LUTC PKT 04-05-2004
LX;
City of Federal Way
City Council
land Use/Transportation Committee
April 5, 2004
5:30 pm
City Hall
Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
1.
CALL TO ORDER
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 15, 2004, meeting
3.
PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes)
4.
BUSINESS ITEMS
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
2003 Citywide Pavement Marking Project - Contract Amendment
2004 King County Signal Synchronization Coordination Grant
Grant Funding Applications for Transportation Improvement Projects
Surface Water Utility CIP Program Modifications
City Center Access Study Stake Holder Process
City Center Access Study - Briefing Update #2
Action Perez/S min
Action Perez/5 min
Action Salloum/S min
Action Bucich/30 min
Action Zukowski/1S min
Information Zukowski/30 min
5.
FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS
6.
ADJOURN
Committee Members
Jack Dovey, Chair
Eric Faison
Michael Park
City Staff
Kathy McClung, Director, Community Development Services
E Tina Piety, Adrninistrative Assi5tant
253-661-4105
K l.t.r("'~e",b,¡tndSun"n.u,e;2""4\.'\p"I'."'O4 II rC\~"nd,d",
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land UselTransportation Committee
March 15, 2004
5:00 p.m.
City Hall
Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
In attendance: Committee Members Jack Dovey, Chair, Eric Faison and Michael Park; Mayor Dean McColgan, Deputy Mayor
Linda Kochmar, Council Members Jim Ferrell and, Jeanne Burbidge; City Manager David Moseley; Community Development
Director Kathy McClung, Public Works Director Cary Roe; Deputy City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick; Deputy Director of Community
Development Services Greg Fewins; Senior Planner Lori Michaelson; Senior Planner Jim Harris; Street Systems Manager
Marwan Salloum; Surface Water Manager Paul Bucich; Traffic Engineer Rick Perez; Development Services Manager Jim
Femling; Senior Engineering Plans Reviewer Kim Scattarella; and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety.
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Dovey called the meeting to order at 5:03 pm.
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The summary minutes of the March 1, 2004, meeting was approved as presented.
3.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no public comments.
4.
BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Weyerhaeuser Way and South 336th Street Roundabout Project Bid Award - Marwan Salloum presented the
staff report. The Committee m/slc the staff recommendation to place the following items on the April 6, 2004, Council
Consent Agenda for approval: 1) award the Weyerhaeuser Way roundabout -Project 'to Sanders General Construction
Co., the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, in the amount of $643;487.00, and approve a 10% contingency of
$64,349.00, for a total of $707,836.00; and 2) authorize the City Manager to execute tl)e contract.
B. Orchid Lane Final Plat and Resolution - Jim Harris presented the staff report. This application requests final plat
approval for Orchid lane, a subdivision of 50 single-family lots on approximately 15.9 acres. The Federal Way Council
granted preliminary plat approval on December 3, 2002. Orchid Lane is generally located at the northwest quadrant of
the intersection of 1ih Avenue SW and SW 344th Street. The Committee mlslc the staff recommendation to forward to
the City Council, and place on the April 6, 2004, City Council Consent Agenda, a recommendation approving the Orchid
Lane Final Plat Resolution.
C. West Branch and Main Stem Lakota Creek Restoration Project -100% Design Approval and Authorization
to Bid - Paul Bucich presented the staff report. This project restores approximately 4,630 lineal feet of the west branch
and main stem of Lakota Creek from South 320th Street downstream to the upstream end of the Lakota Wastewater
Treatment Plant. The Committee approved the 85 percent design stage of this project on October 20, 2003. Since then,
three property owners have refused to grant easements to the City. These refusals will have a minor impact on the
project and will bring the cost down a little. The Committee m/slc the staff recommendation to place the following items
on the April 6, 2004, Council Consent Agenda: 1) approve the 100 percent design plans and specifications for the West
Branch and Main Stem lakota Creek Restoration Project; 2) authorize the City Manager to execute the negotiated
easement from David Dailey for use of his land for access to the creek, as well as installation of in-stream structures;
and 3) authorize Surface Water Management Division staff to bid the project and return to the City Council for
permission to award the project to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder based on available funding.
D. South 288th Street at SR 99 Project Access and Pedestrian Issues - Rick Perez delivered the staff report. Two
issues have raised concerns from citizens: access restrictions to adjacent properties and the crosswalk closures across
the south leg of the SR 99 and South 288th Street intersection. The Committee asked for public comment.
Harjinder Atwal, owner of Redondo Shell, commented that he is not against a C-Curb, as long as an opening is
made to allow left turns into his business. He believes an opening can be provided with sufficient sight
distance. He feels not having an opening for left turns would be detrimental to his business.
KILUTC Agendas and Summanes 2OO4IMardl 15. 2004, LUTC M,nutes doc
Bill Baldwin, owner of Crestwood Animal Hospital, commented that the map shows the accident rate along the
street, which is the reason for the barrier, but it does not show the specific locations of the accidents. He
believes the specific locations of the accidents would show there is no justification for the barrier. He further
commented that the City would allow u-turns, but what is the accident rate for u-turns? He believes it is high.
Finally, he commented that the property owners did not receive a notice of this meeting.
The Committee held discussion on accident rates, u-turns, sight distances, notifications, the SR 99 Phase III budget in
regards to the crosswalk, and sight-distance and road alignment in regards to the crosswalk. The Committee m/slc the
staff recommendation to place the following project on the A~ril6, 2004, City Council Consent Agenda: 1) changes are
not to be made in the pro~osed C-curb design on South 288 h Street; and 2) the crosswalk on the south leg of the
intersection of South 288 Street and SR 99 is to remain closed. In addition, the Committee instructed staff to research
increasing the scope and budget of the SR 99 Phase III project to provide an additional lane on the west leg of the
intersection to eliminate split phasing at the intersection and thereby, allowing the crosswalk to be opened.
E. SR 99 at South 333rd Street Median Break - Rick Perez delivered the staff report. The SR 99 HOV Lanes Phase
II project reconstructs SR 99 between South 324th Street and South 340th Street to add HOV lanes, raised medians,
curbs, gutters, sidewalks, planter strips, streetlights, street trees, and undergounded utilities. In late 2003, Mr. Kim, a
business owner located at the southeast corner of SR 99 and South 333rd Street, requested a median break to permit
southbound left-turns from SR 99 to South 333rd Street. The Committee had suggested Mr. Kim provide a study to
document the need for the median break and to also respond to the concerns of City Staff. This study was submitted in
January 2004 and recommended allowing the installation of the southbound left-turn lane at South 333rd Street. The
staff concurs with most of the conclusions of the study, but with exceptions (that are outlined in the staff memorandum to
the Committee) that have led the staff to recommend a denial of Mr. Kim's request. The Committee asked for public
comment. .
Merle Pfeifer, Alternate Planning Commissioner and owner of Sparks Car Care, commented that his business
is up the street from this area and they use the area for test-driving vehicles. He stated that his customers are
not aware that the City is planning to take the left-turn away. The City says they are removing the left-turn for
safety reasons, but Mr. Kim's study shows that most accidents in the area have been rear-end accidents. The
City has allowed three left-turns in Phase I; we should have at least one in Phase II.
Jae Lee, commented that the result of the study is that it is a benefit to business owners and residents to have
the left-turn.
Victor Bishop, author of the study, commented that three criteria were identified last fall for where a left-turn
would be allowed. They looked at these criteria when preparing the study and in each case, the criteria were
met. The study showed that a left-turn would remove some trips and improve the 336th intersection.
The Committee discussed the possibility that not having a left-turn would cause people to reroute their trips and
consequently, stop patronizing the businesses in the area. Mr. Perez commented that people are likely to reroute their
trips, but this does not mean they will stop patronizing the businesses in the area. Studies show that people now feel
safer patronizing the businesses in Phase I. The Committee discussed the impact the future proposed 332nd would have
on this left-turn. The Committee m/slc to forward to the April 6, 2004, City Council Consent Agenda an alternate plan to
provide an opening at 333rd (that could be temporary based on what will happen with 332nd) and requested staff to
provide additional information on a grid road at 333rd rather than 332nd as currently planned.
The Committee recessed at 6:40 p.m. and reconvened at 8:15 p.m.
F. Agreement Between Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority and City of Federal Way for Future
Development of Transit Oriented Development at the Federal Way Transit Center - Lori Michaelson delivered a
short presentation on the topic and Kathy McClung presented the Committee with a draft list of potential TOD items in
response to the City Council's request. There are six items on a list handed to the Committee, which may be found as
part of the March 15, 2004, agenda packet; and a seventh was added whereby Sound Transit is asked to provide a
night management plan. The Committee commented that numbers 3 (complete 21st Avenue South grid road) and 1
(make public parking available at no cost to any party) are important. The Committee discussed how this design differs
from the original design. The Committee discussed the sizes of the west and east properties in regards to TOD and a
pedestrian plaza. Would patrons be parking on these sites or within the garage? The Committee m/slc to direct City staff
to pursue negotiation with Sound Transit based on the seven recommended changes to the proposed TOD agreement.
5.
FUTURE MEETING
The next scheduled meeting is April 5, 2004.
6.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
KILUTC Agendas and Summaries 20041March 15, 2004, LUTC Minutes doc
~
CITY OF , '="
Federal Way
DATE:
April 5, 2004
TO:
FROM:
Jack Dovey, Chair
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Richard A. Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer ~
VIA:
David H.
vement Marking Project - Contract Amendment
SUBJECT:
2003 Citywide
BACKGROUND:
On June 25, 2003, the City executed a contract with Stripe Rite, Inc. (th~ lowest responsive, responsible bidder)
in the amount of $6S,OOO for pavement marking, neighborhood traffic safety, and channelization services. The
contract scope of work indicated that the contract is effective through December 31, 2003, with an option to be
extended through December 31, 2004, if both parties agree. The 2004 operating budget for this contract is
$63,000.00 consisting of $40,000 for Neighborhood Traffic Safety (NTS), $15,000 for pavement markings, and
$8,000 for access management retrofits.
City staff has been pleased with the work performed by the contractor. The contractor has agreed to honor the
2003 unit prices for the year 2004. Therefore, staff wishes to renew and extend the existing $6S,OOO contract by
adding $63,000 to the contract amount and extending the contract through December 31, 2004.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests that the Committee place the following project recommendations on the April 6, 2004 City Council
Consent Agenda:
Authorize the City Manager to supplement and extend the contract with Stripe Rite, Inc. in the amount of
$63,000 for basic and discretionary pavement marking, neighborhood traffic safety, and channelization
services for a total amount of $128,000 through December 31,2004.
RAP/RT:kk
cc:
Project File
Central File
k:\lutc\2004\03-1S-04 2003 pavment marking contract extension.doc
~
CITY OF ~ '7
Federal Way
DATE:
AprilS, 2004
FROM:
Jack Dovey, Chair
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Richard A. Perez, City Traffic Engineer fI(
Sarady Long, Traffic Engineer
David H. M~ager
2004 King CountY Signal Synchronization Grant
TO:
VIA:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND:
In the 2000 election, King County voters approved Proposition 1, a 0.2 percent sales tax increase to support and
expand transit services. One element of the improvements includes funding to support signal retimingfsignal
optimization along transit routes throughout King County. This year is the forth, and likely last, round of grant
awards. Since 2001, King County has awarded approximately $1.47 million to cities in King County to retime
approximately 300 traffic signals.
