Critchfield Rd / SR-129

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Critchfield Rd / SR-129"

Poppy Gilmore
5 years ago
Views:

1 NOVEMBER 27, 2017 Critchfield Rd / SR-129 Intersection Safety Study Alternatives Report

3 CRITCHFIELD INTERSECTION SAFETY STUDY Contents Introduction...1 Purpose...2 Existing Conditions...2 Proposed Alternatives...2 Alternative 1 - HAWK Pedestrian Crossing...3 Alternative 2 - Roundabout...4 Alternative 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Tunnel...5 Alternative 4 Signalized Intersection...7 Alternative 5 Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge...7 Alternative 6 Do Nothing...9 Public Involvement...9 Summary List of Attachments Appendix A Intersection Traffic Counts Appendix B Intersection Crash Data Appendix C Alternative Figures Appendix D Alternative Cost Estimates Critchfield Intersection Safety Study

CRITCHFIELD INTERSECTION SAFETY STUDY Introduction In a joint effort, the Lewis-Clark Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (LCVMPO) and Asotin County have identified the need to conduct a safety

4 CRITCHFIELD INTERSECTION SAFETY STUDY Introduction In a joint effort, the Lewis-Clark Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (LCVMPO) and Asotin County have identified the need to conduct a safety study at the intersection of Critchfield Road and State Route 129. This intersection is located on the primary route between the Cities of Clarkston and Asotin. The intersection is a 3-leg intersection, with a pedestrian path running parallel to SR-129 and the river. The pedestrian path is currently maintained by Asotin County, and is frequently used by pedestrians and cyclists alike from the City of Clarkston, WA to the City of Asotin, WA. Figure 1 below shows the layout of the intersection, including the pedestrian path and adjacent Snake River. To Clarkston Unofficial Parking N Existing Drainage Pipes Snake River To Asotin At-Grade Path Crossing & Guard Rail Opening Figure 1: Critchfield Rd. & SR-129 Intersection The pedestrian path generally runs about 10 feet in elevation below SR-129, and comes up to roadway grade for pedestrian access from SR-129 south of Critchfield Road as seen in Figure 1. On the pathway just north of the intersection, two large drainage pipes daylight onto the path that conveys stormwater from the basin above Critchfield Road into the River. Currently, there is no crosswalk across SR-129 to access the opening in the guardrail. There is also a gravel lot on the north side of Critchfield Road that is Critchfield Intersection Safety Study 1

5 CRITCHFIELD INTERSECTION SAFETY STUDY used as an unofficial parking lot for pedestrians and cyclists which is owned by the Washington State Department of Transportation. Purpose Pedestrians traveling from Critchfield Road to the pathway do not always use the dedicated opening in the guardrail, and are commonly seen stepping over the guardrail to access the path. This crossing method is not safe, especially considering that SR-129 has a posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour. The purpose of this intersection safety study was to evaluate the traffic conditions at the intersection and provide recommendations for safer pedestrian and bicycle travel around Critchfield Road and across SR- 129 to access the trail. Existing Conditions To analyze the existing conditions for the intersection, traffic counts were taken during the week at two separate time periods: AM Peak Hour (7:00 AM 10:00 AM), and PM Peak Hour (3:00 PM 6:00 PM) during the weekday. Table 1 shows a summary of the intersection counts, including peak times and peak volumes for the analysis periods. Detailed traffic counts for each analysis period can be found in Appendix A. Table 1: Intersection Count Summary Time Period Peak Time Peak Volume (veh./hr.) 7:00 AM 10:00 AM 7:15 AM 831 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 4:45 PM 821 In addition to traffic counts, crash data was also reviewed in the vicinity of the intersection. According to Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) records, there have been 14 collisions on SR-129 from January 1, 2014 to December 31, While there has been a fair amount of crashes on SR-129, most of these crashes are attributed to striking deer, rocks, or other objects. Of the 14 crashes that have occurred, only one resulted in a possible injury with no serious injuries or fatalities. According to the crash data available, there are no serious safety issues for vehicles near this intersection. Detailed crash data can also be found in Appendix B. Proposed Alternatives There were six possible alternatives that were proposed as a solution to pedestrian and bicycle travel across SR-129 at Critchfield Road (in no particular ranking or order): Alternative 1: High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) Pedestrian Crossing Alternative 2: Roundabout with pedestrian crosswalks Alternative 3: Pedestrian/Bicycle Tunnel Alternative 4: Signalized Intersection with pedestrian crosswalks Alternative 5: Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Alternative 6: Do Nothing Each of the proposed alternatives have advantages and disadvantages in terms of cost, ease of implementation, as well as impact to traffic that are identified in this study. Critchfield Intersection Safety Study 2

