trips by 2040.This total PM peak hour vehicle trip growth is one of the key foundations of calculating the TIF rate. Note:the trip growth by 2040 differs from the trip growth estimated in the South Barker Corridor Study as the estimate in this report is based on ITE trip rates derived from forecast land use growth,while for the South Barker Corridor Study trip generation was 7 South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Spokane County Updated January 2022 pulled directly from the SRTC regional travel demand model. ITE Trip rates were used to develop the TIF rate since this is the most common method used when traffic impact analysis and trip generation letters are prepared. This conversion of trips is necessary to develop costs per unit of development as opposed to cost per trip It should also be noted that the conversion based on ITE trip rates results in a higher number of estimated trips and ultimately lower per-trip fees than the land use conversion method used in the South Barker Corridor Study. Cost Allocation Three steps were used to allocate costs per PM peak hour trip,see Figure 3. First,the TIF methodology must separate the share of project costs that address existing deficiencies from the share of project costs that add transportation capacity and serve new growth. Second, resulting growth-related improvement costs are then further separated to identify the share of growth related to land development in Barker Road Corridor Spokane County TIF area. It should be noted that dedicated funding from external sources (state/regional grants, other mitigation payments,etc.) is considered in the impact fee eligible costs, if the dedicated funding exceeds the share of costs caused by growth outside of the TIF areas.This is currently not the case,thus non-City funding sources were not excluded from the total eligible project cost.Third, funds from a previous agreement between City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County for a number of vested developments to pay a mitigation fee for improvements on Barker Road (totaling $116,441)were separated from Spokane County's share. Figure 3. Impact Fee Cost Allocation Project Llst STEPS i}Ilt�lvl Q Future Growth Existing Deficiency y i Did AI 1 ' 40 1 1 County TIF Share COSV TIE Share Liberty Lake NE Industrial Outside TIF Areas TIF Shure Area PAO Eligible Impact Fee Existing Agreements Other Funds Needed id.l IJ Existing Transportation Deficiencies An existing conditions analysis was conducted as part of the South Barker Corridor Study,which identified existing level of service deficiencies at the Barker Road and 1-90 intersections. A deficiency at an intersection is defined as a level of service rating of E or lower at a signalized intersection or level of G 8 service F at an unsignalized intersection as established in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan. Since the three projects at the Barker Road and 1-90 interchange are expected to be funded by WSDOT,the cost of these projects was not included in the total project cost for the South Barker Corridor, No other locations along the corridor were identified as having an existing deficiency.Therefore, no costs were deducted from the total project cost on account of an existing deficiency. Fair-Share Cost With deficiencies accounted for, all the remaining project costs are related to supporting new growth in trips that will be funded by COSV. However, not all the growth comes from development in the South Barker Corridor Spokane County TIF area—there is a portion of growth that comes from Spokane Valley and other surrounding jurisdictions.To ensure that the costs assessed to development as part of the TIF are fair and proportional to the impact, a fair share percentage was used.The South Barker Corridor Study identified the percentage of traffic growth in three different segments of the South Barker Corridor that are expected to be attributable to development in the South Barker Corridor Spokane County TIF area. This was done using a select zone analysis in the 2040 SRTC travel demand model.The percentage ranges from less than 5%in the north end of the corridor to 35%in the south end of the corridor as shown in Table 3.Given less than 5% of traffic north of 1-90 is generated by trips from unincorporated Spokane County the cost of projects in that segment of the corridor were excluded from the fee. Table 3. Percent of 2040 Traffic on Barker Road Attributable to Study Area Segment of Barker Road Unincorporated Spokane County(TIF Area) North of 1-90 4% 1-90 to Appleway Avenue 17% South of Appleway Avenue 35% Source:South Barker Corridor Study The fair share percentages were multiplied by the eligible cost of each project in the corridor to get the cost of growth-related transportation improvements on the South Barker Corridor that is expected to be attributable to development in the South Barker Corridor Spokane County TIF area.This equates to $4,186,409. Lastly, the City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County have a previous agreement for a number of vested developments to pay a mitigation fee for improvements on Barker Road,totaling $116,441.This amount was deducted from Spokane County's share to arrive at a total fair share cost attributable to development in unincorporated Spokane County of$4,070,998.2 This cost was divided by the forecast new PM peak hour trips generated by new development in this area (1,107)to arrive at a cost per new PM peak hour vehicle trip of$3,677. 2 Development that have a vested building permit that includes a mitigation payment toward improvements along the South Barker Corridor would not have to pay this TIF, 9 South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Spokane County Updated January 2022 Table 4. Cost Per PM Peak Hour Trip Calculations Cost to Address TIE Area Fair Cost Project Project Cost Existing Eligible Share Attributable (to_C©SV) Deficiencies Project Cost Percent to Study Area 1-90 Eastbound Ramp/Barker Road Interchange interim N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Improvements I-90 Westbound Ramp/ Barker Road Interchange Interim N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Improvements Sprague/Barker Intersection $2,139,000 $0 $2,139,000 35% $748,650 ImprovementsI 1-90/Barker Road Interchange Not None None Long-Term Improvements anticipated $0 anticipated N/A anticipated at at this time at this time this time Barker Road Improvement Project $6,501,000 $0 $6,501,000 17% $1,105,170 —Appleway to 1-90 Barker Road Improvement Project —Mission to 1-90 $3,146,000 $0 $3,146,000 N/A $0 Barker Road Improvement Project —Appleway to South City Limits $3,500,000 $0 $3,500,000 35% $1,108,590 4th Avenue/Barker&8th Avenue/Barker Intersection $3,500,000 $0 $3,500,000 35% $1,108,590 Improvements SUBTOTAL $18,786,000 $0 $18,786,000 Varies $4,186,410 Minus Funds from Previous Agreements $116,411 TOTAL $4,070,998 PM Peak Trips 1,107 Cost Per PM Peak Trip $3,677 When taking all the above calculations into consideration, the South Barker Corridor Spokane County TIF would contribute up to 22 percent of the total $18.8 million eligible cost of the improvement projects on the South Barker Corridor. City matching funds, regional funds, new grants,TIFs from Spokane Valley development,and other sources would provide the remaining 78 percent of the total project costs. ddir 10 IWI Impact Fee Schedule The impact fee schedule was developed by adjusting the cost per PM peak hour vehicle trip to reflect differences in trip-making characteristics for the general land use types forecast in the SRTC regional travel demand model.The fee schedule is a table where fees are represented as dollars per unit for each land use category which makes it easier for developers to calculate their impact fee rates.Table 5 shows the various components of the fee schedule. Trip Generation Trip generation rates for each land use type in the PM peak hour were derived from average trip rates for selected land uses of the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 1011' Edition to ensure consistent and repeatable calculations across all land uses. Pass-By Trip Adjustment The ITE trip generation rates represent total vehicles entering and leaving a development. For certain land uses(e.g., retail,convenience stores, etc.), a substantial amount of the motorized travel is already passing by the property and merely turns into and out of the driveway.These pass-by trips do not add trips to the surrounding street system and therefore are subtracted out prior to calculating the impact fee.The resulting trips are considered "new"trips and are therefore subject to the impact fee calculation.The pass- by trip percentages are taken from the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition (2017). Schedule of Rates The proposed impact fee rates are shown in Table 5. An expanded table of land uses is provided in Table 6 in Appendix A. In the fee schedule, fees are shown as dollars per unit of development for various land use categories.The impact fee program is flexible in that if a use does not fit into one of the ITE land use categories listed, an impact fee can be calculated based on the development's projected net PM peak hour vehicle trip generation (accounting for pass-by trips) and multiplied by the cost per PM peak hour trip of$3,677 as shown in Table 5. Projects with land uses not in Table 5 or Table 6 shall prepare a trip generation and distribution letter and will be responsible for a fee based on $3,677 per PM peak hour vehicle trip. 11 South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study for Spokane County Updated January 2022 Table 5. Impact Fee Schedule South Marker Corridor Spokane County Transportation.impact'Fee Rate Schedule PM Peak Vahtcie Passby i Adjusted Trips Impact Fee Per Unit 4 1 rE Code ITE Land Use Category 7rlp:flute r gg z per Unit of $3,677 per PM Peak Vehicle Trip l Menslrre' I 210 Single Tamil &Du.lex 0.94 0% 0.94 $3,456 per dwelling unit 220 Muiti-Famil (Low-Rise)-Not Close to Rail Transit 0.51 0% 0.51 $1,875 per dwelling unit 310 Hotel(3 or More Levels) 0.59 0% 0.59 $2,169 per room 520 Elementary school 0.16 0% 0.16000 $588,28 per student 630 Medical Clinic 0.00369 0% 0.00369 $13.57 per sq ft 710 General Office 0.00144 0% 0.00144 $5.29 per s.ft 820 Shopping Center 0.0034 29% 0.00241 $8.88 per sq ft t 1TE Trip Generation Manual(11th Edition):4-6 PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation Rates for the Adjacent Street Traffic(weekday 4-6PM);This worksheet represents only the generalised land uses in the SRTC regional travel demand model and is NOT all-inclusive;see Table 6 for a wider variety of uses;Projects with land uses not in Table 5 or 6 will be responsible for a fee based on$3,677 per PM peak hour trip. z Pass by rates were updated based on the Pass-By Data and Rate Tables/2021 Pass-By Tables for ITETripGen Appendices,11th Edition 3 PM peak trip rate excluding passby trips d sq ft=square feet,room=available hotel/motel room 5 ITE also includes an employment-based hip rate which may be used if approved by Spokane Valley FPI '12 Appein d.1i K A ^ E xj aihi ed iIRui . �c`,IL lbee Table 6. Expanded Impact Fee Schedule South Barker Coutdot Spokane Count Transportation impact Fee Rate Schedule PVrl�rfe Adjusted frlrpnet Fee Per Uult'r C eak 1 I.-hid Use Group Ili 1TE Cork fTC Land Use Category Trip Paschy%? Trips per Unft:' - - 1 .rrn�4'J of Measure) .13,677perpalPeakVelikleTrip 210 Single Family et Duplex 0.9•I 0% 0.94 $3,456 per dwelling unit Residential 220 Muhl-Family(Low-Rise)-Not Close to Rail Transit 0.51 0% 0.51 $1,875 per dwelling unit 310 Hotel(3 or More Levels) 0.59 0% 0.59 $2,169 pet room Services 492 Health Club 0.00345 0% 0.00345 $12.60 per sgft 912 Hank 0.02I01 359E 0,01366 $50.21 per sq ft 520 Elementary School 0.16 0% 0.16000 $500.28 pin sludents institution 522 Middle School 0.15 0% 0.15000 5551,52 per student s _ S25 High School 0.14 0% 0.14000 $514.75 per sludents 975 Drinking Establishment 0.01136 43% 0.00640 $23.01 persq ft Restaurant 934 Fast Food Restaurant(with drive-five) 0.03303 55% 0,01486 554.65 persq ft 937 Coffee Sho.with Drive-Thru 003899 89% 0.00429 515.77 persq it 020 Shopping Center 0.0034 29% 0.00241 $e.an persq ft Retail 841 Automobile Sales-Used/New 0.00375 0% 000375 513.79 persq ft 945 Convenience Store/Gas Station-GFA(4-5.5k) 22.76 66% 7.74 $20,452 per pump 110 Light In dustry/I1lghTechnology 0.00065 0% 0.00065 $239 persq ft Industrial 140 Manufacturing 0.00074 0% 0.001374 $2.72 persq It 150 Warehousing 0.00018 0% 0.00010 $0.66 per sq It 151 Mind-Storage 0.00015 0% 0.00015 50.55 per sq ft 710 General Office 0.00144 0% 0.00144 $5.29 persq ft Office 720 Medical Office/Clinic 0.00393 0% 0.00393 $14.45 per sgft 750 Office Park 0.0013 0% 0.80130 $4.78 persq ft s 1TE Trip Generation Manual(11t11 Edition):4-6 pM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation Rates for the Adjacent Street Traffic(weekday 4-6PM)This worksheet represents only the most common uses In southeast Spokane Valley and Is NOT all-inclusive;Projects with land uses not in Table 5 or 6 will be responsible for a lee based on 53,677 per PM peak hour trip. 'Pass by rates were updated based on the Pass-Ry Data and Rate Tables/2021 Pass-By Tables for ITETripGen Appendices,11th Edition s PM peak trip rate excluding passlty trips 4sq ft=square feet,pump=vehicle fueling porltion(VFA),room=available hotel room S ITE also Includes an empioyrnent-based trip late which may be used If approved by Spokane Valley FEHR4PEERS kipendix j3 - South Barker Corridor Study FEHR4PEERS =MMINEL , - - -- . ..- — -...., _....- . ...../.....to. :„.. AM, •N ,... ' , -. • - k ai. -,•. " . . . T • ' rt.N-014Pmr' .. • . Os . - , . -.'",%Ct.;r•i° -1*' .iisiiiiiiiti;,', " 1-,i.' ill.....,,-.".":.-..„. , , , , r C, %rt 4. 4 -6. u-r.% •...4•I''' •I":, r:v- '' '7_ ,,,";,, c-„.,,,i...,,i,r41.01-ri.44-0)11 -`i,,.*,1 i, .„ .., ' :-.• r A 1:1"P ' - • .,r,',• .14",• .1141 ,•• f..il• .1* : :446 ' . Y 1. 