In the past three years, the City of Federal Way had received a total of $125,000 in grant to retime 25 traffic
signals throughout the City during the three peak periods (morning, afternoon, and evening). Corridors that were
retimed are Pacific Highway S from S. 288th St to 16th Ave Sand S 320th St from Fi,rst Ave S to Peasley Canyon Rd.
The last project, S 320th St from First Ave S to SR 99, was completed in December 2003. Due to changes in
travel patterns, these corridors will need to be retimed within the next couple years to maintain optimal operation.
The implementation of the new signal synchronization timing plans on SR 99 and S '320th Street corridors show
significant improvements in travel time ranging from 11% to an astonishing 47% from existing conditions. The
before and after results of the studies are attached in Tables I, II and III.
PROJECT FUNDING:
This year, an additional $244,000 is available to fund new signal optimization projects. The 21st Ave SW corridor
in Federal Way is eligible for funding from this program. The signal program is voluntary and does not require
any matching fund. Staff has submitted grant applications to synchronize/optimize six signals on 21st Ave SW
from SW 336th St to SW 31ih St.
AVAILABLE FUNDING:
The grant application for 21st Ave SW from SW 336th St to SW 31ih St has been selected for a grant award of
$24,000. The City will be the lead agency on this project. Staff will perform the work in-house and proposes to
use the grant reimbursement for a citywide traffic count and for the City's Concurrency Management Program.
The new traffic count data will be used to re-time other signals that are not eligible for the Signal Synchronization
Grant.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests that the Committee place the following project recommendations on the April 20, 2004 City Council
Consent Agenda:
1. Authorization to enter into a contract with King County to accept the $24,000 grant funds for the 21st
Ave SW Street Signal Synchronization project and execute required
2. Authorization staff to apply the 2004 Signal Synchronization Grant reimbursement for the Traffic
Count and Concurrency Management Programs.
í
I
I
I
I
i
APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REPORT:
--- --------------------~_._----------~---
----------_..._-------~----
_._--~------- -~-
Jack Dovey, Chair
Michael Park, Member
Eric Faison, Member
SL/RAP:kk
cc.
K \LUTC\2004 \2004 KC Signal SynchronizatIon Grantdoc
Central File
Table 1
Travel Time Survey - SR 99: S 288th St. to 16th Ave S
Corridor Name Direction Number Average Travel Average Travel
Project Limit of Run Time Speed
AM Peak
After (% improvement) NB 10 7 Min. 40 Sec. (15%) 26 Mph (15%)
Before 6 9 Min. 02 Sec. 22 mph
After (% improvement) SB 10 6 Min. 48 Sec. (9%) 29 mph (10%)
Before 6 7 Min. 26cSec. 26 mph
Midday Peak
After (% improvement) NB 10 9 Min. 14 Sec. (8%) 21 mph (10%)
Before 5 10 Min. 00 Sec. 19 mph
After (% improvement) SB 10 8 Min. 10 Sec. (11%) 24 mph (13%)
Before 5 9 Min. 12 Sec. 21 mph
PM Peak
After (% improvement) NB 10 9 Min. 25 Sec. (-7.34% 21 mph (-5%)
Before 4 8 Min. 47 Sec. 22 mph
After (% improvement) SB 10 10 Min. 28 Sec. (27%) 19 mph (26%)
Before 4 14 Min. 15 Sec. 14 mph
Overall Average (NB and SB)
After (% improvement) 8 Min. 38 Sec (12%)
Before 9 Min. 47 Sec.
Note:
* Flagger just north of S 312th Street working on light pole -- one lane open at II: lOam on Tuesday
* Motorhol11e blocking right lane Nß north ofSR 509 on Wednesday PM
Table II
Travel Time Survey - S 320th St.: SR 99 to Peasley Canyon Road
36S
4.~2
2 ()<) I
I ~:~ ¡
~9Ü
299 I 207 I
3 (.)(¡ I 2. Mì I
332 300 ~
, =~---:--'=-T'-'
r , i I
.1.~'.':;
2.77
2.19
2.39 I
2 . (¡()
3()%
3K~
29'!';.
.Q7
31%)
12%
2.92 IAH
2.45 2.35
3.0(¡ .Ll:~.?~-
3.0g r:IT
10':-;,
27%
Table III
Travel Time Survey - S 320th St.: SR 99 to 1st Ave S
. PM
A "cra 'c
I S.I
(9,\
152 .
170 I
1m
I
I():' ¡
:~-~ !
1=--"=1
155
nn
1.17
160
DX
179
1%
1.50
1.80
1.50
O.HO
1.20
0 . (,()
12'~'¡,
8%
-1(1':, 11.20 1.00 I
._l~:::;_- l .::~:::.._~::~: 1.._-
--- ~I,~.---'lr (..)(:'-T:L7~-'--
21(~.
.~S",.
25(~.()
49%
4':',.
6%
24%
.17%
33%
60%
17%
4(¡%.
76%,
47%
~
CITY OF" -::;0.'
Federal Way
DATE:
April 5, 2004
FROM:
Jack Dovey, Chair
Land Use and Transportation committee~. ~
Marwan Salloum, Street Systems Manager ~ -
David H. ~anager
Grant Funding ÀPPlications for Transportation Improvement
P~ew .
TO:
VIA:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND:
This memorandum provides the Council with the current funding availability of grant
applications for transportation projects. Staff has evaluated all projects listed on the City's Six
Year Transportation Improvements Plan (TIP) and concluded that the following projects will
likely be competitive in the 2005 funding cycle.
Project(Funding Phase)
Grant
Estimated Proj.
Cost in Millions
Possible Grant Fund
Range in Millions
Required Match
in Millions **
Pacific Highway S HOV Phase III (S 284th Street to Dash Point Road)
(Construction Only) .
2005 Regional TEA21 (Federal) $11.0 $3.0 to 5.0
Pacific Highway S HOV Phase IV (Dash Point Road to S 312th Street)
(Design and Right of Way Phase)
2005 Regional TEA2l (Federal)
2005 Countywide TEA2l (Federal)
2005 Transportation Partnership
Program (State)
$0.4 to 0.7
$S.O
$S.O
$S.O
$2.0 to 4.2
$0.8
$3.5 to 2.5
$0.31 to 0.66
$0.12
$1.5 to 2.5
S 320th Street At First Avenue South Intersection Improvements
(Design, Right of Way and Construction)
2005 Arterial Improvement $4.5 $3.2 to 2.7
Program (State)
$1.3 to 1.8
** If more than one grant is awarded on a project, it is possible to match the match between the grants. Therefore,
minimizing the City required match.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends placing the following items on the April 20, 2004 Council Consent Agenda:
Authorize staff to submit grant funding applications for the following transportation
improvements projects:
. Pacific Highway S HOV Phase III (S 284th Street to Dash Point Road)
. Pacific Highway S HOV Phase IV (Dash Point Road to S 31ih Street)
. S 320th Street at First Avenue South Intersection Improvements
. ..- - -.......-----
:~;, .'
,.
";':\,,
.......~!
. -...--.-.- --.....------.---.
APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REPORT:
....:..~:o,::.;~.:::.;:;:~-:..;:-;,t;~:._.:~....- :.,...'_.~~+o:'..........._.,.
;'I::~..~'Ja~k"Dovey, Chair
:. '. ,¡"",'J,
-..-...._...0"...............-. ....... """""" ,.......... ...... ..0........._....-...... .....
. "
:'",ichael Park, Member
MS:kk
cc:
Project File
Day File
K:\lutc\2004\Grant Funding Applications for Transportation Improvement Projects
2
~
CITY OF , 7'
Federal Way
DATE:
March 1, 2004
FROM:
Jack Dovey, Chair
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Paul A. Bucich, P.E.. Surface Water Uhlity Manager: kJ)'
David H.
TO:
VIA:
SUBJECT:
Surface Water tility CIP Program Modifications
BACKGROUND:
,- .
Annually, the Surface Water Utility evaluates the Capital Improvemen~ Program (CIP) to ensure projects are
adequately funded, appropriately prioritized, and viable. During the course of this evaluation, an opportunity
exists to consider new projects for addition to the CIP list. This occurred in 2002 when the Lakota Wetlands
Regional Stormwater Facility was added to the list for 2003/4.
In 2002, the City also initiated an evaluation of two additional projects: the "Joe's Creek Regional Detention
Facility and Salmon Habitat Project" and the "s 373rd Bridge and Hylebos Creek Stabilization Project".
Joe's Creek Background:
Joe's Creek drainage consists of approximately 1,900 acres including a small portion of Northeast Tacoma.
The drainage has two main branches; east and west. The west branch drains. into and through the Twin
Lakes of Lorene and Jeane, while the east branch has only one major drainage féature, a regional detention
pond at S 340th Street built by the SWM utility.
Both Twin Lakes have experienced flooding of properties and under structures in the past. The two
branches of the creek combine at the Twin Lakes Golf and Country Club in a small pond immediately south
and adjacent to S 320th Street. This pond often overflows, resulting in flooding of the golf course property
as well as flow through a pedestrian underpass under S 320th Street. This overflow damages the driving
range as well as the banks of Joe's Creek.
The proposed Joe's Creek project consists of constructing a regional detention pond on the Twin Lakes Golf
and Country Club driving range along with restoring approximately 400 lineal feet of Joe's Creek paralleling
the range. This new project is proposed to replace the scheduled 2007 Joe's Creek Regional Detention Pond
project. The new project would start design in 2004 and begin construction in 2005/6, based on available
funding. Evaluation of the new project shows that there are significant justifications for construction as can
be seen on the attached briefing sheet. The currently planned project will not result in a reduction of
damages to Joe's Creek, nor as significant volume storage as with the proposed new project.
S 373rd Street Bridge Background:
The bridge at S 373rd Street does not have the capacity to handle both the high creek flows as well as the
sediment/gravel load deposited by the creek at this floodplain location. The stream dynamics at this location
result in constant deposition of gravel under the existing bridge, flooding of surrounding properties, and
overtopping of the roadway. One home immediately adjacent to the creek is surrounded by floodwaters
frequently due to high flows and reduced capacity in the channel from gravel deposition. The dynamics of
this location, (Le. the bridge location/design and stream flows) results in a need for frequent gravel removal
efforts to maintain capacity under the bridge. It is becoming difficult to obtain state permits for this work
due to the listing of Chinook salmon as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The State
Department of Fish and Wildlife has notified the City that they will not issue further permits for "temporary
solutions" such as gravel removal activities.
The problem at this site has beleaguered the County and now the City for well over 30 years. Efforts over
the past three years have included local residents, regulatory agencies, environmental groups, and the City
working together to find a permanent solution. In 2002 the City hired CH2M Hill to evaluate the problem
and develop options.
Five options were developed and a synopsis of these has been previously presented to the Council. Of the
five options, two are presented here for Council consideration: removal and replacement of the bridge with a
longer one at the same location; and relocation of the creek and bridge to the east along with creation of
1,400 lineal feet of creek and six acres of riparian habitat. .