6 CRITCHFIELD INTERSECTION SAFETY STUDY Alternative 1 - HAWK Pedestrian Crossing The High-Intensity Activated CrossWalK (HAWK) is a small signal and crosswalk system that is activated by pedestrians. It operates similar to a normal traffic intersection once activated by a user. Flashing beacons alert oncoming traffic of the presence of a pedestrian. These types of crossings are typically used when an intersection does not warrant a traffic signal installation. The HAWK crossing would include small concrete pedestrian islands and curbing to provide pedestrian protection from traffic passing through. The crossing would likely function the most efficiently placed at the location of the at-grade path crossing and guardrail opening. Additional curb and asphalt path would also be installed on the side of SR-129 opposite from the existing pedestrian path on the river to provide a safe pedestrian route to Critchfield Road. Figure 2 on the left shows the general proposed layout for Alternative 1, including a detail for a typical HAWK crossing. Full size figures for the alternatives can be found in Appendix C. The planning level cost estimate for this alternative including mobilization, contingency, WSDOT oversight, Engineering, and inspection is approximately $404,000, which is the least expensive alternative for the intersection (aside from Alternative 6: Do Nothing). Detailed cost estimates can be found in Appendix D. Figure 2: Alternative 1 - HAWK Pedestrian Crossing Table 2 on the following page shows a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of this alternative. Critchfield Intersection Safety Study 3

7 CRITCHFIELD INTERSECTION SAFETY STUDY Table 2: Alternative 1 Advantages and Disadvantages HAWK Pedestrian Crossing Summary Minimal Intersection Impact Advantages Relatively Low Cost Less effective on high speed roads Driver unfamiliarity with light cycle Disadvantages Less efficient than typical intersection Additional Maintenance by WSDOT As seen by the summary table above, HAWK pedestrian crossings are typically less effective on high speed roads such as SR-129, which has a speed limit of 55 miles per hour. Due to the light cycle that is initiated by pedestrians (flashing yellow, solid yellow, solid red, flashing red light phases), there is a certain amount of driver unfamiliarity that can make the intersection operate less efficiently. After additional analysis and discussion with WSDOT, the HAWK crossing does not meet a warrant for implementation in this specific application. As such, this improvement is not a feasible alternative. Alternative 2 - Roundabout This alternative would include changing the existing intersection layout into a roundabout. To accommodate the existing layout, the proposed roundabout would be a two-lane, three-leg roundabout to minimize impact to traffic on SR A truck apron would also allow for larger trucks and vehicles to travel through the roundabout safely. The proposed layout for Alternative 2 can be seen in Figure 3 on the following page. Full size figures for the alternatives can be found in Appendix C. The planning level cost estimate including mobilization, contingency, WSDOT oversight, Engineering, and inspection for this alternative is approximately $975,000. Detailed cost estimates can be found in Appendix D. The roundabout would include sidewalk to connect the at-grade pedestrian path crossing and guardrail opening to the roundabout, with connecting crosswalks and pedestrian islands for safe travel across the intersection. Due to the proximity of Clemans Road to the intersection, it would not likely be able to be incorporated into the roundabout safely. Figure 3: Alternative 2 - Roundabout Critchfield Intersection Safety Study 4

8 CRITCHFIELD INTERSECTION SAFETY STUDY The installation of a roundabout would likely close off Clemans Road from Critchfield Road, meaning traffic would have to use an alternate route for access to SR-129. Table 3 below summarizes the advantages and disadvantages for this alternative. Table 3: Alternative 2 Advantages and Disadvantages Roundabout Intersection Summary Minimal traffic impact Advantages Traffic calming Minimal impact to WSDOT Maintenance Large intersection impact High costs and intersection impact Disadvantages Less efficient for high speed roads Impact to utilities in the area Closes off Clemans Road from Critchfield Road As seen in the summary table, the disadvantages generally outweigh the identified advantages for implementing this alternative at the intersection. Another challenge of implementing this alternative are the existing drainage culverts that currently run under SR-129. Drainage from the basin above towards Critchfield Road would require redirection or redesign of facilities to adequately convey stormwater. Alternative 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Tunnel This alternative would include the installation a pedestrian/bicycle tunnel crossing below SR-129 just to the north of Critchfield Road, connecting to the unofficial gravel parking lot. To accommodate for pedestrian and bicycle traffic, the tunnel would be 14 feet wide and 12 feet high (from tunnel floor to ceiling). This alternative would allow the intersection layout to remain the same. Figure 4 shows the proposed layout of the alternative. Full size figures for the alternatives can be found in Appendix C. Critchfield Intersection Safety Study 5