1 .4!0°":,1''w' '": "I" c. OW ',..1' -7.--Pe• - ' "^ ''.:.•..';. '' ' . 4VirtAVIZta4111111=Ife:'' r-* r•, — ' `b- .---' - - -.''.-%--4.4.'-'—•4 -.V;r1&:4/,'..A '‘''XI''.. - ' ittr,A.'',...1'..n. 1-Mv,k--Iiii- lift•-• -. 1- , 4: ....• .i„-....Two, -., ..ip pri,•46.c-rt.,,,,Y. , • ,...;.;„ __.1 .2;2-7.= %.*:•-',-,:..ti•:"A.--4,kg '4:-. ;eir.f_I • ,-Z.144 44"k.-PNJ4•04,1'. ,Aa-- !..,:',.,„ -,,..,-.4.6.1-.141, _ • :.... . . v k......'4. -•-r 7..7' ;.....-7. ,„.... '..,".1.4:V., 4,rowort q't••• s'„ . vo,.. ,'.... •,- , , .,- •*. -.-v..._.:.... ..',11,,„;.ix_ !-I-'i" • .4..,---4'r.-"' ,1.. ..i);;Lit. ''.elk" * -}...i.".' A.h.4.,,,,,, ,42 tih#4:1,..0.4"tz 4,P "'V---`- ----1- "• '',0.:, 'f.,?. ..iir. . ..,_ '"'''''' IS'Ir - (,...1 .- er'f, --114.1. '6"il',. , kr-, .• . .,"4.**..._-V.W_-.11Y.4-._4\- - ,-1,.- - 1:2 --1; gro T .....1.'i-4V- - ,,- ...oj- „ ,..4.4tra, 464; 4,,„„...,eviii,., t.-..-..,y7k-2, -4.-- .-,, ......„ , . .,Q. ,...,,,,,_., , .. . .,,....,.._. %.-:-...--. - 'L.4, len,A "i!" A..."4.• - • ... 4.a • ti-, '-: - (1* -- • •/ *' t*. •'' '1.''' ;,' --' '' •-• _,.4„atta.'1 '• :kr ,.. -. ,4, ,-. !,, 37-3 :1:;.--- -.0-...4.•:,..-;-"n' '.;41 44.4.7,6i2.*-...,_ lt# ....d.:44A-..imil,_ - :.• 4i• -:'• -,"" -,,%-:: ‘-' ',::4 it:.,'4" r %. •- '4-.1-1,-:" ', • f .1,41; 44,_ •'L'f--% ..,,d6Hi7'‘`'.1;. ' 1 .is)), L _ . .r., ,."4„..„__ .„ ........e Ns! ''N ,• 1 • .-, .. -A. =,:• - .04 '- '1),' r',-': • ''... ', V" '' 4..,4-..r,cr,-,:tAj.r1,44A..,16,: -4.- - '712,••. ."1.•'. ! .''r A ...,- , , i,„•,,-. ..k- 1.i ., .1,4,,s a„,:, ,...,,, ,.._-_*„..„.-_r.: ..... ".. *•r - - •.'` iW....c ..ii-i-j-,-3, ,,,ii,. •-5.1. ; „ IL • - 4.,• 024: 15,.*, • _- _ ',4,,',. .e.L- 1, ': j,-i,:k.$‘,,..,"‘IltS4,..1 .'7,-i.'" `i.-. t7; ,1 ;"" -- r- 1-1:,.11:'• t ' r, ' ..• 11.,.„.,1 • t"- -,n..__' t. 4, '4W.,0„.71,,,-'"7,--•• 114- —4:::'.aila:':":"--s ' ti '-'4,-PR"' " - ' ris,. •W.:`:r...."' ' . , , ,,,,. 6. .. .. .,.1 ,-.- ... • ft. fo,---11." • -1.1,-. . - ,,,- =-,,,,, • •-• ,F-4,, • .-"-.._ ,--„„!,!,•, P11 4, .. ...,,,, -It ....-...... ., .- , „ik.... ..,4 , .._ , ...,4rea-"ea !.... .1-0,.... •p . -. •• • • •, pp. _, ....„- ....-.... ,,,-cLe,Yil ':1•74 47;.',....' *t..1104 a-al."' . ,. -\*,,,,." . • 46 '' . ' '.- L.-' tr.(-It'l---r-tt C.:'''----" "'-• "--' ,,,F,14.- , -. . • ., qt.--...."g4A":t4 s...t:OP`-'. , 44140/1/241,46.2.1.. -" , . • - : --„ _ , _.,.....1.*•.-- ,rt..."-% --a—,,4 ,doe , .... ...--.-- -.-,-„'-- ' i' .. . , r•* _ . ' • ,.... . F .1 - ... •L:.:. .-__ A ..,. _ _ _ . • - - _ , ,i,62.0,...,' - ` r.,15.---i• • ,c.,7 ..,„. . ..t.e., jr.a . '. I. • -, ----• - '1 ---- •I'Pa. "L 4te -• --..i _,.,...0 -',-...-: 104; ,,-,:- ...a_...,90 r .......;;.......i............sida. ____ _ ,........-.--..-a.. , . .•cf;411844 ;.•-•-..- "'. 1.21r4 )...j. id" a. ..' .' I;;,! I i, ,,,, _$ .., 7 . *.,,-.. "*.' •-' -....) - .pai,5_,‘04E1 - ..... — :-f.:-...„. .--,,,....11,..4, 4 _ , ,,,, .. , • „ ...., . ---- c tv. ----.' 2.,LA-_t_.4,--,- _ :. - _.,„„. - ,,...; - -1 .k6 -' -.-, la _..A • "'" . • - 11-''''.- J • 4- , ".• ""-- ...a• , . --. -"ta) , ',, p"-z,'-1•""- " • Li•4:44F--„„, -dc r ..11..........., 1., 11 1 - alma' •• "t- 4-. " -zil• ''''''' .jj: t-g • . - ' ..1 o... 1•7 .....*. ' . , -.R..-?. IL , . .;" • -...-- . wilikL_ _.___NiM_ ,,..., - '• 11 'Oil, - .is,00iiiir ,. . .. . • ,..d. . SOUTH BARKER - .. , .,.. . ,• ., . .. i r . „I •,...,g - tie • A- . I .11 ,. . CORRIDOR STUDY . , _... . .. .. ........ .,. .. . s4, ,1 ,„.„444.,,,,,„.,..., .,: , ,,,,, .....4„. . . •,-*-''' N... ' ' •,4 -•...,...71,. ..,,r . ,:,, ' -b. . ,. ,„ .,., I, ll tiliiil 02 •0 '' ".. aa 4 li •' . ,, r'' .„i _440'1 i •11 , -: ei• , , . U A', G - ,. . ' • fk's ri d, 0.1..%%qtar FEHR )S' PEERS Silik ft,ane FINAL REPORT I UPDATED FEBRUARY 2020 4.0*'ValleY' Contents Introduction 3 Methods &Assumptions 5 Existing Conditions 9 1-90 Interchange Interim Improvements Summary&Findings 13 2040 Analysis& Findings 15 2040 Recommendations 23 Implementation 26 Conclusions 32 List of Figures Figure 1.Study Area Intersections 4 Figure 2: Level of service description and delay thresholds at intersections 8 Figure 3, Existing conditions traffic volumes and lane configurations 10 Figure 4. Existing conditions level of service and delay. 11 Figure 5. Existing AM peak hour queue lengths at the Barker Road/I-90 interchange 12 Figure 6, Existing PM peak hour queue lengths at the Barker Road/I-90 interchange 12 Figure 7. Barker Road/I-90 Interchange Interim Concept proposed by WSDOT 13 Figure 8. Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp intersection—revised Interim Concept 14 Figure 9. Year 2028 SimTraffic LOS results under the "hook ramp" concept at the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp 15 Figure 10. 2040 conditions traffic volumes and lane configurations.,. 16 Figure 11. 2040 Barker Rd/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection concept(same as Barker Road IJR preferred alternative) 18 Figure 12. 2040 Barker Rd/1-90 westbound ramp intersection concept (modified from Barker Road IJR preferred alternative) 18 Figure 13, 2040 conditions level of service and delay. 19 Figure 14.Volume-to-capacity ratio In 2040 for Barker Road/I-90 interchange roundabouts. 19 Figure 15. Volume-to-capacity ratio, LOS and/or delay in 2040 with mitigations. 20 Figure 16. Pros and cons of a roundabout versus a traffic signal at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection. 21 Figure 17. Diverging roundabout concept. 22 Figure 18. 2040 volume-to-capacity ratio and 95%queue with a single-lane diverging roundabout. 22 Figure 19, Pros and cons of a two-lane versus three-lane configuration south of Appleway 25 Figure 20. South Barker Road projects and cost estimates to be implemented through year 2040. 26 Figure 21.Transportation analysis zones by jurisdiction included in the fair-share cost analysis. 28 Figure 22. Percent of 2040 Barker Road traffic generated by jurisdiction. 29 Figure 23. Fair-share cost by jurisdiction and project 30 Figure 24. Cost per PM peak hour trip from new development(2015-2040) in Spokane Valley 31 Figure 25. Cost per PM peak hour trip from new development(2015-2040) by jurisdiction. 32 SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v®2/7/20 Updated Report INTRODUCTION This report presents the findings and recommended improvements of the South Barker Corridor Study. The purpose of the South Barker Corridor Study Is to analyze traffic demands through year 2040 and identify potential traffic improvement projects on the segment of Barker Road between Mission Avenue and the South City Limits in Spokane Valley,Washington.The study includes planning-level cost estimates of improvements and an estimate of the proportion of traffic along segments of the corridorfrom adjacent jurisdictions (Liberty Lake and Spokane County)to assist in developing potential mitigation fee payments for the new development that is occurring in this part of the Spokane region. In addition, this study analyzed traffic operations at the Barker Road/I-90 Interchange under the WSDOT Interim concept (year 2020) and long-term concept (by year 2040) to verify that the proposed interchange Improvements will operate adequately and serve the planned growth in Spokane Valley and the surrounding area. Based on the analysis, guidance is provided to WSDOT on the City of Spokane Valley's preferred interim and long- term improvements for the 1-90 interchange. Study Area The study area includes the Barker Road corridor between Mission Avenue and the South City Limits on the east side of Spokane Valley.The following 10 intersections along Barker Road were included in the study and mapped in Figure 1. 1. Barker Road/Mission Avenue 2. Barker Road/Boone Avenue 3. Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp/Cataldo Avenue 4, Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp 5. Barker Road/Broadway(east) 6. Barker Road/Broadway(west) 7. Barker Road/Appleway Avenue 8. Barker Road/Sprague Avenue 9. Barker Road/4th Avenue 10. Barker Road/8th Avenue City of Spokane Valley ' Page3e SOUTH SARI{ER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report Figure 1.Study Area Intersections • Mission AO °C I+AaxwuII Av Slntu 'Av qC L Sharp. AV t9 Buono Ave Broadway 4v t3roradway Av Alkl AvNY CoYlS" la cc 0 Ad av pv It ir . a. to . Sprague AV 0 2iid Av 3id Av 4th Av 0 Btli Av OD , x " 1. 9th Av l Av :-',', i _ ,� `may, aUth i� .J City of Spokane Valley 4 I I' a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/Z0 Updated Report METHODS &ASSUMPTIONS The following methods and assumptions were applied to forecast traffic and analyze traffic operations as part of this Study. Land Use Assumptions Traffic volumes at each of the study Intersections were estimated using the current version of the SRTC 2015 and 2040 regional travel demand models, which was last updated in December 2017. Fehr& Peers received a copy of the SRTC travel demand model on January 9, 2018. Land use assumptions were reviewed by the project technical advisory committee(TAC) on May 17, 2018 which Is comprised of staff representing Spokane Valley,Liberty Lake,Spokane County,WSDOT and SRTC.The TAC approved the land use assumptions on June 1, 2018 with three comments, including providing a comparison to what is assumed in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Incorporating impacts of new grade schools, and future land use forecasts in Liberty Lake-all of which are addressed below. Detailed land use data assumed In the model is provided In the following appendices: • Appendix A— Includes a summary of the forecast 2015-2040 change in dwelling units and employees by transportation analysis zone (TAZ) near the Study Area. • Appendix B—Includes a summary of the difference in assumed land use for the TAZs around Barker Road and 1-90 between the 2015 travel demand model used for the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update (prepared In 2016) and the current 2015 SRTC travel demand model used for this study. New Grade Schools In addition to the regional travel demand model, traffic forecasts also accounted for several new grade schools planned in the vicinity by 2021.These schools are not specifically accounted for in the model and include: • A new elementary school at Long Road and Mission Avenue in Spokane Valley(opens 2018) • A new middle school at Harvest Parkway and Mission Avenue in Liberty Lake(opens 2019) • A new high school near Sprague Avenue and Henry Road in Spokane County(opens 2021) It was determined through analysis of existing and future school location and enrollment zone boundaries as well as traffic studies completed for each school that the impact to traffic volume on Barker Road In the study area from the new elementary and middle school would result in a net neutral change. It was also determined that the primary impact from the new high school will be a shift in some traffic currently making a southbound right at the Barker Road/Appleway intersection to instead make a southbound through at that Intersection and a southbound left at the Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection. The Inverse movements at the two intersections'were also adjusted.In the southbound direction,80 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 17 vehicles in the PM peak hour were assumed to shift from making a southbound right at Barker Road/Appleway to making a southbound left at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue. In the northbound direction 37 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 19 vehicles In the PM peak hour were assumed to shift from making an eastbound left at Barker Road/Appleway to making a westbound right at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue and northbound through at Barker Road/Appleway, 1 For example,at Barker Road and Appleway Avenue southbound right turns were reduced and southbound through movements were Increased by the same margin.Similarly,eastbound left turns were also reduced with northbound through movements increased by the same margin. City of Spokane Valley 51 P a g e SOUTH BARI{ER CORRIDOR STUDY vII 2/7/20 Updated Report Liberty Lake Land Use Forecasts During the analysis stage,the City of Liberty Lake was in the process of updating their land use forecasts for 2040 as part of their Land Quantity Analysis. Land uses are expected to be different from the forecasts assumed In the current SRTC travel demand model, particularly in the Riverside District. Given this information was not yet available at the time of analysis,the 2015 and 2040 land use assumed for Liberty Lake In the current SRTC travel demand model was used. Assumptions regarding the future roadway network In Liberty Lake are explained below. Roadway Network Assumptions The SRTC travel demand model was also updated to account for several recent changes to the assumed 2040 roadway network as well as minor changes to the 2015 model to ensure recent projects were reflected.These changes are based on feedback provided by the project's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC),which included the City of Spokane Valley,WSDOT,Spokane County,and Liberty Lake.The changes to the network include the following. 