The second option is a long-term solution that results in a greatly diminished need to conduct gravel removal
activities, establishes a significant riparian corridor, eliminates the flooding of S 373rd Street, and protects the
adjacent properties. The first option will only address the immediate'problem at the bridge and may require
more frequent gravel removal actions vs. the other option. under corfsideration.
Attached is a briefing sheet outlining the pros and cons for both alternatives. Discussions with affected
property owners have not occurred and are pending Council direction.
PROJECT FUNDING AND SCHEDULING:
Joe's Creek Regional Detention Facility and Salmon Habitat Project:
The Joe's Creek Regional Detention Facility and Salmon Habitat Project is proposed to be funded with a
combination of City Utility funding, $750,000, and $750,000 of outside funding either from the County, State,
or Federal governments. Efforts are underway to determine if such funding is- available in 2004 or 2005.
The total estimated project cost is $1,425,000 in 2003 dollars. The additional funding above the $1,425,000
is to cover inflation in 2004.
S 373rd Street Bridqe Replacement Project: (option 1)
The bridge replacement project would be funded using existing utility funding of $350,000. This would
provide funding for the actual bridge replacement, realigning a short portion of the creek upstream and
downstream of the bridge, vertical road re-alignment, and litigation costs if condemnation for easements is
required.
S 373rd Street Bridge Replacement and Hvlebos Creek Restoration Project: (option 2)
The S 373rd Street Bridge Replacement and Hylebos Creek Restoration project is estimated to cost
$2,100,000, including potential litigation costs for easement or fee simple acquisitions. At this time the utility
anticipates contributing $1,500,000 towards this project and is looking for funding partnership opportunities
to reduce the City's contribution. There are also opportunities to pursue grant funding for acquisition as well
as restoration. Acquisition could include a portion of the property or the entire 27 acres if there is an
additional city need, e.g., parks or recreational aspects of the property. This project has a high likelihood of
obtaining outside funding. The City has been approached by a private party representing Commencement
Bay interests with a need to create/restore aquatic habitat as mitigation for superfund damages in
Commencement Bay. A possibility exists to ut.ilize significant funding from this source to assist in acquisition
and restoration activities on this project.
Utility contribution towards this project can accomplished due to cost savings anticipated in the West
Hylebos Creek Restoration Project, the East Branch Lakota Creek Restoration Project, and the West Branch
Lakota Creek Restoration Project as well as by shifting two scheduled CIP projects out in time.
These two projects are the SW 325th Street Culvert{frunk replacement project and the Lake Lorene outlet
control structure. The SW 32Sth Street project will be shifted from 2004 to 2008 and the Lake Lorene outlet
control structure project will be shifted from 2006 to 2007.
SW 325th Street CulvertlTrunk Replacement Project:
The SW 32Sth Street project was investigated thoroughly by utility engineers in the fall of 2003 to ensure it
was needed. The original plans called for it to be upsized due to a capacity problem. However, this was not
evidenced during the October 20, 2003 storm, nor were any of the residents in the vicinity able to provide
evidence or recollections that the culvert had ever over topped. Regardless of the actions taken on other
projects, the utility is recommending this project be held over until 2008 or later so that additional
investigations including flow monitoring can be conducted to verify the need to replace the line.
Lake Lorene Outlet Control Structure:
Currently the Lake Lorene outlet control structure is scheduled to start in 2006. Delay until 2007 will not
impact the overall drainage system as it is the final link in the system improvements (i.e., Joe's Creek Pond,
Lake Jeane outlet improvements, and Lake Lorene outlet improvements). This project cannot be built until
the downstream improvements are completed.
"
S 360th Street Regional Detention Pond:
One additional project development will play into the funding/scheduling mix. The S 360th Street Detention
Pond scheduled to be initiated in 2004 will not start until 200S at the earliest at the request of the
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). The project site is owned by WSDOT and is one
of the proposed sites for the HOV Lanes, Phase V stormwater control facilities. Additionally, this site is also
the proposed site for a future expansion for the extensive 1-5, SR 18, SR-161 Interchange Modifications
Project (Triangle project). As such, WSDOT has requested the City hold of ton our project while the different
WSDOT project managers determine their needs for the site. This delay frees up utility staff to work on the
proposed two new projects and significantly modifies the cash flow for the SWM CIP program.
Lower Joes Creek Channel Restoration:
During 2003, the Surface Water Utility contracted with Trout Unlimited to do a fish passage survey of Joe's
Creek from the mouth to the lower end of the Twin Lakes Driving Range. The results came back in
December of 2003 and showed there were no barriers to fish passage and that there was utilization by fish.
Most significantly, the creek is in good shape with minor erosion in evidence. Construction of the larger
regional pond on the driving range may very well result in the City being able to drop the Lower Joe's Creek
Channel Restoration project from the list. It is currently scheduled for design in 2011 and construction in
2012 at a total estimated cost of $1,638,700 in 2002 dollars.
Estimated Cost Savings/ Additions in CIP for 2004/2005:
Pro' ect Name
West H lebos Restoration
West Lakota Restoration
East Lakota Restoration
SW 356th Re ional Detention Pond
S 373rd St Brid e Re lacement
S 373rd St Brid e and Restoration Pro'ect
Joes Creek Re ional Pond
* Only one to be selected for construction
Estimated
Savin s
$700 000
$440 000
$500 000
Estimated
Additional Fundin
$100 000
$350 000*
$2 100 000*
$750 000
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests that the Committee place the following project recommendations on the April 20th, 2004 City
Council Consent Agenda:
1.
Approve the Surface Water Utility modifications to the Capital Improvement Plan adding the
S 373rd Street Bridge and Hylebos Creek Restoration project in 2004/5 and replacing the Golf
Course Flood Wall scheduled for 2007 with the Joe's Creek Regional Detention and Habitat
Restoration Project in 2004/5.
2.
Authorize the Surface Water Utility to allocate funding from the SWM unallocated reserves to
cover $750,000 of the Joe's Creek project costs in 2004/5 and $1,500,000 to initiate the S
373rd Street Bridge and Hylebos Creek Restoration project in 2004/5;
3.
Approve shifting the Lake Lorene Outlet Control Structure Project to 2007; shifting the SW
325th Street Culvert/Trunk Replacement Project to 2008; and shifting the S 360th Regional
Detention Pond project to 2005 to optimize available funding;
4.
Authorize the City Manager or designee to pursue additional outside funding for the Joe's
Creek Project either through grants or legislative funding and bring back for Council approval
any grants given to the City;
5.
Authorize the Surface Water Utility to pursue necessary appraisals and negotiations for the
Joe's Creek Regional Detention Facility and Habitat Restoration Project as well as the S 373rd
Street Bridge and Hylebos Creek Restoration Project and to return to the City Council for
approval with any easements requiring purchase above nor:ninal values.
6.
Authorize the City Manager or designee to pursue additional funding such as grants as well
as partners for design, property acquisition, and construction of the S 373rd Street Bridge
Relocation and Hylebos Creek Restoration Project.
~-~--'~" -, ~"-= ~,'~.. -=_..=~=.."
-"", "t"-": > ",',' '
.. ' ,.;.,
, , ",' '
.., '- -
".: APPROVAL OF COMMI1TEE REPORT:
" '. ~;.~:,'~ , ..
, ""
.. . .."
--. n___, --, ,_m - ,m, ,- -- - --' --, _un' ----- -- --' ---'" ,
. Jack Dovey, Chair Michael Park, Member Eric Faison, Member
- '-'~=,,"'~'~~=~' -=, -~"'~ -~--=.-~ --= _="n_='.~~.. --~" '~--' --=' '~,- '=- ,~,I
PAB:kk
cc:
Project File
Central File
k:\lute\2004\O30104 lute swm cip program l.doc
~ í=ëderal Way
Joe's Creek Regional Detention Facility
and Salmon Habitat Project
Briefing Sheet
Project Description:
. Construction of a regional storm water control facility on
the existing Twin Lakes driving range at the head of
Joe's Creek.
Project Purpose:
. Alleviate high flows into Joe's Creek (WRIA 10) damaging
bed and banks
. Eliminate erosive damage to driving range .
. Stabilize range poles currently eroding and in creek
. Create suitable salmonid habitat along range floor
(400 feet)
. Reduce two feet of standing water in pedes-
trian underpass at S 320th Street
Twin Lakes driving range.
Project Benefits:
. Reduce erosive flows by up to 40%
. Eliminate or significantly reduce recurring
damage to creek banks and bed
. Replace inadequate conveyance systems
. Eliminate flooding conditions on driving tange
and pedestrian underpass
. Increase salmonid habitat at driving range
and downstream
. Control larger flooding events
Project Concept:
. Develop a multi-use regional storm water facility on
existing driving range land
. Use public-private partnership to maximize use of public
funds
. Construct 13-foot high dam
. Relocate and restore 400 feet of severely degraded
salmon habitat
. Modulate larger events while controlling smaller, erosive
events
Driving range under flood conditions
---
~~(~. ::~':
I~', ~~: ~7~:C~~~._- ~
:à~yrg1l' :
Joe:~ Creek
bank erosion
Project Costs:
The project is estimated to cost $1,425,000 of which the City of Federal Way can fund $750,000.
The City is pursuing an additional $750,000 of outside funding.
~ i=ëderal Way
S. 373rd Street Project
Briefing sheet
Project Descriptions
Option 1: Install a longer bridge at the existing location on S. 373rd street. Re-align creek channel
approximately 100 feet upstream and 50 feet downstream to bring flows into new bridge and safely
convey it back into the original channel downstream. Raise bridge profile two feet and re-construct
200 feet of roadway. Will require property easements from three adjacent property owners.
Option 2: Relocate Hylebos Creek approximately 500 feet to the east, install a new bridge, create/
restore 1400 lineal feet of creek, create approximately six (6) acres of new riparian habitat corridor,
install in-stream habitat features such as large woody debris and spawning gravels, install off-channel
refugia areas, and install gravel stabilization measures in accordance with WSDF&W protocols.
Project Purpose:
Option 1: Eliminate or significantly reduce flooding in vicinity of bridge due to lack of capacity in stream
channel. Eliminate or reduce flooding across road. Maintain integrity of City infrastructure.
Significantly reduce need for routine gravel removal activities.
Option 2: Same as option 1 but to include creation of six (6) acres of riparian habitat, stabilization of
1400 lineal feet of channel through Mr. Mase's property, and creation of off-channel refugia for
salmonids.
Project Advantages:
Option 1: Appears to pass the 1O0-year flood with substantial reduction in flood vulnerability of the
adjacent house. May provide long-term solution to sedimentation problem at the bridge. Least
expensive of the two options.
Option 2: Permanent solution that will require little or no maintenance gravel removal actions by City.
Does not require other upstream stabilization measures to successfully operate. Allows for natural
lateral migration of the stream channel across the flood plain. Provides the best flood protection for
the adjacent house. Existing bridge can be left in place to provide additional flood conveyance
capacity. Provide opportunity to create and enhance about 1,400 feet of high-quality stream habitat:
along with six (6) acres of riparian habitat. Provides opportunity to utilize outside funding to build
project.
Project Disadvantages:
Option 1: May not funy address sediment deposition problem resulting in need for maintenance gravel
removal. Does not provide opportunity to restore valuable habitat to the creek system. Will require
easements from three property owners.