CRITCHFIELD INTERSECTION SAFETY STUDY The pedestrian tunnel would include additional asphalt pathway for safe pedestrian and bicycle travel, as well as a small portion of guardrail to keep southbound

9 CRITCHFIELD INTERSECTION SAFETY STUDY The pedestrian tunnel would include additional asphalt pathway for safe pedestrian and bicycle travel, as well as a small portion of guardrail to keep southbound traffic turning onto Critchfield Road isolated from the pedestrians. While this alternative would allow the layout of the intersection to remain the same, a large extent of SR-129 would require demolition, regrading, and new asphalt and striping to allow clearance for the pedestrian tunnel. The planning level cost estimate including mobilization, contingency, WSDOT oversight, Engineering, and inspection for this alternative is approximately $1,066,000. Detailed cost estimates can be found in Appendix D. Table 4 on the following page shows a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed alternative. Figure 4: Alternative 3 - Pedestrian/Bicycle Tunnel Table 4: Alternative 3 Advantages and Disadvantages Pedestrian/Bicycle Tunnel Intersection Summary Does not impede traffic flow Advantages Pedestrian safety High costs and intersection impact Pedestrian reluctance Disadvantages Difficult to monitor Water levels could encroach into tunnel during extreme wet weather events Critchfield Intersection Safety Study 6

10 CRITCHFIELD INTERSECTION SAFETY STUDY Alternative 4 Signalized Intersection This alternative would include the installation of a signalized intersection system. Normal intersection cycles would allow for routine pedestrian walk cycles. This alternative would allow the intersection layout to remain the same. Figure 5 to the left shows the proposed layout of the alternative. Full size figures for the alternatives can be found in Appendix C. Analysis results for the intersection indicated that that the criteria for a signal warrant were not met, so this alternative was ruled out as a possibility for the intersection. As such, no costs were evaluated for this alternative. Figure 5: Alternative 4 - Signalized Intersection Alternative 5 Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge This alternative would include the installation a pedestrian/bicycle bridge crossing above SR-129 just to the north of Critchfield Road, connecting to the unofficial gravel parking lot on one end, and the at-grade path crossing on the other end. To accommodate for pedestrian and bicycle traffic, the tunnel would be 14 feet wide and 17.5 feet above the roadway (from road surface to bottom of bridge). This alternative would allow the intersection layout to remain the same. Critchfield Intersection Safety Study 7

11 CRITCHFIELD INTERSECTION SAFETY STUDY Figure 6 shows the proposed layout of the alternative. Full size figures for the alternatives can be found in Appendix C. The pedestrian bridge is proposed to be constructed from reinforced concrete, utilizing concrete pillars, ramps, and landings to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. The bridge will also have aluminum handrails and safety accessories, such as a metal safety cage to prevent any falls from the bridge. There are currently a number of power poles and powerlines in the area that would also need to be relocated to allow for proper clearances and pedestrian safety. The planning level cost estimate for this alternative including mobilization, contingency, WSDOT oversight, Engineering, and inspection is approximately $1,428,000, making it the most expensive alternative. Detailed cost estimates can be found in Appendix D. Table 5 on the following page summarizes the advantages and disadvantages for the alternative. Figure 6: Alternative 5 - Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Table 5: Alternative 5 Advantages and Disadvantages Pedestrian/Bicycle Tunnel Intersection Summary Minimal existing intersection impact Advantages Does not impede traffic flow Pedestrian safety High cost Disadvantages Pedestrian reluctance (height) Impact to existing powerline layout Critchfield Intersection Safety Study 8

CRITCHFIELD INTERSECTION SAFETY STUDY Alternative 6 Do Nothing This alternative would

to the safety of the intersection as a whole.

obtaining public input on the proposed alternatives.

as well as feedback on the proposed alternatives.

the least, and if they used this crossing near Critchfield Road to get to the

MOST LIKED ALTERNATIVES LEAST LIKED ALTERNATIVES 13% 15% 1 HAWK Signal 2 Roundabout 3

Do Nothing 16% 4 Ped/Bike Bridge 5 No Response 35% 16% 12% 3% Figure 7: Most Liked

intersection as a pedestrian/bicyclist 29% do not use the intersection as a

by the figures on the previous page, the majority of the attendees of the public open