2015 Model Changes: • Chapman Road was connected from 32nd Avenue to Barker Road just south of 12th Avenue to reflect existing conditions • The centroid connector at transportation analysis zone (TAZ) 369 was moved to load to 4th Ave and 8th Ave instead of Barker Road,which better reflects where the driveways In the area load onto the roadway network • The centroid connector at TAZ 392 was moved to load to 4th Ave instead of Barker Road • The centroid connector at TAZ 327 was moved to load onto Indiana Avenue (instead of the intersection of Barker Road/Indiana Avenue) • A second centrold connector at TAZ 327 connecting to Mission Avenue was deleted to match the 2040 model 2040 Model Changes: • Same changes made to the 2015 model • Indiana Avenue was connected through from Barker Road to Harvard Road • Instead of a new 1-90 Interchange at Henry Road (as is currently in the 2040 model), Henry Road was connected from Appleway Avenue to Mission Avenue via an overpass of 1-90, but with no 1-90 interchange;the current partial Interchange at Appleway Avenue was retained • The preferred alternative for the Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation project was assumed for the intersection of Barker Road/Trent Avenue • The south leg of the Flora Road/Trent Avenue intersection across the BNSF railroad track is assumed to close (consistent with the preferred alternative for the Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation project) • A new link was added between Flora Road and Barker Road north of Euclid Avenue and south of Trent Avenue (to reflect the Garland Avenue connection assumed In the Northeast Industrial Area PAO) • The centroid connector from TAZ 600 is assumed to be more heavily weighted toward Barker Road (reflecting the development potential in the Northeast Industrial Area assumed as part of the Northeast Industrial Area PAO) • Barker Road was assumed to be 5 lanes from Mission Avenue to 1-90 (to reflect planned mitigations In the SEIS to the Comprehensive Plan for the Northeast Industrial Area PAO) City of Spokane Valley 6 ' Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report It should be noted that the following planned improvements are already assumed in the current SRTC travel demand model: • The Barker Road/I-90 interchange would be reconfigured to a standard diamond interchange with two-lane roundabouts plus slip ramps for right-turn movements at both ramps (as reflected in I-90/Barker Rd Interchange Justification Report) • Barker Road between 1-90 and Appleway Avenue would be widened to five lanes as identified in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) • A new northbound lane would be added on Harvard Road across 1-90 Traffic Forecast Methodology Near-Term Traffic Forecasts An annual growth rate of 3.0% along Barker Road was used for near-term traffic forecasts through year 2020 (based on historic growth) and an annual growth rate of both 2.0% and 3.0%were used for traffic growth on Barker Road between year 2020 and 2028 to capture an upper and lower range of potential growth. 2040 Traffic Forecasts 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.The difference in traffic volumes between the 2015 and 2040 models are 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 will be multiplied by 0.88 to account for growth in traffic that occurred between 2015 and 2018 (22 years/25 years=0,88). Existing traffic data was collected during the AM and PM peak hour on Thursday, May 24' 2018 at all study intersections(see Figure 1)except Barker Road/Boone Avenue and Barker Road/8'h Avenue.Existing traffic volumes at Barker Road/Boone Avenue are based on counts collected on Tuesday, February 14", 2007 and existing volumes at Barker Road/8" Avenue are based on counts collected on Wednesday, February 14, 2018, Estimating AM Peak Volumes The regional travel demand model forecasts PM peak hour turn movements, but only forecasts 3-hour AM peak turn movements at each intersection. Therefore, the inverse of PM peak hour traffic growth multiplied by 80% was used to estimate AM peak hour traffic growth, This is consistent with research published in National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 3652 and in observed peak hour traffic count data collected in Spokane Valley. For example, 80% of growth in PM peak volumes for southbound right turn movements at each intersection were applied to eastbound left movements to get the AM peak traffic forecast. 2 Martin,W., N.McGuckin.Travel Estimating Techniques for Urban Planning. NCI-IRP Report 365, National Academy Press,Washington, D.C.,1998. City of Spokane Valley 7 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v©2/7/20 Updated Report Level of Service Standards Spokane Valley LOS 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 Figure 2. These are based on the Highway Capacity Manual,which is the methodology used by Spokane Valley.The LOS for signalized intersections and roundabouts is measured by the average delay per vehicle entering the intersection from ail approaches, while the LOS for unsignallzed Intersections is measured by the average delay per vehicle on the approach with the highest average delay. Figure 2:Level of service description and delay thresholds at intersections Level Signalized Unsignalized of Description Intersection Intersection Service Delay(seconds) Delay(seconds) A Free-flowing conditions. 0-10 0-10 B Stable operating conditions. 10-20 10-15 Stable operating conditions, but Individual motorists 20-35 15-25 are 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 55 80 35-50 low but uniform speed. F Over-capacity conditions with long delays. >80 >50 Source:Highway Capacity Manua/2016, Transportation Research Board The LOS standards used by Spokane Valley are defined in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: • LOS ID 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 Efor unsignalized intersections(LOS F acceptable if peak hour traffic signal warrant is unmet) WSDOT LOS Standards WSDOT also uses LOS thresholds for State Highways.The LOS standard for State Highways in Urban Areas is LOS D. Within the Study Area this would apply to the Barker Road/I-90 interchange,This LOS standard applies to roadway segments and signalized and stop controlled intersections. City of Spokane Valley 8 j P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v£i 2/7/20 Updated Report Per WSDOT's recommended guidance, the primary measure of effectiveness (MOE) for roundabout analysis is not LOS, but the overall intersection and approach volume to capacity (v/c) ratios. WSDOT recommends that v/c ratios not exceed 0.85-0.9 for any approach or the entire intersection, which typically corresponds to LOS D. Traffic Analysis Methodology In order to analyze traffic operations, including LOS, v/c ratios and/or impacts of queuing,the following traffic engineering software was used in accordance with WSDOT Traffic Analysis policies and protocols: • Synchro- Synchro software (version 9.2) was be used to evaluate AM and PM peak hour LOS at most signalized and stop controlled intersections. LOS was measured using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 methodology within Synchro. All settings were set to be consistent with WSDOT Synchro Protocol.The observed intersection peak hour factor averaged for all approaches was used for the existing conditions analysis and near-term traffic analysis.A PHF of 1.0 was used for the 2040 analysis. A saturation flow rate of 1,775 vehicles per lane per hour was assumed in order to be consistent with City of Spokane Valley practice along the Barker Road corridor, • Sidra -Sidra software (version 7.0) was used to analyze the AM and PM peak hour v/c ratios for intersections with a roundabout configuration, All settings were set to be consistent with WSDOT's Sidra Policy Settings (WSDOT,April 2018). • SimTraffic—SimTraffic software was used to analyze the AM and PM peak hour traffic operational performance for closely spaced Intersections in order to capture the impacts to traffic delay of queuing.This includes the intersections with Barker Road/Cataldo Avenue and Barker Road/I-90 under the single-lane roundabout configuration proposed by WSDOT as an interim solution. All settings were set to be consistent with WSDOT SlmTraffic Protocol with the same PHF and saturation flow rate used in the Synchro analysis. SimTraffic was not used to analyze operations with two-lane roundabouts. Sidra software was used In those instances, EXISTING CONDITIONS Within the 1.6 mile segment of Barker Road between Mission Avenue and the south Spokane Valley City limits there are four signalized intersections. These are located where Barker Road crosses Mission Avenue, Cataldo Avenue/I-90 westbound ramp, 1-90 eastbound ramp and Appleway Avenue. There is a four-way stop at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue. All other intersection are controlled by side-street stop signs.The segment of Barker Road north of Boone Avenue is a three lane street with bike lanes, curb and gutter and 5-foot sidewalks on both sides. South of Boone Avenue Barker Road is a two-lane street without curb,gutter,storm drain or sidewalks.South of Appleway there is an asphalt paved multiuse trail on the west side of the street that extends to Chapman Road in unincorporated Spokane County. Existing peak hour traffic volumes and lane configurations at the ten study intersections are shown in Figure 3. 3 www.wsdot,wa.grov/Design/Traffic/Analysis/ City of Spokane Valley Wage ! I C C 'a E a a g z.se 1. feel 0s (19Y)sag m c',6 fl)l N -0 cri L ix rAA ..-WM 092 *p^ 5 (l9CS COV C O 4' r (9s2)sL4 n 1z)0 • i^ (1)0 I -d a C31-0 '• c ql a, V 4= 'C y a w P.a, a c 0 (l2E)Piz-. •fir ".. 1SiS£- � • (e0s)ILI-$r EEG. # '� '^ in n N N • (sze)E4Y ' m M n (91)01 a.-r mom aei m c J M Ul ..r E o _ • i.� n to r o v Ill)6Z ' (Y)L l a B QC)YC c o O O 4--(9L4)4YY T .x- 4—(422)9LE x O 4 ,. I01)4 - • (Y04)OGS E • .1+ (atS 9i -8 1 �, T. ALFA m (0)a 4Z 1r 1r . (09)!C m (00l)06 *1 • W 0 �'" )"" oF (196)Iv L EE m (OYD 091--y ai (0(92)61"s' d°q"'r. W 4- 03 Iri 74sif4 ..a i s I v c V E qwA_ ..y gg" (BYl)O9 E 1 �+ rig gt ti{49)14 `�' co. a m ir='i99Y)1 O) *i{4941 Zl9 °+f {C521 21C gi n al 4—OM 00C �] °r(BS)BY 4 I (05)YE i lL 41S 4 lu a.t, i �L - m x6.: 4� v..e i +{e .ter t. t ▪ (42)BZ J, I ro,a 00 ry� (191)Ls 'n I I d (90 9 t (04E)f1Z4—� -�'. Fi f1BC)Col-ys �^RA (C58)101.4. RE n i rat F (001)Yl l o b IL4)1 0 44, d. e w k4 g " 6 HnelSar.fld I XII./„14. A II]L..fc PId i� I Il0ICQIM Il0radf PO k y {A. K s E ,,, sllrAarf 9.l IIH•2r4r g ovot.SwaiLl k )0 9 ii r 0 4411m.rn,lad P„`0) . intent-ter Lk q s 11 t iofa r G /0 ELWrtne ,. : Y QSBn,ka HlQHUIu Rd ®Q00® Nfserl.,Rd Os Rd O© It x yp r I ILI.r,.. II II tI re;MI iW ePr.n I.. I > C ilQarnavw Ad Rt.eennaa Pd 0 K 6dlenime'md I Ho 1e . 441c.n Aa aw Lil ,:�,,,.a+ !r 14 w 0+ a,,ee..L. g •i , w - i'F/ j1 ,a I,am..9n t Q .aa.d��1 rl,..,..o.t S'4� Jr u SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report Intersection Level of Service The AM and PM peak hour level of service (LOS) at the 10 study area intersections are summarized In Figure 4. The intersections between Boone Avenue and Broadway were analyzed using SimTraffic to account for the Impact of queuing given the close spacing of intersections as well as the split signal phasing currently used at the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp. All other intersections were analyzed using Synchro. Figure 4.Existing conditions level of service and delay. AM Peak l PM Peak Side Software Intersection Control Street (all KM Delay LOS Delay LOS Stop 2010) Approach Barker/Mission Signal 12 B 13 B Synchro Barker/Boone Side-Street Stop >100 F 64 F EB SimTraffic Barker/I-SO Westbound Signal 57 E 29 C SimTraffic Ramp/Cataldo Barker/I-90 Eastbound Signal 57 E 103 F SimTraffic Ramp Barker/Broadway(N) Side-Street Stop >100 F >100 F WB SimTraffic Barker/Broadway (S) Side-Street Stop 60 F 43 E EB SimTraffic Barker/Appleway Signal 21 C 30 C Synchro Barker/Sprague All-Way Stop 26 D 49 E Synchro Barker/4th Side-Street Stop 16 C 17 C EB Synchro Barker/8th Side-Street Stop 23 C 23 C EB Synchro Source: Fehr& Peers,2018 Results show that under existing conditions, the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp/Cataldo Avenue intersection operates at LOS E in the AM peak hour and the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour.Thus, both Intersections of Barker Road/I-90 do not currently meet WSDOT LOS standards. Additionally, the queue along Barker Road from the two 1-90 intersections Impacts the LOS at both Barker Road/Boone Avenue and the two Barker Road/Broadway intersections, causing all three intersections to operate at LOS F during either the AM or PM peak hours or both.Additionally the Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection is operating at LOS E during the PM peak hour. This Intersection has been identified by COSV as a location in need of improvement to address existing congestion and multimodal operations.Results of the existing conditions traffic analysis show this intersection is just two additional seconds of delay from operating at LOS F. A small increase in traffic Is likely cause this intersection to operate at LOS F without improvements. The existing average and maximum queue lengths at the Barker Road/I-90 interchange during the AM peak hour are shown in Figure 5 and In the PM peak hour are shown in Figure 6. In the AM peak hour a long queue forms in the southbound direction at the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp Intersection. In the PM peak hour a long queue forms in the eastbound direction at the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection. It should be noted the distance between the gore point In the eastbound direction of I-90 City of Spokane Valley 11 I Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY ve 2/7/20 Updated Report and the Barker Road intersection is about 1,700 feet and the average queue on this segment during the PM peak hour is 1,200 feet and the maximum queue is 1,500 feet. Figure 5.Existing AM peak hour queue lengths at the Barker Road/I-90 interchange Maximum Intersection Direction Average Queue Queue(feet) (feet) EB 60 120 Barker/ 1-90 NB 300 510 westbound/Cataldo SB 730 1,200 W B 100 170 EB 150 260 Barker/1-90 eastbound NB 160 170 SB 170 260 Source:Fehr&Peers,2018 Figure 6.Existing PM peak hour queue lengths at the Barker Road/I-90 interchange Maximum Intersection Direction Average Queue Queue(feet) (feet) EB 70 120 Barker/I-90 NB 190 340 westbound/Cataldo SB 420 630 WB 100 160 EB 1,200 1,500 Barker/I-90 eastbound NB 160 180 513 440 630 Source:Fehr& Peers, 2018 Corridor Level of Service The existing corridor level of service within the study area is LOS D derived from average daily traffic(ADT) on each roadway segment and weighted by the segrnent's length. Based on the posted speed and number of lanes, the LOS D threshold for the corridor is 13,800 ADT (as defined in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual), and the length-average ADT-to-LOS D volume threshold ratio is 0.83.As long as the ratio is less than or equal to 1.00,the corridor is defined as operating at LOS D or better even though some intersections may experience greater congestion than LOS D. City of Spokane Valley 12 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report I-90 INTERCHANGE INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY& FINDINGS The Barker Road/1-90 interchange Is currently operating at LOS I; or worse at one or both interchange intersections in both the AM and PM peak hour,thus failing WSDOT LOS standards.WSDOT has proposed an interim solution that includes single-lane roundabouts at each ramp intersection until the long-term concept proposed in the 2014 IJR can be implemented. Traffic analysis was performed for the intersections between Barker Road/Boone Avenue and Barker Road/Broadway, including both ramps of the Barker Road/I-90 interchange in years 2020,2023,and 2028.The analysis was performed to determine how well and for how long a single-lane roundabouts as depicted In Figure 7 would operate acceptably at the two intersections. Figure 7.Barker Road/i-90 Interchange Interim Concept proposed by WSDOT r hi III �' 1 I1 4 , r1 I , • I try I, • '� i —1, .1,, i I ,ram i -iI: 7I L},X l I A \\' r NI 1 4-I; 1 .'