Option 2: Requires acquisition of up to 14 acres of land upstream and downstream of the new bridge
location. This can occur through easements or fee simple purchase. Relocation of an active salmon
spawning channel may pose permitting challenges. Highest cost of the two options under
consideration. Will require easements or acquisition in fee simple from two property owners.
~
CITYOF , ~
Federal Way
DATE:
April 5, 2004
FROM:
Jack Dovey, Chair
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Richard A. Perez, P.E. City Traffic Engineer f1J?
Maryanne Zukowski, P.E. Senior Traffic Engineer
David H. ¥.anager
City Center Access Study - Stake Holder Selection Process
TO:
VIA:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND: The City of Federal Way has begun a feasibility study'to determine viable access solutions to
the congested access interchange at S. 320th Street and Interstate 5 Access to the Federal Way City Center.
Interstate S is a high accident corridor (HAC) location south of S. 320th Street and a high accident location (HAL)
at S 320th Street. These locations are experiencing significant congestion for many hours of the day and are
currently at capacity. If a successful and viable solution is found, Federal Way will proceed in developing an
Access Point Decision Report (APDR) to submit to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT).
With City and State approval the report would go to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). An APDR is the
initial step required by the FHWA before changing an interstate highway interchange.
The scope of work follows the WSDOT Design Manual, Chapter 1425 (May 2000) and prescribes the following
four steps required to complete an APDR:
.
Step 1. Identification of need and development of a proposal
Step 2. Preparation of a detailed decision report
Step 3. Acceptance - "finding of engineering é}nd operational acceptability"
Step 4. FHWA final approval (concurrent with environmental approval)
.
.
.
The scope of services is structured to be consistent with WSDOT's process and gain consensus for finding of
engineering and operational feasibility with the following major work elements:
1. Project Management
2. Agency and Community Coordination
3. Project Committee Meetings
4. Data Collection and Setting of Study Parameters
S. Solution Development, Evaluation, and Selection
6. Policy Point Development and Review
7. APDR Report Preparation
8. Agency Review and Revisions
9. Optional Tasks
Items (2) and (3) involve the Stake Holder as prescribed in the WSDOT Design Manual, Chapter 1425 (May
2000). Chapter 142S is attached for additional information.
Attached also is a Stake Holder Process Flow Chart for the selection of participates in the Stake Holder Process.
Some of the participates have been determined as recognized groups, staff is seeking approval of a selection
process of individuals to participate in the Stake Holder Process.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests that the Committee place the following Stake Holder process as a recommendation on the April 20,
2004 City Council Consent Agenda:
APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REPORT:
:...~;:}.<,::::¡¡tJ:,:.:" ' "':::,::::';",:,':' '""."",,¡;,,;,,¡:,¡:::,r:"¡,,;:.::";,::~i:;~,::,:'..::/~,:,.",.':,,,')<.~::{',.
;: ;!~,'" ,"""":" """,'",~""',""",',':~'~",^~",~¡,,',',"',,',',~~"',"',',",',","',,~d';';',"""'\"f""
~~¡n'".';':':"" ":,:,,:;"'j"~':"""',,:',,:,r,:':~>¡"::':'i';":,-;:,:i:'!':;"¡;',"::'¡!%..",..'\»,,::
/'¡\~;Jack,Dovëÿ;"cï;åir"-"'---- ,Michael Park, Member
,~;( : ::,.,' ' , " ,:'i:(i;j:;' .' 'ii, ,;: :
_.,~--~.'~='-~ --'-"--,', .
'"
, '['" " , .. ,>/;; '".:
""':'¡"':""""" ":,.:j,':,',~,;,;! ",;,',.'~.~'",'", \, , " I""',""
., ,. . ,.i,,':¡,::':;;..,;, .. "",.'::;'::¡~~::¡::,i:,:n"
, Eric Faison, Mem'ber., ' -..- :
, , "",' , ""
, :',"¡", ' '
MAZ:kk
K:\LUTC\2004\Œy Center Access Study - Stake Holder Process.doc
cc:
Project File
Central File
City Center Access Study
Process and Committee Structure
STAKE HOLDER SELECTION PROCESS
2-04-04
Stakeholders. Stakeholders consist of interested public and private agencies,
neighborhoods, businesses, and local community groups. Providing infonnation to
stakeholders and gathering their input will be done in both public meetings and briefings to
collect infonnation and identify fatal flaws, as noted in 2.2.2 and 2.2.4. Stakeholder roles
include providing their feedback in the fonn of issues, concerns, and priorities. Their early
involvement is intended to obtain endorsement of the decisio"n making process and
ultimately support of the project. It is important that individuals involved can deliver on
their commitment. This will not be a decision making group. Six Stakeholder meetings are
anticipated.
The preferred target size of this group is 20 to 30 members. Six positions are currently
held as shown on the draft committee listing.
Solicitation and Selection Process:
I ADVERTISE NEED I
PRESS RELEASE I
RUN ARTICLE I
I
RUN AD
I
I
I POST ON WEB SITE I
,,< '
'",¡;- ::,~¡.;~",,"";~'
LUTC/COUNCIL
ANN 0 UN CEMENTS
City Center Access Study
Process and Committee Structure
STAKE HOLDER SELECTION PROCESS
2-04-04
I TOWN MEETING I
I INFORMATION I
APPLICATION
DISTRIBUTION
I SELECTION I
STAFF APPLICATION
REVIEW
COUNCIL REVIEW &
APPROVAL
STAKEHOLDER
ORIENTATION & 6
STAKEHOLDER
MEETINGS
City Center Access Study
Process and Committee Structure
ST AKE HOLDER SELECTION PROCESS
2-04-04
Draft Stakeholders Positions Taken
31627-15t Avenue South' PO. Box 4249' Federal Way,
Washington 98063
Federal Way: 253-941-1516' Tacoma: 253.927.2922.
¡Fax 253-839.9310
City of Federal Way-pï:ïtiïic Safeïy------ -Police Chief Anne-----!-Anne_KirkPatríck@cit¥offederaïWay:com
Kirkpatrick -
i
I
I
Clly 01 Fede,,' Way FI" Oeparlmeot -I FI" -Ch leI All" cherchj a¡¡¡;; ~hu"h(1i)lederalwayfi" "'9- m-
I Headquarters
31617 1st Ave S
Federal Way, WA 98003
phone (253) 839-6234
fax (253) 529-7205
GROUP NAME
CONT ACT
City of Federal Way Parks Department
Jennifer Schroder
--~-----
-------
City of Federal Way Chamber of
Commerce
Chair -- Board of
Directors Dini Duclos
*also representing employers and local
businesses
Chair Elect - Board of
Directors Bob
Hitchcock
------------
Federal Way School District
Adminstration
Lakehaven Utility District
Staff
::: ------- -...I
EMAIL OR ADDRESS INFORMATION
~-~-~---
Jen n ifer, Sch roder@cityoffederalway_com
253.661.4040
---~---------
federalwa y@federalwa yeh amber, com
Federal Way Chamber of Commerce
P.O, Box 3440
Federal Way 98063
253.838.2605
~--
31405 18tnAve S., Federal Way, WA 98003
253.945.2000
~-----
-- - -- ---om -------
------------"__mm ---,---------------_---__n_- -----------
--------______n_m_--__----- ___n- -,----
King C:~:~~:i9hborhOOd East~ 1-5 f-~SR:::s_ent~_bY
"Fríends of the Hylehos Wetlands" I As Represented by
I
i-- -----------,.- -------------- ----------- ____n_nn__---mu_-
- ---+-se~jraceY--Eide(Df'
I
I
,
--------
Legislative Office
--------- -
J
- --- -------
-'C 3E: UET':F:;'/'\E.~
TO 3E Dr: TERVi\ELJ
---j--:---;---- ------ --------------------- ------
, Ù1g-'r11i!iL eide tr@leqwaqov
424 .lohn A Cherberg Building
PO Box 40430
Olympia WA 98504-0430
Telephone (360) 786--7658
Fax, (360) 786-1999
---------- ---,-----------_----_-_n___~
City Center Access Study
Process and Committee Structure
STAKE HOLDER SELECTION PROCESS
2-04-04
Legislative Office: Rep. Mark Miloscia (D) 'Ie-mail: miloscia ma@leq.wa.qov
P. O. Box 40600
Mod 1 Building - rm 112
Olympia, WA 98504-0600
Telephone: (360) 786-7898
Legislative Office: Rep. Skip Priest (R) 41 ,e-mail: priest_sk@leg.wa.gov
P. O. Box 40600
420 John L. O'Brien Bldg.
Olympia, WA 98504-0600
Telephone: (360) 786-7830
Stakeholder Selection Criteria:
Low = 0 Medium = 5 High = 10
1.
Resident and/or Land Owner with in the City limits or
PAA.
D
2.
Knowledge of the City of Federal Way.
D
-History
-Land Use / Environmental
-Transportation
-Civic
-Economic
D
D
3.
Represents Interest or Neighborhood Group.
4.
Previous Volunteer Activities in Civic Duty.
C:\ )ocuments and Settings\default\ )esktop\Stakcholders draft .doc
. .
Draft Stake Holder Schedule of Activities
LUTC
Council
Stake Holder Process & Briefing Update
Stake Holder Process & Briefing Update
Media Advertising Stake Holder Process
Town Meeting Stake Holder Process
Applications due Stake Holder Process
Application Selection Stake Holder Process
LUTC
Council
Stake Holder Process
Stake Holder Process
1 st Stake Holder Meeting
Man 04/05/04
Tue 04/20/04
Wed 04/21 /04
Wed 04/28/04
Tue 05/04/04
Tue 05/11/04
Man 05/17/04
Tue 06/01/04
Tue 06/08/04
1425
Access Point Decision Report
1425.0]
1425.02
1425.03
1425.04
142505
CîencraJ
References
Definitions
Procedures
;\ccess Point Decision Report and
SuPJxJrt ing ¡\ naJ yses
Documentation
1425.06
1425.01
General
It is in the public's interest that the state's free-
ways be maintained and protected to provide
the highest practical level of service in terms
of safety and mobility. Federal laws and both
FHW A and WSDOT policies require a formal
request, with an Access Point Decision Report,
for any access point revision that might adversely
affect through traffic on a freeway in Washington
State. The report is used for a decision-making
process and documents the planning, evaluation,
design, and coordination that support and justify
the requcst.
In theory, a transportation project such as a new
interchange would begin with a study of a large
section of the freeway system to determine
existing and future access needs. The needs
would become paJi of a statewide plan. Alter-
natives would be suggested and evaluated.
Preliminary proposals would be selected and
evaluated. A final proposal would be selected,
analyzed, approved, designed, constructed,
maintained, and monitored.
But that is not always the source of a proposal.
If a revised access point proposal is not the result
of system planning, then the process of evaluat-
ing the altern3tive has to go back to the beginning
to study the system throughout the affected area
and determine whether or not an access point
revision will be the best reasonable alternative.
Sometimes it is not -~ fèJr example, because it
would interfere with Interstate travel, or because
modifications to the local surface system would
be a better and more reasonable solution for
accommodating local traffIc.
---_._~..-
_n-
Design Manual
May 2000
For all but the simplest projects, WSDOT
recommends that a support team be used to help
integrate the planning, programming, and design
efforts that lead to development of a proposal.