12 CRITCHFIELD INTERSECTION SAFETY STUDY Alternative 6 Do Nothing This alternative would consist of leaving the intersection as-is, with any pedestrians navigating across the roadway as necessary. There are no costs associated with this alternative, and there would be improvements to the safety of the intersection as a whole. Public Involvement An open house was held on October 16, 2017 with the goal of obtaining public input on the proposed alternatives. 40 people attended the meeting and provided valuable insight to the existing traffic as well as feedback on the proposed alternatives. Of the 40 people that signed-in, 38 people provided written or responses to the survey that was provided. The survey asked attendees which alternative they liked best, which one they liked the least, and if they used this crossing near Critchfield Road to get to the pedestrian path. The comments were summarized as seen in Figure 7 and Figure 8 below. MOST LIKED ALTERNATIVES LEAST LIKED ALTERNATIVES 13% 15% 1 HAWK Signal 2 Roundabout 3 Ped/Bike Tunnel 8% 47% 1 HAWK 2 Roundabout 3 Ped/Bike Tunnel 35% 4 Ped/Bike Bridge 5 Do Nothing 16% 4 Ped/Bike Bridge 5 No Response 35% 16% 12% 3% Figure 7: Most Liked Alternatives Figure 8: Least Liked Alternative 50% of people who commented use the intersection as a pedestrian/bicyclist 29% do not use the intersection as a pedestrian/bicyclist 21% did not respond Figure 9: Attendee Intersection Use As seen by the figures on the previous page, the majority of the attendees of the public open house liked the HAWK pedestrian signal the most, followed by a tie for the roundabout and the pedestrian/bike tunnel, the Do Nothing option, and the pedestrian/bike bridge last. Many of the comments during the public meeting were in favor of adding advanced warning signage of the pedestrian crossing so vehicles Critchfield Intersection Safety Study 9

CRITCHFIELD INTERSECTION SAFETY STUDY were more aware of pedestrians on the

On the opposite side of the spectrum, the least liked option (after no response )

controversy surrounding the opinion of the HAWK signal and the roundabout.

well liked as in addition to low ranking (in terms of least favorite) was the

In addition to collecting opinions on most and least liked alternatives, comments

future of the intersection and the pedestrian path.

Trail Safety Connection / General Safety Slow Traffic at Intersection Don't

13 CRITCHFIELD INTERSECTION SAFETY STUDY were more aware of pedestrians on the roadway, which could also be done independently from the HAWK system. On the opposite side of the spectrum, the least liked option (after no response ) was the roundabout, followed by the HAWK signal, the pedestrian/bike bridge, and the pedestrian/bike tunnel last. Drawing from both the most and least liked surveys, there is clearly some controversy surrounding the opinion of the HAWK signal and the roundabout. Both alternatives rank highly as most and least liked options which illustrates this fact. Judging from the most and least liked figures, the alternative that was relatively well liked as in addition to low ranking (in terms of least favorite) was the pedestrian/bicycle tunnel. In addition to collecting opinions on most and least liked alternatives, comments were also collected asking people what was important to them pertaining to the future of the intersection and the pedestrian path. Figure 10 summarizes the topics of the comments received. Trail Safety Connection / General Safety Slow Traffic at Intersection Don't Impede/Stop Traffic COMMENTS ABOUT THE INTERSECTION BY CATEGORY Concerned about Cost Don't cut off Clemans Retain Parking Lot 6 Maintain Aesthetics/Wildlife Area 8 14 Reduce motorized and nonmotorized interaction Focus on Future Growth Other - Thank you, flooding, no response Figure 10: Intersection Comment Summary Critchfield Intersection Safety Study 10

14 CRITCHFIELD INTERSECTION SAFETY STUDY The top 3 comments related to concerns for trail safety and general pedestrian safety, slowing traffic at the intersection, and to avoid impeding or stopping traffic through the intersection. To evaluate the alternatives in regard to these concerns, the following table was created: Table 6: Comment Evaluation Table Comment Evaluation Table Comment HAWK Roundabout Ped Tunnel Ped Bridge Trail Safety Connection/General Safety X X Slow Traffic at Intersection X X Do not impede or stop traffic X X Cost Concerns (costs too high) X Do not cut off Clemans Road X X X X Retain Parking lot X X X Maintain aesthetics/wildlife X X X Reduce motorized and non-motorized interaction X X Focus on future growth X X X Comments addressed (out of 9) As seen in Table 6, the pedestrian tunnel and pedestrian bridge both addressed the highest amount of the public concerns collected by the surveys. The HAWK signal addressed 5 of the 9 comments, but it will not technically reduce interaction with motorized vehicles or increase safety as much as some of the other options. In addition to these items, the HAWK crossing does not meet a warrant for pedestrian volumes across the highway, ruling this alternative out as a feasible option. The roundabout could only completely address 3 of the 9 comments. Summary Based on the data collected from the public involvement, it appears that the alternative that provides a safe pedestrian crossing and addresses the most of the public s comments is either the pedestrian/bicycle bridge or the pedestrian tunnel. Both of these options address 7 out of the 9 commonly mentioned concerns from the public about the safety of the intersection. Following discussions with WSDOT, it was generally agreed that these two alternatives would be the most preferred alternatives to implement across SR-129. Critchfield Intersection Safety Study 11