� f f' Iii� rr 1 I,i,,If Q,q , ! I,I r _ . , +,f 4 fl c. r �, ' ` fl d 1 4 i I L A( t' '?p/f'1',t; q ,I "l L i. lii - 14 I Single Lane: aundebouta „ „ sae. iy ; , row ' r 5.. i t 1 {rt► . t ''. ,_ a r 'a i q h i \ Lit iI r eia�`r a,rZr y. I • % ' i' i, it:'dK;di 'JhA;,lµ r. r` ",%fid;/�111;, ,t� , `�Y 4 ,_ to ly,4stilway F#rosdw Y- �F z,' ' �Atix11 iu allittrie + ,ccce,4 ,i t+4 4Is "r e _ ! f I, l0 I I41 Source: WSDOT A subsequent revision to this Interim concept, shown in Figure 8, shifted the northern single-lane roundabout to the existing Cataldo Avenue/Barker Road/1-90 Westbound intersection, maintaining the existing "hook ramp" configuration. According to the best available information at this time regarding long-term plans for the Interchange and replacement of the Barker Road Bridge, the advantage of this configuration,as compared to the tight diamond configuration(shown in Figure 7 and originally proposed as the interim solution) is that the proposed location of the Barker Road/westbound ramp Intersection is City of Spokane Valley 13 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY vr3 2/7/20 Updated Report farther from 1-90 than what is proposed with a tight diamond configuration. This would allow WSDOT to convert a single-lane roundabout at this location to a two-lane roundabout in the future when the Barker Road Bridge over 1-90 is replaced without necessitating lowering the elevation of the 1-90 travel lanes in order to achieve the required clearance under the bridge, Figure 8.Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp intersection—revised interim Concept • f -..u.�-• f y ,n. ter ,r r•�tl�+ ''q. • � :'�' ':`( �" " E, _`._`mBOONE AVE' ` rl 'J 1 I JtA ei�1 y I Sl aria"out _ I , • j��r�I�•� '.1:r 11 r 't Illllririlh11cd11! -- ' l I J7 15 •. . I �^ili�n nErnrs ' � // ' y,,� /y 'a F e - t - - • YYv 4fa Source: WSDOT A summary of the Icey findings of this traffic analysis are presented below: • A single lane roundabout will operate acceptably at Barker/I-90 Interchange in 2020 with: o A 2"d southbound approach lane at the westbound ramp — This can be Implemented through restriping and curb modification within the existing ROW. o A 2"d eastbound approach lane at the eastbound ramp ■ The eastbound ramp intersection will drop below LOS D sometime between 2023 and 2028 o Main constraint:: sometime between 2023 and 2028 the northbound traffic demand across the bridge will exceed the physical capacity of the bridge (1,000-1,100 vph) • Regardless of the configuration (either what is shown in Figure 7 or Figure 8) westbound ramp will operate at an acceptable LOS by 2028 because the eastbound roundabout will effectively "meter" northbound traffic so that there will be gaps for the heavy southbound traffic to enter Figure 9 summarizes the LOS results based on SlmTraffic. It should also be noted that Sidra analysis was also performed for both intersections in years 2020,2023 and 2028 with results showing that the v/c ratio would exceed the 0.85-0,9 threshold for both Intersections sometime between 2023 and 2028, with the eastbound ramp falling sooner, However, unlike the Sidra results,SirnTraffic showed that the eastbound ramp intersection would effectively "meter" traffic entering the westbound ramp intersection resulting in acceptable LOS at that intersection through 2028, City of Spokane Valley 14 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY va 2/7/20 Updated Report Figure 9.Year 2028 slmTraffic LOS results under the"hook ramp"concept at the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp Intersection Control AM Peak PM Peak Delay I LOS Delay I LOS Barker/Boone Side-Street Stop 66 E 30 D Barker/Cataldo/I-90 westbound ramp Roundabout 40 D 17 B Barker/I-90 eastbound ramp Roundabout 84 F 88 F Barker/Broadway Side-Street Stop 107 F 218 F Source:Fehr&Peers,2018 The results of this analysis demonstrate that the interim solution (modified with a second approach lane at one leg of each intersection and revised to maintain the existing location "hook ramp"configuration at Barker Road/Cataldo Avenue/I-90 westbound ramp intersection) for the Barker Road/I-90 interchange would last about 5-10 years before falling below WSDOT LOS standards. Given this, it is recommended that the City of Spokane Valley work with WSDOT to secure funding within 5-10 years to replace the Barker Road Bridge over I-90 with a four-lane bridge. 2040 ANALYSIS & FINDINGS Traffic analysis of the Barker Corridor intersections was performed with the assumption that several already planned transportation projects would be implemented.This includes: • Barker Road from Mission Avenue to Appleway would be widened to five lanes (through a combination of several projects). • The Barker Road/I-90 Interchange would be reconfigured into two-lane roundabouts at each ramp intersection similar to the Barker Road IJR preferred alternative, with some modifications(as described below),including adding Boone Avenue into the westbound ramp roundabout and preserving the existing hook ramp configuration for the westbound ramp. • The east leg of Broadway would be realigned with the west leg of Broadway at Barker Road. These changes would effectively consolidate the Barker Road/Boone Avenue intersection with the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp/Cataldo Avenue intersection and consolidate the two Broadway intersections into one. Consolidation of these intersection means under 2040 conditions there would be eight study intersections instead of ten,Traffic volumes and lane configurations assumed in 2040 at each of the study intersections are shown in Figure 10. City of Spokane Valley 15 I P a g e = `,a4 - a_ - 1.Barker/Mission R 2 8arkerIWB1 90 OnIOEf-Ramp 3,Barkes/E81-90 OnlDif Ramp ^o T L n .-.R n o 4b`4 El= �\ ift ti a. nTN :_ dz.. , gig El Ot Art EEE.154Ava El Na ,40(BO) c s is ,.i.m 2E,7ti -100(175) n two OIB7 P ,11R, �5) % �• f aroj°0) IL eu .t ed skiie caso... - 75(215) ya i11 cwe+ (5 95) -1. in a `% 81(170) a. w`w 6,s1 295 ails) . ^= s huts Cellar 130(150) L01 w m 01 0) A Mq-jhs .-H Lyay\ g'a8uso ao noo ZC 4 ACRES rigki.A,. Eiaa,ie.a c `-6xe , • ' o 4.Barker/Broadway 5.Barker/A,ppleway 5.Barker/Sprague Fre der LOW Wall t `. v r:1_ ;FIEtan n r 115(115) 205(11 0) - - ALL>part2Olans, '4 d ' 4(5 <NO -4-:_-_525 MO N N r . 70 Ms) ldtvinh dtri YL 5(10) .i .-65(1b0) • 4, 20(50) W t<o{1ao) ;ga s sue... v +.. 0(0)Z' E 8 Y70{590)-T �"" (5)re T5(5) a - 55(50) 4"M1 c a n ..,...1 • EM:6.. • o of • < i. E , Crt I 7.Barker/4th B.Barkerleih _fandre rra ` Mir rr >X f��„o.. *'.,n 'S-5(5) c a N .i 20 f25) a Sh0 9C Geovvv*S� ,.. • 5 o- "I 5(5) 30(45) J W C Stay,... h en m S. flan' 1 Ctv.t.x» 25 C251 I.vr 5(15) it 5(5)-k ;?F,lr 20(25)-4. a, vwra.v.wrr. 5(5) ow„w 5(15) -Sp KS.I*Ava T _ n ' C1 +0 « e _ - F - 0411Ave 4 C gr Etta. II t F . �a,� il- /40 =�1 """' w Go:sie Figure 10.2040 Conditions rok : - - '^sla.-- _ 2 Traffic Volumes &Lane Confgurations IISouth Barker Corridor Study SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY vti 2/7/20 Updated Report Barker Road/I-90 Interchange Configuration A conceptual layout in 2040 of the Barker Road/1-90 eastbound ramp Intersection is shown in Figure 11 and a conceptual layout of the Barker Road/1-90 westbound ramp intersection is shown in Figure 12,The configuration of the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection would be largely the same as the Barker Road IJR preferred alternative, including a roundabout with two circulating lanes and two eastbound approach lanes on the 1-90 off-ramp. However,the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp intersection was modified from the Barker Road IJR preferred alternative in order to preserve the"hook ramp" configuration at the same location as today, with Cataldo Avenue on the east leg, Reasons for this change were to satisfy City of Spokane Valley and WSDOT's desire to shift the interim solution to a location that better accommodates long-term reconstruction of the interchange, as well as City of Spokane Valley's desire to find a solution with the least impact to private property. Converting the 1-90 westbound ramp to a diamond interchange would have either required Cataldo Avenue to be rerouted through private property to Boone Avenue or the Barker Road/1-90 westbound ramp intersection to be moved closer to 1-90.The original IJR preferred alternative would also have necessitated lowering 1-90 in order to achieve adequate clearance under the Barker Road Bridge. Preserving the hook ramp negates both of these potential issues. While the bridge will still need to be replaced to achieve adequate clearance,the proposed configuration would allow sufficient approach length to achieve adequate clearance without the need of lowering I-90. In addition,the east and west leg of Boone Avenue was added to the westbound ramp roundabout in order to preserve full movement on Boone Avenue and reduce the potential Impacts of loss of access or additional ROW needed to provide access near the existing Boone Avenue intersection.These modifications result in a roundabout with six legs.Without this configuration Boone Avenue would be too close to the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp roundabout to safely operate with full movements, It should be noted that the concepts shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12 are schematic in nature and the exact diameter of a future roundabout would need to be determined through a more detailed engineering study,The assumed length of the roundabout diameter does not affect the Sidra outputs. City of Spokane Valley 17 I P a g e SOUTIN BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY vti 2/7/20 Updated Report Figure 11.2040 Barker Rd/I-90 eastbound ramp Intersection concept(same as Barker Road IJR preferred alternative) • .w • & a f �Ywlln 1} a a -1 I �, f a 1 g IP Source:Fehr&Peers, 2018 Figure 12.2040 Barker Rd/I-90 westbound ramp intersection concept(modified from Barker Road IJR preferred alternative) 1kee 1 I fob . 41.\\,_ ,,,j8(.,,,,____,.„...,.., ,r o VIGI ‘\1/4...„..„... !,a //r Iw /„ r r jpe Source: Fehr& Peers, 2018 City of Spokane Valley 1B I p a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY va 2/7/20 Updated Report Intersection Level of Service Findings The AM and PM peak hour level of service (LOS) findings at the eight study area intersections are summarized in Figure 13.The I-90 intersections were analyzed using Sidra.The more relevant measure of effectiveness for these intersections per WSDOT policy is v/c ratio,which is shown in Figure 14. All other intersections were analyzed using Synchro. Figure 13.2040 conditions level of service and delay. AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Control Software(all Delay LOS Delay LOS HCM 20101 Barker/Mission Signal 20 B 25 C Synchro Barlcer/I-90 WB Ramp/Cataldo/Boone Roundabout 17 B 13 B Sidra Barker/I-90 EB Ramp Roundabout 9 A 12 B Sidra Barker/Broadway Side-Street Stop 71(EB) F >300(EB) F Synchro Barker/Appleway Signal 30 C 46 D Synchro Barker/Sprague All-Way Stop 132(NB) F >300(SB) F Synchro Barker/4th Side-Street Stop 22 C 33 D Synchro Barker/8th Side-Street Stop 17 C 33 D Synchro Source: Fehr&Peers,2018 Figure 14.Volume-to-capacity ratio in 2040 for Barker Road/I-90 Interchange roundabouts. AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Control 95% 95% Software (all v/c Queue v/c HCM 2010) Queue Barker/I-90 WB 240 ft. 110 ft. Ramp/Cataldo/Boone Roundabout 0,69 (SB) 0.54 Sidra(NB) Barker/I-90 EB Ramp Roundabout 0.47 0.70 90 ft. 150 ft. Sidra Source:Fehr& Peers, 2018 Results presented In Figure 14 show that under existing 2040 conditions,the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection and the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp/Cataido Avenue/Boone Avenue intersection as laid out in Figure 11and Figure 12, respectively,would operate acceptably.The v/c ratio would be meet the WSDOT threshold of 0.85-0.90 for both intersection in both the AM and PM peak hour. Results presented in Figure 13 show that the Barker Road/Sprague Intersection(which had poor LOS under existing conditions) would operate at LOS F In both the AM and PM peak hour without improvements. City of Spokane Valley 19 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v©2/7/20 Updated Report Additionally,the Barker Road/Broadway Intersection would operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hour and would meet the peak hour signal warrant in the PM peak hour,thus