The Project Definition process, Value Engineer-
ing studies, public involvement efforts,
environmental analyses, and analyses for the
Access Point Decision Report all use similar data
and try to find the best way to meet the needs.
The team is charged with achieving creative and
reasonable identification of possible alternatives
- guiding selection of the best from the alterna-
tives to qevelop a proposal - and providing
guidanceJrom potential reviewers to the decision
report developers in order to streamline the
report-development process and meet the
reviewers' requirements.
An Access Point Decision Report is a stand-alone
decision document that includes all supporting
information for ready reference by those review-
ing the request. (For example, information drawn
from the planning documents and the Project
Summary is included.) It includes information
about the proposed project that includes the
access point revision and information about all
other improvements that are needed for the
access revision to function as intended.
After the Access Point Decision Report is
rcviewed, if the revised access proposal is
3cceptable it is givcn a(ìnding of engineering
and operational acceptability and approved
concurrently with the appropriate environmental
documents.
For consistency, this ch3pter provides the
sequence of presentation and guidance for
deveJoping the required documentation.
1425.02
References
Notice of policy statement: "Additional
Interchanges to the Interstate System," Federal
HIghway Administration notice published in the
Federal Register, October 22, 1990. (Vol. 55,
No. 204)
_.~- u-.-.
Access Point Decision Report
Page 1425-1
Notice of policy statement: "Additional
Interchanges to the Interstate System," Federal
Highway Administration notice published in the
Federal Register on Wednesday, February II,
1998. (Vol. 63, No. 28) (Accessible in http://
www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/
a980211 c.html, under FHW A notices, "Interstate
system, additional interchanges, policy statement,
7045-7047.")
United States Code 23 USC section III
Code of Federal Regulations 23 CFR part 450
(implementing 23 USC section Ill)
Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR parts 51
and 93 (regarding federal conformity with state
and federal air quality implementation plans)
Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report No
209 (HCM), Transportation Research Council
Forcasting and Methods Matrix, WSDOT
(when available)
1425.03
Definitions
altematil'es Possible components of a proposal
- including design options, locations, and travel
demand management and transportation system
management type improvements such as ramp
metering, mass transit, and high occupancy
vehicle (HOV) facilities.
access point Any point that allows entrance
to or exit from the traveled way of a freeway.
(This includes "locked gate" acccss.)
access point re !isio/l A new access point,
a change in existing interchange/intersection
configuration, or the relocation of an existing
access point.
freeway For this chapter only, ajì'ceway is any
multilane divided highway with limited access
control that is on the Interstatc System or the
Washington State Highway System.
/leed for this chapter only, an existing or
anticipated travel demand requiring a change in
access to the state's freeway system.
proposal The combination of alternatives that is
being submitted for approval by way ofa request
and an Access Point Decision Report. A proposal
would have one or more projects involving access
point revision alternatives and other projects and
actions necessary for the needs to be addressed
and the access revisions to function as intended.
tral!eled way The portion of the roadway
intended for the movement of vehicles, exclusive
of shoulders and lanes for parking, turning, and
storage for turning.
1425.04
Procedures
Figures 1425-1 a and 1 b list the project types most
likely to affect freeway efficiency, thus requiring
a formal request and an Access Point Decision
Report. Figure 1425-2 lists the project types least
likely to require a request and decision report.
If there is any q u~stion whether an Access Point
Decision Report is required, consult the OSC
Access and Hearings Engineer and, if on the
Interstate System, the FHW A Transportation
and Environmental Engineer.
Gaining acceptance and approval for an access
point revision is a multistep process. (See the
Access Point Decision Report Flow Chart,
Figures 1425-3a and 3b.).
(1) The first step: to identify needs and
develop a proposal. Whcn going through the
process of developing a proposal, it is important
to use the data and analysis methods required
for an Access Point Decision Report in order to
easily document the process.
(a) Are there cxisting or anticipated needs?
Might a new or revised access point bc an
appropriatc solution (figure 1425-3a, box I)?
(b) If the proposcd solution includcs an access
point revision, detcrmine whether the proposed
acccss point rcvision is reflected in a Regional
Transportation Improvement Plan, a Mctropolitan
Transportation Improvemcnt Plan, or thc Statc
Highway System Plan, or whether it is the result
of a developer, local agency, or regional request.
I f needed, conduct a comprehensive freeway
study, rcvisit the land use and transportation
plans, and revise the State Highway System Plan
to include the nced for an aecess point revision
(figure 1425-3a, boxes 2 and 3).
Access Point Decision Report
Page 1425-2
Design Manual
May 2000
(c) Establish a support team for all new access
points and for major revisions to existing access
points (Figure 1425-3a, box 4). The core
decision-making team consists of:
. FHW A Transportation and Environmental
Engineer (if Interstate)
. Region's Design or Project Development
Engineer
. OSC Assistant State Design Engineer
. OSC Access and Hearings Engineer
. OSC Traffic Office representative
. Representative of the proponent
. Recorder
The core team is encouraged to call upon
specialists as needed, for example:
. Metropolitan Planning Organization
. WSDOT region
. Planning
. Environmental
. Traffic
. Maintenance
. Safety
. Access Point Decision Report writer
. OSC
. Design
. Bridge
. Geotechnical
. Local agencies
. Transit agencies
The team's role is to:
. Develop a charter that includes the processes
for reaching consensus, resolving disputes,
and assigning responsibility for final deci-
sions when consensus is not reached.
. Expedite the decision report development and
review process through early communication
and agreement.
. Provide guidance and support.
. Contribute to identification of possible
alternatives.
. Define the study and decision report
parameters.
. Ensure compatibility of data used in various
studies.
. Agree on impact areas and travel forecasts for
each of the alternatives being considered.
. Help integrate the Project Definition process
studies, Value Engineering studies, public
involvement efforts, environmental analyses,
operational analyses, and analyses for the
Acc~ss Point Decision Report. This can
enco\,lJage use of consistent data.
. Address deviation issues. (Representatives
from approving agencies participate in
problem-solving.)
. Provide conclusions promptly, in writing,
to the persons preparing the Access Point
Decision Report.
. Contribute material for the decision report
that documents the opposing point of view
when consensus was not reached.
. Review results.
(2) The second step: to prepare a detailed
decision report using the guidance in 1425.05
"Access Point Decision Report and Supporting
Analyses" (Figure 1425-3a, boxes 5 through 9).
The Access Point Decision Report usually
addresses eight specific policy topics in detail.
(See Figures 1425-la and Ib for exceptions.)
They are, in order of presentation:
1.
2.
Future Interchanges
Land Use and Transportation Plans
3.
4.
Reasonable Alternatives
Need for the Access Point Revision
5.
6.
Access Connections and Design
Operational and Accident Analyses
7.
8.
Coordination
Planning and Environmental Processes
Design Manual
May 2000
Access Point Decision Report
Page 1425-3
The extent of the decision report varies consider-
ably with the scope of the access point revision.
For example, for locked gates and emergency
temporary access to sites normally accessed by
another route, the application for approval may
be condensed to a letter format that includes
adequate justification.
The Access Point Decision Report is begun early
in the environmental process because it's analy-
ses help define the area of impact and the range
of alternatives. Since the traffic data required for
NEP A or SEP A and the operational analyses of
the decision report are similar, these documents
are usually developed together using the same
data sources and procedures.
(3) The third step: acceptance based on an
Access Point Decision Report that defines the
proposed access point revision and other needed
modifications to the main line and the local
surface system to protect freeway operations
and safety.
The region, with the help of the support team,
prepares the Access Point Decision Report and
submits four copies (two for non-Interstate) to
the Access and Hearings Engineer (in the Design
Office, Olympia Service Center) for review and
submittal for acceptance and approval. When the
access point revision is on an Interstate freeway,
regardless of funding sources, the State Design
Engineer submits the decision report to FHW A
with a request for acceptance and approval
(Figure 1425-3b, box 10).
Acceptance of the proposed access point revision
by FHW A or the State Design Engineer is a
finding of engineering and operational accept-
ability. For state routes, the State Design
Engineer's acceptance is given concurrently
with environmental approval (Figure 1425-3b,
boxes II through 14).
Some Interstate access point revisions are
reviewed by FHW A at the local divisional level
in Washington State and consequently require
less time for a determination of acceptability
and final approval. Others are reviewed by the
Federal Highway Administrator in Washington,
DC, and can require a more protracted review
and acceptance process. See Figure 1425-1 b
for details.
FHW A final approval requires that the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) procedures
are followed. The NEP A procedures are accom-
plished as part of the normal project development
process and as a condition of the access approval.
Final access point approval cannot precede the
completion of the NEPA process. To offer
maximum flexibility, however, any proposed
access point(s) may be submitted for a detennina-
tion of engineering and operational acceptability
prior to completion of the NEP A process. A
determination can be made as to whether or not
a proposal is acceptable for inclusion as an option
in the environmental process.
(4) The fourth step: for Interstate projects,
is the FHW A final, approval of the access point
revision that is given concurrently with the local
divisioillevel environmental approval (as in the
case of a Record of Decision) or as part of the
NEPA approval (Figure 1425-3b, box 15).
1425.05 Access Point Decision
Report and Supporting Analyses
Begin the Access Point D.ecision Report with an
executive summary. BriefJy state what access
point revision is being submitted for a decision
and why the revision is needed. Include a brief
summary of the proposal and the impacts and
mitigative measures of the proposal.
For any new access point on an existing freeway
to be considered for acceptance and approval,
all eight policy points must be addressed in the
Access Point Decision Report. If the project
modifies an existing access point, see Figures
1425-1a and I b for the required policy points.
(See Figure 1425-2 for project types that might
not require a decision report.)
Follow the summary statement with a numbered
outline representing the eight policy points being
covered in the decision report. In the outline,
provide a sentence or two that very briefly
answers each policy point's question. If one of
the eight policy points is not included, briefly
justify its omission. Figure 1425.la or Ib might
be referenced as justification or, for instance, if
there are no documents for number seven, its
Access Point Decision Report
Page 1425-4
Design Manual
May 2000
outline entry might read: "7. Coordination.
No developers are involved and no work on the
local system is proposed."
All eight policy points are provided numbered
tabs in the decision report. The Access Point
Decision Report must be assembled in the
numbered order. An empty tab is justified in
the outline.
The following guidance for each policy point is
written for the most extreme condition - a new
interchange in an urbanized area. The scope of
the analyses and documentation need not be as
extensive for more modest access point revisions.
Factors that affect the scope include location
(rural or urban), access points (new or revised),
ramps (new or existing), ramp terminals (freeway
or surface system), and intersections (revise or
replace with interchange or over/undercrossing).
The following guidance on the preparation of the
decision report applies to routes in both rural and
urban areas.
Each of the policy points is part of the decision
report to answer the question given at the
beginning of the discussion.
(1) Future Interchanges
Is the proposed access point revision compatible
with a comprehensive network plan?
In areas where the potential exists for future
multiple interchange additions, support all
requests for revised access points by a com-
prehensivc freeway network study with
recommendations that address all proposed,
reasonable, and desired access points within
the context of a long-term plan for that arca.
In larger urban areas, regional plans might be too
generalized to specify individual intcrchanges.