15 CRITCHFIELD INTERSECTION SAFETY STUDY Appendix A Intersection Traffic Counts

16 AC-06 Justin Baker Report Title 3 File Name: Temp Site Code: Location: Cars and Peds Study Date: 01/17/2017 SR129 Southbound Time Peds Right Thru Left Critchfield Rd Westbound Peds Right Thru Left SR129 Northbound Peds Right Thru Left Critchfield Rd Eastbound Peds Right Thru Left 07: : : : : : : : : : : : Int Grand % % AM Pk Hr AM Pk Vol AM PHF :15 07: : :15 07:15-07:15 07:15-07:15-07:15 07: COUNTpro ing Movement Report: Page 1 of 8 CountingCars.com

17 AC-06 Justin Baker Report Title 3 File Name: Temp Site Code: Location: Trucks and Bikes Study Date: 01/17/2017 SR129 Southbound Time Bikes Right Thru Left Critchfield Rd Westbound Bikes Right Thru Left SR129 Northbound Bikes Right Thru Left Critchfield Rd Eastbound Bikes Right Thru Left 07: : : : : : : : : : : : Int Grand % % AM Pk Hr AM Pk Vol AM PHF : : : : : COUNTpro ing Movement Report: Page 2 of 8 CountingCars.com

18 AC-06 Justin Baker Report Title 3 File Name: Temp Site Code: Location: All Vehicles Study Date: 01/17/2017 SR129 Southbound Time Right Thru Left Critchfield Rd Westbound Right Thru Left SR129 Northbound Right Thru Left Critchfield Rd Eastbound Right Thru Left 07: : : : : : : : : : : : Grand % NaN NaN NaN NaN % % Trucks Int AM Pk Hr AM Pk Vol 07:15 07: : :15 07:15-07:15 07:15-07:15-07:15 07: COUNTpro ing Movement Report: Page 3 of 8 CountingCars.com

19 AM PHF SR129 Southbound Time Right Thru Left Critchfield Rd Westbound Right Thru Left SR129 Northbound Right Thru Left Critchfield Rd Eastbound Right Thru Left Int COUNTpro ing Movement Report: Page 4 of 8 CountingCars.com

20 AC-06 Justin Baker Report Title 3 File Name: Temp Site Code: Location: All Vehicles Study Date: 01/17/2017 SR129 In = 958 Out = Right Thru Left Critchfield Rd Out = 400 In = Right Thru Left Volumes 07:00 to 10:00 Volume = 1709 Right Thru Left In = 0 Out = 0 Critchfield Rd Left Thru Right In = 544 Out = 721 SR129 COUNTpro ing Movement Report: Page 5 of 8 CountingCars.com

21 AC-06 Justin Baker Report Title 3 File Name: Temp Site Code: Location: All Vehicles Study Date: 01/17/2017 SR Right Thru Left - - Right Critchfield Rd Left Thru AM Peak Hour Statistics AM Peak Hour Begins: 07:15 AM Peak Hour Volume: 831 AM Peak Hour Factor: Thru Left - - Critchfield Rd 63 Right - Left Thru Right SR129 COUNTpro ing Movement Report: Page 6 of 8 CountingCars.com

22 AC-06 Justin Baker Report Title 3 File Name: Temp Site Code: Location: Cars Study Date: 01/17/2017 2,000 Vehicles 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1, :15 07:30 07:45 08:00 08:15 08:30 08:45 09:00 09:15 09:30 09:45 10:00 Time COUNTpro ing Movement Report: Page 7 of 8 CountingCars.com

23 AC-06 Justin Baker Report Title 3 File Name: Temp Site Code: Location: Trucks Study Date: 01/17/ Vehicles :15 07:30 07:45 08:00 08:15 08:30 08:45 09:00 09:15 09:30 09:45 10:00 Time COUNTpro ing Movement Report: Page 8 of 8 CountingCars.com

24 LCVMPO - LCSC Count Project Report Title 2 Report Title 3 File Name: AC-06 (3-6) Site Code: Location: Cars and Peds Study Date: 05/25/2016 SR-129 Southbound Time Peds Right Thru Left None Westbound Peds Right Thru Left SR-129 Northbound Peds Right Thru Left Critchfield St. Eastbound Peds Right Thru Left 15: : : : : : : : : : : : : Int Grand % % PM Pk Hr :45 16: : :45 16:45-16:45 16:45 16:45 16:45-16:45 16:45 COUNTpro ing Movement Report: Page 1 of 10 CountingCars.com