failing the City of Spokane LOS threshold in 2040. Analysis shows that the Barker Road/4th Avenue and Barker Road/8'h' Avenue intersection will with acceptable LOS through 2040 under the existing configurations with side street stop control. These Intersections would also operate acceptably with a signal or roundabout although the forecasts do not indicate that either Intersection would meet the peak hour signal warrant in 2040. Mitigation Measures • Barker Road/Sprague Avenue - Traffic operations at the Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection were analyzed in Sidra assuming a single-lane roundabout concept and in Synchro assuming a traffic signal with left turn lanes and protected left-turn signal timing for all approaches. Results, shown in Figure 15, demonstrate that a single-lane roundabout or a traffic signal with protected left-turn lanes would result In acceptable traffic operations at this intersection in 2040. Figure 16 summarizes the pros and cons of implementing a traffic signal as compared to a roundabout at this intersection.The primary differences in a traffic signal versus a roundabout relate to traffic safety, cost, right-of-way impact,impervious surface and landscaping opportunities. While this study recommends a roundabout at this intersection primarily due to the safety benefits, the City will undertake a separate and more detailed design study as part of implementation to determine the ultimate future intersection configuration. Figure 15.Volume-to-capacity ratio,LOS and/or delay in 2040 with mitigations. AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Control Software v/c LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay Barker/Sprague Roundabout 0.52 A - 0.59 A - Sidra Barker/Sprague Signal - C 34 - D 36 Synchro Source:Fehr& Peers,2018 City of Spokane Valley 20 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY vii 2/7/20 Updated Report Figure 16.Pros and cons of a roundabout versus a traffic signal at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection. Factors Roundabout versus Traffic Signal Traffic Safety The primary benefit of a roundabout over a traffic signal is related to traffic safety. Research provided by WSDOT shows that on average single-lane roundabouts result in 75%fewer injury crashes and 90%fewer fatalities than signalized intersections. Roundabouts mitigate the risk of moderate-to- high-speed broadside crashes commonly caused by a driver running the red light at a traffic signal. Capital Cost On average the capital cost of constructing a roundabout is higher than the capital cost of constructing a signalized intersection, but this can vary from location to location. Operations& Long-term operations and maintenance costs associated with a Maintenance Cost roundabout are typically lower than those associated with a traffic signal (about$5,000 to$10,000 per year based on COSV research), often enough to offset the higher capital cost of a roundabout over the life of the project. Right-Of-Way impact On average,the right-of-way(ROW) impact of a roundabout can be greater than a traffic signal, but varies depending on the location and number of turn lanes.At the Barker/Sprague location the area of ROW impact would be similar with a roundabout or a signal and neither would impact existing structures. Impervious Surface A roundabout could result in more impervious surface than a traffic signal depending on whether the center island is landscaped or hardscaped. Art&Landscape Roundabouts typically have more opportunity for landscaping Opportunities or art (primarily because of the center island)than traffic signals. Noise&Air Pollution Roundabouts typically result in less air pollution and noise than a traffic signal due to less idling and fewer hard accelerations. • Barker Road/Broadway — Additionally, a two-lane roundabout at the Barker Road/Broadway intersection would result in acceptable operations in year 2040. A traffic signal is not advised at this location due to the proximity of this intersection to the planned roundabout at the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp and the potential for queue spiliback onto the 1-90 roundabout. An acceptable alternative to a roundabout would be to convert this intersection to right-in/right- out/left-in only configuration. However, this type of Intersection configuration would result In some degree of inconvenience for drivers trying to make a left-turn from either leg of Broadway to Barker Road as they would have go out of direction to make that movement. If there is substantial commercial development along the Broadway corridor in the future, the lack of left- out movement could be a major impact to the viability of retail businesses. However, if the Broadway corridor has similar land uses as today (or other lower trip generating uses like offices or apartments),the lack of outbound left-turns would be less of an impact. City of Spokane Valley 21 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v©2/7/20 Updated Report Diverging Roundabout Concept Given the high volume of northbound left turns from Barker Road onto 1-90 westbound (700 in the AM peak),WSDOT suggested that a "diverging roundabout"concept be tested to see if the interchange could operate effectively with single-lane roundabouts. A diverging roundabout is a diverging diamond interchange with roundabouts instead of signalized "crossover" Intersections—see an example in Figure 17.The advantage of this concept Is It eliminates all turning vehicle conflicts. The only point of conflict is where through traffic must cross over to the other side of the road. A diverging diamond interchange works best in situations where there are high volumes of vehicles turning off or onto the highway and not a lot of through movement on the road crossing the highway. Figure 17.Diverging roundabout concept. image source:lattps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms5Tv2 JPME Sidra software was used to test the diverging roundabout concept In 2040 with one circulating lane at both the eastbound and westbound 1-90 ramp intersections with Barker Road. Results are shown in Figure 15 and illustrate this configuration would meet WSDOT standards during three of the four conditions tested. This configuration would result in unacceptable operations at the Barker Road/I-90 westbound ramp in the PM peak hour due to the high volume of northbound and southbound through movements. The primary other disadvantage of this configuration is it would require a diamond interchange, which means the hook ramp would have to be removed and Cataldo Avenue would have to be rerouted to Boone Avenue. It should be noted, however,that a diverging roundabout interchange would likely meet WSDOT LOS standards if the roundabouts were dual-lane and there was a four-lane bridge over 1-90(although this configuration was not specifically analyzed). Figure 18.2040 volume-to-capacity ratio and 95%queue with a single-lane diverging roundabout. AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Control Software v/c 95%Q v/c 95%Q Barker^/I-90 WB Roundabout 0.49 80 feet 0.93 590 feet Sidra Barker/I-90 EB Roundabout 0,65 120 feet 0.52 110 feet Sidra Source:Fehr& Peers,2018 City of Spokane Valley 22 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY vu 2/7/24 Updated Report 2040 RECOMMENDATIONS Recommended transportation improvements for the Barker Road corridor are organized by two distinct segments of the corridor, the section between Mission Avenue and Appleway Avenue and the section between Appleway Avenue and the south City limits. Mission Avenue to Appleway Avenue The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Identifies a five-lane urban section for Barker Road between Mission Avenue and Appleway Avenue.The segment between 1-90 and Appleway Avenue is also Identified in the Spokane Valley six-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) as a five-lane arterial. Furthermore the segment between Mission Avenue and 1-90 Is identified in the in the Northeast Industrial Area Planned Action Ordinance (PAO), which is in the process of being adopted as a supplement to the Spokane Comprehensive Plan EIS. WSDOT has allocated funding in 2019 and 2020 for implementing an Interim improvement to the Barker Road/I-90 interchange until a longer-term solution can be implemented as identified in the SRTC Horizon 2040 Plan and 1-90/Barker Road IJR. Based on these previously planned projects and findings of the traffic operations analysis presented in the previous section of this report,the following projects are recommended for Barker Road north of Appleway Avenue. • Barker Road/1-90 Interchange Interim improvements—It is recommended that WSDOT convert the 1-90 eastbound and westbound ramp intersections with Barker Road to single-lane roundabouts as an interim measure to improve traffic operations and safety until funding for a longer-term solution can be secured. Roundabouts would be implemented at the same locations as the ramp terminal Intersections are located today.As part of this project,a second southbound approach lane should be added on Barker Road at the westbound ramp.This can be Implemented through restriping and curb modification within the existing ROW. Additionally, a second eastbound approach lane should be added to the eastbound 1-90 off-ramp. WSDOT will also realign the east leg of Broadway to match the location of the existing west leg. Traffic analysis shows that this solution will operate effectively for about 5-10 years. Thus, It is recommended that WSDOT and City of Spokane Valley work to secure funding for a longer-term solution within the next 5 to 10 years. • Barker Road/I-90 Interchange Long-Term improvements — It is recommended that WSDOT convert the 1-90 eastbound and westbound ramp intersections with Barker Road to two-lane roundabouts as a longer-term solution to improve traffic operations through 2040. Consistent with recommendations from the 2014 IJR, this would Include two eastbound approach lanes at the Barker Road/I-90 eastbound ramp intersection and an expansion of the roundabout to include two circulating lanes.However,unlike the 2014 IJR,It is recommended that westbound hook ramp be preserved and the roundabout at the westbound ramp be implemented as a six-leg Intersection with Cataido and Boone Avenue(this would also require that the Interim roundabout be widened to include two circulating lanes).This project would include replacement of the Barker Road Bridge over 1-90 with a four-lane bridge including a multiuse trail or sidewalk on both sides to wide enough to allow for safe circulation of bicyclists and pedestrians. • Barker Road — Mission Avenue to Boone Avenue Widening— It is recommended that Spokane Valley widen this segment of Barker Road to a five-lane urban section. This project has been Identified In the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Industrial Area PAO. It is recommended that this project be implemented at the same time as (or shortly after) the long term Improvements are made to the Barker Road/I-90 Interchange. City of Spokane Valley 23 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report • Barker Road—1-90 to Appleway Avenue Widening-it is recommended that Spokane Valley widen this segment of Barker Road to a five-lane urban section. This project is identified in the 2019- 2024 TIP. It is recommended that this project be implemented at the same time as the long term improvements are made to the Barker Road/I-90 interchange. Given that traffic analysis also shows the Barker Road/Broadway intersection will need improvement by 2040, it is also recommended that either a two-lane roundabout at Barker Road/Broadway be implemented as part of this project or the intersection be converted to prevent left-out movements.A roundabout at Broadway was Included in the TIP. ApplewayAvenue to South City Limits As identified in the traffic operations analysis,the South Barker corridor will operate acceptably in 2040 with either single-lane roundabouts or traffic signals at the major intersections (Sprague Ave,4th Ave, 8th Ave).