To plan the relative priority of new access points,
a plan refinemcnt study or traftïc circulation
study must bc completed.
The study must demonstrate that the proposed
revised access point is compatible with other
feasible new access points that have already
been proposed.
Reference and summarize any comprehensive
freeway network study, plan refinement study,
or traffic circulation study.
Explain the consistency of the proposed access
point revision with those studies.
(2) Land Use and Transportation
Plans
Is the proposed access point revision compatible
with all land use and transportation plans for
the area?
Show that the proposal is based on consideration
of and is consistent with local and regional land
use and transportation plans. Before final ap-
proval, all requests for access point revisions
must be consistent with the metropolitan and/or
statewide-'transportation plan, as appropriate.
(See Chapter 120.)
Reference the existing and proposed land use
plan and the regional and local transportation
plans and studies that apply to the area.
Explain the consistency of the proposed access
point revision wi~h those plans and studies, the
applicable provisions of 23 CFR Part 450, and
the applicable transportation conformity
requirements of 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93.
If the proposed access is not specifically
referenced in the transportation plans, define
its consistency with the plans and indicate the
process for the responsible planning agency to
incorporate the project. In urban areas, the plan
refinement must be adopted by the metropolitan
planning organization (MPO) before the project
is designed.
The proposed acccss point revision will affect
adjacent land use and, conversely, land use
will affect travel demand generated. Therefore,
reference and show compatibility with the land
use plans, zoning controls, and transportation
ordinances in the affccted area.
Design Manual
May 2000
Access Point Decision Report
Page 1425.5
(3)
Reasonable Alternatives
Have all reasonable alternatives been assessed
and provided for?
Explain how the preferred proposal provides for
all reasonable alternatives that are currently
justified and includes provisions to accommodate
alternatives that meet the identified future (design
year) needs. (For example, if ramp metering and
an HOY bypass meet future needs, they are
provided for by constructing adequate storage
or by acquiring adequate right of way for future
construction.) Future projects must be coordi-
nated as described in policy point 7 below.
Describe all reasonable alternatives that have
been considered - the design options, locations,
and transportation system management type
improvements (such as ramp metering, mass
transit, and HOY facilities) that have been
assessed.
Describe alternatives that were proposed and then
rejected as being unreasonable.
Explain why omitted reasonable alternatives
were dismissed.
(4) Need for the Access Point
Revision
What are the current and projected needs and
why won't the existing access points and existing
or improved local system meet the needs? Is the
anticipated demand short or long trip?
Provide a narrative section that describes the need
for an access point revision and explains why
existing access points do not address the need and
how the proposal docs meet the anticipated travel
demand. Provide the analysis and data to support
the access request.
(a) Narrative. Describe the needs being
addressed and describe the proposal in detail.
Include all reasonable alternatives for design
options, location, and travel demand management
and transportation system management type
improvements that are proposed to address the
needs. Show that any alternative that might affect
the need for the proposal has been considered in
the needs analyses.
Show that the existing interchanges/intersections
and the local surface system can neither provide
the necessary access nor be improved to satisfac-
torily accommodate the design-year travel
demands. Describe traffic mitigation measures
considered at locations where the level of service
is or will be below service standards.
Show that the access point revision portion of the
proposal is primarily to meet regional (not local)
travel demands. Distinguish between local and
regional traffic (trip link and/or route choice).
(b) Analysis and Data. The data analysis
procedures and study areas used must be
acceptable to the support team.
Show that a preliminary (planning level) analysis,
comparing build fu no-build data, was conducted
and included the following steps:
. Define the study areas. The proposed access
point revision will affect adjacent land use
and, conversely, land use will affect travel
demand generated. For a possible new
interchange, there might be more than one
study area depending. on build/no-build
options and the associated land use
development levels.
. Develop current and design year (20 years
from start of construction) peak hour traffic
estimates for the regional and local systems
in the subarea of the proposal. Use regional
transportation plmming organization based
forecasts refined, as necessary, by accepted
travel demand estimating procedures. Fore-
casts for specifIc ramp traffic can require
other methods of estimation procedures and
must be consistent with the projections of the
travel demand models. (See the Forcasting
and Methods Matrix, when available.)
. Identify the origins and destinations of trips
on the local systems, the existing inter-
change/intersections, and the proposed
access.
. Assign the appropriate travel demand to
improvements that might be made to:
Access Point Decision Report
Page 1425-6
Design Manual
May 2000
. The surface system such as: widen, add
new surface routes, coordinate the signal
system, control access, improve local
circulation, or improve parallel roads
or streets.
. The existing interchanges such as
lengthen or widen ramps, add park and
ride lots, or add frontage roads.
. The freeway lanes such as add collector-
distributor roads or auxiliary lanes.
. Transportation system management and
travel demand management measures.
. Describe the current and design year level
of service at all affected locations within the
study area; including local systems, existing
ramps, and freeway lanes.
(5) Access Connections and Design
Will the proposal provide fully directional
interchanges connected to public roads, spaced
appropriately, and designed to full design level
geometric control criteria?
Wherever possible, provide for all directions of
traffic movements. The intent is to try to provide
full movement at all interchanges. Less than fully
directional interchanges for special-purpose
access for traqsit vehicles, for HaYs, or to or
from park and ride lots will be considered on a
case-by-case basis.
A proposed interchange access must connect to
a public highway, road, or street.
Discuss interchange spacing and how the
proposed access point relates to present and
future proposed configurations and the spacing
recommendations.
Show that the proposed access point revision will
be designed to meet or exceed current full design
level (Chapters 325, 440, 640, 940, and 1050, for
example). Present the information in sufficient
detail to be used for an operational analysis. For
example, include the number of lanes, horizontal
and vertical curvature, lateral clearance, lane
width, shoulder width, weave distance, ramp
taper, and all traffic movements, if appropriate.
This information is presented as a simple sketch
or a more complex layout depending on the
complexity of the proposal. Construction plans,
specifications, and estimates of quantities are
not necessary.
When existing nonstandard features are to be
retained, explain why they are nonstandard and
justify the decision not to improve them to
standard. The support team helps determine the
extent of reconstruction to be proposed and rules
on any suggestions regarding deviations for new
work that are being considered to become part of
the proposal.
Show that all new ramp terminals will be
designed to meet or exceed current state and
local full design level geometric control criteria.
(6) Operational and Accident
Analyses
How will the proposal affect safety and traffic
operations now and for the next 20 years?
The support team plays a critical role in opera-
tional and accident analysis decisions such as
selecting appropriate procedures, defining
affected areas, selecting appropriate data, and
defining "significant adverse impact." These
are project-specific decisions.
The reporting for polfcy point six is documenta-
tion of the procedures used to do the operational
and accident analyses and the results that support
and justify the proposal.
Once the (prefened) proposed access revision has
been selected, show that it will not have a signifi-
cant adverse impact on the (a) operation and
(b) safety of the freeway and the affected surface
system, or that the impacts will be mitigated. If
this cannot be shown, the needs and alternatives
are revisited, using more detailed information,
to develop a different proposal.
Show that the analysis procedures and study areas
used are acceptable to the support team.
Document the results of the following analyses in
the decision report as appropriate:
. An operational analysis for both the opening
and design years of the existing freeway and
the affected surface system.
Design Manual
May 2000
Access Point Decision Report
Page 1425-7
. An operational analysis for both the opening
and design years of the proposed future
freeway and the affected surface system for
the preferred proposal.
. An accident analysis for both opening and
design years of the existing freeway and the
affected surface system, and for the proposed
future freeway and affected surface system.
The data used must be consistent with the data
used in the environmental documentation. If not,
provide justification for the discrepancies.
(a) Opcl.ational Analyses. Demonstrate that
the proposal does not have a significant adverse
impact on the operation of the freeway or the
adjacent affected surface system or that the
impacts will be mitigated.
Use appropriate operational analysis procedures.
For complex urban projects, a refined model
might be necessary. As a minimum, the latest
accepted Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
might be appropriate. Any procedure used must
provide a measure of effectiveness compatible
with the HCM. Include data sufficient to allow
independent verification of the results by using
the HCM.
All (design level) operational analyses shall be
of sufficient detail and include sufficient data and
procedure documentation to aHow independent
analysis and concurrence during FHW A or OSC
evaluation of the proposal.
Prepare a sketch or layout displaying adjacent
affected facilities and the following data. Include
this sketch or layout in the body of the decision
report where it is readily available to thc
reviewers. Show:
. Distances between intersections or ramps of
a proposed interchange and that of adjacent
interchanges.
. Design speeds.
. Grades.
. Truck volume percentages on the freeway,
ramps, and affected roadways.
. Adjustment factors (peak hour factors, etc.).
--~
Access Point Decision Report
Page 1425-8
. Freeway, ramp, and affected surface system
traffic volumes (including turning volumes)
forecasts for each option, including a "no-
build" scenario, in the AM and PM peaks
(also, noon peaks, if applicable) and average
daily traffic (ADT), for the opening and
design year.
. Current year (report year) traffic volumes
based on traffic counts.
. Main line, ramp, and affected surface system
lane configurations.
The required minimum limits of the analysis on
the freeway are through the adjacent and pro-
posed interchanges/intersections on both sides of
the access point revision unless it is documented
that the proposal bas no impacts on the adjacent
interchanges/intersections. If the interehanges/
intersections are closely spaced, it might be
necessary to go beyond adjacent interchanges/
intersections. In urban areas, extend the analyses
far enough to include the extent of the traffic
impacts.
The required limits of the. capacity analysis on the
surface system are the extent necessary to show
that the system can safely and adequately collect
and distribute any new traffic loads resulting
from the access point revision. Expand the limits
of the study arca, if necessary, to analyze the
coordination required with an in-place or pro-
posed traffic signal system. Document the limits
of the analysis as well as how the limits were
established.
Documcnt the results of analyzing the existing
access and the proposed access point revision
at all affected locations within the limits of the
study area (sLlch as, wcavc, merge, diverge, ramp
terminals, accident sites, ane! HOV lanes) along
the affected section of fì-ccway (main line and
ramps) and on the affected surface system. In the
decision report, highlight the following:
. Any location for which there is a significant
adverse impact on the operation or safcty
of the freeway facility (such as causing a
reduction of the operational cfnciency of
a merge condition at an existing ramp,
Design Manual
May 2000
introducing a weave, or significantly reduc-
ing the level of service on the main line due
to additional travel demand) as well as what
will be done to mitigate this adverse impact.
. Any location where a congestion point will
be improved or eliminated by the proposal
(such as proposed auxiliary lanes or collec-
tor-distributor roads for weave sections).
. Any surface system conditions that will affect
traffic entering or exiting the freeway. If
entering traffic is to be metered, explain the
effect on the connecting surface system (for
example, vehicle storage).
. When the existing facility does not meet
the desired level of service, show how the
proposal will improve the level of service or
keep it from becoming worse than the future
level with no change in access.
(b) Accident analyses. Demonstrate that the
proposal does not have a significant adverse
impact on the safety of the freeway or the adja-
cent affected surface system or that the impacts
will be mitigated.
The required minimum limits of study are the
same as for the operational analyses.
Identify all safety program (12) locations. Where
appropriate, identify accident histories, rates, and
types for the freeway section and the adjacent
affected surface system. Project the rates tllat will
result from traffic flow and geometric conditions
imposed by the proposed access point revision.