25 PM Pk Vol PM PHF SR-129 Southbound Time Peds Right Thru Left None Westbound Peds Right Thru Left SR-129 Northbound Peds Right Thru Left Critchfield St. Eastbound Peds Right Thru Left Int COUNTpro ing Movement Report: Page 2 of 10 CountingCars.com

26 LCVMPO - LCSC Count Project Report Title 2 Report Title 3 File Name: AC-06 (3-6) Site Code: Location: Trucks and Bikes Study Date: 05/25/2016 SR-129 Southbound Time Bikes Right Thru Left None Westbound Bikes Right Thru Left SR-129 Northbound Bikes Right Thru Left Critchfield St. Eastbound Bikes Right Thru Left 15: : : : : : : : : : : : : Int Grand % % PM Pk Hr :00 15: : :00 15:00-15:00 15:00-15:00-15:00 15:00 COUNTpro ing Movement Report: Page 3 of 10 CountingCars.com

27 PM Pk Vol PM PHF SR-129 Southbound Time Bikes Right Thru Left None Westbound Bikes Right Thru Left SR-129 Northbound Bikes Right Thru Left Critchfield St. Eastbound Bikes Right Thru Left Int COUNTpro ing Movement Report: Page 4 of 10 CountingCars.com

28 LCVMPO - LCSC Count Project Report Title 2 Report Title 3 File Name: AC-06 (3-6) Site Code: Location: All Vehicles Study Date: 05/25/2016 SR-129 Southbound Time Right Thru Left COUNTpro ing Movement Report: Page 5 of 10 None Westbound Right Thru Left SR-129 Northbound Right Thru Left Critchfield St. Eastbound Right Thru Left 15: : : : : : : : : : : : : Grand % NaN NaN NaN NaN % % Trucks PM Pk Hr 16:45 16: : :45 16:45-16:45 16:45 16:45 16:45-16:45 16:45 Int CountingCars.com

29 PM Pk Vol PM PHF SR-129 Southbound Time Right Thru Left None Westbound Right Thru Left SR-129 Northbound Right Thru Left Critchfield St. Eastbound Right Thru Left Int COUNTpro ing Movement Report: Page 6 of 10 CountingCars.com

30 LCVMPO - LCSC Count Project Report Title 2 Report Title 3 File Name: AC-06 (3-6) Site Code: Location: All Vehicles Study Date: 05/25/2016 SR-129 In = 815 Out = Right Thru Left Critchfield St. Out = 304 In = Right Thru Left Volumes 15:00 to 18:15 Volume = 2044 Right Thru Left In = 1 Out = 0 None Left Thru Right In = 758 Out = 690 SR-129 COUNTpro ing Movement Report: Page 7 of 10 CountingCars.com

31 LCVMPO - LCSC Count Project Report Title 2 Report Title 3 File Name: AC-06 (3-6) Site Code: Location: All Vehicles Study Date: 05/25/2016 SR Right Thru Left - - Right Critchfield St Left Thru PM Peak Hour Statistics PM Peak Hour Begins: 16:45 PM Peak Hour Volume: 821 PM Peak Hour Factor: Thru Left - - None 28 Right - Left Thru Right SR-129 COUNTpro ing Movement Report: Page 8 of 10 CountingCars.com

32 LCVMPO - LCSC Count Project Report Title 2 Report Title 3 File Name: AC-06 (3-6) Site Code: Location: Cars Study Date: 05/25/2016 4,000 Vehicles 3,600 3,200 2,800 2,400 2,000 1,600 1, :00 03:15 03:30 03:45 04:00 04:15 04:30 04:45 05:00 05:15 05:30 05:45 06:00 06:15 Time COUNTpro ing Movement Report: Page 9 of 10 CountingCars.com

33 LCVMPO - LCSC Count Project Report Title 2 Report Title 3 File Name: AC-06 (3-6) Site Code: Location: Trucks Study Date: 05/25/ Vehicles :00 03:15 03:30 03:45 04:00 04:15 04:30 04:45 05:00 05:15 05:30 05:45 06:00 06:15 Time COUNTpro ing Movement Report: Page 10 of 10 CountingCars.com

34 HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst sjl Intersection SR-129 & Critchfield Rd Agency/Co. Keller Associates Jurisdiction Asotin County Date Performed 2/15/2017 East/West Street Critchfield Road Analysis Year 2017 North/South Street SR-129 Time Analyzed AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.73 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description Lanes Exisiting Conditions (1/17/2017 counts) Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments oach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority U U Number of Lanes Configuration LR L T T R Volume, V (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Critical and Follow-up Headways Undivided Base Critical Headway (sec) Critical Headway (sec) Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) Follow-Up Headway (sec) Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) Capacity, c (veh/h) v/c Ratio % Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh) Control Delay (s/veh) Level of Service, LOS D A oach Delay (s/veh) oach LOS D Copyright 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7 TWSC Version 7.1 Generated: 2/15/2017 2:33:54 PM SR-129 Critchfield_2017 AM Peak.xtw