^ The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and TIP identify a three-lane urban roadway section between Appleway and the southern city limit. This roadway would consist of one travel lane in each direction,a two-way left-turn lane, a sidewalk,and the existing multi-use trail. Traffic signal control at the major intersections is entirely consistent with the three-lane cross section, since left-turn lanes approaching the intersections would be required.This configuration is very common In Spokane Valley. However,single-lane roundabouts do not require a turn-lane at the major intersections and this configuration could be pursued with a narrower cross-section with just two travel lanes In each direction. While it Is true that traffic signals (with widening at the major intersections) could also be accommodated with a two-lane segment, this configuration is less common in the Valley (existing two- lane roads with traffic signals often do not have turn lanes at major intersections, which reduces the capacity of the street). Based on this finding, Spokane Valley may wish to consider a two-lane cross section for all or a portion of the South Barker Road corridor. Figure 19 illustrates a few pros and cons of the three-lane versus two- lane configuration. For purposes of this study,the cost estimates assume the full three-lane buildout to capture the higher potential cost, which would lead to a cost savings if the two-lane design is ultimately selected. "Note that In the near-term (next 5-6 years), only the Intersection at Barker Rd/Sprague Ave will likely warrant a traffic signal or roundabout to address poor traffic LOS. However, as development Increases in the future It is not unlikely that the intersections at 4th Ave and 8th Ave will eventually need to be upgraded from their current side- street stop control.As of now, it does not appear that these intersections will require upgrades prior to 2040, but that could change if a larger use(e.g.,apartment,church)is permitted along one of these streets. City of Spokane Valley 24 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report Figure 19.Pros and cons of a two-lane versus three-lane configuration south of Appleway. Option Pros Cons Two-lane • 33 percent less paved area; results In • No mid-block left-turn lane;may configuration lower up-front costs and lower long- require a median to prohibit left- term maintenance costs turns at larger developments or a • Less impervious surface reduces short widened section to stormwater conveyance and accommodate a turn lane treatment costs • Retrofitting a turn lane could be • More space within the right-of-way costly If a parcel Is rezoned at a for wider sidewalks or landscaped later date for a more intensive area use Three-lane • Once this configuration is in place, • Higher cost to build and maintain configuration there is no need to retrofit the road • More Impervious surface and to accommodate left-turns at larger water runoff developments • Less opportunity for landscaping • Better accommodates more trip- intensive land uses like multifamily residential Source:Fehr& Peers,2018 Given these pros and cons, along with the potential for rezoning of the land north of Sprague Avenue to more dense residential,the following projects are recommended: • Barker Road/Sprague Avenue Intersection Improvements—Implement a single lane roundabout at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection to Improve traffic operations and safety.This project should be prioritized for this segment and can be Implemented prior to making corridor-wide improvements. A roundabout is recommended over a traffic signal at this intersection because roundabouts tend to have lower numbers of serious traffic collisions and they cost less to maintain in the long-run compared to traffic signals. In addition,with all the other roundabouts being built by WSDOT farther north on the corridor, roundabouts will be a common and consistent traffic control device on Barker Road. • Barker Road—Appleway Avenue to Sprague Avenue Widening— Implement a three-lane cross section between Appleway and Sprague Avenue; consider extending the existing northbound right-turn lane at Appleway approximately 200 feet south to Laberry Drive and converting this to a northbound through-right lane when Barker Road is widened north of Appleway. • Barker Road—Sprague Avenue to South City Limits Improvements--Implement a two-lane cross section south of Sprague Avenue. in the design, set the multi-use trail and sidewalk in a position that could ultimately accommodate a three-lane cross section. Build two lanes of a potential three-lane configuration where one side of the street will have a final curb and gutter and the other side of the street will have a shoulder and swale for drainage. In this way, the street can more-easily be widened if it Is ever necessary to accommodate a mid-block turn lane, but most of the corridor will benefit from the narrower cross-section. Given the current single-family zoning and the generally smaller parcels south of Sprague, it seems that this area Is less likely to see pressure for rezoning and the two-lane cross section will operate well in the future. • 411'Avenue and 8t1'Avenue Intersection Improvements- Phase the construction of Barker Road to include single-lane roundabouts at 4t1' Avenue and 8t1' Avenue along with the two-lane configuration. City of Spokane Valley 25 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY va 2/7/20 Updated Report IMPLEMENTATION The recommended transportation improvements can be summarized into a total of eight projects along the South Barker Road Corridor. A list of these projects, along with a brief description, timeframe for implementation,and estimated cost in 2018 dollars for the portion Spokane Valley would be responsible for are shown in Figure 20.Reference to the program and project number from previous plans,documents or the City's TIP is also identified. Figure 20.South Barker Road projects and cost estimates to be Implemented through year 2040, COSV Agency Project Description (Project#) Responsible Cost Estimate (2018$$) IMMEDIATE(2019.2020) 1.90 Eastbound Ramp! Reconstruct intersection with Barker Road single-lane roundabout and Iwo Horizon 2040 WSDOT N/A Interchange Interim eastbound approach lanes; Plan(#12) Improvements realign east leg of Broadway Reconstruct Intersection with 1-90 Westbound Ramp! single-lane roundabout and two Barker Road Horizon 2040 WSDOT N/A Interchange Interim southbound approach lanes; Plan(#12) Improvements convert Barker/Boone to right- in/right-out NEAR TERM(2021.2024) SpraguelBarker Reconstruct Intersection with 2019-2024 Intersection single-lane roundabout TIP(#15) COSV $1,517,000 Improvements MID TERM(2025.2030) Replace Barker Road Bridge and widen to 4-lanes from Boone Avenue to Broadway; 1.90/Barker Road reconstruct both Intersections Horizon 2040 Not anticipated at Interchange Long-Term to 2-lane roundabout; Plan(#12) WSDOT this time Improvements reconstruct Barker/I-90 westbound ramp intersection to six-leg roundabout with Boone Avenue Barker Road Widen and improve to 5-lane 2019-2024 Improvement Project— urban section;roundabout @ TIP(#22) COSV $6,477,000 Appleway to 1-90 Broadway Barker Road Widen and Improve to 5-lane NE Industrial Improvement Project— Area PAO COSV $2,950,000 Mission to 1-90 urban section (Phase 2) LONG TERM(2031-2040) Barker Road Reconstruct and widen north of improvement Project— Sprague to 3-lane urban 2019-2024 COSV $2,854,000 Appleway to South City section,and south of Sprague TIP(#20) Limits to 2-lane urban section. 4th AvenuelBarker&8th Reconstruct 4th Avenue and 8th AvenuelBarker Avenue intersections with 2019-2024 COSV $3,000,000 Intersection single-lane roundabouts TIP(#21) Improvements 1. Costs do not include WSDOT's portion City of Spokane Valley 26 1 P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report Source:Fehr&Peers;City of Spokane Valley. Cost estimates are primarily derived from the City of Spokane Valley 2019-2024 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Exceptions include the cost of the Barker Road Improvement Project—Mission to 1-90, which is derived from the estimate provided in the Northeast Industrial Area PAO and adjusted for 2018 dollars and the 4th Avenue/Barker & 8th Avenue/Barker intersection Improvements, which assume a cost of $1.5 million per intersection comparable to the cost estimate for the Sprague/Barker Intersection improvements. Projects are divided into four distinct timeframes: Immediate (by 2020), near-term (3-6 years), mid-term (by 2030)and long-term(2040).The timing of implementation is based on a combination of traffic analysis findings of when the project is needed to meet LOS criteria,time for project development and anticipated availability of funding. Fair Share Analysis and Potential Funding In order to offset the costs of the future infrastructure projects that will be needed to achieve acceptable multimodal operations in the Barker Road Corridor, one option would be for Spokane Valley to collect traffic impact mitigation fees based on a fair-share analysis. Fees could be collected from developments in Spokane Valley around the Barker Road corridor, as well as from neighboring jurisdictions, including Liberty Lake and Spokane County where development is expected to generate traffic that will utilize the corridor, generate/exacerbate traffic impacts, and benefit from the future roadway widening projects. The fair-share financial contribution is determined by how much traffic each jurisdiction is expected to contribute in 2040 to locations in the Barker Road corridor where future transportation improvement projects were identified. The same regional travel demand model used to forecast 2040 traffic was used to estimate the percent of traffic through various segments of Barker Road generated by a portion of each jurisdiction. This was done by using a tool in the model called a "select zone analysis." The select zone analysis was set to identify the traffic generated by the area In each jurisdiction where development is expected to have the greatest traffic impact on the South Barker Road corridor and thus where a development fee could be reasonably assessed.This Includes the portion of Spokane Valley south of the Spokane River and east of Flora Road,the area of unincorporated Spokane County immediately south and east of the Spokane Valley City limits and the City of Liberty Lake west of Harvard Road as shown in Figure 21. Please note that the Northeast Industrial Area (north of the Spokane River) was excluded from this analysis as the City is already utilizing a Planned Action Ordinance to assess fair-share fees for projects on Barker Road north of 1-90. City of Spokane Valley 27 I Page `-- --_E �RPa'OalcOr \ m —s. ram" FBI— �'`` -E 2 E`' -_ ° e- rya 4R�U __ -- r Z E,Z -� ti— EE•Wellesley Are - a i1 ^ z-` - - _ _ !~r �_ Ry a z m- 4 �'n '�. a o ®- — -_ 01_y,Aorit. n ass- - _o: .yam y-�� =i-' 1 to.-.. m-- 1�.. r i s� c +co. _ - ti�� ' _x g KaiSQr ~_ - f `. -D' F.d_-_. i - tea- _ °r �. S Barker Corridor �' m , ? a r— m -MaIWOOCI• 1 Mir`aBeav _ z�j E EutlidlAre z _ ¢ ti��Y'P`Ve�-�_ ?_ �� _ - — '\_ __ -¢ Liberty ibre ndanaR �� ;,y` `o`— . ._ - 01 ��=m - - `E fitiar2 k, 7' 325 ra 327'11 Lake 44$ �°gs�f `▪ L` a =nm m -m _� z.- �~Z = ro 9p `Z 383 U 326 2$t 447 - ' 45 _ ->,_ `z ,=_E_ 0_' - c o �— - < rr Cavef�� O. m LL — m _C—m—° - m_ gyp- z ;"Y �45ta `^lam -in z my o -.7,- ® a - - - — Spokane ;" 334 j �zc 442 - o, Z =z lAte .-z -z - z— ..Valley - C° -. -�_- ;91, - �, ti �,. - Sprague Au _ Z --- Z- _ TS- - a ,;,Sprague ANY:�+ - Sp ague Av = E}5przgue Rrti E 4th:Ave - E.Coach-Or 36 92 _. !. '' ,E 3rd Ave 1" --Abandoned RR= zr t� � � _ e_E:Bthi RrL �E Gth-Awe P - in x= F �;= m-N -t t2tn kre- - 389 ` i 444 h .aq ��•. 9 • 6' 3 --- - .3 71_m-ram"' - ,c` ,a\ y -rtm ° w we .r`�`� 1 N o-c �• 5_ ' ad pi-,,x, -E24thAre-s:Se , r.`> lIx .C') �-_� , - t a m --.- _-.J C 4 =� --� . t N T3' 1- SQ -- ¢. =,6 °'-'� m ,E•32ndAve L...- �i' FI-'.,�,•' � _� W_I ell _ - - C _ mVI 1 ° _c. _ 44th 1 .—r _.-.w -3rj ,_ �� _ C�7t' ' e [{2 Quia m' _ , gym_ _ " l i-c- - m I ` m a.p Vi ' rt_H -a m I 1 I South Barker Road Travel Shed _ a - �7 1I Transportation Analysis Zones by Jurisdiction .> _._- .. _ - - (-1 Spokane Valley TAZs _ LR J� _ Li Liberty Lake TAZs - i" - - Spakane County TAZs x m m .- Figure 21 Transportation analysis zones by juristiction included in the fair-share cost analysis. SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report To complete this analysis,the corridor was divided into three segments: north of 1-90, between 1-90 and Appleway Avenue, and south of Appleway Avenue.The results of the fair share analysis are shown Figure 22.As an example, Figure 22 shows that by 2040 about 18%of traffic on Barker Road north of 1-90 will be generated by Liberty Lake and 4% will be generated by unincorporated Spokane County immediately south and east of Spokane Valley.South of Appleway Avenue,only about 2%of traffic on Barker Road will be generated by Liberty Lake and 35% will be generated by development in unincorporated Spokane County immediately south and east of the Spokane Valley city limits. It should be noted that the percentages represent the percent of trip ends,since all trips have two ends. The select link analysis provides the origins and destinations by TAZ of all the PM peak hour trips traveling in each direction of Barker Road, Since each trip has both an origin and destination, half of the trip was assigned to the origin and half of the trip was assigned to the destination. For example, in the case of a trip that begins in Spokane Valley and ends in Liberty Lake half of that trip would be assigned to Spokane Valley and half to Liberty Lake, since both locations generated one end of the trip. Trips in the "other" category include traffic that has at least one trip end outside the TAZs included in the travel shed (see Figure 21).These include trips passing through the area or trips that have one end in the travel shed and one end outside of the travel shed (e.g., a trip between southeast Spokane Valley and downtown Spokane). Spokane Valley will need to use non-mitigation fee funding(grants,general funds)to cover the cost of the "other"trips since they cannot be levied on developers In the study area. Figure 22.Percent of 2040 Barker Road traffic generated by Jurisdiction. Southeast Spokane Liberty Spokane Segment of Barker Road Valley Lake County Other Total North of 1-90 26% 18% 4% 52% 100% 1-90 to Appleway Avenue 19% 16% 17% 48% 100% South of Appleway Avenue 18% 2% 35% 45% 100% Source: Fehr& Peers,2018 To estimate the fair share transportation impact mitigation fee for new development in each of the jurisdictions, the cost of each project is multiplied by the percent of traffic from that jurisdiction that is forecast to use the infrastructure. Given the relatively low volume of traffic generated by unincorporated Spokane County north of 1-90 and the relatively low volume of traffic generated by Liberty Lake south of Appleway Avenue it is recommended to exclude those jurisdictions from contributing to the cost of projects in those respective segments. It is recommended that new development in Liberty Lake be assessed a fair-share fee of 18% of the capital cost of infrastructure projects needed between Mission Avenue and Boone Avenue and 16% of the capital cost of infrastructure projects needed between 1-90 and Appleway Avenue.Similarly, it is recommended that new development in Spokane County within the south Barker Corridor travel shed (see Figure 21) be assessed a fair-share fee of 17%of the capital cost of infrastructure projects needed between 1-90 and Appleway Avenue and a fair share fee of 35% of the capital cost of Infrastructure projects needed between Appleway Avenue and the south city limits. In addition to determining