Document the basis for all assumptions.
(7)
Coordination
Are all coordinating projects and actions
programmed and funded?
When the request for an access point revision
is generated by new or expanded development
(such as private developer or new park and ride
lot), demonstrate appropriate coordination
between the development and the changes to
the transportation system.
Show that the proposal includes a commitment
to complete the other noninterchangc/
non intersection improvements that are necessary
for the interchange/intersection to function as
proposed. For example, the local circulation
system must be in place before new ramps are
opened to traffic and there must be commitment
to the travel demand management and transporta-
tion system management concepts included in the
proposal. If future reconstruction is part of the
mitigation for design year level of service, the
reconstruction projects must be in the State
Highway System Plan.
All elements for improvements must be shown to
include a fiscal commitment and a definite time
for completion.
If the access point is to be designed as a left-side
connection for Hay use only, include a commit-
ment to close the access, rather than to open it to
general use, if the Hay demand is moved to
another a&ess point or it declines to a level that
no longer justifies the access.
(8) Planning and Environmental
Processes
What is the status of the proposal's planning
and environmental processes?
All requests for access point revisions on
Interstate freeways must contain information
on the status of the planning process. Show
that the following federal objectives have been
considered and report the proposed project's
relationship to meeting them.
Federal law (23 use Ill) requires that "each
state cany out a transportation planning process
that provides for consideration of projects and
strategies that will:
(a) Support the economic vitality of the United
States, the states, and metropolitan areas,
especially by enabling global competitiveness,
productivity, and efficiency.
(b) Increase the safety and security of the
transportation .\ystem for motorized and
noll/notorized users.
(c) Increase the accessibility and mobility
options available to people and forfreight.
(d) Protect and enhance the environment,
promote energy conservation, and improve
quality of life.
Design Manual
May 2000
Access Point Decision Report
Page 1425-9
(e) Enhance the integration and connectivity of
the transportation system, across and between
modes throughout the state, for people and
freight.
(f) Promote efficient system management and
operation.
(g) Emphasize the preservation of the existing
transportation system. ..
All requests for access point revisions on free-
ways must contain information on the status of
the environmental process. The following are
just a few examples of status information that
might apply.
. Are the environmental documents presently
or soon-to-be submitted for approval?
. What applicable permits and approvals have
been obtained and are pending?
. Are there hearings still to be held?
. Is the environmental process waiting for an
engineering and operational acceptability
decision?
1425.06
Documentation
The following documents are to be preserved in
the project file.
D Request for acceptance and approval and
the associated Access Point Decision
Report and records.
D Acceptance and approval documents.
D Justification for omitting a request and
decision report.
P65:DPIDMM
Access Point Decision Report
Page 1425-10
Design Manual
May 2000
Project Type Support Policy Point Accept- Approval
Team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ance * *
Full and Partial Access Control (See Chapter 1420.)
For Interstate Freeways FHWA FHWA
For Non-Interstate Freeways OSC OSC
New freeway-to-crossroad S S S S S S S S
interchange in a R N or ./ L or ./
transportation management F F F F F F F F
area (1)
New freeway-to-crossroad .
interchange not in a R S S S S S S S S L or ./ L or ./
transport-ation management F F F F F F F F
area (1)
New partial interchange R S S S S S S S S N or ./ L or ./
F F F F ~;F F F F
New HOV direct access to R S S S S S S S S. N or ./ L or ./
and/or from the median F F F F F F F F
New freeway-to-freeway R S S S S S S S S N or ./ L or ./
interchange F F F F F F F F
Modification to freeway-to- R S S S S S S S S N or ./ L or ./
freeway interchange in a F F F F F F F F
transportation management
area (1 )(2)
Modification to freeway-to- R S S S S S S S S L or ./ L or ./
freeway interchange not in a F F F F F F F F
transportation management
area (1 )(2)
Modification to interchange R S S S S S S S S L or ./ L or ./
(3) F F F F F F F F
Addition of entrance or exit
ramps that complete basic R S S S S S S S S L or ./ L or ./
movements at existing F F F F F F F F
intercha nge
Abandonment of a ramp (4) R S S S S S S S S L or ./ L or ./
F F F F F F F F
Locked gate (Letter Format) No B B (5) B L or ./ L or ./
Emergency temporary access (5)
to site normally accessed by No B B B L or ./ L or ./
another route. (Letter Format)
See legend and notes next page.
* See legend item next page.
Access Point Decision Report Content and Review levels
Figure 1425-1a
Design Manual
May 2000
Access Point Decision Report
Page 1425-11
Project Type Support Policy Point Accept- Approva
I
Team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ance * *
For Partial and Modified Access Control Freeways (See Chapter OSC OSC
1420.)
New intersection or access S S S S S ,/ ,/
point, partial access control R S S S
New intersection or access ,/ ,/
point, modified access R S S (5) S
control
Change intersection to R S S S S S
interchange or ,/.. ,/..
over/undercrossing (6)
Modify interchange with R S S S (7) ,/ ,/
effects
Modify intersection with R S S ,/ ,/
effects . .
R
S
Notes:
(1) A transportation management area is a county with a population greater than 200,000. In
Washington they are Clark, King, Pierce, Snohomish, Spokane, and Yakima Counties.
(2) "Modification" includes changes in interchange configuration even though the number of
access points does not change. Changing from a cloverleaf to a directional interchange is an
example of a "modification." However, for non-Interstate, if the modification does not add new
lanes and can be shown to have no adverse impacts, and the spacing and geometric control
criteria requirements will be met, omit the request and document justification to the design file.
(3) Modifications that might adversely affect the level of service of the through lanes. Examples:
doubling lanes for an on-ramp with double entry to the freeway; adding a loop ramp to an
existing diamond interchange, replacing a diamond ramp with a loop ramp.
(4) Unless it is a condition of the original approval.
(5) Sketch only.
(6) Changing an intersection to an over/undercrossing if all conditions on Figure 1425-2 are met.
(7) Only if data is not consistent between the decision report and the environmental analyses.
* See 1425(3) regarding acceptance and 1425(4) regarding approval.
.. See Figure 1425-2 for exceptions
FHWA Federal Highway Administration.
OSC Olympia Service Center, Design Office. The Access and Hearings Engineer coordinates
acceptance and approval.
B Brief (policy point) report item required.
,/ OSC acceptance and approval.
F On the Interstate system, a (policy point) report item required by FHWA.
L For Interstate, FHWA acceptance or approval at the local division level, which can be
expected to take from 1 to 4 months, or longer, depending on the complexity of the
project and its environmental processes.
N For Interstate, FHWA acceptance at the national level, which can be expected to take
from 3 to 12 months, or longer, depending on the complexity of the project and its
environmental processes.
Recommended.
On a non-Interstate route, a (policy point) report item required by the state.
Access Point Decision Report Content and Review levels
Figure 1425-1b
Access Point Decision Report
Page 1425-12
Design Manual
May 2000
Project Type Comments
Modify existing freeway to freeway To bring to standard
interchange
Revise existing component (lengthening or To meet current geometric control criteria
widening)
Ramp modification at the crossroad with no New right turn pocket, for example
effect on the through lanes of the freeway
Add a lane to a ramp that merges before Adding a lane at the on/off access point
entering the through lane requires a decision report
Reconstruct intersection at grade having Changing an intersection to an interchange
HAL, HAC, or FAL concerns or over/undercrossing requires a report unless
all geometric control and policy criteria are
met.
Modification of the intersection of a ramp Signalize, "redo radii, for example
and a crossroad ~,
Note:
The table above shows some, but not all, of the types of access revisions that do not require
a request and Access Point Decision Report if the following conditions are met.
. It is documented that there will be no adverse impact on the freeway.
. The data used is consistent with the data used in the environmental analyses.
. The access is designed to the design level required by the appropriate Design Matrix.
. Access spacing meets requirements in Chapter 940.
. The project is approved per Chapter 330 as part of the Project Summary approval process.
. Omission of the request and decision report is justified to file with,a copy sent to' the state
Access and Hearings Engineer.
Access Point Decision Report Possibly Not Required
Figure 1425-2
Design Manual
May 2000
Access Point Decision Report
Page 1425-13
Establish Sypport
Team ..
4
!
Need Analysis
by Region
(per DM 1425)
5
Access Deficiency
Identified
Yes
t
~
Yes
No
Develop Added
Access Point
Decision Report
7
Report Routed to
Discipline Teams for
Technical Review
8
OSC Design Does
Geometric Review
8a
OSC Design Does
Access Review
8b
from 9
Q
see next page
No
No
Project is Dead
T
~,
Takes Team Out of No Added or Revised
the Access Approval Access Will be
Process Allowed
No-
OSC Traffic Does
Operational Review
8c
Access Point Decision Report Flow Chart
Figure 1425-3a
Access Point Decision Report
Page 1425.14
Design Manual
May 2000
to 7
1
Team Addresses and
Resolves Comments
from previous page
No
Yes, Non-Interstate Route
~
OSC Process
Approval
Yes, Interstate Route
OSC Submits
Report to FHWA
for Access Approval
10
FHWA T.E.E.
Review Report
11
,;.
No
_No
Report is Acceptable
I- Yes -+ to FHWA HQ
Yes
t
Acceptance by
FHWA HQ
Design Manual
May 2000
Yes
t
Requires FHWA
HQ Review
13
FHWA HQ
Reviews Report
Yes -+
No
t
Conceptual
Acceptance by FHWA ..
14
NEPA and
Access Approval
15
Access Point Decision Report Flow Chart
Figure 1425-3b
Access Point Decision Report
Page 1425-15
September 17, 2003
Access Point Decision Report (APDR) Assumptions
It is in the public's interest that the state's freeways be maintained and protected to provide the
highest practical level of service in terms of safety and mobility. Federal laws and both FHW A
and WSDOT poJicies require a formal request, with an Access Point Decision Report, for any
access point revision that might affect through traffic on a freeway in \Vashington
State. The repOli is used for a decision-making process and documents the planning, evaluation,
design, and coordination that support and justify the request.
Chapter 1425, Access Point Decision Report, of the Design Manual contains the
guidance for preparing an added access repOli. For all but the simplest projects, WSDOT
reconm1ends that a support team be used to help integrate the planning, programming, and design
efforts that lead to development of a proposal. A core decision-making team consisting of:
FHW A Transportation and Environmental Engineer (if Interstatç;); Region's Design or Project
Development Engineer; HQ Assistant State Design Engineer; HQ Access and Hearings Engineer;
HQ Traffic representative; Representative of the proponent; and, Recorder should convene early
in the project development stage to discuss and al:,'ree to access assumptions.
The first (and at times final) phase of the APDR team process is to conduct a study to
deten11ine if there is a need for the access request and why won't the existing access
points and existing or improved local system meet the needs. Chapter 1425, Policy
Point 4, Need for the Access Point Revision asks: What are the current and projected
needs and why won't the existing access points and existing or improved local system
meet the needs? The process is considered a study until:
I. There has been a need for the request deten11ined AND
2. That the existing access points and existing or improved local system will not be
able to meet the need.
This document should be prepared to provide preliminary assumptions regarding the
traffic analysis to support the Access Point Decision RepOli. The core decision makers
should complete this document at the beginning of the project development process and
the Access Report development be guided by the assumptions made.