35 HCS7 Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst sjl Intersection SR-129 & Critchfield Rd Agency/Co. Keller Associates Jurisdiction Asotin County Date Performed 2/17/2017 East/West Street Critchfield Road Analysis Year 2017 North/South Street SR-129 Time Analyzed PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.98 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description Exisiting Conditions (5/25/2016 counts + 1%) Lanes Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: North-South oach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority U U Number of Lanes Configuration LR L T T R Volume, V (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Channelized No No No No Median Type/Storage Critical and Follow-up Headways Undivided Base Critical Headway (sec) Critical Headway (sec) Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) Follow-Up Headway (sec) Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) Capacity, c (veh/h) v/c Ratio % Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh) Control Delay (s/veh) Level of Service, LOS B A oach Delay (s/veh) oach LOS B Copyright 2017 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS7 TWSC Version 7.1 Generated: 2/17/2017 1:47:47 PM SR-129 Critchfield_2017 PM Peak.xtw

36 CRITCHFIELD INTERSECTION SAFETY STUDY Appendix B Intersection Crash Data Critchfield Intersection Safety Study

37 . Accidents_AsotinCounty SEVERITY! (! (! Property Damage Only Personal Injury Fatality 7/29/2010 ADT= 2021 Cr d iel hf itc Rd 12/30/ /23/2011! 08/19/2003! 9/30/ /24/2007 (! 12/26/2006 ADT= /27/2007 Cl em a ns R d! M as te rs Dr 12/02/2001! 12/28/2001! SR 12 9!

39 CRITCHFIELD INTERSECTION SAFETY STUDY Appendix C Alternative Figures Critchfield Intersection Safety Study

45 CRITCHFIELD INTERSECTION SAFETY STUDY Appendix D Alternative Cost Estimates Critchfield Intersection Safety Study

46 Project: Critchfield Study Engineer: Scott Linja, EI Client: LCVMPO 733 5th Street, Suite A Clarkston, Washington Printed: November 27, 2017 Phone: Fax: ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST ALTERNATIVE 1 - HAWK PEDESTRIAN CROSSING QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE COST SITEWORK Excavation 500 CY $ $ 10,000 Guardrail Removal 100 LF $ 3.50 $ 1,000 Pathway Base Material (3/4 Aggregate) 50 TON $ $ 1,000 New Guardrail 100 LF $ $ 3,000 New Guardrail End Flares (Type 1) 2 EA $ 2, $ 5,000 Asphalt Pathway 30 TON $ $ 8,000 Asphalt Pavement Markings 1 LS $ 1, $ 1,000 Erosion Control 1 LS $ 2, $ 2,000 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 5, $ 5,000 HAWK PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL Hawk Pedestrian Signal 1 LS $ 150, $ 150,000 Lighting 1 LS $ 30, $ 30,000 SUBTOTAL = $ 216,000 Mobilization 10% $ 22,000 Contingency (Estimating & Construction) 15% $ 36,000 WSDOT Oversight & Plan Review 3% $ 9,000 Engineering 20% $ 55,000 Construction Engineering & Inspection 20% $ 66,000 ALTERNATIVE 1 PRELIMINARY COST = $ 404,000 The opinion of most probable cost herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor s methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids or actual construction costs will not vary from the costs presented herein. Concept Alternative Estimates.xlsx Page 3

47 Project: Critchfield Study Engineer: Scott Linja, EI Client: LCVMPO 733 5th Street, Suite A Clarkston, Washington Printed: November 27, 2017 Phone: Fax: ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST ALTERNATIVE 2 - ROUNDABOUT QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE COST SITEWORK Sawcut and Asphalt Removal 4000 SY $ 3.00 $ 12,000 Excavation 4000 CY $ $ 80,000 Guardrail Removal 700 LF $ 3.50 $ 3,000 Roadway Base Material (3/4 Aggregate) 3500 TON $ $ 70,000 New Guardrail 700 LF $ $ 18,000 New Guardrail End Flares (Type 1) 3 EA $ 2, $ 8,000 Asphalt Pavement 1200 TON $ $ 96,000 Asphalt Pavement Markings 1 LS $ 5, $ 5,000 Concrete Sidewalk and Islands 1000 SY $ $ 50,000 Concrete Curb and Gutter 1750 LF $ $ 39,000 Erosion Control 1 LS $ 6, $ 6,000 Lighting 9 EA $ 7, $ 68,000 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 8, $ 8,000 SUBTOTAL = $ 463,000 Mobilization 10% $ 47,000 Contingency (Estimating & Construction) 30% $ 153,000 WSDOT Oversight & Plan Review 3% $ 20,000 Engineering 20% $ 133,000 Construction Engineering & Inspection 20% $ 159,000 ALTERNATIVE 2 PRELIMINARY COST = $ 975,000 The opinion of most probable cost herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor s methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids or actual construction costs will not vary from the costs presented herein. Concept Alternative Estimates.xlsx Page 4