which jurisdictions use the new infrastructure, a fair share transportation Impact mitigation fee must consider"existing deficiencies." Impact fee case law clearly states that new developments cannot be charged to fix existing deficiencies to the transportation system. Based on the LOS analysis above,there are existing deficiencies at the I-90 ramp intersections.Since WSDOT is funding City of Spokane Valley 29 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report the bulk of the interim improvements at the Barker Road interchange,there is no need to take a credit at that location. When the percentages in Figure 22 are applied to the cost of the projects listed in Figure 20,the fair share cost that can be applied to new development in each jurisdiction is listed in Figure 23.The total fair share cost is estimated at about$1.57 million to Liberty Lake and$3.57 million to Spokane County. It should be noted that Spokane Valley already has an agreement with Spokane County for a number of vested developments to pay a mitigation fee for improvements on Barker Road.The agreement totals$116,411, which was subtracted from the fair-share cost (specifically the Barker Road Improvement Project — Appleway to South City Limits). Figure 23.Fair-share cost by Jurisdiction and project. Total Project Spokane Spokane Segment of Barker Road Cost Valley Liberty Lake County 1-90 Eastbound Ramp/Barker Road NIA N/A N/A N/A Interchange Interim Improvements 1-90 Westbound Ramp/ N/A N/A N/A N/A Barker Road Interchange Interim Improvements Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements $1,517,000 $273,000 $0 $531,000 I-90/Barker Road Interchange Long-Term Not anticipated at N/A N/A N/A Improvements this lime Barker Road Improvement Project—Appleway $6,477,000 $1,230,000 $1,036,000 $1,101,000 to 1-90 Barker Road Improvement Project—Mission to $2,950,000 $767,000 $531,000 $0 1-90 Barker Road Improvement Project—Appleway $2,854,000 $514,000 $0 $999,000 minus to South City Limits $116,411 4th Avenue/Barker&80,AvenuelBarker intersection Improvements $3,000,000 $540,000 $0 $1,050,000 Total $16,798,000 $3,324,000 $1,567,000 $3,565,000* Source:Fehr&Peers, 2018 *Total was reduced by$116,411 to account for the existing mitigation fee agreement between Spokane Valley and Spokane County for several vested developments in Spokane County. Typically, costs to mitigate transportation infrastructure impacts are allocated based on PM peak hour traffic generation. Using PM peak hour trips is typical,since It is the PM peak hour that typically has the most-congested traffic and trips are a way to distribute costs in a way that is proportionate to the total impact generated. In other words, larger developments that generate more trips pay proportionately more than smaller developments that generate fewer trips. To develop a per-trip fee, it necessary to estimate PM peak hour traffic that will be generated by new development in the area that will use the South Barker Road Corridor. This includes portions of Spokane Valley and unincorporated Spokane County with the Barker Road Corridor travel shed and Liberty Lake east of Harvard Road (see Figure 21). Based on the 2015 and 2040 regional travel demand model, It was found that about 5,033 new PM peak hour trips will be generated by new development In this area between 2015 and 2040.This Includes 2,212 new PM peak hour trips generated by Spokane Valley, 1,888 new PM peak hour trips generated by Liberty Lake and 933 new PM peak hour trips generated by unincorporated Spokane County. To estimate a cost per PM peak hour trip, one would divide the total City of Spokane Valley 30 I Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY va 2/7/20 Updated Report eligible costs of Barker Road projects(project costs minus existing deficiencies)by the new PM peak hour trips forecast to be generated in the study area. As an example, Figure 24 illustrates the cost of each capital Improvement project recommended on the South Barker Road Corridor through 2040,along with the portion of the cost attributed to Spokane Valley traffic and the corresponding cost per new PM peak hour trip generated by development east of Flora Road and south of the Spokane River. The total cost of all projects (excluding WSDOT's portion) Is about $16.8 million. Using the fair-share estimate, about$3.3 million would be attributed to traffic generated by Southeast Spokane Valley. When the fair share cost is divided by the number of new PM peak hour trips expected from development in Southeast Spokane Valley between 2015 and 2040,the total cost per PM peak hour trip would be $1,503. Figure 24.Cost per PM peak hour trip from new development(2015-2040)to Spokane Valley. New PM Peak COSV Percent Portion Hour Trips Cost per Project Cost Estimate1 Attributed Attributed from Nearby PM Peak (2018$$) to COSY to COSV COSV Hour Trip Development 1.90 Eastbound Ramp!Barker Road N/A N/A N/A 2,212 N/A Interchange Interim Im•rovements 1-90 Westbound Ramp/ Barker Road Interchange Interim N/A N/A N/A 2,212 N/A Im•rovements Sprague/BarkerIntersection $1,517,000 18% $273,000 2,212 $123 Im+rovements 1.90/Barker Road Interchange Long- Not anticipated at NIA N/A 2,212 N/A Term Im•rovements this lime Barker Road Improvement Project- $6 477 000 19% $1,230,000 2,212 $556 Ai+I ewa to 1.90 Barker Road Improvement Project- $2 950,000 26% $767,000 2,212 $347 Mission to 1-90 Barker Road Improvement Project- $2,854,000 18% $514,000 2,212 $232 A •iewa to South Cit Limits 4th AvenuelBarker&Bill Avenue/Barker Intersection $3,000,000 18% $540,000 2,212 $244 Im•roverents Total $16,790,000 • $3,324,000 _ 2,212 $1,503 Source:Fehr& Peers, 2018 Applying this same methodology to the other jurisdictions results in a total cost per new PM peak hour trip of$830 for Liberty Lake and$3,821 for the area of unincorporated Spokane County within the South Barker Road travel shed as shown In Figure 25.These fees represent potential fair-share costs that could be levied on new development to help finance projects on the South Barker Corridor. City of Spokane Valley 31 1 P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report Figure 25.Cost per PM peak hour trip from new development i2015-2040i by jurisdiction. Southeast Spokane Liberty Spokane Segment of Barker Road Valley Lalce County North of 1-90 $347 $281 $0 1-90 to Appleway Avenue $556 $549 $1,180 South of Appleway Avenue $600 $0 $2,640 Total $1,503 $830 $3,821 Vested Trips According to data provided by Liberty Lake and Spokane County, a significant number of dwelling units forecast to be added between 2015 and 2040 have already been vested. In the three TAZs in Liberty Lake west of Harvard Road, about 1,490 of the 1,929 total new dwelling units forecast to be added between 2015 and 2040 have already been vested. In addition,a number of properties in Liberty Lake have already been vested for commercial development (about 397,853 sq. ft. across the City). While there is no mechanism to charge a mitigation fee to existing or vested trips, the number of vested trips does not detract from the fact that Barker Road Is not expected to meet the City of Spokane Valley LOS standard by 2040, nor does it detract that development and growth in Liberty Lake and Spokane County contributes substantially to the traffic and congestion on Barker Road. One could recalculate a new impact fee that specifically accounts for the vested trips. However, the resulting impact fee for the unvested trips would be higher than what was calculated in this Study.This is because the total costs for the capacity expansion would be the same, but there would be fewer growth trips to spread the cost of necessary transportation improvements across. Based on a rough calculation, it's estimated the cost per PM peak hour trip for unvested growth in Liberty Lake to be approximately$1,200 to $1,300 or about 50% higher than the PM peak hour fee of$830 when vested trips are included. Therefore, Spokane Valley is suggesting that any unvested trips be assessed the fee calculated in this study as its proportionate fair-share fee. This keeps these trips from being additionally cost-burdened because of the inability to capture the costs of the vested trips. It should be noted that Spokane Valley already has an agreement with Spokane County for a number of vested developments to pay a mitigation fee for Improvements on Barker Road. The agreement totals $116,411,which was subtracted from the fair-share cost for Spokane County. CONCLUSIONS This report provides a summary of recommended capital improvement projects and estimated costs on the South Barker Corridor between Mission Avenue and the south City limits to be implemented by 2040. Projects are recommended to meet City and WSDOT LOS standards as well as to improve multimodal mobility in preparation for future development. This report also provides analysis of a fair-share cost estimation associated with traffic generated by adjacent jurisdictions and potential development traffic impact mitigation fees as one tool to finance projects. Lastly, guidance is provided to WSDOT on the City of Spokane Valley's preferred interim and long-term alternative for the 1-90 interchange. Analysis of existing conditions shows that both Intersections of the Barker Road/I-90 Interchange are not currently operating at acceptable standards and the Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection Is close to City of Spokane Valley 32 ] Page SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY va 2/7/20 Updated Report falling COSV standards in the PM peak hour,Additionally, by 2040 the Barker Road/Broadway intersection will fail City of Spokane Valley LOS standards.Traffic on Barker Road is expected to grow at a rate of about 1.4% per year through 2040, which will necessitate widening the corridor to five lanes between Mission Avenue and Appleway Avenue. In order to address traffic operations,traffic safety and multirnodal mobility on the corridor a total of eight capital improvement projects are recommended to be Implemented between now and 2040. These are listed below, organized into four different time frames for implementation based on when the project is needed as well as other factors (including funding availability): • Immediate (2019-2020) o 1-90 Eastbound Ramp/Barker Road Interim Improvements (single-lane roundabout) o 1-90 Westbound Ramp/Barker Road Interim Improvements (single-lane roundabout) • Near-Term (2021-2024) o Barker Road/Sprague Avenue Intersection Improvements • Mid-Term (2025-2030) o I-90/Barker Road Interchange Long-Term Improvements o Barker Road Improvement Project--1-90 to Appleway Avenue(5-lane urban section) o Barker Road Improvement Project—Mission Avenue to 1-90(5-lane urban section) • Long-Term (2031-2040) o Barker Road Improvement Project—Appleway Avenue to south City Limits o 4th Avenue/Barker&8th Avenue/Barker intersection Improvements In summary, the recommended improvements by 2040 would result in the following future condition. Barker Road would have bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the street and curb and gutter along the length of the corridor, The road would be widened to five lanes from Mission Avenue to Appleway Avenue, three lanes from Appleway Avenue to Sprague Avenue and two-lanes from Sprague Avenue to the south City limits, South of Sprague,the area between the sidewalks on either side of the street would be wide enough to accommodate a third center turn lane in the future If warranted by development.Two- lane roundabouts would be implemented at both intersection of the 1-90 interchange.The Boone Avenue intersection would be consolidated into a new six-leg roundabout with the I-90 westbound ramp and Cataldo Avenue. The bridge over 1-90 would be widened to four lanes with wide sidewalks on both sides to accommodate both bicyclists and pedestrians. The east-leg of Broadway would be realigned to meet the west-leg and the Broadway Intersection would be converted to a roundabout or reconfigured to prevent left-out movements. New single-lane roundabouts or traffic signals would be implemented at the Sprague Avenue,4ei Avenue and 8th Avenue Intersections. The combined costs of the projects, excluding the portion that would be funded by WSOOT, is estimated to be about $16.8 million In 2018 dollars. A fair-share analysis of the corridor was also conducted to highlight how development in Spokane Valley, Liberty Lake, and Spokane County could help to finance these projects, By multiplying the eligible project cost with the fair-share percentage and charging that fee, it would ensure that new development In each jurisdiction Is contributing funding to the project reflective of their use of/benefit from the improvement.The fair-share analysis demonstrated that traffic from Southeast Spokane Valley developments will generate fairly equal demand on the length of the corridor. Traffic from Liberty Lake is generally expected to use the section of Barker Road north of Appleway Avenue and traffic from unincorporated Spokane County will generally use the section of the City of Spokane Valley 33 I P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY va 2/7/20 Updated Report corridor south of 1-90. Therefore, It Is recommended that a fee program be implemented to collect fees for projects on three distinct segments of the corridor based on the fair-share percentage: • Mission Avenue to 1-90 • 1-90 to Appleway Avenue • Appleway Avenue to south City limits It should be noted that while developer impact fees can provide an important source of funding, after negotiating with developers, elected officials, and neighboring jurisdictions, the impact fees are typically set so that they only cover a portion of project costs (typically less than 50%). Thus, Spokane Valley will need to use other financing strategies to pay for the remaining costs of the projects identified above. Other financing strategies Spokane Valley might consider include implementing a local improvement district or transportation