1. Purpose and Need statement. When developing the purpose and need statement,
the interstate and statc transportation are the primary focus of the report. Local
system needs, i I' included in the statement, are noted following the needs of the
interstate and state transportation systems.
II. Design Year and Opening Y car. Provide a reasonable design and opening year.
The design year must be 20 years out from the anticipated start of construction of
the proj ect.
Ill. The approval for an Access Point Decision H.eport has an approval life span of 3 -
5 years. After this time a new report will need to be completed. (On a case by
case basis, a supplement to an existing approved report may be considered.)
IV. The limits orthe project arc:
V. The study area is: nom1ally one interchange away on both sides of the project
interchange, or past the area of influence. For this proj ect, interchanges I, 2
(north), 3 and 4 (south) are pmi ofthe area of influence, thus we needed to include
more than the first interchange on either side of the project interchange.
VI. The affected area is: suggested questions to ask:
./ What are the key local system intersections?
./ Are there any effects on the local surface system created by the project? If so,
how are they being mitigated?
./ Are weaving areas being created by this proposal?
VII. Modeling Method - note the methodology being utilized for the interstate and
local systems. Discuss the model for the local systems with WSDOT, so they in
tum can make certain that the choice is acceptable to FHW A. Note that HCM is
what FHW A needs to use in their analysis. "'
VIII. Travel forecasts are developed from:
IX. Assumptions made in developing the travel forecasts are:
X. Assumptions for the baseline condition are:
./ Often, the project baseline is the same as the no-build condition.
XI. Assumptions for design year conditions are:
./ HOV and/or added GP lanes
./ Carpool 3+ passengers
XII. Assumptions Operations:
XIII. Peak operating hours are: Both AM and PM peak for both directions of travel are
required.
XIV. Safety issues of concem are:
XV. Other concell1S are (merging, weaving, queuing, etc.):
XVI. Project Impacts:
./ Any project impacts need to be explained in the APDR.
./ How the project impacts are being mitigated needs to follow each impact
explanation.
XVII. Deviations:
./ The project deviations must be included in the APDR. The approval status of the
deviations is to be documented in Policy Point 5.
./ Project deviations must be approved prior to final approval of the APDR.
DRAFT
1-5 @ 164TH (Ash \Vay) HOV Direct Access
Direct Access Assumptions
This document was prepared to provide preliminary assumptions regarding the traffic
analysis to support the Access Point Decision Report.
The limits of the project are:
The likely preferred alternative involves the construction of direct access ramps to and
from Interstate 5 (to the southbound median HOV lane andfrol1l the northbound median
HOV lane of Interstate 5) connecting to the north end of the existing Ash Way Park and
Ride. This ramp configuration willl11ost likely be in the ~"'Texas T" configuration. The
direct access ramps will connect into the Interstate 5 median HO V lanes at a point
between A1ilepost 1 84.0 and 1 85.5. Provisions 1'vzll be made for allll1ovements on the
"Texas T" configuration.
Other improvements associated wit the project could include exclusive HOV turn lanes
and signal priority at southbound and northbound ramp terminal intersections along
164111 Street SWas well as at the intersection of Ash Tflay and 164111 Street SW
The affected area is:
Traffic affects may occur at ramp terminal intersections along 164111 Street STYand at the
intersection of Ash Way and 16lh Street SW fnlerstale 5 may be affected al the merge
and diverge points of the direct access ramps. The trafflc analysis will extend/rom
Swamp Creek flC to 12èl' SW lie.
Travel forecasts are developed from:
See Attached
Assumptions made in developing the travel forecasts are:
See Attached
Assumptions for the baseline condition are:
See Attached.
Assumptions about +2/+3 are:
See Attached. +2/+ 3 lane definition volumes will be estimated using the Charles River
Associates Methodology.
Peak operating hours are:
The AM peak and PM peak operating conditions are expected to be similar based on the
commute-oriented transit service being provided from the Ash Way Park and Ride.
Safety issues of concern are:
Weaving issues relating to the movements required for access between Interstate 5 and
Interstate 405 while utilizing the direct access ramps. ThÏs includes the weave required
to access the northbound direct access median off-ramp after entering Interstate 5 from
westbound (shoulder entrance) Interstate 405 and the weave required to access the
shoulder exit to Eastbound Interstate 405 from the direct access (median entrance) on-
ramp to southbound Interstate 5. HA C and HAL records will be checked and addressed
if needed. 0>
Other concerns are:
Adding significant volumes to the 1-5 HOV lanes may impact level ofsenJice.
WSDOT I-S/164th Street SW INTERCHANGE PROJECT
HOY DIRECT ACCESS
Travel Forecast Assumptions
I. Affected Area
The specific influence area for this forecasting effOli includes the I-5/164th Street
SW Interchange and the I-5/128th Street SW Interchange to the North, Meadow
Road to the East and Ash Way to the West. Traffic forecasts are being developed
for the direct access ramps; 1-5 and its ramps between and including the 1-405 and
128th St. SW interchanges, and the 164th Street S'W interchange; and the following
intersections:
. 164th Street SW at Ash Way
. 164th Street SWat Meadow Road (13th Avenu~ West)
. 164th Street SWat Motor Place
. 164th Street SWat 14th Place West (Walmari signals)
. Ash Way at the Park & Ride entrances
II. Travel Forecasts:
Travel forecasts are being developed for year-of-opening (2004) and 2025 for
baseline (No Action), and Action altematives. Baseline traffic will be established
for year 2000.
General Assumptions "
. Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) traffic model will be used to derive
freeway and intersection growth rates for this subarea. Specifically, the PSRC
model refined for the Swamp Creek/Lynnwood Park & Ride projects will be
used for this project.
. Refinements to the PSRC regional travel demand model as part of the Swamp
Creek/Lynnwood Park project included:
Refinements to land use forecasts for Year 2020
Refinements to PSRC trip tables resulting from new land use forecasts.
Refinements to PSRC year 1995 and 2020 model networks.
Refinements to zonal centroids, and their connectivity to the network,
within the study area.
. The Sound Transit related network assumptions consist of Sound move Phase
I, i.e., Regional Express buses, Commuter Rail, and Light Rail (Northgate-
SeaTac ).
. Growth factors for on/off ramps, traffic on freeway sections entering the study
area, and the vicinity intersections will be calculated based on volumes
obtained from PSRC's travel demand model. These growth factors will be
applied to existing traffic volumes to obtain future traffic demand.
. The future baseline, or no-build, network may not always accommodate future
travel demand implied by the model. At some locations within the study area,
traffic volumes will reflect constrained forecasts where appropriate.
Adjustments will be documented in the report.
Transit
. Future transit vehicle volumes and routes are based on input from Community
Transit and Sound Transit staff.
Freeway
. Existing general-purpose peak hour traffic volumes will be obtained from
WSDOT.
. The year 2025 future baseline network assumes a continuous HOY lane on 1-5
in both directions from downtown Seattle to SR-2 in Everett.
. HOY forecasts will be developed using the FHW A sketch planning
methodology developed by Charles River Associates.
. The percentage of existing HOV traffic (both 2+ and 3+) will be obtained
from the Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC).
. HOV forecasts developed for year 2004 will assume HOY 2+ eligibility while
year 2025 forecasts will consider both HOV 2+ and 31+ in 2025.
Intersections
. Intersection geometry and existing turning movement counts will be supplied
by Snohomish County, WSDOT or collected by Parsons Brinckerhoff.
. Year 2004 intersection turning movement forecasts wiU be based on forecasts
developed by Snohomish County (note that these forecasts assumed 100%
utilization of the Ash Way P&R lot).
Build Alternatives
. AM and PM peak hour traffic forecasts for one HOY direct access alternative
and one TSM alternative will be evaluated.
. Park & Ride lot related traffic will be redistributed across the street network
as appropriate for each alternative analysis.
. The number ofHOVs using vicinity area interchanges will be detennined
using the baseline detailed freeway forecast.
. To estimate the number ofHOVs diverting from the l28th Street SW and 164th
Street SW interchanges to the direct access ramps and to the P&R facilities,
new likely paths will be detennined based on calculated travel time
differentials between using the existing ramps and the proposed direct access
ramp.
. It is assumed tat HOV trips would use the shortest path (measured in ten11S of
travel time).
. Total bus volumes will be the same in the build alternative scenarios as jn the
baseline condition. However, they may be re-routed when appropriate to use
the proposed direct access ramp for each alternative evaluated.
III. Park-and-Ride lot Demand Estimation
.
It is assumed that the lot will be fully utilized and the general distribution of
user trips to and from the lot will be similar to the existing distribution as
indicated in user surveys conducted by Community Transit.
It is assumed that the temporal distribution of user trips to and from the lot
will be based on the distribution at the LytIDwood lot.
.
IV. 2004 and 2025 Baseline Conditions Assumption:
. No expansion of parking or roadway improvements other than what is
included in theSnohomish County 6- Year CIP and the PSRC regional model
for the 2025 condition.
. Construction of a partial cloverleaf interchange at the 1-5/164tl1 Street SW
interchange to provide two loop ramps to soúthbound and northbound 1-5 are
completed in 2000.
V. Carpool Occupancy Assumptions:
Traffic forecasts will be developed using HOY lane use assumptions of 2+ for
2004 conditions and 2+ and 3+ for 2025 conditions;
VI. Peak Hour Analysis:
Traffic forecasts will be developed for both AM and PM conditions. Ramp traffic
peaks at the same time periods as those for background traffic.
~
CITY OF 1/1' =-'
Federal Way
DATE:
April 5, 2004
FROM:
Jack Dovey, Chair
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Richard A. Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer ~
Maryanne Zukowski, P .E., Senior Traffic Engineer
TO:
VIA:
SUBJECT:
City Center Ac ess Study - Information Briefing No.2
BACKGROUND: The City of Federal Way is performing a feasibility study to determine viable access solutions to
the congested access interchange at S 320th Street and Interstate 5 Ac'cess to the Federal Way City Center.
Interstate 5 is a high accident corridor (HAC) south of S 320th Street and a high accident location (HAL) at S 320th
Street.
These locations are experiencing significant congestion for many hours of the day and are currently at capacity.
If a successful and viable solution is found, Federal Way will proceed in developing an Access Point Decision
Report (APDR) to submit to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). With City and State
approval the report would go to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). An APDR is the initial step required
by FHWA before changing an interstate highway interchange. .
The consultant will provide a briefing update of the current schedule and milestones accomplished to date.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Committee place the informational presentation on the April 20,
2004 City Council Agenda.
- ---- _m - --. ..'~--"
'ItRO"AL~~,~iMMmE~~\E,,?R~~t~3fY"i i..,:;;tH~i%5~'" 0 o.
%..: " .
::~~::~,!
" ;,. ..':'"",','.
àë:k D~:vey, Chair-~'-:--- ---'-""Mlchaef Park; Member . ,',: ,A',::Œri~~;~~i~~n;1r:~~.~~t:::?),;;. ".
_....--- - "'---'-"'--"'-- -- .......-----
...--- .--- - .----- - ..------ -----. - . ..---"- ---- - .. ---
K:\LUTC\2004\City Center Access Study - Project Update Briefing 2.doc
cc:
Project File
Central File