48 Project: Critchfield Study Engineer: Scott Linja, EI Client: LCVMPO 733 5th Street, Suite A Clarkston, Washington Printed: November 27, 2017 Phone: Fax: ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST ALTERNATIVE 3 - PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE COST SITEWORK Sawcut and Asphalt Removal 3800 SY $ 3.00 $ 12,000 Excavation 2200 CY $ $ 44,000 Guardrail Removal 800 LF $ 3.50 $ 3,000 Roadway Base Material (3/4 Aggregate) 3300 TON $ $ 66,000 New Guardrail 870 LF $ $ 22,000 New Guardrail End Flares (Type 1) 4 EA $ 2, $ 10,000 Asphalt Pavement 620 TON $ $ 62,000 Asphalt Pavement Markings 1 LS $ 2, $ 2,000 Erosion Control 1 LS $ 3, $ 3,000 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 10, $ 10,000 PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL Masonry Wing Walls 900 SF $ $ 45,000 Concrete Tunnel Floor Slab 30 CY $ 1, $ 36,000 Concrete Tunnel Walls 75 CY $ 1, $ 90,000 Concrete Tunnel Ceiling 60 CY $ 1, $ 72,000 Lighting 1 LS $ 30, $ 30,000 SUBTOTAL = $ 507,000 Mobilization 10% $ 51,000 Contingency (Estimating & Construction) 30% $ 167,000 WSDOT Oversight & Plan Review 3% $ 22,000 Engineering 20% $ 145,000 Construction Engineering & Inspection 20% $ 174,000 ALTERNATIVE 3 PRELIMINARY COST = $ 1,066,000 The opinion of most probable cost herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor s methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids or actual construction costs will not vary from the costs presented herein. Concept Alternative Estimates.xlsx Page 2

Project: Critchfield Study Engineer: Scott Linja, EI Client: LCVMPO 733 5th Street, Suite A Clarkston, Washington 99403 Printed: November 27, 2017 Phone: 509.295.

49 Project: Critchfield Study Engineer: Scott Linja, EI Client: LCVMPO 733 5th Street, Suite A Clarkston, Washington Printed: November 27, 2017 Phone: Fax: ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST ALTERNATIVE 5 - PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE COST SITEWORK Rock Removal & General Excavation 500 CY $ $ 10,000 Asphalt (Pathway Repair) 35 TONS $ $ 9,000 New Guardrail 180 LF $ $ 5,000 New Guardrail End Flares (Type 1) 2 EA $ 2, $ 5,000 Erosion Control 1 LS $ 3, $ 3,000 Traffic Control 1 LS $ 5, $ 5,000 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE Concrete Columns 38 CY $ 1, $ 46,000 Concrete Ramps & Landings 100 CY $ 1, $ 120,000 Steel Pedestrian Bridge 980 SF $ $ 294,000 Handrailing 800 LF $ $ 140,000 Lighting 1 LS $ 30, $ 30,000 Power Line Relocation 1 LS $ 12, $ 12,000 SUBTOTAL = $ 679,000 Mobilization 10% $ 68,000 Contingency (Estimating & Construction) 30% $ 224,000 WSDOT Oversight & Plan Review 3% $ 30,000 Engineering 20% $ 194,000 Construction Engineering & Inspection 20% $ 233,000 ALTERNATIVE 5 PRELIMINARY COST = $ 1,428,000 The opinion of most probable cost herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor s methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids or actual construction costs will not vary from the costs presented herein. Concept Alternative Estimates.xlsx Page 4

JEP John E. Jack Pflum, P.E. Consulting Engineering 7541 Hosbrook Road, Cincinnati, OH Telephone:

JEP John E. Jack Pflum, P.E. Consulting Engineering 7541 Hosbrook Road, Cincinnati, OH 45243 Email: jackpflum1@gmail.com Telephone: 513.919.7814 MEMORANDUM REPORT Traffic Impact Analysis Proposed Soccer