benefit district, and applying for grants. Historically, Spokane Valley has had strong success in seeking and winning external funding, which has kept the costs of expanding transportation infrastructure relatively low for both developers and existing taxpayers compared to other cities in the region and state. City of Spokane Valley 34 I P a g e Exhibit C FEHRfr PEERS Memorandum Date: June 7, 2021 To: Jerremy Clark, City of Spokane Valley From: Patrick Picard,AICP and Chris Breiland, PE, Fehr& Peers Subject: South Barker Corridor Impact Fee Cost Per Trip by Segment Analysis SE21-0769 Introduction The South Barker Corridor Study(Feb 2020),adopted by the City of Spokane Valley on December 15, 2020 pursuant to Ordinance No. 20-026, identified several transportation capacity projects along South Barker Road, between Mission Avenue and the South City Limits, to support future growth and ensure adequate level of service(LOS) through the year 2040. Based on this study, the South Barker Corridor Transportation impact Fee Rate Study(Oct 2020),adopted by the City of Spokane Valley on December 15, 2020 pursuant to Ordinance No.20-026, identified a cost per PM peak hour trip for all traffic generated within the Impact Fee Study Area in Spokane Valley, which is typical for a Growth Management Act(GMA)based impact fee program.Additionally, Impact Fee Rate Studies were subsequently completed (in March 2021) for the portion of unincorporated Spokane County and Liberty Lake where future development will generate vehicle trips that will use South Barker Road. The Spokane County and Liberty Lake Impact Fee Rate Studies have not been adopted by either jurisdiction or the City of Spokane Valley as of the date of this memo. While the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study(and subsequent studies in unincorporated Spokane County and Liberty Lake) use an industry-standard method for fairly allocating the costs of new transportation infrastructure,the City of Spokane Valley only has the legal authority to assess impact fees within its jurisdiction. Unless the other jurisdictions adopt the rate studies through an ordinance or an interlocal agreement,the Spokane County and Liberty Lake impact fees are "voluntary."A voluntary fee is a typical way that a development impacting the transportation system can easily mitigate its impact without the need for a complex traffic study.Spokane Valley would consider any development within the traffic analysis zones (TAZs) 518 17th Street I Suite 1 100 I Denver,CO 802021(303)296-4300 I Fax(303)296-4302 ww w.fe h ra nc l p e e rs.co m Jerremy Clark June 7,2021 Page 2 of 7 identified in the Spokane County or Liberty Lake Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies to meet their SEPA obligations relative to traffic impacts on Barker Road to be met if they paid the voluntary fee. However, if a developer opts to review impacts from proposed developments at the time of proposal, this memo provides an analysis of the per trip impact at various points along the south Barker Road corridor. The purpose of this memorandum is twofold: • First,this memorandum clearly documents that any new trip that uses Barker Road between Mission Avenue and the south city limit generates a significant adverse cumulative impact on traffic operations that must be mitigated in order to maintain the City of Spokane Valley's level of service standard. • Second,this memorandum clearly identifies the fair share cost contribution to each trip that passes through each of the infrastructure projects along the Barker Road corridor. Inherently,this method of traffic mitigation and calculating the fair share contribution to funding necessary infrastructure is more complex than the GMA-based approach identified in the South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies. Specifically,this approach requires developers to go one step beyond identifying the number of PM peak hour trips that would be generated by development and also identify the number of those trips that would pass through various segments of Barker Road.This requires additional data collection and potentially travel demand model runs. Once the trip distribution pattern is known and the total trips passing through the entire Barker Road corridor are identified,Spokane Valley may then utilize the amounts identified in this memo as appropriate mitigation for the impacts from those trips. The mitigation is equal to the sum of the cost per each PM peak hour trip that passes through each project. Any project that applies this methodology and pays the fee calculated as described above will be considered to have met its traffic mitigation requirements by the City of Spokane Valley. Methodology Table 'i summarizes the data used to determine the cost per PM peak hour trip for each project trip that uses the new capacity along the Barker Road corridor.This section describes how the costs were calculated. Jerrerny Clark �� June 7, 2021 girt Page 3 of 7 Table 9 Cost Per PM Peak Trip Per Project Calculations New PM Peak Eligible Segment or Cost per PM Project Trips Project Cost Intersection Peak Trip Accommodated Barker Rd Improvement- Barker NO Mission to 1-9O $3,146,000 Boone 1,335 $2,356 Barker Rd Improvement - Barker s/a 1-90 to Appleway $6,501,000 917 $7,090 Broadway Barker Rd Improvement - Barker s/a Appleway to South City $3,500,000 531 $6,591 Limit Appleway Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvement $1,790,000 Barker/Sprague 1,016 $1,762 4th Ave/Barker&8th Ave/Barker Intersection $3,500,000 Barker/4th Ave 1,405 $2,492 Improvements The steps of this analysis are described below, roughly organized by column in Table 1: • Step 1 - Project Need and Identification:The South Barker Corridor Study identified five transportation capacity projects along South Barker Road for which the City of Spokane Valley would be responsible for funding.These projects are required to meet the City's LOS standards when accounting for the additional traffic generated by future development in the area. In other words,if the City fails to implement these projects,the LOS alon Barker Road will not meet the Cit 's established standards as new development along the South Barker Corridor generates additional traffic.The fact that LOS will fail with growth without City action and that the City does not have full funding to address this growth-caused LOS failure leads us to draw the conclusion that any project that adds even a single PM peak hour trip to the Barker Road corridor between Mission Avenue and the south city limits causes a cumulatively significant adverse traffic operations impact that warrants mitigation. Table 2 illustrates the existing and 2040 LOS at each project location.The growth-related impacts at each of the five project locations were identified In the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan,the Northeast Industrial Area Planned Action Ordinance SEPA Analysis, and/or the South Barker Corridor Study. Jerremy Clark June 7, 2021 Page 4 of 7 Table 2 2020 and 2040 Level of Service impact at Each Project Location Project Location Existing LOS 2040 LOS Source without project Barker Rd-Mission Ave Comprehensive Plan; to 1-90 D F Northeast Industrial Area PAO Barker Rd- 1-90 to Appleway Ave D F Comprehensive Plan Barker Rd-Appleway D► Comprehensive Plan Ave to South City Limit Sprague Ave/Barker Rd Ez F South Barker Corridor Study Intersection 4th Ave/Barker Rd&8th Ave/Barker Rd C D7 South Barker Corridor Study Intersection 1 The impact identified at this location is based on the roadway not meeting COSV multimodal roadway standards. • 2 LOS E is acceptable based on COSV LOS standards for a side street stop. • Step Z—Eligible Project Cost:The eligible cost of each project in 2020 dollars are shown in column 2 of Table 1,totaling $18.8 million, as provided in the adopted South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study. Eligible cost includes the project cost minus both dedicated funding from non-City funds as well as costs to mitigate existing deficiencies. • Step 3—Segment/Intersection: In this step, a segment of Barker Road or intersection of Barker Road was identified as the corresponding location for each project from which to measure the number of existing and future trips that uses the new transportation capacity.The segments/intersections are shown in column 3 of Table 1, When assessing the development fee, if a PM peak hour vehicle trip is forecast to pass through this location, then the cost per trip of the associated project would be assessed. • Step 4—PM Peak Trip Growth: Using existing (2018) and forecast(2040)traffic counts estimated as part of the South Barker Corridor Study,the number of existing PM peak hour trips and future PM peak hour trips passing through each segment or intersection was identified.The 2018 PM peak trips was then subtracted from 2040 PM peak trips to get the forecast growth in PM peak trips by 2040 and is shown in Table 3. Jerremy Clark June 7, 2021 Page 5 of 7 Table 3 PM Peak Hour Trip Growth Calculations Segment or 2018 PIVI 2040 PM PM Peak Trip Growth Intersection Peak Trips Peak Trips (2018-2040)' Barker n/o Boone 1,096 1,945 849 Barker s/o Broadway 1,219 2,015 796 Barker s/o Appleway 951 1,430 479 Barker/Sprague 1,269 1,705 436 Barker/4th Ave 880 1,175 295 e Step 5—Excess PM Peak Capacity: In this step, the excess capacity each segment! intersection project would create in year 2040 was estimated.This is a key step to ensure that development projects that add traffic to the corridor do not pay for capacity that is in excess of what is required to meet LOS standards. Excess capacity was calculated by performing an analysis whereby the number of trips passing through the project location was artificially scaled up until the location exceeded the LOS D threshold,which is the standard set by the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan.The percent by which traffic would need to grow in order to hit this capacity threshold is shown in Table 4. For intersection projects where the project includes a roundabout, Sidra was used with a volume-to-capacity threshold of 0.85,which is equivalent to LOS D. For widening projects, two analyses were used, including a segment analysis using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) LOS methodology for segments, and an intersection LOS analysis based on the LOS at the nearby signalized intersection using Synchro. Of the two results,the one with the lower amount of excess capacity was the amount used (since this lower capacity threshold represents the bottleneck on the segment).The results comparing the two types of analysis for each location are shown in Table 4.The excess capacity of each project was added to the PM peak trip growth forecasts show in Table 3 to arrive at the new PM peak trips accommodated by each project,which is shown in column 4 of Table Jerremy Clark June 7, 2021 Page 6 of 7 Table 4 Excess Capacity Analysis Segment or Excess Capacity Excess Capacity Excess Capacity Intersection Intersection Analysis Segment Analysis (lower of the two)i Barlcer n/o Boone 25%1 54% 25% Barker s/o Broadway 6%2 49% 6% Barker s/o Appleway 34%3 4% 4% Barker/Sprague 34% N/A—intersection 34% improvement Barker/ath Ave 94% N/A—intersection 94% improvement 1:This value represents the excess capacity at the Barker Road&Mission Avenue intersection in 2040 after improvements,which is the constraining Intersection along this segment of Barker Road. 2:This value represents the excess capacity at the Barker Road&Appleway Boulevard intersection in 2040 after improvements,which is the constraining Intersection along this segment of Barker Road. 3:This value represents the excess capacity at the Barker Road&Sprague Avenue intersection in 2040 after improvements,which is the constraining intersection along this segment of Barker Road. • Step 6—Cost per PM Peak Trip (factoring excess capacity)—In the last step of the analysis,the cost per PM peak hour trip that pass through each project location was estimated by dividing the new PM peak trips accommodated (column 4) by the associated project cost (column 2).The results are shown in the far-right column of Table 1.This reflects the cost of the additional capacity for each trip that can take advantage of the capacity,even if some of the capacity is in excess of what future development on the corridor is forecast to consume by 2040 (i.e.,this methodology lowers the cost per PM peak hour trip compared to an analysis that does not factor in excess capacity). Conclusions The analysis presented in this memo estimates the cost per PM peak hour trip per project on the South Barker Corridor that could be assessed to developers based on the number of trips that would pass through each impacted roadway segment and intersection.The findings of this analysis are presented In the far-right column of Table 1. If this method was used to assess developer impact mitigation fees in the South Barker Corridor, each developer would need to provide an estimate of the number of trips from their development expected to pass through each of the five segments of the South Barker Corridor listed in Table 1.The total of all those costs would be the amount that would need to be paid to provide for a fair share mitigation for Jerremy Clark June 7, 2021 Page 7 of 7 cumulative traffic impacts on the corridor.As an example,for each trip that would pass through the entire length of the corridor, the developer would be assessed for all five projects,totaling $20,292 per PM peak hour vehicle trip. If a trip only traveled along the segment of Barker Road from Mission Avenue to Appleway Boulevard, then the developer would only be assessed for the first two projects in Table 1,which would total $9,446 per trip. If a trip only traveled along Barker Road from the 1-90 interchange to Sprague Avenue,then the developer would only be assessed for the second, third, and fourth projects in Table 1,which would total $15,444 per trip.